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 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 http:// 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: http:// www.parkplanning.nps.gov/indu. It can also be accessed through the Park’s home page at http://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: http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/indu. It can also 
be accessed through the Park's home page at http://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