SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Greater Sage-Grouse is a state-managed species that is dependent on sagebrush steppe ecosystems. These ecosystems are managed in partnership across the range of the Greater Sage-Grouse by federal, state, and local authorities. Efforts to conserve the species and its habitat date back to the 1950s. Over the past two decades, state wildlife agencies, federal agencies, and many others in the range of the species have been collaborating to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitats. The United States Department of the Interior (DOI) and the BLM have broad responsibilities to manage federal lands and resources for the public benefit. Nearly half of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat is managed by the BLM. The BLM is committed to being a good neighbor and investing in on-the-ground conservation activities through close collaboration with State governments, local communities, private landowners, and other stakeholders.

In September 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that the Greater Sage-Grouse did not warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The USFWS based its “not warranted” determination, in part, on the conservation commitments and management actions in the BLM ( printed page 19809) and U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) Greater Sage-Grouse land use plan amendments and revisions (2015 GRSG land use plan decisions), as well as on other private, state, and federal conservation efforts. Since 2015 the BLM, in discussion with partners, primarily Governors and state wildlife management agencies, recognized that several refinements and policy updates could help strengthen conservation efforts, while providing increased economic opportunity to local communities. The BLM and Department of Interior worked closely with Governors charged with managing Greater Sage-Grouse to determine whether some, none, or all of the 2015 Land Use Plans should be amended. After carefully considering the Governor's input, and using its discretion and authority under FLPMA, as well as under direction from the Secretary, including Secretary's Order (SO) 3353, the BLM proposes amending the Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse land use plans that address GRSG management. This action is proposed to enhance cooperation and improve alignment with the state plans or management strategies, in accordance with the BLM's multiple use and sustained yield mission. The BLM prepared the Colorado GRSG Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS to address alternatives that will build upon its commitment to conserve and restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, while improving collaboration and alignment with state management strategies for Greater Sage-Grouse. The BLM seeks to improve management alignment in ways that will increase management flexibility, maintain access to public resources, and promote conservation outcomes. The BLM used internal, agency, and public scoping to identify issues considered in the environmental analysis. As part of this analysis, the BLM also examined the range of alternatives evaluated in the BLM's 2015 GRSG land use plan decisions and their supporting NEPA analyses. This Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS is one of six separate planning efforts that are being undertaken in response to SO 3353, Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation and Cooperation with Western States (June 7, 2017), and in accordance with SO 3349, American Energy Independence (March 29, 2017). The Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS proposes to amend the RMPs for field offices on BLM lands within BLM Colorado boundaries. In addition to the 2015 Northwest Colorado GRSG Approved RMP Amendment, current management decisions for resources are described in the following RMPs:

• Colorado River Valley RMP (2015)
• Kremmling RMP (2015)
• Grand Junction RMP (2015)
• Little Snake RMP (2011)
• White River RMP (1997)

The planning area includes approximately 4,153,000 acres of BLM, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, State, local, and private lands located in Colorado, in 10 counties: Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Jackson, Larimer, Mesa, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt and Summit. Within the decision area, the BLM manages approximately 1,731,400 acres of GRSG habitat. Surface management decisions made as a result of this Draft RMP Amendment/EIS will apply only to BLM-administered lands in the decision area.

The formal public scoping process for the Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS began on October 11, 2017, with the publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (82 FR 47248), and ended on December 1, 2017. A public scoping meeting was held in Craig, Colorado, on November 8, 2017.

The Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS addresses leasing availability within one mile from active leks, lek buffers, adjustments to habitat boundaries to reflect new information, and changes to waivers, exceptions and modification criteria. The Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS evaluate two alternatives in detail, including the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and one action alternative (Alternative B). Alternative B has been identified as BLM's Preferred Alternative for the purposes of public comment and review. Identification of this alternative, however, does not represent final agency direction, and the Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS may reflect changes or adjustments from information received during public comment, from new information, or from changes in BLM policies or priorities. The Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS may include objectives and actions described in the other analyzed alternative as well. Alternative A would retain the current management goals, objectives, and direction specified in the current RMPs for each field office.

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 address provided in the ADDRESSES section of this notice during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 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 and 43 CFR 1610.2