northwest colorado greater sage-grouse environmental impact statement

Sage-Grouse Planning StrategySage-Grouse Planning StrategyNorthwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse

Environmental Impact Statement

Draft EIS Public MeetingsOctober, 2013

- Forest Service

Sage-Grouse Planning StrategySage-Grouse Planning Strategy

Why now?• In April 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined

that the Greater Sage-Grouse warranted protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

• One of the primary threats identified in the FWS decision was a lack of regulatory mechanisms for protection of GRSG in BLM Resource Management Plans.

• The NWCO GRSG DEIS is part of a national effort to include GRSG conservation measures/regulatory mechanisms into RMPs.

• FWS has until 2015 to make a final determination on listing the Greater Sage-Grouse under the ESA.


How does NW Colorado fit into the bigger picture?

• NW Colorado contains about 4% of all of the GRSG habitat nationwide (regardless of ownership)

• Of the GRSG habitat in NW Colorado, the BLM manages approximately 50% and the FS manages less than 1%


Preliminary Priority Habitat, Preliminary General Habitat, and Linkage/Connectivity Habitat- Forest Service

Could Amend 5 BLM RMPs and 1 NF Land Use Plan


Colorado Issues• Colorado population defines the South-East range of the species

• All Designated Habitat (regardless of ownership) = About 4.1 million acres

• Decision Area (BLM/FS surface) = About 1.7 million acres (USFS = About 20,000 acres)

• Decision Area (Federal Mineral Estate) = About 2.9 million acres

• Major Threats/Concerns

o Habitat Fragmentation o Fluid Minerals Managemento Rights-of-way; including transmissiono Livestock grazingo Locatable and Salable Mineralso Fire Managemento Invasive Species

- Forest Service


Alternatives• Alternative A – No-Action

o An articulation of the 5 existing BLM Resource Management Plans and the Routt National Forest Plan

• Alternative B – NTT Measures

• Alternative C – Conservationo As developed by the Great Basin Working Group

• Alternative D – Colorado Sub-Regionalo Developed with the NW Colorado Cooperating Agencies

**The Proposed Plan/Final EIS could end up being a mixture of any of these alternatives. The BLM and FS do not have to choose one alternative in it’s entirety, rather, they may pick and choose from each alternative to develop the Proposed Plan/Final EIS.

- Forest Service


21 Colorado Management Zones- Forest Service


Zone Management Function

Objective: Maintain or enhance the habitat and grouse population in each Management Zone.

- Disturbance Caps would be managed by management zone. - Grouse populations would be monitored and evaluated by

management Zone

- Note: A preliminary inventory of disturbance for each zone is included in the draft. Final inventories would be completed on a priority basis (this could take several years to complete); the Wyoming density disturbance calculation tool would be used on a project basis until the final base inventory is complete.

- Forest Service


Disturbance Cap Management

Cap Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Anthropogenic None

3% Cap on Priority

Habitat within each CO

Management Zone

3% Cap on All Designated

Habitat within each CO

Management Zone

5% Cap on Ecological Sites that Support

Sagebrush within each CO Management Zone

Total None No Similar Action*

No Similar Action

Manage for a total disturbance cap of less than 30%, to include all

loss of sagebrush from all causes including anthropogenic,

disturbance, wildfire plowed field agriculture

and vegetation treatments.

* NTT objective is to manage or restore priority areas so that at least 70% of the land cover ``````provides adequate sagebrush habitat to meet sage-grouse needs.• The Total Cap is a key feature of the Fire and Fuels Management sections for Alternative D• Cap management could be accomplished using the same type of Data Management System

(DMS) program that the White River Field Office uses to track disturbances in big game winter range.

- Forest Service


9 NWCO Cooperating Agency Meetings Held

• Colorado Parks and Wildlife• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service• Garfield County• Grand County• Jackson County• Mesa County• Moffat County• Rio Blanco County• Routt County• USDA NRCS• Denver Water Board• White River and Douglas Creek Conservation Districts• Colorado Department of Natural Resources• Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado

- Forest Service

Sage-Grouse Planning StrategySage-Grouse Planning StrategyAlternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Fluid Minerals

Wide Variety but mostly

CSUNo Leasing in Priority

HabitatNo leasing in All

Designated HabitatNo Surface

Occupancy in Priority Habitat

Realty

Highly variable by

the individual LUP

Exclusion on Priority Habitat Exclusion on all Designated Habitat

Exclusion for Large KV (>230kV) lines in priority

habitat; with one Avoidance area; Smaller ROWs are “avoidance.”

Range and Wild Horses

Variable

Numerous provisions guiding the

authorizing grazing and range project

development applied predominantly to Priority Habitat

No Livestock Grazing Many NTT provisions

applied to All Designated Habitat

- Forest Service


Design Features

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D *

Best Management

Practices

“Required Design Features” except when “Suggested Design Features”

are specified in the Locatable Minerals

Sections

Same as B

“Preferred Design Features” required

when deemed Necessary,

Appropriate and Technically Feasible.

* Rationale for not applying Preferred Design Features would be required in site specific NEPA

- Forest Service


Navigating the Draft EIS• Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose & Need• Chapter 2 – Description of Alternatives• Chapter 3 – Description of the Affected Environment• Chapter 4 – Impact Analysis• Chapter 5 – Cumulative Effects• Chapter 6 – Consultation & Coordination• Chapter 7 – References• Appendices

– Appendix B – Figures– Appendix D – Garfield County Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan– Appendix E – Stipulations – Appendix F – Disturbance Cap Management– Appendix I – Required Design Features/Preferred Design Features/Suggested Design

Features– Appendix M – Socioeconomics Data and Methodology– Appendix N – CO DNR Package


How to provide helpful comments

A substantive comment is a comment that does one or more of the following:

• Questions, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in the RMP and EIS;

• Questions, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of, methodology for, or assumptions used for the environmental analysis;

• Presents new information relevant to the analysis.

Sage-Grouse Planning StrategySage-Grouse Planning StrategyTips for providing helpful comments

• Provide specific and detailed text changes. Include the section, management action or page number to help us find the exact location of the subject of your comment. Clearly identify: – Where the issue or error is located; – Why you believe there is an error; and – Alternative ideas to address the issue/errors.

• Provide constructive solutions with documentation or resources to support your recommendations.

• Include any knowledge, experience or evidence as it relates to your observations and comments.

• Provide GPS readings if possible when referring to specific locations.

• Avoid vague statements or concerns. These don't give the BLM something on which to act.

• Comments are not votes for or against a decision. The BLM must rely on supporting information, not the number of comments received. Multiple comments / topics with the same concern are considered one comment.


How to submit your comments• ePlanning Website: https://

www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/lup/lup_register.do

• Email: [email protected]

• Fax: 970-244-3083 – Attention Greater Sage Grouse EIS

• Mail: BLM – Greater Sage Grouse EIS, 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, CO, 81506

https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/lup/lup_register.do




mailto:[email protected]


NWCO GRSG EIS Next Steps• Current Status: Draft LUPA/EIS

• Draft Public Comment Period: – August 16, 2013-December 2, 2013– Public Meetings (4pm-7pm):

• Walden, Wattenburg Community Center, October 22nd

• Lakewood, Lakewood Heritage Center, October 23rd • Silt, BLM Colorado River Valley Field Office, October 28th• Craig, Memorial Hospital at Craig, October 29th

• Final: Spring 2014

• ROD: Fall 2014

- Forest Service


Have Questions? Erin JonesNorthwest District NEPA Coordinator(970) [email protected]

or

Bridget ClaytonEIS ID Team Leader(970) [email protected]




Questions and Discussion

E. Jones

- Forest Service

northwest colorado greater sage-grouse environmental impact statement

Documents

grouse populations

grsg habitat

designated habitat

preliminary general

nw colorado fit

blm rmps

protection of grsg

blm contact