Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 3177 

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. 

Abstract: The Department of the 

Interior (DOI) manages an estimated 73 

million museum objects and over 86 

million linear feet of archives in trust 

for the American public. This diverse 

collection consists of archaeological 

artifacts, archives, biological specimens, 

ethnographic objects, fine arts, 

geological specimens, historic objects, 

and paleontological specimens that are 

owned and managed by the 

Department’s bureaus and offices 

(bureaus). This information collection 

request is directed to non-Federal 

repositories that house DOI museum 

collections. The information that DOI 

obtains, on a voluntary basis, concerns 

DOI museum collections held in nonFederal repositories. Receipt of this 

information supports the Department’s 

management of its museum collections 

for public benefit, including 

preservation, protection, access, and 

use, as well as where applicable, 

compliance with the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA). 

The information that DOI seeks 

consists of the following: 

A. Accession Records and associated 

files regarding acquisition; 

B. Catalog Records and associated 

files describing the objects and their 

use; 

C. Facility Checklist for Spaces 

Housing DOI Museum Property 

(Checklist), which addresses the 

environmental, security and other 

management controls in place to 

document and safeguard the collections; 

D. Inventory of Museum Collections 

(Inventory) documenting presence and 

condition of objects and records; and 

E. Input on Collections from Lands 

Administered by the U.S. Department of 

the Interior that are Located in NonFederal Facilities (Input Form) to query 

a limited range information about the 

repository; the scope and types of DOI 

collections in repositories, with which 

bureaus and offices those collections are 

associated and the nature of any 

agreements; the status of documentation 

and NAGPRA compliance, and 

availability for research and use. 

Although the majority of DOI’s 

documented collections are housed in 

bureau facilities across the nation, at 

least ten percent (an estimated more 

than 25 million objects) are located in 

approximately 970 non-Federal 

repositories, primarily state, tribal, and 

local museums and university 

departments. Most of the DOI museum 

artifacts, specimens, and archives 

housed in non-Federal repositories 

resulted from projects on Federal lands, 

and include collections from the 

disciplines of archaeology, biology, 

geology, and paleontology, as well as 

associated project documentation. 

DOI museum objects cared for in nonFederal repositories are those artifacts, 

specimens, and archives that are 

established as Federal property under 

Federal law. Common law also confers 

rights to landowners, including the 

Federal government, such as ownership 

of property, resources, and other 

tangible assets existing on or originating 

from those lands, unless those rights 

were previously relinquished, sold, 

awarded, or otherwise reassigned. Also, 

permits and other agreements for the 

collection of artifacts and specimens 

from public lands managed at the time 

by the Department may further affirm 

Federal ownership. In order to maintain 

accountability of and facilitate access to 

DOI museum objects, the objects must 

be documented in the Interior 

Collection Management System (ICMS), 

its successor, the Museum Collection 

Management System (MCMS) or in 

another collection management database 

from which the necessary data can be 

imported into ICMS or MCMS. 

Federal regulations and DOI policy 

requires that all permitees conducting 

authorized scientific research and 

authorized individuals performing 

compliance activities on DOI-managed 

lands must ensure that any retained 

museum specimens or objects collected 

during a project are: (1) Accessioned 

and cataloged in ICMS/MCMS, 

according to DOI standards; and (2) 

housed in an appropriate museum 

repository that meets DOI museum 

standards. These requirements ensure 

the collections’ long-term preservation, 

protection, and accessibility for access 

and use. 

Title of Collection: Documenting, 

Managing and Preserving Department of 

the Interior Museum Collections Housed 

in Non-Federal Repositories. 

OMB Control Number: 1084–0034. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents/Affected Public: 

Museums; academic, cultural, and 

research institutions; and, state or local 

agencies and institutions. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Respondents: 900. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 900. 

Estimated Completion Time per 

Response: Varies from 1 hour to 12 

hours, depending on activity. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 3,600 hours. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Frequency of Collection: Maximum of 

once per year per collection instrument, 

and likely less frequently. 

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour 

Burden Cost: None. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

The authority for this action is the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Megan Olsen, 

Director, Office of Acquisition and Property 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00639 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4334–63–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, Nevada and 

Northeastern California 

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 Nevada and 

Northeastern California. 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 

Nevada and Northeastern California. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are 

available for public inspection at the 

Nevada Bureau of Land Management 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3178 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 

State Office at 1340 Financial 

Boulevard, Reno, Nevada 89502–7147 or 

the California Bureau of Land 

Management State Office at 2800 

Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 

95825. Interested persons may also 

review the ROD on the internet at: 

https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/ 

project/103343/510. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arlene Kosic, California Sage-Grouse 

Implementation Lead, at 530–279–2726; 

California Bureau of Land Management 

Applegate Field Office, 602 Cressler 

Street, Cedarville, California 96104; 

akosic@blm.gov; or Colleen Dulin, 

Acting Nevada Sage-Grouse 

Implementation Lead, at 775–430–3621; 

1340 Financial Boulevard Reno, Nevada 

89502–7147; cdulin@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. Kosic or Ms. Dulin 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 Nevada and 

Northeastern California 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 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 3179 

for Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation in 

Nevada and Northeastern California. 

(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.) 

Jon K. Raby, 

BLM Nevada State Director. 

Karen E. Mouritsen, 

BLM California State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00663 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, Colorado 

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 Colorado. 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 

Colorado. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are 

available for public inspection at the 

Colorado Bureau of Land Management 

State Office at 2850 Youngfield Street, 

Lakewood, Colorado 80215. Interested 

persons may also review the ROD on the 

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

eplanning-ui/project/105596/510. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leah Waldner, Colorado Sage-Grouse 

Coordinator, at 970–244–3045; Colorado 

Grand Junction Field Office, 2815 H Rd., 

Grand Junction, CO 81506; lwaldner@

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. Waldner 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 74378). With the 

issuance of this ROD, the BLM has now 

completed several planning and NEPA 

processes for Greater Sage-Grouse 

management in Colorado 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES