Greater Sage-Grouse and BLM’s

Nevada/Northeastern

California Record of Decision and Approved PlanAmendment

History and Overview

Grouse of the West

Greater Sage-Grouse

Bi-State Greater Sage-Grouse

Gunnison Sage-Grouse

2010 Listing Decision

• Warranted but precluded by higher priority actions• Species designated a candidate species

– Confers no protection under the ESA

• Warranted due to:– habitat loss and condition – lack of regulatory mechanisms

Historic and Current Range

Sage-Grouse Distribution

Threat SummaryHabitat Fragmentation

• Energy Development and associated infrastructure

• Invasive Species/Fire

• Agriculture

• Conifer Encroachment

Threat Summary

Mechanisms conserving birds Were sufficient in 2010;

Mechanisms conserving habitat were insufficient in 2010

An Unprecedented Effort• 2 Regions• Great Basin • Rocky Mountain

• 15 Sub-regions/EISs• Great Basin (All Amendments)• Oregon, Nevada/NE California,• Idaho/SW Montana, and Utah

• Rocky Mountain (Revisions & Amendments)• NW Colorado, WY 9 Plan, Lander Revision (WY), • Bighorn Basin Revision (WY), Buffalo Revision (WY), • Billings/Pompey’s Pillar NM Revision (MT), • Lewistown Amendment (MT), HiLine Revision (MT), • Miles City Revision (MT), South Dakota Revision, • North Dakota Amendment

• 98 LUPs Were Amended (includes BLM and FS)

An Unprecedented EffortUnprecedented effort to identify and implement…– Landscape-level– Science-based– Coordinated– Collaborative– Targeted

Conservation actions that:– Address threats to the viability of the GRGS and– Provide “certainty” that they will be implemented.

Key ABCs of Range-wide Strategy for Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation

1. Change land use allocations to limit or eliminate surface disturbance in priority habitats and address specific threats to Greater Sage-Grouse populations identified by the USFWS

2. Limit impacts of disturbance and require habitat restoration and improvement (mitigation)

3. Develop a more focused and effective strategy to address rangeland fire in the Great Basin

BLM/FS Planning

• FWS 2010 Listing Decision of Warranted but Precluded precipitated the BLM/FS Plan Amendments on December 11, 2011

• The Forest Service became a cooperating agency to complete co-planning with the BLM for 5 Land Use Plan Amendments across the west. Nevada/NE California was one of them.

• The Nevada/NE California Draft EIS/Draft Amendment was released in November 2013 for a 90-day public comment period

• The Nevada/NE California Final EIS/Proposed Plan Amendment was released for protest and Governor’s Consistency on May 29, 2015

• The Nevada/NE California Record of Decision and Approved Plan Amendment was signed and finalized on September 22, 2015, coincident with a FWS determination to not list the GRSG.

Purpose and Need

• Identify and incorporate appropriate conservation measures to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat by reducing, minimizing, or eliminating threats to that habitat

• To respond to the USFWS’s March 2010 “warranted, but precluded” ESA listing petition decision for Greater Sage-Grouse

Key Elements of the Proposed Plan

• Establishes vegetation management objectives to meet GRSG habitat needs.

• Includes a description of Desired Habitat Conditions (Seasonal Habitat Objectives) for GRSG.

• Identifies Management Actions for conservation of GRSG habitats.• Includes Habitat Treatment Objectives (Acres) for Restoration of

GRSG Habitat that have been degraded by PJ and invasive annual grasses.

• Identifies Adaptive Management Actions and Responses.• Identifies a Regional Mitigation Strategy• Provides a Monitoring Framework for consistency and

reporting.

Key Elements of the Approved Plan

While recognizing valid existing rights:• Through land allocations and management actions, limits or

eliminates new surface disturbance in GRSG priority habitat and minimize additional disturbance in general habitat

• Sets disturbance “caps” in PHMA• Prioritizes new development outside GRSG habitat• Applies science-based lek buffers to new disturbance• Requires a “net conservation gain” in PHMA and GHMA to

mitigate habitat impacts• Targets protection and restoration of important habitat • Reduces the threat of rangeland fire to GRSG in the Great Basin

Not Business as Usual

• Regional focus for

planning and mitigation

• Prioritization of

resources

• Commitment to

monitoring

• Increased focus on

data management

• Integrated approach

to fire

Habitat Management Areas

• Identifies three categories of GRSG Habitat (PHMA, GHMA, and OHMA).

• Identifies Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) for GRSG

BLM Planning Requirements for the Land and Realty Program

BLM’s Allocation Decisions for the Lands and Realty program are:– Open– Avoidance– Exclusion

• Wind: PHMA = Exclusion; GHMA = Avoidance; OHMA = Open• *Solar: PHMA = Exclusion; GHMA = Exclusion; OHMA = Exclusion• **Major ROW: PHMA and GHMA = Avoidance; OHMA = Open• Minor ROW: PHMA = Avoidance; GHMA = Open; OHMA = Open• Designated Utility Corridors: PHMA, GHMA and OHMA = Open*Decision made in the 2005 Solar EIS**Includes Power-lines over 100 kV and Pipelines greater than 24”

BLM Planning Requirements for the Minerals Program

BLM’s Allocation Decisions for the Minerals program are:– Salable and Non-energy Leasables: Open or Closed– Fluid Minerals: Closed, NSO, CSU/TL, Open– Locatable Minerals: Open, Withdrawn

• Salable and Non-energy Leasables: PHMA = Closed; GHMA = Open; OHMA = Open

• Fluid Minerals: PHMA = NSO; GHMA = CSU/TL; OHMA = Open• Locatable Minerals: SFA within the PHMA = proposed for

withdrawal; rest of PHMA = Open; GHMA = Open; OHMA = Open

BLM Planning Requirements for Travel Management

• Travel Management: Areas are designated as either Open, Limited, or Closed. PHMA and GHMA is now in the Limited to existing roads and trails category.

• Future implementation-level Travel Management Plans will determine designated roads and trails within the areas that are Limited.– Travel restrictions do not apply to emergency

vehicles or permitted activities.

BLM Planning Requirements for Livestock Grazing

• Livestock Grazing: Must meet or make progress toward meeting standards and guides and GRSG Seasonal Habitat Management Objectives based on ecological site descriptions. There is nothing in this Plan Amendment that is outside of what our grazing regulations currently require. – No AUMS were reduced in the Plan Amendment.

AUMs could be reduced in the future based on site-specific data and as resource conditions warrant and in accordance with existing regulations.

BLM Planning Requirements in Other Programs

• Vegetation: Manage to meet or make progress towards meeting GRSG Seasonal Habitat Objectives using various management strategies based on Ecological Site Descriptions.– Use native seed to the extent practicable.

• Wildland Fire: The safety of firefighters and the public is the highest priority. GRSG habitat would be prioritized commensurate with property values. – Reduce the threat of rangeland fire to GRSG in the Great Basin by

placing added priority on the prevention, suppression and restoration of sagebrush landscapes threatened by rangeland fire through improved federal-state-local collaboration and coordination.

• Fuels Management: Management would be in accordance with the Fire and Invasive Assessment Tool and Secretarial Order 3336.

Questions??