The types of projected impacts to special status wildlife species under the various alternatives are similar to the impacts described in Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife. Therefore, this section includes only instances where impacts are different from those described for wildlife. Authorized activities for resource uses may disturb special status wildlife species by causing displacement or excessive stress during critical life stages. Management actions and allowable uses under all alternatives would involve habitat loss, degradation, reclamation, protection, enhancement, and fragmentation. However, the intensity of impacts would vary by alternative. Refer to Appendix T for projected short- and long-term surface disturbance from BLM actions.
Oil and gas development may result in adverse impacts to special status species, including the greater sage-grouse, under all alternatives. Increased bentonite mining, and potentially gypsum mining, along with the difficult nature of shrub reclamation in the 5- to 9-inch precipitation zone would result in adverse impacts to special status wildlife species in sagebrush habitat under all alternatives.
Avoiding the aerial application of pesticides, though minimizing drift into non-target areas in greater sage-grouse habitat, may result in adverse impacts in some situations because ground application can be a greater disturbance to greater sage-grouse. Avoiding pesticide application in greater sage-grouse breeding habitat during the brood-rearing season may preclude beneficial impacts if pesticides are necessary to control pests that would substantially reduce forage cover (e.g., grasshoppers).
Special status bird, raptor, and bat species can collide with wind-energy and utility infrastructure, causing a direct adverse impact due to mortality and displacement. Projected renewable energy development is the same for all alternatives (Appendix T), requiring the placement of these structures to minimize impacts. Large wind-energy fields involve surface disturbance, which could permanently change the habitat structure for the wildlife inhabitants.
Livestock grazing can alter special status wildlife species habitat resulting in adverse or beneficial impacts. Livestock grazing at the appropriate intensity and timing can be beneficial to grassland and shrubland habitats and the associated special status wildlife species, such as greater sage-grouse. In allotments where grazing by wild horses or livestock removes nest or brood cover, reduces the production of annual forbs, or restricts access to water, impacts to special status wildlife species, such as greater sage-grouse, would be adverse.
Special designations that restrict surface-disturbing activities and resource uses that adversely affect special status wildlife species, such as mineral development, motorized vehicle use, and ROW development provide beneficial impacts to these species. Under all alternatives, WSAs are managed for naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation. These special designations provide multiple beneficial impacts by restricting activities and resource uses that degrade habitat and disturb special status wildlife species. The Spanish Point Karst ACEC, designated regardless of the alternative, would limit adverse impacts to special status bat species in this area.
Similar to livestock grazing, fire and fuels management can alter special status wildlife species habitat, resulting in adverse and beneficial impacts. Replicating historical fire regimes in grassland, shrubland, and forest and woodland habitats, although potentially resulting in adverse impacts to special status wildlife species in the short term, can prevent catastrophic wildfires likely to cause more adverse impacts, but only in areas where cheatgrass has not become prevalent and annual precipitation is sufficient to restore burned areas (e.g., above 12 to 14 inches annually). Wildland fire is used to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and in the long term improves forest health for many wildlife species such as mule deer and elk that summer and winter in these habitats. This in turn benefits special status wildlife species such as grizzly bears and gray wolves, which are predators of big game. See Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife for a more detailed description of resource uses that impact wildlife.
Special status wildlife species are anticipated to benefit both directly and indirectly where restrictions are implemented that conserve different habitat types from surface-disturbing and wildlife-disturbing activities. For example, managing riparian/wetland areas to meet PFC improves habitat conditions for various special status wildlife species that inhabit these areas. Conservation of sagebrush habitat will not only benefit greater sage-grouse, it will benefit other sagebrush-dependent species such as the sage thrasher and sage sparrow.
Select management actions and allowable uses are anticipated to benefit special status wildlife species by promoting individual species and their habitats or by restricting or altering activities of other resource programs (e.g., mineral development, motorized vehicle use, and fire and fuels management). Collectively, this section describes these actions as proactive management actions, which include restricting certain types of development, managing habitat fragmentation, and developing and protecting water sources and associated habitats for special status wildlife species in cooperation with the WGFD.
Under all alternatives, implementing, where appropriate, conservation measures, terms and conditions, and appropriate BMPs and reasonable and prudent measures in existing state programmatic biological opinions for the bald eagle, Canada lynx, gray wolf, black-footed ferret, and grizzly bear would minimize and mitigate adverse impacts from resources uses and activities. Biological opinions are available on the project website at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/bighorn.html.
The greater sage-grouse is a BLM sensitive species known to occur in the Planning Area. Numerous management actions common to all alternatives from the BLM National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy that would beneficially affect the greater sage-grouse by protecting and enhancing its habitat include: insecticide and pesticide restrictions, water source maintenance and protection, riparian/wetland area restoration, and vegetation treatments. All alternatives apply a protective buffer to restrict surface-disturbing activities around occupied greater sage-grouse leks and nesting and early brood-rearing habitat, providing beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species by protecting undisturbed sagebrush steppe habitats from potential mineral and industrial development. All alternatives apply a protective buffer around all active raptor nests, benefitting special status raptor species and other special status wildlife species that share this habitat.
The impacts to special status wildlife species are described under individual alternatives in terms of anticipated surface disturbance; the potential impacts from other resource uses, special designations and resource program actions; and proactive management followed by a more detailed description of impacts.
In general, the impacts to special status wildlife species from surface disturbance parallel the impacts to all wildlife. See Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife for a general discussion of these impacts. This section emphasizes what are likely to be the greatest impacts from surface disturbance to special status wildlife species.
Estimated short- and long-term surface disturbance from BLM actions in the Planning Area under Alternative A (Table 4-1) would result in loss, degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat. Loss of grassland and shrubland habitat will directly affect special status species that depend on these habitats. Surface disturbance, when it increases erosion and sedimentation, can also result in adverse impacts to special status wildlife species that depend on riparian/wetland habitats. Riparian/wetland habitat degradation due to surface disturbance is anticipated under Alternative A, which may result in adverse impacts to special status wildlife species inhabiting those areas.
Minerals development would result in adverse impacts to special status wildlife species under Alternative A. Specifically, studies have identified mineral and oil and gas development as a potential cause of declining greater sage-grouse populations (Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group 2003). Minerals development would result in 13,770 acres of long-term surface disturbance in grassland and shrubland communities under Alternative A that may result in habitat loss. Noise from mineral facilities operations, especially oil and gas facilities can also impact special status bird species relying on aural cues such as the greater sage-grouse. Alternative A is projected to result in 1,130 new federal oil and gas wells that would result in adverse impacts from habitat loss and noise disturbance.
Surface disturbance related to powerlines under Alternative A would be approximately 338 acres. Powerlines can directly affect raptor species through electrocution and current policy requires mitigating construction methods to avoid electrocution, when permitted on BLM-administered lands. Wind-energy development can also directly affect raptors and other birds through collisions and displacement, and indirectly through habitat fragmentation. Although renewable energy development across all alternatives is anticipated to be equal, Alternative A does not exclude wind-energy developments on any part of the Planning Area and the projected impacts to special status bird species from this resource use is greatest under this alternative.
Alternative A would limit impacts to special status wildlife species by closing 59,192 acres, including threatened and endangered species habitat, to motorized vehicle use that can disturb special status species. Projected surface disturbance from roads totals 1,966 acres in the short term and 983 acres in the long term under Alternative A, contributing to habitat loss and potentially forming barriers that fragment habitat for some special status wildlife species (Appendix T).
Livestock grazing under Alternative A is generally managed to provide for protection or enhancement of other resource values (e.g., wildlife). The BLM prohibits forage supplements within ¼ mile of riparian/wetland areas to avoid adverse impacts to this habitat. Special status wildlife species categories potentially affected by livestock and wild horse grazing include trophy game, game birds, nongame mammals, neotropical migrants, and amphibians.
Under Alternative A, the BLM designates the Five Springs Falls and Upper Owl Creek ACECs, which have special status species as a value of concern. Additionally, Alternative A restricts certain resource uses and activities within WSR eligible waterway segments, which would beneficially impact special status species that use riparian habitat. Special designations would limit adverse impacts to special status wildlife species under Alternative A.
The impacts of resource management to special status wildlife species are addressed more specifically below. An overview of resource management as it applies to special status wildlife species habitat is included here under each alternative.
Fire and fuels management is likely to cause similar impacts to special status wildlife species across all alternatives. Under Alternative A, wildland fire is used to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and to reduce hazardous fuels, likely resulting in long-term beneficial impacts to all special status wildlife species, except in areas with lower precipitation, where wildland fire is not expected to enhance grassland or shrubland habitats.
Currently, the BLM manages invasive species primarily through cooperative efforts with county Pest Control Districts. Recent permitted activities under APDs, or ROWs, require weed treatment by the APD or ROW holder. Weeds have spread on public lands in developed oil and gas fields, along roads and pipelines, and with increasing recreational use. In general, Alternative A allows for expansion of these resource uses and is predicted to continue the spread of invasive species. The spread of invasive species is anticipated to degrade sagebrush and riparian/wetland habitats most acutely, and result in adverse impacts to special status wildlife species that depend on these habitats in the long term.
Forest management under Alternative A pursues some measures anticipated to disturb special status wildlife species and degrade/destroy habitat. These activities include precommercial thinning, woodland treatments, prescribed burns, timber harvest, and clear cutting limited to 300 yards in any direction. However, timber harvesting performed in a manner that protects and benefits wildlife would limit disturbance and reduce fuel loads to lower the risk of wildfire, providing long-term benefits. Special status wildlife species categories directly affected by forest management include raptors, mammals, and bats.
Under Alternative A, the BLM manages grassland and shrubland communities on a small portion of the Planning Area for watershed protection and livestock grazing without any specific management actions for improving these habitats for wildlife. Reclamation of grassland and shrubland vegetation, especially in lower precipitation zones, would minimize long-term impacts to special status wildlife species that depend on these habitats. Under Alternative A, the BLM reclaims disturbed areas by routinely seeding, or requiring permittees and operators to seed, these areas with native seed mixes without specific requirements regarding topsoil salvage, temporary protective surface treatments, or reclamation plans. Special status wildlife species categories directly affected by grassland and shrubland management and reclamation include the greater sage-grouse, raptors, neotropical migrants, and nongame mammals.
Alternative A provides riparian/wetland communities the third most protection, compared to other alternatives. All riparian/wetland areas are managed to meet, or make progress toward meeting, PFC. Special status wildlife species categories directly affected by riparian/wetland management and protection include raptors, neotropical migrants, mammals, and amphibians.
In general, proactive management under Alternative A provides benefits and mitigates adverse impacts to special status wildlife species. Impacts due to proactive management, and other impacts, are described in detail under each special status wildlife species category below.
The BLM implements, as appropriate, various measures from the existing state programmatic biological opinion for the grizzly bear to minimize adverse impacts to this species under all alternatives. Other measures included in Alternative A that may provide beneficial impacts to grizzly bear habitat include seasonal closures and restrictions on big game crucial winter ranges and migration corridors, seasonal surface-disturbance restrictions around raptor nests, protection of elk calving areas, and limitations of geophysical operations and other surface disturbances around greater sage-grouse leks, all of which may occur in grizzly bear habitat.
Livestock grazing management is likely to result in adverse impacts to grizzly bears as a result of accidental or illegal take (e.g., a herder shooting a bear attacking livestock) or bear removal by the WGFD due to livestock depredation. Conflicts have been more prevalent on sheep allotments and more difficult to resolve without phasing out sheep grazing (BLM 2005f). Under Alternative A, the Planning Area is open to livestock grazing except for Bighorn River tracts, campgrounds, and exclosures, which may result in adverse impacts to grizzly bears where livestock grazes in grizzly bear habitat.
Under Alternative A, there are no specific management actions for gray wolves; however, management actions that protect the habitat gray wolves and their prey (primarily elk) utilize are anticipated to benefit gray wolves in the Planning Area. Management actions limiting human activities, ROW development such as roads, and habitat fragmentation also will benefit gray wolves. See Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife for more detail on impacts to big game.
Under Alternative A, harvesting timber in a manner that protects and benefits wildlife habitat values would beneficially impact gray wolves by creating of patchwork pattern of forest stands that will enhance forage used by elk and other big game (BLM 2004f). However, new roads created for timber management may disturb and displace gray wolves with more human access. Closing spur roads after completion of timber management would limit these impacts.
Under Alternative A, management actions that may directly or indirectly minimize impacts to gray wolves include prescribed burns to enhance big game forage, prohibiting livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat during the birthing season unless the effects can be mitigated, applying a CSU stipulation in big game parturition habitat, and seasonally prohibiting surface-disturbing activities around active raptor nests. Alternative A also applies a CSU stipulation for big game migration corridors, indirectly benefitting gray wolves. These restrictions benefit gray wolves only where their habitats, or their prey’s habitats, overlap.
Alternative A provides a protective buffer around occupied leks and seasonal restrictions in brood-rearing habitats and winter concentration areas, but does not provide specific guidance for the prevention of habitat loss and fragmentation. For example, developing minerals and wind-energy facilities on BLM-administered land under Alternative A may result in long-term adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse by fragmenting sagebrush habitats. Holloran et al. (2010) found that male greater sage-grouse yearlings were 4.6 times more likely to establish leks outside compared to inside areas with oil and gas infrastructure, and yearling female avoidance responses indicated a loss of functional nesting habitats within 3,000 feet of the infrastructure of natural-gas fields. These results suggest that conventional oil and gas development adversely affects greater sage-grouse by excluding individuals from developed areas. Alternative A closes 37,933 acres of greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas to oil and gas development to limit these impacts (Table 4-9). Alternative A does not include restrictions for the development of wind energy; however, any proposal for a renewable energy ROW would be analyzed on a site-specific basis, and appropriate mitigations (seasonal restrictions or buffer areas) would be applied in accordance with current greater sage-grouse habitat management policy. Overall, surface disturbance in sagebrush habitats under Alternative A is anticipated to result in adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse in the short and long term.
Although the extent of sagebrush habitat degradation from the spread of invasive species and other weeds is unknown for the Planning Area, the potential for these species to substantially affect greater sage-grouse habitats in the future exists (Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group 2003). Therefore, the anticipated continued expansion and spread of invasive species under Alternative A would result in adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats.
By altering habitat components necessary for greater sage-grouse habitats, livestock grazing can affect the suitability and extent of greater sage-grouse habitats in the Planning Area (Wyoming Sage-grouse Working Group 2003). While livestock grazing management has a limited effect on sagebrush, it is important because it affects the height and density of herbaceous material available for greater sage-grouse cover. Livestock grazing on greater sage-grouse habitat consists of both long-term management to promote desirable plant communities and annual management of the standing crop to provide cover for the greater sage-grouse, requiring management of the timing and intensity of grazing (BLM 2003b). Monitoring is important to ensure grazing intensity and duration does not remove required herbaceous cover and litter important for maintaining greater sage-grouse habitats. Although rangeland productivity is improving in the Planning Area, the current focus of management and monitoring does not emphasize the protective cover of vegetation and litter required by greater sage-grouse. Therefore, management of livestock grazing under Alternative A may not improve the quality or quantity of habitats for greater sage-grouse, but should maintain current habitats. Livestock grazing management can maintain healthy rangeland conditions that provide habitat (i.e., nesting, brood-rearing, and summer habitat) when properly designed and monitored (Crawford et al. 2004). Year-long grazing by wild horses in HMAs does not contribute to improving the quality or quantity of habitats for greater sage-grouse.
ACECs designated under Alternative A would encompass 20,461 acres of greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas (Table 4-9). The associated restrictions on resource uses and activities in these areas would beneficially impact greater sage-grouse.
To minimize impacts to sagebrush habitats and greater sage-grouse, proactive management actions under Alternative A prohibit surface-disturbing discretionary actions within ¼ mile of occupied leks and avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities within 2 miles of occupied leks or in identified greater sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats. Table 2-2 identifies the acreage protected by these buffers. Braun (2002) indicates that adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse can occur within ¼- or ½-mile buffers and accordingly recommends no surface disturbance within 3 miles of occupied leks. To protect greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas, the BLM avoids surface-disturbing and disruptive activities from November 15 to March 14. Overall, these actions are anticipated to limit adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse.
Special status raptor species would be affected by surface-disturbing activities, fire and fuels management, invasive species spread, motorized vehicle use, livestock grazing (Johnson and Horn 2008 and Torre et al. 2007), and management actions for biological resources under Alternative A. The late winter, spring, and early summer periods, when courtship, nest construction, incubation, and early brooding periods occur, would be more sensitive to disturbance because adult raptors are more prone to abandon nests at these times (USFWS 2002).
Surface disturbance causes localized adverse impacts to raptor prey species by temporarily and permanently disturbing habitats for small mammals and birds. Under Alternative A, no activity or surface disturbance is allowed for up to a ¾-mile radius from any active raptor nest from February 1 through July 31 to prevent nest disturbance and abandonment. Surface-disturbing activities are restricted at known bald eagle nests and communal winter roosts, but not in terrestrial foraging habitats, and therefore may adversely impact bald eagles (BLM 2003b) and other special status raptor species. Bald eagles are also directly affected by impacts to riparian/wetland habitat. See Section 4.4.3 Vegetation - Riparian/Wetland Resources and the Nongame (Neotropical Migrants) section for likely impacts to bald eagles.
Constructing roads, powerlines, and other development facilities can contribute to loss and fragmentation of raptor habitats and ultimately impacts the diversity and abundance of raptor populations (USFWS 2002). For example, utility poles can provide perching and nesting structures for raptors, but also can result in mortality to raptors through collision and electrocution (APLIC and USFWS 2005); current policy requires mitigation be applied to construction design for power poles permitted on BLM-administered land. Wind-energy facilities can be a source of mortality for raptors if they collide with wind tower blades. High mortality could result if wind towers are placed along a migration path or in nesting habitat. Wind-energy facilities also could be a source of habitat loss and fragmentation, and human disturbance from construction and maintenance activities. The ROD for Wind Energy Development (BLM 2005c), which guides management under Alternative A, provides BMPs to minimize impacts to raptors, but lacks specific guidelines to avoid adverse impacts. Likewise, wind-energy development is considered on a case-by-case basis and no areas are excluded from wind-energy development under Alternative A, so the potential impacts to raptors are greatest under this alternative.
As recreational use is often concentrated in riparian areas, human activity in these areas may cause bald eagles to avoid or abandon otherwise suitable habitats (BLM 2003b). Developing or upgrading recreation sites and establishing day use facilities at Wardel and Harrington reservoirs would adversely impact bald eagles under Alternative A. Similarly, managing the Bighorn River SRMA to maximize recreation opportunities may also adversely impact bald eagles due to disturbances from recreationists.
Livestock grazing in riparian/wetland areas may adversely impact bald eagles if soil erosion, degradation of stream bank conditions, introduction of noxious weeds, and the reduction of viable cottonwood tree sapling recruitment result (BLM 2003b). Under Alternative A, the Bighorn River tracts are closed to livestock grazing, limiting adverse impacts to bald eagles in these areas.
Special status raptors are affected by wildlife-disturbing activities that contribute to habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation. Such actions include, but are not limited to, clear-cutting, snag removal, industrial activities, and invasive species control. For example, clear-cutting directly impacts raptor habitat for those raptors (e.g., northern goshawk) that prefer closed canopies. Other raptor species, such as ferruginous hawks, may benefit from openings in the canopy when in pursuit of prey. Snag removal indirectly affects raptors by degrading habitat and reducing potential nest sites. Alternative A allows for clear cutting and timber salvage of dead stands, which would adversely impact raptors by reducing habitat and nest sites. In the long term, the continued spread of invasive species in the Planning Area, combined with the loss and fragmentation of raptor habitats by wind energy, mineral development, and associated infrastructure projected under Alternative A, are expected to have adverse impacts to special status raptor species.
Although impacts to neotropical migrants on their winter habitat are not subject to BLM management, impacts to breeding and nesting habitats from surface-disturbing activities, invasive species management, fire and fuels management, and management actions for biological resources on BLM-administered lands are anticipated for these species. Where possible, site-specific assessments and discretionary permit actions will mitigate these impacts. Surface disturbance is anticipated to have localized adverse impacts to breeding and nesting habitats for neotropical migrants. Habitat impacts from surface disturbance may include temporary and permanent loss of breeding and nesting habitats due primarily to mineral development. Fragmentation and degradation of habitats for neotropical migrants also are anticipated from surface-disturbing activities and associated development and the spread of invasive species. In general, management actions and projected development under Alternative A are likely to result in adverse impacts to neotropical migrants from habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation.
Because of the diverse species in the neotropical migrant category, the discussion below organizes these species into the following habitat guilds:
Sagebrush and shrubland species:
Brewer’s sparrow, loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher
Grassland species: Baird’s sparrow, long-billed curlew, and mountain plover
Riparian/wetland species: yellow-billed cuckoo, trumpeter swan, and white-faced ibis
Sagebrush and Shrubland Species – Similar to the greater sage-grouse, the Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher depend on sagebrush habitats, though they may use other shrubland types, particularly during the nonbreeding season. The loggerhead shrike uses a more diverse mix of shrubland and grassland types, including sagebrush. There are no proactive management actions specific to sagebrush and shrubland neotropical migrants under Alternative A, but measures to protect greater sage-grouse discussed under Game Birds benefit all sagebrush and shrubland species. Adverse and beneficial impacts to sagebrush habitats discussed under Surface Disturbance and Game Birds apply to neotropical migrants that occur in similar habitats. Sagebrush and shrubland species may benefit from prescribed fire used to improve plant community health in shrubland communities, but only where healthy native vegetation and adequate annual precipitation (above 12 to 14 inches) are present. Any wildland fire occurrence in lower precipitation zones or where cheatgrass is present would likely reduce sagebrush and increase cheatgrass occupancy (Keeley 2006). In the long term, allowable uses resulting in habitat loss would adversely impact sagebrush and shrubland neotropical migrants, but management actions implemented under Alternative A would limit adverse impacts to these species..
Grassland Species – Grasslands make up less than 1 percent of the Planning Area. Under Alternative A, there are no management actions specific to special status neotropical migrants that utilize grasslands, other than the mountain plover. 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.
Adverse impacts to the mountain plover would be minimized by implementing various conservation measures and BMPs under Alternative A. Mountain plovers are often found in association with prairie dog towns because they tend to prefer nesting areas with sparse vegetation cover, and therefore are affected by management actions for white-tailed prairie dogs (see Nongame [Mammals]). In addition, mountain plovers show a nesting preference to areas heavily grazed by livestock (BLM 2005g). Range management practices that favor uniform grass cover of taller grasses and a lack of bare patches reduce available mountain plover habitats (BLM 2005g). Livestock grazing under Alternative A is likely to benefit the mountain plover.
Riparian/Wetland Species – Although there are no specific management actions for special status neotropical migrants that use riparian areas and wetlands, other biological resource management actions—particularly those pertaining to water and riparian/wetland areas, such as surface disturbance restrictions, livestock grazing and riparian area management, and special designations—would affect these species. While most surface-disturbing activities will not occur in riparian/wetland areas, adverse impacts, to a limited extent, may occur due to erosion and increased sedimentation in streams. Prohibiting the placement of salt, mineral, or forage supplements would limit adverse impacts from concentrated livestock to riparian/wetland areas. Refer to Section 4.4.3 Vegetation – Riparian/Wetland Resources and Table 4-8 for a description of other management actions and BLM-authorized activities that would impact wetlands and riparian areas and would similarly affect neotropical migrant habitat in these areas.
Surface-disturbing activities, invasive species control, fire and fuels management, and management actions for biological resources may result in impacts to special status nongame mammals. Surface disturbance would have localized adverse impacts to special status nongame mammal habitats, including temporary displacement, and would fragment and degrade special status nongame mammal habitat.
It is important to note that some special status nongame mammal species, especially bats, may use more than one habitat type (e.g., caves and forests/woodlands). However, because of the diverse species in the special status nongame mammal category, the discussion below organizes these species into the following habitat guilds:
Sagebrush and Shrubland Species: white-tailed prairie dog and black-footed ferret
Forest and Woodland Species: Canada lynx
Cave Species: Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, and long-eared myotis
Sagebrush and Shrubland Species – Similar to the greater sage-grouse, special status nongame mammals in this category depend on sagebrush habitats or other shrubland types. Therefore, measures to protect greater sage-grouse as discussed under Game Birds (Greater Sage-grouse) would benefit all sagebrush and shrubland species. Likewise, adverse impacts to sagebrush habitats discussed for the greater sage-grouse would result in adverse impacts to these species. In the long term, actions implemented under Alternative A would benefit special status nongame mammals occupying sagebrush habitats in designated greater sage-grouse lek habitat buffers. Black-footed ferrets are associated with and depend on prairie dog colonies in the Planning Area. Due to the BLM’s use of conservation measures, terms and conditions, and BMPs measureable adverse impactsfrom BLM actions to prairie dog populations are not anticipated under Alternative A.
Forest and Woodland Species – Canada lynx prefer coniferous forests and riparian areas. Under Alternative A, there are no specific management actions for Canada lynx; however, management actions that protect the Canada lynx habitats and their prey (primarily snowshoe hare) may result in beneficial impacts to Canada lynx. For example, prohibition of surface disturbance within ¾ mile of active raptor nests conserves Canada lynx habitats during the TLS where these habitats overlap but would not provide long-term protection to Canada lynx. Maintenance of forest stands with dense vegetative cover (i.e., prohibiting precommercial thinning) is important to maintaining snowshoe hare populations and therefore the presence of Canada lynx in the Planning Area (USFS 2005b). Clear cutting, logging operations, road and landing construction, disease treatment sprayings, and fire and fuels management in aspen and coniferous forests may result in short-term adverse impacts to Canada lynx habitats by reducing large woody debris that may reduce cover, eliminate den sites, reduce kitten survival, and reduce the availability of prey species (e.g., snowshoe hare and red squirrel) (BLM 2005h; USFS 2005b). However, over the long term, treatments may improve habitat for Canada lynx and its prey species by diversifying forest structure and reducing fuel loads. Alternative A does not address old growth forest areas in the Planning Area, but ensures an appropriate level of snag retention and harvests timber in a manner that protects wildlife habitat values, minimizing adverse impacts to the Canada lynx..
Cave Species – Although bats can utilize a variety of habitats including riparian and forest habitat, cave and karst habitat and abandoned mines are of importance for most species. Bats that use caves for roosting, maternity colonies, or hibernation could be affected by surface-disturbing activities near caves, cliffs, or other rock features. Abandoned mine closures and recreational caving have been identified as the two major threats to bat habitats (Priday and Luce 1995). Alternative A allows activities in AMLs on a case-by-case basis, resulting in the second highest potential adverse impacts to bat habitat. Management that increases recreation and access to caves may result in adverse impacts to bats. See Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife and Section 4.1.5 Cave and Karst Resources for impacts to bats and their habitat. Similarly to raptors, bats are likely to be adversely affected by wind-energy development.
Special status amphibian species in the Planning Area are associated with riparian, wetland, woodland, and forested habitat and are susceptible to impacts from habitat degradation and fragmentation, pollution, and modified hydrology. Beneficial impacts to these species are similar to the impacts described under Nongame (neotropical migrants) for this alternative. The Great Basin spadefoot toad may be affected by activities in sagebrush communities, where this species occurs. Beneficial impacts to the Columbia spotted frog are similar to those described for greater sage-grouse for this alternative. Accordingly, Alternative A is likely to result in mitigated adverse impacts to special status amphibian species. See Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife for more information on impacts to amphibians.
Estimated short- and long-term surface disturbance from BLM actions in the Planning Area (Table 4-1) would result in the least loss, degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat under Alternative B. Erosion from surface disturbance would cause the least impact to riparian/wetland habitats under Alternative B. Surface disturbance from roads totals 1,229 acres in the short term and 614 acres in the long term under Alternative B (Appendix T), forming fewer barriers to fragment habitat than Alternative A. Reclamation requirements are the most stringent under Alternative B, likely resulting in the highest degree of surface disturbance mitigation, compared to other alternatives.
Minerals development under Alternative B would result in similar adverse impacts to special status wildlife species as under Alternative A, but to a lesser extent. Alternative B has the fewest acres open to mineral development, resulting in the least loss of shrubland and grassland habitat, compared to the other alternatives. Alternative B is projected to result in 509 new federal oil and gas wells that would result in fewer adverse impacts from less habitat loss and noise disturbance than Alternative A.
Alternative B would have the least powerline development, resulting in the least potential risk of raptor electrocution. The BLM closes a portion of the Planning Area to wind-energy development (1,251,869 acres) and avoids raptor concentration areas and greater sage-grouse nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitat. Powerline and wind-energy development would impact special status species the least under Alternative B.
Alternative B closes the greatest area to motorized vehicle use, which can disturb special status species, including threatened and endangered species habitat. Alternative B would result in the least potential disturbance of special status species due to motorized vehicle use.
Livestock grazing under Alternative B is generally managed to meet multiple use objectives over solely livestock forage availability. While livestock grazing would be restricted more under this alternative, this will not necessarily benefit special status species that depend on livestock grazing to increase range productivity and reduce vegetation height, such as the mountain plover. Alternative B prohibits forage supplements within ½ mile of riparian/wetland areas to minimize adverse impacts to this habitat. Special status wildlife species most likely affected by livestock grazing include greater sage-grouse, nongame mammals, neotropical migrants, and amphibians.
Three ACECs are expanded (Carter Mountain, Five Springs Falls, and Upper Owl Creek) and three new ACECs are designated (Chapman Bench, Clarks Fork Canyon, and Rattlesnake Mountain) with special status species values of concern under Alternative B, providing the greatest potential benefit to special status wildlife species. Alternative B manages WSR suitable waterway segments similarly to Alternative A, though places greater restrictions on resource uses and activities with proportional beneficial impacts to special status species in riparian habitat.
Three ACECs are expanded (Carter Mountain, Five Springs Falls, and Upper Owl Creek) and three new ACECs are designated (Chapman Bench, Clarks Fork Canyon, and Rattlesnake Mountain) with special status species values of concern under Alternative B, providing the greatest potential benefit to special status wildlife species. Alternative B manages WSR suitable waterway segments similarly to Alternative A, though places greater restrictions on resource uses and activities with proportional beneficial impacts to special status species in riparian habitat.
Fire and fuels management is likely to cause similar impacts to special status wildlife species across all alternatives. Under Alternative B, the BLM would use wildland fire to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and reduce hazardous fuels, likely resulting in long-term beneficial impacts to special status wildlife species in areas of higher precipitation. Due to the reliance on natural process before active restoration, achieving fire-adapted ecosystems is less likely under Alternative B. However, treatments are used in the WUI to protect structures from fire, potentially adversely affecting special status wildlife species in the short term if treatments require surface disturbance or alter vegetative cover, but benefitting them in the long term if treatments reduce the chance of catastrophic wildfire that could destroy greater expanses of habitat.
In general, Alternative B limits the expansion of resource uses, and therefore may result in the least amount of invasive species spread relative to the other alternatives. Invasive species would impact special status wildlife species the least under Alternative B.
Forest management under Alternative B, by generally pursuing natural processes to meet forest health goals, would adversely impact special status wildlife species the least from destroying or degrading habitat. Additionally, the BLM retains old growth forests, providing beneficial impacts to special status wildlife species, especially raptors and bats.
Grassland and shrubland management under Alternative B would provide the greatest potential beneficial impacts to special status wildlife species. Under Alternative B, the BLM manages grassland and shrubland communities toward achieving 75 percent of Historical Climax Plant Community and maintains and enhances important plant communities on large, contiguous blocks of land. These measures are likely to result in the greatest natural vegetation diversity and slow the spread of invasive species, benefitting special status wildlife species, especially greater sage-grouse, nongame mammals, and neotropical migrants.
Alternative B provides riparian/wetland communities the most protection, compared to other alternatives. All riparian/wetland areas are managed to achieve DPC, likely resulting in the most diverse riparian/wetland habitat that will provide the greatest benefit to special status wildlife species.
The Absaroka Front Management Area, designated under Alternative B, provides additional habitat protection goals that would likely benefit special status wildlife species including neotropical migrants, raptors, bats, grizzly bears, and gray wolves that depend on upper-elevation shrub/grassland and forest habitats.
In general, proactive management under Alternative B provides more benefits, and mitigates adverse impacts to special status wildlife species to a greater extent than alternatives A, C, and D. Impacts due to proactive management, in addition to other impacts, are described in more detail under each special status wildlife species category below.
The BLM implements, as appropriate, various measures from the existing state programmatic biological opinion for the grizzly bear to minimize adverse impacts to this species under Alternative B. Alternative B includes other measures, similar to Alternative A that may provide beneficial impacts to grizzly bear habitat. The closure of the Absaroka Front Management Area to various resource uses is also likely to result in beneficial impacts to grizzly bears by reducing activities that can potentially fragment habitat.
Alternative B closes elk and bighorn sheep crucial winter range and greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas to livestock grazing and prohibits domestic sheep grazing on pronghorn crucial winter range. These management actions would beneficially impact grizzly bears in areas where grazing prohibitions overlap with grizzly bear habitat by reducing the potential for conflict that may result in accidental or illegal take or WGFD removal.
Under Alternative B, there are no specific management actions for gray wolves; however, management actions that protect the habitat gray wolves and their prey (primarily elk) utilize may benefit gray wolves in the Planning Area. Management actions limiting human activities, ROW development such as roads, and habitat fragmentation also would benefit gray wolves. See Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife for more detail on impacts to big game.
Harvesting timber only where natural processes are unable to accomplish forest health goals would minimize short-term impacts from disturbance and displacement to gray wolves, but may result in less long-term beneficial impacts than Alternative A by limiting widespread diversification of forest stand structure. Closing timber management roads not required for existing uses would benefit gray wolves by reducing human access and habitat fragmentation.
Under Alternative B, management actions that minimize adverse impacts to gray wolves include habitat enhancement projects in sagebrush communities, aspen restoration, prohibiting livestock grazing, applying a CSU stipulation in big game parturition habitat, and seasonally prohibiting surface-disturbing activities around active raptor nests. These restrictions benefit gray wolves only where the habitats overlap. Under Alternative B, resource use restrictions in the Absaroka Front Management Area may be the most beneficial to big game, and therefore to gray wolves. Alternative B may result in the most beneficial impacts to gray wolves, relative to the other alternatives.
Under Alternative B, estimated short- and long-term surface disturbance from BLM actions in the Planning Area would result in less loss, degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats than under Alternative A. In addition, Alternative B includes specific management actions to enhance or maintain plant communities on large, contiguous blocks of BLM-administered land. Applying a CSU stipulation for discretionary actions to prohibit surface-disturbing and disruptive activities and an NSO restriction within 0.6 mile of occupied greater sage-grouse leks would limit adverse impacts from oil and gas development to greater sage-grouse more than Alternative A. The BLM avoids wind-energy development in areas of greater sage-grouse nesting, brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas and manages areas within 0.6 mile of occupied leks as ROW exclusion areas for discretionary actions under Alternative B. Interim and/or final reclamation of surface disturbance under Alternative B requires 50 percent vegetative cover within three growing seasons and 80 percent cover within 5 years. The BLM requires development of an appropriate reclamation plan before any authorized surface-disturbing activity. Alternative B offers more stringent requirements than Alternative A for the successful establishment of preexisting native habitats. Although surface disturbance results in short-term habitat loss and damage, the reclamation requirements of Alternative B help maintain long-term habitat quality in all habitat types, including sagebrush. Overall, Alternative B would result in the least surface disturbance and habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation and therefore the least impact to greater sage-grouse habitats.
Alternative B uses wildland fire and other vegetation treatments to restore fire adapted ecosystems in the Planning Area. Establishing a natural fire regime in fire-adapted ecosystems and reducing fuel loads in the Planning Area may lower the risk of catastrophic fire in areas with sufficient native vegetation and precipitation. Since Alternative B relies on natural processes before engaging active restoration, it may not restore fire adapted ecosystems as quickly as the other alternatives.
Alternative B provides greater protection and minimizes impacts to soils, which minimizes to a greater extent the potential adverse impacts associated with the establishment and spread of invasive species, compared with Alternative A. In addition to requiring topsoil salvage and segregation for all surface-disturbing activities, Alternative B requires the reestablishment of healthy native plant communities based on preexisting composition in the area. These actions are anticipated to slow the establishment and spread of invasive species more than Alternative A, resulting in less adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse habitats under Alternative B.
Alternative B excludes ROW development on 132,248 acres in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas (Table 4-9), limiting adverse impacts from transmission lines that can alter and fragment habitat and that may provide perches for predators. Designating all LWCs as Wild Lands and managing them to protect their naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation, would benefit greater sage-grouse by placing resource use and activity restrictions on 200,959 acres in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas (Table 4-9).
Under Alternative B, the BLM restricts livestock grazing more extensively and closes more areas to livestock grazing, including crucial winter range for elk and bighorn sheep and greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas. Closing greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas may have adverse and beneficial impacts, depending on site-specific range condition. Poor livestock grazing management can have long-term, adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse by degrading habitat (WGFD and BLM 2007). For Key Habitat Areas in which range conditions are not meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix N), closing these areas to livestock grazing may benefit greater sage-grouse by improving habitat conditions over long time periods (40 years or more) (Crawford et al. 2004). Alternative B closes 1,129,179 acres in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas to livestock grazing. However, on Wyoming big sagebrush sites with dense sagebrush and an understory of annual grasses, reductions in livestock grazing may hasten further habitat degradation if ungrazed fuel loads increase the chance of wildfires that kill sagebrush over vast areas (Crawford et al. 2004). Light-to-moderate livestock grazing may improve greater sage-grouse habitat by increasing herbaceous vegetation in arid-to-semiarid areas (Holechek et al. 2006). Appropriate grazing intensity and duration maintains suitable greater sage-grouse habitat (WGFD and BLM 2007). Under all alternatives, livestock grazing management is 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 to meet multiple use objectives (e.g., wildlife). Closing greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas may create limited long-term beneficial impacts in areas meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, but may adversely impact other areas by increasing the potential for wildfires in the short term and eliminating the beneficial long-term effect that livestock grazing can have on rangeland vegetation if managed at the appropriate intensity.
Special designations under Alternative B would provide the greatest benefit to greater sage-grouse; designated ACECs encompass 94,399 acres of greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas (Table 4-9), restricting resource uses and activities to beneficially impact greater sage-grouse.
Beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse from proactive management actions would be similar to Alternative A, but to a greater extent. Under Alternative B, the BLM places greater restrictions on oil and gas development in greater sage-grouse habitat and applies larger protective buffers around greater sage-grouse leks. Alternative B closes the most area (1,226,064 acres) to oil and gas development in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas (Table 4-9), greatly reducing adverse impacts from human disturbance that can displace greater sage-grouse (Holloran et al. 2010). Establishing an 0.6-mile protective buffer around greater sage-grouse leks would result in fewer adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse by minimizing individual displacement due to infrastructure, especially oil and gas development (Holloran et al. 2010). Limiting new sources of noise to levels of 10 dBA above ambient noise at the perimeter of leks from 6 PM to 8 AM during initiation of breeding would reduce adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse from noise generation in areas with oil and gas facilities. Overall, proactive management under Alternative B would limit adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse the most, compared to the other alternatives.
Surface-disturbing activities, renewable energy development, invasive species control, motorized vehicle use, livestock grazing (Johnson and Horn 2008; Torre et al. 2007; Jones 2000), and management actions for biological resources would adversely impact raptors less under Alternative B than under Alternative A. Compared to Alternative A, restrictions around raptor nests are more extensive under Alternative B and TLS are species-specific, resulting in fewer direct impacts to nesting raptors. Additionally, the BLM applies a seasonal 2-mile buffer to active ferruginous hawk nests and a year-round CSU stipulation to protect all raptor nest sites. Alternative B protects more BLM-administered surface surrounding raptor nests compared to Alternative A, resulting in greater beneficial impacts to special status raptor species. Alternative B is projected to result in fewer acres of surface disturbance and therefore will have less adverse impact on special status raptor terrestrial foraging habitat.
Alternative B would result in the least amount of powerline development, having the least adverse impacts to raptors due to potential electrocution. Wind-energy development is avoided in raptor concentration areas, and approximately 1,251,869 acres are renewable energy exclusion areas under Alternative B, thereby having the least potential to fragment habitats and directly impact raptors from collisions or displacement. The BLM prohibits clear cutting under Alternative B, and uses salvage operations, including appropriate levels of snag retention, to improve wildlife habitat. These actions would result in beneficial impacts by protecting and enhancing more habitat for those raptors that prefer closed canopy habitats, compared to the other alternatives.
Alternative B would continue to improve rangeland productivity and slow the spread of invasive species to a greater extent than Alternative A. Overall, the restrictions to surface-disturbing activities, wind-energy development, and livestock grazing and proactive management to maintain native vegetation under Alternative B would protect more raptor habitats compared to the other alternatives.
Allowing surface-disturbing activities in riparian/wetland areas would adversely impact bald eagles through displacement and habitat loss. Recreational activities would cause impacts similar to those under Alternative A for bald eagles, but to a lesser extent. Maintaining current facilities and not providing campsites at Wardel and Harrington reservoirs would cause fewer adverse impacts to bald eagles by limiting human activity in these areas. Impacts to bald eagles in the Bighorn River SRMA are likely to be less under Alternative B than under Alternative A, because managing the area to provide a “moderate” level of recreation experience would involve less intensive forms of recreation and less human activity.
Closing more acres to livestock grazing under Alternative B (1,988,927 acres) would result in less potential adverse impact to bald eagles from riparian habitat degradation than under Alternative A.
Under Alternative B, short- and long-term surface disturbance are anticipated to be less; therefore, associated adverse impacts to breeding and nesting habitats for neotropical migrants are anticipated to be less than under Alternative A. The impacts to neotropical migrants from wind-energy development under Alternative B would also be less than under Alternative A.
Sagebrush and Shrubland Species – Alternative B applies the largest buffers around greater sage-grouse leks and in nesting or early brood-rearing habitats to conserve sagebrush habitat (see Game Birds). Alternative B would result in the least surface disturbance that may result in habitat loss and has the most stringent requirements for reclamation, which would result in the least impact to neotropical migrants that depend on sagebrush and shrubland habitats.
Grassland Species – Actions in grassland habitat, such as surface-disturbing activities, reclamation, invasive species control, and livestock and wildlife grazing impact special status neotropical migrant species. BLM actions under Alternative B, including designation of the Chapman Bench ACEC, would result in less adverse impact to grassland habitat and would protect more grassland habitat from fragmentation than under Alternative A. Management actions for white-tailed prairie dogs (see Nongame [Mammals]) may affect the mountain plover and long-billed curlew, as these species nest in areas with sparse vegetation. Greater restrictions on livestock grazing under Alternative B may result in adverse impacts to mountain plover by reducing available mountain plover habitat (i.e., heavily grazed areas and areas with bare patches); however, managing areas to create preferred habitat for the mountain plover, would likely provide a net benefit to this species.
Riparian/Wetland Species – Although there are no specific management actions for special status neotropical migrants that use riparian areas and wetlands, other biological resource management actions—particularly those pertaining to water and riparian/wetland areas, such as surface disturbance restrictions, livestock grazing and riparian area management, and special designations—would affect these species. Overall, restrictions on surface disturbance, management of invasive species and livestock grazing, and managing riparian/wetland areas to achieve DPC under Alternative B would protect and enhance more riparian/wetland habitat and benefit special status neotropical migrants in the Planning Area more than under Alternative A.
Surface-disturbing activities, invasive species control, fire and fuels management, livestock grazing management, and management actions for biological resources under Alternative B would result in less adverse impacts to special status nongame mammals than under Alternative A.
Sagebrush and Shrubland Species – Sagebrush and shrubland special status nongame mammal species would benefit from management actions limiting habitat fragmentation and surface disturbance in sagebrush and shrubland communities. Measures to protect and reduce potentially adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse, as discussed under Game Birds, benefit special status sagebrush and shrubland nongame mammal species. Decreased surface disturbance and less habitat fragmentation under Alternative B would limit adverse impacts to special status nongame mammal species more than Alternative A. In addition, an NSO restriction placed on prairie dog colonies suitable for black-footed ferret reintroduction and the Sage Creek Prairie Dog Town would benefit both species. Alternative B provides the most beneficial impacts to these species compared to other alternatives.
Forest and Woodland Species – Under Alternative B, there are no specific management actions for Canada lynx; however, management actions that protect the habitats Canada lynx and their prey (primarily snowshoe hare) utilize are anticipated to result in beneficial impacts to Canada lynx. Under Alternative B, fewer short-term adverse impacts to Canada lynx would result from forest treatments; however, less stand diversification over the long term may result in less beneficial impacts to Canada lynx habitat and the habitats of its prey species. Prohibiting clear-cutting and precommercial thinning, except for fuels treatments, retains more woody debris than Alternative A to provide cover and den sites and enhance the availability of prey species. Alternative B retains old growth forest areas and, when possible, retains connectivity of existing or potential old growth areas, benefiting Canada lynx more than Alternative A. Alternative B would result in greater short-term beneficial impacts to Canada lynx habitats than Alternative A due to greater restrictions on surface-disturbing activities, but long-term habitat improvement, especially from fire and fuels management to prevent landscape-scale fires, may be limited.
Cave Species – Bats using caves for roosting, maternity colonies, or hibernation may be affected by surface-disturbing activities near caves, cliffs, or other rock features. The BLM closes caves during critical periods for bats and prohibits activities within ¼ mile of AML sites under Alternative B, providing more beneficial impacts than Alternative A. As renewable energy development is excluded in a large area, the potential impacts from wind-energy development to bats are least under Alternative B.
Potential impacts to special status amphibians are correlated with impacts to riparian/wetland habitats. The adverse impacts under Alternative B would be similar to those described for special status neotropical migrants that use riparian/wetland habitats and less than those under Alternative A. Potential adverse impacts to the Great Basin spadefoot toad would be proportional to impacts to sagebrush habitats and are anticipated to be similar to those described for special status neotropical migrants and greater sage-grouse. See Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife for more information on impacts to amphibians.
Under Alternative C, estimated short- and long-term surface disturbance from BLM actions in the Planning Area (Table 4-1) would result in the greatest loss, degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat compared to the other alternatives. Erosion from surface disturbance would cause the greatest impact to riparian/wetland habitats under Alternative C. Surface disturbance from roads totals 4,638 acres in the short term and 2,319 acres in the long term under Alternative C, potentially forming the most barriers to fragment habitat (Appendix T).
Minerals development under Alternative C would result in similar adverse impacts to special status species as under Alternative A, but to a greater extent. Alternative C has the most acres open to mineral development, resulting in the greatest potential loss of special status wildlife species habitat, compared to the other alternatives. Alternative C is projected to result in 1,257 new federal oil and gas wells that would result in more adverse impacts from habitat loss and noise disturbance than Alternative A.
Alternative C would have the most powerline development, resulting in the greatest potential risk for raptor electrocution. The BLM closes a limited portion of the Planning Area to wind-energy development, and allows projects in special status raptor species and greater sage-grouse habitat on a case-by-case basis. The projected impact of wind-energy development to special status wildlife species would be less than Alternative A, but more than alternatives B and D.
Alternative C closes the least amount of land to motorized vehicle use and does not close threatened and endangered species habitat to this resource use. Alternative C is likely to result in the greatest disturbance of special status wildlife species from motorized vehicle use.
The BLM allows livestock grazing in the same areas under Alternative C as under Alternative A, but manages to optimize commodity production while meeting rangeland health standards, not to provide for the enhancement of other resource values. Livestock grazing is restricted the least under this alternative and is more likely to concentrate in riparian/wetland areas, causing the greatest impact to riparian/wetland special status wildlife species. Wild horse grazing in HMAs would also have similar adverse effects to Alternative A, as horses also congregate near water, adversely affecting riparian/wetland special status wildlife species.
Only two ACECs are designated under Alternative C and this alternative does not recommend any WSR eligible waterway segments as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS and releases these waterways to other resource uses, resulting in no beneficial impacts to special status wildlife species.
Under Alternative C, the BLM uses wildland fire to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and reduce hazardous fuels, but also to enhance forage for commodity production, potentially benefitting special status wildlife species less than the other alternatives when restoration objectives conflict. However, treatments are used across the Planning Area to restore vegetative diversity and reduce the risk of unnatural fire, providing the greatest potential benefit to special status wildlife species from fire and fuels management.
In general, Alternative C allows for the greatest expansion of resource uses, and therefore would result in the greatest spread of invasive species, relative to the other alternatives. The impacts to special status wildlife species from invasive species would be the greatest under Alternative C.
Forest management under Alternative C is similar to Alternative A, but timber harvesting is performed with economic objectives as the primary concern with less regard for wildlife habitat values. The BLM allows larger clear cut areas with the associated adverse impacts described under Alternative A, but old growth forests are retained under Alternative C, directly benefitting Canada lynx and special status raptor and bat species. Although the impacts from forest management actions vary, in general, forest management under Alternative C would provide some beneficial impacts to special status wildlife species from old growth stand retention, but would also result in the greatest adverse impacts to special status wildlife species from timber harvest practices with less regard for wildlife habitat values.
Grassland and shrubland management under Alternative C would provide more beneficial impacts to special status wildlife species than Alternative A, but less than alternatives B and D. Under Alternative C, the BLM manages grassland and shrubland communities toward meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix N) with appropriate functional and structural plant groups. These measures are likely to result in a modest improvement in vegetation diversity, but are unlikely to slow the spread of invasive species. Reclamation requirements are more stringent than Alternative A, but less than alternatives B and D. Due to the larger amount of anticipated surface disturbance and invasive species spread under Alternative C, grassland and shrubland communities are likely to be lost or degraded the most under this alternative, affecting special status wildlife species proportionately.
Alternative C provides riparian/wetland communities the least protection compared to other alternatives. The BLM manages all riparian/wetland areas toward meeting PFC, but only prioritizes those in a nonfunctioning condition or with a downward trend. Alternative C is likely to result in the greatest amount of degraded riparian/wetland habitat.
In general, proactive management under Alternative C provides fewer benefits and mitigates adverse impacts to special status wildlife species to a lesser extent than alternatives A, B, and D. Impacts due to proactive management, and other impacts, are described in detail under each special status wildlife species category below.
Alternative C has the fewest seasonal closures and restrictions of big game winter ranges and migration corridors and the greatest potential for habitat fragmentation and disturbance to wildlife by exempting Oil and Gas Management Areas and ROW corridors from seasonal wildlife stipulations. Adverse impacts from livestock grazing under Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative A, but to a greater extent from allowing domestic sheep grazing in more areas. Overall, adverse impacts to the grizzly bear are anticipated to be the greatest under Alternative C.
Under Alternative C, there are no specific management actions for gray wolves; however, management actions that protect the habitats gray wolves and their prey (primarily elk) utilize would benefit gray wolves in the Planning Area. Management actions limiting human activities, ROW development such as roads, and habitat fragmentation also would benefit gray wolves. See Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife for more detail on impacts to big game.
Allowing the most timber harvesting (e.g., clear cutting up to 100 acres), mechanical fuels treatments, and prescribed burns under Alternative C would result in the greatest short-term adverse impacts to gray wolves from disturbance and displacement and less long-term beneficial impacts than under Alternative A from timber harvesting that does not protect habitat values. Additionally, allowing timber management roads to remain open for recreational use would adversely impact gray wolves by allowing more human access and potential disturbance, illegal hunting, and habitat fragmentation.
Under Alternative C, seasonal buffers prohibiting surface disturbance around active raptor nests are smaller in size than under alternatives A, B, and D. Alternative C results in the greatest amount of road development (2,319 acres) causing greater habitat fragmentation and risk of vehicle collisions than the other alternatives (Appendix T). Alternative C implements the same seasonal restrictions on big game crucial winter range with regards to surface disturbance, but exempts Oil and Gas Management Areas and ROW corridors and opens the Absaroka Front Management Area to mineral, renewable energy, and ROW developments, and motorized vehicle use. Based on more surface disturbance, more potential habitat fragmentation from roads, and a larger area open to cross-country motorized travel, Alternative C results in the fewest beneficial impacts to gray wolves, compared to the other alternatives.
Estimated short- and long-term surface disturbance from BLM actions under Alternative C are greater than alternatives A, B, and D (Table 4-1), resulting in the greatest potential for loss, degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats. Alternative C does not include specific management actions for management of large, contiguous blocks of BLM-administered land by enhancing or maintaining plant communities. Similar to Alternative A, the BLM allows wind-energy projects on a case-by-case basis under Alternative C, but manages some areas as renewable energy exclusion areas (151,506 acres), which may result in less adverse impacts than under Alternative A.
Alternative C requires 30 percent desired vegetative cover within three growing seasons, but has no other specific reclamation requirements of disturbed areas; however, the BLM requires reclamation plans on a case-by-case basis, placing more emphasis on reclamation than Alternative A, but not as much as alternatives B and D. Overall, because surface disturbance and habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are greater than under the other alternatives and the reclamation requirements are comparable to Alternative A and less than alternatives B and D, the associated adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse habitats from these activities would be the greatest under Alternative C.
Alternative C uses wildland fire and treatments to restore fire adapted ecosystems in the Planning Area. Establishing the natural fire regime in fire-adapted ecosystems and reducing fuel loads in the Planning Area may reduce the potential for more intense fires that can destroy sagebrush habitat. Due to the large area treated with prescribed fire (80,000 acres), the long-term benefits to the greater sage-grouse from fire and fuels management under Alternative C are greater than under alternatives A, B, and D.
In general, Alternative C has the same requirements as Alternative A to establish vegetative cover in disturbed areas, but does not require the reestablishment of native plant communities; the BLM reestablishes plant communities to increase commodity production to meet other resource objectives. Alternative C, because it has the most projected surface disturbance and does not require native vegetation reestablishment, has the greatest potential adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat due to the continued establishment and spread of invasive species.
Alternative C opens the Planning Area to livestock grazing similarly to Alternative A, but the BLM manages livestock grazing to optimize commodity production while meeting rangeland health standards, not to provide for the enhancement of other resources. Livestock grazing is also subject to less stringent monitoring under Alternative C. As livestock grazing can adversely affect greater sage-grouse habitat if intensity and timing are not properly managed, Alternative C results in the greatest adverse impacts to the greater sage-grouse in this regard. The effects of wild horse grazing in HMAs would be similar to those under Alternative A.
Special designations under Alternative C would provide less beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse than the other alternatives. ACECs designated under this alternative encompass the least area of greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas (Table 4-9).
Proactive management actions under Alternative C would limit adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse similarly to those under Alternative A, but to a lesser extent. Under Alternative C, the BLM places similar restrictions on oil and gas development in greater sage-grouse habitat and applies protective buffers around greater sage-grouse leks, but exempts Oil and Gas Management Areas and ROW corridors from discretionary wildlife seasonal stipulations. Exempting Oil and Gas Management areas from seasonal stipulations would result in adverse impacts to approximately 35 greater sage-grouse leks in these areas. Limiting noise sources to 10 dBA above natural, ambient noise during the greater sage-grouse breeding season would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative B, but to a lesser extent. Overall, proactive management actions under Alternative C would limit adverse impacts to the greater sage-grouse less than the other alternatives.
Surface-disturbing activities, fire and fuels management, invasive species control, motorized vehicle use, livestock grazing (Johnson and Horn 2008; Torre et al. 2007; Jones 2000), and management actions for biological resources would impact special status raptors more under Alternative C than under alternatives A, B, or D. Under Alternative C, restrictions around raptor nests (53,336 acres) are less extensive than the other alternatives. Though TLS are species specific as under Alternative B, the reduced buffer distance is likely to result in the greatest disturbance to raptor nests under Alternative C. Alternative C is projected to result in more surface disturbance than the other alternatives and, therefore, will have a greater adverse impact on bald eagle terrestrial foraging habitat.
The BLM projects the most powerline development under Alternative C, resulting in the greatest potential adverse impact to raptors from electrocution. The BLM allows wind-energy development in raptor concentration areas on a case-by-case basis, which may result in greater adverse impacts to raptors than alternatives B and D, but less than Alternative A. The BLM allows clear cuts up to 100 acres under this alternative, which would result in a greater adverse impact to raptors that prefer closed canopy habitat than under Alternative A. Forest salvage operations are performed where economically feasible without an appropriate level of snag retention, potentially adversely affecting raptors by degrading habitat; however, because Alternative C retains old growth forests, greater beneficial impacts would result under this alternative than under Alternative A.
Management actions for invasive species control under Alternative C would result in similar special status raptor habitat quality impacts as under Alternative A. Management actions for fire management under Alternative C may, more than the other alternatives in the long term, reduce the potential for catastrophic fire that would adversely impact special status raptor species habitat. Based on these actions, Alternative C would result in greater adverse impacts to special status raptor species habitats than the other alternatives.
Alternative C is anticipated to improve rangeland productivity primarily for livestock grazing, with less area closed to livestock grazing and less forage available for wildlife. Livestock grazing has been shown to reduce raptor prey in arid ecosystems and grasslands (Johnson and Horn 2008; Torre et al. 2007; Jones 2000). Livestock grazing management under Alternative C would result in similar adverse impacts to those under Alternative A, but to a greater extent.
Impacts from recreational use to bald eagles under Alternative C would be similar to Alternative A, but to a lesser extent. Managing lands along the Bighorn River for wildlife habitat, river health, and wildlife resources with less emphasis on recreation would result in fewer adverse impacts to bald eagles from human activity.
Under Alternative C, short- and long-term surface disturbance would be the greatest, resulting in the greatest adverse impacts to breeding and nesting habitats for special status neotropical migrants, compared to the other alternatives. The impacts from wind-energy development under Alternative C are likely to be similar to Alternative A, as projected development is the same across all alternatives and Alternative C manages the least acreage (151,506 acres) as renewable energy exclusion areas, compared to alternatives B and D.
Sagebrush and Shrubland Species – Measures that adversely affect the greater sage-grouse under Alternative C, as discussed under Game Birds, would result in similar impacts to other sagebrush and shrubland species. Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impacts to these species.
Grassland Species – Actions such as surface-disturbing activities, reclamation, invasive species control, and wild horse and livestock grazing in grassland habitats would affect grassland special status neotropical migrant species. Alternative C would result in more fragmentation of grassland habitat compared to the other alternatives. Protective measures for the mountain plover are similar to Alternative B, but the larger amount of surface disturbance, especially the disturbance allowed in all prairie dog towns, may result in the greatest adverse impacts to nesting habitat for this species and the long-billed curlew. However, fewer restrictions on livestock grazing and measures to manage for areas of sparse vegetation under Alternative C may benefit mountain plover by increasing its habitat..
Riparian/Wetland Species – Although no specific management actions for special status neotropical migrants utilizing riparian/wetland areas are identified under Alternative C, other biological resource management actions, particularly those pertaining to water and riparian/wetland habitats, would affect these species. Under Alternative C, actively managing less area for riparian habitat enhancement, allowing surface-disturbing activities in riparian/wetland areas on a case-by-case basis, and allowing the placement of forage supplements to maximize livestock use, regardless of proximity to riparian/wetland areas would result in the most adverse impacts to special status neotropical migrants that prefer these habitats.
Surface-disturbing activities, invasive species control, fire and fuels management, livestock grazing management, and management actions for biological resources would impact special status nongame mammals. Long-term surface disturbance under Alternative C is the greatest compared to all alternatives, likely resulting in proportional adverse impacts to these species.
Sagebrush and Shrubland Species – Measures that adversely affect the greater sage-grouse under Alternative C, as discussed under Game Birds, would result in similar impacts to special status nongame mammals in sagebrush and shrubland communities. Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impacts to sagebrush and shrubland nongame mammals from surface disturbance and livestock grazing and has the fewest measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities to prairie dogs and the associated mountain plover habitat. Although more active fuels treatments to prevent large wildfires may provide a long-term benefit to sagebrush and shrubland nongame mammals, the amount of habitat destroyed from long-term surface disturbance is likely to outweigh this benefit.
Forest and Woodland Species – Under Alternative C, there are no specific management actions for Canada lynx; however, management actions that protect the habitats Canada lynx and their prey (primarily snowshoe hare) utilize would result in beneficial impacts to Canada lynx. Under Alternative C, short-term impacts from silviculture and fuels treatments may temporarily result in adverse impacts to Canada lynx; however, over the long term these treatments may improve Canada lynx habitat and the habitats of its prey species. Precommercial thinning and clear-cutting up to 100 acres would retain less woody debris than Alternative A, resulting in similar adverse impacts, but to a greater extent. However, retaining old growth forests and adopting connectivity of these areas where feasible would result in similar beneficial impacts to those under Alternative B. Smaller buffer areas around raptor nests and allowing surface-disturbing activities in riparian/wetland areas would result in more adverse impacts to Canada lynx from habitat destruction and potential disturbance. Overall, Alternative C would result in more adverse impacts to Canada lynx habitats than Alternative A due to less restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and more intensive timber harvesting methods.
Cave Species –Surface-disturbing activities near caves, cliffs, or other rock features may impact bats using caves for roosting, maternity colonies, or hibernation. Alternative C manages caves for recreational use, allows activities in AML areas, and does not close caves during critical periods for bats, resulting in the greatest potential adverse impact to bat species. Impacts to bats from wind-energy development under Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative A.
Potential impacts to special status amphibian species would be correlated with impacts to riparian/wetland habitats. The adverse impacts under Alternative C are similar to those described for special status neotropical migrants that use riparian/wetland habitats and greater than under alternatives A, B, and D. Potential adverse impacts to the Great Basin spadefoot toad are correlated with impacts to sagebrush habitats and are anticipated to be similar to those described for special status neotropical migrants and greater sage-grouse; these impacts would be greater under Alternative C than under the other alternatives. See Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife for more information on impacts to amphibians.
Estimated short- and long-term surface disturbance from BLM actions in the Planning Area (Table 4-1) under Alternative D would result in similar loss, degradation, and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat as under Alternative A. However, measures to limit erosion and reclaim and restore habitat implemented under Alternative D are likely to mitigate adverse impacts from surface disturbance more than under Alternative A.
Minerals development under Alternative D would result in similar adverse impacts to special status wildlife species as under Alternative A, but to a lesser extent. Alternative D has the second most area open to locatable minerals development, but the second least area open to oil and gas development, with more area closed than alternatives A and C in sagebrush habitat to limit impacts to greater sage-grouse. Alternative D is projected to result in 1,032 new federal wells that would impact special status wildlife species from habitat loss and noise disturbance more than Alternative B, but less than alternatives A and C.
The BLM projects that Alternative D would result in the same amount of powerline development as Alternative A with similar potential adverse impacts to raptors. Alternative D manages the greatest area as renewable energy avoidance/mitigation areas, and the second-most area as renewable energy exclusion areas. Impacts from ROW and wind-energy development under Alternative D would result in more adverse impacts to special status wildlife species than under Alternative B, but less than under alternatives A and C.
Alternative D closes a similar amount of acreage as Alternative A to motorized vehicle use, and limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in the second-largest area, including essential and recovery habitat for threatened and endangered species. Adverse impacts from motorized vehicle use under Alternative D would be greater than under Alternative B, but less than under alternatives A and C.
Livestock grazing management under Alternative D would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A. However, livestock grazing management under Alternative D may provide some benefits because the BLM uses livestock grazing management in certain areas, such as special status wildlife species habitat, to maintain or improve resource conditions.
Special designations under Alternative D would result in similar beneficial impacts as those under Alternative B, but to a lesser extent. Alternative D designates less area as ACECs, does not recommend any WSR eligible waterway segments as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS and implements fewer restrictions on resource uses and activities to protect special status wildlife species habitat in these areas.
Impacts to special status wildlife species from fire and fuels management and forests, woodlands, and forest products management under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative A, except that by allowing larger areas to be clear cut under Alternative D, there would be more habitat loss for special status wildlife species that prefer closed canopies, such as certain raptors and Canada lynx. However, Alternative D includes management actions to retain old-growth forests that would benefit these species more than Alternative A.
Beneficial impacts to special status wildlife species from grassland and shrubland community management under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative B, although to a lesser extent. The BLM manages to achieve or make progress toward achieving 65 percent – instead of 75 percent under Alternative B – or more of Historical Climax Plant Community under Alternative D, resulting in less beneficial impacts to special status wildlife species habitat than Alternative B. However, Alternative D would treat more area for invasive species than Alternative B, providing greater long-term beneficial impact by preventing the spread of invasive species that may degrade special status wildlife species habitat. Livestock flushing practices would result in impacts to grassland and shrubland communities similar to those under Alternative A.
The management of riparian/wetland resources under Alternative D would result in similar beneficial impacts as those under Alternative C, but to a greater extent. Habitat would improve, but additional management would be necessary to ensure that habitat meets life history requirements for various special status wildlife species. Alternative D applies more restrictions to surface-disturbing activities near riparian/wetland areas than Alternative C, limiting adverse impacts from surface disturbance. Overall, beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland habitat for special status wildlife species under Alternative D would be greater than under alternatives A and C, but less than under Alternative B.
In general, proactive management actions under Alternative D provide more benefits and mitigate adverse impacts to special status wildlife species to a greater extent than under alternatives A and C, but less than under Alternative B. Impacts due to proactive management and other impacts are described in detail under each special status wildlife species category below.
Alternative D exempts Oil and Gas Management Areas from discretionary big game seasonal stipulations, but applies more restrictions and seasonal closures in big game habitat, around active raptor nests, and in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas than alternatives A and C that would limit adverse impacts to grizzly bear. Impacts from livestock grazing management on grizzly bear under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative A.
Under Alternative D, there are no specific management actions for gray wolves; however, management actions that protect the habitats gray wolves and their prey (primarily elk) utilize would benefit gray wolves in the Planning Area. See Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife for more detail on impacts to big game. Management actions limiting human activities, ROW development such as roads, and habitat fragmentation under Alternative D would benefit gray wolves more than under alternatives A and C, but less than under Alternative B. Forests and woodlands management under Alternative D would result in impacts to gray wolves similar to those under Alternative A. Habitat enhancement in sagebrush and aspen habitats under Alternative D would result in limited beneficial impacts to gray wolves, similar to Alternative C.
Estimated short- and long-term surface disturbance from BLM actions under Alternative D are similar to Alternative A, with greater restrictions on oil and gas development in sagebrush habitat (Table 4-8) and more area closed to oil and gas development in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas (Table 4-9). Alternative D manages the most area as wind-energy avoidance/mitigation areas and the second-most area as wind-energy exclusion areas limiting adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse to a greater extent than alternatives A and C, but to a lesser extent than Alternative B.
Reclamation practices under Alternative D that mitigate impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat from surface disturbance are similar to those under Alternative A, but would result in greater beneficial impacts from reestablishing native or DPCs based on pre-disturbance or desired species composition, requiring temporary surface treatments to facilitate reclamation of disturbed areas, and considering reclamation achieved only if conditions are equal to or better than pre-disturbance conditions.
Fire and fuels management under Alternative D would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A. Livestock grazing management also would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, although there may be more beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse from allowing livestock grazing, even in closed areas, to improve greater sage-grouse habitat condition (WGFD and BLM 2007 and Holechek et al. 2006). The effects of wild horse grazing in HMAs would be similar to those under Alternative A.
Special designations under Alternative D would protect the second-most area in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas, providing more beneficial impacts to greater sage-grouse than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B.
Overall, proactive management under Alternative D would minimize adverse impacts to the greater sage-grouse more than under alternatives A and C, but less than under Alternative B. Proactive management actions to restrict resource uses and activities in greater sage-grouse habitat would minimize adverse impacts similarly to Alternative B, although to a lesser extent. Key Habitat Areas are open to mineral leasing under Alternative D with restrictive buffers around occupied and undetermined leks. Overall, resource use and activity restrictions under Alternative D would minimize impacts to greater sage-grouse in Key Habitat Areas more than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B. Outside of Key Habitat Areas, restrictions on resource uses and activities would result in similar beneficial impacts as under Alternative B, although to a lesser extent. The BLM implements proactive management actions to both occupied and undetermined leks, although resource use and activity restrictions, and the extent to which they are applied, are generally greater under Alternative B than under Alternative D. The BLM maintains the goal of consolidating anthropogenic features on the landscape to minimize greater sage-grouse habitat fragmentation under Alternative D, but does not implement it with a CSU stipulation, as under Alternative B.
Surface-disturbing activities, fire and fuels management, invasive species spread, and livestock grazing (Johnson and Horn 2008; Torre et al. 2007; Jones 2000) under Alternative D would impact special status raptors more than under Alternative B, but less than under alternatives A and C. Seasonal restrictions on surface-disturbing activities around active raptor nests are species-specific in timing and more extensive than Alternative C. Alternative D also applies a year-round CSU stipulation with similar beneficial impacts as under Alternative B. Alternative D is projected to result in more surface disturbance than alternatives A and B, with impacts to special status raptor terrestrial foraging habitat similar to Alternative A.
Powerline and wind-energy development under Alternative D would result in similar adverse impacts to those under Alternative A, although to a greater extent, as Alternative D manages more land as ROW exclusion or avoidance/mitigation areas.
Impacts to raptor terrestrial foraging areas from surface disturbance, fire and fuels management, invasive species control, and livestock grazing would be similar to impacts under Alternative A. Vegetation management in these habitats (i.e., managing toward 65 percent or more of Historical Climax Plant Community) would result in more beneficial impacts than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B.
Riparian/wetland resources management and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in these areas under Alternative D would result in less adverse impacts to bald eagles than under alternatives A and C, but greater than under Alternative B. Recreational development at Wardel and Harrington reservoirs under Alternative D result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A. Impacts from recreational use in the Bighorn River area would be similar to those under Alternative B, although to a lesser extent because under Alternative D, the BLM would manage the Bighorn River ERMA in the CYFO for resource protection, among other objectives, with less emphasis on recreation.
Projected short- and long-term surface disturbance under Alternative D would result in similar adverse impacts to neotropical migrants as those under Alternative A. Impacts to neotropical migrants from wind-energy development would be greater than Alternative B, but less than alternatives A and C.
Sagebrush and Shrubland Species – Measures to protect and reduce potentially adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse, as discussed under Game Birds, benefit special status sagebrush and shrubland species. In general, Alternative D places the second-most restrictions on mineral development in sagebrush habitat and has the second-most stringent requirements for reclamation, resulting in the second-least adverse impact to neotropical migrants that depend on sagebrush and shrubland habitats.
Grassland Species – Management actions to limit habitat fragmentation in grasslands under Alternative D would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative B. Management actions for white-tailed prairie dogs (see Nongame [Mammals]) may affect the mountain plover and long-billed curlew. Livestock grazing management would result in impacts similar in extent to those under Alternative A but with similar benefits to alternatives B and C from managing grazing in certain areas to create mountain plover habitat. Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and mineral development in the Chapman Bench Management Area would result in similar beneficial impacts to those under Alternative B, but to a lesser extent.
Riparian/Wetland Species – Biological resource management actions pertaining to water and riparian/wetland habitats would affect special status neotropical migrant species in these areas. Impacts from riparian/wetland resources management under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative C. Under Alternative D, impacts from surface-disturbing activities and livestock grazing would be less than under Alternative C, but similar to Alternative A.
Surface-disturbing activities, invasive species control, fire and fuels management, livestock grazing management, and management actions for biological resources would impact special status nongame mammals. Long-term surface disturbance under Alternative D would result in similar adverse impacts as those under Alternative A.
Sagebrush and Shrubland Species – Measures that adversely affect the greater sage-grouse under Alternative C, as discussed under Game Birds, would have similar impacts to special status nongame mammals in sagebrush and shrubland communities. Minerals development under Alternative D, based on restrictions applied in sagebrush habitat (Table 4-8) would result in more adverse impacts than under Alternative B, but less than under alternatives A and C. Fire and fuels management under Alternative D would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A. Conservation measures, terms and conditions, and BMPs would minimize impacts to prairie dogs similarly to Alternative A. Measures to limit habitat fragmentation and NSO restrictions on prairie dog colonies suitable for black-footed ferret reintroduction would limit adverse impacts to these species similarly to Alternative B.
Forest and Woodland Species – Under Alternative D, there are no specific management actions for Canada lynx; however, restrictions on surface-disturbing activities around active raptor nests would result in greater beneficial impacts than under alternatives A and C, due to a year-round CSU stipulation, but less than under Alternative B. Silviculture treatments and fire and fuels management practices under Alternative D would result in similar adverse impacts to those under Alternative A, but to a greater extent by allowing larger clear cuts and precommercial thinning. However, Alternative D does retain old growth forests, which would benefit Canada lynx similarly to alternatives B and C.
Cave Species – Alternative D closes caves during critical bat periods and allows activities in AML areas if the impacts can be avoided or mitigated, limiting adverse impacts to special status bat species similarly to Alternative B, but to a lesser degree.
Potential impacts to special status amphibians are correlated with impacts to riparian/wetland habitats. Adverse impacts under Alternative D would be less than those under alternatives A and C, but more than those under Alternative B. Impacts to the Great Basin spadefoot toad are proportional to impacts to sagebrush habitat, which would be less than those under alternatives A and C, but more than those under Alternative B. See Section 4.4.6 Fish and Wildlife Resources - Wildlife for more information on impacts to amphibians.