Notice of Availability of the Final Shoreline Restoration Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 57974-57975 [2014-22945]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57974
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices
Species
Greater Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis
tabida).
Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus).
Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni).
Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor).
Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus occidentalis).
Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis
nelsoni).
California
leaf-nosed
bat
(Macrotus
californicus).
Mohave ground squirrel (Spermophilus
[Xerospermophilus] mohavensis).
Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus).
Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus
townsendii).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The take prohibition in Section 9 of
the ESA does not apply to federally
listed plant species, and authorization
under an ESA Section 10 permit is not
required. However, ESA Section 7(a)(2)
prohibits Federal agencies from
jeopardizing the continued existence of
any listed plant or animal species, or
destroying or adversely modifying the
critical habitat of such species. The GCP
proposes to cover 10 plant species in
recognition of the conservation benefits
to be provided for them under the Draft
DRECP, and the assurances permit
holders would receive if they are
included on a permit. GCP covered
species include the following three
federally listed plant species:
Endangered Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia
basilaris var. treleasei), threatened
Parish’s daisy (Erigeron parishii), and
endangered triple-ribbed milk-vetch
(Astragalus tricarinatus). In addition,
the following seven non-listed plant
species are proposed as GCP covered
species: alkali mariposa-lily
(Calochortus striatus), Barstow woolly
sunflower (Eriophyllum mohavense),
desert cymopterus (Cymopterus
deserticola), Little San Bernardino
Mountains linanthus (Linanthus
maculatus), Mojave monkeyflower
(Mimulus mohavensis), Mojave tarplant
(Deinandra mohavensis), and Owens
Valley checkerbloom (Sidalcea covillei).
Alternatives Considered
The Draft DRECP and Draft EIS/EIR
include the Agencies’ preferred
alternative, four additional action
alternatives, and a no-action alternative.
Action alternatives analyzed in detail in
the interagency Draft DRECP are the
result of integrating varying locations
and configurations for renewable energy
and reserve designs on both Federal and
non-Federal lands. The configurations
of Development Focus Areas in the
action alternatives reflect different
approaches to balancing the goals for
minimizing biological resource conflicts
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Sep 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
and maximizing opportunities to site
renewable energy projects in areas of
high-value renewable energy resources
to attain the Draft DRECP’s renewable
energy generation target of 20,000
megawatts. Accordingly, alternatives
reflect varying locations, acreages, and
configurations of lands within the
Development Focus Areas and reserve
design. As required by NEPA, the Draft
EIS/EIR identifies and analyzes
potentially significant direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts of the Agencies’
proposed actions on biological and
other environmental resources. The
Draft EIS considers the following
alternatives:
1. Proposed Action: The proposed
action includes approval of the BLM’s
proposed Land Use Plan Amendments
and FWS’s proposed GCP, and issuance
of incidental take permits for
applications that are consistent with the
terms and conditions of the GCP,
beginning with consideration of permit
applications from CEC and CSLC;
2. No Action: Under this alternative,
the Agencies would not approve the
Draft DRECP, meaning that renewable
energy proponents likely would seek
individual, non-streamlined
authorizations from the BLM and the
FWS for renewable energy development,
as needed; and
3. Other Action Alternatives: Four
additional action alternatives address
different scenarios of renewable energy
development, species conservation on
Federal and non-Federal lands, and
areas established as National
Conservation Lands.
Copies of the Draft DRECP and Draft
EIS/EIR are available at the following
locations:
• BLM California State Office, 2800
Cottage Way, Suite W–1623,
Sacramento, CA 95825;
• BLM California Desert District
Office, 22835 Calle San Juan De Los
Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553;
• BLM Barstow Field Office, 2601
Barstow Road, Barstow, CA 92311;
• BLM El Centro Field Office, 1661 S.
4th Street, El Centro, CA 92243;
• BLM Needles Field Office, 1303 S.
Highway 95, Needles, CA 92363;
• BLM Palm Springs South Coast
Field Office, 1201 Bird Center Drive,
Palm Springs, CA 92262;
• BLM Ridgecrest Field Office, 300 S.
Richmond Road, Ridgecrest, CA 93555;
• BLM Bakersfield Field Office, 3801
Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93308;
• BLM Bishop Field Office, 351 Pacu
Lane, Suite 100, Bishop, CA 93514; and
• FWS Palm Springs Fish and
Wildlife Office, 777 East Tahquitz
Canyon Way, Suite 208, Palm Springs,
CA 92262.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Electronic copies (computer disks)
will also be available at public libraries
throughout the Planning Area.
Please contact the BLM or the FWS
for information on other locations.
Public Availability of Comments
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 https://
drecp.org.
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; 43 CFR 1610.2.
Thomas Pogacnik,
Deputy State Director, Bureau of Land
Management.
Alexandra Pitts,
Deputy Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–22834 Filed 9–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–MWR–INDU–16199;PPMWMWROW2/
PMP00UP05.YP0000]
Notice of Availability of the Final
Shoreline Restoration Management
Plan and Environmental Impact
Statement for Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Park Service
(NPS) announces the availability of the
Final Shoreline Restoration
Management Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement (SRMP), Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana.
DATES: The Final SRMP will remain
available for public review for 30 days
following the publication of the Notice
of Availability in the Federal Register
by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the Final SRMP
is available on the internet on the NPS
Planning, Environment, and Public
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Notices
Comment Web site at: https://
www.parkplanning.nps.gov/indu. It can
also be accessed through the Park’s
home page at https://www.nps.gov/indu.
Copies may be obtained by making a
request in writing or picked up in
person at Indiana Dunes National
Lakeshore, 1100 N. Mineral Springs
Road, Porter, Indiana 46304; telephone
(219) 926–7561, extension 225.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Superintendent Paul Labovitz, Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore, at the
address above, or by telephone at (219)
926–7561, extension 225.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPS
has prepared a Final SRMP for Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore. The Final
SRMP prescribes the resource
conditions and restoration activities
intended to maintain the shoreline over
the next 15 to 20 years. The project area
consists of four reaches of shoreline,
Reaches 1 through 4, in an east-to-west
direction. The park shoreline is not
contiguous because of industrial and
navigational structures, state park land,
and other non-federal property.
The Draft SRMP presented a range of
reasonable management alternatives.
Alternative A, the No-Action
alternative, described a continuation of
current management practices, and was
included as the baseline for comparing
consequences of each alternative.
Alternatives B, C, and D represent
variations on beach nourishment
activities. The use of submerged beachstabilizing structures was discussed in
alternative E.
In response to public comment on the
Draft SRMP, the NPS has made changes
to our preferred alternatives. Due to
public and agency concern with
alternative E in reaches 1 and 2,
identified as our preferred alternative,
the NPS has prepared a hybrid
alternative F that incorporates the
benefit of the gravel and rock materials
from alternative E using inland mined
and hauled sources described in
alternative B–1 with the hydraulically
dredged sands described in alternative
C–1. This new hybrid alternative, our
new preferred alternative, would
provide the identical materials to the
shoreline as alternative E only through
a direct placement process. The majority
of material used for beach nourishment
would be obtained from fine and
medium grained sediments that could
be hydraulically dredged as in
alternative C–1. The additional gravel
and rock component would be obtained
by implementing a portion of alternative
B–1, hauled to the beach and mixed onsite with the hydraulically dredged
sediments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:14 Sep 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
For reaches 3 and 4, the alternative C–
5 which provided beach nourishment
every five years was identified as the
preferred alternative as stated in the
Draft SRMP. In response to public and
agency concerns, the preferred
alternative has been changed to
alternative C–1 that provides for beach
nourishment annually.
The alternatives presented in this
plan focus on balancing the quantities of
sediment flowing through the shoreline
reaches. Over the course of developing
the SRMP, the alternatives were finetuned to accomplish this task and also
address the protection of the shoreline
from critical eroding areas, providing
habitat opportunities, allowing for
natural processes to continue, and
rehabilitating the shoreline in a costeffective manner. The SRMP also
presents a discussion on terrestrial
management practices as they relate to
the visitor experience. As the park is a
popular destination for millions of
people, the impacts of human activities
on the natural resources of the park are
ever-present and additive.
The NPS will make no decision on the
Final SRMP until after the expiration of
the 30-day period announced above.
Dated: July 14, 2014.
Patricia S. Trap,
Acting Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2014–22945 Filed 9–25–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MA–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–NERO–CAJO–STSP–16650;
PPNECAJO00 PPMPSPD1Z.YM0000]
Notice of Joint Meeting for Captain
John Smith Chesapeake National
Historic Trail Advisory Council and
Star-Spangled Banner National
Historic Trail Advisory Council
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
As required by the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
Appendix 1–16), the National Park
Service (NPS) is hereby giving notice
that the Captain John Smith Chesapeake
National Historic Trail Advisory
Council and the Star-Spangled Banner
National Historic Trail Advisory
Council will hold a joint meeting.
Designated through amendments to the
National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C.
1241 to 1251, as amended), the Captain
John Smith Chesapeake National
Historic Trail consists of ‘‘a series of
water routes extending approximately
3,000 miles along the Chesapeake Bay
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57975
and the tributaries of the Chesapeake
Bay in the States of Virginia, Maryland,
Delaware, and in the District of
Columbia,’’ tracing the 1607–1609
voyages of Captain John Smith to chart
the land and waterways of the
Chesapeake Bay. The Star-Spangled
Banner National Historic Trail consists
of ‘‘water and overland routes totaling
approximately 290 miles, extending
from Tangier Island, Virginia, through
southern Maryland, the District of
Columbia, and northern Virginia, in the
Chesapeake Bay, Patuxent River,
Potomac River, and north to the
Patapsco River, and Baltimore,
Maryland, commemorating the
Chesapeake Campaign of the War of
1812 (including the British invasion of
Washington, District of Columbia, and
its associated feints, and the Battle of
Baltimore in summer 1814).’’
This meeting is open to the public.
Preregistration is required for both
public attendance and comment. Any
individual who wishes to attend the
meeting, participate in, and/or file a
comment for the public comment
session should register via email to
Christine_Lucero@nps.gov or telephone
(757) 258–8914. For those wishing to
make comments, please provide a
written summary of your comments
prior to the meeting. The Designated
Federal Official for the Captain John
Smith Chesapeake National Historic
Trail Advisory Council is Jonathan
Doherty, Assistant Superintendent,
telephone (410) 260–2477. The
Designated Federal Official for the StarSpangled Banner National Historic Trail
Advisory Council is Suzanne Copping,
Chief of Resource Protection &
Partnerships, telephone (410) 260–2476.
DATES: The Captain John Smith
Chesapeake National Historic Trail
Advisory Council and the Star-Spangled
Banner National Historic Trail Advisory
Council will meet from 10:00 a.m. to
3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 5,
2014 (EASTERN).
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Accokeek Foundation’s Education
Center at Piscataway Park and National
Colonial Farm, 3400 Bryan Point Road,
Accokeek, Maryland 20607.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christine Lucero, Partnership
Coordinator, telephone (757) 258–8914
or email Christine_Lucero@nps.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under
section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 1–
16), this notice announces a joint
meeting of the Captain John Smith
Chesapeake National Historic Trail
Advisory Council and the Star-Spangled
Banner National Historic Trail Advisory
E:\FR\FM\26SEN1.SGM
26SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57974-57975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22945]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS-MWR-INDU-16199;PPMWMWROW2/PMP00UP05.YP0000]
Notice of Availability of the Final Shoreline Restoration
Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshore
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) announces the availability of
the Final Shoreline Restoration Management Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement (SRMP), Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana.
DATES: The Final SRMP will remain available for public review for 30
days following the publication of the Notice of Availability in the
Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the Final SRMP is available on the internet on the
NPS Planning, Environment, and Public
[[Page 57975]]
Comment Web site at: https://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/indu. It can also
be accessed through the Park's home page at https://www.nps.gov/indu.
Copies may be obtained by making a request in writing or picked up in
person at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, 1100 N. Mineral Springs
Road, Porter, Indiana 46304; telephone (219) 926-7561, extension 225.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent Paul Labovitz, Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore, at the address above, or by telephone at
(219) 926-7561, extension 225.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPS has prepared a Final SRMP for
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. The Final SRMP prescribes the
resource conditions and restoration activities intended to maintain the
shoreline over the next 15 to 20 years. The project area consists of
four reaches of shoreline, Reaches 1 through 4, in an east-to-west
direction. The park shoreline is not contiguous because of industrial
and navigational structures, state park land, and other non-federal
property.
The Draft SRMP presented a range of reasonable management
alternatives. Alternative A, the No-Action alternative, described a
continuation of current management practices, and was included as the
baseline for comparing consequences of each alternative. Alternatives
B, C, and D represent variations on beach nourishment activities. The
use of submerged beach-stabilizing structures was discussed in
alternative E.
In response to public comment on the Draft SRMP, the NPS has made
changes to our preferred alternatives. Due to public and agency concern
with alternative E in reaches 1 and 2, identified as our preferred
alternative, the NPS has prepared a hybrid alternative F that
incorporates the benefit of the gravel and rock materials from
alternative E using inland mined and hauled sources described in
alternative B-1 with the hydraulically dredged sands described in
alternative C-1. This new hybrid alternative, our new preferred
alternative, would provide the identical materials to the shoreline as
alternative E only through a direct placement process. The majority of
material used for beach nourishment would be obtained from fine and
medium grained sediments that could be hydraulically dredged as in
alternative C-1. The additional gravel and rock component would be
obtained by implementing a portion of alternative B-1, hauled to the
beach and mixed on-site with the hydraulically dredged sediments.
For reaches 3 and 4, the alternative C-5 which provided beach
nourishment every five years was identified as the preferred
alternative as stated in the Draft SRMP. In response to public and
agency concerns, the preferred alternative has been changed to
alternative C-1 that provides for beach nourishment annually.
The alternatives presented in this plan focus on balancing the
quantities of sediment flowing through the shoreline reaches. Over the
course of developing the SRMP, the alternatives were fine-tuned to
accomplish this task and also address the protection of the shoreline
from critical eroding areas, providing habitat opportunities, allowing
for natural processes to continue, and rehabilitating the shoreline in
a cost-effective manner. The SRMP also presents a discussion on
terrestrial management practices as they relate to the visitor
experience. As the park is a popular destination for millions of
people, the impacts of human activities on the natural resources of the
park are ever-present and additive.
The NPS will make no decision on the Final SRMP until after the
expiration of the 30-day period announced above.
Dated: July 14, 2014.
Patricia S. Trap,
Acting Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 2014-22945 Filed 9-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MA-P
