Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Notices 19345 

EIS based on public comments on the 

Draft RMP and Draft EIS in addition to 

cooperating agency reviews, resource 

advisory council reviews, U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service consultation, and 

extensive internal BLM reviews. The 

BLM carefully considered and 

incorporated comments into the 

Proposed RMP as appropriate. Public 

comments assisted in the development 

of the Proposed RMP and resulted in the 

addition of clarifying text, but did not 

constitute a substantial change in the 

proposed land use plan decisions that 

would require a supplement to the Draft 

EIS. 

The Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

describes and analyzes four 

management alternatives, each of which 

include objectives and management 

actions to address new management 

challenges and issues. 

Alternative A is the no action 

alternative and is a continuation of the 

current management direction and 

prevailing conditions based on the 

existing 1987 Grand Junction Resource 

Area RMP and amendments. 

Alternative B (The Proposed RMP) 

seeks to allocate public land resources 

among competing human interests and 

land uses, with the conservation of 

natural and cultural resource values. 

Alternative B carries forward the same 

theme it had in the Draft RMP and Draft 

EIS, but includes elements of the other 

alternatives analyzed in the Draft RMP 

and Draft EIS. 

Alternative C emphasizes improving, 

rehabilitating and restoring resources; 

and sustaining the ecological integrity of 

habitats for all priority plant, wildlife 

and fish species, particularly the 

habitats needed to conserve and recover 

federally listed, proposed, or candidate 

threatened and endangered plant and 

animal species. 

Alternative D emphasizes active 

management for natural resources, 

commodity production, and public use 

opportunities by allowing a mix of 

multiple use opportunities that target 

social and economic outcomes, while 

protecting land health. Management 

direction would recognize and expand 

existing uses, and accommodate new 

uses to the greatest extent possible. 

The Proposed RMP would provide 

comprehensive, long-range decisions for 

the use and management of resources in 

the planning area administered by the 

Grand Junction Field Office, focusing on 

the principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield. 

The Proposed RMP includes: Goals, 

objectives, management actions, 

allowable use and implementation 

decisions to ensure future BLM 

management in support of 13 areas of 

critical environmental concern, five 

special recreation management areas, 

six extensive recreation management 

areas, four wilderness study areas, one 

national trail management corridor, and 

one segment found suitable for 

inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic River System. Maps are included 

in the Proposed RMP/FEIS to illustrate 

the Proposed RMP as well as the other 

alternatives considered in the Final EIS. 

Through the Wild and Scenic River 

study process, the BLM inventoried 514 

miles and 114 stream segments, found 

415 miles and 100 stream segments 

ineligible, and found 99 miles and 14 

stream segments eligible, of which 10.38 

miles of 1 stream are identified as 

suitable in the Proposed RMP. Three 

areas covering 44,100 acres located in 

the southern portion of the field office 

would be managed to protect lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Protective 

management of the areas would vary; 

however, all of the areas would be 

managed as right-of-way exclusion, no 

leasing for fluid minerals, no surface 

occupancy (non-fluid minerals), closed 

to non-energy leasables, closed to 

mineral material disposal, and Visual 

Resource Management Class II. 

While the RMP proposes some 

conservation management measures for 

the Greater Sage-grouse habitat, the 

Northwest Colorado Greater SageGrouse Plan Amendment and EIS will 

fully analyze applicable Greater-Sage 

grouse conservation measures, 

consistent with BLM Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2012–044. The BLM 

expects to make a comprehensive set of 

decisions for managing Greater SageGrouse on lands administered by the 

Grand Junction Field Office in the 

Record of Decision for the Northwest 

Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Plan 

Amendment and EIS, which will update 

this proposed RMP. 

Instructions for filing a protest with 

the Director of the BLM regarding the 

Proposed RMP and FEIS may be found 

in the ‘‘Dear Reader’’ Letter of the Grand 

Junction Field Office Proposed RMP and 

Final EIS, and at 43 CFR 1610.5–2. All 

protests must be in writing and mailed 

to the appropriate address, as set forth 

in the ADDRESSES section above. 

Emailed protests will not be accepted as 

valid protests unless the protesting 

party also provides the original letter by 

either regular or overnight mail 

postmarked by the close of the protest 

period. Under these conditions, the 

BLM will consider the emailed protest 

as an advance copy and it will receive 

full consideration. If you wish to 

provide the BLM with such advance 

notification, please direct emails to 

protest@blm.gov. Unlike land use 

planning decisions, implementation 

decisions included in this Proposed 

RMP and Final EIS are not subject to 

protest under the BLM planning 

regulations. Implementation decisions 

are subject to an administrative review 

process through appeals to the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals, Interior Board of 

Land Appeals, pursuant to 43 CFR part 

4. Implementation decisions generally 

constitute the BLM’s final approval 

allowing on-the-ground actions to 

proceed. Where implementation 

decisions are made as part of the land 

use planning process, they are still 

subject to the appeals process or other 

administrative review as prescribed by 

specific resource program regulations 

once the BLM resolves the protests to 

land use planning decisions and issues 

an Approved RMP and ROD. 

Implementation decisions made in the 

plan that may be appealed to the Office 

of Hearing and Appeals are identified in 

the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. They 

will also be included in the ROD and 

Approved RMP. 

Before including your phone number, 

email address, or other personal 

identifying information in your protest, 

you should be aware that your entire 

protest—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your protest 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, 43 CFR 1610.5 

Ruth Welch, 

BLM Colorado State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08187 Filed 4–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–JB–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[15X.LLID9570000.L14400000.BJ0000.241A.

4500078174] 

Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plats of 

Surveys. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) has officially filed 

the plats of survey of the lands 

described below in the BLM Idaho State 

Office, Boise, Idaho, effective 9:00 a.m., 

on the dates specified. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bureau of Land Management, 1387 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

19346 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 69 / Friday, April 10, 2015 / Notices 

South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho, 

83709–1657. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

survey were executed at the request of 

the Bureau of Land Management to meet 

their administrative needs. The lands 

surveyed are: The plat constituting the 

entire survey record of the dependent 

resurvey of a portion of the 

subdivisional lines, and a corrective 

dependent resurvey of a portion of 

metes-and-bounds survey No. 1, in 

sections 25, 26, 35, and 36, T. 4 S., R. 

19 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group 

Number 985, was accepted January 15, 

2015. 

The plat constituting the entire survey 

record of the dependent resurvey of a 

portion of the subdivisional lines, and 

the subdivision of section 26, T. 5 S., R. 

17 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group 

Number 1400, was accepted January 15, 

2015. 

The plats constituting the entire 

survey record of: The dependent 

resurvey of portions of the west 

boundary and subdivisional lines, T. 8 

S., R. 3 W., Boise Meridian, Idaho, 

Group Number 1367; the dependent 

resurvey of portions of the north 

boundary and subdivisional lines, and 

the subdivision of section 3, T. 9 S., R. 

4 W., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group 

Number 1367; the dependent resurvey 

of portions of the south and west 

boundaries, and subdivisional lines, and 

the subdivision of sections 27 and 31, T. 

9 S., R. 5 W., Boise Meridian, Idaho, 

Group Number 1367; the dependent 

resurvey of portions of the north 

boundary, west boundary, and 

subdivisional lines, and the subdivision 

of sections 4 and 6, T. 10 S., R. 3 W., 

Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group Number 

1367; and the dependent resurvey of 

portions of the east and west 

boundaries, and subdivisional lines, and 

the subdivision of sections 1 and 3, T. 

10 S., R. 5 W., Boise Meridian, Idaho, 

Group Number 1367, were approved 

January 23, 2015. 

These surveys were executed at the 

request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

to meet certain administrative and 

management purposes. The lands 

surveyed are: The plat representing the 

dependent resurvey of portions of the 

east boundary, subdivisional lines, and 

subdivision of sections 11 and 14, and 

the subdivision of section 13, and 

further subdivision of sections 11 and 

14, T. 34 N., R. 4 W., Boise Meridian, 

Idaho, Group Number 1404, was 

accepted February 11, 2015. 

The plat representing the dependent 

resurvey of portions of the subdivisional 

lines and subdivision of section 26, and 

further subdivision of section 26, T. 33 

N., R. 1 E., of the Boise Meridian, Idaho, 

Group Number 1403, was accepted 

February 19, 2015. 

Stanley G. French, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08249 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[NPS–WASO–D–COS–POL–18018; 

PWODIREP0] [PPMPSPD1Y.YM0000] 

Notice of Amendment of the Site for 

the May 6–7, 2015, Meeting of the 

National Park System Advisory Board 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of change of meeting site. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 

U.S.C. Appendix 1–16, and Part 65 of 

title 36 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, notice is hereby given of 

the change in the site for the May 6–7, 

2015, meeting of the National Park 

System Advisory Board. 

DATES: The Board will meet on May 6– 

7, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting site originally 

published on March 8, 2015, in the 

Federal Register, 80 FR 12519, has 

changed. The new meeting site will be 

the Crystal Sands Room of the Hampton 

Inn Pensacola Beach Gulf Front, 2 Via 

De Luna Drive, Pensacola Beach, Florida 

32561, telephone (850) 932–6800. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Shirley Sears, National Park Service, 

telephone (202) 354–3955, email 

Shirley_Sears@nps.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The board 

meeting will be open to the public. The 

order of the agenda may be changed, if 

necessary, to accommodate travel 

schedules or for other reasons. Space 

and facilities to accommodate the public 

are limited and attendees will be 

accommodated on a first-come basis. 

Anyone may file with the Board a 

written statement concerning matters to 

be discussed. The Board also will 

permit attendees to address the Board, 

but may restrict the length of the 

presentations, as necessary to allow the 

Board to complete its agenda within the 

allotted time. Before including your 

address, telephone 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. 

Dated: April 7, 2015. 

Alma Ripps, 

Chief, Office of Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08266 Filed 4–9–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–EE–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[NPS–PWR–PWRO–17665; 

PX.PR118981J.00.1] 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ 

General Management Plan, Kalaupapa 

National Historical Park, Kalawao and 

Maui Counties, Hawaii 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The National Park Service 

announces the availability of a Draft 

General Management Plan (GMP)/

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for Kalaupapa National Historical Park. 

The document identifies and analyzes 

four alternatives. Alternative A (no 

action alternative) assumes that 

programming, facilities, staffing, and 

funding would generally continue at 

their current levels to protect the values 

of Kalaupapa NHP in the near term. 

Alternative B focuses on maintaining 

Kalaupapa’s spirit and character 

through limiting visitation. Visitor use 

would be highly structured, though 

limited opportunities would exist for 

public visitation and overnight use. The 

NPS would develop an extensive 

outreach program to share Kalaupapa’s 

history with a wide audience at off-site 

locations. Alternative C (agencypreferred) emphasizes stewardship of 

Kalaupapa’s lands in collaboration with 

the park’s many partners. Kalaupapa’s 

diverse resources would be managed to 

protect and maintain their character and 

historical significance. Visitation by the 

general public would be supported, 

provided, and integrated into park 

management. Visitor regulations would 

change, while continuing to limit the 

number of visitors per day through new 

mechanisms. Alternative D focuses on 

the personal connections to Kalaupapa 

through visitation by the general public. 

Resources would be managed for longterm preservation through NPS-led 

programs throughout the park. 

Alternative D offers visitors the greatest 

opportunities to explore areas on their 

own. Visitor regulations would be 

similar to Alternative C. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES