Rimrock Rose Ranch Acquisition and Taos Resource Management Plan Amendment Addressing Livestock Grazing on Two Allotments in Sabinoso Wilderness

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NM-F020-2016-0011-EA

Taos Field Office 226 Cruz Alta Road Taos, New Mexico 87571 Rimrock Rose Ranch Acquisition and Taos Resource Management Plan Amendment Addressing Livestock Grazing on Two Allotments in Sabinoso Wilderness

Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NM-F020-2016-0011-EA

Table of Contents Abstract ...... 3 1.0 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Background ...... 3 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 4 1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance...... 4 1.4 Decisions to be Made ...... 5 1.5 Applicable Authorities ...... 5 1.6 Identification of Issues ...... 6 1.7 Issues Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ...... 7 2.0 Description of Alternatives...... 8 2.1 Alternative A: Proposed Action ...... 8 2.2 Alternative B: No Action ...... 9 2.3 Alternative C: Reapportionment of Allotments 735 and 736 (Outside of Wilderness Boundary) ...... 10 2.4 Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail ...... 11 3.0 Affected Environment ...... 13 3.1 Sabinoso Wilderness ...... 14 3.2 Sabinoso ACEC...... 14 3.3 Recreation...... 15 3.4 Cultural Resources ...... 15 3.5 Paleontological Resources...... 17 3.6 Riparian Resources ...... 18 3.7 Livestock Grazing ...... 20 3.8 Wildlife and Special Status Species ...... 21 3.9 Economics ...... 25 4.0 Environmental Consequences ...... 26 4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 26 4.1.1 Alternative A: Proposed Action ...... 26 4.1.2 Alternative B: No Action ...... 32 4.1.3 Alternative C: Reapportionment of Allotments 735 and 736 Outside of Wilderness Boundary ...... 34 4.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis ...... 37 4.2.1 Past and Present Actions ...... 37

4.2.3 Cumulative Effects...... 37 5.0 Consultation and Coordination ...... 38 5.1 Summary of Consultation and Coordination ...... 38 5.2 Summary of Public Participation ...... 38 5.3 List of Preparers ...... 38 6.0 References ...... 39 Appendix A: BLM Responses to Public Comments...... 41 Appendix B: Map 1 and Map 2 ...... 57

ABSTRACT

This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes an offer to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from The Wilderness Land Trust that has three key elements: 1) a donation of some 3,595 acres of the Rimrock Rose Ranch adjacent to the Sabinoso Wilderness, to become wilderness under the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964, 2) an offer to sell an additional 766 acres of the ranch to the BLM; and 3) the elimination of livestock grazing from the Rimrock Rose Ranch as well as from two allotments for which the ranch served as base property.

There are three decisions to be made. The first and second, which are implementation-level decisions (project-level decisions) and do not require the amendment of the current land use plan, are whether to accept the donation and whether to pursue the purchase of the additional acreage. The third decision is whether to adjust the livestock grazing allocations on the two allotments. This decision involves an amendment to the 2012 Taos Resource Management Plan.

This EA analyzes the potential consequences of three alternatives evaluated in detail, which include the Proposed Action (Alternative A), which would accept the three key elements described above; a No Action Alternative (Alternative B), which would decline the donation; and a third alternative (Alternative C) developed in response to comments provided to the BLM during the public review and comment period, which would preserve livestock grazing on those portions of the two allotments outside the present wilderness boundary. The EA also includes a discussion of an additional alternative considered but dismissed from detailed analysis.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Wilderness Land Trust, a private non-profit organization, has purchased 10 parcels of private land, known as the Rimrock Rose Ranch (ranch property), totaling 4,361 acres adjacent to the Sabinoso Wilderness in San Miguel County, New Mexico. The Wilderness Land Trust is offering to donate 3,595 acres of the ranch property to the United States to be included as part of the Sabinoso Wilderness, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Taos Field Office (BLM). The donation would provide public access for the first time to Sabinoso Wilderness, an area completely surrounded by private lands. While this proposal would provide an important opportunity to the public, it also poses a unique challenge in terms of resolving issues pertaining to livestock grazing.

In summary, under Alternative A, the BLM proposes to accept the donation of 3,595 acres for addition to the wilderness under the authority of Section 6 of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (PL 88-577, 16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). The BLM also proposes to acquire the remaining 766 acres through purchase when funds become available under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 or other sources, to be managed as part of the Sabinoso Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), an administrative designation adjacent to the wilderness.

The BLM is also proposing to make the two allotments for which the Rimrock Rose Ranch served as base property (per 43 CFR 4110.2-1) unavailable to livestock grazing. The grazing leases for these allotments, 00735 and 00736, were cancelled at the time the former owner sold the ranch property to The Wilderness Land Trust. These allotments, therefore, are not currently being grazed under an existing lease. The decision to make the allotments unavailable for grazing requires an amendment to the 2012 Taos Resource Management Plan (RMP), the applicable land use plan, since making lands unavailable for livestock grazing is considered a planning-level decision per BLM regulations.

The BLM is considering this latter decision—to make the two allotments unavailable—under unique circumstances. The BLM has a clear goal in the Taos RMP of securing public access to Sabinoso Wilderness, a designation of national significance, where there currently is none. (See section 1.3 below.) Because of this management priority for the area, The Wilderness Land Trust is asserting—as essentially the holders of the key to public access to the wilderness—that livestock grazing be “retired” on the two allotments within the wilderness that are associated with the former base property, the Rimrock Rose Ranch, as a “condition” for offering the donation. This condition is unique because it goes beyond what the Wilderness Act affords under Section 6 of the Wilderness Act.

Because of the unusual circumstance associated with the donation, the BLM must carefully—and objectively—examine options that do not accept or would otherwise mitigate such a condition to retire grazing on the two allotments. This issue is the primary driver of the alternatives considered under Chapter 2 of this EA.

This EA has been revised following a 30-day public review and comment period, which ended September 19, 2016. Public comments led to the development of an additional alternative, an additional alternative considered but dismissed from detailed analysis, an analysis of economic impacts, and other revisions to the EA. Section 6.2 provides a brief overview of the comments, and Appendix A presents the BLM responses to each substantive comment received during the comment period.

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action

The BLM’s purpose for acquiring the Rimrock Rose Ranch (ranch property) is to secure public access to Sabinoso Wilderness, as well as to expand the wilderness boundary to include significant resources. The purpose for making allotments 00735 and 00736 unavailable for livestock grazing is to comply with a restriction on the deed to the donated property that it not be utilized to accommodate grazing, which severely limits management options consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964 and its associated guidance and policy.

The BLM needs to take this action to provide the public an opportunity to access Sabinoso Wilderness— the first such public access since its designation. This action is necessary to allow the fullness of the intent of the wilderness designation to be realized. The Wilderness Act of 1964 specifies, at Section 2 (a) that wilderness areas “be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people . . . .” Furthermore, Section 4 (b), “that the wilderness shall be devoted to the public purpose of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.”

The BLM also needs to ensure the protection of the area’s wilderness character in accordance with the Wilderness Act. In addition, action is necessary to acquire the remainder of the real property under the provisions of Section 205 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) to fulfill the land tenure goals, objectives, and management actions for the Sabinoso area, described below, as prescribed by the land use plan.

1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance

The Taos RMP, approved in May 2012, is the applicable land use plan. The RMP establishes the goal of securing public access to public lands, specifically Sabinoso Wilderness, when these opportunities become available. (See pages 34 and 123 of the Taos RMP.)

The Taos RMP identified the area as a Special Recreation Management Area because of the unique opportunity for primitive and unconfined recreation. It also acknowledges the management challenge of 4

providing public access. The RMP states that the BLM “will seek to establish public access at appropriate locations based on the availability of easements and compatibility of access with preserving wilderness character and ACEC values,” (page 76).

Nearly all of the Rimrock Rose Ranch to be acquired is located within the Sabinoso ACEC, designated under the Taos RMP. The RMP states that “Areas within or adjacent to the Sabinoso Wilderness/ACEC is designated as an acquisition zone,” a specific area that includes the ranch property. The deed to the property also includes an access easement across adjacent private land.

The Sabinoso ACEC was designated in part to protect and restore riparian resources, which are recognized as a relevant and important value for which special management prescriptions are required. One of the Taos RMP objectives (page 20) is to “Manage riparian areas with an emphasis on protection and restoration . . . .” To meet this objective, the Taos RMP specifically makes riparian areas within the ACEC unavailable to livestock grazing (page 123). For reasons further explained below, the proposal to make two allotments unavailable to livestock helps ensure that management of the acquired property would conform to the Taos RMP.

An objective under Section 2.2.10.6 of the Taos RMP is to manage uses permitted by the Wilderness Act’s special provisions and subsequent laws in a manner that will prevent degradation of the area’s wilderness character. In managing these uses, emphasis will be placed on maintaining wilderness character. RMP guidance is to adhere to relevant law, regulation, and policy in the stewardship of the wilderness resource.

One objective of the Taos RMP that would not be met as a result of the Proposed Action is the avoidance of losing AUMs. The objective under section 2.2.4 of the RMP specifically states that the BLM would “Avoid net loss of animal unit months (AUMs) within the planning area where practical.” If approved, a net loss of AUMs would be anticipated at the time the action is implemented. (The economic impacts of this loss are now detailed in the analyses of Alternatives A, B, and C.)

1.4 Decisions to be Made

Two implementation-level (project-level) decisions will be made based on this EA:

1) The BLM will decide whether to accept The Wilderness Land Trust’s donation of 3,595 acres, thereby enlarging the Sabinoso Wilderness, per Section 6 of the Wilderness Act of 1964. 2) The BLM will decide whether to purchase 776 acres from The Wilderness Land Trust, the majority of which would be included within the Sabinoso ACEC.

One land use planning-level decision will be made based on this EA:

1) The BLM will decide whether to make allotments 00735 and 00736 (4,781 and 1,479 acres, respectively) unavailable for livestock grazing in whole or in part.

1.5 Applicable Authorities

Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA): FLPMA provides the BLM its underlying authority to exercise discretion on the following:

1) Section 202 authorizes the BLM to make land use planning decisions allocating the uses of public lands, including the availability of areas for livestock grazing. Section 402 (c) further specified

this authority. In this case, FLPMA provides for a decision to make the two allotments unavailable for grazing by the land use plan amendment process. 2) Section 202 gives the BLM authority to prioritize the protection of ACECs and their relevant and important values. 3) Sections 205 and 307 provide the BLM broad authority to acquire lands and interests, including through donation and purchase.

Wilderness Act of 1964: The Wilderness Act establishes the BLM authority to accept donations of land for their inclusion as part of a designated wilderness. Section 6 (a) states, “The [Secretary] may . . . accept gifts or bequests of land adjacent to wilderness areas designated by the Act for preservation as wilderness if he has given sixty days advance notice thereof to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.” If the BLM decides to accept the donation of land following this environmental analysis, the BLM, through Secretary of the Interior, will provide the advance notice to Congressional leaders as required under this section.

Section 6 (a) further allows donors to place certain conditions on the lands being donated. It states, “Regulations with regard to any such land may be in accordance with such agreements, consistent with the policy of this Act, as are made at the time of such gift, or such conditions, consistent with such policy, as may be included in, and accepted with, such bequest.” Under this authority, The Wilderness Land Trust is making the donation of the ranch property contingent upon the permanent exclusion of livestock grazing on the ranch property being donated.

Through Section 4(b), the Wilderness Act provides the mandate to the BLM to preserve the wilderness character of the area, subject to provisions otherwise provided in the Act. The grazing of livestock is subject to continuation through Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act in accordance with House Report 101–405, Appendix A.

Public Law 111-11 (2009): Section 1602 of Public Law 111-11 established Sabinoso Wilderness as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. This section further allows for any lands acquired within the wilderness boundary to be incorporated as part of the wilderness designation, a provision that applies to one of the parcels (Parcel S1—see Appendix B, Map 1) offered to the Federal government for sale.

1.6 Identification of Issues

A Federal Register notice was published on June 6, 2016 announcing the Proposed Action and soliciting public input on issues and alternatives that warrant consideration in this environmental review process. Public notification was also provided by various means, including a news release, web posting, and letters send to interested parties by mail and email. In response to public comment following the 30-day public review and comment on the EA, which ended on September 19, 2016, the BLM added another issue to be analyzed in detail: economic impacts from changes to livestock grazing opportunities.

Based on these efforts along with an interdisciplinary process conducted by BLM resources specialists, the following issues have been identified as relevant for detailed analysis:

Sabinoso Wilderness • How might the wilderness characteristics of the area benefit from this action? • How might the wilderness characteristics be adversely impacted?

Sabinoso ACEC • How might the area’s relevant and important values—scenic and riparian—benefit from this action? • How might these values be adversely impacted?

Recreation • How would the opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined recreational experience be impacted? • Would this action be consistent with the recreational management applied to this area by the Taos RMP?

Cultural Resources • How might the cultural and historic resources benefit from this action? • How might these resources be adversely impacted?

Paleontological Resources • How might the paleontological resources benefit from this action? • How might these resources be adversely impacted?

Riparian Resources • How might riparian habitat benefit from this action? • How might riparian habitat be adversely impacted?

Livestock Grazing • How would livestock grazing operations be impacted? • How would opportunities for livestock grazing be impacted?

Wildlife and Special Status Species • How might wildlife and special status species’ habitat benefit from this action? • How wildlife and special status species’ habitat might be adversely impacted?

Economics • How would revenue from the livestock grazing operation be affected by changes to the availability of allotments 00735 and 00736?

1.7 Issues Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis

The potential for negative economic impacts to San Miguel County as a result of the loss to taxable land base was considered, but dismissed from the detailed economic analysis now included in this EA. The land in San Miguel County that is currently managed by the BLM is approximately 1.5 percent of the total land mass. The Proposed Action would increase the BLM portion to 1.7 percent and would reduce private land to 80.3 percent. It is not anticipated that these changes would result in a meaningful change in tax revenues to the County. In addition, the allotment grazing fee revenue shared with the County is estimated at approximately $551 per year, which is not a substantial loss under Alternative A, the Proposed Action.

The potential for this action to contribute to greenhouse gases and/or be affected by climate change was also identified but dismissed from detailed analysis. The Proposed Action is administrative in nature and

would not produce any effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, a change in ownership or administrative designation would not be affected by changing climatic conditions.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Alternative A: Proposed Action The BLM proposes to acquire the 4,361-acre Rimrock Rose Ranch (ranch property) adjacent to Sabinoso Wilderness in San Miguel County, New Mexico, from The Wilderness Land Trust. Of this acreage, the BLM proposes to accept 3,595 acres as a donation for its inclusion within the designated wilderness under the provisions of Section 6 (a) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. The remaining 766 acres would be acquired through a purchase in accordance with Section 205 of FLPMA. The BLM also proposes to make two allotments unavailable to livestock grazing, a decision that requires the BLM to amend its Taos RMP. See Appendix B, Map 1.

2.1.1 Acquisition through Donation Acceptance

The BLM proposes to accept a donation of 3,595 acres, consisting of four parcels located in T 16 N, R 22 E; T 16 N, R. 23 E; and T 17 N, R 23 E, to be added to the wilderness (with two minor exceptions consisting of approximately 5 acres)—see Table 1. These parcels would be managed as part of the wilderness in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964 and guidance contained in BLM Manual 6340—Management of Designated Wilderness Areas.

Access would be available to the public at the westernmost end of Parcel D1 off of county road C51A. The road entering Cañon Largo would remain closed to the public. A gate would be placed on the rim of the canyon in the northwestern quarter of section 28, T. 16 N., R. 22 E., where trailhead parking would be accommodated.

Table 1. Parcels Donated for Inclusion within Sabinoso Wilderness Parcel Acres Description D1 2,621 Cañon Largo parcel* D2 247 West parcel D3 407 South parcel D4 320 East parcel *About 5 acres to be donated would not be included within the wilderness boundary because of the constructed nature of the access road and access needs to adjoining private lands. See Map 1.

In addition, the inclusion of Parcel D1 in the Sabinoso Wilderness would create a new private inholding within the wilderness boundary. This inholding would consist of portions of sections 13, 24, 25, and 26 within T. 16 N., R. 22 E., amounting to approximately 640 acres in size. Under Section 5 (a) of the Wilderness Act, such an inholding shall be given rights to adequate access, limited to the route and modes of travel used by the owner at the time the inholding was created. In this case, access may be granted across section 23 and/or section 26 within T. 16 N., R. 22 E., which keeps any travel on top of the mesa and out of Cañon Largo.

2.1.2 Grazing Allotment Availability

The BLM is also proposing to make the two allotments, 00735 and 00736, for which the ranch served as base property (per 43 CFR 4110.2-1(b)) unavailable to livestock grazing for two primary reasons: 1) reallocation of the allotments to another qualified applicant would be largely unfeasible, and 2) the ranch 8

property contains important riparian resources. Feasibility of re-allocating the grazing allotments to other qualified applicants is limited by steep topography, improvement needs such as fencing, and appropriate base property qualifications. When the ranch property served as base property for the two allotments, the grazing operation depended on the riparian areas on the base property as a water source and/or for trailing livestock. To protect wilderness character consistent with guidelines and policy under the Wilderness Act and to alleviate potential impacts to riparian resources in a manner consistent with management prescriptions in the Taos RMP, allotments 00735 and 00736, totaling 6,260 acres and 1,044 animal unit months (AUMs), would be made unavailable for grazing.

Under the provisions of Section 6 (a) of the Wilderness Act of 1964, a donor may apply conditions on a property donated for inclusion within a designated wilderness. In this case, the Wilderness Land Trust has specified that the grazing of livestock be permanently excluded on the ranch property as a condition of their donation.

2.1.3 Acquisition through Purchase

In addition, the BLM proposes to acquire 766 acres within six other parcels through a purchase, under the provisions of Section 205 of FLPMA. (See Table 2.) Parcel S1, located within the congressionally authorized wilderness boundary, would be included within Sabinoso Wilderness, while parcels S3, S4, and most of S5 would be included within the Sabinoso ACEC. Parcels S2 and S6 and a portion of S5 would not be included within the ACEC, but would be managed in accordance with the general prescriptions under the Taos RMP.

Table 2. Parcels Offered for Sale Parcel Acres Management S1 322 Inholding—to be included within wilderness

S2 48 Not contiguous to ACEC or wilderness—to receive general management per Taos RMP S3 35 To be included within ACEC

S4 166 To be included within ACEC

S5 154 Approximately 110 acres would be included within ACEC, while the remaining would be outside the ACEC and to receive general management per Taos RMP S6 41 Not contiguous to ACEC or wilderness—to receive general management per Taos RMP

2.1.4 Rights Associated with the Acquisition

Rights associated with the ranch property proposed for acquisition though donation and purchase are 1) a deeded access road from county road C51A to the property, 2) mineral rights underlying the ranch property, and 3) the rights to caliche material underlying approximately 2,379 acres.

All parcels proposed for acquisition are presented on Map 1 in Appendix B along with the access route, the caliche rights area, and allotments 735 and 736, as discussed above.

2.2 Alternative B: No Action

The BLM would not accept the donation of 3,595 acres or pursue the acquisition of 766 acres from The Wilderness Land Trust. The Rimrock Rose Ranch would remain in private ownership.

Allotments 00735 and 00736—consisting of 6,260 total acres and 1,044 total AUMs—would remain available for lease by a qualified applicant. At this time, however, the allotments are vacant of livestock grazing. It is expected that a new grazing lease would not be pursued by the current owner of the Rimrock Rose Ranch, since it has expressed explicit interest in excluding grazing from the ranch property. Therefore, the following could be expected as part of a new operation on the two allotments:

• Up to 87 total head of cattle would be authorized on the two allotments—see Table 3 under section 3.7 below.

• Owners of adjoining lands, which qualify as base property under BLM regulations at 43 CFR 4110.2-1, would be given primacy in applying for the lease of the two allotments. If no adjoining landowner is interested in applying for use of an allotment, then other landowners having base property could apply for their lease. However, in such a case, the BLM would require that the applicant can demonstrate that he or she has secured legal access across any private lands cattle would be transported to and from the allotments.

• Since New Mexico is a “fence-out” state with regards to livestock, the owner of the Rimrock Rose Ranch would be responsible for the construction of any fencing necessary to ensure livestock do not trespass onto the ranch property. Necessary fencing in this case is estimated to be 8.5 miles in length, which would cost approximately $202,000 to $231,000 to construct—see Table 3.

2.3 Alternative C: Reapportionment of Allotments 735 and 736 (Outside of Wilderness Boundary)

2.3.1 Acquisition through Donation Acceptance

Under this alternative, the BLM would accept the donation of the Rimrock Rose Ranch property as described under Alternative A, the Proposed Action.

2.3.2 Grazing Allotment Availability

Under this alternative, the BLM would continue to keep portions of allotments 735 and 736, where they are located outside of the wilderness boundary, available for livestock grazing.

Approximately 730 acres of the existing allotments would be reapportioned (retained) for use outside of the wilderness boundary likely in combination with other existing allotments as well as the approximately 304 acres proposed to be purchased (gained) by the BLM. This alternative would retain/gain approximately 74 AUMs that would support approximately 6 cows on the newly configured allotments. A total of approximately 2.5 miles of new fencing would be required along the boundary of these allotments. The cost of construction could be incurred by the BLM, but could also be required of the prospective lessee depending on funding availability. Maintenance responsibility of the fence, once constructed, would be transferred to the authorized grazing lessee.

See Map 2 in Appendix A to understand the potential layout of these allotments.

Table 3. Comparison of Alternatives—Livestock Grazing Alternative A: Proposed Alternative B: No Alternative C: Action Action Reapportionment of Allotments Available Acres 0 6,260 1,034 AUMs 0 1,044 74 Cattle 0 87 6 Fencing Requirements none 8.5 miles 2.5 miles Cost of fencing * 0 $202,000-231,000 $59,000-68,000 *Cost is estimated at $4.50-5.15 per foot

2.3.3 Acquisition through Purchase

Under this alternative, the BLM would purchase the remaining ranch property as described under Alternative A.

2.4 Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail

The following alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis for reasons provided:

1) Acceptance of the donation and reallocation of allotments 00735 and 00736 to an alternative base property. This alternative was dismissed from further detailed analysis because access is not available to portions of the allotment from new base property, and substantial new facilities would need to be constructed within the boundaries of Sabinoso Wilderness to accommodate livestock grazing on the remainder of the allotments. Such developments are not allowable under the Wilderness Act, Congressional guidance, and BLM regulations pertaining to grazing of livestock in wilderness.

As indicated, The Wilderness Land Trust has placed conditions on the ranch property under the provisions of Section 6 of the Wilderness Act. One condition The Wilderness Land Trust is specifically imposing on the deed to the donated Rimrock Rose Ranch property is that grazing be permanently excluded from the donated lands. Because the property proposed for donation served as the base property for allotments 00735 and 00736 under BLM regulations at 43 CFR 4110.2-1, grazing of these two allotments could only be authorized with different land capable of serving as base property owned or controlled by a new applicant.

The previous ranch owner who held the grazing lease essentially operated the base property and two allotments as one large unit, where year-round grazing was permitted. Under the new situation, livestock grazing would have to be restricted from the donation property, as well as adjoining portions of the wilderness where grazing was unalloted prior to wilderness designation. These two factors greatly limit the ability to graze the majority of the two allotments because cattle could not be grazed across those areas to access the allotments. Further constraints include topography, as the rimrock and canyon terrain provides few locations where cattle can practically be moved from an adjoining allotment while avoiding donation lands or unallotted portions of the wilderness. Finally, the limited portions of the two allotments not isolated by the donation property, unalloted areas, or topography would require fencing to prohibit livestock from straying onto the donation property. While some fencing exists in Cañon Largo, where the bulk of the ranch property is located, it is mostly in a state of disrepair and not on the property line. Thus, even though sheer escarpment along allotment boundaries alleviate the need for some fencing, the

11 existing fencing is not sufficient to keep livestock from entering the donated lands to remain compliant with the deed restriction. While three small reservoirs provided water within the southern part of allotment 00735, sources within allotment 00736 were not considered reliable. Therefore, the majority of watering for the grazing operation took place on the donation property located in Cañon Largo.

Without the ability to graze the former base property, grazing the allotments would be impracticable unless substantial new facilities are developed. First, new fencing would be required to keep cattle from exiting the allotments and moving onto the former base property in the canyon. New fencing to keep cattle off of the donation property—approximately 8.5 miles of fencing—would have to be installed within the boundary of the Sabinoso Wilderness. Secondly, with cattle restricted from entering the donation property, access to water would be limited and new water sources would need to be established in the wilderness, particularly on allotment 00736.

Grazing within wilderness is regulated under Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act, as described in detail through House Report No. 101-405, Appendix A, commonly referred to as the Congressional Grazing Guidelines. Under the grazing provision of the Wilderness Act and the Congressional Grazing Guidelines, grazing is permitted to continue in wilderness, but under guidelines that describe the degree to which activities, facilities, and methods may be used to support grazing. The Congressional Grazing Guidelines specifically address new facilities in the following manner: The construction of new improvements . . . in wilderness is permissible if in accordance with these guidelines and management plans governing the area involved. However, the construction of new improvements should be primarily for the purpose of resource protection and the more effective management of these resources rather than to accommodate increased numbers of livestock.

BLM Regulations at 43 CFR 6304.25 further describe that:

The construction of new livestock management facilities must be for the purposes of protection and improved management of wilderness resources.

BLM policy at Manual 6340.06 B. 8. d. iii. provide additional detail:

New facilities will be permitted by the BLM only for the purpose of enhancing the protection of wilderness character.

Making allotments 00735 and 00736 available to a new permittee would require new facilities to be constructed in wilderness to comply with grazing restrictions on adjacent lands. New facilities are not permissible in wilderness under these circumstances; they are only permissible where needed to protect wilderness character. Even if the former base property were not donated, the restrictions to grazing would apply. The Wilderness Land Trust would not permit grazing on the private property in the case they do not donate it. A new permittee, originating from an alternate base property, would be required to construct access routes to portions of the allotments where they formerly would have been reached by crossing lands now owned by the Wilderness Land Trust. New water sources would be required to replace water no longer available in Cañon Largo or a substantial change in the length of the grazing season would need to be considered. Consequently, livestock grazing operations on allotments 00735 and 00736 would not be feasible in a manner that complies with guidelines and policies. Therefore, to the extent that this 12

alternative would be dependent upon new facilities within the wilderness, it is removed from further consideration.

2) Acquire, by donation, the 3,595 acres of land known as the Rimrock Rose Ranch (plus an additional 766 acres of the ranch through purchase) but not include within the Sabinoso Wilderness. Under this alternative, the acreage would not be included within the Sabinoso Wilderness. Instead, while much of the land would be included within the ACEC, the acreage would be managed for multiple use purposes according to the guidance contained in the Taos RMP.

The Wilderness Land Trust, however, is only offering the donation with the intention of its inclusion within the Sabinoso Wilderness, as provided for under Section 6 of the Wilderness Act of 1964. Their offer is contingent upon the majority of the land being preserved as wilderness. Therefore, this alternative is not considered any further as an option since it is not an option made available by The Wilderness Land Trust.

3) Acquire the Rimrock Rose Ranch lands through an exchange. If acquired through an exchange, the lands would be inventoried for their wilderness characteristics, and be subject to protection or not under a revised RMP at the discretion of the BLM. However, none of the land would become part of the Sabinoso Wilderness without further Congressional action. The Wilderness Land Trust has not expressed a willingness to enter into a land exchange with the BLM. Because an exchange is not being offered to the United States, it will not be further analyzed.

4) Acquire all of the Rimrock Rose Ranch property through a purchase. If acquired through purchase, the lands would be inventoried for their wilderness characteristics, and be subject to protection or not under a revised RMP at the discretion of the BLM. However, none of the land would become part of the Sabinoso Wilderness without further Congressional action (except parcel S1). The BLM would not have funding to pursue a purchase unless appropriated through Congress. The Wilderness Land Trust has not expressed a desire to work through the process of selling the subject land to the BLM. Because this alternative is not being offered to the United States, it will not be further analyzed.

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Rimrock Rose Ranch property is adjacent to or is near the Sabinoso Wilderness approximately 50 miles east of Las Vegas, New Mexico near the community of Trujillo. The parcel is generally undeveloped land and consists of rimrock bordered canyons with riparian species and large conifers (in Cañon Largo), and piñon-dominated uplands.

There is one constructed road that leads to the upper part of Cañon Largo, originating from county road C51A. There is a primitive two-track route on the property in Cañon Largo, which the previous owner used to traverse the ranch property. This route crosses public lands in the canyon, and as part of a wilderness inventory was determined to be a primitive route worn by the passages of vehicles, not a constructed road.

3.1 Sabinoso Wilderness

The Rimrock Rose Ranch property is adjacent to the 16,030-acre Sabinoso Wilderness and meets the size criteria for wilderness in conjunction with the existing designated wilderness. The property appears to be affected primarily by the forces of nature.

The donation property contains one road which the property owners have abandoned; therefore, the property is considered “roadless.” This route does not conflict with wilderness values in that it could reclaim naturally or be converted to a hiking and equestrian trail. The property also includes about 3.5 miles of allotment and pasture fences, and minor livestock facilities such as salting locations. The property includes a house, Quonset hut, and three solar powered wells which are currently in the process of being removed, and will not be present at the time the property is transferred to the BLM. None of the other developments on the property are substantially noticeable and so are not inconsistent with a wilderness designation. Livestock grazing has been discontinued on the ranch property by The Wilderness Land Trust.

In combination with the adjacent Sabinoso Wilderness, the property offers outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. Furthermore, by itself the property offers these values and would become a major focal point of the wilderness for primitive recreation due to the outstanding opportunities for canyon hiking, horseback riding, camping, hunting, photography, and other forms of primitive recreation. A large part of the property includes a winding canyon, and this topography provides for separation from other visitors. In addition, the vegetation on the property includes woodland and forest which further enhances separation and screening between visitors. These qualities result in outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation.

The parcel has high scenic values because of the sandstone cliff walls of Cañon Largo and the ponderosa and cottonwood trees that grow within. Based on the presence of cultural resources on adjacent BLM lands, the property is expected to contain prehistoric and historic cultural resources of value. Cañon Largo forms a logical travel corridor between the upper and lower plains here, and this is expected to contribute to past uses by people. A large prehistoric pueblo ruin is also believed to be located on the property based on remote sensing information. Cultural resources would be a supplemental value of the wilderness character of the donated lands. Based on what is known on adjacent public land, the property is expected to contain wildlife habitat including important riparian habitat for amphibians.

3.2 Sabinoso ACEC

3.2.1 Riparian Value

The Sabinoso ACEC was established to protect relevant and important riparian resource values, where they occur on public lands in the area. However, there are several miles of riparian resources located on the ranch property proposed for acquisition and inclusion within the wilderness. These resources are described under section 3.6.

3.2.2 Scenic Value

The ACEC was found to contain high quality scenic value, based on a visual quality inventory, and is currently managed as Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class I. The VRM objective for this classification is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to landscapes where this classification is applied—should any be authorized—should be very low and must not attract attention.

3.3 Recreation

A large part of the property includes Cañon Largo, a scenic area exceptionally attractive for hiking, horseback riding, backcountry camping, photography, and hunting, or as an access corridor to those activities on the adjacent public lands. However, currently there is no public access on the road to the Wilderness and surrounding public lands as a whole. Public ownership of the Rimrock Rose Ranch property would provide access to and parking for the Sabinoso Wilderness and surrounding BLM lands by way of a constructed road to the upper part of the canyon. Where this road is located on adjacent private land, an easement exists and is included in the Rimrock Rose property. From this new access opportunity primitive recreational activity including hiking, horseback riding, hunting, camping, nature study, and photography are readily available.

Public lands in the area are managed as the Sabinoso Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) where special management may be applied that seeks public access while preserving the unique opportunity for primitive and unconfined recreation. The Taos RMP acknowledges the management challenge of providing public access, stating that the BLM “will seek to establish public access at appropriate locations based on the availability of easements and compatibility of access with preserving wilderness character and ACEC values” (page 76).

3.4 Cultural Resources

The Sabinoso area and the proposed acquisition are situated within the Southern High Plains where evidence of human occupation dates back at least 12,500 years. Prehistoric and historic period cultural developments in the Sabinoso area are part of the much broader High Plains cultural environment that is distinct from the rest of cultural developments in the Southwestern regions of the United States (Gunnison 1987). Within the Southern High Plains, the deeply incised topography of the Canadian River and the attendant canyon lands of the Sabinoso area represent an abrupt and comparatively well-watered departure from the surrounding semi-arid and highly exposed tablelands of the “plains” environment. While humans have traversed and occupied the Great Plains for thousands of years it has long been recognized by archaeologists and historians that intensive human occupation of this physiographic region in the past was typically concentrated in canyon environments where the unique topography and diversity of natural resources provided a highly attractive contrast to the surrounding tablelands (Akins 1993; Lowie and DeMaillie 1984, DeMaillie 1979, Gunnison 1987, Winter 1988, Gunnison and Gunnison 1988, Cordell and McBrinn 2012).

The Sabinoso area has not been intensively studied or inventoried, but a general knowledge of its cultural resources can be assembled from existing sources. Scatters of stone artifacts are distributed in the canyons and along the precipitous margins of the surrounding mesa tops. These artifacts are testimony to the long prehistoric use of this region by nomadic people who intermittently traveled through, and sometimes resided within, this protected environment. Rock overhangs were sometimes used as shelters and also contain artifacts associated with the prehistoric and historic period presence in this area. Petroglyphs have been observed on some shelter walls, on cliff faces, and on isolated boulders. The remnants of ancient trails traverse the canyons and mesa tops and are associated with scattered alignments of prehistoric and early historic period artifacts (Dicks 2007, 2008; Lambauch 2010; Dicks et al. 2012). Large game “kill sites,” where herd animals such as bison were corralled or even driven over steep cliffs and into deep gullies where they were then killed and butchered, have been identified in the region. Some of these are extremely old and provide the earliest evidence of human nomadic activities in this portion of the Southern Plains (Frison 1978; Fraught et. al. 1994; Cordell and McBrinn 2012).

Circles of stone, representing the weighted margins of brush structures and skin-covered tipis have been found all along the Canadian watershed (Winter 1988; Gunnerson 1987; Gunnerson and Gunnerson 1988;

York 1988; Dicks 2007). Some of these date to the arrival of the horse in the Plains region and are indicative of the expansion of the Great Plains Horse Culture into this part of the Canadian River Valley, beginning in the mid-17th century (Hämäläinen 2008; Eislet 2012). Historic period groups like the Kiowa, Apaches, Utes and, particularly, the Comanche, quickly adopted the horse and expanded their realm of activities and occupation to include this portion of the Canadian River Valley. Some of the early metal and glass artifacts that have been found in the region were probably acquired by these Plains nomads through trade networks that stretched across the High Plains. Trade routes linked the Spanish southwest with the Great Lakes and eastern reaches of the continent where British, French, Spanish, and, later, American interests vied for economic and political control of the continent (Hämäläinen 2008).

The settlement of the Sabinoso area by Hispanic and Anglo homesteaders and farmers began only in the mid-19th century. This late date is indicative of the persistent presence of nomadic groups like the Comanche who controlled much of the southern Plains from the 17th century through the early 19th century. In the lower reaches of Cañon Largo are the remains of several small, defensive plazas that were constructed of tabular fieldstone and adobe. The earliest of these date to the very beginnings of the U.S. Territorial period when disenfranchised Hispanic families moved from the settlements around Las Vegas, down the Mora River Valley to its confluence with the Canadian to start a new existence (Laumbach 2010).

At first, because the threat of attack from nomadic raiders was still very much present in the Sabinoso area, these new arrivals clustered together in plaza settlements and farmed nearby tracks of land in the rich alluvium that lay along the river and at the mouth of the canyons (Lambauch 2010). In 1863 it was necessary to station two troops of New Mexico Volunteers near the end of Cañon Largo to protect these settlements. A military road was constructed down the canyon in the 1850’s and 60’s that connected nearby Fort Union with Fort Bascom, located further down the Canadian River. The new road linked the Largo and Canadian River settlements with the outside world, but raiding by nomadic Plains people continued. In 1854 a “running battle” was fought on the rugged slopes and rim above Cañon Largo between a company of U.S. Dragoons and “Apache” raiders. The raiders may actually have been “genezarios” rustlers made up to look like Apaches. The battle ended with the death of a young Lieutenant, killed instantly by two arrows “that found their mark” as he led his unit in a charge over the sandstone rim of a nearby mesa (Utley 1962).

After the end of the American Civil War in 1864 the region became more conducive to permanent settlement. The remains of homesteads appeared along the length of Cañon Largo in the second half of the 19th century as families dispersed to occupy lands that were formerly beyond the protective confines of the old defensive plazas of Largo, Ancon, and Armenta. These small homesteads were mostly positioned along the old Fort Bascom-Fort Union military road (Dicks et al. 2012). A 2010 oral history survey of the Sabinoso area documented the remains of numerous homesteads and other cultural features in nearby Olguin, Ciruela, and Spring canyons. The remains of a small, rural cemetery and one isolated grave site were found in Ciruela Cañon (Laumbach 2010). Like the earlier plaza settlements down along the Canadian, the homesteads were built of stone, mud, and large, wooden “vegas” and “latias.” They are preserved today as archaeological sites that include light scatters of mostly homemade artifacts, but there are also discarded fragments of “store-bought” artifacts of glass, metal, and “fancy” porcelain (Laumback 2010; Dicks et. al. 2012).

While small scale farming and gardening were a part of these homestead economies, the main focus was on grazing livestock (Laumbauch 2010). The surrounding canyons and mesa tops are dotted with the remains of sheep herder shelters and camps. Corrals and smaller “lambing pens” of brush, stone, and wooden rails are also present, along with petroglyphs that record initials, names, dates, and sometimes religious sentiments in the form of Christian crosses (Dicks 2007; 2008). The smaller corrals often contain the remains of central hearths and scatters of “knife-opened” cans of condensed milk. The

herders would sit inside these small enclosures, hold the new born lambs near the hearth, and “nurse” them with canned milk to give them a “surer start” at life.

Mesa top playa lakes border some of the canyon lands and some of these features are known to be present within the existing Wilderness area and ACEC. Playas in the area are often surrounded by the remains of livestock herder camps. Some were modified by the construction of rock walls and dams so that they would hold more water for livestock. Lines of stepping stones are also common that extend out towards the center of these recessed, natural ponds, across the muddy flats, to access open water. Some of these playa features may have been constructed by earlier people as there are often light scatters of stone artifacts that indicate that these upland sources of water were also attractive to prehistoric human groups. Playa lakes within this physiographic setting have been found to harbor lacustrine (lake) sediments in excess of 300 feet deep (Tony Benson, personal communication 2015). These kinds of depositional environments possess the potential to harbor well-preserved and deeply stratified archaeological, paleontological, and paleo-environmental remains and data that are generally not present or preserved in other settings. All of these places on the landscape were linked by networks of constructed trails that are still visible today, though they are now mostly traversed by wildlife (Dicks 2008).

The Sabinoso area continued to be something of a frontier landscape well into the 20th century. During World War I, a local volunteer from Sabinoso went AWOL from the army and hid out in the upper reaches of Cañon Largo for several years. Local people brought him provisions and kept him hidden from the authorities until after the end of the war (Lambauch 2010). Rustling livestock seems to have been a tradition in this area that extended back to the early days of nearby Fort Union. Official records are filled with references to livestock and horse theft from the government herds and of punitive expeditions to the Canadian settlements in what seem to have generally been futile searches for the perpetrators. The remote, largely inaccessible canyon lands provided the perfect setting for this sort of activity.

Major flood events in 1909 and 1920 effectively destroyed the old plazas of Ancon and Armenta, located just upstream from Sabinoso, at the mouth of the Mora River (Dalrymple, Tate and “Others” 1939; Laumbach 2010). The remote and rugged environment of the Sabinoso area was a key factor in its economic decline during the first half of the 20th century when even rural community articulation with outside market economies became increasingly important across the United States. Sabinoso was bypassed by the network of early railroads that inched their way across the New Mexico landscape in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The closest rail line was the Dawson Branch of the Southern Pacific which ran through the rural hub of Roy 21 miles to the north. Farming along the Canadian, while productive at the subsistence level, was constrained by the limited amount of arable land within the narrow canyon environments of the Sabinoso area. Always removed from mainland routes, the community was further marginalized when the county road connecting Mosquero with Las Vegas bypassed Sabinoso altogether. The largely self-sufficient and highly rural community of Sabinoso was probably less directly affected by the Great Depression than many areas of the country. But it was also completely left behind by the post-World War II economic “boom” that left it more isolated than ever and further diminished the connections that the community had with the outside world. The nation-wide shift in rural populations to urbanized settings particularly affected communities like Sabinoso which has experienced a substantial decline in population over the past century.

3.5 Paleontological Resources

The proposed acquisition lands, along with the Sabinoso Wilderness and the Sabinoso ACEC, are located within the Canadian Escarpment physiographic region. This is a region that is characterized by high plateaus that are dissected by deep, narrow canyons that feed into the Canadian River drainage. Cañon Largo and Cañon Olguin both contain extensive vertical exposures of Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous-

age rock formations. These formations have yielded an abundance of highly significant fossil specimens in adjacent portions of east-central New Mexico. Important specimens that have been recovered range from complete and well preserved skeletons and tracks of Triassic-age, terrestrial mega-fauna, such as Allosaurus—a large, heavily armored, and carnivorous dinosaur—to whole assemblages of Cretaceous age marine fauna and flora that collectively represent extinct ecosystems dating back 150 million years (Leibold et al. 1987; Sealey 2010).

The Potential Fossil Yield Classification system (PFYC) ranks different areas within the United States according to their potential for the associated rock formations and exposures to preserve and yield highly significant fossil assemblages. The formations that are associated with the Sabinoso region are usually ranked “High” (PFYC 4) to “Very High” (PFYC 5) in the surrounding portions of east-central New Mexico. Current PFYC ranking classifies most of the Sabinoso Wilderness and the proposed acquisition parcels as PFYC 3 (moderate or unknown) and PFYC 4 (high). The PFYC 3 ranking is believed by paleontologists familiar with the region to reflect the remoteness of the Sabinoso area and an absence of detailed paleontological explorations, rather than the actual fossil yield potential of the associated formations (Sealey 2010). A recent summary of the fossil potential for the Sabinoso area concludes that this region should more appropriately be classified as PFYC 4b because;

The Sabinoso Wilderness Area contains important rock units that have yielded high numbers of scientifically important fossils elsewhere in New Mexico, but because of the general nature of outcrop due to vegetation cover, colluvium and steepness of [canyon] walls, the overall categorization of the geologic outcrops is a PFYC Class 4b…Class 4b is defined as the bedrock unit having high potential, but a protective layer of soil, thin alluvial material, or other conditions may lessen or prevent potential impacts to the bedrock resulting from an activity. It is not considered a Class 5b because even though it does contain highly fossiliferous geologic units that consistently and predictably produce significant fossil remains elsewhere in New Mexico, the steep nature, colluvium, and vegetation cover of the rock units precludes it from having a very high potential to yield large numbers of scientifically important fossil remains…(Sealey 2010).

Mesa top playa lakes border some of the canyon lands and some of these features are known to be present within the existing Wilderness area and ACEC. Playa lakes within this general physiographic setting have been found to harbor lacustrine (lake) sediments in excess of 300 feet deep (Tony Benson, personal communication 2015). These kinds of depositional environments possess the potential to harbor well- preserved and deeply stratified paleontological and paleo-environmental remains and data that are generally not present or preserved in other settings.

3.6 Riparian Resources

The riparian habitat of the Sabinoso Wilderness and Rimrock Rose Ranch follow the intermittent stream within Cañon Largo and to a lesser extent within its side canyons. Many of the side canyons and drainages retain pools of standing water (tinajas) long after the streamflow has stopped. Water flows above and below ground along Cañon Largo depending on location and season. In the Southwest, these riparian habitats are rare and susceptible to degradation. The riparian habitat within the Rimrock Rose Ranch is important for water quality control, flood mitigation, regulating the movement of water, and critical wildlife habitat and food sources.

Taxa identified in the riparian habitat of Cañon Largo and surrounding side canyons are sedges (Carex), horsetails (Equisetum), spike rush (Eleocharis), smartweeds (Persicaria), bulrushes (Schoenoplectus), cattails (Typha), rushes (Juncus), grasses (Poaceae), willows (Salix), and cottonwoods (Populus). Mature cottonwoods are common in Cañon Largo, however, saplings and mid-aged cottonwoods are less abundant. Willows are present but not common and the specimens detected were heavily browsed.

Abundant cattle tracks and scat were detected near the browsed willows and grazed non-woody vegetation throughout the canyon.

Riparian vegetation within the side canyons of Cañon Largo are supported by subsurface soil moisture allowing for intermittent riparian vegetation. The side canyons have similar riparian vegetation to Cañon Largo, however cottonwoods are rare.

Figure 1. Riparian habitat with cottonwoods in the background

Figure 2. Riparian area with sedges, rushes, cattails, bullrushes, and grasses.

Figure 3. Cattle tracks in the riparian habitat

Although, the Rimrock Rose Ranch has not been actively grazed since October 2015, there were numerous cattle present in Cañon Largo, in July of 2016. More than 50 cattle were observed within Cañon Largo, as well as two horses near the eastern boundary (Besser pers. obs.). Cattle tracks and scat were seen throughout the canyon. Riparian vegetation was grazed by the remaining cattle throughout Cañon Largo resulting in lower stubble height of the herbaceous vegetation, browsing of sapling cottonwoods and willows, degrees of soil erosion from trampled banks and shorelines, and contribution to the increase and spread of invasive species. The riparian areas and flood plains visited displayed signs of degradation that included many herbaceous species associated with disturbed areas. It is believed that the majority of the livestock have been removed from the Rim Rock Rose Ranch property as of the fall of 2016. Most forbs and many grasses identified were invasive species, while the sedges, rushes, bulrushes, cattails, cottonwoods, and willows were native species. Tamarisk was detected in the canyon in low numbers.

3.7 Livestock Grazing

Within Sabinoso Wilderness and the surrounding area, there are 18 BLM livestock grazing allotments. All but three are currently authorized for use. In total, over 21,000 acres are allotted for grazing, including 3,640 acres of state and private lands within the federal allotments. Approximately 2,200 animal unit months (AUMs), the measure of available forage, are allocated on total allotted acreage.

Allotments 00735 and 00736, the Rim Rock and Cañon allotments, respectively, are among those without an active lease. (See Table 4.) The Rimrock Rose Ranch served as base property for these allotments in accordance with regulations at 43 CFR 4110.2-1. The former owner of the ranch was the lessee on the

two allotments from June 2006 until October 2015 when the lessee sold the ranch property to The Wilderness Land Trust. The Wilderness Land Trust does not qualify for a grazing lease, so would not be authorized to use the ranch as base property.

Table 4. Livestock Grazing Allotments Served by Ranch Property Number Name Livestock Acres AUMs Period 00735 Rim Rock 73 cattle 4,781 876 3/1 to 2/28 00736 Cañon 14 cattle 1,479 168 3/1 to 2/28

The lessee, who previously owned the ranch, was authorized to run 87 head of cattle on the two allotments on a year-round lease. BLM records indicate that the lessee paid annual fees for all 87 head. However, anecdotally and based on field observations, it is believed that the lessee averaged only 30-40 head of cattle and, consequently, only utilized allotment 00735. The stream in Cañon Largo, most of which is on the private ranch property, is more easily accessible from allotment 00735 and provides a more reliable year-round water source, though the lessee did drill two wells and install metal troughs on the ranch property to provide water when the stream went dry.

3.8 Wildlife and Special Status Species

The Sabinoso Wilderness lies within the Southwestern Tablelands Level III Ecoregion, an area dominated by sub humid and semiarid grasslands. The Sabinoso Wilderness and surrounding ACEC’s deep canyons and mesa tops break up the relatively flat grassland of the southwestern tablelands. Piñon pine (Pinus edulis) and juniper (Juniperous spp.) woodlands, savannahs, grasslands, rock outcrops, and riparian habitat along the canyon bottoms are common and support many wildlife species. Table 5 outlines the BLM Sensitive Species that may inhabit the Sabinoso Wilderness and Rimrock Rose Ranch. Table 6 lists many other species that live in the habitats provided by the wilderness. Table 2 is not exhaustive, and many species of song birds, lizards, snakes, small mammals, and insects depend upon the ecosystem within the Sabinoso Wilderness and the ranch property. A bird survey was conducted by Bill West in June 2016, which documented over 50 bird species within Cañon Largo.

Riparian dependent wildlife species present during a July 2016 survey of the Rimrock Rose Ranch property included plains leopard frog (Lithobates blairi), Woodhouse’s toad (Anaxyrus woodhousii), red- spotted toad (Anaxyrus punctatus), American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbiana), smooth soft shell turtle (Trionyx muticus), garter snakes (Thamnophis), black bullhead catfish (Ameiurus melas), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis).

Table 5. BLM New Mexico Sensitive Species of the Sabinoso Wilderness. The “I” is considered Important habitat for the species year round and the “C” is Casual habitat use. Where there is a gap in the data the “No data” is used. BISON: Biota Information System of New Mexico provided the data for the table. Short- Arroyo Ponderosa Pinon/ Juniper grass Rock Common Name Scientific Name Riparian Riparian Pine Juniper Savannah Scrub Steppe Outcrop Pale Townsend's big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii C C C C C C C C Arizona myotis Myotis occultus I C I I C I C I Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes I C I I I I I I Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis I C I C C C C I Long-legged myotis Myotis volans I C I I C C C I Western Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum I I I I I I I I

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis I C C I I I I I Gunnison's prairie dog Cynomys gunnisoni (prairie) zuniensis C C C I I I I ND Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis ND I C C I ND I I Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia ND ND ND C I ND I ND Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus ND C ND ND I C I ND Gymnorhinus Piñon jay cyanocephalus ND ND C I I ND C ND Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus ND ND ND ND I ND I ND Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum I I ND ND ND ND I ND Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens I I ND ND ND ND ND ND

Table 6. Other wildlife species common to the Sabinoso Wilderness area. The "I" is considered important habitat for the species year round and the "C" is casual habitat use by the species. Where there is a gap in the data the “No data” is used. BISON: Biota Information System of New Mexico provided the data for the table. Short- Arroyo Ponderosa Pinon/ Juniper grass Rock Common Name Scientific Name Riparian Riparian Pine Juniper Savannah Scrub Steppe Outcrop Coyote Canis latrans C C C I I I I C Common gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus I I I I I I C I Red fox Vulpes vulpes I ND C I I I C ND Black bear Ursus americanus I C I I C I C C Common raccoon Procyon lotor I C C C C C C I Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata C C I I I I I I Ringtail Bassariscus astutus I I I I I I I I American badger Taxidea taxus C C C C I I I C Mountain lion Puma concolor I C I I I I I I Bobcat Lynx rufus I I I I I I C I Elk Cervus elaphus nelsoni I C I I I I C ND Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus I I I I I I I ND Antilocapra americana Pronghorn americana ND ND C C I I I ND Turkey vulture Cathartes aura I I I I I I I I Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos I/C I I I I I I I Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis I I I I I I I I Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni I C C C I I I ND American kestrel Falco sparverius I I I I I I I ND Merlin Falco columbarius I I I I I I I ND Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus C C C I I I I I Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus C C I I C C C I Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey merriami I C I I I I C ND Long-eared owl Asio otus I I I I I C C ND Western screech owl Megascops kennicottii I ND C I I C C ND Great horned owl Bubo virginianus I I I I I I I I Gophersnake Pituophis catenifer I I I I I I I ND Western diamondback rattlesnake Crotalus atrox I I I I I I I I Prairie rattlesnake Crotalus viridis I I I I I I I I Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum I I I I I I I ND Red-spotted toad Anaxyrus punctatus ND I ND I ND I I ND

Short- Arroyo Ponderosa Pinon/ Juniper grass Rock Common Name Scientific Name Riparian Riparian Pine Juniper Savannah Scrub Steppe Outcrop Woodhouse's toad Anaxyrus woodhousii I I I I I I I ND Plain's leopard frog Lithobates blairi I I ND ND ND ND ND ND

3.9 Economics

The economic benefit generated by livestock grazing operations can be estimated based on relevant locale-specific factors including available data and reasoned assumptions. After making adjustments to take costs into consideration, the BLM estimate of the net value of cow/calf operations per AUM in this region is $63.38 annually, taking into account variable costs but not capital costs. Assuming that the grazing allotments are leased, as currently provided for in the Taos RMP, and that the lessee operates at full cow/calf capacity, the BLM estimate of direct value to a lease of grazing allotments 00735 and 00736 is $66,171 per year. (At present, however, there are no authorized leases on the allotments since the previous leases were cancelled when the lessee sold the ranch property to The Wilderness Land Trust.)

The BLM estimate of direct value at $66,171 per year is less than half of one percent of farm-generated revenue in San Miguel County in 2015. Due to multiplier effects, a total of $76,307 in annual output- related economic activity would be expected to occur within San Miguel County. Total value added impacts are estimated at $34,981, total labor income in the County is estimated at $24,959, and it is estimated that the 1044 AUMs would support the equivalent of a total of 1.17 full-time jobs in the county.

Table 7. Estimated direct value of grazing allotments 735 and 736 Annual Revenue Annual Costs Annual Net Revenue Baseline $84,595 $18,424 $66,171

The estimate of value is based on the 1,044 AUMs available on allotments 00735 and 00736, which allows for 87 total cow/calves to be grazed year-round. The estimates also rely on the assumptions on baseline conditions listed under Table 8.

Table 8. Assumptions on baseline conditions Assumption Unit or Amount What type of livestock or wildlife will be dependent on these AUMs? Cow, 1000 lb, with calf

What is the combined cost of lost animals, veterinary services, salt and feed, routine travel, $10.53 water, infrastructure maintenance, depreciation of infrastructure, and other non-herding costs related to maintaining the livestock associated with this land unit? ($/AUM)

What is the combined cost of transporting, trailing, and/or herding the livestock associated $5.01 with this land unit? This includes horses, trucking, trailing, and herding expenses, including wages. ($/AUM)

What is the expected average sale weight per head of the livestock or wildlife grazed on the 550 allotment?

What is the grazing fee for this land unit? ($/AUM) $2.11

What is the expected calf crop success percentage or the success rate for other livestock crop 88% produced on the allotment? (Percentage of output that survives to either be sold or used as replacement heifers)

If this is a cow/calf operation, how many calves are expected to be retained as replacement 18% heifers on average each year? (Percentage of herd)

If annual herd size is limited by AUMs on this land unit and permitted AUMs are being They will be sold. reduced, will excess animals be fed in an alternate location? Or will they be sold?

What is the expected per head weight of livestock to be sold to meet the reduction in 900 permitted AUMs? (pounds)

What is the market price for livestock to be removed from the allotment due to the decrease $0.91 in permitted AUMs? ($ per pound)

What is the expected rate of return on revenues from the sale of culled livestock? 1.00%

What is the expected market price for the calf crop or other livestock crop produced on this $2.45 allotment? ($ per pound)

What is the applicable discount rate for this analysis? (This rate represents the estimated 3.00% rate of return on available alternative investments that money spent on this enterprise could be spent on instead as a revenue-making investment. It serves as the basis for calculating the present value of the ten-year difference in net revenue.)

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 Direct and Indirect Effects 4.1.1 Alternative A: Proposed Action

4.1.1.1 Sabinoso Wilderness

The acquisition of the parcel through donation under Section 6 of the Wilderness Act plus the purchase of the inholding would result in an enlargement of the Sabinoso Wilderness by 3,590 acres. The property has limited developments on it. An abandoned house, quonset hut, and several solar wells are currently undergoing removal which will be complete before the property is accepted by the BLM for donation. Other minor developments exist that are substantially unnoticeable; for example, fences and other minor livestock developments. These would not conflict with a wilderness designation should they need to be retained for continued grazing. If they are not needed, they would be removed and would not require any rehabilitation necessitating a prohibited tool listed in Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act.

Though the road in Cañon Largo and primitive routes in other parts of the donation lands would not be open to motor vehicle use under the donation, several could be utilized as non-motorized/non-mechanized trails. The wilderness would be enhanced by including an area of exceptional scenic and primitive recreational qualities. Furthermore, acceptance of the donation would result in public access to Sabinoso Wilderness from a potential trailhead located on existing public lands outside the wilderness. As the Sabinoso Wilderness does not currently have public access, the public purpose of recreation under Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act would be realized through this proposal.

Visitation and access are indicators that the public is realizing the recreational purposes of the wilderness. Visitation to the wilderness is expected to remain low since it is distant from major travel routes or population centers. Visitation could result in some impacts to vegetation along foot traffic or horseback riding routes and where camping may occur near access points and in proximity to water sources. Where routes or sites receive repeated use, soils tend to harden and become denuded of vegetation. Litter can also be an associated impact from recreation and visitor use. However, these potential impacts are not

26 expected to be significant. Management of recreation in wilderness typically starts with education and minor controls on use until monitoring indicates a need for more control on visitor behavior such as allocating use, requirements of registrations, or location of campsites.

An inholding to the wilderness would be acquired from willing sellers which would eliminate the need for motorized vehicle inholding access. However, the acquisition of the donation would also create one new non-wilderness inholding, and two wilderness exclusion areas. The two wilderness exclusion areas would be BLM lands of 100 and 20 acres which are currently recognized as having wilderness characteristics and withdrawn from mineral entry under Public Law 111-11. The wilderness exclusion areas are unusual, but present no conflict with wilderness management. The exclusion area could be added to the wilderness under the discretion of Congress, through a subsequent Act. The inholding would be a private parcel of 640 acres which, because it is not currently an inholding, is not currently eligible for motorized access across the adjoining wilderness. Once it becomes an inholding, it would qualify for motorized access under Section 5(a) of the Wilderness Act, thus a new issuance of permission to use motorized vehicles in the wilderness would result.

The enlargement of the wilderness by the donation would also make other existing BLM land contiguous with the wilderness. This land would be expected to possess wilderness characteristics and would be inventoried to confirm the presence or absence of wilderness characteristics after the donation is accepted.

In summary, the proposal would result in 1) the expansion of the Sabinoso Wilderness to 19,620 acres, 2) no impact to the untrammeled or natural qualities of wilderness character, 3) no-net change to the undeveloped quality of wilderness character (because one inholding access allowance would be removed and another created), and 4) an enhancement to the outstanding opportunity for primitive recreation and solitude.

4.1.1.2 Sabinoso ACEC

For analysis of how riparian resource might be impacted, see Section 4.1.1.5. No change is expected to occur to the scenic quality of the area as a result of the acquisition and removal of grazing from two allotments. The ACEC is currently managed to protect the visual quality in accordance to the objectives of VRM Class I. The classification would continue to be applied to the public lands within the ACEC. However, upon acquiring the ranch property, the area afforded this protective management would be substantially increased as all of the new acreage would also be managed as Class I. Furthermore, the removal of several ranch features on the property that are currently in contrast to the wild character of the landscape prior to the BLM’s acquisition of the property will improve the scenic quality within the resulting ACEC acreage.

4.1.1.3 Recreation

Cañon Largo, a scenic area which provides opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, camping, hunting, photography and other forms of primitive recreation would become available for public use. The public would gain access to the Sabinoso Wilderness, Cañon Largo, and other surrounding BLM lands for the first time. The primitive route in Cañon Largo would be available for use as a hiking or horseback riding trail, but would not be available for motorized or mechanized use.

4.1.1.4 Cultural Resources

Under Alternative A, cultural resources contained within the proposed acquisition would move from private to federal ownership and management. Cultural resources on private lands in New Mexico are not protected by federal law and are only rarely protected or regulated by state, county, or local ordinances.

General prescriptions for the management of cultural resources by the Taos Field Office are outlined in the 2012 Taos RMP. These prescriptions are based upon applicable federal laws and policies that protect cultural resources which include, among others, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. These laws and policies provide levels of protection and management of cultural resources that are not typically available under private ownership. Under Alternative A, these resources will enter into, and remain, under federal ownership and management in perpetuity. The change from private to federal ownership under the Proposed Action is therefore preferred as being beneficial to the preservation and protection cultural resources.

Under the Proposed Action the cultural resources contained within the acquisition would be managed as either a “supplemental value” within the wilderness area or, as part of the Sabinoso ACEC. No specific prescriptions are provided for the management of cultural resources included in the Sabinoso ACEC. Their management would default to the general management guidance provided for cultural resources in the 2012 Taos RMP. Cultural resources included in the wilderness area would be managed in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, BLM Manual 6340 and, where allowable, the 2012 Taos RMP. Regardless of whether acquired cultural resources fall under the management of the wilderness or the ACEC, federal ownership is determined to be preferable to continued private ownership.

The exclusion of livestock grazing and the Cañon Largo Road closure under Alternative A would benefit cultural resources because these changes would eliminate potential for livestock trampling and associated erosion in the area. Illegal looting of archaeological sites on BLM lands along the Canadian River drainage have been documented nearby (Dicks 2007). Limiting access to non-motorized traffic would diminish the likelihood that such activities would occur within the ACEC and the Wilderness. The decision to discontinue grazing would also eliminate the need for present and future grazing infrastructure to continue in the identified allotments. The removal of existing grazing infrastructure and the closure of the Cañon Largo Road would help restore and maintain the wilderness character of the land and eliminate the potential for future modern intrusions into the natural and cultural landscapes that are associated with the ACEC and the wilderness area. Historic resources that are related to the history of grazing in the region would not be removed, but would be managed as a supplemental value to wilderness character, or as significant resources attendant to the management of the Sabinoso ACEC.

A potential source of concern is posed by the inclusion of cultural resources within the Sabinoso Wilderness Area where they will be managed as a supplemental (and therefore, subservient) value to wilderness. Wilderness management prohibits, or severely constrains, certain activities and actions in wilderness contexts. These possess the potential to limit or exclude the “uses” for which cultural resources are typically managed and cared for in non-wilderness BLM contexts (see BLM Manual 1601: Appendix C).

BLM Manual 6340 stipulates that cultural resources in wilderness will be managed for “public purposes” as a “supplemental value”, while “keeping in mind that the overarching mandate from Congress is to preserve wilderness character” (BLM Manual 6340: Sec. 1.6.A.1.5 and Sec. 1.6.C.1). As defined, public purposes include consideration of the “recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use” of supplemental values (BLM Manual 6340: Sec. 1.6.A.4). Wilderness management prohibitions on these uses can be mitigated through Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA) and by application of the Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG), provided that the proposed use meets specific requirements that are designed to protect wilderness character (see BLM Manual 6340: Section 1.6.C.5.g and Appendix B). Preservation measures that might otherwise be prohibited in wilderness contexts, such as the protection of cultural resources from the effects of wildland fire or natural erosion, are allowable through this process. Scientific research, including data recovery, may also be allowed (BLM Manual 6340: Section 1.6.C.5.f) to the extent that anticipated restrictions on realizing

the use potential of cultural resources are permissible in wilderness context. Therefore, no adverse effects to cultural resources are anticipated from the inclusion of these resources within the wilderness area.

4.1.1.5 Paleontology Resources

Under Alternative A, paleontological resources contained within the proposed acquisition would move from private to federal ownership and management. Paleontological resources on private lands in New Mexico are not protected by federal law and are only rarely protected or regulated by state, county, or local ordinances. General prescriptions for the management of paleontological resources by the Taos Field Office are outlined in the 2012 Taos RMP. These prescriptions are based upon applicable federal laws and policies that protect fossil resources on public land; foremost among these being the Paleontological Resources Preservation Subtitle of the 2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act (16 USC 470aaa). These laws and policies provide levels of protection and management of paleontological resources that are not typically available under private ownership. Under Alternative A, these resources will enter into and remain under federal ownership and management in perpetuity. The change from private to federal ownership under the Proposed Action is therefore preferred as being beneficial to the preservation and protection paleontological resources.

Under the Proposed Action the paleontological resources contained within the acquisition would be managed as either a “supplemental value” within the wilderness area, or as part of the Sabinoso ACEC. No specific prescriptions are provided for the management of paleontological resources included in the Sabinoso ACEC. Their management would default to the general management guidance provided for this resource in the 2012 Taos RMP. Fossil resources included in the wilderness area would be managed in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, BLM Manual 6340 and, where allowable, the 2012 Taos RMP. Regardless of whether acquired paleontological resources fall under the management of the wilderness or the ACEC, federal ownership is determined to be preferable to private ownership.

The exclusion of livestock grazing and the Cañon Largo Road closure under Alternative A would benefit fossil resources because the proposed changes in ownership and land use would eliminate some activities that have potential to adversely affect paleontological resources in the area. Limiting access to non- motorized traffic would diminish the likelihood that unauthorized removal or excavation of paleontological resources would occur within the ACEC and the wilderness. The elimination of ground disturbing activities associated with grazing, the construction and maintenance of range improvements, and vehicle traffic along the Cañon Largo Road would help preserve and protect paleontological resources in the area. Grazing has potential to cause destruction of paleontological resources due to direct trampling of fossils exposed at the surface. A potential indirect effect occurs where livestock create trails that lead to increased erosion that in turn can destroy fossils and fossil localities.

A potential source of concern is posed by the inclusion of fossil resources within the Sabinoso Wilderness Area where they will be managed as a supplemental (and therefore, subservient) value to wilderness. Wilderness management prohibits, or severely constrains, certain activities and actions in wilderness contexts that may limit or exclude the “uses” for which paleontological resources are typically managed and cared for in non-wilderness BLM contexts (see BLM Manual 1601: Appendix C).

BLM Manual 6340 stipulates that fossil resources in wilderness will be managed for “public purposes” as a “supplemental value,” while “keeping in mind that the overarching mandate from Congress is to preserve wilderness character” (BLM Manual 6340: Sec. 1.6.A.1.5 and Sec. 1.6.C.1). As defined, public purposes include consideration of the “recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use” of supplemental values (BLM Manual 6340: Sec. 1.6.A.4). Wilderness management prohibitions on these uses can be mitigated through Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA) and by application of the Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG), provided that the proposed use

meets specific requirements that are designed to protect wilderness character (see BLM Manual 6340: Section 1.6.C.5.g and Appendix B). Preservation measures that might otherwise be prohibited in wilderness contexts, such as the excavation and collection of fossil specimens, are allowable through this process. Therefore, no adverse effects to paleontological resources are anticipated from the inclusion of these resources in the wilderness area.

4.1.1.6 Riparian Resources

With the addition of Cañon Largo and its intermittent stream to the Sabinoso Wilderness, the amount of riparian vegetation in the wilderness increases substantially. Stand of cottonwoods (Populus), sedges (Carex), horsetails (Equisetum), spike rush (Eleocharis), smartweeds (Persicaria), bulrushes (Schoenoplectus), cattails (Typha), rushes (Juncus), grasses (Poaceae), and willows (Salix), along Cañon Largo would increase in distribution, diversity, and biomass within the riparian zone as a result of the removal of cattle grazing (Kauffman and Krueger 1984).

Effects of cattle grazing in riparian areas can include soil compaction leading to runoff and less water for plant uptake; vegetation removal, causing soil temperature to rise and increasing evaporation to the surface of the soil; and damage from potential trampling, browsing, and rubbing. The removal of cattle would minimize these effects (Kauffman and Krueger 1984).

Riparian dependent species would benefit by the increased microclimate that riparian trees and shrubs create. Effects of herbivory on riparian trees and shrubs can alter the seral stage by preventing establishment of seedlings (Carothers 1977, Glinski 1977). The removal of cattle would allow the riparian shrub and tree species to grow past the seedling stage creating riparian microhabitat. The increase in herbaceous vegetation would increase the insect prey base benefiting insectivore species (Zwartjes et al. 2005).

Riparian values would be protected and water quality disturbances would be reduced by the restriction of motor vehicle use in Canon Largo. Soil compaction and stream bank sloughing would be reduced, as well as, non-point source pollution due to motor vehicle restrictions. ̃ Any concentrated use of riparian areas by wilderness visitors has a potential to adversely impact the riparian resources. Impacts from visitor use are more likely to occur in areas such as trail heads and sites used for camping. For example, in search of firewood, visitors may trample the samplings and riparian ground cover and compact the soil. The most affected area would be the section of riparian directly accessible from the trailhead into the wilderness area.

The introduction of non-native vegetation from increased visitor use is a potential adverse impact, and the chances of wildfire from campfires may become greater with increased use to the area. Fire is a natural part of the Sabinoso ecosystem and the low level of use predicted for the area potential impacts to the system are few. Monitoring of the riparian resources would inform management decisions on impacts to the areas from increased visitor use.

4.1.1.7 Livestock Grazing

No current livestock grazing lessee would be directly affected by the loss of AUMs from allotments 00735 and 00736 as a result of the Proposed Action since there is no active grazing lease for those allotments.

The plan amendment decision to make the two allotments unavailable to livestock grazing, however, would result in the loss of the opportunity for their use, which would affect any eligible lessee that might

be interested in applying for their use. This opportunity, though, would expect to be less desirable to a prospective lessee following the proposed acquisition of the ranch property since use of the primary access to the two allotments via Cañon Largo would be precluded and the water in Cañon Largo would also be unavailable. A future grazing lease applicant is speculative because of the difficulty in accessing and feasibility of managing these allotments.

In all, two of the 18 allotments in the Sabinoso area would become unavailable to livestock grazing, which makes up approximately 30 percent of the total allotment acreage and about 47 percent of the AUMs in the area, equating to 87 cattle removed from operations in the area. (The two allotments have a higher percentage of AUMs due to the mesa top conditions where more moisture is received and retained and thereby yielding more forage.)

Other lessees and/or landowners sharing a common border with the allotments would be affected as a result of potential increases to fence maintenance responsibilities that would have presumably been shared with the neighbor on allotments 00735 and 00736 in the past. Increases to fence maintenance responsibilities would be somewhat mitigated by natural barriers that currently compose much of the existing allotment boundaries.

4.1.1.8 Wildlife and Special Status Species

The land donation adds about 2,621 acres of canyon habitat in Cañon Largo and Cañon Olguin to the Sabinoso wilderness along with 750 acres of piñon pine and juniper woodlands. One of parcels available to the BLM through direct sale (S1) would add 320 acres of south facing mesa and hillside to the wilderness. The last three parcels available through direct sale would not be included to the Sabinoso Wilderness but would be a part of the Sabinoso ACEC. The Rimrock Rose Ranch land donation would benefit many special status species that rely on many of the habitat types common in the Sabinoso ecosystem. Lands within the ranch property would be provided wilderness and ACEC protection benefitting native wildlife species by the elimination of grazing, motorized travel, and potential mineral extraction.

The removal of grazing may increase the diversity of species nesting on the ground and shrub layer of the riparian zones, piñon pine/juniper areas, and prairie ecosystems, as well as, provide for improved water quality for aquatic species. Riparian vegetation often recovers quickly following the removal of ungulates from a system (Ohmart 1996).

Wildlife and Special Status Species could be adversely impacted by potential increased visitor use during the breeding stages of certain species and potential for wildfire starts from campfires. The possible indirect impacts are minor because of the low likelihood for recreation due to the remoteness to population centers, rough topography, limited trails, limited water, and limited access. The Sabinoso ecosystem is fire dependent, and it is a natural part of the Sabinoso ecology.

4.1.1.9 Economics

The only recent economic benefit the livestock grazing operation realized occurred at the time the ranch property was sold to the current property owner, The Wilderness Land Trust, when the livestock would have been culled for a net revenue of $66,171. Subsequently, the annual revenue generated from the sell- off would be $7,523, assuming a 1 percent rate of return.

Table 9. Alternative A: Estimated direct value of grazing allotments 735 and 736 Annual Annual Costs Annual Net Difference in Difference in Revenue Revenue Annual Net Ten-year Net Revenue Revenue Baseline* $84,595 $18,424 $66,171 ------

Alternative A $7,523 $0 $7,523 -$58,648 -$500,279

*Assumes the allotments are leased, as provided for under the current Taos RMP, and that the allotments were grazed at full capacity.

The annual net revenue under the Proposed Action is $58,648 less that what would be realized under baseline conditions, which equates to the No Action alternative that provides for continued grazing of allotments 00735 and 00736.

Also, at the time the livestock were culled, it is estimated that the equivalent of 1.17 full-time jobs were lost in the San Miguel County, as the annual economic activity supported by the AUMs is no longer realized.

4.1.2 Alternative B: No Action

4.1.2.1 Sabinoso Wilderness

Enhancement to the outstanding opportunities of the wilderness would not be realized as the lands in Cañon Largo, with their high quality recreational opportunities, would not be added to the wilderness. One inholding access would continue to be eligible for motor vehicle use. However, the creation of a new inholding eligible for motor vehicle use would not occur. There would be no potential for approximately 3,595 additional BLM acres to possess wilderness characteristics as they would remain separated from the Sabinoso Wilderness by the Rimrock Rose Ranch property. In summary, there would be no impact to the untrammeled or natural qualities of wilderness character, and there would be no change to the undeveloped quality or outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation or solitude, but the ability of the public to realize the recreational values of the wilderness would not be available.

4.1.2.2 Sabinoso ACEC

No change is expected to occur to the scenic quality of the ACEC as its size and protective management would remain the same. Riparian resources within the current ACEC would also remain the same.

4.1.2.3 Recreation

Recreational opportunities in Cañon Largo and the Sabinoso Wilderness would not be available, as there would remain no public access. The purposes of the Wilderness Act would remain to be fully realized.

4.1.2.4 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources located within the subject land parcels would remain under private ownership and would not benefit from the preservation and protection measures afforded by federal management and ownership. Continued livestock grazing on BLM lands in allotments 00735 and 00736 would necessitate monitoring and analysis of both current uses and future range improvements to evaluate potential impacts to cultural resources in these areas. Allowing motorized vehicle access along the Cañon Largo Road would maintain the potential for adverse effects to occur to cultural resources, including unauthorized collection and excavation of cultural resources. Motorized vehicle traffic and both existing and future

range improvements would represent modern intrusions and potential compromises into the more pristine settings of prehistoric and historic cultural sites and cultural landscapes in Cañon Largo.

4.1.2.5 Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources located within the subject land parcels would remain under private ownership and would not benefit from the preservation and protection measures afforded by federal management and ownership. Continued livestock grazing on BLM lands in allotments 00735 and 00736 would necessitate monitoring and analysis of both current uses and future range improvements to evaluate potential impacts to paleontological resources in these areas. Allowing motorized vehicle access along the Cañon Largo Road would maintain the potential for adverse effects to occur to paleontological resources, including unauthorized collection and excavation of fossil resources.

4.1.2.6 Riparian Resources

The current property owner of the Rimrock Rose Ranch property has indicated that grazing would be discontinued on the property, such that impacts to riparian resources under the No Action alternative would be consistent with those described under section 4.1.1.6, above. However, motor vehicle traffic could continue to cross the riparian zone throughout Cañon Largo, increasing non-point source pollution, erosion, bank sloughing, and soil compaction. Potential impacts from visitation by wilderness users, as described under Section 4.1.1.6, would not occur under this alternative.

4.1.2.7 Livestock Grazing

Allotments 00735 and 00736 would remain available for livestock grazing by a qualified applicant. However, as long as the ranch property remained under ownership of The Wilderness Land Trust, the ranch would not be used as base property or otherwise support any operation on the two allotments.

While available, it would be difficult to re-allocate the allotments to a qualified applicant. Access to the allotments from the private property owned by the Wilderness Land Trust is the most viable due to the current access these lands provide to the mesa tops and the majority of lands within the Sabinoso Wilderness. Steep topography on all sides of the allotments limits accessibility for any other applicant. Additionally, limited ability to construct and maintain range improvements within the Sabinoso Wilderness would restrict water availability and methods to control livestock movements.

4.1.2.8 Wildlife and Special Status Species

Wildlife and Special Status Species located within the Rimrock Rose Ranch property would be subject to private ownership management. However, wildlife habitat, particularly riparian habitat, on the ranch property would be improved for the benefit of various wildlife species by the elimination of grazing. The removal of grazing may increase the diversity of species nesting on the ground and shrub layer of the riparian zones, piñon pine/juniper areas, and prairie ecosystems, as well as provide for improved water quality for aquatic species. Riparian vegetation often recovers quickly following the removal of ungulates from a system (Ohmart 1996). Wildlife could be disturbed or displaced, however, by motorized vehicle use of the road in Cañon Largo.

4.1.2.9 Economics

The BLM estimate of direct value derived from leasing grazing allotments 00735 and 00736 is $66,171 per year. This, of course, assumes that the grazing allotments are leased, as currently provided for under the Taos RMP, and that the lessee operates the allotments at full cow/calf capacity. (At present, however,

there are no authorized leases on the allotments since the previous leases were cancelled when the lessee sold the ranch property to The Wilderness Land Trust.)

Table 10. Alternative B: Estimated direct value of grazing allotments 735 and 736 Annual Annual Costs Annual Net Difference in Difference in Revenue Revenue Annual Net Ten-year Net Revenue Revenue Baseline* $84,595 $18,424 $66,171 ------

Alternative B $84,595 $18,424 $66,171 $0 $0

*Assumes the allotments are leased, as provided for under the current Taos RMP, and that the allotments were grazed at full capacity.

Also, the economic activity supported by the AUMs equates to a total of 1.17 full-time jobs in San Miguel County, which would be maintained under the No Action alternative.

4.1.3 Alternative C: Reapportionment of Allotments 735 and 736 Outside of Wilderness Boundary

4.1.3.1 Sabinoso Wilderness

Same as Alternative A, the Proposed Action. See Section 4.1.1.1.

4.1.3.2 Sabinoso ACEC

Same as Alternative A, the Proposed Action—see Section 4.1.1.2—so long as not grazing is allowed within any areas containing riparian resources.

4.1.3.3 Recreation

Same as Alternative A, the Proposed Action. See Section 4.1.1.3.

4.1.3.4 Cultural Resources

Under Alternative C, cultural resources contained within the proposed acquisition would move from private to federal ownership and management. Cultural resources on private lands in New Mexico are not protected by federal law and are only rarely protected or regulated by state, county, or local ordinances. General prescriptions for the management of cultural resources by the Taos Field Office are outlined in the 2012 Taos RMP. These prescriptions are based upon applicable federal laws and policies that protect cultural resources which include, among others, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. These laws and policies provide levels of protection and management of cultural resources that are not typically available under private ownership. Under Alternative C, these resources will enter into, and remain under federal ownership and management in perpetuity. The change from private to federal ownership under the Proposed Action is therefore preferred as being beneficial to the preservation and protection cultural resources.

Under Alternative C certain acquisition (purchased) parcels totaling 304 acres would become available for livestock grazing, along with 730 acres of existing allotments which would be reappointed (retained) to this use outside of the wilderness boundary. No cultural resource data is currently available for either 34 of the existing allotments (00735 and 00736), or for the 304 acres to be added under the proposed acquisition. Previous allotment reviews conducted in 2008 did not identify any effects related to cultural resources with the renewal of grazing leases for allotments 00735 and 00736. Under Alternative C, an updated allotment review will be required with the reappointment of existing Allotments 735 and 736, and with the addition of acreage to these allotments through the proposed acquisition. Any issues related to cultural resources resulting from Alternative C would be identified at that time. Appropriate mitigations would be proposed and implemented as a condition of future leasing of these lands for grazing. Under these conditions it is anticipated that cultural resources would not be adversely affected by the selection of Alternative C.

4.1.3.5 Paleontological Resources

Under Alternative C, paleontological resources contained within the proposed acquisition would move from private to federal ownership and management. Paleontological resources on private lands in New Mexico are not protected by federal law and are only rarely protected or regulated by state, county, or local ordinances. General prescriptions for the management of paleontological resources by the Taos Field Office are outlined in the 2012 Taos RMP. These prescriptions are based upon applicable federal laws and policies that protect fossil resources on public land; foremost among these being the Paleontological Resources Preservation Subtitle of the 2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act (16 USC 470aaa). These laws and policies provide levels of protection and management of paleontological resources that are not typically available under private ownership. Under Alternative C, these resources will enter into and remain under federal ownership and management in perpetuity. The change from private to federal ownership under the proposed action is therefore preferred as being beneficial to the preservation and protection paleontological resources.

Under Alternative C certain acquisition (purchased) parcels totaling 304 acres would become available for livestock grazing, along with 730 acres of existing allotments which would be reappointed (retained) to this use outside of the wilderness boundary. No paleontological inventory data is currently available for either of the existing allotments (00735 and 00736), or for the 304 acres to be added under the proposed acquisition. Previous allotment reviews conducted in 2008 did not address potential effects to paleontological resources since these reviews predate the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA). Under Alternative C, an updated allotment review will be required with the reappointment of existing allotments 00735 and 00736, and with the addition of acreage to these allotments through the proposed acquisition. Any issues related to paleontological resources resulting from Alternative C would be identified at that time. Appropriate mitigations would be proposed and implemented as a condition of future leasing of these lands for grazing. Under these conditions it is anticipated that paleontological resources would not be adversely affected by the selection of Alternative C.

4.1.3.6 Riparian Resources

The expansion of allotment 00823 into previously ungrazed sections of Cañon Largo and the addition of the purchase parcel S2 to allotment 00823 could have negative impacts on riparian resources that include soil compaction, leading to erosion and less water for plant uptake, and the lowering of the water table; vegetation removal, causing soil temperature to rise and increasing evaporation to the surface of the soil; vegetation damage from potential trampling, browsing, and rubbing; declining water quality; and the loss of streambank stability (Belsky et al. 1999, Kauffman and Krueger 1984). This could also be the case within the S4 area proposed for purchase and that portion of allotment 00736 that is identified for reapportionment as part of allotment 00976. Though confirmation would need to be made in the field, it appears this area, which is within the Sabinoso ACEC could contain riparian resources, where livestock grazing is not allowed under the provisions of the Taos RMP. There is currently no grazing permitted in the areas proposed for expansion.

The addition of part of allotment 00735 and the proposed purchase parcels S5 and S3 to allotment 863 encompasses upland habitat and would have no effect on riparian resources.

4.1.3.7 Livestock Grazing

Reapportionment of lands outside the wilderness boundary would afford qualified applicants the opportunity to utilize lands and AUMs that are not currently available. An estimated 74 AUMs (approximately 6 cows year-long) would be made available as a result of allocation of lands outside the wilderness boundary to qualified applicants. Under this alternative it is likely that these lands would be combined with existing adjacent allotments (see Map 2). However, apportionment would be subject to the application process described in 43 CFR 4130, which could potentially result in the creation of at least one new grazing allotment. Reapportionment of these lands would require construction of approximately 2.5 miles of fencing to ensure livestock grazing does not occur on lands that contain important riparian resources. Construction of the fence could be completed by the BLM depending on available funds or it could be required of the prospective lessee. Once constructed, maintenance of the new fence would be the responsibility of the lessee. Additionally, maintenance of existing fencing will become the responsibility of the lessee where lands from allotments 00735 and 00736 are re-allocated to adjacent allotments or to create new allotments.

Making lands within the Sabinoso Wilderness unavailable to livestock grazing would result in the loss of approximately 970 AUMs from lands currently in federal ownership associated with allotments 00735 and 00736.

4.1.3.8 Wildlife and Special Status Species

The expansion of cattle grazing into areas that may contain riparian resources, but which were previously ungrazed, would have potential negative impacts on the diversity and abundance of species nesting within the ground and shrub layer of the riparian zones (Tewksbury et al. 2002). The browsing of willow and cottonwood species would limit habitat availability for mid and high canopy species. The expansion of grazing into the proposed purchase parcels S2, S3, S4, and S5 may decrease the abundance and diversity of species nesting on the ground and shrub layer of the riparian zones, piñon pine/juniper areas, and prairie ecosystems, as well as, degrade water quality for aquatic species from increased runoff due to vegetation removal and soil compaction.

4.1.3.9 Economics

The BLM estimate of direct value derived from leasing grazing allotments 00735 and 00736 is $11,680 per year. This is $54,491 less than if the allotments were to continue to be grazed to capacity under a new lease(s) utilizing a different base property, as provided for under the No Action alternative. By reapportioning the allotments to offset some of the loss in grazing availability, as proposed under Alternative A, the net annual revenue is only marginally higher, at $11,680 under Alternative C. That is, by reapportioning the two allotments, $4,157 in annual net revenue is preserved under Alternative C that would otherwise be lost under the Proposed Action.

Table 11. Alternative C: Estimated direct value of grazing allotments 735 and 736 Annual Annual Costs Annual Net Difference in Difference in Revenue Revenue Annual Net Ten-year Net Revenue Revenue Baseline* $84,595 $18,424 $66,171 ------

Alternative C $12,986 $1,306 $11,680 -$54,491 -$464,818

*Assumes the allotments are leased, as provided for under the current Taos RMP, and that the allotments were grazed at full capacity.

The economic activity supported by reapportioning the allotments would not be sufficient to support a full-time job under this alternative.

4.2 Cumulative Effects Analysis

A cumulative impact, as defined in 40 CFR 1508.7, is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other action.

4.2.1 Past and Present Actions

Relevant past and present actions include land use planning decisions and other measures that afford protection to the wilderness, riparian, scenic, and other values within the Sabinoso area. The Taos RMP decision to designate the Sabinoso ACEC established protective management for the relevant and important resources within the area, complimentary to the protection of the wilderness designation. The Taos RMP also provided for the acquisition of private lands to provide for access to the wilderness and consolidated management of lands within the ACEC.

In addition, the Wilderness Land Trust is currently taking action to remove abandoned livestock and a number of structures from the property to ensure the property would be compatible with Sabinoso Wilderness at the time it is included within the designated wilderness under the provisions of Section 6 (a) of the Wilderness Act.

4.2.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Subsequent to securing public access to Sabinoso Wilderness, the BLM anticipates completing a wilderness management plan to ensure the protection of the area’s wilderness character, to delineate an access point and identify any necessary, basic services that may be necessary at those access points (i.e., parking, sanitation, etc.), and to provide other prescriptions for the management of supplemental and other values consistent with the provisions of the Wilderness Act.

4.2.3 Cumulative Effects

For all resources, the effects of past and present actions combine to create the current condition or “Affected Environment.” Refer to Chapter 3 for resource-by-resource discussions of past and present actions whose effects are still visible on the landscape or in the resource’s characteristics today.

No adverse cumulative effects are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action or alternatives. The potential impacts are expected to be beneficial in nature since the purpose of the Sabinoso Wilderness Management Plan would be to protect the wilderness values and manage access for the public’s enjoyment.

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1 Summary of Consultation and Coordination

Notification letters were sent to various interested Tribes and Pueblos in April 2016 inviting their input. Only the Pueblo of San Felipe responded.

5.2 Summary of Public Participation

As indicated under Section 1.6, a Federal Register notice was published on June 6, 2016 announcing the proposal to acquire the Rimrock Rose Ranch property and to amend the Taos RMP. The notice solicited public input on issues and alternatives relevant for analysis in this EA. Public notification was also provided by various means, including a news release, web posting, and letters sent to interested parties by mail and email at the same time.

This EA was made available for a 30-day public review and comment period ending on September 19, 2016. Seven comment letters were received, including from New Mexico Department of Agriculture, New Mexico State University Range Improvement Task Force, New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association, New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc., and several individuals. In total, the BLM identified 54 substantive comments in the letters. The BLM has responded to each substantive comment by either making a change or changes to the EA or by providing an explanation as to why a change to the EA was not warranted.

All substantive comments and the BLM’s responses are presented in Appendix A.

5.3 List of Preparers Name Discipline BLM Office

Maile Adler National Conservation Lands New Mexico State Office

Delane Atcitty Range Management Taos Field Office

Jim Armendarez Range Management Taos Field Office

Ryan Besser Riparian Resources, Wildlife Taos Field Office

Molly Cobbs NEPA, Planning New Mexico State Office

Nathan Combs Range Management New Mexico State Office

Merrill Dicks Archaeology, Paleontology Taos Field Office

James Harmon Range Management Taos Field Office

Brad Higdon NEPA, Planning Taos Field Office

Julie Suhr Pierce, Ph.D Socioeconomic Specialist Utah State Office

James Sippel Wilderness Washington Office

Tami Torres Recreation Taos Field Office

6.0 REFERENCES

Akins, Nancy J. 1993. Traditional Use Areas in New Mexico. Museum of New Mexico Office of Archaeological Studies Notes #141. Santa Fe.

Belsky AJ, Matzke A, Uselman S. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 54(1): 419- 431.

Bureau of Land Management . 2012. Taos Resource Management Plan. Taos Field Office, BLM New Mexico

Carothers, SW. 1977. Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: an overview. In: Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. RM-43:2-4.

Cordell, Linda and Maxine E. McBrinn. 2012. Archaeology of the Southwest. Academic Press, New York.

DeMallie, Raymond J., editor. 1979. Handbook of North American Indians: Plains (Volume 13). Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Dicks, A. Merrill. 2007. Review of Grazing Allotments 834, Mora County, New Mexico. Report on file, Bureau of Land Management, Taos Field Office, Taos, New Mexico.

Dicks, A. Merrill. 2008. Class II Cultural Resources Survey of the Sabinoso Prescribed Fire and Wildand Fire Use Project Area. Unpublished field notes and records on file, Bureau of Land Management, Taos Field Office. Taos, NM.

Dicks, M., Anderson, C., Martinez, P. 2012 Preliminary Report: Sabinoso Trespass Investigation Cultural Resources Survey and Damage Assessment. Report on file, Bureau of Land Management, Taos Field Office, Taos, New Mexico.

Eislet, Sunday. 2012. Becoming White Clay: A History and Archaeology of the Jicarilla Apache Enclavement. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Faught, Michael K., David G. Anderson, and Anne Gisiger. 1994. North American Paleoindian Database-An Update. Current Research in the Pleistocene 11:32-35.

Frison, George C. 1978. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.

Glinski RL. 1977. Regeneration and distribution of sycamore and cottonwood: their ecology and conservation. In: Importance, Preservation and Management of Riparian Habitat. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. RM-43:116-123.

Gunnerson, James H. 1987. Archaeology of the High Plains. Bureau of Land Management Colorado, Cultural Resources Series No. 19. Canon City.

Gunnerson, James H. and Dolores A. Gunnerson. 1989. Ethnohistory of the High Plains. Bureau of Land Management Colorado, Cultural Resources Series Number 26. Canon City.

Hämäläinen, Pekka. 2008. The Comanche Empire. Yale University, New Maven.

Kauffman JB, Krueger WC. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: a review. Journal of Range Management. 37(5): 430-437.

Laumbach, Karl W. 2010. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the Area of the Sabinoso Wilderness: A Narrative. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management by Human Systems Research, Inc. (HSP Report No. 2009-26), Las Cruces, New Mexico.

Leibold, Ann M., Saltus, Richard W., Grauch, V.J/L., Lindsey, David A., and Almquist, Carl L. 1987. Mineral Resources of the Sabinoso Wilderness Study Area, San Miguel County, New Mexico. United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1733-A, A1-A13. Washington.

Lowie, Robert H., and Raymond J. De Mallie. 1982. Indians of the Plains. American Museum of Natural History and University of Nebraska Press. New York.

Neil Rimbey and L. Allen Torrell, Grazing Costs: What's the Current Situation?, University of Idaho. 2011. Accessed at http://web.cals.uidaho.edu/idahoagbiz/files/2013/01/GrazingCost2011.pdf, July 2013

Sealy, Paul L. 2010. Paleontological Resource Assessment for the Sabinoso Wilderness Area, San Miguel County, New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Albuquerque.

Tewksbury JJ, Black AE, Nur N, Saab VA, Logan BD, Dobkin DS. 2002. Effects of anthropogenic fragmentation and livestock grazing on western riparian bird communities. Studies in Avian Biology. 25: 158-202.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2016. National Agricultural Statistic Service. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2014. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program. 2016. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PADUS) version 1.4; Rasker, R. 2006. "An Exploration Into the Economic Impact of Industrial Development Versus Conservation on Western Public Lands." Society and Natural Resources. 19(3): 191-207

Appendix A: BLM Responses to Public Comments

During a 30-day public review and comment period, ending September 19, 2016, the BLM received the following substantive comments on the EA. The BLM responded to each comment accordingly.

Comment Response 1. Section 6(a) of the Wilderness Act does not The EA has been revised to carefully consider a grant the BLM authority to remove grazing from broader range of options, leading to the federally owned BLM lands as a condition of the development of an additional alternative, donation of private land. Allowing outside entities Alternative C, which is analyzed in full. Section to dictate what the BLM can do on federal lands 2.4 has also been revised to include an explanation would undermine the agency's ability to efficiently as to why rejecting the condition that allotments and effectively fulfil its congressional mandate. 735 and 736 become unavailable to livestock grazing is not a viable option.

2. The Wilderness Act doesn’t appear to grant the Section 1602 (c)(B) of the Omnibus Public Land BLM authority to accept donations. Section 6(a) Management Act of 2009 explicitly makes any only references the ability of the Secretary of reference in the Wilderness Act to the Secretary of Agriculture to accept donations with conditions, Agriculture considered a reference to the Secretary not the Secretary of the Interior. of the Interior also.

3. It is confusing to the reader what is meant by Sections 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 have been revised to “ranch property.” Does ranch property encompass establish for the reader that the “ranch property” is all the private lands and the BLM grazing referring only to the private land, the Rimrock Rose allotments or only the private lands? Ranch, currently owned by the Wilderness Land Trust.

4. The EA insinuates the Proposed Action would Section 1.3 of the EA has been revised to better conform to the existing Taos RMP such as disclose the Proposed Action’s consistency with recognizing the goal to secure public access to the other goals and objectives in the Taos RMP. Sabinoso Wilderness. In doing so, the BLM presents only the aspects of the RMP that support their proposed decision while ignoring other objectives such as an objective for livestock grazing. Analyzing the RMP in a more objective manner would give the EA more validity and make the proposal look less like a forgone conclusion.

5. It is beyond the authority of BLM to The BLM has broad authority, including under administratively remove grazing as one of the Section 202 of FLPMA, to allocate livestock multiple uses mandated by Congress unless and grazing on public lands. In this case, Congress until Congress dedicates the land to a specific use, designated this area to be administered under the and certainly not as a condition of the land Wilderness Act, which acknowledges the BLM’s donation. It is a slippery slope when a federal discretion on livestock grazing management under agency accepts donated land with conditions in Section 4 (d)(4), a provision in concert with BLM direct opposition to its mandate under Federal regulations at 43 CFR 4100.0-8. Furthermore, Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). FLPMA, at Section 103 (c), clearly provides for “the use of some land for less than all of the

Comment Response resources,” as is especially the case within designated wilderness.

6. The Rim Rock and Cañon allotments are Since the previous grazing permit was vacated in currently without an active permittee. The EA October 2015, no one has applied for a permit to reads as if BLM does not intend to offer these graze allotments 735 and 736. Regardless, because allotments to qualified applicants before making the BLM is in the process of preparing NEPA them unavailable to grazing. The determination to analysis to consider making the two allotments not offer these allotments to qualified applicants is unavailable, taking interim action to permit grazing nonsensical due to the conjectural nature of the on the two allotments would be contrary to NEPA decision. There is the possibility of an applicant regulations at 40 CFR 1506.1. Therefore, at this who is interested in the grazing allotments and point in the process, any decision by the BLM on willing to accept the potential management whether or not to allow grazing on the two difficulty. allotments must be deferred until after the NEPA analysis is complete in order to ensure the decision is well informed.

7. The BLM claims the loss of primary access to The EA is revised to consider an alternative that the allotments is another reason for not offering it provides for the grazing of the two allotments by to other applicants, but again, possible allotment accessing them using routes that do not cross the owners could access these allotments in the same property proposed for donation. See sections 2.2 way current allotment owners access the other and 2.4 (1). allotments located in the Sabinoso Wilderness. The authorized officer should offer these grazing allotments to qualified applicants.

8. The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of The BLM recognizes that Congress clearly 2009 officially designated the Sabinoso Wilderness provides for the continuation of livestock grazing in accordance with grazing guidelines set forth in within the Wilderness areas it designates. Appendix A of the report of the Committee on However, Appendix A of House Report 101-405, Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of referenced in the comment, states that “Any Representatives accompanying adjustments in the numbers of livestock permitted R.R. 2570 of the 101 st Congress. Language in this to graze in wilderness areas should be made as a report is very clear in its intent that livestock result of revisions in the normal grazing and land grazing and the activities and facilities necessary to management planning and policy setting process, support a livestock grazing program will be given consideration to legal mandates, range permitted to continue when grazing was established condition, and the protection of the range resource prior to wilderness designation. BLM's proposal to from deterioration.” The report reaffirms the remove 47 percent of AUMs from the Sabinoso BLM’s discretion to manage livestock grazing Wilderness conflicts with the intent of Congress to within Wilderness areas in accordance with the allow livestock grazing to continue. applicable RMP and other policies, including a NEPA-compliance environmental review process such as this EA.

9. A more thorough analysis of economic impacts An analysis of economic impacts has now been should be included in the EA. New Mexico State added the EA. However, while this comment is University produces annual cost and return helpful in providing input as to how the BLM estimates for New Mexico ranches based on size might improve the analysis, it is not accurate in its and area. The 2015 Northeast Region Medium content. The value of production per cow should

Comment Response Cow/Calf Budget reports a value of production on a be shown after operating costs. Also, the value per cow basis of $1,045.57 (Libbin and Hawkes shown in the comment ($1,045.57) includes 2015). This can be converted to an annual value of revenue from selling one hunting permit per year. production per AUM of forage by dividing This would be dependent on private property $1045.57 by 12 AUMs resulting in an annual value hunting rights, which cannot be included in an of production per AUM of $87.13. Applying the analysis for a BLM allotment. After making annual value of production per AUM to the adjustments to take costs into consideration, the permitted use on the two allotments in the proposed BLM estimate of the net value of cow/calf action ($87.13/AUM* 1044 AUMS) would result operations per AUM in this region is $63.38, taking in $90,963.72 of average annual economic benefit into account variable costs but not capital costs. to communities in the planning area from BLM The BLM estimate of direct value to the permittees forage. The BLM completely discounts this is $66,171 per year. This is less than ½ of one economic impact when it discusses issues percent of farm-generated revenue in the County in considered, but dismissed from detailed analysis. 2015. Due to multiplier effects, a total of $76,307 in annual output-related economic activity would be expected to occur within San Miguel County. Total value added impacts are estimated at $34,981, total labor income in the County is estimated at $24,959, and it is estimated that the 1044 AUMs would support the equivalent of a total of 1.17 full-time jobs in the county.

10. On lands where grazing is the only suitable See the response to comment 9 for an estimate of productive use, rural communities rely on grazing the county-level economic impacts of the AUMs as part of the tax base and to provide stable, long- included in this analysis, not including taxes. term jobs and bring business to local supply stores, Grazing fee revenue shared by the County is grocery stores, and restaurants. estimated at approximately $551 per year.

11. BLM's claim that loss in economic benefit An analysis of economic impacts has been added would be offset by revenue associated with the revised EA. This issue is no longer dismissed recreational opportunities directly conflicts with from detailed analysis. another statement in the EA, which says, “Visitation to the wilderness is expected to remain Regardless, data on typical expenditures in the low since it is still not accessible from major travel western U.S. provide an estimated value of $46.08 routes or population centers." While there may be (in 2016 dollars) per user day for a range of some economic benefit realized from new common, popular recreation types. Using this recreational opportunities, it is improbable that value, a total of approximately 35 new user days these new opportunities will generate as much per week would have to occur to offset the value of economic benefit as a viable grazing operation. the AUMs in question, based on gross receipts. This is the equivalent of five two-person, three-day visits per week.

12. The EA states that eliminating livestock The BLM would have no discretion to allow grazing from the two allotments to protect riparian grazing in riparian areas within the donated resources would be "consistent with management property, since a condition anticipated on the prescriptions in the Taos RMP." However, the property deed would preclude livestock grazing on 2012 Taos RMP already protects riparian areas the donated property, where the riparian area is stating, "The management of livestock grazing in located. In addition, the Taos RMP specifically accordance with the New Mexico Public Land precludes grazing within riparian areas within the

Comment Response Health Standards and Guidelines for Livestock Sabinoso ACEC, which encompasses Sabinoso Grazing is assured to cause negligible impacts to Wilderness. riparian vegetation." Livestock grazing should remain as a tool to help land managers comply with the Standards for Rangeland Health.

13. The EA claims that "Effects of cattle grazing in On July 20-21, 2016, the BLM surveyed the riparian areas can include (1) soil compaction Rimrock Rose Ranch, with the permission of The leading to runoff and less water for plant uptake, Wilderness Land Trust, to determine the condition (2) vegetation removal, causing soil temperature to of the riparian resources. Two sites were surveyed rise, increasing evaporation to the surface of the using the BLM’s quantitative Assessment, soil, and (3) damage from trampling, browsing, and Inventory, and Monitoring and National Aquatic rubbing. The removal of cattle should minimize Monitoring Framework protocols, as well as a these effects." Is there current and objective botanical survey of the riparian resources (BLM monitoring data from the Rim Rock and Cañon 2016). The information presented in the EA is allotments to substantiate this claim? According to current. Vegetation was surveyed at three riparian BLM's Rangeland Administration System, both sites, and community structure was observed at allotments have been assigned to the custodial numerous locations. Results from the AIM sites category, meaning they require minimal are pending. management effort. In addition, see response to comment 12.

14. The premise that all grazing reduces riparian The BLM recognizes that there is extensive quality without consideration of timing, intensity, information on how livestock grazing may affect duration, etc., is not scientifically defensible. riparian areas. The merits of this varying “Research shows some riparian habitats can rapidly information is not at issue, however, since the improve under properly timed grazing at light to decision to preclude livestock grazing in riparian conservative intensities" (Holechek et al. 2005) and areas has already been made as part of the Taos "properly managed livestock grazing can provide RMP. ecological benefits to riparian and upland areas” (Baker et al. 2001). The Taos RMP specifically precludes grazing within riparian areas within the Sabinoso ACEC, which encompasses Sabinoso Wilderness. Furthermore, the BLM’s discretion to allow grazing in riparian areas within the donated property would also be removed by a condition on the property deed that the ranch property within Cañon Largo, where the riparian area is located, not be used for livestock grazing.

15. The BLM should not purchase private lands. The land in San Miguel County that is currently Rural counties such as San Miguel are dependent managed by the BLM is approximately 1.5 percent upon tax assessments and production from private of the total county land mass. The Proposed Action lands to generate revenue needed to provide would increase the BLM portion to 1.7 percent of services for its citizens. all land in the County and would reduce private land to 80.3 percent from the current 80.4 percent. It is not anticipated that these changes would result in a substantial change in tax revenues to the County.

Comment Response

16. The BLM lacks the resources necessary to The BLM’s budgetary and staffing constraints are adequately manage the current inventory of lands, outside the scope of this analysis. Furthermore, the and this would only add to this deficiency. BLM is responding to a specific offer—a donation. Negotiated land exchanges or purchased easements Other options, as suggested, are therefore provide a mechanism for BLM to acquire public speculative. access while not reducing private land ownership.

17. Under section 2.1.1 of the EA, the sentence, The statement in the EA has been changed "Under Section 5 (a) of the Wilderness Act, such accordingly. an inholding may be given rights to adequate and reasonable access, limited to the route and modes of travel used by the owner at the time the inholding was created" should be edited to reflect that BLM has a duty to grant such access. The BLM should replace the word “may” with “shall,” such as is used in the Wilderness Act, or with the word "must."

18. The EA lacks a sufficient number of The EA is revised to include an additional alternatives. The EA should include more alternative, as suggested. The discussion of alternatives such as redefining allotment alternatives considered and dismissed from analysis boundaries to allow portions of allotments 00735 under section 2.4 also addresses an additional and 00736 to be incorporated with other allotments alternative. in order to maximize management flexibility.

19. The BLM claims that removing livestock While data specific to the Sabinoso area is not grazing under Alternative A would benefit available, it is generally acknowledged by the BLM paleontology resources because it will eliminate that grazing can cause destruction of fossils due to potential competing uses. To what potential direct trampling of fossils exposed at the surface. competing uses is the BLM referring? Livestock A potential indirect effect occurs where livestock grazing has occurred on these allotments up until create trails that lead to increased erosion that in 2015. Does the BLM have any data to substantiate turn can destroy fossils and fossil localities. the claim that livestock grazing poses adverse Section 4.1.1.5 has been revised to clarify potential effects to fossils? impacts.

20. Alternative A sets a precedent that the federal Section 201 (a) of the Federal Land Policy and government is willing to accept land donations for Management Act (FLPMA) requires the BLM to inclusion in wilderness without comprehensively conduct and maintain inventories of public lands assessing their wilderness characteristics. stating: “The Secretary shall prepare and maintain Wilderness will be expanded simply because land on a continuing basis an inventory of all public is donated regardless of wilderness characteristics lands and their resource and other values.” BLM that the land may or may not possess. Section 1.1 Manual 6310 (Conducting Wilderness of the EA states "to expand the wilderness by the Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands) applies addition of these wilderness-quality adjacent the inventory requirement to the resource of lands." Is this statement of "wilderness quality" wilderness characteristics. However, such supported with any analysis concerning wilderness inventory is restricted to public lands, the inventory characteristics? What were the criteria for meeting is not applicable to state or private lands. As the “wilderness-quality?” Section 4.1.1.1 states, "This lands offered for donation to the Sabinoso

Comment Response land would be expected to possess wilderness Wilderness are private, they are not subject to characteristics, and they would be inventoried to wilderness inventory under Manual 6310. confirm the presence or absence of wilderness characteristics after the donation is accepted." If Section 6 (a) of the Wilderness Act allows the these areas are absent of wilderness characteristics Secretary to accept gifts of private land adjacent to after the donation, will they be removed from the wilderness areas to be added to the subject wilderness or because they were "conditioned" to wilderness. Before a property is accepted as a be included in the wilderness they would remain wilderness donation, the BLM must identify part of the wilderness? The six-page Wilderness whether the lands are compatible with management Act Compatibility Evaluation Land Donation as wilderness. The wilderness compatibility document fails to adequately assess wilderness evaluation serves to satisfy this need. characteristics. The wilderness inventory and wilderness compatibility evaluation processes are similar in that they both consider the degree to which the reviewed lands meet the definition of wilderness found in Section 2 (c) of the Wilderness Act. However, the two processes differ in several key ways. The wilderness inventory documents existing conditions as opposed to potential future conditions. The wilderness compatibility evaluation considers whether land proposed for addition to a wilderness could be managed as wilderness after donation. A wilderness inventory is completed after the BLM acquires additional lands. A wilderness compatibility evaluation is completed prior to the BLM acquiring additional lands, and is unique to land donations that would come into public ownership and wilderness designation concurrently.

If considering private land, the wilderness inventory process would result in a negative finding for one or more conditions of wilderness characteristics. Most notably, the wilderness inventory, established by FLPMA and conducted through Manual 6310, is limited to BLM lands; private lands do not meet the definition of wilderness. Moreover, there may be additional conditions present on those lands that may cause the inventory to result in a negative finding for wilderness characteristics, even though those conditions could be terminated in conjunction with the donation, and, if terminated, the property would be manageable as wilderness. Conversely, there may be foreseeable future uses of a property that, though not currently active, would make the land incompatible with management as wilderness, even though the property displays wilderness

Comment Response characteristics at the time of inventory. The wilderness inventory process does not take potential future conditions into consideration (see BLM Manual 6310.06.B.). In contrast, the wilderness compatibility evaluation considers expected and foreseeable future conditions, essentially combining elements of inventory with elements of determining the suitability of an area for wilderness preservation.

21. The BLM has made no attempt to negotiate the The BLM’s obligation under NEPA is to consider a terms of the donation, conditions, and purchases reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed that might be more beneficial to state and local Action, rather than to negotiate the terms of the stakeholders including individuals, groups, or donation. For this reason, the EA is revised to government entities. The benefits from a include an additional alternative. The discussion negotiated approach include meeting the purpose of of alternatives considered and dismissed from the land donation while also meeting the needs of analysis under section 2.4 also addresses an the agency, local government, and neighboring additional alternative. landowners.

22. The BLM has mentioned that an abandoned While removal of these structures is outside the house, corrals, etc. that exists on the property to be scope of this EA—at this time, removal is the donated would be demolished prior to the donation. prerogative of the current landowners—the BLM Written and verbal statements raise the questions: does recognize that their removal will further does removal of infrastructure "create" wilderness? ensure the compatibility of the ranch property as At what level of human development (fences, part of Sabinoso Wilderness. Also see response to wells, and homes) do wilderness characteristics comment 20. In addition, only Congress can cease to exist? Does their removal eliminate the designate wilderness. footprint of man? Where does the Wilderness Act authorize creation of wilderness?

23. Was an alternative considered not to accept the The BLM is responding to a specific offer. The donated lands and just request a right-of-way for options to acquire a right-of-way or to accept only access to the wilderness or only acquiring the lands a portion of the property under the provisions of that would provide access to the wilderness? Section 6 (a) of the Wilderness Act are not options offered to the BLM.

24. The EA is confusing (Section 1.5) concerning See response to comment 2. the Secretary of Interior's authority to accept bequests of land and include them in wilderness. The Wilderness Act and U.S. Code are written very specific to the Secretary of Agriculture. What are the specific citations and references that establish the Secretary of the Interior's authority as those of the Secretary of Agriculture regarding accepting land donations for wilderness?

25. "The Wilderness Land Trust does not qualify The term standing is generally applied to judicial for a grazing permit, so would not be able to use proceedings and is not relevant in the context of a

Comment Response the ranch as base property." How does The Section 6 (a) Wilderness Act donation. However, Wilderness Land Trust (WLT) have standing to set because of the Rimrock Rose Ranch’s direct conditions of the land donation that are related to connection to allotments 735 and 736, having grazing permits 00735 and 00736 (section 1.2)? served as the base property tied to the allotments, What are the specific conditions of the land The Wilderness Land Trust does hold—at least to donation as requested by WLT? How is it the extent reasonable under the scope of NEPA consistent with federal policy for the donor to analysis—the opportunity include a demand stipulate that no grazing be allowed on Section 15 regarding these allotments as part of their donation lease lands? Is the presence of livestock package for the BLM’s consideration. Though incompatible with wilderness? Does the WLT their conditions regarding allotments 735 and 736 have standing to make a condition regarding extend beyond those afforded under Section 6 (a), management of Section 15 lands as part of a private the BLM is considering these conditions because of land donation? Shouldn't the BLM deny the their direct association with the Rimrock Rose donation based on the principal that the WLT does Ranch in terms of livestock grazing operations not have standing to make such a request? Why within Sabinoso Wilderness. Furthermore, the didn't the BLM request that WLT revise their more thoroughly developed range of alternatives donation offer sans reference to the BLM evaluated in the revised EA demonstrates the trade- allotments? offs and potential conflicts associated with each option and they might be mitigated.

26. Liberal use of the term "ranch" makes See response to comment 3. understanding the actual conditions of the donation impossible.

27. The donation letter from WLT should have The letter from The Wilderness Land Trust offering been an appendix to the EA to allow the public the donation to the BLM is not included in the EA, complete understanding of the offer during the but is available upon request. While the letter public comment period. served as a basis, the Proposed Action described in this EA is the BLM’s proposal. Furthermore, the letter contained information that has since been updated, such as acreage figures and a description of the lands offer for sale to the BLM. The letter also expressed The Wilderness Land Trust’s opinion on topics such an interpretation of Section 6 (a) of the Wilderness Act that may not be shared by the BLM. The BLM determined that the letter could detract from an understanding of those actions proposed by the BLM. For these reasons, the letter is not included as an appendix to this EA.

28. If the BLM's purpose is to secure public access See response to comment 23. to the Sabinoso Wilderness (section 1.2), why isn't there an alternative just to acquire the land that would allow access or instead of taking the donated land request from the Wilderness Land Trust a right-of-way across their private land to allow access to the public? The fact that the EA only has two alternatives suggests a predetermined outcome.

Comment Response 29. Section 1.2 of the EA states, “The BLM also This reference is now removed from section 1.2. needs to provide for the protection and restoration of riparian resources in a manner consistent with the Taos RMP, as described in Section 1.4, as well as to honor conditions of the 3,314-acre donation." However, Section 1.4 of this document (Decisions to be Made) doesn't describe the need to provide protection or restoration of riparian resources.

30. Did the BLM document that riparian areas are The BLM documented the Rimrock Rose Ranch in "need" of restoration? From what activity or donation is in need of restoration from feral cattle impact do the riparian areas need protection? use through the removal and exclusion of the cattle. Where are the riparian areas in need of restoration The areas in need of restoration are located on the located, on allotments 00735 and 00736 or on the donation property, not on allotments 735 and 736. private land to be donated? Statements under section 3.5 suggest that "centuries" of livestock Also see responses to comments 12 and 14. grazing have not had lasting detrimental effects and therefore doesn't justify the BLM's stated purpose to remove livestock grazing.

31. The EA doesn't support the need for either See response to comment 30. restoration or protection from grazing. Are there any other sources of water on the allotments 00735 In addition, the No Action alternative has been and 00736? Were the allotments assessed for more fully developed to consider how the two carrying capacity without access to the donated allotments may be utilized without the availability property? How dependent is grazing on the canyon of the Rimrock Rose Ranch. The additional details bottoms? The EA states on page 26, "The under the No Action alternative lay out fencing allotments have a higher percentage of AUMs due needs, access, and other details of the probable to the mesa top conditions where more moisture is grazing operation scenario. received and retained and thereby yielding more forage." This indicates that water resources other than the canyon bottoms may exist. How many dirt tanks are extant on the allotments? What is their water holding capacity? Did BLM document the number and capacity of dirt tanks on the allotment?

32. Might the allotments 00735 and 00736 be used The No Action alternative has been more fully by local permit holder to improve timing, intensity, developed to consider how the two allotments may duration and distribution of livestock grazing in the continue to be utilized by a new permittee. This area? Why was this not considered as a viable alternative now evaluates the probable scenario of a alternative in the EA? grazing operation that excludes the use of the Rimrock Rose Ranch. Also see response to comment 32.

33. Under section 3.6, the EA states, “In the The sentence under section 3.6 has been revised. Southwest, these riparian habitats are rare and Riparian and arid streams comprise 0.5-1 percent of extremely vulnerable.” The BLM must provide the surface area of the arid lands of the western scientific documentation that these riparian habitats states (U.S. General Accounting Office (US-GAO) are "extremely vulnerable." Riparian ecosystems 1988, Ohmart 1996). As discussed under section

Comment Response are some of the most dynamic systems in nature. 3.5 of the EA, the riparian resources on the To what and how are they vulnerable? None of the Rimrock Rose Ranch were determined to display presented information demonstrates that the signs of a degraded system due to grazing, riparian areas are in need of restoration or that including by feral cattle. The Taos RMP objectives livestock removal is needed to improve the riparian for riparian vegetation state that BLM will manage areas. The EA fails to demonstrate that these riparian areas with an emphasis on protection and riparian areas, with grazing, are in need of restoration. restoration. Furthermore, regardless of whether these particular riparian resources are in need of restoration, the decision to preclude livestock grazing in riparian areas has already been made by the Taos RMP. The Taos RMP specifically precludes grazing within riparian areas within the Sabinoso ACEC, which encompasses Sabinoso Wilderness. Furthermore, the BLM’s discretion to allow grazing in riparian areas within the donated property would also be removed by a condition on the property deed that the ranch property within Cañon Largo, where the riparian area is located, not be used for livestock grazing.

34. Section 4.1.1.6 states that riparian vegetation The BLM collected data on the condition of the "along Cañon Largo will increase in distribution, riparian areas in July 2016. (See section 3.5 of the diversity, and biomass within the riparian zone as a EA.) result of the removal of cattle grazing (Kauffman and Krueger 1984)." Did Kauffman The BLM recognizes that there is extensive and Krueger, cited in the analysis, specifically information on how riparian areas recover from analyze the Cañon Largo for the removal of cattle livestock grazing, granted results vary depending grazing? Does BLM possess data that supports the on site conditions. The merits of this varying statement? The EA also cites the "effects of cattle information is not at issue, however, since the grazing in riparian area," is there any data or decision to preclude livestock grazing in riparian documentation demonstrating that Cañon Largo areas has already been made in the Taos RMP. The experienced negative effects with current grazing Taos RMP specifically precludes grazing within levels and management? riparian areas within the Sabinoso ACEC, which encompasses Sabinoso Wilderness. Furthermore, the BLM’s discretion to allow grazing in riparian areas within the donated property would also be removed by a condition on the property deed that the ranch property within Cañon Largo, where the riparian area is located, not be used for livestock grazing.

35. The EA states under section 4.1.1.6 that This discussion under section 4.1.1.6 has been "Overuse of riparian areas by wilderness visitors revised. However, as identified under section 1.2 has a potential to adversely impact the riparian of the EA, the Wilderness Act does specify that resources. In search of firewood, visitors may recreation is one of the purposes for which trample the samplings and riparian ground cover wilderness areas are devoted. Since providing for and compact the soil. Impacts from visitor use unconfined recreation is one of the primary

Comment Response would be at the areas of most use such as trail objectives for managing the wilderness, the BLM heads and sites used for camping. The most would avoid any management controls on affected area would be the section of riparian recreational use, particularly at the onset of its directly accessible from the trailhead into the wilderness management implementation, unless wilderness area." This appears that ". . . a potential impacts such as social trails, heavily impacted to adversely impact the riparian resources" is camp sites, etc. develop beyond acceptable levels. acceptable if done by wilderness visitors, but If monitoring of resources within Sabinoso grazing (with no evidence of adverse impacts) is Wilderness show unacceptable impacts are unacceptable. occurring to riparian resource, management actions will be taken by the BLM to mitigate such impacts. In addition, the “Leave No Trace” ethic is strongly emphasized and promoted by the BLM through interpretive and other educational opportunities for wilderness users and has shown to effectively change visitor use behavior in a manner that minimizes their impacts.

Regardless, the decision to preclude livestock grazing in riparian areas has already been made. The Taos RMP specifically precludes grazing within riparian areas within the Sabinoso ACEC, which encompasses Sabinoso Wilderness. Furthermore, the BLM’s discretion to allow grazing in riparian areas within the donated property would also be removed by a condition on the property deed that the ranch property within Cañon Largo, where the riparian area is located, not be used for livestock grazing.

36. Section 1.3 of the EA states, "To meet this The reference is to the Taos Resource Management objective, the Taos RMP specifically makes Plan rather than the Proposed Taos Resource riparian areas within the ACEC unavailable to Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact livestock grazing (page 123)." Page 123 of the Statement. RMP is the acreage of recreation areas and doesn't mention ACECs or grazing riparian areas. Please clarify so that the reader is fully informed of the BLM objectives.

37. The economic impacts of this federal action are An analysis of economic impacts has been added not "an issue" that can be dismissed (Section 1.7), the revised EA. This issue is no longer dismissed but an effect that must be analyzed. The local from detailed analysis. governments will be effected with the loss of taxable private property and livestock. These It is unclear what the long-term future disposition entities will be called upon for services when of the ranch would be under the No Action wilderness visitors get lost or injured. Neighbors alternative. See responses to comments 9 and 10 of the allotments and donated private lands will be above for details with respect to economic and tax required to assume the fence responsibilities of the impact analyses. It is possible that retirement of Rimrock Rose Ranch, if these lands become BLM. these AUMs could affect local ranching culture to a If they don't assume these duties BLM will cite degree. More relevant to this question than the

Comment Response them for trespass when their livestock wander total number of AUMs retired, however, is the total through the unmaintained fences. The BLM failed number of ranches in operation. In 2012, there in their responsibility to analyze the cultural, were 877 farms and 533 beef cattle operations economic and social effects of the proposed recorded in San Miguel County. A single beef removal of grazing on allotments 00735 and 00736. cattle operation represents 0.11 percent of all farms How does removal of 47 percent of the allotted and 0.19 percent of beef cattle operations in the AUMs not have an impact to local custom and County; less than two tenths of a percent in each culture and economics? Did the BLM conduct an case. As noted in the response to comment 15 analysis suggesting that new recreational above, BLM-managed lands are currently 1.5 opportunities would offset impacts to the local percent of all acres in the County. The 4,361 acres economy? under consideration comprise 0.19 percent of all grazing land in San Miguel County. BLM AUMs represent a small portion of all available forage in the County.

In addition, the Proposed Action would not require additional fencing by neighboring private land owners. However, under the No Action alternative, the current Rimrock Rose Ranch owner would be responsible for up to approximately 8.5 miles of new fencing to keep livestock off of the ranch property.

38. The EA tries to dismiss the interest in these The No Action alternative was developed further to allotments because of the "difficulty in accessing evaluate the probable scenario under which the two and feasibility of managing these allotments," allotments would continue to be grazed, assuming however access and management may not be the Rimrock Rose Ranch property would be difficult for a neighboring allotment. Was an excluded from any grazing operation. alternative considered to take portions of these allotments and add them to neighboring allotments? Also, an additional alternative has been added to If these allotments have "a higher percentage of the EA and analyzed in detail in an effort to offset AUMs due to the mesa top conditions," then why some of the loss of grazing opportunities that hasn't it been analyzed to offer these allotments to would result under the Proposed Action. nearby permit holders or take these mesa tops and incorporate them into a different allotment or create In addition, section 2.4 of the EA has been revised a new allotment? Were area permit holders to consider an additional option that would have explicitly informed that the allotments were provided for the continued grazing on the two currently on hold and available for possible allotments. This option was dismissed, however, permitting? for reasons explained under that section.

39. Where is the justification to purchase lands Section 2.2.2 of the Taos RMP states, “The outside of the wilderness? This is not discussed or acquisition of land that will enhance and protect evaluated, it is just assumed, and some of these important resources is an established priority for lands are not even within the ACEC. the Taos Field Office.” For this reason, section 2.2.2.2 specifically provides for the BLM to acquire properties within or adjacent to Sabinoso Wilderness or Sabinoso Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). This section of the RMP also states that “Private and State lands

Comment Response with riparian/aquatic habitat may be acquired through purchase. . . .” This latter statement provides justification for purchasing the two parcels (S2 and S6 on Map 1) located outside of the ACEC, both of which have characteristics supporting riparian and aquatic habitat.

40. Isn't grazing of the Rimrock Rose Ranch a Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act devotes "historical use" (section 1.2), which shall be a wilderness areas to the public purposes of devoted public purpose and be continued and recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, protected if acquired by the BLM and included conservation, and historic use. Public purposes within the wilderness? continue in wilderness areas where compatible with preserving wilderness character, or as otherwise provided in the Wilderness Act. The grazing of livestock is not a public purpose, it is a private purpose and a commercial enterprise that is allowed to continue under Section 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act. The discretion to discontinue use of the private lands of the Rimrock Rose Ranch rests entirely with the private land owner. Any condition that is placed on the deed to the property before it is donated to the Federal government under Section 6 of the Wilderness Act is a valid existing right and must be respected by the BLM.

41. What are the dimensions of the access The BLM does not anticipate the need to upgrade easement? Has BLM assessed if the easement is the access road to Sabinoso Wilderness. However, adequate and can support road infrastructure in the event improvements are necessary, the needed for expected visitor traffic to the wilderness easement provides the BLM the right to improve area? and maintain the road, and the easement width, 30 feet, is adequate to accommodate such actions.

42. In addition to creation of the larger private land The donation would create two new inholdings: a holding there appears that two New Mexico State larger private inholding, and a second 40 acre State Trust Land inholdings will also be created. Where Trust inholding. Current access is controlled by is the mention of the impacts to New Mexico State the owner of the lands offered for donation. The Trust Lands to be included in the new wilderness donor could reserve the right to grant access, or boundary or land locked by purchased lands? What transfer the right to grant access to the BLM with is the impact to future grazing of state trust lands? the donation. Access to inholdings is regulated How will the newly created inholding impact under Section 5(a) of the Wilderness Act which revenue generation for state trust lands and how provides for adequate access to private or state does that impact the trust's beneficiaries? lands completely surrounded by federal lands designated as Wilderness. This provision does not currently apply because neither of these properties is completely surrounded by federal wilderness. However, Section 5(a) would apply once the land donation is transferred to the BLM, because both properties would thereafter be surrounded. If the donor reserves the right to grant access, the BLM

Comment Response will be unable to apply the Section 5(a) provision. If the donor transfers that right to the BLM, adequate access, that is the routes, modes, and degree of travel that existed on the date of designated, would be provided.

43. If no grazing is allowed on donated lands, how See response to comment 42. will future lease holders of in-held state trust lands access these areas?

44. How are adequate and reasonable access The Wilderness Act and the Omnibus defined? Who determines if access is adequate or Public Land Management Act guarantee adequate reasonable? Does this include access for future and access to private and state lands completely currently unforeseen right-of-ways? Will surrounded by the wilderness. Adequate access wilderness designation of donated lands place means use of the routes, modes, and degree of restrictions or additional burden on the travel that existed on the date of designation. The maintenance or future right-of-way needs of private construction of new access routes or improvement inholdings? Little or no analysis of direct, indirect of existing access routes to a more highly or cumulative impacts was conducted regarding developed condition is not allowed. Pre-existing creation of private inholdings. rights on the property, for example a right-of-way, the right will be recognized to its full extent.

45. Does creating new inholdings create future Whether or not the creation of new inholdings willing sellers? What does BLM do to ensure they encourages potential willing sellers is speculative. are not creating willing sellers? BLM will only pursue acquisition of lands where it is compatible with the goals and objectives of the RMP and where a willing seller exists. Though inholdings will result from the donation, the impact of the new inholding has negligible impact to the landowner as compared to the existing situation, and it remains entirely up to the landowner to pursue sale of those lands.

46. Under Section 4.1.1.8, it appears the BLM Any human caused fire in Sabinoso Wilderness infers that increased wildfire starts from campfires would be considered unacceptable and would are acceptable because the ecosystem is "fire require, without exception, full suppression. This dependent"? Please clarify and define what fire discussion under section 4.1.1.8 has been revised to dependent means and what specific vegetation type eliminate any ambiguity. is fire dependent?

47. The BLM must identify, pursue, and include An additional alternative has been added to the EA additional alternatives in the EA with complete and analyzed in detail in an effort to offset some of effects analysis in order for the public to be fully the loss of grazing opportunities that would result aware of the government action and provide for an under the Proposed Action. The potential informed decision by the decision-maker. Potential alternatives outlined in this comment, however, are alternatives include the following: 1) Reject WLT speculative as they are not options provided to the proposal and request right-of-way to access BLM by the donor. Also see response to comment wilderness and offer grazing leases on allotments 23. 00735 and 00736 to qualified applicants. 2) Reject

Comment Response WLT proposal and accept, as donation, only adjacent lands that have been determined to have wilderness characteristics, and purchase only the inholding within the current wilderness boundary. Place no conditions on grazing leases within the wilderness, including the purchased inholding. Offer grazing leases on allotments 00735 and 00736 to qualified applicants. Include a condition that WLT maintain all perimeter fences of donated land and continue to pay property taxes on all lands currently private. 3) Reject WLT proposal and accept, as donation, only the lands that would allow access to the wilderness area, and purchase only the inholding within the current wilderness boundary.

48. In the EA there are only two alternatives that See response to comment 38. were analyzed in detail, removing grazing from two allotments "permanently" or taking no action at all. We highlight the word permanent because we understand that this action could be changed with another plan amendment. The problem remains that most people reading the word permanent thinks it means "existing perpetually; everlasting, especially without significant change" which is how the dictionary reads. There should be the viable alternative of reassigning these allotment owners analyzed. The allotment owners deserve the opportunity to determine if these allotments could fit into their operations. The BLM should contact allotment owners in the area to determine if there is interest in acquiring them. And other viable alternatives need to be analyzed.

49. Removing grazing from the landscape in this The BLM’s ultimate decision must be well and any other areas when there is no resource need informed, based on the analysis and information is poor management. The BLM must make disclosed in this EA, considering a reasonable decisions based on resource need, not the whims of range of options and their respective tradeoffs. The special interest groups. decision must satisfy the purpose and need for this action. The decision must also be made in a manner that conforms to the goals and objectives of the Taos RMP, as well as further the purposes of the Wilderness Act.

50. Management of Sabinoso Wilderness must stay The BLM concurs that the primary objectives of true to the Wilderness Act stipulation of enjoyment the Wilderness Act include opportunities for the of the land by present and future generations and public to enjoy wilderness areas through primitive that the area's ecological richness be maintained. and unconfined recreation and to preserve and This end, the recreational activities and biodiversity protect the area’s natural character, which may should be prioritized. include ecological values.

Comment Response

51. The Sabinoso cliff bands hold great potential As indicated in the comment, the Sabinoso as a rock climbing destination. Rock climbing can Wilderness Management Plan, to be completed be established and recreated in a minimally subsequent to a decision on the current Proposed invasive manner (much less so than ATV'ing, Action, is the appropriate document in which to grazing, or hunting) and as a fast growing sport will consider opportunities for rock climbing. provide enjoyment for many "future" generations. The forthcoming Sabinoso management plan should allow for the development of rock climbing areas.

52. Biodiversity with Sabinoso (particularly The BLM has full discretion on whether to allow botanical diversity) should be prioritized as it is all livestock grazing within ACEC, so long as the too often under prioritized under the BLM's relevant and important value(s) for which the multiple-use principles. That said, it is confusing ACEC is established is afforded adequate that the designated ACEC area within Sabinoso protection. In the case of the Sabinoso ACEC, contains grazing allotments. If grazing is to be scenic and riparian values, including botanical permitted within the Sabinoso ACEC, the BLM diversity, are identified as relevant and important. should impose mandatory rest periods for the land While the scenic quality of the area is not and be seriously enforced. compromised by livestock grazing, riparian resources could be. Therefore, livestock grazing is precluded from riparian resources by the Taos RMP.

In addition, the BLM evaluates range conditions annually as part of a range readiness assessment (or in response to drought or other circumstances) to determine if conditions warrant resting of an allotment or some other change to grazing for the purpose of resource protection. The BLM maintains full discretion to impose necessary restrictions on grazing based on resource conditions.

53. It should also be noted that Allan Savory's The BLM notes this comment. In addition, please research suggesting that intensive grazing leads to see Deseret Land and Livestock in Utah as an better forage species is outdated and based on example of where holistic range management has African systems, not North American systems, and resulted in simultaneous improvements in wildlife so is not valid to justify high intensity grazing on habitat, watershed conditions, PFCs, and economic ACEC land within Sabinoso. Furthermore, his returns to cattle ranching. research has been discredited by the USGS http://onpasture.com/2016/05/23/deseret-land-and- amongst other organizations as a model for North livestock-manages-for-wildlife-and-cattle/ American grazing.

54. Regarding the allotments within Sabinoso Currently, funding is not available for employment Wilderness, is there a position with the BLM as a opportunities specific to Sabinoso Wilderness. caretaker to enforce the BLM’s objectives for the area?

Appendix B: Map 1 and Map 2

35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 35 36 31 32 33 34 33 34 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34

3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 Proposed Acquisition4 3 4 2 1 6 5 3 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 Alternative A - Map 1 RimrockLegend Rose Ranch 8 9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12 7 Ancon 11 12 7 8 9 10 9 10 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 Access Road Sabinoso ACEC T17N T17N T17N 15 14 13 18 17 15 14 13 T17N 13 18 17 15 R22E T17N 17 15 14 Sabinoso Wilderness R25E R21E 17 13 18 R24E 18 R23E 15 14 Sabinoso Grazing Allotment Boundary D1 22 23 24 21 22 23 Proposed24 Donation19 Acquisition20 21 22 21 19 20 24 19 20 21 22 23 19 20 21 22 23 24 Proposed Purchase Acquisition

Caliche Rights 28 27 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 27 26 25 30 29 30 29 28 27 26 25 29 28 Donation Areas Not Included Bureau of Land Management within Wilderness Boundary (5 ac.) Private 33 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 S4 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 736 Sabinoso Wilderness State 5 S3 6 419 3 0 2 1.251 2.5 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 (! 4 Miles ian 736 Canad R i 735 v e

r D1 12 S5 0 660 11 1,320 12 7 2,640 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 9 10 Feet ¯ Sanchez µ 15 T16N T16N T16N 17 D1 T16N Location of Main Map 15 14 13 18 R22E 15 S6 14 18 17 15 14 13 18 17 R24E R21E 13 R23E D4 735 See Inset Map 735 Above S2 S1 20 D1 Taos Field Office 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 24 20

28 27 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 26 25 30 29 28 27 D2 26 25 29 D3 New Mexico 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33

6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 CanadianRiver 4 San Ramon

12 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 Trujillo 10 104 No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the (! C5 1A accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for T15N T15N individual use or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes T15N +$ T15N 15 14 13 18 17 not intended by BLM. Spatial information may not meet National Map 15 14 18 17 15 14 13 18 17 R21E 13 R23E R24E Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated without notification. R22E 15 Produced by the BLM Taos Field Office - GIS on: December 8, 2016 PM 898 962 807 707 706 807 955 955 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 35 36 31 32 33 34 33 34 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 705 836 807 Proposed Acquisition 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 6 5 2 1 6 5 4 3 3 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 RimrockAlternative Rose C - Map Ranch 2 Legend 8 9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12 7 Ancon 11 12 7 8 9 10 9 10 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 743 Access Road ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ

ââ

ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ ââ Proposed Grazing Allotment Boundary Adjustment 743 743 T17N T17N T17N 15 14 13 18 17 15 14 13 T17N Unallotted13 Grazing Boundary18 17 15 R22E T17N 814 17 15 14 R25E R21E 17 13 18 R24E 18 R23E 15 814 14 Sabinoso 848 Grazing Allotment Boundary D1 798 788 Proposed Donation Acquisition 22 23 24 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 21 19 20 24 19 20 21 22 23 20 21 976 22 23 24 19 902 Proposed Purchase Acquisition 838 848 911 Caliche Rights 28 27 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 976 976 30 27 26Sabinoso 25ACEC 30 29 30 29 28 27 812 26 25 949 29 28 Donation Areas Not Included Sabinoso Wilderness within Wilderness Boundary (5 ac.) 976 33 Bureau of Land Management 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 S4 32 33 976 34 938 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 736 Sabinoso Wilderness Private 5 S3 State 6 6 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 (!419 4 3 2 1 863 863 ian 736 0 C1.25anad R 2.5 5 i v e Miles

r D1 12 S5 0 660 11 1,320 12 7 2,640 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 9 10 Feet ¯ 735 Sanchez 938 µ 15 863 T16N T16N T16N 17 D1 T16N Location of Main Map 15 14 13 18 R22E 15 S6 14 18 17 15 14 13 18 17 R24E R21E 13 R23E D4 See Inset Map 735 S2 735 S1 Above 952 20 D1 Taos Field Office 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 24 20 823 952 823 28 27 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 26 25 30 29 28 27 D2 26 25 771 952 29 D3 New Mexico 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 902 33

6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 CanadianRiver 4 San Ramon