Impacts Common to All Alternatives

This section describes impacts to the lands and realty program from management common to all alternatives.

Land Tenure Adjustments

Under all alternatives, acquiring state and private lands from willing sellers to consolidate the land ownership pattern would result in long-term beneficial impacts to the lands and realty program by increasing the land base and enhancing the BLM’s ability to effectively manage resources and resource uses (e.g., wildlife habitats, riparian/wetland areas, special designations). Consolidating public lands also results in long-term beneficial impacts by improving access to public lands, reducing the number of easements needed, and helping reduce conflicts from encroachment and subdivision of private land by adjacent property owners.

Pursuing access easements across private lands for access to BLM-administered land under all alternatives would result in long-term benefits to the lands and realty program by eliminating the need for future land acquisitions to meet resource use needs and reducing potential trespass conflicts with other landowners. Identifying areas of interest for acquiring easements (Appendix M) also would benefit the lands and realty program.

Conveyance of 16,122 acres of land to the Westside Irrigation District would create long-term impacts to the lands and realty program by removing these lands from the land base available for land tenure adjustments and land use authorizations.

Special designations (WSAs, ACECs, WSRs) and the designation of SRMAs could encourage the acquisition of adjacent private and state lands and inholdings, and affect the lands and realty program for as long as these areas are designated. Acquiring adjacent lands or inholdings in or surrounding designated areas would improve the manageability of these areas.

Similar to land use authorizations, requiring on-the-ground surveys (for paleontological, cultural, and other resources) before any land disposal action could create long-term adverse impacts to the lands and realty program. Requiring resource inventories, surveys, and analyses before land tenure adjustments and land use authorizations could make it more difficult to complete lands and realty actions. Site-specific NEPA analyses for land tenure adjustments and land use authorizations could further decrease the efficiency of processing land tenure adjustments and land use authorizations.

Ensuring that important Native American TCPs and historic properties are not transferred from BLM ownership or affected by management in ways that restrict or deny access could affect the lands and realty program over the long term. Preventing land tenure adjustments or land use authorizations that may affect these sites reduces the land base available for lands and realty actions.

Pursuing acquisition of small parcels of land from private landowners for cultural and other resource values (such as acquiring the private land portions of the Legend Rock Petroglyph Site) would result in long-term beneficial impacts to the lands and realty program. However, because of the small size of these acquisitions, benefits would be minimal.

Land Use Authorizations

Under all alternatives, the BLM considers land use authorizations (permits, grants, etc.) on a case-by-case basis consistent with other resource objectives. During processing of a land use authorization, the BLM would perform site-specific inventories and NEPA analyses for cultural, paleontological, biological, and other appropriate resources as part of the case-by-case assessment. Identifying these resources in areas considered for a land use authorization may require mitigation, implementation of BMPs, and other stipulations, or the BLM may deny the application. If the BLM denies the application, there may be indirect impacts to lands and realty from an applicant pursuing land use authorizations in other areas.

Responding to R&PP applications and approving leases and conveyances to qualified applicants would benefit the lands and realty program by providing locations for certain uses (e.g., shooting ranges, landfills) that may reduce illegal use, trespass, or other issues on other BLM-administered land.

Retaining classification of BLM-administered land for the future expansion of Park County landfill south of Cody and of lands to the north, south, and west of the Worland landfill would have long-term impacts to the lands and realty program by classifying these areas in preparation of an R&PP lease or conveyance. These lands would not be available for other land tenure adjustments and land use authorizations.

Impacts specific to ROW and renewable energy development are discussed in their respective sections of this chapter.

Withdrawals, Classifications, and Segregations

Table 4 - 13 summarizes withdrawals and segregations by alternative. Withdrawals that close areas to operation of the public land laws cause long-term impacts to the lands and realty program by limiting or restricting lands and realty actions in these areas. Reviewing other agency withdrawals and BLM-administered power withdrawals would help the BLM determine whether the withdrawals are serving or are needed for their intended purposes. Revoked or modified withdrawals could open these public lands to allocation and management under the public land laws and mining laws. Opening public lands to management and allocation would result in long-term impacts to the lands and realty program by increasing the available land base for land tenure adjustments and land use authorizations.

Source: BLM 2009a

Note: Due to overlapping resources, numbers are not additive.

¹ Withdrawals for cave and karst areas that overlap the Spanish Point Karst ACEC are counted in both locations.

² Lands restored to the BLM by the BOR are closed to locatable mineral entry and disposal, not withdrawn. These lands are included under “segregations” because the closure has a segregating effect.

Alternative A

Land Tenure Adjustments

Alternative A identifies a total of 116,800 acres in the Planning Area for disposal by sale, exchange, or other means (Map 42) for community expansion, exchanges, and other purposes, subject to the disposal criteria (Appendix M). Alternative A identifies the remaining land base of 3,073,014 acres of BLM-administered surface ownership for retention (Map 42). Disposal of lands out of federal ownership could result in indirect impacts if the new landowner develops the land. Development of disposed land could increase management difficulties and diminish resource values on adjacent BLM-administered lands (due to visual impacts, noise, barriers to migration, etc.). Reducing the resource values of BLM-administered land could increase the potential for disposal of additional BLM-administered land and result in long-term impacts to the lands and realty program. Lands identified for retention identify the BLM-administered land base to be kept in federal ownership; however, these lands could still be disposed of on a case-by-case basis. Lands kept in retention result in long-term impacts to the lands and realty program because land tenure adjustments and land use authorizations could occur on these lands, consistent with other resource objectives.

Under Alternative A, the BLM would pursue the acquisition of private or state land to enhance resource objectives, consolidate management, and enhance public access in:

Land Use Authorizations

Acquiring these areas would result in long-term beneficial impacts to the lands and realty program by enhancing management efficiency and consolidating land ownership in these areas.

Under Alternative A, considering DLE applications for unclassified lands on a case-by-case basis, subject DLE criteria, would cause long-term impacts to the lands and realty program by removing these lands from the land base for potential land use authorizations and land tenure adjustments. However, because most of the lands suitable for agricultural development in the Planning Area have already been transferred into private ownership, impacts would be minimal.

Withdrawals, Classifications, and Segregations

Under Alternative A, the BLM pursues withdrawals on a total of 174,354 acres (Map 9). Table 4-13 summarizes withdrawals by area and type. Withdrawals that close areas to operation of the public land laws cause long-term impacts to the lands and realty program by limiting or restricting lands and realty actions in these areas.

Alternative B

Land Tenure Adjustments

Alternative B identifies areas for land tenure adjustments by type of zone for acquisition, retention, and disposal (Map 43), subject to the criteria for each zone (Appendix M). Table 4–14 lists acreages associated with each type of zone under alternatives B, C, and D.

The impacts of disposal and retention would be similar to those for Alternative A, except that Alternative B identifies more area for disposal (including disposal with restrictions and disposal for specific uses). However, disposals in areas available for special disposal (Zones 1B and 1C; most of the area available for disposal under Alternative B) would occur only rarely and only under special circumstances. The total acreage in Zones 2, 2A, 2B, and W under Alternative B is 24,267 acres, which is less than the area available for standard disposal under Alternative A. Designating zones for land tenure adjustments would result in long-term benefits to the lands and realty program by identifying preferred locations for these actions. Designating these areas would increase the efficiency of processing land tenure adjustments and would provide the public with defined areas and criteria for disposal, acquisition, and retention of BLM-administered lands, which could increase the potential for realty actions.

Source: BLM 2009a

¹Disposals in these zones would occur only in special situations, so the acreage from this zone actually disposed of would likely be a small percentage of the total acreage listed.

Under Alternative B, the BLM would pursue acquisition of all areas identified under Alternative A. In addition, under Alternative B the BLM would pursue the acquisition of the following:

Impacts from pursuing acquisitions would be similar to Alternative A, although to a slightly greater extent because Alternative B identifies more areas for acquisition.

Under Alternative B, the BLM would terminate existing DLE classifications and would not classify new lands for this purpose. This would result in long-term impacts to the lands and realty program by opening these lands to allocation under the public land laws. Because these areas are small (1,409 acres), impacts from opening these lands would be minimal.

Under Alternative B, disposing of the federal mineral estate under the Cody Industrial Park to entities who wish to purchase the surface estate would result in long-term impacts to lands and realty. Disposing of the mineral (sub-surface) estate along with the surface area would eliminate potential issues associated with split-estate management. However, disposing of federal mineral estate would reduce the total available land base of federal minerals in the Planning Area.

Under Alternative B, pursuing conservation easements on lands adjacent to areas managed as VRM Class I and II would result in long-term benefits to the lands and realty program by increasing the land base available for realty actions and increasing management effectiveness in these areas.

Land Use Authorizations

Under Alternative B, the BLM would consider land use authorizations on a case-by-case basis consistent with other resource objectives. Impacts to lands and realty from land use authorizations result primarily from management actions associated with ROWs, communications sites, and renewable energy, which are discussed in their respective sections.

Withdrawals, Classifications, and Segregations

Under Alternative B, the BLM would pursue withdrawals on a total of 325,102 acres in the Planning Area (Map 10). Table 4-13 summarizes withdrawals by area and type of segregation. Alternative B identifies more areas for withdrawal than Alternative A, including ACECs (273,931 acres), WSR suitable waterway segments (26,742 acres), and the Cody Industrial Park (208 acres). Withdrawals that close areas to operation of the public land laws would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative B would withdraw more acreage. Alternative B includes more area pursued for withdrawal than any of the other alternatives.

Alternative C

Land Tenure Adjustments

Similar to alternatives B and D, Alternative C identifies areas for land tenure adjustments by type of zone for acquisition, retention, and disposal (Map 44), subject to the criteria for each zone (Appendix M). Table 4-14 lists acreages associated with each type of zone under the alternatives. Impacts from disposal and retention of lands would be similar to those for Alternative A, since Alternative C places roughly the same acreage in Zones 2, 2A, 2B, and W (117,961 acres) as are available for standard disposal under that alternative. However, Alternative C identifies more area for disposal (including disposal with restrictions and disposal for specific uses) and less area for retention than alternatives A, B, and D. The larger acreages of BLM-administered lands identified for disposal under Alternative C may benefit private landowners and community development more than the other alternatives. Designating land tenure adjustment zones would result in impacts similar as for Alternative B.

Under Alternative C, the emphasis for acquisition of lands and interests in lands in recreation areas and special designations is to address use and user conflicts, public health and safety, or resource protection. Long-term impacts to the lands and realty program could result from not identifying lands that could increase management efficiency and help meet management objectives in these areas. Future acquisitions of lands or interests in lands to accomplish these goals may be more difficult.

Under Alternative C, considering DLE applications for unclassified lands on a case-by-case basis would result in the same impacts as for Alternative A.

Under Alternative C, maintaining the mineral estate under the Cody Industrial Park would result in long-term adverse impacts to lands and realty by creating a split-surface estate where the BLM administers sub-surface minerals and a private landowner manages the surface area. However, maintaining the federal mineral estate would retain the minerals in federal ownership and contribute to the overall federal mineral land base in the Planning Area.

Land Use Authorizations

Under Alternative C, the BLM would consider land use authorizations on a case-by-case basis consistent with other resource objectives. Impacts to lands and realty from land use authorizations result primarily from management actions associated with ROWs, communications sites, and renewable energy, which are discussed in their respective sections in this chapter.

Withdrawals, Classifications, and Segregations

Under Alternative C, the BLM would pursue withdrawals on a total of 47,846 acres of federal mineral estate in the Planning Area (Map 11). Table 4-13 summarizes withdrawals by area and type. Withdrawals that close areas to operation of the public land laws would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because the BLM would withdraw fewer acres under Alternative C. Under Alternative C, the BLM would pursue the least area for withdrawals compared to the other alternatives.

Alternative D

Land Tenure Adjustments

Similar to alternatives B and C, Alternative D identifies areas for land tenure adjustments by type of zone for acquisition, retention, and disposal (Map 45), subject to the criteria for each zone (Appendix M). Table 4-14 lists acreages associated with each type of zone. Impacts from disposal and retention of lands would be similar to Alternative A. Alternative D has more area identified for disposal (with 66,022 acres in Zones 2, 2A, 2B, and W) than Alternative B, but less than alternatives A and C (including disposal with restrictions and disposal for specific use). Alternative D identifies more area for retention than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B. Under Alternative D, management and acquisition of lands along the Bighorn River would be similar to Alternative C, with the addition of other river tracts acquired over the life of the plan. Under Alternative D, areas considered for acquisition in the Bighorn River SRMA would be the same as for Alternative A, with similar long-term beneficial impacts. Similar to Alternative B, Alternative D emphasizes the acquisition of lands for legal and physical access in recreational areas to maximize recreational opportunities. Acquiring lands in recreational areas would result in long-term benefits in these areas by increasing management efficiency, consolidating ownership, and reducing the potential for trespass and illegal access. Under Alternative D, considering DLE applications for unclassified lands on a case-by-case basis would result in the same impacts as Alternative A. Similar to Alternative B, disposing of the federal mineral estate under the Cody Industrial Park to entities who wish to purchase the surface estate would result in long-term impacts to lands and realty. However, disposing of the mineral (sub-surface) estate along with the surface area would eliminate potential issues associated with split-estate management described for Alternative C. Pursuing conservation easements on lands adjacent to areas managed as VRM Class I and II would result in long-term benefits, but pursuing these easements on a case-by-case basis may decrease the potential (and quantity) of easements compared to Alternative B.

Land Use Authorizations

Similar to the other alternatives, under Alternative D, the BLM considers land use authorizations on a case-by-case basis, consistent with other resource objectives. Impacts to lands and realty from land use authorizations result primarily from management actions associated with ROWs, communications sites, and renewable energy, which are discussed in their respective sections in this chapter.

Withdrawals, Classifications, and Segregations

Under Alternative D, the BLM would pursue withdrawals on a total of 72,031 acres in the Planning Area (Map 12). Table 4-13 summarizes withdrawals by area and type of segregation. Withdrawals that close areas to operation of the public land laws would have similar impacts to Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because the BLM would withdraw fewer acres under Alternative D. Under Alternative D, the BLM would pursue withdrawals for more acres than Alternative C but fewer than alternatives A and B.