Utah greater sage-grouse: final supplemental environmental impact statement

2020·47.4 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
Utah

United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Utah State Office
440 West 200 South, Suite 500
Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1434
In Reply Refer To:
1793 (UT-930)
Dear Reader:
The Utah 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 of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 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.
The affected area includes the BLM Vernal, Moab, Price, Richfield, Kanab, Cedar City,
Fillmore, and Salt Lake Field Offices and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
The planning area encompasses approximately 48 million acres in 27 of Utah's 29 counties (all
except Washington and San Juan). Within this area 2.5 million acres are mapped as containing
Greater Sage-Grouse habitat on lands administered by the BLM. Additionally, the BLM
administers approximately 1.5 million acres of subsurface federal mineral estate located beneath
non-federal lands or National Forest System lands that are also mapped as containing Greater
Sage-Grouse habitat.
The BLM has prepared this FSEIS to review its previous NEPA analysis and clarify and
augment it where necessary. 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 compensatory mitigation. The BLM's 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.
Following the publishing of the Notice of Availability for the Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (DSEIS) in the Federal Register on February 21, 2020 (85 FR 10184), the
BLM received public comments for 90 days, through May 21, 2020. Across the Utah Draft SEIS
and five other Draft SEISs for other BLM State Offices, a total of 126,062 submissions were
received; 222 of these were considered unique submissions. In addition, the BLM received
INTERIOR REGION 7 • UPPER COLORADO BASIN
COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, UT.-\H, WYOMING
2
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
of biologists 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 of Greater Sage
Grouse management evaluated by the BLM most recently in its 2019 land use plan amendments,
but does not change the scope or direction of the 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 information 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://goo.gl/o2AQWQ. 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.
Sincerely,
...... ~"
/
,/
/_,
.,,✓
gory Sheehan
State Director
Utah 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 seven 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
Utah’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 Greater Sage-Grouse plans. 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 BLM’s 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:
Christine Fletcher, BLM Utah Greater Sage-Grouse State Implementation Lead
Telephone: [phone]
Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office
440 W 200 S #500
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
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 OF 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 and Issues Development ................................................................................................... 1-7
1.4.1 Issues and Related Resource Topics Identified Through Scoping as Part
of the 2019 Planning Process ...................................................................................... 1-7
1.4.2 Issues and Related Resource Topics Retained for Further Consideration
in this FSEIS ..................................................................................................................... 1-8
1.4.3 Clarification of Planning Decisions in the 2015 ARMPA .................................... 1-10
1.4.4 Issues and Resource Topics not Carried Forward for Additional Analysis
(Scoping Issues Outside the Scope and Scoping Issues Previously
Analyzed) ....................................................................................................................... 1-12
1.5 Items to be Clarified in This FSEIS .......................................................................................... 1-13
1.6 Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs ......................................................... 1-13
1.6.1 State Plans/Strategies .................................................................................................. 1-13
1.6.2 Tribal Plans/Strategies ................................................................................................. 1-14
1.6.3 Local Plans ..................................................................................................................... 1-14
1.6.4 Local Sage-Grouse Working Group Plans ............................................................. 1-15
1.7 Changes Between Draft and Final SEIS .................................................................................. 1-15
CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Other Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2.1 Varying Constraints on Land Uses and Development Activities ........................ 2-1
2.2.2 Making Priority Habitat Management Areas Identical to the State’s
Greater Sage-Grouse Management Areas ............................................................... 2-3
2.2.3 Use of Other Habitat Maps for PHMA Designation ............................................. 2-4
2.2.4 County Greater Sage-Grouse Management Plans ................................................. 2-5
2.3 Description of Alternatives in the 2018 Proposed RMPA/Final EIS ................................. 2-5
2.3.1 No-Action Alternative .................................................................................................. 2-5
2.3.2 2018 Proposed RMPA/Final EIS Proposed Plan Amendment .............................. 2-5
2.4 Comparative Summary of Alternatives ................................................................................... 2-6
2.5 Detailed Description of Alternatives Considered during the 2019 Planning
Process ............................................................................................................................................ 2-8
2.5.1 Summary of Alternatives Considered in the 2019 Planning Process ................ 2-9
2.5.2 Alternatives Specific to the 2018 Planning Process ............................................. 2-17
2.6 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail in the 2015 Final EIS and Carried Forward for
Consideration in the 2019 Effort ............................................................................................ 2-40

Utah Greater Sage-Grouse FSEIS i
Table of Contents

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Resources Affected ...................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.3 Greater Sage-Grouse ................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.3.1 Greater Sage-Grouse Population Trends ................................................................ 3-7
3.3.2 Adaptive Management .................................................................................................. 3-9
3.3.3 Greater Sage-Grouse Interim Seasonal Habitat Models .................................... 3-10
3.3.4 Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat Guidelines ............................................. 3-11
3.3.5 Anthropogenic Disturbance ...................................................................................... 3-11
3.4 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 3-12
3.5 Vegetation (including Noxious Weeds, Riparian and Wetlands) .................................... 3-14
3.6 Other Special Status Species .................................................................................................... 3-15
3.7 Wild Horses and Burros ........................................................................................................... 3-16
3.8 Wildland Fire Management ....................................................................................................... 3-17
3.9 Wilderness Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 3-18
3.10 Livestock Grazing/Range Management .................................................................................. 3-20
3.11 Recreation .................................................................................................................................... 3-20
3.12 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management ................................................ 3-21
3.13 Lands and Realty ......................................................................................................................... 3-21
3.14 Renewable Energy ...................................................................................................................... 3-22
3.15 Leasable Minerals (Oil and Gas, Nonenergy Leasable Minerals, Coal, and Oil
Shale and Tar Sands) .................................................................................................................. 3-22
3.15.1 Oil and Gas ................................................................................................................... 3-22
3.15.2 Nonenergy Leasable Minerals ................................................................................... 3-25
3.15.3 Coal ................................................................................................................................. 3-26
3.15.4 Oil Shale and Tar Sands.............................................................................................. 3-26
3.15.5 Locatable Minerals ....................................................................................................... 3-26
3.16 Social and Economic Conditions ............................................................................................. 3-26
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
4.4 Incomplete or Unavailable Information ................................................................................... 4-3
4.5 Impacts from the 2018 Proposed RMPA/Final EIS No-Action Alternative ..................... 4-4
4.6 Impacts from the Proposed Plan Amendment..................................................................... 4-41
4.6.1 Impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse ............................................................................ 4-45
4.6.2 Impacts on Air Quality ............................................................................................... 4-53
4.6.3 Impacts to Climate Change ....................................................................................... 4-54
4.6.4 Impacts on Soil Resources ......................................................................................... 4-54
4.6.5 Impacts on Vegetation (Including Noxious Weeds, Riparian Areas, and
Wetlands) ...................................................................................................................... 4-55
4.6.6 Impacts on Other Special Status Species ............................................................... 4-56
4.6.7 Impacts on Fish and Wildlife ..................................................................................... 4-57
4.6.8 Impacts on Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 4-59
4.6.9 Impacts on Lands and Realty ..................................................................................... 4-59
4.6.10 Impacts on Renewable Energy .................................................................................. 4-60
4.6.11 Impacts on Fluid Minerals .......................................................................................... 4-61
4.6.12 Impacts on Nonenergy Leasable Minerals, Coal, Locatable Minerals,
Mineral Materials, and Oil Shale and Tar Sands ................................................... 4-64

ii Utah Greater Sage-Grouse FSEIS
Table of Contents

4.6.13 Impacts on Social and Economic Conditions ........................................................ 4-66
4.6.14 Impacts on Other Resources .................................................................................... 4-67
4.7 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................... 4-68
4.7.1 Range-wide Cumulative Effects Analysis – Greater Sage-Grouse .................... 4-71
4.7.2 Why use WAFWA Management Zones?............................................................... 4-72
4.7.3 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone I ................ 4-75
4.7.4 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone II/VII ......... 4-77
4.7.5 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone III .............. 4-81
4.7.6 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone IV .............. 4-83
4.7.7 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone V ............... 4-85
4.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................... 4-87
4.9 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................................................. 4-87
4.10 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity .............. 4-88
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
CHPATER 6 ................................................................................................................................ 6-1
GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. GLOSSARY-1
INDEX ............................................................................................................................... INDEX-1

TABLES Page

1-1 Land Management in the Utah Planning Area ....................................................................................... 1-5
1-2 Acres of PHMA and GHMA in the Decision Area for the RMPA ................................................... 1-6
1-3 Issues and Related Resource Topics ....................................................................................................... 1-8
2-1 Comparative Summary of Alternatives .................................................................................................. 2-6
2-2 Alternatives Considered During the 2015 and 2019 Planning Processes ...................................... 2-9
2-3 Detailed Comparison of Alternatives Specific to the 2018 Final EIS ........................................... 2-17
2-4 Description of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail and Carried Forward for Consideration
from the 2015 Final EIS ............................................................................................................................ 2-40
3-1 Affected Environment Information Incorporated by Reference ...................................................... 3-5
3-2 Greater Sage-Grouse Population Trends for Areas in Utah............................................................. 3-8
3-3 Modeled Seasonal Habitat Acres in PHMA and GHMA ................................................................... 3-10
3-4 Inventoried Disturbance in Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas ......................... 3-12
3-5 Air Quality Monitoring Values in Utah ................................................................................................. 3-13
3-6 Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Actions ..................................................................... 3-15
3-7 Wild Horses and Burros Population Levels ........................................................................................ 3-16
3-8 Wildfires in Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas (2015–2019) ............................ 3-17
3-9 Acres of Wildfire in PHMA and GHMA (2015–2019) ...................................................................... 3-18
3-10 Natural Areas Overlapping PHMA ........................................................................................................ 3-19
3-11 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Overlapping PHMA........................................................... 3-19
3-12 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Overlapping GHMA ......................................................... 3-20
3-13 Oil and Gas Federal Activity in the Decision Area (as of March 2019) ....................................... 3-23
3-14 Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in the Decision Area ...................................................................... 3-23

Utah Greater Sage-Grouse FSEIS iii
Table of Contents

3-15 Oil and Gas Federal Leases and Wells in the Uintah Population Area (as of March 2019) .... 3-23
3-16 Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in the Uintah Population Area ..................................................... 3-23
3-17 Oil and Gas Federal Leases and Wells in the Carbon Population Area (as of March
2019) ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-24
3-18 Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in the Carbon Population Area ................................................... 3-24
3-19 Oil and Gas Federal Leases and Wells in the Emery Population Area (as of March 2019) ... 3-24
3-20 Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in the Emery Population Area ..................................................... 3-24
3-21 Oil and Gas Federal Leases and Wells in the Rich Population Area (as of March 2019) ....... 3-25
3-22 Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in the Rich Population Area ......................................................... 3-25
4-1 Environmental Consequences for the No-Action Alternative, Incorporated by
Reference ....................................................................................................................................................... 4-5
4-2 Summary of Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................... 4-13
4-3 Proposed Plan Amendment Issues Already Analyzed in the 2015 Final EIS and 2016
Draft EIS ....................................................................................................................................................... 4-41
4-4 Cumulative Effects Analysis Incorporated by Reference .................................................................. 4-73

APPENDIX

The appendices below from the 2015 ROD/ARMPA were modified as part of the Management Alignment
Alternative. Those appendices are included here with the same letters as the 2015 ROD/ARMPA. Appendix C,
Required Design Features, from the 2015 ROD/ARMPA were modified to remove required design features for
GHMA as GHMA was longer be a management area under the Management Alignment Alternative. Similarly,
Appendix D, Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework, was modified to remove reference to GHMA. Other
appendices appearing absent are not modified.

A Maps
B Applying Lek Buffer Distances
E Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance Cap Guidance
G Stipulations Associated with Fluid Mineral Leasing
I Adaptive Management
K Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Baseline and Habitat Update Protocol

The appendices below are new; they were not included in the 2015 ROD/ARMPA
1 Cumulative Effects Supporting Information
2 Current Conditions of GHMA in Utah
3 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 Utah Planning Process
4 Responses to Substantive Public Comments on the 2020 Draft Supplemental EIS

iv Utah Greater Sage-Grouse FSEIS