\-

**ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT**

**FOR WITHDRAWAL TO**

**PROTECT CAVE & KARST RESOURCES**

**EA-NM-080-9-515**

**Carlsbad Field Office**

**Bureau of Land Management**

**Carlsbad, New Mexico**

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

I. INTRODUCTION 6

A. Need for Proposed Action 8

B. Alternative 9

II\. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 9

A. Caves 9

B. Soil/Water/Air 10

C. Archaeological/Paleontological 11

D. Vegetation 12

E. Range 12

F. Special Status Species 13

> Special Status Plants 14
>
> Special Status Animals 15

G. Wildlife 16

H. Wetland/Riparian Areas 21

I. Floodplain 23

III\. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 23

A. Impacts of the Proposed Action 23

> 1\. Caves 23
>
> 2\. Soil/Water/Air 23
>
> 3\. Leasable Minerals 24
>
> 4\. Archaeological/Paleontological 24
>
> 5\. Vegetation 25
>
> 6\. Range 25
>
> 7\. Special Status Species 25
>
> 8\. Wildlife 25
>
> 9\. Riparian 25
>
> 10\. Floodplain 26
>
> 11\. Environmental Justice 26
>
> 12\. Social and Economic 26

B. Impacts of Alternative (No Action) 26

> 1\. Caves 26
>
> 2\. Soils/Air 30
>
> 3\. Archaeological/Paleontological 30
>
> 4\. Vegetation 30
>
> 5\. Range 30
>
> 6\. Special Status Species 31
>
> 7\. Wildlife 32
>
> 8\. Wetlands/Riparian/xero-riparian Zones 35
>
> 9\. Floodplain 35

C. Cumulative Impacts 35

> 1\. Caves 35
>
> 2\. Soil/Air 36
>
> 3\. Archaeological/Paleontological 36
>
> 4\. Vegetation 37
>
> 5\. Range 37
>
> 6\. Floodplain 37

D. Mitigation Measures 37

> 1\. Proposed Action 37
>
> 2\. No Action 37

E. Residual Impacts 38

> 1\. Proposed Action 38
>
> 2\. No Action 39

IV\. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 40

A. Persons and Agencies Consulted 40

B. Public Participation and Involvement 40

**ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT**

EA-NM-080-9-515

Serial No. NM-102308

Petition for Withdrawal

**[I. INTRODUCTION]{.underline}**

A petition dated April 8, 1999, requested the withdrawal of
approximately 8,470.59 acres of Federal surface and minerals, and 480
acres of Federal mineral underlying private surface to protect cave
resources in the Carlsbad, New Mexico area. The withdrawal would
segregate the subject lands from settlement, sale, location, or entry
under the general land laws, including the mining laws, and from mineral
leasing, subject to valid existing rights. In addition to the Federal
lands and minerals, approximately 8,198.72 acres of State lands and
mineral estate will become subject to the withdrawal if these lands are
acquired by the United States.

The location is north and northeast of the existing Acave protection
area@ in Eddy County, New Mexico. The existing Acave protection area@
would be expanded to conform to geological information about the
northern and eastern extent of cave resources, as identified by the
Guadalupe Geology Panel.

The involved lands are described as follows:

New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico

T. 24 S., R. 23 E.,

sec. 24, all;

sec. 33, NE3, E2NW3, and NE3SE3 (all Federal minerals only);

> sec. 34, E2, NW3 (Federal minerals only), NW3SW3 (Federal minerals
> only), E2SW3, and SW3SW3,

sec. 35, N2.

T. 24 S., R. 24 E.,

sec. 14, N2;

sec. 15, N2;

sec. 17, N2, N2S2, S2SW3, and SW3SE3;

sec. 18, lots 3, 4, E2SW3, and SE3.

T. 24 S., R. 25 E.,

sec. 11, S2;

sec. 12, N2, N2S2, S2SW3, and SW3SE3;

sec. 13, S2;

sec. 14, W2NE3, SE3NE3, W2, and SE3;

sec. 22, all;

sec. 23, N2, SW3, NE3NE3SE3, W2E2SE3, and W2SE3;

sec. 24, N2, E2E2SW3, SE3SW3SW3, SW3SE3SW3, and SE3;

sec. 25, N2;

sec. 26, N2, N2SW3, SE3SW3, and SE3.

T. 24 S., R. 26 E.,

> sec. 17, lot 1, E2NW3, SW3NW3, and SW3 (all west of Highway 180);
>
> sec. 18, lots 1, 2, 4, W2NE3NE3, NW3NE3, NE3NW3, S2SE3SW3,S2SE3.
>
> sec. 19, lots 1 thru 4, inclusive, NE3, and E2W2 (all west of Highway
> 180).

The areas described aggregate 8,950.59 acres in Eddy County. All lands
are Federally owned surface and subsurface (mineral) unless otherwise
noted.

The following described States lands and mineral estates would, if
acquired by the United States, become subject to the withdrawal:

New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico.

T. 24 S., R. 23 E.,

sec. 22, S2;

sec. 23, S2;

sec. 26, all;

sec. 27, all;

sec. 28, E2, SE3NW3, and SW3;

sec. 33, W2NW3, SW3, W2SE3, and SE3SE3.

T. 24 S., R. 24 E.,

sec. 12, S2;

sec. 13, all;

sec. 16, all.

T. 24 S., R. 25 E.,

sec. 07, S2;

sec. 08, S2;

sec. 09, S2;

sec. 10, S2;

sec. 15, N2, N2S2, SE3SW3, and S2SE3;

sec. 16, all;

sec. 17, all;

sec. 18, lots 1 thru 4, inclusive, E2, and E2W2.

The area described aggregates approximately 8,198.72 acres in Eddy
County. The environmental impacts to the state lands identified would be
analyzed in a separate EA.

**[A. Need for Proposed Action]{.underline}**

The existing administrative designations and land management plans are
not adequate to protect the extensive cave and karst lands and their
associated resources from the impacts of oil and gas development and
mining activities. The Guadalupe Geology Panel, contracted as part of
the development of the Dark Canyon Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
identified a geologic boundary that would be less likely to cause
adverse impacts to cave resources caused by oil and gas drilling and
exploration. An administrative boundary was drawn for the purposes of
the Dark Canyon EIS. This administrative boundary did not fully cover
the extensive cave bearing area. Numerous known caves and the potential
for significant new discoveries exist in the proposed withdrawal and
exchange area.

Cave environments, by their very nature, provide unique closed systems
that are valuable for scientific study of underground resources and the
interrelationships between the surface and subsurface. They are often
used for environmental education and recreational purposes. Many cave
resources are extremely fragile. Small changes in their environments can
produce significant impacts to the delicate balance of the caves=
natural systems that have created these natural and scientific wonders.

Many of the mineral formations (speleothems) found in these caves are
very rare, extremely fragile, and are found only in these caves.
Examples of such speleothems include: subaqueous helictites, gypsum
chandeliers, aragonite crystals, soda straw stalactites, gypsum flowers,
hydromagnesite balloons, and cave pearls. These speleothems, as well as
the more common varieties of secondary depositions, are irreplaceable in
the context of human lifetimes.

Biologic communities have developed in stable underground environments
over thousands of years. The introduction of foreign substances or the
creation of additional entrances can upset the delicate ecosystem
balance. Archaeologic and paleontologic resources are preserved in
stable caves environments in near-perfect condition. Some of the
paleontological remains date back to over 35 thousand years.

Much of the area covered by the proposed withdrawal is crisscrossed with
interconnecting joints and fractures. Caves are often formed at depth
along these joints and fractures. Caves may be interconnected through
these systems of subsurface joints. Impacts that affect one cave can
affect other caves to which it may be tied. Because of this fact,
impacts from oil and gas development may not be limited to just one
location .

In addition to the Federal lands and minerals, approximately 8,198.72
acres of State lands and mineral estate will become subject to the
withdrawal if these lands are acquired by the United States.

The mineral potential for the subject tract is high. It is considered
valuable for petroleum resources. The only known production potential in
the area is natural gas. The State would expect high mineral potential
public lands in exchange for the State lands within the withdrawal area.

**[B. Alternative]{.underline}**

No withdrawal. Continue with leasing and production using enhanced
precautionary operations and leave the area open to mining claim
location..

**[II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT]{.underline}**

The affected environment is covered generally in the Carlsbad Resource
Management Plan (RMP) of 1988 and the RMP Amendment of 1997, and in
great detail in the Dark Canyon Environmental Impact Statement of
December 1993.

**[A. Caves]{.underline} -** Caves are nonrenewable and are recognized
by the federal government as invaluable and irreplaceable natural
resources that may threatened. All caves on federal lands meeting the
significance criteria set out in 43 CFR, Part 37.11 (c) are protected
under the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. The Act also
protects information regarding the location of caves. That information
is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. It is the policy of
the United States that Federal lands be managed in a manner which
protects and maintains significant caves. Further, it is the policy of
the Bureau of Land Management to AIdentify, evaluate, manage, and
protect cave resources on public lands for the purpose of maintaining
their unique, nonrenewable, and fragile biological, geological,
hydrological, cultural, paleontological, scientific, and recreational
values for present and future uses@.

Caves are found throughout the subject withdrawal area. Within the
identified geologic boundary of the proposed withdrawal area there are
approximately 13 known significant caves that meet the criteria outlined
in 43 CFR Part 37. The caves occur rather uniformly from the east end of
the withdrawal area to the west end. There is a high probability that
several more caves remain undiscovered.

Caves and karst features occur primarily in the central portion of the
lands managed by the Carlsbad Field Office (CFO). The Carlsbad Field
Office contains about 387,000 acres of limestone and gypsum karst lands.
There are over 150 known caves within the CFO, with the high probability
for discovery of many others. Caves in the area are used for recreation,
education, scientific research, wildlife habitat, and provide point
sources for groundwater recharge. Caves and karst resources on public
lands serve a very important role for the general public, the caving
community, and as wildlife habitat. Many of the recreational caves are
more easily accessible, generally easier to find, and require less
technical rope skill than caves in the neighboring National Forest and
National Park. Driving time from Carlsbad is also significantly less. As
a result, caves located on BLM lands are appealing to novices, larger
groups, and cavers having limited time. The Carlsbad RMP of 1988
designated seven Special Management Areas (SMA) specifically for the
protection of caves and three Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACEC) for the protection of caves and other sensitive resources.

Cave environments, by their very nature, provide a unique closed system
which is highly valuable to researchers throughout the world for
scientific study. Speleologists from Russia, China, Italy, France,
Yugoslavia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, England, Spain, and Canada
have utilized these caves for their studies. Additionally, they provide
excellent natural classrooms for environmental education of unique
underground resources and the interrelationships between the surface and
subsurface.

These caves have been regularly used for education by such national and
international organizations as the Armand Hammer United World College,
the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS), the University of New
Mexico, the University of Texas, and several other universities and
civic groups such as the Boy Scouts of America, Explorer Scouts, high
school groups, and church groups.

These caves also provide a significant recreational resource in the
region. More than 500 groups are known to visit the caves annually,
primarily because of their undeveloped nature. Visitor use is estimated
to be well into the thousands.

**[B. Soil/Water/Air]{.underline}** - Soils are Limestone Rockland,
Ector Stony Loam, Ector Extremely Rocky Loam, Limestone Rockland, Upton
Gravelly Loam, Upton-Reagan complex, and the Dev-Pima Complex. They are
described below. Water Resources are discussed in detail in the Dark
Canyon EIS. Dark Canyon is a major ephemeral tributary of the Pecos
River with a watershed of approximately 450 square miles. The canyon
begins high in the Guadalupe Mountains and enters the Pecos River near
the city of Carlsbad. Air quality falls within Class II, under the
criteria of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program
required by the Federal Clean Air Act. Immediately to the south, within
Carlsbad Caverns National Park, it is a Class I.

[Soils]{.underline} [Ecological Site]{.underline}

Ector extremely rocky loam Limestone Hills

Ector stony loams Limestone Hills

Limestone rock land Limestone Hills

Upton gravelly loam Shallow

Upton-Reagan complex Shallow/Loamy

Dev-Pima complex Bottomland

Limestone Hills/Shallow soils are shallow to very shallow, well-drained,
calcareous, stony and rocky loams over limestone and caliche. Topography
ranges from nearly level ridgetops to side slopes to cliffs and
escarpments. Permeability is moderate, water-holding capacity is very
low to low, and runoff is rapid after the soils become saturated. They
are subject to water erosion, but the stones and rock outcrops help to
stabilize the soils on nearly level to gently sloping areas. Careful
management is needed to maintain a cover of desirable forage plants and
to control erosion. Revegetation is difficult once the native plant
cover is lost, due to high temperatures and unpredictable rainfall.

Loamy soils generally are deep, well-drained, moderately dark colored,
calcareous, and loamy. These soils typically occur on gently undulating
plains and in the broader valleys of the hills and mountains.
Permeability is moderate, water-holding capacity is moderate to high,
and runoff is likely after prolonged or heavy rains. Careful management
is needed to maintain a cover of desirable forage plants and to control
erosion. Revegetation is difficult once the native plant cover is lost,
due to high temperatures and unpredictable rainfall.

Bottomland soils are medium textured to moderately fine textured. They
have a moderately to slowly permeable subsoil and water-holding capacity
ranges from low to high. They occur in swales and on floodplains and are
subject to periodic flooding. Often these soils have been damaged by
deposition of cobblestones and gravels and the vegetation has been
altered by water erosion. Good management of the watershed and adjacent
higher lying soils is needed to check runoff after heavy rains.

**[C. Archaeological/Paleontological]{.underline}** - Caves may contain
excellent examples of paleontological and archeological remains. As
indicated by several archeological excavation projects in the past sixty
years, many of the caves in the subject area were used by prehistoric
aboriginal peoples as dwellings and for storage. Others were utilized
for ideological purposes (rock art, burials, and religious activity). At
one cave, there is evidence of human occupation in association with
extinct animal bones dating to about 10,000 years ago.

Archeological remains in the caves consist of stone and wooden tools,
remnants of clothing, baskets and mats, and animal or plant refuse from
hunting and gathering activities. Artifacts observed on the sites
include stone points, cutting and scraping tools, pottery fragments,
burned rocks and charcoal, arrowshafts, sandals, mats, etc. The
archeological remains found in some of these caves are extremely well
preserved and most useful for study. The stable cave environment has
preserved these cultural and palentological resources in near perfect
condition. Most of the cave sites are in association with other
predominate cultural site types containing ring middens and campsites.

The caves have also provided archeologists and paleontologists with
information on past environments and extinct animals. The paleo bone
deposits within many of the caves are extremely valuable for the
scientific study of late pleistocene ecosystems of the entire southwest
region of the United States.

Because some of the caves were natural traps and dens for animals, bones
and other materials have accumulated in the cave deposits over a long
period of time. Through careful analyses and comparisons of the bones
and their contexts, scientists have been able to reconstruct the
climatic and environmental conditions of the region for tens of
thousands of years. These materials are irreplaceable.

**[D. Vegetation]{.underline}** - Vegetational changes occur in this
area as topography and soils types change. The shallow, steep limestone
hills are predominantly a mixed desert shrub overstory with a grassland
understory. Common shrubs on these sites include acacia, mimosa, agave,
algerita, juniper, sumac, feather dalea, range ratany, beargrass, sotol,
broom snakeweed, yucca, ocotillo, and various other cacti. Common
grasses on these sites include sideoats grama, hairy grama, black grama,
muhly spp., tridents, green sprangletop, plains lovegrass, and
threeawns.

The more level, loamy soil areas are predominantly a grassland with
scattered shrubs. Common grasses on these sites include blue grama,
tobosa, sideoats grama, bush muhly, Plains bristlegrass, dropseed spp.,
vine mesquite, and threeawns. Common shrubs on the loamy site are
mesquite, yucca, tarbush, broom snakeweed, creosote bush, and cholla.

The canyon, or arroyo, areas are typically shrub and tree dominated
sites. Common shrubs or trees found in these rocky drainages include
Apacheplume, desert willow, New Mexico walnut, netleaf hackberry, oak
spp., seep willow, brickell bush, mesquite, and virgensbower. Because
these sites are typically rocky, cobbly canyons, grasses may be sparse.
Common grasses that may occur are sideoats grama, bluestem spp., blue
grama, white tridens, and switchgrass.

A large variety of forbs occur in these sites and fluctuate greatly from
year to year and season to season.

**[E. Range]{.underline}** - Grazing allotments and permittees within
the withdrawal area are:

> 8112 Ewing Place Allotment, Jack and Tamara Faulk
>
> 8117 West Hess Hills Allotment, Bob and Barbara Forrest.
>
> 8116 Last Chance Canyon Allotment, James Curtis Doyal.
>
> 8115 Serpentine Bends Allotment, Bill and Mona Hoyle.
>
> 8100 Mosley Canyon Allotment, Ridley Gardner.
>
> 8114 Lower Guadalupe Ridge Allotment, Roy T. Townsend.
>
> 8113 Upper Jurnigan Draw Allotment, G. E. Judkins.

8124 Stetson Seep Allotment, Loudan, Deming, McKissack Partners

The ranches are yearlong, cattle and/or sheep operations.

**[F. Special Status Species]{.underline}** - There is a wide variety of
ecosystems which are associated with both the selected lands and the
offered lands. Within those ecosystems several special status species,
both flora and fauna, are known to exist. In addition, there are others
that potentially occur based on the presence of a specific habitat type.
Following is Table 1, which depicts those species which either occur or
potentially occur within the affected areas.

**Table 1**

**Species Occurring Within The Withdrawal Area**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Scientific Name                     Common Name

  *Federally Endangered*              

  **Northern aplomado falcon**        Falco femoralis septentrionalis

  **Kuenzler=s hedgehog cactus**      Echinocereus fendleri var.
                                      Kuenzleri

  *Federally Threatened*              

  Bald eagle                          Haliaeetus leucocephalus

  Lee pincushion cactus               Coryphantha sneedii var. Leei

  *Proposed for Listing*              
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Mountain plover                     Charadrius montanus

  *Federal Candidates*                

  Swift fox                           Vulpes velox
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  *Species of Concern*                

  Desert Pocket Gopher                Geomys bursarius arenarius

  Cave myotis                         Myotis velifer

  Fringed myotis                      Myotis thysanodes

  Long-eared myotis                   Myotis evotis

  Long-legged myotis                  Myotis volans

  Big free-tailed bat                 Nyctinomops macrotis

  Occult little brown bat             Myotis lucifugus occultus

  Pale Townsend=s big-eared bat       Plecotus townsendii pallescens

  Small-footed myotis                 Myotis ciliolabrum

  Baird=s sparrow                     Ammodramus bairdii

  Ferruginous hawk                    Buteo regalis

  Loggerhead shrike                   Lanius ludovicianus

  Western burrowing owl               Athene cunicularia hypugaea

  Texas horned lizard                 Phrynosoma cornutum

  Arizona black-tailed prairie dog    Cynomys ludovicianus arizonensis

  Gray-footed chipmunk                Tamias canipes

  Guadalupe southern pocket gopher    Thomomys umbrinus guadalupensis

  Limestone tiger beetle              Cicindela politula petrophila
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

[Special Status Plants]{.underline} - Although complete inventories of
the area have not been completed, there are many areas within the
proposed withdrawal which are potential habitat for one or more species
of special status plant or animal. It should be noted that the habitats
contained in the East Guadalupe Escarpment area, and thus in the
withdrawal area itself, may be essential to the continued existence of
one or more of these special status species.

The rocky limestone outcroppings that occur throughout the area are
especially desirable habitat for the Lee=s pincushion cactus
(**Escobaria sneedii var. leei**) which was listed as a threatened
species by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 1979. It occupies
limestone slopes, ledges, and ridge tops at elevations ranging from
4,100-5,900 feet with a preference for north facing slopes. In 1989, a
report was made that two plants were found along the top edge of the
east ridge of Dark Canyon. The survey focused on land north of the NPS
boundary. In 1998 further surveys were conducted by the New Mexico
Natural Heritage Program. During those efforts, a speciman was located
in T. 24 S., R. 23 E., Section 25. During 1999 survey efforts of this
location, an additional 75 individuals were located. It is thought that
this general area could provide habitat for many more individuals of the
species.

[Hedeoma]{.underline} [apiculatum]{.underline}, the McKittrick
pennyroyal, another special status plant potentially occurring in the
area, has been delisted (Federal Register 49244, September 22, 1993).
However, BLM is mandated by the Endangered Species Act to monitor and
protect this plant for five years to insure that it does not become
listed again. The option exists of recommending this plant as BLM
sensitive if there is a chance of future endangerment. The plant is
found on limestone outcroppings in the more moist canyons of the mixed
shrub rolling upland SHS.

There also may be potential occurrences of several state listed species
and state sensitive species within the withdrawal area including:

[Epithelantha]{.underline} [micromeris]{.underline}, the button cactus,

[Aquilegia]{.underline} [chaplinei]{.underline}, Chaplins columbine,

[Polygala]{.underline} [rimulicola]{.underline} var.
[rimulicola]{.underline}, the Guadalupe milkwort,

[Sophora]{.underline} [gypsophila]{.underline} var.
[guadalupensis]{.underline}, the Guadalupe Mountain mescal bean,
[Penstemon]{.underline} [cardinalis]{.underline} ssp.
[regalis]{.underline}, the Guadalupe penstemon,

[Perityle]{.underline} [quinqueflora]{.underline}, Five-flowered rock
daisy,

[Salvia]{.underline} [summa]{.underline}, Supreme sage.

[Special Status Animals]{.underline} - A number of special status birds
will be associated with the major xeric-riparian drainages located in
the withdrawal area. These drainages such as Dark Canyon, Stone Canyon,
Juniper Canyon, Woods Canyon and others with associated seeps and
springs, have the necessary riparian vegetation and food base to create
suitable seasonable habitat for these birds. Special status bird species
inventoried in the area include [Passerina]{.underline}
[versicolor]{.underline}, the Varied bunting, [Vireo]{.underline}
[bellii]{.underline}, Bells vireo, and [Vireo]{.underline}
[vicinior]{.underline}, the Gray vireo. It should be noted that the
above species are listed as state endangered.

[Falco]{.underline} [peregrinus]{.underline}, the Peregrine falcon were
recently delisted as federally Endangered. However, the BLM is mandated
by the Endangered Species Act to monitor and protect this species for
five years to insure that it does not become listed again. Peregrine
falcons are known to nest in the Guadalupe Mountains, and it is possible
that attempts have been made along the Serpentine Bends portion of Dark
Canyon.

It should be noted that the federal candidate [Coccyzus]{.underline}
[erythropthalmus]{.underline}, Yellow billed cuckoo, is almost certainly
a seasonal user of the xeric riparian drainages and canyons found in the
withdrawal area. Additionally, though it is not a listed species,
[Aquila]{.underline} [chrysaetos]{.underline}, the Golden eagle has been
observed in the area many times. It is likely the eagle uses the cliffs
and limestone outcroppings in the area for nesting and rearing of young.

Special status animals found in the withdrawal area include the federal
candidates [Vulpes]{.underline} [velox]{.underline}, the Swift fox,
[Pappogeomys]{.underline} [castanops]{.underline} var.
[guadalupensis]{.underline}, the Guadalupe southern pocket gopher,
[Phrynosoma]{.underline} [cornutum]{.underline}, the Texas horned
lizard, and the state endangered [Thamnopsis]{.underline}
[proximus]{.underline}, Western ribbon snake, and [Crotalus]{.underline}
[lepidus]{.underline}, the Mottled rock rattlesnake.

**[G. Wildlife]{.underline}** - There are four standard habitat sites
(SHS) within the withdrawal area: the pinon/juniper grass mountain,
mixed shrub hill, xero-riparian, and grass flat. A description of these
SHSs follows.

Pinyon/Juniper Grass Mountain Soil Associations are: AN, CA, De, DEF,
DR, DRG, ECF, LT, MXC, RM, TOE.

The dominant aspect is of pinyon pine and one seed juniper with sparse
to medium dense grass cover of grama grasses, muhly grasses and three
awns. The shrub understory consists of broom snakeweed, mountain
mohagany, oaks, rabbitbush, skunkbush sumac, prickly pear and cholla.
Several annual and perennial forbs are represented.

Mixed Shrub Hill Soil Associations are: EC,EcC, EcD, EE, ER, RRF.

Dominant species are white-thorn acacia, catclaw mimosa, javalina bush,
Apache plume, skunkbush and little-leaf sumac with local representation
of succulents including yucca, beargrass, agave and various cacti.
Clumps of grama grass are common. Additional typical shrubs are broom
snakeweed, honey mesquite, creosote bush, dalea, spice bush, mariola,
and American tarbush.

Xero-Riparian Soil Associations are: DP, PH, PK, PL, PM, PN.

These are defined as drainages or arroyos with only a brief intermittent
water flow supporting vegetation non-characteristic of surrounding
uplands. Grass and forb species are often sparse. Typical shrub and tree
species are desert willow, netleaf hackberry, Apache plume, Western
soapberry, salt cedar, little-leaf sumac, big-tooth maple, oaks, little
walnut, baccharis, honey mesquite, ash, and brickellia.

Grass Flat Soil Associations are: RA, RE, RF, RH, RI, RM (Eddy), GA.

Grass flats are usually low swales and consist primarily of grass
species. The dominant being Tabosa grass. Others are vinemesquite, grama
grasses, muhly grasses, burro grass, sacatons, and drop seeds. Some
areas are entirely of alkali sacaton. Shrub species are found in low
numbers with soap-tree yucca being most common along with broomsnake
weed, American tarbush, honey mesquite and allthorn.

Mixed Shrub Rolling Upland Soil Associations are: LN, LT, PS, TfD, Tg,
UA, UG,UR.

Mixed shrub rolling upland aspect with an understory of grama grasses,
and muhly grasses, tridens and three-awns. Characteristic shrubs are
broom snake-weed, white-thorn acacia, catclaw mimosa, Apache plume,
sumac, American tarbush, and mountain mohagany.

The mule deer is probably the most visible mammal type occurring along
the east Guadalupe escarpment, ranging throughout the area on a yearlong
basis. Within the Roswell District, the foothills and rough breaks
adjacent to the Capitan, Sacramento and Guadalupe Mountains comprise the
primary mule deer habitat. These areas combined make up approximately 30
percent of the district. The EA study area is highly utilized yearlong
by mule deer. Much of this country is desert shrub with scattered areas
of pinon/juniper. These range sites include a 10-15% shrub composition
with key deer species such as mountain mohogony, sumac, wavyleaf oak,
apache plume, and fourwing saltbush. The NMDGF indicate the deer habitat
along the Guadalupe escarpment is in a stable condition with herd
numbers stable or slightly increasing. Aerial surveys were flown in
January 1991, by the NMDGF with BLM biologists as observers. The results
were 11 bucks: 100 does: 64 juvenile in Big Game unit 30. The Texas Hill
area, which lies within Big Game unit 30 and within the EA study area,
had a ratio of 9 bucks: 100 does: 41 juveniles. Within the Roswell
District, Big Game unit 30 overall supports the greatest buck to doe
ratio with the exception of the Duncan/Pinyon area. Texas Hill and
surrounding area supports the third greatest buck to doe ratio within
the District.

Herd distribution consists of scattered bands of mule deer (2-20
animals) distributed throughout the entire escarpment during times of
dependable precipitation. When drought conditions prevail, the herds
become more concentrated, moving into areas where a permanent water
source (livestock waters, wildlife watering units, springs, natural
catchments, etc.) is available. These permanent water sources become
highly important and irreplaceable resources, supporting large
concentrations of deer during the dry months of the year and during
extended drought periods, sometimes extending over several years.

Barbary sheep are an introduced species to North America, persisting
along the Guadalupe Mountains in small, scattered bands.

Various predator/furbearer species also occur prolifically along the
escarpment. The presence of mountain lions has been reported and
substantiated, based on studies of radio-collared lions by the New
Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Other species such as the coyote,
bobcat, mountain lion, racoon, badger, ring-tail, skunk (3 species), kit
fox, gray fox, and porcupine occupy all habitat types occurring along
the escarpment. As with all mammalian species, especially within desert
ecosystems, year-round water is a necessity for survival, thus
concentrated populations of these animals occur around the water
sources.

Rodents constitute possibly the largest and most diverse group of
mammals occurring along the Guadalupe Mountain range. Their numbers
fluctuate based on annual precipitation, predator densities, and grazing
duration and intensity. Observations of animal sign support the listing
of Botta\'s pocket gopher as a common rodent inhabiting the ridge tops
along Dark Canyon.

Two members of the order Lagomorpha are present along the escarpment as
well. These include the black-tailed jack rabbit and the desert
cottontail rabbit. Their numbers fluctuate, as with rodents, according
to annual precipitation and predator densities, and to some extent,
grazing intensity.

Lists of normally occurring birds and mammals from the Dark Canyon ACEC
biological inventory are contained in Tables 2 and 3. It is likely that
16 to 20 species of herpetofauna are in the area as well, Table 4

**Table 2**

**Mammal List for Withdrawal Area**

**Ridge** **Canyon**

**[Species]{.underline}** **[Tops]{.underline}**
**[Bottom]{.underline}**

Fringed Myotis [(Myotis]{.underline} thysanodes) X X

California Myotis ([Myotis]{.underline} [californicus]{.underline}) X X

Western Pipistrelle ([Pipistrellus]{.underline} [hesperus]{.underline})
X X

Pallid Bat ([Antrozous pallidus]{.underline}) UC

Brazilian Free‑tailed Bat ([Tadarida]{.underline}
[brasiliensis]{.underline}) C C

Desert Cottontail ([Sylvilagus]{.underline} [auduboni]{.underline}) UC C

Black‑tailed Jackrabbit ([Lepus]{.underline} [californicus]{.underline})
C C

Rock Squirrel ([Spernophilus]{.underline} [variegatus]{.underline}) C C

Botta\'s Pocket Gopher ([Thomomys]{.underline} [bottae]{.underline}) C

Silky Pocket Mouse ([Perognathus]{.underline} [flavus]{.underline}) X X

Cactus Mouse ([Peromyscus]{.underline} [eremicus]{.underline}) X

White‑footed Mouse ([Peromyscus]{.underline} [leucopus]{.underline}) X X

Southern Grasshopper Mouse ([Onychomys]{.underline}
[torridus]{.underline}) X

White‑throated Woodrat ([Neotoma]{.underline} [albigula]{.underline}) R

Porcupine ([Erethizon dorsatum]{.underline}) UC

Coyote ([Canis latrans]{.underline}) UC C

Gray Wolf ([Canus]{.underline} [lupus]{.underline}) EXTIRPATED X X

Gray Fox ([Urocyon]{.underline} [cinereoargenteus]{.underline}) UC

Ringtail ([Bassariscus]{.underline} [astutus]{.underline}) R UC

Raccoon ([Procyon]{.underline} [lotor]{.underline}) C

Long‑tailed Weasel ([Mustela]{.underline} [frenata]{.underline}) X X

Striped Skunk ([Mephitis]{.underline} [mephitis]{.underline}) C

Hog‑nosed Skunk ([Conepatus]{.underline} [mesoleucus]{.underline}) C

Mountain Lion ([Felis]{.underline} [concolor]{.underline}) C

Mule Deer (Odocoileus [hemionus]{.underline}) C C

Barbary Sheep ([Ammotragus]{.underline} [lervia]{.underline}) INTRODUCED
UC

3.  Refers to status in which track, scat or individuals were seen on at
    least 75% of the trips to the study area.

UC: Refers to status in which track, scat or individuals were seen from
25‑741% of the trips to the study area.

4.  Refers to status in which track, scat or individuals were seen on
    less than 25% of the tips to the study area.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
10. Species that probably occur or formerly occurred but considered
    extirpated today.

**Table 3**

**Bird List for Withdrawal Area**

**Seasonal** **Xero‑**

**[Status]{.underline}** **[Upland]{.underline}**
**[Riparian]{.underline}**

Turkey Vulture SP‑FA C C

Red‑tailed Hawk\* P C C

Golden Eagle P UC UC

American Kestrel FA‑SP UC UC

Scaled Quail\* P R

Killdeer P R

Spotted Sandpiper W R

Upland Sandpiper FA R

Mourning Dave P UC C

Greater Roadrunner P R

Great Horned Owl\* P UC

Common Nighthawk SP‑FA C C

Common Poorwill SP‑FA UC

White‑throated Swift P UC

Black‑chinned Hummingbird SP‑FA UC

Ladder‑backed Woodpecker P UC C

Northern (r‑s) Flicker W R

Western Wood Pewee SP/FA UC C

Say=s Phoebe\* P UC C

Ash‑throated Flycatcher SP‑FA C C

Western Kingbird SP-FA R R

Cliff Swallow\* SP‑FA C C

Cave Swallow\* SP‑FA C C

Scrub Jay FA R

Pinyon Jay W R

Cactus Wren P C

Rock Wren\* P UC C

Canyon Wren P C

Bewick\'s Wren P UC UC

Ruby‑crowned Ringlet FA‑SP UC UC

Western Bluebird W R R

Mountain Bluebird W R R

Townsend\'s Solitaire W R R

Hermit Thrush W R R

American Robin SP R

Northern Mockingbird\* P R C

Sage Thrasher FA‑SP C UC

Curve‑billed Thrasher P C C

American Pipit FA‑SP R

Bell=s Vireo SP‑FA R

Gray Vireo SP R

Yellow‑rumped (A) Warbler FA‑SP UC

Wilson=s Warbler SP/FA UC

Summer Tanager SU R

Pyrrhuloxia\* P C

Blue Grosbeak\* SP‑FA UC

Green‑tailed Towhee W R

Rufous‑sided Towhee FA‑SP UC C

Canyon Towhee P C C

Rufous‑crowned Sparrow\* P C C

Chipping Sparrow FA‑SP UC C

Brewer=s Sparrow FA‑SP UC

Field Sparrow W R

Black‑chinned Sparrow W R

Vesper Sparrow FA‑SP C

Black‑throated Sparrow\* P C C

lark Bunting FA‑SP UC UC

White‑crowned Sparrow FA‑SP C C

Dark‑eyed (Oregon) junco W UC UC

Dark‑eyed (pink‑sided) Junco FA‑SP C C

Dark‑eyed (gray‑headed) junco W R

Eastern Meadowlark P UC UC

Western Meadowlark FA‑SP R R

Brown‑headed Cowbird P UC C

Scott\'s Oriole\* SP‑FA C UC

House Finch\* P UC UC

Lesser Goldfinch P UC

**Explanation of Symbols Used**:

\* = nesting activity in the area either of an active nest with eggs or
Young or dependent young accompanied by one or both parents.

**Seasonal Status**:

P = Permanent resident

SP = Spring migration

SU = Summer

FA = Fall migration

W = Winter

SP,FA - indicates a species that passes through the area in spring and
fall.

SP‑FA - indicates a species that occurs from spring through fall.

FA‑SP - indicates a species that migrates to the area in the fall,
winters over and leaves in the spring.

**Occurrence Status**:

C = Common ‑ recorded on at least 30‑100% of trips to the area.

UC = Uncommon ‑ recorded on 10‑30% of trips to the area.

R = Rare ‑recorded on less than 10% of trips to the area.

**[Table 4]{.underline}**

**[Herptofauna List for Withdrawal Area]{.underline}**

**Ridge** **Canyon**

**[Species]{.underline}** **[Tops]{.underline}**
**[Bottom]{.underline}**

Texas Banded Gecko ([Coleonyx]{.underline} [brevis]{.underline}) X X

Crevice Spiny Lizard ([Sceloporus]{.underline} [poinsetti]{.underline})
C UC

Eastern Fence Lizard ([Sceloporus]{.underline} [undulatus]{.underline})
C

Tree Lizard ([Urosaurus]{.underline} [ornatus]{.underline}) UC R

Round‑tailed Horned Lizard ([Phrynosoma]{.underline}
[modestum]{.underline}) R

Coachwhip ([Masticophis]{.underline} [flagellum]{.underline}) R

Striped Whipsnake ([Masticophis]{.underline} [taeniatus]{.underline}) UC

Trans‑Pecos Rat Snake ([Elaphe]{.underline} [subocularis]{.underline}) X
X

Gopher Snake ([Pituophis melanoleucus]{.underline}) R

Western Diamondback Rattlesnake ([Crotalus]{.underline}
[atrox]{.underline}) UC UC

Black‑tailed Rattlesnake ([Crotalus]{.underline} [molussus]{.underline})
X X

3.  Refers to status in which individuals were seen on 75% of trips to
    the study area.

UC: Refers to status in which individuals were seen on 25‑74% of trips
to the study area.

4.  Refers to status in which individuals were seen on less than 25% of
    trips to the study area.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  Species that probably occur but were not observed during this
    survey.

**[H. Wetland/Riparian Areas]{.underline}**

Federal policy defines wetlands as areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and which under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of
vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. (BLM Manual
1737)

BLM\'s manual further defines riparian areas as a form of wetland
transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas.
These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of
permanent surface or subsurface water influence. Lands along or adjacent
to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and
streams, potholes, and shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water
levels are typical riparian areas. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral
streams or washes that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation
dependent upon free water in the soil. (Technical Reference 1737-9,
1993)

Many of the various drainages in the proposed withdrawal area meet the
definition of riparian habitat as given above, some however, do not. The
natural interaction of the three mandatory components of classic
riparian areas: vegetation, soils/landform, and hydrology, is not
present in all drainages and arroyos in the area. However, in some
locations such as Dark Canyon, Woods Canyon, and others, a distinct
xeric-riparian community is evident. These areas meet the definition of
xeric-riparian communities: literally, \"dry\" riparian areas. The term
may seem contradictory, but is nevertheless appropriate. These types of
areas are abundant in the Chihuahuan Desert foothills. They differ from
classic riparian habitats in other, more mesic areas because of the
environment in which they exist. But they exhibit the diagnostic
characteristics of vegetation, landform, and hydrology that give them
unique status as riparian habitat.

These riparian systems are ecotones, or interfaces between aquatic and
terrestrial systems where components of each system overlap. In this
case, the arid characteristics of the Chihuahuan desert overlap into a
riparian area, and bestow its arid characteristics on that area.

The presence of native riparian vegetation (ie. little walnut, desert
willow, netleaf hackberry, and others) in the drainages is evidence of
an abundance of underground water. There are perennial springs and seeps
in various areas, some are mapped.

Needless to say, these areas are critical to wildlife occupying the
region. Some wildlife species are obligates to riparian areas, and it is
estimated that 70-80% of all wildlife species depend upon riparian areas
at some point in their life cycles. Many species of neotropical
migrants, some of which are listed species, depend on these areas for
nesting and reproduction. Some special status species, including Bell\'s
vireo and the Gray vireo, which are riparian obligates for nesting and
reproduction, have been inventoried in the project area along riparian
corridors such as Dark Canyon. Although these birds prefer the riparian
zone for nesting and breeding, they forage in contiguous areas, such as
grasslands, or the pinyon/juniper zone. Hence an integral relationship
between riparian systems and contiguous uplands is formed.

There is a great diversity of shrub, grass, and forb species associated
with the riparian drainages that provide food and cover for a variety of
desert wildlife. Deer are attracted to these areas as a result of
thermal cover and micro climate produced by woody vegetation

**[I. Floodplain]{.underline}**

Based on Flood Hazard Boundary Maps for this area, the following areas
are noted as Special Flood hazard Areas (100 year floodplain):

> T. 24 S., R. 23 E., portions of sections 23, 26, 27, 28, and 33

T. 24 S., R. 24 E., portions of section 16

T. 24 S., R. 25 E., portions of sections 10, 15, and 16

T. 24 S., R. 26 E., portions of sections 17 and 18.

**[III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS]{.underline}**

The following elements were considered and were found to be either not
present or are not affected: air quality, floodplains,
wetlands/riparian, prime/unique farmlands, and wild and scenic rivers.

**[A. Impacts of the Proposed Action]{.underline}**

Existing uses of the land may continue in accordance with their terms,
(except for the location or relocation of mining claims during the
pendency of the 2-year segregative period), including but not limited to
livestock grazing, lawful ingress and egress to any valid mining claims
and patented claims and mineral leases that may exist on the subject
land or nearby public lands inside the existing cave protection area,
use of all rights-of-way, lawful access to non-Federal lands and
interests in lands, all current recreational uses including caving,
hunting, camping and day use, and all commercial uses being conducted
under special use permits.

> **1. Caves** - The proposed action would provide the caves and karst
> resources in the area with a much higher degree of protection than
> they currently have. The cave and karst resources would not be
> threatened by development from any of the solid mineral extractive
> industries such as locatable mining under the 1872 Mining Law or guano
> extraction subject to valid existing rights. There would still be some
> threat to cave and karst resources from oil and gas development on
> existing leases and from existing wells and production facilities. The
> extent of this threat is dependent on the number of leases, their
> location, and the reasonable foreseeable development of future wells.
> The specific impacts to caves and karst assets may be found in the
> alternatives section.
>
> **2. Soil/Water/Air** - Currently, these lands can be developed for
> oil/gas, which could lead to construction of pads, roads, powerlines,
> flowlines, and other production facilities. These soil disturbing
> actions mix the soil horizons and remove vegetative cover. This can
> lead to reduced water infiltration and higher runoff, decreasing
> groundwater recharge and increasing sediment yield downstream. Dust,
> vehicle/machinery exhaust, and venting or flaring of gases can reduce
> air quality, especially on a local scale.
>
> By expanding the cave protection zone to include these offered lands,
> potential impacts to the soil, water, and air resources will be
> reduced. No future oil/gas development will occur, so additional
> surface disturbing actions, as described above, would not take place.
> By eliminating additional road and pad construction, for example, no
> mixing of soil horizons would occur, no caliche would be placed on the
> soil surface, and no vegetative cover would be lost. The precipitation
> would be allowed to infiltrate at normal rates, runoff will be in
> balance with the native soils, and the vegetative cover will continue
> to protect the soil surface from water erosion.
>
> Impacts to the soil, water, and air resources from grazing, hunting,
> camping, and other commercial uses conducted under special permits are
> not expected to be different from those occurring now.
>
> **3. Leasable Minerals** - Existing Oil & Gas Leases:
>
> NM-29202 to SES OG Inc.
>
> NM-12829 to Durango Production Corp.
>
> NM-88095 to Yates Energy Corp.
>
> NM-31636 to D. L. Cook
>
> NM-96827 to Southwestern Energy Production Co.
>
> NM-96828 to Murphy H. Baxter
>
> NM-0441778-B to C & K 1975 Exploration
>
> NM-18289 to C&K 1975 Exploration Ltd.
>
> NMLC-065347 to Chevron USA, Inc.
>
> The oil and gas resources that are not currently leased would not be
> produced and would remain as a reserve. Those lands that are leased
> would be withdrawn subject to valid existing rights. The leases could
> be developed with subsurface mitigative measures called AEnhanced
> Precautionary Operations@. Existing leases not held by production
> would expire or terminate without further exploration.
>
> **4. Archaeological/Paleontological** - No impacts to cultural
> resources are anticipated as result of the withdrawal. Under BLM=s
> Protocol with the New Mexico SHPO implementing the National
> Programmatic Agreement for Cultural Resources, special land use
> designations that do not authorize surface disturbance are not
> considered undertakings (Information Bulletin NM-98-09, Appendix 11,
> [General]{.underline} #3). The withdrawal to expand the cave
> protection zone falls under this provision. If the identified state
> are acquired, they would be treated the same as Federal lands. No
> additional cultural resource investigations are required for the
> withdrawal action.
>
> **5. Vegetation** - Under the proposed action the withdrawal of these
> lands from future oil and gas leasing and mining would result in no
> new road, pad, or rights of way development. This would reduce the
> amount of vegetation destroyed or lost on these lands.
>
> **6. Range** - The proposed action would cause no adverse impacts to
> the grazing allottees or their operations. The allotments would
> continue to be managed in the same way they are now. If the State
> lands within these allotments were exchanged and became BLM land, the
> percent of Federal land within each allotment would change, which
> would also affect the grazing fees paid to the Bureau of Land
> Management. This would, however, be offset by reduced grazing fees the
> permittees would pay to the State. Any range improvements currently
> located on State land that became BLM land would be permitted by the
> BLM. The cost of the range improvements which were constructed by the
> permittee, would be clearly shown on the new BLM permit. The full
> impact of an exchange of State and Federal lands will be analyzed
> under a separate Environmental Assessment.
>
> **7. Special Status Species-** Special status species and their
> occupied habitats within the withdrawal area will not be affected by
> the proposed action as they would be protected from mining and oil and
> gas development whether the withdrawal is completed or not. However,
> the withdrawal will afford increased protection for those habitats
> that have not been surveyed, and which have a high potential for
> special status species to occur. This is especially true of the
> Federally threatened Lee's pincushion cactus which is known to exist
> within the withdrawal area, as well as the other special status plant
> species.
>
> **8. Wildlife** - The withdrawal will remove the potential of oil and
> gas development and mining occurring within an area that houses a
> dense and diverse population of wildlife. There would be a decrease in
> the displacement and harassment of wildlife in the area. The normal
> direct impacts from oil and gas development and/or mining (i.e.
> increased roads, human presence, etc.) will not occur. The indirect
> impacts such as increased illegal harvest of game and non-game species
> due to the increased access will not occur if the proposed action is
> implemented.
>
> **9. Riparian** - Those areas considered riparian and/or wetlands
> within the withdrawal zone would be protected on the surface from
> mining and oil and gas development whether the withdrawal is
> implemented or not. However, drilling for oil and gas could cause
> contamination to the springs and/or xeric drainages through subsurface
> geology. Additionally, illegal dumping of produced water and/or
> hydrocarbons, pipeline leaks or accidental spills, which are all apart
> of oil and gas development and production, could cause contamination
> to the springs and xeric drainage bottoms throughout the area. For
> example, Walt spring, which is located on state land, has been
> polluted by an adjacent well
>
> **10. Floodplain** - By expanding the cave protection zone to these
> lands, no additional oil/gas development in the floodplain would
> occur. Vegetative cover would not be disturbed and soil resources
> would not be impacted, allowing the floodplains to function in their
> natural processes. Water infiltration and release and sediment
> transfer/deposition will continue as it does now.
>
> **11. Environmental Justice** - The impact to minority or low-income
> populations or communities was considered low to non-existent and no
> significant impact is anticipated.
>
> **12. Social and Economic** - Positive impacts to the tourism industry
> could be expected due to the protection of the cave resources and the
> lack of oil and gas development along the scenic corridor between the
> City of Carlsbad and Carlsbad Caverns National Park. These impacts
> would be related to a higher quality visitor experience.
>
> The loss of lease sale revenues, production royalties, right-of-way
> rental fees, and taxes generated by the exploration and development of
> the petroleum resources would be incurred. Eddy County ranked second
> in oil production and fourth in natural gas production among New
> Mexico counties.

**[B. Impacts of Alternative (No Action)]{.underline}**

> **1. Caves** - This action would allow entry, sale, settlement,
> location, and mining claims upon the lands under the general land laws
> and the 1872 Mining Law, and mineral leasing actions including fluid
> leasables such as oil and gas, and solid leasables such as phosphates.
> Under this alternative, surface and subsurface disturbing activities
> could cause significant adverse impacts to cave and karst systems.
>
> The impacts from surface mining activities can increased soil erosion
> and siltation could impair water infiltration into the cave systems
> through its normal routes and adversely alter speleothem growth.
> Mining exploration, development, and production activities could
> further affect both water and air movement patterns and quality. These
> elements are major factors affecting formation growth, and wildlife
> use in the cave systems. Any microflora or fauna within the caves has
> evolved because of the balance between water, air, and temperature.
> This balance is extremely delicate. Therefore, any surface or soil
> disturbing activities that increase or decrease the amount of air or
> water would have negative impacts on the cave system.
>
> The sale, entry, settlement or location of these lands could result in
> the divesting of the property from management and protection within
> Federal Laws and BLM policies and regulations.
>
> Mining activities or the drilling for mineral samples could open new
> air passages to the surface, which would influence or alter normal
> cave temperatures and change the flow of air and/or water through the
> cave, thus changing the caves microclimate could affect both the
> wildlife and mineral deposition in the cave. If mining operations were
> begun near a cave they could continue until all of the rock
> surrounding the void of the cave was totally mined away thus
> eliminating the cave completely.
>
> Leachate-type mining, if used, would entail injection of a solution
> into the ground for the mineral extraction process. This solution, if
> it entered into the cave system could drastically and adversely affect
> the caves ecosystem both chemically and thermally.
>
> The desirability of these caves for recreational use could decrease
> and possibly become even more hazardous depending upon the degree in
> which air and/or water movements are altered and the amount of
> blasting and other structural modifications that are made on the
> surface.
>
> The use of heavy geophysical equipment, blasting, and vibraseise
> techniques may cause the collapse of cave rooms or passages. This
> poses a physical impact to the cave resources and a health and safety
> hazard to the operator. The opening of new entrances to the surface
> would influence or alter normal cave temperatures and change the flow
> of air and/or water through the cave, thus changing the caves
> microclimate. This change in the constant microclimate could affect
> both the wildlife and mineral deposition in the cave.
>
> If a void were encountered at any depth during drilling the primary
> initial impact would be the loss of circulation (partial or complete).
> Drilling fluids, (e.g., water, additives, lost circulation material,
> cuttings, and mud) would be pumped under pressure into the void. It
> would be customary for an operator to continue drilling without
> returns coming back to the surface until the desired depth for setting
> casing is reached.
>
> In the first several hundred feet of drilling, fresh water would be
> used, so the primary substance entering a cave would be cuttings from
> the drilling. If drilling is not stopped if a cave passage were
> encountered, the water and cuttings would continue to flood the cave
> until the lost circulation was under control. At depths below the
> first several hundred feet, depending on the type of void encountered,
> mud constituents, length of drilling time, and extent of lost
> circulation, the drilling fluids would flood the cave passage or void
> that were encountered. The volume of contaminants could range from a
> few hundred barrels to several thousand barrels of cuttings and
> drilling fluids in a mostly freshwater solution.
>
> The impact of this type of flooding would cause the breakage of
> speleothems (cave formations), disruption of cave sediments,
> contamination of micro-organisms in the cave, and possible localized
> changes in chemistry of nearby sediments and secondary deposits. These
> chemical changes could affect the growth or dissolution of
> speleothems.
>
> Drilling into a cave, even without the impacts of drilling fluids,
> cement and lost circulation materials, would adversely affect the
> cave. The delicate equilibrium between barometric pressure,
> temperature, and humidity in a cave can be altered by a bore hole,
> whether or not the cave has a natural entrance to the surface.
> Speleothems, any cave micro-organisms present, and other natural
> processes would be altered. The creation of a new opening to the
> surface would cause changes in the air flow patterns in the cave
> during the time that the hole was open. These air flow changes would
> create unnatural temperature and humidity regimes altering the
> microclimate of the cave, possibly causing the reduction of speleothem
> growth, the drying out of speleothems, and destruction or alteration
> of micro-organisms.
>
> If a cave passage or void were water-filled, drilling fluids would be
> introduced. The void would fill completely or be plugged with
> cuttings, causing circulation of drilling fluids to return to the
> surface after a few hours or days of drilling. It is presumed that the
> loss of circulation materials into a dry void would be of more
> significance than if the void were water-filled.
>
> The use of lined mud pits could cause incremental contamination of
> cave environments by leaching chemicals after the pits were broken and
> allowed to dry. The soluble chemical constituents in the mud would
> percolate down through the natural fractures in the rock carried by
> the rain water and enter the cave and water systems. It is this same
> percolation of rain water that provides the water for the development
> of speleothems. Leaching of chemicals could also occur due to leaking
> flowlines, gas dehydrators and tanks. The chemicals and other
> constituents could change the chemical composition of the minerals
> forming speleothems and adversely alter the cave atmosphere. This
> chemically-altered atmosphere could cause the deterioration of
> existing speleothems and/or prevent their natural growth.
>
> During completion, when the well casing is set to the desired depth, a
> mixture of cement and additives would be pumped down the casing, and
> then back up outside and around the casing to form a protective sheath
> of cement between the casing and the well bore. If voids have been
> encountered and there is a loss of circulation, the cement mixture
> would enter a portion of the void and remain there permanently. This
> volume could amount to as much as several hundred cubic feet of
> cement, the total volume of the annulus.
>
> The impacts from cementing voids become more important if a very
> large, dry cave passage were encountered. In such cases, thousands of
> cubic feet of cement could be pumped into the void to ensure a cement
> sheath is formed around the steel casing. Pea gravel or cementing
> chemicals would be pumped around the casing and into the void, with
> additional cementing following for remedial work. When gravel is used,
> the integrity of the cement sheath can be impaired. The cement and pea
> gravel form a concentric core around the casing from the bottom of the
> void to the top of the void, ensuring the formation of a cement
> sheath. In such cases, a portion of the void would be permanently
> filled with cement and gravel.
>
> In a worst case situation during the drilling, completion, or
> production of a well, natural gas could settle in the bottom of
> sinkholes and migrate into caves, or fractures which lead to a cave,
> and contaminate them. If natural gas were to flow through an open hole
> or through casing/cement that either failed or was inadvertently
> perforated, the gas would follow passages or other routes, such as
> small fractures or faults, and eventually contaminate a cave or cave
> system. The risk to humans and all other cave fauna from the migration
> of hydrogen sulfide and/or methane gas could be substantial.
> Explosions could result when the gas and oxygen in the cave mix and
> are ignited by carbide lights often used by cavers. The replacement of
> oxygen by the other gases endangers humans and other fauna by
> asphyxiation.
>
> Cave values would be damaged by explosion. The presence of hydrogen
> sulfide and methane gas, even in small amounts, could change the
> delicate balance of the cave atmosphere, causing the rapid
> deterioration of cave formations and the disruption or death of cave
> life.
>
> After a well was depleted and then plugged and abandoned, impacts to
> cave values could also occur if explosive or poisonous gases leaked
> into a void or fracture which communicated with a cave. This could
> occur as a result of deterioration of casing over time and/or an
> ineffective cementing operation during completion of additional wells.
> The steel casing may deteriorate over time because of interactions of
> the casing with hydrogen sulfide gas and other natural elements.
>
> Also, the increase of traffic resulting from oil and gas exploration
> and production could result in more unauthorized cave use and greater
> potential for vandalism in caves.
>
> Any of the impacts described above would have highly significant
> affects on the continuation of recreational use and scientific studies
> and exploration of cave resources in the area. Research currently
> being conducted in the fields of biology, geology, mineralogy, and
> paleontology as well as recreational use, would be severely disrupted
> is the cave systems were contaminated with hydrogen sulfide or methane
> gases.
>
> **2. Soils/Air** - Additional development of roads, pads, and
> rights-of-way could lead to runoff from caliche surfaces. This would
> lead to increased sediment yield during runoff events. If pads, roads,
> or other related facilities are placed on steep slopes (\> 30%), this
> would require cut and fill construction to create a level pad. The
> additional surface disturbance could make these areas more susceptible
> to erosion. An increase in erosion would remove top soil, making it
> more difficult for plants to grow. Loss of soil would also lead to
> sediment transport. Should this damage be severe enough to rupture a
> pipeline, releases of hydrocarbons, produced water, or other fluids
> would negatively impact soil fertility. This would result in a
> reduction of vegetative cover, further increasing susceptibility to
> erosion. In addition, caliche covered pads and roads would restrict
> infiltration and increase runoff. This could lead to lower ground
> water recharge rates and increased sediment yields downstream.
>
> Dust from roads, pads, surface disturbance, and vehicle/machinery
> exhaust could impact air quality locally; especially along the park
> border.
>
> **3. Archaeological/Paleontological** - Cultural resources could be
> significantly impacted under this alternative. Impacts to cultural
> resources would include both direct effects of oil and gas and mineral
> development and indirect effects caused by increased use of the area.
> The potential impacts to cultural resources would be similar to those
> identified in the Dark Canyon EIS (Pages 4-16-4-17). Treatments would
> also be similar and in conformance with Cultural Resource Program
> guidance and objectives identified in the Carlsbad RMP and RMPA.
>
> **4. Vegetation** - Continued development of roads, pads and
> rights-of-way would result in increased disturbance and loss of
> vegetation. A typical scenario with a completed drilling pad and 500
> feet of road would destroy about 1.5 acres. A pipeline one mile long,
> with a 30 foot wide work zone, would remove 3.6 acres of vegetation.
>
> **5. Range** - Under this alternative the grazing operation would
> continue in the same way as they are currently run. A small percentage
> of potential grazing land would be removed from production as a result
> of the construction of new roads and considering that these roads
> would remain in use even after the wells were depleted. Additional
> land would be temporarily (50 years) lost to forage production as a
> result of the construction of well pads and pipelines.
>
> **6. Special Status Species** - If the proposed action does not occur,
> future oil field development activities such as construction of roads,
> well-pads, and buried pipelines could destroy individual members of
> these species. Additionally, by opening up new corridors of travel to
> off-road and other vehicle use, public use of these corridors will
> increase thereby posing an additional threat to these species should
> they be present. Oil field development activities will also impact
> acreages that potentially could be used to augment special status
> plant populations
>
> Habitat for some of the special status plants in the area is limited
> to the rocky limestone ledges and outcroppings of the breaks and
> canyons in the area. These areas should be uniformly avoided. If
> construction activities are unavoidable in habitat suitable for
> special status plants, a survey to detect these plants will be
> completed prior to the beginning of surface disturbing activities.
>
> If any type of surface contamination were to occur in the proximity of
> an individual or population of special status plants, that individual
> or population would possibly be damaged or destroyed.
>
> Where special status species are known to occur and where surface
> disturbing activities are increasing, the potential for species to be
> reproductively successful decreases along with the possibility of
> delisting the species.
>
> [Special Status Animals]{.underline}
>
> Many of the special status species of animals in the area will occur
> in riparian or xeric-riparian areas, and areas of heavy cover or
> topographic relief, such as draws, wooded draws, canyons, and tree
> groves. The neotropical migrants and raptors as well as special status
> mammals and herptofauna, use these areas for hunting, feeding, and
> nesting. If surface disturbing activities are allowed in these areas,
> individual animals could be killed, nests could be destroyed, and the
> overall reproductive success of the species could be affected.
>
> Increased surface disturbing activities could affect the rodent and
> small mammal prey base for carnivores and raptors, thereby negatively
> impacting individuals or populations.
>
> Increased construction of power lines could interrupt flight paths and
> cause increased electrocution of special status raptors and other
> birds.
>
> Surface disturbing activities within 1/2 mile of golden eagle or
> ferruginous hawk nests, especially during breeding/nesting periods,
> (Feb.1-July 15) could cause nest abandonment and an overall decrease
> in reproductive success.
>
> Individual special status animals are somewhat mobile and may not be
> directly affected by development activities, but overall cumulative
> impacts on the species could be significant.
>
> **7. Wildlife** - Wildlife habitat alteration and destruction will be
> considerable due to the increased surface disturbance and vegetation
> clearing needed to facilitate the placement of permanent operational
> facilities such as well sites, roads, pipelines, worker
> accommodations, etc. The loss of vegetation will directly reduce the
> availability of cover types required by wildlife: escape, hiding,
> feeding, nesting and thermal. In essence, the effect of vegetation
> loss on wildlife will be felt both in the reduction of cover and in
> the loss of critical forage.
>
> Construction of new roads would open up, temporarily or permanently,
> previously inaccessible areas for recreation by local residents and
> workers. Upgrading existing roads will increase traffic yearround.
> Rost and Bailey (1979) report that deer and elk avoid roads,
> especially areas within 660 ft of the road. Specifically, road
> avoidance was greater along more heavily traveled roads, for deer in
> shrub habitat compared to pine and juniper, and in the species\'
> primary winter habitat. Improving access overall will increase both
> the legal and illegal kill of game and nongame animals throughout the
> area. Deliberate harassment of wildlife may occur in some situations.
> Varing levels of noise will be generated by construction machinery,
> heavy trucks and other traffic, blasting, drilling equipment, and
> other equipment and operations.
>
> Wildlife will be displaced due to the increased disturbance, traffic
> and general human intrusion. Increased mule deer populations attracted
> by the prescribed fire treatments and wildlife watering facilities
> within the area will be forced to move to other areas. Wildlife
> displaced as a result of human disturbance cannot be expected to find
> suitable, unoccupied habitat to support them in adjacent areas, but
> will potentially die of natural causes or displace other animals
> (Klein, 1972).
>
> Indirect effects will also result, creating long term effects to the
> wildlife populations. Field development and subsequent operation will
> produce a variety of environmental disruptions (i.e. well pad
> construction, road construction and maintenance, well maintenance,
> pipeline construction, increased traffic, improved access, etc.).
> Table 5 summarizes the primary impacts resulting from each type of
> environmental disruption caused from oil and gas field operation
> (Bromley, 1985). Undisturbed animals will normally exhibit patterns of
> activity and habitat selection that result in optimization of energy
> expenditure (Morganini and Hudson 1979)\--([Energy expenditure is
> related to the level of daily activity in addition to maintenance of
> body temperature (Geist 1978)]{.underline}). However, all phases of
> oil and gas development and operation could cause deviations in the
> daily activity of the wildlife within the area. Deviations from the
> normal activity patterns and habitat use will have a very significant
> effect on the amount of their available energy and, therefore, the
> welfare and productivity of an animal and/or a population could
> suffer. If an animal is unable to compensate for such increases in
> energy utilization, reproduction, growth, and survival could be
> greatly reduced (Geist 1970; Owens 1977). According to Geist (1979)
> increased energy utilization is most detrimental, for ungulates in
> particular, during critical times of the year when the animals are
> already in a state of heavy energy utilization, e.g., weather
> extremes, late pregnancies, reproduction and weight maintenance.
> Within the Guadalupe Mountain range, very extreme temperatures (up to
> 110 C) occur on a regular basis during the late spring through early
> fall. In addition, normal yearly rainfall averages 3-5 inches,
> bringing about extremely dry conditions during critical times of the
> year (mainly spring fawning and nesting season). Thus, additional
> energy costs could be incurred on the deer population, and increasing
> the energy deficit on which they typically exist during the winter. As
> a result, survival and reproductive potential may be reduced the
> following year.
>
> These disruptions (short and long term) will also obstruct travel
> routes and overall movement of large mammals such as mule deer,
> causing additional expenditure of energy.
>
> The presence of human-associated structures and facilities (buildings,
> roads, pipelines, powerlines) will also increase, generating
> substantial human intrusion into critical wildlife habitat. Human
> intrusion will result from activities directly related to oil field
> operations, and secondary activities related to the resultant
> increases in access and population.
>
> There will be a greater demand on wildlife and its habitat for
> recreational purposes. Some data indicate that
> energy-development-related workers have a higher demand for outdoor
> recreation, especially hunting and use of recreational vehicles, and
> therefore a greater potential for increasing impacts on wildlife, than
> do resident populations in development areas (Streeter and others
> 1979). The effects from these secondary activities will be greater
> over the long term than those from the development phase itself.
>
> Oil and gas development in the proposed field development area could
> cause raptor nest abandonment or destruction of nesting structure.
> Prey bases for raptors could be reduced from surface disturbing
> activities.Heater treater and dehydrator units at producing wellsites
> would cause mortality of raptors, neotropical migrants, and bats.
> Increased traffic and human intrusion could result in deliberate
> harrasment of these species. Improperly covered pits and tanks would
> result in mortality of terrestrial and avian species. Upland game
> birds could suffer a decline due to added stress of habitat disruption
> and depletion of food and cover.
>
> [Wildlife Habitat Improvements]{.underline}
>
> The developed wildlife watering units constructed along the north side
> of the CCNP boundary through the Habitat Improvement Stamp Program,
> have accrued a high level of use from the wildlife populations within
> the area. All of these watering units have been in place for 2 to 10
> years, and the wildlife populations, especially mule deer, have become
> highly dependent on them. Disturbance (i.e. noise, traffic, human
> intrusion, etc.) within a certain distance of these wildlife waters
> will eliminate wildlife use of the facilities.
>
> As mentioned previously, a major portion of the EA study area has,
> over the past five years, been treated with prescribed fire. These
> prescribed burns, in combination with wildlife water placement, were
> implemented to improve deer habitat, and inevitably, increase deer
> numbers. As stated by Mackie and Pac (1980), \"a reduction in the
> amount, quality, or availability to deer of winter range, as a result
> of direct habitat loss or disturbance, can be expected to decrease
> numbers of deer on the winter range and in areas used by those deer in
> summer and fall. Loss of some areas will concentrate deer in smaller
> areas and/or force them to use marginal habitat.\"
>
> Inevitably, the amount of development which can potentially occur
> within the Withdrawal area will influence deer abundance along the
> CCNP boundary, subsequently eliminating the viability of the watering
> units.
>
> **8. Wetlands/Riparian/xero-riparian Zones**
>
> Since most of the riparian habitat in the proposed field development
> area occurs in draw bottoms and canyons, development on the associated
> slopes could negatively impact riparian areas downslope from the
> development. Erosion downslope could cause increased sedimentation,
> and spills of toxic substances could cause contamination of riparian
> resources downslope.
>
> Construction of roads, pipelines, and wellpads in riparian areas can
> cause many water quantity and quality problems. Heavy sedimentation
> and stagnation can result. Water movement and the normal constructive
> chemical/physical processes involved in healthy riparian systems can
> be destroyed by surface disturbing activity if these activities occur
> in close proximity to the riparian area. These activities can alter
> habitat and disturb microclimates. The removal of understory and
> canopy vegetation affects aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Increased
> human activities and increased noise levels cause animals to move
> away. Primary sources of food and shelter can become lost, and
> increased erosion takes place. Increased roads and corridors through
> riparian areas may also increase predation, and increase levels of
> legal and illegal harvest of animals.
>
> Spills of toxic substances near riparian areas can alter the whole
> chemical/physical balance and microclimate of the riparian system and
> render it unusable and unbeneficial to living organisms.
>
> **9. Floodplain** - If pads, roads, or other related facilities are
> placed within floodplain boundaries, they will be susceptible to flood
> damage. Should this damage be severe enough to rupture a tank or
> pipeline, releases of hydrocarbons, produced water, or other fluids
> would negatively impact both surface and ground water quality. In
> addition, caliche covered pads and roads would restrict infiltration
> and increase runoff. This could lead to lower ground water recharge
> rates and increased sediment yields downstream.

**[C. Cumulative Impacts]{.underline}**

> **1. Caves** - The cumulative impacts for developing oil and gas
> fields could have highly negative effects on cave environments.
> Drilling fluids, cuttings or cement that would enter voids or cave
> passages would not be recovered. In the case of small voids, the voids
> would be plugged. In the case of a cave, a passage or room could be
> partially or completely plugged, most likely by cement or a mixture of
> cement and gravel.
>
> The drilling, completion, production and abandonment of multiple well
> locations increases the probability of impacting cave resources. The
> potential impact of drilling fluids, cement, hydrocarbons, and
> leaching of chemicals from leaking pipelines and storage tanks into
> cave resources and water aquifers dependent on karst recharge cave
> ecosystems increases with each well drilled. The loss of plant and
> animal life will also increase. These impacts become more significant
> when considering the long term effects on known and undiscovered caves
> from successive wells that are drilled, produced, and abandoned over
> time.
>
> Long-term impacts of leaky casings due to corroded pipe or poor
> cementing could allow hydrocarbons to leak into the cave systems and
> cause permanent irreversible and irretrievable damage to the
> environment and cave resources, possibly causing death from explosions
> or asphyxiation to all life forms. Also, the increase of traffic
> resulting from oil and gas exploration and production could result in
> more unauthorized cave use and greater potential for vandalism of
> caves.
>
> Conclusion: The no action alternative would leave all the cave
> resources without adequate protection from the disturbing activities
> of mining claim operations and oil and gas production. The caves would
> also be subject to divestiture under the public land laws and would
> lose the protection afforded them by Federal ownership.
>
> **2. Soil/Air/ Water** - As discussed in caves above, any fluids,
> cuttings, or cement spilled on the surface would contaminate the soil.
> This could lead to loss of vegetative cover and an increased potential
> for soil erosion. A large spill or release, or a smaller release
> followed by a rainfall event, could make its way to surface water.
> This would be a negative impact to surface water quality. If these
> materials enter voids that could reach a water table, contamination of
> that water is possible. Air quality impacts due to dust, vehicle
> exhaust, or flaring of wells would most likely be on a local scale.
>
> **3. Archaeological/Paleontological** - The cumulative impacts of oil
> and gas development in the withdrawal area is anticipated to be
> largely negative. Direct effects could occur where sites are impacted
> by pad construction, road construction and upgrading, construction of
> powerlines and pipelines, and geo-physical exploration. These impacts
> may be offset somewhat by attaching stipulations to APD's, sundry
> notices, and Notices of Intent (NOI) to either avoid identified
> cultural resources or if avoidance is not possible, mitigation of
> impacts to the sites. Indirect effects to cultural resources could
> occur by opening up previously undeveloped areas, which in turn may
> lead to increased, unauthorized vandalism and collection from
> arch-aeological, historical, and paleontological sites.
>
> **4. Vegetation** - The cumulative impacts of continued oil and gas
> development in this area could lead to a large amount of vegetation
> lost, especially if the leases were fully developed.
>
> **5. Range** - If the leases in this area were fully developed and
> enough vegetation was destroyed the animal unit months (AUMs) of
> available forage would be reduced and the grazing permit could be
> reduced accordingly.
>
> **6. Floodplain -** Since these areas are avoided, cumulative impacts
> are expected to be minimal.

**[D. Mitigation Measures]{.underline}**

**1. Proposed Action**

> **a. Caves** - If the proposed action is accepted no new mining claims
> would be allowed and no new oil and gas leases would be sold.
> Therefore, no mitigations would be necessary. Individual cave
> management plans would be developed as necessary. These individual
> cave management plans will be continually monitored and updated as new
> information becomes available.
>
> **b. Soil/Air/ Water** - If the proposed action is accepted no new
> mining claims would be allowed and no new oil and gas leases would be
> sold. The impacts to the soil, water, and air resources caused by
> mining or oil/gas exploration would not occur, so no mitigation
> measures would be needed.
>
> **c. Archaeological/Paleontological** - Since the proposed action
> meets the requirements of not being considered an undertaking, no
> mitigation measures, other than those already identified for caves are
> necessary. Sites and Paleontological localities on state lands, if
> acquired, would come under the protection of Federal cultural resource
> laws and regulations.
>
> **d. Vegetation** - No mitigation measures would be needed.
>
> **e. Range** - No mitigation measures would be needed.
>
> **f. Special Status Species** - No mitigation measures would be
> needed.
>
> **g. Wildlife** - No mitigation measures would be needed.
>
> **h. Floodplain** - Since the proposed action involves no new lease
> sales, development would be within existing leases. Standard
> mitigation of avoiding floodplain areas would be sufficient.
>
> **2. No Action**
>
> **a. Caves** - Mitigation measures for the development of any mining
> claim over five acres would be addressed in the site specific
> environmental assessment for each mining claim location. Such measures
> could include recontouring of surface disturbances, reseeding of
> vegetation, and the sealing of any unnatural entrances that were
> created during the mining activity. These measures would help reduce
> the impacts of the mining activities, but by no means would prevent
> the residual impacts from having irreversible or irretrievable effects
> on the cave environment. The oil and gas development would continue
> with enhanced precautionary operations. With no special mitigation for
> drilling, completion, and production operations in this sensitive
> environment, cave resources may be inadvertently intercepted and
> severely impacted by drilling fluids and cement under pressure and
> possible casing failures over the life of a well. Without a BLM effort
> to provide 24-hours-a day monitoring to ensure enforcement of
> regulations, and implementation of more protective conditions of
> approval, cave resources could be damaged. The Federal government
> could be required to pay some form of compensation to lessees for the
> taking of development rights which would be undrillable.
>
> **b. Soil/Air/ Water** - Standard practices such as sighting pads on
> level or nearly level ground, using ridgelines instead of side slopes
> for roads, and taking advantage of existing right-of-way corridors
> should reduce impacts to soil resources. Additional mitigation, such
> as using existing pads to directional drill, would reduce impacts to
> soils. Dust abatement and flaring restrictions could mitigate air
> quality impacts. Water resources can be protected by proper road
> design, using water bars and lead out ditches as needed, to reduce
> erosion and sediment yield.
>
> **c. Vegetation** - As developments were abandoned measures would need
> to be taken to revegetate the disturbed sites. Standard mitigation
> involving ripping the caliche pad and road then reseeding is usually
> not fully successful because the caliche is a poor medium for seedling
> establishment, precipitation is not dependable, and high summer
> temperatures stress new plants. Measures such as removal of caliche,
> adding fertilizer to seed mixtures, and watering could be employed.
> However, due to the shallow nature of most of these soils,
> establishment of vegetation will be difficult.
>
> **d. Floodplain** - Standard mitigation of avoiding floodplain areas
> would be sufficient.

**[E. Residual Impacts]{.underline}**

> **1. Proposed Action**
>
> **a. Caves** - The residual impacts of the proposed withdrawal would
> constitute the long term protection of the unique and non-renewable
> cave and karst resources. Once the area is withdrawn, there would be a
> loss of possible mining activities and oil and gas leasing. This would
> allow BLM to have total management control of the surface and
> subsurface and be better able to protect the cave and karst
> resources.. The loss of mining activities and oil and gas leasing
> would persist for the term of the withdrawal.
>
> **b. Soil/Air/ Water** - The proposed withdrawal would limit residual
> impacts to existing leases. Potential for erosion and/or contamination
> of resources would remain for the life of any existing pad or
> pipeline, due to large runoff events across caliche surfaces or spills
> and leaks.
>
> **c. Archaeological/Paleontological** - Residual impacts to cultural
> resources in the withdrawal area would be a reduced possibility of
> impact since the area would not be open to some land disturbing
> activities. If acquired, sites on state lands in the withdrawal area
> would be protected by stronger Federal cultural resource laws. It is
> likely that as with other areas of the Carlsbad Field Office,
> archaeological sites and paleontological localities have been damaged
> by unauthorized collection. The information lost from these sites is
> not recoverable in a scientific context.
>
> **d. Vegetation** - The vegetation would not be disturbed or destroyed
> by oil and gas development and facilities.
>
> **e. Floodplain** - Residual impacts are expected to be minimal, since
> these areas are avoided.
>
> **2. No Action**
>
> **a. Caves** - If mining use and oil and gas developments are allowed
> to occur or portions of the cave systems and their environs are left
> unprotected there is the possibility that the non-renewable cave
> resources could be destroyed, recreational use and desirability could
> be severely impaired, and the groundwater quality and recharge
> capability could be significantly damaged or altered. This could
> result in an irreversible and irretrievable adverse impact to the cave
> and karst resources.
>
> **b. Soil/Air/ Water** - Continued development would increase the
> chances for soil erosion due to runoff from caliche surfaces. Existing
> pipelines and pads, and any new facilities, would have the potential
> for spills and leaks for the life of the project. This would have a
> negative impact on both soil and water resources.
>
> **c. Archaeological/Paleontological** - Proposed surface disturbing
> projects would be inventoried for cultural resources prior to
> approval. Sites and surface paleontological localities would be
> avoided, or tested and mitigated if they could not be avoided. All
> sites would be evaluated for listing on the National Register of
> Historic Places. Special stipulations may be attached to APD=s and
> other notices where there is high potential to indirectly effect
> cultural resources not directly in the proponent=s project area.
>
> **d. Vegetation** - The vegetation would continue to be lost or
> destroyed by oil and gas activity and development.

**e. Floodplain** - Residual impacts are expected to be minimal, since
these areas are avoided.

**[IV. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION]{.underline}**

**[A. Persons and Agencies Consulted]{.underline}**

Leslie M. Thiess - Field Office Manager, CFO, BLM

Rose Marie Havel - Archaeologist, CFO, BLM

Frank D\'Amore - Outdoor Recreation Planner, CFO, BLM

Link Lacewell - Hazardous Material Coordinator, CFO, BLM

Clarence Hougland - Realty Specialist, NMSO, BLM

Frank Deckert - Superintendent, Carlsbad Caverns National Park

Mike Baca - District Ranger, Guadalupe Ranger District, Lincoln National
Forest

Alice Eppers, District Representative, Rep. Joe Skeen=s Office

Ruth Martinez, Constituent Services Representative, Sen. Jeff Bingaman=s
Office

Julie Thompson, Constituent Services Representative, Sen. Jeff
Bingaman=s Office

Poe Corn, Sen. Pete Domenici=s Office

Mayor Gary Perkowski, Carlsbad, NM

Laurie Joe Kincaid, Eddy County Commissioner

Lucky Briggs, Eddy County Commissioner

John Heaton, NM State Senator

Ray Camp, Eddy County Commissioner

Joe M. Stell, NM State Representative

Bob and Barbara Forrest, West Hess Hills allotment

James Curtis Doyal, Last Chance Canyon allotment

Bill and Mona Hoyle, Serpentine Bends allotment.

Ridley Gardner, Mosely Canyon allotment

Roy T. Townsend, Lower Guadalupe Ridge allotment.

G. E. Judkins, Upper Jurnigan Draw allotment.

Loudon, Deming and McKissack Partners, Stetson Seep allotment.

Jack and Tamara Faulk, Ewing Place allotment

**[B. Public Participation and Involvement]{.underline}**

Several opportunities for public participation and coordination with
other agencies, organizations, and individuals has occurred. No adverse
comments concerning the withdrawal were received. The
Petition/Application for Withdrawal was approved on April 9, 1999, and
published in the [Federal Register]{.underline} on April 16, 1999.
Notice of the Proposed Withdrawal and Opportunity for Public Meeting was
signed on April 28, 1999, and published in the [Federal
Register]{.underline} on May 5, 1999, allowing for 90 days public
comment period, and in the [Carlsbad Current]{.underline}
[Argus]{.underline} on May 16, 1999. A public meeting was held Tuesday,
Dec. 7, 1999.

**DECISION RECORD AND**

**FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT**

EA-NM-080-9-515 S/N: NM-102308

[Recommendation]{.underline}: Withdrawal of 8,470.59 acres of Federal
surface and minerals and 480 acres of Federal minerals underlying
private surface to protect cave and karst systems north and northeast of
the existing Acave protection zone@ in accordance with the Dark Canyon
Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision of January, 1994. An
additional 8,198.72 acres of State land and mineral estate within the
proposed withdrawal area, if acquired by the United States, would become
subject to the withdrawal.

Authority for this action is the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of October 21, 1976, Public Law 94-579, Title II, Sec. 204.

The impact to minority or low-income populations or communities was
considered and no significant impact is anticipated.

[Rationale for Recommendation]{.underline}: The proposed withdrawal
would result in the increased protection of highly significant
nonrenewable cave and karst resources including there associated
groundwater recharge areas. The proposed withdrawal is consistent with
the Carlsbad Resource Management Plan and the RMP Amendment of 1997.

[Consultation]{.underline}: The Notice of Withdrawal was published in
the [Federal Register]{.underline} April 16, 1999. Individual meetings
were held with various members of the Eddy County Commission, State
Representative, State Senator, U. S. Representative, U. S. Senator. A
public meeting was held Tuesday, Dec. 7, 1999.

Prepared by: Susan Britt, Range/Vegetation

Steve Daly, Soil, Air, and Water

James R. Goodbar, Cave & Karst

Doug Melton, Archeology/Paleontology

John Sherman, Wildlife, Special Status Species, Wetlands/Riparian

Bobbe K. Young, Realty

Reviewed by: Doug Melton, Acting AFM for Lands and Resources

[FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT]{.underline}

I have reviewed this environmental assessment including the explanation
and resolution of any potentially significant environmental impacts. I
have determined that the proposed action, with the mitigation measures
described herein, will not have any significant impacts on the human
environment, and that an EIS is not required. I have determined that the
proposed action is in conformance with the approved land use plan.

Decision: The recommendation and rationale are adopted as my decision.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Leslie Thiess Date

Field Manager

Carlsbad Field Office, BLM