Notice of Availability of the Draft San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan and Associated Environmental Impact Statement, Arizona, 30771-30772 [2018-13813]

Download as PDF sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Notices • Accounts Receivable (AR) documents—Edits include changes made to the Inter-creditor Agreement form to address an ongoing issue of how operators should disclose any crossdefaults between the AR loan and the HUD loan. • Master Lease documents—Changes include adding two new forms: Termination and Release of CrossDefault Guaranty of Subtenants— Proposed and Amendment to HUD Master Lease (Partial Termination and Release)—Proposed to reflect the 232 Handbook policy related to a release of a project from a master lease. • Closing documents—Edits were made to the Surplus Cash Note and Subordination Agreement—(Financing) to restrict distributions when there is secondary financing. Security Instrument/Mortgage Deed Instrument/ Mortgage Deed of Trust to reflect Multifamily’s form and reduces the need to amend the document when the Regulatory Agreement—Borrower paragraph 38 is changed. New residential care facilities versions of Certificate of Actual Cost as well as a Rider to Security Instrument—LIHTC— were incorporated into the collection to replace Multifamily versions still in use which did not reflect ORCF policy. • Regulatory Agreement for Fire Safety—A new Regulatory Agreement for Fire Safety projects and a Management Agreement Addendum, as well as formalization of a Lender Certification for Insurance Coverage, to incorporate current samples already in place was added to the documentation collection. • Escrow documents—New proposed escrow forms for long-term debt service reserves and Off-Site Facilities were also added. • Asset Management documents— Change of participant application documents were revised to streamline the documents needed for a change in title of mortgaged property, change of operator or management agent, or complete change of all the parties. Documents still being used in the Multifamily format were incorporated into this collection, to specifically address ORCF policy. New Lender Narratives were also added for the addition of Accounts Receivable, for Requests to Release or Modify Original Loan Collateral and Loan Modifications (along with a corresponding Certification). New forms were also added to incorporate existing samples in use for Section 232 HUD Healthcare Portal Access, and notification to ORCF, by the Servicer and Operator of developing concerns within a project. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jun 28, 2018 Jkt 244001 • Supplemental Loan Documents— Section 241(a) Mortgage Insurance for Supplemental Loans for Multifamily Projects. All Section 241(a) loan documents that have been in use as samples are now made a part of the documentation collection for OMB approval. Note: HUD makes no changes to the Legal Opinion and Certification Documents. Respondents (i.e. affected public): Business or other for profit. Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,451.00. Estimated Number of Responses: 26,001.27. Frequency of Response: 4.77. Average Hours per Response: 1.87. Total Estimated Burdens: 48,622.37. Solicitation of Public Comment This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond: Including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions. Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. Dated: June 22, 2018. Colette Pollard, Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 2018–14081 Filed 6–28–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210–67–P PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 30771 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLAZG02200.L16100000.DO0000.LXSS20 6A0000] Notice of Availability of the Draft San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan and Associated Environmental Impact Statement, Arizona Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. AGENCY: 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) Tucson Field Office (TFO) has prepared a Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA) and by this notice is announcing the opening of the comment period. DATES: To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive written comments on the Draft RMP/ Draft EIS within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of Availability of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The BLM will announce future meetings or hearings and any other public participation activities at least 15 days in advance through public notices, media releases, and/or mailings. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments related to the SPRNCA Draft RMP/Draft EIS by any of the following methods: • Website: https://go.usa.gov/xQKFU. • Email: blm_az_tfo_sprnca_rmp@ blm.gov. • Fax: 520–258–7238. • Mail: Tucson Field Office Attn: Amy Markstein, 3201 East Universal Way, Tucson, AZ 85756. Copies of the SPRNCA Draft RMP/ Draft EIS are available in the Tucson Field Office at the above address and at the San Pedro Project Office, 4070 S Avenida Saracino, Hereford, AZ 85615. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Markstein, Planning & Environmental Specialist, telephone 520–258–7231; address 3201 East Universal Way, Tucson, AZ 85756; email blm_az_tfo_sprnca_rmp@blm.gov. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the above individual during SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM 29JNN1 30772 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Notices normal business hours. FRS 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 SPRNCA was established by Public Law 100–696 on November 18, 1988. The planning area is located in Cochise County in southeastern Arizona, and encompasses approximately 55,990 acres of public land administered by the BLM TFO. The SPRNCA is located adjacent to the City of Sierra Vista and is near Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The SPRNCA is currently managed under the Safford District RMP (1992 and 1994), which incorporated RMP level decisions from the San Pedro River Riparian Management Plan (1989). This planning effort would update management guidance from the previous plans and create a new RMP for the SPRNCA. The planning effort is needed to identify goals, objectives, and management actions for the SPRNCA’s resources and uses identified in the enabling legislation, including aquatic; wildlife; archaeological; paleontological; scientific; cultural; educational; and recreational resources and values. The BLM used public scoping comments to help identify planning issues that directed the formulation of alternatives and framed the scope of analysis in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. Issues identified included management of water, vegetation, and soil resources, fire management, Threatened and Endangered species management, livestock grazing, access, recreation, socio-economics, and lands and realty. The planning effort also considers lands with wilderness characteristics, wild and scenic rivers, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). The Draft RMP/Draft EIS evaluates four alternatives in detail. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative, which is a continuation of current management in the existing Safford District RMP and San Pedro River Riparian Management Plan. It is a continuation of current public use, resource protection, and conservation prescriptions without change. It neither sets desired outcomes for resource management or most uses, nor addresses new issues unforeseen or nonexistent when the Safford District RMP was prepared. Alternative B provides opportunities for increased public access, includes livestock grazing in sensitive riparian and cultural areas, allows recreation uses, and focuses on active resource management using the broadest array of management tools. This would include use of heavy equipment, herbicide, hand tools, and prescribed fire to achieve goals and objectives, to mitigate any effects from increased use, and for ecosystem restoration. Alternative B places an emphasis on opportunities for motorized access. Alternative C is the BLM’s preferred alternative. Alternative C represents a balance between resource protection and public access, authorizes livestock grazing in areas compatible with the established conservation values, and provides for a diverse mix of recreation opportunities. As in Alternative B, Alternative C focuses on active resource management and would allow for use of the broadest array of management tools for ecosystem restoration and to meet goals and objectives. Alternative D emphasizes resource protection and conservation. It emphasizes primitive recreational experiences with limited motorized access, protection of wilderness characteristics, ACECs, and management of the San Pedro and Babocomari Wild and Scenic Rivers. It focuses on natural processes and use of ‘‘light on the land’’ management methods, such as the use of hand tools and prescribed fire, to help meet goals and objectives. Pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.7–2(b), this notice announces a concurrent public comment period for potential ACECs. There are three existing ACECs under Alternative A, and three expanded and two new potential ACECs under Alternative D. ACECs are not proposed under Alternatives B and C. Pertinent information regarding these ACECs, including proposed designation acreage and resource use limitations are listed below. PROPOSED ACECS Alternative A (acres) Alternative D (acres) 380 2,710 San Pedro ACEC ....................... 1,420 7,230 San Rafael ACEC ...................... 370 560 Curry-Horsethief ACEC ............. ........................ 2,540 Lehner Mammoth ACEC ........... sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Saint David Cienega ACEC ....... ........................ 30 Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses, and email addresses of persons who submit comments will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:58 Jun 28, 2018 Jkt 244001 ACEC resource values Cienega habitat, Cultural and historical values. Upland and riparian areas, Rare plants, Cultural and historical values. Rare plants, Giant sacaton grasslands, Mesquite bosques. Cultural, historical, and paleontological values. Cultural, historical, and paleontological values. 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. BILLING CODE 4310–32–P Fmt 4703 VRM class II. VRM class II, land use authorizations would be excluded. VRM class II, land use authorizations would be excluded. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS–WASO–D–COS–POL–25829: PPWODIREP0][PPMPSPD1Y.YM0000] ‘‘Made in America’’ Outdoor Recreation Advisory Committee Notice of Public Meeting ACTION: [FR Doc. 2018–13813 Filed 6–28–18; 8:45 am] Frm 00090 Visual Resource Management (VRM) class II. VRM class II. National Park Service, Interior. Meeting notice. AGENCY: Raymond Suazo, State Director. PO 00000 Resource use limitations Sfmt 4703 Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\29JNN1.SGM 29JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30771-30772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13813]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLAZG02200.L16100000.DO0000.LXSS206A0000]


Notice of Availability of the Draft San Pedro Riparian National 
Conservation Area Resource Management Plan and Associated Environmental 
Impact Statement, Arizona

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) Tucson Field 
Office (TFO) has prepared a Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the San Pedro Riparian 
National Conservation Area (SPRNCA) and by this notice is announcing 
the opening of the comment period.

DATES: To ensure that comments will be considered, the BLM must receive 
written comments on the Draft RMP/Draft EIS within 90 days following 
the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its Notice of 
Availability of the Draft RMP/Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The 
BLM will announce future meetings or hearings and any other public 
participation activities at least 15 days in advance through public 
notices, media releases, and/or mailings.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments related to the SPRNCA Draft RMP/
Draft EIS by any of the following methods:
     Website: https://go.usa.gov/xQKFU.
     Email: [email protected].
     Fax: 520-258-7238.
     Mail: Tucson Field Office Attn: Amy Markstein, 3201 East 
Universal Way, Tucson, AZ 85756.
    Copies of the SPRNCA Draft RMP/Draft EIS are available in the 
Tucson Field Office at the above address and at the San Pedro Project 
Office, 4070 S Avenida Saracino, Hereford, AZ 85615.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Markstein, Planning & 
Environmental Specialist, telephone 520-258-7231; address 3201 East 
Universal Way, Tucson, AZ 85756; email [email protected].
    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may 
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the 
above individual during

[[Page 30772]]

normal business hours. FRS 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 SPRNCA was established by Public Law 
100-696 on November 18, 1988. The planning area is located in Cochise 
County in southeastern Arizona, and encompasses approximately 55,990 
acres of public land administered by the BLM TFO. The SPRNCA is located 
adjacent to the City of Sierra Vista and is near Fort Huachuca, 
Arizona.
    The SPRNCA is currently managed under the Safford District RMP 
(1992 and 1994), which incorporated RMP level decisions from the San 
Pedro River Riparian Management Plan (1989). This planning effort would 
update management guidance from the previous plans and create a new RMP 
for the SPRNCA. The planning effort is needed to identify goals, 
objectives, and management actions for the SPRNCA's resources and uses 
identified in the enabling legislation, including aquatic; wildlife; 
archaeological; paleontological; scientific; cultural; educational; and 
recreational resources and values.
    The BLM used public scoping comments to help identify planning 
issues that directed the formulation of alternatives and framed the 
scope of analysis in the Draft RMP/Draft EIS. Issues identified 
included management of water, vegetation, and soil resources, fire 
management, Threatened and Endangered species management, livestock 
grazing, access, recreation, socio-economics, and lands and realty. The 
planning effort also considers lands with wilderness characteristics, 
wild and scenic rivers, and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 
(ACECs).
    The Draft RMP/Draft EIS evaluates four alternatives in detail. 
Alternative A is the No Action Alternative, which is a continuation of 
current management in the existing Safford District RMP and San Pedro 
River Riparian Management Plan. It is a continuation of current public 
use, resource protection, and conservation prescriptions without 
change. It neither sets desired outcomes for resource management or 
most uses, nor addresses new issues unforeseen or nonexistent when the 
Safford District RMP was prepared. Alternative B provides opportunities 
for increased public access, includes livestock grazing in sensitive 
riparian and cultural areas, allows recreation uses, and focuses on 
active resource management using the broadest array of management 
tools. This would include use of heavy equipment, herbicide, hand 
tools, and prescribed fire to achieve goals and objectives, to mitigate 
any effects from increased use, and for ecosystem restoration. 
Alternative B places an emphasis on opportunities for motorized access. 
Alternative C is the BLM's preferred alternative. Alternative C 
represents a balance between resource protection and public access, 
authorizes livestock grazing in areas compatible with the established 
conservation values, and provides for a diverse mix of recreation 
opportunities. As in Alternative B, Alternative C focuses on active 
resource management and would allow for use of the broadest array of 
management tools for ecosystem restoration and to meet goals and 
objectives. Alternative D emphasizes resource protection and 
conservation. It emphasizes primitive recreational experiences with 
limited motorized access, protection of wilderness characteristics, 
ACECs, and management of the San Pedro and Babocomari Wild and Scenic 
Rivers. It focuses on natural processes and use of ``light on the 
land'' management methods, such as the use of hand tools and prescribed 
fire, to help meet goals and objectives.
    Pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b), this notice announces a concurrent 
public comment period for potential ACECs. There are three existing 
ACECs under Alternative A, and three expanded and two new potential 
ACECs under Alternative D. ACECs are not proposed under Alternatives B 
and C. Pertinent information regarding these ACECs, including proposed 
designation acreage and resource use limitations are listed below.

                                                 Proposed ACECs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Alternative A   Alternative D                                Resource use
                                       (acres)         (acres)       ACEC resource values        limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saint David Cienega ACEC.........             380           2,710  Cienega habitat,          Visual Resource
                                                                    Cultural and historical   Management (VRM)
                                                                    values.                   class II.
San Pedro ACEC...................           1,420           7,230  Upland and riparian       VRM class II.
                                                                    areas, Rare plants,
                                                                    Cultural and historical
                                                                    values.
San Rafael ACEC..................             370             560  Rare plants, Giant        VRM class II.
                                                                    sacaton grasslands,
                                                                    Mesquite bosques.
Curry-Horsethief ACEC............  ..............           2,540  Cultural, historical,     VRM class II, land
                                                                    and paleontological       use authorizations
                                                                    values.                   would be excluded.
Lehner Mammoth ACEC..............  ..............              30  Cultural, historical,     VRM class II, land
                                                                    and paleontological       use authorizations
                                                                    values.                   would be excluded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that public comments and information submitted 
including names, street addresses, and email addresses of persons who 
submit comments will be available for public review and disclosure at 
the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.), 
Monday through Friday, except holidays.
    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

    Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6, 40 CFR 1506.10, 43 CFR 1610.2.

Raymond Suazo,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 2018-13813 Filed 6-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-32-P