Colorado BLM Little Snake Draft RMP/EIS LS Draft RMP/EIS NWRAC, February 22, 2007

2 What is an RMP? A Resource Management Plan (RMP) is set of comprehensive long-range decisions concerning the use and management of resources administered by the BLM. The LSFO is located in northwest Colorado. The planning area comprises about 1.3 million acres of surface BLM ownership and 1.1 million acres of federal mineral estate overlain by private and State lands. The Field Office lies mostly within Moffat and Routt Counties.

3 RMP Planning Area

4 RMP Revision Background 1989: Little Snake RMP approved 1994: BLM receives Citizen Wilderness Proposals from Colorado Environmental Coalition. 2003: Partnered with Moffat County to form a broad based community group dedicated to natural resource management issues. 2003: LSFO funded in FY04 for RMP Amendment for Vermillion Basin. Strong push from partners to do a RMP revision instead. 2004: LSFO initiates RMP revision

5 RMP Schedule Winter 2004: Scoping began Spring 2005: Gathered baseline data and completed AMS. Spring/Summer 2005: Alternatives development Fall/Winter 2005: Impact Analysis Feb 2007: NOA and release of Draft RMP/EIS for 90-day public comment period Nov 2007: Distribution of Proposed RMP/Final EIS July 2008: Signed ROD

6 RMP Public Participation Opportunities

7 Public Outreach BLM has signed MOUs with five Cooperating Agencies: –Moffat County –Colorado Department of Natural Resources –U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service –Juniper Water Conservancy District –City of Steamboat Springs BLM has initiated Native American consultation with four Tribes: –Shoshone Tribal Council –Ute Mountain Tribal Council –Uintah and Ouray Tribal Council –Southern Ute Indian Tribe

8 Public Outreach An independent community stewardship group called The Northwest Colorado Stewardship (NWCOS) has provided input into the Draft RMP/EIS. NWCOS has a balance of interests, ranging from gas companies, environmental organizations, local ranchers and cooperating agencies. The public process BLM is undertaking with NWCOS supplements the required public process. Cooperating Agencies worked through the NWCOS process and also independently from NWCOS. In Spring 2006, the Cooperators developed two consensus proposals on sagebrush fragmentation and management of Vermillion Basin.

9 Issue 1: Oil and Gas Development Oil and gas leasing categories Management of Vermillion Basin Issue 2: Special Management Areas ACECs by management alternative Wild and Scenic River Study Issue 3: Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Management of lands with wilderness characteristics, including Vermillion Basin, is a contentious issue addressed in the plan. Issue 4: Wildlife Habitat Cooperating Agency proposal to reduce sagebrush habitat fragmentation Issue 5: Travel Management OHV designations Major Planning Issues

10 Alternatives Maintain present uses by continuing present management direction and activities. Mineral and energy development and unrestricted OHV travel would be allowed throughout the majority of the planning area. Maintain the level of resource functionality to meet Standards for Public Land Health. Emphasize multiple resource use by protecting sensitive resources using performance based approach. Commodity production would be balanced with providing protection for wildlife and vegetation. Allow greatest extent of resource use within the planning area. Constraints on commodity production for the protection of sensitive resources would be the least restrictive possible within the policy limits. Allow the greatest extent of resource protection within the planning area, while still allowing resource uses. Commodity production would be constrained to protect natural resource values or to accelerate improvement in their condition. Alternative B Alternative A Current Management Alternative D Alternative C Preferred Alternative

11 Oil and Gas: Preferred Alternative Open w/ STC Open w/ TLS CSU NSO Defer leasing 417,790 1,216,190 Designation* Oil and Gas Designations Acres 184, , ,870 Key NSO Defer leasing CSU * To make this map more legible, timing limitations as well as some NSO and CSU areas not related to land use allocations are not displayed (sage grouse NSO buffers, fragile soils CSU areas, etc).

12 ABCD Open, STC 549,8001,509,090417,790364,880 Open, TLS 1,162,040149,3601,216,1901,214,610 CSU 116,210153,890184,84094,210 NSO 192,19032,770216,040459,940 Defer Leasing 78, ,870275,630 % Recoverable 98%99%97%78% Oil and Gas DesignationAcres by Alternative Oil and Gas: Comparison of Alternatives

13 Deferred Leasing and Oil and Gas Potential High Potential Medium Potential Low Potential No Known Potential Discretionary Deferral WSA Closure Key

14 A New Vermillion Basin Proposal: Cooperating Agencies want to allow for organized and regulated development of Vermillion Basin while protecting natural and scenic values. All development would take place within federal units of a minimum of 10,240 acres. No more than 1 percent of the total acres leased may be disturbed at any one time, including well pads, new roads and associated disturbance. Operators must submit a Plan of Development to the BLM illustrating a strategy to reduce impacts to natural values. Oil and Gas: Vermillion Basin

15 Yampa Segment 1: 2.8 miles, recreational Special Management Areas: Preferred Alternative Suitable Wild & Scenic Segments Alternative C ACEC: Irish Canyon ACEC Yampa Segment 2: 13.9 miles, scenic Yampa Segment 3: 3.3 miles, wild Current ACECs not designated in C: Limestone Ridge Lookout Mountain Cross Mountain Canyon

16 Special Management Areas: Comparison of Alternatives ACEC Relative & Important Values Alternative Irish Canyon Sensitive plants and plant communities, scenic, geological, cultural A, C, D Cross Mountain Canyon Sensitive plants and plant communities, T&E species, scenic A, D Limestone Ridge Sensitive plants and plant communities, scenic A, D Lookout Mountain Sensitive plants and plant communities, scenic A, D White-tailed Prairie Dog White-tailed Prairie Dog habitat D “Natural Systems” Eleven separate ACECs for sensitive plants and plant communities D AlternativeSuitable Segments A and BNo suitable segments C3 Yampa River segments DAll 5 eligible segments Suitable Wild and Scenic River Segments

17 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics: Preferred Alternative Lands W/ Wilderness Characteristics outside WSAs Area 1: Manage to protect naturalness, opportunities for semi-primitive recreation, and solitude. Area 2: Allow for energy development while protecting natural and scenic values. Area 3: Manage to protect naturalness, opportunities for semi-primitive recreation, and solitude. Area 4: Identified as an SRMA to manage for flatwater boating and related camping opportunities. Existing WSAs

18 Wildlife Habitat – An Incentive-based Proposal Sagebrush Habitat Fragmentation Cooperating Agencies wanted greater protection for sagebrush habitats and more opportunities to allow year- round drilling. Wildlife timing limitation stipulations do not protect habitat over the long term. The proposal would allow oil and gas operators to opt into a voluntary trade-off, where BLM would grant an exception to wildlife timing stipulations if operators stay within certain surface disturbance parameters. The proposal applies to critical sagebrush patches and areas within a 4-mile radius of a sage grouse lek. Operators would be required to limit surface disturbance to 5% of a lease and submit a Plan of Development for approval. In return, big game and sage grouse timing limitations would be excepted, allowing year-round drilling in these areas.

19 Within 4 miles of sage grouse lek Critical sagebrush patch Key

20 Travel Management – Comparison of Alternatives OHV Designation Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Open to OHV use 991,9201,172,95021,9400 Limited- Existing RT 229,92554,8501,039,500*0 Limited- Designated RT 56,93077,080203,1001,079,440 Closed to OHV use 72,48046,37086,710289,650** * Alternative C: Manage as limited to existing roads and trials until route designation is initiated through the adaptive OHV designation process. Areas limited to existing roads and trails would be prioritized for transportation planning, eventually leading to designation of routes across the entire Field Office. ** Another 161,810 acres in Sand Wash Basin are seasonally closed to OHVs in Alternative D (foaling season)

21 Adaptive Management Alternative C would be implemented utilizing an adaptive management process. Outcomes are defined and indicators are monitored to determine if the outcomes are being reached. Appendix M in the RMP describes the AM process to be employed at both the system-level and project-level. Although the Draft does not contain quantified outcomes/objectives, these will be developed in a subsequent document called the Assessment Guidance Document. Standards for Public Lands Health serve as the system- level outcomes and indicators. Prescriptive fallbacks in the RMP would be enforced if monitoring cannot be performed.

22 Comments submitted to BLM on the Draft EIS will be fully evaluated and responses will be prepared for substantive comments that raise significant issues regarding the Draft EIS. The 90-day public comment period ends May 16, your comments to To download the Draft RMP and view fact sheets, visit the project website at Give Us Your Input

23 To request a CD copy of the Draft RMP/EIS, submit written comments, or if you have any questions, contact: Jeremy Casterson Planning and Environmental Coordinator Little Snake Field Office 455 Emerson Street Craig, CO (970) Contact Information

24 End of Presentation Questions???