Notice of Availability of Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, 26557-26558 [E6-6774]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 2006 / Notices • Email: ksp_comments@blm.gov. • Mail: Bureau of Land Management, Central Yukon Field Office, ATTN: Kobuk-Seward Peninsula RMP, 1150 University Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99709 comments will become a matter of public record. Dated: April 28, 2006. Ted R. Hudson, Bureau of Land Management, Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 06–4258 Filed 5–4–06; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: BILLING CODE 4310–84–M Jeanie Cole, (907) 474–2340, jeanie_cole@ak.blm.gov or in writing to the address listed above. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS) covers approximately 13.1 million acres of BLM-managed land in northwestern Alaska. The Northwest Management Framework Plan (MFP), a land use plan that guides current management of the area, was completed in 1982. BLM published a Notice of Intent to prepare an RMP/EIS in the Federal Register on January 30, 2004. A 90-day formal scoping period began with the publication of that notice. Public meetings were held in nine communities, and the following primary management concerns were identified: (1) How should recreation be managed to provide and maintain a diversity of experiences on BLM-managed lands while protecting subsistence resources and opportunity, and what level of commercial recreational use is appropriate; (2) how should access trails and roads for the use of OHVs for various purposes, including recreation, commercial use, subsistence, and casual use, be managed while protecting natural and cultural resources; (3) what areas, if any, should be made available for mineral exploration and development; and (4) what areas, if any, should be recommended for special designations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bureau of Land Management [AK–025–05–1610–DP–089L] Notice of Availability of Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. AGENCY: SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Resource Management Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/ EIS) for the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area. DATES: Written comments on the Draft RMP/EIS will be accepted until 90 calendar days after the date the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes its NOA in the Federal Register. The BLM will announce future meetings or hearings and any other public involvement activities at least 15 days in advance through public notices, media news releases, and/or mailings. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by the following methods: 26557 This draft RMP/EIS presents four alternatives to address the issues identified in scoping: a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), an Alternative that emphasizes resource development (Alternative B), one that emphasizes conservation (Alternative C), and the agency Preferred Alternative (Alternative D), which has elements of B and C. The No Action Alternative would continue existing management. Alternative B would emphasize resource development. Under this alternative, the entire planning area would be open to a variety of land and resource uses. Alternative C would emphasize conservation of natural resources. Under this alternative, some resource uses or activities be excluded over large areas. The Preferred Alternative calls for a balance between development and the conservation of sensitive resources; some resource uses or activities would be excluded in limited areas. The lifting of existing withdrawals may be accomplished through actions approved by the Secretary. As required by section 204(c)(2) of FLPMA, however, withdrawals of areas greater than 5,000 acres in size require the approval of Congress. As required by 43 CFR 1610.7–2, areas with potential for designation as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and protective management have been considered during the planning process. Several potential areas are considered for designation in two alternatives. Boundaries, size, and management direction within potential ACECs vary by alternative. The following tables illustrate the names and acreages of each area and provide summary descriptions of resource use limitations for Alternatives C and D. TABLE 1.—PROPOSED ACECS UNDER ALTERNATIVE C Acreage Resource use limitations Nulato Hills ...................................... 2 million ......................................... Western Arctic Caribou Herd calving and insect relief ACEC. Kigluaik ACEC ................................. 2.9 million ...................................... Closed to locatable and leasable mineral entry; Limited OHV designation, ROW avoidance area, Retain in Federal ownership, Closed to grazing, FLPMA and Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act leases not allowed. Same as Nulato Hills. McCarthy’s Marsh ........................... cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Name of area 131,000 .......................................... Kuzitrin River ................................... 141,000 .......................................... VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:48 May 04, 2006 298,000 .......................................... Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Same as Nulato Hills, plus: Communication site rights-of-way (ROW) limited to existing sites; Level of commercial recreational use may be limited; Closed to mineral material disposal. Same as Nulato Hills, plus: Closed to mineral material disposal; Level of commercial recreational use may be limited. Same as Nulato Hills. Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM 05MYN1 26558 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 2006 / Notices TABLE 2.—ACECS AND RNAS PROPOSED UNDER ALTERNATIVE D (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) Name of area Acreage Resource use limitations Nulato Hills ACEC ........................... 1.1 million ...................................... Western Arctic Caribou Herd calving and insect relief ACEC. Inglutalik Watershed ACEC ............ 2.9 million ...................................... Ungalik Watershed ACEC ............... 264,000 .......................................... Shaktoolik Watershed ACEC .......... Mount Osborn RNA ......................... 234,000 .......................................... 84,000 ............................................ Limited OHV designation; Retained in Federal ownership; Closed to grazing outside of existing allotments; ROW avoidance area; FLPMA and R&PP leases not allowed; Open to fluid mineral leasing subject to minor constraints. Same as Nulato Hills except it would not be designated as a ROW avoidance area. Same as Nulato Hills except there would be a 300-foot no surface occupancy setback for leasable minerals on the mainstem river and it would not be a ROW avoidance area. Same as the Inglutalik Watershed ACEC with the addition of: A 300foot setback on the Ungalik River would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. Same as the Inglutalik Watershed ACEC. Same as Nulato Hills except: It would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry; Communication site ROWs would be limited to existing sites; the level of commercial recreational use may be limited; and it would be open to grazing. 466,000 .......................................... Final acreage for areas designated as ACECs would also depend on the result of land conveyance to the State of Alaska and Native Corporations. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety. Copies of the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (paper or compact disc) are available in the Fairbanks District Office at the above address; the Kotzebue Field Station, P.O. Box 1049, Kotzebue, AK 99752; the Nome Field Station, P.O. Box 925, Nome, AK 99762; the Anchorage Field Office, 6881 Abbott Loop Road, Anchorage, AK 99507; and the Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99513. The document will also be available online and may be viewed at: http://www.ak.blm.gov/ksp. Henri R. Bisson, State Director. [FR Doc. E6–6774 Filed 5–4–06; 8:45 am] cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES BILLING CODE 4310–JA–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:48 May 04, 2006 Jkt 208001 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Natural Gas Field proceeds for the life of the field. Bureau of Land Management Dated: April 28, 2006. Dennis Stenger, Field Office Manager. [FR Doc. E6–6792 Filed 5–4–06; 8:45 am] [WY–100–06–1310–DB] Notice of Meeting of the Pinedale Anticline Working Group Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Emergency cancelation of public meeting. BILLING CODE 4310–22–P AGENCY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (1972), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) was planned to meet in Pinedale, Wyoming, for a business meeting. Due to lack of PAWG member availability, this meeting has been cancelled. DATES: The PAWG will not meet May 16, 2005. A PAWG tour has been scheduled for June 20. This tour is open to the public, but there is limited seating. Please RSVP with Matt Anderson (contact information below). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Anderson, BLM/PAWG Liaison, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, 432 E. Mills St., P.O. Box 738, Pinedale, WY 82941; 307–367–5328. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG) was authorized and established with release of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project on July 27, 2000. The PAWG advises the BLM on the development and implementation of monitoring plans and adaptive management decisions as development of the Pinedale Anticline SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [NM–920–1310–06; NMNM 105214] Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease NMNM 105214 Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2–3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease NMNM 105214 from the lessee, CHI Energy, Inc., for lands in Eddy County, New Mexico. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernadine T. Martinez, BLM, New Mexico State Office, at (505) 438–7530. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: No lease has been issued that affect the lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year, and 162⁄3 percent, respectively. The lessee paid the required $500.00 administrative fee for the reinstatement of the lease and $166.00 cost for publishing this Notice in the Federal Register. The lessee met E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM 05MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26557-26558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6774]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AK-025-05-1610-DP-089L]


Notice of Availability of Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft Resource 
Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Resource Management Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS) for the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula 
Planning Area.

DATES: Written comments on the Draft RMP/EIS will be accepted until 90 
calendar days after the date the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
publishes its NOA in the Federal Register. The BLM will announce future 
meetings or hearings and any other public involvement activities at 
least 15 days in advance through public notices, media news releases, 
and/or mailings.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by the following methods:
     Email: ksp_comments@blm.gov.
     Mail: Bureau of Land Management, Central Yukon Field 
Office, ATTN: Kobuk-Seward Peninsula RMP, 1150 University Avenue, 
Fairbanks, AK 99709

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanie Cole, (907) 474-2340, jeanie_
cole@ak.blm.gov or in writing to the address listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft Resource 
Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS) covers 
approximately 13.1 million acres of BLM-managed land in northwestern 
Alaska. The Northwest Management Framework Plan (MFP), a land use plan 
that guides current management of the area, was completed in 1982. BLM 
published a Notice of Intent to prepare an RMP/EIS in the Federal 
Register on January 30, 2004. A 90-day formal scoping period began with 
the publication of that notice. Public meetings were held in nine 
communities, and the following primary management concerns were 
identified: (1) How should recreation be managed to provide and 
maintain a diversity of experiences on BLM-managed lands while 
protecting subsistence resources and opportunity, and what level of 
commercial recreational use is appropriate; (2) how should access 
trails and roads for the use of OHVs for various purposes, including 
recreation, commercial use, subsistence, and casual use, be managed 
while protecting natural and cultural resources; (3) what areas, if 
any, should be made available for mineral exploration and development; 
and (4) what areas, if any, should be recommended for special 
designations.
    This draft RMP/EIS presents four alternatives to address the issues 
identified in scoping: a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), an 
Alternative that emphasizes resource development (Alternative B), one 
that emphasizes conservation (Alternative C), and the agency Preferred 
Alternative (Alternative D), which has elements of B and C. The No 
Action Alternative would continue existing management. Alternative B 
would emphasize resource development. Under this alternative, the 
entire planning area would be open to a variety of land and resource 
uses. Alternative C would emphasize conservation of natural resources. 
Under this alternative, some resource uses or activities be excluded 
over large areas. The Preferred Alternative calls for a balance between 
development and the conservation of sensitive resources; some resource 
uses or activities would be excluded in limited areas. The lifting of 
existing withdrawals may be accomplished through actions approved by 
the Secretary. As required by section 204(c)(2) of FLPMA, however, 
withdrawals of areas greater than 5,000 acres in size require the 
approval of Congress.
    As required by 43 CFR 1610.7-2, areas with potential for 
designation as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and 
protective management have been considered during the planning process. 
Several potential areas are considered for designation in two 
alternatives. Boundaries, size, and management direction within 
potential ACECs vary by alternative. The following tables illustrate 
the names and acreages of each area and provide summary descriptions of 
resource use limitations for Alternatives C and D.

              Table 1.--Proposed ACECs Under Alternative C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Resource use
         Name of area                Acreage            limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nulato Hills..................  2 million........  Closed to locatable
                                                    and leasable mineral
                                                    entry; Limited OHV
                                                    designation, ROW
                                                    avoidance area,
                                                    Retain in Federal
                                                    ownership, Closed to
                                                    grazing, FLPMA and
                                                    Recreation and
                                                    Public Purposes
                                                    (R&PP) Act leases
                                                    not allowed.
Western Arctic Caribou Herd     2.9 million......  Same as Nulato Hills.
 calving and insect relief
 ACEC.
Kigluaik ACEC.................  298,000..........  Same as Nulato Hills,
                                                    plus:
                                                   Communication site
                                                    rights-of-way (ROW)
                                                    limited to existing
                                                    sites; Level of
                                                    commercial
                                                    recreational use may
                                                    be limited; Closed
                                                    to mineral material
                                                    disposal.
McCarthy's Marsh..............  131,000..........  Same as Nulato Hills,
                                                    plus:
                                                   Closed to mineral
                                                    material disposal;
                                                    Level of commercial
                                                    recreational use may
                                                    be limited.
Kuzitrin River................  141,000..........  Same as Nulato Hills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 26558]]


    Table 2.--ACECs and RNAs Proposed Under Alternative D (Preferred
                              Alternative)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Resource use
         Name of area                Acreage            limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nulato Hills ACEC.............  1.1 million......  Limited OHV
                                                    designation;
                                                    Retained in Federal
                                                    ownership; Closed to
                                                    grazing outside of
                                                    existing allotments;
                                                    ROW avoidance area;
                                                    FLPMA and R&PP
                                                    leases not allowed;
                                                    Open to fluid
                                                    mineral leasing
                                                    subject to minor
                                                    constraints.
Western Arctic Caribou Herd     2.9 million......  Same as Nulato Hills
 calving and insect relief                          except it would not
 ACEC.                                              be designated as a
                                                    ROW avoidance area.
Inglutalik Watershed ACEC.....  466,000..........  Same as Nulato Hills
                                                    except there would
                                                    be a 300-foot no
                                                    surface occupancy
                                                    setback for leasable
                                                    minerals on the
                                                    mainstem river and
                                                    it would not be a
                                                    ROW avoidance area.
Ungalik Watershed ACEC........  264,000..........  Same as the
                                                    Inglutalik Watershed
                                                    ACEC with the
                                                    addition of: A 300-
                                                    foot setback on the
                                                    Ungalik River would
                                                    be withdrawn from
                                                    locatable mineral
                                                    entry.
Shaktoolik Watershed ACEC.....  234,000..........  Same as the
                                                    Inglutalik Watershed
                                                    ACEC.
Mount Osborn RNA..............  84,000...........  Same as Nulato Hills
                                                    except: It would be
                                                    withdrawn from
                                                    locatable mineral
                                                    entry; Communication
                                                    site ROWs would be
                                                    limited to existing
                                                    sites; the level of
                                                    commercial
                                                    recreational use may
                                                    be limited; and it
                                                    would be open to
                                                    grazing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Final acreage for areas designated as ACECs would also depend on 
the result of land conveyance to the State of Alaska and Native 
Corporations.
    Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to 
withhold your name or street address from public review or from 
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this 
prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests 
will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from 
organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying 
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or 
businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety. 
Copies of the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (paper or compact 
disc) are available in the Fairbanks District Office at the above 
address; the Kotzebue Field Station, P.O. Box 1049, Kotzebue, AK 99752; 
the Nome Field Station, P.O. Box 925, Nome, AK 99762; the Anchorage 
Field Office, 6881 Abbott Loop Road, Anchorage, AK 99507; and the 
Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99513. The 
document will also be available online and may be viewed at: http://
www.ak.blm.gov/ksp.

Henri R. Bisson,
State Director.
 [FR Doc. E6-6774 Filed 5-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P