The analysis of impacts on social conditions focuses on the effects of BLM-authorized actions. It is important to note that many other events outside of the BLM’s control may alter economic and social trends. For instance, oil and gas prices may change as a result of an expansion or contraction of world or national economic activity, and this, in turn, may affect the pace of development or the quantity of development. Similarly, state and local laws regulating the subdivision of land may alter land ownership and development patterns, which may in turn affect open space and physical landscapes. Minimal or no changes to social conditions resulting from BLM actions does not imply that no change could occur, as other forces may drive changes in economic and social trends.
Humans and associated social and economic conditions are an integral part of ecosystem and community function in the Planning Area. Lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs, values, social structure, culture, and population characteristics affect and are affected by management actions made by the BLM in the Planning Area. In addition, both the Planning Area lands and BLM management of these lands have emotional meanings for many people. Varying viewpoints on economic development and conservation of natural resources are expected to cause controversy related to management of BLM-administered land and federal mineral estate.
Any population change that could reasonably be associated with the alternatives may be due to changes in employment opportunities. Employment opportunities related to activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate include jobs in exploration, development, and production of minerals, including oil and gas, coal, locatable and salable minerals; jobs in livestock production; and jobs in various recreation activities. The economic analysis provides quantitative estimates of employment in the Planning Area from oil and gas exploration and development, grazing, and recreation activities on BLM-administered lands and mineral estate. These quantitative estimates are used to analyze impacts from management on population.
The social and economic values associated with BLM-administered lands include market values and nonmarket values. Market values are those related to goods and services that are typically bought and sold in markets. For example, commodities such as oil and gas, bentonite, crops, livestock products, and services such as outfitter trips and fishing guides are traded in markets. The production and sale of these goods and services result in jobs and income and the value of these goods to society can be readily expressed in monetary terms. Nonmarket values relate to things that people value, but are not generally bought or sold in markets. For example, many people may value the ability to see a mountain range from a certain vista point without human-caused impacts to visibility in the air. Some people value open vistas that lack structures, fences, wind turbines, or other signs of human development. Some people may place a high value on their ability to hunt or fish on public lands, and the satisfaction they derive from this ability may exceed the equivalent monetary cost of purchasing the same amount of food from the grocery store. Other people may value the knowledge that their offspring will enjoy clean air, open vistas, and the ability to fish and hunt. The common feature of these values is that they are generally not bought and sold like tangible goods and services, and for that reason are difficult to assign a monetary value. Other examples of nonmarket values include the satisfaction people derive from resources such as clean water, biological resources (e.g., wildlife), cultural resources, or even the satisfaction they derive from the knowledge that the BLM uses a particular fire management or invasive species control regime.
Some of the value associated with open space and other features is captured in markets. For example, the price of a house that overlooks a pristine mountain range may be higher than the price of a house that is identical in almost every respect but overlooks a cement factory. However, the ability to see an open landscape while driving along a highway is not likely to be captured in the market.
A related concept is that some changes in management may affect both market and nonmarket values. For instance, industrial development that substantially alters visual characteristics of the landscape may, over time, result in a lower number of tourists visiting the area and spending money in local hotels, restaurants, and shops. This decline in tourism would result in adverse impacts on employment and income. Such industrial development could also reduce the satisfaction of local residents who value open space resulting in adverse impacts on nonmarket values. On the other hand, the new industrial development would also generate jobs and income, and the net effect—if all values were to be expressed in the same metric (dollars)—could be beneficial or adverse.
Although economists have developed approaches to assign a monetary value to things that are not traded in markets, the approaches for doing so are often complex, controversial (due to the subjective nature of assigning a dollar value to something that is neither bought nor sold), and require considerable resources and time to analyze and interpret properly. For example, stated preference methods (e.g., surveys) are a common approach for placing a monetary value on clean air and open views. A survey may present people with images of a mountain vista with different degrees of haze superimposed and ask people to express how much they are willing to pay for the ability to see the vista with lower levels of haze for a certain number of days per year. However, research has shown that the survey design, sample size, and outreach methods can have a dramatic influence on the results. Due to the complexity and cost of implementing nonmarket valuation methods, quantifying these values was beyond the scope of this RMP revision. However, the BLM recognizes that changes in nonmarket values are likely correlated with level of resource protection and development under each alternative. The development of oil and gas resources and other minerals, as well as development of ROWs, renewable energy facilities, and other structures, may result in adverse impacts to nonmarket values under all alternatives. Furthermore, alternatives emphasizing resource development over conservation may result in greater impacts to nonmarket values.
Because of the close relationship between nonmarket economic values and how individuals in the Planning Area perceive their own quality of life, impacts on nonmarket values are discussed qualitatively in the section on Quality of Life and Local Culture.
With mounting economic pressures on the livestock sector, some ranch owners have raised money for retirement or other purposes by subdividing portions of their land into “ranchettes” and selling them to individuals. The sale of these ranchettes provides financial liquidity to ranchers who frequently have most of their assets in land but generally results in increased construction of fences, houses, and sometimes other structures (e.g., barns), resulting in changes to the visual landscape. Under all alternatives, this trend is likely to continue because it is fundamentally related to (1) the nature of the ranching business (principally, the fact that most ranchers’ assets are in land and the fact that profit margins are generally low and can turn negative in drought or other adverse conditions) and (2) state laws that govern property subdivision, under which county zoning laws cannot regulate subdivisions of 35 acres and larger. However, alternatives that adversely affect the profitability of ranching could serve to increase this trend. Because the subdivision of ranch land affects local culture and quality of life, impacts on this trend are discussed in the section on Quality of Life and Local Culture.
The economic and social analysis incorporates variations in pace of development over time. However, under all alternatives, the pace of development may differ from the rate assumed in the analysis. The BLM has limited control over the pace of development of leases because the agency only authorizes economic activities such as oil and gas drilling and does not conduct these activities. An abrupt shift in the pace of development may result in short-term impacts (beneficial or adverse) on demand for housing and community services and on the supply of tax revenues from residences or businesses to support community services, due to short-term changes in job opportunities and the resulting change in immigration or emigration trends. Any such impacts may be more severe for smaller communities, which are less likely to be able to absorb a sudden increase in population or to continue to support existing infrastructure if the population were to suddenly decrease.
The BLM did consider an alternative that would regulate the rate of oil and gas development in the Planning Area, but determined that the holders of federal oil and gas leases have the right to develop those leases. In addition, the BLM determined that setting reduced or limited rates of development is more appropriately analyzed in site-specific NEPA documents. The BLM therefore eliminated this alternative from detailed analysis. For more information, see the Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward for Detailed Analysis section in Chapter 2.
Under all alternatives, the BLM continues to consider socioeconomic impacts of site-specific actions and incorporates socioeconomic issues into analyses of environmental, social, and economic impacts, such as the analyses required by NEPA for site-specific actions.
As noted under Impacts Common to All Alternatives, changes in employment opportunities may result in changes to population and demographics. Under Alternative A, activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate related to oil and gas, livestock grazing, and recreation would support an average of 1,465 full-time and part-time jobs per year (Table 4–21) which represents approximately 3.9-percent of total employment in the Planning Area using 2008 employment statistics. It is important to note that this does not constitute an increase of 1,466 jobs per year over current employment, it more closely represents an estimate of the contribution of certain activities on BLM-administered lands and mineral estate to overall employment in the Planning Area.
Table 4.21. Comparison of Projected Earnings and Employment to 2008 Levels
| Measure | Alternative A | Alternative B | Alternative C | Alternative D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forecasted annual earnings due to activities on BLM-administered surface1 ($ millions) | $75.0 | $36.9 | $83.4 | $70.8 |
| Total labor earnings in 2008 ($ millions) | $2,098 | $2,098 | $2,098 | $2,098 |
| Forecasted annual earnings as a percentage of 2008 earnings | 3.6% | 1.8% | 4.0% | 3.4% |
| Forecasted annual employment due to activities on BLM-administered surface1 | 1,465 | 796 | 1,606 | 1,393 |
| Total employment in 2008 | 37,221 | 37,221 | 37,221 | 37,221 |
| Forecasted annual employment as a percentage of 2008 employment | 3.9% | 2.1% | 4.3% | 3.7% |
Source: Forecasted annual earnings and employment are calculated based on the IMPLAN model, as described in the text. Earnings and employment for 2008 are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA 2010a). Earnings are in millions of year 2008 dollars.
1Estimate of annual earnings and employment includes direct, indirect, and induced economic activity (the “multiplier effect”).
| IMPLAN | Impact Analysis for Planning model |
| BLM | Bureau of Land Management |
Approximately 77 percent of the job opportunities from activities analyzed using the IMPLAN model would be related to oil and gas development and production (1,121 jobs). Livestock grazing would contribute approximately 13 percent of the job opportunities (186 jobs) and recreation would contribute approximately 11 percent (158 jobs). These jobs would be dispersed geographically across the Planning Area because all three sectors operate across the Planning Area. Section 3.8 Socioeconomic Resources in Chapter 3 describes the geographic distribution of economic activities that occur on BLM-administered lands.
Job opportunities (and resulting increases or shifts in population) may concentrate in population centers such as Cody, Powell, and Worland. Management under Alternative A may not result in noticeable impacts to the current distribution of job opportunities in the Planning Area for a variety of reasons. Alternative A maintains current management where the contribution of economic activity on BLM-administered lands accounts for a relatively small proportion of jobs in the Planning Area (3.9 percent, according to the IMPLAN analysis of oil and gas, livestock grazing, and recreation for Alternative A). Also, the IMPLAN analysis considers jobs in all sectors, including those industries directly affected by BLM actions (e.g., oil and gas production) as well as those affected indirectly (e.g., retail jobs created by expenditures of workers in various industries). As a result, Alternative A would not alter the overall trend of BLM-authorized activities and associated population changes in the Planning Area.
Changes in population have the potential to change the demand for housing and community services such as roads, schools, and police and fire protection. As described in Chapter 3, county-wide vacancy rates in 2000 (the latest year for which data are available at this resolution) were 15.5 percent in Big Horn County, 17.2 percent in Hot Springs County, 13.1 percent in Park County, and 10.3 percent in Washakie County. These percentages represent approximately 800, 400, 1,600, and 400 vacant units in Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie counties, respectively. Vacancy rates for rental properties in the Planning Area have declined since 2001-2002. However, because Alternative A would not result in a change in direction of current BLM management, a change in either the total demand for housing and community services or its geographic distribution is not expected.
If development occurs slower or faster than the relatively steady pace assumed in the analysis, there may be short-term impacts on demand for housing and community services and on the supply of tax revenues from residences or businesses to support community services. It may be more difficult for smaller communities to absorb sudden changes of this nature. If national and international energy prices, operator business strategies, or other factors lead to a rapid pace of development there may be sudden short-term increases in demand for community services as a result of new jobs and increased population. However, local and state tax revenues collected from energy production could help to mitigate short-term increases in demand for services, since tax revenues help to pay for community services.
BLM land use plans must be consistent with state and local land use plans to the maximum extent consistent with federal law, including FLPMA. The BLM takes practical steps to resolve any identified conflicts between federal and local plans. Section 3.8.1 Social Conditions in Chapter 3 summarizes adopted land use plans for each of the counties. Alternative A would maintain existing policies for BLM land management and would not result in any inconsistencies or conflicts with existing county land use plans.
Historically, the communities in the Planning Area developed around a combination of resource-based industries, ranching, trade and commerce, and providing supplies and services to tourists. Quality of life for the people who live in the Planning Area depends on continued economic opportunities as well as features of the natural landscape. Alternative A continues current BLM management. Historically, these policies have contributed, along with other government policies and the actions of private firms and residents, to economic viability and resilience in the Planning Area. Despite these policies and actions, several communities in the Planning Area have experienced and continue to experience declines in population and increases in median age. The BLM believes that a balanced management approach continues to be best for improving the capability of communities to respond to technological, demographic, and economic change. Alternative A would allow other forces (beyond BLM-authorized actions) to drive changes to the economic, physical, and social conditions in the Planning Area.
Although there are groups with particular interests in the management of certain resources and resource uses (e.g., wilderness advocates, oil and gas interests, and ranchers), overall the residents of the Planning Area tend to support both conservation of natural resources and the economic viability of resource-based industries. For this reason, residents generally support multiple-use of BLM lands, including the development of mineral and energy resources, livestock grazing authorizations, continued access to BLM-administered lands for recreation, and conservation of wildlife and native vegetation.
Under this alternative, continued development of oil and gas wells, ROWs, and other human-made structures on the landscape would continue to result in decreases in nonmarket values associated with open space and the environment. Because Alternative A essentially represents continuation of current management, these decreases may be similar to historic trends. Under this alternative, subdivision of ranch land and related development and sale of “ranchette” parcels would continue, generally consistent with historic trends. The development of these “ranchette” parcels increases institutional challenges, such as those related to provision of community services and management of invasive plant species. In addition, the development of “ranchettes” may adversely affect the value of land as wildlife habitat by increasing the number of fences and other barriers to wildlife movement.
Under Alternative B, activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate related to oil and gas, livestock grazing, and recreation would support an average of 796 full-time and part-time jobs per year, which represents approximately 2.1 percent of total employment in the Planning Area as of 2008 (Table 4-21). Compared to Alternative A, this represents a decrease of 669 jobs (approximate 46 percent decrease), or approximately 1.8 percent of employment using 2008 employment statistics. Most of these job losses are related to restrictions on development of oil and gas resources (617 jobs), with the remainder related to reduced livestock grazing (52 jobs). Due to restrictions on oil and gas development under Alternative B, more oil and gas wells may be drilled on nearby state or fee surface land, partially compensating for the projected employment decrease in that sector.
A decrease in employment opportunities may result in a decrease in population in the Planning Area as people may leave the area to seek employment elsewhere. The expected magnitude of any such decrease would be similar to the magnitude of employment loss but would be lower since some people (e.g., retired people) survive on unearned income and do not depend directly on employment for economic well-being. In other words, if 1.8 percent of employed people and their families leave the Planning Area, the population would decrease by less than 1.8 percent because some residents of the Planning Area are retired or otherwise non-working families.
Approximately 63 percent of the job opportunities from activities analyzed using the IMPLAN model would be related to oil and gas development and production under Alternative B (505 jobs). Livestock grazing would contribute approximately 17 percent of the job opportunities (134 jobs), and recreation would contribute approximately 20 percent (158 jobs). (Note that due to rounding, these sector breakouts do not necessarily add up to the total reported above.) These jobs would be dispersed geographically across the Planning Area as described under Alternative A. The average annual number of jobs supported by recreation activities would be the same across all alternatives; however, average annual jobs and income supported by oil and gas would decrease by approximately 55 percent compared to Alternative A, and jobs and income supported by livestock grazing would decrease by approximately 28 percent compared to Alternative A.
Job opportunities and job losses (and resulting shifts in population) in Alternative B may concentrate in population centers. Because the majority of job losses in Alternative B would be related to decreased oil and gas development, the greatest population changes would occur in areas that service oil and gas fields (e.g., Cody). Oil and gas fields occur throughout the basin, and overall the distribution of any job losses would also likely occur throughout the basin. Jobs and income lost in the livestock grazing industry would also affect workers throughout the Planning Area. The adverse effects on grazing operations from the loss of access to federal allotments could also result in substantial adverse financial effects for some individual ranching operations, depending on how specific operations use the federal allotments and how important a role BLM-administered lands play in financing and production. The IMPLAN model does not account for “cascade” type effects such as the potential for individual operations to fail. Failing operations could have subsequent indirect impacts on social and economic conditions in communities. For example, a loss of individual grazing operations could result in reduced income for retail businesses that supplied the lost operations (e.g., feed and supply stores). Financial threats to grazing operations could increase land sales to residential developers and the spread of “ranchettes.” Note, however, that the failure of individual operators does not necessarily mean that the operation will cease to exist or will immediately be developed into residential or ranchette parcels. Historically, many ranching and grazing operations have changed hands while being maintained in ranching and grazing. In some of these cases, the new owners have been less dependent on livestock grazing for financial security, so the emphasis of the operation may change but the operation does not cease to exist in its entirety. In other cases, subdivisions have sprung up, creating new challenges. This topic is discussed with further detail in the section on quality of life and local culture, below.
Alternative B may result in decreased population compared to other alternatives, which may result in decreased demand for housing and community services. Alternative B would also result in a reduced tax base for providing community services, as described in Section 4.8.2 Economic Conditions. The exact geographic distribution of these changes is not possible to predict because tax losses in specific jurisdictions would be driven by undetermined well locations; however, the restrictions on oil and gas development in Alternative B affect broad areas of land throughout the Planning Area, so the reductions in tax revenues would likely affect all communities that currently produce oil and/or gas.
As described under Alternative A, the BLM takes practical steps to resolve any identified conflicts between federal and local plans. Under Alternative B, increased restrictions on oil and gas development could be perceived as a conflict with the Hot Springs County Land Use Plan, which expresses concern about growing federal and state regulation on public lands that may slow or hinder economic development. Alternative B would not conflict with the adopted land use plans of Big Horn, Park, or Washakie counties.
As described under Alternative A, quality of life for the people who live in the Planning Area depends on continued economic opportunities as well as features of the natural landscape. Alternative B would reduce economic opportunities, but would also result in decreased air pollution and other adverse environmental impacts associated with development (e.g., oil and gas) compared to the other alternatives.
As noted under Alternative A, residents generally support multiple-use of BLM lands, including the development of mineral and energy resources, livestock grazing authorizations, continued access of BLM lands for recreation, and conservation of wildlife and native vegetation. Alternative B would continue the BLM’s current practice of allowing multiple-uses, but would prioritize resource conservation over resource uses such as oil and gas development. This may be inconsistent with the culture advocated by some interest groups (e.g., oil and gas interests, livestock ranchers) and may promote the culture advocated by others (e.g., wilderness advocates).
Under this alternative, continued development of oil and gas wells, ROWs, and other human-made structures on the landscape would continue to result in adverse impacts to nonmarket values associated with open space and the environment. However, because this alternative emphasizes resource conservation, the magnitude of these decreases would be less than historic trends and less than under the other alternatives.
From a distributional perspective, the withdrawal of livestock grazing areas in Alternative B would result in a substantial impact on a substantial number of allotments, and potentially on a substantial number of livestock operators. BLM currently allows grazing on 673 allotments in the Planning Area. Livestock grazing withdrawals on these allotments would result in the loss of at least half the AUMs on 44 percent of the allotments, the loss of at least three-quarters of the AUMs on 25 percent of allotments, and the loss of nine-tenths or more of the AUMs on 15 percent of the allotments in the Planning Area. Furthermore, the losses in Alternative B would affect allotments in all size categories, and allotments spread over the entire Planning Area. Some ranchers may be able to continue operating, albeit at a reduced level, by using more state and private land. However, many ranchers may be forced to cut back their operations, sell their ranch to another operator (consolidate operations), or find alternative ways to make a living. This would certainly result in substantial impacts on individual ranchers, and depending on potential “cascade” effects, could also result in accelerated subdivision of ranch land, sales of ranch land to residential developers, development of “ranchette” parcels, and the resulting conversion of ranch land to residential areas. However, as noted above, the failure of individual operators does not necessarily mean that the operation will cease to exist or will immediately be developed into residential or ranchette parcels.
Under Alternative C, activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate related to oil and gas, livestock grazing, and recreation would support an average of 1,606 full-time and part-time jobs per year (Table 4-21), which represents approximately 4.3 percent of total employment in the Planning Area using 2008 employment statistics. Compared to Alternative A, which essentially represents the continuation of current trends, Alternative C would result in an increase of 141 jobs (approximate 10 percent increase), or approximately 0.4 percent of employment using 2008 employment statistics. These job increases would be associated with increased development of oil and gas resources.
An increase in employment opportunities may result in an increase in population in the Planning Area as people are drawn to the new jobs. The expected magnitude of any such increase would be similar to the magnitude of employment gained, as new employees move to the area with their families.
As shown in Section 4.8.2 Economic Conditions, approximately 79 percent of the job opportunities from activities analyzed using the IMPLAN model would be related to oil and gas development and production (1,263 jobs). Livestock grazing would contribute approximately 12 percent of the job opportunities (185 jobs), and recreation would contribute approximately 10 percent (158). These jobs would be dispersed geographically across the Planning Area as described under Alternative A. The average annual number of jobs supported by recreation activities would be the same as Alternative A; however, average annual jobs supported by oil and gas would increase by approximately 28 percent compared to Alternative A, and jobs supported by livestock grazing would decrease by approximately 0.6 percent (one job) compared to Alternative A.
Overall, Alternative C would result in more job opportunities and may result in increased population compared to the other alternatives. Although Alternative C would result in increased job opportunities and population compared to the other alternatives, it would still not considerably alter the relative distribution of job opportunities or substantially affect population increase or movement in the region due to the factors described under Alternative A.
Alternative C may result in increased population leading to higher demand for housing and community services compared to alternatives A, B, and D. Alternative C would result in a greater tax base for providing these services, as described in Section 4.8.2 Economic Conditions. The geographic distribution of these changes is not possible to predict because higher tax revenues in specific jurisdictions would be driven by undetermined well locations. Oil and gas occurs throughout the basin, and the RFD does not predict specific well locations.
An increase in population sometimes results in population growth that overwhelms the ability of town or county governments to provide services. This is not expected to occur as a result of the BLM’s actions under Alternative C, for several reasons. First, the estimated increase would be spread over a relatively large area (four counties) and would likely “ramp up” over a relatively long time period. Second, based on county land use plans and information from city planning departments, rising population (at least on this scale) would not lead to the inability to provide infrastructure or community services. Several planning documents refer to the issue or problem of declining population, especially working-age population, and recommend increasing the use of public lands for development of oil and gas and other industries that can provide jobs. This implies that the supply of infrastructure and services exceeds the demand. This conclusion is also consistent with the descriptions of the infrastructure in counties’ planning documents (e.g., the Big Horn County Land Use Plan, which describes the service capacity for each of the towns in Big Horn County for water, wastewater, and other services and, in virtually all cases, concludes there is plenty of available capacity). The primary concerns regarding the availability of community services relate to the way in which new land is developed (spatial density or boom/bust cycles), rather than the total quantity of new development. Alternative C would not affect the spatial density of development, nor would it make boom/bust cycles more likely or substantially more severe. As a result, Alternative C would not likely have substantial effects on the ability of local governments to provide services.
Similar to the other alternatives, the BLM takes practical steps to resolve any identified conflicts between federal and local plans. The increased pace of oil and gas development under Alternative C may be perceived as creating a conflict with the Big Horn County Land Use Plan, as this plan identifies a need to diversify the region’s economy, pointing to the idea that it relies relatively heavily on mining and public sector activities. However, the county has other policy instruments to encourage economic diversification and the BLM’s actions under Alternative C would not likely limit the county’s ability to use these other instruments. As a result, there would not likely be a conflict with the Big Horn County Land Use Plan. Alternative C would not conflict with the adopted land use plans of Hot Springs, Park, or Washakie counties.
Alternative C would increase economic opportunities in the Planning Area more than alternatives A, B, and D, which may result in beneficial impacts on quality of life. However, Alternative C may also result in adverse impacts to air quality, wildlife, and other resources that improve quality of life related to natural characteristics.
Alternative C would prioritize the use of resources such as oil and gas development over the conservation of resource such as air quality and wildlife. This management approach would be consistent with the culture advocated by some interest groups (e.g., oil and gas interests) and would be inconsistent with the culture advocated by others (e.g., wilderness advocates).
Under this alternative, continued development of oil and gas wells, ROWs, and other human-made structures on the landscape would continue to result in decreases in nonmarket values associated with open space and the environment. However, because this alternative emphasizes resource use and development, the magnitude of these decreases would be greater than historic trends and greater than under alternatives A, B, and D. Under this alternative, subdivision of ranch land and related development and sale of “ranchette” parcels would continue and would result in impacts similar to Alternative A. This continuation would generally be in line with historic trends, because Alternative C would have relatively little impact on the economics of ranching.
Under Alternative D, activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate related to oil and gas, livestock grazing, and recreation would support an average of 1,393 full-time and part-time jobs per year (Table 4-21), which represents approximately 3.7 percent of total employment in the Planning Area using 2008 employment statistics. Compared to Alternative A, which essentially represents the continuation of current trends, Alternative D would result in a decrease of 72 jobs (approximate 5 percent decrease), or approximately 0.2 percent of year 2008 employment. Most of these job decreases would be associated with decreased development of oil and gas resources.
As shown in Section 4.8.2 Economic Conditions, approximately 75 percent of the job opportunities from activities analyzed using the IMPLAN model would be related to oil and gas development and production (1,050 jobs). Livestock grazing would contribute approximately 13 percent of the job opportunities (186 jobs), and recreation would contribute approximately 11 percent (158). (Note that due to rounding, these sector-level figures do not necessarily match the total reported above.) These jobs would be dispersed geographically across the Planning Area, as described under Alternative A. The average annual number of jobs supported by recreation activities and livestock grazing would be identical to that under Alternative A; however, average annual jobs supported by oil and gas would decrease by approximately 6 percent compared to Alternative A.
Overall, Alternative D would result in a slight decrease in job opportunities and, therefore, may result in a slight decrease in population compared to Alternative A. Alternative D would result in more job opportunities than Alternative B, but less than Alternative C. Because the change in population and employment would be very small, spread over time, and spread throughout the Planning Area, Alternative D would not considerably alter the relative distribution of job opportunities or substantially affect population increase or movement.
Alternative D may result in a small decrease in population compared to Alternative A, which may result in a small decrease in demand for housing and community services. Alternative D would also result in a slightly reduced tax base from oil and gas production (about 6 percent) for providing community services, as described in Section 4.8.2 Economic Conditions. Geographically, the change in job opportunities—and related impacts on housing and community services—would be spread across the Planning Area and would be spread over time.
Similar to the other alternatives, the BLM takes practical steps to resolve any identified conflicts between federal and local plans. Alternative D continues the BLM’s historical policy of balanced resource conservation and development, which encourages diversified economic activities by providing opportunities for developers to extract resources (e.g., oil and gas extraction) as well as develop industries that are sustainable in the very long term (e.g., renewable energy). Alternative D does not conflict with the adopted land use plans of Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, or Washakie counties.
Alternative D would provide economic opportunities in the Planning Area very similar to, although slightly less than, Alternative A. Alternative D would also result in some beneficial impacts to air quality, wildlife, and other resources that improve quality of life related to natural characteristics. The balanced management approach under Alternative D could increase the quality of life in the long term and increase the economic viability and sustainability of communities.
Alternative D would balance the use of resources such as oil and gas reserves with the conservation of resources such as air quality, open space, and wildlife habitat. Alternative D balances the culture advocated by some interest groups (e.g., oil and gas interests) with those of others (e.g., wilderness advocates). Alternative D provides for resource development and associated job opportunities while managing for nonmarket values associated with open space and natural characteristics.
Under this alternative, subdivision of ranch land and related development and sale of “ranchette” parcels would continue and would result in impacts similar to Alternative A. This continuation would generally be in line with historic trends, because Alternative D would have relatively little impact on the economics of ranching.