Closing areas to locatable mineral or oil and gas development may reduce request for ROWs and other land use authorizations. However, closure of these areas may concentrate ROWs in other parts of the Planning Area that are open to mineral exploration and development.
All alternatives include limitations and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities, including ROWs. Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities result in long-term adverse impacts to ROWs by limiting or prohibiting the authorization of ROWs or corridors to meet other resource objectives. Limitations and restrictions on ROWs may also require modification of the location, size, or design of facilities associated with a ROW grant. Management of ROWs in areas with limitations on surface-disturbing activities may require additional mitigation and monitoring to ensure ROW development and operation is in accordance with established resource management objectives.
Managing ROW exclusion areas would result in long-term impacts to ROWs and corridors by prohibiting or limiting ROWs in these areas. Management of ROW exclusion areas may prohibit the location of ROWs along the most direct route for the intended purpose (for linear infrastructure such as transmission lines). This may result in increased potential for additional ROW authorizations in other locations.
Allocating ROW avoidance/mitigation areas would increase mitigation costs to ensure that development is consistent with management objectives for other resources. Managing ROW avoidance/mitigation areas would result in long-term adverse impacts to ROWs by limiting the development of ROWs in these areas and potentially placing additional constraints, mitigation, monitoring, and other stipulations on any ROWs that are approved in avoidance/mitigation areas. All alternatives manage the following areas as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas:
Areas having a 25 percent slope or greater
Cave and karst areas
The Spanish Point Karst ACEC
WSAs
Under all alternatives, providing reasonable access through ROW authorizations on BLM-administered land for access to private land would result in long-term beneficial impacts by allowing ROW authorizations to private landowners and preventing potential trespass and illegal access issues.
Requiring on-the-ground surveys, resource inventories, and site-specific NEPA analysis prior to any surface-disturbing activity (including ROW authorizations) could require modification to the location, size, or design of facilities and infrastructure or, in some cases, preclude approval of the proposal. These adverse impacts would primarily occur from the implementation of management actions designed to protect resources and limit impacts to those resources from surface-disturbing activities. Management that results in the relocation or redesign of proposed ROWs would increase processing timeframes related to ROW authorizations. This impact would be further increased if relocation resulted in longer linear routes or placement of ROWs in areas that are difficult to develop. If avoidance of sensitive resources is not possible, other mitigation measures would be required, such as application of height and color specifications that serve to redesign ROWs to meet the goals and objectives for other resources.
Management of recreation management areas (SRMAs and ERMAs) and special designations including ACECs and WSRs would affect ROW authorizations in these areas by applying restrictions and stipulations on surface-disturbing activities and ROW development consistent with management objectives. Management prescriptions in these areas generally limit the location of ROWs or prescribe mitigation, BMPs, or monitoring to minimize adverse impacts from development and operation.
Mitigation measures, surface use restrictions, and timing limitations on surface disturbance in wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and riparian habitat would have long-term impacts to ROWs by prohibiting or limiting the potential for ROW authorizations in these areas. Limiting or prohibiting ROW authorizations in these areas may induce ROW authorizations in other areas to meet public use and demand. Seasonal timing limitations for surface-disturbing activities (including ROWs) in wildlife habitat could cause additional adverse impacts to ROWs by requiring construction activities to start and stop at certain times of the year; which could increase costs associated with ROW development.
Management to meet VRM objectives could affect the location, route, height, and color of proposed ROWs and associated facilities. Additional effort would be required to design projects to meet the objectives of the specific VRM class designation of an area in which a ROW is proposed. Because ROWs would generally be compatible with VRM Class IV objectives, this classification would allow increased opportunities for ROW authorizations. This is also true for VRM Class III objectives; however, some additional project planning may be necessary in VRM Class III areas to ensure that the landscape is partially retained. Surface-disturbing activities in areas managed as VRM Class II and VRM Class I would be limited or would require mitigation to minimize visual contrasting elements of projects. Under all alternatives, VRM objectives would be considered before authorizing land uses that may affect the visual character of the landscape. VRM class allocations by alternative would potentially limit or prevent ROW authorizations and are discussed below under each alternative.
Designating ROW corridors could benefit ROW authorizations associated with minerals development and major utility projects. ROW development would benefit from placement in a corridor where land use conflicts have been eliminated or reduced. Designated corridors are intended to reduce resource and land use conflicts as much as possible; which could reduce the potential for modification, or mitigation needed to approve a ROW and develop infrastructure and facilities. Designating and preferring the location of ROW authorizations in corridors could also create adverse impacts to ROWs by preventing the location of ROWs along the most direct route for the intended purpose, or preventing additional ROW authorizations in a corridor if the maximum safe density of existing powerlines or pipelines is reached. This may result in increased potential for additional ROW authorizations and additional resource surveys and site-specific environmental analysis; which could increase costs and timeframes for ROW authorization and development.
Under Alternative A, a total of 788,275 acres of BLM-administered surface are designated for ROW corridors (Map 51). Designating ROW corridors would result in impacts similar to those described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives.
Under Alternative A, a total of 941,778 acres are managed as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas (Map 51). Allocation of ROW avoidance/mitigation areas would result in long-term adverse impacts by limiting ROW authorizations in these areas. Under Alternative A, the BLM designates a total of 61,416 acres as ROW exclusion areas (Map 51). Managing ROW exclusion areas can result in long-term adverse impacts by prohibiting ROW authorizations in these areas.
Avoiding the placement of aboveground facilities such as powerlines along major transportation routes would result in long-term impacts to ROWs by limiting the location of aboveground facilities along already disturbed areas. Therefore, ROW authorizations may be more likely to be developed in previously undisturbed areas, which may require additional resource inventories and surveys before ROW authorization, and depending on the presence of resources, additional mitigation and monitoring.
Under Alternative A, a case-by-case development of renewable energy could result in a distributed pattern of renewable energy development and require additional ROW authorizations to support required infrastructure, such as transmission lines, to distribute the energy.
Management of ROW avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas in ACECs and other special management areas would result in adverse impacts to ROWs by limiting or prohibiting ROW authorizations in these areas. Under Alternative A, the BLM manages the fossil concentration area of the Big Cedar Ridge ACEC as a ROW exclusion area and management in ACECs would result in 68,095 acres of ROW avoidance/mitigation areas. Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities (including construction and development of ROWs) above cave and cave passages in the Sheep Mountain Anticline ACEC would result in adverse impacts to ROWs by prohibiting authorizations in these areas.
Avoiding surface-disturbing activities within ¼ mile of the Nez Perce NHT would result in adverse impacts to ROWs by limiting ROW authorizations in these areas. Avoiding surface-disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity of significant cultural resources and canals and in view within ¼ mile of significant segments of the Bridger Trail and the Fort Washakie to Meeteetse to Red Lodge Trail would also result in adverse impacts to ROWs by limiting ROW authorizations in these areas.
Prescribing specific timing limitations under Alternative A could eliminate the potential for discretionary seasonal limitations when reviewing and approving ROW authorizations. Additionally, avoiding or excluding surface-disturbing activities (including ROWs) during portions of the year may limit the development of ROWs in these areas by creating start/stop cycles in construction and operation that may make projects infeasible. Under Alternative A, the following areas include timing limitations for ROW avoidance/mitigation or exclusion:
Big game crucial winter range (1,313,731 acres) from November 15 through April 30
Big game parturition habitat (81,770 acres) from May 1 through June 30
Greater sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats within 2 miles of occupied greater sage-grouse leks (1,009,963 acres) or in identified greater sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat outside the 2-mile buffer from March 15 to July 15 (February 1 to July 31 in CYFO)
Greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas from November 15 to March 14
Within ¾-mile radius of any active raptor nest sites (338,731 acres) from February 1 through July 31
Managing VRM Class I (141,110 acres) and VRM Class II (339,205 acres) areas may result in adverse impacts to ROWs by limiting development that would not meet associated VRM objectives or may require specific design or mitigation guidelines for ROW authorization.
Under Alternative B, a total of 90,458 acres of BLM-administered surface are designated for ROW corridors (Map 52). Management of ROW corridors would result in similar impacts as under Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because Alternative B would designate 697,817 fewer acres as ROW corridors compared to Alternative A.
Alternative B manages a total of 2,717,617 acres as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas (Map 52). Managing ROW avoidance/mitigation areas would result in adverse impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative B manages 1,775,839 more acres as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas than Alternative A. Alternative B manages a total of 225,750 acres as ROW exclusion areas (Map 52). Managing ROW exclusion areas would result in adverse impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative B manages 164,334 more acres as ROW exclusion than Alternative A. Alternative B manages more area as ROW avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas than the other alternatives. Therefore, Alternative B likely would result in a greater concentration of linear ROWs on and through private lands than the other alternatives.
Under Alternative B, prohibiting communication sites in all avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas and requiring the co-location of sites would create long-term impacts to ROWs. ROW avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas comprise a large portion (2,943,367 acres) of the Planning Area under Alternative B, and prohibiting communications sites in these areas could prevent the location of these sites in operator-preferred locations. As a result, additional ROWs and associated facilities may be required in less than optimal locations, from an operator’s perspective, to meet the goals and objectives of a project and meet community expansion and telecommunications needs.
Concentrating aboveground facilities along major transportation routes would have long-term impacts on the lands and realty program by encouraging ROW development in already disturbed areas, which may decrease potential mitigation and monitoring and reduce processing time. Conversely, preferring concentration of aboveground facilities in these areas, along with prohibiting construction in ROW exclusion areas and limiting these facilities in ROW avoidance/mitigation areas, may prevent the location of aboveground facilities along the most direct route for the intended purpose. This may result in increased potential for additional ROW authorizations, and associated resource surveys and site-specific environmental analysis, which could increase costs and time for ROW authorization and development.
Considering night skies in the evaluation of ROW applications and applying BMPs as appropriate could increase the processing time and costs for ROWs and potentially limit the approval of ROW authorizations when impacts cannot be adequately mitigated.
Managing ROW avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas in ACECs and other Management Areas would result in adverse impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative B would designate more ACECs. Under Alternative B, management in ACECs would result in 57,066 acres of ROW exclusion areas and 242,891 acres of ROW avoidance/mitigation areas. Alternative B includes the greatest amount of ROW avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas in ACECs compared to the other alternatives. Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities (including construction and development of ROWs) above cave and cave passages in the Sheep Mountain Anticline ACEC would result in the same adverse impacts as those described under Alternative A. Designating all LWCs as Wild Lands under Alternative B would result in long-term impacts to ROWs by avoiding or prohibiting surface-disturbing activities in these areas.
Management for NHTs and Other Historic Trails would result in adverse impacts to ROWs similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative B avoids surface-disturbing activities in a larger area (within 5 miles of the Nez Perce NHT and Other Historic Trails). Exempting existing utility corridors from this restriction within 5 miles of other trails may reduce adverse impacts to ROW corridors compared to Alternative A.
Under Alternative B, avoiding surface-disturbing activities in view within 5 miles of Heart Mountain Relocation Center National Historic Landmark would result in adverse impacts by limiting ROW authorizations in these areas or requiring mitigation or other stipulations to minimize impacts to Heart Mountain.
Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities in all WSR suitable waterway segments would result in adverse impacts to ROWs by preventing ROW authorizations in these areas.
Mitigation measures, surface-use restrictions, and timing limitations on surface disturbance in wildlife, threatened and endangered species and riparian habitat would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative B places more restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in these areas and has more areas with restrictions.
Alternative B manages big game crucial winter range (1,313,731 acres) and parturition habitat (81,770 acres) as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas. There would be more adverse impacts to ROWs in these areas than under Alternative A because Alternative B avoids areas year-round.
Under Alternative B, impacts to ROWs from management of greater sage-grouse would be similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative B has more year-round restrictions and larger buffer areas associated with timing limitations. Alternative B manages the following areas as ROW mitigation or exclusion areas:
Within 0.6 mile of occupied greater sage-grouse leks (157,008 acres)
Within 3 miles of occupied greater sage-grouse leks (1,571,115 acres) or in identified nesting and early brood-rearing habitat outside the 3-mile buffer from February 1 through July 31
Greater sage-grouse winter concentration areas
Greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas (1,231,383 acres)
Timing limitations for the protection of nesting raptors would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative B includes larger buffer areas associated with timing limitations.
Managing the Absaroka front as an ROW avoidance/mitigation area (106,354 acres) would result in adverse impacts to ROWs by limiting authorizations in this area or requiring mitigation and monitoring to reduce adverse impacts to resource values.
Avoiding surface-disturbing activities (including ROW authorizations) in view within 5 miles of important cultural sites where the integrity of setting is a contributing element of NRHP significance may result in adverse impacts to ROWs, especially major ROWs that have larger surface disturbance and higher potential to affect the integrity of setting. Exempting designated utility corridors from this restriction would reduce impacts to linear ROWs in designated corridors. Under Alternative B, management of cultural resources would have greater adverse impacts to ROWs than any other alternative.
Impacts from VRM would be similar to those under Alternative A, except more area is managed as VRM Class I (154,343 total acres) and VRM Class II (1,782,843 total acres); which would increase the restrictions designed to protect visual resources and would subsequently decrease opportunities for ROW authorizations in these areas.
Alternative C designates a total of 133,284 acres of BLM-administered surface for ROW corridors (Map 53). Impacts to ROWs from the designation of ROW corridors would be less than under Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because Alternative C designates 654,991 fewer acres for ROW corridors. Alternative C has more area designated for ROW corridors than alternatives B and D, but less than Alternative A.
Alternative C manages a total of 1,174,335 acres as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas and 7,762 acres as ROW exclusion areas (Map 53). Managing ROW avoidance/mitigation would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative C manages 232,557 more acres as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas. Conversely, Alternative D manages 53,654 less acres as ROW exclusion areas compared to Alternative A, reducing impacts to ROWs from this management restrictions compared to that alternative. Alternative C manages more area as ROW avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas than Alternative A, but fewer than alternatives B and D.
Avoiding the placement of aboveground facilities such as powerlines along major transportation routes under Alternative C would result in the same long-term impacts as Alternative A.
Management of ACECs would result in adverse impacts similar to Alternative A by limiting authorizations in these areas, although to a lesser extent because Alternative C manages only two ACECs. Management in the Spanish Point Karst ACEC would create 6,627 acres of ROW avoidance/mitigation area, the least ROW avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas in ACECs compared to the other alternatives.
Avoiding surface-disturbing activities within ¼ mile of the Nez Perce NHT would result in impacts similar to Alternative A. Avoiding surface-disturbing activities in view within ¼ mile of other trails would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent. Alternative C includes all regionally important prehistoric and historic trails (i.e., Other Historic Trails); Alternative A includes only significant segments of the Bridger Trail and the Fort Washakie to Meeteetse to Red Lodge Trail. Exempting existing utility corridors from this restriction would further reduce adverse impacts compared to Alternative A. Management of NHTs and other trails would result in fewer adverse impacts to ROWs than alternatives A and B.
Exempting Oil and Gas Management Areas (Map 21) and ROW corridors (Map 53) from seasonal stipulations would have long-term beneficial impacts to ROWs and corridors by increasing the potential for authorizations in these areas, allowing year-round construction, and eliminating the potential for discretionary seasonal limitations applied to ROW authorizations in these areas. Mitigation measures, surface use restrictions, and timing limitations on surface disturbance in wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and riparian habitat would result in fewer impacts than Alternative A because Alternative C includes fewer restrictions in these areas.
Under Alternative C, there would be fewer adverse impacts to ROWs from management of greater sage-grouse than any other alternative because Alternative C includes smaller buffer areas and shorter periods associated with seasonal limitations.
Under Alternative C, there would be fewer adverse impacts to ROWs from management of raptor nests than under the other alternatives because Alternative C includes a smaller buffer area (¼ mile) associated with seasonal restrictions.
Managing cultural resources would result in adverse impacts to ROWs similar to Alternative B, although to a lesser extent because Alternative C reduces the avoidance/mitigation area to a ¼-mile buffer. Under Alternative C, there would be fewer adverse impacts to ROWs from managing cultural resources than under any other alternative.
Under Alternative C, impacts from VRM would be similar to Alternative A, except Alternative C manages less area as VRM Class I (140,958 acres) and VRM Class II (330,020 acres). This would decrease the level of restrictions designed to protect visual resources and may increase opportunities for ROW authorizations in the Planning Area.
Alternative D manages a total of 132,219 acres of BLM-administered surface for ROW corridors (Map 54). Alternative D would result in impacts to ROWs from the designation of ROW corridors similar to those described under Alternative C, because the alternatives designate similar amounts of area for ROW corridors. Alternative D has more area designated for ROW corridors than Alternative B, but less than Alternative A.
Alternative D manages a total of 2,512,202 acres as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas (Map 54). Designating these avoidance/mitigation areas would cause adverse impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative D designates 1,570,424 more acres than Alternative A.
Alternative D manages a total of 39,003 acres as ROW exclusion areas. Managing these exclusion areas would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because Alternative D designates 22,413 fewer acres than Alternative A. Alternative D has more area managed as ROW exclusion area than Alternative C, but less than alternatives A and B.
Avoiding the placement of aboveground powerlines in the areas identified under Alternative D would result in adverse impacts to linear ROWs by limiting these authorizations in the identified areas. If the BLM authorizes aboveground powerlines in these areas, specific design guidelines and mitigation may be required to reduce adverse impacts to resource values.
Considering night skies in the evaluation of ROW applications would result in the same impacts as Alternative B.
Managing ROW avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas in ACECs and other management areas would result in adverse impacts similar to Alternative A, although to a greater extent because Alternative D includes more ACECs and other management areas and more acreage of these areas. Under Alternative D, management in ACECs would result in 264 acres of ROW exclusion areas and 82,395 acres of ROW avoidance/mitigation areas. Managing ACECs and Wild Lands designations under Alternative D would result in more ROW avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas compared to alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B. Allowing minor ROW authorizations and other minor surface-disturbing activities in the Clarks Fork Basin/Polecat Bench West Paleontological ACEC and the Foster Gulch Paleontological ACEC only if preceded by a paleontological survey may result in adverse impacts by limiting ROW authorizations in these areas. Designating the Chapman Bench Management Area would result in 3,425 acres of ROW avoidance/mitigation area. Prohibiting surface-disturbing activities (including ROW construction and development) above caves and cave passages in the Sheep Mountain Anticline ACEC would result in adverse impacts similar to Alternative A.
Prohibiting development with a moderate or strong contrast in the viewshed of the Heart Mountain Relocation Camp would result in adverse impacts similar to Alternative B, although to a greater extent because Alternative B only avoids surface-disturbing activities in view within 5 miles of the Heart Mountain National Historic Landmark. However, under Alternative D, the BLM may authorize more ROWs that could result in less than moderate contrast in this area compared to Alternative B.
Avoiding surface-disturbing activities up to 3 miles from the NHT (and 2 miles from Other Historic Trails) where the setting is an important aspect of the trail would cause impacts to ROWs similar to Alternative B, although to a lesser extent because Alternative D includes less acreage (distance from NHT and Other Historic Trails). Similar to alternatives B and C, exempting these restrictions in existing utility corridors would reduce these impacts in ROW corridors. Under Alternative D, management of NHTs and historic trails would result in greater adverse impacts to ROWs than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B.
Impacts to ROWs from management of big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat would be similar to Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because of the exemption of Oil and Gas Management Areas from discretionary big game seasonal limitations.
Impacts to ROWs from management of greater sage-grouse would be greater than under Alternative A, because Alternative D includes more restrictions and timing limitations inside and outside greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas.
Management of raptor nests would result in similar adverse impacts to ROWs as under Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because Alternative D includes less acreage associated with restrictions and seasonal limitations. Under Alternative D, there would be more impacts from management of raptor nests than under Alternative C, but less than under alternatives A and B.
Managing the Absaroka Front Management Area with measures to protect wildlife habitat would cause adverse impacts similar to Alternative B.
Management of cultural resources would result in adverse impacts to ROWs similar to Alternative B, although to a lesser extent because Alternative D includes less avoidance/mitigation area (3 miles). Under Alternative D, adverse impacts to ROWs from management of cultural resources would be less than Alternative B, but greater than Alternative C.
Impacts from VRM would be similar to those under Alternative A, except that Alternative D manages more area as VRM Class II (638,929 total acres), which may increase the restrictions designed to protect visual resources and would subsequently decrease opportunities for ROW authorizations in these areas. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative D includes more area designated as VRM Class I and VRM Class II than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B.