Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for Greater Sage-Grouse Management, Nevada and Northeastern California, 3177-3179 [2021-00663]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices
email address, or other personal
identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Abstract: The Department of the
Interior (DOI) manages an estimated 73
million museum objects and over 86
million linear feet of archives in trust
for the American public. This diverse
collection consists of archaeological
artifacts, archives, biological specimens,
ethnographic objects, fine arts,
geological specimens, historic objects,
and paleontological specimens that are
owned and managed by the
Department’s bureaus and offices
(bureaus). This information collection
request is directed to non-Federal
repositories that house DOI museum
collections. The information that DOI
obtains, on a voluntary basis, concerns
DOI museum collections held in nonFederal repositories. Receipt of this
information supports the Department’s
management of its museum collections
for public benefit, including
preservation, protection, access, and
use, as well as where applicable,
compliance with the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA).
The information that DOI seeks
consists of the following:
A. Accession Records and associated
files regarding acquisition;
B. Catalog Records and associated
files describing the objects and their
use;
C. Facility Checklist for Spaces
Housing DOI Museum Property
(Checklist), which addresses the
environmental, security and other
management controls in place to
document and safeguard the collections;
D. Inventory of Museum Collections
(Inventory) documenting presence and
condition of objects and records; and
E. Input on Collections from Lands
Administered by the U.S. Department of
the Interior that are Located in NonFederal Facilities (Input Form) to query
a limited range information about the
repository; the scope and types of DOI
collections in repositories, with which
bureaus and offices those collections are
associated and the nature of any
agreements; the status of documentation
and NAGPRA compliance, and
availability for research and use.
Although the majority of DOI’s
documented collections are housed in
bureau facilities across the nation, at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Jan 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
least ten percent (an estimated more
than 25 million objects) are located in
approximately 970 non-Federal
repositories, primarily state, tribal, and
local museums and university
departments. Most of the DOI museum
artifacts, specimens, and archives
housed in non-Federal repositories
resulted from projects on Federal lands,
and include collections from the
disciplines of archaeology, biology,
geology, and paleontology, as well as
associated project documentation.
DOI museum objects cared for in nonFederal repositories are those artifacts,
specimens, and archives that are
established as Federal property under
Federal law. Common law also confers
rights to landowners, including the
Federal government, such as ownership
of property, resources, and other
tangible assets existing on or originating
from those lands, unless those rights
were previously relinquished, sold,
awarded, or otherwise reassigned. Also,
permits and other agreements for the
collection of artifacts and specimens
from public lands managed at the time
by the Department may further affirm
Federal ownership. In order to maintain
accountability of and facilitate access to
DOI museum objects, the objects must
be documented in the Interior
Collection Management System (ICMS),
its successor, the Museum Collection
Management System (MCMS) or in
another collection management database
from which the necessary data can be
imported into ICMS or MCMS.
Federal regulations and DOI policy
requires that all permitees conducting
authorized scientific research and
authorized individuals performing
compliance activities on DOI-managed
lands must ensure that any retained
museum specimens or objects collected
during a project are: (1) Accessioned
and cataloged in ICMS/MCMS,
according to DOI standards; and (2)
housed in an appropriate museum
repository that meets DOI museum
standards. These requirements ensure
the collections’ long-term preservation,
protection, and accessibility for access
and use.
Title of Collection: Documenting,
Managing and Preserving Department of
the Interior Museum Collections Housed
in Non-Federal Repositories.
OMB Control Number: 1084–0034.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents/Affected Public:
Museums; academic, cultural, and
research institutions; and, state or local
agencies and institutions.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Respondents: 900.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3177
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 900.
Estimated Completion Time per
Response: Varies from 1 hour to 12
hours, depending on activity.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 3,600 hours.
Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary.
Frequency of Collection: Maximum of
once per year per collection instrument,
and likely less frequently.
Total Estimated Annual Nonhour
Burden Cost: None.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
The authority for this action is the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Megan Olsen,
Director, Office of Acquisition and Property
Management.
[FR Doc. 2021–00639 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4334–63–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[212.LLWO230000.
L11700000.PH0000.LXSGPL000000]
Notice of Availability of the Record of
Decision for Greater Sage-Grouse
Management, Nevada and
Northeastern California
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) announces the
availability of the Record of Decision
(ROD) for the management of Greater
Sage-Grouse habitat in Nevada and
Northeastern California. The BLM has
determined that its decade-long
planning and NEPA processes have
sufficiently addressed Greater SageGrouse habitat conservation and no new
land use planning process to consider
additional alternatives or new
information is warranted. This
determination is not a new planning
decision. Instead, it is a determination
not to amend the applicable land use
plans. Thus, it is not subject to appeal
or protest. The BLM’s decision remains
as identified in the 2019 Approved
Resource Management Plan Amendment
for Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation in
Nevada and Northeastern California.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are
available for public inspection at the
Nevada Bureau of Land Management
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3178
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices
State Office at 1340 Financial
Boulevard, Reno, Nevada 89502–7147 or
the California Bureau of Land
Management State Office at 2800
Cottage Way, Sacramento, California
95825. Interested persons may also
review the ROD on the internet at:
https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/
project/103343/510.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Arlene Kosic, California Sage-Grouse
Implementation Lead, at 530–279–2726;
California Bureau of Land Management
Applegate Field Office, 602 Cressler
Street, Cedarville, California 96104;
akosic@blm.gov; or Colleen Dulin,
Acting Nevada Sage-Grouse
Implementation Lead, at 775–430–3621;
1340 Financial Boulevard Reno, Nevada
89502–7147; cdulin@blm.gov. Persons
who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339
to contact Ms. Kosic or Ms. Dulin during
normal business hours. The FRS is
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
to leave a message or question. You will
receive a reply during normal business
hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM
issued this ROD to document the
agency’s determination regarding the
analysis contained in the final
supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) (85 FR 74381). With the
issuance of this ROD, the BLM has now
completed several planning and NEPA
processes for Greater Sage-Grouse
management in Nevada and
Northeastern California over roughly the
last decade, which include the
processes that culminated in the 2015
ROD and the Approved Resource
Management Plan Amendment (the
2015 planning process), the 2019 ROD
and Approved Resource Management
Plan Amendment (the 2019 planning
process), and this 2020 ROD (the 2020
supplemental EIS process). Together,
these processes represent a thorough
analysis of Greater Sage-Grouse
management, substantial public
engagement, and important
coordination with state wildlife
agencies, other federal agencies, and
many others in the range of the species
have been collaborating to conserve
Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitats.
The BLM prepared the final
supplemental EIS in order to review its
previous NEPA analysis, clarify and
augment it where necessary, and
provide the public with additional
opportunities to review and comment. It
also helped the BLM determine whether
its 2015 and 2019 land use planning and
NEPA processes sufficiently addressed
Greater Sage-Grouse habitat
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Jan 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
conservation or whether the BLM
should initiate a new land use planning
process to consider additional
alternatives or new information.
The final supplemental EIS addressed
four specific issues: the range of
alternatives, need to take a hard look at
environmental impacts, cumulative
effects analysis, and the BLM’s
approach to compensatory mitigation.
Rationale to support BLM’s
determination, with respect to each of
these topical areas, is summarized
below and described further in the ROD:
(1) Range of Alternatives: Throughout
the decade-long planning and NEPA
processes, the BLM has analyzed in
detail 143 alternatives across the range
of Greater Sage-Grouse. Additionally,
the BLM has continued to review new
science as it is published, which affirms
that the BLM has considered a full range
of plan-level conservation measures in
the alternatives already analyzed.
(2) Hard Look: The BLM has
continued to take a hard look at
environmental impacts every step of the
way in planning for Greater Sage-Grouse
habitat conservation. In the 2015
planning process, the 2019 planning
process, and in the 2020 supplemental
EIS process, the BLM incorporated
detailed analysis of environmental
impacts into our decision-making
processes and disclosed these expected
impacts to the public. As scientific
information has continued to evolve, the
BLM has closely reviewed and
considered any changes from such
science to expected environmental
impacts, both at the land use plan scale
and in site-specific analyses. To address
public comments raised during the
supplemental EIS process, the BLM
convened a team of biologists and land
use planners to evaluate scientific
literature provided to the agency. The
BLM found that the most up-to-date
Greater Sage-Grouse science and other
information has incrementally
increased, and built upon, the
knowledgebase of Greater Sage-Grouse
management evaluated by the BLM most
recently in its 2019 land use plan
amendments, but does not change the
scope or direction of the BLM’s
management; however, new science
does suggest adaptations to management
may be warranted at site-specific scales.
(3) Cumulative Effects Analysis: The
BLM considered cumulative impacts on
a rangewide basis, organizing that
analysis at the geographic scale of each
Western Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)
management zone, in order to consider
impacts at biologically meaningful
scales. In the 2019 planning process, the
BLM incorporated by reference
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
cumulative effects analysis conducted
in the 2015 planning process and other
environmental impact statements. Since
the nature and context of the cumulative
effects scenario has not appreciably
changed since 2015, and the 2015
analysis covered the entire range of the
Greater Sage-Grouse, the BLM’s
consideration of cumulative effects in
the 2015 planning process adequately
addresses most, if not all, of the
planning decisions made through the
2019 planning process.
While the 2019 planning process
largely incorporated by reference the
analysis from the 2015 planning
process, and updated it where needed to
account for current conditions, the 2020
supplemental EIS process elaborated on
this information in greater detail and
updated the analysis to ensure that the
BLM appropriately evaluated
cumulative effects at biologically
meaningful scales.
(4) BLM’s Approach to Compensatory
Mitigation: In the 2019 planning
process, the BLM requested public
comments on a number of issues,
including the BLM’s approach to
compensatory mitigation. As part of the
2015 Approved Resource Management
Plan Amendments, the BLM selected a
net conservation gain standard in its
approach to compensatory mitigation,
which the 2019 land use plan
amendments modified to align with the
BLM’s 2018 policy on compensatory
mitigation. Through the 2020
supplemental EIS process, the BLM
requested further comments about the
BLM’s approach to compensatory
mitigation. After reviewing the
comments that the BLM received about
compensatory mitigation, the BLM
determined that its environmental
analysis supporting the 2019 land use
plan amendments was sound. The
public has now had substantial
opportunities to consider and comment
on the BLM’s approach to compensatory
mitigation at the land use planning
level, including the approach taken in
the 2019 land use plan amendments.
Based on the final supplemental EIS,
the BLM has determined that its decadelong planning and NEPA processes have
sufficiently addressed Greater SageGrouse habitat conservation and no new
land use planning process to consider
additional alternatives or new
information is warranted. This
determination is not a new planning
decision. Instead, it is a determination
not to amend the applicable land use
plans. Thus, it is not subject to appeal
or protest. The BLM’s decision remains
as identified in the 2019 Approved
Resource Management Plan Amendment
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices
for Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation in
Nevada and Northeastern California.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1505.2; 40 CFR 1506.6;
References to the CEQ regulations are to the
regulations in effect prior to September 14,
2020. The revised CEQ regulations effective
September 14, 2020, are not cited because
this supplemental EIS process began prior to
that date.)
Jon K. Raby,
BLM Nevada State Director.
Karen E. Mouritsen,
BLM California State Director.
[FR Doc. 2021–00663 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–DQ–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[212.LLWO230000.
L11700000.PH0000.LXSGPL000000]
Notice of Availability of the Record of
Decision for Greater Sage-Grouse
Management, Colorado
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) announces the
availability of the Record of Decision
(ROD) for the management of Greater
Sage-Grouse habitat in Colorado. The
BLM has determined that its decadelong planning and NEPA processes have
sufficiently addressed Greater SageGrouse habitat conservation and no new
land use planning process to consider
additional alternatives or new
information is warranted. This
determination is not a new planning
decision. Instead, it is a determination
not to amend the applicable land use
plans. Thus, it is not subject to appeal
or protest. The BLM’s decision remains
as identified in the 2019 Approved
Resource Management Plan Amendment
for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation in
Colorado.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are
available for public inspection at the
Colorado Bureau of Land Management
State Office at 2850 Youngfield Street,
Lakewood, Colorado 80215. Interested
persons may also review the ROD on the
internet at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/
eplanning-ui/project/105596/510.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leah Waldner, Colorado Sage-Grouse
Coordinator, at 970–244–3045; Colorado
Grand Junction Field Office, 2815 H Rd.,
Grand Junction, CO 81506; lwaldner@
blm.gov. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Relay
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Jan 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to
contact Ms. Waldner during normal
business hours. The FRS is available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a
message or question. You will receive a
reply during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM
issued this ROD to document the
agency’s determination regarding the
analysis contained in the final
supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) (85 FR 74378). With the
issuance of this ROD, the BLM has now
completed several planning and NEPA
processes for Greater Sage-Grouse
management in Colorado over roughly
the last decade, which include the
processes that culminated in the 2015
ROD and the Approved Resource
Management Plan Amendment (the
2015 planning process), the 2019 ROD
and Approved Resource Management
Plan Amendment (the 2019 planning
process), and this 2020 ROD (the 2020
supplemental EIS process). Together,
these processes represent a thorough
analysis of Greater Sage-Grouse
management, substantial public
engagement, and important
coordination with state wildlife
agencies, other federal agencies, and
many others in the range of the species
have been collaborating to conserve
Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitats.
The BLM prepared the final
supplemental EIS in order to review its
previous NEPA analysis, clarify and
augment it where necessary, and
provide the public with additional
opportunities to review and comment. It
also helped the BLM determine whether
its 2015 and 2019 land use planning and
NEPA processes sufficiently addressed
Greater Sage-Grouse habitat
conservation or whether the BLM
should initiate a new land use planning
process to consider additional
alternatives or new information.
The final supplemental EIS addressed
four specific issues: The range of
alternatives, need to take a hard look at
environmental impacts, cumulative
effects analysis, and the BLM’s
approach to compensatory mitigation.
Rationale to support BLM’s
determination, with respect to each of
these topical areas, is summarized
below and described further in the ROD:
(1) Range of Alternatives: Throughout
the decade-long planning and NEPA
processes, the BLM has analyzed in
detail 143 alternatives across the range
of Greater Sage-Grouse. Additionally,
the BLM has continued to review new
science as it is published, which affirms
that the BLM has considered a full range
of plan-level conservation measures in
the alternatives already analyzed.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3179
(2) Hard Look: The BLM has
continued to take a hard look at
environmental impacts every step of the
way in planning for Greater Sage-Grouse
habitat conservation. In the 2015
planning process, the 2019 planning
process, and in the 2020 supplemental
EIS process, the BLM incorporated
detailed analysis of environmental
impacts into our decision-making
processes and disclosed these expected
impacts to the public. As scientific
information has continued to evolve, the
BLM has closely reviewed and
considered any changes from such
science to expected environmental
impacts, both at the land use plan scale
and in site-specific analyses. To address
public comments raised during the
supplemental EIS process, the BLM
convened a team of biologists and land
use planners to evaluate scientific
literature provided to the agency. The
BLM found that the most up-to-date
Greater Sage-Grouse science and other
information has incrementally
increased, and built upon, the
knowledgebase of Greater Sage-Grouse
management evaluated by the BLM most
recently in its 2019 land use plan
amendments, but does not change the
scope or direction of the BLM’s
management; however, new science
does suggest adaptations to management
may be warranted at site-specific scales.
(3) Cumulative Effects Analysis: The
BLM considered cumulative impacts on
a rangewide basis, organizing that
analysis at the geographic scale of each
Western Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)
management zone, in order to consider
impacts at biologically meaningful
scales. In the 2019 planning process, the
BLM incorporated by reference
cumulative effects analysis conducted
in the 2015 planning process and other
environmental impact statements. Since
the nature and context of the cumulative
effects scenario has not appreciably
changed since 2015, and the 2015
analysis covered the entire range of the
Greater Sage-Grouse, the BLM’s
consideration of cumulative effects in
the 2015 planning process adequately
addresses most, if not all, of the
planning decisions made through the
2019 planning process.
While the 2019 planning process
largely incorporated by reference the
analysis from the 2015 planning
process, and updated it where needed to
account for current conditions, the 2020
supplemental EIS process elaborated on
this information in greater detail and
updated the analysis to ensure that the
BLM appropriately evaluated
cumulative effects at biologically
meaningful scales.
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3177-3179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00663]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[212.LLWO230000. L11700000.PH0000.LXSGPL000000]
Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for Greater
Sage-Grouse Management, Nevada and Northeastern California
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability
of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the management of Greater Sage-
Grouse habitat in Nevada and Northeastern California. The BLM has
determined that its decade-long planning and NEPA processes have
sufficiently addressed Greater Sage-Grouse habitat conservation and no
new land use planning process to consider additional alternatives or
new information is warranted. This determination is not a new planning
decision. Instead, it is a determination not to amend the applicable
land use plans. Thus, it is not subject to appeal or protest. The BLM's
decision remains as identified in the 2019 Approved Resource Management
Plan Amendment for Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation in Nevada and
Northeastern California.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are available for public inspection at the
Nevada Bureau of Land Management
[[Page 3178]]
State Office at 1340 Financial Boulevard, Reno, Nevada 89502-7147 or
the California Bureau of Land Management State Office at 2800 Cottage
Way, Sacramento, California 95825. Interested persons may also review
the ROD on the internet at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/103343/510.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arlene Kosic, California Sage-Grouse
Implementation Lead, at 530-279-2726; California Bureau of Land
Management Applegate Field Office, 602 Cressler Street, Cedarville,
California 96104; [email protected]; or Colleen Dulin, Acting Nevada Sage-
Grouse Implementation Lead, at 775-430-3621; 1340 Financial Boulevard
Reno, Nevada 89502-7147; [email protected]. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact Ms. Kosic or Ms. Dulin
during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, to leave a message or question. You will receive a reply
during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM issued this ROD to document the
agency's determination regarding the analysis contained in the final
supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (85 FR 74381). With
the issuance of this ROD, the BLM has now completed several planning
and NEPA processes for Greater Sage-Grouse management in Nevada and
Northeastern California over roughly the last decade, which include the
processes that culminated in the 2015 ROD and the Approved Resource
Management Plan Amendment (the 2015 planning process), the 2019 ROD and
Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (the 2019 planning
process), and this 2020 ROD (the 2020 supplemental EIS process).
Together, these processes represent a thorough analysis of Greater
Sage-Grouse management, substantial public engagement, and important
coordination with state wildlife agencies, other federal agencies, and
many others in the range of the species have been collaborating to
conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitats.
The BLM prepared the final supplemental EIS in order to review its
previous NEPA analysis, clarify and augment it where necessary, and
provide the public with additional opportunities to review and comment.
It also helped the BLM determine whether its 2015 and 2019 land use
planning and NEPA processes sufficiently addressed Greater Sage-Grouse
habitat conservation or whether the BLM should initiate a new land use
planning process to consider additional alternatives or new
information.
The final supplemental EIS addressed four specific issues: the
range of alternatives, need to take a hard look at environmental
impacts, cumulative effects analysis, and the BLM's approach to
compensatory mitigation. Rationale to support BLM's determination, with
respect to each of these topical areas, is summarized below and
described further in the ROD:
(1) Range of Alternatives: Throughout the decade-long planning and
NEPA processes, the BLM has analyzed in detail 143 alternatives across
the range of Greater Sage-Grouse. Additionally, the BLM has continued
to review new science as it is published, which affirms that the BLM
has considered a full range of plan-level conservation measures in the
alternatives already analyzed.
(2) Hard Look: The BLM has continued to take a hard look at
environmental impacts every step of the way in planning for Greater
Sage-Grouse habitat conservation. In the 2015 planning process, the
2019 planning process, and in the 2020 supplemental EIS process, the
BLM incorporated detailed analysis of environmental impacts into our
decision-making processes and disclosed these expected impacts to the
public. As scientific information has continued to evolve, the BLM has
closely reviewed and considered any changes from such science to
expected environmental impacts, both at the land use plan scale and in
site-specific analyses. To address public comments raised during the
supplemental EIS process, the BLM convened a team of biologists and
land use planners to evaluate scientific literature provided to the
agency. The BLM found that the most up-to-date Greater Sage-Grouse
science and other information has incrementally increased, and built
upon, the knowledgebase of Greater Sage-Grouse management evaluated by
the BLM most recently in its 2019 land use plan amendments, but does
not change the scope or direction of the BLM's management; however, new
science does suggest adaptations to management may be warranted at
site-specific scales.
(3) Cumulative Effects Analysis: The BLM considered cumulative
impacts on a rangewide basis, organizing that analysis at the
geographic scale of each Western Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies (WAFWA) management zone, in order to consider impacts at
biologically meaningful scales. In the 2019 planning process, the BLM
incorporated by reference cumulative effects analysis conducted in the
2015 planning process and other environmental impact statements. Since
the nature and context of the cumulative effects scenario has not
appreciably changed since 2015, and the 2015 analysis covered the
entire range of the Greater Sage-Grouse, the BLM's consideration of
cumulative effects in the 2015 planning process adequately addresses
most, if not all, of the planning decisions made through the 2019
planning process.
While the 2019 planning process largely incorporated by reference
the analysis from the 2015 planning process, and updated it where
needed to account for current conditions, the 2020 supplemental EIS
process elaborated on this information in greater detail and updated
the analysis to ensure that the BLM appropriately evaluated cumulative
effects at biologically meaningful scales.
(4) BLM's Approach to Compensatory Mitigation: In the 2019 planning
process, the BLM requested public comments on a number of issues,
including the BLM's approach to compensatory mitigation. As part of the
2015 Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments, the BLM selected a
net conservation gain standard in its approach to compensatory
mitigation, which the 2019 land use plan amendments modified to align
with the BLM's 2018 policy on compensatory mitigation. Through the 2020
supplemental EIS process, the BLM requested further comments about the
BLM's approach to compensatory mitigation. After reviewing the comments
that the BLM received about compensatory mitigation, the BLM determined
that its environmental analysis supporting the 2019 land use plan
amendments was sound. The public has now had substantial opportunities
to consider and comment on the BLM's approach to compensatory
mitigation at the land use planning level, including the approach taken
in the 2019 land use plan amendments.
Based on the final supplemental EIS, the BLM has determined that
its decade-long planning and NEPA processes have sufficiently addressed
Greater Sage-Grouse habitat conservation and no new land use planning
process to consider additional alternatives or new information is
warranted. This determination is not a new planning decision. Instead,
it is a determination not to amend the applicable land use plans. Thus,
it is not subject to appeal or protest. The BLM's decision remains as
identified in the 2019 Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment
[[Page 3179]]
for Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation in Nevada and Northeastern
California.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1505.2; 40 CFR 1506.6; References to the CEQ
regulations are to the regulations in effect prior to September 14,
2020. The revised CEQ regulations effective September 14, 2020, are
not cited because this supplemental EIS process began prior to that
date.)
Jon K. Raby,
BLM Nevada State Director.
Karen E. Mouritsen,
BLM California State Director.
[FR Doc. 2021-00663 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P
