1997 Roswell Approved RMP and Record of Decision - BLM ...

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

USER'S GUIDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UG-1ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UG-2

RECORD OF DECISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ROD-1

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4MINERALS MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Fluid Minerals Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Other Surface Management Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Locatable Minerals Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Solid Leasable Minerals Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Saleable Minerals Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Utility and Transportation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Trespass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Withdrawals and Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management . . . 31

VEGETATION MA NAGEME NT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Grassland Comm unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Shinne ry Oak-Dune Commun ity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Mixed Shrub Malpa is Commun ity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Pinon-Juniper G rassland Commun ity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Mixed Deser t Shrub C omm unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Drainages, Dra ws and Canyo ns Com mun ity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Riparian -Wetlan ds Com mun ity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Rio Bonito Acquired Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

PEST MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Noxious Weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Predator Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 39Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

OUTDOOR RECREATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Recreation Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Cave and Karst Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Wilderness Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

ii

Wild and Scenic Rivers Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

PAGE

Visual Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Recreation Opportunity Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Soil Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Surface Water Managem ent: Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Surface Water Managem ent: Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Groundwater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Water Rights Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Special Status Species Habitat Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Big Game/Upland Game Habitat Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Waterfowl Habitat Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Raptor Habitat Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Riparian/Wetland and Playa Lake Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

FIRE MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Prescribed Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Protection from Wildfire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Overflow Wetlands ACEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63North Pecos River ACEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Mescalero Sands ACEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Fort Stanton ACEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Roswell Cave Complex ACEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

APPENDIXES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1APPEN DIX 1, Su rface Use and O ccupancy Requirem ents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP1-1APPENDIX 2, Roswell District Conditions of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP2-1APPENDIX 3, Practices for Oil and Gas Drilling and Operations

in Cave and Karst Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP3-1APPENDIX 4, Withdrawn Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP4-1APPEND IX 5, Acqu isition, Retention , and Disposa l Criter ia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP5-1APPENDIX 6, Lands Identified for Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP6-1APPENDIX 7, Public Lands Identified for Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP7-1APPEN DIX 8, De cisions from Previous Planning Docu men ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP8-1APPENDIX 9, Treating Vegetation with Herbicides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP9-1APPENDIX 10, Rules of Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP10-1APPENDIX 11, Results of Section 7 Consultation Roswell Resource Area . . . . . AP11-1

Federally Listed Species O ccur ring o r Pote ntiallyOccurring in the Roswell Resource Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP11-2

State -Listed Species Occurring or Poten tiallyOccurring in the Roswell Resource Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP11-3

BLM Sensitive Spec ies Occur ring o r Pote ntially

iii

Occurring in the Roswell Resource Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP11-5Biological Assessment, Roswell Resource Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP11-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

PAGE

Biological Opinion, Roswell Resource Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP11-61BLM's Response to the Biological Opinion, Roswell Resource Area . . AP11-114

APPENDIX 12, ACEC Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP12-1APPENDIX 13, Protests on the Roswell Rmp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP13-1

List of Protesters, Roswell RMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP13-2List of Protest Issues and Concerns, Roswell RMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP13-5Text Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP13-9Responses to Issues in Protest Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP13-13Responses to C oncerns in Protest Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP13-21

LIST OF TABLES

1 Land Ownership Acreages (Estimated Acres) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Summary of Oil and Gas Leasing Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Areas Open to Leasing with Controlled Surface Use Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations and Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Areas Open to Leasing with No Surface Occupancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Areas Closed to Future Leasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Areas Withdrawn from Mineral Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Areas Closed to Solid Mineral Leasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Area s Closed to the Disposa l of Min eral M ater ials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1910 Rights-Of-Way Exclusion Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2211 Rights-Of-Way Avoidance Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2212 Lands Considered Suitable for Potential Acquisition, Estimated Acreages . . . . . . . . 2713 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC , Summa ry of Acreages (Including Lands Proposed for

Consideration for Acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2814 Changes in Grazing Animal Unit Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3215 Vegetation Management - Grassland Comm unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3416 Vegetation Management - Shinnery Oak-Dune Com mun ity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3517 Vegetation Management - Mixed Shrub Malpa is Commun ity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3518 Vegetation Management - Pinon-Junipe r Grass land Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3619 Vegetation Management - Mixed Deser t Shrub C omm unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3620 Vegetation Management - Draina ges, Dra ws, and Canyo ns Com mun ity . . . . . . . . . . 3721 Resource Interpretation Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4722 Off-Highway Vehicle Management Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4823 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC Off-Highway Vehicle Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5024 Summary of Visual Resource Management and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Acreages in Special Resource Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53A-1 List of Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1A1-1 Summary of Estimated Acreages Affected by Surface Use

And Occupancy Requirem ents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP1-2A3-1 Cave or Karst Occurrence Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP3-2A4-1 Existing Withdrawals and Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP4-2

iv

A6-1 Lands Identified for Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP6-2A7-1 Public Lands Identified for Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP7-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

PAGE

A11-2 Federally Listed Species Occurring or Potentially OccurringIn the Roswell Resource Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP11-2

A11-3 State Listed Species Occurring or Potentially OccurringIn the Roswell Resource Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP11-3

A11-4 BLM Sensitive Species Occurring or Potentially OccurringIn the Roswell Resource Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP11-5

A13-1 List of Protesters , Roswell RMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP13-2A13-2 List of Protest Issues and Concerns, Roswell RMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP13-5A13-3 Text Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP13-9

LIST OF MAPS

1 General Location Map, Roswell Resource Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulation Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Surface Management by Other Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Areas Withdrawn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Area s Closed to Leasing of So lid Minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Area s Closed to Disposal of M inera l Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Rights-of-Way Exclusion Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Land Tenure Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2610 Potential Acquisitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2911 Proposed Archeolog ical Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4112 Special Recreation Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4513 OHV Management Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4914 Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64A3-1 Cave or Karst Occurrence Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP3-3A12-1 Overflow Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP12-2A12-2 Overflow Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP12-3A12-3 North Pecos River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP12-4A12-4 North Pecos River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP12-5A12-5 North Pecos River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP12-6A12-6 Mescalero Sands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP12-7A12-7 Fort Stanton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP12-8

LIST OF FIGURES

1 No Surface Occupancy Stipulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

v

A2-1 Cross-Sections and Plans for Typical Road Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP2-5A2-2 Terms and Conditions for Notice of Intent to Conduct Geophysical Exploration . AP2-20A3-1 Lease Notice, Potential Cave or Karst Occurrence Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AP3-4

vi

USER’S GUIDEThe Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Roswell Resource Area presents a comprehensive planfor the management of all resources and uses on public lands in the Roswell Resource Area. The RMP replacesprevious land use planning documents for the Roswell Resource Area. The Record of Decision is the formaldecision to accept the Approved RMP as the management guidance for all resources and uses on public lands inthe Roswell Resource Area for the next 20 years.

There are three primary sections in this document. The Record of Decision is first, following this User's Guide. Next is the Approved Management Plan, which describes in detail the management actions that will be applied tothe public lands. The third primary section contains 13 appendices that supplement the management decisions.

The Draft Roswell Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Roswell ResourceManagement Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement are important supplements to the Approved Plan. Thesedocuments should be retained for future reference.

vii

ACRONYMS

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental ConcernADC Animal Damage ControlAFB Air Force Base ALMRS Automated Land and Minerals Record SystemAMP Allotment Management PlanAPD Application for Permit to DrillAPHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceAQB Air Quality Bureau, New Mexico Environment

DepartmentAQCR Air Quality Control RegulationASTM American Society of Testing MaterialsAU Animal UnitAUM Animal Unit MonthBLM Bureau of Land ManagementBMP Best Management PracticeBOR Bureau of ReclamationCERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation

and Liability ActCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCMP Cooperative Management PlanC&MU Classification and Multiple Use ActCOA Condition of ApprovalCRMP Coordinated Resource Management Plancsu Controlled Surface UseDDC Drainages, Draws, Canyons (community)DPC Desired Plant CommunityEA Environmental AssessmentEIS Environmental Impact StatementERMA Extensive Recreation Management AreaEPA (U.S.) Environmental Protection AgencyESA Endangered Species ActESI Ecological Site InventoryFCRPA Federal Cave Resources Protection ActFEIS Final Environmental Impact StatementFLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management ActGIs Geographic Information SystemHMP Habitat Management PlanMDS Mixed Desert Shrub (community)MFP Management Framework PlanMFPA Management Framework Plan AmendmentMg/i Milligrams per literMSL Mean Sea LevelMI Management IgnitedMOU Memorandum of UnderstandingMSM Mixed Shrub Malpais (community)NCA National Conservation AreaNEPA National Environmental Policy ActNL No Lease (not open to oil and gas leasing)NM New MexicoNMDGF New Mexico Department of Game and FishNMSO New Mexico State OfficeNNL National Natural LandmarkNOI Notice of Intent

NOL Not open to leasingNPS Nonpoint Source PollutionNRCS Natural Resource Conservation Se rvice (formerly Soil

Conservation Service)

NSO No Surface OccupancyNTL Notice to LesseeOHV Off-Highway VehicleONA Outstanding Natural Areasp Primitive (ROS)PDM Predator Damage ManagementPILT Payment in Lieu of TaxesPJ Pinon-Juniper (community)PNF Prescribed Natural FirePPM Parts per millionPRIA Public Rangelands Improvement ActR Rural (ROS)RA Resource AreaRCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery ActRDO Roswell District OfficeRMP Resource Management PlanRMPA Resource Management Plan AmendmentRN Roaded natural (ROS)RNA Research Natural AreaR&PP Recreation and Public PurposesROS Recreation Opportunity SpectrumROW Right-orf-WayRRA Roswell Resource AreaSCS Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resource

Conservation Service)SEO State Engineer Office, State of New MexicoSHPO State Historic Preservation OfficerSMA Surface Management AgencySOD Shinnery-Oak Dune (community)SPNM Semi-primitive nonmotorized (ROS)SPM Semi-primitive motorized (ROS)SRMA Special Recreation Management AreaSRUP Special Recrea tion Use PermitSTC Standard Terms and ConditionsSUOR Surface Use and Occupancy RequirementsTDS Total Dissolved SolidsT&E Threatened and EndangeredTL Timing LimitationsU Modern Urban (ROS)USDA U.S. Department of AgricultureUSDI U.S. Department of the InteriorUSFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceUSGS U.S. Geological SurveyVRCO Vegetation Resource Condition ObjectivesVRM Visual Resource ManagementWA Wilderness AreaWHA Wildlife Habitat AreaWSA Wilderness Study AreaWQCC Water Quality Control Commission

ROD - 1

RECORD OF DECISION

This document records the decisions made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) formanaging all resources and uses on approximately 1.49 million surface acres of public land andapproximately 8.4 million acres of federal mineral estate in the Roswell Resource Area. TheRoswell Resource Area comprises Chaves County (except for the �bootheel�) and all of Lincoln,DeBaca, Roosevelt, Curry, Quay and Guadalupe counties in southeastern and east-central NewMexico.

DECISION

The decision is to select and approve the Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) for theRoswell Resource Area. This RMP makes decisions that will guide the management of allpublic land resources and uses in the resource area. All previous land use plans and decisions,with one exception, are superseded by this RMP.

The exception concerns leasing oil and gas parcels within the 100-year floodplain of the PecosRiver. The decision in this case is to withhold offering any new oil and gas leases. This actionwas previously analyzed in the 1995 Interim Oil and Gas Environmental Assessment and is nowcarried forward. This decision is made in order to comply with the reasonable and prudentalternatives presented by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their Biological Opinion (datedMay 14, 1997, Cons. #2-22-96 F-102) in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered SpeciesAct of 1973 (ESA), as amended. This is an interim decision affecting oil and gas leasing withinthe 100-year floodplain of the Pecos River and in the future will be replaced. Information result-ing from monitoring will be used to determine what decision should be made for this area. Adecision could be either to adopt the decision as shown in the Proposed RMP or to adopt adifferent decision by amending the RMP.

This plan was prepared according to regulations implementing the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act (FLPMA) of 1976, which are located in Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regula-tions (CFR) in Part 1600. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in accor-dance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and its implementing regula-tions in Title 40 of the CFR, Part 1500.

Approval of this plan constitutes formal designation of five Areas of Critical EnvironmentalConcern, 10 Special Recreation Management Areas, and off-highway vehicle use areas for theentire resource area. Existing Outstanding Natural Area, National Natural Landmark, and Re-search Natural Area designations are retained.

The plan also contains decisions concerning oil and gas and other minerals; land ownershipadjustments; livestock grazing; vegetation management; rights-of-way and access; culturalresources; watershed management; outdoor recreation; special status wildlife and plant spe-cies; wildlife habitat; and fire, hazardous materials and pest management.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Five alternative management plans were described and analyzed in the Draft Roswell RMP/EIS.Each of the alternatives was a comprehensive plan for managing the resources and uses on

ROD - 2

public lands in the Roswell Resource Area. These alternatives resolved four planning issues (oiland gas operations; land tenure adjustment; access; and special management areas) and twomanagement opportunities (recreation and wildlife habitat management), which were identifiedby the BLM and the public.

The management proposed in each alternative presented a different mix of environmentalprotection and resource uses, so that management emphasis varied with each alternative.Each of the five alternatives consisted of �Management Common to All Alternatives� and addi-tional discrete management actions related to the management emphasis of each particularalternative.

Alternative A was the continuation of current management (no action). This alternative contin-ued the existing management and uses of the public lands at their present levels.

Alternative B was more oriented toward environmental protection than any other alternative, butstill allowed for resource use. This alternative was identified as the �environmentally preferable�alternative.

Alternative C generally emphasized the use of resources while providing a minimal level ofenvironmental protection. The emphasis of this alternative on resource use was greater thanthe level of resource use under current management.

Alternative D was oriented toward a level of resource use commensurate with environmentalprotection. This alternative was a balance between Alternative B and Alternative C.

Alternative E was the BLM�s preferred alternative. It allowed resource use with greater empha-sis on protection of the natural environment than the other alternatives, except Alternative B.Alternative E comprised management prescriptions from the other four alternatives.

The decision is essentially the Proposed Plan described in the Final EIS, which is the PreferredAlternative described in the Draft EIS modified as a result of public and internal BLM comment.

ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY

The elimination of oil and gas leasing was considered as a possible method of resolving the oiland gas operations planning issue and the planning questions related to that issue. The elimi-nation of livestock grazing from all public lands in the resource area was considered as apossible method of resolving some of the planning questions relating to the management ofvegetation, soil and wildlife habitat. Alternatives that proposed maximum resource area-widedevelopment, production or protection of one resource at the expense of other resources wereconsidered as methods to resolve conflicts in some instances. After consideration, however,these management options were eliminated from detailed study. They are described in theDraft Roswell RMP/EIS.

The Resource Users Coalition (including the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, the Indepen-dent Petroleum Association of New Mexico, and the Southeastern New Mexico Grazing Associa-tion) submitted Alternative F as a comment on the Draft RMP/EIS. Alternative F was carefullyreviewed by RMP team members, especially with regard to its conformance with laws, regula-tions and manuals that govern the management of the public lands. It was determined as aresult of that review that Alternative F is not a viable alternative in its entirety because it proposesmanagement that ignores laws and regulations that the BLM must follow in the management ofthe public lands. Nevertheless, many changes were made while developing the Proposed RMPthat resulted from Alternative F.

ROD - 3

DECISION RATIONALE

The decision to select the Proposed Plan is based on:

� Management actions needed to resolve the planning issues and management opportuni-ties, and to address planning questions and planning criteria identified through theplanning process;

� The environmental analysis of each alternative considered in detail, which is contained inChapter 4 of the Draft RMP/EIS and Chapter 4 of the Proposed RMP/FEIS;

� Input from the public, BLM specialists, local and state governments, and other federalagencies; and,

� The combination of management actions considered by the BLM to best meet the legalmandate of the FLPMA for management of the public lands according to the principles ofmultiple use and sustained yield.

MITIGATION AND MONITORING

All decisions made in this plan amendment will require adequate consideration of all affectedresources and uses prior to implementation. All reasonable measures will be taken to ensurethat adverse impacts are mitigated in a manner consistent with the measures identified in theProposed Plan. These measures, and any plan decisions that serve as mitigations, may besupplemented during environmental analyses for site-specific actions.

The Approved Roswell RMP provides the framework and guidance for making specific manage-ment decisions related to all resources and uses in the Roswell Resource Area. Actions initi-ated by the BLM or the public will be monitored to determine if the management objectives of theRMP are being met. The effectiveness of RMP determinations will be formally evaluated everyfive years to determine the need for revision of the RMP. The Roswell RMP may be amendedas needed at any time with full public involvement.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public opinion and input have been sought throughout the planning and decision-making pro-cess. Public participation efforts are described in detail in Chapter 5 of the Proposed RMP/FEIS. Highlights of the public involvement process include:

� Preparation of a public participation plan;� Federal Register notices of intent and requests for information;� Public scoping meetings and open houses;� Formal and informal meetings with interested individuals, groups and businesses;� Formation of citizen work groups to assist in developing alternatives;� A 120-day comment period on the Draft RMP/EIS;� Formal public hearings on the Draft RMP/EIS;� Briefings for interested groups and individuals;� Working sessions with industry groups to resolve specific concerns; and,� A 30-day review and protest period on the Proposed RMP/FEIS,

ROD - 4

PROTEST RESOLUTION

Forty-eight protests of the Roswell RMP were filed during the 30-day protest period, which ranfrom March 7, through April 7, 1997. Additionally, five comment letters were received during theprotest period. The comment letters were reviewed and considered in the preparation of thisRecord of Decision. Of the 48 protests, 28 were dismissed because they did not meet therequirements for filing a protest, including the identification of an issue or issues being pro-tested, or standing to file a protest. Of the many issues raised in the remaining protests, 38were referred to the Director of the BLM for resolution. The general topics of those issues were:

- adequacy of maps in the RMP- treatment of wilderness study areas- cultural resource management, including cost recovery- cave and karst management- adequacy of Alternative F- prairie chicken management- failure to follow state laws- sand dune lizard management- participation in the planning process- conformance with county land use plans or ordinances- special status species management- livestock grazing and NEPA analysis

In addition, 20 concerns raised in the protest letters were referred to the New Mexico StateDirector for a response. The general topics of those concerns are:

- land acquisitions and disposals- special status species protection- prairie chicken management- sand dune lizard management- visual resource management- slopes and fragile soils- takings implications- wildlife and wildlife habitat area management- vegetation management- watershed management- law enforcement

The issues and concerns as well as the agency response are included in the Approved RMP.

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND OPINION

Throughout the planning process, the BLM has consulted informally and formally with theUSFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. The BLMprepared a Biological Assessment of the probable effects of existing land use plans and theimplementation of the RMP on federally threatened and endangered species for review by theUSFWS.

After review, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion on BLM�s Biological Assessment. It is theopinion of the USFWS that oil and gas leasing within the 100-year floodplain of the Pecos River,as projected under the Proposed Roswell RMP, would jeopardize the continued existence of thePecos bluntnose shiner and Pecos gambusia, or adversely modify their critical habitat. It is theopinion of the USFWS that the Proposed Roswell RMP would not jeopardize the continuedexistence of the interior least tern.

ROD - 5

In the Biological Opinion, the USFWS provided one Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA)comprised of six elements for the Pecos bluntnose shiner, and one RPA with six elements forthe Pecos gambusia. The USFWS believes if all elements of the RPAs are implemented,jeopardy to the Pecos bluntnose shiner and Pecos gambusia, and adverse modification of theircritical habitats, would not be likely to result. The RPAs are non-discretionary; the BLM mustimplement them. In addition, two Conservation Recommendations (CRs) were provided for theinterior least tern. The CRs are discretionary but will be implemented. The BLM and theUSFWS will coordinate and implement a habitat and species monitoring program as specified inthe Biological Opinion.

In order to implement these RPAs, oil and gas parcels within the 100-year floodplain of thePecos River will not be offered for leasing. This action was previously analyzed in the 1995Interim Oil and Gas Environmental Assessment and now carried forward in light of the BiologicalOpinion. The RPAs also call for a program to monitor these species and their habitat.

Information resulting from habitat and species monitoring would be used to modify or amend theRoswell RMP, if necessary, to conform with the requirements of the Biological Opinion. TheBLM will continue to consult and coordinate with the USFWS in accordance with the require-ments of the ESA for actions concerning existing oil and gas leases within the 100-year flood-plain of the Pecos River.

The formal Section 7 consultation process for the RMP has been completed with the BLM�sadoption of the RPAs as required by ESA. Adoption of the RPAs required changes to the Pro-posed RMP and these changes have been made in the Approved RMP.

CONSISTENCY

There are no known or identified inconsistencies with the plans, programs, and policies of otherfederal agencies and of state and local governments. The 60-day Governor�s consistencyreview period ended March 25, 1997; no inconsistencies were identified.

CONCLUSION

This Record of Decision constitutes the Bureau of Land Management�s final action on approvingthe Roswell Resource Management Plan. Any person adversely affected by a decision of theBLM in implementing any portion of this RMP may appeal that action to the Interior Board ofLand Appeals pursuant to 43 CFR Part 4, at the time the action is proposed for implementation.Copies of the Roswell RMP are available upon request. Contact the Roswell Area Manager,Bureau of Land Management, 2909 West Second St., Roswell, New Mexico 88201 or call 505-627-0272.

APPROVAL

1

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

This Resource Management Plan (RMP) is acomprehensive plan that establishes the gen-eral land management and use determina-tions for guiding and controlling the futuremanagement of the public lands in theRoswell Resource Area.This plan was prepared in accordance withthe requirements of the Federal Land Policyand Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 andthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)of 1969.

This Resource Management Plan addressesthe management all uses of the public landson about 1,490,000 acres in the Roswell Re-source Area where both the surface and sub-surface estates are in federal ownership andare administered by the BLM (See Table 1).This Plan also presents management for anadditional 8.4 million acres of federal mineralestate where the surface is managed by othersurface management agencies of the federalor New Mexico State governments, or is inprivate ownership. In these cases, the leas-ing of fluid minerals (i.e., oil and gas) is ad-ministered by the BLM.

The public lands described above, includingthe mineral estate, are administered by theBureau of Land Management through its

Roswell Resource Area Office. The RoswellResource Area encompasses Chaves County(except for the “bootheel”) and all of Lincoln,DeBaca, Roosevelt, Curry, Quay, andGuadalupe counties in southeastern andeast-central New Mexico (see Map 1).

All land and resource uses and activities inthe planning area must conform with the de-cisions and terms and conditions of use de-scribed in this plan. Detailed decisions forthe implementation of specific actions will bemade through activity planning and environ-mental review that will be completed prior tothe implementation of the action. Likewise,the authorization of specific uses will be predi-cated on conformance with planning deci-sions and the completion of environmentalreview.

Descriptions of the affected environment andthe environmental consequences of manag-ing public lands in the planning area werepreviously addressed in the Draft RoswellRMP/EIS and Proposed Roswell RMP/FEIS,and are not discussed in this document.

The Surface Use and OccupancyRequirements (Appendix 1) will beapplied, when applicable, to all actionsdescribed in this plan.

2

TABLE 1ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA LAND OWNERSHIP ACREAGES

(ESTIMATED ACRES)

Area Total Acres (All BLM-Administered Other Surface Other Surface Owners) Federal Surface Owners, Federal Owners,

Federaland Subsurface 1/,4 Minerals (Oil Minerals (All

and Gas) 2/,4/ Min-erals) 2/

Roswell Resource Area 13,965,000 1,490,000 8,250,000 8,405,000

1/ The federal surface/subsurface category assumes all subsurface acres are oil and gas acres. The acres repre-sented are those where both the surface and mineral estate are owned by the Federal government, and managed bythe BLM.

2/ Both categories of federal minerals describe split estate where the surface is not administered by the BLM. theacreages represented are mineral estate acres, only.

3/ All acreage numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

4/ To determine total federal oil and gas acres add acreages in columns 2 and 3.

Source: BLM ALMRS and GIS data, 1994.

3

NORTH

SCALE 1/2" = 13.5 Miles

ELM-Roswell District, 1994

CUM'

kOO!l\ti.T

@

MAP 1 GENERAL LC>CATIC>N MAP

Roswell Resource Area

.. TlN

1'ZII

nH

ns

TZS

13S

TO

4

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENTDECISIONS

MINERALS MANAGEMENT

Fluid Minerals Management

Goal: Provide for the leasing, exploration anddevelopment of oil and gas resources withinthe Roswell Resource Area.

The BLM administers approximately9,740,000 acres of federal oil and gas min-eral estate in the Roswell Resource Area. Inthis plan:

Approximately 9,316,200 acres (96 percentof the oil and gas mineral estate) will be opento leasing and development under the BLM’sstandard terms and conditions, the SurfaceUse and Occupancy Requirements (Appen-dix 1), the Roswell District Conditions of Ap-proval (Appendix 2), and the Practices for Oiland Gas Drilling and Operations in Cave andKarst Areas (Appendix 3). The discrete com-ponents of these requirements will be appliedon a case-by-case basis when needed tomitigate impacts or guide use. The SurfaceUse and Occupancy Requirements will beapplied to new leases or as conditions of ap-proval for proposed activities on existingleases, following NEPA analysis. The Prac-tices for Oil and Gas Drilling and Operations

in Cave and Karst Areas will be applied asconditions of approval. The total acreageincludes controlled surface use restrictionsand approximately 935,000 acres of lesserprairie chicken habitat that will be open toleasing with timing restrictions. See Tables 2and 3, and Map 2.

As a result of the requirements describedabove, some leasing stipulations formerlyavailable for use on new leases have beenrescinded or replaced. Refer to Table 4 for alist of the remaining leasing stipulations.Leasing stipulations on leases already issuedwill not be affected.

The BLM must adopt the reasonable and pru-dent alternatives listed in the Biological Opin-ion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Therefore, approximately 7,000 acres (< 1percent) of unleased oil and gas parcels withinthe 100-year floodplain of the Pecos River willnot be offered for leasing to protect the waterquality of the Pecos River and the habitat ofthe Pecos bluntnose shiner and the Pecosgambusia. (See Appendix 11 and the Recordof Decision.) The BLM will continue to applymandatory protective measures for oil andgas development on existing leases within thefloodplain of the Pecos River.

TABLE 2SUMMARY OF OIL AND GAS LEASING RESTRICTIONS BY HYDROCARBON POTENTIAL

(ESTIMATED SURFACE ACRES 1/)ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Hydrocarbon Closed Open To Open To Leasing Open To Leasing Open ToPotential To Leasing With With Controlled With Timing Leasing 3/

Leasing NSO 2/ Surface Use 2/ Restrictions 2/

H 43,810 29,101 1,320 N/A 5,381,274M 207,668 150 2,393,004L 146,611 2,560 1,527,007

1/ Includes BLM-administered surface and surface administered by other surface management agencies or owners.

2/ Does not include acreage that may be affected by Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements (Appendix 3).

3/ Open to leasing under Standard Terms and Conditions, Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements, Conditions ofApproval, and Practices for Oil and Gas Drilling and Operations in Cave and Karst Areas.Source: BLM files, 1994.

5

Areas Stipulated

1 - Little Black Peak WSA 1a - Millrace Cave*

2 - Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA 2a - Crockett Cave* 2b - Valley of Fires Recreation Area

3 - Fort Stanton ACEC 4 - Rio Bonito Acquired Lands 5 - Zia Christine Cave* 6 - Alleged UFO Crash Sites 7 - Border Hill NNL 8 - Torgac Cave* 9 - Angora-Corn Cave*

10 - Martin-Antelope Gyp Cave* 11 - Crystal Caverns-Devil's Well Caves* 12 - Coachwhip Cave* 13 - overflow Wetlands ACEC

* Part of the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC

X

X X X

X X

Not Applicable X X

X X X X X

X

X

14 - Garnsey Bison Kill Site 15 - Bat Hole Cave* 15a- Comanche Hill 16 - Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District 17 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area 18 - Haystack Butte Arch. District 19 - North Pecos River ACEC 20 - Billy the Kid Recreation Site 21 - Mescalero sands ACEC 22 - Mescalero Sands North Dune

OHV Area 23 - Mathers RNA

X

X Not Applicable

X

X X X

X X

X

X

NOTE - Reader must refer to the tables and narrative to determine the restrictions and affected acreage within each area.

~ Core Prairie Chicken Habitat

nnnn Prairie Chicken Habitat

- - Potential for Oil and Gas Occurrence Zone Boundary

NORTH


BLM-Roswell District, 1994

MAP 2 C>IL a.n.d.. GAS LEASING STIPULATION AREAS


6

TABLE 3AREAS OPEN TO LEASING WITH CONTROLLED SURFACE USE RESTRICTIONS

ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Areas Hydrocarbon PotentialEstimated Surface Acres

High Moderate Low

OTHER AGENCY MANAGEMENT:Santa Rosa Municipal Airport 320Melrose Bombing Range, buffer zone 1,000

Total 1,320

Source: BLM files, 1994

TABLE 4OIL AND GAS LEASING STIPULATIONS and NOTICES


Current Type of Feature RemarksStipulation Restriction

Roswell 46 Lease Notice Cave/Karst Occurrence Area Retain

Roswell 47 Lease Notice T&E or Sensitive Species (Kuenzler cactus) Retain

Roswell 51 Lease Notice Protection of the Sand Dune Lizard Retain

NSO Maintenance of state well-spacing requirements (new)

SUOR Surface Use and Occupancy Requirementswill be applied as leasing stipulations (new)

Key to Abbreviations: NSO No Surface Occupancy; SUOR Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements


7

TABLE 5AREAS OPEN TO LEASING WITH NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY


Hydrocarbon PotentialEstimated Surface Acres

Areas High Moderate LowBLM MANAGEMENT:Alleged UFO Crash Sites1/ 1,120 2,560

Billy the Kid Recreation Site 80

Border Hill NNL 150

Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District 3,000

Garnsey Bison Kill Site 520

Haystack Butte Arch. District 3,400

Haystack Mountain OHV Area 3,520

Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area 1,546

Mescalero Sands N. Dune OHV Corridor 400

North Pecos River ACEC 2,120

Overflow Wetlands ACEC 1,040

Sumner Lake Tailwater 320

Valley of Fires Recreation Area 463

Subtotal 17,529 150 2,560

OTHER AGENCY MANAGEMENT:Cibola National Forest N/A2/

Fort Sumner Project and Sumner Lake State Park 11,240

Lincoln National Forest N/A2/

Two Rivers Reservoir Project see3/

Tucumcari Project 7

Ute Lake State Park 325

Subtotal 11,572

Total 29,101 150 2,560

Note: Acreage affected by the application of the Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements is not displayedon this table, to avoid double-counting. Because of the nature of the Requirements and their use, areaslisted above may also include areas to which the Requirements would be applied. Refer to Table A1-1 inAppendix 1 for estimates of additional acreages that could be affected by the Requirements.

1/ Two alleged sites. 2/ Amount of acreage not known.

3/ Some portions of the Two Rivers Reservoir Project may be subject to “no drilling” requirements. Refer tothe text.


8

TABLE 6AREAS CLOSED TO FUTURE LEASING


Area Hydrocarbon Potential Estimated Surface Acres High Moderate Lo w

BLM MANAGEMENT:

Carrizozo Lava Flow and Little Black Peak WSAs 1/ 25,312

Fort Stanton ACEC 27,622

Mathers Research Natural Area 242

Mescalero Sands ACEC 7,931


Pecos River Critical Habitat 2/ 7,000

Roswell Cave Complex ACEC 2,654 1,600 640

Subtotal 29,007 26,912 28,262

OTHER AGENCY MANAGEMENT:

Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge 6,320

Bottomless Lakes State Park 460

Cibola National Forest 19,178

Grulla National Wildlife Refuge 69

Lincoln National Forest 99,171

Melrose Bombing Range, core area 6,714

Salt Creek Wilderness1,240

White Sands Missile Range 180,756

Subtotal 14,803 180,756 118,349

Total 38,610 207,668 146,611

1/ If not designated wilderness, these areas would revert to multiple-use management and would be closed to oil and gasleasing to protect lava flows and other values.

2/ From the U.S. Fish & wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion. See Apendix 11.


9

Approximately 31,800 acres (< 1 percent) will beopen to leasing, with a No Surface Occupancystipulation attached to new leases. Refer toTables 2 and 5, and Map 2. This does not in-clude acreage that may be affected by applica-tion of the Surface Use and Occupancy Require-ments.

Approximately 392,000 acres (4 percent) will beclosed to leasing to protect resources or to sup-port other public uses. See Tables 2 and 6, andMap 2. In these areas, existing leases will con-tinue to be developed on a case-by-case basis,However, once leases terminate, they will not bere-offered for leasing.

FIGURE 1

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY STIPULA-TION

Maintenance of state well-spacing requirements.

No surface occupancy or use is allowed on thelands described below:

(legal description)

For the purpose of: The lease or portion of a leasefor the area described above is issued for the solepurpose of assisting in the orderly development ofthe federal mineral estate. This lease will be usedto maintain state well-spacing requirements on thelands described above. This lease absolutelydoes not grant surface occupancy or use, and thatrequirement cannot be waived unless changes aremade in a land use plan or plan amendment.

Roswell 52

(Date)

The Authorized Officer may consider expressionsof interest for the leasing of BLM-administeredpublic lands when the sole purpose of leasing isto maintain state well-spacing requirements. Thiscould occur in areas that are closed to leasing(except for wilderness study areas) or open tooil and gas leasing with no surface occupancy,including areas affected by the Surface Use andOccupancy Requirements (Appendix 3). Thisleasing opportunity could apply to an entire lease

or to a portion of a lease parcel. In this situa-tion, there can be no intention on the part ofthe nominator to occupy the surface of thelease or portion of the lease. For a lease tobe issued, there can be no concerns aboutimpacts to subsurface resources or valuesresulting from drilling on any unrestricted partsof the lease or on adjacent leases, and sur-face occupancy or use absolutely will not beauthorized. A lease could be issued for a stan-dard term with a no surface occupancy leas-ing stipulation (See Figure 1).

The BLM will continue to require oil and gaslessees to conduct operations in a mannerthat will minimize adverse impacts to re-sources, land uses, and users. To that end,the BLM will continue to apply reasonablemitigation measures. These will typically in-clude, at a minimum, relocating proposedoperations by no more than 200 meters orprohibiting new surface disturbance for a pe-riod of no more than 60 days. Mitigations ofimpacts involving moves greater than 200meters or delays greater than 60 days couldresult from project-specific NEPA analysis.(Also, refer to the introduction to Appendix 1.)

Requirements that have been issued in Or-ders or Notices to Lessees (NTL) concerningenvironmental and other factors associatedwith the drilling of oil and gas wells will con-tinue to be enforced, as will future orders andNTLs.

In addition to any stipulations appended to alease, the development of new and existingleases will be further guided by the applica-tion of the Roswell District Standard Condi-tions of Approval (Appendix 2), which will beapplied on a case-by-case basis.

Open-top tanks, reserve pits, disposal pits, orother open pits will be required to be equippedto deter entry by birds, bats or other wildlife,and livestock.

The BLM will encourage the use of practicessuch as off-lease measurement, unit agree-ments, field development plans,communitization agreements, consolidated

10

batteries, and other innovative approaches, toreduce the extent of surface disturbance and tomitigate other forms of impacts. These practicesmust conform with Onshore Oil and Gas Orders4 and 5, and state requirements.

The construction, maintenance, rehabilitation,abandonment, and closure of all roads subjectto BLM jurisdiction will be conducted accordingto the “BLM-NMSO Road Policy, Standards andProcedures.” Specific practices for implement-ing this policy are described in Appendix 2. TheBLM may monitor use of roads and notify joint-cost-sharing companies when maintenance isneeded.

Areas designated as Wilderness Study Areas(WSAs) are closed to leasing as part of the Wil-derness Interim Management Policy. Existingleases in WSAs would not be reissued once theyexpire. Nearly all the acreage in the two WSAsin the Roswell Resource Area is recommendedfor wilderness designation. If Congress fails toaccept the recommendations for wilderness des-ignation and the WSA status is removed, thelands currently in the WSAs would be managedfor multiple use under management prescribedin this RMP. If not designated wilderness, futuremanagement of the WSAs would be as follows:

• Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA (10,408 acres):Approximately 9,333 acres would be closedto oil and gas leasing to protect the characterof the lava flow, which is believed to be oneof the most recent in the continental U.S.Scenic, recreational, scientific, vegetation andwildlife values associated with the lava flowwould be protected, as well. The remaining1,075 acres would be open to leasing sub-ject to the Surface Use and Occupancy Re-quirements, the Practices for Oil and Gas Drill-ing Operations in Cave and Karst Areas, andthe Roswell District Conditions of Approval.Areas designated as Wilderness Study Areas(WSAs) are closed to leasing as part of theWilderness Interim Management Policy. Ex-isting leases in WSAs will not be reissuedonce they expire. Even if the WSAs are notdesignated as wilderness by Congress, allWSAs in the Roswell Resource Area will remain closed to leasing.

• Little Black Peak WSA (14,904 acres): Theentire 14,904-acre area would be closed tooil and gas leasing to protect the character ofthe lava flow, which is believed to be one ofthe most recent in the continental U.S. Sce-nic, recreational, scientific, vegetation andwildlife values associated with the lava flowwould be protected, as well.

Cultural sites determined to be eligible and po-tentially eligible to the National Register of His-toric Places will be protected from damage byavoidance. If avoidance can not be accom-plished, potentially eligible sites will be tested todetermine their eligibility and mitigation, such asdata recovery, will be required for eligible sites.Coordination and consultation about the treat-ment of sites will continue between the BLM andSHPO, pursuant to Section 106 of the NationalHistoric Preservation Act.

As a standard practice, ephemeral and peren-nial drainages and wetland/riparian areas will beavoided as locations for oil and gas related facili-ties, including drilling locations, production facili-ties, roads, and pipelines. (Refer to Appendix 1,Streams, Rivers and Floodplains.) Wheneverpossible, facilities will be confined to existing align-ments or locations, minimizing width requirementsand maximizing multiple occupancy.

Produced water disposal pits on public lands willnot be allowed west of the Pecos River. Addi-tionally, these pits will not be allowed within upto 200 meters of of the outer edge of 100-yearfloodplains, drainages, playas, water wells, orsprings throughout the resource area. In all otherareas of the Roswell Resource Area, disposal ofproduced water in lined pits may be permitted onpublic lands. Produced water disposal will bemanaged in accordance with Onshore Oil andGas Order No. 7.

Revegetation of disturbed areas will be required.Reclamation techniques, such as deeper rips,different seed mixtures, mulching, and the appli-cation of fertilizer, may be used to enhance thereclamation of pits, roads and pads to provide formaximum ground and surface water protection.The ripping or removal of caliche from roads andpads could be required to enhance reclamation

11

efforts. Waiver of this requirement will be consid-ered if diligent attempts to revegetate a site havefailed and the Authorized Officer determines thatfurther attempts would be futile.

The BLM will continue to process Notices of In-tent (NOI) to conduct geophysical exploration onpublic lands on a case-by-case basis. Geophysi-cal exploration may be an appropriate temporarysurface use in areas that are closed to oil andgas leasing or that have restricted surface use,such as no surface occupancy leasing stipula-tions. The processing of geophysical NOIs willinclude NEPA compliance. The terms and con-ditions for NOIs and the conditions of approvalfor geophysical exploration are listed in Appen-dix 2. The Surface Use and Occupancy Require-ments (Appendix 1) and off-highway vehicle usedesignations will also be applied to geophysicalexploration, when necessary.

The burial of pipelines associated with oil and gasexploration, development, production and trans-portation is preferred. Pipelines greater than fourinches in nominal diameter, all injection lines, andgas lines with a pressure greater than 125 psimust be buried and preferably be constructed ofsteel. If the use of plastic pipe is approved, thepipe must meet American Petroleum Institutespecifications. A waiver of the requirement to burypipelines will be considered in the following situ-ations:

• The temporary (one year or less) surfaceinstallation of plastic pipelines, after consid-ering the length of the pipeline, its proposedlocation, the potential hazards present (e.g.,likelihood of damage by fire or OHV use), thecharacteristics of the pipe regarding deterio-ration (including by sunlight), the ASTM orsimilar specifications for the pipe, the intendeduse of the pipeline, and other appropriate fac-tors.

• Where rock outcrops at the surface makethe burial of a pipeline impractical, such aswhen unreasonable and unreclaimable sur-face disturbance would result. Where thepipeline is exposed, painting may be required

in accordance with the painting policy for vi-sual resource management areas (see Ap-pendix 1) and NTL 87-1, New Mexico. Waiverof the requirement for painting will be consid-ered when short distances are involved, whena pipeline is not readily visible because ofscreening, or in areas that are not visuallysensitive.

• Where the surface ownership along thepipeline route is mixed, and the majority ofsurface ownership is not public. In thosecases, the installation of pipelines on publicland will conform to the practice to be em-ployed on the remainder of the pipeline, un-less special resource management concernsdictate strict adherence to this policy.

Lease notices will be used to alert lessees topotential special requirements on exploration,drilling or production. Lease notices covering theprotection of potential cave or karst areas, andthe protection of threatened or endangered, orsensitive, plant or animal species will remain ineffect. Additional lease notices will be developedas needed.

Other Surface Management Agencies

In some cases, federal minerals in the RoswellResource Area underlie lands managed by otheragencies known as “other surface managementagencies.” (See Map 3.) The leasing require-ments of other surface management agencieshave been included for purposes of disclosureand to provide a complete view of oil and gasleasing in the resource area. The other surfacemanagement agencies in the Roswell ResourceArea were asked to provide their oil and gas leas-ing recommendations and leasing stipulations;they are included here without modification. Theleasing requirements are described below. Theacreages listed refer to federal mineral estate.

Federal Aviation Administration

• Consult with FAA prior to approving oc-cupancy at Santa Rosa Municipal Airport (320acres)

12

Map 3

Surface Management by OtherAgencies

Bureau of Reclamation

Surface Management By Other Agencies -Surface Stipulations for Federal Minerals

1 - White Sands Missile Range X

2 - Cibola National Forest X

3 - Lincoln National Forest X

4 - Two Rivers Reservoir X

5 - Bottomless Lakes State Park X

6 - Bitter Lake Wildlife Refuge X

7 - sumner Lake X

NOTE - Reader must refer to the tables and narrative to determine the affected acreage within each area.

NORTH


ELM-Roswell District, 1994

8 - Santa Rosa Airport 9 - Grulla Wildlife Refuge

10 - Melrose Bombing Range 11 - Ute Lake State Park

MAP 3

X X

X X

SURFACE MANAGEMENT BY OTHER AGENCIES


13

Bureau of Reclamation

Fort Sumner Project (11,240 acresincluding the state park)

• No Surface Occupancy within one-halfmile of the Fort Sumner Dam site.

• No Surface Occupancy within SumnerLake State Park.

• No Surface Occupancy below elevation4279' MSL.

• No storage facilities below elevation 4300'MSL.

• Areas not covered by the requirementsmentioned above would be leased and man-aged under appropriate RoswellDistrictstipulations or Conditions of Approval(e.g., floodplain locations, see Appendixes 1and 2).

Tucumcari Project

• No Surface Occupancy within the bound-ary of Hudson Lake.

• No Surface Occupancy below within theboundary of Dry Lake, below elevation 4085'MSL.

If lands presently managed by the BOR revertback to the management of the BLM, they wouldbe leased with the above restrictions and man-aged under appropriate Roswell District SurfaceUse and Occupancy Requirements (Appendix 1)and Conditions of Approval (Appendix 2).

Department of Defense

U.S. Air Force

• Melrose Bombing Range core area (6,714acres), not open to leasing

• Melrose Bombing Range buffer area(1,000 acres), open to leasing with controlledsurface use. No structures taller than 100 feet.Exceptions may be considered on a case-by-

case basis by the Commander, Cannon AFB.

U.S. Army

• White Sands Missile Range (180,756acres), not open to leasing

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• Two Rivers Reservoir Project (2,785acres), open to leasing under appropriateRoswell District Surface Use and OccupancyRequirements (Appendix 1) and Conditionsof Approval (Appendix 2), and the followingconditions:

- No drilling shall be conducted within1,000 feet of the dam embankments, appur-tenant structures and the spillway;

- No buildings, structures, etc., shall beconstructed or otherwise left in areas subjectto inundation due to flood storage; and,

- All activities shall be reported to andcoordinated with the Santa Rosa Lake andDam Reservoir manager.

New Mexico State Parks

• Sumner Lake (8,123 acres), no surfaceoccupancy (see “Bureau of Reclamation,”above).

• Ute Lake (325 acres), no surface occu-pancy

• Bottomless Lakes (460 acres), not opento leasing.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Salt Creek Wilderness (1,240 acres), notopen to leasing. The Salt Creek Wildernessis administered by the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService as part of Bitter Lake National Wild-life Refuge, but the 1,240-acre wilderness isnot included in the acreage shown for the ref-uge.

• Grulla National Wildlife Refuge (69 acres),not open to leasing

14

• Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge (6,320acres), not open to leasing.

U.S. Forest Service, Cibola NationalForest (34,336 acres)

• Not open to leasing, 19,178 acres

• Open to leasing, 15,158 acres. Acreageon which “no surface occupancy” would beapplied has not been specifically identified,but would apply to all developed recreationsites and electronic sites, and to slopesgreater than 41 percent, unless a specific siteis authorized. Some acreage will have “con-trolled surface use.” Restrictions on areasopen to leasing will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

U.S. Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest(364,579 acres)

• Not open to leasing, 99,171 acres

• Open to leasing, 265,408 acres. Acre-age on which “no surface occupancy” wouldbe applied has not been identified. Someacreage will have “controlled surface use.”Restrictions on areas open to leasing will bedetermined on a case-by-case basis.

Locatable Minerals Management

Goal: Continue to keep lands available fordevelopment of locatable minerals, whilemaintaining important environmental values.

Lands currently withdrawn from entry under the1872 Mining Law or closed to mineral leasing willremain unchanged unless otherwise designatedby this plan (see Table 7). The BLM will periodi-cally review all land withdrawals to determine ifrestrictions continue to be necessary to protectaffected resource values. At such time as a with-

drawal is no longer considered to be necessary,it will be lifted and the lands returned to manage-ment under the general mining and mineral leas-ing laws.

All BLM-administered lands will be open to min-ing claim location and development, except thoselands closed to mining claim location by with-drawal. BLM-administered lands currently with-drawn from all forms of appropriation under thegeneral mining laws are summarized in Appen-dix 4 and shown on Map 4.

The areas summarized in Table 7 and shown onMap 4 will be withdrawn from all forms of appro-priation under the general mining laws.

Solid Leasable Minerals Management

Goal: Keep lands available for leasing andproduction, while maintaining important environ-mental values.

All public lands will be open for the leasing of solidminerals, except those identified otherwise.

Lands in the following area will remain closed toleasing:

• Mathers Research Natural Area, 242acres

Additional public lands that will be closed to solidmineral leasing are summarized in Table 8 andare shown on Map 5.

The federal mineral estate within the Bitter LakeNational Wildlife Refuge will be closed to the leas-ing of solid minerals. Refer to Table 8 and Map 5.

The federal mineral estate along the CanadianRiver and major tributaries in Quay County (total-ling about 4,900 acres) will be closed to the leas-ing of solid minerals. Refer to Table 8.

15

TABLE 7AREAS WITHDRAWN FROM MINERAL ENTRY


Area Estimated MineralAcres

BLM MANAGEMENT:Alleged UFO Crash Sites1/ 3,680


Border Hill NNL 150

Carrizozo Lava Flow and Little Black Peak WSAs 25,312

Cocklebur Lakes Archeological District 3,000

Fort Stanton ACEC* 27,622


Haystack Butte Archeological District 3,400

Haystack Mountain OHV Area (staging area) 160

Mathers Research Natural Area* 242

Mescalero Sands ACEC2/ 7,931



Roswell Cave Complex ACEC3/ 14,894

Spring and Seep Areas 240


Subtotal 93,294

OTHER AGENCY MANAGEMENT:Blackwater Draw Archeological Site* 711

Canal Right-of-Way (NM 21834)* 7

Melrose Bombing Range, core area* 6,714

Nike Hercules Defense Site* 325

NM Army National Guard Training Site* 53

Fort Sumner Dam and Sumner Lake State Park (acreage comprises three segments)* 8,123

Tucumcari Project, Conchas Canal (NM 52398)* 7

Two Rivers Reservoir Project* 2,590

Subtotal 18,530

Total 111,824

* Areas withdrawn from mineral entry as of 1994. 1/ Two alleged sites.2/ Includes as many as 6,617 acres originally in the Mescalero Sands Recreation Complex*.3/ Includes original 40-acre withdrawal on Torgac Cave*.

Source: BLM files, 1994.

16

Map 4

RRA: Areas Withdrawn

Areas Withdrawn

1 - Little Black Peak WSA 1a - Millrace cave*

2 - Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA 2a - Crockett cave* 2b - Valley of Fires Recreation Area

3 - Water Power Site 4 - Fort Stanton ACEC 5 - Zia Christine cave* 6 - Torgac Cave* 7 - Border Hills NNL 8 - Two Rivers Reservoir Project 9 - Angora Cave*

10 - Martin-Antelope Gyp Cave* 11 - Crystal Caverns/Devil's Well Caves• 12 - Coachwhip Cave• 13 - Overflow Wetlands ACEC 14 - Bottomless Lakes State Park

14a - Garnsey Bison Kill Site 15 - Bat Hole Cave*

15a - Nike Defense Site 16 - Bitter Lake Wildlife Refuge/

Salt Creek Wilderness 17 - Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District 18 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area 19 - Haystack Butte Arch. District

Not Applicable X X X

20 - North Pecos River ACEC 21 - Billy the Kid Recreation Site 22 - FAA Navigation Site 23 - Sumner Lake 24 - Mescalero Sands ACEC 25 - Mescalero Sands North Dune

OHV Area 26 - Mathers RNA 27 - Blackwater Draw Arch. Site 28 - Melrose Bombing Range 29 - BOR Reservoir #2 30 - Tucumcari-Conchas Canal 31 - National Guard Training Site 32 - Ute Lake State Park 33 White Sands Missile Range 34 - Alleged UFO Crash Sites

* Part of the Roswell cave Complex ACEC

NOTE - Reader must refer to the tables

X X

X X

X

Not Applicable X X X

Not Applicable X

X Not Applicable

X X

and narrative to determine the affected acreage and type of withdrawal within each area.

MAP4 AREAS WITHDRAWN


17

TABLE 8AREAS CLOSED TO SOLID MINERAL LEASING

ROSWELL RESOURCE AREAPROPOSED PLAN

Areas EstimatedMineralAcres

BLM MANAGEMENT:

Alleged UFO Crash Sites1/ 3,680


Border Hill NNL 150


Cocklebur Lakes Archeological district 3,000







Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area 610



Roswell Cave Complex ACEC 14,894


Subtotal 97,024

OTHER AGENCY MANAGEMENT:

Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge 6,320

Subtotal 6,320

Total 103,344

1/ Two alleged sites.


18

Map 5

RRA: Areas Closed to Leasing of

Areas Closed ·

1 - Little Black Peak WSA 1a - Millrace Cave•

2 - Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA 2a - Crockett Cave• 2b - Valley of Fires Recreation Area

3 - Fort Stanton ACEC 3 - Feather Cave Arch. Complex 4 - Rio Bonito Acquired Lands 5 - Zia Christine Cave• 6 - Alleged UFO crash Sites 7 - Border Hill NNL 8 - Torgac cave• 9 - Angora-Corn Cave•

10 - Martin-Antelope Gyp Cave• 11 - Crystal Caverns/Devil's Well caves• 12 - Coachwhip Cave• 13 - Overflow Wetlands ACEC 14 - Garnsey Bison Kill Site

• Part of the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC

X

X

X

X

X

X Not Applicable

X

X X X X X X X X X

15 - Bat Hole cave• 15a- Comanche Hill 16 - Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District 17 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area 18 - Haystack Butte Arch. District 19 - North Pecos River ACEC 20 - Billy the Kid Recreation Area 21 - Mescalero Sands ACEC 22 - Mescalero Sands North Dune

OHV Area 23 - Mathers RNA 24 - Caprock WHA 25 - Bitter Lake Wildlife Refuge ~~~~ - Core Prairie Chicken Habitat

X Not Applicable

X X X X X X

X X

Not Applicable X

Not Applicable


NORTH



MAPS AREAS CLOSED TC>

LEASING C>F SC>LID MINERALS Roswell Resource Area

19

Saleable Minerals Management

Goal: Provide mineral materials to the publicwhile maintaining the protection necessary toprevent adverse environmental impacts and tominimize adverse impacts to public health andsafety.

All lands will be open to mineral material dispos-als, except those identified otherwise. Pertinentsections of the Roswell District Conditions of Ap-proval (Appendix 2) will be applied to mineralmaterial disposals.

Mineral material pits no longer in use or selectedpits in areas with a high density of pits will bereclaimed. Pits will be reclaimed to standardsthat conform to, or improve, the condition of thesurrounding ecosystem.

All federal mineral estate at Fort Stanton exceptfor the Feather Cave Archeological Complex willbe open to the discretionary disposal of mineralmaterials.

The areas that will be closed to mineral materialdisposals to preclude surface disturbance aresummarized in Table 9 and are shown onMap 6.

TABLE 9AREAS CLOSED TO THE DISPOSAL OF MINERAL MATERIALS

ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA, PROPOSED PLAN

Areas EstimatedMineral Acres

Alleged UFO Crash Sites 1/ 3,680


Border Hill NNL 150



Feather Cave Archeological Complex 330






Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area 1,336





Total 70,458



20

Map 6

Areas Closed to Disposal of MineralMaterials

RRA

21

LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT

Goal: Manage the public lands to support thegoals and objectives of other resource pro-grams, to respond to public demand for landuse authorizations, and to acquire administra-tive and public access where necessary.

Utility and Transportation System

Land use authorizations (rights-of-way, leases,permits) will be issued on a case-by-case basis.Pertinent sections of the Roswell District Condi-tions of Approval (Appendix 2) will be applied toland use authorizations. Whenever possible, fa-cilities will be confined to existing alignments,minimizing width requirements and maximizingmultiple occupancy. Rights-of-way locations, andterms and conditions for their use, will be identi-fied. Rights-of-way will be granted only after site-specific analysis and development of specific con-ditions of approval. Rights-of-way will also be is-sued in accordance with New Mexico BLM’sRoads Policy. Agriculture leases will be consid-ered only when the lease is compatible with orenhances the land’s identified resource values.

Landfills, hazardous waste disposal sites, andproduced water disposal pits will not be autho-rized under rights-of-way or R&PP leases. If BLMlands are needed for these purposes, a title trans-fer will be considered.

A utility corridor for ancillary facilities associatedwith the Sierra Blanca Regional Airport will beretained. The corridor dimensions are 100 feeton each side of Lincoln County Road B-006, andl.5 miles in length. No additional rights-of-waycorridors will be designated.

Public lands in the resource area will be madeavailable for rights-of-way, permits, and leases.In defined exclusion and avoidance areas, publiclands will be open to the consideration of grant-ing rights-of-way under the guidelines in Appen-dix 2.

Areas proposed for exclusion of rights-of-way formajor projects such as electric transmission lines;pipelines 10 inches in diameter or larger; com-munication lines for interstate use; federal, stateand interstate highways; and major county andprivate roads are summarized in Table 10 andare shown on Map 7.

Lands acquired as habitat for Special Status Spe-cies or acquired for wetland/riparian values willbe added to the right-of-way exclusion area formajor projects. Exceptions will be considered inexclusion zones on a case-by-case basis for fa-cilities such as fences, range and wildlife waterpipelines, power distribution lines, access to oiland gas facilities, or oil and gas collection or dis-tribution pipelines.

Areas proposed for avoidance of rights-of-way formajor projects such as electric transmission lines;pipelines 10 inches in diameter or larger; com-munication lines for interstate use; federal, stateand interstate highways; and major county andprivate roads are summarized in Table 11 andare shown on Map 8. Rights-of-way for majorprojects and for facilities such as fences, rangeand wildlife water pipelines, power distributionlines, access to oil and gas facilities, or oil andgas collection or distribution pipelines will be con-sidered in avoidance zones on a case-by-casebasis.

22

TABLE 10RIGHTS-OF-WAY EXCLUSION AREAS


Areas EstimatedAcres

Alleged UFO Crash Sites1/ 3,680

Border Hill NNL 150










Rio Bonito2/ 3,000


U.S. Highway 380 corridor through the Carrizozo Lava

Flow (applies to overhead power and telephone lines) 76


Total 93,455


2/ Includes the Rio Bonito acquired lands, Rio Bonito Waterfall, lands along the Rio Bonito adjacent to Fort Stanton ACEC, andNMSU facilities at Fort Stanton.


TABLE 11RIGHTS-OF-WAY AVOIDANCE AREAS


Areas EstimatedAcres

Core Prairie Chicken Habitat Area 249,400

Haystack Mountain OHV Area (applies to overhead power and telephone lines) 4,153

Mescalero Sand Dune North OHV Area (applies to overhead power and telephone lines) 610


Total 257,525


23

Map 7

RRA: ROW Exclusion Areas

Rights-of-Way Exclusion Areas

1 - Little Black Peak WSA X la - Millrace Cave* X

2 - Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA X 2a - Crockett Cave* X 2b - Valley of Fires Recreation Area X

3 - Fort Stanton ACEC X 4 - Rio Bonito Acquired Lands X 5 - Zia Christine Cave* X 6 - Alleged UFO Crash Sites X

7 - Border Hill NNL X 8 - Torgac Cave* X 9 - Angora-corn cave* X

10 - Martin-Antelope Gyp Cave* X 11 - Crystal Caverns/Devil's Well Caves* X 12 - Coachwhip Cave* X 13 - overflow Wetlands ACEC X 14 - Garnsey Bison Kill Site X


15 - Bat Hole Cave* 15a- Comanche Hill 16 - Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District 17 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area 18 - Haystack Butte Arch. District 19 - North Pecos River ACEC 20 - Billy the Kid Recreation Area 21 - Mescalero Sands ACEC 22 - Mescalero Sands North Dune

OHV Area 23 - Mathers RNA 24 - Caprock WHA

~~~~ - Core Prairie Chicken Habitat


NORTH

SCALE 1/2" • 13.5 Miles


.s .a

X Not Applicable

X Not Applicable

X X

Not Applicable X

Not Applicable X

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

MAP7 RIGHTS-OF-WAY EXCLUSION AREAS


24

Map 8

ROW Avoidance Areas

RRA

Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas

1 - Little Black Peak WSA 1a - Millrace Caves*

2 - Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA 2a - Crockett Cave* 2b - Valley of Fires Recreation Area

3 - Fort Stanton ACEC 4 - Rio Bonito Acquired Lands 5 - Zia Christine Cave* 6 - Alleged UFO Crash Sites 7 - Border Hill NNL 8 - Torgac Cave* 9 - Angora-Corn Cave*

15 - Bat Hole Cave* 15a- Comanche Hill 16 - Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District 17 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area 18 - Haystack Butte Arch. District 19 - North Pecos River ACEC 20 - Billy the Kid Recreation Area 21 - Mescalero Sands ACEC 22 - Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area 23 - Mathers RNA 24 - caprock WHA

10 - Martin-Antelope Gyp Cave* 11 - Crystal Caverns/Devil's Well Caves* 12 - Coachwhip Cave*

Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

~~~~ - Core Prairie Chicken Habitat

13 - OVerflow Wetlands ACEC 14 - Garnsey Bison Kill Site



NORTH



.s .a

MAPS

Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable

X Not Applicable

X Not Applicable Not Applicable


X

R.IGHTS-C>F-WA Y A VOIDANCE AREAS Roswell Resource Area

25

Retention

To facilitate the planning process, the RoswellResource Area was divided into three zones,based on land ownership patterns (see Map 9).Zone 1 includes the better-blocked public surfacelands in Chaves, Lincoln, Guadalupe and DeBacacounties. Zone 2 includes the scattered publiclands in Chaves, Lincoln, DeBaca, andGuadalupe counties. Zone 3 includes the veryscattered lands in Curry, Quay, and RooseveltCounties.

In Zone 1, the management philosophy is to re-tain the public lands in federal ownership. How-ever, exchanges may be used to create better-blocked land ownership patterns and facilitatebetter resource management. Sales and dispos-als for public purposes also could be used to fa-cilitate better management in Zone 1, in somecases. Lands acquired anywhere in the resourcearea will be managed for retention, irrespectiveof their location.

In Zone 2, the management philosophy is to dis-pose of public lands, primarily through exchange.Sales and disposals for public purposes alsocould be used, in some cases. When possible,exchanges of public lands for private lands willbe conducted in the same county, to minimizethe impacts to PILT payments and property taxes.In Zone 3, the management philosophy is to dis-pose of the public lands either through exchangeor sale.

Lands in Zones 2 and 3 identified for retentionduring the inventory, planning, or land disposalprocesses, will be managed as if they are in Zone1. Reasons for retention include the presence ofT&E habitat, critical wildlife habitat, unique his-torical or cultural resources, or riparian areas.Criteria for determining if public lands should beretained are listed in Appendix 5.

Acquisition

The BLM will pursue the acquisition of facilitiesat Fort Stanton formerly owned by New MexicoState University. The acquisition of state and pri-vate lands in wilderness study areas will be pur-sued if opportunities arise (refer to the “Wilder-ness Management” discussion in this chapter).

About 3,000 acres of private or state lands in thevicinity of Fort Stanton will be considered for ac-quisition to enhance management in that area.

Over the life of the plan, the acquisition of about75,800 acres of non-federal lands or interests innon-federal lands, including those in the FortStanton area, will be considered on a case-by-case basis to achieve management objectives.Any lands acquired will be managed accordingto the management prescriptions in this plan.Refer to Appendix 5 for acquisition criteria. Theareas summarized in Tables 12 and 13, shownon Map 10, and described in Appendix 6 are cur-rently identified as being suitable for considerationfor acquisition, as opportunities become available.

Easements will be acquired to provide access topublic lands for recreation, wildlife, range, culturaland historical, mineral, ACEC, special manage-ment area and other resource needs, as oppor-tunities arise. Criteria for the acquisition of ease-ments are described in Appendix 6. Easementsare needed in the following areas (this list is notinclusive):

•Overflow Wetlands WHA•Crockett Cave•Crystal Cave•Millrace Cave•Little Black Peak Cinder Cone east access•Little Black Peak Cinder Cone west access•Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA lower windmill

east access•Mescalero Sands ACEC east access•Mescalero Sands ACEC west access

26

MAP 9

LAND TENURE ZONES

RRA

Ill Zone One Retention

D Zone Two Disposal by exchange, same county

lllllllJ Zone Three - Disposal by exchange or sale

~ NORTH

UIIIICU



MAP 9 LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENT ZC>NES


n?N

niH

"'"

T.lN

TZII

nK

ns

'11!1

'DS

4S

27

TABLE 12LANDS CONSIDERED SUITABLE FOR POTENTIAL ACQUISITION

ESTIMATED ACREAGESROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Areas Private State(Acres) (Acres)

Caprock WHA Expansion 8,480 18,969

Carrizozo Lava Flow and Little Black Peak area1/ 6,179 5,371

Cedar Hills Deer Management Area 961

Fort Stanton area2/ 1,265 1,760

Garnsey Bison Kill Site 242 320

Haystack Butte Archeological District 40 640

Haystack Mountain OHV Area 3,440 2,560

Mescalero Sands ACEC 637 1,797

Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area 410

North Pecos River ACEC 1,880 1,160

Other Mescalero Sands area 2,327

Other Pecos River area 4,165 1,600

Overflow Wetlands ACEC 1,597 1,720

Pecos River Deer Management Area 2,560

Playa Lakes 1,091 550



Total 34,201 42,893

1/ Includes the Carrizozo Lava Flow and Little Black Peak WSAs

2/ Includes the Rio Bonito Waterfall, lands along the Rio Bonito adjacent to Fort Stanton ACEC, and NMSU facilities atFort Stanton.


28

Disposal

The disposal of an estimated 150,000 acres ofpublic lands (e.g., transfer from the administra-tion of the BLM to other federal agencies, or lo-cal or state governments, or disposal throughmethods such as exchange, public sale, Stateindemnity selection, or Recreation and PublicPurposes leases or patents) will be consideredon a case-by-case basis. Appendix 7 includes alist of tracts totalling 110,324 acres already iden-tified that would be suitable for consideration fordisposal. Prior to any disposal action, these lands,and any others proposed for disposal, will beevaluated for conformance with the disposal cri-teria listed in Appendix 5.

Access

Access to public lands will be provided through-out the planning area. Easements will be acquiredto provide access to public lands for recreational,wildlife, range, cultural and historical, mineral,special management, and other resource needs.Priority for the acquisition of easements will beplaced on former county roads vacated by countygovernments, when those roads are important forthe management of the public lands. Access willbe closed, or restricted, where necessary and inaccordance with OHV designations, to protectpublic health and safety or areas with significantresource values.

Placement of advertising signs on public landsadjacent to county roads, or roads on the BLMTransportation Plan, will be required to meet thecriteria for sign placement on federal or state high-ways.

TABLE 13ROSWELL CAVE COMPLEX ACEC, SUMMARY OF ACREAGES

(INCLUDING LANDS PROPOSED FOR CONSIDERATION FOR ACQUISITION1/)ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Cave System BLM Surface and Split Estate Private Acres Total AcresMineral Estate Acres Acres for Acquisition

Angora-Corn 4,800 4,800

Bat Hole 40 40

Coachwhip 614 614

Crockett 640 640

Crystal Caverns-Devil’s Well 2,280 2,840 4,120 6,400

Martin-Antelope Gyp 2,080 320 2,400

Millrace 480 160 640

Torgac 480 160 640

Zia Christine 480 160 160 640

Totals 11,894 3,000 4,920 16,814

1/ There are no state lands proposed for acquisition.


29

Map 10

RRA: Potential Acquisitions

Potential Acquisitions

1 - Carrizozo WSA 2 - Valley of Fires Recreation Area 3 - Millrace Cave• 4 - Little Black Peak WSA 5 - Rio Bonito Waterfall 6 - Lands adjacent to Ft. Stanton 7 - Rio Bonito Acquired Lands 8 - Zia Christine Cave• 9 - Torgac Cave*

10 - Cedar Hills Deer Mgmt. Area

• Part of the Roswell cave Complex ACEC

X X X X X X X X

X X

NOTE Reader must refer to tables and narrative to determine the affected acreage within each area.



11 - Crystal Caverns/Devil's Well Caves*

12 - Martin-Antelope Gyp* 13 - North Pecos River ACEC 14 - Pecos River Deer Mgmt. Area 15 - Haystack Butte Arch. District 16 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area 17 - Overflow Wetlands ACEC 18 - Garnsey Bison Kill Site 19 - Caprock WHA 20 - Mescalero Sands ACEC 21 - Mescalero Sands North Dune

OHV Area X

MAP 10 POTENTIAL

ACQUISITIONS Roswell Resource Area

30

Trespass

Unauthorized uses in the planning area will beresolved on a case-by-case basis. If circum-stances warrant, the issuance of a permit, lease,or right-of-way authorizing the use could occur.Disposal of a parcel through sale or exchangemay be considered to resolve long-standing tres-pass if disposal criteria are met.

Withdrawals and Classifications

Land withdrawals and classifications will be pro-cessed to afford protection to important resourcevalues. Withdrawals that no longer serve thepurposes for which they were originally intendedwill be revoked. Prior to revocation, withdrawnlands will be reviewed to determine if any otherresource values require withdrawal protection.Existing withdrawals are shown on Map 4 anddisplayed in Appendix 4.

The Multiple Use Management Classification asit affects public lands in the planning area wouldbe revoked. (Refer to Appendix 4.)

Public water reserves will be terminated whereno longer needed, and acquired where the needexists.

Public lands identified as having water powervalues will be protected by a water power with-drawal. Water power withdrawals of public landsthat lack water power values or are inconsistentwith the objectives of the approved RMP will bereviewed and recommended for termination.

LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Goal: Provide effective and efficient manage-ment of allotments to maintain, improve, andmonitor range conditions.

Allotment categorization and initial grazing useallocations made in the East Roswell GrazingEnvironmental Impact Statement (1979) and theRoswell Resource Area Management FrameworkPlan Amendment/Environmental Impact State-ment (1984) will be used as the basis for contin-ued livestock grazing. Changes in use alloca-tions will continue to be made on the basis of

monitoring data. Livestock grazing managementdecisions from previous land use plans, and thedisposition of those decisions, are discussed inAppendix 8.

Forty-five existing allotment management plans(AMPs) are in various states of implementationor revision. Each year, the BLM will revise someof the 45 or begin new activity plans (an AMP orthe functional equivalent of an AMP) on “I” cat-egory allotments. However, the estimated totalnumber of both existing and new AMPs workedon each year by the BLM would average aboutthree. Permittees, lessees, other federal or stateresource management agencies, or interestedcitizens also may prepare activity plans for allot-ment management. The management plans willbe prepared according to the regulations currentat the time (presently 43 CFR 4120.2). The con-cept of multiple use will be used in the develop-ment of activity plans to address other resourceconcerns, such as wildlife habitat within the Ma-cho HMP or Desired Plant Community objectivesfor a specific plant community.

Livestock grazing following vegetative treatmentswill be deferred for a time period established inconjunction with the treatment method. In areaswhere shinnery oak is not treated, adjustmentsin livestock numbers, or other changes, will beconsidered, and implemented, if needed, to avoidconflicts with the management of habitat for thelesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard.Livestock grazing will also be deferred in areasburned by wildfires, if needed. The time periodsfor deferments will be determined on a case-by-case basis, after considering factors such as theextent of the fire, the type of vegetation burned,the intensity of the fire, and vegetation manage-ment objectives.

Within portions of the Macho WHA meeting theantelope suitability criteria, new internal pasturefences constructed of netwire will not be allowedacross public lands on allotments that currentlysupport pronghorn or on allotments in the WHAwith the potential to provide suitable pronghornhabitat. Exceptions to this requirement are:

• The grazing permittee agrees to the con-struction of pronghorn passes on proposedinterior fences;

31

• The grazing permittee agrees to allow theBLM to modify fences;

• Netwire would be used in the construc-tion of small traps or holding pens;

• Netwire would be used in security fencesaround facilities such as microwave sites.

Future changes in kind of livestock will necessi-tate reconsidering the fencing standard to be usedin each situation.

Pertinent sections of the Roswell District Condi-tions of Approval (Appendix 2) will be applied toapprovals for construction of range improvementprojects.

Rangeland improvements and vegetation treat-ments will continue to be implemented to improveor maintain forage production and range condi-tion, in an effort to achieve the Desired PlantCommunity. Wildlife habitat and watershed man-agement needs will be emphasized.

Specific grazing systems will be developed, incoordination with permittees, on allotments in theCaprock Wildlife Habitat Area (WHA) to meetDPC objectives.

The stocking rate of sheep in the Macho WHA inareas currently supporting pronghorn, and whichmeet transplant criteria, must not exceed an av-erage of 50 sheep per section per allotment overthe course of the grazing year.

Livestock grazing on the acquired Rio Bonitolands will be considered during the developmentof a management plan for the area, to determineif grazing should occur and under what condi-tions it would be allowed. Grazing preference willnot be established and grazing will be used as atool to accomplish the objectives of the manage-ment plan. On other acquired lands, establish-ing grazing preference will be considered on acase-by-case basis, depending on the purposefor which the lands were acquired and the man-agement objectives for those lands.

In the Mathers Research Natural Area, the areaclosed to livestock grazing will be increased from

about 91 acres to about 195 acres. Livestockgrazing in the RNA will be allowed east of theaccess road and south of the east-west fencethat roughly follows the south boundary of theRNA.

Management proposed will result in a reductionin the amount of livestock grazing authorized onthe public lands. Table 14 summarizes estimatedAUM (animal unit month) reductions that mayresult from certain management actions.

Livestock stocking rates will be adjusted undercertain circumstances to reduce or eliminate con-flicts with recreation use and development, to pro-mote visitor safety and health, and to reduce thecost of facility maintenance. Adjustments will in-clude excluding livestock from developed recre-ation facilities and within fenced exclosuresaround caves.

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guide-lines for Grazing Management

As a completely separate effort, but related todevelopment of the Roswell RMP, standards forrangeland health and guidelines for grazing man-agement are being developed for public lands inNew Mexico by the New Mexico Resource Advi-sory Council, in conjunction with the BLM. Thestandards and guidelines are being developedin accordance with the BLM’s grazing regulations,which became effective on August 21, 1995. Thetime frames for the completion of the RoswellRMP and the development of statewide standardsand guidelines coincide, with both efforts ex-pected to be completed in fiscal year 1997.

The standards and guidelines will be imple-mented in the Roswell Resource Area to developa more effective partnership between the ranch-ing industry and the BLM. Among the changesresulting from the new grazing regulations andthe standards and guidelines will be the oppor-tunity for management plans to be developed bygrazing permittees and lessees, or other involvedparties, in addition to the BLM. Also, rancherswill play a significantly greater role in gatheringbasic rangeland monitoring data on which localmanagement decisions would be based, and inevaluating the effectiveness of livestock grazing

32

management plans.

Because the development of the standards andguidelines is not complete, specifics relating torangeland health and livestock grazing manage-ment cannot be included in this land use plan priorto its completion. Once the standards and guide-lines are developed, their effect will be addressedin a statewide National Environmental Policy Act

document (environmental impact statement or en-vironmental assessment) prepared by the BLM.Any needed revisions of the Roswell RMP result-ing from development of the standards and guide-lines and the impact statement will be made at afuture date. The completed standards and guide-lines will become part of the Roswell RMP andwill be implemented in conjunction with the otherland use decisions in the RMP.

TABLE 14CHANGES IN GRAZING ANIMAL UNIT MONTHS


PROPOSED ACTION CHANGE IN AUMsSurface disturbance due to oil and gas activity -120

Garnsey Bison Kill Site1/ -24

Haystack Mountain OHV Area1/ 0

Mescalero Sand Dune North OHV Area1/ 0

Billy the Kid Recreation Site -12

Overflow Wetlands ACEC1/ -120 to -674

North Pecos River ACEC -756

Mescalero Sands ACEC -144

Mathers Research Natural Area -21

Roswell Cave Complex ACEC -216

Fort Stanton ACEC2/ 0

Feather Cave Complex2/ -72

Disposal of public lands3/ -34,260

Change in vegetation utilization levels 0

Total change in animal unit months if all -35,745 to -36,299

proposals are implemented

Note: Divide numbers (which are animal unit months) by 12 to determine the number of animal units affected.

1/ Proposal includes a range of acreage to be excluded.

2/ Not allocated under the Taylor Grazing Act.

3/ Livestock grazing is likely to continue. The land would transfer from public to private ownership. AUMs are reduced because landdisposals produce changes in licensed use on public lands.

Source: RMP team estimates, 1994

33

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

Goal: Manage resources to maintain or improvevegetation with the emphasis on watershedprotection and forage for wildlife.

General management objectives, the compositionof plant communities identified as a desired plantcommunity (DPC), and practices proposed for usein meeting the management objectives and DPCare described below. In all cases, an ecologicalsite must be capable of attaining the DPC throughnatural succession, management action, or both.The percentage-ranges of the various compo-nents shown in the following tables are guidelines.The accuracy of those ranges must be confirmedthrough use over a period of years and in a vari-ety of pastures. The objectives in site-specificmanagement plans will determine whether or notone or more components of the DPC are met.Successful management will concentrate onmeeting at least one, but not necessarily both, ofthe vegetative community objectives (percentcover or cover by percent composition). Seedingmixtures under DPC will emphasize the use ofnative species and avoid noxious weeds and ex-otic species. Refer to Appendix 11 in the DraftRoswell RMP/EIS for more information on plantcommunities and the development of the DPCprocess.

Watershed, wildlife and livestock managementobjectives for each community, except the MixedShrub Malpais Community, are to improve veg-etation composition and production in areas thatcurrently do not meet the vegetation condition ob-jectives, and to maintain vegetation condition inareas that do. The management objectives forthe Mixed Shrub Malpais Community are to main-tain the current vegetation composition and pro-duction levels.

The standard practices that could be employedto meet a DPC will be based on thresholds andvegetation condition objectives described belowfor each community type. The specific practicesto be used and the numbers of acres affected willbe determined during activity planning, based onthe results of resource monitoring. During activ-

ity planning, specific resource condition objec-tives will be developed for a distinct area (e.g.,an allotment) based on the planned use of thearea and the more general vegetation conditionobjectives developed in this land use plan.

The standard practices that will be employed tomeet management objectives in each commu-nity are:

• Utilization levels not exceeding 45 per-cent of annual plant production. Utilizationlevels will be determined prior to green-upand measured on key forage species.

• Projects such as fences, exclosures, wa-ter developments, erosion control structures,reseedings, or vegetative sales.

• Grazing treatments such as rest, changesin season of use, class of livestock, or stock-ing rates.

• Vegetation treatments, including, pre-scribed fire or prescribed natural fire,fuelwood sales, and biological, chemical ormechanical controls. Refer to Appendix 9 forchemical treatment practices.

• Treatment of saltcedar as conditions war-rant. Considerations in determining whetherto treat include location and density ofsaltcedar stands, available budget and staffto conduct treatment, and objectives of pro-posed treatment.

Constraints on treatments for each communityare:

• A project area will not be chemicallytreated until the chemical treatment of an ad-jacent project area has been in place at leastfive years.

• Native, deciduous tree species in all plantcommunities, such as hackberry, black wal-nut, New Mexico walnut, and desert willow,will be protected from vegetation treatmentsand surface disturbance.

34

Grassland Community

Refer to Table 15 for Grassland Community veg-etation condition objectives.

Vegetation treatments to influence DPC will beconsidered at the following threshold levels:

Mesquite 50 plants/acreCholla 100 plants/acreCatclaw 50 plants/acreCreosote 20% of the vegetative canopyLechuguilla 20% of the vegetative canopyTarbush 20% of the vegetative canopyBroom snakeweed 25% by weight of vegetative

productionPinon/juniper 50 trees/acre

TABLE 15VEGETATION MANAGEMENT -

GRASSLAND COMMUNITYROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Vegetative Community ObjectivesPercent VegetativeCover Cover By

PercentComposition

Grass/Forbs 15-52

Grasses 30-85

Forbs 10-15

Shrubs/Trees 3-12

Shrubs 1-10

Bare Ground 14-60

Small Rock/ 0-30

Large Rock

Litter 8-44

Note: An objective of vegetation composition management would be toinclude 10 genera of annual and perennial fall forbs preferred bypronghorn in pastures that support pronghorn or meet the ViabilityIndex for transplants. Fall forb diversity is, in part, dependent uponprecipitation, the size of the pasture, and stocking rates of domesticsheep.


Shinnery Oak-Dune Community

Refer to Table 16 for Shinnery Oak-Dune Com-munity vegetation condition objectives.

The SOD community type on about 195 of the242 acres in the Mathers Research Natural Areawill not be grazed by livestock. The entire Natu-ral Area will be used for wildlife population andhabitat studies. Those studies may entail veg-etative treatments and DPC may not be reached.Likewise, DPC may not be reached in theMescalero Sands North Dune OHV RecreationArea, which will be managed primarily for off-roadvehicle recreational activities, and in the proposedMescalero Sands ACEC, which will be managedaccording to the prescriptions for the ACEC.

Vegetation treatments to influence DPC in theshinnery oak-dune community will be consideredat the following threshold:

Mesquite 50 plants/acreShinnery Oak 40 percent of vegetative

cover by composition

Constraints on treatments in the shinnery oak-dune community are:

• Treatments may be conducted to achieveDPC objectives in areas that are not consid-ered suitable or occupied habitat for specialstatus species (e.g., the sand dune lizard).Suitable and occupied habitat will not bechemically treated unless the species is re-moved from state or federal listing, or an al-ternative treatment method is developed thatwould not impair habitat.

Mixed Shrub Malpais Community

Watershed, wildlife and livestock managementobjectives for the Mixed Shrub Malpais Commu-nity are to maintain the current vegetation com-position levels. This community is considered toencompass only the lava flow.

Refer to Table 17 for Mixed Shrub Malpais Com-munity vegetation condition objectives.

Constraints on the management of vegetation inthe Mixed Shrub Malpais Community are:

35

• No changes will be made in current live-stock management.

• No range improvement projects will beconstructed in the Malpais.


SHINNERY OAK-DUNE COMMUNITYROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Vegetative Community ObjectivesPercent Vegetative CoverCover By Percent

CompositionGrass/Forbs 16-40

Grasses 50-70

Forbs 10-15

Shrubs/Trees 3-17

Shrubs 25-40

Bare Ground 5-20

Small Rock/

Large Rock 0-1

Litter 25-70


Pinon-Juniper Grassland Community

Refer to Table 18 for Pinon-Juniper GrasslandCommunity vegetation condition objectives.

A mosaic of different vegetation structure andcomposition is needed to enhance wildlife habi-tat in this community type. Vegetation treatmentsto influence DPC in the pinon-juniper grasslandcommunity will be considered at the followingthreshold levels:

Mesquite 50 plants/acreCholla 100 plants/acreBroom snakeweed 25% by weight of vegetative

productionPinon/juniper 50 trees/acre or when junipers encroach on drainages

Constraints on treatments in the pinon-junipercommunity are:

• Removal of trees will be done to createedge and mosaic patterns.


MIXED SHRUB MALPAIS COMMUNITYROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Existing

Percent CoverGrass/Forbs15-25Shrubs/Trees 4-10Bare Ground 15-

25Small Rock

/Large Rock 35-45Litter 10-15


Mixed Desert Shrub Community

Refer to Table 19 for Mixed Desert Shrub Com-munity vegetation condition objectives.

Vegetation treatments to influence DPC in themixed desert shrub community will be consideredat the following threshold levels:

Mesquite 50 plants/acreCholla 100 plants/acreCatclaw 50 plants/acreCreosote 20% of the vegetative

canopyLechuguilla 20% of the vegetative canopyTarbush 20% of the vegetative canopyBroom snakeweed 25% by weight of vegetative

productionPinon/juniper 50 trees per acre

36


PINON-JUNIPER GRASSLAND COMMUNITYROSWELL RESOURCE AREA


CompositionGrass/Forbs 15-35

Grasses 30-40

Forbs 3-15

Shrubs/Trees 10-25

Shrubs 20-35

Trees 30-40

Bare Ground 12-24

Small Rock/

Large Rock 5-35

Litter 10-20


Drainages, Draws and Canyons Community

Refer to Table 20 for Drainages, Draws and Can-yons Community vegetation condition objectives.

Vegetation treatments to influence DPC in thedrainages, draws and canyons community will beconsidered at the following threshold levels:

Mesquite 50 plants/acreCholla 100 plants/acreCatclaw 50 plants/acreCreosote 20% of the vegetative canopyLechuguilla 20% of the vegetative canopyTarbush 20% of the vegetative canopyBroom snakeweed 25% by weight of vegetative

production

Constraints on treatments in the drainages, drawsand canyons community are:

• Browse species will be protected.

• Riparian-wetland vegetation will be pro-tected by methods such as developing ripar-ian pastures, establishing upland waters, andconducting saltcedar control.


MIXED DESERT SHRUB COMMUNITYROSWELL RESOURCE AREA


CompositionGrass/Forbs 11-28Grasses 55-75Forbs 10-20Shrubs/Trees 6-15Shrubs 15-20Trees 1-10Bare Ground 10-40Small Rock/Large Rock 15-35Litter 1-12


37


DRAINAGES, DRAWS, AND CANYONS COMMUNITY


Vegetative Community ObjectivesPercentCover

Grass/Forbs 15-45

Shrubs/Trees 3-20

Bare Ground 0-60

Small Rock/Large Rock 0-40

Litter 4-43


Riparian-Wetlands Community

There is no current management objective basedon Ecological Range Site Goals for the riparian-wetlands community. Riparian management ob-jectives require more specific plant communityprescriptions to meet these goals. Current Natu-ral Resource Conservation Service range sitedescriptions do not adequately describe poten-tial plant communities for riparian-wetland areas.Nevertheless, management would be directedtoward achieving proper functioning condition.

Rio Bonito Acquired Lands

Vegetation management on the acquired RioBonito lands will be developed under specificEcological Range Site Goals which will includeagricultural crops established on existing tillableacreage using water rights obtained with the acre-age. Crops, including apple orchards, and tamepasture species such as hay, winter wheat, fes-cues, and orchard grass, will be selected for useby wildlife. Native trees and shrubs may beplanted as nursery stock for transplanting on pub-lic lands elsewhere in the Rio Bonito Valley.

Livestock grazing on the acquired Rio Bonito

lands will be considered during the developmentof a management plan for the area, to determineif grazing should occur and under what condi-tions it would be allowed. Grazing preference willnot be established and grazing will be used as atool to accomplish the objectives of the manage-ment plan.

If livestock grazing is allowed, excess forage couldbe used for limited grazing in late winter or earlyspring. Livestock grazing will be managed on theRio Bonito acquired lands so that a minimum of55 percent of annual plant production will remainfor plant community maintenance and wildlife use.

PEST MANAGEMENT

Noxious Weeds

Treatment of weed species will be coordinatedand conducted with county governments. Treat-ments of aggressive non-native vegetation ornoxious weeds on public lands will be designedto prevent their spread and to control infestationsusing an integrated pest management approach,based on predicted economic, ecological, and so-ciological effects. Chemical, mechanical, and bio-logical methods of control will be considered. Thedesign of projects, application of treatments, andmonitoring of effects will be in accordance withthe BLM’s Environmental Impact Statement onVegetation Treatment on BLM Lands and theRecord of Decision for New Mexico. Refer toAppendix 9 for chemical treatment practices.

Insects

Treatment of insect infestations will be coordi-nated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, PlantProtection and Quarantine, pursuant to theMemorandum of Understanding between USDAand USDI for management of grasshoppers andMormon crickets. Integrated pest managementwill be employed to control infestations, basedon predicted economic, ecological and sociologi-cal effects. Chemical, mechanical, and biologi-cal methods of control will be considered.

38

Predator Control

The Master Memorandum of Understanding be-tween the BLM and the Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, Animal Damage Control(APHIS-ADC) will guide predator damage man-agement (PDM) (also known as animal damagecontrol-ADC) activities on public lands in the re-source area. The BLM will coordinate with APHIS-ADC to provide for the welfare and perpetuationof wildlife and to be responsive to the needs ofindividuals or groups who use the public lands.Constraints on animal damage control in the re-source area are described below.

Non-emergency ADC control activities on publiclands will be limited to grazing allotments inChaves and Lincoln counties. Emergency con-trol will be allowed on other allotments in the re-source area following confirmation of livestockloss by APHIS-ADC and when a request for con-trol is made to the BLM.

Predator control operations will be permittedwithin authorized control areas identified eachyear during annual reviews of work plans for PDM.Planned predator control will occur only on allot-ments where a permittee or lessee requests con-trol, where a loss has been reported or confirmedor there is a history of loss, and where APHIS-ADC has determined that a potential threat tovulnerable livestock is imminent. Control activi-ties will be directed only at the depredating ani-mal or local population, as appropriate. The fol-lowing control methods will be allowed within au-thorized control areas:

- traps;- snares;- M-44s;- calling;- shooting;- denning;- aerial hunting; and,- livestock protection collars.

In areas identified as swift fox habitat, which willbe identified in the work plans for PDM, M-44swill not be used for control of predators, unlessused as a tool of last resort in cases of confirmedactive depredation where coyotes are likely to bethe only animals taken. For purposes of this con-

straint, the area of concern is generally ChavesCounty, east of the Pecos River.

M-44s will not be used during hunting seasonsin quail and prairie chicken hunting areas desig-nated in work plans for PDM. For purposes ofthis requirement, quail and prairie chicken hunt-ing areas generally conform to Chaves Countyand an area in southeastern Lincoln County.

The use of control devices (e.g., M-44s, traps andsnares) will not be allowed in the following hu-man safety zones, unless required for protectionof human health or safety:

• Within one mile of any residence unlessthe occupant requests or approves the useof control devices;

• Within one mile of any community;

• Within 300 feet of any state of federalhighway;

• Within one mile of any developed recre-ation site;

• Within 500 feet of BLM livestock or wild-life exclosures, water sources (e.g., tanks,streams, rivers, springs, or wildlife water de-velopments) on public land;

• Within 300 feet of the Capitan and BigTank/Eastwell horseback riding trails at FortStanton; and,

• Within 500 feet of entrances to caves inthe Roswell Cave Complex ACEC or cavesdesignated as significant under the FederalCave Resources Protection Act.

Where control devices are used on public lands,APHIS-ADC will be required to post signs to pro-vide adequate warning of the presence of thosedevices. Signs will be installed at gates commonlyused as access points, and at the site of the con-trol device, if needed to ensure proper public no-tification.

The use of M-44s, when authorized (refer to re-quirements, above), will be conducted accordingto EPA restrictions on placement and use. Each

39

M-44 device will be inspected at least once aweek, weather and travel conditions permitting.Locations of M-44 devices and dates of installa-tion will be available at the APHIS-ADC Districtoffice. M-44s will be removed within 30-days fol-lowing the cessation of livestock losses in emer-gency control zones. Preventive control will beauthorized in planned control areas as providedin EPA use restriction #7.

The use of livestock protection collars will be au-thorized for use only during the lambing season(generally May through August) as a tool of lastresort. The use of collars will be conducted inaccordance with label and use restrictions.APHIS-ADC will provide monthly reports to theBLM documenting uses of collars.

All nontarget species trapped with control deviceswill be released provided they are capable of self-maintenance. In accordance with APHIS-ADCpolicy, all leg-hold traps would use pan tensiondevices that exclude small, nontarget species.

The BLM’s Authorized Officer will, when needed,identify areas where ADC activities on publiclands should be restricted or where modificationof permitted control areas should occur, whenmultiple use management or public health orsafety reasons dictate those actions.

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICALRESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Cultural Resources

Goal: Continue the protection of, and increasethe knowledge derived from, significantarcheological and historic properties known nowand those discovered in the future, whileproviding for livestock grazing, mineraldevelopment, and other uses.

Cultural inventory surveys will continue to be re-quired for federal actions involving surface dis-turbing activities except where criteria to exemptsurveys are met. These criteria are:

• Previous ground disturbance has modi-fied the surface greatly.

• Human activity within the last 50 years hascreated a new land surface.

• Existing Class 2 (sample survey) orequivalent inventory data are sufficient to in-dicate that the environmental situation did notsupport human occupation.

• Availability of Class 3 {intensive survey}information of the area has been fully docu-mented.

• Presence of a geomorphic situation thatdoes not enhance preservation.

• A large number of negative surveys inclose proximity to each other.

• Absence of criteria listed in “criteria forsurvey”.

Eligible and potentially eligible sites will continueto be protected from damage or archaeologicallytreated to mitigate damage. Buffer areas of 100feet or more will be established from the edgesof sites to protect cultural resources unless theBLM determines that circumstances justify a re-duced buffer area.

Approximately 20 percent of the recorded archeo-logical sites in the resource area would be ex-pected to be managed for conservation. Themanagement objective for conservation will beto preserve existing archeological values. Thiswill be achieved by protecting sites from damageby natural processes such as erosion and fromman-caused damage such as illegal artifact col-lecting and from legally authorized surface dis-turbing activities. The Paleoindian sites, such asthose in the Haystack Butte area would fall intothis category.

Approximately five percent of the recorded ar-cheological sites in the resource area would beexpected to be managed to emphasize publicvalues and interpretation. The management ob-jective for public values and interpretation will beto develop archeological properties for public use.This will be achieved by scientifically treating asite, such as by excavation and developing ex-hibits so that the cultural property is interpretedfor public recreation and education. The Garnsey

40

Bison Kill site near Bottomless Lakes and LowerStanton Ruin-Feather Cave near Fort Stanton aretwo sites that would lend themselves to interpre-tation.

Approximately 75 percent of the recorded archeo-logical sites would be expected to be managedfor information use. Management will emphasizethe use of cultural properties for the purpose ofgaining knowledge. This will be achieved by sci-entifically studying the property in whatever waysare appropriate in order to extract as much infor-mation as possible. Two sites which are currentlybeing studied are the Upper Bonito I and LowerStanton Ruin.

An area of 3,400 acres at Haystack Butte will benominated for a National Register ArcheologicalDistrict (Map 11). Management of the District willemphasize protection of the very high density ofwell preserved sites. A secondary emphasis willbe the study of selected sites to increase knowl-edge of the area. Both the outright acquisitionof, or conservation easements on, about 640acres of state land and 40 acres of private landwill be considered if the opportunity arose, andadded to the District, bringing the total acreageto 4,080 (see Table 12). Any acquired lands willbe managed according to the management pre-scriptions for this plan. In order to classify thecultural properties in an area, the sites will needto be studied. Once sites are selected for inter-pretation or for further study to increase knowl-edge, activity plans will be prepared and approvedbefore implementation. The following manage-ment actions will be employed in managementof the site: (See Tables 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22.)

• oil and gas: lease with no surface occu-pancy

• locatable minerals: withdraw from entry

• solid leasable minerals: closed to leasing

• mineral materials (saleables): closed todisposal

• rights-of-way: exclusion area for majorrights-of-way

• OHV designations: OHV use limited todesignated roads and trails

Approximately 3,000 acres of BLM-administeredland at Cocklebur Lakes will be nominated for aNational Register Archeological District (Map 11).Management of the District will emphasize pro-tection of the very high density of well-preservedsites for the primary purpose of future interpreta-tion. A secondary emphasis will be the study ofselected sites to increase knowledge of the area.The Cocklebur Lakes area will require someamount of study in order to be able to determinethe level of management required for the sites.The following management actions will be em-ployed in management of the site: (See Tables5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22.)

• oil and gas: lease with no surface occu-pancy


• solid leasable minerals: closed to leasing

• mineral materials (saleables): closed todisposal


• OHV designations: OHV use limited todesignated roads and trails

Approximately 360 acres of public lands at theGarnsey Bison Kill Site will be managed to pro-tect the bison kill site and associated archeologi-cal sites (see Map 12 in the Outdoor RecreationManagement section). One management goalwould be to allow the public to see an archeo-logical-paleontological site exposed in the sidesof the arroyo running through the site. Some ofthe site would be stabilized, protecting the archeo-logical and paleontological values. Another goalwould be to generate appreciation of archeologyand paleontology by developing a trail with inter-pretive signs and markers, and other on-site andoff-site interpretive techniques. Other develop-ment of the site could include site stabilization,exhibits, and a parking area. Both the outrightacquisition of, or conservation easements on,about 242 acres of private land surface and about320 acres of state land surface will be consid

41

SCALE

1/2" = 13.5 Miles BLM-Roswell District, 1994

MAP 11 ARCHAEOLOGICAL

DISTRICTS Roswell Resource Area

42

ered to enhance the management and develop-ment of the area (see Table 12). The total acre-age would then be about 880 acres. Any acquiredlands would be managed according to the man-agement prescriptions for this plan. The BLM willcontinue with its plans to interpret this site even ifno additional lands are acquired. The followingmanagement actions will be employed in man-agement of the site, for public surface (360 acres)and mineral estate (520 acres): (See Tables 5,7, 8, 9, 10, and 22.)

• oil and gas: open to leasing with “no sur-face occupancy”


• solid leasable minerals: close to leasing

• saleable minerals: close to disposal


• livestock grazing: 120 acres closed tograzing

• OHV designations: 120 acres closed toOHV use; OHV use limited to designatedroads and trails on 240 acres

Following a Class 3 inventory and some prelimi-nary research, eligible sites on the acquired RioBonito lands will be managed for information,public values or conservation, as appropriate. Themanagement goals would be to interpret somecultural sites for the public, research some of thesites for the information they contain and to con-serve those sites that meet the criteria for con-servation. If Tract 5 is acquired, an opportunityfor interpretation is the early Hispanic commu-nity of Las Chosas, which would require exten-sive excavation and reconstruction.

There has been considerable interest in trying toidentify the location of the alleged 1947 UFOcrash site(s). The most commonly discussed lo-cations are represented on maps in this docu-ment. Irrespective of location, if such an event isdetermined to have occurred on BLM-adminis-tered land, the BLM will interpret and protect thearea(s) by:

• excluding the lands from rights-of-way lo-cation;

• withdrawing the lands from mining claimlocation;

• closing the lands to solid mineral leas-ing;

• closing the lands to disposal of mineralmaterials;

• leasing oil and gas with no surface occu-pancy stipulations; and

• closing the lands to OHV use.

The site(s) will be retained in federal ownership.

Paleontological Resources

Goal: Locate, evaluate, and classify the paleon-tological resources on public lands to ensure thatthey are given full consideration in all aspects ofpublic land management.

Public lands will be classified at the field levelaccording to their potential for noteworthy occur-rences of fossils. Classification will use any avail-able sources of information, including data banks,maps, knowledge of local residents, and datafrom paleontologists. Classification will rank thepublic lands as follows:

• Condition 1: Areas that are known tocontain fossil localities. Consideration of pa-leontological resources will be necessary ifavailable information indicates that fossils arepresent in the area.

• Condition 2: Areas with exposures ofgeological units or settings that are likely toproduce fossils. The presence of geologicalunits from which fossils have been recoveredelsewhere will require an assessment ofthese same units if they occur in the area ofconsideration.

• Condition 3: Areas that are extremelyunlikely to produce fossils, based on their sur-face geology.

Paleontological resources will then be addressedin the BLM’s activity planning and environmen-tal analysis processes to ensure adequate pro-tection.

43

In areas classified as Condition 1 or Condition 2,where potential impacts exist from proposed sur-face disturbing activities, the following procedureswill be employed:

• A qualified paleontologist will conduct aliterature review and records survey to iden-tify areas where fossils are known to occur inthe general area of the proposed action.

• A qualified paleontologist will conduct afield survey whenever a literature review andrecords survey indicate that vertebrate orother noteworthy occurrences of fossils areor may be present.

• A report of findings will be prepared fol-lowing the completion of the field survey, lit-erature review and records survey.

In areas determined to have noteworthy occur-rences of fossils, mitigations of surface disturb-ing activities will be considered. A mitigation andmonitoring plan based on a report of findings willbe prepared recommending the types of mitiga-tion and intensity of monitoring needed. Mitiga-tion may include:

• avoiding fossils by redesigning or relocat-ing a proposed project

• complete or partial salvage of the fossil(s)

• obtaining representative samples of thefossils from the project area

Management of paleontological resources willinclude making them available for uses such asscientific collection and research, educational andinterpretive activities, and recreation.

The BLM will promote consistency among fed-eral agencies having paleontological resourcemanagement responsibilities, and facilitate theexchange of information between federal, state,and local governments and scientific organiza-tions concerned with the management, study, andprotection of these resources.

The BLM will continue to afford the protectionprovided under law to fossils of scientific interest

and work to increase the awareness of federalland managers and the public regarding paleon-tological resource management.

OUTDOOR RECREATION MANAGEMENT

Recreation Management

Goal: Ensure the continued availability ofoutdoor recreation opportunities and experiences.Protect the health and safety of visitors andnatural, cultural, and other resource values.Stimulate public enjoyment of public land andresolve user conflicts.

Permits for commercial hunting, outfitting, andguiding operations will be issued resource area-wide. Special Recreation Use Permits (SRUPs)will be issued for other organized and commer-cial activities in accordance with BLM guidelinesand policies. Pertinent sections of the RoswellDistrict Conditions of Approval (Appendix 2) willbe applied to approvals for SRUPs.

The rules of conduct listed in Appendix 10 will beapplied to all public lands in the Roswell ResourceArea.

The Valley of Fires Recreation Area will continueto be managed for intensive use with emphasison maintaining and upgrading the existing facili-ties. The planned development includes a visitorcenter, shower facilities, trail development, andcampground expansion.

The BLM will identify recreational and interpre-tive opportunities in the Roswell Resource Areafor future development and implementation inaccordance with national and state goals, poli-cies and guidelines. Developments could includefacilities such as trails for non-motorized use, dayuse and camping areas, overlooks and waysides.

The Mescalero Sands ACEC, Fort Stanton ACEC,Overflow Wetlands ACEC, Roswell Cave Com-plex ACEC, Mescalero Sands North Dune OHVArea, Haystack Mountain OHV Area, GarnseyBison Kill Site, Rio Bonito acquired lands, Billythe Kid Recreation Site and Valley of Fires Rec-reation Area will be designated SpecialRecreation Management Areas (refer to Map 12).

44

The public lands not designated Special Recre-ation Management Areas will be designated anExtensive Recreation Management Area(ERMA).

At the Valley of Fires Recreation Area, approxi-mately four miles of additional hiking trails will bedeveloped to provide access from the camp-ground through the lava flow to the Cooper Cabin.Other recreation facilities, trails and roads at theValley of Fires Recreation Area will be developedand maintained in accordance with the estab-lished plan for the area. About 337 acres of pri-vate land on the east side of the presently devel-oped area will be considered for acquisition inorder to provide space for future expansion of thedeveloped area.

Lands acquired along the Rio Bonito near Lin-coln (Tracts 1-4) will be managed for low inten-sity recreational use. All low-intensity recreationactivities, including hunting, will be consideredduring development of a site-specific manage-ment plan. Recreation activities that will be em-phasized are fishing, nature viewing and non-trailhiking. The development of two small day-useareas on Tracts 1 and 4 will be considered. De-velopment at these sites would include graveledaccess roads and parking areas. If Tract 5 is ac-quired, future intensive development will be con-sidered, including the possible development of afull-service campground of 25 to 50 sites. Live-stock grazing will be excluded from the Tract 5site.

The Billy the Kid Recreation Site (80 acres ofBLM-administered land) will be managed anddeveloped for a day-use area, with emphasis onproviding access to the Pecos River and fishing.Development could include trails, picnic sites,roads and interpretive displays. Livestock graz-ing will be excluded from the site.

The Garnsey Bison Kill Site will be managed asan outdoor archaeological and paleontologicalclassroom with emphasis on cultural and naturalresource protection. Development could includeexhibits, stabilization, self-guided interpretivetrails, interpretive stations, and a parking area.(Refer to the “Cultural and Paleontological Re-source Management” section for more discussionof this area.)

An 86-mile route along State Highway 246 fromRoswell to Capitan will be developed and desig-nated a Back Country Byway and a Lands Man-agement Highway. Additional byways or landsmanagement highways will be identified andevaluated for future designation and development.Future designations will be considered for roadsor trails having high scenic value, unique geo-logic formations, botanical or biological features,historical or archaeological features, water attrac-tions or other features with high public value.

The areas listed below and in Table 6 will beclosed to the leasing of oil and gas.

•Mathers Research Natural Area

The areas listed below and in Table 5 will be opento the leasing of oil and gas with “no surface oc-cupancy.”

•Border Hill NNL•Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area andentrance corridor•Haystack Mountain OHV Area•Valley of Fires Recreation Area•Billy the Kid Recreation Site

The areas listed below and in Table 7 will be pro-posed for withdrawal from entry or appropriationunder the public land laws, including the generalmining laws.

•Little Black Peak and Carrizozo LavaFlow WSAs•Border Hill NNL•Haystack Mountain OHV Area(staging area)•Valley of Fires Recreation Area•Billy the Kid Recreation Site

The areas listed below and in Table 8 willbe closed to the leasing of solid minerals.

•Little Black Peak and Carrizozo LavaFlow WSAs•Border Hill NNL•Valley of Fires Recreation Area•Haystack Mountain OHV Area•Mescalero Sands North Dune OHVarea•Billy the Kid Recreation Site

45

Map 12

RRA: SRMAs

Special Recreation Management Areas ( SRMAs)

1 - Little Black Peak WSA Not Applicable 15 - Bat Hole Cave* la - Millrace Cave* X 15a- Comanche Hill

2 - Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA Not Applicable 16 - cocklebur Lakes Arch. District 2a - Crockett Cave* X 17 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area 2b - Valley of Fires Recreation Area X 18 - Haystack Butte Arch. District

3 - Fort Stanton ACEC X 19 - North Pecos River ACEC 4 - Rio Bonito Acquired Lands X 20 - Billy the Kid Recreation Area 5 - Zia Christine Cave* X 21 - Mescalero Sands ACEC 6 - Alleged UFO Crash Sites Not Applicable 22 - Mescalero Sands North Dune 7 - Border Hill NNL Not Applicable OHV Area 8 - Torgac cave* X 23 - Mathers RNA 9 - Angora-Corn Cave* X 24 - Caprock WHA

10 - Martin-Antelope Gyp Cave* X 11 - Crystal Caverns-Devil's Well* X lliJ - Core Prairie Chicken Habitat 12 - Coachwhip cave* X 13 - OVerflow Wetlands ACEC X 14 - Garnsey Bison Kill Site X



NORTH

SCALE 1/2" 7.1 Miles


MAP 12



X X


Not Applicable

SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT .AREAS


46

The areas listed below and in Table 9 will beclosed to the disposal of mineral materials (sale-able minerals).

•Little Black Peak and Carrizozo Lava FlowWSAs•Border Hill NNL•Haystack Mountain OHV Area•Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV area•Mathers Research Natural Area•Billy the Kid Recreation Site•Valley of Fires Recreation Area

The areas listed below and in Table 10 will beexcluded from major rights-of-way.

•Rio Bonito acquired lands•Mathers Research Natural Area•Valley of Fires Recreation Area•U.S. Highway 380 corridor through theCarrizozo Lava Flow (applies to overheadpower and telephone lines)•Little Black Peak and Carrizozo Lava FlowWSAs•Border Hill NNL

The areas listed below and in Table 11 will beavoided when locating major rights-of-way.

•Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area(applies to overhead power and telephonelines)

•Haystack Mountain OHV Area (applies tooverhead power and telephone lines)

Interpretation

The primary objective in the Roswell ResourceArea’s interpretive program would be to assistvisitors in developing a keen awareness, appre-ciation and understanding of the areas they visit.The second objective would be to encouragethoughtful use of the natural resources availablein the resource area to reduce impacts on natu-ral resources. The final objective would be to pro-mote a public understanding of BLM goals andobjectives.

The main emphasis for interpretation will beplaced on the Valley of Fires Recreation Area,

Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area, FortStanton and the caves in the resource area (seeTable 21). Emphasis will also be placed onoff-site interpretive programs.

Tools used to accomplish these objectives mayinclude: interpretive trails, exhibits, literature, way-sides, environmental education, special popula-tions programs, visitor and information stations,auto tours, campfire talks and guided walks, andthe use of volunteers as docents.

Cave and Karst Resource Management

Goal: To protect cave values while allowing forlimited recreational, commercial and educationaluse. Research and scientific use would havepriority over other uses.

Commercially-guided cave trips will continue tobe allowed in Roswell Resource Area caves on acase-by-case basis. No more than 20 percent oftotal cave use in the resource area will be allot-ted to commercial use.

Big-Eared Cave, Malpais Madness, Corn SinkHole, and Tres Ninos caves will be closed to visi-tor use annually from November 1 to April 15 toprotect significant bat hibernacula. Seasons ofuse and visitor use restrictions will be applied toany other caves or portions of caves found to havesignificant bat hibernacula or nurseries.

Depositing human waste will not be allowed inany of the resource area’s caves. Each cave userwill be responsible for disposing of human wastein an approved receptacle. Smoking and spittingof chewing tobacco will be prohibited in all sig-nificant caves in the resource area.

Visitor use limits, seasons of use, and a permitsystem will be established for all caves where theentrance is on public land and cave resourcesare being affected by visitor use.

Surface disturbance will not be allowed within upto 200 meters of known cave entrances, passagesor aspects of significant caves, or significant karstfeatures. Refer to Appendix 1 for more informa-tion on this requirement.

47

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV)Management

Goal: Manage OHV use to provideadequate access and reduce adverseimpacts on sensitive resource values.Provide quality recreational opportunitiesfor OHV users in conjunction withdemand and safety concerns.

Inventories, public review, and transportationplanning will be conducted to support road-by-road designations for roads and trails suitable foroff-highway vehicle use. Designations are listedin Tables 22 and 23 and shown on Map 13. Allroads and trails not otherwise categorized will bedesignated limited to designated roads and trailsfor off-highway vehicle use. Pending completionof formal designations, all roads and trails will bemanaged as limited to existing roads and trailsfor off-highway vehicle use.

Until implementation plans are prepared for pub-lic lands where OHV use is limited or closed,waivers of restrictions will be considered on a

case-by-case basis for activities such as mainte-nance of permitted range improvements, geo-physical exploration, pipeline construction ormaintenance, access for individuals with physi-cal disabilities, or oil and gas operations. Anywaiver must be considered and approved by theAuthorized Officer in advance of the proposeduse. Plans for implementing OHV use restrictions(activity plans) will be developed with public par-ticipation. The plans will describe how OHV userestrictions would be applied, will clarify permit-ted, licensed, emergency and official use activi-ties, and will describe the conditions under whichwaivers of OHV use restrictions would be consid-ered.

The closed-to-off-highway-vehicle-use designa-tion on the Comanche Hill area “A” (660 acres)and area “C” (240 acres) will be retained, to helpprotect the scenic views from U.S. Highway 380,and to prevent waterfowl disturbance at the BitterLake National Wildlife Refuge.

TABLE 21RESOURCE INTERPRETATION OPPORTUNITIES


Special Management Area Proposed Interpretive ThemesBilly the Kid Recreation Site Wise Use of Public Lands

Border Hill National Natural Landmark The Making of a Mountain

Dunahoo Hills OHV Area Multiple Use Management of Public Lands

Fort Stanton Historic and Prehistoric Settlements

Garnsey Bison Kill Site Plains Indians Subsistence: Prairie, River and Mountain

Haystack Mountain OHV Area Sandstone and All-Terrain Vehicles

Mathers RNA Benefits of the Shinnery Oak Community

Mescalero Sands Drifting Sands, Endemic Plants and Wildlife

Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area Tread Lightly and Safely

Non-specific Use Areas Land Use Ethics and Minimum Impact Use

Rio Bonito Life in the Bonito Valley

Roswell Caves Cave Ecosystems and Hazards

Valley of Fires Recreation Area Fire, Thunder and Smoke in the Tularosa Basin

48

TABLE 22OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATIONS


Designation Areas Acres

CLOSED Alleged UFO Crash Sites1/ 3,680Border Hill NNL 150Carrizozo Lava Flow and Little Black Peak WSAs 25,312Comanche Hill “A” Area 660omanche Hill “B” Area 883Comanche Hill “C” Area 240Feather Cave Archeological Complex 330Fort Stanton ACEC: Rio Bonito, and Salado Creek Area 250Fort Stanton ACEC: Trails (105 miles) 51Garnsey Bison Kill Site 120Mathers RNA 242Mescalero Sands ACEC 2,478Overflow Wetlands ACEC 1,040Playa and Alkali Lakes 2,000Roswell Cave Complex ACEC2/ 890Springs and Seeps 240Valley of Fires Recreation Area 400

Total Closed 38,966LIMITED TO Billy the Kid Recreation Site 80DESIGNATED Cocklebur Lakes Archeological District 3,000ROADS OR Dunahoo Hills (ATVs less than 50 in.) 640TRAILS Fort Stanton ACEC 23,999

Garnsey Bison Kill Site 240Haystack Butte Archeological District 3,400Haystack Mountain OHV Area (ATVs less than 50 in.) 3,500Mescalero Sands ACEC 5,410Overflow Wetlands ACEC 2,100North Pecos River ACEC 3,360Pecos River Floodplain 19,200Remainder of Resource Area 1,372,392Rio Bonito Acquired Lands 1,100Roswell Cave Complex ACEC 11,394Valley of Fires Recreation Area 63

Total Limited 1,449,878OPEN Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area 1,546Total Open 1,546

1/ Two alleged sites. 2/ Includes an additional 480 acres that fall within Wilderness Study Area OHV closures that are not reflected inthe Cave ACEC closures summary.


49

Map 13

RRA: OHV Management Designations

OHV Designations

1 - Little Black Peak WSA c 1a - Millrace Cave• C/L

2 - Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA c 2a - Crockett Cave* C/L 2b - Valley of Fires Rec. Area C/L

3 - Fort Stanton ACEC C/L 4 - Rio Bonito Acquired Lands L 5 - Zia Christine Cave• C/L 6 - Alleged UFO Crash Sites c 7 - Border Hill NNL c 8 - Torgac Cave• C/L 9 - Angora-Corn Cave• C/L

10 - Martin-Antelope Gyp cave* C/L 11 - Crystal Caverns/

Devil's Well Caves• C/L

• Part of the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC

NOTE - Reader must refer to the tables and narrative to determine the affected acreage within each area.

~ NORTH



.s .a

UNDCIUI

12 - coachwhip cave* C/L 13 - Overflow Wetlands ACEC C/L 14 - Garnsey Bison Kill Site C/L 15 - Bat Hole Cave• c 15a- Comanche Hill c 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24

- c - L - 0

- Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District L - Haystack Mountain OHV Area L - Haystack Butte Arch. District L - North Pecos River ACEC L - Billy the Kid Recreation Area L - Mescalero Sands ACEC C/L - Mescalero Sands North Dune

OHV Area 0 - Mathers RNA c - Dunahoo Hills L

Closed to OHV use Limited OHV use Open to intensive OHV use

ex..-

MAP 13 C>HV DESIGNATIONS


.. T.lll

12N

nN

ns

1ZS

m

'IS

50

TABLE 23ROSWELL CAVE COMPLEX ACEC

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE DESIGNATIONS 1/


Cave Acres Acres TotalSystem Closed Limited Acres

Angora-Corn 150 4,650 4,800

Bat Hole 40 40

Coachwhip 40 574 614

Crockett 20 620 640

Crystal Caverns-

Devil’s Well 50 6,350 6,400

Martin-Antelope Gyp 50 2,350 2,400

Millrace 4802/ 160 640

Torgac 40 600 640

Zia Christine 20 620 640

Totals 890 15,924 16,814

1/ There are no public lands in the ACEC designated as opento OHV use.

2/ Approximately 480 acres of the Millrace Cave System arewithin the Little Black Peak WSA, which is closed to OHVuse.


The Haystack Mountain and Mescalero SandsNorth Dune OHV areas will continue to be man-aged for intensive OHV use, with emphasis onproviding a high quality, safe play area.

The Mathers RNA (242 acres) will be closed toOHV use, except for two existing roads, whichwill be classified as limited to designated roadsor trails.

Public lands within the present boundaries of theCarrizozo Lava Flow and Little Black Peak WSAs(25,321 acres) will be designated closed to off-highway vehicle use to protect outstanding semi-primitive values. Any state or private lands ac-quired within the present boundaries of the WSA’swill be designated closed to OHV use. Publicland and acquired state or private lands adjacentto the WSAs will be designated limited to desig-nated roads and trails for OHV use to provideaccess and limit impacts to fragile soils and veg-etation.

The Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area willbe enlarged to approximately 1,553 acres, andwill be designated open and managed for inten-sive OHV use, with emphasis on providing a qual-ity play area for OHV’s. Approximately 410 acresof private land will be considered for acquisition.An area of about 400 acres south of U.S. High-way 380 between the highway and the OHV areawill be used as an entrance corridor to the area.This area will be open to oil and gas leasing with“no surface occupancy.” Upgrades and develop-ment could include interpretive and safety displayswith emphasis on the National Tread Lightly Pro-gram, sun shelters, rest rooms and potable wa-ter, and boundary signing. Livestock will befenced-out from about 20 acres around existingand planned developments.

The Haystack Mountain OHV Area will be en-larged from from its present 3,500 acres to ap-proximately 9,600 acres by acquiring 2,360 acresof state lands and 3,440 acres of private lands.Prior to the enlargement of the area, an ease-ment about 50 feet by 100 yards in size will beacquired through two parcels of state land to pro-vide access to the northern portion of the OHVarea. The lands acquired for the OHV area willbe managed according to the management pre-scription of the current Haystack Mountain OHVArea.

The Haystack Mountain OHV Area will be man-aged as an OHV Intensive Use Area and desig-nated limited to designated roads and trails forall-terrain vehicles less than 50 inches in width.Non-motorized use of the Haystack MountainOHV Area will be allowed. Facilities would beconsidered for development, such as rest rooms,sun shelters, trails, interpretive displays and pic-nic sites. Boundary signs will be installed.

Approximately 400 acres in the Valley of FiresRecreation Area will be designated closed to pro-tect the viewshed from the existing campgroundand nature trail. The remainder of the area, 63acres in the developed area, will be designatedlimited to designated roads and trails for off-high-way vehicle use for maintenance needs and fu-ture campground development.

51

The Rio Bonito acquired lands (Tracts 1-4) willbe designated limited to designated roads andtrails for OHV use to protect riparian values. Tract5, if acquired, also would be designated limitedto designated roads and trails.

The 150-acre Border Hills National Natural Land-mark will be designated closed to off-highwayvehicle use to protect the integrity of the geologicstructure.

Approximately 120 acres of the 360 federal acresat the Garnsey Bison Kill site (the core area) willbe designated closed to off-highway vehicle useto protect the archaeological and paleontologi-cal sites. The remaining 240 federal acres andany acquired lands will be designated limited todesignated roads and trails to protect the water-shed above the bison kill site. (Refer to the “Cul-tural and Paleontological Resource Management”section for more discussion of this area.)

Approximately 3,000 acres in the proposed Cock-lebur Lakes National Register Archeological Dis-trict and about 3,400 acres in the proposed Hay-stack Butte National Register Archeological Dis-trict will be designated limited to designated roadsand trails for off-highway vehicle use.

Following inventory, if it is deemed necessary toprotect a significant cave from OHV impacts, acave exclosure will be constructed and the areawithin the enclosure will be designated closed tooff-highway vehicle use.

A 640-acre OHV area in the Dunahoo Hills north-east of Roswell would be established, if demandwarrants, and be designated limited to all-terrainvehicle use.

The 80-acre Billy the Kid Recreation Site wouldbe designated limited to designated roads andtrails for OHV use, to protect recreational values.

Approximately 19,200 acres of public lands alongboth sides of the Pecos River will be designatedlimited to designated roads and trails for OHVsto protect the floodplain, riparian zone and wet-lands.

Approximately 2,000 acres encompassing 56 pla-yas and alkali lakes, and the area within 200

meters of the playas and alkali lakes will be des-ignated closed to off-highway vehicle use.

Approximately 640 acres encompassing the areawithin 200 meters of the source of about 20springs or seeps, or within downstream riparianareas created by flows from the source or result-ing from riparian area management, will be des-ignated closed to off-highway vehicle use.

The Comanche Hills “B” Area (approximately 883acres) will be designated closed to OHV use toprotect scenic views from U.S. Highway 380 andto reduce the disturbance of waterfowl at the Bit-ter Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

Wilderness Management

Goal: Manage the Wilderness Study Areas(WSAs) in a manner that leaves the wildernesscharacteristics such as naturalness, outstandingopportunities for solitude and primitive orunconfined types of recreation unimpaired forfuture use and enjoyment.

The two Wilderness Study Areas, which total25,312 acres, will continue to be managed un-der the Interim Management Policy and Guide-lines for Land Under Wilderness Review until theareas are added to the National Wilderness Pres-ervation System or removed from further wilder-ness consideration. If designated as wilderness,the areas will be managed under the WildernessManagement Policy.

As opportunities arise, the BLM will pursue theacquisition of about 10,000 acres of state andprivate lands in and adjacent to the WSAs, toenhance manageability and to provide unim-paired access.

If not designated wilderness, nearly the entireLittle Black Peak and Carrizozo Lava Flow areaswill be closed to oil and gas leasing (refer to theFluid Mineral Management section in this planfor more information). Those areas also will bemanaged for roadless recreational opportunities.

If Congress does not designate the WSAs as wil-derness, a recommendation will be made to Con-gress that the Little Black Peak and the CarrizozoLava Flow areas (not necessarily the WSAs) bedesignated a National Conservation Area.

52

Trailhead parking areas adjacent to the WSAs anda limited, primitive trail system about two miles inlength will be developed to the Little Black Peakcinder cone and to the Lower Windmill area inthe southeast corner of Little Black Peak WSA.The development of a trail into or across the lavaflow from the Valley of Fires Campground will beconsidered, as well. In each case, legal accesswill be acquired prior to development of a trailsystem. Development of these trails will complywith the nonimpairment criteria of the “InterimManagement Policy and Guidelines for LandsUnder Wilderness Review” and the “WildernessManagement Policy.”

Wild and Scenic Rivers Management

There are no stream or river segments in the re-source area recommended for nomination for in-clusion in the National Wild and Scenic RiverSystem (refer to Appendix 2 in the Draft RoswellRMP/EIS).

Visual Resource Management

Goal: Manage public lands to protect andmaintain the quality of the scenic (visual) valuesof these lands, while allowing for livestockgrazing, mineral development and production,and other uses.

Visual resources generally will be managed tomeet the Visual Resource Management (VRM)classes. All proposed management activities willbe evaluated with regard to visual resource man-agement and those projects that are compatiblewith the character of the natural landscape willbe encouraged. No management actions areproposed that would improve or degrade visualquality to the extent that a change in any VRMclass will result. Existing VRM classes are dis-cussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft Roswell RMP/EIS and in the Glossary. The management ofvisual quality in special resource managementareas is summarized in Table 24.

Painting of oil field equipment and structures, andother surface facilities or equipment approved bythe BLM will be conducted according to the re-quirements of Notice to Lessees (NTL) 87-1, NewMexico.

Recreation Opportunity Management

Goal: Manage public lands to protect andmaintain recreation opportunity, while allowingfor livestock grazing, mineral development andproduction and other uses.

Recreation opportunity will be managed so thatopportunities categorized by the Recreation Op-portunity Spectrum (ROS) would be maintained.No management actions are proposed that wouldimprove or degrade recreation opportunity to theextent that a change in any ROS category wouldresult. Existing ROS classes are discussed inChapter 3 of the Draft Roswell RMP/EIS (seeTable 99) and in the Glossary. The managementof recreation opportunity in special resource man-agement areas is summarized in Table 24.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

During periods of drought or other emergencies,adjustments in livestock numbers will be madeto guard against damage to vegetation and soilresources.

Where soils and nontarget vegetation are dis-turbed, reclamation measures will be taken.These measures could include returning the landto as near its natural form as possible and re-seeding with mixtures of grasses and forbs toprevent erosion.

If any new roads or trails are proposed, they willbe constructed only if existing roads and trailscannot be used, and then only after a site-spe-cific environmental assessment has been pre-pared.

Soil Management

Goal: Provide benefits and prevent damage toother resources by managing soil resources.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be usedto minimize sedimentation as a cause of nonpointsource pollution in surface waters. The

53

TABLE 24SUMMARY OF VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM ACREAGESIN SPECIAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREAS


Special Resource Management Area VRM 1/ ROS1/ Acres inClass Class Class

Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV II & I R 1,500

Mescalero Sands ACEC I RN-R 7,886

Mescalero Sands ONA I RN-R N/A

Mescalero Sands Recreation Complex II & IV RN-R N/A

Mathers RNA I RN-R 241

Fort Stanton ACEC II & III RN-R 24,630

Overflow Wetlands ACEC II RN-R 2,987

Haystack Mountain OHV III RN-R 3,500

Valley of Fires Recreation Area I & III SPN-R 1,0742/

Little Black Peak WSA I RN-R 15,0722/

Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA I SPN-RN-R 20,2402/

Billy the Kid Recreation Site IV N/A 80

Rio Bonito III RN 2,000

North Pecos River ACEC IV RN-R 3,3603/

Garnsey Bison Kill Site I R 360

Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District IV RN-R 3,000

Haystack Butte Arch. District III RN-R 3,400

Roswell Cave Complex ACEC

Angora-Corn IV RN-R 4,800

Bat Hole II R 40

Coachwhip III R 614

Crockett I R 640

Crystal I & IV R 2,280

Martin IV RN-R 2,080

Millrace I SPN-R 480

Torgac IV R 480

Zia IV R-RN 480

Border Hill NNL III R 150

Dunahoo Hills III R-RN 640

1/ Refer to Glossary for definitions of VRM and ROS management classes.

2/ BLM, private and state surface ownerships 3/ BLM and private surface ownershipsVRM managment will not be applied to state and private lands unless the lands are acquired by BLM


54

BMPs, based on standard operating procedures,oil and gas lease stipulations or BLM policy, willbe specified in activity plans for actions that makesoils more susceptible to erosion, or which im-pair soil productivity. Full consideration will begiven to environmental benefits and economiccosts of the BMPs. Activities requiring implemen-tation of BMPs will include, but would not be lim-ited to:

• soil disturbing activities that result in soilloss due to accelerated wind or water ero-sion;

• activities that reduce vegetative cover,thus exposing the soil to erosion processes,and reducing the amount of soil organic mat-ter and soil productivity;

• activities that tend to concentrate surfacerunoff or steepen hydraulic gradients, thus in-creasing soil erosion by flowing water;

• activities that result in sediment loadingdirectly to streams;

• activities that damage soil structure bycompaction or other means; and

• activities that degrade the physical, chemi-cal, or biological properties of the soil, suchas high-intensity burns, contamination by toxicsubstances, or other means.

Surface disturbance will not be allowed on slopesover 20 percent or on fragile soils. The slope re-striction will not apply to livestock grazing. Referto Appendix 1 for more discussion of this require-ment.

Surface Water Management: Quantity

Goal: Increase water availability by enhancingannual water yields, instream flows, anddischarge from springs, while also reducingresource damage by floods and acceleratederosion.

Strategic watershed management plans will bedeveloped and implemented for watersheds thatare susceptible to severe long-term soil losses orgully erosion, and which have a high potential to

respond to treatment.

Plans will be developed for the following water-sheds susceptible to severe long-term soil loss(i.e. mean annual soil loss over the delineatedarea is estimated to be 1.0 ac-ft/mi2/yr or more),shown on Map 41, in Chapter 3 of the DraftRoswell RMP/EIS:

•Rio Bonito including Salado Creek;

•Pecos River (from confluence of Yeso Creekto Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge); and,

•the closed drainage area to Nakee IsheeLakes.

Plans also will be developed for the followingwatersheds susceptible to severe gully erosion,shown on Map 41, in Chapter 3 of the DraftRoswell RMP/EIS:

•Rio Bonito including Salado Creek;•Arroyo del Macho;•Gallo Arroyo;•Feliz River.

As part of the watershed management plans pre-pared for these six watersheds, site-specific pre-scriptions will be written which could include, butnot be limited to, the following practices: (1) me-chanical, chemical, or prescribed fire vegetationtreatments; (2) plantings of native riparian plantspecies and seeding of herbaceous ground cover;(3) livestock grazing management by controllinglivestock numbers and season of use, and by pro-viding alternative water and mineral sources, af-ter consultation, cooperation, and coordinationwith the permittee or lessee and other interestedparties; (4) construction of erosion, sediment andflood control structures; (5) use of other methodsdetermined most suitable for site-specific condi-tions; (6) implementation of a monitoring program,including a feedback loop which will guide man-agement based on monitoring information.

After consultation, cooperation, and coordinationwith the permittee or lessee and other interestedparties, springs and seeps, playas, and sinkholelakes on public lands will be developed to improvewetland and riparian habitat, and to increasewater availability. Water sources will be priori-

55

tized for development based on the following cri-teria:

• Presence of threatened or endangeredspecies;

• Potential habitat for threatened or endan-gered species;

• Presence of perennial water or ephem-eral water for extended periods;

• Presence of native riparian vegetation;

• Significant ground-water recharge areas;

• Limited alternative water sources in thearea for wildlife and livestock;

• Federal ownership of both surface andsubsurface estates.

Water source developments could include, but arenot limited to:

• Protective exclosures;

• Native riparian plantings;

• Construction of supplemental waterpipelines;

• Control of undesirable vegetation; and

• Off-site livestock waters.

Surface Water Management: Quality

Goal: Maintain or improve the quality of surfacewaters to support all designated uses listed bythe New Mexico Water Quality ControlCommission. Water quality would be based onthe general and specific stream standardsoutlined by the WQCC.

Further degradation of water quality will be pre-vented whenever practicable to meet present orpossible future demands, such as domestic ormunicipal water supplies, irrigation, livestock, wild-life, recreation, aquatic and riparian habitat, andother uses. Exceptions will be possible whenwater quality standards more stringent than state

and federal standards would result in increasedeconomic costs.

Best Management Practices will be developed inactivity plans for actions that degrade surfacewater quality through nonpoint source pollution.The primary emphasis of BMPs will be on pre-serving water quality. Surface water quality pa-rameters that would be addressed in BMPs in-clude, but are not limited to: water temperature,turbidity, sediment transport and yield, chemicalloading, and nutrient loading.

Due to “checkerboard” ownership in watersheds,management on BLM-administered lands alonemay not be adequate to support designatedstream uses. Where appropriate, cooperativeagreements, MOUs, or other interagency effortscould be made to manage entire watersheds tomaintain or improve water quality.

Groundwater Management

Goal: Maintain or improve groundwater quality tomeet applicable state and federal standards.

Further degradation of groundwater quality willbe prevented whenever practicable, even whenWQCC standards allow for further degradation.Exceptions will be considered for areas specifi-cally exempted by state or federal authority orwhen water quality standards more stringent thanstate and federal standards would result in in-creased economic costs.

Best Management Practices will be developed ona case-by-case basis for actions that degradegroundwater quality through nonpoint sourcepollution, for groundwater with 10,000 mg/l totaldissolved solids (TDS) or less. The primary em-phasis of BMPs will be on preserving water qual-ity. Groundwater quality parameters that wouldbe addressed in BMPs include, but are not lim-ited to: TDS, pH, volatile organic compounds, andheavy metals.

For any site proposed for pesticide treatment, thepotential for groundwater contamination will beevaluated with the EPA rating system, DRASTIC(Aller et al. 1985). If the site proposed for treat-ment has a DRASTIC index greater than 100, ithas a moderate to high potential for groundwatercontamination, and will require a more detailed

56

analysis prior to a decision being made on theproposed treatment. Factors that will be studiedfurther include: pesticide solubility, mobility, spe-ciation, and degradation, and highly localizedrecharge areas.

Water Rights Management

Goal: Protect existing public land water supplies,which include federal reserved water rights andstate appropriative water rights. Comply withstate water law to acquire and perfect waterrights needed to carry out multiple-usemanagement.

Actions proposed by the BLM will be evaluatedfor potential effects on water resources. The NewMexico State Engineer Office (SEO) will be con-sulted to ensure that BLM water rights are main-tained, and that other users’ water rights are notadversely affected.

Water use proposals filed with the SEO by enti-ties other than the BLM that could affect waterrights and uses on public lands will be evaluatedfor their impact on BLM water resources. Actionsthat will impair the quality of public land resourceswould be protested through procedures specifiedby the SEO.

The acquisition or protection of water rights willbe prioritized according to the following list (indescending order of importance):

1. Streams or rivers with special designation byCongress.2. Other streams or rivers.3. Springs.4. Wells.5. Natural water holes, playas, and sinkholes.6. Reservoirs greater than 10 ac-ft capacity.7. Reservoirs less than 10 ac-ft capacity.

Water rights held by the BLM will be maintainedprimarily through:

• Beneficial use, and maintenance ofmanmade diversions, where appropriate. TheSEO will be notified of all water uses and rel-evant public land authorities. Proposals thatrequire the use of BLM-held water would in-

clude specific provisions for meeting theserequirements, prior to approval by the BLMAuthorized Officer.

• Other opportunities, such as MOUs, wa-ter marketing, leasing, or other coordinatedefforts, according to existing law.

AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The management of public lands will emphasizethe maintenance of the Class II air quality in theresource area. Mitigations will be developed ona case-by-case basis to reduce or eliminate theeffects of BLM-approved surface disturbing ac-tivities on air quality. Likewise, BLM-initiated ac-tivities, such as prescribed fires, will be designedto have minimal effect on air quality and to retainthe Class II air quality standard.

WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT

Special Status Species Habitat Management

Goal: Provide protection and recovery for allfederal and state-listed species. Manageoccupied and potentially suitable habitat forfederal and state-listed species on public land tomaintain or enhance populations. Managehabitat for federal candidate species to avoiddegrading habitat and further listing by eitherstate or federal governments while allowing formineral development and production, livestockgrazing, and other uses compatible with specialstatus species habitat management.

Refer to Appendix 11 for listing of Special StatusSpecies occurring or potentially occurring in theRoswell Resource Area.

The shortgrass aspect, which corresponds to theGrasslands community type, will be maintainedfor special status species which require this habi-tat type, including the mountain plover and Baird’ssparrow. Control of mesquite, cholla, snakeweed,creosote will be employed as a means of main-taining the habitat.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plans willbe implemented, including the reintroduction ofnative special status species in suitable areas on

57

public land in coordination and cooperation withlocal governments. Current plans cover theAmerican peregrine falcon, SW bald eagle, Pecosgambusia, Kuenzler hedgehog cactus, Pecosbluntnose shiner, interior least tern and black-footed ferret.

Prairie dog towns support several special statusspecies, including the Arizona black-tailed prai-rie dog, western burrowing owl, mountain plover,and ferruginous hawk. The towns provide poten-tial habitat for black-footed ferrets. Prairie dogtowns will be protected from major surface dis-turbing activities, such as rights-of-way, and roador facility construction. Surface disturbance willnot be allowed within prairie dog towns (refer toAppendix 1). Existing populations of prairie dogswill be maintained by not allowing control mea-sures to be conducted in prairie dog towns byAPHIS-ADC or grazing allottees. Maintenanceof existing developments will be allowed on acase-by-case basis.

The construction of fence exclosures or barrierswill be considered in crucial or critical habitat forfederal threatened and endangered, federal can-didate, or state-listed wildlife and plant speciesto protect all or portions of occupied habitat, spe-cific populations, or to provide for scientific re-search on a species and its habitat. The intent ofusing fences in this manner is to protect smallareas, as opposed to fencing-out large areas ofpublic lands. It is expected that exclosures orbarriers, if used, will be small in size and associ-ated with specific sites.

The federal mineral estate along the CanadianRiver in Quay County (totalling about 4,900acres), will be managed to support protection ofhabitat for the Arkansas River shiner. Manage-ment will include the application of the surfaceuse and occupancy requirements (Appendix 1),closure to the leasing of solid minerals, possibleclosure to the disposal of mineral materials, andrestrictions on the exploration for and develop-ment of locatable minerals. Use restrictions willbe applied as needed to protect habitat. As aresult, the entire range of restrictions may not beapplied to every acre of federal mineral estate.These practices could be applied to major tribu-taries of the Canadian, as well, if needed to pro-tect shiner habitat.

Big Game/Upland Game Habitat Management

Goal: Maintain or improve habitat utilized by biggame or upland game to provide sufficientquantity and quality of habitat (food, water, cover,space) necessary for population maintenanceand expansion on public land, while providing forlivestock grazing, mineral development andproduction, and other uses compatible with biggame/upland game habitat management.

Big game habitat expansion and movement willbe enhanced as opportunities arise by undertak-ing one or more of the practices listed below.These practices apply primarily to fences built forlivestock control and highway right-of-way fences.Fences or exclosures constructed to keep live-stock or wildlife out of certain types of facilities,such as oil and gas production facilities (e.g. pitsor tank batteries), would be exempt from the fencemodifications described below, unless the fenceitself becomes a hazard, due to its design or con-dition. These fences may be modified to preventlosses to both wildlife and livestock.

• Replacing existing netwire fences withbarbed wire fences to facilitate the movementof wildlife between pastures;

• Installing pronghorn passes in netwirefences;

• Removing netwire fences on allotmentsconverted from sheep to cattle;

• Lowering fences that exceed 42 inchesin height;

• Removing extra strands of barbed wire tomeet BLM standard 4-strand fence specifica-tions;

• Removing extra top strands of barbed wirefrom netwire fences to prevent entanglementof mule deer;

• Considering terrain, forb and browse di-versity, and pasture size and shape, when de-veloping or redesigning pasture configura-tions;

58

• Disallowing the installation, or replacing,netwire fences along highway rights-of-waycrossing public lands if not required for ranch-ing operations;

Existing habitat management plans (HMPs) willbe revised, as needed, to incorporate changesresulting from decisions made in this RMP. Modi-fications in existing HMPs will include public par-ticipation and review. Actions in existing habitatmanagement plans will continue to be imple-mented.

Wildlife habitat developments and other manage-ment practices will be considered for use in im-proving mule deer habitat in the BLM’s MescaleroSands, Pecos River, Southwest Roswell, CedarHills, Fort Stanton, and Carrizozo mule deer man-agement areas. Developments and practices in-clude, but are not limited to:

• Construction of water developments forwildlife and livestock;

• Use of prescribed fire;

• Fuelwood sales;

• Fence modifications and exclosures;

• Aerial surveys of habitat and deer popu-lations;

• Use of exclusion areas or buffer zones inbrush control projects; and

• Modification of grazing systems, followingconsultation, cooperation and coordinationwith affected permittees or lessees, and otherinterested parties.

The construction of fence exclosures or barrierswill be considered to protect special habitat fea-tures such as wildlife waters, springs, natural min-eral licks, significant lesser prairie chicken boom-ing grounds, or to provide for scientific researchon a species and its habitat.

Prescribed burns will be conducted in selectedpinon-juniper community types at Fort Stantonand the Cedar Hills area west of Roswell. Foreach prescribed burn the acreage to be burned

and the objective of the fire will be tied to wildlifehabitat management and desired plant commu-nity management objectives described in activityplans.

Surface disturbance will not be allowed within upto 200 meters of existing or planned wildlife habi-tat improvement projects. Refer to Appendix 1for more information on this requirement.

Big game and upland game transplants or rein-troductions on public lands will be conductedwhen cooperatively prescribed by the BLM andthe NMDGF, following consultation and coordi-nation with affected permittees or lessees andinterested parties. Projected transplants or rein-troductions include, but are not limited to:

• Pronghorn in pastures that meet the suit-ability criteria (see Appendix 12 in the DraftRMP/EIS);

• Mule deer in areas of low population den-sity or in areas to enhance deer herd genepools;

• Wild turkey at Fort Stanton and on the RioBonito acquired lands;

• Other big game or upland game speciesrecommended by the New Mexico Depart-ment of Game and Fish.

If opportunities arise, acquisitions of non-federallands will be considered in the following instances,to improve management of big game. Acquisi-tions in the Caprock deer management areawould benefit special status species and raptorhabitat management goals, as well.

• Caprock WHA: 18,969 acres of state land;8,840 acres of private land

• Cedar Hills and Pecos River deer man-agement areas: 3,521 acres of state land

• Rio Bonito area: 279 acres of state land

Geophysical exploration operations, drilling for oiland gas, and other development will not be al-lowed in lesser prairie chicken habitat during theperiod of March 15 through June 15, each year.

59

Additionally, no new drilling will be allowed withinup to 200 meters of leks known at the time ofpermitting. Refer to Appendix 1 for more discus-sion of these requirements.

Core prairie chicken habitat areas will be avoidedwhen locating major rights-of-way. Refer to Table11.

Waterfowl Habitat Management

Goal: Perpetuate a diversity and abundance ofwaterfowl populations in the Central Flyway byprotecting and enhancing wetlands, includingplaya lakes, alkali lakes, sinkhole lakes andearthen tanks, while allowing a level of livestockgrazing and mineral development and productionthat would not decrease waterfowl habitat andpopulations.

As many as 400 acres of wetland habitat in suit-able areas within the floodplain of the Pecos Riverwill be developed for waterfowl habitat. Suitabil-ity criteria include but are not limited to:

• Areas with seasonal surface waters in-dicative of a high water table or subsurfaceclay layer;

• Areas with the potential of supporting cot-tonwood tree groves;

• Areas that have or would receive vegeta-tion manipulation projects (saltcedar control,prescribed fire, riparian pasture develop-ment).

Surface disturbance will not be allowed within upto 200 meters of active heronries. Refer to Ap-pendix 1 for more discussion on this requirement.

Agricultural practices and moist soil managementtechniques will be used to enhance yearlong foodsupplies for wildlife on the lands acquired alongthe Rio Bonito. These practices may include butare not limited to:

• Share cropping of valuable foods (alfalfa,winter wheat, barley, pasture grasses) with aportion left as a standing crop for wildlife;

• Seasonal flood irrigation;

• Construction of irrigation ponds and wells;

• Construction of boundary and pasturefences;

Livestock grazing on the acquired Rio Bonitolands will be considered during the developmentof a management plan for the area, to determineif grazing should occur and under what condi-tions it would be allowed. Grazing preference willnot be established and grazing will be used as atool to accomplish the objectives of the manage-ment plan.

The construction of fence exclosures or barrierswill be considered to protect all or portions ofimportant wetland and riparian habitat, irrigationponds and earthen tanks, and significant playasor alkali lakes.

Raptor Habitat Management

Goal: Provide suitable raptor habitat conditionson public lands through the conservation andmanagement of essential habitat components,including habitat for prey species while allowingfor livestock grazing and mineral developmentand production that would not degrade habitatcomponents.

Nesting, migration, and wintering areas for rap-tors will be managed on about 926,000 acres ofpublic lands in the Macho, Caprock, Fort Stantonand Overflow Wetland wildlife habitat areas, andalong the Pecos River. Management of habitatwill be focused on designated Key Raptor Areasand those identified in the future. Managementpractices could include developing protectivefence exclosures or barriers around special habi-tat features such as tree groves and sinkholes,or around all or portions of important nesting ar-eas, and constructing raptor nesting platforms.Surface disturbance will not be allowed within upto 200 meters of active raptor nests on special,natural habitat features, such as trees, largebrush, cliff faces and escarpments. Refer toAppendix 1 for more discussion of this topic.

60

Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Management

Goal: Manage aquatic habitat and associatednatural diversity and distribution patterns ofnative nongame and sport fish, invertebrates,and aquatic mammals, while allowing forlivestock grazing and mineral development andproduction that would not degrade aquatichabitat.

Construction of streambank stabilization struc-tures, fish habitat structures, native riparianplantings, riparian pastures, saltcedar control, andspring and drainage protection could be allowedfor the Rio Bonito, Salado Creek and the PecosRiver. Criteria for consideration include, but arenot limited to, areas that:

• Exhibit streambank sloughing;

• Lack riparian vegetation or regeneration;

• Exhibit invasion of exotic or undesirableplant species;

• Exhibit erosion of side drainages;

• Lack riparian pastures to control livestockuse.

Monitor lotic and lentic systems for:

• Compliance with established water qual-ity standards;

• Fish and macroinvertebrate productivityand composition;

• Stream channel substrate condition as itrelates to watershed condition;

• Use of water rights, where established.

Native fish and sport fish introductions or trans-plants will be undertaken in suitable waters lo-cated on public land, in coordination with the NewMexico Department of Game and Fish. Proposedintroductions include but would not be limited to:

• Rainbow, cutthroat, brown, and brooktrout in the Rio Bonito;

• Bass and bluegill in irrigation ponds.

Criteria for suitable waters include, but are notlimited to:

• Availability of perennial water;

• Presence of existing populations indica-tive of suitable habitat conditions that mayneed supplementing due to fishing pressure;

• No or low populations in stream segmentswith suitable habitat conditions (water flow,temperature, stream shading, pools & riffles,stable streambanks, water quality, substratecondition, invertebrates);

• Channel dimension and capacity.

The construction of fence exclosures or barrierswill be considered to protect all or portions ofimportant stream reaches, springs and seeps,riparian plantings, or irrigation ponds.

Riparian/Wetland and Playa LakeManagement

Goal: Restore and maintain riparian/wetlandareas to achieve proper functioning condition.Allow for livestock grazing, mineral developmentand production, and other uses that would notdegrade or impair the proper functioningcondition of riparian habitat. Achieve anadvanced ecological status, except whereresource management objectives would requirean earlier successional stage.

Riparian and wetland areas will be managed toachieve an advanced ecological status, exceptwhere resource management objectives, includ-ing proper functioning condition, would requirean earlier successional stage. The objective ofmanagement would be to improve riparian andwetland habitat on public lands that isnonfunctioning or functioning at risk, and main-tain habitat that is in proper functioning condi-tion. Management will be conducted even if fac-tors beyond the BLM’s control, such as flow regu-lations or channelization, contribute to unaccept-able conditions.

Lands within 200 meters of the source of springsand seeps, and within downstream riparian ar-eas created by flows from the source, or through

61

riparian area management, will be considered forwithdrawal from all forms of entry under the pub-lic land laws, including the general mining laws.Areas to be withdrawn will be prioritized accord-ing to one or more of the following criteria:

• Presence of threatened or endangeredspecies that rely on the source;

• The spring or seep is located in a SpecialRecreation Management Area;

• The spring or seep is important for main-taining crucial or critical wildlife habitat.

If additional springs or seeps meeting these cri-teria are identified, they will be prioritized andconsidered for withdrawal, after processing of theinitial list of springs and seeps was completed.

Surface disturbance will not be allowed within upto 200 meters of playas and alkali lakes, peren-nial streams, rivers and floodplains and springsand seeps. Refer to the Surface Use and Occu-pancy Requirements in Appendix 1 for more dis-cussion on these requirements.

Springs and seeps, reservoirs and earthen tanks,important stream reaches, and significant playaand alkali lakes may be enhanced by construct-ing such things as protective fence exclosures orbarriers, planting native vegetation, establishingvegetation for wildlife cover, controlling undesir-able vegetation, constructing supplemental wa-ter pipelines to specific sites, and providing off-site livestock water. (A list of springs is in therevised Table 102, in the Proposed RMP.)

If opportunities arise, acquisition will be consid-ered for 590 acres of state land and 1,051 acresof private land within or adjacent to playa lakes,and for 1,440 acres of state land and 2,955 acresof private land along the Pecos River. Any acqui-sitions in these areas will benefit riparian, wet-land and playa lake management efforts.

FIRE MANAGEMENT

Goal: Limit damage to natural resources and tolife and property caused by wildfire. Whereverpossible, restore fire to its natural role in theecosystem through the use of prescribed fire.

Use prescribed fire as a tool for land treatment toreplace or augment the use of chemical andmechanical treatments.

The construction of fire line with heavy equipment(e.g., bulldozers or graders) will be employed only:

• To protect property and public health andsafety; or

• In exceptional cases (such as in saltcedaror in previously disturbed areas);

• With the approval of the Area Manager;and

• With the appropriate resource advisor(s)on the scene.

Management of areas burned by wildfires will bedetermined on a case-by-case basis, includingthe need for rehabilitation, for deferment of live-stock grazing, and for other actions, such as emer-gency OHV closures. Considerations affectingmanagement of burned areas include size andintensity of fire, type of vegetation burned, veg-etation management objectives, and the manage-ment and use of the area prior to being burned.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fires ignited by the BLM will be con-ducted, including the re-treatment of acreage pre-viously burned, when burning conditions are ap-propriate (refer to the definition of “prescription”in the Glossary in the Proposed RMP). For eachprescribed burn, the acreage to be burned andthe objective of the fire will accomplish specificland management objectives identified in activityplans by specialists in one or more of the resourcearea’s management programs. Prescribed firesgenerally are tied to vegetation managementobjectives based on vegetation types, which are:saltcedar; upland grasslands; pinon/juniper inva-sion areas; and areas of sacaton. Prescribed firewill be used, when possible, to treat vegetationas part of the process of attaining the identifieddesired plant community for a given area.

Prescribed natural fire will be employed to ac-complish land management objectives when thefollowing criteria are met:

62

• fire planning for the use of prescribed firehas been completed, including establishingburning prescriptions and boundaries of ar-eas to be burned, and coordination with af-fected landowners and other affected inter-ests;

• ignitions occur in the period Februarythrough May;

• funding already has been programmed forplanned prescribed fires and adequate per-sonnel and equipment are available toachieve defined objectives;

• ignitions occur in saltcedar along thePecos River or other drainages; in juniper atFort Stanton east of State Highway 214; inareas of sacaton; and in upland grasslandcommunities.

Protection from Wildfire

Resource advisors will be on hand to provideadvice on tactics employed during suppressionunder either the conditional or full fire suppres-sion response levels.

Archeological site data on base maps and in siterecords will be reviewed to determine the loca-tion and significance of cultural resources beforeusing heavy equipment to construct fire line, ex-cept where personal safety or property are threat-ened, or when resource values outweigh culturalvalues. Wherever possible, an archeologist willmonitor the use of heavy equipment to ensurethat cultural resources are avoided.

The protection of wetlands and surrounding habi-tat for waterfowl and T&E fish in the OverflowWetlands will be accomplished without the useof bulldozers and other heavy equipment, orchemical fire retardant.

The conditional fire suppression response levelwill be applied resource area-wide, with the fol-lowing exceptions, where full suppression wouldbe used.

• Protection of life or property, in any situa-tion.

• Pecos River: Protect important vegeta-tion, such as cottonwoods and willows, in ri-parian/wetland habitat within the 100-yearfloodplain. Limited use of machines, such asbulldozers, may be required, based on theadvice of a resource advisor. For fires insaltcedar, resources such as bulldozers orchemical fire retardant could be employed tolimit the spread of fire to the smallest pos-sible area.

• Caprock WHA: For wildfires occurring intreated pastures in the months of April throughJanuary, full suppression may be employedto protect wildlife habitat. In February andMarch, and depending on the location of thefire relative to previous vegetation treatments,suppression activities may occur at the con-ditional level and may be limited to monitor-ing the wildfire.

• Fort Stanton: Protection of the Kuenzlerhedgehog cactus, and the entrance of FortStanton Cave, will be accomplished with fullsuppression, except that heavy equipment willnot be used to construct fire line.

• Playas larger than 20 acres, springs andseeps, other riparian areas: Fire suppressionwill include protection of these areas fromsurface disturbance and the effects of chemi-cal fire retardant, by prohibiting the use ofheavy equipment and retardant drops in ri-parian areas. The use of engines will be al-lowed, keeping off-road use to the minimumneeded to fully suppress the fire.

• Caves and karst areas: Fire suppressionin cave and karst areas will include protec-tion of caves, cave resources and karst fea-tures from surface disturbance by prohibitingthe use of bulldozers and other heavy equip-ment to construct fire line within 200 metersof known cave entrances, passages or as-pects of significant caves, or significant karstfeatures.

• Valley of Fires Recreation Area: Protec-tion of the recreation area will be accom-plished without the use of heavy equipmentto construct fire line.

63

• Border Hills Structural Zone NationalNatural Landmark: The use of heavy equipmentto construct fire line within this area will be pro-hibited.

• Steep slopes: Fire line will not beconstructed with bulldozers or otherheavy equipment on slopes greater than20 percent, or greater than 10 percent onfragile soils, except to protect life orproperty.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALSMANAGEMENT

For BLM-authorized activities that involve hazard-ous materials or their use, precautionary mea-sures will be used to guard against releases orspills into the environment. The transportationstorage, and handling of hazardous materials willbe conducted in accordance with manufacturers’specifications and applicable laws, such as theResource Conservation and Recovery Act andthe Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act.

The sale or transfer of public lands on which stor-age or disposal of hazardous substances hasbeen known to occur will require public notifica-tion of the type and quantity of such substances.

Bureau of Land Management-administered pub-lic land sites contaminated with hazardous wasteswill be reported, secured, cleaned up, or other-wise remedied according to applicable federaland state regulations and contingency plans.Parties responsible for contamination will be li-able for cleanup and resource damage costs, asprescribed in federal and state regulations. If atall possible, the responsible parties will bear thefinancial burden of cleanup and resource dam-age costs.

If hazards are identified on BLM-administeredpublic lands, the BLM will provide appropriatewarnings and establish precautions for safetyhazards associated with the use of those lands.

The BLM will conduct its own activities in a man-ner that reduces the amount or toxicity of wastegenerated from those activities.

AREAS OF CRITICALENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

The boundaries of the ACECs described be-low have been established based on the pres-ence of resources and opportunities for effi-cient management, irrespective of land own-ership. The inclusion of other ownerships inACECs is for purposes of disclosure and doesnot mean those lands would be designatedas part of an ACEC, or that the managementproposed in this plan would be applied tothose lands. The acquisition of non-federallands within ACECs is part the managementincluded in this plan. If non-federal lands areacquired, those lands could then become partof a designated ACEC and be managed ac-cording to the management proposed in thisplan, without additional land use planning.

See Map 14 for the locations of the proposedACECs. Refer to Appendix 13 in the Draft RMP/EIS for discussions of relevance and importancecriteria for Areas of Environmental Concern.Refer to Appendix 12 in this document for mapsof the ACECs.

Overflow Wetlands ACEC

The Overflow Wetlands ACEC comprises 6,814surface acres and 3,000 acres of federal mineralestate. The surface acreage consists of the fol-lowing categories and acreages:

Public land, 2,987 acresState land, 1,720 acresPrivate land, 2,107 acres

Management Goal:

Protect the biological and scenic values of theOverflow Wetlands WHA, which provides criticalhabitat for T/E fish species and supports asignificant riparian/wetland plant community.

Management Prescriptions:

About 700 acres of wetlands, 170 acres of bufferaround the wetlands, and 170 acres of escarp-ment will be protected by applying “no

64

Map 14

RRA: Proposed ACECs

ACECs

1 - Crockett Cave• 2 - Millrace Cave• 3 - Fort Stanton 4 - Zia Christine Cave• 5 - Torgac Cave• 6 - Coachwhip cave• 7 - Crystal Caverns/Devil's Well Caves•

• Components of the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC. Other ACECs are Fort Stanton, Overflow Wetlands, North Pecos River and Mescalero Sands.

• NOTE - reader must refer to the tables and narrative to determine how each ACEC will be managed.



IIZIE

8 - Martin-Antelope GYP Cave* 9 - North Pecos River

10 - Angora-Corn Cave* 11 - Bat Hole Cave• 12 - Overflow Wetlands 13 - Mescalero Sands

MAP 14 PROPOSED AREAS of

ENVIRONMENTAL CRITICAL

CONCERN

65

surface occupancy” restrictions to future oil andgas leases. The remainder of public lands in theACEC will be open to future leasing with subjectto the Surface Use and Occupancy Requirementsdescribed in Appendix 1.

About 700 acres of wetlands, 170 acres of bufferaround the wetlands, and 170 acres of escarp-ment will be closed to the disposal of salable min-erals and to the leasing of solid minerals, and willbe withdrawn from entry under the land laws (in-cluding the 1872 Mining Law). These actions willreduce disturbance of the wetlands and surround-ing habitat for wildlife species dependent on thearea either seasonally (wintering waterfowl) oryearlong (T/E fish).

Major rights-of-way would be excluded on about3,000 acres of public land with the Overflow Wet-lands WHA to benefit wildlife species dependenton the area either seasonally (wintering water-fowl) or yearlong (T/E fish).

Legal access (easements) to the Overflow Wet-lands will be acquired to resolve conflicts andenhance management in situations where exist-ing roads that originate from county or state roadsare interrupted by private or state land inholdings.

The need for acquiring easements will be evalu-ated on a case-by case basis, because land ac-quisitions may eliminate the need for some ease-ments.

About 1,700 acres of state land and 1,600 acresof private land with riparian/wetland values willbe acquired if opportunities arise. Any lands ac-quired will be managed according to the prescrip-tions of this plan.

Public grazing leases or permits affecting about3,000 acres of public land currently in Allotments65060, 65062, and 65069 will be adjusted to im-prove habitat for wintering waterfowl habitat.Adjustments may include changes in stocking rateand seasons of use, such as reducing year-longgrazing to grazing between March 1 and June30. The grazing lease on Allotment 65041 willbe cancelled.

Saltcedar treatments will be conducted on publicland in selected riparian-wetland areas using pre-

scribed fire, or mechanical or chemical controls,except that chemicals will not be applied aerially.

The Overflow Wetlands ACEC will be developedto showcase one of New Mexico’s prime wetlandareas. Developments may include nature trailswith wooden walkways and observation over-looks, restroom facilities, picnic tables, trash con-tainers, parking areas, bulletin boards, and up-grading existing access roads.

About 700 acres of wetlands, 170 acres of bufferaround the wetlands, and 170 acres of escarp-ment will be designated closed to OHV use. Theuse of OHVs on about 2,100 acres will be limitedto designated roads and trails.

The BLM will recommend to the New MexicoDepartment of Game and Fish that the wetlandsbe designated as a “No Minnow Seining Area” toprevent the taking of the Pecos pupfish.

Public fishing opportunities will be considered fordevelopment along the Pecos River on publiclands in the areas listed below. Development mayinclude physical access to fishing sites, parkingareas, and fence crossings.

T. 12 S., R. 26 E., Section 5: W1/2W1/2 Section 17: W1/2NE1/4,SE1/4 Section 20: NE1/4NE1/4NE1/4

The ACEC generally will continue to be open towaterfowl hunting, but hunting may be limited tocertain areas. A closure to waterfowl hunting onpublic lands within one-half mile of the sandhillcrane roost at the Southwest Pond will be pro-posed to the New Mexico Department of Gameand Fish, in order to protect that important craneroosting area. Other human disturbances onpublic lands in that zone will be closed or re-stricted from October through March. Other ar-eas within the ACEC could be restricted or closedto hunting in the future. Any actions involvinghunting, hunting restrictions, or special designa-tions, will be coordinated with the New MexicoDepartment of Game and Fish. Fences could beconstructed around the Southwest Pond to de-lineate the restricted area, and on other lands thatmay require special management.

66

Riparian and aquatic habitats will be protectedby acquiring water rights, entering into coopera-tive agreements for management of those habi-tats, or other methods.

As many as 300 acres of additional riparian/wet-land habitat will be developed. Development mayinclude constructing low berms and dikes, seed-ing or planting native riparian vegetation, andmodifying existing channels. Suitability criteriafor development include, but are not limited to:

• Areas with seasonal surface waters in-dicative of a high water table or subsurfaceclay layer

• Areas with the potential of supporting cot-tonwood tree groves

• Areas that have been or would be sub-ject to vegetation manipulation (saltcedar con-trol, prescribed fire, riparian pasture develop-ment)

Chemical fire retardant and heavy equipmentsuch as bulldozers and road graders will not beused for wildfire suppression.

North Pecos River ACEC

The North Pecos River ACEC comprises 6,400surface acres and 4,200 acres of federal mineralestate. The surface acreage consists of the fol-lowing categories and acreages:

Public land, 3,360 acresState land, 1,160 acresPrivate land, 1,880 acres

Management Goal:

Protect the biological and scenic qualities of thePecos River ACEC, which provides criticalhabitat for T/E fish species and supports asignificant riparian plant community.


About 2,080 acres of federal minerals will beclosed to future oil and gas leasing. About 2,120acres of federal minerals will be open to futureleasing with No Surface Occupancy.

About 4,200 acres of federal minerals will beclosed to the disposal of salable minerals and theleasing of solid minerals, and be withdrawn fromentry under the land laws (including the 1872Mining Law), to eliminate surface disturbancealong the Pecos River and in surrounding wildlifehabitat.

Public lands in the ACEC will be designated right-of-way avoidance areas for major rights-of-way.

Legal access (easements) to the Pecos RiverACEC will be acquired to resolve conflicts andenhance management in situations where exist-ing roads that originate from county or state roadsare interrupted by private or state land inholdings.The need for acquiring easements will be evalu-ated on a case-by-case basis, because land ac-quisitions may eliminate the need for some ease-ments.

About 1,160 acres of state land and 1,880 acresof private land with riparian/wetland values willbe acquired if opportunities arise. Acquisition ofriparian/wetland habitat will be based on the con-sideration of the criteria in Appendix 5.

Public grazing leases or permits affecting about3,360 acres of public land will be adjusted to im-prove riparian habitat. Adjustments may includechanges in seasons of use and stocking rates.Grazing practices will be modified on lands withinthe ACEC that are currently in Allotments 64038,64039, 64538, and 65001.

Saltcedar control will be conducted on about 600acres of public land in selected riparian-wetlandareas, using prescribed fire, or mechanical orchemical controls, except that chemicals will notbe applied aerially.

The use of OHVs will be limited to designatedroads and trails on about 3,360 acres.

The BLM will recommend to the New MexicoDepartment of Game and Fish the designationof the wetlands as a “No Minnow Seining Area,”to prevent the taking of the Pecos bluntnoseshiner. Additionally, the BLM will monitor the habi-tat of this fish in coordination with the USFWS.

67

Mescalero Sands ACEC

The Mescalero Sands ACEC comprises 10,007surface acres and 7,931 acres of federal mineralestate. The surface acreage consists of the fol-lowing categories and acreages:

Public land, 7,888 acresState land, 1,799 acresPrivate land, 320 acres

Management Goal:

Protect the biological, archaeological and scenicqualities of the Mescalero Sands ACEC, withemphasis on the preservation of a portion of theshinnery oak-dune community to enhance thebiodiversity of the ecosystem.


The entire federal mineral estate in the ACEC willbe closed to future oil and gas leasing.

The entire federal mineral estate in the ACEC willbe proposed for withdrawal from entry under thepublic land laws, including the 1872 Mining Law.The ACEC also will be closed to solid mineralleasing and the disposal of salable minerals.

Major rights-of-way will be excluded from theACEC to protect active dunes and surroundinghabitat.

Legal access to the ACEC will be acquired, asneeded, to resolve conflicts and enhance man-agement. Easement acquisitions will be evalu-ated on a case-by-case basis, because the po-tential acquisition of land may eliminate the needfor easements.

As many as 1,800 acres of state and 320 acresof private lands in the ACEC will be consideredfor acquisition if opportunities arise. Any landacquired will be managed according to the man-agement prescriptions in this plan.

The existing 1,838-acre grazing exclusion areawill be eliminated. The fence on the east side ofthe grazing exclusion area will no longer be main-tained by the BLM because the continually shift-

ing sands render portions of the fence ineffectiveat any given time, adding to high maintenancecosts and difficulty in driving to and through thearea. Livestock grazing preference still will notbe allocated on the 1,838 acres, and on about600 additional, adjacent acres (see Map A12-6).The legal description of the area is:

T. 12 S., R. 30 E., Sec. 1,T. 12 S., R. 30 E., Sec. 11, east of theexisting fence,T. 12 S., R. 30 E., Sec. 12,T. 12 S., R. 31 E., Sec. 6, W1/2,T. 12 S., R. 31 E., Sec. 7, W1/2

No additional range improvements or vegetationtreatments geared toward livestock production willbe permitted in the ACEC. Maintenance and re-placement of existing range developments, suchas fences or pipelines, will be allowed. Projectsdesigned for resource enhancement or protec-tion will be considered.

The existing National Natural Landmark desig-nation on 3,208 acres of federal, state and pri-vate land and the existing Outstanding NaturalArea designation on 6,173 acres of federal landwill be retained. Each of these areas is totallyencompassed by the ACEC.

Approximately 2,438 acres will be designatedclosed to the use of OHVs. The closure conformsto the area on which grazing preference will notbe established, described above. Refer to MapA12-6. In the remainder of the ACEC, OHV usewill be limited to designated roads and trails.

Fort Stanton ACEC

The Fort Stanton ACEC comprises 24,630 sur-face acres and 27,622 acres of federal mineralestate. The state-owned hospital and prison andthe Sierra Blanca Airport within the boundary ofthe ACEC are not included in the acreage of theACEC.

Management Goal:

Protect the biological, archaeological and scenicqualities of Fort Stanton, while providing forquality recreation opportunity.

68

Management Prescriptions:Management of the Feather Cave National Regis-ter site will emphasize off-site interpretation of itsreligious significance while allowing for the pro-tection of fragile cultural values. The site will bemanaged in conjunction with the recreation man-agement program, which proposes to close thecave to recreational use.

Lower Stanton Pueblo Ruin is an architectural sitelocated very close to Feather Cave. Currently,this site is being used by Eastern New MexicoUniversity as an archeology field school. An in-terpretive site at Lower Stanton Pueblo Ruin willbe developed and managed in conjunction withthe recreation management program to interpretFeather Cave and other cultural resources in thearea. Development will occur after sufficient datarecovery has been completed.

Fort Stanton Cave will be closed annually to rec-reation use from November 1 to the following April15, to protect hibernating bat populations.

Feather Cave will be closed to all visitor use, ex-cept for administrative or research purposes, toprotect the significant bat hibernacula and to pro-tect visitors from extreme safety hazards associ-ated with breakdown, vertical entrances and his-toplasmosis.

Recreation developments at Fort Stanton, includ-ing trails and camping areas, will continue to bemaintained or upgraded, when needed, to meetrequirements for visitor health and safety.

All public lands in Fort Stanton will be open tosaleable mineral disposal, except for approxi-mately 330 acres in the Feather Cave Archeo-logical Complex. All public lands in Fort Stantonwill remain withdrawn from the general mininglaws, and closed to the disposal of leasable min-erals and to the leasing of oil and gas.

Major rights-of-way will be excluded on about24,630 acres of public land to protect importantplant and animal habitat, significant riparian, wet-land and aquatic habitats, and visual quality.

As many as 1,320 acres of private and state landsadjacent to Fort Stanton will be acquired if op-

portunities arise. Any acquired lands will be man-aged according to the prescriptions of this plan.

Livestock grazing will be considered to the ex-tent it would be used as a tool to accomplishmanagement plan objectives. Livestock grazingwill be limited or excluded in riparian pastures,highly erodible areas, cave entrances, camp-grounds and day-use areas, and sensitive archeo-logical sites. Livestock grazing will be excludedfrom the Feather Cave Archeological Complex.No grazing preference will be established.

Saltcedar treatments will be conducted on asmany as 300 acres of selected riparian/wetlandhabitat along the Rio Bonito and Salado Creekusing prescribed fire, mechanical control (chainsaws), or chemicals, except that chemicals willnot be applied aerially.

Prescribed burns will be conducted in selectedpinon-juniper, riparian and grassland communitytypes at Fort Stanton to improve wildlife habitatand reduce fuels. Fuelwood sales will be permit-ted in selected areas.

Two overlooks will be considered for developmenton the north and south sides of the historical Fortto interpret the history of the Fort’s structures andarea, in conjunction with the Boots and Saddlesinitiative.

Approximately 330 acres around the LowerStanton Ruin and Feather Cave will be managedto preserve, protect and interpret unique archeo-logical values, artifacts and architectural features.The area will be called the Feather Cave Archeo-logical Complex. In addition to the managementprescribed for the Fort Stanton ACEC that wouldalso apply to the Archeological Complex, the fol-lowing specific management actions will be ap-plied, as well:

• recreation development will be consid-ered, such as trails to Lower Stanton ruin andIndian Shelter Cave, signs, an interpretiveshelter, rest rooms, and a parking area;

• off-site and on-site interpretation will beconsidered, including site stabilization for in-terpretive enhancement, exhibits, and sign-ing and brochures.

69

Fort Stanton will be designated a Special Recre-ation Management Area with emphasis on pro-viding quality recreational opportunities subordi-nate to the management of riparian and wildliferesources.

Existing recreation facilities will continue to bemaintained and upgraded as needed to meethealth and safety standards. The developmentof a campground, including location, size andtypes facilities, will be considered during thepreparation of a comprehensive ACEC/SRMAmanagement plan.

In addition to the 40 miles of multi-use trails al-ready in use, about 45 miles of existing roads ortrails and about 20 miles of new trails will be de-veloped and maintained as multi-use trails for hik-ing, horseback riding and mountain bikes. Thesetrails, comprising about 51 acres, will be closedto the use of OHVs.

Camping at Fort Stanton will be managed by:

• Permitting “vehicle campers” (those whodrive motorized vehicles to a campsite) todrive no more than 100 feet off a BLM-desig-nated road or trail to a campsite. But, in nocase will camping be allowed within 100 feetof the Rio Bonito and Salado Creek. About250 acres will be closed to the use of OHVsin these areas.

• Permitting back country camping through-out Fort Stanton, except within 100 feet of theRio Bonito and Salado Creek and no closerthan 300 yards of any seeps or springs, man-made water hole, water well or watering tankused by wildlife or domestic livestock.

• Limiting all camping to no closer than one-quarter mile from waysides, overlooks, inter-pretive trails or state highways, except at de-veloped campgrounds and designated camp-sites.

Approximately 24,000 acres will be designatedas limited to designated roads and trails for OHVuse, to protect soils, cultural resources, and veg-etation, including threatened or endangered spe-cies.

A wayside stop will be considered for develop-ment along U.S. Highway 380 to interpret the his-torical, archaeological, and recreational oppor-tunities of the area.

The use of OHVs will be limited to designatedroads and trails, with the following exceptions:

• A 100-foot wide corridor measured fromthe edge of the creek along each side of theRio Bonito and Salado Creek will be closedto OHV use to protect sensitive riparian re-sources, except for the use of designatedroads within the corridor.

• All multi-use trails (horse, hiking andmountain biking) will be closed to OHV use.Mountain bike trails that are located on exist-ing roads will be open for OHV use.

• The Feather Cave Archeological Complexwill be closed to OHV use, except for U.S.Highway 380 and the Fort Stanton CaveRoad.

Streambank stabilization structures, native ripar-ian plantings, riparian pastures, saltcedar con-trol, and spring and drainage protection measurescould be implemented on the Rio Bonito andSalado Creek. These practices will be used insituations including, but not limited to, areas that:

• Exhibit streambank sloughing;

• Lack riparian vegetation or regeneration;

• Exhibit invasion of exotics or undesirableplant species;

• Exhibit erosion of side drainages;

• Lack riparian pastures to control livestockuse.

Riparian and aquatic habitat will be protected bymaintaining minimum acceptable instream flowfor Rio Bonito Creek at Fort Stanton by acquiringwater rights, entering into cooperative manage-ment agreements, or other methods.

The BLM will recommend to the New MexicoState Game Commission that Fort Stanton be

70

designated as a special hunt draw area or a re-stricted area open only to primitive hunting (bowand arrow or muzzle-loader). Additionally, ve-hicles will not be allowed off of designated roadsor trails to retrieve downed game.

Big game or upland game transplants and rein-troductions will be conducted on public landswhen cooperatively prescribed by the BLM andthe NMDGF. Transplants and reintroductions in-clude, but are not limited to:

• Pronghorn in pastures that meet the suit-ability criteria (see Appendix 12 in the DraftRMP/EIS);

• Mule deer in areas of low population den-sity or areas to enhance gene pools;

• Wild turkey;

• Other big game or upland game speciesrecommended by the New Mexico Depart-ment of Game and Fish.

Native fish and sport fish introductions or trans-plants will be conducted in suitable waters onpublic land in coordination with the New MexicoDepartment of Game and Fish. Proposed intro-ductions could include rainbow, cutthroat, brown,and brook trout in Rio Bonito Creek. Criteria forintroductions or transplants include, but are notlimited to:

• Perennial water availability;

• Existing populations indicate suitablehabitat conditions but may need supplement-ing due to fishing pressure;

• No or low populations in stream segmentswith suitable habitat conditions such as wa-ter flow, temperature, stream shading, poolsand riffles, and stable streambanks.

The full wildfire suppression response level willbe applied at Fort Stanton to protect Kuenzlercactus habitat and the entrance to Fort StantonCave. Bulldozers will not be used to constructfire line.

Roswell Cave Complex ACEC

The Roswell Cave Complex ACEC comprisesnine cave systems, which are: Angora-CornCave; Bat Hole Cave; Coachwhip Cave; CrockettCave; Crystal Caverns-Devils Well Caves; Mar-tin-Antelope Gyp Cave; Millrace Cave; TorgacCave; and Zia Christine Cave. The ACEC com-prises 16,814 surface acres. There are 14,894acres of federal mineral estate in the ACEC, in-cluding 3,000 acres under private surface. Thesurface acreage consists of the following catego-ries and acreages:

Public land, 11,894 acresPrivate land, 4,920 acres

Refer to Table 13 for the categories and acreagesof lands comprising the ACEC, listed by cave sys-tem.

Management Goal:

Protect the natural and scenic values of caves,while allowing for limited recreational, commercial,scientific and educational use.


Crockett, Crystal Caverns, Martin-Antelope Gyp,Torgac Annex, and Torgac caves will be closedto visitor use annually from November 1 to April15 to protect significant bat hibernacula. Sea-sons of use and visitor use restrictions will beapplied to any other caves or portions of cavesfound to have significant bat hibernacula or nurs-eries.

The federal mineral estate in the ACEC, nearly15,000 acres in size, will be closed to the futureleasing of oil and gas, the disposal of saleableminerals, and the leasing of solid minerals. Thefederal mineral estate also will be proposed forwithdrawal from entry under the general landlaws, including the 1872 Mining Law.

All lands in the ACEC will be designated exclu-sion areas for major rights-of-way.

The BLM will acquire access easements to cavesfor which legal access does not exist. The need

71

for acquiring easements will be evaluated on acase-by-case basis, because land acquisitions myeliminate the need for some easements. The cavesystems to which access will be acquired are:

• Crockett Cave, 1.25 miles• Crystal Caverns-Devils Well caves, 2.2miles• Millrace Cave, .33 mile

All public land in the ACEC will be retained. About4,920 acres of private land will be acquired, ifopportunities arise, to protect the caves and theirhydrologic processes. Any lands acquired will bemanaged according to the prescriptions in thisplan.

Fenced exclosures will be constructed aroundcave entrances in the ACEC when necessary tocontrol access or reduce impacts to cave re-sources. No livestock will be allowed within anycave exclosure. Grazing will be excluded on asmany as 1,000 surface acres in the ACEC follow-ing the construction of exclosures.

The ACEC will be managed to maintain the cavesystems in their natural condition. Managementwill include actions such as graffiti and trash re-moval, protection against vandalism, and limitingthe extent and location of trails, where appropri-ate.

Research and scientific use will have priority overother uses. These uses will be curtailed if thereis a conflict with the protection of unique cavevalues.

Bat Hole Cave will be closed to all visitor use,except for administrative or research purposes,to protect the significant bat hibernacula and toprotect visitors from extreme safety hazards as-sociated with breakdown and vertical entrances.Coachwhip Cave, a typical gypsum cave, will beclosed to all visitor use and managed as a con-trol cave for future research and managementprograms.

Commercial cave guiding will not be allowed incaves of the ACEC until a comprehensive inven-tory of the biota and natural resources is accom-plished. If surveys determine that these resourceswould not be affected by limited commercial use,then commercial use will be considered and uselimits established consistent with management ofthe caves.

Visitation limits (human carrying capacity) andspecial stipulations will be prescribed in cavemanagement plans.

Caves in the ACEC with unique or outstandingvalues, or threatened or endangered species,could warrant development and implementationof additional controls or gating. Documentationof use in all caves in the ACEC will be accom-plished by permitting or the installation of caveregisters.

About 500 acres of public lands in the ACEC willbe designated closed to OHV use, not includinglands already closed because they are within awilderness study area. On the remainder of thepublic lands, OHV use will be limited to desig-nated roads and trails. The OHV restrictions aredisplayed by cave, in Table 23.

With the exception of carbide in carbide lamps(miners’ lamps), battery acid in flashlights andheadlamps, and the temporary use of cave gateconstruction materials, no solid, liquid, or gaseoussubstances hazardous to human and animal lifewill be allowed within any cave or cave exclosure.

Wildfire suppression in the ACEC will include theprotection of caves, cave resources and karst fea-tures from surface disturbance by prohibiting theuse of heavy equipment to construct fire line within200 meters of known cave entrances, passagesor aspects of caves, or significant karst features,or within the exclosures around caves.

A-1

APPENDIXES

TABLE A-1LIST OF APPENDIXES

Appendix

1. Surface Use and Occupan cy Requireme nts

2. Roswell District Conditions of Approval

3. Practices for O il and G as Drilling and Opera tions inCave and Karst Areas

4. Withdrawn Lands

5. Acq uisition and Disposa l Criter ia

6. Lands Identified for Acquisition

7. Lands Identified for Disposal

8. Decision s from P revious P lanning D ocum ents

9. Treating Vegetation with Herbicides

10 Rules of Conduct

11. Special Status Species

12. ACEC Maps

13. Protests on the Proposed RMP

Glossary

AP1-1

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 1SURFACE USE AND OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS

This appendix describes practices intended to be applied, when needed, to minimize surfacedisturbance.

The requirements listed below will pertain to allactivities conducted in the Roswell ResourceArea. They will be applied primarily to the fed-eral surface estate. However, in the case of ac-tivities related to the development of oil and gasand other minerals, these standards could beapplied to split estate in order to meet the require-ments of Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, fed-eral law or regulations, or with the concurrenceof surface landowners.

The intent of the Surface Use and OccupancyRequirements is to best manage mechanical sur-face disturbance and other effects on specifiednatural resources. Mechanical surface distur-bance is created by the use of such things astools and machinery. Activities such as grazingby livestock or wildlife or certain recreational pur-suits (e.g., hiking) are not considered to createsurface disturbance in the context of these re-quirements. Circumstances for waivers of therequirements have been included so that they willnot be applied needlessly. Exceptions to the re-quirements will be considered in emergency situ-ations involving human health and safety and theprotection of the environment.

The basis for the “200 meter rule” used in theSurface Use and Occupancy Requirements is 43CFR 3101.1-2, which states that, at a minimum,mitigation measures are deemed consistent withoil and gas lease rights if they do not require “...re-location of proposed operations by more than 200meters...” The intent of the actions described inthis Appendix is to comply with the regulations

and allow the relocation of proposed activities tomitigate impacts, but by no more than 200 meters,without undertaking additional NEPA analysis.The opportunity exists through the NEPA processto design mitigations of impacts that would re-quire relocation greater than 200 meters. The“200 meter rule” simply allows relocation of anactivity, such as during on-site meetings prior toAPD approval, without the need for detailed NEPAanalysis.

The Surface Use and Occupancy Requirementsidentify minimum use standards for activitiesaround certain natural and man-made featuresto ensure protection of those features. Specificinformation on those features is maintained forreview at the Roswell Resource Area office.

Table Al -1 estimates the acreages affected bythe Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements.These estimates reflect the maximum amount ofacreage that could be affected and are for pur-poses of disclosure, comparison and analysis,only. The most likely situation is that the require-ments will cumulatively affect only a small area.

● Wildlife Habitat Projects : S u r f a c edisturbance will not be allowed within up to200 meters of existing or planned wildlife habi-tat improvement projects. Large-scale veg-etation manipulation projects such as pre-scribed burns will be excepted. This require-ment will be considered for waiver with ap-propriate off-site mitigation, as determined bythe Authorized Officer.

AP1-2

APPENDIX 1

Notes:

TABLE A1-1 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ACREAGES AFFECTED BY

SURFACE USE AND OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

FOR PURPOSES OF ANALYSIS ONLY

Resource or Feature Proposed Plan

Wildlife Habitat Projects 2,408

Raptor Nests 6,240

Slopes (All Ownerships) 260,023

Streams, Rivers, Floodplains 65,694

Playa and Alkali Lakes 8,400

Springs, Seeps and Tanks: Springs and Seeps 640 Tanks 8,800

Caves and Karst 26,136

Prairie Chickens: Timing requirements 935,000 Occupancy requirements 6,400

Sand Dune Lizard (Potential Habitat) 296,000

Prairie Dog Towns 1,422

1. For purposes of analysis, acreages represent the maximum number of acres affected by the requirements. Acreages actually affected when the requirements are applied will be substantially less than those listed.

2. Acreages are not additive, since many different features may occur in the same area (e.g., wildlife habitat projects, raptor nests, prairie chicken habitat and lizard habitat could all be in proximity). Adding acreages amounts to double- or triplecounting (or more) of the same acreage.

3. For determining the effects of these requirements on oil and gas activity, the acreages are assumed to fall completely within areas of high hydrocarbon potential. Actually, many of the areas on which the requirements would be applied are in areas of low or moderate hydrocarbon potential.

4. Acreages represent federal surface only, unless noted.

AP1-3

APPENDIX 1

● Raptor Nests and Heronries : Surfacedisturbance will not be allowed within up to200 meters of active heronries or by delayingactivity for up to 120 days, or a combinationof both. Raptor nests on special, natural habi-tat features, such as trees, large brush, clifffaces and escarpments, will be protected bynot allowing surface disturbance within up to200 meters of nests or by delaying activity forup to 90 days, or a combination of both. Ex-ceptions to this requirement for raptor nestswill be considered if the nests expected to bedisturbed are inactive, the proposed activityis of short duration (e.g. habitat enhancementprojects, fences, pipelines), and will not re-sult in continuing activity in proximity to thenest.

● Slopes or Fragile Soils : Surface distur-bance will not be allowed on slopes over 30percent. Exceptions will be considered forauthorized mineral material extraction sitesand designated OHV areas, for the installa-tion of projects designed to enhance or pro-tect renewable natural resources, or if a planof operations and development which pro-vides for adequate mitigation of impacts wasapproved by the Authorized Officer. Occu-pancy or use of fragile soils will be consid-ered on a case-bycase basis.

● Streams, Rivers and Floodplains : Sur-face disturbance will not be allowed within upto 200 meters of the outer edge of 100-yearfloodplains, to protect the integrity of thosefloodplains. On a case-by-case basis, an ex-ception to this requirement may be consid-ered based on one or more of the criterialisted below. The first three criteria would notbe applied in areas of identified critical or oc-cupied habitat for federally listed threatenedor endangered species.

-Additional development in areas withexisting developments that have shownno adverse impacts to the riparian areasas determined by the Authorized Officer,following a case-by-case review at thetime of permitting.

-Suitable off-site mitigation if habitat losshas been identified.

-An approved plan of operations ensuresthe protection of water or soil resources,or both.

-Installation of habitat, rangeland or rec-reation projects designed to enhance orprotect renewable natural resources.

● Playas and Alkali Lakes : Surface distur-bance will not be allowed within up to 200meters of playas or alkali lakes. Waiver ofthis requirement will be considered on a case-by-case basis for projects designed to en-hance or protect renewable natural resources.An exception for oil and gas development willbe considered if playa lake loss was mitigatedby the protection and development of anotherplaya exhibiting the potential for improvement.Mitigation could include: installing fencing; de-veloping a supplemental water supply; plant-ing trees and shrubs for shelter belts; con-ducting playa basin excavation; constructingerosion control structures or cross dikes; orby improving the habitat in another area.

● Springs, Seeps and Tanks : Surface dis-turbance will not be allowed within up to 200meters of the source of a spring or seep, orwithin downstream riparian areas created byflows from the source or resulting from ripar-ian area management. Surface disturbancewill not be allowed within up to 200 meters ofearthen tanks or the adjacent riparian areascreated as a result of the presence of thetanks. Exceptions to this requirement will beconsidered for the installation of habitat orrangeland projects designed to enhance thespring or seep, or downstream flows.

● Caves and Karst : Surface distur-bance will not be allowed within up to 200meters of known cave entrances, passagesor aspects of significant caves, or significantkarst features. Waiver of this requirement willbe considered for projects that enhance orwhen an approved plan of operations ensuresthe protection of cave and karst resources.

AP1-4

APPENDIX 1

● Prairie Chickens: Drilling for oil and gas,and 3-D geophysical exploration operationswill not be allowed in Lesser Prairie Chickenhabitat during the period of March 15 throughJune 15, each year. During that period, otheractivities that produce noise or involve humanactivity, such as the maintenance of oil andgas facilities, geophysical exploration otherthan 3-D operations, and pipeline, road, andwell pad construction, will be allowed exceptbetween 3:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. The 3:00a.m. to 9:00 a.m. restriction will not apply tonormal, around-the-clock operations, such asventing, flaring, or pumping, which do not re-quire a human presence during the period.Additionally, no new drilling will be allowedwithin up to 200 meters of leks known at thetime of permitting. Normal vehicle use onexisting roads will not be restricted. Exhaustnoise from pump jack engines must bemuffled or otherwise controlled so as not toexceed 75 db measured at 30 feet from thesource of the noise. Exceptions to these re-quirements will be considered for areas of noor low prairie chicken booming activity, orunoccupied habitat, including leks, as deter-mined at the time of permitting, or in emer-gency situations.

● Sand Dune Lizard : Surface disturbancewill not be allowed in documented occupiedhabitat areas, or within up to 100 meters ofsuitable habitat associated with occupiedhabitat areas identified through field review.An exception to this restriction will be consid-ered when an on-site evaluation of habitatexterd, available species occurrence data, theproposed surface use, and proposed mitiga-tions indicate the proposal will not adverselyaffect the local population.

● Visual Resource Management: Paintingof oil field equipment and structures to mini-mize visual impacts will be conducted accord-ing to the requirements of Notice to Lessees(NTL) 87-1, New Mexico. Low profile facili-ties also may be required, when needed, toreduce the contrast of a project with the domi-nant color, line, texture, and form of the sur-rounding landscape. Other surface facilitiesor equipment approved by the BLM, such aslarge-scale range improvements or pipelines,will be painted, when needed, to conform withthe requirements of visual resource manage-ment to minimize visual impacts. Paint col-ors will be selected from the ten standardenvironmerytal colors approved by the RockyMountain Coordinating Committee. The se-lected pairyt color will match as closely aspossible the predominant soil or vegetationcolor of the area.

● Prairie Dog Towns : Surface disturbancewill not be allowed on public lands withinknown prairie dog towns or towns identifiedin the future. Exceptions to this requirementWill be considered for maintaining existingstructures or facilities. Prairie dog control willnot be authorized on public lands, except inemergency situations involving public health.

AP2-1

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 2ROSWELL DISTRICT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

This appendix describes standard conditions of approval. When appropriate, conditions of approvalmay be selected from this list and attached to use authorizations. A check-list or other suitablemeans may be used to identify applicable conditions of approval. The emphasis is primarily on oiland gas operations and rights-of-way, but these conditions may be applied to other activities, aswell.

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. The holder shall indemnify the United States against any liability for damage to life or property arisingfrom the occupancy or use of public lands under this authorization.

2. The holder shall comply with all applicable Federal laws and regulations existing or hereafter enactedor promulgated. In any event, the holder shall comply with the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, asamended (15 U.S.C. 2601, et. seq.) with regard to any toxic substances that are used, generated by orstored on the project/pipeline route or on facilities authorized. (See 40 CFR, Part 702-799 and especially,provisions on polychlorinated biphenyls, 40 CFR 761.1-761.193.) Additionally, any release of toxic sub-stances (leaks, spills, etc.) in excess of the reportable quantity established by 40 CFR, Part 117 shall bereported as required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act,Section 102b. A copy of any report required or requested by any Federal agency or State government asa result of a reportable release or spill of any toxic substances shall be furnished to the Authorized Officerconcurrent with the filing of the reports to the involved Federal agency or State government.

3. The holder agrees to indemnify the United States against any liability arising from the release of anyhazardous substance or hazardous waste (as these terms are defined in the Comprehensive Environ-mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601, et. seq. or the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901, et. seq.) on this project/pipeline (unless the release orthreatened release is wholly unrelated to the holder’s activity on the pipeline). This agreement applieswithout regard to whether a release is caused by the holder, its agent, or unrelated third parties.

4. If, during any phase of the construction, operation, maintenance, or termination of the authorization,any oil or other pollutant should be discharged, impacting Federal lands, the control and total removal,disposal, and cleaning up of such oil of other pollutant, wherever found, shall be the responsibility of theholder, regardless of fault. Upon failure of the holder to control, dispose of, or clean up such discharge onor affecting Federal lands, or to repair all damages to Federal lands resulting therefrom, the AuthorizedOfficer may take such measures as deemed necessary to control and cleanup the discharge and restorethe area, including, where appropriate, the aquatic environment and fish and wildlife habitats, at the fullexpense of the holder. Such action by the Authorized Officer shall not relieve the holder of any liability orresponsibility.

5. Any cultural and/or paleontological resource (historic or prehistoric site or object) discovered by theholder, or any person working on the holder’s behalf, on public or Federal land shall be immediatelyreported to the Authorized Officer. The holder shall suspend all operations in the immediate area of suchdiscovery until written authorization to proceed is issued by the Authorized Officer. An evaluation of thediscovery will be made by the authorized officer to determine appropriate actions to prevent the loss of

AP2-2

APPENDIX 2

significant cultural or scientific values. The holder shall be responsible for the cost of evaluation and anydecision as to the proper mitigation measures will be made by the Authorized Officer after consulting withthe holder.

6. The holder is hereby obligated to comply with procedures established in the Native American GravesProtection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) to protect such cultural items as human remains, associatedfunerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony discovered inadvertently during thecourse of project implementation. In the event that any of the cultural items listed above are discoveredduring the course of project work, the proponent shall immediately halt the disturbance and contact theBLM within 24 hours for instructions. The proponent or initiator of any project shall be held responsible forprotecting, evaluating, reporting, excavating, treating, and disposing of these cultural items according tothe procedures established by the BLM in consultation with Indian Tribes.

7. The holder shall be responsible for weed control on disturbed areas within the limits of the site. Theholder is responsible for consultation with the authorized officer and/or local authorities for acceptableweed control methods, which include following EPA and BLM requirements and policy.

8. The holder shall be responsible for maintaining the site in a sanitary condition at all times; wastematerials shall be disposed of promptly at an appropriate waste disposal site. “Waste” means all dis-carded matter including, but not limited to, human waste, trash, garbage, refuse, oil drums, petroleumproducts, ashes, and equipment.

BURIED PIPELINES (RIGHT-OF-WAY) (PERMIT)

9. The holder shall conduct all activities associated with the construction, operation, and termination ofthe pipeline within the authorized limits.

10. The pipeline shall be buried with a minimum cover of _______ inches between the top of the pipeand ground level.

11. Blading of all vegetation **shall/shall not** be allowed. Blading is defined as the complete removal ofbrush and ground vegetation. Clearing of brush species shall be allowed. Clearing is defined as theremoval of brush while leaving ground vegetation (grasses, weeds, etc.) intact. Clearing is best accom-plished by holding the blade 4 to 6 inches above the ground surface. In areas where blading and/orclearing is allowed, the maximum width of these operations shall not exceed _______________ feet.

12. The holder shall minimize disturbance to existing fences and other improvements on public lands.The holder is required to promptly repair impacted improvements to at least their former state. The holdershall contact the owner of any improvements prior to disturbing them. When necessary to pass througha fence line, the fence shall be braced on both sides of the passageway prior to cutting of the fence. Nopermanent gates shall be allowed unless approved by the Authorized Officer.

13. Vegetation, soil, and rocks left as a result of construction or maintenance activity shall be randomlyscattered over the project area and shall not be left in rows, piles, or berms, unless otherwise approvedby the Authorized Officer, except that an earthen berm shall be left over the ditch line to allow for settlingback to grade.

14. The holder shall seed all surface disturbed by construction activities. Seeding shall be done accord-ing to the attached seeding requirements (Exhibit __), using the attached seed mixture (as determined tomeet Desired Plant Community objectives).

AP2-3

APPENDIX 2

15. All above-ground structures not subject to safety requirements shall be painted by the holder to blendwith the natural color of the landscape. The paint used shall be a color which simulates “Standard Envi-ronmental Colors” designated by the Rocky Mountain Five-State Interagency Committee. The color se-lected for this project is , Munsell Soil Color Chart Number .

16. The holder shall post signs designating the BLM serial number assigned to this authorization at thefollowing locations: the points of origin and completion, or entry to and exit from public lands, of thepipeline and at all major road crossings. These signs shall be posted in a permanent, conspicuousmanner, and shall be maintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization.

17. The holder shall not use the pipeline route as a road for purposes other than routine maintenance asdetermined necessary by the Authorized Officer in consultation with the holder. The holder shall takewhatever steps are necessary to ensure that the pipeline route is not used as a roadway.

SURFACE INSTALLED PIPELINE

18. The holder shall be liable for damage or injury to the United States to the extent provided by 43 CFRSec. **2803/2883**. The holder shall be held to a standard of strict liability for damage or injury to theUnited States resulting from fire or soil movement (including landslides and slumps as well as wind andwater caused movement of particles) caused or substantially aggravated by any of the following withinthe permit area:

A. Activities of the holder, including but not limited to, construction, operation, maintenance, and termina-tion of the facility.

B. Activities of other parties including but not limited to:(1). Land clearing.(2). Earth-disturbing and earth-moving work.(3). Blasting.(4). Vandalism and sabotage.

C. Acts of God.

The maximum limitation for such strict liability damages shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000)for any one event and any liability in excess of such amount shall be determined by the ordinary rules ofnegligence of the jurisdiction of in which the damage of injury occurred.

This section shall not impose strict liability for damage or injury resulting primarily from the negligent actsof the United States.

19. The holder shall conduct all activities associated with the construction, operation, and termination ofthe pipeline within the authorized width of ___________ feet.

20. No blading or clearing of any vegetation shall be allowed unless approved in writing by the Autho-rized Officer.

21. The holder shall install the pipeline on the surface in such a manner that will minimize suspension ofthe pipeline across low areas in the terrain. In hummocky or duney areas, the pipeline will be “snaked”around hummocks and dunes rather than suspended across these features.

AP2-4

APPENDIX 2

22. The pipeline shall be buried a minimum of ________ inches under all roads, including “two-tracks”and trails. Burial shall continue for 20 feet on each side of each crossing. The condition of the road, uponcompletion of the construction, shall be returned to at least its former state, with no bumps, dips, or softspots remaining in the road surface.



25. The holder shall post signs designating the BLM serial number assigned to this pipeline at thefollowing locations: the points of origin and completion, or entry to and exit from public lands, of thepipeline and at all major road crossings. These signs shall be posted in a permanent, conspicuousmanner, and shall be maintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization.

26. The holder shall not use the pipeline route as a road for purposes other than routine maintenance asdetermined necessary by the Authorized Officer in consultation with the holder. The holder shall takewhatever steps are necessary to ensure that the pipeline route is not used as a roadway.

PERMANENT RESOURCE ROADS

Road Width and Grade

27. The road will have a driving surface of __ feet (all roads shall have a minimum driving surface of __feet, unless local conditions dictate a different width). The maximum grade is 10 percent unless the boxbelow is checked. Maximum width of surface disturbance from construction will be __ feet.

__/__/ Those segments of road where grade is in excess of 10 percent for more than 300 feet shall bedesigned by a professional engineer.

Crowning and Ditching

28. Crowning with materials on site and ditching on one side of the road on the uphill side will berequired. The road cross-section will conform to the cross section diagrams in Figure A4-1. If conditionsdictate, ditching may be required for both sides of the road; if local conditions permit, a flat-bladed roadmay be considered (if these conditions exist, check the appropriate box below). The crown shall have agrade of approximately 2 percent (i.e., 1" crown on a 14' wide road). __/__/ Ditching will be required on both sides of the roadway as shown on the attached map or as stakedin the field.

__/__/ Flat-blading is authorized on segment(s) delineated on the attached map.

AP2-5

APPENDIX 2

FIGURE A2-1: CROSS-SECTIONS AND PLANS FOR TYPICAL ROAD SECTIONS

OF ROA!:IWAY

SHOUL.OER 7 I"""'" TURNOUT 10' 71 ... RANSITION .2s· I 100· ~~TRANSITION

FUL.L. TURNOUT WIDTH

TYPICAL TURNOUT PLAN

TOP WIDTH

2'' CROWN

EMBANKMENT SECTION

~"ROM THE BOTTOM OF THE OITCH

"ATURAL. GROUND

SIDE HILL SECTION

TOP WIDTH

2" CROWN

CUT SLOPE ROUNDING

TYPICAL OUTSLOPED SECTION

TUIINOUTI IMALL OE C:ONITIIUC:TEO ON ALL SINGLE LANE .. OAOI ON ALL eLINO CUIItYIEI WfTM ADDITIONAL TUIIIINOUTS AS NIE&OCD TO I<EE~ I~AC:INO OELOW 1- "EET

MCIOMT 0~ PILL EMeANKMCNT ATIMOULOEII ILO~

IIOAO TY~E C:IIOWN

EAIITM lUll,. AC:IJ: .II• .II ,.T I,.T

AOOIIIJ:OATE IUII,.AC:E .01 •.•• "T / .. T.

~AVIJ:O IUII,.AC:IJ: .Ill• 01 ,.T /,.T

TYPICAL INSLOPE SECTION

AP2-6

APPENDIX 2

Drainage

29. Drainage control shall be ensured over the entire road through the use of borrow ditches, outsloping,insloping, natural rolling topography, lead-off (turnout) ditches, culverts, and/or drainage dips.

A. All lead-off ditches shall be graded to drain water with a 1 percent minimum to 3 percent maximumditch slope. The spacing interval for lead-off ditches shall be determined according to the following table,but may be amended depending upon existing soil types and centerline road slope (in %):

SPACING INTERVAL FOR TURNOUT DITCHESPercent slope Spacing interval

0% - 4% 400' - 150'

4% - 6% 250' - 125'

6% - 8% 200' - 100'

8% - 10% 150' - 75'

A typical lead-off ditch has a minimum depth of 1 foot below and a berm 6 inches above natural groundlevel. The berm will be on the down-slope side of the lead-off ditch. The ditch end will tie into vegetationwhenever possible.

For this road the spacing interval for lead-off ditches shall be at __/__/ 400 foot intervals. __/__/ ____ foot intervals. __/__/ locations staked in the field as per spacing intervals above. __/__/ locations delineated on the attached map.

B. Culvert pipes shall be used for cross drains where drainage dips or low water crossings are notfeasible. The minimum culvert diameter must be 18 inches. Any culvert pipe installed shall be of suffi-cient diameter to pass the anticipated flow of water. Culvert location and required diameter are shown onthe attached map (Further details can be obtained from the Roswell District Office or the appropriateResource Area Office).

C. On road slopes exceeding 2%, drainage dips shall drain water into an adjacent lead-off ditch.Drainage dip location and spacing shall be determined by the formula:

spacing interval = 400' + 100' road slope in %

Example: 4% slope: spacing interval = 400 + 100 = 200 feet 4

AP2-7

APPENDIX 2

Turnouts

30. Unless otherwise approved by the Authorized Officer, vehicle turnouts will be required. Turnouts willbe located at 2000-foot intervals, or the turnouts will be intervisible, whichever is less. Turnouts willconform to the following diagram:

______________________________________________________________________

CENTER LINE OF ROADWAY

_____ __ __ ___ __ ___ __ ___ __ ___ __ ___ __ _____________

__________TURNOUT - 10' WIDE_________

|<-25'->| -------------50'------------------- |<-25'->|

STANDARD TURNOUT - PLAN VIEW

Surfacing

31. Surfacing of the road or those portions identified on the attached map may, at the direction of theAuthorized Officer, be required, if necessary, to maintain traffic within the right-of-way with caliche, gravel,or other surfacing material which shall be approved by the Authorized Officer. When surfacing is re-quired, surfacing materials will be compacted to a minimum thickness of ____ inches of ___________.The width of surfacing shall be no less than the driving surface. Prior to using any mineral materials froman existing or proposed Federal source, authorization must be obtained from the Authorized Officer.

Cattleguards

32. Where used, all cattleguard grids and foundation designs and construction shall meet the AmericanAssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load Rating H-20, although AASHTOU-80 rated grids shall be required where heavy loads (exceeding H-20 loading), are anticipated (SeeBLM standard drawings for cattleguards). Cattleguard grid length shall not be less than 8 feet and widthof not less than 14 feet. A wire gate (16-foot minimum width) will be provided on one side of the cattleguardunless requested otherwise by the surface user.

Maintenance

33. A. The holder shall maintain the road in a safe, usable condition. A maintenance program shallinclude, but not be limited to blading, ditching, culvert installation, culvert cleaning, drainage installation,cattleguard maintenance, and surfacing.

B. Failure of the holder to share maintenance costs in dollars, equipment, materials, or manpowerproportionate to the holders use with other authorized users may be adequate grounds to terminate theauthorization. The determination as to whether this has occurred and the decision to terminate shall restwith the Authorized Officer. Upon request, the Authorized Officer shall be provided with copies of anymaintenance agreement entered into.

AP2-8

APPENDIX 2

Public Access

34. Public access along this road will not be restricted by the holder without specific written approvalbeing granted by the Authorized Officer. Gates or cattleguards on public lands will not be locked orclosed to public use unless closure is specifically determined to be necessary and is authorized in writingby the Authorized Officer.

Road Rehabilitation Specifications

35. When the road is abandoned, it will be ripped at least sixteen inches deep, including turnouts. Thecaliche may be reclaimed for re-use before ripping, if so desired. Alternately, the caliche can be plowedunder with a grader, or other soil turning device, and the plowed surface disked before seeding. Allculverts or other structures will be removed. All fill material will be replaced into the cut areas; barrow andlead-off ditches, drainage dips, or other erosion control earthwork will be filled or smoothed; and theabandoned road returned to the natural contours, as closely as possible. Water breaks at least eightinches high will be constructed as shown on accompanying Illustration Sheet. Traffic barriers will beinstalled at all vehicular access points to prevent further use of the road.

Reseed the entire area with the following mixture (to be determined by DPC):______________________________________________________.

All disturbed areas are to be seeded with the seed mixture listed above. The seed and any fertilizerinvolved are to be applied together by broadcasting with a seed spreader, then harrowed for seed cover-age. Use of a seed drill is acceptable. Appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the seed/fertilizer mixture is evenly and uniformly planted. There will be no primary or secondary noxious weeds inthe seed mixture. Seed will be tested for viability and purity in accordance with State law(s) within ninemonths prior to purchase. Commercial seed will be either certified or registered and the seed mixturecontainer will be tagged in accordance with State law(s). The seed will be available for inspection by theAuthorized Officer. The seeding will be repeated until a satisfactory stand is established as determinedby the Authorized Officer. Evaluation of growth will not be made before completion of the first growingseason after seeding. Waiver of this requirement would be considered if diligent attempts to revegetatea site have failed and the Authorized Officer determines that further attempts would be futile.

Normally, the best time for seeding is between June 15 and September 15. However, the grantee mayreseed immediately after completing surface abandonment procedures. The BLM reserves the right torequire reseeding at a specific time if seed does not germinate after one complete growing season.Contact the appropriate resource area office at (Phone No.) at least two working days before thestart of reseeding activities or if there are any questions.

OVERHEAD ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION LINES

36. The holder shall conduct all activities associated with the construction, operation, and termination ofthe powerline within the authorized limits.

37. No blading or clearing of any vegetation will be allowed unless approved in writing by the AuthorizedOfficer.

AP2-9

APPENDIX 2

38. Powerlines shall be constructed to standards outlined in “Suggested Practices for Raptor Protectionon Powerlines,” Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., 1981, unless otherwise agreed to by the AuthorizedOfficer in writing.

The holder is responsible for demonstrating that power pole designs not meeting these standards are“raptor safe.” Such proof shall be provided by a raptor expert approved by the Authorized Officer. TheBLM reserves the right to require modifications or additions to power line structures constructed underthis authorization, should they be necessary to ensure the safety of large perching birds. These modifica-tions and/or additions shall be made by the holder without liability or expense to the United States.

39. The holder shall minimize disturbance to existing fences and other improvements on public lands.The holder is required to promptly repair impacted improvements to at least their former state. The holdershall contact the owner of any improvements prior to disturbing them. When necessary to pass througha fence line, the fence will be braced on both sides of the passageway prior to cutting of the fence. Nopermanent gates will be allowed unless approved by the Authorized Officer.

40. Construction holes left open over night shall be covered. Covers shall be secured in place and shallbe strong enough to prevent livestock or wildlife from falling through and into a hole.

41. The holder shall evenly spread the excess soil excavated from pole holes in the immediate vicinity ofthe pole structure.

42. The BLM serial number assigned to this authorization grant shall be posted in a permanent, con-spicuous manner, and be maintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization at all majorroad crossings and at all serviced facilities. Numbers will be at least two inches high and will be affixed tothe pole nearest the road crossing and at the facilities served.

43. Upon cancellation, relinquishment, or expiration of this grant, the holder shall comply with thoseabandonment procedures prescribed in the grant or determined at the time of abandonment.

44. All surface structures (poles, lines, transformers, etc.) shall be removed within _______ days ofabandonment, relinquishment, or termination of use of the serviced facilities or within _______ days ofabandonment, relinquishment, or termination of this authorization, whichever comes first. This will notapply where the powerline extends to serve an active, adjoining facility or facilities.

COMMUNICATION SITES

45. The authorization is conditioned upon the submission of a copy of an approved license and/or re-newal license granted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or the Interdepartmental Ra-dio Advisory Committee (IRAC) for each electronic station installation authorized or future amendmentsof this authorization. A copy of the FCC or IRAC authorization shall be submitted within 90 days ofissuance of this authorization or within 90 days following approval of an amendment to this authorization.Failure to submit the FCC or IRAC authorization copy within the time specified shall be grounds fortermination of this authorization or cancellation of an amendment to this authorization. The AuthorizedOfficer may grant an extension of up to 90 days, if requested in writing by the holder.

46. The holder and its sublessees shall at all times operate their radio-electronic equipment in such amanner as not to cause interference with radio-electronic operations of existing users in the vicinity. Ifsuch interference results from holder’s or sublessee’s operations, holder shall promptly, at its own

AP2-10

APPENDIX 2

expense, modify the equipment and operations, or shut down if necessary to eliminate or reduce theinterference to the satisfaction of the FCC, IRAC, and/or the Authorized Officer.

47. The holder shall notify the Authorized Officer of any intent to locate additional users within or upontheir existing facilities, not less than 45 days prior to occupancy of holder’s facilities. Information that mustbe included is:

a. Name, current address, and phone number of the third party user(s).

b. Expected date of occupancy.

c. A photo or sketch of the type of antennas to be installed, as well as any other planned physicalchanges to the exterior facilities operated by the holder. If the proposed use is not specified in the originalauthorization shall be required.

48. No less than 45 days prior to occupancy of the holder’s facility, the holder shall notify existing userswithin a 1-mile radius that the holder intends to accommodate a new communication user in its facility.Existing users can then file any comments pertaining to potential frequency or electromagnetic problemswith the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20554, with a copyto the Authorized Officer.

49. The holder shall be responsible for the actions and operations of any third party users associatedwith this facility. All such use shall be subject to the applicable terms, conditions, and stipulations of thisauthorization.


51. The holder shall post signs designating the BLM serial number assigned to this facility at the points ofentry to and exit from the site. These signs shall be posted in a permanent, conspicuous manner, andshall be maintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization.

52. The holder agrees to share road maintenance costs with all present and future users of the accessroad. At such future time as a Users Association for this communication site is formed, the holder shalljoin the Users Association and remain a member in good standing. Within 30 days of the creation of suchUsers Association the holder shall provide the authorized officer with evidence of membership. Failure ofthe holder to join the Users Association and remain a member in good standing shall constitute sufficientgrounds for termination of this authorization.

OIL AND GAS RELATED SITES (RIGHT-OF-WAY)


54. The holder shall post a sign designating the BLM serial number assigned to this authorization in apermanent, conspicuous location on the site where the sign will be visible from the entry to the site. Thissign will be maintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization.

AP2-11

APPENDIX 2

SALTWATER DISPOSAL WELLS (COMMERCIAL)

55. This permit is subject to all terms, conditions, and stipulations of the NMOCD approval and appli-cable Roswell District General Requirements for Oil and Gas Operations on Federal Leases (copy at-tached).

56. The holder shall be liable for damage or injury to the United States to the extent provided by 43 CFRSec. **2803/2883**. The holder shall be held to a standard of strict liability for damage or injury to theUnited States resulting from fire or soil movement (including landslides and slumps, and movement bywind and water) caused or substantially aggravated by any of the following within the authorized site orfacilities:

A. Activities of the holder, including but not limited to, construction, operation, maintenance, and termina-tion of the facility.

B. Activities of other parties including but not limited to:

(1) Land clearing.(2) Earth-disturbing and earth-moving work.(3) Blasting.(4) Vandalism and sabotage.

The maximum limitation for such strict liability damages shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000)for any one event and any liability in excess of such amount shall be determined by the ordinary rules ofnegligence of the jurisdiction of in which the damage of injury occurred.

This section shall not impose strict liability for damage or injury resulting primarily from the negligent actsof the United States.

57. As a guarantee of faithful performance of the provisions of this grant, the holder agrees to deliver andmaintain a surety bond, or other performance security acceptable to the Authorized Officer, in the amountof _________, (minimum of $25,000) to cover the costs of plugging and reclamation. Should the suretiesor bonds delivered under this grant become unsatisfactory to the Bureau, the holder shall, within thirty(30) days of demand, furnish a new bond, or other acceptable security, with surety.

The holder may deposit in a Federal depositor as directed by the Bureau, and maintain therein, cash inthe amounts provided for above or negotiable securities of the United States having a market value at thetime of deposit of not less than the dollar amounts provided for above.

58. The holder agrees to secure the prior approval of the Authorized Officer before commencing anyoperations such as: drilling out cement plugs, cementing operations, perforating (using explosive orhydraulic fracturing), deepening, altering or pulling a portion of the well’s casing, plugging operations, orany other operation affecting the well.

59. The holder agrees to use the well solely for salt water disposal. No other substance__including oil,condensates, sludge, drilling fluids, other chemicals, or any toxic pollutant (as this term is defined underthe Clean Water Act 40 CFR 104-149, Section 502)__shall be injected.

60. At any time deemed necessary by the Authorized Officer, earthen dikes shall be constructed andmaintained around all tanks, vessels, and storage facilities. These dikes will be designed to contain, at

AP2-12

APPENDIX 2

a minimum, the entire contents of the largest tank within the facility, unless more stringent protectiverequirements are deemed necessary by the Authorized Officer.


62. The holder shall post a sign in a permanent, conspicuous location at the site. At a minimum, the signwill state the holder’s name, the well name, the BLM serial number, and the legal location by township,range, and quarter-quarter of section. The sign will be maintained in a legible condition for the term of theauthorization.

63. Upon cancellation, relinquishment, or expiration of this authorization, the holder shall comply withthose abandonment procedures, including restoration and decontamination (if necessary) of the surfaceand plugging of the wellbore, prescribed in the authorization or determined at the time of abandonment.

BURIED TELEPHONE CABLES

64. The holder shall conduct all activities associated with the construction, operation, and termination ofthe telephone line within the authorized limits.

65. There shall be no clearing or blading of the telephone route unless otherwise agreed to in writing bythe Authorized Officer.


67. Vegetation, soil, and rocks left as a result of construction, drilling, or maintenance activity shall berandomly scattered over the project area and shall not be left in rows, piles, or berms (except for a bermleft over the ditch line to allow for settling back to grade), unless otherwise approved by the AuthorizedOfficer.

68. The holder shall post signs designating the BLM serial number assigned to this authorization at thefollowing locations: the points of origin and completion, or entry to and exit from public lands, of thetelephone line and at all major road crossings. These signs shall be posted in a permanent, conspicuousmanner, and shall be maintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization.


70. The holder shall not use the telephone cable route as a road for purposes other than routine mainte-nance as determined necessary by the Authorized Officer in consultation with the holder. The holdershall take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the telephone cable route is not used as a road-way.

AP2-13

APPENDIX 2

CATHODIC PROTECTION SITES

71. Unless otherwise approved, in writing, by the Authorized Officer, the holder shall reseed all surfacedisturbed by construction activities. If reseeding is required, it will be done according the attached seed-ing requirements (Exhibit ), using seed mixture as determined by DPC.

72. All above-ground structures not subject to safety requirements shall be painted by the holder to blendwith the natural color of the landscape. The paint used shall be a color which simulates “Standard Envi-ronmental Colors” designated by the Rocky Mountain Five-State Interagency Committee. The color se-lected for this project is Munsell Soil Color Chart Number .

73. The holder shall post a sign designating the BLM serial number assigned to this authorization andthe holder’s name at the site. This sign will be posted in a permanent, conspicuous manner, and will bemaintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization.

APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DRILL

74. The operator shall post signs identifying the location permitted herein in accordance with the require-ments contained in Onshore Oil and Gas Order #1 and 43 CFR 3162.6.

THE FOLLOWING DATA IS REQUIRED ON THE WELL SIGN:

(example) OPERATORS NAME: XYZ Oil & Gas CompanyWELL NAME & NO: #1 XYZ FederalLEASE NO.: NM-XXXXXLOCATION: XX’ FXL & XX’ FXL - Sec. XX, T. XX S., R. XX E.,NMPM

On Lease - Surface Requirements Prior to Drilling:

75. The approval of this action does not in any way grant or imply approval of any off-lease or off-unitaction. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain any such approvals from the appropriate surfacemanaging agency, including the B.L.M., and/or any private landowners.

76. The BLM will monitor construction on this drill site. Notify the appropriate Resource Area Office, BLMat least (specify) working days prior to commencing construction at (505) .

77. Prior to commencing construction of the road, pad, or other associated developments, the operatorshall provide the dirt contractor with a copy of the approved Surface Use Plan and the attached Condi-tions of Approval.

78. All vehicles and equipment associated with drilling, completion, or production phases of this wellshall be confined to the approved road, pad, and other areas herein approved.

79. All topsoil and vegetation encountered during the construction of the drill site areas shall be stock-piled and made available for resurfacing of the disturbed areas after completion of the drilling operations.Topsoil on the (well name and number) is approximately (specify) inches in depth. A minimum ofapproximately (specify) cubic yards of topsoil material shall be stockpiled on the (specify) edge / at the(specify) corner of the location for reclamation of the pad and pit area.

AP2-14

APPENDIX 2

80. The drill pad and access road for this well must be surfaced with (specify) inches of compactedcaliche, gravel, or other approved surfacing material.

81. Caliche, gravel, or other related materials from new or existing pits on Federal mineral estate shall notbe taken without prior approval from the Authorized Officer.

82. Payment for Federal mineral materials to be used for construction is required prior to construction ofthe pad and access road.

Drilling Pits:

83. A. Reserve pits shall be constructed such that at least one half the total pit volume is below naturalground level (minimum of 4 feet) unless approved by the Authorized Officer or a metal closed pit systemis used. All mud pits shall be constructed so as not to leak, break, or allow discharge of liquids. Pits arenot to be located in any natural drainage. Any plastic material used to line pits, must be at least __ mil inthickness, have a bursting strength of ___ PSI, and be removed to below ground level before the pits arecovered.

B. Reserve pits shall be fenced on three sides during drilling operations. The fourth side shall befenced immediately upon rig release. Any pit or open top tank containing oil and/or toxic liquids shall beequipped to deter entry by birds, bats, and other wildlife, and livestock.

C. Liquids in pits will be allowed to evaporate, or be properly disposed of otherwise, before pits arereclaimed. Under no circumstances shall pits be cut to be drained.

Containment Dikes:

84. Firewalls/containment dikes are to be constructed and maintained around all storage facilities/batter-ies. The containment structure must have sufficient volume to contain, at a minimum, the entire contentsof the largest tank within the facility/battery, unless more stringent protective requirements are deemednecessary by the Authorized Officer.

Cave Protection Requirements:

85. A. If, during any construction activities any sinkholes or cave openings are discovered, all construc-tion activities shall immediately cease, and the BLM office will be notified.

85. B. The BLM will, within 24 hours of notification in “A” above, conduct an on-the-ground field inspectionfor karst. At the field inspection, the authorized field inspector will authorize or suggest mitigating mea-sures to lessen the damage to the karst environment. A verbal order to proceed or stop the operation willbe issued at that time.

Painting:


AP2-15

APPENDIX 2

Fences:


Well Completion Requirements:

88. If the well is completed, the reserve pit(s) shall be backfilled when dry, and cut-and-fill slopes shall bereduced to a slope of 3:1 or less. All areas of the pad not necessary for operations must be re-contouredto resemble the original contours of the surrounding terrain, and stockpiled topsoil must be re-distributedand the reclaimed area re-seeded. Seeding shall be done according to the attached seeding require-ments (Exhibit B), using the attached seed mixture (as determined by Desired Plant Community).

89. All open-vent exhaust stacks associated with heater-treater, separator and dehydrator units shall bemodified to prevent birds and bats from entering them and to the extent practical to discourage perchingand nesting.

New production equipment installed on federal leases after November 1, 1993, will have the open-ventexhaust stacks constructed to prevent the entry of birds and bats and, to the extent practical, to discour-age perching and nesting.

Abandonment:

90. If the well is dry and is to be plugged, approval of the proposed plugging program may be obtainedverbally. However, verbal approval must be confirmed in writing by immediately filing an original and therequired number of copies of the Notice of Intent to Abandon (Form 3l60-5) with the appropriate BLMarea office. The report should show the total depth reached, the reason for plugging, and the proposedintervals, by depths, where plugs are to be placed, type of plug, type of plugging mud, etc.

91. Following receipt of “Subsequent Report of Abandonment”, final BLM requirements for surface recla-mation will be as specified in the authorization or determined at the time of abandonment.

92. If the well is not drilled, notify the BLM so that an official release can be approved.

MINERAL MATERIAL SITES

93. All design, material, and construction, operation, maintenance, and termination practices shall be inaccordance with safe and proven engineering practices.

94. The holder shall conduct all activities associated with the construction, operation, and termination ofthe material pit within the authorized limits.

95. The holder shall minimize disturbance to existing fences and other improvements on public lands.The holder is required to promptly repair impacted improvements to at least their former state. The holdershall contact the owner of any improvements prior to disturbing them. When necessary to pass

AP2-16

APPENDIX 2

through a fence line, the fence shall be braced on both sides of the passageway prior to cutting of thefence. No permanent gates shall be allowed unless approved by the Authorized Officer.

96. The holder shall be responsible for the actions and operations of any third party users associatedwith this authorization. All such use shall be subject to the applicable terms, conditions, and stipulationsof this authorization.

97. The road proposed as part of this authorization shall be constructed and maintained in accordancewith BLM road standards, including the New Mexico Roads Policy.

98. The holder shall seed all surface disturbed by construction activities. Seeding shall be done accord-ing to the attached seeding requirements (Exhibit ____), using the attached seed mixture (as determinedby DPC).

99. Suitable topsoil material removed in conjunction with clearing and stripping shall be conserved instockpiles (within the material site) (at the following staked locations: specify location). Topsoil shall bestripped to an average depth of (specify) inches. A total of (specify) cubic yards of topsoil shall bestockpiled.

100. Excess excavated, unsuitable, or slide material shall be disposed of as directed by the AuthorizedOfficer.

101. No construction or routine maintenance activities shall be performed during periods when the soil istoo wet to adequately support construction equipment. If such equipment creates ruts in excess of(designate) inches deep, the soil shall be deemed too wet to adequately support construction equipment.102. Existing roads and trails on public lands that are blocked as the result of the material pit activitiesshall be rerouted or rebuilt as directed by the authorized officer.

103. The holder shall recontour the disturbed area and obliterate all earthwork by removing embank-ments, backfilling excavations, and grading to reestablish the approximate original contour of the land asdetermined by the authorized officer.

104. The holder shall uniformly spread topsoil over all unoccupied disturbed areas. Spreading shall notbe done when the ground or topsoil is frozen or wet.

105. The BLM will monitor construction on this material pit site. Notify the appropriate Resource AreaOffice, BLM at least (specify) working days prior to commencing excavation at (505) .

HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER DISCHARGE SITES

106. Before being authorized to discharge any hydrostatic test water, the Holder must submit to theBLM’s Authorized Officer a hydrostatic test water discharge plan approved by the New Mexico Oil Con-servation Division. Discharge of hydrostatic test water must comply with Environmental Protection Agencyregulations described in 40 CFR 260, including testing the waste for hazardous waste characteristicsbefore disposal. Generators of hydrostatic test water also must meet the discharge plan requirements ofthe New Mexico Water Quality Act and the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission regulations 3-106b.

107. Prior to discharging hydrostatic test water from the pipeline, the Holder shall design and install asuitable energy dissipator at the outlet(s), and design and install appropriate erosion protection struc-

AP2-17

APPENDIX 2

tures needed to ensure that there will be no erosion or scouring of the natural surface or channels withinthe affected area as a result of the discharge. The Holder will be held accountable for any erosion,scouring, or depletion of vegetation resulting from the discharge. Any structures or objects, includingsandbags, rocks, hay bales, or other material installed for erosion control, will be removed from the siteupon completion of the hydrostatic testing.

108. The Holder shall inform the Authorized Officer three working days prior to the completion of thehydrostatic test and water discharge.

FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT

109. If a threat of flooding by the Pecos River occurs during drilling operations, the Resource AreaManager will issue a shut-in order. Toxic substances and, possibly, drilling equipment will be removedfrom the floodplain.

110. A drilling pad will be elevated at least ________ (inches, feet) and surfaced according to Conditionof Approval 80.

111. All riparian habitat will be protected according to instructions provided by the Authorized Officer.Trees will not be cut down unless authorized.

112. Self-contained metal tanks are required for floodplain locations.

113. Pits containing oil, tank bottoms or other hydrocarbons, salt water, or any toxic substances will notbe allowed in the floodplain.

114. Provisions for containing salt water flow must be made prior to beginning drilling, without resorting toreserve pits constructed in the ground. Metal tanks or tank trucks must be in place to collect salt water.Salt water storage will not be allowed in the floodplain.

115. Production facilities will be located outside the floodplain.

116. Flowlines from the wellhead to production facilities will be buried, if soil conditions permit burial.

117. Special precautions will be taken to reduce damage from flooding:a. The well will be equipped with a down-hole shut-in device, rated at working pressure of 1,500 psi; orb. The wellhead will be buried below ground in a concrete cellar with a grate over it; or,

c. Three steel posts will be set in concrete. Horizontal steel cross bars will connect the posts. Heavygauge chain link fencing will be welded or bolted to the post and cross bars. The V must point upstreamor in the direction specified.

118. Chemical toilets will be used instead of latrines.

DRILLING RIG STORAGE

119. The holder shall conduct all activities associated with the operation, and termination of the rig stor-age within the authorized limits. All activity will be limited to (describe authorized area of activity) andthe immediate perimeter (describe distance--maximum of 20 feet) .

AP2-18

APPENDIX 2

120. If the storage of this rig should interfere with the producer’s operations, the holder shall be re-quired to remove it immediately.

121. Should the well be plugged and abandoned during the term of this permit, the permittee will berequired either to remove the drilling rig within 30 days or assume all responsibility for restoration of thewell pad and access road.

122. The BLM will be notified in writing within 30 days after removal of the drilling rig. Address corre-spondence to:

Bureau of Land ManagementRoswell Resource Area2909 West Second StreetRoswell, NM 88201Attention: Realty Section

or

Bureau of Land ManagementCarlsbad Resource Area620 E. GreeneCarlsbad, NM 88220-6269Attention: Realty Section

GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION

The following special conditions are attached, when needed, to the “Terms and Conditions for Notice ofIntent to Conduct Geophysical Exploration.” Figure A4-2 is a copy of the Notice of Intent, located at theend of this Appendix.

123. There shall be no 3-D geophysical activities in Lesser Prairie Chicken habitat between March 15and June 15. Other geophysical operations may be conducted during this period if they do not com-mence until after 9:00 a.m. and are not conducted between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Anydeviation from this requirement must be approved by the Authorized Officer.

124. All gas or diesel combustion engines must have mufflers installed to effectively reduce the impact ofexcessive noise levels within Lesser Prairie chicken habitat.

125. Sand dune lizard study sites (See Exhibit , map) identified in the project area shall be avoided byvehicles involved in geophysical operations. A flagged buffer zone surrounding the study sites will iden-tify the areas of concern. No ATVs shall be driven within the study sites. Geophones shall be handcarried onto the study sites. Drive-arounds shall be strictly adhered to within the study site areas.

126. Geophysical operations at sand dune lizard study sites will be monitored. One day prior to com-mencing geophysical operations within the immediate areas of sand dune lizard study sites, the geo-physical company’s representative shall call at .

127. All large, hummocky sand dunes encountered during geophysical operations shall be avoided bydriving around the sand dunes.

AP2-19

APPENDIX 2

128. Any large trees (e.g., soapberry, elm, or large mesquite) encountered in the area of operations shallbe avoided and shall not be disturbed.

129. Playas shall be avoided by using re-routes or skips.

130. Wildlife watering facilities shall be avoided by using re-routes or skips.

131. Archaeological sites shall be avoided by adhering to the re-routes flagged in the field, which arelisted in the attachment to the NOI. Additional cultural resources protections provided in cultural report, which are listed in the attachment, shall be followed.

132. Any fence needing to be cut during operations to allow access shall be immediately repaired to acondition as good as or better than the condition in which the fence was found. No fence shall beremoved.

133. Where appropriate, disturbed areas shall be rehabilitated as directed by the Authorized Officer.Rehabilitation techniques may include, but are not limited to: ripping, disking, or other seed bed prepara-tion; reseeding; placement of erosion control devices; and berming, barricading, and/or signing geophysi-cal routes where they cross roads.

134. Operations shall be suspended when, in the judgement of the Authorized Officer, they have thepossibility of unduly harming the surface during periods of wet weather or drought.

FILMING PERMITS

135. All vehicular traffic shall be confined to existing roads.

136. No blading or clearing of any vegetation shall be allowed unless approved in writing by the Autho-rized Officer.

137. Upon cancellation, relinquishment, or expiration of this authorization, the holder shall comply withrehabilitation procedures prescribed by the Authorized Officer.

138. The holder shall notify the Authorized Officer upon completion of operations so that a compliancecheck can be conducted.

139. Acknowledgment, through the film credits, shall be given to: the U.S. Department of the Interior,Bureau of Land Management, Roswell Resource Area.

140. The permittee shall provide the BLM with proof of an insurance policy, naming the Bureau of LandManagement as “additionally insured” or “co-insured”.

141. The permittee shall provide the appropriate resource area office with a copy of the finished filmproduct within two weeks of public distribution.

AP2-20

APPENDIX 2

Form 31S0-4a (July 1993)

Compaay Name

7Jp Code

FIGUREA2-2

UNITED STA TfS DEPARTMENT OF 1liE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

TERMS AND CONDmCINS FOR NOnCE OF INTENT TO CONDUCT QEC tiYSICAL EXPLORAnON

O.raNOIFUed Compeay Projec:l Name

1511• CIIIDI

OENERAL

FORM APPROVED OMB NO. 1004-0162

BlpiM: April 30, 1996

Bl..MCueNo.

1. A copy of the approved Notice of Intent to Conduct Oil and Ou Geophysical Exploration Operation• and Ter1111 and Condition• shall be kept in the field with each seismic crew.

2. Tbe BUd shall be notified atleut 3 days and no more than 14 days before enterin& onto public lands. If conditions have chanpd, additional terms and conditions may be necessary.

3. The operator is responsible for informina all persona in tbe area who are associated with this project that they will be subject to prosecution for knowinaly disturbina historic or archaeoloaical sites, or ror collectina artifact~. If historic or archaeoloaical materials are discovered, the operator is to immediately stop work that miaht further disturb such materials, and contact the Authorized Officer (AO). Within five worltina daya the AO will inform the operator as to:

• Whether the materials appear eliaible for the National Resister of Historic Places; • The mitiaation measures the operator will likely have to undertake before the site can be used (assumina in situ preservation is not necessary); and, • A timeframe for the AO to complete an expedited review under 36 CPR 800.1lto confirm, through the State Historic Preservation Ofrtcer, that the

fmdinp of the AO are correct and that mitiaation is appropriate.

If the operator wishes, at any time, to relocate activities to avoid the expense of mitiaation and/or delays associated with this process, the AO will assume responsibility Cor whatever recordation and stabilization or the exposed materials may be Rquired. Otherwise, the operator will be responsible for mitigation cosrs. The AO will provide technical and procedural guidelines Cor the conduct of mitiaation. Upon verification from the AO that the RqUired mitiaation has been completed, the operator will then be allowed to resume operations.

4. Due care must be taken to safeauard alllivestodt, wildlife, and wild horsea in the vicinity of tbe exploration operations. Measurea to mitiaate adverse effects on protected or threatened/endanaered species will be determined by tbe AO al\er consultation with the operator.

S. Operations shall be suspended when in the judament of the Authorized OffiCer they have the possibility or unduly harm ina the surface durina periods of wet weather.

6. Range improvemenrs (fences, reservoirs, etc.) or land treatment projects (contour furrowing. seeding. or ranae monitoring sites) shall not be disturbed or altered without prior written approval of the Authorized Off=r.

7. Federally owned or controlled water shall not be used without written permission of the Authorized OffiCer.

8. All fares set or caused as a result of these exploration operations shall be extinauisbed without expense to the govemmenL All fires shall be reported to tbe BUd as soon as possible.

9. The operator shall notify tbe Authorized Officer in writing of any changes in the oriainal application and secure written approval for the changes before proceeding.

10. When it is determined that activities will come closer tban one quarter (1/4) mile of developed recreation sites, historic trails. sprinp or Oowina water wells tbe Authorized Officer will be consulted to determine iftbe action is permissible.

11. Advanced written permission shall be obtained before cooduc:tina surface disturbina activities. This includes, but is not limited to: towina with a tractor, blading, dozing, snow removal, and vegetation removal.

12. Powder magazines and explosives shall be stored and handled according to U.S. Bureau of AlcohCII, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) standards. As required by A TF, loaded shotholes shall not be left unsecured.

(COIIIinueJ on reverse)

AP2-21

APPENDIX 2

FIGURE A2-2 (continued)

REC~TIO~CLEANUP

1. Reclamation of disturbed areas shall be done CXlllCUtfeDtly with the geophysical operation, in-so-far as possible.

2. Shallow bole plugging ·shall be completed using the guidelines developed by the appropriate State/local regulatory agency or agencies and the Bureau of Land Management State Office. The requirements vary from Slate to State; therefore, those specific to the State the project is being conducted in will be followed.

3. Where appropriate, disturbed areas shall be reseeded, as directed by the Authorized Officer, until vegetative cover is established that is commensurate with pre-survey conditions. In areas where reseeding is not appropriate, the authorized officer shall determine what steps should be taken.

4. All trash, flagging, lath, etc. shall be removed 8lld hauled to an authorized disposal site.

S. No oil or lubricants shall be drained onto the ground surface.

6. The operator shall notify the Authorized Officer of the date operations are completed.

COMPLETION OF PROCEDURES

1. A Notice of Completion (NOC) (Form 3150-S) shall be filed within 30 days of completion of operations induding reclamation. A map (minimum scale of 1:24,000) must be artacbed to the NOC showina public lands crossed and the final location of source points.

I understand and agree to oomply with these terms 8lld cooditions and any attached special conditions.

(Signature of Appropriate Represetllative) (Date)

0 Special Conditions Artacbed

AP3-1

APPENDIX 3

POTENTIAL FOR CAVES OR KARST

A map of cave or karst potential will be maintainedto provide the public with current informationabout the likelihood of the presence of cave orkarst resources. The map will serve as an indi-cator of the potential for encountering caves orkarst for which special practices could be re-quired, following NEPA analysis, to mitigate drill-ing impacts. The primary use of the map is as asource of information for individuals or compa-nies contemplating the leasing of federal miner-als.

Three zones of cave or karst occurrence havebeen identified and categorized: high potential;medium potential; and low potential. Areas thatcontain known cave or karst features are in thehigh potential zone. Areas containing knownsoluble rock formations with the potential for caveor karst development are in the medium poten-tial zone. These zones were identified using geo-logic maps and existing information on caves andkarst. All other lands fall into the low potentialzone. These zones may be increased or de-creased in size as new information from drilling,cave exploration or other sources becomes avail-able.

The cave or karst occurrence zones have been

further divided into smaller geographic areas toprovide an additional means of identification of aspecific area (See Table A3-1 and Map A3-1). Anestimate has been made for each of these areasas to the lowest likely depth at which caves mightbe expected. Again, this is simply a source ofinformation for individuals or companies contem-plating the leasing of federal minerals.

The lease notice “Potential Cave or Karst Occur-rence Area” (Roswell 46), will be applied to leaseswhen all or part of the lease is located in a highor medium potential cave or karst occurrencearea. Refer to Figure A3-1 for an example of thelease notice. The purpose of the lease notice, aswith maps of cave or karst potential, is to provideinformation to the purchasers of federal oil andgas leases.

Because the identification of cave or karst poten-tial zones is only informational, the mitigationsdescribed below will be applied, when and whereappropriate, irrespective of any identified zone ofcave or karst potential. However, the emphasisof management will be on caves presently desig-nated significant or on those designated in thefuture as significant, and on significant karst fea-tures.

APPENDIX 3PRACTICES FOR OIL AND GAS DRILLING

AND OPERATIONS IN CAVE AND KARST AREAS

This appendix describes practices for detecting and avoiding significant caves and significantkarst features with respect to oil and gas drilling, and for mitigating impacts to significant cavesand karst when they cannot be avoided. These mitigations are predicated on the BLM’s respon-sibilities for resource management and protection derived from the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act, the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act, and the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act. The practices described here supersede those of the Draft “Interim Guide for Oiland Gas Drilling and Operations in Cave and Karst Areas” (February 1993).

AP3-2

APPENDIX 3

TABLE A3-1CAVE OR KARST OCCURRENCE AREAS


Area 1/ Area Name Depth 2/ Potential 3/

1 Malpais 500 High

2 Fort Stanton 400 Medium

3 Carrizozo None Low

4 Corona 400 Medium

5 Cibola None Low

6 Cibola 2 None Low

7 Border Hill 500 Medium

8 Salt Creek 400 High

9 Artesia None Low

10 Buffalo Hills 350 High

11 Chaves-DeBaca 400 Medium

12 East RRA None Low

1/ Refers to areas on the “Cave or Karst Occurrence Areas” map for the Roswell Resource Area.

2/ Lowest likely depth, in feet, at which caves might be expected, measured from the surface. No cave depths areestimated for low potential areas.

3/ Potential for cave or karst occurrence.


AP3-3

APPENDIX 3Cave or Karst Occurrence Areas

High Potential

Medium Potential

Low Potential

NOTE - The table associated with this map shows the relative depth of each area shown on this map. For example, area number 1 is the Malpais Area which has a high potential for the occurrence of caves/karst features to a depth of 500 feet.

NORTH



Oil & Gas Potential Occurrence Boundaries

H = High Potential

M Moderate Potential

L Low Potential

MAP A3-l CAVE or KARST OCCURRENCE AREAS


AP3-4

APPENDIX 3

MITIGATION OF DRILLING IMPACTS

The need to relocate drilling locations to avoidcaves or karst, and any special drilling or produc-tion practices employed to mitigate impacts tocaves or karst, will be determined during theNEPA analysis of APDs or other applications. Thepractices described below will be applied whereneeded, and to the extent necessary, to ensurethat the potential impacts of drilling oil or gas wells,or of constructing other facilities, in cave or karstareas would be minimized according to the fol-lowing process:

(1)Detect potential cave or karst resources anddetermine their significance.

(2)Avoid cave or karst resources where possible.

(3)Mitigate impacts to caves or karst that cannotbe avoided.

The results of any detection efforts will be ad-

dressed in the NEPA analysis and appropriatemitigations will be developed, if needed, as partof the analysis.

Depending on the results of detection, avoidancewill be considered as a means of mitigating po-tential impacts. In most cases, avoidance will beaccomplished by relocation of the proposed welllocation, which is often done in consultation withthe operator at the time of a field examination.Moving a proposed location up to 200 meters isa commonly employed avoidance measure. Theneed to move a location more than 200 meterswill be addressed in the NEPA analysis of an APD.If the construction of a pipeline, road, power lineor other facility is proposed, rerouting or reloca-tion will be required to accomplish avoidance.

The management of oil and gas operations incave or karst areas, including approvals for drill-ing oil or gas wells, will be guided by proceduresdescribed below, Surface Use and OccupancyRequirements (Appendix 1), and Conditions ofApproval (Appendix 2). These practices will be

FIGURE A3-1

LEASE NOTICE

Potential Cave or Karst Occurrence Area

All or portions of the lease are located in a potential cave or karst occurrence area. Within this area, caves or karstfeatures such as sinkholes, passages, and large rooms may be encountered from the surface to a depth of as muchas 2,500 feet, within surface areas ranging from a few acres to hundreds of acres. Due to the sensitive nature of thecave or karst systems of this area, special protective measures may be developed during environmental analysesand be required as part of approvals for drilling or other operations on this lease. These measures could include:relocation of the proposed well; changes in drilling operations; special casing and cementing programs; modificationsto surface facilities; or other reasonable measures to mitigate impacts to cave or karst values. These measures maybe imposed in accordance with 43 CFR 3101.1-2; 43 CFR 3162.5-1; Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1; and Section6 of the lease terms.

Roswell 46February 1991

AP3-5

APPENDIX 3

modified as new and cost effective technologiesfor cave and karst protection become available.

Detection Methods

The primary detection method will be the reviewof BLM or other records on the presence of cavesor karst features in the area of interest, in con-junction with a field exam by a BLM employee orcave inventory contractor to determine the pres-ence of unrecorded cave or karst features. De-pending on the results of initial detection effortsand a determination of potential significance bythe BLM, cave exploration could be employed togain additional information. As various geophysi-cal techniques are proven useful for cave detec-tion and become generally available for use, theymay be considered on a case-by-case basis as ameans of locating unrecorded cave or karst fea-tures.

Surface Mitigation

Whether or not a proposed activity has been re-located to reduce potential impacts on caves orkarst, surface mitigations will be applied, whenneeded, to minimize the risk of impacts duringconstruction, drilling or production. Appropriatesurface mitigations will be developed during theNEPA analysis of a proposal and could includeone or more of the following practices, most ofwhich have long been employed to mitigate im-pacts.

Practices to minimize potential impacts from re-serve pit spills or leakage:

• The use of a closed system or steel tanks;

• Reorientation of the rig and related pit lo-cation, while giving consideration to humansafety;

Practices to minimize potential impacts from leak-ing tanks or pipelines:

• The construction of berms around stor-age tanks sufficient to contain spills, in ac-cordance with Roswell District Conditions of

Approval (Appendix 2);

• The installation of leak detection systemsfor pipelines or tanks;

• The use of permanent liners in storagetank areas;

• The use of differential pressure shut-offvalves;

• The use of corrosion-inhibiting coatingsand cathodic protection.

Practices to minimize the potential impacts ofvented or escaping gases settling in caves:

• The flaring or venting of gas to protect hu-man safety and to better disperse the gasesand eliminate possible gas ignitions;

• The use of stock tank vapor recovery sys-tems.

Subsurface Mitigation

Applicable and reasonable subsurface mitigationswill be applied where the presence of caves orkarst is obvious or expected, based on the re-sults of detection efforts, and in lost circulationzones. The options could include, but are notlimited to, the following practices.

Drilling:

• Cable tool drilling techniques will be usedwhen possible in areas where encounters ofcaves or karst are expected at depths notgreater that 350 feet.

• Rotary drilling techniques in cave or karstareas will include the use of either fresh wa-ter mud, foam, or compressed air as a circu-lating medium in zones where caves or karstare expected. Below those zones, the op-erator may use whatever drilling fluid is ap-propriate.

AP3-6

APPENDIX 3

Casing and Cementing:

• All casing will meet or exceed National As-sociation of Corrosion Engineers specifica-tions pertaining to the geology of the locationand be run according to American PetroleumInstitute and BLM standards.

•A “cave protection” casing could be re-quired in instances when a designated sig-nificant cave would be jeopardized. The cave-protection casing string would be set at least100 feet below the deepest known cave-bear-ing zone as determined by drilling or otherpertinent methods.

• Regardless of the type of drilling machin-ery used, if bit drops of four feet or more andcirculation losses greater than 75 percent oc-cur simultaneously while drilling in any cave-bearing zone, drilling operations will immedi-ately stop and the BLM will be notified by theOperator. The BLM will assess the conse-quences of the situation and work with theOperator on corrective actions to resolve theproblem. If corrective actions fail, the well willbe plugged.

• The casing will be cemented in place us-ing one or a combination of any of the follow-ing methods that are environmentally sound,as determined by the BLM and the Operator:

1. If a large void or severe lost circulationzone is encountered, isolation from above andbelow rather than complete cement coverageof these zones could be employed. This wouldbe accomplished by using stage cementingequipment, external casing packers, cementbaskets, and one-inch remedial cementingtechniques.

2. For a less severe lost circulation zone en-countered while drilling, the operator wouldattempt to circulate cement to the surfaceusing a single or multistage cementing jobcomposed of a “lead” and “tail” slurry for eachstage.

3.Foam cementing techniques may be used.

Any corrective actions proposed to resolve prob-lems related to bit drops or lost circulation willrequire BLM concurrence before implementation.A decision on how to proceed will be reachedwithin 24 hours of notification.

MONITORING DRILLING OPERATIONS

Where the presence of significant caves or sig-nificant karst features are obvious or expectedbased on the results of detection efforts, and inlost circulation zones, constant monitoring of drill-ing operations by the BLM could be required.

MONITORING PRODUCTION OPERATIONS

On wells within one-half mile of significant caves,annual pressure tests will be performed by theOperator on all casing annuli. If the test resultsindicated a casing failure, remedial actions ap-proved by the BLM will be undertaken to correctthe problem.

PLUGGING AND ABANDONMENT

The BLM standards for plugging and abandon-ment in Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 2 will beapplied to protect or isolate all useable waterzones, potentially productive zones, lost circula-tion zones, abnormally pressured zones, caves,and any prospectively valuable deposits of min-erals. This includes any zones encountered dur-ing drilling that contain fluids with a potential tomigrate.

RECORD KEEPING

The Operator will track the customary drilling ac-tivities, including the rate of penetration, pumppressure, weight on bit, bit drops, percent of mudreturns, and presence or absence of cuttings re-turning to the surface. As part of customaryrecord keeping, each detectable void or suddenincrease in the rate of penetration not attribut-able to a change in the formation type should bedocumented and evaluated as it is encountered.

AP3-7

APPENDIX 3

The BLM may review data held by companies onwells drilled in cave or karst areas, to gain infor-mation about impacts to caves and karst. Thisinformation will be used to categorize lost-circu-lation zones on the basis of depth, relative vol-ume, and severity, and to evaluate and comparethe relative success or failure of different remediesattempted to combat lost-circulation problemswhile drilling and cementing casing in thesezones. This information also will be used to up-date information about the occurrence of caveand karst features. Information concerning caveresources gathered during drilling will be submit-ted, as well, to be retained by the BLM in accor-dance with the Roswell District Cave Manage-ment Plan and the regulations implementing theFederal Cave Resources Protection Act.

AP4-1

APPENDIX 4WITHDRAWN LANDS

This appendix describes existing withdrawals and classifications in the Roswell ResourceArea, including size, status and purpose.

APPENDIX 4

TABLE A4-1EXISTING WITHDRAWALS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Authority Locations Acres Purpose SurfaceMgmt.

Agency

SegregativeEffect

SO 5/1/1929NM 52408

T. 4 N., R. 18 E.;T. 3 N., R. 23 E.

80.00 Air Navigation Site No. 29 Private Public Land Laws

PLO 26373/21/1962NM 088292

T. 11 S., R. 22 E.;T. 12 S., R. 22 E.

2,589.74 Two Rivers Reservoir Project Area COE Public Land Laws generally, includingMining Laws

PLO 6182NM 23614

T. 12 N., R. 30 E. 52.70 NM Army National Guard Training Site COE Settlement, Sale, Location, Entry,including Mining Laws

PLO 2447NM 061544

T. 10 S., R. 25, 26 E. 325.00 Nike Hercules Defense Site DOD Public Land Laws including MiningLaws

PLO 2794NM 0268899

T. 1 S., R. 35 E.;T. 1 S., R. 36 E.

711.21 Blackwater Draw Private Prospecting, Location, Entry, Purchaseunder the Mining Law

EO 4/1/1899NM 52330

27,620.00 Fort Stanton BLM Public Land Laws

NM 25765 T. 1, 2 N.,R. 30 E.;T. 1 S., R. 30 E.

6,713.90 Melrose Bombing Range COE All forms of appropriation, incl. generalMining Laws and Mineral Leasing Laws

EO 4/6/1917NM 52344

T. 7 S., R. 11 E. 6.00 Power Site Reserve No. 596 Private Settlement, Sale, Location, Entry

PLO 3526NM 0554897

T. 10 N., R. 31 E. 480.00 Tucumcari Reclamation Project,Regulator Reservoir No. 2

BOR Closed to surface entry (mineral estatereserved to State)

PLO 3632NM 0555214

T. 5 N., R. 24 E. 160.00 Sumner Dam and Lake portion ofCarlsbad Project

BOR Closed to Surface Entry and Mining,but not Mineral Leasing

PLO 3632NM 52396

T. 4 N., R. 24 E. 122.97 Fort Sumner Reservoir BOR Closed to Surface Entry and Mining,but not Mineral Leasing

PLO 3632NM 52390

T. 5, 6 N., R. 23, 24 E. 7,839.625 Fort Sumner Dam BOR Closed to Surface Entry and Mining,but not Mineral Leasing

PLO 4798 T. 10 N., R. 31 E. 160.00 Tucumcari Reclamation Project BOR Closed to Surface Entry (minerals notowned by U.S.)

APPENDIX 4

TABLE A4-1EXISTING WITHDRAWALS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Authority Locations Acres Purpose SurfaceMgmt.

Agency

SegregativeEffect

SO 8/11/1944NM 52398

T. 12 N., R. 29 E. 6.50 Tucumcari Project, Conchas Canal BOR Closed to Surface Entry and Mining,but not Mineral Leasing

NM 77962 T. 4, 5 N., R. 23, 24 E. 3,125.93 Sumner Dam and Reservoir BOR Settlement, Sale, Location, Entry, inc l.Mining Law, but not Mineral Leasing

EO 5/25/1921NM 42942

T. 9 S., R. 13 E. 15.21 Public Water Reserve No. 77 BLM Settlement, Sale, Non-metalliferousMineral Entry

EO 5/25/1921NM 42952

T. 14 S., R. 22 E. 120.00 Public Water Reserve No. 228 BLM Settlement, Sale, Non-metalliferousMineral Entry

EO 5/25/1921NM 42954

T. 6,10 S.,R. 9 E.;T. 8, 5 S., R. 8, 25 E.

200.00 Public Water Reserve No. 107 BLM Settlement, Sale, Non-metalliferousMineral Entry

EO 5/25/1921NM 42958

T. 7, 8, 10 S., R. 17 E. 333.30 Public Water Reserve No. 107 BLM Settlement, Sale, Non-metalliferousMineral Entry

C&MU 929 66.17 Mescalero Sands Recreation Complex BLM Public Land Laws incl. general MiningLaws and Mineral Leasing Laws

Classi-fication 2639

40.00 Torgac Cave BLM Public Land Laws incl. general MiningLaws and Mineral Leasing Laws

Abbreviations:SO Secretarial Order COE Corps of EngineersPLO Public Land Order DOD Department of DefenseNM New Mexico BOR Bureau of ReclamationEO Executive Order C&MU Classification and Multiple Use (Act)

Source: BLM New Mexico State Office, 1994.

AP5-1

APPENDIX 5ACQUISITION, RETENTION, AND DISPOSAL CRITERIA

This appendix describes the criteria that would be applied to lands in the Roswell ResourceArea that may be suitable for acquisition by the BLM, for disposal by the BLM, or for retention.The criteria are one part of the process in determining suitability.

A C Q U I S IT I O N and RETEN TIO NCRITERIA

Lands meeting the following criteria will beconside red for re tention or acquisition:

! Facilitates access to areas retainedfor long-te rm public use;

! Enhances Congressionally designatedareas, rivers or trails;

! Facilitates national, state and localBLM priorities;

! Secures significant water-relatedlands for the pub lic, including lakeshore, river front, stream or pondsites;

! Has important riparian or wetlandareas;

! Has significant caves where a portionof the cave is loca ted on public lands;

Cultural sites meeting the follow ingevaluation standards will be considered forretention or acquisition:

! Offers h igh research va lues; ! Possesses moderate scarcity in terms

of similar sites ; ! Possesses some unique value, such

as association with an im portanthistoric person, o r high aestheticvalue;

! Contributes significantly to theinterpretive potential of culturalresources already in public ownership.

Minerals will be considered for acquisitionbased on the following criteria:

! Offers consolidation of mineral

estates;! Requires acquisition in response to a

federal project need:a. When development of a federalproject precludes the m ineral esta teowner from exercising developmentrights. b. When the exercise of the mineralestate owner's right of developmentwould materially interfere with thefedera l project.

Recreation lands meeting any of thefollowing criteria will be considered forretention or acqu isition:

! Presence of national values, such asCongressiona lly designated areas,rivers, or trails or sites;

! Presence of values that enhancerecreation trails and waterways or theinterstate, state, and multi-county use;

! Presence of local values oropportunities for extensive use, suchas hunting, fishing, OHV, and caves;

Acquisition will be cons idered for inhold ingswithin the boundaries of Congre ssionallydesignated wilderness areas under BLMadministration. Lands adjacent to wildernessareas that enhance the management of thearea could be considered for retention oracquisition.

Lands providing significant wildlife value s willbe considered for retention or acquisitionbased on any of the following criteria:

! Presence of th r e atened orendangered species;

APPENDIX 5

AP5-2

a. Federally listed speciesb. Federal candidate speciesc. State listed species of specialconcern

! Presence of fisheries;! Presence of big game or upland game

hab itat such as: crucial winter areas;kidding, fawning, or calving areas;security areas; and crucial breeding,nesting, resting, roosting, feeding, andwintering habitat areas;

! Presence of migratory bird orwaterfowl crucial breeding, nesting,rest ing, roosting, feeding andwintering habitat areas;

! Presence of existing or potentialnesting areas for sensitive species ofraptors;

! Presence of nongame crucial habitatareas.

Acquisition or retention of riparian or wetlandhabitat will be considered based on any ofthe following criteria:

! Presence of a riparian plantcommunity;

! Presence of surface water for most ofthe year;

! Presence of we tland soils indicative ofwetland conditions;

! Potential to support threatened orendangered species;

! Potential for fisheries;! Adjacent to public lands supporting

riparian o r wetland habitat.

Acquisition or retention of playa lakes will beconsidered based on the following criteria:

! Adjacent to public lands supportingplayas, sinkholes, or alkali lakes;

! Presence of seasonal or yearlongsurface water;

! Mineral estate owned by the federalgovern men t;

! Located within wildlife habitat areas(WHAs);

! Importance for waterfowl, big game ornongame species habitat;

! Potential for development as a

yearlong source of water and asriparian habitat;

! Provides significant wildlife values.

The acquisition of public access (easements)will be considered in situations where:

! Pub lic land access is interrupted byprivate- or state-owned inholdings onexisting roads that originate fromcounty or state roads;

! Pub lic access is needed to resolveuser conflicts;

! Access is needed to enhancemanagem ent of public lands.

DISPOSAL CRITERIA

Parcels of BLM land will be identified fordisposal through sale or exchange under theauthor ity of Sections 203 and 206 of theFederal Land Policy and Management Act of1976. The following criteria will be used toidentify parcels for disposal:

1. A tract because of its location or othercharacterist ics is d if f icu l t anduneconomic to manage as part of thepub lic lands, and is not suitable formanagement by another federaldepartment or agency.

2. A tract w as acquired for a spec ificpurpose and the tract is no longerrequired for that or any other federalpurpose.

3. Disposal of a trac t will serve importantpublic objectives, including but notlimited to, expansion of communitiesand economic development, whichcannot be achieved prudently orfeas ibly on land other than public landand which outweigh other pub licobjectives and values, including, butnot limited to, recreation and scenicvalues, which would be served bymaintaining a tract in federalownership.

Each parcel identified for sale or exchangewill be subject to certain conditions beforedispo sal: conformance with disposal criteria;

APPENDIX 5

AP5-3

hazardous waste, wilderness, wildlife, andriparian/wetland evaluations; and cultural andmineral resource clearances and reports.The results of the evalua tions and repo rts willbe included in an environmental analysis. A

notice of realty action will be sub sequentlypublished. Parcels will be retained if theclearances, reports, or environmentalana lysis show any resource values worthretaining.

AP6-1

APPENDIX 6LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR ACQUISITION

This appendix lists the legal descriptions of non-BLM lands that may be suitable for consideration foracquisition to further BLM management goals and policies. This appendix reflects a number ofchanges made to Appendix 9 published in the Draft Roswell RMP/EIS, which resulted from BLM andpublic review and comment. This list is not intended to be inclusive.

AP6-2

TABLE A6-1

LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR ACQUISITION

Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres

CHAVES COUNTY

CAPROCK WHA

PrivateT . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 33 E ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 1S . R .30E 33 N E ¼S W ¼ 80 .00T . 1 1S . R .30E 33 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 1S . R .31E 29 N E ¼ 160 .00T . 1 1S . R .31E 29 S E ¼ 160 .00T . 1 1S . R .31E 29 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R .30E 04 N ½ 320 .00T . 1 2S . R .30E 13 W ½ 320 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 05 LOT 01 39 .61T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 05 LOT 02 39 .62T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 05 LOT 03 39 .64T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 05 LOT 04 39 .65T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 05 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 05 S W ¼ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 05 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 05 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 22 N W ¼ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 22 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 22 S E ¼ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 22 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 22 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 27 N ½ 320 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 27 S E ¼ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 34 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 34 N ½ 320 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 34 S W ¼ 160 .00T . 1 3S . R . 3 1E . 03 LOT 01 40 .25T . 1 3S . R . 3 1E . 03 LOT 02 40 .24T . 1 3S . R . 3 1E . 03 LOT 03 40 .22T . 1 3S . R . 3 1E . 03 LOT 04 40 .21T . 1 3S . R . 3 1E . 03 S ½ 320 .00T . 1 3S . R . 3 1E . 03 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T . 1 3S . R . 3 1E . 10 ALL 640 .00T . 1 3S . R . 3 1E . 22 ALL 640 .00T . 1 3S . R . 3 1E . 27 ALL 640 .00T . 1 3S . R . 3 1E . 34 ALL 640 .00T . 1 4S . R . 3 1E . 03 LOT 01 40 .29T . 1 4S . R . 3 1E . 03 LOT 02 40 .25T . 1 4S . R . 3 1E . 03 LOT 03 40 .23T . 1 4S . R . 3 1E . 03 LOT 04 40 .19T . 1 4S . R . 3 1E . 03 S ½ 320 .00T . 1 4S . R . 3 1E . 03 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T . 1 4S . R . 3 1E . 10 ALL 640 .00T . 1 4S . R . 3 1E . 15 ALL 640 .00StateT . 0 8S . R . 3 0E . 36 ALL 640 .00T . 0 8S . R . 3 1E . 32 ALL 640 .00T . 0 9S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 01 39 .87T . 0 9S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 02 39 .93T . 0 9S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 03 39 .99T . 0 9S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 04 40 .05T . 0 9S . R . 3 0E . 02 S W ¼ 160 .00T . 0 9S . R . 3 0E . 02 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T . 0 9S . R . 3 0E . 36 ALL 640 .00T . 0 9S . R . 3 1E . 32 ALL 640 .00T . 1 0S . R . 2 9E . 36 ALL 640 .00T . 1 0S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 01 39 .74T . 1 0S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 02 39 .75T . 1 0S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 03 39 .77

T . 1 0S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 04 39 .79T . 1 0S . R . 3 0E . 02 S ½ 320 .00T . 1 0S . R . 3 0E . 02 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T . 1 0S . R . 3 0E . 32 ALL 640 .00T . 1 0S . R . 3 1E . 30 E ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 0S . R . 3 1E . 30 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T . 1 0S . R . 3 1E . 30 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 0S . R . 3 1E . 30 S E ¼ 160 .00T . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 01 22 .63T . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 02 22 .56T . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 03 22 .50T . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 04 22 .43T . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 02 S ½ 320 .00T . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 16 ALL 640 .00T . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 32 ALL 640 .00T . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 36 ALL 640 .00T . 1 1S . R . 3 1E . 32 ALL 640 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 01 40 .04T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 02 39 .87T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 03 39 .71T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 04 39 .54T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 02 S ½ 320 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 02 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 14 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 15 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 22 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 23 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 23 N ½ N ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 23 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 24 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 24 N ½ N ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 24 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 25 E ½ E ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 26 E ½ E ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 26 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 26 S ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 27 S ½ S E ¼ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 36 ALL 640 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 04 S W ¼ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 05 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 09 S E ¼ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 16 ALL 640 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 19 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 19 N ½ N ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 19 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 27 S W ¼ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 30 LOT 04 36 .56T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 30 E ½ E ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 30 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 30 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 32 ALL 640 .00T . 1 3S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 01 39 .99T . 1 3S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 02 40 .02T . 1 3S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 03 40 .04T . 1 3S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 04 40 .07T . 1 3S . R . 3 0E . 02 S ½ 320 .00T . 1 3S . R . 3 0E . 02 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T . 1 3S . R . 3 0E . 07 LOT 01 48 .15T . 1 3S . R . 3 0E . 07 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T . 1 3S . R . 3 0E . 16 ALL 640 .00T . 1 3S . R . 3 0E . 36 ALL 640 .00T . 1 3S . R . 3 1E . 15 ALL 640 .00T . 1 3S . R . 3 1E . 16 ALL 640 .00T . 1 3S . R . 3 1E . 32 ALL 640 .00T . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 07 S ½ 320 .00

T . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 13 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 18 LOT 03 37 .79T . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 18 LOT 04 37 .73T . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 18 E ½ 320 .00T . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 21 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 4S . R . 3 1E . 08 N E ¼ 160 .00T . 1 4S . R . 3 1E . 32 ALL 640 .00T . 1 5S . R . 3 0E . 13 N E ¼ 160 .00T . 1 5S . R . 3 0E . 13 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00

Tota l - Priva te 8 ,480 .40Tota l - Sta te 18 ,968 .52T o ta l - C ap ro c k W H A 27 ,448 .92

CEDAR HILLS MULE DEER AREA

StateT . 0 8S . R . 2 0E . 05 LOT 01 40 .30T . 0 8S . R . 2 0E . 05 LOT 02 40 .26T . 0 8S . R . 2 0E . 05 S E ¼ 160 .00T . 0 8S . R . 2 0E . 05 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 8S . R . 2 0E . 16 ALL 640 .00

Tota l - Sta te 960 .56To tal - C ed ar H ills 960 .56

GARNSEY BISON K ILL SITE

PrivateT . 1 1S . R . 2 6E . 35 S E ¼ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 03 LOT 01 40 .90T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 03 LOT 02 40 .88StateT . 1 1S . R . 2 6E . 36 S W ¼ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 02 N ½ N ½ 160 .00

Tota l - Priva te 241 .78Tota l - Sta te 320 .00Tota l - Ga rnse y Kill S ite 561 .78

HAYSTACK MOUNTAIN OHV AREA

PrivateT . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 13 S ½ 320 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 24 ALL 640 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 7E . 18 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 7E . 19 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 7E . 20 E ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 7E . 20 S W ¼ 160 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 7E . 31 E ½ 320 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 7E . 18 N W ¼ 160 .00T . 0 8S . R . 2 6E . 13 ALL 640 .00T . 0 8S . R . 2 6E . 14 ALL 640 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 7E . 30 E ½ 320 .00StateT . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 36 A l l 640 .00T . 0 8S . R . 2 6E . 02 ALL 640 .00T . 0 8S . R . 2 7E . 06 ALL 640 .00T . 0 8S . R . 2 7E . 07 ALL 640 .00

Tota l - Priva te 3 ,440 .00Tota l - Sta te 2 ,560 .00To tal - H ays tack Mo un tain 6 ,000 .00

TABLE A6-1 (continued)



AP6-3

HAYSTACK BUTTE ARCH AEOLOGICALDISTRICT

PrivateT . 0 6S . R . 2 7E . 33 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00StateT . 0 6S . R . 2 7E . 32 ALL 640 .00

Tota l - Priva te 40 .00Tota l - Sta te 640 .00Tota l - Ha ysta ck B utte

680 .00

MESCALERO SANDS ACEC

PrivateT . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 13 W ½ 320 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 01 S E ¼ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 06 LOT 06 36 .58T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 06 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 06 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00StateT . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 36 ALL 640 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 02 ALL 640 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 14 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 23 N ½ N ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 24 N ½ N ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 19 LOT 01 36 .56T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 19 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 19 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 19 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00

Tota l - Priva te 636 .58Tota l - Sta te 1 ,796 .56T o t al - M e s c a le r o S a n d s A C E C 2 ,433 .14

MESCALERO SANDS NORTH DUNE OHVAREA

PrivateT . 1 1S . R . 3 1E . 05 LOT 03 22 .26T . 1 1S . R . 3 1E . 05 LOT 04 22 .45T . 1 1S . R . 3 1E . 05 S W ¼ 160 .00T . 1 1S . R . 3 1E . 06 LOT 01 22 .58T . 1 1S . R . 3 1E . 06 LOT 02 22 .66T . 1 1S . R . 3 1E . 06 S E ¼ 160 .00

Tota l -Priva te 409 .95To ta l -Mesca le ro Sands OHV A rea409 .95

OTHER MESCALERO SANDS AREA

StateT . 1 0S . R . 3 0E . 32 ALL 640 .00T . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 01 22 .63T . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 02 22 .56T . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 03 22 .50T . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 02 LOT 04 22 .43T . 1 1S . R . 3 0E . 02 S ½ 320 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 15 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 22 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 23 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 23 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00

T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 24 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 24 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 25 E ½ E ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 26 E ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 26 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 26 S ½ S ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 0E . 27 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 19 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 19 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 30 E ½ E ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 30 LOT 04 36 .56T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 30 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 3 1E . 30 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00

Tota l -Sta te 2 ,326 .68To ta l- Mesca le ro Sands a rea 2 ,326 .68

OVERFLOW WETLANDS ACEC

PrivateT . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 03 LOT 03 41 .06T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 03 LOT 04 41 .15T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 03 N W ¼ S E ¼ 41 .06T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 03 S W ¼ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 03 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 03 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 05 LOT 02 33 .66T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 05 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 08 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 08 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 08 W ½ E ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 08 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 09 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 09 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 10 E ½ 320 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 10 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 15 W ½ E ½ 160 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 17 W ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 20 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 21 N ½ NW ¼ 80 .00StateT . 1 1S . R . 2 5E . 36 ALL 640 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 15 W ½ 320 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 16 ALL 640 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 21 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 22 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00

Tota l - Priva te 1 ,596 .93Tota l - Sta te 1 ,720 .00To ta l - Ove r fl ow We t l ands 3 ,316 .93

NORTH PECOS RIVER ACEC

PrivateT . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 01 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 01 W ½ W ½ 160 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 02 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 02 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 03 N W ¼ 160 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 03 N ½ S ½ 160 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 03 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 03 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00

T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 04 E ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 11 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 12 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 12 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 12 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 14 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 14 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 23 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 23 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 24 W ½ W ½ 160 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 26 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00StateT . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 02 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 02 S E ¼ 160 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 02 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 02 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 02 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 23 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 26 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 26 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 35 E ½ E ½ 160 .00T . 0 4S . R . 2 5E . 36 ALL 640 .00

Tota l - Priva te 1 ,400 .00Tota l - Sta te 1 ,320 .00To ta l - Pecos R i ve r A C E C 2 ,720 .00

OTHER PECOS RIVER AREA

PrivateT . 0 5S . R . 2 5E . 23 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T . 0 5S . R . 2 5E . 23 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 5S . R . 2 5E . 24 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T . 0 5S . R . 2 5E . 26 N W ¼ 160 .00T . 0 5S . R . 2 5E . 26 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 5S . R . 2 5E . 26 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 5S . R . 2 5E . 26 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T . 0 5S . R . 2 5E . 35 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 2 6E . 09 E ½ E ½ 80 .00T . 0 6S . R . 2 6E . 09 E ½ W ½ 80 .00T . 0 6S . R . 2 6E . 28 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T . 0 6S . R . 2 6E . 32 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 6S . R . 2 6E . 32 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 2 6E . 32 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 2 6E . 32 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 6S . R . 2 6E . 33 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 17 N ½ S ½ 160 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 17 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 17 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 20 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 20 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 29 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 29 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 29 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 29 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 29 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 31 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 31 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 31 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 9S . R . 2 5E . 02 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 9S . R . 2 5E . 02 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 9S . R . 2 5E . 11 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 9S . R . 2 5E . 11 S W ¼ 160 .00




AP6-4

T . 0 9S . R . 2 5E . 14 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T . 0 9S . R . 2 5E . 14

W ½ N E¼ N W ¼ 20 .00T . 0 9S . R . 2 5E . 22 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 0S . R . 2 5E . 33 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 0S . R . 2 5E . 34 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 0S . R . 2 5E . 34 N ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T . 1 0S . R . 2 5E . 34 S W ¼ 160 .00T . 1 0S . R . 2 5E . 34 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T . 1 0S . R . 2 5E . 34 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 33

S ½ S ½ S ½ S E ¼ S E ¼ 5.00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 33

S ½ S ½ S ½ S W ¼ S E ¼ 5.00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 33

S ½ S½ S ½ SW ¼ S W ¼ 5.00T . 1 2S . R . 2 6E . 34

S ½ S½ S ½ SW ¼ S W ¼ 3.11T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 03 LOT 04 33 .48T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 03

N ½ SW ¼ N W ¼ 20 .00T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 03

S ½ SW ¼ N W ¼ 20 .00T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 03 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 04 LOT 01 42 .70T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 04 LOT 02 42 .66T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 04 LOT 03 42 .61T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 04 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 04

N ½ S W ¼ N E ¼20 .00

T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 04 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 04 S E¼ N W ¼ 30 .00T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 04

W ½ S ½ S W ¼ N E ¼ 5.00T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 10 N W ¼ NW ¼ 20 .00T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 14 E ½ 160 .00T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 14 S W ¼ 160 .00T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 14 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 14

S W ¼ SE ¼ NW ¼ 10 .00T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 23 ALL 640 .00T . 1 4S . R . 2 6E . 24 S ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T . 1 4S . R . 2 6E . 24 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 4S . R . 2 6E . 25 W ½ 320 .00StateT . 0 5S . R . 2 5E . 01 LOT 01 40 .02T . 0 5S . R . 2 5E . 01 LOT 02 40 .04T . 0 5S . R . 2 5E . 01 S E ¼ 160 .00T . 0 5S . R . 2 5E . 01 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 5S . R . 2 5E . 23 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T . 0 6S . R . 2 6E . 16 N ½ 320 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 5E . 36 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 32 ALL 640 .00T . 0 9S . R . 2 5E . 02 LOT 01 40 .03T . 0 9S . R . 2 5E . 02 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 9S . R . 2 5E . 02 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00

Tota l-Priva te 4 ,644 .56Tota l-Sta te 1 ,600 .09To ta l-O the r Pecos R i ve r a rea 6 ,244 .65

PLAYA LAKES

PrivateT . 0 6S . R . 2 0E . 28 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 2 3E . 28 S E ¼ 160 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 9E . 13 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 9E . 24 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 3 0E . 18 LOT 01 42 .34T . 0 7S . R . 3 0E . 18 LOT 02 42 .23T . 0 7S . R . 3 0E . 18 LOT 03 42 .12T . 0 7S . R . 3 0E . 18 LOT 04 42 .01T . 0 7S . R . 3 0E . 18 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T . 0 7S . R . 3 0E . 19 LOT 01 41 .90T . 0 7S . R . 3 0E . 19 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T . 0 8S . R . 2 4E . 03 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 9S . R . 3 0E . 07 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 3S . R . 2 6E . 01 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T . 1 4S . R . 2 5E . 26 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 06 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 06 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00StateT . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 06 LOT 07 37 .90T . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 07 LOT 01 37 .92T . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 07 LOT 02 37 .93T . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 07 E ½ NW ¼ 160 .00T . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 18 LOT 01 37 .91T . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 18 LOT 02 37 .85T . 1 4S . R . 3 0E . 18 E ½ W ½ 160 .00

Tota l - Priva te 1 ,010 .60Tota l - Sta te 509 .51To ta l - P l aya Lakes 1 ,520 .11

PECOS RIVER DEER HABITAT

StateT . 0 6S . R . 2 7E . 16 ALL 640 .00T . 0 6S . R . 2 7E . 32 ALL 640 .00T . 0 7S . R . 2 6E . 36 ALL 640 .00T . 0 8S . R . 2 6E . 02 ALL 640 .00

Tota l - Sta te 2 ,560 .00To ta l - Pecos Dee r Hab it a t 2 ,560 .00

LINCOLN COUNTY

FORT STANTON AREA

PrivateT . 0 9S . R . 1 4E . 32 LOT 01 10 .68T . 0 9S . R . 1 4E . 32 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 9S . R . 1 4E . 32 S ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 04 LOT 01 10 .50T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 04 LOT 02 37 .14T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 04 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 05 LOT 01 39 .78T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 05 LOT 02 23 .32T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 05 LOT 03 32 .10T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 05 LOT 04 32 .10T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 05 LOT 05 32 .10T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 05 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 05 S ½ 360 .00T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 05 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00

T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 08 N ½ N ½ 160 .00T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 09 LOT 03 16 .48T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 09 LOT 04 30 .56T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 09 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 09 S ½ NW ¼ 160 .00StateT . 0 9S . R . 1 4E . 29 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T . 0 9S . R . 1 4E . 32 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T . 0 9S . R . 1 4E . 32 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T . 0 9S . R . 1 4E . 32 W ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T . 0 9S . R . 1 5E . 36 ALL 640 .00T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 16 N W ¼ 160 .00T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 16 S E ¼ 160 .00T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 16 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 16 S W ¼ 160 .00T . 1 0S . R . 1 4E . 16 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 1 0S . R . 1 6E . 02 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T . 1 0S . R . 1 6E . 02 N E ¼ 160 .00T . 1 0S . R . 1 6E . 02 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00

Tota l - Priva te 1 ,264 .76Tota l - Sta te 1 ,760 .00To ta l - Fo r t S tan ton 3 ,024 .76

PLAYAS

PrivateT . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 1 1 N ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T . 0 8S . R . 1 4E . 1 8 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00

Tota l - Priva te 120 .00To ta l - P l ayas 120 .00

VALLEY OF FIRES

PrivateT . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 20 Lot 2 39 .54T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 20

E ½ N E ¼ S E ¼20 .00

T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 20E ½ N E ¼ S W ¼ S E ¼ 5.00

T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 20E ½ S W ¼ S W ¼ S E ¼ 5.00

T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 20S E ¼ N W ¼ N E ¼ S E ¼ 2.50

T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 20S E ¼ S E ¼ N W ¼ S E ¼ 2.50

T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 20S E ¼ S W ¼ S E ¼ 10 .00

T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 20S W ¼ N E ¼ S E ¼ 10 .00

T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 20S W ¼ N E ¼ S W ¼ S E ¼ 2.50

T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 01 17 .76T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 02 9 .91T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 08 13 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 09 7 .51T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 10 7 .17T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 15 22 .86




AP6-5

T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 16 37 .73T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 17 34 .87T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 18 32 .31T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 19 16 .92

Tota l - Priva te 297 .08To ta l - Va l ley o f F ir es 297 .08

LITTLE BLACK PEAK

PrivateT . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 01 LOT 01 26 .20T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 01 LOT 02 25 .94T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 01 LOT 03 25 .86T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 01 LOT 04 25 .78T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 01 LOT 05 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 01 LOT 06 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 01 LOT 07 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 01 LOT 08 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 01 LOT 09 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 01 LOT 10 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 01 LOT 11 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 01 LOT 12 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 01 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 6S . R 0 9 E . 05 LOT 03 38 .59T . 0 6S . R 0 9 E . 05 LOT 04 38 .66T . 0 6S . R 0 9 E . 05 LOT 05 40 .00T . 0 6S . R 0 9 E . 05 LOT 06 40 .00T . 0 6S . R 0 9 E . 05 LOT 11 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 11 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 11 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 24 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 24 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 24 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 24 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 25 E ½ 320 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 05 LOT 03 38 ,59T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 05 LOT 04 38 .66T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 05 LOT 05 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 05 LOT 06 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 05 LOT 11 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 05 LOT 12 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 06 LOT 01 38 .72T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 06 LOT 02 38 .76T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 06 LOT 03 38 .80T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 06 LOT 04 31 .13T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 06 LOT 05 32 .18T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 06 LOT 06 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 06 LOT 07 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 06 LOT 08 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 06 LOT 09 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 06 LOT 10 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 06 LOT 12 12 .40T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 09 W ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 22 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 22 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 22 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 27 N W ¼ 160 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 27 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 27 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 27 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 30 LOT 02 34 .29T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 30 LOT 03 34 .41T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 30 LOT 04 34 .52

T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 31 LOT 01 34 .64T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 31 LOT 02 30 .77T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 31 LOT 03 34 .89T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 31 LOT 04 35 .02T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 34 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 35 W ½ W ½ 160 .00T . 0 7S . R . 0 9E . 01 E ½ E ½ 160 .00T . 0 7S . R . 0 9E . 12 N E ¼ 160 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 03 LOT 01 22 .58T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 03 LOT 02 39 .93T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 03 LOT 03 8 .75T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 03 LOT 04 37 .93T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 03 LOT 05 9 .50T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 03 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 03 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 10 LOT 01 23 .50T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 10 LOT 02 28 .59T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 10 LOT 03 24 .05T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 10 LOT 04 26 .70T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 15 LOT 01 33 .20T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 15 LOT 02 35 .32T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 15 LOT 03 2 .20T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 15 LOT 04 14 .70T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 15 LOT 05 31 .30T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 15 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 21 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 21 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00State

T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 02 LOT 01 25 .69T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 02 LOT 02 25 .58T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 02 LOT 07 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 02 LOT 08 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 02 LOT 09 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 02 LOT 10 40 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 02 S E ¼ 160 .00T . 0 6S . R . 0 9E . 36 A l l 640 .00T . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 32 A l l 640 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 LOT 01 42 .96T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 LOT 02 42 .96T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 LOT 03 42 .96T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 LOT 04 41 .03T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 LOT 05 41 .05T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 LOT 06 41 .07T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 LOT 07 44 .13T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 N W ¼ 160 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 02 A l l 640 .00

Tota l - Priva te 4 ,107 .06Tota l - Sta te 2 ,947 .43To ta l - L it t le B l ack Peak 7 ,054 .49

CARRIZOZO LAVA FLOW

PrivateT . 0 7S . R . 0 9E . 11 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 0 9E . 12 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 0 9E . 12 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 0 9E . 23 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 0 9E . 23 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T .07S R . 0 9E . 34 N E ¼ 160 .00

T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 LOT 04 41 .03T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 LOT 05 41 .05T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 LOT 06 41 .07T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 LOT 07 44 .13T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 N W ¼ 160 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 16 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 03 33 .17T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 04 1 .20T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 05 39 .47T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 06 36 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 07 32 .25T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 11 16 .05T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 12 44 .21T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 13 38 .82T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 14 6 .67T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 LOT 20 30 .93T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 29 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 30 LOT 01 26 .50T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 30 LOT 02 15 .88T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 31 LOT 01 14 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 31 LOT 02 18 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 31 LOT 03 14 .65T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 31 LOT 04 24 .00T . 0 7S . R . 1 0E . 31 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 09 E ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 12 LOT 01 6 .30T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 12 LOT 02 26 .58T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 12 LOT 03 16 .68T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 12 LOT 04 35 .62T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 12 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T . 0 8S . R.0 9E . 12 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 13 W ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 14 LOT 01 8 .98T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 14 LOT 02 22 .69T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 14 LOT 03 37 .13T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 14 LOT 04 30 .18T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 14 LOT 05 28 .90T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 14 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 15 LOT 01 36 .63T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 15 LOT 02 25 .21T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 15 LOT 03 10 .22T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 15 LOT 04 39 .65T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 15 LOT 05 27 .87StateT . 0 6S . R . 1 0E . 32 ALL 640T . 0 7S . R . 0 9E . 36 LOT 01 39 .86T . 0 7S . R . 0 9E . 36 LOT 02 39 .90T . 0 7S . R . 0 9E . 36 LOT 03 39 .94T . 0 7S . R . 0 9E . 36 LOT 04 39 .98T . 0 7S . R . 0 9E . 36 N ½ 320 .00T . 0 7S . R . 0 9E . 36 N ½ S ½ 160 .00T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 02 ALL 640 .00T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 16 LOT 01 10 .54T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 16 LOT 02 38 .32T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 16 LOT 03 38 .32T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 16 LOT 04 38 .33T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 16 LOT 05 35 .30T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 16 LOT 06 35 .29T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 16 LOT 07 35 .28T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 16 LOT 08 33 .40T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 16 N W ¼ 160 .00T . 0 8S . R . 0 9E . 16 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00




AP6-6

Tota l - Priva te 2 ,071 .72Tota l - Sta te 2 ,424 .05To ta l - Ca r r izozo Lava F low 4 ,495 .77

CAVE COMPLEX ACEC

PrivateDEBACA CO UNTYT . 0 0S . R . 0 0E . 00 0000 4 ,120 .00

CHAVES COUN TYT . 0 0S . R . 0 0E . 00 0000 320 .00

LINCOLN COUNTYT . 0 0S . R . 0 0E . 00 0000 160 .00T . 0 0S . R . 0 0E . 00 0000 160 .00T . 0 0S . R . 0 0E . 00 0000 160 .00

Tota l - Linc oln C oun ty 480 .00

Note: Loca tions of p arcels n ear ca ves a reno t iden tifi e d because o f the r equ ir emen tt ha t cave l oca t ions no t be d issem ina ted.

ACREAGE SUMMARY

CHAVES COUN TYPriva te 22 ,220 .86Sta te 35 ,281 .92To ta l 57 ,502 .78

DEBACA CO UNTYPriva te 4 ,120 .00Sta te 0 .00To ta l 4 ,120 .00

LINCOLN COUNTYPriva te 7 ,860 .82Sta te 7 ,611 .48To ta l 15 ,472 .10

GRAND TOTAL ALL COUNTIESPriva te 34 ,201 .48Sta te 42 ,893 .40

GRAND TOTAL 77 ,094 .88

AP7-1

APPENDIX 7PUBLIC LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR DISPOSAL

This appendix lists the legal descriptions of BLM-administered lands that may be suitable forconsideration for disposal. These lands were nominated for disposal by the public or were identifiedby BLM staff as not needed for implementation of BLM management goals and policies. This appendixreflects a number of changes made to Appendix 9 published in the Draft Roswell RMP/EIS, whichresulted from BLM and public review and comment. This list is not intended to be inclusive.

The lands identified in this appendix would be disposed under the authority of Sections 203 (sales) and206 (exchanges) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, based on the disposalcriteria listed in Appendix 5. Other authorities (e.g., Recreation and Public Purposes Act) could apply,as well. Because this preliminary list of lands has not had close scrutiny to actually determine thesuitability of these lands for disposal, it is not possible at this time to identify the specific authorityunder which disposals would be made.

AP7-2

TABLE A7-1

PUBLIC LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR DISPOSAL


CHAVES COUN TY

T04S R22E 04 LOT 03 40 .13T04S R22E 04 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T04S R22E 04 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T04S R22E 10 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T04S R22E 21 N ½ N ½ 160 .00T04S R23E 18 LOT 01 42 .96T04S R23E 18 LOT 02 43 .09T04S R23E 18 LOT 03 43 .21T04S R23E 18 LOT 04 43 .34T04S R23E 18 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T06S R25E 09 S ½ 320 .00T06S R25E 10 S ½ 320 .00T06S R25E 15 ALL 640 .00T06S R25E 21 E ½ 320 .00T06S R25E 21 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T06S R25E 21 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T06S R25E 22 N ½ 320 .00T06S R25E 22 N ½ S ½ 160 .00T06S R25E 22 S ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T06S R25E 23 N ½ 320 .00T06S R25E 26 ALL 640 .00T06S R25E 27 N W ¼ 160 .00T06S R25E 27 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T06S R25E 27 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T06S R25E 28 E ½ 320 .00T06S R25E 33 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T06S R25E 33 S E ¼ 160 .00T06S R25E 33 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T07S R21E 20 S ½ S ½ 160 .00T07S R21E 30 LOT 01 55 .74T07S R21E 30 LOT 03 40 .00T07S R21E 30 LOT 04 40 .00T07S R21E 30 LOT 05 40 .00T07S R21E 30 LOT 08 55 .70T07S R21E 30 LOT 11 40 .00T07S R21E 30 LOT 12 40 .00T07S R21E 30 LOT 17 40 .00T07S R21E 30 LOT 18 40 .00T07S R21E 30 LOT 19 40 .00T07S R21E 30 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T07S R24E 23 S E ¼ 160 .00T07S R24E 24 S ½ 320 .00T07S R24E 25 ALL 640 .00T07S R24E 26 E ½ 320 .00T07S R24E 35 E ½ 320 .00T07S R25E 01 LOT 03 40 .15T07S R25E 01 LOT 04 40 .21T07S R25E 01 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T07S R25E 03 LOT 01 40 .34T07S R25E 03 LOT 02 40 .29T07S R25E 03 LOT 03 40 .25T07S R25E 03 LOT 04 40 .20T07S R25E 03 S ½ 320 .00T07S R25E 03 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T07S R25E 04 LOT 01 40 .04T07S R25E 04 LOT 02 40 .01T07S R25E 04 LOT 03 39 .97T07S R25E 04 LOT 04 39 .92T07S R25E 04 S ½ 320 .00T07S R25E 04 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T07S R25E 05 LOT 01 39 .99T07S R25E 05 LOT 02 39 .96

T07S R25E 05 S E ¼ 160 .00T07S R25E 05 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T07S R25E 09 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T07S R25E 09 S ½ S ½ 160 .00T07S R25E 10 ALL 640 .00T07S R25E 15 ALL 640 .00T07S R25E 18 LOT 01 37 .62T07S R25E 18 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T07S R25E 19 LOT 01 37 .60T07S R25E 19 LOT 02 37 .20T07S R25E 19 LOT 03 36 .80T07S R25E 19 LOT 04 36 .40T07S R25E 20 ALL 640 .00T07S R25E 21 W ½ 320 .00T07S R25E 22 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T07S R25E 22 N ½ 320 .00T07S R25E 22 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T07S R25E 24 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T07S R25E 25 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T07S R25E 25 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T07S R25E 28 ALL 640 .00T07S R25E 29 ALL 640 .00T07S R25E 30 LOT 01 36 .20T07S R25E 30 LOT 02 36 .42T07S R25E 30 LOT 03 37 .34T07S R25E 30 LOT 04 37 .75T07S R25E 30 E ½ 320 .00T07S R25E 30 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T07S R25E 31 LOT 01 37 .85T07S R25E 31 LOT 02 37 .85T07S R25E 31 LOT 03 37 .75T07S R25E 31 LOT 04 37 .65T07S R25E 31 E ½ 320 .00T07S R25E 31 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T07S R25E 33 ALL 640 .00T07S R25E 34 ALL 640 .00T07S R26E 06 LOT 03 39 .95T07S R26E 06 LOT 04 36 .77T07S R26E 07 E ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T07S R26E 18 LOT 02 36 .50T07S R26E 18 S E¼ N W ½ 40 .00T07S R26E 18 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T07S R26E 19 LOT 01 36 .65T07S R26E 19 LOT 02 36 .75T07S R26E 19 LOT 03 36 .85T07S R26E 19 LOT 04 36 .95T07S R26E 19 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T07S R26E 19 W ½ E ½ 160 .00T07S R26E 30 LOT 01 36 .97T07S R26E 30 LOT 02 36 .92T07S R26E 30 LOT 03 36 .87T07S R26E 30 LOT 04 36 .82T07S R26E 30 E ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T07S R26E 30 N E ¼ 160 .00T07S R26E 30 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T08S R21E 05 LOT 02 39 .84T08S R21E 05 LOT 03 39 .88T08S R21E 05 LOT 04 39 .91T08S R21E 05 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T08S R21E 05 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T08S R21E 05 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T08S R21E 05 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00

T08S R21E 05 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T08S R21E 06 S E ¼ 160 .00T08S R21E 07 LOT 09 55 .07T08S R21E 07 LOT 16 55 .01T08S R21E 07 LOT 18 40 .00T08S R21E 07 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T08S R24E 01 LOT 04 39 .49T08S R24E 01 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T08S R24E 01 S ½ 320 .00T08S R24E 03 E ½ S E¼ 80 .00T08S R24E 03 S W ¼ 160 .00T08S R24E 10 N ½ 320 .00T08S R24E 10 N ½ S ½ 160 .00T08S R24E 10 S ½ S E¼ 80 .00T08S R24E 11 ALL 640 .00T08S R25E 04 LOT 01 39 .91T08S R25E 04 LOT 02 39 .94T08S R25E 04 LOT 03 39 .97T08S R25E 04 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T08S R25E 04 S ½ 320 .00T08S R25E 04 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T08S R25E 05 E ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T08S R25E 05 N E ¼ 160 .00T08S R25E 05 S ½ 320 .00T08S R25E 06 LOT 01 37 .85T08S R25E 06 LOT 02 37 .95T08S R25E 06 E ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T08S R25E 06 S E ¼ 160 .00T08S R25E 08 E ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T09S R22E 33 ALL 640 .00T09S R22E 34 ALL 640 .00T10S R22E 03 LOT 01 40 .56T10S R22E 03 LOT 02 40 .58T10S R22E 03 LOT 03 40 .61T10S R22E 03 LOT 04 40 .64T10S R22E 03 S ½ 320 .00T10S R22E 03 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T10S R22E 04 LOT 01 40 .74T10S R22E 04 LOT 02 40 .77T10S R22E 04 LOT 03 40 .79T10S R22E 04 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T10S R22E 04 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T10S R22E 10 N E ¼ 160 .00T10S R22E 11 N ½ 320 .00T10S R22E 12 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T10S R23E 33

E ½ SE ¼ NW ¼ S W ¼ 5.00T10S R23E 33

W ½ E ½ SW ¼ S W ¼ 10 .00T10S R29E 22 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T10S R29E 23 S E ¼ 160 .00T10S R29E 26 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T10S R30E 25 N ½ 320 .00T10S R30E 26 N W ¼ 160 .00T10S R30E 26 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T10S R30E 27 N ½ 320 .00T10S R30E 28 N ½ 320 .00T10S R30E 29 N ½ 320 .00T11S R26E 13 S ½ 320 .00T11S R26E 14 ALL 640 .00T11S R26E 22 E ½ 320 .00T11S R26E 22 E ½ W ½ 160 .00




AP7-3

T11S R26E 22 W ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T11S R26E 23 ALL 640 .00T11S R26E 24 S E ¼ 160 .00T11S R26E 24 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T11S R26E 25 S ½ 320 .00T11S R26E 27 E ½ E ½ 160 .00T11S R26E 27 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T11S R26E 35 N W ¼ 160 .00T11S R26E 35 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T11S R27E 19 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T11S R27E 30 LOT 03 36 .02T11S R27E 30 LOT 04 36 .23T11S R27E 31 LOT 01 36 .83T11S R27E 31 LOT 02 37 .80T11S R27E 31 LOT 03 38 .78T11S R27E 31 LOT 04 39 .75T11S R27E 31 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T11S R27E 31 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T12S R27E 04 S ½ 320 .00T12S R27E 04 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T12S R27E 05 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T12S R27E 05 S E ¼ 160 .00T12S R27E 05 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T12S R27E 06 LOT 01 40 .52T12S R27E 06 LOT 02 40 .38T12S R27E 06 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T12S R27E 06 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T12S R27E 07 LOT 01 40 .87T12S R27E 07 LOT 02 40 .82T12S R27E 07 LOT 03 40 .98T12S R27E 07 LOT 04 41 .13T12S R27E 07 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T12S R27E 07 S E ¼ 160 .00T12S R27E 07 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T12S R27E 08 E ½ 320 .00T12S R27E 09 ALL 640 .00T14S R19E 02 LOT 05 11 .92T14S R19E 02 LOT 06 24 .76T14S R19E 02 LOT 07 24 .76T14S R19E 02 LOT 08 24 .76T14S R20E 04 LOT 05 50 .18T14S R20E 04 LOT 06 22 .20T14S R20E 04 LOT 07 15 .18T14S R20E 04 S W ¼ 160 .00T14S R20E 04 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T14S R20E 05 LOT 06 40 .41T14S R20E 05 LOT 07 40 .54T14S R20E 05 LOT 08 40 .68T14S R20E 05 LOT 09 40 .81T14S R20E 05 LOT 10 17 .41T14S R20E 05 LOT 11 17 .34T14S R20E 05 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00

TOTA L - Cha ves C ounty 33 ,343 .50

DeBACA CO UNTY

T01N R20E 33 A l l 640 .00T01N R21E 01 LOT 01 40 .09T01N R21E 01 LOT 02 40 .30T01N R21E 01 LOT 03 40 .49T01N R21E 01 LOT 04 40 .71

T01N R21E 05 LOT 01 40 .58T01N R21E 05 LOT 02 40 .55T01N R21E 05 LOT 03 40 .55T01N R21E 05 LOT 04 40 .52T01N R21E 05 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T01N R21E 06 LOT 01 40 .46T01N R21E 06 LOT 02 40 .32T01N R21E 06 LOT 03 40 .19T01N R21E 06 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T01N R21E 11 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T01N R21E 12 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T01N R21E 12 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T01N R21E 24 S E ¼ S E ¼ 160 .00T01N R21E 29 N ½ N ½ 160 .00T01N R21E 33 ALL 640 .00T01N R22E 05 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T01N R22E 07 LOT 04 40 .68T01N R22E 07 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T01N R22E 11 N W ¼ 160 .00T01N R22E 11 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T01N R22E 19 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T01N R22E 20 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T01N R22E 20 S E ¼ 160 .00T01N R22E 21 N E ¼ 160 .00T01N R22E 21 S ½ 320 .00T01N R22E 22 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T01N R22E 28 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T01N R22E 28 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T01N R22E 31 E ½ E ½ 160 .00T01N R24E 31 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T01N R24E 31 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T01N R24E 34 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T01N R24E 34 S W ¼ 160 .00T02N R20E 24 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T02N R20E 25 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T02N R21E 20 N ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T02N R21E 30 LOT 02 39 .53T02N R21E 30 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T02N R21E 31 LOT 01 39 .31T02N R21E 31 LOT 02 39 .16T06N R25E 01 LOT 03 160 .00T01S R22E 05 Lot 4 41 .30T01S R22E 05 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T01S R22E 07 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T01S R22E 27 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T01S R22E 27 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T01S R22E 28 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T01S R22E 33 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T01S R23E 01 LOT 09 40 .00T01S R23E 01 LOT 10 40 .00T01S R23E 01 LOT 11 40 .00T01S R23E 01 LOT 12 40 .00T01S R23E 06 LOT 08 40 .00T01S R23E 12 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T01S R23E 13 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T01S R23E 26 W ½ W ½ 160 .00T01S R23E 35 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T01S R23E 35 S W ¼ 160 .00T01S R23E 35 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T01S R24E 18 LOT 01 39 .38T01S R24E 18 LOT 02 39 .44T01S R24E 19 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00

T01S R24E 20 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T01S R24E 20 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T01S R24E 21 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T01S R24E 34 N W ¼ 160 .00T02S R21E 22 N ½ 320 .00T02S R21E 23 N ½ 320 .00T02S R21E 24 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T02S R21E 24 N ½ 320 .00T02S R21E 30 Lot 4 33 .20T02S R21E 30 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T02S R21E 31 E ½ 320 .00T02S R21E 31 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T02S R21E 31 Lot 1 33 .27T02S R21E 31 Lot 2 33 .46T02S R21E 31 Lot 3 33 .65T02S R21E 31 Lot 4 33 .84T02S R21E 33 N ½ N ½ 160 .00T02S R21E 33 S ½ S ½ 160 .00T02S R21E 34 N W ¼ 160 .00T02S R22E 09 A l l 640 .00T02S R22E 11 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T02S R22E 11 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T02S R22E 11 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T02S R22E 12 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T02S R22E 27 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T02S R22E 27 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T02S R22E 28 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T02S R22E 35 S ½ 320 .00T02S R23E 02 LOT 01 40 .06T02S R23E 03 LOT 01 40 .14T02S R23E 03 LOT 02 40 .13T02S R23E 03 LOT 03 40 .08T02S R23E 03 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T02S R23E 03 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T02S R23E 03 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T02S R24E 08 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T02S R24E 17 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T02S R24E 17 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T02S R24E 19 LOT 01 39 .54T02S R24E 32 E ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T03S R21E 10 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T03S R21E 10 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T03S R22E 09 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T03S R22E 10 N ½ 320 .00T03S R22E 10 S W ¼ 160 .00T03S R22E 10 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T03S R22E 11 N E ¼ 160 .00T03S R22E 11 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T03S R22E 11 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T03S R22E 11 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T03S R22E 12 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T03S R22E 12 N W ¼ 160 .00T03S R22E 12 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T03S R22E 13 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T03S R22E 13 N ½ S ½ 160 .00T03S R22E 14 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T03S R22E 14 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T03S R22E 15 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T03S R23E 07 Lo t 03 38 .05T03S R23E 07 Lo t 04 38 .84T03S R23E 07 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T03S R23E 07 S E ¼ 160 .00




AP7-4

TOTA L - DeB aca C ounty 12 ,327 .82

GUADALUPE

T03N R17E 01 LOT 02 39 .85T03N R17E 01 LOT 03 39 .75T03N R17E 01 LOT 04 39 .65T03N R17E 01 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T03N R17E 04 LOT 01 39 .41T03N R17E 04 LOT 02 39 .43T03N R17E 04 LOT 03 39 .45T03N R17E 04 LOT 04 39 .47T03N R17E 04 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T03N R18E 17 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T03N R18E 18 W ½ N W ¼ S E ¼20 .00T03N R18E 18 W ½ S E¼ N W ¼20 .00T03N R18E 19 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T04N R17E 19 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T04N R17E 21 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T04N R17E 21 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T04N R17E 27 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T04N R17E 29 W ½ 320 .00T05N R19E 03 Lo t 01 39 .23T05N R19E 03 Lo t 02 39 .28T05N R19E 03 Lo t 03 39 .34T05N R19E 03 Lo t 04 39 .39T05N R19E 03 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T05N R19E 03 S ½ 320 .00T05N R19E 04 Lo t 01 39 .41T05N R19E 04 Lo t 02 39 .38T05N R19E 04 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T05N R19E 07 Lo t 03 38 .00T05N R19E 07 Lo t 04 38 .00T05N R19E 07 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T05N R19E 07 S E ¼ 160 .00T05N R19E 08 S E ¼ 160 .00T05N R19E 09 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T05N R19E 18 N E ¼ 160 .00T05N R19E 18 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T05N R19E 18 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T05N R19E 24 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T05N R19E 24 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T05N R19E 24 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T05N R20E 05 Lot 1 39 .23T05N R20E 05 Lot 2 39 .30T05N R20E 05 Lot 3 39 .37T05N R20E 05 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T05N R20E 05 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T05N R20E 09 N ½ 320 .00T05N R20E 18 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T05N R20E 18 Lot 1 39 .42T05N R20E 18 Lot 2 39 .46T05N R20E 18 Lot 3 39 .50T05N R20E 18 Lot 4 39 .54T05N R20E 18 N E ¼ 160 .00T05N R20E 18 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T05N R20E 19 Lot 1 39 .56T05N R20E 19 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T05N R21E 13 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T05N R21E 23 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T05N R21E 23 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T05N R21E 23 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00

T05N R21E 25 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T05N R21E 25 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T05N R21E 26 S ½ 320 .00T05N R21E 27 S ½ S ½ 160 .00T06N R18E 03 Lot 3 42 .27T06N R18E 03 Lot 4 42 .31T06N R18E 03 S W ¼ 160 .00T06N R18E 03 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T06N R18E 09 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T06N R18E 10 N E ¼ 160 .00T06N R18E 11 N ½ N ½ 160 .00T06N R18E 12 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T06N R18E 12 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T06N R18E 12 W ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T06N R18E 15 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T06N R18E 24 S ½ 320 .00T06N R18E 24 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T06N R19E 01 S ½ S ½ 160 .00T06N R19E 04 S ½ S ½ 160 .00T06N R19E 09 N ½ 320 .00T06N R19E 12 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T06N R19E 15 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T06N R19E 17 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T06N R19E 17 W ½ E ½ 160 .00T06N R19E 17 W ½ 320 .00T06N R19E 17 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T06N R19E 18 Lot 1 37 .80T06N R19E 18 Lot 2 37 .98T06N R19E 18 Lot 3 37 .66T06N R19E 18 Lot 4 37 .69T06N R19E 18 E ½ 320 .00T06N R19E 18 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T06N R19E 21 E ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T06N R19E 21 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T06N R19E 21 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T06N R19E 27 N E ¼ 160 .00T06N R19E 27 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T06N R19E 27 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T06N R19E 28 N ½ 320 .00T06N R19E 28 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T06N R19E 28 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T06N R19E 29 A l l 640 .00T06N R19E 30 E ½ 320 .00T06N R19E 30 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T06N R19E 30 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T06N R19E 31 LOT 01 38 .40T06N R19E 31 LOT 02 38 .00T06N R19E 31 LOT 03 37 .60T06N R19E 31 LOT 04 37 .20T06N R20E 10 E ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T06N R20E 12 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T06N R20E 23 N E ¼ 160 .00T06N R20E 31 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T06N R22E 04 Lot 1 41 .31T06N R22E 04 Lot 2 41 .29T06N R22E 04 Lot 3 41 .27T06N R22E 04 Lot 4 41 .25T06N R22E 04 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T06N R22E 05 Lot 1 41 .33T06N R22E 05 Lot 3 41 .69T06N R22E 08 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T06N R22E 08 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00

T06N R22E 08 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T06N R22E 09 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T06N R22E 09 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T06N R23E 18 Lot 3 38 .98T06N R23E 18 Lot 4 38 .86T06N R23E 18 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T06N R23E 18 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T06N R23E 18 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T06N R23E 18 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T07N R18E 18 LOT 02 43 .60T07N R18E 18 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T07N R18E 18 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T07N R18E 18 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T07N R18E 20 E ½ E ½ 160 .00T07N R18E 20 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T07N R18E 20 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T07N R18E 20 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T07N R18E 21 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T07N R18E 22 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T07N R18E 30 LOT 04 42 .27T07N R18E 30 S E ¼ 160 .00T07N R18E 30 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T07N R19E 35 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T07N R19E 35 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T07N R19E 35 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T07N R22E 28 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T07N R22E 29 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T07N R22E 33 E ½ E ½ 160 .00T07N R22E 33 S W ¼ 160 .00T07N R22E 34 S W ¼ 160 .00T07N R22E 34 W ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T07N R25E 24 S E ¼ 160 .00T07N R25E 35 S W ¼ 160 .00T07N R25E 35 W ½ S E ¼ 40 .00T07N R26E 30 Lo t 01 36 .45

TOTA L - Gua dalupe County 14 ,019 .63

LINCOLN COUNTY

T01N R16E 08 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T01N R16E 21 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T01N R16E 21 S E ¼ 160 .00T01N R16E 21 S ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T01N R16E 22 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T01N R16E 22 N ½ 320 .00T01N R16E 22 S W ¼ 160 .00T01N R16E 22 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T01N R16E 23 ALL 640 .00T01N R16E 25 ALL 640 .00T01N R16E 26 ALL 640 .00T01N R17E 10 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T01N R17E 10 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T01N R17E 19 LOT 01 39 .69T01N R17E 19 LOT 02 39 .83T01N R17E 19 LOT 03 39 .96T01N R17E 19 LOT 04 39 .13T01N R17E 19 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T01N R17E 19 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T01N R17E 19 N E ¼ 160 .00T01N R17E 19 S E ¼ 160 .00T01N R17E 20 E ½ 320 .00




AP7-5

T01N R17E 20 N ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T01N R17E 20 S W ¼ 160 .00T01N R17E 20 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T01N R17E 23 N E ¼ 160 .00T01N R17E 23 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T01N R17E 23 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T01N R17E 23 S W ¼ 160 .00T01N R17E 23 W ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T01N R17E 29 ALL 640 .00T01N R17E 30 LOT 01 40 .16T01N R17E 30 LOT 02 40 .06T01N R17E 30 LOT 03 39 .95T01N R17E 30 LOT 04 39 .85T01N R17E 30 E ½ 320 .00T01N R17E 30 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T01N R19E 04 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T01N R19E 06 LOT 03 39 .85T01N R19E 06 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T01N R19E 06 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T01N R19E 09 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T01N R19E 23 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T01N R19E 23 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T01N R19E 23 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T01N R19E 26 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T01N R19E 31 LOT 04 40 .04T01N R19E 31 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T01N R19E 31 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T01N R19E 33 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T01N R19E 35 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T01S R13E 26 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T01S R14E 09 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T01S R14E 14 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T01S R14E 20 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T01S R14E 24 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T01S R14E 24 S ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T01S R14E 30 LOT 01 40 .30T01S R14E 30 LOT 02 40 .27T01S R17E 05 LOT 04 35 .90T01S R17E 05 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T01S R17E 35 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T01S R18E 05 LOT 01 31 .75T01S R18E 05 LOT 02 32 .05T01S R18E 05 LOT 03 32 .35T01S R18E 05 LOT 04 32 .65T01S R18E 05 S ½ 320 .00T01S R18E 05 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T01S R18E 06 S E ¼ 160 .00T01S R18E 13 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T01S R18E 14 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T01S R18E 17 ALL 640 .00T01S R18E 18 LOT 01 48 .39T01S R18E 18 LOT 02 48 .37T01S R18E 18 LOT 03 48 .35T01S R18E 18 LOT 04 48 .33T01S R18E 18 E ½ 320 .00T01S R18E 18 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T01S R18E 19 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T01S R18E 20 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T01S R18E 20 N ½ 320 .00T01S R18E 20 S E ¼ 160 .00T01S R18E 21 N E ¼ 160 .00T01S R18E 21 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00

T01S R18E 21 S ½ 320 .00T01S R18E 21 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T01S R19E 07 LOT 03 44 .75T01S R19E 15 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T01S R19E 15 N W ¼ 160 .00T01S R19E 15 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T01S R19E 18 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T01S R19E 18 N E ¼ 160 .00T01S R19E 30 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T02S R10E 12 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T02S R10E 13 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T02S R10E 34 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T02S R10E 34 N W ¼ 160 .00T02S R10E 34 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T02S R10E 34 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T02S R10E 35 N E ¼ 160 .00T02S R11E 28 S ½ 320 .00T02S R12E 02 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T02S R12E 10 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T02S R15E 13 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T02S R15E 13 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T02S R15E 13 S ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T02S R15E 17 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T02S R15E 18 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T02S R15E 21 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T02S R15E 24 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T02S R15E 25 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T02S R15E 25 S W ¼ 160 .00T02S R15E 25 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T02S R15E 26 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T02S R16E 09 N ½ 320 .00T02S R16E 19 E ½ E ½ 160 .00T02S R16E 19 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T02S R16E 31 LOT 01 37 .28T02S R16E 31 LOT 02 37 .20T02S R16E 31 LOT 03 37 .12T02S R16E 31 LOT 04 37 .04T02S R16E 31 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T02S R16E 31 S E ¼ 160 .00T02S R18E 01 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T02S R18E 11 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T02S R18E 11 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T03S R10E 17 ALL 640 .00T03S R10E 18 LOT 01 31 .19T03S R10E 18 LOT 02 31 .71T03S R10E 18 LOT 03 31 .23T03S R10E 18 LOT 04 31 .75T03S R10E 18 E ½ 320 .00T03S R10E 18 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T03S R10E 24 LOT 01 44 .28T03S R10E 24 LOT 02 43 .89T03S R10E 24 N W ¼ 160 .00T03S R10E 24 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T03S R10E 33 E ½ 320 .00T03S R11E 24 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T03S R11E 26 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T03S R11E 26 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T03S R11E 27 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T03S R11E 27 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T03S R11E 33 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T03S R11E 33 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T03S R11E 33 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00

T03S R12E 24 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T03S R12E 24 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T03S R13E 18 LOT 01 41 .81T03S R13E 18 LOT 02 41 .92T03S R13E 18 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T03S R13E 18 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T03S R13E 18 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T03S R13E 23 N ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T03S R13E 23 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T03S R13E 25 ALL 640 .00T03S R13E 29 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T03S R13E 29 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T03S R13E 30 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T03S R15E 03 LOT 01 40 .27T03S R15E 03 LOT 02 40 .26T03S R15E 03 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T03S R15E 19 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T03S R15E 20 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T03S R15E 23 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T03S R15E 23 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T03S R15E 26 S ½ 320 .00T03S R15E 27 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T03S R15E 33 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T03S R15E 34 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T03S R15E 34 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T03S R15E 34 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T03S R17E 11 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T03S R17E 33 W ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T03S R18E 10 S E ¼ 160 .00T03S R18E 15 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T03S R18E 15 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T04S R11E 01 Lot 1 36 .53T04S R11E 01 Lot 2 36 .73T04S R11E 01 Lot 3 36 .91T04S R11E 01 Lot 4 37 .11T04S R11E 01 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T04S R11E 04 LOT 01 39 .56T04S R11E 04 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T04S R11E 20 S ½ 320 .00T04S R11E 21 N E ¼ 160 .00T04S R11E 21 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T04S R11E 21 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T04S R11E 21 S W ¼ 160 .00T04S R11E 22 N ½ 320 .00T04S R11E 23 N ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T04S R11E 28 N W ¼ 160 .00T04S R11E 33 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T04S R12E 01 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T04S R12E 01 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T04S R12E 13 S E ¼ 160 .00T04S R12E 17

E ½ SE ¼ SW ¼ S W ¼ 5 .00T04S R12E 17 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T04S R12E 19

N W ¼ S W ¼ N E ¼ 10 .00T04S R12E 19 S ½ S E ¼ N E ¼ 20 .00T04S R12E 19

W ½ N E ¼ S W ¼ N E ¼ 5 .00T04S R12E 20

E ½ NE ¼ SW ¼ N W ¼ 5 .00T04S R12E 20 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T04S R12E 20




AP7-6

E ½ NW ¼ N W ¼ 10 .00T04S R12E 20

S ½ SW ¼ N W ¼ 20 .00T04S R12E 29 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T04S R12E 32 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T04S R13E 24 S ½ 320 .00T04S R13E 24 W ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T04S R13E 26 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T04S R13E 26 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T04S R13E 34 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T04S R14E 08 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T04S R14E 22 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T04S R15E 01 LOT 04 40 .09T04S R15E 01 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T04S R15E 01 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T04S R15E 06 LOT 09 47 .26T04S R15E 30 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T04S R16E 07 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T04S R18E 21 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T04S R18E 21 W ½ E ½ 160 .00T05S R10E 01 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T05S R10E 05 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T05S R10E 08 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T05S R10E 09 S ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T05S R10E 12 N ½ 320 .00T05S R10E 12 N ½ S ½ 160 .00T05S R10E 33 E ½ 320 .00T05S R11E 03 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T05S R11E 07 LOT 03 34 .15T05S R11E 19 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T05S R13E 09 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T05S R13E 13 N E ¼ 160 .00T05S R13E 31 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T05S R13E 31 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T05S R14E 03 S E ¼ 160 .00T05S R14E 06 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T05S R14E 10 N E ¼ 160 .00T05S R14E 10 S ½ 320 .00T05S R14E 19 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T05S R14E 19 S W ¼ 160 .00T05S R14E 25 LOT 02 44 .84T05S R14E 25 LOT 04 45 .40T05S R15E 04 LOT 01 39 .46T05S R15E 20 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T05S R15E 20 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T05S R15E 25 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T05S R15E 28 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T05S R15E 28 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T05S R15E 29 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T05S R15E 30 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T05S R15E 33 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T05S R15E 33 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T05S R15E 33 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T05S R16E 11 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T05S R16E 17 S E ¼ 160 .00T05S R16E 17 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T05S R16E 17 S ½ N E ¼ N E ¼ 20 .00T05S R16E 24 E ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T05S R16E 24 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T05S R16E 24 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T05S R16E 28 S ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T05S R16E 31 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00

T05S R19E 26 N W ¼ 160 .00T05S R19E 27 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T05S R19E 27 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T05S R19E 28 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T05S R19E 28 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T05S R19E 34 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T05S R19E 34 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T06S R09E 11 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T06S R09E 27 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T06S R09E 27 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T06S R09E 28 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T06S R09E 28 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T06S R09E 28 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T06S R09E 28 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T06S R10E 01 S ½ S ½ 160 .00T06S R10E 03 LOT 01 37 .95T06S R10E 03 LOT 02 37 .98T06S R10E 03 LOT 03 38 .01T06S R10E 03 LOT 04 38 .03T06S R10E 03 LOT 07 40 .00T06S R10E 03 LOT 08 40 .00T06S R10E 03 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T06S R10E 03 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T06S R10E 11 N E ¼ 160 .00T06S R10E 12 N ½ 320 .00T06S R10E 14 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T06S R10E 15 E ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T06S R10E 23 W ½ 320 .00T06S R10E 26 N W ¼ 160 .00T06S R11E 07 LOT 03 39 .69T06S R11E 08 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T06S R11E 25 LOT 24 20 .34T06S R11E 25 LOT 44 8 .99T06S R12E 25 LOT 01 39 .99T06S R12E 36 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T06S R13E 01 LOT 01 18 .81T06S R13E 01 LOT 02 19 .15T06S R13E 30 LOT 03 42 .22T06S R14E 01 LOT 01 19 .00T06S R14E 01 LOT 02 18 .98T06S R14E 01 LOT 03 18 .98T06S R14E 01 LOT 04 18 .98T06S R14E 06 LOT 04 18 .62T06S R14E 27 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T06S R15E 06 LOT 03 59 .10T06S R15E 21 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T06S R15E 28 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T06S R16E 01 LOT 01 14 .43T06S R16E 01 LOT 08 40 .00T06S R17E 04 LOT 04 29 .55T06S R17E 04 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T06S R17E 06 LOT 12 44 .88T06S R17E 06 LOT 13 44 .88T06S R17E 06 LOT 14 44 .88T06S R17E 29 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T06S R17E 29 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T06S R18E 10 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T06S R18E 20 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T06S R18E 21 E ½ 320 .00T06S R18E 21 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T06S R18E 21 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T06S R18E 23 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00

T06S R18E 28 E ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T06S R18E 28 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T06S R18E 28 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T06S R18E 29 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T06S R19E 20 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T06S R19E 29 S ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T06S R20E 03 S W ¼ 160 .00T06S R20E 04 LOT 02 29 .65T06S R20E 04 LOT 04 29 .99T06S R20E 04 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T06S R20E 04 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T06S R20E 17 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T06S R20E 18 LOT 04 44 .72T06S R20E 18 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T07S R09E 01 N ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T07S R11E 05 LOT 01 39 .91T07S R14E 14 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T07S R14E 15 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T07S R14E 17 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T07S R17E 08 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T07S R18E 12 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T07S R18E 12 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T07S R18E 12 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T07S R18E 18 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T07S R18E 18 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T07S R18E 20 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T07S R18E 21 S E ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T07S R18E 25 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T07S R19E 31 LOT 05 44 .04T07S R19E 31 LOT 06 44 .44T07S R19E 31 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T07S R19E 35 S ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T07S R20E 18 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T07S R20E 21 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T07S R20E 22 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T07S R20E 27 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T07S R20E 28 N E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T07S R20E 28 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T07S R20E 28 S W ¼ 160 .00T07S R20E 28 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T07S R20E 28 W ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T07S R20E 28 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T07S R20E 34 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T07S R20E 34 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T07S R20E 34 S ½ S ½ 160 .00T07S R20E 34 S ½ S ½ 160 .00T08S R13E 32 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T08S R15E 27 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T08S R19E 03 LOT 01 39 .91T08S R19E 03 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T08S R19E 03 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T08S R19E 05 N ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T08S R19E 07 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T08S R19E 10 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T08S R19E 10 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T08S R19E 18 LOT 01 47 .46T08S R19E 18 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T08S R19E 18 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T08S R19E 18 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T08S R19E 20 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T08S R19E 31 LOT 01 46 .43T08S R20E 06 LOT 01 40 .15




AP7-7

T08S R20E 06 LOT 02 40 .10T08S R20E 06 LOT 03 40 .06T08S R20E 06 LOT 04 43 .48T08S R20E 06 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T08S R20E 06 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T09S R08E 34 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T09S R09E 19 LOT 01 39 .21T09S R09E 19 LOT 02 39 .24T09S R09E 19 LOT 03 39 .27T09S R09E 19 E ½ 320 .00T09S R09E 19 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T09S R09E 19 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T09S R09E 20 S W ¼ 160 .00T09S R09E 20 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T09S R09E 22 LOT 01 38 .15T09S R09E 22 LOT 02 38 .14T09S R09E 22 LOT 03 37 .96T09S R09E 22 LOT 04 37 .21T09S R09E 22 LOT 05 34 .92T09S R09E 22 LOT 06 36 .71T09S R09E 22 LOT 07 37 .42T09S R09E 22 LOT 08 37 .52T09S R09E 22 LOT 09 36 .91T09S R09E 22 LOT 10 36 .68T09S R09E 22 LOT 11 36 .23T09S R09E 27 LOT 01 34 .46T09S R09E 27 LOT 02 35 .04T09S R09E 28 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T09S R09E 29 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T09S R09E 29 W ½ 320 .00T09S R09E 30 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T09S R09E 30 N E ¼ 160 .00T09S R09E 30 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T09S R15E 25 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T09S R19E 05 S E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T09S R19E 05 S ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T09S R19E 08 N ½ 320 .00T09S R19E 08 S W ¼ 160 .00T09S R19E 18 N E ¼ 160 .00T09S R19E 19 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T09S R20E 25 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T10S R09E 01 LOT 01 37 .43T10S R09E 03 LOT 01 39 .15T10S R09E 03 LOT 02 39 .20T10S R09E 03 LOT 03 39 .26T10S R09E 03 LOT 04 39 .31T10S R09E 03 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T10S R09E 03 S E ¼ 160 .00T10S R09E 03 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T10S R09E 03 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T10S R09E 04 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T10S R09E 04 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T10S R09E 06 S E ¼ 160 .00T10S R09E 09 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T10S R09E 09 S E ¼ 160 .00T10S R09E 09 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T10S R09E 09 S ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T10S R09E 10 N W ¼ 160 .00T10S R09E 10 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T10S R09E 10 S ½ S ½ 160 .00T10S R09E 10 W ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T10S R09E 15 N ½ 320 .00

T10S R09E 15 S W ¼ 160 .00T10S R09E 15 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T10S R09E 22 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T10S R09E 22 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T10S R09E 22 N ½ S ½ 160 .00T10S R09E 22 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T10S R09E 22 S ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T10S R09E 22 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T10S R17E 24 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T10S R18E 01 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T10S R18E 01 S E ¼ N E¼ 40 .00T10S R18E 04 LOT 03 40 .43T10S R18E 04 LOT 04 40 .54T10S R18E 05 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T10S R18E 10 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T10S R18E 10 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T10S R18E 11 N ½ N ½ 160 .00T10S R18E 22 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T10S R18E 22 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T10S R18E 22 S W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T10S R18E 26 N W ¼ 160 .00T10S R18E 27 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T10S R19E 01 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T10S R19E 01 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T10S R19E 01 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T10S R19E 01 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T10S R19E 03 S W ¼ 160 .00T10S R19E 03 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T10S R19E 04 LOT 03 40 .48T10S R19E 04 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T10S R19E 06 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T10S R19E 06 Lot 5 45 .57T10S R19E 06 Lot 6 45 .62T10S R19E 06 S E ¼ 160 .00T10S R19E 08 E ½ E ½ 160 .00T10S R19E 08 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T10S R19E 08 N W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T10S R19E 08 W ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T10S R19E 10 N W ¼ 160 .00T10S R19E 13 E ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T10S R19E 24 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T10S R19E 25 N ½ 320 .00T10S R20E 09 N E ¼ 160 .00T10S R20E 09 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T10S R20E 09 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T10S R20E 15 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T10S R20E 18 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T10S R20E 18 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T10S R20E 18 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T10S R20E 18 W ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T10S R20E 19 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T10S R20E 19 Lot 1 40 .70T10S R20E 19 Lot 3 40 .64T10S R20E 19 Lot 4 40 .61T10S R20E 19 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T10S R20E 19 N ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T10S R20E 19 S E ¼ 160 .00T10S R20E 21 E ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T10S R20E 21 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T10S R20E 21 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T10S R20E 30 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T10S R20E 31 E ½ N E ¼ 80 .00

T10S R20E 33 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T10S R20E 35 N ½ S ½ 160 .00T10S R20E 35 S ½ N ½ 160 .00T11S R18E 03 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00




AP7-8

T11S R18E 09 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T11S R18E 10 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T11S R18E 11 N E ¼ 160 .00T11S R18E 11 S W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T11S R18E 11 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T11S R18E 14 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T11S R18E 14 N ½ NW ¼ 80 .00T11S R19E 14 LOT 05 41 .03T11S R19E 15

N E ¼ S E ¼ S E ¼ 10 .00T11S R19E 22

S E ¼ N W ¼ N E ¼ 10 .00T11S R20E 28 LOT 01 42 .15T12S R19E 01 LOT 01 2 .17T12S R19E 01 LOT 02 5 .27T12S R19E 03 LOT 05 10 .43T12S R19E 03 LOT 06 13 .00T12S R19E 04 LOT 07 30 .15T12S R19E 07 LOT 05 38 .97T12S R19E 07 LOT 06 33 .71T12S R19E 07 LOT 07 29 .58T12S R19E 09 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00T12S R19E 10 LOT 01 10 .33T12S R19E 10 LOT 02 10 .40T12S R19E 20 LOT 01 37 .99T12S R20E 22 Lot 1 41 .57T12S R20E 22 Lo t 4 36 .45T12S R20E 22 Lot 6 40 .71T12S R20E 22 LOT 07 34 .64T12S R20E 22 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T12S R20E 23 W ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T12S R20E 27 LOT 01 39 .87T12S R20E 27 LOT 02 35 .30T12S R20E 27 LOT 04 37 .78T12S R20E 34 Lo t 01 39 .11T12S R20E 34 Lo t 02 40 .74T12S R20E 34 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T13S R19E 21 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T13S R19E 24 N ½ S ½ 160 .00T13S R19E 24 W ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T13S R19E 25 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T13S R19E 25 N E ¼S W ¼ 40 .00

T13S R19E 25 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T13S R19E 25 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T13S R20E 03 Lo t 05 24 .97T13S R20E 03 W ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T13S R20E 17 LOT 03 26 .40T13S R20E 17 LOT 04 33 .04T13S R20E 17 N ½ S ½ 160 .00T13S R20E 17 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T13S R20E 17 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T13S R20E 18 LOT 05 38 .65T13S R20E 18 LOT 06 32 .89T13S R20E 18 LOT 07 39 .35T13S R20E 18 N E ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T13S R20E 18 S ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T13S R20E 19 LOT 05 40 .91T13S R20E 19 LOT 06 17 .96T13S R20E 19 LOT 08 22 .33T13S R20E 19 LOT 09 22 .31T13S R20E 19 LOT 12 22 .29T13S R20E 24 S E¼ S W ¼ 40 .00T13S R20E 25 N W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T13S R20E 25 N ½ S E ¼ 80 .00T13S R20E 25 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T13S R20E 25 S E¼ N W ¼ 40 .00T13S R20E 25 S W ¼ SW ¼ 40 .00T13S R20E 26 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T13S R20E 30 LOT 05 22 .29T13S R20E 30 LOT 07 22 .13T13S R20E 30 LOT 08 22 .31T13S R20E 30 LOT 09 53 .31T13S R20E 31 N ½ N E ¼ S E ¼ 20 .00

TOTA L - Lincoln C ounty 47 ,482 .25

ROOSEVELT COU NTY

T07S R32E 22 S ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T07S R32E 23 E ½ N E ¼ 80 .00T07S R32E 24 N W ¼ 160 .00T07S R32E 27 E ½ S W ¼ 80 .00T07S R32E 27 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00

T07S R32E 28 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00T07S R32E 33 S E ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T07S R32E 34 N W ¼ NW ¼ 40 .00T07S R32E 34 S ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T07S R32E 35 S ½ N W ¼ 80 .00T07S R33E 18 S E ¼ 160 .00T07S R33E 19 LOT 01 37 .71T07S R33E 19 LOT 02 37 .77T07S R33E 19 LOT 03 37 .83T07S R33E 19 LOT 04 37 .89T07S R33E 19 E ½ 320 .00T07S R33E 19 E ½ W ½ 160 .00T07S R33E 20 N ½ 320 .00T07S R33E 22 W ½ 320 .00T07S R33E 27 N E ¼ 160 .00T07S R33E 27 S ½ 320 .00T07S R33E 28 S E ¼ 160 .00T07S R33E 29 S E ¼ 160 .00T07S R34E 10 E ½ SW ¼ 80 .00T07S R34E 15 S W ¼ N E ¼ 40 .00T07S R34E 15 N E ¼N W ¼ 40 .00T07S R34E 15 N W ¼ S E ¼ 40 .00

TOTA L - Roos evelt C ounty 3 ,151 .20

ACREAGE SUMMARY

Ch ave s C oun ty 33 ,343 .50De Ba ca C oun ty 12 ,327 .82Gu ada lupe Co unty

14 ,019 .63Linc oln C oun ty

47 ,482 .25Ro ose velt C oun ty 3 ,151 .20

GRAND TOTAL 110,324.40

AP8-1

This appendix describes planning decisions re lated to livestock grazing and rangelandmanagement that were made in previous Rosw ell Resource Area land use plans. These decisionswere carried forward in the Rosw ell RMP as standard practices.

APPENDIX 8DECISIONS FROM PREVIOUS PLANNING DOCUMENTS

DECISIONS CARRIED FORWARD

1. All allotm ents will be class ified assuitable for grazing by cattle, sheep, goats,and/or horses. Any change in the kind oflivestock authorized which would dramaticallyalter historical grazing u se pa tterns willrequire an environmen tal assessment (EA).(West Ros well M FPA/EIS Record ofDecision)

2. All allotments will be classified assuitable for yearlong grazing unless futureactivity plans specify a need to change theseason of use. (W est Roswell MFP A/EISRecord of Decision)

3. Develop Allotment Management Plans(AMPs) for allotments where intensivemanagement appears feasible. Grazingschedules incorporated in AMP's should bedesigned to achieve upward trend and fair orbetter cond ition in 6 to 8 years and maximumsustained carry ing ca pac ity in 15 to 20 years.(East Chaves Framework Plan, initially)

Priority for implementation of these AMP'swi l l b e d e t e r m in e d by Allo t m e n tCategorization Process (I, M, C).

4. Individual grazing programs will bedeveloped in consultation and cooperationwith affected parties and will identify neededprojects and developments. (West RoswellMFPA/EIS Record of Decision)

5. CMPs (now termed AMPs) will bewritten and fully impleme nted, and an EAcovering each AMP will be prepared. Theplans will be monitored and evaluated

following imple mentation so th at pe riodicadjustments, if necessary, can be made onthose plans not meeting multiple useobjectives. (West Roswe ll MFPA/EIS Recordof Decision)

6. Successful grazing programs alreadyimplemented by permittees and in use onranched may be documented andincorporated into a plan. (West RoswellMFPA/EIS Record of Decision)

7. Documented grazing programs and/orcooperative management p lans (CMPs') w illbe implemented on "I" category allotments.Specific programs and plan will be applied toindividual allotm ents on a prior ity bas isbeginning with those allotments with thehighest potential for improvement. (WestRoswell MFPA/EIS Record of Decision)

8. Revise AMP's that have beenimplemented and are not sh owin gimprovement. Revise or develop grazingschedules designed to achieve an improvingtrend and fair or better condition in 6 to 8years and maximum sustained carryingcapacity in 15 to 20 years.

Allotment Plan Revisions are handled underthe Bureau M anuals, un der a multiple useconcept. Grazing programs will includedeferred, rotation, high-intensity-shortduration systems, and other specific grazingsystems which combine proper grazing usewith scheduled rest periods. (West RoswellEIS.)

9. The following allotments do not requireprescribed grazing management by BLM.Proper grazing use through the efforts of the

APPENDIX 8

AP8-2

rancher and the Soil Conservation Serviceshould be encouraged for these allotments.

"C" CATEGORY ALL OTMENTS5001, 5002, 5003, 5004, 5006, 5008,5009, 5011, 5013, 5014, 5015, 5016,5017, 5022, 5023, 5026, 5027, 5030,5031, 5033, 5035, 5039 (SHERMANCATTLE), 5039 (RED TANK CORP.),5042, 5045, 5052, 5054, 5056, 5059,5060, 5061, 5064, 5070, 5071, 5081,5093 (East Chaves ManagementFramework Plan, initially)

10. Range improvements needed toimplement grazing systems or othermanagement plans will be designed duringspecific managem ent plan develop men t.Site-spec ific impacts from projects will beanalyzed in an Environmental Assessment(EA). (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record ofDecision)

11. Vegetation treatme nts will bedes igned during spec i fi c a ll o tmentmanagement plan developm ent. If additionalvegetation treatments are identified after theimplementation of the allotment managementplan, they will be assessed through the EAprocess prior to implementation of theproject. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record ofDecision)

12. Implementa t ion o f range landimprovement projects will be in accordancewith the Final Rangeland Improvement Policy(Washington Office Instruction Memorandum83-27). In allocating rangeland improvementfunds, BLM procedures for evaluating,ranking, and budgeting range improvementswill be app lied. Appropriated funds ava ilablefor investment in range land imp rovem entswill be allocated as follows:

a. First, to the maintenance ofimprovements that continue to serve a va lidpurpose or objective and for which the BLMhas maintenance responsibility.

b. Second, for the design,construction and maintenance of new

rangeland improvements that conform with aspecific development plan for the area. Suchplans may be Cooperative ManagementPlans (CMPs) -now Allotment ManagementPlans (AMPs), H abita t Management P lans(HMPs), Herd Managem ent Plans (HMAPs)or other plans providing a rational decision-making framework for meeting multiple-usemanagem ent objectives.

c. Additiona l range imp rovements w illbe evaluated and imp lemented when theneed is identified.(West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record ofDecision)

13. Selection of specific areas for rangeimprovements will be evaluated to ensurethat highly erosive areas are avoided and toensure workability of the project. (WestRoswell MFPA/EIS Record of Decision)

14. Where soils and vegetation aredisturbed, reclamation measures will betaken, if applicable. These measures includereturning the land to as near its natural formas poss ible an d reseed ing with mixtures ofnative grasses, legum es, and forbs toprevent erosion . (West Roswe ll MFPA/EISRecord of Decision)

15. Provisions should be made forplanning revegetation of land to a level whichis suitable for livestock production on landsimultaneous with or upon abandonment ofa site. M ining areas, oil and gas roads andpads, mineral sites should be protectedeither through stipulations or by Bureauactio n prior to disturbance. (East ChavesManagement Framework Plan)

16. Site specific EAs and burn p lans w illbe developed for any prescribed burns.(West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record ofDecision)

17. Conduct selective salt cedar control toprevent loss of four-wing saltbush andco t tonwood trees. (East ChavesManagement Framework Plan)

APPENDIX 8

AP8-3

18. All app lication rates of herbicides w ill bedetermined base d on individual range sitesand the condition at the tim e of app lication.(West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record ofDecision)

19. Only federally registered pesticideswould be used on public lands except asauthorized by Section 24. C ., Pub lic Law 92-516, the Federal Environmental PesticideControl Act of 1972. Section 24.C. providesfor state registration of certa in pesticides forlocal needs within the state. Any pesticideproposal planned under a state registrationwould include a copy of the state labe l.

Application of herbicides will conform to BLMManual 9220 and State of new Mexico and U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)standards. Herbicides proposed for use will beauthorized by the USEPA, the New MexicoDepartment of Agriculture (NMDA), and theDepartment of Interior (DOI), and must beregistered by the USEPA and NMDA. NMDArestricted use regulations will be consulted prior toany herbicide application. (West RoswellMFPA/EIS Record of Decision...this decision hasbeen re-worded in the Vegetation Treatment onBLM Lands EIS and that wording precedes thisparagraph.)

20. All livestock would be removed fromtreated pastures prio r to aerial spraying orground applications when using foliar spray.Livestock should be removed fo llowing first ½inch of moistu re following pellet treatm ent.Herbicide label requirements will be compliedwith for grazing of domestic animals afterapplication. Livestock grazing would bedeferred for a minimum of two consecutivegrowing seasons. (We st Roswell MFPA/EISRecord of Decision & Vegetation Treatmenton BLM Lands EIS)

21. Onsite analysis of areas proposed forinclusion in projected brush contro ltreatments will be m ade to avo id high lydes irable wildlife habitat which would besusceptible to the treatme nts beingconsidered. (West Roswell MFPA/EISRecord of Decision)

22. Important wildlife habitat, such asbroadleaf tree groves, aquatic and ripariansites, dirt tanks, watering tubs, active raptornests, and the areas around them would beprotected during brush control operations.(West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record ofDecision)

23. Conduct selective control leavingislands of salt ceda r for w ildlife nestinghabi tat. (East Chaves ManagementFramework Plan)

24. Conduct mesquite control to providean adequ ate am ount of untreated mesq uitecover to meet optimum quail habitat needson those sites occupied by scaled qua il.(East Chaves Managem ent Framework Plan)

25. Uprooted mesquite will be left in placeto provide wildlife habitat. Up rooted ch ollawill be stacked and left in place or burned,depending on w ildlife or other mu ltiple-useneeds. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record ofDecision)

26. Big game numbers will be managedby the NMDG&F to meet popula tions goa lsand trends. (West Roswe ll MFPA/EISRecord of Decision)

27. Allotmen ts within the 1.5 million acrearea, known as the Pronghorn AntelopeStudy Area, will be inventoried for productionof fall forbs and analyzed for suitability forpronghorn reintroduction. Once allotmentshave been determ ined to be su itable, acooperative agreement will be developed andimplemented through cooperation withNMDG&F and landowners. (West RoswellMFPA/EIS Record of Decision)

28. New or expanded grazing use andsupport facilities will be evaluated on a case-by case basis so that impairmen t of wildlifehabitat will be minimized. (West Roswe llMFPA/EIS Record of Decision)

29. Where BLM controls water sources,water will be made available to wildlife whenlivestock are on and off the allotments or

APPENDIX 8

AP8-4

pastures. (West R oswe ll MFPA/EIS Recordof Decision)

30. Livestock watering areas will belocated to avoid livestock concentration nearsensitive wildlife habitat areas. (East ChavesManagement Framework Plan)

31. Water shou ld be available for wildlife.It will be the Bureau's responsibility toprovide wate r for w ildlife's needs, either bydeveloping additional water sources orfacilities, or making arrangements byagreements for the use of existing pr ivatewater sources and facilities. Considerationwill be given to requiring that water beava ilable yearlong for wildlife to future priva teand federal watering facilities that may beinsta l led on NRL. (East ChavesManagement Framework Plan)

32. Escape ramps will be required in allwater troughs and open storage tanks.(West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record ofDecision)

33. Areas meeting riparian and wetlandhabitat criteria will be assessed to determineif protection is needed to prov ide wildlifehabitat. Protection measures will be selectedfor individual situations to include protectivefencing, adjustments in livestock use, and/orestablishment of buffer strips, as necessary.Where dom estic livestock are excluded fromriparian areas, alternate water sources forlivestock will be provided . (West Roswe llMFPA/EIS Record of Decision)

34. Inventory and provide techniques forthe protection of Threatened or EndangeredVegetative Species as directed by law. (EastChaves Management Framework Plan)

35. A threatened, endangered, State-listed, or proposed-listed species clearancewill be conducted by approp riate BLM staffbiologist prior to the beginning of any pro ject.If a "may affect" determination is made by thestaff biologist, consultation will be undertakenwith the USFWS, NMDG&F, or the NMNHPlisting the species which may be affected.

The results of the consultation will determinethe course of action necessary to avoidadverse effects on listed species. (WestRoswell MFPA/EIS Record of Decision)

36. Before surface-disturbing activitiestake place, cultural resources will beinventoried and evalu ated . All reasonableefforts will be made to avoid adve rse impactson cultural resources. If impacts areunavoidable, BLM will consult with the StateHisto ric Preservation Office r (SHPO ) todevelop mitigating measures. (West Roswe llMFPA/EIS Record of Decision)

37. Prior to the implementation of surface-d is tu rb ing ac t iv i t ies , pa leon tologicalresources will be inventoried and evaluated.(West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record ofDecision)

38. The cultural resource program willprop erly identify those areas which aresprayed with chemical herbicide so thatfuture excavators of those areas will beinformed of the possibility of contamination ofradiocarbon samples. This information willthen beco me a part of the an tiquities permitissued for the excavation of that site. (WestRoswell MFPA/EIS Record of Decision)

39. Allotments will be monitored todetermine the changes in rangelandcondition and trend due to chan ges ingrazing management, vegetation treatments,and rangeland improvements. (WestRoswell MFPA/EIS Record of Decision)

40. Any livestock adjustments will bebased on monitoring data (utilization studies,actual use data, precipitation, trend, andcondit ion). (43 CFR 4100 GrazingAdministration 4110.3 and Wes t RoswellMFPA/EIS Record of Decision)

41. Develop a program to reduceaccidental trespass resulting from other NRLusers leaving gates open. This includes:

a) Installing cattle guards instead ofgates where there is a relatively high

APPENDIX 8

AP8-5

i n ten s i t ytraffic orw h e np r o b l e mareas areidentified.

b) Prov ide signs instructing users to"Please Close G ates" whe re on lyoccasional traffic is anticipated.

c) Insta ll leverage devices to aid inclosing tight wire gates.

(East Chaves Management FrameworkPlan)

42. Continue to preserve and protect theMathers Natural Area. (East ChavesManagement Framework Plan)

43. Secure legal access by easementacquisition where roads and trails crossprivate lands leading to allotme nts.Easement acquisition will be identified lateras information is compiled with an inventoryof the area's access problems. (East ChavesManagement Framework Plan)

44. Disposal of the lands in the followingallotmen ts shou ld be enco urag ed e ither bysale or as a land exchange base. (EastChaves Management Framework Plan)

Allotment Pub lic Number Acreage

5002 380 5003 200 5006 160 5035 964 5052 40 5056 360 5061 240 5064 881 5089 400Parcel #1,

T. 7 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 23 40

Total 3665

45. Readjust grazing district boundary to

coincide with allotment boundaries. (EastChaves M anagem ent Framewo rk Plan)

AP9-1

This appendix describes the policies, standards, and practices to be used on public lands in theRoswell Resource Area when treating vegetation with herbicides. These requirements are derivedfrom BLM policy, the Final EIS on Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen WesternStates, decisions made in Roswell Resource Area land use plans, and mitigations developedthrough environmental assessments.

APPENDIX 9TREATING VEGETATION WITH HERBICIDES

The following policies, standards, andpractices for using herbicides on public landsare to be considered in the planning andimplementation of each project involvingherbicides. If appropriate, any of these itemsmay be included as design features in aproject proposal and use authorization.

PROJECT DESIGN, ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS

1. The treatment of noxious wee ds withherbicides will be conducted in accordancewith curre nt BLM policy, including ManualSec t i o n s 9 0 1 5 ( I n te g r a te d W e e dManagem ent) and 9220 (Integrated PestManage ment).

2. Environmental impacts of proposedprojects will be identified through anenvironmental assessment. M easures willbe taken to mitigate potentially adverseenvironmental impacts.

3. Proposed projects w ill be reviewed withuser groups, interested organizations and thegeneral public.

4. Integrated pest control methods that maycombine chemical, manual, mechanical, orbiological control techniques will be usedwhere they minimize adverse impacts of pestcontrol.

5. Federal and state age ncies withrespons ibilities for the environm ent, publichealth, and fish and wildlife will be informed

of prog rams invo lving herbic ide use.Cooperative measures among the agencieswill be developed, when appropriate.

6. Vegetation treatments will be planned(including NEPA analysis) during thedevelopment of activity plans (e .g., allotmentmanagement plans, habitat managementplans, or cooperative resource managementplans). If additional vegetation treatmentsare identif ied during or after th eimplementation of an activity plan, theprojects will be assessed in an environmentalassessment during the planning of thesubsequen t project.

7. A special status species clearance will beconducted as part of project planning.Appropriate inform al or fo rma l consultation,or both, will be undertaken with the agency[U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),New Mexico Department of Game an d Fish(NMDG &F), or the New Mexico NaturalHeritage Program (NMNHP)] listing thespecies that may be affected. The results ofthe consultation will determine the course ofaction needed to avoid adverse effects onlisted species.

8. During p roject planning, onsite visits willbe made to areas proposed for brush controltreatments to identify h ighly desirable wildlifehabitat that would be adversely affected bythe proposed treatments and should beavoided.

9. The following are minimum widths

APPENDIX 9

AP9-2

(measured horizontally) for unsprayed bufferstrips for all herbicides applied adjacent to

the Pecos River, any livestock wateringlocations, ranch houses,

APPENDIX 9

AP9-3

or known locations o f threatened orendangered plants.

Type of application Buffer

Aerial Spraying:Spraying altitude10 - 15 feet above ground 100 feet

Veh icle spraying 25 feet

Hand Application 10 feet

Herbicides will be wiped on individual plantswithin 10 feet of water where application iscritica l.

10. Protective buffe r zones w ill be providedaround important riparian or wetland habitatsalong streams, rivers, lakes that are notdesigned to be treated, and aroundxeroriparian areas along important dry watercourses. Xeroriparian areas are defined asvegetation zon es occurr ing in or adjacent toephemeral desert washes or stream courses,exh ibiting more luxuriant growth as aninfluence of increased available water. Somespecies of vege tation may be the same asoccur on the ad jacent uplands, but thegrowth forms are noticeably larger than theupland plants.

11. Foliar herbicides will not be applied fromthe air within a minimum of 200 meters (657feet) of spe cial habitat features such asaquatic hab itats, ra ptor nest sites, desirablenative desert trees, caves, wildlife waters,exclosures, certain w ildlife study sites, andimportant prairie chicken lek sites.

12. Irregular boundaries for maximizing edgeeffect will be incorporated into all methods oftreatment. Undisturbed islands of naturalvegetation will be left, where appropriate, tominimize negative impacts to wildlife.

13. To minimize drift and volatilization, aerialapplications of all the herbicides will beconfined to periods when: wind speed is lessthan six miles per hour for liquids or fifteenmiles per hour for granules, or when lesser

wind speed is specified on the label; airtemperature is under 85 deg rees F.;precipitation is not occurring or imminent;snow or ice is not covering the target foliage;fog does not significantly reduce visibility;and, air turbulence would not affect normalspray patterns. Label directions will befollowed if they require additional restrictions.Low volatility formulations will be used.

14. Daily measurements of weatherconditions during application will be made bytrained personnel at sp ray s ites. Ad ditionalmeasurements will be made at any time aweather change appears to be taking placewhich could jeopardize safe placement of thespray on the target area.

AGENCY REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS

15. Only federally registered pesticides w illbe used on public lands, except asauthorized by Section 24. C ., Pub lic law 92-516, the Federal Environmental PesticideControl Act of 1972. Section 24.C. providesfor state registration of certain pesticides forlocal needs within the state. Any pesticideuse proposed under a state regis tration willinclud e a co py of the state label.

16. Tank mixes of pe sticides may beapproved if the mixture is: provided for onone or more labels of EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) registered products;provided for under a state registration; or,tested and has a written recommendation byan Agricultural Experiment Station or theState Departmen t of Agriculture. Thepesticides recomm ended in the mixture mustbe applied at a dosage rate not to exceed thelabel instructions for use of any sing leproduct for the same targeted pest and mustnot be specifically prohibited from mixing oneither label. Each tank mix proposal must beaccompanied by appropriate labels or awritten recommendation, or both.

17. The use of a registered pesticide at lessthan the label dosage m ay be authorized ifthat use is recommended in writing by aknowledgeable expert, pursua nt to the EP A's

APPENDIX 9

AP9-4

Pesticide Enforcement Policy Statement No.1, dated May 5, 1975, and September 17,1975.

18. All proposed use of herbicides on pub liclands will be reviewed for approval inadvance of use by the BLM's HeadquartersOffice in Washington, D.C.

19. The applica tion o f herb icides willconform to BLM Manual 9011, and State ofNew Mexico and EPA standards. Herbicidesproposed for use would be authorized by theEPA, the New Mexico Department ofAgriculture (NMDA) and the Department ofInterior (USDI), and must be registered bythe EPA and NMDA. NMDA restricted-useregu lations will be consulted prior to anyherbicide application.

APPLICATION

20. The rates of herbicide application will bedetermined based on the condition andcharacter of individual range sites at the timeof application.

21. All individuals associated with thehandling or application of herbicides onpub lic lands w ill be familiar with theemergency proced ures to be used in case ofa herbicide spill.

22. When a herbicide a pplica tion p rojec t isconducted by BLM personnel, an employeeholding a valid pesticide applicationcertification will monitor and supervise the

project. Work done by contractors, or otherindividuals authorized by BLM, will beconducted by individuals having a valid statecertification.

23. The applicable federal regulationsconcerning the storag e and disposal ofherbicides and herbicide containers will befollowed and are described on the label ofeach herbicide.

FOLLOW-UP

24. All livestock will be removed from treatedpastures prior to aerial spraying or groundapplications involving foliar spray. Livestockshould be removed after the first 1/2 inch ofmoisture fo l lowing pellet treatment.Herbicide labe l requirements will be metwhen graz ing domestic animals afterapplication. Livestock grazing will bedeferred for a minimum of two consecutivegrowing seasons.

25. The response of vegetation to treatmentwill be monitored by methods establishedprior to treatment. Onsite evaluation ofherbicide effectiveness and the resultingsecondary succession will be conducted.Data gathered will be used to improve thebrush control process.

26. Record s of areas spraye d withherbicides will be maintained with culturalresource program information so thatresearchers can be informed of the poss iblecontamination of radiocarbon samples.

AP10-1

APPEMDIX 10

APPENDIX 10RULES OF CONDUCT

This appendix describes rules of conduct for recreation use on public land in the RoswellResource Area

The Secretary of the Interior’s regulations at 43CFR 8365 provide, in part, rules of conduct forthe protection of public lands and resources,and for the protection, comfort and well beingof the public in its use of recreation areas, sitesand facilities on public lands.

Additionally, the BLM’s New Mexico State Di-rector has established supplemental rules ofconduct for visitor use under 43 CFR 8365.1.These rules are necessary for the protection ofpersons, property, and public lands and re-sources currently under the BLM’s administra-tion in the Roswell District, New Mexico. Therules of conduct also will apply to acquired landsthat come under the administration of the BLM,as provided for in 43 CFR 8365.1-6. These rulesof conduct apply to all persons using publiclands, Violations of these rules are punishableby a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonmentnot to exceed 12 months, or both.

Exceptions to the following rules of conduct maybe permitted by the Authorized Officer subjectto limits and restrictions of controlling federalor state laws. Persons granted use exemptionsmust possess written authorization from theBLM office having jurisdiction over the area.

Further, users must comply with the zoning,permitting, rules, or regulatory requirements ofother agencies, where applicable. Except asotherwise provided by federal law or regulation,state and local laws and ordinances shall ap-ply and be enforced by the appropriate stateand local authorities (43 CFR 8365.1-7).

The following is a list of supplementary rules ofconduct (prohibfted acts) on Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) designated recreationsites, special recreation managemertt areasand other public lands in the BLM Roswell

District, New Mexico. General rules of conductare published in Titles 36 and 43 of the Codeof Federal Regulations (CFR). The Supplemen-tary Rules of Conduct for the Roswell District(the Roswell and Carlsbad Resource Areas)were published in the Federal Register, Volume60, No. 235 on Thursday, December 7, 1995.When approved, subsequeryt rules developedfor Bureau of Land Management administeredlands in New Mexico or applicable changes inthe Code of Federal Regulations would super-sede these rules without requiring an amend-ment of the RMP.

The following acts are prohibited unless autho-rized by written permit from the BLM RoswellDistrict Office, the Roswell Resource Area orthe Carlsbad Resource Area.

CAMPING

• Camping in one location is limited to 14 con-secutive days. After that time, campers mustmove at least 25 miles from that location andnot return for 28 consecutive days (43 CFR8365.1-2(a)).

• Failing to pay any fees imposed in accordancewith 36 CFR part 71.

• Camping or parking for more than 30 minuteswithin 300 feet of any spring, manmade waterhole, water well or watering tank used by wild-life or domestic stock (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Leaving personal property unattended formore than 24 hours in a day use area, or 72hours in other areas. Personal property left un-attended beyond such time limit is subject todisposition under the Federal Property andAdministrative services Act (43 CFR 8365.2-3(c)).

AP10-2

APPENDIX 10

• Reserving camping space, except at groupfacilities. Camping space is available on a first-come, first-serve basis (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Failing to maintain quiet in a developed recre-ation site between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to6:00 a.m., or other hours posted. During thisperiod no person shall create noise which dis-turbs other visitors (43 CFR 8365.1-4(a)).

• No more than two motorized vehicles or 10individuals, or both shall occupy any single,approved developed recreation site not desig-nated for group use or as a parking area.Groups exceeding these limits must use a groupsite or additional designated sites (43 CFR8365.1-6).

• Parking in or occupying a parking spaceposted or marked for handicapped use withoutdisplaying an official identification tag or plate(43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Pitching any tent, parking any trailer, erectingany shelter or placing any other camping equip-ment in any area other than the place desig-nated for it within a designated campsite (43CFR 8365.2-3(b)).

• Entering or using a recreation site or a por-tion of a site closed to public use (43 CFR8365.2-3(@).

• Moving any table, stove, barrier, litter recep-tacle or other campground equipment (43 CFR8365.2-3(f)).

• Bringing equine stock, llama, cattle, or otherlivestock within campgrounds or picnic areasunless facilities have been specifically providedfor such use (43 CFR 8365.2-3(h)).

• Camping, occupying or building a fire on, orin, any historic or prehistoric structure or ruinsite (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

SANITATION

• Constructing or maintaining any pit toilet facil-ity (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Dumping or disposing sewage or sewagetreatment chemicals from self-cordained orcordainerized toilets, except at facilities providedfor that purpose (43 CFR 8365.1-1(3)).

• Showering or bathing at any improved or de-veloped water source, outdoor hydrant, pump,faucet, fountain, or restroom water faucet un-less the water source is designated for thatpurpose (43 CFR 8365.2.1 (b)).

• Cleaning fish, game, other food, clothing orhousehold articles at any outdoor hydrant,pump, faucet, fountain, or restroom water fau-cet (43 CFR 8365.2-1 (a)).

• Disposing of any waste or gray water exceptwhere disposal facilities are provided (43 CFR8365.1-1(3)).

• Disposing of any cans, bottles or other non-flammable trash and garbage, except in desig-nated receptacles (CFR 43 8365.1 -1 (1)).

FIRES

• Disposing of any burning or smoldering ma-terial, except at sftes or facilities provided forthat purpose (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Leaving a campfire unattended, or failing tocompletely extinguish a fire after use (43 CFR,8365.1-6).

• Igniting or burning any material containing orproducing toxic or hazardous material (43 CFR,8365.1-6).

• Failing to adhere to fire danger ratings issuedby the government (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Building a fire in a developed recreation siteexcept in a stove, grill, fireplace or ring providedfor that purpose (43 CFR 8365.,1-6).

VEGETATION AND MINERAL REMOVAL

• Cutting, removing, or transporting woodymaterials without authorization, including, but

AP10-3

APPENDIX 10

not limited to:1. Any type or variety of vegetation (exclud-

ing dead and down) (43 CFR 8365.1-6);

2. Fuelwood or firewood, either green orstanding deadwood (43 CFR 8365.1-6);

or,3. Live plants (except for consumption,

medicinal purposes, study or personalcollection) (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Gathering or collecting woody plants or anyother natural resources or minerals which re-quire a permit, without having a permit (43 CFR8365.1-6).

• Removing or transporting any mineral re-sources including, but not limited to, rock, sand,gravel, and minerals on or from public landswithout written consent, proof of purchase, ora valid permit. Collecting specimens andsamples in reasonable amounts for personalnoncommercial use, under 43 CFR 8365.1-5(b)is not affected by this section (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Collecting or removing any natural resource,including wood for campfires, where restrictionson removal are posted (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

PETS

• Failing to prevent a pet from harassing, mo-lesting, injuring, or killing humans, wildlife or live-stock (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Failing to immediately remove and dispose ofin a sanitary manner all pet fecal material, trash,garbage or waste created within a developedrecreation site (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Failing to physically restrain a pet at all timeswithin developed campsites and picnic areas.Pets are prohibited where posted on all desig-nated nature or interpretive trails and fromerttering caves. Animals trained to assist handi-capped persons are exempt from this rule (43CFR 8365.1-6).

• Bringing an animal into a developed recre-

ation site unless the animal is on a leash notlonger than 6 feet and is secured to a fixed ob-ject or under control of a person, or is other-wise physically restricted at all times (43 CFR8365.2.1 (c)).

VEHICLES

• Operating an off-road vehicle without full-timeuse of an approved spark arrester and muffler(43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Failing to display the required state off-roadvehicle registration (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Lubricating or repairing any vehicle, exceptrepairs necessitated by emergency (43 CFR8365.1-6).

• Operating, parking, or leaving a motorizedvehicle in violation of posted restrictions or insuch a manner or location as to:

1. Create a safety hazard;2. Interfere with other authorized users or

uses;3. Obstruct or impede normal or emer-

gency traffic movemertt;4. Interfere with or impede administrative

activities;5. Interfere with the parking of other ve-

hicles; or6. Endanger property or any person (43

CFR 8365.1-6).

• Operating vehicles off of existing or designatedroads and trails within a developed recreationsite, unless facilities have been specifically pro-vided for such use. Motorized vehicles will beoperated for access to and from developed fa-cilities only (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Driving a motor vehicle within developedrecreation sites or areas except on roads andplaces provided for this purpose, unlessotherwise authorized (43 CFR 8365.2-4).

• Operating a motor vehicle in motion, unlessthe operator and each front seat passenger isrestrained by a properly fastened safety beft(43 CFR 8365.1-3(b)(1)).

AP10-4

APPENDIX 10

FIREWORKS

• Possessing or using fireworks (43 CFR8365.2-5(a)).

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

• Selling or giving an alcoholic beverage to aperson under 21 years of age (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Possessing an alcoholic beverage by a per-son under 21 years of age (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

WEAPONS

• Carrying concealed weapons (43 CFR8365.1-6).

• Discharging firearms or other weapons, orhunting and trapping within 150 yards of devel-oped recreation sftes and areas (43 CFR8365.1-6).

• Using weapons in violation of state law withindeveloped campsites or picnic areas (43 CFR8365.1-6).

ARCHAEOLOGY OR CULTURALRESOURCES

• Gathering or collecting historical artifacts thatrequire permit for collection, without having apermit (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Willfully defacing, disturbing, removing or de-stroying any personal property or structures, orany scientific, cultural, archaeological or historicresource, natural object or area (43 CFR8365.1-5(a)(1)).

CAVES

• Entering the following caves from November1 to April 15 of each year: Fort Stanton, Torgac,Torgac Annex, Crockett, Crystal, Big-EaredCave, Bat Hole, Malpais Madness, Tres Ninos,

and Feather. Only personnel engaged in au-thorized scientific bat studies, census, monitor-ing, and emergencies will be allowed to entercaves during this time, due to bat, hibernation.

• Entering a cave without each person wearinga safety helmet (hard hat) with chin strap andhaving at least three sources of light (43 CFR8365.1-6).

• Annoying or disturbing bats at any time (43CFR 8365.1-6).

• Willfully defacing, removing or destroying caveresources (43 CFR 8365.1-5(a)(2)).

ADVERTISEMENTS OR COMMERCIALUSE

• Posting or distributing any signs, posters,printed material, or commercial advertisements(43 CFR 8365.1-6).

SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENTAREAS AND ACECs

In addition to the regulations in 43 CFR 8365.2and the supplemental rules of conduct listedabove, the following supplemental rules will beapplied to Special Recreation ManagementAreas, caves, and ACECs in the Roswell Re-source Area.

CAMPING1 . The group shelter at Valley of Fires may be

reserved in advance.2. Day use fees are due upon entrance to a

day-use area. Camping fees are due within1/2 hour after selecting a campsite.

3. Camping checkout time is 10:00 a.m. Day-users must leave the area by 10:00 p.m. orbe charged a camping fee.

4. Campers must display their fee stub as in-structed on the envelope.

CAVE RESOURCES, GENERAL RULES1. No removal is allowed of any cave, re-

sources such as archaeological and histori-cal artifacts, natural materials or features,

AP10-5

APPENDIX 10

plant and animal life, or any item of publicproperty.

2. Minors. At least one person in the cavingparty must be 18 years or older and will beresponsible for the actions of younger mem-bers of the party.

3. Litter and Refuse. All materials (flaggingtape, lftter, etc.) taken into the cave(s) mustbe removed and properly disposed of at theend of each cave visit.

4. Human solid or liquid waste may not be de-posited in any cave.

3. Smoking is not permitted in any cave.

In addition to the general rules of conduct forall caves, the following rules will be in effect forall caves within ACECS, caves where SpecialRecreation Managemeryt Area Plans (SRMA)have been developed, or the caves areirrtensively managed due to their scientific orrecreational value, pursuant to Public Law 96-95, Public Law 100-691, 43 CFR 8364.1, 43CFR 8360.0-7, and 30-15-6 NMSA 1978.

1. Permits.a. Entry to a cave for the purpose of recreation, education, or scieritffic studies re-quires a permit issued by the Roswell Re-source Area,

b. Authorization for erdry to caves is validated only upon signature of the permittees,and is valid only for those individuals whosesignatures appear on the permit.

c. Permits must be returned to the RoswellResource Area Office within five days foll-owing the completion of a cave trip. Thepermit form must be returned even if thetrip is canceled.

d. A cave trip authorization is issued for thetime period and date specified on the frontof the permit. It is revocable at any timeupon notice, for any breach of conditionsdescribed in the permit, or at the discretionof the Authorized Officer of the Bureau ofLand Management.

e. Permittees may reserve only two datesper cave in advance. f. Applications for caveentrance permits for caves that are closedfrom November 1 through April 15, will onlybe accepted from January 1 to November1 of each year. Permit applications will beaccepted at any time for caves in ACECsthat are not bat hibernaculums.

g. Permfttees must abide by all cave usestipulations attached to permit.

2. Group Sizea. Fort Stanton Cave - maximum group sizeis 10 persons between the entrance andHellhole gate and 6 persons beyondHellhole Gate, including a BLM guide. Atotal of 16 persons is allowed in cave at onetime. Bat Cave visitation is prohibited ex-

cept for research.

b. Torgac Cave - maximum group size is 6persons, including a BLM guide.

c. Crockett Cave - maximum group size is9 persons.

d. All other caves in ACECs - maximumgroup size is 10 persons.

e. Group size requirements can be waivedwith written permission from the BLM. Themaximum group size per BLM guide is 10people.

DEFINITIONS

Definitions of terms used in the rules of con-duct:• Abandonment The voluntary relinquishmentof control of property for longer than a periodspecified with no intent to retain possession.

• Administrative activities Those activitiesconducted under the authority of the BLM forthe purpose of safeguarding persons or prop-erty, implementing management plans and poli-cies developed in accordance with and consis-tent with regulations, or repairing or maintain-ing facilities.

AP10-6

APPENDIX 10

• Authoriz ed Officer Any employee of the BLMwho has been delegated the authority to per-form under Title 43 of the Code of FederalRegulations.

• Campfire A controlled fire occurring outdoorsfor cooking, branding, personal warmth, light-ing, ceremonial, or aesthetic purposes.

• Camping Erecting a tent or shelter of naturalor synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bagor other bedding material for use, or the park-ing of a motor vehicle, motor home, or trailerfor the apparent purpose of overnight occu-pancy. Occupying a developed camp site or anapproved location within developed recreationareas or sftes during the established night pe-riod of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. will be consid-ered overnight camping for fee collection andenforcement purposes.

• Developed recreation site or area Sites orareas that contain structures or capital improve-ments used primarily for recreation purposesby the public. Development may vary from lim-ited development for protection of the resourcesand the safety of users to a distinctly definedsite in which developed facilities that meet theLand and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965(as amended) criteria for a fee collection siteare provided for concentrated public recreationuse.

• Historic or prehistoric structure or ruin siteAny location at least 50 years old which meetsthe standards for inclusion on the National Reg-ister of Historic Places as defined in 36 CFR60.4, without regard to whether the site hasbeen nominated or accepted.

• Occupanc y Taking or holding possession ofa camp site, other location, or residence onpubliciand.

• Pet A dog, cat, or any other domesticatedcompanion animal.

• Public lands Any lands, interest in lands, orrelated waters owned by the United States and

administered by the BLM. Related waters arewaters which lie directly over or adjacent topublic lands and which require management toprotect federally administered resources or toprovide for enhanced visitor safety and otherrecreation experiences.

• SRMA An area where special or more inten-sive types of resource and user managementare needed.

• Stove fire A fire built inside an enclosed stoveor grill, a portable brazier, or a pressurized liq-uid or gas stove, including space-heating de-vices.

• Vehic le Any motorized or mechanized device,including bicycles, hang gliders, uftra-lights, andhot air balloons, which is propelled or pulled byany living or other energy source, and capableof travel by any means over ground, water, orair.

• Weapon A firearm, compressed gas or spring-powered pistol or rifle, bow and arrow, cross-bow, blowgun, spear gun, slingshot, irrftard gasdevice, explosive device, or any other imple-ment designed to discharge missiles or projec-tiles; hand-thrown spear, edged weapons, nun-chucks, clubs, billy-clubs, and any device modi-fied for use or designed for use as a strikinginstrument; any weapon the possession ofwhich is prohibited under New Mexico law.

Developed recreation sites or areas andSpecial Recreation Management Areas inthe Roswell District:1. Alkali Lake Off-road Vehicle Area (CarlsbadResource Area)

2. Cave SRMA’s - McK!ttrick Hill, Lost, FenceCanyon, Manhole, Yellow Jacket/Lair, ChosaDraw, Mudgeffs, Honest lnjun, KFF Caverns (allin Carlsbad Resource Area), and Fort StantonCave, Torgac Cave, and Crockeft’s Cave (all inRoswell Resource Area).

3. Chosa Draw SRMA (Carlsbad ResourceArea)

AP10-7

APPENDIX 10

4. Dark Canyon SRMA (Carlsbad ResourceArea)

5. Fort Stanton SRMA (Roswell Resource Area)

6. Guadalupe Escarpment Scenic Area(Carlsbad Resource Area)

7. Hackberry Lake Off-road Vehicle Area(Carlsbad Resource Area) (Carlsbad ResourceArea)

8. Lonesome Ridge SRMA (Carlsbad ResourceArea)

9. Mescalero Sands North Dune SRMA(Roswell Resource Area)

10. Overflow Wetlands (Roswell Resource Area)

11. Pecos River Canyon Complex (CarlsbadResource Area)

12. Pecos River Corridor (Carlsbad ResourceArea)

13. Valley of Fires Recreation Area (RoswellResource Area)

AP11-1

APPENDIX 11

APPENDIX 11RESULTS OF SECTION 7 CONSULTATION


This appendix lists results of consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service underSection 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

TABLE A11-1LIST OF DOCUMENTS IN APPENDIX 11

Document

1. Table A11-2, Federally Listed Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the RoswellResource Area2. Table A11-3, State-Listed Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Roswell Re-source Area3. Table A11-4, BLM Sensitive Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Roswell Re-source Area4. Biological Assessment5. Biological Opinion6. BLM response to the Biological Opinion

AP11-2

APPENDIX 11

TABLE A11-2 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES OCCURRING

OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Common Name

Mammals

Black-footed ferret

Swift fox

Birds

American peregrine falcon

Northern aplomado falcon

Interior least tern

Brown pelican

Southwestern willow flycatcher

Bald eagle

Mexican spotted owl

Mountain plover

Fish

Pecos gambusia

Pecos bluntnose shiner

Pecos pupfish

Arkansas river shiner

Aquatic Invertebrates

Pecos assiminea snail

Roswell spring snail

Koster's tryonia

Plants

Kuenzler's hedgehog cactus

Puzzle sunflower

Scientific Name

Mustela nigripes

Vulpes velox

Falco peregrinus anatum

Falco fernoralis septentrionalis

Sterna antillarum athalassos

Pelicanus occidentalis

Empidonax traillii extimus

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Strix occidentalis Iucida

Charadrius montanus

Gambusia nobilis

Notropis simus pecosensis

Cyprinodon pecosensis

Notropis girardi

Assiminea pecos

Pyrgulopsis roswellensis

Tryonia kosteri

Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri

Helianthus paradoxus

Status

FE

FC

FE

FE

FE

FE

FE with proposed critical habitat

FE

FT with critical habitat

FC

FE

FT with critcal habitat

FC

FC

FC

FC

FC

FE

FC

Note: FE = Federal Endangered; FT = Federal Threatened; FC = Federal Candidate.


AP11-3

APPENDIX 11

TABLE A11-3 STATE LISTED SPECIES OCCURRING


Common Name

Mammals

Least shrew

Birds

American peregrine falcon

Northern aplomado falcon

Interior least tern

Brown pelican

Southwestern willow flycatcher

Bald eagle

Baird's sparrow

Neotropic cormorant

Bell's vireo

Gray vireo

Reptiles

Sand dune lizard

Western ribbon snake

Western river cooter

Fish

Arkansas River shiner

Pecos bluntnose shiner

Pecos gambusia

Pecos pupfish .

White Sands pupfish

Bigscale logperch

Rio Grande silvery minnow

Mexican tetra

Greenthroat darter

Scientific Name

Cryptotis parva

Falco peregrinus anatum

Falco femoralis septentrionalis

Sterna antillarum athalassos

Pelicanus occidentalis

Empidonax traillii extimus

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Amrnodramus bairdii

Phalacrocorax olivaceus

Vireo bellii

Vireo vicinoir

Sceloporus arenicolus

Thamnophis proximus

Pseudemys gorzugi

Notropis girardi

Notropis simus pecosensis

Gambusia nobilis

Cyprinodon pecosensis

Cyprinodon tularosa

Percina macrolepida

Hybognathus amarus

Astyanax mexicanus

Etheostoma lepidum

Status

ST

SE

SE

SE

SE

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

SE

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

AP11-4

APPENDIX 11

TABLE A11-3 STATE LISTED SPECIES OCCURRING


Common Name

Canadian speckled chub

Suckermouth minnow


Pecos assiminea snail

Roswell spring snail

Koster's tryonia

Invertebrates

Noel's amphipod

Plants

Kuenzler's hedgehog cactus

Puzzle sunflower

Scientific Name

Hybopsis aestivalis tretranemus

Phenacobius mirabilis

Assiminea pecos

Pyrgulopsis roswellensis

Tryonia kosteri

Gammarus desperatus

Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri

Helianthus paradoxus

Status

ST

ST

SE

SE

ST

SE

SL1

SL1

Note: SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened; SL1 List 1

State Endangered


AP11-5

APPENDIX 11

TABLE A11-4 BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES OCCURRING


Common Name

Mammals

Arizona black-tailed prairie dog

Pecos River muskrat

Gray-footed chipmunk

Organ Mountains Colorado chipmunk

New Mexican meadow jumping mouse

Occult little brown bat

Spotted bat

Pale Townsend's big-eared bat

Fringed myotis

Long-legged myotis

Long-eared myotis

Small-footed myotis

Cave myotis

Yuma myotis

Big free-tailed bat

Birds

Baird's sparrow

White-faced ibis

Ferruginous hawk

Loggerhead shrike

Northern goshawk

Western burrowing owl

Reptiles

Sand dune lizard

Sacramento Mountain salamander

Texas horned lizard

Scientific Name

Cynomys ludovicianus arizonensis

Ondatra zibethicus ripensis

Tamias canipes

Eutamias quadrivittatus australis

Zapus hudsonius luteus

Myotis lucifigus occultus

Euderma maculatum

Plecotus townsendii pallescens

Myotis thysanodes

Myotis volans

Myotis evotis

Myotis ciliolabrum

Myotis velifer incautus

Myotis yumanensis

Nyctinornops macrotis

Ammodramus bairdii

Plegadis chihi

Buteo regalis

Lanius ludovicianus

Accipiter gentilis

Athene cunicularia hypugea

Sceloporus arenicolus

Aneides hardii

Phrynosoma cornutum

Status

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

AP11-6

APPENDIX 11

TABLE A11-4 BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES OCCURRING


Common Name

Fish

White Sands pupfish

Rio Grande shiner

Arkansas River speckled chub

Flathead chub

Headwater catfish

Longtin dace

Plains minnow


Bonita diving beetle

Invertebrates

Noel's amphipod

Plants

Kerr's milkvetch

Grama grass cactus

Sierra Blanca cliff daisy

Sandhill goosefoot

Scientific Name

Cyprinodon tularosa

Notropis jemezanus

Macrhyobopsis aestivalis tetraneums

Platygobio gracilis

lctalurus lupus

Agosia chrysogaster

Hybognathus placitus

Deronectes noemexicana

Gammarus desperatus

Astragalus kerrii

Pediocactus papyracanthus

Chaetopappa elegans

Chenopodium cycloides

Status

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

FC2

Note: FC2 = Federal Candidate Category 2. These species were listed as FC2 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but are no longer considered candidate species. The ELM has included these former FC2 species in a ELM sensitive species list.

Source: ELM files, 1996

AP11-7

APPENDIX 11

Bloiogical Assessment Update for Previous Land Use Plans, Plan Amendments,Environmental Analyses (1976-1987)

and for the 1996 Roswell Resource Area Resource Management Plan


July 8, 1 996

1. Intr oductionThe Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is required by Section 7 of the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, to determine if any action it completes orpermits would adversely impact federally threatened or endangered species. The BLMalso evaluates potential impacts to federal candidate species. Candidates are thosespecies for which the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has sufficient informationon their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened, butfor which issuance of a proposed rule is precluded.

The listing of species as threatened or endangered is extremely dynamic, there is a needto update the existing biological assessments/ElSs to include newly listed species, andto amend the status of other species. To determine how a proposal affects listed speciesand their habitats, the BLM has decided to complete an updated Biological Assessment(BA) for current land use plans, plan amendments, and environmental analyses. This BAis two-fold in that it will also address the new Roswell Resource Area Resource Manage-ment Plan (RMP). The Roswell RMP is the first comprehensive land use plan preparedfor the entire Roswell Resource Area (RRA). Valid decisions from past documents arecarried forward in the RMP; all past land use plans, plan amendments, and environmen-tal analyses will be superceded by the approval of the Final Roswell RMP.

This BA updates the following RRA land use plans, plan amendments, and environmen-tal analyses, which were developed in conformance with procedures in place at the timeof preparation.

1976 East Chaves Management Framework Plan1979 East Roswell Grazing Environmental Statement1981 Environmental Assessment - Oil and Gas Leasing Roswell District1984 Roswell Management Framework Plan Amendment1986 & 1987 Fort Stanton Management Framework Plan Amendments

As mentioned, several wildlife and plant species were added to the list of federally threat-ened or endangered species, and several species were listed or upgraded to candidatecategory 1 species since the completion of these documents. The evaluations anddeterminations in this BA is based on the current USFWS listing found

AP11-8

APPENDIX 11

in the Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 40, dated Wednesday, February 28, 1996, 50CFR Part 17, Endangered and Threatened Species, Plant and Animal Taxa; ProposedRule. An important change is the deletion of candidate category 2 species. Theseformer category 2 species will not be included in this BA. Former candidate category 1species, now simply referred to as candidate species, are being included in this BA.

Federally-listed species that were evaluated at the time of preparing the land use plans/amendments are summarized in Table 1. The previous assessments covered only thosespecies that fell within the scope of the documents; for example, the Fort Stanton Man-agement Framework Plan Amendment does not include endangered fish species foundin the Pecos River. Table 2 presents the chronology of species listing and land useplans, amendments and environmental analyses preparation. Priority species that werefederally listed since the time of the last land use plan (Roswell MFPA 1984) are theInterior least tern and Pecos bluntnose shiner. Other listed species area lower priority;for example, the historic range of the Aplomado falcon does not include the RA, habitatfor the Mexican spotted owl is not present in the RA, the southwestern willow flycatcheris a migrant in the Pecos Valley with occassional sightings.

The Roswell Resource Area has prepared the Roswell Resource Area Draft ResourceManagement Plan (DRMP)/Environmental Impact Statement that would, upon finaliza-tion and approval, supercede all of the current plans, amendments and environmentalanalyses. This BA includes evaluations of land use planning decisions found in the RMPfor potential impacts to all federal special status species occurring or potentially occur-ring in the RRA. This plan provides a comprehensive framework for managing the publiclands, including the federal mineral estate, and for allocating resources in the RRA forthe next twenty years. A plethora of information about various natural resources andland use activities are found in this document and will serve as current environmentalbaseline data. Please refer to Chapter 3 of this document for more up-to-date informa-tion for the entire Resource Area.

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS is scheduled to go to final printing near the end of Sep-tember 1996.

Acronyms used in the following Tables are: FE = Federal Endangered; FT = FederalThreatened; FPE = Federal Proposed Endangered; PCH = Proposed Critical Habitat;CH = Critical Habitat; FC = Federal Candidate; FC1 = Federal Candidate Category 1;MFP = Management Framework Plan; MFPA = Management Framework PlanAmendment; RMP = Resource Management Plan; EA = Environmental Assessment;EIS = Environmental Impact Statement.

AP11-9

APPENDIX 11

Table 1. Current Land Use Plans/Amendments/EAs and Species Considered

1976 East Chaves Management Framework Plan

Black-footed Ferret American Peregrine Falcon Bald Eagle Pecos Gambusia

Mustela nigripes Falco peregrinus anatum Haliaeetus leucocephalus Gambusia nobilis

1979 East Roswell Grazing Environmental Statement '

Black-footed Ferret 1

American Peregrine Falcon Bald Eagle Pecos Gambusia Pecos Bluntnose Shiner

Pecos Pupfish Arkansas River Shiner

Mustela nigripes Falco peregrinus anatum Haliaeetus leucocephalus Gambusia nobilis Notropis simus pecosensis

Cyprinodon pecosensis Notropis simus

1981 Oil and Gas Leasing Environmental Assessment

Black-footed Ferret American Peregrine Falcon Bald Eagle Pecos Gambusia

Mustela nigripes Falco peregrinus anatum Haliaeetus leucocephalus Gambusia nobilis

1984 Roswell Management Framework Plan Amendment

Black-footed Ferret American Peregrine Falcon Bald Eagle

Mustela nigripes Falco peregrinus anatum Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Status*

FE FE FE FE

FE FE FE FE

FT FC1 FPE

FE FE FE FE

FE FE FE

1986 & 1987 Fort Stanton Management Framework Plan Amendment

Kuenzler's Hedgehog Cactus Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri

* Status at the time of document preparation.

FE

AP11-10

APPENDIX 11

Table 2. Chronology of Species Listing and Document Preparation

Species Listing Date Status* Plan/Amendment

Black-footed Ferret 03/11/67 FE

Brown Pelican 10/13/70 FE Pecos Gambusia 10/13/70 FE

East Roswell MFP- 6/76 Bald Eagle 02/14/78 FE

East Roswell Grazing EIS- 9/79 Kuenzler's Hedgehog

I

Cactus 10/26/79 FE Oil and Gas EA- 7/81

American Peregrine Falcon 02/29/84 FE

Roswell M FPA - 9/84 Interior Least Tern 05/28/85 FE

Northern Aplomado Faicon 02/25/86 FE

Fort Stanton MFPA - 4/86 Pecos Bluntnose Shiner 02/27/87 FT

Fort Stanton MFPA- 12/87 Mexican Spotted Owl 03/16/93 FT Puzzle Sunflower 09/30/93 FC1

Roswell Draft RM P - 9/94 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 11/15/94 FE

Koster's Tryonia 11/15/94 FC1 Roswell Spring Snail 11/15/94 FC1 Pecos Assiminea Snail 11/15/94 FC1 Pecos Pupfish 11/15/94 FC1 Arkansas River Shiner 11/15/94 FC1 Swift Fox 11/15/94 FC1 Mountain Plover 11/15/94 FC1

* Status at time of document preparation.

AP11-11

APPENDIX 11

Wildlife and plant species that have been added to the federal list since the time of preparing the original land use plans/amendments are tabulated below.

Table 3. Newly-listed Species and Species Not Included in Previous Planning Documents/Amendments

Common Name Scientific Name Status* New*

Mammals

Swift Fox Vulpes velox FC1 *

Birds Northern Aplomado Falcon Falco femoralis

septentrional is FE Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum

athalassos FE Southwestern Willow Empidonax trailii Flycatcher extimus FE *

Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis Iucida FT *

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus FC1 *

Fish Arkansas River Shiner Notropis simus FPE * Pecos Pupfish Cyprinodon pecosensis FC1 *

Aquatic Invertebrates Pecos Assiminea Snail Assiminea pecos FC1 * Roswell Spring Snail Pyrgulopsis

roswell en sis FC1 * Koster's Tryonia Tryonia kosteri FC1 *

Plants Puzzle Sunflower Helianthus paradoxus FC1 *

* Status at the time of document preparation. The BLM RRA considers newly-listed species as those listed in 1993 and later.

AP11-12

APPENDIX 11

Informal Section 7 consultation was initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)on February 22, 1992, through a species list request for the Roswell Resource ManagementPlan (Consultation # 2-22-92-1-056). This species list was subsequently updated by USFWSMemorandum dated June 19, 1995, Federally Listed and Candidate Plant and Animal Species -County List for New Mexico.

A revised list of animal and plant species was recently published by the USFWS (FederalRegister, Wednesday, February 28, 1996). Species formerly in Category 1 in prior Notices ofReview are now simply known as candidates. Species that were formerly in Category 2 are nolonger considered candidate species.

Species covered in this BA were determined in consultation with the USFWS. The followingtable is an inclusive list of all the species included in this BA and their current status.

AP11-13

APPENDIX 11

Table 4. Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Roswell Resource Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Mammals Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes FE Swift Fox Vulpes velox FC

Birds American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum FE Northern Aplomado Falcon Falco femoralis

septentrional is FE Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum

athalassos FE Brown Pelican Pelicanus occidentalis FE Southwestern Willow Empidonax trailii Flycatcher extimus FE (w/ PCH)

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis

Iucida FT (w/ CH) Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus FC

Fish Pecos Gambusia Gambusia nobilis FE Pecos Bluntnose Shiner Notropis simus

pecosensis FT (w/ CH) Arkansas River Shiner Notropis simus FPE (Canadian R.) Pecos Pupfish Cyprinodon pecosensis FC

Aquatic Invertebrates Pecos Assiminea Snail Assiminea pecos FC Roswell Spring Snail Pyrgulopsis

roswellensis FC Koster's Tryonia Tryonia kosteri FC

Plants Kuenzler's Hedgehog Cactus Echinocereus fendleri

var. kuenzleri FE Puzzle Sunflower Helianthus paradoxus FC

AP11-14

APPENDIX 11

Summar y of Land Use Plans, Plan Amendments and En vir onmental Anal ysesRefer to the General Location Map showing the area of coverage for each document.The current land use plans, amendments and environmental analyses are summarizedbelow with only those decisions influencing special status species habitat managementon public lands within the Roswell Resource Area. The documents contain the detailedinformation about the natural resources and resource uses pertinent to the plan. Thesedocuments were made available to the USFWS for review in order to comply with ESASection 7 consultation process. Please refer to these documents for more detailedinformation.

Land use plans consider and establish general protection and enhancement decisionsfor special status species based on laws and regulations. The decisions in these planscannot be in violation of ESA, nor can the subsequent authorizations for specific activi-ties. Land use planning is more general than site-specific activity planning. Activitiyplanning and project planning is where specific measures to address special statusspecies needs are made, and offers another level of consultation with the USFWS.Species listed after the preparation of land use plans were still considered during theNEPA process for specific activity plans and projects. For example, the Interior leasttern, listed in 1985 as federal endangered, was analyzed in the 1995 MAPCO PipelineEnvironmental Assessment even though it was never addressed in a land use plan.

There are only a few areas within the Resource Area that provide occupied habitat forfederally-listed species, such as the Pecos River for several T/E fish and Fort Stanton forKuenzier’s hedgehog cactus. The scope for review will be on those areas and not on theentire 2.1 million surface acres of public lands administered by the Roswell ResourceArea that do not support T/E species habitat.

It is not the intent of this BA to study each of the decisions as they potentially impactspecial status species from the time of plan approval to date. It is meant to portraysuccinct information about current land use decisions and the consideration made forspecial status species listed at the time of preparation. It is also meant to evaluatepotential impacts of those decisions to newly-listed species under current land useplans.

The environmental baseline information will be the current situation for various resourcesas found in Chapter 3 of the DRMP, and not on the situation as it existed during the timeof preparation of the existing documents.

As mentioned, once the Roswell Resource Area RMP is approved, all previous planningdocuments will no longer be in effect.

AP11-15

APPENDIX 11

1976 East Chaves Management Framework Plan - This planning document encom-passes that portion of Chaves County east of the Pecos River in the Roswell ResourceArea which include about 425,300 acres of Natural Resource Lands. Natural ResourceLands would remain open to exploration and development of minerals, particularly oiland gas production; mitigation measures may be applied to location and design of min-eral exploration and development facilities; grazing systems would be applied to 55grazing allotments; vegetation manipulation would be conducted; wildlife habitat man-agement plans would be developed; wildlife habitat improvement projects would beconducted; focus on recreational developments at Mescalero Sands and CommancheHill areas. The planning unit was broken down into eight general vegetative subtypes:Shinnery Oak, Mesquite, Grasslands, Mixed Desert Shrub, Creosote, Active Dunes,Riparian, and Waste. All activities authorized by the planning document would occur inmost vegetation types.

The following decisions provide management guidelines for the protection and enhance-ment of specific wildlife species habitat.

WL-1.1 Schedule intensive inventories in cooperation with the New Mexico Departmentof Game and Fish to determine if black-footed ferrets are presently inhabiting prairie dogtowns within the planning unit.

WL-1.2 Maintain existing prairie dog towns and allow expansion of small towns to aminimum of 200 acres. Do not allow surface disturbances within 200 yards of existingprairie dog town perimeters and ban all prairie dog control programs.

WL-1.5 Maintain the shortgrass areas on about 7,920 acres to maintain aspect for theswift fox.

WL-2.3 Saltcedar control will only be conducted on specific sites selected where thecontrol would not adversely impact resource values.

WL-7.1 Any impacts from proposed resource actions that may cause destruction to theexisting riparian and aquatic habitats in the unit will be mitigated.

WL-7.3 Provide for the protection of mature cottonwoods in the riparian zones. Haveallotment management plans containing these riparian zones provide for seedling estab-lishment of cottonwoods either through grazing systems or with fenced plots until seed-lings are established.

WL-7.4 Do not allow exploration, drilling, blasting or construction activities from Marc 1to August 1 each year within one-half mile of river riparian habitat or bluffs and ridgeshaving sites containing vertical faces 30 feet or greater in height unless the specifiedarea has been inventoried by a qualified ornithologist. Do not allow parallel roads closerthan 300 yards of the base or top of such bluffs or ridges.

AP11-16

APPENDIX 11

Important nesting sites for protected bird species will be identified. Stipulations and usetolerances will be determined for each site. These management criteria will be incorpo-rated into use authorizations and protective methods for each specific area or site.

WL-7.6 All existing and new powerline authorized rights-of-way on Natural ResourceLands will be electrocution safe for birds of prey.

WL-7.10 Conduct intensive inventory and analysis of the habitat use and requirementsof the mountain plover and long-billed curlew.

WL-7.11 Mesquite control will be conducted on specific areas to enhance habitat forprotected bird species.

WL-7.12 Selected sites will be fenced and excluded from livestock grazing for the en-hancement of nesting habitat for protected birds species. Emphasis will be to select onlythe key nesting sites. No mesquite or desert shrub control will be conducted within theprotected sites.

WL-7.13 Large bushes and trees in the habitat of birds of prey will be protected duringmesquite control,

WL-1 1.2 Identified lands adjacent to and within the potentially flooded area (OverflowWetlands Wildlife Habitat Area) will be acquired.

WL-1 1.3 Intensive inventories will be conducted adjacent to the Pecos River for thepotential development as aquatic habitat.

WL-12,2 A habitat management plan will be developed on public land in the riparianzone aimed at riparian and aquatic community development and enhancement.

WL-1 2.3 Develop a unit-wide habitat management plan for the establishment and en-hancement of aquatic and terrestrial habitats in association with existing and futurewater developments.

1979 East Roswell Grazing EIS - This environmental impact statement encompassesthat portion of Chaves County east of the Pecos River within the boundary of theRoswell Resource Area which include about 425,300 acres of public land. This EISproposes a grazing management program for portions of Chaves and Eddy Countylocated east of the Pecos River, and all of Lea County. It reaffirms the continuation oflivestock grazing on public land where it is presently authorized, reaffirms the classifica-tion for kind of livestock and period of use, designates areas to be excluded from live-stock grazing, allocates the forage resource between livestock and big game,

AP11-17

APPENDIX 11

establishes a maximum level of range utilization at 40 to 60 percent, and directs thedevelopment of range improvement projects. Eight wildlife habitats were identified:Riparian; Drainages, Draws, Canyons; Mixed Desert Shrub; Mesquite Grassland; Creo-sote; Shortgrass; Shinnery Oak/Dune; and Broadleaf Tree (Upland). Livestock grazingand range improvement projects would occur in all habitat types with constraints basedon habitat condition.

Standard operating procedures (SOP) and design features/safeguards (DFS) weredeveloped to insure that the most acceptable practices for any given site are used duringthe period that range improvement projects are being undertaken and specific grazingsystems are being applied.

SOP-4 Wildlife habitat would be assessed and a determination made as to the specificeffects to be expected should the action be taken.

DFS-3 Areas meeting riparian and wetland habitat criteria would be protected to providewildlife habitat. Protection measures would be selected for individual situations to in-clude protective fencing, adjustments in livestock use, and/or establishment of bufferstrips, as necessary.

DFS-4 Important habitat areas such as portions of broadleaf tree groves and the areasaround dirt tanks, playas and watering tubs, would be fenced to provide islands of pro-tected habitat (normally 2-3 acres in size).

DFS-5 During periods of drought or other emergencies, adjustments in livestock num-bers would be made to guard against damage to the vegetal-soil resource.

DFS-6 Trees and large mesquite bushes (especially those containing nests of birds ofprey) would be spared during brush control operations. Also, those portions of drain-ages leading into the Pecos River which contain the tall growth forms of woody species(about 1,000 acres) would be excluded from vegetative treatment programs.

DFS-1 1 A fire management plan would be developed prior to any prescribed burning ofvegetation.

DFS-14 Areas containing threatened or endangered plants or animals would be avoidedif adverse impacts would be expected to occur through implementation of the proposedaction.

AP11-18

APPENDIX 11

Further information gained during specific project layout and design may indicate that aneffect does exist. In such an event, formal consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act would be initiated. These consulta-tions may then result in alteration or abandonment or the proposed range improvements.

1981 Oil and Gas Leasing Environmental Assessment - This environmental assess-ment encompasses the entire Roswell District which include about 14 million acres offederal mineral estate. It continues to authorize leasing and exploration for oil, gas,sodium and lithium brine, and carbon dioxide resources on public and reserved minerallands within the Roswell District; promotes both leasing and production of these re-sources; authorizes abandonment of leases; and establishes standard operating proce-dures and mitigation. The same habitat types identified in the East Roswell Grazing EISwere listed in this assessment with the addition of the Pinyon-Juniper type. Oil and gasexploration and development would occur in all habitat types except Riparian, BroadleafTree, and Pinyon-Juniper habitat types.

Site-specific measures must be taken for each action to protect threatened or endan-gered plants or animals. Such measures will be the result of a site-specific survey asallowed by standard operating procedures. Standard or special stipulations will beincluded in any grant, thus assuring protection of those species.

Current Leasing Standard Operating Procedures -

A. l.a. In cave areas, drilling operations would not be conducted within 100 yards ofany cave entrance, known passageway, or other subterranean aspect. Sludge oil dis-posal pits would not be located within 200 yards of known and surveyed cave entrances,underground passageways, or in other locations where the cave resources would beendangered by seeping oil or waste products. Such pits would not be located in sinkholes, near fractures, or near cave entrances. All pits would be lined with an imperviousmaterial. Drilling sites would be cleared in a manner which would prevent an increase ofnatural water flow into cave entrances or aspects.

A.l.f. Major rivers and drainages. Exploration and/or drilling activities would, be prohib-ited within one quarter mile of river channels, marshes, reservoirs, or riparian habitats.Permanent improvements and/or operations would not be permitted in floodplains with-out approval of BLM’s Roswell District Manager.

A.l.m. All permanent sump pits will be fenced to exclude livestock. Where wildlife mor-talities are likely, pits will be covered with a fine mesh netting. As an alternative, fiber-glass tanks may be used as long as access is restricted in the same manner as for pits.

A.l.n. The federal surface management agency is responsible for assuring that the areato be disturbed is examined prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities onlands covered by the lease, to determine effects upon any plant or animal species listed

AP11-19

APPENDIX 11

or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened or their habitats. If the findings ofthis examination determines that the operation may detrimentally affect an endangeredor threatened species, some restrictions to the operator’s plan or even disallowance ofuse may result.

The lessee/operator may, at his discretion and cost, conduct the examination on thelands to be disturbed. This examination must be done by or under the supervision of aqualified resource specialist approved by the surface management agency. An accept-able report must be provided to the surface management agency identifying the antici-pated effects of the proposed action on endangered or threatened species or theirhabitat.

In 1989, a Supplement to the 1981 Oil and Gas Leasing Final EA (NM-060-00-02)was prepared for the attachment of a Controlled Surface Use Special Oil and Gas Leas-ing Stipulation (Roswell #44) to protect riparian and wetland resources along the PecosRiver in the Roswell Resource Area. About 13,940 federal fluid mineral acres along thePecos River are potentially affected by this stipulation. Surface occupancy or use issubject to the following special operating constraints.

1. Restricted Surface Disturbance: Oil and gas activities will not be allowed withinwetland or riparian habitat areas. However, where non-riparian or non-wetland areasexist within these lands, oil and gas activities may be allowed by the Authorized Officer.

2. Limited ORV Use: All vehicular use will be restricted to designated or authorizedaccess routes.

In 1995, an Interim Oil and Gas Leasing and Development EA for the RoswellResource Area (NM-066-95-096) was prepared. This document serves as a bridgebetween the 1981 Oil and Gas Leasing EA and the final Roswell Resource Area RMP.Leasing of cleared parcels would be conducted where federal mineral estate underliessurface administered by the BLM, or surface owned or administered by and individual orgovernment agency other than the BLM. All lease parcels proposed for sale would bereviewed against the screening criteria listed in Appendix 1 of the EA. Those parcelsfailing to pass the screening process would not be offered for sale during the interimleasing period, but could be reconsidered for sale after the Roswell RMP is completed.Leasing stipulations contained in the 1981 Oil and Gas Leasing EA and any subsequentapplicable EAs would be applied to lease parcels offered for sale to mitigate impacts.Exploration, development, production, and abandonment on previously issued leasesand new leases would be conducted according to standard conditions of approval (seeAppendix 5 of the EA, standard terms and conditions of oil and gas leases, Onshore Oiland Gas Orders, Notices to Lessees, and regulations, especieally 43 CFR 3101.1-2.These practices mitigate impacts. Additionally, sitespecific environmental assessmentswould be prepared for individual actions, and additional impact mitigations could bedeveloped in those assessments.

1984 Roswell Management Framework Plan Amendment - This planamendment/environmental impact statement encompasses approximately 1.5 million

AP11-20

APPENDIX 11

acres of public land in Quay, Guadalupe, Curry, DeBaca, Roosevelt, Lincoln, and most ofChaves County (west of the Pecos River). It proposes a rangeland management pro-gram for 284 grazing allotments. Stocking rates would be determined and adjustmentsmade on 5 years of monitoring studies: downward adjustments would be applied inareas where poor and fair range conditions exist based on monitoring studies; increasesof livestock numbers would occur in “M” category allotments based on monitoring stud-ies; no grazing decisions will be issued on “C” category allotments. The plan amend-ment directs development of rangeland improvements and vegetation treatments, andprovides for additional forage for big game and other wildlife species from vegetationtreatments. The plan amendment did not identify specific habitat types but included thefollowing in discussions for various wildlife species: riparian salt cedar, riparian cotton-wood, drainages and bottomiands, canyons and draws, mixed desert shrublands; grassrolling uplands, shinnery oak, grainfields, escarpments, and special habitat features.Livestock grazing and range improvement projects would occur in all habitat types withconstraints based on habitat condition.

Standard Operating Procedures -

1. Range improvements and vegetation treatments will be designed during specificcooperative management plan development. Site-specific impacts from projects will beanalyzed in an Environmental Assessment (EA).

3. Where soils and vegetation are disturbed, reclamation measures will be taken, ifapplicable. These measures include returning the land to as near its natural form aspossible and reseeding with mixtures of grass, legumes, and forbs to maintain vegetativecover and prevent erosion.

5. Cooperative Management Plans (CMPS) will be fully implemented, and an EAcovering each CMP will be prepared. The plans will be monitored and evaluated follow-ing implementation so that periodic changes, if necessary, can be made on those plansnot meeting multiple-use objectives. Flexibility in deviating from the normal livestockoperation will be provided for in each CMP.

7. If additional range improvements or vegetation treatments are identified, they willbe assessed through the EA process prior to implementation.

8. All application rates of herbicides will be determined based on individual rangesites and the conditions at the time of application.

9. Application of herbicides will conform to BLM Manual 9220 and State of NewMexico and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards,

10. Tractor-mounted root-knives will be used to grub mesquite and cholla. The up-rooted mesquite will be left in place after grubbing to provide wildlife habitat.

AP11-21

APPENDIX 11

Uprooted cholla will be stacked and left in place or burned, depending on wildlife or othermultiple-use needs.

1 1. In areas of vegetation treatment, livestock grazing would be deferred for a minimumof two consecutive growing seasons. A continual 16 month deferment period may berequired in some instances.

12. Prescribed burning will be used primarily for maintenance of alkali sacaton orgiant sacaton swales to remove rank and unpalatable growth. Site-specific EAs andburn plans will be developed for any prescribed burns.

16. Onsite analysis of areas proposed for inclusion in projected brush control treat-ments will be made to avoid highly desirable wildlife habitat which would be adverselyaffected by the treatments being considered.

17. Important wildlife habitat, such as broadleaf tree groves, aquatic and ripariansites, dirt tanks, watering tubs, active raptor nests, and the areas around them would beprotected during brush control operations. These areas would be protected through theuse of nonlethal rates of herbicides, or other means as deemed appropriate by resourcespecialists. Pseudoriparian areas and most major drainages would be excluded fromchemical treatment. Drainages containing perennial streams would be excluded fromchemical treatment programs within a distance of 1,320 feet.

19. A threatened, endangered, State-listed, or proposed-listed species clearancewould be conducted by an appropriate BLM staff biologist prior to the beginning of anyproject, If a ‘may affect’ determination is made by the staff biologist, consultation wouldbe undertaken with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Department of Gameand Fish, or the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program listing the species which may beaffected. The results of the consultation would determine the course of action necessaryto avoid adverse effects on listed species.

21. New or expanded grazing use and support facilities would be evaluated on acase-by-case basis so that impairment of wildlife habitat would be minimized or elimi-nated.

23. Areas meeting riparian and wetland habitat criteria would be assessed to deter-mine if protection is needed to provide wildlife habitat. Protection measures will beselected for individual situations to include protective fencing, adjustments in livestockuse, and/or establishment of buffer strips, as necessary. Where domestic livestock areexcluded from riparian areas, alternate sources for livestock will be provided.

24. An environmental assessment will be prepared prior to the implementation of ahabitat management plan.

AP11-22

APPENDIX 11

1986 Fort Stanton MFPA - This plan amendment is specific to approximately 25,000acres of federal lands at the Fort Stanton special management area located in LincolnCounty. It designates a location suitable for a right-of-way (ROW) corridor for the ancil-lary ROWs associated with the proposed Sierra Blanca Regional Airport and providesfor anticipated future uses at Fort Stanton.

Standard Operating Procedures -

1. A site-specific EA will be prepared prior to approval of any surface-disturbingactivity.

5. A threatened, endangered, State-listed, or proposed-listed species clearance willbe conducted by an appropriate BLM staff biologist prior to the approval of any project.If a “may affect” determination is made by the staff biologist, consultation will be under-taken with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Department of Game andFish, or the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program listing the species which may beaffected. The results of the consultation will determine the course of action necessary toavoid adverse effects on listed species.

6. Activities in livestock areas which could affect cave resources, or where thelocation of caves could affect an activity, will be field checked to determine potentialproblems. A field check will determine if caves may be present and if a more detailedexamination by earth-resistivity systems or other methods of detecting subsurface voidsis needed. If this need is demonstrated, the detection of subterranean cavities will bethe responsibility of the applicant and may be required prior to approval of major surface-disturbing activities.

7. Surface-disturbing activities which alter the water flow or add sediments into theRio Bonito, a source for the underground creek in Fort Stanton Cave, will be mitigated toeliminate or minimize the impact to the creek waters or watershed.

8. When soils and vegetation are disturbed, reclamation measures will be taken, ifapplicable. These measures include returning the land to as near its natural form aspossible and reseeding with mixtures of grass, legumes, and forbs to maintain vegetativecover and prevent erosion.

9. Natural and beneficial floodplain and riparian values will be protected, preserved,and restored to the greatest extent possible using policy and guidelines set forth inExecutive Orders 11988, 11990, and 11514.

1987 Fort Stanton MFPA - This plan amendment is specific to approximately 25,000acres of federal lands at the Fort Stanton special management area located in Lincoln

AP11-23

APPENDIX 11

County, It designates a location for a developed recreation site in the Salado CreekDrainage and other minor sites or trails on federal lands at Fort Stanton as the needarises.

1. A site-specific EA will be prepared prior to approval of any surface-disturbingactivity.

4. A threatened, endangered, State-listed, or proposed-listed species clearance willbe conducted by an appropriate BLM staff biologist prior to the approval of any project.If a “may affect” determination is made by the staff biologist, consultation will be under-taken with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Department of Game andFish, or the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program listing the species which may beaffected. The results of the consultation will determine the course of action necessary toavoid adverse effects on listed species.

1995 Roswell Resource Area Draft RMP/EIS - The DRMP contains many decisionsrelating to the protection of special status species habitat. Please refer to Chapter 2Alternative E (Preferred Alternative), Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Appendix3 - Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements, Appendix 4 - Roswell District Conditionsof Approval, and Appendix 14 - ACEC Maps. Many decisions to protect special statusspecies and their habitats are found under the various affected resources and not spe-cifically under Wildlife Habitat Management.

Keep in mind that there are several discretionary actions which allow the BLM to protecthabitat that do not require land use planning decisions. For example, the sale of mineralmaterials is discretionary, sand and gravel operations within major drainages are typi-cally not authorized. Leasing of oil and gas parcels is discretionary, but in most casesleases are sold with lease stipulations or lease notices. Rights-ofway are discretionary,proposed routes are frequently modified to avoid impacts or similar rights-of-way arecombined into a corridor to reduce habitat disturbance.

AP11-24

APPENDIX 11

II. Species Accounts by Status

Analyses and determinations of decisions in previous land use plans, plan amendmentsand environmental analyses (Analysis) are presented along with the analyses and deter-minations for decisions in the Roswell Resource Area Draft Resource Management Plan(DRMP Analysis).

A. Federal Endangered Species

Mammals

Black-Footed Ferret - Mustela nigripes

Status & Presence in Planning Area: This species is usually found in association withprairie dog towns in grassland plains and surrounding mountain basins up to 10,500 feetelevation. Historically, this species was reported from all but the southernmost portion ofthe state, i.e., south of the Mogollon Plateau east to the Pecos Valley. In New Mexico,the majority of black-fboted ferrets were associated with Gunnison’s prairie dog(Cynomys gunnisont) colonies, which occur in grasslands located in the northern andwestern portions of the state (Findley et al. 1975). Only one ferret report was from ablack-tailed prairie dog (C. ludovicianus) colony. Black-tailed colonies were historicallywidespread east of the Rio Grande and in southwestern New Mexico (Findley et al.1975). It is believed that this species was never abundant in eastern New Mexico as fewrecords of ferret occurrence have come from this area.Documented sightings have occurred in DeBaca and Curry County. The last confirmedsighting occurred in 1934. Suitable habitat in the Roswell Resource Area is present.There are twelve known prairie dog towns located either entirely or partially on publiclands. The towns encompass about 1,422 acres, and range from 2 acres to 720 acres insize. Five towns are 80+ acres in size. In 1978, intensive inventories for black-footedferrets were conducted in coordination with the New Mexico Department of Game andFish on four major towns with negative results. Surveys of several prairie dog townswere conducted in 1995 to determine prairie dog town activity in conjunction with rights-of-way authorizations and the development of surface use and occupancy restrictions forthe Roswell RMP. The largest active black-tailed prairie dog town, located near Oscura,NM, is about 720 acres in size, No ferrets were observed prior to a prairie dog transplantoperation conducted at this town during 1995.

Endangerment Factors: Prairie dog colonies are the black-fboted ferret’s key habitat.The conversion of grassland into cultivation and prairie dog control efforts have resultedin near extinction of the black-footed ferret. Prairie dog colonies throughout New Mexicohave been affected by the plague, resulting in a decline in the overall prairie dog popula-tions.

Analysis: There are no known records of this species having occurred on public

AP11-25

APPENDIX 11

lands in the Roswell Resource Area. There are no designated critical habitat areas inthe Resource Area. Activities in the planning documents would not affect the continuedexistence of this species as it presently does not occur on public lands in the ResourceArea. Ferret surveys at prairie dog towns would still be required prior to any surfacedisturbing activities. A ferret survey is required if the prairie dog town is over 80 acresfor black-tailed prairie dogs and 200 acres for white-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie dogs.If the prairie dog town is greater than 1,000 acres, the area would be evaluated forpossible reintroduction of black-footed ferrets. There are no prairie dog towns in theresource area that meet the size re-introduction criteria. Current BLM policy is to protectprairie dog towns by avoiding new surface disturbing activities on prairie dog towns anddenying control activities on public lands associated with the towns. The prairie dog isan unprotected species and is a targeted by varmint hunters for recreation.

Determination: No Affect

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, a surface use and occupancy restriction to protectprairie dog towns states that no surface occupancy or surface disturbing activities wouldbe allowed within the boundary of known prairie dog towns or towns identified in thefuture. No prairie dog control would be authorized on public lands except in declaredemergency situations involving public health. Exceptions to this restriction would beconsidered for maintenance of existing projects.

DRMP Determination: No Affect

Birds

AMerican Peregrine Falcon - Falco pereqrinus anatum

Status & Presence in Planning Area: The American peregrine falcon breeds locally inmountainous areas; it occurs essentially statewide during migration and in the winterseason, but mainly west of the eastern plains. Key habitat areas are nest sites (eries)and their vicinities, including both those that are currently occupied and historic onesthat are still suitable for the species. In New Mexico, the breeding territories of peregrinefalcons center on rocky, steep cliffs that are in wooded/forested habitats near water.This species prefers elevations from 6,500 to 8,600 feet but may be found from 3,500 to9,000 feet.

Potential nesting habitat occurs along a portion of the Rio Bonito at Fort Stanton, but noperegrine falcon eries have been observed.

Endangerment Factors: Habitat loss and disturbance. The loss of riparian habitat isparticularly applicable as these areas are preferred foraging areas.

AP11-26

APPENDIX 11

Analysis: Protection and improvement of riparian/wetland habitat is a major Bureauinitiative. Riparian/wetland areas at Fort Stanton are being managed to improve theecological condition and function of these areas. Riparian areas are being improved tobenefit peregrine falcons that may use the Rio Bonito at Fort Stanton. Recreationalactivities along the Rio Bonito are limited to hiking, hunting and fishing, but the amountof visitation in this area is very low due to limited vehicular access. The operation ofSierra Blanca Regional Airport, located on a large mesa south of the Rio Bonito, posesno threat to the falcon or it’s habitat. There are no major surface-disturbing activitiesproposed, or authorized, that would affect potential nesting sites. The Fort Stanton areais closed to mineral entry, no oil and gas exploration activities are allowed. “Becausewestern temperate peregrines eat a large variety of birds, can fly great distances to findprey, and can raise broods where specific prey species are seemingly scarce, fluctua-tions in prey populations are unlikely to be significant.” (Addendum to American Per-egrine Falcon Recovery Plan 1993). Activities in the planning documents would notaffect this species.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not neces-sary.

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, Fort Stanton is designated as an Area of CriticalEnvironmental Concern with the following management prescriptions. Fort Stantonwould remain withdrawn from the general mining laws, and closed to the disposal ofleasable minerals and to the leasing of oil and gas. Major rights-of-way would be ex-cluded. Livestock grazing would be considered to the extent it would be used as a too[to accomplish management objectives. Salt cedar treatments would be conducted.Recreational activities would be subordinate to the management of riparian and wildliferesources. Camping would not be allowed within 100 feet of the Rio Bonito and SaladoCreek. OHV use would be limited to designated road and trails. Streambank stabiliza-tion structures, native riparian plantings, riparian pastures, salt cedar control, and springand drainage protection measures would be implemented.

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is notnecessary.

Northern Aplomado Falcon - Falco femoralis septentrionalls

Status & Presence in Planning Area: The historic range of the northern aplomado falconincluded Hildago, Grant, Luna, Sierra, Dona Ana, Otero, Eddy, and Lea Counties. Itformerly occurred regularly in summer and casually in winter in the southwestern portionof the State and possibly farther east (Tularosa Basin). The last specimen was recordedin 1939, and the last nesting documented in 1952. This species has been occasionallyreported in the state, there have been three sightings on the White Sands MissileRange, one on Lake Holloman, and a sighting on either Fort Bliss or WSMR near

AP11-27

APPENDIX 11

Orogrande (all in Otero County). An extant breeding population in Chihuahua, Mexico,southeast of Juarez may be the source of birds being seen. Essentially, this species hadbeen considered extirpated from New Mexico since 1960 (BISON-M 1995) until therecent sightings in Otero County. Probable causes of their decline include brush en-croachment and agricultural development which have destroyed much of the grasslandrequired by this falcon (Hector 1987) and pesticide contamination.

Endangerment Factors: Brush encroachment, excessive livestock grazing and agricul-tural development which destroys grassland habitat required by this species.

Analysis: There are no known records of this species having occurred on publiclands in the Roswell Resource Area. There are no designated critical habitat areas inthe Resource Area. Specific surveys for the Aplomado falcon have not been conducted.According to the historical distribution map of 1900 contained in the recovery plan forthis species, the falcon would not have inhabited the Resource Area (USFWS 1990).Based on current information on occurrence, the likelihood of it’s presence in the Re-source Area is remote. Activities in the planning documents would not affect the contin-ued existence of this species as it presently does not occur on public lands in the Re-source Area.


DRMP Analysis: Same


Interior Least Tern - Sterna antillarum athalassos

Status & Presence in Planning Area: This species nests on shorelines and sandbars ofstreams, rivers, lakes, and man-made water impoundments. New Mexico breedingrecords began in the early 1950’s and are centered around Bitter Lake National WildlifeRefuge, Chaves County. The species breeds regularly at Bitter Lake National WildlifeRefuge (BLNWR) where it was first recorded in 1949. BLNWR is considered liessential”tern breeding habitat in the state. Sporadic observations of least terns have been re-corded elsewhere in the Pecos River Valley and in the Rio Grande Valley at Bosque delApache NWR, Socorro County. The tern may occur on public lands in Chaves Countyalong the Pecos River as there are suitable nesting habitat on sites that are sandy andrelatively free of vegetation (alkali flats). Other potential habitat sites are any saline/alkaline/gyp playa that occasionally has water. There are about forty-four potential sitesthroughout the resource area.

AP11-28

APPENDIX 11

Endangerment Factors: Channelization, irrigation, and the construction of reservoirs andpools have contributed to the elimination of much of the tern’s nesting habitat. Unpre-dictable flow patterns below reservoirs can pose problems for nesting terns. Increasedhuman recreation on river sandbars threaten nesting terns including the use of recre-ational vehicles in nesting habitat.

Analysis: The only known nesting habitat in the Roswell Resource Area is located onthe BLNWR. This is a very small population with only a few nesting terns. There are noknown active nesting sites on public lands in the Resource Area at this time. Specificsurveys of potential habitat along the Pecos River and playas for nesting least ternshave not been conducted. Surveys were conducted in specific areas associated withspecific projects, such as major pipelines crossing the Pecos River. Recent protocolsurveys for the MAPCO and Diamond Shamrock pipelines were negative. Activities inthe planning documents that may impact the species and it’s habitat include any surfacedisturbing activities of alkali flats and sand bars associated with the Pecos River andfloodplain, such as major rights-of-way and OHV use. Sitespecific surveys would berequired by the BLM for any actions proposed in these habitat types. Avoidance ofpotential habitat or timing stipulations to avoid nesting periods would be required as acondition of approval for any surface disturbing activities in potential nesting habitat.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not neces-sary, except for oil and gas development on existing leases; the determination is MayAdversely Affect and formal consultation is necessary.

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictionswere developed to protect streams, rivers, floodplains, and playas and alkali lakes. Nosurface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within up to 200 meters of theouter edge of 100-year floodplains (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). No surface occupancywould be allowed within up to 200 meters of playas or alkali lakes (See Appendix 3,AP3-8). Produced water disposal pits on public lands would not be allowed west of thePecos River, within 100-year floodplains or within 200 meters of drainages or springs.Lands that may provide potential habitat for least tern are identified for potential acquisi-tion. OHV designations for the ACECS, Pecos River floodplain, playas and alkali lakesinclude a combination of closed to OHV use and limited to designated roads/trails.

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is notnecessary, except for oil and gas development on existing leases; the determination isMay Adversely Affect and formal consultation is necessary.

AP11-29

APPENDIX 11

Brown Pelican - Pelicanus occidentalis

Status & Presence in Planning Area: The brown pelican occupies the coastal shorelinesof eastern Mexico and Texas. However, these migrants have been known to move inlandto other larger bodies of water. This species has been observed at Bitter Lake NationalWildlife Refuge. The bird has not been known to occupy any public land within theRoswell Resource Area.

Endangerment Factors: None

Analysis: Activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this speciesor it’s habitat.


RMP Analysis: Same

RMP Determination: No Affect

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher - Empidonax trailii extimus

Status & Presence in Planning Area: In New Mexico, the Southwestern willow flycatcheroccurs statewide from early May through mid-September and inhabits riparian areas.Nesting habitat includes shrubs and trees in willow thickets and deciduous woodlandsalong riparian areas. This species is known to breed in the Hondo Valley about thirtymiles from Fort Stanton. Because of riparian habitat improvements at Fort Stanton,several miles of the Rio Bonito may be suitable habitat, but no southwestern willowflycatchers have been observed nor are there areas proposed as critical habitat at FortStanton. This species has not been reported by the U.S. Forest Service in their standardprotocol surveys conducted adjacent to Fort Stanton. Scattered suitable habitat alsooccurs along the Pecos River in DeBaca and Chaves County but the only sightings havebeen on the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Data obtained from the BLNWR indi-cate three sightings of migrants in two years. One sighting was made about six milesnorth of the area of analysis in midMay 1995, the other two at the the Refuge Headquar-ters in mid-September 1995 and late-May 1996 (BLNWR 1996). Other sightings insoutheast New Mexico include single observations at Rattlesnake Springs, Sifting BullFalls and an area southeast of Artesia (West 1996). Single observations of migrantflycatchers were made during a tamarisk control study conducted near Artesia con-ducted from 1993 - 1995; none were observed in 1995 and two were observed in 1994.

Endangerment Factors: Habitat loss through water developments, excessive livestockgrazing, recreational use, nest parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird, and invasion ofriparian habitat by exotics such as Russian olive and saitcedar.

AP11-30

APPENDIX 11

Analysis: Public land along the Pecos River total about 1,400 acres and is predomi-nately salt cedar with scattered cottonwood trees and seep willow. Protocol surveys willbe conducted by the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program during 1996/97 throughchallenge cost share funds with the BLM to determine presence or absence of theflycatcher. Recent surveys conducted for a major pipeline revealed no occurrencesalong the Pecos River at the proposed crossing (T. 6 S., R. 26 E., Section 28). Potentialimpacts from surface disturbing activities along the Pecos River may impact habitat.Prior to any activities, surveys would be required by the BLM to determine the location ofpotential nesting sites in the vicinity of a proposed action. Site-specific evaluationswould be conducted to mitigate any potential threats and may include avoidance ofpotential habitat or timing restrictions to avoid nesting periods.

At Fort Stanton, the riparian habitat along the Rio Bonito is being managed to protectthe riparian resource from surface disturbing activities and. excessive livestock grazingthrough fencing and timing restrictions. The improved riparian habitat may well be in-creasing potential habitat for the flycatcher, although none have been observed to date.In addition, the BLM recently acquired about 1,200 acres of riparian habitat along theRio Bonito below Fort Stanton, The managment objectives are to protect and enhancethe riparian and aquatic habitat similar to what has been accomplished on the Rio Bonitoat Fort Stanton. The cumulative improvements of riparian habitat along the Rio Bonitoon Fort Stanton and the acquired lands are expected to provide additional habitat in thisarea. Activities in the planning documents would have no adverse affect on this speciesor it’s habitat.


DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictionswere developed to protect streams, rivers, floodplains, and playas and alkali lakes. Nosurface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within up to 200 meters of theouter edge of 100-year floodplains (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). Produced water disposalpits on public lands would not be allowed west of the Pecos River, within 100-year flood-plains or within 200 meters of drainages or springs. OHV designations for the ACECS,Pecos River floodplain, playas and alkali lakes include a combination of closed to OHVuse and limited to designated roads/trails.


Bald Eagle - Haliaeetus leucoceqhalus

Status & Presence in Planning Area: In New Mexico, the majority of bald eagles occurnear water resources; although, upland areas between the Pecos Valley and the

AP11-31

APPENDIX 11

Sandia, Manzano, Capitan, and Sacramento Mountains also support wintering eagles.In New Mexico, the bald eagle migrates statewide and winters from the northern bordersouth to the middle Pecos and Canadian Valleys. The species is occasionally observedelsewhere in the state during the summer. Bald eagles are known to occur in the north-west portion of the Roswell Resource Area and along the Rio Bonito and Pecos Riverdrainages, primarily during the winter months of November through March.

Endangerment Factors: Loss of habitat; human disturbance; illegal shooting, poisoning,trapping; electrocution; lead contamination of prey; and pesticide poisoning. Habitat lossfor both breeding and wintering bald eagles has been associated with land developmentand human activity in breeding and wintering habitats.

Analysis: There are no known breeding habitats in the Roswell Resource Area.Riparian areas on public land along the Pecos are being protected for wintering baldeagles; powerline construction incorporate designs to eliminate raptor electrocution; andtiming stipulations for surface disturbing activities in known occupied wintering’ areas toprevent undue harrassment. Although it is against the law to harass, shoot, poison, andtrap eagles on public lands, the BLM can only reiterate the federal laws protectingeagles, and would actively investigate and prosecute cases of taking eagles on publicland in coordination with the USFWS. Activities in the planning documents would haveno affect on this species or it’s habitat.


DRMP Analysis: Same


Fish

Pecos Gambusia - Gambusia nobilis

Status & Presence in Planning Area: This species is endemic to the Pecos River Basinin southeastern New Mexico and western Texas. Historically, Pecos gambusia occurredas far north as the Pecos River near Fort Sumner, New Mexico, and south to Fort Stock-ton, Texas. However, recent records indicate that its native range is restricted to sink-holes or springs and their outflows, on the west side of the Pecos River in Chaves andEddy Counties, New Mexico, and in isolated springs and their outflows on the west sideof the Pecos River in the Trans-Pecos region near Balmorrhea and Fort Stockton, Texas.In spite of population declines, the species remains locally common in a few areas ofsuitable habitat. In New Mexico, populations are present on the Bitter Lake NationalWildlife Refuge, the Salt Creek Wilderness Area (both Chaves County), and in Blue

AP11-32

APPENDIX 11

Spring in Eddy County. These areas constitute the key habitat of the species in NewMexico. An introduced population also inhabits a series of artificial pools at the LivingDesert State Park near Carlsbad (USFWS 1982; NMDGF 1988; Sublefte et al. 1990;BISON-M 1995), On the Refuge, this species is primarily restricted to springs and sink-holes in the Lake St. Francis RNA.

Endangerment Factors: Loss or alteration of habitat (periodic dewatering) and introduc-tion of exotic fish species (mosquitofish).

Analysis: Potential impacts to habitat may occur from surface disturbing activitieswithin the floodplain of the Pecos River. Oil and gas exploration and development,particularly those on existing leases prior to any lease stipulations, may impact habitat ifnot adequately mitigated. Major rights-of-way, such as pipeline crossings or highwayreconstruction, may increase sedimentation of the river. Other activities that severelyimpact habitat are not within the purview of the BLM, such as transportation and utiliza-tion of water associated with agricultural irrigation. Oil and gas wells administered by theBLM which are not directly associated with the river, but could potentially affect the river(i.e. development in drainages leading to the Pecos Rlver, etc.) are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. 43 CFR Part 3101.1-2 gives the BLM authority to move a well site up to200 meters or delay it for up to 60 days. With leases issued prior to the RMP and/orleases held by a producing well, compliance measures are done on a routine basis.These compliance measures include ensuring all applicable laws, off-shore oil and gasorders, stipulations, and/or mitigation measures are being implemented by the respec-tive oil company for a particular well. If a company is found to be in noncompliance, anIssue of Noncompliance (INC) is sent to the company and they must address whateverproblem or problems exist. Activities in the planning documents would have no affect onthis species or it’s habitat, provided that mitigation measures required by the BLM areapplied to protect habitat. Site-specific evaluations would be conducted on a case-by-case basis at which time consultation with the USFWS would be initiated as appropriate.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not neces-sary, except for oil and gas development on existing leases in proximity to BLNWR; thedetermination is May Adversely Affect and formal consultation is necessary.

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictionswere developed to protect streams, rivers, floodplains, and springs and seeps. Nosurface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within up to 200 meters of theouter edge of 100-year floodplains (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). No surface occupancywould be allowed within up to 200 meters of the source of a spring or seep, or withindownstream riparian areas created by flows from the source or resulting from riparianarea management (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). Produced water disposal pits on public

AP11-33

APPENDIX 11

lands would not be allowed west of the Pecos River, within 100-year floodplains or within2OO meters o fdrainages or springs. OHV designations for the ACECs and Pecos Riverfloodplain include a combination of closed to OHV use and limited to designated roads/trails.

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is notnecessary, except for oil and gas development on existing leases in proximity toBLNWR; the determination is May Adversely Affect and formal consultation is necessary.

Plants

Kuenzier’s Hedgehog Cactus - Echinocereus fendieri var. kuenzieri

Status & Presence in Planning Area: Fort Stanton is considered the largest knownpopulation of the cactus in New Mexico. Surveys have been conducted over FortStanton since 1985. The most extensive survey was conducted by the New MexicoNatural Heritage Program in 1991 (DeBruin 1991). The west half of Fort Stanton isconsidered crucial habitat for the cactus by the BLM, but the area has not been officiallydesignated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The New Mexico Heritage Programhas established six monitoring sites for the cactus and has gathered several years ofdemographic and reproductive data and, to a minor extent, impacts of livestock grazing.The New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department has establishedthree study areas and has been conducting a study to determine impacts to the cactusfrom livestock grazing. At this time, there is no statistically significant difference betweenthe three study plots, and the study will be conducted for several more years (pers. corn.Lightfoot, NMEMNRD, 1995). Ongoing studies require continued livestock use of certainpastures to determine grazing impacts to the cactus.

Endangerment Factors: Potential impacts include direct trampling of the plants andreduction of thermal cover around individual cacti through grazing.

Analysis: An analysis of potential impacts to the cactus from livestock grazingthrough vegetative sale contracts was conducted in the September 1995 Fort StantonManagement Framework Plan Amendment (EA-NM-066-95-050). The MFPA was re-viewed by the USFWS (Consultation # 2-22-95-1-313) with their concurrence on the “notlikely to adversely affect” determination with the proposed stocking levels. Due to thelow stocking rates and strategic locations of water developments, there would be nosignificant impacts to the population from livestock grazing, Activities in the planningdocuments would have negligible impacts on this species or it’s habitat, provided BLMmitigation measures are applied to protect habitat.

AP11-34

APPENDIX 11


DRMP Analysis: Same. In,addition, Fort Stanton is designated as an ACEC with thefollowing management prescriptions. Fort Stanton would remain withdrawn from thegeneral mining laws, and closed to the disposal of leasable minerals and to the leasingof oil and gas. Major rights-of-way would be excluded. Livestock grazing would beconsidered to the extent it would be used as a tool to accomplish management objec-tives. Recreational activities would be subordinate to the management of wildlife re-sources. OHV use would be limited to designated road and trails.


B. Federal Threatened Species

Birds

Mexican Spotted Owl - Strix occidentalis lucida

Status & Presence in Planning Area: The Mexican spotted owl occupies mountainousareas statewide. This subspecies has been recorded in the Sacramento and GuadalupeMountains. Spotted owls typically inhabit canyons, forests, pine-oak woodlands, andriparian areas and have been documented using canyons off of mesas, typically associ-ated with conifer stringers (BISON-M 1995). Nesting habitat is primarily mature mon-tane forests found on U.S. Forest Service lands in the Lincoln National Forest. There isno potential habitat of this type at Fort Stanton, which is the closest area to typicalnesting habitat in the Roswell Resource Area, and spotted owls have not been observed.Activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species or it’s habitat.

Endangerment Factors: None (BLM-administered lands)

Analysis: Spotted owl habitat is not present on public lands administered by theBLM; therefore, land use activities would have no impact to this species on public lands.


DRMP Analysis: Same


AP11-35

APPENDIX 11

Fish

Pecos Bluntnose Shiner - Notropis simus pecosensis

Status & Presence in Planning Area: Historically, the Pecos bluntnose shiner inhabitedthe mainstream of the Pecos River from Santa Rosa downstream to near Carlsbad, NewMexico, and presumably south to its confluence with the Rio Grande in Coahuila,Mexico. However, this subspecies was not recorded south of Carlsbad, NM, or in Texas.Currently, the subspecies is restricted to the Pecos River from the Fort Sumner areasouthward locally to the vicinity of Artesia, and seasonally in Brantley Reservoir(NMDGF 1985; USFWS 1992). There are two designated critical habitat areas on thePecos River within the Resource Area. The first begins about ten miles south of FortSumner, then downstream about sixty-four miles to a point about twelve miles south ofthe DeBaca/Chaves county line. The second area is located from a point from Highway31 east of Hagerman, NM, south to Highway 82 east of Artesia, NM.

Endangerment Factors: Loss or alteration of habitat (periodic dewatering) and introduc-tion of non-native fish species of the Pecos River (Arkansas River shiner).

Analysis: Potential impacts to habitat may occur from surface disturbing activitieswithin the floodplain of the Pecos River. Oil and gas exploration and development,particularly those on existing leases prior to any lease stipulations, may impact habitat ifnot adequately mitigated. Major rights-of-way, such as pipeline crossings or highwayreconstruction, may increase sedimentation of the river. Other activities that severelyimpact habitat are not within the purview of the BLM, such as transportation and utiliza-tion of water associated with agricultural irrigation. Stream desiccation is the mainreason for the decline of the Pecos bluntnose shiner in the Pecos River (Hatch et al1985). The BLM has no authority for maintenance of water levels within the Pecos Riveror its tributaries. However, various types of pollution entering the Pecos River are pos-sible from illegal oil and gas development or operation. The various types of pollutionare likely to have an indirect effect on the species in the Pecos River drainage as notedby Brooks et al. (1991). Oil and gas wells administered by the BLM which are not di-rectly associated with the river, but could potentially affect the river (i.e. development indrainages leading to the Pecos Rlver, etc.) are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. 43CFR Part 3101.1-2 gives the BLM authority to move a well site up to 200 meters ordelay it for up to 60 days. With leases issued prior to the RMP and/or leases held by aproducing well, compliance measures are done on a routine basis. These compliancemeasures include ensuring all applicable laws, off-shore oil and gas orders, stipulations,and/or mitigation measures are being implemented by the respective oil company for aparticular well. If a company is found to be in noncompliance, and Issue of Noncompli-ance (INC) is issued to the company and they must remedy whatever problem or prob-lems exist. Activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species orit’s habitat, provided mitigation measures required by the BLM are applied to protect

AP11-36

APPENDIX 11

habitat. Site-specific evaluations would be conducted on a case-by-case basis at whichtime consultation with the USFWS would be initiated as appropriate.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not neces-sary, except for existing oil and gas development on existing leases; the determination isMay Adversely Affect and formal consultation is necessary.

DRMP Analysis: The designation of the 6,400-acre North Pecos River ACEC includes aportion of designated critical habitat for the Pecos bluntnose shiner with the followingmanagement prescriptions. About 2,080 acres of federal mineral would be closed tofuture oil and gas leasing. About 2,120 acres would be leased with No surfance Occu-pancy lease stipulation. About 4,200 acres of federal minerals would be closed to thedisposal of salable minerals and the leasing of solid minerals. Public lands within theACEC would be designated as a right-of-way avoidance area. About 3,040 acres wouldbe acquired if opportunities arise. Public grazing leases would be adjusted to improveriparian habitat. Salt cedar control would be conducted. OHVs would be limited todesignated roads and trails. No minnow seining area would be designated. In addition,the following surface use and occupancy restrictions were developed to protect streams,rivers, floodplains, and springs and seeps. No surface occupancy would be allowedwithin floodplains or within up to 200 meters of the outer edge of 100-year floodplains(See Appendix 3, AP3-8). No surface occupancy would be allowed within up to 200meters of the source of a spring or seep, or within downstream riparian areas created byflows from the source or resulting from riparian area management (See Appendix 3,AP3-8). Produced water disposal pits on public lands would not be allowed west of thePecos River, within 100-year floodplains or within 200 meters of drainages or springs.OHV designations for the ACECs and Pecos River floodplain include a combination ofclosed to OHV use and limited to designated roads/trails.

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is notnecessary, except for existing oil and gas development on existing leases; the determi-nation is May Adversely Affect and formal consultation is necessary.

C. Federal Proposed Species

Arkansas River Shiner - Notropis simus

Status & Presence in Planning Area: The Arkansas River Shiner is a native of the Cana-dian River drainage in northeastern New Mexico. The population occurring there isdesignated “Proposed Endangered.” However, the population occurring in the PecosRiver drainage is introduced and is not being considered for listing. There are no publiclands along the Canadian River within the Resource Area, although federal mineral

AP11-37

APPENDIX 11

estates are found along the river subject to leasing. The species occupies the PecosRiver between Fort Sumner and Carlsbad. This species inhabits shallow, often turbidchannels of the major streams where it congregates on the downstream side of largesand ridges. The shiner is not considered endangered in the Pecos River by theUSFWS due to it’s introduction into the system. The proposed rule published in 59 FR39532, August 3, 1994 states, “A non-native, introduced population occurs in the PecosRiver in New Mexico; however, protection for this population is not under consideration.”

Endangerment Factors: None (BLM-administered lands)

Analysis: The federal mineral estate covers about nine miles of the Canadian Riverdownstream from Ute Lake. There are no oil and gas leases on those mineral estates atthis time. Activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species orit’s habitat.


DRMP Analysis: The lands along the Canadian River in Quay County are private, butthere are about 12,200 acres of federal minerals underlying private lands along theCanadian River. The mineral estate is not currently leased, and would not be offered forsale to protect habitat for the Arkansas River shiner.


AP11-38

APPENDIX 11

D. Federal Candidate Species

Section 7 consultation is not required for candidate species. These analyses are pre-sented as a disclosure of activities that may impact candidate species.

Mammals

Swift Fox - Vulpes velox

Status & Presence in Planning Area: The swift fox historical range includes eastern NewMexico where it inhabits the short, mid-, and mixed grass prairie with gently rolling hills.Swift fox prefer habitat with sparse vegetation. Areas on the Caprock, grasslands bor-dering Mescalero Sands, and the Pecos River constitute preferred habitat in the RoswellResource Area. The Pecos River serves as an arbitrary boundary for the range of thisspecies in the Resource Area and is believed to be a hybrid zone between the swift foxand kit fox. Swift fox would typically be found east of the Pecos River, and the kit foxwould occupy the habitats to the west (pers. corn. Schmitt, NMDGF, 1995). Den areashave been found on public lands during a survey of a major pipeline in the MescaleroSands area but could not be confirmed as swift fox dens.

Endangerment Factors: Predator control practices, over harvest, and habitat destruction.

Analysis: Based on the rare nature of the swift fox and the lack of recent confirmedsightings, it is unlikely that any BLM-authorized actions would adversely affect this spe-cies. The USFWS reviewed and commented on the 1993 Environmental Assessmentcovering the Roswell District Animal Damage Control program. They addressed con-cerns over the swift fox in their response dated November 23, 1993 (Cons. # 2-22-94-1-037). The concerns were addressed by the BLM and mitigation measures were incorpo-rated into the final BLM/APHIS Animal Damage Control Plan. The measures include theidentification of the area east of the Pecos River as swift fox range with restricted con-trol, the use of conventional control methods other than M-44 devices in the area, in-spection of steel traps at least three times per week, the release of all non-target spe-cies provided they are capable of self-maintenance, and the use of pan tension deviceswhich exclude small non-target species. Any future surface disturbing activities thatwould possibly result in the loss of identified active den sites could be considered adirect, adverse impact unless mitigation measures required by the BLM are applied toavoid disturbance or destruction of den sites.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect

DRMP Analysis: Same

AP11-39

APPENDIX 11

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Birds

Mountain Plover - Charadrius montanus

Status & Presence in Planning Area: Mountain plovers are mainly a species of the highplains and semi-desert regions of the western United States. Mountain plovers preferflat, short-grass prairie and tend to avoid taller grasses and hillsides (Graul 1975). Suit-able habitat often occurs in areas intensively grazed. This species also occupies prairiedog colonies, particularly in mid- and tall-grass prairie ecosystems. Migrants occasion-ally occur on dry mudflats and shorelines of dry reservoirs (Andrews and Righter 1992).

Endangerment Factors: Habitat destruction by conversion of prairie to agricultural crop-land; decline of prairie dog towns.

Analysis: The BLM has delineated potential nesting areas west of Roswell but sur-veys have not been conducted for this species due to it’s low priority compared otherlisted species that require attention. Impacts from any surface disturbing activities inpotential habitat may impact the species and habitat. From what is known, intenselygrazed areas seem to be preferred nesting habitat. Current BLM poicy does not en-dorse intensive grazing on public lands. In reference to prairie dog towns, current BLMpolicy is to protect prairie dog towns by avoiding new surface disturbing activities on thetowns and denying control activities on public lands associated with the towns. Surveysand studies have been planned to determine the location of nesting sites and possiblegrazing management schemes to enhance identified potential habitat in the ResourceArea for mountain plover. Site-specific evaluations would be conducted to mitigate anypotential threats and may include avoidance or timing restrictions within the delineatedhabitat area.


DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, a surface use and occupancy restriction to protectprairie dog towns states that no surface occupancy or surface disturbing activities wouldbe allowed within the boundary of known prairie dog towns or towns identified in thefuture. No prairie dog control would be authorized on public lands except in declaredemergency situations involving public health. Exceptions to this restriction would beconsidered for maintenance of existing projects. No surface occupancy would be al-lowed within up to 200 meters of playas or alkali lakes (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). OHVdesignations for the ACECS, playas and alkali lakes include a combination of closed toOHV use and limited to designated roads/trails.

AP11-40

APPENDIX 11


Fish

Pecos Pupfish - Cyprinodon pecosensis

Status & Presence in Planning Area: The Pecos pupfish is found in a variety of habitatsfrom saline springs and gypsum sinkholes to desert streams with highly fluctuatingconditions. Pecos pupfish populations are most dense in the gypsum sinkholes on BitterLake National Wildlife Refuge, The species apparently thrives in these saline waters thatsupport few other fish species. It occasionally occupies fresher waters in the PecosRiver, but is uncommon in such habitats. In the Pecos River, this pupfish is most oftenfound in backwater areas and side pools that lack sunfish or other predators (NMDGF1988; Sublette et al. 1990; BISON-M 1995). The pupfish inhabits the Overflow WetlandsWildlife Habitat Area adjacent to the Bottomless Lakes State Park.

Endangerment Factors: Habitat loss caused by groundwater pumping and channelalterations, hybridization and/or replacement by the sheepshead minnow, predation bynon-native fish species.

Analysis: Potential impacts to habitat may occur from surface disturbing activities ator near springs or seeps. Oil and gas exploration and development and rights-of-waymay impact habitat if not adequately mitigated or relocated. Other activities that se-verely impact habitat are not within the purview of the BLM, such as transportation andutilization of water associated with agricultural irrigation. Livestock grazing may impactsprings or seeps but most of these sites have been protected with exclosures. In orderto protect habitat for the pupfish within the Overflow Wetlands WHA, two fish barrierswere constructed to impede migration of sheepshead minnows into the wetlands. About494 acres of private lands were acqwuired in 1989 to enhance protection and manage-ment of the WHA. Livestock grazing has been cancelled on Allotment 65041. Activitiesin the planning documents would have no affect on this species or it’s habitat, providedmitigation measures required by the BLM are applied to protect habitat. Site-specificevaluations would be conducted on a case-by-case basis.


DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the Overflow Wetlands is designated as an ACECwith the following management prescriptions. About 1,040 acres (including the wetlandproper, buffers areas and escarpments) would be protected by applying a no surfaceoccupancy restirction to future oil and gas lease, by closing the same acreage to thedisposal of salable minerals and to the leasin of solid minerals and withdrawn from entry

AP11-41

APPENDIX 11

under the land laws (including the 1872 Mining law), by designating the same area asclosed to OHV use. Major rights-of-way would be excluded. About 3800 acres of landwould be acquired if opportunities arise. Public grazing leases would be adjusted. Saltcedar treatments would be conducted. No minnow seining area would be designated.Additional weland habitat would be developed.



Pecos Assiminea Snail - Assiminea oecos

Status & Presence in Planning Area: This species is known to occupy seeps within theBitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge and a spring at the Roswell Country Club. Thesnails are usually found on moist earth beside seeps and springs, but never besidestanding water. This species may potentially be found in springs and seeps throughoutthe Roswell Resource Area but recent surveys conducted by the New Mexico NaturalHeritage Program have not identified occurrences of this species in springs located onpublic lands. This species is primarily associated with springs and seeps along BitterCreek located in the Bitter Lake RNA on the Refuge. It is a true endemic with viablepopulations protected only on the refuge.

Endangerment Factors: Diminished surface flows at springs and spring runs by artesianpumping, surface disturbing activities at or near springs and seeps, heavy livestockutilization of the water source.

Analysis: As this species has not been found in the surveyed springs on publiclands, activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species. Severalsprings located in the Pecos River drainage are protected from livestock grazing byfence exclosures. Prior to any surface disturbing activities, the BLM would conductsurveys to determine potential impacts to the springs. In the event of potential impactsto the spring, Title 43 of Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3101.1-2, would allow theBLM to relocate proposed operations up to 200 meters to protect resource values.

Determination: No Affect, except for existing oil and gas development on existingleases; depending on the proximity of the wells to the BLNWR, the determination couldbe May Adversely Affect and technical assistance from the USFWS may be necessary.

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictionswere developed to protect streams, rivers, floodplains, and springs and see . No surfaceoccupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within up to 200 meters of the outer

AP11-42

APPENDIX 11

edge of 100-year floodplains (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). No surface occupancy would beallowed within up to 200 meters of the source of a spring or seep, or within downstreamriparian areas created by flows from the source or resulting from riparian area manage-ment (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). Produced water disposal pits on public lands would notbe allowed west of the Pecos River, within 100-year floodplains or within 200 meters ofdrainages or springs.

DRMP Determination: No Affect, except for existing oil and gas development on existingleases; depending on the proximity of the wells to the BLNWR, the determination couldbe May Adversely Affect and technical assistance from the USFWS may be necessary.

Roswell Spring Snail - Pyrgulopsis roswellensis

Status & Presence in Planning Area: This species inhabits clear, free flowing fresh andgypsum waters. The Roswell Spring Snail is known to occur in the Sago Spring system,and a small seepage on the northwest edge of pond Unit 6 on the BLNWR as well asthe Roswell Country Club spring, This species may potentially be found in springs andseeps throughout the Roswell Resource Area but recent surveys conducted by the NewMexico Natural Heritage Program have not identified occurrences of this species insprings located on public lands. This species is primarily associated with springs andseeps along Bitter Creek located in the Bitter Lake RNA. It is a true endemic with viablepopulations protected only on the refuge.


Analysis: As this species has not been found in the surveyed springs on publiclands, activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species. Severalsprings located in the Pecos River drainage are protected from livestock grazing byfence exclosures. But prior to any surface disturbing activities, the BLM would conductsurveys to determine potential impacts to the springs. In the event of potential impactsto the spring, Title 43 of Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3101.1-2, would allow theBLM to relocate proposed operations up to 200 meters to protect resource values.


DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictionswere develo ed to seeps. No surface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains orwithin up to 200 meters of the outer edge of 1 00-year floodplains (See Appendix 3,

AP11-43

APPENDIX 11

AP3-8). No surface occupancy would be allowed within up to 200 meters of the sourceof a spring or seep, or within downstream riparian areas created by flows from thesource or resulting from riparian area management (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). Producedwater disposal pits on public lands would not be allowed west of the Pecos River, within100-year floodplains or within 200 meters of drainages or springs.


Koster’s Tryonia - T[yonia kosteri

Status & Presence in Planning Area: This species also inhabits in the upper layers offine substratum within clear, free flowing fresh and gypsum rich waters. Koster’s tryoniahas been known to occur in the Bitter Creek and Lost River spring system, the SagoSpring system and a small seepage on the northwest edge of pond Unit 6, all on theBLNWR. It is known to have occured in a spring at the Roswell Country Club, but hasnot been documented there in the past four years. This species may potentially be foundin springs and seeps throughout the Roswell Resource Area but recent surveys con-ducted by the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program have not identified occurrences ofthis species in springs located on public lands. This species is primarily associated withsprings and seeps along Bitter Creek located in the Bitter Lake RNA. It is a true en-demic with viable populations protected only on the refuge.


Analysis: As this species has not been found in the surveyed springs on publiclands, activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species. Severalsprings located in the Pecos River drainage are protected from livestock grazing byfence exclosures. But prior to any surface disturbing activities, the BLM would conductsurveys to determine potential impacts to the springs. In the event of potential impactsto the spring, Title 43 of Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3101.1-2, would allow theBLM to relocate proposed operations up to 200 meters to protect resource values.


AP11-44

APPENDIX 11

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictionswere developed to protect streams, rivers, floodplains, and springs and seeps. Nosurface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within up to 200 meters of theouter edge of 100-year floodplains (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). No surface occupancywould be allowed within up to 200 meters of the source of a spring or seep, or withindownstream ‘ riparian areas created by flows from the source or resulting from riparianarea management (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). Produced water disposal pits on publiclands would not be allowed west of the Pecos River, within 100-year floodplains or within200 meters of drainages or springs.


Plants

Puzzle Sunflower - Helianthus paradoxus

Status & Presence in Planning Area: This species is found along alkaline seeps andcienegas of semi-desert grasslands and the short-grass plains (4,000-7,500 ft.). Plantpopulations are found both in water and immediately adjacent to water sources wherethe water table is still high and in good condition. There are three known populationswithin the Roswell Resource Area, with one location occurring on public land.

Endangerment Factors: Dewatering of riparian-wetland areas where this species isfound, surface disturbing activities by oil and gas, rights-of-way, excessive livestockgrazing.

Analysis: This species has very spotty distribution in the Roswell Resource Area andis found in only a few areas outside of the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge. A newpopulation was found in 1994 at the Boftomless Lakes State Park growing on the mar-gins of Lea Lake and it’s outflow. Lloyd’s Draw is the only known location on public land.The puzzle sunflower only became evident at this location following a prescribed fire.The only potential impacts to this species at Lloyd’s Draw is livestock grazing, but stock-ing densities are very low and plans to develop watering sources away from the drawwould mitigate this activity. Due to the low stocking rates and strategic locations of waterdevelopments, there would be no impacts to the population from livestock grazing.Potential habitat also occur within the Overflow Wetlands Wildlife Habitat Area. Thesewetlands are protected from surface disturbing activities and livestock grazing has beencancelled on Allotment 65041.


AP11-45

APPENDIX 11

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictionswere developed to protect streams, rivers, floodplains, and springs and seeps. Nosurface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within up to 200 meters of theouter edge of 100-year floodplains (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). No surface occupancywould be allowed within up to 200 meters of the source of a spring or seep, or withindownstream riparian areas created by flows from the source or resulting from riparianarea management (Appendix 3, AP3-8). OHV designations for the ACECs and PecosRiver floodplain include a combination of closed to OHV use and limited to designatedroads/trails.

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversey Affect

AP11-46

APPENDIX 11

Ill. Summa!y

All current planning documents/amendments and site-specific ongoing activities, orprojects, have been reviewed for this BA. The primary activities reviewed were LivestockGrazing and Minerals Management as these were the main resources addressed in theplanning documents.

The management prescriptions for the various resources found under the PreferredAlternative of the Roswell Resource Area Draft RMP have been reviewed. Potentialimpacts to special status species and their habitats have been reduced or eliminated.The potential for impacting T/E species remains high for existing oil and gas leasescurrently held by production. May Adversely Affect determinations were made for ripar-ian and aquatic species associated with existing oil and gas leases along the PecosRiver.

On the Pecos River, there is about forty existing oil and gas leases with all or portions ofthe lease potentially supporting riparian or aquatic resources. Currently, about 6,296acres are unleased. A small portion of the existing leases have the R-44 stipulationsince the stipulation became effective in 1990. Formal consultation would be requiredfor those leases that have existing developments in the floodplain, are planned for devel-opment, or lack the Roswell #44 special lease stipulation. The formal consultation pro-cess would include impacts to T/E species on developed leases and existing leasesproposed for future development.

The pending Environmental Assessment for the Corinne Grace, Pecos River FloodplainOil and Gas Field Development (EA No. NM-066-96-026) considers impacts to severalT/E species within the project area and on the adjacent Bitter Lake National WildlifeRefuge. Consultation has been initiated with the USFWS (Cons. #2-22-94-1028).

For new leases, the Interim Oil and Gas Leasing and Development EA for the RoswellResource Area (NM-066-95-096) describes screening criteria to delay the leasing ofcertain areas until leasing decisions are made in the final RMP. The areas identified inthe criteria are those where conflicts with oil and gas development may occur. Oil andgas leasing is a discretionary action and nominated parcels may be withheld from leas-ing when conflicts are identified. Once the RMP leasing decisions have been com-pleted, the screening criteria would no longer be used. Consultation was conducted withthe USFWS (Cons. #2-22-96-1-024).

Cumulative impacts from actions authorized under the current land use plans andamendments would be highest on the riparian community along the Pecos River. Activi-ties such as oil and gas exploration and development, rights-of-way, livestock grazing,off-highway vehicle use, and non-BLM regulated actions, primarily agriculture, all con-tribute to cumulative negative impacts on the scarce riparian community and the

AP11-47

APPENDIX 11

several riparian/aquatic-associated species considered in this BA.

Cumulative impacts are being considered at the activity planning level but would beaddressed and alleviated through the Roswell Resource Area RMP.

State, local, or private activities, not involving Federal activities, are not anticipated todramatically change (increase/decrease) in the Resource Area, particularly oil and gasdevelopment, and the livestock industry. These activities, and other activities, wouldcontinue on private and State lands. The estimation of cumulative effects of future non-federal actions is difficult to make without knowing what type of actions would be pro-posed and where they may occur. It is safe to say that urbanization will continue toencroach on wildlife habitat and demands for resources will continue, making the publiclands even more significant as preserves for special status species and habitat.

On-going and future actions proposed by the BLM or resource users, that are in compli-ance with current planning documents, would be evaluated on a case-by-case basisthrough the environmental assessment process. This would include informal consulta-tion with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as necessary. Impacts to special statusspecies and their habitats would be analyzed, and mitigation developed to provide pro-tection for these species to avoid may affect determinations. In the event a proposedaction results in a may adversely affect determination, formal Section 7 consultationwould be initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Based up on the analyses completed in this document, it is concluded that the actions inthe planning documents, excluding oil and gas resources, would not have negativeeffects upon threatened and endangered species and their habitats located in theRoswell Resource Area. Because of “no affect” and “not likely to adversely affect” deter-minations, formal Section 7 Consultation, as outlined under the provisions of the Endan-gered Species Act of 1973, is not required with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service forthose actions authorized by the BLM under existing planning documents and theRoswell Resource Area RMP.

Formal Section 7 consultation will be requested for the following species with respect topotential impacts from existing oil and gas lease exploration and development activities:

Interior least tem Federal EndangeredPecos gambusia Federal EndangeredPecos bluntnose shiner Federal Threatened

Technical assistance will be requested for candidate species potentially affected by oiland gas lease exploratioi and development activities.

AP11-48

APPENDIX 11

Literature Cited and References

Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to their Distribution andHabitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver , Colorado.

Bison-M. 1995. Biological Database for New Mexico.

Brooks, J.E., S.P. Plantania, and D.L. Propst. 1991. Effects of Pecos River reservoiroperation on the distribution and status of Pecos bluntnose shiner ( o is simusRecosensig): preliminary findings. Rept. to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, NM.

DeBruin. E.A. 1991. Survey of Echinocereus fendleri var kuenzleri on Fort StantonReservation. New Mexico Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, Albu-querque, New Mexico.

ENSR. 1995. Draft Biological Assessment for the Mid-America Four Corners PipelineLoop Project. BLM.

Findley, J, S., et al. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Graul, W.D. 1975. The Breeding Biology of the Mountain Plover. Wilson Bulletin 87:631.

Hatch, M.D., W.H. Baltosser, and C.G. Schmitt. 1985. Life history and ecology of thebluntnose shiner ( simus pecosensis) in the Pecos River of New Mexico. Southwest.Nat. 30:555-562.

Hector, P.K. 1990. Northern Aplomado Falcon Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 58pp.

Hubbard, J.P. 1994. The Status of the Swift Fox in New Mexico. New Mexico Depart-ment of Game and Fish. Santa Fe, NM. 35 pp.

Lightfoot, K. 1995. New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department,Santa Fe, New Mexico.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 1977. Handbook of Species Endangered inNew Mexico. Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Rio Grande Recovery Team. Pecos Gambusia Recovery Plan. 1983. 41 pp.

AP11-49

APPENDIX 11

Rio Grande Recovery Team. Pecos Bluntnose Shiner Recovery Plan. 1992. 57pp,

Schmitt, G. 1995, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. April 13, 1995.

Sublette, J.E., Hatch, M., and Sublefte, M. 1990. The Fishes of New Mexico.University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

1976. East Chaves Management Framework Plan1979. East Roswell Grazing Environmental Statement1981. Oil and Gas Leasing Environmental Assessment1984. Final Roswell Management Framework Plan Amendment1986. Fort Stanton Management Framework Plan Amendment1987. Fort Stanton Management Framework Plan Amendment1989. Supplement to the Oil and Gas Final Environmental Assessment1994. Roswell Resource Area Draft Resource Management Plan1995, Fort Stanton Management Framework Plan Amendment1995. Interim Oil and Gas Leasing and Development EA

AP11-50

APPENDIX 11

Addendum to the Biological Assessmentfor the 1996 Roswell Resource Area Resource Management Plan


September 20, 1996

1. Intr oduction

This Addendum will update the Biological Assessment (BA) completed on July 8, 1996,and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on July 9, 1996 (Consulta-tion No. 2-22-95-1-102).

This Addendum includes: (1) an update on land use decisions in the Roswell ResourceArea Resource Management plan, (2) necessary changes to land use restrictions orallocations under the Preferred Alternative affecting federally-listed species, (3) recentlyacquired biological information on the Southwestern willow flycatcher and other species,(4) changes in BLM determinations on the Bald eagle and Arkansias River shiner, and(5) additional information for the Kuenzler’s hedgehog cactus and other species asrequested by the USFWS. These changes resulted from public comments received onthe draft plan, including comments submitted by the USFWS. The proposed plan isexpected to be published by late November 1996.

11. RMP Changes

The following bullets are changes made to the preferred alternative of the RMP poten-tially affecting federally-listed species:

Mitigations of impacts involving moves greater than 200 meters or delays greaterthan 60 days could result from NEPA analysis. (Also, refer to the introduction toAppendix 3.)

Appendix 3 - The basis for the “200 meter rule” used in the Surface Use andOccupancy Requirements is 43 CFR 3101.1-2, which states that, at a minimum,mitigation measures are deemed consisten with oil and gas lease rights if they donot require “...relocation of proposed operations by more than 200 meters...” Theintent of the actions described in this Appendix is to comply with the regulationsand allow the relocation of proposed activities to mitigate impacts, but by “nomore than 200 meters”, without undertaking additional NEPA analysis. Theopportunity exists through the NEPA process to design mitigations of impacts thatwould require relocation greater than 200 meters. The “200 meter rule” simplyallows relocation of an activity, such as during onsite meetings prior to APDapproval, without the need for detailed NEPA analysis.

AP11-51

APPENDIX 11

The federal mineral estate along the Canadian River in Quay County (totallingabout 4,900 acres), would be managed to support protection of habitat for theArkansas River shiner. Management would include application of the surface useand occupany requirements (Appendix 3), closure to the leasing of solid minerals,possible closure to the disposal of mineral materials, and restrictions on theexploration for and development of locatable minerals. Restrictions on use wouldbe applied as needed to protect habitat, As a result, the entire range of restric-tions may not be applied to every acre of federal mineral estate. These practicescould be applied to major tributaries of the Canadian River, as well, if needed toprotect shiner habitat.

Riparian/Wetland and Playa Lake Management: Riparian and wetland areaswould be managed to achieve an advanced ecological status, except whereresource management objectives, including proper functioning condition, wouldrequire an earlier successional stage. The objective of managment would be -toimprove riparian and wetland habitat on public lands that is nonfunctioning orfunctioning at risk, and maintain habitat that is in proper functioning condition.Management would be conducted even if influenced by factors outside of theBLM’s control or management, such as flow regulations or channelization, thatcontribute to unacceptable conditions.

Special Status Species Habitat Management Goal: Provide protection and recov-ery for all federal and state-listed species. Manage occupied and potential habitatfor federal and state-listed species on public land to maintain or enhance popula-tions. Manage habitat for federal candidate species to avoid degrading habitatand further listing by either state or federal governments while allowing for mineraldevelopment and production, livestock grazing, and other uses.

Prairie dog towns would be protected from major surface disturbing activities,such as rights-of-way, and road or facility construction. Surface disturbancewould not be allowed within prairie dog towns (refer to Appendix 3). Existingpopulations of prairie dogs would be maintained by not allowing control measuresto be conducted in prairie dog towns by APHIS-ADC or grazing allottees. Mainte-nance of existing developments would be allowed on a caseby-case basis.

The construction of fence exclosures or barriers would be considered in crucial orcritical habitat for federal threatened and endangered, federal candidate, or state-listed wildlife and plant species to protect all or portions of occupied habitat,specific populations, or to provide for scientific research on a species and itshabitat.

Floodplain Development (For the Roswell Resource Area):

114. If a threat of flooding by the Pecos River occurs during drilling operations,

AP11-52

APPENDIX 11

the Roswell Resource Area Manager will issue a shut-in order. Toxic substancesand, possibly, drilling equipment will be removed from the floodplain.

115. A drilling pad will be elevated at least (inches, feet) and surfaced accordingto Condition of Approval 80.

116, All riparian habitat will be protected according to instructions provided by theAuthorized Officer. Trees will not be cut down unless authorized.

1 1 7. Self-contained metal tanks are required for floodplain locations.

118. Pits containing oil, tank bottoms or other hydrocarbons, salt water, or anytoxic substances will not be allowed in the floodplain.

1 1 9. If a salt water flow is encountered, the water will be stored in tanks locatedoutside of the floodplain.

120. Production facitlities will be located outside of the floodplain.

121. Flow lines from the well head to production facilities will be buried, if soilconditions permit burial.

122. Special precautions will be taken to reduce damage from flooding:

a. The well will be equipped with a down-hole shut-in device, rated at workingpressure of 1,500 psi;b. The well head will be buried below ground in a concrete cellar with a grateover it; or,c. Three steel posts will be set in concrete. Horizontal steel cross bars willconnect the posts. Heavy guage chain link fencing will be welded or bolted to thepost and cross bars. The V must point upstream or in the direction specified.

123. Chemical toilets will be used instead of latrines,

Camping at Fort Stanton would be managed b permitting “vehicle campers” (those whodrive motorized vehicles to a campsite) to drive no more that 100 feet off a BLM-desig-nated road or trail to a campsite.

The BLM would recommend to the New Mexico State Game Commision that FortStanton be designated as a special draw hunt area, or a restricted area open only toprimitive hunting (bow and arrow or muzzle-loader). Additionally, vehicles would not beallowed off of designated roads or trails to retrieve downed game,

AP11-53

APPENDIX 11

Ill. Update on Species Accounts

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher - Empidonax trailii extimus

Flycatcher protocol surveys for the Roswell District were initiated by the BLM throughchallenge cost-share studies with the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program. Thesurveys began on July 8, 1996 and focused on the Grace Well area along the PecosRiver just north of the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the Rio Bonito and SaladoCreek at Fort Stanton, and the Black and Delaware Rivers in the Carlsbad ResourceArea.

The preliminary surveys for the presence of breeding willow flycatchers were negativefor ‘ the Grace Well area, the Rio Bonito and Salado Creek riparian areas, the DelawareRiver and Black River. The Rio Bonito and parts of the Delaware River were identifiedas a potentially suitable stopover habitat, although not prime breeding habitat. Thecontinued development of these areas would not guarantee use of these habitats by theflycatchers, given that willow flycatchers typically do not nest east of the Rio Grande inNew Mexico (NMNHP 1996). A copy of this preliminary report is attached.

The reference for the statement that the species is known to breed in the Hondo Valleywas taken from a New Mexico Ornithological document which we are unable to locate atthis time. Therefore, this statement is retracted from the BA.

IV. Additional Anaivsis on Species Identified by USFWSSouthwestern Willow Flycatcher - Emipidonax trailii extimusThe latest information concerning riparian condition is found in the attached updatedTable 102 which replaces Table 102 in the draft RMP/EIS. The table shows the numberof stream miles that are in proper functioning condition, at risk, and nonfunctioning.Definitions of these characteristics are attached (GL-3 and GL-4).

The following analysis is presented in reference to current riparian conditions and live-stock grazing programs, and it’s potential adverse effects on nesting habitat for south-western willow flycatcher.

There are factors that influence our capability to produce change (improve habitat) whichare not within BLM control. For example, the condition of the Pecos River riparian areais largely determined by water flows dictated by agricultural demands. This one factoralone has modified the Pecos River more than any other aspect of use affecting theriparian and aquatic habitat.

Along the Pecos River, livestock grazing is self-limiting due to the presence of goldenrod(poisonous to livestock , heav fl infestations durin the summer and rankcondition of alkali

AP11-54

APPENDIX 11

sacaton (not,palatable to livestock). Condition of the vegetaive community is mostlyaffected by modified stream flows (Fort Sumner Dam) and the invasion of salt cedar,

There are three ACECs with riparian habitat. The Fort Stanton ACEC is intensivelymanaged with strict controls on grazing. Public lands within the Overflow WetlandsACEC is essentially closed to grazing, except a small pasture that has a short section ofthe Pecos River. This pasture is only used seasonally and the grazing lessee hasagreed to following season of use recommendations from the BLM. The North PecosRiver ACEC is mostly within one grazing allotment. A majority of the allotment is outsideof the BLM grazing district and livestock grazing numbers outside of the grazing districtare not controlled by the BLM. Nonetheless, the allotment has received several projectsto improve riparian habitat conditions. These include pasture development throughseveral miles of fencing and prescribed fire conducted on a regular basis to control saltcedar and improve the riparian community for cottonwood and willow regeneration.

Based on further analysis, a review of the NMNHP preliminary report, and the informa-tion provided by the USFWS (Memorandum dated August 29, 1996), the determinationfor the Southwestern willow flycatcher remain the same.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is notnecessary.

Bald Eagle - Haliaeetus leucocephalus

The determinations in the BA were No Affect. It was thought that since there were nobreeding or nesting areas within the RA, there would be no significant impacts to thebald eagle from activities authorized by the BLM. There are BLM-authorized activities asstated in the BA that would directly improve habitat for eagles and could be construed asa positive impact. The determination is now changed to recognize this impact.


Kuenzier’s Hedgehog Cactus - Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri

Under the Environmental Consequences-Wildlife section of the DRMP, an analyses ofpromoting a trail system and its impact to the cactus was made with the finding thatpotential loss of Kuenzier cactus from off-trail riding in critical habitat could potentiallyoccur. Off-trail riding could occur from mountain bike and horseback trail riders. Thecurrent situation is that trail riders stay on the established trails already in place and tendnot to go off the trail, partly attributable to coordination with wildlife specialists to ensurehabitat concerns are addressed during trail designations (versus no designations inwhich riders can go anywhere they wish), trail signing, trail brochures and patrols. Along

AP11-55

APPENDIX 11

with trail designations are rules of conduct for recreation use on public lands. These arefound in Appendix 7 of the DRMP. The potential loss of cactus from illegal off-trail ridingincidents is remote but addressed in the DRMP as a potential impact. The potentialimpacts to the cactus and habitat would be tremendous without the designation of roadsand trails and off-highway vehicle restrictions currently in place, and enhanced by man-agement prescriptions for the Fort Stanton ACEC. In addition, primary cactus populationlocations have been protected by the construction of large exclosures which serve toprotect the sites and provide for scientific study.


Arkansas River Shiner - Notropis simus

The 12,200-acre figure for federal minerals underlying private lands is for the entireQuay County. About 4,900 acres of federal minerals underly mostly private and somestate lands along the Canadian River. Federal mineral leasing along the Canadian Riveris possible on about 4,640 acres of currently unleased federal minerals. To protect theCanadian River, land use decisions added to the DRMP (see bullet under RMPChanges) were developed. Lands that may be offered for mineral leasing would besubject to the Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements in Appendix 3 of the DRMP.The determination is now changed to recognize this impact.


IV. Summary

The determinations for the bald eagle and the Arkansas river shiner have been changedfrom No Affect to May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect.

The determination for the Southwestern willow flycatcher and Kuenzier’s hedgehogcactus remain May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect,

Formal consultation is requested for the Interior least tern, Pecos gambusia, and thePecos bluntnose shiner. To complete the initiation of formal consultation, additionalinformation that was requested through USFWS Memorandum dated August 29, 1996(Consultation #2-22-95-1-102) is being provided through a separate document andmaps.

AP11-56

APPENDIX 11

Kristine Johnson, Sr. Research Associate New Mexico Natural Heritage Program University of New Mexico, Biology 2500 Yale Blvd SE Albuquerque, NM 87131-1091 505-277-1982,/ax 505-277-7587 kjohnson@unm. edu

31 July, 1996

DanBaggao Bureau ofLand Management P.O. Drawer 1857 Roswell, NM 88202

Dear Dan,

- \'

Enclosed is a summary ofPat's and my surveys ofBLM land earlier in July. In addition to preliminary WIFL surveys, we assess the potential of these as stopover and breeding habitat for WIFLs as well as other Neotropical migrants. As we discussed previously, I think some of these areas offer good potential for migrants in general, whether or not they eventually attract WIFLs.

Having looked at nearly all the lands of interest, I think we can eliminate some areas as clearly unsuitable for breeding or even migrating flycatchers. I've included an accounting ofthis year's money, an estimated budget for a 2-survey protocol of potentially suitable breeding/migrating WIFL habitat, along with the cost of doing 3-survey protocols of potentially suitable habitat, in case they should be warranted.

I plan to be at the prairie chicken meeting in Oklahoma City in August. Hope to see you there. Please call if you have questions about the report.

Sincerely,

Kristine Johnson Senior Research Associate

AP11-57

APPENDIX 11

SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER HABITAT SURVEYS ON BLM LANDS

Kristine Johnson and Patricia MehlhopJuly, 1996

Between July 8 and July 17, 1996, we surveyed potential southwestern willow flycatcher(Enipidonax trailii extiniiis) breeding habitat on BLM lands in eastern New Mexico. USFWSprotocols (Tibbitts et al. 1994) specify that surveys must be conducted twice, eight days apart,the first being in late June and the second in early July. Although flycatchers that do nest areexpected to be still on the nesting grounds later in July, once nesting has begun males tend toreduce singing greatly; thus, response to taped song may go undetected. Due to the timing offunding, it was not possible to adhere to these guidelines in 1996, and thus these results shouldbe considered first as habitat surveys and second as preliminary surveys for the presence ofbreeding willow flycatchers. We also assessed the areas for their potential as suitable stopoverhabitat for migrating willow flycatchers as well as habitat for other Neotropical migratorysongbirds. We discuss separately each area surveyed.

July 8-IO.Pecos River Floodplain Gas and Oil Development Area, Approximately3.5mileson the west sideof the river were surveyed on July 8-9 and approximately 1. 5 miles on the east side, just north of theBitter Lakes Refuge boundary, were surveyed on July 9-1 0. In each case, the habitats were viewed from avehicle the first day and the areas were then walked the following day. During the walking surveys, tapesof willow flycatcher song were played at all stands of trees, whether or not the stand was deemed suitablefor flycatcher breeding.

Much of the river bank (an estimated 60%) is entirely treeless, while thin strings and small patches ofsaltcedar are present in the other 40%. The tree species comprise about 99% saltcedar, and only those thatare present singly are taller than about 2m. Less than 1% of the trees present are willow, and these are lessthan 1.5m tall and occur in patches less than I m wide on the bank of the river near the refuge boundary.Surrounding areas are covered primarily with alkali saccatone grass, It is clear that there is no suitablenesting habitat for southwestern willow flycatchers in this section of the river. No flycatchers weredetected and none responded to tapes. Although there are other bird species using the area (e.g.,meadowlark, mouming dove, barn swallow, redwinged blackbird), this is not a high quality riparian area:there are few trees and vegetation diversity is quite low.

July I 0- I I - Rio Bonito and Salado Creek Riparian Areas. Again, these areas were viewed from a vehicleon the I Oth and walked on the I Ith. Tapes were played where trees were present. Approximately 0. 5 mi.of the Lower Rio Bonito, going west from the eastern Ft. Stanton boundary, was surveyed. There wasconsiderable willow emerging in this section of the Rio, about 40%, along with about 15% cottonwood,some very large, and about 40% dead saltcedar. The willows are mostly less than I m in height. This didnot appear to be highly desirable breeding habitat for willow flycatchers, but the emergence of willowstands and the efforts at saltcedar control suggest that, with continued management, it may be in the future.No willow flycatchers responded to tapes, nor were any detected singing. At present, this is a very niceriparian area, possibly providing suitable stopover habitat for flycatchers and clearly suitable for use byother Neotropical migrants. We encourage continued management of this area as stopover and breedinghabitat for migratory birds.

AP11-58

APPENDIX 11

The Middle Rio Bonito consists of approximately 2mi. of river extending upstream from theLower Rio Bonito. There is a gap of riverbank containing no trees that was not surveyed, justupstream from the above-described Lower Rio. The Middle Rio Bonito begins above that gapand continues to the Ft. Stanton upstream boundary, about 2 mi. This area contains scatteredcottonwood (30%), juniper (20%), elm (20%), and willow (30%). The willow patches are verysmall and discontinuous, with only 35-40% of the bank having any trees at all. The bank is steepand eroded and up to 3m deep in places. The Rio was running about 3" deep after a rain, but hadbeen dry the previous day. No suitable willow flycatcher breeding habitat was detected; willowstands were short and very small and the stream was small and runs intermittently. Noflycatchers responded to taped song. In spite of the sparsely distributed trees and the depth ofthe channel, this is a nice small riparian area used by other Neotropical migratory species (black-chinned hummingbird, blue grosbeak, western tanager, Say’s phoebe). The area is well worthmanagement efforts aimed at preserving stopover and breeding habitat for Neotropical migrants.

About 0.75 mi. of the Salado Creek riparian area, north of highway 380, was surveyed. This areahad a few scattered poplars and some willows planted by the BLM. About 95% of the streambank was treeless, with a steep, eroded channel. The only trees present were isolated. Althoughremediation efforts have been initiated here, it is clear that this area has a long way to go beforeit can be considered riparian habitat. It is clearly unsuitable for willow flycatchers. Trees wereso sparsely distributed that there was no point in even playing tapes. Nevertheless, continuedremediation efforts could transform this area into suitable habitat for migratory birds,particularly if stands of trees can be established.

July 14, Upper Rio Bonito The Upper Rio Bonito (approximately 3 miles) was surveyed on July14. This area comprises about 35% old tree willow (<2m high) and cottonwood and 65%recovering meadow and shrub. In the upper half of the reach the shrubs are about 65% treewillow of <2m in height, in the form of stringer rows. The lower part grades to tree and coyotewillow and cottonwood, 3m in height. Two small willow stands that had died back haveresprouted and offer potential for future habitat. In open areas about 10% of the cover is shrubwillow. In a few years this site may hold willow stands several meters wide and currently haspotential for willow flycatcher migratory habitat. In 3-10 years it could offer good, although notexcellent, willow flycatcher breeding habitat. No willow flycatchers or obligate riparian specieswere detected in this area.

July 16, Delaware River The Delaware River was surveyed on July 16. The river flows from theTexas border to an old destroyed dam in a series of pools connected by a narrow channel. Onone or both sides, the floodplain is contained by 10- 15 foot high cliffs. The width of thefloodplain is 30-50m, offering the only potential for willow flycatcher habitat. The tree willowhas old growth structure and offers little subcanopy for nesting willow flycatchers. Seepwillowforms stringers between the tree willows and the river and dense stands in open canopy bars.However, it is generally 4-5 feet high, apparently too short for nesting SW willow flycatchers.The apparent absence of song sparrows and yellow-breasted chats attests to an insufficient shrub

AP11-59

APPENDIX 11

component here. However, the habitat may be suitable for stopover by migrating SW willowflycatchers and other Neotropical migrants. The short reach upstream from the dam to the sharpsouth bend in the river may offer the best potential habitat in the future because it is lesscontained. If it is flooded regularly, the habitat structure could become suitable. Cattle loiter inthe seepwillow stands when watering, keeping them more open than natural. There is a smallpatch of Freemont cottonwood down stream of the dam at the point where a flume enters theriver from the NW. A yellow-breasted chat was detected there. Potential migration habitatshould improve once cattle are removed, scheduled for 1998. No willow flycatchers weredetected.

The Delaware River was also spot checked downstream from the gas pipeline. Immediatelydownstream appeared the same as the site upstream to the flume. Where the highway crossesthe Delaware there are a few small patches of tree willow downstream from the bridge. Thesepatches do not appear to have a subcanopy component, making it unlikely breeding habitat forthe flycatchers. From the confluence with the Pecos upstream to about 50 m. above the railroadbridge crossing, dense saltcedar grows nearly to the river edge and does not offer suitable nestinghabitat for flycatchers. None was detected.

July 15, Black River The Black River was surveyed on July 15. The low stature and low densityof the riparian vegetation from the headwaters to ~1.3 mi. downstream does not offer suitablenesting habitat at this time. The area downstream needs additional survey to confirm that it toois currently unsuitable. The entrenchment of the river appears to preclude much overbankflooding, which suggests that a thriving willow habitat will not occur in the future. If height anddensity of the shrubs and small trees increases, the suitability of nesting habitat may increase inthe future. Although currently not good breeding habitat for willow flycatchers, this reach mayoffer very good migratory stopover habitat for willow flycatchers and other Neotropicalmigrants. It merits mistnet survey in spring and fall and singing male survey in spring. Nowillow flycatchers were detected.

Conclusions Preliminary surveys suggest that there are no willow flycatchers nesting in any ofthe surveyed areas. This tentative conclusion will be confirmed using protocol surveys duringthe next breeding season. Several areas, the Upper and Lower Rio Bonito and parts of theDelaware Rivers, although not prime breeding habitat, appear to be potentially suitable stopoverhabitat for the flycatchers and could hold potential as breeding habitat if willow stands developfurther. With continued management efforts aimed at encouraging this species, these areascould develop into fine habitat for willow flycatchers. However, even continued development ofthese areas would not guarantee use of these habitats by the flycatchers, given that willowflycatchers typically do not nest east of the Rio Grande in New Mexico. It is important to notethat these areas are being used by a variety of other Neotropical migratory songbirds, currentlyan important focus of conservation concern due to loss of stopover as well as breeding habitat.We encourage the BLM to continue their management efforts and define those efforts broadly toinclude Neotropical migrants other than the willow flycatcher. We also recommend surveys ofall the avifauna in the well developed riparian areas, during the migration as well as breedingseasons, to guide further management efforts in these potentially important riparian areas.

AP11-60

APPENDIX 11

Reference

Tibbits, TJ, MK Sogge, & SJ Sferra. 1994. A Survey protocol for the Southwestern wfllowflycatcher (Enipidonax traillii extiniitv). Technical report NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-94/04.

AP11-61

APPENDIX 11

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1'.0. Box 1306

Albuquerque. New M:xico 87103

In Reply Refer To: R2/ES-SE

Cons. #2-22-96-F-1 02

Memorandum

To: Area Manager, Roswell Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management, Roswell, New Mexico

From: -~\}

t-~egional Director, Region 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Subject: Biological Opinion on the Roswell Resource Area Resource Management Plans

This is in further response to your July 9, 1996, request for formal Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 {Act), as amended. The request concerned the effects of programs implemented undEi'r current resource management plans for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Roswell Resource Area (RRA), and programs proposed to be implemented under the Roswell Resource Area Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Roswell DRMP/EIS) (BLM 1 994). This biological opinion addresses effects of those plans on the Pecos bluntnose shiner, Pecos gambusia, and interior least tern.

This consultation covers a broad spectrum of management activities that are guided by the Roswell resource management plans. In some cases, it was necessary to analyze specific projects and/or discuss them in the biological opinion to help evaluate the overall effectiveness of plan-level guidance. This plan-level consultation, however, does not eliminate the need for BLM to conduct future action-specific biological assessments pursuant to 50 CFR §402.12 to determine if any actions are likely to adversely affect listed or proposed species or adversely modify critical habitat.

Consultation. History- .

The RRA began informal consultation on the Roswell DRMP/EIS on November 8, 1991 (Cons. #2-22-92-1-156), when it requested a list of endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species for preparation of a Biological Assessment (BA) on the DRMP/EIS. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (NMESO) responded on December 12, 1991, with a species

AP11-62

APPENDIX 11

list for Chaves, Curry, De Baca, Guadalupe, Lincoln, Quay, and Roosevelt counties andupdated the list by memorandum dated June 19, 1995. The NMESO commented on theRoswell DRMP/EIS on April 1, 1995 (Cons. #2-22-95-1-207). BLM did not request theNMESO to review the BA prepared for that document.

The RRA submitted a draft BA on September 28, 1995, that addressed the impacts ofcurrent resource management plans on species that are federally endangered, threat-ened, proposed, or candidates. NMESFO requested additional information, RRA: resub-mitted the BA on December 15, 1995, with a request for Service concurrence. Aftercontinued discussion between the two agencies, the Service determinated that it couldnot concur with BLM’s interpretation of the thresholds for its determinations of effect onlisted species. The BLM withdrew its request for concurrence on April 9, 1996, to reas-sess its determinations and continue to develop the information in its BA.

Six different plans, plan amendments, or environmental assessments (EA) direct currentactivities in the RRA. The final Roswell RMP/EIS will soon replace these documents.Because of this, it was decided in discussions with the RRA that its BA addressing theimpacts of current resource management plans should also inc.’ude determinations forthe Roswell DRMP/EIS. The RRA again submitted a BA on July 9, 1996, with a requestfor concurrence with the determinations under existing plans and the Roswell DRMP/EIS. In this BA, the RgA requested concurrence with determinations for 19 species, ofwhich 8 are endangered, 3 are threatened, 1 is proposed endangered, and 7 are candi-dates.

On August 5, 1996, the NMESFO concurred with determinations of “no effect” or “notlikely to adversely affect’ for five endangered, threatened, or proposed species (black-footed ferret, brown pelican, American peregrine falcon, Mexican spotted owl, and north-ern aplomado falcon), but could not concur with RRA determinations for four species(bald eagle, Arkansas River shiner, southwestern willow flycatcher, and Kuenzier hedge-hog cactus) due to insufficient information. The NMESFO acknowledged RRA’s findingsof “may adversely affect” and request for formal consultation for three species (Pecosbluntnose shiner, Pecos gambusia, and interior least tern). The NMESFO made nocomments on RRA determinations for candidate species.

On September 20, 1996, the RRA submitted the supplementary information and discus-sions the NMESFO requested. Based on the supplementary information, the NMESFOindicated in a memorandum dated September 25, 1996, that it was able to concur withRRA determinations of “not likely to adversely affect’ for bald eagle, Arkansas Rivershiner, southwestern willow flycatcher, and Kuenzler hedgehog cactus. The followingbiological opinion is based on information in the BA and supplementary information, datain our files, discussions with species experts, and other sources of information.

AP11-63

APPENDIX 11

A draft biological opinion dated April 8, 1997, was submitted to the BLM for review. TheBLM commented on the draft biological opinion in a memorandum dated April 18, 1997.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

It is the Service’s biological opinion that the RRA resource management plans and theRoswell DRMP/EIS are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the interiorleast tern (Sterna antillarum), but are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of thePecos bluntnose shiner (Notropis simus pecosensis) and Pecos gambusia (Gambusianobilis). It is also the Service’s biological opinion that the RRA resource managementplans and the Roswell DRMP/EIS are likely to adversely modify critical habitat desig-nated for the Pecos bluntnose shiner.

Description of the Proposed Action

This biological opinion addresses the manner in which the current RRA resource man-agement plans and the Roswell DRMP/EIS either guide or propose to guide BLM activi-ties in the RRA. Six different resource management plans, plan amendments, and EAsdeveloped between 1976 and 1987 currently guide activities in the RRA. Each plancovers a specific activity or a specific part of the RRA. The plans are the East ChavesManagement Framework Plan, the East Roswell Grazing Environmental Statement, theEnvironmental Assessment - Oil and Gas Leasing Roswell District, the Roswell Manage-ment Framework Plan Amendment, and the Fort Stanton Management Framework PlanAmendments. When the Roswell DRMP/EIS is final, it will replace these older resourcemanagement documents. The Roswell RMP will be the first comprehensive land useplan prepared for the entire RRk.

BLM Resource Programs

This section on BLM-managed programs in the RRA was adapted from the RRA BA(1996), the Roswell DRMP/EIS (1994), the Interim Oil and Gas Leasing and Develop-ment Roswell Resource Area Environmental Assessment (1995), and additional informa-tion. Environmental components analyzed in the Roswell DRMP/EIS include mineralresources; lands, realty, and rights-of-way; rangeland resources; vegetation; culturalresources; paleontological/geological resources; wilderness resources; recreation,- wildand scenic rivers, visual-resources; soil resources; water resources; air resources; wild-life; hazardous or solid wastes; fire; and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Re-source management programs in the RRA correspond roughly to the environmentalcomponents, but some programs may affect or include several of the environmentalcomponents. For instance, the RRA’s administration of grazing has important effects onrangeland resources, vegetation, soil resources, water resources, fire, and wildlife, andminor effects on some of the other environmental components. Conversely, some envi-ronmental components such as water are affected by several management programs.The Service has evaluated the environmental components as presented in the Roswell

AP11-64

APPENDIX 11

DRMP/EIS and determined that the RRA programs that affect cultural resources, pale-ontological/geological resources, wilderness resources, wild and scenic rivers, visualresources, air resources, and hazardous or solid wastes either have no effect on Pecosbluntnose shiner, Pecos gambusia, and interior least tern or have effects that are insig-nificant, discountable, or beneficial. This is primarily because the RRA programs affect-ing these environmental components are of minor scope or occur in parts of the RRAthat provide no habitat for the three species in this biological opinion.

The RRA management programs described briefly in the following paragraphs are thosemost likely to have a significant effect on the three species in this biological opinion. TheRRA encompasses about 14 million surface acres of all ownerships in Quay, Guadalupe,Curry, DeBaca, Roosevelt, and Lincoln counties, plus most of Chaves County. There areabout 1.5 million acres where both the surface and subsurface are in Federal ownershipand another 8.25 million acres of Federal minerals underlying other surface ownerships.

Oil and Gas

Most of the RRA has high or moderate potential for oil and gas occurrence. More than7,00 Federal, State, and fee wells were drilled in the RRA during the period of 1904 to1991. As of March 1 995, there were 1,694 Federal leases in effect in the RRA, cover-ing approximately 1.25 million acres. Total projected disturbed acreage by the end of1997 from all Federal drilling activity will be 7,800 acres. This surface disturbance willcontinue as long as the wells are producing and until reclamation has occurred.

When an oil or gas discovery is made, a well spacing pattern must be established beforedevelopment drilling begins. Well spacing is regulated by the New Mexico Oil and GasConservation Division. Factors considered in the establishment of a spacing patterninclude data from the discovery well concerning: porosity, permeability, pressure, compo-sition, and depth of formations in the reservoir; well production rates and type (barrels ofoil or cubic feet of gas); and the economic effect of the proposed spacing on recovery.The standard minimum spacing for oil production on Federal leases-is 40 acres. Spac-ing for oil wells usually varies from 40 to 80 acres per well. Spacing for gas wells isgenerally from 1 60 to 320 acres per well.

In the RRA, oil and gas leasing and development is currently directed by EnvironmentalAssessment No. NM-066-95-096, Interim Oil and Gas Leasing and Development,Roswell Resource Area (BLM 1995), which supersedes the older planning documents.This document will be superseded by the Roswell RMP (BLM 1994) when that documentis finalized. Under the interim direction, lease parcels will be screened to identify re-

AP11-65

APPENDIX 11

source management or operational conflicts. Parcels failing to pass the screening willnot be offered for sale, but can be reconsidered for leasing after approval of the RoswellRMP. Under the screening, no parcels will be leased if there are: various operationalconcerns; designated significant caves; designated critical habitat for Federal threatenedor endangered species; habitat designated as crucial for State threatened or endan-gered species; sites on the National Register of Historic Places; 100-year floodplains;areas proposed in the Roswell DRMP/Ei.S for special management; or areas proposedin the Roswell DRMP/EIS for closure to leasing or no surface Occupancy.

When the Roswell DRMP/EIS is finalized, leasing may resume in some of the areas notbeing leased under the interim oil and gas leasing EA. For example, it is intended toresume leasing in 100-year floodplains, but apply No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipula-tions to any leases sold. There are, however, several exceptions to the NSO stipulations.In these cases, and for existing leases in floodplains, appropriate Conditions of Approval(COA) to protect floodplain resources will be applied when there is an Application toDrill.

Leases can include specific stipulations that are attached prior to lease sale to mitigatepotential impacts. Some examples of lease stipulations are no surface occupancy,controlled surface use, and timing restrictions. For areas where the surface is managedby another Federal agency, and certain areas managed by the New Mexico State Parks,leasing stipulations are provided by those agencies. Where the mineral estate is ownedby the U.S. Government and surface ownership is State or private, surface use stipula-tions are included that ensure conformance with the Endangered Species Act and otherFederal laws. The lessee or operator will negotiate surface use requirements with theState or private landowner prior to development, as described in Onshore Oil and GasOrder No. 1.

In addition to lease stipulations, there are several Notice to Lessees for oil and gasdevelopment. These include netting pits and placing caps over exhaust stacks to pre-vent bird and bat entry. There are a number of standard operating COAs that are at-tached to every Application to Drill. The COAs include standards for road construction,pipeline construction, drill pad construction, reserve pit and tank battery construction,waste materials management, site reclamation, and other procedures. Additional COAsfor site specific activities can be developed as needed through EAs or EISs to protectthe environment. The COAs are intended to minimize surface impacts and providemeasures for site restoration after drilling activities are completed.

AP11-66

APPENDIX 11

Lands and Realty

The RRA currently has about 1,387 active rights-of-way (ROW) managed under itsrealty program. Presently about 25,958 acres of public land are affected by existingROWS. Most ROWs are issued for oil and gas related roads, pipelines, and powerlines.Predominately, ROWs are issued for a 30 year period, but they can be issued for anyperiod necessary to meet the objective of the ROW. Relinquished ROWs are returned tonative vegetation. There are no designated energy-related ROW corridors in the RRA.

Watershed and Soils

Three watersheds in the RRA are susceptible to severe long-term soil loss. These areasare the Rio Bonito including Salado Creek, the Pecos River from the confluence of YesoCreek to Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and the closed drainage area toNakee Ishee Lakes. Four watersheds in the RRA have been identified as susceptible tosevere gully erosion. These watersheds are the Rio Bonito including Salado Creek,Arroyo de[ Macho, Gallo Arroyo, and the Feliz River.

The Roswell DRMP/EIS states that Best Management Practices (BMP) will be used tominimize sedimentation as a cause of nonpoint source pollution in surface waters.BMPs are based on standard operating procedures, oil and gas lease stipulations, orBLM policy. BMPs will be specified in activity plans for actions that make soils moresusceptible to erosion or impair soil productivity. The DRMP\EIS further states thatstrategic watershed management plans will be developed and implemented for water-sheds that are susceptible to severe long-term soil losses or gully erosion and whichhave a high potential to respond to treatment. As part of watershed management plans,site-specific prescriptions will be written which could include, but not necessarily belimited to: vegetation treatments; vegetation plantings; livestock grazing management;construction of erosion, sediment, and flood control structures; and implementation of amonitoring program.

Due to the ‘checkerboard’ ownership in watersheds, management on BLMadministeredlands alone may be inadequate to support designated stream uses. Where appropriate,cooperative agreements, Memorandum of Understanding, or other interagency effortswill be made to manage entire watersheds to maintain or improve waterquality.

Grazing

There are 414 grazing allotments in the RRA. Of the nearly 1.5 million acres of publicland in the resource area, less than 1 percent are unsuitable for livestock grazing. AnAllotment Management Plan is in place for 45 allotments. Activity plans, which includegrazing systems, are being proposed on an additional 65 allotments. If no plan exists,grazing is conducted under the terms of the grazing permit. The current permitted use

AP11-67

APPENDIX 11

for the RRA is 329,370 animal unit months (AUM), which averages about 1 2 head ofcattle per section or 59 head of sheep per section.

Standard practices proposed in the Roswell DRMP/EIS to maintain or achieve desiredplant communities include: utilization levels not exceeding 45 percent of annual plantproduction as measured on key forage species; projects such as fences, water develop-ments, erosion control structures, reseedings, or vegetative sales; grazing treatmentssuch as changes in season of use, class of livestock, or stocking rates; and vegetationtreatments including prescribed fire, prescribed natural fire, fuelwood sales, and biologi-cal, chemical, or mechanical controls.

Since 1979 in areas covered by the East Roswell Grazing EIS, and since in 1984 areascovered by the RRA Management Framework Plan EIS, 82,644 acres of brush (shinneryoak, mesquite, creosote bush) and 7,735 acres of broom snakeweed have been treatedwith chemicals. An additional 1,945 acres of brush have been treated with fire. Herbi-cide applications are in conformance with BLM, State, and EPA standards. Importantwildlife habitat such a broadleaf tree groves, aquatic, riparian, wetland, and wateringfacilities are protected during brush control operations.

Recreation

Recreation in the RRA is both facility-based and dispersed. The Roswell DRMP/EISproposes 24 Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA). The SRMA’s range insize from only a few acres to about 24,630 acres for Fort Stanton. Two SRMA’s totaling4,046 acres are designated for off-road vehicle (ORV) use. For the remainder of theRRA, ORV use is proposed to be closed for 38,576 acres, and limited to existing roadsand trails for 1,414,878 acres. Most of the recreational visitation on public land in theRRA comes from dispersed recreation such as hunting, caving, fishing, sightseeing,primitive camping, biking, and hiking.

Riparian/Wildlife

The wildlife program in the RRA includes inventory, planning, habitat improvementprojects, mitigation to curtail potential impacts from other activities, and compliance/monitoring. Riparian areas in the RRA include the Pecos River; Rio Bonito and Saladocreeks; Rio Bonito acquired lands; the Overflow Wetlands; about 60 sinkholes, playasand alkali lakes; and about 20 springs or seeps.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The, Roswell DRMP/EIS proposes five Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).These areas encompass about 64,500 acres of all surface ownerships.

AP11-68

APPENDIX 11

Each area will have its own set of management prescriptions to protect the principalresources for which the ACECs are being designated.

Pecos Bluntnose Shiner

Status of the Species (Range-wide)

The Pecos bluntnose shiner (Notropis simus pecosensis) was listed as a threatenedspecies with critical habitat on February 20, 1 987 (USFWS 1 987a). Its critical habitatin the Pecos River includes a 64-mile reach from 10 miles south of Fort Sumner to 12miles south of the De Baca/Chaves County line and a 37-mile reach from nearHagerman to near Artesia. The principal reason for its listing was habitat alteration dueto dam construction resulting in an altered hydrograph that reduced peak and base flowsand increased the likelihood of channel intermittency. Water diversion for irrigation,habitat loss due to channel incision, decreased water quality as a response to lowerbase flows, and piscivory by non-native predatory fish species have also contributed toits decline.

The Pecos bluntnose shiner is a moderate-sized shiner up to 95 millimeters long. It isseparable from co-occurring shiners by its robust body, blunt and rounded snout, andlarge slightly subterminal mouth that usually extends evqn with the pupil. The species ispallid gray to greenish-brown dorsally and whitish ventrally. A wide silvery lateral stripeextends from the pectoral girdle to the caudal base. Pelvic and anal fins lack pigmenta-tion, dorsal and pectoral fins have small black flecks along rays, and the caudal fin isvariably pigmented (USFWS 1992).

Pecos bluntnose shiner in the Pecos River are most frequently encolmtered betweenFort Sumner and Roswell. Elsewhere in the historical range of the subspecies, the riveris intermittent or otherwise modified and bluntnose shiner are uncommon or absent(Hoagstrom et al. 1994). Bluntnose shiner occupy a variety of mesohabitats in the riverchannel (Hoagstrom et al. 1994). They are typically found in low-velocity water 17 to 41centimeters deep over sand substrate (USFWS 1992).

Historically, Pecos bluntnose shiner inhabited the mainstream of the Pecos River fromSanta Rosa downstream to the vicinity of Carlsbad (Hatch et aL 1985). It has not beenrecorded in the Texas portion of the Pecos River. Collection records attest to the histori-cal-abundance- of the species. For example, one collection made in 1 939 from nearSanta Rosa contained 1,482 bluntnose shiner. Subsequent sampling efforts in the samearea in 1 981 resulted in the collection of only 4 bluntnose shiner (USFWS 1992).

Currently, Pecos bluntnose shiner survive in the Pecos River from below Fort Sumnerdownstream to the upper end of Brantley Reservoir and seasonally in the reservoir.Hoagstrom et al. (1994) divided the currently occupied portion of the

AP11-69

APPENDIX 11

river into three reaches for sampling and study purposes. Pecos bluntnose shiner wererare in the first reach from Sumner Dam to Taiban Creek. Reach two from Cedar Creekto the U.S. Highway 380 bridge yielded the highest number of adult Pecos bluntnoseshiner in sampling. This reach included the upper critical habitat area for the species. Inreach three from the Rio Hondo to the inflow of Brantley Reservoir, the samples includedmostly eggs, larvae, and young bluntnose shiner. This reach included the lower criticalhabitat area.

Life History

The Pecos bluntnose shiner is a pelagic spawner that produces non-adhesive semi-buoyant eggs (Platania 1993). Increased river flows and water temperature stimulatespawning, which occurs repeatedly from June through August. Spawned eggs hatchwithin 24 to 48 hours and develop into protolarvae that move out of the main channelwithin 3 to 4 days of hatching. Protolarvae likely move into backwaters where the warmand relatively nutrient-rich waters provide for maximum larval growth rates (Platania1993). Adult bluntnose shiner live up to 3 years.

Threats

Loss of permanent flow, alteration of flow patterns, introduction of non-native species,and degradation of water quality are the principal threats to Pecos bluntnose shiner. Theoperation of Sumner Dam has significantly altered flow regimes in the upper Pecos River(Brooks et al. 1991). Releases from Sumner Dam to transport irrigation water for use bythe Carlsbad Irrigation District have resulted in unnaturally high flows during releaseperiods and unnaturally low flows at other times. The release schedule has affectedstream morphology, influencing Pecos bluntnose shiner habitat. The timing and durationof releases has affected spawning, downstream transport of eggs, and survival of juve-nile bluntnose shiner.

Non-native fish may compete with and prey upon various life stages of Pecos bluntnoseshiner. Sport fisheries have been established in all the lakes on the Pecos River. Intro-duced predators such as walleye and white bass now occur in the river and may prey onbluntnose shiner. The greatest number of such fish occur in the tailwaters directly belowSumner Dam with few occurring in the shallow sandy-bottomed reaches that bluntnoseshiner-prefer (Larson and Propst 1994). The overall impact of non-native predators onPecos bluntnose shiner in the river, therefore, remains uncertain. However, it is likelythat survival of young Pecos bluntnose shiner displaced into downstream reaches belowRoswell is low due to the increased presence of non-native predators that occur inrelation to Brantley Reservoir. Pecos bluntnose shiner do not survive long in lake orother calm water environments (USFWS 1992), likely as a result of predation.

AP11-70

APPENDIX 11

Other small fish including plains minnow (Hybognathus placitus), speckled chub(Macrhybopsis aestivalis), Rio Grande shiner (Notropisjemezanus), red shiner(Cyprinella lutrensis), and Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi) are frequently foundin association with Pecos bluntnose shiner (Hoagstrom et al. 1994). Plains minnow andArkansas River shiner are introduced in the Pecos River (Bestgen et al. 1989). It is notyet known if these introduced species directly compete with the natives, but reduction inpopulations of native-species following non-native introductions is well documented inother river systems.

Water quality degradation has been identified for the Pecos River and associated habi-tats. Elevated levels of organochlorine chemicals have been detected in association withagricultural water uses (USFWS 1992). Some portions of the Pecos River do not sup-port designated or attainable uses (NMWQCC 1994). The reach of the river fromSumner Dam to Salt Creek is not fully supported as a limited warm water fishery. Prob-able causes of nonsupport for this reach of the river are siltation, reduction of riparianvegetation, and streambank destabilization. Probable sources of nonsupport for thisreach of the river are rangeland uses and hydromodification (NMWQCC 1994). Thereach of the river from Salt Creek to Rio Penasco is not fully supported as a warm waterfishery. Probable causes of nonsupport for this reach of the river are metals, dissolvedoxygen, unionized ammonia, total dissolved solids, siltation, reduction of riparia ‘ nvegetation, and streambank destabilization. The toxic contaminant mercury has beenfound at chronic levels in this reach. Probable sources of nonsupport for this reach ofthe river are irrigation return flows, rangeland uses municipal point sources, and un-known sources (NMWQCC 1994). Reduced base flow caused by water developmentactivities may increase the detrimental effects of water quality degradation.

Environmental Baseline for Pecos Bluntnose Shiner (in the Action Area)

Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR 402.02) define the environmental baseline asthe past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other humanactivities in the action area. Also included in the environmental baseline are the antici-pated impacts of all proposed Federal projects that have undergone section 7 consulta-tion, and the impacts of State and private actions that are contemporaneous with theconsultation in progress.

The Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) haveconsulted formally with the Service on their operation of Lake Sumner and Santa RosaLake (Cons. #2-22-91-F-198, August 5, 1991, and Cons. #2-22-92-F-240, March 22,1993). The action under consultation with BR was the volume, timing, and length ofwater releases from the upstream reservoirs to supply water to Brantley Reservoir forirrigation. Prior to the construction of Brantley Reservoir, downstream storage capacityin McMillan and Avalon reservoirs was limited and several upstream releases were

AP11-71

APPENDIX 11

needed during the summer to supply irrigation needs. The greater storage capacity ofthe new Brantley Reservoir made it possible to meet downstream water needs withfewer, but larger volume, upstream releases. In 1989, a release of 1,100 cfs for 45 dayswas made from the upstream reservoirs to check the water holding capacity of BrantleyDam. This release almost emptied Santa Rosa and Sumner reservoirs and resulted inextensive postrelease drying of the river channel upstream of Bitter Lake NWR(BLNWR)(Brooks et al. 1991). The lack of summer rains exacerbated dry channel condi-tions and increased seasonally elevated salinity levels in the river downstream ofRoswell. The Service concluded in its biological opinion that the agency’s water man-agement of the Pecos River was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Pecosbluntnose shiner and adversely modify its critical habitat. Reasonable and prudentalternatives to remove jeopardy included the implementation of a pre-Brantley Reservoirrelease schedule from the upper dams for a 5-year period and the initiation of a 5-yearresearch program to better understand the hydrology of the river and the biologicalneeds of the Pecos bluntnose shiner.

The formal consultation with the Corps involved elevated mercury levels that had beendetected in biota in Santa Rosa Lake and the possible effects of its transport down-stream with water releases. The reasonable and prudent alternative in connection withthis action was for the Corps to implement I study to evaluate the downstream transportof mercury into Pecos bluntnose shiner critical habitat.

Private entities from Roswell south to Lake Arthur hold aggregate water rights of 8,439.2acre-feet from the Pecos River. There are also an additional 1,374 acrefeet in rightsfrom wells. Although return flows may lessen the net withdrawals from the river, quanti-fied information on such returns is not available. Consequently, these water rights areconsidered not only as diversions, but as depletions.

The EPA began consulting with the Service in the early 1980’s on the effects to threat-ened and endangered species from the registration of specific pesticides. This evolvedinto nationwide formal consultations on clusters of pesticides in the late 1980’s. A jeop-ardy opinion was reached for the Pecos bluntnose shiner in Chaves County, NewMexico, for the registration of 51 pesticides. In New Mexico, removal of jeopardy was tobe accomplished through the establishment of a State program for the protection ofthreatened and endangered species from pesticides. To date, no State program hasbeen implemented and the best way to deal with this highly complex issue is still beingstudied.

The EPA has consulted informally with the Service on the issuance of NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for the cities of Artesia (Cons. #222-95-1-526, September 22, 1995) and Roswell (Cons. #2-22-89-1-032, December20, 1988, and Cons. #2-22-96-1-473, October 18, 1996) for discharges from their

AP11-72

APPENDIX 11

municipal wastewater treatment plants. The Service concurred with a finding of “noeffect’ for Artesia after the City agreed to modify its effluent storage system. Consulta-tion is continuing concerning the level of nitrates in Roswell’s effluent.

The Roswell District of BLM has consulted informally with the Service on potential oiland gas drilling and development in the Pecos River ftoodplain near Roswell icons. #2-22-93-1-350, July 15, 1993, and Cons. #2-22-94-1-028, May 15, 1996). The proposeddevelopment of seven gas wells was withdrawn by the applicant. The same applicantrecently submitted a proposal to drill three shallow exploratory wells. In addition to theproposed wells, there are six existing oil or gas wells on Federal mineral estate in the100-year floodplain. Three of these wells are temporarily shut-in.

Inspection of topographic maps for the reach of the Pecos River from the ChavesEddyCounty line north to Sumner Reservoir and comparison with land ownership mapsreveals 14 wells, and associated access roads on private lands in the 100-year flood-plain. In addition, there are about 20 wells on private uplands within 0.5 mile of thePecos River. These maps were last revised between 1950 and 1968 so it is uncertain ifadditional wells are now present or if some of the wells on the maps have been aban-doned and plugged.

Grazing occurs on lands adjacent to the Pecos River in the RRA. Lands in De BacaCounty are almost completely in private ownership. The amount of public land increasesin Chaves County, but most grazing allotments administered by the RRA still consist of a‘checkerboard’ of public and private lands. The RRA administers 29 grazing allotmentson public lands in the 100-year floodplain. These include about 6,700 acres of 100-yearfloodplain, which is about 10 percent of the 100-year floodplain in the RRA. For many ofthese allotments, public lands make up the minority of the ownership. Of the 29 allot-ments, 18 have 80 acres or less of public lands in the 100-year floodplain. Private landsusually surround these small parcels. Range conditions for these 29 allotments havebeen evaluated as fair for 16 and good for 13, with mostly a static trend. Range condi-tions for private lands have not been evaluated.

Status of the Pecos Bluntnose Shiner (in the Action Area)

The habitat of Pecos bluntnose shiner in the RRA includes about 1 70 miles of thePecos River from Sumner Reservoir to the Chaves-Eddy County line. This is about 85percent of the bluntnose shiner’s occupied habitat. Critical habitat in the RRA includes a64-mile reach from 10 miles south of Fort Sumner to 12 miles south of the De Baca-Chaves County line and a 25-mile reach from near Hagerman to the Chaves-EddyCounty line. This is about 90 percent of the designated critical habitat.

AP11-73

APPENDIX 11

Sampling by Hoagstrom et al. (1994) determined that the reach of the Pecos River in theRRA from Cedar Creek to the U.S. Highway 380 bridge yielded the highest number ofadult Pecos bluntnose shiner in sampling. This reach includes the upper critical habitatarea for the species. In the reach from the Rio Hondo to the ChavesEddy County line inthe RRA, the samples included mostly eggs, larvae, and young bluntnose shiner. Thisreach includes 25 miles of the lower critical habitat area.

Critical Habitat Constituent Elements - Pecos Bluntnose Shiner

The physical and biological features that are the basis for designating portions of thePecos River as critical habitat for Pecos bluntnose shiner are clean permanent water, amain river channel habitat with sandy substrate, and a low velocity flow. These primaryconstituent elements provide the physical features and biological environment necessaryfor survival and recovery of the Pecos bluntnose shiner. They provide water of sufficientquality, quantity, and hydrologic regime to meet the requirements of each life stage.

Physical Habitat

The impacts to physical habitat involve the loss of the quantity and quality of water incritical habitat and the change in flow regime. The quanti@y and timing of flows influ-ence how various habitats are formed and maintained. Water depletions reduce theability of the river to create and maintain these habitats; degradation of water qualitylessens the ability of endangered species to survive in these habitats. Water releasesfrom Sumner Reservoir to meet downstream irrigation demands have a major impact onflow patterns in the Pecos River. The effects of these releases on Pecos bluntnoseshiner and its habitat have been discussed previously in this document.

Biological Environment

Food supply, predation, and competition are important elements of the biological envi-ronment. Food supply is a function of nutrient supply and productivity, which could belimited by the presence of contaminants. Predation and competition from non-nativefishes have been identified as factors in the decline of the bluntnose shiner. Dependingupon species-specific tolerance levels, non-native fishes may have competitive, advan-tages in- habitats damaged by the presence of contaminants and altered flow regimes.Additionally, rare native species at larval and young-ofyear stages may be affected to theextent that survival is limited via behavioral impacts.

AP11-74

APPENDIX 11

Effects of the Action

The Service’s primary task in developing a biological opinion is to determine whether theproposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species (50CFR 402.1 4(g)(4)). The jeopardy/non-jeopardy determination is based on an evaluationof: (1) A species’ status in the project area and rangewide (see above sections); (2) theeffects of the prclposed action on the survival and recovery of a listed species (includingeffects of interdependent and interrelated actions); (3) the aggregate effects of otherFederal actions on a listed species (e.g., amount of take occurring as a result of Federalactions subject to previous consultations); and (4) the cumulative effects on a listedspecies (ie., future nonFederal actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the actionarea).

The RRA management plans guide numerous BLM-managed programs (discussedabove). The programs expected to most greatly affect the Pecos bluntnose shiner andits critical habitat are oil and gas development and livestock grazing because these aremajor programs directed through the plans. The activities under the oil and gas, andgrazing programs are expected to most greatly affect the shiner when they occur in theriver flaodplain, but activities in uplands within the watershed may also have effects onthe species. The BLM manages lands for multiple uses so several activities may occursimultaneously in any one area. That is, oil production, grazing, recreation, and otheractivities may occur at the same time, in the same area, producing aggregate effects be-yond those anticipated when looking at effects separately.

Oil and Gas Activities - Indirect effects are those that are caused by, or result from, theproposed action, and are later in time, but reasonably certain to occur. Interdependentactions have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. Interre-lated actions are part of a larger action, and are dependent on the larger action for theirjustification. Oil and gas leasing results in several interdependent and interrelated ac-tions because it is merely the initial step in the process of producing commercial quanti-ties of oil and gas. Subsequent to leasing is the possibility of exploration, development,and production of oil and gas, and the eventual abandonment of wells and other facili-ties. Although there is no current leasing in the 1 00-year floodplain under the InterimOil and Gas Leasing and Development Roswell Resource Area Environmental Assess-ment, there could be new or continued development of older leases containing substan-tial amounts of floodplains. For the area from Sumner Reservoir to the Chaves-EddyCounty line, 70 percent of the floodplain acres for which the RRA has leasing authorityare presently leased. Oil and gas facilities in a floodplain are exposed to an increasedrisk from flooding. While no ruptures or releases have occurred in the RRA as a resultof flood damage, the possibility of such occurrences increases with additional develop-ment in the floodplain.

AP11-75

APPENDIX 11

impacts from development in floodplains include the possibility of soil and water contami-nation from leaks or ruptures, increased sediment load in the runoff from Pads. androads, additional non-point source pollution, and greater erosion rates. Oil field develop-ment in or adjacent to floodplains would lead to additional roads and pipeline crossingsin floodplains. Floodptain hydraulics could be changed, possibly increasing flood haz-ards at the development site or elsewhere on the river. Potential water quality degrada-tion associated-with oil and gas leasing and would likely result in adverse effects to thePecos bluntnose shiner.

The BLM manages the leasing and subsequent development of oil and gas resources onlands in Federal surface and subsurface ownership and on some lands in private surfaceownership that lie over the Federal mineral estate. This includes lands within the 100-year floodplain of the Pecos River. The Pecos bluntnose shiner in the RRA occurs in apart of the Pecos River that contains an estimated 71,600 acres of 100-year floodplain.The RRA administers the mineral estate for about 10,400 acres (15 percent) of thisfloodplain, of which 7,350 acres are presently leased. Lease development has resultedin six oil or gas wells in the 100-year floodplain. No ruptures or releases of oil, gas, orbyproducts have occurred from these wells and protective measures developed by BLMare designed to minimize the likelihood of these events. Any future Applications to Drillon existing Federal leases on BLM surface in the 100-year floodplain will, when theRoswell RMP/EIS is finalized, include COAs number 109-118 for floodplain developmentand other COAs to protect the floodplain. These COAs will greatly reduce, but may notcompletely eliminate, accidental spills of petroleum or petroleum byproducts, and willhelp contain any spills for easier cleanup if accidents occur.

Grazing Activities

Analysis of the effects of livestock grazing on fish and fish habitat requires looking atsubtle, long-term, incremental changes in watershed functions, riparian and aquaticcommunities, and stream channel morphology. Platts (1990) says of past governmentalefforts at analysis of livestock impacts on riparian and aquatic communities, “Livestockimpacts were cumulative and even though they couldn’t be seen annually, in the sumthey were deleterious. Their (agency) review of ongoing actions did not tell the completestory.”

As Platts indicates, the long-term, cumulative aspect of grazing impacts, in combinationwith the short-term, limited data available on range condition and fish and fish habitat,make a purely empirical analysis of the effects of grazing and grazing managementdifficult and often misleading, particularly on an allotment by allotment basis. However,extrapolations of general hydrologic and biologic principles and site-specific researchdata provide a large body of evidence linking degradation of watersheds, stream chan-nels, aquatic and riparian communities, and fish habitat and populations in westernNorth America to grazing and grazing management (Leopold 1924, Leopold 1951, Yorkand Dick-Peddie 1969, Hastings and Turner 1980, Dobyns 1981, Kauffman and Krueger

AP11-76

APPENDIX 11

1984, Skovlin 1984, Kinch 1989, Chaney et al. 1990, Platts 1990, Armour et al. 1991,Bahre 1991, Meehan 1991, Fleischner 1994).

The effects to the Pecos River and its populations of Pecos bluntnose shiner from live-stock grazing and management would occur through several mechanisms, two of whichare: 1) watershed alteration, and 2) physical riparian destruction and alteration.

Watershed Alteration - Livestock grazing may cause long-term changes to the water-shed and its functions. The extent of these changes varies with watershed characteris-tics, grazing history, and cumulative effects from other human uses and natural water-shed processes. Watershed changes due to grazing are more difficult to document thandirect livestock impacts to the riparian and aquatic communities due to their long-term,incremental nature, the time lag and geographic distance between cause and effect, andthe numerous confounding variables. Despite this, the relationship between livestockgrazing in a watershed and effects to river systems is widely recognized and docu-mented (Leopold 1946, Blackburn 1984, Skovlin 1984, Chaney et al. 1990, Platts 1990,Bahre 1991, Meehan 1991, Fleischner 1994, Myers and Swanson 1995). Althoughwatershed effects vary depending upon the number and type of livestock, the length andseason of use, and the type of grazing management, the mechanisms remain the sameand the effects vary only in extent of area and severity (Blackburn 1984, Johnson 1992).

Livestock grazing may alter the vegetative composition of the watershed (Martin 1975,Savory 1988, Vallentine 1990, Popolizio et al. 1994). It may cause soil compaction anderosion, alter soil chemistry, and cause loss of cryptobiotic soil crusts (Harper andMarble 1988, Marrs et al. 1989, Orodho et al. 1990, Schlesinger et al. 1990, Bahre1991). Cumulatively, these alterations contribute to increased erosion and sedimentinput into streams (Johnson 1992, Weltz and Wood 1994). They also contribute tochanges in infiltration and runoff patterns, thus increasing the volume of flood flows whiledecreasing their duration and decreasing the volume of low flows while increasing theirduration (Brown et al. 1974, Gifford and Hawkins 1978, Johnson 1992). Groundwaterlevels may decline and surface flows may decrease or cease (Chaney et al. 1990,Elmore 1992). Development of livestock watersimay alter surface flows by impound-ment, spring capture, or runoff capture.

Physical Riparian Destruction and Alteration - Cattle presence on streambanks destabi-lizes streambanks through chiseling, sloughing, compaction, and collapse, and results inwider and shallower stream channels (Armour 1977, Platts and Nelson 1985b, Platts1990, Meehan 1991). This causes progressive adjustments in other variables of hydrau-lic geometry and results in changes to the configuration of pools, runs, riffles, and back-waters; levels of fine sediments and substrate embeddedness; availability of instream

AP11-77

APPENDIX 11

cover; and other fish habitat factors (Bovee 1982, Rosgen 1994). It also changes theway in which flood flows interact with the stream channel and may exacerbate flooddamage to banks, channel bottoms, and riparian vegetation. These impacts occur at alllevels of cattle presence, but increase as number of livestock and length of time thecattle are present increase (Marlow and Pogacnik 1985). Damage begins-to occuralmost immediately upon entry of the cattle onto the streambanks and use of riparianzones may be highest immediately following entry of cattle into a pasture (Goodman etal. 1989, Platts and Nelson 1985a). Vegetation and streambank recovery from long restperiods may be lost within a short period following grazing reentry (Duff 1979). Bankconfiguration, soil type, and soil moisture content influence the amount of damage withmoist soil being more vulnerable to damage (Marlow and Pogacnik 1985, Platts 1990).Cattle presence on streambanks can retard rehabilitation of previous damage as well ascause additional alteration (Platts and Nelson 1985a).

Cattle grazing in and on riparian vegetation may cause changes in the structure, func-tion, and composition of the riparian community (Szaro and Pase 1983, Warren andAnderson 1987, Platts 1990, Schulz and Leininger 1990). Species diversity and struc-tural diversity may be substantially reduced and normative species may be introducedthrough spread in cattle feces. Reduction in riparian vegetation quantity and health andshifts from deep rooted to shallow rooted vegetation contribute to bank destabilizationand collapse and production of fine sediment (Meehan 1991). Loss of riparian shaderesults in increased fluctuation in water temperatures with higher summer and lowerwinter temperatures (Karr and Schlosser 1977, Platts and Nelson 1989). Litter is re-duced by trampling and churning into the soil, thus reducing cover for soil, plants, andwildlife (Schulz and Leininger 1990). The capacity of the riparian vegetation to filtersediment and pollutants to prevent their entry into the river and to build streambanks isreduced (Lowrance et al. 1984, Elmore 1992). Channel erosion in the form ofdowncutting or lateral expansion may result (BLM 1990).

Physical damage to streambanks and channel in conjunction with loss or reduction ofriparian vegetation may change the timing and magnitude of streamflow (Stabler 1985,Meehan 1991). Flood flows may increase in volume and decrease in duration and lowflows may decrease in volume and increase in duration. Cattle trampling and grazing ofthe riparian corridor can make banks and vegetated more susceptible to severe damageduring catastrophic flooding.

As with watershed effects, livestock grazing effects on streambanks, channels, andriparian vegetation vary depending upon the number and type of livestock, the lengthand season of use, and the type of grazing management; however, the mechanismsremain the same and the effects vary only in extent of area and severity (Kinch 1989,Vallentine 1990, Platts 1990, Elmore 1992, Kovalchik and Elmore 1992, Chaney et al.1993, Popolizio et al. 1994). Although success in improving and restoring streambanks,

AP11-78

APPENDIX 11

channels, riparian vegetation, and fish habitat has been achieved under various grazingsystems (Chaney et aL 1990, Dagget 1992, Elmore 1992, Myers and Swanson 1 995),the greatest success has been achieved with exclusion of livestock in the riparian andstream corridor (Claire and Storch 1977, Duff 1 979, Van Velson 1979, Rickard andCushing 1982, Platts and Nelson 1985b, Stuber 1985, Warren and Anderson 1987,Schulz and Leininger 1990, Prange 1993). Exclusion or removal of livestock use isknown as “rest” under various grazing system terminologies.

The BLM manages grazing on about 1.4 million acres of uplands (about 10 percent ofthe RRA). The uplands occur mostly in Chaves and Lincoln counties, and most, exceptlands in Lincoln County that drain into the Tularosa Basin, are within the Pecos Riverwatershed. The BLM manages grazing on 6,700 acres (10 percent) of the Pecos Riverfloodplain in the RRA.

The RRA administers 29 grazing allotments that include lands in the Pecos Rive 1 00-year floodplain. For many of these allotments, public lands make up the minority of theownership. Of the 29 allotments, 18 have 80 acres or less of public lands in the1 00-year floodplain. Private lands usually surround these small parcels. Range conditionsare rated as fair for 16 of the allotments and as good for the other13. Range conditiontrends are given as up for 6 allotments, static for 22 allotments, and down for 1 allot-ment. Of the 11 allotments with more than 80 acres, 7 are in good condition and 4 infair. Ten have static trends while 1, the largest allotment and adjacent to the BLNWR, isin an upward trend and is currently in good condition.

Livestock grazing on BLM lands along the Pecos River is authorized on an allotmentbasis. All grazing is by cow/calf operations on a yearlong permit. Grazing regimesinclude rest rotation, seasonal, and yearlong in areas of large pastures. Normally one ortwo pastures of an allotment have a portion of the Pecos River within their boundaries.Generally, pastures that include river frontage are grazed in the fall, winter, and earlyspring months. Cattle naturally migrate to the uplands in the summer due to vegetativepreferences and to avoid annoying insects. Sometimes cattle are moved out of riparianareas because of poisonous plants such as rayless goldenrod.

The BLM’s past, present, and future livestock management practices are intended toimprove the condition of riparian and upland areas. Techniques for this include develop-ment of water sources away from the river, vegetation treatments to reduce brush spe-cies and encourage herbaceous plants that protect the soils, fencing to facilitate rotationof cattle between pastures, and establishment of grazing management systems. Theeffectiveness of these techniques is determined through vegetation monitoring studies,which use permanent sites to track vegetation changes and to determine proper stock-

AP11-79

APPENDIX 11

ing rates on the grazing allotments.

Absolute control of riparian areas is limited due to the mixture of land ownerships andthe small percentage of Federal lands in most areas. Geographically, the breaks alongthe river make fencing difficult and large fluctuations in water flow make it difficult tomaintain fencing across the river.

The BA indicates there are about 1,300 acres of riparian areas on public lands along thePecos River in the RRA. About 500 acres are in the proposed North Pecos and Over-flow Wetlands ACECS. The riparian areas are all classified in the BA as being in a faircondition with a static trend. All but 120 acres are allotted for grazing.

The Roswell DRMP/EIS includes guidance recommending construction of streambankstabilization structures, native riparian plantings, establishment of riparian pastures, saltcedar control, and spring and drainage protection on the Pecos River for fisheries andaquatic habitat management. There is no schedule of specific actions or timetable in theRoswell DRMP/EIS. Instead, the implementation of specific actions is guided throughannual activity plans or through recommendations for mitigation contained in EAs orEiSs.

Special Management Areas (SMAS) on public lands are designated through RMPs oramendments. These areas are designated to place management emphasis on somesignificant resource within the SMA. The Roswell DRMP/EIS proposes the establish-ment of two SMAs along the Pecos River primarily for the protection of riparian areasand Pecos bluntnose shiner habitat. The Overflow Wetlands ACEC comprises 6,814acres, with 2,987 acres being public, 1,720 acres being State, and 2,107 acres beingprivate. The management goal is to ‘Protect the biological and scenic values of theOverflow Wetlands WHA, which provides critical habitat for T/E fish species and sup-ports a significant riparian/wetiand plant community. The DRMP/EIS describes variousmanagement prescriptions to meet the management goal, which include closing theACEC to future oil and gas leasing, enlarging the present grazing exclusion area byabout 640 acres, adjusting livestock stocking rates and season of use, and limiting ORVuse. The North Pecos River ACEC comprises 6,400 acres, with 3,360 acres beingpublic, 1,260 acres being State, and 1,880 acres being private. The management goal isto “Protect the biological and scenic quahties of-the Pecos River ACEC, which providescritical habitat for T/E fish species and supports a significant riparian plant community.The DRMP/EIS describes various management prescriptions to meet the managementgoal, which include closure to future oil and gas leasing or designation of no surfaceoccupancy, modifying grazing practices, doing salt cedar control, and limiting ORV use.The DRMP/EIS gives no timetable for implementing the management prescriptions.Again, such actions are included in annual work plans rather than in the RMP itself.

AP11-80

APPENDIX 11

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are those effects of future non-Federal (State, local government, orprivate) activities on endangered or threatened species or critical habitat that are rea-sonably certain to occur in the foreseeable future. The numerous actions that maycontribute to portions of the Pecos River being partially or nonsupportive of its desig-nated uses provide examples of ongoing or future non-Federal activities that may affectthe Pecos bluntnose shiner. These actions include, but are not limited to, road mainte-nance, construction, recreation, land disposal, resource extraction, agriculture,hydromodification, municipal point sources, silviculture, unauthorized spills, and roadrunoff. Because the BLM manages only about 15 percent of the surface in the RRA,non-Federal actions can be expected to have the greater overall influence on waterquality. Future Federal actions are subject to the consultation requirements establishedin section 7, and, therefore, are not considered cumulative in this analysis.

Conclusion

The Service has evaluated the potential threats and the relative importance of the Pecosbluntnose shiner that occur in the RRA. Sampling indicates that the best remaininghabitat for the bluntnose shiner occurs in the RRA and maintenance of this habitat iscrucial to survival of the species. The RRA contains 90 percent of the designated criticalhabitat for the species. The principal threat to the Pecos bluntnose shiner is manage-ment of water flows in the river, an activity under the control of agencies other than BLM.Another threat to the Pecos bluntnose shiner is degradation of water quality in the PecosRiver. Activities near the river and in the watershed can contribute to water qualitydegradation and the RRA has management responsibility for some of these activities.

The Service has identified the leasing and subsequent development of oil and gasresources in the Pecos River 100-year floodplain as an activity under RRA managementresponsibility that has the potential to adversely affect water quality and thus the Pecosbluntnose shiner. The RRA administers the mineral estate for about 10,400 acres (15percent) of the 100-year floodplain in the RRA, of which 6,900 acres (66 percent) arepresently leased. There has been relatively little development of these leases to date,with only six active wells. No ruptures or releases of (>il-,-gas, or byproducts haveoccurred-from these wells- and- protective measures developed by BLM are designed tominimize the likelihood of these events. Any future Applications to Drill on existingFederal leases on BLM-managed surface in the 100-year floodplain will, when theCarlsbad RMP/EIS is finalized, include COAs number 109-118 for floodplain develop-ment and other COAs to protect the floodplain. These COAs will greatly reduce, but maynot completely eliminate, accidental spills of petroleum or petroleum byproducts, and willhelp contain any spills for easier cleanup if accidents occur.

AP11-81

APPENDIX 11

Under the Environmental Assessment No. NM-066-95-096, Interim Oil and Gas Leasingand Development, Roswell Resource Area (BLM 1995), there is currently no leasing in100-year ffoodplains. When the Roswell RMP/EIS is finalized, leasing may resume insome of the areas not being leased under the interim EA. For example, it is intended toresume leasing in 100-year floodplains, but apply No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipula-tions to any leases sold. There are, however, several exceptions to the NSO stipulationstha-t could contribute to degradation of floodplains and increase the possibility of pollut-ants entering Pecos bluntnose shiner habitat.

The BLM follows the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in evaluating the impactsof oil or gas development projects. Through these evaluations, COAS, including thestandard COAs found in Appendix 4 of the Carlsbad RMP/EIS, are applied to theprojects to protect sensitive resources. The BLM conducts compliance monitoring dur-ing projects, and monitoring of endangered species or their habitat can be included ifconsidered necessary. The NEPA process, however, is applied on a project-by-projectbasis and may not adequately consider cumulative impacts, particularly if the impactsresult from projects of a different type or result from projects elsewhere in the water-shed.

The Service has further identified grazing management in both uplands and riparianareas as an activity that has the potential to adversely affect water quality and thus thePecos bluntnose shiner. Existing plans and the Roswell DRMP/EIS provide direction toimplement measures to maintain and improve range conditions. Among these measuresare forage utilization standards, range projects like fencing and water development,vegetation treatments, and adjustments in grazing regimes or stocking rates. Changesin use allocations are made on the basis of Tange monitoring data. However, among thegrazed lands in the RRA, there are several watersheds that have been identified in theRoswell DRMP/EIS as being susceptible to severe long-term soil loss or to severe gullyerosion. The New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (1994) identifies siltation,reduction of riparian vegetation, and streambank destabilization as among the probablecauses for the Pecos River in the RRA not supporting its designated use as a warmwater fishery, and identifies rangeland agriculture as a probable source of the nonsup-port.

Bureau of Land Management - Lands in the RRA are subject to other multiple usesbesides the::oit and. -gas development and grazing just-:discussed. These larzds areopen to recreational use; the sale of mineral materials such as caliche, sand, and gravel;the establishment of ROWs for roads, electric utilities, or pipelines; and other minor uses.These activities combined with oil and gas, and grazing may have aggregate effectsbeyond what would be anticipated if the activities occurred separately. Project-by-projectNEPA analysis may be inadequate to detect these aggregate effects.

AP11-82

APPENDIX 11

The only self-sustaining population of Pecos bluntnose shiner occurs in the Pecos Riverfrom Cedar Creek to Roswell, a distance of about 50 miles, all within the RRA. If thispopulation is lost, the species will likely become extinct. Additionally, if the species is torecover and be removed from the endangered species list, more habitat in the PecosRiver will need to support a viable bluntnose shiner population. The most likely part ofthe river to support shiners in the future is in the RRA.

The RRA needs to know and understand the status of the Pecos bluntnose shiner in itsResource Area so it can alleviate threats to the species, particularly threats from cumu-lative actions that are not easily detected through project-by-project impact analysis.The RRA currently relies on data from other agencies to fill the need for status informa-tion for the shiner. It obtains water quality information from the State and fish surveyinformation from the Service. This information is useful, but may not adequately fillBLM’s information needs.

The Roswell DRMP/EIS, under the section for Special Status Species Habitat Manage-ment, lacks direction to monitor the general status of threatened or endangered speciesin the Resource Area. Although project-specific monitoring is directed elsewhere in theDRMP/EIS, the absence of any such projects in the habitat of a threatened or endan-gered species could mean the Resource Area might never determine the status ofthreatened or endangered species for which it has management responsibility. TheService realizes that monitoring, beyond projectspecific monitoring, is being done forsome species, and that the BLM cooperates with the State, the Service, and others inmonitoring efforts. But, monitoring is a critical component of managing threatened andendangered species, and in the absence of assistance from other agencies, the BLMshould have clear direction that it will accomplish the task itself for species for which ithas management responsibility.

The Roswell DRMP/EIS, under the section for Special Status Species Habitat Manage-ment, does direct that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plans will be imple-mented. In the Pecos Bluntnose Shiner Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992), task 1.16states, ‘Monitor existing populations and associated aquatic habitats.’ The task is given apriority number of 1 meaning that the Service considers the task to be, “An action thatmust be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from declining irreversibly.”The responsible agencies given in the recovery plan for accomplishing -the monitoringtask are the Service, the -New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and the BR. But,the bluntnose shiner was listed in 1987, and the recovery plan was not finalized until 1992, meaning there were 5 years when no agency was assigned monitoring responsibil-ity. If the RRA had direction within its RMPs to monitor threatened or endangered spe-cies, it could have initiated monitoring directly after the species was listed rather thanwaiting for the recovery plan to provide guidance.

AP11-83

APPENDIX 11

The RRA manages programs along the Pecos River and in the Pecos River watershedthat may adversely affect the Pecos bluntnose shiner. Further, these programs mayhave aggregate, cumulative, or synergistic effects that are not easily detected whenproject impacts are analyzed separately. The most direct way to determine the effects ofBLM resource management programs on the Pecos bluntnose shiner is to monitor thespecies and its habitat directly. The Roswell RMPs and the Roswell DRMP/EIS lack anydirection to monitor the ongoing status of the Pecos bluntnose shiner or its habitat.Therefore, it is the Service’s opinion that implementation of the Roswell RMPs and theproposed implementation of the Roswell DRMP/EIS are likely to jeopardize the contin-ued existence of the Pecos bluntnose shiner.

Similarly, the lack of RMP direction to monitor and detect any adverse changes in thecritical habitat for the Pecos bluntnose shiner is likely to lead to the adverse modificationof Pecos bluntnose shiner critical habitat.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE FOR PECOS BLUNTNOSE SHINER

Regulations (50 CFR §402.02) implementing section 7 define reasonable and prudentalternatives as alternative actions, identified during formal consultation, that (1) can beimplemented in a manner consistent with the.intended purpose of the action, (2) can beimplemented consistent with the scope of the action agency’s legal authority and juris-diction, (3) are economically and technologically feasible, and (4) would, the Servicebelieves, avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to the continued existence of listed species ordestruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Therefore, jeopardy to the Pecosbluntnose shiner and adverse modification of its critical habitat would not be likely toresult if all elements of the following reasonable and prudent alternative are imple-mented:

1 . Establish a program in the Roswell RMP, or in guidance issued under the author-ity of the RMP to monitor the status of threatened and endangered species in th eRRA, with the type and intensity of monitoring for each species being determined bysuch variables as abundance of the species in the Resource Area, habits and habitatof the species, and degree of sensitivity of the species to habitat perturbations.Within this program, establish a monitoring program for the Pecos bluntnose shinerand its critical habitat in the RRA. The Service will assist the RRA indesigning aprogram that will meet-the needs of detecting adverse impacts to the Pecosbluntnose shiner so the impacts can be promptly corrected.

2. The Roswell DRMP/EIS directs the initiation of several activities that will improvehabitat for Pecos bluntnose shiner. These activities include such things as implemen-tation of management prescriptions for the newly established North Pecos River andOverflow Wetlands ACECS, and development of strategic watershed managementplans for watersheds susceptible to severe long-term soil losses or gully erosion.The scheduling of specific tasks to carry out the general guidance of the Roswell

AP11-84

APPENDIX 11

DRMP/EIS is done at the annual activity planning level. Give priority in annual activ-ity planning to activities that will most benefit Pecos bluntnose shiner habitat. TheService suggests giving priority to implementing management prescriptions for theNorth Pecos River ACEC and developing and implementing a strategic watershedmanagement plan for the Pecos River (from confluence of Yeso Creek to Bitter LakeNWR).

3. Continue the policy contained in the Interim Oil and Gas Leasing andDevelopment EA (BLM 1995) of selling no new oil and gas leases on lands with 100-year f loodplains, unless or until BLM can demonstrate that other mandatory protec-tive measures will provide equivalent protection.

4. The Roswell DRMP/EIS (BLM 1994) contains proposed surface use and occu-pancy requirements for oil and gas activities in floodplains. It states, ‘No surfaceoccupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within 200 meters of the outeredges of 100-year floodplains, to protect riparian areas’ (Appendix 3). Change thewording of this sentence to indicate the purpose of the policy is to protect the integ-rity of the 100-year floodplain, not just riparian areas within the floodplain.

5. Several possible exceptions are identified for the no surface occupancy policyidentified above. Eliminate any exceptions in Pecos bluntnose shiner habitat thatcould contribute to the. degradation of floodplain characteristics and water quality forthe shiner.

6. The Roswell Resource Area Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Envi-ronmental Impact Statement (BLM 1997) contains 141 COAs (Appendix 4) for oil andgas operations and other activities. The COAs number 109-118 apply to floodplaindevelopment. Compile these COAS, other COAs that may apply to floodplain devel-opment, and any other applicable information into a single guidance document foravailability to floodplain lease holders.

Pecos Gambusia

Status of the Sggcies (R@ge-wide)

Information on the Pecos gambusia (Gambusia nobilis) is taken primarily from the PecosGambusia Recovery Plan (USFWS 1983) and from Echelle et al. (1989). The Pecosgambusia was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of1969, on October 13, 1970. It became an endangered species under the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973 when that legislation was enacted. No critical habitat has beendesignated. The principal reasons for its listing were loss of habitat and inability to

AP11-85

APPENDIX 11

interact successfully with introduced non-native fish. It has declined to the point where itnow occupies only four major localities and certain populations have declined consider-ably.

Pecos gambusia is a small fish 25-40 millimeters long in the iivebearer family(Poeciliidae). Members of this family have strong sexual dimorphism; the anal fin ofmales is modified into a gonopodium, an intromittent organ used in copulation.Gynopodial structures distinguish Pecos gambusia from other livebearers within itsnative range. Color patterns and morphometric characters are also useful in makingpreliminary field identifications. Pecos gambusia have an arched back while the backs ofthe other two gambusia species within its range, mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) andlargespring gambusia (Gambusia geiserl) are relatively straight. Pecos gambusia hasthe margins of the scale pockets outlined in black, spots are normally absent on thecaudal fin, and females have a black area on the abdomen that surrounds the anus andanal fin. The other two species of gambusia lack this combination of characteristics.

The Pecos gambusia is endemic to the Pecos River basin in southeastern New Mexicoand western Texas. Historically, it occurred at least as far north as near Fort Sumner,New Mexico, and as far south as Fort Stockton, Texas. Presently, it is restricted tosprings and their outflows on the western slope of the Pecos River drainage. Naturalpopulations in New Mexico occur in several springs and isolated gypsum sinkholes atBLNWR in Chaves County, and in Blue Spring, a 2.5 mile long spring run that flows intothe Black River near Black River Village in Eddy County. Natural populations in Texasoccur in the headwaters of Phantom Lake and in Giffin and East Sandia springs nearBalmorhea in Reeves County, and in Leon Creek and the Diamond Y Spring outflownorth of Fort Stockton in Pecos Courity.

In addition to the natural populations, introduced populations occur at BLNWR at othersinkholes, and at the Salt Creek Wilderness Area in Ink Pot, an isolated gypsum sink-hole. The introduced stock that once occurred in a series of artificial pools at the LivingDesert State Park near Carlsbad has been extirpated.

The habitat for Pecos gambusia is predominately springheads and spring runs. Popula-tions may also occur in areas with little spring influence but with abundant overheadcover, in sedge covered marshes, and in gypsum sinkholes. These areas are seldomsubjected to destructive scouring floods. Pecos gambusia have been observed to occurfrom the surface to depths of 3 meters.

The genus Gambusia is primarily subtropical. Pecos gambusia occur principally at thelower elevations and more thermally stable localities (ie., springs) within its geographicrange. All populations occur between 2,700 feet and 3,900 feet elevation, a range of1,200 feet. The range of temperature tolerance has been reported by Gehibach et al.(1978) as an average critical thermal maxima of 38.1-39.3 degrees centigrade, and

AP11-86

APPENDIX 11

thermal preferenda of 21-25 degrees centigrade in the morning and 26-30 degreescentigrade in the afternoon. No data are available on cold tolerances of the species.

Pecos gambusia can tolerate a range of salinities. Total dissolved solid concentrations atoccupied sites vary from 1 to 30 parts per thousand.

Threats

Water withdrawals from the Pecos River basin for irrigation and the construction of damsfor flood control and irrigation have affected the Pecos River for more than 100 years.Extensive groundwater pumping of aquifers surrounding the Pecos River has causedsome springs to cease flowing and reduced the flow of others. Extirpations of Pecosgambusia are documented from Comanche Springs and North Spring River due to failedspring flows. Other undocumented extirpations are likely.

Water contamination at occupied sites is a considerable concern. Surface contaminationcould come from various sources ranging from accidental spills of pesticides to inten-tional vandalism. Possibilities of aquifer contamination range from surface pollutants inaquifer recharge zones to subsurface contamination through oil and gas drilling activi-ties.

Native fishes, which have evolved in communities with low species diversity, are oftenunable to compete with introduced species. The effects of competition on Pecos gambu-sia are well known and available data indicate that they are disappearing in theBalmorhea area because of the expansion of larglaspring gambusia, a non-native intro-duced into the springs in the early 1930’s.

Predation on Pecos gambusia could be a major limiting factor in areas where no sub-merged vegetation or shallow areas provide cover from predators. The virtual absenceof Pecos gambusia from the head pool of Diamond Y Spring may be attributable partly tothe presence of green sunfish and largemouth bass.

Environmental Baseline for Pecos Gambusia (in the Action Area)

Regulations implementing-the Act (50 CFR 402.02) define the environmental baselineas the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other humanactivities in the action area. Also included in the environmental baseline are the antici-pated impacts of all proposed Federal projects that have undergone section 7 consulta-tion, and the impacts of State and private actions that are contemporaneous with theconsultation in progress.

AP11-87

APPENDIX 11

Groundwater pumping for agricultural irrigation by private entities is the major activityaffecting the environmental baseline for Pecos gambusia. Groundwater pumping hascaused a number of springs to cease flowing and has reduced the flow of others withinthe historic range of Pecos gambusia. Several spring failures, resulting in Pecos gambu-sia extirpations, are directly attributable to groundwater pumping. The most seriouseffects have occurred in Texas. At BLNWR, a lowered water table has isolated thegypsum sinkhole springs from each other. Formerly, the water table was near the sur-face and there was some connecting flow between the springs.

Because of the limited distribution of Pecos gambusia, there have been few section 7consultations conducted for this species. The EPA began consulting with the Service inthe early 1980’s on the effects to threatened and endangered species from the registra-tion of specific pesticides. This evolved into nationwide formal consultations on clustersof pesticides in the late 1980’s. A jeopardy opinion was reached for the Pecos gambusiain Chaves County, New Mexico, for the registration of 52 pesticides. In New Mexico,removal of jeopardy was to be accomplished through the establishment of a State pro-gram for the protection of threatened and endangered species from pesticides. To date,no State program has been implemented and the best way to deal with this highly com-plex issue is still being studied.

The Roswell District of BLM has consulted informally with the Service on potential oiland gas drilling and development in the Pecos River floodplain adjacent to the northernboundary of BLNWR (Cons. #2-22-93-1-350, July 15, 1993, and Cons. #2-22-94-1-028,May 15, 1996). The proposed development of seven gas wells was withdrawn by theapplicant. The same applicant recently submitted a proposal to drill three shallow ex-ploratory wells.

Status of the Pecos Gambusia (in the Action Area)

The occupied habitat of Pecos gambusia in the RRA includes 11 springs and sinkholeson BLNWR and 1 sinkhole, the Inkpot, on the Salt Creek Wilderness Area. The BLNWRis one of the four main occupied sites for the species. The 12 populations in the RRArepresent 63 percent of the currently extant populations. All of the populations in theRRA are on lands under the surface management of the Service. The RRA is respon-sible for minerals management-of these areas.

The RRA management plans guide numerous BLM-managed programs (discussedabove). Among these is the leasing and subsequent development of oil and gas re-sources on lands in Federal ownership and on some lands in private surface ownership.The Roswell DRMP/EIS proposes closing the Refuge and Wilderness to future oil andgas leasing. But, there are three ‘grandfathered’ developed Federal oil or gas leases onBLNWR. There are leases directly southeast of the Refuge in conjunction with the

AP11-88

APPENDIX 11

South Bitter Lake Oil Field and directly north of the Refuge in the Pecos River floodplain.Three wells are proposed to be drilled on leases directly north of the Refuge.


Indirect effects are those that are caused by, or result from, the proposed action, and arelater in time, but reasonably certain to occur. Interdependent actions have no indepen-dent utility apart from the action under consideration. Interrelated actions are part of alarger action, and are dependent on the larger action for their justification. The indirecteffects and interrelated actions that result from oil and gas leasing were discussed in thePecos bluntnose shiner section of this document.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are those effects of future non-Federal fstate, local government, orprivate) activities on endangered or threatened species or critical habitat that are rea-sonably certain to occur in the foreseeable future. Urban and suburban development innortheastern Roswell likely will continue to move toward BLNWR. This will increase thepossibility of groundwater pollution from septic leach fields and will eliminate the presentbuffer of undeveloped land adj@cent to the refuge. The pumping of groundwater foragricultural and personal use can be expected to continue with the potential of loweringthe level of springs that support Pecos gambusia. There is potential for oil and gasdevelopment on private and State lands adjacent to BLNWR. Some of these wells couldpenetrate the aquifer that feed the springs on BLNWR and introduce the possibility ofsubsurface water contamination.

Conclusion

The Service has evaluated the potential threats and the relative importance of the Pecosgambusia that occur in the RRA. The 12 populations in the RRA represent 63 percent ofthe currently extant populations. The presence of these populations in a relatively iso-lated part of BLNWR may provide the best security for the species of any of the fourmajor population areas. Principal threats to Pecos gambusia are loss of spring flow in itsisolated habitats and destruction of habitat through introduction of predators or changesin water quality. Several of these threats are outside RRA’s-management control. How-ever, RRA is responsible for management of oil and gas leasing and development thathas the potential to adversely affect Pecos gambusia. The Roswell DRMP/EIS proposesthe closure of the Refuge and the Salt Creek Wilderness Area to future oil and gasleasing. But, there are presently three developed Federal leases on the southeastcorner of the BLNWR. There are also leases adjacent to the Refuge, particularly onesin the 100-year floodplain of the Pecos River directly north of the refuge. Oil and gasdevelopment in the 100-year floodplain carries the risk of surface spills that could sinkinto the aquifer and the risk of overland transport of contaminants during floods. If well

AP11-89

APPENDIX 11

heads are broken or damaged by flood debris, serious contamination of the river couldresult. The aquifers that supply water to the springs on BLNWR and the Salt CreekWilderness Area are porous from voids in the limestone and gypsum through whichwater flows. Drilling through these voids creates the possibility of introducing drillingfluids into void areas and later the possibility of petrochemical contamination if casingfailures occur. Existing management plans and the Roswell DRMP/EIS apply variousleasing stipulations, lease notices, and conditions of approval to avoid or mitigate poten-tial adverse impacts of oil or gas lease development. These measures will greatly re-duce, but may not completely eliminate, accidental spills of petroleum or petroleumbyproducts, or casing failures that could contaminate aquifers.

Given the limited habitat of Pecos gambusia, a single accident in the wrong place couldextirpate either the Refuge populations or the Salt Creek Wilderness population. If thepopulations on the Refuge were lost, it could reduce the species below the level ofpossible recovery. Introductions and reintroductions have had variable success, and cannot be counted on to replace lost populations. It is essential to the survival of Pecosgambusia that all present populations be maintained. Therefore, it is the Service’sopinion that oil and gas leasing and development directed under current managementplans and proposed under the Roswell DRMP/EIS would be likely to jeopardize thecontinued existence of the Pecos gambusia.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE FOR PECOS GAMBUSIA

Regulations (50 CFR §402.02) implementing section 7 define reasonable and prudentalternatives as alternative actions, identified during formal consultation, that (1) can beimplemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action, (2) can beimplemented consistent with the scope of the action agency’s legal authority and juris-diction, (3) are economically and technologically feasible, and (4) would, the Servicebelieves, avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to the continued existence of listed species ordestruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Therefore, jeopardy to the Pecosgambusia would not be likely to result if all elements of the following reasonable andprudent alternative are implemented:

1. Use the best available hydrologic information to map the source and movement ofwater that supplies springs occupied by Pecos gambusia on the BLNWR and the SaltCreek Wilderness. Close the lands within the mapped area to oil and gas leasingunless or until BLM can demonstrate that mandatory protective measures will ensureno aquifer contamination.

AP11-90

APPENDIX 11

2. For existing leases within the mapped area, apply appropriate measures takenfrom BLM’s “Practices for Oil and Gas Drilling and Operations in Cave and KarstAreas’ and any other appropriate measures to ensure no contamination of water thatsupplies springs occupied by Pecos gambusia on the BLNWR and the Salt CreekWilderness. Use monitoring procedures that will detect any surface or subsurfaceaccidents soon enough that they can be discovered and corrected before significantharm to the aquifer occurs.

3. Continue the policy contained in the Interim Oil and Gas Leasing andDevelopment EA (BLM 1995) of selling no new oil and gas leases on lands with 1 00-year floodplains, unless or until BLM can demonstrate that other mandatory protec-tive measures will provide equivalent protection.

4. The Roswell DRMP/EIS (BLM 1994) contains proposed surface use and occu-pancy requirements for oil and gas activities in floodplains. It states, “No surfaceoccupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within 200 meters of the outeredges of 100-year floodplains, to protect riparian areas’ (Appendix 3). Change thewording of this sentence to indicate the purpose of the policy is to protect the integ-rity of the 100-year floodplain, not just riparian areas within the floodplain.

5 . Several possible exceptions are identified for the no surface occupancy policyidentified above. Eliminate any exceptions that could contribute to potential contami-nation of Pecos gambusia habitat.

6. The Roswell Resource Area Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Envi-ronmental Impact Statement (BLM 1997) contains 141 COAs (Appendix 4) for oil andgas operations and other activities. The COAs number 109-118 apply to floodplaindevelopment. Compile these COAS, other COAs that may apply to floodplain devel-opment, and any other applicable information into a single guidance document foravailability to floodplain lease holders.

Interior Least Tern

Status of the Sgecies (Ran-ge-wide)

Much of this information on the interior least tern (Stema antillarum) is from the InteriorPopulation of the Least Tem Recovery Plan (USFWS 1990). The interior least tern waslisted as an endangered species on June 27, 1985 (50 FR 21 784) in the states of Ar-kansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana (Mississippi Riverand its tributaries north of Baton Rouge), Mississippi (Mississippi River), Missouri, Mon-tana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, andTexas (except within 80 km of the Gulf Coast). The interior least tern is listed as endan-gered under State laws in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Tennes-

AP11-91

APPENDIX 11

see, Texas, Kansas, Kentucky, New Mexico (group 2), Oklahoma, and South Dakota.Although not legislatively designated as endangered in North Dakota, the interior leasttern is regarded as endangered by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department andconservation organizations within the State.

The interior least tern, as the name implies, is -the smallest North American tern (ap-proximately 9 inches with about a 20 inch wingspan). Adults are characterized by a grayback, a. white belly and neck with a black nape and cap, a white forehead, yellow legs,and a yellow bill with a black tip. Juveniles are buffy-gray above with pinkish bill and legsand no black cap, but with black patches around the eyes. First summer individualshave a black bill, legs, and nape, with a gray back. Least terns have a short forked tailand a black leading edge on the outer wing. Jackson (1976) described the developmen-tal stages of least tern chic s. Massey and Atwood (1978) and Thompson and Slack(1983) presented further details on plumage development and variation.

The interior least tern is migratory, with a breeding range extending from Texas to Mon-tana and from eastern Colorado and New Mexico to southern Indiana. The breedingrange includes the Red, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio and Rio Grande riversystems (American Ornithologists’ Union 1957, Anderson 1971, Coues 1874, Burroughs1961, Hardy 1957, Youngworth 1930, Ducey 1985). Incidental occurrences of least ternshave been reported in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Arizona (Campbell1935, Janssen 1986, Jung 1935, Mayfield 1943, Monson and Phillips 1981, Phillips et al.1964).

In New Mexico, interior least terns breed annually at or in the vicinity of BLNWR. Theyare not known to breed elsewhere in the State. In the summer of 1996, interior leastterns were observed at Dexter National Fish Hatchery (DNFH) about 15 miles south ofBLNWR. Individual least terns show up regularly at sites in central and western NewMexico primarily during spring migration. They are regul vagrants at Bosque del ApacheNWR in the Rio Grande, often in association with migrating Forster’s terns (Stemaforsteri) and/or black terns (Chlidonias niger). They are usually found feeding androosting in constructed ponds on the Refuge, but possibly use the river if the water levelsare low and prey abundant. It is unlikely that least terns will use the Rio Grande channelduring higher flows due to the lack of exposed sand bars for roosting habitat and diffi-culty feeding. Vagrant least terns remain in the area for varying lengths of time. TheNew Mexico Department of Game and Fish considers the least tern to be a migrantalong the Pecos River in Eddy County and it has occurred as a vagrant in Catron, RioArriba, Doiia Ana, Socorro, and Otero counties.

AP11-92

APPENDIX 11

Life History

Interior least terns feed on small fish in shallow waters of rivers, streams, and lakes.Other least terns are known to feed on crustaceans, insects, mollusks, and annelids(Whitman 1988). Least terns usually feed close to their nesting sites and forage byhovering and diving over standing or flowing water. Moseley (1976) believed least ternsto be opportunistic foragers, exploiting any fish within a certain size range. Radiotelemetered least terns at Salt Plains NWR often traveled 3.2-6.4 km to feed (Talent andHill 1985)

Interior least terns spend about 4-5 months at their breeding sites. They arrive at breed-ing areas from late April to early June (Faanes 1983, Hardy 1957, USFWS 1987b,Wilson 1984, Wycoff 1960, Youngworth 1930). Courtship behavior of least terns issimilar throughout North America. Courtship occurs at the nesting site or at somedistance from the nest site (Tomkins 1959). It includes the fish flight, an aerial displayinvolving pursuit and maneuvers culminating in a fish transfer on the ground betweentwo displaying birds. Other courtship behaviors include nest scraping, copulation and avariety of postures, and vocalizations (Ducey 1988, Hardy 1957, Wolk 1974).

The nest is a shallow and inconspicuous depression in an oppn sandy area, gravellypatch, or exposed flat. Small stones, twigs, pieces of wood, and debris usually lie nearthe nest. Least terns nest in colonies or ternaries, and nests can be as close as a fewmeters apart or widely scattered up to hundreds of meters (Ducey 1988, Anderson1983, Hardy 1957, Kirsch 1990, Smith and Renken 1990, Stiles 1939). The benefit ofsemi-colonial nesting in least terns may be related to anti-predator behavior and socialfacilitation (Burger 1988). Colonial nesting is not always the case on BLNWR. Individualleast terns have nested on playas located 3.5 miles from the next closest nesting terns(W. Radke, BLNWR, pers. comm. 1997).

Interior least terns usually lay two or three eggs (Anderson 1983, Faanes 1983, Hardy1957, Kirsch 1987-89, Sweet 1985, Smith 1985). The average clutch size for interiorleast terns nesting on the Mississippi River during 1986-1989 was 2.4 eggs (Smith andRenken 1990). Egg-laying begins by late May. Both sexes share incubation, whichgenerally lasts 20-25 days, but ranges from 17-28 days (Faanes 1983, Hardy 1957,Moser 1940, Schwalbach 1988). The precocial behavior of interior-least tern chicks is-’similar to that of other least. terns. They hatch within 1 day of each other, are broodedfor about 1 week, and usually remain within the nesting territory, but wander further asthey mature. Fledgling occurs after 3 weeks, although parental attention continues untilmigration (Hardy 1957, Massey 1972, 1974; Tomkins 1959). Departure from colonies byboth adults and fledglings varies but is usually complete by early September (Bent 1921,Hardy 1957, Stiles 1939).

AP11-93

APPENDIX 11

The interior least tern’s annual reproductive success varies greatly along a given river orshoreline. Because terns use ephemeral habitats, they are susceptible to frequent nestand chick loss. Consequently, there are great local differences in productivity. In 1987,total number of interior least terns reached 4,800 rangewide. This is considerably higherthan the 1,200 interior least terns estimated in a partial survey in 1975 by Downing(1980). There are no comprehensive historical numbers to compare with these figures,although early qualitative descriptions indicate that the interior least tern was rathercommon (Burroughs 1961, Hardy 1957). Increased censusing efforts during the pastfew years probably account for the differences among recent census figures and earliersurveys.

Breeding site fidelity of coastal and California least terns is very high (Atwood et al.1984, Burger 1984). This may also be true for the interior least tern in its riverine envi-ronment. An interior least tern banded in 1988 as a breeding adult on the Missouri Riverin North Dakota returned in 1989 to breed on a Missouri River sandbar in North Dakota(Mayer and Dryer 1990). In the Mississippi River valley, a bird banded as a breedingadult in 1987 was observed nesting at the same site in 1989, and three others bandedas breeding adults in 1988 returned to nest within the same stretch of the MississippiRiver in 1989 (Smith and Renken 1990). Two of those birds had returned to within 4.8km of their former nesting site. Along the Platte River in Nebraska, interior least ternsdemonstrate a strong return pattern to previous nesting sites on the river and at sandand gravel pits regardless of reproductive success (USFWS 1990).

There are also some observed exceptions to strong breeding site fidelity. One interiorleast tern captured in 1987 as a breeding adult at a Mississippi River ternery in Missourihad been banded as a chick in 1980 by Marsha Waldron.- this bird was nesting at a site131 km upriver from its natal Tennessee colony (Smith 1987, Smith and Renken 1990).Boyd and Thompson (1985) reported a breeding Kansas bird that had been banded as achick on the Texas coast.

The interior least tern’s home range during the breeding season usually is limited to areach of river near the sandbar nesting site. At Salt Plains NWR, home ranges werehighly variable, ranging from 11 to 1,015 ha (Talent and Hill 1985). Variation likely wasdue to food limitations and chick loss. The home range may change if renesting birdsselect a different breeding site. At sand and gravel pits along the central Platte River inNebraska, nesting interior least-terns-utilize.-the pit area as well as an adjacent stretchof river. Nesting territories are defended and birds defend any nest in the colony. Indefending the territory, the incubating bird will fly up and give an obvious alarm callfollowed by repeated dives at the intruder (Hardy 1957). The strong defense of territo-ries facilitates locating ternaries during census surveys.

AP11-94

APPENDIX 11

Threats

Barren sandbars, the interior least tern’s most common nesting habitat, were once acommon feature of the Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Ohio, Red, Rio Grande, Platte,and other river systems in the central United States. Sandbars are still common atnormal river stages on the Lower Mississippi River and on portions of other river sys-tems. Sandbars generally are not stable features of the natural river landscape, but areformed, enlarged, disappear, or migrate depending on the dynamic forces of the river.However, stabilization of major rivers to achieve objectives for navigation, hydropower,irrigation, and flood control has destroyed the dynamic nature of these processes (Smithand Stucky 1988). Many remaining sandbars are unsuitable for nesting because ofvegetation.

Channelization, irrigation, and the construction of reservoirs and pools have contributedto the elimination of much of the tern’s sandbar nesting habitat in the Missouri, Arkan-sas, and Red river systems (Funk and Robinson 1974, Hallberg et al. 1979,Sandheinrich and Atchison 1986). Ducey (1985), for example, describes the changes inthe channel characteristics of the Missouri River since the early 1900’s under the Mis-souri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project. The wide and braided characterof the Missouri River, like other rivers, was engineered into a single narrow navigationchannel. Most sandbars virtually disappeared between Sioux City, Iowa and Saint Louis,Missouri (Sandheinrich and Atchison 1986, Smith and Stucky 1988). Where sandbarsstill occur along the Nebraska-South Dakota boundary (Missouri River), approximately3,156 ha of sandbar habitat were lost between 1956 and 1975 (Schmulbach et al. 1981).Sandbars along the Nebraska-Iowa Missouri River boundary have been virtually elimi-nated with the exception of 890 ha inventoried along the 80-km Missouri National Recre-ation Area (Schmulbach et al. 1981).

Regulation of dam discharges pose additional problems for interior least terns nesting inremaining habitats. Summer flow patterns were more predictable before regulation ofriver flows. Peak flows occurred in March from local runoff and then again in May andJune when mountain snowmelt occurred. Flows then declined during the rest of thesummer allowing interior least terns to nest as water levels dropped and sandbars be-came available (Stiles 1939, Hardy 1957). Currently, main stem systems are regulatedfor hydropower, navigation, water supply, flood control, irrigation, and public recreation.The demands are unpredictable and flows can fluctuate greatly. Managed flow regimesdiffer greatly from historic regimes. High flow periods may now extend into the normalnesting period, thereby reducing the quality of existing nest sites and forcing interiorleast terns to initiate nests in poor quality locations. Extreme fluctuations can floodexisting nests, inundate potential nesting areas, or dewater feeding areas. Interior least

AP11-95

APPENDIX 11

terns along the Arkansas River in Oklahoma and Arkansas contend with dam dischargeproblems similar to those on the Missouri River.

Reservoir storage of flows responsible for scouring sandbars has resulted in the en-croachment of vegetation along many rivers such as the Platte River, Nebraska, andgreatly reduced channel width (Currier et al. 1985, O’Brien and Currier 1987, Eschner etal. 1981, Lyons and Randle 1988, Sidle et al. 1989, Stinnett et al. 1987). In addition,river main stem reservoirs now trap much of the sediment load, resulting in less aggra-dation and more degradation of the river bed and subsequently less formation of suitablesandbar nesting habitat. Riverine habitat along the central Platte River may requireextensive vegetation clearing and other intensive management. In contrast, the lowerPlatte River (Columbus, Nebraska, to the Missouri River confluence) has not undergoneas extensive habitat changes as the central Platte. During 1987-1989, riverine sandbarhabitat hosted 72 percent of the nests on the lower Platte and only 12 percent of thenests on the central Platte (Kirsch 1989, Lingle 1989).

Many rivers have become the focus of recreational activities. Human presence reducesreproductive success (Mayer and Dryer 1988, Smith and Renken 1990). In mid-America, sandbars are fast becoming the recreational counterpart of coastal beaches.Even sand and gravel pits and other artificial nestin.g sites receive a high level of humandisturbance.

Environmental Baseline for Interior Least Tern (in the Action Area)

Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR 402.02) define the environmental baseline asthe past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other humanactivities in the action area. Also included in the environmental baseline are the antici-pated impacts of all proposed Federal projects that have undergone section 7 consulta-tion, and the impacts of State and private actions that are contemporaneous with theconsultation in progress.

Least terns were first documented nesting in New Mexico near BLNWR in 1949. Sincethen, the population has remained relatively small with little observable change. Thebirds predominately nest and forage at playa habitats at the refuge.

Water regu4ation of -the Pecos River may eliminate suitable-habitat along t@-riverduring critical portions of the breeding season. The BR and the Corps have consultedformally with the Service on their operation of Lake Sumner and Santa Rosa Lake(Cons. #2-22-91-F-198, August 5, 1991, and Cons. #2-22-92-F-240, March 22, 1993).The action under consultation with BR was the volume, timing, and length of waterreleases from the upstream reservoirs to supply water to Brantley Reservoir for irriga-tion. The pattern and timing of water releases from the reservoirs have a major effect onriver morphology, which is likely detrimental to interior least tern habitat. As mentioned

AP11-96

APPENDIX 11

under the range-wide threats, management of river flows for navigation, hydropower,irrigation, and flood control have destroyed the dynamic processes that create andmaintain the sandbars preferred by the least tern. These same effects may be occurringon the Pecos River. In the consultations with BR and the Corps, the Service concludedtheir actions were not likely to jeopardize the interior least tern because no discerniblelinkage was known between the river and the -various impoundments on the BLNWRutilized by the tern. Conservation recommendations included conducting breedingseason surveys for least terns on the Pecos River from Santa Rosa to the Texas border,using aerial photography and video imagery to quantify least tern habitat along the riverat various flow rates, and conducting analyses of least tern prey items for mercury, lead,and selenium.

The open habitat preferred by interior least terns is often attractive to ORV users, or mayprovide easy access to the river for hunting or fishing. Inspection of topographic mapsindicates many access routes to the river on private land, some of which may crosssuitable least tern habitat.

There are about 1,200 active ROWs managed under the RRA realty program. MostROWs are issued for oil and gas related roads, pipelines, and powerlines. Some ROWsare in the river floodplain or directly adjacent to the floodplain. These roads improveaccess to the river, not only for oil and gas activities, but also for recreationists. Theincreased activit@- in the floodplain may make some areas less suitable as least ternforaging and nesting habitat.

Most of the Pecos River floodplain is used for cattle grazing. Much of the grazing onboth private lands and BLM lands is on a year-round basis so cattle are in potential leasttern habitats when birds might use the area.

Status of the Interior Least Tern (in the Action Area)

Interior least terns were first recorded breeding in New Mexico at BLNWR in 1949. Theyhave bred annually at or in the vicinity of BLNWR since 1949 and are not known tobreed elsewhere in New Mexico. Table 1 shows recent numbers and reproductive suc-cess of least terns breeding at BLNWR since 1989 (USFWS 1996).

AP11-97

APPENDIX 11

The Pecos River within the RRA, particularly the DNFH area may provide suitable habi-tat for least terns to nest. This is based on observations of least terns at DNFH duringthe summer of 1996. These birds were seen feeding at hatchery ponds. Given thedistance of about 15 miles from DNFH to BLNWR,- it is unlikely these birds were return-ing to nests at the refuge. Therefore, in 1996, some birds may have nested/summeredoff the refuge.


The Service’s primary task in developing a biological opinion is to determine whether theproposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species (50CFR 402.14(g)(4)). The jeopardy/non-jeopardy determination is based on an evaluationof: (1) a species’ status in the project area and rangewide (see above sections); (2) theeffects of the proposed action on the survival and recovery of a listed species (includingeffects of interdependent and interrelated actions); (3) the aggregate effects of otherFederal actions on a listed species (e.g., amount of take occurring as a result of Federalactions subject to previous consultations); and (4) the cumulative effects on a listedspecies (ie., future nonFederal actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the-.actionarea).

Presently, most least tern activity in the RRA is on BLNWR. The Service has surfacemanagement responsibility for the Refuge. Reports of birds at DNFH in 1996 mayindicate there were breeding/summering birds off the Refuge in that year.

The RRA has responsibility for several programs that affect potential least tern nestingand foraging habitat along the Pecos River. However, it remains uncertain if least terns

AP11-98

APPENDIX 11

will ever use the river for habitat to any great degree. The RRA programs that may affectleast tern habitat are recreation, oil and gas activities, and grazing. Most recreation inthe RRA is dispersed. Typical recreational activities along the Pecos River may includehunting, fishing, water play, ORV activity, bird watching, and sightseeing. The RoswellDRMP/EIS proposes that ORV activity in the Pecos River floodplain be limited to desig-nated roads and trails, but enforcement of this provision is difficult if any-access to theriver exists.

The proposal to drill six wells in the Pecos River floodplain directly north of BLNWR is anexample of a RRA-managed action that may affect potential least tern habitat. In addi-tion to the noise, disturbance, and potential for spills from drilling, new ROWs would begranted for access to the well sites. These ROWs would create access to a previouslyroadless area and potentially attract recreationists seeking a way to the river. As a resultof more human activity, this area would become less suitable for least terns. The RRAadministers the mineral estate for about 15 percent of the floodplain, with about 6,900acres presently ]eased.

The RRA administers 29 grazing allotments that include 6,700 acres of floodplain. Mostof these allotments are a ‘checkerboard’ of public and private lands. No information wasgiven on the grazing regimes for these allotments and information on potential habitat forleast terns has not been mapped. Nevertheless, summer grazing could be detrimentalin the floodplain portions of these allotments that are suitable for least terns.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are those effects of future non-Federal (State, local government, orprivate) activities on endangered or threatened species or critical habitat that are rea-sonably certain to occur in the foreseeable future. The RRA administers only about 10percent of the surface and 15 percent of the mineral estate along the Pecos River. Ac-tivities on private lands are similar to those just described for public lands and can beexpected to continue.

The continued management of Pecos River water flows by the BR for irrigation and floodcontrol likely has the greatest influence on potential least tern habitat along the river.Upstream dams have been in use for many years and there is no reliable record of the-extent of sandbar habitat along the river before the dams. But, based on water manage-ment effects for rivers in the Mississippi River drainage, it is expected that managementof the Pecos River has reduced least tern habitat. The BR management of the PecosRiver is expected to continue much as it has in the past. The BR is planning to addresswater management of the river based on 5 years of research on the effects of waterdelivery scenarios on the river.

AP11-99

APPENDIX 11

Conclusion

The interior least tern has a breeding range extending from Texas to Montana and fromeastern Colorado and New Mexico to southern Indiana. This includes the Red, Missouri,Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio, and Rio Grande river systems. In 1987, the total number ofinterior least terns reached 4,800 range-wide. The breeding colony of interior least ternsin New Mexico has been-using BLNWR since 1949. This colony has remained small,but relatively stable through the years. In 1996, seven pairs nested at BLNWR andproduced 10 chicks. The colony in New Mexico represents only about 0.3 percent of thespecies, but is significant as the westernmost breeding colony. Most activity of the leastterns in the RRA is confined to BLNWR where the Service has principal managementresponsibility. The presence of birds foraging at ponds at DNFH during the breedingseason in 1996 indicates that some birds may be nesting/summering off the refuge. Thepossible effects of BLM-managed programs on the interior least tern in the RRA involvethe yet-to-be confirmed least tern nesting on or near DNFH and possible effects topotential nesting habitat along the Pecos River. It is the Service’s opinion that effects tothe interior least tern or its habitat from BLM-managed activities are not likely to jeopar-dize the interior least tern’s continued existence.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE INTERIOR LEAST TERN

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to furtherthe purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endan-gered and threatened species. The term “conservation recommendations” has beendefined as Service suggestions regarding discretionary agency activities to minimize oravoid adverse effects of a proposedaction on listed species or critical habitat or regard-ing the development of information. The recommendations provided here relate only tocurrent RRA management plans and the Roswell DRMP/EIS and do not necessarilyrepresent complete fulfillment of the agency’s section 7(a)(1) responsibility. In order forthe Service to be kept informed of actions that either minimize or avoid adverse effectsor that benefit listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of theimplementation of the conservation recommendations.

The Service recommends that the following conservation recommendations be imple-mented -for the interior least tern:

1 . Conduct surveys for interior least terns during the breeding season in potentialhabitat on BLM lands.

AP11-100

APPENDIX 11

2. If any breeding birds are found, develop a management strategy to protect thehabitat. Management measures might include, but would not necessarily be limitedto: (1) closure of the area to ORV use; (2) change of grazing regimes to removecattle during the summer breeding period; and (3) designation of no surface occu-pancy for oil and gas leases to prevent the building of roads into the habitat.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Sections 4(d) and 9 of the Act, as amended, prohibit taking (harass, harm, pursue, hunt,shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct) oflisted species of fish and wildlife without a special exemption. Harass is further definedas an intentional or negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury towildlife by annoying it to such an extent to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns.Normal behavior patterns include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, and shelter-ing. Harm is further defined to include significant habitat modification or degradationthat results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral pat-terns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) andsection 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to, and not intended as part of the agency actionis not considered a prohibited taking provided that such taking is in compliance with theincidental take statement.

The Service anticipates that with implementation of the protective provisions included inthe reasonable and prudent alternatives in this biological opinion, no Pecos bluntnoseshiner or Pecos gambusia will be taken as a result of RRA management activities di-rected under current management plans and proposed under the Roswell DRMP/EIS.The Service anticipates no interior least terns will be taken as a result of RRA manage-ment activities directed under current management plans and proposed under theRoswell DRMP/EIS due to the present lack of least tern activity on lands under RRAmanagement. Should any take occur, the RRA must reinitiate formal consultation withthe Service and provide detailed information on circumstances surrounding the take.

REINITIATION - CLOSING STATEMENT

This concitides-formal consultation on the ongoing activities guided under the RRAmanagement plans and proposed to be guided under the Roswell DRMP/EIS. As re-quired by 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required if: (1) Incidentaltake of Pecos bluntnose shiner, Pecos gambusia, and/or interior least tern occurs as aresult of agency actions; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action thatmay impact listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered inthis opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes aneffect to the listed species or critical habitat

AP11-101

APPENDIX 11

In future correspondence regarding this consultation, please refer to consultation number 2-22-96-F-128. Please contact Charlie McDonald at (505) 761-4525, if you have any questions or would like to discuss any part of this biological opinion.

·"\

-~~ ~3. :;J,_

cc: Director, BLM, Washington, D.C. (Attn: Ken Berg) State Director, BLM, Santa Fe, NM (Attn: Andy Dimas) District Manager, Roswell District, BLM, Roswell, NM Regional Solicitor, DOl, Albuquerque, NM (Attn:Tonianne Baca) Geographic Manager, Region 2 (NM) Refuge Manager, Bitter Lake NWR, Roswell, NM Supervisor, Ecological Services Field Office, Albuquerque, NM; Tulsa, OK;

and Austin, TX

AP11-102

APPENDIX 11

LITERATURE CITED

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1 957. Checklist of North American birds. Fifth edition.Baltimore, American Ornithologists’ Union. 691 pp.

Anderson, E.A. 1983. Nesting productivity of the interior least tern in Illinois. Unpub-lished report, Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory Southern Illinois University,Carbondale. 19 pp.

Anderson, R. 1971. Nesting least terns. Audubon Bulletin 160:1718.

Armour, C.L. 1977. Effects of deteriorated range streams on trout. U.S. Bureau of LandManagement, Boise, ID. 7 pp.

Armour, C.L., D.A. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1991. The effects of livestock grazing on ripar-ian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries 16(l):7-1 1.

Atwood, J. L., B.W. Massey, and C.T. Collins. 1984. Movement of the Huntington beachleast tern colony: an assessment of possible impacts. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Laguna Niguel, CA. Unpublished report. 28 pp.

Bahre, C.J. 1991. A legacy of change. Historic human impact on vegetation in the Ari-zona borderlands. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

Bent, A.C. 1921. Life histories of North American gulls and terns. U.S. National MuseumBulletin 113. 345 pp.

Bestgen, K.R., S.P. Platania, J.E. Brooks, and D.L. Propst. 1989. Dispersal and lifehistory traits of Notropis girardi (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) introduced into the PecosRiver, New Mexico. American Midland Naturalist 122:228-235.

Blackburn, W.H 1984. Impacts of grazing intensity and specialized grazing systems onwatershed characteristics and responses. Pp. 927-983. In: Developing strategies forrangeland management. National Researc Council/National Academy of Sciences.Westview Press. Boulder, CO.

Bovee, K-.D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremen-tal methodology. lnstream flow information paper No. 1 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Ft. Collins, CO. 248 pp.

Boyd, R. L., and B. C. Thompson. 1985. Evidence for reproductive mixing of least ternpopulations. Journal of Field Ornithology 56:405-406.

AP11-103

APPENDIX 11

Brooks, J.E., S.P. Platania, and D.L. Propst. 1991. Effects of Pecos River reservoiroperation on the distribution and status of Pecos bluntnose shiner (Notropis simuspecosensis): preliminary findings. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, NM.

Brown, H.E., M.B. Baker,Jr., J.J. Rogers, W.P. Clary, J.L. Kovner, F.R. Larson, C.C. Avery,and R.E. Campbell. 1974. Opportunities for increasing water yields and other multipleuse values on ponderosa pine forest lands. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forestand Range Experiment Station, Research Paper RM-129, Ft. Collins, CO. 1-36 pp.

Bureau of Land Management. 1990. Riparian management and channel evolution.Phoenix Training Center Course Number SS 1737-2. Phoenix, AZ. 26 pp.

Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Draft resource managementplan/environmental impact statement for the Roswell Resource Area, Roswell, NewMexico, and draft resource management plan amendment/environmental impact state-ment for the Carlsbad Resource Area, Carlsbad, New Mexico.Bureau of Land Management, Roswell District, Roswell, NM.

Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Interim oil and gas leasing and development,Roswell Resource Area, Environmental Assessment No. NM-067-5-931. Bureau of LandManagement, Roswell District, Roswell Resource Area, Roswell, NM.

Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Biological Assessment update for previous landuse plans, plan amendments, and environmental analyses (1 976-1 987) and for the 1996 Roswell Resource Area Resource Management Plan, Roswell Resource Area.Bureau of Land Management, Roswell District, Roswell Resource Area, Roswell, NM.

Burger, J. 1984. Colony stability in least terns. Condor 86:61-67.

Burger, J. 1988. Social attraction in nesting least terns: effects of numbers, spacing andpairs. Condor 90:575-582.

Burroughs, R.D., ed. 1961 . The natural history of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Michi-gan State University Press. 340 pp.

Campbell, L. 1935. Least tern taken near Toledo, Ohio. Auk 52:87.

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.D. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparianareas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Eagle, ID. 44 pp.

AP11-104

APPENDIX 11

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.D. Platts. 1993. Livestock grazing on western riparianareas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Eagle, ID. 31 pp.

Claire, E.W., and R.L. Storch. 1977. Streamside management and livestock grazing inthe Blue Mountains of Oregon: a case study. Pp. 111-128. In: Proceedings of the work-shop on livestock and wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin, May 3-5, 1977,Sparks, NV. J.W. Menke, Ed. University of California Agricultural Sciences SpecialPublication 3301, Berkeley, CA.

Coues, E. 1874. Birds of the northwest: a handbook of the ornithology of the regiondrained by the Missouri River and its tributaries. U.S. Geological Survey of the Territo-ries, Miscellaneous publication number 3,791 pp.

Currier, P.J., G.R. Lingle, and J.G. VanDerwalker. 1985. Migratory bird habitat on thePlatte and North Platte Rivers in Nebraska. The Platte River Whooping Crane CriticalHabitat Maintenance Trust, Grand Island, Nebraska.

Dagget, D. 1992. Recovery on Date Creek. Colorado Plateau Advocate. Fall 1992:9-10.

Dobyns, H.F. 1981. From fire to flood: historic human destruction of Sonoran Desertriverine oasis. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 20. 222 pp.

Downing, R. L. 1980. Survey of interior least tern nesting populations. American Birds34:209-211.

Ducey, J. 1988. Nest scrape characteristics of piping plover and least tern in Nebraska.Nebraska Bird Review 56:42-44.

Ducey, J. E. 1985. The historic breeding distribution of the least tern in Nebraska. Ne-braska Bird Review 53(2):26-36.

Duff, D.A. 1979. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, Rich County, Utah. A methodfor analyzing livestock impacts on stream and riparian habitats. Pp. 91-92 In: Forum --Grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems. Cope, O.B., Ed. Trout Unlimited, Denver, CO.

Echelle, A.F., A.A. Echelle, and D.R. Edds. 1989. Conservation genetics of a spring-dwelling desert fish, the Pecos gambusia (Gambusia nobilis, Poeciiiidae). ConservationBiology 3:159-169.

Elmore, W. 1992. Riparian responses to grazing practices. Pp. 442-457 In: Watershedmanagement; balancing sustainability and environmental change. Naiman, R.J., Ed.Springer-Veriag, New York, NY.

AP11-105

APPENDIX 11

Eschner, T., R. Hadley, and K. Crowley. 1981. Hydrologic and morphologic changes inthe Platte River Basin in Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska: a historical perspective.U.S. Geological Survey open file report 8111 25. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO.

Faanes, C.A. 1983. Aspects of the nesting ecology of least terns and piping plovers incentral Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 15:145-154.

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western NorthAmerica. Conservation Biology 8(3):629-644.

Funk, J.L., and J.W. Robinson. 1974. Changes in the channel of the lower MissouriRiver and effects on fish and wildlife. Aquatic Series No. 11. Missouri Department ofConservation, Jefferson City, MO.

Gehlbach, F.R., C.L. Bryan, and H.W. Reno. 1978. Thermal ecological features ofCyprinodon elegans and Gambusia nobilis, endangered Texas fishes. Texas Journal ofScience 30:99-101.

Gifford, G.F., and R.H. Hawkins. 1978. Hydrologic impact of grazing on infiltration: acritical review. Water Resources Research. 14:305-313.

Goodman, T., G.B. Donart, H.E. Kiesling, J.L. Holchek, J.P. Neel, D. Manzanares, andK.E. Severson. 1989. Cattle behavior with emphasis on time and activity allocationsbetween upland and riparian habitats. Pp. 95-102 In: Practical approaches to riparianresource management, an educational workshop. May 8-11, 1989. Montana ChapterAmerican Fisheries Society, Billings, MT.

Hallberg, G.R., J.M. Harbough, and P.M. Witniok. 1979. Changes in the channel areas ofthe Missouri River in Iowa from 1879 to 1976. Iowa Geological Survey Special Report,Series Number 1.

Hardy, J.W. 1957. The least tern in the Mississippi River. Publication of the Museum,Michigan State University, Biological Series 1: 1-60.

Harper, K.T. and J.R. Marble. 1988. A role for nonvascular plants in management of aridand semiarid rangelands. Pp. 137-169 In: Vegetation science applications for rangelandanalysis and management. Tueller, P.T., Ed. Kluwer Academic-Publishers, Boston, MA.

Hastings, J.R. and R.M. Turner. 1980. The changing mile. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson, AZ. 327 pp.

Hatch, M.D., W.H. Baltosser, and C.G. Schmitt. 1985. Life history and ecology of thebluntnose shiner (Nortopis simus pecosensis) in the Pecos River of New Mexico. South-western Naturalist 30:555-562.

AP11-106

APPENDIX 11

Hoags7Erom, C.W., N.L. Allan, and J.E. Brooks. 1994. Pecos River fishery investigation:Fish community structure and habitat use and availability as a response to reservoiroperations, 1994 annual report. In: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Pecos River investiga-tions annual research report, 1994. Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque Area Office,Albuquerque, NM.

Jackson, J.A. 1976. Some aspects of the nesting ecology of least terns on the Missis-sippi Gulf coast. Mississippi Kite 6(2):25-35.

Janssen, R.B. 1986. Least tern in Lyon County. Loon 58:48-49.

Johnson, K.L. 1992. Management for water quality on rangelands through best manage-ment practices: the Idaho approach. Pp. 415-441 In: Watershed management; balancingsustainability and environmental change. Naiman, R.J., Ed. Springer-Veriag, New York,NY.

Jung, C. 1935. Occurrence of the least tern (Sterna antillarum) in Wisconsin. Auk52:87.

Karr, J.R. and I.J. Schlosser. 1977. Impact of nearstream vegetation and stream mor-phology on water quality and stream biota. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Ecological Research Series 600/3-77-097. Athens, GA. 90 pp.

Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems andstreamside management ... a review. Journal of Range Management 37(5):430-438.

Kinch, G. 1989. Riparian area management: grazing management in riparian areas.U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. 44 pp.

Kirsch, E.M. 1987. Annual Report 1987: Least Tern and Piping Plover on the lowerPlatte River in Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Unpublished report.

Kirsch, E.M. 1 @88. Annual Report 1988: Least Tern and Piping Plover on the lowerPlatte River in Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Unpublished report.

Kirsch-, E-.M. 1989. Annual Report 1989: Least Tern and Piping Plover on the lowerPlatte River in Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Unpublished report.

Kirsch, E.M. 1 990. Final report 1990: Least Tern and Piping Plover on the lower PlatteRiver in Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Unpublished report.

AP11-107

APPENDIX 11

Kovalchik, B.L., and W. Elmore. 1992. Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow-domi-nated plant associations in central Oregon. Pp. 111 -110 In: Proceedings -- Symposiumon ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. Clary, W.P., E.D. McArthur,D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt, Eds. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain ResearchStation. INT-289. Ogden, UT.

Larson, R.D. and D.L. Propst. 1994. Distribution, abundance, and food habits of piscivo-rous fishes inhabiting the Pecos River between Sumner Dam and Brantley Reservoir,New Mexico, 1994 annual report. In: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Pecos River investi-gations annual research report, 1994. Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque Area Office,Albuquerque, NM.

Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush, timber, and fire in southern Arizona. Journal of For-estry 22(6):l -10.

Leopold, A. 1946. Erosion as a menace to the social and economic future of the south-west. A paper read to the New Mexico Association for Science, 1922. Journal of For-estry 44:627-633.

Leopold, L.B. 1951. Vegetation of southwestern watersheds in the nineteenth century.The Geographical Review 41:295-31 6.

Lingle, G.R. 1989. Least tern and piping plover nesting ecology along the central PlatteRiver Valley, Nebraska. Progress report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Lowrance, R., R. Todd, J. Fail,Jr., 0. Hendrickson,Jr., R. Leonard, and L. Asmussen.1984. Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds.BioScience 34(6):374-377.

Lyons, J., and T. Rand]. 1988. Platte River channel characteristics’in the big bend reach.U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. Unpublished report. 69 pp.

Marlow, C.B. and T.M. Pogacnik. 1985. Time of grazing and cattle-induced damage tostreambanks. Pp. 279-284 In: Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconcilingconflicting uses. First North American riparian conference. April 16-18, 1985, Tucson,AZ. Johnson, R.R., C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, P.F. Ffolliott, and R.H. Hamre, Eds. U.S.Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General TechnicalReport RM-120, Ft. Collins, CO.

Marrs, R.H., A. Rizand, and A.F. Harrison. 1989. The effects of removing sheep grazingon soil chemistry, above-ground nutrient distribution, and selected aspects of soil fertilityin long-term experiments at Moor House National Nature Preserve. Journal of AppliedEcology 26:647-661.

AP11-108

APPENDIX 11

Martin, S.C. 1975. Ecology and management of southwestern semidesert grass-shrubranges. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,Research Paper RM-156, Ft. Collins, CO. 39 pp.

Massey, B.W. 1972. The breeding biology of the California least tern. M.S. thesis, Cali-fornia State University, Long Beach. 101 pp.

Massey, B.W. 1974. Breeding biology of California least tern. Proceedings of theLinnaean Society, New York 72:124.

Massey, B.W., and J.L. Atwood. 1978. Plumages of the least tern. Bird-banding 49:360-370.

Mayer, P.M., and M.P. Dryer. 1988. Population biology of piping plovers and least ternson the Missouri River in North Dakota and Montana: 1988 field season report. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Bismarck, ND. Unpublished report.

Mayer, P.M., and M.P. Dryer. 1990. Population biology of piping plovers and least ternson the Missouri River in North Dakota: 1989 field season report. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Bismarck, ND. Unpublished report.

Mayfield, H. 1943. Least tern in southeastern Michigan. Wilson Bulletin 55:245.

Meehan, W.R. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonidfishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, Bethesda,MD. 751 pp.

Monson, G. and A. Phillips. 1981. Annotated checklist of the birds of Arizona. Universityof Arizona Press, Tucson. 240 pp.

Moseley, L.J. 1976. Behavior and communication in the least tern (Stemaalbifrons). Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 164 pp.

Moser, R. 1940. The piping plover and least tern in Omaha. Nebraska Bird Review 8:92-94.

Myers, T.J. and S. Swanson. 1995. Impact of deferred rotation grazing on stream char-acteristics in central Nevada: a case study. North American Journal of Fisheries Man-agement 15:428-439.

New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. 1994. Water quality and water pollutioncontrol in New Mexico, 1994. New Mexico Environment Department Document NMED/SWQ-94/4, Santa Fe, NM.

AP11-109

APPENDIX 11

O’Brien, J.S., and P.J. Currier. 1987. Channel morphology, channel maintenance andriparian vegetation changes in the big bend reach of the Platte River in Nebraska. Un-published report. 49 pp.

Orodho, A.B., M.J. Trlica, and C.D. Bonham. 1990. Long-term heavy-grazing effects onsoil and vegetation in the four corners region. The Southwestern Naturalist 35(l):9-1 5.

Phillips, A., J. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1964. The birds of Arizona. University of Ari-zona Press, Tucson. 21 2 pp.

Platania, S.P. 1993. Pecos bluntnose shiner (Notropis simus pecosensis) research,larval fish drift studies, 1993 annual progress report. In: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.Pecos River investigations annual research report, 1993. Bureau of Reclamation, Albu-querque Area Office, Albuquerque, NM.

Platts, W.S. 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on rangelands grazed by livestock.Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, NV. 462 pp.

Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1985a. Impacts of rest-rotation grazing on stream banks inforested watersheds in Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:547-556.

Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1985b. Stream habitat and fisheries response to livestockgrazing and instream improvement structures, Big Creek, Utah. Journal of Soil andWater Conservation July-August:374-379.

Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1989. Stream canopy and its relationship to salmonidbiomass in the intermountain west. North American Journal of Fisheries Management9:446-457.

Popolizio, C.A., H. Goetz, and P.L. Chapman. 1994. Short-term response of riparianvegetation to four grazing treatments. Journal of Range Management 47(l):48-53.

Prange, R. 1993. Duck Creek riparian habitat restoration project, Henry’s Lake, Idaho.Pp. 395-396. In: Riparian Management: Common threads and shared interests, Febru-ary 4-6, 1993, Albuquerque, NM. U.S. Forest Service Rocky MountaiFn Forest andRange Experiment Station G6neraf-Technical Report RM-226. Ft. Collins, CO.

Rickard, W.H. and C.E. Cushing. 1982. Recovery of streamside woody vegetation afterexclusion of livestock grazing. Journal of Range Management 35(3):360361.

Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22(1994):169-199.

AP11-110

APPENDIX 11

Rumancik, J.P., Jr. 1986. Population survey of the interior least tern on the MississippiRiver from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to Greenville, Mississippi, 1986. U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, Memphis District, Memphis, TN. Unpublished report. 19 pp.

Rumancik, J.P., Jr. 1989. Population survey of the interior least tern on the MississippiRiver from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1989. U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, Memphis District, Memphis, TN. Unpublished report.

Sandheinrich, M. B., and G. J. Atchison. 1986. Environmental effects of dikes and revet-ments on large riverine systems. Technical Report E86-5. U.S. Army Waterways Experi-ment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Savory, A. 1988. Holistic resource management. Island Press, Covelo, CA. 563 PP.

Schlesinger, W.H., J.F. Reynolds, G.L. Cunningham, L.F. Huenneke, W.M. Jarrell, R.A.Virginia, and W.G. Whitford. 1990. Biological feedbacks in global desertification. Sci-ence 246:1043-1048.

Schmulbach, J.C., J.J. Schuckman, and E.A. Nelson. 1981. Aquatic habitat inventory ofthe Missouri River from Gavins Point Dam to Ponca State Park, Nebraska. U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Omaha. Unpublished report. 15 pp.

Schulz, T.T. and W.C. Leininger. 1990. Differences in riparian vegetation structure be-tween grazed areas and exclosures. Journal of Range Management 43(4):295-299.

Schwalbach, M. 1988. Conservation of least terns and piping plovers along the MissouriRiver and its major western tributaries in South Dakota. M.S. thesis, South Dakota StateUniversity, Brookings.

Sidle, J.G., E.D . Miller, and P.J. Currier. 1989. Changing habitats in the Platte Rivervalley of Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 21:91 -104.

Skoviin, J.M. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat: a review of ourknowledge. Pp. 1001 -1103. In: Developing strategies for rangeland management.National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. Westview Press. Boulder,CO.

Smith, J.W. 1985. Improving the status of endangered species in Missouri (interior leasttern habitat and nest survey). Missouri Department of Conservation endangered spe-cies project number SE-01-12. 142 pp.

AP11-111

APPENDIX 11

Smith, J.W. 1987. Improving the status of endangered species in Missouri: least terninvestigations. Missouri Department of Conservation endangered species project num-ber SE-01-12.

Smith, J.W., and N.P. Stucky. 1988. Habitat management for interior least terns: prob-lems and opportunities in inland waterways. Pages 134-149 in M.C. Landin, ed. InlandWaterways: Proceedings national workshop on the beneficial uses of dredged material.TRD-88-8. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Smith, J.W., and R.B. Renken. 1990. Improving the status of endangered species inMissouri: least tern investigations. Final report, Jobs - 1 and 2, Missouri Department ofConservation endangered species project SE-01-19.

Stabler, D.F. 1985. Increasing summer flow in small streams through management ofriparian areas and adjacent vegetation: a synthesis. Pp. 206-21 0 In: Riparian ecosys-tems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. First North American riparianconference. April 16-18, 1 985, Tucson, AZ. Johnson, R.R., C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton,P.F. Ffolli@tt, and R.H. Hamre, Eds. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest andRange Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-120, Ft. Collins, CO.

Stiles, B. 1939. The least tern in Iowa. Iowa Bird Life 14:1.8-21.

Stinnett, D.P., R.W. Smith, and S.W. Conrady. 1987. Riparian areas of western Okla-homa: a special study of their status, trends and values. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Tulsa, OK. Unpublished report. 80 pp.

Stuber, R.J. 1985. Trout habitat, abundance, and fishing opporturtities in fenced vsunfenced riparian habitat along Sheep Creek, Colorado. Pp. 310-31 4. In: Riparianecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. First North Americanriparian conference. April 1 6-1 8, 1 985, Tucson, AZ. Johnson, R.R., C.D. Ziebell, D.R.Patton, P.F. Ffolliott, and R.H. Hamre, Eds. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forestand Range Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-1-20, Ft. Collins, CO.

Sweet, M.J. 1985. Least tern population survey, 1984. Illinois Department of Conserva-tion. Unpublished report.

Szaro, R.C. and C.P. Pase. 1983. Short-term changes in a cottonwood-ash-willow asso-ciation on a grazed and ungrazed portion of Little Ash Creek in central Arizona. Journalof Range Management 36(3):382-384.

Talent, L.G., and L.A. Hill. 1985. Final report: breeding ecology of snowy plovers, Ameri-can avocets, and interior least terns at Salt Plains NWR, Oklahoma. Oklahoma StateUniversity, Stillwater. 186 pp.

AP11-112

APPENDIX 11

Thompson, B.C., and R.D. Slack. 1983. Post-fledging departure from colonies by juve-nile least terns in Texas: implication for estimating production. Wilson Bulletin 96:309-313.

Tomkins, I.R. 1959. Life history notes on the least tern. Wilson Bulletin 71:313-322.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1 983. Pecos gambusia recovery plan. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, NM. 41 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;determination of endangered status for the interior least tern. Federal Register50:21784-21788.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;determination of threatened status for the Pecos bluntnose shiner and designation of itscritical habitat. Federal Register 52:5295-5303.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987b. Least tern in: Endangered species informationsystem (computer data base). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,Division of Endangered Species and Habitat Conservation, Washington, DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Recovery plan for the interior population of theleast tern (Stema antillarum). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Twin Cities, MN.91 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Pecos bluntnose shiner recovery plan. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, NM. 57 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Bitter Lake NWR annual narrative reports, 1989-1996. Bitter Lake NWR, Roswell, NM.

Vallentine, J.F. 1990. Grazing management. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA. 533pp.

Van Velson, R. 1979. Effects of livestock grazing upon rainbow trout in Otter Creek. Pp.-53-55 In: Forum--grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems. Cope, O.B., Ed. TroutUnlimited, Denver, CO.

Warren, P.L. and L.S. Anderson. 1987. Vegetation recovery following livestock removalnear Quitobaquito Spring, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Technical Report No.20. National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Tucson,AZ. 40 pp.

AP11-113

APPENDIX 11

Weitz, M. and M.K. Wood. 1994. Short-duration grazing in central New Mexico: effectson sediment production. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 41:262-266.

Whitman, P. L. 1988. Biology and conservation of the endangered interior least tern: aliterature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological report 88(3). 22 pp.

Wilson, B.L. 1984. 1984 search for piping plover and least tern in Iowa. Unpublishedreport. 10 pp.

Wolk, R.G. 1974. Reproductive behavior of the least tern. Proceedings of the LinnaeanSociety, New York 72:44-62.

Wycoff, R. 1960. The least tern. Nebraska Bird Review 28:39-42.

York, J.C. and W.A. Dick-Peddie. 1969. Vegetation changes in southern New Mexicoduring the past hundred years. Pp. 157-166 In: Arid lands in perspective.

Youngworth, W. 1930. Breeding of the least tern in Iowa. Wilson Bulletin 42:102-103.

AP11-114

APPENDIX 11

Memorandum

To: Regional Director, Region 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque,New Mexico

From: Area Manager, Roswell Resource Area, Roswell, NH

Subject: Response to the Final Biological Opinion on the Roswell Resource AreaResource Management Plan (Cons. #2-22-96P-102)

On May 15, 1997, the Roswell Resource Area, Roswell District, Bureau of Land Man-agement (BLM) received the final Biological Opinion (BO) on the Roswell Resource AreaResource Mmgement Plan/Environrwntal I*act-Statemht. The biological-opinion-addresses effects of the plan on the Pecos bluntnose shiner, Pecos gambusia, andinterior least tern.

The BO defined one reasonable and prudent alternative comprised of six elements forthe Pecos bluntnose shiner. Jeopardy to the shiner and adverse modification of criticalhabitat would not be likely to occur if all elements are irvlemented. Similarly, the BOdefined one reasonable and prudent alternative comprised of six elements for the Pecosgambusia. Jeopardy to the gaukbusia would not be likely to occur if all elements areimplemented.

The BO defined two conservation recommendations for the least tern. The term conser-vation recommendation is defined as service suggestions regarding discretionaryagency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listedspecies or critical habitat or regarding the development of information.

This memorandum serves as notification to the Service of the BLM’s decision on theimplementation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives, their respective elements,and conservation recommendations.

AP11-115

APPENDIX 11

The implementation timeline for the reasonable and prudent alternatives will be deter-mined after further discussions with Service personnel to determine mutually agreeabledates for implementation.

Reasonable and Prudent Alterativg for the Pecos Bluntnose Shiner

Element 1

A monitoring program for the Pecos bluntnose shiner and its critical habitat will beestablished under guidance issued under the authority of the RMP. The monitoringprogram will be designed in coordination with the Service, and will meet the needs ofdetecting adverse impacts to the shiner so the impacts can be promptly corrected.

Element 2

Priority will be given to the North Pecos River ACEC in the implementation of man-agement prescriptions that will most benefit shiner habitat. Priority will also be givento shiner habitat in the development and implementation of a strategic watershedmanagement plan for the Pecos River (from confluence of Yeso Creek to Bitter LakeNWR).

Element 3

Within the 100-year floodplain,of the Pecos River, federal oil and gas parcels pro-posed for leasing through expressions of interest by individuals or companies, orthose that expire, will not be offered for sale. The BLM will continue to apply manda-tory protective measures for oil and gas development on existing leases in order toprovide and demonstrate floodplain protection.

Element 4

The approved RMP will read, “Surface disturbance will not be allowed within up to200 meters of the outer edge of 100year floodplains to protect the integrity of thefloodplains.”

Element 5

The approved RMP will reflect that there will be no exceptions to the no surfacedisturbance policy in floodplains adjacent to critical or occupied Pecos Bluntnoseshiner habitat except where such disturbances may be related to enhancement orprotection of the habitat.

AP11-116

APPENDIX 11

Element 6

Following the approval of the RMP, the BLM will consider compiling a set of practicesrelating to activities in the 100-year floodplain. A decision on whether to proceed withthe development of such a document is tentatively scheduled for Fiscal Year 1998.

Reagonable and Prudent Alternative for the Pecos Gambusia

Element 1

The source and movement of water that supplies springs occupied by the Pecosgambusia on the BLNWR and Salt Creek Wilderness will be mapped in coordinationwith the USFWS, and others, using the best available hydrologic information. Withinthe mapped area, federal oil and gas parcels proposed for leasing through expres-sions of interest by individuals or companies, or those that expire, will not be offeredfor sale. The BLM will continue to apply mandatory protective measures for oil andgas development on existing leases in order to provide and demonstrate springprotection.

Element 2

Based on the above map, appropriate measures will be applied to oil and gas devel-opment on existing leases within the mapped area to ensure no contamination ofwater that supplies springs occupied by Pecos gambusia on the BLNWR and the SaltCreek Wilderness. A monitoring program will be designed in coordination with theService to detect any surface or subsurface accident soon enough that they can bediscovered and corrected before significant harm to the aquifer occurs.

Element 3

Within the 100-year floodplain of the Pecos River, federal oil and gas parcels pro-posed for leasing through expressions of interest by individuals or companies, orthose that expire, will not be offered for sale. The BLM will continue to apply manda-tory protective measures for oil and gas development on existing leases in order toprovide and demonstrate floodplain protection.

Element 4

The approved RMP will read, “Surface disturbance will not be allowed within up to200 meters of the outer edge of 100-year floodplains to protect the integrity of thefloodplains.”

AP11-117

APPENDIX 11

Element 5

The approved RMP will reflect that there will be no exceptions to the no surfacedisturbance policy in floodplains adjacent to critical or occupied Pecos gambusiahabitat except where such disturbances may be related to enhancement or protec-tion of the habitat.

Element 6

Following the approval of the RMP, the BLM will consider compiling a set of practicesrelating to activities in the 100-year floodplain. A decision on whether to proceed withthe development of such a document is tentatively scheduled for Fiscal Year 1998.

Conservation Recommendations for the Interior Least Tern

Conservation recommendations will be implemented immediately.

Recommendation 1

Surveys for the interior least tern will be conducted during the breeding season inpotential habitat on BLM lands. Surveys will begin this year and will be conductedbetween June 1 and August 15, 1997.

Recommendation 2

Based on results of surveys, a management strategy to protect breeding habitat willbe developed to include, but not necessarily limited to: (1) closure of the area to OHVuse; (2) change of grazing regimes to remove cattle during the summer breedingperiod; and (3) designation of no surface occupancy for oil and gas leases to preventthe building of roads into the habitat.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. If you have any further questions orcomments relative to this matter, please contact Dan Baggao at (505)627-0272.

S/TIM KREAGER

Timothy R. Kreager

AP11-118

APPENDIX 11

IN REPLY REFER TO: 6842(06680)

Memorandum

To:

From:

Subject:


BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ROSWELL DISTRICf OFFICE

2909 West Second Street Roswell. New Mexico 88201-2019

FEB 2 0 1998

Field Supervisor, Ecological Services Field Office, USFWS, Albuquerque, NM

Acting District Manager, Roswell, NM

Biological Opinion on the Roswell RMP (Cons. #2-22-96-F-128)

We are requesting reinitiation of formal Section 7 consultation on the Roswell Resource Management Plan (RMP) as required by 50 CFR 402.16(c). Our request is based on the implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives provided in the. Biological Opinion (Cons. 2-22-96-F-102) for the Roswell Resource Area Draft RMP, and which are now incorporated into the Roswell Approved RMP and Record of Decision (ROD), where appropriate.

The Biological Opinion was primarily based on the Roswell Resource Area Draft RMP/Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/EIS), Proposed RMP/Final EIS, Biological Assessment/ Addendum and supplementary information. The Biological Opinion stated that the Roswell DRMP/EIS is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), but likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Pecos bluntnose shiner CNotropis simus pecosensis) and Pecos gambusia (Gambusia nobilis). It also stated that the Roswell DRMP/EIS is likely to adversely modify critical habitat designated for the Pecos bluntnose shiner.

We ask you to reconsider the original Biological Opinion based on the incorporation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives for the Pecos bluntnose shiner and Pecos gambusia, and conservation recommendations for the interior least tern, into the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD. Also, activities not requiring a land use decision have been pursued with the intent of carrying out the reasonable and prudent alternatives. The most significant activity is the development of a memorandum of understanding between the BLM and several agencies in order to cooperatively monitor habitat and populations of the Pecos bluntnose shiner and Pecos gambusia.

AP11-119

APPENDIX 11

We have included a copy of the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD, and a copy of the RMP Conformance and NEPA Adequacy Determination Report, which addresses the implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives with respect to approved land use planning documents and NEP A environmental analyses.

We request a Biological Opinion for the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD in order to complete and document the Section 7 consultation process conducted during the preparation and finalization of the Roswell RMP.

Please contact Dan Baggao at (505) 627-0272 if you need additional information in order to reinitiate formal consultation, or specific information in order to reconsider the original Biological Opinion.

SfriM KREAGER

Edwin L. Roberson

DBaggao:bah:2/20/98

AP11-120

APPENDIX 11


FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office

2105 Osuna NE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113

Phone: (505) 761-4525 Fax: (505) 761-4542

April 28, 1998

Memorandum

To:

From:

Acting District Manager, Roswell District, Bureau of Land Management, Roswell, New Mexico

Acting Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Subject: Biological Opinion on the Roswell RMP (Cons. #2-22-96-F-1 02)

This responds to your request dated February 20, 1998, to reinitiate formal Section 7 consultation on the Roswell Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Record of Decision (ROD) dated October 1997. Your request is due to the fact that the biological opinion dated May 14, 1997, was based primarily on the Roswell Resource Area Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/EIS) rather than on the final approved document. You state that the reasonable and prudent alternatives for the Pecos bluntnose shiner and Pecos gambusia, and the conservation recommendations for the interior least tern have been incorporated into the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD. Also, activities not requiring a land use decision have been pursued with the intent of carrying out the reasonable and prudent alternatives . . In most formal Section 7 consultations, agencies are requesting consultations on proposed actions. If jeopardy is found to any threatened or endangered species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides reasonable and prudent alternatives that, if implemented, will remove jeopardy when the final action is undertaken. The Service considers the Roswell DRMP/EIS to represent a proposed action and the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD to represent the final action that resulted from the proposal. Incorporating the reasonable and prudent alternatives for Pecos bluntnose shiner and Pecos gambusia into the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD and/or implementing any reasonable and prudent alternatives not requiring a land use decision removes any jeopardy for the Roswell Approved RMP .

. There is no need to reinitiate consultation on the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD unless (1) incidental take of Pecos bluntnose shiner, Pecos gambusia, and/or interior least tern occurs as a result of agency actions; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may impact listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in the biological opinion dated May 14, 1997 (Cons. #2-22-97-F-1 02); (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect

AP11-121

APPENDIX 11

to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the May 14, 1997, biological opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action.

If further clarification is needed on Section 7 consultation for the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD, contact Charlie McDonald at (505) 761-4525, ext. 112.

R. Mark Wilson

cc: State Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico (Attn: Andy

Dimas) Area Manager, Roswell Resource Area, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Roswell,

New Mexico Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Attn:

Tonianne Baca) Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Albuquerque, New Mexico

AP12-1

APPENDIX 12 ACECMAPS

This appendix contains ACEC-specific maps that show the management for each ACEC. The area shown on each map comprises the ACEC. Maps are not provided for the caves in the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC because of the sensitive nature of the caves and their locations.

ACEC MAP TOPIC

Overflow Wetlands A12-1 Proposed Land Acquisitions Rights-of-Way Exclusions Area of Proposed Grazing Adjustments

A12-2 No Surface Occupancy Areas Mineral Disposal Closures Off-Highway Vehicle Use Designations

North Pecos River A12-3 Oil and Gas Leasing Restrictions

A12-4 Mineral Estate by Ownership Mineral Disposal Closures

A12-5 Proposed Land Acquisitions Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas Off-Highway Vehicle Use Designations Livestock Grazing Adjustments

Mescalero Sands A12-6 Rights-of-Way Exclusion Areas Mineral Disposal and Leasing Closures Proposed Land Acquisitions Livestock Grazing Adjustments Off-Highway Vehicle Use Designations

Fort Stanton A12-7 Mineral Disposal and Leasing Closures Livestock Grazing Off-Highway Vehicle Use Designations Rights-of-Way Exclusion Areas

AP12-2

V - Federal Land (Public Lands)

P - Private Land S - state Lands

NORTH

p

p

~ Proposed Land Acquisitions

~ Rights-of-Way Excluded

R 26 E

~ Area of Proposed Grazing Adjustments R 26 E

SCALE

1" = .6 Miles BLM-Roswell District, 1994

MAP A12-1 C>VERFLC>W WETLANDS


AP12-3


P - Private Land S - State Lands

~ NORTH

p

p

p

p

\ \

~

05

~· ~~ ~

R 26 E

p

33

36

) T 12 S

10

16

2.1 s

~ No Surface Occupancy (NSO) -Oil and Gas

~ Closed to - Solid Leasable Minerals - Salable Minerals - Locatable Minerals

~ OHVs - Limited to Designated Roads/Trails R 26 E

SCALE 111 = .6 Miles

BLM-Roswell District, 1994 MAP A12-2

OVERFLOW WETLANDS Roswell Resource Area

AP12-4

Oil and Gas

~ - No Surface Occupancy

~ - Closed to Leasing

NORTH

SCALE 1" = .71 Miles


P - Private Land s - State Lands


R 25E R26E

T4S

23

p

s

36

s

MAP A12-3 NC>RTH PECC>S RIVER


AP12-5

R25E

~ Federal Surface/Federal Minerals

~ Private Surface/Federal Minerals

0 Non-Federal Surface/Non-Federal Minerals

Federal Minerals

Closed to

- Solid Leasable Minerals - Locatable Minerals - Salable Minerals

NORTH

SCALE




R26E

T4S

23

s

I \/ ~ )

36

\ s

MAP A12-4 NORTH J?ECC>S RIVER


AP12-6

R25E

0 Proposed Land Acquisitions

~ Rights-of-Way A voidance Areas

~ OHVs - Limited to Designated Roads/Trails

~ Grazing- Permits and Leases adjusted

NORTH

SCALE




R26E

T4S

23

s

36

s

MAP A12-5 NORTH PECOS RIVER

AP12-7

NORTH



ENTIRE AREA

R 30 E

26

35

Rights-of-Way - Excluded Closed to - Solid Leasable Minerals

- Salable Minerals - Locatable Minerals - Oil and Gas Leasing

SCALE 1" • .71 Miles


R 31 E

25 30

T 11 S

31

T 12 S

~ Proposed Acquisition- State Land

t-=i Proposed Acquisition - Private Land

~ Grazing- Allowed but No Preference Allocated/OHVs- Closed

~ OHV s Closed

MAP A12-6 MESCALERO SANDS

AP12-8

NORTH

~ Entire Fort Stanton (Public Lands)

Closed to - Solid Leasable Minerals - Locatable Minerals - Oil and Gas Leasing

Open to -Salable Minerals

Grazing -Allowed

OHVs - Limited to Designated Roads/Trails

Rights-of-Way - Excluded

SCALE

1" = 1.42 Miles BLM-Roswel1 District, 1994



MAP A12-7 FORT -STANTON

AP13-1

This appendix contains a list of protesters, the issues or concerns raised in protests that wereaddressed by the BLM Director or the New Mexico State Director, and a list of text changes.

APPENDIX 13PROTESTS ON THE ROSWELL RMP

APPENDIX 13

AP13-2

TABLE 1LIST OF PROTESTERS

ROSWELL RMP

Name, Organization of Protester Number of Issues,Concerns Identified

Action

Issues Concerns

Tom Amesbury 1

New Mexico Oil and Gas Association (NMOGA) 4 2

George Folks, Spirit Energy dismiss

Larry Nash, GPM Gas Corp. dismiss

Bill Pierce, Penwell Energy dismiss

Santa Fe Energy dismiss

Johnny Slaughter, Pool Energy dismiss

T.E. Yates, American Trading dismiss

Kelly L. Maclaskey, Maclaskey Oilfield Services dismiss

George F. Sharpe, Merrion Oil and Gas dismiss

Kenneth D. Reynolds, WEK Drilling dismiss

Controlled Recovery Inc. dismiss

APPENDIX 13


Action

Issues Concerns

AP13-3

John Mason, Burnett Oil Co. dismiss

Charles R. Wolle dismiss

B.J. Caldwell, Saga Petroleum dismiss

R.F. Gray dismiss

Edward R. Hudson, Hudson, Inc. dismiss

Gary L. Thomas, Enron Oil and Gas dismiss

Ken Gray, Devon Energy dismiss

Bob Shelton, Nearburg Expl. dismiss

Harry Spannaus, Parker & Parsley dismiss

Kenton Hammonds, Armstrong Energy dismiss

Joe Janica, Tierra Explorations dismiss

John R. Gray, Marbob Energy dismiss

Robert Bayless dismiss

Worth Carlin, Bass Enterprises dismiss

Dennis Hendrix, Great Western Drilling dismiss

Kenneth Barbe, Manzano Oil dismiss

APPENDIX 13


Action

Issues Concerns

AP13-4

Elizabeth Bush, ARCO Permain 2 1

Worth Carlin, Bass Enterprises 3 1

R.J. Schneider, Texaco 1 3

A.R. Kukla, Marathon 3

Roger Peterson, NM Natural History Institute 1

J.F. NewVille, Chevron 1 2

Forest Guardians 4

Bud Eppers, Southeastern NM Grazing Association 5

Chuck Moran, Yates Petroleum 5 2

Lewis Derrick, NM Cattle Growers 1 1

Chaves County 2

Doug Lunsford 2

Greg Nibert 2

Karolyn King Nelson dismiss

Calder Ezzell 2

Jerry Cooper, Pogo Producing dimiss

APPENDIX 13


Action

Issues Concerns

AP13-5

William Waggoner, Independent Petroleum Assn of NM dismiss

Ronald Merritt 1

Dan Girand, Mack Energy Corp. 3 1

Curtis Doyal 1 1

APPENDIX 13

AP13-6

TABLE 2LIST OF PROTEST ISSUES AND CONCERNS

ROSWELL RMP

Name, Organization of Protester IssueNumber

ConcernNumber

Topic

Tom Amesbury C-1 acquisitions and disposals

New Mexico Oil and Gas Association I-1 maps

I-2 wilderness study areas

I-3 archeology

C-1 species protection

C-2 prairie chickens

I-4 caves and karst

Elizabeth Bush, ARCO Permian I-1 archeology

C-1 species protection

I-2 caves and karst

Worth Carlin, Bass Enterprises I-1 no true alternative

I-2 cultural

I-3 prairie chickens

C-2 sand dune lizard

APPENDIX 13


ConcernNumber

Topic

AP13-7

R.J. Schneider, Texaco I-1 following state law

C-1 visual resource management

C-2 slope, fragile soils

C-3 sand dune lizard

A.R. Kukla, Marathon Oil I-1 maps

I-2 archeology, cost recovery

I-3 caves and karst

Roger Peterson, NM Natural HistoryInstitute

I-1 prairie chickens

J.F. NewVille, Chevron Oil I-1 caves and karst

C-1 prairie chickens

C-2 slope, fragile soils

John Horning, Forest Guardians I-1 prairie chickens

I-2 aquatic and obligate species

I-3 informed decison on grazing;NEPA analysis

I-4 informed decison on grazing;no grazing alternative

APPENDIX 13


ConcernNumber

Topic

AP13-8

Bud Eppers, Southeastern NM GrazingAssociation

C-1 Macho WHA; NEPA

C-2 vegetation management

C-3 watershed management

C-4 game management; NEPA

C-5 Appendix 7, law enforcement

Chuck Moran, Yates Petroleum I-1 Alternative F treatment

I-2 wilderness study areas

I-3 caves and karst

I-4 sand dune lizard, new info.

C-2 takings implications

C-3 slopes, fragile soils

I-5 cost recovery, cultural

Lewis Derrick, NM Cattle Growers I-1 following state law onfencing, water

C-1 game management; NEPA

Chaves County I-1 participation in process

I-2 plan conformance

APPENDIX 13


ConcernNumber

Topic

AP13-9

Doug Lunsford I-1 maps

I-2 caves and karst

Greg Nibert (same as Lunsford) I-1 maps

I-2 caves and karst

Calder Ezzell (same as Lunsford) I-1 maps

I-2 caves and karst

Ronald Merritt I-1 following state law onfencing, water

Dan Girand. Mack Energy I-1 Alternative F treatment

I-2 maps

I-3 caves and karst


Curtis Doyal I-1 conformance with countyordinance


APPENDIX 13

AP13-10

TABLE 3TEXT CHANGES

Changes were made in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS as a result of: (1) efforts to resolve protests on the Proposed RMP; (2) requirements of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service for implementing conservation recommendations developed by the Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and (3) correctionsof typographical or editorial errors identified by reviewers of the Proposed RMP. These changes are listed below.

Page numbers and other references are from the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Partial paragraphs at the tops of columns and bullets are not counted asparagraphs when determining the entries for paragraphs. The number code in the "Reason" column refers to one or more of the three reasons describedabove in the previous paragraph.

Page Column Paragraph Line Should Be: Reason

2-6 2 1 Replace paragraph with: Areas designated as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs)are closed to leasing as part of the Wilderness Interim Management Policy. Existing leases in WSAs would not be reissued once they expire. Nearly all theacreage in the two WSAs in the Roswell Resource Area is recommended forwilderness designation. If Congress fails to accept the recommendations forwilderness designation and the WSA status is removed, the lands currently inthe WSAs would be managed for multiple use under management prescribed inthis RMP. If not designated wilderness, future management of the WSAs wouldbe as follows:

! Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA (10,408 acres): Approximately 9,333 acreswould be closed to oil and gas leasing to protect the character of the lava flow,which is believed to be one of the most recent in the continental U.S. Scenic,recreational, scientific, vegetation and wildlife values associated with the lavaflow would be protected, as well. The remaining 1,075 acres would be open toleasing subject to the Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements, the Practicesfor Oil and Gas Drilling Operations in Cave and Karst Areas, and the RoswellDistrict Conditions of Approval.

1,3

APPENDIX 13


AP13-11

! Little Black Peak WSA (14,904 acres): The entire 14,904-acre areawould be closed to oil and gas leasing to protect the character of the lava flow,which is believed to be one of the most recent in the continental U.S. Scenic,recreational, scientific, vegetation and wildlife values associated with the lavaflow would be protected, as well.

2-6 2 4 3-7 ...allowed within up to 200 meters of 100-year floodplains, drainages, playas,water wells...

3

2-20 Table 7 Replace with new table printed in the Approved RMP. 1

2-22 Table 9 Replace with new table printed in the Approved RMP. 1

2-23 Table 10 Replace with new table printed in the Approved RMP.

2-37 2 3 1,2 ...of about 77,000 acres... 3

2-37 2 4 7 ...in the following areas (this list is not inclusive): 3

2-40 Table 17 Total under Private Acres for Acquisition corrected to read 4,920 3

2-42 2 3 1 Within portions of the Macho WHA meeting the antelope suitability cr iteria, newinternal pasture fences...

3

2-42 2 3 6,7 ...changes in kind of livestock... 3

2-42 2 3 6-8 Move second sentence to new location following the bullets in this paragraph. 3

2-47 1 bullet 2 Replace bullet with: No range improvement projects will be constructed in theMalpais.

3

2-47 2 Replace entry for pinon/juniper at top of column, with: Pinon/juniper 50 trees/acreor when junipers encroach on drainages

3

2-49 1 1 8 Add a new sentence: Nevertheless, management would be directed towardachieving proper functioning condition.

3

2-51 2 2 4 ...designated roads and trails for all-terrain vehicles... 3

APPENDIX 13


AP13-12

2-60 2 4 Replace paragraph with: The Haystack Mountain OHV Area will be enlarged fromfrom its present 3,500 acres to approximately 9,600 acres by acquiring 2,360acres of state lands and 3,440 acres of private lands. Prior to the enlargementof the area, an easement about 50 feet by 100 yards in size will be acquiredthrough two parcels of state land to provide access to the northern portion ofthe OHV area. The lands acquired for the OHV area will be managed accordingto the management prescription of the current Haystack Mountain OHV Area.

3

2-61 Table 26 Acres for the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC corrected to read 890 3

2-64 1 7, 8 Replace paragraphs with: If not designated wilderness, nearly the entire LittleBlack Peak and Carrizozo Lava Flow areas will be closed to oil and gas leasing(refer to the Fluid Mineral Management section in this plan for moreinformation). Those areas also will be managed for roadless recreationalopportunities.

1,3

2-69 2 partial 4 ...and production, livestock grazing, and other uses compatible with special statusspecies habitat management.

3

2-70 1 partial Add new sentences at end of paragraph: ...a spec ies and its habitat. The intent ofusing fences in this manner is to protect small areas, as opposed to fencing-outlarge areas of public lands. It is expected that exclosures or barriers, if used,will be small in size and associated with specific sites.

3

2-70 1 2 7 ...and production, and other uses compatible with special status species habitatmanagement.

3

2-70 1 3 4-7 ...primarily to fences built for livestock control and highway right-of-way fences. Fences or exclosures...

3

2-81 2 4 Paragraph deleted 3

AP3-4 1 2 3 ...would not be allowed on s lopes over 30 percent. 1

APPENDIX 13


AP13-13

AP3-4 1 3 Replace paragraph and bullets with:* Streams, Rivers and Floodplains: Surface disturbance will not be allowed

within up to 200 meters of the outer edge of 100-year floodplains, to protectthe integrity of those floodpla ins. On a case-by-case basis, an exception tothis requirement may be considered based on one or more of the criterialisted below. The first three criteria would not be applied in areas of identifiedcritical or occupied habitat for federally listed threatened or endangeredspecies.

* Additional development in areas with existing developments that haveshown no adverse impacts to the riparian areas as determined by theAuthorized Officer, following a case-by-case review at the time of permitting.

* Suitable off-site mitigation if habitat loss has been identified.

* An approved plan of operations ensures the protection of water or soilresources, or both.

* Installation of habitat, rangeland or recreation projects designed toenhance or protect renewable natural resources.

2

AP4-1 3&4 4&4 pipeline replaced with project/pipeline 3

AP9-1 Table AP9-1 Replace with new table printed in the Approved RMP. Corrections were made in legaldescriptions and acreages in the Haystack Mountain OHV Area, Mexcalero Sands,and Pecos River sections, and in the acreage summary at the end of the table.

3

AP19-1 Appendix 19 Replace Appendix 19 with a new appendix printed in the Approved RMP. The newappendix contains only those decisons carried forward from previous land use plans.

3

GL-1

GLOSSARY

ACQUIRED LANDS. Lands in Federal ownershipwhich were obtained by the government throughpurchase, condemnation, gift, or exchange.

ACRE-FOOT (AC-FT). Volume of water that willcover one acre of land to a depth of one foot; equals43,560 cubic feet or 325,851 gallons.

ADJUDICA TION. A formal court proceedingwhich results in the determination of the validity andextent of a water right.

AERIAL PHOT OGRAPHY. Photographs taken ofthe earth’s surface from an aircraft. Both color andinfra-red aerial photos can be produced which showsurface features. Photographs can indicate vegeta-tion changes and water content associated with frac-tures where caves may be located.

AGGREGATE. Any of several hard, inert materi-als, such as sand, gravel, slag, or crushed stone, usedfor mixing with a cementing or bituminous materialto form concrete, mortar, or plaster, or used alone,as in railroad ballast or graded fill.

AIR POLLUTION. The general term alluding tothe undesirable addition of substances (gases, liq-uids, or solid particles) to the atmosphere that areforeign to the natural atmosphere or are present inquantities exceeding natural concentrations.

ALKALI LAKES. Shallow plate-like depressionsin central portions of basins that drain internally,collect runoff and evaporate rapidly; salt playas.

ALLOTMENT. An area of land designated andmanaged for grazing of livestock.

ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (AMP).A livestock grazing activity plan for a specific allot-ment based on multiple-use resource managementobjectives. The AMP considers livestock grazingin relation to other uses of the rangelands and in re-lation to renewable resources (i.e., watershed, veg-

etation and wildlife). An AMP includes the seasonsof use, number of livestock permitted on the allot-ment, grazing system, and the rangeland develop-ments needed. AMPs are prepared in consultation,cooperation and coordination with the permittee(s),lessee(s) or other involved affected parties.

ANIMAL UNIT MONTH (AUM). The amount offorage necessary for the sustenance of one cow witha nursing calf or its equivalent for a period of onemonth.

ANNUAL W ATER YIELD. The total streamflowvolume that passes a specified point in a watershedduring a year. It generally equals total precipitationand irrigation, less evapotranspiration losses anddeep seepage losses.

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENT ALCONCERN (ACEC). Areas within the public landwhere special management attention is needed toprotect and prevent irreparable damage to importanthistorical, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wild-life resources, or other natural systems or processes,or to protect life and provide safety from naturalhazards.

AUTHORIZED OFFICER. Any person autho-rized by the Secretary of the lnteriorto administerregulations.

AVOIDANCE AREA. An environmentally sensi-tive area where rights-of-way would be granted onlyin cases where there is a prevailing need and no prac-tical alternative location exists, and then only withappropriate provisions to protect the sensitive envi-ronmental components.

BENEFICIAL USE. The basis, the measure, andthe limit of a water right. Agricultural, commercial,industrial, and recreational uses are all consideredto be beneficial.

GLOSSARY

Defines the technical terms usedthroughout this plan and the appendices.

GL-2

GLOSSARY

BERM . An embankment or mound of earth or othermaterial. Examples of the use of a berm include usearound a tank battery in an oil field to contain spilledfluids or as a barrier across a road or trail to prohibittravel by motor vehicles.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP) .Methods, measures, or practices selected on the ba-sis of site-specific conditions to ensure that waterquality will be maintained to its highest practicablelevel. BMPs include, but are not limited to struc-tural and nonstructural controls, operations, andmaintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied be-fore, during, or after pollution producing activitiesto reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutantsinto receiving waters (40 CFR 130.2, EPA WaterQuality Standards Regulation). Each BMP shouldidentify: (1 ) specific management objectives, (2) athorough description of the practice(s) to be used,and (3) a plan for monitoring the effectiveness ofthe practice(s) toward meeting the stated objectives,so they can be refined overtime. Examples of spe-cific BMPs for New Mexico rangelands are givenby New Mexico State University (1 983).

BIODIVERSITY. Refers to the variety of life andits processes and includes the variety of living or-ganisms, the genetic differences among them, andthe communities and ecosystems in which they oc-cur.

CALICHE. A brown or white material commonlyfound as a subsoil deposit in and or semi-add cli-mates which is composed largely of calcium car-bonate.

CAVE. Any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess,or system of interconnected passages which occursbeneath the surface of the earth or within a cliff orledge (including any cave resource therein, but notincluding any vug, mine, tunnel, aqueduct, or othermanmade excavation) and which is large enough topermit an individual to enter, whether or not the en-trance is naturally formed or manmade. The term“cave” includes any natural pit, sinkhole, or otherfeature which is an extension of the entrance. Referalso to “Significant Cave.”

CAVE EXPLORATION . The act of entering anaturally occurring void, cavity, recess or system ofinterconnected passages which occurs beneath the

surface of the earth, ledge, or cliff to investigate,study or analyze contents, hazards and extent; totravel into new territories for adventure or discov-ery.

CLASSIFICA TION OF LANDS. The process ofdetermining whether the lands are more valuable orsuitable for transfer or use under particular or vari-ous public land laws than for retention in federalownership for management purposes.

COMMUNITY. A group of plants and animals liv-ing together in a common area having close in-teractions.

COMMUNITY PIT. A site from which nonexclu-sive disposals of mineral materials can be made.

CONDITION. FUNCTIONAL-A T RISK (Ri-parian, Wetiand). Riparian-wetland areas that arein functional condition but an existing soil, water,or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible todegradation .

CONDITION, NON-FUNCTIONAL (Riparian,Wetiand). Riparian-wetland areas that clearly arenot providing adequate vegetation, landform, or largewoody debris to support proper functioning condi-tion. The absence of certain physical attributes, suchas a floodplain where one should be, are indicatorsof non-functioning conditions.

CONDITION. PROPER FUNCTIONING(Riparian, Wetland). Riparian-wetland areas arefunctioning properly when adequate vegetation, land-form, or large woody debris is present to: (a) dis-sipate stream energy associated with high water flow,thereby reducing erosion and improving water qual-ity; (b) filter sediment, capture bedload, and aidfloodplain development; (c) improve floodwaterretention and groundwater recharge; (d) develop rootmasses that stabilize streambanks against cutting ac-tion; (e) develop diverse ponding and channel char-acteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth,duration, and temperature necessary for fish produc-tion, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and, (f)support greater biodiversity. The functioning con-dition of riparian/wetland areas is a result of inter-action among geology, soil, water, and vegetation.

GL-3

GLOSSARY

CONDITION, UNKNOWN (Riparian, W etiand).Riparian-wetland areas for which sufficient infor-mation is lacking to make any form of determina-tion about functional condition.

CONDITION OF APPROVAL (COA). A require-ment appended to a use authorization that must bemet in order to be in conformance with the authori-zation. Conditions of approval may be standardpractices that are routinely applied or may be spe-cial requirements developed through the NEPA pro-cess. Conditions of approval usually are applied tomitigate the impacts of an action. Conditions ofapproval do not modify any rights granted by a lease(e.g., an oil and gas lease). Also, refer to LEASE,PERMIT, and STIPULATION in the Glossary.

CONDITIONAL WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION.The point in time that the fire exceeds the definableboundaries of the prescribed natural fire parameters,conditional suppression will become full suppres-sion. (Total acres will not be a concern but exceed-ing the defined boundaries will indicate an escapedfire analysis.)

CONSERVATION (ARCHAEOLOGY). A levelof management applied to cultural resources ex-hibiting uniqueness or relative scarcity of similarcultural properties; research potential that surpassescurrent state of the art; or singular historic impor-tance or architectural interest.

COORDINA TED RESOURCE MANAGE-MENT PLAN (CRMPA). A plan for managementof one or more grazing allotments that involve allthe affected resources, e.g., range, wildlife, water-shed, minerals, and recreation.

CORRIDOR. A linear strip of land forming a pas-sageway between two points in which transportationand/or utility systems exist or may be located. Adesignated corridor is the preferred location for ex-isting and future rights-of-way grants that have beenidentified by law, by secretarial order, through landuse planning, or by other management decision.

CRUCIAL HABIT AT. Portions of the habitat of awildlife population that, if destroyed or adverselymodified, would result in a reduction of the popula-

tion to a greater extent than destruction of other por-tions of the habitat.

CRITICAL HABIT AT. Any air, land, or waterarea, including elements thereof, which have beendetermined (and published in the Federal Register)to be essential to the survival of wild populations ofan endangered or threatened species or to be neces-sary for their recovery to a point at which the mea-sures provided pursuant to the ESA are no longernecessary.

CULTURAL RESOURCE. The fragile and non-renewable remains of human activity, occupation,or endeavor reflected in districts, sites, structures,buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, works of art, ar-chitecture, and natural features that were of impor-tance in human events. These resources consist ofphysical remains, areas where significant humanevents occurred even though evidence of the eventno longer remains, and the environment immediatelysurrounding the actual resource and oral history orethnographic accounts of lifeways and customs.

DESIGNATION. The official identification andnaming of a general area or site on public land. Landsmay be designated when they are either (1) with-drawn, (2) given special status by act of Congress,or (3) established by an approved land use plan.

DESIGNATED USES. Surface water uses speci-fied by the Water Quality Control Commission forwhich water quality standards have been established.Designated uses apply whether or not they are beingattained.

DESIRED PLANT COMMUNITY (DPC) . Theplant community which provides the vegetation at-tributes required for meeting or exceeding RMPvegetation objectives. The DPC must be within anecological site’s capability to produce these attributesthrough natural succession, management action, orboth. A specific description of the vegetation neededto meet the vegetation objectives of a detailed activ-ity plan or implementing action can be described asa desired plant community. Seeding mixtures underDPC would emphasize the use of native species andavoid noxious weeds and exotic species.

GL-4

GLOSSARY

DISTRICT. The specific area of public lands ad-ministered by a district manager.

DIVERSION. A man-made construction that divertswater from its natural source to be put to beneficialuse.

DIVERSITY. The relative degree of abundance ofwildlife species, plant species, communities, habi-tats, or habit features per unit area.

DRASTIC. A method developed by the U.S. En-vironmental Protection Agency for evaluating thepotential for groundwater pollution. The name“DRASTIC” is an acronym for the sevenhydrogeologic factors that the method uses to pro-duce the Drastic Index. The Index is a numedcalvalue which helps prioritize areas with respect togroundwater contamination vulnerability. The fac-tors are: Depth to water; Recharge; Aquifer media;Soil media; Topography (i.e., slope); Impact of thevadose zone; and, Conductivity (hydraulic) of theaquifer.

ECOLOGICAL SITE INVENT ORY (ESI). Theeffort and documentation needed to establish realis-tic, achievable, and measurable vegetation manage-ment objectives.

ECOSYSTEM. A complex self-sustaining naturalsystem which includes living and nonliving compo-nents of the environment and the circulation of mat-ter and energy between organisms and their envi-ronment.

ENDANGERED SPECIES (FEDERAL). An ani-mal or plant species whose prospects of survival andreproduction are in immediate jeopardy and in dan-ger of extinction throughout all or a significant por-tion of its range, as defined by the USFWS underthe authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,as amended. Whether a species is threatened or en-dangered is determined by the following factors: (1)present or threatened destruction, modification, orcurtailment of its habitat or range; (2) over utiliza-tion for commercial, sporting, scientific, or educa-tional purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inad-equacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5)other natural or human-made factors. Also, see“Threatened Species (Federal)” in the Glossary.

ENDANGERED SPECIES (STATE). Any speciesor subspecies whose prospects of survival or recruit-ment in New Mexico are in jeopardy. Also, see“Threatened Species (State)” in the Glossary.

ENVIRONMENT AL ASSESSMENT (EA). Theprocedure for analyzing the impacts of some pro-pose d action on a given environment and the docu-mentation of that analysis. An EA is similar to anenvironmental impact statement (EIS) but is gener-ally smaller in scope. An EA may be preliminary toan EIS.

ENVIRONMENT AL IMP ACT STATEMENT(EIS). The procedure for analyzing the impacts (bothbeneficial and adverse) of a proposed action on agiven environment, and the documentation of thatanalysis.

EPHEMERAL STREAM. A stream that flows indirect response to surface runoff.

EPHEMERAL. A stream or portion of a streamthat flows in direct response to precipitation, lastsfor a short period of time and is not influenced byground water sources. Also pertains to playa lakeswhich can be intermittently wet.

EXCHANGE. A trading of public lands (surfaceor subsurface estates) that usually do not have highpublic value, for lands in other ownerships whichdo have value for public use, management and en-joyment. The exchange may be for the benefit ofother Federal agencies as well as BLM.

EXCLUSION AREAS. Areas where future rights-of-way may be granted only when mandated by law.

EXTENSIVE RECREATION MANAGEMENTAREAS (ERMA). Areas where recreation is un-structured and dispersed and where minimal rec-reation-related investments are required. ERMAsprovide recreation visitors the freedom of choice withminimal regulatory constraint. These areas consistof the remainder of land areas not included in Spe-cial Recreation Management Areas within a resourcearea.

GL-5

GLOSSARY

FEDERAL CAVE RESOURCES PROTEC-TION ACT (FCRPA) OF 1988. The purposes ofthis act are (1) to secure, protect, and preserve signifi-cant caves on federal lands for the perpetual use,enjoyment, and benefit of all people; and (2) to fos-ter increased cooperation and exchange of informa-tion between governmental authorities and those whoutilize caves located on federal lands for scientific,education, or recreational purposes.

FEDERAL LAND. Land owned by the UnitedStates and administered by the federal govemment.Federal land includes public lands (see Public Landsin the Glossary).

FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGE-MENT ACT (FLPMA) OF 1976. Public Law 94-579, gives the BLM legal authority to establish pub-lic land policy; to establish guidelines for adminis-tering such policy; and to provide for the man-agement, protection, development, and enhancementof the public land. Often referred to and pronounced“flipma.”

FEDERAL RESERVED WATER RIGHT . Awater right which is reserved by the federal govern-ment when land is withdrawn from the public do-main for a particular purpose, such as national parks,forests, and monuments. The amount of water re-served is only that necessary to fulfill the intendedpurpose.

FLOODPLAIN. See “One Hundred-Year Flood-plain” in the Glossary.

FLOWLINE. The surface pipe through which oil,water, or gas travels from a well to processing equip-ment or to storage.

FRAGILE SOIL. A soil that is easily damaged byuse or disturbance. Examples include soils that aresusceptible to compaction or other mechanic dam-age to their structure, or soils that are highly erod-ible when disturbed.

FULL WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION. All neces-sary resources and tactics are utilized to halt firespread at a minimum acreage with the most cost ef-fect suppression tactics.

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMA TION SYSTEM(GIS). Through the use of computer technology, GISallows the input, storage, analysis, and display of agreat volume and variety of physically locatable data(i.e., data which is known to exist at some specificplace or area on the ground).

GRANT. A gift of public lands either in quantity orin place. Also, the document or the action whichconveys land or an interest in land.

GRAZING CAPACITY. The maximum livestockstocking rate possible without inducing damage tovegetation or related resources such as watershed.This incorporates factors such as suitability of therangeland for grazing a well as the proper use whichcan be made on all of the plants within the area.Normally expressed in terms of acres per animal unitmonth (AC/AUM) or sometimes referred to as thetotal AU Ms that are available in any given area,such as an allotment. Areas that are unsuitable forlivestock use are not computed in the grazing ca-pacity. Grazing capacity may or may not be the sameas the stocking rate.

GRAZING DISTRICT. Means the specific areawithin which the public lands are administered un-der Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act. Public landsoutside grazing district boundaries are administeredunder Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act.

GROUND WATER. Subsurface water containedin interconnected pores between soil or rock par-ticles in a zone of saturation. Groundwater includesunderground lakes and streams in karst areas.

HABIT AT. The place where an animal or plant nor-mally lives during its life cycle often characterizedby dominant food, cover, water, and space (e.g., thestream habitat, the forest habitat).

HABIT AT MANAGEMENT PLAN (HMP) . Awritten and officially approved plan for a specificgeographical area of public land which identifieswildlife habitat and related objectives, establishesthe sequence of actions for achieving objectives, andoutlines procedures for evaluating accomplishments.

GL-6

GLOSSARY

HAZARDOUS MA TERIAL. Any substance pos-ing a threat to the health or safety of persons or theenvironment. These include any materials meetingthe Environmental Protection Agency’s criteria forignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity.

INFORMA TION (ARCHAEOLOGY). A level ofmanagement applied to cultural resources. Most sitesfall into this category and would be studied for theinformation that could be retrieved from them. Theprocess of extracting information often destroys thesite. These sites could be lithic scatters, campsitesand other types of sites.

INSTREAM FLOW . The surface streamflow thatis necessary to maintain resources such as water qual-ity, fisheries, recreation, and riparian habitat. Usu-ally expressed in terms of minimum flow require-ments.

INTERMITTENT STREAM. A stream that doesnot flow year round but has some association withground water for surface or subsurface flows.

KARST. A landform where the topography has beenformed chiefly by the dissolving of rock. In somecases, the dissolving of rock may be extensiveenough to form passages through which an individualcould pass. Surface expressions include sinkingstreams, swalletts, springs and resurgences, and thepresence of sinkholes and caves. Surface streamsare few, with most of the drainage being under-ground. These features are important for ground-water recharge of karst systems.

LEASE. An authorization to possess and use pub-lic land for a fixed period of time (usually long term).Also, any contract, profit-share arrangement, jointventure, or other agreement issued or approved bythe United States Government under a mineral leas-ing law that authorizes exploration for, extractionof, or removal of oil and gas resources.

LEASE NOTICE . An attachment to an oil and gaslease that transmits information at the time of leaseissuance to assist a lessee in submitting acceptableplans of operation, or to assist in administration ofleases. A Lease Notice is used to disclose a situa-tion or condition known to exist that could affect

lease operations. Lease Notices are not a basis fordenial of lease operations.

LEGAL ACCESS. In the context of access to pub-lic lands, especially public land tracts that may beadjacent to or surrounded by land of other owner-ships, legal access exists when a person can reach agiven public land tract without trespassing, such asfrom a public road or highway, or from another tractof public land. (See “Physical Access.”)

LENTIC. Pertaining to static, calm, or slow mov-ing water or aquatic habitats, such as a marsh.

LEK. A specific area (also termed display, gobbling,booming or strutting grounds) where two or moreprairie chicken cocks congregate, typically year af-ter year, for courtship displays in early spring, andvary in size from one-eighth acre to several acres.

LOCATABLE MINERALS. Minerals subject todisposal and development through the Mining Lawof 1872 (as amended). Includes all “valuable min-eral deposits” including metallic and nonmetallicminerals such as gold, lead, barite, fluorspar or highcalcium limestone. It also includes uncommon va-rieties of sand, stone, gravel, cinders, pumice, pum-icite and clay. Also included are all valuable miner-als that are not excluded under the leasable and sal-able minerals.

LOTIC. Pertaining to fast-moving water, such asrivers and streams.

MALP AIS. A Spanish word meaning rough coun-try underlain by dark basaltic lava.

MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN(MFP). A planning decision document now replacedby RMPs that establishes for a given planning arealand use allocations, coordination guidelines formultiple use, and management objectives to beachieved for each class of land use or protection.

MODERN URBAN (U). Areas with recreationopportunities to experience affiliation with indi-viduals and groups are prevalent as in the con-venience of sites and opportunities. Experiencingthe natural environmental, and the use of outdoor

GL-7

GLOSSARY

skills are largely unimportant. One of the six classesof the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).

MOIST SOILS MANAGEMENT. Water level ma-nipulation (drawdown) used as a wetland man-agement tool for pastures to optimize food pro-duction for waterfowl.

MINERAL MA TERIALS. Minerals such as com-mon varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pum-icite and clay which are not obtainable under themining or leasing laws but which can be obtainedunder the Materials Act of 1947, as amended. Alsoknown as saleable minerals.

MULTIPLE USE MANAGEMENT. Managementof public lands and their various resource values sothey are used in the combination best meeting thepresent and future needs of the American people.Such a concept allows for the most judicious use ofsome or all of the resources over areas large enoughto provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustmentsin use to conform to changing needs and conditions.Relative resource values are considered, not neces-sarily the combination of uses that would give thegreatest potential economic return or the greatest unitoutput.

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HIST ORICPLACES. A list of districts, sites, buildings, struc-tures, and objects significant in American history,architecture, archaeology, and culture.

NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM. The NationalTrails System is composed of four types of trails:(1) national recreation trails; (2) national scenic trails;(3) national historic trails; and (4) connecting or sidetrails. National recreation trails provide for numer-ous outdoor recreation activities in a variety of ur-ban, rural, and remote areas. They may be desig-nated by the Secretary of the Interior or by the Sec-retary of Agriculture where lands administered bythat agency are involved.

NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION (NPS). Thealteration of waters by activities not regulated aspoint sources, which degrade the quality or adverselyaffect the biological community inhabiting thewaters.

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY (NSO). A condi-tion of surface use attached to a lease or other au-thorization applied to minerals exploration and de-velopment which prohibits occupancy of only theland surface or to protect other identified resourcevalues.

NOXIOUS WEED. A plant that causes disease orhas other adverse effects on the human environmentand is, therefore, detrimental to the agriculture andcommerce of the United States and public health.Generally, noxious weeds possess one or more ofthe characteristics of being aggressive and difficultto manage, parasitic, a carrier or host of harmful in-sects or disease, and being either native, new to, ornot common in, the United States. In most cases,however noxious weeds are normative species.Noxious weeds are designated and regulated by vari-ous state and federal laws.

OFF-HIGHW AY VEHICLE (OHV). Any motor-ized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-coun-try travel on or immediately over land, water, sand,snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other terrain.

Open: Vehicle travel is permitted in the area (bothon and off roads) if the vehicle is operated re-sponsibly in a manner not causing, or unlikely tocause significant, undue damage to or disturbanceof the soil, wildlife, wildlife habitat, improvements,cultural, or vegetative resources of other authorizeduses of the public lands.

Limited : Designated areas and trails where the useof an OHV is subject to restrictions, such as limit-ing the number on types of vehicles allowed, or datesand times of use (seasonal restrictions); limiting useto designated roads and trails. Combinations of re-strictions are possible, such as limiting use to cer-tain types of vehicles during certain times of the year.

Closed: Designated areas, roads, and trails wherethe use of an OHV is permanently or temporarilyprohibited. Emergency use of vehicles is allowed.

GL-8

GLOSSARY

ONE HUNDRED-YEAR FLOOD. The flood thatwill be equaled or exceeded an average of once ev-ery one hundred years; i.e. the flood that has a onepercent chance of being equaled or exceeded in anygiven year.

ONE HUNDRED-YEAR FLOODPLAIN. Thearea adjacent to a stream or body of water that wouldbe inundated at the peak of the one hundred-yearflood. The floodplain delineated on Flood Insur-ance Rate Maps (FIRMS) or Flood Hazard Bound-ary Maps (FHBMS) published by the Federal Emer-gency Management Agency will be used for man-agement purposes. When a FIRM or FHBM map isnot available for the area of interest, the best avail-able information will be used.

PAYMENT IN LIEU OF T AXES (PILT). Pay-ments to local or state governments based on owner-ship of federal land and not directly dependent onproduction of outputs or receipt sharing.

PERENNIAL STREAM. Surface water normallyflows throughout the year except during infrequentyears of drought.

PERMIT (GRAZING). A document authorizinguse of the public lands within grazing districts un-der Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act for the pur-pose of grazing livestock.

PERMIT (LAND). A short-term (generally under3 years), revocable authorization to use public landsfor specific purposes.

PETROGLYPH. A form of rock art manufacturedby incising, scratching, or pecking designs into rocksurfaces.

PHREATOPHYTE. A type of plant common toadd regions which has an extensive root system todraw water directly from the water table.

PHYSICAL ACCESS. In the context of access topublic lands, especially public land tracts that maybe adjacent to or surrounded by land of other own-erships, physical access exists when a person canphysically reach a given public land tract. The ex-istence of physical access does not always mean thatlegal access exists. In some cases, taking advantageof physical access may involve trespass. (See “Le-gal Access.”)

PIPELINE. A system of connected lengths of steelor plastic pipe, laid either in the earth or on the sur-face, that is used for transporting petroleum, petro-leum products, chemicals, natural gas, or other flu-ids.

PLAYA. A shallow, nearly level, often saline, drylake bed. Playas vary considerably in materials, sa-linity, and hydrologic regime. In general, playas:(1) collect surface runoff in closed basins; (2) arepoorly vegetated; (3) are ephemerally flooded; and(4) have a thin surface of nongravelly, fine-texturedsediment.

POINT SOURCE POLLUTION. Pollution dis-charged from any discernible, confined, and discreteconveyance into a water body; e.g., effluent from apipe. Point source pollution does not include returnflow from irrigated agricultural land.

PRECIPITATION. Any or all forms of water par-ticles, liquid or solid, that fall f rom the atmosphereand reach the ground.

PRESCRIBED FIRE OR BURN. The skillful ap-plication of fire to natural fuels under conditions ofweather, fuel moisture, soil moisture, etc., that wouldallow confinement of the fire to a predetermined areaand at the same time produce the intensity of heatand rate of spread required to accomplish certainplanned benefits to one or more objectives of wild-life management, livestock management, hazard re-duction, etc. Its objective is to employ fire scientifi-cally to realize maximum benefits at minimum dam-age and acceptable cost.

PRESCRIPTION. A written statement definingobjectives to be attained as well as temperature, hu-midity, wind direction and wind speed, fuel mois-ture content, and soil moisture under which a firewill be allowed to burn, generally expressed as ac-ceptable ranges of the various indices, and the limitof the geographic area to be covered.

PRIMITIVE (P). Areas with recreation opportuni-ties for isolation from the sights and sounds of man,to feel a part of the natural environmental, to have ahigh degree of challenge and risk, and to use out-door skills. One of the six classes of the RecreationOpportunity Spectrum (ROS).

GL-9

GLOSSARY

PUBLIC LANDS. Any land and interest in landowned by the United States within the several statesand administered by the Secretary of the Interiorthrough the Bureau of the Land Management, with-out regard to how the United States acquired owner-ship, except (1) lands located on the Outer Conti-nental Shelf; and (2) lands held for the benefit ofIndians, Aleuts, and Eskimos.

PUBLIC VALUES AND INTERPRET ATION(ARCHAEOLOGY). A level of management ofcultural sites which contribute to the belief systemsand folkways of a cultural group such as locationshaving religious significance. Public interpretivesites would have qualities that would lend themselvesto being utilized as recreation, education, and inter-pretive areas.

QUARRYING (MINING). The extraction of build-ing stone or other valuable nonmetallic constituentfrom a surface mine, or quarry.

RANGELAND. Land used for grazing by livestockand big game animals on which the vegetation isdominated by grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs.

RANGE IMPROVEMENT. An authorized activ-ity or program on or relating to rangelands which isdesigned to improve production of forage; rangevegetative composition; control patterns of use; pro-vide water; stabilize soil and water conditions; andprovide habitat for livestock, wild horses or burros,and wildlife. The term includes, but is not limitedto structures, treatment projects, and use of mechani-cal means to accomplish the desired results.

RAPTOR. A bird of prey, such as an eagle, hawk,or owl.

RECLAMA TION. The reconstruction of distur-bance by returning the land to a condition ap-proximate or equal to that which existed prior lodisturbance, or to a stable and productive conditioncompatible with the land use plan. The immediategoal of reclamation is to stabilize disturbed areasand protect both disturbed and adjacent undisturbedareas from unnecessary degradation .

RECREATION AND PUBLIC PURPOSESACT (R&PP). The Act of June 14, 1926, asamended (43 U.S.C. 869, 869-4). Allows the dis-posal of public lands to any state, local, federal, orpolitical instrumentality or nonprofit organization orany recreational or public purpose, at the discretionof the authorized officer.

RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM(R0S). A continuum used to characterize recreationopportunities in terms of setting, activity, and expe-rience opportunities. Six classes are included: primi-tive (P), semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM),semi-primitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural(RN), rural (R), and modern urban (U). Refer to theindividual definitions in this glossary.

RESERVATION. A withdrawal of a permanentnature, dedicated to a specific public purpose.

RESOURCE AREA (RA). The smallest adminis-trative subdivision of a BLM district. A resourcearea is administered by an area manager.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (RMP). Awritten land use plan that outlines BLM’s decisionsand strategies for management of the resources in aparticular area. The RMP has been used by the BLMsince 1980.

RESTRICTED AREAS. Areas where mitigationsuch as seasonal restrictions is required to protectresource values.

RIGHT-OF-W AY (ROW). The legal right for use,occupancy, or access across land or water areas fora specified purpose or purposes. Also, the landscovered by such a right. Examples are roads,powerlines, pipelines, water wells, and communi-ties sites. It does not grant an estate of any kind.

RIPARIAN. Situated on or pertaining to the bankof a river, stream, or other body of water. Normallyused to refer to the plants of all types that grow rootedin the water table or streams, ponds, springs, etc.

RIPARIAN AREAS. Riparian areas are a form ofwetland transition between permanently saturatedwetlands and upland areas. These areas exhibit veg-

GL-10

GLOSSARY

etation or physical characteristics reflective of per-manent surface or subsurface water influence. Landsalong, adjacent to, or contiguous with perenniallyand intermittently flowing rivers, and streams, gla-cial potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirswith stable water levels are typical riparian areas.Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams orwashes that do not exhibit the presence of vegeta-tion dependent upon free water in the soil.

ROADED NATURAL (RN) . Areas with aboutequal recreation opportunities for affiliation withother user groups and for isolation f rom sights andsounds of humans. Involves the opportunity to havea high degree of interaction with the with the naturalenvironmental. Challenge and risk opportunities arenot very important except in specific challengingactivities. The practice of outdoor skills may beimportant. Opportunities for both motorized andnonmotorized recreation are present. One of the sixclasses of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum(ROS).

RURAL (R) . Areas with recreation opportunitiesto experience affiliation with individuals and groupsare prevalent as is the convenience of sites and op-portunities. These factors are generally more im-portant than the natural setting. Opportunities forwildland challenges, risk taking, and testing of out-door skills are unimportant, except in activities in-volving challenge and risk. One of the six classesof the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).

LEASABLE MINERALS. See Mineral Materials.

SCOPING PROCESS. An early and open processfor determining the scope of issues to be addressedand for identifying the significant issues related to aproposed action. Scoping may involve public meet-ings, field interviews with representatives of agen-cies and interest groups, discussions with resourcespecialists and managers, written comments in re-sponse to news release, direct mailings and articlesabout the proposed action, and scoping meetings.

SEDIMENT YIELD. A quantitative measure of thetotal sediment outflow from a watershed over a givenperiod of time at a specified point in the channel.Sediment yield is the difference between the total

erosion from slopes, channels, and mass wasting,and the amount of sediment deposited before reach-ing the specified point in the channel.

SEEPS. Is where ground water percolates to thesurface and forms a saturated area.

SEMI-PRIMITIVE MOT ORIZED (SPM) . Ar-eas with some recreation opportunity for isolation from the sights and sounds of humans, but not as im-portant as for primitive opportunities. Involves theopportunity to have a high degree of interaction withthe natural environment, to have moderate challengeand risk, and to use outdoor skills. Provides an ex-plicit opportunity to use motorized equipment whilein the area. One of the six classes of the RecreationOpportunity Spectrum (ROS).

SEMI-PRIMITIVE NONMOT ORIZED(SPNM). Areas with some recreation opportunityfor isolation from the sights and sounds of humans,but not as important as for primitive opportunities.Involves the opportunity to have a high degree ofinteraction with the natural environmental, to havemoderate challenge an risk, and to use outdoor skills.One of the six classes of the Recreation Opportu-nity Spectrum ( ROS) .

SIGNIFICANT CA VE. A cave located on federallands that possesses one or more of the followingfeatures, characteristics, or values (1) Biota; (2)Cultural; (3) Geologic/ Mineralogic/Paleontologic;(4) Hydrologic; (5) Recreational; (6) Educational orScientific.

SIGNIFICANT KARST. An area in which sink-holes or other features, such as lineaments, providepoints of recharge to an aquifer that is the source ofwater for human, livestock, or wildlife use, or whichprovides a primary recharge zone for cave-relatedhydrologic systems.

SINKHOLE. A closed depression formed when theground surface collapses above voids created by thesolution of carbonate or evaporite rocks. Water lev-els typically fluctuate rapidly In sinkholes becauseof their close connection to groundwater.

GL-11

GLOSSARY

SLOPE. The inclination of the land surface to thehorizontal. When expressed as a percent, slopeequals the change in elevation divided by the hori-zontal distance, with the result multiplied by 100percent. Thus, a slope of 20 percent is a change inelevation of 20 feet for every 1 00 feet horizontally.

SOLID LEASABLE MINERALS. The chlorides,sulfates, carbonates, borates, silicates or nitrates ofpotassium or sodium and related products; sulphurin the States of Louisiana and New Mexico and onall acquired lands; phosphate, including associatedand related minerals; asphalt in certain lands in Okla-homa; and gilsonite (including all vein-type solidhydrocarbons).

SPECIAL EMPHASIS AREAS. An area contain-ing one or a combination of unique resources or val-ues that receive more intensive management (e.g.,ACECS, WSAS, and SRMAS.)

SPECIAL HABIT AT FEATURE. A specific com-ponent of a habitat site requiring individual con-sideration, including geological anomalies (cliffs),aquatic situations (seeps), or manmade structures(windmill). A feature may be present in the habitatsite because of animal use (booming grounds). Spe-cial habitat features may affect wildlife positivelyor negatively.

SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENTAREA (SRMA). Areas requiring explicit recreationmanagement to achieve BLM’s recreation objectivesand to provide specific recreation opportunities.SRMAs are listed in this plan which also defineSRMA management objectives. BLM’s recreationinvestments are concentrated in these areas.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES. Wildlife and plantspecies either federally listed or proposed for listingas endangered or threatened, state-listed species, orBLM-determined priority species (sensitive species).

SPRING. Where water is discharged from a fixedpoint and the flow usually forms a small channel.

STATE APPROPRIATIVE W ATER RIGHT. Awater right licensed by the New Mexico State Engi-neer once proof of beneficial use is established.

STATE HIST ORIC PRESERVATION OF-FICER (SHPO). A position within state govern-ments responsible for coordinating state participa-tion in the implementation of the National HistoricPreservation Act. This officer serves as an assistantand consultant when identifying cultural properties,assessing effects to them, and considering alterna-tives to avoid or reduce those effects.

STIPULATION. A requirement, usually dealingwith protection of the environment, that is made apart of a lease, grant, or other authorizing document.In the case of oil and gas leases, a provision thatmodifies standard lease rights and is attached to andmade a part of the lease. Also, refer to “CONDI-TION OF APPROVAL” in the Glossary. The fol-lowing represent the major stipulations on BLMlands:

No Surface Occupancy Stipulation (NSO): Astipulation in which use or occupancy of the landsurface for fluid mineral exploration or developmentis prohibited to protect identified resource values.

Timing Limitation Stipulation: A stipulationwhich prohibits surface use during specified timeperiods to protect identified resource values. Thisstipulation does not apply to the operation and main-tenance of production facilities unless the findingsof analysis demonstrate the continued need for suchmitigation and that less stringent, project specificmitigation measures would be insuff icient.

Controlled Surface Use Stipulation (CSU): Astipulation in which use and occupancy is allowed(unless restricted by another stipulation), but iden-tified resources values require special operationalconstraints that may modify the lease rights.

STRUTTING GROUND. Synonymous with Lek.

SUITABILITY. The adaptability of an area to graz-ing by livestock or wildlife.

SUITABLE RANGE. Rangeland that is accessibleto livestock, which can be grazed on a sustained-yield basis without damaging the resource.

SURFACE DISTURBANCE. Any action that re-moval of soil or vegetation and expose the mineral

GL-12

GLOSSARY

soil to erosive processes. Used in the literal contextof actual, physical disturbance and movement orremoval of the land surface and vegetation.

SURFACE WATER. All water located at the sur-face of the land, such as streams, rivers, and lakes.

THREATENED SPECIES (Federal). Any specieswhich is likely to become an endangered specieswithin the foreseeable future throughout all or a sig-nificant portion of its range. Whether a species isthreatened or endangered is determined by the fol-lowing factors: (1) present or threatened destruction,modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;(2) over utilization for commercial, sporting, scien-tific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or preda-tion; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mecha-nisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors.Also, see “Endangered Species (Federal)” in theGlossary.

THREATENED SPECIES (State). Any species orsubspecies that is likely to become endangered withinthe foreseeable future throughout all or a significantportion of its range in New Mexico. Also, see “En-dangered Species (State)” in the Glossary.

TURBIDITY. A condition in water caused by thepresence of suspended matter which results in thescattering and absorption of light. Generally, a mea-sure of fine suspended matter in water.

VALUE. As used in the RMP/EIS, a value refers toa natural resource or characteristic of a natural re-source that is not usually a commodity or is difficultto quantify in terms of a unit of measurement. Ex-amples of values in this context are listed in FLPMAand include scientific, scenic, air and atmospheric,historical, archeological and ecological resources.

VEGETATION RESOURCE CONDITION OB-JECTIVES (VRCO). In general terms the kinds,types, amounts or appearance of vegetation that willprovide the goods, values, and services needed on ageographic area.

VEGETATION TREA TMENTS. Methods used tomanage the growth and spread of vegetation. A veg-etative management practice can either be a direct

management of the vegetation itself, for exampleprescribed fire or indirect management like a changein the number of livestock utilizing the vegetation,or a change in the time frames when livestock areutilizing the vegetation.

VIABILITY INDEX . A mathematical model usedto predict the suitability of a pasture for pronghornpopulations using variables such as pasture size, rug-gedness, number of fall forb species and anticipatedfall sheep stocking rate. See Appendix 12 of theDraft Roswell RMP/EIS.

VISUAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT(VRM). The inventory and planning actions takento identify visual values and to establish objectivesfor managing those values; and the management ac-tions taken to achieve the visual management objec-tives.

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM)CLASSES. VRM Classes are based on relative vi-sual ratings of inventoried lands. Each class de-scribes the different degree of modification allowedto the basic elements of the landscape. The follow-ing are the minimurh management objective for eachclass.

Class 1: Natural ecological changes and very lim-ited management activity are allowed. Any contrastcreated within the characteristic landscape must notattract attention. This classification is applied toVisual Areas of Critical Environmental Concern,wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and othersimilar situations.

Class II: Changes in any of the basic elements (form,line, color, texture) caused by a management activ-ity should not be evident in the landscape. A con-trast may be seen but should not attract attention.

Class III: Contrasts to the basic elements caused bya management activity may be evident and begin toattract attention in the landscape. The changes, how-ever, should remain subordinate in the existing land-scape.

GL-13

GLOSSARY

Class IV: Contrasts may attract attention and be adominant feature in the landscape in terms of scale.However, the changes should repeat the basic ele-ments of the landscape.

Rehabilitation Area: Change is needed or changemay add acceptable visual variety to an area. Thisclass applies to areas where the naturalistic charac-ter has been disturbed to a point where rehabilita-tion is needed to bring it back into character withthe surrounding landscape. This class would applyto areas identified in the scenic evaluation where thequality class has been reduced because of unaccept-able cultural modification. The contrast is inhar-monious with the characteristic landscape. It mayalso be applied to areas that have the potential forenhancement; i.e., add acceptable visual variety toan area or site. It should be considered an interim orshort term classification until one of the other VRMclass objectives can be reached through rehabilita-tion or enhancement. The desired visual resourcemanagement class should be identified.

WATER QUALITY ST ANDARD. Regulationswhich specify designated uses for surface waters ofthe state, and water quality criteria to protect thoseuses. Standards are specified by the Water QualityControl Commission, in accordance with Section303 of the Clean Water Act.

WETLANDS. Areas that are inundated or saturatedby surface or ground water at a frequency and dura-tion sufficient to support and which, under normalcircumstances, do support a prevalence of vegeta-tion typically adapted for life in saturated soil con-ditions. Wetlands include marshes, shallows,swamps, lake shores, bogs, muskegs, wet meadows,estuaries, and riparian areas.

WILDERNESS. The definition contained in Sec-tion 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 is as fol-lows: “A wilderness, in contrast with those areaswhere man and his own works dominate the land-scape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earthand its community of life are untrammeled by man,where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”Wilderness is an area of undeveloped Federal landretaining its primeval character and influence, with-out permanent improvements or human habitation,

which is protected and managed so as to preserve itsnatural conditions and which (1) generally appearsto have been affected primarily by the forces of na-ture, with the imprint of man’s work substantiallyunnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities forsolitude or a primitive and unconfined type of rec-reation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres of land or is ofsufficient size as to make practicable its preserva-tion and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) mayalso contain ecological, geological, or other featuresor scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

WILDERNESS AREA (WA). An area formallydesignated by Congress as part of the National Wil-derness Preservation System.

WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA). Aroadless area which has been found to have wilder-ness characteristics.

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS. Thosecharacteristics of wilderness as described in Section2(c) of the Wilderness Act. These include size, natu-ralness, solitude, primitive and unconfined type ofrecreation, and supplemental values.

WILDLIFE. Includes all species of animals, birds,mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, or theirprogeny or eggs which, whether raised in captivityor not, are normally found in a wild state. Feralhorses and burrows are excluded .

WITHDRA WAL. Removal or withholding of pub-lic lands, by statute or secretarial order, from opera-tion of some or all of the public land laws. A min-eral withdrawal is the closing of an area to minerallocation and development activities. A mineral with-drawal includes public lands potentially valuable forsolid leasable minerals, precluding the disposal ofthe lands except with a mineral reservation clauseunless the lands are found not to contain a valuabledeposit of minerals.

1997 Roswell Approved RMP and Record of Decision - BLM ...

Documents

Transcript of 1997 Roswell Approved RMP and Record of Decision - BLM ...