Final management framework plan amendment environmental impact statement on energy minerals leasing and rangeland management in the Las Cruces/Lordsburg resource area
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces District Office, 1983 - Law - 166 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
0rgan Mountains ACEC acres affect allotments Alternative Appendix approximately AUMs big game bighorn sheep Chihuahua chub Cooperative Management Agreement Coryphantha Cruces District Cruces/Lordsburg Resource Area decrease Dona Ana County Draft MFP Amendment/EIS ecological condition employment Endemic energy minerals leasing Environmental Franklin Mountains Gila River Grant County habitat herbicide Hidalgo County impacts improve increase Kilbourne Hole LC 9 Open livestock grazing long-term Lordsburg Luna County Mexico State University million NSO NSO Open LC 16 Open Open Open percent permittees Plan PR0P0SED Proposed Action public land range livestock industry rangeland developments Rangeland Management Recreation Resource Area economy riparian rt rt short-term Soil special stipulations species target group total direct income vegetation treatments
Page 124 - (C) it will perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; and "(D) when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.
Page 158 - This oil and gas leasing on wildlife areas is authorized under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, or the act of June 15, 1935, or in some instances under all three acts.
Page 5 - Indian tribes, guidance and resource management plans shall, to the maximum extent practical, be consistent with officially approved and adopted resource related policies and programs of other Federal agencies. State and local governments and Indian tribes.
Page 124 - No pesticide would be used when there is evidence to show that: a. Water quality would be degraded. b. Hazards exist that would unnecessarily threaten fish, wildlife, their food chain, or other components of the natural environment.