Based on the data from the IMPLAN model as well as qualitative analysis from other sectors, output, employment, and tax revenues resulting from activities on BLM-administered land and mineral estate would be highest under Alternative C and lowest under Alternative B. Alternative A would result in the second-highest level of economic activity, and Alternative D the third-highest. The amount of economic activity projected for alternatives A, C, and D is relatively similar with Alternative B resulting in substantially less economic activity. The most important driver of economic activity resulting from BLM management is oil and gas activity and the second most important driver is livestock grazing. Oil and gas activity would be highest under Alternative C, followed by alternatives A and D, and lowest under Alternative B. Economic activity from livestock grazing would be nearly identical between alternatives A, C, and D and substantially lower under Alternative B (employment from livestock grazing under Alternative B would be about 28 percent lower than under Alternative A). Earnings, output, and employment from recreation would be similar across all the alternatives.

Economic activity related to other sectors not modeled using IMPLAN, including renewable energy, locatable minerals, and salable minerals, would be similar across all the alternatives, at least in the first 5 to 10 years of the planning period. In the latter half of the planning period, economic activity from renewable energy may be somewhat higher under alternatives A, C, or D compared to Alternative B; however, the amount of activity is uncertain.

Table 4-21 compares projected earnings and employment related to activities on BLM-administered areas to the levels in 2008 for the four-county region. Alternative A would result in about $75 million in earnings and 1,465 jobs annually from BLM-administered land and resources. Alternative B would generate about $37 million in earnings and 796 jobs, while Alternative C would generate approximately $84 million in earnings and 1,606 jobs. Alternative D would generate about $71 million in earnings and 1,396 jobs. Therefore, Alternative C would result in the highest earnings and employment, followed by alternatives A, D, and B.

It is useful to compare the differences in earnings and employment across alternatives, not only in absolute terms, but also to the size of the regional economy. The earnings associated with Alternative A, compared to 2008 earnings for the Planning Area counties, represent slightly more than one-thirtieth (3.6 percent) of the total earnings in the Planning Area counties (Table 4-21). Earnings associated with BLM-administered lands under alternatives B, C, and D constitute 1.8, 4.0, and 3.4 percent of year 2008 earnings, respectively. The average employment associated with activities on BLM-administered land under alternatives A, B, C, and D represents about 3.9, 2.1, 4.3, and 3.7 percent of employment for counties in the Planning Area in year 2008, respectively (Table 4-21). This provides a useful perspective on the relative importance of BLM-administered lands in the overall regional economy and also shows that the difference between alternatives—relative to the regional economy—is small. For example, the difference in employment projected between alternatives A and B would be just 1.8 percent of employment in year 2008 (3.9 minus 2.1), which would be noticeable (it would be as if the unemployment rate increased by 1.8 percent) but would not lead to wholesale changes in regional economic activity. The difference in annual employment between alternatives A and D would be noticeable in regional statistics, but would still be just 0.2 percent, which is not likely noticeable for most residents or workers. Other national, state, and regional policies and trends, such as the value of the dollar, federal fiscal and monetary policy, and global oil prices, would have a substantially larger impact on economic activity in the Planning Area.

The data in Table 4-21, as well as the other tables in this section showing the results of the economic model analysis, reflect direct as well as indirect impacts on economic conditions. For example, the earnings and employment information in this section include oil and gas, livestock grazing, and recreation sectors as well as all other sectors that are connected such as retail, food service, hotels and other accommodation services, and social services such as education and health care.