Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for Greater Sage-Grouse Management, Utah, 3187-3188 [2021-00665]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices
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
for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation in
Oregon.
(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Jan 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
this supplemental EIS process began prior to
that date.)
Barry R. Bushue,
BLM Oregon State Director.
[FR Doc. 2021–00664 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, Utah
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 Utah. 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
Utah.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are
available for public inspection at the
Utah Bureau of Land Management State
Office at 440 West 200 South, Suite 500,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101–1345.
Interested persons may also review the
ROD on the internet at: https://
eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/
project/103346/510.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christine Fletcher, Utah Sage-Grouse
Implementation Lead, at 435–865–3035;
Utah Bureau of Land Management State
Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101–1345;
cfletcher@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 Mrs. Fletcher 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.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3187
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 74379). With the
issuance of this ROD, the BLM has now
completed several planning and NEPA
processes for Greater Sage-Grouse
management in Utah 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
that 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
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3188
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Jan 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
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
for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation in
Utah.
(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.)
Gregory Sheehan,
BLM Utah State Director.
[FR Doc. 2021–00665 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–DQ–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–WASO–D–COS–POL–30716;
PPWODIREP0; PPMPSAS1Y.YP0000]
National Park System Advisory Board;
Charter Renewal
National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Charter renewal.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Secretary of the Interior
intends to renew the National Park
System Advisory Board, in accordance
with section 14(b) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. This action is
necessary and in the public interest in
connection with the performance of
statutory duties imposed upon the
Department of the Interior and the
National Park Service.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua Winchell, Staff Director and
Designated Federal Officer for the
National Park System Advisory Board,
Office of Policy, National Park Service,
202–513–7053.
The Board
is authorized by 54 U.S.C. 102303 (part
of the 1935 Historic Sites, Buildings and
Antiquities Act) and has been in
existence almost continuously since
1935. Pursuant to 54 U.S.C. 102303, the
legislative authorization for the Board
expired January 1, 2010. However, due
to the importance of the issues on which
the Board advises, the Secretary of the
Interior exercised the authority
contained in 54 U.S.C. 100906 to reestablish and continue the Board as a
discretionary committee from January 1,
2010, until such time as it may be
legislatively reauthorized.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The advice and recommendations
provided by the Board fulfill an
important need within the Department
of the Interior and the National Park
Service, and it is necessary to reestablish the Board to ensure its work is
not disrupted. The Board’s members are
balanced to represent a cross-section of
disciplines and expertise relevant to the
National Park Service mission. The
renewal of the Board comports with the
requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, as amended.
Certification: I hereby certify that the
renewal of the National Park System
Advisory Board is necessary and in the
public interest in connection with the
performance of duties imposed on the
Department of the Interior by the
National Park Service Organic Act (54
U.S.C. 100101(a) et seq.), and other
statutes relating to the administration of
the National Park Service.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2
Dated: November 18, 2020.
David L. Bernhardt,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 2021–00750 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3187-3188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00665]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Utah
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 Utah. 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 Utah.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are available for public inspection at the
Utah Bureau of Land Management State Office at 440 West 200 South,
Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1345. Interested persons may also
review the ROD on the internet at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/103346/510.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Fletcher, Utah Sage-Grouse
Implementation Lead, at 435-865-3035; Utah Bureau of Land Management
State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah
84101-1345; [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 Mrs. Fletcher 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 74379). With
the issuance of this ROD, the BLM has now completed several planning
and NEPA processes for Greater Sage-Grouse management in Utah 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
that 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
[[Page 3188]]
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 for
Greater Sage-Grouse conservation in Utah.
(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.)
Gregory Sheehan,
BLM Utah State Director.
[FR Doc. 2021-00665 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P
