[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58749-58751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY. 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: https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/filing-a-plan-protest and at 43 CFR 
1610.5-2. All protests must be submitted in writing by one of the 
following methods--
    Website: https://go.usa.gov/xzXxY; 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 [email protected]. 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:

 Eastern Colorado RMP for the Royal Gorge Field Office (2024)
 San Luis Resource Area RMP (1991)
 Gunnison Resource Area RMP (1993)
 Uncompahgre Field Office RMP (2020)
 Colorado River Valley Field Office RMP (2015) and Roan Plateau 
Amendment (2016)
 Grand Junction Field Office RMP (2015)
 Kremmling RMP (2015)
 Little Snake RMP (2011)
 White River Field Office RMP (1997)
 Tres Rios Field Office RMP (2015)
 Canyons of the Ancients National Monument RMP (2010)
 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: https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/public-participation/protest-resolution-reports. 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