83 FR 38167 - Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the BLM Carlsbad Field Office, New Mexico

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 150 (August 3, 2018)

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 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 Carlsbad Field Office, and by this Notice is announcing the opening of the comment period.

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38167-38172]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16665]



[[Page 38167]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLNMP02000 L16100000.DP0000 18XL1109AF]


Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the BLM Carlsbad Field Office, 
New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA), 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 Carlsbad Field Office, and by this Notice is 
announcing the opening of the comment period.

DATES: To ensure that comments are 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 Draft RMP/Draft EIS 
for the Carlsbad Field Office by any of the following methods:
     Project Website (ePlanning): https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/new-mexico/carlsbad-rmp.
     Email: [email protected].
     Fax: 575-234-5927, Attn.: Carlsbad RMP Team Lead.
     Mail: 620 East Greene Street, Carlsbad, NM 88220, Attn.: 
Carlsbad RMP Team Lead.
    Copies of the Carlsbad Draft RMP/Draft EIS are available in the 
Carlsbad Field Office at the above address; the New Mexico State Office 
at 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87508; the Pecos District Office at 
2909 West Second Street, Roswell, NM 88201; and the Hobbs Field Station 
at 414 West Taylor, Hobbs, NM 88240. An electronic copy is available 
for download at the project website provided above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Hector 
Gonzalez, RMP Team Lead; telephone 575-234-5968; address 620 East 
Greene Street, Carlsbad, NM 88220; 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 normal business hours. The 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: In the Carlsbad Draft RMP/Draft EIS, the BLM 
analyzes the environmental consequences of five alternatives under 
consideration for managing approximately 2.1 million acres of surface 
estate and close to 3.0 million acres of subsurface mineral estate. 
These lands, administered by the BLM Carlsbad Field Office, are located 
within Eddy, Lea, and a portion of Chaves counties in southeast New 
Mexico. The Carlsbad planning area includes the Carlsbad Caverns 
National Park, Brantley Lake State Park, Living Desert Zoo and Gardens 
State Park, and part of the Lincoln National Forest.
    This land use plan would replace the current Carlsbad RMP, which 
the BLM approved in 1988 and amended in 1997 and 2008. A revision to 
the 1988 RMP is necessary because a number of changes have occurred in 
the Carlsbad planning area since its publication. New resource issues 
have emerged, new resource data are available for consideration, and 
new policies, guidelines, and laws have been established. The changes 
are in part due to continuing fluid and solid mineral extraction (oil, 
gas, and potash) in the area and the use of new technologies to extract 
those resources. Concurrent extraction of both fluid and solid mineral 
reserves presents a management challenge not fully addressed in the 
1988 RMP and its Amendments.
    There is also a need to update the RMP to address several 
interrelated issues and management concerns, including renewable 
energy, recreation, special status species, visual resources, and 
wildlife habitat. The BLM also considers special designations, such as 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) to address concerns in 
sensitive resource areas.
    There are opportunities to update recreation decisions in the plan 
revision to respond to community interests and needs, as well as 
complement surrounding tourism destinations. Most of the lands 
administered by the Carlsbad Field Office are currently designated as 
open to cross-country motorized vehicle use. This designation will be 
re-examined to consider a better balance of resource conservation with 
travel management needs. The BLM has updated visual resource 
inventories and will update visual resource management (VRM) 
designations to address renewable energy demand, as well as other 
potential uses in the planning area. The BLM will consider future 
renewable energy sites and interconnecting rights-of-way (ROW) in the 
RMP.
    The five alternatives analyzed in detail in the Draft RMP/EIS are 
as follows:
     No Action Alternative: A continuation of existing 
management under the current 1988 Carlsbad RMP, as amended;
     Alternative A: Focuses on watershed management and 
restoration-related planning issues;
     Alternative B: Focuses on resource use conflicts related 
to leasable mineral development, recreation, and watershed management 
through geographic separation of uses;
     Alternative C (the BLM's Preferred Alternative): Focuses 
on multiple use by managing resource conflict, rather than geographic 
separation of uses, focused use, or preservation areas; and
     Alternative D: Focuses on leasable mineral development, 
lands and realty, and recreation issues.
    Among the special designations under consideration within the range 
of alternatives, the BLM proposes and evaluates ACECs to protect 
certain resource values, preserving access to mineral resources and 
other uses where appropriate. Pertinent information regarding these 
ACECs, including proposed designation acreages, resource use 
limitations if designated, and their respective alternatives are 
summarized below. Each alternative considers a combination of resource 
use limitations for each ACEC. Five ACECs exist in the No Action 
Alternative; nine are proposed for designation in Alternative A; 15 are 
proposed for designation in Alternative B; seven are proposed for 
designation in Alternative C; and five are proposed for designation in 
Alternative D. A more detailed summary of the proposed ACECs, by 
alternative, is available at the project website provided above. 
Pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b), the BLM is required to specify all 
proposed ACEC resource use limitations, which would occur if formally 
designated. The alternative where each ACEC is considered, as well as 
the largest size and most restrictive limitations under consideration 
for each potential ACEC within the range of alternatives are as 
follows:

[[Page 38168]]

     Blue Springs Riparian Habitat ACEC: The 1988 RMP, as 
amended, designated this 160-acre ACEC to protect the grasslands 
immediately adjacent to Blue Springs, which provides habitat for the 
only known remaining population of the Pecos Gambusia fish in New 
Mexico. This ACEC is open to fluid mineral leasing subject to major 
constraints (such as no surface occupancy stipulations). Under each 
action alternative, the BLM would remove the ACEC designation, but 
would continue to manage the area as open to fluid mineral leasing, 
subject to major constraints. Additional proposed resource use 
limitations include closing the area to salable mineral development, 
recommending the area for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry, 
closing the area to geothermal development, excluding the area from 
wind and solar development and ROWs, and designating off-highway 
vehicle (OHV) limited areas.
     Lonesome Ridge ACEC: The 1988 RMP, as amended, designated 
this 2,990-acre ACEC to protect values associated with scenery, fish 
and wildlife resources, and natural system processes. This ACEC is 
closed to fluid mineral leasing. Under each action alternative, this 
ACEC designation would be carried forward, and the area would continue 
to be closed to fluid mineral leasing. Additional proposed management 
prescriptions include: Closing areas to salable mineral development; 
recommending the area for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry; 
closing the area to OHV use; managing the entire ACEC as VRM Class I 
under Alternatives A, C, and D, while managing most of the ACEC as VRM 
Class I and a small portion of the ACEC as VRM Class II under 
Alternative B; excluding the area from ROW authorization; and making 
the area available for grazing.
     Pecos River/Canyons Complex ACEC: The 1988 RMP, as 
amended, designated this 5,190-acre ACEC to protect scenic and natural 
system values. This ACEC is open to fluid mineral leasing subject to 
major constraints. For Alternatives A, B, and C, 4,115 acres would 
continue to be managed as an ACEC to protect scenic and natural system 
values with management prescriptions that would include: Opening the 
area to mineral leasing with major constraints; closing the area to 
salable mineral development; recommending the area for withdrawal from 
locatable mineral entry; not allowing surface occupancy in 100-year 
floodplains; designated OHV limited areas; excluding the area from wind 
and solar development, and closing the area to geothermal development; 
making the majority of the ACEC available for grazing; excluding the 
area from ROW authorization; and managing the ACEC as VRM Class II 
(Alternatives A and B), with some portions managed as VRM Class III 
under Alternative C. Alternative D would not designate 4,115 acres as 
an ACEC. Under Alternative D, this area would be open to fluid mineral 
leasing, subject to standard terms except for a small portion that 
would be open subject to major constraints due to visual resource 
concerns along the Pecos River Corridor. Additional management 
prescriptions would include: Opening most of the area to salable 
mineral development, except a small portion that would be closed; 
recommending a small portion of the area for withdrawal from locatable 
mineral entry; managing most of the area as open to geothermal, solar, 
and wind energy development, but excluding solar and wind and closing 
geothermal energy development in a portion of the area; managing the 
area as either VRM Class II or III; designating OHV limited areas; 
making the entire area available for grazing; and excluding some areas 
from ROW authorization.
     Cave Resources ACEC: The 1988 RMP, as amended, identified 
nineteen caves within nine cave management units totaling approximately 
19,000 acres to be managed as a special management area. By cave 
management unit, the current fluid mineral leasing allocations vary 
between closed and open subject to major constraints. Under all action 
alternatives, the BLM proposes to designate these nine units as one 
collective Cave Resources ACEC to protect historic, cultural, wildlife 
resources, natural system or process, and natural hazard values. For 
all action alternatives, fluid mineral leasing allocations would vary 
(by cave management unit) between closed and open to leasing subject to 
major constraints. Additional management prescriptions would include: 
Closing the area to salable mineral development under Alternatives A, B 
and C; opening a small portion of the area to salable mineral 
development subject to special terms and conditions under Alternative 
D; recommending for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry under 
Alternatives A, B and C; opening a small portion of the area to 
locatable mineral entry under Alternative D; excluding the area from 
wind and solar development; closing the area to geothermal development; 
designating OHV limited areas in most of the ACEC and closing a small 
portion of the area; managing the area as either VRM Class I, II, or 
III; making grazing unavailable in a portion of the ACEC under 
Alternatives A and B; making the entire ACEC available for grazing 
under Alternatives C and D; excluding the ACEC from ROW authorization 
under Alternatives A, B and C; excluding most of the ACEC from ROW 
authorization, and avoiding a small portion under Alternative D.
     Birds of Prey Grasslands ACEC: Currently, there is no ACEC 
designation for the area, nor is the area identified as a special 
management area. Most of this area is open to fluid mineral leasing 
either subject to moderate constraints (e.g., controlled surface use) 
or standard terms and conditions. A small portion of the area is closed 
to fluid mineral leasing. Alternatives A and B would designate 349,355 
acres as an ACEC to protect wildlife resources. Under Alternatives A 
and B, this ACEC would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. Additional 
proposed management prescriptions would include: Opening most of the 
area to salable mineral development with special terms and conditions, 
and closing a portion of the ACEC to salable mineral development; 
recommending a small portion of the ACEC for withdrawal from locatable 
mineral entry; closing areas to geothermal energy development and 
excluding areas from solar and wind energy development; managing the 
area as either VRM Class II, III, or IV; making some areas available 
for grazing under Alternative B, or making the entire area unavailable 
to grazing under Alternative A; and excluding the ACEC from ROW 
authorization.
    Alternatives C and D would not designate 349,355 acres as an ACEC. 
Under Alternatives C and D, the area would be open to fluid mineral 
leasing either subject to moderate constraints (e.g., controlled 
surface use) or standard terms and conditions. Additional proposed 
management prescriptions would include: Opening most areas to salable 
mineral development with some portions open subject to special terms 
and conditions; opening the area to locatable mineral entry; excluding 
or closing most of the area for renewable energy development; managing 
some areas as variance areas for solar energy development, while 
excluding solar energy development from some areas; designating areas 
as either open to, avoidance of, or excluded from wind energy 
development; managing the area as either VRM Class III or IV; 
designating OHV limited areas; making most of the area available to 
grazing; and designating the area as either open to, or avoidance of 
ROW authorization.
     Boot Hill District ACEC: Currently, approximately 265 
acres are identified

[[Page 38169]]

as the Poco Site Cultural Resource Management Area. This area is open 
to fluid mineral leasing, subject to major constraints. Alternative B 
would designate 1,065 acres as an ACEC to protect cultural resource 
values and natural systems or processes, whereas, Alternatives A, C, 
and D would not designate the area as an ACEC. Management prescriptions 
for all alternatives would include: Opening the area to fluid mineral 
leasing with major constraints under Alternatives A, C, and D, while 
closing the entire area to fluid mineral leasing under Alternative B; 
closing the area to salable mineral development; recommending 
withdrawal from locatable mineral entry; managing the area as VRM Class 
IV; designating OHV limited areas; restricting fire suppression; 
closing the area to geothermal development, and excluding the area from 
solar and wind energy development; making the entire area available for 
grazing; and excluding the area from ROW authorization.
     Carlsbad Chihuahuan Desert Rivers ACEC: Within the area 
nominated for the Carlsbad Chihuahuan Desert Rivers ACEC, there are two 
existing designations: The Chosa Draw ACEC (2,820 acres) and the Yeso 
Hills Research Natural Area (557 acres). Additionally, portions of the 
nominated area are identified as special management areas in the 1988 
RMP, as amended. The fluid mineral leasing allocations vary between 
open with standard terms and conditions, open with major constraints, 
and closed depending on cave/karst, riparian, and other resource values 
present. Alternative A would designate approximately 108,470 acres as 
an ACEC to protect values associated with cultural, wildlife, scenic, 
and historic resources, as well as natural hazards and natural systems 
or processes. Under Alternative A, the fluid mineral leasing 
allocations vary between open with standard terms and conditions, open 
with major constraints, and closed, depending on cave/karst, riparian, 
and other resource values present. Relative to the No Action 
Alternative, Alternative A would manage a larger portion of the area as 
closed. Additional management prescriptions would include: Opening the 
area to salable mineral development and closing portions of the area to 
salable mineral development; recommending part of the area for 
withdrawal from locatable mineral entry; designating some areas as open 
for wind, geothermal, and solar energy development; designating some 
areas as excluded from solar and wind energy development, and closed to 
geothermal energy development; managing the area as either VRM Class 
II, III, or IV; making the area unavailable for grazing; designating 
OHV limited areas and closing a small portion; and excluding some areas 
from ROW authorization. Alternatives B, C, and D would not designate 
the area as an ACEC. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the majority of 
the acreage would be open to fluid mineral leasing subject to standard 
terms and conditions; the remaining acreage varies between open to 
fluid mineral leasing subject to moderate constraints, open to fluid 
mineral leasing subject to major constraints, and closed to fluid 
mineral leasing. Additional management prescriptions would include: 
Opening most of the areas to salable mineral development with some 
areas open subject to special terms and conditions; closing part of the 
area to salable mineral development; recommending withdrawal of a 
portion of the area from locatable mineral entry; opening or closing 
portions of the area to geothermal energy development; opening, 
avoiding, or excluding parts of the area from wind energy development; 
excluding parts of the area from solar energy development, or allowing 
solar development under variances; managing as either VRM Class II, 
III, or IV; designating OHV limited areas and closing other areas to 
OHV use; making some areas available for grazing and making other areas 
unavailable for grazing; and designating areas as either open to, 
avoidance of, or excluded from ROW authorization.
     Desert Heronries ACEC: Currently, there is no ACEC 
designation for the area; however, the 1988 RMP, as amended, identified 
approximately 27,000 acres as a special management area. This area is 
open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to moderate constraints.
    Alternative B would designate approximately 48,708 acres as an ACEC 
to protect fish or wildlife resource and habitat values. Under 
Alternative B, the majority of the acreage would be open to fluid 
mineral leasing subject to standard terms and conditions; the remaining 
acreage would be open to fluid mineral leasing subject to moderate 
constraints or major constraints. Additional proposed management 
prescriptions would include: Opening most of the area to salable 
mineral development and a small portion open subject to special terms 
and conditions; closing other areas to salable mineral development; 
recommending parts of the ACEC for withdrawal from locatable mineral 
entry; designating some parts of the ACEC as open for geothermal and 
wind energy development; excluding some parts of the ACEC from solar 
and wind energy development; designating other portions as variance 
areas for solar energy development; closing parts of the ACEC to 
geothermal energy development; avoiding wind energy development in 
parts of the ACEC; managing the area as either VRM Class II or IV; 
designating OHV limited areas and closing a small portion of the area 
to OHV use; making the entire area unavailable for grazing; and 
designating portions of the ACEC as either open to, avoidance of, or 
excluded from ROW authorization. Alternatives A, C, and D would not 
designate 48,708 acres as an ACEC. Specific management prescriptions 
would include: Opening the area to fluid mineral leasing with either 
standard terms, moderate constraints, or major constraints, and closing 
some areas to mineral leasing under Alternative A; opening most of the 
area to salable mineral development, while opening some areas subject 
to special terms and conditions and closing other areas; recommending 
areas for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry; designating some 
areas as open to geothermal and wind energy development; excluding some 
areas from solar energy development; excluding or avoiding some areas 
from wind energy development; managing some portions as variance areas 
for solar energy development; closing some areas to geothermal energy 
development; managing the area as either VRM Class III or IV; 
designating OHV limited areas and closing a small portion of the area 
to OHV use; making most of the area available for grazing while making 
some areas unavailable for grazing; and designating areas as either 
open to, avoidance of, or excluded from, ROW authorization.
     Gypsum Soils ACEC: Within the area nominated for the 
Gypsum Soils ACEC, there are two existing designations: The Chosa Draw 
ACEC (2,820 acres) and the Yeso Hills Research Natural Area (557 
acres). Additionally, portions of the nominated area are identified as 
special management areas in the 1988 RMP, as amended. Currently, the 
nominated area is primarily open to fluid mineral leasing subject to 
standard terms and conditions; however, portions of the nominated area 
are open to leasing with major constraints, or are closed to fluid 
mineral leasing due to cave/karst, riparian and other resource values 
present. Alternatives B and C would designate approximately 65,555 
acres as an ACEC to protect values associated with cultural, fish and 
wildlife, historic,

[[Page 38170]]

and scenic resources, as well as natural system or processes and 
natural hazards. Under Alternatives B and C, the ACEC would primarily 
be open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to standard terms and 
conditions; however, portions of these alternatives would be open to 
leasing with major or moderate constraints or would be closed to fluid 
mineral leasing. Alternatives A and D would not designate the area as 
an ACEC. Under Alternatives A and D, the ACEC would primarily be open 
to fluid mineral leasing subject to standard terms and conditions; 
however, portions of these alternatives would open the area to fluid 
mineral leasing subject to moderate or major constraints or would be 
closed to fluid mineral leasing. Additional proposed management 
prescriptions would include: Opening some areas to salable mineral 
development with or without special terms and conditions; closing some 
areas to salable mineral development; recommending parts of the area 
for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry; designating some areas as 
open for geothermal, solar, and wind energy development; designating 
other areas as excluded from solar and wind energy development; 
managing portions as variance areas for solar energy development and 
avoidance areas for wind energy development; closing some areas to 
geothermal energy development; managing the area as either VRM Class 
II, III, or IV; designating OHV limited areas and closing a small 
portion of the area to OHV use; making some areas available for grazing 
while making some areas unavailable for grazing; and designating areas 
as either open to or excluded from ROW authorization under Alternative 
A, while designating areas as either open to, avoidance of, or excluded 
from ROW authorization under Alternatives B, C, and D.
     Laguna Plata ACEC: Currently, there is no ACEC designation 
for the area; however, the 1988 RMP, as amended, identified 
approximately 3,360 acres as a special management area. Currently, this 
area is open to fluid mineral leasing subject to major constraints. 
Alternatives A and B would designate 4,496 acres as an ACEC to protect 
cultural, fish and wildlife resources. Under Alternatives A and B, the 
ACEC would primarily be open to fluid mineral leasing subject to major 
constraints; however, a portion of the ACEC would be closed to fluid 
mineral leasing, and a portion of the ACEC would be open to fluid 
mineral leasing subject to moderate constraints under Alternative A. 
Alternatives C and D would not designate the area as an ACEC. Under 
Alternatives C and D, the ACEC would be open to fluid mineral leasing 
subject to major constraints. Additional proposed management 
prescriptions to all alternatives would include: Closing the area to 
salable mineral development; recommending the area for withdrawal from 
locatable mineral entry; closing the area to geothermal energy 
development; excluding the area from solar and wind energy development; 
managing the area as VRM Class III; designating OHV limited areas; 
making the area available for grazing under Alternatives A, C, and D; 
making the area unavailable for grazing under Alternative B; and 
designating the area as excluded from ROW authorization.
     Maroon Cliffs ACEC: Currently, there is no ACEC 
designation for the area; however, the 1988 RMP, as amended, identified 
approximately 8,700 acres as a special management area. This area is 
open to fluid mineral leasing subject to major constraints. Alternative 
B would designate 8,700 acres as an ACEC to protect cultural resource 
values. Alternatives A, C, and D would not designate the area as an 
ACEC. Under all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, this 
ACEC would be open to fluid mineral leasing subject to major 
constraints. Additional proposed management prescriptions would 
include: Closing the area to salable mineral development; recommending 
the area for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry; excluding the 
area from solar and wind energy development; closing the area to 
geothermal energy development; designating OHV limited areas; managing 
the area as VRM Class III for Alternatives A, C, and D; managing the 
area as VRM Class II for Alternative B; making most of the area 
available for grazing under Alternative A, and closing a small portion 
to grazing; making the entire area available for grazing under 
Alternatives C and D; making the entire area unavailable for grazing 
under Alternative B; and excluding the area from ROW authorization.
     Pecos Bluntnose Shiner Habitat ACEC: Currently, there is 
no ACEC designation for the area; however, the 1988 RMP, as amended, 
identified approximately 200 acres as a special management area. This 
area is open to fluid mineral leasing subject to major constraints. 
Alternatives A, B, C, and D would designate 200 acres as an ACEC to 
protect fish and wildlife resource values. Under Alternatives A and B, 
this area would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. Under Alternatives 
C and D, this area would be open to fluid mineral leasing subject to 
major constraints. Additional proposed management prescriptions 
include: Closing the area to salable mineral development; recommending 
withdrawal from locatable mineral entry; closing or excluding the area 
from all renewable energy development in all alternatives; managing the 
area as VRM Class II; designating OHV limited areas; making the area 
unavailable for grazing; and designating the area as excluded from ROW 
authorization.
     Pope's Well ACEC: Currently, there is no ACEC designation 
for the area; however, the 1988 RMP, as amended, identified 
approximately 80 acres as a special management area. This area is open 
to fluid mineral leasing, subject to major constraints. Alternative B 
would designate approximately 80 acres as an ACEC to protect historic 
resource values. Alternatives A, C, and D would not designate the area 
as an ACEC. Under all alternatives, including the No Action 
Alternative, this area would be open to fluid mineral leasing, subject 
to major constraints. Additional proposed management prescriptions 
would include: Closing the area to salable mineral development; 
recommending the area for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry; 
excluding the area from solar and wind energy development; closing the 
area to geothermal energy development; closing the area to OHV use; 
managing the area as VRM Class IV; making the area unavailable for 
grazing; and designating the area as excluded from ROW authorization.
     Salt Playas ACEC: Currently, there is no ACEC designation 
for the area. Within the area, there are two special management areas 
identified by the 1988 RMP, as amended. The majority of this area is 
open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to standard terms and conditions 
or moderate constraints; portions of the area are open to leasing, 
subject to major constraints or are closed to fluid mineral leasing. 
Alternative B would designate 49,772 acres as an ACEC to protect 
cultural, fish and wildlife resource values. Alternatives A, C, and D 
would not designate the area as an ACEC. Under Alternative A, the 
majority of this area would be open to fluid mineral leasing, subject 
to standard terms and conditions or moderate constraints; portions of 
this area would be open to leasing, subject to major constraints or 
would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. Under Alternative B, the 
majority of the area would be open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to 
major constraints; a portion of the area would be closed to fluid 
mineral leasing. Under Alternatives C and D, this area would be open to 
fluid

[[Page 38171]]

mineral leasing, subject to standard terms and conditions, moderate 
constraints, and major constraints. Additional proposed management 
prescriptions would include: Opening some areas to salable mineral 
development with or without special terms and conditions, and closing 
some areas under Alternatives A, C, and D; closing most of the area to 
salable mineral development under Alternative B; recommending some 
areas for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry under Alternatives A, 
C, and D; recommending the entire area for withdrawal under Alternative 
B; designating some areas as open for geothermal, solar, and wind 
energy development under Alternatives A, C, and D; designating other 
areas as excluded from solar and wind energy development; designating 
portions as variance areas for solar energy development and avoidance 
areas for wind energy development; designating other areas as closed to 
geothermal energy development; closing or excluding the entire area to 
renewable energy under Alternative B; managing the area as either VRM 
Class III or IV under Alternatives A, C, and D; managing the area as 
either VRM Class II, III, or IV under Alternative B; designating OHV 
limited areas; making the area available for grazing in Alternatives A, 
C, and D; making a portion of the area unavailable for grazing in 
Alternative B; designating areas as either open to, avoidance of, or 
excluded from, ROW authorization under Alternatives A, C, and D; and 
designating the entire area as excluded to ROW authorization under 
Alternative B.
     Serpentine Bends ACEC: The area nominated for the 
Serpentine Bends ACEC contains a portion of the existing Dark Canyon 
ACEC, as identified by the 1988 RMP, as amended, and an existing cave 
withdrawal area that encompasses the entirety of this nominated ACEC. 
Under all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, this area 
is closed to fluid mineral leasing due to the withdrawal. Alternatives 
A, B, C, and D would designate 5,019 acres as an ACEC to protect values 
associated with historic, scenic, fish or wildlife resources, and 
natural systems or processes. Additional proposed management 
prescriptions would include: Closing the area to salable mineral 
development; recommending the area for withdrawal from locatable 
mineral entry; excluding the area from solar and wind energy 
development; closing the area to geothermal energy development; 
managing the area as VRM Class I for Alternative B; managing some areas 
as VRM Class I and other areas as VRM Class II for Alternatives A, C, 
and D; designating OHV limited areas; closing some areas to travel; 
making the area available for grazing; and excluding the area from ROW 
authorization.
     Seven Rivers Hills ACEC: Currently, there is no ACEC 
designation for the area; however, the 1988 RMP, as amended, identified 
approximately 540 acres as a special management area. This area is open 
to fluid mineral leasing, subject to major constraints. Alternatives B, 
C, and D would designate 1,027 acres as an ACEC to protect values 
associated with scenic, fish or wildlife resources, natural systems or 
processes, and natural hazards. Alternative A would not designate the 
area as an ACEC. Under Alternative A, a portion of this area would be 
open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to standard terms and conditions 
and subject to major constraints, and a portion would be closed to 
fluid mineral leasing. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, this area would 
be open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to major constraints. Under 
Alternative A, additional proposed management prescriptions would 
include: Opening and closing some areas to salable mineral development; 
opening some areas to locatable mineral entry; recommending some areas 
for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry; designating some areas as 
open for geothermal, solar, and wind energy development; designating 
other areas as excluded from solar and wind energy development; 
designating some areas as variance zones for solar energy development; 
closing some areas to geothermal energy development; designating OHV 
limited areas; managing the area as either VRM Class II, III, or IV; 
making the area available for grazing; and designating the area as open 
to or excluded from ROW authorization. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, 
additional proposed management prescriptions would include: Closing the 
area to salable mineral development; recommending the entire area for 
withdrawal from locatable mineral entry; closing the area to geothermal 
energy development; excluding the area from solar and wind energy 
development; designating OHV limited areas; and excluding the area from 
ROW authorization.
     Six Shooter ACEC: Currently, there is no ACEC designation 
for the area. This area is open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to 
standard terms and conditions. Alternatives A and B would designate 735 
acres as an ACEC to protect values associated with scenic, fish or 
wildlife resources, and natural systems or processes. Under 
Alternatives A and B, this area would be closed to fluid mineral 
leasing. Alternatives C and D would not designate the area as an ACEC. 
Under Alternative C and D, this area would be open to fluid mineral 
leasing, subject to moderate constraints. Additional proposed 
management prescriptions would include: Opening areas to salable 
mineral development with special terms and conditions for Alternatives 
C and D; closing the area to salable mineral development for 
Alternatives A and B; recommending the entire area for withdrawal from 
locatable mineral entry for Alternatives A and B; excluding the area 
from solar and wind energy development in Alternatives A and B; 
excluding the area from solar development and avoiding wind energy 
development in Alternatives C and D; closing the area to geothermal 
energy development; managing the area as VRM Class II; designating OHV 
limited areas; making the area available for grazing; designating the 
area as either excluded from ROW authorization for Alternatives A and B 
or avoidance of ROW authorization for Alternatives C and D.
    The land-use planning process was initiated on June 10, 2010, 
through a Notice of Intent published in the Federal Register (73 FR 
11142), notifying the public of a formal scoping period and soliciting 
public participation.
    Twelve cooperating agencies expressed interest in collaborating 
with the BLM during the NEPA process. The following agencies signed a 
formal cooperating agency agreement:

 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
 U.S. Department of Energy
 Chaves County
 Eddy County
 Carlsbad Irrigation District
 City of Eunice
 City of Jal
 New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
 Lea County Water Users Association
 Carlsbad Soil and Water Conservation District
 National Park Service
 Natural Resource Conservation Service

    The BLM held multiple meetings with stakeholders, interest groups, 
and the public between 2010 and 2012. The BLM held ten scoping meetings 
(two per locality) in July 2010 in Artesia, Carlsbad, Hope, Jal, and 
Hobbs, New Mexico. The BLM also held a multiple use interface meeting 
with the ranching

[[Page 38172]]

community, oil and gas industry, and potash industry in May 2011. The 
BLM gave a scoping presentation to the Pecos District Resource Advisory 
Council in January 2012. The BLM also held public workshops pertaining 
to VRM, travel, and special designations and met with the Public Lands 
Advisory Council in February 2012. In addition, the BLM held two 
economic profile system workshops early in the process with local 
citizens and community leaders to develop a common understanding of the 
local economies, and the ways in which land-use planning decisions may 
affect them.
    During the scoping period, the public provided the Carlsbad Field 
Office with input on relevant issues to consider in the planning 
process. Additional information was collected during two internal 
alternatives development workshops and one cooperating agency workshop. 
Based on the issues, conflicts, and the BLM's goals and objectives, the 
Carlsbad Field Office Interdisciplinary Team and managers formulated 
four action alternatives for consideration and analysis in the Draft 
RMP/Draft EIS. At the close of the public comment period, the BLM will 
use substantive public comments 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 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.

Aden L. Seidlitz,
Acting BLM New Mexico State Director.
[FR Doc. 2018-16665 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P