1. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Environmental Impact Statement Draft EIS Public Meetings October, 2013 - Forest Service

2. Sage-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.

3. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 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%

4. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Preliminary Priority Habitat, Preliminary General Habitat, and Linkage/Connectivity Habitat - Forest Service Could Amend 5 BLM RMPs and 1 NF Land Use Plan

5. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 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 Management o Rights-of-way; including transmission o Livestock grazing o Locatable and Salable Minerals o Fire Management o Invasive Species - Forest Service

6. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 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 – Conservation o As developed by the Great Basin Working Group Alternative D – Colorado Sub-Regional o 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

7. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 21 Colorado Management Zones - Forest Service

8. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 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

9. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Disturbance Cap Management Cap Alternative AAlternative BAlternative CAlternative D AnthropogenicNone 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 TotalNone 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

10. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 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

11. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Alternative AAlternative BAlternative CAlternative D Fluid Minerals Wide Variety but mostly CSU No Leasing in Priority Habitat No leasing in All Designated Habitat No 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

12. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Design Features Alternative AAlternative BAlternative CAlternative 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

13. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 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

14. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy 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.

15. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Tips 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.

16. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy How to submit your comments ePlanning Website: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/lup/lup_register.dohttps://www.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/lup/lup_register.do Email: blm_co_nw_sage_grouse@blm.govblm_co_nw_sage_grouse@blm.gov Fax: 970-244-3083 – Attention Greater Sage Grouse EIS Mail: BLM – Greater Sage Grouse EIS, 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, CO, 81506

17. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Current Status: Draft LUPA/EIS Draft Public Comment Period: – August 16, 2013-December 2, 2013 – Public Meetings (4pm-7pm): Walden, Wattenburg Community Center, October 22 nd Lakewood, Lakewood Heritage Center, October 23 rd Silt, BLM Colorado River Valley Field Office, October 28th Craig, Memorial Hospital at Craig, October 29 th Final: Spring 2014 ROD: Fall 2014 - Forest Service

18. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Have Questions? Erin Jones Northwest District NEPA Coordinator (970) 244-3008 erjones@blm.gov or Bridget Clayton EIS ID Team Leader (970) 244-3045 bclayton@blm.gov

19. Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Questions and Discussion E. Jones - Forest Service