Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse : draft land use plan amendment and environmental impact statement

2013·123.6 MB·English

by  United States. Bureau of Land Management

BLM LIBRARY
88068260
Northeastern California
Southwestern
Montana
Greater Sage-Grouse
Nevadaand
Northeastern
California
Draft
Land Use Plan Amendment and
Environmental Impact Statement
i
m 1 1
> V
\\ > f
’ V.
Ai j IJm
K ^ V IV A-./.
1 : 4 /'1®
rior
Bureau of Land Management
• ' ' .U.S.ftOUCtfPAAUIOTrMILANNT©OMfATMNAIOIfNMTfHNITIOH,
US^^^^tment
of Agriculture
QL
FoBlMrvice*
696
G285
.
N483
2013
The Bureau of Land Management’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the
public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau accomplishes this
by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy
production, and by conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands.
The mission ofthe USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests
and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations
BLM/NV/NV/ES/ 3-20+ 793
1 1
Cover Photo: Steve Ting
^D3‘5f5Q.mjb >82D<yH26.£> Q,L
IT
tiPl Lp
Management
Draft Resource
Plan/Environmental Impact
\A
I
Statement
September, 2013
This page intentionally
left blank
Draft Resource Management iii
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
Table of Contents
Nevada and Northeast California Greater Sage-Grouse xxi
Executive Summary xxiii
1 1
1.1. Introduction 1
1.1.1. National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 1
1.2. Description ofthe Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Area 5
1.3. Purpose and Need 7
1.4. Planning Process 8
BLM
1.4.1. Planning Process 8
1.4.2. US Forest Service Planning Process 12
1.4.3. Ecoregional Context and Landscape Planning Approach 14
1.5. Scoping and Identification of Issues For Development ofthe Proposed Plan and
Draft Alternatives 15
1.5.1. The Scoping Process 15
1.5.2. Issues Identified for Consideration in the Nevada and Northeastern
California Sub-region Greater Sage-Grouse LUPAs 16
1.5.3. Issues to Be Addressed Through Policy or Administrative Action (and
Therefore Not Addressed in the LUPAs) 17
1.5.4. Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Because They Are Beyond the
Scope ofthe LUPAs (and Therefore Not Addressed in the LUPAs) 17
1.6. Development ofPlanning Criteria 18
1.7. Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs 21
1.7.1. State Plans 22
1.7.2. Local Land Use Plans 22
1.7.3. Other Federal Plans 24
1.7.4. Fish and Wildlife Species Recovery or Management Plans 24
1.7.5. Tribal Plans 26
1.7.6. Memorandums ofUnderstanding 26
1.7.7. Activity Plans and Amendments 27
1.7.8. Habitat Management Plans 29
1.8. Vegetation Management Policies 30
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 33
2.1. Introduction 35
2.1.1. Nevada and Northeastern California Sub-region 35
2.2. Introduction to LUP Alternatives 36
2.3. Alternative Development Process for the Nevada and Northeastern California
Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 37
2.3.1. Develop a Reasonable Range ofAlternatives 38
2.4. Alternatives Considered in Detail 38
September, 2013 Table ofContents
IV Draft Resource Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
2.4.1. Alternative A: No Action 44
2.4.2. Alternative B 44
2.4.3. Alternative C 45
D
2.4.4. Alternative 45
2.4.5. Alternative E 46
2.4.6. Alternative F 47
2.5. Management Common to All Alternatives 47
BLM
2.5.1. and Forest Service Vegetation Management 48
2.5.2. Monitoring for the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 50
2.5.3. Adaptive Management 51
2.6. Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 53
2.6.1. Close All or Portions ofPreliminary Priority or Preliminary General
Management Areas to Off-Highway Vehicle Use 53
2.6.2. Elko County Sage-Grouse Plan 54
2.6.3. Increased Grazing Alternative 55
2.7. Considerations for Selecting a Preferred Alternative 55
2.8. Comparison ofAlternatives 56
2.8.1. No Action Alternative 56
2.8.2. Action Alternatives 73
2.9. Summary ofEnvironmental Consequences 357
2.10. Comparison ofAlternatives Alleviation ofUSFWS-Identified Threats 386
3. Affected Environment 393
3.1. Introduction 395
3.1.1. Organization ofChapter 3 395
3.2. Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 397
3.2.1. Range and Taxonomy 397
3.2.2. Biology and Life History 397
3.2.3. Management Zones 403
3.2.4. Regional Context 422
3.3. Vegetation (Including Invasive and Exotic Species/Noxious Weeds) 426
3.3.1. Weed Control Guidance and Programs 426
3.3.2. Current Condition 427
3.4. Riparian Areas and Wetlands 438
3.5. Fish and Wildlife and Special Status Species 441
3.6.1.
3.5.1. Conditions on BLM-Administered Lands 441
3.5.2. Conditions on Forest Service-Administered Lands 444
3.5.3. Species Accounts 444
3.5.4. Federal Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species 447
3.5.5. Management Indicator Species (Forest Service) 451
3.6. Wild Horses and Burros 451
Current Conditions 452
3.7. Wildland Fire and Fire Management 456
3.8. Livestock Grazing 466
3.9. Recreation 475
3.10. Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management 477
3.1 1. Land Use and Realty 483
3.12. Renewable Energy Resources 492
Tabie ofContents September, 2013
Draft Resource Management v
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
w.13. Mineral Resources 496
U).14. Special Designations 512
3.14.1. Areas ofCritical Environmental Concern 513
3.14.2. Wilderness 515
3.14.3. Wilderness Study Areas 516
3.14.4. Wild and Scenic Rivers 518
3.14.5. Other Special Designations 518
.15. Water Resources 520
.16. Soil Resources 529
.17. Cultural Heritage Resources 530
.18. Tribal Interests (including Native American Religious Concerns) 531
.19. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (BLM) 543
WU)WWU)U)U)U)(jJ
.20. Visual Resources 545
.21. Air Quality 547
.22. Climate Change 549
.23. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 558
4. Environmental Consequences 597
4.1. Introduction 599
4.2. Analytical Assumptions 601
4.2.1. General Methodology for Analyzing Impacts 602
4.2.2. Incomplete or Unavailable Information 602
4.3. Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 603
4.3.1. Methods and Assumptions 603
4.3.2. Nature and Type ofEffects 606
4.3.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 613
A
4.3.4. Alternative 613
4.3.5. Alternative B 621
4.3.6. Alternative C 627
D
4.3.7. Alternative 632
4.3.8. Alternative E 636
4.3.9. Alternative F 641
4.4. Vegetation and Soils 643
4.4.1. Methods and Assumptions 643
4.4.2. Nature and Type ofEffects 644
4.4.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 646
4.4.4. Alternative A 647
4.4.5. Alternative B 652
4.4.6. Alternative C 655
4.4.7. Alternative D 657
4.4.8. Alternative E 661
4.4.9. Alternative F 664
4.5. Riparian Areas and Wetlands 666
4.5.1. Methods and Assumptions 666
4.5.2. Nature and Type of Effects 667
4.5.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 671
A
4.5.4. Alternative 671
4.5.5. Alternative B 674
September, 2013 Table ofContents
VI Draft Resource Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
4.5.6. Alternative C 677
D
4.5.7. Alternative 680
4.5.8. Alternative E 682
4.5.9. Alternative F 685
4.6. Special Status Species 687
4.7. Wild Horses and Burros 688
4.7.1. Methods and Assumptions 688
4.7.2. Nature and Type ofEffects 689
4.7.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 689
A
4.7.4. Alternative 690
4.7.5. Alternative B 691
4.7.6. Alternative C 693
4.7.7. Alternative D 694
4.7.8. Alternative E 696
4.7.9. Alternative F 697
4.8. Wildland Fire and Fire Management 699
4.8.1. Methods and Assumptions 699
4.8.2. Nature and Type ofEffects 700
4.8.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 703
A
4.8.4. Alternative 706
4.8.5. Alternative B 710
4.8.6. Alternative C 712
D
4.8.7. Alternative 714
4.8.8. Alternative E 717
4.8.9. Alternative F 720
4.9. Livestock Grazing 721
4.9.1. Methods and Assumptions 721
4.9.2. Nature and Type ofEffects 723
4.9.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 726
A
4.9.4. Alternative 727
4.9.5. Alternative B 731
4.9.6. Alternative C 735
D
4.9.7. Alternative 737
4.9.8. Alternative E 740
4.9.9. Alternative F 743
4.10. Recreation 745
4.10.1. Methods and Assumptions 745
4.10.2. Nature and Type ofEffects 745
4.10.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 746
4.10.4. Alternative A 746
4.10.5. Alternative B 746
4.10.6. Alternative C 747
4.10.7. Alternative D 747
4.10.8. Alternative E 747
4.10.9. Alternative F 748
4.11. Travel and Transportation Management 748
4.11.1. Methods and Assumptions 748
4.1 1 .2. Nature and Type ofEffects 749
4.11.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 749
Table ofContents September, 2013
Draft Resource Management vii
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
A
4.11.4. Alternative 749
4.11.5. Alternative B 750
4.11.6. Alternative C 750
4.11.7. Alternative D 750
4.11.8. Alternative E 750
4.11.9. Alternative F 751
4.12. Land Use and Realty 751
4.12.1. Methods and Assumptions 751
4.12.2. Nature and Type ofEffects 753
4.12.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 754
A
4.12.4. Alternative 754
4.12.5. Alternative B 756
4.12.6. Alternative C 759
4.12.7. Alternative D 760
4.12.8. Alternative E 761
4.12.9. Alternative F 763
4.13. Renewable Energy Resources 764
4.13.1. Methods and Assumptions 764
4.13.2. Nature and Type ofEffects 766
4.13.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 768
A
4.13.4. Alternative 768
4.13.5. Alternative B 769
4.13.6. Alternative C 770
D
4.13.7. Alternative 771
4.13.8. Alternative E 771
4.13.9. Alternative F 772
4.14. Mineral Resources 773
4.14.1. Fluid Minerals 773
A
4.14.1.1. Alternative 776
4.14.1.2. Alternative B 777
4.14.1.3. Alternative C 778
*
4.14.1.4. Alternative D 778
4.14.1.5. Alternative E 779
4.14.1.6. Alternative F 779
4.14.2. Locatable Minerals 780
A
4.14.2.1. Alternative 782
4.14.2.2. Alternative B 782
4.14.2.3. Alternative C 783
D
4.14.2.4. Alternative 783
4.14.2.5. Alternative E 783
4.14.2.6. Alternative F 783
4.14.3. Mineral Materials 784
A
4.14.3.1. Alternative 785
4.14.3.2. Alternative B 786
4.14.3.3. Alternative C 786
D
4.14.3.4. Alternative 786
4.14.3.5. Alternative E 787
4.14.3.6. Alternative F 788
4.15. Areas ofCritical Environmental Concern 788
September, 20/3 Table ofContents
Draft Resource Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
4.15.1. Methods and Assumptions 788
4.15.2. Nature and Type ofEffects 788
Common
4.15.3. Impacts to All Alternatives 789
A
4.15.4. Alternative 789
4.15.5. Alternative B 789
4.15.6. Alternative C 790
D
4.15.7. Alternative 790
4.15.8. Alternative E 790
4.15.9. Alternative F 790
4.16. Water Resources 790
4.16.1. Methods and Assumptions 790
4.16.2. Nature and Type ofEffects 791
4.16.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 795
A
4.16.4. Alternative 797
4.16.5. Alternative B 798
4.16.6. Alternative C 800
4.16.7. Alternative D 802
4.16.8. Alternative E 804
4.16.9. Alternative F 806
4.17. Tribal Interests (including Native American Religious Concerns) 808
4.17.1. Methods and Assumptions 808
4.17.2. Nature and Type ofEffects 808
4.17.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 809
A
4.17.4. Alternative 811
4.17.5. Alternative B 812
4.17.6. Alternative C 813
D
4.17.7. Alternative 814
4.17.8. Alternative E 816
4.17.9. Alternative F 817
4.18. Climate Change 818
4.18.1. Methods and Assumptions 818
4.18.2. Nature and Type of Effects 819
4.18.3. Impacts Common to All Alternatives 819
A
4.18.4. Alternative 824
4.18.5. Alternative B 825
4.18.6. Alternative C 826
4.18.7. Alternative!) 826
4.18.8. Alternative E 827
4.18.9. Alternative F 828
4.19. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 829
4.19.1. Methodology and Assumptions 829
4.19.2. Economic Impacts 831
4.19.3. Social Impacts 844
4.19.4. Environmental Justice Impacts 846
4.20. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 850
4.21. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment ofResources 851
4.22. Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 852
5. Cumulative Impacts 855
Table ofContents September, 2013