Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Gunnison Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus minimus), Colorado and Utah, 55655-55657 [2024-14531]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2024 / Notices
the withdrawals on all lands
(Alternative A) to revoking the
withdrawals on all lands (Alternative
D). Alternatives B and C include partial
revocations based on natural resource
factors. Full or partial revocation of the
ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals would
result in changes to land use that could
affect local residents, wildlife,
vegetation, cultural resources,
subsistence, and recreation. No
development plans have been
submitted, and no stipulations are
attached to selected lands that would
prevent any specific development from
taking place. Therefore, the EIS provides
a reasonably foreseeable development
scenario that identifies and quantifies
potential development activity in the
decision area, including the extraction
of leasable, locatable, and salable
minerals, as well as the establishment of
associated rights-of-way, assuming the
land is not withdrawn from availability
for such activities.
Section 810 of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) requires the BLM to evaluate
the effects of the alternatives presented
in the Final EIS on subsistence uses and
needs and to hold public hearings if it
finds that any alternative may
significantly restrict subsistence uses.
The BLM found in the evaluation of
subsistence impacts that Alternatives B,
C, or D, in combination with the
cumulative case as analyzed in the Draft
EIS, may significantly restrict
subsistence uses in many communities.
Therefore, the BLM held public hearings
on subsistence resources and activities
in conjunction with the public meetings
on the Draft EIS in the vicinity of
potentially affected communities. In
consideration of public comments
received on the Draft EIS and at the
public hearings, the BLM revised the
ANILCA Section 810 evaluation,
published as Appendix C of the Final
EIS, but did not change its ‘‘may
significantly restrict subsistence uses’’
findings for the identified communities.
The input of Alaska Native Tribes and
Corporations is of critical importance to
this EIS. Therefore, during the NEPA
process, the BLM consulted with
potentially affected Federally
recognized Tribes on a government-togovernment basis, and with affected
Alaska Native Corporations in
accordance with Executive Order 13175,
as well as Public Law 108–199, Div. H,
sec. 161, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by
Public Law 108–447, Div. H, sec. 518,
118 Stat. 3267, and other Department
and Bureau policies.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Jul 03, 2024
Jkt 262001
(Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6(b))
Steven M. Cohn,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 2024–14658 Filed 7–3–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331–10–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[BLM_CO_FRN_MO4500179560]
Notice of Availability of the Proposed
Resource Management Plan
Amendment and Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Gunnison
Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus minimus),
Colorado and Utah
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
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 (FLMPA), the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
prepared a proposed resource
management plan (RMP) amendment
and final environmental impact
statement (EIS) for the Gunnison SageGrouse (Centrocercus minimus) and by
this notice is announcing the start of a
30-day protest period of the proposed
RMP amendment.
DATES: This notice announces the
beginning of a 30-day protest period to
the BLM on the proposed RMP
amendment. 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) in the
Federal Register. The EPA usually
publishes its NOAs on Fridays.
ADDRESSES: The proposed RMP
amendment and final EIS is available on
the BLM ePlanning project website at
https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/
project/2019031/510. Documents
pertinent to this proposal may also be
examined at the Grand Junction,
Uncompahgre, Tres Rios, Gunnison, San
Luis Valley, Moab, and Monticello Field
Offices.
Instructions for filing a protest with
the BLM for the Gunnison Sage-Grouse
(Centrocercus minimus) RMP
amendment can be found at: https://
www.blm.gov/programs/planning-andnepa/public-participation/filing-a-planprotest and at 43 CFR 1610.5–2. All
protests must be submitted in writing by
one of the following methods:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55655
Website: https://eplanning.blm.gov/
eplanning-ui/project/2019031/510.
Regular mail and overnight mail: BLM
Director, Attention: Protest Coordinator
(HQ210), Denver Federal Center,
Building 40 (Door W–4), Lakewood, CO
80215.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina
Phillips, Project Manager, BLM
Colorado, telephone 970–589–9852;
BLM Southwest District Office, 2465 S.
Townsend Ave., Montrose, CO 81401;
email BLM_CO_GUSG_RMPA@blm.gov.
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. Phillips. 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.
The RMP
amendment would change the following
existing plans.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Colorado
• Canyons of the Ancients National
Monument RMP (2010)
• Dominguez-Escalante National
Conservation Area RMP (2017)
• Grand Junction Field Office RMP
(2015)
• Gunnison Gorge National
Conservation Area RMP (2004)
• Gunnison Resource Area RMP (1993)
• McInnis Canyons National
Conservation Area RMP (2004)
• San Luis Resource Area RMP (1991)
• Tres Rios Field Office RMP (2015)
• Uncompahgre Field Office RMP
(2020)
Utah
• Moab Field Office RMP (2008)
• Monticello Field Office RMP (2008)
The Gunnison Sage-Grouse RMP
amendment updates management
decisions and actions to promote
Gunnison sage-grouse recovery and
maintain and enhance habitat, as
identified in the 2020 U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) Recovery
Plan, across the eight currently
recognized populations in southwest
Colorado and southeast Utah. Gunnison
sage-grouse is federally listed as a
threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16
U.S.C. 1531–1544).
Planning Area
The planning area spans portions of
19 Colorado Counties: Alamosa,
Archuleta, Conejos, Costilla, Delta,
Dolores, Garfield, Gunnison, Hinsdale,
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
55656
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2024 / Notices
La Plata, Mesa, Mineral, Montezuma,
Montrose, Ouray, Rio Grande, Saguache,
San Juan, and San Miguel; and two Utah
Counties: Grand and San Juan; and
encompasses approximately 25 million
acres of public land.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Purpose and Need
The BLM’s purpose consists of the
following:
• Promote the recovery of the
threatened Gunnison sage-grouse and
maintain and enhance BLMadministered occupied and unoccupied
habitat upon which the species
depends, while continuing to manage
the land wherever possible for multiple
use and sustained yield;
• Ensure management actions on
BLM-administered lands support
conservation goals for Gunnison sagegrouse and their habitat;
• Ensure that BLM management
aligns with current science and data;
relevant Federal, State, and local
decisions supporting recovery; the
Department of the Interior Climate
Action Plan; and the USFWS Final
Recovery Plan for Gunnison SageGrouse and Recovery Implementation
Strategy for Gunnison Sage-Grouse
(Centrocercus minimus); and
• Provide consistent guidance for
addressing threats to Gunnison sagegrouse populations and their habitat.
This BLM action is necessary to
accomplish the following:
• Address the range-wide downward
population trend of Gunnison sagegrouse since 2014 and address issues
related to land management that may
affect occupied and unoccupied habitat;
• Respond to the ESA section 7(a)(1)
(16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)) requirement that
the BLM use its authority to further the
purposes of the ESA by implementing
management actions for the
conservation of federally listed species
and the ecosystems upon which they
depend; and
• Respond to changing ecological and
climate conditions affecting BLMadministered lands, including drought,
habitat loss and fragmentation, reduced
riparian areas, and more frequent
wildland fires.
Alternatives Considered, Including the
Proposed Plan Alternative
The BLM analyzed six alternatives in
detail, including the no action
alternative. This land use plan
amendment addresses management
actions impacting, or with the potential
to impact, Gunnison sage-grouse and
occupied and unoccupied habitat in the
decision area. The decision area consists
of approximately 2,182,660 acres of
BLM-managed surface lands (1,951,440
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Jul 03, 2024
Jkt 262001
acres in Colorado and 231,220 acres in
Utah) and 2,852,390 acres of Federal
subsurface mineral estate (2,563,220
acres in Colorado and 289,170 acres in
Utah). Alternative A (No Action
Alternative—Current Management)
would continue current BLM
management direction in the 11
administrative units in the planning
area.
Alternative B would prioritize
removing identified threats within
occupied and unoccupied habitat and
reduce impacts within the decision area,
which includes a 4-mile buffer around
habitat and potential linkageconnectivity areas to the maximum
extent allowable. Alternative B contains
two sub-alternatives for livestock
grazing management actions in response
to recommendations made in public
scoping comments. Alternative B would
designate all nominated Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern
(ACECs) that meet relevance and
importance criteria.
Alternative C would minimize,
mitigate, or compensate for impacts
from resource uses and activities in
occupied and unoccupied habitat. No
new ACECs would be designated under
Alternative C.
Alternative D would allocate resource
uses and conserve resource values while
sustaining and enhancing ecological
integrity across the decision area and
designate a specific subset of nominated
ACECs. Conservation measures focus on
occupied and unoccupied habitat that
includes a 1-mile buffer around habitat
and could extend to linkageconnectivity areas.
Alternative E considers adopting
applicable management direction from
the interagency Candidate Conservation
Agreement for the Gunnison sagegrouse, Gunnison Basin Population.
Alternative F (proposed plan
amendment) was developed in response
to public comments on the draft RMP
amendment/EIS and, similar to
Alternative D, focuses conservation
measures on occupied and unoccupied
habitat. For all populations, Alternative
F would apply buffers to all lek statuses
(active, inactive, historic, unknown,
occupied, and unoccupied) and manage
with the objective of no increase in net
surface disturbance; and it proposes
management to increase available
habitat for all Gunnison sage-grouse
populations.
The BLM considered three additional
alternatives but dismissed them from
detailed analysis as explained in section
2.1.2.2 of the proposed RMP
amendment/EIS.
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Public Involvement
The BLM published a notice of intent
in the Federal Register to initiate the
public scoping period for this planning
effort on July 6, 2022 (87 FR 40262). The
BLM hosted four public scoping
meetings (in Dove Creek, CO and
Gunnison, CO) and two virtual public
meetings to solicit nominations for
ACECs, identify the scope of issues to be
addressed in the RMP amendment, and
gather input to assist in formulating a
reasonable range of alternatives. The
resource concerns identified during the
scoping process included Gunnison
sage-grouse habitat, vegetation, livestock
grazing management, mineral
development, renewable energy
development, wildland fire ecology and
management, ACECs, recreation, lands
and realty, air resources, soil resources,
lands with wilderness characteristics,
and social and economic conditions.
After preparing the draft RMP
amendment/EIS in coordination with 30
cooperating agencies and working with
Tribes, the BLM announced the 90-day
comment period through publication of
its NOA in the Federal Register on
November 9, 2023 (88 FR 77353).
During the comment period, the BLM
held two in-person public meetings (in
Dove Creek, CO and Gunnison, CO) and
one virtual public meeting to inform the
public and solicit comments on the draft
documents. The BLM received 141
comment letters (including 115 unique
letters and 26 form, form plus, or
duplicate letters) during the comment
period. The BLM reviewed all letters
submitted, analyzed the comments,
considered substantive comments, and
revised the RMP amendment/EIS
accordingly. Comments and responses
are attached as Appendix W in the
proposed RMP amendment/EIS.
Changes Between Draft RMP
Amendment and Proposed RMP
Amendment
Based on public comments received
on the draft RMP amendment/draft EIS,
the BLM updated the proposed RMP
amendment/final EIS (Alternative F) by
incorporating management actions and
allowable uses from Alternatives A, B,
C, D, and E, including corrections and
rewording for clarification of purpose
and intent. Language throughout the
document was revisited for readability
and to meet the required page limits for
an EIS. In consideration of comments
received, the following management
was updated in Alternative F:
• Uses would be avoided in buffer
distances for all Gunnison sage-grouse
lek statuses (active, inactive, historic,
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2024 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
unknown in Colorado, occupied, and
unoccupied in Utah);
• Objectives and management for net
surface disturbance rather than
disturbance caps were clarified;
• Management for Gunnison sagegrouse satellite populations was
recognized as different in some aspects
from the Gunnison Basin population
under Lands and Realty and Recreation;
• Management in the current and
proposed ACECs was refined, and a new
Backcountry Conservation Area would
be designated; and
• Appendices were also developed
and expanded upon.
Protest of the Proposed RMP
Amendment
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 amendment may protest its
approval to the BLM. Protest on the
proposed RMP amendment constitutes
the final opportunity for administrative
review of the proposed land use
planning decisions prior to the BLM
adopting an approved RMP amendment.
Instructions for filing a protest with the
BLM regarding the proposed RMP
amendment may be found online (see
ADDRESSES). All protests must be in
writing and mailed to the appropriate
address or submitted electronically
through the BLM ePlanning project
website (see ADDRESSES). Protests
submitted electronically by any means
other than the ePlanning project website
will be invalid unless a hard copy of the
protest is also submitted. The BLM will
render a written decision on each
protest. The protest decision of the BLM
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-andnepa/public-participation/protestresolution-reports. Upon resolution of
protests, the BLM will issue a Record of
Decision and approved RMP
amendment.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:16 Jul 03, 2024
Jkt 262001
(Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10,
43 CFR 1610.2; 43 CFR 1610.5)
Douglas J. Vilsack,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 2024–14531 Filed 7–3–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331–16–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1629–1631,
1633, 1636–1638, and 1640 (Final)]
Mattresses From Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burma, Italy,
Philippines, Poland, Slovenia, and
Taiwan; Determinations
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject investigations, the United
States International Trade Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) determines, pursuant
to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’),
that an industry in the United States is
materially injured by reason of imports
of mattresses from Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burma, Italy,
Philippines, Poland, Slovenia, and
Taiwan, provided for in subheadings
9404.21.00, 9404.29.10, and 9404.29.90
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States, that have been found
by the U.S. Department of Commerce
(‘‘Commerce’’) to be sold in the United
States at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’).2 3
Background
The Commission instituted these
investigations effective July 28, 2023,
following receipt of petitions filed with
the Commission and Commerce by
Brooklyn Bedding LLC, Phoenix,
Arizona; Carpenter Company,
Richmond, Virginia; Corsicana Mattress
Company, Dallas, Texas; Future Foam,
Inc., Council Bluffs, Iowa; FXI, Inc.,
Radnor, Pennsylvania; Kolcraft
1 The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
2 89 FR 42448 (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 89 FR
42443 (Bulgaria), 89 FR 42427 (Burma), 89 FR
42429 (Italy), 89 FR 42432 (Philippines), 89 FR
42435 (Poland), 89 FR 42437 (Slovenia), 89 FR
42439 (Taiwan), May 15, 2024.
3 The Commission finds that imports subject to
Commerce’s affirmative critical circumstances
determinations on Burma are likely to undermine
seriously the remedial effect of the antidumping
duty order. Commissioner David S. Johanson
dissents with respect to the Commission’s
affirmative critical circumstances finding on
imports of mattresses from Burma. The Commission
also finds that imports subject to Commerce’s
affirmative critical circumstances determinations on
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Italy, Philippines, and
Taiwan are not likely to undermine seriously the
remedial effect of the antidumping duty orders.
Commissioner Jason E. Kearns dissents with respect
to the Commission’s negative critical circumstances
finding on imports of mattresses from Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55657
Enterprises, Inc., Chicago, Illinois;
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, Carthage,
Missouri; Serta Simmons Bedding, Inc.,
Doraville, Georgia; Southerland Inc.,
Antioch, Tennessee; Tempur Sealy
International, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky;
the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Washington, DC; and the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL–CIO,
Washington, DC. The Commission
scheduled the final phase of the
investigations following notification of
preliminary determinations by
Commerce that imports of mattresses
from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Burma, Italy, Philippines, Poland,
Slovenia, and Taiwan were being sold at
LTFV within the meaning of § 733(b) of
the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of
the scheduling of the final phase of the
Commission’s investigations and of a
public hearing to be held in connection
therewith was given by posting copies
of the notice in the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. International Trade
Commission, Washington, DC, and by
publishing the notice in the Federal
Register of March 6, 2024 (89 FR
16026). The Commission conducted its
hearing on May 9, 2024. All persons
who requested the opportunity were
permitted to participate.
The Commission made these
determinations pursuant to § 735(b) of
the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It
completed and filed its determinations
in these investigations on June 28, 2024.
The views of the Commission are
contained in USITC Publication 5520
(June 2024), entitled Mattresses from
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Burma, Italy, Philippines, Poland,
Slovenia, and Taiwan: Investigation
Nos. 731–TA–1629–1631, 1633, 1636–
1638, and 1640 (Final).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: June 28, 2024.
Sharon Bellamy,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024–14697 Filed 7–3–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE
ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
National Endowment for the Arts
Arts Advisory Panel Meetings
National Endowment for the
Arts, National Foundation on the Arts
and the Humanities.
ACTION: Notice of meetings.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\05JYN1.SGM
05JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55655-55657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14531]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[BLM_CO_FRN_MO4500179560]
Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan
Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Gunnison
Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus minimus), Colorado and Utah
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 (FLMPA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
prepared a proposed resource management plan (RMP) amendment and final
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Gunnison Sage-Grouse
(Centrocercus minimus) and by this notice is announcing the start of a
30-day protest period of the proposed RMP amendment.
DATES: This notice announces the beginning of a 30-day protest period
to the BLM on the proposed RMP amendment. 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) in the Federal Register. The EPA
usually publishes its NOAs on Fridays.
ADDRESSES: The proposed RMP amendment and final EIS is available on the
BLM ePlanning project website at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2019031/510. Documents pertinent to this proposal may also
be examined at the Grand Junction, Uncompahgre, Tres Rios, Gunnison,
San Luis Valley, Moab, and Monticello Field Offices.
Instructions for filing a protest with the BLM for the Gunnison
Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus minimus) RMP amendment 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. All protests must be
submitted in writing by one of the following methods:
Website: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2019031/510.
Regular mail and overnight mail: BLM Director, Attention: Protest
Coordinator (HQ210), Denver Federal Center, Building 40 (Door W-4),
Lakewood, CO 80215.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Phillips, Project Manager, BLM
Colorado, telephone 970-589-9852; BLM Southwest District Office, 2465
S. Townsend Ave., Montrose, CO 81401; 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. Phillips. 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 RMP amendment would change the following
existing plans.
Colorado
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument RMP (2010)
Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area RMP (2017)
Grand Junction Field Office RMP (2015)
Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area RMP (2004)
Gunnison Resource Area RMP (1993)
McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area RMP (2004)
San Luis Resource Area RMP (1991)
Tres Rios Field Office RMP (2015)
Uncompahgre Field Office RMP (2020)
Utah
Moab Field Office RMP (2008)
Monticello Field Office RMP (2008)
The Gunnison Sage-Grouse RMP amendment updates management decisions
and actions to promote Gunnison sage-grouse recovery and maintain and
enhance habitat, as identified in the 2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) Recovery Plan, across the eight currently recognized
populations in southwest Colorado and southeast Utah. Gunnison sage-
grouse is federally listed as a threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544).
Planning Area
The planning area spans portions of 19 Colorado Counties: Alamosa,
Archuleta, Conejos, Costilla, Delta, Dolores, Garfield, Gunnison,
Hinsdale,
[[Page 55656]]
La Plata, Mesa, Mineral, Montezuma, Montrose, Ouray, Rio Grande,
Saguache, San Juan, and San Miguel; and two Utah Counties: Grand and
San Juan; and encompasses approximately 25 million acres of public
land.
Purpose and Need
The BLM's purpose consists of the following:
Promote the recovery of the threatened Gunnison sage-
grouse and maintain and enhance BLM-administered occupied and
unoccupied habitat upon which the species depends, while continuing to
manage the land wherever possible for multiple use and sustained yield;
Ensure management actions on BLM-administered lands
support conservation goals for Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat;
Ensure that BLM management aligns with current science and
data; relevant Federal, State, and local decisions supporting recovery;
the Department of the Interior Climate Action Plan; and the USFWS Final
Recovery Plan for Gunnison Sage-Grouse and Recovery Implementation
Strategy for Gunnison Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus minimus); and
Provide consistent guidance for addressing threats to
Gunnison sage-grouse populations and their habitat.
This BLM action is necessary to accomplish the following:
Address the range-wide downward population trend of
Gunnison sage-grouse since 2014 and address issues related to land
management that may affect occupied and unoccupied habitat;
Respond to the ESA section 7(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(1))
requirement that the BLM use its authority to further the purposes of
the ESA by implementing management actions for the conservation of
federally listed species and the ecosystems upon which they depend; and
Respond to changing ecological and climate conditions
affecting BLM-administered lands, including drought, habitat loss and
fragmentation, reduced riparian areas, and more frequent wildland
fires.
Alternatives Considered, Including the Proposed Plan Alternative
The BLM analyzed six alternatives in detail, including the no
action alternative. This land use plan amendment addresses management
actions impacting, or with the potential to impact, Gunnison sage-
grouse and occupied and unoccupied habitat in the decision area. The
decision area consists of approximately 2,182,660 acres of BLM-managed
surface lands (1,951,440 acres in Colorado and 231,220 acres in Utah)
and 2,852,390 acres of Federal subsurface mineral estate (2,563,220
acres in Colorado and 289,170 acres in Utah). Alternative A (No Action
Alternative--Current Management) would continue current BLM management
direction in the 11 administrative units in the planning area.
Alternative B would prioritize removing identified threats within
occupied and unoccupied habitat and reduce impacts within the decision
area, which includes a 4-mile buffer around habitat and potential
linkage-connectivity areas to the maximum extent allowable. Alternative
B contains two sub-alternatives for livestock grazing management
actions in response to recommendations made in public scoping comments.
Alternative B would designate all nominated Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACECs) that meet relevance and importance
criteria.
Alternative C would minimize, mitigate, or compensate for impacts
from resource uses and activities in occupied and unoccupied habitat.
No new ACECs would be designated under Alternative C.
Alternative D would allocate resource uses and conserve resource
values while sustaining and enhancing ecological integrity across the
decision area and designate a specific subset of nominated ACECs.
Conservation measures focus on occupied and unoccupied habitat that
includes a 1-mile buffer around habitat and could extend to linkage-
connectivity areas.
Alternative E considers adopting applicable management direction
from the interagency Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Gunnison
sage-grouse, Gunnison Basin Population.
Alternative F (proposed plan amendment) was developed in response
to public comments on the draft RMP amendment/EIS and, similar to
Alternative D, focuses conservation measures on occupied and unoccupied
habitat. For all populations, Alternative F would apply buffers to all
lek statuses (active, inactive, historic, unknown, occupied, and
unoccupied) and manage with the objective of no increase in net surface
disturbance; and it proposes management to increase available habitat
for all Gunnison sage-grouse populations.
The BLM considered three additional alternatives but dismissed them
from detailed analysis as explained in section 2.1.2.2 of the proposed
RMP amendment/EIS.
Public Involvement
The BLM published a notice of intent in the Federal Register to
initiate the public scoping period for this planning effort on July 6,
2022 (87 FR 40262). The BLM hosted four public scoping meetings (in
Dove Creek, CO and Gunnison, CO) and two virtual public meetings to
solicit nominations for ACECs, identify the scope of issues to be
addressed in the RMP amendment, and gather input to assist in
formulating a reasonable range of alternatives. The resource concerns
identified during the scoping process included Gunnison sage-grouse
habitat, vegetation, livestock grazing management, mineral development,
renewable energy development, wildland fire ecology and management,
ACECs, recreation, lands and realty, air resources, soil resources,
lands with wilderness characteristics, and social and economic
conditions.
After preparing the draft RMP amendment/EIS in coordination with 30
cooperating agencies and working with Tribes, the BLM announced the 90-
day comment period through publication of its NOA in the Federal
Register on November 9, 2023 (88 FR 77353). During the comment period,
the BLM held two in-person public meetings (in Dove Creek, CO and
Gunnison, CO) and one virtual public meeting to inform the public and
solicit comments on the draft documents. The BLM received 141 comment
letters (including 115 unique letters and 26 form, form plus, or
duplicate letters) during the comment period. The BLM reviewed all
letters submitted, analyzed the comments, considered substantive
comments, and revised the RMP amendment/EIS accordingly. Comments and
responses are attached as Appendix W in the proposed RMP amendment/EIS.
Changes Between Draft RMP Amendment and Proposed RMP Amendment
Based on public comments received on the draft RMP amendment/draft
EIS, the BLM updated the proposed RMP amendment/final EIS (Alternative
F) by incorporating management actions and allowable uses from
Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E, including corrections and rewording for
clarification of purpose and intent. Language throughout the document
was revisited for readability and to meet the required page limits for
an EIS. In consideration of comments received, the following management
was updated in Alternative F:
Uses would be avoided in buffer distances for all Gunnison
sage-grouse lek statuses (active, inactive, historic,
[[Page 55657]]
unknown in Colorado, occupied, and unoccupied in Utah);
Objectives and management for net surface disturbance
rather than disturbance caps were clarified;
Management for Gunnison sage-grouse satellite populations
was recognized as different in some aspects from the Gunnison Basin
population under Lands and Realty and Recreation;
Management in the current and proposed ACECs was refined,
and a new Backcountry Conservation Area would be designated; and
Appendices were also developed and expanded upon.
Protest of the Proposed RMP Amendment
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 amendment may
protest its approval to the BLM. Protest on the proposed RMP amendment
constitutes the final opportunity for administrative review of the
proposed land use planning decisions prior to the BLM adopting an
approved RMP amendment. Instructions for filing a protest with the BLM
regarding the proposed RMP amendment may be found online (see
ADDRESSES). All protests must be in writing and mailed to the
appropriate address or submitted electronically through the BLM
ePlanning project website (see ADDRESSES). Protests submitted
electronically by any means other than the ePlanning project website
will be invalid unless a hard copy of the protest is also submitted.
The BLM will render a written decision on each protest. The protest
decision of the BLM 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 amendment.
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,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 2024-14531 Filed 7-3-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-16-P
