Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Implementation and Mitigation U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Implementation and Mitigation BLM - Wyoming

Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan(s) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan(s) Implementation: Guidance National Level Instruction Memoranda Habitat Assessments and Monitoring (WO IM 2016-139 and WO IM 2016-144) Grazing Related (WO IM 2016-141 and WO IM 2016-142) Adaptive Management (WO IM 2016-140) Surface Disturbance and Reclamation Tracking (WO IM 2016-145) Oil and Gas Prioritization (WO IM 2016-143) 2 2

Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan(s) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan(s) Implementation: Guidance MOUs Data Sharing MOU (update to 1990 MOU) Adaptive Management MOU Mitigation MOU DDCT coordination MOU 3 3

Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan(s) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan(s) Implementation: Guidance Core Area Versions IM (BLM WY IM 2016-024) BLM Plans did not incorporate Version 4 of the Wyoming Core Areas Addresses management of Wyoming Core Areas (Version 3 and Version 4) that do not overlap 4 4

Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan(s) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan(s) Implementation: Core Area Versions IM (BLM WY IM 2016-024) Projects located in Version 4 Areas; not in Version 3 Areas NEPA analysis must analyze at least one alternative with PHMA restrictions applied DDCTs required and results included in BLM NEPA analysis Oil and Gas Leasing deferred until completion of Plan Amendment 6 6

Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan(s) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan(s) Implementation: Core Area Versions IM (BLM WY IM 2016-024) Projects located in Version 3 Areas; not in Version 4 Areas Continue to be managed as PHMA (Core Area) Requests for exceptions, waivers or modifications will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis DDCTs required and results included in BLM NEPA analysis Oil and gas leasing will occur, consistent with the existing RMPs 7 7

Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan(s) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan(s) Implementation: Workload Workforce Assessment based on new workloads Development of internal implementation teams Encompass all affected resource specialists Encompass all field offices Promote and ensure consistency in implementation across the state. 8 8

Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan(s): U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan(s): BLM Oil and Gas Decisions and Policies Revised/Amended RMP Decisions Allocation decisions: open/closed to leasing Lease stipulations Permit-level objectives BLM Policy Guidance “Prioritization” of leasing and permit decisions Collection and use of surface disturbance and reclamation data Permit-level objectives include RDFs (Appendix C to the 9-Plan RMPA): “…the applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot be fully assessed until the project level when the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific circumstances, some RDFs may not apply to some projects… and/or may require slight variations…” 9 9

BLM Implementation Guidance for Oil & Gas U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management BLM Implementation Guidance for Oil & Gas Washington Office IM 2016-143 “This IM does not prohibit leasing or development in GHMA or PHMA.” 10 10

BLM Implementation Guidance for Oil & Gas U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management BLM Implementation Guidance for Oil & Gas Washington Office IM 2016-143 “…the BLM will prioritize… leasing [and development]… in accordance with the following prioritization sequence…” Lands outside of GHMAs and PHMAs Lands within GHMAs Lands within PHMAs Factors to consider include: Adjacent or proximate to existing oil and gas leases and development operations or other land uses/surface disturbance Within existing oil and gas units In areas with higher potential for development (leasing only) In areas with lower-value GRSG habitat or further away from important life-history habitat features In areas with completed EIS or MLP Where required by law or regulation (e.g., drainage, trespass) Where disturbance limits are not exceeded 11 11

BLM Implementation Guidance for Oil & Gas U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management BLM Implementation Guidance for Oil & Gas The RMP’s prioritization objectives do not supersede the APD processing timeframes under: regulation (43 CFR § 3162, Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1) law (the Energy Policy Act of 2005 § 366) 12 12

13

Mitigation: National Policy U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: National Policy Primary Drivers for Policy Framework 40 CFR 1508.20 Mitigation (CEQ definition) Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976) Secretarial Order No. 3330: Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of the Interior (2013) Presidential Memorandum (2015) Department of the Interior Manual Mitigation Chapter (600 DM 6) (2015) 14 14

Mitigation: The Hierarchy - CEQ at 40 CFR 1508.20 Avoid Minimize U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: The Hierarchy - CEQ at 40 CFR 1508.20 Avoid Minimize Rectify Reduce or eliminate over time Compensate 15 15

Mitigation: National Policy U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: National Policy Presidential Memorandum Employ the mitigation hierarchy, consistent with mission and legal authorities Adopt clear and consistent guidance Establish a net benefit goal, or at a minimum, no net loss Promote avoidance of impacts to natural resources of irreplaceable character Develop large-scale plans and analysis to proactively identify resource priorities and standards Encourage advance compensation (including use of banks, etc.) 16 16

Mitigation: National Policy U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: National Policy DOI Manual Mitigation Chapter Key principles: Employ the full mitigation hierarchy; compensatory mitigation measures generally should not be considered until after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization measures have been applied Seek to achieve a no net loss outcome for impacted resources and their values, services, and functions, or, as required or appropriate, a net benefit in outcomes Use landscape-scale approaches; including landscape-scale strategies and policies 17 17

Mitigation: National Policy U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: National Policy DOI Manual Mitigation Chapter Key principles cont’d: Employ: Timely and transparent processes Best Available Science Best Management Practices Monitoring and Evaluation Address: Climate Change impacts and resilience Durability and Additionality Budgetary and Financial Assurances ; compensatory mitigation measures generally should not be considered until after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization measures have been applied Seek to achieve, through application of the mitigation hierarchy, a no net loss outcome for impacted resources and their values, services, and functions, or, as required or appropriate, a net benefit in outcomes 18 18

Mitigation: National Policy BLM Interim Policy: BLM WO-IM-2013-042 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: National Policy BLM Interim Policy: BLM WO-IM-2013-042 Key elements Regional Mitigation Strategies/Planning Consistent application across landscape Identify and implement mitigation measures for particular land-use authorizations Applies to resources beyond wildlife and habitat 19 19

Mitigation: National Policy BLM Interim Policy: BLM WO-IM-2013-042 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: National Policy BLM Interim Policy: BLM WO-IM-2013-042 Guidance: Employ the mitigation hierarchy Develop large-scale plans and analysis Enhance ability to support investment in large-scale efforts Employ advanced compensation Mitigation standards (acceptable and unacceptable levels of impacts) 20 20

Mitigation: Residual Impacts U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: Residual Impacts What are Residual Impacts? Impacts that cannot be sufficiently avoided or minimized BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) page 62 Impacts are qualified within the context of Temporal extent Spatial extent Intensity of impacts 21 21

Mitigation: Regional Strategies Advanced consideration U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: Regional Strategies Advanced consideration Geographic scale Establish standards Publicly inclusive Identify most effective compensatory mitigation sites Part of the LUP process OR stand-alone technical document 22 22

Mitigation: Example Regional Strategies U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: Example Regional Strategies AK: National Petroleum Reserve – Amendment RMS (draft) AZ: Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone RMS CO: San Luis Valley Solar Energy Zone RMS (draft) WY: Continental Divide – Creston ROD and Mitigation Strategy Multi-state Transmission Lines mitigation strategies (i.e. Transwest Express, Boardman to Hemingway) 23 23

Mitigation: Wyoming Perspective U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: Wyoming Perspective Continental Divide-Creston (CD-C) Record of Decision Includes a Mitigation Strategy The FEIS considers impacts in the context of the conditions and trends of the landscape The Mitigation Strategy considers mitigation in the context of conditions and trends of the landscape The Mitigation Hierarchy 24 24

Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy Future, site-specific actions that tier to the CD-C FEIS will incorporate the strategy First, identification of avoidance and minimization measures, including appropriate rectification & reduction Then, residual impacts identified Finally, are residual impacts acceptable/unacceptable? 25 25

Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy Identifies the process by which the BLM will determine: Appropriate avoidance and minimization measures The acceptable residual impacts The unacceptable residual impacts The impacts that may warrant compensatory mitigation 26 26

Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy Acceptable/unacceptable residual impacts (BLM’s Draft Mitigation Policy, 2013) Determination is made in the relevant Resource Management Plan (RMP) If BLM is unable to meet RMP objectives, unacceptable residual impacts may remain 27 27

Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy Reasonably Foreseeable Residual Impacts in the CD-C Project Area: Pronghorn Antelope and Mule Deer Crucial Winter Range FEIS analysis identified: that pronghorn and mule deer crucial winter range habitat could be adversely affected in the short and long term Quality and function of the habitat could also be impacted, depending on location of wellpads and facilities Impacts would result in substantial disruption or irreplaceable loss of vital and high-value habitats 28 28

Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy Reasonably Foreseeable Residual Impacts in the CD-C Project Area: Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat FEIS identified that Priority Habitat Management Areas within the CD-C project area may be affected due to presence of Valid Existing Rights Localized, adverse impacts to General Habitat Management Areas may also occur 29 29

Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy The need for compensatory mitigation: Would be determined at the site-specific level If avoidance and minimization measures are identified and implemented at the site-specific level, would not need compensatory mitigation at all Operators could avoid developing in crucial habitats, including winter range & PHMA Could sufficiently minimize impacts in GHMA Would be dependent on site-specific analysis 30 30

Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy Framework for debit calculation: Determine baseline and trend of the resource Determine amount of change to baseline condition and trend as a result of the residual impact Determine magnitude of the benefits needed to enable achievement of RMP objective Consider risk associated with ineffectiveness, timeliness 31 31

Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy Mitigation Mechanisms BLM will consult with the Implementation Group* and work with industry to identify potential mitigation and compensatory mitigation sites and projects In coordination with everyone, the BLM will create, maintain, and update a list of suitable mitigation mechanisms *Section 3 of the CD-C ROD 32 32

Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mitigation: Continental Divide - Creston Strategy Mitigation Mechanisms Suitable compensatory mitigation mechanisms include: Mitigation banks Mitigation exchanges Mitigation funds Authorized land-user responsible compensatory mitigation measures 33 33

Questions? Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Implementation and Mitigation U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Implementation and Mitigation BLM - Wyoming Questions? BLM – Wyoming State Office: Travis Bargsten 307-775-6197 t75bargs@blm.gov Jennifer Fleuret-McConchie 307-775-6329 jfleuret@blm.gov Jenny Morton 307-775-6090 j75morto@blm.gov Pam Murdock 307-775-6259 pmurdock@blm.gov