Notice2024-15690
Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Big Game Habitat Conservation for Oil and Gas Management in 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
July 19, 2024
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 (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Big Game Habitat Conservation for Oil and Gas Management and by this notice is announcing the start of a 30-day protest period of the proposed RMP amendment.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 139 (Friday, July 19, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58749-58751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15690]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[BLM_CO_FRN_MO4500179856]
Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management Plan
Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Big Game Habitat
Conservation for Oil and Gas Management in Colorado
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management.
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 (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
prepared a proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Big Game Habitat Conservation
for Oil and Gas Management and by this notice is announcing the start
of a 30-day protest period of the proposed RMP amendment.
DATES: This notice announces 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 <a href="https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY">https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY</a>. Documents
pertinent to this proposal may also be examined at the BLM Colorado
State Office, Denver Federal Center, Building 1A, Lakewood, Colorado.
Instructions for filing a protest with the BLM for the Big Game
Habitat Conservation for Oil and Gas Management Proposed RMP Amendment
and Final EIS can be found at: <a href="https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/filing-a-plan-protest">https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/filing-a-plan-protest</a> and at 43 CFR
1610.5-2. All protests must be submitted in writing by one of the
following methods--
Website: <a href="https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY">https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY</a>; or
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: Alan Bittner, Deputy State Director,
Resources, telephone 303-239-3768;
[[Page 58750]]
address BLM Colorado State Office, Attn: Big Game Corridor amendment/
EIS, Denver Federal Center Building 40, P.O. Box 151029, Lakewood, CO
80215; email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dd9f9190829e9282beb2afafb4b9b2afae82adb1bcb3b3b4b3ba9dbfb1b0f3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="76343a3b29353929151904041f1219040529061a1718181f181136141a1b58111900">[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: The RMP amendment would change the following
existing plans:
<bullet> Eastern Colorado RMP for the Royal Gorge Field Office (2024)
<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 proposed RMP amendment addresses alternative approaches for oil
and gas management to maintain, conserve, and protect big game high
priority habitat (HPH). 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 where the surface is owned by private owners,
local government, or the State.
Public Involvement
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 (87 FR 43050). The NOI contained information about the
purpose and need, preliminary planning criteria, preliminary
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 draft management plan.
The draft RMP amendment/EIS was available for a 90-day public
review and comment period beginning with publication of the Notice of
Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register on November 9, 2023 (88 FR
77350). Issues analyzed in detail in the draft EIS included 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 for the Planning Effort
The purpose of this RMP amendment is to evaluate alternative
approaches for oil and gas planning decisions to maintain, conserve,
and protect big game corridors and other big game HPH 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, 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 considers current big game population and
habitat data and evaluates 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).
This RMP amendment process also complies with the terms of the
settlement agreement in State of Colorado v. Bureau of Land Management,
No. 1:21-cv-00129 (U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado).
Alternatives Considered in the Draft EIS
The BLM analyzed four alternatives in detail in the draft RMP
amendment, including the no action alternative. Alternative A was the
No Action alternative and reflected management decisions in existing
approved RMPs, as amended, throughout Colorado. The analysis considered
how the BLM is currently managing big game habitat protection and oil
and gas development across the State and provided a characterization of
the existing environment for comparison with the action alternatives.
Alternative B was based on management alignment with the ECMC rules
for oil and gas development in elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and bighorn
sheep HPH (Rule 1202.c, d; Rule 1203). Where lands are open to oil and
gas leasing under existing RMPs, Alternative B prescribed measures
consistent with the ECMC rules to conserve HPH. Alternative B
incorporated various oil and gas lease stipulations, including a
controlled surface use density limitation of one well pad per square
mile in big game HPH and two no surface occupancy stipulations to
protect big horn sheep production areas and pinch points (both highway
crossing and as mapped), all subject to waivers, exceptions, and
modifications in some circumstances.
Alternative C, in addition to incorporating lease stipulations
similar to alternative B, applied a 3 percent surface disturbance cap
on oil and gas development within big game HPH on BLM surface lands.
This limit did not apply to private, local government, or State lands
in the decision area. This alternative provided for waivers,
exceptions, and modifications to the stipulations in some
circumstances.
Alternative D was similar to the other action alternatives in that
it also incorporated lease stipulations that aligned the BLM's oil and
gas management with ECMC's rules for big game HPH in the decision area.
Alternative D included a 3 percent surface disturbance cap on oil and
gas development on all lands, regardless of land ownership, within big
game HPH in the decision area; the application of this cap was not
limited to BLM surface lands as it is under Alternative C.
Additionally, unlike Alternatives B and C, this alternative proposed to
reduce the area open to leasing of oil and gas. Specifically, big game
HPH identified lands with low, moderate, or no known oil and gas
development potential that would be closed to new Federal oil and gas
leasing.
The State Director identified Alternative B as the preferred
alternative in the draft EIS.
Public Input Received
During the public comment period on the draft EIS, the BLM received
a total of 746 comment submissions. Submissions were focused on
suggestions for specific alternatives or
[[Page 58751]]
alternative elements, statements pertaining to the cumulative effects
analysis, best available science and data, and detailed input
pertaining to various resource topics analyzed in the draft EIS such as
big game species, air quality and climate, social and economic
conditions, and fluid mineral development.
Changes Between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS
Based on public feedback on the draft EIS, the BLM has updated the
final EIS. The BLM has provided responses to substantive comments in
Appendix O. The BLM developed a new alternative, Modified Alternative
B. The new alternative includes updated big game HPH from December 2023
CPW data. The new alternative also includes management guidance for
assessing route density in addition to the existing Controlled Surface
Use stipulation applicable to active oil and gas facilities. Minor
language changes were made throughout the plan to provide clarity.
Summary of the Proposed RMP Amendment
The State Director's proposed alternative in the proposed RMP
amendment/final EIS is Modified Alternative B. This alternative aligns
BLM management of oil and gas in high priority wildlife habitats with
the ECMC rules for oil and gas development in elk, mule deer,
pronghorn, and bighorn sheep HPH (Rule 1202.c, d; Rule 1203). Modified
Alternative B includes additional management guidance for enhanced
coordination and use of best available science and information during
implementation. Where lands are open to oil and gas leasing under
existing RMPs, Modified Alternative B prescribes measures consistent
with the ECMC rules to conserve seasonal habitats and connectivity
within big game HPH in support of CPW's big game population objectives.
Modified Alternative B incorporates a Controlled Surface Use
stipulation that limits facility density to no more than one active oil
and gas location per square mile in big game HPH. A consideration of
CPW recommendations for route density is included as an objective and
as a lease notice to further guide implementation. Existing disturbance
may also be used to inform implementation. The plan would require
operators to develop and implement mitigation plans to minimize and
offset direct, indirect, and cumulative adverse impacts.
The BLM considers potential mitigation in compliance with Council
on Environmental Quality, Department of the Interior, and BLM guidance.
Mitigation would 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
HPH, 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.
Modified Alternative B calls for the BLM to consider alternative
locations for oil and gas operations that either avoid big game HPH
altogether, or, where avoidance is not feasible, minimize adverse
impacts to the maximum extent possible. The action alternatives include
a surface density limitation that would require the operator to address
direct and unavoidable adverse indirect impacts through compensatory
mitigation. This includes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
strategies in subsequent implementation-level NEPA analyses for
proposed actions that may result in big game HPH loss and degradation.
Subsequent implementation-level mitigation could limit the duration and
extent of development activities in big game HPH through all phases of
development by avoiding activities in HPH, applying surface density and
timing limitations, and mitigating residual impacts. 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 HPH. The BLM, after coordination with CPW, will
determine whether compensatory mitigation proposed by the operator is
sufficient to protect big game HPH 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 or 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.''
Protest of the Proposed RMP Amendment
The BLM planning regulations state that any person who participated
in the preparation of the RMP amendment 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
regarding the proposed RMP amendment with the BLM Director 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 by any
other means will be invalid. 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: <a href="https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/protest-resolution-reports">https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/protest-resolution-reports</a>. 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,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 2024-15690 Filed 7-18-24; 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 July 19, 2024.
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.