Nevada and Northeastern California B L M Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management May 2018 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 United States Department ofthe Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Nevada State Office 1340 Financial Boulevard Reno, Nevada 89502-7147 http:liwww.blm.gov1nv Dear Reader: The Nevada and Northeastern California Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) and Draft Environmental Impact Statemelll (EIS) is available for your review and comment. 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 law and policy. The planning area is the BLM Nevada District Offices of 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, 424, 700 surface acres administered by the BLM. As directed by BLM Planning Regulations, the Management Alignment Alternative has been identified in the Draft EIS as the preferred alternative. Identification ofthe preferred alternative does not indicate any commitments on the part ofthe BLM with regard to a final decision. In developing the Proposed RMP A/Final EIS, which is the next phase ofthe planning process, the decision maker may select various management actions from each of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft RMP A/Draft EIS for the purpose ofcreating a management strategy that best meets the needs ofthe 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 Draft RMPA/Draft EIS. The Draft RMP A/Draft EIS is available on the project website at: https://goo.gllkcsF4w. Hard copies are also available for public review at the BLM Nevada and California State Offices. Public comments will be accepted for 90 calendar days following the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) publication ofits Notice ofAvailability 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 ofelectronic comments is encouraged): 1. Written comments may be submitted electronically at: a. Website: https://goo.gl/kcsF4w 2. Written comments may also be mailed directly, or delivered to, the BLM at: Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office Attn: Matthew Magaletti 1340 Financial BLVD Reno, NV 89502 To facilitate analysis ofcomments and infonnation submitted, we encourage you to submit comments in an electronic fonnat. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying infonnation in your comment, be advised that your entire comment - including your personal identifying infonnation - may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying infonnation, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Public meetings will be held at various locations around the planning area to provide the public with opportunities to submit comments and seek additional infonnation. The locations, dates, and times ofthese meetings will be announce at least 15 days prior to the first meeting via a press release and on the project website: https://goo.gl/kcsF4w Thank you for your continued interest in the Greater Sage-Grouse RMPA. We appreciate the infonnation and suggestions you contribute to the process. Sincerely, ~ ~ Nevada State Director California State Director Bureau of Land Mangement Bureau of Land Management Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Responsible Agency: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Abstract: This draft resource management plan (RMP) amendment and draft 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 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 State conservation plans and to support conservation outcomes for Greater Sage-Grouse. This is the agency’s preferred alternative, though this does not constitute a final decision and there is no requirement that the preferred alternative identified in the draft EIS be selected as the agency’s decision in the Record of Decision. Major planning issues addressed include Sagebrush Focal Area designations, habitat boundary designations, density and disturbance caps, habitat objectives, energy and minerals, and lands and realty. Review Period: Comments on the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be accepted for 90 calendar days following publication of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. For further information, contact: Matt Magaletti, Project Manager Telephone: (775) 861-6472 Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 1340 Financial Blvd. Reno, NV 89502 Jeremiah Karuzas Telephone: (916) 978-4644 Bureau of Land Management, California State Office 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 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 .................................... ES-4 ES.3.3 Issues and Resource Topics Not Carried Forward for Additional Analysis (Scoping Issues Outside the Scope and Scoping Issues Previously Analyzed) ................................................................................................... ES-6 ES.4 Alternatives Considered ........................................................................................................... ES-7 ES.4.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................ ES-7 ES.4.2 Management Alignment Alternative (Preferred Alternative) ............................ ES-8 ES.5 Summary of Environmental Consequences .......................................................................... ES-8 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 ................................................................................ 1-3 1.4 Planning Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 1-5 1.5 Issues and Related Resource Topics Identified Through Scoping ..................................... 1-6 1.5.1 Issues and Related Resource Topics Retained for Further Consideration in this RMPA/EIS ................................................................................. 1-7 1.5.2 Clarification of Planning Decisions in the 2015 ARMPA ...................................... 1-9 1.5.3 Issues and Resource Topics Not Carried Forward for Additional Analysis (Scoping Issues Outside the Scope and Scoping Issues Previously Analyzed) ................................................................................................... 1-11 1.6 Relationship to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs ......................................................... 1-12 1.6.1 State Plans ...................................................................................................................... 1-12 1.6.2 Local Plans ..................................................................................................................... 1-12 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 2.3 Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 2-3 2.3.1 No-Action Alternative .................................................................................................. 2-3 2.3.2 Management Alignment Alternative .......................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Comparative Summary of Alternatives ................................................................................... 2-4 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 2-6 2.6 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................. 2-17 2.7 Plan Evaluation, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management ................................................... 2-17 CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Greater Sage-Grouse Literature, 2015–2018 ......................................................... 3-1 May 2018 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS i Table of Contents 3.2 Resources Affected ...................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.1 Resources Not Carried Forward for Analysis ........................................................ 3-5 3.3 Greater Sage-Grouse and Its Habitat ...................................................................................... 3-6 3.3.1 Greater Sage-Grouse Population Status .................................................................. 3-6 3.4 Wildland Fire and Habitat Treatment ...................................................................................... 3-7 3.5 Human Disturbance ..................................................................................................................... 3-8 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 Impacts from No-Action Alternative ........................................................................ 4-3 4.3.2 Impacts from Management Alignment Alternative ................................................ 4-9 4.4 Incomplete or Unavailable Information ................................................................................. 4-10 4.5 Impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse habitat ............................ 4-11 4.5.1 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action Alternative) ............................................................................................. 4-11 4.5.2 Impacts of Management Alignment Alternative .................................................... 4-11 4.6 Impacts on Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................................. 4-13 4.6.1 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action Alternative) ............................................................................................. 4-13 4.6.2 Impacts of Management Alignment Alternative .................................................... 4-13 4.7 Impacts on Land Use and Realty ............................................................................................. 4-13 4.7.1 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action Alternative) ............................................................................................. 4-13 4.7.2 Impacts of Management Alignment Alternative .................................................... 4-14 4.8 Impacts on Renewable Energy Resources ............................................................................ 4-14 4.8.1 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action Alternative) ............................................................................................. 4-14 4.8.2 Impacts of Management Alignment Alternative .................................................... 4-14 4.9 Impacts on Minerals and Energy .............................................................................................. 4-15 4.9.1 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action Alternative) ............................................................................................. 4-15 4.9.2 Impacts of Management Alignment Alternative .................................................... 4-16 4.10 Impacts on Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................... 4-16 4.10.1 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action Alternative) ............................................................................................. 4-16 4.10.2 Impacts of Management Alignment Alternative .................................................... 4-17 4.11 Impacts on Livestock Grazing .................................................................................................. 4-18 4.11.1 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action Alternative) ............................................................................................. 4-18 4.11.2 Impacts of Management Alignment Alternative .................................................... 4-18 4.12 Impacts on Comprehensive Travel Management ................................................................ 4-18 4.12.1 Impacts of the No-Action Alternative with the Inclusion of SFAs (No-Action Alternative) ............................................................................................. 4-18 4.12.2 Impacts of Management Alignment Alternative .................................................... 4-18 4.13 Cumulative Effects Analysis ...................................................................................................... 4-19 4.14 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................... 4-36 ii Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS May 2018 Table of Contents 4.15 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................................................. 4-36 4.16 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity .............. 4-37 CHAPTER 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1 Public Scoping ................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1.2 Future Public Involvement ........................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.3 American Indian Tribal Consultation ....................................................................................... 5-4 5.4 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................ 5-4 5.5 RMPA/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-1 ES-2 Issues and Related Resource Topics ..................................................................................................... ES-3 ES-3 Clarification Issues ..................................................................................................................................... ES-5 ES-4 Comparison of Environmental Consequences ................................................................................... ES-9 1-1 Land Management in the Planning Area ................................................................................................. 1-3 1-2 Issues and Related Resource Topics ....................................................................................................... 1-7 1-3 Clarification Issues ....................................................................................................................................... 1-9 2-1 Comparative Summary of Alternatives .................................................................................................. 2-5 2-2 Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................................... 2-6 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 ............................................... 3-8 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 .................................................................. 4-20 4-5 Range-Wide Impacts from Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions .......... 4-21 5-1 Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................................................................ 5-2 5-2 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................................... 5-4 FIGURES Page 1-1 Planning Area ................................................................................................................................................ 1-4 May 2018 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS iii Table of Contents 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 iv Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft RMPA/EIS May 2018