[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 237 (Friday, December 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77008-77011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31652]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLWO230.11100000.PH0000]
Notice of Intent To Prepare Environmental Impact Statements and
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements To Incorporate Greater
Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures Into Land Use Plans and Land
Management Plans
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976, as amended (FLPMA), and the Resources Planning Act of 1974, as
amended by the National Forest Management Act 1976 (NFMA), the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (FS) intend to prepare
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
[[Page 77009]]
and Supplemental EISs, and by this notice are announcing the beginning
of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues.
The BLM is the lead agency on these EISs and Supplemental EISs and the
FS is participating as a cooperating agency.
These EISs/Supplemental EISs will be coordinated under two regions:
An Eastern Region and a Western Region. The Eastern Region includes BLM
land use plans in the States of Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, South
Dakota, and portions of Utah and Montana. The Western Region includes
BLM land use plans in California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and portions
of Utah and Montana. For each of these regions, the FS will include
those areas that were identified by the FWS as high priority areas for
greater sage-grouse within the NFS units listed below.
DATES: This notice initiates the public scoping process for the EISs/
Supplemental EISs. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until
February 7, 2012. The date(s) and location(s) of all scoping meetings
will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media,
newspapers and the BLM Web site for the Eastern Region at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/eastern.html, and for the
Western Region at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/western.html. In order to be included in the Draft EISs/Supplemental
EISs, all scoping comments must be received prior to the close of the
scoping period or 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is
later. Comments that are specific to a particular area or land use plan
should be identified as such. We will provide additional opportunities
for public participation upon publication of the Draft EISs/
Supplemental EISs.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments related to the greater sage-grouse
planning effort by any of the following methods:
Eastern Region
[cir] Web site: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/eastern.html
[cir] Email: [email protected]
[cir] Fax: (307) 775-6042
[cir] Mail: Eastern Region Project Manager, BLM Wyoming State
Office, 5353 Yellowstone, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009
Western Region
[cir] Web site: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/western.html
[cir] Email: [email protected]
[cir] Fax: (775) 861-6747
[cir] Mail: Western Region Project Manager, BLM Nevada State
Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, Nevada 89502
Documents pertinent to the Eastern Region will be coordinated through
the BLM Wyoming State Office. Documents pertinent to the Western Region
will be coordinated through the BLM Nevada State Office.
Though BLM and NFS lands in Utah are distributed between the
Western and Eastern Regions, all such lands will be addressed in one
EIS, or through ongoing plan revision processes. All comments
applicable to the Utah EIS should be sent to the Western Region.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information and/or to have
your name added to our mailing list, contact Chuck Otto, Eastern Region
Project Manager, telephone (307) 775-6062; address 5353 Yellowstone
Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009; email [email protected], or: Brian Amme,
Western Region Project Manager, telephone (775) 861-6645; address 1340
Financial Boulevard, Reno, Nevada 89520; email [email protected]. Persons
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-(800) 877-8339 to contact
the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question
with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal
business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In April 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) published its listing decision for the greater sage-
grouse indicating that listing was ``Warranted but Precluded'' due to
higher listing priorities under the Endangered Species Act. The
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to conserve the greater sage-grouse
and its habitat was identified as a significant threat in the FWS
finding on the petition to list the greater sage-grouse as a threatened
or endangered species. The FWS has identified conservation measures to
be included in the respective agencies' land use plans as the principal
regulatory mechanisms to assure adequate conservation of the greater
sage-grouse and its habitat on public lands. For the BLM, these land
use plans are Resource Management Plans (RMP). For the FS, these are
Land and Resource Management Plans (LMP). In view of the identified
threats to the greater sage-grouse, and the FWS timeline for making a
listing decision on this species, the BLM and FS propose to incorporate
consistent objectives and conservation measures for the protection of
greater sage-grouse and its habitat into relevant RMPs and LMPs by
September 2014 in order to avoid a potential listing under the
Endangered Species Act. These conservation measures would be
incorporated into RMPs and LMPs through the plan amendment and revision
processes of the respective agencies. The BLM and FS expect to prepare
EISs to analyze proposed amendments to some land use plans that are not
currently undergoing amendment or revision. For plans already
undergoing amendment or revision, the BLM and FS will consider
incorporating conservation measures either through the ongoing
amendment or revision processes, or through supplemental environmental
analyses as appropriate.
The BLM and FS intend to evaluate the adequacy of sage-grouse
conservation measures in RMPs and selected LMPs, and consider
conservation measures, as appropriate, in proposed RMP and selected LMP
amendments and/or revisions throughout the range of the greater sage-
grouse (with the exception of the bi-state population in California and
Nevada and the Washington State distinct population segment, which will
be addressed through other planning efforts).
The BLM currently expects to evaluate sage-grouse conservation
measures in 68 planning areas, and the FS expects to evaluate sage-
grouse conservation measures in 9 LMPs. The plans applicable to these
planning areas are listed below.
BLM Wyoming has already begun undertaking a programmatic EIS
specific to the greater sage-grouse. This programmatic EIS will analyze
amendments to all of the State's RMPs not currently being amended or
revised to address needed changes to the management and conservation of
greater sage-grouse habitats. The ongoing RMP revisions in Wyoming will
evaluate conservation measures through existing planning processes.
Below is a list of RMPs and LMPs that the BLM and FS intend to
evaluate. Some RMPs/LMPs are already undergoing either revision or
amendment. In cases in which an ongoing plan revision or amendment may
not be completed by September 2014, the underlying completed RMP is
also listed, as it may be amended. FS LMPs are denoted below in
parentheses.
Within the Eastern Region, the potentially affected BLM RMPs and FS
LMPs include:
Colorado
[cir] Colorado River Valley RMP
[[Page 77010]]
revision
[cir] Grand Junction RMP revision (and existing 1987 Grand Junction
RMP)
[cir] Kremmling RMP revision
[cir] Little Snake RMP (2011)
[cir] White River RMP Oil and Gas amendment
Montana/Dakotas
[cir] Billings RMP revision (and existing 1984 Billings RMP)
[cir] Headwaters RMP (1984)
[cir] HiLine RMP revision (and existing 1988 West HiLine RMP)
[cir] Judith, Valley, and Phillips RMP (1992)
[cir] Miles City RMP revision (and existing 1985 Powder River and
1995 Big Dry RMPs)
[cir] North Dakota RMP (1988)
[cir] South Dakota RMP revision (and existing 1986 South Dakota
RMP)
[cir] Upper Missouri River Breaks NM RMP (2008)
Utah
[cir] Park City Management Framework Plan (MFP) (1975)
[cir] Price RMP (2008)
[cir] Randolph MFP (1980)
[cir] Salt Lake District Isolated Tracts Planning Analysis (1985)
[cir] Vernal RMP (2008)
[cir] Uinta National Forest Revised Forest Plan (2003) (FS)
Wyoming (please note that BLM Wyoming has already issued a
Notice of Intent to begin an EIS that will amend all completed plans to
address needed changes in the management and conservation of greater
sage-grouse habitat)
[cir] Bighorn Basin RMP revision
[cir] Buffalo RMP revision (and existing 1985 Buffalo RMP)
[cir] Casper RMP (2007)
[cir] Kemmerer RMP (2010)
[cir] Lander RMP revision
[cir] Newcastle RMP (2000)
[cir] Pinedale RMP (2008)
[cir] Rawlins RMP (2008)
[cir] Rock Springs RMP revision (and existing 1997 Green River RMP)
[cir] Thunder Basin National Grassland LMP (not included in BLM
Wyoming Notice of Intent above) (FS)
Within the Western Region, the potentially affected RMPs and LMPs
include:
California
[cir] Alturas RMP (2008)
[cir] Eagle Lake RMP (2008)
[cir] Surprise RMP (2008)
Idaho
[cir] Birds of Prey NCA RMP (2008)
[cir] Bruneau RMP revision (and existing 1983 Bruneau RMP)
[cir] Challis RMP (1999)
[cir] Craters of the Moon NM RMP (2006)
[cir] Four Rivers RMP revision (and existing 1988 Cascade and 1983
Kuna RMPs)
[cir] Jarbidge RMP revision
[cir] Lemhi RMP (1987)
[cir] Owyhee RMP (1999)
[cir] Pocatello RMP revision
[cir] Shoshone-Burley RMP revision (and existing 1980 Bennett
Hills/Timmerman Hills, 1985 Cassia, 1975 Magic, 1985 Monument, 1981 Sun
Valley, and 1982 Twin Falls MFPs/RMPs)
[cir] Upper Snake RMP revision (and existing 1983 Big Lost, 1985
Medicine Lodge, 1981 Big Desert, and 1981 Little Lost-Birch Creek MFPs/
RMPs)
[cir] Curlew National Grassland Management Plan (2002) (FS)
[cir] Caribou National Forest Revised Forest Plan (2003) (FS)
[cir] Sawtooth National Forest Revised Forest Plan (2003) (FS)
Montana
[cir] Butte RMP (2009)
[cir] Dillon RMP (2006)
Nevada
[cir] Battle Mountain RMP revision (and existing 1997 Tonopah and
1986 Shoshone-Eureka RMPs)
[cir] Black Rock Desert NCA RMP (2004)
[cir] Carson City RMP revision (and existing 2001 Carson City RMP)
[cir] Elko RMP (1987)
[cir] Ely RMP (2008)
[cir] Wells RMP (1985)
[cir] Winnemucca RMP revision
[cir] Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
(1986) (FS)
[cir] Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
(1986) (FS)
Oregon
[cir] Andrews RMP (2005)
[cir] Baker RMP revision (and existing 1989 Baker RMP)
[cir] Brothers-Lapine RMP (1989)
[cir] John Day RMP revision
[cir] Lakeview RMP amendment (and existing 2003 Lakeview RMP)
[cir] Southeastern Oregon RMP amendment (and existing 2003
Southeastern Oregon RMP)
[cir] Steens RMP (2005)
[cir] Three Rivers RMP (1992)
[cir] Two Rivers RMP (1989)
[cir] Upper Deschutes RMP (2005)
Utah
[cir] Box Elder RMP (1986)
[cir] Cedar City RMP revision (and existing 1983 Pinyon and 1986
Cedar-Beaver-Garfield-Antimony RMPs)
[cir] Grand Staircase-Escalante NM RMP (1999)
[cir] House Range RMP (1987)
[cir] Kanab RMP (2008)
[cir] Pony Express RMP (1990)
[cir] Richfield RMP (2008)
[cir] Warm Springs RMP (1986)
[cir] Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
(1986) (FS)
[cir] Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
(1986) (FS)
The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant
issues relating to the conservation of the greater sage-grouse and its
habitat that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis,
including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the EISs/
Supplemental EISs.
At present, the BLM has identified the following preliminary
issues:
Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Management
Fluid Minerals
Coal Mining
Hard Rock Mining
Mineral Materials
Rights-of-Way (including transmission)
Renewable Energy Development
Fire
Invasive Species
Grazing
Off Highway Vehicle Management and Recreation
Preliminary planning criteria include:
The BLM and FS will utilize the Western Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Conservation Assessment of Greater
Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly, et al. 2004), and any
other appropriate resources, to identify greater sage-grouse habitat
requirements and best management practices.
The approved RMP amendments/revisions will be consistent
with the BLM's National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy.
The approved RMP amendments/revisions will comply with
FLPMA, NEPA, and Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR
parts 1500-1508 and Department of the Interior regulations at 43 CFR
part 46 and 43 CFR part 1600; the BLM H-1601-1 Land Use Planning
Handbook, ``Appendix C: Program-Specific and Resource-Specific Decision
Guidance Requirements'' for affected resource programs; the 2008 BLM
NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1), and all other applicable BLM policies and
guidance.
The approved LMP amendments/revisions will comply with
NFMA, NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR
parts 1500-1508, Regulations of the Secretary
[[Page 77011]]
of Agriculture at 36 CFR part 219 and FSM 1920 and FSH 1909.12.
The RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will be limited to
making land use planning decisions specific to the conservation of
greater sage-grouse habitats.
The BLM and FS will consider allocative and/or
prescriptive standards to conserve greater sage-grouse habitat, as well
as objectives and management actions to restore, enhance, and improve
greater sage-grouse habitat.
The RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will recognize valid
existing rights.
Lands addressed in the RMP and LMP amendments/revisions
will be public lands (including surface-estate split estate lands)
managed by the BLM, and National Forest System lands, respectively, in
greater sage-grouse habitats. Any decisions in the RMP and LMP
amendments/revisions will apply only to Federal lands administered by
either the BLM or the FS.
The BLM and FS will use a collaborative and multi-
jurisdictional approach, where appropriate, to determinethe desired
future condition of public lands and National Forest System lands for
the conservation of greater sage-grouse and their habitats.
As described by law and policy, the BLM and FS will strive
to ensure that conservation measures are as consistent as possible with
other planning jurisdictions within the planning area boundaries.
The BLM and FS will consider a range of reasonable
alternatives, including appropriate management prescriptions that focus
on the relative values of resources while contributing to the
conservation of the greater sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat.
The BLM and FS will address socioeconomic impacts of the
alternatives. Socio-economic analysis will use an accepted input-output
quantitative model such as IMPLAN or RIMSII, and/or JEDI for renewable
energy analysis.
The BLM and FS will endeavor to use current scientific
information, research, technologies, and results of inventory,
monitoring, and coordination to determine appropriate local and
regional management strategies that will enhance or restore greater
sage-grouse habitats.
Management of greater sage-grouse habitat that intersects
with Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) on Public lands administered by the
BLM will be guided by the Interim Management Policy for Lands Under
Wilderness Review (IMP). Land use allocations made for WSAs must be
consistent with the IMP and with other laws, regulations, and policies
related to WSA management.
For BLM-administered lands, all activities and uses within
greater sage-grouse habitats will follow existing land health
standards. Standards and guidelines (S&G) for livestock grazing and
other programs that have developed S&Gs will be applicable to all
alternatives for BLM lands.
The BLM and FS will consult with Indian tribes to identify
sites, areas, and objects important to their cultural and religious
heritage within greater sage-grouse habitats.
The BLM and FS will coordinate and communicate with State,
local, and tribal governments to ensure that the BLM and FS consider
provisions of pertinent plans, seek to resolve inconsistencies between
State, local, and tribal plans, and provide ample opportunities for
state, local, and tribal governments to comment on the development of
amendments or revisions.
The BLM and FS will develop vegetation management
objectives, including objectives for managing noxious weeds and
invasive species (including identification of desired future condition
for specific areas), within greater sage-grouse habitat.
The RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will be based on the
principles of Adaptive Management.
Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenarios and planning
for Fluid Minerals will follow the BLM Handbook H-1624-1 and current
fluid minerals manual guidance for fluid mineral (oil and gas, coal-bed
methane, oil shale) and geothermal resources. For NFS lands, the FS
will use applicable and relevant policy and procedures.
The RMP and LMP amendments/revisions will be developed
using an interdisciplinary approach to prepare reasonable foreseeable
development scenarios, identify alternatives, and analyze resource
impacts, including cumulative impacts to natural and cultural resources
and the social and economic environment.
The most current approved BLM and FS corporate spatial
data will be supported by current metadata and will be used to
ascertain greater sage-grouse habitat extent and quality. Data will be
consistent with the principles of the Information Quality Act of 2000.
State Game and Fish agencies' greater sage-grouse data and
expertise will be utilized to the fullest extent practicable in making
management determinations on Federal lands.
The BLM and FS will utilize and coordinate the NEPA commenting
process to help fulfill the public involvement process under Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f), if
applicable, as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). Native American
tribal consultations will be conducted in accordance with policy, and
tribal concerns will be given due consideration, including impacts on
Indian trust assets. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with
other stakeholders that may be interested or affected by the BLM's or
FS's decision on this proposal are invited to participate in the
scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the
BLM to participate as a cooperating agency. The public is also invited
to nominate or recommend areas on public lands for greater sage-grouse
and their habitat to be considered as Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern as a part of this planning process (BLM Manual 1613.3.31).
Parties interested in leasing and development of Federal coal in the
planning area should provide coal resource data for their area(s) of
interest. Specifically, information is requested on the location,
quality, and quantity of Federal coal with development potential, and
on surface resource values related to the 20 coal unsuitability
criteria described in 43 CFR part 3461. This information will be used
for any necessary updating of coal screening determinations (43 CFR
3420.1-4) in the Decision Area and in the environmental analysis.
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 cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7, 43 CFR 1610.2.
Edwin Roberson,
Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning.
[FR Doc. 2011-31652 Filed 12-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P