3184 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 1—ACECS PROPOSED FOR BOUNDARY MODIFICATION OR ELIMINATION—Continued 

ACEC name No action 

acres 

Alternative 1 

acres 

Alternative 2 

acres 

Pilot Knob .................................................................................................................................... 860 860 860 

Pinto Mountains ........................................................................................................................... 108,200 84,200 84,200 

Pipes Canyon .............................................................................................................................. 8,700 4,600 4,600 

Pisgah .......................................................................................................................................... 46,600 46,600 46,600 

Piute-Fenner ................................................................................................................................ 155,500 146,200 146,200 

Plank Road .................................................................................................................................. 420 420 420 

Rainbow Basin/Owl Canyon ........................................................................................................ 4,100 4,100 4,100 

Red Mountain Spring ................................................................................................................... 700 700 700 

Rodman Mountains Cultural Area ............................................................................................... 6,200 0 0 

Rose Spring ................................................................................................................................. 840 840 840 

Saline Valley ................................................................................................................................ 1,400 0 0 

Salt Creek Hills ............................................................................................................................ 2,200 1,600 1,600 

Salton Sea Hazardous ACEC ..................................................................................................... 5,100 5,100 5,100 

San Sebastian Marsh/San Felipe Creek ..................................................................................... 6,600 6,600 6,600 

Sand Canyon ............................................................................................................................... 2,600 0 0 

Santos Manuel ............................................................................................................................. 27,500 0 0 

Shadow Valley ............................................................................................................................. 197,300 159,700 159,700 

Short Canyon ............................................................................................................................... 750 0 0 

Sierra Canyons ............................................................................................................................ 26,300 27,000 27,000 

Singer Geoglyphs ........................................................................................................................ 2,000 2,000 2,000 

Soda Mountains Expansion ......................................................................................................... 16,700 0 0 

Soda Mountains WSA ................................................................................................................. 88,800 0 0 

Soda Mountains ........................................................................................................................... 0 0 33,300 

Soggy Dry Lake Creosote Rings ................................................................................................. 180 180 180 

Southern Inyo WSA ..................................................................................................................... 2,700 0 0 

Steam Well .................................................................................................................................. 40 0 0 

Superior-Cronese ......................................................................................................................... 315,800 310,900 310,900 

Surprise Canyon .......................................................................................................................... 4,600 0 0 

Symmes Creek WSA ................................................................................................................... 8,400 0 0 

Trona Pinnacles ........................................................................................................................... 4,100 4,100 4,100 

Turtle Mountains .......................................................................................................................... 50,400 0 0 

Upper Johnson Valley Yucca Rings ............................................................................................ 330 330 330 

Upper McCoy ............................................................................................................................... 37,400 37,400 37,400 

Warm Sulfur Springs ................................................................................................................... 350 350 350 

West Mesa ................................................................................................................................... 82,500 18,700 82,500 

West Paradise ............................................................................................................................. 240 0 0 

Western Rand Mountains ............................................................................................................ 30,400 30,400 30,400 

Whipple Mountains ...................................................................................................................... 2,800 2,100 2,100 

White Mountain City .................................................................................................................... 820 820 820 

White Mountains WSA ................................................................................................................. 1,600 0 0 

Whitewater Canyon ..................................................................................................................... 14,900 2,800 2,800 

Yuha Basin .................................................................................................................................. 77,300 73,600 73,600 

A more detailed description of all 

proposed ACEC modifications, 

including maps, is included in the Draft 

LUPA/EIS and Appendix B of the Draft 

LUPA/EIS. 

The BLM will utilize and coordinate 

the NEPA process to help fulfill the 

public involvement process under the 

National Historic Preservation Act (54 

U.S.C. 306108), as provided in 36 CFR 

800.2(d)(3). The BLM will continue to 

consult with Indian tribes on a 

government-to-government basis, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13175 

and other policies. Tribal concerns, 

including impacts on Indian trust assets 

and potential impacts to cultural 

resources, will continue to be given due 

consideration. Federal, State, and local 

agencies, along with tribes and other 

stakeholders that may be interested in or 

affected by the proposed action that the 

BLM is evaluating, are invited to 

participate in the comment period. 

Please note that public comments and 

information submitted, including 

names, street addresses, and email 

addresses of persons who submit 

comments, will be available for public 

review and disclosure at the BLM 

California State Office (see ADDRESSES) 

during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 

4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. 

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) 

Karen E. Mouritsen, 

State Director, California. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00579 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–40–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, Wyoming 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 3185 

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 Wyoming. 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 

Wyoming. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are 

available for public inspection at the 

Wyoming Bureau of Land Management 

State Office at 5353 Yellowstone Road, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009. Interested 

persons may also review the ROD on the 

internet at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/ 

eplanning-ui/project/103347/510. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jenny Marzluf, Wyoming Sage-Grouse 

Implementation Lead, at 307–775–6090; 

Wyoming Bureau of Land Management 

State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009; jmarzluf@

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 Ms. Marzluf 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 74380). With the 

issuance of this ROD, the BLM has now 

completed several planning and NEPA 

processes for Greater Sage-Grouse 

management in Wyoming 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 

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 

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 decadeVerDate Sep<11>2014 20:43 Jan 13, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\14JAN1.SGM 14JAN1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3186 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 

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 

Wyoming. 

(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.) 

Kimber Liebhauser, 

Acting BLM Wyoming State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00666 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, Oregon 

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 Oregon. 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. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are 

available for public inspection at the 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management 

State Office at 1220 SW 3rd Ave., 

Portland, Oregon 97204. Interested 

persons may also review the ROD on the 

internet at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/ 

eplanning-ui/project/103348/510. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Regan-Vienop, Planning and 

Environmental Coordinator, at 503– 

808–6062; 1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 

1305, Portland, OR, 97204; 

jreganvienop@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 Mr. Regan-Vienop 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 74381). With the 

issuance of this ROD, the BLM has now 

completed several planning and NEPA 

processes for Greater Sage-Grouse 

management in Oregon 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 

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 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES