Nevada and northeastern California greater sage-grouse : draft supplemental environmental impact statement

2020·66.3 MB·English

by  United States. Bureau of Land Management

DRAFT Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, Greater Sage-Grouse 2020
2 Hard Looks, 2011-15 and 2017-19
2,313
143 alternatives
people attended
18 EISs
considered in
54
48,023
public meetings
total pages of NEPA analysis
326
$16.9 million
partners and
total cost
cooperators
Public Comments
8,512 unique scoping comments
15,885 substantive comments on draft EISs
Habitat Investments
Treatment and Restoration, 2013–19
$294 million 2.7 million acres
2020, planned
$37 million 316,000 acres
Another Hard Look, 2020
Nevada/California

United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
California Slate Office Nevada S1a1e Office
2800 Collage Way. Suite Wl623 1340 Financial Blvd
Sacramen10. CA 95825 Reno. NY 89502
www.blm.gov/california www.blm.gov/ncvada
February I 0, 2020
In Reply To:
1610 (930)
Dear Reader:
The Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (DSEIS) is available for your review and comment. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
prepared this document in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended,
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, implementing regulations, the BLM's
Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1), and other applicable law and policy. Please note when reading
this document that we refer to the entire planning process that culminated in a Record of Decision in March
20 I 9 as the 20 I 9 Planning Process or Effott. The NEPA analysis, including the DEIS and the FEIS were
completed in 2018 so we refer those documents as the 2018 DEIS and the 2018 FEIS.
The affected area includes the following BLM Nevada District Offices: Battle Mountain, Carson City,
Elko, Ely, and Winnemucca and the BLM California ·Field Offices of Applegate (Alturas and Surprise) and
Eagle Lake. The planning area encompasses approximately 45 million surface acres administered by the
BLM.
The Management Alignment Alternative has been identified in the DSEIS as the preferred alternative.
Identification of the preferred alternative does not indicate any commitments on the part of the BLM with
regard to a final decision. In developing the Final SEIS, which is the next phase of the planning process,
the decision maker may select various management actions from each of the alternatives analyzed in the
DSEIS for the purpose of creating a management strategy that best meets the needs of the resources and
values in this area under the BLM multiple use and sustained yield mandate.
The BLM encourages the public to review and provide comments on the DSEIS. The DSEIS is available
on the project website at: https://goo.gl/uz89cT. Hard copies are also available for public review at BLM
offices within the planning area. Public comments will be accepted for forty-five (45) calendar days
following the Environmental Protection Agency's publication of its Notice of Availability in the Federal
Register. The BLM can best utilize your comments and resource information submissions if received within
the review period.
Written comments may be submitted as follows (submittal of electronic comments is encouraged):
I. Written comments may be submitted electronically at:
https://goo.gl/uz89cT.
2. Written comments may also be mailed directly, or delivered to, the BLM at:
lNTERJOR REGIONS 8 & 10 • LOWER COLORADO BASIN & CALIFORNLA-GREAT BASIN
ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, NEVADA. OREGON*
• PARTIAL
Carolyn Sherve-Acting NV Sage-Grouse Lead
Bureau of Land Management
Nevada State Office
1340 Financial Blvd, Reno, NV 89502
or
Arlene Kosic-CA Sage-Grouse Lead
Bureau of Land Management
Surprise Station
602 Cressler Street
Cedarville, CA 96104
To facilitate analysis of comments and information submitted, we encourage you to submit comments in
an electronic format. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal
identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment including your personal
identifying information may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Thank you for your continued interest in the Greater Sage-Grouse DSEIS. We appreciate the information
and suggestions you contribute to the process.
Sincerely,
ren E. Mouritsen aby
alifornia State Director Nevada State Director
Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management
INTERIOR REGIONS 8 & 10 • LOWER COLORADO BASIN & CALIFORNIA-GREAT BASIN
ARIZONA. CALIFORNIA. NEVADA. OREGON*
* PARTIAL
Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Responsible Agency: United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management

Abstract: This draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) has been prepared by the
United States Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The DSEIS
describes and analyzes the eight alternatives considered during the 2015 and 2019 Greater Sage-Grouse
planning processes, BLM’s consultation and coordination process with federal and state stakeholders,
and the rigorous analysis completed to align BLM Greater Sage-Grouse management with the State of
Nevada’s Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan and the State of California’s management direction.
On October 16, 2019, the US District Court for the District of Idaho issued an order granting a motion
for a preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiffs Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, Center
for Biological Diversity, and Prairie Hills Audubon Society. The court found that the Plaintiffs were likely
to succeed on the merits of their claims that the BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) when adopting the 2019 Greater Sage-Grouse plan amendments. The BLM has prepared this
DSEIS to review its previous NEPA analysis, clarify and augment it where necessary, and provide the
public with additional opportunities to review and comment. The DSEIS, including any comments that
the agency receives, will help the BLM determine whether its 2015 and 2019 land use planning and
NEPA processes have sufficiently addressed Greater Sage-Grouse habitat conservation or whether the
BLM should initiate a new land use planning process to consider additional alternatives or new
information. To inform this decision that the BLM will make, it has prepared this DSEIS to address four
specific issues: the range of alternatives, need to take a “hard look” at environmental impacts, cumulative
effects analysis, and the BLM’s approach to compensatory mitigation.
Review Period: Comments on the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement will be accepted for forty-five (45) calendar days
following publication of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice of Availability in
the Federal Register
For further information, contact:
Arlene Kosic, BLM California Sage-Grouse Lead
Telephone: [phone]
Bureau of Land Management, Northern California District Office
602 Cressler Street, Cedarville, CA 96104
Email: [email protected]
Or
Carolyn Sherve, BLM Nevada Sage-Grouse Coordinator (Acting) and ePlanning Lead
Telephone: [phone]
Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office
1340 Financial Blvd, Reno, NV 89502
Email: [email protected]
This page intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. ES-1
ES.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. ES-1
ES.2 Purpose of and Need for Action ............................................................................................ ES-4
ES.3 Items to be Clarified in this DSEIS ......................................................................................... ES-4
ES.4 Analysis Conclusions .................................................................................................................. ES-5
CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ....................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action .............................................................................................. 1-5
1.3 Planning Area and Current Management ................................................................................ 1-6
1.4 2019 Issues Development ........................................................................................................... 1-8
1.4.1 Issues and Related Resource Topics Identified Through Scoping as
Part of the 2019 Planning Process ............................................................................. 1-8
1.5 Items to be Clarified in this DSEIS ......................................................................................... 1-14
1.6 Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs ......................................................... 1-14
1.6.1 State Plans ...................................................................................................................... 1-14
1.6.2 Local Plans ..................................................................................................................... 1-15
CHAPTER 2. PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................... 2-1
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail .......................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Varying Constraints on Land Uses and Development Activities ........................ 2-1
2.3 Description of Draft RMPA/EIS Alternatives ......................................................................... 2-3
2.3.1 No-Action Alternative .................................................................................................. 2-3
2.3.2 Management Alignment Alternative .......................................................................... 2-3
2.3.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ......................................................................................... 2-4
2.4 Comparative Summary of Alternatives ................................................................................... 2-5
2.5 Detailed Description of Alternatives Considered during the 2019 Planning
Process ............................................................................................................................................ 2-8
2.6 Detailed Comparison of 2019 Alternatives .......................................................................... 2-15
2.7 Plan Evaluation, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management ................................................ 2-301
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Greater Sage-Grouse Literature, 2015–2018 ......................................................... 3-2
3.2 Resources Affected ...................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.1 Resources Not Carried Forward for Analysis ........................................................ 3-6
3.3 Greater Sage-Grouse and its Habitat ...................................................................................... 3-6
3.3.1 Greater Sage-Grouse Population Status .................................................................. 3-7
3.4 Wildland Fire and Habitat Treatment ...................................................................................... 3-8
3.5 Human Disturbance ..................................................................................................................... 3-9
3.6 Socioeconomics .......................................................................................................................... 3-10
CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Analytical Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 4-1

February 2020 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse DSEIS i
Table of Contents

4.3 General Method for Analyzing Impacts ................................................................................... 4-2
4.3.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ..................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.3.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-39
4.3.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-39
4.4 Incomplete or Unavailable Information ................................................................................. 4-40
4.5 Impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse habitat ............................ 4-40
4.5.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-40
4.5.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-41
4.5.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-42
4.6 Impacts on Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................................. 4-45
4.6.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-45
4.6.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-45
4.6.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-46
4.7 Impacts on Land Use and Realty ............................................................................................. 4-46
4.7.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-46
4.7.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-46
4.7.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-47
4.8 Impacts on Renewable Energy Resources ............................................................................ 4-47
4.8.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-47
4.8.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-47
4.8.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-48
4.9 Impacts on Minerals and Energy .............................................................................................. 4-48
4.9.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-48
4.9.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-49
4.9.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-49
4.10 Impacts on Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................... 4-49
4.10.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-49
4.10.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-50
4.10.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-51
4.11 Impacts on Livestock Grazing .................................................................................................. 4-51
4.11.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-51
4.11.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-51
4.11.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-52
4.12 Impacts on Comprehensive Travel Management ................................................................ 4-52
4.12.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-52
4.12.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-52
4.12.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-53
4.13 Cumulative Effects Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-53
4.13.1 Range-wide Cumulative Effects Analysis - Greater Sage-Grouse .................... 4-55
4.13.2 Why Use the WAFWA Management Zone? ........................................................ 4-57
4.13.3 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone I ................ 4-59

ii Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse DSEIS February 2020
Table of Contents

4.13.4 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone II/VII ......... 4-61
4.13.5 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone III .............. 4-65
4.13.6 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone IV .............. 4-67
4.13.7 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone V ............... 4-69
4.14 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................... 4-71
4.15 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................................................. 4-71
4.16 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity .............. 4-72
CHAPTER 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................................ 5-1
5.1 Public Involvement During the 2019 NEPA Process ............................................................ 5-1
5.1.1 Public Comments on the 2019 DSEIS....................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Future Opportunities for Public Involvement on the SFEIS ................................ 5-1
5.2 American Indian Tribal Consultation ....................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 List of DSEIS Preparers ............................................................................................................... 5-2
CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 6-1
GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. GLOSSARY-1
INDEX ................................................................................................................................ INDEX-1

TABLES Page

1-1 Land Management in the Planning Area ................................................................................................. 1-6
1-2 Issues and Related Resource Topics ....................................................................................................... 1-9
1-3 Clarification Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 1-11
2-1 Comparative Summary of Alternatives in the 2018 Proposed RMPA/Final EIS............................ 2-6
2-2a Alternatives Considered during the 2019 Planning Process. ............................................................ 2-9
2-2b Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................................... 2-15
2-2c (Part 1) Description of Alternative Goals and Objectives .................................................................... 2-25
2-2c (Part 2) Description of Alternative Actions .............................................................................................. 2-76
3-1 Affected Environment Incorporated by Reference.............................................................................. 3-5
3-2 Resources and Resource Uses Not Carried Forward for Analysis ................................................. 3-6
3-3 Leks in Population/Subpopulations .......................................................................................................... 3-7
3-4 Wildland Fire Statistics—Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Acres Burned ......................................... 3-9
3-5 Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Actions in Nevada ................................................... 3-9
3-6 Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Actions in California ............................................... 3-9
4-1 Environmental Consequences for the No-Action Alternative Incorporated by Reference ...... 4-3
4-2 Summary of Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................... 4-11
4-3 Impacts from Management Alignment Alternative ............................................................................ 4-39
4-4 Estimated Number of Mines and Exploration Projects .................................................................... 4-41
4-5 Cumulative Effects Analysis Incorporated by Reference .................................................................. 4-58

FIGURES Page

1-1 Planning Area ................................................................................................................................................ 1-7
4-1 Cumulative Effects Analysis Extent, Sage-Grouse Management Zones and Populations ......... 4-56

February 2020 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse DSEIS iii
Table of Contents

APPENDICES

Appendix in Appendix in
Appendix 2018 Appendix 2015
Appendix in 2019 Proposed in 2015 Proposed
in this ROD/ RMPA/Final ROD/ LUPA/Final
DSEIS Name ARMPA EIS ARMPA EIS
A Maps A A A A
B Review of the NTT and COT Report’s N/A N/A N/A N/A
Relevance to the Planning Process;
Incorporation of the NTT, COT, and
USGS Summary of Science into the
Nevada and California Planning Process
C Responses to Substantive Public N/A G N/A N/A
Comments on the 2018 Draft EIS
D Lek Buffer-Distances (Evaluating Impacts B B B B
on Leks)
E Required Design Features Worksheet E C C C
F Adaptive Management Plan D D J N/A
G Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool H N/A H G
H Cumulative Effects Supporting N/A H N/A N/A
Information
I VDDT Methodology I N/A L M
J Fluid Mineral Stipulations, Waivers, E E G N
Modifications, and Exceptions
K Disturbance Cap Guidance F N/A E F
L Noise Protocol G N/A M K
M Monitoring Framework J N/A D E

iv Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse DSEIS February 2020