U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR  BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT  
ePlanning Gunnison Sage-Grouse RMP Amendments and EIS  
> Land Use Planning Register > Gunnison Sage-Grouse RMP Amendments and EIS > How to get Involved
  
Find Whole Words Only
Home
Documents & Reports
Contact Information
Timeline
Issues
News
How to get Involved
    Meetings
Maps
    Data
Links
FAQs
Last Updated:
01/20/2017 00:49:56 MST
How to get Involved 

Draft Review & Comment Period - Closed January 9, 2017

The BLM published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on August 12, 2016 announcing the opening of a public comment period for the Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS (Draft) that ran through January 9, 2017.  The BLM appreciates the public comments received during this phase, which will help the BLM refine management prescriptions during preparation of the Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS.
 
 
 
How Public Comments Were Accepted
 
The BLM's preferred method for receiving public comments was through Comment Works, available through a link on the Documents & Reports page of this site.  Comments were also accepted by email, fax, and U.S. mail.


Draft RMP Amendment/Draft EIS

The Draft details the BLM’s analysis of four possible alternatives for conserving and promoting the recovery of the Gunnison Sage-Grouse on BLM surface and split-estate lands.

•   Executive Summary – Provides an overview of the key topics covered in the EIS.

•   Chapter 1, Introduction – This chapter outlines the BLM’s purpose and need for undertaking this RMP Amendment and describes the planning area, as well as some of the plan parameters.

•   Chapter 2, Alternatives – This chapter describes the four alternatives in detail, including goals, objectives, actions, and restrictions identified for specific resources and resource uses.

Table 2.6 describes current BLM management under No Action Alternative A.  Management of resources and resource uses is broken out by the existing land use plans governing the seven BLM field offices, three national conservation areas, and one national monument in the planning area.
Table 2.7 describes the action alternatives B, C, and BLM-preferred Alternative D (consisting of sub-alternatives D1 and D2).  Each alternative is structured to provide a contrasting level of conservation focus.

•   Chapter 3, Affected Environment – This chapter details the resources and resource uses impacted by the issues addressed in the EIS.

•   Chapter 4, Impact Analysis – This chapter provides an analysis of the potential impacts to the public, BLM decision-makers, resources, and resource uses resulting from the implementation of each of the alternatives.

•   Chapter 5, Consultation and coordination – This chapter details the public outreach and participation opportunities to date, as well as consultation and coordination efforts with tribes, stakeholders, and other government agencies.

•   Appendices – The appendices consist of population maps, the ACEC proposal analysis, draft best management practices, the draft mitigation plan, and other key supporting information.  The appendices are followed by a glossary and references.

Providing Constructive Comments

Substantive comments (rather than broad statements) are most effective.  Substantive comments focus on specific issues pertaining to the Draft and aid in refining information and language.

For example, substantive comments might:
•    Present additional information or data sources pertaining to draft information or proposed management.
•    Help to clarify or further refine the range of alternatives.
•    Recommend a specific modification to a proposed management action.
•    Identify and substantiate a specific concern related to a proposed resource use or restriction.
 
Avoid submitting comments that:
•    Identify additional planning criteria or alternatives not offered during the scoping period.
•    Provide broad opinion favoring or opposing proposed management with no supporting data.
•    Are presented as vague open-ended questions rather than clear statements.
•    Do not pertain to conservation measures affecting the Gunnison Sage-Grouse or its habitat.
•    Do not pertain to the planning area (in southwest Colorado and southeast Utah).
•    Reference data, but lack a citation with supporting or corrective data.

As you construct your comments, consider:
•    How the BLM would incorporate these recommendations into the Gunnison Sage-Grouse RMP Amendment/EIS.
•    How incorporating this comment would affect the Gunnison Sage-Grouse and its habitat, as well as other land uses in Colorado and Utah.