TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

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

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

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ...... 4 MINERALS MANAGEMENT ...... 4 Fluid Minerals Management ...... 4 Other Surface Management Agencies ...... 11 Locatable Minerals Management ...... 14 Solid Leasable Minerals Management ...... 14 Saleable Minerals Management ...... 19 LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT ...... 21 Utility and Transportation System ...... 21 Retention ...... 25 Acquisition ...... 25 Disposal ...... 28 Access ...... 28 Trespass ...... 30 Withdrawals and Classifications ...... 30 LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT ...... 30 Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management ...31 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ...... 33 Grassland Community ...... 34 Shinnery Oak-Dune Community ...... 34 Mixed Shrub Malpais Community ...... 34 Pinon-Juniper Grassland Community ...... 35 Mixed Desert Shrub Community ...... 35 Drainages, Draws and Canyons Com munity ...... 36 Riparian-Wetlands Com munity ...... 37 Rio Bonito Acquired Lands ...... 37 PEST MANAGEMENT ...... 37 Noxious Weeds ...... 37 Insects ...... 37 Predator Control ...... 38 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ...... 39 Cultural Resources ...... 39 Paleontological Resources ...... 42 OUTDOOR RECREATION MANAGEMENT ...... 43 Recreation Management ...... 43 Interpretation ...... 46 Cave and Karst Resource Management ...... 46 Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Management ...... 47 Wilderness Management ...... 51

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

PAGE

Visual Resource Management ...... 52 Recreation Opportunity Management ...... 52 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ...... 52 Soil Management ...... 52 Surface Water Management: Quantity ...... 54 Surface Water Management: Quality ...... 55 Groundwater Management ...... 55 Water Rights Management ...... 56 AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ...... 56 WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT ...... 56 Special Status Species Habitat Management ...... 56 Big Game/Upland Game Habitat Management ...... 57 Waterfowl Habitat Management ...... 59 Raptor Habitat Management ...... 59 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Management ...... 59 Riparian/Wetland and Playa Lake Management ...... 60 FIRE MANAGEMENT ...... 61 Prescribed Fire ...... 61 Protection from Wildfire ...... 62 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT ...... 63 AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN ...... 63 Overflow Wetlands ACEC ...... 63 North Pecos River ACEC ...... 66 Mescalero Sands ACEC ...... 67 Fort Stanton ACEC ...... 67 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC ...... 70

APPENDIXES ...... A-1 APPENDIX 1, Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements ...... AP1-1 APPENDIX 2, Roswell District Conditions of Approval ...... AP2-1 APPENDIX 3, Practices for Oil and Gas Drilling and Operations in Cave and Karst Areas ...... AP3-1 APPENDIX 4, Withdrawn Lands ...... AP4-1 APPENDIX 5, Acquisition, Retention, and Disposal Criteria ...... AP5-1 APPENDIX 6, Lands Identified for Acquisition ...... AP6-1 APPENDIX 7, Public Lands Identified for Disposal ...... AP7-1 APPENDIX 8, Decisions from Previous Planning Documents ...... AP8-1 APPENDIX 9, Treating Vegetation with Herbicides ...... AP9-1 APPENDIX 10, Rules of Conduct ...... AP10-1 APPENDIX 11, Results of Section 7 Consultation Roswell Resource Area .....AP11-1 Federally Listed Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Roswell Resource Area ...... AP11-2 State-Listed Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Roswell Resource Area ...... AP11-3 BLM Sensitive Species Occurring or Potentially

ii Occurring in the Roswell Resource Area ...... AP11-5 Biological Assessment, Roswell Resource Area ...... AP11-7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

PAGE

Biological Opinion, Roswell Resource Area ...... AP11-61 BLM's Response to the Biological Opinion, Roswell Resource Area ..AP11-114 APPENDIX 12, ACEC Maps ...... AP12-1 APPENDIX 13, Protests on the Roswell Rmp ...... AP13-1 List of Protesters, Roswell RMP ...... AP13-2 List of Protest Issues and Concerns, Roswell RMP ...... AP13-5 Text Changes ...... AP13-9 Responses to Issues in Protest Letters ...... AP13-13 Responses to Concerns in Protest Letters ...... AP13-21

LIST OF TABLES

1 Land Ownership Acreages (Estimated Acres) ...... 2 2 Summary of Oil and Gas Leasing Restrictions ...... 4 3 Areas Open to Leasing with Controlled Surface Use Restrictions ...... 6 4 Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations and Notices ...... 6 5 Areas Open to Leasing with No Surface Occupancy ...... 7 6 Areas Closed to Future Leasing ...... 8 7 Areas Withdrawn from Mineral Entry ...... 15 8 Areas Closed to Solid Mineral Leasing ...... 17 9 Areas Closed to the Disposal of Mineral M aterials ...... 19 10 Rights-Of-Way Exclusion Areas ...... 22 11 Rights-Of-Way Avoidance Areas ...... 22 12 Lands Considered Suitable for Potential Acquisition, Estimated Acreages ...... 27 13 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC, Summary of Acreages (Including Lands Proposed for Consideration for Acquisition) ...... 28 14 Changes in Grazing Animal Unit Months ...... 32 15 Vegetation Management - Grassland Community ...... 34 16 Vegetation Management - Shinnery Oak-Dune Community ...... 35 17 Vegetation Management - Mixed Shrub Malpais Community ...... 35 18 Vegetation Management - Pinon-Juniper Grassland Community ...... 36 19 Vegetation Management - Mixed Desert Shrub Community ...... 36 20 Vegetation Management - Drainages, Draws, and Canyons Com munity ...... 37 21 Resource Interpretation Opportunities ...... 47 22 Off-Highway Vehicle Management Designations ...... 48 23 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC Off-Highway Vehicle Designations ...... 50 24 Summary of Visual Resource Management and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Acreages in Special Resource Management Areas ...... 53 A-1 List of Appendixes ...... A-1 A1-1 Summary of Estimated Acreages Affected by Surface Use And Occupancy Requirements ...... AP1-2 A3-1 Cave or Karst Occurrence Areas ...... AP3-2 A4-1 Existing Withdrawals and Classifications ...... AP4-2

iii A6-1 Lands Identified for Acquisition ...... AP6-2 A7-1 Public Lands Identified for Disposal ...... AP7-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

PAGE

A11-2 Federally Listed Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring In the Roswell Resource Area ...... AP11-2 A11-3 State Listed Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring In the Roswell Resource Area ...... AP11-3 A11-4 BLM Sensitive Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring In the Roswell Resource Area ...... AP11-5 A13-1 List of Protesters , Roswell RMP ...... AP13-2 A13-2 List of Protest Issues and Concerns, Roswell RMP ...... AP13-5 A13-3 Text Changes ...... AP13-9

LIST OF MAPS

1 General Location Map, Roswell Resource Area ...... 3 2 Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulation Areas ...... 5 3 Surface Management by Other Agencies ...... 12 4 Areas Withdrawn ...... 16 5 Areas Closed to Leasing of Solid Minerals ...... 18 6 Areas Closed to Disposal of Mineral Materials ...... 20 7 Rights-of-Way Exclusion Areas ...... 23 8 Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas ...... 24 9 Land Tenure Zones ...... 26 10 Potential Acquisitions ...... 29 11 Proposed Archeological Districts ...... 41 12 Special Recreation Management Areas ...... 45 13 OHV Management Designations ...... 49 14 Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ...... 64 A3-1 Cave or Karst Occurrence Areas ...... AP3-3 A12-1 Overflow Wetlands ...... AP12-2 A12-2 Overflow Wetlands ...... AP12-3 A12-3 North Pecos River ...... AP12-4 A12-4 North Pecos River ...... AP12-5 A12-5 North Pecos River ...... AP12-6 A12-6 Mescalero Sands ...... AP12-7 A12-7 Fort Stanton ...... AP12-8

LIST OF FIGURES

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

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

v USER’S GUIDE

The Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Roswell Resource Area presents a comprehensive plan for the management of all resources and uses on public lands in the Roswell Resource Area. The RMP replaces previous land use planning documents for the Roswell Resource Area. The Record of Decision is the formal decision to accept the Approved RMP as the management guidance for all resources and uses on public lands in the Roswell Resource Area for the next 20 years.

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

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

vi ACRONYMS

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern NSO No Surface Occupancy ADC Animal Damage Control NTL Notice to Lessee AFB Air Force Base OHV Off-Highway Vehicle ALMRS Automated Land and Minerals Record System ONA Outstanding Natural Areas AMP Allotment Management Plan p Primitive (ROS) APD Application for Permit to Drill PDM Predator Damage Management APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service PILT Payment in Lieu of Taxes AQB Air Quality Bureau, New Mexico Environment PJ Pinon-Juniper (community) Department PNF Prescribed Natural Fire AQCR Air Quality Control Regulation PPM Parts per million ASTM American Society of Testing Materials PRIA Public Rangelands Improvement Act AU Animal Unit R Rural (ROS) AUM Animal Unit Month RA Resource Area BLM Bureau of Land Management RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act BMP Best Management Practice RDO Roswell District Office BOR Bureau of Reclamation RMP Resource Management Plan CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation RMPA Resource Management Plan Amendment and Liability Act RN Roaded natural (ROS) CFR Code of Federal Regulations RNA Research Natural Area CMP Cooperative Management Plan R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes C&MU Classification and Multiple Use Act ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum COA Condition of Approval ROW Right-orf-Way CRMP Coordinated Resource Management Plan RRA Roswell Resource Area csu Controlled Surface Use SCS Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resource DDC Drainages, Draws, Canyons (community) Conservation Service) DPC Desired Plant Community SEO State Engineer Office, State of New Mexico EA Environmental Assessment SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer EIS Environmental Impact Statement SMA Surface Management Agency ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area SOD Shinnery-Oak Dune (community) EPA (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency SPNM Semi-primitive nonmotorized (ROS) ESA Endangered Species Act SPM Semi-primitive motorized (ROS) ESI Ecological Site Inventory SRMA Special Recreation Management Area FCRPA Federal Cave Resources Protection Act SRUP Special Recreation Use Permit FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement STC Standard Terms and Conditions FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act SUOR Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements GIs Geographic Information System TDS Total Dissolved Solids HMP Habitat Management Plan T&E Threatened and Endangered MDS Mixed Desert Shrub (community) TL Timing Limitations MFP Management Framework Plan U Modern Urban (ROS) MFPA Management Framework Plan Amendment USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture Mg/i Milligrams per liter USDI U.S. Department of the Interior MSL Mean Sea Level USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service MI Management Ignited USGS U.S. Geological Survey MOU Memorandum of Understanding VRCO Vegetation Resource Condition Objectives MSM Mixed Shrub Malpais (community) VRM Visual Resource Management NCA National Conservation Area WA Wilderness Area NEPA National Environmental Policy Act WHA Wildlife Habitat Area NL No Lease (not open to oil and gas leasing) WSA Wilderness Study Area NM New Mexico WQCC Water Quality Control Commission NMDGF New Mexico Department of Game and Fish NMSO New Mexico State Office NNL National Natural Landmark NOI Notice of Intent

NOL Not open to leasing NPS Nonpoint Source Pollution NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service)

vii viii RECORD OF DECISION

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

DECISION

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

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

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

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

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

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

ROD - 1 public lands in the Roswell Resource Area. These alternatives resolved four planning issues (oil and gas operations; land tenure adjustment; access; and special management areas) and two management opportunities (recreation and wildlife habitat management), which were identified by the BLM and the public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY

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

The Resource Users Coalition (including the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, the Indepen- dent Petroleum Association of New Mexico, and the Southeastern New Mexico Grazing Associa- tion) submitted Alternative F as a comment on the Draft RMP/EIS. Alternative F was carefully reviewed by RMP team members, especially with regard to its conformance with laws, regula- tions and manuals that govern the management of the public lands. It was determined as a result of that review that Alternative F is not a viable alternative in its entirety because it proposes management that ignores laws and regulations that the BLM must follow in the management of the public lands. Nevertheless, many changes were made while developing the Proposed RMP that resulted from Alternative F. ROD - 2 DECISION RATIONALE

The decision to select the Proposed Plan is based on:

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

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

• Input from the public, BLM specialists, local and state governments, and other federal agencies; and,

• The combination of management actions considered by the BLM to best meet the legal mandate of the FLPMA for management of the public lands according to the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

MITIGATION AND MONITORING

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

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

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

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

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

ROD - 3 PROTEST RESOLUTION

Forty-eight protests of the Roswell RMP were filed during the 30-day protest period, which ran from March 7, through April 7, 1997. Additionally, five comment letters were received during the protest period. The comment letters were reviewed and considered in the preparation of this Record of Decision. Of the 48 protests, 28 were dismissed because they did not meet the requirements for filing a protest, including the identification of an issue or issues being pro- tested, or standing to file a protest. Of the many issues raised in the remaining protests, 38 were referred to the Director of the BLM for resolution. The general topics of those issues were: - adequacy of maps in the RMP - treatment of wilderness study areas - cultural resource management, including cost recovery - cave and karst management - adequacy of Alternative F - prairie chicken management - failure to follow state laws - sand dune lizard management - participation in the planning process - conformance with county land use plans or ordinances - special status species management - livestock grazing and NEPA analysis

In addition, 20 concerns raised in the protest letters were referred to the New Mexico State Director for a response. The general topics of those concerns are: - land acquisitions and disposals - special status species protection - prairie chicken management - sand dune lizard management - visual resource management - slopes and fragile soils - takings implications - wildlife and wildlife habitat area management - vegetation management - watershed management - law enforcement

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

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND OPINION

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

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

ROD - 4 In the Biological Opinion, the USFWS provided one Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) comprised of six elements for the Pecos bluntnose shiner, and one RPA with six elements for the Pecos gambusia. The USFWS believes if all elements of the RPAs are implemented, jeopardy to the Pecos bluntnose shiner and Pecos gambusia, and adverse modification of their critical habitats, would not be likely to result. The RPAs are non-discretionary; the BLM must implement them. In addition, two Conservation Recommendations (CRs) were provided for the interior least tern. The CRs are discretionary but will be implemented. The BLM and the USFWS will coordinate and implement a habitat and species monitoring program as specified in the Biological Opinion.

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

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

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

CONSISTENCY

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

CONCLUSION

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

APPROVAL

ROD - 5 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION Roswell Resource Area Office. The Roswell Resource Area encompasses Chaves County This Resource Management Plan (RMP) is a (except for the “bootheel”) and all of Lincoln, comprehensive plan that establishes the gen- DeBaca, Roosevelt, Curry, Quay, and eral land management and use determina- Guadalupe counties in southeastern and tions for guiding and controlling the future east-central New Mexico (see Map 1). management of the public lands in the Roswell Resource Area. All land and resource uses and activities in This plan was prepared in accordance with the planning area must conform with the de- the requirements of the Federal Land Policy cisions and terms and conditions of use de- and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and scribed in this plan. Detailed decisions for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the implementation of specific actions will be of 1969. made through activity planning and environ- mental review that will be completed prior to This Resource Management Plan addresses the implementation of the action. Likewise, the management all uses of the public lands the authorization of specific uses will be predi- on about 1,490,000 acres in the Roswell Re- cated on conformance with planning deci- source Area where both the surface and sub- sions and the completion of environmental surface estates are in federal ownership and review. are administered by the BLM (See Table 1). This Plan also presents management for an Descriptions of the affected environment and additional 8.4 million acres of federal mineral the environmental consequences of manag- estate where the surface is managed by other ing public lands in the planning area were surface management agencies of the federal previously addressed in the Draft Roswell or New Mexico State governments, or is in RMP/EIS and Proposed Roswell RMP/FEIS, private ownership. In these cases, the leas- and are not discussed in this document. ing of fluid minerals (i.e., oil and gas) is ad- ministered by the BLM. The Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements (Appendix 1) will be The public lands described above, including applied, when applicable, to all actions the mineral estate, are administered by the described in this plan. Bureau of Land Management through its

1 8,405,000 Min- 2/,4/ 8,250,000 Minerals (Oil Minerals (All 1/,4 and Gas) 1,490,000 and Subsurface TABLE 1 (ESTIMATED ACRES) 13,965,000 Total Acres (All BLM-Administered Other Surface Other Surface ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA LAND OWNERSHIP ACREAGES 2/ Area Owners) Federal Surface Owners, Owners, Roswell Resource Area The federal surface/subsurface category assumes all subsurface acres are oil and gas acres. repre- Both categories of federal minerals describe split estate where the surface is not administered by BLM. All acreage numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. To determine total federal oil and gas acres add acreages in columns 2 3. Federal 1/ sented are those where both the surface and mineral estate owned by Federal government, managed the BLM. 2/ acreages represented are mineral estate acres, only. 3/ 4/ Source: BLM ALMRS and GIS data, 1994. erals)

2 CUM' ..

TlN

1'ZII

nH kOO!l\ti.T ns

TZS

NORTH 13S

@ TO

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

MAP 1 GENERAL LC>CATIC>N MAP Roswell Resource Area

3 PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS in Cave and Karst Areas will be applied as conditions of approval. The total acreage MINERALS MANAGEMENT includes controlled surface use restrictions and approximately 935,000 acres of lesser Fluid Minerals Management prairie chicken habitat that will be open to leasing with timing restrictions. See Tables 2 Goal: Provide for the leasing, exploration and and 3, and Map 2. development of oil and gas resources within the Roswell Resource Area. As a result of the requirements described above, some leasing stipulations formerly The BLM administers approximately available for use on new leases have been 9,740,000 acres of federal oil and gas min- rescinded or replaced. Refer to Table 4 for a eral estate in the Roswell Resource Area. In list of the remaining leasing stipulations. this plan: Leasing stipulations on leases already issued will not be affected. Approximately 9,316,200 acres (96 percent of the oil and gas mineral estate) will be open The BLM must adopt the reasonable and pru- to leasing and development under the BLM’s dent alternatives listed in the Biological Opin- standard terms and conditions, the Surface ion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Use and Occupancy Requirements (Appen- Therefore, approximately 7,000 acres (< 1 dix 1), the Roswell District Conditions of Ap- percent) of unleased oil and gas parcels within proval (Appendix 2), and the Practices for Oil the 100-year floodplain of the Pecos River will and Gas Drilling and Operations in Cave and not be offered for leasing to protect the water Karst Areas (Appendix 3). The discrete com- quality of the Pecos River and the habitat of ponents of these requirements will be applied the Pecos bluntnose shiner and the Pecos on a case-by-case basis when needed to gambusia. (See Appendix 11 and the Record mitigate impacts or guide use. The Surface of Decision.) The BLM will continue to apply Use and Occupancy Requirements will be mandatory protective measures for oil and applied to new leases or as conditions of ap- gas development on existing leases within the proval for proposed activities on existing floodplain of the Pecos River. leases, following NEPA analysis. The Prac- tices for Oil and Gas Drilling and Operations

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF OIL AND GAS LEASING RESTRICTIONS BY HYDROCARBON POTENTIAL (ESTIMATED SURFACE ACRES1/) ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA Hydrocarbon Closed Open To Open To Leasing Open To Leasing Open To Potential To Leasing With With Controlled With Timing Leasing3/ Leasing NSO2/ Surface Use2/ Restrictions2/

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

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

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

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

4 Areas Stipulated

1 - Little Black Peak WSA X 14 - Garnsey Bison Kill Site X 1a - Millrace Cave* X 15 - Bat Hole Cave* X 2 - Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA X 15a- Comanche Hill Not Applicable 2a - Crockett Cave* X 16 - Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District X 2b - Valley of Fires Recreation Area X 17 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area X 3 - Fort Stanton ACEC X 18 - Haystack Butte Arch. District X 4 - Rio Bonito Acquired Lands Not Applicable 19 - North Pecos River ACEC X 5 - Zia Christine Cave* X 20 - Billy the Kid Recreation Site X 6 - Alleged UFO Crash Sites X 21 - Mescalero sands ACEC X 7 - Border Hill NNL X 22 - Mescalero Sands North Dune 8 - Torgac Cave* X OHV Area X 9 - Angora-Corn Cave* X 23 - Mathers RNA X 10 - Martin-Antelope Gyp Cave* X 11 - Crystal Caverns-Devil's Well Caves* X 12 - Coachwhip Cave* X 13 - overflow Wetlands ACEC X

* Part of the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC

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

~ Core Prairie Chicken Habitat nnnn Prairie Chicken Habitat

-- Potential for Oil and Gas Occurrence Zone Boundary

NORTH

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

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

5 TABLE 3 AREAS OPEN TO LEASING WITH CONTROLLED SURFACE USE RESTRICTIONS ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Areas Hydrocarbon Potential Estimated Surface Acres High Moderate Low

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

Total 1,320

Source: BLM files, 1994

TABLE 4 OIL AND GAS LEASING STIPULATIONS and NOTICES ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Current Type of Feature Remarks Stipulation Restriction

Roswell 46 Lease Notice Cave/Karst Occurrence Area Retain

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

Roswell 51 Lease Notice Protection of the Sand Dune Lizard Retain

NSO Maintenance of state well-spacing requirements (new)

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

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

Source: BLM files, 1994

6 TABLE 5 AREAS OPEN TO LEASING WITH NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Hydrocarbon Potential Estimated Surface Acres Areas High Moderate Low BLM MANAGEMENT: Alleged UFO Crash Sites1/ 1,120 2,560 Billy the Kid Recreation Site 80 Border Hill NNL 150 Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District 3,000 Garnsey Bison Kill Site 520 Haystack Butte Arch. District 3,400 Haystack Mountain OHV Area 3,520 Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area 1,546 Mescalero Sands N. Dune OHV Corridor 400 North Pecos River ACEC 2,120 Overflow Wetlands ACEC 1,040 Sumner Lake Tailwater 320 Valley of Fires Recreation Area 463 Subtotal 17,529 150 2,560

OTHER AGENCY MANAGEMENT: Cibola National Forest N/A2/ Fort Sumner Project and Sumner Lake State Park 11,240 Lincoln National Forest N/A2/ Two Rivers Reservoir Project see3/ Tucumcari Project 7 Ute Lake State Park 325 Subtotal 11,572

Total 29,101 150 2,560

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

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

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

Source: BLM files, 1994

7 TABLE 6 AREAS CLOSED TO FUTURE LEASING ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Area Hydrocarbon Potential Estimated Surface Acres High Moderate Low

BLM MANAGEMENT:

Carrizozo Lava Flow and Little Black Peak WSAs 1/ 25,312 Fort Stanton ACEC 27,622 Mathers Research Natural Area 242 Mescalero Sands ACEC 7,931 North Pecos River ACEC 2,080 Pecos River Critical Habitat 2/ 7,000 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC 2,654 1,600 640 Subtotal 29,007 26,912 28,262

OTHER AGENCY MANAGEMENT:

Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge 6,320 Bottomless Lakes State Park 460 Cibola National Forest 19,178 Grulla National Wildlife Refuge 69 Lincoln National Forest 99,171 Melrose Bombing Range, core area 6,714 Salt Creek Wilderness1,240 White Sands Missile Range 180,756 Subtotal 14,803 180,756 118,349

Total 38,610 207,668 146,611

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

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

Source: BLM files, 1997

8 Approximately 31,800 acres (< 1 percent) will be or to a portion of a lease parcel. In this situa- open to leasing, with a No Surface Occupancy tion, there can be no intention on the part of stipulation attached to new leases. Refer to the nominator to occupy the surface of the Tables 2 and 5, and Map 2. This does not in- lease or portion of the lease. For a lease to clude acreage that may be affected by applica- be issued, there can be no concerns about tion of the Surface Use and Occupancy Require- impacts to subsurface resources or values ments. resulting from drilling on any unrestricted parts of the lease or on adjacent leases, and sur- Approximately 392,000 acres (4 percent) will be face occupancy or use absolutely will not be closed to leasing to protect resources or to sup- authorized. A lease could be issued for a stan- port other public uses. See Tables 2 and 6, and dard term with a no surface occupancy leas- Map 2. In these areas, existing leases will con- ing stipulation (See Figure 1). tinue to be developed on a case-by-case basis, However, once leases terminate, they will not be The BLM will continue to require oil and gas re-offered for leasing. lessees to conduct operations in a manner that will minimize adverse impacts to re- sources, land uses, and users. To that end, FIGURE 1 the BLM will continue to apply reasonable mitigation measures. These will typically in- NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY STIPULA- clude, at a minimum, relocating proposed TION operations by no more than 200 meters or prohibiting new surface disturbance for a pe- Maintenance of state well-spacing requirements. riod of no more than 60 days. Mitigations of No surface occupancy or use is allowed on the impacts involving moves greater than 200 lands described below: meters or delays greater than 60 days could result from project-specific NEPA analysis. (legal description) (Also, refer to the introduction to Appendix 1.)

For the purpose of: The lease or portion of a lease for the area described above is issued for the sole Requirements that have been issued in Or- purpose of assisting in the orderly development of ders or Notices to Lessees (NTL) concerning the federal mineral estate. This lease will be used environmental and other factors associated to maintain state well-spacing requirements on the with the drilling of oil and gas wells will con- lands described above. This lease absolutely does not grant surface occupancy or use, and that tinue to be enforced, as will future orders and requirement cannot be waived unless changes are NTLs. made in a land use plan or plan amendment. In addition to any stipulations appended to a Roswell 52 lease, the development of new and existing (Date) leases will be further guided by the applica- tion of the Roswell District Standard Condi- tions of Approval (Appendix 2), which will be The Authorized Officer may consider expressions applied on a case-by-case basis. of interest for the leasing of BLM-administered public lands when the sole purpose of leasing is Open-top tanks, reserve pits, disposal pits, or to maintain state well-spacing requirements. This other open pits will be required to be equipped could occur in areas that are closed to leasing to deter entry by birds, bats or other wildlife, (except for wilderness study areas) or open to and livestock. oil and gas leasing with no surface occupancy, including areas affected by the Surface Use and The BLM will encourage the use of practices Occupancy Requirements (Appendix 3). This such as off-lease measurement, unit agree- leasing opportunity could apply to an entire lease ments, field development plans, communitization agreements, consolidated

9 batteries, and other innovative approaches, to • Little Black Peak WSA (14,904 acres): The reduce the extent of surface disturbance and to entire 14,904-acre area would be closed to mitigate other forms of impacts. These practices oil and gas leasing to protect the character of must conform with Onshore Oil and Gas Orders the lava flow, which is believed to be one of 4 and 5, and state requirements. the most recent in the continental U.S. Sce- nic, recreational, scientific, vegetation and The construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, wildlife values associated with the lava flow abandonment, and closure of all roads subject would be protected, as well. to BLM jurisdiction will be conducted according to the “BLM-NMSO Road Policy, Standards and Cultural sites determined to be eligible and po- Procedures.” Specific practices for implement- tentially eligible to the National Register of His- ing this policy are described in Appendix 2. The toric Places will be protected from damage by BLM may monitor use of roads and notify joint- avoidance. If avoidance can not be accom- cost-sharing companies when maintenance is plished, potentially eligible sites will be tested to needed. determine their eligibility and mitigation, such as data recovery, will be required for eligible sites. Areas designated as Wilderness Study Areas Coordination and consultation about the treat- (WSAs) are closed to leasing as part of the Wil- ment of sites will continue between the BLM and derness Interim Management Policy. Existing SHPO, pursuant to Section 106 of the National leases in WSAs would not be reissued once they Historic Preservation Act. expire. Nearly all the acreage in the two WSAs in the Roswell Resource Area is recommended As a standard practice, ephemeral and peren- for wilderness designation. If Congress fails to nial drainages and wetland/riparian areas will be accept the recommendations for wilderness des- avoided as locations for oil and gas related facili- ignation and the WSA status is removed, the ties, including drilling locations, production facili- lands currently in the WSAs would be managed ties, roads, and pipelines. (Refer to Appendix 1, for multiple use under management prescribed Streams, Rivers and Floodplains.) Whenever in this RMP. If not designated wilderness, future possible, facilities will be confined to existing align- management of the WSAs would be as follows: ments or locations, minimizing width requirements and maximizing multiple occupancy. • Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA (10,408 acres): Approximately 9,333 acres would be closed Produced water disposal pits on public lands will to oil and gas leasing to protect the character not be allowed west of the Pecos River. Addi- of the lava flow, which is believed to be one tionally, these pits will not be allowed within up of the most recent in the continental U.S. to 200 meters of of the outer edge of 100-year Scenic, recreational, scientific, vegetation and floodplains, drainages, playas, water wells, or wildlife values associated with the lava flow springs throughout the resource area. In all other would be protected, as well. The remaining areas of the Roswell Resource Area, disposal of 1,075 acres would be open to leasing sub- produced water in lined pits may be permitted on ject to the Surface Use and Occupancy Re- public lands. Produced water disposal will be quirements, the Practices for Oil and Gas Drill- managed in accordance with Onshore Oil and ing Operations in Cave and Karst Areas, and Gas Order No. 7. the Roswell District Conditions of Approval. Areas designated as Wilderness Study Areas Revegetation of disturbed areas will be required. (WSAs) are closed to leasing as part of the Reclamation techniques, such as deeper rips, Wilderness Interim Management Policy. Ex- different seed mixtures, mulching, and the appli- isting leases in WSAs will not be reissued cation of fertilizer, may be used to enhance the once they expire. Even if the WSAs are not reclamation of pits, roads and pads to provide for designated as wilderness by Congress, all maximum ground and surface water protection. WSAs in the Roswell Resource Area will re The ripping or removal of caliche from roads and main closed to leasing. pads could be required to enhance reclamation

10 efforts. Waiver of this requirement will be consid- in accordance with the painting policy for vi- ered if diligent attempts to revegetate a site have sual resource management areas (see Ap- failed and the Authorized Officer determines that pendix 1) and NTL 87-1, New Mexico. Waiver further attempts would be futile. of the requirement for painting will be consid- ered when short distances are involved, when The BLM will continue to process Notices of In- a pipeline is not readily visible because of tent (NOI) to conduct geophysical exploration on screening, or in areas that are not visually public lands on a case-by-case basis. Geophysi- sensitive. cal exploration may be an appropriate temporary surface use in areas that are closed to oil and • Where the surface ownership along the gas leasing or that have restricted surface use, pipeline route is mixed, and the majority of such as no surface occupancy leasing stipula- surface ownership is not public. In those tions. The processing of geophysical NOIs will cases, the installation of pipelines on public include NEPA compliance. The terms and con- land will conform to the practice to be em- ditions for NOIs and the conditions of approval ployed on the remainder of the pipeline, un- for geophysical exploration are listed in Appen- less special resource management concerns dix 2. The Surface Use and Occupancy Require- dictate strict adherence to this policy. ments (Appendix 1) and off-highway vehicle use designations will also be applied to geophysical Lease notices will be used to alert lessees to exploration, when necessary. potential special requirements on exploration, drilling or production. Lease notices covering the The burial of pipelines associated with oil and gas protection of potential cave or karst areas, and exploration, development, production and trans- the protection of threatened or endangered, or portation is preferred. Pipelines greater than four sensitive, plant or animal species will remain in inches in nominal diameter, all injection lines, and effect. Additional lease notices will be developed gas lines with a pressure greater than 125 psi as needed. must be buried and preferably be constructed of steel. If the use of plastic pipe is approved, the Other Surface Management Agencies pipe must meet American Petroleum Institute specifications. A waiver of the requirement to bury In some cases, federal minerals in the Roswell pipelines will be considered in the following situ- Resource Area underlie lands managed by other ations: agencies known as “other surface management agencies.” (See Map 3.) The leasing require- • The temporary (one year or less) surface ments of other surface management agencies installation of plastic pipelines, after consid- have been included for purposes of disclosure ering the length of the pipeline, its proposed and to provide a complete view of oil and gas location, the potential hazards present (e.g., leasing in the resource area. The other surface likelihood of damage by fire or OHV use), the management agencies in the Roswell Resource characteristics of the pipe regarding deterio- Area were asked to provide their oil and gas leas- ration (including by sunlight), the ASTM or ing recommendations and leasing stipulations; similar specifications for the pipe, the intended they are included here without modification. The use of the pipeline, and other appropriate fac- leasing requirements are described below. The tors. acreages listed refer to federal mineral estate.

• Where rock outcrops at the surface make Federal Aviation Administration the burial of a pipeline impractical, such as when unreasonable and unreclaimable sur- • Consult with FAA prior to approving oc- face disturbance would result. Where the cupancy at Santa Rosa Municipal Airport (320 pipeline is exposed, painting may be required acres)

11 Surface Management By Other Agencies - Surface Stipulations for Federal Minerals

1 - White Sands Missile Range X 8 - Santa Rosa Airport X 2 - Cibola National Forest X 9 - Grulla Wildlife Refuge X 3 - Lincoln NationalMap Forest 3 X 10 - Melrose Bombing Range X 4 - Two Rivers Reservoir X 11 - Ute Lake State Park X 5 - Bottomless Lakes State Park X 6 -SurfaceBitter Lake Management Wildlife Refuge by OtherX 7 - sumner Lake X Agencies Bureau of Reclamation NOTE - Reader must refer to the tables and narrative to determine the affected acreage within each area.

NORTH

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

MAP 3 SURFACE MANAGEMENT BY OTHER AGENCIES Roswell Resource Area 12 Bureau of Reclamation case basis by the Commander, Cannon AFB.

Fort Sumner Project (11,240 acres U.S. Army including the state park) • White Sands Missile Range (180,756 • No Surface Occupancy within one-half acres), not open to leasing mile of the Fort Sumner Dam site. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • No Surface Occupancy within Sumner Lake State Park. • Two Rivers Reservoir Project (2,785 acres), open to leasing under appropriate • No Surface Occupancy below elevation Roswell District Surface Use and Occupancy 4279' MSL. Requirements (Appendix 1) and Conditions of Approval (Appendix 2), and the following • No storage facilities below elevation 4300' conditions: MSL. - No drilling shall be conducted within • Areas not covered by the requirements 1,000 feet of the dam embankments, appur- mentioned above would be leased and man- tenant structures and the spillway; aged under appropriate Roswell Districtstipulations or Conditions of Approval - No buildings, structures, etc., shall be (e.g., floodplain locations, see Appendixes 1 constructed or otherwise left in areas subject and 2). to inundation due to flood storage; and,

Tucumcari Project - All activities shall be reported to and coordinated with the Santa Rosa Lake and • No Surface Occupancy within the bound- Dam Reservoir manager. ary of Hudson Lake. New Mexico State Parks • No Surface Occupancy below within the boundary of Dry Lake, below elevation 4085' • Sumner Lake (8,123 acres), no surface MSL. occupancy (see “Bureau of Reclamation,” above). If lands presently managed by the BOR revert back to the management of the BLM, they would • Ute Lake (325 acres), no surface occu- be leased with the above restrictions and man- pancy aged under appropriate Roswell District Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements (Appendix 1) • Bottomless Lakes (460 acres), not open and Conditions of Approval (Appendix 2). to leasing.

Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Air Force • Salt Creek Wilderness (1,240 acres), not open to leasing. The Salt Creek Wilderness • Melrose Bombing Range core area (6,714 is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife acres), not open to leasing Service as part of Bitter Lake National Wild- life Refuge, but the 1,240-acre wilderness is • Melrose Bombing Range buffer area not included in the acreage shown for the ref- (1,000 acres), open to leasing with controlled uge. surface use. No structures taller than 100 feet. Exceptions may be considered on a case-by- • Grulla National Wildlife Refuge (69 acres), not open to leasing

13 drawal is no longer considered to be necessary, • Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge (6,320 it will be lifted and the lands returned to manage- acres), not open to leasing. ment under the general mining and mineral leas- ing laws. U.S. Forest Service, Cibola National Forest (34,336 acres) All BLM-administered lands will be open to min- ing claim location and development, except those • Not open to leasing, 19,178 acres lands closed to mining claim location by with- drawal. BLM-administered lands currently with- • Open to leasing, 15,158 acres. Acreage drawn from all forms of appropriation under the on which “no surface occupancy” would be general mining laws are summarized in Appen- applied has not been specifically identified, dix 4 and shown on Map 4. but would apply to all developed recreation sites and electronic sites, and to slopes The areas summarized in Table 7 and shown on greater than 41 percent, unless a specific site Map 4 will be withdrawn from all forms of appro- is authorized. Some acreage will have “con- priation under the general mining laws. trolled surface use.” Restrictions on areas open to leasing will be determined on a case- Solid Leasable Minerals Management by-case basis. Goal: Keep lands available for leasing and U.S. Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest production, while maintaining important environ- (364,579 acres) mental values.

• Not open to leasing, 99,171 acres All public lands will be open for the leasing of solid minerals, except those identified otherwise. • Open to leasing, 265,408 acres. Acre- age on which “no surface occupancy” would Lands in the following area will remain closed to be applied has not been identified. Some leasing: acreage will have “controlled surface use.” Restrictions on areas open to leasing will be • Mathers Research Natural Area, 242 determined on a case-by-case basis. acres

Locatable Minerals Management Additional public lands that will be closed to solid mineral leasing are summarized in Table 8 and Goal: Continue to keep lands available for are shown on Map 5. development of locatable minerals, while maintaining important environmental values. The federal mineral estate within the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge will be closed to the leas- Lands currently withdrawn from entry under the ing of solid minerals. Refer to Table 8 and Map 5. 1872 Mining Law or closed to mineral leasing will remain unchanged unless otherwise designated The federal mineral estate along the Canadian by this plan (see Table 7). The BLM will periodi- River and major tributaries in Quay County (total- cally review all land withdrawals to determine if ling about 4,900 acres) will be closed to the leas- restrictions continue to be necessary to protect ing of solid minerals. Refer to Table 8. affected resource values. At such time as a with-

14 TABLE 7 AREAS WITHDRAWN FROM MINERAL ENTRY ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Area Estimated Mineral Acres

BLM MANAGEMENT: Alleged UFO Crash Sites1/ 3,680 Billy the Kid Recreation Site 80 Border Hill NNL 150 Carrizozo Lava Flow and Little Black Peak WSAs 25,312 Cocklebur Lakes Archeological District 3,000 Fort Stanton ACEC* 27,622 Garnsey Bison Kill Site 880 Haystack Butte Archeological District 3,400 Haystack Mountain OHV Area (staging area) 160 Mathers Research Natural Area* 242 Mescalero Sands ACEC2/ 7,931 North Pecos River ACEC 4,200 Overflow Wetlands ACEC 1,040 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC3/ 14,894 Spring and Seep Areas 240 Valley of Fires Recreation Area 463 Subtotal 93,294

OTHER AGENCY MANAGEMENT: Blackwater Draw Archeological Site* 711 Canal Right-of-Way (NM 21834)* 7 Melrose Bombing Range, core area* 6,714 Nike Hercules Defense Site* 325 NM Army National Guard Training Site* 53 Fort Sumner Dam and Sumner Lake State Park (acreage comprises three segments)* 8,123 Tucumcari Project, Conchas Canal (NM 52398)* 7 Two Rivers Reservoir Project* 2,590 Subtotal 18,530

Total 111,824

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

Source: BLM files, 1994.

15 Areas Withdrawn

1 - Little Black Peak WSA 20 - North Pecos River ACEC X 1a - Millrace cave* Map 4 21 - Billy the Kid Recreation Site X 2 - Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA 22 - FAA Navigation Site X 2a - Crockett cave* 23 - Sumner Lake X 2b - Valley ofRRA: Fires RecreationAreas Withdrawn Area 24 - Mescalero Sands ACEC X 3 - Water Power Site 25 - Mescalero Sands North Dune 4 - Fort Stanton ACEC OHV Area Not Applicable 5 - Zia Christine cave* 26 - Mathers RNA X 6 - Torgac Cave* 27 - Blackwater Draw Arch. Site X 7 - Border Hills NNL 28 - Melrose Bombing Range X 8 - Two Rivers Reservoir Project 29 - BOR Reservoir #2 Not Applicable 9 - Angora Cave* 30 - Tucumcari-Conchas Canal X 10 - Martin-Antelope Gyp Cave* 31 - National Guard Training Site X 11 - Crystal Caverns/Devil's Well Caves• 32 - Ute Lake State Park Not Applicable 12 - Coachwhip Cave• 33 White Sands Missile Range X 13 - Overflow Wetlands ACEC 34 - Alleged UFO Crash Sites X 14 - Bottomless Lakes State Park 14a - Garnsey Bison Kill Site * Part of the Roswell cave Complex ACEC 15 - Bat Hole Cave* 15a - Nike Defense Site NOTE - Reader must refer to the tables 16 - Bitter Lake Wildlife Refuge/ and narrative to determine the affected Salt Creek Wilderness Not Applicable acreage and type of withdrawal within each 17 - Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District X area. 18 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area X 19 - Haystack Butte Arch. District X

MAP4 AREAS WITHDRAWN Roswell Resource Area 16 TABLE 8 AREAS CLOSED TO SOLID MINERAL LEASING ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA PROPOSED PLAN

Areas Estimated Mineral Acres BLM MANAGEMENT: Alleged UFO Crash Sites1/ 3,680 Billy the Kid Recreation Site 80 Border Hill NNL 150 Carrizozo Lava Flow and Little Black Peak WSAs 25,312 Cocklebur Lakes Archeological district 3,000 Fort Stanton ACEC 27,622 Garnsey Bison Kill Site 880 Haystack Butte Archeological District 3,400 Haystack Mountain OHV Area 3,520 Mathers Research Natural Area 242 Mescalero Sands ACEC 7,931 Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area 610 North Pecos River ACEC 4,200 Overflow Wetlands ACEC 1,040 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC 14,894 Valley of Fires Recreation Area 463 Subtotal 97,024

OTHER AGENCY MANAGEMENT: Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge 6,320 Subtotal 6,320

Total 103,344

1/ Two alleged sites.

Source: BLM files, 1994.

17 Areas Closed ·

1 - Little Black Peak WSA X 15 - Bat Hole cave• X 1a - Millrace Cave• X 15a- Comanche Hill Not Applicable 2 - Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA X 16 - Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District X 2a - Crockett Cave• Map 5 X 17 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area X 2b - Valley of Fires Recreation Area X 18 - Haystack Butte Arch. District X 3 - Fort Stanton ACEC 19 - North Pecos River ACEC X 3 - FeatherRRA: Cave Areas Arch. Closed Complex to Leasing Xof 20 - Billy the Kid Recreation Area X 4 - Rio Bonito Acquired Lands Not Applicable 21 - Mescalero Sands ACEC X 5 - Zia Christine Cave• X 22 - Mescalero Sands North Dune 6 - Alleged UFO crash Sites X OHV Area X 7 - Border Hill NNL X 23 - Mathers RNA X 8 - Torgac cave• X 24 - Caprock WHA Not Applicable 9 - Angora-Corn Cave• X 25 - Bitter Lake Wildlife Refuge X 10 - Martin-Antelope Gyp Cave• X ~~~~ - Core Prairie Chicken Habitat Not Applicable 11 - Crystal Caverns/Devil's Well caves• X 12 - Coachwhip Cave• X 13 - Overflow Wetlands ACEC X 14 - Garnsey Bison Kill Site X

• Part of the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC

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

NORTH

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

MAPS AREAS CLOSED TC> LEASING C>F SC>LID MINERALS Roswell Resource Area 18 Saleable Minerals Management Mineral material pits no longer in use or selected pits in areas with a high density of pits will be Goal: Provide mineral materials to the public reclaimed. Pits will be reclaimed to standards while maintaining the protection necessary to that conform to, or improve, the condition of the prevent adverse environmental impacts and to surrounding ecosystem. minimize adverse impacts to public health and safety. All federal mineral estate at Fort Stanton except for the Feather Cave Archeological Complex will All lands will be open to mineral material dispos- be open to the discretionary disposal of mineral als, except those identified otherwise. Pertinent materials. sections of the Roswell District Conditions of Ap- proval (Appendix 2) will be applied to mineral The areas that will be closed to mineral material material disposals. disposals to preclude surface disturbance are summarized in Table 9 and are shown on Map 6.

TABLE 9 AREAS CLOSED TO THE DISPOSAL OF MINERAL MATERIALS ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA, PROPOSED PLAN

Areas Estimated Mineral Acres Alleged UFO Crash Sites 1/ 3,680 Billy the Kid Recreation Site 80 Border Hill NNL 150 Carrizozo Lava Flow and Little Black Peak WSAs 25,312 Cocklebur Lakes Archeological District 3,000 Feather Cave Archeological Complex 330 Garnsey Bison Kill Site 880 Haystack Butte Archeological District 3,400 Haystack Mountain OHV Area 3,520 Mathers Research Natural Area 242 Mescalero Sands ACEC 7,931 Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area 1,336 North Pecos River ACEC 4,200 Overflow Wetlands ACEC 1,040 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC 14,894 Valley of Fires Recreation Area 463

Total 70,458

1/ Two alleged sites.

Source: BLM files, 1994.

19 Map 6

Areas Closed to Disposal of Mineral Materials

RRA

20 LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT Public lands in the resource area will be made available for rights-of-way, permits, and leases. Goal: Manage the public lands to support the In defined exclusion and avoidance areas, public goals and objectives of other resource pro- lands will be open to the consideration of grant- grams, to respond to public demand for land ing rights-of-way under the guidelines in Appen- use authorizations, and to acquire administra- dix 2. tive and public access where necessary. Areas proposed for exclusion of rights-of-way for Utility and Transportation System major projects such as electric transmission lines; pipelines 10 inches in diameter or larger; com- Land use authorizations (rights-of-way, leases, munication lines for interstate use; federal, state permits) will be issued on a case-by-case basis. and interstate highways; and major county and Pertinent sections of the Roswell District Condi- private roads are summarized in Table 10 and tions of Approval (Appendix 2) will be applied to are shown on Map 7. land use authorizations. Whenever possible, fa- cilities will be confined to existing alignments, Lands acquired as habitat for Special Status Spe- minimizing width requirements and maximizing cies or acquired for wetland/riparian values will multiple occupancy. Rights-of-way locations, and be added to the right-of-way exclusion area for terms and conditions for their use, will be identi- major projects. Exceptions will be considered in fied. Rights-of-way will be granted only after site- exclusion zones on a case-by-case basis for fa- specific analysis and development of specific con- cilities such as fences, range and wildlife water ditions of approval. Rights-of-way will also be is- pipelines, power distribution lines, access to oil sued in accordance with New Mexico BLM’s and gas facilities, or oil and gas collection or dis- Roads Policy. Agriculture leases will be consid- tribution pipelines. ered only when the lease is compatible with or enhances the land’s identified resource values. Areas proposed for avoidance of rights-of-way for major projects such as electric transmission lines; Landfills, hazardous waste disposal sites, and pipelines 10 inches in diameter or larger; com- produced water disposal pits will not be autho- munication lines for interstate use; federal, state rized under rights-of-way or R&PP leases. If BLM and interstate highways; and major county and lands are needed for these purposes, a title trans- private roads are summarized in Table 11 and fer will be considered. are shown on Map 8. Rights-of-way for major projects and for facilities such as fences, range A utility corridor for ancillary facilities associated and wildlife water pipelines, power distribution with the Sierra Blanca Regional Airport will be lines, access to oil and gas facilities, or oil and retained. The corridor dimensions are 100 feet gas collection or distribution pipelines will be con- on each side of Lincoln County Road B-006, and sidered in avoidance zones on a case-by-case l.5 miles in length. No additional rights-of-way basis. corridors will be designated.

21 TABLE 10 RIGHTS-OF-WAY EXCLUSION AREAS ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Areas Estimated Acres Alleged UFO Crash Sites1/ 3,680 Border Hill NNL 150 Carrizozo Lava Flow and Little Black Peak WSAs 25,312 Cocklebur Lakes Archeological District 3,000 Fort Stanton ACEC 24,630 Garnsey Bison Kill Site 360 Haystack Butte Archeological District 3,400 Mathers Research Natural Area 242 Mescalero Sands ACEC 7,888 North Pecos River ACEC 3,360 Overflow Wetlands ACEC 3,000 Rio Bonito2/ 3,000 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC 14,894 U.S. Highway 380 corridor through the Carrizozo Lava Flow (applies to overhead power and telephone lines) 76 Valley of Fires Recreation Area 463 Total 93,455

1/ Two alleged sites.

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

Source: BLM files, 1994

TABLE 11 RIGHTS-OF-WAY AVOIDANCE AREAS ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Areas Estimated Acres Core Prairie Chicken Habitat Area 249,400 Haystack Mountain OHV Area (applies to overhead power and telephone lines) 4,153 Mescalero Sand Dune North OHV Area (applies to overhead power and telephone lines) 610 North Pecos River ACEC 3,362

Total 257,525

Source: BLM files, 1994.

22 Rights-of-Way Exclusion Areas

1 - Little Black Peak WSAMap 7 X 15 - Bat Hole Cave* X la - Millrace Cave* X 15a- Comanche Hill Not Applicable 2 - Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA X 16 - Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District X 2a - CrockettRRA: Cave* ROW Exclusion AreasX 17 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area Not Applicable 2b - Valley of Fires Recreation Area X 18 - Haystack Butte Arch. District X 3 - Fort Stanton ACEC X 19 - North Pecos River ACEC X 4 - Rio Bonito Acquired Lands X 20 - Billy the Kid Recreation Area Not Applicable 5 - Zia Christine Cave* X 21 - Mescalero Sands ACEC X 6 - Alleged UFO Crash Sites X 22 - Mescalero Sands North Dune 7 - Border Hill NNL X OHV Area Not Applicable 8 - Torgac Cave* X 23 - Mathers RNA X 9 - Angora-corn cave* X 24 - Caprock WHA Not Applicable 10 - Martin-Antelope Gyp Cave* X 11 - Crystal Caverns/Devil's Well Caves* X ~~~~ - Core Prairie Chicken Habitat Not Applicable 12 - Coachwhip Cave* X 13 - overflow Wetlands ACEC X 14 - Garnsey Bison Kill Site X

* Part of the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC

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

NORTH

.s .a

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

MAP7 RIGHTS-OF-WAY EXCLUSION AREAS Roswell Resource Area 23 Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas

1 - Little Black Peak WSA Not Applicable 15 - Bat Hole Cave* Not Applicable 1a - Millrace Caves*Map 8 Not Applicable 15a- Comanche Hill Not Applicable 2 - Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA Not Applicable 16 - Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District Not Applicable 2a - Crockett Cave* Not Applicable 17 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area X 2b - ValleyROW of FiresAvoidance Recreation Areas Area Not Applicable 18 - Haystack Butte Arch. District Not Applicable 3 - Fort Stanton ACEC Not Applicable 19 - North Pecos River ACEC X 4 - Rio Bonito Acquired Lands Not Applicable 20 - Billy the Kid Recreation Area Not Applicable 5 - Zia Christine Cave*RRA Not Applicable 21 - Mescalero Sands ACEC Not Applicable 6 - Alleged UFO Crash Sites Not Applicable 22 - Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area X 7 - Border Hill NNL Not Applicable 23 - Mathers RNA Not Applicable 8 - Torgac Cave* Not Applicable 24 - caprock WHA Not Applicable 9 - Angora-Corn Cave* Not Applicable 10 - Martin-Antelope Gyp Cave* Not Applicable ~~~~ - Core Prairie Chicken Habitat X 11 - Crystal Caverns/Devil's Well Caves* Not Applicable 12 - Coachwhip Cave* Not Applicable 13 - OVerflow Wetlands ACEC Not Applicable 14 - Garnsey Bison Kill Site Not Applicable

* Part of the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC

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

NORTH

.s .a

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

MAPS R.IGHTS-C>F-WA Y A VOIDANCE AREAS Roswell Resource Area 24 Retention Acquisition

To facilitate the planning process, the Roswell The BLM will pursue the acquisition of facilities Resource Area was divided into three zones, at Fort Stanton formerly owned by New Mexico based on land ownership patterns (see Map 9). State University. The acquisition of state and pri- Zone 1 includes the better-blocked public surface vate lands in wilderness study areas will be pur- lands in Chaves, Lincoln, Guadalupe and DeBaca sued if opportunities arise (refer to the “Wilder- counties. Zone 2 includes the scattered public ness Management” discussion in this chapter). lands in Chaves, Lincoln, DeBaca, and Guadalupe counties. Zone 3 includes the very About 3,000 acres of private or state lands in the scattered lands in Curry, Quay, and Roosevelt vicinity of Fort Stanton will be considered for ac- Counties. quisition to enhance management in that area.

In Zone 1, the management philosophy is to re- Over the life of the plan, the acquisition of about tain the public lands in federal ownership. How- 75,800 acres of non-federal lands or interests in ever, exchanges may be used to create better- non-federal lands, including those in the Fort blocked land ownership patterns and facilitate Stanton area, will be considered on a case-by- better resource management. Sales and dispos- case basis to achieve management objectives. als for public purposes also could be used to fa- Any lands acquired will be managed according cilitate better management in Zone 1, in some to the management prescriptions in this plan. cases. Lands acquired anywhere in the resource Refer to Appendix 5 for acquisition criteria. The area will be managed for retention, irrespective areas summarized in Tables 12 and 13, shown of their location. on Map 10, and described in Appendix 6 are cur- rently identified as being suitable for consideration In Zone 2, the management philosophy is to dis- for acquisition, as opportunities become available. pose of public lands, primarily through exchange. Sales and disposals for public purposes also Easements will be acquired to provide access to could be used, in some cases. When possible, public lands for recreation, wildlife, range, cultural exchanges of public lands for private lands will and historical, mineral, ACEC, special manage- be conducted in the same county, to minimize ment area and other resource needs, as oppor- the impacts to PILT payments and property taxes. tunities arise. Criteria for the acquisition of ease- In Zone 3, the management philosophy is to dis- ments are described in Appendix 6. Easements pose of the public lands either through exchange are needed in the following areas (this list is not or sale. inclusive):

Lands in Zones 2 and 3 identified for retention •Overflow Wetlands WHA during the inventory, planning, or land disposal •Crockett Cave processes, will be managed as if they are in Zone •Crystal Cave 1. Reasons for retention include the presence of •Millrace Cave T&E habitat, critical wildlife habitat, unique his- •Little Black Peak Cinder Cone east access torical or cultural resources, or riparian areas. •Little Black Peak Cinder Cone west access Criteria for determining if public lands should be •Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA lower windmill retained are listed in Appendix 5. east access •Mescalero Sands ACEC east access •Mescalero Sands ACEC west access

25 MAP 9 Ill Zone One Retention LANDD Zone TENURE Two ZONESDisposal by exchange, same county lllllllJ Zone Three - Disposal by exchange or sale RRA n?N

niH "'"

T.lN

TZII

nK ns

'11!1

'DS NORTH~ 4S

UIIIICU

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

MAP 9 LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENT ZC>NES Roswell Resource Area

26 TABLE 12 LANDS CONSIDERED SUITABLE FOR POTENTIAL ACQUISITION ESTIMATED ACREAGES ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Areas Private State (Acres) (Acres)

Caprock WHA Expansion 8,480 18,969 Carrizozo Lava Flow and Little Black Peak area1/ 6,179 5,371 Cedar Hills Deer Management Area 961 Fort Stanton area2/ 1,265 1,760 Garnsey Bison Kill Site 242 320 Haystack Butte Archeological District 40 640 Haystack Mountain OHV Area 3,440 2,560 Mescalero Sands ACEC 637 1,797 Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area 410 North Pecos River ACEC 1,880 1,160 Other Mescalero Sands area 2,327 Other Pecos River area 4,165 1,600 Overflow Wetlands ACEC 1,597 1,720 Pecos River Deer Management Area 2,560 Playa Lakes 1,091 550 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC 4,920 Valley of Fires Recreation Area 297

Total 34,201 42,893

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

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

Source: BLM files, 1994.

27 TABLE 13 ROSWELL CAVE COMPLEX ACEC, SUMMARY OF ACREAGES (INCLUDING LANDS PROPOSED FOR CONSIDERATION FOR ACQUISITION1/) ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

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

Angora-Corn 4,800 4,800 Bat Hole 40 40 Coachwhip 614 614 Crockett 640 640 Crystal Caverns-Devil’s Well 2,280 2,840 4,120 6,400 Martin-Antelope Gyp 2,080 320 2,400 Millrace 480 160 640 Torgac 480 160 640 Zia Christine 480 160 160 640

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

1/ There are no state lands proposed for acquisition.

Source: BLM files, 1994.

Disposal Access

The disposal of an estimated 150,000 acres of Access to public lands will be provided through- public lands (e.g., transfer from the administra- out the planning area. Easements will be acquired tion of the BLM to other federal agencies, or lo- to provide access to public lands for recreational, cal or state governments, or disposal through wildlife, range, cultural and historical, mineral, methods such as exchange, public sale, State special management, and other resource needs. indemnity selection, or Recreation and Public Priority for the acquisition of easements will be Purposes leases or patents) will be considered placed on former county roads vacated by county on a case-by-case basis. Appendix 7 includes a governments, when those roads are important for list of tracts totalling 110,324 acres already iden- the management of the public lands. Access will tified that would be suitable for consideration for be closed, or restricted, where necessary and in disposal. Prior to any disposal action, these lands, accordance with OHV designations, to protect and any others proposed for disposal, will be public health and safety or areas with significant evaluated for conformance with the disposal cri- resource values. teria listed in Appendix 5. Placement of advertising signs on public lands adjacent to county roads, or roads on the BLM Transportation Plan, will be required to meet the criteria for sign placement on federal or state high- ways.

28 Potential Acquisitions

1 - Carrizozo WSA Map 10 X 11 - Crystal Caverns/Devil's Well 2 - Valley of Fires Recreation Area X Caves* 3 - Millrace Cave• X 12 - Martin-Antelope Gyp* 4 - Little Black Peak WSA X 13 - North Pecos River ACEC 5 - Rio BonitoRRA: Waterfall Potential AcquisitionsX 14 - Pecos River Deer Mgmt. Area 6 - Lands adjacent to Ft. Stanton X 15 - Haystack Butte Arch. District 7 - Rio Bonito Acquired Lands X 16 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area 8 - Zia Christine Cave• X 17 - Overflow Wetlands ACEC 9 - Torgac Cave* X 18 - Garnsey Bison Kill Site 10 - Cedar Hills Deer Mgmt. Area X 19 - Caprock WHA 20 - Mescalero Sands ACEC 21 - Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area X • Part of the Roswell cave Complex ACEC

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

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

MAP 10 POTENTIAL ACQUISITIONS Roswell Resource Area 29 Trespass monitoring data. Livestock grazing management decisions from previous land use plans, and the Unauthorized uses in the planning area will be disposition of those decisions, are discussed in resolved on a case-by-case basis. If circum- Appendix 8. stances warrant, the issuance of a permit, lease, or right-of-way authorizing the use could occur. Forty-five existing allotment management plans Disposal of a parcel through sale or exchange (AMPs) are in various states of implementation may be considered to resolve long-standing tres- or revision. Each year, the BLM will revise some pass if disposal criteria are met. of the 45 or begin new activity plans (an AMP or the functional equivalent of an AMP) on “I” cat- Withdrawals and Classifications egory allotments. However, the estimated total number of both existing and new AMPs worked Land withdrawals and classifications will be pro- on each year by the BLM would average about cessed to afford protection to important resource three. Permittees, lessees, other federal or state values. Withdrawals that no longer serve the resource management agencies, or interested purposes for which they were originally intended citizens also may prepare activity plans for allot- will be revoked. Prior to revocation, withdrawn ment management. The management plans will lands will be reviewed to determine if any other be prepared according to the regulations current resource values require withdrawal protection. at the time (presently 43 CFR 4120.2). The con- Existing withdrawals are shown on Map 4 and cept of multiple use will be used in the develop- displayed in Appendix 4. ment of activity plans to address other resource concerns, such as wildlife habitat within the Ma- The Multiple Use Management Classification as cho HMP or Desired Plant Community objectives it affects public lands in the planning area would for a specific plant community. be revoked. (Refer to Appendix 4.) Livestock grazing following vegetative treatments Public water reserves will be terminated where will be deferred for a time period established in no longer needed, and acquired where the need conjunction with the treatment method. In areas exists. where shinnery oak is not treated, adjustments in livestock numbers, or other changes, will be Public lands identified as having water power considered, and implemented, if needed, to avoid values will be protected by a water power with- conflicts with the management of habitat for the drawal. Water power withdrawals of public lands lesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard. that lack water power values or are inconsistent Livestock grazing will also be deferred in areas with the objectives of the approved RMP will be burned by wildfires, if needed. The time periods reviewed and recommended for termination. for deferments will be determined on a case-by- case basis, after considering factors such as the LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT extent of the fire, the type of vegetation burned, the intensity of the fire, and vegetation manage- Goal: Provide effective and efficient manage- ment objectives. ment of allotments to maintain, improve, and monitor range conditions. Within portions of the Macho WHA meeting the antelope suitability criteria, new internal pasture Allotment categorization and initial grazing use fences constructed of netwire will not be allowed allocations made in the East Roswell Grazing across public lands on allotments that currently Environmental Impact Statement (1979) and the support pronghorn or on allotments in the WHA Roswell Resource Area Management Framework with the potential to provide suitable pronghorn Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact State- habitat. Exceptions to this requirement are: ment (1984) will be used as the basis for contin- ued livestock grazing. Changes in use alloca- • The grazing permittee agrees to the con- tions will continue to be made on the basis of struction of pronghorn passes on proposed interior fences;

30 • The grazing permittee agrees to allow the about 91 acres to about 195 acres. Livestock BLM to modify fences; grazing in the RNA will be allowed east of the access road and south of the east-west fence • Netwire would be used in the construc- that roughly follows the south boundary of the tion of small traps or holding pens; RNA.

• Netwire would be used in security fences Management proposed will result in a reduction around facilities such as microwave sites. in the amount of livestock grazing authorized on the public lands. Table 14 summarizes estimated Future changes in kind of livestock will necessi- AUM (animal unit month) reductions that may tate reconsidering the fencing standard to be used result from certain management actions. in each situation. Livestock stocking rates will be adjusted under Pertinent sections of the Roswell District Condi- certain circumstances to reduce or eliminate con- tions of Approval (Appendix 2) will be applied to flicts with recreation use and development, to pro- approvals for construction of range improvement mote visitor safety and health, and to reduce the projects. cost of facility maintenance. Adjustments will in- clude excluding livestock from developed recre- Rangeland improvements and vegetation treat- ation facilities and within fenced exclosures ments will continue to be implemented to improve around caves. or maintain forage production and range condi- tion, in an effort to achieve the Desired Plant Standards for Rangeland Health and Guide- Community. Wildlife habitat and watershed man- lines for Grazing Management agement needs will be emphasized. As a completely separate effort, but related to Specific grazing systems will be developed, in development of the Roswell RMP, standards for coordination with permittees, on allotments in the rangeland health and guidelines for grazing man- Caprock Wildlife Habitat Area (WHA) to meet agement are being developed for public lands in DPC objectives. New Mexico by the New Mexico Resource Advi- sory Council, in conjunction with the BLM. The The stocking rate of sheep in the Macho WHA in standards and guidelines are being developed areas currently supporting pronghorn, and which in accordance with the BLM’s grazing regulations, meet transplant criteria, must not exceed an av- which became effective on August 21, 1995. The erage of 50 sheep per section per allotment over time frames for the completion of the Roswell the course of the grazing year. RMP and the development of statewide standards and guidelines coincide, with both efforts ex- Livestock grazing on the acquired Rio Bonito pected to be completed in fiscal year 1997. lands will be considered during the development of a management plan for the area, to determine The standards and guidelines will be imple- if grazing should occur and under what condi- mented in the Roswell Resource Area to develop tions it would be allowed. Grazing preference will a more effective partnership between the ranch- not be established and grazing will be used as a ing industry and the BLM. Among the changes tool to accomplish the objectives of the manage- resulting from the new grazing regulations and ment plan. On other acquired lands, establish- the standards and guidelines will be the oppor- ing grazing preference will be considered on a tunity for management plans to be developed by case-by-case basis, depending on the purpose grazing permittees and lessees, or other involved for which the lands were acquired and the man- parties, in addition to the BLM. Also, ranchers agement objectives for those lands. will play a significantly greater role in gathering basic rangeland monitoring data on which local In the Mathers Research Natural Area, the area management decisions would be based, and in closed to livestock grazing will be increased from evaluating the effectiveness of livestock grazing

31 management plans. document (environmental impact statement or en- vironmental assessment) prepared by the BLM. Because the development of the standards and Any needed revisions of the Roswell RMP result- guidelines is not complete, specifics relating to ing from development of the standards and guide- rangeland health and livestock grazing manage- lines and the impact statement will be made at a ment cannot be included in this land use plan prior future date. The completed standards and guide- to its completion. Once the standards and guide- lines will become part of the Roswell RMP and lines are developed, their effect will be addressed will be implemented in conjunction with the other in a statewide National Environmental Policy Act land use decisions in the RMP.

TABLE 14 CHANGES IN GRAZING ANIMAL UNIT MONTHS ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

PROPOSED ACTION CHANGE IN AUMs Surface disturbance due to oil and gas activity -120 Garnsey Bison Kill Site1/ -24 Haystack Mountain OHV Area1/ 0 Mescalero Sand Dune North OHV Area1/ 0 Billy the Kid Recreation Site -12 Overflow Wetlands ACEC1/ -120 to -674 North Pecos River ACEC -756 Mescalero Sands ACEC -144 Mathers Research Natural Area -21 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC -216 Fort Stanton ACEC2/ 0 Feather Cave Complex2/ -72 Disposal of public lands3/ -34,260 Change in vegetation utilization levels 0

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

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

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

2/ Not allocated under the Taylor Grazing Act.

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

Source: RMP team estimates, 1994

32 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ity planning, specific resource condition objec- tives will be developed for a distinct area (e.g., Goal: Manage resources to maintain or improve an allotment) based on the planned use of the vegetation with the emphasis on watershed area and the more general vegetation condition protection and forage for wildlife. objectives developed in this land use plan.

General management objectives, the composition The standard practices that will be employed to of plant communities identified as a desired plant meet management objectives in each commu- community (DPC), and practices proposed for use nity are: in meeting the management objectives and DPC are described below. In all cases, an ecological • Utilization levels not exceeding 45 per- site must be capable of attaining the DPC through cent of annual plant production. Utilization natural succession, management action, or both. levels will be determined prior to green-up The percentage-ranges of the various compo- and measured on key forage species. nents shown in the following tables are guidelines. The accuracy of those ranges must be confirmed • Projects such as fences, exclosures, wa- through use over a period of years and in a vari- ter developments, erosion control structures, ety of pastures. The objectives in site-specific reseedings, or vegetative sales. management plans will determine whether or not one or more components of the DPC are met. • Grazing treatments such as rest, changes Successful management will concentrate on in season of use, class of livestock, or stock- meeting at least one, but not necessarily both, of ing rates. the vegetative community objectives (percent cover or cover by percent composition). Seeding • Vegetation treatments, including, pre- mixtures under DPC will emphasize the use of scribed fire or prescribed natural fire, native species and avoid noxious weeds and ex- fuelwood sales, and biological, chemical or otic species. Refer to Appendix 11 in the Draft mechanical controls. Refer to Appendix 9 for Roswell RMP/EIS for more information on plant chemical treatment practices. communities and the development of the DPC process. • Treatment of saltcedar as conditions war- rant. Considerations in determining whether Watershed, wildlife and livestock management to treat include location and density of objectives for each community, except the Mixed saltcedar stands, available budget and staff Shrub Malpais Community, are to improve veg- to conduct treatment, and objectives of pro- etation composition and production in areas that posed treatment. currently do not meet the vegetation condition ob- jectives, and to maintain vegetation condition in Constraints on treatments for each community areas that do. The management objectives for are: the Mixed Shrub Malpais Community are to main- tain the current vegetation composition and pro- • A project area will not be chemically duction levels. treated until the chemical treatment of an ad- jacent project area has been in place at least The standard practices that could be employed five years. to meet a DPC will be based on thresholds and vegetation condition objectives described below • Native, deciduous tree species in all plant for each community type. The specific practices communities, such as hackberry, black wal- to be used and the numbers of acres affected will nut, New Mexico walnut, and desert willow, be determined during activity planning, based on will be protected from vegetation treatments the results of resource monitoring. During activ- and surface disturbance.

33 Grassland Community The SOD community type on about 195 of the Refer to Table 15 for Grassland Community veg- 242 acres in the Mathers Research Natural Area etation condition objectives. will not be grazed by livestock. The entire Natu- ral Area will be used for wildlife population and Vegetation treatments to influence DPC will be habitat studies. Those studies may entail veg- considered at the following threshold levels: etative treatments and DPC may not be reached. Likewise, DPC may not be reached in the Mesquite 50 plants/acre Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Recreation Cholla 100 plants/acre Area, which will be managed primarily for off-road Catclaw 50 plants/acre vehicle recreational activities, and in the proposed Creosote 20% of the vegetative canopy Mescalero Sands ACEC, which will be managed Lechuguilla 20% of the vegetative canopy according to the prescriptions for the ACEC. Tarbush 20% of the vegetative canopy Broom Vegetation treatments to influence DPC in the snakeweed 25% by weight of vegetative shinnery oak-dune community will be considered production at the following threshold: Pinon/juniper 50 trees/acre Mesquite 50 plants/acre Shinnery Oak 40 percent of vegetative TABLE 15 cover by composition VEGETATION MANAGEMENT - GRASSLAND COMMUNITY Constraints on treatments in the shinnery oak- ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA dune community are:

Vegetative Community Objectives • Treatments may be conducted to achieve Percent Vegetative Cover Cover By DPC objectives in areas that are not consid- Percent ered suitable or occupied habitat for special Composition status species (e.g., the sand dune lizard). Grass/Forbs 15-52 Suitable and occupied habitat will not be Grasses 30-85 chemically treated unless the species is re- Forbs 10-15 moved from state or federal listing, or an al- Shrubs/Trees 3-12 ternative treatment method is developed that Shrubs 1-10 would not impair habitat. Bare Ground 14-60 Small Rock/ 0-30 Mixed Shrub Malpais Community Large Rock Litter 8-44 Watershed, wildlife and livestock management objectives for the Mixed Shrub Malpais Commu- Note: An objective of vegetation composition management would be to nity are to maintain the current vegetation com- include 10 genera of annual and perennial fall forbs preferred by pronghorn in pastures that support pronghorn or meet the Viability position levels. This community is considered to Index for transplants. Fall forb diversity is, in part, dependent upon encompass only the lava flow. precipitation, the size of the pasture, and stocking rates of domestic sheep. Refer to Table 17 for Mixed Shrub Malpais Com- Source: BLM files, 1994. munity vegetation condition objectives.

Shinnery Oak-Dune Community Constraints on the management of vegetation in the Mixed Shrub Malpais Community are: Refer to Table 16 for Shinnery Oak-Dune Com- munity vegetation condition objectives.

34 • No changes will be made in current live- Constraints on treatments in the pinon-juniper stock management. community are:

• No range improvement projects will be • Removal of trees will be done to create constructed in the Malpais. edge and mosaic patterns.

TABLE 16 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT - TABLE 17 SHINNERY OAK-DUNE COMMUNITY VEGETATION MANAGEMENT - ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA MIXED SHRUB MALPAIS COMMUNITY ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Vegetative Community Objectives Existing Percent Vegetative Cover Percent Cover Cover By Percent Grass/Forbs15-25 Composition Shrubs/Trees 4-10 Grass/Forbs 16-40 Bare Ground 15- Grasses 50-70 25 Forbs 10-15 Small Rock /Large Rock 35-45 Shrubs/Trees 3-17 Litter 10-15 Shrubs 25-40 Bare Ground 5-20 Source: BLM files, 1994. Small Rock/ Large Rock 0-1 Litter 25-70 Mixed Desert Shrub Community

Source: BLM files, 1994. Refer to Table 19 for Mixed Desert Shrub Com- munity vegetation condition objectives.

Vegetation treatments to influence DPC in the Pinon-Juniper Grassland Community mixed desert shrub community will be considered at the following threshold levels: Refer to Table 18 for Pinon-Juniper Grassland Community vegetation condition objectives. Mesquite 50 plants/acre Cholla 100 plants/acre A mosaic of different vegetation structure and Catclaw 50 plants/acre composition is needed to enhance wildlife habi- Creosote 20% of the vegetative tat in this community type. Vegetation treatments canopy to influence DPC in the pinon-juniper grassland Lechuguilla 20% of the vegetative canopy community will be considered at the following Tarbush 20% of the vegetative canopy threshold levels: Broom snakeweed 25% by weight of vegetative Mesquite 50 plants/acre production Cholla 100 plants/acre Pinon/juniper 50 trees per acre Broom snakeweed 25% by weight of vegetative production Pinon/juniper 50 trees/acre or when junipers encroach on drainages

35 TABLE 18 Constraints on treatments in the drainages, draws VEGETATION MANAGEMENT - and canyons community are: PINON-JUNIPER GRASSLAND COMMUNITY ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA • Browse species will be protected.

• Riparian-wetland vegetation will be pro- Vegetative Community Objectives tected by methods such as developing ripar- Percent Vegetative Cover ian pastures, establishing upland waters, and Cover By Percent conducting saltcedar control. Composition Grass/Forbs 15-35 Grasses 30-40 Forbs 3-15 Shrubs/Trees 10-25 TABLE 19 Shrubs 20-35 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT - Trees 30-40 MIXED DESERT SHRUB COMMUNITY Bare Ground 12-24 ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA Small Rock/ Large Rock 5-35 Litter 10-20 Vegetative Community Objectives Percent Vegetative Cover Cover By Percent Composition Source: BLM files, 1994. Grass/Forbs 11-28 Grasses 55-75 Forbs 10-20 Shrubs/Trees 6-15 Shrubs 15-20 Drainages, Draws and Canyons Community Trees 1-10 Bare Ground 10-40 Small Rock/ Refer to Table 20 for Drainages, Draws and Can- Large Rock 15-35 yons Community vegetation condition objectives. Litter 1-12

Vegetation treatments to influence DPC in the Source: BLM files, 1994. drainages, draws and canyons community will be considered at the following threshold levels:

Mesquite 50 plants/acre Cholla 100 plants/acre Catclaw 50 plants/acre Creosote 20% of the vegetative canopy Lechuguilla 20% of the vegetative canopy Tarbush 20% of the vegetative canopy Broom snakeweed 25% by weight of vegetative production

36 TABLE 20 lands will be considered during the development VEGETATION MANAGEMENT - of a management plan for the area, to determine DRAINAGES, DRAWS, AND if grazing should occur and under what condi- CANYONS COMMUNITY tions it would be allowed. Grazing preference will ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA not be established and grazing will be used as a tool to accomplish the objectives of the manage- ment plan. Vegetative Community Objectives Percent Cover If livestock grazing is allowed, excess forage could be used for limited grazing in late winter or early Grass/Forbs 15-45 spring. Livestock grazing will be managed on the Shrubs/Trees 3-20 Rio Bonito acquired lands so that a minimum of Bare Ground 0-60 55 percent of annual plant production will remain Small Rock/Large Rock 0-40 for plant community maintenance and wildlife use. Litter 4-43 PEST MANAGEMENT

Source: BLM files, 1994. Noxious Weeds

Treatment of weed species will be coordinated and conducted with county governments. Treat- Riparian-Wetlands Community ments of aggressive non-native vegetation or noxious weeds on public lands will be designed There is no current management objective based to prevent their spread and to control infestations on Ecological Range Site Goals for the riparian- using an integrated pest management approach, wetlands community. Riparian management ob- based on predicted economic, ecological, and so- jectives require more specific plant community ciological effects. Chemical, mechanical, and bio- prescriptions to meet these goals. Current Natu- logical methods of control will be considered. The ral Resource Conservation Service range site design of projects, application of treatments, and descriptions do not adequately describe poten- monitoring of effects will be in accordance with tial plant communities for riparian-wetland areas. the BLM’s Environmental Impact Statement on Nevertheless, management would be directed Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands and the toward achieving proper functioning condition. Record of Decision for New Mexico. Refer to Appendix 9 for chemical treatment practices. Rio Bonito Acquired Lands Insects Vegetation management on the acquired Rio Bonito lands will be developed under specific Treatment of insect infestations will be coordi- Ecological Range Site Goals which will include nated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, agricultural crops established on existing tillable Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant acreage using water rights obtained with the acre- Protection and Quarantine, pursuant to the age. Crops, including apple orchards, and tame Memorandum of Understanding between USDA pasture species such as hay, winter wheat, fes- and USDI for management of grasshoppers and cues, and orchard grass, will be selected for use Mormon crickets. Integrated pest management by wildlife. Native trees and shrubs may be will be employed to control infestations, based planted as nursery stock for transplanting on pub- on predicted economic, ecological and sociologi- lic lands elsewhere in the Rio Bonito Valley. cal effects. Chemical, mechanical, and biologi- cal methods of control will be considered. Livestock grazing on the acquired Rio Bonito

37 Predator Control straint, the area of concern is generally Chaves County, east of the Pecos River. The Master Memorandum of Understanding be- tween the BLM and the Animal and Plant Health M-44s will not be used during hunting seasons Inspection Service, Animal Damage Control in quail and prairie chicken hunting areas desig- (APHIS-ADC) will guide predator damage man- nated in work plans for PDM. For purposes of agement (PDM) (also known as animal damage this requirement, quail and prairie chicken hunt- control-ADC) activities on public lands in the re- ing areas generally conform to Chaves County source area. The BLM will coordinate with APHIS- and an area in southeastern Lincoln County. ADC to provide for the welfare and perpetuation of wildlife and to be responsive to the needs of The use of control devices (e.g., M-44s, traps and individuals or groups who use the public lands. snares) will not be allowed in the following hu- Constraints on animal damage control in the re- man safety zones, unless required for protection source area are described below. of human health or safety:

Non-emergency ADC control activities on public • Within one mile of any residence unless lands will be limited to grazing allotments in the occupant requests or approves the use Chaves and Lincoln counties. Emergency con- of control devices; trol will be allowed on other allotments in the re- source area following confirmation of livestock • Within one mile of any community; loss by APHIS-ADC and when a request for con- trol is made to the BLM. • Within 300 feet of any state of federal highway; Predator control operations will be permitted within authorized control areas identified each • Within one mile of any developed recre- year during annual reviews of work plans for PDM. ation site; Planned predator control will occur only on allot- ments where a permittee or lessee requests con- • Within 500 feet of BLM livestock or wild- trol, where a loss has been reported or confirmed life exclosures, water sources (e.g., tanks, or there is a history of loss, and where APHIS- streams, rivers, springs, or wildlife water de- ADC has determined that a potential threat to velopments) on public land; vulnerable livestock is imminent. Control activi- ties will be directed only at the depredating ani- • Within 300 feet of the Capitan and Big mal or local population, as appropriate. The fol- Tank/Eastwell horseback riding trails at Fort lowing control methods will be allowed within au- Stanton; and, thorized control areas: - traps; • Within 500 feet of entrances to caves in - snares; the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC or caves - M-44s; designated as significant under the Federal - calling; Cave Resources Protection Act. - shooting; - denning; Where control devices are used on public lands, - aerial hunting; and, APHIS-ADC will be required to post signs to pro- - livestock protection collars. vide adequate warning of the presence of those devices. Signs will be installed at gates commonly In areas identified as swift fox habitat, which will used as access points, and at the site of the con- be identified in the work plans for PDM, M-44s trol device, if needed to ensure proper public no- will not be used for control of predators, unless tification. used as a tool of last resort in cases of confirmed active depredation where coyotes are likely to be The use of M-44s, when authorized (refer to re- the only animals taken. For purposes of this con- quirements, above), will be conducted according to EPA restrictions on placement and use. Each

38 M-44 device will be inspected at least once a • Human activity within the last 50 years has week, weather and travel conditions permitting. created a new land surface. Locations of M-44 devices and dates of installa- tion will be available at the APHIS-ADC District • Existing Class 2 (sample survey) or office. M-44s will be removed within 30-days fol- equivalent inventory data are sufficient to in- lowing the cessation of livestock losses in emer- dicate that the environmental situation did not gency control zones. Preventive control will be support human occupation. authorized in planned control areas as provided in EPA use restriction #7. • Availability of Class 3 {intensive survey} information of the area has been fully docu- The use of livestock protection collars will be au- mented. thorized for use only during the lambing season (generally May through August) as a tool of last • Presence of a geomorphic situation that resort. The use of collars will be conducted in does not enhance preservation. accordance with label and use restrictions. APHIS-ADC will provide monthly reports to the • A large number of negative surveys in BLM documenting uses of collars. close proximity to each other.

All nontarget species trapped with control devices • Absence of criteria listed in “criteria for will be released provided they are capable of self- survey”. maintenance. In accordance with APHIS-ADC policy, all leg-hold traps would use pan tension Eligible and potentially eligible sites will continue devices that exclude small, nontarget species. to be protected from damage or archaeologically treated to mitigate damage. Buffer areas of 100 The BLM’s Authorized Officer will, when needed, feet or more will be established from the edges identify areas where ADC activities on public of sites to protect cultural resources unless the lands should be restricted or where modification BLM determines that circumstances justify a re- of permitted control areas should occur, when duced buffer area. multiple use management or public health or safety reasons dictate those actions. Approximately 20 percent of the recorded archeo- logical sites in the resource area would be ex- CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL pected to be managed for conservation. The RESOURCE MANAGEMENT management objective for conservation will be to preserve existing archeological values. This Cultural Resources will be achieved by protecting sites from damage by natural processes such as erosion and from Goal: Continue the protection of, and increase man-caused damage such as illegal artifact col- the knowledge derived from, significant lecting and from legally authorized surface dis- archeological and historic properties known now turbing activities. The Paleoindian sites, such as and those discovered in the future, while those in the Haystack Butte area would fall into providing for livestock grazing, mineral this category. development, and other uses. Approximately five percent of the recorded ar- Cultural inventory surveys will continue to be re- cheological sites in the resource area would be quired for federal actions involving surface dis- expected to be managed to emphasize public turbing activities except where criteria to exempt values and interpretation. The management ob- surveys are met. These criteria are: jective for public values and interpretation will be to develop archeological properties for public use. • Previous ground disturbance has modi- This will be achieved by scientifically treating a fied the surface greatly. site, such as by excavation and developing ex- hibits so that the cultural property is interpreted for public recreation and education. The Garnsey

39 Bison Kill site near Bottomless Lakes and Lower Approximately 3,000 acres of BLM-administered Stanton Ruin-Feather Cave near Fort Stanton are land at Cocklebur Lakes will be nominated for a two sites that would lend themselves to interpre- National Register Archeological District (Map 11). tation. Management of the District will emphasize pro- tection of the very high density of well-preserved Approximately 75 percent of the recorded archeo- sites for the primary purpose of future interpreta- logical sites would be expected to be managed tion. A secondary emphasis will be the study of for information use. Management will emphasize selected sites to increase knowledge of the area. the use of cultural properties for the purpose of The Cocklebur Lakes area will require some gaining knowledge. This will be achieved by sci- amount of study in order to be able to determine entifically studying the property in whatever ways the level of management required for the sites. are appropriate in order to extract as much infor- The following management actions will be em- mation as possible. Two sites which are currently ployed in management of the site: (See Tables being studied are the Upper Bonito I and Lower 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22.) Stanton Ruin. • oil and gas: lease with no surface occu- An area of 3,400 acres at Haystack Butte will be pancy nominated for a National Register Archeological District (Map 11). Management of the District will • locatable minerals: withdraw from entry emphasize protection of the very high density of well preserved sites. A secondary emphasis will • solid leasable minerals: closed to leasing be the study of selected sites to increase knowl- edge of the area. Both the outright acquisition • mineral materials (saleables): closed to of, or conservation easements on, about 640 disposal acres of state land and 40 acres of private land will be considered if the opportunity arose, and • rights-of-way: exclusion area for major added to the District, bringing the total acreage rights-of-way to 4,080 (see Table 12). Any acquired lands will be managed according to the management pre- • OHV designations: OHV use limited to scriptions for this plan. In order to classify the designated roads and trails cultural properties in an area, the sites will need to be studied. Once sites are selected for inter- Approximately 360 acres of public lands at the pretation or for further study to increase knowl- Garnsey Bison Kill Site will be managed to pro- edge, activity plans will be prepared and approved tect the bison kill site and associated archeologi- before implementation. The following manage- cal sites (see Map 12 in the Outdoor Recreation ment actions will be employed in management Management section). One management goal of the site: (See Tables 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22.) would be to allow the public to see an archeo- logical-paleontological site exposed in the sides • oil and gas: lease with no surface occu- of the arroyo running through the site. Some of pancy the site would be stabilized, protecting the archeo- logical and paleontological values. Another goal • locatable minerals: withdraw from entry would be to generate appreciation of archeology and paleontology by developing a trail with inter- • solid leasable minerals: closed to leasing pretive signs and markers, and other on-site and off-site interpretive techniques. Other develop- • mineral materials (saleables): closed to ment of the site could include site stabilization, disposal exhibits, and a parking area. Both the outright acquisition of, or conservation easements on, • rights-of-way: exclusion area for major about 242 acres of private land surface and about rights-of-way 320 acres of state land surface will be consid

• OHV designations: OHV use limited to designated roads and trails

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

MAP 11 ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISTRICTS Roswell Resource Area

41 ered to enhance the management and develop- • withdrawing the lands from mining claim ment of the area (see Table 12). The total acre- location; age would then be about 880 acres. Any acquired lands would be managed according to the man- • closing the lands to solid mineral leas- agement prescriptions for this plan. The BLM will ing; continue with its plans to interpret this site even if no additional lands are acquired. The following • closing the lands to disposal of mineral management actions will be employed in man- materials; agement of the site, for public surface (360 acres) and mineral estate (520 acres): (See Tables 5, • leasing oil and gas with no surface occu- 7, 8, 9, 10, and 22.) pancy stipulations; and

• oil and gas: open to leasing with “no sur- • closing the lands to OHV use. face occupancy” The site(s) will be retained in federal ownership. • locatable minerals: withdraw from entry Paleontological Resources • solid leasable minerals: close to leasing Goal: Locate, evaluate, and classify the paleon- • saleable minerals: close to disposal tological resources on public lands to ensure that they are given full consideration in all aspects of • rights-of-way: exclusion area for major public land management. rights-of-way Public lands will be classified at the field level • livestock grazing: 120 acres closed to according to their potential for noteworthy occur- grazing rences of fossils. Classification will use any avail- able sources of information, including data banks, • OHV designations: 120 acres closed to maps, knowledge of local residents, and data OHV use; OHV use limited to designated from paleontologists. Classification will rank the roads and trails on 240 acres public lands as follows:

Following a Class 3 inventory and some prelimi- • Condition 1: Areas that are known to nary research, eligible sites on the acquired Rio contain fossil localities. Consideration of pa- Bonito lands will be managed for information, leontological resources will be necessary if public values or conservation, as appropriate. The available information indicates that fossils are management goals would be to interpret some present in the area. cultural sites for the public, research some of the sites for the information they contain and to con- • Condition 2: Areas with exposures of serve those sites that meet the criteria for con- geological units or settings that are likely to servation. If Tract 5 is acquired, an opportunity produce fossils. The presence of geological for interpretation is the early Hispanic commu- units from which fossils have been recovered nity of Las Chosas, which would require exten- elsewhere will require an assessment of sive excavation and reconstruction. these same units if they occur in the area of consideration. There has been considerable interest in trying to identify the location of the alleged 1947 UFO • Condition 3: Areas that are extremely crash site(s). The most commonly discussed lo- unlikely to produce fossils, based on their sur- cations are represented on maps in this docu- face geology. ment. Irrespective of location, if such an event is determined to have occurred on BLM-adminis- Paleontological resources will then be addressed tered land, the BLM will interpret and protect the in the BLM’s activity planning and environmen- area(s) by: tal analysis processes to ensure adequate pro- tection. • excluding the lands from rights-of-way lo- cation; 42 In areas classified as Condition 1 or Condition 2, and work to increase the awareness of federal where potential impacts exist from proposed sur- land managers and the public regarding paleon- face disturbing activities, the following procedures tological resource management. will be employed: OUTDOOR RECREATION MANAGEMENT • A qualified paleontologist will conduct a literature review and records survey to iden- Recreation Management tify areas where fossils are known to occur in the general area of the proposed action. Goal: Ensure the continued availability of outdoor recreation opportunities and experiences. • A qualified paleontologist will conduct a Protect the health and safety of visitors and field survey whenever a literature review and natural, cultural, and other resource values. records survey indicate that vertebrate or Stimulate public enjoyment of public land and other noteworthy occurrences of fossils are resolve user conflicts. or may be present. Permits for commercial hunting, outfitting, and • A report of findings will be prepared fol- guiding operations will be issued resource area- lowing the completion of the field survey, lit- wide. Special Recreation Use Permits (SRUPs) erature review and records survey. will be issued for other organized and commer- cial activities in accordance with BLM guidelines In areas determined to have noteworthy occur- and policies. Pertinent sections of the Roswell rences of fossils, mitigations of surface disturb- District Conditions of Approval (Appendix 2) will ing activities will be considered. A mitigation and be applied to approvals for SRUPs. monitoring plan based on a report of findings will be prepared recommending the types of mitiga- The rules of conduct listed in Appendix 10 will be tion and intensity of monitoring needed. Mitiga- applied to all public lands in the Roswell Resource tion may include: Area.

• avoiding fossils by redesigning or relocat- The Valley of Fires Recreation Area will continue ing a proposed project to be managed for intensive use with emphasis on maintaining and upgrading the existing facili- • complete or partial salvage of the fossil(s) ties. The planned development includes a visitor center, shower facilities, trail development, and • obtaining representative samples of the campground expansion. fossils from the project area The BLM will identify recreational and interpre- Management of paleontological resources will tive opportunities in the Roswell Resource Area include making them available for uses such as for future development and implementation in scientific collection and research, educational and accordance with national and state goals, poli- interpretive activities, and recreation. cies and guidelines. Developments could include facilities such as trails for non-motorized use, day The BLM will promote consistency among fed- use and camping areas, overlooks and waysides. eral agencies having paleontological resource management responsibilities, and facilitate the The Mescalero Sands ACEC, Fort Stanton ACEC, exchange of information between federal, state, Overflow Wetlands ACEC, Roswell Cave Com- and local governments and scientific organiza- plex ACEC, Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV tions concerned with the management, study, and Area, Haystack Mountain OHV Area, Garnsey protection of these resources. Bison Kill Site, Rio Bonito acquired lands, Billy the Kid Recreation Site and Valley of Fires Rec- The BLM will continue to afford the protection reation Area will be designated Special provided under law to fossils of scientific interest Recreation Management Areas (refer to Map 12).

43 The public lands not designated Special Recre- An 86-mile route along State Highway 246 from ation Management Areas will be designated an Roswell to Capitan will be developed and desig- Extensive Recreation Management Area nated a Back Country Byway and a Lands Man- (ERMA). agement Highway. Additional byways or lands management highways will be identified and At the Valley of Fires Recreation Area, approxi- evaluated for future designation and development. mately four miles of additional hiking trails will be Future designations will be considered for roads developed to provide access from the camp- or trails having high scenic value, unique geo- ground through the lava flow to the Cooper Cabin. logic formations, botanical or biological features, Other recreation facilities, trails and roads at the historical or archaeological features, water attrac- Valley of Fires Recreation Area will be developed tions or other features with high public value. and maintained in accordance with the estab- lished plan for the area. About 337 acres of pri- The areas listed below and in Table 6 will be vate land on the east side of the presently devel- closed to the leasing of oil and gas. oped area will be considered for acquisition in order to provide space for future expansion of the •Mathers Research Natural Area developed area. The areas listed below and in Table 5 will be open Lands acquired along the Rio Bonito near Lin- to the leasing of oil and gas with “no surface oc- coln (Tracts 1-4) will be managed for low inten- cupancy.” sity recreational use. All low-intensity recreation activities, including hunting, will be considered •Border Hill NNL during development of a site-specific manage- •Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area and ment plan. Recreation activities that will be em- entrance corridor phasized are fishing, nature viewing and non-trail •Haystack Mountain OHV Area hiking. The development of two small day-use •Valley of Fires Recreation Area areas on Tracts 1 and 4 will be considered. De- •Billy the Kid Recreation Site velopment at these sites would include graveled access roads and parking areas. If Tract 5 is ac- The areas listed below and in Table 7 will be pro- quired, future intensive development will be con- posed for withdrawal from entry or appropriation sidered, including the possible development of a under the public land laws, including the general full-service campground of 25 to 50 sites. Live- mining laws. stock grazing will be excluded from the Tract 5 site. •Little Black Peak and Carrizozo Lava Flow WSAs The Billy the Kid Recreation Site (80 acres of •Border Hill NNL BLM-administered land) will be managed and •Haystack Mountain OHV Area developed for a day-use area, with emphasis on (staging area) providing access to the Pecos River and fishing. •Valley of Fires Recreation Area Development could include trails, picnic sites, •Billy the Kid Recreation Site roads and interpretive displays. Livestock graz- ing will be excluded from the site. The areas listed below and in Table 8 will be closed to the leasing of solid minerals. The Garnsey Bison Kill Site will be managed as an outdoor archaeological and paleontological •Little Black Peak and Carrizozo Lava classroom with emphasis on cultural and natural Flow WSAs resource protection. Development could include •Border Hill NNL exhibits, stabilization, self-guided interpretive •Valley of Fires Recreation Area trails, interpretive stations, and a parking area. •Haystack Mountain OHV Area (Refer to the “Cultural and Paleontological Re- •Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV source Management” section for more discussion area of this area.) •Billy the Kid Recreation Site

44 Special Recreation Management Areas ( SRMAs)

1 - Little Black Peak WSA Not Applicable 15 - Bat Hole Cave* X la - Millrace Cave* Map 12 X 15a- Comanche Hill Not Applicable 2 - Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA Not Applicable 16 - cocklebur Lakes Arch. District Not Applicable 2a - Crockett Cave* X 17 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area X 2b - Valley of FiresRRA: Recreation SRMAs Area X 18 - Haystack Butte Arch. District Not Applicable 3 - Fort Stanton ACEC X 19 - North Pecos River ACEC Not Applicable 4 - Rio Bonito Acquired Lands X 20 - Billy the Kid Recreation Area X 5 - Zia Christine Cave* X 21 - Mescalero Sands ACEC X 6 - Alleged UFO Crash Sites Not Applicable 22 - Mescalero Sands North Dune 7 - Border Hill NNL Not Applicable OHV Area X 8 - Torgac cave* X 23 - Mathers RNA Not Applicable 9 - Angora-Corn Cave* X 24 - Caprock WHA Not Applicable 10 - Martin-Antelope Gyp Cave* X 11 - Crystal Caverns-Devil's Well* X - Core Prairie Chicken Habitat Not Applicable 12 - Coachwhip cave* X lliJ 13 - OVerflow Wetlands ACEC X 14 - Garnsey Bison Kill Site X

* Part of the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC

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

NORTH

SCALE 1/2" 7.1 Miles BLM-Roswell District, 1994

MAP 12 SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT .AREAS 45 Roswell Resource Area The areas listed below and in Table 9 will be Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area, Fort closed to the disposal of mineral materials (sale- Stanton and the caves in the resource area (see able minerals). Table 21). Emphasis will also be placed on off-site interpretive programs. •Little Black Peak and Carrizozo Lava Flow WSAs Tools used to accomplish these objectives may •Border Hill NNL include: interpretive trails, exhibits, literature, way- •Haystack Mountain OHV Area sides, environmental education, special popula- •Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV area tions programs, visitor and information stations, •Mathers Research Natural Area auto tours, campfire talks and guided walks, and •Billy the Kid Recreation Site the use of volunteers as docents. •Valley of Fires Recreation Area Cave and Karst Resource Management The areas listed below and in Table 10 will be excluded from major rights-of-way. Goal: To protect cave values while allowing for limited recreational, commercial and educational •Rio Bonito acquired lands use. Research and scientific use would have •Mathers Research Natural Area priority over other uses. •Valley of Fires Recreation Area •U.S. Highway 380 corridor through the Commercially-guided cave trips will continue to Carrizozo Lava Flow (applies to overhead be allowed in Roswell Resource Area caves on a power and telephone lines) case-by-case basis. No more than 20 percent of •Little Black Peak and Carrizozo Lava Flow total cave use in the resource area will be allot- WSAs ted to commercial use. •Border Hill NNL Big-Eared Cave, Malpais Madness, Corn Sink The areas listed below and in Table 11 will be Hole, and Tres Ninos caves will be closed to visi- avoided when locating major rights-of-way. tor use annually from November 1 to April 15 to protect significant bat hibernacula. Seasons of •Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area use and visitor use restrictions will be applied to (applies to overhead power and telephone any other caves or portions of caves found to have lines) significant bat hibernacula or nurseries. •Haystack Mountain OHV Area (applies to overhead power and telephone lines) Depositing human waste will not be allowed in any of the resource area’s caves. Each cave user Interpretation will be responsible for disposing of human waste in an approved receptacle. Smoking and spitting The primary objective in the Roswell Resource of chewing tobacco will be prohibited in all sig- Area’s interpretive program would be to assist nificant caves in the resource area. visitors in developing a keen awareness, appre- ciation and understanding of the areas they visit. Visitor use limits, seasons of use, and a permit The second objective would be to encourage system will be established for all caves where the thoughtful use of the natural resources available entrance is on public land and cave resources in the resource area to reduce impacts on natu- are being affected by visitor use. ral resources. The final objective would be to pro- mote a public understanding of BLM goals and Surface disturbance will not be allowed within up objectives. to 200 meters of known cave entrances, passages or aspects of significant caves, or significant karst The main emphasis for interpretation will be features. Refer to Appendix 1 for more informa- placed on the Valley of Fires Recreation Area, tion on this requirement.

46 TABLE 21 RESOURCE INTERPRETATION OPPORTUNITIES ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Special Management Area Proposed Interpretive Themes Billy the Kid Recreation Site Wise Use of Public Lands Border Hill National Natural Landmark The Making of a Mountain Dunahoo Hills OHV Area Multiple Use Management of Public Lands Fort Stanton Historic and Prehistoric Settlements Garnsey Bison Kill Site Plains Indians Subsistence: Prairie, River and Mountain Haystack Mountain OHV Area Sandstone and All-Terrain Vehicles Mathers RNA Benefits of the Shinnery Oak Community Mescalero Sands Drifting Sands, Endemic Plants and Wildlife Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area Tread Lightly and Safely Non-specific Use Areas Land Use Ethics and Minimum Impact Use Rio Bonito Life in the Bonito Valley Roswell Caves Cave Ecosystems and Hazards Valley of Fires Recreation Area Fire, Thunder and Smoke in the Tularosa Basin

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Management case-by-case basis for activities such as mainte- Goal: Manage OHV use to provide nance of permitted range improvements, geo- adequate access and reduce adverse physical exploration, pipeline construction or impacts on sensitive resource values. maintenance, access for individuals with physi- Provide quality recreational opportunities cal disabilities, or oil and gas operations. Any for OHV users in conjunction with waiver must be considered and approved by the demand and safety concerns. Authorized Officer in advance of the proposed use. Plans for implementing OHV use restrictions Inventories, public review, and transportation (activity plans) will be developed with public par- planning will be conducted to support road-by- ticipation. The plans will describe how OHV use road designations for roads and trails suitable for restrictions would be applied, will clarify permit- off-highway vehicle use. Designations are listed ted, licensed, emergency and official use activi- in Tables 22 and 23 and shown on Map 13. All ties, and will describe the conditions under which roads and trails not otherwise categorized will be waivers of OHV use restrictions would be consid- designated limited to designated roads and trails ered. for off-highway vehicle use. Pending completion of formal designations, all roads and trails will be The closed-to-off-highway-vehicle-use designa- managed as limited to existing roads and trails tion on the Comanche Hill area “A” (660 acres) for off-highway vehicle use. and area “C” (240 acres) will be retained, to help protect the scenic views from U.S. Highway 380, Until implementation plans are prepared for pub- and to prevent waterfowl disturbance at the Bitter lic lands where OHV use is limited or closed, Lake National Wildlife Refuge. waivers of restrictions will be considered on a

47 TABLE 22 OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATIONS ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Designation Areas Acres

CLOSED Alleged UFO Crash Sites1/ 3,680 Border Hill NNL 150 Carrizozo Lava Flow and Little Black Peak WSAs 25,312 Comanche Hill “A” Area 660 omanche Hill “B” Area 883 Comanche Hill “C” Area 240 Feather Cave Archeological Complex 330 Fort Stanton ACEC: Rio Bonito, and Salado Creek Area 250 Fort Stanton ACEC: Trails (105 miles) 51 Garnsey Bison Kill Site 120 Mathers RNA 242 Mescalero Sands ACEC 2,478 Overflow Wetlands ACEC 1,040 Playa and Alkali Lakes 2,000 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC2/ 890 Springs and Seeps 240 Valley of Fires Recreation Area 400 Total Closed 38,966 LIMITED TO Billy the Kid Recreation Site 80 DESIGNATED Cocklebur Lakes Archeological District 3,000 ROADS OR Dunahoo Hills (ATVs less than 50 in.) 640 TRAILS Fort Stanton ACEC 23,999 Garnsey Bison Kill Site 240 Haystack Butte Archeological District 3,400 Haystack Mountain OHV Area (ATVs less than 50 in.) 3,500 Mescalero Sands ACEC 5,410 Overflow Wetlands ACEC 2,100 North Pecos River ACEC 3,360 Pecos River Floodplain 19,200 Remainder of Resource Area 1,372,392 Rio Bonito Acquired Lands 1,100 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC 11,394 Valley of Fires Recreation Area 63 Total Limited 1,449,878 OPEN Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area 1,546 Total Open 1,546

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

Source: BLM files, 1994.

48 OHV Designations

1 - Little Black Peak WSA c 12 - coachwhip cave* C/L 1a - Millrace Cave• C/L 13 - Overflow Wetlands ACEC C/L 2 - Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA c 14 - Garnsey Bison Kill Site C/L 2a - Crockett Cave* Map 13 C/L 15 - Bat Hole Cave• c 2b - Valley of Fires Rec. Area C/L 15a- Comanche Hill c 3 - FortRRA: Stanton OHV ACEC Management DesignationsC/L 16 - Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District L 4 - Rio Bonito Acquired Lands L 17 - Haystack Mountain OHV Area L 5 - Zia Christine Cave• C/L 18 - Haystack Butte Arch. District L 6 - Alleged UFO Crash Sites c 19 - North Pecos River ACEC L 7 - Border Hill NNL c 20 - Billy the Kid Recreation Area L 8 - Torgac Cave• C/L 21 - Mescalero Sands ACEC C/L 9 - Angora-Corn Cave• C/L 22 - Mescalero Sands North Dune 10 - Martin-Antelope Gyp cave* C/L OHV Area 0 11 - Crystal Caverns/ 23 - Mathers RNA c Devil's Well Caves• C/L 24 - Dunahoo Hills L

- c Closed to OHV use • Part of the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC - L Limited OHV use - 0 Open to intensive OHV use NOTE - Reader must refer to the tables and narrative to determine the affected acreage within each area.

ex..- ..

T.lll

12N

NORTH~ nN ns

1ZS

m

.s 'IS .a UNDCIUI

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

MAP 13 C>HV DESIGNATIONS Roswell Resource Area 49 TABLE 23 The Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV Area will ROSWELL CAVE COMPLEX ACEC be enlarged to approximately 1,553 acres, and OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE DESIGNATIONS1/ will be designated open and managed for inten- ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA sive OHV use, with emphasis on providing a qual- ity play area for OHV’s. Approximately 410 acres Cave Acres Acres Total of private land will be considered for acquisition. System Closed Limited Acres An area of about 400 acres south of U.S. High- way 380 between the highway and the OHV area Angora-Corn 150 4,650 4,800 will be used as an entrance corridor to the area. Bat Hole 40 40 This area will be open to oil and gas leasing with Coachwhip 40 574 614 “no surface occupancy.” Upgrades and develop- Crockett 20 620 640 ment could include interpretive and safety displays Crystal Caverns- with emphasis on the National Tread Lightly Pro- Devil’s Well 50 6,350 6,400 gram, sun shelters, rest rooms and potable wa- Martin-Antelope Gyp 50 2,350 2,400 ter, and boundary signing. Livestock will be Millrace 4802/ 160 640 fenced-out from about 20 acres around existing Torgac 40 600 640 and planned developments. Zia Christine 20 620 640 The Haystack Mountain OHV Area will be en- Totals 890 15,924 16,814 larged from from its present 3,500 acres to ap- proximately 9,600 acres by acquiring 2,360 acres 1/ There are no public lands in the ACEC designated as open of state lands and 3,440 acres of private lands. to OHV use. Prior to the enlargement of the area, an ease- 2/ Approximately 480 acres of the Millrace Cave System are ment about 50 feet by 100 yards in size will be within the Little Black Peak WSA, which is closed to OHV acquired through two parcels of state land to pro- use. vide access to the northern portion of the OHV Source: BLM files, 1994. area. The lands acquired for the OHV area will be managed according to the management pre- The Haystack Mountain and Mescalero Sands scription of the current Haystack Mountain OHV North Dune OHV areas will continue to be man- Area. aged for intensive OHV use, with emphasis on providing a high quality, safe play area. The Haystack Mountain OHV Area will be man- aged as an OHV Intensive Use Area and desig- The Mathers RNA (242 acres) will be closed to nated limited to designated roads and trails for OHV use, except for two existing roads, which all-terrain vehicles less than 50 inches in width. will be classified as limited to designated roads Non-motorized use of the Haystack Mountain or trails. OHV Area will be allowed. Facilities would be considered for development, such as rest rooms, Public lands within the present boundaries of the sun shelters, trails, interpretive displays and pic- Carrizozo Lava Flow and Little Black Peak WSAs nic sites. Boundary signs will be installed. (25,321 acres) will be designated closed to off- highway vehicle use to protect outstanding semi- Approximately 400 acres in the Valley of Fires primitive values. Any state or private lands ac- Recreation Area will be designated closed to pro- quired within the present boundaries of the WSA’s tect the viewshed from the existing campground will be designated closed to OHV use. Public and nature trail. The remainder of the area, 63 land and acquired state or private lands adjacent acres in the developed area, will be designated to the WSAs will be designated limited to desig- limited to designated roads and trails for off-high- nated roads and trails for OHV use to provide way vehicle use for maintenance needs and fu- access and limit impacts to fragile soils and veg- ture campground development. etation.

50 The Rio Bonito acquired lands (Tracts 1-4) will meters of the playas and alkali lakes will be des- be designated limited to designated roads and ignated closed to off-highway vehicle use. trails for OHV use to protect riparian values. Tract 5, if acquired, also would be designated limited Approximately 640 acres encompassing the area to designated roads and trails. within 200 meters of the source of about 20 springs or seeps, or within downstream riparian The 150-acre Border Hills National Natural Land- areas created by flows from the source or result- mark will be designated closed to off-highway ing from riparian area management, will be des- vehicle use to protect the integrity of the geologic ignated closed to off-highway vehicle use. structure. The Comanche Hills “B” Area (approximately 883 Approximately 120 acres of the 360 federal acres acres) will be designated closed to OHV use to at the Garnsey Bison Kill site (the core area) will protect scenic views from U.S. Highway 380 and be designated closed to off-highway vehicle use to reduce the disturbance of waterfowl at the Bit- to protect the archaeological and paleontologi- ter Lake National Wildlife Refuge. cal sites. The remaining 240 federal acres and any acquired lands will be designated limited to Wilderness Management designated roads and trails to protect the water- shed above the bison kill site. (Refer to the “Cul- Goal: Manage the Wilderness Study Areas tural and Paleontological Resource Management” (WSAs) in a manner that leaves the wilderness section for more discussion of this area.) characteristics such as naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive or Approximately 3,000 acres in the proposed Cock- unconfined types of recreation unimpaired for lebur Lakes National Register Archeological Dis- future use and enjoyment. trict and about 3,400 acres in the proposed Hay- stack Butte National Register Archeological Dis- The two Wilderness Study Areas, which total trict will be designated limited to designated roads 25,312 acres, will continue to be managed un- and trails for off-highway vehicle use. der the Interim Management Policy and Guide- lines for Land Under Wilderness Review until the Following inventory, if it is deemed necessary to areas are added to the National Wilderness Pres- protect a significant cave from OHV impacts, a ervation System or removed from further wilder- cave exclosure will be constructed and the area ness consideration. If designated as wilderness, within the enclosure will be designated closed to the areas will be managed under the Wilderness off-highway vehicle use. Management Policy.

A 640-acre OHV area in the Dunahoo Hills north- As opportunities arise, the BLM will pursue the east of Roswell would be established, if demand acquisition of about 10,000 acres of state and warrants, and be designated limited to all-terrain private lands in and adjacent to the WSAs, to vehicle use. enhance manageability and to provide unim- paired access. The 80-acre Billy the Kid Recreation Site would be designated limited to designated roads and If not designated wilderness, nearly the entire trails for OHV use, to protect recreational values. Little Black Peak and Carrizozo Lava Flow areas will be closed to oil and gas leasing (refer to the Approximately 19,200 acres of public lands along Fluid Mineral Management section in this plan both sides of the Pecos River will be designated for more information). Those areas also will be limited to designated roads and trails for OHVs managed for roadless recreational opportunities. to protect the floodplain, riparian zone and wet- lands. If Congress does not designate the WSAs as wil- derness, a recommendation will be made to Con- Approximately 2,000 acres encompassing 56 pla- gress that the Little Black Peak and the Carrizozo yas and alkali lakes, and the area within 200 Lava Flow areas (not necessarily the WSAs) be designated a National Conservation Area.

51 Trailhead parking areas adjacent to the WSAs and Recreation Opportunity Management a limited, primitive trail system about two miles in length will be developed to the Little Black Peak Goal: Manage public lands to protect and cinder cone and to the Lower Windmill area in maintain recreation opportunity, while allowing the southeast corner of Little Black Peak WSA. for livestock grazing, mineral development and The development of a trail into or across the lava production and other uses. flow from the Valley of Fires Campground will be considered, as well. In each case, legal access Recreation opportunity will be managed so that will be acquired prior to development of a trail opportunities categorized by the Recreation Op- system. Development of these trails will comply portunity Spectrum (ROS) would be maintained. with the nonimpairment criteria of the “Interim No management actions are proposed that would Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands improve or degrade recreation opportunity to the Under Wilderness Review” and the “Wilderness extent that a change in any ROS category would Management Policy.” result. Existing ROS classes are discussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft Roswell RMP/EIS (see Wild and Scenic Rivers Management Table 99) and in the Glossary. The management of recreation opportunity in special resource man- There are no stream or river segments in the re- agement areas is summarized in Table 24. source area recommended for nomination for in- clusion in the National Wild and Scenic River WATERSHED MANAGEMENT System (refer to Appendix 2 in the Draft Roswell RMP/EIS). During periods of drought or other emergencies, adjustments in livestock numbers will be made Visual Resource Management to guard against damage to vegetation and soil resources. Goal: Manage public lands to protect and maintain the quality of the scenic (visual) values Where soils and nontarget vegetation are dis- of these lands, while allowing for livestock turbed, reclamation measures will be taken. grazing, mineral development and production, These measures could include returning the land and other uses. to as near its natural form as possible and re- seeding with mixtures of grasses and forbs to Visual resources generally will be managed to prevent erosion. meet the Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes. All proposed management activities will If any new roads or trails are proposed, they will be evaluated with regard to visual resource man- be constructed only if existing roads and trails agement and those projects that are compatible cannot be used, and then only after a site-spe- with the character of the natural landscape will cific environmental assessment has been pre- be encouraged. No management actions are pared. proposed that would improve or degrade visual quality to the extent that a change in any VRM Soil Management class will result. Existing VRM classes are dis- cussed in Chapter 3 of the Draft Roswell RMP/ Goal: Provide benefits and prevent damage to EIS and in the Glossary. The management of other resources by managing soil resources. visual quality in special resource management areas is summarized in Table 24. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to minimize sedimentation as a cause of nonpoint Painting of oil field equipment and structures, and source pollution in surface waters. The other surface facilities or equipment approved by the BLM will be conducted according to the re- quirements of Notice to Lessees (NTL) 87-1, New Mexico.

52 TABLE 24 SUMMARY OF VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM ACREAGES IN SPECIAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AREAS ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Special Resource Management Area VRM1/ ROS1/ Acres in Class Class Class Mescalero Sands North Dune OHV II & I R 1,500 Mescalero Sands ACEC I RN-R 7,886 Mescalero Sands ONA I RN-R N/A Mescalero Sands Recreation Complex II & IV RN-R N/A Mathers RNA I RN-R 241 Fort Stanton ACEC II & III RN-R 24,630 Overflow Wetlands ACEC II RN-R 2,987 Haystack Mountain OHV III RN-R 3,500 Valley of Fires Recreation Area I & III SPN-R 1,0742/ Little Black Peak WSA I RN-R 15,0722/ Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA I SPN-RN-R 20,2402/ Billy the Kid Recreation Site IV N/A 80 Rio Bonito III RN 2,000 North Pecos River ACEC IV RN-R 3,3603/ Garnsey Bison Kill Site I R 360 Cocklebur Lakes Arch. District IV RN-R 3,000 Haystack Butte Arch. District III RN-R 3,400 Roswell Cave Complex ACEC Angora-Corn IV RN-R 4,800 Bat Hole II R 40 Coachwhip III R 614 Crockett I R 640 Crystal I & IV R 2,280 Martin IV RN-R 2,080 Millrace I SPN-R 480 Torgac IV R 480 Zia IV R-RN 480 Border Hill NNL III R 150 Dunahoo Hills III R-RN 640

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

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

Source: BLM files, 1994.

53 BMPs, based on standard operating procedures, respond to treatment. oil and gas lease stipulations or BLM policy, will be specified in activity plans for actions that make Plans will be developed for the following water- soils more susceptible to erosion, or which im- sheds susceptible to severe long-term soil loss pair soil productivity. Full consideration will be (i.e. mean annual soil loss over the delineated given to environmental benefits and economic area is estimated to be 1.0 ac-ft/mi2/yr or more), costs of the BMPs. Activities requiring implemen- shown on Map 41, in Chapter 3 of the Draft tation of BMPs will include, but would not be lim- Roswell RMP/EIS: ited to: •Rio Bonito including Salado Creek; • soil disturbing activities that result in soil loss due to accelerated wind or water ero- •Pecos River (from confluence of Yeso Creek sion; to Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge); and,

• activities that reduce vegetative cover, •the closed drainage area to Nakee Ishee thus exposing the soil to erosion processes, Lakes. and reducing the amount of soil organic mat- ter and soil productivity; Plans also will be developed for the following watersheds susceptible to severe gully erosion, • activities that tend to concentrate surface shown on Map 41, in Chapter 3 of the Draft runoff or steepen hydraulic gradients, thus in- Roswell RMP/EIS: creasing soil erosion by flowing water; •Rio Bonito including Salado Creek; • activities that result in sediment loading •Arroyo del Macho; directly to streams; •Gallo Arroyo; •Feliz River. • activities that damage soil structure by compaction or other means; and As part of the watershed management plans pre- pared for these six watersheds, site-specific pre- • activities that degrade the physical, chemi- scriptions will be written which could include, but cal, or biological properties of the soil, such not be limited to, the following practices: (1) me- as high-intensity burns, contamination by toxic chanical, chemical, or prescribed fire vegetation substances, or other means. treatments; (2) plantings of native riparian plant species and seeding of herbaceous ground cover; Surface disturbance will not be allowed on slopes (3) livestock grazing management by controlling over 20 percent or on fragile soils. The slope re- livestock numbers and season of use, and by pro- striction will not apply to livestock grazing. Refer viding alternative water and mineral sources, af- to Appendix 1 for more discussion of this require- ter consultation, cooperation, and coordination ment. with the permittee or lessee and other interested parties; (4) construction of erosion, sediment and Surface Water Management: Quantity flood control structures; (5) use of other methods determined most suitable for site-specific condi- Goal: Increase water availability by enhancing tions; (6) implementation of a monitoring program, annual water yields, instream flows, and including a feedback loop which will guide man- discharge from springs, while also reducing agement based on monitoring information. resource damage by floods and accelerated erosion. After consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the permittee or lessee and other interested Strategic watershed management plans will be parties, springs and seeps, playas, and sinkhole developed and implemented for watersheds that lakes on public lands will be developed to improve are susceptible to severe long-term soil losses or wetland and riparian habitat, and to increase gully erosion, and which have a high potential to water availability. Water sources will be priori-

54 tized for development based on the following cri- and federal standards would result in increased teria: economic costs.

• Presence of threatened or endangered Best Management Practices will be developed in species; activity plans for actions that degrade surface water quality through nonpoint source pollution. • Potential habitat for threatened or endan- The primary emphasis of BMPs will be on pre- gered species; serving water quality. Surface water quality pa- rameters that would be addressed in BMPs in- • Presence of perennial water or ephem- clude, but are not limited to: water temperature, eral water for extended periods; turbidity, sediment transport and yield, chemical loading, and nutrient loading. • Presence of native riparian vegetation; Due to “checkerboard” ownership in watersheds, • Significant ground-water recharge areas; management on BLM-administered lands alone may not be adequate to support designated • Limited alternative water sources in the stream uses. Where appropriate, cooperative area for wildlife and livestock; agreements, MOUs, or other interagency efforts could be made to manage entire watersheds to • Federal ownership of both surface and maintain or improve water quality. subsurface estates. Groundwater Management Water source developments could include, but are not limited to: Goal: Maintain or improve groundwater quality to meet applicable state and federal standards. • Protective exclosures; Further degradation of groundwater quality will • Native riparian plantings; be prevented whenever practicable, even when WQCC standards allow for further degradation. • Construction of supplemental water Exceptions will be considered for areas specifi- pipelines; cally exempted by state or federal authority or when water quality standards more stringent than • Control of undesirable vegetation; and state and federal standards would result in in- creased economic costs. • Off-site livestock waters. Best Management Practices will be developed on Surface Water Management: Quality a case-by-case basis for actions that degrade groundwater quality through nonpoint source Goal: Maintain or improve the quality of surface pollution, for groundwater with 10,000 mg/l total waters to support all designated uses listed by dissolved solids (TDS) or less. The primary em- the New Mexico Water Quality Control phasis of BMPs will be on preserving water qual- Commission. Water quality would be based on ity. Groundwater quality parameters that would the general and specific stream standards be addressed in BMPs include, but are not lim- outlined by the WQCC. ited to: TDS, pH, volatile organic compounds, and heavy metals. Further degradation of water quality will be pre- vented whenever practicable to meet present or For any site proposed for pesticide treatment, the possible future demands, such as domestic or potential for groundwater contamination will be municipal water supplies, irrigation, livestock, wild- evaluated with the EPA rating system, DRASTIC life, recreation, aquatic and riparian habitat, and (Aller et al. 1985). If the site proposed for treat- other uses. Exceptions will be possible when ment has a DRASTIC index greater than 100, it water quality standards more stringent than state has a moderate to high potential for groundwater contamination, and will require a more detailed

55 analysis prior to a decision being made on the clude specific provisions for meeting these proposed treatment. Factors that will be studied requirements, prior to approval by the BLM further include: pesticide solubility, mobility, spe- Authorized Officer. ciation, and degradation, and highly localized recharge areas. • Other opportunities, such as MOUs, wa- ter marketing, leasing, or other coordinated Water Rights Management efforts, according to existing law.

Goal: Protect existing public land water supplies, AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT which include federal reserved water rights and state appropriative water rights. Comply with The management of public lands will emphasize state water law to acquire and perfect water the maintenance of the Class II air quality in the rights needed to carry out multiple-use resource area. Mitigations will be developed on management. a case-by-case basis to reduce or eliminate the effects of BLM-approved surface disturbing ac- Actions proposed by the BLM will be evaluated tivities on air quality. Likewise, BLM-initiated ac- for potential effects on water resources. The New tivities, such as prescribed fires, will be designed Mexico State Engineer Office (SEO) will be con- to have minimal effect on air quality and to retain sulted to ensure that BLM water rights are main- the Class II air quality standard. tained, and that other users’ water rights are not adversely affected. WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT

Water use proposals filed with the SEO by enti- Special Status Species Habitat Management ties other than the BLM that could affect water rights and uses on public lands will be evaluated Goal: Provide protection and recovery for all for their impact on BLM water resources. Actions federal and state-listed species. Manage that will impair the quality of public land resources occupied and potentially suitable habitat for would be protested through procedures specified federal and state-listed species on public land to by the SEO. maintain or enhance populations. Manage habitat for federal candidate species to avoid The acquisition or protection of water rights will degrading habitat and further listing by either be prioritized according to the following list (in state or federal governments while allowing for descending order of importance): mineral development and production, livestock grazing, and other uses compatible with special 1. Streams or rivers with special designation by status species habitat management. Congress. 2. Other streams or rivers. Refer to Appendix 11 for listing of Special Status 3. Springs. Species occurring or potentially occurring in the 4. Wells. Roswell Resource Area. 5. Natural water holes, playas, and sinkholes. 6. Reservoirs greater than 10 ac-ft capacity. The shortgrass aspect, which corresponds to the 7. Reservoirs less than 10 ac-ft capacity. Grasslands community type, will be maintained for special status species which require this habi- Water rights held by the BLM will be maintained tat type, including the mountain plover and Baird’s primarily through: sparrow. Control of mesquite, cholla, snakeweed, creosote will be employed as a means of main- • Beneficial use, and maintenance of taining the habitat. manmade diversions, where appropriate. The SEO will be notified of all water uses and rel- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plans will evant public land authorities. Proposals that be implemented, including the reintroduction of require the use of BLM-held water would in- native special status species in suitable areas on

56 public land in coordination and cooperation with Big Game/Upland Game Habitat Management local governments. Current plans cover the American peregrine falcon, SW bald eagle, Pecos Goal: Maintain or improve habitat utilized by big gambusia, Kuenzler hedgehog cactus, Pecos game or upland game to provide sufficient bluntnose shiner, interior least tern and black- quantity and quality of habitat (food, water, cover, footed ferret. space) necessary for population maintenance and expansion on public land, while providing for Prairie dog towns support several special status livestock grazing, mineral development and species, including the Arizona black-tailed prai- production, and other uses compatible with big rie dog, western burrowing owl, mountain plover, game/upland game habitat management. and ferruginous hawk. The towns provide poten- tial habitat for black-footed ferrets. Prairie dog Big game habitat expansion and movement will towns will be protected from major surface dis- be enhanced as opportunities arise by undertak- turbing activities, such as rights-of-way, and road ing one or more of the practices listed below. or facility construction. Surface disturbance will These practices apply primarily to fences built for not be allowed within prairie dog towns (refer to livestock control and highway right-of-way fences. Appendix 1). Existing populations of prairie dogs Fences or exclosures constructed to keep live- will be maintained by not allowing control mea- stock or wildlife out of certain types of facilities, sures to be conducted in prairie dog towns by such as oil and gas production facilities (e.g. pits APHIS-ADC or grazing allottees. Maintenance or tank batteries), would be exempt from the fence of existing developments will be allowed on a modifications described below, unless the fence case-by-case basis. itself becomes a hazard, due to its design or con- dition. These fences may be modified to prevent The construction of fence exclosures or barriers losses to both wildlife and livestock. will be considered in crucial or critical habitat for federal threatened and endangered, federal can- • Replacing existing netwire fences with didate, or state-listed wildlife and plant species barbed wire fences to facilitate the movement to protect all or portions of occupied habitat, spe- of wildlife between pastures; cific populations, or to provide for scientific re- search on a species and its habitat. The intent of • Installing pronghorn passes in netwire using fences in this manner is to protect small fences; areas, as opposed to fencing-out large areas of public lands. It is expected that exclosures or • Removing netwire fences on allotments barriers, if used, will be small in size and associ- converted from sheep to cattle; ated with specific sites. • Lowering fences that exceed 42 inches The federal mineral estate along the Canadian in height; River in Quay County (totalling about 4,900 acres), will be managed to support protection of • Removing extra strands of barbed wire to habitat for the Arkansas River shiner. Manage- meet BLM standard 4-strand fence specifica- ment will include the application of the surface tions; use and occupancy requirements (Appendix 1), closure to the leasing of solid minerals, possible • Removing extra top strands of barbed wire closure to the disposal of mineral materials, and from netwire fences to prevent entanglement restrictions on the exploration for and develop- of mule deer; ment of locatable minerals. Use restrictions will be applied as needed to protect habitat. As a • Considering terrain, forb and browse di- result, the entire range of restrictions may not be versity, and pasture size and shape, when de- applied to every acre of federal mineral estate. veloping or redesigning pasture configura- These practices could be applied to major tribu- tions; taries of the Canadian, as well, if needed to pro- tect shiner habitat.

57 • Disallowing the installation, or replacing, and the objective of the fire will be tied to wildlife netwire fences along highway rights-of-way habitat management and desired plant commu- crossing public lands if not required for ranch- nity management objectives described in activity ing operations; plans.

Existing habitat management plans (HMPs) will Surface disturbance will not be allowed within up be revised, as needed, to incorporate changes to 200 meters of existing or planned wildlife habi- resulting from decisions made in this RMP. Modi- tat improvement projects. Refer to Appendix 1 fications in existing HMPs will include public par- for more information on this requirement. ticipation and review. Actions in existing habitat management plans will continue to be imple- Big game and upland game transplants or rein- mented. troductions on public lands will be conducted when cooperatively prescribed by the BLM and Wildlife habitat developments and other manage- the NMDGF, following consultation and coordi- ment practices will be considered for use in im- nation with affected permittees or lessees and proving mule deer habitat in the BLM’s Mescalero interested parties. Projected transplants or rein- Sands, Pecos River, Southwest Roswell, Cedar troductions include, but are not limited to: Hills, Fort Stanton, and Carrizozo mule deer man- agement areas. Developments and practices in- • Pronghorn in pastures that meet the suit- clude, but are not limited to: ability criteria (see Appendix 12 in the Draft RMP/EIS); • Construction of water developments for wildlife and livestock; • Mule deer in areas of low population den- sity or in areas to enhance deer herd gene • Use of prescribed fire; pools;

• Fuelwood sales; • Wild turkey at Fort Stanton and on the Rio Bonito acquired lands; • Fence modifications and exclosures; • Other big game or upland game species • Aerial surveys of habitat and deer popu- recommended by the New Mexico Depart- lations; ment of Game and Fish.

• Use of exclusion areas or buffer zones in If opportunities arise, acquisitions of non-federal brush control projects; and lands will be considered in the following instances, to improve management of big game. Acquisi- • Modification of grazing systems, following tions in the Caprock deer management area consultation, cooperation and coordination would benefit special status species and raptor with affected permittees or lessees, and other habitat management goals, as well. interested parties. • Caprock WHA: 18,969 acres of state land; The construction of fence exclosures or barriers 8,840 acres of private land will be considered to protect special habitat fea- tures such as wildlife waters, springs, natural min- • Cedar Hills and Pecos River deer man- eral licks, significant lesser prairie chicken boom- agement areas: 3,521 acres of state land ing grounds, or to provide for scientific research on a species and its habitat. • Rio Bonito area: 279 acres of state land

Prescribed burns will be conducted in selected Geophysical exploration operations, drilling for oil pinon-juniper community types at Fort Stanton and gas, and other development will not be al- and the Cedar Hills area west of Roswell. For lowed in lesser prairie chicken habitat during the each prescribed burn the acreage to be burned period of March 15 through June 15, each year.

58 Additionally, no new drilling will be allowed within • Seasonal flood irrigation; up to 200 meters of leks known at the time of permitting. Refer to Appendix 1 for more discus- • Construction of irrigation ponds and wells; sion of these requirements. • Construction of boundary and pasture Core prairie chicken habitat areas will be avoided fences; when locating major rights-of-way. Refer to Table 11. Livestock grazing on the acquired Rio Bonito lands will be considered during the development Waterfowl Habitat Management of a management plan for the area, to determine if grazing should occur and under what condi- Goal: Perpetuate a diversity and abundance of tions it would be allowed. Grazing preference will waterfowl populations in the Central Flyway by not be established and grazing will be used as a protecting and enhancing wetlands, including tool to accomplish the objectives of the manage- playa lakes, alkali lakes, sinkhole lakes and ment plan. earthen tanks, while allowing a level of livestock grazing and mineral development and production The construction of fence exclosures or barriers that would not decrease waterfowl habitat and will be considered to protect all or portions of populations. important wetland and riparian habitat, irrigation ponds and earthen tanks, and significant playas As many as 400 acres of wetland habitat in suit- or alkali lakes. able areas within the floodplain of the Pecos River will be developed for waterfowl habitat. Suitabil- Raptor Habitat Management ity criteria include but are not limited to: Goal: Provide suitable raptor habitat conditions • Areas with seasonal surface waters in- on public lands through the conservation and dicative of a high water table or subsurface management of essential habitat components, clay layer; including habitat for prey species while allowing for livestock grazing and mineral development • Areas with the potential of supporting cot- and production that would not degrade habitat tonwood tree groves; components.

• Areas that have or would receive vegeta- Nesting, migration, and wintering areas for rap- tion manipulation projects (saltcedar control, tors will be managed on about 926,000 acres of prescribed fire, riparian pasture develop- public lands in the Macho, Caprock, Fort Stanton ment). and Overflow Wetland wildlife habitat areas, and along the Pecos River. Management of habitat Surface disturbance will not be allowed within up will be focused on designated Key Raptor Areas to 200 meters of active heronries. Refer to Ap- and those identified in the future. Management pendix 1 for more discussion on this requirement. practices could include developing protective fence exclosures or barriers around special habi- Agricultural practices and moist soil management tat features such as tree groves and sinkholes, techniques will be used to enhance yearlong food or around all or portions of important nesting ar- supplies for wildlife on the lands acquired along eas, and constructing raptor nesting platforms. the Rio Bonito. These practices may include but Surface disturbance will not be allowed within up are not limited to: to 200 meters of active raptor nests on special, natural habitat features, such as trees, large • Share cropping of valuable foods (alfalfa, brush, cliff faces and escarpments. Refer to winter wheat, barley, pasture grasses) with a Appendix 1 for more discussion of this topic. portion left as a standing crop for wildlife;

59 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Management Criteria for suitable waters include, but are not Goal: Manage aquatic habitat and associated limited to: natural diversity and distribution patterns of native nongame and sport fish, invertebrates, • Availability of perennial water; and aquatic mammals, while allowing for livestock grazing and mineral development and • Presence of existing populations indica- production that would not degrade aquatic tive of suitable habitat conditions that may habitat. need supplementing due to fishing pressure;

Construction of streambank stabilization struc- • No or low populations in stream segments tures, fish habitat structures, native riparian with suitable habitat conditions (water flow, plantings, riparian pastures, saltcedar control, and temperature, stream shading, pools & riffles, spring and drainage protection could be allowed stable streambanks, water quality, substrate for the Rio Bonito, Salado Creek and the Pecos condition, invertebrates); River. Criteria for consideration include, but are not limited to, areas that: • Channel dimension and capacity.

• Exhibit streambank sloughing; The construction of fence exclosures or barriers will be considered to protect all or portions of • Lack riparian vegetation or regeneration; important stream reaches, springs and seeps, riparian plantings, or irrigation ponds. • Exhibit invasion of exotic or undesirable plant species; Riparian/Wetland and Playa Lake Management • Exhibit erosion of side drainages; Goal: Restore and maintain riparian/wetland • Lack riparian pastures to control livestock areas to achieve proper functioning condition. use. Allow for livestock grazing, mineral development and production, and other uses that would not Monitor lotic and lentic systems for: degrade or impair the proper functioning condition of riparian habitat. Achieve an • Compliance with established water qual- advanced ecological status, except where ity standards; resource management objectives would require an earlier successional stage. • Fish and macroinvertebrate productivity and composition; Riparian and wetland areas will be managed to achieve an advanced ecological status, except • Stream channel substrate condition as it where resource management objectives, includ- relates to watershed condition; ing proper functioning condition, would require an earlier successional stage. The objective of • Use of water rights, where established. management would be to improve riparian and wetland habitat on public lands that is Native fish and sport fish introductions or trans- nonfunctioning or functioning at risk, and main- plants will be undertaken in suitable waters lo- tain habitat that is in proper functioning condi- cated on public land, in coordination with the New tion. Management will be conducted even if fac- Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Proposed tors beyond the BLM’s control, such as flow regu- introductions include but would not be limited to: lations or channelization, contribute to unaccept- able conditions. • Rainbow, cutthroat, brown, and brook trout in the Rio Bonito; Lands within 200 meters of the source of springs and seeps, and within downstream riparian ar- • Bass and bluegill in irrigation ponds. eas created by flows from the source, or through

60 riparian area management, will be considered for Use prescribed fire as a tool for land treatment to withdrawal from all forms of entry under the pub- replace or augment the use of chemical and lic land laws, including the general mining laws. mechanical treatments. Areas to be withdrawn will be prioritized accord- ing to one or more of the following criteria: The construction of fire line with heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozers or graders) will be employed only: • Presence of threatened or endangered species that rely on the source; • To protect property and public health and safety; or • The spring or seep is located in a Special Recreation Management Area; • In exceptional cases (such as in saltcedar or in previously disturbed areas); • The spring or seep is important for main- taining crucial or critical wildlife habitat. • With the approval of the Area Manager; and If additional springs or seeps meeting these cri- teria are identified, they will be prioritized and • With the appropriate resource advisor(s) considered for withdrawal, after processing of the on the scene. initial list of springs and seeps was completed. Management of areas burned by wildfires will be Surface disturbance will not be allowed within up determined on a case-by-case basis, including to 200 meters of playas and alkali lakes, peren- the need for rehabilitation, for deferment of live- nial streams, rivers and floodplains and springs stock grazing, and for other actions, such as emer- and seeps. Refer to the Surface Use and Occu- gency OHV closures. Considerations affecting pancy Requirements in Appendix 1 for more dis- management of burned areas include size and cussion on these requirements. intensity of fire, type of vegetation burned, veg- etation management objectives, and the manage- Springs and seeps, reservoirs and earthen tanks, ment and use of the area prior to being burned. important stream reaches, and significant playa and alkali lakes may be enhanced by construct- Prescribed Fire ing such things as protective fence exclosures or barriers, planting native vegetation, establishing Prescribed fires ignited by the BLM will be con- vegetation for wildlife cover, controlling undesir- ducted, including the re-treatment of acreage pre- able vegetation, constructing supplemental wa- viously burned, when burning conditions are ap- ter pipelines to specific sites, and providing off- propriate (refer to the definition of “prescription” site livestock water. (A list of springs is in the in the Glossary in the Proposed RMP). For each revised Table 102, in the Proposed RMP.) prescribed burn, the acreage to be burned and the objective of the fire will accomplish specific If opportunities arise, acquisition will be consid- land management objectives identified in activity ered for 590 acres of state land and 1,051 acres plans by specialists in one or more of the resource of private land within or adjacent to playa lakes, area’s management programs. Prescribed fires and for 1,440 acres of state land and 2,955 acres generally are tied to vegetation management of private land along the Pecos River. Any acqui- objectives based on vegetation types, which are: sitions in these areas will benefit riparian, wet- saltcedar; upland grasslands; pinon/juniper inva- land and playa lake management efforts. sion areas; and areas of sacaton. Prescribed fire will be used, when possible, to treat vegetation FIRE MANAGEMENT as part of the process of attaining the identified desired plant community for a given area. Goal: Limit damage to natural resources and to life and property caused by wildfire. Wherever Prescribed natural fire will be employed to ac- possible, restore fire to its natural role in the complish land management objectives when the ecosystem through the use of prescribed fire. following criteria are met:

61 • fire planning for the use of prescribed fire • Pecos River: Protect important vegeta- has been completed, including establishing tion, such as cottonwoods and willows, in ri- burning prescriptions and boundaries of ar- parian/wetland habitat within the 100-year eas to be burned, and coordination with af- floodplain. Limited use of machines, such as fected landowners and other affected inter- bulldozers, may be required, based on the ests; advice of a resource advisor. For fires in saltcedar, resources such as bulldozers or • ignitions occur in the period February chemical fire retardant could be employed to through May; limit the spread of fire to the smallest pos- sible area. • funding already has been programmed for planned prescribed fires and adequate per- • Caprock WHA: For wildfires occurring in sonnel and equipment are available to treated pastures in the months of April through achieve defined objectives; January, full suppression may be employed to protect wildlife habitat. In February and • ignitions occur in saltcedar along the March, and depending on the location of the Pecos River or other drainages; in juniper at fire relative to previous vegetation treatments, Fort Stanton east of State Highway 214; in suppression activities may occur at the con- areas of sacaton; and in upland grassland ditional level and may be limited to monitor- communities. ing the wildfire.

Protection from Wildfire • Fort Stanton: Protection of the Kuenzler hedgehog cactus, and the entrance of Fort Resource advisors will be on hand to provide Stanton Cave, will be accomplished with full advice on tactics employed during suppression suppression, except that heavy equipment will under either the conditional or full fire suppres- not be used to construct fire line. sion response levels. • Playas larger than 20 acres, springs and Archeological site data on base maps and in site seeps, other riparian areas: Fire suppression records will be reviewed to determine the loca- will include protection of these areas from tion and significance of cultural resources before surface disturbance and the effects of chemi- using heavy equipment to construct fire line, ex- cal fire retardant, by prohibiting the use of cept where personal safety or property are threat- heavy equipment and retardant drops in ri- ened, or when resource values outweigh cultural parian areas. The use of engines will be al- values. Wherever possible, an archeologist will lowed, keeping off-road use to the minimum monitor the use of heavy equipment to ensure needed to fully suppress the fire. that cultural resources are avoided. • Caves and karst areas: Fire suppression The protection of wetlands and surrounding habi- in cave and karst areas will include protec- tat for waterfowl and T&E fish in the Overflow tion of caves, cave resources and karst fea- Wetlands will be accomplished without the use tures from surface disturbance by prohibiting of bulldozers and other heavy equipment, or the use of bulldozers and other heavy equip- chemical fire retardant. ment to construct fire line within 200 meters of known cave entrances, passages or as- The conditional fire suppression response level pects of significant caves, or significant karst will be applied resource area-wide, with the fol- features. lowing exceptions, where full suppression would be used. • Valley of Fires Recreation Area: Protec- tion of the recreation area will be accom- • Protection of life or property, in any situa- plished without the use of heavy equipment tion. to construct fire line.

62 • Border Hills Structural Zone National AREAS OF CRITICAL Natural Landmark: The use of heavy equipment ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN to construct fire line within this area will be pro- hibited. The boundaries of the ACECs described be- low have been established based on the pres- • Steep slopes: Fire line will not be ence of resources and opportunities for effi- constructed with bulldozers or other cient management, irrespective of land own- heavy equipment on slopes greater than ership. The inclusion of other ownerships in 20 percent, or greater than 10 percent on ACECs is for purposes of disclosure and does fragile soils, except to protect life or not mean those lands would be designated property. as part of an ACEC, or that the management proposed in this plan would be applied to HAZARDOUS MATERIALS those lands. The acquisition of non-federal MANAGEMENT lands within ACECs is part the management included in this plan. If non-federal lands are For BLM-authorized activities that involve hazard- acquired, those lands could then become part ous materials or their use, precautionary mea- of a designated ACEC and be managed ac- sures will be used to guard against releases or cording to the management proposed in this spills into the environment. The transportation plan, without additional land use planning. storage, and handling of hazardous materials will be conducted in accordance with manufacturers’ See Map 14 for the locations of the proposed specifications and applicable laws, such as the ACECs. Refer to Appendix 13 in the Draft RMP/ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and EIS for discussions of relevance and importance the Emergency Planning and Community Right- criteria for Areas of Environmental Concern. To-Know Act. Refer to Appendix 12 in this document for maps of the ACECs. The sale or transfer of public lands on which stor- age or disposal of hazardous substances has Overflow Wetlands ACEC been known to occur will require public notifica- tion of the type and quantity of such substances. The Overflow Wetlands ACEC comprises 6,814 surface acres and 3,000 acres of federal mineral Bureau of Land Management-administered pub- estate. The surface acreage consists of the fol- lic land sites contaminated with hazardous wastes lowing categories and acreages: will be reported, secured, cleaned up, or other- wise remedied according to applicable federal Public land, 2,987 acres and state regulations and contingency plans. State land, 1,720 acres Parties responsible for contamination will be li- Private land, 2,107 acres able for cleanup and resource damage costs, as prescribed in federal and state regulations. If at Management Goal: all possible, the responsible parties will bear the financial burden of cleanup and resource dam- Protect the biological and scenic values of the age costs. Overflow Wetlands WHA, which provides critical habitat for T/E fish species and supports a If hazards are identified on BLM-administered significant riparian/wetland plant community. public lands, the BLM will provide appropriate warnings and establish precautions for safety Management Prescriptions: hazards associated with the use of those lands. About 700 acres of wetlands, 170 acres of buffer The BLM will conduct its own activities in a man- around the wetlands, and 170 acres of escarp- ner that reduces the amount or toxicity of waste ment will be protected by applying “no generated from those activities.

63 ACECsMap 14

1 - Crockett Cave• 8 - Martin-Antelope GYP Cave* 2 - Millrace Cave• 9 - North Pecos River 3 - Fort Stanton 10 - Angora-Corn Cave* 4 - Zia ChristineRRA: Cave•Proposed ACECs 11 - Bat Hole Cave• 5 - Torgac Cave• 12 - Overflow Wetlands 6 - Coachwhip cave• 13 - Mescalero Sands 7 - Crystal Caverns/Devil's Well Caves•

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

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

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

MAP 14 PROPOSED AREAS of CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

64 surface occupancy” restrictions to future oil and scribed fire, or mechanical or chemical controls, gas leases. The remainder of public lands in the except that chemicals will not be applied aerially. ACEC will be open to future leasing with subject to the Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements The Overflow Wetlands ACEC will be developed described in Appendix 1. to showcase one of New Mexico’s prime wetland areas. Developments may include nature trails About 700 acres of wetlands, 170 acres of buffer with wooden walkways and observation over- around the wetlands, and 170 acres of escarp- looks, restroom facilities, picnic tables, trash con- ment will be closed to the disposal of salable min- tainers, parking areas, bulletin boards, and up- erals and to the leasing of solid minerals, and will grading existing access roads. be withdrawn from entry under the land laws (in- cluding the 1872 Mining Law). These actions will About 700 acres of wetlands, 170 acres of buffer reduce disturbance of the wetlands and surround- around the wetlands, and 170 acres of escarp- ing habitat for wildlife species dependent on the ment will be designated closed to OHV use. The area either seasonally (wintering waterfowl) or use of OHVs on about 2,100 acres will be limited yearlong (T/E fish). to designated roads and trails.

Major rights-of-way would be excluded on about The BLM will recommend to the New Mexico 3,000 acres of public land with the Overflow Wet- Department of Game and Fish that the wetlands lands WHA to benefit wildlife species dependent be designated as a “No Minnow Seining Area” to on the area either seasonally (wintering water- prevent the taking of the Pecos pupfish. fowl) or yearlong (T/E fish). Public fishing opportunities will be considered for Legal access (easements) to the Overflow Wet- development along the Pecos River on public lands will be acquired to resolve conflicts and lands in the areas listed below. Development may enhance management in situations where exist- include physical access to fishing sites, parking ing roads that originate from county or state roads areas, and fence crossings. are interrupted by private or state land inholdings. T. 12 S., R. 26 E., The need for acquiring easements will be evalu- Section 5: W1/2W1/2 ated on a case-by case basis, because land ac- Section 17: W1/2NE1/4,SE1/4 quisitions may eliminate the need for some ease- Section 20: NE1/4NE1/4NE1/4 ments. The ACEC generally will continue to be open to About 1,700 acres of state land and 1,600 acres waterfowl hunting, but hunting may be limited to of private land with riparian/wetland values will certain areas. A closure to waterfowl hunting on be acquired if opportunities arise. Any lands ac- public lands within one-half mile of the sandhill quired will be managed according to the prescrip- crane roost at the Southwest Pond will be pro- tions of this plan. posed to the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, in order to protect that important crane Public grazing leases or permits affecting about roosting area. Other human disturbances on 3,000 acres of public land currently in Allotments public lands in that zone will be closed or re- 65060, 65062, and 65069 will be adjusted to im- stricted from October through March. Other ar- prove habitat for wintering waterfowl habitat. eas within the ACEC could be restricted or closed Adjustments may include changes in stocking rate to hunting in the future. Any actions involving and seasons of use, such as reducing year-long hunting, hunting restrictions, or special designa- grazing to grazing between March 1 and June tions, will be coordinated with the New Mexico 30. The grazing lease on Allotment 65041 will Department of Game and Fish. Fences could be be cancelled. constructed around the Southwest Pond to de- lineate the restricted area, and on other lands that Saltcedar treatments will be conducted on public may require special management. land in selected riparian-wetland areas using pre-

65 Riparian and aquatic habitats will be protected About 4,200 acres of federal minerals will be by acquiring water rights, entering into coopera- closed to the disposal of salable minerals and the tive agreements for management of those habi- leasing of solid minerals, and be withdrawn from tats, or other methods. entry under the land laws (including the 1872 Mining Law), to eliminate surface disturbance As many as 300 acres of additional riparian/wet- along the Pecos River and in surrounding wildlife land habitat will be developed. Development may habitat. include constructing low berms and dikes, seed- ing or planting native riparian vegetation, and Public lands in the ACEC will be designated right- modifying existing channels. Suitability criteria of-way avoidance areas for major rights-of-way. for development include, but are not limited to: Legal access (easements) to the Pecos River • Areas with seasonal surface waters in- ACEC will be acquired to resolve conflicts and dicative of a high water table or subsurface enhance management in situations where exist- clay layer ing roads that originate from county or state roads are interrupted by private or state land inholdings. • Areas with the potential of supporting cot- The need for acquiring easements will be evalu- tonwood tree groves ated on a case-by-case basis, because land ac- quisitions may eliminate the need for some ease- • Areas that have been or would be sub- ments. ject to vegetation manipulation (saltcedar con- trol, prescribed fire, riparian pasture develop- About 1,160 acres of state land and 1,880 acres ment) of private land with riparian/wetland values will be acquired if opportunities arise. Acquisition of Chemical fire retardant and heavy equipment riparian/wetland habitat will be based on the con- such as bulldozers and road graders will not be sideration of the criteria in Appendix 5. used for wildfire suppression. Public grazing leases or permits affecting about North Pecos River ACEC 3,360 acres of public land will be adjusted to im- prove riparian habitat. Adjustments may include The North Pecos River ACEC comprises 6,400 changes in seasons of use and stocking rates. surface acres and 4,200 acres of federal mineral Grazing practices will be modified on lands within estate. The surface acreage consists of the fol- the ACEC that are currently in Allotments 64038, lowing categories and acreages: 64039, 64538, and 65001.

Public land, 3,360 acres Saltcedar control will be conducted on about 600 State land, 1,160 acres acres of public land in selected riparian-wetland Private land, 1,880 acres areas, using prescribed fire, or mechanical or chemical controls, except that chemicals will not Management Goal: be applied aerially.

Protect the biological and scenic qualities of the The use of OHVs will be limited to designated Pecos River ACEC, which provides critical roads and trails on about 3,360 acres. habitat for T/E fish species and supports a significant riparian plant community. The BLM will recommend to the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish the designation Management Prescriptions: of the wetlands as a “No Minnow Seining Area,” to prevent the taking of the Pecos bluntnose About 2,080 acres of federal minerals will be shiner. Additionally, the BLM will monitor the habi- closed to future oil and gas leasing. About 2,120 tat of this fish in coordination with the USFWS. acres of federal minerals will be open to future leasing with No Surface Occupancy.

66 Mescalero Sands ACEC ing sands render portions of the fence ineffective at any given time, adding to high maintenance The Mescalero Sands ACEC comprises 10,007 costs and difficulty in driving to and through the surface acres and 7,931 acres of federal mineral area. Livestock grazing preference still will not estate. The surface acreage consists of the fol- be allocated on the 1,838 acres, and on about lowing categories and acreages: 600 additional, adjacent acres (see Map A12-6). The legal description of the area is: Public land, 7,888 acres T. 12 S., R. 30 E., Sec. 1, State land, 1,799 acres T. 12 S., R. 30 E., Sec. 11, east of the Private land, 320 acres existing fence, T. 12 S., R. 30 E., Sec. 12, Management Goal: T. 12 S., R. 31 E., Sec. 6, W1/2, T. 12 S., R. 31 E., Sec. 7, W1/2 Protect the biological, archaeological and scenic qualities of the Mescalero Sands ACEC, with No additional range improvements or vegetation emphasis on the preservation of a portion of the treatments geared toward livestock production will shinnery oak-dune community to enhance the be permitted in the ACEC. Maintenance and re- biodiversity of the ecosystem. placement of existing range developments, such as fences or pipelines, will be allowed. Projects Management Prescriptions: designed for resource enhancement or protec- tion will be considered. The entire federal mineral estate in the ACEC will be closed to future oil and gas leasing. The existing National Natural Landmark desig- nation on 3,208 acres of federal, state and pri- The entire federal mineral estate in the ACEC will vate land and the existing Outstanding Natural be proposed for withdrawal from entry under the Area designation on 6,173 acres of federal land public land laws, including the 1872 Mining Law. will be retained. Each of these areas is totally The ACEC also will be closed to solid mineral encompassed by the ACEC. leasing and the disposal of salable minerals. Approximately 2,438 acres will be designated Major rights-of-way will be excluded from the closed to the use of OHVs. The closure conforms ACEC to protect active dunes and surrounding to the area on which grazing preference will not habitat. be established, described above. Refer to Map A12-6. In the remainder of the ACEC, OHV use Legal access to the ACEC will be acquired, as will be limited to designated roads and trails. needed, to resolve conflicts and enhance man- agement. Easement acquisitions will be evalu- Fort Stanton ACEC ated on a case-by-case basis, because the po- tential acquisition of land may eliminate the need The Fort Stanton ACEC comprises 24,630 sur- for easements. face acres and 27,622 acres of federal mineral estate. The state-owned hospital and prison and As many as 1,800 acres of state and 320 acres the Sierra Blanca Airport within the boundary of of private lands in the ACEC will be considered the ACEC are not included in the acreage of the for acquisition if opportunities arise. Any land ACEC. acquired will be managed according to the man- agement prescriptions in this plan. Management Goal:

The existing 1,838-acre grazing exclusion area Protect the biological, archaeological and scenic will be eliminated. The fence on the east side of qualities of Fort Stanton, while providing for the grazing exclusion area will no longer be main- quality recreation opportunity. tained by the BLM because the continually shift-

67 Management Prescriptions: portunities arise. Any acquired lands will be man- Management of the Feather Cave National Regis- aged according to the prescriptions of this plan. ter site will emphasize off-site interpretation of its religious significance while allowing for the pro- Livestock grazing will be considered to the ex- tection of fragile cultural values. The site will be tent it would be used as a tool to accomplish managed in conjunction with the recreation man- management plan objectives. Livestock grazing agement program, which proposes to close the will be limited or excluded in riparian pastures, cave to recreational use. highly erodible areas, cave entrances, camp- grounds and day-use areas, and sensitive archeo- Lower Stanton Pueblo Ruin is an architectural site logical sites. Livestock grazing will be excluded located very close to Feather Cave. Currently, from the Feather Cave Archeological Complex. this site is being used by Eastern New Mexico No grazing preference will be established. University as an archeology field school. An in- terpretive site at Lower Stanton Pueblo Ruin will Saltcedar treatments will be conducted on as be developed and managed in conjunction with many as 300 acres of selected riparian/wetland the recreation management program to interpret habitat along the Rio Bonito and Salado Creek Feather Cave and other cultural resources in the using prescribed fire, mechanical control (chain area. Development will occur after sufficient data saws), or chemicals, except that chemicals will recovery has been completed. not be applied aerially.

Fort Stanton Cave will be closed annually to rec- Prescribed burns will be conducted in selected reation use from November 1 to the following April pinon-juniper, riparian and grassland community 15, to protect hibernating bat populations. types at Fort Stanton to improve wildlife habitat and reduce fuels. Fuelwood sales will be permit- Feather Cave will be closed to all visitor use, ex- ted in selected areas. cept for administrative or research purposes, to protect the significant bat hibernacula and to pro- Two overlooks will be considered for development tect visitors from extreme safety hazards associ- on the north and south sides of the historical Fort ated with breakdown, vertical entrances and his- to interpret the history of the Fort’s structures and toplasmosis. area, in conjunction with the Boots and Saddles initiative. Recreation developments at Fort Stanton, includ- ing trails and camping areas, will continue to be Approximately 330 acres around the Lower maintained or upgraded, when needed, to meet Stanton Ruin and Feather Cave will be managed requirements for visitor health and safety. to preserve, protect and interpret unique archeo- logical values, artifacts and architectural features. All public lands in Fort Stanton will be open to The area will be called the Feather Cave Archeo- saleable mineral disposal, except for approxi- logical Complex. In addition to the management mately 330 acres in the Feather Cave Archeo- prescribed for the Fort Stanton ACEC that would logical Complex. All public lands in Fort Stanton also apply to the Archeological Complex, the fol- will remain withdrawn from the general mining lowing specific management actions will be ap- laws, and closed to the disposal of leasable min- plied, as well: erals and to the leasing of oil and gas. • recreation development will be consid- Major rights-of-way will be excluded on about ered, such as trails to Lower Stanton ruin and 24,630 acres of public land to protect important Indian Shelter Cave, signs, an interpretive plant and animal habitat, significant riparian, wet- shelter, rest rooms, and a parking area; land and aquatic habitats, and visual quality. • off-site and on-site interpretation will be As many as 1,320 acres of private and state lands considered, including site stabilization for in- adjacent to Fort Stanton will be acquired if op- terpretive enhancement, exhibits, and sign- ing and brochures.

68 Fort Stanton will be designated a Special Recre- A wayside stop will be considered for develop- ation Management Area with emphasis on pro- ment along U.S. Highway 380 to interpret the his- viding quality recreational opportunities subordi- torical, archaeological, and recreational oppor- nate to the management of riparian and wildlife tunities of the area. resources. The use of OHVs will be limited to designated Existing recreation facilities will continue to be roads and trails, with the following exceptions: maintained and upgraded as needed to meet health and safety standards. The development • A 100-foot wide corridor measured from of a campground, including location, size and the edge of the creek along each side of the types facilities, will be considered during the Rio Bonito and Salado Creek will be closed preparation of a comprehensive ACEC/SRMA to OHV use to protect sensitive riparian re- management plan. sources, except for the use of designated roads within the corridor. In addition to the 40 miles of multi-use trails al- ready in use, about 45 miles of existing roads or • All multi-use trails (horse, hiking and trails and about 20 miles of new trails will be de- mountain biking) will be closed to OHV use. veloped and maintained as multi-use trails for hik- Mountain bike trails that are located on exist- ing, horseback riding and mountain bikes. These ing roads will be open for OHV use. trails, comprising about 51 acres, will be closed to the use of OHVs. • The Feather Cave Archeological Complex will be closed to OHV use, except for U.S. Camping at Fort Stanton will be managed by: Highway 380 and the Fort Stanton Cave Road. • Permitting “vehicle campers” (those who drive motorized vehicles to a campsite) to Streambank stabilization structures, native ripar- drive no more than 100 feet off a BLM-desig- ian plantings, riparian pastures, saltcedar con- nated road or trail to a campsite. But, in no trol, and spring and drainage protection measures case will camping be allowed within 100 feet could be implemented on the Rio Bonito and of the Rio Bonito and Salado Creek. About Salado Creek. These practices will be used in 250 acres will be closed to the use of OHVs situations including, but not limited to, areas that: in these areas. • Exhibit streambank sloughing; • Permitting back country camping through- out Fort Stanton, except within 100 feet of the • Lack riparian vegetation or regeneration; Rio Bonito and Salado Creek and no closer than 300 yards of any seeps or springs, man- • Exhibit invasion of exotics or undesirable made water hole, water well or watering tank plant species; used by wildlife or domestic livestock. • Exhibit erosion of side drainages; • Limiting all camping to no closer than one- quarter mile from waysides, overlooks, inter- • Lack riparian pastures to control livestock pretive trails or state highways, except at de- use. veloped campgrounds and designated camp- sites. Riparian and aquatic habitat will be protected by maintaining minimum acceptable instream flow Approximately 24,000 acres will be designated for Rio Bonito Creek at Fort Stanton by acquiring as limited to designated roads and trails for OHV water rights, entering into cooperative manage- use, to protect soils, cultural resources, and veg- ment agreements, or other methods. etation, including threatened or endangered spe- cies. The BLM will recommend to the New Mexico State Game Commission that Fort Stanton be

69 designated as a special hunt draw area or a re- Roswell Cave Complex ACEC stricted area open only to primitive hunting (bow and arrow or muzzle-loader). Additionally, ve- The Roswell Cave Complex ACEC comprises hicles will not be allowed off of designated roads nine cave systems, which are: Angora-Corn or trails to retrieve downed game. Cave; Bat Hole Cave; Coachwhip Cave; Crockett Cave; Crystal Caverns-Devils Well Caves; Mar- Big game or upland game transplants and rein- tin-Antelope Gyp Cave; Millrace Cave; Torgac troductions will be conducted on public lands Cave; and Zia Christine Cave. The ACEC com- when cooperatively prescribed by the BLM and prises 16,814 surface acres. There are 14,894 the NMDGF. Transplants and reintroductions in- acres of federal mineral estate in the ACEC, in- clude, but are not limited to: cluding 3,000 acres under private surface. The surface acreage consists of the following catego- • Pronghorn in pastures that meet the suit- ries and acreages: ability criteria (see Appendix 12 in the Draft RMP/EIS); Public land, 11,894 acres Private land, 4,920 acres • Mule deer in areas of low population den- sity or areas to enhance gene pools; Refer to Table 13 for the categories and acreages of lands comprising the ACEC, listed by cave sys- • Wild turkey; tem.

• Other big game or upland game species Management Goal: recommended by the New Mexico Depart- ment of Game and Fish. Protect the natural and scenic values of caves, while allowing for limited recreational, commercial, Native fish and sport fish introductions or trans- scientific and educational use. plants will be conducted in suitable waters on public land in coordination with the New Mexico Management Prescriptions: Department of Game and Fish. Proposed intro- ductions could include rainbow, cutthroat, brown, Crockett, Crystal Caverns, Martin-Antelope Gyp, and brook trout in Rio Bonito Creek. Criteria for Torgac Annex, and Torgac caves will be closed introductions or transplants include, but are not to visitor use annually from November 1 to April limited to: 15 to protect significant bat hibernacula. Sea- sons of use and visitor use restrictions will be • Perennial water availability; applied to any other caves or portions of caves found to have significant bat hibernacula or nurs- • Existing populations indicate suitable eries. habitat conditions but may need supplement- ing due to fishing pressure; The federal mineral estate in the ACEC, nearly 15,000 acres in size, will be closed to the future • No or low populations in stream segments leasing of oil and gas, the disposal of saleable with suitable habitat conditions such as wa- minerals, and the leasing of solid minerals. The ter flow, temperature, stream shading, pools federal mineral estate also will be proposed for and riffles, and stable streambanks. withdrawal from entry under the general land laws, including the 1872 Mining Law. The full wildfire suppression response level will be applied at Fort Stanton to protect Kuenzler All lands in the ACEC will be designated exclu- cactus habitat and the entrance to Fort Stanton sion areas for major rights-of-way. Cave. Bulldozers will not be used to construct fire line. The BLM will acquire access easements to caves for which legal access does not exist. The need

70 for acquiring easements will be evaluated on a Commercial cave guiding will not be allowed in case-by-case basis, because land acquisitions my caves of the ACEC until a comprehensive inven- eliminate the need for some easements. The cave tory of the biota and natural resources is accom- systems to which access will be acquired are: plished. If surveys determine that these resources would not be affected by limited commercial use, • Crockett Cave, 1.25 miles then commercial use will be considered and use • Crystal Caverns-Devils Well caves, 2.2 limits established consistent with management of miles the caves. • Millrace Cave, .33 mile Visitation limits (human carrying capacity) and All public land in the ACEC will be retained. About special stipulations will be prescribed in cave 4,920 acres of private land will be acquired, if management plans. opportunities arise, to protect the caves and their hydrologic processes. Any lands acquired will be Caves in the ACEC with unique or outstanding managed according to the prescriptions in this values, or threatened or endangered species, plan. could warrant development and implementation of additional controls or gating. Documentation Fenced exclosures will be constructed around of use in all caves in the ACEC will be accom- cave entrances in the ACEC when necessary to plished by permitting or the installation of cave control access or reduce impacts to cave re- registers. sources. No livestock will be allowed within any cave exclosure. Grazing will be excluded on as About 500 acres of public lands in the ACEC will many as 1,000 surface acres in the ACEC follow- be designated closed to OHV use, not including ing the construction of exclosures. lands already closed because they are within a wilderness study area. On the remainder of the The ACEC will be managed to maintain the cave public lands, OHV use will be limited to desig- systems in their natural condition. Management nated roads and trails. The OHV restrictions are will include actions such as graffiti and trash re- displayed by cave, in Table 23. moval, protection against vandalism, and limiting the extent and location of trails, where appropri- With the exception of carbide in carbide lamps ate. (miners’ lamps), battery acid in flashlights and headlamps, and the temporary use of cave gate Research and scientific use will have priority over construction materials, no solid, liquid, or gaseous other uses. These uses will be curtailed if there substances hazardous to human and animal life is a conflict with the protection of unique cave will be allowed within any cave or cave exclosure. values. Wildfire suppression in the ACEC will include the Bat Hole Cave will be closed to all visitor use, protection of caves, cave resources and karst fea- except for administrative or research purposes, tures from surface disturbance by prohibiting the to protect the significant bat hibernacula and to use of heavy equipment to construct fire line within protect visitors from extreme safety hazards as- 200 meters of known cave entrances, passages sociated with breakdown and vertical entrances. or aspects of caves, or significant karst features, Coachwhip Cave, a typical gypsum cave, will be or within the exclosures around caves. closed to all visitor use and managed as a con- trol cave for future research and management programs.

71 APPENDIXES

TABLE A-1 LIST OF APPENDIXES

Appendix 1. Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements 2. Roswell District Conditions of Approval 3. Practices for Oil and G as Drilling and Operations in Cave and Karst Areas 4. Withdrawn Lands 5. Acquisition and Disposal Criteria 6. Lands Identified for Acquisition 7. Lands Identified for Disposal 8. Decisions from Previous Planning Documents 9. Treating Vegetation with Herbicides 10 Rules of Conduct 11. Special Status Species 12. ACEC Maps

13. Protests on the Proposed RMP

Glossary

A-1 A-2 APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 1 SURFACE USE AND OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS

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

The requirements listed below will pertain to all and allow the relocation of proposed activities to activities conducted in the Roswell Resource mitigate impacts, but by no more than 200 meters, Area. They will be applied primarily to the fed- without undertaking additional NEPA analysis. eral surface estate. However, in the case of ac- The opportunity exists through the NEPA process tivities related to the development of oil and gas to design mitigations of impacts that would re- and other minerals, these standards could be quire relocation greater than 200 meters. The applied to split estate in order to meet the require- “200 meter rule” simply allows relocation of an ments of Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, fed- activity, such as during on-site meetings prior to eral law or regulations, or with the concurrence APD approval, without the need for detailed NEPA of surface landowners. analysis.

The intent of the Surface Use and Occupancy The Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements Requirements is to best manage mechanical sur- identify minimum use standards for activities face disturbance and other effects on specified around certain natural and man-made features natural resources. Mechanical surface distur- to ensure protection of those features. Specific bance is created by the use of such things as information on those features is maintained for tools and machinery. Activities such as grazing review at the Roswell Resource Area office. by livestock or wildlife or certain recreational pur- suits (e.g., hiking) are not considered to create Table Al -1 estimates the acreages affected by surface disturbance in the context of these re- the Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements. quirements. Circumstances for waivers of the These estimates reflect the maximum amount of requirements have been included so that they will acreage that could be affected and are for pur- not be applied needlessly. Exceptions to the re- poses of disclosure, comparison and analysis, quirements will be considered in emergency situ- only. The most likely situation is that the require- ations involving human health and safety and the ments will cumulatively affect only a small area. protection of the environment. ● Wildlife Habitat Projects: Surface The basis for the “200 meter rule” used in the disturbance will not be allowed within up to Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements is 43 200 meters of existing or planned wildlife habi- CFR 3101.1-2, which states that, at a minimum, tat improvement projects. Large-scale veg- mitigation measures are deemed consistent with etation manipulation projects such as pre- oil and gas lease rights if they do not require “...re- scribed burns will be excepted. This require- location of proposed operations by more than 200 ment will be considered for waiver with ap- meters...” The intent of the actions described in propriate off-site mitigation, as determined by this Appendix is to comply with the regulations the Authorized Officer.

AP1-1 APPENDIX 1

TABLE A1-1 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ACREAGES AFFECTED BY SURFACE USE AND OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

FOR PURPOSES OF ANALYSIS ONLY

Resource or Feature Proposed Plan Wildlife Habitat Projects 2,408 Raptor Nests 6,240 Slopes (All Ownerships) 260,023 Streams, Rivers, Floodplains 65,694 Playa and Alkali Lakes 8,400 Springs, Seeps and Tanks: Springs and Seeps 640 Tanks 8,800 Caves and Karst 26,136 Prairie Chickens: Timing requirements 935,000 Occupancy requirements 6,400 Sand Dune Lizard (Potential Habitat) 296,000 Prairie Dog Towns 1,422

Notes:

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

2. Acreages are not additive, since many different features may occur in the same area (e.g., wildlife habitat projects, raptor nests, prairie chicken habitat and lizard habitat could all be in proximity). Adding acreages amounts to double- or triple­ counting (or more) of the same acreage. 3. For determining the effects of these requirements on oil and gas activity, the acreages are assumed to fall completely within areas of high hydrocarbon potential. Actually, many of the areas on which the requirements would be applied are in areas of low or moderate hydrocarbon potential.

4. Acreages represent federal surface only, unless noted.

AP1-2 APPENDIX 1

● Raptor Nests and Heronries: Surface -Suitable off-site mitigation if habitat loss disturbance will not be allowed within up to has been identified. 200 meters of active heronries or by delaying activity for up to 120 days, or a combination -An approved plan of operations ensures of both. Raptor nests on special, natural habi- the protection of water or soil resources, tat features, such as trees, large brush, cliff or both. faces and escarpments, will be protected by not allowing surface disturbance within up to -Installation of habitat, rangeland or rec- 200 meters of nests or by delaying activity for reation projects designed to enhance or up to 90 days, or a combination of both. Ex- protect renewable natural resources. ceptions to this requirement for raptor nests will be considered if the nests expected to be ● Playas and Alkali Lakes: Surface distur- disturbed are inactive, the proposed activity bance will not be allowed within up to 200 is of short duration (e.g. habitat enhancement meters of playas or alkali lakes. Waiver of projects, fences, pipelines), and will not re- this requirement will be considered on a case- sult in continuing activity in proximity to the by-case basis for projects designed to en- nest. hance or protect renewable natural resources. An exception for oil and gas development will ● Slopes or Fragile Soils: Surface distur- be considered if playa lake loss was mitigated bance will not be allowed on slopes over 30 by the protection and development of another percent. Exceptions will be considered for playa exhibiting the potential for improvement. authorized mineral material extraction sites Mitigation could include: installing fencing; de- and designated OHV areas, for the installa- veloping a supplemental water supply; plant- tion of projects designed to enhance or pro- ing trees and shrubs for shelter belts; con- tect renewable natural resources, or if a plan ducting playa basin excavation; constructing of operations and development which pro- erosion control structures or cross dikes; or vides for adequate mitigation of impacts was by improving the habitat in another area. approved by the Authorized Officer. Occu- pancy or use of fragile soils will be consid- ● Springs, Seeps and Tanks: Surface dis- ered on a case-bycase basis. turbance will not be allowed within up to 200 meters of the source of a spring or seep, or ● Streams, Rivers and Floodplains: Sur- within downstream riparian areas created by face disturbance will not be allowed within up flows from the source or resulting from ripar- to 200 meters of the outer edge of 100-year ian area management. Surface disturbance floodplains, to protect the integrity of those will not be allowed within up to 200 meters of floodplains. On a case-by-case basis, an ex- earthen tanks or the adjacent riparian areas ception to this requirement may be consid- created as a result of the presence of the ered based on one or more of the criteria tanks. Exceptions to this requirement will be listed below. The first three criteria would not considered for the installation of habitat or be applied in areas of identified critical or oc- rangeland projects designed to enhance the cupied habitat for federally listed threatened spring or seep, or downstream flows. or endangered species. ● Caves and Karst: Surface distur- -Additional development in areas with bance will not be allowed within up to 200 existing developments that have shown meters of known cave entrances, passages no adverse impacts to the riparian areas or aspects of significant caves, or significant as determined by the Authorized Officer, karst features. Waiver of this requirement will following a case-by-case review at the be considered for projects that enhance or time of permitting. when an approved plan of operations ensures the protection of cave and karst resources.

AP1-3 APPENDIX 1

● Prairie Chickens: Drilling for oil and gas, ● Visual Resource Management: Painting and 3-D geophysical exploration operations of oil field equipment and structures to mini- will not be allowed in Lesser Prairie Chicken mize visual impacts will be conducted accord- habitat during the period of March 15 through ing to the requirements of Notice to Lessees June 15, each year. During that period, other (NTL) 87-1, New Mexico. Low profile facili- activities that produce noise or involve human ties also may be required, when needed, to activity, such as the maintenance of oil and reduce the contrast of a project with the domi- gas facilities, geophysical exploration other nant color, line, texture, and form of the sur- than 3-D operations, and pipeline, road, and rounding landscape. Other surface facilities well pad construction, will be allowed except or equipment approved by the BLM, such as between 3:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. The 3:00 large-scale range improvements or pipelines, a.m. to 9:00 a.m. restriction will not apply to will be painted, when needed, to conform with normal, around-the-clock operations, such as the requirements of visual resource manage- venting, flaring, or pumping, which do not re- ment to minimize visual impacts. Paint col- quire a human presence during the period. ors will be selected from the ten standard Additionally, no new drilling will be allowed environmerytal colors approved by the Rocky within up to 200 meters of leks known at the Mountain Coordinating Committee. The se- time of permitting. Normal vehicle use on lected pairyt color will match as closely as existing roads will not be restricted. Exhaust possible the predominant soil or vegetation noise from pump jack engines must be color of the area. muffled or otherwise controlled so as not to exceed 75 db measured at 30 feet from the ● Prairie Dog Towns: Surface disturbance source of the noise. Exceptions to these re- will not be allowed on public lands within quirements will be considered for areas of no known prairie dog towns or towns identified or low prairie chicken booming activity, or in the future. Exceptions to this requirement unoccupied habitat, including leks, as deter- Will be considered for maintaining existing mined at the time of permitting, or in emer- structures or facilities. Prairie dog control will gency situations. not be authorized on public lands, except in emergency situations involving public health. ● Sand Dune Lizard: Surface disturbance will not be allowed in documented occupied habitat areas, or within up to 100 meters of suitable habitat associated with occupied habitat areas identified through field review. An exception to this restriction will be consid- ered when an on-site evaluation of habitat exterd, available species occurrence data, the proposed surface use, and proposed mitiga- tions indicate the proposal will not adversely affect the local population.

AP1-4 APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 2 ROSWELL DISTRICT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

This appendix describes standard conditions of approval. When appropriate, conditions of approval may be selected from this list and attached to use authorizations. A check-list or other suitable means may be used to identify applicable conditions of approval. The emphasis is primarily on oil and gas operations and rights-of-way, but these conditions may be applied to other activities, as well.

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. The holder shall indemnify the United States against any liability for damage to life or property arising from the occupancy or use of public lands under this authorization.

2. The holder shall comply with all applicable Federal laws and regulations existing or hereafter enacted or promulgated. In any event, the holder shall comply with the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, as amended (15 U.S.C. 2601, et. seq.) with regard to any toxic substances that are used, generated by or stored on the project/pipeline route or on facilities authorized. (See 40 CFR, Part 702-799 and especially, provisions on polychlorinated biphenyls, 40 CFR 761.1-761.193.) Additionally, any release of toxic sub- stances (leaks, spills, etc.) in excess of the reportable quantity established by 40 CFR, Part 117 shall be reported as required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, Section 102b. A copy of any report required or requested by any Federal agency or State government as a result of a reportable release or spill of any toxic substances shall be furnished to the Authorized Officer concurrent with the filing of the reports to the involved Federal agency or State government.

3. The holder agrees to indemnify the United States against any liability arising from the release of any hazardous substance or hazardous waste (as these terms are defined in the Comprehensive Environ- mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601, et. seq. or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901, et. seq.) on this project/pipeline (unless the release or threatened release is wholly unrelated to the holder’s activity on the pipeline). This agreement applies without regard to whether a release is caused by the holder, its agent, or unrelated third parties.

4. If, during any phase of the construction, operation, maintenance, or termination of the authorization, any oil or other pollutant should be discharged, impacting Federal lands, the control and total removal, disposal, and cleaning up of such oil of other pollutant, wherever found, shall be the responsibility of the holder, regardless of fault. Upon failure of the holder to control, dispose of, or clean up such discharge on or affecting Federal lands, or to repair all damages to Federal lands resulting therefrom, the Authorized Officer may take such measures as deemed necessary to control and cleanup the discharge and restore the area, including, where appropriate, the aquatic environment and fish and wildlife habitats, at the full expense of the holder. Such action by the Authorized Officer shall not relieve the holder of any liability or responsibility.

5. Any cultural and/or paleontological resource (historic or prehistoric site or object) discovered by the holder, or any person working on the holder’s behalf, on public or Federal land shall be immediately reported to the Authorized Officer. The holder shall suspend all operations in the immediate area of such discovery until written authorization to proceed is issued by the Authorized Officer. An evaluation of the discovery will be made by the authorized officer to determine appropriate actions to prevent the loss of

AP2-1 APPENDIX 2

significant cultural or scientific values. The holder shall be responsible for the cost of evaluation and any decision as to the proper mitigation measures will be made by the Authorized Officer after consulting with the holder.

6. The holder is hereby obligated to comply with procedures established in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) to protect such cultural items as human remains, associated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony discovered inadvertently during the course of project implementation. In the event that any of the cultural items listed above are discovered during the course of project work, the proponent shall immediately halt the disturbance and contact the BLM within 24 hours for instructions. The proponent or initiator of any project shall be held responsible for protecting, evaluating, reporting, excavating, treating, and disposing of these cultural items according to the procedures established by the BLM in consultation with Indian Tribes.

7. The holder shall be responsible for weed control on disturbed areas within the limits of the site. The holder is responsible for consultation with the authorized officer and/or local authorities for acceptable weed control methods, which include following EPA and BLM requirements and policy.

8. The holder shall be responsible for maintaining the site in a sanitary condition at all times; waste materials shall be disposed of promptly at an appropriate waste disposal site. “Waste” means all dis- carded matter including, but not limited to, human waste, trash, garbage, refuse, oil drums, petroleum products, ashes, and equipment.

BURIED PIPELINES (RIGHT-OF-WAY) (PERMIT)

9. The holder shall conduct all activities associated with the construction, operation, and termination of the pipeline within the authorized limits.

10. The pipeline shall be buried with a minimum cover of ______inches between the top of the pipe and ground level.

11. Blading of all vegetation **shall/shall not** be allowed. Blading is defined as the complete removal of brush and ground vegetation. Clearing of brush species shall be allowed. Clearing is defined as the removal of brush while leaving ground vegetation (grasses, weeds, etc.) intact. Clearing is best accom- plished by holding the blade 4 to 6 inches above the ground surface. In areas where blading and/or clearing is allowed, the maximum width of these operations shall not exceed ______feet.

12. The holder shall minimize disturbance to existing fences and other improvements on public lands. The holder is required to promptly repair impacted improvements to at least their former state. The holder shall contact the owner of any improvements prior to disturbing them. When necessary to pass through a fence line, the fence shall be braced on both sides of the passageway prior to cutting of the fence. No permanent gates shall be allowed unless approved by the Authorized Officer.

13. Vegetation, soil, and rocks left as a result of construction or maintenance activity shall be randomly scattered over the project area and shall not be left in rows, piles, or berms, unless otherwise approved by the Authorized Officer, except that an earthen berm shall be left over the ditch line to allow for settling back to grade.

14. The holder shall seed all surface disturbed by construction activities. Seeding shall be done accord- ing to the attached seeding requirements (Exhibit __), using the attached seed mixture (as determined to meet Desired Plant Community objectives).

AP2-2 APPENDIX 2

15. All above-ground structures not subject to safety requirements shall be painted by the holder to blend with the natural color of the landscape. The paint used shall be a color which simulates “Standard Envi- ronmental Colors” designated by the Rocky Mountain Five-State Interagency Committee. The color se- lected for this project is , Munsell Soil Color Chart Number .

16. The holder shall post signs designating the BLM serial number assigned to this authorization at the following locations: the points of origin and completion, or entry to and exit from public lands, of the pipeline and at all major road crossings. These signs shall be posted in a permanent, conspicuous manner, and shall be maintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization.

17. The holder shall not use the pipeline route as a road for purposes other than routine maintenance as determined necessary by the Authorized Officer in consultation with the holder. The holder shall take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the pipeline route is not used as a roadway.

SURFACE INSTALLED PIPELINE

18. The holder shall be liable for damage or injury to the United States to the extent provided by 43 CFR Sec. **2803/2883**. The holder shall be held to a standard of strict liability for damage or injury to the United States resulting from fire or soil movement (including landslides and slumps as well as wind and water caused movement of particles) caused or substantially aggravated by any of the following within the permit area:

A. Activities of the holder, including but not limited to, construction, operation, maintenance, and termina- tion of the facility.

B. Activities of other parties including but not limited to: (1). Land clearing. (2). Earth-disturbing and earth-moving work. (3). Blasting. (4). Vandalism and sabotage.

C. Acts of God.

The maximum limitation for such strict liability damages shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000) for any one event and any liability in excess of such amount shall be determined by the ordinary rules of negligence of the jurisdiction of in which the damage of injury occurred.

This section shall not impose strict liability for damage or injury resulting primarily from the negligent acts of the United States.

19. The holder shall conduct all activities associated with the construction, operation, and termination of the pipeline within the authorized width of ______feet.

20. No blading or clearing of any vegetation shall be allowed unless approved in writing by the Autho- rized Officer.

21. The holder shall install the pipeline on the surface in such a manner that will minimize suspension of the pipeline across low areas in the terrain. In hummocky or duney areas, the pipeline will be “snaked” around hummocks and dunes rather than suspended across these features.

AP2-3 APPENDIX 2

22. The pipeline shall be buried a minimum of ______inches under all roads, including “two-tracks” and trails. Burial shall continue for 20 feet on each side of each crossing. The condition of the road, upon completion of the construction, shall be returned to at least its former state, with no bumps, dips, or soft spots remaining in the road surface.

23. The holder shall minimize disturbance to existing fences and other improvements on public lands. The holder is required to promptly repair impacted improvements to at least their former state. The holder shall contact the owner of any improvements prior to disturbing them. When necessary to pass through a fence line, the fence shall be braced on both sides of the passageway prior to cutting of the fence. No permanent gates shall be allowed unless approved by the Authorized Officer.

24. All above-ground structures not subject to safety requirements shall be painted by the holder to blend with the natural color of the landscape. The paint used shall be a color which simulates “Standard Envi- ronmental Colors” designated by the Rocky Mountain Five-State Interagency Committee. The color se- lected for this project is , Munsell Soil Color Chart Number .

25. The holder shall post signs designating the BLM serial number assigned to this pipeline at the following locations: the points of origin and completion, or entry to and exit from public lands, of the pipeline and at all major road crossings. These signs shall be posted in a permanent, conspicuous manner, and shall be maintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization.

26. The holder shall not use the pipeline route as a road for purposes other than routine maintenance as determined necessary by the Authorized Officer in consultation with the holder. The holder shall take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the pipeline route is not used as a roadway.

PERMANENT RESOURCE ROADS

Road Width and Grade

27. The road will have a driving surface of __ feet (all roads shall have a minimum driving surface of __ feet, unless local conditions dictate a different width). The maximum grade is 10 percent unless the box below is checked. Maximum width of surface disturbance from construction will be __ feet.

__ /__/ Those segments of road where grade is in excess of 10 percent for more than 300 feet shall be designed by a professional engineer.

Crowning and Ditching

28. Crowning with materials on site and ditching on one side of the road on the uphill side will be required. The road cross-section will conform to the cross section diagrams in Figure A4-1. If conditions dictate, ditching may be required for both sides of the road; if local conditions permit, a flat-bladed road may be considered (if these conditions exist, check the appropriate box below). The crown shall have a grade of approximately 2 percent (i.e., 1" crown on a 14' wide road). __ /__/ Ditching will be required on both sides of the roadway as shown on the attached map or as staked in the field.

__ /__/ Flat-blading is authorized on segment(s) delineated on the attached map.

AP2-4 APPENDIX 2

FIGURE A2-1: CROSS-SECTIONS AND PLANS FOR TYPICAL ROAD SECTIONS

OF ROA!:IWAY SHOUL.OER 7 I"""'" TURNOUT 10' 71 ... RANSITION .2s· I 100· ~~TRANSITION FUL.L. TURNOUT WIDTH TUIINOUTI IMALL OE C:ONITIIUC:TEO ON ALL SINGLE LANE .. OAOI ON ALL eLINO CUIItYIEI WfTM ADDITIONAL TUIIIINOUTS AS NIE&OCD TO TYPICAL TURNOUT PLAN I

TOP WIDTH 2'' CROWN MCIOMT 0~ PILL EMeANKMCNT ATIMOULOEII ILO~

EMBANKMENT SECTION

IIOAO TY~E C:IIOWN

EAIITM lUll,. AC:IJ: .II• .II ,.T I,.T AOOIIIJ:OATE IUII,.AC:E .01 •.•• "T / .. T.

~AVIJ:O IUII,.AC:IJ: .Ill• 01 ,.T /,.T

~"ROM THE BOTTOM OF THE OITCH

SIDE HILL SECTION

"ATURAL. TOP WIDTH GROUND

2" CROWN

CUT SLOPE ROUNDING

TYPICAL OUTSLOPED SECTION TYPICAL INSLOPE SECTION

AP2-5 APPENDIX 2

Drainage

29. Drainage control shall be ensured over the entire road through the use of borrow ditches, outsloping, insloping, natural rolling topography, lead-off (turnout) ditches, culverts, and/or drainage dips.

A. All lead-off ditches shall be graded to drain water with a 1 percent minimum to 3 percent maximum ditch slope. The spacing interval for lead-off ditches shall be determined according to the following table, but may be amended depending upon existing soil types and centerline road slope (in %):

SPACING INTERVAL FOR TURNOUT DITCHES Percent slope Spacing interval

0% - 4% 400' - 150'

4% - 6% 250' - 125'

6% - 8% 200' - 100'

8% - 10% 150' - 75'

A typical lead-off ditch has a minimum depth of 1 foot below and a berm 6 inches above natural ground level. The berm will be on the down-slope side of the lead-off ditch. The ditch end will tie into vegetation whenever possible.

For this road the spacing interval for lead-off ditches shall be at __ /__/ 400 foot intervals. __ /__/ ____ foot intervals. __ /__/ locations staked in the field as per spacing intervals above. __ /__/ locations delineated on the attached map.

B. Culvert pipes shall be used for cross drains where drainage dips or low water crossings are not feasible. The minimum culvert diameter must be 18 inches. Any culvert pipe installed shall be of suffi- cient diameter to pass the anticipated flow of water. Culvert location and required diameter are shown on the attached map (Further details can be obtained from the Roswell District Office or the appropriate Resource Area Office).

C. On road slopes exceeding 2%, drainage dips shall drain water into an adjacent lead-off ditch. Drainage dip location and spacing shall be determined by the formula: spacing interval = 400' + 100' road slope in %

Example: 4% slope: spacing interval = 400 + 100 = 200 feet 4

AP2-6 APPENDIX 2

Turnouts

30. Unless otherwise approved by the Authorized Officer, vehicle turnouts will be required. Turnouts will be located at 2000-foot intervals, or the turnouts will be intervisible, whichever is less. Turnouts will conform to the following diagram:

______

CENTER LINE OF ROADWAY

______

______TURNOUT - 10' WIDE______

|<-25'->| ------50'------|<-25'->|

STANDARD TURNOUT - PLAN VIEW

Surfacing

31. Surfacing of the road or those portions identified on the attached map may, at the direction of the Authorized Officer, be required, if necessary, to maintain traffic within the right-of-way with caliche, gravel, or other surfacing material which shall be approved by the Authorized Officer. When surfacing is re- quired, surfacing materials will be compacted to a minimum thickness of ____ inches of ______. The width of surfacing shall be no less than the driving surface. Prior to using any mineral materials from an existing or proposed Federal source, authorization must be obtained from the Authorized Officer.

Cattleguards

32. Where used, all cattleguard grids and foundation designs and construction shall meet the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load Rating H-20, although AASHTO U-80 rated grids shall be required where heavy loads (exceeding H-20 loading), are anticipated (See BLM standard drawings for cattleguards). Cattleguard grid length shall not be less than 8 feet and width of not less than 14 feet. A wire gate (16-foot minimum width) will be provided on one side of the cattleguard unless requested otherwise by the surface user.

Maintenance

33. A. The holder shall maintain the road in a safe, usable condition. A maintenance program shall include, but not be limited to blading, ditching, culvert installation, culvert cleaning, drainage installation, cattleguard maintenance, and surfacing.

B. Failure of the holder to share maintenance costs in dollars, equipment, materials, or manpower proportionate to the holders use with other authorized users may be adequate grounds to terminate the authorization. The determination as to whether this has occurred and the decision to terminate shall rest with the Authorized Officer. Upon request, the Authorized Officer shall be provided with copies of any maintenance agreement entered into.

AP2-7 APPENDIX 2

Public Access

34. Public access along this road will not be restricted by the holder without specific written approval being granted by the Authorized Officer. Gates or cattleguards on public lands will not be locked or closed to public use unless closure is specifically determined to be necessary and is authorized in writing by the Authorized Officer.

Road Rehabilitation Specifications

35. When the road is abandoned, it will be ripped at least sixteen inches deep, including turnouts. The caliche may be reclaimed for re-use before ripping, if so desired. Alternately, the caliche can be plowed under with a grader, or other soil turning device, and the plowed surface disked before seeding. All culverts or other structures will be removed. All fill material will be replaced into the cut areas; barrow and lead-off ditches, drainage dips, or other erosion control earthwork will be filled or smoothed; and the abandoned road returned to the natural contours, as closely as possible. Water breaks at least eight inches high will be constructed as shown on accompanying Illustration Sheet. Traffic barriers will be installed at all vehicular access points to prevent further use of the road.

Reseed the entire area with the following mixture (to be determined by DPC): ______.

All disturbed areas are to be seeded with the seed mixture listed above. The seed and any fertilizer involved are to be applied together by broadcasting with a seed spreader, then harrowed for seed cover- age. Use of a seed drill is acceptable. Appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that the seed/ fertilizer mixture is evenly and uniformly planted. There will be no primary or secondary noxious weeds in the seed mixture. Seed will be tested for viability and purity in accordance with State law(s) within nine months prior to purchase. Commercial seed will be either certified or registered and the seed mixture container will be tagged in accordance with State law(s). The seed will be available for inspection by the Authorized Officer. The seeding will be repeated until a satisfactory stand is established as determined by the Authorized Officer. Evaluation of growth will not be made before completion of the first growing season after seeding. Waiver of this requirement would be considered if diligent attempts to revegetate a site have failed and the Authorized Officer determines that further attempts would be futile.

Normally, the best time for seeding is between June 15 and September 15. However, the grantee may reseed immediately after completing surface abandonment procedures. The BLM reserves the right to require reseeding at a specific time if seed does not germinate after one complete growing season. Contact the appropriate resource area office at (Phone No.) at least two working days before the start of reseeding activities or if there are any questions.

OVERHEAD ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION LINES

36. The holder shall conduct all activities associated with the construction, operation, and termination of the powerline within the authorized limits.

37. No blading or clearing of any vegetation will be allowed unless approved in writing by the Authorized Officer.

AP2-8 APPENDIX 2

38. Powerlines shall be constructed to standards outlined in “Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Powerlines,” Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., 1981, unless otherwise agreed to by the Authorized Officer in writing.

The holder is responsible for demonstrating that power pole designs not meeting these standards are “raptor safe.” Such proof shall be provided by a raptor expert approved by the Authorized Officer. The BLM reserves the right to require modifications or additions to power line structures constructed under this authorization, should they be necessary to ensure the safety of large perching birds. These modifica- tions and/or additions shall be made by the holder without liability or expense to the United States.

39. The holder shall minimize disturbance to existing fences and other improvements on public lands. The holder is required to promptly repair impacted improvements to at least their former state. The holder shall contact the owner of any improvements prior to disturbing them. When necessary to pass through a fence line, the fence will be braced on both sides of the passageway prior to cutting of the fence. No permanent gates will be allowed unless approved by the Authorized Officer.

40. Construction holes left open over night shall be covered. Covers shall be secured in place and shall be strong enough to prevent livestock or wildlife from falling through and into a hole.

41. The holder shall evenly spread the excess soil excavated from pole holes in the immediate vicinity of the pole structure.

42. The BLM serial number assigned to this authorization grant shall be posted in a permanent, con- spicuous manner, and be maintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization at all major road crossings and at all serviced facilities. Numbers will be at least two inches high and will be affixed to the pole nearest the road crossing and at the facilities served.

43. Upon cancellation, relinquishment, or expiration of this grant, the holder shall comply with those abandonment procedures prescribed in the grant or determined at the time of abandonment.

44. All surface structures (poles, lines, transformers, etc.) shall be removed within ______days of abandonment, relinquishment, or termination of use of the serviced facilities or within ______days of abandonment, relinquishment, or termination of this authorization, whichever comes first. This will not apply where the powerline extends to serve an active, adjoining facility or facilities.

COMMUNICATION SITES

45. The authorization is conditioned upon the submission of a copy of an approved license and/or re- newal license granted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or the Interdepartmental Ra- dio Advisory Committee (IRAC) for each electronic station installation authorized or future amendments of this authorization. A copy of the FCC or IRAC authorization shall be submitted within 90 days of issuance of this authorization or within 90 days following approval of an amendment to this authorization. Failure to submit the FCC or IRAC authorization copy within the time specified shall be grounds for termination of this authorization or cancellation of an amendment to this authorization. The Authorized Officer may grant an extension of up to 90 days, if requested in writing by the holder.

46. The holder and its sublessees shall at all times operate their radio-electronic equipment in such a manner as not to cause interference with radio-electronic operations of existing users in the vicinity. If such interference results from holder’s or sublessee’s operations, holder shall promptly, at its own

AP2-9 APPENDIX 2

expense, modify the equipment and operations, or shut down if necessary to eliminate or reduce the interference to the satisfaction of the FCC, IRAC, and/or the Authorized Officer.

47. The holder shall notify the Authorized Officer of any intent to locate additional users within or upon their existing facilities, not less than 45 days prior to occupancy of holder’s facilities. Information that must be included is: a. Name, current address, and phone number of the third party user(s).

b. Expected date of occupancy. c. A photo or sketch of the type of antennas to be installed, as well as any other planned physical changes to the exterior facilities operated by the holder. If the proposed use is not specified in the original authorization shall be required.

48. No less than 45 days prior to occupancy of the holder’s facility, the holder shall notify existing users within a 1-mile radius that the holder intends to accommodate a new communication user in its facility. Existing users can then file any comments pertaining to potential frequency or electromagnetic problems with the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to the Authorized Officer.

49. The holder shall be responsible for the actions and operations of any third party users associated with this facility. All such use shall be subject to the applicable terms, conditions, and stipulations of this authorization.

50. All above-ground structures not subject to safety requirements shall be painted by the holder to blend with the natural color of the landscape. The paint used shall be a color which simulates “Standard Envi- ronmental Colors” designated by the Rocky Mountain Five-State Interagency Committee. The color se- lected for this project is , Munsell Soil Color Chart Number .

51. The holder shall post signs designating the BLM serial number assigned to this facility at the points of entry to and exit from the site. These signs shall be posted in a permanent, conspicuous manner, and shall be maintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization.

52. The holder agrees to share road maintenance costs with all present and future users of the access road. At such future time as a Users Association for this communication site is formed, the holder shall join the Users Association and remain a member in good standing. Within 30 days of the creation of such Users Association the holder shall provide the authorized officer with evidence of membership. Failure of the holder to join the Users Association and remain a member in good standing shall constitute sufficient grounds for termination of this authorization.

OIL AND GAS RELATED SITES (RIGHT-OF-WAY)

53. All above-ground structures not subject to safety requirements shall be painted by the holder to blend with the natural color of the landscape. The paint used shall be a color which simulates “Standard Envi- ronmental Colors” designated by the Rocky Mountain Five-State Interagency Committee. The color se- lected for this project is , Munsell Soil Color Chart Number .

54. The holder shall post a sign designating the BLM serial number assigned to this authorization in a permanent, conspicuous location on the site where the sign will be visible from the entry to the site. This sign will be maintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization.

AP2-10 APPENDIX 2

SALTWATER DISPOSAL WELLS (COMMERCIAL)

55. This permit is subject to all terms, conditions, and stipulations of the NMOCD approval and appli- cable Roswell District General Requirements for Oil and Gas Operations on Federal Leases (copy at- tached).

56. The holder shall be liable for damage or injury to the United States to the extent provided by 43 CFR Sec. **2803/2883**. The holder shall be held to a standard of strict liability for damage or injury to the United States resulting from fire or soil movement (including landslides and slumps, and movement by wind and water) caused or substantially aggravated by any of the following within the authorized site or facilities:

A. Activities of the holder, including but not limited to, construction, operation, maintenance, and termina- tion of the facility.

B. Activities of other parties including but not limited to:

(1) Land clearing. (2) Earth-disturbing and earth-moving work. (3) Blasting. (4) Vandalism and sabotage.

The maximum limitation for such strict liability damages shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000) for any one event and any liability in excess of such amount shall be determined by the ordinary rules of negligence of the jurisdiction of in which the damage of injury occurred.

This section shall not impose strict liability for damage or injury resulting primarily from the negligent acts of the United States.

57. As a guarantee of faithful performance of the provisions of this grant, the holder agrees to deliver and maintain a surety bond, or other performance security acceptable to the Authorized Officer, in the amount of ______, (minimum of $25,000) to cover the costs of plugging and reclamation. Should the sureties or bonds delivered under this grant become unsatisfactory to the Bureau, the holder shall, within thirty (30) days of demand, furnish a new bond, or other acceptable security, with surety.

The holder may deposit in a Federal depositor as directed by the Bureau, and maintain therein, cash in the amounts provided for above or negotiable securities of the United States having a market value at the time of deposit of not less than the dollar amounts provided for above.

58. The holder agrees to secure the prior approval of the Authorized Officer before commencing any operations such as: drilling out cement plugs, cementing operations, perforating (using explosive or hydraulic fracturing), deepening, altering or pulling a portion of the well’s casing, plugging operations, or any other operation affecting the well.

59. The holder agrees to use the well solely for salt water disposal. No other substance__including oil, condensates, sludge, drilling fluids, other chemicals, or any toxic pollutant (as this term is defined under the Clean Water Act 40 CFR 104-149, Section 502)__shall be injected.

60. At any time deemed necessary by the Authorized Officer, earthen dikes shall be constructed and maintained around all tanks, vessels, and storage facilities. These dikes will be designed to contain, at

AP2-11 APPENDIX 2

a minimum, the entire contents of the largest tank within the facility, unless more stringent protective requirements are deemed necessary by the Authorized Officer.

61. All above-ground structures not subject to safety requirements shall be painted by the holder to blend with the natural color of the landscape. The paint used shall be a color which simulates “Standard Envi- ronmental Colors” designated by the Rocky Mountain Five-State Interagency Committee. The color se- lected for this project is , Munsell Soil Color Chart Number .

62. The holder shall post a sign in a permanent, conspicuous location at the site. At a minimum, the sign will state the holder’s name, the well name, the BLM serial number, and the legal location by township, range, and quarter-quarter of section. The sign will be maintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization.

63. Upon cancellation, relinquishment, or expiration of this authorization, the holder shall comply with those abandonment procedures, including restoration and decontamination (if necessary) of the surface and plugging of the wellbore, prescribed in the authorization or determined at the time of abandonment.

BURIED TELEPHONE CABLES

64. The holder shall conduct all activities associated with the construction, operation, and termination of the telephone line within the authorized limits.

65. There shall be no clearing or blading of the telephone route unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Authorized Officer.

66. The holder shall minimize disturbance to existing fences and other improvements on public lands. The holder is required to promptly repair impacted improvements to at least their former state. The holder shall contact the owner of any improvements prior to disturbing them. When necessary to pass through a fence line, the fence shall be braced on both sides of the passageway prior to cutting of the fence. No permanent gates shall be allowed unless approved by the Authorized Officer.

67. Vegetation, soil, and rocks left as a result of construction, drilling, or maintenance activity shall be randomly scattered over the project area and shall not be left in rows, piles, or berms (except for a berm left over the ditch line to allow for settling back to grade), unless otherwise approved by the Authorized Officer.

68. The holder shall post signs designating the BLM serial number assigned to this authorization at the following locations: the points of origin and completion, or entry to and exit from public lands, of the telephone line and at all major road crossings. These signs shall be posted in a permanent, conspicuous manner, and shall be maintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization.

69. All above-ground structures not subject to safety requirements shall be painted by the holder to blend with the natural color of the landscape. The paint used shall be a color which simulates “Standard Envi- ronmental Colors” designated by the Rocky Mountain Five-State Interagency Committee. The color se- lected for this project is , Munsell Soil Color Chart Number .

70. The holder shall not use the telephone cable route as a road for purposes other than routine mainte- nance as determined necessary by the Authorized Officer in consultation with the holder. The holder shall take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the telephone cable route is not used as a road- way.

AP2-12 APPENDIX 2

CATHODIC PROTECTION SITES

71. Unless otherwise approved, in writing, by the Authorized Officer, the holder shall reseed all surface disturbed by construction activities. If reseeding is required, it will be done according the attached seed- ing requirements (Exhibit ), using seed mixture as determined by DPC.

72. All above-ground structures not subject to safety requirements shall be painted by the holder to blend with the natural color of the landscape. The paint used shall be a color which simulates “Standard Envi- ronmental Colors” designated by the Rocky Mountain Five-State Interagency Committee. The color se- lected for this project is Munsell Soil Color Chart Number .

73. The holder shall post a sign designating the BLM serial number assigned to this authorization and the holder’s name at the site. This sign will be posted in a permanent, conspicuous manner, and will be maintained in a legible condition for the term of the authorization.

APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DRILL

74. The operator shall post signs identifying the location permitted herein in accordance with the require- ments contained in Onshore Oil and Gas Order #1 and 43 CFR 3162.6.

THE FOLLOWING DATA IS REQUIRED ON THE WELL SIGN:

(example) OPERATORS NAME: XYZ Oil & Gas Company WELL NAME & NO: #1 XYZ Federal LEASE NO.: NM-XXXXX LOCATION: XX’ FXL & XX’ FXL - Sec. XX, T. XX S., R. XX E.,NMPM

On Lease - Surface Requirements Prior to Drilling:

75. The approval of this action does not in any way grant or imply approval of any off-lease or off-unit action. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain any such approvals from the appropriate surface managing agency, including the B.L.M., and/or any private landowners.

76. The BLM will monitor construction on this drill site. Notify the appropriate Resource Area Office, BLM at least (specify) working days prior to commencing construction at (505) .

77. Prior to commencing construction of the road, pad, or other associated developments, the operator shall provide the dirt contractor with a copy of the approved Surface Use Plan and the attached Condi- tions of Approval.

78. All vehicles and equipment associated with drilling, completion, or production phases of this well shall be confined to the approved road, pad, and other areas herein approved.

79. All topsoil and vegetation encountered during the construction of the drill site areas shall be stock- piled and made available for resurfacing of the disturbed areas after completion of the drilling operations. Topsoil on the (well name and number) is approximately (specify) inches in depth. A minimum of approximately (specify) cubic yards of topsoil material shall be stockpiled on the (specify) edge / at the (specify) corner of the location for reclamation of the pad and pit area.

AP2-13 APPENDIX 2

80. The drill pad and access road for this well must be surfaced with (specify) inches of compacted caliche, gravel, or other approved surfacing material.

81. Caliche, gravel, or other related materials from new or existing pits on Federal mineral estate shall not be taken without prior approval from the Authorized Officer.

82. Payment for Federal mineral materials to be used for construction is required prior to construction of the pad and access road.

Drilling Pits:

83. A. Reserve pits shall be constructed such that at least one half the total pit volume is below natural ground level (minimum of 4 feet) unless approved by the Authorized Officer or a metal closed pit system is used. All mud pits shall be constructed so as not to leak, break, or allow discharge of liquids. Pits are not to be located in any natural drainage. Any plastic material used to line pits, must be at least __ mil in thickness, have a bursting strength of ___ PSI, and be removed to below ground level before the pits are covered.

B. Reserve pits shall be fenced on three sides during drilling operations. The fourth side shall be fenced immediately upon rig release. Any pit or open top tank containing oil and/or toxic liquids shall be equipped to deter entry by birds, bats, and other wildlife, and livestock.

C. Liquids in pits will be allowed to evaporate, or be properly disposed of otherwise, before pits are reclaimed. Under no circumstances shall pits be cut to be drained.

Containment Dikes:

84. Firewalls/containment dikes are to be constructed and maintained around all storage facilities/batter- ies. The containment structure must have sufficient volume to contain, at a minimum, the entire contents of the largest tank within the facility/battery, unless more stringent protective requirements are deemed necessary by the Authorized Officer.

Cave Protection Requirements:

85. A. If, during any construction activities any sinkholes or cave openings are discovered, all construc- tion activities shall immediately cease, and the BLM office will be notified.

85. B. The BLM will, within 24 hours of notification in “A” above, conduct an on-the-ground field inspection for karst. At the field inspection, the authorized field inspector will authorize or suggest mitigating mea- sures to lessen the damage to the karst environment. A verbal order to proceed or stop the operation will be issued at that time.

Painting:

86. All above-ground structures not subject to safety requirements shall be painted by the holder to blend with the natural color of the landscape. The paint used shall be a color which simulates “Standard Envi- ronmental Colors” designated by the Rocky Mountain Five-State Interagency Committee. The color se- lected for this project is , Munsell Soil Color Chart Number .

AP2-14 APPENDIX 2

Fences:

87. The holder shall minimize disturbance to existing fences and other improvements on public lands. The holder is required to promptly repair impacted improvements to at least their former state. The holder shall contact the owner of any improvements prior to disturbing them. When necessary to pass through a fence line, the fence shall be braced on both sides of the passageway prior to cutting of the fence. No permanent gates shall be allowed unless approved by the Authorized Officer.

Well Completion Requirements:

88. If the well is completed, the reserve pit(s) shall be backfilled when dry, and cut-and-fill slopes shall be reduced to a slope of 3:1 or less. All areas of the pad not necessary for operations must be re-contoured to resemble the original contours of the surrounding terrain, and stockpiled topsoil must be re-distributed and the reclaimed area re-seeded. Seeding shall be done according to the attached seeding require- ments (Exhibit B), using the attached seed mixture (as determined by Desired Plant Community).

89. All open-vent exhaust stacks associated with heater-treater, separator and dehydrator units shall be modified to prevent birds and bats from entering them and to the extent practical to discourage perching and nesting.

New production equipment installed on federal leases after November 1, 1993, will have the open-vent exhaust stacks constructed to prevent the entry of birds and bats and, to the extent practical, to discour- age perching and nesting.

Abandonment:

90. If the well is dry and is to be plugged, approval of the proposed plugging program may be obtained verbally. However, verbal approval must be confirmed in writing by immediately filing an original and the required number of copies of the Notice of Intent to Abandon (Form 3l60-5) with the appropriate BLM area office. The report should show the total depth reached, the reason for plugging, and the proposed intervals, by depths, where plugs are to be placed, type of plug, type of plugging mud, etc.

91. Following receipt of “Subsequent Report of Abandonment”, final BLM requirements for surface recla- mation will be as specified in the authorization or determined at the time of abandonment.

92. If the well is not drilled, notify the BLM so that an official release can be approved.

MINERAL MATERIAL SITES

93. All design, material, and construction, operation, maintenance, and termination practices shall be in accordance with safe and proven engineering practices.

94. The holder shall conduct all activities associated with the construction, operation, and termination of the material pit within the authorized limits.

95. The holder shall minimize disturbance to existing fences and other improvements on public lands. The holder is required to promptly repair impacted improvements to at least their former state. The holder shall contact the owner of any improvements prior to disturbing them. When necessary to pass

AP2-15 APPENDIX 2

through a fence line, the fence shall be braced on both sides of the passageway prior to cutting of the fence. No permanent gates shall be allowed unless approved by the Authorized Officer.

96. The holder shall be responsible for the actions and operations of any third party users associated with this authorization. All such use shall be subject to the applicable terms, conditions, and stipulations of this authorization.

97. The road proposed as part of this authorization shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with BLM road standards, including the New Mexico Roads Policy.

98. The holder shall seed all surface disturbed by construction activities. Seeding shall be done accord- ing to the attached seeding requirements (Exhibit ____), using the attached seed mixture (as determined by DPC).

99. Suitable topsoil material removed in conjunction with clearing and stripping shall be conserved in stockpiles (within the material site) (at the following staked locations: specify location). Topsoil shall be stripped to an average depth of (specify) inches. A total of (specify) cubic yards of topsoil shall be stockpiled.

100. Excess excavated, unsuitable, or slide material shall be disposed of as directed by the Authorized Officer.

101. No construction or routine maintenance activities shall be performed during periods when the soil is too wet to adequately support construction equipment. If such equipment creates ruts in excess of (designate) inches deep, the soil shall be deemed too wet to adequately support construction equipment. 102. Existing roads and trails on public lands that are blocked as the result of the material pit activities shall be rerouted or rebuilt as directed by the authorized officer.

103. The holder shall recontour the disturbed area and obliterate all earthwork by removing embank- ments, backfilling excavations, and grading to reestablish the approximate original contour of the land as determined by the authorized officer.

104. The holder shall uniformly spread topsoil over all unoccupied disturbed areas. Spreading shall not be done when the ground or topsoil is frozen or wet.

105. The BLM will monitor construction on this material pit site. Notify the appropriate Resource Area Office, BLM at least (specify) working days prior to commencing excavation at (505) .

HYDROSTATIC TEST WATER DISCHARGE SITES

106. Before being authorized to discharge any hydrostatic test water, the Holder must submit to the BLM’s Authorized Officer a hydrostatic test water discharge plan approved by the New Mexico Oil Con- servation Division. Discharge of hydrostatic test water must comply with Environmental Protection Agency regulations described in 40 CFR 260, including testing the waste for hazardous waste characteristics before disposal. Generators of hydrostatic test water also must meet the discharge plan requirements of the New Mexico Water Quality Act and the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission regulations 3- 106b.

107. Prior to discharging hydrostatic test water from the pipeline, the Holder shall design and install a suitable energy dissipator at the outlet(s), and design and install appropriate erosion protection struc-

AP2-16 APPENDIX 2

tures needed to ensure that there will be no erosion or scouring of the natural surface or channels within the affected area as a result of the discharge. The Holder will be held accountable for any erosion, scouring, or depletion of vegetation resulting from the discharge. Any structures or objects, including sandbags, rocks, hay bales, or other material installed for erosion control, will be removed from the site upon completion of the hydrostatic testing.

108. The Holder shall inform the Authorized Officer three working days prior to the completion of the hydrostatic test and water discharge.

FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT

109. If a threat of flooding by the Pecos River occurs during drilling operations, the Resource Area Manager will issue a shut-in order. Toxic substances and, possibly, drilling equipment will be removed from the floodplain.

110. A drilling pad will be elevated at least ______(inches, feet) and surfaced according to Condition of Approval 80.

111. All riparian habitat will be protected according to instructions provided by the Authorized Officer. Trees will not be cut down unless authorized.

112. Self-contained metal tanks are required for floodplain locations.

113. Pits containing oil, tank bottoms or other hydrocarbons, salt water, or any toxic substances will not be allowed in the floodplain.

114. Provisions for containing salt water flow must be made prior to beginning drilling, without resorting to reserve pits constructed in the ground. Metal tanks or tank trucks must be in place to collect salt water. Salt water storage will not be allowed in the floodplain.

115. Production facilities will be located outside the floodplain.

116. Flowlines from the wellhead to production facilities will be buried, if soil conditions permit burial.

117. Special precautions will be taken to reduce damage from flooding: a. The well will be equipped with a down-hole shut-in device, rated at working pressure of 1,500 psi; or b. The wellhead will be buried below ground in a concrete cellar with a grate over it; or, c. Three steel posts will be set in concrete. Horizontal steel cross bars will connect the posts. Heavy gauge chain link fencing will be welded or bolted to the post and cross bars. The V must point upstream or in the direction specified.

118. Chemical toilets will be used instead of latrines.

DRILLING RIG STORAGE

119. The holder shall conduct all activities associated with the operation, and termination of the rig stor- age within the authorized limits. All activity will be limited to (describe authorized area of activity) and the immediate perimeter (describe distance--maximum of 20 feet) .

AP2-17 APPENDIX 2

120. If the storage of this rig should interfere with the producer’s operations, the holder shall be re- quired to remove it immediately.

121. Should the well be plugged and abandoned during the term of this permit, the permittee will be required either to remove the drilling rig within 30 days or assume all responsibility for restoration of the well pad and access road.

122. The BLM will be notified in writing within 30 days after removal of the drilling rig. Address corre- spondence to:

Bureau of Land Management Roswell Resource Area 2909 West Second Street Roswell, NM 88201 Attention: Realty Section

or

Bureau of Land Management Carlsbad Resource Area 620 E. Greene Carlsbad, NM 88220-6269 Attention: Realty Section

GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION

The following special conditions are attached, when needed, to the “Terms and Conditions for Notice of Intent to Conduct Geophysical Exploration.” Figure A4-2 is a copy of the Notice of Intent, located at the end of this Appendix.

123. There shall be no 3-D geophysical activities in Lesser Prairie Chicken habitat between March 15 and June 15. Other geophysical operations may be conducted during this period if they do not com- mence until after 9:00 a.m. and are not conducted between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Any deviation from this requirement must be approved by the Authorized Officer.

124. All gas or diesel combustion engines must have mufflers installed to effectively reduce the impact of excessive noise levels within Lesser Prairie chicken habitat.

125. Sand dune lizard study sites (See Exhibit , map) identified in the project area shall be avoided by vehicles involved in geophysical operations. A flagged buffer zone surrounding the study sites will iden- tify the areas of concern. No ATVs shall be driven within the study sites. Geophones shall be hand carried onto the study sites. Drive-arounds shall be strictly adhered to within the study site areas.

126. Geophysical operations at sand dune lizard study sites will be monitored. One day prior to com- mencing geophysical operations within the immediate areas of sand dune lizard study sites, the geo- physical company’s representative shall call at .

127. All large, hummocky sand dunes encountered during geophysical operations shall be avoided by driving around the sand dunes.

AP2-18 APPENDIX 2

128. Any large trees (e.g., soapberry, elm, or large mesquite) encountered in the area of operations shall be avoided and shall not be disturbed.

129. Playas shall be avoided by using re-routes or skips.

130. Wildlife watering facilities shall be avoided by using re-routes or skips.

131. Archaeological sites shall be avoided by adhering to the re-routes flagged in the field, which are listed in the attachment to the NOI. Additional cultural resources protections provided in cultural report , which are listed in the attachment, shall be followed.

132. Any fence needing to be cut during operations to allow access shall be immediately repaired to a condition as good as or better than the condition in which the fence was found. No fence shall be removed.

133. Where appropriate, disturbed areas shall be rehabilitated as directed by the Authorized Officer. Rehabilitation techniques may include, but are not limited to: ripping, disking, or other seed bed prepara- tion; reseeding; placement of erosion control devices; and berming, barricading, and/or signing geophysi- cal routes where they cross roads.

134. Operations shall be suspended when, in the judgement of the Authorized Officer, they have the possibility of unduly harming the surface during periods of wet weather or drought.

FILMING PERMITS

135. All vehicular traffic shall be confined to existing roads.

136. No blading or clearing of any vegetation shall be allowed unless approved in writing by the Autho- rized Officer.

137. Upon cancellation, relinquishment, or expiration of this authorization, the holder shall comply with rehabilitation procedures prescribed by the Authorized Officer.

138. The holder shall notify the Authorized Officer upon completion of operations so that a compliance check can be conducted.

139. Acknowledgment, through the film credits, shall be given to: the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Roswell Resource Area.

140. The permittee shall provide the BLM with proof of an insurance policy, naming the Bureau of Land Management as “additionally insured” or “co-insured”.

141. The permittee shall provide the appropriate resource area office with a copy of the finished film product within two weeks of public distribution.

AP2-19 APPENDIX 2

FIGUREA2-2

FORM APPROVED Form 31S0-4a OMB NO. 1004-0162 (July 1993) UNITED STATfS BlpiM: April 30, 1996 DEPARTMENT OF 1liE INTERIOR Bl..MCueNo. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TERMS AND CONDmCINS FOR NOnCE OF INTENT TO CONDUCT QEC tiYSICAL EXPLORAnON

Compaay Name O.raNOIFUed Compeay Projec:l Name 1511• CIIIDI 7Jp Code OENERAL

1. A copy of the approved Notice of Intent to Conduct Oil and Ou Geophysical Exploration Operation• and Ter1111 and Condition• shall be kept in the field with each seismic crew.

2. Tbe BUd shall be notified atleut 3 days and no more than 14 days before enterin& onto public lands. If conditions have chanpd, additional terms and conditions may be necessary.

3. The operator is responsible for informina all persona in tbe area who are associated with this project that they will be subject to prosecution for knowinaly disturbina historic or archaeoloaical sites, or ror collectina artifact~. If historic or archaeoloaical materials are discovered, the operator is to immediately stop work that miaht further disturb such materials, and contact the Authorized Officer (AO). Within five worltina daya the AO will inform the operator as to:

• Whether the materials appear eliaible for the National Resister of Historic Places; • The mitiaation measures the operator will likely have to undertake before the site can be used (assumina in situ preservation is not necessary); and, • A timeframe for the AO to complete an expedited review under 36 CPR 800.1lto confirm, through the State Historic Preservation Ofrtcer, that the fmdinp of the AO are correct and that mitiaation is appropriate.

If the operator wishes, at any time, to relocate activities to avoid the expense of mitiaation and/or delays associated with this process, the AO will assume responsibility Cor whatever recordation and stabilization or the exposed materials may be Rquired. Otherwise, the operator will be responsible for mitigation cosrs. The AO will provide technical and procedural guidelines Cor the conduct of mitiaation. Upon verification from the AO that the RqUired mitiaation has been completed, the operator will then be allowed to resume operations.

4. Due care must be taken to safeauard alllivestodt, wildlife, and wild horsea in the vicinity of tbe exploration operations. Measurea to mitiaate adverse effects on protected or threatened/endanaered species will be determined by tbe AO al\er consultation with the operator.

S. Operations shall be suspended when in the judament of the Authorized OffiCer they have the possibility or unduly harm ina the surface durina periods of wet weather.

6. Range improvemenrs (fences, reservoirs, etc.) or land treatment projects (contour furrowing. seeding. or ranae monitoring sites) shall not be disturbed or altered without prior written approval of the Authorized Off=r.

7. Federally owned or controlled water shall not be used without written permission of the Authorized OffiCer.

8. All fares set or caused as a result of these exploration operations shall be extinauisbed without expense to the govemmenL All fires shall be reported to tbe BUd as soon as possible.

9. The operator shall notify tbe Authorized Officer in writing of any changes in the oriainal application and secure written approval for the changes before proceeding.

10. When it is determined that activities will come closer tban one quarter (1/4) mile of developed recreation sites, historic trails. sprinp or Oowina water wells tbe Authorized Officer will be consulted to determine iftbe action is permissible.

11. Advanced written permission shall be obtained before cooduc:tina surface disturbina activities. This includes, but is not limited to: towina with a tractor, blading, dozing, snow removal, and vegetation removal.

12. Powder magazines and explosives shall be stored and handled according to U.S. Bureau of AlcohCII, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) standards. As required by ATF, loaded shotholes shall not be left unsecured.

(COIIIinueJ on reverse)

AP2-20 APPENDIX 2

FIGURE A2-2 (continued)

REC~TIO~CLEANUP

1. Reclamation of disturbed areas shall be done CXlllCUtfeDtly with the geophysical operation, in-so-far as possible.

2. Shallow bole plugging ·shall be completed using the guidelines developed by the appropriate State/local regulatory agency or agencies and the Bureau of Land Management State Office. The requirements vary from Slate to State; therefore, those specific to the State the project is being conducted in will be followed.

3. Where appropriate, disturbed areas shall be reseeded, as directed by the Authorized Officer, until vegetative cover is established that is commensurate with pre-survey conditions. In areas where reseeding is not appropriate, the authorized officer shall determine what steps should be taken.

4. All trash, flagging, lath, etc. shall be removed 8lld hauled to an authorized disposal site.

S. No oil or lubricants shall be drained onto the ground surface.

6. The operator shall notify the Authorized Officer of the date operations are completed.

COMPLETION OF PROCEDURES

1. A Notice of Completion (NOC) (Form 3150-S) shall be filed within 30 days of completion of operations induding reclamation. A map (minimum scale of 1:24,000) must be artacbed to the NOC showina public lands crossed and the final location of source points.

I understand and agree to oomply with these terms 8lld cooditions and any attached special conditions.

(Signature ofAppropriate Represetllative) (Date)

0 Special Conditions Artacbed

AP2-21 APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 3 PRACTICES FOR OIL AND GAS DRILLING AND OPERATIONS IN CAVE AND KARST AREAS

This appendix describes practices for detecting and avoiding significant caves and significant karst features with respect to oil and gas drilling, and for mitigating impacts to significant caves and karst when they cannot be avoided. These mitigations are predicated on the BLM’s respon- sibilities for resource management and protection derived from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. The practices described here supersede those of the Draft “Interim Guide for Oil and Gas Drilling and Operations in Cave and Karst Areas” (February 1993).

POTENTIAL FOR CAVES OR KARST further divided into smaller geographic areas to provide an additional means of identification of a A map of cave or karst potential will be maintained specific area (See Table A3-1 and Map A3-1). An to provide the public with current information estimate has been made for each of these areas about the likelihood of the presence of cave or as to the lowest likely depth at which caves might karst resources. The map will serve as an indi- be expected. Again, this is simply a source of cator of the potential for encountering caves or information for individuals or companies contem- karst for which special practices could be re- plating the leasing of federal minerals. quired, following NEPA analysis, to mitigate drill- ing impacts. The primary use of the map is as a The lease notice “Potential Cave or Karst Occur- source of information for individuals or compa- rence Area” (Roswell 46), will be applied to leases nies contemplating the leasing of federal miner- when all or part of the lease is located in a high als. or medium potential cave or karst occurrence area. Refer to Figure A3-1 for an example of the Three zones of cave or karst occurrence have lease notice. The purpose of the lease notice, as been identified and categorized: high potential; with maps of cave or karst potential, is to provide medium potential; and low potential. Areas that information to the purchasers of federal oil and contain known cave or karst features are in the gas leases. high potential zone. Areas containing known soluble rock formations with the potential for cave Because the identification of cave or karst poten- or karst development are in the medium poten- tial zones is only informational, the mitigations tial zone. These zones were identified using geo- described below will be applied, when and where logic maps and existing information on caves and appropriate, irrespective of any identified zone of karst. All other lands fall into the low potential cave or karst potential. However, the emphasis zone. These zones may be increased or de- of management will be on caves presently desig- creased in size as new information from drilling, nated significant or on those designated in the cave exploration or other sources becomes avail- future as significant, and on significant karst fea- able. tures.

The cave or karst occurrence zones have been

AP3-1 APPENDIX 3

TABLE A3-1 CAVE OR KARST OCCURRENCE AREAS ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Area 1/ Area Name Depth 2/ Potential 3/

1 Malpais 500 High 2 Fort Stanton 400 Medium 3 Carrizozo None Low 4 Corona 400 Medium 5 Cibola None Low 6 Cibola 2 None Low 7 Border Hill 500 Medium 8 Salt Creek 400 High 9 Artesia None Low 10 Buffalo Hills 350 High 11 Chaves-DeBaca 400 Medium 12 East RRA None Low

1/ Refers to areas on the “Cave or Karst Occurrence Areas” map for the Roswell Resource Area.

2/ Lowest likely depth, in feet, at which caves might be expected, measured from the surface. No cave depths are estimated for low potential areas.

3/ Potential for cave or karst occurrence.

Source: BLM files, 1994.

AP3-2 Cave or Karst Occurrence Areas APPENDIX 3

High Potential Oil & Gas Potential Occurrence Boundaries Medium Potential H = High Potential Low Potential M Moderate Potential

L Low Potential

NOTE - The table associated with this map shows the relative depth of each area shown on this map. For example, area number 1 is the Malpais Area which has a high potential for the occurrence of caves/karst features to a depth of 500 feet.

NORTH

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

MAP A3-l CAVE or KARST OCCURRENCE AREAS Roswell Resource Area AP3-3 APPENDIX 3

FIGURE A3-1

LEASE NOTICE

Potential Cave or Karst Occurrence Area

All or portions of the lease are located in a potential cave or karst occurrence area. Within this area, caves or karst features such as sinkholes, passages, and large rooms may be encountered from the surface to a depth of as much as 2,500 feet, within surface areas ranging from a few acres to hundreds of acres. Due to the sensitive nature of the cave or karst systems of this area, special protective measures may be developed during environmental analyses and be required as part of approvals for drilling or other operations on this lease. These measures could include: relocation of the proposed well; changes in drilling operations; special casing and cementing programs; modifications to surface facilities; or other reasonable measures to mitigate impacts to cave or karst values. These measures may be imposed in accordance with 43 CFR 3101.1-2; 43 CFR 3162.5-1; Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1; and Section 6 of the lease terms.

Roswell 46 February 1991

MITIGATION OF DRILLING IMPACTS dressed in the NEPA analysis and appropriate mitigations will be developed, if needed, as part The need to relocate drilling locations to avoid of the analysis. caves or karst, and any special drilling or produc- tion practices employed to mitigate impacts to Depending on the results of detection, avoidance caves or karst, will be determined during the will be considered as a means of mitigating po- NEPA analysis of APDs or other applications. The tential impacts. In most cases, avoidance will be practices described below will be applied where accomplished by relocation of the proposed well needed, and to the extent necessary, to ensure location, which is often done in consultation with that the potential impacts of drilling oil or gas wells, the operator at the time of a field examination. or of constructing other facilities, in cave or karst Moving a proposed location up to 200 meters is areas would be minimized according to the fol- a commonly employed avoidance measure. The lowing process: need to move a location more than 200 meters will be addressed in the NEPA analysis of an APD. (1)Detect potential cave or karst resources and If the construction of a pipeline, road, power line determine their significance. or other facility is proposed, rerouting or reloca- tion will be required to accomplish avoidance. (2)Avoid cave or karst resources where possible. The management of oil and gas operations in (3)Mitigate impacts to caves or karst that cannot cave or karst areas, including approvals for drill- be avoided. ing oil or gas wells, will be guided by procedures described below, Surface Use and Occupancy The results of any detection efforts will be ad- Requirements (Appendix 1), and Conditions of Approval (Appendix 2). These practices will be

AP3-4 APPENDIX 3 modified as new and cost effective technologies Approval (Appendix 2); for cave and karst protection become available. • The installation of leak detection systems Detection Methods for pipelines or tanks;

The primary detection method will be the review • The use of permanent liners in storage of BLM or other records on the presence of caves tank areas; or karst features in the area of interest, in con- junction with a field exam by a BLM employee or • The use of differential pressure shut-off cave inventory contractor to determine the pres- valves; ence of unrecorded cave or karst features. De- pending on the results of initial detection efforts • The use of corrosion-inhibiting coatings and a determination of potential significance by and cathodic protection. the BLM, cave exploration could be employed to gain additional information. As various geophysi- Practices to minimize the potential impacts of cal techniques are proven useful for cave detec- vented or escaping gases settling in caves: tion and become generally available for use, they may be considered on a case-by-case basis as a • The flaring or venting of gas to protect hu- means of locating unrecorded cave or karst fea- man safety and to better disperse the gases tures. and eliminate possible gas ignitions;

Surface Mitigation • The use of stock tank vapor recovery sys- tems. Whether or not a proposed activity has been re- located to reduce potential impacts on caves or Subsurface Mitigation karst, surface mitigations will be applied, when needed, to minimize the risk of impacts during Applicable and reasonable subsurface mitigations construction, drilling or production. Appropriate will be applied where the presence of caves or surface mitigations will be developed during the karst is obvious or expected, based on the re- NEPA analysis of a proposal and could include sults of detection efforts, and in lost circulation one or more of the following practices, most of zones. The options could include, but are not which have long been employed to mitigate im- limited to, the following practices. pacts. Drilling: Practices to minimize potential impacts from re- serve pit spills or leakage: • Cable tool drilling techniques will be used when possible in areas where encounters of • The use of a closed system or steel tanks; caves or karst are expected at depths not greater that 350 feet. • Reorientation of the rig and related pit lo- cation, while giving consideration to human • Rotary drilling techniques in cave or karst safety; areas will include the use of either fresh wa- ter mud, foam, or compressed air as a circu- Practices to minimize potential impacts from leak- lating medium in zones where caves or karst ing tanks or pipelines: are expected. Below those zones, the op- erator may use whatever drilling fluid is ap- • The construction of berms around stor- propriate. age tanks sufficient to contain spills, in ac- cordance with Roswell District Conditions of

AP3-5 APPENDIX 3

Casing and Cementing: 3.Foam cementing techniques may be used.

• All casing will meet or exceed National As- Any corrective actions proposed to resolve prob- sociation of Corrosion Engineers specifica- lems related to bit drops or lost circulation will tions pertaining to the geology of the location require BLM concurrence before implementation. and be run according to American Petroleum A decision on how to proceed will be reached Institute and BLM standards. within 24 hours of notification.

•A “cave protection” casing could be re- MONITORING DRILLING OPERATIONS quired in instances when a designated sig- nificant cave would be jeopardized. The cave- Where the presence of significant caves or sig- protection casing string would be set at least nificant karst features are obvious or expected 100 feet below the deepest known cave-bear- based on the results of detection efforts, and in ing zone as determined by drilling or other lost circulation zones, constant monitoring of drill- pertinent methods. ing operations by the BLM could be required.

• Regardless of the type of drilling machin- MONITORING PRODUCTION OPERATIONS ery used, if bit drops of four feet or more and circulation losses greater than 75 percent oc- On wells within one-half mile of significant caves, cur simultaneously while drilling in any cave- annual pressure tests will be performed by the bearing zone, drilling operations will immedi- Operator on all casing annuli. If the test results ately stop and the BLM will be notified by the indicated a casing failure, remedial actions ap- Operator. The BLM will assess the conse- proved by the BLM will be undertaken to correct quences of the situation and work with the the problem. Operator on corrective actions to resolve the problem. If corrective actions fail, the well will PLUGGING AND ABANDONMENT be plugged. The BLM standards for plugging and abandon- • The casing will be cemented in place us- ment in Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 2 will be ing one or a combination of any of the follow- applied to protect or isolate all useable water ing methods that are environmentally sound, zones, potentially productive zones, lost circula- as determined by the BLM and the Operator: tion zones, abnormally pressured zones, caves, and any prospectively valuable deposits of min- 1. If a large void or severe lost circulation erals. This includes any zones encountered dur- zone is encountered, isolation from above and ing drilling that contain fluids with a potential to below rather than complete cement coverage migrate. of these zones could be employed. This would be accomplished by using stage cementing RECORD KEEPING equipment, external casing packers, cement baskets, and one-inch remedial cementing The Operator will track the customary drilling ac- techniques. tivities, including the rate of penetration, pump pressure, weight on bit, bit drops, percent of mud 2. For a less severe lost circulation zone en- returns, and presence or absence of cuttings re- countered while drilling, the operator would turning to the surface. As part of customary attempt to circulate cement to the surface record keeping, each detectable void or sudden using a single or multistage cementing job increase in the rate of penetration not attribut- composed of a “lead” and “tail” slurry for each able to a change in the formation type should be stage. documented and evaluated as it is encountered.

AP3-6 APPENDIX 3

The BLM may review data held by companies on wells drilled in cave or karst areas, to gain infor- mation about impacts to caves and karst. This information will be used to categorize lost-circu- lation zones on the basis of depth, relative vol- ume, and severity, and to evaluate and compare the relative success or failure of different remedies attempted to combat lost-circulation problems while drilling and cementing casing in these zones. This information also will be used to up- date information about the occurrence of cave and karst features. Information concerning cave resources gathered during drilling will be submit- ted, as well, to be retained by the BLM in accor- dance with the Roswell District Cave Manage- ment Plan and the regulations implementing the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act.

AP3-7 APPENDIX 4 WITHDRAWN LANDS

This appendix describes existing withdrawals and classifications in the Roswell Resource Area, including size, status and purpose.

AP4-1 APPENDIX 4

TABLE A4-1 EXISTING WITHDRAWALS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Authority Locations Acres Purpose Surface Segregative Mgmt. Effect Agency

SO 5/1/1929 T. 4 N., R. 18 E.; 80.00 Air Navigation Site No. 29 Private Public Land Laws NM 52408 T. 3 N., R. 23 E. PLO 2637 T. 11 S., R. 22 E.; 2,589.74 Two Rivers Reservoir Project Area COE Public Land Laws generally, including 3/21/1962 T. 12 S., R. 22 E. Mining Laws NM 088292 PLO 6182 T. 12 N., R. 30 E. 52.70 NM Army National Guard Training Site COE Settlement, Sale, Location, Entry, NM 23614 including Mining Laws PLO 2447 T. 10 S., R. 25, 26 E. 325.00 Nike Hercules Defense Site DOD Public Land Laws including Mining NM 061544 Laws PLO 2794 T. 1 S., R. 35 E.; 711.21 Blackwater Draw Private Prospecting, Location, Entry, Purchase NM 0268899 T. 1 S., R. 36 E. under the Mining Law

EO 4/1/1899 27,620.00 Fort Stanton BLM Public Land Laws NM 52330 NM 25765 T. 1, 2 N.,R. 30 E.; 6,713.90 Melrose Bombing Range COE All forms of appropriation, incl. general T. 1 S., R. 30 E. Mining Laws and Mineral Leasing Laws EO 4/6/1917 T. 7 S., R. 11 E. 6.00 Power Site Reserve No. 596 Private Settlement, Sale, Location, Entry NM 52344

PLO 3526 T. 10 N., R. 31 E. 480.00 Tucumcari Reclamation Project, BOR Closed to surface entry (mineral estate NM 0554897 Regulator Reservoir No. 2 reserved to State) PLO 3632 T. 5 N., R. 24 E. 160.00 Sumner Dam and Lake portion of BOR Closed to Surface Entry and Mining, NM 0555214 Carlsbad Project but not Mineral Leasing

PLO 3632 T. 4 N., R. 24 E. 122.97 Fort Sumner Reservoir BOR Closed to Surface Entry and Mining, NM 52396 but not Mineral Leasing

PLO 3632 T. 5, 6 N., R. 23, 24 E. 7,839.625 Fort Sumner Dam BOR Closed to Surface Entry and Mining, NM 52390 but not Mineral Leasing PLO 4798 T. 10 N., R. 31 E. 160.00 Tucumcari Reclamation Project BOR Closed to Surface Entry (minerals not owned by U.S.) APPENDIX 4

TABLE A4-1 EXISTING WITHDRAWALS AND CLASSIFICATIONS

Authority Locations Acres Purpose Surface Segregative Mgmt. Effect Agency

SO 8/11/1944 T. 12 N., R. 29 E. 6.50 Tucumcari Project, Conchas Canal BOR Closed to Surface Entry and Mining, NM 52398 but not Mineral Leasing NM 77962 T. 4, 5 N., R. 23, 24 E. 3,125.93 Sumner Dam and Reservoir BOR Settlement, Sale, Location, Entry, incl. Mining Law, but not Mineral Leasing EO 5/25/1921 T. 9 S., R. 13 E. 15.21 Public Water Reserve No. 77 BLM Settlement, Sale, Non-metalliferous NM 42942 Mineral Entry EO 5/25/1921 T. 14 S., R. 22 E. 120.00 Public Water Reserve No. 228 BLM Settlement, Sale, Non-metalliferous NM 42952 Mineral Entry EO 5/25/1921 T. 6,10 S.,R. 9 E.; 200.00 Public Water Reserve No. 107 BLM Settlement, Sale, Non-metalliferous NM 42954 T. 8, 5 S., R. 8, 25 E. Mineral Entry EO 5/25/1921 T. 7, 8, 10 S., R. 17 E. 333.30 Public Water Reserve No. 107 BLM Settlement, Sale, Non-metalliferous NM 42958 Mineral Entry C&MU 929 66.17 Mescalero Sands Recreation Complex BLM Public Land Laws incl. general Mining Laws and Mineral Leasing Laws Classi- 40.00 Torgac Cave BLM Public Land Laws incl. general Mining fication 2639 Laws and Mineral Leasing Laws

Abbreviations: SO Secretarial Order COE Corps of Engineers PLO Public Land Order DOD Department of Defense NM New Mexico BOR Bureau of Reclamation EO Executive Order C&MU Classification and Multiple Use (Act)

Source: BLM New Mexico State Office, 1994. APPENDIX 5 ACQUISITION, RETENTION, AND DISPOSAL CRITERIA

This appendix describes the criteria that would be applied to lands in the Roswell Resource Area that may be suitable for acquisition by the BLM, for disposal by the BLM, or for retention. The criteria are one part of the process in determining suitability.

ACQUISITION and RETENTION estates; CRITERIA ! Requires acquisition in response to a federal project need: Lands meeting the following criteria will be a. When development of a federal considered for retention or acquisition: project precludes the mineral estate owner from exercising development ! Facilitates access to areas retained rights. for long-term public use; b. When the exercise of the mineral ! Enhances Congressionally designated estate owner's right of development areas, rivers or trails; would materially interfere with the ! Facilitates national, state and local federal project. BLM priorities; ! Secures significant water-related Recreation lands meeting any of the lands for the public, including lake following criteria will be considered for shore, river front, stream or pond retention or acquisition: sites; ! Has important riparian or wetland ! Presence of national values, such as areas; Congressionally designated areas, ! Has significant caves where a portion rivers, or trails or sites; of the cave is located on public lands; ! Presence of values that enhance recreation trails and waterways or the Cultural sites meeting the following interstate, state, and multi-county use; evaluation standards will be considered for ! Presence of local values or retention or acquisition: opportunities for extensive use, such as hunting, fishing, OHV, and caves; ! Offers high research values; ! Possesses moderate scarcity in terms Acquisition will be considered for inholdings of similar sites; within the boundaries of Congressionally ! Possesses some unique value, such designated wilderness areas under BLM as association with an important administration. Lands adjacent to wilderness historic person, or high aesthetic areas that enhance the management of the value; area could be considered for retention or ! Contributes significantly to the acquisition. interpretive potential of cultural resources already in public ownership. Lands providing significant wildlife values will be considered for retention or acquisition Minerals will be considered for acquisition based on any of the following criteria: based on the following criteria: ! Presence of threatened or ! Offers consolidation of mineral endangered species;

AP5-1 APPENDIX 5

a. Federally listed species yearlong source of water and as b. Federal candidate species riparian habitat; c. State listed species of special ! Provides significant wildlife values. concern ! Presence of fisheries; The acquisition of public access (easements) ! Presence of big game or upland game will be considered in situations where: habitat such as: crucial winter areas; kidding, fawning, or calving areas; ! Public land access is interrupted by security areas; and crucial breeding, private- or state-owned inholdings on nesting, resting, roosting, feeding, and existing roads that originate from wintering habitat areas; county or state roads; ! Presence of migratory bird or ! Public access is needed to resolve waterfowl crucial breeding, nesting, user conflicts; resting, roosting, feeding and ! Access is needed to enhance wintering habitat areas; management of public lands. ! Presence of existing or potential nesting areas for sensitive species of DISPOSAL CRITERIA raptors; ! Presence of nongame crucial habitat Parcels of BLM land will be identified for areas. disposal through sale or exchange under the authority of Sections 203 and 206 of the Acquisition or retention of riparian or wetland Federal Land Policy and Management Act of habitat will be considered based on any of 1976. The following criteria will be used to the following criteria: identify parcels for disposal:

! Presence of a riparian plant 1. A tract because of its location or other community; characteristics is difficult and ! Presence of surface water for most of uneconomic to manage as part of the the year; public lands, and is not suitable for ! Presence of wetland soils indicative of management by another federal wetland conditions; department or agency. ! Potential to support threatened or 2. A tract was acquired for a specific endangered species; purpose and the tract is no longer ! Potential for fisheries; required for that or any other federal ! Adjacent to public lands supporting purpose. riparian or wetland habitat. 3. Disposal of a tract will serve important public objectives, including but not Acquisition or retention of playa lakes will be limited to, expansion of communities considered based on the following criteria: and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or ! Adjacent to public lands supporting feasibly on land other than public land playas, sinkholes, or alkali lakes; and which outweigh other public ! Presence of seasonal or yearlong objectives and values, including, but surface water; not limited to, recreation and scenic ! Mineral estate owned by the federal values, which would be served by government; maintaining a tract in federal ! Located within wildlife habitat areas ownership. (WHAs); ! Importance for waterfowl, big game or Each parcel identified for sale or exchange nongame species habitat; will be subject to certain conditions before ! Potential for development as a disposal: conformance with disposal criteria;

AP5-2 APPENDIX 5

hazardous waste, wilderness, wildlife, and notice of realty action will be subsequently riparian/wetland evaluations; and cultural and published. Parcels will be retained if the mineral resource clearances and reports. clearances, reports, or environmental The results of the evaluations and reports will analysis show any resource values worth be included in an environmental analysis. A retaining.

AP5-3 APPENDIX 6 LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR ACQUISITION

This appendix lists the legal descriptions of non-BLM lands that may be suitable for consideration for acquisition to further BLM management goals and policies. This appendix reflects a number of changes made to Appendix 9 published in the Draft Roswell RMP/EIS, which resulted from BLM and public review and comment. This list is not intended to be inclusive.

AP6-1 TABLE A6-1

LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR ACQUISITION

Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres

CHAVES COUNTY T.10S. R.30E. 02 LOT 04 39.79 T.14S. R.30E. 13 S½SE¼ 80.00 T.10S. R.30E. 02 S½ 320.00 T.14S. R.30E. 18 LOT 03 37.79 CAPROCK WHA T.10S. R.30E. 02 S½N½ 160.00 T.14S. R.30E. 18 LOT 04 37.73 T.10S. R.30E. 32 ALL 640.00 T.14S. R.30E. 18 E½ 320.00 T.14S. R.30E. 21 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 Private T.10S. R.31E. 30 E½NE¼ 80.00 T.14S. R.31E. 08 NE¼ 160.00 T.11S. R.30E. 33 E½NE¼ 80.00 T.10S. R.31E. 30 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T.14S. R.31E. 32 ALL 640.00 T.11S. R.30E 33 NE¼SW¼ 80.00 T.10S. R.31E. 30 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.15S. R.30E. 13 NE¼ 160.00 T.11S. R.30E 33 W½SE¼ 80.00 T.10S. R.31E. 30 SE¼ 160.00 T.15S. R.30E. 13 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T.11S. R.31E 29 NE¼ 160.00 T.11S. R.30E. 02 LOT 01 22.63 T.11S. R.31E 29 SE¼ 160.00 T.11S. R.30E. 02 LOT 02 22.56 T.11S. R.31E 29 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T.11S. R.30E. 02 LOT 03 22.50 Tota l - Priva te 8,480.40 T.12S. R.30E 04 N½ 320.00 T.11S. R.30E. 02 LOT 04 22.43 Tota l - Sta te 18,968.52 T.12S. R.30E 13 W½ 320.00 T.11S. R.30E. 02 S½ 320.00 Total - Caprock WHA 27,448.92 T.12S. R.31E. 05 LOT 01 39.61 T.11S. R.30E. 16 ALL 640.00 T.12S. R.31E. 05 LOT 02 39.62 T.11S. R.30E. 32 ALL 640.00 CEDAR HILLS MULE DEER AREA T.12S. R.31E. 05 LOT 03 39.64 T.11S. R.30E. 36 ALL 640.00 T.12S. R.31E. 05 LOT 04 39.65 T.11S. R.31E. 32 ALL 640.00 State T.12S. R.31E. 05 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.30E. 02 LOT 01 40.04 T.08S. R.20E. 05 LOT 01 40.30 T.12S. R.31E. 05 SW¼ 160.00 T.12S. R.30E. 02 LOT 02 39.87 T.08S. R.20E. 05 LOT 02 40.26 T.12S. R.31E. 05 S½NE¼ 80.00 T.12S. R.30E. 02 LOT 03 39.71 T.08S. R.20E. 05 SE¼ 160.00 T.12S. R.31E. 05 S½N½ 160.00 T.12S. R.30E. 02 LOT 04 39.54 T.08S. R.20E. 05 S½NE¼ 80.00 T.12S. R.31E. 22 NW¼ 160.00 T.12S. R.30E. 02 S½ 320.00 T.08S. R.20E. 16 ALL 640.00 T.12S. R.31E. 22 N½SW¼ 80.00 T.12S. R.30E. 02 S½N½ 160.00 T.12S. R.30E. 14 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.31E. 22 SE¼ 160.00 Tota l - Sta te 960.56 T.12S. R.30E. 15 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.31E. 22 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 To tal - C ed ar H ills 960.56 T.12S. R.31E. 22 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.30E. 22 N½NE¼ 80.00 T.12S. R.30E. 23 E½SE¼ 80.00 T.12S. R.31E. 27 N½ 320.00 GARNSEY BISON K ILL SITE T.12S. R.31E. 27 SE¼ 160.00 T.12S. R.30E. 23 N½N½ 160.00 T.12S. R.30E. 23 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.31E. 34 E½SE¼ 80.00 Private T.12S. R.30E. 24 E½SE¼ 80.00 T.12S. R.31E. 34 N½ 320.00 T.11S. R.26E. 35 SE¼ 160.00 T.12S. R.30E. 24 N½N½ 160.00 T.12S. R.31E. 34 SW¼ 160.00 T.12S. R.26E. 03 LOT 01 40.90 T.12S. R.30E. 24 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T.13S. R.31E. 03 LOT 01 40.25 T.12S. R.26E. 03 LOT 02 40.88 T.12S. R.30E. 25 E½E½ 160.00 T.13S. R.31E. 03 LOT 02 40.24 State T.12S. R.30E. 26 E½E½ 160.00 T.13S. R.31E. 03 LOT 03 40.22 T.11S. R.26E. 36 SW¼ 160.00 T.12S. R.30E. 26 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T.13S. R.31E. 03 LOT 04 40.21 T.12S. R.26E. 02 N½N½ 160.00 T.13S. R.31E. 03 S½ 320.00 T.12S. R.30E. 26 S½SW¼ 80.00 T.13S. R.31E. 03 S½N½ 160.00 T.12S. R.30E. 27 S½SE¼ 160.00 Tota l - Priva te 241.78 T.13S. R.31E. 10 ALL 640.00 T.12S. R.30E. 36 ALL 640.00 Tota l - Sta te 320.00 T.13S. R.31E. 22 ALL 640.00 T.12S. R.31E. 04 SW¼ 160.00 Tota l - Ga rnse y Kill S ite 561.78 T.13S. R.31E. 27 ALL 640.00 T.12S. R.31E. 05 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T.13S. R.31E. 34 ALL 640.00 T.12S. R.31E. 09 SE¼ 160.00 HAYSTACK MOUNTAIN OHV AREA T.14S. R.31E. 03 LOT 01 40.29 T.12S. R.31E. 16 ALL 640.00 T.14S. R.31E. 03 LOT 02 40.25 T.12S. R.31E. 19 E½SE¼ 80.00 Private T.14S. R.31E. 03 LOT 03 40.23 T.12S. R.31E. 19 N½N½ 160.00 T.07S. R.26E. 13 S½ 320.00 T.14S. R.31E. 03 LOT 04 40.19 T.12S. R.31E. 19 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T.07S. R.26E. 24 ALL 640.00 T.14S. R.31E. 03 S½ 320.00 T.12S. R.31E. 27 SW¼ 160.00 T.07S. R.27E. 18 N½SW¼ 80.00 T.14S. R.31E. 03 S½N½ 160.00 T.12S. R.31E. 30 LOT 04 36.56 T.07S. R.27E. 19 E½SE¼ 80.00 T.14S. R.31E. 10 ALL 640.00 T.12S. R.31E. 30 E½E½ 160.00 T.07S. R.27E. 20 E½NE¼ 80.00 T.14S. R.31E. 15 ALL 640.00 T.12S. R.31E. 30 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T.07S. R.27E. 20 SW¼ 160.00 State T.12S. R.31E. 30 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.31E. 32 ALL 640.00 T.07S. R.27E. 31 E½ 320.00 T.08S. R.30E. 36 ALL 640.00 T.13S. R.30E. 02 LOT 01 39.99 T.07S. R.27E. 18 NW¼ 160.00 T.08S. R.31E. 32 ALL 640.00 T.13S. R.30E. 02 LOT 02 40.02 T.08S. R.26E. 13 ALL 640.00 T.09S. R.30E. 02 LOT 01 39.87 T.13S. R.30E. 02 LOT 03 40.04 T.08S. R.26E. 14 ALL 640.00 T.09S. R.30E. 02 LOT 02 39.93 T.13S. R.30E. 02 LOT 04 40.07 T.07S. R.27E. 30 E½ 320.00 T.09S. R.30E. 02 LOT 03 39.99 T.13S. R.30E. 02 S½ 320.00 State T.09S. R.30E. 02 LOT 04 40.05 T.13S. R.30E. 02 S½N½ 160.00 T.07S. R.26E. 36 All 640.00 T.09S. R.30E. 02 SW¼ 160.00 T.13S. R.30E. 07 LOT 01 48.15 T.08S. R.26E. 02 ALL 640.00 T.09S. R.30E. 02 S½N½ 160.00 T.13S. R.30E. 07 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T.08S. R.27E. 06 ALL 640.00 T.09S. R.30E. 36 ALL 640.00 T.13S. R.30E. 16 ALL 640.00 T.08S. R.27E. 07 ALL 640.00 T.09S. R.31E. 32 ALL 640.00 T.13S. R.30E. 36 ALL 640.00 T.10S. R.29E. 36 ALL 640.00 T.13S. R.31E. 15 ALL 640.00 Tota l - Priva te 3,440.00 T.10S. R.30E. 02 LOT 01 39.74 T.13S. R.31E. 16 ALL 640.00 Tota l - Sta te 2,560.00 T.10S. R.30E. 02 LOT 02 39.75 T.13S. R.31E. 32 ALL 640.00 To tal - H ays tack Mo un tain 6,000.00 T.10S. R.30E. 02 LOT 03 39.77 T.14S. R.30E. 07 S½ 320.00

AP6-2 TABLE A6-1 (continued)

LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR ACQUISITION

Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres

HAYSTACK BUTTE ARCHAEOLOGICAL T.12S. R.30E. 24 E½SE¼ 80.00 T.04S. R.25E. 04 E½NE¼ 80.00 DISTRICT T.12S. R.30E. 24 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T.04S. R.25E. 11 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.30E. 25 E½E½ 160.00 T.04S. R.25E. 12 N½NE¼ 80.00 Private T.12S. R.30E. 26 E½NE¼ 80.00 T.04S. R.25E. 12 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T.06S. R.27E. 33 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.30E. 26 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T.04S. R.25E. 12 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 State T.12S. R.30E. 26 S½S½ 160.00 T.04S. R.25E. 14 N½NE¼ 80.00 T.06S. R.27E. 32 ALL 640.00 T.12S. R.30E. 27 S½SE¼ 80.00 T.04S. R.25E. 14 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.31E. 19 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T.04S. R.25E. 23 E½SE¼ 80.00 Tota l - Priva te 40.00 T.12S. R.31E. 19 E½SW¼ 80.00 T.04S. R.25E. 23 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 Tota l - Sta te 640.00 T.12S. R.31E. 30 E½E½ 160.00 T.04S. R.25E. 24 W½W½ 160.00 Tota l - Ha ysta ck B utte T.12S. R.31E. 30 LOT 04 36.56 T.04S. R.25E. 26 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 680.00 T.12S. R.31E. 30 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 State T.12S. R.31E. 30 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T.04S. R.25E. 02 E½SW¼ 80.00 MESCALERO SANDS ACEC T.04S. R.25E. 02 SE¼ 160.00 Tota l -Sta te 2,326.68 T.04S. R.25E. 02 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 Private Total- Mescalero Sands area 2,326.68 T.04S. R.25E. 02 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.30E. 13 W½ 320.00 T.04S. R.25E. 02 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.30E. 01 SE¼ 160.00 OVERFLOW WETLANDS ACEC T.04S. R.25E. 23 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.31E. 06 LOT 06 36.58 T.04S. R.25E. 26 E½SE¼ 80.00 T.12S. R.31E. 06 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 Private T.04S. R.25E. 26 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.31E. 06 N½SE¼ 80.00 T.12S. R.26E. 03 LOT 03 41.06 T.04S. R.25E. 35 E½E½ 160.00 State T.12S. R.26E. 03 LOT 04 41.15 T.04S. R.25E. 36 ALL 640.00 T.11S. R.30E. 36 ALL 640.00 T.12S. R.26E. 03 NW¼SE¼ 41.06 T.12S. R.30E. 02 ALL 640.00 T.12S. R.26E. 03 SW¼ 160.00 Tota l - Priva te 1,400.00 T.12S. R.30E. 14 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.26E. 03 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 Tota l - Sta te 1,320.00 T.12S. R.30E. 23 N½N½ 160.00 T.12S. R.26E. 03 S½NW¼ 80.00 Total - Pecos River ACEC 2,720.00 T.12S. R.30E. 24 N½N½ 160.00 T.12S. R.26E. 05 LOT 02 33.66 T.12S. R.31E. 19 LOT 01 36.56 T.12S. R.26E. 05 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 OTHER PECOS RIVER AREA T.12S. R.31E. 19 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.26E. 08 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.31E. 19 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.26E. 08 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 Private T.12S. R.31E. 19 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.26E. 08 W½E½ 160.00 T.05S. R.25E. 23 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.26E. 08 W½NE¼ 80.00 T.05S. R.25E. 23 S½SE¼ 80.00 Tota l - Priva te 636.58 T.12S. R.26E. 09 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T.05S. R.25E. 24 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 Tota l - Sta te 1,796.56 T.12S. R.26E. 09 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T.05S. R.25E. 26 NW¼ 160.00 Total - Mescalero Sands ACEC 2,433.14 T.12S. R.26E. 10 E½ 320.00 T.05S. R.25E. 26 N½NE¼ 80.00 T.12S. R.26E. 10 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T.05S. R.25E. 26 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 MESCALERO SANDS NORTH DUNE OHV T.12S. R.26E. 15 W½E½ 160.00 T.05S. R.25E. 26 W½SW¼ 80.00 AREA T.12S. R.26E. 17 W½NW¼ 80.00 T.05S. R.25E. 35 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.26E. 20 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.06S. R.26E. 09 E½E½ 80.00 Private T.12S. R.26E. 21 N½NW¼ 80.00 T.06S. R.26E. 09 E½W½ 80.00 T.11S. R.31E. 05 LOT 03 22.26 State T.06S. R.26E. 28 W½SW¼ 80.00 T.11S. R.31E. 05 LOT 04 22.45 T.11S. R.25E. 36 ALL 640.00 T.06S. R.26E. 32 N½SE¼ 80.00 T.11S. R.31E. 05 SW¼ 160.00 T.12S. R.26E. 15 W½ 320.00 T.06S. R.26E. 32 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T.11S. R.31E. 06 LOT 01 22.58 T.12S. R.26E. 16 ALL 640.00 T.06S. R.26E. 32 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.11S. R.31E. 06 LOT 02 22.66 T.12S. R.26E. 21 N½NE¼ 80.00 T.06S. R.26E. 32 W½SE¼ 80.00 T.11S. R.31E. 06 SE¼ 160.00 T.12S. R.26E. 22 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T.06S. R.26E. 33 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T.07S. R.26E. 17 N½S½ 160.00 T.07S. R.26E. 17 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 Tota l -Priva te 409.95 Tota l - Priva te 1,596.93 T.07S. R.26E. 17 S½NW¼ 80.00 Total -Mescalero Sands OHV Area409.95 Tota l - Sta te 1,720.00 T.07S. R.26E. 20 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 Total - Overflow Wetlands 3,316.93 T.07S. R.26E. 20 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 OTHER MESCALERO SANDS AREA T.07S. R.26E. 29 E½SW¼ 80.00 T.07S. R.26E. 29 N½NE¼ 80.00 State NORTH PECOS RIVER ACEC T.07S. R.26E. 29 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T.10S. R.30E. 32 ALL 640.00 T.07S. R.26E. 29 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.11S. R.30E. 02 LOT 01 22.63 Private T.07S. R.26E. 29 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T.11S. R.30E. 02 LOT 02 22.56 T.04S. R.25E. 01 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T.07S. R.26E. 31 N½SE¼ 80.00 T.11S. R.30E. 02 LOT 03 22.50 T.04S. R.25E. 01 W½W½ 160.00 T.07S. R.26E. 31 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T.11S. R.30E. 02 LOT 04 22.43 T.04S. R.25E. 02 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T.07S. R.26E. 31 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T.11S. R.30E. 02 S½ 320.00 T.04S. R.25E. 02 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T.09S. R.25E. 02 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.30E. 15 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.04S. R.25E. 03 NW¼ 160.00 T.09S. R.25E. 02 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.30E. 22 N½NE¼ 80.00 T.04S. R.25E. 03 N½S½ 160.00 T.09S. R.25E. 11 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.30E. 23 E½SE¼ 80.00 T.04S. R.25E. 03 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T.09S. R.25E. 11 SW¼ 160.00 T.12S. R.30E. 23 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T.04S. R.25E. 03 SW¼NE¼ 40.00

AP6-3 TABLE A6-1 (continued)

LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR ACQUISITION

Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres

T.09S. R.25E. 14 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 PLAYA LAKES T.10S. R.14E. 08 N½N½ 160.00 T.09S. R.25E. 14 T.10S. R.14E. 09 LOT 03 16.48 W½NE¼NW¼ 20.00 Private T.10S. R.14E. 09 LOT 04 30.56 T.09S. R.25E. 22 N½NE¼ 80.00 T.06S. R.20E. 28 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T.10S. R.14E. 09 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T.10S. R.25E. 33 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T.06S. R.23E. 28 SE¼ 160.00 T.10S. R.14E. 09 S½NW¼ 160.00 T.10S. R.25E. 34 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.07S. R.29E. 13 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 State T.10S. R.25E. 34 N½NW¼ 80.00 T.07S. R.29E. 24 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T.09S. R.14E. 29 W½SW¼ 80.00 T.10S. R.25E. 34 SW¼ 160.00 T.07S. R.30E. 18 LOT 01 42.34 T.09S. R.14E. 32 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T.10S. R.25E. 34 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T.07S. R.30E. 18 LOT 02 42.23 T.09S. R.14E. 32 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T.10S. R.25E. 34 W½SE¼ 80.00 T.07S. R.30E. 18 LOT 03 42.12 T.09S. R.14E. 32 W½NW¼ 80.00 T.12S. R.26E. 33 T.07S. R.30E. 18 LOT 04 42.01 T.09S. R.15E. 36 ALL 640.00 S½S½S½SE¼SE¼ 5.00 T.07S. R.30E. 18 E½W½ 160.00 T.10S. R.14E. 16 NW¼ 160.00 T.12S. R.26E. 33 T.07S. R.30E. 19 LOT 01 41.90 T.10S. R.14E. 16 SE¼ 160.00 S½S½S½SW ¼SE¼ 5.00 T.07S. R.30E. 19 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T.10S. R.14E. 16 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T.12S. R.26E. 33 T.08S. R.24E. 03 W½SE¼ 80.00 T.10S. R.14E. 16 SW¼ 160.00 S½S½S½SW¼SW¼ 5.00 T.09S. R.30E. 07 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T.10S. R.14E. 16 W½NE¼ 80.00 T.12S. R.26E. 34 T.13S. R.26E. 01 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T.10S. R.16E. 02 E½NW¼ 80.00 S½S½S½SW¼SW¼ 3.11 T.14S. R.25E. 26 S½SE¼ 80.00 T.10S. R.16E. 02 NE¼ 160.00 T.13S. R.26E. 03 LOT 04 33.48 T.14S. R.30E. 06 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T.10S. R.16E. 02 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T.13S. R.26E. 03 T.14S. R.30E. 06 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 N½SW¼NW¼ 20.00 State Tota l - Priva te 1,264.76 T.13S. R.26E. 03 T.14S. R.30E. 06 LOT 07 37.90 Tota l - Sta te 1,760.00 S½SW¼NW¼ 20.00 T.14S. R.30E. 07 LOT 01 37.92 Total - Fort Stanton 3,024.76 T.13S. R.26E. 03 W½SW¼ 80.00 T.14S. R.30E. 07 LOT 02 37.93 T.13S. R.26E. 04 LOT 01 42.70 T.14S. R.30E. 07 E½NW¼ 160.00 PLAYAS T.13S. R.26E. 04 LOT 02 42.66 T.14S. R.30E. 18 LOT 01 37.91 T.13S. R.26E. 04 LOT 03 42.61 T.14S. R.30E. 18 LOT 02 37.85 Private T.13S. R.26E. 04 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T.14S. R.30E. 18 E½W½ 160.00 T.06S. R.09E. 11 N½NW¼ 80.00 T.13S. R.26E. 04 T.08S. R.14E. 18 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 N½SW¼ NE¼ Tota l - Priva te 1,010.60 20.00 Tota l - Sta te 509.51 Tota l - Priva te 120.00 T.13S. R.26E. 04 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 Total - Playa Lakes 1,520.11 Total - Playas 120.00 T.13S. R.26E. 04 SE¼NW¼ 30.00 T.13S. R.26E. 04 PECOS RIVER DEER HABITAT W½S½SW ¼NE¼ 5.00 T.13S. R.26E. 10 NW¼NW¼ 20.00 State T.13S. R.26E. 14 E½ 160.00 T.06S. R.27E. 16 ALL 640.00 T.13S. R.26E. 14 SW¼ 160.00 VALLEY OF FIRES T.06S. R.27E. 32 ALL 640.00 T.13S. R.26E. 14 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T.07S. R.26E. 36 ALL 640.00 T.13S. R.26E. 14 Private T.08S. R.26E. 02 ALL 640.00 SW¼SE¼NW¼ 10.00 T.07S. R.10E. 20 Lot 2 39.54 T.13S. R.26E. 23 ALL 640.00 T.07S. R.10E. 20 Tota l - Sta te 2,560.00 T.14S. R.26E. 24 S½SW¼ 80.00 E½NE¼SE¼ Total - Pecos Deer Habitat 2,560.00 T.14S. R.26E. 24 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 20.00 T.14S. R.26E. 25 W½ 320.00 T.07S. R.10E. 20 LINCOLN COUNTY State E½NE¼SW¼ SE¼ 5.00 T.07S. R.10E. 20 T.05S. R.25E. 01 LOT 01 40.02 FORT STANTON AREA E½SW¼SW ¼SE¼ 5.00 T.05S. R.25E. 01 LOT 02 40.04 T.07S. R.10E. 20 T.05S. R.25E. 01 SE¼ 160.00 Private SE¼NW¼N E¼SE¼ 2.50 T.05S. R.25E. 01 S½NE¼ 80.00 T.09S. R.14E. 32 LOT 01 10.68 T.07S. R.10E. 20 T.05S. R.25E. 23 W½SW¼ 80.00 T.09S. R.14E. 32 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 SE¼SE¼NW¼ SE¼ 2.50 T.06S. R.26E. 16 N½ 320.00 T.09S. R.14E. 32 S½SW¼ 80.00 T.07S. R.10E. 20 T.07S. R.25E. 36 E½SE¼ 80.00 T.10S. R.14E. 04 LOT 01 10.50 SE¼SW¼SE¼ 10.00 T.07S. R.26E. 32 ALL 640.00 T.10S. R.14E. 04 LOT 02 37.14 T.07S. R.10E. 20 T.09S. R.25E. 02 LOT 01 40.03 T.10S. R.14E. 04 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 SW¼NE¼SE¼ 10.00 T.09S. R.25E. 02 E½SE¼ 80.00 T.10S. R.14E. 05 LOT 01 39.78 T.07S. R.10E. 20 T.09S. R.25E. 02 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T.10S. R.14E. 05 LOT 02 23.32 SW¼NE¼SW ¼SE¼ 2.50 T.10S. R.14E. 05 LOT 03 32.10 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 01 17.76 Tota l-Priva te 4,644.56 T.10S. R.14E. 05 LOT 04 32.10 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 02 9.91 Tota l-Sta te 1,600.09 T.10S. R.14E. 05 LOT 05 32.10 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 08 13.00 Total-Other Pecos River area 6,244.65 T.10S. R.14E. 05 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 09 7.51 T.10S. R.14E. 05 S½ 360.00 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 10 7.17 T.10S. R.14E. 05 S½NW¼ 80.00 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 15 22.86

AP6-4 TABLE A6-1 (continued)

LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR ACQUISITION

Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres

T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 16 37.73 T.06S. R.10E. 31 LOT 01 34.64 T.07S. R.10E. 16 LOT 04 41.03 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 17 34.87 T.06S. R.10E. 31 LOT 02 30.77 T.07S. R.10E. 16 LOT 05 41.05 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 18 32.31 T.06S. R.10E. 31 LOT 03 34.89 T.07S. R.10E. 16 LOT 06 41.07 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 19 16.92 T.06S. R.10E. 31 LOT 04 35.02 T.07S. R.10E. 16 LOT 07 44.13 T.06S. R.10E. 34 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 16 NW¼ 160.00 Tota l - Priva te 297.08 T.06S. R.10E. 35 W½W½ 160.00 T.07S. R.10E. 16 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 Total - Valley of Fires 297.08 T.07S. R.09E. 01 E½E½ 160.00 T.07S. R.10E. 16 N½SW¼ 80.00 T.07S. R.09E. 12 NE¼ 160.00 T.07S. R.10E. 16 W½NE¼ 80.00 LITTLE BLACK PEAK T.07S. R.10E. 03 LOT 01 22.58 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 03 33.17 T.07S. R.10E. 03 LOT 02 39.93 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 04 1.20 Private T.07S. R.10E. 03 LOT 03 8.75 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 05 39.47 T.06S. R.09E. 01 LOT 01 26.20 T.07S. R.10E. 03 LOT 04 37.93 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 06 36.00 T.06S. R.09E. 01 LOT 02 25.94 T.07S. R.10E. 03 LOT 05 9.50 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 07 32.25 T.06S. R.09E. 01 LOT 03 25.86 T.07S. R.10E. 03 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 11 16.05 T.06S. R.09E. 01 LOT 04 25.78 T.07S. R.10E. 03 S½SE¼ 80.00 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 12 44.21 T.06S. R.09E. 01 LOT 05 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 10 LOT 01 23.50 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 13 38.82 T.06S. R.09E. 01 LOT 06 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 10 LOT 02 28.59 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 14 6.67 T.06S. R.09E. 01 LOT 07 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 10 LOT 03 24.05 T.07S. R.10E. 29 LOT 20 30.93 T.06S. R.09E. 01 LOT 08 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 10 LOT 04 26.70 T.07S. R.10E. 29 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.06S. R.09E. 01 LOT 09 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 15 LOT 01 33.20 T.07S. R.10E. 30 LOT 01 26.50 T.06S. R.09E. 01 LOT 10 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 15 LOT 02 35.32 T.07S. R.10E. 30 LOT 02 15.88 T.06S. R.09E. 01 LOT 11 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 15 LOT 03 2.20 T.07S. R.10E. 31 LOT 01 14.00 T.06S. R.09E. 01 LOT 12 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 15 LOT 04 14.70 T.07S. R.10E. 31 LOT 02 18.00 T.06S. R.09E. 01 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 15 LOT 05 31.30 T.07S. R.10E. 31 LOT 03 14.65 T.06S. R09E. 05 LOT 03 38.59 T.07S. R.10E. 15 E½SW¼ 80.00 T.07S. R.10E. 31 LOT 04 24.00 T.06S. R09E. 05 LOT 04 38.66 T.07S. R.10E. 21 E½SE¼ 80.00 T.07S. R.10E. 31 N½NE¼ 80.00 T.06S. R09E. 05 LOT 05 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 21 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T.08S. R.09E. 09 E½NE¼ 80.00 T.06S. R09E. 05 LOT 06 40.00 State T.08S. R.09E. 12 LOT 01 6.30 T.06S. R09E. 05 LOT 11 40.00 T.06S. R.09E. 02 LOT 01 25.69 T.08S. R.09E. 12 LOT 02 26.58 T.06S. R.09E. 11 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.06S. R.09E. 02 LOT 02 25.58 T.08S. R.09E. 12 LOT 03 16.68 T.06S. R.09E. 11 W½SE¼ 80.00 T.06S. R.09E. 02 LOT 07 40.00 T.08S. R.09E. 12 LOT 04 35.62 T.06S. R.09E. 24 E½NW¼ 80.00 T.06S. R.09E. 02 LOT 08 40.00 T.08S. R.09E. 12 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T.06S. R.09E. 24 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T.06S. R.09E. 02 LOT 09 40.00 T.08S. R.0 9E . 12 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T.06S. R.09E. 24 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T.06S. R.09E. 02 LOT 10 40.00 T.08S. R.09E. 13 W½NW¼ 80.00 T.06S. R.09E. 24 S½SE¼ 80.00 T.06S. R.09E. 02 SE¼ 160.00 T.08S. R.09E. 14 LOT 01 8.98 T.06S. R.09E. 25 E½ 320.00 T.06S. R.09E. 36 All 640.00 T.08S. R.09E. 14 LOT 02 22.69 T.06S. R.10E. 05 LOT 03 38,59 T.06S. R.10E. 32 All 640.00 T.08S. R.09E. 14 LOT 03 37.13 T.06S. R.10E. 05 LOT 04 38.66 T.07S. R.10E. 16 LOT 01 42.96 T.08S. R.09E. 14 LOT 04 30.18 T.06S. R.10E. 05 LOT 05 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 16 LOT 02 42.96 T.08S. R.09E. 14 LOT 05 28.90 T.06S. R.10E. 05 LOT 06 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 16 LOT 03 42.96 T.08S. R.09E. 14 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T.06S. R.10E. 05 LOT 11 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 16 LOT 04 41.03 T.08S. R.09E. 15 LOT 01 36.63 T.06S. R.10E. 05 LOT 12 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 16 LOT 05 41.05 T.08S. R.09E. 15 LOT 02 25.21 T.06S. R.10E. 06 LOT 01 38.72 T.07S. R.10E. 16 LOT 06 41.07 T.08S. R.09E. 15 LOT 03 10.22 T.06S. R.10E. 06 LOT 02 38.76 T.07S. R.10E. 16 LOT 07 44.13 T.08S. R.09E. 15 LOT 04 39.65 T.06S. R.10E. 06 LOT 03 38.80 T.07S. R.10E. 16 NW¼ 160.00 T.08S. R.09E. 15 LOT 05 27.87 T.06S. R.10E. 06 LOT 04 31.13 T.07S. R.10E. 16 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 State T.06S. R.10E. 06 LOT 05 32.18 T.07S. R.10E. 16 N½SW¼ 80.00 T.06S. R.10E. 32 ALL 640 T.06S. R.10E. 06 LOT 06 40.00 T.07S. R.10E. 16 W½NE¼ 80.00 T.07S. R.09E. 36 LOT 01 39.86 T.06S. R.10E. 06 LOT 07 40.00 T.08S. R.09E. 02 All 640.00 T.07S. R.09E. 36 LOT 02 39.90 T.06S. R.10E. 06 LOT 08 40.00 T.07S. R.09E. 36 LOT 03 39.94 T.06S. R.10E. 06 LOT 09 40.00 Tota l - Priva te 4,107.06 T.07S. R.09E. 36 LOT 04 39.98 T.06S. R.10E. 06 LOT 10 40.00 Tota l - Sta te 2,947.43 T.07S. R.09E. 36 N½ 320.00 T.06S. R.10E. 06 LOT 12 12.40 Total - Little Black Peak 7,054.49 T.07S. R.09E. 36 N½S½ 160.00 T.06S. R.10E. 09 W½NW¼ 80.00 T.08S. R.09E. 02 ALL 640.00 T.06S. R.10E. 22 E½W½ 160.00 CARRIZOZO LAVA FLOW T.08S. R.09E. 16 LOT 01 10.54 T.06S. R.10E. 22 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T.08S. R.09E. 16 LOT 02 38.32 T.06S. R.10E. 22 W½SE¼ 80.00 Private T.08S. R.09E. 16 LOT 03 38.32 T.06S. R.10E. 27 NW¼ 160.00 T.07S. R.09E. 11 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T.08S. R.09E. 16 LOT 04 38.33 T.06S. R.10E. 27 N½SW¼ 80.00 T.07S. R.09E. 12 N½SW¼ 80.00 T.08S. R.09E. 16 LOT 05 35.30 T.06S. R.10E. 27 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T.07S. R.09E. 12 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T.08S. R.09E. 16 LOT 06 35.29 T.06S. R.10E. 27 W½NE¼ 80.00 T.07S. R.09E. 23 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T.08S. R.09E. 16 LOT 07 35.28 T.06S. R.10E. 30 LOT 02 34.29 T.07S. R.09E. 23 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T.08S. R.09E. 16 LOT 08 33.40 T.06S. R.10E. 30 LOT 03 34.41 T.07S R.09E. 34 NE¼ 160.00 T.08S. R.09E. 16 NW¼ 160.00 T.06S. R.10E. 30 LOT 04 34.52 T.08S. R.09E. 16 N½SW¼ 80.00

AP6-5 TABLE A6-1 (continued)

LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR ACQUISITION

Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres

Tota l - Priva te 2,071.72 Tota l - Sta te 2,424.05 Total - Carrizozo Lava Flow 4,495.77

CAVE COMPLEX ACEC

Private DEBACA CO UNTY T.00S. R.00E. 00 0000 4,120.00

CHAVES COUN TY T.00S. R.00E. 00 0000 320.00

LINCOLN COUNTY T.00S. R.00E. 00 0000 160.00 T.00S. R.00E. 00 0000 160.00 T.00S. R.00E. 00 0000 160.00

Tota l - Linc oln C oun ty 480.00

Note: Loca tions of p arcels n ear ca ves a re not iden tified because of the requirement that cave locations not be disseminated.

ACREAGE SUMMARY

CHAVES COUN TY Priva te 22,220.86 Sta te 35,281.92 Total 57,502.78

DEBACA CO UNTY Priva te 4,120.00 Sta te 0.00 Total 4,120.00

LINCOLN COUNTY Priva te 7,860.82 Sta te 7,611.48 Total 15,472.10

GRAND TOTAL ALL COUNTIES Priva te 34,201.48 Sta te 42,893.40

GRAND TOTAL 77,094.88

AP6-6 APPENDIX 7 PUBLIC LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR DISPOSAL

This appendix lists the legal descriptions of BLM-administered lands that may be suitable for consideration for disposal. These lands were nominated for disposal by the public or were identified by BLM staff as not needed for implementation of BLM management goals and policies. This appendix reflects a number of changes made to Appendix 9 published in the Draft Roswell RMP/EIS, which resulted from BLM and public review and comment. This list is not intended to be inclusive.

The lands identified in this appendix would be disposed under the authority of Sections 203 (sales) and 206 (exchanges) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, based on the disposal criteria listed in Appendix 5. Other authorities (e.g., Recreation and Public Purposes Act) could apply, as well. Because this preliminary list of lands has not had close scrutiny to actually determine the suitability of these lands for disposal, it is not possible at this time to identify the specific authority under which disposals would be made.

AP7-1 TABLE A7-1

PUBLIC LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR DISPOSAL

Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres

CHAVES COUN TY

T04S R22E 04 LOT 03 40.13 T07S R25E 05 SE¼ 160.00 T08S R21E 05 W½SE¼ 80.00 T04S R22E 04 E½SW¼ 80.00 T07S R25E 05 S½NE¼ 80.00 T08S R21E 06 SE¼ 160.00 T04S R22E 04 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T07S R25E 09 N½SE¼ 80.00 T08S R21E 07 LOT 09 55.07 T04S R22E 10 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T07S R25E 09 S½S½ 160.00 T08S R21E 07 LOT 16 55.01 T04S R22E 21 N½N½ 160.00 T07S R25E 10 ALL 640.00 T08S R21E 07 LOT 18 40.00 T04S R23E 18 LOT 01 42.96 T07S R25E 15 ALL 640.00 T08S R21E 07 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T04S R23E 18 LOT 02 43.09 T07S R25E 18 LOT 01 37.62 T08S R24E 01 LOT 04 39.49 T04S R23E 18 LOT 03 43.21 T07S R25E 18 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T08S R24E 01 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T04S R23E 18 LOT 04 43.34 T07S R25E 19 LOT 01 37.60 T08S R24E 01 S½ 320.00 T04S R23E 18 E½W½ 160.00 T07S R25E 19 LOT 02 37.20 T08S R24E 03 E½SE¼ 80.00 T06S R25E 09 S½ 320.00 T07S R25E 19 LOT 03 36.80 T08S R24E 03 SW¼ 160.00 T06S R25E 10 S½ 320.00 T07S R25E 19 LOT 04 36.40 T08S R24E 10 N½ 320.00 T06S R25E 15 ALL 640.00 T07S R25E 20 ALL 640.00 T08S R24E 10 N½S½ 160.00 T06S R25E 21 E½ 320.00 T07S R25E 21 W½ 320.00 T08S R24E 10 S½SE¼ 80.00 T06S R25E 21 E½W½ 160.00 T07S R25E 22 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T08S R24E 11 ALL 640.00 T06S R25E 21 W½SW¼ 80.00 T07S R25E 22 N½ 320.00 T08S R25E 04 LOT 01 39.91 T06S R25E 22 N½ 320.00 T07S R25E 22 W½SW¼ 80.00 T08S R25E 04 LOT 02 39.94 T06S R25E 22 N½S½ 160.00 T07S R25E 24 E½SE¼ 80.00 T08S R25E 04 LOT 03 39.97 T06S R25E 22 S½SW¼ 80.00 T07S R25E 25 S½N½ 160.00 T08S R25E 04 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T06S R25E 23 N½ 320.00 T07S R25E 25 W½SE¼ 80.00 T08S R25E 04 S½ 320.00 T06S R25E 26 ALL 640.00 T07S R25E 28 ALL 640.00 T08S R25E 04 S½N½ 160.00 T06S R25E 27 NW¼ 160.00 T07S R25E 29 ALL 640.00 T08S R25E 05 E½NW¼ 80.00 T06S R25E 27 N½SW¼ 80.00 T07S R25E 30 LOT 01 36.20 T08S R25E 05 NE¼ 160.00 T06S R25E 27 S½SE¼ 80.00 T07S R25E 30 LOT 02 36.42 T08S R25E 05 S½ 320.00 T06S R25E 28 E½ 320.00 T07S R25E 30 LOT 03 37.34 T08S R25E 06 LOT 01 37.85 T06S R25E 33 N½NE¼ 80.00 T07S R25E 30 LOT 04 37.75 T08S R25E 06 LOT 02 37.95 T06S R25E 33 SE¼ 160.00 T07S R25E 30 E½ 320.00 T08S R25E 06 E½SW¼ 80.00 T06S R25E 33 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T07S R25E 30 E½W½ 160.00 T08S R25E 06 SE¼ 160.00 T07S R21E 20 S½S½ 160.00 T07S R25E 31 LOT 01 37.85 T08S R25E 08 E½SW¼ 80.00 T07S R21E 30 LOT 01 55.74 T07S R25E 31 LOT 02 37.85 T09S R22E 33 ALL 640.00 T07S R21E 30 LOT 03 40.00 T07S R25E 31 LOT 03 37.75 T09S R22E 34 ALL 640.00 T07S R21E 30 LOT 04 40.00 T07S R25E 31 LOT 04 37.65 T10S R22E 03 LOT 01 40.56 T07S R21E 30 LOT 05 40.00 T07S R25E 31 E½ 320.00 T10S R22E 03 LOT 02 40.58 T07S R21E 30 LOT 08 55.70 T07S R25E 31 E½W½ 160.00 T10S R22E 03 LOT 03 40.61 T07S R21E 30 LOT 11 40.00 T07S R25E 33 ALL 640.00 T10S R22E 03 LOT 04 40.64 T07S R21E 30 LOT 12 40.00 T07S R25E 34 ALL 640.00 T10S R22E 03 S½ 320.00 T07S R21E 30 LOT 17 40.00 T07S R26E 06 LOT 03 39.95 T10S R22E 03 S½N½ 160.00 T07S R21E 30 LOT 18 40.00 T07S R26E 06 LOT 04 36.77 T10S R22E 04 LOT 01 40.74 T07S R21E 30 LOT 19 40.00 T07S R26E 07 E½SW¼ 80.00 T10S R22E 04 LOT 02 40.77 T07S R21E 30 N½SE¼ 80.00 T07S R26E 18 LOT 02 36.50 T10S R22E 04 LOT 03 40.79 T07S R24E 23 SE¼ 160.00 T07S R26E 18 SE¼NW½ 40.00 T10S R22E 04 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T07S R24E 24 S½ 320.00 T07S R26E 18 S½NE¼ 80.00 T10S R22E 04 S½NE¼ 80.00 T07S R24E 25 ALL 640.00 T07S R26E 19 LOT 01 36.65 T10S R22E 10 NE¼ 160.00 T07S R24E 26 E½ 320.00 T07S R26E 19 LOT 02 36.75 T10S R22E 11 N½ 320.00 T07S R24E 35 E½ 320.00 T07S R26E 19 LOT 03 36.85 T10S R22E 12 N½NE¼ 80.00 T07S R25E 01 LOT 03 40.15 T07S R26E 19 LOT 04 36.95 T10S R23E 33 T07S R25E 01 LOT 04 40.21 T07S R26E 19 E½W½ 160.00 E½SE¼NW¼SW¼ 5.00 T07S R25E 01 S½NW¼ 80.00 T07S R26E 19 W½E½ 160.00 T10S R23E 33 T07S R25E 03 LOT 01 40.34 T07S R26E 30 LOT 01 36.97 W½E½SW¼SW¼ 10.00 T07S R25E 03 LOT 02 40.29 T07S R26E 30 LOT 02 36.92 T10S R29E 22 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T07S R25E 03 LOT 03 40.25 T07S R26E 30 LOT 03 36.87 T10S R29E 23 SE¼ 160.00 T07S R25E 03 LOT 04 40.20 T07S R26E 30 LOT 04 36.82 T10S R29E 26 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T07S R25E 03 S½ 320.00 T07S R26E 30 E½NW¼ 80.00 T10S R30E 25 N½ 320.00 T07S R25E 03 S½N½ 160.00 T07S R26E 30 NE¼ 160.00 T10S R30E 26 NW¼ 160.00 T07S R25E 04 LOT 01 40.04 T07S R26E 30 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T10S R30E 26 N½NE¼ 80.00 T07S R25E 04 LOT 02 40.01 T08S R21E 05 LOT 02 39.84 T10S R30E 27 N½ 320.00 T07S R25E 04 LOT 03 39.97 T08S R21E 05 LOT 03 39.88 T10S R30E 28 N½ 320.00 T07S R25E 04 LOT 04 39.92 T08S R21E 05 LOT 04 39.91 T10S R30E 29 N½ 320.00 T07S R25E 04 S½ 320.00 T08S R21E 05 N½SW¼ 80.00 T11S R26E 13 S½ 320.00 T07S R25E 04 S½N½ 160.00 T08S R21E 05 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T11S R26E 14 ALL 640.00 T07S R25E 05 LOT 01 39.99 T08S R21E 05 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T11S R26E 22 E½ 320.00 T07S R25E 05 LOT 02 39.96 T08S R21E 05 S½NW¼ 80.00 T11S R26E 22 E½W½ 160.00

AP7-2 TABLE A7-1 (continued)

PUBLIC LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR DISPOSAL

Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres

T11S R26E 22 W½NW¼ 80.00 T01N R21E 05 LOT 01 40.58 T01S R24E 20 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T11S R26E 23 ALL 640.00 T01N R21E 05 LOT 02 40.55 T01S R24E 20 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T11S R26E 24 SE¼ 160.00 T01N R21E 05 LOT 03 40.55 T01S R24E 21 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T11S R26E 24 S½NW¼ 80.00 T01N R21E 05 LOT 04 40.52 T01S R24E 34 NW¼ 160.00 T11S R26E 25 S½ 320.00 T01N R21E 05 S½N½ 160.00 T02S R21E 22 N½ 320.00 T11S R26E 27 E½E½ 160.00 T01N R21E 06 LOT 01 40.46 T02S R21E 23 N½ 320.00 T11S R26E 27 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T01N R21E 06 LOT 02 40.32 T02S R21E 24 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T11S R26E 35 NW¼ 160.00 T01N R21E 06 LOT 03 40.19 T02S R21E 24 N½ 320.00 T11S R26E 35 N½SW¼ 80.00 T01N R21E 06 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T02S R21E 30 Lot 4 33.20 T11S R27E 19 N½SE¼ 80.00 T01N R21E 11 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T02S R21E 30 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T11S R27E 30 LOT 03 36.02 T01N R21E 12 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T02S R21E 31 E½ 320.00 T11S R27E 30 LOT 04 36.23 T01N R21E 12 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T02S R21E 31 E½W½ 160.00 T11S R27E 31 LOT 01 36.83 T01N R21E 24 SE¼SE¼ 160.00 T02S R21E 31 Lot 1 33.27 T11S R27E 31 LOT 02 37.80 T01N R21E 29 N½N½ 160.00 T02S R21E 31 Lot 2 33.46 T11S R27E 31 LOT 03 38.78 T01N R21E 33 ALL 640.00 T02S R21E 31 Lot 3 33.65 T11S R27E 31 LOT 04 39.75 T01N R22E 05 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T02S R21E 31 Lot 4 33.84 T11S R27E 31 E½SW¼ 80.00 T01N R22E 07 LOT 04 40.68 T02S R21E 33 N½N½ 160.00 T11S R27E 31 S½SE¼ 80.00 T01N R22E 07 S½SE¼ 80.00 T02S R21E 33 S½S½ 160.00 T12S R27E 04 S½ 320.00 T01N R22E 11 NW¼ 160.00 T02S R21E 34 NW¼ 160.00 T12S R27E 04 S½N½ 160.00 T01N R22E 11 W½NE¼ 80.00 T02S R22E 09 All 640.00 T12S R27E 05 N½SW¼ 80.00 T01N R22E 19 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T02S R22E 11 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T12S R27E 05 SE¼ 160.00 T01N R22E 20 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T02S R22E 11 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T12S R27E 05 S½N½ 160.00 T01N R22E 20 SE¼ 160.00 T02S R22E 11 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T12S R27E 06 LOT 01 40.52 T01N R22E 21 NE¼ 160.00 T02S R22E 12 S½N½ 160.00 T12S R27E 06 LOT 02 40.38 T01N R22E 21 S½ 320.00 T02S R22E 27 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T12S R27E 06 S½NE¼ 80.00 T01N R22E 22 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T02S R22E 27 W½NE¼ 80.00 T12S R27E 06 W½SE¼ 80.00 T01N R22E 28 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T02S R22E 28 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T12S R27E 07 LOT 01 40.87 T01N R22E 28 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T02S R22E 35 S½ 320.00 T12S R27E 07 LOT 02 40.82 T01N R22E 31 E½E½ 160.00 T02S R23E 02 LOT 01 40.06 T12S R27E 07 LOT 03 40.98 T01N R24E 31 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T02S R23E 03 LOT 01 40.14 T12S R27E 07 LOT 04 41.13 T01N R24E 31 N½NE¼ 80.00 T02S R23E 03 LOT 02 40.13 T12S R27E 07 E½W½ 160.00 T01N R24E 34 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T02S R23E 03 LOT 03 40.08 T12S R27E 07 SE¼ 160.00 T01N R24E 34 SW¼ 160.00 T02S R23E 03 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T12S R27E 07 W½NE¼ 80.00 T02N R20E 24 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T02S R23E 03 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T12S R27E 08 E½ 320.00 T02N R20E 25 S½SE¼ 80.00 T02S R23E 03 S½N½ 160.00 T12S R27E 09 ALL 640.00 T02N R21E 20 N½NW¼ 80.00 T02S R24E 08 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T14S R19E 02 LOT 05 11.92 T02N R21E 30 LOT 02 39.53 T02S R24E 17 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T14S R19E 02 LOT 06 24.76 T02N R21E 30 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T02S R24E 17 N½NE¼ 80.00 T14S R19E 02 LOT 07 24.76 T02N R21E 31 LOT 01 39.31 T02S R24E 19 LOT 01 39.54 T14S R19E 02 LOT 08 24.76 T02N R21E 31 LOT 02 39.16 T02S R24E 32 E½NE¼ 80.00 T14S R20E 04 LOT 05 50.18 T06N R25E 01 LOT 03 160.00 T03S R21E 10 N½SW¼ 80.00 T14S R20E 04 LOT 06 22.20 T01S R22E 05 Lot 4 41.30 T03S R21E 10 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T14S R20E 04 LOT 07 15.18 T01S R22E 05 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T03S R22E 09 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T14S R20E 04 SW¼ 160.00 T01S R22E 07 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T03S R22E 10 N½ 320.00 T14S R20E 04 S½NW¼ 80.00 T01S R22E 27 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T03S R22E 10 SW¼ 160.00 T14S R20E 05 LOT 06 40.41 T01S R22E 27 W½NE¼ 80.00 T03S R22E 10 N½SE¼ 80.00 T14S R20E 05 LOT 07 40.54 T01S R22E 28 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T03S R22E 11 NE¼ 160.00 T14S R20E 05 LOT 08 40.68 T01S R22E 33 S½NW¼ 80.00 T03S R22E 11 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T14S R20E 05 LOT 09 40.81 T01S R23E 01 LOT 09 40.00 T03S R22E 11 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T14S R20E 05 LOT 10 17.41 T01S R23E 01 LOT 10 40.00 T03S R22E 11 N½SE¼ 80.00 T14S R20E 05 LOT 11 17.34 T01S R23E 01 LOT 11 40.00 T03S R22E 12 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T14S R20E 05 E½SW¼ 80.00 T01S R23E 01 LOT 12 40.00 T03S R22E 12 NW¼ 160.00 T01S R23E 06 LOT 08 40.00 T03S R22E 12 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 TOTA L - Cha ves C ounty 33,343.50 T01S R23E 12 W½SW¼ 80.00 T03S R22E 13 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T01S R23E 13 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T03S R22E 13 N½S½ 160.00 T03S R22E 14 N½SW¼ 80.00 DeBACA CO UNTY T01S R23E 26 W½W½ 160.00 T01S R23E 35 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T03S R22E 14 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T03S R22E 15 N½SE¼ 80.00 T01N R20E 33 All 640.00 T01S R23E 35 SW¼ 160.00 T03S R23E 07 Lot 03 38.05 T01N R21E 01 LOT 01 40.09 T01S R23E 35 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T03S R23E 07 Lot 04 38.84 T01N R21E 01 LOT 02 40.30 T01S R24E 18 LOT 01 39.38 T03S R23E 07 E½SW¼ 80.00 T01N R21E 01 LOT 03 40.49 T01S R24E 18 LOT 02 39.44 T03S R23E 07 SE¼ 160.00 T01N R21E 01 LOT 04 40.71 T01S R24E 19 NE¼SE¼ 40.00

AP7-3 TABLE A7-1 (continued)

PUBLIC LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR DISPOSAL

Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres

TOTA L - DeB aca C ounty 12,327.82 T05N R21E 25 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T06N R22E 08 S½NW¼ 80.00 T05N R21E 25 W½SW¼ 80.00 T06N R22E 09 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T06N R22E 09 S½NW¼ 80.00 GUADALUPE T05N R21E 26 S½ 320.00 T05N R21E 27 S½S½ 160.00 T06N R23E 18 Lot 3 38.98 T06N R23E 18 Lot 4 38.86 T03N R17E 01 LOT 02 39.85 T06N R18E 03 Lot 3 42.27 T06N R23E 18 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T03N R17E 01 LOT 03 39.75 T06N R18E 03 Lot 4 42.31 T06N R23E 18 N½SE¼ 80.00 T03N R17E 01 LOT 04 39.65 T06N R18E 03 SW¼ 160.00 T06N R23E 18 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T03N R17E 01 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T06N R18E 03 S½NW¼ 80.00 T06N R23E 18 S½NE¼ 80.00 T03N R17E 04 LOT 01 39.41 T06N R18E 09 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T07N R18E 18 LOT 02 43.60 T03N R17E 04 LOT 02 39.43 T06N R18E 10 NE¼ 160.00 T07N R18E 18 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T03N R17E 04 LOT 03 39.45 T06N R18E 11 N½N½ 160.00 T07N R18E 18 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T03N R17E 04 LOT 04 39.47 T06N R18E 12 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T07N R18E 18 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T03N R17E 04 S½N½ 160.00 T06N R18E 12 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T07N R18E 20 E½E½ 160.00 T03N R18E 17 E½SW¼ 80.00 T06N R18E 12 W½NW¼ 80.00 T07N R18E 20 E½W½ 160.00 T03N R18E 18 W½NW ¼SE¼20.00 T06N R18E 15 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T07N R18E 20 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T03N R18E 18 W½SE¼NW¼20.00 T06N R18E 24 S½ 320.00 T07N R18E 20 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T03N R18E 19 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T06N R18E 24 S½N½ 160.00 T07N R18E 21 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T04N R17E 19 E½SE¼ 80.00 T06N R19E 01 S½S½ 160.00 T07N R18E 22 S½NW¼ 80.00 T04N R17E 21 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T06N R19E 04 S½S½ 160.00 T07N R18E 30 LOT 04 42.27 T04N R17E 21 S½SE¼ 80.00 T06N R19E 09 N½ 320.00 T07N R18E 30 SE¼ 160.00 T04N R17E 27 S½NW¼ 80.00 T06N R19E 12 N½SW¼ 80.00 T07N R18E 30 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T04N R17E 29 W½ 320.00 T06N R19E 15 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T07N R19E 35 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T05N R19E 03 Lot 01 39.23 T06N R19E 17 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T07N R19E 35 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T05N R19E 03 Lot 02 39.28 T06N R19E 17 W½E½ 160.00 T07N R19E 35 W½SW¼ 80.00 T05N R19E 03 Lot 03 39.34 T06N R19E 17 W½ 320.00 T07N R22E 28 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T05N R19E 03 Lot 04 39.39 T06N R19E 17 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T07N R22E 29 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T05N R19E 03 S½N½ 160.00 T06N R19E 18 Lot 1 37.80 T07N R22E 33 E½E½ 160.00 T05N R19E 03 S½ 320.00 T06N R19E 18 Lot 2 37.98 T07N R22E 33 SW¼ 160.00 T05N R19E 04 Lot 01 39.41 T06N R19E 18 Lot 3 37.66 T07N R22E 34 SW¼ 160.00 T05N R19E 04 Lot 02 39.38 T06N R19E 18 Lot 4 37.69 T07N R22E 34 W½NW¼ 80.00 T05N R19E 04 S½NE¼ 80.00 T06N R19E 18 E½ 320.00 T07N R25E 24 SE¼ 160.00 T05N R19E 07 Lot 03 38.00 T06N R19E 18 E½W½ 160.00 T07N R25E 35 SW¼ 160.00 T05N R19E 07 Lot 04 38.00 T06N R19E 21 E½NE¼ 80.00 T07N R25E 35 W½SE¼ 40.00 T05N R19E 07 E½SW¼ 80.00 T06N R19E 21 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T07N R26E 30 Lot 01 36.45 T05N R19E 07 SE¼ 160.00 T06N R19E 21 W½SW¼ 80.00 T05N R19E 08 SE¼ 160.00 T06N R19E 27 NE¼ 160.00 TOTA L - Gua dalupe County 14,019.63 T05N R19E 09 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T06N R19E 27 N½SW¼ 80.00 T05N R19E 18 NE¼ 160.00 T06N R19E 27 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T05N R19E 18 E½NW¼ 80.00 T06N R19E 28 N½ 320.00 LINCOLN COUNTY T05N R19E 18 N½SE¼ 80.00 T06N R19E 28 E½SW¼ 80.00 T05N R19E 24 E½NW¼ 80.00 T06N R19E 28 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T01N R16E 08 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T05N R19E 24 N½NE¼ 80.00 T06N R19E 29 All 640.00 T01N R16E 21 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T05N R19E 24 N½SW¼ 80.00 T06N R19E 30 E½ 320.00 T01N R16E 21 SE¼ 160.00 T05N R20E 05 Lot 1 39.23 T06N R19E 30 E½SW¼ 80.00 T01N R16E 21 S½SW¼ 80.00 T05N R20E 05 Lot 2 39.30 T06N R19E 30 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T01N R16E 22 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T05N R20E 05 Lot 3 39.37 T06N R19E 31 LOT 01 38.40 T01N R16E 22 N½ 320.00 T05N R20E 05 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T06N R19E 31 LOT 02 38.00 T01N R16E 22 SW¼ 160.00 T05N R20E 05 S½N½ 160.00 T06N R19E 31 LOT 03 37.60 T01N R16E 22 S½SE¼ 80.00 T05N R20E 09 N½ 320.00 T06N R19E 31 LOT 04 37.20 T01N R16E 23 ALL 640.00 T05N R20E 18 E½W½ 160.00 T06N R20E 10 E½NE¼ 80.00 T01N R16E 25 ALL 640.00 T05N R20E 18 Lot 1 39.42 T06N R20E 12 E½NW¼ 80.00 T01N R16E 26 ALL 640.00 T05N R20E 18 Lot 2 39.46 T06N R20E 23 NE¼ 160.00 T01N R17E 10 N½SW¼ 80.00 T05N R20E 18 Lot 3 39.50 T06N R20E 31 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T01N R17E 10 S½NW¼ 80.00 T05N R20E 18 Lot 4 39.54 T06N R22E 04 Lot 1 41.31 T01N R17E 19 LOT 01 39.69 T05N R20E 18 NE¼ 160.00 T06N R22E 04 Lot 2 41.29 T01N R17E 19 LOT 02 39.83 T05N R20E 18 W½SE¼ 80.00 T06N R22E 04 Lot 3 41.27 T01N R17E 19 LOT 03 39.96 T05N R20E 19 Lot 1 39.56 T06N R22E 04 Lot 4 41.25 T01N R17E 19 LOT 04 39.13 T05N R20E 19 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T06N R22E 04 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T01N R17E 19 E½NW¼ 80.00 T05N R21E 13 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T06N R22E 05 Lot 1 41.33 T01N R17E 19 E½SW¼ 80.00 T05N R21E 23 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T06N R22E 05 Lot 3 41.69 T01N R17E 19 NE¼ 160.00 T05N R21E 23 N½SE¼ 80.00 T06N R22E 08 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T01N R17E 19 SE¼ 160.00 T05N R21E 23 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T06N R22E 08 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T01N R17E 20 E½ 320.00

AP7-4 TABLE A7-1 (continued)

PUBLIC LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR DISPOSAL

Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres

T01N R17E 20 N½NW¼ 80.00 T01S R18E 21 S½ 320.00 T03S R12E 24 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T01N R17E 20 SW¼ 160.00 T01S R18E 21 S½NW¼ 80.00 T03S R12E 24 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T01N R17E 20 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T01S R19E 07 LOT 03 44.75 T03S R13E 18 LOT 01 41.81 T01N R17E 23 NE¼ 160.00 T01S R19E 15 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T03S R13E 18 LOT 02 41.92 T01N R17E 23 N½SE¼ 80.00 T01S R19E 15 NW¼ 160.00 T03S R13E 18 E½NW¼ 80.00 T01N R17E 23 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T01S R19E 15 W½NE¼ 80.00 T03S R13E 18 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T01N R17E 23 SW¼ 160.00 T01S R19E 18 E½NW¼ 80.00 T03S R13E 18 N½SE¼ 80.00 T01N R17E 23 W½NW¼ 80.00 T01S R19E 18 NE¼ 160.00 T03S R13E 23 N½NW¼ 80.00 T01N R17E 29 ALL 640.00 T01S R19E 30 W½NE¼ 80.00 T03S R13E 23 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T01N R17E 30 LOT 01 40.16 T02S R10E 12 E½SW¼ 80.00 T03S R13E 25 ALL 640.00 T01N R17E 30 LOT 02 40.06 T02S R10E 13 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T03S R13E 29 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T01N R17E 30 LOT 03 39.95 T02S R10E 34 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T03S R13E 29 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T01N R17E 30 LOT 04 39.85 T02S R10E 34 NW¼ 160.00 T03S R13E 30 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T01N R17E 30 E½ 320.00 T02S R10E 34 N½SW¼ 80.00 T03S R15E 03 LOT 01 40.27 T01N R17E 30 E½W½ 160.00 T02S R10E 34 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T03S R15E 03 LOT 02 40.26 T01N R19E 04 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T02S R10E 35 NE¼ 160.00 T03S R15E 03 S½NE¼ 80.00 T01N R19E 06 LOT 03 39.85 T02S R11E 28 S½ 320.00 T03S R15E 19 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T01N R19E 06 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T02S R12E 02 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T03S R15E 20 N½SW¼ 80.00 T01N R19E 06 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T02S R12E 10 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T03S R15E 23 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T01N R19E 09 W½SW¼ 80.00 T02S R15E 13 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T03S R15E 23 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T01N R19E 23 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T02S R15E 13 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T03S R15E 26 S½ 320.00 T01N R19E 23 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T02S R15E 13 S½SW¼ 80.00 T03S R15E 27 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T01N R19E 23 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T02S R15E 17 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T03S R15E 33 W½SW¼ 80.00 T01N R19E 26 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T02S R15E 18 S½SE¼ 80.00 T03S R15E 34 N½SE¼ 80.00 T01N R19E 31 LOT 04 40.04 T02S R15E 21 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T03S R15E 34 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T01N R19E 31 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T02S R15E 24 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T03S R15E 34 S½NE¼ 80.00 T01N R19E 31 S½SE¼ 80.00 T02S R15E 25 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T03S R17E 11 E½NW¼ 80.00 T01N R19E 33 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T02S R15E 25 SW¼ 160.00 T03S R17E 33 W½NW¼ 80.00 T01N R19E 35 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T02S R15E 25 S½NW¼ 80.00 T03S R18E 10 SE¼ 160.00 T01S R13E 26 W½SW¼ 80.00 T02S R15E 26 E½SE¼ 80.00 T03S R18E 15 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T01S R14E 09 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T02S R16E 09 N½ 320.00 T03S R18E 15 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T01S R14E 14 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T02S R16E 19 E½E½ 160.00 T04S R11E 01 Lot 1 36.53 T01S R14E 20 S½NW¼ 80.00 T02S R16E 19 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T04S R11E 01 Lot 2 36.73 T01S R14E 24 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T02S R16E 31 LOT 01 37.28 T04S R11E 01 Lot 3 36.91 T01S R14E 24 S½SW¼ 80.00 T02S R16E 31 LOT 02 37.20 T04S R11E 01 Lot 4 37.11 T01S R14E 30 LOT 01 40.30 T02S R16E 31 LOT 03 37.12 T04S R11E 01 S½NW¼ 80.00 T01S R14E 30 LOT 02 40.27 T02S R16E 31 LOT 04 37.04 T04S R11E 04 LOT 01 39.56 T01S R17E 05 LOT 04 35.90 T02S R16E 31 E½SW¼ 80.00 T04S R11E 04 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T01S R17E 05 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T02S R16E 31 SE¼ 160.00 T04S R11E 20 S½ 320.00 T01S R17E 35 E½SE¼ 80.00 T02S R18E 01 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T04S R11E 21 NE¼ 160.00 T01S R18E 05 LOT 01 31.75 T02S R18E 11 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T04S R11E 21 N½SE¼ 80.00 T01S R18E 05 LOT 02 32.05 T02S R18E 11 W½NE¼ 80.00 T04S R11E 21 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T01S R18E 05 LOT 03 32.35 T03S R10E 17 ALL 640.00 T04S R11E 21 SW¼ 160.00 T01S R18E 05 LOT 04 32.65 T03S R10E 18 LOT 01 31.19 T04S R11E 22 N½ 320.00 T01S R18E 05 S½ 320.00 T03S R10E 18 LOT 02 31.71 T04S R11E 23 N½NW¼ 80.00 T01S R18E 05 S½N½ 160.00 T03S R10E 18 LOT 03 31.23 T04S R11E 28 NW¼ 160.00 T01S R18E 06 SE¼ 160.00 T03S R10E 18 LOT 04 31.75 T04S R11E 33 W½SW¼ 80.00 T01S R18E 13 W½SW¼ 80.00 T03S R10E 18 E½ 320.00 T04S R12E 01 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T01S R18E 14 E½SE¼ 80.00 T03S R10E 18 E½W½ 160.00 T04S R12E 01 N½SW¼ 80.00 T01S R18E 17 ALL 640.00 T03S R10E 24 LOT 01 44.28 T04S R12E 13 SE¼ 160.00 T01S R18E 18 LOT 01 48.39 T03S R10E 24 LOT 02 43.89 T04S R12E 17 T01S R18E 18 LOT 02 48.37 T03S R10E 24 NW¼ 160.00 E½SE¼SW¼SW¼ 5.00 T01S R18E 18 LOT 03 48.35 T03S R10E 24 W½NE¼ 80.00 T04S R12E 17 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T01S R18E 18 LOT 04 48.33 T03S R10E 33 E½ 320.00 T04S R12E 19 T01S R18E 18 E½ 320.00 T03S R11E 24 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 NW¼SW ¼NE¼ 10.00 T01S R18E 18 E½W½ 160.00 T03S R11E 26 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T04S R12E 19 S½SE¼NE¼20.00 T01S R18E 19 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T03S R11E 26 W½NE¼ 80.00 T04S R12E 19 T01S R18E 20 E½SW¼ 80.00 T03S R11E 27 N½SE¼ 80.00 W½NE¼ SW¼NE¼ 5.00 T01S R18E 20 N½ 320.00 T03S R11E 27 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T04S R12E 20 T01S R18E 20 SE¼ 160.00 T03S R11E 33 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 E½NE¼SW¼NW¼ 5.00 T01S R18E 21 NE¼ 160.00 T03S R11E 33 N½SE¼ 80.00 T04S R12E 20 E½NW¼ 80.00 T01S R18E 21 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T03S R11E 33 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T04S R12E 20

AP7-5 TABLE A7-1 (continued)

PUBLIC LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR DISPOSAL

Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres

E½NW¼NW¼ 10.00 T05S R19E 26 NW¼ 160.00 T06S R18E 28 E½NE¼ 80.00 T04S R12E 20 T05S R19E 27 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T06S R18E 28 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 S½SW¼NW¼ 20.00 T05S R19E 27 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T06S R18E 28 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T04S R12E 29 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T05S R19E 28 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T06S R18E 29 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T04S R12E 32 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T05S R19E 28 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T06S R19E 20 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T04S R13E 24 S½ 320.00 T05S R19E 34 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T06S R19E 29 S½SW¼ 80.00 T04S R13E 24 W½NW¼ 80.00 T05S R19E 34 W½SW¼ 80.00 T06S R20E 03 SW¼ 160.00 T04S R13E 26 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T06S R09E 11 E½SW¼ 80.00 T06S R20E 04 LOT 02 29.65 T04S R13E 26 S½SE¼ 80.00 T06S R09E 27 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T06S R20E 04 LOT 04 29.99 T04S R13E 34 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T06S R09E 27 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T06S R20E 04 W½SE¼ 80.00 T04S R14E 08 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T06S R09E 28 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T06S R20E 04 W½SW¼ 80.00 T04S R14E 22 S½NW¼ 80.00 T06S R09E 28 N½SW¼ 80.00 T06S R20E 17 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T04S R15E 01 LOT 04 40.09 T06S R09E 28 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T06S R20E 18 LOT 04 44.72 T04S R15E 01 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T06S R09E 28 S½NW¼ 80.00 T06S R20E 18 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T04S R15E 01 W½SW¼ 80.00 T06S R10E 01 S½S½ 160.00 T07S R09E 01 N½NW¼ 80.00 T04S R15E 06 LOT 09 47.26 T06S R10E 03 LOT 01 37.95 T07S R11E 05 LOT 01 39.91 T04S R15E 30 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T06S R10E 03 LOT 02 37.98 T07S R14E 14 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T04S R16E 07 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T06S R10E 03 LOT 03 38.01 T07S R14E 15 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T04S R18E 21 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T06S R10E 03 LOT 04 38.03 T07S R14E 17 W½NE¼ 80.00 T04S R18E 21 W½E½ 160.00 T06S R10E 03 LOT 07 40.00 T07S R17E 08 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T05S R10E 01 S½SE¼ 80.00 T06S R10E 03 LOT 08 40.00 T07S R18E 12 E½NW¼ 80.00 T05S R10E 05 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T06S R10E 03 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T07S R18E 12 N½SW¼ 80.00 T05S R10E 08 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T06S R10E 03 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T07S R18E 12 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T05S R10E 09 S½SW¼ 80.00 T06S R10E 11 NE¼ 160.00 T07S R18E 18 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T05S R10E 12 N½ 320.00 T06S R10E 12 N½ 320.00 T07S R18E 18 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T05S R10E 12 N½S½ 160.00 T06S R10E 14 W½SW¼ 80.00 T07S R18E 20 W½NE¼ 80.00 T05S R10E 33 E½ 320.00 T06S R10E 15 E½NE¼ 80.00 T07S R18E 21 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T05S R11E 03 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T06S R10E 23 W½ 320.00 T07S R18E 25 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T05S R11E 07 LOT 03 34.15 T06S R10E 26 NW¼ 160.00 T07S R19E 31 LOT 05 44.04 T05S R11E 19 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T06S R11E 07 LOT 03 39.69 T07S R19E 31 LOT 06 44.44 T05S R13E 09 W½SE¼ 80.00 T06S R11E 08 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T07S R19E 31 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T05S R13E 13 NE¼ 160.00 T06S R11E 25 LOT 24 20.34 T07S R19E 35 S½SW¼ 80.00 T05S R13E 31 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T06S R11E 25 LOT 44 8.99 T07S R20E 18 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T05S R13E 31 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T06S R12E 25 LOT 01 39.99 T07S R20E 21 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T05S R14E 03 SE¼ 160.00 T06S R12E 36 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T07S R20E 22 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T05S R14E 06 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T06S R13E 01 LOT 01 18.81 T07S R20E 27 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T05S R14E 10 NE¼ 160.00 T06S R13E 01 LOT 02 19.15 T07S R20E 28 NE¼NE¼ 40.00 T05S R14E 10 S½ 320.00 T06S R13E 30 LOT 03 42.22 T07S R20E 28 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T05S R14E 19 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T06S R14E 01 LOT 01 19.00 T07S R20E 28 SW¼ 160.00 T05S R14E 19 SW¼ 160.00 T06S R14E 01 LOT 02 18.98 T07S R20E 28 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T05S R14E 25 LOT 02 44.84 T06S R14E 01 LOT 03 18.98 T07S R20E 28 W½NW¼ 80.00 T05S R14E 25 LOT 04 45.40 T06S R14E 01 LOT 04 18.98 T07S R20E 28 W½SE¼ 80.00 T05S R15E 04 LOT 01 39.46 T06S R14E 06 LOT 04 18.62 T07S R20E 34 N½SW¼ 80.00 T05S R15E 20 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T06S R14E 27 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T07S R20E 34 S½NW¼ 80.00 T05S R15E 20 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T06S R15E 06 LOT 03 59.10 T07S R20E 34 S½S½ 160.00 T05S R15E 25 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T06S R15E 21 N½NE¼ 80.00 T07S R20E 34 S½S½ 160.00 T05S R15E 28 N½SW¼ 80.00 T06S R15E 28 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T08S R13E 32 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T05S R15E 28 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T06S R16E 01 LOT 01 14.43 T08S R15E 27 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T05S R15E 29 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T06S R16E 01 LOT 08 40.00 T08S R19E 03 LOT 01 39.91 T05S R15E 30 E½SE¼ 80.00 T06S R17E 04 LOT 04 29.55 T08S R19E 03 E½SE¼ 80.00 T05S R15E 33 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T06S R17E 04 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T08S R19E 03 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T05S R15E 33 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T06S R17E 06 LOT 12 44.88 T08S R19E 05 N½SW¼ 80.00 T05S R15E 33 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T06S R17E 06 LOT 13 44.88 T08S R19E 07 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T05S R16E 11 N½SW¼ 80.00 T06S R17E 06 LOT 14 44.88 T08S R19E 10 E½NW¼ 80.00 T05S R16E 17 SE¼ 160.00 T06S R17E 29 E½SE¼ 80.00 T08S R19E 10 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T05S R16E 17 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T06S R17E 29 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T08S R19E 18 LOT 01 47.46 T05S R16E 17 S½NE¼NE¼20.00 T06S R18E 10 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T08S R19E 18 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T05S R16E 24 E½NE¼ 80.00 T06S R18E 20 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T08S R19E 18 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T05S R16E 24 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T06S R18E 21 E½ 320.00 T08S R19E 18 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T05S R16E 24 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T06S R18E 21 E½W½ 160.00 T08S R19E 20 N½NE¼ 80.00 T05S R16E 28 S½SW¼ 80.00 T06S R18E 21 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T08S R19E 31 LOT 01 46.43 T05S R16E 31 S½SE¼ 80.00 T06S R18E 23 S½NW¼ 80.00 T08S R20E 06 LOT 01 40.15

AP7-6 TABLE A7-1 (continued)

PUBLIC LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR DISPOSAL

Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres

T08S R20E 06 LOT 02 40.10 T10S R09E 15 SW¼ 160.00 T10S R20E 33 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T08S R20E 06 LOT 03 40.06 T10S R09E 15 S½SE¼ 80.00 T10S R20E 35 N½S½ 160.00 T08S R20E 06 LOT 04 43.48 T10S R09E 22 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T10S R20E 35 S½N½ 160.00 T08S R20E 06 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T10S R09E 22 N½NE¼ 80.00 T11S R18E 03 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T08S R20E 06 S½NE¼ 80.00 T10S R09E 22 N½S½ 160.00 T09S R08E 34 W½NE¼ 80.00 T10S R09E 22 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T09S R09E 19 LOT 01 39.21 T10S R09E 22 S½NW¼ 80.00 T09S R09E 19 LOT 02 39.24 T10S R09E 22 S½SE¼ 80.00 T09S R09E 19 LOT 03 39.27 T10S R17E 24 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T09S R09E 19 E½ 320.00 T10S R18E 01 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T09S R09E 19 E½NW¼ 80.00 T10S R18E 01 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T09S R09E 19 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T10S R18E 04 LOT 03 40.43 T09S R09E 20 SW¼ 160.00 T10S R18E 04 LOT 04 40.54 T09S R09E 20 W½SE¼ 80.00 T10S R18E 05 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T09S R09E 22 LOT 01 38.15 T10S R18E 10 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T09S R09E 22 LOT 02 38.14 T10S R18E 10 N½NE¼ 80.00 T09S R09E 22 LOT 03 37.96 T10S R18E 11 N½N½ 160.00 T09S R09E 22 LOT 04 37.21 T10S R18E 22 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T09S R09E 22 LOT 05 34.92 T10S R18E 22 N½SE¼ 80.00 T09S R09E 22 LOT 06 36.71 T10S R18E 22 SW¼SE¼ 40.00 T09S R09E 22 LOT 07 37.42 T10S R18E 26 NW¼ 160.00 T09S R09E 22 LOT 08 37.52 T10S R18E 27 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T09S R09E 22 LOT 09 36.91 T10S R19E 01 E½SW¼ 80.00 T09S R09E 22 LOT 10 36.68 T10S R19E 01 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T09S R09E 22 LOT 11 36.23 T10S R19E 01 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T09S R09E 27 LOT 01 34.46 T10S R19E 01 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T09S R09E 27 LOT 02 35.04 T10S R19E 03 SW¼ 160.00 T09S R09E 28 S½NE¼ 80.00 T10S R19E 03 S½SE¼ 80.00 T09S R09E 29 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T10S R19E 04 LOT 03 40.48 T09S R09E 29 W½ 320.00 T10S R19E 04 S½SE¼ 80.00 T09S R09E 30 E½NW¼ 80.00 T10S R19E 06 E½SW¼ 80.00 T09S R09E 30 NE¼ 160.00 T10S R19E 06 Lot 5 45.57 T09S R09E 30 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T10S R19E 06 Lot 6 45.62 T09S R15E 25 S½NW¼ 80.00 T10S R19E 06 SE¼ 160.00 T09S R19E 05 SE¼SE¼ 40.00 T10S R19E 08 E½E½ 160.00 T09S R19E 05 S½SW¼ 80.00 T10S R19E 08 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T09S R19E 08 N½ 320.00 T10S R19E 08 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T09S R19E 08 SW¼ 160.00 T10S R19E 08 W½NW¼ 80.00 T09S R19E 18 NE¼ 160.00 T10S R19E 10 NW¼ 160.00 T09S R19E 19 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T10S R19E 13 E½SE¼ 80.00 T09S R20E 25 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T10S R19E 24 S½N½ 160.00 T10S R09E 01 LOT 01 37.43 T10S R19E 25 N½ 320.00 T10S R09E 03 LOT 01 39.15 T10S R20E 09 NE¼ 160.00 T10S R09E 03 LOT 02 39.20 T10S R20E 09 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T10S R09E 03 LOT 03 39.26 T10S R20E 09 S½SE¼ 80.00 T10S R09E 03 LOT 04 39.31 T10S R20E 15 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T10S R09E 03 E½SW¼ 80.00 T10S R20E 18 E½SW¼ 80.00 T10S R09E 03 SE¼ 160.00 T10S R20E 18 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T10S R09E 03 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T10S R20E 18 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T10S R09E 03 S½NE¼ 80.00 T10S R20E 18 W½SE¼ 80.00 T10S R09E 04 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T10S R20E 19 E½SW¼ 80.00 T10S R09E 04 S½SE¼ 80.00 T10S R20E 19 Lot 1 40.70 T10S R09E 06 SE¼ 160.00 T10S R20E 19 Lot 3 40.64 T10S R09E 09 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T10S R20E 19 Lot 4 40.61 T10S R09E 09 SE¼ 160.00 T10S R20E 19 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T10S R09E 09 S½N½ 160.00 T10S R20E 19 N½NE¼ 80.00 T10S R09E 09 S½SW¼ 80.00 T10S R20E 19 SE¼ 160.00 T10S R09E 10 NW¼ 160.00 T10S R20E 21 E½NW¼ 80.00 T10S R09E 10 NW¼SW¼ 40.00 T10S R20E 21 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T10S R09E 10 S½S½ 160.00 T10S R20E 21 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T10S R09E 10 W½NE¼ 80.00 T10S R20E 30 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T10S R09E 15 N½ 320.00 T10S R20E 31 E½NE¼ 80.00

AP7-7 TABLE A7-1 (continued)

PUBLIC LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR DISPOSAL

Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres Township/Range Sec. Acres

T11S R18E 09 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T13S R19E 25 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T07S R32E 28 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T11S R18E 10 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T13S R19E 25 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 T07S R32E 33 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T11S R18E 11 NE¼ 160.00 T13S R20E 03 Lot 05 24.97 T07S R32E 34 NW¼NW¼ 40.00 T11S R18E 11 SW¼NW¼ 40.00 T13S R20E 03 W½SW¼ 80.00 T07S R32E 34 S½NW¼ 80.00 T11S R18E 11 W½SW¼ 80.00 T13S R20E 17 LOT 03 26.40 T07S R32E 35 S½NW¼ 80.00 T11S R18E 14 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T13S R20E 17 LOT 04 33.04 T07S R33E 18 SE¼ 160.00 T11S R18E 14 N½NW¼ 80.00 T13S R20E 17 N½S½ 160.00 T07S R33E 19 LOT 01 37.71 T11S R19E 14 LOT 05 41.03 T13S R20E 17 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T07S R33E 19 LOT 02 37.77 T11S R19E 15 T13S R20E 17 S½SE¼ 80.00 T07S R33E 19 LOT 03 37.83 NE¼SE¼SE¼ 10.00 T13S R20E 18 LOT 05 38.65 T07S R33E 19 LOT 04 37.89 T11S R19E 22 T13S R20E 18 LOT 06 32.89 T07S R33E 19 E½ 320.00 SE¼NW¼N E¼ 10.00 T13S R20E 18 LOT 07 39.35 T07S R33E 19 E½W½ 160.00 T11S R20E 28 LOT 01 42.15 T13S R20E 18 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T07S R33E 20 N½ 320.00 T12S R19E 01 LOT 01 2.17 T13S R20E 18 S½SE¼ 80.00 T07S R33E 22 W½ 320.00 T12S R19E 01 LOT 02 5.27 T13S R20E 19 LOT 05 40.91 T07S R33E 27 NE¼ 160.00 T12S R19E 03 LOT 05 10.43 T13S R20E 19 LOT 06 17.96 T07S R33E 27 S½ 320.00 T12S R19E 03 LOT 06 13.00 T13S R20E 19 LOT 08 22.33 T07S R33E 28 SE¼ 160.00 T12S R19E 04 LOT 07 30.15 T13S R20E 19 LOT 09 22.31 T07S R33E 29 SE¼ 160.00 T12S R19E 07 LOT 05 38.97 T13S R20E 19 LOT 12 22.29 T07S R34E 10 E½SW¼ 80.00 T12S R19E 07 LOT 06 33.71 T13S R20E 24 SE¼SW¼ 40.00 T07S R34E 15 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T12S R19E 07 LOT 07 29.58 T13S R20E 25 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T07S R34E 15 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T12S R19E 09 NE¼SW¼ 40.00 T13S R20E 25 N½SE¼ 80.00 T07S R34E 15 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T12S R19E 10 LOT 01 10.33 T13S R20E 25 SE¼NE¼ 40.00 T12S R19E 10 LOT 02 10.40 T13S R20E 25 SE¼NW¼ 40.00 TOTA L - Roos evelt C ounty 3,151.20 T12S R19E 20 LOT 01 37.99 T13S R20E 25 SW¼SW¼ 40.00 T12S R20E 22 Lot 1 41.57 T13S R20E 26 SW¼NE¼ 40.00 T12S R20E 22 Lot 4 36.45 T13S R20E 30 LOT 05 22.29 ACREAGE SUMMARY T12S R20E 22 Lot 6 40.71 T13S R20E 30 LOT 07 22.13 T12S R20E 22 LOT 07 34.64 T13S R20E 30 LOT 08 22.31 Ch ave s C oun ty 33,343.50 T12S R20E 22 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T13S R20E 30 LOT 09 53.31 De Ba ca C oun ty 12,327.82 T12S R20E 23 W½NW¼ 80.00 T13S R20E 31 N½NE¼SE¼20.00 Gu ada lupe Co unty T12S R20E 27 LOT 01 39.87 14,019.63 T12S R20E 27 LOT 02 35.30 TOTA L - Lincoln C ounty 47,482.25 Linc oln C oun ty T12S R20E 27 LOT 04 37.78 47,482.25 T12S R20E 34 Lot 01 39.11 ROOSEVELT COU NTY Ro ose velt C oun ty 3,151.20 T12S R20E 34 Lot 02 40.74 T12S R20E 34 NW¼NE¼ 40.00 T07S R32E 22 S½NE¼ 80.00 GRAND TOTAL 110,324.40 T13S R19E 21 NE¼NW¼ 40.00 T07S R32E 23 E½NE¼ 80.00 T13S R19E 24 N½S½ 160.00 T07S R32E 24 NW¼ 160.00 T13S R19E 24 W½NW¼ 80.00 T07S R32E 27 E½SW¼ 80.00 T13S R19E 25 NE¼SE¼ 40.00 T07S R32E 27 NW¼SE¼ 40.00 T13S R19E 25 NE¼SW¼ 40.00

AP7-8 APPENDIX 8 DECISIONS FROM PREVIOUS PLANNING DOCUMENTS

This appendix describes planning decisions related to livestock grazing and rangeland management that were made in previous Roswell Resource Area land use plans. These decisions were carried forward in the Roswell RMP as standard practices.

DECISIONS CARRIED FORWARD following implementation so that periodic adjustments, if necessary, can be made on those plans not meeting multiple use 1. All allotments will be classified as objectives. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record suitable for grazing by cattle, sheep, goats, of Decision) and/or horses. Any change in the kind of livestock authorized which would dramatically 6. Successful grazing programs already alter historical grazing use patterns will implemented by permittees and in use on require an environmental assessment (EA). ranched may be documented and (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of incorporated into a plan. (West Roswell Decision) MFPA/EIS Record of Decision)

2. All allotments will be classified as 7. Documented grazing programs and/or suitable for yearlong grazing unless future cooperative management plans (CMPs') will activity plans specify a need to change the be implemented on "I" category allotments. season of use. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Specific programs and plan will be applied to Record of Decision) individual allotments on a priority basis beginning with those allotments with the 3. Develop Allotment Management Plans highest potential for improvement. (West (AMPs) for allotments where intensive Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of Decision) management appears feasible. Grazing schedules incorporated in AMP's should be 8. Revise AMP's that have been designed to achieve upward trend and fair or implemented and are not showing better condition in 6 to 8 years and maximum improvement. Revise or develop grazing sustained carrying capacity in 15 to 20 years. schedules designed to achieve an improving (East Chaves Framework Plan, initially) trend and fair or better condition in 6 to 8 years and maximum sustained carrying Priority for implementation of these AMP's capacity in 15 to 20 years. will be determined by Allotment Categorization Process (I, M, C). Allotment Plan Revisions are handled under the Bureau Manuals, under a multiple use 4. Individual grazing programs will be concept. Grazing programs will include developed in consultation and cooperation deferred, rotation, high-intensity-short with affected parties and will identify needed duration systems, and other specific grazing projects and developments. (West Roswell systems which combine proper grazing use MFPA/EIS Record of Decision) with scheduled rest periods. (West Roswell EIS.) 5. CMPs (now termed AMPs) will be written and fully implemented, and an EA 9. The following allotments do not require covering each AMP will be prepared. The prescribed grazing management by BLM. plans will be monitored and evaluated Proper grazing use through the efforts of the

AP8-1 APPENDIX 8 rancher and the Soil Conservation Service rangeland improvements that conform with a should be encouraged for these allotments. specific development plan for the area. Such plans may be Cooperative Management "C" CATEGORY ALLOTMENTS Plans (CMPs) -now Allotment Management 5001, 5002, 5003, 5004, 5006, 5008, Plans (AMPs), Habitat Management Plans 5009, 5011, 5013, 5014, 5015, 5016, (HMPs), Herd Management Plans (HMAPs) 5017, 5022, 5023, 5026, 5027, 5030, or other plans providing a rational decision- 5031, 5033, 5035, 5039 (SHERMAN making framework for meeting multiple-use CATTLE), 5039 (RED TANK CORP.), management objectives. 5042, 5045, 5052, 5054, 5056, 5059, 5060, 5061, 5064, 5070, 5071, 5081, c. Additional range improvements will 5093 (East Chaves Management be evaluated and implemented when the Framework Plan, initially) need is identified. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of 10. Range improvements needed to Decision) implement grazing systems or other management plans will be designed during 13. Selection of specific areas for range specific management plan development. improvements will be evaluated to ensure Site-specific impacts from projects will be that highly erosive areas are avoided and to analyzed in an Environmental Assessment ensure workability of the project. (West (EA). (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of Decision) Decision) 14. Where soils and vegetation are 11. Vegetation treatments will be disturbed, reclamation measures will be designed during specific allotment taken, if applicable. These measures include management plan development. If additional returning the land to as near its natural form vegetation treatments are identified after the as possible and reseeding with mixtures of implementation of the allotment management native grasses, legumes, and forbs to plan, they will be assessed through the EA prevent erosion. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS process prior to implementation of the Record of Decision) project. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of Decision) 15. Provisions should be made for planning revegetation of land to a level which 12. Implementation of rangeland is suitable for livestock production on land improvement projects will be in accordance simultaneous with or upon abandonment of with the Final Rangeland Improvement Policy a site. Mining areas, oil and gas roads and (Washington Office Instruction Memorandum pads, mineral sites should be protected 83-27). In allocating rangeland improvement either through stipulations or by Bureau funds, BLM procedures for evaluating, action prior to disturbance. (East Chaves ranking, and budgeting range improvements Management Framework Plan) will be applied. Appropriated funds available for investment in rangeland improvements 16. Site specific EAs and burn plans will will be allocated as follows: be developed for any prescribed burns. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of a. First, to the maintenance of Decision) improvements that continue to serve a valid purpose or objective and for which the BLM 17. Conduct selective salt cedar control to has maintenance responsibility. prevent loss of four-wing saltbush and cottonwood trees. (East Chaves b. Second, for the design, Management Framework Plan) construction and maintenance of new

AP8-2 APPENDIX 8

18. All application rates of herbicides will be 22. Important wildlife habitat, such as determined based on individual range sites broadleaf tree groves, aquatic and riparian and the condition at the time of application. sites, dirt tanks, watering tubs, active raptor (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of nests, and the areas around them would be Decision) protected during brush control operations. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of 19. Only federally registered pesticides Decision) would be used on public lands except as authorized by Section 24. C., Public Law 92- 23. Conduct selective control leaving 516, the Federal Environmental Pesticide islands of salt cedar for wildlife nesting Control Act of 1972. Section 24.C. provides habitat. (East Chaves Management for state registration of certain pesticides for Framework Plan) local needs within the state. Any pesticide proposal planned under a state registration 24. Conduct mesquite control to provide would include a copy of the state label. an adequate amount of untreated mesquite cover to meet optimum quail habitat needs Application of herbicides will conform to BLM on those sites occupied by scaled quail. Manual 9220 and State of new Mexico and U.S. (East Chaves Management Framework Plan) Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) standards. Herbicides proposed for use will be 25. Uprooted mesquite will be left in place authorized by the USEPA, the New Mexico to provide wildlife habitat. Uprooted cholla Department of Agriculture (NMDA), and the will be stacked and left in place or burned, Department of Interior (DOI), and must be depending on wildlife or other multiple-use registered by the USEPA and NMDA. NMDA needs. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of restricted use regulations will be consulted prior to Decision) any herbicide application. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of Decision...this decision has 26. Big game numbers will be managed been re-worded in the Vegetation Treatment on by the NMDG&F to meet populations goals BLM Lands EIS and that wording precedes this and trends. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS paragraph.) Record of Decision)

20. All livestock would be removed from 27. Allotments within the 1.5 million acre treated pastures prior to aerial spraying or area, known as the Pronghorn Antelope ground applications when using foliar spray. Study Area, will be inventoried for production Livestock should be removed following first ½ of fall forbs and analyzed for suitability for inch of moisture following pellet treatment. pronghorn reintroduction. Once allotments Herbicide label requirements will be complied have been determined to be suitable, a with for grazing of domestic animals after cooperative agreement will be developed and application. Livestock grazing would be implemented through cooperation with deferred for a minimum of two consecutive NMDG&F and landowners. (West Roswell growing seasons. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS MFPA/EIS Record of Decision) Record of Decision & Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands EIS) 28. New or expanded grazing use and support facilities will be evaluated on a case- 21. Onsite analysis of areas proposed for by case basis so that impairment of wildlife inclusion in projected brush control habitat will be minimized. (West Roswell treatments will be made to avoid highly MFPA/EIS Record of Decision) desirable wildlife habitat which would be susceptible to the treatments being 29. Where BLM controls water sources, considered. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS water will be made available to wildlife when Record of Decision) livestock are on and off the allotments or

AP8-3 APPENDIX 8 pastures. (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record The results of the consultation will determine of Decision) the course of action necessary to avoid adverse effects on listed species. (West 30. Livestock watering areas will be Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of Decision) located to avoid livestock concentration near sensitive wildlife habitat areas. (East Chaves 36. Before surface-disturbing activities Management Framework Plan) take place, cultural resources will be inventoried and evaluated. All reasonable 31. Water should be available for wildlife. efforts will be made to avoid adverse impacts It will be the Bureau's responsibility to on cultural resources. If impacts are provide water for wildlife's needs, either by unavoidable, BLM will consult with the State developing additional water sources or Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to facilities, or making arrangements by develop mitigating measures. (West Roswell agreements for the use of existing private MFPA/EIS Record of Decision) water sources and facilities. Consideration will be given to requiring that water be 37. Prior to the implementation of surface- available yearlong for wildlife to future private disturbing activities, paleontological and federal watering facilities that may be resources will be inventoried and evaluated. installed on NRL. (East Chaves (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of Management Framework Plan) Decision)

32. Escape ramps will be required in all 38. The cultural resource program will water troughs and open storage tanks. properly identify those areas which are (West Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of sprayed with chemical herbicide so that Decision) future excavators of those areas will be informed of the possibility of contamination of 33. Areas meeting riparian and wetland radiocarbon samples. This information will habitat criteria will be assessed to determine then become a part of the antiquities permit if protection is needed to provide wildlife issued for the excavation of that site. (West habitat. Protection measures will be selected Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of Decision) for individual situations to include protective fencing, adjustments in livestock use, and/or 39. Allotments will be monitored to establishment of buffer strips, as necessary. determine the changes in rangeland Where domestic livestock are excluded from condition and trend due to changes in riparian areas, alternate water sources for grazing management, vegetation treatments, livestock will be provided. (West Roswell and rangeland improvements. (West MFPA/EIS Record of Decision) Roswell MFPA/EIS Record of Decision)

34. Inventory and provide techniques for 40. Any livestock adjustments will be the protection of Threatened or Endangered based on monitoring data (utilization studies, Vegetative Species as directed by law. (East actual use data, precipitation, trend, and Chaves Management Framework Plan) condition). (43 CFR 4100 Grazing Administration 4110.3 and West Roswell 35. A threatened, endangered, State- MFPA/EIS Record of Decision) listed, or proposed-listed species clearance will be conducted by appropriate BLM staff 41. Develop a program to reduce biologist prior to the beginning of any project. accidental trespass resulting from other NRL If a "may affect" determination is made by the users leaving gates open. This includes: staff biologist, consultation will be undertaken with the USFWS, NMDG&F, or the NMNHP a) Installing cattle guards instead of listing the species which may be affected. gates where there is a relatively high

AP8-4 APPENDIX 8

i ntensity coincide with allotment boundaries. (East traffic or Chaves Management Framework Plan) when problem areas are identified.

b) Provide signs instructing users to "Please Close Gates" where only occasional traffic is anticipated.

c) Install leverage devices to aid in closing tight wire gates. (East Chaves Management Framework Plan)

42. Continue to preserve and protect the Mathers Natural Area. (East Chaves Management Framework Plan)

43. Secure legal access by easement acquisition where roads and trails cross private lands leading to allotments. Easement acquisition will be identified later as information is compiled with an inventory of the area's access problems. (East Chaves Management Framework Plan)

44. Disposal of the lands in the following allotments should be encouraged either by sale or as a land exchange base. (East Chaves Management Framework Plan)

Allotment Public Number Acreage

5002 380 5003 200 5006 160 5035 964 5052 40 5056 360 5061 240 5064 881 5089 400 Parcel #1, T. 7 S., R. 29 E., Sec. 23 40

Total 3665

45. Readjust grazing district boundary to

AP8-5 APPENDIX 9 TREATING VEGETATION WITH HERBICIDES

This appendix describes the policies, standards, and practices to be used on public lands in the Roswell Resource Area when treating vegetation with herbicides. These requirements are derived from BLM policy, the Final EIS on Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States, decisions made in Roswell Resource Area land use plans, and mitigations developed through environmental assessments.

The following policies, standards, and of programs involving herbicide use. practices for using herbicides on public lands Cooperative measures among the agencies are to be considered in the planning and will be developed, when appropriate. implementation of each project involving herbicides. If appropriate, any of these items 6. Vegetation treatments will be planned may be included as design features in a (including NEPA analysis) during the project proposal and use authorization. development of activity plans (e.g., allotment management plans, habitat management PROJECT DESIGN, ENVIRONMENTAL plans, or cooperative resource management ANALYSIS plans). If additional vegetation treatments are identified during or after the 1. The treatment of noxious weeds with implementation of an activity plan, the herbicides will be conducted in accordance projects will be assessed in an environmental with current BLM policy, including Manual assessment during the planning of the Sections 9015 (Integrated Weed subsequent project. Management) and 9220 (Integrated Pest Management). 7. A special status species clearance will be conducted as part of project planning. 2. Environmental impacts of proposed Appropriate inform al or formal consultation, projects will be identified through an or both, will be undertaken with the agency environmental assessment. M easures will [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), be taken to mitigate potentially adverse New Mexico Department of Game and Fish environmental impacts. (NMDG&F), or the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program (NMNHP)] listing the 3. Proposed projects will be reviewed with species that may be affected. The results of user groups, interested organizations and the the consultation will determine the course of general public. action needed to avoid adverse effects on listed species. 4. Integrated pest control methods that may combine chemical, manual, mechanical, or 8. During project planning, onsite visits will biological control techniques will be used be made to areas proposed for brush control where they minimize adverse impacts of pest treatments to identify highly desirable wildlife control. habitat that would be adversely affected by the proposed treatments and should be 5. Federal and state agencies with avoided. responsibilities for the environm ent, public health, and fish and wildlife will be informed 9. The following are minimum widths

AP9-1 APPENDIX 9

(measured horizontally) for unsprayed buffer the Pecos River, any livestock watering strips for all herbicides applied adjacent to locations, ranch houses,

AP9-2 APPENDIX 9 or known locations of threatened or wind speed is specified on the label; air endangered plants. temperature is under 85 degrees F.; precipitation is not occurring or imminent; Type of application Buffer snow or ice is not covering the target foliage; fog does not significantly reduce visibility; Aerial Spraying: and, air turbulence would not affect normal Spraying altitude spray patterns. Label directions will be 10 - 15 feet above ground 100 feet followed if they require additional restrictions. Low volatility formulations will be used. Vehicle spraying 25 feet 14. Daily measurements of weather Hand Application 10 feet conditions during application will be made by trained personnel at spray sites. Additional Herbicides will be wiped on individual plants measurements will be made at any time a within 10 feet of water where application is weather change appears to be taking place critical. which could jeopardize safe placement of the spray on the target area. 10. Protective buffer zones will be provided around important riparian or wetland habitats AGENCY REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS along streams, rivers, lakes that are not designed to be treated, and around 15. Only federally registered pesticides will xeroriparian areas along important dry water be used on public lands, except as courses. Xeroriparian areas are defined as authorized by Section 24. C., Public law 92- vegetation zones occurring in or adjacent to 516, the Federal Environmental Pesticide ephemeral desert washes or stream courses, Control Act of 1972. Section 24.C. provides exhibiting more luxuriant growth as an for state registration of certain pesticides for influence of increased available water. Some local needs within the state. Any pesticide species of vegetation may be the same as use proposed under a state registration will occur on the adjacent uplands, but the include a copy of the state label. growth forms are noticeably larger than the upland plants. 16. Tank mixes of pesticides may be approved if the mixture is: provided for on 11. Foliar herbicides will not be applied from one or more labels of Environmental the air within a minimum of 200 meters (657 Protection Agency (EPA) registered products; feet) of special habitat features such as provided for under a state registration; or, aquatic habitats, raptor nest sites, desirable tested and has a written recommendation by native desert trees, caves, wildlife waters, an Agricultural Experiment Station or the exclosures, certain wildlife study sites, and State Department of Agriculture. The important prairie chicken lek sites. pesticides recommended in the mixture must be applied at a dosage rate not to exceed the 12. Irregular boundaries for maximizing edge label instructions for use of any single effect will be incorporated into all methods of product for the same targeted pest and must treatment. Undisturbed islands of natural not be specifically prohibited from mixing on vegetation will be left, where appropriate, to either label. Each tank mix proposal must be minimize negative impacts to wildlife. accompanied by appropriate labels or a written recommendation, or both. 13. To minimize drift and volatilization, aerial applications of all the herbicides will be 17. The use of a registered pesticide at less confined to periods when: wind speed is less than the label dosage may be authorized if than six miles per hour for liquids or fifteen that use is recommended in writing by a miles per hour for granules, or when lesser knowledgeable expert, pursuant to the EPA's

AP9-3 APPENDIX 9

Pesticide Enforcement Policy Statement No. project. Work done by contractors, or other 1, dated May 5, 1975, and September 17, individuals authorized by BLM, will be 1975. conducted by individuals having a valid state certification. 18. All proposed use of herbicides on public lands will be reviewed for approval in 23. The applicable federal regulations advance of use by the BLM's Headquarters concerning the storage and disposal of Office in Washington, D.C. herbicides and herbicide containers will be followed and are described on the label of 19. The application of herbicides will each herbicide. conform to BLM Manual 9011, and State of New Mexico and EPA standards. Herbicides FOLLOW-UP proposed for use would be authorized by the EPA, the New Mexico Department of 24. All livestock will be removed from treated Agriculture (NMDA) and the Department of pastures prior to aerial spraying or ground Interior (USDI), and must be registered by applications involving foliar spray. Livestock the EPA and NMDA. NMDA restricted-use should be removed after the first 1/2 inch of regulations will be consulted prior to any moisture following pellet treatment. herbicide application. Herbicide label requirements will be met when grazing domestic animals after APPLICATION application. Livestock grazing will be deferred for a minimum of two consecutive 20. The rates of herbicide application will be growing seasons. determined based on the condition and character of individual range sites at the time 25. The response of vegetation to treatment of application. will be monitored by methods established prior to treatment. Onsite evaluation of 21. All individuals associated with the herbicide effectiveness and the resulting handling or application of herbicides on secondary succession will be conducted. public lands will be familiar with the Data gathered will be used to improve the emergency procedures to be used in case of brush control process. a herbicide spill. 26. Records of areas sprayed with 22. When a herbicide application project is herbicides will be maintained with cultural conducted by BLM personnel, an employee resource program information so that holding a valid pesticide application researchers can be informed of the possible certification will monitor and supervise the contamination of radiocarbon samples.

AP9-4 APPEMDIX 10 APPENDIX 10 RULES OF CONDUCT

This appendix describes rules of conduct for recreation use on public land in the Roswell Resource Area

The Secretary of the Interior’s regulations at 43 District, New Mexico. General rules of conduct CFR 8365 provide, in part, rules of conduct for are published in Titles 36 and 43 of the Code the protection of public lands and resources, of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Supplemen- and for the protection, comfort and well being tary Rules of Conduct for the Roswell District of the public in its use of recreation areas, sites (the Roswell and Carlsbad Resource Areas) and facilities on public lands. were published in the Federal Register, Volume 60, No. 235 on Thursday, December 7, 1995. Additionally, the BLM’s New Mexico State Di- When approved, subsequeryt rules developed rector has established supplemental rules of for Bureau of Land Management administered conduct for visitor use under 43 CFR 8365.1. lands in New Mexico or applicable changes in These rules are necessary for the protection of the Code of Federal Regulations would super- persons, property, and public lands and re- sede these rules without requiring an amend- sources currently under the BLM’s administra- ment of the RMP. tion in the Roswell District, New Mexico. The rules of conduct also will apply to acquired lands The following acts are prohibited unless autho- that come under the administration of the BLM, rized by written permit from the BLM Roswell as provided for in 43 CFR 8365.1-6. These rules District Office, the Roswell Resource Area or of conduct apply to all persons using public the Carlsbad Resource Area. lands, Violations of these rules are punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months, or both. CAMPING

Exceptions to the following rules of conduct may • Camping in one location is limited to 14 con- be permitted by the Authorized Officer subject secutive days. After that time, campers must to limits and restrictions of controlling federal move at least 25 miles from that location and or state laws. Persons granted use exemptions not return for 28 consecutive days (43 CFR must possess written authorization from the 8365.1-2(a)). BLM office having jurisdiction over the area. • Failing to pay any fees imposed in accordance Further, users must comply with the zoning, with 36 CFR part 71. permitting, rules, or regulatory requirements of other agencies, where applicable. Except as • Camping or parking for more than 30 minutes otherwise provided by federal law or regulation, within 300 feet of any spring, manmade water state and local laws and ordinances shall ap- hole, water well or watering tank used by wild- ply and be enforced by the appropriate state life or domestic stock (43 CFR 8365.1-6). and local authorities (43 CFR 8365.1-7). • Leaving personal property unattended for The following is a list of supplementary rules of more than 24 hours in a day use area, or 72 conduct (prohibfted acts) on Bureau of Land hours in other areas. Personal property left un- Management (BLM) designated recreation attended beyond such time limit is subject to sites, special recreation managemertt areas disposition under the Federal Property and and other public lands in the BLM Roswell Administrative services Act (43 CFR 8365.2- 3(c)).

AP10-1 APPENDIX 10

• Reserving camping space, except at group • Dumping or disposing sewage or sewage facilities. Camping space is available on a first- treatment chemicals from self-cordained or come, first-serve basis (43 CFR 8365.1-6). cordainerized toilets, except at facilities provided for that purpose (43 CFR 8365.1-1(3)). • Failing to maintain quiet in a developed recre- ation site between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to • Showering or bathing at any improved or de- 6:00 a.m., or other hours posted. During this veloped water source, outdoor hydrant, pump, period no person shall create noise which dis- faucet, fountain, or restroom water faucet un- turbs other visitors (43 CFR 8365.1-4(a)). less the water source is designated for that purpose (43 CFR 8365.2.1 (b)). • No more than two motorized vehicles or 10 individuals, or both shall occupy any single, • Cleaning fish, game, other food, clothing or approved developed recreation site not desig- household articles at any outdoor hydrant, nated for group use or as a parking area. pump, faucet, fountain, or restroom water fau- Groups exceeding these limits must use a group cet (43 CFR 8365.2-1 (a)). site or additional designated sites (43 CFR 8365.1-6). • Disposing of any waste or gray water except where disposal facilities are provided (43 CFR • Parking in or occupying a parking space 8365.1-1(3)). posted or marked for handicapped use without displaying an official identification tag or plate • Disposing of any cans, bottles or other non- (43 CFR 8365.1-6). flammable trash and garbage, except in desig- nated receptacles (CFR 43 8365.1 -1 (1)). • Pitching any tent, parking any trailer, erecting any shelter or placing any other camping equip- ment in any area other than the place desig- FIRES nated for it within a designated campsite (43 CFR 8365.2-3(b)). • Disposing of any burning or smoldering ma- terial, except at sftes or facilities provided for • Entering or using a recreation site or a por- that purpose (43 CFR 8365.1-6). tion of a site closed to public use (43 CFR 8365.2-3(@). • Leaving a campfire unattended, or failing to completely extinguish a fire after use (43 CFR, • Moving any table, stove, barrier, litter recep- 8365.1-6). tacle or other campground equipment (43 CFR 8365.2-3(f)). • Igniting or burning any material containing or producing toxic or hazardous material (43 CFR, • Bringing equine stock, llama, cattle, or other 8365.1-6). livestock within campgrounds or picnic areas unless facilities have been specifically provided • Failing to adhere to fire danger ratings issued for such use (43 CFR 8365.2-3(h)). by the government (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Camping, occupying or building a fire on, or • Building a fire in a developed recreation site in, any historic or prehistoric structure or ruin except in a stove, grill, fireplace or ring provided site (43 CFR 8365.1-6). for that purpose (43 CFR 8365.,1-6).

SANITATION VEGETATION AND MINERAL REMOVAL

• Constructing or maintaining any pit toilet facil- • Cutting, removing, or transporting woody ity (43 CFR 8365.1-6). materials without authorization, including, but

AP10-2 APPENDIX 10 not limited to: ation site unless the animal is on a leash not 1. Any type or variety of vegetation (exclud- longer than 6 feet and is secured to a fixed ob- ing dead and down) (43 CFR 8365.1- ject or under control of a person, or is other- 6); wise physically restricted at all times (43 CFR 2. Fuelwood or firewood, either green or 8365.2.1 (c)). standing deadwood (43 CFR 8365.1-6); or, VEHICLES 3. Live plants (except for consumption, medicinal purposes, study or personal • Operating an off-road vehicle without full-time collection) (43 CFR 8365.1-6). use of an approved spark arrester and muffler (43 CFR 8365.1-6). • Gathering or collecting woody plants or any other natural resources or minerals which re- • Failing to display the required state off-road quire a permit, without having a permit (43 CFR vehicle registration (43 CFR 8365.1-6). 8365.1-6). • Lubricating or repairing any vehicle, except • Removing or transporting any mineral re- repairs necessitated by emergency (43 CFR sources including, but not limited to, rock, sand, 8365.1-6). gravel, and minerals on or from public lands without written consent, proof of purchase, or • Operating, parking, or leaving a motorized a valid permit. Collecting specimens and vehicle in violation of posted restrictions or in samples in reasonable amounts for personal such a manner or location as to: noncommercial use, under 43 CFR 8365.1-5(b) 1. Create a safety hazard; is not affected by this section (43 CFR 8365.1- 2. Interfere with other authorized users or 6). uses; 3. Obstruct or impede normal or emer- • Collecting or removing any natural resource, gency traffic movemertt; including wood for campfires, where restrictions 4. Interfere with or impede administrative on removal are posted (43 CFR 8365.1-6). activities; 5. Interfere with the parking of other ve- PETS hicles; or 6. Endanger property or any person (43 • Failing to prevent a pet from harassing, mo- CFR 8365.1-6). lesting, injuring, or killing humans, wildlife or live- stock (43 CFR 8365.1-6). • Operating vehicles off of existing or designated roads and trails within a developed recreation • Failing to immediately remove and dispose of site, unless facilities have been specifically pro- in a sanitary manner all pet fecal material, trash, vided for such use. Motorized vehicles will be garbage or waste created within a developed operated for access to and from developed fa- recreation site (43 CFR 8365.1-6). cilities only (43 CFR 8365.1-6).

• Failing to physically restrain a pet at all times • Driving a motor vehicle within developed within developed campsites and picnic areas. recreation sites or areas except on roads and Pets are prohibited where posted on all desig- places provided for this purpose, unless nated nature or interpretive trails and from otherwise authorized (43 CFR 8365.2-4). erttering caves. Animals trained to assist handi- capped persons are exempt from this rule (43 • Operating a motor vehicle in motion, unless CFR 8365.1-6). the operator and each front seat passenger is restrained by a properly fastened safety beft • Bringing an animal into a developed recre- (43 CFR 8365.1-3(b)(1)).

AP10-3 APPENDIX 10

FIREWORKS and Feather. Only personnel engaged in au- thorized scientific bat studies, census, monitor- • Possessing or using fireworks (43 CFR ing, and emergencies will be allowed to enter 8365.2-5(a)). caves during this time, due to bat, hibernation.

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES • Entering a cave without each person wearing a safety helmet (hard hat) with chin strap and • Selling or giving an alcoholic beverage to a having at least three sources of light (43 CFR person under 21 years of age (43 CFR 8365.1- 8365.1-6). 6). • Annoying or disturbing bats at any time (43 • Possessing an alcoholic beverage by a per- CFR 8365.1-6). son under 21 years of age (43 CFR 8365.1-6). • Willfully defacing, removing or destroying cave WEAPONS resources (43 CFR 8365.1-5(a)(2)).

• Carrying concealed weapons (43 CFR ADVERTISEMENTS OR COMMERCIAL 8365.1-6). USE

• Discharging firearms or other weapons, or • Posting or distributing any signs, posters, hunting and trapping within 150 yards of devel- printed material, or commercial advertisements oped recreation sftes and areas (43 CFR (43 CFR 8365.1-6). 8365.1-6). SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT • Using weapons in violation of state law within AREAS AND ACECs developed campsites or picnic areas (43 CFR 8365.1-6). In addition to the regulations in 43 CFR 8365.2 and the supplemental rules of conduct listed above, the following supplemental rules will be ARCHAEOLOGY OR CULTURAL applied to Special Recreation Management RESOURCES Areas, caves, and ACECs in the Roswell Re- source Area. • Gathering or collecting historical artifacts that require permit for collection, without having a CAMPING permit (43 CFR 8365.1-6). 1 . The group shelter at Valley of Fires may be reserved in advance. • Willfully defacing, disturbing, removing or de- 2. Day use fees are due upon entrance to a stroying any personal property or structures, or day-use area. Camping fees are due within any scientific, cultural, archaeological or historic 1/2 hour after selecting a campsite. resource, natural object or area (43 CFR 3. Camping checkout time is 10:00 a.m. Day- 8365.1-5(a)(1)). users must leave the area by 10:00 p.m. or be charged a camping fee. 4. Campers must display their fee stub as in- CAVES structed on the envelope.

• Entering the following caves from November CAVE RESOURCES, GENERAL RULES 1 to April 15 of each year: Fort Stanton, Torgac, 1. No removal is allowed of any cave, re- Torgac Annex, Crockett, Crystal, Big-Eared sources such as archaeological and histori- Cave, Bat Hole, Malpais Madness, Tres Ninos, cal artifacts, natural materials or features,

AP10-4 APPENDIX 10

plant and animal life, or any item of public e. Permittees may reserve only two dates property. per cave in advance. f. Applications for cave 2. Minors. At least one person in the caving entrance permits for caves that are closed party must be 18 years or older and will be from November 1 through April 15, will only responsible for the actions of younger mem- be accepted from January 1 to November bers of the party. 1 of each year. Permit applications will be 3. Litter and Refuse. All materials (flagging accepted at any time for caves in ACECs tape, lftter, etc.) taken into the cave(s) must that are not bat hibernaculums. be removed and properly disposed of at the end of each cave visit. g. Permfttees must abide by all cave use 4. Human solid or liquid waste may not be de- stipulations attached to permit. posited in any cave. 3. Smoking is not permitted in any cave. 2. Group Size a. Fort Stanton Cave - maximum group size In addition to the general rules of conduct for is 10 persons between the entrance and all caves, the following rules will be in effect for Hellhole gate and 6 persons beyond all caves within ACECS, caves where Special Hellhole Gate, including a BLM guide. A Recreation Managemeryt Area Plans (SRMA) total of 16 persons is allowed in cave at one have been developed, or the caves are time. Bat Cave visitation is prohibited ex- irrtensively managed due to their scientific or cept for research. recreational value, pursuant to Public Law 96- 95, Public Law 100-691, 43 CFR 8364.1, 43 b. Torgac Cave - maximum group size is 6 CFR 8360.0-7, and 30-15-6 NMSA 1978. persons, including a BLM guide.

1. Permits. c. Crockett Cave - maximum group size is a. Entry to a cave for the purpose of recre 9 persons. ation, education, or scieritffic studies re- quires a permit issued by the Roswell Re- d. All other caves in ACECs - maximum source Area, group size is 10 persons.

b. Authorization for erdry to caves is vali e. Group size requirements can be waived dated only upon signature of the permittees, with written permission from the BLM. The and is valid only for those individuals whose maximum group size per BLM guide is 10 signatures appear on the permit. people.

c. Permits must be returned to the Roswell DEFINITIONS Resource Area Office within five days foll- owing the completion of a cave trip. The Definitions of terms used in the rules of con- permit form must be returned even if the duct: trip is canceled. • Abandonment The voluntary relinquishment of control of property for longer than a period d. A cave trip authorization is issued for the specified with no intent to retain possession. time period and date specified on the front of the permit. It is revocable at any time • Administrative activities Those activities upon notice, for any breach of conditions conducted under the authority of the BLM for described in the permit, or at the discretion the purpose of safeguarding persons or prop- of the Authorized Officer of the Bureau of erty, implementing management plans and poli- Land Management. cies developed in accordance with and consis- tent with regulations, or repairing or maintain- ing facilities.

AP10-5 APPENDIX 10

• Authorized Officer Any employee of the BLM administered by the BLM. Related waters are who has been delegated the authority to per- waters which lie directly over or adjacent to form under Title 43 of the Code of Federal public lands and which require management to Regulations. protect federally administered resources or to provide for enhanced visitor safety and other • Campfire A controlled fire occurring outdoors recreation experiences. for cooking, branding, personal warmth, light- ing, ceremonial, or aesthetic purposes. • SRMA An area where special or more inten- sive types of resource and user management • Camping Erecting a tent or shelter of natural are needed. or synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material for use, or the park- • Stove fire A fire built inside an enclosed stove ing of a motor vehicle, motor home, or trailer or grill, a portable brazier, or a pressurized liq- for the apparent purpose of overnight occu- uid or gas stove, including space-heating de- pancy. Occupying a developed camp site or an vices. approved location within developed recreation areas or sftes during the established night pe- • Vehicle Any motorized or mechanized device, riod of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. will be consid- including bicycles, hang gliders, uftra-lights, and ered overnight camping for fee collection and hot air balloons, which is propelled or pulled by enforcement purposes. any living or other energy source, and capable of travel by any means over ground, water, or • Developed recreation site or area Sites or air. areas that contain structures or capital improve- ments used primarily for recreation purposes • Weapon A firearm, compressed gas or spring- by the public. Development may vary from lim- powered pistol or rifle, bow and arrow, cross- ited development for protection of the resources bow, blowgun, spear gun, slingshot, irrftard gas and the safety of users to a distinctly defined device, explosive device, or any other imple- site in which developed facilities that meet the ment designed to discharge missiles or projec- Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 tiles; hand-thrown spear, edged weapons, nun- (as amended) criteria for a fee collection site chucks, clubs, billy-clubs, and any device modi- are provided for concentrated public recreation fied for use or designed for use as a striking use. instrument; any weapon the possession of which is prohibited under New Mexico law. • Historic or prehistoric structure or ruin site Any location at least 50 years old which meets Developed recreation sites or areas and the standards for inclusion on the National Reg- Special Recreation Management Areas in ister of Historic Places as defined in 36 CFR the Roswell District: 60.4, without regard to whether the site has 1. Alkali Lake Off-road Vehicle Area (Carlsbad been nominated or accepted. Resource Area)

• Occupancy Taking or holding possession of 2. Cave SRMA’s - McK!ttrick Hill, Lost, Fence a camp site, other location, or residence on Canyon, Manhole, Yellow Jacket/Lair, Chosa publiciand. Draw, Mudgeffs, Honest lnjun, KFF Caverns (all in Carlsbad Resource Area), and Fort Stanton • Pet A dog, cat, or any other domesticated Cave, Torgac Cave, and Crockeft’s Cave (all in companion animal. Roswell Resource Area).

• Public lands Any lands, interest in lands, or 3. Chosa Draw SRMA (Carlsbad Resource related waters owned by the United States and Area)

AP10-6 APPENDIX 10

4. Dark Canyon SRMA (Carlsbad Resource 9. Mescalero Sands North Dune SRMA Area) (Roswell Resource Area)

5. Fort Stanton SRMA (Roswell Resource Area) 10. Overflow Wetlands (Roswell Resource Area)

6. Guadalupe Escarpment Scenic Area 11. Pecos River Canyon Complex (Carlsbad (Carlsbad Resource Area) Resource Area)

7. Hackberry Lake Off-road Vehicle Area 12. Pecos River Corridor (Carlsbad Resource (Carlsbad Resource Area) (Carlsbad Resource Area) Area) 13. Valley of Fires Recreation Area (Roswell 8. Lonesome Ridge SRMA (Carlsbad Resource Resource Area) Area)

AP10-7 APPENDIX 11 APPENDIX 11 RESULTS OF SECTION 7 CONSULTATION ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

This appendix lists results of consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

TABLE A11-1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS IN APPENDIX 11

Document

1. Table A11-2, Federally Listed Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Roswell Resource Area 2. Table A11-3, State-Listed Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Roswell Re- source Area 3. Table A11-4, BLM Sensitive Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Roswell Re- source Area 4. Biological Assessment 5. Biological Opinion 6. BLM response to the Biological Opinion

AP11-1 APPENDIX 11 TABLE A11-2 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Mammals Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes FE Swift fox Vulpes velox FC

Birds American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum FE Northern aplomado falcon Falco fernoralis septentrionalis FE Interior least tern Sterna antillarum athalassos FE Brown pelican Pelicanus occidentalis FE Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE with proposed critical habitat Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FE Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis Iucida FT with critical habitat Mountain plover Charadrius montanus FC

Fish Pecos gambusia Gambusia nobilis FE Pecos bluntnose shiner Notropis simus pecosensis FT with critcal habitat Pecos pupfish Cyprinodon pecosensis FC Arkansas river shiner Notropis girardi FC

Aquatic Invertebrates Pecos assiminea snail Assiminea pecos FC Roswell spring snail Pyrgulopsis roswellensis FC Koster's tryonia Tryonia kosteri FC

Plants

Kuenzler's hedgehog cactus Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri FE Puzzle sunflower Helianthus paradoxus FC

Note: FE = Federal Endangered; FT = Federal Threatened; FC = Federal Candidate. Source: BLM files, 1996.

AP11-2 APPENDIX 11 TABLE A11-3 STATE LISTED SPECIES OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Common Name Scientific Name Status Mammals Least shrew Cryptotis parva ST

Birds American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum SE Northern aplomado falcon Falco femoralis septentrionalis SE Interior least tern Sterna antillarum athalassos SE Brown pelican Pelicanus occidentalis SE Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus ST Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus ST Baird's sparrow Amrnodramus bairdii ST Neotropic cormorant Phalacrocorax olivaceus ST Bell's vireo Vireo bellii ST Gray vireo Vireo vicinoir ST

Reptiles Sand dune lizard Sceloporus arenicolus ST Western ribbon snake Thamnophis proximus ST Western river cooter Pseudemys gorzugi ST

Fish Arkansas River shiner Notropis girardi SE Pecos bluntnose shiner Notropis simus pecosensis ST Pecos gambusia Gambusia nobilis ST Pecos pupfish . Cyprinodon pecosensis ST White Sands pupfish Cyprinodon tularosa ST Bigscale logperch Percina macrolepida ST Rio Grande silvery minnow Hybognathus amarus ST Mexican tetra Astyanax mexicanus ST Greenthroat darter Etheostoma lepidum ST

AP11-3 APPENDIX 11 TABLE A11-3 STATE LISTED SPECIES OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Canadian speckled chub Hybopsis aestivalis tretranemus ST

Suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis ST

Aquatic Invertebrates Pecos assiminea snail Assiminea pecos SE

Roswell spring snail Pyrgulopsis roswellensis SE

Koster's tryonia Tryonia kosteri ST

Invertebrates Noel's amphipod Gammarus desperatus SE

Plants Kuenzler's hedgehog cactus Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri SL1

Puzzle sunflower Helianthus paradoxus SL1

Note: SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened; SL1 State Endangered List 1 Source: BLM files, 1996.

AP11-4 APPENDIX 11 TABLE A11-4 BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Common Name Scientific Name Status Mammals Arizona black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus arizonensis FC2 Pecos River muskrat Ondatra zibethicus ripensis FC2 Gray-footed chipmunk Tamias canipes FC2 Organ Mountains Colorado chipmunk Eutamias quadrivittatus australis FC2 New Mexican meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius luteus FC2 Occult little brown bat Myotis lucifigus occultus FC2 Spotted bat Euderma maculatum FC2 Pale Townsend's big-eared bat Plecotus townsendii pallescens FC2 Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes FC2 Long-legged myotis Myotis volans FC2 Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis FC2 Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum FC2 Cave myotis Myotis velifer incautus FC2 Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis FC2 Big free-tailed bat Nyctinornops macrotis FC2

Birds Baird's sparrow Ammodramus bairdii FC2 White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi FC2 Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis FC2 Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus FC2 Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis FC2 Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugea FC2

Reptiles Sand dune lizard Sceloporus arenicolus FC2 Sacramento Mountain salamander Aneides hardii FC2 Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum FC2

AP11-5 APPENDIX 11

TABLE A11-4 BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES OCCURRING OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE ROSWELL RESOURCE AREA

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Fish White Sands pupfish Cyprinodon tularosa FC2 Rio Grande shiner Notropis jemezanus FC2 Arkansas River speckled chub Macrhyobopsis aestivalis tetraneums FC2 Flathead chub Platygobio gracilis FC2 Headwater catfish lctalurus lupus FC2 Longtin dace Agosia chrysogaster FC2 Plains minnow Hybognathus placitus FC2

Aquatic Invertebrates Bonita diving beetle Deronectes noemexicana FC2

Invertebrates Noel's amphipod Gammarus desperatus FC2

Plants Kerr's milkvetch Astragalus kerrii FC2 Grama grass cactus Pediocactus papyracanthus FC2 Sierra Blanca cliff daisy Chaetopappa elegans FC2 Sandhill goosefoot Chenopodium cycloides FC2

Note: FC2 = Federal Candidate Category 2. These species were listed as FC2 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but are no longer considered candidate species. The ELM has included these former FC2 species in a ELM sensitive species list.

Source: ELM files, 1996

AP11-6 APPENDIX 11 Bloiogical Assessment Update for Previous Land Use Plans, Plan Amendments, Environmental Analyses (1976-1987) and for the 1996 Roswell Resource Area Resource Management Plan

Roswell Resource Area

July 8, 1 996 1. Introduction The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, to determine if any action it completes or permits would adversely impact federally threatened or endangered species. The BLM also evaluates potential impacts to federal candidate species. Candidates are those species for which the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened, but for which issuance of a proposed rule is precluded.

The listing of species as threatened or endangered is extremely dynamic, there is a need to update the existing biological assessments/ElSs to include newly listed species, and to amend the status of other species. To determine how a proposal affects listed species and their habitats, the BLM has decided to complete an updated Biological Assessment (BA) for current land use plans, plan amendments, and environmental analyses. This BA is two-fold in that it will also address the new Roswell Resource Area Resource Manage- ment Plan (RMP). The Roswell RMP is the first comprehensive land use plan prepared for the entire Roswell Resource Area (RRA). Valid decisions from past documents are carried forward in the RMP; all past land use plans, plan amendments, and environmen- tal analyses will be superceded by the approval of the Final Roswell RMP.

This BA updates the following RRA land use plans, plan amendments, and environmen- tal analyses, which were developed in conformance with procedures in place at the time of preparation.

1976 East Chaves Management Framework Plan 1979 East Roswell Grazing Environmental Statement 1981 Environmental Assessment - Oil and Gas Leasing Roswell District 1984 Roswell Management Framework Plan Amendment 1986 & 1987 Fort Stanton Management Framework Plan Amendments

As mentioned, several wildlife and plant species were added to the list of federally threat- ened or endangered species, and several species were listed or upgraded to candidate category 1 species since the completion of these documents. The evaluations and determinations in this BA is based on the current USFWS listing found

AP11-7 APPENDIX 11 in the Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 40, dated Wednesday, February 28, 1996, 50 CFR Part 17, Endangered and Threatened Species, Plant and Animal Taxa; Proposed Rule. An important change is the deletion of candidate category 2 species. These former category 2 species will not be included in this BA. Former candidate category 1 species, now simply referred to as candidate species, are being included in this BA.

Federally-listed species that were evaluated at the time of preparing the land use plans/ amendments are summarized in Table 1. The previous assessments covered only those species that fell within the scope of the documents; for example, the Fort Stanton Man- agement Framework Plan Amendment does not include endangered fish species found in the Pecos River. Table 2 presents the chronology of species listing and land use plans, amendments and environmental analyses preparation. Priority species that were federally listed since the time of the last land use plan (Roswell MFPA 1984) are the Interior least tern and Pecos bluntnose shiner. Other listed species area lower priority; for example, the historic range of the Aplomado falcon does not include the RA, habitat for the Mexican spotted owl is not present in the RA, the southwestern willow flycatcher is a migrant in the Pecos Valley with occassional sightings.

The Roswell Resource Area has prepared the Roswell Resource Area Draft Resource Management Plan (DRMP)/Environmental Impact Statement that would, upon finaliza- tion and approval, supercede all of the current plans, amendments and environmental analyses. This BA includes evaluations of land use planning decisions found in the RMP for potential impacts to all federal special status species occurring or potentially occur- ring in the RRA. This plan provides a comprehensive framework for managing the public lands, including the federal mineral estate, and for allocating resources in the RRA for the next twenty years. A plethora of information about various natural resources and land use activities are found in this document and will serve as current environmental baseline data. Please refer to Chapter 3 of this document for more up-to-date informa- tion for the entire Resource Area.

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS is scheduled to go to final printing near the end of Sep- tember 1996.

Acronyms used in the following Tables are: FE = Federal Endangered; FT = Federal Threatened; FPE = Federal Proposed Endangered; PCH = Proposed Critical Habitat; CH = Critical Habitat; FC = Federal Candidate; FC1 = Federal Candidate Category 1; MFP = Management Framework Plan; MFPA = Management Framework Plan Amendment; RMP = Resource Management Plan; EA = Environmental Assessment; EIS = Environmental Impact Statement.

AP11-8 APPENDIX 11

Table 1. Current Land Use Plans/Amendments/EAs and Species Considered

1976 East Chaves Management Framework Plan Status*

Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes FE American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum FE Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FE Pecos Gambusia Gambusia nobilis FE

1979 East Roswell Grazing Environmental Statement ' Black-footed Ferret 1 Mustela nigripes FE American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum FE Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FE Pecos Gambusia Gambusia nobilis FE Pecos Bluntnose Shiner Notropis simus pecosensis FT Pecos Pupfish Cyprinodon pecosensis FC1 Arkansas River Shiner Notropis simus FPE

1981 Oil and Gas Leasing Environmental Assessment

Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes FE American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum FE Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FE Pecos Gambusia Gambusia nobilis FE

1984 Roswell Management Framework Plan Amendment

Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes FE American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum FE Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FE

1986 & 1987 Fort Stanton Management Framework Plan Amendment

Kuenzler's Hedgehog Cactus Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri FE

* Status at the time of document preparation.

AP11-9 APPENDIX 11

Table 2. Chronology of Species Listing and Document Preparation

Species Listing Date Status* Plan/Amendment

Black-footed Ferret 03/11/67 FE

Brown Pelican 10/13/70 FE Pecos Gambusia 10/13/70 FE East Roswell MFP- 6/76 Bald Eagle 02/14/78 FE East Roswell Grazing EIS- 9/79 Kuenzler's Hedgehog I Cactus 10/26/79 FE Oil and Gas EA- 7/81 American Peregrine Falcon 02/29/84 FE Roswell M FPA - 9/84 Interior Least Tern 05/28/85 FE

Northern Aplomado Faicon 02/25/86 FE Fort Stanton MFPA - 4/86 Pecos Bluntnose Shiner 02/27/87 FT Fort Stanton MFPA- 12/87 Mexican Spotted Owl 03/16/93 FT Puzzle Sunflower 09/30/93 FC1 Roswell Draft RM P - 9/94 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 11/15/94 FE Koster's Tryonia 11/15/94 FC1 Roswell Spring Snail 11/15/94 FC1 Pecos Assiminea Snail 11/15/94 FC1 Pecos Pupfish 11/15/94 FC1 Arkansas River Shiner 11/15/94 FC1 Swift Fox 11/15/94 FC1 Mountain Plover 11/15/94 FC1

* Status at time of document preparation.

AP11-10 APPENDIX 11

Wildlife and plant species that have been added to the federal list since the time of preparing the original land use plans/amendments are tabulated below.

Table 3. Newly-listed Species and Species Not Included in Previous Planning Documents/Amendments

Common Name Scientific Name Status* New*

Mammals

Swift Fox Vulpes velox FC1 *

Birds Northern Aplomado Falcon Falco femoralis septentrional is FE Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos FE Southwestern Willow Empidonax trailii Flycatcher extimus FE * Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis Iucida FT * Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus FC1 *

Fish Arkansas River Shiner Notropis simus FPE * Pecos Pupfish Cyprinodon pecosensis FC1 *

Aquatic Invertebrates Pecos Assiminea Snail Assiminea pecos FC1 * Roswell Spring Snail Pyrgulopsis roswell en sis FC1 * Koster's Tryonia Tryonia kosteri FC1 *

Plants Puzzle Sunflower Helianthus paradoxus FC1 *

* Status at the time of document preparation. The BLM RRA considers newly-listed species as those listed in 1993 and later.

AP11-11 APPENDIX 11

Informal Section 7 consultation was initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on February 22, 1992, through a species list request for the Roswell Resource Management Plan (Consultation # 2-22-92-1-056). This species list was subsequently updated by USFWS Memorandum dated June 19, 1995, Federally Listed and Candidate Plant and Animal Species - County List for New Mexico.

A revised list of animal and plant species was recently published by the USFWS (Federal Register, Wednesday, February 28, 1996). Species formerly in Category 1 in prior Notices of Review are now simply known as candidates. Species that were formerly in Category 2 are no longer considered candidate species.

Species covered in this BA were determined in consultation with the USFWS. The following table is an inclusive list of all the species included in this BA and their current status.

AP11-12 APPENDIX 11

Table 4. Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring in the Roswell Resource Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Mammals Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes FE Swift Fox Vulpes velox FC

Birds American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum FE Northern Aplomado Falcon Falco femoralis septentrional is FE Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos FE Brown Pelican Pelicanus occidentalis FE Southwestern Willow Empidonax trailii Flycatcher extimus FE (w/ PCH) Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FT Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis Iucida FT (w/ CH) Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus FC

Fish Pecos Gambusia Gambusia nobilis FE Pecos Bluntnose Shiner Notropis simus pecosensis FT (w/ CH) Arkansas River Shiner Notropis simus FPE (Canadian R.) Pecos Pupfish Cyprinodon pecosensis FC

Aquatic Invertebrates Pecos Assiminea Snail Assiminea pecos FC Roswell Spring Snail Pyrgulopsis roswellensis FC Koster's Tryonia Tryonia kosteri FC

Plants Kuenzler's Hedgehog Cactus Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri FE Puzzle Sunflower Helianthus paradoxus FC

AP11-13 APPENDIX 11

Summary of Land Use Plans, Plan Amendments and Environmental Analyses Refer to the General Location Map showing the area of coverage for each document. The current land use plans, amendments and environmental analyses are summarized below with only those decisions influencing special status species habitat management on public lands within the Roswell Resource Area. The documents contain the detailed information about the natural resources and resource uses pertinent to the plan. These documents were made available to the USFWS for review in order to comply with ESA Section 7 consultation process. Please refer to these documents for more detailed information.

Land use plans consider and establish general protection and enhancement decisions for special status species based on laws and regulations. The decisions in these plans cannot be in violation of ESA, nor can the subsequent authorizations for specific activi- ties. Land use planning is more general than site-specific activity planning. Activitiy planning and project planning is where specific measures to address special status species needs are made, and offers another level of consultation with the USFWS. Species listed after the preparation of land use plans were still considered during the NEPA process for specific activity plans and projects. For example, the Interior least tern, listed in 1985 as federal endangered, was analyzed in the 1995 MAPCO Pipeline Environmental Assessment even though it was never addressed in a land use plan.

There are only a few areas within the Resource Area that provide occupied habitat for federally-listed species, such as the Pecos River for several T/E fish and Fort Stanton for Kuenzier’s hedgehog cactus. The scope for review will be on those areas and not on the entire 2.1 million surface acres of public lands administered by the Roswell Resource Area that do not support T/E species habitat.

It is not the intent of this BA to study each of the decisions as they potentially impact special status species from the time of plan approval to date. It is meant to portray succinct information about current land use decisions and the consideration made for special status species listed at the time of preparation. It is also meant to evaluate potential impacts of those decisions to newly-listed species under current land use plans.

The environmental baseline information will be the current situation for various resources as found in Chapter 3 of the DRMP, and not on the situation as it existed during the time of preparation of the existing documents.

As mentioned, once the Roswell Resource Area RMP is approved, all previous planning documents will no longer be in effect.

AP11-14 APPENDIX 11

1976 East Chaves Management Framework Plan - This planning document encom- passes that portion of Chaves County east of the Pecos River in the Roswell Resource Area which include about 425,300 acres of Natural Resource Lands. Natural Resource Lands would remain open to exploration and development of minerals, particularly oil and gas production; mitigation measures may be applied to location and design of min- eral exploration and development facilities; grazing systems would be applied to 55 grazing allotments; vegetation manipulation would be conducted; wildlife habitat man- agement plans would be developed; wildlife habitat improvement projects would be conducted; focus on recreational developments at Mescalero Sands and Commanche Hill areas. The planning unit was broken down into eight general vegetative subtypes: Shinnery Oak, Mesquite, Grasslands, Mixed Desert Shrub, Creosote, Active Dunes, Riparian, and Waste. All activities authorized by the planning document would occur in most vegetation types.

The following decisions provide management guidelines for the protection and enhance- ment of specific wildlife species habitat.

WL-1.1 Schedule intensive inventories in cooperation with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish to determine if black-footed ferrets are presently inhabiting prairie dog towns within the planning unit.

WL-1.2 Maintain existing prairie dog towns and allow expansion of small towns to a minimum of 200 acres. Do not allow surface disturbances within 200 yards of existing prairie dog town perimeters and ban all prairie dog control programs.

WL-1.5 Maintain the shortgrass areas on about 7,920 acres to maintain aspect for the swift fox.

WL-2.3 Saltcedar control will only be conducted on specific sites selected where the control would not adversely impact resource values.

WL-7.1 Any impacts from proposed resource actions that may cause destruction to the existing riparian and aquatic habitats in the unit will be mitigated.

WL-7.3 Provide for the protection of mature cottonwoods in the riparian zones. Have allotment management plans containing these riparian zones provide for seedling estab- lishment of cottonwoods either through grazing systems or with fenced plots until seed- lings are established.

WL-7.4 Do not allow exploration, drilling, blasting or construction activities from Marc 1 to August 1 each year within one-half mile of river riparian habitat or bluffs and ridges having sites containing vertical faces 30 feet or greater in height unless the specified area has been inventoried by a qualified ornithologist. Do not allow parallel roads closer than 300 yards of the base or top of such bluffs or ridges.

AP11-15 APPENDIX 11

Important nesting sites for protected bird species will be identified. Stipulations and use tolerances will be determined for each site. These management criteria will be incorpo- rated into use authorizations and protective methods for each specific area or site.

WL-7.6 All existing and new powerline authorized rights-of-way on Natural Resource Lands will be electrocution safe for birds of prey.

WL-7.10 Conduct intensive inventory and analysis of the habitat use and requirements of the mountain plover and long-billed curlew.

WL-7.11 Mesquite control will be conducted on specific areas to enhance habitat for protected bird species.

WL-7.12 Selected sites will be fenced and excluded from livestock grazing for the en- hancement of nesting habitat for protected birds species. Emphasis will be to select only the key nesting sites. No mesquite or desert shrub control will be conducted within the protected sites.

WL-7.13 Large bushes and trees in the habitat of birds of prey will be protected during mesquite control,

WL-1 1.2 Identified lands adjacent to and within the potentially flooded area (Overflow Wetlands Wildlife Habitat Area) will be acquired.

WL-1 1.3 Intensive inventories will be conducted adjacent to the Pecos River for the potential development as aquatic habitat.

WL-12,2 A habitat management plan will be developed on public land in the riparian zone aimed at riparian and aquatic community development and enhancement.

WL-1 2.3 Develop a unit-wide habitat management plan for the establishment and en- hancement of aquatic and terrestrial habitats in association with existing and future water developments.

1979 East Roswell Grazing EIS - This environmental impact statement encompasses that portion of Chaves County east of the Pecos River within the boundary of the Roswell Resource Area which include about 425,300 acres of public land. This EIS proposes a grazing management program for portions of Chaves and Eddy County located east of the Pecos River, and all of Lea County. It reaffirms the continuation of livestock grazing on public land where it is presently authorized, reaffirms the classifica- tion for kind of livestock and period of use, designates areas to be excluded from live- stock grazing, allocates the forage resource between livestock and big game,

AP11-16 APPENDIX 11 establishes a maximum level of range utilization at 40 to 60 percent, and directs the development of range improvement projects. Eight wildlife habitats were identified: Riparian; Drainages, Draws, Canyons; Mixed Desert Shrub; Mesquite Grassland; Creo- sote; Shortgrass; Shinnery Oak/Dune; and Broadleaf Tree (Upland). Livestock grazing and range improvement projects would occur in all habitat types with constraints based on habitat condition.

Standard operating procedures (SOP) and design features/safeguards (DFS) were developed to insure that the most acceptable practices for any given site are used during the period that range improvement projects are being undertaken and specific grazing systems are being applied.

SOP-4 Wildlife habitat would be assessed and a determination made as to the specific effects to be expected should the action be taken.

DFS-3 Areas meeting riparian and wetland habitat criteria would be protected to provide wildlife habitat. Protection measures would be selected for individual situations to in- clude protective fencing, adjustments in livestock use, and/or establishment of buffer strips, as necessary.

DFS-4 Important habitat areas such as portions of broadleaf tree groves and the areas around dirt tanks, playas and watering tubs, would be fenced to provide islands of pro- tected habitat (normally 2-3 acres in size).

DFS-5 During periods of drought or other emergencies, adjustments in livestock num- bers would be made to guard against damage to the vegetal-soil resource.

DFS-6 Trees and large mesquite bushes (especially those containing nests of birds of prey) would be spared during brush control operations. Also, those portions of drain- ages leading into the Pecos River which contain the tall growth forms of woody species (about 1,000 acres) would be excluded from vegetative treatment programs.

DFS-1 1 A fire management plan would be developed prior to any prescribed burning of vegetation.

DFS-14 Areas containing threatened or endangered plants or animals would be avoided if adverse impacts would be expected to occur through implementation of the proposed action.

AP11-17 APPENDIX 11

Further information gained during specific project layout and design may indicate that an effect does exist. In such an event, formal consultations with the Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act would be initiated. These consulta- tions may then result in alteration or abandonment or the proposed range improvements.

1981 Oil and Gas Leasing Environmental Assessment - This environmental assess- ment encompasses the entire Roswell District which include about 14 million acres of federal mineral estate. It continues to authorize leasing and exploration for oil, gas, sodium and lithium brine, and carbon dioxide resources on public and reserved mineral lands within the Roswell District; promotes both leasing and production of these re- sources; authorizes abandonment of leases; and establishes standard operating proce- dures and mitigation. The same habitat types identified in the East Roswell Grazing EIS were listed in this assessment with the addition of the Pinyon-Juniper type. Oil and gas exploration and development would occur in all habitat types except Riparian, Broadleaf Tree, and Pinyon-Juniper habitat types.

Site-specific measures must be taken for each action to protect threatened or endan- gered plants or animals. Such measures will be the result of a site-specific survey as allowed by standard operating procedures. Standard or special stipulations will be included in any grant, thus assuring protection of those species.

Current Leasing Standard Operating Procedures -

A. l.a. In cave areas, drilling operations would not be conducted within 100 yards of any cave entrance, known passageway, or other subterranean aspect. Sludge oil dis- posal pits would not be located within 200 yards of known and surveyed cave entrances, underground passageways, or in other locations where the cave resources would be endangered by seeping oil or waste products. Such pits would not be located in sink holes, near fractures, or near cave entrances. All pits would be lined with an impervious material. Drilling sites would be cleared in a manner which would prevent an increase of natural water flow into cave entrances or aspects.

A.l.f. Major rivers and drainages. Exploration and/or drilling activities would, be prohib- ited within one quarter mile of river channels, marshes, reservoirs, or riparian habitats. Permanent improvements and/or operations would not be permitted in floodplains with- out approval of BLM’s Roswell District Manager.

A.l.m. All permanent sump pits will be fenced to exclude livestock. Where wildlife mor- talities are likely, pits will be covered with a fine mesh netting. As an alternative, fiber- glass tanks may be used as long as access is restricted in the same manner as for pits.

A.l.n. The federal surface management agency is responsible for assuring that the area to be disturbed is examined prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities on lands covered by the lease, to determine effects upon any plant or animal species listed

AP11-18 APPENDIX 11 or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened or their habitats. If the findings of this examination determines that the operation may detrimentally affect an endangered or threatened species, some restrictions to the operator’s plan or even disallowance of use may result.

The lessee/operator may, at his discretion and cost, conduct the examination on the lands to be disturbed. This examination must be done by or under the supervision of a qualified resource specialist approved by the surface management agency. An accept- able report must be provided to the surface management agency identifying the antici- pated effects of the proposed action on endangered or threatened species or their habitat.

In 1989, a Supplement to the 1981 Oil and Gas Leasing Final EA (NM-060-00-02) was prepared for the attachment of a Controlled Surface Use Special Oil and Gas Leas- ing Stipulation (Roswell #44) to protect riparian and wetland resources along the Pecos River in the Roswell Resource Area. About 13,940 federal fluid mineral acres along the Pecos River are potentially affected by this stipulation. Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints.

1. Restricted Surface Disturbance: Oil and gas activities will not be allowed within wetland or riparian habitat areas. However, where non-riparian or non-wetland areas exist within these lands, oil and gas activities may be allowed by the Authorized Officer.

2. Limited ORV Use: All vehicular use will be restricted to designated or authorized access routes.

In 1995, an Interim Oil and Gas Leasing and Development EA for the Roswell Resource Area (NM-066-95-096) was prepared. This document serves as a bridge between the 1981 Oil and Gas Leasing EA and the final Roswell Resource Area RMP. Leasing of cleared parcels would be conducted where federal mineral estate underlies surface administered by the BLM, or surface owned or administered by and individual or government agency other than the BLM. All lease parcels proposed for sale would be reviewed against the screening criteria listed in Appendix 1 of the EA. Those parcels failing to pass the screening process would not be offered for sale during the interim leasing period, but could be reconsidered for sale after the Roswell RMP is completed. Leasing stipulations contained in the 1981 Oil and Gas Leasing EA and any subsequent applicable EAs would be applied to lease parcels offered for sale to mitigate impacts. Exploration, development, production, and abandonment on previously issued leases and new leases would be conducted according to standard conditions of approval (see Appendix 5 of the EA, standard terms and conditions of oil and gas leases, Onshore Oil and Gas Orders, Notices to Lessees, and regulations, especieally 43 CFR 3101.1-2. These practices mitigate impacts. Additionally, sitespecific environmental assessments would be prepared for individual actions, and additional impact mitigations could be developed in those assessments.

1984 Roswell Management Framework Plan Amendment - This plan amendment/environmental impact statement encompasses approximately 1.5 million

AP11-19 APPENDIX 11 acres of public land in Quay, Guadalupe, Curry, DeBaca, Roosevelt, Lincoln, and most of Chaves County (west of the Pecos River). It proposes a rangeland management pro- gram for 284 grazing allotments. Stocking rates would be determined and adjustments made on 5 years of monitoring studies: downward adjustments would be applied in areas where poor and fair range conditions exist based on monitoring studies; increases of livestock numbers would occur in “M” category allotments based on monitoring stud- ies; no grazing decisions will be issued on “C” category allotments. The plan amend- ment directs development of rangeland improvements and vegetation treatments, and provides for additional forage for big game and other wildlife species from vegetation treatments. The plan amendment did not identify specific habitat types but included the following in discussions for various wildlife species: riparian salt cedar, riparian cotton- wood, drainages and bottomiands, canyons and draws, mixed desert shrublands; grass rolling uplands, shinnery oak, grainfields, escarpments, and special habitat features. Livestock grazing and range improvement projects would occur in all habitat types with constraints based on habitat condition.

Standard Operating Procedures -

1. Range improvements and vegetation treatments will be designed during specific cooperative management plan development. Site-specific impacts from projects will be analyzed in an Environmental Assessment (EA).

3. Where soils and vegetation are disturbed, reclamation measures will be taken, if applicable. These measures include returning the land to as near its natural form as possible and reseeding with mixtures of grass, legumes, and forbs to maintain vegetative cover and prevent erosion.

5. Cooperative Management Plans (CMPS) will be fully implemented, and an EA covering each CMP will be prepared. The plans will be monitored and evaluated follow- ing implementation so that periodic changes, if necessary, can be made on those plans not meeting multiple-use objectives. Flexibility in deviating from the normal livestock operation will be provided for in each CMP.

7. If additional range improvements or vegetation treatments are identified, they will be assessed through the EA process prior to implementation.

8. All application rates of herbicides will be determined based on individual range sites and the conditions at the time of application.

9. Application of herbicides will conform to BLM Manual 9220 and State of New Mexico and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards,

10. Tractor-mounted root-knives will be used to grub mesquite and cholla. The up- rooted mesquite will be left in place after grubbing to provide wildlife habitat.

AP11-20 APPENDIX 11

Uprooted cholla will be stacked and left in place or burned, depending on wildlife or other multiple-use needs.

1 1. In areas of vegetation treatment, livestock grazing would be deferred for a minimum of two consecutive growing seasons. A continual 16 month deferment period may be required in some instances.

12. Prescribed burning will be used primarily for maintenance of alkali sacaton or giant sacaton swales to remove rank and unpalatable growth. Site-specific EAs and burn plans will be developed for any prescribed burns.

16. Onsite analysis of areas proposed for inclusion in projected brush control treat- ments will be made to avoid highly desirable wildlife habitat which would be adversely affected by the treatments being considered.

17. Important wildlife habitat, such as broadleaf tree groves, aquatic and riparian sites, dirt tanks, watering tubs, active raptor nests, and the areas around them would be protected during brush control operations. These areas would be protected through the use of nonlethal rates of herbicides, or other means as deemed appropriate by resource specialists. Pseudoriparian areas and most major drainages would be excluded from chemical treatment. Drainages containing perennial streams would be excluded from chemical treatment programs within a distance of 1,320 feet.

19. A threatened, endangered, State-listed, or proposed-listed species clearance would be conducted by an appropriate BLM staff biologist prior to the beginning of any project, If a ‘may affect’ determination is made by the staff biologist, consultation would be undertaken with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, or the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program listing the species which may be affected. The results of the consultation would determine the course of action necessary to avoid adverse effects on listed species.

21. New or expanded grazing use and support facilities would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis so that impairment of wildlife habitat would be minimized or elimi- nated.

23. Areas meeting riparian and wetland habitat criteria would be assessed to deter- mine if protection is needed to provide wildlife habitat. Protection measures will be selected for individual situations to include protective fencing, adjustments in livestock use, and/or establishment of buffer strips, as necessary. Where domestic livestock are excluded from riparian areas, alternate sources for livestock will be provided.

24. An environmental assessment will be prepared prior to the implementation of a habitat management plan.

AP11-21 APPENDIX 11 1986 Fort Stanton MFPA - This plan amendment is specific to approximately 25,000 acres of federal lands at the Fort Stanton special management area located in Lincoln County. It designates a location suitable for a right-of-way (ROW) corridor for the ancil- lary ROWs associated with the proposed Sierra Blanca Regional Airport and provides for anticipated future uses at Fort Stanton.

Standard Operating Procedures -

1. A site-specific EA will be prepared prior to approval of any surface-disturbing activity.

5. A threatened, endangered, State-listed, or proposed-listed species clearance will be conducted by an appropriate BLM staff biologist prior to the approval of any project. If a “may affect” determination is made by the staff biologist, consultation will be under- taken with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, or the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program listing the species which may be affected. The results of the consultation will determine the course of action necessary to avoid adverse effects on listed species.

6. Activities in livestock areas which could affect cave resources, or where the location of caves could affect an activity, will be field checked to determine potential problems. A field check will determine if caves may be present and if a more detailed examination by earth-resistivity systems or other methods of detecting subsurface voids is needed. If this need is demonstrated, the detection of subterranean cavities will be the responsibility of the applicant and may be required prior to approval of major surface- disturbing activities.

7. Surface-disturbing activities which alter the water flow or add sediments into the Rio Bonito, a source for the underground creek in Fort Stanton Cave, will be mitigated to eliminate or minimize the impact to the creek waters or watershed.

8. When soils and vegetation are disturbed, reclamation measures will be taken, if applicable. These measures include returning the land to as near its natural form as possible and reseeding with mixtures of grass, legumes, and forbs to maintain vegetative cover and prevent erosion.

9. Natural and beneficial floodplain and riparian values will be protected, preserved, and restored to the greatest extent possible using policy and guidelines set forth in Executive Orders 11988, 11990, and 11514.

1987 Fort Stanton MFPA - This plan amendment is specific to approximately 25,000 acres of federal lands at the Fort Stanton special management area located in Lincoln

AP11-22 APPENDIX 11

County, It designates a location for a developed recreation site in the Salado Creek Drainage and other minor sites or trails on federal lands at Fort Stanton as the need arises.

1. A site-specific EA will be prepared prior to approval of any surface-disturbing activity.

4. A threatened, endangered, State-listed, or proposed-listed species clearance will be conducted by an appropriate BLM staff biologist prior to the approval of any project. If a “may affect” determination is made by the staff biologist, consultation will be under- taken with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, or the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program listing the species which may be affected. The results of the consultation will determine the course of action necessary to avoid adverse effects on listed species.

1995 Roswell Resource Area Draft RMP/EIS - The DRMP contains many decisions relating to the protection of special status species habitat. Please refer to Chapter 2 Alternative E (Preferred Alternative), Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Appendix 3 - Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements, Appendix 4 - Roswell District Conditions of Approval, and Appendix 14 - ACEC Maps. Many decisions to protect special status species and their habitats are found under the various affected resources and not spe- cifically under Wildlife Habitat Management.

Keep in mind that there are several discretionary actions which allow the BLM to protect habitat that do not require land use planning decisions. For example, the sale of mineral materials is discretionary, sand and gravel operations within major drainages are typi- cally not authorized. Leasing of oil and gas parcels is discretionary, but in most cases leases are sold with lease stipulations or lease notices. Rights-ofway are discretionary, proposed routes are frequently modified to avoid impacts or similar rights-of-way are combined into a corridor to reduce habitat disturbance.

AP11-23 APPENDIX 11

II. Species Accounts by Status

Analyses and determinations of decisions in previous land use plans, plan amendments and environmental analyses (Analysis) are presented along with the analyses and deter- minations for decisions in the Roswell Resource Area Draft Resource Management Plan (DRMP Analysis).

A. Federal Endangered Species

Mammals

Black-Footed Ferret - Mustela nigripes

Status & Presence in Planning Area: This species is usually found in association with prairie dog towns in grassland plains and surrounding mountain basins up to 10,500 feet elevation. Historically, this species was reported from all but the southernmost portion of the state, i.e., south of the Mogollon Plateau east to the Pecos Valley. In New Mexico, the majority of black-fboted ferrets were associated with Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisont) colonies, which occur in grasslands located in the northern and western portions of the state (Findley et al. 1975). Only one ferret report was from a black-tailed prairie dog (C. ludovicianus) colony. Black-tailed colonies were historically widespread east of the Rio Grande and in southwestern New Mexico (Findley et al. 1975). It is believed that this species was never abundant in eastern New Mexico as few records of ferret occurrence have come from this area. Documented sightings have occurred in DeBaca and Curry County. The last confirmed sighting occurred in 1934. Suitable habitat in the Roswell Resource Area is present. There are twelve known prairie dog towns located either entirely or partially on public lands. The towns encompass about 1,422 acres, and range from 2 acres to 720 acres in size. Five towns are 80+ acres in size. In 1978, intensive inventories for black-footed ferrets were conducted in coordination with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish on four major towns with negative results. Surveys of several prairie dog towns were conducted in 1995 to determine prairie dog town activity in conjunction with rights- of-way authorizations and the development of surface use and occupancy restrictions for the Roswell RMP. The largest active black-tailed prairie dog town, located near Oscura, NM, is about 720 acres in size, No ferrets were observed prior to a prairie dog transplant operation conducted at this town during 1995.

Endangerment Factors: Prairie dog colonies are the black-fboted ferret’s key habitat. The conversion of grassland into cultivation and prairie dog control efforts have resulted in near extinction of the black-footed ferret. Prairie dog colonies throughout New Mexico have been affected by the plague, resulting in a decline in the overall prairie dog popula- tions.

Analysis: There are no known records of this species having occurred on public

AP11-24 APPENDIX 11 lands in the Roswell Resource Area. There are no designated critical habitat areas in the Resource Area. Activities in the planning documents would not affect the continued existence of this species as it presently does not occur on public lands in the Resource Area. Ferret surveys at prairie dog towns would still be required prior to any surface disturbing activities. A ferret survey is required if the prairie dog town is over 80 acres for black-tailed prairie dogs and 200 acres for white-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie dogs. If the prairie dog town is greater than 1,000 acres, the area would be evaluated for possible reintroduction of black-footed ferrets. There are no prairie dog towns in the resource area that meet the size re-introduction criteria. Current BLM policy is to protect prairie dog towns by avoiding new surface disturbing activities on prairie dog towns and denying control activities on public lands associated with the towns. The prairie dog is an unprotected species and is a targeted by varmint hunters for recreation.

Determination: No Affect

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, a surface use and occupancy restriction to protect prairie dog towns states that no surface occupancy or surface disturbing activities would be allowed within the boundary of known prairie dog towns or towns identified in the future. No prairie dog control would be authorized on public lands except in declared emergency situations involving public health. Exceptions to this restriction would be considered for maintenance of existing projects.

DRMP Determination: No Affect

Birds

AMerican Peregrine Falcon - Falco pereqrinus anatum

Status & Presence in Planning Area: The American peregrine falcon breeds locally in mountainous areas; it occurs essentially statewide during migration and in the winter season, but mainly west of the eastern plains. Key habitat areas are nest sites (eries) and their vicinities, including both those that are currently occupied and historic ones that are still suitable for the species. In New Mexico, the breeding territories of peregrine falcons center on rocky, steep cliffs that are in wooded/forested habitats near water. This species prefers elevations from 6,500 to 8,600 feet but may be found from 3,500 to 9,000 feet.

Potential nesting habitat occurs along a portion of the Rio Bonito at Fort Stanton, but no peregrine falcon eries have been observed.

Endangerment Factors: Habitat loss and disturbance. The loss of riparian habitat is particularly applicable as these areas are preferred foraging areas.

AP11-25 APPENDIX 11

Analysis: Protection and improvement of riparian/wetland habitat is a major Bureau initiative. Riparian/wetland areas at Fort Stanton are being managed to improve the ecological condition and function of these areas. Riparian areas are being improved to benefit peregrine falcons that may use the Rio Bonito at Fort Stanton. Recreational activities along the Rio Bonito are limited to hiking, hunting and fishing, but the amount of visitation in this area is very low due to limited vehicular access. The operation of Sierra Blanca Regional Airport, located on a large mesa south of the Rio Bonito, poses no threat to the falcon or it’s habitat. There are no major surface-disturbing activities proposed, or authorized, that would affect potential nesting sites. The Fort Stanton area is closed to mineral entry, no oil and gas exploration activities are allowed. “Because western temperate peregrines eat a large variety of birds, can fly great distances to find prey, and can raise broods where specific prey species are seemingly scarce, fluctua- tions in prey populations are unlikely to be significant.” (Addendum to American Per- egrine Falcon Recovery Plan 1993). Activities in the planning documents would not affect this species.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not neces- sary.

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, Fort Stanton is designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern with the following management prescriptions. Fort Stanton would remain withdrawn from the general mining laws, and closed to the disposal of leasable minerals and to the leasing of oil and gas. Major rights-of-way would be ex- cluded. Livestock grazing would be considered to the extent it would be used as a too[ to accomplish management objectives. Salt cedar treatments would be conducted. Recreational activities would be subordinate to the management of riparian and wildlife resources. Camping would not be allowed within 100 feet of the Rio Bonito and Salado Creek. OHV use would be limited to designated road and trails. Streambank stabiliza- tion structures, native riparian plantings, riparian pastures, salt cedar control, and spring and drainage protection measures would be implemented.

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not necessary.

Northern Aplomado Falcon - Falco femoralis septentrionalls

Status & Presence in Planning Area: The historic range of the northern aplomado falcon included Hildago, Grant, Luna, Sierra, Dona Ana, Otero, Eddy, and Lea Counties. It formerly occurred regularly in summer and casually in winter in the southwestern portion of the State and possibly farther east (Tularosa Basin). The last specimen was recorded in 1939, and the last nesting documented in 1952. This species has been occasionally reported in the state, there have been three sightings on the White Sands Missile Range, one on Lake Holloman, and a sighting on either Fort Bliss or WSMR near

AP11-26 APPENDIX 11 Orogrande (all in Otero County). An extant breeding population in Chihuahua, Mexico, southeast of Juarez may be the source of birds being seen. Essentially, this species had been considered extirpated from New Mexico since 1960 (BISON-M 1995) until the recent sightings in Otero County. Probable causes of their decline include brush en- croachment and agricultural development which have destroyed much of the grassland required by this falcon (Hector 1987) and pesticide contamination.

Endangerment Factors: Brush encroachment, excessive livestock grazing and agricul- tural development which destroys grassland habitat required by this species.

Analysis: There are no known records of this species having occurred on public lands in the Roswell Resource Area. There are no designated critical habitat areas in the Resource Area. Specific surveys for the Aplomado falcon have not been conducted. According to the historical distribution map of 1900 contained in the recovery plan for this species, the falcon would not have inhabited the Resource Area (USFWS 1990). Based on current information on occurrence, the likelihood of it’s presence in the Re- source Area is remote. Activities in the planning documents would not affect the contin- ued existence of this species as it presently does not occur on public lands in the Re- source Area.

Determination: No Affect

DRMP Analysis: Same

DRMP Determination: No Affect

Interior Least Tern - Sterna antillarum athalassos

Status & Presence in Planning Area: This species nests on shorelines and sandbars of streams, rivers, lakes, and man-made water impoundments. New Mexico breeding records began in the early 1950’s and are centered around Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Chaves County. The species breeds regularly at Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge (BLNWR) where it was first recorded in 1949. BLNWR is considered liessential” tern breeding habitat in the state. Sporadic observations of least terns have been re- corded elsewhere in the Pecos River Valley and in the Rio Grande Valley at Bosque del Apache NWR, Socorro County. The tern may occur on public lands in Chaves County along the Pecos River as there are suitable nesting habitat on sites that are sandy and relatively free of vegetation (alkali flats). Other potential habitat sites are any saline/ alkaline/gyp playa that occasionally has water. There are about forty-four potential sites throughout the resource area.

AP11-27 APPENDIX 11

Endangerment Factors: Channelization, irrigation, and the construction of reservoirs and pools have contributed to the elimination of much of the tern’s nesting habitat. Unpre- dictable flow patterns below reservoirs can pose problems for nesting terns. Increased human recreation on river sandbars threaten nesting terns including the use of recre- ational vehicles in nesting habitat.

Analysis: The only known nesting habitat in the Roswell Resource Area is located on the BLNWR. This is a very small population with only a few nesting terns. There are no known active nesting sites on public lands in the Resource Area at this time. Specific surveys of potential habitat along the Pecos River and playas for nesting least terns have not been conducted. Surveys were conducted in specific areas associated with specific projects, such as major pipelines crossing the Pecos River. Recent protocol surveys for the MAPCO and Diamond Shamrock pipelines were negative. Activities in the planning documents that may impact the species and it’s habitat include any surface disturbing activities of alkali flats and sand bars associated with the Pecos River and floodplain, such as major rights-of-way and OHV use. Sitespecific surveys would be required by the BLM for any actions proposed in these habitat types. Avoidance of potential habitat or timing stipulations to avoid nesting periods would be required as a condition of approval for any surface disturbing activities in potential nesting habitat.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not neces- sary, except for oil and gas development on existing leases; the determination is May Adversely Affect and formal consultation is necessary.

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictions were developed to protect streams, rivers, floodplains, and playas and alkali lakes. No surface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within up to 200 meters of the outer edge of 100-year floodplains (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). No surface occupancy would be allowed within up to 200 meters of playas or alkali lakes (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). Produced water disposal pits on public lands would not be allowed west of the Pecos River, within 100-year floodplains or within 200 meters of drainages or springs. Lands that may provide potential habitat for least tern are identified for potential acquisi- tion. OHV designations for the ACECS, Pecos River floodplain, playas and alkali lakes include a combination of closed to OHV use and limited to designated roads/trails.

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not necessary, except for oil and gas development on existing leases; the determination is May Adversely Affect and formal consultation is necessary.

AP11-28 APPENDIX 11 Brown Pelican - Pelicanus occidentalis

Status & Presence in Planning Area: The brown pelican occupies the coastal shorelines of eastern Mexico and Texas. However, these migrants have been known to move inland to other larger bodies of water. This species has been observed at Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The bird has not been known to occupy any public land within the Roswell Resource Area.

Endangerment Factors: None

Analysis: Activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species or it’s habitat.

Determination: No Affect

RMP Analysis: Same

RMP Determination: No Affect

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher - Empidonax trailii extimus

Status & Presence in Planning Area: In New Mexico, the Southwestern willow flycatcher occurs statewide from early May through mid-September and inhabits riparian areas. Nesting habitat includes shrubs and trees in willow thickets and deciduous woodlands along riparian areas. This species is known to breed in the Hondo Valley about thirty miles from Fort Stanton. Because of riparian habitat improvements at Fort Stanton, several miles of the Rio Bonito may be suitable habitat, but no southwestern willow flycatchers have been observed nor are there areas proposed as critical habitat at Fort Stanton. This species has not been reported by the U.S. Forest Service in their standard protocol surveys conducted adjacent to Fort Stanton. Scattered suitable habitat also occurs along the Pecos River in DeBaca and Chaves County but the only sightings have been on the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Data obtained from the BLNWR indi- cate three sightings of migrants in two years. One sighting was made about six miles north of the area of analysis in midMay 1995, the other two at the the Refuge Headquar- ters in mid-September 1995 and late-May 1996 (BLNWR 1996). Other sightings in southeast New Mexico include single observations at Rattlesnake Springs, Sifting Bull Falls and an area southeast of Artesia (West 1996). Single observations of migrant flycatchers were made during a tamarisk control study conducted near Artesia con- ducted from 1993 - 1995; none were observed in 1995 and two were observed in 1994.

Endangerment Factors: Habitat loss through water developments, excessive livestock grazing, recreational use, nest parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird, and invasion of riparian habitat by exotics such as Russian olive and saitcedar.

AP11-29 APPENDIX 11

Analysis: Public land along the Pecos River total about 1,400 acres and is predomi- nately salt cedar with scattered cottonwood trees and seep willow. Protocol surveys will be conducted by the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program during 1996/97 through challenge cost share funds with the BLM to determine presence or absence of the flycatcher. Recent surveys conducted for a major pipeline revealed no occurrences along the Pecos River at the proposed crossing (T. 6 S., R. 26 E., Section 28). Potential impacts from surface disturbing activities along the Pecos River may impact habitat. Prior to any activities, surveys would be required by the BLM to determine the location of potential nesting sites in the vicinity of a proposed action. Site-specific evaluations would be conducted to mitigate any potential threats and may include avoidance of potential habitat or timing restrictions to avoid nesting periods.

At Fort Stanton, the riparian habitat along the Rio Bonito is being managed to protect the riparian resource from surface disturbing activities and. excessive livestock grazing through fencing and timing restrictions. The improved riparian habitat may well be in- creasing potential habitat for the flycatcher, although none have been observed to date. In addition, the BLM recently acquired about 1,200 acres of riparian habitat along the Rio Bonito below Fort Stanton, The managment objectives are to protect and enhance the riparian and aquatic habitat similar to what has been accomplished on the Rio Bonito at Fort Stanton. The cumulative improvements of riparian habitat along the Rio Bonito on Fort Stanton and the acquired lands are expected to provide additional habitat in this area. Activities in the planning documents would have no adverse affect on this species or it’s habitat.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not neces- sary.

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictions were developed to protect streams, rivers, floodplains, and playas and alkali lakes. No surface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within up to 200 meters of the outer edge of 100-year floodplains (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). Produced water disposal pits on public lands would not be allowed west of the Pecos River, within 100-year flood- plains or within 200 meters of drainages or springs. OHV designations for the ACECS, Pecos River floodplain, playas and alkali lakes include a combination of closed to OHV use and limited to designated roads/trails.

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not necessary.

Bald Eagle - Haliaeetus leucoceqhalus

Status & Presence in Planning Area: In New Mexico, the majority of bald eagles occur near water resources; although, upland areas between the Pecos Valley and the

AP11-30 APPENDIX 11

Sandia, Manzano, Capitan, and Sacramento Mountains also support wintering eagles. In New Mexico, the bald eagle migrates statewide and winters from the northern border south to the middle Pecos and Canadian Valleys. The species is occasionally observed elsewhere in the state during the summer. Bald eagles are known to occur in the north- west portion of the Roswell Resource Area and along the Rio Bonito and Pecos River drainages, primarily during the winter months of November through March.

Endangerment Factors: Loss of habitat; human disturbance; illegal shooting, poisoning, trapping; electrocution; lead contamination of prey; and pesticide poisoning. Habitat loss for both breeding and wintering bald eagles has been associated with land development and human activity in breeding and wintering habitats.

Analysis: There are no known breeding habitats in the Roswell Resource Area. Riparian areas on public land along the Pecos are being protected for wintering bald eagles; powerline construction incorporate designs to eliminate raptor electrocution; and timing stipulations for surface disturbing activities in known occupied wintering’ areas to prevent undue harrassment. Although it is against the law to harass, shoot, poison, and trap eagles on public lands, the BLM can only reiterate the federal laws protecting eagles, and would actively investigate and prosecute cases of taking eagles on public land in coordination with the USFWS. Activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species or it’s habitat.

Determination: No Affect

DRMP Analysis: Same

DRMP Determination: No Affect

Fish

Pecos Gambusia - Gambusia nobilis

Status & Presence in Planning Area: This species is endemic to the Pecos River Basin in southeastern New Mexico and western Texas. Historically, Pecos gambusia occurred as far north as the Pecos River near Fort Sumner, New Mexico, and south to Fort Stock- ton, Texas. However, recent records indicate that its native range is restricted to sink- holes or springs and their outflows, on the west side of the Pecos River in Chaves and Eddy Counties, New Mexico, and in isolated springs and their outflows on the west side of the Pecos River in the Trans-Pecos region near Balmorrhea and Fort Stockton, Texas. In spite of population declines, the species remains locally common in a few areas of suitable habitat. In New Mexico, populations are present on the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the Salt Creek Wilderness Area (both Chaves County), and in Blue

AP11-31 APPENDIX 11 Spring in Eddy County. These areas constitute the key habitat of the species in New Mexico. An introduced population also inhabits a series of artificial pools at the Living Desert State Park near Carlsbad (USFWS 1982; NMDGF 1988; Sublefte et al. 1990; BISON-M 1995), On the Refuge, this species is primarily restricted to springs and sink- holes in the Lake St. Francis RNA.

Endangerment Factors: Loss or alteration of habitat (periodic dewatering) and introduc- tion of exotic fish species (mosquitofish).

Analysis: Potential impacts to habitat may occur from surface disturbing activities within the floodplain of the Pecos River. Oil and gas exploration and development, particularly those on existing leases prior to any lease stipulations, may impact habitat if not adequately mitigated. Major rights-of-way, such as pipeline crossings or highway reconstruction, may increase sedimentation of the river. Other activities that severely impact habitat are not within the purview of the BLM, such as transportation and utiliza- tion of water associated with agricultural irrigation. Oil and gas wells administered by the BLM which are not directly associated with the river, but could potentially affect the river (i.e. development in drainages leading to the Pecos Rlver, etc.) are dealt with on a case- by-case basis. 43 CFR Part 3101.1-2 gives the BLM authority to move a well site up to 200 meters or delay it for up to 60 days. With leases issued prior to the RMP and/or leases held by a producing well, compliance measures are done on a routine basis. These compliance measures include ensuring all applicable laws, off-shore oil and gas orders, stipulations, and/or mitigation measures are being implemented by the respec- tive oil company for a particular well. If a company is found to be in noncompliance, an Issue of Noncompliance (INC) is sent to the company and they must address whatever problem or problems exist. Activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species or it’s habitat, provided that mitigation measures required by the BLM are applied to protect habitat. Site-specific evaluations would be conducted on a case-by- case basis at which time consultation with the USFWS would be initiated as appropriate.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not neces- sary, except for oil and gas development on existing leases in proximity to BLNWR; the determination is May Adversely Affect and formal consultation is necessary.

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictions were developed to protect streams, rivers, floodplains, and springs and seeps. No surface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within up to 200 meters of the outer edge of 100-year floodplains (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). No surface occupancy would be allowed within up to 200 meters of the source of a spring or seep, or within downstream riparian areas created by flows from the source or resulting from riparian area management (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). Produced water disposal pits on public

AP11-32 APPENDIX 11 lands would not be allowed west of the Pecos River, within 100-year floodplains or within 2OO meters o fdrainages or springs. OHV designations for the ACECs and Pecos River floodplain include a combination of closed to OHV use and limited to designated roads/ trails.

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not necessary, except for oil and gas development on existing leases in proximity to BLNWR; the determination is May Adversely Affect and formal consultation is necessary.

Plants

Kuenzier’s Hedgehog Cactus - Echinocereus fendieri var. kuenzieri

Status & Presence in Planning Area: Fort Stanton is considered the largest known population of the cactus in New Mexico. Surveys have been conducted over Fort Stanton since 1985. The most extensive survey was conducted by the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program in 1991 (DeBruin 1991). The west half of Fort Stanton is considered crucial habitat for the cactus by the BLM, but the area has not been officially designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The New Mexico Heritage Program has established six monitoring sites for the cactus and has gathered several years of demographic and reproductive data and, to a minor extent, impacts of livestock grazing. The New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department has established three study areas and has been conducting a study to determine impacts to the cactus from livestock grazing. At this time, there is no statistically significant difference between the three study plots, and the study will be conducted for several more years (pers. corn. Lightfoot, NMEMNRD, 1995). Ongoing studies require continued livestock use of certain pastures to determine grazing impacts to the cactus.

Endangerment Factors: Potential impacts include direct trampling of the plants and reduction of thermal cover around individual cacti through grazing.

Analysis: An analysis of potential impacts to the cactus from livestock grazing through vegetative sale contracts was conducted in the September 1995 Fort Stanton Management Framework Plan Amendment (EA-NM-066-95-050). The MFPA was re- viewed by the USFWS (Consultation # 2-22-95-1-313) with their concurrence on the “not likely to adversely affect” determination with the proposed stocking levels. Due to the low stocking rates and strategic locations of water developments, there would be no significant impacts to the population from livestock grazing, Activities in the planning documents would have negligible impacts on this species or it’s habitat, provided BLM mitigation measures are applied to protect habitat.

AP11-33 APPENDIX 11

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not neces- sary.

DRMP Analysis: Same. In,addition, Fort Stanton is designated as an ACEC with the following management prescriptions. Fort Stanton would remain withdrawn from the general mining laws, and closed to the disposal of leasable minerals and to the leasing of oil and gas. Major rights-of-way would be excluded. Livestock grazing would be considered to the extent it would be used as a tool to accomplish management objec- tives. Recreational activities would be subordinate to the management of wildlife re- sources. OHV use would be limited to designated road and trails.

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not necessary.

B. Federal Threatened Species

Birds

Mexican Spotted Owl - Strix occidentalis lucida

Status & Presence in Planning Area: The Mexican spotted owl occupies mountainous areas statewide. This subspecies has been recorded in the Sacramento and Guadalupe Mountains. Spotted owls typically inhabit canyons, forests, pine-oak woodlands, and riparian areas and have been documented using canyons off of mesas, typically associ- ated with conifer stringers (BISON-M 1995). Nesting habitat is primarily mature mon- tane forests found on U.S. Forest Service lands in the Lincoln National Forest. There is no potential habitat of this type at Fort Stanton, which is the closest area to typical nesting habitat in the Roswell Resource Area, and spotted owls have not been observed. Activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species or it’s habitat.

Endangerment Factors: None (BLM-administered lands)

Analysis: Spotted owl habitat is not present on public lands administered by the BLM; therefore, land use activities would have no impact to this species on public lands.

Determination: No Affect

DRMP Analysis: Same

DRMP Determination: No Affect

AP11-34 APPENDIX 11

Fish

Pecos Bluntnose Shiner - Notropis simus pecosensis

Status & Presence in Planning Area: Historically, the Pecos bluntnose shiner inhabited the mainstream of the Pecos River from Santa Rosa downstream to near Carlsbad, New Mexico, and presumably south to its confluence with the Rio Grande in Coahuila, Mexico. However, this subspecies was not recorded south of Carlsbad, NM, or in Texas. Currently, the subspecies is restricted to the Pecos River from the Fort Sumner area southward locally to the vicinity of Artesia, and seasonally in Brantley Reservoir (NMDGF 1985; USFWS 1992). There are two designated critical habitat areas on the Pecos River within the Resource Area. The first begins about ten miles south of Fort Sumner, then downstream about sixty-four miles to a point about twelve miles south of the DeBaca/Chaves county line. The second area is located from a point from Highway 31 east of Hagerman, NM, south to Highway 82 east of Artesia, NM.

Endangerment Factors: Loss or alteration of habitat (periodic dewatering) and introduc- tion of non-native fish species of the Pecos River (Arkansas River shiner).

Analysis: Potential impacts to habitat may occur from surface disturbing activities within the floodplain of the Pecos River. Oil and gas exploration and development, particularly those on existing leases prior to any lease stipulations, may impact habitat if not adequately mitigated. Major rights-of-way, such as pipeline crossings or highway reconstruction, may increase sedimentation of the river. Other activities that severely impact habitat are not within the purview of the BLM, such as transportation and utiliza- tion of water associated with agricultural irrigation. Stream desiccation is the main reason for the decline of the Pecos bluntnose shiner in the Pecos River (Hatch et al 1985). The BLM has no authority for maintenance of water levels within the Pecos River or its tributaries. However, various types of pollution entering the Pecos River are pos- sible from illegal oil and gas development or operation. The various types of pollution are likely to have an indirect effect on the species in the Pecos River drainage as noted by Brooks et al. (1991). Oil and gas wells administered by the BLM which are not di- rectly associated with the river, but could potentially affect the river (i.e. development in drainages leading to the Pecos Rlver, etc.) are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. 43 CFR Part 3101.1-2 gives the BLM authority to move a well site up to 200 meters or delay it for up to 60 days. With leases issued prior to the RMP and/or leases held by a producing well, compliance measures are done on a routine basis. These compliance measures include ensuring all applicable laws, off-shore oil and gas orders, stipulations, and/or mitigation measures are being implemented by the respective oil company for a particular well. If a company is found to be in noncompliance, and Issue of Noncompli- ance (INC) is issued to the company and they must remedy whatever problem or prob- lems exist. Activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species or it’s habitat, provided mitigation measures required by the BLM are applied to protect

AP11-35 APPENDIX 11 habitat. Site-specific evaluations would be conducted on a case-by-case basis at which time consultation with the USFWS would be initiated as appropriate.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not neces- sary, except for existing oil and gas development on existing leases; the determination is May Adversely Affect and formal consultation is necessary.

DRMP Analysis: The designation of the 6,400-acre North Pecos River ACEC includes a portion of designated critical habitat for the Pecos bluntnose shiner with the following management prescriptions. About 2,080 acres of federal mineral would be closed to future oil and gas leasing. About 2,120 acres would be leased with No surfance Occu- pancy lease stipulation. About 4,200 acres of federal minerals would be closed to the disposal of salable minerals and the leasing of solid minerals. Public lands within the ACEC would be designated as a right-of-way avoidance area. About 3,040 acres would be acquired if opportunities arise. Public grazing leases would be adjusted to improve riparian habitat. Salt cedar control would be conducted. OHVs would be limited to designated roads and trails. No minnow seining area would be designated. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictions were developed to protect streams, rivers, floodplains, and springs and seeps. No surface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within up to 200 meters of the outer edge of 100-year floodplains (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). No surface occupancy would be allowed within up to 200 meters of the source of a spring or seep, or within downstream riparian areas created by flows from the source or resulting from riparian area management (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). Produced water disposal pits on public lands would not be allowed west of the Pecos River, within 100-year floodplains or within 200 meters of drainages or springs. OHV designations for the ACECs and Pecos River floodplain include a combination of closed to OHV use and limited to designated roads/trails.

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not necessary, except for existing oil and gas development on existing leases; the determi- nation is May Adversely Affect and formal consultation is necessary.

C. Federal Proposed Species

Arkansas River Shiner - Notropis simus

Status & Presence in Planning Area: The Arkansas River Shiner is a native of the Cana- dian River drainage in northeastern New Mexico. The population occurring there is designated “Proposed Endangered.” However, the population occurring in the Pecos River drainage is introduced and is not being considered for listing. There are no public lands along the Canadian River within the Resource Area, although federal mineral

AP11-36 APPENDIX 11 estates are found along the river subject to leasing. The species occupies the Pecos River between Fort Sumner and Carlsbad. This species inhabits shallow, often turbid channels of the major streams where it congregates on the downstream side of large sand ridges. The shiner is not considered endangered in the Pecos River by the USFWS due to it’s introduction into the system. The proposed rule published in 59 FR 39532, August 3, 1994 states, “A non-native, introduced population occurs in the Pecos River in New Mexico; however, protection for this population is not under consideration.”

Endangerment Factors: None (BLM-administered lands)

Analysis: The federal mineral estate covers about nine miles of the Canadian River downstream from Ute Lake. There are no oil and gas leases on those mineral estates at this time. Activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species or it’s habitat.

Determination: No Affect

DRMP Analysis: The lands along the Canadian River in Quay County are private, but there are about 12,200 acres of federal minerals underlying private lands along the Canadian River. The mineral estate is not currently leased, and would not be offered for sale to protect habitat for the Arkansas River shiner.

DRMP Determination: No Affect

AP11-37 APPENDIX 11

D. Federal Candidate Species

Section 7 consultation is not required for candidate species. These analyses are pre- sented as a disclosure of activities that may impact candidate species.

Mammals

Swift Fox - Vulpes velox

Status & Presence in Planning Area: The swift fox historical range includes eastern New Mexico where it inhabits the short, mid-, and mixed grass prairie with gently rolling hills. Swift fox prefer habitat with sparse vegetation. Areas on the Caprock, grasslands bor- dering Mescalero Sands, and the Pecos River constitute preferred habitat in the Roswell Resource Area. The Pecos River serves as an arbitrary boundary for the range of this species in the Resource Area and is believed to be a hybrid zone between the swift fox and kit fox. Swift fox would typically be found east of the Pecos River, and the kit fox would occupy the habitats to the west (pers. corn. Schmitt, NMDGF, 1995). Den areas have been found on public lands during a survey of a major pipeline in the Mescalero Sands area but could not be confirmed as swift fox dens.

Endangerment Factors: Predator control practices, over harvest, and habitat destruction.

Analysis: Based on the rare nature of the swift fox and the lack of recent confirmed sightings, it is unlikely that any BLM-authorized actions would adversely affect this spe- cies. The USFWS reviewed and commented on the 1993 Environmental Assessment covering the Roswell District Animal Damage Control program. They addressed con- cerns over the swift fox in their response dated November 23, 1993 (Cons. # 2-22-94-1- 037). The concerns were addressed by the BLM and mitigation measures were incorpo- rated into the final BLM/APHIS Animal Damage Control Plan. The measures include the identification of the area east of the Pecos River as swift fox range with restricted con- trol, the use of conventional control methods other than M-44 devices in the area, in- spection of steel traps at least three times per week, the release of all non-target spe- cies provided they are capable of self-maintenance, and the use of pan tension devices which exclude small non-target species. Any future surface disturbing activities that would possibly result in the loss of identified active den sites could be considered a direct, adverse impact unless mitigation measures required by the BLM are applied to avoid disturbance or destruction of den sites.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect

DRMP Analysis: Same

AP11-38 APPENDIX 11 DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Birds

Mountain Plover - Charadrius montanus

Status & Presence in Planning Area: Mountain plovers are mainly a species of the high plains and semi-desert regions of the western United States. Mountain plovers prefer flat, short-grass prairie and tend to avoid taller grasses and hillsides (Graul 1975). Suit- able habitat often occurs in areas intensively grazed. This species also occupies prairie dog colonies, particularly in mid- and tall-grass prairie ecosystems. Migrants occasion- ally occur on dry mudflats and shorelines of dry reservoirs (Andrews and Righter 1992).

Endangerment Factors: Habitat destruction by conversion of prairie to agricultural crop- land; decline of prairie dog towns.

Analysis: The BLM has delineated potential nesting areas west of Roswell but sur- veys have not been conducted for this species due to it’s low priority compared other listed species that require attention. Impacts from any surface disturbing activities in potential habitat may impact the species and habitat. From what is known, intensely grazed areas seem to be preferred nesting habitat. Current BLM poicy does not en- dorse intensive grazing on public lands. In reference to prairie dog towns, current BLM policy is to protect prairie dog towns by avoiding new surface disturbing activities on the towns and denying control activities on public lands associated with the towns. Surveys and studies have been planned to determine the location of nesting sites and possible grazing management schemes to enhance identified potential habitat in the Resource Area for mountain plover. Site-specific evaluations would be conducted to mitigate any potential threats and may include avoidance or timing restrictions within the delineated habitat area.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, a surface use and occupancy restriction to protect prairie dog towns states that no surface occupancy or surface disturbing activities would be allowed within the boundary of known prairie dog towns or towns identified in the future. No prairie dog control would be authorized on public lands except in declared emergency situations involving public health. Exceptions to this restriction would be considered for maintenance of existing projects. No surface occupancy would be al- lowed within up to 200 meters of playas or alkali lakes (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). OHV designations for the ACECS, playas and alkali lakes include a combination of closed to OHV use and limited to designated roads/trails.

AP11-39 APPENDIX 11

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Fish

Pecos Pupfish - Cyprinodon pecosensis

Status & Presence in Planning Area: The Pecos pupfish is found in a variety of habitats from saline springs and gypsum sinkholes to desert streams with highly fluctuating conditions. Pecos pupfish populations are most dense in the gypsum sinkholes on Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge, The species apparently thrives in these saline waters that support few other fish species. It occasionally occupies fresher waters in the Pecos River, but is uncommon in such habitats. In the Pecos River, this pupfish is most often found in backwater areas and side pools that lack sunfish or other predators (NMDGF 1988; Sublette et al. 1990; BISON-M 1995). The pupfish inhabits the Overflow Wetlands Wildlife Habitat Area adjacent to the Bottomless Lakes State Park.

Endangerment Factors: Habitat loss caused by groundwater pumping and channel alterations, hybridization and/or replacement by the sheepshead minnow, predation by non-native fish species.

Analysis: Potential impacts to habitat may occur from surface disturbing activities at or near springs or seeps. Oil and gas exploration and development and rights-of-way may impact habitat if not adequately mitigated or relocated. Other activities that se- verely impact habitat are not within the purview of the BLM, such as transportation and utilization of water associated with agricultural irrigation. Livestock grazing may impact springs or seeps but most of these sites have been protected with exclosures. In order to protect habitat for the pupfish within the Overflow Wetlands WHA, two fish barriers were constructed to impede migration of sheepshead minnows into the wetlands. About 494 acres of private lands were acqwuired in 1989 to enhance protection and manage- ment of the WHA. Livestock grazing has been cancelled on Allotment 65041. Activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species or it’s habitat, provided mitigation measures required by the BLM are applied to protect habitat. Site-specific evaluations would be conducted on a case-by-case basis.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the Overflow Wetlands is designated as an ACEC with the following management prescriptions. About 1,040 acres (including the wetland proper, buffers areas and escarpments) would be protected by applying a no surface occupancy restirction to future oil and gas lease, by closing the same acreage to the disposal of salable minerals and to the leasin of solid minerals and withdrawn from entry

AP11-40 APPENDIX 11 under the land laws (including the 1872 Mining law), by designating the same area as closed to OHV use. Major rights-of-way would be excluded. About 3800 acres of land would be acquired if opportunities arise. Public grazing leases would be adjusted. Salt cedar treatments would be conducted. No minnow seining area would be designated. Additional weland habitat would be developed.

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Aquatic Invertebrates

Pecos Assiminea Snail - Assiminea oecos

Status & Presence in Planning Area: This species is known to occupy seeps within the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge and a spring at the Roswell Country Club. The snails are usually found on moist earth beside seeps and springs, but never beside standing water. This species may potentially be found in springs and seeps throughout the Roswell Resource Area but recent surveys conducted by the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program have not identified occurrences of this species in springs located on public lands. This species is primarily associated with springs and seeps along Bitter Creek located in the Bitter Lake RNA on the Refuge. It is a true endemic with viable populations protected only on the refuge.

Endangerment Factors: Diminished surface flows at springs and spring runs by artesian pumping, surface disturbing activities at or near springs and seeps, heavy livestock utilization of the water source.

Analysis: As this species has not been found in the surveyed springs on public lands, activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species. Several springs located in the Pecos River drainage are protected from livestock grazing by fence exclosures. Prior to any surface disturbing activities, the BLM would conduct surveys to determine potential impacts to the springs. In the event of potential impacts to the spring, Title 43 of Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3101.1-2, would allow the BLM to relocate proposed operations up to 200 meters to protect resource values.

Determination: No Affect, except for existing oil and gas development on existing leases; depending on the proximity of the wells to the BLNWR, the determination could be May Adversely Affect and technical assistance from the USFWS may be necessary.

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictions were developed to protect streams, rivers, floodplains, and springs and see . No surface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within up to 200 meters of the outer

AP11-41 APPENDIX 11 edge of 100-year floodplains (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). No surface occupancy would be allowed within up to 200 meters of the source of a spring or seep, or within downstream riparian areas created by flows from the source or resulting from riparian area manage- ment (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). Produced water disposal pits on public lands would not be allowed west of the Pecos River, within 100-year floodplains or within 200 meters of drainages or springs.

DRMP Determination: No Affect, except for existing oil and gas development on existing leases; depending on the proximity of the wells to the BLNWR, the determination could be May Adversely Affect and technical assistance from the USFWS may be necessary.

Roswell Spring Snail - Pyrgulopsis roswellensis

Status & Presence in Planning Area: This species inhabits clear, free flowing fresh and gypsum waters. The Roswell Spring Snail is known to occur in the Sago Spring system, and a small seepage on the northwest edge of pond Unit 6 on the BLNWR as well as the Roswell Country Club spring, This species may potentially be found in springs and seeps throughout the Roswell Resource Area but recent surveys conducted by the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program have not identified occurrences of this species in springs located on public lands. This species is primarily associated with springs and seeps along Bitter Creek located in the Bitter Lake RNA. It is a true endemic with viable populations protected only on the refuge.

Endangerment Factors: Diminished surface flows at springs and spring runs by artesian pumping, surface disturbing activities at or near springs and seeps, heavy livestock utilization of the water source.

Analysis: As this species has not been found in the surveyed springs on public lands, activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species. Several springs located in the Pecos River drainage are protected from livestock grazing by fence exclosures. But prior to any surface disturbing activities, the BLM would conduct surveys to determine potential impacts to the springs. In the event of potential impacts to the spring, Title 43 of Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3101.1-2, would allow the BLM to relocate proposed operations up to 200 meters to protect resource values.

Determination: No Affect, except for existing oil and gas development on existing leases; depending on the proximity of the wells to the BLNWR, the determination could be May Adversely Affect and technical assistance from the USFWS may be necessary.

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictions were develo ed to seeps. No surface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within up to 200 meters of the outer edge of 1 00-year floodplains (See Appendix 3,

AP11-42 APPENDIX 11 AP3-8). No surface occupancy would be allowed within up to 200 meters of the source of a spring or seep, or within downstream riparian areas created by flows from the source or resulting from riparian area management (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). Produced water disposal pits on public lands would not be allowed west of the Pecos River, within 100-year floodplains or within 200 meters of drainages or springs.

DRMP Determination: No Affect, except for existing oil and gas development on existing leases; depending on the proximity of the wells to the BLNWR, the determination could be May Adversely Affect and technical assistance from the USFWS may be necessary.

Koster’s Tryonia - T[yonia kosteri

Status & Presence in Planning Area: This species also inhabits in the upper layers of fine substratum within clear, free flowing fresh and gypsum rich waters. Koster’s tryonia has been known to occur in the Bitter Creek and Lost River spring system, the Sago Spring system and a small seepage on the northwest edge of pond Unit 6, all on the BLNWR. It is known to have occured in a spring at the Roswell Country Club, but has not been documented there in the past four years. This species may potentially be found in springs and seeps throughout the Roswell Resource Area but recent surveys con- ducted by the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program have not identified occurrences of this species in springs located on public lands. This species is primarily associated with springs and seeps along Bitter Creek located in the Bitter Lake RNA. It is a true en- demic with viable populations protected only on the refuge.

Endangerment Factors: Diminished surface flows at springs and spring runs by artesian pumping, surface disturbing activities at or near springs and seeps, heavy livestock utilization of the water source.

Analysis: As this species has not been found in the surveyed springs on public lands, activities in the planning documents would have no affect on this species. Several springs located in the Pecos River drainage are protected from livestock grazing by fence exclosures. But prior to any surface disturbing activities, the BLM would conduct surveys to determine potential impacts to the springs. In the event of potential impacts to the spring, Title 43 of Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3101.1-2, would allow the BLM to relocate proposed operations up to 200 meters to protect resource values.

Determination: No Affect, except for existing oil and gas development on existing leases; depending on the proximity of the wells to the BLNWR, the determination could be May Adversely Affect and technical assistance from the USFWS may be necessary.

AP11-43 APPENDIX 11

DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictions were developed to protect streams, rivers, floodplains, and springs and seeps. No surface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within up to 200 meters of the outer edge of 100-year floodplains (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). No surface occupancy would be allowed within up to 200 meters of the source of a spring or seep, or within downstream ‘ riparian areas created by flows from the source or resulting from riparian area management (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). Produced water disposal pits on public lands would not be allowed west of the Pecos River, within 100-year floodplains or within 200 meters of drainages or springs.

DRMP Determination: No Affect, except for existing oil and gas development on existing leases; depending on the proximity of the wells to the BLNWR, the determination could be May Adversely Affect and technical assistance from the USFWS may be necessary.

Plants

Puzzle Sunflower - Helianthus paradoxus

Status & Presence in Planning Area: This species is found along alkaline seeps and cienegas of semi-desert grasslands and the short-grass plains (4,000-7,500 ft.). Plant populations are found both in water and immediately adjacent to water sources where the water table is still high and in good condition. There are three known populations within the Roswell Resource Area, with one location occurring on public land.

Endangerment Factors: Dewatering of riparian-wetland areas where this species is found, surface disturbing activities by oil and gas, rights-of-way, excessive livestock grazing.

Analysis: This species has very spotty distribution in the Roswell Resource Area and is found in only a few areas outside of the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge. A new population was found in 1994 at the Boftomless Lakes State Park growing on the mar- gins of Lea Lake and it’s outflow. Lloyd’s Draw is the only known location on public land. The puzzle sunflower only became evident at this location following a prescribed fire. The only potential impacts to this species at Lloyd’s Draw is livestock grazing, but stock- ing densities are very low and plans to develop watering sources away from the draw would mitigate this activity. Due to the low stocking rates and strategic locations of water developments, there would be no impacts to the population from livestock grazing. Potential habitat also occur within the Overflow Wetlands Wildlife Habitat Area. These wetlands are protected from surface disturbing activities and livestock grazing has been cancelled on Allotment 65041.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect

AP11-44 APPENDIX 11 DRMP Analysis: Same. In addition, the following surface use and occupancy restrictions were developed to protect streams, rivers, floodplains, and springs and seeps. No surface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within up to 200 meters of the outer edge of 100-year floodplains (See Appendix 3, AP3-8). No surface occupancy would be allowed within up to 200 meters of the source of a spring or seep, or within downstream riparian areas created by flows from the source or resulting from riparian area management (Appendix 3, AP3-8). OHV designations for the ACECs and Pecos River floodplain include a combination of closed to OHV use and limited to designated roads/trails.

DRMP Determination: Not Likely to Adversey Affect

AP11-45 APPENDIX 11

Ill. Summa!y

All current planning documents/amendments and site-specific ongoing activities, or projects, have been reviewed for this BA. The primary activities reviewed were Livestock Grazing and Minerals Management as these were the main resources addressed in the planning documents.

The management prescriptions for the various resources found under the Preferred Alternative of the Roswell Resource Area Draft RMP have been reviewed. Potential impacts to special status species and their habitats have been reduced or eliminated. The potential for impacting T/E species remains high for existing oil and gas leases currently held by production. May Adversely Affect determinations were made for ripar- ian and aquatic species associated with existing oil and gas leases along the Pecos River.

On the Pecos River, there is about forty existing oil and gas leases with all or portions of the lease potentially supporting riparian or aquatic resources. Currently, about 6,296 acres are unleased. A small portion of the existing leases have the R-44 stipulation since the stipulation became effective in 1990. Formal consultation would be required for those leases that have existing developments in the floodplain, are planned for devel- opment, or lack the Roswell #44 special lease stipulation. The formal consultation pro- cess would include impacts to T/E species on developed leases and existing leases proposed for future development.

The pending Environmental Assessment for the Corinne Grace, Pecos River Floodplain Oil and Gas Field Development (EA No. NM-066-96-026) considers impacts to several T/E species within the project area and on the adjacent Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Consultation has been initiated with the USFWS (Cons. #2-22-94-1028).

For new leases, the Interim Oil and Gas Leasing and Development EA for the Roswell Resource Area (NM-066-95-096) describes screening criteria to delay the leasing of certain areas until leasing decisions are made in the final RMP. The areas identified in the criteria are those where conflicts with oil and gas development may occur. Oil and gas leasing is a discretionary action and nominated parcels may be withheld from leas- ing when conflicts are identified. Once the RMP leasing decisions have been com- pleted, the screening criteria would no longer be used. Consultation was conducted with the USFWS (Cons. #2-22-96-1-024).

Cumulative impacts from actions authorized under the current land use plans and amendments would be highest on the riparian community along the Pecos River. Activi- ties such as oil and gas exploration and development, rights-of-way, livestock grazing, off-highway vehicle use, and non-BLM regulated actions, primarily agriculture, all con- tribute to cumulative negative impacts on the scarce riparian community and the

AP11-46 APPENDIX 11 several riparian/aquatic-associated species considered in this BA.

Cumulative impacts are being considered at the activity planning level but would be addressed and alleviated through the Roswell Resource Area RMP.

State, local, or private activities, not involving Federal activities, are not anticipated to dramatically change (increase/decrease) in the Resource Area, particularly oil and gas development, and the livestock industry. These activities, and other activities, would continue on private and State lands. The estimation of cumulative effects of future non- federal actions is difficult to make without knowing what type of actions would be pro- posed and where they may occur. It is safe to say that urbanization will continue to encroach on wildlife habitat and demands for resources will continue, making the public lands even more significant as preserves for special status species and habitat.

On-going and future actions proposed by the BLM or resource users, that are in compli- ance with current planning documents, would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through the environmental assessment process. This would include informal consulta- tion with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as necessary. Impacts to special status species and their habitats would be analyzed, and mitigation developed to provide pro- tection for these species to avoid may affect determinations. In the event a proposed action results in a may adversely affect determination, formal Section 7 consultation would be initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Based up on the analyses completed in this document, it is concluded that the actions in the planning documents, excluding oil and gas resources, would not have negative effects upon threatened and endangered species and their habitats located in the Roswell Resource Area. Because of “no affect” and “not likely to adversely affect” deter- minations, formal Section 7 Consultation, as outlined under the provisions of the Endan- gered Species Act of 1973, is not required with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for those actions authorized by the BLM under existing planning documents and the Roswell Resource Area RMP.

Formal Section 7 consultation will be requested for the following species with respect to potential impacts from existing oil and gas lease exploration and development activities:

Interior least tem Federal Endangered Pecos gambusia Federal Endangered Pecos bluntnose shiner Federal Threatened

Technical assistance will be requested for candidate species potentially affected by oil and gas lease exploratioi and development activities.

AP11-47 APPENDIX 11 Literature Cited and References

Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado Birds: A Reference to their Distribution and Habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver , Colorado.

Bison-M. 1995. Biological Database for New Mexico.

Brooks, J.E., S.P. Plantania, and D.L. Propst. 1991. Effects of Pecos River reservoir operation on the distribution and status of Pecos bluntnose shiner ( o is simus Recosensig): preliminary findings. Rept. to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, NM.

DeBruin. E.A. 1991. Survey of Echinocereus fendleri var kuenzleri on Fort Stanton Reservation. New Mexico Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, Albu- querque, New Mexico.

ENSR. 1995. Draft Biological Assessment for the Mid-America Four Corners Pipeline Loop Project. BLM.

Findley, J, S., et al. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Graul, W.D. 1975. The Breeding Biology of the Mountain Plover. Wilson Bulletin 87:631.

Hatch, M.D., W.H. Baltosser, and C.G. Schmitt. 1985. Life history and ecology of the bluntnose shiner ( simus pecosensis) in the Pecos River of New Mexico. Southwest. Nat. 30:555-562.

Hector, P.K. 1990. Northern Aplomado Falcon Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 58pp.

Hubbard, J.P. 1994. The Status of the Swift Fox in New Mexico. New Mexico Depart- ment of Game and Fish. Santa Fe, NM. 35 pp.

Lightfoot, K. 1995. New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 1977. Handbook of Species Endangered in New Mexico. Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Rio Grande Recovery Team. Pecos Gambusia Recovery Plan. 1983. 41 pp.

AP11-48 APPENDIX 11

Rio Grande Recovery Team. Pecos Bluntnose Shiner Recovery Plan. 1992. 57pp,

Schmitt, G. 1995, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. April 13, 1995.

Sublette, J.E., Hatch, M., and Sublefte, M. 1990. The Fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

U.S Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

1976. East Chaves Management Framework Plan 1979. East Roswell Grazing Environmental Statement 1981. Oil and Gas Leasing Environmental Assessment 1984. Final Roswell Management Framework Plan Amendment 1986. Fort Stanton Management Framework Plan Amendment 1987. Fort Stanton Management Framework Plan Amendment 1989. Supplement to the Oil and Gas Final Environmental Assessment 1994. Roswell Resource Area Draft Resource Management Plan 1995, Fort Stanton Management Framework Plan Amendment 1995. Interim Oil and Gas Leasing and Development EA

AP11-49 APPENDIX 11

Addendum to the Biological Assessment for the 1996 Roswell Resource Area Resource Management Plan Roswell Resource Area

September 20, 1996

1. Introduction

This Addendum will update the Biological Assessment (BA) completed on July 8, 1996, and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on July 9, 1996 (Consulta- tion No. 2-22-95-1-102).

This Addendum includes: (1) an update on land use decisions in the Roswell Resource Area Resource Management plan, (2) necessary changes to land use restrictions or allocations under the Preferred Alternative affecting federally-listed species, (3) recently acquired biological information on the Southwestern willow flycatcher and other species, (4) changes in BLM determinations on the Bald eagle and Arkansias River shiner, and (5) additional information for the Kuenzler’s hedgehog cactus and other species as requested by the USFWS. These changes resulted from public comments received on the draft plan, including comments submitted by the USFWS. The proposed plan is expected to be published by late November 1996.

11. RMP Changes

The following bullets are changes made to the preferred alternative of the RMP poten- tially affecting federally-listed species:

Mitigations of impacts involving moves greater than 200 meters or delays greater than 60 days could result from NEPA analysis. (Also, refer to the introduction to Appendix 3.)

Appendix 3 - The basis for the “200 meter rule” used in the Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements is 43 CFR 3101.1-2, which states that, at a minimum, mitigation measures are deemed consisten with oil and gas lease rights if they do not require “...relocation of proposed operations by more than 200 meters...” The intent of the actions described in this Appendix is to comply with the regulations and allow the relocation of proposed activities to mitigate impacts, but by “no more than 200 meters”, without undertaking additional NEPA analysis. The opportunity exists through the NEPA process to design mitigations of impacts that would require relocation greater than 200 meters. The “200 meter rule” simply allows relocation of an activity, such as during onsite meetings prior to APD approval, without the need for detailed NEPA analysis.

AP11-50 APPENDIX 11

The federal mineral estate along the Canadian River in Quay County (totalling about 4,900 acres), would be managed to support protection of habitat for the Arkansas River shiner. Management would include application of the surface use and occupany requirements (Appendix 3), closure to the leasing of solid minerals, possible closure to the disposal of mineral materials, and restrictions on the exploration for and development of locatable minerals. Restrictions on use would be applied as needed to protect habitat, As a result, the entire range of restric- tions may not be applied to every acre of federal mineral estate. These practices could be applied to major tributaries of the Canadian River, as well, if needed to protect shiner habitat.

Riparian/Wetland and Playa Lake Management: Riparian and wetland areas would be managed to achieve an advanced ecological status, except where resource management objectives, including proper functioning condition, would require an earlier successional stage. The objective of managment would be -to improve riparian and wetland habitat on public lands that is nonfunctioning or functioning at risk, and maintain habitat that is in proper functioning condition. Management would be conducted even if influenced by factors outside of the BLM’s control or management, such as flow regulations or channelization, that contribute to unacceptable conditions.

Special Status Species Habitat Management Goal: Provide protection and recov- ery for all federal and state-listed species. Manage occupied and potential habitat for federal and state-listed species on public land to maintain or enhance popula- tions. Manage habitat for federal candidate species to avoid degrading habitat and further listing by either state or federal governments while allowing for mineral development and production, livestock grazing, and other uses.

Prairie dog towns would be protected from major surface disturbing activities, such as rights-of-way, and road or facility construction. Surface disturbance would not be allowed within prairie dog towns (refer to Appendix 3). Existing populations of prairie dogs would be maintained by not allowing control measures to be conducted in prairie dog towns by APHIS-ADC or grazing allottees. Mainte- nance of existing developments would be allowed on a caseby-case basis.

The construction of fence exclosures or barriers would be considered in crucial or critical habitat for federal threatened and endangered, federal candidate, or state- listed wildlife and plant species to protect all or portions of occupied habitat, specific populations, or to provide for scientific research on a species and its habitat.

Floodplain Development (For the Roswell Resource Area):

114. If a threat of flooding by the Pecos River occurs during drilling operations,

AP11-51 APPENDIX 11

the Roswell Resource Area Manager will issue a shut-in order. Toxic substances and, possibly, drilling equipment will be removed from the floodplain.

115. A drilling pad will be elevated at least (inches, feet) and surfaced according to Condition of Approval 80.

116, All riparian habitat will be protected according to instructions provided by the Authorized Officer. Trees will not be cut down unless authorized.

1 1 7. Self-contained metal tanks are required for floodplain locations.

118. Pits containing oil, tank bottoms or other hydrocarbons, salt water, or any toxic substances will not be allowed in the floodplain.

1 1 9. If a salt water flow is encountered, the water will be stored in tanks located outside of the floodplain.

120. Production facitlities will be located outside of the floodplain.

121. Flow lines from the well head to production facilities will be buried, if soil conditions permit burial.

122. Special precautions will be taken to reduce damage from flooding:

a. The well will be equipped with a down-hole shut-in device, rated at working pressure of 1,500 psi; b. The well head will be buried below ground in a concrete cellar with a grate over it; or, c. Three steel posts will be set in concrete. Horizontal steel cross bars will connect the posts. Heavy guage chain link fencing will be welded or bolted to the post and cross bars. The V must point upstream or in the direction specified.

123. Chemical toilets will be used instead of latrines,

Camping at Fort Stanton would be managed b permitting “vehicle campers” (those who drive motorized vehicles to a campsite) to drive no more that 100 feet off a BLM-desig- nated road or trail to a campsite.

The BLM would recommend to the New Mexico State Game Commision that Fort Stanton be designated as a special draw hunt area, or a restricted area open only to primitive hunting (bow and arrow or muzzle-loader). Additionally, vehicles would not be allowed off of designated roads or trails to retrieve downed game,

AP11-52 APPENDIX 11 Ill. Update on Species Accounts

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher - Empidonax trailii extimus

Flycatcher protocol surveys for the Roswell District were initiated by the BLM through challenge cost-share studies with the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program. The surveys began on July 8, 1996 and focused on the Grace Well area along the Pecos River just north of the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the Rio Bonito and Salado Creek at Fort Stanton, and the Black and Delaware Rivers in the Carlsbad Resource Area.

The preliminary surveys for the presence of breeding willow flycatchers were negative for ‘ the Grace Well area, the Rio Bonito and Salado Creek riparian areas, the Delaware River and Black River. The Rio Bonito and parts of the Delaware River were identified as a potentially suitable stopover habitat, although not prime breeding habitat. The continued development of these areas would not guarantee use of these habitats by the flycatchers, given that willow flycatchers typically do not nest east of the Rio Grande in New Mexico (NMNHP 1996). A copy of this preliminary report is attached.

The reference for the statement that the species is known to breed in the Hondo Valley was taken from a New Mexico Ornithological document which we are unable to locate at this time. Therefore, this statement is retracted from the BA.

IV. Additional Anaivsis on Species Identified by USFWS Southwestern Willow Flycatcher - Emipidonax trailii extimus The latest information concerning riparian condition is found in the attached updated Table 102 which replaces Table 102 in the draft RMP/EIS. The table shows the number of stream miles that are in proper functioning condition, at risk, and nonfunctioning. Definitions of these characteristics are attached (GL-3 and GL-4).

The following analysis is presented in reference to current riparian conditions and live- stock grazing programs, and it’s potential adverse effects on nesting habitat for south- western willow flycatcher.

There are factors that influence our capability to produce change (improve habitat) which are not within BLM control. For example, the condition of the Pecos River riparian area is largely determined by water flows dictated by agricultural demands. This one factor alone has modified the Pecos River more than any other aspect of use affecting the riparian and aquatic habitat.

Along the Pecos River, livestock grazing is self-limiting due to the presence of goldenrod (poisonous to livestock , heav fl infestations durin the summer and rankcondition of alkali

AP11-53 APPENDIX 11 sacaton (not,palatable to livestock). Condition of the vegetaive community is mostly affected by modified stream flows (Fort Sumner Dam) and the invasion of salt cedar,

There are three ACECs with riparian habitat. The Fort Stanton ACEC is intensively managed with strict controls on grazing. Public lands within the Overflow Wetlands ACEC is essentially closed to grazing, except a small pasture that has a short section of the Pecos River. This pasture is only used seasonally and the grazing lessee has agreed to following season of use recommendations from the BLM. The North Pecos River ACEC is mostly within one grazing allotment. A majority of the allotment is outside of the BLM grazing district and livestock grazing numbers outside of the grazing district are not controlled by the BLM. Nonetheless, the allotment has received several projects to improve riparian habitat conditions. These include pasture development through several miles of fencing and prescribed fire conducted on a regular basis to control salt cedar and improve the riparian community for cottonwood and willow regeneration.

Based on further analysis, a review of the NMNHP preliminary report, and the informa- tion provided by the USFWS (Memorandum dated August 29, 1996), the determination for the Southwestern willow flycatcher remain the same.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not necessary.

Bald Eagle - Haliaeetus leucocephalus

The determinations in the BA were No Affect. It was thought that since there were no breeding or nesting areas within the RA, there would be no significant impacts to the bald eagle from activities authorized by the BLM. There are BLM-authorized activities as stated in the BA that would directly improve habitat for eagles and could be construed as a positive impact. The determination is now changed to recognize this impact.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not necessary.

Kuenzier’s Hedgehog Cactus - Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri

Under the Environmental Consequences-Wildlife section of the DRMP, an analyses of promoting a trail system and its impact to the cactus was made with the finding that potential loss of Kuenzier cactus from off-trail riding in critical habitat could potentially occur. Off-trail riding could occur from mountain bike and horseback trail riders. The current situation is that trail riders stay on the established trails already in place and tend not to go off the trail, partly attributable to coordination with wildlife specialists to ensure habitat concerns are addressed during trail designations (versus no designations in which riders can go anywhere they wish), trail signing, trail brochures and patrols. Along

AP11-54 APPENDIX 11 with trail designations are rules of conduct for recreation use on public lands. These are found in Appendix 7 of the DRMP. The potential loss of cactus from illegal off-trail riding incidents is remote but addressed in the DRMP as a potential impact. The potential impacts to the cactus and habitat would be tremendous without the designation of roads and trails and off-highway vehicle restrictions currently in place, and enhanced by man- agement prescriptions for the Fort Stanton ACEC. In addition, primary cactus population locations have been protected by the construction of large exclosures which serve to protect the sites and provide for scientific study.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not necessary.

Arkansas River Shiner - Notropis simus

The 12,200-acre figure for federal minerals underlying private lands is for the entire Quay County. About 4,900 acres of federal minerals underly mostly private and some state lands along the Canadian River. Federal mineral leasing along the Canadian River is possible on about 4,640 acres of currently unleased federal minerals. To protect the Canadian River, land use decisions added to the DRMP (see bullet under RMP Changes) were developed. Lands that may be offered for mineral leasing would be subject to the Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements in Appendix 3 of the DRMP. The determination is now changed to recognize this impact.

Determination: Not Likely to Adversely Affect and formal consultation is not necessary.

IV. Summary

The determinations for the bald eagle and the Arkansas river shiner have been changed from No Affect to May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect.

The determination for the Southwestern willow flycatcher and Kuenzier’s hedgehog cactus remain May Affect but Not Likely to Adversely Affect,

Formal consultation is requested for the Interior least tern, Pecos gambusia, and the Pecos bluntnose shiner. To complete the initiation of formal consultation, additional information that was requested through USFWS Memorandum dated August 29, 1996 (Consultation #2-22-95-1-102) is being provided through a separate document and maps.

AP11-55 APPENDIX 11

- \'

Kristine Johnson, Sr. Research Associate New Mexico Natural Heritage Program University ofNew Mexico, Biology 2500 Yale Blvd SE Albuquerque, NM 87131-1091 505-277-1982,/ax 505-277-7587 kjohnson@unm. edu

31 July, 1996

DanBaggao Bureau ofLand Management P.O. Drawer 1857 Roswell, NM 88202

Dear Dan,

Enclosed is a summary ofPat's and my surveys ofBLM land earlier in July. In addition to preliminary WIFL surveys, we assess the potential of these as stopover and breeding habitat for WIFLs as well as other Neotropical migrants. As we discussed previously, I think some of these areas offer good potential for migrants in general, whether or not they eventually attract WIFLs.

Having looked at nearly all the lands of interest, I think we can eliminate some areas as clearly unsuitable for breeding or even migrating flycatchers. I've included an accounting ofthis year's money, an estimated budget for a 2-survey protocol of potentially suitable breeding/migrating WIFL habitat, along with the cost of doing 3-survey protocols of potentially suitable habitat, in case they should be warranted.

I plan to be at the prairie chicken meeting in Oklahoma City in August. Hope to see you there. Please call if you have questions about the report.

Sincerely,

Kristine Johnson Senior Research Associate

AP11-56 APPENDIX 11

SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER HABITAT SURVEYS ON BLM LANDS

Kristine Johnson and Patricia Mehlhop July, 1996

Between July 8 and July 17, 1996, we surveyed potential southwestern willow flycatcher (Enipidonax trailii extiniiis) breeding habitat on BLM lands in eastern New Mexico. USFWS protocols (Tibbitts et al. 1994) specify that surveys must be conducted twice, eight days apart, the first being in late June and the second in early July. Although flycatchers that do nest are expected to be still on the nesting grounds later in July, once nesting has begun males tend to reduce singing greatly; thus, response to taped song may go undetected. Due to the timing of funding, it was not possible to adhere to these guidelines in 1996, and thus these results should be considered first as habitat surveys and second as preliminary surveys for the presence of breeding willow flycatchers. We also assessed the areas for their potential as suitable stopover habitat for migrating willow flycatchers as well as habitat for other Neotropical migratory songbirds. We discuss separately each area surveyed.

July 8-IO.Pecos River Floodplain Gas and Oil Development Area, Approximately3.5mileson the west side of the river were surveyed on July 8-9 and approximately 1. 5 miles on the east side, just north of the Bitter Lakes Refuge boundary, were surveyed on July 9-1 0. In each case, the habitats were viewed from a vehicle the first day and the areas were then walked the following day. During the walking surveys, tapes of willow flycatcher song were played at all stands of trees, whether or not the stand was deemed suitable for flycatcher breeding.

Much of the river bank (an estimated 60%) is entirely treeless, while thin strings and small patches of saltcedar are present in the other 40%. The tree species comprise about 99% saltcedar, and only those that are present singly are taller than about 2m. Less than 1% of the trees present are willow, and these are less than 1.5m tall and occur in patches less than I m wide on the bank of the river near the refuge boundary. Surrounding areas are covered primarily with alkali saccatone grass, It is clear that there is no suitable nesting habitat for southwestern willow flycatchers in this section of the river. No flycatchers were detected and none responded to tapes. Although there are other bird species using the area (e.g., meadowlark, mouming dove, barn swallow, redwinged blackbird), this is not a high quality riparian area: there are few trees and vegetation diversity is quite low.

July I 0- I I - Rio Bonito and Salado Creek Riparian Areas. Again, these areas were viewed from a vehicle on the I Oth and walked on the I Ith. Tapes were played where trees were present. Approximately 0. 5 mi. of the Lower Rio Bonito, going west from the eastern Ft. Stanton boundary, was surveyed. There was considerable willow emerging in this section of the Rio, about 40%, along with about 15% cottonwood, some very large, and about 40% dead saltcedar. The willows are mostly less than I m in height. This did not appear to be highly desirable breeding habitat for willow flycatchers, but the emergence of willow stands and the efforts at saltcedar control suggest that, with continued management, it may be in the future. No willow flycatchers responded to tapes, nor were any detected singing. At present, this is a very nice riparian area, possibly providing suitable stopover habitat for flycatchers and clearly suitable for use by other Neotropical migrants. We encourage continued management of this area as stopover and breeding habitat for migratory birds.

AP11-57 APPENDIX 11 The Middle Rio Bonito consists of approximately 2mi. of river extending upstream from the Lower Rio Bonito. There is a gap of riverbank containing no trees that was not surveyed, just upstream from the above-described Lower Rio. The Middle Rio Bonito begins above that gap and continues to the Ft. Stanton upstream boundary, about 2 mi. This area contains scattered cottonwood (30%), juniper (20%), elm (20%), and willow (30%). The willow patches are very small and discontinuous, with only 35-40% of the bank having any trees at all. The bank is steep and eroded and up to 3m deep in places. The Rio was running about 3" deep after a rain, but had been dry the previous day. No suitable willow flycatcher breeding habitat was detected; willow stands were short and very small and the stream was small and runs intermittently. No flycatchers responded to taped song. In spite of the sparsely distributed trees and the depth of the channel, this is a nice small riparian area used by other Neotropical migratory species (black- chinned hummingbird, blue grosbeak, western tanager, Say’s phoebe). The area is well worth management efforts aimed at preserving stopover and breeding habitat for Neotropical migrants.

About 0.75 mi. of the Salado Creek riparian area, north of highway 380, was surveyed. This area had a few scattered poplars and some willows planted by the BLM. About 95% of the stream bank was treeless, with a steep, eroded channel. The only trees present were isolated. Although remediation efforts have been initiated here, it is clear that this area has a long way to go before it can be considered riparian habitat. It is clearly unsuitable for willow flycatchers. Trees were so sparsely distributed that there was no point in even playing tapes. Nevertheless, continued remediation efforts could transform this area into suitable habitat for migratory birds, particularly if stands of trees can be established.

July 14, Upper Rio Bonito The Upper Rio Bonito (approximately 3 miles) was surveyed on July 14. This area comprises about 35% old tree willow (<2m high) and cottonwood and 65% recovering meadow and shrub. In the upper half of the reach the shrubs are about 65% tree willow of <2m in height, in the form of stringer rows. The lower part grades to tree and coyote willow and cottonwood, 3m in height. Two small willow stands that had died back have resprouted and offer potential for future habitat. In open areas about 10% of the cover is shrub willow. In a few years this site may hold willow stands several meters wide and currently has potential for willow flycatcher migratory habitat. In 3-10 years it could offer good, although not excellent, willow flycatcher breeding habitat. No willow flycatchers or obligate riparian species were detected in this area.

July 16, Delaware River The Delaware River was surveyed on July 16. The river flows from the Texas border to an old destroyed dam in a series of pools connected by a narrow channel. On one or both sides, the floodplain is contained by 10- 15 foot high cliffs. The width of the floodplain is 30-50m, offering the only potential for willow flycatcher habitat. The tree willow has old growth structure and offers little subcanopy for nesting willow flycatchers. Seepwillow forms stringers between the tree willows and the river and dense stands in open canopy bars. However, it is generally 4-5 feet high, apparently too short for nesting SW willow flycatchers. The apparent absence of song sparrows and yellow-breasted chats attests to an insufficient shrub

AP11-58 APPENDIX 11 component here. However, the habitat may be suitable for stopover by migrating SW willow flycatchers and other Neotropical migrants. The short reach upstream from the dam to the sharp south bend in the river may offer the best potential habitat in the future because it is less contained. If it is flooded regularly, the habitat structure could become suitable. Cattle loiter in the seepwillow stands when watering, keeping them more open than natural. There is a small patch of Freemont cottonwood down stream of the dam at the point where a flume enters the river from the NW. A yellow-breasted chat was detected there. Potential migration habitat should improve once cattle are removed, scheduled for 1998. No willow flycatchers were detected.

The Delaware River was also spot checked downstream from the gas pipeline. Immediately downstream appeared the same as the site upstream to the flume. Where the highway crosses the Delaware there are a few small patches of tree willow downstream from the bridge. These patches do not appear to have a subcanopy component, making it unlikely breeding habitat for the flycatchers. From the confluence with the Pecos upstream to about 50 m. above the railroad bridge crossing, dense saltcedar grows nearly to the river edge and does not offer suitable nesting habitat for flycatchers. None was detected.

July 15, Black River The Black River was surveyed on July 15. The low stature and low density of the riparian vegetation from the headwaters to ~1.3 mi. downstream does not offer suitable nesting habitat at this time. The area downstream needs additional survey to confirm that it too is currently unsuitable. The entrenchment of the river appears to preclude much overbank flooding, which suggests that a thriving willow habitat will not occur in the future. If height and density of the shrubs and small trees increases, the suitability of nesting habitat may increase in the future. Although currently not good breeding habitat for willow flycatchers, this reach may offer very good migratory stopover habitat for willow flycatchers and other Neotropical migrants. It merits mistnet survey in spring and fall and singing male survey in spring. No willow flycatchers were detected.

Conclusions Preliminary surveys suggest that there are no willow flycatchers nesting in any of the surveyed areas. This tentative conclusion will be confirmed using protocol surveys during the next breeding season. Several areas, the Upper and Lower Rio Bonito and parts of the Delaware Rivers, although not prime breeding habitat, appear to be potentially suitable stopover habitat for the flycatchers and could hold potential as breeding habitat if willow stands develop further. With continued management efforts aimed at encouraging this species, these areas could develop into fine habitat for willow flycatchers. However, even continued development of these areas would not guarantee use of these habitats by the flycatchers, given that willow flycatchers typically do not nest east of the Rio Grande in New Mexico. It is important to note that these areas are being used by a variety of other Neotropical migratory songbirds, currently an important focus of conservation concern due to loss of stopover as well as breeding habitat. We encourage the BLM to continue their management efforts and define those efforts broadly to include Neotropical migrants other than the willow flycatcher. We also recommend surveys of all the avifauna in the well developed riparian areas, during the migration as well as breeding seasons, to guide further management efforts in these potentially important riparian areas.

AP11-59 APPENDIX 11 Reference

Tibbits, TJ, MK Sogge, & SJ Sferra. 1994. A Survey protocol for the Southwestern wfllow flycatcher (Enipidonax traillii extiniitv). Technical report NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-94/04.

AP11-60 APPENDIX 11

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1'.0. Box 1306 Albuquerque. New M:xico 87103

In Reply Refer To: R2/ES-SE

Cons. #2-22-96-F-1 02

Memorandum

To: Area Manager, Roswell Resource Area, Bureau of Land Management, Roswell, New Mexico

-~\} From: t-~egional Director, Region 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Subject: Biological Opinion on the Roswell Resource Area Resource Management Plans

This is in further response to your July 9, 1996, request for formal Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 {Act), as amended. The request concerned the effects of programs implemented undEi'r current resource management plans for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Roswell Resource Area (RRA), and programs proposed to be implemented under the Roswell Resource Area Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Roswell DRMP/EIS) (BLM 1 994). This biological opinion addresses effects of those plans on the Pecos bluntnose shiner, Pecos gambusia, and interior least tern.

This consultation covers a broad spectrum of management activities that are guided by the Roswell resource management plans. In some cases, it was necessary to analyze specific projects and/or discuss them in the biological opinion to help evaluate the overall effectiveness of plan-level guidance. This plan-level consultation, however, does not eliminate the need for BLM to conduct future action-specific biological assessments pursuant to 50 CFR §402.12 to determine if any actions are likely to adversely affect listed or proposed species or adversely modify critical habitat.

Consultation. History- .

The RRA began informal consultation on the Roswell DRMP/EIS on November 8, 1991 (Cons. #2-22-92-1-156), when it requested a list of endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species for preparation of a Biological Assessment (BA) on the DRMP/EIS. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (NMESO) responded on December 12, 1991, with a species

AP11-61 APPENDIX 11 list for Chaves, Curry, De Baca, Guadalupe, Lincoln, Quay, and Roosevelt counties and updated the list by memorandum dated June 19, 1995. The NMESO commented on the Roswell DRMP/EIS on April 1, 1995 (Cons. #2-22-95-1-207). BLM did not request the NMESO to review the BA prepared for that document.

The RRA submitted a draft BA on September 28, 1995, that addressed the impacts of current resource management plans on species that are federally endangered, threat- ened, proposed, or candidates. NMESFO requested additional information, RRA: resub- mitted the BA on December 15, 1995, with a request for Service concurrence. After continued discussion between the two agencies, the Service determinated that it could not concur with BLM’s interpretation of the thresholds for its determinations of effect on listed species. The BLM withdrew its request for concurrence on April 9, 1996, to reas- sess its determinations and continue to develop the information in its BA.

Six different plans, plan amendments, or environmental assessments (EA) direct current activities in the RRA. The final Roswell RMP/EIS will soon replace these documents. Because of this, it was decided in discussions with the RRA that its BA addressing the impacts of current resource management plans should also inc.’ude determinations for the Roswell DRMP/EIS. The RRA again submitted a BA on July 9, 1996, with a request for concurrence with the determinations under existing plans and the Roswell DRMP/ EIS. In this BA, the RgA requested concurrence with determinations for 19 species, of which 8 are endangered, 3 are threatened, 1 is proposed endangered, and 7 are candi- dates.

On August 5, 1996, the NMESFO concurred with determinations of “no effect” or “not likely to adversely affect’ for five endangered, threatened, or proposed species (black- footed ferret, brown pelican, American peregrine falcon, Mexican spotted owl, and north- ern aplomado falcon), but could not concur with RRA determinations for four species (bald eagle, Arkansas River shiner, southwestern willow flycatcher, and Kuenzier hedge- hog cactus) due to insufficient information. The NMESFO acknowledged RRA’s findings of “may adversely affect” and request for formal consultation for three species (Pecos bluntnose shiner, Pecos gambusia, and interior least tern). The NMESFO made no comments on RRA determinations for candidate species.

On September 20, 1996, the RRA submitted the supplementary information and discus- sions the NMESFO requested. Based on the supplementary information, the NMESFO indicated in a memorandum dated September 25, 1996, that it was able to concur with RRA determinations of “not likely to adversely affect’ for bald eagle, Arkansas River shiner, southwestern willow flycatcher, and Kuenzler hedgehog cactus. The following biological opinion is based on information in the BA and supplementary information, data in our files, discussions with species experts, and other sources of information.

AP11-62 APPENDIX 11 A draft biological opinion dated April 8, 1997, was submitted to the BLM for review. The BLM commented on the draft biological opinion in a memorandum dated April 18, 1997.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

It is the Service’s biological opinion that the RRA resource management plans and the Roswell DRMP/EIS are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), but are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Pecos bluntnose shiner (Notropis simus pecosensis) and Pecos gambusia (Gambusia nobilis). It is also the Service’s biological opinion that the RRA resource management plans and the Roswell DRMP/EIS are likely to adversely modify critical habitat desig- nated for the Pecos bluntnose shiner.

Description of the Proposed Action

This biological opinion addresses the manner in which the current RRA resource man- agement plans and the Roswell DRMP/EIS either guide or propose to guide BLM activi- ties in the RRA. Six different resource management plans, plan amendments, and EAs developed between 1976 and 1987 currently guide activities in the RRA. Each plan covers a specific activity or a specific part of the RRA. The plans are the East Chaves Management Framework Plan, the East Roswell Grazing Environmental Statement, the Environmental Assessment - Oil and Gas Leasing Roswell District, the Roswell Manage- ment Framework Plan Amendment, and the Fort Stanton Management Framework Plan Amendments. When the Roswell DRMP/EIS is final, it will replace these older resource management documents. The Roswell RMP will be the first comprehensive land use plan prepared for the entire RRk.

BLM Resource Programs

This section on BLM-managed programs in the RRA was adapted from the RRA BA (1996), the Roswell DRMP/EIS (1994), the Interim Oil and Gas Leasing and Develop- ment Roswell Resource Area Environmental Assessment (1995), and additional informa- tion. Environmental components analyzed in the Roswell DRMP/EIS include mineral resources; lands, realty, and rights-of-way; rangeland resources; vegetation; cultural resources; paleontological/geological resources; wilderness resources; recreation,- wild and scenic rivers, visual-resources; soil resources; water resources; air resources; wild- life; hazardous or solid wastes; fire; and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Re- source management programs in the RRA correspond roughly to the environmental components, but some programs may affect or include several of the environmental components. For instance, the RRA’s administration of grazing has important effects on rangeland resources, vegetation, soil resources, water resources, fire, and wildlife, and minor effects on some of the other environmental components. Conversely, some envi- ronmental components such as water are affected by several management programs. The Service has evaluated the environmental components as presented in the Roswell

AP11-63 APPENDIX 11 DRMP/EIS and determined that the RRA programs that affect cultural resources, pale- ontological/geological resources, wilderness resources, wild and scenic rivers, visual resources, air resources, and hazardous or solid wastes either have no effect on Pecos bluntnose shiner, Pecos gambusia, and interior least tern or have effects that are insig- nificant, discountable, or beneficial. This is primarily because the RRA programs affect- ing these environmental components are of minor scope or occur in parts of the RRA that provide no habitat for the three species in this biological opinion.

The RRA management programs described briefly in the following paragraphs are those most likely to have a significant effect on the three species in this biological opinion. The RRA encompasses about 14 million surface acres of all ownerships in Quay, Guadalupe, Curry, DeBaca, Roosevelt, and Lincoln counties, plus most of Chaves County. There are about 1.5 million acres where both the surface and subsurface are in Federal ownership and another 8.25 million acres of Federal minerals underlying other surface ownerships.

Oil and Gas

Most of the RRA has high or moderate potential for oil and gas occurrence. More than 7,00 Federal, State, and fee wells were drilled in the RRA during the period of 1904 to 1991. As of March 1 995, there were 1,694 Federal leases in effect in the RRA, cover- ing approximately 1.25 million acres. Total projected disturbed acreage by the end of 1997 from all Federal drilling activity will be 7,800 acres. This surface disturbance will continue as long as the wells are producing and until reclamation has occurred.

When an oil or gas discovery is made, a well spacing pattern must be established before development drilling begins. Well spacing is regulated by the New Mexico Oil and Gas Conservation Division. Factors considered in the establishment of a spacing pattern include data from the discovery well concerning: porosity, permeability, pressure, compo- sition, and depth of formations in the reservoir; well production rates and type (barrels of oil or cubic feet of gas); and the economic effect of the proposed spacing on recovery. The standard minimum spacing for oil production on Federal leases-is 40 acres. Spac- ing for oil wells usually varies from 40 to 80 acres per well. Spacing for gas wells is generally from 1 60 to 320 acres per well.

In the RRA, oil and gas leasing and development is currently directed by Environmental Assessment No. NM-066-95-096, Interim Oil and Gas Leasing and Development, Roswell Resource Area (BLM 1995), which supersedes the older planning documents. This document will be superseded by the Roswell RMP (BLM 1994) when that document is finalized. Under the interim direction, lease parcels will be screened to identify re-

AP11-64 APPENDIX 11

source management or operational conflicts. Parcels failing to pass the screening will not be offered for sale, but can be reconsidered for leasing after approval of the Roswell RMP. Under the screening, no parcels will be leased if there are: various operational concerns; designated significant caves; designated critical habitat for Federal threatened or endangered species; habitat designated as crucial for State threatened or endan- gered species; sites on the National Register of Historic Places; 100-year floodplains; areas proposed in the Roswell DRMP/Ei.S for special management; or areas proposed in the Roswell DRMP/EIS for closure to leasing or no surface Occupancy.

When the Roswell DRMP/EIS is finalized, leasing may resume in some of the areas not being leased under the interim oil and gas leasing EA. For example, it is intended to resume leasing in 100-year floodplains, but apply No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipula- tions to any leases sold. There are, however, several exceptions to the NSO stipulations. In these cases, and for existing leases in floodplains, appropriate Conditions of Approval (COA) to protect floodplain resources will be applied when there is an Application to Drill.

Leases can include specific stipulations that are attached prior to lease sale to mitigate potential impacts. Some examples of lease stipulations are no surface occupancy, controlled surface use, and timing restrictions. For areas where the surface is managed by another Federal agency, and certain areas managed by the New Mexico State Parks, leasing stipulations are provided by those agencies. Where the mineral estate is owned by the U.S. Government and surface ownership is State or private, surface use stipula- tions are included that ensure conformance with the Endangered Species Act and other Federal laws. The lessee or operator will negotiate surface use requirements with the State or private landowner prior to development, as described in Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1.

In addition to lease stipulations, there are several Notice to Lessees for oil and gas development. These include netting pits and placing caps over exhaust stacks to pre- vent bird and bat entry. There are a number of standard operating COAs that are at- tached to every Application to Drill. The COAs include standards for road construction, pipeline construction, drill pad construction, reserve pit and tank battery construction, waste materials management, site reclamation, and other procedures. Additional COAs for site specific activities can be developed as needed through EAs or EISs to protect the environment. The COAs are intended to minimize surface impacts and provide measures for site restoration after drilling activities are completed.

AP11-65 APPENDIX 11 Lands and Realty

The RRA currently has about 1,387 active rights-of-way (ROW) managed under its realty program. Presently about 25,958 acres of public land are affected by existing ROWS. Most ROWs are issued for oil and gas related roads, pipelines, and powerlines. Predominately, ROWs are issued for a 30 year period, but they can be issued for any period necessary to meet the objective of the ROW. Relinquished ROWs are returned to native vegetation. There are no designated energy-related ROW corridors in the RRA.

Watershed and Soils

Three watersheds in the RRA are susceptible to severe long-term soil loss. These areas are the Rio Bonito including Salado Creek, the Pecos River from the confluence of Yeso Creek to Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and the closed drainage area to Nakee Ishee Lakes. Four watersheds in the RRA have been identified as susceptible to severe gully erosion. These watersheds are the Rio Bonito including Salado Creek, Arroyo de[ Macho, Gallo Arroyo, and the Feliz River.

The Roswell DRMP/EIS states that Best Management Practices (BMP) will be used to minimize sedimentation as a cause of nonpoint source pollution in surface waters. BMPs are based on standard operating procedures, oil and gas lease stipulations, or BLM policy. BMPs will be specified in activity plans for actions that make soils more susceptible to erosion or impair soil productivity. The DRMP\EIS further states that strategic watershed management plans will be developed and implemented for water- sheds that are susceptible to severe long-term soil losses or gully erosion and which have a high potential to respond to treatment. As part of watershed management plans, site-specific prescriptions will be written which could include, but not necessarily be limited to: vegetation treatments; vegetation plantings; livestock grazing management; construction of erosion, sediment, and flood control structures; and implementation of a monitoring program.

Due to the ‘checkerboard’ ownership in watersheds, management on BLMadministered lands alone may be inadequate to support designated stream uses. Where appropriate, cooperative agreements, Memorandum of Understanding, or other interagency efforts will be made to manage entire watersheds to maintain or improve water- quality.

Grazing

There are 414 grazing allotments in the RRA. Of the nearly 1.5 million acres of public land in the resource area, less than 1 percent are unsuitable for livestock grazing. An Allotment Management Plan is in place for 45 allotments. Activity plans, which include grazing systems, are being proposed on an additional 65 allotments. If no plan exists, grazing is conducted under the terms of the grazing permit. The current permitted use

AP11-66 APPENDIX 11 for the RRA is 329,370 animal unit months (AUM), which averages about 1 2 head of cattle per section or 59 head of sheep per section.

Standard practices proposed in the Roswell DRMP/EIS to maintain or achieve desired plant communities include: utilization levels not exceeding 45 percent of annual plant production as measured on key forage species; projects such as fences, water develop- ments, erosion control structures, reseedings, or vegetative sales; grazing treatments such as changes in season of use, class of livestock, or stocking rates; and vegetation treatments including prescribed fire, prescribed natural fire, fuelwood sales, and biologi- cal, chemical, or mechanical controls.

Since 1979 in areas covered by the East Roswell Grazing EIS, and since in 1984 areas covered by the RRA Management Framework Plan EIS, 82,644 acres of brush (shinnery oak, mesquite, creosote bush) and 7,735 acres of broom snakeweed have been treated with chemicals. An additional 1,945 acres of brush have been treated with fire. Herbi- cide applications are in conformance with BLM, State, and EPA standards. Important wildlife habitat such a broadleaf tree groves, aquatic, riparian, wetland, and watering facilities are protected during brush control operations.

Recreation

Recreation in the RRA is both facility-based and dispersed. The Roswell DRMP/EIS proposes 24 Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA). The SRMA’s range in size from only a few acres to about 24,630 acres for Fort Stanton. Two SRMA’s totaling 4,046 acres are designated for off-road vehicle (ORV) use. For the remainder of the RRA, ORV use is proposed to be closed for 38,576 acres, and limited to existing roads and trails for 1,414,878 acres. Most of the recreational visitation on public land in the RRA comes from dispersed recreation such as hunting, caving, fishing, sightseeing, primitive camping, biking, and hiking.

Riparian/Wildlife

The wildlife program in the RRA includes inventory, planning, habitat improvement projects, mitigation to curtail potential impacts from other activities, and compliance/ monitoring. Riparian areas in the RRA include the Pecos River; Rio Bonito and Salado creeks; Rio Bonito acquired lands; the Overflow Wetlands; about 60 sinkholes, playas and alkali lakes; and about 20 springs or seeps.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The, Roswell DRMP/EIS proposes five Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). These areas encompass about 64,500 acres of all surface ownerships.

AP11-67 APPENDIX 11 Each area will have its own set of management prescriptions to protect the principal resources for which the ACECs are being designated.

Pecos Bluntnose Shiner

Status of the Species (Range-wide)

The Pecos bluntnose shiner (Notropis simus pecosensis) was listed as a threatened species with critical habitat on February 20, 1 987 (USFWS 1 987a). Its critical habitat in the Pecos River includes a 64-mile reach from 10 miles south of Fort Sumner to 12 miles south of the De Baca/Chaves County line and a 37-mile reach from near Hagerman to near Artesia. The principal reason for its listing was habitat alteration due to dam construction resulting in an altered hydrograph that reduced peak and base flows and increased the likelihood of channel intermittency. Water diversion for irrigation, habitat loss due to channel incision, decreased water quality as a response to lower base flows, and piscivory by non-native predatory fish species have also contributed to its decline.

The Pecos bluntnose shiner is a moderate-sized shiner up to 95 millimeters long. It is separable from co-occurring shiners by its robust body, blunt and rounded snout, and large slightly subterminal mouth that usually extends evqn with the pupil. The species is pallid gray to greenish-brown dorsally and whitish ventrally. A wide silvery lateral stripe extends from the pectoral girdle to the caudal base. Pelvic and anal fins lack pigmenta- tion, dorsal and pectoral fins have small black flecks along rays, and the caudal fin is variably pigmented (USFWS 1992).

Pecos bluntnose shiner in the Pecos River are most frequently encolmtered between Fort Sumner and Roswell. Elsewhere in the historical range of the subspecies, the river is intermittent or otherwise modified and bluntnose shiner are uncommon or absent (Hoagstrom et al. 1994). Bluntnose shiner occupy a variety of mesohabitats in the river channel (Hoagstrom et al. 1994). They are typically found in low-velocity water 17 to 41 centimeters deep over sand substrate (USFWS 1992).

Historically, Pecos bluntnose shiner inhabited the mainstream of the Pecos River from Santa Rosa downstream to the vicinity of Carlsbad (Hatch et aL 1985). It has not been recorded in the Texas portion of the Pecos River. Collection records attest to the histori- cal-abundance- of the species. For example, one collection made in 1 939 from near Santa Rosa contained 1,482 bluntnose shiner. Subsequent sampling efforts in the same area in 1 981 resulted in the collection of only 4 bluntnose shiner (USFWS 1992).

Currently, Pecos bluntnose shiner survive in the Pecos River from below Fort Sumner downstream to the upper end of Brantley Reservoir and seasonally in the reservoir. Hoagstrom et al. (1994) divided the currently occupied portion of the

AP11-68 APPENDIX 11 river into three reaches for sampling and study purposes. Pecos bluntnose shiner were rare in the first reach from Sumner Dam to Taiban Creek. Reach two from Cedar Creek to the U.S. Highway 380 bridge yielded the highest number of adult Pecos bluntnose shiner in sampling. This reach included the upper critical habitat area for the species. In reach three from the Rio Hondo to the inflow of Brantley Reservoir, the samples included mostly eggs, larvae, and young bluntnose shiner. This reach included the lower critical habitat area.

Life History

The Pecos bluntnose shiner is a pelagic spawner that produces non-adhesive semi- buoyant eggs (Platania 1993). Increased river flows and water temperature stimulate spawning, which occurs repeatedly from June through August. Spawned eggs hatch within 24 to 48 hours and develop into protolarvae that move out of the main channel within 3 to 4 days of hatching. Protolarvae likely move into backwaters where the warm and relatively nutrient-rich waters provide for maximum larval growth rates (Platania 1993). Adult bluntnose shiner live up to 3 years.

Threats

Loss of permanent flow, alteration of flow patterns, introduction of non-native species, and degradation of water quality are the principal threats to Pecos bluntnose shiner. The operation of Sumner Dam has significantly altered flow regimes in the upper Pecos River (Brooks et al. 1991). Releases from Sumner Dam to transport irrigation water for use by the Carlsbad Irrigation District have resulted in unnaturally high flows during release periods and unnaturally low flows at other times. The release schedule has affected stream morphology, influencing Pecos bluntnose shiner habitat. The timing and duration of releases has affected spawning, downstream transport of eggs, and survival of juve- nile bluntnose shiner.

Non-native fish may compete with and prey upon various life stages of Pecos bluntnose shiner. Sport fisheries have been established in all the lakes on the Pecos River. Intro- duced predators such as walleye and white bass now occur in the river and may prey on bluntnose shiner. The greatest number of such fish occur in the tailwaters directly below Sumner Dam with few occurring in the shallow sandy-bottomed reaches that bluntnose shiner-prefer (Larson and Propst 1994). The overall impact of non-native predators on Pecos bluntnose shiner in the river, therefore, remains uncertain. However, it is likely that survival of young Pecos bluntnose shiner displaced into downstream reaches below Roswell is low due to the increased presence of non-native predators that occur in relation to Brantley Reservoir. Pecos bluntnose shiner do not survive long in lake or other calm water environments (USFWS 1992), likely as a result of predation.

AP11-69 APPENDIX 11

Other small fish including plains minnow (Hybognathus placitus), speckled chub (Macrhybopsis aestivalis), Rio Grande shiner (Notropisjemezanus), red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis), and Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi) are frequently found in association with Pecos bluntnose shiner (Hoagstrom et al. 1994). Plains minnow and Arkansas River shiner are introduced in the Pecos River (Bestgen et al. 1989). It is not yet known if these introduced species directly compete with the natives, but reduction in populations of native-species following non-native introductions is well documented in other river systems.

Water quality degradation has been identified for the Pecos River and associated habi- tats. Elevated levels of organochlorine chemicals have been detected in association with agricultural water uses (USFWS 1992). Some portions of the Pecos River do not sup- port designated or attainable uses (NMWQCC 1994). The reach of the river from Sumner Dam to Salt Creek is not fully supported as a limited warm water fishery. Prob- able causes of nonsupport for this reach of the river are siltation, reduction of riparian vegetation, and streambank destabilization. Probable sources of nonsupport for this reach of the river are rangeland uses and hydromodification (NMWQCC 1994). The reach of the river from Salt Creek to Rio Penasco is not fully supported as a warm water fishery. Probable causes of nonsupport for this reach of the river are metals, dissolved oxygen, unionized ammonia, total dissolved solids, siltation, reduction of riparia ‘ n vegetation, and streambank destabilization. The toxic contaminant mercury has been found at chronic levels in this reach. Probable sources of nonsupport for this reach of the river are irrigation return flows, rangeland uses municipal point sources, and un- known sources (NMWQCC 1994). Reduced base flow caused by water development activities may increase the detrimental effects of water quality degradation.

Environmental Baseline for Pecos Bluntnose Shiner (in the Action Area)

Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR 402.02) define the environmental baseline as the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area. Also included in the environmental baseline are the antici- pated impacts of all proposed Federal projects that have undergone section 7 consulta- tion, and the impacts of State and private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in progress.

The Bureau of Reclamation (BR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) have consulted formally with the Service on their operation of Lake Sumner and Santa Rosa Lake (Cons. #2-22-91-F-198, August 5, 1991, and Cons. #2-22-92-F-240, March 22, 1993). The action under consultation with BR was the volume, timing, and length of water releases from the upstream reservoirs to supply water to Brantley Reservoir for irrigation. Prior to the construction of Brantley Reservoir, downstream storage capacity in McMillan and Avalon reservoirs was limited and several upstream releases were

AP11-70 APPENDIX 11 needed during the summer to supply irrigation needs. The greater storage capacity of the new Brantley Reservoir made it possible to meet downstream water needs with fewer, but larger volume, upstream releases. In 1989, a release of 1,100 cfs for 45 days was made from the upstream reservoirs to check the water holding capacity of Brantley Dam. This release almost emptied Santa Rosa and Sumner reservoirs and resulted in extensive postrelease drying of the river channel upstream of Bitter Lake NWR (BLNWR)(Brooks et al. 1991). The lack of summer rains exacerbated dry channel condi- tions and increased seasonally elevated salinity levels in the river downstream of Roswell. The Service concluded in its biological opinion that the agency’s water man- agement of the Pecos River was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Pecos bluntnose shiner and adversely modify its critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives to remove jeopardy included the implementation of a pre-Brantley Reservoir release schedule from the upper dams for a 5-year period and the initiation of a 5-year research program to better understand the hydrology of the river and the biological needs of the Pecos bluntnose shiner.

The formal consultation with the Corps involved elevated mercury levels that had been detected in biota in Santa Rosa Lake and the possible effects of its transport down- stream with water releases. The reasonable and prudent alternative in connection with this action was for the Corps to implement I study to evaluate the downstream transport of mercury into Pecos bluntnose shiner critical habitat.

Private entities from Roswell south to Lake Arthur hold aggregate water rights of 8,439.2 acre-feet from the Pecos River. There are also an additional 1,374 acrefeet in rights from wells. Although return flows may lessen the net withdrawals from the river, quanti- fied information on such returns is not available. Consequently, these water rights are considered not only as diversions, but as depletions.

The EPA began consulting with the Service in the early 1980’s on the effects to threat- ened and endangered species from the registration of specific pesticides. This evolved into nationwide formal consultations on clusters of pesticides in the late 1980’s. A jeop- ardy opinion was reached for the Pecos bluntnose shiner in Chaves County, New Mexico, for the registration of 51 pesticides. In New Mexico, removal of jeopardy was to be accomplished through the establishment of a State program for the protection of threatened and endangered species from pesticides. To date, no State program has been implemented and the best way to deal with this highly complex issue is still being studied.

The EPA has consulted informally with the Service on the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for the cities of Artesia (Cons. #222-95- 1-526, September 22, 1995) and Roswell (Cons. #2-22-89-1-032, December 20, 1988, and Cons. #2-22-96-1-473, October 18, 1996) for discharges from their

AP11-71 APPENDIX 11 municipal wastewater treatment plants. The Service concurred with a finding of “no effect’ for Artesia after the City agreed to modify its effluent storage system. Consulta- tion is continuing concerning the level of nitrates in Roswell’s effluent.

The Roswell District of BLM has consulted informally with the Service on potential oil and gas drilling and development in the Pecos River ftoodplain near Roswell icons. #2- 22-93-1-350, July 15, 1993, and Cons. #2-22-94-1-028, May 15, 1996). The proposed development of seven gas wells was withdrawn by the applicant. The same applicant recently submitted a proposal to drill three shallow exploratory wells. In addition to the proposed wells, there are six existing oil or gas wells on Federal mineral estate in the 100-year floodplain. Three of these wells are temporarily shut-in.

Inspection of topographic maps for the reach of the Pecos River from the ChavesEddy County line north to Sumner Reservoir and comparison with land ownership maps reveals 14 wells, and associated access roads on private lands in the 100-year flood- plain. In addition, there are about 20 wells on private uplands within 0.5 mile of the Pecos River. These maps were last revised between 1950 and 1968 so it is uncertain if additional wells are now present or if some of the wells on the maps have been aban- doned and plugged.

Grazing occurs on lands adjacent to the Pecos River in the RRA. Lands in De Baca County are almost completely in private ownership. The amount of public land increases in Chaves County, but most grazing allotments administered by the RRA still consist of a ‘checkerboard’ of public and private lands. The RRA administers 29 grazing allotments on public lands in the 100-year floodplain. These include about 6,700 acres of 100-year floodplain, which is about 10 percent of the 100-year floodplain in the RRA. For many of these allotments, public lands make up the minority of the ownership. Of the 29 allot- ments, 18 have 80 acres or less of public lands in the 100-year floodplain. Private lands usually surround these small parcels. Range conditions for these 29 allotments have been evaluated as fair for 16 and good for 13, with mostly a static trend. Range condi- tions for private lands have not been evaluated.

Status of the Pecos Bluntnose Shiner (in the Action Area)

The habitat of Pecos bluntnose shiner in the RRA includes about 1 70 miles of the Pecos River from Sumner Reservoir to the Chaves-Eddy County line. This is about 85 percent of the bluntnose shiner’s occupied habitat. Critical habitat in the RRA includes a 64-mile reach from 10 miles south of Fort Sumner to 12 miles south of the De Baca- Chaves County line and a 25-mile reach from near Hagerman to the Chaves-Eddy County line. This is about 90 percent of the designated critical habitat.

AP11-72 APPENDIX 11 Sampling by Hoagstrom et al. (1994) determined that the reach of the Pecos River in the RRA from Cedar Creek to the U.S. Highway 380 bridge yielded the highest number of adult Pecos bluntnose shiner in sampling. This reach includes the upper critical habitat area for the species. In the reach from the Rio Hondo to the ChavesEddy County line in the RRA, the samples included mostly eggs, larvae, and young bluntnose shiner. This reach includes 25 miles of the lower critical habitat area.

Critical Habitat Constituent Elements - Pecos Bluntnose Shiner

The physical and biological features that are the basis for designating portions of the Pecos River as critical habitat for Pecos bluntnose shiner are clean permanent water, a main river channel habitat with sandy substrate, and a low velocity flow. These primary constituent elements provide the physical features and biological environment necessary for survival and recovery of the Pecos bluntnose shiner. They provide water of sufficient quality, quantity, and hydrologic regime to meet the requirements of each life stage.

Physical Habitat

The impacts to physical habitat involve the loss of the quantity and quality of water in critical habitat and the change in flow regime. The quanti@y and timing of flows influ- ence how various habitats are formed and maintained. Water depletions reduce the ability of the river to create and maintain these habitats; degradation of water quality lessens the ability of endangered species to survive in these habitats. Water releases from Sumner Reservoir to meet downstream irrigation demands have a major impact on flow patterns in the Pecos River. The effects of these releases on Pecos bluntnose shiner and its habitat have been discussed previously in this document.

Biological Environment

Food supply, predation, and competition are important elements of the biological envi- ronment. Food supply is a function of nutrient supply and productivity, which could be limited by the presence of contaminants. Predation and competition from non-native fishes have been identified as factors in the decline of the bluntnose shiner. Depending upon species-specific tolerance levels, non-native fishes may have competitive, advan- tages in- habitats damaged by the presence of contaminants and altered flow regimes. Additionally, rare native species at larval and young-ofyear stages may be affected to the extent that survival is limited via behavioral impacts.

AP11-73 APPENDIX 11 Effects of the Action

The Service’s primary task in developing a biological opinion is to determine whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species (50 CFR 402.1 4(g)(4)). The jeopardy/non-jeopardy determination is based on an evaluation of: (1) A species’ status in the project area and rangewide (see above sections); (2) the effects of the prclposed action on the survival and recovery of a listed species (including effects of interdependent and interrelated actions); (3) the aggregate effects of other Federal actions on a listed species (e.g., amount of take occurring as a result of Federal actions subject to previous consultations); and (4) the cumulative effects on a listed species (ie., future nonFederal actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area).

The RRA management plans guide numerous BLM-managed programs (discussed above). The programs expected to most greatly affect the Pecos bluntnose shiner and its critical habitat are oil and gas development and livestock grazing because these are major programs directed through the plans. The activities under the oil and gas, and grazing programs are expected to most greatly affect the shiner when they occur in the river flaodplain, but activities in uplands within the watershed may also have effects on the species. The BLM manages lands for multiple uses so several activities may occur simultaneously in any one area. That is, oil production, grazing, recreation, and other activities may occur at the same time, in the same area, producing aggregate effects be- yond those anticipated when looking at effects separately.

Oil and Gas Activities - Indirect effects are those that are caused by, or result from, the proposed action, and are later in time, but reasonably certain to occur. Interdependent actions have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration. Interre- lated actions are part of a larger action, and are dependent on the larger action for their justification. Oil and gas leasing results in several interdependent and interrelated ac- tions because it is merely the initial step in the process of producing commercial quanti- ties of oil and gas. Subsequent to leasing is the possibility of exploration, development, and production of oil and gas, and the eventual abandonment of wells and other facili- ties. Although there is no current leasing in the 1 00-year floodplain under the Interim Oil and Gas Leasing and Development Roswell Resource Area Environmental Assess- ment, there could be new or continued development of older leases containing substan- tial amounts of floodplains. For the area from Sumner Reservoir to the Chaves-Eddy County line, 70 percent of the floodplain acres for which the RRA has leasing authority are presently leased. Oil and gas facilities in a floodplain are exposed to an increased risk from flooding. While no ruptures or releases have occurred in the RRA as a result of flood damage, the possibility of such occurrences increases with additional develop- ment in the floodplain.

AP11-74 APPENDIX 11 impacts from development in floodplains include the possibility of soil and water contami- nation from leaks or ruptures, increased sediment load in the runoff from Pads. and roads, additional non-point source pollution, and greater erosion rates. Oil field develop- ment in or adjacent to floodplains would lead to additional roads and pipeline crossings in floodplains. Floodptain hydraulics could be changed, possibly increasing flood haz- ards at the development site or elsewhere on the river. Potential water quality degrada- tion associated-with oil and gas leasing and would likely result in adverse effects to the Pecos bluntnose shiner.

The BLM manages the leasing and subsequent development of oil and gas resources on lands in Federal surface and subsurface ownership and on some lands in private surface ownership that lie over the Federal mineral estate. This includes lands within the 100- year floodplain of the Pecos River. The Pecos bluntnose shiner in the RRA occurs in a part of the Pecos River that contains an estimated 71,600 acres of 100-year floodplain. The RRA administers the mineral estate for about 10,400 acres (15 percent) of this floodplain, of which 7,350 acres are presently leased. Lease development has resulted in six oil or gas wells in the 100-year floodplain. No ruptures or releases of oil, gas, or byproducts have occurred from these wells and protective measures developed by BLM are designed to minimize the likelihood of these events. Any future Applications to Drill on existing Federal leases on BLM surface in the 100-year floodplain will, when the Roswell RMP/EIS is finalized, include COAs number 109-118 for floodplain development and other COAs to protect the floodplain. These COAs will greatly reduce, but may not completely eliminate, accidental spills of petroleum or petroleum byproducts, and will help contain any spills for easier cleanup if accidents occur.

Grazing Activities

Analysis of the effects of livestock grazing on fish and fish habitat requires looking at subtle, long-term, incremental changes in watershed functions, riparian and aquatic communities, and stream channel morphology. Platts (1990) says of past governmental efforts at analysis of livestock impacts on riparian and aquatic communities, “Livestock impacts were cumulative and even though they couldn’t be seen annually, in the sum they were deleterious. Their (agency) review of ongoing actions did not tell the complete story.”

As Platts indicates, the long-term, cumulative aspect of grazing impacts, in combination with the short-term, limited data available on range condition and fish and fish habitat, make a purely empirical analysis of the effects of grazing and grazing management difficult and often misleading, particularly on an allotment by allotment basis. However, extrapolations of general hydrologic and biologic principles and site-specific research data provide a large body of evidence linking degradation of watersheds, stream chan- nels, aquatic and riparian communities, and fish habitat and populations in western North America to grazing and grazing management (Leopold 1924, Leopold 1951, York and Dick-Peddie 1969, Hastings and Turner 1980, Dobyns 1981, Kauffman and Krueger

AP11-75 APPENDIX 11 1984, Skovlin 1984, Kinch 1989, Chaney et al. 1990, Platts 1990, Armour et al. 1991, Bahre 1991, Meehan 1991, Fleischner 1994).

The effects to the Pecos River and its populations of Pecos bluntnose shiner from live- stock grazing and management would occur through several mechanisms, two of which are: 1) watershed alteration, and 2) physical riparian destruction and alteration.

Watershed Alteration - Livestock grazing may cause long-term changes to the water- shed and its functions. The extent of these changes varies with watershed characteris- tics, grazing history, and cumulative effects from other human uses and natural water- shed processes. Watershed changes due to grazing are more difficult to document than direct livestock impacts to the riparian and aquatic communities due to their long-term, incremental nature, the time lag and geographic distance between cause and effect, and the numerous confounding variables. Despite this, the relationship between livestock grazing in a watershed and effects to river systems is widely recognized and docu- mented (Leopold 1946, Blackburn 1984, Skovlin 1984, Chaney et al. 1990, Platts 1990, Bahre 1991, Meehan 1991, Fleischner 1994, Myers and Swanson 1995). Although watershed effects vary depending upon the number and type of livestock, the length and season of use, and the type of grazing management, the mechanisms remain the same and the effects vary only in extent of area and severity (Blackburn 1984, Johnson 1992).

Livestock grazing may alter the vegetative composition of the watershed (Martin 1975, Savory 1988, Vallentine 1990, Popolizio et al. 1994). It may cause soil compaction and erosion, alter soil chemistry, and cause loss of cryptobiotic soil crusts (Harper and Marble 1988, Marrs et al. 1989, Orodho et al. 1990, Schlesinger et al. 1990, Bahre 1991). Cumulatively, these alterations contribute to increased erosion and sediment input into streams (Johnson 1992, Weltz and Wood 1994). They also contribute to changes in infiltration and runoff patterns, thus increasing the volume of flood flows while decreasing their duration and decreasing the volume of low flows while increasing their duration (Brown et al. 1974, Gifford and Hawkins 1978, Johnson 1992). Groundwater levels may decline and surface flows may decrease or cease (Chaney et al. 1990, Elmore 1992). Development of livestock watersimay alter surface flows by impound- ment, spring capture, or runoff capture.

Physical Riparian Destruction and Alteration - Cattle presence on streambanks destabi- lizes streambanks through chiseling, sloughing, compaction, and collapse, and results in wider and shallower stream channels (Armour 1977, Platts and Nelson 1985b, Platts 1990, Meehan 1991). This causes progressive adjustments in other variables of hydrau- lic geometry and results in changes to the configuration of pools, runs, riffles, and back- waters; levels of fine sediments and substrate embeddedness; availability of instream

AP11-76 APPENDIX 11 cover; and other fish habitat factors (Bovee 1982, Rosgen 1994). It also changes the way in which flood flows interact with the stream channel and may exacerbate flood damage to banks, channel bottoms, and riparian vegetation. These impacts occur at all levels of cattle presence, but increase as number of livestock and length of time the cattle are present increase (Marlow and Pogacnik 1985). Damage begins-to occur almost immediately upon entry of the cattle onto the streambanks and use of riparian zones may be highest immediately following entry of cattle into a pasture (Goodman et al. 1989, Platts and Nelson 1985a). Vegetation and streambank recovery from long rest periods may be lost within a short period following grazing reentry (Duff 1979). Bank configuration, soil type, and soil moisture content influence the amount of damage with moist soil being more vulnerable to damage (Marlow and Pogacnik 1985, Platts 1990). Cattle presence on streambanks can retard rehabilitation of previous damage as well as cause additional alteration (Platts and Nelson 1985a).

Cattle grazing in and on riparian vegetation may cause changes in the structure, func- tion, and composition of the riparian community (Szaro and Pase 1983, Warren and Anderson 1987, Platts 1990, Schulz and Leininger 1990). Species diversity and struc- tural diversity may be substantially reduced and normative species may be introduced through spread in cattle feces. Reduction in riparian vegetation quantity and health and shifts from deep rooted to shallow rooted vegetation contribute to bank destabilization and collapse and production of fine sediment (Meehan 1991). Loss of riparian shade results in increased fluctuation in water temperatures with higher summer and lower winter temperatures (Karr and Schlosser 1977, Platts and Nelson 1989). Litter is re- duced by trampling and churning into the soil, thus reducing cover for soil, plants, and wildlife (Schulz and Leininger 1990). The capacity of the riparian vegetation to filter sediment and pollutants to prevent their entry into the river and to build streambanks is reduced (Lowrance et al. 1984, Elmore 1992). Channel erosion in the form of downcutting or lateral expansion may result (BLM 1990).

Physical damage to streambanks and channel in conjunction with loss or reduction of riparian vegetation may change the timing and magnitude of streamflow (Stabler 1985, Meehan 1991). Flood flows may increase in volume and decrease in duration and low flows may decrease in volume and increase in duration. Cattle trampling and grazing of the riparian corridor can make banks and vegetated more susceptible to severe damage during catastrophic flooding.

As with watershed effects, livestock grazing effects on streambanks, channels, and riparian vegetation vary depending upon the number and type of livestock, the length and season of use, and the type of grazing management; however, the mechanisms remain the same and the effects vary only in extent of area and severity (Kinch 1989, Vallentine 1990, Platts 1990, Elmore 1992, Kovalchik and Elmore 1992, Chaney et al. 1993, Popolizio et al. 1994). Although success in improving and restoring streambanks,

AP11-77 APPENDIX 11 channels, riparian vegetation, and fish habitat has been achieved under various grazing systems (Chaney et aL 1990, Dagget 1992, Elmore 1992, Myers and Swanson 1 995), the greatest success has been achieved with exclusion of livestock in the riparian and stream corridor (Claire and Storch 1977, Duff 1 979, Van Velson 1979, Rickard and Cushing 1982, Platts and Nelson 1985b, Stuber 1985, Warren and Anderson 1987, Schulz and Leininger 1990, Prange 1993). Exclusion or removal of livestock use is known as “rest” under various grazing system terminologies.

The BLM manages grazing on about 1.4 million acres of uplands (about 10 percent of the RRA). The uplands occur mostly in Chaves and Lincoln counties, and most, except lands in Lincoln County that drain into the Tularosa Basin, are within the Pecos River watershed. The BLM manages grazing on 6,700 acres (10 percent) of the Pecos River floodplain in the RRA.

The RRA administers 29 grazing allotments that include lands in the Pecos Rive 1 00- year floodplain. For many of these allotments, public lands make up the minority of the ownership. Of the 29 allotments, 18 have 80 acres or less of public lands in the1 00- year floodplain. Private lands usually surround these small parcels. Range conditions are rated as fair for 16 of the allotments and as good for the other13. Range condition trends are given as up for 6 allotments, static for 22 allotments, and down for 1 allot- ment. Of the 11 allotments with more than 80 acres, 7 are in good condition and 4 in fair. Ten have static trends while 1, the largest allotment and adjacent to the BLNWR, is in an upward trend and is currently in good condition.

Livestock grazing on BLM lands along the Pecos River is authorized on an allotment basis. All grazing is by cow/calf operations on a yearlong permit. Grazing regimes include rest rotation, seasonal, and yearlong in areas of large pastures. Normally one or two pastures of an allotment have a portion of the Pecos River within their boundaries. Generally, pastures that include river frontage are grazed in the fall, winter, and early spring months. Cattle naturally migrate to the uplands in the summer due to vegetative preferences and to avoid annoying insects. Sometimes cattle are moved out of riparian areas because of poisonous plants such as rayless goldenrod.

The BLM’s past, present, and future livestock management practices are intended to improve the condition of riparian and upland areas. Techniques for this include develop- ment of water sources away from the river, vegetation treatments to reduce brush spe- cies and encourage herbaceous plants that protect the soils, fencing to facilitate rotation of cattle between pastures, and establishment of grazing management systems. The effectiveness of these techniques is determined through vegetation monitoring studies, which use permanent sites to track vegetation changes and to determine proper stock-

AP11-78 APPENDIX 11 ing rates on the grazing allotments.

Absolute control of riparian areas is limited due to the mixture of land ownerships and the small percentage of Federal lands in most areas. Geographically, the breaks along the river make fencing difficult and large fluctuations in water flow make it difficult to maintain fencing across the river.

The BA indicates there are about 1,300 acres of riparian areas on public lands along the Pecos River in the RRA. About 500 acres are in the proposed North Pecos and Over- flow Wetlands ACECS. The riparian areas are all classified in the BA as being in a fair condition with a static trend. All but 120 acres are allotted for grazing.

The Roswell DRMP/EIS includes guidance recommending construction of streambank stabilization structures, native riparian plantings, establishment of riparian pastures, salt cedar control, and spring and drainage protection on the Pecos River for fisheries and aquatic habitat management. There is no schedule of specific actions or timetable in the Roswell DRMP/EIS. Instead, the implementation of specific actions is guided through annual activity plans or through recommendations for mitigation contained in EAs or EiSs.

Special Management Areas (SMAS) on public lands are designated through RMPs or amendments. These areas are designated to place management emphasis on some significant resource within the SMA. The Roswell DRMP/EIS proposes the establish- ment of two SMAs along the Pecos River primarily for the protection of riparian areas and Pecos bluntnose shiner habitat. The Overflow Wetlands ACEC comprises 6,814 acres, with 2,987 acres being public, 1,720 acres being State, and 2,107 acres being private. The management goal is to ‘Protect the biological and scenic values of the Overflow Wetlands WHA, which provides critical habitat for T/E fish species and sup- ports a significant riparian/wetiand plant community. The DRMP/EIS describes various management prescriptions to meet the management goal, which include closing the ACEC to future oil and gas leasing, enlarging the present grazing exclusion area by about 640 acres, adjusting livestock stocking rates and season of use, and limiting ORV use. The North Pecos River ACEC comprises 6,400 acres, with 3,360 acres being public, 1,260 acres being State, and 1,880 acres being private. The management goal is to “Protect the biological and scenic quahties of-the Pecos River ACEC, which provides critical habitat for T/E fish species and supports a significant riparian plant community. The DRMP/EIS describes various management prescriptions to meet the management goal, which include closure to future oil and gas leasing or designation of no surface occupancy, modifying grazing practices, doing salt cedar control, and limiting ORV use. The DRMP/EIS gives no timetable for implementing the management prescriptions. Again, such actions are included in annual work plans rather than in the RMP itself.

AP11-79 APPENDIX 11 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are those effects of future non-Federal (State, local government, or private) activities on endangered or threatened species or critical habitat that are rea- sonably certain to occur in the foreseeable future. The numerous actions that may contribute to portions of the Pecos River being partially or nonsupportive of its desig- nated uses provide examples of ongoing or future non-Federal activities that may affect the Pecos bluntnose shiner. These actions include, but are not limited to, road mainte- nance, construction, recreation, land disposal, resource extraction, agriculture, hydromodification, municipal point sources, silviculture, unauthorized spills, and road runoff. Because the BLM manages only about 15 percent of the surface in the RRA, non-Federal actions can be expected to have the greater overall influence on water quality. Future Federal actions are subject to the consultation requirements established in section 7, and, therefore, are not considered cumulative in this analysis.

Conclusion

The Service has evaluated the potential threats and the relative importance of the Pecos bluntnose shiner that occur in the RRA. Sampling indicates that the best remaining habitat for the bluntnose shiner occurs in the RRA and maintenance of this habitat is crucial to survival of the species. The RRA contains 90 percent of the designated critical habitat for the species. The principal threat to the Pecos bluntnose shiner is manage- ment of water flows in the river, an activity under the control of agencies other than BLM. Another threat to the Pecos bluntnose shiner is degradation of water quality in the Pecos River. Activities near the river and in the watershed can contribute to water quality degradation and the RRA has management responsibility for some of these activities.

The Service has identified the leasing and subsequent development of oil and gas resources in the Pecos River 100-year floodplain as an activity under RRA management responsibility that has the potential to adversely affect water quality and thus the Pecos bluntnose shiner. The RRA administers the mineral estate for about 10,400 acres (15 percent) of the 100-year floodplain in the RRA, of which 6,900 acres (66 percent) are presently leased. There has been relatively little development of these leases to date, with only six active wells. No ruptures or releases of (>il-,-gas, or byproducts have occurred-from these wells- and- protective measures developed by BLM are designed to minimize the likelihood of these events. Any future Applications to Drill on existing Federal leases on BLM-managed surface in the 100-year floodplain will, when the Carlsbad RMP/EIS is finalized, include COAs number 109-118 for floodplain develop- ment and other COAs to protect the floodplain. These COAs will greatly reduce, but may not completely eliminate, accidental spills of petroleum or petroleum byproducts, and will help contain any spills for easier cleanup if accidents occur.

AP11-80 APPENDIX 11 Under the Environmental Assessment No. NM-066-95-096, Interim Oil and Gas Leasing and Development, Roswell Resource Area (BLM 1995), there is currently no leasing in 100-year ffoodplains. When the Roswell RMP/EIS is finalized, leasing may resume in some of the areas not being leased under the interim EA. For example, it is intended to resume leasing in 100-year floodplains, but apply No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipula- tions to any leases sold. There are, however, several exceptions to the NSO stipulations tha-t could contribute to degradation of floodplains and increase the possibility of pollut- ants entering Pecos bluntnose shiner habitat.

The BLM follows the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in evaluating the impacts of oil or gas development projects. Through these evaluations, COAS, including the standard COAs found in Appendix 4 of the Carlsbad RMP/EIS, are applied to the projects to protect sensitive resources. The BLM conducts compliance monitoring dur- ing projects, and monitoring of endangered species or their habitat can be included if considered necessary. The NEPA process, however, is applied on a project-by-project basis and may not adequately consider cumulative impacts, particularly if the impacts result from projects of a different type or result from projects elsewhere in the water- shed.

The Service has further identified grazing management in both uplands and riparian areas as an activity that has the potential to adversely affect water quality and thus the Pecos bluntnose shiner. Existing plans and the Roswell DRMP/EIS provide direction to implement measures to maintain and improve range conditions. Among these measures are forage utilization standards, range projects like fencing and water development, vegetation treatments, and adjustments in grazing regimes or stocking rates. Changes in use allocations are made on the basis of Tange monitoring data. However, among the grazed lands in the RRA, there are several watersheds that have been identified in the Roswell DRMP/EIS as being susceptible to severe long-term soil loss or to severe gully erosion. The New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (1994) identifies siltation, reduction of riparian vegetation, and streambank destabilization as among the probable causes for the Pecos River in the RRA not supporting its designated use as a warm water fishery, and identifies rangeland agriculture as a probable source of the nonsup- port.

Bureau of Land Management - Lands in the RRA are subject to other multiple uses besides the::oit and. -gas development and grazing just-:discussed. These larzds are open to recreational use; the sale of mineral materials such as caliche, sand, and gravel; the establishment of ROWs for roads, electric utilities, or pipelines; and other minor uses. These activities combined with oil and gas, and grazing may have aggregate effects beyond what would be anticipated if the activities occurred separately. Project-by-project NEPA analysis may be inadequate to detect these aggregate effects.

AP11-81 APPENDIX 11 The only self-sustaining population of Pecos bluntnose shiner occurs in the Pecos River from Cedar Creek to Roswell, a distance of about 50 miles, all within the RRA. If this population is lost, the species will likely become extinct. Additionally, if the species is to recover and be removed from the endangered species list, more habitat in the Pecos River will need to support a viable bluntnose shiner population. The most likely part of the river to support shiners in the future is in the RRA.

The RRA needs to know and understand the status of the Pecos bluntnose shiner in its Resource Area so it can alleviate threats to the species, particularly threats from cumu- lative actions that are not easily detected through project-by-project impact analysis. The RRA currently relies on data from other agencies to fill the need for status informa- tion for the shiner. It obtains water quality information from the State and fish survey information from the Service. This information is useful, but may not adequately fill BLM’s information needs.

The Roswell DRMP/EIS, under the section for Special Status Species Habitat Manage- ment, lacks direction to monitor the general status of threatened or endangered species in the Resource Area. Although project-specific monitoring is directed elsewhere in the DRMP/EIS, the absence of any such projects in the habitat of a threatened or endan- gered species could mean the Resource Area might never determine the status of threatened or endangered species for which it has management responsibility. The Service realizes that monitoring, beyond projectspecific monitoring, is being done for some species, and that the BLM cooperates with the State, the Service, and others in monitoring efforts. But, monitoring is a critical component of managing threatened and endangered species, and in the absence of assistance from other agencies, the BLM should have clear direction that it will accomplish the task itself for species for which it has management responsibility.

The Roswell DRMP/EIS, under the section for Special Status Species Habitat Manage- ment, does direct that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plans will be imple- mented. In the Pecos Bluntnose Shiner Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992), task 1.16 states, ‘Monitor existing populations and associated aquatic habitats.’ The task is given a priority number of 1 meaning that the Service considers the task to be, “An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from declining irreversibly.” The responsible agencies given in the recovery plan for accomplishing -the monitoring task are the Service, the -New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and the BR. But, the bluntnose shiner was listed in 1987, and the recovery plan was not finalized until 1 992, meaning there were 5 years when no agency was assigned monitoring responsibil- ity. If the RRA had direction within its RMPs to monitor threatened or endangered spe- cies, it could have initiated monitoring directly after the species was listed rather than waiting for the recovery plan to provide guidance.

AP11-82 APPENDIX 11

The RRA manages programs along the Pecos River and in the Pecos River watershed that may adversely affect the Pecos bluntnose shiner. Further, these programs may have aggregate, cumulative, or synergistic effects that are not easily detected when project impacts are analyzed separately. The most direct way to determine the effects of BLM resource management programs on the Pecos bluntnose shiner is to monitor the species and its habitat directly. The Roswell RMPs and the Roswell DRMP/EIS lack any direction to monitor the ongoing status of the Pecos bluntnose shiner or its habitat. Therefore, it is the Service’s opinion that implementation of the Roswell RMPs and the proposed implementation of the Roswell DRMP/EIS are likely to jeopardize the contin- ued existence of the Pecos bluntnose shiner.

Similarly, the lack of RMP direction to monitor and detect any adverse changes in the critical habitat for the Pecos bluntnose shiner is likely to lead to the adverse modification of Pecos bluntnose shiner critical habitat.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE FOR PECOS BLUNTNOSE SHINER

Regulations (50 CFR §402.02) implementing section 7 define reasonable and prudent alternatives as alternative actions, identified during formal consultation, that (1) can be implemented in a manner consistent with the.intended purpose of the action, (2) can be implemented consistent with the scope of the action agency’s legal authority and juris- diction, (3) are economically and technologically feasible, and (4) would, the Service believes, avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to the continued existence of listed species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Therefore, jeopardy to the Pecos bluntnose shiner and adverse modification of its critical habitat would not be likely to result if all elements of the following reasonable and prudent alternative are imple- mented:

1 . Establish a program in the Roswell RMP, or in guidance issued under the author- ity of the RMP to monitor the status of threatened and endangered species in th e RRA, with the type and intensity of monitoring for each species being determined by such variables as abundance of the species in the Resource Area, habits and habitat of the species, and degree of sensitivity of the species to habitat perturbations. Within this program, establish a monitoring program for the Pecos bluntnose shiner and its critical habitat in the RRA. The Service will assist the RRA indesigning a program that will meet-the needs of detecting adverse impacts to the Pecos bluntnose shiner so the impacts can be promptly corrected.

2. The Roswell DRMP/EIS directs the initiation of several activities that will improve habitat for Pecos bluntnose shiner. These activities include such things as implemen- tation of management prescriptions for the newly established North Pecos River and Overflow Wetlands ACECS, and development of strategic watershed management plans for watersheds susceptible to severe long-term soil losses or gully erosion. The scheduling of specific tasks to carry out the general guidance of the Roswell

AP11-83 APPENDIX 11 DRMP/EIS is done at the annual activity planning level. Give priority in annual activ- ity planning to activities that will most benefit Pecos bluntnose shiner habitat. The Service suggests giving priority to implementing management prescriptions for the North Pecos River ACEC and developing and implementing a strategic watershed management plan for the Pecos River (from confluence of Yeso Creek to Bitter Lake NWR).

3. Continue the policy contained in the Interim Oil and Gas Leasing and Development EA (BLM 1995) of selling no new oil and gas leases on lands with 100- year f loodplains, unless or until BLM can demonstrate that other mandatory protec- tive measures will provide equivalent protection.

4. The Roswell DRMP/EIS (BLM 1994) contains proposed surface use and occu- pancy requirements for oil and gas activities in floodplains. It states, ‘No surface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within 200 meters of the outer edges of 100-year floodplains, to protect riparian areas’ (Appendix 3). Change the wording of this sentence to indicate the purpose of the policy is to protect the integ- rity of the 100-year floodplain, not just riparian areas within the floodplain.

5. Several possible exceptions are identified for the no surface occupancy policy identified above. Eliminate any exceptions in Pecos bluntnose shiner habitat that could contribute to the. degradation of floodplain characteristics and water quality for the shiner.

6. The Roswell Resource Area Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Envi- ronmental Impact Statement (BLM 1997) contains 141 COAs (Appendix 4) for oil and gas operations and other activities. The COAs number 109-118 apply to floodplain development. Compile these COAS, other COAs that may apply to floodplain devel- opment, and any other applicable information into a single guidance document for availability to floodplain lease holders.

Pecos Gambusia

Status of the Sggcies (R@ge-wide)

Information on the Pecos gambusia (Gambusia nobilis) is taken primarily from the Pecos Gambusia Recovery Plan (USFWS 1983) and from Echelle et al. (1989). The Pecos gambusia was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, on October 13, 1970. It became an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 when that legislation was enacted. No critical habitat has been designated. The principal reasons for its listing were loss of habitat and inability to

AP11-84 APPENDIX 11 interact successfully with introduced non-native fish. It has declined to the point where it now occupies only four major localities and certain populations have declined consider- ably.

Pecos gambusia is a small fish 25-40 millimeters long in the iivebearer family (Poeciliidae). Members of this family have strong sexual dimorphism; the anal fin of males is modified into a gonopodium, an intromittent organ used in copulation. Gynopodial structures distinguish Pecos gambusia from other livebearers within its native range. Color patterns and morphometric characters are also useful in making preliminary field identifications. Pecos gambusia have an arched back while the backs of the other two gambusia species within its range, mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and largespring gambusia (Gambusia geiserl) are relatively straight. Pecos gambusia has the margins of the scale pockets outlined in black, spots are normally absent on the caudal fin, and females have a black area on the abdomen that surrounds the anus and anal fin. The other two species of gambusia lack this combination of characteristics.

The Pecos gambusia is endemic to the Pecos River basin in southeastern New Mexico and western Texas. Historically, it occurred at least as far north as near Fort Sumner, New Mexico, and as far south as Fort Stockton, Texas. Presently, it is restricted to springs and their outflows on the western slope of the Pecos River drainage. Natural populations in New Mexico occur in several springs and isolated gypsum sinkholes at BLNWR in Chaves County, and in Blue Spring, a 2.5 mile long spring run that flows into the Black River near Black River Village in Eddy County. Natural populations in Texas occur in the headwaters of Phantom Lake and in Giffin and East Sandia springs near Balmorhea in Reeves County, and in Leon Creek and the Diamond Y Spring outflow north of Fort Stockton in Pecos Courity.

In addition to the natural populations, introduced populations occur at BLNWR at other sinkholes, and at the Salt Creek Wilderness Area in Ink Pot, an isolated gypsum sink- hole. The introduced stock that once occurred in a series of artificial pools at the Living Desert State Park near Carlsbad has been extirpated.

The habitat for Pecos gambusia is predominately springheads and spring runs. Popula- tions may also occur in areas with little spring influence but with abundant overhead cover, in sedge covered marshes, and in gypsum sinkholes. These areas are seldom subjected to destructive scouring floods. Pecos gambusia have been observed to occur from the surface to depths of 3 meters.

The genus Gambusia is primarily subtropical. Pecos gambusia occur principally at the lower elevations and more thermally stable localities (ie., springs) within its geographic range. All populations occur between 2,700 feet and 3,900 feet elevation, a range of 1,200 feet. The range of temperature tolerance has been reported by Gehibach et al. (1978) as an average critical thermal maxima of 38.1-39.3 degrees centigrade, and

AP11-85 APPENDIX 11 thermal preferenda of 21-25 degrees centigrade in the morning and 26-30 degrees centigrade in the afternoon. No data are available on cold tolerances of the species.

Pecos gambusia can tolerate a range of salinities. Total dissolved solid concentrations at occupied sites vary from 1 to 30 parts per thousand.

Threats

Water withdrawals from the Pecos River basin for irrigation and the construction of dams for flood control and irrigation have affected the Pecos River for more than 100 years. Extensive groundwater pumping of aquifers surrounding the Pecos River has caused some springs to cease flowing and reduced the flow of others. Extirpations of Pecos gambusia are documented from Comanche Springs and North Spring River due to failed spring flows. Other undocumented extirpations are likely.

Water contamination at occupied sites is a considerable concern. Surface contamination could come from various sources ranging from accidental spills of pesticides to inten- tional vandalism. Possibilities of aquifer contamination range from surface pollutants in aquifer recharge zones to subsurface contamination through oil and gas drilling activi- ties.

Native fishes, which have evolved in communities with low species diversity, are often unable to compete with introduced species. The effects of competition on Pecos gambu- sia are well known and available data indicate that they are disappearing in the Balmorhea area because of the expansion of larglaspring gambusia, a non-native intro- duced into the springs in the early 1930’s.

Predation on Pecos gambusia could be a major limiting factor in areas where no sub- merged vegetation or shallow areas provide cover from predators. The virtual absence of Pecos gambusia from the head pool of Diamond Y Spring may be attributable partly to the presence of green sunfish and largemouth bass.

Environmental Baseline for Pecos Gambusia (in the Action Area)

Regulations implementing-the Act (50 CFR 402.02) define the environmental baseline as the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area. Also included in the environmental baseline are the antici- pated impacts of all proposed Federal projects that have undergone section 7 consulta- tion, and the impacts of State and private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in progress.

AP11-86 APPENDIX 11 Groundwater pumping for agricultural irrigation by private entities is the major activity affecting the environmental baseline for Pecos gambusia. Groundwater pumping has caused a number of springs to cease flowing and has reduced the flow of others within the historic range of Pecos gambusia. Several spring failures, resulting in Pecos gambu- sia extirpations, are directly attributable to groundwater pumping. The most serious effects have occurred in Texas. At BLNWR, a lowered water table has isolated the gypsum sinkhole springs from each other. Formerly, the water table was near the sur- face and there was some connecting flow between the springs.

Because of the limited distribution of Pecos gambusia, there have been few section 7 consultations conducted for this species. The EPA began consulting with the Service in the early 1980’s on the effects to threatened and endangered species from the registra- tion of specific pesticides. This evolved into nationwide formal consultations on clusters of pesticides in the late 1980’s. A jeopardy opinion was reached for the Pecos gambusia in Chaves County, New Mexico, for the registration of 52 pesticides. In New Mexico, removal of jeopardy was to be accomplished through the establishment of a State pro- gram for the protection of threatened and endangered species from pesticides. To date, no State program has been implemented and the best way to deal with this highly com- plex issue is still being studied.

The Roswell District of BLM has consulted informally with the Service on potential oil and gas drilling and development in the Pecos River floodplain adjacent to the northern boundary of BLNWR (Cons. #2-22-93-1-350, July 15, 1993, and Cons. #2-22-94-1-028, May 15, 1996). The proposed development of seven gas wells was withdrawn by the applicant. The same applicant recently submitted a proposal to drill three shallow ex- ploratory wells.

Status of the Pecos Gambusia (in the Action Area)

The occupied habitat of Pecos gambusia in the RRA includes 11 springs and sinkholes on BLNWR and 1 sinkhole, the Inkpot, on the Salt Creek Wilderness Area. The BLNWR is one of the four main occupied sites for the species. The 12 populations in the RRA represent 63 percent of the currently extant populations. All of the populations in the RRA are on lands under the surface management of the Service. The RRA is respon- sible for minerals management-of these areas.

The RRA management plans guide numerous BLM-managed programs (discussed above). Among these is the leasing and subsequent development of oil and gas re- sources on lands in Federal ownership and on some lands in private surface ownership. The Roswell DRMP/EIS proposes closing the Refuge and Wilderness to future oil and gas leasing. But, there are three ‘grandfathered’ developed Federal oil or gas leases on BLNWR. There are leases directly southeast of the Refuge in conjunction with the

AP11-87 APPENDIX 11 South Bitter Lake Oil Field and directly north of the Refuge in the Pecos River floodplain. Three wells are proposed to be drilled on leases directly north of the Refuge.

Effects of the Action

Indirect effects are those that are caused by, or result from, the proposed action, and are later in time, but reasonably certain to occur. Interdependent actions have no indepen- dent utility apart from the action under consideration. Interrelated actions are part of a larger action, and are dependent on the larger action for their justification. The indirect effects and interrelated actions that result from oil and gas leasing were discussed in the Pecos bluntnose shiner section of this document.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are those effects of future non-Federal fstate, local government, or private) activities on endangered or threatened species or critical habitat that are rea- sonably certain to occur in the foreseeable future. Urban and suburban development in northeastern Roswell likely will continue to move toward BLNWR. This will increase the possibility of groundwater pollution from septic leach fields and will eliminate the present buffer of undeveloped land adj@cent to the refuge. The pumping of groundwater for agricultural and personal use can be expected to continue with the potential of lowering the level of springs that support Pecos gambusia. There is potential for oil and gas development on private and State lands adjacent to BLNWR. Some of these wells could penetrate the aquifer that feed the springs on BLNWR and introduce the possibility of subsurface water contamination.

Conclusion

The Service has evaluated the potential threats and the relative importance of the Pecos gambusia that occur in the RRA. The 12 populations in the RRA represent 63 percent of the currently extant populations. The presence of these populations in a relatively iso- lated part of BLNWR may provide the best security for the species of any of the four major population areas. Principal threats to Pecos gambusia are loss of spring flow in its isolated habitats and destruction of habitat through introduction of predators or changes in water quality. Several of these threats are outside RRA’s-management control. How- ever, RRA is responsible for management of oil and gas leasing and development that has the potential to adversely affect Pecos gambusia. The Roswell DRMP/EIS proposes the closure of the Refuge and the Salt Creek Wilderness Area to future oil and gas leasing. But, there are presently three developed Federal leases on the southeast corner of the BLNWR. There are also leases adjacent to the Refuge, particularly ones in the 100-year floodplain of the Pecos River directly north of the refuge. Oil and gas development in the 100-year floodplain carries the risk of surface spills that could sink into the aquifer and the risk of overland transport of contaminants during floods. If well

AP11-88 APPENDIX 11 heads are broken or damaged by flood debris, serious contamination of the river could result. The aquifers that supply water to the springs on BLNWR and the Salt Creek Wilderness Area are porous from voids in the limestone and gypsum through which water flows. Drilling through these voids creates the possibility of introducing drilling fluids into void areas and later the possibility of petrochemical contamination if casing failures occur. Existing management plans and the Roswell DRMP/EIS apply various leasing stipulations, lease notices, and conditions of approval to avoid or mitigate poten- tial adverse impacts of oil or gas lease development. These measures will greatly re- duce, but may not completely eliminate, accidental spills of petroleum or petroleum byproducts, or casing failures that could contaminate aquifers.

Given the limited habitat of Pecos gambusia, a single accident in the wrong place could extirpate either the Refuge populations or the Salt Creek Wilderness population. If the populations on the Refuge were lost, it could reduce the species below the level of possible recovery. Introductions and reintroductions have had variable success, and can not be counted on to replace lost populations. It is essential to the survival of Pecos gambusia that all present populations be maintained. Therefore, it is the Service’s opinion that oil and gas leasing and development directed under current management plans and proposed under the Roswell DRMP/EIS would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Pecos gambusia.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE FOR PECOS GAMBUSIA

Regulations (50 CFR §402.02) implementing section 7 define reasonable and prudent alternatives as alternative actions, identified during formal consultation, that (1) can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action, (2) can be implemented consistent with the scope of the action agency’s legal authority and juris- diction, (3) are economically and technologically feasible, and (4) would, the Service believes, avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to the continued existence of listed species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Therefore, jeopardy to the Pecos gambusia would not be likely to result if all elements of the following reasonable and prudent alternative are implemented:

1. Use the best available hydrologic information to map the source and movement of water that supplies springs occupied by Pecos gambusia on the BLNWR and the Salt Creek Wilderness. Close the lands within the mapped area to oil and gas leasing unless or until BLM can demonstrate that mandatory protective measures will ensure no aquifer contamination.

AP11-89 APPENDIX 11 2. For existing leases within the mapped area, apply appropriate measures taken from BLM’s “Practices for Oil and Gas Drilling and Operations in Cave and Karst Areas’ and any other appropriate measures to ensure no contamination of water that supplies springs occupied by Pecos gambusia on the BLNWR and the Salt Creek Wilderness. Use monitoring procedures that will detect any surface or subsurface accidents soon enough that they can be discovered and corrected before significant harm to the aquifer occurs.

3. Continue the policy contained in the Interim Oil and Gas Leasing and Development EA (BLM 1995) of selling no new oil and gas leases on lands with 1 00- year floodplains, unless or until BLM can demonstrate that other mandatory protec- tive measures will provide equivalent protection.

4. The Roswell DRMP/EIS (BLM 1994) contains proposed surface use and occu- pancy requirements for oil and gas activities in floodplains. It states, “No surface occupancy would be allowed within floodplains or within 200 meters of the outer edges of 100-year floodplains, to protect riparian areas’ (Appendix 3). Change the wording of this sentence to indicate the purpose of the policy is to protect the integ- rity of the 100-year floodplain, not just riparian areas within the floodplain.

5 . Several possible exceptions are identified for the no surface occupancy policy identified above. Eliminate any exceptions that could contribute to potential contami- nation of Pecos gambusia habitat.

6. The Roswell Resource Area Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Envi- ronmental Impact Statement (BLM 1997) contains 141 COAs (Appendix 4) for oil and gas operations and other activities. The COAs number 109-118 apply to floodplain development. Compile these COAS, other COAs that may apply to floodplain devel- opment, and any other applicable information into a single guidance document for availability to floodplain lease holders.

Interior Least Tern

Status of the Sgecies (Ran-ge-wide)

Much of this information on the interior least tern (Stema antillarum) is from the Interior Population of the Least Tem Recovery Plan (USFWS 1990). The interior least tern was listed as an endangered species on June 27, 1985 (50 FR 21 784) in the states of Ar- kansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana (Mississippi River and its tributaries north of Baton Rouge), Mississippi (Mississippi River), Missouri, Mon- tana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas (except within 80 km of the Gulf Coast). The interior least tern is listed as endan- gered under State laws in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Tennes-

AP11-90 APPENDIX 11 see, Texas, Kansas, Kentucky, New Mexico (group 2), Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Although not legislatively designated as endangered in North Dakota, the interior least tern is regarded as endangered by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and conservation organizations within the State.

The interior least tern, as the name implies, is -the smallest North American tern (ap- proximately 9 inches with about a 20 inch wingspan). Adults are characterized by a gray back, a. white belly and neck with a black nape and cap, a white forehead, yellow legs, and a yellow bill with a black tip. Juveniles are buffy-gray above with pinkish bill and legs and no black cap, but with black patches around the eyes. First summer individuals have a black bill, legs, and nape, with a gray back. Least terns have a short forked tail and a black leading edge on the outer wing. Jackson (1976) described the developmen- tal stages of least tern chic s. Massey and Atwood (1978) and Thompson and Slack (1983) presented further details on plumage development and variation.

The interior least tern is migratory, with a breeding range extending from Texas to Mon- tana and from eastern Colorado and New Mexico to southern Indiana. The breeding range includes the Red, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio and Rio Grande river systems (American Ornithologists’ Union 1957, Anderson 1971, Coues 1874, Burroughs 1961, Hardy 1957, Youngworth 1930, Ducey 1985). Incidental occurrences of least terns have been reported in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Arizona (Campbell 1935, Janssen 1986, Jung 1935, Mayfield 1943, Monson and Phillips 1981, Phillips et al. 1964).

In New Mexico, interior least terns breed annually at or in the vicinity of BLNWR. They are not known to breed elsewhere in the State. In the summer of 1996, interior least terns were observed at Dexter National Fish Hatchery (DNFH) about 15 miles south of BLNWR. Individual least terns show up regularly at sites in central and western New Mexico primarily during spring migration. They are regul vagrants at Bosque del Apache NWR in the Rio Grande, often in association with migrating Forster’s terns (Stema forsteri) and/or black terns (Chlidonias niger). They are usually found feeding and roosting in constructed ponds on the Refuge, but possibly use the river if the water levels are low and prey abundant. It is unlikely that least terns will use the Rio Grande channel during higher flows due to the lack of exposed sand bars for roosting habitat and diffi- culty feeding. Vagrant least terns remain in the area for varying lengths of time. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish considers the least tern to be a migrant along the Pecos River in Eddy County and it has occurred as a vagrant in Catron, Rio Arriba, Doiia Ana, Socorro, and Otero counties.

AP11-91 APPENDIX 11 Life History

Interior least terns feed on small fish in shallow waters of rivers, streams, and lakes. Other least terns are known to feed on crustaceans, insects, mollusks, and annelids (Whitman 1988). Least terns usually feed close to their nesting sites and forage by hovering and diving over standing or flowing water. Moseley (1976) believed least terns to be opportunistic foragers, exploiting any fish within a certain size range. Radio telemetered least terns at Salt Plains NWR often traveled 3.2-6.4 km to feed (Talent and Hill 1985)

Interior least terns spend about 4-5 months at their breeding sites. They arrive at breed- ing areas from late April to early June (Faanes 1983, Hardy 1957, USFWS 1987b, Wilson 1984, Wycoff 1960, Youngworth 1930). Courtship behavior of least terns is similar throughout North America. Courtship occurs at the nesting site or at some distance from the nest site (Tomkins 1959). It includes the fish flight, an aerial display involving pursuit and maneuvers culminating in a fish transfer on the ground between two displaying birds. Other courtship behaviors include nest scraping, copulation and a variety of postures, and vocalizations (Ducey 1988, Hardy 1957, Wolk 1974).

The nest is a shallow and inconspicuous depression in an oppn sandy area, gravelly patch, or exposed flat. Small stones, twigs, pieces of wood, and debris usually lie near the nest. Least terns nest in colonies or ternaries, and nests can be as close as a few meters apart or widely scattered up to hundreds of meters (Ducey 1988, Anderson 1983, Hardy 1957, Kirsch 1990, Smith and Renken 1990, Stiles 1939). The benefit of semi-colonial nesting in least terns may be related to anti-predator behavior and social facilitation (Burger 1988). Colonial nesting is not always the case on BLNWR. Individual least terns have nested on playas located 3.5 miles from the next closest nesting terns (W. Radke, BLNWR, pers. comm. 1997).

Interior least terns usually lay two or three eggs (Anderson 1983, Faanes 1983, Hardy 1957, Kirsch 1987-89, Sweet 1985, Smith 1985). The average clutch size for interior least terns nesting on the Mississippi River during 1986-1989 was 2.4 eggs (Smith and Renken 1990). Egg-laying begins by late May. Both sexes share incubation, which generally lasts 20-25 days, but ranges from 17-28 days (Faanes 1983, Hardy 1957, Moser 1940, Schwalbach 1988). The precocial behavior of interior-least tern chicks is- ’similar to that of other least. terns. They hatch within 1 day of each other, are brooded for about 1 week, and usually remain within the nesting territory, but wander further as they mature. Fledgling occurs after 3 weeks, although parental attention continues until migration (Hardy 1957, Massey 1972, 1974; Tomkins 1959). Departure from colonies by both adults and fledglings varies but is usually complete by early September (Bent 1921, Hardy 1957, Stiles 1939).

AP11-92 APPENDIX 11 The interior least tern’s annual reproductive success varies greatly along a given river or shoreline. Because terns use ephemeral habitats, they are susceptible to frequent nest and chick loss. Consequently, there are great local differences in productivity. In 1987, total number of interior least terns reached 4,800 rangewide. This is considerably higher than the 1,200 interior least terns estimated in a partial survey in 1975 by Downing (1980). There are no comprehensive historical numbers to compare with these figures, although early qualitative descriptions indicate that the interior least tern was rather common (Burroughs 1961, Hardy 1957). Increased censusing efforts during the past few years probably account for the differences among recent census figures and earlier surveys.

Breeding site fidelity of coastal and California least terns is very high (Atwood et al. 1984, Burger 1984). This may also be true for the interior least tern in its riverine envi- ronment. An interior least tern banded in 1988 as a breeding adult on the Missouri River in North Dakota returned in 1989 to breed on a Missouri River sandbar in North Dakota (Mayer and Dryer 1990). In the Mississippi River valley, a bird banded as a breeding adult in 1987 was observed nesting at the same site in 1989, and three others banded as breeding adults in 1988 returned to nest within the same stretch of the Mississippi River in 1989 (Smith and Renken 1990). Two of those birds had returned to within 4.8 km of their former nesting site. Along the Platte River in Nebraska, interior least terns demonstrate a strong return pattern to previous nesting sites on the river and at sand and gravel pits regardless of reproductive success (USFWS 1990).

There are also some observed exceptions to strong breeding site fidelity. One interior least tern captured in 1987 as a breeding adult at a Mississippi River ternery in Missouri had been banded as a chick in 1980 by Marsha Waldron.- this bird was nesting at a site 131 km upriver from its natal Tennessee colony (Smith 1987, Smith and Renken 1990). Boyd and Thompson (1985) reported a breeding Kansas bird that had been banded as a chick on the Texas coast.

The interior least tern’s home range during the breeding season usually is limited to a reach of river near the sandbar nesting site. At Salt Plains NWR, home ranges were highly variable, ranging from 11 to 1,015 ha (Talent and Hill 1985). Variation likely was due to food limitations and chick loss. The home range may change if renesting birds select a different breeding site. At sand and gravel pits along the central Platte River in Nebraska, nesting interior least-terns-utilize.-the pit area as well as an adjacent stretch of river. Nesting territories are defended and birds defend any nest in the colony. In defending the territory, the incubating bird will fly up and give an obvious alarm call followed by repeated dives at the intruder (Hardy 1957). The strong defense of territo- ries facilitates locating ternaries during census surveys.

AP11-93 APPENDIX 11 Threats

Barren sandbars, the interior least tern’s most common nesting habitat, were once a common feature of the Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Ohio, Red, Rio Grande, Platte, and other river systems in the central United States. Sandbars are still common at normal river stages on the Lower Mississippi River and on portions of other river sys- tems. Sandbars generally are not stable features of the natural river landscape, but are formed, enlarged, disappear, or migrate depending on the dynamic forces of the river. However, stabilization of major rivers to achieve objectives for navigation, hydropower, irrigation, and flood control has destroyed the dynamic nature of these processes (Smith and Stucky 1988). Many remaining sandbars are unsuitable for nesting because of vegetation.

Channelization, irrigation, and the construction of reservoirs and pools have contributed to the elimination of much of the tern’s sandbar nesting habitat in the Missouri, Arkan- sas, and Red river systems (Funk and Robinson 1974, Hallberg et al. 1979, Sandheinrich and Atchison 1986). Ducey (1985), for example, describes the changes in the channel characteristics of the Missouri River since the early 1900’s under the Mis- souri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project. The wide and braided character of the Missouri River, like other rivers, was engineered into a single narrow navigation channel. Most sandbars virtually disappeared between Sioux City, Iowa and Saint Louis, Missouri (Sandheinrich and Atchison 1986, Smith and Stucky 1988). Where sandbars still occur along the Nebraska-South Dakota boundary (Missouri River), approximately 3,156 ha of sandbar habitat were lost between 1956 and 1975 (Schmulbach et al. 1981). Sandbars along the Nebraska-Iowa Missouri River boundary have been virtually elimi- nated with the exception of 890 ha inventoried along the 80-km Missouri National Recre- ation Area (Schmulbach et al. 1981).

Regulation of dam discharges pose additional problems for interior least terns nesting in remaining habitats. Summer flow patterns were more predictable before regulation of river flows. Peak flows occurred in March from local runoff and then again in May and June when mountain snowmelt occurred. Flows then declined during the rest of the summer allowing interior least terns to nest as water levels dropped and sandbars be- came available (Stiles 1939, Hardy 1957). Currently, main stem systems are regulated for hydropower, navigation, water supply, flood control, irrigation, and public recreation. The demands are unpredictable and flows can fluctuate greatly. Managed flow regimes differ greatly from historic regimes. High flow periods may now extend into the normal nesting period, thereby reducing the quality of existing nest sites and forcing interior least terns to initiate nests in poor quality locations. Extreme fluctuations can flood existing nests, inundate potential nesting areas, or dewater feeding areas. Interior least

AP11-94 APPENDIX 11 terns along the Arkansas River in Oklahoma and Arkansas contend with dam discharge problems similar to those on the Missouri River.

Reservoir storage of flows responsible for scouring sandbars has resulted in the en- croachment of vegetation along many rivers such as the Platte River, Nebraska, and greatly reduced channel width (Currier et al. 1985, O’Brien and Currier 1987, Eschner et al. 1981, Lyons and Randle 1988, Sidle et al. 1989, Stinnett et al. 1987). In addition, river main stem reservoirs now trap much of the sediment load, resulting in less aggra- dation and more degradation of the river bed and subsequently less formation of suitable sandbar nesting habitat. Riverine habitat along the central Platte River may require extensive vegetation clearing and other intensive management. In contrast, the lower Platte River (Columbus, Nebraska, to the Missouri River confluence) has not undergone as extensive habitat changes as the central Platte. During 1987-1989, riverine sandbar habitat hosted 72 percent of the nests on the lower Platte and only 12 percent of the nests on the central Platte (Kirsch 1989, Lingle 1989).

Many rivers have become the focus of recreational activities. Human presence reduces reproductive success (Mayer and Dryer 1988, Smith and Renken 1990). In mid- America, sandbars are fast becoming the recreational counterpart of coastal beaches. Even sand and gravel pits and other artificial nestin.g sites receive a high level of human disturbance.

Environmental Baseline for Interior Least Tern (in the Action Area)

Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR 402.02) define the environmental baseline as the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area. Also included in the environmental baseline are the antici- pated impacts of all proposed Federal projects that have undergone section 7 consulta- tion, and the impacts of State and private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in progress.

Least terns were first documented nesting in New Mexico near BLNWR in 1949. Since then, the population has remained relatively small with little observable change. The birds predominately nest and forage at playa habitats at the refuge.

Water regu4ation of -the Pecos River may eliminate suitable-habitat along t@-river during critical portions of the breeding season. The BR and the Corps have consulted formally with the Service on their operation of Lake Sumner and Santa Rosa Lake (Cons. #2-22-91-F-198, August 5, 1991, and Cons. #2-22-92-F-240, March 22, 1993). The action under consultation with BR was the volume, timing, and length of water releases from the upstream reservoirs to supply water to Brantley Reservoir for irriga- tion. The pattern and timing of water releases from the reservoirs have a major effect on river morphology, which is likely detrimental to interior least tern habitat. As mentioned

AP11-95 APPENDIX 11 under the range-wide threats, management of river flows for navigation, hydropower, irrigation, and flood control have destroyed the dynamic processes that create and maintain the sandbars preferred by the least tern. These same effects may be occurring on the Pecos River. In the consultations with BR and the Corps, the Service concluded their actions were not likely to jeopardize the interior least tern because no discernible linkage was known between the river and the -various impoundments on the BLNWR utilized by the tern. Conservation recommendations included conducting breeding season surveys for least terns on the Pecos River from Santa Rosa to the Texas border, using aerial photography and video imagery to quantify least tern habitat along the river at various flow rates, and conducting analyses of least tern prey items for mercury, lead, and selenium.

The open habitat preferred by interior least terns is often attractive to ORV users, or may provide easy access to the river for hunting or fishing. Inspection of topographic maps indicates many access routes to the river on private land, some of which may cross suitable least tern habitat.

There are about 1,200 active ROWs managed under the RRA realty program. Most ROWs are issued for oil and gas related roads, pipelines, and powerlines. Some ROWs are in the river floodplain or directly adjacent to the floodplain. These roads improve access to the river, not only for oil and gas activities, but also for recreationists. The increased activit@- in the floodplain may make some areas less suitable as least tern foraging and nesting habitat.

Most of the Pecos River floodplain is used for cattle grazing. Much of the grazing on both private lands and BLM lands is on a year-round basis so cattle are in potential least tern habitats when birds might use the area.

Status of the Interior Least Tern (in the Action Area)

Interior least terns were first recorded breeding in New Mexico at BLNWR in 1949. They have bred annually at or in the vicinity of BLNWR since 1949 and are not known to breed elsewhere in New Mexico. Table 1 shows recent numbers and reproductive suc- cess of least terns breeding at BLNWR since 1989 (USFWS 1996).

AP11-96 APPENDIX 11

The Pecos River within the RRA, particularly the DNFH area may provide suitable habi- tat for least terns to nest. This is based on observations of least terns at DNFH during the summer of 1996. These birds were seen feeding at hatchery ponds. Given the distance of about 15 miles from DNFH to BLNWR,- it is unlikely these birds were return- ing to nests at the refuge. Therefore, in 1996, some birds may have nested/summered off the refuge.

Effects of the Action

The Service’s primary task in developing a biological opinion is to determine whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species (50 CFR 402.14(g)(4)). The jeopardy/non-jeopardy determination is based on an evaluation of: (1) a species’ status in the project area and rangewide (see above sections); (2) the effects of the proposed action on the survival and recovery of a listed species (including effects of interdependent and interrelated actions); (3) the aggregate effects of other Federal actions on a listed species (e.g., amount of take occurring as a result of Federal actions subject to previous consultations); and (4) the cumulative effects on a listed species (ie., future nonFederal actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the-.action area).

Presently, most least tern activity in the RRA is on BLNWR. The Service has surface management responsibility for the Refuge. Reports of birds at DNFH in 1996 may indicate there were breeding/summering birds off the Refuge in that year.

The RRA has responsibility for several programs that affect potential least tern nesting and foraging habitat along the Pecos River. However, it remains uncertain if least terns

AP11-97 APPENDIX 11 will ever use the river for habitat to any great degree. The RRA programs that may affect least tern habitat are recreation, oil and gas activities, and grazing. Most recreation in the RRA is dispersed. Typical recreational activities along the Pecos River may include hunting, fishing, water play, ORV activity, bird watching, and sightseeing. The Roswell DRMP/EIS proposes that ORV activity in the Pecos River floodplain be limited to desig- nated roads and trails, but enforcement of this provision is difficult if any-access to the river exists.

The proposal to drill six wells in the Pecos River floodplain directly north of BLNWR is an example of a RRA-managed action that may affect potential least tern habitat. In addi- tion to the noise, disturbance, and potential for spills from drilling, new ROWs would be granted for access to the well sites. These ROWs would create access to a previously roadless area and potentially attract recreationists seeking a way to the river. As a result of more human activity, this area would become less suitable for least terns. The RRA administers the mineral estate for about 15 percent of the floodplain, with about 6,900 acres presently ]eased.

The RRA administers 29 grazing allotments that include 6,700 acres of floodplain. Most of these allotments are a ‘checkerboard’ of public and private lands. No information was given on the grazing regimes for these allotments and information on potential habitat for least terns has not been mapped. Nevertheless, summer grazing could be detrimental in the floodplain portions of these allotments that are suitable for least terns.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are those effects of future non-Federal (State, local government, or private) activities on endangered or threatened species or critical habitat that are rea- sonably certain to occur in the foreseeable future. The RRA administers only about 10 percent of the surface and 15 percent of the mineral estate along the Pecos River. Ac- tivities on private lands are similar to those just described for public lands and can be expected to continue.

The continued management of Pecos River water flows by the BR for irrigation and flood control likely has the greatest influence on potential least tern habitat along the river. Upstream dams have been in use for many years and there is no reliable record of the- extent of sandbar habitat along the river before the dams. But, based on water manage- ment effects for rivers in the Mississippi River drainage, it is expected that management of the Pecos River has reduced least tern habitat. The BR management of the Pecos River is expected to continue much as it has in the past. The BR is planning to address water management of the river based on 5 years of research on the effects of water delivery scenarios on the river.

AP11-98 APPENDIX 11

Conclusion

The interior least tern has a breeding range extending from Texas to Montana and from eastern Colorado and New Mexico to southern Indiana. This includes the Red, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Ohio, and Rio Grande river systems. In 1987, the total number of interior least terns reached 4,800 range-wide. The breeding colony of interior least terns in New Mexico has been-using BLNWR since 1949. This colony has remained small, but relatively stable through the years. In 1996, seven pairs nested at BLNWR and produced 10 chicks. The colony in New Mexico represents only about 0.3 percent of the species, but is significant as the westernmost breeding colony. Most activity of the least terns in the RRA is confined to BLNWR where the Service has principal management responsibility. The presence of birds foraging at ponds at DNFH during the breeding season in 1996 indicates that some birds may be nesting/summering off the refuge. The possible effects of BLM-managed programs on the interior least tern in the RRA involve the yet-to-be confirmed least tern nesting on or near DNFH and possible effects to potential nesting habitat along the Pecos River. It is the Service’s opinion that effects to the interior least tern or its habitat from BLM-managed activities are not likely to jeopar- dize the interior least tern’s continued existence.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE INTERIOR LEAST TERN

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endan- gered and threatened species. The term “conservation recommendations” has been defined as Service suggestions regarding discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposedaction on listed species or critical habitat or regard- ing the development of information. The recommendations provided here relate only to current RRA management plans and the Roswell DRMP/EIS and do not necessarily represent complete fulfillment of the agency’s section 7(a)(1) responsibility. In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions that either minimize or avoid adverse effects or that benefit listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of the conservation recommendations.

The Service recommends that the following conservation recommendations be imple- mented -for the interior least tern:

1 . Conduct surveys for interior least terns during the breeding season in potential habitat on BLM lands.

AP11-99 APPENDIX 11

2. If any breeding birds are found, develop a management strategy to protect the habitat. Management measures might include, but would not necessarily be limited to: (1) closure of the area to ORV use; (2) change of grazing regimes to remove cattle during the summer breeding period; and (3) designation of no surface occu- pancy for oil and gas leases to prevent the building of roads into the habitat.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Sections 4(d) and 9 of the Act, as amended, prohibit taking (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species of fish and wildlife without a special exemption. Harass is further defined as an intentional or negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns. Normal behavior patterns include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, and shelter- ing. Harm is further defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral pat- terns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to, and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered a prohibited taking provided that such taking is in compliance with the incidental take statement.

The Service anticipates that with implementation of the protective provisions included in the reasonable and prudent alternatives in this biological opinion, no Pecos bluntnose shiner or Pecos gambusia will be taken as a result of RRA management activities di- rected under current management plans and proposed under the Roswell DRMP/EIS. The Service anticipates no interior least terns will be taken as a result of RRA manage- ment activities directed under current management plans and proposed under the Roswell DRMP/EIS due to the present lack of least tern activity on lands under RRA management. Should any take occur, the RRA must reinitiate formal consultation with the Service and provide detailed information on circumstances surrounding the take.

REINITIATION - CLOSING STATEMENT

This concitides-formal consultation on the ongoing activities guided under the RRA management plans and proposed to be guided under the Roswell DRMP/EIS. As re- quired by 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required if: (1) Incidental take of Pecos bluntnose shiner, Pecos gambusia, and/or interior least tern occurs as a result of agency actions; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may impact listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat

AP11-100 APPENDIX 11

In future correspondence regarding this consultation, please refer to consultation number 2-22-96-F-128. Please contact Charlie McDonald at (505) 761-4525, if you have any questions or would like to discuss any part of this biological opinion. ·"\ -~~ ~3. :;J,_

cc: Director, BLM, Washington, D.C. (Attn: Ken Berg) State Director, BLM, Santa Fe, NM (Attn: Andy Dimas) District Manager, Roswell District, BLM, Roswell, NM Regional Solicitor, DOl, Albuquerque, NM (Attn:Tonianne Baca) Geographic Manager, Region 2 (NM) Refuge Manager, Bitter Lake NWR, Roswell, NM Supervisor, Ecological Services Field Office, Albuquerque, NM; Tulsa, OK; and Austin, TX

AP11-101 APPENDIX 11

LITERATURE CITED

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1 957. Checklist of North American birds. Fifth edition. Baltimore, American Ornithologists’ Union. 691 pp.

Anderson, E.A. 1983. Nesting productivity of the interior least tern in Illinois. Unpub- lished report, Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 19 pp.

Anderson, R. 1971. Nesting least terns. Audubon Bulletin 160:1718.

Armour, C.L. 1977. Effects of deteriorated range streams on trout. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Boise, ID. 7 pp.

Armour, C.L., D.A. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1991. The effects of livestock grazing on ripar- ian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries 16(l):7-1 1.

Atwood, J. L., B.W. Massey, and C.T. Collins. 1984. Movement of the Huntington beach least tern colony: an assessment of possible impacts. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laguna Niguel, CA. Unpublished report. 28 pp.

Bahre, C.J. 1991. A legacy of change. Historic human impact on vegetation in the Ari- zona borderlands. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.

Bent, A.C. 1921. Life histories of North American gulls and terns. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 113. 345 pp.

Bestgen, K.R., S.P. Platania, J.E. Brooks, and D.L. Propst. 1989. Dispersal and life history traits of Notropis girardi (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) introduced into the Pecos River, New Mexico. American Midland Naturalist 122:228-235.

Blackburn, W.H 1984. Impacts of grazing intensity and specialized grazing systems on watershed characteristics and responses. Pp. 927-983. In: Developing strategies for rangeland management. National Researc Council/National Academy of Sciences. Westview Press. Boulder, CO.

Bovee, K-.D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremen- tal methodology. lnstream flow information paper No. 1 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Collins, CO. 248 pp.

Boyd, R. L., and B. C. Thompson. 1985. Evidence for reproductive mixing of least tern populations. Journal of Field Ornithology 56:405-406.

AP11-102 APPENDIX 11

Brooks, J.E., S.P. Platania, and D.L. Propst. 1991. Effects of Pecos River reservoir operation on the distribution and status of Pecos bluntnose shiner (Notropis simus pecosensis): preliminary findings. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, NM.

Brown, H.E., M.B. Baker,Jr., J.J. Rogers, W.P. Clary, J.L. Kovner, F.R. Larson, C.C. Avery, and R.E. Campbell. 1974. Opportunities for increasing water yields and other multiple use values on ponderosa pine forest lands. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper RM-129, Ft. Collins, CO. 1-36 pp.

Bureau of Land Management. 1990. Riparian management and channel evolution. Phoenix Training Center Course Number SS 1737-2. Phoenix, AZ. 26 pp.

Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Draft resource management plan/environmental impact statement for the Roswell Resource Area, Roswell, New Mexico, and draft resource management plan amendment/environmental impact state- ment for the Carlsbad Resource Area, Carlsbad, New Mexico. Bureau of Land Management, Roswell District, Roswell, NM.

Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Interim oil and gas leasing and development, Roswell Resource Area, Environmental Assessment No. NM-067-5-931. Bureau of Land Management, Roswell District, Roswell Resource Area, Roswell, NM.

Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Biological Assessment update for previous land use plans, plan amendments, and environmental analyses (1 976-1 987) and for the 1 996 Roswell Resource Area Resource Management Plan, Roswell Resource Area. Bureau of Land Management, Roswell District, Roswell Resource Area, Roswell, NM.

Burger, J. 1984. Colony stability in least terns. Condor 86:61-67.

Burger, J. 1988. Social attraction in nesting least terns: effects of numbers, spacing and pairs. Condor 90:575-582.

Burroughs, R.D., ed. 1961 . The natural history of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Michi- gan State University Press. 340 pp.

Campbell, L. 1935. Least tern taken near Toledo, Ohio. Auk 52:87.

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.D. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Eagle, ID. 44 pp.

AP11-103 APPENDIX 11

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.D. Platts. 1993. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Eagle, ID. 31 pp.

Claire, E.W., and R.L. Storch. 1977. Streamside management and livestock grazing in the Blue Mountains of Oregon: a case study. Pp. 111-128. In: Proceedings of the work- shop on livestock and wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin, May 3-5, 1977, Sparks, NV. J.W. Menke, Ed. University of California Agricultural Sciences Special Publication 3301, Berkeley, CA.

Coues, E. 1874. Birds of the northwest: a handbook of the ornithology of the region drained by the Missouri River and its tributaries. U.S. Geological Survey of the Territo- ries, Miscellaneous publication number 3,791 pp.

Currier, P.J., G.R. Lingle, and J.G. VanDerwalker. 1985. Migratory bird habitat on the Platte and North Platte Rivers in Nebraska. The Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust, Grand Island, Nebraska.

Dagget, D. 1992. Recovery on Date Creek. Colorado Plateau Advocate. Fall 1992:9- 10.

Dobyns, H.F. 1981. From fire to flood: historic human destruction of Sonoran Desert riverine oasis. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 20. 222 pp.

Downing, R. L. 1980. Survey of interior least tern nesting populations. American Birds 34:209-211.

Ducey, J. 1988. Nest scrape characteristics of piping plover and least tern in Nebraska. Nebraska Bird Review 56:42-44.

Ducey, J. E. 1985. The historic breeding distribution of the least tern in Nebraska. Ne- braska Bird Review 53(2):26-36.

Duff, D.A. 1979. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, Rich County, Utah. A method for analyzing livestock impacts on stream and riparian habitats. Pp. 91-92 In: Forum -- Grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems. Cope, O.B., Ed. Trout Unlimited, Denver, CO.

Echelle, A.F., A.A. Echelle, and D.R. Edds. 1989. Conservation genetics of a spring- dwelling desert fish, the Pecos gambusia (Gambusia nobilis, Poeciiiidae). Conservation Biology 3:159-169.

Elmore, W. 1992. Riparian responses to grazing practices. Pp. 442-457 In: Watershed management; balancing sustainability and environmental change. Naiman, R.J., Ed. Springer-Veriag, New York, NY.

AP11-104 APPENDIX 11

Eschner, T., R. Hadley, and K. Crowley. 1981. Hydrologic and morphologic changes in the Platte River Basin in Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska: a historical perspective. U.S. Geological Survey open file report 8111 25. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO.

Faanes, C.A. 1983. Aspects of the nesting ecology of least terns and piping plovers in central Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 15:145-154.

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conservation Biology 8(3):629-644.

Funk, J.L., and J.W. Robinson. 1974. Changes in the channel of the lower Missouri River and effects on fish and wildlife. Aquatic Series No. 11. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO.

Gehlbach, F.R., C.L. Bryan, and H.W. Reno. 1978. Thermal ecological features of Cyprinodon elegans and Gambusia nobilis, endangered Texas fishes. Texas Journal of Science 30:99-101.

Gifford, G.F., and R.H. Hawkins. 1978. Hydrologic impact of grazing on infiltration: a critical review. Water Resources Research. 14:305-313.

Goodman, T., G.B. Donart, H.E. Kiesling, J.L. Holchek, J.P. Neel, D. Manzanares, and K.E. Severson. 1989. Cattle behavior with emphasis on time and activity allocations between upland and riparian habitats. Pp. 95-102 In: Practical approaches to riparian resource management, an educational workshop. May 8-11, 1989. Montana Chapter American Fisheries Society, Billings, MT.

Hallberg, G.R., J.M. Harbough, and P.M. Witniok. 1979. Changes in the channel areas of the Missouri River in Iowa from 1879 to 1976. Iowa Geological Survey Special Report, Series Number 1.

Hardy, J.W. 1957. The least tern in the Mississippi River. Publication of the Museum, Michigan State University, Biological Series 1: 1-60.

Harper, K.T. and J.R. Marble. 1988. A role for nonvascular plants in management of arid and semiarid rangelands. Pp. 137-169 In: Vegetation science applications for rangeland analysis and management. Tueller, P.T., Ed. Kluwer Academic-Publishers, Boston, MA.

Hastings, J.R. and R.M. Turner. 1980. The changing mile. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 327 pp.

Hatch, M.D., W.H. Baltosser, and C.G. Schmitt. 1985. Life history and ecology of the bluntnose shiner (Nortopis simus pecosensis) in the Pecos River of New Mexico. South- western Naturalist 30:555-562.

AP11-105 APPENDIX 11

Hoags7Erom, C.W., N.L. Allan, and J.E. Brooks. 1994. Pecos River fishery investigation: Fish community structure and habitat use and availability as a response to reservoir operations, 1994 annual report. In: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Pecos River investiga- tions annual research report, 1994. Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque Area Office, Albuquerque, NM.

Jackson, J.A. 1976. Some aspects of the nesting ecology of least terns on the Missis- sippi Gulf coast. Mississippi Kite 6(2):25-35.

Janssen, R.B. 1986. Least tern in Lyon County. Loon 58:48-49.

Johnson, K.L. 1992. Management for water quality on rangelands through best manage- ment practices: the Idaho approach. Pp. 415-441 In: Watershed management; balancing sustainability and environmental change. Naiman, R.J., Ed. Springer-Veriag, New York, NY.

Jung, C. 1935. Occurrence of the least tern (Sterna antillarum) in Wisconsin. Auk 52:87.

Karr, J.R. and I.J. Schlosser. 1977. Impact of nearstream vegetation and stream mor- phology on water quality and stream biota. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Research Series 600/3-77-097. Athens, GA. 90 pp.

Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management ... a review. Journal of Range Management 37(5):430-438.

Kinch, G. 1989. Riparian area management: grazing management in riparian areas. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. 44 pp.

Kirsch, E.M. 1987. Annual Report 1987: Least Tern and Piping Plover on the lower Platte River in Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Unpublished report.

Kirsch, E.M. 1 @88. Annual Report 1988: Least Tern and Piping Plover on the lower Platte River in Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Unpublished report.

Kirsch-, E-.M. 1989. Annual Report 1989: Least Tern and Piping Plover on the lower Platte River in Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Unpublished report.

Kirsch, E.M. 1 990. Final report 1990: Least Tern and Piping Plover on the lower Platte River in Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Unpublished report.

AP11-106 APPENDIX 11

Kovalchik, B.L., and W. Elmore. 1992. Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow-domi- nated plant associations in central Oregon. Pp. 111 -110 In: Proceedings -- Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. Clary, W.P., E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt, Eds. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. INT-289. Ogden, UT.

Larson, R.D. and D.L. Propst. 1994. Distribution, abundance, and food habits of piscivo- rous fishes inhabiting the Pecos River between Sumner Dam and Brantley Reservoir, New Mexico, 1994 annual report. In: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Pecos River investi- gations annual research report, 1994. Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque Area Office, Albuquerque, NM.

Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush, timber, and fire in southern Arizona. Journal of For- estry 22(6):l -10.

Leopold, A. 1946. Erosion as a menace to the social and economic future of the south- west. A paper read to the New Mexico Association for Science, 1922. Journal of For- estry 44:627-633.

Leopold, L.B. 1951. Vegetation of southwestern watersheds in the nineteenth century. The Geographical Review 41:295-31 6.

Lingle, G.R. 1989. Least tern and piping plover nesting ecology along the central Platte River Valley, Nebraska. Progress report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Lowrance, R., R. Todd, J. Fail,Jr., 0. Hendrickson,Jr., R. Leonard, and L. Asmussen. 1984. Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. BioScience 34(6):374-377.

Lyons, J., and T. Rand]. 1988. Platte River channel characteristics’in the big bend reach. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. Unpublished report. 69 pp.

Marlow, C.B. and T.M. Pogacnik. 1985. Time of grazing and cattle-induced damage to streambanks. Pp. 279-284 In: Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. First North American riparian conference. April 16-18, 1985, Tucson, AZ. Johnson, R.R., C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, P.F. Ffolliott, and R.H. Hamre, Eds. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-120, Ft. Collins, CO.

Marrs, R.H., A. Rizand, and A.F. Harrison. 1989. The effects of removing sheep grazing on soil chemistry, above-ground nutrient distribution, and selected aspects of soil fertility in long-term experiments at Moor House National Nature Preserve. Journal of Applied Ecology 26:647-661.

AP11-107 APPENDIX 11

Martin, S.C. 1975. Ecology and management of southwestern semidesert grass-shrub ranges. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper RM-156, Ft. Collins, CO. 39 pp.

Massey, B.W. 1972. The breeding biology of the California least tern. M.S. thesis, Cali- fornia State University, Long Beach. 101 pp.

Massey, B.W. 1974. Breeding biology of California least tern. Proceedings of the Linnaean Society, New York 72:124.

Massey, B.W., and J.L. Atwood. 1978. Plumages of the least tern. Bird-banding 49:360- 370.

Mayer, P.M., and M.P. Dryer. 1988. Population biology of piping plovers and least terns on the Missouri River in North Dakota and Montana: 1988 field season report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck, ND. Unpublished report.

Mayer, P.M., and M.P. Dryer. 1990. Population biology of piping plovers and least terns on the Missouri River in North Dakota: 1989 field season report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck, ND. Unpublished report.

Mayfield, H. 1943. Least tern in southeastern Michigan. Wilson Bulletin 55:245.

Meehan, W.R. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, Bethesda, MD. 751 pp.

Monson, G. and A. Phillips. 1981. Annotated checklist of the birds of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 240 pp.

Moseley, L.J. 1976. Behavior and communication in the least tern (Stema albifrons). Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 164 pp.

Moser, R. 1940. The piping plover and least tern in Omaha. Nebraska Bird Review 8:92- 94.

Myers, T.J. and S. Swanson. 1995. Impact of deferred rotation grazing on stream char- acteristics in central Nevada: a case study. North American Journal of Fisheries Man- agement 15:428-439.

New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. 1994. Water quality and water pollution control in New Mexico, 1994. New Mexico Environment Department Document NMED/ SWQ-94/4, Santa Fe, NM.

AP11-108 APPENDIX 11

O’Brien, J.S., and P.J. Currier. 1987. Channel morphology, channel maintenance and riparian vegetation changes in the big bend reach of the Platte River in Nebraska. Un- published report. 49 pp.

Orodho, A.B., M.J. Trlica, and C.D. Bonham. 1990. Long-term heavy-grazing effects on soil and vegetation in the four corners region. The Southwestern Naturalist 35(l):9-1 5.

Phillips, A., J. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1964. The birds of Arizona. University of Ari- zona Press, Tucson. 21 2 pp.

Platania, S.P. 1993. Pecos bluntnose shiner (Notropis simus pecosensis) research, larval fish drift studies, 1993 annual progress report. In: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Pecos River investigations annual research report, 1993. Bureau of Reclamation, Albu- querque Area Office, Albuquerque, NM.

Platts, W.S. 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on rangelands grazed by livestock. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, NV. 462 pp.

Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1985a. Impacts of rest-rotation grazing on stream banks in forested watersheds in Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:547- 556.

Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1985b. Stream habitat and fisheries response to livestock grazing and instream improvement structures, Big Creek, Utah. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation July-August:374-379.

Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1989. Stream canopy and its relationship to salmonid biomass in the intermountain west. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:446-457.

Popolizio, C.A., H. Goetz, and P.L. Chapman. 1994. Short-term response of riparian vegetation to four grazing treatments. Journal of Range Management 47(l):48-53.

Prange, R. 1993. Duck Creek riparian habitat restoration project, Henry’s Lake, Idaho. Pp. 395-396. In: Riparian Management: Common threads and shared interests, Febru- ary 4-6, 1993, Albuquerque, NM. U.S. Forest Service Rocky MountaiFn Forest and Range Experiment Station G6neraf-Technical Report RM-226. Ft. Collins, CO.

Rickard, W.H. and C.E. Cushing. 1982. Recovery of streamside woody vegetation after exclusion of livestock grazing. Journal of Range Management 35(3):360361.

Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22(1994):169-199.

AP11-109 APPENDIX 11

Rumancik, J.P., Jr. 1986. Population survey of the interior least tern on the Mississippi River from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to Greenville, Mississippi, 1986. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District, Memphis, TN. Unpublished report. 19 pp.

Rumancik, J.P., Jr. 1989. Population survey of the interior least tern on the Mississippi River from Cape Girardeau, Missouri to Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1989. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District, Memphis, TN. Unpublished report.

Sandheinrich, M. B., and G. J. Atchison. 1986. Environmental effects of dikes and revet- ments on large riverine systems. Technical Report E86-5. U.S. Army Waterways Experi- ment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Savory, A. 1988. Holistic resource management. Island Press, Covelo, CA. 563 PP.

Schlesinger, W.H., J.F. Reynolds, G.L. Cunningham, L.F. Huenneke, W.M. Jarrell, R.A. Virginia, and W.G. Whitford. 1990. Biological feedbacks in global desertification. Sci- ence 246:1043-1048.

Schmulbach, J.C., J.J. Schuckman, and E.A. Nelson. 1981. Aquatic habitat inventory of the Missouri River from Gavins Point Dam to Ponca State Park, Nebraska. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha. Unpublished report. 15 pp.

Schulz, T.T. and W.C. Leininger. 1990. Differences in riparian vegetation structure be- tween grazed areas and exclosures. Journal of Range Management 43(4):295-299.

Schwalbach, M. 1988. Conservation of least terns and piping plovers along the Missouri River and its major western tributaries in South Dakota. M.S. thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings.

Sidle, J.G., E.D . Miller, and P.J. Currier. 1989. Changing habitats in the Platte River valley of Nebraska. Prairie Naturalist 21:91 -104.

Skoviin, J.M. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat: a review of our knowledge. Pp. 1001 -1103. In: Developing strategies for rangeland management. National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences. Westview Press. Boulder, CO.

Smith, J.W. 1985. Improving the status of endangered species in Missouri (interior least tern habitat and nest survey). Missouri Department of Conservation endangered spe- cies project number SE-01-12. 142 pp.

AP11-110 APPENDIX 11

Smith, J.W. 1987. Improving the status of endangered species in Missouri: least tern investigations. Missouri Department of Conservation endangered species project num- ber SE-01-12.

Smith, J.W., and N.P. Stucky. 1988. Habitat management for interior least terns: prob- lems and opportunities in inland waterways. Pages 134-149 in M.C. Landin, ed. Inland Waterways: Proceedings national workshop on the beneficial uses of dredged material. TRD-88-8. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Smith, J.W., and R.B. Renken. 1990. Improving the status of endangered species in Missouri: least tern investigations. Final report, Jobs - 1 and 2, Missouri Department of Conservation endangered species project SE-01-19.

Stabler, D.F. 1985. Increasing summer flow in small streams through management of riparian areas and adjacent vegetation: a synthesis. Pp. 206-21 0 In: Riparian ecosys- tems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. First North American riparian conference. April 16-18, 1 985, Tucson, AZ. Johnson, R.R., C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, P.F. Ffolli@tt, and R.H. Hamre, Eds. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-120, Ft. Collins, CO.

Stiles, B. 1939. The least tern in Iowa. Iowa Bird Life 14:1.8-21.

Stinnett, D.P., R.W. Smith, and S.W. Conrady. 1987. Riparian areas of western Okla- homa: a special study of their status, trends and values. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulsa, OK. Unpublished report. 80 pp.

Stuber, R.J. 1985. Trout habitat, abundance, and fishing opporturtities in fenced vs unfenced riparian habitat along Sheep Creek, Colorado. Pp. 310-31 4. In: Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. First North American riparian conference. April 1 6-1 8, 1 985, Tucson, AZ. Johnson, R.R., C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, P.F. Ffolliott, and R.H. Hamre, Eds. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-1-20, Ft. Collins, CO.

Sweet, M.J. 1985. Least tern population survey, 1984. Illinois Department of Conserva- tion. Unpublished report.

Szaro, R.C. and C.P. Pase. 1983. Short-term changes in a cottonwood-ash-willow asso- ciation on a grazed and ungrazed portion of Little Ash Creek in central Arizona. Journal of Range Management 36(3):382-384.

Talent, L.G., and L.A. Hill. 1985. Final report: breeding ecology of snowy plovers, Ameri- can avocets, and interior least terns at Salt Plains NWR, Oklahoma. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. 186 pp.

AP11-111 APPENDIX 11

Thompson, B.C., and R.D. Slack. 1983. Post-fledging departure from colonies by juve- nile least terns in Texas: implication for estimating production. Wilson Bulletin 96:309- 313.

Tomkins, I.R. 1959. Life history notes on the least tern. Wilson Bulletin 71:313-322.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1 983. Pecos gambusia recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, NM. 41 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for the interior least tern. Federal Register 50:21784-21788.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the Pecos bluntnose shiner and designation of its critical habitat. Federal Register 52:5295-5303.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987b. Least tern in: Endangered species information system (computer data base). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species and Habitat Conservation, Washington, DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Recovery plan for the interior population of the least tern (Stema antillarum). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Twin Cities, MN. 91 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Pecos bluntnose shiner recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, NM. 57 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Bitter Lake NWR annual narrative reports, 1989- 1996. Bitter Lake NWR, Roswell, NM.

Vallentine, J.F. 1990. Grazing management. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA. 533 pp.

Van Velson, R. 1979. Effects of livestock grazing upon rainbow trout in Otter Creek. Pp. -53-55 In: Forum--grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems. Cope, O.B., Ed. Trout Unlimited, Denver, CO.

Warren, P.L. and L.S. Anderson. 1987. Vegetation recovery following livestock removal near Quitobaquito Spring, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Technical Report No. 20. National Park Service, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Tucson, AZ. 40 pp.

AP11-112 APPENDIX 11

Weitz, M. and M.K. Wood. 1994. Short-duration grazing in central New Mexico: effects on sediment production. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 41:262-266.

Whitman, P. L. 1988. Biology and conservation of the endangered interior least tern: a literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological report 88(3). 22 pp.

Wilson, B.L. 1984. 1984 search for piping plover and least tern in Iowa. Unpublished report. 10 pp.

Wolk, R.G. 1974. Reproductive behavior of the least tern. Proceedings of the Linnaean Society, New York 72:44-62.

Wycoff, R. 1960. The least tern. Nebraska Bird Review 28:39-42.

York, J.C. and W.A. Dick-Peddie. 1969. Vegetation changes in southern New Mexico during the past hundred years. Pp. 157-166 In: Arid lands in perspective.

Youngworth, W. 1930. Breeding of the least tern in Iowa. Wilson Bulletin 42:102-103.

AP11-113 APPENDIX 11

Memorandum

To: Regional Director, Region 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico

From: Area Manager, Roswell Resource Area, Roswell, NH

Subject: Response to the Final Biological Opinion on the Roswell Resource Area Resource Management Plan (Cons. #2-22-96P-102)

On May 15, 1997, the Roswell Resource Area, Roswell District, Bureau of Land Man- agement (BLM) received the final Biological Opinion (BO) on the Roswell Resource Area Resource Mmgement Plan/Environrwntal I*act-Statemht. The biological-opinion- addresses effects of the plan on the Pecos bluntnose shiner, Pecos gambusia, and interior least tern.

The BO defined one reasonable and prudent alternative comprised of six elements for the Pecos bluntnose shiner. Jeopardy to the shiner and adverse modification of critical habitat would not be likely to occur if all elements are irvlemented. Similarly, the BO defined one reasonable and prudent alternative comprised of six elements for the Pecos gambusia. Jeopardy to the gaukbusia would not be likely to occur if all elements are implemented.

The BO defined two conservation recommendations for the least tern. The term conser- vation recommendation is defined as service suggestions regarding discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat or regarding the development of information.

This memorandum serves as notification to the Service of the BLM’s decision on the implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives, their respective elements, and conservation recommendations.

AP11-114 APPENDIX 11

The implementation timeline for the reasonable and prudent alternatives will be deter- mined after further discussions with Service personnel to determine mutually agreeable dates for implementation.

Reasonable and Prudent Alterativg for the Pecos Bluntnose Shiner

Element 1

A monitoring program for the Pecos bluntnose shiner and its critical habitat will be established under guidance issued under the authority of the RMP. The monitoring program will be designed in coordination with the Service, and will meet the needs of detecting adverse impacts to the shiner so the impacts can be promptly corrected.

Element 2

Priority will be given to the North Pecos River ACEC in the implementation of man- agement prescriptions that will most benefit shiner habitat. Priority will also be given to shiner habitat in the development and implementation of a strategic watershed management plan for the Pecos River (from confluence of Yeso Creek to Bitter Lake NWR).

Element 3

Within the 100-year floodplain,of the Pecos River, federal oil and gas parcels pro- posed for leasing through expressions of interest by individuals or companies, or those that expire, will not be offered for sale. The BLM will continue to apply manda- tory protective measures for oil and gas development on existing leases in order to provide and demonstrate floodplain protection.

Element 4

The approved RMP will read, “Surface disturbance will not be allowed within up to 200 meters of the outer edge of 100year floodplains to protect the integrity of the floodplains.”

Element 5

The approved RMP will reflect that there will be no exceptions to the no surface disturbance policy in floodplains adjacent to critical or occupied Pecos Bluntnose shiner habitat except where such disturbances may be related to enhancement or protection of the habitat.

AP11-115 APPENDIX 11

Element 6

Following the approval of the RMP, the BLM will consider compiling a set of practices relating to activities in the 100-year floodplain. A decision on whether to proceed with the development of such a document is tentatively scheduled for Fiscal Year 1998.

Reagonable and Prudent Alternative for the Pecos Gambusia

Element 1

The source and movement of water that supplies springs occupied by the Pecos gambusia on the BLNWR and Salt Creek Wilderness will be mapped in coordination with the USFWS, and others, using the best available hydrologic information. Within the mapped area, federal oil and gas parcels proposed for leasing through expres- sions of interest by individuals or companies, or those that expire, will not be offered for sale. The BLM will continue to apply mandatory protective measures for oil and gas development on existing leases in order to provide and demonstrate spring protection.

Element 2

Based on the above map, appropriate measures will be applied to oil and gas devel- opment on existing leases within the mapped area to ensure no contamination of water that supplies springs occupied by Pecos gambusia on the BLNWR and the Salt Creek Wilderness. A monitoring program will be designed in coordination with the Service to detect any surface or subsurface accident soon enough that they can be discovered and corrected before significant harm to the aquifer occurs.

Element 3

Within the 100-year floodplain of the Pecos River, federal oil and gas parcels pro- posed for leasing through expressions of interest by individuals or companies, or those that expire, will not be offered for sale. The BLM will continue to apply manda- tory protective measures for oil and gas development on existing leases in order to provide and demonstrate floodplain protection.

Element 4

The approved RMP will read, “Surface disturbance will not be allowed within up to 200 meters of the outer edge of 100-year floodplains to protect the integrity of the floodplains.”

AP11-116 APPENDIX 11

Element 5

The approved RMP will reflect that there will be no exceptions to the no surface disturbance policy in floodplains adjacent to critical or occupied Pecos gambusia habitat except where such disturbances may be related to enhancement or protec- tion of the habitat.

Element 6

Following the approval of the RMP, the BLM will consider compiling a set of practices relating to activities in the 100-year floodplain. A decision on whether to proceed with the development of such a document is tentatively scheduled for Fiscal Year 1998.

Conservation Recommendations for the Interior Least Tern

Conservation recommendations will be implemented immediately.

Recommendation 1

Surveys for the interior least tern will be conducted during the breeding season in potential habitat on BLM lands. Surveys will begin this year and will be conducted between June 1 and August 15, 1997.

Recommendation 2

Based on results of surveys, a management strategy to protect breeding habitat will be developed to include, but not necessarily limited to: (1) closure of the area to OHV use; (2) change of grazing regimes to remove cattle during the summer breeding period; and (3) designation of no surface occupancy for oil and gas leases to prevent the building of roads into the habitat.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. If you have any further questions or comments relative to this matter, please contact Dan Baggao at (505)627-0272.

S/TIM KREAGER

Timothy R. Kreager

AP11-117 APPENDIX 11 United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ROSWELL DISTRICf OFFICE 2909 West Second Street Roswell. New Mexico 88201-2019

IN REPLY REFER TO: 6842(06680)

FEB 2 0 1998

Memorandum

To: Field Supervisor, Ecological Services Field Office, USFWS, Albuquerque, NM

From: Acting District Manager, Roswell, NM

Subject: Biological Opinion on the Roswell RMP (Cons. #2-22-96-F-128)

We are requesting reinitiation of formal Section 7 consultation on the Roswell Resource Management Plan (RMP) as required by 50 CFR 402.16(c). Our request is based on the implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives provided in the. Biological Opinion (Cons. 2-22-96-F-102) for the Roswell Resource Area Draft RMP, and which are now incorporated into the Roswell Approved RMP and Record of Decision (ROD), where appropriate.

The Biological Opinion was primarily based on the Roswell Resource Area Draft RMP/Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/EIS), Proposed RMP/Final EIS, Biological Assessment/Addendum and supplementary information. The Biological Opinion stated that the Roswell DRMP/EIS is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), but likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Pecos bluntnose shiner CNotropis simus pecosensis) and Pecos gambusia (Gambusia nobilis). It also stated that the Roswell DRMP/EIS is likely to adversely modify critical habitat designated for the Pecos bluntnose shiner.

We ask you to reconsider the original Biological Opinion based on the incorporation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives for the Pecos bluntnose shiner and Pecos gambusia, and conservation recommendations for the interior least tern, into the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD. Also, activities not requiring a land use decision have been pursued with the intent of carrying out the reasonable and prudent alternatives. The most significant activity is the development of a memorandum of understanding between the BLM and several agencies in order to cooperatively monitor habitat and populations of the Pecos bluntnose shiner and Pecos gambusia.

AP11-118 APPENDIX 11

We have included a copy of the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD, and a copy of the RMP Conformance and NEPA Adequacy Determination Report, which addresses the implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternatives with respect to approved land use planning documents and NEPA environmental analyses.

We request a Biological Opinion for the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD in order to complete and document the Section 7 consultation process conducted during the preparation and finalization of the Roswell RMP.

Please contact Dan Baggao at (505) 627-0272 if you need additional information in order to reinitiate formal consultation, or specific information in order to reconsider the original Biological Opinion.

SfriM KREAGER

Edwin L. Roberson

DBaggao:bah:2/20/98

AP11-119 APPENDIX 11 United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office 2105 Osuna NE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113 Phone: (505) 761-4525 Fax: (505) 761-4542

April 28, 1998

Memorandum

To: Acting District Manager, Roswell District, Bureau of Land Management, Roswell, New Mexico

From: Acting Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Subject: Biological Opinion on the Roswell RMP (Cons. #2-22-96-F-1 02)

This responds to your request dated February 20, 1998, to reinitiate formal Section 7 consultation on the Roswell Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Record of Decision (ROD) dated October 1997. Your request is due to the fact that the biological opinion dated May 14, 1997, was based primarily on the Roswell Resource Area Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/EIS) rather than on the final approved document. You state that the reasonable and prudent alternatives for the Pecos bluntnose shiner and Pecos gambusia, and the conservation recommendations for the interior least tern have been incorporated into the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD. Also, activities not requiring a land use decision have been pursued. with the intent of carrying out the reasonable and prudent alternatives . In most formal Section 7 consultations, agencies are requesting consultations on proposed actions. If jeopardy is found to any threatened or endangered species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides reasonable and prudent alternatives that, if implemented, will remove jeopardy when the final action is undertaken. The Service considers the Roswell DRMP/EIS to represent a proposed action and the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD to represent the final action that resulted from the proposal. Incorporating the reasonable and prudent alternatives for Pecos bluntnose shiner and Pecos gambusia into the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD and/or implementing any reasonable and prudent alternatives not requiring a land use decision removes any jeopardy for the Roswell Approved RMP . . There is no need to reinitiate consultation on the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD unless (1) incidental take of Pecos bluntnose shiner, Pecos gambusia, and/or interior least tern occurs as a result of agency actions; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may impact listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in the biological opinion dated May 14, 1997 (Cons. #2-22-97-F- 102); (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect

AP11-120 APPENDIX 11 to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the May 14, 1997, biological opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action.

If further clarification is needed on Section 7 consultation for the Roswell Approved RMP and ROD, contact Charlie McDonald at (505) 761-4525, ext. 112.

R. Mark Wilson cc: State Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico (Attn: Andy Dimas) Area Manager, Roswell Resource Area, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Roswell, New Mexico Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Attn: Tonianne Baca) Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico

AP11-121 APPENDIX 12 ACECMAPS

This appendix contains ACEC-specific maps that show the management for each ACEC. The area shown on each map comprises the ACEC. Maps are not provided for the caves in the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC because of the sensitive nature of the caves and their locations.

ACEC MAP TOPIC Overflow Wetlands A12-1 Proposed Land Acquisitions Rights-of-Way Exclusions Area of Proposed Grazing Adjustments A12-2 No Surface Occupancy Areas Mineral Disposal Closures Off-Highway Vehicle Use Designations North Pecos River A12-3 Oil and Gas Leasing Restrictions A12-4 Mineral Estate by Ownership Mineral Disposal Closures A12-5 Proposed Land Acquisitions Rights-of-Way Avoidance Areas Off-Highway Vehicle Use Designations Livestock Grazing Adjustments Mescalero Sands A12-6 Rights-of-Way Exclusion Areas Mineral Disposal and Leasing Closures Proposed Land Acquisitions Livestock Grazing Adjustments Off-Highway Vehicle Use Designations Fort Stanton A12-7 Mineral Disposal and Leasing Closures Livestock Grazing Off-Highway Vehicle Use Designations Rights-of-Way Exclusion Areas

AP12-1 R 26 E

V - Federal Land (Public Lands) P - Private Land S - state Lands

p

NORTH p

~ Proposed Land Acquisitions

~ Rights-of-Way Excluded

~ Area of Proposed Grazing Adjustments R 26 E

SCALE 1" = .6 Miles BLM-Roswell District, 1994

MAP A12-1 C>VERFLC>W WETLANDS Roswell Resource Area AP12-2 R 26 E

p V - Federal Land (Public Lands) 33 P - Private Land S - State Lands \

\ 36

~ T 12 S )

05

p

10 ~·~~ NORTH~ ~ p

16

p

2.1 p s

~ No Surface Occupancy (NSO) -Oil and Gas

~ Closed to - Solid Leasable Minerals - Salable Minerals - Locatable Minerals R 26 E ~ OHVs - Limited to Designated Roads/Trails

SCALE 111 = .6 Miles BLM-Roswell District, 1994 MAP A12-2 OVERFLOW WETLANDS Roswell Resource Area

AP12-3 R 25E R26E

Oil and Gas

~ - No Surface Occupancy

~ - Closed to Leasing

T4S

23

p

s NORTH V - Federal Land (Public Lands) P - Private Land s - State Lands 36

SCALE 1" = .71 Miles BLM-Roswell District, 1994 s

MAP A12-3 NC>RTH PECC>S RIVER Roswell Resource Area

AP12-4 R25E R26E

~ Federal Surface/Federal Minerals

~ Private Surface/Federal Minerals 0 Non-Federal Surface/Non-Federal Minerals

Federal Minerals

Closed to

- Solid Leasable Minerals T4S - Locatable Minerals - Salable Minerals 23

s NORTH V - Federal Land \/ (Public Lands) I P - Private Land S - State Lands ~ ) 36

SCALE 1" = .71 Miles \ BLM-Roswell District, 1994 s

MAP A12-4 NORTH J?ECC>S RIVER Roswell Resource Area AP12-5 R25E R26E

0 Proposed Land Acquisitions

~ Rights-of-Way A voidance Areas

~ OHVs - Limited to Designated Roads/Trails

~ Grazing- Permits and Leases adjusted

T4S

23

s

36 NORTH V - Federal Land (Public Lands) P - Private Land s - State Lands s

SCALE 1" = .71 Miles BLM-Roswell District, 1994

MAP A12-5 NORTH PECOS RIVER

AP12-6 R 30 E R 31 E

26 25 30

T 11 S

35 31

NORTH T 12 S

V - Federal Land (Public Lands) P - Private Land S - State Lands

ENTIRE AREA ~ Proposed Acquisition- State Land Rights-of-Way - Excluded Closed to - Solid Leasable Minerals t-=i Proposed Acquisition - Private Land - Salable Minerals - Locatable Minerals ~ Grazing- Allowed but No Preference - Oil and Gas Leasing Allocated/OHVs- Closed

~ OHV s Closed

SCALE 1" • .71 Miles BLM-Roswell District, 1994 MAP A12-6 MESCALERO SANDS

AP12-7 V - Federal Land (Public Lands) P - Private Land s - State Lands NORTH

~ Entire Fort Stanton (Public Lands)

Closed to - Solid Leasable Minerals - Locatable Minerals - Oil and Gas Leasing

Open to -Salable Minerals

Grazing -Allowed

OHVs - Limited to Designated Roads/Trails

Rights-of-Way - Excluded

SCALE 1" = 1.42 Miles BLM-Roswel1 District, 1994

MAP A12-7 FORT -STANTON

AP12-8 APPENDIX 13 PROTESTS ON THE ROSWELL RMP

This appendix contains a list of protesters, the issues or concerns raised in protests that were addressed by the BLM Director or the New Mexico State Director, and a list of text changes.

AP13-1 APPENDIX 13

TABLE 1 LIST OF PROTESTERS ROSWELL RMP

Name, Organization of Protester Number of Issues, Action Concerns Identified Issues Concerns Tom Amesbury 1 New Mexico Oil and Gas Association (NMOGA) 4 2 George Folks, Spirit Energy dismiss Larry Nash, GPM Gas Corp. dismiss Bill Pierce, Penwell Energy dismiss Santa Fe Energy dismiss Johnny Slaughter, Pool Energy dismiss T.E. Yates, American Trading dismiss Kelly L. Maclaskey, Maclaskey Oilfield Services dismiss George F. Sharpe, Merrion Oil and Gas dismiss Kenneth D. Reynolds, WEK Drilling dismiss Controlled Recovery Inc. dismiss

AP13-2 APPENDIX 13

Name, Organization of Protester Number of Issues, Action Concerns Identified Issues Concerns John Mason, Burnett Oil Co. dismiss Charles R. Wolle dismiss B.J. Caldwell, Saga Petroleum dismiss R.F. Gray dismiss Edward R. Hudson, Hudson, Inc. dismiss Gary L. Thomas, Enron Oil and Gas dismiss Ken Gray, Devon Energy dismiss Bob Shelton, Nearburg Expl. dismiss Harry Spannaus, Parker & Parsley dismiss Kenton Hammonds, Armstrong Energy dismiss Joe Janica, Tierra Explorations dismiss John R. Gray, Marbob Energy dismiss Robert Bayless dismiss Worth Carlin, Bass Enterprises dismiss Dennis Hendrix, Great Western Drilling dismiss Kenneth Barbe, Manzano Oil dismiss

AP13-3 APPENDIX 13

Name, Organization of Protester Number of Issues, Action Concerns Identified Issues Concerns Elizabeth Bush, ARCO Permain 2 1 Worth Carlin, Bass Enterprises 3 1 R.J. Schneider, Texaco 1 3 A.R. Kukla, Marathon 3 Roger Peterson, NM Natural History Institute 1 J.F. NewVille, Chevron 1 2 Forest Guardians 4 Bud Eppers, Southeastern NM Grazing Association 5 Chuck Moran, Yates Petroleum 5 2 Lewis Derrick, NM Cattle Growers 1 1 Chaves County 2 Doug Lunsford 2 Greg Nibert 2 Karolyn King Nelson dismiss Calder Ezzell 2 Jerry Cooper, Pogo Producing dimiss

AP13-4 APPENDIX 13

Name, Organization of Protester Number of Issues, Action Concerns Identified Issues Concerns William Waggoner, Independent Petroleum Assn of NM dismiss Ronald Merritt 1 Dan Girand, Mack Energy Corp. 3 1 Curtis Doyal 1 1

AP13-5 APPENDIX 13

TABLE 2 LIST OF PROTEST ISSUES AND CONCERNS ROSWELL RMP

Name, Organization of Protester Issue Concern Topic Number Number Tom Amesbury C-1 acquisitions and disposals New Mexico Oil and Gas Association I-1 maps I-2 wilderness study areas I-3 archeology C-1 species protection C-2 prairie chickens I-4 caves and karst Elizabeth Bush, ARCO Permian I-1 archeology C-1 species protection I-2 caves and karst Worth Carlin, Bass Enterprises I-1 no true alternative I-2 cultural I-3 prairie chickens C-2 sand dune lizard

AP13-6 APPENDIX 13

Name, Organization of Protester Issue Concern Topic Number Number R.J. Schneider, Texaco I-1 following state law C-1 visual resource management C-2 slope, fragile soils C-3 sand dune lizard A.R. Kukla, Marathon Oil I-1 maps I-2 archeology, cost recovery I-3 caves and karst Roger Peterson, NM Natural History I-1 prairie chickens Institute J.F. NewVille, Chevron Oil I-1 caves and karst C-1 prairie chickens C-2 slope, fragile soils John Horning, Forest Guardians I-1 prairie chickens I-2 aquatic and obligate species I-3 informed decison on grazing; NEPA analysis I-4 informed decison on grazing; no grazing alternative

AP13-7 APPENDIX 13

Name, Organization of Protester Issue Concern Topic Number Number Bud Eppers, Southeastern NM Grazing C-1 Macho WHA; NEPA Association C-2 vegetation management C-3 watershed management C-4 game management; NEPA C-5 Appendix 7, law enforcement Chuck Moran, Yates Petroleum I-1 Alternative F treatment I-2 wilderness study areas I-3 caves and karst I-4 sand dune lizard, new info. C-2 takings implications C-3 slopes, fragile soils I-5 cost recovery, cultural Lewis Derrick, NM Cattle Growers I-1 following state law on fencing, water C-1 game management; NEPA Chaves County I-1 participation in process I-2 plan conformance

AP13-8 APPENDIX 13

Name, Organization of Protester Issue Concern Topic Number Number Doug Lunsford I-1 maps I-2 caves and karst Greg Nibert (same as Lunsford) I-1 maps I-2 caves and karst Calder Ezzell (same as Lunsford) I-1 maps I-2 caves and karst Ronald Merritt I-1 following state law on fencing, water Dan Girand. Mack Energy I-1 Alternative F treatment I-2 maps I-3 caves and karst C-1 Appendix 7, law enforcement Curtis Doyal I-1 conformance with county ordinance C-1 Appendix 7, law enforcement

AP13-9 APPENDIX 13

TABLE 3 TEXT CHANGES

Changes were made in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS as a result of: (1) efforts to resolve protests on the Proposed RMP; (2) requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for implementing conservation recommendations developed by the Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and (3) corrections of typographical or editorial errors identified by reviewers of the Proposed RMP. These changes are listed below.

Page numbers and other references are from the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Partial paragraphs at the tops of columns and bullets are not counted as paragraphs when determining the entries for paragraphs. The number code in the "Reason" column refers to one or more of the three reasons described above in the previous paragraph.

Page Column Paragraph Line Should Be: Reason

2-6 2 1 Replace paragraph with: Areas designated as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 1,3 are closed to leasing as part of the Wilderness Interim Management Policy. Existing leases in WSAs would not be reissued once they expire. Nearly all the acreage in the two WSAs in the Roswell Resource Area is recommended for wilderness designation. If Congress fails to accept the recommendations for wilderness designation and the WSA status is removed, the lands currently in the WSAs would be managed for multiple use under management prescribed in this RMP. If not designated wilderness, future management of the WSAs would be as follows:

! Carrizozo Lava Flow WSA (10,408 acres): Approximately 9,333 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing to protect the character of the lava flow, which is believed to be one of the most recent in the continental U.S. Scenic, recreational, scientific, vegetation and wildlife values associated with the lava flow would be protected, as well. The remaining 1,075 acres would be open to leasing subject to the Surface Use and Occupancy Requirements, the Practices for Oil and Gas Drilling Operations in Cave and Karst Areas, and the Roswell District Conditions of Approval.

AP13-10 APPENDIX 13

Page Column Paragraph Line Should Be: Reason

! Little Black Peak WSA (14,904 acres): The entire 14,904-acre area would be closed to oil and gas leasing to protect the character of the lava flow, which is believed to be one of the most recent in the continental U.S. Scenic, recreational, scientific, vegetation and wildlife values associated with the lava flow would be protected, as well.

2-6 2 4 3-7 ...allowed within up to 200 meters of 100-year floodplains, drainages, playas, 3 water wells...

2-20 Table 7 Replace with new table printed in the Approved RMP. 1

2-22 Table 9 Replace with new table printed in the Approved RMP. 1

2-23 Table 10 Replace with new table printed in the Approved RMP.

2-37 2 3 1,2 ...of about 77,000 acres... 3

2-37 2 4 7 ...in the following areas (this list is not inclusive): 3

2-40 Table 17 Total under Private Acres for Acquisition corrected to read 4,920 3

2-42 2 3 1 Within portions of the Macho WHA meeting the antelope suitability criteria, new 3 internal pasture fences...

2-42 2 3 6,7 ...changes in kind of livestock... 3

2-42 2 3 6-8 Move second sentence to new location following the bullets in this paragraph. 3

2-47 1 bullet 2 Replace bullet with: No range improvement projects will be constructed in the 3 Malpais.

2-47 2 Replace entry for pinon/juniper at top of column, with: Pinon/juniper 50 trees/acre 3 or when junipers encroach on drainages

2-49 1 1 8 Add a new sentence: Nevertheless, management would be directed toward 3 achieving proper functioning condition.

2-51 2 2 4 ...designated roads and trails for all-terrain vehicles... 3

AP13-11 APPENDIX 13

Page Column Paragraph Line Should Be: Reason

2-60 2 4 Replace paragraph with: The Haystack Mountain OHV Area will be enlarged from 3 from its present 3,500 acres to approximately 9,600 acres by acquiring 2,360 acres of state lands and 3,440 acres of private lands. Prior to the enlargement of the area, an easement about 50 feet by 100 yards in size will be acquired through two parcels of state land to provide access to the northern portion of the OHV area. The lands acquired for the OHV area will be managed according to the management prescription of the current Haystack Mountain OHV Area.

2-61 Table 26 Acres for the Roswell Cave Complex ACEC corrected to read 890 3

2-64 1 7, 8 Replace paragraphs with: If not designated wilderness, nearly the entire Little 1,3 Black Peak and Carrizozo Lava Flow areas will be closed to oil and gas leasing (refer to the Fluid Mineral Management section in this plan for more information). Those areas also will be managed for roadless recreational opportunities.

2-69 2 partial 4 ...and production, livestock grazing, and other uses compatible with special status 3 species habitat management.

2-70 1 partial Add new sentences at end of paragraph: ...a species and its habitat. The intent of 3 using fences in this manner is to protect small areas, as opposed to fencing-out large areas of public lands. It is expected that exclosures or barriers, if used, will be small in size and associated with specific sites.

2-70 1 2 7 ...and production, and other uses compatible with special status species habitat 3 management.

2-70 1 3 4-7 ...primarily to fences built for livestock control and highway right-of-way fences. 3 Fences or exclosures...

2-81 2 4 Paragraph deleted 3

AP3-4 1 2 3 ...would not be allowed on slopes over 30 percent. 1

AP13-12 APPENDIX 13

Page Column Paragraph Line Should Be: Reason

AP3-4 1 3 Replace paragraph and bullets with: 2 * Streams, Rivers and Floodplains: Surface disturbance will not be allowed within up to 200 meters of the outer edge of 100-year floodplains, to protect the integrity of those floodplains. On a case-by-case basis, an exception to this requirement may be considered based on one or more of the criteria listed below. The first three criteria would not be applied in areas of identified critical or occupied habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species.

* Additional development in areas with existing developments that have shown no adverse impacts to the riparian areas as determined by the Authorized Officer, following a case-by-case review at the time of permitting.

* Suitable off-site mitigation if habitat loss has been identified.

* An approved plan of operations ensures the protection of water or soil resources, or both.

* Installation of habitat, rangeland or recreation projects designed to enhance or protect renewable natural resources.

AP4-1 3&4 4&4 pipeline replaced with project/pipeline 3

AP9-1 Table AP9-1 Replace with new table printed in the Approved RMP. Corrections were made in legal 3 descriptions and acreages in the Haystack Mountain OHV Area, Mexcalero Sands, and Pecos River sections, and in the acreage summary at the end of the table.

AP19-1 Appendix 19 Replace Appendix 19 with a new appendix printed in the Approved RMP. The new 3 appendix contains only those decisons carried forward from previous land use plans.

AP13-13 GLOSSARY GLOSSARY

Defines the technical terms used throughout this plan and the appendices.

ACQUIRED LANDS. Lands in Federal ownership etation and wildlife). An AMP includes the seasons which were obtained by the government through of use, number of livestock permitted on the allot- purchase, condemnation, gift, or exchange. ment, grazing system, and the rangeland develop- ments needed. AMPs are prepared in consultation, ACRE-FOOT (AC-FT). Volume of water that will cooperation and coordination with the permittee(s), cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot; equals lessee(s) or other involved affected parties. 43,560 cubic feet or 325,851 gallons. ANIMAL UNIT MONTH (AUM). The amount of ADJUDICATION. A formal court proceeding forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow with which results in the determination of the validity and a nursing calf or its equivalent for a period of one extent of a water right. month.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. Photographs taken of ANNUAL WATER YIELD. The total streamflow the earth’s surface from an aircraft. Both color and volume that passes a specified point in a watershed infra-red aerial photos can be produced which show during a year. It generally equals total precipitation surface features. Photographs can indicate vegeta- and irrigation, less evapotranspiration losses and tion changes and water content associated with frac- deep seepage losses. tures where caves may be located. AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGGREGATE. Any of several hard, inert materi- CONCERN (ACEC). Areas within the public land als, such as sand, gravel, slag, or crushed stone, used where special management attention is needed to for mixing with a cementing or bituminous material protect and prevent irreparable damage to important to form concrete, mortar, or plaster, or used alone, historical, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wild- as in railroad ballast or graded fill. life resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and provide safety from natural AIR POLLUTION. The general term alluding to hazards. the undesirable addition of substances (gases, liq- uids, or solid particles) to the atmosphere that are AUTHORIZED OFFICER. Any person autho- foreign to the natural atmosphere or are present in rized by the Secretary of the lnteriorto administer quantities exceeding natural concentrations. regulations.

ALKALI LAKES. Shallow plate-like depressions AVOIDANCE AREA. An environmentally sensi- in central portions of basins that drain internally, tive area where rights-of-way would be granted only collect runoff and evaporate rapidly; salt playas. in cases where there is a prevailing need and no prac- tical alternative location exists, and then only with ALLOTMENT. An area of land designated and appropriate provisions to protect the sensitive envi- managed for grazing of livestock. ronmental components.

ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (AMP). BENEFICIAL USE. The basis, the measure, and A livestock grazing activity plan for a specific allot- the limit of a water right. Agricultural, commercial, ment based on multiple-use resource management industrial, and recreational uses are all considered objectives. The AMP considers livestock grazing to be beneficial. in relation to other uses of the rangelands and in re- lation to renewable resources (i.e., watershed, veg-

GL-1 GLOSSARY

BERM. An embankment or mound of earth or other surface of the earth, ledge, or cliff to investigate, material. Examples of the use of a berm include use study or analyze contents, hazards and extent; to around a tank battery in an oil field to contain spilled travel into new territories for adventure or discov- fluids or as a barrier across a road or trail to prohibit ery. travel by motor vehicles. CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS. The process of BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE (BMP). determining whether the lands are more valuable or Methods, measures, or practices selected on the ba- suitable for transfer or use under particular or vari- sis of site-specific conditions to ensure that water ous public land laws than for retention in federal quality will be maintained to its highest practicable ownership for management purposes. level. BMPs include, but are not limited to struc- tural and nonstructural controls, operations, and COMMUNITY. A group of plants and animals liv- maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied be- ing together in a common area having close in- fore, during, or after pollution producing activities teractions. to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (40 CFR 130.2, EPA Water COMMUNITY PIT. A site from which nonexclu- Quality Standards Regulation). Each BMP should sive disposals of mineral materials can be made. identify: (1 ) specific management objectives, (2) a thorough description of the practice(s) to be used, CONDITION. FUNCTIONAL-AT RISK (Ri- and (3) a plan for monitoring the effectiveness of parian, Wetiand). Riparian-wetland areas that are the practice(s) toward meeting the stated objectives, in functional condition but an existing soil, water, so they can be refined overtime. Examples of spe- or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to cific BMPs for New Mexico rangelands are given degradation . by New Mexico State University (1 983). CONDITION, NON-FUNCTIONAL (Riparian, BIODIVERSITY. Refers to the variety of life and Wetiand). Riparian-wetland areas that clearly are its processes and includes the variety of living or- not providing adequate vegetation, landform, or large ganisms, the genetic differences among them, and woody debris to support proper functioning condi- the communities and ecosystems in which they oc- tion. The absence of certain physical attributes, such cur. as a floodplain where one should be, are indicators of non-functioning conditions. CALICHE. A brown or white material commonly found as a subsoil deposit in and or semi-add cli- CONDITION. PROPER FUNCTIONING mates which is composed largely of calcium car- (Riparian, Wetland). Riparian-wetland areas are bonate. functioning properly when adequate vegetation, land- form, or large woody debris is present to: (a) dis- CAVE. Any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, sipate stream energy associated with high water flow, or system of interconnected passages which occurs thereby reducing erosion and improving water qual- beneath the surface of the earth or within a cliff or ity; (b) filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid ledge (including any cave resource therein, but not floodplain development; (c) improve floodwater including any vug, mine, tunnel, aqueduct, or other retention and groundwater recharge; (d) develop root manmade excavation) and which is large enough to masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting ac- permit an individual to enter, whether or not the en- tion; (e) develop diverse ponding and channel char- trance is naturally formed or manmade. The term acteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, “cave” includes any natural pit, sinkhole, or other duration, and temperature necessary for fish produc- feature which is an extension of the entrance. Refer tion, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and, (f) also to “Significant Cave.” support greater biodiversity. The functioning con- dition of riparian/wetland areas is a result of inter- CAVE EXPLORATION. The act of entering a action among geology, soil, water, and vegetation. naturally occurring void, cavity, recess or system of interconnected passages which occurs beneath the GL-2 GLOSSARY

CONDITION, UNKNOWN (Riparian, Wetiand). tion to a greater extent than destruction of other por- Riparian-wetland areas for which sufficient infor- tions of the habitat. mation is lacking to make any form of determina- tion about functional condition. CRITICAL HABITAT. Any air, land, or water area, including elements thereof, which have been CONDITION OF APPROVAL (COA). A require- determined (and published in the Federal Register) ment appended to a use authorization that must be to be essential to the survival of wild populations of met in order to be in conformance with the authori- an endangered or threatened species or to be neces- zation. Conditions of approval may be standard sary for their recovery to a point at which the mea- practices that are routinely applied or may be spe- sures provided pursuant to the ESA are no longer cial requirements developed through the NEPA pro- necessary. cess. Conditions of approval usually are applied to mitigate the impacts of an action. Conditions of CULTURAL RESOURCE. The fragile and non- approval do not modify any rights granted by a lease renewable remains of human activity, occupation, (e.g., an oil and gas lease). Also, refer to LEASE, or endeavor reflected in districts, sites, structures, PERMIT, and STIPULATION in the Glossary. buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, works of art, ar- chitecture, and natural features that were of impor- CONDITIONAL WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION. tance in human events. These resources consist of The point in time that the fire exceeds the definable physical remains, areas where significant human boundaries of the prescribed natural fire parameters, events occurred even though evidence of the event conditional suppression will become full suppres- no longer remains, and the environment immediately sion. (Total acres will not be a concern but exceed- surrounding the actual resource and oral history or ing the defined boundaries will indicate an escaped ethnographic accounts of lifeways and customs. fire analysis.) DESIGNATION. The official identification and CONSERVATION (ARCHAEOLOGY). A level naming of a general area or site on public land. Lands of management applied to cultural resources ex- may be designated when they are either (1) with- hibiting uniqueness or relative scarcity of similar drawn, (2) given special status by act of Congress, cultural properties; research potential that surpasses or (3) established by an approved land use plan. current state of the art; or singular historic impor- tance or architectural interest. DESIGNATED USES. Surface water uses speci- fied by the Water Quality Control Commission for COORDINATED RESOURCE MANAGE- which water quality standards have been established. MENT PLAN (CRMPA). A plan for management Designated uses apply whether or not they are being of one or more grazing allotments that involve all attained. the affected resources, e.g., range, wildlife, water- shed, minerals, and recreation. DESIRED PLANT COMMUNITY (DPC). The plant community which provides the vegetation at- CORRIDOR. A linear strip of land forming a pas- tributes required for meeting or exceeding RMP sageway between two points in which transportation vegetation objectives. The DPC must be within an and/or utility systems exist or may be located. A ecological site’s capability to produce these attributes designated corridor is the preferred location for ex- through natural succession, management action, or isting and future rights-of-way grants that have been both. A specific description of the vegetation needed identified by law, by secretarial order, through land to meet the vegetation objectives of a detailed activ- use planning, or by other management decision. ity plan or implementing action can be described as a desired plant community. Seeding mixtures under CRUCIAL HABITAT. Portions of the habitat of a DPC would emphasize the use of native species and wildlife population that, if destroyed or adversely avoid noxious weeds and exotic species. modified, would result in a reduction of the popula-

GL-3 GLOSSARY

DISTRICT. The specific area of public lands ad- ENDANGERED SPECIES (STATE). Any species ministered by a district manager. or subspecies whose prospects of survival or recruit- ment in New Mexico are in jeopardy. Also, see DIVERSION. A man-made construction that diverts “Threatened Species (State)” in the Glossary. water from its natural source to be put to beneficial use. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA). The procedure for analyzing the impacts of some pro- DIVERSITY. The relative degree of abundance of pose d action on a given environment and the docu- wildlife species, plant species, communities, habi- mentation of that analysis. An EA is similar to an tats, or habit features per unit area. environmental impact statement (EIS) but is gener- ally smaller in scope. An EA may be preliminary to DRASTIC. A method developed by the U.S. En- an EIS. vironmental Protection Agency for evaluating the potential for groundwater pollution. The name ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT “DRASTIC” is an acronym for the seven (EIS). The procedure for analyzing the impacts (both hydrogeologic factors that the method uses to pro- beneficial and adverse) of a proposed action on a duce the Drastic Index. The Index is a numedcal given environment, and the documentation of that value which helps prioritize areas with respect to analysis. groundwater contamination vulnerability. The fac- tors are: Depth to water; Recharge; Aquifer media; EPHEMERAL STREAM. A stream that flows in Soil media; Topography (i.e., slope); Impact of the direct response to surface runoff. vadose zone; and, Conductivity (hydraulic) of the aquifer. EPHEMERAL. A stream or portion of a stream that flows in direct response to precipitation, lasts ECOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY (ESI). The for a short period of time and is not influenced by effort and documentation needed to establish realis- ground water sources. Also pertains to playa lakes tic, achievable, and measurable vegetation manage- which can be intermittently wet. ment objectives. EXCHANGE. A trading of public lands (surface ECOSYSTEM. A complex self-sustaining natural or subsurface estates) that usually do not have high system which includes living and nonliving compo- public value, for lands in other ownerships which nents of the environment and the circulation of mat- do have value for public use, management and en- ter and energy between organisms and their envi- joyment. The exchange may be for the benefit of ronment. other Federal agencies as well as BLM.

ENDANGERED SPECIES (FEDERAL). An ani- EXCLUSION AREAS. Areas where future rights- mal or plant species whose prospects of survival and of-way may be granted only when mandated by law. reproduction are in immediate jeopardy and in dan- ger of extinction throughout all or a significant por- EXTENSIVE RECREATION MANAGEMENT tion of its range, as defined by the USFWS under AREAS (ERMA). Areas where recreation is un- the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, structured and dispersed and where minimal rec- as amended. Whether a species is threatened or en- reation-related investments are required. ERMAs dangered is determined by the following factors: (1) provide recreation visitors the freedom of choice with present or threatened destruction, modification, or minimal regulatory constraint. These areas consist curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) over utiliza- of the remainder of land areas not included in Spe- tion for commercial, sporting, scientific, or educa- cial Recreation Management Areas within a resource tional purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) inad- area. equacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors. Also, see “Threatened Species (Federal)” in the Glossary.

GL-4 GLOSSARY

FEDERAL CAVE RESOURCES PROTEC- TION ACT (FCRPA) OF 1988. The purposes of GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM this act are (1) to secure, protect, and preserve signifi- (GIS). Through the use of computer technology, GIS cant caves on federal lands for the perpetual use, allows the input, storage, analysis, and display of a enjoyment, and benefit of all people; and (2) to fos- great volume and variety of physically locatable data ter increased cooperation and exchange of informa- (i.e., data which is known to exist at some specific tion between governmental authorities and those who place or area on the ground). utilize caves located on federal lands for scientific, education, or recreational purposes. GRANT. A gift of public lands either in quantity or in place. Also, the document or the action which FEDERAL LAND. Land owned by the United conveys land or an interest in land. States and administered by the federal govemment. Federal land includes public lands (see Public Lands GRAZING CAPACITY. The maximum livestock in the Glossary). stocking rate possible without inducing damage to vegetation or related resources such as watershed. FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGE- This incorporates factors such as suitability of the MENT ACT (FLPMA) OF 1976. Public Law 94- rangeland for grazing a well as the proper use which 579, gives the BLM legal authority to establish pub- can be made on all of the plants within the area. lic land policy; to establish guidelines for adminis- Normally expressed in terms of acres per animal unit tering such policy; and to provide for the man- month (AC/AUM) or sometimes referred to as the agement, protection, development, and enhancement total AU Ms that are available in any given area, of the public land. Often referred to and pronounced such as an allotment. Areas that are unsuitable for “flipma.” livestock use are not computed in the grazing ca- pacity. Grazing capacity may or may not be the same FEDERAL RESERVED WATER RIGHT. A as the stocking rate. water right which is reserved by the federal govern- ment when land is withdrawn from the public do- GRAZING DISTRICT. Means the specific area main for a particular purpose, such as national parks, within which the public lands are administered un- forests, and monuments. The amount of water re- der Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act. Public lands served is only that necessary to fulfill the intended outside grazing district boundaries are administered purpose. under Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act.

FLOODPLAIN. See “One Hundred-Year Flood- GROUND WATER. Subsurface water contained plain” in the Glossary. in interconnected pores between soil or rock par- ticles in a zone of saturation. Groundwater includes FLOWLINE. The surface pipe through which oil, underground lakes and streams in karst areas. water, or gas travels from a well to processing equip- ment or to storage. HABITAT. The place where an animal or plant nor- mally lives during its life cycle often characterized FRAGILE SOIL. A soil that is easily damaged by by dominant food, cover, water, and space (e.g., the use or disturbance. Examples include soils that are stream habitat, the forest habitat). susceptible to compaction or other mechanic dam- age to their structure, or soils that are highly erod- HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN (HMP). A ible when disturbed. written and officially approved plan for a specific geographical area of public land which identifies FULL WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION. All neces- wildlife habitat and related objectives, establishes sary resources and tactics are utilized to halt fire the sequence of actions for achieving objectives, and spread at a minimum acreage with the most cost ef- outlines procedures for evaluating accomplishments. fect suppression tactics.

GL-5 GLOSSARY

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. Any substance pos- lease operations. Lease Notices are not a basis for ing a threat to the health or safety of persons or the denial of lease operations. environment. These include any materials meeting the Environmental Protection Agency’s criteria for LEGAL ACCESS. In the context of access to pub- ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity. lic lands, especially public land tracts that may be adjacent to or surrounded by land of other owner- INFORMATION (ARCHAEOLOGY). A level of ships, legal access exists when a person can reach a management applied to cultural resources. Most sites given public land tract without trespassing, such as fall into this category and would be studied for the from a public road or highway, or from another tract information that could be retrieved from them. The of public land. (See “Physical Access.”) process of extracting information often destroys the site. These sites could be lithic scatters, campsites LENTIC. Pertaining to static, calm, or slow mov- and other types of sites. ing water or aquatic habitats, such as a marsh.

INSTREAM FLOW. The surface streamflow that LEK. A specific area (also termed display, gobbling, is necessary to maintain resources such as water qual- booming or strutting grounds) where two or more ity, fisheries, recreation, and riparian habitat. Usu- prairie chicken cocks congregate, typically year af- ally expressed in terms of minimum flow require- ter year, for courtship displays in early spring, and ments. vary in size from one-eighth acre to several acres.

INTERMITTENT STREAM. A stream that does LOCATABLE MINERALS. Minerals subject to not flow year round but has some association with disposal and development through the Mining Law ground water for surface or subsurface flows. of 1872 (as amended). Includes all “valuable min- eral deposits” including metallic and nonmetallic KARST. A landform where the topography has been minerals such as gold, lead, barite, fluorspar or high formed chiefly by the dissolving of rock. In some calcium limestone. It also includes uncommon va- cases, the dissolving of rock may be extensive rieties of sand, stone, gravel, cinders, pumice, pum- enough to form passages through which an individual icite and clay. Also included are all valuable miner- could pass. Surface expressions include sinking als that are not excluded under the leasable and sal- streams, swalletts, springs and resurgences, and the able minerals. presence of sinkholes and caves. Surface streams are few, with most of the drainage being under- LOTIC. Pertaining to fast-moving water, such as ground. These features are important for ground- rivers and streams. water recharge of karst systems. MALPAIS. A Spanish word meaning rough coun- LEASE. An authorization to possess and use pub- try underlain by dark basaltic lava. lic land for a fixed period of time (usually long term). Also, any contract, profit-share arrangement, joint MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN venture, or other agreement issued or approved by (MFP). A planning decision document now replaced the United States Government under a mineral leas- by RMPs that establishes for a given planning area ing law that authorizes exploration for, extraction land use allocations, coordination guidelines for of, or removal of oil and gas resources. multiple use, and management objectives to be achieved for each class of land use or protection. LEASE NOTICE. An attachment to an oil and gas lease that transmits information at the time of lease MODERN URBAN (U). Areas with recreation issuance to assist a lessee in submitting acceptable opportunities to experience affiliation with indi- plans of operation, or to assist in administration of viduals and groups are prevalent as in the con- leases. A Lease Notice is used to disclose a situa- venience of sites and opportunities. Experiencing tion or condition known to exist that could affect the natural environmental, and the use of outdoor

GL-6 GLOSSARY skills are largely unimportant. One of the six classes NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY (NSO). A condi- of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). tion of surface use attached to a lease or other au- thorization applied to minerals exploration and de- MOIST SOILS MANAGEMENT. Water level ma- velopment which prohibits occupancy of only the nipulation (drawdown) used as a wetland man- land surface or to protect other identified resource agement tool for pastures to optimize food pro- values. duction for waterfowl. NOXIOUS WEED. A plant that causes disease or MINERAL MATERIALS. Minerals such as com- has other adverse effects on the human environment mon varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pum- and is, therefore, detrimental to the agriculture and icite and clay which are not obtainable under the commerce of the United States and public health. mining or leasing laws but which can be obtained Generally, noxious weeds possess one or more of under the Materials Act of 1947, as amended. Also the characteristics of being aggressive and difficult known as saleable minerals. to manage, parasitic, a carrier or host of harmful in- sects or disease, and being either native, new to, or MULTIPLE USE MANAGEMENT. Management not common in, the United States. In most cases, of public lands and their various resource values so however noxious weeds are normative species. they are used in the combination best meeting the Noxious weeds are designated and regulated by vari- present and future needs of the American people. ous state and federal laws. Such a concept allows for the most judicious use of some or all of the resources over areas large enough OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV). Any motor- to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments ized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-coun- in use to conform to changing needs and conditions. try travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, Relative resource values are considered, not neces- snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other terrain. sarily the combination of uses that would give the greatest potential economic return or the greatest unit Open: Vehicle travel is permitted in the area (both output. on and off roads) if the vehicle is operated re- sponsibly in a manner not causing, or unlikely to NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC cause significant, undue damage to or disturbance PLACES. A list of districts, sites, buildings, struc- of the soil, wildlife, wildlife habitat, improvements, tures, and objects significant in American history, cultural, or vegetative resources of other authorized architecture, archaeology, and culture. uses of the public lands.

NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM. The National Limited: Designated areas and trails where the use Trails System is composed of four types of trails: of an OHV is subject to restrictions, such as limit- (1) national recreation trails; (2) national scenic trails; ing the number on types of vehicles allowed, or dates (3) national historic trails; and (4) connecting or side and times of use (seasonal restrictions); limiting use trails. National recreation trails provide for numer- to designated roads and trails. Combinations of re- ous outdoor recreation activities in a variety of ur- strictions are possible, such as limiting use to cer- ban, rural, and remote areas. They may be desig- tain types of vehicles during certain times of the year. nated by the Secretary of the Interior or by the Sec- retary of Agriculture where lands administered by Closed: Designated areas, roads, and trails where that agency are involved. the use of an OHV is permanently or temporarily prohibited. Emergency use of vehicles is allowed. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION (NPS). The alteration of waters by activities not regulated as point sources, which degrade the quality or adversely affect the biological community inhabiting thewaters.

GL-7 GLOSSARY

ONE HUNDRED-YEAR FLOOD. The flood that PIPELINE. A system of connected lengths of steel will be equaled or exceeded an average of once ev- or plastic pipe, laid either in the earth or on the sur- ery one hundred years; i.e. the flood that has a one face, that is used for transporting petroleum, petro- percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any leum products, chemicals, natural gas, or other flu- given year. ids.

ONE HUNDRED-YEAR FLOODPLAIN. The PLAYA. A shallow, nearly level, often saline, dry area adjacent to a stream or body of water that would lake bed. Playas vary considerably in materials, sa- be inundated at the peak of the one hundred-year linity, and hydrologic regime. In general, playas: flood. The floodplain delineated on Flood Insur- (1) collect surface runoff in closed basins; (2) are ance Rate Maps (FIRMS) or Flood Hazard Bound- poorly vegetated; (3) are ephemerally flooded; and ary Maps (FHBMS) published by the Federal Emer- (4) have a thin surface of nongravelly, fine-textured gency Management Agency will be used for man- sediment. agement purposes. When a FIRM or FHBM map is not available for the area of interest, the best avail- POINT SOURCE POLLUTION. Pollution dis- able information will be used. charged from any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance into a water body; e.g., effluent from a PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES (PILT). Pay- pipe. Point source pollution does not include return ments to local or state governments based on owner- flow from irrigated agricultural land. ship of federal land and not directly dependent on production of outputs or receipt sharing. PRECIPITATION. Any or all forms of water par- ticles, liquid or solid, that fall f rom the atmosphere PERENNIAL STREAM. Surface water normally and reach the ground. flows throughout the year except during infrequent years of drought. PRESCRIBED FIRE OR BURN. The skillful ap- plication of fire to natural fuels under conditions of PERMIT (GRAZING). A document authorizing weather, fuel moisture, soil moisture, etc., that would use of the public lands within grazing districts un- allow confinement of the fire to a predetermined area der Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act for the pur- and at the same time produce the intensity of heat pose of grazing livestock. and rate of spread required to accomplish certain planned benefits to one or more objectives of wild- PERMIT (LAND). A short-term (generally under life management, livestock management, hazard re- 3 years), revocable authorization to use public lands duction, etc. Its objective is to employ fire scientifi- for specific purposes. cally to realize maximum benefits at minimum dam- age and acceptable cost. PETROGLYPH. A form of rock art manufactured by incising, scratching, or pecking designs into rock PRESCRIPTION. A written statement defining surfaces. objectives to be attained as well as temperature, hu- midity, wind direction and wind speed, fuel mois- PHREATOPHYTE. A type of plant common to ture content, and soil moisture under which a fire add regions which has an extensive root system to will be allowed to burn, generally expressed as ac- draw water directly from the water table. ceptable ranges of the various indices, and the limit of the geographic area to be covered. PHYSICAL ACCESS. In the context of access to public lands, especially public land tracts that may PRIMITIVE (P). Areas with recreation opportuni- be adjacent to or surrounded by land of other own- ties for isolation from the sights and sounds of man, erships, physical access exists when a person can to feel a part of the natural environmental, to have a physically reach a given public land tract. The ex- high degree of challenge and risk, and to use out- istence of physical access does not always mean that door skills. One of the six classes of the Recreation legal access exists. In some cases, taking advantage Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). of physical access may involve trespass. (See “Le- gal Access.”) GL-8 GLOSSARY

PUBLIC LANDS. Any land and interest in land RECREATION AND PUBLIC PURPOSES owned by the United States within the several states ACT (R&PP). The Act of June 14, 1926, as and administered by the Secretary of the Interior amended (43 U.S.C. 869, 869-4). Allows the dis- through the Bureau of the Land Management, with- posal of public lands to any state, local, federal, or out regard to how the United States acquired owner- political instrumentality or nonprofit organization or ship, except (1) lands located on the Outer Conti- any recreational or public purpose, at the discretion nental Shelf; and (2) lands held for the benefit of of the authorized officer. Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM PUBLIC VALUES AND INTERPRETATION (R0S). A continuum used to characterize recreation (ARCHAEOLOGY). A level of management of opportunities in terms of setting, activity, and expe- cultural sites which contribute to the belief systems rience opportunities. Six classes are included: primi- and folkways of a cultural group such as locations tive (P), semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM), having religious significance. Public interpretive semi-primitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural sites would have qualities that would lend themselves (RN), rural (R), and modern urban (U). Refer to the to being utilized as recreation, education, and inter- individual definitions in this glossary. pretive areas. RESERVATION. A withdrawal of a permanent QUARRYING (MINING). The extraction of build- nature, dedicated to a specific public purpose. ing stone or other valuable nonmetallic constituent from a surface mine, or quarry. RESOURCE AREA (RA). The smallest adminis- trative subdivision of a BLM district. A resource RANGELAND. Land used for grazing by livestock area is administered by an area manager. and big game animals on which the vegetation is dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or sh RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (RMP). A rubs. written land use plan that outlines BLM’s decisions and strategies for management of the resources in a RANGE IMPROVEMENT. An authorized activ- particular area. The RMP has been used by the BLM ity or program on or relating to rangelands which is since 1980. designed to improve production of forage; range vegetative composition; control patterns of use; pro- RESTRICTED AREAS. Areas where mitigation vide water; stabilize soil and water conditions; and such as seasonal restrictions is required to protect provide habitat for livestock, wild horses or burros, resource values. and wildlife. The term includes, but is not limited to structures, treatment projects, and use of mechani- RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW). The legal right for use, cal means to accomplish the desired results. occupancy, or access across land or water areas for a specified purpose or purposes. Also, the lands RAPTOR. A bird of prey, such as an eagle, hawk, covered by such a right. Examples are roads, or owl. powerlines, pipelines, water wells, and communi- ties sites. It does not grant an estate of any kind. RECLAMATION. The reconstruction of distur- bance by returning the land to a condition ap- RIPARIAN. Situated on or pertaining to the bank proximate or equal to that which existed prior lo of a river, stream, or other body of water. Normally disturbance, or to a stable and productive condition used to refer to the plants of all types that grow rooted compatible with the land use plan. The immediate in the water table or streams, ponds, springs, etc. goal of reclamation is to stabilize disturbed areas and protect both disturbed and adjacent undisturbed RIPARIAN AREAS. Riparian areas are a form of areas from unnecessary degradation . wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. These areas exhibit veg-

GL-9 GLOSSARY

etation or physical characteristics reflective of per- erosion from slopes, channels, and mass wasting, manent surface or subsurface water influence. Lands and the amount of sediment deposited before reach- along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially ing the specified point in the channel. and intermittently flowing rivers, and streams, gla- cial potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs SEEPS. Is where ground water percolates to the with stable water levels are typical riparian areas. surface and forms a saturated area. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegeta- SEMI-PRIMITIVE MOTORIZED (SPM). Ar- tion dependent upon free water in the soil. eas with some recreation opportunity for isolation f rom the sights and sounds of humans, but not as im- ROADED NATURAL (RN). Areas with about portant as for primitive opportunities. Involves the equal recreation opportunities for affiliation with opportunity to have a high degree of interaction with other user groups and for isolation f rom sights and the natural environment, to have moderate challenge sounds of humans. Involves the opportunity to have and risk, and to use outdoor skills. Provides an ex- a high degree of interaction with the with the natural plicit opportunity to use motorized equipment while environmental. Challenge and risk opportunities are in the area. One of the six classes of the Recreation not very important except in specific challenging Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). activities. The practice of outdoor skills may be important. Opportunities for both motorized and SEMI-PRIMITIVE NONMOTORIZED nonmotorized recreation are present. One of the six (SPNM). Areas with some recreation opportunity classes of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum for isolation from the sights and sounds of humans, (ROS). but not as important as for primitive opportunities. Involves the opportunity to have a high degree of RURAL (R). Areas with recreation opportunities interaction with the natural environmental, to have to experience affiliation with individuals and groups moderate challenge an risk, and to use outdoor skills. are prevalent as is the convenience of sites and op- One of the six classes of the Recreation Opportu- portunities. These factors are generally more im- nity Spectrum ( ROS) . portant than the natural setting. Opportunities for wildland challenges, risk taking, and testing of out- SIGNIFICANT CAVE. A cave located on federal door skills are unimportant, except in activities in- lands that possesses one or more of the following volving challenge and risk. One of the six classes features, characteristics, or values (1) Biota; (2) of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). Cultural; (3) Geologic/ Mineralogic/Paleontologic; (4) Hydrologic; (5) Recreational; (6) Educational or LEASABLE MINERALS. See Mineral Materials. Scientific.

SCOPING PROCESS. An early and open process SIGNIFICANT KARST. An area in which sink- for determining the scope of issues to be addressed holes or other features, such as lineaments, provide and for identifying the significant issues related to a points of recharge to an aquifer that is the source of proposed action. Scoping may involve public meet- water for human, livestock, or wildlife use, or which ings, field interviews with representatives of agen- provides a primary recharge zone for cave-related cies and interest groups, discussions with resource hydrologic systems. specialists and managers, written comments in re- sponse to news release, direct mailings and articles SINKHOLE. A closed depression formed when the about the proposed action, and scoping meetings. ground surface collapses above voids created by the solution of carbonate or evaporite rocks. Water lev- SEDIMENT YIELD. A quantitative measure of the els typically fluctuate rapidly In sinkholes because total sediment outflow from a watershed over a given of their close connection to groundwater. period of time at a specified point in the channel. Sediment yield is the difference between the total

GL-10 GLOSSARY

SLOPE. The inclination of the land surface to the STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF- horizontal. When expressed as a percent, slope FICER (SHPO). A position within state govern- equals the change in elevation divided by the hori- ments responsible for coordinating state participa- zontal distance, with the result multiplied by 100 tion in the implementation of the National Historic percent. Thus, a slope of 20 percent is a change in Preservation Act. This officer serves as an assistant elevation of 20 feet for every 1 00 feet horizontally. and consultant when identifying cultural properties, assessing effects to them, and considering alterna- SOLID LEASABLE MINERALS. The chlorides, tives to avoid or reduce those effects. sulfates, carbonates, borates, silicates or nitrates of potassium or sodium and related products; sulphur STIPULATION. A requirement, usually dealing in the States of Louisiana and New Mexico and on with protection of the environment, that is made a all acquired lands; phosphate, including associated part of a lease, grant, or other authorizing document. and related minerals; asphalt in certain lands in Okla- In the case of oil and gas leases, a provision that homa; and gilsonite (including all vein-type solid modifies standard lease rights and is attached to and hydrocarbons). made a part of the lease. Also, refer to “CONDI- TION OF APPROVAL” in the Glossary. The fol- SPECIAL EMPHASIS AREAS. An area contain- lowing represent the major stipulations on BLM ing one or a combination of unique resources or val- lands: ues that receive more intensive management (e.g., ACECS, WSAS, and SRMAS.) No Surface Occupancy Stipulation (NSO): A stipulation in which use or occupancy of the land SPECIAL HABITAT FEATURE. A specific com- surface for fluid mineral exploration or development ponent of a habitat site requiring individual con- is prohibited to protect identified resource values. sideration, including geological anomalies (cliffs), aquatic situations (seeps), or manmade structures Timing Limitation Stipulation: A stipulation (windmill). A feature may be present in the habitat which prohibits surface use during specified time site because of animal use (booming grounds). Spe- periods to protect identified resource values. This cial habitat features may affect wildlife positively stipulation does not apply to the operation and main- or negatively. tenance of production facilities unless the findings of analysis demonstrate the continued need for such SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT mitigation and that less stringent, project specific AREA (SRMA). Areas requiring explicit recreation mitigation measures would be insuff icient. management to achieve BLM’s recreation objectives and to provide specific recreation opportunities. Controlled Surface Use Stipulation (CSU): A SRMAs are listed in this plan which also define stipulation in which use and occupancy is allowed SRMA management objectives. BLM’s recreation (unless restricted by another stipulation), but iden- investments are concentrated in these areas. tified resources values require special operational constraints that may modify the lease rights. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES. Wildlife and plant species either federally listed or proposed for listing STRUTTING GROUND. Synonymous with Lek. as endangered or threatened, state-listed species, or BLM-determined priority species (sensitive species). SUITABILITY. The adaptability of an area to graz- ing by livestock or wildlife. SPRING. Where water is discharged from a fixed point and the flow usually forms a small channel. SUITABLE RANGE. Rangeland that is accessible to livestock, which can be grazed on a sustained- STATE APPROPRIATIVE WATER RIGHT. A yield basis without damaging the resource. water right licensed by the New Mexico State Engi- neer once proof of beneficial use is established. SURFACE DISTURBANCE. Any action that re- moval of soil or vegetation and expose the mineral

GL-11 GLOSSARY

soil to erosive processes. Used in the literal context management of the vegetation itself, for example of actual, physical disturbance and movement or prescribed fire or indirect management like a change removal of the land surface and vegetation. in the number of livestock utilizing the vegetation, or a change in the time frames when livestock are SURFACE WATER. All water located at the sur- utilizing the vegetation. face of the land, such as streams, rivers, and lakes. VIABILITY INDEX. A mathematical model used THREATENED SPECIES (Federal). Any species to predict the suitability of a pasture for pronghorn which is likely to become an endangered species populations using variables such as pasture size, rug- within the foreseeable future throughout all or a sig- gedness, number of fall forb species and anticipated nificant portion of its range. Whether a species is fall sheep stocking rate. See Appendix 12 of the threatened or endangered is determined by the fol- Draft Roswell RMP/EIS. lowing factors: (1) present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; VISUAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (2) over utilization for commercial, sporting, scien- (VRM). The inventory and planning actions taken tific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or preda- to identify visual values and to establish objectives tion; (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mecha- for managing those values; and the management ac- nisms; or (5) other natural or human-made factors. tions taken to achieve the visual management objec- Also, see “Endangered Species (Federal)” in the tives. Glossary. VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) THREATENED SPECIES (State). Any species or CLASSES. VRM Classes are based on relative vi- subspecies that is likely to become endangered within sual ratings of inventoried lands. Each class de- the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant scribes the different degree of modification allowed portion of its range in New Mexico. Also, see “En- to the basic elements of the landscape. The follow- dangered Species (State)” in the Glossary. ing are the minimurh management objective for each class. TURBIDITY. A condition in water caused by the presence of suspended matter which results in the Class 1: Natural ecological changes and very lim- scattering and absorption of light. Generally, a mea- ited management activity are allowed. Any contrast sure of fine suspended matter in water. created within the characteristic landscape must not attract attention. This classification is applied to VALUE. As used in the RMP/EIS, a value refers to Visual Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, a natural resource or characteristic of a natural re- wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and other source that is not usually a commodity or is difficult similar situations. to quantify in terms of a unit of measurement. Ex- amples of values in this context are listed in FLPMA Class II: Changes in any of the basic elements (form, and include scientific, scenic, air and atmospheric, line, color, texture) caused by a management activ- historical, archeological and ecological resources. ity should not be evident in the landscape. A con- trast may be seen but should not attract attention. VEGETATION RESOURCE CONDITION OB- JECTIVES (VRCO). In general terms the kinds, Class III: Contrasts to the basic elements caused by types, amounts or appearance of vegetation that will a management activity may be evident and begin to provide the goods, values, and services needed on a attract attention in the landscape. The changes, how- geographic area. ever, should remain subordinate in the existing land- scape. VEGETATION TREATMENTS. Methods used to manage the growth and spread of vegetation. A veg- etative management practice can either be a direct

GL-12 GLOSSARY

Class IV: Contrasts may attract attention and be a which is protected and managed so as to preserve its dominant feature in the landscape in terms of scale. natural conditions and which (1) generally appears However, the changes should repeat the basic ele- to have been affected primarily by the forces of na- ments of the landscape. ture, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for Rehabilitation Area: Change is needed or change solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of rec- may add acceptable visual variety to an area. This reation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of class applies to areas where the naturalistic charac- sufficient size as to make practicable its preserva- ter has been disturbed to a point where rehabilita- tion and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may tion is needed to bring it back into character with also contain ecological, geological, or other features the surrounding landscape. This class would apply or scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. to areas identified in the scenic evaluation where the quality class has been reduced because of unaccept- WILDERNESS AREA (WA). An area formally able cultural modification. The contrast is inhar- designated by Congress as part of the National Wil- monious with the characteristic landscape. It may derness Preservation System. also be applied to areas that have the potential for enhancement; i.e., add acceptable visual variety to WILDERNESS STUDY AREA (WSA). A an area or site. It should be considered an interim or roadless area which has been found to have wilder- short term classification until one of the other VRM ness characteristics. class objectives can be reached through rehabilita- tion or enhancement. The desired visual resource WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS. Those management class should be identified. characteristics of wilderness as described in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. These include size, natu- WATER QUALITY STANDARD. Regulations ralness, solitude, primitive and unconfined type of which specify designated uses for surface waters of recreation, and supplemental values. the state, and water quality criteria to protect those uses. Standards are specified by the Water Quality WILDLIFE. Includes all species of animals, birds, Control Commission, in accordance with Section mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, or their 303 of the Clean Water Act. progeny or eggs which, whether raised in captivity or not, are normally found in a wild state. Feral WETLANDS. Areas that are inundated or saturated horses and burrows are excluded . by surface or ground water at a frequency and dura- tion sufficient to support and which, under normal WITHDRAWAL. Removal or withholding of pub- circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegeta- lic lands, by statute or secretarial order, from opera- tion typically adapted for life in saturated soil con- tion of some or all of the public land laws. A min- ditions. Wetlands include marshes, shallows, eral withdrawal is the closing of an area to mineral swamps, lake shores, bogs, muskegs, wet meadows, location and development activities. A mineral with- estuaries, and riparian areas. drawal includes public lands potentially valuable for solid leasable minerals, precluding the disposal of WILDERNESS. The definition contained in Sec- the lands except with a mineral reservation clause tion 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 is as fol- unless the lands are found not to contain a valuable lows: “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas deposit of minerals. where man and his own works dominate the land- scape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” Wilderness is an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, with- out permanent improvements or human habitation,

GL-13