Oregon greater sage-grouse : draft supplemental environmental impact statement

2020·14.2 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
Oregon

United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Oregon State Office
P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208
http://www.blm.gov/or
~112020
Dear Reader:
The Oregon Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) 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, the BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook
(H-1601-1 ), and other applicable law and policy.
The affected area is the BLM Bums, Lakeview, and Vale District Offices in Oregon and
encompasses approximately 60,649 surface acres in research natural areas.
The Management Alignment Alternative has been identified in the Draft SEIS as the preferred
alternative. Identification of the preferred alternative does not indicate any commitments on the
part of the BLM regarding 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 Draft SEIS 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://go.usa.gov/xdY8E. Paper 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 ifreceived within the review period.
Written comments may be submitted as follows (submittal of electronic comments is
encouraged):
l. Written comments may be submitted electronically at: https://go.usa.gov/xdY8E.
2. Written comments may also be mailed directly, or delivered to, the BLM at:
Bureau of Land Management
Oregon State Office
Attn: Greater Sage-Grouse State Planner
P.O. Box 2965
Portland, Oregon 97208
2
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 this effort. We appreciate the information and
suggestions you contribute to the process.
; ~ ~ft{
£b (
Jose L. Linares
Acting State Director
Oregon/Washington
Oregon 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 sage-grouse planning
processes, BLM’s consultation and coordination process with federal and state stakeholders, and the
rigorous analysis completed to align BLM sage-grouse management with the State of Oregon’s plans.
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 sage-grouse plans. 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 BLM’s 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 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 Oregon 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:
Jim Regan-Vienop, BLM Oregon
Telephone: [phone]
Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office
1220 S.W. 3rd Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
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 .............................................................................................. 1-4
1.3 Planning Area and Current Management ................................................................................ 1-5
1.4 2019 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 ...................................................................................................................... 1-15
1.6.2 Local Plans ..................................................................................................................... 1-15
CHAPTER 2. 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
2.2.2 Additional Alternatives for Key RNAs Considered but Eliminated
from Detailed Analysis ................................................................................................. 2-3
2.3 Description of Alternatives From 2018 .................................................................................. 2-6
2.3.1 No-Action Alternative .................................................................................................. 2-6
2.3.2 Management Alignment Alternative .......................................................................... 2-6
2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 2-8
2.4.1 Detailed Description of Alternatives Considered during the 2019
Planning Process ............................................................................................................. 2-8
2.5 Development of the 2018 Proposed Plan Amendment .................................................... 2-24
2.6 Plan Evaluation, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management−Common to All
Alternatives .................................................................................................................................. 2-25
CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 USGS Reports................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.2 Resources Affected ...................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.3 Greater Sage-Grouse ................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.3.1 Changes Based on Threats .......................................................................................... 3-8
3.4 Vegetation, including Noxious Weeds, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands ........................... 3-9
3.5 Fish and Wildlife .......................................................................................................................... 3-19
3.6 Special Status Species ................................................................................................................. 3-19
3.7 Livestock Grazing ....................................................................................................................... 3-22
3.8 Socioeconomics .......................................................................................................................... 3-22

February 2020 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse DSEIS i
Table of Contents

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Analytical Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.3 General Method for Analyzing Impacts ................................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Incomplete or Unavailable Information ................................................................................. 4-15
4.5 Impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse ........................................................................................... 4-15
4.6 Impacts on Vegetation, including Invasive Plants, Riparian Areas, and Wetlands ....... 4-18
4.7 Impacts on Fish and Wildlife .................................................................................................... 4-22
4.8 Special Status Species ................................................................................................................. 4-23
4.9 Impacts on Livestock Grazing Management ......................................................................... 4-26
4.10 Impacts on Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................... 4-27
4.11 Cumulative Effects Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-29
4.11.1 Rangewide Cumulative Effects Analysis – Greater Sage-Grouse ..................... 4-34
4.11.2 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone I ................ 4-37
4.11.3 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone II/VII ......... 4-39
4.11.4 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone III .............. 4-42
4.11.5 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone IV .............. 4-44
4.11.6 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone V ............... 4-47
4.12 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................... 4-49
4.13 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................................................. 4-49
4.14 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity .............. 4-50
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

ii Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse DSEIS February 2020
Table of Contents

TABLES Page

1-1 Issues and Related Resource Topics ..................................................................................................... 1-10
2-1 Alternatives considered during the 2019 planning process ............................................................... 2-9
2-2 Detailed Comparison of 2019 EIS Alternatives .................................................................................. 2-19
2-3 Goals, Objectives, and Management Direction by 2015 Final EIS Alternative ............................ 2-20
2-4 Key Research Natural Areas−Summary of Acres and AUMs by 2019 Alternative ................... 2-24
3-1 Affected Environment Incorporated by Reference.............................................................................. 3-5
3-2 RNAs within PACs with Tripped Triggers ............................................................................................ 3-6
3-3 Key Research Natural Areas Affected by Wildfires from 2000 through 2017 ............................. 3-9
4-1 Environmental Consequences for the No-Action Alternative Incorporated by Reference ..... 4-4
4-2 Consideration of Proposed Plan Amendment Components in the 2015 Final EIS ...................... 4-5
4-3 Summary of Environmental Consequences (excerpts from the June 2015 Final EIS,
Table 2-14) .................................................................................................................................................... 4-7
4-4 Vegetation Types Found in Different Key RNAs Made Unavailable to Grazing under the
2015 ARMPA and the Two Key RNAs Already Closed to Grazing ............................................. 4-20
4-5 Vegetation Types Found in Different Key RNAs Made Unavailable to Grazing under the
2015 ARMPA That Are Important Habitats to Greater Sage-Grouse at Some Point in
Their Life Cycle (e.g. Nesting and Brood Rearing) ............................................................................ 4-21
4-6 Vegetation Types and Plant Communities Available for Understanding the Impacts of
Disturbances and Changing Climate on Forbs and Insects in the Absence of Livestock
Grazing in the Key RNAs Closed to Grazing prior to the 2015 ARMPA ................................... 4-22
4-7 Key Research Natural Areas ................................................................................................................... 4-28
4-8 Approximate Acres of Habitat Management Areas in MZ IV ......................................................... 4-45
4-9 Approximate Acres of Habitat Management Areas in MZ V .......................................................... 4-47

FIGURES Page

1-1 Key Research Natural Areas in the Planning Area .............................................................................. 1-7
3-1 Key RNAs with Soft and Hard Trigger Status (Updated) .................................................................. 3-7
4-1 Cumulative Effects Analysis Extent, Sage-Grouse Management Zones and Populations ......... 4-33

APPENDIX

A Additional RNA Information
B Cumulative Effects Supporting Information
C Responses to Substantive Public Comments on the 2018 Draft EIS
D Review of the NTT and COT Report’s Relevance to the Planning Process; Incorporation of the
NTT, COT, and USGS Summary of Science into the Oregon Planning Process

February 2020 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse DSEIS iii
Table of Contents

This page intentionally left blank.

iv Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse DSEIS February 2020