Notice of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment, California, 12938-12943 [2016-05562]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12938
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2016 / Notices
Controlled substance means any substance
so designated by law whose availability is
restricted, including, but not limited to,
narcotics, stimulants, depressants,
hallucinogens, and marijuana.
Destructive device means any type of
weapon, by whatever name known, which
will, or which may be readily converted to
expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive or other propellant, the barrel or
barrels of which have a bore of more than
0.60 caliber, except a shotgun or shotgun
shell, which is generally recognized as
particularly suitable for sporting purposes.
Developed recreation area/site means any
site or area that contains structures or capital
improvements primarily used by the public
for recreation purposes. Such areas or sites
may include such features as: Delineated
spaces for parking, camping, boat launching,
sanitary facilities, potable water, grills, fire
rings, tables, or controlled access.
Explosive, chemical, or incendiary device
means any tracer round, incendiary bomb,
grenade, fire bomb, chemical bomb, or device
which consists of or includes a breakable or
non-breakable container including a
flammable liquid or compound, or any
breakable container which consists of or
includes a chemical mixture that explodes
with fire or force and can be shot at or shot
from a firearm, carried, or thrown. A
cartridge containing or carrying an explosive
agent and bullet is not an explosive device
as that term is used here.
Firearm means an instrument used in the
propulsion of shot, shell, or bullets by the
action of gunpowder exploded within it.
Loaded firearm means a firearm that has an
unexpended cartridge of powder and a bullet
or shot in or attached in any manner to the
firearm including, but not limited to, in the
firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm or a muzzle loader
firearm that is capped or primed and has a
powder charge and ball or shot in the
cylinder or barrel.
Target means items designed,
manufactured, or built specifically for the
purpose of target shooting which can be
completely removed following use.
Target shooting means shooting a weapon
for recreational purposes when game is not
being legally pursued.
Public lands means any lands or interest in
lands managed by the BLM.
Pyrotechnic device means any device
manufactured or used to produce a visible or
audible effect by combustion, deflagration, or
detonation. This includes, but is not limited
to, such devices as exploding targets that are
detonated when struck by a projectile such
as a bullet fired from a firearm.
Weapon means any firearm, cross bow,
bow and arrow, paint gun, fireworks, or
explosive device capable of propelling a
projectile either by means of an explosion,
compressed gas, or by string or spring.
1. These supplementary rules apply, except
as specifically exempted, to all shooting
activities on public lands administered by
the Hollister Field Office, California.
2. These supplementary rules are in effect
year-around and will remain in effect until
modified by the State Director.
3. The following persons are exempt from
these supplementary rules: Any Federal,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Mar 10, 2016
Jkt 238001
State, or local government officer or
employee in the scope of their duties;
members of any organized law enforcement,
rescue, or fire-fighting force in performance
of an official duty; and any person whose
activities are authorized in writing by the
Bureau of Land Management.
4. All persons must abide by all Federal
and State laws, rules, and regulations
pertaining to firearms and weapons for all
shooting activities on public lands.
5. No person shall, unless it is posted as
allowed, target shoot with a weapon within
50 feet of the center line of any public road.
6. No person shall shoot or discharge any
weapon across any public road or signed
trail.
7. No person shall, unless it is posted as
allowed, shoot or discharge any weapon
within 150 yards of any developed recreation
area/site.
8. No person shall shoot or discharge any
weapon toward or in the direction of any
public road, signed trail, or developed
recreation area/site where this action could
create a hazard to life or property.
9. No person shall consume or be under the
influence of an alcoholic beverage or a
controlled substance while shooting or
discharging any weapon on public lands.
10. No person shall shoot or discharge any
firearm loaded with tracer bullets on public
lands.
11. No person shall shoot or discharge any
weapon at any construction materials, office
products, or household items including, but
not limited to, appliances, furniture,
electronic waste, or other objects containing
glass on public lands. Targets designed,
manufactured, or built specifically for the
purpose of target shooting and which can be
completely removed following use are
allowed.
12. No person shall shoot or discharge any
weapon at clay pigeons on public lands.
13. No person shall shoot or discharge any
weapon at any tree, cactus, shrub, or similar
vegetative object, fence post, or any other
public lands infrastructure. This includes the
use of these objects to support targets.
14. Persons shooting or discharging any
weapon on public lands are required to
remove and properly dispose of all shooting
materials, including targets, shell boxes, shell
casings, hulls, and brass.
15. No person shall transport in a vehicle
or conveyance or its attachments on any
public land, or roads, a firearm, unless it is
unloaded or dismantled.
16. No person shall have a loaded firearm
on display when in any developed recreation
area.
17. No person shall shoot or discharge any
weapon from a powerboat, sailboat, motor
vehicle, or aircraft.
18. No person shall, except with a valid
permit, carry a concealed firearm on public
lands.
19. No person shall possess or use any
pyrotechnic device on public lands. This
prohibition includes, but is not limited to,
devices such as exploding targets that are
detonated when struck by a projectile such
as a bullet fired from a firearm.
20. No person shall possess or use any
destructive, explosive, or incendiary
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(including chemical) device on public lands.
This prohibition includes, but is not limited
to, any homemade or manufactured bomb,
cannon, mortar, or similar device.
Enforcement
Any person who violates any of these
supplementary rules may be tried before a
United States Magistrate and fined in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned
no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C.
1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0–7, or both. In
accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1–7, State or
local officials may also impose penalties for
violations of California law.
Joe Stout,
Acting BLM California State Director.
[FR Doc. 2016–05400 Filed 3–10–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–40–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLCA932000.L13400000.DP0000.LXSSB
0020000.16X]
Notice of Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern in the Desert
Renewable Energy Conservation Plan
Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment,
California
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) announced
availability of the Proposed Land Use
Plan Amendment (LUPA) and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the Desert Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan (DRECP) with a
Notice of Availability published in the
Federal Register on November 13, 2015
(80 FR 70254). The Proposed LUPA
would amend the California Desert
Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan and the
Bakersfield and Bishop Resource
Management Plans (RMPs). The
Proposed DRECP LUPA/Final EIS
considers designation of 134 Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern
(ACECs). In order to comply with
Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 1610.7–
2(b), the BLM through this notice is
announcing a 60-day public comment
period on those 134 ACECs. The 134
ACECs listed in this notice are identical
to those identified in the alternatives
found within the Proposed DRECP
LUPA/Final EIS addressed by the
publication of the Federal Notice of
Availability on November 13, 2015. The
scope of this 60-day comment period is
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2016 / Notices
limited to these 134 ACEC designations.
Comments on other topics are outside
the scope of this public comment
process
DATES: The comment period pertaining
to these ACEC designations closes on
May 10, 2016. All comments must be in
writing and must be postmarked no later
than the close of the last day of the
comment period. The BLM provided a
152-day comment period on the Draft
DRECP LUPA and Environmental
Impact Report (EIR)/EIS. All comments
received on the Draft DRECP were
considered while developing the
Proposed LUPA/Final EIS. As such, the
BLM is only seeking comments on the
134 ACECs included in the Proposed
LUPA/Final EIS, which are listed in this
notice. While the BLM will consider all
such comments, it does not intend to
respond to each comment individually.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be in
writing and must be sent to Vicki
Campbell, DRECP Program Manager,
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W–1623,
Sacramento, CA 95825; or email blm_
ca_drecp@blm.gov.
Copies of the DRECP Proposed LUPA/
Final EIS were sent to affected Federal,
State, and local government agencies,
affected tribal governments, and to other
stakeholders concurrent with the
November 13, 2015 Notice of
Availability. The environmental
analysis for the DRECP, including the
Draft DRECP and the DRECP Proposed
LUPA/Final EIS, is available for review
online at www.drecp.org and
www.blm.gov/ca/drecp. Please see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for a
list of locations where copies of the
DRECP Proposed LUPA/Final EIS are
available for public inspection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vicki Campbell, Program Manager,
DRECP, telephone 916–978–4401;
address BLM California State Office,
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W–1623,
Sacramento, CA 95825; email
vlcampbell@blm.gov. To request a DVD,
please send an email to drecp.info@
energy.ca.gov or call 916–978–4401 and
include the mailing address in the
message. 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
DRECP was developed with broad
public participation through an 6-year
collaborative planning process,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Mar 10, 2016
Jkt 238001
beginning with publication of a Notice
of Intent to amend the CDCA Plan in the
Federal Register on November 20, 2009
(74 FR 60291). Subsequently, the BLM
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) as co-lead agencies jointly
published on July 29, 2011 a Notice of
Intent to prepare an EIS for the
proposed DRECP (76 FR 45606). The
BLM published a third Notice of Intent
on April 4, 2012 (77 FR 20409),
amending the November 20, 2009, and
July 29, 2011, notices to include the
Bishop, Caliente/Bakersfield, and
Eastern San Diego County RMPs in the
DRECP LUPA.
As explained in more detail below,
the Draft DRECP, which included a
Draft BLM LUPA for the CDCA Plan,
and the Bishop and Caliente/Bakersfield
RMPs, was published on September 26,
2014, (76 FR 57971). The Notice of
Availability for the DRECP Proposed
LUPA and Final EIS was published on
November 13, 2015. In each of these
documents and at associated public
meetings, the BLM presented a robust
discussion of ACECs. The Draft DRECP
identified 147 ACECs (58 new and 89
existing), while the Proposed LUPA/
Final EIS considered 134 ACECs (all of
which are listed below) based on
cooperator and stakeholder comments.
The Draft DRECP was developed by
the BLM, USFWS, California Energy
Commission, and California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (collectively,
‘‘DRECP Partner Agencies’’) to: (1)
Advance Federal and State natural
resource conservation goals and other
Federal land management goals; (2)
Meet the requirements of the Federal
Endangered Species Act, California
Endangered Species Act, Natural
Community Conservation Planning Act,
and Federal Land Policy and
Management Act in the Mojave and
Colorado/Sonoran desert region of
Southern California; and (3) Facilitate
the timely and streamlined permitting of
renewable energy projects.
In December 2012, the DRECP Partner
Agencies published the Description and
Comparative Evaluation of Draft DRECP
Alternatives to inform the public about
the status of the DRECP alternatives.
Members of the public were invited to
provide input regarding the
development scenarios, conservation
designations, and BLM LUPA
alternatives, as well as other specific
elements presented. Specific to the
LUPA, this document included maps
showing existing and proposed ‘‘Desert
Conservation Lands’’ (existing and
proposed ACECs, proposed National
Conservation Lands, and proposed
Wildlife Allocations), as well as areas
managed for recreation and existing and
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12939
proposed Special Recreation
Management Areas. The BLM also
disclosed that the land use plan
amendments would identify: (1) Desired
outcomes expressed as specific goals
and objectives; and (2) Allowable uses
and management actions designed to
achieve those specific goals and
objectives. The public was especially
encouraged to provide input about the
differences among the alternatives.
The Draft DRECP included a strategy
that identified and mapped potential
areas for renewable energy development
and areas for long-term natural resource
conservation. The Draft DRECP was
released for comment on September 26,
2014, with comments being accepted
until February 23, 2015. It included a
Draft BLM LUPA for the CDCA Plan,
and the Bishop and Caliente/Bakersfield
RMPs. The Draft BLM LUPA included
six alternatives for the expansion,
reduction, modification, and creation of
ACECs, ranging from 3,308,000 acres
(including 1,048,000 acres within
Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and
Wilderness Areas (No Action)) to
6,199,000 acres (including 1,209,000
acres within WSAs and Wilderness
Areas (Alternative 3)). The Preferred
Alternative proposed 6,077,000 acres of
ACEC (including 1,209,000 acres within
WSAs and Wilderness Areas).
The Draft DRECP also proposed
Conservation and Management Actions
(CMAs) to manage ACECs. CMAs
included various resource use
limitations. The Draft DRECP included
147 ACECs. Of these, 58 were newly
proposed ACECs, and 89 were existing.
The alternatives considered a range of
footprints and CMAs for both existing
and newly proposed ACECs. Maps of
each ACEC were included in Appendix
L of the Draft DRECP. CMAs were listed
in Volume II, with management specific
to individual ACECs listed in Appendix
L.
In March 2015, the DRECP Partner
Agencies announced a phased approach
to completing the DRECP. As part of the
approach, the BLM component of the
DRECP (the LUPA) is being finalized
first in Phase I, outlining important
designations for conservation and
renewable energy on public lands.
The Proposed DRECP LUPA would
amend the CDCA Plan for the entire
CDCA, and the RMPs for portions of the
Bishop and Bakersfield Field Offices.
This includes the Mojave Desert and
Colorado/Sonoran Desert ecoregion
subareas in California. The DRECP Plan
Area includes all or a portion of the
following counties: Imperial, Inyo, Kern,
Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and San Diego. The DRECP LUPA Area
covers approximately 10,869,000 of
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
12940
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2016 / Notices
BLM-administered lands. The Proposed
LUPA also included six alternatives for
the expansion, reduction, modification,
and creation of ACECs. The 134 ACECs
listed in this notice include all the
ACECs identified within the range of
alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS.
Based on comments received on the
Draft DRECP, the Proposed LUPA would
designate 130 ACECs covering
approximately 5,976,000 acres
(including 1,101,000 acres within WSAs
and Wilderness Areas) and includes
CMAs and resource use limitations to
manage those ACECs. Those 130 ACECs
are a subset of the 134 listed below. The
Proposed LUPA clarifies CMAs as they
applied to the ACECs. It includes a
detailed methodology for implementing
and managing for ground disturbance
caps in ACECs, including the addition
of ground disturbance mitigation. As
part of the Proposed LUPA, additional
areas were moved into proposed
conservation that were not included in
the preferred alternative in the Draft
EIS, including Silurian Valley, Cadiz
Valley, the entirety of the Desert
Tortoise Research Natural Area, the
Palen-Ford cultural and sand resources
areas. Some ACECs included in the
Draft DRECP were combined with, or
subsumed by other existing ACECs for
manageability in the Proposed LUPA.
Small amounts of acres were removed
from the ACECs to ensure that
boundaries were manageable and
enforceable, and to remove active
mining areas from the ACECs in the
Proposed LUPA.
The Notice of Availability for the
DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS
was published on November 13, 2015,
(80 FR 70254), which initiated a 30-day
protest period. During the initial review
of protest letters received, the BLM
determined that it had missed a
regulatory requirement, stated in 43 CFR
1610.7–2(b), to specifically list in a
Federal Register Notice the proposed
ACECs being considered. In order to
fulfill this regulatory requirement, the
BLM is releasing this NOA to identify
the 134 ACECs and associated resource
use limitations considered in the
Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, and
providing an additional 60-day public
comment period on those ACECs.
The BLM accepted and considered
input from the public on ACEC values
and potential designation during
scoping for the LUPA, during public
comment on the Description and
Comparative Evaluation of Draft DRECP
Alternatives published in December
2012, and during the five-month
comment period on the Draft DRECP
LUPA and EIR/EIS. The alternatives
analyzed in the Draft DRECP and EIR/
EIS varied in number and size of
potential ACECs as discussed above.
The BLM then considered comments
on the Draft DRECP in the development
of the DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final
EIS. Of the ACECs analyzed in the draft
plan, the Proposed LUPA would
designate 130 of the 134 area listed
below as ACECs with their associated
management and resource use
limitations. The remaining four areas
identified as potential ACECs were
determined to not be appropriate for
designation at this time. Resource use
limitations were included in Volume II
and Appendix L of the Draft DRECP.
The BLM considered public comments
received during the comment period
and refined the CMAs included in the
Proposed LUPA.
Special Unit Management Plans were
developed specific for each ACEC and
are contained in Appendix L of the
DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS.
The BLM evaluated each proposed and
existing ACEC within the DRECP to
determine if special management was
needed for the following resources and
uses:
• Soil, water, air;
• Vegetation—including special
status species;
• Fish and wildlife—including
special status species;
Acres
(No Action)
Proposed ACEC
Acres
(Proposed
LUPA)
8,800
8,800
Alligator Rock ...............................................................
Amargosa North ...........................................................
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Afton Canyon ................................................................
6,800
7,100
6,800
115,900
Amargosa South ...........................................................
19,500
147,900
Amboy Crater National Natural Area ...........................
Avawatz Mountains Wilderness Study Area ................
Ayers Rock ...................................................................
Barstow Carbonate Endemic Plants Research Natural
Area.
600
0
0
4,400
600
49,800
1,600
5,000
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Mar 10, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• Cultural resources;
• Paleontology;
• Trails and travel management;
• Recreation;
• Land tenure;
• Rights of way;
• Minerals (including locatable
minerals, mineral materials, and
non-energy leasables); and
• Wild horses and burros.
Where special management, including
resource use limitations, is proposed for
a specific ACEC, it is identified in that
unit’s Special Unit Management Plan.
The proposed resource use limitations
for all ACECs listed below include
limitations on ground disturbing
activities. Ground disturbing activities
in ACECs would be constrained by
specified disturbance caps, which limit
the total ground disturbance in the area.
The specific ACEC disturbance caps
were first disclosed in the Draft DRECP
LUPA, are defined in the individual
Special Unit Management Plans
(Appendix L for the Draft DRECP LUPA
and Proposed LUPA/Final EIS), and
range from 1.0 percent to 0.1 percent.
The methodology for applying the
disturbance caps is listed in CMAs
ACEC–DIST–1 through ACEC–DIST–3
in Section II.3.4 of the Proposed DRECP
LUPA/Final EIS.
Other resource use limitations include
limitations on rights-of-way (including
prohibition of renewable energy
activities and right-of-way avoidance or
exclusion for all other rights-of-way),
specific design features and mitigation
measures to protect cultural and
biological resources. These CMAs are
listed in Section II.3.4.2.2 and II.3.4.2.4
of the Proposed LUPA/Final EIS.
The DRECP Proposed LUPA includes
the following ACECs (note that acreage
figures are rounded to the nearest 1000,
100, or 10, as appropriate) (due to
rounding and designation overlap,
columns do not sum to the total acreage
figures discussed above):
Relevant and important values
Hydrologic and geologic features, paleontological
sources, cultural values, wildlife resources.
Cultural values.
Wildlife resources, plant assemblages, riparian
sources, cultural values (includes portions of
existing Amargosa River ACEC).
Wildlife resources, plant assemblages, riparian
sources, cultural values (includes portions of
existing Amargosa River ACEC).
Plant assemblage.
Wildlife resources.
Cultural values.
Vegetative resources, wildlife resources.
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
rerethe
rethe
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2016 / Notices
Acres
(Proposed
LUPA)
Acres
(No Action)
Proposed ACEC
19,100
800
11,700
19,100
800
9,800
Big Morongo Canyon ....................................................
24,900
24,900
Big Rock Creek Wash ..................................................
0
300
Bigelow Cholla ..............................................................
Black Mountain Cultural Area .......................................
Brisbane Valley Monkey Flower ...................................
Bristol Mountains ..........................................................
Cadiz Valley ..................................................................
Cady Mountains Wilderness Study Area .....................
Calico Early Man Site ...................................................
Caliente Creek Area of Ecological Importance ............
100
51,300
0
0
0
0
800
0
4,400
51,300
11,700
214,200
190,800
101,400
800
0
Castle Mountain ............................................................
0
22,900
Cerro Gordo-Conglomerate Mesa ................................
9,000
12,100
Cerro Gordo Wilderness Study Area ...........................
Chemehuevi ..................................................................
0
818,900
600
875,400
Christmas Canyon ........................................................
Chuckwalla ...................................................................
3,400
493,600
3,400
514,400
Chuckwalla to Chemehuevi Tortoise Linkage ..............
Chuckwalla Valley Dune Thicket ..................................
Clark Mountain .............................................................
0
2,200
4,300
319,900
2,200
0
Coachella Valley Fringe-toad Lizard ............................
10,300
10,300
Coolgardie Mesa ..........................................................
Corn Springs .................................................................
9,800
2,500
9,800
2,500
Coyote Mountains Fossil Site .......................................
5,900
5,900
Crater Mountain Wilderness Study Area ......................
Cronese Basin ..............................................................
Dagget Ridge Monkey Flower ......................................
Dead Mountains ...........................................................
Death Valley Wilderness Study Area ...........................
Denning Springs ...........................................................
Desert Lily Preserve .....................................................
Desert Tortoise Research Natural Area .......................
Dos Palmas ..................................................................
0
8,500
26,000
27,200
0
400
2,100
22,200
8,300
1,000
8,500
26,000
27,200
47,900
400
2,100
22,200
8,300
Eagles Flyway ..............................................................
East Mesa .....................................................................
El Paso to Golden Valley Wildlife ................................
0
42,100
0
11,000
88,500
57,900
Fossil Falls ....................................................................
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Barstow Woolly Sunflower ............................................
Bedrock Spring .............................................................
Bendire’s Thrasher .......................................................
1,600
1,600
Fremont-Kramer ...........................................................
Granite Mountain Wildlife Linkage ...............................
Great Falls Basin Argus Range Wilderness Study
Area.
Halloran Wash ..............................................................
Harper Dry Lake ...........................................................
Horse Canyon ...............................................................
311,500
0
0
310,200
39,300
10,300
1,700
500
1,500
1,700
500
1,500
Independence Creek Wilderness Study Area ..............
Indian Pass ...................................................................
Ivanpah .........................................................................
Jawbone/Butterbredt .....................................................
0
1,900
35,000
147,800
6,800
1,900
78,300
153,200
Juniper Flats Cultural Area ...........................................
Kelso Creek Monkeyflower ...........................................
2,400
1,900
2,400
1,900
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Mar 10, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12941
Relevant and important values
Vegetative resources, wildlife resources.
Cultural values, wildlife resources.
Wildlife resources (portions of existing ACEC are proposed to be managed as part of the Jawbone/
Butterbredt ACEC).
Wildlife and vegetative resources, cultural values, riparian resources.
Geologic features, vegetative resources, wildlife resources.
Wildlife and vegetative resources.
Cultural values, wildlife and vegetative resources.
Vegetative resources.
Wildlife resources, plant assemblages, cultural values.
Wildlife resources, unique plant assemblages.
Wildlife resources.
Cultural values.
Wildlife resources (Note—this area is being identified
as important for wildlife, but not as an ACEC in the
Proposed LUPA).
Unique plant assemblage, wildlife resources, cultural
values.
Cultural values, rare plant and animal species and
habitat.
Cultural values, desert wildlife species.
Wildlife resources, usual plant assemblages, cultural
values.
Cultural values.
Cultural values, scenic values, vegetative and wildlife
resources.
Wildlife resources, cultural values.
Vegetation resources, cultural values.
The majority of this ACEC is now within the Mojave
National Preserve. Lands outside the Preserve are
proposed to be managed within the Ivanpah ACEC.
Unique geologic features, wildlife resources, cultural
values.
Vegetative resources.
Cultural values, hydrologic features, wildlife and vegetation resources.
Geologic features, paleontological resources, wildlife
resources, cultural values.
Wildlife resources.
Cultural values.
Vegetative resources.
Cultural values.
Cultural values, wildlife resources.
Cultural values.
Vegetative resources.
Wildlife resources.
Unique geologic features, wildlife and fish resources,
cultural values.
Wildlife resources.
Cultural values, wildlife resources.
Wildlife resources, geologic features, vegetative resources.
Wildlife resources, prehistoric and historic cultural values, unique geological features.
Wildlife resources.
Wildlife resources, plant assemblages.
Wildlife resources.
Cultural values.
Riparian resources, wildlife resources.
Cultural values, paleontological resources, vegetative
resources.
Wildlife resources.
Cultural values, vegetative resources.
Wildlife resources, cultural values.
Wildlife resources, cultural values, vegetative resources.
Cultural values, wildlife resources.
Vegetative resources.
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
12942
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2016 / Notices
Acres
(No Action)
Proposed ACEC
Acres
(Proposed
LUPA)
18,900
0
14,000
5,100
2,900
18,900
40,000
8,600
5,100
2,900
Manzanar ......................................................................
Marble Mountain Fossil Bed .........................................
McCoy Valley ................................................................
McCoy Wash ................................................................
Mesquite Hills/Crucero .................................................
Mesquite Lake ..............................................................
Middle Knob ..................................................................
Mojave Fishhook Cactus ..............................................
Mojave Fringe-toad Lizard ............................................
Mojave Ground Squirrel ...............................................
Mopah Spring ...............................................................
Mountain Pass Dinosaur Trackway ..............................
Mule McCoy Linkage ....................................................
Mule Mountains ............................................................
North Algodones Dunes ...............................................
0
200
0
0
5,000
6,700
17,800
600
22,200
0
1,900
600
0
4,100
0
500
200
26,200
6,400
5,000
6,700
17,800
600
22,400
198,600
1,900
600
51,500
4,100
0
Northern Lucerne Wildlife Linkage ...............................
Ocotillo ..........................................................................
Olancha Greasewood ...................................................
Old Woman Springs Wildlife Linkage ...........................
Ord-Rodman .................................................................
Owens Lake ..................................................................
Palen Dry Lake .............................................................
Palen Ford Playa Dunes ..............................................
Panamint and Argus .....................................................
Parish’s Phacelia ..........................................................
Patton Military Camps ..................................................
Picacho .........................................................................
Pilot Knob .....................................................................
Pinto Mountains ............................................................
Pipes Canyon ...............................................................
Pisgah Research Natural Area .....................................
Piute-Fenner .................................................................
Plank Road ...................................................................
Rainbow Basin/Owl Canyon .........................................
0
0
0
0
218,800
0
0
0
0
500
3800
0
900
110,000
0
18,100
151,900
300
4,100
21,900
14,600
25,600
56,000
230,900
10,300
3,600
41,400
125,500
500
16,500
184,500
900
110,000
8,500
42,100
155,700
300
4,100
Red Mountain Spring ....................................................
Rodman Mountains Cultural Area ................................
Rose Spring ..................................................................
Saline Valley .................................................................
700
6,200
800
1,400
700
6,200
800
1,400
Salt Creek Hills .............................................................
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Kingston Range ............................................................
Kingston Range Wilderness Study Area ......................
Lake Cahuilla ................................................................
Last Chance Canyon ....................................................
Manix Paleontological Area ..........................................
2,200
2,200
Salton Seas Hazardous ................................................
San Sebastian Marsh/San Felipe Creek ......................
Sand Canyon ................................................................
Santos Manuel ..............................................................
Shadow Valley ..............................................................
Shoreline .......................................................................
Short Canyon ................................................................
Sierra Canyons .............................................................
Singer Geoglyphs .........................................................
Soda Mountain Expansion ...........................................
Soda Mountains Wilderness Study Area .....................
Soggy Dry Lake Creosote Rings ..................................
Southern Inyo Wilderness Study Area .........................
Steam Well ...................................................................
Superior-Cronese .........................................................
Surprise Canyon ...........................................................
Symmes Creek Wilderness Study Area .......................
Tehachapi Linkage .......................................................
0
6,500
2,600
0
95,800
11,600
800
0
1,900
0
0
200
0
40
404,800
4,600
0
0
7,100
6,500
2,600
27,500
197,500
35,800
800
26,400
1,900
16,700
88,800
200
2,900
40
397,400
4,600
8,400
0
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Mar 10, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Relevant and important values
Wildlife and vegetative resources, cultural values.
Wildlife resources.
Cultural values.
Cultural values, wildlife resources.
Paleontological resources, cultural values, wildlife resources.
Cultural values.
Geologic features, paleontological resources.
Wildlife resources.
Plant assemblage, wildlife resources.
Cultural values.
Cultural values.
Vegetative resources.
Vegetative resources.
Wildlife and vegetative resources.
Wildlife and vegetative resources.
Wildlife resources, cultural values.
Paleontological resources.
Wildlife resources, plant assemblage, cultural values.
Wildlife resources.
During the DRECP process, this ACEC designation
was removed through the Imperial Sand Dunes
Recreation Area (ISDRA) Management Plan ROD
(June 2013). It is reflected in the range of alternatives. The Proposed LUPA would adopt the decision made in the ISDRA ROD.
Wildlife resources, plant assemblages.
Cultural values, wildlife resources.
Unusual plant assemblage.
Wildlife resources.
Wildlife resources.
Cultural values, wildlife and plant resources.
Cultural values, wildlife resources.
Playa/dune system, wildlife resources, cultural values.
Desert wetland communities, cultural values.
Vegetative resources.
Cultural values.
Wildlife and vegetative resources, cultural values.
Cultural values.
Wildlife resources.
Cultural values.
Wildlife resources, plant assemblages.
Wildlife resources, cultural resources.
Cultural values.
Wildlife resources, geologic features, paleontological
resources.
Cultural values, wildlife resources.
Cultural values, wildlife resources.
Cultural values.
Cultural values, wildlife resources, unique vegetation
communities.
Vegetation resources, riparian resources, cultural values.
Public hazard.
Cultural values, wildlife resources.
Wildlife and vegetative resources, cultural values.
Wildlife resources, cultural values.
Wildlife resources, cultural values.
Cultural values.
Wildlife and vegetative resources.
Cultural values, wildlife resources.
Cultural values, vegetative resources.
Wildlife resources, cultural values.
Cultural values, wildlife and vegetative resources.
Unusual plant assemblage.
Wildlife resources.
Cultural values.
Wildlife resources.
Wildlife resources, riparian resources.
Wildlife resources, cultural values.
Wildlife resources (Note—this area is being identified
as important for wildlife, but not as an ACEC in the
Proposed LUPA.).
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2016 / Notices
Acres
(No Action)
Proposed ACEC
Acres
(Proposed
LUPA)
4,000
50,400
300
0
4,000
50,400
300
37,300
Warm Sulfur Springs ....................................................
300
300
West Mesa ....................................................................
West Paradise ..............................................................
Western Rand Mountains .............................................
Whipple Mountains .......................................................
White Mountain City .....................................................
White Mountains Wilderness Study Area .....................
Whitewater Canyon ......................................................
20,300
200
31,100
2,800
800
0
14,000
82,600
200
30,300
2,800
800
8,800
14,000
Yuha Basin ...................................................................
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Trona Pinnacles National Natural Landmark ...............
Turtle Mountains ...........................................................
Upper Johnson Valley Yucca Rings .............................
Upper McCoy ................................................................
68,300
77,300
Copies of the DRECP Proposed LUPA/
Final EIS are available for public
inspection at the following locations:
• BLM California State Office, 2800
Cottage Way, Suite W–1623,
Sacramento, CA;
• 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;
and
• BLM Bishop Field Office, 351 Pacu
Lane, Suite 100, Bishop, CA 93514.
Before including your phone number,
email address, or other personal
identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment letter—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: 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5,
43 CFR 1610.7–2(b)
Thomas Pogacnik,
Deputy State Director, Bureau of Land
Management.
[FR Doc. 2016–05562 Filed 3–10–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–40–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:56 Mar 10, 2016
Jkt 238001
Relevant and important values
Unique geologic features, wildlife resources.
Wildlife resources.
Unusual plant assemblage.
Wildlife resources, cultural values, unusual plant assemblage.
Desert marsh habitat, unique geologic and hydrologic
features, cultural values.
Wildlife resources, cultural values.
Vegetative resources.
Wildlife resources.
Geologic features, cultural values.
Cultural values.
Wildlife resources.
Riparian resources, wildlife resources, scenic resources, cultural values.
Cultural values, vegetative and wildlife resources.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLAZ910000.L12100000.XP0000 15X
6100.241A]
State of Arizona Resource Advisory
Council Meeting
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act of 1972, the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), Arizona
Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will
meet in Phoenix, Arizona, as indicated
below.
DATES: The Arizona RAC Business
meeting will take place April 28, 2016,
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the BLM Arizona State Office located at
One North Central Avenue, Suite 800,
Phoenix, Arizona 85004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dorothea Boothe, Arizona RAC
Coordinator at the Bureau of Land
Management, Arizona State Office, One
North Central Avenue, Suite 800,
Phoenix, Arizona 85004–4427, 602–
417–9500. 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 15member Council advises the Secretary
of the Interior, through the BLM, on a
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12943
variety of planning and management
issues associated with public land
management in Arizona. Planned
agenda items include: A Welcome and
Introduction of Council Members; BLM
State Director’s Update on BLM
Programs and Issues; Threatened and
Endangered Species Program Overview;
Update on Northstar 2025 Project; RAC
Review of the Paria Canyon/Coyote
Buttes Special Management Area
Proposed Business Plan; RAC
Committee Reports; RAC Questions on
BLM District Manager Reports and other
items of interest to the RAC. Members
of the public are welcome to attend the
RAC Business meeting. A public
comment period is scheduled from 1:45
to 2:15 p.m. and again around 3:00
during the Recreation RAC Session for
any interested members of the public
who wish to address the Council on
BLM programs and business. Depending
on the number of persons wishing to
speak and time available, the time for
individual comments may be limited.
Written comments may also be
submitted during the meeting for the
RAC’s consideration. The final meeting
agenda will be available two weeks
prior to the meeting and posted on the
BLM Web site at: https://www.blm.gov/
az/st/en/res/rac.html. Additionally,
directions to the meeting site and
parking information may be found on
the BLM Web site at: https://
www.blm.gov/az/st/en/res/pub_room/
location.html. Individuals who need
special assistance, such as sign language
interpretation or other reasonable
accommodations, should contact the
RAC Coordinator listed above no later
than two weeks before the start of the
meeting.
Under the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act, the RAC has been
designated as the Recreation RAC and
has the authority to review all BLM and
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12938-12943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05562]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLCA932000.L13400000.DP0000.LXSSB0020000.16X]
Notice of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in the Desert
Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment,
California
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) announced
availability of the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Desert Renewable Energy
Conservation Plan (DRECP) with a Notice of Availability published in
the Federal Register on November 13, 2015 (80 FR 70254). The Proposed
LUPA would amend the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan
and the Bakersfield and Bishop Resource Management Plans (RMPs). The
Proposed DRECP LUPA/Final EIS considers designation of 134 Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). In order to comply with Federal
Regulations at 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b), the BLM through this notice is
announcing a 60-day public comment period on those 134 ACECs. The 134
ACECs listed in this notice are identical to those identified in the
alternatives found within the Proposed DRECP LUPA/Final EIS addressed
by the publication of the Federal Notice of Availability on November
13, 2015. The scope of this 60-day comment period is
[[Page 12939]]
limited to these 134 ACEC designations. Comments on other topics are
outside the scope of this public comment process
DATES: The comment period pertaining to these ACEC designations closes
on May 10, 2016. All comments must be in writing and must be postmarked
no later than the close of the last day of the comment period. The BLM
provided a 152-day comment period on the Draft DRECP LUPA and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/EIS. All comments received on the
Draft DRECP were considered while developing the Proposed LUPA/Final
EIS. As such, the BLM is only seeking comments on the 134 ACECs
included in the Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, which are listed in this
notice. While the BLM will consider all such comments, it does not
intend to respond to each comment individually.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be in writing and must be sent to Vicki
Campbell, DRECP Program Manager, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-1623,
Sacramento, CA 95825; or email blm_ca_drecp@blm.gov.
Copies of the DRECP Proposed LUPA/Final EIS were sent to affected
Federal, State, and local government agencies, affected tribal
governments, and to other stakeholders concurrent with the November 13,
2015 Notice of Availability. The environmental analysis for the DRECP,
including the Draft DRECP and the DRECP Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, is
available for review online at www.drecp.org and www.blm.gov/ca/drecp.
Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for a list of locations
where copies of the DRECP Proposed LUPA/Final EIS are available for
public inspection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicki Campbell, Program Manager,
DRECP, telephone 916-978-4401; address BLM California State Office,
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-1623, Sacramento, CA 95825; email
vlcampbell@blm.gov. To request a DVD, please send an email to
drecp.info@energy.ca.gov">drecp.info@energy.ca.gov or call 916-978-4401 and include the mailing
address in the message. 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 DRECP was developed with broad public
participation through an 6-year collaborative planning process,
beginning with publication of a Notice of Intent to amend the CDCA Plan
in the Federal Register on November 20, 2009 (74 FR 60291).
Subsequently, the BLM and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as co-
lead agencies jointly published on July 29, 2011 a Notice of Intent to
prepare an EIS for the proposed DRECP (76 FR 45606). The BLM published
a third Notice of Intent on April 4, 2012 (77 FR 20409), amending the
November 20, 2009, and July 29, 2011, notices to include the Bishop,
Caliente/Bakersfield, and Eastern San Diego County RMPs in the DRECP
LUPA.
As explained in more detail below, the Draft DRECP, which included
a Draft BLM LUPA for the CDCA Plan, and the Bishop and Caliente/
Bakersfield RMPs, was published on September 26, 2014, (76 FR 57971).
The Notice of Availability for the DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS
was published on November 13, 2015. In each of these documents and at
associated public meetings, the BLM presented a robust discussion of
ACECs. The Draft DRECP identified 147 ACECs (58 new and 89 existing),
while the Proposed LUPA/Final EIS considered 134 ACECs (all of which
are listed below) based on cooperator and stakeholder comments.
The Draft DRECP was developed by the BLM, USFWS, California Energy
Commission, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(collectively, ``DRECP Partner Agencies'') to: (1) Advance Federal and
State natural resource conservation goals and other Federal land
management goals; (2) Meet the requirements of the Federal Endangered
Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act
in the Mojave and Colorado/Sonoran desert region of Southern
California; and (3) Facilitate the timely and streamlined permitting of
renewable energy projects.
In December 2012, the DRECP Partner Agencies published the
Description and Comparative Evaluation of Draft DRECP Alternatives to
inform the public about the status of the DRECP alternatives. Members
of the public were invited to provide input regarding the development
scenarios, conservation designations, and BLM LUPA alternatives, as
well as other specific elements presented. Specific to the LUPA, this
document included maps showing existing and proposed ``Desert
Conservation Lands'' (existing and proposed ACECs, proposed National
Conservation Lands, and proposed Wildlife Allocations), as well as
areas managed for recreation and existing and proposed Special
Recreation Management Areas. The BLM also disclosed that the land use
plan amendments would identify: (1) Desired outcomes expressed as
specific goals and objectives; and (2) Allowable uses and management
actions designed to achieve those specific goals and objectives. The
public was especially encouraged to provide input about the differences
among the alternatives.
The Draft DRECP included a strategy that identified and mapped
potential areas for renewable energy development and areas for long-
term natural resource conservation. The Draft DRECP was released for
comment on September 26, 2014, with comments being accepted until
February 23, 2015. It included a Draft BLM LUPA for the CDCA Plan, and
the Bishop and Caliente/Bakersfield RMPs. The Draft BLM LUPA included
six alternatives for the expansion, reduction, modification, and
creation of ACECs, ranging from 3,308,000 acres (including 1,048,000
acres within Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Wilderness Areas (No
Action)) to 6,199,000 acres (including 1,209,000 acres within WSAs and
Wilderness Areas (Alternative 3)). The Preferred Alternative proposed
6,077,000 acres of ACEC (including 1,209,000 acres within WSAs and
Wilderness Areas).
The Draft DRECP also proposed Conservation and Management Actions
(CMAs) to manage ACECs. CMAs included various resource use limitations.
The Draft DRECP included 147 ACECs. Of these, 58 were newly proposed
ACECs, and 89 were existing. The alternatives considered a range of
footprints and CMAs for both existing and newly proposed ACECs. Maps of
each ACEC were included in Appendix L of the Draft DRECP. CMAs were
listed in Volume II, with management specific to individual ACECs
listed in Appendix L.
In March 2015, the DRECP Partner Agencies announced a phased
approach to completing the DRECP. As part of the approach, the BLM
component of the DRECP (the LUPA) is being finalized first in Phase I,
outlining important designations for conservation and renewable energy
on public lands.
The Proposed DRECP LUPA would amend the CDCA Plan for the entire
CDCA, and the RMPs for portions of the Bishop and Bakersfield Field
Offices. This includes the Mojave Desert and Colorado/Sonoran Desert
ecoregion subareas in California. The DRECP Plan Area includes all or a
portion of the following counties: Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles,
Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego. The DRECP LUPA Area covers
approximately 10,869,000 of
[[Page 12940]]
BLM-administered lands. The Proposed LUPA also included six
alternatives for the expansion, reduction, modification, and creation
of ACECs. The 134 ACECs listed in this notice include all the ACECs
identified within the range of alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS.
Based on comments received on the Draft DRECP, the Proposed LUPA would
designate 130 ACECs covering approximately 5,976,000 acres (including
1,101,000 acres within WSAs and Wilderness Areas) and includes CMAs and
resource use limitations to manage those ACECs. Those 130 ACECs are a
subset of the 134 listed below. The Proposed LUPA clarifies CMAs as
they applied to the ACECs. It includes a detailed methodology for
implementing and managing for ground disturbance caps in ACECs,
including the addition of ground disturbance mitigation. As part of the
Proposed LUPA, additional areas were moved into proposed conservation
that were not included in the preferred alternative in the Draft EIS,
including Silurian Valley, Cadiz Valley, the entirety of the Desert
Tortoise Research Natural Area, the Palen-Ford cultural and sand
resources areas. Some ACECs included in the Draft DRECP were combined
with, or subsumed by other existing ACECs for manageability in the
Proposed LUPA. Small amounts of acres were removed from the ACECs to
ensure that boundaries were manageable and enforceable, and to remove
active mining areas from the ACECs in the Proposed LUPA.
The Notice of Availability for the DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final
EIS was published on November 13, 2015, (80 FR 70254), which initiated
a 30-day protest period. During the initial review of protest letters
received, the BLM determined that it had missed a regulatory
requirement, stated in 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b), to specifically list in a
Federal Register Notice the proposed ACECs being considered. In order
to fulfill this regulatory requirement, the BLM is releasing this NOA
to identify the 134 ACECs and associated resource use limitations
considered in the Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, and providing an additional
60-day public comment period on those ACECs.
The BLM accepted and considered input from the public on ACEC
values and potential designation during scoping for the LUPA, during
public comment on the Description and Comparative Evaluation of Draft
DRECP Alternatives published in December 2012, and during the five-
month comment period on the Draft DRECP LUPA and EIR/EIS. The
alternatives analyzed in the Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS varied in number
and size of potential ACECs as discussed above.
The BLM then considered comments on the Draft DRECP in the
development of the DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS. Of the ACECs
analyzed in the draft plan, the Proposed LUPA would designate 130 of
the 134 area listed below as ACECs with their associated management and
resource use limitations. The remaining four areas identified as
potential ACECs were determined to not be appropriate for designation
at this time. Resource use limitations were included in Volume II and
Appendix L of the Draft DRECP. The BLM considered public comments
received during the comment period and refined the CMAs included in the
Proposed LUPA.
Special Unit Management Plans were developed specific for each ACEC
and are contained in Appendix L of the DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final
EIS. The BLM evaluated each proposed and existing ACEC within the DRECP
to determine if special management was needed for the following
resources and uses:
Soil, water, air;
Vegetation--including special status species;
Fish and wildlife--including special status species;
Cultural resources;
Paleontology;
Trails and travel management;
Recreation;
Land tenure;
Rights of way;
Minerals (including locatable minerals, mineral materials,
and non[hyphen]energy leasables); and
Wild horses and burros.
Where special management, including resource use limitations, is
proposed for a specific ACEC, it is identified in that unit's Special
Unit Management Plan.
The proposed resource use limitations for all ACECs listed below
include limitations on ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing
activities in ACECs would be constrained by specified disturbance caps,
which limit the total ground disturbance in the area. The specific ACEC
disturbance caps were first disclosed in the Draft DRECP LUPA, are
defined in the individual Special Unit Management Plans (Appendix L for
the Draft DRECP LUPA and Proposed LUPA/Final EIS), and range from 1.0
percent to 0.1 percent. The methodology for applying the disturbance
caps is listed in CMAs ACEC-DIST-1 through ACEC-DIST-3 in Section
II.3.4 of the Proposed DRECP LUPA/Final EIS.
Other resource use limitations include limitations on rights-of-way
(including prohibition of renewable energy activities and right-of-way
avoidance or exclusion for all other rights-of-way), specific design
features and mitigation measures to protect cultural and biological
resources. These CMAs are listed in Section II.3.4.2.2 and II.3.4.2.4
of the Proposed LUPA/Final EIS.
The DRECP Proposed LUPA includes the following ACECs (note that
acreage figures are rounded to the nearest 1000, 100, or 10, as
appropriate) (due to rounding and designation overlap, columns do not
sum to the total acreage figures discussed above):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres
Proposed ACEC Acres (No (Proposed Relevant and important values
Action) LUPA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afton Canyon............................... 8,800 8,800 Hydrologic and geologic features,
paleontological resources,
cultural values, wildlife
resources.
Alligator Rock............................. 6,800 6,800 Cultural values.
Amargosa North............................. 7,100 115,900 Wildlife resources, plant
assemblages, riparian resources,
cultural values (includes portions
of the existing Amargosa River
ACEC).
Amargosa South............................. 19,500 147,900 Wildlife resources, plant
assemblages, riparian resources,
cultural values (includes portions
of the existing Amargosa River
ACEC).
Amboy Crater National Natural Area......... 600 600 Plant assemblage.
Avawatz Mountains Wilderness Study Area.... 0 49,800 Wildlife resources.
Ayers Rock................................. 0 1,600 Cultural values.
Barstow Carbonate Endemic Plants Research 4,400 5,000 Vegetative resources, wildlife
Natural Area. resources.
[[Page 12941]]
Barstow Woolly Sunflower................... 19,100 19,100 Vegetative resources, wildlife
resources.
Bedrock Spring............................. 800 800 Cultural values, wildlife
resources.
Bendire's Thrasher......................... 11,700 9,800 Wildlife resources (portions of
existing ACEC are proposed to be
managed as part of the Jawbone/
Butterbredt ACEC).
Big Morongo Canyon......................... 24,900 24,900 Wildlife and vegetative resources,
cultural values, riparian
resources.
Big Rock Creek Wash........................ 0 300 Geologic features, vegetative
resources, wildlife resources.
Bigelow Cholla............................. 100 4,400 Wildlife and vegetative resources.
Black Mountain Cultural Area............... 51,300 51,300 Cultural values, wildlife and
vegetative resources.
Brisbane Valley Monkey Flower.............. 0 11,700 Vegetative resources.
Bristol Mountains.......................... 0 214,200 Wildlife resources, plant
assemblages, cultural values.
Cadiz Valley............................... 0 190,800 Wildlife resources, unique plant
assemblages.
Cady Mountains Wilderness Study Area....... 0 101,400 Wildlife resources.
Calico Early Man Site...................... 800 800 Cultural values.
Caliente Creek Area of Ecological 0 0 Wildlife resources (Note--this area
Importance. is being identified as important
for wildlife, but not as an ACEC
in the Proposed LUPA).
Castle Mountain............................ 0 22,900 Unique plant assemblage, wildlife
resources, cultural values.
Cerro Gordo-Conglomerate Mesa.............. 9,000 12,100 Cultural values, rare plant and
animal species and habitat.
Cerro Gordo Wilderness Study Area.......... 0 600 Cultural values, desert wildlife
species.
Chemehuevi................................. 818,900 875,400 Wildlife resources, usual plant
assemblages, cultural values.
Christmas Canyon........................... 3,400 3,400 Cultural values.
Chuckwalla................................. 493,600 514,400 Cultural values, scenic values,
vegetative and wildlife resources.
Chuckwalla to Chemehuevi Tortoise Linkage.. 0 319,900 Wildlife resources, cultural
values.
Chuckwalla Valley Dune Thicket............. 2,200 2,200 Vegetation resources, cultural
values.
Clark Mountain............................. 4,300 0 The majority of this ACEC is now
within the Mojave National
Preserve. Lands outside the
Preserve are proposed to be
managed within the Ivanpah ACEC.
Coachella Valley Fringe-toad Lizard........ 10,300 10,300 Unique geologic features, wildlife
resources, cultural values.
Coolgardie Mesa............................ 9,800 9,800 Vegetative resources.
Corn Springs............................... 2,500 2,500 Cultural values, hydrologic
features, wildlife and vegetation
resources.
Coyote Mountains Fossil Site............... 5,900 5,900 Geologic features, paleontological
resources, wildlife resources,
cultural values.
Crater Mountain Wilderness Study Area...... 0 1,000 Wildlife resources.
Cronese Basin.............................. 8,500 8,500 Cultural values.
Dagget Ridge Monkey Flower................. 26,000 26,000 Vegetative resources.
Dead Mountains............................. 27,200 27,200 Cultural values.
Death Valley Wilderness Study Area......... 0 47,900 Cultural values, wildlife
resources.
Denning Springs............................ 400 400 Cultural values.
Desert Lily Preserve....................... 2,100 2,100 Vegetative resources.
Desert Tortoise Research Natural Area...... 22,200 22,200 Wildlife resources.
Dos Palmas................................. 8,300 8,300 Unique geologic features, wildlife
and fish resources, cultural
values.
Eagles Flyway.............................. 0 11,000 Wildlife resources.
East Mesa.................................. 42,100 88,500 Cultural values, wildlife
resources.
El Paso to Golden Valley Wildlife.......... 0 57,900 Wildlife resources, geologic
features, vegetative resources.
Fossil Falls............................... 1,600 1,600 Wildlife resources, prehistoric and
historic cultural values, unique
geological features.
Fremont-Kramer............................. 311,500 310,200 Wildlife resources.
Granite Mountain Wildlife Linkage.......... 0 39,300 Wildlife resources, plant
assemblages.
Great Falls Basin Argus Range Wilderness 0 10,300 Wildlife resources.
Study Area.
Halloran Wash.............................. 1,700 1,700 Cultural values.
Harper Dry Lake............................ 500 500 Riparian resources, wildlife
resources.
Horse Canyon............................... 1,500 1,500 Cultural values, paleontological
resources, vegetative resources.
Independence Creek Wilderness Study Area... 0 6,800 Wildlife resources.
Indian Pass................................ 1,900 1,900 Cultural values, vegetative
resources.
Ivanpah.................................... 35,000 78,300 Wildlife resources, cultural
values.
Jawbone/Butterbredt........................ 147,800 153,200 Wildlife resources, cultural
values, vegetative resources.
Juniper Flats Cultural Area................ 2,400 2,400 Cultural values, wildlife
resources.
Kelso Creek Monkeyflower................... 1,900 1,900 Vegetative resources.
[[Page 12942]]
Kingston Range............................. 18,900 18,900 Wildlife and vegetative resources,
cultural values.
Kingston Range Wilderness Study Area....... 0 40,000 Wildlife resources.
Lake Cahuilla.............................. 14,000 8,600 Cultural values.
Last Chance Canyon......................... 5,100 5,100 Cultural values, wildlife
resources.
Manix Paleontological Area................. 2,900 2,900 Paleontological resources, cultural
values, wildlife resources.
Manzanar................................... 0 500 Cultural values.
Marble Mountain Fossil Bed................. 200 200 Geologic features, paleontological
resources.
McCoy Valley............................... 0 26,200 Wildlife resources.
McCoy Wash................................. 0 6,400 Plant assemblage, wildlife
resources.
Mesquite Hills/Crucero..................... 5,000 5,000 Cultural values.
Mesquite Lake.............................. 6,700 6,700 Cultural values.
Middle Knob................................ 17,800 17,800 Vegetative resources.
Mojave Fishhook Cactus..................... 600 600 Vegetative resources.
Mojave Fringe-toad Lizard.................. 22,200 22,400 Wildlife and vegetative resources.
Mojave Ground Squirrel..................... 0 198,600 Wildlife and vegetative resources.
Mopah Spring............................... 1,900 1,900 Wildlife resources, cultural
values.
Mountain Pass Dinosaur Trackway............ 600 600 Paleontological resources.
Mule McCoy Linkage......................... 0 51,500 Wildlife resources, plant
assemblage, cultural values.
Mule Mountains............................. 4,100 4,100 Wildlife resources.
North Algodones Dunes...................... 0 0 During the DRECP process, this ACEC
designation was removed through
the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation
Area (ISDRA) Management Plan ROD
(June 2013). It is reflected in
the range of alternatives. The
Proposed LUPA would adopt the
decision made in the ISDRA ROD.
Northern Lucerne Wildlife Linkage.......... 0 21,900 Wildlife resources, plant
assemblages.
Ocotillo................................... 0 14,600 Cultural values, wildlife
resources.
Olancha Greasewood......................... 0 25,600 Unusual plant assemblage.
Old Woman Springs Wildlife Linkage......... 0 56,000 Wildlife resources.
Ord-Rodman................................. 218,800 230,900 Wildlife resources.
Owens Lake................................. 0 10,300 Cultural values, wildlife and plant
resources.
Palen Dry Lake............................. 0 3,600 Cultural values, wildlife
resources.
Palen Ford Playa Dunes..................... 0 41,400 Playa/dune system, wildlife
resources, cultural values.
Panamint and Argus......................... 0 125,500 Desert wetland communities,
cultural values.
Parish's Phacelia.......................... 500 500 Vegetative resources.
Patton Military Camps...................... 3800 16,500 Cultural values.
Picacho.................................... 0 184,500 Wildlife and vegetative resources,
cultural values.
Pilot Knob................................. 900 900 Cultural values.
Pinto Mountains............................ 110,000 110,000 Wildlife resources.
Pipes Canyon............................... 0 8,500 Cultural values.
Pisgah Research Natural Area............... 18,100 42,100 Wildlife resources, plant
assemblages.
Piute-Fenner............................... 151,900 155,700 Wildlife resources, cultural
resources.
Plank Road................................. 300 300 Cultural values.
Rainbow Basin/Owl Canyon................... 4,100 4,100 Wildlife resources, geologic
features, paleontological
resources.
Red Mountain Spring........................ 700 700 Cultural values, wildlife
resources.
Rodman Mountains Cultural Area............. 6,200 6,200 Cultural values, wildlife
resources.
Rose Spring................................ 800 800 Cultural values.
Saline Valley.............................. 1,400 1,400 Cultural values, wildlife
resources, unique vegetation
communities.
Salt Creek Hills........................... 2,200 2,200 Vegetation resources, riparian
resources, cultural values.
Salton Seas Hazardous...................... 0 7,100 Public hazard.
San Sebastian Marsh/San Felipe Creek....... 6,500 6,500 Cultural values, wildlife
resources.
Sand Canyon................................ 2,600 2,600 Wildlife and vegetative resources,
cultural values.
Santos Manuel.............................. 0 27,500 Wildlife resources, cultural
values.
Shadow Valley.............................. 95,800 197,500 Wildlife resources, cultural
values.
Shoreline.................................. 11,600 35,800 Cultural values.
Short Canyon............................... 800 800 Wildlife and vegetative resources.
Sierra Canyons............................. 0 26,400 Cultural values, wildlife
resources.
Singer Geoglyphs........................... 1,900 1,900 Cultural values, vegetative
resources.
Soda Mountain Expansion.................... 0 16,700 Wildlife resources, cultural
values.
Soda Mountains Wilderness Study Area....... 0 88,800 Cultural values, wildlife and
vegetative resources.
Soggy Dry Lake Creosote Rings.............. 200 200 Unusual plant assemblage.
Southern Inyo Wilderness Study Area........ 0 2,900 Wildlife resources.
Steam Well................................. 40 40 Cultural values.
Superior-Cronese........................... 404,800 397,400 Wildlife resources.
Surprise Canyon............................ 4,600 4,600 Wildlife resources, riparian
resources.
Symmes Creek Wilderness Study Area......... 0 8,400 Wildlife resources, cultural
values.
Tehachapi Linkage.......................... 0 0 Wildlife resources (Note--this area
is being identified as important
for wildlife, but not as an ACEC
in the Proposed LUPA.).
[[Page 12943]]
Trona Pinnacles National Natural Landmark.. 4,000 4,000 Unique geologic features, wildlife
resources.
Turtle Mountains........................... 50,400 50,400 Wildlife resources.
Upper Johnson Valley Yucca Rings........... 300 300 Unusual plant assemblage.
Upper McCoy................................ 0 37,300 Wildlife resources, cultural
values, unusual plant assemblage.
Warm Sulfur Springs........................ 300 300 Desert marsh habitat, unique
geologic and hydrologic features,
cultural values.
West Mesa.................................. 20,300 82,600 Wildlife resources, cultural
values.
West Paradise.............................. 200 200 Vegetative resources.
Western Rand Mountains..................... 31,100 30,300 Wildlife resources.
Whipple Mountains.......................... 2,800 2,800 Geologic features, cultural values.
White Mountain City........................ 800 800 Cultural values.
White Mountains Wilderness Study Area...... 0 8,800 Wildlife resources.
Whitewater Canyon.......................... 14,000 14,000 Riparian resources, wildlife
resources, scenic resources,
cultural values.
Yuha Basin................................. 68,300 77,300 Cultural values, vegetative and
wildlife resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copies of the DRECP Proposed LUPA/Final EIS are available for
public inspection at the following locations:
BLM California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-
1623, Sacramento, CA;
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; and
BLM Bishop Field Office, 351 Pacu Lane, Suite 100, Bishop,
CA 93514.
Before including your phone number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware
that your entire comment letter--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: 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5, 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b)
Thomas Pogacnik,
Deputy State Director, Bureau of Land Management.
[FR Doc. 2016-05562 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
