The BLM considered requests to prohibit or exclude part or all of the Planning Area from wind-energy development, oil and gas leasing, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and livestock grazing. However, FLPMA requires that BLM manage public lands and resources according to the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, and the BLM eliminated from detailed review alternatives inconsistent with this multiple use mandate. However, alternatives analyzed in detail include limitations and restrictions on wind-energy development, oil and gas leasing, OHV use, and livestock grazing. Specifically, Alternative B includes wind energy development ROW exclusion (1,251,869 acres) and avoidance (1,691,497 acres) areas, areas unavailable for oil and gas leasing (2,296,279 acres), and areas closed to livestock grazing (1,988,927 acres). The BLM recognizes that there are conflicts between resources and resource uses and considered these conflicts during alternatives development.
The BLM considered an alternative with no net gain in BLM-administered public lands in the Planning Area. However, the BLM cannot guarantee there would be no net gain of public land, because individual land exchanges are based on equal monetary values of the land, not equal land acreages. Over the past 20 to 30 years in the Bighorn Basin and Wyoming in general, conveyances of various kinds have resulted in a net loss of public land. The BLM coordinates with affected counties and the public on all acquisitions. Current BLM policy establishes exchange as the favored method of land disposal/acquisition (BLM 1995b) to minimize spending of taxpayer money and minimize effects to local tax base.
The BLM considered an alternative only limiting travel to existing roads and trails within the entire Planning Area, but eliminated it from detailed analysis. The BLM comprehensive travel and transportation management (CTTM) program is guided by resource values and user needs. A broad travel designation for the entire Planning Area would make this type of resource-driven management impossible to implement because it would eliminate the BLM’s responsibility per 43 CFR 8341.1 to base travel management designations on the protection of the resources of the public lands, the promotion of the safety of all the users of the public lands, and the minimization of conflicts among the various uses of the public lands. The BLM analyzes a reasonable range of travel management designations in the alternatives considered in detail.
The BLM considered the elimination of livestock grazing from all BLM-administered lands in the Planning Area. The FLPMA requires the BLM to manage public lands and resources according to the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. Alternatives inconsistent with BLM’s multiple use mandate, such as the elimination of livestock grazing from all BLM-administered lands, were not carried forward. Further, this alternative would eliminate livestock grazing in areas where conflicts can be mitigated or where conflicts do not exist. Such an alternative is contrary to FLPMA’s direction in Section 102(12) that the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the nations need for domestic food from the public lands. The BLM recognizes conflicts exist between resources and resource uses and considered these conflicts during development of the alternatives. Reduction or elimination of livestock grazing could become necessary on specific allotments where livestock grazing is causing or contributing to conflicts with the protection and/or management of other resource values or uses. Such determinations would be made during site-specific environmental analyses, such as permit renewals.
The BLM considered an alternative that would ensure or require no net loss of grazing animal unit months (AUMs), but eliminated it from detailed analysis. The commitment to manage for no net loss of AUMs would conflict with 43 CFR 4110.3, which requires the BLM to periodically review permitted use specified in grazing permits or leases and make changes in the permitted use as needed to manage, maintain, or improve rangeland productivity, to assist in restoring ecosystems to PFC, to conform with land use plans, or to comply with the provisions of 43 CFR 4100, Subpart 4180-Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Administration. In addition, there could be grazing reductions as a result of land being conveyed out of federal ownership.
The BLM considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis, an alternative to remove livestock grazing from all big game crucial winter range. When livestock and big game share the same habitat, there can be competition for forage. However, although big game and livestock might share the same habitat, they do not necessarily compete for the same forage. For species that do not compete for forage with livestock there are no forage-related conflicts between livestock grazing and these species that would be resolved by closing big game crucial winter range to livestock grazing. The BLM did analyze in detail an alternative to eliminate livestock grazing from bighorn sheep and elk crucial winter range because of competing forage needs between these species and livestock.