Notice2023-24552
Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for Big Game Habitat Conservation for Oil and Gas Management, Colorado
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 9, 2023
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentLand Management Bureau
Abstract
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 Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Big Game Habitat Conservation for Oil and Gas Management and by this notice is providing information announcing the opening of the comment period on the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77350-77352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24552]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[BLM_CO_FRN_MO4500174063]
Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan
Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for Big Game Habitat
Conservation for Oil and Gas Management, Colorado
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 Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Big Game Habitat Conservation
for Oil and Gas Management and by this notice is providing information
announcing the opening of the comment period on the Draft RMP
Amendment/EIS.
DATES: This notice announces the opening of a 90-day comment period for
the Draft RMP Amendment/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 RMP Amendment/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.
ADDRESSES: The Draft RMP Amendment/EIS is available for review on the
BLM ePlanning project website at <a href="https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY">https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY</a>.
Written comments related to Big Game Habitat Conservation for Oil
and Gas Management may be submitted by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Website: <a href="https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY">https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY</a>.
<bullet> Mail: BLM Colorado State Office, Attn: Big Game Habitat
Conservation amendment/EIS, Denver Federal Center Building 40,
Lakewood, CO 80225.
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at
<a href="https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY">https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY</a> and at the BLM Colorado State Office, Denver
Federal Center, Building 1A, Lakewood, Colorado.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Bittner, Deputy State Director,
[[Page 77351]]
Resources, telephone 303-239-3768; address BLM Colorado State Office,
Attn: Big Game Corridor amendment/EIS, Denver Federal Center Building
40, Lakewood, CO 80225; email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f7d7372607c70605c504d4d565b504d4c604f535e51515651587f5d535211585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2909e9f8d919d8db1bda0a0bbb6bda0a18da2beb3bcbcbbbcb592b0bebffcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a>.
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
Mr. Bittner. 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
Colorado State Director has prepared a Draft RMP Amendment/EIS and
provides information announcing the opening of the comment period on
the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS. The RMP amendment addresses alternative
approaches for oil and gas management in order to maintain, conserve,
and protect big game high priority habitat that would require amending
the following existing plans:
<bullet> Northeast Resource Area RMP (1986)
<bullet> Royal Gorge Resource Area RMP (1996)
<bullet> San Luis Resource Area RMP (1991)
<bullet> Gunnison Resource Area RMP (1993)
<bullet> Uncompahgre Field Office RMP (2020)
<bullet> Colorado River Valley Field Office RMP (2015) and Roan Plateau
Amendment (2016)
<bullet> Grand Junction Field Office RMP (2015)
<bullet> Kremmling RMP (2015)
<bullet> Little Snake RMP (2011)
<bullet> White River Field Office RMP (1997)
<bullet> Tres Rios Field Office RMP (2015)
<bullet> Canyons of the Ancients National Monument RMP (2010)
<bullet> Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area RMP (2004)
The planning area includes all counties in Colorado and encompasses
approximately 8.3 million acres of public land and approximately 27
million acres of Federal mineral estate. The decision area includes all
8.3 million acres of BLM-administered surface land (except where
Federal minerals have been withdrawn from mineral leasing) plus
approximately 4.7 million acres of Federal mineral split estate.
Formal public scoping for the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS started with
the publication of the notice of intent (NOI) in the Federal Register
on July 19, 2022. The NOI contained information about the purpose and
need, preliminary planning criteria, proposed alternatives, expected
impacts, and information about how to comment. The BLM requested that
the public submit scoping comments in response to the NOI by September
2, 2022. Comments were used to inform development of the management
plan. Issues analyzed in detail in the EIS include air quality,
geology, fluid minerals, climate, noise and the acoustic environment,
lands and realty, soil resources, big game species and habitat, special
status species and other wildlife, vegetation, Native American
religious concerns, cultural and paleontological resources,
socioeconomics and environmental justice, recreation, travel and
transportation, and visual resources.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of this RMP amendment process is to evaluate
alternative approaches for oil and gas planning decisions to maintain,
conserve, and protect big game corridors and other big game high
priority habitat on BLM-administered lands and Federal mineral estate
in Colorado. Under the authority of Section 202 of FLPMA, the BLM also
seeks to evaluate consistency with plans or policies and programs of
other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Tribes, to the
extent consistent with Federal laws, regulations, policies, and
programs applicable to BLM-administered lands.
This RMP amendment process will consider current big game
population and habitat data and evaluate planning alternatives'
consistency with the policies and programs of State agencies that
manage big game populations and regulate oil and gas operations in
Colorado: Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and the Colorado Energy and
Carbon Management Commission (ECMC). CPW manages wildlife in Colorado,
and the ECMC regulates oil and gas development. Colorado Senate Bill
19-181 Oil and Gas Act gives the ECMC the authority to promulgate
regulations that are protective of human health, safety, welfare, the
environment, and wildlife resources. The ECMC 1200 series rules
identify certain big game habitats where oil and gas operations are
subject to specific ECMC requirements. CPW's implementation of the ECMC
requirements for high priority habitat is intended to avoid, minimize,
and mitigate impacts to big game habitats.
This RMP amendment process also complies with the terms of the
settlement agreement in State of Colorado v. Bureau of Land Management
(U.S. District Court for Colorado, 1:21-cv-00129).
Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative
The BLM has analyzed four alternatives in detail, including the no
action alternative. Alternative A is the No Action alternative and is
based on existing approved RMPs, as amended, throughout Colorado. This
alternative reflects the management decisions in the existing RMPs. The
analysis considers how the BLM is currently managing big game habitat
protection and oil and gas development across the state and provides a
characterization of the existing environment for comparison with the
action alternatives.
Alternative B is based on management alignment with the ECMC rules
for oil and gas development in elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and bighorn
sheep high priority habitat (Rule 1202.c, d; Rule 1203). Where lands
are open to oil and gas leasing under existing RMPs, Alternative B
prescribes measures consistent with the ECMC rules to conserve high
priority habitat. Alternative B incorporates various oil and gas lease
stipulations, including a controlled surface use density limitation of
one well pad per square mile in big game high priority habitat subject
to waivers, exceptions, and modifications in some circumstances.
Alternative C, in addition to incorporating lease stipulations
similar to alternative B, applies a three percent surface disturbance
cap on oil and gas development within big game high priority habitat on
BLM surface lands. This limit does not apply to private, local
government, or State lands in the decision area. This alternative
provides for waivers, exceptions, and modifications to the stipulations
in some circumstances.
Alternative D is similar to the other action alternatives in that
it also incorporates lease stipulations that align the BLM's oil and
gas management with ECMC's rules for big game high priority habitat in
the decision area. Alternative D includes a three percent surface
disturbance cap on oil and gas development within big game high
priority habitat; however, the application of this cap is not limited
to BLM surface lands as it is under Alternative C. Under this
alternative, the disturbance threshold applies to big game high
priority habitat on all lands in the decision area regardless of land
ownership. Additionally, unlike Alternatives B and C, this alternative
proposes to reduce the area open to leasing of oil and gas.
Specifically, big game high priority habitat areas identified with low,
moderate, or no known oil and gas development
[[Page 77352]]
potential would be closed to new Federal oil and gas leasing.
The BLM further considered five additional alternatives but
dismissed these alternatives from detailed analysis as explained in the
Draft RMP Amendment/EIS.
The State Director has identified Alternative B as the preferred
alternative because it conserves big game high priority habitat while
balancing other resource uses.
Mitigation
Across all action alternatives, the BLM considers potential
mitigation in compliance with Council on Environmental Quality,
Department of the Interior, and BLM guidance. Mitigation can help
provide a conservation benefit to big game species when impacts from
oil and gas development activity are not avoidable. Consistent with
valid existing rights and applicable law, when oil and gas development
results in habitat loss or degradation within big game high priority
habitat, the BLM will require and ensure mitigation that provides a
conservation benefit to the species, including accounting for any
uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of such mitigation.
The action alternatives call for the BLM to consider alternative
locations for oil and gas operations that either avoid big game high
priority habitat altogether, or, where avoidance is not feasible,
minimize adverse impacts to the maximum extent possible. The action
alternatives include surface density limitations, as well as a density
trigger that would require the operator to address indirect impacts
through compensatory mitigation. The action alternatives call for the
BLM to include avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies in
subsequent implementation-level NEPA analyses for proposed actions that
may result in big game high priority habitat loss and degradation.
Subsequent implementation-level mitigation could limit the duration
and extent of development activities in big game high priority habitat
through all phases of development by avoiding activities in high
priority habitat, applying a surface density limitation, and mitigating
impacts. Mitigation plans would address cumulative effects of oil and
gas activities across a given landscape.
The BLM may also require compensatory mitigation to offset
disturbance or density limitation exceedances and direct and
unavoidable adverse indirect impacts that result in the functional loss
of habitat from oil and gas development in big game high priority
habitat. Direct impacts to big game occur from disturbance or habitat
fragmentation during construction, drilling, and/or completion
activities and habitat conversion to oil and gas facilities. Indirect
impacts to big game occur over time from big game avoidance of
disturbance and the cumulative functional habitat loss from
fragmentation and modified habitat use as development density
increases. Indirect impacts may be avoided or minimized through the
application of alternative siting and operating requirements. The BLM,
after coordination with CPW, will determine whether compensatory
mitigation proposed by the operator is sufficient to protect big game
high priority habitat from direct and unavoidable adverse indirect
impacts.
The BLM has the discretion to require an operator to modify surface
operations to change or add specific mitigation measures when supported
by scientific analysis and consistent with existing rights. Potential
mitigation/conservation measures not already required as stipulations
would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document, and incorporated,
as appropriate, as conditions of approval of the permit, plan of
development, or other use authorization. In discussing surface use
rights, 43 CFR 3101.1-2 states that the lessee has the right, ``to use
so much of the leased lands as is necessary to explore for, drill for,
mine, extract, remove and dispose of all the leased resource.''
However, lessees are subject to lease stipulations, nondiscretionary
statutes, and as identified in 43 CFR 3101.1-2, ``such reasonable
measures as may be required by the authorized officer to minimize
adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses or users not
addressed in the lease stipulations at the time operations are
proposed.''
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 RMP. The Proposed RMP Amendment/
Final EIS is anticipated to be available for public protest starting
August 2024, with an Approved RMP and Record of Decision in November
2024.
The BLM will be holding public meetings on the Draft RMP Amendment/
EIS. The specific date(s) and location(s) of these meetings will be
announced at least 15 days in advance through local media and the
ePlanning project page (see ADDRESSES).
The BLM will continue to consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a
government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order
13175, BLM Manual 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal
concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential
impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration.
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 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2)
Douglas J. Vilsack,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 2023-24552 Filed 11-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-16-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 9, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.