Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Colorado River Valley Field Office and Grand Junction Field Office Resource Management Plans, Colorado, 52082-52083 [2024-13452]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• Bureau of Land Management

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52082-52083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-13452]



[[Page 52082]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[BLM_CO_FRN_MO4500178689]


Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan 
and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Colorado 
River Valley Field Office and Grand Junction Field Office Resource 
Management Plans, Colorado

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 
prepared a proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and final 
supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Colorado 
River Valley Field Office (CRVFO) and Grand Junction Field Office 
(GJFO) Resource Management Plans and by this notice is announcing the 
start of a 30-day protest period of the proposed RMP.

DATES: This notice announces the beginning of a 30-day protest period 
to the BLM on the proposed RMP. Protests must be postmarked or 
electronically submitted on the BLM's ePlanning site within 30 days of 
the date that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes its 
Notice of Availability (NOA) of the proposed RMP and final supplemental 
EIS in the Federal Register. The EPA usually publishes its NOAs on 
Fridays.

ADDRESSES: The proposed RMP and final supplemental EIS is available on 
the BLM ePlanning project website at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2016085/510. Documents pertinent to this proposal 
may be examined online at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2016085/510 and at the Colorado River Valley and Grand Junction 
Field Offices.
    Instructions for filing a protest with the BLM for the proposed RMP 
and final supplemental EIS for the CRVFO and GJFO RMPs can be found at: 
https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/filing-a-plan-protest and at 43 CFR 1610.5-2.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Sauls, Project Manager; 
telephone: 970-878-3855; address: BLM Upper Colorado River District, 
2518 H Road, Grand Junction, CO 81506; 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. Sauls. 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: The planning area is located in Garfield, 
Mesa, Eagle, Pitkin, Routt, Rio Blanco, and Montrose Counties, 
Colorado, and encompasses approximately 1.56 million acres of public 
land and 1.92 million acres of Federal mineral estate. CRVFO and GJFO 
management is identified in their respective 2015 RMPs. Apart from 
fluid mineral leasing decisions, all existing management as described 
in the CRVFO and GJFO approved RMPs remains in effect.

Purpose and Need for the Planning Effort

    The purpose of this supplemental EIS is to broaden the range of 
alternatives in the 2015 CRVFO and GJFO approved RMPs with respect to 
the lands that are allocated as open or closed for oil and gas leasing. 
The purpose is also to provide additional air quality analysis for the 
fluid mineral management alternatives considered in the 2014 CRVFO 
final EIS, the 2015 GJFO final EIS, and in this supplemental EIS.
    The need for this supplemental EIS is to comply with the settlement 
agreements in litigation of the CRVFO RMP (Wilderness Workshop v. BLM, 
16-cv-01822) and subsequent oil and gas leasing in both field offices 
(Wilderness Workshop v. BLM, 18-cv-00987). The need is also to revisit 
the GJFO RMP as described in the BLM's motion for voluntary remand in 
litigation associated with the GJFO RMP (Center for Biological 
Diversity v. BLM, 19-cv-02869). The need is also to consider new 
information and to consider areas with Tribal significance per the 
Tribal Consultations for Oil and Gas Leasing Handbook, Section 1.3.

Alternatives Considered in the Draft Supplemental EIS

    The BLM analyzed two additional alternatives (E and F) in detail in 
the draft supplemental EIS. The three action alternatives (B through D) 
and the no action alternative (A) from the 2014 CRVFO and the 2015 GJFO 
final EISs remain within the range of alternatives considered. 
Alternative E would close the areas with no-known, low, and medium 
potential for fluid minerals to future fluid mineral leasing. 
Alternative E would also close areas that would be allocated as closed 
to fluid mineral leasing in alternative C of the 2014 CRVFO and 2015 
GJFO final EISs. Alternative E would designate the potential areas of 
critical environmental concern (ACECs) that were analyzed as closed to 
leasing in alternative C of the 2014 CRVFO and 2015 GJFO final EISs. 
Alternative F would close the same areas as alternative E to future 
fluid mineral leasing, as well as additional areas identified by the 
public during scoping. Alternative F would designate one FLPMA Section 
202 Wilderness Study Area.
    The State Director had identified Alternative E as the preferred 
alternative in the draft supplemental EIS.

Public Involvement

    The BLM received a total of 373 letter submissions during the 
public comment period on the supplemental EIS, including seven letters 
which contained non-unique, preformulated language that appeared 
elsewhere in letter submissions. There were 366 unique submissions, 
from which the BLM derived 407 unique substantive comments.
    Most submissions were focused on suggestions for specific 
alternatives or alternative elements, statements pertaining to the 
reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) scenario, and detailed input 
pertaining to various resource topics analyzed in the draft 
supplemental EIS, such as air quality and climate, social and economic 
conditions, and special designations.

Changes Between the Draft Supplemental EIS and the Final Supplemental 
EIS

    Based on public comments on the draft supplemental EIS, the BLM has 
updated the final supplemental EIS and developed several new 
appendices. The BLM has provided responses to substantive comments in 
Appendix F. Some comments questioned whether the RFD scenarios remained 
valid in light of more recent United States Geological Survey (USGS) 
assessments. In Appendix G, the BLM provided a review of the USGS 
assessments and a review of recent development trends to explain that 
the RFDs remain valid. The final supplemental EIS has also been updated 
with additional information for the socioeconomics and environmental 
justice impacts analyses. The BLM developed an analysis of the 
cumulative effects of the simultaneous ongoing planning efforts the BLM 
is conducting in Colorado, which is included in Appendix J.

[[Page 52083]]

Summary of the Proposed RMP

    The proposed RMP (Alternative G) in the final supplemental EIS 
draws from a combination of components from the various alternatives. 
Alternative G would retain the areas closed to fluid mineral leasing in 
the 2015 CRVFO and GJFO RMPs (same as alternative B) and would retain 
the fluid mineral stipulations. Within the CRVFO, areas closed to oil 
and gas leasing in the 2015 RMP include: all Wilderness Study Areas 
(WSAs); lands within municipal boundaries; the Upper Colorado River 
Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA); Blue Hill, Bull Gulch, Deep 
Creek, and Thompson Creek ACECs; Deep Creek, Flat Tops Addition, Pisgah 
Mountain, and Thompson Creek lands with wilderness characteristics; 
Deep Creek and two Colorado River segments found eligible for inclusion 
in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; and all State wildlife 
areas. Within the GJFO, areas closed to oil and gas leasing in the 2015 
RMP include: all WSAs; Bangs, Dolores River, and Palisade Rim SRMAs; 
Gunnison River Bluffs Extensive Recreation Management Area; Badger 
Wash, Dolores River Riparian, Juanita Arch, Rough Canyon, Sinbad 
Valley, The Palisade, and Unaweep Seep ACECs; Bangs, Maverick, and 
Unaweep lands with wilderness characteristics; Gunnison sage-grouse 
critical habitat and greater sage-grouse habitat within one mile of an 
active lek; Grand Junction and Palisade municipal watersheds; and 
Bureau of Reclamation withdrawal areas.
    Alternative G would also close the no-known and low oil and gas 
development potential areas to future fluid mineral leasing, except for 
the helium potential area in GJFO, which would remain open to leasing. 
Medium oil and gas development potential areas would be closed where 
they are surrounded by low oil and gas development potential areas 
within the CRVFO. Medium oil and gas development potential areas that 
are either adjacent to CRVFO high oil and gas development potential 
areas or surrounded by GJFO high oil and gas development potential 
areas would remain open for oil and gas leasing. The high potential 
areas would generally remain open for fluid mineral leasing. Within the 
high potential and open medium potential areas, there would be areas 
closed to fluid mineral leasing due to specific resource concerns. 
Geothermal resources would remain open to leasing, except for those 
within areas closed to oil and gas leasing due to specific resource 
concerns, and fluid mineral stipulations in the approved RMPs would 
apply.
    Alternative G would also close five existing designated ACECs to 
fluid mineral leasing to protect their relevant and important values, 
including the Glenwood Springs Debris Flow Hazard Zones and Grand 
Hogback ACECs in CRVFO and Atwell Gulch, Indian Creek, and Pyramid Rock 
ACECs in GJFO. Alternative G would expand the existing Grand Hogback 
ACEC in CRVFO and Pyramid Rock ACEC in GJFO.
    Within the CRVFO, Alternative G would designate the Castle Peak 
Addition lands with wilderness characteristics unit as a wilderness 
study area and would close to oil and gas leasing the Thompson Divide 
Withdrawal Area in CRVFO, consistent with the boundary described in 
Public Land Order No. 7939. Within the GJFO, Alternative G would manage 
Cone Mountain, Granite Creek, Kings Canyon, Lumsden Canyon, and West 
Creek units for protection of their wilderness characteristics.
    Increased protections for the Roan and Carr Creeks ACECs and Jerry 
Creek, Mesa/Powderhorn, and Collbran municipal water source areas 
within the GJFO would be provided through application of No Surface 
Occupancy stipulations.

Protest of the Proposed RMP

    The BLM planning regulations state that any person who participated 
in the preparation of the RMP and has an interest that will or might be 
adversely affected by approval of the proposed RMP may protest its 
approval to the BLM. Protest on the proposed RMP constitutes the final 
opportunity for administrative review of the proposed land use planning 
decisions prior to the BLM adopting an approved RMP.
    Instructions for filing a protest with the BLM regarding the 
proposed RMP may be found online at the website in the ADDRESSES 
section above. All protests must be in writing and mailed to the 
appropriate address or submitted electronically through the BLM 
ePlanning project website listed in the ADDRESSES section. Protests 
submitted electronically by any means other than the ePlanning project 
website or by fax will be invalid unless a hard copy of the protest is 
submitted.
    The BLM will render a written decision on each protest. The 
decision of the BLM on the protest shall be the final decision of the 
Department of the Interior. Responses to valid protest issues will be 
compiled and documented in a Protest Resolution Report made available 
following the protest resolution online at: https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/protest-resolution-reports. Upon resolution of protests, the BLM will issue a Record of 
Decision and Approved RMP.
    Before including your phone number, email address, or other 
personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware 
that your entire protest--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your protest 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, 43 CFR 
1610.5)

Douglas J. Vilsack,
BLM Colorado State Director.
[FR Doc. 2024-13452 Filed 6-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-16-P