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 Wyoming United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Wyoming State Office 5353 Yellowslonc: Road Cheyenne:, WY 82009 www.blm.gov/WY In Reply Refer To: 1610 (930) OCT O9 2020 Dear Reader: The Wyoming 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 (FLPMA), 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 following BLM Wyoming Field Offices: Buffalo, Casper, Cody, Kemmerer, Lander, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, Rock Springs, and Worland. The planning area encompasses approximately 17 million surface acres administered by the BLM and approximately 28 million subsurface acres in Albany, Bighorn, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, Fremont, Hot Springs, Johnson, Lincoln, Natrona, Niobrara, Park, Sheridan, Sublette, Sweetwater, Teton, Uinta, Washakie, and Weston Counties. 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 BLMs approach to compensatory mitigation. The BLMs 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 (NOA) for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) in the Federal Register on February 21, 2020 (85 FR 10188), the BLM received public comments for 90 days, through May 21, 2020. Across the Wyoming Draft SEIS and five other Draft SEISs for other BLM State Offices, a total of 125,062 submissions were received; 222 of these were considered unique submissions. In addition, the BLM received 125,840 campaign letters spearheaded by two separate organizations. In accordance with the NEPA, the BLM reviewed and considered all substantive comments received, and provides responses to such comments in this FSEIS. INTERIOR REGION 7 • UPPER COLORADO BASIN -------------------~-0--- --'--------- ---·-- - COLORADO, NEW MEXICO. UTAII. WYOMING 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 BLMs 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 BLMs environmental analysis supporting its 2019 Greater Sage-Grouse land use plan amendments. You can access the FSEIS on the project website at: https://go.usa.gov/xGeWV. Hard copies are also available for public review at the 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. ~ Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement November 2020 Responsible Agency: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Abstract: This final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) has been prepared by the United States Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The FSEIS describes and analyzes the eight alternatives considered during the 2015 and 2019 Greater Sage-Grouse planning processes, BLM’s consultation and coordination process with federal and state stakeholders, and the rigorous analysis completed to align BLM Greater Sage-Grouse management with the State of Wyoming’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: Jennifer Marzluf, BLM Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse State Implementation Lead Telephone: (307) 775-6090 Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office 5353 Yellowstone Rd. Cheyenne, WY 82009 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-5 ES.3 Items to be clarified in This FSEIS ........................................................................................... ES-5 ES.4 Analysis Conclusions .................................................................................................................. ES-6 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 ................................................................................ 1-4 1.4 2019 Issues 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 FSEIS ........................................................................................... 1-11 1.6 Relationships to Other Policies, Plans, and Programs ....................................................... 1-11 1.6.1 State Plans ...................................................................................................................... 1-12 1.6.2 Local Plans ..................................................................................................................... 1-12 1.7 Changes Between Draft and Final SEIS .................................................................................. 1-12 CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 2018 Proposed Plan Amendment Description ...................................................................... 2-1 2.3 2018 Proposed Plan Amendment ............................................................................................. 2-1 2.5 Other Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................ 2-9 2.5.1 Varying Constraints on Land Uses and Development Activities ........................ 2-9 2.6 Description of Alternatives from the 2019 Planning Process .......................................... 2-11 2.6.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................ 2-11 2.6.2 Management Alignment Alternative ........................................................................ 2-11 2.6.3 Detailed Description of Alternatives Considered during the 2019 Planning Process ........................................................................................................... 2-12 CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 USGS Reports................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.2 Multi-scale Habitat Suitability and Mapping Tools ................................................. 3-2 3.1.3 Discrete Human Activities........................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.4 Diffuse Activities ............................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.5 Fire and Invasive Species .............................................................................................. 3-3 3.1.6 Restoration Effectiveness ............................................................................................. 3-3 3.1.7 Population Estimation and Genetics.......................................................................... 3-3 3.2 Resources Affected ...................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3 Greater Sage-Grouse ................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.1 Changes to Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Based on Threats ............................. 3-6 3.4 Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.5 Lands, Realty, and Renewable Energy ...................................................................................... 3-9 3.6 Minerals ........................................................................................................................................... 3-9 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse FSEIS i Table of Contents 3.7 Livestock Grazing ......................................................................................................................... 3-9 3.8 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 4.4 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the No-Action Alternative ................................. 4-3 4.5 Environmental Impacts of the Management Alignment Alternative and the Proposed RMP Amendment..................................................................................................... 4-99 4.5.1 Modifying Habitat Management Area Designations ............................................. 4-99 4.5.2 Sagebrush Focal Areas and Withdrawal .............................................................. 4-102 4.5.3 Habitat Objectives .................................................................................................... 4-102 4.5.4 Livestock Management—Permit Renewals ......................................................... 4-103 4.5.5 Livestock Management—Existing Range Improvement Structures .............. 4-104 4.5.6 Livestock Management—Riparian Area Management ...................................... 4-105 4.5.7 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 4-105 4.5.8 Adaptive Management ............................................................................................. 4-106 4.5.9 Prioritization of Fluid Mineral Leasing ................................................................. 4-108 4.6 Cumulative Effects Analysis ................................................................................................... 4-109 4.6.1 Range-wide Cumulative Effects Analysis Greater Sage-Grouse .................... 4-111 4.6.2 Why Use WAFWA Management Zones? ........................................................... 4-112 4.6.3 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone I ............. 4-115 4.6.4 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone II/VII ...... 4-117 4.6.5 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone III ........... 4-120 4.6.6 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone IV ........... 4-122 4.6.7 Cumulative Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse: Management Zone V ............ 4-124 4.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................ 4-127 4.8 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................................... 4-127 4.9 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity ........... 4-128 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 ............................................................................................................................ 5-1 CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 6-1 GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. GLOSSARY-1 INDEX ................................................................................................................................ INDEX-1 TABLES Page 1-1 Acres of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat by BLM Field Office in the Decision Area .................... 1-5 1-2 Issues and Related Resource Topics ....................................................................................................... 1-9 2-1 Seasonal Habitat Objectives for the Greater Sage-Grouse Wyoming Basin Ecoregion ............ 2-7 2-2 Alternatives considered during the 2019 planning process. ............................................................ 2-13 2-3 Detailed Comparison of 2019 Alternatives ......................................................................................... 2-28 2-4a Part I 2015 ARMPA Goals and Objectives by Alternative ............................................................... 2-50 ii Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse FSEIS Table of Contents 2-4a Part II 2015 ARMPA Management Actions by Alternative .............................................................. 2-60 2-4b Part I 2015 Bighorn Basin RMP Revision Goals and Objectives by Alternative ...................... 2-316 2-4b Part II 2015 Bighorn Basin RMP Revision Management Actions by Alternative ...................... 2-321 2-4c Part I 2015 Buffalo RMP Revision Goals and Objectives by Alternative ................................... 2-375 2-4c Part II 2015 Buffalo RMP Revision Management Actions by Alternative................................... 2-379 2-4d Part I 2014 Lander RMP Revision Goals and Objectives by Alternative ................................... 2-411 2-4d Part II 2014 Lander RMP Revision Management Actions by Alternative .................................. 2-416 3-1 Affected Environment Incorporated by Reference.............................................................................. 3-4 4-1 Environmental Consequences for the No-Action Alternative Incorporated by Reference ...... 4-3 4-2a 2015 Wyoming ARMPA Summary of Environmental Consequences ............................................. 4-5 4-2b 2015 Buffalo Field Office RMP Revision Summary of Environmental Consequences ............... 4-22 4-2c 2015 Bighorn Basin RMP Revision Summary of Environmental Consequences ......................... 4-47 4-2d 2014 Lander Field Office RMP Revision Summary of Environmental Consequences ............... 4-76 4-3 Cumulative Effects Analysis Incorporated by Reference ............................................................... 4-113 FIGURES Page 1-1 Existing Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Area Designations (Planning Area) ............................................................................................................................................. 1-6 1-2 Existing Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Decision Area ........................... 1-7 APPENDICES A Proposed RMP Amendment with Management Goals, Objectives, and Decisions B Required Design Features C The Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy D Cumulative Effects Supporting Information E 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 Wyoming Planning Process F Responses to Substantive Public Comments on the 2020 Draft Supplemental EIS Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse FSEIS iii Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. iv Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse FSEIS