NEVADA’S SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEM PROGRAM

An Overview and Recent Developments Related to Mineral Exploration

Reno, NVNovember 12-13, 2019

Allen BiaggiNevada Mining Association & SEC MemberKelly McGowanSagebrush Ecosystem Program Manager

11/13/2019 1

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE & SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEM

11/13/2019 2

SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEM COUNCIL

Nine Voting Members

• J.J. Goicoechea, Chair – Local Government• Chris MacKenzie, Vice-Chair - Wildlife Commission• Allen Biaggi – Mining• Steve Boies – Ranching• Gerry Emm – Tribal Nations• Starla Lacy – Energy• Bevan Lister – Agriculture• William Molini – Conservation & Environmental• Sherman Swanson – General Public

Six Ex-Officio Members• Justin Barrett – USFWS • Ray Dotson – NRCS • Bill Dunkelberger – USFS • Jon Raby – BLM • Bradley Crowell – DCNR • Jennifer Ott – NDA • Tony Wasley – NDOW

11/13/2019 3

BACKGROUND

• March 2010 – FWS determined sage-grouse was “warranted but precluded” from ESA listing – sage-grouse became a candidate species

• Secretary Salazar invited states to develop EIS alternatives• FWS entered into a court-approved settlement to make a decision on sage-grouse

listing by September 2015• BLM and USFS develop strategy to revise existing LUPs in late 2011• 2015 the BLM and USFS issue ROD for GRSG ARMPA’s• September 22, 2015 FWS determined the Greater Sage-grouse were not

warranted for listing• The 2020 FWS status review will assess conservation efforts and if the 2015 not

warranted finding requires re-visitation 11/13/2019 4

STATE OF NEVADA RESPONSE

March 2012 – Governor created the Sage-grouse Advisory Committee (EO 2012-09)

July 2012 – SGAC recommends to Governor creation of Sagebrush Ecosystem Program

November 2012 – Governor established Sagebrush Ecosystem Council (EO 2012-19)

February 2013 – SETT staff and SEC members established

June 2013 – AB 461 passed & signed into law (NRS 232.162)

2014 the SEC approves the GRSG Conservation Plan (State Plan)

December 7th 2018 – Governor signed Executive Order 2018-32; Anthropogenic disturbances on State or Federal land will require compensatory mitigation

October 30, 2019 - Permanent Mitigation Regulation reviewed and approved11/13/2019 5

11/13/2019 6

To offset impacts from anthropogenic disturbances through enhancement and protection that results in a net benefit for

greater sage-grouse habitats in the state of Nevada

CCS AT A VIEW

• Measures habitat value in units of functional acres (quality and quantity)

• Credits are the currency of the CCS• Credits are used to offset debits. The

same methods are used to determine both.

• Credit Developers sell credits directly to Credit Buyers

• The price of credits is determined by free market forces

11/13/2019 7

11/13/2019 8

BLM’S DECEMBER 6, 2018 INSTRUCTIONAL MEMORANDUM

BLM DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION OF LAND USERS PER FLPMA

BLM CANNOT ACCEPT A MONETARY CONTRIBUTION FOR COMPENSATORY MITIGATION

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS MUST BE VOLUNTARY, OR

IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW OR OTHER FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

STATE PLAN IN PERIL

COMPENSATORY MITIGATION ON FEDERALL MANAGED LANDS IS A MAJOR COMPONENT OF THE STATE PLANTHE STATE PLAN WAS BUILT AROUND THE CONSERVATION CREDIT SYSTEM (CCS)WITHOUT AN EFFECTIVE PLAN PROTECTING HABITAT, NEVADA (AND ALL 11 STATES) FACED A LISTING THREAT FOR THE BIRDON DECEMBER 7, 2018 GOVERNOR SANDOVAL SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER (2018-32) CALLING FOR THE ECOSYSTEM COUNCIL TO ADOPT REGUATIONS REQUIRING THE USE OF MITIGATION ON STATE AND FEDERAL LANDS IN NEVADA

DRAFT REGULATIONS ARE CREATED(EARLY 2019)

DEFINITIONSREQUIREMENT THAT ANTHROPROGENIC DISTURBANCES ON STATE AND FEDERAL LAND MUST BE MITIGATED (DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE LANDS)RECOGNIZES AGREEMENTS IN PLACE WITH THE BLM AND/OR THE USFWS PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REGULATIONSEXEMPTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, SMALL SCALE DISTURBANCES, PUBLIC PURPOSES AND EMERGENCY ACTIONS

WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO IF YOU DISTURB GRSG HABITAT?

EFFORTS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS, IF IMPACTS OCCUR, THEN:SUBMIT TO THE SETT INFORMATION ON THE ADVERSE EFFECT INCLUDING

MAPS, AND DATA FILESHAVE A CERTIFIED VERIFIER DETERMINE THE MAGNITUDE AND SCOPE OF THE

IMPACTSTHEN:

• SECURE CREDITS THROUGH THE CONSERVATION CREDIT SYSTEM, OR• DEVELOP A MITIGATION PLAN WITH THE SETT TO GENERATE CREDITS AND

OFFSET THE IMPACT• THE PLAN MUST ADDRESS: CREDIT LOCATION, TIME FRAMES, DURABILITY,

FINANCIAL ASSURANCE

REGULATION DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND SCOPING SESSIONS WEERE HELD ON THE REGULATORY CONCEPTA HEARING TO ADOPT THE REGULATIONS WAS HELD ON MARCH 19 –

SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES WERE PROPOSED, ADOPTION POSTPONED PENDING A CLEAN REGULATIONAPRIL 29, THE REGULATIONS WERE REVISITED AND UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTEDBECAUSE THE REGULATIONS WERE DRAFTED AND HEARD DURING THE

LEGISLATIVE SESSION THEY WERE TEMPORARY. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BUREAU (LCB) REVIEW WAS NEEDED, SEC READOPTION, LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION APPROVAL BEFORE NOVEMBER 1, 2019

REGULATION DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL (CONT.)

THE LCB REVIEW RESULTED IN WORDING AND SOME SUBSTANTIVE CHANGESTHE SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEM COUNCIL REVISITED THE REGULATIONS ON OCTOBER 3, REVISED THEM AND ADOPTED THEM UNANIMOUSLYTHE REGULATIONS WERE APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 30

HOW DOES THE NEW REGULATION ADDRESS EXPLORATION?

DEFINITION OF MINERAL EXPLORATION ADDED:• Mineral exploration as defined in the mitigation regulations: “exploration of gas, oil, coal and

other gaseous, liquid and solid hydrocarbons, oil shale, cement material, sand, gravel, road material, building stone, chemical raw material, gemstone, fissionable and non fissionable ores, colloidal and other clay, steam and other geothermal resources, precious metals, base metals, and industrial minerals.”

SECTION 16 (2)(d) EXEMPTS MINERAL EXPLORATION PROJECTS OF LESS THAN 5 ACRES PROGRAM POLICY ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATION ADDRESSED

EXPLORATION PROJECT IN EXCESS OF 5 ACRES AND WOULD:• REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO CONSIDER INDIRECT IMPACTS• REQUIRE 10 YEARS OF MITIGATION DURABILITY ASSURANCE RATHER THAN 30• RECOGNIZE THE UNCERTAINTY INHERENT IN EXPLORATION PROJECTS AND

PROVIDE FELXIBILITY IN DETERMINING WHERE ACTUAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR

EXPLORATION FLEXIBILITY

•PROPONENT OPTION TO COLLECT SITE SCALE FIELD DATA

• IMPACT LOCATION AND AMOUNTS MAY BE IDENTIFIED BEFOREHAND

•ACTUAL IMPACTS CAN BE DETERMINED AT A LATER TIME WITH BY PROJECT FOOTPRINT

MITIGATION, ONE OF MANY EFFORTS

•Pinyon and Juniper Removal Efforts•Potential Increase in Raven “take” Permits•New Products to Combat Invasive and Noxious Weeds• Increased Wild Horse Gathers – Increased Adoption Rates•Enhanced Protection of Meadows and Streams• Increased Fire Fighting Budgets/Resources•Consistently Applied Mitigation Metrics

11/13/2019 16

WOULDN’T A LISTING BE EASIER TO LIVE WITH?

• Loss of State management• Section 7 required (private and public land)• Many of the same habitat quantification

tools will be used • If a take permit is necessary, additional

NEPA is required• Requires compliance with all state and local

laws and regulations• Generally affects small businesses and

private landowners the most ($$)• Increase project timelines ($$)• Mitigation likely to be a requirement

11/13/2019 17

http://sagebrusheco.nv.gov/ 18

SAGEBRUSH ECOSYSTEM TECHNICAL TEAMKelly McGowan (SEP Program Manager)

kmcgowan@sagebrusheco.nv.govKatie Andrle (Nevada Department of Wildlife)

kandrle@sagebrusheco.nv.govDan Huser (Nevada Division of Forestry)

dhuser@sagebrusheco.nv.govEthan Mower (Nevada Department of Agriculture)

emower@sagebrusheco.nv.govKathleen Petter (Nevada Division of State Lands)

kpetter@sagebrusheco.nv.gov

Office: 775-684-8600