Notice of Availability of the Draft Jarbidge Field Office Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Idaho, 54177-54179 [2010-21956]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLNVB00000 L51010000.ER0000
LVRWF0900380 241A; 10–08807;
MO#4500014355; TAS: 14X5017]
Notice of Availability of Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Tonopah Solar Energy Crescent
Dunes Solar Energy Project, Nye
County, NV
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA), the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) has prepared
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the Crescent Dunes Solar
Energy Project, Nye County, Nevada,
and by this Notice is announcing the
opening of the comment period.
DATES: To ensure comments will be
considered, the BLM must receive
written comments on the Crescent
Dunes Solar Energy Project Draft EIS
within 45 days following the date the
Environmental Protection Agency
publishes its Notice of Availability 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
on the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy
Project Draft EIS by any of the following
methods:
• E-mail: crescent_dunes@blm.gov.
• Fax: 775–482–7810.
• Mail: Timothy Coward, Renewable
Energy Project Manager, BLM Tonopah
Field Office, P.O. Box 911, Tonopah,
Nevada 89049.
Copies of the Draft EIS for the
Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project are
available at the BLM Tonopah Field
Office and at the Battle Mountain
District Office, 50 Bastian Road, Battle
Mountain, Nevada, or at the following
Web site: https://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/
fo/battle_mountain_field.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Timothy Coward, (775) 482–7800, BLM
Tonopah Field Office, 1553 South Main
Street, P.O. Box 911, Tonopah, Nevada
89049; Timothy_Coward@blm.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tonopah
Solar Energy, LLC applied to the BLM
for a 7,680-acre right-of-way (ROW) on
public lands to construct a concentrated
solar thermal power plant facility
approximately 13 miles northwest of
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:33 Sep 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Tonopah, Nye County, Nevada. The
proposed project is not expected to use
the total acres applied for in the ROW
application. The project is located
within the southern portion of the Big
Smoky Valley, north of U.S. Highway
95/6 along the Gabbs Pole Line Road
(State Highway 89). The facility is
expected to operate for approximately
30 years. The proposed solar power
project would use concentrated solar
power technology, using heliostats or
mirrors to focus sunlight on a receiver
erected in the center of the solar field
(the power tower or central receiver). A
heat transfer fluid is heated as it passes
through the receiver and is then
circulated through a series of heat
exchangers to generate high-pressure
steam. The steam is used to power a
conventional Rankine cycle steam
turbine, which produces electricity. The
exhaust steam from the turbine is
condensed and returned via feedwater
pumps to the heat exchangers where
steam is regenerated. Hybrid cooling
processes would be used for this project
to minimize water use while continuing
to maintain efficient power generation.
The plant design would generate a
nominal capacity of 100 megawatts.
The project’s proposed facility design
includes the heliostat fields, a 653-foot
central receiver tower, a power block,
buildings, a parking area, a laydown
area, evaporating ponds, and an access
road. A single overhead 230-kilovolt
transmission line would connect the
plant to the nearby Anaconda Moly
substation.
The Draft EIS describes and analyzes
the proposed project’s site-specific
impacts on air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, water
resources, geological resources,
hazardous materials handling, land use,
noise, paleontological resources, public
health, socioeconomics, soils, traffic and
transportation, visual resources,
wilderness characteristics, waste
management, worker safety, and fire
protection. The Draft EIS also describes
facility design engineering, efficiency,
reliability, transmission system
engineering, and transmission line
safety.
Three action alternatives were
analyzed in addition to the No Action
alternative: the Proposed Action
Alternative, Alternative 1, and
Alternative 2. Alternative 2 is the BLM
preferred alternative.
Scoping of the project occurred from
November 24, 2009 through December
24, 2009. A total of 24 comments were
received. Comments on cumulative
impacts identified the affects to air
quality to include criteria pollutant and
‘‘Dark Sky’’ attributes on the effects of
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54177
the viewshed, and the availability of
water for current and future use. Other
comments were that the proposed
project is located in an area of pediment
adjacent to 2 highly mineralized
mountain ranges which have identified
molybdenum and lithium deposits.
Maps of the proposed project area and
the alternatives being analyzed in the
Draft EIS are available at the BLM
Tonopah Field Office, the Battle
Mountain District Office, and at:
https://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/
battle_mountain_field.html.
Please note that public comments and
information submitted, including
names, street addresses, and e-mail
addresses of persons who submit
comments, will be available for public
review and disclosure at the above
address during regular business hours (8
a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday,
except holidays. Before including your
address, phone number, e-mail 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 and 1506.10.
Thomas J. Seley,
Manager, Tonopah Field Office.
[FR Doc. 2010–21958 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLIDT01000.L16100000.DP0000.
LXSS081D0000]
Notice of Availability of the Draft
Jarbidge Field Office Resource
Management Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement, Idaho
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
prepared a Draft Resource Management
Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the Jarbidge
Field Office planning area and by this
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM
03SEN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
54178
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices
notice is announcing the opening of the
comment period.
DATES: To ensure that comments will be
considered, the BLM must receive
written comments on the Draft RMP/
Draft EIS within 90 days following the
date the Environmental Protection
Agency publishes its notice of the
availability of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS
in the Federal Register. The BLM will
announce future meetings or hearings
and any other public participation
activities at least 15 days in advance
through public notices, media releases,
and/or mailings.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• E-mail: ID_Jarbidge_RMP@blm.gov.
• Fax: (208) 736–2375, Attention:
Jarbidge Planning Team.
• Mail: Jarbidge Planning Team, BLM
Jarbidge Field Office, 2536 Kimberly
Road, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301.
Copies of the Jarbidge Draft RMP/
Draft EIS are available in the Jarbidge
Field Office at the above address or at
the following Web site: https://
www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/planning/
jarbidge_resource.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Vander Voet, Jarbidge Field
Manager, or Aimee Betts, Jarbidge RMP
Project Manager, telephone (208) 736–
2350; address Jarbidge Field Office,
2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho
83301.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft
RMP/Draft EIS addresses public land
and resources managed by the Jarbidge
Field Office in parts of Elmore, Owyhee,
and Twin Falls Counties in southcentral Idaho and Elko County in
northern Nevada. These lands and
resources are currently managed under
the 1987 Jarbidge RMP, as amended.
The planning area extends from the
Bruneau River on the west to Salmon
Falls Creek on the east, and from the
Snake River on the north to the northern
boundaries of the BLM Elko Field Office
and the Humboldt-Toiyabe National
Forest on the south. Although these
counties have a combined population of
approximately 160,000, Indian Cove,
Murphy Hot Springs, Three Creek, and
Roseworth are the only communities in
the planning area. All have populations
of less than 100 people. The majority of
the planning area supports sagebrush
steppe and seeded grasslands.
The Jarbidge RMP addresses
management on approximately 1.4
million acres of public land and 1.6
million acres of Federal mineral estate
in the Jarbidge Field Office. Planning
decisions in the RMP will only apply to
the BLM-administered public lands and
mineral estate in the planning area. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:33 Sep 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Draft RMP/Draft EIS has been developed
with broad public participation through
a collaborative planning process in
accordance with FLPMA and NEPA. Its
purpose is to provide appropriate
management direction for the Twin
Falls District, Jarbidge Field Office that
responds to the 2001 Land Use Plan
Evaluation Report for the 1987 Jarbidge
RMP, new information, changes in
resource condition and user demands,
and complies with a Stipulated
Settlement Agreement
(WesternWatersheds Project v. K Lynn
Bennett, CV–04–181–S–BLW, under the
jurisdiction of the United States District
Court for the District of Idaho), while
maintaining consistency with FLPMA.
The Draft RMP/Draft EIS includes a
series of management actions, within six
management alternatives, designed to
achieve or maintain desired future
conditions that have been defined
through the planning process for various
concerns including, but not limited to:
vegetation, livestock grazing, recreation,
energy development, and Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).
• The No Action Alternative
represents continuation of existing
management under current management
goals, objectives, and direction specified
in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP, as amended.
• Alternative I focuses on enhancing
and sustaining existing and historic uses
of the planning area.
• Alternative II focuses on increasing
commercial uses throughout the
planning area.
• Alternative III focuses on restoring
the resiliency of ecosystem structure
and function through intensive
management of fuels and enhanced fire
suppression capabilities throughout the
planning area.
• Alternative IV focuses on actively
restoring the resiliency of ecosystem
structure and function through
restoration projects and managing uses.
Alternative IV has two sub-alternatives
(Alternative IV–A and Alternative IV–B)
that differ in the size of two proposed
ACECs. Alternative IV–B is the
Preferred Alternative.
• Alternative V focuses on the
restoration of habitats toward historic
vegetation communities.
The Preferred Alternative has been
identified as described in 40 CFR
1502.14(e). However, identification of
this alternative does not represent final
agency direction, and the Proposed RMP
may reflect changes or adjustments
based on information received during
public comment, new information, or
changes in BLM policies or priorities.
The Proposed RMP may include
objectives and actions described as
portions of other analyzed alternatives.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
For this reason, the BLM invites and
encourages comments on all objectives
and actions described in the Draft RMP/
Draft EIS.
Among the special designations under
consideration within the range of
alternatives, ACECs are proposed to
protect certain resource values. There
are three existing ACECs: BruneauJarbidge, Salmon Falls Creek, and Sand
Point; these ACEC designations would
be carried forward in some alternatives,
sometimes with changes in acreage.
Pertinent information regarding all
proposed ACECs in the Preferred
Alternative, including values, resource
use limitations, and acreages are
summarized below. Further information
is available at the following Web site:
https://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/
planning/jarbidge_resource.html.
Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC (123,000 acres)
• Relevant and Important Values:
Botanical, Cultural, Fish, Scenic,
Wildlife.
• Limitations on the Following Uses:
Livestock Grazing, Land Use
Authorizations, Mineral Development.
• Other Restrictions: Managed as
Visual Resource Management (VRM)
Class I.
Inside Desert ACEC (41,000 acres)
• Relevant and Important Values:
Botanical.
• Limitations on the Following Uses:
Livestock Grazing, Recreation, Land
Tenure Transactions, Mineral
Development.
• Other Restrictions: Locate staging
areas for fire suppression and
rehabilitation activities outside the
ACEC.
Jarbidge Foothills ACEC (66,000 acres)
• Relevant and Important Values:
Botanical, Cultural, Fish, Wildlife.
• Limitations on the Following Uses:
Livestock Grazing, Mineral
Development.
• Other Restrictions: Managed as
VRM Class I and II.
Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC (1,000
acres)
• Relevant and Important Values:
Aquatic, Botanical.
• Limitations on the Following Uses:
Land Tenure Transactions, Mineral
Development.
Sand Point ACEC (950 acres)
• Relevant and Important Values:
Cultural, Geologic, Historic,
Paleontological.
• Limitations on the Following Uses:
Livestock Grazing, Land Use
Authorizations, Mineral Development.
E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM
03SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices
• Other Restrictions: Closed to fossil
collection.
The following ACECs were proposed
in alternatives other than the Preferred
Alternative:
• Middle Snake ACEC for relevant
and important botanical and fish values.
• Sagebrush Sea ACEC for relevant
and important botanical, cultural, fish,
and wildlife values.
• Salmon Falls ACEC for relevant and
important botanical, fish, and scenic
values
In addition, ACECs in the preferred
alternative may also appear in other
alternatives with different acreages and
management prescriptions.
Please note that public comments and
information submitted including names,
street addresses, and e-mail addresses of
persons who submit comments will be
available for public review and
disclosure at the above address during
regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.),
Monday through Friday, except
holidays.
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail 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.
Following the public comment
period, public comments will be used to
prepare the Proposed Jarbidge RMP and
Final EIS. The BLM will respond to
each substantive comment by making
appropriate revisions to the document
or by explaining why a comment did
not warrant a change. A Notice of the
Availability of the Proposed RMP/Final
EIS will be posted in the Federal
Register.
Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6 and 1506.10; 43
CFR 1610.2.
Peter J. Ditton,
Acting Idaho State Director, Bureau of Land
Management.
[FR Doc. 2010–21956 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service Concession
Contracts; Implementation of
Alternative Valuation Formula for
Leasehold Surrender Interest Under
the Signal Mountain Lodge and Leek’s
Marina Proposed Concession
Contract, Grand Teton National Park
AGENCY:
National Park Service, Interior.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:33 Sep 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
ACTION:
Notice.
The National Park Service
(NPS), by notice in the Federal Register
dated February 1, 2010, invited public
comments on a proposed alternative
formula for the valuation of leasehold
surrender interest (LSI) to be included
in its proposed concession contract
GRTE003–11 for operation of the Signal
Mountain Lodge and Leeks Marina at
Grand Teton National Park (new
contract). LSI, established in 1998 by
the terms of Public Law 105–391 (1998
Act), is the compensable interest in
applicable real property improvements
on park area lands made by a
concessioner pursuant to the terms of a
NPS concession contract. Additional
public comment was sought by a May
26, 2010, Federal Register notice. NPS,
after consideration of the public
comments received in response to both
notices, has adopted a final LSI
alternative for the new contract.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo
Pendry, Chief Commercial Services
Program, 1201 Eye Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under
Section 405(a)(3) of the 1998 Act, the
standard formula for LSI value (standard
LSI formula) for applicable capital
improvements provided by a
concessioner under a NPS concession
contract is summarized as the initial
construction cost of the related capital
improvement, adjusted by the
percentage increase or decrease in the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the
date of the approval of the substantial
completion of the construction of the
related capital improvement to the date
of payment, less physical depreciation
of the related capital improvement.
However, Section 405(a)(4) of the
1998 Act, starting in 2009, authorizes
the inclusion of alternative LSI value
formulas in NPS concession contracts
estimated to have an LSI value in excess
of $10,000,000 (such as the new
contract).
Under this authority, NPS, in the
February 1, 2010, Federal Register
notice, proposed an alternative LSI
formula that in general called for the
straight-line depreciation of LSI value
on a 40-year basis. However, the
alternative also provided that the
installation (or replacement) of fixtures
would not result in increased LSI value.
Two public comments were received in
response to this notice.
By notice in the Federal Register
dated May 26, 2010, NPS sought
additional public comment on the
proposal. Two comments were received
in response to this notice.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54179
NPS, in consideration of the public
comments made in response to both
public notices, has re-examined the
financial and other circumstances of the
new contract and the proposed LSI
alternative. This re-examination led to
consideration and adoption of a final
LSI alternative. The final LSI alternative
continues the 40-year depreciation of
the LSI value of eligible capital
improvements but eliminates the
exclusion of additional LSI value for
new fixtures called for by the proposed
LSI alternative. This change addresses a
primary concern expressed by
commenters, the elimination of LSI
value in new fixtures. Under the final
LSI alternative, the LSI value of all
eligible capital improvements, including
new fixtures, will be depreciated on a
straight-line basis over a 40-year period.
In addition, the monthly depreciation
schedule called for by the proposed LSI
alternative has been changed to an
annual basis in the interest of
simplicity. The final LSI alternative for
the new contract is generally described
as follows:
(a) The reduction of the initial LSI
value under the new contract on an
annual straight-line depreciation basis
applying a 40-year recovery period
regardless of asset class.
(b) The reduction of the leasehold
surrender interest value in capital
improvements (as defined in the new
contract) constructed or installed during
the term of the new contract based on
straight line depreciation and also
applying a 40-year recovery period (on
an annual basis) with no asset class
distinctions.
Determinations
NPS has determined, after review of
the particular financial and other
circumstances of the new contract and
consideration of public comments, that
use of the final LSI alternative, in
comparison to the standard LSI formula,
is necessary in order to provide a fair
return to the Government and to foster
competition for the new contract by
providing a reasonable opportunity for
profit to the new concessioner. NPS also
considers that the final LSI alternative is
consistent with the objectives of the
1998 Act, particularly, as discussed
below, with respect to the fair return it
will provide to the Government and the
new concessioner and the enhanced
competition for the new contract that it
will foster. These determinations are
required by the 1998 Act with respect to
alternative LSI formulas that are not
based on the depreciation rules of the
Federal income tax laws and regulations
that were in effect in 1998. Although
this final LSI alternative is based on the
E:\FR\FM\03SEN1.SGM
03SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 171 (Friday, September 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54177-54179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21956]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLIDT01000.L16100000.DP0000.LXSS081D0000]
Notice of Availability of the Draft Jarbidge Field Office
Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Idaho
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
has prepared a Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Jarbidge Field Office
planning area and by this
[[Page 54178]]
notice is announcing the opening of the comment period.
DATES: To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive
written comments on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS within 90 days following
the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its notice of
the availability of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS in the Federal Register.
The BLM will announce future meetings or hearings and any other public
participation activities at least 15 days in advance through public
notices, media releases, and/or mailings.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
E-mail: ID_Jarbidge_RMP@blm.gov.
Fax: (208) 736-2375, Attention: Jarbidge Planning Team.
Mail: Jarbidge Planning Team, BLM Jarbidge Field Office,
2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301.
Copies of the Jarbidge Draft RMP/Draft EIS are available in the
Jarbidge Field Office at the above address or at the following Web
site: https://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/planning/jarbidge_resource.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Vander Voet, Jarbidge Field
Manager, or Aimee Betts, Jarbidge RMP Project Manager, telephone (208)
736-2350; address Jarbidge Field Office, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin
Falls, Idaho 83301.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft RMP/Draft EIS addresses public
land and resources managed by the Jarbidge Field Office in parts of
Elmore, Owyhee, and Twin Falls Counties in south-central Idaho and Elko
County in northern Nevada. These lands and resources are currently
managed under the 1987 Jarbidge RMP, as amended. The planning area
extends from the Bruneau River on the west to Salmon Falls Creek on the
east, and from the Snake River on the north to the northern boundaries
of the BLM Elko Field Office and the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
on the south. Although these counties have a combined population of
approximately 160,000, Indian Cove, Murphy Hot Springs, Three Creek,
and Roseworth are the only communities in the planning area. All have
populations of less than 100 people. The majority of the planning area
supports sagebrush steppe and seeded grasslands.
The Jarbidge RMP addresses management on approximately 1.4 million
acres of public land and 1.6 million acres of Federal mineral estate in
the Jarbidge Field Office. Planning decisions in the RMP will only
apply to the BLM-administered public lands and mineral estate in the
planning area. The Draft RMP/Draft EIS has been developed with broad
public participation through a collaborative planning process in
accordance with FLPMA and NEPA. Its purpose is to provide appropriate
management direction for the Twin Falls District, Jarbidge Field Office
that responds to the 2001 Land Use Plan Evaluation Report for the 1987
Jarbidge RMP, new information, changes in resource condition and user
demands, and complies with a Stipulated Settlement Agreement
(WesternWatersheds Project v. K Lynn Bennett, CV-04-181-S-BLW, under
the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District
of Idaho), while maintaining consistency with FLPMA.
The Draft RMP/Draft EIS includes a series of management actions,
within six management alternatives, designed to achieve or maintain
desired future conditions that have been defined through the planning
process for various concerns including, but not limited to: vegetation,
livestock grazing, recreation, energy development, and Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).
The No Action Alternative represents continuation of
existing management under current management goals, objectives, and
direction specified in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP, as amended.
Alternative I focuses on enhancing and sustaining existing
and historic uses of the planning area.
Alternative II focuses on increasing commercial uses
throughout the planning area.
Alternative III focuses on restoring the resiliency of
ecosystem structure and function through intensive management of fuels
and enhanced fire suppression capabilities throughout the planning
area.
Alternative IV focuses on actively restoring the
resiliency of ecosystem structure and function through restoration
projects and managing uses. Alternative IV has two sub-alternatives
(Alternative IV-A and Alternative IV-B) that differ in the size of two
proposed ACECs. Alternative IV-B is the Preferred Alternative.
Alternative V focuses on the restoration of habitats
toward historic vegetation communities.
The Preferred Alternative has been identified as described in 40
CFR 1502.14(e). However, identification of this alternative does not
represent final agency direction, and the Proposed RMP may reflect
changes or adjustments based on information received during public
comment, new information, or changes in BLM policies or priorities. The
Proposed RMP may include objectives and actions described as portions
of other analyzed alternatives. For this reason, the BLM invites and
encourages comments on all objectives and actions described in the
Draft RMP/Draft EIS.
Among the special designations under consideration within the range
of alternatives, ACECs are proposed to protect certain resource values.
There are three existing ACECs: Bruneau-Jarbidge, Salmon Falls Creek,
and Sand Point; these ACEC designations would be carried forward in
some alternatives, sometimes with changes in acreage.
Pertinent information regarding all proposed ACECs in the Preferred
Alternative, including values, resource use limitations, and acreages
are summarized below. Further information is available at the following
Web site: https://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/planning/jarbidge_resource.html.
Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC (123,000 acres)
Relevant and Important Values: Botanical, Cultural, Fish,
Scenic, Wildlife.
Limitations on the Following Uses: Livestock Grazing, Land
Use Authorizations, Mineral Development.
Other Restrictions: Managed as Visual Resource Management
(VRM) Class I.
Inside Desert ACEC (41,000 acres)
Relevant and Important Values: Botanical.
Limitations on the Following Uses: Livestock Grazing,
Recreation, Land Tenure Transactions, Mineral Development.
Other Restrictions: Locate staging areas for fire
suppression and rehabilitation activities outside the ACEC.
Jarbidge Foothills ACEC (66,000 acres)
Relevant and Important Values: Botanical, Cultural, Fish,
Wildlife.
Limitations on the Following Uses: Livestock Grazing,
Mineral Development.
Other Restrictions: Managed as VRM Class I and II.
Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC (1,000 acres)
Relevant and Important Values: Aquatic, Botanical.
Limitations on the Following Uses: Land Tenure
Transactions, Mineral Development.
Sand Point ACEC (950 acres)
Relevant and Important Values: Cultural, Geologic,
Historic, Paleontological.
Limitations on the Following Uses: Livestock Grazing, Land
Use Authorizations, Mineral Development.
[[Page 54179]]
Other Restrictions: Closed to fossil collection.
The following ACECs were proposed in alternatives other than the
Preferred Alternative:
Middle Snake ACEC for relevant and important botanical and
fish values.
Sagebrush Sea ACEC for relevant and important botanical,
cultural, fish, and wildlife values.
Salmon Falls ACEC for relevant and important botanical,
fish, and scenic values
In addition, ACECs in the preferred alternative may also appear in
other alternatives with different acreages and management
prescriptions.
Please note that public comments and information submitted
including names, street addresses, and e-mail addresses of persons who
submit comments will be available for public review and disclosure at
the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.),
Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail 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.
Following the public comment period, public comments will be used
to prepare the Proposed Jarbidge RMP and Final EIS. The BLM will
respond to each substantive comment by making appropriate revisions to
the document or by explaining why a comment did not warrant a change. A
Notice of the Availability of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS will be posted
in the Federal Register.
Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6 and 1506.10; 43 CFR 1610.2.
Peter J. Ditton,
Acting Idaho State Director, Bureau of Land Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-21956 Filed 9-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P