Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for Greater Sage-Grouse Rangewide Planning, 18963-18967 [2024-05508]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• Bureau of Land Management

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 52 (Friday, March 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18963-18967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-05508]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[BLM_HQ_FRN_MO4500174493]


Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan 
Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for Greater Sage-Grouse 
Rangewide Planning

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a 
Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) and Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) for Greater Sage-Grouse Rangewide Planning and 
by this notice is providing information announcing the opening of the 
comment period on the Draft RMPA/EIS and on the BLM's consideration of 
potential areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs).

DATES: This notice announces the opening of a 90-day comment period for 
the Draft RMPA/EIS beginning with the date following the Environmental 
Protection Agency's (EPA) publication of its Notice of Availability 
(NOA) in the Federal Register. The EPA usually publishes its NOAs on 
Fridays.
    To afford the BLM the opportunity to consider comments in the 
Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, please ensure your comments are received prior 
to the close of the 90-day comment period or 15 days after the last 
public meeting, whichever is later.
    This notice also announces the opening of a 60-day comment period 
for ACECs. The BLM must receive your ACEC-related comments by May 14, 
2024.
    The BLM will hold two virtual public meetings and 11 in-person 
public meetings throughout the planning area. The specific dates and 
locations of these meetings will be announced at least 15 days in 
advance through the ePlanning page (see ADDRESSES) and media releases.

ADDRESSES: The Draft RMPA/EIS is available for review on the BLM 
ePlanning project website at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2016719/510.
    Written comments related to the Greater Sage-Grouse Rangewide RMPA 
may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Website: electronically via the BLM ePlanning website at 
https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2016719/510.
     Email: BLM_HQ_GRSG_Planning.
     Mail: BLM Utah State Office, ATTN: HQ GRSG RMPA, 440 West 
200 South #500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101.
    Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at 
https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2016719/510 and at the 
BLM State Offices in California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 
Oregon, Utah and Wyoming.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Deibert, BLM National Sage-Grouse 
Conservation Coordinator; telephone: 720-447-8107; address: 5353 
Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, WY 82009; email: 
[email protected]. Individuals in the United States who are 
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay 
services for contacting Ms. Deibert. Individuals outside the United 
States should use the relay services offered within their country to 
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides notice that the BLM 
has prepared a Draft RMPA/EIS, provides information announcing the 
opening of the comment period on the Draft RMPA/EIS, and announces the 
comment period on the BLM's consideration of potential ACECs. The RMPA 
would change the following 77 BLM land use plans, collectively referred 
to in this document as resource management plans (RMPs), across 10 
Western States. The original completion date for each plan is noted in 
parentheses and could include later amendments or maintenance actions.

California

 Altura RMP (2008)
 Eagle Lake RMP (2008)
 Surprise RMP (2008)

Colorado

 Colorado River Valley RMP (2015), including Roan Plateau RMPA 
(2016)
 Grand Junction RMP (2015)

[[Page 18964]]

 Kremmling RMP (2015)
 Little Snake RMP (2011)
 White River RMP (1997) and associated amendments, including 
the White River Oil and Gas Amendment (2015)

Idaho

 Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills Management Framework Plan (MFP) 
(1980)
 Big Desert MFP (1981)
 Big Lost MFP (1983)
 Bruneau MFP (1983)
 Cassia RMP (1985)
 Challis RMP (1999)
 Craters of the Moon National Monument RMP (2006)
 Four Rivers RMP (2023)
 Jarbidge RMP (2015)
 Lemhi RMP (1987)
 Little Lost-Birch Creek MFP (1981)
 Magic MFP (1975)
 Medicine Lodge MFP (1981)
 Monument RMP (1985)
 Owyhee RMP (1999)
 Pocatello RMP (2012)
 Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area RMP 
(2008)
 Sun Valley MFP (1981)
 Twin Falls MFP (1982)

Montana/Dakotas

 Billings and Pompeys Pillar Nation Monument RMP (2015)
 Butte RMP (2009)
 Dillon RMP (2006)
 HiLine RMP (2015)
 Lewistown RMP (2021)
 Miles City RMP (2015)
 North Dakota RMP (1988)
 South Dakota RMP (2015)
 Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument RMP (2008)

Nevada

 Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National 
Conservation Area RMP (2004)
 Carson City Field Office Consolidated RMP (2001)
 Elko RMP (1987)
 Ely RMP (2008)
 Shoshone-Eureka RMP (1986)
 Tonopah RMP (1997)
 Wells RMP (1985)
 Winnemucca District RMP (2015)

Oregon

 Andrews RMP (2005)
 Baker RMP (1989)
 Brothers/La Pine RMP (1989)
 Lakeview RMP (2003)
 Southeastern Oregon RMP (2002)
 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area RMP 
(2005)
 Three Rivers RMP (1992)
 Upper Deschutes RMP (2005)

Utah

 Vernal RMP (2008)
 Price RMP (2008)
 Richfield RMP (2008)
 Kanab RMP (2008)
 Kanab/Escalante Planning Area RMP (2020)
 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument--Grand Staircase 
Unit RMP (2020)
 Cedar/Beaver/Garfield/Antimony RMP (1986)
 Pinyon MFP (1978)
 Warm Springs RMP (1987)
 House Range RMP (1987)
 Pony Express RMP (1990)
 Box Elder RMP (1986)
 Randolph MFP (1980)
 Park City MFP (1975)
 Salt Lake District Isolated Tracts Planning Analysis (1985)

Wyoming

 Buffalo RMP (2015)
 Casper RMP (2007)
 Cody RMP (2015)
 Kemmerer RMP (2010)
 Lander RMP (2014)
 Newcastle RMP (2000)
 Pinedale RMP (2008)
 Rawlins RMP (2008)
 Green River RMP (1997)
 Worland RMP (2015)

    The planning area includes portions of 10 Western States with 
greater sage-grouse (GRSG) habitat: California, Colorado, Idaho, 
Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, 
and encompasses nearly 121 million acres of BLM-administered public 
lands. Because this effort is focused on GRSG habitat management, 
decisions resulting from this amendment effort could affect up to 69 
million acres of BLM-administered lands associated with the applicable 
GRSG habitat management areas. No decisions are being made on National 
Forest System lands or the underlying Federal mineral estate as part of 
this process.
    The 2015 GRSG RMPA amended or revised RMPs in the planning area to 
provide for GRSG conservation on public lands. In the 2019 GRSG RMPAs, 
the BLM amended some of the 2015 GRSG plan decisions in the States of 
California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. On 
October 16, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of 
Idaho preliminarily enjoined the BLM from implementing the 2019 GRSG 
RMPAs (Case No. 1:16-CV-83-BLW).
    The amount and condition of GRSG habitat supports the GRSG 
populations that State wildlife agencies manage. Recent data suggests a 
continued long-term decline in sagebrush habitats and GRSG populations 
across the species range. Habitat and population trends vary across the 
range, with wildfire being a larger problem in the Great Basin States 
and human development being the primary issue in the Rocky Mountain 
States. Regardless of the cause, continued habitat loss results in 
smaller patches available for GRSG use, which can concentrate impacts 
to birds. Approximately half the remaining GRSG habitat is managed by 
the BLM. The BLM is considering specific changes to some GRSG RMP 
decisions across the species range to improve conservation and 
management of GRSG habitats consistent with the BLM's sensitive species 
policy and in coordination with State wildlife agencies.
    On November 22, 2021, the BLM published a notice of intent in the 
Federal Register to initiate the public scoping period for this 
planning effort (86 FR 66331). The BLM hosted two virtual public 
scoping meetings aimed at providing information on the planning effort, 
identifying the scope of issues to be addressed in the RMPA, gathering 
input to assist in formulating a reasonable range of alternatives, and 
soliciting information on potential ACECs to consider. The resource 
concerns identified during the scoping process included GRSG habitat, 
mineral development, renewable energy development, livestock grazing 
management, wild horses and burros, ACECs, lands and realty, air 
resources, soil resources, and social and economic conditions.

Purpose and Need

    The BLM's GRSG habitat conservation efforts rely on implementing 
management actions that avoid, minimize, or, if necessary, compensate 
for land uses and other threats that reduce the amount and quality of 
GRSG habitat. Many actions from the 2015 and 2019 RMPAs already 
accomplish this. As a result, the BLM's purpose and need is to consider 
amending RMPs to address a sub-set of GRSG management actions on BLM-
administered lands to respond to changing land uses in GRSG habitats, 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of GRSG management, provide 
for consistent conservation across state lines, and provide the BLM 
with locally relevant decisions that accord with range-wide GRSG 
conservation goals. To this end, the BLM is focusing on the following 
rangewide management actions:
     Clarify the GRSG RMP goal;
     GRSG habitat management area alignment (i.e., to 
incorporate new science and improve alignment along

[[Page 18965]]

state boundaries) and the major land use allocations therein, including 
criteria-based management for non-habitat within the habitat management 
areas;
     Mitigation;
     GRSG habitat objectives;
     Disturbance cap;
     Fluid mineral development and leasing objective;
     Fluid mineral leasing waivers, exceptions, and 
modifications;
     Renewable energy development and associated transmission;
     Minimizing threats from predation;
     Livestock grazing;
     Wild horse and burro management;
     Areas of Critical Environmental Concern; and
     Adaptive Management.
    Some management concerns are localized to circumstances in 
individual States and are influenced by the ecological diversity of the 
sagebrush system. As such, the purpose of this planning effort also 
includes amending specific RMP management actions associated with 
State-specific circumstances to improve GRSG habitat conservation.
    Changes to RMPs may be needed to:
     Address the continued GRSG habitat losses that are 
contributing to declines in GRSG populations;
     Ensure habitat management areas and associated management 
incorporate recent relevant science to prioritize management where it 
will provide conservation benefit (including providing for durable 
planning decisions when considering the effects of climate change);
     Provide continuity in managing GRSG habitats based on 
biological information versus political boundaries, where appropriate, 
while allowing for management flexibility to address different 
strategies in identifying habitat management areas with state agencies, 
as well as local habitat variability; and
     Refine and clarify other aspects of RMPs.

Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative

    The BLM has analyzed six alternatives in detail, including the no 
action alternative.
    Alternative 1 includes the applicable elements of the 2015 GRSG 
amendment efforts related to the management actions noted in the 
purpose and need. Under Alternative 1 the BLM would re-adopt the 
applicable GRSG habitat management area boundaries and the associated 
management. The existing language in the plans from the 2019 effort 
would revert to that contained in the 2015 amendments (as maintained). 
Due to the U.S. District Court of Idaho's preliminary injunction 
preventing implementation of the 2019 amendments, this alternative 
reflects how the BLM is currently managing GRSG habitat on public 
lands. There is variability across the different States regarding 
approaches for the management actions mentioned in the purpose. While 
the States have similar concepts in their RMPs (e.g., disturbance cap, 
adaptive management, livestock grazing), the application details vary. 
The Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA) identified in the 2015 RMPA would 
continue under this Alternative.
    Alternative 2 is the applicable RMP goals, objectives, and 
management decisions from the 2019 GRSG amendment efforts. For RMPs in 
Montana and North and South Dakota, Alternative 2 is the same as 
Alternative 1 because those RMPs were not amended in 2019. Because this 
alternative reflects the management currently in the BLM's approved 
RMPs it is the No-Action Alternative. The U.S. District Court for the 
District of Idaho has issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the 
BLM from implementing the 2019 amendments but not vacating them or 
their Records of Decision. As such, Alternative 2 represents the actual 
language in the BLM's RMPs and are the words in the existing plan that 
the BLM would be amending. While major land uses are similar to 
Alternative 1, the differences between the States for specific 
management concepts increased. For example, there is more diversity 
between the States regarding mitigation (required vs. voluntary, net 
gain vs. no net loss), as well as the potential to use compensatory 
mitigation instead of avoiding disturbances, and increased flexibility 
to consider exceptions based on local information. Under Alternative 2, 
the SFAs would be removed in all States except Montana and Oregon.
    It is important to note that the alternatives are limited to just 
those goals, objectives, or decisions associated with the list of 
rangewide management actions in the purpose above, as well as those 
associated with applicable State-specific circumstances. Any other 
goal, objective, or decision from the 2015 or 2019 RMPAs are not being 
considered for amendment and would remain in the plans regardless of 
the decision ultimately made in this effort.
    Alternative 3 provides the greatest measures to protect and 
preserve GRSG and its habitat. Alternative 3 would update the habitat 
management area boundaries based on new information and science, 
however all habitat management areas would be managed as priority 
habitat management area (PHMA), with general, important, or other 
habitat management areas under other alternatives being managed as 
PHMA. The BLM would close PHMA to new fluid mineral leasing, saleable 
minerals/mineral materials permits, and nonenergy leasable minerals 
leasing. PHMA would be recommended for withdrawal from location and 
entry under the Mining Law of 1872 and would be unavailable for 
livestock grazing. PHMA would also be right-of-way exclusion area. In 
addition, Alternative 3 would include designation of 11,139,472 acres 
of PHMA as ACECs specific to the management of GRSG, with management 
described below. No areas would be identified as an SFA.
    Alternative 4 adjusts GRSG habitat management areas based on new 
information and science available since the previous efforts. Many of 
the management actions to avoid or minimize impacts would be similar 
Alternatives 1 and 2, but the habitat management areas where they are 
applied would be updated to reflect the new science. One difference is 
in Wyoming, where under Alternative 4, all PHMA would be managed with 
no surface occupancy requirements for new oil and gas leases. In 
addition, management associated with some of the major minimization 
measures (e.g., disturbance cap, adaptive management) would be adjusted 
to address cross-boundary coordination of shared populations, range-
wide biological and managerial concerns based on monitoring, and 
experience gained from implementing management for GRSG since 2015. 
Alternative 4 allows compensatory mitigation to be used under specific 
conditions in considering the potential for exceptions, but would 
require functional habitat to be in place prior to granting the 
exception. Areas previously identified as an SFA are managed as PHMA. 
The primary difference between management of an SFA in the 2015 Plans 
and PHMAs in this planning effort is that PHMA would not include a 
recommendation for withdrawal or prioritization strategies.
    Alternative 5 considers alignments of habitat management areas and 
associated management to balance GRSG conservation with public land 
uses. If State governments updated the GRSG habitat management area 
boundaries in their State plans, those boundaries are considered on 
public lands in Alternative 5. Because of this, the habitat management 
areas are similar to, but refined from, Alternative 4, and restrictions 
would generally be similar to Alternative 4, except for oil and gas in 
Wyoming which is similar to Alternative 2. and some additional

[[Page 18966]]

flexibilities provided for development of gravel pits for counties to 
use in maintaining local roads. In general, Alternative 5 considered 
options with fewer restrictions on resource uses and provided more 
opportunities for considering compensatory mitigation to reduce impacts 
on GRSG and its habitat. Areas previously identified as an SFA are 
managed as PHMA. The primary difference between management of an SFA in 
the 2015 Plans and PHMAs in this planning effort is that PHMA would not 
include a recommendation for withdrawal or prioritization strategies.
    Alternative 6 is based on Alternative 5, with all the habitat 
management areas and associated management being the same as described 
for Alternative 5, but with the addition of ACECs. While Alternative 6 
would include designation of 11,139,472 acres of PHMA as ACECs specific 
to the management of GRSG (same as Alternative 3), the management 
(described below) would be less restrictive than that considered in 
Alternative 3, though generally more restrictive than the rest of 
Alternative 6 PHMA.
    The BLM has identified Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative. 
Alternative 5 provides a mix of conservation that avoids and minimizes 
impacts to GRSG habitat while providing local managers the ability to 
consider site-specific conditions in applying GRSG habitat 
conservation.

Mitigation

    The alternatives consider a variety of approaches to mitigation for 
GRSG, all focused on avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for impacts. 
For Alternative 1, mitigation in most States is required to achieve a 
net conservation gain for surface disturbances in PHMA. Under 
Alternative 2, most States adopted a no net loss requirement, but 
provided that compensatory mitigation would be voluntary. Under 
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6, mitigation would be required to achieve a 
no net loss standard in PHMA. However, under Alternative 3, the primary 
approach would be avoiding new disturbances. Alternative 4, 5, and 6 
would provide a broader balance by avoiding major disturbances, but 
providing for some land uses where they would minimize their impact (in 
location and/or intensity) and compensate for residual impacts to 
achieve no net loss of habitat value--considering both direct and 
indirect impacts. In achieving the no net loss standard, the BLM would 
work with the States to apply the tools that work best in those areas 
to achieve the desired mitigation outcome.

ACECs

    Consistent with land use planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.7-
2(b), the BLM is announcing the opening of a 60-day comment period on 
the ACECs analyzed in the EIS. Comments may be submitted using any of 
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section earlier.
    There are no new proposed ACECs included in the preferred 
alternative. Existing and nominated ACECs with relevant and important 
values unrelated to GRSG habitat are outside the scope of the purpose 
and need. Existing ACECs with relevant and important values related to 
GRSG are unchanged by this effort, with the exception of 15 key 
Research Natural Areas (RNAs) in Oregon. RNAs are a type of ACEC. This 
effort does not change the key RNA boundaries but does consider 
alternatives to availability for livestock grazing. Of the 60,362 acres 
across the 15 key RNAs in Oregon, the alternatives consider the 
following acreage as unavailable for livestock grazing: Alternative 1: 
35,803, Alternative 2: 13,872, Alternative 3: 59,532, Alternative 4: 
36,416, Alternative 5: 18,680, Alternative 6: 18,680.
    The preferred alternative would not propose the following potential 
ACECs with GRSG relevant and important values for designation: Case 
Flats (Colorado), Triangle (Idaho), Owyhee-Shoshone Basin (Idaho), 
Camas-Laidlaw (Idaho), Big Desert (Idaho), Antelope Valley (Idaho), 
Mountain Valley Complex (Idaho), Upper Snake Complex (Idaho), Carter 
Crook GRSG Connectivity (Montana), South Valley Phillips GRSG Habitat 
(Montana), Warm Springs (Nevada), Montana Mountains (Nevada), Owyhee 
West (Nevada), Owyhee East (Nevada), North Fork Oneil (Nevada), South 
Fork Dixie Flats (Nevada), Butte Long Valley (Nevada), Eureka North and 
South (Nevada), Grass-Kobeh Valley (Nevada), Monitor Valley (Nevada), 
Reese River (Nevada), Hayes Canyon (Nevada), Utah and Idaho Boarder 
Connectivity (Nevada), Buffalo Skedaddle (California), Vya/Massacre 
(California), Rich GRSG Habitat (Utah), Box Elder GRSG Habitat (Utah), 
Little Sandy (Wyoming), Carter-Cook GRSG Connectivity (Wyoming), 
Sagebrush Focal Areas in South-Central and Southwestern Wyoming 
(Wyoming), Greater South Pass and Upper Green River Basin GRSG 
(Wyoming). These areas (11,139,472 acres) would be designated ACECs 
under Alternatives 3 and 6. Under Alternative 3 they would be managed 
as closed to new fluid mineral leasing, closed to saleable mineral 
disposal, closed to non-energy mineral leasing, excluded for major 
rights-of-way, excluded for wind and solar development, and recommended 
for withdrawal from mineral location. Under Alternative 6, they would 
be available for new fluid mineral leasing with no surface occupancy 
allowed, closed to non-energy mineral leasing, closed to saleable 
minerals except for free-use pits (for local road maintenance), not 
recommended for withdrawal from mineral location, excluded to major 
rights-of-way unless located in RMP designated corridors, and excluded 
from wind and solar development, as well as not allowing exceptions to 
the disturbance cap otherwise available in PHMA under Alternative 6.

Schedule for the Decision-Making Process

    The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public 
participation consistent with the NEPA and land use planning processes, 
including a 30-day public protest period and a 60-day Governor's 
consistency review on the Proposed RMPA. The Proposed RMPA/Final EIS is 
anticipated to be available for public protest in the fall of 2024 with 
an Approved RMPA and Record of Decision in winter 2024.
    The BLM will hold two virtual public meetings and 11 in-person 
public meetings associated throughout the planning area. The specific 
dates and locations of these meetings will be announced at least 15 
days in advance through the ePlanning page (see ADDRESSES) and media 
releases.
    The BLM will continue to consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a 
government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 
13175, BLM MS 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, 
including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to 
cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Consultation will 
continue on an induvial basis with individual Tribes.
    Comments on the Draft EIS would be most helpful if associated with 
the level of decision making presented in the alternatives. As 
described in 43 CFR 1601.0-5(n), an RMP is not a final implementation 
decision on actions that require further specific plans, process steps, 
or decisions under specific provisions of law and regulations. 
Additional decision making and analyses will occur when considering 
individual project authorizations, where local conditions and 
management will be taken into account.
    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that

[[Page 18967]]

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.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2)

Sharif Branham,
Assistant Director for Resources and Planning.
[FR Doc. 2024-05508 Filed 3-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-27-P