Nevada and northeastern California greater sage-grouse : proposed resource management plan amendment and final environmental impact statement

2018·21.9 MB·English

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.

Cover Photo: Steve Ting

Lower Bar Photos (L to R):
US Fish and Wildlife, Rachel Woita, James Yule
United States Department ofthe Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Nevada State Office
I 340 Financial Boulevard
Reno, Nevada 89502-7147
http://www.blm.gov/nv
In Reply Refer To:
1610 (NV930)
Dear Reader:
The Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed Resource Management Plan
Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (Proposed RMPA and Final EIS) is available for a
30-day protest period and 60-day Governor's Consistency Review. The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) prepared this document in consultation with cooperating agencies and 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 Jaw and policy.
The planning area includes the following BLM Nevada District Offices: Battle Mountain, Carson City,
Elko, Ely, and Winnemucca and the BLM California Field Offices ofApplegate (Alturas and Surprise) and
Eagle Lake. The planning area encompasses approximately 45 million surface acres administered by the
BLM.
The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS focuses on the description and analysis of the proposed plan amendment,
which consists primarily of the Management Alignment Alternative as modified in response to comments.
The Draft RMPA/EIS was sent out for a 90-day public comment period from May 4, 2018 to August 2,
20 I8. BLM Nevada and California received a total of 34,650 unique comment letters, forms, and emails
during the 90-day public comment period. These documents resulted in 595 substantive comments.
Anyone who participated in the process for the EIS and who has an interest that is or may be adversely
affected by the proposed land use plan amendments in the Final EIS may protest the proposed plan
amendments. A person who wishes to file a protest must do so in writing within 30 days from the date
the US Environmental Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability of the Final EJS in the
Federal Register.
Detailed instructions for filing such a protest with the Director ofthe BLM are available online at
https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/filing-a-plan-protest.
All protests must be in writing and filed with the BLM Director, either as a hard copy or electronically via
BLM's ePianning website by the end ofthe protest period.
To file a protest electronically, visit https://goo.gl/uz89cT and click the 'Submit Protest' button to the
right of the Final EIS document. Protests in hard copy must be mailed to one of the following addresses,
postmarked by the end ofthe protest period, noted above:
U.S. Postal Service Mail: Overnight Delivery:
BLM Director (2 I 0) BLM Director (2 I 0)
Attention: Protest Coordinator Attention: Protest Coordinator
P.O. Box 71383 20M Street SE, Room 2I34LM
Washington, D.C. 20024-1383 Washington, D.C. 20003
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in
your protest, be advised that your entire protest - including your personal identifying information may be
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your protest to withhold from public review
your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The BLM Director will make every attempt to promptly render a decision on each protest. The decision
will be in writing and will be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The
decision of the BLM Director shall be the final decision ofthe Department ofthe lnterior on each protest.
Responses to protest issues will be compiled and formalized in a Director's Protest Resolution Report made
available following issuance of the decision. Upon resolution of all protests, the BLM will issue an
Approved RMPA and Record of Decision (ROD). The Approved RMPA and ROD will be made available
electronically on BLM's ePlanning website.
Thank you for your continued interest in Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA. We appreciate the inrormation and
suggestions you contribute to the process.
Sincerely,
Brian C. Amme
Acting State Director, Nevada
Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse
Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and
Final Environmental Impact Statement

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

Abstract: This proposed resource management plan (RMP) amendment and final environmental impact
statement (EIS) has been prepared by the United States Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) with input from cooperating agencies. The purpose of this RMP amendment
(RMPA) is to enhance cooperation with the States by modifying the approach to Greater Sage-Grouse
management in existing RMPs to better align with individual state plans and/or conservation measures
and DOI and BLM policy. This document is considering amendments to eight BLM RMPs in Nevada and
three RMPs in California. The EIS describes and analyzes two alternatives, as well as the proposed plan
amendment for managing Greater Sage-Grouse habitat on approximately 45.4 million acres of BLM-
administered surface estate. The No-Action Alternative is a continuation of current management; use of
public lands and resources would continue to be managed under the current BLM RMPs, as amended in
2015. The Management Alignment Alternative was derived through coordination with the States and
cooperating agencies to align with the States’ conservation plans and to support conservation outcomes
for Greater Sage-Grouse. The Management Alignment Alternative was identified as the agency’s
preferred alternative in the Draft EIS that was published on May 4, 2018. The Proposed Plan
Amendment represents the agencies’ proposed management approach, it reflects the best combination
of decisions to achieve BLM goals and policies, meets the purpose and need, and addresses the key
planning issues. It also considers public comments received on the Draft EIS and incorporates many of
the recommendations provided by cooperating agencies. Major planning issues addressed include
modifying habitat management areas, Sagebrush Focal Area designations, adaptive management,
allocation exceptions, mitigation, seasonal timing restrictions, and habitat objectives.
Protests: Protests must be postmarked or received no later than 30 days after publication of the US
Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Refer to the instructions
in the letter preceding this abstract for additional information on how to protest. The close of the
protest period will be announced in news releases and on the Nevada and Northeastern California
website: https://goo.gl/uz89cT
For further information, contact:
Matt Magaletti, Nevada Sage-Grouse Lead
Telephone: [phone]
Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office
1340 Financial Blvd, Reno, NV 89502

Arlene Kosic, California Sage-Grouse Lead
Telephone: [phone]
Bureau of Land Management, California State Office
602 Cressler Street, Cedarville, CA 96104
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-2
ES.3 Issues and Related Resource Topics Identified Through Scoping ................................... ES-2
ES.3.1 Issues and Related Resource Topics Retained for Further
Consideration in this RMPA/EIS ............................................................................... ES-3
ES.3.2 Clarification of Planning Decisions in the 2015 ARMPA/ROD ......................... ES-5
ES.3.3 Issues and Resource Topics Not Carried Forward for Additional
Analysis (Scoping Issues Outside the Scope and Scoping Issues
Previously Analyzed) ................................................................................................... ES-7
ES.4 Alternatives Considered ........................................................................................................... ES-8
ES.4.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................ ES-8
ES.4.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ ES-9
ES.5 Development of the Proposed Plan Amendment ............................................................ ES-10
ES.6 Summary of Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... ES-11
CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ....................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action .............................................................................................. 1-3
1.3 Planning Area and Current Management ................................................................................ 1-4
1.4 Planning Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 1-6
1.5 Issues and Related Resource Topics Identified Through Scoping ..................................... 1-7
1.5.1 Issues and Related Resource Topics Retained for Further
Consideration in this RMPA/EIS ................................................................................. 1-8
1.5.2 Clarification of Planning Decisions in the 2015 ARMPA/ROD ......................... 1-10
1.5.3 Issues and Resource Topics Not Carried Forward for Additional
Analysis (Scoping Issues Outside the Scope and Scoping Issues
Previously Analyzed) ................................................................................................... 1-12
1.6 Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs ......................................................... 1-13
1.6.1 State Plans ...................................................................................................................... 1-13
1.6.2 Local Plans ..................................................................................................................... 1-14
1.7 Changes between Draft RMPA/EIS and Proposed RMPA/Final EIS ................................ 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 Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 2-7
2.6 Plan Evaluation, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management ................................................... 2-26

November 2018 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS i
Table of Contents

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 ............................................................................................................................ 3-9
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 .......................................................................... 4-9
4.3.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ......................................................................................... 4-9
4.4 Incomplete or Unavailable Information ................................................................................. 4-10
4.5 Impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse habitat ............................ 4-10
4.5.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-10
4.5.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-11
4.5.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-12
4.6 Impacts on Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................................. 4-15
4.6.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-15
4.6.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-15
4.6.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-16
4.7 Impacts on Land Use and Realty ............................................................................................. 4-16
4.7.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-16
4.7.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-16
4.7.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-17
4.8 Impacts on Renewable Energy Resources ............................................................................ 4-17
4.8.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-17
4.8.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-17
4.8.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-18
4.9 Impacts on Minerals and Energy .............................................................................................. 4-18
4.9.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-18
4.9.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-19
4.9.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-19
4.10 Impacts on Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................... 4-19
4.10.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-19
4.10.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-20
4.10.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-21

ii Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS November 2018
Table of Contents

4.11 Impacts on Livestock Grazing .................................................................................................. 4-21
4.11.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-21
4.11.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-21
4.11.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-22
4.12 Impacts on Comprehensive Travel Management ................................................................ 4-22
4.12.1 No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action
Alternative) ................................................................................................................... 4-22
4.12.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 4-22
4.12.3 Proposed Plan Amendment ....................................................................................... 4-22
4.13 Cumulative Effects Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-23
4.13.1 Range-wide Cumulative Effects Analysis - Greater Sage-Grouse .................... 4-25
4.13.2 Why Use the WAFWA Management Zone? ........................................................ 4-26
4.13.3 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone I ................ 4-28
4.13.4 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone II/VII ......... 4-30
4.13.5 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone III .............. 4-34
4.13.6 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone IV .............. 4-36
4.13.7 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone V ............... 4-38
4.14 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................... 4-40
4.15 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................................................. 4-40
4.16 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity .............. 4-41
CHAPTER 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................................ 5-1
5.1 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1.1 Public Scoping ................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2 Public Comment on the Draft RMPA/EIS ................................................................ 5-1
5.1.3 Future Public Involvement ........................................................................................... 5-2
5.2 Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................................................. 5-2
5.3 American Indian Tribal Consultation ....................................................................................... 5-4
5.4 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................ 5-5
5.5 Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Distribution ................................................................................... 5-5
CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 6-1
GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. GLOSSARY-1
INDEX ................................................................................................................................ INDEX-1

TABLES Page

ES-1 Acres of On-The-Ground Treatment Activity for Fiscal Years 2015 to 2017
and Planned for 2018 ................................................................................................................................ ES-2
ES-2 Issues and Related Resource Topics ..................................................................................................... ES-3
ES-3 Clarification Issues ..................................................................................................................................... ES-5
ES-4 Comparison of Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ ES-11
1-1 Land Management in the Planning Area ................................................................................................. 1-6
1-2 Issues and Related Resource Topics ....................................................................................................... 1-8
1-3 Clarification Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 1-10
2-1 Comparative Summary of Alternatives .................................................................................................. 2-6
2-2 Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 2-7

November 2018 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS iii
Table of Contents

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 ......................................... 3-8
3-5 Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Actions in Nevada ................................................... 3-8
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 Impacts from Management Alignment Alternative .............................................................................. 4-9
4-3 Estimated Number of Mines and Exploration Projects .................................................................... 4-11
4-4 Cumulative Effects Analysis Incorporated by Reference .................................................................. 4-27
5-1 Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................................................................ 5-2
5-2 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................................... 5-5

FIGURES Page

1-1 Planning Area ................................................................................................................................................ 1-5

APPENDICES

A Maps
B Lek Buffer-Distances (Evaluating Impacts on Leks)
C Required Design Features Worksheet
D Adaptive Management Plan
E Fluid Mineral Stipulations, Waivers, Modifications, and Exceptions
F Nevada and Northeastern California Mitigation Strategy – Removed
G Responses to Substantive Public Comments on the Draft EIS
H Cumulative Effects Supporting Information

iv Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed RMPA/Final EIS November 2018