Notice2024-25942
Notice of Availability of the Proposed Lakeview Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Lakeview Field Office, Lakeview District, Oregon
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 8, 2024
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentLand Management Bureau
Abstract
In conformance 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 the Proposed Lakeview Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and is announcing the start of a 30-day protest period.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 217 (Friday, November 8, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 217 (Friday, November 8, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88805-88808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25942]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[BLM_OR_FRN_MO4500183398]
Notice of Availability of the Proposed Lakeview Resource
Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement for
the Lakeview Field Office, Lakeview District, Oregon
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In conformance 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 the Proposed Lakeview Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment
and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and is announcing the
start of a 30-day protest period.
DATES: This notice announces a 30-day protest period on the Proposed
Lakeview RMP Amendment, beginning on the date the Environmental
[[Page 88806]]
Protection Agency (EPA) publishes its Notice of Availability (NOA) of
the proposed RMP amendment/final EIS in the Federal Register. The EPA
usually publishes its NOAs on Fridays. Protests must be postmarked or
electronically submitted on the BLM's ePlanning website during the 30-
day protest period.
ADDRESSES: The proposed RMP amendment/final EIS is available for review
on the BLM ePlanning project website at <a href="https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/114300/510">https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/114300/510</a> and at the BLM Lakeview District, 1301
South G Street, Lakeview, OR 97630.
Instructions for filing a protest with the BLM 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. Protests must be
submitted to the ePlanning website listed above or as a hard copy to:
BLM Director, Attention: Protest Coordinator (HQ210), PO Box 151029,
Lakewood, CO 80215.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Collins, Planning and
Environmental Coordinator, telephone: 541-947-2177; 1301 South G
Street, Lakeview, OR 97630; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#355759586a5a476a59436a4758456a41505458755759581b525a43"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="debcb2b381b1ac81b2a881acb3ae81aabbbfb39ebcb2b3f0b9b1a8">[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. 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
Oregon/Washington (OR/WA) State Director has prepared the Proposed
Lakeview RMP Amendment and Final EIS that analyzes alternatives that
would update the existing 2003 Lakeview RMP and Record of Decision
(ROD), as amended by the 2015 Approved Oregon Greater Sage-grouse RMP
Amendment and ROD.
The planning area is located in Lake and Harney counties, Oregon,
and encompasses approximately 3.2 million acres of public land.
Purpose and Need for the Planning Effort
The purpose and need for this proposed RMP amendment/final EIS is
to comply with the provisions of a 2010 Settlement Agreement, which
required the BLM to prepare an RMP amendment that addresses a range of
alternatives for managing lands with wilderness characteristics, off-
highway vehicle (OHV) use, and livestock grazing within the planning
area. The BLM has determined that 106 inventory units totaling
1,655,290 acres within the planning area contain wilderness
characteristics.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
The proposed RMP amendment/final EIS analyzes six action
alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The 90-day public comment
period for the Draft Lakeview RMP Amendment and Draft EIS ended on
September 5, 2024. The BLM held four public meetings during the public
comment period. The BLM considered all input received from the public,
consulting Tribes, and cooperating agencies, and incorporated such
input into the proposed RMP amendment as appropriate. This input
resulted in the clarification of text, minor changes to the range of
alternatives, and the identification of the proposed RMP amendment
(Alternative F), which is within the range of alternatives and effects
analyzed in the draft RMP amendment/draft EIS.
The No Action Alternative represents the continuation of existing
management direction under the 2003 Lakeview RMP/ROD, as amended,
including the existing goals and management direction for OHV and
livestock grazing use. In addition, the interim management provisions
included in the 2010 Settlement Agreement would continue to preclude
the BLM from completing any management actions within inventory units
that the BLM has determined possess wilderness characteristics that
could reduce the unit's size or diminish the unit's wilderness
characteristics to such an extent that it would no longer meet the
BLM's criteria for wilderness characteristics.
Alternative A would continue the BLM's management direction under
the 2003 Lakeview RMP/ROD, as amended, including the existing goals and
management direction for OHV and livestock grazing use. Management
would emphasize resources and multiple uses other than wilderness
characteristics. None of the 106 units that the BLM found to possess
wilderness characteristics would receive additional protections.
Alternative B would emphasize the protection of wilderness
characteristics within all 106 units; 34 units and portions of two
units (approximately 273,680 acres) would be designated as Wilderness
Study Areas (WSAs) under section 202 of FLPMA. These proposed WSAs
would be managed as visual resource management (VRM) class I, land
tenure zone 1 (retention in the public domain), exclusion zones for all
rights-of-way, and would include restrictions on mineral development.
The remaining 77 units and portions of two units (approximately
1,381,610 acres) would be managed as VRM class II, land tenure zone 1
(retention in the public domain), exclusion zones for major rights-of-
way, and include some restrictions on mineral development. OHV use
would be closed in all 106 units that the BLM has found to possess
wilderness characteristics (approximately 1,654,103 acres) and in all
WSAs. Cross-country motorized travel and motorized travel on existing
internal primitive routes in these areas would be prohibited.
Under Alternative B, grazing allocations would not be changed.
However, where existing livestock grazing is found to be a significant
causal factor for non-attainment of rangeland health standards, the BLM
would remove grazing, either at the allotment or pasture scale, for the
duration of the plan amendment. Should the BLM receive a voluntary
permit relinquishment for any lands with wilderness characteristics,
WSAs, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Research Natural Areas,
or designated critical habitat for federally listed species, the BLM
would remove or reduce grazing in the area for the duration of the plan
amendment.
Alternatives C, D, and E would establish new management goals and
additional protective management for wilderness characteristics. The
units emphasized for protection of wilderness characteristics would be
managed as VRM class II, land tenure zone 1 (retention in the public
domain), exclusion zones for major rights-of-way, and include
restrictions on mineral development. The specific units emphasized for
protection of wilderness characteristics would vary across these
alternatives. In addition, a 100- to 300-foot setback would be applied
along boundary roads of these units under Alternatives C, D, and E to
provide the BLM with additional management flexibility to address other
resources needs, threats, and multiple uses adjacent to these areas.
Alternative C would emphasize the protection of wilderness
characteristics in 26 units and portions of four units (approximately
411,033 acres) that the BLM found to possess wilderness
characteristics. The BLM would balance the management of wilderness
characteristics with other resources and multiple uses in 71 units and
portions of two units (approximately 1,161,199
[[Page 88807]]
acres). The remaining five units and portions of three units
(approximately 74,529 acres) would be managed under the 2003 Lakeview
RMP, as amended; the BLM would allow other multiple uses while not
protecting wilderness characteristics. The OHV use throughout the
entire planning area would be limited to existing routes, unless
currently limited to designated routes or closed to OHV use. Grazing
allocations would not be changed. However, the BLM would temporarily
remove grazing, at either the allotment or pasture scale, when existing
livestock grazing is found to be a significant causal factor for non-
attainment of rangeland health standards, until such time as monitoring
or a subsequent assessment indicates that the pasture or allotment is
meeting standards or is making significant progress towards meeting
standards. Should the BLM receive a voluntary permit relinquishment for
public lands in a WSA, it would remove or reduce grazing in the area
for the life of the plan amendment.
Alternative D would emphasize the protection of wilderness
characteristics within two units (approximately 4,671 acres) that the
BLM found to possess wilderness characteristics. OHV use in these two
units would be limited to existing routes. Management of wilderness
characteristics would be balanced with other resources and multiple
uses in 41 units and portions of 18 units (approximately 1,075,323
acres). The remaining 46 units (approximately 583,332 acres) would be
managed under the 2003 Lakeview RMP as amended; the BLM would allow
other multiple uses while not protecting wilderness characteristics.
The area open to cross-country OHV use would be reduced to
approximately 70,573 acres of expressly defined areas; approximately
11,000 acres would be closed to OHV use; and the remainder of the
planning area, approximately 3 million acres, would be limited to
existing or designated routes. Livestock grazing management would be
the same as the No Action Alternative unless a rangeland health
assessment and evaluation indicates one or more standards are not met
in an allotment or pasture due to factors that are subject to BLM
control, then the authorized officer shall consider taking action to
make progress toward rangeland health standards and land use plan
objectives, even if livestock grazing is not determined to be a
significant causal factor for non-attainment of standard(s). Actions
available to the authorized officer could include, but are not limited
to, changes in management of livestock grazing or other uses or habitat
restoration.
Alternative E was developed with input from individual members of
the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council and would emphasize the
protection of wilderness characteristics within 26 units (approximately
372,218 acres) that the BLM found to possess wilderness
characteristics. Management of wilderness characteristics would be
balanced with other resources and multiple uses in 68 units
(approximately 1,109,160 acres). The remaining 12 units (approximately
168,512 acres) would be managed under the 2003 Lakeview RMP as amended;
the BLM would allow other multiple uses while not protecting wilderness
characteristics. OHV and livestock grazing management throughout the
planning area would be the same as the No Action Alternative.
Alternative F, the proposed RMP amendment, was largely developed by
combining components of Alternatives C and D from the draft RMP
amendment/draft EIS, and to a lesser extent some components from
Alternative B. Alternative F's OHV and livestock grazing management
components are identical to Alternative D. Alternative F would
designate 42,547 acres within 24 wilderness characteristics units and
portions of two other units as WSAs under section 202 of the FLPMA.
These proposed WSAs would be managed as VRM class I, land tenure zone 1
(retention in the public domain), exclusion zones for all rights-of-
way, and would include restrictions on mineral development. Alternative
F would also prioritize protections for wilderness characteristics over
other multiple uses on 373,132 acres in an additional eight units and
portions of seven other units. These units would be managed as VRM
class II, land tenure zone 1 (retention in the public domain),
exclusion zones for major rights-of-way, and include some restrictions
on mineral development. The BLM would balance the management of
wilderness characteristics with other resources and multiple uses on
738,665 acres located in 37 units and portions of 12 units. The BLM
would manage the remaining 30 units and portions of nine units that
total 495,332 acres in accordance with the 2003 Lakeview RMP, as
amended, where other multiple uses are provided for without any
wilderness characteristics protections.
The proposed RMP amendment/final EIS was developed based on the
consideration of public comments, cooperating agency and Tribal
government-to-government consultations, updates to the highest quality
science and information, and by combining elements of the alternatives
analyzed in the draft RMP amendment/draft EIS. The proposed RMP
amendment is within the range of alternatives considered in the draft
RMP amendment/draft EIS.
Alternative F emphasizes a high level of resource protection in
portions of the planning area while providing for a sustainable level
of multiple uses in other portions of the planning area. It balances
the need to preserve or protect specific public lands in their natural
condition with the need to provide food and habitat for fish, wildlife,
and domestic animals and provide for outdoor recreation and human
occupancy and use. It also recognizes the Nation's need for domestic
sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands.
This balance would be accomplished within the limits of the ecosystem's
ability to provide these multiple uses on a sustainable basis and
within the constraints of applicable laws, regulations, and policies,
including sections 102(7), 102(8), 102(12), 103(c), and 103(h) of the
FLPMA.
Protest of the Proposed RMP
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 Lakeview RMP
Amendment may protest its approval to the BLM Director. Protesting 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 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 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 Director will render a written decision on each protest. The
Director's decision 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-
[[Page 88808]]
resolution-reports. Upon resolution of protests, the BLM will issue a
ROD and Approved RMP.
(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.9, 40 CFR 1506.9, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR
1610.5)
Barry R. Bushue,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 2024-25942 Filed 11-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4331-24-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 8, 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.