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

2020·58 MB·English

by  United States. Bureau of Land Management

FINAL Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement, Greater Sage-Grouse 2020
Three Hard Looks : 2015, 2019 and 2020
143 alternatives 54
public meetings
18 EISs
considered in
48,734 2,313
total pages of NEPA analysis people attended
326
$17.1 million
partners and
total cost
cooperators
Public Comments
8,512
unique scoping comments
16,862
substantive comments on draft EISs
Habitat Investments
Treatment and Restoration
$294 million 2.7 million acres
2013–19
$37 million 584,000 acres
2020
Nevada/California

United States Depart1nent of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Nevada State Office
1340 Financial Boulevard
Reno, Nevada 89502-7147
California State Office
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, CA 95825
https://www.him.gov
In reply refer to:
1793 (NV930)
Dear Reader:
The Nevada and N01theastem California Greater Sage-Grouse Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) is available for your review. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) prepared this document in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of I 976,
as amended, implementing regulations, 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 2019, as the 2019 Planning Process or Effort. The NEPA analysis, including
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) were completed in 2018, so we refer to those documents as the 2018 DEIS and
the 2018 FEIS.
TI1e affected area includes the following BLM Nevada District Offices: Battle Mountain, Carson
City, Elko, Ely, and Winnemucca and the BLM California ·F ield Offices of Applegate (Alturas
and Surp1ise) and Eagle Lake. The planning area encompasses approximately 45 million surface
acres administered by the BLM.
The BLM has prepared this FSEI S to review its previous NEPA analysis and clarify and
augment it where necessaiy. This FSEIS addresses 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 compensat01y mitigation. The BLM's FSEIS will help the BLM detennine 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 infonnation.
Following the publishing of the Notice ofAvailability for the Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (DSEIS) in the Federal Register on February 21, 2020 (85 FR 10185), the
BLM received public comments for90 days, through May 21, 2020. Across the Nevada and
Northeastern California Draft SEIS and five other Draft SEISs for other BLM State Offices, a
total of 126,062 submissions were received; 222 ofthese were considered unique submissions. In
addition, the BLM received 125,840 campaign letters spearheaded by two separate organizations.
In accordance with the NEPA, the BLM reviewed and considered all substantive comments
received, and provides responses to such comments in this FSEIS.
To address public comments raised during this supplemental analysis, the BLM convened a team
ofbiologists and land use planners to evaluate scientific literature provided to the agency. Upon
review, the BLM found that the most up-to-date Greater Sage-Grouse science and other
information has incrementally increased, and built upon, the knowledgebase ofGreater Sage­
Grouse management evaluated by the BLM most recently in its 2019 land use plan amendments,
but does not change the scope or direction ofthe BLM's management; however, new science
does suggest adaptations to management may be warranted at site-specific scales.
After reviewing public comments and completing the new science evaluation, the BLM
determined that the most recent scientific infonnation relating to Greater Sage-Grouse is
consistent with the BLM's environmental analysis supporting its 2019 Greater Sage-Grouse land
use plan amendments.
You can access the FSEIS on the project website at: https://go.usa.gov/xGJD7. Hard copies are
also available for public review at BLM offices within the planning area.
Thank you for your continued interest in Greater Sage-Grouse management. We appreciate the
information and suggestions you contributed to the NEPA process.
~ b
Karen E. Mouritsen
BLM California State Director
Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
November 2020
Responsible Agency: United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Abstract: This final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) has been prepared by the
United States Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The FSEIS
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
FSEIS to review its previous NEPA analysis, clarify and augment it where necessary, and provide the
public with additional opportunities to review and comment. The FSEIS 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 FSEIS 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.
References to the CEQ regulations throughout this SEIS are to the regulations in effect prior to September 14,
2020. The revised CEQ regulations effective September 14, 2020 are not referred to in this SEIS because the
NEPA process began prior to this date.
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
Colleen Dulin, BLM Nevada Sage-Grouse Coordinator
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-3
ES.3 Items to be Clarified in this FSEIS ........................................................................................... ES-4
ES.4 New Science and Information Considered by the BLM .................................................... ES-5
ES.5 Analysis Conclusions .................................................................................................................. ES-7
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 2017 to 2019 Issues Development ........................................................................................... 1-8
1.4.1 Issues and Related Resource Topics Identified Through Scoping as Part
of the 2017 to 2019 Planning Process ...................................................................... 1-8
1.5 Items to be Clarified in this FSEIS ........................................................................................... 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
1.7 Changes Between Draft and Final SEIS .................................................................................. 1-16
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 ...................................................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.1 Resources Not Carried Forward for Analysis ........................................................ 3-7
3.3 Greater Sage-Grouse and its Habitat ...................................................................................... 3-7
3.3.1 Greater Sage-Grouse Population Status .................................................................. 3-8
3.4 Wildland Fire and Habitat Treatment ...................................................................................... 3-9
3.5 Human Disturbance ................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.6 Socioeconomics .......................................................................................................................... 3-11

Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse FSEIS i
Table of Contents

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Analytical Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 4-1
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 ........................................................................ 4-47
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 ..................................................................................................... 4-50
4.10.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-50
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

ii Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse FSEIS
Table of Contents

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
4.13.4 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone II/VII ......... 4-62
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 .................................................................................................. 4-72
4.16 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity .............. 4-73
CHAPTER 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................................ 5-1
5.1 Public Involvement During the 2020 NEPA Process ............................................................ 5-1
5.1.1 Public Comments on the DSEIS ................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 American Indian Tribal Consultation ....................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 List of 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.............................................................................. 3-6
3-2 Resources and Resource Uses Not Carried Forward for Analysis ................................................. 3-7
3-3 Leks in Population/Subpopulations .......................................................................................................... 3-8
3-4 Wildland Fire Statistics—Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Acres Burned ....................................... 3-10
3-5 Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Actions in Nevada ................................................. 3-10
3-6 Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Actions in California ............................................. 3-10
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

Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse FSEIS iii
Table of Contents

APPENDICES

Appendix in Appendix in
Appendix 2018 Appendix 2015
Appendix Appendix in 2019 Proposed in 2015 Proposed
in this in 2020 ROD/ RMPA/Final ROD/ LUPA/Final
FSEIS Name DSEIS ARMPA EIS ARMPA EIS
A Maps A A A A A
B Review of the NTT and COT B N/A N/A N/A N/A
Report’s Relevance to the
Planning Process; Incorporation
of the NTT, COT, and USGS
Summary of Science into the
Nevada and California Planning
Process
C Lek Buffer-Distances (Evaluating D B B B B
Impacts on Leks)
D Required Design Features E E C C C
Worksheet
E Adaptive Management Plan F D D J N/A
F Fire and Invasives Assessment G H N/A H G
Tool
G Cumulative Effects Supporting H N/A H N/A N/A
Information
H VDDT Methodology I I N/A L M
I Fluid Mineral Stipulations, J E E G N
Waivers, Modifications, and
Exceptions
J Disturbance Cap Guidance K F N/A E F
K Noise Protocol L G N/A M K
L Monitoring Framework M J N/A D E
M Responses to Substantive Public N N/A N/A N/A N/A
Comments on the 2020 Draft
Supplemental EIS

iv Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse FSEIS