Notice of Availability of the Draft Tri-County Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Las Cruces District Office, New Mexico, 21965-21968 [2013-08534]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
all feral horses and burros from the
Refuge within 5 years. Populations of
trout species indigenous to the region—
Lahontan cutthroat trout, Alvord
cutthroat trout, or redband trout—would
be maintained through restocking if
necessary, replacing nonnative rainbow
trout in Big Spring Reservoir and Virgin
Creek. Control of noxious weeds and
other invasive plants would increase,
including weed control along road
corridors. Western juniper would be
removed where it is encroaching on
sagebrush-steppe habitats. Degraded
habitats would be rehabilitated and
restored, using management techniques
such as seeding, erosion control
structures, and recontouring.
Abandoned livestock water
developments would be removed, and
spring, playa, wet meadow, and stream
habitats would be restored to more
natural conditions where beneficial to
wildlife.
Recreation opportunities would
improve by relocating and enlarging the
visitor contact station, improving
campground facilities, developing an
accessible interpretive trail, creating a
self-guided auto tour route, and
improving signage of vehicle routes. We
would reopen existing routes, following
revisions to proposed Refuge wilderness
area boundaries. Maintenance of
improved gravel roads would occur
more frequently. We would relocate up
to nine campgrounds, and realign road
segments to reduce erosion and impacts
to sensitive riparian areas and cultural
resources. Seasonal road closures would
be implemented as appropriate, to
protect sensitive species and habitats.
A larger portion of Sheldon Refuge
(424,360 acres) would be recommended
for wilderness designation and managed
for wilderness character under
Alternative 2, encompassing some of the
lands identified in Alternative 1, and
additional wilderness study areas
identified in the 2009 Sheldon Refuge
Wilderness Review. We would increase
our inventory and protection of historic
and cultural resources, and improve
historic and cultural resources
interpretation.
Alternative 3
Under Alternative 3, changes to
current management would include
removing all feral horses and burros
from the Refuge over a period of 15
years; replacing nonnative trout in Big
Spring Reservoir with trout species
indigenous to the region, but not
maintaining the trout population
through restocking; and managing
habitats by creating conditions where
natural processes such as fire could be
allowed more frequently with less
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
dependence on prescribed fire and other
intensive management actions. Current
public uses would continue; however,
some facilities would be consolidated
and some uses would be curtailed.
Vehicle access to the Refuge would be
reduced under Alternative 3 due to the
closure of two roads and road
maintenance limited to main routes,
resulting in fewer miles of primitive
routes open to the public.
The area managed for wilderness
character would include 236,791 acres,
which would provide less long-term
protection and preservation of
wilderness values than the other
alternatives. In addition, Alternative 3
would provide the least amount of
protection and preservation of historic
resources, compared to the other
alternatives.
Selected Alternative
After considering the comments we
received, we selected Alternative 2, our
preferred alternative, for
implementation on the Refuge.
Alternative 2 would result in the
greatest improvements to native habitat
conditions throughout the Refuge,
would best meet the Service’s policies
and directives, is compatible with the
Refuge’s purposes, and would maintain
balance among the Refuge’s varied
management needs and programs.
Public Availability of Documents
In addition to the methods in
you can view the CCP at the
following libraries.
D Lake County Public Library, 513
Center St., Lakeview, OR.
D Humboldt County Public Library,
85 East Fifth St., Winnemucca, NV.
D Washoe County Public Library, 301
South Center St., Reno, NV
ADDRESSES,
Dated: April 4, 2013.
Richard R. Hannan,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific Region,
Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 2013–08740 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLNML00000 L16100000.DP000/
LXSS024G0000]
Notice of Availability of the Draft TriCounty Resource Management Plan
and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Las Cruces District
Office, New Mexico
AGENCY:
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
21965
Notice of availability.
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 a Draft
Resource Management Plan (RMP) and
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the Tri-County planning area in
the Las Cruces District Office and by
this notice is announcing the opening of
the public 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 filing
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
related to the Tri-County Draft RMP/
Draft EIS by any of the following
methods:
• Web site: www.blm.gov/nm/
tricountyrmp
• Email:
BLM_NM_LCDO_comments@blm.gov
• Fax: 575–525–4412, Attention: TriCounty Comments
• Mail: BLM Las Cruces District
Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las
Cruces, New Mexico 88005–3371,
Attention: Tri-County Comments
Copies of the Tri-County Draft RMP/
Draft EIS are available at the Las Cruces
District Office, at the above address; the
New Mexico State BLM Office at 301
Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, NM; the
Albuquerque District BLM Office at 435
Montano Rd. NE., Albuquerque, NM;
the Socorro BLM Field Office at 901
South Highway 85, Socorro, NM; the
Carlsbad BLM Field Office at 620 East
Greene St., Carlsbad, NM; and the Pecos
District Office at 2909 West Second St.,
Roswell, NM.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Montoya, Planning and
Environmental Coordinator; telephone
575–525–4316; address 1800 Marquess
Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005–
3371; email jamontoy@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 service is available 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message
or question with the above individual.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21966
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices
You will receive a reply during normal
business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the TriCounty Draft RMP/Draft EIS, the BLM
analyzes the environmental
consequences of four land use plan
alternatives under consideration for
managing approximately 2.8 million
acres of surface estate and 4.0 million
acres of subsurface mineral estate. These
lands, administered by the BLM Las
Cruces District Office, are located
˜
within Sierra, Otero, and Dona Ana
counties in southern New Mexico.
This land use plan would replace the
White Sands RMP (1986) and amend the
portion of the Mimbres RMP (1993) that
˜
addresses Dona Ana County. The RMP
revision is needed to provide updated
management decisions for a variety of
uses and resources, including renewable
energy siting, outdoor recreation
management, special status species
habitat, proposals for special
designations, land tenure adjustments,
and other issues. The approved TriCounty RMP will apply only to the
BLM-administered public land and
Federal mineral estate.
The four alternatives analyzed in
detail in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS are as
follows:
• Alternative A, No Action, or a
continuation of existing management;
• Alternative B, which would
emphasize resource conservation and
protection;
• Alternative C, the BLM’s Preferred
Alternative, which would provide for a
balance of resources uses with
protections; and
• Alternative D, which would allow
for a greater opportunity for resource
use and development.
Among the special designations under
consideration within the range of
alternatives, Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC) are
proposed to protect certain resource
values. Pertinent information regarding
these ACECs, including proposed
designation acreages and resource-use
limitations, is summarized below. Each
alternative considers a combination of
resource-use limitations for each ACEC.
A more detailed summary of the
proposed ACECs by alternative is
available at the project Web site:
www.blm.gov/nm/tricountyrmp.
• Aden Lava Flow ACEC (Currently
3,746 acres; Alternative B would
maintain this acreage; Alternatives C
and D would remove the ACEC
designation and the area would be
managed as part of the Aden Lava Flow
WSA.) This ACEC would be managed
for biological, scenic, geological, and
research resource values. Proposed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
resource-use limitations include:
Exclusion from new rights-of-way;
closure to fluid mineral leasing and
mineral material sales; using chemical
brush control to meet plant community
objectives; management as Visual
Resource Management (VRM) Class II;
designation of a parking area and trail;
allowing the research and interpretation
of geological objectives; and limitation
of vehicle use to designated roads and
trails, or closing to vehicle use.
• Alamo Mountain ACEC (Currently
2,528 acres; Alternatives B and C would
incorporate the existing ACEC into the
Otero Mesa Grassland Wildlife ACEC;
Alternative D would maintain the ACEC
designation at the current acreage.) This
ACEC would be managed for scenic,
cultural, and ecological resource values.
Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion or avoidance of new
rights-of-way; closure to fluid mineral
leasing and mineral material sales;
closure to vegetation sales; management
as VRM Class I or II; limitation of
vehicle use to designated routes; and
closing to vehicle use.
• Alkali Lakes ACEC (Currently 6,348
acres; Alternatives B, C, and D would
maintain this acreage.) This ACEC
would be managed for special status
plant species resource values. Proposed
resource-use limitations include:
Exclusion or avoidance of new rights-ofway; closure to fluid mineral leasing
and mineral material sales; closure to
vegetation sales; management as VRM
Class III or IV; and limitation of vehicle
use to designated routes.
• Broad Canyon ACEC (Not currently
designated as an ACEC; Alternative B
would designate 4,721 acres as an
ACEC; the area would not be managed
as an ACEC under Alternatives C and
D.) The ACEC would be managed for
scenic, biological, and cultural resource
values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion of new
rights-of-way; closure to mineral
material disposal and geothermal
leasing; management as VRM Class II;
and limitation of vehicle use to
designated routes.
• Brokeoff Mountains ACEC (Not
currently designated as an ACEC;
Alternative B would designate 61,224
acres as an ACEC; Alternative C would
designate 3,971 acres as an ACEC; and
Alternative D would not manage the
area as an ACEC.) The ACEC would be
managed for ecological and cultural
resource values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion of new
rights-of-way; closure to mineral
material sales and geothermal leasing;
management as VRM Class II; and
limitation of vehicle use to designated
routes.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• Caballo Mountains ACEC (Not
currently an ACEC; Alternative B would
designate 17,268 acres as an ACEC; the
area would not be managed as an ACEC
under Alternatives C and D.) The ACEC
would be managed for scenic resource
values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion of new
rights-of-way; closure to mineral
material sales and geothermal leasing;
management as VRM Class I except for
the existing communications site; and
limitation of vehicle use to designated
routes.
• Cornucopia ACEC (Formerly
Southern Sacramento Mountains; not
currently an ACEC; Alternative B would
designate 16,037 acres as an ACEC; the
area would not be managed as an ACEC
under Alternatives C and D.) The ACEC
would be managed for cultural resource
values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion of new
rights-of-way; closure to mineral
material sales and geothermal leasing;
management as VRM Class II; and
limitation of vehicle use to designated
routes.
• Cornudas Mountains ACEC
(Currently 852 acres; Alternatives B and
C would manage this area as part of the
Otero Mesa Grassland Wildlife ACEC;
Alternative D would maintain the
existing ACEC designation with the
current acreage.) This ACEC would be
managed for scenic and cultural
resource values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Avoidance or
exclusion of new rights-of-way; closure
to fluid mineral leasing and mineral
material sales; management as VRM
Class I or II; and limitation of vehicle
travel to designated routes.
˜
• Dona Ana Mountains ACEC
(Currently 1,427 acres; Alternatives B
and C would expand the ACEC to 3,181
acres; Alternative D would maintain the
current acreage.) The ACEC would be
managed for biological, scenic, and
cultural resource values. Proposed
resource-use limitations include:
Exclusion from new rights-of-way;
closure to fluid mineral leasing and
mineral material sales; management as
VRM Class I; and limitation of vehicle
use to designated routes.
• East Potrillo Mountains ACEC (Not
currently an ACEC; Alternative B would
manage 11,460 acres as an ACEC; the
area would not be managed as an ACEC
under Alternatives C and D.) The ACEC
would be managed for scenic resource
values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion of new
rights-of-way; closure to mineral
material sales and geothermal leasing;
management as VRM Class I; and
limitation of vehicle use to designated
routes.
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices
• Jarilla Mountains ACEC (Not
currently an ACEC; Alternative B would
designate 6,219 acres as an ACEC;
Alternatives C and D would not manage
this area as an ACEC.) The ACEC would
be managed for special status plant
species and ecological resource values.
Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Avoidance of new rights-ofway; closure to mineral material sales
and geothermal leasing; management as
VRM Class III; and maintaining vehicle
closure on 700 acres while limiting
vehicle use to designated routes in the
remainder of the ACEC.
• Los Tules ACEC (Currently 23 acres;
Alternatives B, C, and D would maintain
this acreage.) This ACEC would be
managed for cultural resource values.
Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion from new rights-ofway; closure to mineral material sales;
allowing fluid mineral leasing with a No
Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation;
management as VRM Class II or III;
closure to vehicle use; and
consideration of conveyance to New
Mexico Parks Division under the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act.
• Mud Mountain ACEC (Not currently
an ACEC; Alternatives B and C would
designate 2,579 acres as an ACEC; the
area would not be managed as an ACEC
under Alternative D.) The ACEC would
be managed for special status plant
species and ecological resource values.
Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion of new rights-of-way;
closure to mineral material sales and
geothermal leasing; and limitation of
vehicle use to designated routes.
• Nutt Mountain ACEC (Not currently
an ACEC; Alternative C would designate
756 acres as an ACEC; the area would
not be managed as an ACEC under
Alternatives B and D.) The ACEC would
be managed for ecological and scenic
resource values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion of new
rights-of-way; closure to mineral
material sales and geothermal leasing;
management as VRM Class I; and
limitation of vehicle use to designated
routes.
• Organ/Franklin Mountains ACEC
(Currently 58,417 acres; Alternatives B,
C, and D would maintain this acreage;
19,667 acres are within Wilderness
Study Areas (WSAs).) This ACEC would
be managed for biological, scenic,
cultural, riparian, and special status
species (plant and animal) resource
values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion from new
rights-of-way except within existing
utility corridors; closure to fluid mineral
leasing and mineral material sales;
management as VRM Class I, III, and IV;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
closure to all but authorized vehicle use;
and closure of vehicle routes in WSAs.
• Otero Mesa Grassland ACEC (Not
currently an ACEC; Alternative B C
would designate 271,262 acres as an
ACEC; Alternative C would designate
198,511 acres as an ACEC. The area
would not be managed as an ACEC
under Alternative D.) The ACEC would
be managed for ecological and wildlife
habitat resource values. Proposed
resource-use limitations include:
Exclusion and avoidance of new rightsof-way; closure to mineral material sales
and geothermal leasing; closure to
vegetation sales; management as VRM
Class I and II; and limitation of vehicle
use to designated routes.
• Percha Creek ACEC (Not currently
an ACEC; Alternatives B and C would
designate 870 acres as an ACEC;
Alternative D would not manage this
area as an ACEC.) The ACEC would be
managed for riparian, ecological, and
special status species resource values.
Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion of new rights-of-way;
closure to mineral material sales and
geothermal leasing; closure to livestock
grazing; and close to vehicle use.
• Picacho Peak ACEC (Not currently
an ACEC; Alternatives B and C would
designate 950 acres as an ACEC; the area
would not be managed as an ACEC
under Alternative D.) The ACEC would
be managed for scenic and cultural
resource values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion from new
rights-of-way; closure to mineral
material sales and geothermal leasing;
management as VRM Class I; and
limitation of vehicle use to designated
routes.
• Pup Canyon ACEC (Not currently
an ACEC; Alternatives B and C would
designate 3,677 acres as an ACEC; the
area would not be managed as an ACEC
under Alternative D.) The ACEC would
be managed for special status plant
species and ecological resource values.
Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Incorporation into and
management as part of the Brokeoff
Mountains ACEC; exclusion of new
rights-of-way; management as VRM
Class II; and limitation of vehicle use to
designated routes.
• Rincon ACEC (Currently 856 acres;
Alternatives B, C, and D would maintain
the current acreage.) This ACEC would
be managed for cultural resource values.
Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion or avoidance of new
rights-of-way; exclusion of solar energy
projects; exclusion of wind and
geothermal energy projects from
aplomado falcon habitat and avoidance
of wind and geothermal development in
the remainder of the ACEC; allowing
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
21967
fluid mineral leasing with NSO; closure
to new mineral material sales;
management as VRM Class II; and
limitation of vehicle use to designated
routes.
• Robledo Mountains ACEC
(Currently 7,077 acres; Alternative B
would increase to 19,000 acres,
Alternatives C and D would maintain
the 7,077 acreage.) This ACEC would be
managed for biological, scenic, and
cultural resource values. Proposed
resource-use limitations include:
Exclusion or avoidance of new rights-ofway; closure to fluid mineral leasing
and mineral material sales; management
as VRM Class I or II; and limitation of
vehicle use to designated routes.
• Sacramento Escarpment ACEC
(Currently 4,474 acres; Alternatives B
and C would maintain this acreage;
Alternative D would reduce the ACEC to
3,374 acres.) This ACEC would be
managed for scenic resource values.
Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion of new rights-of-way;
closure to fluid mineral leasing and
mineral material sales; management as
VRM Class I and II; and limitation of
vehicle use to designated routes.
• Sacramento Mountains (North and
South) ACEC (Not currently an ACEC;
Alternatives B and C would designate
2,381 acres as an ACEC; the area would
not be managed as an ACEC under
Alternative D.) The ACEC would be
managed for special status plant species
and ecological resource values.
Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion or avoidance of new
rights-of-way; closure to mineral
material sales and geothermal leasing;
manage as VRM Class II; limitation of
vehicle use to designated routes; and
closure to vehicle use.
• San Diego Mountain ACEC
(Currently 623 acres; Alternatives B, C,
and D would maintain this acreage.)
This ACEC would be managed for
cultural resource values. Proposed
resource-use limitations include:
Exclusion or avoidance of new rights-ofway; closure to fluid minerals and
mineral material sales; management as
VRM Class II; and limitation of vehicle
use to designated routes.
• Six Shooter Canyon ACEC (Not
currently an ACEC; Alternatives B and
C would designate 1,060 acres as an
ACEC; the area would not be managed
as an ACEC under Alternative D.) The
ACEC would be managed for special
status plant species and ecological
resource values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion of new
rights-of-ways; closure to mineral
material sales and geothermal leasing;
management as VRM Class II; and
closure to vehicle use.
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21968
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices
• Southern Caballo Mountains ACEC
(Not currently an ACEC; Alternative B
would designate 24,117 acres as an
ACEC; the area would not be managed
as an ACEC under Alternatives C and
D.) The ACEC would be managed for
cultural resource values. Proposed
resource-use limitations include:
Exclusion of new rights-of-way; closure
to geothermal leasing; management as
VRM Class II; and limitation of vehicle
use to designated routes.
• Three Rivers Petroglyph Site ACEC
(Currently 1,043 acres; Alternatives B,
C, and D would maintain this acreage.)
This ACEC would be managed for
cultural resource values. Proposed
resource-use limitations include:
Closure to fluid mineral leasing and
mineral material sales; closure to
vegetation sales; management as VRM
Class II; and limitation of vehicle use to
designated routes.
• Tortugas Mountain ACEC (Not
currently an ACEC; Alternative B would
designate 1,936 acres as an ACEC; the
area would not be managed as an ACEC
under Alternatives C and D.) The ACEC
would be managed for soils and
geomorphology resource values.
Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion of new rights-of-way;
closure to geothermal leasing;
management as VRM Class III; allowing
traditional uses, religious and other, of
the mountain; and limitation of vehicle
use to designated routes.
• Tularosa Creek ACEC (Not
currently an ACEC; Alternatives B and
C would designate 236 acres as an
ACEC; the area would not be managed
as an ACEC under Alternative D.) The
ACEC would be managed for riparian
and aquatic resource values. Proposed
resource-use limitations include:
Exclusion of new rights-of-way; closing
to mineral material sales and geothermal
leasing; closure to livestock grazing;
management as VRM Class II; and
limitation of vehicle use to designated
routes.
• Wind Mountain ACEC (Currently
2,300 acres; Alternatives B and C would
manage the area as part of the Otero
Mesa Grassland Wildlife ACEC;
Alternative D would maintain the
current acreage.) This ACEC would be
managed for cultural and scenic
resource values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion or
avoidance of new rights-of-way; closure
to fluid mineral leasing and mineral
material sales; closure to vegetation
sales; management as VRM Class I or II;
and limitation of vehicle use to
designated routes.
The land-use planning process was
initiated on January 28, 2005, through a
Notice of Intent published in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Apr 11, 2013
Jkt 229001
Federal Register (70 FR 4146), notifying
the public of a formal scoping period
and soliciting public participation. Four
public scoping meetings were held in
March 2005 in Alamogordo, Anthony,
Las Cruces, and Truth or Consequences,
NM. In April 2005, the Economic Profile
System workshops were held in
Alamogordo and Truth or Consequences
to help the BLM and potential
cooperating agencies gain insight on the
economic makeup of the Planning Area.
Three open-house scoping meetings
were held in December 2006 in Las
Cruces, Alamogordo, and Truth or
Consequences, NM. Four meetings with
grazing allottees were held in January
2007 to discuss the RMP process and
potential impacts of ACEC management
on grazing operations. Between 2005
and 2010, four Planning Bulletins were
published to update the community on
the RMP progress. Meetings and
outreach to cooperating agencies were
held throughout the planning process,
as were meetings with various
stakeholder groups. At the November
2011 meeting of the Las Cruces District
Resource Advisory Council, the TriCounty RMP status was discussed.
Las Cruces District Office managers
and staff had discussions about the TriCounty Draft RMP/Draft EIS with 11
Native American tribal groups,
including the Mescalero Apache Tribe,
the Fort Sill Apache Tribe, the White
Mountain Apache Tribe, the Ysleta del
Sur Pueblo, the Isleta Pueblo, the Hopi
Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Kiowa
Tribe, the Comanche Indian Tribe,
Tesuque Pueblo, and the Piro-MansoTiwa Indian Tribe. During the scoping
period ending on March 28, 2005, the
public provided the Las Cruces District
Office with input on relevant issues to
consider in the planning process. Based
on these issues, conflicts, information,
and the BLM’s goals and objectives, the
Las Cruces District Office
Interdisciplinary RMP Team and
managers formulated four alternatives
for consideration and analysis in the
Draft RMP/Draft EIS.
Following the close of the public
review and comment period, any
substantive public comments will be
used to revise the Draft RMP/Draft EIS
in preparation for its release to the
public as the Proposed Resource
Management Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement
(Proposed RMP/Final EIS). The BLM
will respond to each substantive
comment received during the public
review and comment period by making
appropriate revisions to the document,
or explaining why the comment did not
warrant a change. Notice of the
availability of the Proposed RMP/Final
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
EIS will be posted in the Federal
Register.
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 BLM Las
Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess
St., Las Cruces, New Mexico during
regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30
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.
Jesse J. Juen,
New Mexico State Director.
[FR Doc. 2013–08534 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–VC–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLID9570000.LL14200000.BJ0000]
Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plats of
Surveys.
AGENCY:
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
South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709–
1657.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These
surveys were executed at the request of
the Bureau of Land Management to meet
their administrative needs. The lands
surveyed are:
The plat representing the dependent
resurvey of portions of the subdivisional
lines and certain mineral surveys, T. 49
N., R. 5 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho,
Group Number 1356, was accepted
January 5, 2013.
The supplemental plat prepared to
correct the ownership status of McRea
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21965-21968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08534]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLNML00000 L16100000.DP000/LXSS024G0000]
Notice of Availability of the Draft Tri-County Resource
Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Las
Cruces District Office, New Mexico
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 a
Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Tri-County planning area in the Las Cruces
District Office and by this notice is announcing the opening of the
public 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 filing 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 related to the Tri-County Draft RMP/
Draft EIS by any of the following methods:
Web site: www.blm.gov/nm/tricountyrmp
Email: BLM_NM_LCDO_comments@blm.gov
Fax: 575-525-4412, Attention: Tri-County Comments
Mail: BLM Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess
Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005-3371, Attention: Tri-County
Comments
Copies of the Tri-County Draft RMP/Draft EIS are available at the
Las Cruces District Office, at the above address; the New Mexico State
BLM Office at 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, NM; the Albuquerque
District BLM Office at 435 Montano Rd. NE., Albuquerque, NM; the
Socorro BLM Field Office at 901 South Highway 85, Socorro, NM; the
Carlsbad BLM Field Office at 620 East Greene St., Carlsbad, NM; and the
Pecos District Office at 2909 West Second St., Roswell, NM.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Montoya, Planning and
Environmental Coordinator; telephone 575-525-4316; address 1800
Marquess Street, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005-3371; email
jamontoy@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 service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave
a message or question with the above individual.
[[Page 21966]]
You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Tri-County Draft RMP/Draft EIS, the
BLM analyzes the environmental consequences of four land use plan
alternatives under consideration for managing approximately 2.8 million
acres of surface estate and 4.0 million acres of subsurface mineral
estate. These lands, administered by the BLM Las Cruces District
Office, are located within Sierra, Otero, and Do[ntilde]a Ana counties
in southern New Mexico.
This land use plan would replace the White Sands RMP (1986) and
amend the portion of the Mimbres RMP (1993) that addresses Do[ntilde]a
Ana County. The RMP revision is needed to provide updated management
decisions for a variety of uses and resources, including renewable
energy siting, outdoor recreation management, special status species
habitat, proposals for special designations, land tenure adjustments,
and other issues. The approved Tri-County RMP will apply only to the
BLM-administered public land and Federal mineral estate.
The four alternatives analyzed in detail in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS
are as follows:
Alternative A, No Action, or a continuation of existing
management;
Alternative B, which would emphasize resource conservation
and protection;
Alternative C, the BLM's Preferred Alternative, which
would provide for a balance of resources uses with protections; and
Alternative D, which would allow for a greater opportunity
for resource use and development.
Among the special designations under consideration within the range
of alternatives, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) are
proposed to protect certain resource values. Pertinent information
regarding these ACECs, including proposed designation acreages and
resource-use limitations, is summarized below. Each alternative
considers a combination of resource-use limitations for each ACEC. A
more detailed summary of the proposed ACECs by alternative is available
at the project Web site: www.blm.gov/nm/tricountyrmp.
Aden Lava Flow ACEC (Currently 3,746 acres; Alternative B
would maintain this acreage; Alternatives C and D would remove the ACEC
designation and the area would be managed as part of the Aden Lava Flow
WSA.) This ACEC would be managed for biological, scenic, geological,
and research resource values. Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion from new rights-of-way; closure to fluid mineral
leasing and mineral material sales; using chemical brush control to
meet plant community objectives; management as Visual Resource
Management (VRM) Class II; designation of a parking area and trail;
allowing the research and interpretation of geological objectives; and
limitation of vehicle use to designated roads and trails, or closing to
vehicle use.
Alamo Mountain ACEC (Currently 2,528 acres; Alternatives B
and C would incorporate the existing ACEC into the Otero Mesa Grassland
Wildlife ACEC; Alternative D would maintain the ACEC designation at the
current acreage.) This ACEC would be managed for scenic, cultural, and
ecological resource values. Proposed resource-use limitations include:
Exclusion or avoidance of new rights-of-way; closure to fluid mineral
leasing and mineral material sales; closure to vegetation sales;
management as VRM Class I or II; limitation of vehicle use to
designated routes; and closing to vehicle use.
Alkali Lakes ACEC (Currently 6,348 acres; Alternatives B,
C, and D would maintain this acreage.) This ACEC would be managed for
special status plant species resource values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion or avoidance of new rights-of-way;
closure to fluid mineral leasing and mineral material sales; closure to
vegetation sales; management as VRM Class III or IV; and limitation of
vehicle use to designated routes.
Broad Canyon ACEC (Not currently designated as an ACEC;
Alternative B would designate 4,721 acres as an ACEC; the area would
not be managed as an ACEC under Alternatives C and D.) The ACEC would
be managed for scenic, biological, and cultural resource values.
Proposed resource-use limitations include: Exclusion of new rights-of-
way; closure to mineral material disposal and geothermal leasing;
management as VRM Class II; and limitation of vehicle use to designated
routes.
Brokeoff Mountains ACEC (Not currently designated as an
ACEC; Alternative B would designate 61,224 acres as an ACEC;
Alternative C would designate 3,971 acres as an ACEC; and Alternative D
would not manage the area as an ACEC.) The ACEC would be managed for
ecological and cultural resource values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion of new rights-of-way; closure to mineral
material sales and geothermal leasing; management as VRM Class II; and
limitation of vehicle use to designated routes.
Caballo Mountains ACEC (Not currently an ACEC; Alternative
B would designate 17,268 acres as an ACEC; the area would not be
managed as an ACEC under Alternatives C and D.) The ACEC would be
managed for scenic resource values. Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion of new rights-of-way; closure to mineral material
sales and geothermal leasing; management as VRM Class I except for the
existing communications site; and limitation of vehicle use to
designated routes.
Cornucopia ACEC (Formerly Southern Sacramento Mountains;
not currently an ACEC; Alternative B would designate 16,037 acres as an
ACEC; the area would not be managed as an ACEC under Alternatives C and
D.) The ACEC would be managed for cultural resource values. Proposed
resource-use limitations include: Exclusion of new rights-of-way;
closure to mineral material sales and geothermal leasing; management as
VRM Class II; and limitation of vehicle use to designated routes.
Cornudas Mountains ACEC (Currently 852 acres; Alternatives
B and C would manage this area as part of the Otero Mesa Grassland
Wildlife ACEC; Alternative D would maintain the existing ACEC
designation with the current acreage.) This ACEC would be managed for
scenic and cultural resource values. Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Avoidance or exclusion of new rights-of-way; closure to fluid
mineral leasing and mineral material sales; management as VRM Class I
or II; and limitation of vehicle travel to designated routes.
Do[ntilde]a Ana Mountains ACEC (Currently 1,427 acres;
Alternatives B and C would expand the ACEC to 3,181 acres; Alternative
D would maintain the current acreage.) The ACEC would be managed for
biological, scenic, and cultural resource values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion from new rights-of-way; closure to fluid
mineral leasing and mineral material sales; management as VRM Class I;
and limitation of vehicle use to designated routes.
East Potrillo Mountains ACEC (Not currently an ACEC;
Alternative B would manage 11,460 acres as an ACEC; the area would not
be managed as an ACEC under Alternatives C and D.) The ACEC would be
managed for scenic resource values. Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion of new rights-of-way; closure to mineral material
sales and geothermal leasing; management as VRM Class I; and limitation
of vehicle use to designated routes.
[[Page 21967]]
Jarilla Mountains ACEC (Not currently an ACEC; Alternative
B would designate 6,219 acres as an ACEC; Alternatives C and D would
not manage this area as an ACEC.) The ACEC would be managed for special
status plant species and ecological resource values. Proposed resource-
use limitations include: Avoidance of new rights-of-way; closure to
mineral material sales and geothermal leasing; management as VRM Class
III; and maintaining vehicle closure on 700 acres while limiting
vehicle use to designated routes in the remainder of the ACEC.
Los Tules ACEC (Currently 23 acres; Alternatives B, C, and
D would maintain this acreage.) This ACEC would be managed for cultural
resource values. Proposed resource-use limitations include: Exclusion
from new rights-of-way; closure to mineral material sales; allowing
fluid mineral leasing with a No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation;
management as VRM Class II or III; closure to vehicle use; and
consideration of conveyance to New Mexico Parks Division under the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act.
Mud Mountain ACEC (Not currently an ACEC; Alternatives B
and C would designate 2,579 acres as an ACEC; the area would not be
managed as an ACEC under Alternative D.) The ACEC would be managed for
special status plant species and ecological resource values. Proposed
resource-use limitations include: Exclusion of new rights-of-way;
closure to mineral material sales and geothermal leasing; and
limitation of vehicle use to designated routes.
Nutt Mountain ACEC (Not currently an ACEC; Alternative C
would designate 756 acres as an ACEC; the area would not be managed as
an ACEC under Alternatives B and D.) The ACEC would be managed for
ecological and scenic resource values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion of new rights-of-way; closure to mineral
material sales and geothermal leasing; management as VRM Class I; and
limitation of vehicle use to designated routes.
Organ/Franklin Mountains ACEC (Currently 58,417 acres;
Alternatives B, C, and D would maintain this acreage; 19,667 acres are
within Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs).) This ACEC would be managed for
biological, scenic, cultural, riparian, and special status species
(plant and animal) resource values. Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion from new rights-of-way except within existing
utility corridors; closure to fluid mineral leasing and mineral
material sales; management as VRM Class I, III, and IV; closure to all
but authorized vehicle use; and closure of vehicle routes in WSAs.
Otero Mesa Grassland ACEC (Not currently an ACEC;
Alternative B C would designate 271,262 acres as an ACEC; Alternative C
would designate 198,511 acres as an ACEC. The area would not be managed
as an ACEC under Alternative D.) The ACEC would be managed for
ecological and wildlife habitat resource values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion and avoidance of new rights-of-way;
closure to mineral material sales and geothermal leasing; closure to
vegetation sales; management as VRM Class I and II; and limitation of
vehicle use to designated routes.
Percha Creek ACEC (Not currently an ACEC; Alternatives B
and C would designate 870 acres as an ACEC; Alternative D would not
manage this area as an ACEC.) The ACEC would be managed for riparian,
ecological, and special status species resource values. Proposed
resource-use limitations include: Exclusion of new rights-of-way;
closure to mineral material sales and geothermal leasing; closure to
livestock grazing; and close to vehicle use.
Picacho Peak ACEC (Not currently an ACEC; Alternatives B
and C would designate 950 acres as an ACEC; the area would not be
managed as an ACEC under Alternative D.) The ACEC would be managed for
scenic and cultural resource values. Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion from new rights-of-way; closure to mineral material
sales and geothermal leasing; management as VRM Class I; and limitation
of vehicle use to designated routes.
Pup Canyon ACEC (Not currently an ACEC; Alternatives B and
C would designate 3,677 acres as an ACEC; the area would not be managed
as an ACEC under Alternative D.) The ACEC would be managed for special
status plant species and ecological resource values. Proposed resource-
use limitations include: Incorporation into and management as part of
the Brokeoff Mountains ACEC; exclusion of new rights-of-way; management
as VRM Class II; and limitation of vehicle use to designated routes.
Rincon ACEC (Currently 856 acres; Alternatives B, C, and D
would maintain the current acreage.) This ACEC would be managed for
cultural resource values. Proposed resource-use limitations include:
Exclusion or avoidance of new rights-of-way; exclusion of solar energy
projects; exclusion of wind and geothermal energy projects from
aplomado falcon habitat and avoidance of wind and geothermal
development in the remainder of the ACEC; allowing fluid mineral
leasing with NSO; closure to new mineral material sales; management as
VRM Class II; and limitation of vehicle use to designated routes.
Robledo Mountains ACEC (Currently 7,077 acres; Alternative
B would increase to 19,000 acres, Alternatives C and D would maintain
the 7,077 acreage.) This ACEC would be managed for biological, scenic,
and cultural resource values. Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion or avoidance of new rights-of-way; closure to fluid
mineral leasing and mineral material sales; management as VRM Class I
or II; and limitation of vehicle use to designated routes.
Sacramento Escarpment ACEC (Currently 4,474 acres;
Alternatives B and C would maintain this acreage; Alternative D would
reduce the ACEC to 3,374 acres.) This ACEC would be managed for scenic
resource values. Proposed resource-use limitations include: Exclusion
of new rights-of-way; closure to fluid mineral leasing and mineral
material sales; management as VRM Class I and II; and limitation of
vehicle use to designated routes.
Sacramento Mountains (North and South) ACEC (Not currently
an ACEC; Alternatives B and C would designate 2,381 acres as an ACEC;
the area would not be managed as an ACEC under Alternative D.) The ACEC
would be managed for special status plant species and ecological
resource values. Proposed resource-use limitations include: Exclusion
or avoidance of new rights-of-way; closure to mineral material sales
and geothermal leasing; manage as VRM Class II; limitation of vehicle
use to designated routes; and closure to vehicle use.
San Diego Mountain ACEC (Currently 623 acres; Alternatives
B, C, and D would maintain this acreage.) This ACEC would be managed
for cultural resource values. Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion or avoidance of new rights-of-way; closure to fluid
minerals and mineral material sales; management as VRM Class II; and
limitation of vehicle use to designated routes.
Six Shooter Canyon ACEC (Not currently an ACEC;
Alternatives B and C would designate 1,060 acres as an ACEC; the area
would not be managed as an ACEC under Alternative D.) The ACEC would be
managed for special status plant species and ecological resource
values. Proposed resource-use limitations include: Exclusion of new
rights-of-ways; closure to mineral material sales and geothermal
leasing; management as VRM Class II; and closure to vehicle use.
[[Page 21968]]
Southern Caballo Mountains ACEC (Not currently an ACEC;
Alternative B would designate 24,117 acres as an ACEC; the area would
not be managed as an ACEC under Alternatives C and D.) The ACEC would
be managed for cultural resource values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion of new rights-of-way; closure to
geothermal leasing; management as VRM Class II; and limitation of
vehicle use to designated routes.
Three Rivers Petroglyph Site ACEC (Currently 1,043 acres;
Alternatives B, C, and D would maintain this acreage.) This ACEC would
be managed for cultural resource values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Closure to fluid mineral leasing and mineral
material sales; closure to vegetation sales; management as VRM Class
II; and limitation of vehicle use to designated routes.
Tortugas Mountain ACEC (Not currently an ACEC; Alternative
B would designate 1,936 acres as an ACEC; the area would not be managed
as an ACEC under Alternatives C and D.) The ACEC would be managed for
soils and geomorphology resource values. Proposed resource-use
limitations include: Exclusion of new rights-of-way; closure to
geothermal leasing; management as VRM Class III; allowing traditional
uses, religious and other, of the mountain; and limitation of vehicle
use to designated routes.
Tularosa Creek ACEC (Not currently an ACEC; Alternatives B
and C would designate 236 acres as an ACEC; the area would not be
managed as an ACEC under Alternative D.) The ACEC would be managed for
riparian and aquatic resource values. Proposed resource-use limitations
include: Exclusion of new rights-of-way; closing to mineral material
sales and geothermal leasing; closure to livestock grazing; management
as VRM Class II; and limitation of vehicle use to designated routes.
Wind Mountain ACEC (Currently 2,300 acres; Alternatives B
and C would manage the area as part of the Otero Mesa Grassland
Wildlife ACEC; Alternative D would maintain the current acreage.) This
ACEC would be managed for cultural and scenic resource values. Proposed
resource-use limitations include: Exclusion or avoidance of new rights-
of-way; closure to fluid mineral leasing and mineral material sales;
closure to vegetation sales; management as VRM Class I or II; and
limitation of vehicle use to designated routes.
The land-use planning process was initiated on January 28, 2005,
through a Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register (70 FR
4146), notifying the public of a formal scoping period and soliciting
public participation. Four public scoping meetings were held in March
2005 in Alamogordo, Anthony, Las Cruces, and Truth or Consequences, NM.
In April 2005, the Economic Profile System workshops were held in
Alamogordo and Truth or Consequences to help the BLM and potential
cooperating agencies gain insight on the economic makeup of the
Planning Area. Three open-house scoping meetings were held in December
2006 in Las Cruces, Alamogordo, and Truth or Consequences, NM. Four
meetings with grazing allottees were held in January 2007 to discuss
the RMP process and potential impacts of ACEC management on grazing
operations. Between 2005 and 2010, four Planning Bulletins were
published to update the community on the RMP progress. Meetings and
outreach to cooperating agencies were held throughout the planning
process, as were meetings with various stakeholder groups. At the
November 2011 meeting of the Las Cruces District Resource Advisory
Council, the Tri-County RMP status was discussed.
Las Cruces District Office managers and staff had discussions about
the Tri-County Draft RMP/Draft EIS with 11 Native American tribal
groups, including the Mescalero Apache Tribe, the Fort Sill Apache
Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, the
Isleta Pueblo, the Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Kiowa Tribe, the
Comanche Indian Tribe, Tesuque Pueblo, and the Piro-Manso-Tiwa Indian
Tribe. During the scoping period ending on March 28, 2005, the public
provided the Las Cruces District Office with input on relevant issues
to consider in the planning process. Based on these issues, conflicts,
information, and the BLM's goals and objectives, the Las Cruces
District Office Interdisciplinary RMP Team and managers formulated four
alternatives for consideration and analysis in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS.
Following the close of the public review and comment period, any
substantive public comments will be used to revise the Draft RMP/Draft
EIS in preparation for its release to the public as the Proposed
Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement
(Proposed RMP/Final EIS). The BLM will respond to each substantive
comment received during the public review and comment period by making
appropriate revisions to the document, or explaining why the comment
did not warrant a change. Notice of the availability of the Proposed
RMP/Final EIS will be posted in the Federal Register.
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 BLM Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess St., Las Cruces, New
Mexico during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 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.
Jesse J. Juen,
New Mexico State Director.
[FR Doc. 2013-08534 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-VC-P
