Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Notices 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-andnepa/plans-in-development/newmexico/carlsbad-rmp. 

• Email: blm_nm_cfo_rmp@blm.gov. 

• 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 

hrgonzalez@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 

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 restorationrelated 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: 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
38168 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Notices 

• 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Notices 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, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
38170 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Notices 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Notices 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
38172 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Notices 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLNVB00000. L51100000.GN0000. 

LVEMF1704460. 17X. MO# 4500106342] 

Notice of Availability of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Proposed Greater Phoenix Project, 

Lander County, NV 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA), and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Mount Lewis Field Office, Battle 

Mountain, Nevada, has prepared a Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

and by this notice is announcing its 

availability. The Greater Phoenix Project 

is owned by Newmont USA Limited and 

is located approximately 12 miles 

southwest of the town of Battle 

Mountain in Lander County, Nevada. 

The Proposed Project includes 

expanding the life of the mine from 

2040 to 2063; expanding the boundary 

of the mine by 10,611 acres, from 8,228 

acres to 18,839 acres; and increasing 

surface disturbance by 3,497 acres, from 

8,374 to 11,871 acres. 

DATES: The BLM will not issue a final 

decision on the proposal for a minimum 

of 30 days after the date that the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes its Notice of Availability in 

the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final EIS for 

the Greater Phoenix Mine Project and 

other documents pertinent to this 

proposal may be examined at the Mount 

Lewis Field Office: 50 Bastian Road, 

Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820. All 

documents are available for download at 

https://go.usa.gov/xQDYJ. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine Gabriel—Project Manager, 

telephone 775–635–4000; address 50 

Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, Nevada 

89820; email blm_nv_bmdo_

GreaterPhoenixProject@blm.gov. 

Contact Christine Gabriel to have your 

name added to our mailing list. 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: Newmont 

USA Limited (Newmont) proposes to 

modify the Phoenix Mine Plan of 

Operations to expand its existing 

mining operations. The proposed 

Project is located approximately 12 

miles southwest of the town of Battle 

Mountain in Lander County, Nevada. 

Within this expanded area, surface 

disturbance would increase by 3,497 

acres from 8,374 to 11,871 acres, which 

includes 5,896 acres located on public 

lands administered by the BLM Mount 

Lewis Field Office. The existing 

Phoenix Mine is a gold and copper 

mining and beneficiation operation. 

Mill-grade oxide gold ore is beneficiated 

to gold concentrate at the Phoenix Mill 

facility, which also produces small 

amounts of copper and silver 

concentrates as trace elements. Mill 

tailings are deposited in a tailings 

storage facility (TSF). Copper-containing 

ore is beneficiated using heap leaching 

followed by solvent extraction and 

electrowinning of copper from the leach 

solution. 

Operations at Phoenix Mine under the 

currently authorized Plan of Operations 

and existing permits would last 

approximately 24 years. Active closure 

and reclamation activities are 

anticipated to extend approximately 13 

years beyond the operational phase. 

Additionally, more than 500 years of 

post-closure monitoring would follow 

final reclamation. 

The proposed Project amendments 

include the following: Extension of 

mine life from 2040 to 2063; expansion 

of the Plan of Operations boundary by 

10,611 acres—from 8,228 acres to 

18,839 acres, of which 10,132 are BLMmanaged public lands; increase surface 

disturbance by 3,497 acres—from 8,374 

acres to 11,871 acres; expansion of the 

Phoenix Pit area through consolidation 

of existing pit areas, and increase in pit 

depth by 380 feet—from 4,990 to 4,610 

feet above mean sea level; expansion of 

the Natomas Waste Rock Facility by 347 

acres—from 997 acres to 1,344 acres; 

expansion of the Phoenix TSF by 1,801 

acres—from 1,396 acres to 3,197 acres; 

expansion of the Phoenix Heap Leach 

Facility by 79 acres—from 536 acres to 

615 acres; expansion of the clay soil 

borrow area by 819 acres—from 469 

acres to 1,288 acres; development of an 

additional soil borrow area (483 acres); 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1