61334 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Notices 

decommissioning of the solar facility, 

and for enhancement and management 

of the acquired lands. 

The applicant proposes to construct 

and operate a generation tie-in line from 

the solar facility to the nearby Barren 

Ridge Substation. Because this route 

would cross lands managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the 

applicant did not include construction 

and operation of this proposed 

generation tie-in line as covered 

activities under its proposed HCP. The 

BLM and Service would consult on the 

effects of the generation tie-in line on 

the desert tortoise under section 7 of the 

Act. Although BLM is conducting an 

analysis under NEPA for the generation 

tie-in line as part of the applicant’s 

application for a right-of-way to 

construct and operate the line, the draft 

EA prepared for the applicant’s 

incidental take permit application also 

includes an environmental analysis of 

the generation tie-in line to ensure the 

Service considers the effects of the 

applicant’s entire proposed project. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Compliance 

We provide this notice under section 

10(c) of the Act and Service regulations 

for implementing NEPA. We have 

prepared a draft EA for the proposed 

action and have made it and the 

applicant’s proposed HCP available for 

public inspection (see ADDRESSES). 

NEPA requires that a range of 

reasonable alternatives, including the 

proposed action, be described. The draft 

EA analyzes three alternatives, 

described below. 

Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) 

Our proposed action is to issue an 

incidental take permit to the applicant, 

who would implement the HCP, 

described above. If we approve the 

permit, incidental take of desert tortoise 

would be authorized for the applicant’s 

routine activities associated with the 

construction, operation, maintenance, 

and decommissioning of a solar facility 

in Kern County. 

No Action Alternative 

The draft EA includes a No Action 

alternative that would not result in take 

of desert tortoise. Under this alternative, 

unless the applicant can determine how 

to build the project in a way that avoids 

take of the desert tortoise, the proposed 

solar facility would not be constructed 

and the private lands would remain in 

their current state and be available for 

other uses in accordance with Kern 

County’s general plan, which classifies 

them as ‘‘resource management’’ lands 

zoned as ‘‘agriculture-floodplain 

combining.’’ Uses authorized for this 

designation and zoning include crop 

production, animal production, 

livestock grazing, utility and 

communication facilities, resource 

extraction, and energy development. If 

this project is not constructed, Kern 

County could permit other uses in the 

future with issuance of a conditional 

use permit, including solar power 

generation, single-family residential 

development, or commercial and 

institutional uses. 

Solar Facility and Gen-Tie Line 

Alternative 

Under this alternative, the solar 

facility would be constructed in an 

identical manner as that described 

above under the Proposed Action; 

however, the applicant would construct 

the generation tie-in line entirely on 

non-Federal land. Therefore, the 

approved incidental take permit would 

also provide coverage for the 

construction and operation of a 

generation tie-in line to be constructed 

solely on non-Federal lands. The 

environmental impacts from the solar 

plant construction, operations, 

maintenance, and decommissioning 

would be identical to those under the 

Proposed Action; however, the 

environmental impacts and cost of this 

alternative would be greater because of 

the increased length of the electrical 

line (1.9 miles (3.06 km) vs. 3.6 miles 

(5.79 km)). 

Public Review 

The Service invites the public to 

comment on the permit application, 

including the proposed HCP and draft 

EA, during the public comment period 

(see DATES). If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments via one 

of the means listed in ADDRESSES. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

email address, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you may ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Next Steps 

Issuance of an incidental take permit 

is a Federal proposed action subject to 

compliance with NEPA. We will 

evaluate the application, associated 

documents, and any public comments 

we receive to determine whether the 

application meets the requirements of 

NEPA regulations and section 10(a) of 

the Act. If we determine that those 

requirements are met, we will issue a 

permit to the applicant for the 

incidental take of desert tortoise. We 

will make our final permit decision no 

sooner than December 9, 2014. 

Dated: October 6, 2014. 

Alexandra Pitts, 

Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Southwest 

Region, Sacramento, California. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24271 Filed 10–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLNVS00000.L12100000.DC0000 

LXSS100F0000 241A; 14–08807; MO# 

4500065255] 

Notice of Availability Las Vegas and 

Pahrump Field Offices Draft Resource 

Management Plan and Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Nevada 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended, and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976, as 

amended, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) has prepared the 

Las Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices 

Draft Resource Management Plan 

(RMP)/Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), for the Southern 

Nevada District Office, Las Vegas and 

Pahrump Field Offices, and by this 

notice is announcing the opening of the 

comment period on the Draft RMP/Draft 

EIS. 

DATES: To ensure that comments will be 

considered, the BLM must receive 

written comments on the Draft RMP/

Draft EIS within 90 days following the 

date the Environmental Protection 

Agency publishes its notice of the Draft 

RMP/Draft EIS in the Federal Register. 

The BLM will announce any subsequent 

meetings or hearings and any other 

public participation activities related to 

the Draft RMP/Draft EIS at least 15 days 

in advance through public notices, 

media releases, and/or mailings. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

related to the Las Vegas and Pahrump 

Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS by 

any of the following methods: 

• Web site: https://www.blm.gov/eplfront-office/eplanning/planAndProject

Site.do?methodName=renderDefault

PlanOrProjectSite&projectId=2900&

dctmId=0b0003e88009debe 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Notices 61335 

• Email: sndo_rmp_revision@blm.gov 

• Fax: 702–515–5023 

• Mail: BLM Southern Nevada 

District Office, Las Vegas/Pahrump 

Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS, 4701 

N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 

89130. 

Copies of the Las Vegas and Pahrump 

Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS are 

available in the Southern Nevada 

District Office at the above address or on 

the following Web site https://www.blm.

gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAnd

ProjectSite.do?methodName=render

DefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projectId=

2900&dctmId=0b0003e88009debe 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee 

Kirk, RMP Team Lead, telephone: 702– 

515–5026; address: 4701 N. Torrey 

Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130; 

email: sndo_rmp_revision@blm.gov. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the 

above individual during normal 

business hours. The FIRS is available 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a 

message or question with the above 

individual. You will receive a reply 

during normal business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Las 

Vegas and Pahrump Field Offices Draft 

RMP/Draft EIS would replace the 

existing 1998 Las Vegas Field Office 

RMP. The Draft RMP/Draft EIS was 

developed through a collaborative 

planning process. The Las Vegas and 

Pahrump Field Offices Draft RMP/Draft 

EIS decision area encompasses 

approximately 3.1 million acres of 

public land administered by the BLM 

Southern Nevada District in Clark and 

Southern Nye counties, Nevada. It does 

not include private lands, State lands, 

Indian reservations, Federal lands not 

administered by BLM or lands 

addressed in the Red Rock Canyon 

National Conservation Area RMP (2005) 

and Sloan Canyon National 

Conservation Area RMP (2006). 

The Las Vegas and Pahrump Field 

Offices Draft RMP/Draft EIS includes 

goals, objectives and management 

actions for protecting and preserving 

natural resources which includes air 

quality, soil and water resources, 

vegetation, fish and wildlife, special 

status species, wild horses and burros, 

wildland fire management, cultural and 

paleontological resources, visual 

resource values, and lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Multiple 

resource uses are addressed which 

include management and forage 

allocations for livestock grazing; 

delineation of lands open, closed, or 

subject to special stipulations or 

mitigation measures for minerals 

development; recreation and travel 

management designations; management 

of lands and realty actions, including 

delineation of avoidance and exclusion 

areas applicable to rights-of-ways 

(ROWs), land tenure adjustments, and 

solar and wind energy development. 

The planning effort will consider 

establishment of a national trail 

management corridor for the 

congressionally-designated Old Spanish 

National Historic Trail. Eligible river 

segments will be evaluated for 

suitability as components of the 

National Wild and Scenic River System 

and 23 new Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs) are 

proposed. The ACECs are proposed to 

protect natural and cultural resource 

values and traditional Native American 

use areas. 

The Draft RMP/Draft EIS analyzes 

four management alternatives. 

Alternative 1 is the No Action 

Alternative, which is the continuation 

of current management in the existing 

1998 RMP, as amended. This alternative 

describes the current goals and actions 

for management of resources and land 

uses in the planning area. The 

management direction could also be 

modified by current laws, regulations, 

and policies. Alternative 2 emphasizes 

the protection of the planning area’s 

resource values while allowing 

commodity uses consistent with current 

laws, regulations, and policies. 

Management actions would emphasize 

resource values such as habitat for 

wildlife and plant species (including 

special status species), protection of 

riparian areas and water quality, 

preservation of ecologically important 

areas, maintenance of wilderness 

characteristics, and protection of 

scientifically important cultural and 

paleontological sites. Access to and 

development of resources within the 

planning area could occur with 

intensive management and mitigation of 

surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities. Alternative 3 emphasizes a 

balance between resource protection 

and resource use, which provides 

opportunities to use and develop 

resources within the planning area 

while ensuring resource protection. 

Alternative 4 emphasizes opportunities 

to use and develop resources within the 

planning area. It would provide for 

motorized access and commodity 

production with minimal restrictions 

while providing protection of natural 

and cultural resources to the extent 

required by law, regulation, and policy. 

This alternative would largely rely on 

existing laws, regulations, and policies, 

rather than special management or 

special designations, to protect sensitive 

resources. The BLM Southern Nevada 

District’s Office preferred alternative is 

Alternative 3. 

Pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.7–2(b), this 

notice announces a concurrent public 

comment period for potential ACECs. 

There are 23 new ACECs proposed in 

Alternative 2, 20 new ACECs proposed 

in Alternative 3, and 4 new ACECs in 

Alternative 4. The ACECs are proposed 

to protect natural and cultural resource 

values and traditional Native American 

use areas. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 all 

propose to remove the ACEC 

designations from the current Arden 

Historic Sites (1,443 Acres) and 

Crescent Townsite (436 acres) ACECs. 

Some of the existing ACECs are also 

proposed to be expanded or reduced in 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

The new potential ACECs in 

Alternative 2 include: Bird Spring 

Valley (78,958 acres), Bitter Springs 

(61,733 acres), California Wash (11,998 

acres), Gale Hills (3,865 acres), 

Grapevine Spring (85 acres), Hiko Wash 

(847 acres), Jean Lake (11,606 acres), 

Lava Dune (437 acres), Logandale (6,073 

acres), Lower Mormon Mesa (46,956 

acres), Mesa Milkvetch (9,183 acres), 

Moapa Mesquite (1,214 acres), Mt. 

Schrader (283 acres), Muddy Mountains 

(36,189 acres), Old Spanish Trail 

(49,828 acres), Pahrump Valley (36,823 

acres), Perkins Ranch (408 acres), Sandy 

Valley (210 acres), Specter Hills (5,420 

acres), Spirit Mountain (9,488 acres), 

Stewart Valley (5,204 acres), Stuart 

Ranch (278 acres), and Upper Las Vegas 

Wash (12,294 acres). Alternative 2 

would also expand the following 

existing ACECs: Amargosa Mesquite 

(9,642 acres), Big Dune (2,455 acres), 

Keyhole Canyon (639 acres), Mormon 

Mesa (159,940 acres), Piute/Eldorado 

(347,630 acres), and Virgin River (8,500 

acres). Alternative 2 would reduce the 

size of the following existing ACECs: 

Ash Meadows (37,273 acres), Gold Butte 

Part A (184,627 acres), Gold Butte Part 

B (116,575 acres), Rainbow Gardens 

(35,355 acres), and River Mountains 

(6,697 acres). 

The new potential ACECs in 

Alternative 3 include: Bird Spring 

Valley (26,997 acres), Bitter Springs 

(61,733 acres), Gale Hills (3,865 acres), 

Grapevine Spring (85 acres), Hiko Wash 

(708 acres), Jean Lake (11,606 acres), 

Lava Dune (437 acres), Lower Mormon 

Mesa (42,905 acres), Mesa Milkvetch 

(3,512 acres), Moapa Mesquite (1,304 

acres), Mt. Schrader (283 acres), Muddy 

Mountains (36,189 acres), Old Spanish 

Trail (33,831 acres), Pahrump Valley 

(21,232 acres), Perkins Ranch (408 

acres), Specter Hills (5,420 acres), Spirit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

61336 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Notices 

Mountain (9,488 acres), Stewart Valley 

(3,248 acres), Stuart Ranch (278 acres), 

and Upper Las Vegas Wash (12,294 

acres). Alternative 3 would also expand 

the following existing ACECs: Amargosa 

Mesquite (9,642 acres), Keyhole Canyon 

(639 acres), Mormon Mesa (167,888 

acres), Piute/Eldorado (347,630 acres), 

and Virgin River (7,493 acres). 

Alternative 3 would reduce the size of 

the following existing ACECs: Ash 

Meadows (37,273 acres), Big Dune 

(1,589 acres), Gold Butte Part A (183,440 

acres), Gold Butte Part B (116,733 acres), 

Rainbow Gardens (35,355 acres), and 

River Mountains (6,697 acres). 

The new potential ACECs in 

Alternative 4 include: Grapevine Spring 

(85 acres), Jean Lake (9,138 acres), 

Perkins Ranch (408 acres), and Stuart 

Ranch (278 acres). Alternative 4 would 

also expand the following existing 

ACECs: Mormon Mesa (159,940 acres), 

Piute/Eldorado (338,767 acres), and 

Virgin River (7,493 acres). Alternative 4 

would reduce the size of the following 

existing ACECs: Big Dune (428 acres), 

Gold Butte Part A (183,440 acres), Gold 

Butte Part B (116,733 acres), Rainbow 

Gardens (35,355 acres), and River 

Mountains (6,697 acres). 

The following management 

prescriptions may apply to the 

individual ACECs under consideration, 

if formally designated: Avoid or exclude 

linear ROWs; avoid or exclude site-type 

ROWs; close to material site ROWs or 

only allow near Federal-aid highways; 

close to or place use constraints on fluid 

leasable mineral development; close to 

solid leasable mineral development; 

pursue withdrawal of locatable mineral 

development; close to saleable mineral 

development; close to livestock grazing; 

pursue reverting area within ACEC from 

a herd management area into a herd 

area; close to camping; exclude speedbased recreation events; exclude nonspeed based recreation events; exclude 

commercial recreation activities; closed 

or limited to designated routes for 

motorized travel; place seasonal 

restrictions of ground disturbing 

actions; cap the amount of habitat 

disturbance allowed from Federal 

actions. 

Please note that public comments and 

information submitted including names, 

street addresses, and email addresses of 

persons who submit comments will be 

available for public review and 

disclosure at the above address during 

regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 

1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2 

Marci Todd, 

Associate State Director, Nevada. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24135 Filed 10–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[NPS–IMR–SACR–13960; 

PX.PD108787G.00.1] 

Environmental Assessment for the 

General Management Plan for Sand 

Creek Massacre National Historic Site, 

Colorado 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The National Park Service has 

determined that an Environmental 

Assessment, rather than an 

Environmental Impact Statement, is the 

appropriate environmental 

documentation for the general 

management plan for Sand Creek 

Massacre National Historic Site. This 

determination is the result of evaluating 

public comments and considering the 

analysis required to adequately address 

environmental impacts in developing 

the General Management Plan. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexa Roberts, Superintendent, Sand 

Creek Massacre National Historic Site, 

P.O. Box 249, Eads, CO 81036. 

Telephone (719) 438–5916. 

ADDRESSES: More information about the 

project can be obtained from the contact 

listed above or online at http://park

planning.nps.gov/sand. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

general management plan will establish 

the overall direction for the national 

historic site, setting broad management 

goals for managing the area over the 

next 15 to 20 years. The General 

Management Plan was originally scoped 

as an Environmental Impact Statement. 

However, internal discussions and 

meetings, and comments received in 

written correspondence and public 

scoping sessions held in Colorado, 

Montana, Oklahoma, and Wyoming in 

2008 and again in 2011 did not raise any 

concerns or issues that have the 

potential for controversial impacts. Most 

of the comments received in response to 

the preliminary alternatives newsletter 

agreed that the range of alternatives 

being considered is appropriate and did 

not identify any substantive issues or 

concerns. 

The planning team has developed six 

alternatives (no-action and five action 

alternatives), none of which would 

result in substantial changes in the 

operation and management of the 

national historic site. The five action 

alternatives primarily focus on 

maintaining and protecting cultural and 

natural resources, and expanding 

interpretation and visitor opportunities 

where appropriate. Preliminary analysis 

of the alternatives revealed no major 

(significant) effects on the human 

environment or impairment of park 

resources and values. 

For these reasons the National Park 

Service determined that the requisite 

conservation planning and 

environmental impact analysis 

necessary for updating the general 

management plan can appropriately be 

completed through preparation of an 

EA. 

This draft general management plan/ 

EA is expected to be distributed for 

public comment in the fall 2014. The 

National Park Service will notify the 

public about release of the draft general 

management plan/EA by public 

meetings, mail, local and regional 

media, Web site postings, and other 

means; all announcements will include 

information on where and how to obtain 

a copy of the EA, how to comment on 

the EA, and the length of the public 

comment period. Following due 

consideration of public comments and 

agency consults, at this time a decision 

is expected to be made in the winter 

2014. The official responsible for the 

final decision on the GMP is the 

Regional Director; subsequently the 

responsible official for implementing 

the approved GMP is the 

Superintendent, Sand Creek Massacre 

National Historic Site. 

Dated: October 1, 2014. 

Sue E. Masica, 

Regional Director, Intermountain Region, 

National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24045 Filed 10–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–CB–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES