Impacts on livestock grazing would generally be the result of activities affecting forage quantity/production or quality in grazing allotments, such as vegetation treatments, and management that constrains or enhances livestock grazing management. Surface-disturbing activities, fire and fuels management and vegetation treatments, invasive species, grazing and surface-disturbance restrictions intended to protect resources, and proactive management actions have the greatest impact on livestock grazing in the Planning Area.
Mining of locatable, leasable, and salable minerals would affect soils and vegetation communities and would result in a loss of forage in developed areas. Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities associated with all types of mineral and geophysical exploration and development are subject to the Wyoming BLM Standard Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (Appendix H), which would help to reduce impacts to livestock forage through the application of standard mitigation. Compared to the other minerals, locatable minerals development would result in the largest acreage of surface disturbance and would have the greatest short-term and long-term impacts to available livestock forage.
The revegetation of disturbed areas, resulting from reclamation of oil and gas drilling and other operations, would occur under all the alternatives and would reduce the long-term adverse impacts to forage. Even with successful reclamation, there may be a permanent loss of available livestock forage in the form of limited or lost access to grazing areas from road and industrial facility development. This development may result in temporary or long-term closure of affected allotments or in reductions in grazing preference in developing or producing gas fields. The construction and improvement of roads associated with minerals development may provide livestock operators with better access to livestock and would enhance their ability to maintain improvements. Disturbed areas associated with nonproducing wells would result in short-term impacts, as they would be reclaimed quickly and most forage production would be restored. Typically, livestock concentrate on newly reclaimed areas and forage utilization decreases on the native rangeland. Although utilization levels may vary from year to year, utilization levels that remain consistently high would not be expected to meet watershed and vegetation management objectives. Adjustments in livestock management to meet these objectives may result in temporary adverse impacts. Appendix W describes the appropriate utilization levels for key species in the Planning Area.
The presence and extent of invasive plant species in an area affects rangeland health and forage productivity. Invasive plant species displace native vegetation and, because they typically are unpalatable to livestock and wildlife, often remain ungrazed. Invasive plant species may spread or become established as a result of surface-disturbing activities, motorized vehicle use, or dispersal by livestock or wildlife. Surface-disturbing activities include mechanical disturbance, such as construction of well pads, roads, pits, reservoirs, pipelines, and powerlines; mining; and vegetation treatments. Even when reclamation occurs, allotments where surface-disturbing activities have occurred may experience increased invasive plant species infestations over both the short and long term. The prevention and treatment of areas infested with invasive species are required under all alternatives. Management of invasive species would temporarily displace livestock and reduce the available forage, but would also maintain or improve rangeland health and forage quality over the long term.
Land disposals would result in adverse impacts if they reduced the available AUMs in active grazing allotments. Typically, land disposals occur on small, isolated parcels of BLM-administered land, with the goal being the consolidation of land ownership to enhance management of resource values. Exchange is the preferred method for all land tenure adjustments, and changes in AUMs resulting from any exchange would be site-specific and depend on the qualities of the both the disposal and acquisition parcels. However, because the land acquired is often located some distance from the disposal parcels, impacts to individual allotments due to AUM loss may occur.
The development of ROWs would result in both short-term and long-term reductions in forage. ROW authorizations for permanent facilities or roads would result in long-term reductions in forage. ROW authorizations that include only initial disturbance would be reclaimed to reduce long-term impacts to livestock grazing resulting from reductions in forage.
Allowing motorized vehicle use and recreational use and development would result in adverse impacts to livestock grazing through damage to soils and livestock forage, but would also benefit livestock grazing management activities. Adverse impacts from allowing motorized vehicles may include gates being left open by recreationists, the displacement of livestock from heavily used areas, or a reduction in forage palatability from the spread of invasive plants along motorized travel corridors and an increase in dust on forage near areas of heavy motorized vehicle use. Beneficial impacts from less restrictive motorized vehicle use management would include improved access for permittees to reach livestock and to develop range improvements; closures would result in adverse impacts to access for permittees with allotments in these areas.
Provided resource damage does not occur and new roadways are not created, the BLM authorizes necessary tasks requiring off‐road use of motorized vehicles under all the alternatives in areas not designated as closed to motorized vehicle use.
The BLM allows the development of range improvement projects (e.g., fences and spring developments) in portions of the Planning Area under all the alternatives, which would generally result in long-term beneficial impacts to rangeland health and livestock grazing management. Range improvement projects allow livestock managers and permittees to better implement grazing management practices and manage the distribution and movement of livestock in allotments. Adverse impacts associated with the construction of fencing, water pipelines, and other range improvements would include short-term impacts to forage; revegetation would usually occur within several growing seasons. Long-term adverse impacts associated with the construction of range improvements may include undesirable changes to livestock grazing patterns and distribution in an allotment, congregation of livestock and wildlife around new water sources, and changes in livestock trailing patterns that alter vegetation or affect rangeland health. Any long-term adverse impacts from range improvements would be site-specific in nature.
Prohibition of surface-disturbing activities associated with some special designations would result in adverse impacts to livestock grazing because they would limit the ability to construct range improvements (e.g., along the Nez Perce [Neeme-poo] NHT) or require additional mitigation for their construction (e.g., the Brown/Howe Dinosaur Area ACEC) that may increase the cost of such improvements.
Management actions to prevent or mitigate soil loss would generally result in beneficial impacts to vegetation, which would increase livestock forage production and quality. All alternatives maintain existing watershed improvement projects; use BMPs to reduce runoff, soil erosion, and sediment yield; and subject all surface-disturbing activities associated with mineral and geophysical exploration and development to application of the Wyoming BLM Standard Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (Appendix H). Projects designed to enhance watershed health would enhance vegetation resources by reducing erosion and improving water quality, thereby increasing forage and water for livestock over the long term. However, adjustments in livestock management that may be needed to meet or maintain riparian habitat requirements, PFC, and water quality objectives may result in temporary adverse impacts. Surface disturbance associated with the implementation of such watershed enhancement projects would also result in short-term site-specific adverse impacts to livestock forage.
Water can be a limiting factor for livestock grazing management, especially during drought, affecting livestock survival and distribution. Water developments designed to provide new water sources for wildlife or livestock would result in beneficial impacts to livestock through increased water availability. New water sources may also promote improved distribution of livestock by opening areas to grazing where a lack of water was previously the limiting factor.
The continued closure of 4,805 acres along the Bighorn River to most livestock grazing occurs under all alternatives and would restrict livestock grazing in the area and reduce the available forage base.
Wildland fire and fuels management would have varying impacts to livestock grazing, depending on fire size, intensity, and climatic factors. Wildland fire may result in adverse impacts such as the spread of invasive plant species, the destruction of range improvements, the displacement of livestock, and short-term impacts to livestock forage. With proper stabilization and rehabilitation, long-term impacts of wildland fire would generally be beneficial due to improvements in forage quality, quantity, and availability following the fire. For a period after a fire in shrubland communities, there would be enhanced forage production as herbaceous vegetation becomes temporarily dominant.
Vegetation treatments designed to reduce fuel hazards, improve wildlife habitat, enhance vegetation production or plant community health, or regenerate plant communities would result in long-term beneficial impacts to livestock grazing by increasing forage availability. Vegetation treatments would also result in short-term reductions in forage even though they are designed and conducted in accordance with the rangeland health requirements in the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix N).
Wildlife and special status species habitat management would affect livestock grazing by restricting the placement of range improvement projects and potentially affecting the ability to implement grazing management practices. Management of greater sage-grouse habitat, white-tailed prairie dog towns, and the Bighorn River HMP/RAMP and Yellowtail Wildlife Habitat Management Area would affect the location, cost, required mitigation, and design standards and BMPs of range improvements. In addition, the maintenance of sagebrush and understory diversity in crucial seasonal greater sage-grouse habitat may result in an adverse impact by reducing the time livestock could graze in an area, changes in seasons of use, and, in some cases, result in temporary removal of livestock until vegetation treatments are in place. In areas where DPC is being met, current grazing practices would continue and there would be no adverse impacts. Wild horses and livestock generally rely on the same resources, so the appropriate management level (i.e., herd size) of wild horses in the Planning Area may affect forage availability for livestock. The initial appropriate management levels in the two HMAs do not vary across alternatives.
Cultural and paleontological resource management may have adverse impacts to livestock grazing through the removal of forage during site excavations, or through restrictions on the design and placement of range improvements. For example, the BLM requires avoidance of surface-disturbing activities in areas near scientifically significant paleontological resource sites, which may affect the placement of range improvements. VRM may also affect the location or design of range improvements in visually sensitive areas.
The application of the Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for the Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the State of Wyoming (Appendix N), BMPs, requirements that forage supplements be weed free, the use of rangeland health assessments, and the development of range improvement projects would result in beneficial impacts to livestock grazing from increased forage quality and quantity and improved rangeland health. The intent of any grazing management practices and range improvement projects is to improve the quality or quantity of forage, thereby enhancing grazing management flexibility. These practices may increase costs to the livestock permittees associated with increased livestock herding and maintenance of range improvements. Under all alternatives, AMPs remain in effect or are revised as necessary, and the Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for the Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the State of Wyoming are applied across the Planning Area. Livestock grazing management actions are designed to enhance rangeland health, improve forage for livestock, and meet other multiple-use objectives through the application of these standards, other appropriate BMPs (see Appendices L and X), and the use of appropriate range improvements.
Management actions under Alternative A are projected to result in approximately 136,415 acres of surface disturbance on BLM-administered land over the life of the plan (Appendix T); this disturbance would result in the short-term loss of approximately 12,991 AUMs, or roughly 650 AUMs per year. Most of this acreage, 120,705 acres, would be reclaimed in the short term, reducing the long-term loss of AUMs. Table 4-17 lists the total long-term loss of AUMs under Alternative A due to surface disturbance and the loss of active AUMs due to livestock grazing closures (Map 65). The baseline active AUMs for the Planning Area were 305,887 in 2009 and, therefore, the loss of AUMs under this alternative would represent less than a one percent reduction.
Management actions under Alternative A are projected to result in approximately 136,415 acres of surface disturbance on BLM-administered land over the life of the plan (Appendix T); this disturbance would result in the short-term loss of approximately 12,991 AUMs, or roughly 650 AUMs per year. Most of this acreage, 120,705 acres, would be reclaimed in the short term, reducing the long-term loss of AUMs. lists the total long-term loss of AUMs under Alternative A due to surface disturbance and the loss of active AUMs due to livestock grazing closures (Map 65). The baseline active AUMs for the Planning Area were 305,887 in 2009 and, therefore, the loss of AUMs under this alternative would represent less than a 1 percent reduction.
Table 4.17. Change in Active Animal Unit Months (AUMs) by Alternative
| Alternative A | Alternative B | Alternative C | Alternative D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acres Closed to Livestock Grazing | 5,172 | 1,988,927 | 5,171 | 5,172 |
| AUMs Lost1 | 173 | 162,890 | 173 | 173 |
| Acres of Long-Term Disturbance | 15,710 | 10,882 | 41,545 | 18,443 |
| AUMs Lost2 | 1,496 | 1,036 | 3,957 | 1,756 |
| Total Loss of AUMs (long term) | 1,670 | 163,927 | 4,130 | 1,930 |
Source: BLM 2009a
1Active AUMs in grazing allotments.
2Because it is not possible to determine the exact allotments where there will be surface disturbance, AUMs lost to long-term surface disturbance were calculated using the Planning Area average of 10.5 acres per AUM.
Silviculture treatments may benefit livestock grazing management where they reduce canopy cover and increase understory forage. Under Alternative A, precommercial thinning in overstocked and regenerated timber sale areas for trees in the 20‐ to 30‐year age class, timber harvesting in commercial forestland to protect and benefit ecosystem functions, and clear cuts subject to certain stipulations may benefit livestock grazing management. The use of silvicultural treatments may also result in beneficial impacts by moving forests and woodlands towards DPC, though the degree to which these treatments would move areas towards DPC would depend on the location, timing, and other factors of treatments. Silvicultural treatments that move areas toward DPC would make more forage available for herbivory by stimulating herbaceous plant growth in the forest and woodland understory.
Alternative A may result in additional expense or delay to grazing permittees as it allows livestock flushing on a case-by-case basis to avoid the dispersal of invasive species.
Under Alternative A, the BLM closes approximately 59,192 acres to motorized vehicle use. These closures may have an adverse impact on permittee access to livestock and range improvements but would result in a beneficial impact to rangeland health and forage palatability, as described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.
Special designations under Alternative A would result in adverse impacts to the development of range improvements due to management that prohibits, or requires avoidance of, surface-disturbing activities. ACECs under Alternative A with such management include Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite, Sheep Mountain Anticline (above caves and cave passages), Carter Mountain, Five Springs Falls, and Upper Owl Creek. Alternative A also requires avoidance of surface-disturbing activities in view within ¼ mile of the Nez Perce (Neeme-poo) NHT and the Bridger Trail and Fort Washakie to Meeteetse to Red Lodge Trail and prohibits the construction of range improvements along 11 WSR eligible segments. Other areas, such as the Brown/Howe Dinosaur Area ACEC, require mitigation or avoidance of impairment following surface disturbance to limit adverse impacts to vegetation.
Under Alternative A, the management of the Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC and all WSR eligible waterway segments may restrict livestock grazing use. Alternative A closes the interpretive area of the Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC to livestock grazing and manages all WSRs to prevent an increase in actual grazing use. The closure of the interpretive area would not affect the AUMs for the surrounding allotment, but restrictions on grazing in the WSR eligible segments would prohibit any upward adjustments to grazing in these areas, regardless of on-the-ground rangeland conditions.
Under Alternative A, the BLM routinely seeds, or requires permittees and operators to seed, disturbed areas with native plant species and requires that vegetation cover of disturbed soils be reestablished within 5 years of initial seeding. These reclamation requirements would benefit livestock forage by promoting short-term forage recovery in areas where surface disturbance has occurred and preventing degradation of rangeland health due to soil loss.
Under Alternative A, beneficial long-term impacts to grassland and shrubland health would occur by managing grassland and shrubland communities within 600,000 acres of BLM-administered land toward DPC objectives for watershed protection and livestock grazing. Managing towards DPC objectives improves forage for livestock and wildlife, improves overall DPC health and plant vigor, and reduces potential erosion. However, because these management actions are implemented on only a small fraction of grassland and shrubland communities, Alternative A would have limited beneficial long-term impacts to grassland and shrublands and associated forage for herbivory.
Allowing the surface discharge of produced water if it meets state of Wyoming water quality standards and making this water available for use on a case-by-case basis would benefit livestock by increasing water availability and may improve livestock distribution.
Management under this alternative prohibits surface‐disturbing activities within 500 feet of surface water and riparian/wetland areas (55,586 acres) except when such activities are necessary and their impacts can be mitigated, which may affect the use of range improvements. This management may result in adverse impacts to the placement of range improvements in these areas or increased costs from increased mitigation requirements.
Under Alternative A, the BLM manages wildland fires to restore fire‐adapted ecosystems and to reduce hazardous fuels, resulting in short-term adverse impacts from forage loss, but long-term beneficial impacts to forage production. The impact of management under this alternative would be progress towards a balance of herbaceous and woody vegetation in treated areas that would provide forage for livestock. Reducing the accumulation of hazardous fuels would have the beneficial impact of reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires. In areas where fuels exceed historical levels, intense fires would result in the loss of forage over an area, as they may destroy the seeds of perennial grasses and shrubs and alter soils in ways that increase the risk of invasive species establishment. Alternative A would result in the second-greatest area of fuel treatments and prescribed fire with proportional impacts to livestock grazing.
Most of the total projected prescribed fire and fuels treatment acreage (70,000 acres) under Alternative A would be applied to grassland and shrubland communities not meeting DPC objectives. FRCC Classes 2 and 3 have the highest risk of catastrophic fire or of having lost or losing key ecosystem components. There is a risk in these areas that the vegetation management acreage under Alternative A would be inadequate to reduce fuel conditions enough to substantially diminish the risk of catastrophic fire and prevent associated adverse impacts to livestock grazing.
Alternative A prohibits the placement of salt, mineral, or forage supplements within ¼ mile of water, wetlands, riparian areas, reclaimed or reforested areas, or as determined by the authorized officer, which would beneficially impact livestock by distributing herbivory to maintain vegetation health and plant vigor across the landscape but may restrict permittees’ flexibility in the placement of range improvements to maximize livestock grazing use.
Wildlife management actions under Alternative A would generally result in adverse impacts to livestock grazing. Alternative A prohibits livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat (55,952 acres) during the birthing season (usually from May 1 through June 30) and domestic sheep grazing on pronghorn crucial winter range unless adverse effects can be avoided or mitigated based on site‐specific analysis; existing uses are allowed pending site‐specific analysis. Seasonal prohibitions against livestock grazing would require fencing, management actions such as herding, changes in season of use, or the closure of allotments. Management under Alternative A would therefore increase management costs and limit the areas open to livestock grazing, but may have the beneficial impact of reducing the transmission of brucellosis between elk and cattle by limiting wildlife-livestock contact.
Wildlife management actions that avoid or prohibit surface-disturbing activities under Alternative A also restrict the location, cost, and timing of range improvement project construction and maintenance. Generally, Alternative A determines wildlife seasonal protections for surface‐disturbing and disruptive activities related to the maintenance and operation of projects on a case‐by-case basis. Specific restrictions to range improvements include a prohibition on new water developments for livestock in elk crucial winter range (unless adverse impacts can be avoided or mitigated) and direction to retain riparian vegetation when cleaning or removing sediment from wet reservoirs where feasible. Prohibitions on new water developments would have adverse impacts to the placement of range improvements, and may result in the placement of projects in locations that are not optimal for livestock grazing management. Additional design requirements or mitigation would increase the cost of range improvement construction and maintenance.
The management of special status species under Alternative A would result in adverse impacts to livestock grazing. Under Alternative A, the BLM reviews all range improvement projects for potential impacts to special status plant species and can require avoidance or mitigation measures on a case‐by-case basis. Adverse impacts to the location and cost of range improvements may result, and would be of a similar type to those identified under impacts from wildlife management.
The application of Standard Paleontological Resources Protection Stipulations (see Glossary ) to authorizations for surface‐disturbing activities on PFYC 3, 4, or 5 formations, including a prohibition of surface‐disturbing activities within at least 50 feet of the outer edge of the paleontological locality, may have adverse impacts to the placement of range improvement projects.
Under Alternative A, the Planning Area is managed primarily as VRM Class III and IV, with only approximately 15 percent managed as VRM Class I and II. Depending on their visibility, range improvement projects in areas managed as VRM Class I or II may need to be designed to minimize their contrast with the surrounding landscape or placed in locations where they are less likely to attract the attention of viewers. In Class I and II areas, this may result in adverse impacts to grazing management through additional costs to permittees and restrictions on the placement of range improvements.
Under Alternative A, most of the Planning Area is open to livestock grazing and management of grazing is designed to provide for protection or enhancement of other resource values. Areas closed to livestock grazing include campgrounds, exclosures, and areas specifically closed under the Management Actions Common to All Alternatives.
Limited, but beneficial impacts to livestock grazing would result from the apportionment of any additional sustained yield forage to meet multiple‐use objectives, after meeting DPC objectives, and to satisfy the suspended permitted use of permittees/lessees (148,394 AUMs) in the allotment where the forage is available. While this management would help to replace suspended AUMs, the focus would remain on meeting broader multiple-use objectives.
Alternative A requires range improvement projects be designed to meet allotment management objectives, resulting in localized beneficial impacts. The focus of these projects under Alternative A would be to meet multiple‐use objectives.
The issuance of permits/leases for livestock grazing on parcels that are not currently included in grazing allotments would increase available AUMs. The increase in actual forage may be limited due to the small size of most unallocated parcels and the expense and challenge of managing these areas.
Reserve common allotments are not considered under this alternative, which would reduce the flexibility of providing alternate forage options to permittees whose allotments are rested following rangeland restoration activities.
Management actions under Alternative B are projected to result in approximately 73,919 acres of surface disturbance on BLM-administered land over the life of the plan; this disturbance would result in the short-term loss of approximately 7,040 AUMs, or roughly 352 AUMs per year. Most of this (63,037 acres) would be reclaimed in the short term, reducing the long-term loss of AUMs (see Table 4-17). The total long-term loss of AUMs under Alternative B due to surface disturbance and the loss of active AUMs due to livestock grazing closures (Map 66) would be 163,927 AUMs (an approximately 54 percent reduction from the baseline active AUMs for the Planning Area). The projected surface disturbance under Alternative B would result in the least long-term and short-term adverse impact to AUMs due to loss of forage of any of the alternatives; however, the total AUM loss from closures under this alternative is larger than under any other alternative.
The use of silvicultural treatments would result in benefits similar to Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because the BLM would treat less acreage under Alternative B. Prohibiting clear cuts and precommercial thinning for reasons other than fuel reduction and restricting timber harvesting to areas where natural processes are unable to accomplish forest health goals would result in a more closed canopy than Alternative A. Therefore, although areas would still be moved toward DPC, less understory vegetation would be available for grazing compared to Alternative A.
Impacts from livestock flushing would be similar to Alternative A.
Alternative B closes approximately 136,474 acres of BLM-administered land to motorized vehicle use, an increase of approximately 131 percent over Alternative A, which would result in fewer impacts to rangeland health and forage palatability but may have the greatest adverse impact to permittee access to livestock and range improvements compared to the other alternatives.
Adverse impacts to the construction of range improvements would be greater under Alternative B because the alternative designates more ACECs and expansion areas, and more restrictive management in special designations. Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage seven of the ACECs to limit or prohibit surface-disturbing activities, and this alternative would expand the area where surface-disturbing activities are avoided to include areas in view within 5 miles of NHTs, other trails, and National Historic Landmarks. Alternative B would also result in the greatest adverse impacts to the construction of range improvements along WSR suitable waterways, prohibiting their construction along all segments.
Unlike alternatives A and C, the designation of LWCs as Wild Lands under Alternative B may adversely affect the ability to construct range improvements projects, because these projects are only allowed where their short-term adverse impacts to wilderness characteristics can be mitigated. Mitigation requirements may increase the cost of range improvements in these areas or may prohibit these developments altogether if mitigation is not possible.
Under Alternative B, the BLM requires the reestablishment of healthy native plant communities in disturbed areas to 50 percent pre-disturbance levels of desired vegetative cover within three growing seasons and 80 percent within 5 years. Though the use of native plants may slow reclamation time, the vegetative cover requirements under this alternative would result in the greatest short- and long-term benefits to livestock by requiring the most amount of forage restoration in the shortest amount of time. These reclamation requirements would have the greatest beneficial impact to livestock grazing. Long-term beneficial impacts to forage quality and stability would also result from the reestablishment of native plant communities.
Alternative B would result in the least acreage of vegetation treatments (Appendix T). Alternative B would result in a limited beneficial impact towards improving vegetation conditions to achieve or make progress towards achieving 75 percent or more of Historical Climax Plant Community in all grasslands and shrublands described by this alternative. This alternative would be the least effective at moving these vegetation communities towards DPC objectives, and would result in less beneficial impacts, such as the improvement in forage for livestock, to rangeland health described under Alternative A.
Prohibiting the surface discharge of produced water and surface‐disturbing activities within ¼ mile of riparian/wetland areas (140,464 acres) would reduce or remove beneficial impacts to livestock grazing realized under the other alternatives. Eliminating the surface discharge of produced water would remove a potential water source for livestock that would be available under alternatives A and C. The surface-disturbing activity prohibitions under Alternative B would affect a larger acreage than the other alternatives, and would result in a larger adverse impact on the construction of range improvements.
Vegetation treatments to reduce hazardous fuels are projected to be lowest under Alternative B (Appendix T), resulting in the smallest projected beneficial impact to long-term forage production and the highest risk of forage loss due to catastrophic wildfires.
Impacts from restrictions on the placement of salt, mineral, or forage supplements would be similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because under Alternative B, the buffer width increases to ½ mile from water, wetlands, riparian areas, or reclaimed or reforested areas.
Impacts to the construction and maintenance of range improvements from wildlife management actions would be greatest under Alternative B. In addition to management discussed under Alternative A, Alternative B expands prohibitions on livestock water developments to include greater sage‐grouse nesting areas and areas important for special status species, and also applies seasonal restrictions when the actions are determined to be detrimental to wildlife. This alternative also prohibits surface-disturbing activities within ½ mile of big game migration corridors (43,238 acres), closing these areas to new construction.
The management of special status species under Alternative B would result in the greatest adverse impacts to livestock grazing of any alternative. In addition to the management under Alternative A, Alternative B requires avoidance of reservoir work during amphibian mating and metamorphosis periods (April to July), which would adversely affect livestock permittees’ ability to conduct maintenance on reservoirs. Under Alternative B, additional adverse impacts to the construction of range improvements and placement of forage supplements would occur, due to prohibitions within ½ mile of known special status plant species occurrences.
The management of cultural and paleontological resources under Alternative B would result in greater adverse impacts to the construction of range improvements than any other alternative. Under this alternative, the BLM avoids surface‐disturbing activities in view within 5 miles of important cultural sites and in view within ¼ mile of significant segments of historic sites. Alternative B also prohibits surface‐disturbing activities within at least 100 feet of the outer edge of the paleontological locality, regardless of PFYC.
Alternative B includes the largest percentage of VRM Class I and II areas, with more than 60 percent of the Planning Area in these most restrictive classes; therefore Alternative B would have the greatest adverse impact on the cost and placement of range improvement projects.
Livestock grazing management under Alternative B focuses on meeting multiple-use objectives, rather than maximizing forage or benefits for livestock. Alternative B apportions any additional sustained yield forage primarily to wild horses and wildlife, and does not allow permits/leases on parcels not included in a grazing allotment. Therefore, Alternative B would not result in beneficial impacts to suspended forage replacement and increased AUMs from new permits and leases as would alternatives A and C. Alternative B also requires range improvements projects, including vegetation treatments, be designed to maximize multiple-use benefits.
Alternative B establishes and manages reserve common allotments on a voluntary basis, resulting in beneficial impacts to livestock grazing. Reserve common allotments would increase management flexibility and the ability to rest allotments following vegetation treatments, allowing more intensive vegetation treatments and the temporary removal of livestock for more effective rangeland recovery. Intensive vegetation treatments would contribute to vegetation class diversity and greater long-term forage production, but would also temporarily decrease forage in treated areas.
Management actions under Alternative C are projected to result in approximately 245,783 acres of surface disturbance on BLM-administered land over the life of the plan; this disturbance would result in the short-term loss of approximately 23,408 AUMs, or roughly 1,170 AUMs per year. Most of this acreage, 204,238 acres, would be reclaimed in the short term, meaning that the long-term loss of AUMs would be reduced. The projected surface disturbance under Alternative C would result in the greatest long-term (Table 4-17) and short-term adverse impact livestock grazing due to the resulting loss of AUMs. The loss of AUMs due to closing areas to livestock grazing would be similar to Alternative under Alternative A. Overall, the total loss AUMs due to closures and long-term surface disturbance under this alternative would be greater than under Alternative A and less than under Alternative B, representing a loss of just 1 percent of the baseline 305,887 AUMs (Table 4-17; Map 65).
The use of silvicultural treatments would result in beneficial impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative C treats more area. Forest and woodland management under Alternative C would result in the greatest beneficial impact to forage for livestock. Alternative C allows the most timber harvesting of any alternative, and earlier precommercial thinning and larger clear cuts than Alternative A. Under Alternative C, the BLM also manages juniper and limber pine stands to enhance livestock grazing. Activities that control juniper encroachment or stimulate herbaceous growth in the forest and woodland understory would benefit grazing because forage production would increase.
The BLM does not require livestock flushing under Alternative C. This would benefit permittees by reducing costs and allowing more flexibility to move herds, but may cause long-term adverse impacts by increasing the potential for establishment and spread of invasive species, which may reduce forage.
Alternative C closes approximately 10,636 acres of BLM-administered land to motorized vehicle use, an approximately 82 percent decrease compared to Alternative A, and would have the least adverse impact on permittee access but the largest potential impact to rangeland health and forage palatability of any alternative.
Alternative C would result in the least adverse impact on the construction of range improvements from the management of special designations. Impacts from the management of the Brown/Howe Dinosaur Area ACEC would be the same as under the other alternatives, but restrictions and mitigation associated with surface-disturbing activities in other areas managed as ACECs and WSRs under alternatives A and B would not occur. Impacts from the management of the NHT and Other Historic Trails would be similar to those described under Alternative A.
Alternative C would have a beneficial impact on the short-term production of forage in areas of surface disturbance. The use of nonnative and native seed mixes and a focus on increasing commodity production (e.g., livestock grazing) may result in increased short-term forage production compared to the other alternatives. However, a lower standard for the reestablishment of desired vegetative cover than Alternative B, including the use of nonnative seeding to create more short-term forage production, may result in less forage quality and stability in the long term.
Alternative C would result in the most acreage of vegetation treatments to improve vegetation conditions (Appendix T); however, no grasslands and shrublands are managed towards DPC and are instead managed to achieve or to make progress towards achieving the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix N). Alternative C would result in the fewest beneficial impacts from proactive management towards achieving historical community structure and composition. However, the projected area of prescribed burns and vegetation treatments under Alternative C would result in beneficial impacts across the greatest area to achieve rangeland health standards, relative to the other alternatives.
The management of produced water and riparian/wetland areas under Alternative C would benefit livestock grazing. The surface disposal of produced water would create a larger beneficial impact for livestock grazing than under Alternative A due to a requirement that discharged water be put to use (e.g., for livestock watering). This alternative also allows surface‐disturbing activities or livestock supplements in floodplains or riparian/wetland areas on a case‐by‐case basis, increasing permittees’ flexibility in the placement of range improvements to maximize livestock grazing use but also the potential for concentrated livestock grazing to degrade long-term vegetation health and plant vigor in these areas.
Management under Alternative C emphasizes vegetation treatments as a tool to enhance livestock forage and has the largest projected area of vegetation treatments to reduce hazardous fuels (Appendix T). Depending on the FRCC class in which it occurs (see Section 4.3 Fire and Fuels Management), this management would result in the greatest short-term loss of forage. However, there would be more benefits to long-term forage production. Increased fire and fuels treatments would result in the smallest risk of forage loss due to catastrophic wildfires and less stress related to finding pasture for livestock following wildfire events compared to other alternatives.
Wildlife management actions under Alternative C are the least restrictive to livestock grazing management. The BLM allows livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat and domestic sheep grazing on pronghorn crucial winter range and does not apply seasonal restrictions on maintenance and operation actions to protect wildlife. Adverse impacts to livestock grazing from the elimination of approximately 131,464 AUMs within elk and bighorn sheep crucial winter range and greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas under Alternative B would not occur under this alternative. Alternative C would result in the least adverse impacts from wildlife management, due to surface-disturbance restrictions, on the construction of range improvements. However, management under this alternative does allow the greatest potential for contact between elk and cattle, and may increase the transmission of brucellosis.
The management of special status species under Alternative C would result in impacts to livestock grazing. Impacts to reservoir maintenance from restrictions during amphibian mating and metamorphosis periods would be the same as under Alternative A. Adverse impacts to the construction of range improvements in special status plant species habitat would be greater than under alternatives A and D, but less than under Alternative B.
The management of cultural resources under Alternative C (i.e., restricting surface-disturbing activities in view within ¼ mile of certain important cultural sites) would result in greater adverse impacts to the construction of range improvements than under Alternative A, but less than under alternatives B and D.
Adverse impacts from the management of paleontological resources would be less than the other alternatives because surface-disturbing activities are prohibited within only 50 feet of the outer edge of the paleontological locality and standard Paleontological Resources Protection Stipulations are only attached to authorizations for surface-disturbing activities in PFYC 4 or 5 areas.
Impacts from the management of visual resources on range improvements would be similar to those described under Alternative A.
Management under Alternative C would be the most beneficial to livestock grazing due to its focus on maximizing livestock forage use instead of the enhancement of other resource values. The BLM apportions additional sustained yield primarily to satisfy suspended permitted use, which would result in greater beneficial impacts to livestock forage availability than under alternatives A and B, and similar impacts to those under Alternative D. Range improvements under Alternative C would also be designed to maximize livestock forage and distribution.
Under Alternative C, the BLM allows the issuance of permits/leases for unallocated parcels and does not establish reserve common allotments; the impacts would be similar to those described for this management action under Alternative A.
Alternative C does not establish reserve common allotments and would not result in the beneficial impacts afforded by these allotments described for alternatives A and C.
Management actions under Alternative D are projected to result in approximately 140,508 acres of surface disturbance on BLM-administered land over the life of the plan; this disturbance would result in the short-term loss of approximately 13,382 AUMs, or roughly 669 AUMs per year. Most of this acreage, 122,065 acres, would be reclaimed in the short term, meaning that the long-term loss of AUMs would be reduced. The total long-term loss of AUMs under Alternative D due to surface disturbance and closing areas to livestock grazing would be slightly greater than under Alternative A, representing a loss of less than 1 percent of the baseline 305,887 AUMs (Table 4-17; Map 65).
The use of silvicultural treatments would result in impacts similar, but to a greater extent than alternatives A and B, and a lesser extent than under Alternative C. The earlier use of precommercial thinning and clear-cut practices similar to those under Alternative C may reduce canopy cover and increase forage more than Alternative A. Other silvicultural activities and associated impacts from the management of aspen, juniper, and limber pine stands and timber harvesting would be the same as those under Alternative A.
The impacts from livestock flushing practices under Alternative D would be the same as those under Alternative A.
Alternative D closes approximately 60,681 acres of BLM-administered land to motorized vehicle use, or an approximately 3 percent increase in areas closed compared to Alternative A. Impacts to permittee access and rangeland health and forage palatability would be similar to Alternative A.
Adverse impacts from the management of special designations to the construction of range improvements and the availability of areas for grazing would be less than under Alternative B, but greater than under alternatives A and C. Except for the Carter Mountain ACEC, Alternative D includes all of the Alternative A ACECs, with the same management of surface-disturbing activities. Alternative D allows surface-disturbing activities across the Carter Mountain ACEC if the effects can be avoided or mitigated, which may reduce adverse impacts to the placement of range improvements. Designating some LWCs as Wild Lands (52,485 acres) under Alternative D would result in similar adverse effects to livestock grazing management as those described under Alternative B, but to a lesser extent. Similar to Alternative A, Alternative D would avoid surface-disturbing activities near NHTs and Other Historic Trails, although the area affected may be greater (i.e., the foreground of these trails up to either 3 miles [NHTs] or 2 miles [Other Historic Trails]). Unlike alternatives A and B, under Alternative D, the BLM would not manage any of the WSR eligible waterway segments as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS, thereby eliminating any adverse impacts to range improvement placement or limitations to increases in grazing along these waterway segments. The interpretive area of the Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite is closed to livestock grazing under this alternative, but this management would not affect the AUMs for the surrounding allotment.
In disturbed areas, Alternative D allows the reestablishment of healthy native or DPCs based on pre-disturbance/desired plant species composition and judges successful reclamation by whether conditions are equal to or better than pre-disturbance site conditions. Reclamation practices under Alternative D would restore forage to disturbed areas more quickly than under alternatives A and C. Compared to Alternative B, this alternative provides additional flexibility that may shorten the reclamation time by allowing the use of beneficial nonnative plants, but may result in reduced long-term beneficial impacts to forage quality and stability from using nonnative species.
Alternative D would result in the same acreage of vegetation treatments as described under Alternative A (Appendix T), and would manage the vegetation communities to achieve or make progress towards achieving 65 percent or more of Historical Climax Plant Community. The impacts of this alternative on grasslands and shrublands and the associated forage would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Alternative D also would result in approximately the same acreage of burns from wildland fire as Alternative A, although the emphasis under Alternative D to use burns to accomplish other resource management objectives (e.g., livestock grazing forage improvement) may result in greater benefits to livestock forage production than Alternative A.
As under alternatives A and C, Alternative D allows the use of produced water by livestock. This alternative would result in greater beneficial impacts to livestock water availability and distribution than the other alternatives because it removes the case-by-case stipulation for the use of produced water.
Management under this alternative restricts surface‐disturbing activities near surface water and riparian/wetland areas over a larger area (between 500 feet and ¼ mile), with appropriate mitigation, than under Alternative A. Such management would, therefore, result in greater beneficial impacts to vegetation health (and, therefore, forage productivity) than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B. However, it also may increase mitigation costs compared to Alternative C. Prohibiting the placement of salt, mineral, and forage supplements in sensitive areas (i.e., within ¼ mile of water, wetlands, riparian areas, reclaimed or reforested areas) would result in the same impacts as Alternative A.
Wildlife management actions would generally result in fewer adverse impacts to livestock grazing management under Alternative D than under alternatives A or B, and more than under Alternative C. Limitations on livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat during the birthing season and domestic sheep grazing on pronghorn crucial winter range would result in similar impacts to those under Alternative A. Impacts from wildlife management actions that avoid or prohibit surface-disturbing activities and therefore restrict the location, cost, and timing of range improvement project construction and maintenance would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Mitigation requirements under Alternative D may be less restrictive than under Alternative A, which may result in fewer adverse impacts to the placement of new range improvements or reduced costs for range improvement construction and maintenance due to design requirements.
Adverse impacts to livestock grazing management due to the management of special status species would generally be less than under Alternative B, but more than under alternatives A and C. Alternative D includes a smaller mile avoidance area than Alternative B near BLM special status plant species populations for range improvements that may concentrate herbivory. This alternative also allows water development projects in sage‐grouse nesting habitat with 10 inches or less annual precipitation if adverse effects can be avoided or mitigated based on site-specific analysis, a less restrictive requirement for allowing water development than that under Alternative B. Reservoir maintenance practices and avoiding reservoir work during amphibian mating and metamorphosis periods under Alternative D would result in similar impacts to those under Alternative B.
The management of cultural and paleontological resources under Alternative D would result in less adverse impacts to the construction of range improvements than under Alternative B, but more than under alternatives A and C. Alternative D requires the avoidance of surface‐disturbing activities in view within 3 miles where setting is an important aspect of the integrity for the site and uses BMPs to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts. Similar to Alternative A, this alternative attaches standard Paleontological Resources Protection Stipulations to authorizations for surface-disturbing activities on PFYC 3, 4, or 5 formations. Unlike the other alternatives however, this alternative does not prohibit surface-disturbing activities within a certain distance from the outer edge of paleontological localities if the impacts can be mitigated and written authorization to proceed is issued by the authorized officer.
Alternative D includes the second largest percentage of VRM Class I and II areas, with more than 20 percent of the Planning Area in these most restrictive classes. Therefore, Alternative D likely would result in more adverse impacts to the cost and placement of range improvement projects than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B.
As under Alternative A, most of the Planning Area is open to livestock grazing. Specific closures under Alternative D are the same as under Alternative A (see Table 4-17); however, unlike Alternative A, Alternative D allows livestock grazing in areas closed to livestock grazing as a tool to maintain or improve resource conditions. Under Alternative D, the BLM would manage livestock grazing to support other resource objectives, and would require mitigation for new resource uses to minimize or avoid conflicts with livestock grazing. Requiring mitigation and avoidance when a resource use conflicts with livestock grazing would result in a beneficial impact to livestock grazing management that may not occur under the other alternatives.
The design requirements, management focus, and impacts of range improvement projects under Alternative D would be the same as under Alternative A.
The management focus under this alternative – to apportion additional sustained yield to satisfy suspended permitted use of permittees/lessees and to meet multiple-use objectives – would be similar to that under Alternative A and would result in similar beneficial impacts to forage availability as under described under that alternative.
Similar to Alternative B, this alternative establishes and manages reserve common allotments on a voluntary basis, but, unlike Alternative B, this alternative also establishes reserve common allotments on abandoned allotments on a case-by-case basis thereby further increasing beneficial impacts to livestock grazing management flexibility by increasing the acreage where intensive rangeland-improving vegetation treatments could be performed. Similar to alternatives A and C, this alternative would result in beneficial impacts to livestock grazing by allowing the case-by-case issuance of permits/leases for livestock grazing for parcels that are not included in a grazing allotment.