Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSage Grouse Strategy - MOUCommunity Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Solis Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: February 22, 2012 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner MTG: February 27,2012 Work session RE: Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy I Cooperating Agency Discussions with BlM BlM Presentation The purpose of the February 27 work session is to discuss an opportunity for the Bureau of land Management (BlM) and Deschutes County to work together in development of the BlM's Greater Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. Anita Bilbao, Acting Prineville District Manager and her staff will make a short presentation and be available to answer questions. At the meeting BlM will summarize the schedule for this project, explain BlM and Cooperating Agency roles, and describe the benefits, limitations and time commitment of Cooperating Agency participation. Their goal is to present enough detail that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) can understand the process and make a decision about whether it is in Deschutes County's interest to serve as a Cooperating Agency on this project. Attached for the Board's review are a draft Memorandum of Understanding and a general factsheet. Background In April 2010, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) detennined that protection of the greater sage-grouse under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) was warranted. However, listing the greater sage-grouse was precluded at this time by the need to address other listings facing greater risk of extinction. The sage-grouse is now a candidate species for listing. The primary threats to the sage-grouse across its range are: habitat loss and fragmentation, including wildfire; invasive plants; energy development; urbanization and agricultural conversion and grazing. More than any native species since the spotted owl, the sage grouse sparks direct conflict with traditional industries and emerging, large-scale renewable energy projects, from livestock grazing to the construction of wind turbines and power lines. The status of the sage grouse, both biologically and legally, is important to the state of Oregon because so much of Central and Eastern Oregon consists of sage grouse habitat. If sage grouse is protected as a threatened or endangered species, federal agencies will be required to consult with USFWS on projects and approvals that may affect the sage grouse. "Taking" a sage grouse will be illegal, and the USFWS will be required to designate "critical habitat," resulting in further restrictions upon activities in those areas.1 1 The ESA comprehensively defines "take" to encompass any direct or indirect harm to the species, including impacts to habitat modification or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavioral patterns such as breeding. spawning. rearing, migrating. feeding. or sheltering. Quality Services Perfonned with Pride What is the BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy? The BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy is a planning approach that provides the framework and structure for transparent interagency and stakeholder collaboration on long-term greater sage-grouse conservation and habitat restoration. Under the planning strategy, the BLM will review its principal, existing regulatory framework for sage-grouse conservation—the land use planning process—to determine the development and implementation of new or revised regulatory mechanisms. The focus will be on incorporating regionally-appropriate, science-based conservation measures into BLM land use planning efforts through coordinated, cooperative stakeholder engagement. Greater sage-grouse benefit from and make use of suitable habitat—regardless of land ownership and management responsibility, so the BLM planning strategy uses an open and collaborative approach to foster cooperative conservation efforts across the regions and states that make up the greater sage-grouse range. The planning strategy illustrates the Bureau’s continued commitment to long-term, rangewide sage-grouse conservation and habitat restoration and acknowledges the added value of engaging all stakeholders in cooperative conservation efforts. Why was a new planning approach developed? In April 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found that the greater sage-grouse warrants the protection of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) but that listing the species was precluded by the need to address other, higher-priority species first. One reason for the FWS decision was an identified need for more adequate regulatory mechanisms to ensure species conservation. The FWS greater sage-grouse decision placed the species on the candidate list for future action, which provided stakeholders such as Federal agencies, states, and private landowners with additional opportunities to continue working cooperatively to conserve the species and restore its habitat. The BLM also used this opportunity to develop the new planning strategy, which is directed toward long-term conservation and habitat restoration on BLM-administered lands rangewide. BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Highlights Creates a rangewide approach that allows for improved collaboration and coordination and addresses ecoregional differences by dividing sage-grouse range into an Eastern Region and a Western Region. Eastern Region will include Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, northeastern Utah, and Wyoming where major sage-grouse threats include habitat loss and fragmentation due to energy development—both oil and gas and renewables. Western Region will include California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and most of Utah, with a small portion of southwestern Montana where major sage-grouse threats include habitat loss and fragmentation due to invasive plant species and wildfire impacts. Creates several governance teams to ensure ongoing coordination and oversight, both regionally and nationally, using an interagency and multi-state approach that engages all stakeholders. A National Policy Team will provide national policy guidance on sage-grouse conservation and consistent planning objectives. A National Technical Team (NTT) will use the best science available to derive recommended conservation measures. Two Regional Management Teams (RMTs) will coordinate planning and strategy implementation efforts across the states and provide direction at specific points to ensure consistency. Two Regional Interdisciplinary Teams (RIDTs) will coordinate the development of EISs and RMP amendments using policy guidance provided by the National Policy Team. State-level Interdisciplinary Teams (SIDTs) will conduct the required environmental analyses to transform goals and objectives into regulatory mechanisms for greater sage-grouse conservation. Updated as of 11/29/2011 Oregon Implementation of the National Strategy Implementing the National Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy allows Oregon BLM the opportunity to fully consider long-term sage-grouse conservation and habitat restoration guidance contained in the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon published by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. To date, an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) has been formed, a contractor hired and the Resource Management Plan (RMP) process has begun. Historic Sage-grouse habitat encompassed 17.7 million acres in Oregon (prior to Euro- American settlement). Currently, Sage-grouse occupy 14-15 million acres in Oregon which is approximately 80% of their historic distribution. About 70% of the current Sage- grouse distribution (about 10 million acres) occurs on lands administered by BLM. Ongoing RMP Efforts in Oregon Oregon BLM will consider new sage-grouse conservation information as part of the following ongoing RMP and accompanying National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) efforts: Baker RMP revision (Vale) John Day RMP revision (Prineville) Lakeview RMP amendment (Lakeview) Southeastern Oregon RMP amendment (Vale) New RMP Amendments in FY 2012 Oregon BLM will be revising or amending the RMPs below and expects to begin a 60-day formal public scoping period on or about Dec. 9 of this year following publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register: Andrews Burns District Steens Burns District Three Rivers Burns District Brothers LaPine (East) Prineville District Two Rivers Prineville District Upper Deschutes Prineville District A lot of good work has already been done by BLM and our partners to conserve and restore sagebrush habitat as evidenced by 80% of the historic range is occupied by sage-grouse. Considering the ODFW strategy and other conservation measures at the planning and regional scale provides an opportunity to continue the good work and adjust plan direction where necessary for the conservation of the species. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN DESCHUTES COUNTY AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BY AND THROUGH THE OREGON/WASHINGTON BLM STATE DIRECTOR REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED GREATER SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT CONSERVATION STRATEGY, WESTERN REGION, OREGON/WASHINGTON SUB-REGION 2 Memorandum of Understanding Between Deschutes County and the Bureau of Land Management For Amendment of the Resource Management Plans and Associated Environmental Impact Statement regarding Greater Sage-grouse Conservation for the BLM Districts With Lands Within Deschutes County Parties to and Purpose for this Document: This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into between Deschutes County and the United States Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by and through the Oregon/Washington Director (BLM), for the purpose of coordinating and cooperating in conducting an environmental analysis and preparing the draft and final Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for the greater sage-grouse habitat conservation strategy. These EISs will be coordinated under two regions: an Eastern Region and a Western Region. The Eastern Region includes land use plans in the states of Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and portions of Utah and Montana. The Western Region includes land use plans in California, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, and portions of Utah and Montana. Within these Regions, sub-regional interdisciplinary teams (IDTs) will be developing individual EISs. Based on the identified threats to greater sage-grouse and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) timeline for making a listing decision on this species, the BLM aims to incorporate objectives and conservation measures into Resource Management Plans (RMPs) (for the purpose of this document, the term “RMP” applies to all land use plans) by September 2014 in order to conserve greater sage-grouse and avoid a potential listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Therefore, the BLM will conduct these EISs under expedited timeframes. 1. This MOU establishes Deschutes County as a "cooperating agency" in the environmental impact analysis and documentation process and establishes procedures through which Deschutes County will participate with the BLM sub-regional IDT to conduct the analyses and develop the EIS. Deschutes County has been identified as a cooperating agency because it has special expertise with respect to local land use regulations, laws, and as well as local knowledge of social or political conditions (40 CFR 1508.5). This MOU applies specifically to the lands within Deschutes County in the Oregon/Washington Sub-Region within the Western Region. 2. Authorities: This MOU has been prepared under the authorities for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and federal regulations codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1500-1508, and 43 CFR Part 46; and BLM’s planning regulations (in particular 43 CFR 1601.0-5, 1610.3-1, and 1610.4). 3. Background: In April 2010 the FWS published its listing decision for the greater sage- grouse as “Warranted but Precluded.” The FWS identified the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms as a major threat in the FWS finding on the petition to list the greater sage- grouse. The FWS has identified the principal regulatory mechanism for the BLM as conservation measures in RMPs. Based on the identified threats to the greater sage-grouse and the FWS timeline for making a listing decision on this species, the BLM needs to 3 incorporate explicit objectives and adequate conservation measures into RMPs within the next 3 years in order to conserve greater sage-grouse and avoid a potential listing under the Endangered Species Act. Under the planning strategy, the BLM will evaluate the adequacy of its RMPs and address, as necessary, revisions and amendments throughout the range of the greater sage-grouse (with the exception of the bi-state population in California and Nevada and the Washington state population segment, which will be addressed through other planning efforts). The BLM has determined that the proposed strategy is a major federal action which requires the preparation of an EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The BLM will seek public and agency input to identify issues to address in the EISs, and BLM will coordinate with other federal, state, and local government agencies in preparing the EISs. The BLM will conduct detailed environmental studies on the proposed and alternatives, and analyze how implementation of these alternatives may affect the quality of the environment. Under the authorities of the NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. § 1501.6), and federal regulations promulgated by the Department of the Interior (DOI) for NEPA (43 C.F.R. §§ 46.220, 46.225 & 46.230), the BLM is the lead agency and Deschutes County is a cooperating agency for this EIS process. Cooperating agency status may be offered to other federal agencies, tribes and local government agencies as well. All EISs will consider both federal and non-federal lands in its analyses. However, any decisions that would result in implementation action would apply ONLY to federal land and minerals and may be subject to additional NEPA process. 4. Term of MOU: This MOU will commence upon the date of the last signature made by the duly authorized representatives of the parties to this MOU, and will remain in full force and effect until terminated as described in item 9i, below. 5. Responsibilities of Deschutes County: Based upon the expedited time frames for this initiative, Deschutes County will participate in the environmental analysis and documentation process by providing information regarding environmental issues for which or where Deschutes County has special expertise. Deschutes County has special expertise regarding local laws, regulations or County land use plans as well as knowledge of local conditions. A schedule and preliminary timeframe for the respective stages of EIS development where Deschutes County may participate in the planning process is included in Attachment A. Deschutes County will have one representative appointed to represent its interests and work with the Oregon/Washington sub-regional IDT and as its point of contact (see Section 9k.). At the BLM’s discretion the Deschutes County representative may be present, as available, at IDT meetings and provide supporting documentation and information as necessary. Information provided by Deschutes County may be at its discretion or upon request by BLM IDT members or the BLM’s third party NEPA contractor through the sub- regional IDT leader and within the IDT leader’s specified time frames. If the County has special expertise available for the plan amendment process, the BLM may ask the County’s appointed representative to participate in the interdisciplinary team process. 4 Through its representative, Deschutes County will have the opportunity for input to preliminary draft documents prepared during the EIS process. The IDT leader may, at any time during the effective term of this MOU, request records by contacting the Deschutes County point of contact identified in Section 9(k) below. Prior to release, all records or information requested of or provided by Deschutes County pursuant to this MOU will be subject to review by Deschutes County. Under this MOU, Deschutes County may be expected to assist the BLM by identifying key issues, developing reasonable alternatives, providing timely information, and reviewing preliminary environmental documents, in accordance with the schedule for preparation of the EIS set by the IDT leader. As a non -Federal agency, Deschutes County agrees to maintain the confidentiality of all documents and information it acquires through the processes and deliberations covered by this MOU, during the period prior to the public release of the final EIS. 6. Responsibilities of the BLM: In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 1501.5 and 43 C.F.R. § 46.220, the BLM is the lead agency. The point of contact for the preparation of this EIS is as designated in Section 9(k) of this MOU. The BLM will keep the Deschutes County representative apprised of current events and timeframes in relation to this EIS. The BLM will consider and may use input and proposals from the Deschutes County representative to the maximum extent possible and consistent with responsibilities as lead agency as described in 40 CFR 1501.5. BLM may incorporate information provided by Deschutes County into the draft and final EISs as appropriate. The BLM is solely r esponsible for any decisions made in relation to the planning effort. Any BLM decisions made associated with the EIS apply only to BLM-administered lands and federal mineral estate. 7. Mutual Responsibilities of the Parties: Deschutes County and the BLM agree to cooperate by informing each other as far in advance as possible, of any related actions, issues or procedural problems that may affect the environmental analysis and documentation process or that may affect either party. The parties listed under provision 9.k. below will serve as the MOU core team. The purpose of the MOU core team is to ensure that timely and coordinated communication and exchange of information between the parties to the MOU occurs throughout the planning process. 8. Payment: No payment will be made to either party by the other as a result of this MOU. Each party will pay its own costs. During the course of the planning process, should it become necessary for one party to purchase from or make payment or reimbursement to the other party, such arrangements will be covered in a separate agreement. 9. General Provisions: a. Amendments. Either party may request changes to this MOU. Any changes, modifications, revisions, or amendments to this MOU, that are mutually agreed upon by and between the parties to this MOU, will be incorporated by written instrument, 5 executed and signed by both parties to this MOU, and are effective in accordance with the terms of paragraph 2 above. b. Applicable Law. The construction, interpretation and enforcement of this MOU will be governed by the applicable laws of the United States and, where not inconsistent, the laws of the State of Oregon. c. Entirety of Agreement. This MOU, consisting of ____ pages, with Attachment A, represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negations, representations and agreements concerning the parties’ environmental documents, whether written or oral. d. Severability. Should any portion of this MOU be determined to be illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of the MOU will continue in full force and effect, and the parties may renegotiate the terms affected by the severance. e. Sovereign Immunity. Deschutes County and the BLM do not waive their sovereign immunity by entering into this MOU, and each fully retains all immunities and defenses provided by law with respect to any action based on or occurring as a result of this MOU. f. Third Party Beneficiary Rights. The parties do not intend to create in any other individual or entity the status of third party beneficiary, and this MOU must not be construed so as to create such status. The rights, duties and obligations contained in this MOU will operate only between the parties to this MOU, and will ensure solely to the benefit of the parties to this MOU. The provisions of this MOU are intended only to assist the parties in determining and performing their obligations under this MOU. The parties to this MOU intend and expressly agree that only parties signatory to this MOU will have any legal or equitable right to seek to enforce this MOU, to seek any remedy arising out of a party's performance or failure to perform any term or condition of this MOU, or to bring an action for the breach of this MOU. g. Exchange of Information. All records or information requested of either party by the other will be reviewed by the party generating the record prior to release. To the extent permissible under law, any recipient of proprietary and/or pre-decisional information agrees not to disclose, transmit, or otherwise divulge any such information without prior approval from the releasing party. Any breach of this provision may result in termination of this MOU. The BLM and Deschutes County recognize that applicable public records laws will require release of non-exempt documents. h. Administrative Considerations. Pursuant to 204(b) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, responsible Federal Agency officials may meet or enter into project level MOUs with officials of State and local Governments or their designees. During such meetings and development, implementation and monitoring of such MOUs, views, information and advice are exchanged, or input relative to the implementation of Federal programs is obtained. Such meetings and MOUs will further the administration of intergovernmental coordination. 6 The meetings or MOU referred to include, but are not limited to, meetings called for the purpose of exchanging views, information, advice or recommendations, or for facilitating any other interaction relating to intergovernmental responsibilities or administration. Nothing in this MOU will be construed as limiting or affecting in any way the authority or legal responsibility of Deschutes County or the BLM, or as binding either Deschutes County or the BLM to perform beyond the respective authority of each, or as requiring either to assume or expend any sum in excess of appropriations available. It is understood that all the provisions herein must be within financial, legal, and personnel limitations, as determined practical by Deschutes County and the BLM for their respective responsibilities. This MOU is neither a fiscal nor a funds obligation document. Nothing in this MOU will be construed to extend jurisdiction or decision-making authority to BLM for planning and management of land and resource uses for any non- Federal lands or resources in the planning area. Similarly, nothing in this MOU will be construed to extend jurisdiction or decision-making authority to Deschutes County for planning and management of land or resource uses on the Federal lands or mineral estates administered by the BLM. Both Deschutes County and BLM will work together cooperatively and will communicate about issues of mutual concern. i. Termination: Either party may terminate this MOU upon 30 days written notice to the other party of their intention to do so. During the 30-day period, the parties will conduct negotiations to resolve any disagreement(s). If the disagreement(s), if any, have not been resolved and the party initiating the termination has not rescinded its termination notice in writing by the end of the 30-day period, the MOU will terminate. In the event negotiations are progressing but are not concluded by the end of the 30 -day period, the party initiating the termination notice may request in writing that termination be postponed for an additional 30-day period or longer while the negotiations continue; upon such request, the termination shall be postponed for the specified period. j. Dispute Resolution: Disputes between the BLM and Deschutes County concerning the content of the RMP Amendment/EIS shall be resolved through good-faith efforts between the cooperators themselves. The parties recognize that BLM has the delegated authority to make final decisions regarding public land management in the RMP. This MOU does not preclude Deschutes County, notwithstanding cooperating agency status, from pursuing relief through any applicable administrative or judicial review or litigation. Nothing in this MOU shall compromise or affect the rights of the County to contest the results of the planning process through any means available to Deschutes County. 7 k. Contacts: The primary points of contact for carrying out the provisions of this MOU are: DESCHUTES COUNTY NAME ADDRESS BLM Sally Sovey Oregon/Washington Bureau of Land Management 333 SW First Avenue Portland, Oregon 97205 ssovey@blm.gov (503) 808-6625 8 10. Signature: The parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of the dates shown below. The effective date of this MOU is the latest signature date affixed to this page. Deschutes County by and through: ___________________________________ _________________________________ NAME Date TITLE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, by and through: __________________________________ ___________________________________ NAME Date Ed Shepard, Oregon/Washington BLM State Director 9 Attachment A Cooperating Agency Participation in the National Sage Grouse Planning Strategy BLM RMP/EIS Stage Proposed Completion Date County Cooperating Agency Opportunities to Engage Conduct scoping and identify issues March 23, 2012 May identify issues for consideration. Formulate alternatives June 30, 2012 Provide information regarding local land use plans or zoning on lands adjacent to or immediately vicinity of BLM lands. May suggest themes or land allocations for potential alternatives. Estimate effects of alternatives September 30, 2012 May collaborate with BLM to review portions of preliminary alternatives / Draft EIS. This may include review of the socioeconomic section. May collaborate with BLM to review portions of preliminary alternatives / Draft EIS. This may include review of the socioeconomic section. Select the preferred alternative; issue Draft RMP/EIS December 31, 2012 Respond to comments May 31, 2013 May participate as the general public does in providing official comments to the Draft EIS. Issue Proposed RMP/FEIS November 30, 2013 Governor’s Consistency Review January 31, 2014 May contribute to Governor’s Consistency Review. Resolve protests; modify Proposed RMP/FEIS if needed; sign ROD May 30, 2014 Limited Role.