Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for Greater Sage-Grouse Management, Wyoming, 3184-3186 [2021-00666]
Download as PDF
3184
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices
TABLE 1—ACECS PROPOSED FOR BOUNDARY MODIFICATION OR ELIMINATION—Continued
No action
acres
ACEC name
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Pilot Knob ....................................................................................................................................
Pinto Mountains ...........................................................................................................................
Pipes Canyon ..............................................................................................................................
Pisgah ..........................................................................................................................................
Piute-Fenner ................................................................................................................................
Plank Road ..................................................................................................................................
Rainbow Basin/Owl Canyon ........................................................................................................
Red Mountain Spring ...................................................................................................................
Rodman Mountains Cultural Area ...............................................................................................
Rose Spring .................................................................................................................................
Saline Valley ................................................................................................................................
Salt Creek Hills ............................................................................................................................
Salton Sea Hazardous ACEC .....................................................................................................
San Sebastian Marsh/San Felipe Creek .....................................................................................
Sand Canyon ...............................................................................................................................
Santos Manuel .............................................................................................................................
Shadow Valley .............................................................................................................................
Short Canyon ...............................................................................................................................
Sierra Canyons ............................................................................................................................
Singer Geoglyphs ........................................................................................................................
Soda Mountains Expansion .........................................................................................................
Soda Mountains WSA .................................................................................................................
Soda Mountains ...........................................................................................................................
Soggy Dry Lake Creosote Rings .................................................................................................
Southern Inyo WSA .....................................................................................................................
Steam Well ..................................................................................................................................
Superior-Cronese .........................................................................................................................
Surprise Canyon ..........................................................................................................................
Symmes Creek WSA ...................................................................................................................
Trona Pinnacles ...........................................................................................................................
Turtle Mountains ..........................................................................................................................
Upper Johnson Valley Yucca Rings ............................................................................................
Upper McCoy ...............................................................................................................................
Warm Sulfur Springs ...................................................................................................................
West Mesa ...................................................................................................................................
West Paradise .............................................................................................................................
Western Rand Mountains ............................................................................................................
Whipple Mountains ......................................................................................................................
White Mountain City ....................................................................................................................
White Mountains WSA .................................................................................................................
Whitewater Canyon .....................................................................................................................
Yuha Basin ..................................................................................................................................
A more detailed description of all
proposed ACEC modifications,
including maps, is included in the Draft
LUPA/EIS and Appendix B of the Draft
LUPA/EIS.
The BLM will utilize and coordinate
the NEPA process to help fulfill the
public involvement process under the
National Historic Preservation Act (54
U.S.C. 306108), as provided in 36 CFR
800.2(d)(3). The BLM will continue to
consult with Indian tribes on a
government-to-government basis, in
accordance with Executive Order 13175
and other policies. Tribal concerns,
including impacts on Indian trust assets
and potential impacts to cultural
resources, will continue to be given due
consideration. Federal, State, and local
agencies, along with tribes and other
stakeholders that may be interested in or
affected by the proposed action that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Jan 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
BLM is evaluating, are invited to
participate in the comment period.
Please note that public comments and
information submitted, including
names, street addresses, and email
addresses of persons who submit
comments, will be available for public
review and disclosure at the BLM
California State Office (see ADDRESSES)
during regular business hours (8 a.m. to
4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except
holidays.
Before including your address, phone
number, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
860
108,200
8,700
46,600
155,500
420
4,100
700
6,200
840
1,400
2,200
5,100
6,600
2,600
27,500
197,300
750
26,300
2,000
16,700
88,800
0
180
2,700
40
315,800
4,600
8,400
4,100
50,400
330
37,400
350
82,500
240
30,400
2,800
820
1,600
14,900
77,300
Alternative 1
acres
Alternative 2
acres
860
84,200
4,600
46,600
146,200
420
4,100
700
0
840
0
1,600
5,100
6,600
0
0
159,700
0
27,000
2,000
0
0
0
180
0
0
310,900
0
0
4,100
0
330
37,400
350
18,700
0
30,400
2,100
820
0
2,800
73,600
860
84,200
4,600
46,600
146,200
420
4,100
700
0
840
0
1,600
5,100
6,600
0
0
159,700
0
27,000
2,000
0
0
33,300
180
0
0
310,900
0
0
4,100
0
330
37,400
350
82,500
0
30,400
2,100
820
0
2,800
73,600
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10)
Karen E. Mouritsen,
State Director, California.
[FR Doc. 2021–00579 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–40–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, Wyoming
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices
The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) announces the
availability of the Record of Decision
(ROD) for the management of Greater
Sage-Grouse habitat in Wyoming. 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
Wyoming.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are
available for public inspection at the
Wyoming Bureau of Land Management
State Office at 5353 Yellowstone Road,
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009. Interested
persons may also review the ROD on the
internet at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/
eplanning-ui/project/103347/510.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jenny Marzluf, Wyoming Sage-Grouse
Implementation Lead, at 307–775–6090;
Wyoming Bureau of Land Management
State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road,
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009; jmarzluf@
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. Marzluf 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 74380). With the
issuance of this ROD, the BLM has now
completed several planning and NEPA
processes for Greater Sage-Grouse
management in Wyoming 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
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Jan 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3185
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-
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
3186
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices
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
Wyoming.
(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.)
Kimber Liebhauser,
Acting BLM Wyoming State Director.
[FR Doc. 2021–00666 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, Oregon
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 Oregon. 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.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are
available for public inspection at the
Oregon Bureau of Land Management
State Office at 1220 SW 3rd Ave.,
Portland, Oregon 97204. Interested
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Jan 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
persons may also review the ROD on the
internet at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/
eplanning-ui/project/103348/510.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim
Regan-Vienop, Planning and
Environmental Coordinator, at 503–
808–6062; 1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite
1305, Portland, OR, 97204;
jreganvienop@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 Mr. Regan-Vienop 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 Oregon 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
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM
14JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3184-3186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00666]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Wyoming
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3185]]
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 Wyoming. 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 Wyoming.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are available for public inspection at the
Wyoming Bureau of Land Management State Office at 5353 Yellowstone
Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009. Interested persons may also review the
ROD on the internet at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/103347/510.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Marzluf, Wyoming Sage-Grouse
Implementation Lead, at 307-775-6090; Wyoming Bureau of Land Management
State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009;
[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. Marzluf 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 74380). With
the issuance of this ROD, the BLM has now completed several planning
and NEPA processes for Greater Sage-Grouse management in Wyoming 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-
[[Page 3186]]
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 Wyoming.
(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.)
Kimber Liebhauser,
Acting BLM Wyoming State Director.
[FR Doc. 2021-00666 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P