[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 [email protected].
    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 
[email protected]. 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