Economic Impact of 2013 BLM Sage Grouse Conservation Plan

March 1, 2014

Economic Impact of 2013 BLM Sage Grouse Conservation Plan * * *

Aggregate Economic Impactsof the 15 2013 BLM Sage Grouse Draft Resource Management Plan Amendments

and Environmental Impact Statements

Law Offices of Lowell E. Baier© Lowell E. Baier and Christopher E. Segal

Attorneys at Law

Greater Sage Grouse Range

Historic Range: 296,645,807 acresCurrent Range: 165,168,201 acresBLM Range: 82,934,426 acresOther Range:* 82,233,775 acres

∗ Private, state, USFS, USFWS, NPS, DOE, DOD, and BIA lands

Sources: Michael A. Schroeder, et. al., "Distribution of Sage-Grouse in North America," Condor 106 (2004):363–376; Kevin E. Doherty, et. al., Mapping breeding densities of greater sage-grouse: A tool for range-wide conservation planning, Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management (September 24, 2010).

March 1, 2014 1

Table of Contents

Summary............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Table 1: Overview of Range-wide Impacts ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Background and Methodology............................................................................................................................................................................................ 4

BLM’s Sage Grouse Planning Process ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Aggregating BLM’s Sage Grouse Economic Data – Purpose and Benefits ................................................................................................................... 4

Aggregating BLM’s Sage Grouse Economic Data – Methods and Challenges ............................................................................................................. 5

Aggregating BLM’s Sage Grouse Economic Data – Findings....................................................................................................................................... 7

Aggregating BLM’s Sage Grouse Economic Data – Potential Problems....................................................................................................................... 9

Table 2: Changes in Jobs and Annual Earnings................................................................................................................................................................ 11

Table 3: Changes in Economic Output ............................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Table 4.1: Changes in Federal Revenue if BLM Implements Preferred Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 15

Table 4.2: Changes in Federal Revenue if BLM Implements Most Restrictive Alternatives .......................................................................................... 17

Table 5.1: Changes in State and Local Revenue if BLM Implements Preferred Alternatives ......................................................................................... 19

Table 5.2: Changes in State and Local Revenue if BLM Implements Most Restrictive Alternatives ............................................................................. 21

Table 6.1: Miscellaneous Changes if BLM Implements Preferred Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 23

Table 6.2: Miscellaneous Changes if BLM Implements Most Restrictive Alternatives .................................................................................................. 24

Notes on each of the 15 draft RMPs / EISs ...................................................................................................................................................................... 25

March 1, 2014 2

BLM Sage Grouse RMP/EIS Boundaries

Idaho and SouthwesternMontana Sub-regional

GRSG RMP Amendment/EIS

Nevada and NortheasternCalifornia Sub-regional

GRSG RMP Amendment/EIS

Oregon Sub-regionalGRSG RMP

Amendment/EIS

Utah Sub-regionalGRSG RMP

Amendment/EIS

9-planGRSG RMP

Amendment/EIS

Bighorn BasinRMP/EIS

Supplement

Billings/Pompey'sPillar NM RMP/EIS

BuffaloRMP/EIS

HiLineRMP/EIS

LanderRMP/EIS

Lewistown GRSG RMPAmendment/EIS Miles City

RMP/EISNorth DakotaGRSG RMP

Amendment/EIS

NW ColoradoGRSG RMP

Amendment/EIS

SouthDakota

RMP/EIS

MZ IIand VII

MZ IV

MZ III

MZ I

MZ V

BLM USFS GRSG Planning Strategy Sub-region/EIS BoundariesForest Service planning unit colors correspond to the BLMEIS they will be analyzed within.

¹ 0 100 20050 Miles Bureau of Land Management, Wildlife Habitat Spatial Analysis Lab, 2/28/2014,T:\OC\Wildlife\Projects\GRSG_WOConservationStrategy_CEA_2012\MXD\ProcessingData\FinalLUP_designations_Map_1_2013_DwightReq_rev.mxd,

Lara Juliusson, Karla Mayne, Anthony Titolo & Frank Quamen

BLM EIS

FS PU

March 1, 2014 3

SummaryIn 2013, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published drafts of Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendments and accompanying

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for all 15 BLM planning units that contain Greater Sage Grouse habitat. This was necessitated by a March,

2010 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determination that listing of the Greater Sage Grouse as a threatened or endangered species was

“warranted but precluded.” USFWS found that BLM’s existing RMPs were inadequate to protect the bird, and so BLM began to revise its RMPs to

conserve the Greater Sage Grouse and avoid its listing as a threatened or endangered species under the control of the USFWS.

Each BLM planning unit is responsible for preparing its own RMP, and although regional staff with particular expertise may work on

multiple RMPs, BLM does not itself produce any cumulative report on range-wide impacts. This report attempts to fill that gap. Doing so is

important because on the ground conservation work is expensive, as is the opportunity cost of foregoing economic development. For the states and

people who live with the grouse and who will bear the cost of its conservation – whether through voluntary efforts of people, states, and agencies like

BLM or through listing by USFWS – understanding the cumulative economic impacts of BLM’s proposed Greater Sage Grouse management is

critical to guiding their own conservation efforts.

Table 1: Overview of Range-wide Impacts

Impact Impact if BLM Implements Preferred Alternatives

Impact ifBLM Implements Most Restrictive

AlternativesRange-wide Jobs -5,570.85 -31,055.15

Range-wide Annual Earnings -$307,510,755 -$1,566,150,770Range-wide Annual Economic

Output-$839,376,601 -$5,631,509,000

Range-wide Annual Federal Revenues

-$25,381,596 -$246,004,137

Range-wide Annual State and Local Revenues

-$48,882,701 -$262,852,858

March 1, 2014 4

Background and Methodology

BLM’s Sage Grouse Planning Process

The process BLM uses to prepare RMPs is governed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA), and federal regulations. The guidance provided by these authorities on evaluating economic impacts is clear. 43 CFR § 1610.4-6

requires BLM to “estimate and display the physical, biological, economic, and social effects of implementing each alternative considered in detail.” It

further provides that “the estimation of effects shall be guided by the planning criteria and procedures implementing the National Environmental

Policy Act.” The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)’s government-wide regulations themselves define effects as including “ecological,

aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative.” (40 CFR § 1508.8).

In evaluating economic effects, BLM planning units fulfill this mandate by utilizing the IMPLAN (impact analysis for planning) software.

(BLM generally subcontracts IMPLAN modeling to a third party.) IMPLAN is an input-output statistical model that projects economic activity in a

given geographic area, based on a variety of customizable variables. One of IMPLAN’s strengths is that it incorporates direct, indirect, and induced

impacts, including multiplier effects. When evaluating economic impacts of proposed actions, BLM planning units are thus able to present data in

great detail, if they choose to.

Aggregating BLM’s Sage Grouse Economic Data – Purpose and Benefits

Although BLM planning units use IMPLAN to produce detailed economic impacts for their management decisions, no BLM office has

responsibility for totaling up the impacts. This is understandable in general (as planning decisions are local to each planning unit), but unfortunate in

the case of the Greater Sage Grouse. The 15 draft RMPs have all been prepared in part because of potential Greater Sage Grouse listing action by

USFWS, and that listing action would be based on range-wide conditions and would have range-wide impacts. BLM’s revised Greater Sage Grouse

March 1, 2014 5

management policy will succeed or fail in its entirety, by either protecting the grouse sufficiently to keep it from being listed or not. NEPA requires

that individual EISs look at cumulative effects within their areas. Yet no federal policy requires a cumulative effects analysis across the defined

habitat analyzed in the several draft RMP/EISs, a distinct deficiency in BLM’s planning and analysis procedures. In the absence of such a policy, it

falls to others, third parties without the data and expertise of BLM and other federal agencies, to try to account for the range-wide impacts of BLM’s

proposed actions. This report attempts to do just that, in order to see what BLM is proposing American workers and the American economy forfeit in

order to protect the Greater Sage Grouse.

Aggregating BLM’s Sage Grouse Economic Data – Methods and Challenges

Given the strengths of the IMPLAN software, it should be a simple matter to combine statistical projections from the several Greater Sage

Grouse RMPs. Unfortunately, this is not so. While BLM’s planning units follow a uniform methodology in their utilization of the IMPLAN model,

their public reports are widely divergent in their presentation of the data generated by IMPLAN.

Each of the RMPs evaluates a number of different planning alternatives, one of which is designated as the agency preferred alternative. These

draft RMPs are still subject to public comment and subsequent amendments, not to mention litigation and court-mandated changes. And if USFWS

lists the Greater Sage Grouse as threatened or endangered it will then designate critical habitat, potentially causing land-use restrictions beyond those

now contemplated by BLM. As this report has been prepared with the goal of describing the macro economic impacts of BLM’s management

changes for the protection of the Greater Sage Grouse, this report includes both aggregate data for the agency preferred alternatives in all 15 draft

RMPs, and also aggregate data for the most restrictive (to economic development) alternatives in all 15 draft RMPs. These two aggregate alternatives

are presented only in terms of the economic difference from the continuation of current management, and do not attempt to describe the total amount

of economic activity that will occur under each alternative. This is necessary because although IMPLAN can describe the total amount of economic

March 1, 2014 6

activity under each alternative, not all of the BLM planning units chose to present the alternatives in those terms. Accordingly, the only way to

compare the 15 RMPs to one another is to convert their data to differences from the continuation of current management.

Comparison between the 15 RMPs is further complicated by inconsistent descriptions of the economic data. Some RMPs divided their land

into primary and secondary study areas. Some separated out indirect and induced economic impacts and reported them separately from direct

economic impacts. Two included at least a partial evaluation of oil and gas development on adjoining state and private lands. For the most part these

differences do not significantly impact the RMPs. CEQ’s regulations direct federal agencies to restrict their EISs to significant impacts only, in order

to promote efficiency. In general, where an industry or an impact is omitted from a draft RMP, it is because that industry is not present in the

planning area or, if present, will not be affected by the proposed changes. However, there are exceptions to this. For example, while all 15 draft

RMPs present data on jobs and annual earnings, only 9 present any data on economic output. Of these 9, just 3 chose to present economic output data

in terms of 20-year net present value as well as in terms of annual output (accordingly, net present value is not included in this report). 5 of the 15

RMPs include no information on federal revenue streams, even though they do project changes in livestock grazing and other economic activities that

generate federal revenue. Among federal revenues, oil and gas revenues are a particular challenge due to their wildly inconsistent presentation. Some

RMPs merely provide aggregate figures, while others break them down into royalties vs. lease and rent incomes. Just a few further break out leasing

rates, bonus bids, etc. Information on other economic considerations, such as state and local revenues, volumes and values of minerals produced, oil

and gas wells drilled, or local population, to name a few, are so sporadic as to make any aggregation of the figures meaningless, as illustrated in

tables 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, and 6.2.

This is not to say that BLM planning units are neglecting these impacts entirely. Rather, they are failing to publish these impacts

quantitatively and with respect to each alternative. Many of the draft RMPs contain detailed statistics on current levels of economic activity within

their planning area (volume of mineral production, sales values, wells drilled, etc.), but fail to include corresponding future projections by

March 1, 2014 7

management alternative. This makes it impossible to use these RMPs as a group to paint a complete picture of the potential economic impacts of

BLM management changes across the Greater Sage Grouse’s range. In too many cases, data is either missing or difficult to interpret.

In order to attempt to aggregate the range-wide economic impacts of the 15 draft RMPs, it has been necessary to reduce them to their lowest

common denominators. For example, detail such as whether a secondary planning area exists and how much of the economic impacts are direct has

been omitted. Oil and gas revenues have simply been combined into total federal figures and total state and local figures, where available.

In aggregating figures from all 15 draft RMPs, the guiding philosophy has been to capture as much economic activity as possible. Thus,

economic data relating to secondary planning areas, indirect and induced impacts, etc. are all included wherever they are available, through the

simple expedient of including them in the totals. Additional notes on each of the 15 RMPs, providing further information on the unique presentation

of each RMP, are available at the end of this report. They apply throughout.

Aggregating BLM’s Sage Grouse Economic Data – Findings

As seen in the tables following this narrative, the projected economic impacts of BLM’s Greater Sage Grouse management vary widely from

state to state. In aggregate, however, they are considerable. Although the vast majority of impacts are negative, in a handful of cases the agency

preferred alternatives may increase economic activity, particularly in the recreation industry. Negative impacts are presented with a minus sign (“-”)

for clarity.

Table 2 (pages 11-12) contains data on both jobs lost and annual wages lost, the only economic impacts discussed in all 15 draft RMPs. Table

2 also lists the industries explicitly included in each RMP’s calculations, to better help state land managers and interested parties evaluate whether or

not the figures include a particular industry in a particular area. In total, BLM’s agency preferred alternatives will cost 5,570.85 jobs and

$307,510,755 in annual earnings. BLM’s most restrictive alternatives will cost 31,055.15 jobs and $1,566,150,770 in annual earnings.

March 1, 2014 8

Table 3 (pages 13-14) contains data on economic output lost. Data on economic output was available in only 9 of the 15 draft RMPs. Among

these 9 RMPs, the most common industries identified were oil and gas, livestock, and recreation. Accordingly, these industries are broken out

individually, while other less affected industries (coal mining, wind energy, and geothermal energy) are grouped together as “other.” “Not modeled”

indicates that the particular RMP was not among the 9 that modeled economic output, while “N/A” indicates that the RMP did model economic

output but had no data for that particular industry. Both are distinct from “$0,” which indicates no economic impact. Total figures are presented by

industry and by RMP. All told, BLM’s agency preferred alternatives will cost $839,376,601 in annual economic output. BLM’s most restrictive

alternatives will cost $5,631,509,000 in annual economic output.

Tables 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, and 5.2 (pages 15-22) summarize the government revenues identified in the draft RMPs. Coverage of this issue by the

RMPs was highly variable, so numerous fields are left blank. A blank field indicates that that RMP had no information for that source of revenue.

Tables 4.1 and 4.2 deal with federal revenues while tables 5.1 and 5.2 deal with state and local revenues. Tables 4.1 and 5.1 deal with BLM’s agency

preferred alternatives while tables 4.2 and 5.2 deal with the most restrictive alternatives. Oil and gas leases, rents, and royalties will be the source of

the greatest losses for the federal government, while state and local losses will be more spread out. It may be significant, however, that few RMPs

broke out the portion of oil and gas royalties that are remitted to states, so the costs to state and local revenues may be much greater than indicated

here. In total, these tables indicate that BLM’s agency preferred alternatives will cost the federal government $25,381,596 and state and local

governments $48,882,701 per year. The most restrictive alternatives, however, will cost the federal government $246,004,137 and state and local

governments $262,852,858 per year.

Tables 6.1 and 6.2 (pages 23-24) summarize the miscellaneous economic indicators captured by some of the draft RMPs. Table 6.1 deals with

costs of BLM’s agency preferred alternatives while table 6.2 deals with costs of the most restrictive alternatives. The information available in each

draft RMP was highly variable, making these as much as anything a case study in the incompleteness of the draft RMPs and the difficulties in

March 1, 2014 9

creating meaningful aggregations of their figures. Data on active AUMs for grazing, which is included in 6 of the 16 RMPs, comes the closest to

being comprehensive, followed by oil, gas, and coal bed natural gas (CBNG) well numbers, which are included in 5 of the 15 draft RMPs.

Aggregating BLM’s Sage Grouse Economic Data – Potential Problems

Unfortunately, the process of aggregating economic data and summarizing total range-wide potential impacts is one fraught with omissions

and other problems. To use one data point as a case study, oil, gas, and CBNG well numbers provide an example of a way in which the figures in

BLM’s draft RMPs may be incorrect. The draft RMP for Utah indicates that under the agency preferred alternative, Utah will lose 85 wells, and

under the most restrictive alternative, Utah will lose 356 wells. BLM associates the loss of 85 wells with 2,550,000 barrels of oil, 57,329 MCF of gas,

and $55,112,209 in economic activity. BLM associates the loss of 356 wells with 9,450,000 barrels of oil, 234,992 MCFs of gas, and $216,921,466

in economic activity.

When the draft RMP for Utah came out, the Utah State Office of Energy Development conducted its own study for use in comments on the

draft RMP. Utah found that BLM had identified Greater Sage Grouse habitat and drawn circles around each breeding ground, or lek, excluding

drilling for up to 4 miles. In its calculations based on this mapping, BLM assumed that each well around an exclusion area could utilize directional

drilling to access fluid minerals up to two miles away from the well pad. In fact, according to the Office of Energy Development, directional drilling

in Utah is extremely limited, requires special permitting, and is geologically impossible in many areas. When the state revisited BLM’s 4 mile

exclusions with this in mind, it found that as many as 4,760 potential wells, not 356, could be lost. In what it admitted to be a “high-high” estimate,

the state calculated that if every single one of these wells were ultimately developed, the state would gain 114,726 jobs and $22,430,000,000 in

economic output.

March 1, 2014 10

The state’s figures are cumulative, in contrast to the annual figures presented by BLM and in this report, but they are nonetheless striking.

Huge sums of money are at stake, as well as businesses, communities and counties dependant on those businesses, and thousands of jobs and

families’ security. This illustrates the critical point that the figures in this report are, in many respects, low. They are limited to BLM land (and some

Forest Service land) and the federal mineral estate, and do not include non-federal lands such as state park lands, state trust lands, state school lands,

and private lands. Sage grouse conservation in those areas is under state jurisdiction. Some states have already produced sage grouse conservation

plans, and others are working on them now.

The figures in this report are also limited to impacts on future leases (disregarding “negligible” potential secondary impacts on existing

leaseholders, such as restrictions on road building). They are based on ideal management decisions, which have not yet been subjected to the realities

of public comment and litigation. And finally, they are based on voluntary management decisions being undertaken by BLM to help avoid an

endangered species listing by the USFWS. Many have compared the Greater Sage Grouse to the Northern Spotted Owl, in terms of its potential to

cause economic devastation across the Western United States. To accurately project all of the economic impacts that could result from a listing by the

USFWS would be a herculean task. By law, the USFWS cannot consider economic impact in its listing process, merely species conservation and

survival. Only in designating critical habitat, the next step following a formal listing, do the Endangered Species Act and NEPA require the USFWS

to consider economic impacts. This report, collecting and aggregating data on the annual cost of BLM’s sage grouse conservation program, just one

aspect of protecting the grouse without it even being listed, can give only a sense of the magnitude of the economic impacts involved.

Contact Information Lowell E. Baier [email protected] 301-718-1800

Christopher E. Segal [email protected] 267-496-1446

March 1, 2014 11

Table 2: Changes in Jobs and Annual Earnings

Jobs and Annual Earnings Lost if BLM Implements Preferred Alternatives

Jobs and Annual Earnings Lost if BLM Implements Most Restrictive Alternatives

Jobs Annual Earnings Jobs Annual Earnings Industries included in Jobs

and Annual Earnings

Bighorn Basin (Wyoming) -310 -$9,100,000 -1,341 -$38,100,000

• Oil and Gas• Livestock • Recreation16 additional industries*

Billings/Pompey's Pillar (Montana) 1 -$5,000 -15 -$839,000

• Livestock • Minerals• Recreation• Timber• Wind Energy• Payments to Counties• BLM Expenditures

Buffalo Field Office (Wyoming) 80 $3,800,000 -3,340 -$197,900,000

• Oil and Gas• Livestock • Recreation

HiLine District (Montana) -75 -$4,123,000 -877 -$46,234,000

• Livestock• Minerals• Recreation • BLM Expenditures• Payments to Counties

Idaho and Southwestern Montana Sub-Region 280 $7,900,000 -2,228 -$63,000,000

• Livestock• Recreation• Wind energy*

Lander Field Office (Wyoming) -198 -$11,400,000 -1,001 -$56,800,000

• Oil and Gas• Livestock • Recreation

Lewistown Field Office (Montana) 0 $0 -135 -$1,879,000

• Livestock

March 1, 2014 12

Jobs and Annual Earnings Lost if BLM Implements Preferred Alternatives

Jobs and Annual Earnings Lost if BLM Implements Most Restrictive Alternatives

Jobs Annual Earnings Jobs Annual Earnings Industries included in Jobs

and Annual Earnings

Miles City Field Office (Montana) -292 -$17,357,000 -682 -$39,480,000

List of 20 industries, with mining being the largest, followed by government.

Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-Region -202 -$14,000,000 -1,825 -$73,100,000

• Livestock• Oil and Gas• Geothermal energy

North Dakota Field Office -0.1 -$11,121 -4.5 -$51,029

• Grazing• Oil and Gas

Northwest Colorado -1,033 -$55,759,009 -6,067 -$330,042,528

• Oil and Gas• Livestock Grazing• Recreation

Oregon Sub-Region -4.5 -$150,000 -910 -$26,700,000

• Livestock• Wind energy • Geothermal energy*

South Dakota Field Office -91 -$3,203,000 -122 -$4,390,000

• Livestock • Minerals• Recreation• Timber• Wind Energy• Payments to Counties• BLM Expenditures

Utah Sub-Region -216 -$10,775,144 -2,373 -$117,869,090

• Grazing• Oil and gas• Coal• Wind energy

Wyoming (Nine-Plan) -3,510.25 -$193,327,481 -10,134.65 -$569,766,123

• Livestock• Oil and gas• Wind energy

BLM Range-wideTotal -5,570.85 -$307,510,755 -31,055.15 -$1,566,150,770

*Indicates industries included only in jobs and not in annual earnings.

March 1, 2014 13

Table 3: Changes in Economic Output

Economic Output Change if BLM Implements Preferred Alternatives Economic Output Change if BLM Implements Most Restrictive AlternativesOil and Gas Livestock Recreation Other Total Oil and Gas Livestock Recreation Other Total

Bighorn Basin (Wyoming) -$63,600,000 $0 $0 N/A -$63,500,000 -$264,700,000 -$5,300,000 $0 N/A -$270,000,000Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument (Montana) Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not ModeledBuffalo Field Office (Wyoming) $113,300,000 -$200,000 $0 N/A $113,100,000 -$888,600,000 $200,000 $0 N/A -$888,300,000HiLine District (Montana) Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not ModeledIdaho and Southwestern Montana Sub-Region N/A $0 $34,300,000 N/A $34,300,000 N/A -$100,900,000 -$122,400,000 N/A -$223,300,000Lander Field Office (Wyoming) -$98,900,000 -$1,800,000 $1,800,000 N/A -$98,800,000 -$495,700,000 -$4,400,000 $4,100,000 N/A -$495,900,000Lewistown Field Office (Montana) Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not ModeledMiles City Field Office (Montana) Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not ModeledNevada and Northeastern California Sub-Region -$22,100,000 $0 N/A -$7,400,0001 -$29,500,000 -$86,900,000 -$66,250,000 N/A -$49,100,0001 -$202,300,000North Dakota Field Office Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled

March 1, 2014 14

Economic Output Change if BLM Implements Preferred Alternatives Economic Output Change if BLM Implements Most Restrictive AlternativesOil and Gas Livestock Recreation Other Total Oil and Gas Livestock Recreation Other Total

Northwest Colorado -$146,581,755 -$7,893,595 -$871,660 N/A -$155,347,010 -$869,831,990 -$31,574,377 -$17,321,842 N/A -$918,728,209Oregon Sub-Region N/A -$400,000 N/A $02 -$400,000 N/A -$68,700,000 N/A -$8,500,0002 -$77,200,000South Dakota Field Office Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not Modeled Not ModeledUtah Sub-Region -$55,112,309 $0 N/A -$3,864,2443 -$58,976,553 -$216,921,466 -$56,895,219 N/A -$245,076,2613 -$518,892,946Wyoming (Nine-Plan) -$494,632,826 $0 N/A -$85,620,2124 -$580,253,038 -$1,907,654,649 -$43,612,984 N/A -$85,620,2124 -$2,036,887,845Range-wideTotal -767,626,890 -$10,293,595 $35,228,340 -$96,884,456 -$839,376,601 -$4,730,308,105 -$377,432,580 -$135,621,842 -$388,296,473 -$5,631,509,000

“Not Modeled” indicates that the RMP/EIS did not model Economic Output.“N/A” indicates that the RMP/EIS modeled Economic Output, but not for that industry. This is usually because the industry is not present or, if present, the RMP/EIS alternatives would have no impact on it.Note 1: In the Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-Region RMP/EIS, “Other” includes Geothermal Energy.Note 2: In the Oregon Sub-Region RMP/EIS, “Other” includes Wind Energy.Note 3: In the Utah Sub-Region RMP/EIS, “Other” includes Coal and Wind Energy.Note 4: In the Wyoming (Nine-Plan) RMP/EIS, “Other” includes Wind Energy.

March 1, 2014 15

Table 4.1: Changes in Federal Revenue if BLM Implements Preferred Alternatives

Livestock Grazing

Oil/Gas Leases, Rents, Royalties (including bonuses where applicable)

Coal Leases,Rents,Royalties

Locatable /Salable Minerals

Recreation Use Permits (including special permits where applicable) Timber Sales R-O-W Rents

Wind Energy Rents Sand/gravel TOTAL

Bighorn Basin (Wyoming) -$5,300,000 -$5,300,000Billings and PompeysPillar National Monument (Montana) $0 -$22,537 $0 $0 $0 $4,750 $0 $0 -$17,787Buffalo Field Office (Wyoming) $11,700,000 $11,700,000HiLine District (Montana) $0 -$1,280,988 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 -$1,279,988Idaho and Southwestern Montana Sub-RegionLander Field Office (Wyoming) -$8,900,000 -$8,900,000Lewistown Field Office (Montana)

March 1, 2014 16

Livestock Grazing






Miles City Field Office (Montana) -$15,400 -$2,769,000 $0 -$2,094 $24,000 $0 $0 -$2,762,494Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-RegionNorth Dakota Field OfficeNorthwest Colorado -$563,534 -$563,534Oregon Sub-RegionSouth Dakota Field Office $0 -$597,619 $0 -$6,000 $0 -$1,117,000 -$1,720,619Utah Sub-Region -$2,241,596 $0 -$2,241,596Wyoming (Nine-Plan) -$14,297,672 -$14,297,672Range-wideTotal -$15,400 -$24,272,946 $0 $0 -$2,094 $23,750 $0 -$1,117,000 $0 -$25,383,690Blank fields indicate that the RMP/EIS did not include data on the relevant source of federal income.

March 1, 2014 17

Table 4.2: Changes in Federal Revenue if BLM Implements Most Restrictive Alternatives

Livestock Grazing






Bighorn Basin (Wyoming) -$22,500,000 -$22,500,000Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument (Montana) $0 -$1,743,615 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$1,743,615Buffalo Field Office (Wyoming) -$46,700,000 -$46,700,000HiLine District (Montana) $0 -$14,651,879 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 -$14,650,879Idaho and Southwestern Montana Sub-RegionLander Field Office (Wyoming) -$44,700,000 -$44,700,000Lewistown Field Office (Montana)

March 1, 2014 18

Livestock Grazing






Miles City Field Office (Montana) -$78,000 -$7,217,000 $0 -$4,187 -$30,000 $0 $0 -$7,329,187Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-RegionNorth Dakota Field OfficeNorthwest Colorado -$2,941,347 -$2,941,347Oregon Sub-RegionSouth Dakota Field Office $0 -$629,065 $0 -$11,000 $0 -$1,815,000 -$2,455,065Utah Sub-Region -$9,012,231 -$13,403,405 -$22,415,636Wyoming (Nine-Plan) -$80,571,595 -$80,571,595Range-wideTotal -$78,000 -$230,666,732 -$13,403,405 $0 -$4,187 -$40,000 $0 -$1,815,000 $0 -$246,007,324Blank fields indicate that the RMP/EIS did not include data on the relevant source of federal income.

March 1, 2014 19

Table 5.1: Changes in State and Local Revenue if BLM Implements Preferred Alternatives

State Severance taxes

Local Ad Valorem Production Taxes

Wind Energy Taxes1

Timber revenue

State Livestock Grazing Revenue

Local livestock grazing revenue

State Oil and gas revenues

Local oil and gas revenues

Other state revenues

Other local revenues Total

Bighorn Basin (Wyoming) -$2,500,000 -$2,900,000 -$5,400,000Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument (Montana) $190 $0 $0 -$9,474 -$3,594 $02 $04 -$12,878Buffalo Field Office (Wyoming) $5,600,000 $6,200,000 $11,800,000HiLine District (Montana) $0 $0 -$547,751 -$199,386 $05 -$747,137Idaho and Southwestern Montana Sub-RegionLander Field Office (Wyoming) -$4,300,000 -$4,900,000 -$9,200,000Lewistown Field Office (Montana)Miles City Field Office (Montana) $1,000 -$2,300 -$1,329,000 -$332,000 $03 $06 -$1,662,300

March 1, 2014 20



Wind Energy Taxes1

Timber revenue



State Oil and gas revenues




Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-RegionNorth Dakota Field OfficeNorthwest Colorado -$225,414 -$225,414Oregon Sub-RegionSouth Dakota Field Office $0 $0 -$292,834 -$292,834 $07 -$585,667Utah Sub-Region -$896,638 -$896,638Wyoming (Nine-Plan) -$5,623,567 -$5,906,625 -$23,273,639 -$7,148,836 -$41,952,667Range-wideTotal -$7,945,619 -$7,506,625 -$23,273,639 $1,190 -$2,300 $0 -$9,327,894 -$827,814 $0 $0 -$48,882,701Blank fields indicate that the RMP/EIS did not include data on the relevant source of state or local income.Note 1: “Wind Energy Taxes” include sale and use taxes, generation taxes, and property taxes.Note 2: In the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument (Montana) RMP/EIS, “Other state revenues” includes coal taxes and bentonite taxes.Note 3: In the Miles City Field Office (Montana) RMP/EIS, “Other state revenues” includes coal taxes.Note 4: In the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument (Montana) RMP/EIS, “Other local revenues” includes coal taxes, county distribution of bentonite taxes, payments in lieu of taxes, weed control payments, and community assistance / fire control funding.Note 5: In the HiLine District (Montana) RMP/EIS, “Other local revenues” includes payments in lieu of taxes.Note 6: In the Miles City Field Office (Montana) RMP/EIS, “Other local revenues” includes coal taxes, payments in lieu of taxes, and unspecified otherfederal payments to counties. Note 7: In the South Dakota Field Office RMP/EIS, “Other local revenues” includes payments in lieu of taxes and weed control payments.

March 1, 2014 21

Table 5.2: Changes in State and Local Revenue if BLM Implements Most Restrictive Alternatives



Wind Energy Taxes1

Timber revenue



State oil and gas revenues




Bighorn Basin (Wyoming) -$10,800,000 -$12,400,000 -$23,200,000Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument (Montana) $0 $0 $0 -$733,015 -$278,063 $02 $04 -$1,011,078Buffalo Field Office (Wyoming) -$22,500,000 -$24,400,000 -$46,900,000HiLine District (Montana) $0 $0 -$6,265,144 -$2,280,565 $05 -$8,545,709Idaho and Southwestern Montana Sub-RegionLander Field Office (Wyoming) -$21,400,000 -$24,300,000 -$45,700,000Lewistown Field Office (Montana)Miles City Field Office (Montana) -$1,200 -$11,700 -$3,463,000 -$866,000 $03 -$13,0006 -$4,354,900

March 1, 2014 22



Wind Energy Taxes1

Timber revenue

State Livestock GrazingRevenue


State oil and gas revenues




Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-RegionNorth Dakota Field OfficeNorthwest Colorado -$1,176,539 -$1,176,539Oregon Sub-RegionSouth Dakota Field Office $0 $0 -$308,242 -$308,242 $07 -$616,484Utah Sub-Region -$3,604,892 -$3,604,892Wyoming (Nine-Plan) -$31,374,362 -$32,809,457 -$23,273,639 -$40,285,797 -$127,743,256Range-wideTotal -$90,855,793 -$93,909,457 -$23,273,639 -$1,200 -$11,700 $0 -$51,055,198 -$3,732,870 $0 -$13,000 -$262,852,858Blank fields indicate that the RMP/EIS did not include data on the relevant source of state or local income.Note 1: “Wind Energy Taxes” include sale and use taxes, generation taxes, and property taxes.Note 2: In the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument (Montana) RMP/EIS, “Other state revenues” includes coal taxes and bentonite taxes.Note 3: In the Miles City Field Office (Montana) RMP/EIS, “Other state revenues” includes coal taxes.Note 4: In the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument (Montana) RMP/EIS, “Other local revenues” includes coal taxes, county distribution of bentonite taxes, payments in lieu of taxes, weed control payments, and community assistance / fire control funding.Note 5: In the HiLine District (Montana) RMP/EIS, “Other local revenues” includes payments in lieu of taxes.Note 6: In the Miles City Field Office (Montana) RMP/EIS, “Other local revenues” includes coal taxes, payments in lieu of taxes, and unspecified other federal payments to counties. Note 7: In the South Dakota Field Office RMP/EIS, “Other local revenues” includes payments in lieu of taxes and weed control payments.

March 1, 2014 23

Table 6.1: Miscellaneous Changes if BLM Implements Preferred Alternatives

Oil production (bbl)

Gas production (MCF)

Coal produced (short tons)

Bentonite produced (short tons)

Uranium produced (lbs)

Sand /gravel produced (short tons)

Timber harvest (mbf)

Coal sales value

Federal oil and gas acres leased

Oil, gas, and CBNG wells

Recreation visits

Active AUMs

Timber personal use permits

Expense of Fuels Treatments Costs (Fire Management) Population Households

Bighorn Basin (Wyoming) -163 -205Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument (Montana) -1,746 -900 -942 1 1Buffalo Field Office (Wyoming) 1,763HiLine District (Montana) -1,167 -1,311,133 0 0 -6,504 -140 -123 -45Idaho and Southwestern Montana Sub-Region 0Lander Field Office (Wyoming) -149 -50,394Lewistown Field Office (Montana)Miles City Field Office (Montana) -171,000 -283,000 0 479 -12,504 -32 1,967 -11,412 12 $894,000Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-Region 0North Dakota Field OfficeNorthwest ColoradoOregon Sub-Region -8,993South Dakota Field Office -48,482 -56,700 0 0 0 -142 -60Utah Sub-Region -2,550,000 -57,369 $0 -85 0Wyoming (Nine-Plan)Range-wide Total -2,772,395 -1,709,102 0 0 0 0 479 $0 -19,950 1357 1,967 -71,004 12 $894,000 -264 -104Blank fields indicate that the RMP/EIS did not include data on the relevant impact.

March 1, 2014 23









Coal sales value



Recreation visits

Active AUMs




March 1, 2014 23









Coal sales value



Recreation visits

Active AUMs




March 1, 2014 24

Table 6.2: Miscellaneous Changes if BLM Implements Most Restrictive Alternatives




Bentoniteproduced (short tons)




Coal Sales Value



Recreation Visits

Active AUMs



Bighorn Basin (Wyoming) -621 -162,247Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument (Montana) -107,488 -55,396 -58,001 -23 -8Buffalo Field Office (Wyoming) -2,623HiLine District (Montana) -12,543 -14,304,882 0 0 -389,897 -1,232 -1,439 -535Idaho and Southwestern Montana Sub-Region -1,162,727Lander Field Office (Wyoming) -746 -150,640Lewistown Field Office (Montana)Miles City Field Office (Montana) -444,000 -738,000 0 -621 -32,573 -81 7,872 -57,805 -48 $336,000Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-Region -2,223,515North Dakota Field OfficeNorthwest ColoradoOregon Sub-Region -924,617South Dakota Field Office -51,033 -59,684 0 0 0 -163 -80Utah Sub-Region -9,450,000 -234,992 -$146,301,599 -356 -593,900Wyoming (Nine-Plan)Range-wide Total -10,065,064 -15,392,954 0 0 0 0 -621 -$146,301,599 -480,471 -5038 7,872 -5,275,451 -48 $336,000 -1,625 -623Blank fields indicate that the RMP/EIS did not include data on the relevant impact.

March 1, 2014 24









Coal Sales Value



Recreation Visits

Active AUMs




March 1, 2014 24









Coal Sales Value



Recreation Visits

Active AUMs




March 1, 2014 25

Notes on each of the 15 draft RMPs / EISsBighorn Basin (Wyoming)

This 1,728 page draft RMP (with a 412 page Greater Sage Grouse Supplement) covers 5.6 million acres of land, including 3.2 million acres of BLM land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. It uses 2008 dollars. It breaks down data on jobs between direct and indirect or induced jobs.

Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument (Montana)This 1,311 page draft RMP covers 10.8 million acres of land, including .4 million acres of BLM land and 1.8 million acres of federal mineral

estate. It uses 2010 dollars. It includes federal mineral estate lands underneath Bureau of Reclamation land.

Buffalo Field Office (Wyoming)This 2,269 page draft RMP covers 7.4 million acres including .8 million acres of BLM land and 4.8 million acres of federal mineral estate. It

uses 2011 dollars. Oil and gas figures are available for federal land only and also as “cumulative” figures for federal, state, and private land – the latter is used in this report (they are only slightly greater than the figures for federal land only, as would be expected).

HiLine District (Montana)This 1,302 draft RMP covers 17.6 million acres, including 2.4 million acres of BLM land and 4.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. It

uses 2009 dollars.

Idaho and Southwestern Montana Sub-RegionThis 1,836 page draft RMP covers 53 million acres of land, including 12.7 million acres of BLM land and 17.4 million acres of National

Forest System land and 32 million acres of federal mineral estate. It uses 2010 dollars. It includes Forest Service land and minerals. It divides the planning area into primary and secondary areas. For wind energy, however, data is only available on the primary area.

Lander Field Office (Wyoming)This 1,972 page draft RMP covers 6.6 million acres of land, including 2.4 million acres of BLM land and 2.8 million acres of federal mineral

estate. It uses 2007 dollars.

Lewistown Field Office (Montana)This 718 page draft RMP covers 7.3 million acres of land, including .6 million acres of BLM land and 1.5 million acres of federal mineral

estate. It uses 2013 dollars. This RMP is particularly thin on data due to unique circumstances within the planning area. There is a court-ordered moratorium on all new BLM oil and gas leasing in “important wildlife habitat” in Montana, unless specific additional planning is carried out. Among the BLM planning units in Montana, only the Lewistown Field Office has not yet completed this process, meaning that all new oil and gas development in “important wildlife habitat” within its planning area requires individual project evaluation. Because Greater Sage Grouse habitat is now considered “important wildlife habitat,” all planning alternatives, including the continuation of current management, have the same impacts on oil and gas development.

This RMP also evaluates but does not quantify impacts on recreation. This is because planners determined that it was not possible to model the impacts that each alternative would have on highly individualized human recreation behavior.

March 1, 2014 26

Miles City Field Office (Montana)This 1,694 page draft RMP covers 25.8 million acres of land, including 2.8 million acres of BLM land and 11.0 million acres of federal

mineral estate. This RMP uses 2010 dollars.

Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-RegionThis 1,737 page draft RMP covers 70 million acres of land, including 45 million acres of BLM land and 4.5 million acres of National Forest

System lands and an unspecified number of acres of federal mineral estate. It uses 2010 dollars. It includes Forest Service land and minerals. Geothermal energy figures are divided into “construction” and “operations.” Grazing figures include a “high” and a “low” scenario – the average of the two is used in this report.

An additional challenge in evaluating this RMP was identifying the most restrictive planning alternative. The RMP included two most restrictive alternatives, one that conserves Greater Sage Grouse by heavily restricting grazing and one that conserves Greater Sage Grouse by heavily restricting oil and gas development. Because oil and gas development is more lucrative than grazing, the alternative that most limits oil and gas has the greatest impact on economic development, even though the alternative that most limits grazing has the greatest impact on jobs and annual earnings. In this report, each table uses the most restrictive alternative for the specific impact being evaluated. Thus, for this RMP alone, it would be inaccurate to say that BLM’s most restrictive alternative would cost the stated number of jobs and amount of income and also the stated economic output.

North Dakota Field OfficeThis 626 page draft RMP covers 1.0 million acres of land and includes .03 million acres of BLM land and .4 million acres of federal mineral

estate. It uses 2013 dollars.

Northwest ColoradoThis 1,099 page draft RMP covers 8.6 million acres of land, including 1.7 million acres of BLM and Forest Service land and 2.8 million acres

of federal mineral estate. It uses 2011 dollars. It includes Forest Service land and minerals, and divides the planning area into primary and secondary areas.

Oregon Sub-RegionThis 1,120 page draft RMP covers 31 million acres of land, including 12 million acres of BLM land and 15 million acres of federal mineral

estate. It uses 2010 dollars. It divides the planning area into primary and secondary areas. Wind energy figures are divided into “construction” and “operations.” Livestock figures include a “high” and a “low” scenario – the average of the two is used in this report.

South Dakota Field OfficeThis 1,211 page draft RMP covers 49.3 million acres (the entire state of South Dakota), including .3 million acres of BLM land and 1.7

million acres of federal mineral estate. (This is somewhat odd, as the BLM USFS GRSG Planning Strategy Map available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/documents_and_resources/blm_usfs_grsg_planning.html suggests the planning area is only a small part of northwestern South Dakota.) It does not specify the year in which it presents its dollar figures. However, the RMP indicates that its IMPLAN figures are from 2007, which suggests that it uses 2007 dollars.

March 1, 2014 27

Utah Sub-RegionThis 1,028 page draft RMP covers 48 million acres of land (7 million acres of which are Greater Sage Grouse habitat), including 2.5 million

acres of BLM land and .8 million acres of National Forest System land and 4 million acres of federal mineral estate. It uses 2011 dollars. It includes Forest Service land and minerals, and divides the planning area into primary and secondary areas. Wind energy figures are divided into “construction” and “operations.” Oil and gas figures are available for federal land only and also for federal, state, and private land – the latter is used in this report.

Wyoming (Nine-Plan)This 1,989 page draft RMP covers 39 million acres of land, including 16 million acres of BLM and National Forest System land and 23

million acres of federal mineral estate. It uses 2011 dollars. It is unique in that instead of using annual averages, it presents all dollar figures as cumulative for 2013-2020 plus an annual discounting rate of 3%. The figures presented here have been converted to annual averages, with discounting corrected for. BLM experts consulted on this matter do not recommend this approach because of the high rate of oil and gas development in Wyoming - they caution that the 8-year averages presented here are so far removed from the actual figures for any given year as to be meaningless for planning purposes. This approach has nonetheless been taken because there is no other way to compare the Wyoming (Nine-Plan) figures to the other 14 RMPs.

This RMP includes Forest Service land and minerals, and separates economic impacts into “direct” and “total.” Oil, gas, and wind energy figures are divided into “development” and “production.” Wind energy figures include a “high” and a “low” scenario – the average of the two is used in this report.

Economic Impact of 2013 BLM Sage Grouse Conservation Plan

Documents

Transcript of Economic Impact of 2013 BLM Sage Grouse Conservation Plan