# Notice of Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Taos 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, 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 Taos Field Office 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/EIS within 90 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes this Notice of Availability 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 Taos Draft RMP/EIS by any of the following methods:
• Web site: *http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/fo/Taos_Field_Office/taos_rmpr.html.*
• E-mail: *[email protected].*
• Mail: Bureau of Land Management, Attention: Brad Higdon, 226 Cruz Alta, Taos, New Mexico 87571.
Copies of the Taos Draft RMP and EIS are available at the Taos Field Office at the above address and at the New Mexico State Office at 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508.
**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:**
For further information contact Brad Higdon, Planning and Environmental Coordinator, Taos Field Office, telephone (575) 751-4725; address 226 Cruz Alta, Taos, New Mexico 87571; e-mail *[email protected].*
**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:**
The Taos Draft RMP/EIS analyzes the environmental consequences of four alternative land use plans under consideration by the BLM for managing approximately 595,100 acres of surface estate and 1.5 million acres of mineral estate administered by the Taos Field Office within Colfax, Harding, Los Alamos, Mora, Rio Arriba, Santa Fe, Taos, and Union counties in northern New Mexico. This land use plan would replace the current Taos RMP approved in 1988 and is needed to provide updated management decisions including, but not limited to, land tenure adjustments, land use authorizations, mineral resources, recreation, renewable energy, special designations, transportation and access, and visiual resources. Upon approval, the Taos RMP will apply only to BLM-administered public lands and Federal mineral estate.
The four alternatives analyzed in detail in the Draft RMP/EIS include the No Action Alternative, or a continuation of the existing management decisions; Alternative A, the BLM's preferred alternative, which provides for a balance of resource uses with protections; Alternative B, which emphasizes resource conservation and protection; and Alternative C, which allows for a greater opportunity for resource use and development. Among the special designations under consideration within the range of alternatives, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are proposed to protect certain natural resource values. Pertinent information regarding these ACECs, including proposed designation acreages and resource use limitations per alternative, are sumarized in the table below.
| ACEC & values | Summary of proposed resource use limitations | Variance by alternative |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Black Mesa | • Rights-of-way would be excluded. | No Action: 1,430 acres. |
| | • Closed to wind and solar energy. | |
| | • Portions would be closed to motorized travel, while the remaining area would be limited to designated roads. | |
| | • A portion would be managed to protect its wilderness characteristics. | |
| Chama Canyons | • Rights-of-way would be excluded. | No Action: 6,140 acres would continue to be managed as a Special Management Area (SMA). |
| | • Closed to mineral material sales. | |
| | • Closed to wind and solar energy. | |
| | • Closed to motorized travel. | |
| | • Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class I would apply. | |
| | • A portion outside of the wilderness study area would be managed to protect its wilderness characteristics (Alternatives A and B only). | |
| | • No surface disturbing activities would be permitted. | |
| La Cienega | • Livestock grazing would be excluded from pueblo ruins and other areas where substantial conflicts with cultural resources are apparent to protect these resources, as well as from Santa Fe River canyon (Alternatives A and B only) to protect riparian vegetation. | No Action: 3,730 acres. |
| | • Closed to wind energy development (Alternatives A and B only). | |
| | • VRM Class I would apply to a portion of the area (Alternatives A and B only). | |
| | • Portions would be closed to motorized travel, while the remaining area would be limited to designated roads (Alternatives A and B only). | |
| | • No tree removal in a portion of the area. | |
| | • Santa Fe River canyon would be closed to target shooting (Alternatives A, B, and C only). | |
| | • No tree removal in T. 16 N., R. & E., Sec. 7 to protect Gray Vireo habitat. | |
| Copper Hill | • Livestock grazing would be excluded from lands within allotments 518, 519, and 520, while grazing would become excluded on allotment 521 when the permit is no longer used. | All alternatives: 177,200 acres. |
| | • Visual Resource Management Class I would apply to a portion of the area under the no action alternative and Alternatives A and B. | |
| | • Fire suppression methods causing surface disturbance would not be allowed in the Lower Embudo zone. | |
| | • Soil and vegetation disturbing activities would be prohibited within 100-year floodplains. | |
| | • Vehicle access to pueblo ruins in Lower Embudo zone by permit only. | |
| Galisteo Basin | • 450 acres of public lands would be managed according to the provisions of the Galisteo Basin Archaeological Sites Protection Act of 2004 under all alternatives. | No Action: 80 acres would continue to be managed as an SMA. |
| | • Withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. | |
| | • Closed to mineral material sales. | |
| | • Closed to wind and solar energy. | |
| | • Closed to target shooting. | |
| Lower Gorge | • Withdrawn from public land laws. | No Action: 16,510 acres (includes designated Wild and Scenic River corridor). |
| | • Closed to mineral material sales. | |
| | • Closed to wind and solar energy. | |
| | • A portion of the area would be managed as VRM Class I (Alternatives A and B only). | |
| | • Soil- and vegetation-disturbing activities would be prohibited within 100-year floodplains to prevent the degradation of aquatic habitat. | |
| | • Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat would be protected. | |
| Ojo Caliente | • Rights-of-way would be excluded from the Rincon del Cuervo area under Alternatives A and B, as well as the Cerro Colorado area under Alternative B. | No Action: 13,370 acres. |
| | • Withdrawn from locatable mineral entry (Alternatives A and B only). | |
| | • Mostly closed to mineral material sales (Alternative A and B only). | |
| | • Closed to wind and solar energy. | |
| | • A portion would be closed to motorized travel, while the remaining area would be limited to designated roads (Alternatives A, B, and C only). | |
| | • VRM Class I would apply to the Rincon del Cuervo under Alternatives A and B, as well as Cerro Colorado under Alternative B. | |
| | • Rincon del Cuervo would be managed to protect its wilderness characteristics under Alternatives A and B, as well as the Cerro Colorado area under Alternative B. | |
| | • Soil- and vegetation-disturbing activities would be prohibited within 100-year floodplains to prevent the degradation of aquatic habitat. | |
| Pueblos | • Rights-of-way would be excluded. | No Action: Six pueblos on 315 acres would continue to be managed as an SMA. |
| Riparian/Aquatic | • Rights-of-way would be excluded unless impacts can be mitigated, based on site-specific analysis. | No Action: 2,250 acres. |
| | • Mostly closed to mineral material sales. | |
| | • Closed to wind and solar energy under Alternative B. | |
| | • Much of the area would be closed to motorized travel under the no action alternative. | |
| Sabinoso | • Rights-of-way would be excluded. | No Action: 19,570 acres would continue to be managed as an SMA. |
| | • Closed to wind and solar energy (within designated wilderness only under the no action alternative). | |
| | • The designated wilderness would be closed to motorized travel. | |
| | • VRM Class I would apply. | |
| | • A portion of the area adjacent to Sabinoso Wilderness would be managed to protect its wilderness characteristics (Alternatives A and B only). | |
| | • Soil- and vegetation-disturbing activities would be restricted in order to reduce soil loss and degradation to water quality. | |
| San Antonio (includes the San Antonio Gorge and Winter Range ACEC units) | • Livestock grazing would be unavailable within the Rio San Antonio corridor. | No Action: 57,750 acres would continue to be managed as an SMA and include smaller ACEC units. |
| | • Soil- and vegetation-disturbing activities would be prohibited within 100-year floodplains to prevent the degradation of aquatic habitat. | |
| Santa Fe Ranch | • Rights-of-way would be excluded with certain exceptions. | No Action: No existing ACEC. |
| | • A portion would be closed to motorized travel. Vehicular use of the arroyo in Diablo Canyon would be allowed by permit only. | |
| | • Visual Resource Management Class I would apply to a portion on the area, but to a larger portion under Alternative B. | |
| | • Ephemeral stream channels would be protected to maintain stable hydrological processes and appropriate vegetative communities as measured by diversity and cover density. | |
| Sombrillo | • A 115-acre Off-Highway Vehicle staging area would be unavailable to livestock grazing (Alternative A only). | No Action: 8,600 acres. |
| | • Ephemeral stream channels would be protected to maintain stable hydrological processes and appropriate vegetative communities as measured by diversity and cover density. | |
| | • Soil- and vegetation-disturbing activities would be restricted in order to reduce soil loss and degradation to water quality. | |
| Taos Plateau | • Rights-of-way would be excluded from the Wild Rivers, Ute Mountain, and San Antonio areas. | No Action: No existing ACEC. |
| | • Closed to mineral material sales. | |
| | • Closed to wind and solar energy. | |
| | • Cerro de la Olla, the San Antonio area, and Ute Mountain would be closed to motorized travel. | |
| | • Visual Resource Management Class I would apply to the Ute Mountain and San Antonio areas. | |
| | • Cerro de la Olla, the San Antonio area, and Ute Mountain would be managed to protect their wilderness characteristics. | |
| | • Modification of playa surface and adjacent uplands would be prohibited. | |
| | • Coordinate with U.S. Forest Service to close Forest Road 1016 on a seasonal basis. | |
The land use planning process was initiated on May 26, 2006, through a Notice of Intent published in the *Federal Register* (Volume 71, Number 102, Page 30446), notifying the public of a formal scoping period and soliciting public participation in the planning process. Four scoping meetings were held in June 2006 in Taos, Las Vegas, Espanola, and Santa Fe. A scoping presentation was also made at an Eight Northern Pueblos Council meeting to engage the Governors of the eight Northern Pueblos. In addition, two Economic Profile System workshops were held in July 2006 to work with local citizens and community leaders to develop a common understanding of the local economies and the ways in which land use planning decisions might affect them. During the scoping period, which ended August 31, 2006, the public provided the Taos Field Office with input on relevant issues to consider in the planning process. Based on this public input and the BLM's goals and objectives, the Taos Field Office was able to formulate the four alternatives for consideration and analysis in the Draft RMP/EIS. Following the close of the public review and comment period, public comments will be used to revise the Draft RMP/EIS in preparation for its release to the public as the Taos Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. The BLM will respond to each substantive comment by making appropriate revisions to the document or by explaining why a comment did not warrant a change. Notice of the availability of the Proposed RMP and 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 respondents, will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail 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.
Jesse Juen,
Acting State Director.
**Authority:**
40 CFR 1506.6; 40 CFR 1506.10; 43 CFR 1610.2.