Colorado BLMLittle 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 IssuesMajor 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 ACurrent

Management

Alternative D

Alternative CPreferred 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

184,840

216,040

160,870

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

A B C D

Open, STC 549,800 1,509,090 417,790 364,880

Open, TLS 1,162,040 149,360 1,216,190 1,214,610

CSU 116,210 153,890 184,840 94,210

NSO 192,190 32,770 216,040 459,940

Defer Leasing 78,190 78,190 160,870 275,630

% Recoverable 98% 99% 97% 78%

Oil and Gas Designation Acres 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

Alternative Suitable Segments

A and B No suitable segments

C 3 Yampa River segments

D All 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

1

2

3

4

18

Wildlife Habitat – An Incentive-based ProposalSagebrush 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

991,920 1,172,950 21,940 0

Limited-

Existing RT

229,925 54,850 1,039,500* 0

Limited-

Designated RT

56,930 77,080 203,100 1,079,440

Closed to OHV use

72,480 46,370 86,710 289,650**

* 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, 2007.

• Email your comments to colsrmp@blm.gov• To download the Draft RMP and view fact

sheets, visit the project website at http://www.co.blm.gov/lsra/rmp/

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 81625

(970) 826-5071

Contact Information

24

End of Presentation End of Presentation Questions???Questions???