The March 15, 2024, Federal Register carried a notice that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had prepared a Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Greater Sage Grouse range wide.
This notice included a 60-day comment period for proposed to designate Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) that were embedded in their proposal and a 90-day comment period for the Draft RMPA/EIS. The deadline for the ACEC comments is May 14, 2024, and the 90-day deadline will be June 15 or 15-days after the last public meeting (whichever is later).
Should the proposal go forward as crafted 77 BLM land use plans would be amended in a single swoop, impacting 10 Western States.
In conducting the obligatory National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, BLM has provided six alternatives for analysis and for the public to offer their comments. In brief, the Alternatives cover:
Alternative 1: BLM would re-adopt the applicable Greater Sage Grouse habitat management area boundaries, goals, objectives, and actions that they offered in their 2015 Records of Decision. This proposal got shut down by a court injunction and brought about the adoption of the 2019 version. This option would allow the agency to return to their management of Sagebrush Focal Areas with the recommendation of using this designation to withdraw mineral location and entry under the Mining Law of 1872. It would also allow for prioritization of other activities to vegetative treatments like livestock grazing and wild horses & burros.
Alternative 2: This is suggested to be the agency’s “No-Action” Alternative, operating under the applicable decisions from the 2019 Record of Decision (except for areas in the Montana/Dakotas). It is being considered as the “No-Action” Alternative because it reflects management currently in BLM’s Resource Management Areas. This option also most closely follows the Sage Grouse plans that were developed by the states.
Alternative 3: In their own words, this alternative “includes the most restrictive measures to protect and preserve Greater Sage Grouse and its habitat.” Armed with the ACEC’s (covering over 11 million acres) that the agency would like to include, this proposal would make all habitat management to the level of priority habitat management and exclude all multiple uses, including livestock grazing. It even suggests that BLM would pull all Wild Horses and Burros from the designated areas.
Alternative 4: This proposal updates the habitat management areas and associated management based on new information and science that has become available since the 2015 and 2019 versions of BLM’s top-down requirements. In Wyoming it dings new oil and gas leases and puts into place the potential of compensatory mitigation to be used in specific conditions. It would allow for more opportunities for consideration of local habitat characteristics when applying mitigation exceptions but still requires functional habitat prior to granting the exception. Lastly, this alternative would treat the previously identified Sage Grouse Focal Areas to be managed as Priority Habitat Management Areas with removal of the withdrawal from mineral entry recommendations and prioritization strategies.
Alternative 5: This proposal has been identified as BLM’s “preferred alternative.” State Sage Grouse management areas have been updated in this version of possible management. It is also considered to be the option with fewer restrictions and more flexibility, using higher degrees of compensatory mitigation to offset impacts on Sage
Grouse and their habitat. For wind, solar and major rights-of-ways projects (top priority BLM objectives) have less direct avoidance and provides more opportunities for considering compensatory mitigation to offset the impacts on the birds as well as their habitat.
Alternative 6: This alternative is proposed to be similar to Alternative 5 with the exception that it includes the addition of ACECs to follow the restrictions found in Alternative 3. Supposedly the ACEC scheme in Alternative 6 is going to seek less restrictions in comparison with the plans for Alternative 3.
ACEC Issues:
While the six alternatives have their own consequences for consideration, the proposal for using ACEC designations in conjunction with the agency’s management scheme provide reasons for serious points of concern. In the alternatives, Alternative 3 and Alternative 6 contemplate the use of ACECs to install “special management” practices. Alternative 3 is especially draconian in the way that they envision “special management” to exclude all multiple use from the designated areas. They even go so far as to suggest that total removal of Wild Horses and Burros would be included in the provisions of implementing ACECs. It is difficult to imagine that BLM would go so far to hold themselves accountable for managing Wild Horse numbers in the ACECs, but simply implying that this could be an option causes other multiple users to understand how disposable they are.
There is the possibility that ACEC designations might be stand-alone considerations, above and beyond the six alternatives.
With the release of the BLM’s “Conservation” Regulations on April 18th and the obvious obsession that those in charge of BLM today have for ACEC designation – it appears that ACECs are on the top of the list for any, and all things BLM wants to do. Amending Resource Management Plans is the main mechanism for slapping ACECs into place (there also appears to be additional ‘unofficial’ ways to bring about ACEC level management) and the main thrust of the proposed BLM Sage Grouse Plan is to amend Resource Management Plans.
Quoting directly from the Conservation Rules, “the rule clarifies and expands existing ACEC regulations to better support the BLM in carrying out FLPMA’s direction to give priority to the designation and protection of these important areas.”
Responding Through Your Comments:
It is important to participate in the process that has been provided for public comment, sharing your thoughts with the agency regarding their possible next steps. While conservation of Sage Grouse is an important priority, multiple use of federal lands is also important and should be an emphasis that BLM works to carry out. Given the recent rash of proposed actions and actual new rules/regulations the common theme is more about limiting and restricting multiple use, pursuing whatever options that are available to justify excluding multiple uses.
To offer your comments, you can use the website at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2016719/510
You can email your comments to: BLM_HQ_GRSG_Planning@blm.gov
Or, you can mail your comments to:
BLM Utah State Office
Attn: HQ GRSG RMPA
440 West 200 South #500
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
By Doug Busselman | NFB Executive Vice President