SLIDE 1 Debra bra W.
uhsacker Enviro vironmental nmental Pe Permi mitt tting ing & G Government vernment Re Relations ions Consu sultant tant AAPL PL Mining ing and d Land nd Resource
stitute tute Marc rch h 14, 2013
SLIDE 2 Sage Grouse (“SG”) is a “landscape species”
- BLM estimates it administers about 47 million acres
- f SG habitat in 11 western states
- BLM lands contain over 50% of SG habitat
SG conservation measures will create
widespread adverse economic impacts
Distinct Population Segments (DPS)
- Greater sage-grouse (many states), Bi-State sage-
grouse (NV-CA), Gunnison sage-grouse (CO)
SLIDE 3 Bootstrap FLPMA land withdrawal authorities
Broad land use restrictions and outright
prohibitions affecting millions of acres in 11 western states
Severely reduce/eliminate grazing Withdraw lands with high-priority SG habitat
from mineral entry
- Validity exams for existing claims in these areas
SLIDE 4 Fire,
e, Fire, e, Fire
Wildfire is by far the worst threat
- Has destroyed millions of acres of habitat especially in the
western part of SG range (NV, CA, OR, ID)
- Invasion of cheatgrass following fires establishes highly
flammable fuel load - fire cycle
Habitat fragmentation due to resource development is a
locally significant impact
- Oil & gas development (especially in WY)
- Mining
- Renewable Energy/Transmission Corridors
- Urbanization
Predation
Livestock Grazing/Improper Grazing Pinyon-Juniper Encroachment
SLIDE 5
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html
SLIDE 6 http://www.ndow.org/wild/conservati
SLIDE 7 Magenta = High-
priority habitat
Turquoise = General
habitat
No seasonal use or
habitat type data
nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats
Derived from NDOW
habitat map
Little ground truthing http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/wildlife/greater_sage-grouse.html
SLIDE 8 Proposed SG conservation measures would
achieve land use restrictions in previous failed attempts to limit mining and other natural resource development projects:
- Mining Law Reform (1990s – present)
Unsuitability
- Clinton-Babbitt 43 CFR 3809 regulations
Unsuitability/Significant Irreparable Harm
- 2010 DOI Secretarial Order Wild Lands Policy
Impairment of wilderness characteristics
SLIDE 9 2002 – 2003: Western Watersheds Project (WWP)
petition USFWS to list SG as a T&E species
2005: USFWS determined listing not warranted WWP challenges not warranted determination
questioning the scientific basis for not listing
- Idaho federal district court (Judge Winmill)
2007: Winmill remands not warranted
determination back to USFWS charging agency did not use Best Available Science
2007 – Present: Numerous project-specific WWP
SG lawsuits in Judge Winmill’s court
SLIDE 10 2010: USFWS responds to remand with Warranted
but Precluded (“WBP”) listing determination
- Inadequate regulatory mechanism to conserve SG and SG
habitat poses significant threat to the species
- SG becomes a candidate species
- Low Listing Priority Number - 8 out of 12
9/2011: Litigation settlement addressing
numerous pending listing (WBP) decisions
- USFWS agrees to revisit SG WBP decision by 9/2015
12/2011: BLM and USFS launch National Greater
Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy
- Initiate scoping for EIS documents to amend LUPs
- Develop new SG conservation measures
SLIDE 11 Sept. 2015 listing decision deadline has
created a sense of urgency to amend BLM and USFS Land Use Plans (LUPs)
Address “Inadequate Regulatory Mechanism”
finding in the 2010 WBP Listing Decision
- Amend LUPs to create SG conservation measures
that USFWS will deem as adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect SG and SG habitat
BLM & USFS create National Technical Team in
August 2011to develop recommendations for new regulatory mechanisms
- National Technical Team Report 12/2011
SLIDE 12 IM 2012-043 “Interim Management Policy and
Procedures”
- Outlines SG conservation measures until LUPs amended
IM 2012-044 “Land Use Planning Strategy”
- Outlines EIS process and schedule to amend LUPs
- EIS documents must evaluate NTT Report conservation
measures as an alternative
NV IM 2012-056 “Revised Direction for Proposed
Activities in Priority Sage Grouse Habitat (7/23/12)
- Sought to implement NTT Report conservation measures in
Nevada
- Caused significant controversy
Pre-decisional (use NTT Report before EIS completed) Rescinded in 9 days
SLIDE 13 Regional EIS documents to amend BLM and USFS
LUPs with new SG conservation measures that will qualify as adequate regulatory mechanisms
- 68 BLM Resource Management Plans
- 9 USFS Land & Resource Management Plans
Draft EIS documents anticipated in June 2013
- NV and eastern CA combined EIS document
Final EIS documents anticipated Sept. 2014
- In time to influence USFWS 9/2015 listing decision
Several alternatives will be based on conservation
measures recommended in NTT Report
State SG Conservation Plans will be an alternative
evaluated in each EIS
SLIDE 14 One-size fits all approach to SG conservation
- Inadequate recognition of local and regional conditions,
habitat characteristics, threats, and solutions
Prescriptive restrictions on allowable cumulative
surface disturbance in priority habitat areas
- Limits surface disturbance to 3% in priority habitat areas
Focuses on regulated community (permittees)
- Restrict or deny permits to use public lands with high-
priority SG habitat
No regulatory mechanism to address wildfire –
the biggest cause of declining SG habitat in the western part of the habitat (NV, CA, OR, ID)
SLIDE 15 Mining
- Withdraw lands in high-priority SG habitat from
mineral entry
- Subject existing claims to claim validity exams
Grazing
- Don’t renew grazing permits or restrict grazing use
ROWs
- Restrict to approved and existing corridors
- No new ROWs in priority habitat areas
Energy
- Exclude from high-priority habitat areas
- Limit surface disturbance to <3% for VERs
SLIDE 16
SLIDE 17 WY develops first State Conservation Plan
- USFWS and BLM accept as Interim Management Plan
Other States follow WY and develop plans
- Seek BLM/USFWS approval for their plans as Interim
Management Plans
To date, BLM has not accepted any other
state plans as Interim Management Plans
State plans will be an alternative evaluated in
the regional DEIS documents
- Viability of these plans as a Preferred Alternative in
EIS documents is in jeopardy if BLM won’t accept as Interim Management Plans
SLIDE 18 http://sagegrouse.nv.gov/
Governo ernor Sando andoval al appoin pointed ted a mult lti-discipl disciplin inary ary Sage ge- Grou
se Adviso visory ry Com
ittee to develop velop reco commen endat datio ions ns for a Ne Nevada vada Sage ge-Grou rouse se Conserv
ation Plan n
SLIDE 19 No prescriptive approach restricting acres of
development in priority SG habitat areas
Key principle: avoid, minimize, mitigate
impacts to SG habitat
Mapping exercise to identify Sage-Grouse
Management Areas
Identifies key threats to SG habitat Suggests State Legislature create and fund:
- Sagebrush Ecosystem Council
- Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team
Recommends creation of a mitigation bank
SLIDE 20
1.
Wildfire – invasive species (cheatgrass) cycle
2.
Pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems
3.
Predation (especially eggs & chicks by ravens)
4.
BLM’s problematic wild horse & burro management
5.
Improper grazing
6.
Mineral development
7.
Renewable & other energy, transmission lines
8.
Off-road recreation
SLIDE 21
State te Authori horize zed Plan Boundary ary and Notice ce Acres ( L LR 2000) 00) BLM Public c Land Acres AZ 4,033 12,200,000 CA 23,708 15,300,000 CO 1,455 8,300,000 ID 10,483 11,600,000 MT 18,193 8,000,000 NV 148,741 47,800,000 NM 1,765 13,400,000 OR 4,450 16,100,000 UT 4,190 22,800,000 WY 43,104 18,300,000 Total 260, 0,122 122 173, 3,800 800,000 ,000
BLM Administe nisters rs Ro Roughl hly y 47 47 Million ion Acr cres es of SG Hab abita tat
SLIDE 22 Ignores FLPMA’s multiple use mandate
- Makes SG conservation the highest and best use of the
land subordinating all other land uses
Bootstraps FLPMA land-use planning and
withdrawal authorities onto the ESA
Achieves widespread land use restrictions and
prohibitions for a candidate species through amendments to LUPs in 11 western states
More onerous than the project-specific controls
in critical designated habitat for a listed species
Conservation measures may not prevent a listing
SLIDE 23
SLIDE 24
