Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Greater Sage-Grouse Rangewide Planning, 90311-90312 [2024-26483]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• Bureau of Land Management

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90311-90312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26483]



[[Page 90311]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[BLM_HQ_FRN_MO4500183156]


Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan 
Amendment and Final 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, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a 
Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) and Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Greater Sage-Grouse 
Rangewide Planning and by this notice is announcing the start of a 30-
day protest period of the Proposed RMPA to the BLM Director.

DATES: This notice announces the beginning of a 30-day protest period 
to the BLM on the Proposed RMPA. 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 RMPA, Final EIS, and associated documents are 
available on the BLM ePlanning project website at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2016719/510. Documents pertinent 
to this proposal may also be examined at the BLM State Offices in 
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and 
Wyoming.
    Instructions for filing a protest with the BLM for the Greater 
Sage-Grouse Rangewide Planning 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: 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 Dr. 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: The RMPA would change goals, objectives, and 
management from previous planning efforts in 77 land use plans to 
enhance Greater sage-grouse (GRSG) conservation through management of 
sagebrush habitats on BLM-administered lands. The planning area 
includes portions of 10 Western states with 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.
    This RMPA builds on existing RMP direction related to GRSG 
conservation that was established in earlier planning efforts. 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 BLM's purpose and need is to amend certain 2015 and 2019 GRSG 
RMPA goals, objectives, allocations, and management actions in order to 
respond to updated scientific information and changing land uses and 
provide for consistent and effective rangewide conservation based on 
biological information that is responsive to locally relevant habitat 
variability. These were selected based on an internal review of the 
effectiveness of 2015 and 2019 RMPA decisions and the degree to which 
those decisions sufficiently and appropriately addressed existing 
threats to GRSG habitats and continued population declines, while 
balancing the BLM's ability to manage public lands for other uses, and 
were additionally informed by updated scientific findings and feedback 
received from Tribal, Federal, state, and local agencies and the 
public. All goals, objectives, or decisions from the 2015 or 2019 RMPAs 
that are not being considered for amendment would remain in place.
    In preparing the Proposed RMPA, the BLM analyzed six alternatives 
in detail, including the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 includes 
the applicable elements (goals, objectives, and management direction) 
of the 2015 GRSG amendment efforts. Alternative 2, the No Action 
Alternative, includes the applicable RMP elements from the 2019 GRSG 
amendment effort. Alternative 3 emphasizes GRSG conservation and 
protection and has the highest amount of preservation measures of the 
alternatives and includes the identification of Areas of Critical 
Environmental Concern (ACECs). Alternative 4 emphasizes conservation 
while providing more allowances for public land uses than Alternative 3 
and adjusts GRSG habitat management areas based on new information and 
science available since the previous planning efforts. Alternative 5, 
identified as the Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMPA and EIS, 
balances conservation with increased levels of site-specific allowances 
for public land uses and aligns habitat management areas with new 
information and science. Alternative 6 applies all the same habitat 
management areas and associated management as Alternative 5 but 
includes the identification of ACECs.
    Public review of the Draft RMPA and EIS began on March 15, 2024, 
and ended on June 13, 2024. During the 90-day comment period, the BLM 
held 13 public meetings, including two virtual meetings and 11 in-
person meetings throughout the planning area. Over 38,000 submissions 
were received, including about 6,000 individual comments. Major comment 
themes included management direction for renewable energy, lands and 
realty actions, fluid minerals, livestock grazing and predation, and 
the RMPA processes for mitigation, disturbance caps, and adaptive 
management. Comments received on the Draft RMPA and EIS were considered 
and addressed in the Proposed RMPA and Final EIS. In response to public 
and cooperating comments and internal review of the alternatives and 
effects described in the Draft EIS, the BLM developed the Proposed 
RMPA. The Proposed RMPA increases protections for GRSG from the 
Preferred Alternative while maintaining an appropriate balance of 
public land uses. The Proposed RMPA incorporates

[[Page 90312]]

management direction approaches from all of the alternatives analyzed 
in the Draft RMPA and EIS. Specifically, priority habitat management 
areas (PHMA) are identified as exclusion for solar and wind energy. 
PHMA remains an avoidance area for major rights-of-way, but there are 
fewer allowable exceptions for development. A subset of PHMA requiring 
additional protections has been identified as PHMA with Limited 
Exceptions, which would be managed as exclusion areas for major rights-
of-way, with no exceptions to the solar and wind exclusion allocation 
or to the no surface occupancy allocation for fluid minerals. These 
additional protections will provide the necessary protections for GRSG 
habitat given anticipated development threats and negative impacts from 
climate change while also ensuring an appropriate balance of public 
land uses.

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 which will or might 
be adversely affected by approval of the Proposed RMPA may protest its 
approval to the BLM. Protest on the Proposed RMPA constitutes the final 
opportunity for administrative review of the proposed land use planning 
decisions prior to the BLM adopting an approved RMPA. Instructions for 
filing a protest with the BLM regarding the Proposed RMPA may be found 
online (see ADDRESSES). All protests must be in writing and mailed to 
the appropriate address found on the protest web page 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 
seven state-specific Records of Decision and Approved RMPAs.
    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 (2023), 43 CFR 1610.2; 43 
CFR 1610.5)

Sharif Branham,
Assistant Director for Resources and Planning.
[FR Doc. 2024-26483 Filed 11-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-27-P