Notice of Availability Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Nevada, 61334-61336 [2014-24135]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
61334
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Notices
decommissioning of the solar facility,
and for enhancement and management
of the acquired lands.
The applicant proposes to construct
and operate a generation tie-in line from
the solar facility to the nearby Barren
Ridge Substation. Because this route
would cross lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the
applicant did not include construction
and operation of this proposed
generation tie-in line as covered
activities under its proposed HCP. The
BLM and Service would consult on the
effects of the generation tie-in line on
the desert tortoise under section 7 of the
Act. Although BLM is conducting an
analysis under NEPA for the generation
tie-in line as part of the applicant’s
application for a right-of-way to
construct and operate the line, the draft
EA prepared for the applicant’s
incidental take permit application also
includes an environmental analysis of
the generation tie-in line to ensure the
Service considers the effects of the
applicant’s entire proposed project.
National Environmental Policy Act
Compliance
We provide this notice under section
10(c) of the Act and Service regulations
for implementing NEPA. We have
prepared a draft EA for the proposed
action and have made it and the
applicant’s proposed HCP available for
public inspection (see ADDRESSES).
NEPA requires that a range of
reasonable alternatives, including the
proposed action, be described. The draft
EA analyzes three alternatives,
described below.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)
Our proposed action is to issue an
incidental take permit to the applicant,
who would implement the HCP,
described above. If we approve the
permit, incidental take of desert tortoise
would be authorized for the applicant’s
routine activities associated with the
construction, operation, maintenance,
and decommissioning of a solar facility
in Kern County.
No Action Alternative
The draft EA includes a No Action
alternative that would not result in take
of desert tortoise. Under this alternative,
unless the applicant can determine how
to build the project in a way that avoids
take of the desert tortoise, the proposed
solar facility would not be constructed
and the private lands would remain in
their current state and be available for
other uses in accordance with Kern
County’s general plan, which classifies
them as ‘‘resource management’’ lands
zoned as ‘‘agriculture-floodplain
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
combining.’’ Uses authorized for this
designation and zoning include crop
production, animal production,
livestock grazing, utility and
communication facilities, resource
extraction, and energy development. If
this project is not constructed, Kern
County could permit other uses in the
future with issuance of a conditional
use permit, including solar power
generation, single-family residential
development, or commercial and
institutional uses.
Solar Facility and Gen-Tie Line
Alternative
Under this alternative, the solar
facility would be constructed in an
identical manner as that described
above under the Proposed Action;
however, the applicant would construct
the generation tie-in line entirely on
non-Federal land. Therefore, the
approved incidental take permit would
also provide coverage for the
construction and operation of a
generation tie-in line to be constructed
solely on non-Federal lands. The
environmental impacts from the solar
plant construction, operations,
maintenance, and decommissioning
would be identical to those under the
Proposed Action; however, the
environmental impacts and cost of this
alternative would be greater because of
the increased length of the electrical
line (1.9 miles (3.06 km) vs. 3.6 miles
(5.79 km)).
Public Review
The Service invites the public to
comment on the permit application,
including the proposed HCP and draft
EA, during the public comment period
(see DATES). If you wish to comment,
you may submit your comments via one
of the means listed in ADDRESSES. 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 may 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.
Next Steps
Issuance of an incidental take permit
is a Federal proposed action subject to
compliance with NEPA. We will
evaluate the application, associated
documents, and any public comments
we receive to determine whether the
application meets the requirements of
NEPA regulations and section 10(a) of
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the Act. If we determine that those
requirements are met, we will issue a
permit to the applicant for the
incidental take of desert tortoise. We
will make our final permit decision no
sooner than December 9, 2014.
Dated: October 6, 2014.
Alexandra Pitts,
Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Southwest
Region, Sacramento, California.
[FR Doc. 2014–24271 Filed 10–9–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLNVS00000.L12100000.DC0000
LXSS100F0000 241A; 14–08807; MO#
4500065255]
Notice of Availability Las Vegas and
Pahrump Field Offices Draft Resource
Management Plan and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement,
Nevada
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended, and the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976, as
amended, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) has prepared the
Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices
Draft Resource Management Plan
(RMP)/Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), for the Southern
Nevada District Office, Las Vegas and
Pahrump Field Offices, and by this
notice is announcing the opening of the
comment period on the Draft RMP/Draft
EIS.
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 Draft
RMP/Draft EIS in the Federal Register.
The BLM will announce any subsequent
meetings or hearings and any other
public participation activities related to
the Draft RMP/Draft EIS at least 15 days
in advance through public notices,
media releases, and/or mailings.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
related to the Las Vegas and Pahrump
Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS by
any of the following methods:
• Web site: https://www.blm.gov/eplfront-office/eplanning/planAndProject
Site.do?methodName=renderDefault
PlanOrProjectSite&projectId=2900&
dctmId=0b0003e88009debe
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Notices
• Email: sndo_rmp_revision@blm.gov
• Fax: 702–515–5023
• Mail: BLM Southern Nevada
District Office, Las Vegas/Pahrump
Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS, 4701
N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV
89130.
Copies of the Las Vegas and Pahrump
Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS are
available in the Southern Nevada
District Office at the above address or on
the following Web site https://www.blm.
gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAnd
ProjectSite.do?methodName=render
DefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projectId=
2900&dctmId=0b0003e88009debe
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee
Kirk, RMP Team Lead, telephone: 702–
515–5026; address: 4701 N. Torrey
Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130;
email: sndo_rmp_revision@blm.gov.
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the
above individual during normal
business hours. The FIRS is available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a
message or question with the above
individual. You will receive a reply
during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Las
Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices Draft
RMP/Draft EIS would replace the
existing 1998 Las Vegas Field Office
RMP. The Draft RMP/Draft EIS was
developed through a collaborative
planning process. The Las Vegas and
Pahrump Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft
EIS decision area encompasses
approximately 3.1 million acres of
public land administered by the BLM
Southern Nevada District in Clark and
Southern Nye counties, Nevada. It does
not include private lands, State lands,
Indian reservations, Federal lands not
administered by BLM or lands
addressed in the Red Rock Canyon
National Conservation Area RMP (2005)
and Sloan Canyon National
Conservation Area RMP (2006).
The Las Vegas and Pahrump Field
Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS includes
goals, objectives and management
actions for protecting and preserving
natural resources which includes air
quality, soil and water resources,
vegetation, fish and wildlife, special
status species, wild horses and burros,
wildland fire management, cultural and
paleontological resources, visual
resource values, and lands with
wilderness characteristics. Multiple
resource uses are addressed which
include management and forage
allocations for livestock grazing;
delineation of lands open, closed, or
subject to special stipulations or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
mitigation measures for minerals
development; recreation and travel
management designations; management
of lands and realty actions, including
delineation of avoidance and exclusion
areas applicable to rights-of-ways
(ROWs), land tenure adjustments, and
solar and wind energy development.
The planning effort will consider
establishment of a national trail
management corridor for the
congressionally-designated Old Spanish
National Historic Trail. Eligible river
segments will be evaluated for
suitability as components of the
National Wild and Scenic River System
and 23 new Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACECs) are
proposed. The ACECs are proposed to
protect natural and cultural resource
values and traditional Native American
use areas.
The Draft RMP/Draft EIS analyzes
four management alternatives.
Alternative 1 is the No Action
Alternative, which is the continuation
of current management in the existing
1998 RMP, as amended. This alternative
describes the current goals and actions
for management of resources and land
uses in the planning area. The
management direction could also be
modified by current laws, regulations,
and policies. Alternative 2 emphasizes
the protection of the planning area’s
resource values while allowing
commodity uses consistent with current
laws, regulations, and policies.
Management actions would emphasize
resource values such as habitat for
wildlife and plant species (including
special status species), protection of
riparian areas and water quality,
preservation of ecologically important
areas, maintenance of wilderness
characteristics, and protection of
scientifically important cultural and
paleontological sites. Access to and
development of resources within the
planning area could occur with
intensive management and mitigation of
surface-disturbing and disruptive
activities. Alternative 3 emphasizes a
balance between resource protection
and resource use, which provides
opportunities to use and develop
resources within the planning area
while ensuring resource protection.
Alternative 4 emphasizes opportunities
to use and develop resources within the
planning area. It would provide for
motorized access and commodity
production with minimal restrictions
while providing protection of natural
and cultural resources to the extent
required by law, regulation, and policy.
This alternative would largely rely on
existing laws, regulations, and policies,
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61335
rather than special management or
special designations, to protect sensitive
resources. The BLM Southern Nevada
District’s Office preferred alternative is
Alternative 3.
Pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.7–2(b), this
notice announces a concurrent public
comment period for potential ACECs.
There are 23 new ACECs proposed in
Alternative 2, 20 new ACECs proposed
in Alternative 3, and 4 new ACECs in
Alternative 4. The ACECs are proposed
to protect natural and cultural resource
values and traditional Native American
use areas. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 all
propose to remove the ACEC
designations from the current Arden
Historic Sites (1,443 Acres) and
Crescent Townsite (436 acres) ACECs.
Some of the existing ACECs are also
proposed to be expanded or reduced in
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.
The new potential ACECs in
Alternative 2 include: Bird Spring
Valley (78,958 acres), Bitter Springs
(61,733 acres), California Wash (11,998
acres), Gale Hills (3,865 acres),
Grapevine Spring (85 acres), Hiko Wash
(847 acres), Jean Lake (11,606 acres),
Lava Dune (437 acres), Logandale (6,073
acres), Lower Mormon Mesa (46,956
acres), Mesa Milkvetch (9,183 acres),
Moapa Mesquite (1,214 acres), Mt.
Schrader (283 acres), Muddy Mountains
(36,189 acres), Old Spanish Trail
(49,828 acres), Pahrump Valley (36,823
acres), Perkins Ranch (408 acres), Sandy
Valley (210 acres), Specter Hills (5,420
acres), Spirit Mountain (9,488 acres),
Stewart Valley (5,204 acres), Stuart
Ranch (278 acres), and Upper Las Vegas
Wash (12,294 acres). Alternative 2
would also expand the following
existing ACECs: Amargosa Mesquite
(9,642 acres), Big Dune (2,455 acres),
Keyhole Canyon (639 acres), Mormon
Mesa (159,940 acres), Piute/Eldorado
(347,630 acres), and Virgin River (8,500
acres). Alternative 2 would reduce the
size of the following existing ACECs:
Ash Meadows (37,273 acres), Gold Butte
Part A (184,627 acres), Gold Butte Part
B (116,575 acres), Rainbow Gardens
(35,355 acres), and River Mountains
(6,697 acres).
The new potential ACECs in
Alternative 3 include: Bird Spring
Valley (26,997 acres), Bitter Springs
(61,733 acres), Gale Hills (3,865 acres),
Grapevine Spring (85 acres), Hiko Wash
(708 acres), Jean Lake (11,606 acres),
Lava Dune (437 acres), Lower Mormon
Mesa (42,905 acres), Mesa Milkvetch
(3,512 acres), Moapa Mesquite (1,304
acres), Mt. Schrader (283 acres), Muddy
Mountains (36,189 acres), Old Spanish
Trail (33,831 acres), Pahrump Valley
(21,232 acres), Perkins Ranch (408
acres), Specter Hills (5,420 acres), Spirit
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
61336
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Notices
Mountain (9,488 acres), Stewart Valley
(3,248 acres), Stuart Ranch (278 acres),
and Upper Las Vegas Wash (12,294
acres). Alternative 3 would also expand
the following existing ACECs: Amargosa
Mesquite (9,642 acres), Keyhole Canyon
(639 acres), Mormon Mesa (167,888
acres), Piute/Eldorado (347,630 acres),
and Virgin River (7,493 acres).
Alternative 3 would reduce the size of
the following existing ACECs: Ash
Meadows (37,273 acres), Big Dune
(1,589 acres), Gold Butte Part A (183,440
acres), Gold Butte Part B (116,733 acres),
Rainbow Gardens (35,355 acres), and
River Mountains (6,697 acres).
The new potential ACECs in
Alternative 4 include: Grapevine Spring
(85 acres), Jean Lake (9,138 acres),
Perkins Ranch (408 acres), and Stuart
Ranch (278 acres). Alternative 4 would
also expand the following existing
ACECs: Mormon Mesa (159,940 acres),
Piute/Eldorado (338,767 acres), and
Virgin River (7,493 acres). Alternative 4
would reduce the size of the following
existing ACECs: Big Dune (428 acres),
Gold Butte Part A (183,440 acres), Gold
Butte Part B (116,733 acres), Rainbow
Gardens (35,355 acres), and River
Mountains (6,697 acres).
The following management
prescriptions may apply to the
individual ACECs under consideration,
if formally designated: Avoid or exclude
linear ROWs; avoid or exclude site-type
ROWs; close to material site ROWs or
only allow near Federal-aid highways;
close to or place use constraints on fluid
leasable mineral development; close to
solid leasable mineral development;
pursue withdrawal of locatable mineral
development; close to saleable mineral
development; close to livestock grazing;
pursue reverting area within ACEC from
a herd management area into a herd
area; close to camping; exclude speedbased recreation events; exclude nonspeed based recreation events; exclude
commercial recreation activities; closed
or limited to designated routes for
motorized travel; place seasonal
restrictions of ground disturbing
actions; cap the amount of habitat
disturbance allowed from Federal
actions.
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 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, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Oct 09, 2014
Jkt 235001
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
Marci Todd,
Associate State Director, Nevada.
[FR Doc. 2014–24135 Filed 10–9–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–IMR–SACR–13960;
PX.PD108787G.00.1]
Environmental Assessment for the
General Management Plan for Sand
Creek Massacre National Historic Site,
Colorado
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of intent.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Park Service has
determined that an Environmental
Assessment, rather than an
Environmental Impact Statement, is the
appropriate environmental
documentation for the general
management plan for Sand Creek
Massacre National Historic Site. This
determination is the result of evaluating
public comments and considering the
analysis required to adequately address
environmental impacts in developing
the General Management Plan.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexa Roberts, Superintendent, Sand
Creek Massacre National Historic Site,
P.O. Box 249, Eads, CO 81036.
Telephone (719) 438–5916.
ADDRESSES: More information about the
project can be obtained from the contact
listed above or online at https://park
planning.nps.gov/sand.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
general management plan will establish
the overall direction for the national
historic site, setting broad management
goals for managing the area over the
next 15 to 20 years. The General
Management Plan was originally scoped
as an Environmental Impact Statement.
However, internal discussions and
meetings, and comments received in
written correspondence and public
scoping sessions held in Colorado,
Montana, Oklahoma, and Wyoming in
2008 and again in 2011 did not raise any
concerns or issues that have the
potential for controversial impacts. Most
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
of the comments received in response to
the preliminary alternatives newsletter
agreed that the range of alternatives
being considered is appropriate and did
not identify any substantive issues or
concerns.
The planning team has developed six
alternatives (no-action and five action
alternatives), none of which would
result in substantial changes in the
operation and management of the
national historic site. The five action
alternatives primarily focus on
maintaining and protecting cultural and
natural resources, and expanding
interpretation and visitor opportunities
where appropriate. Preliminary analysis
of the alternatives revealed no major
(significant) effects on the human
environment or impairment of park
resources and values.
For these reasons the National Park
Service determined that the requisite
conservation planning and
environmental impact analysis
necessary for updating the general
management plan can appropriately be
completed through preparation of an
EA.
This draft general management plan/
EA is expected to be distributed for
public comment in the fall 2014. The
National Park Service will notify the
public about release of the draft general
management plan/EA by public
meetings, mail, local and regional
media, Web site postings, and other
means; all announcements will include
information on where and how to obtain
a copy of the EA, how to comment on
the EA, and the length of the public
comment period. Following due
consideration of public comments and
agency consults, at this time a decision
is expected to be made in the winter
2014. The official responsible for the
final decision on the GMP is the
Regional Director; subsequently the
responsible official for implementing
the approved GMP is the
Superintendent, Sand Creek Massacre
National Historic Site.
Dated: October 1, 2014.
Sue E. Masica,
Regional Director, Intermountain Region,
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–24045 Filed 10–9–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–CB–P
E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM
10OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61334-61336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24135]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLNVS00000.L12100000.DC0000 LXSS100F0000 241A; 14-08807; MO#
4500065255]
Notice of Availability Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices Draft
Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Nevada
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared the
Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices Draft Resource Management Plan
(RMP)/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for the Southern
Nevada District Office, Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices, and by
this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period on the
Draft RMP/Draft EIS.
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 Draft RMP/Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The BLM will announce
any subsequent meetings or hearings and any other public participation
activities related to the Draft RMP/Draft EIS at least 15 days in
advance through public notices, media releases, and/or mailings.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments related to the Las Vegas and Pahrump
Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS by any of the following methods:
Web site: https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projectId=2900&dctmId=0b0003e88009debe
[[Page 61335]]
Email: sndo_rmp_revision@blm.gov
Fax: 702-515-5023
Mail: BLM Southern Nevada District Office, Las Vegas/
Pahrump Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive,
Las Vegas, NV 89130.
Copies of the Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft
EIS are available in the Southern Nevada District Office at the above
address or on the following Web site https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projectId=2900&dctmId=0b0003e88009debe
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Kirk, RMP Team Lead, telephone:
702-515-5026; address: 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130;
email: sndo_rmp_revision@blm.gov. Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during
normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You
will receive a reply during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices
Draft RMP/Draft EIS would replace the existing 1998 Las Vegas Field
Office RMP. The Draft RMP/Draft EIS was developed through a
collaborative planning process. The Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices
Draft RMP/Draft EIS decision area encompasses approximately 3.1 million
acres of public land administered by the BLM Southern Nevada District
in Clark and Southern Nye counties, Nevada. It does not include private
lands, State lands, Indian reservations, Federal lands not administered
by BLM or lands addressed in the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
Area RMP (2005) and Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area RMP (2006).
The Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS
includes goals, objectives and management actions for protecting and
preserving natural resources which includes air quality, soil and water
resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife, special status species, wild
horses and burros, wildland fire management, cultural and
paleontological resources, visual resource values, and lands with
wilderness characteristics. Multiple resource uses are addressed which
include management and forage allocations for livestock grazing;
delineation of lands open, closed, or subject to special stipulations
or mitigation measures for minerals development; recreation and travel
management designations; management of lands and realty actions,
including delineation of avoidance and exclusion areas applicable to
rights-of-ways (ROWs), land tenure adjustments, and solar and wind
energy development. The planning effort will consider establishment of
a national trail management corridor for the congressionally-designated
Old Spanish National Historic Trail. Eligible river segments will be
evaluated for suitability as components of the National Wild and Scenic
River System and 23 new Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)
are proposed. The ACECs are proposed to protect natural and cultural
resource values and traditional Native American use areas.
The Draft RMP/Draft EIS analyzes four management alternatives.
Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative, which is the continuation
of current management in the existing 1998 RMP, as amended. This
alternative describes the current goals and actions for management of
resources and land uses in the planning area. The management direction
could also be modified by current laws, regulations, and policies.
Alternative 2 emphasizes the protection of the planning area's resource
values while allowing commodity uses consistent with current laws,
regulations, and policies. Management actions would emphasize resource
values such as habitat for wildlife and plant species (including
special status species), protection of riparian areas and water
quality, preservation of ecologically important areas, maintenance of
wilderness characteristics, and protection of scientifically important
cultural and paleontological sites. Access to and development of
resources within the planning area could occur with intensive
management and mitigation of surface-disturbing and disruptive
activities. Alternative 3 emphasizes a balance between resource
protection and resource use, which provides opportunities to use and
develop resources within the planning area while ensuring resource
protection. Alternative 4 emphasizes opportunities to use and develop
resources within the planning area. It would provide for motorized
access and commodity production with minimal restrictions while
providing protection of natural and cultural resources to the extent
required by law, regulation, and policy. This alternative would largely
rely on existing laws, regulations, and policies, rather than special
management or special designations, to protect sensitive resources. The
BLM Southern Nevada District's Office preferred alternative is
Alternative 3.
Pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b), this notice announces a concurrent
public comment period for potential ACECs. There are 23 new ACECs
proposed in Alternative 2, 20 new ACECs proposed in Alternative 3, and
4 new ACECs in Alternative 4. The ACECs are proposed to protect natural
and cultural resource values and traditional Native American use areas.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 all propose to remove the ACEC designations
from the current Arden Historic Sites (1,443 Acres) and Crescent
Townsite (436 acres) ACECs. Some of the existing ACECs are also
proposed to be expanded or reduced in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.
The new potential ACECs in Alternative 2 include: Bird Spring
Valley (78,958 acres), Bitter Springs (61,733 acres), California Wash
(11,998 acres), Gale Hills (3,865 acres), Grapevine Spring (85 acres),
Hiko Wash (847 acres), Jean Lake (11,606 acres), Lava Dune (437 acres),
Logandale (6,073 acres), Lower Mormon Mesa (46,956 acres), Mesa
Milkvetch (9,183 acres), Moapa Mesquite (1,214 acres), Mt. Schrader
(283 acres), Muddy Mountains (36,189 acres), Old Spanish Trail (49,828
acres), Pahrump Valley (36,823 acres), Perkins Ranch (408 acres), Sandy
Valley (210 acres), Specter Hills (5,420 acres), Spirit Mountain (9,488
acres), Stewart Valley (5,204 acres), Stuart Ranch (278 acres), and
Upper Las Vegas Wash (12,294 acres). Alternative 2 would also expand
the following existing ACECs: Amargosa Mesquite (9,642 acres), Big Dune
(2,455 acres), Keyhole Canyon (639 acres), Mormon Mesa (159,940 acres),
Piute/Eldorado (347,630 acres), and Virgin River (8,500 acres).
Alternative 2 would reduce the size of the following existing ACECs:
Ash Meadows (37,273 acres), Gold Butte Part A (184,627 acres), Gold
Butte Part B (116,575 acres), Rainbow Gardens (35,355 acres), and River
Mountains (6,697 acres).
The new potential ACECs in Alternative 3 include: Bird Spring
Valley (26,997 acres), Bitter Springs (61,733 acres), Gale Hills (3,865
acres), Grapevine Spring (85 acres), Hiko Wash (708 acres), Jean Lake
(11,606 acres), Lava Dune (437 acres), Lower Mormon Mesa (42,905
acres), Mesa Milkvetch (3,512 acres), Moapa Mesquite (1,304 acres), Mt.
Schrader (283 acres), Muddy Mountains (36,189 acres), Old Spanish Trail
(33,831 acres), Pahrump Valley (21,232 acres), Perkins Ranch (408
acres), Specter Hills (5,420 acres), Spirit
[[Page 61336]]
Mountain (9,488 acres), Stewart Valley (3,248 acres), Stuart Ranch (278
acres), and Upper Las Vegas Wash (12,294 acres). Alternative 3 would
also expand the following existing ACECs: Amargosa Mesquite (9,642
acres), Keyhole Canyon (639 acres), Mormon Mesa (167,888 acres), Piute/
Eldorado (347,630 acres), and Virgin River (7,493 acres). Alternative 3
would reduce the size of the following existing ACECs: Ash Meadows
(37,273 acres), Big Dune (1,589 acres), Gold Butte Part A (183,440
acres), Gold Butte Part B (116,733 acres), Rainbow Gardens (35,355
acres), and River Mountains (6,697 acres).
The new potential ACECs in Alternative 4 include: Grapevine Spring
(85 acres), Jean Lake (9,138 acres), Perkins Ranch (408 acres), and
Stuart Ranch (278 acres). Alternative 4 would also expand the following
existing ACECs: Mormon Mesa (159,940 acres), Piute/Eldorado (338,767
acres), and Virgin River (7,493 acres). Alternative 4 would reduce the
size of the following existing ACECs: Big Dune (428 acres), Gold Butte
Part A (183,440 acres), Gold Butte Part B (116,733 acres), Rainbow
Gardens (35,355 acres), and River Mountains (6,697 acres).
The following management prescriptions may apply to the individual
ACECs under consideration, if formally designated: Avoid or exclude
linear ROWs; avoid or exclude site-type ROWs; close to material site
ROWs or only allow near Federal-aid highways; close to or place use
constraints on fluid leasable mineral development; close to solid
leasable mineral development; pursue withdrawal of locatable mineral
development; close to saleable mineral development; close to livestock
grazing; pursue reverting area within ACEC from a herd management area
into a herd area; close to camping; exclude speed-based recreation
events; exclude non-speed based recreation events; exclude commercial
recreation activities; closed or limited to designated routes for
motorized travel; place seasonal restrictions of ground disturbing
actions; cap the amount of habitat disturbance allowed from Federal
actions.
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
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, 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
Marci Todd,
Associate State Director, Nevada.
[FR Doc. 2014-24135 Filed 10-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
