Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 54177 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLNVB00000 L51010000.ER0000 

LVRWF0900380 241A; 10–08807; 

MO#4500014355; TAS: 14X5017] 

Notice of Availability of Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Tonopah Solar Energy Crescent 

Dunes Solar Energy Project, Nye 

County, NV 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA), the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) has prepared 

a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the Crescent Dunes Solar 

Energy Project, Nye County, Nevada, 

and by this Notice is announcing the 

opening of the comment period. 

DATES: To ensure comments will be 

considered, the BLM must receive 

written comments on the Crescent 

Dunes Solar Energy Project Draft EIS 

within 45 days following the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes its Notice of Availability in 

the Federal Register. The BLM will 

announce future meetings or hearings 

and any other public involvement 

activities at least 15 days in advance 

through public notices, media news 

releases, and/or mailings. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy 

Project Draft EIS by any of the following 

methods: 

• E-mail: crescent_dunes@blm.gov. 

• Fax: 775–482–7810. 

• Mail: Timothy Coward, Renewable 

Energy Project Manager, BLM Tonopah 

Field Office, P.O. Box 911, Tonopah, 

Nevada 89049. 

Copies of the Draft EIS for the 

Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project are 

available at the BLM Tonopah Field 

Office and at the Battle Mountain 

District Office, 50 Bastian Road, Battle 

Mountain, Nevada, or at the following 

Web site: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/ 

fo/battle_mountain_field.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Timothy Coward, (775) 482–7800, BLM 

Tonopah Field Office, 1553 South Main 

Street, P.O. Box 911, Tonopah, Nevada 

89049; Timothy_Coward@blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tonopah 

Solar Energy, LLC applied to the BLM 

for a 7,680-acre right-of-way (ROW) on 

public lands to construct a concentrated 

solar thermal power plant facility 

approximately 13 miles northwest of 

Tonopah, Nye County, Nevada. The 

proposed project is not expected to use 

the total acres applied for in the ROW 

application. The project is located 

within the southern portion of the Big 

Smoky Valley, north of U.S. Highway 

95/6 along the Gabbs Pole Line Road 

(State Highway 89). The facility is 

expected to operate for approximately 

30 years. The proposed solar power 

project would use concentrated solar 

power technology, using heliostats or 

mirrors to focus sunlight on a receiver 

erected in the center of the solar field 

(the power tower or central receiver). A 

heat transfer fluid is heated as it passes 

through the receiver and is then 

circulated through a series of heat 

exchangers to generate high-pressure 

steam. The steam is used to power a 

conventional Rankine cycle steam 

turbine, which produces electricity. The 

exhaust steam from the turbine is 

condensed and returned via feedwater 

pumps to the heat exchangers where 

steam is regenerated. Hybrid cooling 

processes would be used for this project 

to minimize water use while continuing 

to maintain efficient power generation. 

The plant design would generate a 

nominal capacity of 100 megawatts. 

The project’s proposed facility design 

includes the heliostat fields, a 653-foot 

central receiver tower, a power block, 

buildings, a parking area, a laydown 

area, evaporating ponds, and an access 

road. A single overhead 230-kilovolt 

transmission line would connect the 

plant to the nearby Anaconda Moly 

substation. 

The Draft EIS describes and analyzes 

the proposed project’s site-specific 

impacts on air quality, biological 

resources, cultural resources, water 

resources, geological resources, 

hazardous materials handling, land use, 

noise, paleontological resources, public 

health, socioeconomics, soils, traffic and 

transportation, visual resources, 

wilderness characteristics, waste 

management, worker safety, and fire 

protection. The Draft EIS also describes 

facility design engineering, efficiency, 

reliability, transmission system 

engineering, and transmission line 

safety. 

Three action alternatives were 

analyzed in addition to the No Action 

alternative: the Proposed Action 

Alternative, Alternative 1, and 

Alternative 2. Alternative 2 is the BLM 

preferred alternative. 

Scoping of the project occurred from 

November 24, 2009 through December 

24, 2009. A total of 24 comments were 

received. Comments on cumulative 

impacts identified the affects to air 

quality to include criteria pollutant and 

‘‘Dark Sky’’ attributes on the effects of 

the viewshed, and the availability of 

water for current and future use. Other 

comments were that the proposed 

project is located in an area of pediment 

adjacent to 2 highly mineralized 

mountain ranges which have identified 

molybdenum and lithium deposits. 

Maps of the proposed project area and 

the alternatives being analyzed in the 

Draft EIS are available at the BLM 

Tonopah Field Office, the Battle 

Mountain District Office, and at: 

http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/ 

battle_mountain_field.html. 

Please note that public comments and 

information submitted, including 

names, street addresses, and e-mail 

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, e-mail 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 and 1506.10. 

Thomas J. Seley, 

Manager, Tonopah Field Office. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21958 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLIDT01000.L16100000.DP0000.

LXSS081D0000] 

Notice of Availability of the Draft 

Jarbidge Field Office Resource 

Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement, Idaho 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 

prepared a Draft Resource Management 

Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) for the Jarbidge 

Field Office planning area and by this 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
54178 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 

notice is announcing the opening of the 

comment period. 

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 

availability of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS 

in the Federal Register. The BLM will 

announce future meetings or hearings 

and any other public participation 

activities at least 15 days in advance 

through public notices, media releases, 

and/or mailings. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• E-mail: ID_Jarbidge_RMP@blm.gov. 

• Fax: (208) 736–2375, Attention: 

Jarbidge Planning Team. 

• Mail: Jarbidge Planning Team, BLM 

Jarbidge Field Office, 2536 Kimberly 

Road, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301. 

Copies of the Jarbidge Draft RMP/ 

Draft EIS are available in the Jarbidge 

Field Office at the above address or at 

the following Web site: http:// 

www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/planning/ 

jarbidge_resource.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Vander Voet, Jarbidge Field 

Manager, or Aimee Betts, Jarbidge RMP 

Project Manager, telephone (208) 736– 

2350; address Jarbidge Field Office, 

2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho 

83301. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Draft 

RMP/Draft EIS addresses public land 

and resources managed by the Jarbidge 

Field Office in parts of Elmore, Owyhee, 

and Twin Falls Counties in southcentral Idaho and Elko County in 

northern Nevada. These lands and 

resources are currently managed under 

the 1987 Jarbidge RMP, as amended. 

The planning area extends from the 

Bruneau River on the west to Salmon 

Falls Creek on the east, and from the 

Snake River on the north to the northern 

boundaries of the BLM Elko Field Office 

and the Humboldt-Toiyabe National 

Forest on the south. Although these 

counties have a combined population of 

approximately 160,000, Indian Cove, 

Murphy Hot Springs, Three Creek, and 

Roseworth are the only communities in 

the planning area. All have populations 

of less than 100 people. The majority of 

the planning area supports sagebrush 

steppe and seeded grasslands. 

The Jarbidge RMP addresses 

management on approximately 1.4 

million acres of public land and 1.6 

million acres of Federal mineral estate 

in the Jarbidge Field Office. Planning 

decisions in the RMP will only apply to 

the BLM-administered public lands and 

mineral estate in the planning area. The 

Draft RMP/Draft EIS has been developed 

with broad public participation through 

a collaborative planning process in 

accordance with FLPMA and NEPA. Its 

purpose is to provide appropriate 

management direction for the Twin 

Falls District, Jarbidge Field Office that 

responds to the 2001 Land Use Plan 

Evaluation Report for the 1987 Jarbidge 

RMP, new information, changes in 

resource condition and user demands, 

and complies with a Stipulated 

Settlement Agreement 

(WesternWatersheds Project v. K Lynn 

Bennett, CV–04–181–S–BLW, under the 

jurisdiction of the United States District 

Court for the District of Idaho), while 

maintaining consistency with FLPMA. 

The Draft RMP/Draft EIS includes a 

series of management actions, within six 

management alternatives, designed to 

achieve or maintain desired future 

conditions that have been defined 

through the planning process for various 

concerns including, but not limited to: 

vegetation, livestock grazing, recreation, 

energy development, and Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). 

• The No Action Alternative 

represents continuation of existing 

management under current management 

goals, objectives, and direction specified 

in the 1987 Jarbidge RMP, as amended. 

• Alternative I focuses on enhancing 

and sustaining existing and historic uses 

of the planning area. 

• Alternative II focuses on increasing 

commercial uses throughout the 

planning area. 

• Alternative III focuses on restoring 

the resiliency of ecosystem structure 

and function through intensive 

management of fuels and enhanced fire 

suppression capabilities throughout the 

planning area. 

• Alternative IV focuses on actively 

restoring the resiliency of ecosystem 

structure and function through 

restoration projects and managing uses. 

Alternative IV has two sub-alternatives 

(Alternative IV–A and Alternative IV–B) 

that differ in the size of two proposed 

ACECs. Alternative IV–B is the 

Preferred Alternative. 

• Alternative V focuses on the 

restoration of habitats toward historic 

vegetation communities. 

The Preferred Alternative has been 

identified as described in 40 CFR 

1502.14(e). However, identification of 

this alternative does not represent final 

agency direction, and the Proposed RMP 

may reflect changes or adjustments 

based on information received during 

public comment, new information, or 

changes in BLM policies or priorities. 

The Proposed RMP may include 

objectives and actions described as 

portions of other analyzed alternatives. 

For this reason, the BLM invites and 

encourages comments on all objectives 

and actions described in the Draft RMP/ 

Draft EIS. 

Among the special designations under 

consideration within the range of 

alternatives, ACECs are proposed to 

protect certain resource values. There 

are three existing ACECs: BruneauJarbidge, Salmon Falls Creek, and Sand 

Point; these ACEC designations would 

be carried forward in some alternatives, 

sometimes with changes in acreage. 

Pertinent information regarding all 

proposed ACECs in the Preferred 

Alternative, including values, resource 

use limitations, and acreages are 

summarized below. Further information 

is available at the following Web site: 

http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/ 

planning/jarbidge_resource.html. 

Bruneau-Jarbidge ACEC (123,000 acres) 

• Relevant and Important Values: 

Botanical, Cultural, Fish, Scenic, 

Wildlife. 

• Limitations on the Following Uses: 

Livestock Grazing, Land Use 

Authorizations, Mineral Development. 

• Other Restrictions: Managed as 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

Class I. 

Inside Desert ACEC (41,000 acres) 

• Relevant and Important Values: 

Botanical. 

• Limitations on the Following Uses: 

Livestock Grazing, Recreation, Land 

Tenure Transactions, Mineral 

Development. 

• Other Restrictions: Locate staging 

areas for fire suppression and 

rehabilitation activities outside the 

ACEC. 

Jarbidge Foothills ACEC (66,000 acres) 

• Relevant and Important Values: 

Botanical, Cultural, Fish, Wildlife. 

• Limitations on the Following Uses: 

Livestock Grazing, Mineral 

Development. 

• Other Restrictions: Managed as 

VRM Class I and II. 

Lower Bruneau Canyon ACEC (1,000 

acres) 

• Relevant and Important Values: 

Aquatic, Botanical. 

• Limitations on the Following Uses: 

Land Tenure Transactions, Mineral 

Development. 

Sand Point ACEC (950 acres) 

• Relevant and Important Values: 

Cultural, Geologic, Historic, 

Paleontological. 

• Limitations on the Following Uses: 

Livestock Grazing, Land Use 

Authorizations, Mineral Development. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Notices 54179 

• Other Restrictions: Closed to fossil 

collection. 

The following ACECs were proposed 

in alternatives other than the Preferred 

Alternative: 

• Middle Snake ACEC for relevant 

and important botanical and fish values. 

• Sagebrush Sea ACEC for relevant 

and important botanical, cultural, fish, 

and wildlife values. 

• Salmon Falls ACEC for relevant and 

important botanical, fish, and scenic 

values 

In addition, ACECs in the preferred 

alternative may also appear in other 

alternatives with different acreages and 

management prescriptions. 

Please note that public comments and 

information submitted including names, 

street addresses, and e-mail 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, e-mail 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. 

Following the public comment 

period, public comments will be used to 

prepare the Proposed Jarbidge RMP and 

Final EIS. The BLM will respond to 

each substantive comment by making 

appropriate revisions to the document 

or by explaining why a comment did 

not warrant a change. A Notice of the 

Availability of the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS will be posted in the Federal 

Register. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6 and 1506.10; 43 

CFR 1610.2. 

Peter J. Ditton, 

Acting Idaho State Director, Bureau of Land 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21956 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service Concession 

Contracts; Implementation of 

Alternative Valuation Formula for 

Leasehold Surrender Interest Under 

the Signal Mountain Lodge and Leek’s 

Marina Proposed Concession 

Contract, Grand Teton National Park 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The National Park Service 

(NPS), by notice in the Federal Register 

dated February 1, 2010, invited public 

comments on a proposed alternative 

formula for the valuation of leasehold 

surrender interest (LSI) to be included 

in its proposed concession contract 

GRTE003–11 for operation of the Signal 

Mountain Lodge and Leeks Marina at 

Grand Teton National Park (new 

contract). LSI, established in 1998 by 

the terms of Public Law 105–391 (1998 

Act), is the compensable interest in 

applicable real property improvements 

on park area lands made by a 

concessioner pursuant to the terms of a 

NPS concession contract. Additional 

public comment was sought by a May 

26, 2010, Federal Register notice. NPS, 

after consideration of the public 

comments received in response to both 

notices, has adopted a final LSI 

alternative for the new contract. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo 

Pendry, Chief Commercial Services 

Program, 1201 Eye Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20005. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

Section 405(a)(3) of the 1998 Act, the 

standard formula for LSI value (standard 

LSI formula) for applicable capital 

improvements provided by a 

concessioner under a NPS concession 

contract is summarized as the initial 

construction cost of the related capital 

improvement, adjusted by the 

percentage increase or decrease in the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the 

date of the approval of the substantial 

completion of the construction of the 

related capital improvement to the date 

of payment, less physical depreciation 

of the related capital improvement. 

However, Section 405(a)(4) of the 

1998 Act, starting in 2009, authorizes 

the inclusion of alternative LSI value 

formulas in NPS concession contracts 

estimated to have an LSI value in excess 

of $10,000,000 (such as the new 

contract). 

Under this authority, NPS, in the 

February 1, 2010, Federal Register 

notice, proposed an alternative LSI 

formula that in general called for the 

straight-line depreciation of LSI value 

on a 40-year basis. However, the 

alternative also provided that the 

installation (or replacement) of fixtures 

would not result in increased LSI value. 

Two public comments were received in 

response to this notice. 

By notice in the Federal Register 

dated May 26, 2010, NPS sought 

additional public comment on the 

proposal. Two comments were received 

in response to this notice. 

NPS, in consideration of the public 

comments made in response to both 

public notices, has re-examined the 

financial and other circumstances of the 

new contract and the proposed LSI 

alternative. This re-examination led to 

consideration and adoption of a final 

LSI alternative. The final LSI alternative 

continues the 40-year depreciation of 

the LSI value of eligible capital 

improvements but eliminates the 

exclusion of additional LSI value for 

new fixtures called for by the proposed 

LSI alternative. This change addresses a 

primary concern expressed by 

commenters, the elimination of LSI 

value in new fixtures. Under the final 

LSI alternative, the LSI value of all 

eligible capital improvements, including 

new fixtures, will be depreciated on a 

straight-line basis over a 40-year period. 

In addition, the monthly depreciation 

schedule called for by the proposed LSI 

alternative has been changed to an 

annual basis in the interest of 

simplicity. The final LSI alternative for 

the new contract is generally described 

as follows: 

(a) The reduction of the initial LSI 

value under the new contract on an 

annual straight-line depreciation basis 

applying a 40-year recovery period 

regardless of asset class. 

(b) The reduction of the leasehold 

surrender interest value in capital 

improvements (as defined in the new 

contract) constructed or installed during 

the term of the new contract based on 

straight line depreciation and also 

applying a 40-year recovery period (on 

an annual basis) with no asset class 

distinctions. 

Determinations 

NPS has determined, after review of 

the particular financial and other 

circumstances of the new contract and 

consideration of public comments, that 

use of the final LSI alternative, in 

comparison to the standard LSI formula, 

is necessary in order to provide a fair 

return to the Government and to foster 

competition for the new contract by 

providing a reasonable opportunity for 

profit to the new concessioner. NPS also 

considers that the final LSI alternative is 

consistent with the objectives of the 

1998 Act, particularly, as discussed 

below, with respect to the fair return it 

will provide to the Government and the 

new concessioner and the enhanced 

competition for the new contract that it 

will foster. These determinations are 

required by the 1998 Act with respect to 

alternative LSI formulas that are not 

based on the depreciation rules of the 

Federal income tax laws and regulations 

that were in effect in 1998. Although 

this final LSI alternative is based on the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES