Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 3187 

planning decisions made through the 

2019 planning process. 

While the 2019 planning process 

largely incorporated by reference the 

analysis from the 2015 planning 

process, and updated it where needed to 

account for current conditions, the 2020 

supplemental EIS process elaborated on 

this information in greater detail and 

updated the analysis to ensure that the 

BLM appropriately evaluated 

cumulative effects at biologically 

meaningful scales. 

(4) BLM’s Approach to Compensatory 

Mitigation: In the 2019 planning 

process, the BLM requested public 

comments on a number of issues, 

including the BLM’s approach to 

compensatory mitigation. As part of the 

2015 Approved Resource Management 

Plan Amendments, the BLM selected a 

net conservation gain standard in its 

approach to compensatory mitigation, 

which the 2019 land use plan 

amendments modified to align with the 

BLM’s 2018 policy on compensatory 

mitigation. Through the 2020 

supplemental EIS process, the BLM 

requested further comments about the 

BLM’s approach to compensatory 

mitigation. After reviewing the 

comments that the BLM received about 

compensatory mitigation, the BLM 

determined that its environmental 

analysis supporting the 2019 land use 

plan amendments was sound. The 

public has now had substantial 

opportunities to consider and comment 

on the BLM’s approach to compensatory 

mitigation at the land use planning 

level, including the approach taken in 

the 2019 land use plan amendments. 

Based on the final supplemental EIS, 

the BLM has determined that its decadelong planning and NEPA processes have 

sufficiently addressed Greater SageGrouse habitat conservation and no new 

land use planning process to consider 

additional alternatives or new 

information is warranted. This 

determination is not a new planning 

decision. Instead, it is a determination 

not to amend the applicable land use 

plans. Thus, it is not subject to appeal 

or protest. The BLM’s decision remains 

as identified in the 2019 Approved 

Resource Management Plan Amendment 

for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation in 

Oregon. 

(Authority: 40 CFR 1505.2; 40 CFR 1506.6; 

References to the CEQ regulations are to the 

regulations in effect prior to September 14, 

2020. The revised CEQ regulations effective 

September 14, 2020, are not cited because 

this supplemental EIS process began prior to 

that date.) 

Barry R. Bushue, 

BLM Oregon State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00664 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–DQ– P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[212.LLWO230000. 

L11700000.PH0000.LXSGPL000000] 

Notice of Availability of the Record of 

Decision for Greater Sage-Grouse 

Management, Utah 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) announces the 

availability of the Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the management of Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat in Utah. The BLM 

has determined that its decade-long 

planning and NEPA processes have 

sufficiently addressed Greater SageGrouse habitat conservation and no new 

land use planning process to consider 

additional alternatives or new 

information is warranted. This 

determination is not a new planning 

decision. Instead, it is a determination 

not to amend the applicable land use 

plans. Thus, it is not subject to appeal 

or protest. The BLM’s decision remains 

as identified in the 2019 Approved 

Resource Management Plan Amendment 

for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation in 

Utah. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are 

available for public inspection at the 

Utah Bureau of Land Management State 

Office at 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84101–1345. 

Interested persons may also review the 

ROD on the internet at: https://

eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/ 

project/103346/510. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine Fletcher, Utah Sage-Grouse 

Implementation Lead, at 435–865–3035; 

Utah Bureau of Land Management State 

Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84101–1345; 

cfletcher@blm.gov. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to 

contact Mrs. Fletcher during normal 

business hours. The FRS is available 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a 

message or question. You will receive a 

reply during normal business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM 

issued this ROD to document the 

agency’s determination regarding the 

analysis contained in the final 

supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) (85 FR 74379). With the 

issuance of this ROD, the BLM has now 

completed several planning and NEPA 

processes for Greater Sage-Grouse 

management in Utah over roughly the 

last decade, which include the 

processes that culminated in the 2015 

ROD and the Approved Resource 

Management Plan Amendment (the 

2015 planning process), the 2019 ROD 

and Approved Resource Management 

Plan Amendment (the 2019 planning 

process), and this 2020 ROD (the 2020 

supplemental EIS process). Together, 

these processes represent a thorough 

analysis of Greater Sage-Grouse 

management, substantial public 

engagement, and important 

coordination with state wildlife 

agencies, other federal agencies, and 

many others in the range of the species 

that have been collaborating to conserve 

Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitats. 

The BLM prepared the final 

supplemental EIS in order to review its 

previous NEPA analysis, clarify and 

augment it where necessary, and 

provide the public with additional 

opportunities to review and comment. It 

also helped the BLM determine whether 

its 2015 and 2019 land use planning and 

NEPA processes sufficiently addressed 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

conservation or whether the BLM 

should initiate a new land use planning 

process to consider additional 

alternatives or new information. 

The final supplemental EIS addressed 

four specific issues: The range of 

alternatives, need to take a hard look at 

environmental impacts, cumulative 

effects analysis, and the BLM’s 

approach to compensatory mitigation. 

Rationale to support BLM’s 

determination, with respect to each of 

these topical areas, is summarized 

below and described further in the ROD: 

(1) Range of Alternatives: Throughout 

the decade-long planning and NEPA 

processes, the BLM has analyzed in 

detail 143 alternatives across the range 

of Greater Sage-Grouse. Additionally, 

the BLM has continued to review new 

science as it is published, which affirms 

that the BLM has considered a full range 

of plan-level conservation measures in 

the alternatives already analyzed. 

(2) Hard Look: The BLM has 

continued to take a hard look at 

environmental impacts every step of the 

way in planning for Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat conservation. In the 2015 

planning process, the 2019 planning 

process, and in the 2020 supplemental 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3188 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 

EIS process, the BLM incorporated 

detailed analysis of environmental 

impacts into our decision-making 

processes and disclosed these expected 

impacts to the public. As scientific 

information has continued to evolve, the 

BLM has closely reviewed and 

considered any changes from such 

science to expected environmental 

impacts, both at the land use plan scale 

and in site-specific analyses. To address 

public comments raised during the 

supplemental EIS process, the BLM 

convened a team of biologists and land 

use planners to evaluate scientific 

literature provided to the agency. The 

BLM found that the most up-to-date 

Greater Sage-Grouse science and other 

information has incrementally 

increased, and built upon, the 

knowledgebase of Greater Sage-Grouse 

management evaluated by the BLM most 

recently in its 2019 land use plan 

amendments, but does not change the 

scope or direction of the BLM’s 

management; however, new science 

does suggest adaptations to management 

may be warranted at site-specific scales. 

(3) Cumulative Effects Analysis: The 

BLM considered cumulative impacts on 

a rangewide basis, organizing that 

analysis at the geographic scale of each 

Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 

management zone, in order to consider 

impacts at biologically meaningful 

scales. In the 2019 planning process, the 

BLM incorporated by reference 

cumulative effects analysis conducted 

in the 2015 planning process and other 

environmental impact statements. Since 

the nature and context of the cumulative 

effects scenario has not appreciably 

changed since 2015, and the 2015 

analysis covered the entire range of the 

Greater Sage-Grouse, the BLM’s 

consideration of cumulative effects in 

the 2015 planning process adequately 

addresses most, if not all, of the 

planning decisions made through the 

2019 planning process. 

While the 2019 planning process 

largely incorporated by reference the 

analysis from the 2015 planning 

process, and updated it where needed to 

account for current conditions, the 2020 

supplemental EIS process elaborated on 

this information in greater detail and 

updated the analysis to ensure that the 

BLM appropriately evaluated 

cumulative effects at biologically 

meaningful scales. 

(4) BLM’s Approach to Compensatory 

Mitigation: In the 2019 planning 

process, the BLM requested public 

comments on a number of issues, 

including the BLM’s approach to 

compensatory mitigation. As part of the 

2015 Approved Resource Management 

Plan Amendments, the BLM selected a 

net conservation gain standard in its 

approach to compensatory mitigation, 

which the 2019 land use plan 

amendments modified to align with the 

BLM’s 2018 policy on compensatory 

mitigation. Through the 2020 

supplemental EIS process, the BLM 

requested further comments about the 

BLM’s approach to compensatory 

mitigation. After reviewing the 

comments that the BLM received about 

compensatory mitigation, the BLM 

determined that its environmental 

analysis supporting the 2019 land use 

plan amendments was sound. The 

public has now had substantial 

opportunities to consider and comment 

on the BLM’s approach to compensatory 

mitigation at the land use planning 

level, including the approach taken in 

the 2019 land use plan amendments. 

Based on the final supplemental EIS, 

the BLM has determined that its decadelong planning and NEPA processes have 

sufficiently addressed Greater SageGrouse habitat conservation and no new 

land use planning process to consider 

additional alternatives or new 

information is warranted. This 

determination is not a new planning 

decision. Instead, it is a determination 

not to amend the applicable land use 

plans. Thus, it is not subject to appeal 

or protest. The BLM’s decision remains 

as identified in the 2019 Approved 

Resource Management Plan Amendment 

for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation in 

Utah. 

(Authority: 40 CFR 1505.2; 40 CFR 1506.6; 

References to the CEQ regulations are to the 

regulations in effect prior to September 14, 

2020. The revised CEQ regulations effective 

September 14, 2020, are not cited because 

this supplemental EIS process began prior to 

that date.) 

Gregory Sheehan, 

BLM Utah State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00665 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–DQ–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[NPS–WASO–D–COS–POL–30716; 

PPWODIREP0; PPMPSAS1Y.YP0000] 

National Park System Advisory Board; 

Charter Renewal 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Charter renewal. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior 

intends to renew the National Park 

System Advisory Board, in accordance 

with section 14(b) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. This action is 

necessary and in the public interest in 

connection with the performance of 

statutory duties imposed upon the 

Department of the Interior and the 

National Park Service. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Winchell, Staff Director and 

Designated Federal Officer for the 

National Park System Advisory Board, 

Office of Policy, National Park Service, 

202–513–7053. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board 

is authorized by 54 U.S.C. 102303 (part 

of the 1935 Historic Sites, Buildings and 

Antiquities Act) and has been in 

existence almost continuously since 

1935. Pursuant to 54 U.S.C. 102303, the 

legislative authorization for the Board 

expired January 1, 2010. However, due 

to the importance of the issues on which 

the Board advises, the Secretary of the 

Interior exercised the authority 

contained in 54 U.S.C. 100906 to reestablish and continue the Board as a 

discretionary committee from January 1, 

2010, until such time as it may be 

legislatively reauthorized. 

The advice and recommendations 

provided by the Board fulfill an 

important need within the Department 

of the Interior and the National Park 

Service, and it is necessary to reestablish the Board to ensure its work is 

not disrupted. The Board’s members are 

balanced to represent a cross-section of 

disciplines and expertise relevant to the 

National Park Service mission. The 

renewal of the Board comports with the 

requirements of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, as amended. 

Certification: I hereby certify that the 

renewal of the National Park System 

Advisory Board is necessary and in the 

public interest in connection with the 

performance of duties imposed on the 

Department of the Interior by the 

National Park Service Organic Act (54 

U.S.C. 100101(a) et seq.), and other 

statutes relating to the administration of 

the National Park Service. 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 

Dated: November 18, 2020. 

David L. Bernhardt, 

Secretary of the Interior. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00750 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES