4-1

Rio Puerco

Resource Management Draft Plan & 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume II 

August 2012

United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management 

Albuquerque District

Rio Puerco Field Office
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED PLAN AND DRAFT 

ALTERNATIVES...................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.1 Organization of Chapter .....................................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Analytical Assumptions......................................................................................................4-1

4.1.3 Assumptions and Methodology for Minerals Development Impacts..................................4-2

4.1.4 Types of Impacts to be Addressed......................................................................................4-4

4.1.5 Incomplete or Unavailable Information..............................................................................4-4

4.1.6 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................................4-7

4.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives........................................................... 4-11

4.2.1 Air Resources...................................................................................................................4-11

4.2.2 Cave and Karst Resources................................................................................................4-18

4.2.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 4-21

4.2.4 Fire Management..............................................................................................................4-29

4.2.5 Forests and Woodlands ....................................................................................................4-37

4.2.6 Health and Safety ............................................................................................................. 4-46

4.2.7 Lands and Realty..............................................................................................................4-48

4.2.1 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................. 4-70

4.2.2 Livestock Grazing ............................................................................................................4-73

4.2.3 Mineral Resources............................................................................................................4-83

4.2.4 Paleontological Resources.............................................................................................. 4-112

4.2.5 Recreation and Visitor Services...................................................................................... 4-117

4.2.6 Renewable Energy.......................................................................................................... 4-134

4.2.7 Riparian Resources......................................................................................................... 4-149

4.2.8 Social and Economic Resources..................................................................................... 4-158

4.2.9 Soil and Water Resources............................................................................................... 4-182

4.2.10 Special Designations ..................................................................................................... 4-190

4.2.11 Special-Status Species................................................................................................... 4-216

4.1.2 Travel Management........................................................................................................ 4-237

4.2.12 Vegetative Communities ............................................................................................... 4-244

4.2.13 Visual Resources........................................................................................................... 4-251

4.2.14 Wildlife and Fisheries.................................................................................................... 4-260

4.2.15 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts....................................................................................... 4-281

5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.............................................................. 5-1

5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Public Scoping Meetings, Input, and Other Initial Meetings....................................... 5-1

5.2.1 Scoping Meetings...............................................................................................................5-1

5.2.2 Planning Themes Raised in Scoping Comments ................................................................5-2

5.2.3 Economic Profile System Workshops ................................................................................5-2

5.2.4 Training Sessions ...............................................................................................................5-3

5.2.5 Website...............................................................................................................................5-3

5.3 Description of Consultation and Collaborative Efforts ............................................... 5-3

5.3.1 Cooperating Agencies ........................................................................................................5-3

5.3.2 American Indian Entities....................................................................................................5-4

5.3.3 Federal Agencies and Members of Congress......................................................................5-5

5.3.4 State and County Agencies and Other Local Entities .........................................................5-5

5.3.5 Interest Groups...................................................................................................................5-6
2

5.4 Lists of Preparers and Reviewers................................................................................. 5-7

5.5 Plan Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 5-8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: RFD for Oil and Gas in the Planning Area.................................................................4-3

Table 4.2: RFD for All Minerals in on BLM lands in the Planning Area (acres) ....................... 4-4

Table 4.3: Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects Relevant to the RMP/EIS .......................... 4-8

Table 4.4: Proposed Fire Management Treatments (acres), by Vegetation Type ..................... 4-14

Table 4.5: Leasable Fluid Mineral Stipulations (acres), by Alternative .................................... 4-15

Table 4.6: Parcels Identified for Disposal (acres) by Alternative.............................................. 4-19

Table 4.7: Cultural Resource Site Density on BLM Lands in the Planning Area (acres) ......... 4-23

Table 4.8: Proposed Fuel Treatment Areas (acres) within Low to High Cultural Site Density 

Locations............................................................................................................................ 4-24

Table 4.9: Lands Identified for Disposal (acres), by Cultural Resource Site Density Level.... 4-24

Table 4.10: Proposed Special Designations (number and acres) within the Planning Area, by 

Alternative.......................................................................................................................... 4-25

Table 4.11: Cultural Resource Density Classes with the Proposed SRMA and ERMAs (acres) by 

Alternative.......................................................................................................................... 4-26

Table 4.12: Predicted Cultural Resource Site Densities within Forest Product Harvest Areas 

(acres).................................................................................................................................4-27

Table 4.13: Proposed Travel Management Decisions on Predicted Cultural Resource Site 

Densities on BLM Lands within the Planning Area (acres) .............................................. 4-28

Table 4.14: Forest Product Harvest Areas (acres) within RPFO Fire Management Units....... 4-30

Table 4.15: Proposed Fuel Treatment Areas (acres) by FRCC ................................................ 4-31

Table 4.16: Parcels Identified for Disposal (acres) in FRCC 2 and 3 by Alternative............... 4-31

Table 4.17: Acres of Proposed Livestock Grazing (acres) within RPFO Fire Management Units

............................................................................................................................................ 4-32

Table 4.18: Proposed Travel Management Decisions (acres), by Alternative ......................... 4-32

Table 4.19: Proposed Surface Restrictions (acres) to Protect Wildlife on BLM Lands within the 

Planning Area, by Alternative............................................................................................ 4-33

Table 4.20: Potential Areas Open for Forest Product Harvesting (acres) with a List of Restricted 

Areas, by Alternative ......................................................................................................... 4-37

Table 4.21: Forest and Woodlands (acres) Proposed as NSO, TL/CSU, or Closed to Oil and Gas 

Leasing, by Alternative...................................................................................................... 4-39

Table 4.22: Forest and Woodlands (acres) Proposed as Closed to Saleable Mineral Extraction, 

by Alternative..................................................................................................................... 4-39

Table 4.23: Forest and Woodlands (acres) Proposed as Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral 

Entry, by Alternative.......................................................................................................... 4-40

Table 4.24: Proposed Travel Management Decisions within Forest Product Harvest Areas (acres)

............................................................................................................................................ 4-40

Table 4.25: Proposed Special Designations (quantity and acres) within the Planning Area, by 

Alternative.......................................................................................................................... 4-47

Table 4.26: Proposed Land Tenure Adjustments (acres and percent of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area), by Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-49
3

Table 4.27: Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Transmission Line Rights-of-way (acres) on BLM 

lands within the Planning Area, by Alternative .................................................................4-49

Table 4.28: Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Roads and Pipeline Rights-of-way (acres) on 

BLM lands within the Planning Area, by Alternative ....................................................... 4-50

Table 4.29: Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Sites Rights-of-Way (acres) on BLM lands within 

the Planning Area, by Alternative...................................................................................... 4-52

Table 4.30: Total Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Rights-of-Way (acres), by Alternative ..4-53

Table 4.31: Fuel Treatment Areas (acres) within Lands with Wilderness Characteristics....... 4-71

Table 4.32: Livestock Grazing Areas (acres) within Lands with Wilderness Characteristics...4-71

Table 4.33: Fuelwood Harvest Areas (acres) within Lands with Wilderness Characteristics...4-73

Table 4.34: Comparison of Proposed Livestock Grazing Alternatives .................................... 4-74

Table 4.35: Acres of Grazing Allotments and AUMs Lost by Proposed Land Disposals, by 

Alternative.......................................................................................................................... 4-75

Table 4.36: Proposed Fuel Treatments with RPFO Grazing Allotments (acres), by Alternative..4-

77

Table 4.37: Proposed Forest Product Harvest Areas (acre), by Alternative............................. 4-77

Table 4.38: Livestock Grazing Allotments (acres and AUMs) Impacted by Proposed Special 

Designations and Leasing Stipulations, by Alternative ..................................................... 4-78

Table 4.39: Proposed Travel Management Categories (acres), by Alternative ......................... 4-78

Table 4.40: Proposed Land Disposals (acres) with Moderate or High Mineral Potential, by 

Alternative.......................................................................................................................... 4-85

Table 4.41: Proposed Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC and Bony Canyon ACEC (acres) with 

Moderate or High Mineral Potential, by Alternative ......................................................... 4-87

Table 4.42: Riparian Areas (acres) with Moderate or High Mineral Potential Protected by 

Proposed Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations, by Alternative.............................................. 4-88

Table 4.43: Sensitive Soils and Steep Slopes (acres) in Moderate and High Potential Areas 

Proposed for Protection from Oil and Gas Mineral Development, by Alternative ........... 4-88

Table 4.44: Proposed Mineral Restrictions (acres of moderate and high potential areas) within 

Proposed ACECs, by Alternative ...................................................................................... 4-89

Table 4.45: Proposed Surface Restrictions (acres) on High and Moderate Mineral Potential 

Areas to Protect Wildlife, by Alternative .......................................................................... 4-92

Table 4.46: Mineral Resource Development Restrictions (acres), by Mineral Type and 

Alternative.......................................................................................................................... 4-92

Table 4.47: Lands Identified for Disposal (acres), by PFYC and Alternative........................ 4-113

Table 4.48: Proposed Special Designations (number and acres) within the Planning Area, by 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-113

Table 4.49: Proposed Special Designations (quantity and acres) within the Planning Area, by 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-118

Table 4.50: Proposed SRMA and ERMAs (acres) on BLM Lands in the Planning Area...... 4-118

Table 4.51: Cultural Resource Sites Proposed for Allocation for Public Use, by Alternative4-120

Table 4.52: Proposed Travel Management Categories (acres), by Alternative ...................... 4-121

Table 4.53 Proposed Fuels Treatments (acres) within Proposed SRMA and ERMAs, by 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-122

Table 4.54: Proposed Forest Product Removal Areas (acres) within Proposed SRMA and 

ERMAs, by Alternative ................................................................................................... 4-123
4

Table 4.55: Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Solar Energy Projects on BLM lands within the 

Planning Area, by Alternative.......................................................................................... 4-134

Table 4.56: Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Wind Energy Projects on BLM lands within the 

Planning Area, by Alternative.......................................................................................... 4-136

Table 4.57: Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Geothermal Energy Projects on BLM lands 

within the Planning Area, by Alternative ........................................................................ 4-137

Table 4.58: Total Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Renewable Energy Projects (acres), by 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-138

Table 4.59: Proposed Fuels Treatments (acres) in Riparian Areas......................................... 4-151

Table 4.60: Proposed Special Designations (acres) in the Planning Area, by Alternative..... 4-155

Table 4.61: Riparian Areas (acres) Located within Lands Proposed for Management for 

Wilderness Characteristics............................................................................................... 4-156

Table 4.62: BLM Outputs, by Alternative ............................................................................... 4-159

Table 4.63: Average Annual Employment Contribution (number of jobs), by Sector and 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-163

Table 4.64: Average Annual Labor Income Contribution (thousands of 2012 dollars), by Sector 

and Alternative................................................................................................................. 4-164

Table 4.65: Payments to Counties (2010 dollars), by Alternative.......................................... 4-170

Table 4.66: Average Annual Employment1by Program (full and part-time jobs), by Alternative

.......................................................................................................................................... 4-171

Table 4.67: Average Annual Labor Income (thousands of 2010 dollars), by Program and 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-171

Table 4.68: ACECs, Lands Managed to protect Wilderness Characteristics, and VRM Class I 

and Class II Areas (acres), by Alternative ....................................................................... 4-174

Table 4.69: Social Indicators, by Alternative ......................................................................... 4-175

Table 4.70: Proposed Forest Product Removal Areas (acres) within Highly Erodible Soils, by 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-184

Table 4.71: Proposed Travel Management Designations (acres), by Alternative ................... 4-186

Table 4.72: Proposed Special Designations (number and acres) within the Planning Area, by 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-190

Table 4.73: Proposed Special Designations (acres) in the Planning Area, by Alternative ..... 4-190

Table 4.74: WSAs and Associated ACECs, by Alternative .................................................... 4-191

Table 4.75: Livestock Grazing Areas (acres) within Wilderness Areas and WSAs, by Alternative

.......................................................................................................................................... 4-192

Table 4.76: Summary of Impact to the CDNST Trail ............................................................. 4-192

Table 4.77: VRM Classes (miles) along the CDNST.............................................................. 4-193

Table 4.78: Habitat Types and Associated Special-status Species............................................ 218

Table 4.79: Proposed Cultural Resource Areas with Surface Restrictions (acres), by Alternative

.......................................................................................................................................... 4-222

Table 4.80: Proposed Fire Management Treatments (acres), by Habitat Type ...................... 4-223

Table 4.81: Proposed Forest Product Harvest Areas (acres) within Habitat Types on BLM lands 

in the Planning Area, by Alternative................................................................................ 4-224

Table 4.82: Proposed Land Disposals (acres), by Alternative and Vegetation Type ............. 4-225

Table 4.83: Habitat Type (acres) Proposed as NSO, TL/CSU, or Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing, 

by Alternative................................................................................................................... 4-227
5

Table 4.84: Habitat Type (acres) Proposed as Closed to Saleable Mineral Extraction, by 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-227

Table 4.85: Habitat Type (acres) Proposed as Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral Entry, by 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-228

Table 4.86: Vegetation/Habitat Types (acres) within the Proposed SRMA and ERMAs...... 4-228

Table 4.87: Proposed ACECs (acres) for the Protection of Special-Status Species, by Alternative

.......................................................................................................................................... 4-232

Table 4.88: Proposed ACECs (acres) on BLM Lands in the Planning Area, by Habitat Type and 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-233

Table 4.89: Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (acres), by Habitat Type........................ 4-234

Table 4.91: Proposed VRM Classes (acres) for BLM Lands in the Planning Area ............... 4-236

Table 4.92: Proposed Travel Management Categories (acres), by Alternative ...................... 4-238

Table 4.93: Proposed Special Designations (number and acres) with the Planning Area, by 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-245

Table 4.94: Proposed Travel Management Decisions (acres) on BLM Lands within the Planning 

Area, by Alternative......................................................................................................... 4-247

Table 4.95: VRI for BLM lands in the Planning Area (acres)................................................ 4-251

Table 4.96: VRM Classes (acres), by Alternative .................................................................. 4-252

Table 4.97: Alternative A VRM Decisions by VIR (acres and percent) ................................ 4-253

Table 4.98: Alternative B VRM Decisions by VRI (acres and percent) ................................ 4-253

Table 4.99: Alternative C VRM Decisions by VRI (acres and percent) ................................ 4-254

Table 4.100: Alternative D VRM Decisions by VRI (acres and percent) .............................. 4-254

Table 4.102: Proposed Cultural Resource Areas with Surface Restrictions (acres), by Alternative

.......................................................................................................................................... 4-263

Table 4.103: Proposed Fire Management Treatments (acres), by Habitat Type .................... 4-263

Table 4.104: Proposed Forest Product removal Areas (acres) within Habitat Types on BLM 

lands in the Planning Area, by Alternative ...................................................................... 4-265

Table 4.105: Proposed Land Disposals (acres), by Alternative and Vegetation Type ............ 4-266

Table 4.106: Habitat Type (acres) Proposed as NSO, CSU, or Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing, by 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-269

Table 4.107: Habitat Type (acres) Proposed as Closed to Saleable Mineral Extraction, by 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-269

Table 4.108: Habitat Type (acres) Proposed as Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral Entry, by 

Alternative........................................................................................................................ 4-270

Table 4.109: Vegetation/Habitat Types (acres) within the Proposed SRMA and ERMAs.... 4-271

Table 4.110: Proposed Special Designations (acres) in the Planning Area, by Alternative ... 4-274

Table 4.111: Proposed Lands Managed for Wilderness Characteristics (acres), by Alternative .4-

276

Table 4.113: Proposed VRM Classes (acres) on BLM Lands in the Planning Area .............. 4-279

Table 5.1: Public Scoping Meetings............................................................................................ 5-1

Table 5.2: Agencies Cooperating in the BLM Planning Process for this RMP Revision ........... 5-3

Table 5.3: American Indian Entities Contacted for Plan Participation........................................ 5-4

Table 5.4: Federal Agencies Conctacted for Plan Participation .................................................. 5-5

Table 5.5: State, County, Local, and Private Entities Contacted for Plan Participation.............. 5-6

Table 5.6: Rio Puerco Field Office/NMSO Interdisciplinary Team............................................ 5-7

Table 5.7: Technical and Administrative Support Team............................................................. 5-7
6

Table 5.8: Managers and Reviewers – State Office Management Team.....................................5-8

Table 5.9: Albuquerque District/Rio Puerco Field Office Management Team........................... 5-8

Table 5.10: State Office Review Team........................................................................................ 5-8
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-1

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF 

PROPOSED PLAN AND DRAFT ALTERNATIVES

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the assumptions, methodology, and types of impacts analyzed for each 

resource (or resource use) within the Planning Area. The following sections describe the 

expected impacts to each resource caused by each of the alternatives. A quantitative analysis of 

the impacts to each resource or resource use is provided where data are available to inform the 

analysis. If data were not available for the analysis, a comprehensive qualitative description of 

the impacts to a resource or resource use is provided. 

This DRMP/DEIS provides a landscape-scale, “big picture” level of analysis, and in most cases 

the exact locations of projected development and other changes are not known or not discussed 

at this time. The appropriate level of NEPA analysis will be done when specific projects are 

proposed and the details of those projects is known. This chapter serves as an impact analysis of 

the alternative management actions and prescriptions as they impact the affected environment. 

Impacts are defined as modifications to the existing environment brought about by implementing 

an alternative. Impacts can be beneficial or adverse, can result from the action directly or 

indirectly, and can be long term, short term, temporary, or cumulative in nature. 

For this analysis, BLM staff used existing data, science, current methodologies, professional 

judgment, and projected actions and levels of use to determine projected impacts from the 

proposed management decisions discussed in Chapter 2. 

4.1.1 Organization of Chapter

Chapter 4 details the environmental consequences of program decisions on each listed resource 

or resource use. Resources and resource uses are presented in alphabetical order. The 

environmental consequences of the decisions imposed by other programs on a specific resource 

are delineated for each of the four alternatives. For the majority of resources, the organization of 

the section lists the impacts of each of the other programs’ management decisions on the 

resource, and then lists impacts for each of the four alternatives. A quantitative analysis of the 

impacts to each resource or resource use is provided where data are available to inform the 

analysis. If data were not available for the analysis, a comprehensive qualitative description of 

the impacts to a resource or resource use is provided. Cumulative impacts are also discussed 

within each section following the discussion of direct and indirect impacts. 

4.1.2 Analytical Assumptions

The following are the general assumptions used for analysis under all alternatives. Assumptions 

associated with a single issue (e.g., wildlife habitat) are included within the alternative discussion 

for that issue. 

All resource actions recognize valid existing rights.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-2

BLM lands in the Planning Area are assigned one of the following leasing categories for 

oil and gas development:

o Open subject to Standard Lease Terms and Conditions

o Open subject to TL and/or CSU stipulations

o Open with a NSO stipulation

o Closed

The BLM would have the funding and workforce to implement the selected alternative. 

All lands identified for disposal meet FLPMA disposal criteria and can be considered for 

land tenure adjustments. Site-specific analysis is required for all parcels to determine that 

disposal is appropriate. 

Demand for recreational activities (both dispersed and concentrated), energy production, 

vegetative resources, and wildlife use would increase. 

Short-term impacts are those that would last for fewer than five years. 

Long-term impacts are those that would last for five years or more. 

State highways and Class B roads through the Planning Area would remain open.

All decisions, projects, activities, and mitigation for the alternatives would be completed 

and/or implemented as described in Chapter 2 and Appendix H (Surface Stipulations 

Applicable to All Oil and Gas Development). 

Acreages were calculated using geographic information system (GIS) technology; there 

may be slight variations in total acres between disciplines. The variations are negligible 

and will not affect analysis. 

All acreages and percentages presented in this chapter pertain to either BLM lands within 

the Planning Area or the entire Planning Area, depending on the impact analysis. Most 

impacts analyses within the chapter, such as proposed fuel treatments, are calculated 

using only the BLM lands within the Planning Area. Some impact analysis calculations, 

such as those associated with special designations, are calculated within the entire 

Planning Area and therefore include both BLM and non-BLM lands. 

Non-BLM lands would have minimal direct impacts from RMP decisions since the BLM 

does not make land decisions or have jurisdiction on non-BLM lands.

Reasonable access across BLM-administered lands to state lands would be provided 

under all alternatives. 

4.1.3 Assumptions and Methodology for Minerals Development 

Impacts

Mineral resources management decisions impact almost all of the other resources and resource 

uses managed by the RPFO, mainly because of the surface disturbance associated with mineral 

activities. Because many of the surface-disturbing impacts analyzed in this chapter are related to 

mineral development, it is important to clarify the assumptions made for future mineral 

development in the Planning Area early in the document. The sections below identify the 

assumptions that were made for analyzing impacts from mineral resources to other resources 

throughout the document. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-3

4.1.3.1 Leasable Minerals

There are currently 169 oil and gas wells within the Planning Area (BLM 2010a). Future oil and 

gas development over the next 20 years is projected to be no more than one well per county per 

year in Bernalillo, Cibola, Valencia, McKinley, and Torrance counties. Sandoval County could 

have up to three wells drilled per year. It is estimated that a maximum number of eight wells per 

year could be drilled in the Planning Area (Table 4.1), according to the RPFO Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario for oil and gas leasing (BLM 2010a). The RFD states 

that approximately 50% of the drilled wells would be successful, and therefore operate over the 

life of the RMP/EIS. This assumption projects a total number (over 20 years) of 160 wells and 

approximately 490 additional acres of disturbance (BLM 2010a). It can be assumed that the 

range of alternatives restricting oil and gas development areas would not influence the number 

wells drilled over the next 20 years, because the low number of wells predicted to be drilled 

could be moved to avoid conflicts with other resources. Therefore, the analysis in this chapter 

associated with leasable fluid mineral development assumes 80 wells would be producing and 

245 acres of land disturbed over the next 20 years under all alternatives. Because the estimated 

growth of oil and gas wells is low (approximately 5% per year oil and gas development growth 

within Planning Area), and because the amount of disturbance associated with the future growth 

is approximately 0.02% of BLM lands in the Planning Area, it can be assumed that the mineral 

resources management decisions would have negligible impacts to resources analyzed in the 

RMP/EIS. Table 4.1 summarizes the predicted surface disturbance associated with oil and gas 

development within the Planning Area over the next 20 years. There is no predicted future 

development for coal within the Planning Area over the next 20 years (Intera 2010). 

Table 4.1: RFD for Oil and Gas in the Planning Area

County within Planning Area Maximum Number of 

Wells Drilled per Year

Maximum Total 

Disturbance (acres/year)

Bernalillo 0–1 3.5

Cibola 0–1 3.0

McKinley 0–1 3.0

Sandoval 1–3 9.0

Torrance 0–1 3.0

Valencia 0–1 3.0

Annual estimate 8 wells 24.5 acres

Estimated surface disturbance over 20 

years (50% success rate) 80 wells 245 acres

4.1.3.2 Locatable Minerals

The RPFO Mineral Potential Report states that the RFD potential for locatable minerals is 

expected to be flat or slightly increasing (Intera 2010). Based on historic production in the 

Planning Area, it can be estimated that the area disturbed by development of locatable minerals 

would expand by approximately 30 acres per year for a total of 600 acres over 20 years. The 

impacts analysis for mineral development in this chapter assumes 600 acres of surface 

disturbance would occur on BLM lands within the Planning Area in moderate or high potential 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-4

areas for locatable materials. It should be noted that locatable mineral development is estimated 

to occur on approximately 0.08% of BLM lands in the Planning Area.

4.1.3.3 Saleable Minerals

The RPFO Mineral Potential Report states that the RFD potential for aggregate, sand, gravel, 

stone, and c is expected to be flat or slightly increasing (Intera 2010). Based on historic 

production in the Planning Area, it can be estimated that the area disturbed by development of 

saleable minerals would expand by approximately 388 acres per year for a total of 7,760 acres 

over 20 years. The impacts analysis for mineral development in this chapter assumes 7,760 acres 

of surface disturbance would occur within the Planning Area in moderate or high potential areas 

for saleable materials. It should be noted that saleable mineral development is estimated to occur 

on approximately 1% of BLM lands in the Planning Area (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: RFD for All Minerals in on BLM lands in the Planning Area (acres)

Mineral Type Annual Surface 

Disturbance (acres)

20-year Surface

Disturbance (acres)

Leasable minerals* 24.5 245

Locatable minerals 30 600

Saleable minerals 388 7,760

Total 442.5 8,605

Percent of BLM lands 

in Planning Area 0.06% 1.1%

*The RFD states that approximately 50% of the drilled wells would be successful, therefore operating over 

the life of the RMP/EIS.

4.1.4 Types of Impacts to be Addressed

A direct impact is attributed to implementation of an alternative that affects a specific resource 

and generally occurs at the same time and place. Indirect impacts can result from one resource 

affecting another (e.g., soil erosion and sedimentation affecting water quality) or can be later in 

time or removed in location, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Long-term impacts are those 

that would substantially remain for many years or for the life of the project. Temporary impacts 

are short-term or ephemeral changes to the environment that return to the original condition once 

the activity is stopped, such as air pollutant emissions caused by earthmoving equipment during 

construction. Short-term impacts result in changes to the environment that are stabilized or 

mitigated rapidly and without long-term impacts. Cumulative impacts could also occur as the 

result of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions by federal, state, and local 

governments; private individuals; and entities in or near the Planning Area. Cumulative impacts 

could result from individually minor but collectively significant actions that take place over time. 

4.1.5 Incomplete or Unavailable Information

Existing data were used for preparation of the DRMP/DEIS and are sufficient for supporting 

RMP-level decisions, in most cases. Project-specific information on future activities and uses in 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-5

the Planning Area are unknown at this time. As activities and uses are proposed throughout the 

life of the plan, it is assumed that subsequent NEPA analysis would occur as appropriate to 

evaluate the types of impacts that could occur on a site-specific basis. According to the CEQ 

regulations (40CFR 1502.22), for unavailable/incomplete information, the agency must provide: 

1. A statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable

2. A statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment

3. A summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment

4. The agency’s evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or resource 

methods generally accepted in the scientific community

The following resources have incomplete or unavailable information; therefore, impacts analysis 

is limited:

A transportation inventory is not complete for BLM lands in the Planning Area. 

Information on levels of use in the Planning Area is limited. What is known is based on 

interviews with field staff or permitted users in these areas. The RPFO has completed an 

inventory of most of the motorized roads and trails in the Planning Area capable of 

providing access for full-size vehicles. The RPFO is deferring the development of a 

travel management plan (TMP) until after the RMP/EIS is complete, as described in the 

draft Travel and Transportation Management Manual (BLM 2010b). At that time, the 

RPFO would designate specific roads, primitive roads, and trails (routes) available for 

public and administrative travel, along with specific limitations on such travel. For this 

DRMP/DEIS, OHV area designations (“open,” “limited,” and “closed”) are listed by 

alternative. Within the “limited” designation, routes would be limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails. It is possible that field staff knowledge and/or information 

from the public would not encompass all areas with high demand for access. However, 

the field staff and the public are aware of the areas where vehicle travel is common, and 

where it may be presenting resource conflicts. As such, it is unlikely that having a 

completed transportation inventory would change the results of this impact analysis. 

Existing scientific evidence that is relevant to evaluating reasonably foreseeable impacts, 

and the evaluation of those impacts, is contained in the individual sections in section 4.2. 

The locations and extent of potential renewable energy projects on BLM-administered 

lands are largely unknown, but are likely to occur in areas of high potential for various 

types of renewable energy (wind, solar, and geothermal). Likewise, forecasts for 

potential future oil and gas development in the area are based on the best available 

information, which is limited by the potential for oil and gas development in the Planning 

Area. For both of these resource uses, only generalized effects are described based on 

typical surface-disturbing scenarios experienced by the BLM in similar developments. 

Knowing the precise location and size of future development projects would not likely 

change the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts because wind, solar, 

geothermal, and fluid mineral development are most likely to occur where potential for 

these resources is high, and that is how the impacts of these developments were 

evaluated. The resources that could be impacted by these developments, such as wildlife, 

have a sufficiently broad distribution in the Planning Area that moving a development 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-6

from one site to another would not change the impacts significantly. Existing scientific 

evidence that is relevant to evaluating reasonably foreseeable impacts, and the evaluation 

of those impacts, is contained in the individual sections in section 4.2.

A comprehensive inventory of invasive species has not been completed for the RPFO. 

Aquatic and terrestrial invasive species are known to occur in the Planning Area, and 

certain areas have been inventoried and recorded. This incomplete information is relevant 

to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects if land use planning decisions 

allocate land uses that would promote or enhance the spread or introduction of invasive 

species. This incomplete information is, however, not essential for a reasoned choice 

among alternatives. Potential impacts of invasive species are similar among all action 

alternatives because other environmental laws and regulations (State and Federal) would 

greatly reduce the potential for significant adverse effects under each alternative, and 

because site-specific NEPA analysis would be required prior to implementation of land 

use planning decisions that would prescribe best management practices (BMPs). Existing 

scientific evidence that is relevant to evaluating reasonably foreseeable impacts, and the 

evaluation of those impacts, is contained in the individual sections in section 4.2. 

No formal surveys of visitors regarding their preferences for recreation settings and 

experiences have been conducted. This information would be relevant to the evaluation 

of reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts if there were significant demand for 

particular recreation types on BLM lands in the Planning Area that our office was 

unaware of. This information may have changed the estimated impacts of land use plan 

decisions to particular types of recreation. However, it is unlikely that field staff would be 

unaware of the type and extent for demand of recreational opportunities on the lands we 

administer. Interaction with the public inquiries, special recreation permittees, and user 

groups has given the RPFO a reasonable understanding of the desired recreational 

opportunities in the area. Existing scientific evidence that is relevant to evaluating 

reasonably foreseeable impacts, and the evaluation of those impacts, is contained in the 

individual sections in section 4.2.

The archeological inventory for the RPFO is incomplete and existing inventories cover

approximately 11.9% of BLM lands in the Planning Area. This incomplete information is 

relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects, given the possibility that 

land use planning decisions would allocate land uses to activities that would irreversibly 

damage currently unknown sites, which would constitute a significant adverse effect. 

This incomplete information is, however, not essential for a reasoned choice among 

alternatives. Potential impacts to cultural resources are similar among all action 

alternatives because other environmental laws and regulations (Section 106 of the NHPA, 

ARPA) would greatly reduce the potential for significant adverse effects under each 

alternative, and because site-specific NEPA would be required prior to implementation of 

land use planning decisions. Incomplete information regarding the location of cultural 

resources is in this sense less useful to the decision maker, who is assured that no matter 

which alternative he or she selects, significant adverse effects to cultural resources will be 

avoided. Existing scientific evidence that is relevant to evaluating reasonably foreseeable 

impacts, and the evaluation of those impacts, is contained in the individual sections in 

section 4.2. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-7

Wildlife surveys during reproductive periods are incomplete. At this time, the exact 

areas and timing are not known. This information would assist the RPFO in evaluating 

reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts because it would allow quantification 

of the impacts of limiting oil and gas development and other activities within big game 

habitat during gestation and lactation periods. This information would alter our 

estimation adverse impacts of limiting development in these areas. Similarly, this 

information would alter our estimation beneficial impacts to big game populations. 

However, the qualitative impacts to these resources would not change. Existing 

scientific evidence that is relevant to evaluating reasonably foreseeable impacts, and the 

evaluation of those impacts, is contained in the individual sections in section 4.2.

4.1.6 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts occur when there are multiple impacts to the same resources. These are 

incremental impacts of proposed activities or projects when combined with past, present, and 

future actions. As stated in 40 CFR 1508.7 (1997), a cumulative impact is the impact to the 

environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

Resource decisions from this RMP/EIS could combine with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions to produce cumulative impacts to resources within the Planning Area. 

Concurrent planning projects in the region that would contribute to cumulative impacts include 

the Santa Fe National Forest and the BLM Taos, Farmington, and Socorro RMPs. Also, 

management direction and resource uses would occur in the adjacent BLM Field Offices in 

Arizona. Activities on New Mexico State Land Office (SLO) lands, private lands, and city and 

county use plans for surrounding communities could have cumulative impacts where land is 

developed adjacent to BLM lands. 

Past and present actions are development, projects, events, or other actions that have occurred 

and accumulated to create the existing conditions in the Planning Area. The cumulative impacts 

analysis assumes that the affected environment, described in Chapter 3, incorporates the past and 

present actions that have occurred within the Planning Area; there, the past and present 

cumulative impacts have been analyzed in the previous sections in this chapter. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions are uses and activities that are planned to occur within the 

Planning Area in the foreseeable future. The RMP/EIS takes into account those proposed actions 

that are actively being proposed by other agencies, organizations, or governments that would 

impact resources within the Planning Area (Table 4.3). The projects were primarily identified 

through public scoping, internal scoping with BLM resource specialists, input from cooperating 

agencies, and BLM review of existing planning documents from other organizations. Examples 

include travel management plans from neighboring U.S. Forest Service Ranger Districts and 

proposed actions documented in county land use plans. The BLM considered those projects that 

were within or near the Planning Area and of sufficient scope to impact the resources discussed 

in this RMP at similar spatial and temporal scales as the direct and indirect impacts. That is, the 

reasonably foreseeable future projects listed in Table 4.4 are proposed actions that could result in 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-8

additional impacts to the same resources evaluated in the RPFO RMP/EIS. The projects were 

limited to those within the geographic and temporal scope in which direct and indirect impacts 

would occur. All sources consulted for Proposed Action details are referenced in the text and 

contained within the References Cited section of the RMP. 

Table 4.3: Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects Relevant to the RMP/EIS

Project Proponent Brief Description

Desert Rock Power Plant

Diné Power Authority

Desert Rock Energy 

Company

BHP Navajo Coal Company

The proposed power plant would produce 1,500 megawatts of 

electric capacity. BHP Navajo Coal Company is proposing to 

expand a surface coalmine entirely on the Navajo Nation. The 

proposed mine is located 30 miles southwest of Farmington and 

San Juan County and would occupy 150 acres (URS Corporation 

2007).

N55 Road Improvement

Bureau of Indian Affairs The 31-mile road improvement project, including the 150-foot 

buffer and potential borrow pit locations for construction 

material, would encompass approximately 550 acres. The project 

is in the southeast portion of Cibola County and crosses BLM 

land within the Planning Area. The entire length of the proposed 

project would be fenced in order to prevent livestock from 

entering the right-of-way. Livestock tanks within proximity of 

the right-of-way fencing would be relocated. The finished 

roadway would be paved with asphalt and signs would be 

installed along with pavement markings (Bureau of Indian 

Affairs 2010).

Placitas Master Plan

City of Albuquerque 

Open Space

The Placitas open space encompasses an area of 640 acres, 560 

of which is actively being pursued for a recreational site. The 

project is located 3 miles northwest of the village of Placitas in 

Sandoval County. The City of Albuquerque’s Environmental 

Planning Commission and the Sandoval County Commission are 

the two organizations that have prepared the Placitas Open Space 

Master Plan (Sites Southwest, LLC 2002).
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-9

Project Proponent Brief Description

Southwest Jemez Mountains Restoration Project

U.S. Forest Service

Valles Caldera Trust

New Mexico Forest and 

Watershed Restoration

Institute

The Nature Conservancy

The Southwest Jemez Mountains Restoration Project is a longterm collaborative effort to restore sustainable ecological forest 

conditions on a landscape of approximately 210,000 acres in the 

southwest Jemez Mountains. The project involves several phases, 

including strategic-level planning, project-level planning, 

implementation, and monitoring. The area comprises primarily the 

entire upper Jemez River watershed, including nearly 86,000 acres 

of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, a portion of the Santa Fe 

National Forest (110,000 acres), and some state, private, and tribal 

lands (U.S. Forest Service 2010a).

Valles Caldera National Preserve Landscape Restoration and Management Plan

Valles Caldera Trust The Valles Caldera Trust, a wholly owned government 

corporation empowered to provide management and 

administrative services for the Valles Caldera National Preserve, 

intends to prepare an EIS to analyze and disclose potential 

impacts of a proposed Landscape Restoration and Management 

Plan, which includes mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, 

management of lightning-caused wildland fires, restoration of 

riparian areas, closure and maintenance of roads, and eradication 

of noxious weeds and invasive plants (Valles Caldera Trust 

2010). 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-10

Table 4.4. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects Relevant to the RMP/EIS

Project Proponent Brief Description

U.S. Forest Service Travel Management Plans

Santa Fe National Forest

Cibola National Forest

The Santa Fe National Forest’s Travel Management Draft EIS is 

currently in development. The Proposed Action, as currently 

described, would open 186 miles of road that is currently not 

open, close 2,469 miles of road to motorized use, allow for 

dispersed camping on 423 miles of road, and add 23 miles of 

new routes (U.S. Forest Service 2010b). 

The Mt. Taylor Ranger District in the Cibola National Forest is 

the Ranger District located within the Planning Area. The 

Proposed Action in the Travel Management Environmental 

Assessment would prohibit cross-country motorized travel in the 

district, open 98 miles of road that are currently closed or 

unauthorized, close 465 miles of road to motorized use, and 

allow for dispersed camping on 127 miles of road (U.S. Forest 

Service 2010c). 

Fire and Fuels Treatments in New Mexico

BLM

U.S. Forest Service

Bureau of Indian Affairs

USFWS

National Park Service

State of New Mexico

The BLM estimates that federal and state agencies with 

jurisdiction in New Mexico would treat up to 206,800 acres with 

prescribed fire, 35,900 acres with mechanical treatments, and 

10,000 acres with chemical treatments over the next 20 years 

(BLM 2004).

Northwest Loop Road

New Mexico Department of 

Transportation

The New Mexico Department of Transportation has proposed to 

build a 39-mile loop road to connect U.S. Highway 550 in 

southern Sandoval County with Interstate 40, just east of the Rio 

Puerco, in Bernalillo County (New Mexico Independent 2009). 

The road would not cross BLM surface ownership, but would 

cross BLM subsurface lands. 

Red Mesa Wind Farm

Red Mesa, LLC

NextEra Energy, LLC

NextEra Energy, LLC, and Red Mesa, LLC, a subsidiary of the 

former, have proposed a 102.4-megawatt wind energy center on 

the east side of Cibola County near Seboyeta, New Mexico. The 

project is expected to occupy approximately 5,000 acres of 

private land 60 miles northeast of Grants. The facility would 

consist of 64 wind turbine generators, an underground power 

collection system, an access road, and an operations and 

maintenance plant. The towers would stand 121 meters (398 

feet) high to the top of the blade. The wind farm is expected to 

be operational by 2011 (Jaramillo 2010). 

Uranium Mining
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-11

Project Proponent Brief Description

Multiple Corporation 

Interests

The Grants Mineral Belt between Gallup and Laguna is the main 

contributory for the state with the second largest known uranium

reserves. While no uranium is currently being mined, multiple 

companies are assessing the areas around Mt. Taylor for both 

conventional and in-situ recovery mining of the mineral. The 

Cebolleta Uranium Project of Cibola Resources, LLC, located on 

private land 45 miles west of Albuquerque and situated on the 

southeastern portion of the Cebolleta Land Grant, is one instance 

of many in which groups are moving forward with both technical 

reports and feasibility studies that show promise of future uranium 

mining in the region (Broad Oak Associates 2007). 

Table 4.4: Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects Relevant to the RMP/EIS

Project Proponent Brief Description

New Mexico Renewable Energy Transmission Authority (RETA)

State of New Mexico

RETA

With the enactment of the New Mexico House Bill 188: Renewable 

Energy Transmission Authority Act, and its subsequent creation of 

the New Mexico RETA, the New Mexico State Legislature has 

provided support to identify and establish corridors for the 

transmission of electricity, both intra- and interstate (2007). With 

the mandate to have at least 30% of the transmission project’s 

energy coming from renewable resources, it seems likely that a 

transmission corridor would be required to bring the wind energy 

from the eastern portions of New Mexico to the energy-demanding 

western states. It could be suggestive that the new transmission 

corridor would be sited through the Planning Area.

The resource sections below address both known reasonably foreseeable future activities that are 

described in Table 4.3 and those activities that are not specifically identified above, but are 

known to take place within or near the Planning Area. Cumulative impacts are discussed within 

each section following the analysis of the direct and indirect impacts. 

4.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives

This section presents the impacts to each resource from management actions proposed by other 

resource programs according to each alternative. 

4.2.1 Air Resources

Impacts to air quality and climate in the Planning Area would primarily result from fire 

management, mineral resource development, and travel management decisions. Emissions 

include those from nonrenewable resources such as coal, oil, and gas development activities and 

those from renewable resources such as firewood burning. Some resource allocations like fuels 

treatments may result in short-term air quality impairment, but may improve air quality over the 

long term by creating healthy vegetation and soils that can more readily resist future wildfires 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-12

and sequester certain emissions. Travel management decisions would result in short-term 

impacts from blowing dust from backcountry roads. 

4.2.1.1 Analysis Assumptions

Mineral development potential was assessed in the Mineral Potential Report prepared for the 

Planning Area (Intera 2010). The RFD scenario identified low development potential areas for 

oil and gas minerals and no lands with the development potential for other leasable minerals such 

as coal. Mineral development is a permitted process; therefore, a variety of multi-level 

regulatory processes exist to ensure that pollutant levels do not increase above identified 

thresholds and/or air quality standards. It is assumed that mineral development operations would 

be carried out in compliance with existing policies and regulations at both the state and federal 

levels. It is further assumed that roads, pipelines, excavations, and other mineral developmentrelated disturbances in areas with soils susceptible to wind erosion would be appropriately 

surfaced (covering of piles where appropriate, graveling or surfactants applied to roads, etc.) to 

reduce fugitive dust generated by traffic and related activities. Such treatments would also be 

applied as appropriate on local and resource roads that represent a dust problem. Lower speed 

limits, enforced by the appropriate authority, would also act to limit dust in project and adjacent 

areas. 

4.2.1.1.1 Ozone

Ozone modeling completed for the Four Corners Air Quality Task Force includes areas of 

Sandoval County where oil and gas development is most likely to occur in the Planning Area. 

The model results for the 2005 base case indicate that ozone levels in this area are much lower 

than in the heart of the San Juan Basin to the north and generally do not exceed 0.060 parts per 

million (ppm). The National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone is currently 

0.075 ppm. The standard is currently under review by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), which has proposed to revise the primary standard to between 0.060 and 0.070 upon 

completion of the review. Comparison with a 2018 base case shows little change in ozone levels 

and possibly a slight improvement. Modeling of mitigation scenarios to reduce NOx and VOC 

production from oil and gas and EGUs also shows little change to some slight improvement over 

the 2005 base case (Environ 2009).

4.2.1.1.2 Greenhouse Gases

The assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, their relationship to global climatic patterns, and 

the resulting impacts is an ongoing scientific process. It is currently not feasible to know with 

certainty the net impacts from the proposed alternatives on climate – that is, while BLM actions 

may generate, or authorize activities that generate, GHG emissions that contribute to climate 

change, the specific effects of those actions at the planning or project level on average global 

temperature are speculative given the current state of the science. Moreover, the BLM does not 

have the ability to associate precisely a specific action’s contribution to changes in temperature 

or other aspects of climate with environmental impacts in any particular area. The science to be 

able to do so is not yet available. The inconsistent results of scientific models used to predict 

climate change at the global scale, coupled with the lack of scientific models designed to predict 

climate change on regional or local scales, limits the ability to quantify potential future impacts 

of decisions made at the planning or project levels. Determining the significance of any discrete 

amount of greenhouse gas emission is beyond the limits of existing science. However, the 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-13

DRMP/DEIS does identify the proposed management decisions that impact air quality, including 

potential emissions of greenhouse gases. The proposed resource management decisions include 

fire management, mineral resources, and travel management decisions. The impacts from these 

decisions are discussed below. 

4.2.1.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts 

4.2.1.2.1 Fire Management Decisions

Fire management decisions are not varied across alternatives in Chapter 2. Fuel treatments are 

proposed for up to 32,000 acres per year on BLM lands in the Planning Area depending on 

budgetary and time constraints. Fuel treatments include, but are not limited to, prescribed fire. 

Based on current treatments and the Fire and Fuels Plan Amendment (BLM 2004), 

approximately 72% of fuel treatments would include prescribed fire; therefore, of the 32,000 

acres per year proposed for treatment on BLM lands in the Planning Area, approximately 23,000 

acres would be treated with prescribed fire. Several criteria pollutants are of particular concern 

to prescribed burning, chiefly particulate matter and carbon monoxide (CO). Particulate matter 

produced in prescribed burns is predominantly PM2.5 (70% of the smoke produced in burns falls 

into this category). The generation of increased particulates is especially noticeable during highintensity, catastrophic wildland fires. Biomass burning contributes to the release of greenhouse 

gases (carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4]) and may reduce or eliminate a carbon sink. 

Direct impacts of prescribed fire fall into two general categories: short-term and long-term. 

Short-term air quality impacts projected from prescribed burns would be adverse and would

include a general increase in particulates, CO, and ozone precursor emissions in burn areas and 

those locations immediately downwind. The magnitude of increase is directly dependent on the 

size, extent, fuel type, and management strategy of the burn. The type and amount of air 

pollutants released from burning wildland vegetation varies with type of fuel, moisture content, 

temperature of the fire, and the amount of smoldering occurring after the fire. Since prescribed 

burning occurs irregularly, it is generally possible to restrict burning on days with limited 

ventilation to avoid violating air quality standards. Long-term, direct air quality impacts 

projected from prescribed burns include a general increase in airborne particulates from the burn 

site as a result of ash dispersion and transport, which may contribute to regional haze and 

reducing visibility in Class I areas. 

Indirect adverse impacts to air quality from prescribed burns (short-term and long-term) may 

include an increase in airborne particulates from the burn site as a result of wind-based erosion of 

devegetated areas. This effect is expected to be small as vegetation management is an active part 

of fire management techniques. Fuel reduction treatments, authorized by the Fire and Fuels Plan 

Amendment (BLM 2004), could potentially decrease the number and intensity of wildland fires 

with a concurrent “decrease” in the amount of particulates and other pollutants. A greater longterm beneficial effect of prescribed burning is a reduction in particulate matter, CO, and ozone 

precursor emissions specific to wildfire in managed areas. Ozone (a product of biomass 

combustion formed through the interaction of solar radiation, and the ozone precursors that 

include volatile organic compounds [VOCs], and nitrogen oxides) is a major constituent of 

photochemical smog and is also a minor greenhouse gas. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-14

Table 4.4 provides a summary of the vegetation types proposed for fuel treatments over the next 

20 years, which could include prescribed fire. The right column shows the particulate matter 10 

microns in diameter or smaller (PM10) emission factor for each vegetation type, expressed as 

tons of PM10 per acre burned. The purpose of this table is to show which vegetation types are 

likely to create a larger short-term increase in particulate matter in the atmosphere. It should be 

noted that not all of the acres identified for fuels treatment would be treated with prescribed fire. 

The numbers provided in Table 4.4 could be used to estimate the maximum PM10 emissions if 

prescribed fire was the only tool used for fuel treatments.

Table 4.4: Proposed Fire Management Treatments (acres), by Vegetation Type 

Vegetation/Habitat Type

Proposed Fire 

Management

Treatments (acres)

PM10 Emission 

Factor (ton 

PM10/acre burned)

Forest (includes ponderosa and piñonjuniper)165,199 0.04

Shrub, steppe, scrub 277,594 0.03

Grassland 146,922 0.01

Other (including aquatic, riparian/wetland) 23,243 Factor not available

Total 612,958 –

Percent of BLM lands in the Planning 

Area

82% –

The BLM’s fire management policy is consistent with the New Mexico Environment 

Department’s Smoke Management Program and, as such, burning would be timed in conjunction 

with meteorological conditions to minimize smoke impacts. Specific policies, rules, and 

procedures are implemented by the BLM to minimize the air quality impacts and impacts to 

regional haze for fire events. Additional restrictions on prescribed burns and wildland fire for 

resource benefit treatments during certain conditions or near air quality Class I areas would also 

apply. All of these restrictions could impact the size and/or timing of fire management activities 

such as wildland fire for resource benefit, prescribed burns, or both. However, these limitations 

would not substantially reduce the effectiveness of long-term fire management or increase fire 

risk in the Planning Area.

Fire management decisions in the Planning Area would also result in beneficial impacts to air 

resources. Restoration of natural fire regimes would improve the long-term health of vegetation

and may enhance carbon sequestration. In addition, the use of prescribed fire would lead to 

fewer occurrences of high-intensity wildfire within the Planning Area over the long term. The 

detrimental air quality impacts from wildfire would likely be greater than those from prescribed 

fire and exert a larger adverse effect on air quality in the Planning Area. 

4.2.1.2.2 Mineral Resources Decisions

Mineral resources management decisions would likely increase emissions from equipment, 

fugitive dust, VOCs, NOx, and greenhouse gas emissions resulting in adverse impacts. Shortterm air quality impacts from minerals development and production would occur from several

sources: 1) combustive emissions (vehicle tailpipe and exhaust stack emissions) from the 

operation of mobile and stationary source construction equipment would include NOx, VOCs, 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-15

and CO2; 2) fugitive dust emissions (PM10) from earthmoving and construction activities and the 

operation of vehicles on unpaved surfaces; 3) Fugitive emissions of methane and other VOCs 

from well completions, pits, pneumatic devices, and leaks. Minerals production could generate 

long-term combustive and fugitive dust emissions from two sources: 1) stationary sources, such 

as natural gas flaring, natural gas-fired compressors, and minerals storage and handling 

equipment; and 2) mobile sources that access and service oil and gas facilities and extract and 

handle subsurface minerals. Minerals reclamation activities also would produce combustive and 

fugitive dust. Mineral development would reduce vegetative sinks for carbon emissions by 

removing ground cover in portions of developed areas.

Table 4.5 shows how leasable fluid minerals would be managed under each alternative. The 

largest number of acres would be closed to oil and gas development under Alternative B; 

therefore, adverse impacts to air quality would be the smallest under this alternative. Under 

Alternative A, the least number of acres would be closed to oil and gas development; therefore, 

the adverse impacts to air quality would be the greatest under the No Action Alternative. All 

counties within the Planning Area are in compliance with NAAQS and are therefore attainment 

areas. Because the estimated growth of oil and gas wells is low (approximately 5% per year 

growth) and because the RFD within the Planning Area is approximately 1.1% of BLM lands, it 

can be assumed that mineral resources management decisions will have negligible impacts to air 

quality within the Planning Area. Such decisions, however, will undergo appropriate NEPA 

analysis that will take into account any changes in oil and gas development, air quality, and other 

relevant factors.

Table 4.5: Leasable Fluid Mineral Stipulations (acres), by Alternative

Designation Alternative A

No Action

Alternative 

B

Alternative C

Preferred

Alternative 

D

Open with standard lease 

terms and conditions

1,327,910 1,131,076 1,136,604 1,145,147

Open with moderate 

constraints (CSU)

18,668 150,967 170,116 203,236

Open with major 

constraints (NSO)

6,660 32,211 27,350 7,629

Closed 59,470 98,454 78,638 56,696

Total 1,412,708 1,412,708 1,412,708 1,412,708

4.2.1.2.3 Travel Management Decisions

Increased travel on BLM lands in the Planning Area would adversely impact air quality through 

increased vehicle emissions in areas open to travel and where travel is limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails. Those areas closed to travel would not necessarily reduce the

cumulative adverse impacts to air quality, but could result in OHV users recreating on non-BLM 

lands in or near the Planning Area. As a result, the impacts to air quality from travel 

management decisions would likely be the same across all alternatives. The types of emissions 

that have the potential to be omitted from OHV use include hydrocarbons, CO, NOx, particulate 

matter, and hazardous air pollutants.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-16

4.2.1.3 Cumulative Impacts

Perhaps more so than any other resource, air is impacted by emission sources both within and 

outside the Planning Area because of the ease of transport of air masses from one location to 

another. This analysis identifies those sources, existing and proposed, within and outside the 

Planning Area that may contribute to air quality impacts in the Planning Area.

4.2.1.3.1 Existing sources within the Planning Area

A 2005 inventory of emissions from permitted sources within the Planning Area identified 56 

sources emitting over a half ton of any reportable pollutant (EPA 2008). While most of these 

sources are concentrated in the Albuquerque metropolitan area, there are a few sources near 

BLM lands, including several compressor and pump stations in central Sandoval County.

Pollutants are concentrated along major transportation corridors and in population centers from 

tailpipe emissions. With population trends expected to continue to increase throughout the 

planning period, these pollutants would likely increase. High ozone levels in Sandoval County, 

which may exceed the proposed new standards, are largely attributable to residential traffic in the 

Rio Rancho area and not related to activities on BLM lands.

4.2.1.3.2 Existing Sources outside the Planning Area

Northwestern New Mexico is home to two large coal-burning power plants, the Four Corners 

Power Plant operated by Arizona Public Service and the San Juan Generating Station operated 

by the Public Service Company of New Mexico. The Four Corners Power Plant has been 

identified as the largest source of NOx in the United States, and it can be expected that under 

favorable wind conditions pollutants may be transported into the Planning Area. Because 

pollution controls have already been installed at the San Juan Generating Station under a Consent 

Decree with the State of New Mexico and other organizations, some improvement in emissions 

from this source should be observed. In addition, the requirement to install best available retrofit 

technology under the Regional Haze Rule should result in further improvements at both power 

plants in the near future. 

Oil and gas development in the San Juan Basin has contributed to increases in ozone and 

particulate matter within the basin. Modeling completed for the Four Corners Air Quality Task 

Force indicates that most of this pollution stays north of the Planning Area. North to 

northwesterly winds could result in occasional transport into the Planning Area. There are no air 

quality monitors in this area; however, the modeling showed that ozone levels would remain well 

within current and proposed ozone standards in this area for both the 2005 base year and the 

2018 projection.

4.2.1.3.3 Proposed Sources inside the Planning Area

Although oil and gas development in the Planning Area is limited because most of the area is 

outside the prime production areas of the San Juan Basin, it can be expected that development 

would continue at the current rate of around three wells per year with small incremental 

increases in ozone and particulate matter, as well as CO2 and CH4, over the life of the plan. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-17

4.2.1.3.4 Proposed Sources outside the Planning Area

A third coal-fired power plant known as the Desert Rock Power Plant has been proposed 30 

miles southwest of Farmington. A draft EIS estimates annual emissions of 5,529 tons of CO, 0.1 

ton of lead, 3,325 tons of NOx, 1,125 tons of PM10, 3,319 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 166 

tons of VOCs (URS Corporation 2007). Again, impacts to the Planning Area would depend on 

favorable transport winds, but such a large source less than 100 miles from the Planning Area 

would likely have some impacts.

Continued development of oil and gas in the San Juan Basin would contribute to additional 

emissions in that area. The Farmington RMP (BLM 2003) estimates 9,942 new wells over the 

20-year life of that plan.

4.2.1.3.5 Climate Change

The EPA’s Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks found that in 2007, total U.S. 

greenhouse gas emissions were over 7 billion metric tons and that total U.S. emissions have 

increased by 17% from 1990 to 2007. Emissions increased from 2006 to 2007 by 1.4% (99.0 

Teragrams [Tg] CO2 equivalent [CO2e]). The following factors were primary contributors to this 

increase: 1) cooler winter and warmer summer conditions in 2007 than in 2006 that increased the 

demand for heating fuels and contributed to the increase in the demand for electricity; 2) 

increased consumption of fossil fuels to generate electricity; and 3) a significant decrease 

(14.2%) in hydropower generation used to meet this demand (EPA 2009). 

The Inventory of New Mexico Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2000-2007 (NMED 2010) lists total 

statewide gross greenhouse gas emissions in 2007 as 76.2 million metric tons CO2e, which is a 

slight reduction from the estimate in 2000 of 77.0 million metric tons CO2e. The primary 

contributors to 2007 greenhouse gas emissions in New Mexico were electricity production 

(42%), the fossil fuel industry (22%), and transportation (20%) (NMED 2010). According to the 

New Mexico Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections, 1990-2020, greenhouse 

gas emissions are expected to continue increasing (NMED 2006). 

Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas

emissions such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and several trace gasses; changes in biological carbon 

sequestration; and other changes due to land management activities on global climate. Through 

complex interactions on a global scale, greenhouse gas emissions cause a net warming effect of 

the atmosphere, primarily by increasing the amount of heat energy retained in the atmosphere 

that would otherwise be radiated by the earth back into space. Although natural greenhouse gas

atmospheric concentration levels have varied for millennia (along with corresponding variations 

in climatic conditions), industrialization, and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused 

greenhouse gas concentrations to increase. The 2007 Summary for Policy Makers from the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) stated, “Global atmospheric 

concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased 

markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed preindustrial values 

determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years.” 

Global mean surface temperatures have increased nearly 1.0°C (1.8°F) from 1890 to 2006 

(Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2007). However, observations and predictive models 

indicate that average temperature changes are likely to be greater in the Northern Hemisphere 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-18

(IPCC 2007). Without additional meteorological monitoring and modeling systems, it is difficult 

to determine the spatial and temporal variability and change of climatic conditions. What is 

known is that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases may accelerate the rate of climate

change (IPCC 2007). 

The National Academy of Sciences (2006) has acknowledged that there are uncertainties 

regarding how climate change may affect different regions. Computer model predictions 

indicate that increases in temperature will not be equally distributed, but are likely to be 

accentuated at higher latitudes (IPCC 2007). Warming during the winter months is expected to 

be greater than during the summer, and increases in daily minimum temperatures are more likely 

than increases in daily maximum temperatures.

Currently, global climate models are unable to forecast local or regional effects on resources 

(IPCC 2007; CCP 2008). However, there are general projections regarding potential impacts to 

natural resources and plant and animal species that may be attributed to climate change from 

greenhouse gas emissions over time; however, these effects are likely to be varied, including 

those in the southwestern United States (Karl et al. 2009; U.S. Global Change Research Program 

2008). For example, if global climate change results in a warmer and drier climate, increased 

particulate matter impacts could occur due to increased windblown dust from drier and less 

stable soils. Cool season plant species’ spatial ranges are predicted to move north and to higher 

elevations, and extinction of endemic threatened-endangered plants may be accelerated. Due to 

loss of habitat or competition from other species whose ranges may shift northward, the 

populations of some animal species may be reduced or increased. Less snow at lower elevations 

would likely impact the timing and quantity of snowmelt, which, in turn, could impact water 

resources and species dependent on historic water conditions (Karl et al. 2009). 

The very small increase in greenhouse gas emissions that could result from approval of the 

Proposed Action would not produce climate change impacts that differ notably from the No 

Action Alternative. This is because climate change is a global process that is impacted by the 

sum total of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. The incremental contribution to global 

greenhouse gases from the Proposed Action cannot be translated into effects on climate change 

globally or in the area of this site-specific action. As stated above, the assessment of greenhouse 

gas emissions and the resulting impacts on climate is an ongoing scientific process. It is 

currently not feasible to predict with certainty the net impacts from the Proposed Action on 

global or regional climate. That is, while BLM actions may contribute to climate change, the 

specific effects of those actions on global or regional climate are not quantifiable. Therefore, the 

BLM does not have the ability to associate an action’s contribution in a localized area to impacts 

on global climate change. As climate models improve in their sensitivity and predictive capacity, 

the BLM will incorporate those tools into its NEPA analysis at that time. 

4.2.2 Cave and Karst Resources

The RPFO has established a goal to identify and study karst features and caves to ensure they are 

available for appropriate uses by present and future generations. Resources and resource uses 

identified as having impacts, both adverse and beneficial, to cave and karst resources are lands 

and realty, mineral resources, recreation and visitor services, cultural resources, special 

designations, soil and water resources, paleontological resources, and special-status species. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-19

4.2.2.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts 

4.2.2.1.1 Lands and Realty Decisions

Lands and realty would have an adverse impact to cave and karst resources if those parcels 

identified for disposal contain cave or karst areas and are removed from federal protection. The 

Pronoun Cave Complex is the only identified cave system on BLM lands within the Planning 

Area, and is protected by the Pronoun Cave ACEC. However, karst areas and other unidentified 

caves may be located on parcels identified for disposal. Areas identified for disposal would 

undergo NEPA analysis prior to disposal and cave or karst areas would be identified at that time. 

If those resources were found, the RPFO would consider mitigation measures to avoid impacts to 

cave and karst resources. Table 4.6 shows those acres identified for disposal on BLM lands 

within the Planning Area. 

Table 4.6: Parcels Identified for Disposal (acres) by Alternative

Status Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Disposal 55,384 57,472 58,910 62,051

Percent of BLM lands in 

the Planning Area 7.4% 7.7% 7.9% 8.3%

4.2.2.1.2 Mineral Resources Decisions

Management decisions to allow mineral development would have minimal impacts on cave and 

karst resources in those areas where proposed mineral extraction activities would take place in or 

near cave or karst features. Areas where mineral extraction would occur could impact the cave 

or karst resources directly, and could also lead to indirect impacts to water resources. To 

minimize any potential impacts, the RPFO proposes to implement an oil and gas stipulation that 

limits the amount of surface disturbance near cave and karst resources. Under Alternative B, the 

RPFO would implement NSO within 200 meters (656 feet) of known cave entrances, passages, 

or aspects of significant caves, or significant karst features. Under Alternative C, the RPFO 

would implement CSU within 200 meters (656 feet) of known cave entrances, passages, or 

aspects of significant caves, or significant karst features (see Appendix H for stipulations).

Under Alternatives A and D, standard leasing terms would be applied; therefore, the RPFO 

would be able to move the location of oil and gas wells up to 200 meters (656 feet) for mitigation 

purposes. 

4.2.2.1.3 Recreation and Visitor Services Decisions

Management decisions for recreation and visitor services would have both beneficial and adverse 

impacts to cave and karst resources. Impacts may occur as a result of SRMA and ERMA

designations and subsequent recreation management. The impacts associated with increased 

visitation to cave or karst resources would include trampling and degradation of unique or fragile 

geologic features within caves. Overall disturbance to cave ecosystems could also occur as a 

result of increased visitation. 

Activities that are not subject to the permitting process, such as dispersed recreation and crosscountry OHV use, also have the potential to disturb cave and karst resources. When recreational 

users stray from established trails, adverse impacts may occur, especially in caves. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-20

Beneficial impacts from recreation management decisions on cave and karst resources could also 

occur. Travel management decisions could have beneficial impacts to cave and karst resources 

in those areas where travel is restricted to existing roads and trails or closed to motorized travel. 

Mineral resource management decisions could be restricted within SRMA and ERMAs through 

site-specific NEPA analysis and could also indirectly protect cave and karst resources. The same 

number and size of SRMA and ERMAs are proposed under Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Approximately 1,181 acres of known cave and karst features would receive indirect beneficial 

impacts from SRMA and ERMA designations in under Alternative, B, C, and D. 

4.2.2.1.4 Cultural Resources Decisions

Cultural resource management decisions would have a beneficial impact to cave and karst 

resources where cultural resources are located in or within proximity to cave or karst features. 

Management restrictions associated with cultural resources would provide an indirect benefit to 

caves and karst features because less surface disturbance is generally allowed to take place near 

cultural resource sites. 

4.2.2.1.5 Special Designation Decisions

Special designations would have a beneficial impact to cave and karst resources when they 

require restrictions on surface-disturbing activities within the boundaries of the particular 

designation. Travel and mineral resource management decisions are the two major surfacedisturbing activities that would be restricted within special designations and that also indirectly 

protect cave and karst resources. Specifically, the Pronoun Cave Complex ACEC would have 

beneficial impacts to cave and karst resources, because the ACEC protects the only known cave 

complex on BLM lands in the Planning Area. The Pronoun Cave Complex ACEC was 

designated under the 1986 RMP (BLM 1986). In the current DRMP/DEIS, the ACEC would be 

maintained at its current size under Alternatives A and C. Alternative B would expand the 

ACEC to include an updated inventory of cave resources. Alternative D would remove the 

ACEC designation. Additionally, under Alternative B, the Pronoun Cave Complex ACEC 

would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry, closed to saleable mineral extraction, and 

managed as CSU for leasable mineral development. Under Alternative C, the ACEC would be 

managed as CSU for leasable mineral development and saleable mineral extraction would be 

avoided. Under Alternative D, the Pronoun Cave area would be open to the extraction of 

saleable minerals and locatable mineral entry. Under Alternatives C and D, prescribed livestock 

grazing would also be allowed to occur within the boundaries of the Pronoun Cave Complex. 

Cave resources would be adversely impacted under Alternatives C and D for the Pronoun Cave 

ACEC. 

4.2.2.1.6 Soil and Water Resources Decisions

A defining characteristic of cave and karst features is their hydrologic properties. As a result, 

management decisions associated with soil and water resources, as described under Management 

Common to All Alternatives for soil and water resources in Chapter 2, would have a beneficial 

indirect impact to cave and karst resources because those policies, laws, and proposed actions to 

protect soil and water would also protect cave and karst resources. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-21

4.2.2.1.7 Paleontological Resources Decisions

Paleontological resource management decisions would have a beneficial impact to cave and karst 

resources where paleontological resources are located within or in proximity to cave or karst 

features. Management restrictions associated with paleontological resources would provide an 

indirect benefit to caves and karst features because less surface disturbance is generally allowed 

to take place near paleontological resource sites. 

4.2.2.1.8 Wildlife and Special-status Species Decisions

Management decisions associated with wildlife resources and special-status species would have 

a beneficial impact to cave and karst resources if those species were known to inhabit cave or 

karst features. Management restrictions intended to protect species would provide an indirect 

benefit to cave and karst features because less surface disturbance is generally allowed to take 

place near special-status species habitat. 

4.2.2.2 Cumulative Impacts

The RPFO is unaware of any proposed or planned projects that would specifically impact the 

cave and karst resources that would be impacted by this RMP. 

4.2.3 Cultural Resources

Both adverse and beneficial impacts are anticipated from the decisions made in the RMP/EIS. 

Adverse impacts to cultural resources in the Planning Area would primarily result from activities 

associated with surface and subsurface disturbance such as development projects, recreational 

use/OHV travel, and fire and fuels management. However, adverse impacts would also result 

from specific cultural resource management decisions and non-surface-disturbing activities that 

create visual and/or auditory effects. These latter impacts would apply primarily to sites or 

locations deemed sacred or traditionally important by Native American tribes and used by these 

groups in such a manner that visual obstructions and/or noise levels impinge upon that use. 

Impacts to cultural resources from program decisions are considered to be long term for the 

purpose of this analysis. Beneficial impacts to cultural resources would primarily result from 

decisions that would restrict surface disturbance, close or limit travel, or stabilize soils through 

restoration activities.

Because the majority of cultural resources that have been identified on BLM lands in the 

Planning Area consist of archaeological sites, the primary concern for impacts relates to 

disturbance of the artifacts, features, and architecture of sites in ways that reduce their integrity, 

alter their association with traditional values, and reduce the potential to recover data. 

Archaeological data consist of both “objects” (in the broad sense of artifacts, architecture, 

features, etc.) and the horizontal and vertical relationships between these objects. Our ability to 

interpret and understand the past is based on recovering not only the material culture of the past 

in the form of artifacts, buildings, and the built environment, but the spatial relationships 

between different aspects of material culture. Consequently, surface and subsurface disturbances 

have the greatest potential for adverse impacts to cultural resources. Impacts can include 

elimination or reduction of the setting and physical integrity of a sacred or other site, including 

NRHP-eligible sites, landscapes, and cultural theme areas. Other impacts include disruption or 

reduction of the religious values of sites and areas, reduction in the data potential of a site, and 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-22

damage to traditional collection areas or resource sites. In general, impacts to cultural resources 

from surface disturbance are long term and permanent; once an archaeological site has been 

impacted, the effect typically cannot be reversed. However, as stated previously, short-term 

effects from visual or auditory impacts would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated.

Potential impacts to specific cultural resources from the various proposed management 

alternatives are difficult to quantify precisely. The management alternatives neither stipulate 

precise areas for surface-disturbing activities, nor are the precise locations of all cultural 

resources in the area known. However, it is possible to estimate impacts based on the proposed 

general locations of activities and the relationships of these planning areas to zones of high, 

medium, or low cultural resource site density. 

4.2.3.1 Analysis Assumptions

The RPFO created a site density model using site location data from the New Mexico Cultural 

Resource Information System (NMCRIS) database provided to the BLM in March 2010 clipped 

to the Planning Area boundary. To maximize the area for which quantitative analysis of impacts 

could be conducted, a GIS layer consisting of areas for which there has been some level of site 

identification was created. This layer was based on both NMCRIS survey polygons and site 

locations for which no survey polygon was available in NMCRIS. To create a proxy for a survey 

polygon in these cases, the assumption was made that where site concentrations exist, some kind 

of systematic inventory probably occurred, but has not made it into NMCRIS for some reason. 

Isolated sites could be the result of a systematic inventory of a small area, or of a larger area with 

low site density. Regardless, some investigation of the area around each site was most likely 

conducted during efforts to define site boundaries. The survey polygons that are included in 

NMCRIS include block surveys, linear corridor surveys, and sample surveys using widely 

spaced transects (usually 150–200 meters [492–656 feet]). The large number of small surveys, 

and particularly linear and sample surveys, creates a large edge effect. To lessen this somewhat, 

an approximate 200-meter (656-foot) buffer was added to survey polygons. The assumption is 

that the density predicted within the survey area would most likely extend to at least 200 meters

(656 feet) from the area actually observed. These two buffered layers (NMCRIS survey and site 

location) were then merged and dissolved to create the area within which the predicted site 

density model could be applied. The parts of the site density model that fell outside the buffered 

archaeological data layer are considered areas for which no data really exist, and the model is 

likely to be inaccurate. Table 4.7 shows the predicted cultural resource site density (in acres) on 

BLM lands within the Planning Area. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-23

Table 4.7: Cultural Resource Site Density on BLM Lands in the Planning Area (acres)

Site Density Level Acres

Low 28,108

Medium 289,976

High 15,054

No data 411,249

Total 744,387

4.2.3.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts 

4.2.3.2.1 Mineral Resources Decisions

Management decisions to allow mineral development would have minimal impacts to cultural 

resources though the required inventories would add to our knowledge about cultural resources.

In addition, mineral development activities that are visible on or above the surface would have 

the potential to directly impact the visual integrity of cultural properties that derive their 

significance from a natural setting or from a setting relatively devoid of modern intrusion. 

Mineral resources management decisions would impact 1.1% of BLM lands within the Planning 

Area over the next twenty years, according to the RPFO RFD for leasable, locatable, and 

saleable minerals. It is anticipated that mineral extraction activities would be located in areas 

that avoid impacts to cultural resources. Standard BLM policy and the NHPA Section 106 

process would be applied to all applications for disturbance, thereby reducing opportunities for 

direct adverse impacts related to this disturbance. The RPFO has also developed leasing 

stipulations (see Appendix H) that would protect cultural resources under all alternatives. 

Cultural resources would be protected through either NSO (under Alternatives A and B) or CSU 

(all alternatives); thereby protecting cultural resources through avoidance, minimization, or 

mitigation of adverse impacts under all alternatives. Inadvertent impacts and impacts from 

vandalism that often accompany increased human activity in developed areas may occur because 

there would be more people in the area increasing the probability that acts of vandalism would be 

committed. Impacts from looting would likely decrease because increased human presence acts 

as a deterrent for this kind of activity. 

4.2.3.2.2 Fire Management Decisions

Fire management decisions would have adverse impacts to cultural resources when fuel 

treatments occur where cultural resources are present. Prescribed fires can burn artifacts and 

features, which is of greater concern on sites with combustible cultural material. Fuels 

treatments that cause ground disturbance disturb the integrity of deposits or features, and damage

artifacts if present. Beneficial impacts to cultural resources from fire management include the 

improvement of herbaceous cover on or near cultural resource sites and the potential reduction of 

catastrophic fires that would destroy or damage artifacts, features, or structures. Adverse 

impacts to cultural resources would be avoided by site-specific NEPA analysis applied prior to 

fuels treatments. Table 4.8 identifies the number of acres of proposed fuel treatments within 

each Fire Management Unit and the associated cultural site density. The proposed fuel 

treatments are common to all alternatives; therefore, the impacts to cultural resources from fire 

management decisions would be the same for all alternatives.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-24

Table 4.8: Proposed Fuel Treatment Areas (acres) within Low to High Cultural Site Density Locations

Fire Management

Treatment Areas

Low Site 

Density

Medium 

Site Density

High Site 

Density No Data Total

FRCC 2 and FRCC 3 total 23,206 238,822 12,967 336,963 612,958

*Both FRCC 2 and 3 areas are proposed for 100% treatment over the next 20 years.

4.2.3.2.3 Lands and Realty Decisions

Lands and realty decisions would have adverse impacts to cultural resources when lands 

proposed for disposal lead to the loss of cultural resources. Site-specific NEPA analysis would 

be applied prior to the disposal of lands managed by the BLM to avoid adverse impacts to 

cultural resources. In addition, cultural resources on public land that is otherwise suitable for 

disposal would be considered for exchange only with state or local agencies or non-profit private 

organizations with wildlife management responsibilities. Table 4.9 identifies the number of 

acres proposed for land disposal and the associated cultural resource site density. Alternative B 

would result in the greatest protection of cultural resources because the fewest number of BLM 

acres would be disposed (0.3% of the total surface acres) while the most acres of BLM lands 

would be disposed under Alternative A (8%). The Preferred alternative identifies 2.6% of BLM 

surface acres for disposal. 

Table 4.9: Lands Identified for Disposal (acres), by Cultural Resource Site Density Level

Site Density Level Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Low 3,277 3,277 3,334 3,334

Medium 14,234 15,229 15,665 15,665

High 1,071 1,071 1,266 4,407

No data 36,802 37,895 38,645 38,645

Total 55,384 57,472 58,910 62,051

4.2.3.2.4 Special Designations Decisions

Special designations would have a beneficial impact to cultural resources because of 

management restrictions that are applied within the boundaries of the particular designation. 

Travel and mineral resource management decisions are the two major surface-disturbing 

activities that would be restricted within special designations and that also indirectly protect 

cultural resources. ACECs and National Scenic Trails are the two special designations that are 

proposed in the RMP/EIS. The only National Scenic Trail on BLM lands within the Planning 

Area is the CDT. Table 4.10 provides the proposed number and acres of special designations, by 

alternative. Under Alternative B, the largest number of acres would be managed as special 

designations while the smallest number of acres would be managed as special designations under 

Alternative D. Under the Preferred alternative, 8,106 fewer acres than Alternative B would be 

managed as special designations.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-25

Table 4.10: Proposed Special Designations (number and acres) within the Planning Area, by Alternative

Special Designations Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

ACECs managed for cultural values 5 ACECs

25,182 acres

7 ACECs

52,718 acres

7 ACECs

39,934 acres

5 ACECs

11,373 acres

ACECs managed for other values 5 ACECs

28,583 acres

11 ACECs

97,256 acres

11 ACECs

97,095 acres

5 ACECs

31,526 acres

WSA/Wilderness Area 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963 acres

CDT 1 trail

11,474 acres

1 trail

38,808 acres

1 trail

23,607 acres

1 trail

11,474 acres

Total special designations acreages 137,720 acres 185,625 acres 178,000 acres 126,392 acres

Four ACECs are specifically proposed for the protection of cultural resources: Canon Jarido, 

Canon Tapia, Jones Canyon, and Guadalupe Ruin and Community. Three other ACECs, 

Cabezon Peak, Espinosa Ridge, and Ojito, are proposed for designation due to cultural values 

and other resource values. 

4.2.3.2.5 Recreation and Visitor Services Decisions

Management decisions for recreation and visitor services would have both beneficial and adverse 

impacts to cultural resources. Potentially significant impacts to cultural resources would occur 

as a result of SRMA or ERMA designations and subsequent recreation management. Increased 

visitation to areas with cultural sites increases the probability that artifact collection, vandalism, 

and trampling of cultural resources would occur. Increased visitation also increases the 

likelihood of encounters between recreational users and Native American groups engaged in 

ceremonial use of an area, which is protected under AIRFA. 

Activities that are not subject to the permitting process, such as dispersed recreation and crosscountry OHV use, also have the potential to disturb cultural resources. When recreational users 

stray from established trails, adverse impacts occur to cultural resources if they are present. 

Bicycles and horses, in particular, have the potential to cause adverse impacts to cultural 

resources that are located on sensitive soils. Some visitors to public lands commit acts of 

vandalism, which can include illegal excavation of archaeological sites (i.e., pot hunting), illegal 

collecting of surface artifacts, damage to historic structures (shooting or dismantling), and 

defacement of petroglyphs. 

Beneficial impacts from recreation management decisions would result from surface disturbance

restrictions for travel management and mineral resources. Recreation management decisions 

would have beneficial impacts to cultural resources in those areas where travel is restricted to 

existing roads and trails or closed to motorized travel. In addition, under Alternatives B and C, 

one SRMA and 20 ERMAs would be managed as CSU for leasable fluid minerals, open to 

saleable mineral extraction, and withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. Under Alternative D, 

the SRMA and ERMAs would be managed as CSU for leasable fluid minerals, open to saleable

mineral extraction, and open to locatable mineral entry. SRMAs are not proposed under 

Alternative A. Table 4.11 provides the proposed SRMA and ERMAs (in acres) and the 

associated cultural resource site density within each designated area. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-26

Table 4.11: Cultural Resource Density Classes with the Proposed SRMA and ERMAs (acres) by Alternative

Site Density Level Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Low 0 12,488 12,488 12,488

Medium 0 90,781 90,781 90,781

High 0 5,956 5,956 5,956

No data 0 123,017 123,017 123,017

Total SRMA/ERMA acreages 0 232,242 232,242 232,242

4.2.3.2.6 Cultural Resource Decisions

Federal historic preservation laws that require analysis of impacts from federal actions already 

protect cultural resources on federal lands. Complying with management measures for 

authorized actions requires consulting with federally recognized tribes and other interested 

parties, identifying and evaluating cultural resources, and adhering to procedures for resolving 

any adverse effects and mitigating impacts. Completion of the Section 106 process is required 

for all federal undertakings implementing resource management plan decisions. There is a 

greater risk of impacts resulting from unauthorized activities, natural processes, dispersed 

activities, and incremental or inadvertent human actions, especially where inventories are 

incomplete.

In addition, decisions considered in the RMP/EIS that provide for management prescriptions that 

emphasize cultural resources would have beneficial impacts to cultural resources by four cultural 

resource areas with focused management. These cultural resource areas, Fort Site and Ojo 

Pueblo, Azabache Station, Big Bead Mesa, and the Headcut Prehistoric Community, do not meet 

the relevance and importance criteria for ACECs, but are still in need of protection. Under 

Alternatives B and C, the Fort Site and Ojo Pueblo would be managed as NSO for leasable fluid 

minerals on 780 acres, closed to saleable mineral extraction on sixty acres, and withdrawn from 

locatable mineral entry on the sixty-acre parcel where the sites occur. Under Alternatives A, B, 

and C, Azabache Station would be managed to protect the cultural resources from surfacedisturbing activities. Under all alternatives, Big Bead Mesa would be managed to control access, 

limit travel, and restrict surface-disturbing activities from occurring on the Mesa. Under all 

alternatives, the Headcut Prehistoric Community would be managed to protect the cultural 

resources that occur on the site and to restrict surface-disturbing activities. 

4.2.3.2.7 Livestock Grazing Decisions

Livestock grazing management decisions would potentially have adverse impacts to cultural 

resources in areas where livestock congregate and increase the risk of damage to cultural 

resources present within the area of concentration. Site-specific NEPA analysis and NHPA 

Section 106 compliance would be applied prior to the issuance of grazing permits and range 

improvements. Administrative actions, such as fencing high-value cultural sites, would be taken 

when needed to avoid adverse impacts to cultural resources. Grazing allotments make up 

approximately 95% of BLM lands in the Planning Area. Based on the prevalence of livestock 

grazing and site probabilities listed in Table 4.7, it is likely that livestock grazing would impact 

cultural resources under all alternatives. Alternative B is the most restrictive of livestock grazing 

because grazing would be removed from special designations and riparian areas; therefore, the 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-27

risk of impacts to cultural resources would be less under Alternative B. Alternatives C and D 

allow for livestock grazing within special designations and riparian areas when resource values 

are compatible with grazing activities. As a result, the impact to cultural resources from 

livestock grazing would be greater under Alternatives C and D. 

4.2.3.2.8 Forests and Woodlands Decisions

Forest and woodland management decisions would have adverse and beneficial impacts to 

cultural resources. Areas open to the harvesting of forest products would have indirect adverse 

impacts to cultural resources through increased visitation to harvesting areas that have potential 

cultural sites. Increased numbers of people in areas with cultural sites increases the probability 

that unauthorized artifact collection, vandalism, and trampling of cultural resources would occur. 

However, not all wood product harvest would involve public firewood areas. If contractors or 

agencies conduct the harvest operation these adverse impacts are less likely. Adverse impacts 

could also arise from ground disturbance associated with forest treatment. Alternative A opens 

the fewest number of acres to forest product harvest. Beneficial impacts would include the 

improvement of herbaceous cover on or adjacent to cultural resource sites. Forest treatments 

could generate slash that could be placed on the ground to reduce erosion in places where 

cultural resources need protection from erosion. Alternative D opens the largest number of 

acres to forest product harvest. Table 4.12 shows the predicted cultural resource site densities 

within the proposed forest product harvest areas (in acres). 

Table 4.12: Predicted Cultural Resource Site Densities within Forest Product Harvest Areas (acres)

Site Density Level Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Low 0 3,855 20,447 25,129

Medium 8,881 49,463 226,917 256,173

High 0 3,381 9,791 12,011

No data 3,305 62,736 303,166 350,819

Total 12,186 119,435 560,321 644,132

4.2.3.2.9 Travel Management Decisions

Travel management decisions would have both beneficial and adverse impacts to cultural 

resources. Areas closed to motorized travel would reduce the potential for human interaction 

with cultural resource sites, while those areas open to travel or limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails could lead to vandalism, artifact collection, and trampling of cultural 

resource sites. Areas designated as open to motorized travel would also be adversely impacted 

by surface disturbance caused by cross-country vehicle travel. Table 4.13 shows the proposed 

travel management decisions, by alternative. Alternative B would close the largest number of 

acres to motorized travel and open the least. Alternative A would close the smallest number of 

acres to motorized travel and open the most. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-28

Table 4.13: Proposed Travel Management Decisions on Predicted Cultural Resource Site Densities on BLM 

Lands within the Planning Area (acres)

Category Site

Density

Alternative A

No Action* Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Closed

Low 390 6,201 4,625 2,979

Medium 9,550 66,644 35,676 33,754

High 52 3,095 3,095 3,095

No data 10,324 101,300 80,679 60,295

Open

Low 16,935 0 983 983

Medium 72,908 170 353 373

High 4,291 3,504 0 0

No data 209,446 877 16,933 18,100

Limited

Low 10,783 21,908 22,501 24,146

Medium 207,519 223,162 253,947 255,849

High 10,711 8,456 11,959 11,959

No data 191,478 309,070 313,636 332,854

* These acreages are based on BLM land ownership under the 1986 RMP.

4.2.3.3 Cumulative Impacts

Surface-disturbing activities, such as the Desert Rock Power Plant, Northwest Loop Road, the 

Red Mesa Wind Farm, the N55 Road Improvement Project, fire and fuels management on nonBLM land in the Planning Area, the potential Renewable Energy Transmission Authority 

(RETA) transmission corridor, and uranium development, could contribute to cumulative 

impacts of cultural resources. These projects, where specific project areas are known, account for 

approximately 500,000 acres of surface disturbance across federal, state, tribal, and private lands. 

These activities, where applicable, would require adherence to federal and state cultural resource 

laws and regulations, resulting in the inventory and identification of cultural sites, avoidance, and 

in some cases data recovery. 

Oil and gas development and mineral exploration and development have occurred across this 

region in the past and would continue into the future, both on BLM lands under the RMP/EIS 

and on state and private inholdings. Mineral development of inholdings and lands adjacent to the 

Planning Area would continue to increase the human presence in the general area, thereby 

increasing the risk to cultural resources from looting, vandalism, and inadvertent impacts. 

Many decisions related to VRM, special designations, and restrictions on surface disturbance

have the potential to provide a net positive benefit to cultural resources within the Planning Area. 

These decisions would reduce or control the frequency and extent of ground-disturbing activities 

that present the greatest threat to maintaining the use values of cultural resources. 

Specific undertakings that could result in surface and subsurface disturbance and have the 

potential to impact cultural resources are subject to the Section 106 process of the NHPA, which 

calls for the identification of historic properties (i.e., NRHP-listed sites or sites determined 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-29

eligible for listing in the NRHP) within the area of potential effects and the consideration of 

alternatives to the planned undertaking that could avoid impacts to said properties. In the event 

that avoidance is not possible, mitigation of the impacts is to be considered. 

4.2.4 Fire Management

Current management of the RPFO fire management program follows guidance in the Fire and 

Fuels RMP Amendment (BLM 2004), the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, and the most 

recent RPFO Fire Management Plan (BLM 2011c), which address recent issues of concern in 

fire management to both the public and internal resource specialists. The goal of the RPFO fire 

management program is to lower the FRCC within the Planning Area. Treatment acreages have 

been identified in Chapter 2 that would occur in FRCC 2 and 3, with the target outcome of 

moving towards FRCC 1 in those treated areas. 

In general, the majority of fire management issues deal with the management of terrestrial 

vegetation. Current terrestrial vegetation management practices under wildlife, range, and 

forestry are conducive to the management goals for fire management. 

Programs that have management decisions affecting wildland fire ecology are cultural resources, 

forests and woodlands, lands and realty, livestock grazing, travel management, vegetative 

communities, and wildlife and fish. 

4.2.4.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts 

4.2.4.1.1 Cultural Resources Decisions

Cultural resource management decisions, including the management of ACECs with cultural 

resource values, would have adverse impacts to fire and fuels management because of 

restrictions on potential treatment areas. These restrictions would result in a loss of treatable 

acres or reduction of treatment options based on recommendations to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse impacts to identified cultural resources. Restrictions would be applied on a 

case-by-case basis, and it is likely that fuels treatments would be modified, but not completely 

restricted, in most areas. Site-specific analysis would be applied for fuel treatments and 

appropriate mitigation measures would be identified at that time. 

4.2.4.1.2 Forests and Woodlands Decisions

Forest and woodland management decisions would have beneficial impacts to fire management

because removal of forest products, through activities such as Christmas tree harvesting and 

firewood thinning, would result in the long-term reduction in fuels loading and, subsequently, 

catastrophic fire threats. Removal of forest products would also result in increase growth of 

forbs and grasses due to the removal of overstory vegetation. The presence of dried understory 

vegetation could result in increased fire frequency in some areas. Table 4.14 identifies the acres 

of forest product collection areas within proposed fire management treatment areas. Alternative 

D opens the most acres to forest product harvest while Alternative A opens the smallest number 

of acres. By allowing removal of forest products in these areas, it is anticipated that the FRCC

would shift towards FRCC 1. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-30

Table 4.14: Forest Product Harvest Areas (acres) within RPFO Fire Management Units

Fire Management Unit Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

B6. Sandia 0 3,080 5,730 12,924

B8. Candy Kitchen 0 3 12,828 12,828

C1. North Malpais 0 29,078 98,333 99,045

C3. Wilderness and 

WSAs

0 3 257 317

C5. Mesa Chivato 1,718 214 4,348 9,640

C7. Scattered 

Grass/Shrub

10,468 87,057 438,825 509,378

Total 12,186 119,435 560,321 644,132

4.2.4.1.3 Fire Management Decisions

The comprehensive Fire and Fuels Plan Amendment (BLM 2004) and the most recent RPFO 

Fire Management Plan (currently BLM 2011c) guide fire management decisions on BLM lands 

in the Planning Area. Direction and guidance approved by these two plans are incorporated by 

reference into the RMP/EIS. T he Fire and Fuels Plan Amendment provides fire management 

direction that is common to all alternatives being considered in this RMP/EIS. Readers should 

note that the potential impacts of implementing the Fire and Fuels Plan Amendment across the 

entire Planning Area were analyzed as part of the Environmental Assessment prepared for that 

document (BLM 2004). Fuel management treatment acres are also proposed in Chapter 2 in 

addition to the treatment acres outlined in the Fire and Fuels Plan Amendment. These proposed 

fuel treatment areas are also considered management common to all alternatives. 

Under all alternatives, approximately 32,000 acres of land rated FRCC 2 or 3 would be treated 

annually on BLM lands in the Planning Area depending on budgetary and time constraints. WUI

areas, areas with fuel loading that could potentially result in the loss of ecosystem components 

following wildland fire, and areas that meet other management goals and objectives would be 

treated with prescribed fire and non-fire treatments (mechanical removal, chemical and 

biological treatments, manual removal, seeding, etc.). The overall impact of these treatments 

would be improvement in FRCC levels within the Planning Area and movement towards FRCC 

1. The treatments would occur within 100% of the FRCC 2 and 3 areas on BLM lands within the 

Planning Area, as described in Table 4.15. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-31

Table 4.15: Proposed Fuel Treatment Areas (acres) by FRCC

Fire Management Unit FRCC I

Acres

FRCC 2 

Acres

FRCC 3

Acres

Not 

Inventoried Total

B6. Sandia 1,456 7,515 2,978 975 12,924

B8. Candy Kitchen 569 5,859 6,391 9 12,828

C1. North Malpais 2,716 66,311 28,708 1,448 99,183

C3. Wilderness and WSAs 8,978 37,094 1,867 2,705 50,644

C5. Mesa Chivato 3,145 37,851 17,112 421 58,529

C7. Scattered Grass/Shrub 70,568 357,719 43,553 38,439 510,279

Total 87,432 512,349 100,609 43,997 744,387

Total Acres Needing 

Treatment 512,349 100,609 612,958

4.2.4.1.4 Lands and Realty Decisions

Lands and realty decisions could have adverse impacts to fire management. Proposed land 

disposals could result in increased development of infrastructure adjacent to public land, which 

could increase the exposure of private holdings to wildland fire, expanding urban interface 

management needs. Alternative B would dispose of the least amount of acres in FRCC 2 and 3, 

while Alternative D would dispose of the largest. Table 4.16 provides the number of acres 

proposed for disposal in FRCC 2 and 3, by alternative. 

Table 4.16: Parcels Identified for Disposal (acres) in FRCC 2 and 3 by Alternative

Status Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Disposals in FRCC 2 29,505 30,529 30,947 33,025

Disposal in FRCC 3 21,141 21,937 22,512 22,635

Total Disposal in FRCC 2 and 3 50,646 52,466 53,459 55,660

Lands and realty decisions could also have a beneficial impact to fire management. Disposal and 

acquisition of parcels within the checkerboard areas within the Planning Area would improve the 

ability of the RPFO to implement effective fire management decisions. 

4.2.4.1.5 Livestock Grazing Decisions

Livestock grazing would have both adverse and beneficial impacts to fire management. Adverse 

impacts include alterations in FRCC because key ecosystem components such as species 

composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and fuel loading would be altered 

within the Planning Area though livestock grazing activities. Beneficial impacts from livestock 

grazing activities include reducing the risk of catastrophic fire by reducing the amount of 

understory vegetation increasing water availability for suppression, and maintaining large 

undeveloped acreages, which reduces the potential for urban interface fires. Treatment areas 

within grazing allotments would also require rest for a minimum of two growing seasons or 

more, as determined by resource managers through consultation and coordination with the 

permittee or lessee. Furthermore, with livestock owners and managers living in proximity to 

BLM lands, there is a general increase of overall awareness of local conditions and fire ignitions, 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-32

primarily ignitions caused by public land users recreating on BLM lands. Table 4.17 provides 

the number of acres proposed for grazing within each Fire Management Unit, by alternative. 

Alternative A proposes the largest number of acres for livestock grazing within the RPFO Fire 

Management Units, while Alternative B proposes the smallest. 

Table 4.17: Acres of Proposed Livestock Grazing (acres) within RPFO Fire Management Units

Fire Management Unit Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

B6. Sandia 11,769 4595 7,174 7,174

B8. Candy Kitchen 12,039 633 11,406 11,406

C1. North Malpais 52,448 831 51,617 51,617

C3. Wilderness and WSAs 39,861 12 39,849 39,849

C5. Mesa Chivato 58,351 2 58,349 58,349

C7. Scattered Grass/Shrub 449,501 225,848 223,653 223,653

Total 623,969 231,921 392,048 392,048

4.2.4.1.6 Travel Management Decisions

Travel management decisions would have a beneficial impact to fire management in those areas 

that are identified for closure to travel in the RMP/EIS. Approximately 80% of fire starts are 

estimated to occur from lightning and 20% are human-caused; therefore, closing portions of the 

Planning Area to travel would reduce human activity within those closed areas and possibly 

prevent human caused fires from occurring. Table 4.18 provides the proposed travel 

management decisions (in acres) under each alternative. Under Alternative B, the most acres 

would be closed to motorized travel and the least acres would be open to motorized travel. 

Under Alternatives C and D, the same number of acres would be open to motorized travel.

Table 4.18: Proposed Travel Management Decisions (acres), by Alternative

Category Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Open 303,580 4,551 18,269 19,456

Limited 420,491 562,596 602,043 624,808

Closed 20,316 177,240 124,075 100,123

Total 744,387 744,387 744,387 744,387

4.2.4.1.7 Vegetative Communities Decisions

Similar to forest and woodland management decisions, vegetation management decisions on 

BLM lands within the Planning Area would have a beneficial impact to fire management. 

Vegetation treatments such as thinning, and prescribed fire would result in the long-term 

reduction of hazardous fuel loadings -and the occurrence of catastrophic wildfires. Specific 

vegetation treatments on BLM lands within the Planning Area are not identified in the RMP/EIS. 

Site-specific NEPA analysis would occur prior to implementation of vegetation treatments. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-33

4.2.4.1.8 Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions

Wildlife and fisheries management decisions would have both beneficial and adverse impacts to 

fire management. Under all alternatives, fuels treatments would be avoided during the nesting 

season for migratory birds (April 15–August 15). The DRMP/DEIS also proposes other 

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities, including buffers around prairie dog towns and 

raptor nests, avoidance of big game winter range, and big game fawning/calving habitat. These 

restrictions could potentially require the modification of fire management activities during 

specific time periods and reduce the options available for fuels reduction, surface-disturbing 

vegetative treatments, and prescribed fire within the proximity of the wildlife areas disclosed in 

Table 4.19. Under Alternative A, the least amount of surface restrictions are proposed to protect 

wildlife on BLM lands, while the most surface restrictions would be implemented under 

Alternative B.

Table 4.19: Proposed Surface Restrictions (acres) to Protect Wildlife on BLM Lands within the Planning 

Area, by Alternative

Surface Restrictions Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Raptor nest buffers 

(March 1–June 30) 0 48,415 22,136 8,300

Big game winter range 

(November 15–April 30) 0 189,290 189,290 0

Prairie dog towns 0 5,127 1,999 216

Wildlife habitat projects 0 725 725 0

Some wildlife management decisions common to all alternatives would benefit fire management

on BLM lands in the Planning Area. Dispersed camping in riparian areas would be restricted 

under all alternatives, which would slightly reduce the likelihood of human-caused wildfire in 

these areas, as would the implementation of a limited fire suppression policy (and initiation of 

prescribed fires) where fuels treatments such as thinning, and prescribed fire would increase 

vegetation productivity and increase forage for wildlife, which is also proposed under all 

alternatives.

4.2.4.2 Cumulative Impacts

Under the guidance of the RPFO Fire Plan, and fire plans in adjacent BLM Field Offices and 

U.S. Forest Service Ranger Districts, fuel load reductions, vegetation treatments, and woodland 

salvaging would reduce the risks of wildland fire within the Planning Area. The Southwest 

Jemez Mountains Restoration Project would have beneficial cumulative impacts to fire 

management within the Planning Area. The Jemez Mountains are adjacent to the Planning Area; 

therefore, improved forest conditions in the Jemez Mountains could result in a lower chance of 

high-intensity wildfires starting in the Jemez Mountains and spreading to BLM lands in the 

Planning Area. Similarly, the Valles Caldera Landscape Restoration and Management Plan and 

the proposed fire and fuel treatments across lands in New Mexico could have beneficial impacts 

to BLM forests and woodlands in the Planning Area because the threat of high-intensity wildfires 

would be reduced on a landscape level. These project areas total approximately 500,000 acres 

across north-central New Mexico.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-34

Adverse impacts to fire management could occur from projects that increase the amount of urban 

development within the Planning Area, thereby increase the number of WUI acres adjacent to 

BLM lands. The Northwest Loop Road may require a right-of-way permit from the RPFO, 

depending on the final alignment of the proposed project. The final width of the right-of-way is 

not known, but the length of the proposed project is approximately 39 miles. The proposed 

Northwest Loop Road could lead to increased WUI lands in the Planning Area, however, the 

amount of development that would occur from the proposed road and the relative risk are 

speculative at this time. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-35

Map 005-FMU (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-36

Map 006-FRCC (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-37

4.2.5 Forests and Woodlands

Table 4.20 shows the number of acres potentially open to forest product removal and those areas 

where such activities would be prohibited under each alternative. It is important to note that the 

alternatives give a maximum number of acres that would be considered for the location of 

individual forest product harvest areas over the next twenty years on BLM lands within the 

Planning Area. Decisions made under this RMP/EIS related for forests and woodlands would 

not automatically open all acres listed in Table 4.20 to harvesting. The acreages listed below 

represent the BLM land base in the Planning Area available to be designated as specific forest 

product harvest areas. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be conducted prior to opening a 

specific area for forest product harvesting. The restricted areas listed below would result in 

adverse impacts to the harvesting of woodland products. The great majority of this harvesting is 

casual collection by individuals, such as for firewood, vigas, latillas, Christmas trees, and 

greenwood cutting.

Table 4.20: Potential Areas Open for Forest Product Harvesting (acres) with a List of Restricted Areas, by 

Alternative

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

12,186 acres 119,435

Riparian areas

ACECs

WSAs

VRM Class I

SRMAs

ERMAs

Wilderness Areas

Sensitive Soils

Lands with 

wilderness 

characteristics 

managed to 

protect 

wilderness 

characteristics

560,321

Riparian areas

ACECs

WSAs

Wilderness Areas

Lands with 

wilderness 

characteristics 

managed to 

protect 

wilderness 

characteristics

644,132 acres

Wilderness 

Areas

WSAs

4.2.5.1 Analysis Assumptions

Forest product removal is a permitted multiple use; therefore, a variety of regulations, 

administrative processes, and best management practices exist to ensure that harvest levels 

remain sustainable and minimize the chance of adverse impacts to other resources. It is assumed 

that forest management activities would be carried out in compliance with existing policies and 

regulations at both the state and federal levels.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-38

It is assumed that forest product removal in areas on BLM land within the Planning Area open to 

woodland harvesting could have direct and indirect beneficial impacts to the resource because: 1) 

opportunities would be available for the public to legally harvest wood for a variety of uses, 

which could reduce the incidence of trespass and timber theft which can cause damage to soils, 

vegetation and result in the loss of large diameter trees; and 2) managed woodland harvesting 

(harvesting-related fuel load reductions) could reduce fuel loading and related wildland fire risks 

in dense woodland stands, thereby reducing the likelihood of a stand replacement fire in 

ponderosa pine woodlands (USDA 2006) A stand replacement fire in ponderosa could kill old 

growth and large diameter ponderosa pine and could result in a loss of habitat and forest 

resources. Additionally harvest or removal of forest and woodland products could have a direct 

beneficial impact by increasing the diversity and abundance of herbaceous and woody vegetation 

(Moore 2006). Studies have shown that where dense stands of piñon-juniper have been thinned, 

understory vegetation increased dramatically on the heaviest thinned plots and the number of 

vegetation species present also increased significantly. (Jacobs 2002)

It is also assumed that forest product removal could cause adverse impacts to resources such as 

wildlife including direct habitat loss, forage loss, habitat degradation, and habitat fragmentation. 

Short-term indirect, adverse impacts of wood gathering on wildlife species and their habitats 

could include trampling and removal of native vegetation, which result in habitat degradation 

that can include reduced prey species, forage species, and cover. The criteria for impacts 

analysis were the number of acres available and unavailable for woodland harvesting on BLM 

lands within the Planning Area.

The RMP/EIS prohibits the harvest of riparian species such as cottonwood and willow (except 

for limited Native American uses). Harvest of these riparian species is therefore not analyzed 

further.

4.2.5.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts 

4.2.5.2.1 Fire Management Decisions

One of the main goals of the forests and woodlands program is to restore forests and woodlands 

to the pre-fire-suppression range of historic variability for species composition, age, size, and 

density classes. Fire management decisions would support this goal and thereby provide a 

beneficial impact to forests and woodlands. In terms of harvesting of forest products, fuels 

treatments on BLM lands within the Planning Area could lead to improved forest conditions and 

harvest areas. Under all alternatives, approximately 32,000 acres of land rated FRCC 2 or 3 

would be treated annually on BLM lands in the Planning Area depending on budgetary and time 

constraints. As a result, fire management decisions would provide beneficial impacts to forest 

and woodland resources equally across all alternatives. Short-term adverse impacts from fire 

management decisions would include removal of vegetative cover resulting from fuels 

treatments. 

4.2.5.2.2 Forests and Woodlands Decisions

Forest and woodland management decisions could have a beneficial impact to forest health. 

Goals and objectives of the forests and woodlands program not only focus on harvesting of forest 

products, but also on managing forested areas for ecosystem health, including but not limited to 

wildlife habitat, watershed processes, and riparian restoration and enhancement. Under all 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-39

alternatives, the RPFO would consider the New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles (NMBETF 

2006) and the New Mexico Forest and Watershed Health Plan ( NMSF 2004). In addition, the 

RPFO would consider forest health indicators, crown condition, down woody material, and tree 

growth when making forest and woodland management decisions. For example, forest 

restoration projects would be co-located within areas for forest product harvest, where 

appropriate. Additionally, impacts from forest and woodland decisions vary in scale and scope, 

depending on the alternative. Under Alternative A, the least amount of acres would be open for 

forest product removal so Alternative A would have the least impact. Under Alternatives B, C, 

and D, progressively more lands are available for forest product removal; therefore, Alternative 

D would have the greatest amount of both potentially beneficial and adverse impacts. In other 

words, the least amount of both beneficial and adverse impacts likely to occur are under 

Alternative A, followed by B, C, and D. Since D has the most land open to forest products 

removal, the likelihood of adverse impact occurring is probably at its greatest.

4.2.5.2.3 Mineral Resources Decisions

Mineral resources management decisions would have minimal impacts to forests and woodlands 

in forest product harvest areas. Areas where mineral extraction would occur, mineral operators

would remove forest products and make them available to authorized users.. 

According to the RFD, development of leasable, saleable, and locatable mineral resources would 

contribute to surface disturbance equating to 1.1% of BLM lands in the Planning Area over the 

next twenty years. It is anticipated that mineral extraction activities would be located in areas 

that avoid impacts to forests and woodlands. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be completed 

for applications for disturbance, thereby reducing opportunities for direct adverse impacts related 

to this disturbance. Table 4.21 shows the acres of forest and woodlands that would be managed 

as NSO, TL/CSU, or closed to oil and gas leasing. 

Table 4.21: Forest and Woodlands (acres) Proposed as NSO, TL/CSU, or Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing, by 

Alternative

Vegetation/Habitat 

Type

Alternative A

No Action

Alternative 

B

Alternative C

Preferred Alternative D

Ponderosa pine 32 352 352 352

Piñon-juniper 17,247 45,647 45,412 43,913

Riparian/Wetland 152 446 444 403

Shrub, steppe, scrub 45,787 154,292 153,493 148,452

Total 63,218 200,737 199,701 193,120

Table 4.22 shows the acres of forest and woodlands that would be closed to saleable minerals. 

Table 4.22: Forest and Woodlands (acres) Proposed as Closed to Saleable Mineral Extraction, by Alternative

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Ponderosa pine 2,345 3,235 3,235 2,904

Piñon-juniper 35,420 47,025 39,619 37,208
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-40

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Riparian/Wetland 904 1,335 1,187 1,123

Shrub, steppe, scrub 45,720 80,615 57,869 45,387

Total 84,389 132,210 101,910 86,622

Table 4.23 shows the acres of forest and woodlands that would be withdrawn from locatable 

mineral entry. 

Table 4.23: Forest and Woodlands (acres) Proposed as Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral Entry, by 

Alternative

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Ponderosa pine 0 3,275 3,275 560

Piñon-juniper 722 59,684 59,758 4,034

Riparian/Wetland 103 1,291 1,256 348

Shrub, steppe, scrub 10,890 147,194 140,230 14,436

Total 11,715 211,444 204,519 19,378

The RPFO has proposed two leasing stipulations (see Appendix H) that would: 1) protect

ponderosa pine; and 2) require reclamation of abandoned well pads in newly leased areas, as 

described under Alternatives B and C. These stipulations would minimize impacts to forest and 

woodlands from mineral resource decisions.

4.2.5.2.4 Travel Management Decisions

Travel management decisions would have both beneficial and adverse impacts to forests and 

woodlands. Areas closed to motorized travel would reduce public access to forest product 

harvest areas. Areas open to travel have the potential to adversely impact forest health

conditions by allowing off-road cross-country travel to occur within forest and woodlands. 

Under Alternatives C and D, the most acres would be open to motorized travel. Areas limiting 

travel to existing roads and trails would provide access to forest product harvest areas while 

minimizing adverse impacts to understory vegetation in forests and woodlands. Table 4.24

shows the proposed travel management decisions, by alternative, within forest product harvest 

areas. 

Table 4.24: Proposed Travel Management Decisions within Forest Product Harvest Areas (acres)

Category Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Closed 0 270 81 52

Open 0 24 18,269 19,456

Limited 12,186 119,141 541,971 624,624

Total 12,186 119,435 560,321 644,132
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-41

4.2.5.3 Cumulative Impacts

The reasonably foreseeable future actions would have long-term beneficial cumulative impacts 

to forest and woodland resources. Forest restoration treatments by the USFS, State Land Office, 

New Mexico State Forestry, and other BLM field office activities such as hazardous fuel 

reductions, vegetation treatments, and forest product removal, would reduce the risks of wildland 

fire and long-term loss of woodland resources and productivity within the Planning Area USDA 

2006). The preponderance of research indicates that these activities (including stand thinning 

and salvage of dead, diseased, and infested trees) would also improve forest and woodland 

ecological conditions (Allen 2002, Davenport 1998, Miller 2001, Moore 2006). 

Across the landscape, regardless of land ownership, past land management actions have resulted 

in increased tree densities and decreased spatial and vegetative diversity. Past, current, and future 

forest restoration efforts by state and federal agencies will have the cumulative effect of 

improved forest health across the landscape NMSF 2004). Restoring herbaceous vegetation, 

shrubs and browse, as well reducing tree densities and improving the health of old growth by 

reducing competition will have a beneficial impact on forest health (USDA 1999). These actions 

will reduce the adverse impact of insects and disease and severe wildfire across a broad 

landscape over time.

There are currently, and have been, a number of forest restoration and fuels reduction projects on 

USFS-managed lands adjacent to and within the vicinity of the planning area. Specifically, the 

Southwest Jemez Mountains Restoration Project and the Valles Caldera Landscape Restoration 

Project would have beneficial cumulative impacts to forests and woodlands near the Planning 

Area. The Jemez Mountains are adjacent to the Planning Area; therefore, improved forest health

in the Jemez Mountains could result in healthier forests and woodlands managed by the BLM. 

Ongoing forest restoration efforts by the USFS in the Mt Taylor and Zuni Mountain areas will 

add to the BLM work in the planning area by enlarging the landscape area receiving forest 

treatments. Since 1992, the District has had program to reduce tree densities in Piñon-Juniper 

woodlands. Tree densities were reduced and seeding with native grasses and forbs. The planning 

area for these projects account for approximately 500,000 acres of forest restoration within and 

near the RMP Planning Area. The BLM estimates that federal and state agencies would treat up 

to 206,800 acres with prescribed fire, 35,900 acres with mechanical treatments, and 10,000 acres 

with chemical treatments over 20 years (BLM 2004). 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-42

Map-007-Forestry-1A (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-43

Map-008-Forestry-1B (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-44

Map-009-Forestry-1C (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-45

Map-010-Forestry-1D (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-46

4.2.6 Health and Safety

Under all of the alternatives, environmental conditions, as well as public health and safety, 

would be protected as a result of the BLM hazardous materials management practices. 

Authorized uses of hazardous materials would adhere to federal and state requirements to reduce 

or eliminate impacts. BLM procedures (including leasing stipulations), as well as state and local 

agencies, would address accidental events and unauthorized use. These procedures would help 

minimize public exposure and environmental impacts to the extent possible.

4.2.6.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts 

4.2.6.1.1 Mineral Resources Decisions

Impacts to health and safety would include exposure from mineral extraction and abandoned 

mine lands (AML). Mineral extraction activities could pose a risk to health and safety in the 

following ways:

The installation of pipelines and supporting services for pipelines (e.g., compressor 

stations) would be necessary for oil and gas development. Pipelines and their associated 

features have the potential to leak or spill oil, gas, natural gas, condensate, or other 

hazardous materials. The companies installing and operating pipelines in the Planning 

Area are responsible for understanding and abiding by the applicable laws and 

regulations. The RPFO would be responsible for inspecting and monitoring these 

operations to ensure that these companies are in compliance with all applicable laws and 

regulations.

Mineral development activities would increase the instances of transportation. 

Transportation (e.g., trucking) companies are responsible for understanding and abiding 

by all applicable transportation laws and regulations.

The potential exists for gas flow line leakage or ruptures during natural gas extraction and 

processing. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) data indicate that an average of 

one rupture annually should be expected for every 5,000 miles of pipeline (Office of 

Pipeline Safety 2005). More than 50% of pipeline ruptures occur as a result of heavy 

equipment striking the pipeline. Such ruptures would potentially cause a fire or 

explosion if a spark or open flame ignited the natural gas escaping from the pipeline.

Pipeline design, materials, maintenance, and abandonment procedures are required to 

meet the standards set forth in DOT regulations (49 CFR Part 192, Transportation of 

Natural Gas by Pipelines). 

Well fires are rare but can occur under certain conditions, and a well fire could result 

from a blowout during drilling activities or from a gas leak during extraction operations. 

Conditions that would cause gas accumulation in a confined space and ignition by a spark 

would likely produce a well fire. 

The potential risks associated with oil and gas development include geologic hazards. 

These hazards include natural gas seepage, hydrogen sulfide releases, abnormally high 

gas pressure, seismic activity, fires, and explosions. 

The RPFO recognizes the need to identify and address physical safety and environmental 

hazards at all AML sites on public lands. Under all alternatives, AML sites would be prioritized
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-47

for remediation and closure, based on physical safety, watershed protection, and funding by other 

agencies. Reclamation of AML sites would be completed under all alternatives, when funding is 

available. These reclamation activities would have beneficial impacts to soil and water

resources, vegetative communities, and wildlife and fisheries. AML would be considered in 

future recreation management area designations, land use planning, and all applicable use 

authorizations. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the RPFO would implement a leasing 

stipulation that places NSO restrictions on areas managed for maintenance of public health and 

safety. The objective of the stipulation is to protect public health and safety in areas managed for 

this value. 

In conformance with the BLM’s long-term strategies and national policies regarding AML, this 

RMP/EIS recognizes the need to work with partners toward identifying and addressing physical 

safety and environmental hazards at all AML sites on public lands. 

4.2.6.1.2 Special Designations Decisions

Special designations would have a beneficial impact to health and safety because of management 

restrictions that are applied within the boundaries of the particular designation. Mineral resource 

management decisions would be restricted within special designations by leasing stipulations and 

restrictions on saleable and locatable mineral extraction, which also indirectly protect health and 

safety. ACECs and National Scenic Trails are the two special designations that are proposed in 

the RMP/EIS. The only National Scenic Trail on BLM lands within the Planning Area is the 

CDT. 

Specifically, the Legacy Uranium Mines ACEC would have beneficial impacts to health and 

safety because the ACEC would manage fifty acres of legacy uranium mines to reduce potential 

public exposure to the mines. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the ACEC would be managed as 

NSO, closed to the extraction of saleable minerals and motorized travel, and granting of rightsof-way would be avoided in the ACEC. The ACEC would remain open to locatable mineral 

entry under Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Table 4.25 provides the proposed number and acres of special designations, by alternative. 

Under Alternative B, the most acres would be managed for special designations, while under 

Alternative D, the least acres would be managed for special designations.

Table 4.25: Proposed Special Designations (quantity and acres) within the Planning Area, by Alternative

Special Designations Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

ACECs managed for health and 

safety

0 ACEC 1 ACEC

50 acres

1 ACEC

50 acres

1 ACEC

50 acres

ACECs managed for other 

values

10 ACECs

53,765 acres

17 ACECs

149,924 acres

17 ACECs

136,979 acres

9 ACECs

42,849 acres

WSA/Wilderness Area 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963 acres

CDNST 1 trail

11,474 acres

1 trail

38,808 acres

1 trail

23,607 acres

1 trail

11,474 acres

Total special designations

in Planning Area 137,720 acres 185,625acres 178,000 acres 126,392 acres
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-48

4.2.6.2 Cumulative Impacts

Mineral development, including uranium mine development, within the Planning Area would 

increase vehicular traffic. City and county use plans for surrounding communities could have 

cumulative effects, whereby mineral resources are in development adjacent to BLM lands. State 

lands, including the SLO, that are surrounded by BLM lands could have impacts from inholding 

development.

4.2.7 Lands and Realty

Impacts to the lands and realty program stem from those resource decisions that limit or hinder 

permitting rights-of-way or other land use authorizations, affect the BLM’s ability to acquire and 

dispose of land, or make other land tenure adjustments. Rights-of-way are issued for the 

placement of pipelines, roads, sites, and transmission lines. Within this DRMP/DEIS, such 

decisions primarily result from and are affected by management actions from minerals, special 

designations, and lands with Wilderness characteristics, as well as lands and realty itself. In 

addition, the wildlife, vegetation, recreation, riparian, soils/watersheds, visual resources, specialstatus species, and cultural resources programs collectively impact the lands and realty program 

through a variety of restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and availability of lands for 

disposal. As such, potential impacts from these program decisions will be analyzed in this 

section. 

4.2.7.1 Analysis Assumptions

The following assumptions were used to complete the impacts analysis for lands and realty:

1. The number of land use authorizations would increase over the life of the plan.

2. Existing withdrawals to other federal agencies would continue. 

3. Land acquisition is a support function for resources programs (e.g., cultural resources, 

wildlife, recreation). The resource program benefiting from the acquisition establishes 

the priority or the urgency associated with any acquisition. 

4.2.7.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts

4.2.7.2.1 Proposed Land Tenure Adjustments

Impacts to the lands and realty program stem from those resource decisions that limit or hinder 

permitting rights-of-way or other land use authorizations affect the BLM’s ability to acquire and 

dispose of land, or make other land tenure adjustments. Rights-of-way are issued for the 

placement of pipelines, roads, sites, and transmission lines. Within this DRMP/DEIS, such 

decisions primarily result from, and are affected by, management actions from minerals, special 

designations, and lands with wilderness characteristics, as well as lands and realty itself. In 

addition, the wildlife, vegetation, recreation, riparian, soils/watersheds, visual resources, specialstatus species, and cultural resources programs collectively impact the lands and realty program 

through a variety of restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and availability of lands for 

disposal. As such, potential impacts from these program decisions will be analyzed in this 

section. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-49

Table 4.26: Proposed Land Tenure Adjustments (acres and percent of BLM lands in the Planning Area), by 

Alternative 

Status Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Disposal 55,384 57,472 58,910 62,051

Retention 689,003 686,915 685,477 682,336

Total 744,387 744,387 744,387 744,387

Under Alternative D, the RPFO would dispose of the largest percentage of BLM lands, while 

under Alternative A, the RPFO would retain the most. Additional acreage may be considered for 

disposal by the RPFO if the parcels under consideration meet the criteria listed in Chapter 2. The 

RPFO may also pursue land acquisitions within the Planning Area over the next twenty years in 

order to meet land management goals. Land tenure adjustments not disclosed in the RMP/EIS 

would be analyzed through site-specific NEPA documents. Additionally, while identified as 

potentially suitable for disposal, at the implementation stage site-specific analysis with public 

participation would be conducted. Based on the analysis and public comments received, a 

determination would be made on whether disposal of the parcel is in the public’s best interest. If 

it is not in the public’s best interest, the parcel will be retained in public ownership.

4.2.7.2.2 Right-of-way Exclusion and Avoidance Areas

Chapter 2 provides a detailed list of exclusion and avoidance areas for pipeline, roads, sites, and 

transmission rights-of-way on BLM lands within the Planning Area. The designation of 

avoidance areas would require potential applicants to avoid these areas if at all possible when 

planning for the location of rights-of-way. If the applicant’s proposal is unable to avoid these 

areas, special stipulations and mitigating measures would be incorporated into the authorization 

to minimize potential adverse impacts. There are few existing rights-of-way currently authorized 

in exclusion areas. New proposals for rights-of-way in exclusion areas would either be rerouted 

or dropped from consideration. In addition, any applications for rights-of-way within VRM III 

areas may also require mitigation as determined during the site-specific NEPA process. Existing 

rights-of-way would remain in effect. Table 4.27 provides the number of acres of BLM lands 

within the Planning Area that would be excluded or avoided from consideration for rights-ofway for transmission lines, by alternative. Readers should note that the quantities provided in 

Table 4.27 should not be aggregated because many of the resource areas and special designations

overlap.

Table 4.27: Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Transmission Line Rights-of-way (acres) on BLM lands within 

the Planning Area, by Alternative

Designation Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B Alternative C

Preferred Alternative D

Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude

100-year floodplains 0 10,891 0 10,891 0 10,891 0

ACECs 0 0 133,493 123,167 0 38,368 0

Cave/Karst areas 0 0 189,045 189,045 0 189,045 0

Critical habitat for federal 

threatened and endangered 

species (designated and 

proposed)

0 None currently on BLM lands
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-50

Designation Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B Alternative C

Preferred Alternative D

Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude

Habitat for BLM sensitive 

plant and animal species 

(includes rare plants)

0 Data not available

Habitat for federal listed/

proposed threatened and 

endangered species for 

which critical habitat has 

not been designated

0 Data not available

Habitat for federal 

candidate species 0 Data not available

Habitat State-listed as 

crucial/sensitive 0 31,164 0 31,164 0 31,164 0

Lands with wilderness 

characteristics 0 0 37,514 4,075 26,110 0 2,239

National Scenic and 

Historic Trails 11,474 38,808 0 23,607 0 11,474 0

Soils, highly erodible (per 

sensitive soils definition) 

and all slopes >15%

0 543,280 0 543,280 0 543,280 0

TCPs* 0 37,398 0 37,398 0 37,398 0

VRM Class I 97,645 0 97,296 0 97,474 0 97,516

VRM Class II 84,449 318,931 0 68,511 0 21,549 0

Wetlands and riparian areas 0 1,359 0 1,359 0 1,359 0

Wilderness Areas 11,183 11,183 11,183 11,183

WSAs 86,780 0 86,780 0 86,780 0 86,780

* Mount Taylor is the only TCP quantified in this table due to data availability. Other TCPs are 

known to exist on BLM lands in the Planning Area, but data are not available for quantification at 

this time.

Table 4.28 provides the number of acres of BLM lands within the Planning Area that would be 

excluded or avoided from consideration for rights-of-way for roads and pipelines, by alternative. 

Readers should note that the quantities provided in Table 4.28 should not be aggregated because 

many of the resource areas and special designations overlap.

Table 4.28: Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Roads and Pipeline Rights-of-way (acres) on BLM lands within 

the Planning Area, by Alternative

Designation Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B Alternative C

Preferred Alternative D

Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude

100-year floodplains 0 10,891 0 10,891 0 10,891 0

ACECs 0 0 133,493 123,167 0 38,368 0

Cave/Karst areas 0 0 189,045 189,045 0 189,045 0

Critical habitat for federal 0 None currently on BLM lands
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-51

Designation Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B Alternative C

Preferred Alternative D

Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude

threatened and endangered 

species (designated and 

proposed)

Habitat for BLM sensitive 

plant and animal species 

(includes rare plants)

0 Data not available

Habitat for federal listed/

proposed threatened and 

endangered species for 

which critical habitat has 

not been designated

0 Data not available

Habitat for federal 

candidate species 0 Data not available

Habitat State-listed as 

crucial/sensitive 0 31,164 0 31,164 0 31,164 0

Lands with wilderness 

characteristics 0 0 37,514 4,075 26,110 0 2,239

National Scenic and 

Historic Trails 11,474 38,808 0 23,607 0 11,474 0

Soils, highly erodible (per 

sensitive soils definition) 

and all slopes >15%

0 543,280 0 543,280 0 543,280 0

TCPs* 0 37,398 0 37,398 0 37,398 0

VRM Class I 97,645 0 97,296 0 97,474 0 97,516

VRM Class II 84,449 318,931 0 68,511 0 21,549 0

Wetlands and riparian areas 0 1,359 0 1,359 0 1,359 0

Wilderness Areas 11,183 11,183 11,183 11,183

WSAs 86,780 0 86,780 0 86,780 0 86,780

* Mount Taylor is the only TCP quantified in this table due to data availability. Other TCPs are 

known to exist on BLM lands in the Planning Area, but data are not available for quantification at 

this time.

Table 4.29 provides the number of acres of BLM lands within the Planning Area that would be 

excluded or avoided from consideration for rights-of-way for roads and pipelines, by alternative. 

Readers should note that the quantities provided in Table 4.29 should not be aggregated because 

many of the resource areas and special designations overlap.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-52

Table 4.29: Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Sites Rights-of-Way (acres) on BLM lands within the Planning 

Area, by Alternative

Designation

Alternative 

A

No Action

Alternative B Alternative C

Preferred Alternative D

Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude

100-year floodplains 0 10,891 0 10,891 0 10,891 0

ACECs 0 0 133,493 123,167 0 38,368 0

Cave/Karst areas 0 0 189,045 189,045 0 189,045 0

Critical habitat for federal 

threatened and endangered 

species (designated and 

proposed)

0 None currently on BLM lands

Habitat for BLM sensitive 

plant and animal species 

(includes rare plants)

0 Data not available

Habitat for federal listed/

proposed threatened and 

endangered species for 

which critical habitat has 

not been designated

0 Data not available

Habitat for federal 

candidate species 0 Data not available

Habitat State-listed as 

crucial/sensitive 0 31,164 0 31,164 0 31,164 0

Lands with wilderness 

characteristics 0 0 37,514 4,075 26,110 0 2,239

National Scenic and 

Historic Trails 11,474 0 38,808 0 23,607 0 11,474

Soils, Highly erodible (per 

sensitive soils definition) 

and all slopes >15%

0 0 543,280 543,280 0 543,280 0

TCPs* 0 37,398 0 37,398 0 37,398 0

VRM Class I 97,645 0 97,296 0 97,474 0 97,516

VRM Class II 84,449 318,931 0 68,511 0 21,549 0

Wetlands and riparian

areas

0 1,359 0 1,359 0 1,359 0

Wilderness Areas 11,183 11,183 11,183 11,183

WSAs 86,780 0 86,780 0 86,780 0 86,780

* Mount Taylor is the only TCP quantified in this table due to data availability. Other TCPs are known to 

exist on BLM lands in the Planning Area, but data are not available for quantification at this time.

Table 4.30 provides the total acres avoided or excluded from consideration for transmission 

lines, roads, pipelines, and sites rights-of-way, by alternative.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-53

Table 4.30: Total Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Rights-of-Way (acres), by Alternative

Right-of-way Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Pipeline Open 681,354 6,346 24,088 32,105

Avoid 0 400,345 596,025 611,844

Exclude 75,720 337,696 124,274 100,438

Roads Open 681,354 6,346 24,088 32,105

Avoid 0 400,345 596,025 611,844

Exclude 75,720 337,696 124,274 100,438

Sites Open 681,354 6,346 24,088 32,105

Avoid 0 77,685 468,969 486,788

Exclude 75,720 660,356 251,330 225,494

Transmission lines Open 681,354 6,346 24,088 32,105

Avoid 0 400,345 596,025 611,844

Exclude 75,720 337,696 124,274 100,438

4.2.7.3 Cumulative Impacts

City and county use plans could have cumulative impacts where land is developed adjacent to 

BLM lands. The RPFO is unaware of any conflicts between neighboring city or county land use 

plans in the Planning Area.

The number of land use authorizations, particularly rights-of-way and permits, is a function of 

demand for these uses. Additional future development of adjacent federal, state, and private 

lands would likely result in additional requests for and approval of land use authorizations for 

facilities such as roads, utilities, and communication sites. 

The designation of right-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas on BLM lands, along with similar 

restrictions on right-of-way development on adjacent lands, particularly National Forest lands, 

would have a cumulative impact of reducing routing options for right-of-way facilities such as 

utilities and roads. 

The N55 Road Improvement Project, referenced in Table 4.3, would require approval of a rightof-way application submitted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This proposed project follows 

along an existing route and right-of-way within the Planning Area. The proposed project size for 

the N55 Road Improvement Project is approximately 550 acres. The Northwest Loop Road may 

require a right-of-way permit from the RPFO, depending on the final alignment of the proposed 

project. The final width of the right-of-way is not known, but the length of the proposed project 

is approximately 39 miles. A new transmission corridor potentially designated by RETA may 

require a right-of-way permit from the RPFO. The latter two projects would be new construction 

within the Planning Area. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-54

Map-011-Disposal-Areas-A (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-55

Map-012-Disposal-Areas-B (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-56

Map-013-Disposal-Areas-C (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-57

Map-014-Disposal-Areas-d (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-58

Map-015-ROW-Pipeline-Alt.B (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-59

Map-016-ROW-Pipeline-Alt.C (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-60

Map-017-ROW-Pipeline-Alt.D (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-61

Map-018-ROW-Roads-Alt.B (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-62

Map-019-ROW-Roads-Alt.C (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-63

Map-020-ROW-Roads-Alt.D (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-64

Map-021-ROW-Sites-Alt.B (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-65

Map-022-ROW-Sites-Alt.C (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-66

Map-023-ROW-Sites-Alt.D (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-67

Map-024-ROW-Transmission-Lines-Alt.B (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-68

Map-025-ROW-Transmission-Lines-Alt.C (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-69

Map-026-ROW-Transmission-Lines-Alt.D (11x17_
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-70

4.2.1 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Lands with wilderness characteristics are areas of 5,000 acres or more with landscapes generally 

in a natural or undisturbed condition. These areas also provide outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or primitive forms of recreation (non-motorized and non-mechanized activities in 

undeveloped settings). Generally, actions that create surface disturbance impact the natural 

character of these areas and the setting for experiences of solitude and primitive recreational 

activities. Motorized uses in these areas detract from opportunities for both solitude and 

primitive forms of recreation. 

In 2010, the wilderness inventory of the RPFO was updated. The update identified 37,514 acres 

of lands with wilderness characteristics beyond those areas already in Wilderness or WSA status. 

There are seven individual areas identified as: Petaca Pinta A; Ignacio Chavez A, B, and C; 

Chamisa E; Volcano Hill, and Cimarron Mesa. Under Alternatives A and D, lands with 

wilderness characteristics are not proposed for management to retain those wilderness

characteristics. Under Alternative B, 37,514 acres would be managed to protect wilderness

characteristics, while 26,110 acres would have wilderness characteristics protected under 

Alternative C. 4,075 acres would be managed to partially protect wilderness characteristics in 

Alternative C. Lands with wilderness characteristics would be impacted by fire management, 

livestock grazing, mineral resources, travel management, visual resources, and forest and 

woodland decisions.

4.2.1.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

4.2.1.1.1 Fire Management Decisions

Under all alternatives, the BLM would attempt to restore natural fire regimes in fire-dependent 

and adapted ecosystems through the use of prescribed or managed wildland fire. Fuels treatment 

and management activities would be consistent with the resource goals and objectives in the 

DRMP/DEIS and may include mechanical treatments, manual treatments, prescribed fire, 

chemical, or biological treatments and seeding. 

The restoration of fire-dependent and adapted ecosystems would restore a more natural 

vegetation community (in both species and composition) and would benefit forest health, 

watersheds and wildlife populations that depend on those communities. Fire operations (aircraft 

over-flights, fire line construction, thinning, etc.) would temporarily degrade the natural 

landscape and character of the lands with Wilderness characteristics. The noise and presence of 

the people, equipment, and operations would also temporarily diminish opportunities for solitude 

and primitive forms of recreation. 

In the long term, surface disturbance associated with the fire treatment would be restored, with 

little to no net effect on naturalness. A more natural landscape would benefit the natural 

character of lands with Wilderness characteristics and enhance the setting and opportunities for 

primitive forms of recreation, including hiking, backpacking, hunting, wildlife viewing, and 

nature study. Fire management would enhance the natural conditions of these areas. Table 4.44 

shows the acres within lands with Wilderness Characteristics that would be subject to fuels 

treatments.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-71

Table 4.31: Fuel Treatment Areas (acres) within Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Lands Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Chamisa E X 2,238 2,238 2,238

Ignacio Chavez A X 2,050 2,050 X

Ignacio Chavez B X 1,273 1,273 X

Ignacio Chavez C X 64 64 X

Petaca Pinta A X 38 38 X

Volcano Hills X 14,421 14,421 X

Cimarron Mesa X 2,406 X X

Total X 22,490 20,084 2,238

Note: X indicates no management decisions to manage lands with wilderness characteristic to protect, or to 

partially protect, wilderness characteristics.

4.2.1.1.2 Livestock Grazing Decisions

Livestock grazing management decisions could have adverse impacts to lands with wilderness 

characteristics under Alternative C where new facilities may be proposed. It is not anticipated 

that new facilities are needed within any of these areas. Alternative B would not allow livestock 

grazing to occur within lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Livestock operations can compromise wilderness characteristics, such as naturalness, and 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. However, livestock grazing has been

ongoing on those lands proposed for management as wilderness and the land continues to have

wilderness characteristics. 

Table 4.45 shows livestock grazing areas (acres) that are proposed within lands with wilderness

characteristics. Proposed livestock grazing would only impact lands managed for wilderness 

characteristics under Alternatives B and C because only under these two alternatives would such 

lands be managed for wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative B, livestock grazing would 

be prohibited in lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. Livestock grazing would be 

allowed under Alternative C.

Table 4.32: Livestock Grazing Areas (acres) within Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Chamisa E X 0 2,202 2,202

Ignacio Chavez A X 0 2,462 X

Ignacio Chavez B X 0 1,541 X

Ignacio Chavez C X 0 72 X

Petaca Pinta A X 0 38 X

Volcano Hills X 0 23,833 X

Cimarron Mesa X 0 X X

Total X 0 30,148 X
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-72

4.2.1.1.3 Mineral Resources Decisions

The greatest number of acres (37,514 acres) would be excluded from mineral development under 

Alternative B due to the protection of wilderness characteristics. This would have a beneficial 

impact on the preservation of wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative C, 26,110 acres of 

lands where wilderness characteristics would be protected would benefit from exclusion of 

mineral development. Also under Alternative C, 4,075 acres of lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be closed to the extraction of leasable minerals, but open to the extraction 

of saleable and locatable minerals on a case-by-case basis. Considering the low level of 

predicted development for all minerals within the Planning Area, impacts from mineral resources 

on land with wilderness characteristics would be minimal. 

4.2.1.1.4 Travel Management Decisions

Under Alternative B, the condition of lands with wilderness characteristics would be enhanced, 

as they would be closed to motorized travel on all 37,514 acres. Under Alternative C, 26,110 

acres of lands with wilderness characteristics would be closed to motorized travel, and 4,075 

acres would have motorized travel limited to existing primitive routes, which would protect the 

existing wilderness characteristics. Cimarron Mesa (7,329 acres) would be open to motorized 

travel under Alternative C, which does not protect wilderness characteristics. 

4.2.1.1.5 Visual Resources Decisions

Under Alternative B, the RPFO would manage lands with wilderness characteristics (37,514) as 

VRM II. VRM Class II objectives would retain the characteristic landscape, allowing for minor 

changes to the landform and vegetation. This objective would protect the natural condition of 

the land in non-WSA areas. Under Alternative C, the RPFO would manage all lands with 

wilderness characteristics except Cimarron Mesa (30,185 acres) as VRM Class II and Cimarron 

Mesa (7,329 acres) would be managed as VRM Class III. The objective of VRM Class III is to 

partially retain the existing character of the landscape, allowing for moderate changes to land and 

vegetation. When lands with wilderness characteristics are managed to VRM Class III, 

wilderness values, such as naturalness, could be compromised. As a result, wilderness 

characteristics may be adversely impacted under Alternative C. 

4.2.1.1.6 Forest and Woodland Decisions

Forest and woodland management decisions would have both beneficial and adverse impacts to 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative B, all lands with wilderness 

characteristics (37,514 acres) would be closed to forest product removal, which would have a 

beneficial impact on the “naturalness” and “outstanding opportunities for solitude” wilderness 

characteristics by preventing vehicle travel to remove wood products in these areas. The impacts 

from forest and woodland decisions under Alternative B would benefit an additional 1,083 acres 

of land with wilderness characteristics not otherwise excluded from forest product removal. The 

other acres of lands with wilderness characteristics fall within SRMAs, which are excluded from 

forest product removal under Alternative B, but open under Alternative C. 

Chamisa E (2,239 acres) would be closed to forest product removal under Alternative C, but the 

impact from this decision is neutral because there are not fuel wood harvest areas within 

Chamisa E (Table 4.46). The decision to allow forest product removal on 26,957 acres of lands 

with wilderness characteristics under Alternative C by limiting travel to existing routes would 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-73

have an adverse impact on the “naturalness” and “outstanding opportunities for solitude” 

characteristics on those lands. The degree of impact would depend upon the frequency of forest 

product removal on these lands. In most cases, the impact would be small because occasional 

forest product removal would not be substantially noticeable to the average visitor. No non-WSA 

areas would be managed for wilderness characteristics under Alternatives A and D. Table 4.46 

shows the fuel wood harvest areas located within lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Table 4.33: Fuelwood Harvest Areas (acres) within Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Chamisa E X 0 0 0

Ignacio Chavez A X 0 2,454 2,462

Ignacio Chavez B X 0 1,232 1,541

Ignacio Chavez C X 0 72 72

Petaca Pinta A X 0 0 38

Volcano Hill X 0 0 23,832

Cimarron Mesa X 0 7,329 7,329

Total X 0 11,087 35,274

Note: X indicates no management decisions to manage lands with wilderness characteristics to protect or 

partially protect wilderness characteristics. 

4.2.1.2 Cumulative Impacts

The analysis of cumulative impacts for areas with wilderness characteristics (designated 

Wilderness, WSAs, and areas identified with wilderness characteristics) includes all BLM lands 

in New Mexico that are currently being managed for wilderness characteristics to protect those 

values. The statewide total of BLM lands where law protects wilderness characteristics or 

administrative decision is 1,125,409 acres. Under Alternatives B, the RPFO would manage 

37,514 acres of additional lands to protect wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative C, the 

RPFO would manage an additional 26,110 acres to protect wilderness characteristics and 4,075 

acres of lands to partially protect wilderness characteristics. 

4.2.2 Livestock Grazing

Historically, livestock grazing was the single use of BLM lands. Within the Planning Area, the 

agrarian culture is still alive with many public requests to graze on public lands. Livestock 

grazing continues to be one of the major uses of public lands. Over time, however, there 

continues to be a loss of agricultural lands to development and urban sprawl within the Planning 

Area. The resource impacts analyzed below reflect this continuing trend. Adverse impacts to 

livestock grazing are anticipated for lands and realty, mineral resources, special designations, 

travel management, vegetation management (including fire management, riparian resources, and 

forests and woodlands), recreation, wildlife, special status species and cultural resources 

management decisions. Beneficial long-term impacts are anticipated from vegetation 

management, special designations, and travel management resource decisions by increasing the 

amount of available forage and acres available for livestock grazing.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-74

Grazing would be impacted when all or part of an allotment is closed to livestock grazing (during 

vegetation treatments, prescribed burning, reforestation, fire, drought or watershed or riparian

restoration). Grazing exclusion areas designed to protect riparian habitat for wildlife and 

sensitive species or to protect cultural or paleontological resources would impact livestock 

grazing by restricting or altering livestock movement and access to forage. Mineral and energy 

development would impact livestock grazing in the short and long term by decreasing the 

amount of grazing acreage available during construction and operation of these facilities. 

Alternative C would best provide opportunities for grazing while meeting New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health, followed by Alternative D and then Alternative 

A; Alternative B provides the least opportunities for grazing. Actions under most resource 

categories have the potential to affect livestock grazing. 

4.2.2.1 Analysis Assumptions

Livestock grazing is a permitted multiple use; therefore, a variety of multi-level regulations and 

administrative processes exist to ensure that grazing levels do not exceed permitted thresholds 

and/or standards (BLM 2001). It is assumed that livestock grazing activities would be carried out 

in compliance with existing policies and regulations at both the state and federal levels.

Impacts on livestock grazing are generally the result of activities that affect forage levels, 

livestock exclusion, or reduction of allotment acreage. Impact analysis is based on 

interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources and the planning area, a literature review, and 

information provided by BLM specialists. Certain assumptions are made, including the 

following: 

Data regarding grazing allotments are compiled from BLM sources;

Livestock grazing will occur throughout the majority of the decision area.

The BLM will continue to complete rangeland health assessments in accordance with the 

New Mexico Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health;

Allotments are monitored yearly, based on allotment priority, resource values, and 

potential for impacts due to grazing use; and

Season of use and number of AUMs used are difficult to control on allotments with 

scattered public parcels surrounded by private land. 

Table 4.34 compares the number of allotments grazed, acres grazed, and AUMs available, by 

alternative. Because the proposed management decisions for livestock grazing under 

Alternatives B, C, and D are more protective of sensitive resources than the current management 

under Alternative A, it is expected that rangeland health within grazing allotments would 

improve under Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Table 4.34: Comparison of Proposed Livestock Grazing Alternatives

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

No. of allotments grazed 204 178* 178–204 178–204

Allotment acres grazed 859,659 708,475 708,475–859,659 708,475–859,659
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-75

AUMs available 116,836 97,767 97,767–116,836 97,767–116,836

Note: Acres and AUMs are BLM Land only and are calculated from the Rangeland Administration System 

(RAS).

* The number of allotments in Alternative B does not reflect the 60 allotments that partially fall within 

proposed special designations because the allotments would continue to be grazed under Alternative B. 

However, the portions of the allotments within special designations would be closed to livestock grazing.

Acreages and AUMs are estimates for impacts analysis. Actual numbers are to be determined 

and calculated at the activity level when specific actions are taken. The purpose of the 

information presented here is to assist in determining the impacts of programmatic actions under 

consideration in this planning process on various resources and resource uses. 

Range improvements and rangeland projects would continue to be used to design, plan, and 

implement rangeland management and watershed goals. Reclamation efforts would be designed 

in compliance with New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001) to provide sufficient 

livestock forage that maintains or exceeds current allocations. 

4.2.2.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts

4.2.2.2.1 Lands and Realty Decisions

The direct impact to livestock grazing from lands and realty decisions is the loss of forage when 

a parcel is disposed or devoted to a public purpose that precludes livestock grazing. Direct 

beneficial impacts to livestock grazing include the addition of forage through acquisition of new 

lands if they are made available to livestock grazing. Most land disposals would involve small 

isolated parcels, causing minimal impacts to livestock grazing aside from the loss of revenue 

generated from grazing fees. Under Alternative B, proposed land disposals would result in the 

loss of the smallest number of grazing allotment acres, while under Alternative D, proposed land 

disposal would result in the largest. Most acquisitions would be through land exchanges, which 

would allow for contiguous land parcels. Overall, acquisition through land exchanges would be 

for lands similar in stocking rate. Table 4.35 shows the number of acres and AUMs that would 

be lost through proposed land disposals.

Table 4.35: Acres of Grazing Allotments and AUMs Lost by Proposed Land Disposals, by Alternative

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Acres 44,625 45,774 46,618 49,733

AUMs* 5578 5722 5827 6217

* AUMs were calculated using 8 acres per AUM, which is an RPFO average factor.

In addition to land disposal decisions, rights-of-way could also adversely impact livestock 

grazing. Rights-of-way for roads, transmission lines, pipelines, or sites may be within grazing 

allotments and would remove those acres and AUMs from BLM lands in the Planning Area. No 

specific rights-of-way are proposed in the RMP/EIS. Site-specific NEPA analysis would need to 

be completed when such projects are proposed. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-76

4.2.2.2.2 Renewable Energy

In addition to land disposal decisions, renewable energy developments could impact livestock 

grazing through surface disturbance that would remove available forage for the life of project. 

Renewable energy projects may be within grazing allotments and would remove those acres and 

AUMs from BLM lands in the Planning Area. No specific renewable energy projects are 

proposed in the RMP/EIS. Site-specific NEPA analysis would need to be completed when such 

projects are proposed. 

4.2.2.2.3 Vegetation Management Decisions

Vegetation management, as defined for this section, includes any management decisions that are 

associated with vegetation manipulation: fire management, vegetative communities, riparian

resources, and forest and woodland resources. Vegetation management resource decisions would 

have an adverse short-term impact to livestock grazing that would last from immediately after 

vegetation treatments occur until revegetation is complete. Vegetation treated within grazing 

allotments would require rest for a minimum of two years or as determined otherwise by 

resource managers through consultation and coordination with the permittee or lessee. During 

this time, the permittee/lessee would need to find alternative forage for livestock, which could 

result in additional financial expenses to the permittee/lessee. In addition, 1,582 acres of riparian 

areas would be closed to grazing under Alternative B. Alternatives C and D would allow 

prescribed grazing to occur within those riparian areas identified in the Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitat Management EIS (BLM 2000), which is consistent with the New Mexico Standards and 

Guidelines (BLM 2001). Any future grazing decisions within riparian areas would remain 

consistent with New Mexico Standards and Guidelines. Under all alternatives, livestock grazing 

would not be allowed, unless otherwise agreed upon, in exclosures construction within riparian 

or upland areas under the Habitat Stamp Program.

Site-specific NEPA analysis would need to be completed prior to opening a specific portion of 

BLM lands to the Planning Area for forest product harvest and fuels treatment projects. During

that time, appropriate mitigation measures would be identified to reduce the impact to livestock 

grazing, if possible. 

Table 4.36 shows the total number of acreages proposed for fuel treatment in RPFO grazing 

allotments, by alternative. Under all alternatives the same amount of acres are proposed for fuel 

treatment in RPFO grazing allotments. 

Table 4.37 shows the number of acres proposed for potential forest product harvest areas within 

grazing allotments on BLM lands in the Planning Area, by alternative. Under Alternative A, the 

least amount of acres would be open for product harvest areas, while under Alternative D the 

most acres would be open for forest product harvest. No specific treatments have been proposed 

in the RMP/EIS for riparian restoration or upland vegetation. Readers should note that the 

numbers shown in Table 4.36 and 

Table 4.37 should not be aggregated; various vegetation treatments could occur in the same 

areas. For example, areas that are open to forest product harvest could also be treated with 

prescribed fire. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-77

Table 4.36: Proposed Fuel Treatments with RPFO Grazing Allotments (acres), by Alternative

Fuels Treatments Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Fuels treatments 497,642 497,642 497,642 497,642

AUMs* 62,205 62,205 62,205 62,205

* AUMs were calculated using 8 acres per AUM, which is an RPFO average factor.

Table 4.37: Proposed Forest Product Harvest Areas (acre), by Alternative

Forest Product 

Harvest Areas

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Land available for 

forest products areas

12, 162 76,339 434,873 513,780

AUMs* 1,520 9,542 54,359 64,223

* AUMs were calculated using 8 acres per AUM, which is an RPFO average factor.

Beneficial impacts from vegetation management decisions on livestock grazing would be 

improved rangeland health. Forage conditions would be expected to improve in areas that are 

restored, especially when those treatments are planned following the New Mexico Standards and 

Guidelines (BLM 2001). 

4.2.2.2.4 Mineral Resources Decisions

Management decisions to allow mineral resource development would impact livestock grazing

because acres and AUMs would be lost in areas where mineral extraction would occur because 

vegetation would be removed resulting in reduced forage availability. According to the RFD for 

mineral resources, development of leasable, saleable, and locatable mineral resources would 

contribute to surface disturbance equating to 1.1% of BLM lands in the Planning Area over the 

next 20 years, which would equate to 1,075 AUMs. Therefore, it is anticipated that mineral 

extraction activities would be located in areas to avoid impacts to livestock grazing. Sitespecific NEPA analysis would be completed for applications for disturbance, thereby reducing 

opportunities for direct adverse impacts related to this disturbance. Inadvertent impacts and 

impacts from vandalism that may accompany increased human activity in developed areas may 

occur.

4.2.2.2.5 Special Designations Decisions

Special designations would have both adverse and beneficial impacts to livestock grazing. 

Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities within special designations promote improved 

vegetative communities and range conditions by reducing the likelihood that forage would be 

removed through development activities. Many of the ACECs proposed for designation in the 

RMP/EIS have at least one alternative where NSO is proposed. Under these alternatives, 

livestock grazing would benefit. 

In contrast, many of the ACECs proposed for designation also include elimination or restriction 

of livestock grazing under some alternatives. Restricting grazing in special designations would 

adversely impact livestock grazing because it would decrease acres and AUMs available for 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-78

livestock grazing. For example, there are seventy-seven permittees/lessees that that manage 

livestock on BLM allotments within special designations. Under Alternative B, these 

permittees/lessees would need to find alternative forage for livestock on a permanent basis, 

which could result in additional financial expenses to the permittee/lessee. Under Alternative C, 

some permittees/lessees may need to find alternative forage for livestock if the RPFO decides to 

restrict grazing within certain special designations. 

Table 4.38 shows the number of grazing allotment acres impacted by proposed special 

designation decisions, by alternative. Under Alternative B, the largest number of acres would be 

closed to livestock grazing. Under Alternatives C and D, the smallest number of acres would be 

closed to livestock grazing. Readers should note that the numbers shown in Table 4.38 should 

not be aggregated; various restrictions could occur in the same areas. For example, areas that are 

NSO for oil and gas development may also be closed to grazing; therefore, there would be no net 

gain or loss to livestock grazing. This table is meant to show variations in restrictions across 

alternatives. 

Table 4.38: Livestock Grazing Allotments (acres and AUMs) Impacted by Proposed Special Designations and 

Leasing Stipulations, by Alternative

Special Designation 

Restriction

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Acres AUMs Acres AUMs Acres AUMs Acres AUMs

Acres (AUMs) 

closed to grazing 2,750 344 137,627 17,203 0 0 0 0

Acres (AUMs) of 

prescribed grazing 697,405 87,175 0 0

0–

859,659

0-

116,83

6

0-

859,659

0-

116,83

6

NSO acres 78,165 N/A 1,064,095 N/A 538,29

9

125,16

3

Note: AUMs were calculated using 8 acres per AUM, which is an RPFO average factor.

4.2.2.2.6 Travel Management Decisions

Livestock grazing would have both beneficial and adverse impacts from travel management. 

Areas open to motorized travel would result in direct loss of vegetation available for livestock 

grazing and a long-term decrease in rangeland health. In addition, disturbance from motorized 

travel could preclude livestock from grazing areas with heavier use. Problems with vandalism, 

fencing, and harassment of livestock are anticipated where urban areas interface with public 

lands. Under Alternatives C and D, Cimarron Mesa would be open to motorized travel Under 

Alternative B, the most acres would be closed to motorized travel. Those areas closed to 

motorized travel would have beneficial impacts to livestock grazing. Table 4.39 shows the 

proposed travel management decisions by alternative. 

Table 4.39: Proposed Travel Management Categories (acres), by Alternative

Category Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Open 303,580 4,551 18,269 19,456 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-79

Category Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Limited 420,491 562,596 602,043 624,808 

Closed 20,316 177,240 124,075 100,123 

Total 744,387 744,387 744,387 744,387 

4.2.2.2.7 Recreation and Visitor Services Decisions

Management decisions associated with recreation and visitor services would have adverse 

impacts to livestock grazing. Approximately 232,242 acres of RPFO grazing allotments are 

within proposed SRMA or ERMAs on BLM lands in the Planning Area under all alternatives. 

There are no grazing restrictions proposed within the SRMA or ERMAs except for where SRMA 

or ERMAs include ACECs. However, if increased recreational activities occur within the 

SRMA and ERMAs over time, vegetation may be trampled or eliminated in some areas. 

Livestock grazing would incur minor impacts from vegetation loss associated with recreation 

depending on the recreational activity.

4.2.2.2.8 Cultural Resources Decisions

Cultural resources management decisions would adversely impact livestock grazing when 

grazing is restricted to protect cultural resources sites by decreasing the acreage available for 

grazing. This would reduce acres and AUMs available for livestock grazing. Approximately 

95% of BLM lands in the Planning Area include livestock grazing allotments. Based on the 

prevalence of livestock grazing and site probabilities listed in Table 4.7, it is likely that cultural 

resources could impact livestock grazing, as more sites are discovered and require protection. 

Within one cultural resources management area, two high value sites (Ojo Pueblo and the Fort 

Site) would be closed to grazing in the RMP/EIS. These sites together cover sixty acres and 

would be closed under all alternatives.

4.2.2.2.9 Special-status Species Decisions

Special-status species management decisions could adversely impact livestock grazing by 

reducing acres and AUMs when grazing is restricted within wildlife exclosures, breeding habitat, 

and occupied habitat. Permittees and lessees may be restricted from managing their livestock 

operation during certain breeding seasons or other time periods established to protect specialstatus species. Under Alternative B, the BLM would require the placement of water 

developments, salt supplements, and mineral supplements for livestock to be located at least 0.25 

mile away from known locations of special-status plants. Under Alternative C, the BLM would 

require the placement of water developments, salt supplements, and mineral supplements for 

livestock to be located at least 152 meters (500 feet) away from known locations of special-status 

plants. Under Alternative D, the BLM would require the placement of water developments, salt 

supplements, and mineral supplements for livestock to be located at least ninety-one meters (300 

feet) away from known locations of special-status plants. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the 

BLM would also consider the concentration of browsing and grazing animals on known 

locations of special-status plants and make adjustments as needed.

4.2.2.2.10 Livestock Management Decisions

Grazing practices would be modified if a grazing allotment fails to meet any of the New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001), where it is determined that livestock grazing
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-80

management practices are a significant factor in this failure. Modifications could include a

change in stocking rate, kind of livestock, season of use, length of season, temporary closures, or

any combination of these. These modifications could mean a temporary or permanent loss of

acres or AUMs available to livestock for grazing in order to repair or rehabilitate an area, and to

progress towards meeting the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines. Data collected from 

rangeland monitoring studies would assist the Field Manager in the decision of whether or not to 

restrict livestock access to an area. These kinds of closures, although they cause a temporary loss 

of accessible forage, are implemented with the goal of restoring the area so that it can continue to 

support grazing and other resource uses. Under all alternatives, certain allotments could undergo 

season-of-use changes to facilitate grazing management while maintaining rangeland health 

standards. Changes in season of use do not affect forage, but they do impact the timing of its 

availability.

4.2.2.3 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts to livestock and grazing could result from activities on adjacent private 

lands, activities scheduled for State lands, and administrative actions on adjacent National Forest 

System and tribal lands. These effects could be both positive and negative on livestock grazing

within the Planning Area. Any future land uses in the surrounding areas that degrade ecological 

function in the Planning Area could reduce forage quality for livestock. Increased surface 

disturbances from new roads, transmission lines, or energy exploration in the area could result in 

reduced grazing acreages and introduction of disturbance-colonizing weed species, which could 

decrease forage quality in the Planning Area. The N55 Road Improvement Project and potential 

transmission line corridors proposed by RETA referenced in Table 4.3 could reduce the acres 

available to livestock grazing in existing grazing allotments if the rights-of-way permits are 

approved. The approximate project area for the N55 Road Improvement Project is 550 acres. 

There is no known project area for the RETA corridors at this time.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

81

Map-027-Range-Allotments (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

82

Map-028-Allotments in Planning Area (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-83

4.2.3 Mineral Resources

Mineral resources include locatable minerals that may be claimed and patented under the 1872 

Mining Law, fluid and solid minerals leased for development under the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920, and common-variety mineral materials that may be purchased by private parties or used 

for free by public agencies and nonprofit groups under the Materials Act of 1947. The preceding 

laws only apply to federally owned minerals. 

The RPFO historically has seen a low level of mineral resource development within the Planning 

Area. The RFD for leasable, locatable, and saleable minerals estimates that the same low-level 

trend would continue. As a result, the RPFO would continue to have the ability to adjust future 

mineral development activities in order to avoid conflicts and protect other resources to the 

greatest extent possible. The RPFO takes the approach of allowing mineral development to 

occur where the least amount of conflicts with other resources would be present. This section 

describes potential impacts to the management of mineral resources from other resource 

management decisions, including cave and karst resources, lands and realty, cultural resources, 

lands with Wilderness characteristics, paleontological resources, recreation and visitor services, 

riparian resources, soil and water resources, special-status species, visual resources, wildlife and 

fisheries, and special designations.

4.2.3.1 Analysis Assumptions

The following assumptions were used to complete the impacts analysis for mineral resources:

Oil and gas exploration and development would continue to occur in the Planning Area. 

BLM-administered mineral estate, including split-estate lands, would be managed in 

cooperation and collaboration with surface owners, lessees, permittees, and operators. 

Leaseholders have the exclusive right to explore, develop, and produce mineral resources 

from any existing lease, even if the area containing the leases were proposed to be closed 

to future leasing. 

An existing mineral lease is a legally issued lease secured by a leaseholder before the 

effective date of the ROD for the RMP/EIS.

Surface use restrictions, including TL, NSO, and CSU stipulations, as well as closed to 

leasing, cannot be retroactively applied to existing oil and gas leases or to existing use 

authorizations (e.g., APDs). Post-lease actions and authorizations (e.g., APDs, road and 

pipeline rights-of-way, etc.), however, could be encumbered by TL and CSU restrictions 

on a case-by-case basis, as required through project-specific NEPA analysis or other 

environmental review. 

Leasable mineral resources would be considered unrecoverable in areas designated closed 

to leasing, and in those areas open to leasing, where surface use constraints prohibit 

operations on areas larger than can be technically or economically developed from offsite locations (e.g., large block NSO areas). Leasable mineral resources within leased 

inholdings would be considered recoverable. 

The four categories of oil, gas, and carbon dioxide development potential are based on 

the RFD scenario with analysis presented in Section 4.1.3 include:
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-84

High potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas where all of the following 

characteristics are present: trapping mechanisms, hydrocarbon sources, and reservoirquality rock in sufficient quantity to be economic.

Moderate potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas where some but not all 

of the following characteristics are present: trapping mechanisms, hydrocarbon source, 

and reservoir-quality rock.

Low potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas where the geologic 

characteristics of trapping mechanisms, hydrocarbon sources, and reservoir quality rock 

indicate low potential for accumulation of mineral resources. 

No potential for hydrocarbon development indicates areas where there is no geologic 

environment or processes to form trapping mechanisms, hydrocarbon source, and 

reservoir-quality rock, and the lack of mineral occurrences indicate no potential for 

accumulation of mineral resources. 

The primary impact to the leasable minerals program from the land use decisions in the 

RMP/EIS would be reduction in the availability of the hydrocarbon resources for 

extraction and consumer use. This would result in an increase in the cost to the producer 

and consumer. 

No coal leasing or development, nor development of coal bed methane, is anticipated 

because of the low to moderate potential for coal bed methane and the lack of interest in 

leasing coal on federal lands. There are no expected impacts from coal or coal bed 

methane to the various resources or resource use opportunities. 

There are no areas of high or moderate potential for CO2 accumulations in areas closed to 

leasing or restricted by leasing stipulations. The high and moderate potential CO2 areas 

are in the Northern and Southern Estancia Fields, near the town of Mesita and Acoma 

Pueblo. 

4.2.3.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts

The impacts analysis presented for mineral resources briefly describes the impacts from other 

resources on BLM lands in the Planning Area to moderate and high potential mineral resources 

areas. At the end of this section, Table 4.46 summarizes the itemized restrictions on mineral 

development from each resource and provides the amount of lands (acres) on BLM lands within 

the Planning Area available to mineral extraction, by alternative. Site-specific NEPA analysis 

would be completed for proposed mineral development within the Planning Area. The RPFO 

would take into account the details of the proposed project and site-specific resources as part of 

that analysis. 

4.2.3.2.1 Cave and Karst Resources Decisions

Under Alternatives B and C, a leasing stipulation is proposed for protection of cave and karst 

resources. Under Alternative B, surface disturbance would not be allowed within up to 200 

meters (656 feet) of known cave entrances, passages, or aspects of significant caves, or 

significant karst features. Under Alternative C, the BLM would impose CSU restrictions beyond 

standard leasing terms for surface disturbance within up to 200 meters (656 feet) of known cave 

entrances, passages, or aspects of significant caves, or significant karst features. No leasing 

stipulations are proposed for cave and karst features under Alternatives A and D.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-85

The Pronoun Cave ACEC, which protects the only known cave complex on BLM lands in the 

Planning Area, would impact mineral resources because the area would have limited mineral 

extraction opportunities. There are several active travertine mines adjacent to the proposed 

ACEC boundary and the entire proposed ACEC is covered by unpatented mining claims. The 

Pronoun Cave ACEC was designated under the 1986 RMP (BLM 1986) and was left open to 

mineral development. The ACEC would be closed to the extraction of saleable minerals and 

withdrawn from locatable mineral entry under Alternative B. Alternative C would avoid 

extraction of saleable minerals. Alternative D would remove the ACEC designation. Under 

Alternative D, the Pronoun Cave area would be open to the extraction of saleable minerals and 

locatable mineral entry. 

4.2.3.2.2 Lands and Realty Decisions

Disposal of Federal lands would include both the surface and mineral estates. Land acquired by 

the BLM would be acquired with the mineral estate. Land acquired within special designation

areas or with unique resource values would be managed with restrictions on mineral 

development and other surface-disturbing activities. Under all alternatives, lands acquired 

within and adjacent to special designations would be managed with the same surface restrictions 

of the larger special designation. Table 4.40 summarizes the proposed land disposals and their 

associated mineral potential, by alternative. 

Table 4.40: Proposed Land Disposals (acres) with Moderate or High Mineral Potential, by Alternative

Mineral Type Mineral 

Potential

Alternative 

A

No Action

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Preferred

Alternative D

Leasable minerals

Moderate 0 0 0 0

High 0 0 0 0

Saleable minerals

Moderate 10,838 12,096 12,096 12,347

High 415 415 657 3,548

Locatable minerals

Moderate 3,753 4,677 5,167 5,235

High 1,078 1,078 1,115 1,115

4.2.3.2.3 Cultural Resources Decisions

Under all alternatives, a leasing stipulation is proposed that would apply CSU to sites that are 

listed or are eligible for listing in the NRHP. The lessee would be given notice that all or 

portions of the lease area contain special values, are needed for special purposes, or require 

special attention to prevent damage to surface resources. Any surface use or occupancy within 

such areas would be strictly controlled. In addition, a leasing stipulation is proposed for 

protection of cultural resources in specially designated areas that are managed for cultural 

resource values, such as the proposed Canon Jarido ACEC.

Impacts from cultural resources management decisions on oil and gas exploration and 

development would include increased well development costs associated with cultural resources 

inventories, relocation of facilities to avoid a cultural site, implementation of directional drilling

techniques, and/or site excavation if avoidance of cultural resources sites is not possible. 

Discovery of previously undocumented cultural features during project construction would delay 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-86

project implementation while the cultural site is evaluated. These impacts would not vary across 

alternatives because the restrictions would apply to all National Register-eligible cultural sites, 

the existence of which is independent of any management decision.

4.2.3.2.4 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions

Mineral resources have a low likelihood of being impacted by management decisions related to 

lands with wilderness characteristics. Lands proposed for management as lands with wilderness

characteristics would be closed to extraction of leasable, saleable, and locatable minerals under 

Alternative B. Alternative C would apply a CSU stipulation to leasable mineral extraction and 

extraction of locatable and saleable minerals after evaluation on a case-by-case basis. 

Alternatives A and D do not include lands proposed for management for wilderness

characteristics. Areas proposed for management to protect wilderness characteristics fall within 

either areas of low mineral potential or areas where there is currently no data to inform the 

mineral potential. As a result of the low potential within the protected areas, the proposed 

restrictions on mineral development would not result in an actual adverse impact to future 

mineral resource developments. 

4.2.3.2.5 Paleontological Resources Decisions

Mineral resources would be impacted by paleontological resources management decisions that 

restrict mineral development. The RPFO is proposing to implement an oil and gas stipulation 

that limits the amount of surface disturbance near paleontological resources. Alternatives B, C, 

and D would implement CSU in areas of PFYC 4 and 5. A determination by the BLM would be 

made as to whether a survey by a qualified paleontologist would be necessary prior to 

disturbance. In some cases, appropriate mitigation measures would be required prior to surface 

disturbance.

Impacts from paleontological resources management decisions, especially in PFYC 4 and 5 

areas, to oil and gas exploration and development would include: increased well development 

costs associated with potential paleontological inventories; relocation of facilities to avoid 

paleontological resources; implementation of directional drilling techniques; and/or site 

excavation if avoidance of certain paleontological sites is not possible. Discovery of previouslyundocumented paleontological features during project construction would delay project 

implementation while the feature is evaluated.

Two ACECs are proposed in the DRMP/DEIS that would protect paleontological resources. 

Under Alternatives B and C, the Bony Canyon ACEC (1,147 acres) would be designated to 

protect and allow only professional excavation of vertebrate fossils. The ACEC would not be 

designated under Alternative D; however, a Research Natural Area (1,147 acres) would be 

designated which would continue the protection for paleontological resources under this 

alternative. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the Bony Canyon ACEC would be NSO for 

leasable minerals within a two-acre area and CSU in the remaining area, withdrawn from 

locatable mineral entry, and closed to extraction of saleable minerals. The Torreon Fossil Fauna 

ACEC (6,488 acres) would be designated under all alternatives. The purpose of the Torreon 

Fossil Fauna ACEC would be to protect the Torreon Fauna Type Locality for scientific study. 

Under Alternative A, the Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC would be CSU for leasable minerals. 

Under Alternative B, the Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC would be closed to all mineral 

development. Under Alternative C, the Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC would be NSO for leasable
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-87

minerals, closed to saleable extraction, and withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. Under 

Alternative D, the Torreon Fossil Fauna would be CSU for leasable minerals, open to locatable 

mineral entry, and saleable mineral extraction would be avoided. Table 4.41 summarizes the 

mineral potential within these ACECs. 

Table 4.41: Proposed Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC and Bony Canyon ACEC (acres) with Moderate or High 

Mineral Potential, by Alternative

Mineral Type Mineral 

Potential

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Leasable minerals

Moderate 2,339 2,339 2,339 2,339

High 0 0 0 0

Saleable minerals

Moderate 0 0 0 0

High 0 0 0 0

Locatable minerals

Moderate 0 474 474 474

High 0 0 0 0

4.2.3.2.6 Recreation and Visitor Resources Decisions

Mineral resources would be impacted by recreation and visitor services management decisions 

that restrict mineral development within developed recreation areas such as the SRMA and 

ERMAs. Under Alternatives B and C, a leasing stipulation is proposed for protection of 

recreation and visitor services. Under Alternative B, surface-disturbing activities would be 

prohibited (NSO) within the line of sight/sound or 0.25 mile (whichever is closer) of developed 

recreation areas and undeveloped recreation areas receiving concentrated public use. Under 

Alternative C, surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited (NSO) within the line of 

sight/sound or 200 meters (656 feet) (whichever is closer) of developed recreation areas. 

Alternatives B, C, and D, two stipulations are proposed to protect scenic resource values. All 

three alternatives have two stipulations, one NSO and one CSU stipulation, either of which could 

be applied based on site-specific circumstances. Although these stipulations are designed to 

protect scenic resource values in special designation areas, these stipulations could be applied 

elsewhere.

Under Alternatives B and C, the SRMA would be managed as NSO and the 21 ERMAs would be 

managed as CSU for leasable fluid minerals, open to saleable mineral extraction, and withdrawn 

from locatable mineral entry. Under Alternative D, the SRMA and ERMAs would be managed 

as CSU for leasable fluid minerals, open to saleable mineral extraction, and open to locatable 

mineral entry. 

4.2.3.2.7 Riparian Resources Decisions

Mineral resources management decisions would be impacted by proposed leasing stipulations for 

riparian areas on BLM lands within the Planning Area. Under Alternatives B and C, a leasing 

stipulation is proposed for protection of riparian resources. Under Alternative B, surfacedisturbing activities would be prohibited (NSO) within 200 meters (656 feet) of the channels of 

ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams, or within 200 meters (656 feet) of the outer 

margins of riparian and wetland areas. Under Alternative C, surface-disturbing activities would 

be subject to CSU restrictions within 200 meters (656 feet) of the channels of ephemeral, 

intermittent, and perennial streams, or within 200 meters (656 feet) of the outer margins of 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-88

riparian and wetland areas. There are no proposed stipulations to leasing related to riparian areas 

under Alternatives A and D.

One ACEC is proposed in the DRMP/DEIS that would protect a specific riparian area within the 

Planning Area. Under all alternatives, the Bluewater Canyon ACEC would be designated to 

protect the wildlife, scenic, and riparian values in the area. Under all alternatives, the Bluewater 

Canyon ACEC would be NSO for leasable minerals, closed to saleable mineral extraction, and 

withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. 

Table 4.42 summarizes the mineral potential within riparian areas proposed for protection in the 

RMP/EIS. Under Alternatives B and C, riparian areas would be protected by leasing 

stipulations. Riparian areas would be protected by leasing stipulations under Alternatives A and 

D.

Table 4.42: Riparian Areas (acres) with Moderate or High Mineral Potential Protected by Proposed Oil and 

Gas Leasing Stipulations, by Alternative

Mineral Type Mineral

Potential

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Leasable minerals

Moderate 0 16,003 16,003 0

High 0 2,183 2,183 0

Total 0 18,186 18,186 0

Percent of moderate and high 

potential areas on BLM lands 

in Planning Area

0 18% 18% 0

4.2.3.2.8 Soil and Water Decisions

Mineral resources management decisions would be impacted by proposed stipulations for low 

reclamation potential soils and steep slopes within the Planning Area. Leasing stipulations for 

steep slopes and low reclamation potential soils are proposed under Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Alternatives B and C would implement CSU on steep slopes between 15% and 30%, NSO on 

slopes over 30%, and CSU on soils with low reclamation potential. Alternative D would 

implement NSO on steep slopes over 30%. The proposed leasing stipulations would protect soils 

from adverse impacts from leasable mineral resource development. Table 4.43 shows the 

number of acres of moderate and high potential for leasable minerals on low reclamation 

potential soils and steep slopes protected by the stipulations described above. 

Table 4.43: Sensitive Soils and Steep Slopes (acres) in Moderate and High Potential Areas Proposed for 

Protection from Oil and Gas Mineral Development, by Alternative

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Mod High Mod High Mod High Mod High

Low reclamation

potential (per sensitive 

soils definition)

0 0

39,741

(CSU)

12,063

(CSU)

39,741

(CSU)

12,063

(CSU)

0 0
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-89

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Mod High Mod High Mod High Mod High

Steep slopes 15%–30% 0 0

3,732

(NSO)

832

(NSO)

3,732

(CSU)

832

(CSU)

0 0

Steep slopes greater than 

30%

0 0

1,213

(NSO)

63

(NSO)

1,213

(NSO)

63

(NSO)

1,213

(NSO)

63

(NSO)

Total* 0 0 40,211 12,128 40,211 12,128 1,213 63

Percent of oil/gas 

moderate and high 

potential areas

0 0 46% 80% 46% 80% 1% <1%

*The sums of the acreages cannot be aggregated because the areas subject to these restrictions overlap.

4.2.3.2.9 Special Designations Decisions

Special designations would have impacts to mineral resources. Many of the ACECs proposed 

for designation include closures for saleable and locatable mineral development or NSO leasing 

stipulations under at least one alternative. Table 4.44 shows the acres of mineral development 

restrictions that would be applied to moderate and high mineral potential areas within ACECs, 

by alternative.

Table 4.44: Proposed Mineral Restrictions (acres of moderate and high potential areas) within Proposed 

ACECs, by Alternative

Mineral

Type Designation Alternative ANo Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Leasable 

minerals

Open with moderate 

constraints (TL/CSU) 12,689 636 1,902 13,412

Open with major 

constraints (NSO) 727 1,450 2,989 151

Closed 437 13,167 10,034 0

Locatable 

minerals

Open 15,915 5,756 13,854 13,567

Withdrawn 12,982 37,812 17,122 140

Saleable

minerals

Closed 15,393 25,980 9,484 9,484

Open with moderate 

constraints (Avoid) 37 0 4,433 37

Open 2,966 0 6,397 1,478

4.2.3.2.10 Special-status Species Decisions

Under all alternatives, the RPFO would conserve and protect ESA-listed species and their critical 

habitats. The RPFO would also conserve and protect BLM special-status species, which are: 1) 

species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA; and 2) species requiring special 

management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-90

future listing under the ESA, which are designated as BLM sensitive by the State Director(s). 

All federal candidate species, proposed species, and delisted species in the five years following 

delisting would be conserved as BLM sensitive species.

All alternatives require some degree of spatial or temporal limitation of surface-disturbing 

activities to protect special-status species and their important habitats. In the case of mineral 

resource development, specific conditions of approval or lease terms are often required in order 

to mitigate the adverse impacts of development activities to special-status species.

Standard lease terms and conditions (lease notices) have been developed in consultation with the 

USFWS for leasable fluid mineral developments. The terms and conditions consist of specific 

measures to protect special-status species and comply with the ESA. These measures are 

required by law, are non-discretionary, and are applicable under all alternatives. The impacts of 

these non-discretionary measures will not be analyzed in this document, as they are outside the 

scope of the planning process. 

Mineral resources would be impacted by additional, discretionary surface disturbance restrictions 

that are proposed for special-status species in the RMP/EIS. The RPFO has developed surfacedisturbance restrictions for the Gunnison prairie dog in Chapter 2. Under Alternative B, surfacedisturbing and disruptive activities would be strictly controlled within 0.5 mile of prairie dog 

towns if an activity would adversely impact prairie dogs and/or associated species. Under 

Alternative C, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be strictly controlled within 

0.25 mile of prairie dog towns if an activity would adversely impact prairie dogs and/or 

associated species. Under Alternative D, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be 

strictly controlled within prairie dog towns if an activity would adversely impact prairie dogs 

and/or associated species. No Gunnison prairie dog towns have been specifically identified for 

protection in the DRMP/DEIS; therefore, the specific impacts to mineral resources caused by the

surface disturbance restriction for Gunnison prairie dog towns are unknown. Site-specific NEPA 

analysis would need to be completed for proposed mineral development activities on BLM lands 

in the Planning Area. 

4.2.3.2.11 Visual Resources Decisions

Mineral resources management decisions would be impacted by VRM decisions. Mineral 

development activities would be prohibited in VRM Class I areas. Under all alternatives, VRM 

Class I would be proposed for approximately 13% of BLM lands in the Planning Area. In 

addition, VRM Class II areas may also restrict mineral development within 11% (under 

Alternative A), 43% (under Alternative B), 9% (under Alternative C), or 3% (Alternative D) of 

BLM lands in the Planning Area. In addition, in specially designated areas that are managed for 

scenic resource values, such as Jones Canyon ACEC, a lease stipulation would be applied to 

protect these values. 

4.2.3.2.12 Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions

All alternatives include some degree of spatial or temporal limitation on surface-disturbing 

activities to protect wildlife populations and their important habitats. In the case of mineral 

resource development, specific conditions of approval, lease terms, and/or discretionary 

measures are often required in order to mitigate the adverse impacts of development activities to 

wildlife. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-91

The discretionary measures include spatial and temporal limitations and would have an adverse 

impact to mineral resource development by increasing exploration costs, time, and effort. 

However, the degree and magnitude of such increases depend on many factors, including the 

options for project siting, the locale of the lease, and the drilling schedule and window.

The RPFO coordinates with the NMDGF for the purpose of protecting wildlife species. Under 

all alternatives, mineral resource developers would be required to avoid surface-disturbing 

activities in occupied migratory bird habitat during the nesting season. This would result in 

impacts to mineral resources development. Adverse impacts to mineral resource development in 

terms of extra costs, time, and effort would result.

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the RPFO would implement a buffer around occupied and 

unoccupied raptor nests, between March 1 and June 30, where surface-disturbing activities 

would be prohibited. Under Alternative B, the buffer would be 1 mile, under Alternative C, the 

buffer would be 0.5 mile, and under Alternative D, the buffer would be 0.25 mile. 

Under Alternatives B and C, the RPFO would also implement restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities within big game winter range between November 15 and April 30. This would be 

applied to winter range for mule deer, elk, and antelope. Travel on designated roads may be 

included in the timing limitations. 

Under Alternatives B and C, the RPFO would prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 

fawning and calving habitat for mule deer, elk, and antelope. The restrictions would occur from 

May 1 to August 31 for mule deer, May 1 to June 30 for elk, and May 1 to July 15 for antelope. 

Surface disturbance would also be prohibited near wildlife habitat projects under Alternatives B 

and C. Both alternatives include a restriction to restrict surface disturbance up to 200 meters

(656 feet) of existing or planned wildlife improvement projects. Large-scale vegetation

manipulation, such as prescribed burns, would be excepted. 

The exact impact of wildlife management decisions common to all cannot be quantified. Exact 

acreages of habitat to be restricted would depend on the results of field surveys associated with 

specific projects. However, some general conclusions can be drawn regarding the timing 

limitation (TL) stipulations. The fall and winter months (i.e., September–February) generally 

would have the fewest TL stipulations on mineral resources development, while the spring and 

summer months (i.e., March–August) generally would have the most. The most restrictive 

months of the year would be April through July, as most TL stipulations would be in effect 

during that period. Together, these decisions would result in adverse impacts to mineral 

resources. Table 4.45 provides a summary of the current number of acres of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area that could be impacted by surface restrictions intended to protect wildlife. Please 

note that Table 4.45 provides an estimate of the potential impacts based on current conditions in 

the RPFO’s jurisdiction. These estimates may change as new habitat, raptor nests, prairie dog 

towns, or wildlife habitat projects are surveyed, and the number presented below should not be 

aggregated because habitats may overlap. Alternative B would place the most restrictions on 

mineral development due to the size of the buffers and timing restrictions for wildlife. 

Alternative A would place the least restrictions on mineral development because there are 

currently no surface-disturbing restrictions in place for wildlife.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-92

Table 4.45: Proposed Surface Restrictions (acres) on High and Moderate Mineral Potential Areas to Protect 

Wildlife, by Alternative

Surface Restrictions Mineral 

Type

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Raptor nest buffers 

(March 1–June 30)

Leasable 0 3,811 1,420 521

Saleable 0 2,370 1,006 316

Locatable 0 2,951 1,088 316

Big game winter range 

(November 15–April 30)

Leasable 0 86,872 (NSO) 86,872 (NSO) 86,872 (CSU)

Saleable 0 36,800 (NSO) 36,800 (NSO) 36,800 (CSU)

Locatable 0 35,191 (NSO) 35,191 (NSO) 35,191 (CSU)

Prairie dog towns

Leasable 0 474 142 4

Saleable 0 0 0 0

Locatable 0 0 0 0

Wildlife habitat projects

Leasable 0 153 153 0

Saleable 0 144 144 0

Locatable 0 158 158 0

4.2.3.2.13 Summary of Direct and Indirect Impacts to Mineral Resources

Table 4.46 summarizes the amount of BLM land (acres) within the Planning Area that would be 

restricted through leasing stipulations, open/closed/avoid decisions for saleable minerals, and 

open/withdraw decisions for locatable minerals. Under Alternative B, the largest number of 

acres would be closed to leasable minerals and saleable minerals, and withdrawn from locatable 

mineral entry. Under Alternative A, the least number of acres would be closed to leasable and 

saleable minerals. Under Alternative D, the least number of acres would be withdrawn from 

locatable mineral entry. 

Table 4.46: Mineral Resource Development Restrictions (acres), by Mineral Type and Alternative

Mineral

Type Designation Alternative ANo Action

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Preferred

Alternative 

D

Leasable 

minerals

Open with standard 

lease terms and 

conditions

1,327,910 1,131,076 1,136,604 1,145,147

Open with moderate 

constraints (TL/CSU) 18,668 150,967 170,116 203,236

Open with major 

constraints (NSO) 6,660 32,211 27,350 7,629

Closed 59,470 98,454 78,638 56,696

Total 1,412,708 1,412,708 1,412,708 1,412,708

Locatable 

minerals

Open 1,814,168 1,538,295 1,553,004 1,803,131

Withdrawn 16,584 292,457 277,748 27,621

Total 1,830,752 1,830,752 1,830,752 1,830,752

Saleable

minerals

Open 1,711,415 1,646,554 1,659,585 1,707,930

Open with moderate 13,683 478 36,311 15,376
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-93

Mineral

Type Designation Alternative ANo Action

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Preferred

Alternative 

D

constraints (Avoid)

Closed 105,654 183,720 134,856 107,446

Total 1,830,752 1,830,752 1,830,752 1,830,752

4.2.3.3 Cumulative Impacts

The predicted level of mineral development within the Planning Area over the next 20 years is 

low. The RFD for the Planning Area estimates that eight oil and gas wells would be drilled 

annually over the next 20 years. Similar low levels of activity are predicted for locatable and 

saleable minerals as well. Considering this level of activity, it is anticipated that there would be 

minimal cumulative impacts to mineral resources because the demand for access to minerals 

within the Planning Area is lower than that which could be provided by BLM lands open to 

potential mineral development. Specific to uranium mining, the RFD for locatable minerals 

includes the projected growth in uranium mining on BLM lands; however, additional uranium 

exploration could occur outside BLM lands within the Planning Area. The proposed Northwest 

Loop Road, with a proposed project length of 39 miles, could potentially cross lands where the 

BLM owns the subsurface mineral rights. The proposed project could include using fill material 

from BLM lands to construct the roadbed. The potential use of fill material from BLM lands is 

not anticipated to adversely impact mineral resources in the Planning Area due to the low level 

of predicted mineral development and the amount of material available in the project vicinity. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

94

Map-029-Mineral Ownership (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

95

Map-030-Fluid Mineral Potential (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

96

Map-031-Leased Areas (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

97

Map-032-Locatables-Potential (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

98

Map-033-Saleable Potential (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

99

Map-034-Locatiable and Saleable Activities (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

100

Map-035-Surface Restrictions Leaseables A
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

101

Map-036-Surface Restrictions Leaseables B
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

102

Map-037-Surface Restrictions Leaseables C
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

103

Map-038-Surface Restrictions Leaseables D
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

104

Map-039-Surface Restrictions Locatables A
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

105

Map-040-Surface Restrictions Locatables B
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

106

Map-041-Surface Restrictions Locatables C
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

107

Map-042-Surface Restrictions Locatables D
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

108

Map-043-Surface Restrictions Saleables A
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

109

Map-044-Surface Restrictions Saleables B
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

110

Map-045-Surface Restrictions Saleables C
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

111

Map-046-Surface Restrictions Saleables D
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-112

4.2.4 Paleontological Resources

Impacts to paleontological resources can be characterized as those management decisions that 

result in loss, degradation, destruction, or benefits to vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences 

of invertebrate or plant fossils. Avoidance is the preferred method to prevent loss, but other 

mitigation can reduce and resolve adverse effects to significant localities, including records and 

literature searches, sampling or survey by a qualified paleontologist, or other types of 

paleontological research. Under all alternatives, adverse impacts to paleontological resources 

would be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent possible through management actions 

and BMPs. 

The RPFO would use a PFYC map during the environmental impact evaluation process for all 

proposed ground-disturbing projects. The map is developed using geologic maps, known 

locality data, and professional judgment to evaluate geologic units’ potential to produce 

important paleontological resources. All land use actions with a potential to impact vertebrate 

fossils or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils would be screened using the 

PFYC system. The following is a brief description of each classification:

PFYC 1 – Very Low. Geologic units that are not likely to contain recognizable fossil 

remains.

PFYC 2 – Low. Sedimentary geologic units that are not likely to contain vertebrate 

fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils.

PFYC 3 – Moderate or Unknown. Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil 

content varies in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence, or sedimentary 

units of unknown fossil potential.

PFYC 4 – High. Geologic units containing a high occurrence of significant fossils. 

Vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plan fossils are known to 

occur and have been documented, but may vary in occurrence and predictability. Surfacedisturbing activities may adversely affect paleontological resources in many cases.

PFYC 5 – Very High. Highly fossilferous geologic units that consistently and predictably 

produce vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils, and 

that are at risk of human-caused adverse impacts or natural degradation.

4.2.4.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

4.2.4.1.1 Lands and Realty Decisions

Lands and realty decisions would have impacts to paleontological resource if lands proposed for 

disposal lead to loss of paleontological resources. Other land and realty actions such as pipeline 

and road ROWs could have adverse impacts if these actions occur in PFYC units with medium to 

high paleontological occurrences. The impact would consist of possible damage to specimens 

during ground disturbing activities, or unauthorized collection associated with increased traffic. 

Site-specific NEPA analysis would be applied prior to disposal of land managed by the BLM and 

ROW issuances to avoid adverse impacts to paleontological resources. Table 4.47 identifies the 

number of acres proposed for land disposal and associated PYFC classification. Under 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-113

Alternative D, the largest amount of acres is proposed for disposal, while Under Alternative B, 

the smallest number of acres is proposed for disposal.

Table 4.47: Lands Identified for Disposal (acres), by PFYC and Alternative

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

PFYC 1 8,258 8,452 8,510 8,510

PFYC 2 15,821 16,295 17,112 18, 474

PFYC 3 26,661 28,081 28,081 28,080

PFYC 4 3,790 3,790 4,353 6,133

PFYC 5 854 854 854 854

Total 55,384 57,472 58,910 62,051

4.2.4.1.2 Special Designations Decisions

Special designations would have impacts to paleontological resources because of management 

restrictions that are applied within the boundaries of the particular designation. Travel and 

mineral resources management decisions are the two major surface-disturbing activities that 

would be restricted within special designations and that also indirectly protect paleontological 

resources. ACECs and National Scenic Trails are the two special designations that are proposed 

in the DRMP/DEIS. The only National Scenic Trail on BLM lands within the Planning Area is 

the CDT. Table 4.48: provides the proposed number and acres of special designations, by 

alternative. Under Alternative B, the largest amount of acres would be managed as special 

designations, while under Alternative D the smallest number of acres would be managed as 

special designations.

Table 4.48: Proposed Special Designations (number and acres) within the Planning Area, by Alternative

Special Designations Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

ACECs managed for 

paleontological values

1 ACEC

6,488 acres

2 ACECs

7,638acres

2 ACECs

7,638 acres

1 ACEC

6,488 acres

ACECs managed for other 

values

9 ACECs

47,277 acres

16 ACECs

142,336 acres

16 ACECs

129,391 acres

9 ACECs

36,411 acres

WSA/Wilderness Area 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963 acres

CDT 1 trail

11,474 acres

1 trail

38,808 acres

1 trail

23,607 acres

1 trail

11,474 acres

Total Special Designations in 

Planning Area 137,720 acres 185,625 acres 178,000 acres 126,392 acres

Two ACECs are proposed in the DRMP/DEIS that would protect paleontological resources. 

Under Alternatives B and C, the Bony Canyon ACEC (1,150 acres) would be designated to 

protect and allow only professional excavation of vertebrate fossils. The ACEC would not be 

designated under Alternative D; however, a Research Natural Area (1,150 acres) would be 

designated which would continue the protection for paleontological resources under this 

alternative. The Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC (6,488 acres) would be designated under all 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-114

alternatives. The purpose of the Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC would be to protect the Torreon 

Fauna Type Locality for scientific study. 

4.2.4.1.3 Mineral Resources Decisions

Mineral resources management decisions would have adverse and beneficial impacts to 

paleontological resources by potentially disturbing areas with PFYC 3-5, though the required 

pre-disturbance surveys would add to our knowledge of paleontological resources. The adverse 

impact would be through possible destruction or unauthorized collection of specimens. The 

beneficial impact would be through discovery of specimens that would then be available for 

study. According to the RFD for mineral resources, development of leasable, saleable, and 

locatable mineral resources would contribute to surface disturbance equating to 1.1% of BLM 

lands the Planning Area over the next twenty years. It is anticipated that mineral extraction 

activities would be located in areas to avoid impacts to paleontological resources. BLM policy 

for PFYC and site-specific NEPA analysis would be applied to applications for disturbance, 

thereby reducing opportunities for direct adverse impacts related to this disturbance. 

The RPFO proposes to implement a leasing stipulation that limits the amount of surface 

disturbance near paleontological resources. Alternatives B, C, and D would implement CSU in 

areas of PFYC 4 and 5. A determination by the BLM would be made as to whether a survey by a 

qualified paleontologist would be necessary prior to disturbance. When needed, appropriate 

mitigation measures would be required prior to surface disturbance. In addition, under 

Alternatives B, C, and D, the RPFO would also implement a leasing stipulation requiring NSO 

within areas managed for paleontological resources values where extraordinary paleontological 

resources exist (Appendix H for stipulations).

4.2.4.1.4 Renewable Energy Decisions

Renewable energy management decisions would have an adverse impact to paleontological 

resources if renewable energy projects were proposed in areas with vertebrate fossils or 

noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. Surface disturbance may create adverse 

impacts by degradation or unauthorized collection of specimens. Site-specific NEPA analysis 

would be conducted prior to the RPFO approving renewable energy projects on BLM lands 

within the Planning Area. At that time, the PFYC maps and data would be used to analyze the 

impacts to paleontological resources from a particular proposed project.

4.2.4.1.5 Travel Management Decisions

Travel management decisions would have both adverse and beneficial impacts on 

paleontological resources. Exposed fossil resources would be adversely impacted by open travel 

designations. These impacts are more likely to occur in PFYC 4 and 5 areas. There are 0 acres of 

PFYC 4 and 5 areas within Cimarron Mesa, the only area that will be open to vehicle travel 

under Alternative C. Beneficial impacts to surface fossil resources would occur from the closure 

of areas to vehicle travel. Vehicle closures reduce the likelihood that fossil resources would be 

damaged by being driven on. 

4.2.4.2 Cumulative Impacts

Surface-disturbing activities, such as the Desert Rock Power Plant, Northwest Loop Road, the 

Red Mesa Wind Farm, the N55 Road Improvement Project, fire and fuels management on non-
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-115

BLM land in the Planning Area, the potential RETA transmission corridor, and uranium

development, could contribute to cumulative impacts to paleontological resources through 

incremental degradation of the resource base by a variety of sources, reducing the information 

and interpretive potential of the paleontological resources in the region. These projects, where 

specific project areas are known, account for approximately 500,000 acres of surface 

disturbance. The activities that would require federal approval would adhere to laws, regulations, 

and policies established to protect significant paleontological resources.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-116

Map-047-PFYC (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-117

4.2.5 Recreation and Visitor Services

Impacts to recreation and visitors services would be both adverse and beneficial, depending on 

the resource management decision. Impacts are expected to occur from vegetation management 

(consisting of forests and woodlands, vegetation, and fire management decisions), special status 

species, wildlife, recreation, travel management, cultural resources, lands and realty, renewable 

energy, special designations, riparian resources, mineral resources and livestock grazing

management decisions. These resources or resources uses would have both short-term adverse 

impacts and long-term beneficial impacts, based on the proposed management decisions. 

4.2.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

4.2.5.1.1 Livestock Grazing Decisions

Livestock grazing management decisions would have both beneficial and adverse impacts to 

recreation. Range improvements would benefit some recreational users such as hunters and 

wildlife observers. Artificial water sources constructed for livestock are used by a variety of 

both game and non-game species alike. Wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities are 

increased in areas with the availability of water. These management actions are anticipated to 

influence the distribution of wildlife throughout the planning area, thereby influencing 

recreational use patterns. Occasional encounters with livestock could compromise the 

recreational setting for some recreational users that prefer not to view livestock during 

recreational activities. Opportunities for motorized and mechanical recreation would be 

impacted if livestock were encountered on trails and roads. There are 718,035 acres of grazing 

allotments on BLM lands within the Planning Area, which makes up approximately 95% the 

Planning Area. This indicates that it is likely that recreational users could encounter livestock 

during their recreational activities within the Planning Area. The potential encounters would 

depend on the timing and location of the recreational activity. The possibility for interaction 

would also be less under Alternative B. The RPFO would remove grazing from 1,582 acres of 

riparian areas and all special designations under Alternative B. Under Alternatives C and D, 

prescribed grazing would be applied in riparian areas that meet the New Mexico Standards and 

Guidelines (BLM 2001) and ACECs where grazing would not conflict with resource protection 

goals of the specific ACEC. As a result, recreational users would have a lower chance of 

interacting with livestock when visiting riparian areas and ACECs. 

4.2.5.1.2 Special Designations Decisions

Special designations would have a beneficial impact to recreation and visitor services because of 

management restrictions that are applied within the boundaries of the particular designation. 

Travel and mineral resources management decisions are the two major surface-disturbing 

activities that would be restricted within special designations and that also indirectly impact 

recreational setting. ACECs and National Scenic Trails are the two special designations that are 

proposed in the DRMP/DEIS. The only National Scenic Trail on BLM lands within the Planning 

Area is the CDT. The CDT is a venue for a popular trail running event within the Planning Area. 

Table 4.49: provides the proposed number and acres of special designations, by alternative. 

Under Alternative B, the largest amount of acres would be managed for special designations, 

while the smallest number of acres would be managed for special designations under Alternative 

D.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-118

Table 4.49: Proposed Special Designations (quantity and acres) within the Planning Area, by Alternative

Special Designations Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

ACEC 10 ACECs

53,765 acres

18 ACECs

149,974 acres

18 ACECs

137,029 acres

11 ACECs

42,899 acres

WSA/Wilderness Area 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963 acres

CDNST 1 trail

11,474 acres

1 trail

38,808 acre

1 trail

23,607 acres

1 trail

11,474 acres

Total Special Designations in 

Planning Area 137,720 acres 185,625 acres 178,000 acres 126,392 acres

4.2.5.1.3 Recreation and Visitor Services Decisions

Recreation management decisions would have a beneficial impact to recreation within the 

Planning Area. One SRMA and 21 ERMAs are proposed under Alternatives B, C, and D in the 

DRMP/DEIS. The number and sizes of SRMA and ERMAs do not vary across the range of 

alternatives. Proposed management decisions, such as travel and mineral resource decisions, 

within the SRMA and ERMAs do vary across alternatives (see Table 2.9 in Chapter 2). 

Generally, Alternative B proposes more travel restrictions and fewer acres available for mineral 

extraction within the SRMA and ERMAs, while Alternatives C and D propose less travel 

restrictions and more flexibility for future mineral resource extraction, depending on the location 

of the SRMA or ERMA. The purpose of designating the SRMA and ERMAs is to identify areas 

of recreation importance or potential. This makes recreational use a primary purpose of these 

areas and recognizes the importance of recreation in public lands management. Table 4.50: 

shows the size of each proposed SRMA and ERMA. All other acres of BLM land within the 

Planning Area that fall outside SRMA and ERMA boundaries are managed as public lands not 

designated as Recreation Management Areas, which provide unconfined recreation opportunities 

and recreation areas that are free of unneeded regulation and control.

Table 4.50: Proposed SRMA and ERMAs (acres) on BLM Lands in the Planning Area

SRMA and ERMA Name Alternatives 

B, C, and D

Continental Divide Trail SRMA 10,996

Boca del Oso ERMA 71,114

Crest of Montezuma ERMA 69,119

Herrera ERMA 50,432

Ojito ERMA 11,212

Petaca Pinta ERMA 18,456

San Juan Basin Badlands ERMA 917

Total SRMA and ERMA Acreage 232,242

Percent of BLM lands in the Planning Area 31%

In addition to the SRMA and ERMAs described above, alternatives are also proposed for how to 

manage the section of the CDT that falls within the Planning Area. Under Alternative A, no 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-119

specific management decision is proposed for managing the CDT. Under Alternative B, the trail 

would be open to hiking and equestrian use, but closed to mechanized travel. No SRPs would be 

granted for CDT activities. Mineral resources within the CDT SRMA would be managed as 

NSO for leasable fluid minerals, closed to extraction of saleable minerals, and open to locatable 

mineral entry. Under Alternative C, the CDT would continue to be closed to mechanized travel, 

special events would be reviewed by the SRP program, and mineral resources would be managed 

as NSO for leasable fluid minerals and open for extraction of saleable as well as locatable 

minerals. Management under Alternative D would be the same as described under Alternative 

D, except the CDT would be open to mechanized travel if the trail is reconstructed to 

accommodate such activities. 

Under all alternatives, camping would be prohibited within 46 meters (150 feet) of riparian areas 

on BLM lands within the Planning Area. This would result in adverse impacts to those 

recreational camping groups that prefer to camp within riparian areas. 

The RMP/EIS also includes alternatives for managing SRPs. Alternative A would continue to 

use the current guidelines for issuing SRPs, which includes commercial activity, competitive 

events, organized groups, special area permits, and vending permits. Alternatives B, C, and D 

would put specific limits on the size and nature of organized group activities that require permits. 

Alternatives B and C would require permits for day use activities that involve 15 or more 

vehicles and/or 30 or more people. Overnight activities with four or more vehicles and/or twenty

or more people would require an SRP. 

Alternative D would require SRPs for groups with 20 or more vehicles and/or 50 more people for 

day use. Overnight activities (over two or more nights) with 10 or more vehicles and/or 25 or 

more people would require an SRP. No fee waivers would be allowed under Alternative D.

Recreational user groups larger than twenty people may be adversely impacted because they 

would be required to obtain a permit from the RPFO for their event. However, beneficial 

impacts from SRP management decisions would include improved protection of BLM lands 

within the Planning Area that may be preferred locations for group events and reduced conflict 

between user groups in those popular locations. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the RPFO 

would have a better idea of where people are recreating on BLM lands within the Planning Area 

and would be better informed about where recreational infrastructure or resource protectionoriented projects could be located. 

4.2.5.1.4 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions

Lands with wilderness characteristics would have beneficial impacts to recreation and visitor 

services. These lands would provide increased recreational opportunities to user groups that 

prefer wilderness characteristics such as solitude and primitiveness, in addition to existing 

Wilderness Areas and WSAs. Under Alternative B, lands with wilderness characteristics would 

be closed to motorized travel; thereby restricting OHV use on BLM lands in the Planning Area. 

Under Alternative C, lands with wilderness characteristics decisions would close 26,110 acres to 

motorized vehicle traffic, limit motorized vehicles to existing primitive routes on 4,075 acres, 

and open 7,329 acres in the Cimarron Mesa area to motorized vehicle travel. Both Alternatives 

B and C provide recreational opportunities on the same amount of land, but Alternative B would 

have a more positive impact for low-impact recreation opportunities (such as hiking), while 

Alternative C would provide more opportunity for motorized vehicle recreation. Alternatives A 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-120

and D provide the most opportunity for motorized vehicle recreation because no non-WSA lands 

would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics. 

4.2.5.1.5 Cultural Resources Decisions

Cultural resources management decisions would have both adverse and beneficial impacts to 

recreation and visitor services. Big Bead Mesa (320 acres) is a cultural resources area where 

camping would be prohibited under all alternatives in order to protect the site. The site would 

not be closed to hiking, but recreational users would have to find other camping locations in the 

areas, which could easily take place on adjacent public or other federal lands in the area.

Beneficial impacts to recreation from cultural resources management decisions would occur 

when cultural resource sites are allocated for public use because this would provide additional 

recreational opportunities. Table 4.51 shows the number of cultural resources sites that are 

proposed for allocation to public use on BLM lands within the Planning Area. Under Alternative 

D, the most sites would be allocated for public use, while under Alternatives A and B, the 

smallest number of sites would be allocated for public use.

Table 4.51: Cultural Resource Sites Proposed for Allocation for Public Use, by Alternative

Status Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Azabache Station 1 1 1 1

Big Bead Mesa 1 1 1 1

Guadalupe Ruin and 

Community ACEC 1 1 4 7

San Ysidro 0 0 1 1

Total Number of Sites 

Allocated for Public Use 3 3 7 10

4.2.5.1.6 Lands and Realty Decisions

Lands and realty would have an adverse impact to recreation because disposal of public lands 

reduces the amount of land base open to dispersed recreation. Areas identified for disposal 

would undergo NEPA analysis prior to disposal and recreation resource uses within the 

particular parcel, if any, would be identified at that time. Future acquisitions that occur with the 

proposed SRMA or ERMAs would beneficially impact recreation due to an increase in the 

SRMA land base. There are no land disposals proposed in the RMP/EIS that would fall within 

the proposed SRMA or ERMA boundaries.

4.2.5.1.7 Renewable Energy Decisions

Renewable energy management decisions would adversely impact recreation within the Planning 

Area. Renewable energy developments would remove recreation potential on the lands being 

developed and would degrade the recreation experience for most users on adjacent lands. 

Additional impacts would include fragmentation from roads, structures spread across open space, 

and associated traffic and noise. No renewable energy projects are currently proposed in the 

RMP/EIS. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be completed prior to constructing a renewable 

energy project on BLM lands. Impacts to recreation would be analyzed at that time. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-121

4.2.5.1.8 Travel Management Decisions

Travel management decisions would have both adverse and beneficial impacts to recreation. 

BLM lands in the Planning Area would be assigned a travel management status to determine the 

type of public motorized vehicle use to be allowed. These designations (open, closed, limited to 

existing roads, primitive roads, and trails) would have various impacts to recreation based 

primarily on the amount of motorized access available to specific areas. The type of impact 

depends on the particular user. OHV users would continue to have a wide variety of routes 

available for use under all alternatives. OHV users enjoy cross-country travel and free play. 

Under Alternatives C and D, the Cimarron Mesa area (18,271 acres) would be designated as 

open to travel, which would allow cross-country travel and free play to OHV users. Alternative 

B does not propose an open travel area on BLM lands in the Planning Area; therefore, OHV 

users that enjoy cross-country travel and free play would be adversely impacted by having no 

public lands open for their use. In contrast, other recreational user groups, such as hikers, 

campers, and wildlife viewers, are adversely impacted by open travel areas. Often these groups 

prefer more secluded settings. Those areas closed to travel and limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails would provide beneficial impacts to these groups. All management 

decisions that affect motorized use would be covered by these travel management designations. 

Table 4.52 shows the proposed travel management categories, in acres, by alternative. Under 

Alternative B, the largest amount of acres would be closed to motorized travel, while under 

Alternatives C and D the largest amount of acres would be open to motorized travel. Under 

Alternative A, least amount of acres would be closed to motorized travel.

Table 4.52: Proposed Travel Management Categories (acres), by Alternative

Category Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Open 303,580 4,551 18,269 19,456

Limited 420,491 562,596 602,043 624,808 

Closed 20,316 177,240 124,075 100,123 

Total 744,387 744,387 744,387 744,387 

Note: The No Action Alternative does not sum to the same acreage totals as Alternatives B, C, or D 

because of different planning direction under the 1986 RMP, as amended.

4.2.5.1.9 Special-status Species and Wildlife Decisions

Wildlife and special-status species management decisions would have both adverse and 

beneficial impacts to recreation. Closures of public lands are needed to protect wildlife and 

special-status species. Closure or other wildlife management decisions would impact the design 

or creation of new recreation projects, such as trails and campground facilities, as well as 

projects or maintenance in existing recreation developments. No specific wildlife or specialstatus species projects are proposed in the RMP/EIS. Site-specific NEPA analysis would need to 

be completed prior to implementing wildlife or special-status species projects. The impacts to 

site-specific recreation activities and user groups would be disclosed at that time. 

Long-term beneficial impacts from wildlife and special-status species management decisions to 

recreation would be improved wildlife habitat and populations. Improved wildlife and special-
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-122

status species conditions would improve the recreational setting for many user groups, including 

hikers, campers, and wildlife viewers. 

4.2.5.1.10 Vegetation Management Decisions

Vegetation management, as defined for this section, includes any management decisions that are 

associated with vegetation manipulation: fire management, vegetative communities, riparian

resources, and forest and woodland resources. Vegetation management resource decisions 

would have a short-term adverse impact to recreation immediately after vegetation treatments

occur. Recreation would be displaced when the vegetation treatment activity is taking place, 

which typically ranges from a few days to a few months. Recreation users would need to move 

to other areas to take part in recreational opportunities. Once the treatment project is complete, 

the quality of recreation could be diminished for some recreational users, for the period of time it 

takes for the project area to recover. 

Long-term beneficial impacts from vegetation management decisions to recreation would be 

improved health of vegetative communities. Improved vegetative communities would improve 

the recreational setting for many user groups, including hikers and campers. Forage conditions 

would be expected to improve in areas that are restored, which would attract wildlife and benefit 

hunters and wildlife viewing user groups. 

Table 4.53 shows the total number of acreages proposed for fuels treatments in the proposed

SRMA and ERMAs, by alternative. Under Alternatives B, C, and D the same level of fuels 

treatments are proposed to take place within the proposed SRMA and ERMAs. There are no 

SRMAs or ERMAs proposed under Alternative A; therefore, no fuels treatments would take 

place within the designated boundaries under this alternative. 

Table 4.53 Proposed Fuels Treatments (acres) within Proposed SRMA and ERMAs, by Alternative

RMA Name Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Continental Divide Trail SRMA 8,977 8,977 8,977

Boca del Oso ERMA -- 44,287 44,287 44,287

Crest of Montezuma ERMA -- 903 903 903

Herrera ERMA -- 17,330 17,330 17,330

Petaca Pinta ERMA -- 47,381 47,381 47,381

San Juan Basin Badlands 

ERMA

-- 57,394 57,394 57,394

San Ysidro ERMA -- 6,854 6,854 6,854

RMA Total -- 183,126 183,126 183,126

Table 4.54 shows the proposed forest product harvest areas, by alternative. No specific 

treatments have been proposed in the RMP/EIS for riparian restoration or upland vegetation. 

Under Alternative B, forest product harvest areas would not be located within SRMAs or 

ERMAs. Under Alternatives C and D, forest product harvest areas would be open within the 

proposed SRMA and ERMAs. The RPFO would manage the most acres for forest product 

harvest areas under Alternative D. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-123

Table 4.54: Proposed Forest Product Removal Areas (acres) within Proposed SRMA and ERMAs, by 

Alternative

SRMA and ERMA Name Alternative A

No Action

Alternatives 

B

Alternative C

Preferred Alternative D

Continental Divide Trail SRMA 0 0 5,750 6,540

Boca del Oso ERMA 0 10,386 31,169 50,431

Crest of Montezuma ERMA 0 4 917 917

Herrera ERMA 0 542 17,896 18,456

Ojito ERMA 0 4,261 7,392 11,212

Petaca Pinta ERMA 0 4,716 40,787 69,118

San Juan Basin Badlands ERMA 0 4,722 65,192 71,112

Total SRMA and ERMA 

Acreage 

0 24,631 169,103 227,786

Percent of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area

0 3% 23% 31%

4.2.5.1.11 Mineral Resources Decisions

Mineral resources management decisions would have adverse and beneficial impacts to 

recreation within the Planning Area. Mineral development activities would remove recreation 

potential on the lands being developed and would degrade the recreation experience for most 

users on adjacent lands. Restrictions on mineral development would have beneficial impacts to 

recreation.

According to the RFD for mineral resources, development of leasable, saleable, and locatable 

mineral resources would contribute to surface disturbance equating to 1.1% of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area over the next twenty years. It is anticipated that mineral extraction activities 

would be located in areas to avoid impacts to popular recreation areas. Site-specific NEPA 

analysis would be completed for applications for disturbance, thereby reducing opportunities for 

direct adverse impacts related to this disturbance. 

In addition, under Alternatives B and C, one SRMA and 21 ERMAs would be managed as CSU 

for leasable fluid minerals, open to saleable mineral extraction, and withdrawn from locatable 

mineral entry. Under Alternative D, the SRMA and ERMAs would be managed as CSU for 

leasable fluid minerals, open to saleable mineral extraction, and open to locatable mineral entry.

The RPFO has proposed leasing stipulations for developed recreation areas with the goal of 

mitigating impacts to recreational experiences in high-use areas. Alternatives B and C include a 

stipulation requiring NSO near developed recreation areas and undeveloped recreation areas 

receiving concentrated public use. A recreation-specific stipulation is not proposed under 

Alternatives A and D. 

4.2.5.2 Cumulative Impacts

The Placitas Master Plan, proposed by the City of Albuquerque Open Space Division, could have 

a cumulative impact to recreation and visitor services within the Planning Area. The proposed 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-124

project area for the Placitas Master Plan is 640 acres. The RPFO manages land near the 

community of Placitas and would likely see an increase in recreational activity within the 

Planning Area as a result of improved recreation infrastructure on City of Albuquerque Open 

Space lands. 

Wildland fire suppression would temporarily affect recreation use in or adjacent to areas where 

prescribed fire or other vegetation treatments are being conducted. The long-term cumulative 

effects would reduce fire risks to recreation areas and facilities within the Planning Area and on 

lands under other administrative agencies. Prescribed burning would temporarily degrade air 

quality (and scenic quality), but with the reduced risks of wildland fire, there would be a 

cumulative decrease in smoke emissions.

The Northwest Loop Road could both beneficially and adversely impact recreation and visitor 

services within the Planning Area. The road would provide a faster connection from Interstate 40 

to many of the popular recreational areas within the Planning Area, such as the San Ysidro Trials

Area and the White Mesa Bike Trails. The improved access could lead to increased recreational 

use of these areas. Increased visitation could lead to degradation of recreational resources, such 

as trail impairment and vegetation trampling. Increased visitation could also lead to additional 

SRP requests and increased recreation-based revenue for the RPFO. 

The RPFO has reviewed the travel management plans for the neighboring Santa Fe and Cibola 

National Forests. The cumulative impacts of travel management decisions in these plans, as well 

as other jurisdictions, would have beneficial cumulative effects on recreational and visitor 

services when travel management decisions by other agencies support the proposed travel 

management decisions in this RMP/EIS, especially for shared roads. For example, if the U.S. 

Forest Service shares management of a road with the RPFO, and the travel management 

decisions for how to manage the road are the same (i.e., agencies manage a road as limited to 

existing), this would lead to beneficial impacts to recreation. In this case, recreation user groups 

would have consistent access to public lands. The Santa Fe National Forest would open 186 

miles of road that is currently not open, would close 2,469 miles of road to motorized use, and 

would add 23 miles of new routes. The Mt. Taylor Ranger District, within the Cibola National 

Forest, would open 98 miles of road that are currently closed or unauthorized and would close 

465 miles of roads to motorized use.

The cumulative effect on recreation resources would be enhanced in the long term by managing 

existing and proposed SRMAs and ERMAs in the Planning Area and in adjacent BLM Field 

Offices. The cumulative effect of managing the Planning Area to respond to the expected 

increase in visitation, changes in recreational demand, and the wide range of recreational 

activities would have beneficial effects on recreation. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-125

Map-048-Crest of Montezuma
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-126

Map-049-Continental Divide NST A
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-127

Map-050-Continental Divide NSt B
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-128

Map-051-Continental Divide NST C
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-129

Map-052-Continental Divide NST D
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-130

Map-053-Lands with Wilderness Characteristics
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-131

Map-054-SRMA
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-132

Map-055-ERMA
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-133

Map-056-WSAs
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-134

4.2.6 Renewable Energy

The following analysis generally discusses likely reductions in land area available for wind, 

solar, and geothermal renewable energy as a result of land use allocations. The future 

development and use of solar, wind, and geothermal resources in the Planning Area would be 

driven primarily by the cost-benefit ratio of development. Where development potential is 

economically viable, impacts to development on public lands are largely related to areas 

identified for avoidance and exclusion from renewable energy developments. Exclusion areas 

directly remove acreage available for development while avoidance areas may result in the loss 

of acreage if the development cannot be economically moved to an alternative location or 

otherwise accommodated. Additionally, the high potential areas from the Western Governors’ 

Association were used to evaluate the avoidance and exclusion areas and the resultant 

management decisions. 

4.2.6.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

4.2.6.1.1 Renewable Energy Management Decisions

Chapter 2 provides a detailed list of exclusion and avoidance areas for renewable energy

developments on BLM lands within the Planning Area. Direct impacts to renewable energy 

include management actions permitting or prohibiting renewable energy development. Market 

demand would drive the development of renewable energy sources on public lands in the 

Planning Area. Indirect beneficial impacts to renewable energy sources include management 

actions encouraging or facilitating renewable energy development. Indirect adverse impacts 

include management actions constraining renewable energy development. Resource 

management actions, other than those associated with the renewable energy program that could 

affect renewable energy include vegetative resources, visual resources, cultural resources, special 

status species, wildlife and fisheries, and lands and realty. In general, managing these resources 

could constrain renewable energy development. Specifically, renewable energy development 

would be restricted to avoid habitat fragmentation. 

Table 4.55 provides the number of acres on BLM lands within the Planning Area that would be 

avoided or excluded from consideration for solar energy projects, by alternative. Solar energy 

developments, in particular, create a single use for a particular area; therefore, the BLM must 

consider the other possible uses of an area when considering a solar energy proposal. Readers 

should note that the quantities provided in Table 4.55 should not be aggregated because many of 

the resource areas and special designations overlap. 

Table 4.55: Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Solar Energy Projects on BLM lands within the Planning Area, 

by Alternative

Designation Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B Alternative C

Preferred Alternative D

Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude

100-year floodplains 0 0 10,891 0 10,891 0 10,891

ACECs 0 0 133,493 0 123,167 0 38,368

Cave/Karst areas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Critical habitat for 0 None currently on BLM lands
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-135

Designation Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B Alternative C

Preferred Alternative D

Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude

federal threatened and 

endangered species

(designated and 

proposed)

Habitat for BLM 

sensitive plant and 

animal species (includes 

rare plants)

0 Data not available

Habitat for federal listed/

proposed threatened and 

endangered species for 

which critical habitat has 

not been designated

0 Data not available

Habitat for federal 

candidate species 0 Data not available

Habitat State-listed as 

crucial/sensitive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 0 0 37,514 4,075 26,110 0 2,239

National Scenic and 

Historic Trails 11,474 0 38,808 0 23,607 0 11,474

Soils, highly erodible 

(per sensitive soils

definition) and all slopes 

>15%

0 543,280 0 543,280 0 543,280 0

TCPs* 0 37,398 0 37,398 0 37,398 0

VRM Class I 97,645 0 97,296 0 97,474 0 97,516

VRM Class II 84,449 0 318,931 68,511 0 21,549 0

Wetlands and riparian

areas

0 0 1,359 0 1,359 0 1,359

Wilderness Areas 11,183 11,183 11,183 11,183

WSAs 86,780 0 86,780 0 86,780 0 86,780

* Mount Taylor is the only TCP quantified in this table due to data availability. Other TCPs are known to 

exist on BLM lands in the Planning Area, but data are not available for quantification at this time.

Table 4.56 provides the number of acres on BLM lands within the Planning Area that would be 

avoided or excluded from consideration for wind energy projects, by alternative. Readers should 

note that the quantities provided in Table 4.56 should not be aggregated because many of the 

resource areas and special designations overlap.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-136

Table 4.56: Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Wind Energy Projects on BLM lands within the Planning Area, 

by Alternative

Designation

Alternative 

A

No Action

Alternative B Alternative C

Preferred Alternative D

Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude

100-year floodplains 0 0 10,891 10,891 0 10,891 0

ACECs 0 133,493 0 123,167 0 38,368 0

Cave/Karst areas 0 0 189,045 189,045 0 189,045 0

Critical habitat for federal 

threatened and endangered 

species (designated and 

proposed)

0 None currently on BLM lands

Habitat for BLM sensitive 

plant and animal species 

(includes rare plants)

0 Data not available

Habitat for federal listed/

proposed threatened and 

endangered species for 

which critical habitat has 

not been designated

0 Data not available

Habitat for federal 

candidate species 0 Data not available

Habitat State-listed as 

crucial/sensitive 0 0 31,164 31,164 0 31,164 0

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 0 0 37,514 4,075 26,110 0 2,239

National Scenic and 

Historic Trails 11,474 0 38,808 0 23,607 0 11,474

Soils, highly erodible (per 

sensitive soils definition) 

and all slopes >15%

0 543,280 0 543,280 0 543,280 0
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-137

Designation

Alternative 

A

No Action

Alternative B Alternative C

Preferred Alternative D

Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude

TCPs* 0 37,398 0 37,398 0 37,398 0

VRM Class I 97,645 0 97,296 0 97,474 0 97,516

VRM Class II 84,449 0 318,931 68,511 0 21,549 0

Wetlands and riparian

areas

0 0 1,359 0 1,359 0 1,359

Wilderness Areas 11,183 11,183 11,183 11,183

WSAs 86,780 0 86,780 0 86,780 0 86,780

* Mount Taylor is the only TCP quantified in this table due to data availability. Other TCPs are known to 

exist on BLM lands in the Planning Area, but data are not available for quantification at this time.

Table 4.57 provides the number of acres on BLM lands within the Planning Area that would be 

avoided or excluded from consideration for geothermal energy projects, by alternative. Readers 

should note that the quantities provided in Table 4.57 should not be aggregated because many of 

the resource areas and special designations overlap.

Table 4.57: Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Geothermal Energy Projects on BLM lands within the Planning 

Area, by Alternative

Designation Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B Alternative C

Preferred Alternative D

Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude

100-year floodplains 0 10,891 0 10,891 0 10,891 0

ACECs 0 0 133,493 123,167 0 38,368 0

Cave/Karst areas 0 0 189,045 0 189,045 189,045 0

Critical habitat for federal 

threatened and endangered 

species (designated and 

proposed)

0 None currently on BLM lands

Habitat for BLM sensitive 

plant and animal species 

(includes rare plants)

0 Data not available

Habitat for federal listed/ 

proposed threatened and 

endangered species for 

which critical habitat has not 

been designated

0 Data not available
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-138

Designation Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B Alternative C

Preferred Alternative D

Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude Avoid Exclude

Habitat for federal candidate 

species 0 Data not available

Habitat State-listed as 

crucial/sensitive 0 0 31,164 31,164 0 31,164 0

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 0 0 37,514 4,075 26,110 0 2,239

National Scenic and Historic 

Trails 11,474 0 38,808 0 23,607 0 11,474

Soils, highly erodible (per 

sensitive soils definition) 

and all slopes >15%

0 543,280 0 543,280 0 543,280 0

TCPs* 0 37,398 0 37,398 0 37,398 0

VRM Class I 97,645 0 97,296 0 97,474 0 97,516

VRM Class II 84,449 318,931 0 68,511 0 21,549 0

Wetlands and riparian areas 0 0 1,359 0 1,359 0 1,359

Wilderness Areas 11,183 11,183 11,183 11,183

WSAs 86,780 0 86,780 0 86,780 0 86,780

* Mount Taylor is the only TCP quantified in this table due to data availability. Other TCPs are known to 

exist on BLM lands in the Planning Area, but data are not available for quantification at this time.

Table 4.58: Total Exclusion or Avoidance Areas for Renewable Energy Projects (acres), by Alternative

Renewable Energy 

Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Geothermal 681,354 6,346 24,088 32,105

Avoid 0 373,047 428,538 603,728

Exclude 75,720 364,994 291,761 108,554

Solar 681,354 6,346 24,088 32,105

Avoid 0 215,085 293,140 460,117

Exclude 75,720 522,956 427,159 252,165

Wind 681,354 6,346 24,088 32,105

Avoid 0 219,890 468,061 485,789

Exclude 75,720 518,151 252,238 226,493

4.2.6.2 Cumulative Impacts

The designation of renewable energy development avoidance and exclusion areas on BLM lands, 

along with similar restrictions on renewable energy development on adjacent lands, particularly 

National Forest lands, would have a cumulative impact of reducing the potential for renewable 

energy development within New Mexico. The 5,000-acre Red Mesa Wind Farm project would 

increase the amount of renewable energy projects within the Planning Area. A renewable energy 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-139

transmission corridor, if proposed by RETA, within the Planning Area could also increase the 

demand for land to develop renewable energy projects due to the proximity of potential 

corridor(s). 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-140

Map-057-Geothermal B
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-141

Map-058-Geothermal C
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-142

Map-059-Geothermal D
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-143

Map-060-Solar B
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-144

Map-061-Solar C
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-145

Map-062-Solar D
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-146

Map-063-Wind B
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-147

Map-064-Wind C
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-148

Map-065-Wind D
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-149

4.2.7 Riparian Resources

An impact to riparian and wetland areas impacts the physical, chemical, or biological

components of the ecosystem. Actions that contribute to the decline in abundance, distribution, 

or functionality of riparian and wetland communities are considered adverse impacts. 

Conversely, beneficial impacts to riparian and wetland communities are activities that protect or 

restore these habitat types in the planning area. Direct impacts to riparian and wetland 

communities result from disturbing vegetation or ground surface occurring in these communities. 

Indirect impacts to riparian and wetland communities result from actions within a watershed that 

cause a change in riparian and wetland functionality (e.g., increased rates of sediment loading or 

changes in hydrology), a change in water chemistry, and spread of noxious and invasive species.

Within the Planning Area, riparian areas are typically associated with perennial, intermittent, and 

ephemeral streams, as well as isolated springs and other water sources. Management decisions 

with the potential to impact riparian resource health, the functioning condition of streams, water 

resources necessary to riparian zone establishment and survival, or the physical environment on 

which riparian vegetation depends (e.g., stream stability) were the decisions evaluated in this 

analysis. Fire management, forests and woodlands, lands and realty, livestock grazing, mineral 

resources, recreation and visitor services, renewable energy, riparian resources, soil and water, 

lands with wilderness characteristics, travel management, special designations, special-status 

species, and wildlife management decisions are expected to impact riparian resources on BLM 

lands in the Planning Area. The adverse and beneficial impacts are described below for each 

resource.

4.2.7.1 Analysis Assumptions

Estimates of projected surface disturbances are used as the primary metric for determining the 

relative level of potential indirect impact to riparian and wetland areas. The methods and 

assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

Surface disturbances generally increase surface runoff to streams due to an increase in 

impervious surface, changes in water routing, and loss of vegetation.

Surface disturbance, transportation networks, ungulate use, and recreation increase the 

likelihood of noxious/invasive species introduction and spread in an area.

The greater the amount of surface disturbance in a watershed, the greater the probability 

that excess surface runoff and sediment will enter the stream and contribute to the loss of 

riparian and wetland functionality.

Placing salt and mineral supplements outside of riparian and wetland communities is one 

tool that can reduce wildlife and livestock use of riparian and wetland areas.

Surface runoff to streams generally increases as livestock stocking rates increase. This is 

not a linear relationship. For example, low stocking rates typically have no measurable 

impact on surface runoff, moderate stocking rates typically have a negligible impact on 

surface runoff, high stocking rates have a measurable impact on surface runoff, and 

consecutive years of high stocking rates have the highest potential for increasing surface 

runoff to streams.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-150

Livestock and wildlife use is typically disproportionately higher in riparian and wetland 

communities than in upland communities. Improper grazing can adversely impact these 

communities throughout the year, but generally has greater impacts in the spring and 

early summer, when soils are wet and, therefore, more vulnerable to compaction and 

streambanks are more vulnerable to sloughing. Livestock, especially cattle, tend to 

congregate in these communities during the hot season (mid to late summer). While 

stocking rates for an allotment or pasture may be low to moderate, the utilization levels in 

riparian and wetland areas can be high.

Livestock stocking rates in grazing allotments generally remain unchanged.

Wildlife can adversely impact riparian and wetland areas, depending on how many, what 

type, and when the use occurs.

Riparian and wetland areas possess the ability to recharge and rebound faster than other 

vegetative areas in the planning area.

4.2.7.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts

4.2.7.2.1 Fire Management Decisions

Under all alternatives, the Fire and Fuels Plan Amendment would be implemented in fire-related 

actions (BLM 2004). The Fire and Fuels Plan Amendment mandates the maintenance of existing 

healthy ecosystems and the protection of threatened, endangered, and special-status species. 

Adherence to the Amendment would have beneficial impacts to riparian resources because it 

promotes the protection and restoration of healthy ecosystems, and emphasizes hazardous fuels

reduction treatments to restore ecosystems and prevent the occurrence of catastrophic wildfires 

that have the potential to destroy whole ecosystems.

Fuels management actions include fuels reduction treatments on 32,000 acres annually, of which 

3,855 acres of treatment would occur within riparian and wetland areas (Table 4.59). These 

actions include mechanical and manual treatments, prescribed fire, chemical or biological

vegetation control, and aerial/ground seeding. Fuels treatments may take place in riparian areas 

that have noxious and invasive species present and are Functioning At-Risk, in Properly 

Functioning Condition, constitute suitable potential or actual southwestern willow flycatcher 

habitat, or constitute valuable breeding bird or other wildlife community habitat. The fuels 

treatments within riparian areas would likely have short-term adverse impacts (defined as 

impacts seen within 5 years of treatment) to riparian areas because treated areas would be more 

susceptible to soil erosion and introduction of non-native species. However, the BLM would 

mitigate adverse impacts from these fuels treatments since the goal of the treatments would be to 

restore the native plant communities within riparian areas. Such mitigation could include timing 

of treatment to avoid sensitive periods, reseeding or replanting of riparian vegetation, and 

application of erosion control techniques such as turf reinforcement matting to encourage 

reestablishment of native vegetation, among other measures. 

Many risks to riparian ecosystem function can be associated with mechanical, chemical, 

prescribed burn, and biological treatments. It is for this reason that prescriptions for these 

treatments in riparian areas be developed using monitoring data specific to the treatment area as 

well as guidance from current peer-reviewed scientific literature. Risks associated with using 

biological control methods should be identified and analyzed carefully at the implementation 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-151

level, and adequate conclusive scientific research should exist to support any biological control 

agent used for treatment of noxious/invasive weeds. Risks can include treatment of non-target 

species and the possibility of the control agent moving to areas where treatment is not desired. If 

such risks are not accounted for at the implementation level, adverse impacts to species that 

depend on riparian habitats could include habitat loss and fragmentation. If risks are mitigated, 

such projects are expected to have beneficial impacts on riparian resources.

Table 4.59: Proposed Fuels Treatments (acres) in Riparian Areas

Vegetation/Habitat Type Proposed Fuels

Treatments (acres)

Riparian/Wetland 3,554

Total Proposed Fuels Treatments 612,958

Fire management decisions would have long-term beneficial impacts to riparian areas through 

restoration of native plant communities, reduction of non-native species, and possible 

improvement in the local hydrology within the riparian areas. Beneficial impacts to riparian 

ecosystems are expected with the assumption that fire management actions such as vegetation

treatments be planned and carried out in accordance with riparian resource objectives as well as 

other associated objectives such as Special Status Species and Wildlife management.

4.2.7.2.2 Forests and Woodlands Decisions

Under all alternatives, forest and woodland harvest activities would be prohibited in riparian

areas, except where forest restoration would benefit riparian areas through activities such as 

removal of non-native and invasive species (e.g., saltcedar or Russian olive eradication). In 

these cases, forest and woodland management decisions could have a beneficial impact to 

riparian areas. On certain occasions, the possibility exists for allowing forestry practices to be 

conducted for religious ceremonial purposes by tribal people. Harvesting of willows or 

cottonwoods could have an adverse impact on riparian areas because they stabilize soil and play 

an important role in dissipating flows and retaining water in riparian systems. Such impacts 

could be minimized and/or avoided by applying a prescription that specifies location and timing 

of the action. 

4.2.7.2.3 Livestock Grazing Decisions

Livestock grazing management decisions would have both beneficial and adverse impacts on 

riparian resources. There are 718,035 acres of grazing allotments on BLM lands within the 

Planning Area, which make up approximately 95% of BLM lands in the Planning Area. The 

RPFO would remove grazing from 1,582 acres of riparian areas and 172 AUMs under 

Alternative B. Under Alternatives C and D, prescribed grazing would occur within those 

riparian areas (approximately 1,582 acres) identified in the Riparian and Aquatic Habitat 

Management in the Albuquerque Field Office EIS BLM 2000, which is consistent with the New 

Mexico Standards and Guidelines BLM 2001). 

Livestock grazing within riparian areas could have beneficial impacts on riparian areas, such as

stimulation of vegetation growth, removal of standing dead vegetation, and seed distribution. 

These impacts could improve the condition of vegetation within riparian areas. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-152

Livestock grazing within riparian areas could also produce adverse impacts to riparian resources. 

These adverse impacts could include decreased growth or loss of riparian vegetation and possible 

loss or degradation of riparian soils, water quality, streambed and bank structures, and habitat 

quality. 

Livestock grazing would not be allowed in exclosures constructed within riparian areas using 

Habitat Stamp Program (HSP) dollars unless grazing the area would meet the management 

objectives of the EIS for Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Management in the Albuquerque Field 

Office (BLM 2000), an appropriate NEPA analysis is conducted, and the NMDGF is in 

agreement.

4.2.7.2.4 Mineral Resources Decisions

Under Alternatives B and C, a stipulation is proposed for protection of riparian resources. Under 

Alternative B, leasable fluid mineral activities would be prohibited (NSO) within 200 meters

(656 feet) of the channels of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams, or within 200 meters

(656 feet) of the outer margins of riparian and wetland areas. Under Alternative C, leasable fluid 

mineral activities would be subject to CSU restrictions within 200 meters (656 feet) of the 

channels of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams, or within 200 meters (656 feet) of the 

outer margins of riparian and wetland areas. No stipulations are proposed for riparian resources 

under Alternatives A and D; therefore, mineral resources management decisions would impact 

riparian resources within the Planning Area under Alternatives A and D more than Alternatives 

B and C. Impacts would result from selection of Alternatives A or D because there would be no 

stipulation in place to protect riparian areas from mineral development, which causes surface 

disturbance and therefore habitat loss and/or fragmentation. Beneficial impacts would result from 

Alternatives B and C because NSO and CSU restriction stipulations would protect riparian areas 

from being developed, and therefore prevent loss of riparian area vegetation.

4.2.7.2.5 Recreation and Visitor Services Decisions

Under all alternatives, dispersed camping would be prohibited within 46 meters (150 feet) of 

riparian areas. Designated campgrounds established in proximity to riparian areas would be 

designed or placed to ensure adequate spatial and visual restrictions that would allow sensitive 

wildlife to exist undisturbed. These decisions would have a beneficial impact on riparian 

resources because they would reduce the amount of vegetation disturbance and lessen the chance 

that campfires may harm or destroy riparian habitats. Under all alternatives, the RPFO would 

provide public information concerning the prevention of the spread of invasive and exotic weeds, 

as well as wildlife species and their habitat in riparian areas. This decision is expected to have a 

beneficial impact on riparian resources because it would generate greater public awareness about 

the sensitivity of riparian ecosystems and therefore a greater respect and sense of 

protection/preservation of the resource. 

Under Alternatives C and D, new trails would be considered for the Oh-My-God 100 Motorcycle 

Race. This decision would have no impacts on riparian habitat if because newly proposed trails 

would avoid riparian areas. Under Alternative B, no new trails would be considered. Because of 

mitigation in place, Alternative B would have the same impacts as C and D. 

Under Alternative C, San Ysidro SRMA, the San Ysidro Trials Area would be authorized for use 

of practice and events by the New Mexico Trials Association on authorized trails. This activity 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-153

involves motorcycle use in an area where tinajas (natural stone water basins) exist and harbor 

riparian vegetation. This activity causes surface disturbance, but trials bikes are not ridden 

through riparian areas, and would not cause disturbance and destruction of riparian and aquatic 

habitat. Monitoring results have shown that unauthorized users of this area travel on designated 

trails, but also create new trails causing additional surface disturbance and no protection for 

riparian resources. Renewable Energy Decisions

Renewable energy management decisions would beneficially impact riparian areas. Active 

floodplains and 100-year floodplains are identified as exclusion or avoidance areas for wind, 

solar, and geothermal projects under all alternatives. In addition to the exclusion and avoidance 

areas, Alternatives B and C also include a proposed surface disturbance restriction for riparian 

areas. Under Alternative B, surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited within 200 meters

(656 feet) of the channels of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams, or within 200 meters

(656 feet) of the outer margins of riparian and wetland areas. Under Alternative C, surfacedisturbing activities would be subject to restrictions within 200 meters (656 feet) of the channels 

of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams, or within 200 meters (656 feet) of the outer 

margins of riparian and wetland areas. These definitions may provide additional protection from 

surface disturbance in addition to the active floodplain and 100-year floodplain areas, depending 

on the characteristics of the riparian area. No surface disturbance restrictions are proposed for 

general riparian resources or floodplains under Alternative A; therefore, there would be no 

protection from renewable energy development for riparian areas under Alternative A. Wind, 

geothermal, and solar energy development all result in surface disturbance and the removal/loss 

of vegetation. The decisions to exclude wind, solar and geothermal energy development in 

wetlands and riparian areas under all alternatives would have a beneficial impact to riparian 

resources because it would prevent adverse impacts from those types of actions and provide

protection for riparian resources.

4.2.7.2.6 Riparian Resources Decisions

Riparian resources management decisions would have adverse and beneficial impacts to riparian

resources on BLM lands within the Planning Area. Riparian decisions that are common to all 

alternatives would have beneficial impacts to riparian resources because they emphasize the 

following protections for riparian habitat:

Manage for the protection and enhancement of Southwestern Willow Flycatcher habitat, 

according to the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan and current scientific 

literature on the subject.

Implement actions to restore riparian areas to PFC or maintain them at PFC or to achieve 

advanced ecological status. 

Address riparian habitat values for all surface and vegetation disturbing activities 

proposed in riparian/wetland areas, and apply mitigation to reduce impacts to floodplains

and riparian areas where impacts are expected. 

Under Alternatives B and C, a surface disturbance restriction is proposed for protection of 

riparian resources. These restrictions are similar, but not the same as the stipulations discussed 

under the Mineral Resources section (4.2.3.2.7). Under Alternative B, surface-disturbing 

activities would be prohibited within 200 meters (656 feet) of the channels of ephemeral, 

intermittent, and perennial streams, or within 200 meters (656 feet) of the outer margins of 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-154

riparian and wetland areas. Under Alternative C, surface-disturbing activities would be subject to 

restrictions within 200 meters (656 feet) of the channels of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial 

streams, or within 200 meters (656 feet) of the outer margins of riparian and wetland areas. No 

surface disturbance restrictions are proposed for riparian resources under Alternatives A and D; 

therefore, there would be an adverse impact to riparian resources under these alternatives. 

Alternatives B and C would have beneficial impacts to riparian resources because they would 

protect them from surface disturbance and removal of riparian vegetation as a result of multipleuse project implementation. Alternative B would have the most beneficial impact because it 

would prohibit surface disturbance in riparian areas altogether.

4.2.7.2.7 Special-status Species Decisions

Under all alternatives, no management action would be permitted on public lands that would 

jeopardize the continued existence of plant or animal species that are listed, officially proposed, 

or candidates for listing as threatened and endangered. The BLM would commit to current and 

future conservation agreements, management plans, and recovery plans specific to threatened 

and endangered species and BLM sensitive species, as described in the Special-status Species 

section of Table 2.58 (in Chapter 2). Specifically, the BLM would prioritize maintenance and 

improvement of riparian/wetland areas in protection of both Special Status Species and 

Migratory Birds (which are discussed in the SSS section) and minimize the spread of invasive, 

non-native plants such as cheatgrass, saltcedar and Russian olive and would strive for a dense 

understory of native species in riparian areas with improvement of cottonwood and willow 

regeneration. Implementation of these decisions would have beneficial impacts to riparian 

resources. Additionally, the most prevalent threatened and endangered species in the RPFO is the 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, a riparian obligate species that is dependent on riparian 

ecosystems for almost its entire life cycle. A decision common to all alternatives is to implement 

the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery plan which includes increasing and improving 

occupied, suitable, and potential breeding habitat for the species. Additionally, management for 

other special status species (such as the yellow-billed cuckoo) and migratory birds that utilize or 

depend on riparian habitats would have beneficial impacts to riparian resources because they 

would impose added protections for the habitats that support those species. 

4.2.7.2.8 Soil and Water Decisions

Under all alternatives, soils and water management decisions would comply with New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001). In addition, all floodplains and riparian/wetlands would 

be managed in accordance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, which would protect the 

quality of stream water and federally listed species habitat. Uses on BLM lands in the Planning 

Area would be managed to minimize and mitigate damage to soils, and activities located in areas 

with sensitive soils would be subject to site-specific NEPA analysis. These restrictions would 

decrease the number of acres in the Planning Area subject to the adverse impacts of surfacedisturbing activities on riparian resources, including surface water contamination and 

sedimentation by runoff from disturbed soils, and would therefore constitute beneficial impacts.

Under Alternatives B and C, the RPFO would prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 200 

meters (656 feet) of riparian areas and springs. Oil and gas leasing stipulations would implement 

CSU for 15% to 30% slopes, NSO for slopes over 30%, and CSU for low reclamation soils. 

These actions would help to mitigate the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities on 

riparian resources. These management decisions would also help mitigate adverse impacts to 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-155

fish and other aquatic species’ habitat from increased overland flow associated with upland soil 

disturbance. No surface disturbance restrictions are proposed for riparian resources under 

Alternatives A and D; therefore, riparian resources within the Planning Area would be adversely 

impacted under Alternatives A and D, more than Alternatives B and C.

4.2.7.2.9 Special Designations Decisions

Riparian areas would receive indirect beneficial impacts from proposed special designations

because surface restrictions would be implemented within the special designations. Two ACECs 

are proposed in the RMP/EIS that would protect riparian values on BLM lands within the 

Planning Area. Under all alternatives, the Bluewater Canyon ACEC and Espinosa Ridge ACEC 

would be designated to protect the riparian values in the areas. Table 4.60 shows the proposed 

special designations with riparian values and other values in the Planning Area. No WSA

segments are nominated in the RMP/EIS.

Table 4.60: Proposed Special Designations (acres) in the Planning Area, by Alternative

Special Designations Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

ACECs managed for riparian

values

2 ACECs

1,575 acres

2 ACECs

11,236 acres

2 ACECs

8,628 acres

2 ACECs

2,419 acres

ACECS managed for other 

values

8 ACECs

52,190 acres

16 ACECs

138,738 acres

16 ACECs

128,401 acres

9 ACECs

41,630 acres

WSA/Wilderness Area 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963acres 97,963 acres

CDNST 1 trail

11,474 acres

1 trail

38,808 acres

1 trail

23,607 acres

1 trail

11,474 acres

Total Special Designations in 

Planning Area 137,720 acres 185,625 acres 178,000 acres 126,392 acres

4.2.7.2.10 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions

In general, managing lands to protect their wilderness characteristics limits surface-disturbing 

activities, which would benefit riparian resources by reducing direct disturbance of riparian 

habitat. In terms of direct impacts of lands with wilderness characteristics decisions on riparian 

resources, Alternative B would have the most beneficial impact. Under Alternative B, 243 acres 

of riparian areas would be subject to the surface restrictions applied to lands with wilderness 

characteristics, including closures to vehicles and livestock grazing. Under Alternative C, 235 

acres of riparian areas would be subject to surface restrictions, including limits on new rights-ofway. 

In terms of indirect impacts, Alternative B would also produce a larger beneficial impact on 

riparian resources than Alternative C because 11,404 more acres of land would be managed to 

protect wilderness characteristics. In addition, Alternative B includes more limitations on 

activities within lands with wilderness characteristics, such as prohibiting new rights-of-way and 

closing to livestock grazing. In contrast, 4,075 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics will 

be open to livestock grazing and new rights-of-way under Alternative C. Precluding surfacedisturbing activities would prevent impacts and habitat disruption that could result from surfacedisturbing activities in and adjacent to riparian areas. Limitations on travel and new rights-of-
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-156

way would beneficially reduce disturbances associated with stream crossings and off-road travel, 

resulting in no damage to, or removal of, riparian vegetation.

Table 4.61 shows the acres of riparian areas located within lands proposed for protection or 

partial protection of wilderness characteristics. Alternatives A and D would be the least 

protective of riparian resources, since they would not manage BLM lands within the Planning 

Area to protect wilderness characteristics. Alternative B would be the most protective since 243

acres of riparian areas would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics and would be the 

most restrictive for surface-disturbing activities. Alternative C would manage 235 acres to 

partially protect wilderness characteristics, but would allow for surface-disturbing activities on a 

case-by-case basis. 

Riparian habitat is not present in Volcano Hill or Cimarron Mesa; therefore, there will be no 

impacts to riparian areas through designation of these areas to Lands with Wilderness with 

Characteristics, regardless of which alternative is chosen.

Table 4.61: Riparian Areas (acres) Located within Lands Proposed for Management for Wilderness 

Characteristics

LWC Management Category Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Riparian Acres in LWCs Managed to Protect 

Wilderness Characteristics

243 235 198

Riparian acres in LWCs where wilderness 

characteristics would not be protected

0 8 45

Total 243 243 243

4.2.7.2.11 Travel Management Decisions

Travel management decisions would have a beneficial impact to riparian resources because, 

under all alternatives, riparian areas would be closed to motorized travel. It is possible that 

certain existing roads within the field office have a significant impact on watershed stability. The 

decision to investigate road closures and establish criteria for closing roads based on erosion 

concerns would have a beneficial impact on riparian resources if it resulted in the closure and 

rehabilitation of roads that increase runoff and/or exacerbate erosion and sedimentation. Under 

Alternative B, BLM Road 1103 would be seasonally closed to motorized travel between July 1 

and September 15, and from November 30 to April 15. Under Alternative C, it would only be 

closed between November 30 and April 15. Under Alternative C, it would not be seasonally 

closed. Wetland areas exist in the IC Grant area (the area BLM Road 1103 goes through), and 

Alternative B would provide the most protection from possible off-highway vehicle use during 

the wet times of the year, and prevent degradation of BLM Road 1103 by vehicular travel.

4.2.7.2.12 Vegetative Communities Decisions

The vegetative communities goals and decisions common to all alternatives emphasize actions 

that would benefit riparian resources such as restoring and maintaining vegetative communities 

to desired states; managing vegetation for ecological diversity, stability, sustainability and 

riparian function; controlling noxious and invasive plant species; maintaining, protecting and 

enhancing special status species plant and animal habitats; not allowing livestock grazing in 

riparian areas; and following the EIAS for Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Management in the 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-157

Albuquerque Field Office (BLM 2000). These decisions would have long-term beneficial 

impacts to riparian resources because they promote protection, preservation, restoration, and 

enhancement of riparian plant communities, and improve ecological health of riparian 

ecosystems. Prescribed fire and other vegetation treatments would likely result in the temporary 

loss of habitat, but would have long-term beneficial impacts. 

Under Alternative B, the BLM would not implement vegetation treatments. Under Alternative C, 

the BLM would implement vegetation treatments in areas not meeting the NM Standards and 

Guides. Under Alternative D, the BLM would implement vegetation treatments that would 

increase harvest of all vegetative products. The effects of implementing Alternative B would be 

both beneficial and adverse. Beneficial impacts would occur because vegetation treatments often 

are accompanied by the risk of introducing noxious and invasive species, the risk of not meeting 

the desired outcome and the risk of overharvesting/over-treating an important ecosystem that 

could result in further deterioration of an already-degraded system. On the other hand, impacts of 

vegetation treatments have the potential to greatly benefit ecosystem health and speed recovery 

processes that otherwise might take longer to occur naturally. Faster recovery times would be the 

beneficial impacts of implementing Alternative C. The adverse impacts of Alternative C would 

include the realization of the aforementioned risks associated with vegetation treatments. 

However, with mitigation to lessen the chance of those risks occurring, adverse impacts can be 

lessened or avoided altogether. Alternative D would result in the highest adverse impacts to 

riparian resources because it would maximize vegetative product extraction in rare and sensitive 

ecosystems. 

4.2.7.2.13 Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions

Wildlife and fisheries management decisions are expected to have beneficial impacts to riparian

resources when projects are proposed to protect wildlife that utilizes riparian habitats. There is 

an estimated 1,582 acres of riparian/wetland habitat on BLM lands within the Decision Area, 

which provide habitat for game species, mammalian predators, small mammals, birds, wetland 

game birds, amphibians, fish, and reptiles. Management decisions proposed to enhance habitat 

for these wildlife species would beneficially impact riparian resources. It is a goal of the wildlife 

and fisheries program to manage for the biological integrity of terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic 

ecosystems with emphasis on ecosystem health and species biodiversity, and to manage crucial, 

high-value habitats as management priorities. These areas include riparian ecosystems. Common 

goals of the riparian and wildlife/fisheries programs would benefit riparian resources because 

implementation of actions aimed at meeting those goals would be highly supported by this RMP. 

The decision common to all alternatives to prevent excessive use and degradation of riparian 

areas from livestock grazing using behavioral management, wildlife-friendly fencing, and/or 

upland water developments would beneficially impact riparian resources because overgrazing 

would be prevented (this conclusion was determined with the assumption that these and other 

livestock grazing management techniques are applied in the best interest of riparian ecosystem 

health, function and biodiversity.)

Under Alternatives B and C, a general project disturbance mitigation measure would prohibit 

surface disturbance within up to 200m of existing or planned wildlife habitat improvement 

projects with the exception of large-scale vegetation manipulation projects. This decision would 

have beneficial impacts to riparian resources in areas where riparian projects have been 

conducted. These impacts are expected under the assumption that the objectives of any large-
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-158

scale vegetation manipulation projects are consistent with the objectives of the existing or 

planned wildlife habitat improvement projects.

4.2.7.2.14 Lands and Realty Decisions

Lands and realty decisions would have both positive and negative impacts on riparian resources. 

Areas that are recommended for disposal would have a negative impact on riparian resources if 

the parcels contained riparian habitat and the future use of the parcel was uncertain. That is, if 

the parcel were developed in such a way that disturbed riparian habitat, the disposal would have 

an adverse impact. Conversely, areas recommended for acquisition that contain riparian habitat 

would create beneficial impacts through the consolidation of riparian resources on Public lands. 

This would result in higher manageability.

Under all alternatives, riparian areas are designated as avoidance areas for rights-of-way, which 

would have a beneficial impact. This management decision allows the BLM to recommend 

relocation of rights-of-way that could adversely impact riparian habitat. Adverse impacts to 

riparian habitat would only occur if no alternate location could be identified that avoids riparian 

areas. 

4.2.7.2.15 Renewable Energy Decisions

Under all alternatives, riparian areas are designated as exclusion areas for renewable energy

projects, which would have a beneficial impact on riparian resources. No riparian areas would be 

disturbed to install wind, solar, or geothermal energy projects. There are 579 acres of riparian 

habitat in high potential renewable energy areas. 

4.2.7.3 Cumulative Impacts

Reasonably foreseeable future actions that would impact riparian areas include continuation of 

non-native species treatment projects within the Planning Area. Multiple programs within New 

Mexico encourage the restoration of riparian areas and the removal of non-native species, such 

as saltcedar and Russian olive, within riparian corridors. As both private and public land 

managers within the Planning Area implement non-native species removal, the riparian areas 

within the Planning Area would benefit from improved ecosystem health and potentially 

increased stream flow. This assumes that removal of invasive species is followed up with 

measures to encourage re-establishment or reintroduction of native riparian plant species and 

discourage re-establishment of noxious and invasive species. 

4.2.8 Social and Economic Resources

This section presents an analysis of social and economic impacts of the management alternatives 

proposed in the RMP/EIS. This document discusses employment, labor income, and effects on 

sectors in the impact area economy that encompass the RPFO. Impacts to revenues received by 

states and counties, environmental justice, and communities within the Planning Area are also 

presented. Finally, the alternatives are discussed in light of forecasts for the area over the 20-

year period of analysis. 

The economic analysis focuses on changes in labor income and employment associated with 

BLM planning actions and estimated outputs for the alternatives (Table 4.62). The social 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-159

analysis focuses on the interests and concerns of identified communities relative to the 

alternatives. Higher employment, subject to some qualifications, can be seen as a benefit to the 

local community. Other benefits are also present, although some are not easily measured or tied 

to economic activity. An example of where effects are difficult to quantify are equity effects, 

impacts to social values, and non-market values. Regardless, these benefits are discussed despite 

the inability to measure them quantitatively. 

Table 4.62: BLM Outputs, by Alternative

Output Current1 Alternative A

No Action

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Preferred

Alternative 

D

General recreation 

(visits)2 47,059 54,049 54,049 54,049 54,049

Fish and wildlife 

recreation (visits) 3,543 4,068 4,068 4,068 4,068

Cattle (AUMs)3

74,339 119,064 96,413–

119,064

96,413–

120,971

96,413–

120,971

Forest product areas 

(acres) – 12,717 148,292 607,199 757,074

Natural gas 

(thousand cubic feet) 431,945 432,000 432,000 432,000 432,000

Oil (barrels) 38093 39,000 39,000 39,000 39,000

Sand and gravel

(short tons) 205,000 205,000 205,000 205,000 205,000

Crushed stone (short 

tons) 76,000 76,000 76,000 76,000 76,000

Gypsum (short tons) 486 500 500 500 500

1 Estimates include actual use levels (average annual use). 

2 Recreation visits are expected to increase by 1% per year as a result of observed rates of increase in BLM 

recreation data (Recreation Management Information System 2010). 

3 Data are based on the potential AUMs available for activation under maximum permitted use. The share 

of actual use from what is available has slightly decreased from 67% in 2000 to 54% in 2008 (see Annual 

AUM Authorizations in the RPFO in Chapter 3).

4.2.8.1 Analysis Methods and Assumptions

The following analysis methods and assumptions were used to complete the analysis for the 

social and economic impacts from the proposed management decisions:

The Planning Area population would continue to increase and age as described in 

Chapter 3.

The social groups are defined to facilitate the discussion of social impacts. These 

discussions simplify what are often quite complex and unique values and attitudes, and 

the groupings presented here are by no means mutually exclusive. For example, many 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-160

ranchers also participate in recreation activities. It is also worth noting that attitudes, 

interests, and values often change over time. The social analysis covers the groups and 

individuals that are most likely to be affected by this plan. 

Regional economic impacts are estimated based on the assumption of full implementation 

of each alternative. The actual changes in the economy would depend on individuals 

taking advantage of the resource-related opportunities that would be supported by each 

alternative. If market conditions or trends in resource use were not conducive to 

developing some opportunities, the impact to the economy would be different than 

estimated here. 

Resource specialists projected annual resource outputs that are based on the best available 

information and professional judgment. The purpose of the economic analysis is to 

compare the relative impacts of the alternatives and should not be viewed as absolute 

economic values. 

Projected recreation visits are distributed among different types of visitors based on the 

results of National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) surveys conducted for the Cibola 

National Forest. 

The ratios of recreation visits to jobs and income used to assess the impacts of the 

alternatives are based on national ratios developed through the U.S. Forest Service’s 

NVUM program (Stynes and White 2005). 

Baseline recreation demand is assumed to increase by 1% per year based on the observed 

annual rate of recreation use in the RPFO (Recreation Management Information System 

[RMIS] 2010). 

Non salary-related expenditures made by the RPFO are assumed to be allocated to 

different economic sectors based on data compiled for the Cibola National Forest. 

Range revenues received by the BLM and benefits of BLM forage were calculated using 

the conservative AUM price for 2009 of $1.35 per AUM and the 2007 statewide average 

AUM price for private land of $11, adjusted for inflation (USDA 2007). 

Potential economic impacts are assessed using the Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet 

Tool (FEAST) developed by the U.S. Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Institute 

in Fort Collins, Colorado. This tool uses a Microsoft Excel workbook as an interface 

between user inputs and data generated using the Impact Analysis for Planning 

(IMPLAN) input-output modeling system (FEAST 2010). 

The FEAST analysis assesses the economic impacts of the resource outputs projected 

under each alternative. Resource outputs in this context are the amount of a resource 

(e.g., forest products, AUMs, recreation visits, etc.) that would be available for use under 

each alternative. Average annual resource outputs were projected by resource specialists 

for each alternative for a 20-year planning period based on the best available information 

and professional judgment. 

Employment and labor income estimates developed for this analysis include direct, 

indirect, and induced economic effects. Direct employment would, for example, be 

generated in the grazing sector. Additional employment would be generated as the 

affected livestock operators purchase services and materials as inputs (“indirect” effects) 

and ranchers spend their earnings within the local economy (“induced” effects). Direct, 

indirect, and induced effects are combined in the discussion of effects below. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-161

Theoretically, expenditures associated with changes in final demand would be available 

and specific enough to allocate to each of the 440 sectors contained in the IMPLAN 

model. In the absence of primary data, national-level production functions are used. 

Expenditures should be delineated between local and non-local providers, as purchases 

out of the economic study region would have no local economic impact. IMPLAN’s data 

contain information, called regional purchase coefficients, which describe the proportion 

of a given commodity that would be provided by local producers. Previous modeling 

experience has shown that the data contained in the IMPLAN modeling system for the 

various sectors are an accurate representation of impacts.

Biomass opportunities may exist, but are not analyzed given a lack of understanding of 

obstacles to implementation and impracticalities of projecting future scenarios for 

implementation.

Non-market values, including natural amenities, non-use values, ecosystem services, and 

aspects of well-being and quality of life are assessed in qualitative terms, as appropriate. 

The social analysis assesses the potential effects of different management actions on 

potentially affected social groups. These groups were identified based on the results of 

public scoping and comments received during the planning process. This analysis 

addresses the potential impacts of the alternatives based on the issues and concerns raised 

by these groups. The analysis draws upon ongoing discussions between the BLM and 

potentially affected publics, as well as discussions with subject matter experts involved in 

other parts of the analysis. The analysis is primarily qualitative with potential impacts 

ranked by alternative. Quantitative measures, such as acres in protected areas, and 

recreation visitation, are used, as appropriate. 

The environmental justice analysis presented assesses the potential for the proposed 

alternatives to have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority and low-income populations. The fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of people of all races, cultures, and incomes in this planning process is also 

considered. 

4.2.8.2 Economic Direct/Indirect Impacts

None of the alternatives would be expected to reduce economic diversity (the number of 

economic sectors) or increase economic dependency, which occurs when the local economy is 

dominated by a limited number of industries. Shifts in emphasis could occur, but these would 

not result as a consequence of planning actions in this RMP/EIS. While the alternatives have the 

potential to affect local businesses and individuals, the relative contribution of BLM-related 

activities to the local economy (see Chapter 3) and the relative differences between the 

alternatives would not be large enough to have any measurable effect on economic diversity or 

dependency. For example, the dependency of the local economy on livestock industry, forest 

products, mining, and recreation activities would not be affected by BLM resource management 

under this RMP/EIS. Under all the alternatives, all BLM-related contributions, i.e., jobs and 

labor income, would continue to support less than 1% of totals within the impact area economy, 

but could be more important for smaller communities within the Planning Area. 

Estimates of the levels of employment and labor income that would be supported by the 

alternatives are based on projected resource outputs from BLM management actions (see Table 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-162

4.62), estimated payments to counties (see below), BLM expenditures, and other externally 

funded activities on BLM lands. The projected outputs and activities are discussed by resource 

in the following sections. Estimated average annual employment and labor income from outputs 

and activities are summarized in Table 4.63 and Table 4.64 below, respectively. 

As a result of Alternative A, about 386 jobs and $9.4 million in labor income would be generated 

in the impact area economy on an average annual basis; 23% more employment and 7% more 

income than contributed currently due to larger permitted grazing levels evaluated under this 

alternative than levels evaluated under the action alternatives. This estimate is based on the level 

of recreation, saleable and leasable fluid minerals, and AUM permitted use and thus reflects an 

annual average of the maximum available contribution that would be available rather than actual 

use. This includes direct, indirect, and induced effects as a result of the outputs, county 

payments, and management actions discussed in this section. The largest employment and labor 

income effects would occur in the agriculture, government, and Accommodation & Food 

Services sectors (see Table 4.63 and Table 4.64). 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-163

Table 4.63: Average Annual Employment Contribution (number of jobs), by Sector and Alternative

Sector 

(area total) Current

Alternative 

A

No Action

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Preferred

Alternative 

D

Accommodation & Food 

Services (37,515)

22 23 23 23 23

Admin, Waste Mngt & Rem 

Serv (36,695)

7 7 7 7 7

Agriculture (4,104) 101 130 161 130 163

Arts, Entertainment, and Rec 

(10,078)

5 5 5 5 5

Construction (34,431) 2 0 0 0 0

Educational Services (9,442) 2 2 2 2 2

Finance & Insurance 

(20,085)

7 8 7 7 7

Government (100,073) 88 88 88 88 88

Health Care & Social 

Assistance (59,378)

10 11 11 11 11

Information (11,708) 2 3 3 3 3

Manufacturing (20,947) 2 3 3 3 3

Mining (1,230) 6 0 0 0 0

Mngt of Companies (3,225) 1 1 1 1 1

Other Services (22,286) 5 6 6 6 6

Prof, Scientific, & Tech 

Services (45,297)

9 9 9 9 9

Real Estate & Rental & 

Leasing (27,428)

12 15 14 14 14

Retail Trade (52,171) 16 17 17 17 17

Transportation & 

Warehousing (11,308)

4 5 5 5 5

Utilities (12,77) 1 0 0 0 0

Wholesale Trade (15,389) 5 7 6 6 6

Total (524,067) 314 386 368 369 369
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-164

Table 4.64: Average Annual Labor Income Contribution (thousands of 2012 dollars), by Sector and 

Alternative 

Sector

(area total) Current

Alternative 

A

No Action

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Preferred

Alternative 

D

Accommodation & 

Food Services 

($833,447)

$519 $551 $548 $548 $548

Admin, Waste Mngt 

& Rem Serv 

($1,187,349)

$200 $220 $216 $216 $216

Agriculture 

($146,312) $355 $553 $503 $507 $507

Arts, Entertainment, 

and Rec ($147,362) $96 $102 $101 $101 $101

Construction 

($1,639,435) $113 $117 $116 $116 $116

Educational Services 

($272,114) $46 $49 $49 $49 $49

Finance & Insurance 

($996,604) $319 $377 $362 $363 $363

Government 

($6,906,100) $3,658 $3,674 $3,671 $3,671 $3,671

Health Care & Social 

Assistance 

($2,825,886)

$513 $546 $539 $539 $539

Information 

($625,124) $133 $143 $141 $141 $141

Manufacturing 

($1,448,831) $116 $121 $120 $120 $120

Mining ($83,903) $393 $393 $393 $393 $393

Mngt of Companies 

($265,286) $69 $73 $73 $73 $73

Other Services 

($820,726) $205 $219 $216 $216 $216

Prof, Scientific, & 

Tech Services 

($3,105,828)

$458 $485 $479 $479 $479

Real Estate & Rental 

& Leasing 

($327,722)

$136 $164 $157 $158 $158
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-165

Sector

(area total) Current

Alternative 

A

No Action

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Preferred

Alternative 

D

Retail Trade 

($1,692,934) $493 $520 $515 $516 $516

Transportation & 

Warehousing 

($602,919)

$231 $280 $268 $268 $268

Utilities ($124,516) $56 $66 $64 $64 $64

Wholesale Trade 

($935,120) $329 $396 $380 $381 $381

Total ($24,987,517) $8,811 $9,425 $9,284 $9,295 $9,295

Under Alternative B, the estimated total number of jobs and labor income associated with BLM 

land and resource management would be about 368 and $9.3 million, respectively, which is 17% 

more employment and 5% more income than contributed currently but lower than the other 

alternatives with lower levels of maximum permitted grazing. The largest employment and labor 

income effects would occur in the government, agriculture, and Accommodation & Food 

Services sectors (see Table 4.63 and Table 4.64). 

Under Alternatives C and D, the estimated total number of jobs and labor income associated with 

BLM land and resource management would be about 369 and $9.3 million, which is 17.5% more 

employment and 6% more income than contributed currently, slightly more than experienced 

under Alternative B but less than Alternative A. The largest employment and labor income 

effects would occur in the government, agriculture, and Accommodation & Food Services

sectors (see Table 4.63 and Table 4.64). 

4.2.8.2.1 Recreation and Visitor Services Decisions

While change in recreation use as a result of the alternatives is not expected, the role of 

recreation in the local economy would continue to increase as cultural and historical 

interpretation, OHV use, and other forms of recreation continue to increase. Observed changes 

in recreation visitation within the Planning Area indicate that an annual average increase of 1% 

is reasonable (RMIS 2010).

Under all the alternatives, recreation management would continue to sustain opportunities 

important to the area economy and well-being. As noted in Chapter 3, opportunities provided to 

local residents are important; however, recreation expenditures do not represent new money 

introduced into the economy. If BLM-related opportunities were not present, it is likely that 

residents would participate in other locally based recreation activities and this money would still 

be retained in the local economy. Therefore, local recreation visits are not considered in the 

modeling of economic effects under the alternatives1. Effects from non-local use under the 

alternatives would account for 20 jobs and $563,000 in labor income on an average annual basis 

(see Table 4.66 and Table 4.67 below). 

 

1

If local use continues on BLM lands under the alternatives, it would continue to support approximately 12 jobs and 

$363,000 in labor income. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-166

Jobs and income associated with recreation management should not overshadow the economic 

value of experience held by recreation users within the Planning Area. For example, cultural 

interpretation or motorized use in the Planning Area could change as management actions are 

implemented. The value of recreation experiences could thus change under the alternatives; 

estimates of the value of these recreation experiences are not available given the lack of data 

regarding visitor use levels for these activities. Regardless, changes in the perceived quality of 

these recreation experiences are discussed in the Recreation and Visitor Services section (4.2.12) 

of this DRMP/DEIS. 

Under all alternatives, it can be assumed recreation use would continue to increase by 1% per 

year based on rates of BLM visitation observed in the past (RMIS 2010). Given this increase, 

average annual recreation visits are estimated at 54,049 general visits and another 4,068 wildliferelated visits (see Table 4.62). Expenditures of these visitors would support approximately 

twenty jobs and $563,000 in labor income in the impact area economy on an average annual 

basis (see Table 4.66 and Table 4.67 below). 

4.2.8.2.2 Livestock Grazing Decisions

The Planning Area’s relatively low level of dependency on BLM forage would continue under 

all of the alternatives. The permitted use2under all of the action alternatives (see Table 4.62

above) could accommodate at least 13% of total forage needed to feed 2007 levels of livestock in 

the six impact area counties. Jobs and labor income associated with BLM grazing would 

continue to account for less than 1% of area totals. Additionally, jobs and labor income in the 

agricultural sector associated with BLM management would account for less than 2% of area 

totals in the agricultural sector across all alternatives. 

While employment and labor income associated with grazing would remain low, BLM forage

would continue to provide a low cost and important complement to some livestock producers’ 

grazing, forage, and hay production. For smaller communities within the impact area, 

dependency on BLM forage might also be greater. In addition to potential changes in projected 

employment and income as a result of changes in BLM forage offered, the value of BLM forage 

to area operators should also be considered. This value can be estimated as the difference 

between the competitive market price of an AUM and the BLM lease fee. This value is 

experienced above the price ranchers pay for AUM leases and can be considered a benefit. The 

benefit to operators from the potential permitted BLM grazing varies among the alternatives, but 

would not fall below $1.1 million (2009 dollars). Payments to counties under the Taylor Grazing 

Act would continue under all the alternatives and are discussed below.

Alternative A could authorize average annual grazing of approximately 119,064 AUMs (see 

Table 4.62) and would support approximately ninety jobs and $1.2 million in labor income (see 

Table 4.66 and Table 4.67). While these contributions are higher than current contributions from 

grazing, it must be noted these are impacts from the established permitted use for AUMs in the 

Planning Area. This is the maximum number of AUMs that could be offered under ideal forage

conditions, which may not be an accurate portrayal of actual impacts. Factors such as drought, 

 

2 The permitted use is the maximum number of AUMs that could be offered under ideal forage conditions, which 

may not be an accurate portrayal of actual impacts. Factors such as drought, financial limitations on operators, 

market conditions, and implementation of grazing practices to improve range conditions are important to consider. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-167

financial limitations on operators, market conditions, and implementation of grazing practices to 

improve range conditions are important to consider. 

The benefit of BLM forage to area operators under Alternative A would be approximately $1.19 

million. Thus, despite the relatively small employment and labor income impacts, the value of 

forage to area operators would remain. 

Alternative B would have a smaller maximum potential permitted use than the other action 

alternatives, but could be the same as Alternative A. However, with voluntary relinquishment of 

permits, Alternative B could authorize less than all the other alternatives and thus support fewer 

average annual AUM contributions (see Table 4.62). On an average annual basis, the potential 

permitted use range would support seventy-three to ninety jobs and $935,000 to $1.2 million in 

labor income within the impact area economy. As noted above these employment and labor 

income impacts depict an increase from what is currently contributed from grazing and are 

contingent on market conditions, operator demand for BLM AUMs, and forage condition. 

Regardless, BLM grazing-related jobs would continue to remain below 3% of overall 

agricultural employment and labor income for the area. Levels of employment and income 

associated with Alternative B should not overshadow potential increases in other values as a 

result of grazing actions under this alternative. For example, voluntarily relinquished allotments 

would then be available for other resource benefits (see grazing portion of Table 2.58 in Chapter 

2). 

The potential benefit to permittees of low cost BLM forage, below the cost of competitively 

priced AUMs, would be $1.08 million, which is less than the maximum potential benefit under 

the other alternatives. However, as noted above, this is greater than the current value ($721,000).

Alternative C would have a higher maximum potential permitted use than Alternatives A and B 

(see Table 4.62). On an average annual basis, the range of potential permitted AUMs would 

support seventy-three to ninety-one jobs and $935,000 to $1.2 million in labor income. These 

employment and labor income impacts depict an increase from what is currently contributed 

from grazing and are contingent on market conditions, operator demand for BLM AUMs, and 

forage condition. BLM grazing-related jobs would continue to remain below 3% of overall 

agricultural employment and labor income for the area. 

The jobs and income associated with Alternative C should not overshadow potential increases in 

efficiency for individual operators under this alternative. The potential benefit of low cost BLM 

forage permittees would realize below the cost of competitively priced AUMs and would be 

approximately $1.09 million. Thus, despite the relatively small employment and labor income 

impacts, the value of forage to area ranchers would remain. Also, additional efficiency gains 

would result from reduced conflict from adjustment to 12,489 acres of allotments in Unit 5 and 

another 1,024 acres of Section 15 allotments (see grazing portion of Table 2.58 in Chapter 2). 

Employment and labor income impacts associated with Alternative D would be the same as 

described above under Alternative C (see Table 4.66 and Table 4.67). The potential benefit of 

low cost BLM forage permittees would realize below the cost of competitively priced AUMs and 

would be the same as described above under Alternative C. However, the additional efficiency 

gains resulting from reduced conflict from adjustment to several allotments in eastern Sandoval 

County would not be experienced under this alternative. In other cases, efficiency gains would 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-168

be experienced on an individual basis or by the BLM as conflicts are reduced and grazing 

arrangements are made for the 1,024 acres of Section 15 allotments (see grazing portion of Table 

2.58 in Chapter 2). 

4.2.8.2.3 Forests and Woodlands Decisions

Under Alternative A, forest products would continue to be made available to communities in the 

Planning Area (see Table 4.62). Compared to the action alternatives, this alternative would 

continue to maintain the current accessibility of permit issuing stations and forest product 

collection areas that communities are accustomed to, and the potential for increased cost with 

increased travel time and increased use of substitute heat sources would be avoided. 

Consequently, the potential for disparate effects to minority and low-income populations would 

be avoided. 

Alternative B would continue to provide forest product harvest areas to communities in the 

Planning Area (see Table 4.62); however, less acreage would be available for forest product 

harvest areas than under Alternatives C and D. While the potential acreage of forest product 

harvest areas under this alternative appears higher than under Alternative A, the distribution of 

those areas relative to communities could change as a result of designations that do not allow 

forest product removal. As a result, the potential for increased cost with increased travel time to 

permitting stations and collection areas could occur.

While some forest product users could experience increased costs associated with greater 

distance required to travel for forest products, others would choose not to travel or travel to 

collect forest products less often. As a result, these communities could experience increased 

heating costs associated with consumption of substitute sources of heat such as propane and 

natural gas. The removal of forest product collection areas adjacent to communities in the 

Planning Area under this alternative could have the greatest potential for disparate effects to 

minority and low-income populations. The communities that could be most affected by less 

available acreage could include Cuba and the surrounding area, including eastern Navajo 

chapters such as Ojo Encino and Torreon. Jemez Pueblo may also be affected by increased 

distances required to access forest products and increased fuelwood costs. In the western portion 

of the Planning Area, the Ramah Navajo reservation would have less opportunity to harvest 

forest products under Alternative B, as would communities in the Grants/Milan area and some 

Navajo Chapters south of Gallup. 

Alternative C would continue to provide forest products to communities in the Planning Area 

(see Table 4.62). While the potential acreage of forest product harvest areas under this 

alternative appears higher than under Alternatives A and B, the distribution of those areas 

relative to communities could change as a result of designations that do not allow forest product 

removal. As a result, the potential for increased cost with increased travel time and increased use 

of substitute heat sources could occur. Thus, the removal of forest product collection areas 

adjacent to communities in the Planning Area could disparately impact minority and low-income 

populations under this alternative.

Alternative D would continue to provide forest products to communities in the Planning Area 

(see Table 4.62). While the potential acreage of forest product harvest areas under this 

alternative appears higher than under the other alternatives, the distribution of those areas 

relative to communities could change as a result of designations that do not allow forest product 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-169

removal. As a result, the potential for increased cost with increased travel time and increased use 

of substitute heat sources could occur. Thus, the removal of forest product collection areas 

adjacent to communities in the Planning Area could disparately impact minority and low-income 

populations under this alternative.

4.2.8.2.4 Fire Management Decisions

Potential wildland fire-related costs (such as property loss, lost revenues, and suppression costs) 

cannot be projected. It is commonly accepted that fire suppression costs and risk to life and 

property should be less when wildland fires occur where hazardous fuels have been treated 

compared to areas where fuels have not been treated. For example, fires generally burn hotter 

and flame lengths are higher in non-treated areas (USDI 2007). Currently, approximately 7,000 

acres are treated annually with prescribed fire and mechanical and chemical methods. Under 

management common to all alternatives, approximately 32,000 acres would be targeted for fuels 

treatment dependent on budgetary and time constraints. If treatment targets were met, risk and 

associated costs would be reduced under all the alternatives relative to current treatment levels.

4.2.8.2.5 Mineral Resources Decisions

Current levels of leasable, locatable, and saleable mineral production would continue to be 

provided by the BLM in the Planning Area under all the alternatives (see Table 4.62). While 

current mining activities are not a direct result of new planning actions in this RMP/EIS, 

management under this plan will allow and determine the nature of these activities in the future. 

For example, withdrawal from mineral entry and closure of leasable acres would be implemented 

for several ACECs under the various alternatives. Regardless of these changes, current levels of 

production and associated employment and labor income (approximately 28 jobs and $1.4 

million in labor income) would be supported under all the alternatives (see Table 4.66 and Table 

4.67). 

County and state governments operate under free use permits to remove crushed stone, sand, and 

gravel, such that no revenues or lease fees are received by the BLM and consequently no 

payments to counties are made. However, royalties from oil and gas are distributed back to local 

governments under the 1902 Reclamation Act and the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act, as amended. 

These payments are discussed below.

Under all alternatives, the RPFO would implement two leasing stipulations that would apply 

NSO to cultural resources and aviation facilities located in Township 11 North, Range 1 East, as 

well as churches and cemeteries. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the RPFO would implement a 

leasing stipulation requiring NSO within areas managed for the maintenance of public health and 

safety. Alternatives B and C would implement one additional CSU for leasable mineral 

development near private residences. Alternative B would provide the greatest protection for 

social and economic resources in this RMP/EIS. 

4.2.8.2.6 Externally Funded Ecosystem Restoration

A portion of the management actions performed on BLM lands is carried out with funds not 

provided by the BLM. Thus, these expenditures are not accounted for under the category of 

general BLM expenditures discussed below. As presented in Chapter 3, recent examples of 

such projects include stewardship agreements with area pueblos providing “wood for work.” In 

addition, vegetation treatments, road maintenance, and road closure work are also performed 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-170

periodically with external funds. These treatments are labor intensive and utilize agricultural and 

associated businesses contained within the impact area economy. As a result of these treatments, 

three jobs, and $98,000 in labor income are supported annually (see Table 4.66 and Table 4.67). 

In addition to direct job and income impacts in the agricultural industry, these estimates include 

impacts to industries that provide factors of production to the agricultural industry and other 

industries impacted by wage-related spending.

4.2.8.2.7 Impacts to Counties

Costs to local governments would remain unchanged as a result of planning actions, i.e., demand 

for services and infrastructure would not change as a result of BLM planning actions. Any 

changes under the alternatives in grazing revenues would not be large enough to significantly 

affect the overall amount of payment made to counties, since these payments make up small 

portions of county payments by alternative (see Table 4.65). Payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) 

and mineral royalty distributions, respectively, provide 73% and 26% of BLM-associated 

payments to counties under all the alternatives. Assuming current levels of county payments 

from BLM-managed land would continue, payments would support at least forty-seven jobs and 

$1.7 million in labor income in the impact area economy (see Table 4.66 and Table 4.67). 

Alternative A would provide the largest payments to the counties, slightly more than Alternatives 

B, C, and D.

Table 4.65: Payments to Counties (2010 dollars), by Alternative

Output Current Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

PILT $1,555,806 $1,555,806 $1,555,806 $1,555,806 $1,555,806

Range revenue $18,463 $27,817 $25,171 $25,393 $25,393

Mineral royalty 

distributions $558,572 $558,572 $558,572 $558,572 $558,572

Total $2,132,841 $2,142,195 $2,139,549 $2,139,771 $2,139,771

Under Alternative A, annual payments to counties in the Planning Area would be approximately 

$2.143 million, which includes PILT, payments received from grazing revenues, and mineral 

royalty distributions (see Table 4.65). These payments would support about forty-seven jobs and 

$1.7 million in labor income (see Table 4.66 and Table 4.67). Alternative A would provide the 

largest percent increase in average annual employment and average annual labor income, slightly 

more than Alternatives B, C, and D. Payments to counties and their impacts under this 

alternative are slightly higher than the other alternatives since the level of grazing is based on the 

established permitted use for AUMs, which is slightly higher under this alternative. As 

discussed above this represents the maximum number of AUMs that could be offered under ideal 

forage conditions, which may not be an accurate portrayal of actual impacts. Regardless, 

contributions from these payments are only slightly higher than the other alternatives given the 

large dependence of PILT and mineral royalty distributions. 

Under Alternative A, more BLM acres would be zoned for disposal than under the action 

alternatives. Further site-specific NEPA processes not covered under this plan would evaluate 

the availability of this land for disposal if proposed. If this land is disposed, it would no longer 

count towards the entitlement acreage used in PILT, thus possible decreases under this 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-171

alternative suggest the action alternatives would maintain PILT contributions to a greater degree 

than Alternative A. However, predicting county payments based on entitlement acreage alone is 

impractical due to changes in the population ceiling, congressionally approved annual 

appropriation acts, and other factors discussed in Chapter 3. Nevertheless, if BLM land is 

disposed of, it would be subject to property taxes whereas before disposal it was not. PILT are 

designed to help offset losses in property taxes due to the nontaxable status of federal lands 

within state or county boundaries. Therefore, county property taxes could offset losses from the 

qualifying entitlement acreage for PILT. 

Table 4.66: Average Annual Employment1by Program (full and part-time jobs), by Alternative 

Resource Current Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Recreation219 20 20 20 20

Livestock grazing 56 90 81 82 82

Mineral resources 28 28 28 28 28

Externally funded 

projects 3 3 3 3 3

County payments 47 47 47 47 47

BLM expenditures 115 115 115 115 115

Total 267 300 293 294 294

Percent change 

from current – 13.0% 9.8% 10.1% 10.1%

1 Average annual values are based on projected impacts over the 20-year analysis period. Source: Potential 

employment and labor income impacts are based on the estimated resource outputs summarized by 

alternative in Table 4.62. Potential impacts were estimated using the IMPLAN model and FEAST.

2 As discussed in Chapter 3, these recreation estimates do not include visits from local use since their 

expenditures do not represent new money into the economy.

Table 4.67: Average Annual Labor Income (thousands of 2010 dollars), by Program and Alternative 

Resource Current

Alternative 

A

No Action

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Preferred

Alternative 

D

Recreation $533 $563 $563 $563 $563

Livestock grazing $721 $1,155 $1,045 $1,055 $1,055

Mineral resources $1,389 $1,389 $1,389 $1,389 $1,389

Externally funded projects $98 $98 $98 $98 $98

County payments $1,743 $1,743 $1,743 $1,743 $1,743

BLM expenditures $4,488 $4,488 $4,488 $4,488 $4,488

Total $8,971 $9,438 $9,328 $9,336 $9,336

Percent change from 

current – 5.2% 3.9% 4.0% 4.0%
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-172

Under Alternative B, annual payments to counties would be approximately $2.140 million, 

which includes PILT, payments received from grazing revenues, and mineral royalty 

distributions (see Table 4.65). These payments would support about forty-seven jobs and $1.7 

million in labor income (see Table 4.66 and Table 4.67). Payments to counties and their impacts 

under this alternative are slightly lower than the other alternatives since the level of grazing is 

based on the established permitted use for AUMs, which is slightly lower under this alternative. 

As discussed above, this represents the maximum number of AUMs that could be offered under 

ideal forage conditions, which may not be an accurate portrayal of actual impacts. Contributions 

from these payments are only slightly lower than the other alternatives given the large 

dependence of PILT and mineral royalty distributions. Regardless, contributions from these 

payments would be the same as experienced currently or perhaps larger with favorable market 

conditions. 

Under Alternative C, annual payments to counties in the Planning Area would be approximately 

$2.140 million, which includes PILT, payments received from grazing revenues, and mineral 

royalty distributions (see Table 4.65). These payments would support about forty-seven jobs and 

$1.7 million in labor income (see Table 4.66 and Table 4.67). Payments to counties and their 

impacts under this alternative are slightly more than Alternative B and less than Alternative A 

since the permitted use for AUMs is slightly higher and lower under Alternatives B and A, 

respectively. As discussed above this represents the maximum number of AUMs that could be 

offered under ideal forage conditions, which may not be an accurate portrayal of actual impacts. 

Contributions from these payments are only slightly different than the other alternatives given 

the large dependence of PILT and mineral royalty distributions. Regardless, contributions from 

these payments would be the same as experienced currently or perhaps larger with favorable 

market conditions. 

Under Alternative D, annual payments to counties would be the same as Alternative C (see Table 

4.65).

4.2.8.2.8 BLM Expenditures and Employment

Levels of expenditures and employment at the RPFO are not expected to vary as result of the 

alternatives. While different alternatives may cost more or less to implement, speculating 

whether the budget would be available is impractical. However, this does not mean 

implementation is impractical, since management priorities are likely to determine how funds are 

allocated to actions outlined in the plan. Thus, a constant budget over the life of the plan is a 

reasonable and practical assumption, based on the average annual salary and non-salary 

expenditures presented in Chapter 3. Under all the alternatives, it is estimated that average 

annual BLM expenditures would continue to support around 115 jobs and $4.5 million in labor 

income (see Table 4.66 and Table 4.67) in the impact area economy.

4.2.8.2.9 Renewable Energy Decisions

While all land in the Planning Area without surface occupancy or leasing restrictions would 

potentially be available for wind and solar development (given further site-specific review), not 

all land can be considered suitable for development. Developable land depends on the resource 

and transmission line availability and capacity. Decisions to invest in wind and solar energy are 

also dependent on the cost of alternative sources of energy, as well as the regulatory environment 

and other costs to society. Natural gas, oil, and coal prices therefore also determine the level of 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-173

energy investment. The viability of commercial wind power projects also depends on the pricing 

agreements between power producers and purchasers. All of these components are difficult to 

predict, which makes speculation on possible development impractical. In addition, costs 

associated with development on public land (i.e., site-specific planning) could limit project 

development. In the future, with changes in energy markets, technology, and/or development 

saturation on available private land, development on BLM-administered lands in the Planning 

Area may become more likely. If wind energy development were to occur on BLM lands in the 

impact area, employment and labor contributions would result. Per 1.5-megawatt turbine, eleven

full time-equivalent jobs and $400,000 in labor income would result during construction, and one 

full-time equivalent job and $64,500 labor income would be provided during normal operation 

on an average annual basis (U.S. Department of Energy 2009). 

4.2.8.2.10 Role of Amenities, Migration, and Non-market Values 

The economic analysis assesses the economic effects of the direct use of resources in terms of 

jobs and income. This type of analysis does not include other types of economic value often 

referred to as non-market values, which are discussed in Chapter 3. Non-market values are 

important to the well-being of visitors, area residents, and others outside the Planning Area. 

These values include natural amenities, quality of life factors, recreational opportunities, 

ecosystem services, and non-use values such as existence, option, and bequest values. Nonmarket values are difficult to quantify and insufficient data exist to assess the effects of 

management actions. However, the fact that no monetary value is assigned to these values does 

not lessen their importance in the decision-making process.

In addition, helpful inferences can be made. While there is a general consensus that non-use

values exist, the methodologies for measuring these values are controversial and difficult to 

apply. Wilderness has been the subject of numerous non-use studies, usually conducted for 

specific natural areas; however, no attempt has been made to directly elicit potential non-use 

values associated with the alternatives under this RMP/EIS. The alternatives establish areas to 

be managed for Wilderness characteristics and changes to ACECs and other special designations

such as VRM classes. These designations would further maintain and perhaps enhance nonmarket values associated with natural amenities protected on these lands. 

Additionally, these ACECs, lands to be managed for Wilderness characteristics, and VRM acres 

may attract new residents and tourists to the area, which would then contribute to area economic 

activity. Natural amenities and quality of life have been increasingly recognized as important 

factors in the economic prospects of many rural communities in the West (Rudzitis and Johnson 

2000). In addition, non-labor income is intimately tied to natural amenities as discussed in 

Chapter 3. Rural county population change, the development of rural recreation, and retirementdestination areas are all related to natural amenities (McGranahan 1999). Thus, designations that 

maintain and protect natural amenities may similarly contribute to area economic well-being.

These designations would further maintain and perhaps enhance non-market values associated 

with natural amenities protected on these lands. Under Alternative A, less land would be 

managed under these special designations than under Alternative B; however, more would be 

managed than under Alternatives C and D. Thus, Alternative A would ensure less protection of 

non-market values and natural amenities than Alternative B but would ensure more than 

Alternatives C and D (Table 4.68). Consequently well-being associated with non-market values 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-174

and potential contributions from new residents and tourists attracted by natural amenities could 

be less than Alternative B but more than Alternatives C and D. 

Table 4.68: ACECs, Lands Managed to protect Wilderness Characteristics, and VRM Class I and Class II 

Areas (acres), by Alternative

Designation Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

ACECs 53,765 149,974 137,029 44,049

Lands managed to protect 

Wilderness Characteristics 0 37,514 26,110 2,239

VRM Class I 97,645 97,296 97,474 97,516

VRM Class II 84,449 318,931 68,511 21,549

Under Alternative B, more acreage would be designated as ACECs, lands to be managed to 

protect wilderness characteristics, and VRM Class I and II acres than the other alternatives (see 

Table 4.68). Therefore, this alternative would ensure more protection of non-market values and 

natural amenities than the other alternatives. Consequently, well-being associated with nonmarket values and potential contributions from new residents and tourists attracted by natural 

amenities could be more than the other alternatives.

Under Alternative C, less acreage would be designated as ACECs, lands to be managed to 

protect wilderness characteristics, and VRM Class I and II acres than Alternatives A and B but 

more than Alternative D (see Table 4.68). Therefore, this alternative would provide less 

protection of non-market values and natural amenities than Alternatives A and B but more than 

Alternative D. Consequently, well-being associated with non-market values and potential 

contributions from new residents and tourists attracted by natural amenities could be less than 

these alternatives but more than Alternative D.

Under Alternative D, less acreage would be designated as ACECs, lands to be managed for 

wilderness characteristics, and VRM Class I and II acres than the other alternatives (see Table 

4.68). Therefore, this alternative would provide the least protection of non-market values and 

natural amenities among the alternatives. Consequently, well-being associated with non-market 

values and potential contributions from new residents and tourists attracted by natural amenities 

could be less than the other alternatives.

4.2.8.3 Social Direct/Indirect Impacts

The social analysis focuses on changes to social and economic well-being as it relates to the 

quality of life of those individuals and communities identified in Chapter 3. While many of the 

potential changes in quality of life can only be discussed qualitatively, several indicators provide 

an approach to discuss the magnitude of effects to these communities. Table 4.69 lists these 

indicators and provides a comparison among the alternatives for communities.3 As social 

indicators, Alternative D has the largest acres for forest products, Alternatives B, C, and D have 

 

3 Changes in indicators do not imply the same change in quality of life for all communities since marginal changes 

in quality of life relative to the indicators cannot be considered equal among communities. For example, the change 

in quality of life associated with more access for communities interested in traditional uses is different than the 

change in access for those interested in ranching. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-175

the most acreage for fuel treatment, and Alternative A has the largest acres of protected areas. 

Cattle forage would increase with all alternatives. Comments from the RMP planning process 

and the community economic workshops provided specific information pertaining to the 

concerns of individuals and groups interested in this plan. All comments were examined and 

general categories were formed from common themes pertaining to community connections and 

interests in BLM management. The eight communities of interest identified include individuals 

and groups interested in adjacent uses, public health and safety, recreation, resource protection, 

resource use, and traditional uses. In addition, communities identified within specific areas that 

were identified as connected to the BLM in the Planning Area include pueblos and land grants. 

These communities are described in Chapter 3, while effects to these communities are discussed 

below. 

Table 4.69: Social Indicators, by Alternative

Social Indicator Current Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Cattle forage

(AUMs) 74,339 119,064 96,413–119,064

96,413–

120,971

96,413–

120,971

Forest products 

(acres) – 12,186 119,435 560,321 644,132

Fuel treatments 

(acres) 7,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000

Protected areas* 

(acres) 296,796 228,346 587,236 315,262 159,024

* These areas include ACECs, VRM Class I, VRM Class II, and lands with wilderness characteristics

managed to protect wilderness character. Based on the proposed management decisions in this RMP/EIS, 

these areas would typically have fewer surface-disturbing activities occur within their boundaries compared 

to other locations in the Planning Area.

The following social analysis assesses the potential effects of management actions common to all 

the alternatives on communities identified in Chapter 3. Higher employment, subject to some 

qualifications, can be seen as a benefit to the local community. Other benefits are also present, 

although some are not easily measured or tied to economic activity. An example of where 

effects are difficult to quantify are equity effects or impacts to well-being. Regardless, these 

benefits are discussed despite the inability to quantify them.

4.2.8.3.1 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Executive Order further 

stipulates that agencies conduct their programs and activities in a manner that does not have the 

effect of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the benefits of, or subjecting 

persons to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin. 

All alternatives could result in increases in employment and labor income relative to current 

conditions over the next decade, from which minority and low-income populations may benefit. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-176

Access to subsistence uses, traditional materials, and cultural sites would be accommodated to 

varying degrees under the alternatives. Access to these materials and sites would continue to 

provide valuable resources to communities in the area, sustaining lifestyles, traditions, 

ceremonies, and the heritage that remain an important part of area community’s lifestyle and 

well-being. As discussed above, the removal of forest product collection areas adjacent to 

communities in the Planning Area could disparately impact minority and low-income 

populations that depend on these sources of forest products.

Additionally, public involvement efforts for this project have been inclusive, and the BLM has 

considered input from persons or groups regardless of race, color, national origin, income, or 

other social and economic characteristics. 

4.2.8.3.2 Recreation and Visitor Services Decisions

Under all the alternatives, recreation management would continue to sustain opportunities 

important to the area economy and the well-being of recreationists. While perceptions regarding 

the quality of experience could change under the alternatives, opportunities currently 

experienced would be maintained and recreation use is anticipated to increase at current rates. 

Regardless, changes in the perceived quality of these recreation experiences are discussed in the 

Recreation and Visitor Services section (4.2.12) of this EIS/RMP. 

4.2.8.3.3 Livestock Grazing Decisions

Under all the alternatives, current levels of grazing could be accommodated under the range of 

potential permitted uses (see Table 4.69). Additional AUMs could be authorized; however, 

AUMs authorized depends on other factors than just market conditions such as drought, financial 

limitations on operators, and implementation of BLM grazing practices to improve range and 

conditions of other resource values. Ranching has played a historic role in the community and 

many would like to see this traditional use continue. 

Under all the alternatives, management actions that would remove grazing from active 

allotments would be relinquished voluntarily as stated in the livestock grazing portion of Table 

2.58 in Chapter 2. In this manner, individual operators would have the opportunity to continue 

grazing or relinquish voluntarily if in their best interest. Consequently, disparate effects to 

minority or low-income populations dependent on these grazing allotments would be avoided. 

4.2.8.3.4 Fire Management Decisions

Potential wildland fire-related costs (such as property loss, lost revenues, and suppression costs) 

cannot be projected. It is commonly accepted that fire suppression costs and risk to life and 

property should be less when wildland fires occur where hazardous fuels have been treated 

compared to areas where fuels have not been treated. Under management common to all 

alternatives, approximately 32,000 acres would be targeted for fuels treatment dependent on 

budgetary and time constraints. Currently, approximately 7,000 acres are treated annually with 

prescribed fire and mechanical and chemical methods. If treatment targets were met, risk and 

associated costs would be reduced under the alternatives relative to current treatment levels (see 

Table 4.69). Consequently, individuals and groups interested in adjacent uses would experience 

an increase in well-being as a result of increased fuel treatments they associated with wildland 

fire-related costs. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-177

4.2.8.3.5 Forest and Woodlands Decisions

Under Alternative A, forest products would continue to be made available to communities in the 

Planning Area (see Table 4.69). Compared to the action alternatives, this alternative would 

continue to maintain the current accessibility of permit issuing stations and forest products 

collection areas that area communities are accustomed to and depend upon. 

Consequently, individuals and groups who give a high priority to resource use, traditional uses, 

and other communities would not experience the potential decreases in well-being with reduced

access to permits and forest product harvest areas under the action alternatives. Consequently, 

the potential for disparate effects to minority and low-income populations would be avoided. 

Alternative B would continue to provide forest products to communities in the Planning Area 

(see Table 4.69); however, less acreage would be available for forest product harvest areas than 

under Alternatives C and D. Less accessibility of permitting stations and designated fuelwood

areas could result from designations that do not allow forest product removal. Consequently, 

individuals and groups who give a high priority to resource use, traditional uses, and other 

communities could experience decreases in well-being with less access to this important resource 

that sustains their quality of life. The communities that could be most affected would include 

Cuba and the surrounding area including eastern Navajo chapters such as Ojo Encino and 

Torreon. Jemez Pueblo may also be affected by increased distances required to access forest 

products and increased heating costs. In the western portion of the Planning Area, the Ramah 

Navajo reservation would have less opportunity to harvest forest products, as would 

communities in the Grants/Milan area and some Navajo Chapters south of Gallup.

Alternative C would continue to provide forest products to communities in the Planning Area 

(see Table 4.69). While the potential acreage of forest product harvest areas under this alternative 

appears higher than under Alternatives A and B, the distribution of those areas relative to 

communities could change as a result of designations that do not allow forest product removal. 

Consequently, individuals and groups who give a high priority to resource use, traditional uses, 

and other communities could experience decreases in well-being with less access to this 

important resource that sustains their quality of life.

Alternative D would continue to provide forest products to communities in the Planning Area 

(see Table 4.69). While the potential acreage of forest product harvest areas under this alternative 

appears higher than under the other alternatives, the distribution of those areas relative to 

communities could change as a result of designations that do not allow fuelwood removal. 

Consequently, individuals and groups who give a high priority to resource use, traditional uses, 

and other communities could experience decreases in well-being with less access to this 

important resource that sustains their quality of life.

4.2.8.3.6 Mineral Resources Decisions

Under all alternatives, current levels of locatable, leasable and saleable mineral material 

development would be accommodated (see Table 4.62). Employment and income generated 

from these activities would continue to support area well-being. The availability of sand, gravel, 

and crushed stone would remain under all the alternatives, as these materials are used to improve 

and maintain area infrastructure, such as aggregate for road resurfacing. As a result the quality 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-178

of life of individuals and groups interested in resource uses would be maintained with these 

anticipated levels of mineral material availability. 

Under all alternatives, the RPFO would implement two leasing stipulations that would apply 

NSO to cultural resources and aviation facilities located in Township 11 North, Range 1 East, as 

well as churches and cemeteries. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the RPFO would implement a 

leasing stipulation requiring NSO within areas managed for the maintenance of public health and 

safety. Alternatives B and C would implement one additional CSU for leasable mineral 

development near private residences. Alternative B would provide the greatest protection for 

social and economic resources in this RMP/EIS. 

4.2.8.3.7 Impacts to Counties

Under all the alternatives, the large dependence of county PILT and mineral royalty distributions 

means county payments do not vary. Since it is anticipated that current mineral development 

would continue and entitlement acreage determining the BLM portion of PILT would not 

change, employment and income impacts do not vary (approximately forty-seven jobs and from 

$1.7 million in labor income). Thus, county programs and infrastructure supported by these 

payments would not be affected by the alternatives. Consequently, economic well-being and 

quality of life of those dependent on these contributions would likely remain the same under the 

alternatives. 

4.2.8.3.8 BLM Expenditures and Employment

Under all the alternatives, it is assumed the level of expenditures and employment at the RPFO 

would not vary by alternative, so employment and income supported does not vary among the 

alternatives. Thus, economic well-being and quality of life of those dependent on these 

contributions would likely remain the same under the alternatives. 

4.2.8.3.9 Role of Amenities, Migration, and Non-market Values 

As noted in Chapter 3, individuals and groups interested in resource protection are aware of how 

the unique, natural environment contributes to their current and future social and economic wellbeing. Concerns such as the negative impacts from damaged visual quality, invasive species, 

and maintenance of special area designations are held by communities interested in resource 

protection and traditional uses. 

The alternatives establish ACECs, lands to be managed for Wilderness characteristics, and VRM 

Class I and II acres (see Table 4.69). These designations would further maintain and perhaps 

enhance non-market values associated with natural amenities protected on these lands. Natural 

amenities and quality of life have been increasingly recognized as important factors in many 

rural communities in the West (Rudzitis and Johnson 2000). Thus, the established ACECs, lands 

to be managed for Wilderness characteristics, and VRM Class I and II acres similarly contribute 

to the quality of life of communities interested in resource protection. 

Under Alternative A, less land would be managed under these special designations than under 

Alternative B; however, more would be managed than under Alternatives C and D (see Table 

4.69). Therefore, under Alternative A greater contributions to the quality of life of communities 

interested in resource protection would be anticipated relative to Alternative B alongside less 

contribution relative to Alternatives C and D. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-179

Under Alternative B, more acreage would be designated as ACECs, lands to be managed for 

wilderness characteristics, and VRM Class I and II acres than the other alternatives (see Table 

4.69). Therefore, under this alternative a greater contribution to the quality of life of 

communities interested in resource protection would be anticipated relative to the other 

alternatives.

Under Alternative C, less acreage would be designated as ACECs, lands to be managed for 

wilderness characteristics, and VRM Class I and II acres than Alternatives A and B but more 

than Alternative D (see Table 4.69). Therefore, under this alternative less of a contribution to the 

quality of life of communities interested in resource protection would be anticipated relative to 

Alternatives A and B alongside a greater contribution relative to Alternative D. 

Under Alternative D, less acreage would be designated as ACECs, lands to be managed for 

wilderness characteristics, and VRM Class I and II acres than the other alternatives (see Table 

4.69). Therefore, under this alternative the smallest contribution to the quality of life of 

communities interested in resource protection would be anticipated relative to the other 

alternatives.

4.2.8.3.10 Travel management Decisions

Under all alternatives, individuals with disabilities could request a permit to travel on closed 

roads consistent with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Such access would be considered on a caseby-case basis by the RPFO.

4.2.8.4 Cumulative Impacts

The regional economy can be affected by a variety of factors, including population growth, 

changes in interest rates, locations of new industries, recession, growth of new sectors, tax 

policy, state economic policy, etc. When compared to these variables, the management actions 

under this RMP/EIS have a relatively small effect on the regional economy. Because the 

changes in economic activity presented above would be largely unnoticeable regionally, there 

should be no cumulative economic effects regionally.

4.2.8.4.1 Recreation and Visitor Services

Area National Forests are required to complete comprehensive travel management plans for 

motorized recreation. The extent and nature of actions in these plans would determine the social 

and economic consequences for the area. Once this RMP/EIS is approved, the BLM would 

develop transportation plans that would identify a network of routes that would support some 

current uses now taking place in the Planning Area or expected to take place in the future, which 

would include uses on adjacent National Forests. 

4.2.8.4.2 Livestock Grazing

Children in traditional ranching families often do not maintain the family tradition given new 

challenges presented by changing market conditions such as increased cost of operation (Nathan 

Combs, BLM, personal communication with Henry Eichman, U.S. Forest Service, July 28, 

2008). While the level and approach to grazing differs among the alternatives, 54% of AUMs 

were used in 2008 out of the permitted maximum number of AUMs that could be offered under 

ideal forage conditions. This was down from 67% in 2000 (see Annual AUM Authorizations in 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-180

the RPFO in Chapter 3). While these decreasing trends in AUM utilization are largely outside 

the spectrum of BLM management, current levels of grazing would be supported under 

Alternative A and Alternatives C and D with cooperation of favorable market conditions and 

willing permittees. 

4.2.8.4.3 Forests And Woodlands

As discussed in Chapter 3, the contribution of BLM forest products is small relative to forest 

products gathered from U.S. Forest Service lands; however, BLM contributions are still locally 

important. In winter months, forest product gathering occurs on BLM lands since U.S. Forest 

Service collection areas are closed and inaccessible from snow and mud. Thus, the changes in 

access to forest product harvest areas discussed above under the alternatives still have the 

potential to disparately affect minority and low-income populations. Noting that the U.S. Forest 

Service forest product areas are less available in winter months than BLM sources accentuates 

the potential for disparate effects to minority and low-income populations who depend on BLM 

sources of forest products for home heating and cooking. 

4.2.8.4.4 Mineral Resources

Current levels of leasable, locatable, and saleable mineral production would continue to be 

provided by the BLM in the Planning Area (see Table 4.62). Consequently, any cumulative 

effects to local social and economic conditions from mineral resource uses on BLM lands would 

be the same among the alternatives. 

Decisions to invest in energy development and infrastructure on BLM lands are dependent on 

factors determined by regional and world markets. Speculation beyond current rates of 

development is unrealistic since decisions to invest are dependent on these factors outside the 

scope of BLM management. In addition, costs associated with development on public land (i.e., 

site-specific planning) could hamper development. In the future, with changes in energy 

markets, technology, and/or development saturation on available private land, development on 

BLM-administered lands in the Planning Area may become more likely and the exclusion of 

areas on BLM lands may limit development if substitute locations are not available. However, it 

can be reasonably assumed that the availability of rights-of-way and land for energy 

development on BLM lands would accommodate development interests in the future.

4.2.8.4.5 Externally Funded Ecosystem Restoration

Current levels of management performed on BLM lands carried out with funds not provided by 

the BLM would continue under all the alternatives. Consequently, any associated cumulative 

effects would be the same among the alternatives. 

4.2.8.4.6 Impacts to Counties

Under all the alternatives, the large dependence of county PILT and mineral royalty distributions 

means county payments do not vary (approximately 47 jobs and from $1.7 million in labor 

income). In addition, as discussed in Chapter 3, county payments in Planning Area counties 

make up less than 5% of local government revenues (see Revenue Sharing section of Chapter 3). 

Thus, county programs and infrastructure supported by these payments would not differ among 

the alternatives. Consequently, cumulative economic effects on counties would likely remain the 

same under the alternatives. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-181

4.2.8.4.7 BLM Expenditures and Employment

Under all the alternatives, it is assumed the level of expenditures and employment at the RPFO 

would not vary by alternative, thus employment and income supported does not vary among the 

alternatives. Consequently, any cumulative economic effects on those dependent on these 

contributions would remain the same under the alternatives.

4.2.8.4.8 Role of Amenities, Migration, and Non-market Values 

Establishing areas to be managed for Wilderness characteristics, changes to ACECs, and other 

special designations such as VRM (see Table 4.68) would further maintain and perhaps enhance 

non-market values associated with natural amenities protected on these lands. Natural amenities 

and quality of life have been increasingly recognized as important factors in many rural 

communities in the West (Rudzitis and Johnson 2000). Thus, the established ACECs, WSAs, 

and lands to be managed for wilderness characteristics similarly contribute to area quality of life 

of communities interested in resource protection. The effects on quality of life from special area 

designations and management of these attributes on private, state, and other federal lands cannot 

be projected, but could be the greatest under Alternative B and the least under Alternative D with 

the respective most and least acres designated among the alternatives, respectively (see Table 

4.68). 

4.2.8.4.9 Lands and Realty and Renewable Energy

Exclusion areas and limitations on leasing on BLM lands in the Planning Area could increase 

development and rights-of-way on private, state, or other federal lands. However, decisions to 

invest in energy development and infrastructure on BLM lands are dependent on factors 

determined by regional and world markets. Speculation beyond planned development is 

unrealistic since decisions to invest are dependent on these factors outside the scope of BLM 

management. In addition, costs associated with development on public land (i.e., site-specific 

planning) could hamper development. In the future, with changes in energy markets, 

technology, and/or development saturation on available private land, development on BLMadministered lands in the Planning Area may become more likely and the exclusion of areas on 

BLM lands may limit development if substitute locations are not available. However, it can be 

reasonably assumed that the availability of rights-of-way and land for energy development on 

BLM lands would accommodate development interests in the future. Consequently, exclusion 

areas would not limit development in the area or increase development on other private, state, or 

federal lands. 

4.2.8.4.10 Cumulative Effects to Population

Population increases are also anticipated over this period within the Planning Area. According 

to projections from the University of New Mexico, the population in all six Planning Area 

counties would increase by 24% between 2010 and 2020. Sandoval County would increase the 

most over this period (30%), while Rio Arriba County would increase the least (5%) (University 

of New Mexico 2008). These population increases suggest use of BLM lands would continue to 

increase, challenges with the urban interface could increase, and competing uses of BLM lands

would remain a challenge. 

In conclusion, projected employment changes in the area suggest economic contributions from 

BLM management would be small. However, the role the BLM plays may increase along with 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-182

the population since the lands managed by the BLM sustain area well-being and would continue 

to do so under all alternatives. This occurs largely through the provision of natural amenities and 

recreational opportunities that attract tourists, businesses, and maintain quality of life. None of 

the alternatives would alter the trends outlined above but would sustain aspects of quality of life 

such as employment, recreation, education, and cultural development. While the provision of 

these resources varies by alternative, these opportunities would be available for a variety of 

demographic groups, area residents, tourists, and others who value the area. 

4.2.9 Soil and Water Resources

Most allowable uses have the potential to affect soil resources to some degree. Surfacedisturbing actions would result in removal of vegetative cover, soil compaction, reduced 

infiltration, changes in physical and biological properties, and reduction in organic matter 

content. These direct impacts to soils tend to increase the potential for accelerated erosion by 

exposing soil particles to wind and water. There also would be a loss of soil productivity through 

disruption of natural soil horizons and removal of vegetated acreage for use by roads, well pads, 

and other facilities. Surface uses that may not result in direct surface disturbance, but may affect 

soil stability through changes in vegetative cover or soil infiltration rates, include grazing by 

livestock and wildlife (if improper grazing damages vegetative cover), vegetative treatments, and 

fire and fuels management. A combination of bare soil surface caused by vegetation removal or 

changes in community structure, erodible soils, and slope leads to the greatest potential for soil 

erosion from water. 

Actions that disturb or compact soil, remove or reduce vegetative cover, or reduce soil 

productivity are considered adverse impacts. Conversely, beneficial impacts to soil include 

actions that stabilize soil or increase soil productivity. In addition, those actions that avoid or 

minimize soil compaction or erosion are beneficial.

Short-term impacts to soils are those that result during initial surface disturbance prior to 

completion of revegetation or installing other practices that minimize wind and water erosion. 

The amount of bare ground predicted under each alternative after successful reclamation of 

disturbed areas is important to consider when evaluating long-term impacts to soils. Areas not 

reclaimed leaving bare soil include roads and areas around facilities that sustain concentrated 

surface uses by equipment or animals, which preclude the reestablishment of vegetation. Longterm impacts due to accelerated erosion would occur in locations where bare soils are allowed to 

remain exposed to wind and water for more than 5 years or where the loss of productivity results 

from significantly altering the soil profile.

Surface disturbance can affect surface water quality mainly by increasing sediment delivery to 

drainages, which is ultimately transported to streams during runoff events. Surface disturbance of 

highly erodible soils is the most likely disturbance to increase sedimentation in streams. Impacts 

to water resources also would occur when activities or projects take place within riparian areas 

and floodplains, or when an upstream increase in runoff or erosion results in damaging levels of 

stream energy or sedimentation within stream/riparian/floodplain areas. Differences between 

alternatives are based on acreage allocations that would increase activities associated with soil 

loss, soil exposure, and riparian/floodplain areas. Impacts to soil and water are expected to occur 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-183

from vegetation management, livestock grazing, mineral resources, renewable energy

management, travel management, and soil and water management.

4.2.9.1 Analysis Assumptions

A variety of multi-level regulatory (e.g., water quality protection permitting) and non-regulatory 

(e.g., employing standard BMP’s) processes exist to ensure that erosion and pollutant levels do 

not increase above identified thresholds and/or water quality standards. It is assumed that land 

uses would be carried out in compliance with existing policies and regulations at both the state 

and federal levels. It is further assumed that all surface-disturbing and runoff-increasing 

activities would be designed and implemented to minimize runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. 

Installing and maintaining erosion controls and other mitigation measures, such as BMPs, results 

in a substantial reduction in soil erosion, ranging between 40 and 97 percent depending on site 

conditions (USFS 2003b). However, these measures may not reduce adverse impacts on soil 

compaction and productivity. Proposed surface disturbance under each alternative potentially 

modify soils by disrupting soil stability, changing vegetative cover, decreasing productivity, and 

increasing compaction. If these modifications occur on highly erodible soils, the potential for 

accelerated erosion is approximately 40-percent greater (USFS 2004) than predicted for less 

erodible soils.

The following specific factors were considered for the impacts analysis related to soil and water

resources:

The “sensitive soils” designation refers to highly erodible soils and soils with a poor 

chance of successful reclamation after drastic disturbance to the soil profile. 

There are soils in the Planning Area that are likely to have limited reclamation success 

when these areas are reclaimed after drastic disturbance such as oil and gas field 

development, temporary roads, or similar activities. Soils identified with a USDA-NRCS

rating of “poor” means that revegetation and stabilization are expected to be difficult and 

costly. Soils identified as “not rated” were included in the low reclamation potential soils 

because this category represents the badland soils in the Planning Area.

Infrastructure development and soil disturbance on steeper slopes (greater than 15% slope) 

generally increases the downslope water erosion potential because of higher runoff volumes and 

rates. This typically would be expected with permanent surface installations such as wind farms, 

solar arrays, pipelines, roads, communication sites, transmission lines, and oil and gas facilities. 

The appurtenant access roads required foremost of these would be a part of the increased runoff 

and erosion potential. Therefore, slope steepness may be an important consideration for 

protecting soil stability when authorizing land uses on these slopes would increase runoff and 

erosion potential. Active floodplains, defined as the low-lying land surface adjacent to a stream 

that is flooded at least once or twice (on average) every three years (Pritchard 1999, 1998), are 

associated with nearly all identifiable streams such as those depicted in the National Hydrologic 

Dataset (USGS 2010). Both 100-year floodplains and active floodplains are important 

considerations for protecting property and natural riparian/floodplain functions when authorizing 

land uses in these areas including rights-of-way and potential sites for renewable energy

facilities.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-184

4.2.9.1.1 Vegetation Management Decisions

Vegetation management, as defined for this section, includes any management decisions that are 

associated with vegetation manipulation: fire management, vegetative communities, riparian

resources, and forest and woodland resources. Vegetation management resource decisions would 

have short-term adverse and beneficial impacts to soil and water resources immediately after 

vegetation treatments occur. Exposed and disturbed soils from mechanical treatments would be 

more susceptible to erosion immediately after the vegetation treatment occurs. Beneficial shortterm impacts would occur when forest thinning projects include lop and scatter treatments which 

leave behind slash to protect soils from erosion. 

The vegetation management decisions would work to restore the native vegetative communities

on BLM lands within the Planning Area that best protect both soil and water resources. Longterm beneficial impacts from vegetation management decisions on soil and water resources 

would be improved land health, as defined by the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 

2001). Fuel treatments are prioritized for 629,737 acres rated as FRCC 2 and 3. Of these areas, 

416,090 acres contain highly erodible soils. Table 4.70 shows the total number of acreages 

available for forest product harvest areas within highly erodible soils. Under Alternative D, the 

largest amount of acreage for forest harvest products would be open within highly erodible soils, 

while under Alternative B the least amount of acreage within highly erodible soils would open to 

forest product harvest. No specific treatments have been proposed in the RMP/EIS for riparian

restoration or upland vegetation. 

Table 4.70: Proposed Forest Product Removal Areas (acres) within Highly Erodible Soils, by Alternative 

Soil Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Sensitive soils 12,015 0 426,239 488,149

4.2.9.1.2 Livestock Grazing Decisions

Livestock grazing management decisions would have both adverse and beneficial impacts to soil 

and water resources on BLM lands within the Planning Area. In general, making areas 

unavailable for grazing could provide long-term protection to soil and water resources because it 

would limit the loss of vegetative cover and the disturbance of sensitive soils by livestock. Areas 

available for livestock grazing would potentially be adversely impacted from decreased growth 

or loss of riparian and other vegetation by the removal of the above ground portion of palatable 

plant species. 

Under all alternatives, livestock grazing would be managed in order to achieve and maintain the 

New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001). Under these guidelines, the PFC of 

wetlands and riparian areas would be achieved, the use and perpetuation of native species would 

be emphasized, noxious and invasive plant establishment and spread would be minimized, and 

adjustments would be made to grazing practices when the New Mexico Standards and 

Guidelines are not being met. Under Alternative B, a total of 771,308 acres of BLM livestock 

grazing allotments across BLM, public, and private lands would not be grazed due to proposed 

special designations. As a result, under Alternative B, fewer adverse impacts would be expected 

to occur to soil and water resources. Under Alternatives C and D, the RPFO would apply 

prescribed livestock grazing to BLM lands within the Planning Area. Up to 500,000 acres of 

highly erodible soils on BLM lands in the Planning Area would be available to livestock grazing 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-185

under Alternatives C and D. The New Mexico Standards and Guidelines and allotment-specific 

management would mitigate the impacts of livestock grazing to soil and water resources.

4.2.9.1.3 Mineral Resources Decisions

Management decisions to allow mineral development would have short- and long-term impacts 

to soil and water resources. In the short term, loss of vegetation associated with surface 

disturbances for well pads, access roads, and minerals infrastructure would increase runoff, 

erosion, and sedimentation though mitigative measures would be taken to minimize these 

impacts. Site-specific NEPA analysis for these activities would be applied to fully analyze the 

impacts to surface and ground water resources in these cases.

The typically slow regrowth of vegetation within the Planning Area would cause surface 

disturbance to have long-term, indirect, adverse impacts of increased runoff, erosion, and 

sedimentation, especially when mineral development takes place on low reclamation potential 

soils. Leasing stipulations for steep slopes and low reclamation potential soils are proposed 

under Alternatives B, C, and D. Alternatives B and C would implement CSU on steep slopes 

between 15% and 30%, NSO on slopes over 30%, and CSU on soils with low reclamation 

potential. Alternative D would implement NSO on steep slopes over 30%. The proposed leasing 

stipulations would protect soils from adverse impacts from leasable mineral resource 

developments.

Leasing stipulations for riparian areas are proposed under Alternatives B and C. No surface 

occupancy within 200 meters (656 feet) of channels ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial 

streams of within the outer margins of riparian/wetland areas would be implemented under 

Alternative B. This stipulation would change to CSU within the same areas under Alternative C. 

These stipulations would provide some protection to floodplains when leasable mineral resource 

developments are proposed. No leasing stipulations for riparian areas are proposed under 

Alternatives A and D.

A leasing stipulation for biological soil crusts is proposed under Alternatives B, C, and D. This 

stipulation would implement NSO for surface-disturbing activities in areas managed for 

biological soil crust resources, such as in the San Miguel Dome area. 

4.2.9.1.4 Renewable Energy Decisions

Renewable energy management decisions would have short-term impacts and long-term adverse 

impacts to soil and water resources. Loss of vegetation associated with surface disturbances for 

renewable energy infrastructure would increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation both during 

construction and over the life of the renewable energy project. 

Renewable energy projects would be located outside sensitive soil and floodplain areas to the 

greatest extent possible. Exclusion and avoidance areas were identified in Chapter 2 for areas 

where renewable energy developments are not suitable. Sensitive soils are identified as 

avoidance areas for wind, solar, and geothermal projects under Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Wetland and riparian areas are identified as exclusion areas for wind, solar, and geothermal 

projects under Alternatives B, C, and D. Active floodplains are identified as exclusion areas for 

wind and solar projects and avoidance areas for geothermal projects under Alternatives B, C, and 

D. One-hundred-year floodplains are identified as avoidance areas for wind and geothermal 

projects and exclusion areas for solar projects under Alternatives B, C, and D. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-186

4.2.9.1.5 Soil and Water Decisions

Implementation of the soil and water decisions (Chapter 2, Goals, Objectives, and Management 

Common to All Alternatives) would result in short- and long-term beneficial impacts for the 

RPFO land by limiting certain uses, employing standard Best Management Practices, and 

implementing projects with the specific objective of watershed stabilization, improvement, and 

restoration. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be applied prior to land use activities to avoid 

adverse impacts to soil and water resources. 

Alternative B would afford the most protection and improvement potential for biological soil 

crusts at San Miguel dome. Less protection is offered under Alternatives C and D as grazing and 

mineral entry would be allowed. Alternative D would likely result in long term adverse impacts 

to stability with the fewest restrictions on livestock, foot traffic, and potential mineral entry.

4.2.9.1.6 Travel Management Decisions

Travel management decisions would have both adverse and beneficial impacts to soil and water

resources. In those areas where roads are closed, vegetation communities could become reestablished on roadbeds and improve soil conditions. Management decisions that propose open 

travel could result in vegetation loss, rutting, increased soil erosion, and impacts to water quality. 

These impacts would be similar, but of small magnitude for the limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails travel designation. Table 4.71 shows the proposed travel management 

decisions, by alternative. Under Alternatives C and D, the RPFO proposes to open 18,271 acres 

within Cimarron Mesa to OHV use. Within Cimarron Mesa, 15,188 acres are classified as 

having sensitive soils; therefore, erosion is expected to occur from OHV use under Alternatives 

C and D. 

Table 4.71: Proposed Travel Management Designations (acres), by Alternative

Category Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Open 303,580 4,551 18,269 19,456 

Limited 420,419 562,596 602,043 624,808 

Closed 20,316 177,240 124,075 100,123 

Total 744,387 744,387 744,387 744,387 

4.2.9.2 Cumulative Impacts

Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Planning Area and on federal, state, private, and 

other lands within and adjacent to the Planning Area that would affect soils and water resources 

include mineral development, renewable energy projects, and other surface-disturbing projects. 

Soil disturbance within or adjacent to the Planning Area would likely contribute additional 

sediment to ephemeral and intermittent streams. Beneficial impacts to soil and water resources 

would result from other federal, state, tribal, and local planning and watershed 

restoration/improvement efforts, which would reduce negative impacts to soil and water 

resources on adjacent public and private lands. Table 4.4 provides a summary of proposed 

surface-disturbing projects that are expected to take place within or near the planning area in the 

future. These projects, where specific project areas are known, account for approximately 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-187

500,000 acres of surface disturbance, which are likely to cumulatively impact soil and water 

resources within the Planning Area.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-188

Map-066-Sensitive Soils
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-189

Map-067-Wind and Water Erodable Soils
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-190

4.2.10 Special Designations

There are four types of special designations relevant to impacts analysis in this chapter: WSAs, 

ACECs, Wild and Scenic Rivers and the Ojito Wilderness Area. Eight WSAs are carried 

forward from the 1986 RMP to the proposed alternatives. The RPFO must bring forward the 

WSAs because Congress has not released the WSAs from Wilderness consideration. The RPFO 

would manage WSAs for: 1) maintaining the management of these areas as provided in the IMP 

for Lands Under Wilderness Review (BLM 1995); and 2) managing in accordance with the 

“non-impairment criteria.” The Ojito Wilderness Area would be managed consistent with the 

Wilderness Act.

Table 4.72: Proposed Special Designations (number and acres) within the Planning Area, by Alternative

Special Designations Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

ACEC 10 ACECs

53,765 acres

18 ACECs

149,974 acres

18 ACECs

137,029 acres

11 ACECs

44,049 acres

Wild and Scenic Rivers 97 acres 941 acres 941 acres 941 acres

WSA/Wilderness Areas 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963 acres

CDT 1 trail

11,474 acres

1 trail

38,808 acres

1 trail

23,607 acres

1 trail

11,474 acres

Total 137,720 acres 185,625 acres 178,000 acres 126,392 acres

The BLM has proposed four ACECs that correspond with five WSAs and the Ojito Wilderness 

Area (Table 4.74). These ACECs are proposed for lands that meet the relevance and importance 

criteria required for qualification as an ACEC. If Congress were to release the five WSAs from 

Wilderness consideration, these areas would be managed under the prescriptions of the ACECs. 

Three WSAs do not correspond with an associated ACEC; therefore, if the three WSAs were to 

be released from consideration there would be no additional protection for those areas. 

In order to appropriately quantify the impacts from special designations, the impacts analysis in 

this chapter considers only the ACEC special designation for those WSAs and the Ojito 

Wilderness Area that have a corresponding ACEC. For the three WSAs that do not have 

corresponding ACECs, the WSA special designation is analyzed. This approach is intended to 

reduce potential duplication of impacts analysis from two special designations (WSAs and 

ACECs) located within the same acreage.

Table 4.73: Proposed Special Designations (acres) in the Planning Area, by Alternative

Special Designations Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

ACECs managed for riparian values 2 ACECs

1,575 acres

2 ACECs

11,236 acres

2 ACECs

8,628 acres

2 ACECs

2,419 acres

ACECS managed for other values 8 ACECs

52,190 acres

16 ACECs

138,738 acres

16 ACECs

128,401 acres

9 ACECs

41,630 acres
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-191

4.2.10.1 Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas

Wilderness Areas

Three Wilderness Areas and eight WSAs fall within the RPFO management boundaries. The 

Tent Rocks and El Malpais Wilderness Areas have been excluded from the BLM lands under 

analysis in the Planning Area because they are associated with other planning documents. The 

Ojito Wilderness Area is included within the acres of BLM lands under analysis in the Planning 

Area. This section describes the impacts to Wilderness Areas and WSAs from the management 

decisions proposed in the RMP/EIS. 

The only difference among alternatives for WSAs involves livestock grazing within the areas. 

Under Alternative B, the BLM would prohibit grazing in all WSAs. Alternative C would allow 

prescribed grazing to occur in WSAs, and Alternative D would reinstate any suspended AUMs 

within WSAs. 

Table 4.74: WSAs and Associated ACECs, by Alternative

Existing WSA and

Wilderness Areas (acres)

Proposed ACECs (acres)

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Cabezon WSA (8,162) 5,765 17,150 17,150 6,984

Chamisa WSA (14,510)

0 43,026 43,026 0

Ignacio Chavez WSA (32,431)

Petaca Pinta WSA (11,664) 0 13,723 13,723 13,723

Ojito WSA (111) and the Ojito 

Wilderness Area (11,183) 16,310 16,310 6,454 0

Empedrado WSA (9,035) 0 0 0 0

Le Lena WSA (10,252) 0 0 0 0

Manzano WSA (896) 0 0 0 0
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-192

Table 4.75: Livestock Grazing Areas (acres) within Wilderness Areas and WSAs, by Alternative

Wilderness Areas and WSAs Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Cabezon Peak WSA (8,162 acres) 8,162 0 0–8,162 0–8,162

Chamisa WSA (14,510 acres) 14,510 0 0–14,510 0–14,510

Empedrado WSA (9,035 acres) 9,035 0 0–9,035 0–9,035

Ignacio Chavez WSA (32,431 

acres)

32,431 0 0–32,431 0–32,431

La Lena WSA (10,252 acres) 10,252 0 0–10,252 0–10,252

Manzano WSA (896 acres) 896 0 0–896 0–896

Ojito WSA (111 acres) 128 0 0–128 0–128

Ojito Wilderness (11,183 acres) 11,183 11,183 11,183 11,183

Petaca Pinta WSA (11,664 acres) 11,664 0 0–11,664 0–11,664

Total (98,244 acres) 98,261 11,183 11,183–

98,261

11,183–

98,261

4.2.10.2 Congressionally Designated Trails

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail traverses the Planning area for approximately 135 

miles; approximately fifty miles are located on BLM lands or BLM-owned easements. The 

majority of the trail is absent tread; instead it is marked across the landscape by posts and rock 

cairns. The nature of the trail means that travelers walk on live vegetation in many portions of 

the trail. The setting is a primitive, natural appearing route. Use on the trail is light, but is 

increasing closest to access points near towns. Portions of the trail are not rideable by horses or 

mountain bikes where it climbs up steep slopes. Water is very limited along its route. The trail 

is permanently located, except for two areas where its location is not in close correlation with the 

purposes of the Trail. Those areas are the vicinity of the town of Cuba and the area south of 

Grants where the trail is located on the shoulder of paved highways. The purposes of the 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail are to connect people and communities to the 

Continental Divide by providing scenic, high-quality, primitive hiking and horseback riding 

experiences, while preserving the significant natural, historic, and cultural resources along the 

Trail.

Table 4.76: Summary of Impact to the CDNST Trail

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Acres 11,474 38,808 23,607 11,474

Saleable Minerals Open Closed Avoid Open

Forest Product Removal Open Closed Avoid Open

Motorized Vehicle Use Open Closed Avoid Open

Leasable Fluid Minerals NSO NSO NSO NSO

VRM Prevailing VRM II Prevailing Prevailing 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-193

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

VRM VRM VRM

Table 4.77: VRM Classes (miles) along the CDNST

VRM Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

I 20.2 20.1 20.1 20.1

II 1 32.8 3.5 0.4

III 0 0 10.4 0

IV 31.7 0 18.9 32.4

4.2.10.3 Direct and Indirect Impacts 

4.2.10.3.1 Visual Resources Decisions

VRM decisions may have adverse impacts on Special Designation Areas. The only lands 

identified under all alternatives to be designated VRM Class I are lands within WSAs and 

Wilderness Areas. Lands surrounding WSAs and Wilderness Areas may be managed to a 

standard less than VRM Class I. When this occurs and the VRM Class II, III, or IV lands are 

visible from within a WSA or Wilderness Area, Wilderness values, such as naturalness, would 

be compromised. Individuals would be more likely to see development activities from within a

Wilderness Area or WSA when the VRM class surrounding the area is Class III or IV. 

4.2.10.3.2 Lands and Realty Decisions

Similar to VRM, lands and realty management decisions related to lands adjacent to Special 

Designation Areas may adversely impact wilderness characteristics when adjacent lands are 

disposed from the BLM’s management. When land disposal takes place adjacent to Special 

Designation Areas, those disposed lands may be managed in a way that compromises wilderness, 

recreational or conservation opportunities. Development may occur on the disposed parcel that 

is visible and/or audible from within the Special Designation Area. Site-specific NEPA analysis 

would be applied prior to disposals of BLM land and during this time impacts to the Special 

Designated Area would be disclosed. 

4.2.10.3.3 Surface Disturbance Decisions

Impacts from renewable energy, mineral development, and travel have been grouped in this 

section under the heading “surface disturbance.” Resource management decisions associated 

with these resource uses would result in similar surface-disturbing impacts to Special Designated 

Areas. Motorized travel, renewable energy developments, and mineral extraction would be 

prohibited within WSAs and Wilderness Areas and limited in other Special Designated Areas; 

however, these activities may be allowed to occur adjacent to WSAs and Wilderness Areas. 

When these activities take place adjacent to WSAs and Wilderness Areas, Wilderness values 

would likely be compromised though through the use of BMPs, these impacts would be 

minimized. Surface-disturbing activities may be visible and/or audible from within the Special 

Designated Area.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-194

4.2.10.3.4 Livestock Grazing Decisions

Livestock grazing is a permitted use as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964 it would be 

restricted in Wild and Scenic Rivers Area. Interaction with livestock could compromise 

Wilderness values, such as opportunities for solitude and naturalness, for some recreational users 

and not for others. As a result, livestock grazing management decisions could have perceived 

adverse impacts to WSAs and Wilderness Areas under Alternatives C and D for some 

recreational users because livestock grazing would be allowed to take place within areas 

designated to protect Wilderness values. The permitted livestock grazing activities would be 

required to meet the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines; thereby avoiding impacts to 

Wilderness Areas. Alternative B would not allow livestock grazing to occur within most WSAs 

or Wilderness Areas. 

4.2.10.4 Cumulative Impacts

The analysis of cumulative impacts for Special Designation Areas includes all BLM lands in 

New Mexico that are currently being managed for Wilderness characteristics to protect those 

values. The statewide total of BLM lands where Wilderness characteristics are protected by law 

or administrative decision is 1,125,409 acres. Under all alternatives, the RPFO would continue to 

manage Special Designation Areas in conformance with the Wilderness Act, Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act, ACEC prescribed management decisions and applicable restrictions of this RMP. 

Special Designation Areas would be cumulatively impacted by projects that compromise the 

characteristics that define each specific area. For example, projects that impact visual resources 

and solitude may adversely impact Wilderness Areas. The proposed Desert Rock Power Plant 

could potential have long-term adverse impacts to Wilderness Areas within the Planning Area, 

especially those located in the northwest or north-central portion of the Planning Area. Air 

pollution and haze from the plant could potentially be seen from within the Planning Area under 

certain weather conditions. Short-term adverse impacts to Wilderness Areas may occur from fire 

and fuels treatments near the Wilderness Areas conducted by other agencies. The BLM 

estimates that federal and state agencies would treat up to 206,800 acres with prescribed fire over 

the next 20 years. If these treatments occur adjacent to Special Designation Areas, then fire 

operations (aircraft over-flights, fire line construction, etc.) would temporarily degrade the 

natural landscape and character of the Special Designation Area. The noise and presence of the 

people, equipment, and operations would also temporarily diminish opportunities for solitude 

and primitive forms of recreation or the specific activity associated with the Special Designation.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-195

Map-068-ACECs (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-196

Map-069-Bluewater Canyon (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-197

Map-070-Bony Canyon (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-198

Map-071-Cabezon peak (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-199

Map-072-Canon Jarido (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-200

Map-073-Canon Tapia (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-201

Map074-Cerro Verde (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-202

Map-075-Elk Springs (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-203

Map-076-Espinosa Ridge (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-204

Map-077-Guadalupe Ruin and Community (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-205

Map-078-Jones Canyon (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-206

Map-079-Legacy Uranium Mines 1(8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-207

Map-080-Legacy Uranium Mines 2(8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-208

Map-081-Legacy Uranium Mines 3(8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-209

Map-082-Ojito (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-210

Map-083-Petaca Pinta (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-211

Map-084-Pronoun Cave (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-212

Map-085-San Luis Mesa Raptor Area (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-213

Map-086-San Miguel Dome (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-214

Map-087-Toerreon Fossil Fauna (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-215

Map-088-Ingacio Chavez Grant (8.5x11)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-216

4.2.11 Special-Status Species

Actions that could occur through implementing each alternative could impact special status 

wildlife species. Cave and karst resources, cultural resources, fire management, forests and 

woodlands, lands and realty, livestock grazing, mineral resources, recreation and visitor services, 

renewable energy, riparian resources, soil and water, lands with Wilderness characteristics, 

travel management, special designations, special-status species, visual resource management, 

and wildlife management decisions have the potential to impact special-status species on BLM 

lands in the Planning Area. The adverse and beneficial impacts are described below for each 

resource.

Because of the large number of special-status species – including threatened, endangered, and 

BLM sensitive species – it was determined that the most effective way to disclose impacts at the 

programmatic level would be to analyze the impacts to the habitat cover types used by these 

species (see Chapter 3 for species and habitat descriptions). Accordingly, for the purposes of 

analysis, the special-status species described in Chapter 3 are grouped here by habitat type, as 

shown in Table 4.77 below. In some areas, based on the limited impact varying by species type, 

impacts are discussed by alternative to give a more overall description of the impacts resulting 

from the management action. 

Direct impacts to special status wildlife result from the direct loss of critical habitat or a key 

habitat feature, such as a nest site or lek area, or from the immediate loss of life. Special status 

wildlife can also be directly disturbed by human activities, potentially causing them to abandon a 

nest, lek, or home range. It has been widely documented that disturbance during sensitive periods 

(e.g., winter, nesting) leads to lower recruitment rates and higher mortalities, which adversely 

impact special status species wildlife.

Habitat loss and fragmentation are assumed to adversely impact special status wildlife. Habitat 

loss generally is a direct impact; i.e., the individual or population is immediately impacted. The 

impacts of habitat fragmentation, however, operate indirectly through mechanisms, such as 

population isolation (Saunders et al. 1991); edge impacts, such as increased nest predation and 

parasitism (Paton 1994; Faaborg et al. 1995); encroachment of noxious/invasive weeds; and 

disruption of migration patterns.

Indirect impacts to special status wildlife occur by changing habitat characteristics or quality, 

which can ultimately result in changes in migration patterns, habitat use, carrying capacity, and 

long-term population viability. Indirect impacts to habitats for special status wildlife also could 

occur when specific actions change the habitat in a way that makes it unsuitable for future 

habitation.

Disturbance impacts could range from short-term displacement and shifts in activities to longterm abandonment of home range (Miller 1998; Yarmaloy et al. 1988; Connelly et al. 2000). For 

the purpose of this analysis, short-term impacts (up to 5 years) to special status wildlife are those 

activities that an individual or species respond to immediately, but do not impact the population 

viability of the species. Long-term impacts (more than 5 years) are those that cause an individual 

or species to permanently abandon an area or that impact the population viability and survival of 

the species.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-217

Allowable uses and management actions that contribute to the decline in abundance or 

distribution of special status plants are considered adverse. Conversely, beneficial impacts to 

special status plants consist of activities that protect habitat or reduce the risk of harm to these 

species in the planning area. An increase in special status plant numbers over time in response to 

an enhanced habitat or the increased viability of a species is considered a beneficial impact.

Direct impacts to special status plant species are defined, for this analysis, as actions resulting in 

damage to or loss of individual special status plants, fragmentation of habitat, loss of habitat 

quality, loss of pollinators, and loss of soil seed banks. Surface-disturbing activities, herbivory, 

trampling, fire, and herbicide application are considered the primary means by which direct 

impacts to special status plants could occur. Activities that create or increase competition 

between special status plants are also considered direct impacts. Plant collection and OHV use 

also could directly impact special status plant populations. Indirect impacts to special status plant 

species are defined as actions that aid or compromise the protection of special status plants. The 

loss or degradation of suitable habitat for special status plant species is considered a direct 

impact. Indirect impacts to potential habitats for special status plants also could occur when 

actions change the habitats in a way that makes them unsuitable for future colonization.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

Rio Puerco Field Office 4-218 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Table 4.78: Habitat Types and Associated Special-status Species

Vegetation/Habitat 

Type BLM Sensitive Species Federally Listed Species

Aquatic 

(451 acres)

Wildlife

Flathead Chub (Platygobio gracilis), Zuni bluehead sucker (Catostomus discobolus 

yarrow), Southwest Toad (Anaxyrus microscaphus)

Wildlife

Rio Grande silvery minnow 

(Hybognathus amarus)

Ponderosa pine

(3,909 acres)

Wildlife

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), pale 

Townsend’s big-ear bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), occult little brown 

myotis bat (Myotis lucifugus occultus), big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), 

fringed myotis bat (Myotis thysanodes thysanodes), Yuma myotis bat (Myotis 

yumanensis yumanensis), spotted bat (Eurderma maculatum), long-eared myotis bat 

(Myotis evotis evotis), long-legged myotis bat (Myotis volans interior), small-footed 

myotis bat (Myotis ciliolabrum melanorhinus), meadow jumping mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius luteus), Cebolleta pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae paguatae), Goat Peak 

pika (Ochotona princeps nigrescens), Cassins’s Finch (Carpodacus cassinii).

Plants

Plank’s campion (Silene plankii), Acoma fleabane (Erigeron acomanus)

Wildlife

Mexican spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis lucida), black-footed 

ferret (Mustela nigripes), 

Plants

Zuni fleabane (Erigeron 

rhizomatus)

Piñon-juniper

(188,975 acres)

Wildlife

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), pale 

Townsend’s big-ear bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), occult little brown 

myotis bat (Myotis lucifugus occultus), big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), 

fringed myotis bat (Myotis thysanodes thysanodes), Yuma myotis bat (Myotis 

yumanensis yumanensis), spotted bat (Eurderma maculatum), long-eared myotis bat 

(Myotis evotis evotis), long-legged myotis bat (Myotis volans interior), small-footed 

myotis bat (Myotis ciliolabrum melanorhinus), meadow jumping mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius luteus), Cebolleta pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae paguatae) 

Plants

Plank’s campion (Silene plankii), Knight’s milkvetch (Astragalus knightii), Acoma 

fleabane (Erigeron acomanus), Grama grass cactus (Sclerocactus papyracanthus), 

Tufted sand verbena (Abronia bigelovii), Gypsum Townsend’s aster (Townsendia 

gypsophila)

Wildlife

Mexican spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis lucida), black-footed 

ferret (Mustela nigripes), 

Plants

Zuni fleabane (Erigeron 

rhizomatus)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

Rio Puerco Field Office 4-219 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Vegetation/Habitat 

Type BLM Sensitive Species Federally Listed Species

Riparian/Wetland

(3,965 acres)

Wildlife

Jemez mountain salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus), Texas horned lizard 

(Phrynosoma cornutum), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), white-faced Ibis 

(Plegadis chihi), black tern (Chlidonias niger surinamensis), pale Townsend’s big-ear 

bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), occult little brown myotis bat (Myotis 

lucifugus occultus), big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), fringed myotis bat 

(Myotis thysanodes thysanodes), Yuma myotis bat (Myotis yumanensis yumanensis), 

spotted bat (Eurderma maculatum), long-eared myotis bat (Myotis evotis evotis), longlegged myotis bat (Myotis volans interior), small-footed myotis bat (Myotis 

ciliolabrum melanorhinus), meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus), 

Cebolleta pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae paguatae), Pecos River muskrat (Ondatra 

zibethicus ripensis), Cassin’s Finch (Carpodacus cassinii), Black-chinned Sparrow 

(Spizella astrogularis).

Plants

Parish’s alkali grass (Puccinellia parishii)

Wildlife

Southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii extimus), 

Mexican spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis lucida), least tern 

(Sterna antillarum athalassos), 

black-footed ferret (Mustela 

nigripes),

Plants

Pecos sunflower (Helianthus 

paradoxus)

Shrub, steppe, scrub

(341,037 acres)

Wildlife

Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), 

ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), 

Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus 

excubitorides), pale Townsend’s big-ear bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), 

occult little brown myotis bat (Myotis lucifugus occultus), big free-tailed bat 

(Nyctinomops macrotis), fringed myotis bat (Myotis thysanodes thysanodes), Yuma 

myotis bat (Myotis yumanensis yumanensis), spotted bat (Eurderma maculatum), 

long-eared myotis bat (Myotis evotis evotis), long-legged myotis bat (Myotis volans 

interior), small-footed myotis bat (Myotis ciliolabrum melanorhinus), Cebolleta 

pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae paguatae), slate millipede (Comanchelus chihuanus)

Plants

Plank’s campion (Silene plankii), Knight’s milkvetch (Astragalus knightii), gypsum 

Townsend’s aster (Townsendia gypsophila), Acoma fleabane (Erigeron acomanus), 

Grama grass cactus (Sclerocactus papyracanthus), Tufted sand verbena (Abronia 

bigelovii)

Wildlife

Aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis 

septentrionalis), black-footed ferret 

(Mustela nigripes),

Plants

Zuni fleabane (Erigeron 

rhizomatus)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

Rio Puerco Field Office 4-220 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences 

Vegetation/Habitat 

Type BLM Sensitive Species Federally Listed Species

Grassland

(157,642 acres)

Wildlife

Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), 

ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), 

Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii), pale Townsend’s big-ear bat (Corynorhinus 

townsendii pallescens), occult little brown myotis bat (Myotis lucifugus occultus), big 

free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), fringed myotis bat (Myotis thysanodes 

thysanodes), Yuma myotis bat (Myotis yumanensis yumanensis), spotted bat 

(Eurderma maculatum), long-eared myotis bat (Myotis evotis evotis), long-legged 

myotis bat (Myotis volans interior), small-footed myotis bat (Myotis ciliolabrum 

melanorhinus), meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus), Cebolleta pocket 

gopher (Thomomys bottae paguatae), Goat peak pika (Ochotona princeps nigrescens), 

slate millipede (Comanchelus chihuanus), McCown’s Longspur (Calcarius 

mccownii), Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni), Black-tailed prairie dog 

(Cynomys ludocicianus).

Plants

Gypsum Townsend’s aster (Townsendia gypsophila), Grama grass cactus 

(Sclerocactus papyracanthus)

Wildlife

Aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis 

septentrionalis), black-footed ferret 

(Mustela nigripes),

Plants

None

Other 

(61,095 acres)

Total

(757,074 acres)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-221

4.2.11.1 Analysis Assumptions

The following assumptions were used to analyze impacts to special-status species from other 

proposed resource management decisions: 

Implementation of all of the alternatives would be in accordance with existing laws, 

regulations, and standard management guidelines.

Impacts to special status wildlife species are based primarily on potential impacts to 

habitats managed by the BLM.

Precise quantitative estimates of impacts generally are not possible because the exact 

locations of future actions are unknown, population data for species status wildlife 

species are often lacking, or habitat types impacted by surface-disturbing activities cannot 

be predicted.

Actions impacting one species have similar impacts on other species using the same 

habitats or areas. Measures to protect one species generally will result in long-term 

benefits to other species occurring within that habitat. Where resources overlap, 

management actions associated with protecting wildlife habitats and cultural resources 

directly benefit special status plant species.

The more acreage of habitat protected, the greater the benefit to the targeted species.

Prescribed fire is used to manage vegetative communities and can result in short-term 

adverse impacts with long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats.

Because of the migratory nature and relative mobility of some special status wildlife 

species (e.g., waterfowl, neotropical migrants, and raptors), these species are impacted by 

actions on non-BLM-administered land more so than other species. In the case of 

migratory species, impacts to winter and migration habitats could adversely impact the 

viability of some species. Winter and migration habitats are assumed to be at least as 

important to long-term viability of these species as breeding and nesting habitats.

New oil and gas leases have special leasing stipulations for protection of special status 

plant species.

The total amount of new surface disturbance allowed by an alternative is a good index of 

potential impacts to special status plants. Success of reclamation measures prescribed as a 

condition of development is unknown, and could underestimate the potential impact of 

surface disturbance on special status plant populations.

The existing provisions in place (e.g., presence/absence surveys conducted prior to 

proposed actions) to protect special status species are carried out and conditional 

monitoring is conducted (e.g., grazing and surface disturbance reclamation) to ensure 

special status species are not jeopardized.

4.2.11.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts

4.2.11.2.1 Cave and karst Resources Decisions

Cave and karst resources decisions would provide beneficial impacts to special-status species, 

especially the nine special-status bat species that are known to occur on BLM lands within the 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-222

Planning Area. The Pronoun Cave Complex is the only known cave system on BLM lands within 

the Planning Area. A bat survey conducted in 1998 found thirteen species of bats in the Planning 

Area, five of which were documented in or near the cave complex (Gannon et al. 1998). The 

Pronoun Cave Complex would be protected through an ACEC designation under Alternatives A, 

B, and C; therefore, the bat species and other special-status species that use the caves would have 

the greatest protection under these alternatives. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be 

completed for proposed actions that occur within or near the Pronoun Cave Complex. As a 

result, future impacts to the special-status species would be considered regardless of the 

proposed Pronoun Cave Complex ACEC status. 

4.2.11.2.2 Cultural Resources Decisions

Cultural resources management decisions may have beneficial impacts to special-status species 

because of restrictions on surface-disturbing activities that directly protect cultural resources and 

could indirectly protect special status species habitat and critical habitat. There are four cultural 

resource areas, Big Bead Mesa, Headcut Prehistoric Community, Azabache Station, Fort Site and 

Ojo Pueblo, which have proposed surface restrictions under various alternatives. The surface 

restrictions, which vary by alternative and are described in Chapter 2, could include NSO or 

CSU for leasable fluid minerals, avoid or close to saleable mineral extraction, and/or withdrawn 

from locatable mineral entry. Motorized travel is also generally limited to existing primitive 

roads and trails for these areas. The restrictions would result in additional beneficial impacts to 

special-status species because surface disturbance would be limited, thereby protecting specialstatus species habitat. Table 4.79 shows the number of acres for each cultural resource site that 

would have surface restrictions applied, by alternative. 

Table 4.79: Proposed Cultural Resource Areas with Surface Restrictions (acres), by Alternative

Cultural Resource Area

Alternative 

A

No Action

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Preferred

Alternative 

D

Azabache Station 81 81 81 0

Big Bead Mesa 340 340 340 340

Fort Site and Ojo Pueblo 0 1,130 1,130 0

Headcut Prehistoric Community 960 1,280 1,280 960

Total 1,381 2,831 2,831 1,300

4.2.11.2.3 Fire Management Decisions

Under all alternatives, the Fire and Fuels Plan Amendment would be implemented in fire-related 

actions (BLM 2004). The Fire and Fuels Plan Amendment mandates the maintenance of existing 

healthy ecosystems and the protection of threatened, endangered, and special-status species in 

the Planning Area. 

Fuels management actions include fuels reduction treatments on 32,000 acres annually. These 

actions include mechanical and manual treatments, prescribed fire, chemical or biological

vegetation control, and aerial/ground seeding. These fuels management decisions would likely 

have a beneficial long-term impact to special-status species populations by helping to restore the 

natural fire regime, which would improve habitat health (Lewis and Harshbarger 1976), forage, 

nesting opportunities, and cover. Restoring the natural fire regime would also reduce the chance 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-223

of catastrophic fire and the subsequent loss of major ecosystem components. Long-term adverse 

impacts could include the transition in vegetation to early seral stages, which could cause 

special-status species to seek new, more suitable habitat and could cause mortality for specialstatus plant species. In the short term, vegetation treatments could result in trampling or removal 

of special-status species forage and/or habitat, human-caused wildfire disturbance, and direct 

mortality of special-status plant species. Table 4.80 displays the number of acres proposed for 

fire management treatments within each habitat type. 

Table 4.80: Proposed Fire Management Treatments (acres), by Habitat Type 

Vegetation/Habitat Type

Proposed Fire 

Management Treatments 

(acres)

Aquatic 95

Grassland 146,922

Other 19,594

Piñon-juniper 161,374

Ponderosa pine 3,825

Riparian/Wetland 3,554

Shrub, steppe, scrub 277,594

Total 612,958

Percent of BLM lands in the Planning Area 82%

4.2.11.2.4 Forests and Woodlands Decisions

Forests and woodlands management decisions could impact special-status species because 

habitat would be open to forest product removal under each alternative. Adverse impacts to 

special-status species from forest product removal would include direct habitat loss, habitat 

degradation, and habitat fragmentation. Indirect, adverse impacts of wood gathering to specialstatus species and their habitats include trampling and removal of native vegetation, which would 

result in habitat degradation that can include reduced prey species, forage species, and cover. 

Indirect, adverse impacts of wood gathering to special-status bird species would also include 

reduced reproductive opportunity due to removal of trees causing a decrease in nesting substrate.

Forest and woodland decisions could also have beneficial impact on special-status species. The 

goals and objectives of the forests and woodlands program not only focus on harvesting of forest 

products, but also on managing forested areas for ecosystem health (which includes but is not 

limited to: habitat, watershed processes, and riparian restoration and enhancement). Vegetative 

treatment would result in improvements to habitat that may benefit many wildlife species. 

Studies have shown that where dense stands of piñon-juniper have been thinned, understory 

vegetation increased dramatically on the heaviest thinned plots and the number of vegetation 

species present also increased significantly. Forest restoration projects could be designed to 

improve habitat by favoring certain vegetation types over others, reducing tree densities, altering 

spatial distribution of trees, or reducing erosion and increase herbaceous ground cover through 

lop and scatter of slash. Under all alternatives, the RPFO would consider the New Mexico 

Forest Restoration Principles (2006) and the New Mexico Forest and Watershed Health Plan 

(New Mexico Forest and Watershed Health Planning Committee 2004). In addition, site-specific 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-224

NEPA analysis would be completed before the RPFO opened particular areas to forest products 

harvest and this analysis would include impacts to special-status species known to occur in the 

particular area. Table 4.81 shows the proposed forest product harvest areas that would be 

available on BLM lands in the Planning Area, by habitat type and alternative. Under Alternative 

D, the largest percent of habitat types within BLM land in the Planning Area would be open to 

forest product harvest and under Alternative A, the smallest percentage of habitat types would be 

open to forest product harvest.

Table 4.81: Proposed Forest Product Harvest Areas (acres) within Habitat Types on BLM lands in the 

Planning Area, by Alternative 

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Aquatic 2 324 412 428

Grassland 865 29,095 123,840 140,964

Other 200 6,018 36,309 54,778

Piñon-juniper 5,543 22,395 133,074 145,273

Ponderosa pine 417 69 894 975

Riparian/Wetland 183 378 2,325 2,589

Shrub, steppe, scrub 4,976 61,156 263,467 299,125

Total 12,186 119,435 560,321 644,132

Percent of BLM lands in 

the Planning Area 2% 16% 75% 87%

4.2.11.2.5 Lands and Realty Decisions

Lands and realty management decisions that have the potential to have adverse impacts to 

special-status species and their habitat would result from authorizations of right-of-way grants 

and the expansion or development of utility corridors. These actions would create surface 

disturbances of various magnitudes depending on the size and location of the project. Surface 

impacts from construction of communication facilities and other developments requiring a rightof-way would be disclosed in site-specific NEPA documentation. There would also be potential 

for the introduction of noxious or invasive plant species via construction equipment, vehicles, 

and personnel; however, the adverse impacts would be mitigated through BMPs, noxious weed 

controls, and restoration and rehabilitation measures outlined in management common to all

alternatives for lands and realty and vegetation communities in Chapter 2. 

Rights of way are authorized for uses such as pipelines, roads, sites and transmission. 

Implementation of all these actions results in large amounts of surface disturbance. These 

impacts are adverse, and are difficult to mitigate because facilities often require the creation and 

maintenance of new roads for long-term periods of time. If such disturbance occurs in special 

status species habitat, it would adversely affect special status species because it would cause loss 

and/or fragmentation of contiguous habitat. The facilities themselves can also have adverse 

effects on special status species (SSS). For example, power lines can have severe adverse 

impacts on special status birds and migratory bird species because they cause electrocution and 

they are flight impediments that cause mortality by collision. To mitigate these effects, power 

line construction should follow the Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-225

(Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, 2006). Mitigation includes such actions as covering 

conductors and spacing transmission lines apart certain distances to prevent large birds from 

getting tangled between lines. If these and other mitigation measures are applied at the time of 

implementation, adverse impacts can be reduced. Lands and realty decisions would also 

adversely impact special-status species by those decisions to dispose of BLM lands. Disposal of 

lands could result in fragmentation of otherwise contiguous habitat, depending on land use and 

ownership patterns. By transferring lands to private ownership, development, and human 

activities, including introducing domestic pets or livestock, could disturb special-status species 

or degrade adjacent habitat quality. Indirect impacts from land disposals could include 

disturbance to special-status species and degradation of habitat on those lands that remain in 

public ownership adjacent to the associated disposed lands. Land disposals surrounding urban 

areas could result in the potential elimination of a buffer zone protecting special-status species 

and their habitat. Table 4.82 displays the number of acres proposed for land disposal, by 

alternative. 

Table 4.82: Proposed Land Disposals (acres), by Alternative and Vegetation Type

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Aquatic 269 269 269 269

Grassland 14,377 14,429 14,723 15,897

Other/Not classified 4,071 4,398 4,417 4,461

Piñon-juniper 24,937 26,155 26,867 26,867

Ponderosa pine 221 482 749 749

Riparian/Wetland 663 730 801 801

Shrub, steppe, scrub 10,846 11,009 11,084 13,007

Total 55,384 57,472 58,910 62,051

Beneficial impacts could result from land acquisitions and the identification of exclusion and 

avoidance areas for rights-of-way. Land acquisitions could result in the protection of specialstatus species habitat that may not otherwise occur if the land in question was managed by a 

private entity. Rights-of-way exclusion areas would offer greater protection for special-status 

species habitat than avoidance areas because they would completely preclude surface-disturbing 

activities. 

The following types of habitats are proposed as exclusion or avoidance areas for rights-of-way:

Designated and proposed critical habitat for federal threatened and endangered species –

pipelines, roads, transmission lines, and sites would excluded from these areas under 

Alternative B and avoided under Alternatives C and D.

Habitat for federally listed/proposed threatened and endangered species for which critical 

habitat has not been designated – pipelines, roads, transmission lines, and sites would be 

avoided in these areas under Alternative B, C, and D.

BLM sensitive plant and animal species habitat (including rare plants) – pipelines, roads, 

transmission lines, and sites would be avoided in these areas under Alternative B, C, and 

D.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-226

Federal candidate species habitat – pipelines, roads, transmission lines, and sites would 

be avoided in these areas under Alternative B, C, and D.

State-listed crucial and sensitive habitats – pipelines, roads, transmission lines, and sites 

would be avoided in these areas under Alternative B, C, and D.

4.2.11.2.6 Livestock Grazing Decisions

Livestock grazing can have both adverse and beneficial impacts to special-status species. 

Livestock grazing allotments occupy 718,035 acres (95%) of BLM lands in the Planning Area. 

Adverse impacts could occur as a result of livestock grazing where special status plant species

occur but have not yet been identified. These adverse impacts could occur through trampling of 

special status plants and consumption of species that are palatable to livestock. In areas where 

the location of special status plant species is known, adverse impacts would be prevented 

through mitigation. Mitigation could include excluding grazing from special status plant 

population areas by fencing or placing water developments and mineral supplements away from 

sensitive plant habitats. Livestock grazing management decisions, including the continuing 

implementation of the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001), can potentially 

benefit some special-status species habitat by promoting regrowth of forage species, reducing the 

prevalence of some invasive plants, and creating openings and disturbed areas used by some 

species. Other beneficial impacts from livestock grazing for special-status species and their 

habitat would occur when range improvements are implemented in the Planning Area. Specialstatus species may use range improvements, such as watering tanks, when placed within or near 

their habitat

4.2.11.2.7 Mineral Resources Decisions

Impacts from minerals decisions on special-status species and their habitats could include habitat 

loss and degradation resulting from the removal of vegetation (surface disturbance), and 

subsequent occupation of areas for oil and gas well pads, open pit mines, and associated roads 

and infrastructure. Species avoidance of disturbed and occupied areas would reduce their value 

as habitat. Many species avoid areas with high or inconsistent levels of noise, roads with 

frequent vehicle traffic, areas that are heavily lit at night, and areas surrounding structures. 

Adverse impacts of minerals decisions on special-status species would be reduced by the 

implementation of leasing stipulations and BMPs. Under all alternatives, the RPFO would 

complete, as required, ESA Section 7 consultation with the USFWS for leasing activities. 

Alternatives B and C also include a proposed CSU stipulation that could delay a surfacedisturbing or disruptive activity for ninety days and could control or exclude the activity within 

0.25 mile of identified habitat or nests.

The amount of land that is open to oil and gas leasing or other mineral development is not 

necessarily indicative of the number of acres that would be directly disturbed. Areas managed 

under standard or TL and/or CSU stipulations allow mineral development, but not all of those 

acres would be subjected to surface disturbance. Habitat quality may be preserved by the 

implementation of seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers that protect crucial habitats. For 

example, habitat areas for special-status plant species that are located in low reclamation 

opportunity soils would be closed to oil and gas leasing under Alternative B. Areas categorized 

as NSO or closed preclude all surface-disturbing mineral development and therefore improve the 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-227

quality and condition of wildlife habitats. Table 4.83 shows the number of acres that would be 

managed as NSO, TL/CSU, or closed to oil and gas leasing, by alternative and habitat type. 

Table 4.84 shows the number of acres closed to saleable mineral extraction, and Table 4.85

shows the number of acres that would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry, by alternative 

and habitat type. 

Table 4.83: Habitat Type (acres) Proposed as NSO, TL/CSU, or Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing, by Alternative

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Aquatic 12 80 80 78

Grassland 17,512 59,177 57,081 54,075

Other 4,030 21,739 19,242 20,288

Piñon-juniper 17,274 45,647 45,412 43,913

Ponderosa pine 32 352 352 352

Riparian/Wetland 152 446 444 403

Shrub, steppe, scrub 45,787 154,192 153,493 148,452

Total 84,799 281,633 276,104 267,561

Percent of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area 6% 20% 20% 19%

Table 4.84: Habitat Type (acres) Proposed as Closed to Saleable Mineral Extraction, by Alternative

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Aquatic 8 20 8 8

Grassland 17,063 34,549 22,457 16,775

Other 4,194 16,941 10,481 4,041

Piñon-juniper 35,420 47,025 39,619 37,208

Ponderosa pine 2,345 3,235 3,235 2,904

Riparian/Wetland 904 1,335 1,187 1,123

Shrub, steppe, scrub 45,720 80,615 57,869 45,387

Total 105,654 183,720 134,856 107,446

Percent of BLM lands in 

the Planning Area 6% 10% 7% 6%
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-228

Table 4.85: Habitat Type (acres) Proposed as Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral Entry, by Alternative

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Aquatic 7 71 70 7

Grassland 4,084 59,513 53,115 6,039

Other 777 21,428 20,044 2,198

Piñon-juniper 722 59,684 59,758 4,033

Ponderosa pine 0 3,275 3,275 560

Riparian/Wetland 103 1,291 1,256 347

Shrub, steppe, scrub 10,890 147,194 140,230 14,436

Total 16,583 292,456 277,748 27,620

Percent of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area 1% 16% 15% 2%

4.2.11.2.8 Recreation and Visitor Services Decisions

In general, special-status species can be adversely impacted by recreation caused by human 

interactions, including higher noise levels, litter, and wildlife harassment and/or degradation of 

habitat (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). While camping tends to be more concentrated along 

riparian areas, such as Bluewater Creek, locally there can be major impacts to vegetation and 

stream bank stability. 

Collection of firewood for campfires has the potential to adversely impact special-status species 

with removal of live, dead, and downed material. This material provides shelter for various 

species, including birds, small mammals, bats, reptiles, and amphibians. OHV use and other 

disturbances to soils from unauthorized travel increase soil loss from wind and water erosion, 

which can further degrade habitat quality. Where this occurs repeatedly, impacts to species, 

vegetation, and soils could be an issue at the site, but minor at the landscape level. 

Increased development of trails, climbing routes, and other recreation pursuits throughout the 

Planning Area could increase habitat fragmentation and adversely impact special-status species 

(Rost and Bailey 1979; Wisdom et al. 2005). Under Alternatives B, C, and D, 231,325 acres of 

SRMAs and ERMAs are proposed on BLM lands within the Planning Area. These areas could 

facilitate an increase of visitors because they are managed to provide specific recreation 

opportunities. Increased visitation by recreational user groups could result in an increase in 

human disturbance to wildlife. Table 4.86 shows the proposed SRMA and ERMAs and the 

habitat types the designated areas would encompass. 

Table 4.86: Vegetation/Habitat Types (acres) within the Proposed SRMA and ERMAs

SRMA and ERMA 

Name

Vegetation Type

Aquatic Grassland PiñonJuniper

Ponderosa

Pine

Riparian/

Wetland

Shrub,

Steppe,

Scrub

Other Total

Continental Divide 

Trail SRMA

6 1,365 4,111 470 69 4,450 525 10,996
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-229

SRMA and ERMA 

Name

Vegetation Type

Aquatic Grassland PiñonJuniper

Ponderosa

Pine

Riparian/

Wetland

Shrub,

Steppe,

Scrub

Other Total

Ancestral Way 

ERMA

0 1,112 261 0 0 3,832 693 5,898

Azabache ERMA 6 4,530 154 0 4 8,081 124 12,899

Bony Canyon ACEC 

ERMA

0 632 29 0 0 585 68 1,314

Ceja Pelon ERMA 9 1,107 858 0 2 3,720 17 5,713

Cerro ERMA 4 3,705 45 0 0 7,783 899 12,436

Cerro Verde ERMA 0 503 56 0 0 932 3,127 4,618

Chijuilla ERMA 16 3,248 10,297 12 10 27,696 791 42,070

Cimarron Mesa 

ERMA

3 1,895 4,101 0 96 3,069 9,105 18,269

Crest of Montezuma 0 44 532 261 45 26 9 917

La Mesita Blanca 

ERMA

0 3,218 25 0 0 2,416 40 5,699

Las Milpas ERMA 0 789 8 0 0 1,668 58 2,523

Oh-My-God 100 

ERMA

0 1,874 3,642 25 0 11,527 340 17,408

Pronoun Cave ERMA 0 440 267 0 0 393 0 1,100

Prospect ERMA 0 4,892 747 0 2 5,594 208 11,443

Sandy Wash ERMA 3 5,687 3 0 7 11,403 1,371 18,474

San Luis Mesa 

ERMA

14 3,748 370 0 7 7,789 309 12,237

San Miguel Dome 

ERMA

0 1,927 9 0 0 4,890 135 6,961

San Ysidro Trials 

Area ERMA

3 1,202 96 22 29 3,323 468 5,143

Torreon Fossil East 

and West ERMA

0 1,510 235 0 0 3,852 324 5,921

Volcano Hill ERMA 7 5,276 793 0 40 8,499 12,042 26,657

White Mesa Bike 

Trails ERMA

2 791 4 0 12 1,957 780 3,546

Total SRMA and 

ERMA Acreage 

73 49,495 26,643 790 323 123,485 31,433 232,246

Percent of BLM lands 

in the Planning Area

- 7% 3% - - 17% 4% 31%

4.2.11.2.9 Renewable Energy Decisions

Renewable energy management decisions that have the potential to have adverse impacts to 

special-status species and their habitat could result from authorizations for development of 

renewable energy projects. Renewable energy projects would create surface disturbances of 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-230

various magnitudes depending on the size and location of the project. Solar, wind and 

geothermal energy development projects would directly remove vegetation and would result in 

habitat fragmentation. Additionally, wind farms are known to cause high rates of mortality in 

bats and birds, and would have severe adverse impacts on those species. These and other

impacts from wind, solar, and geothermal energy development would be disclosed in sitespecific NEPA analysis. There would also be high potential for the introduction of noxious or 

invasive plant species via construction equipment, vehicles, and personnel. Although the 

adverse impacts would be mitigated through BMPs, noxious weed controls, and restoration and 

rehabilitation measures, special status species habitats impacted by all renewable energy 

development projects would be adversely impacted directly, short term and long term due to the 

longevity of such projects.

Beneficial impacts would result from the identification of exclusion and avoidance areas for 

renewable energy projects. Exclusion areas would offer greater protection for special-status 

species habitat than avoidance areas because they would completely preclude surface-disturbing 

activities. 

The following types of habitats are proposed as exclusion or avoidance areas for rights-of-way:

Designated and proposed critical habitat for federal threatened and endangered species –

wind and geothermal projects would be excluded from these areas under Alternative B 

and avoided under Alternatives C and D. Solar projects would be excluded from these 

areas under Alternatives B, C, and D.

Habitat for federally listed/proposed threatened and endangered species for which critical 

habitat has not been designated – wind and geothermal projects would be excluded from 

these areas under Alternative B and avoided under Alternatives C and D. Solar projects 

would be excluded from these areas under Alternatives B and C. Solar projects would be 

avoided in these areas under Alternative D.

BLM sensitive plant and animal species habitat (including rare plants) – wind and 

geothermal projects would be excluded from these areas under Alternative B and avoided 

under Alternatives C and D. Solar projects would be excluded from these areas under 

Alternatives B and C. Solar projects would be avoided in these areas under Alternative D.

Federal candidate species habitat – wind and geothermal projects would be excluded 

from these areas under Alternative B and avoided under Alternatives C and D. Solar 

projects would be excluded from these areas under Alternatives B and C. Solar projects 

would be avoided in these areas under Alternative D.

State-listed crucial and sensitive habitats – wind and geothermal projects would be 

excluded from these areas under Alternative B and avoided under Alternatives C and D. 

Solar projects would be excluded from these areas under Alternatives B and C. Solar 

projects would be avoided in these areas under Alternative D.

4.2.11.2.10 Riparian Resources Decisions

There are many goals shared by the riparian and special status species programs, the main one 

being the protection, restoration, and enhancement of riparian ecosystems and biodiversity. 

Many special status species are riparian obligate or facultative species that heavily rely on 

riparian habitat for parts or all of their life cycle. Due to this close association, riparian resources 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-231

management decisions would have beneficial impacts to special-status species in the Planning 

Area. The riparian/wetland areas within the Planning Area support twenty-three special-status 

species including the Endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Under Alternatives B and C, 

a leasing stipulation is proposed for protection of riparian resources. Under Alternative B, 

surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited within 200 meters (656 feet) of the channels of 

ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams, or within 200 meters (656 feet) of the outer 

margins of riparian and wetland areas. Under Alternative C, surface-disturbing activities would 

be subject to restrictions within 200 meters (656 feet) of the channels of ephemeral, intermittent, 

and perennial streams, or within 200 meters (656 feet) of the outer margins of riparian and 

wetland areas. No leasing stipulations are proposed for riparian resources under Alternatives A 

and D. Alternatives B and C would have beneficial impacts on riparian resources because they 

would protect riparian habitat from surface-disturbing activities.

4.2.11.2.11 Special-status Species Decisions

Under all alternatives, no management action would be permitted on public lands that would 

jeopardize the continued existence of plant or animal species that are listed, officially proposed, 

or candidates for listing as threatened and endangered. The BLM would commit to current and 

future conservation agreements, management plans, and recovery plans specific to threatened 

and endangered species and BLM sensitive species, as described in the Special-status Species 

section of Table 2.58 (in Chapter 2). 

To support future black-footed ferret reintroductions, the Gunnison prairie dog would be 

protected under Alternatives B, C, and D. Under Alternative B, the RPFO would protect prairie 

dogs on BLM land by restricting shooting in identified augmented prairie dog sites year-round. 

Under Alternative C, the RPFO would protect prairie dogs on BLM land during the breeding 

season (Mar 15–June 15) by restricting shooting in identified augmented prairie dog areas. In 

addition, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be strictly controlled within 0.5 mile 

(Alternative B), 0.25 mile (Alternative C), and within (Alternative D) prairie dog towns if an 

activity would adversely impact prairie dogs and/or associated species. Selection of any of these 

alternatives would have beneficial impacts on prairie dogs, and indirectly may benefit blackfooted ferrets in the long term. However, Alternative B would have the most beneficial impacts. 

Under management common to all alternatives for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, the 

BLM would implement the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002), and 

engage in active riparian restoration and enhancement projects aimed at increasing and 

improving occupied, suitable, and potential breeding habitat. The BLM would also prioritize the 

treatment of noxious and invasive species within potential SWFL habitat. Treatment of saltcedar

in known or potential nesting flycatcher habitat would have adverse impacts on nesting 

flycatchers because the species is now known to nest in saltcedar successfully. Contrary to 

previous notions, saltcedar actually does provide adequate and optimal nesting substrate for the 

species, and nesting flycatchers have been observed in sites occupied by both saltcedar and 

willows. To protect special-status plants, the BLM would design placement of water 

developments and salt and mineral supplements for livestock at 0.25 mile (Alternative B), 500 

feet (Alternative C), or 300 feet (Alternative D) away from known locations of special-status 

plants. The beneficial impacts of these actions include deterring livestock congregation from 

occurring on special status plant populations and/or habitat. The further away water 

developments and mineral supplements are located away from these sensitive populations, the 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-232

less likely these populations are to be trampled by livestock. The BLM would consider the 

impacts of a concentration of browsing/grazing animals on known locations of special-status 

plants.

4.2.11.2.12 Soil and Water Decisions

Under all alternatives, soils and water management decisions would comply with New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001). In addition, all floodplains and riparian/wetlands would 

be managed in accordance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, which would protect the 

quality of stream water and federally listed species habitat. Uses on BLM lands in the Planning 

Area would be managed to minimize and mitigate damage to soils, and activities located in areas 

with sensitive soils would be subject to site-specific NEPA analysis. These restrictions would 

decrease the number of acres on BLM lands in the Planning Area subject to the adverse impacts 

of surface-disturbing activities on wildlife habitats, including surface water contamination and 

sedimentation by runoff from disturbed soils.

Under Alternatives B and C, the RPFO would prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 200 

meters (656 feet) of riparian areas and springs. Oil and gas leasing stipulations would implement 

CSU for 15% to 30% slopes, NSO for slopes over 30%, and CSU for low reclamation soils. 

These actions would help mitigate the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities to specialstatus species and their habitats. 

4.2.11.2.13 Special Designations Decisions

Special designation areas, such as ACECs, would generally have long-term positive impacts to 

special-status species that occur within their boundaries by limiting or preventing surface 

disturbance, human activities, and associated habitat degradation and fragmentation. Impacts to 

special-status species vary among alternatives primarily according to the proposed acreage of 

these specifically designated areas. 

Four ACECs are proposed for designation in order to protect rare plants. The Cabezon Peak, 

Espinosa Ridge, and Torreon Fossil Fauna ACECs would be designated under all alternatives. 

The Ojito ACEC would be designated under Alternatives A, B, and C. Table 4.87 provides the 

size of proposed ACECs for special-status species, specifically rare plants, by alternative. 

Alternative B would provide the greatest number of acres of special designations for specialstatus species and Alternative D would provide the smallest number of acres. 

Table 4.87: Proposed ACECs (acres) for the Protection of Special-Status Species, by Alternative

Proposed ACEC Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Cabezon Peak 5,765 17,150 17,150 6,984

Espinosa Ridge 

(formerly Ball Ranch) 1,478 10,295 7,687 1,478

Ojito 16,310 16,310 6,454 0

Torreon Fossil Fauna 6,488 6,488 6,488 6,488

Total 30,041 50,243 37,779 14,950 

ACEC designations would indirectly benefit special-status species by limiting human and 

surface disturbance, preserving habitat, or preventing noise. Where established, ACECs would 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-233

be avoidance areas for rights-of-way and renewable energy developments, including wind, solar 

energy, and geothermal sites. Prohibiting these uses within ACECs would prevent adverse 

impacts to special-status species and migratory birds related to these developments and their 

implications for surface disturbance and habitat loss/fragmentation. The designation of ACECs 

could potentially increase recreational use in those areas, resulting in increased impacts to 

special-status species and their habitat. Increased interpretation, monitoring, maintenance, and 

enforcement along proposed ACECs by the BLM and interested partners would strive to 

minimize existing or additional impacts to special-status species from recreational use. However,

these impacts would be carefully considered in greater detail at the implementation level based 

on the type of recreation that is expected to occur and the sensitivity level of the special status 

species or habitat in question to that specific recreation type. ACECs are not designated for 

recreational purposes, but because of their unique nature, have a higher probability of becoming 

points of interest to recreational users. Disclosing information about sensitive areas to the public 

can be a risk due to the possible heightened interest and consequential increase of recreational 

interest and visitation to those areas. 

Table 4.88: Proposed ACECs (acres) on BLM Lands in the Planning Area, by Habitat Type and 

Alternativeshows the proposed ACECs designations by habitat type on BLM lands in the 

Planning Area.

Table 4.88: Proposed ACECs (acres) on BLM Lands in the Planning Area, by Habitat Type and Alternative

Vegetation/Habitat 

Type

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Aquatic 1 6 6 5

Grassland 11,335 22,102 19,650 6,321

Other 2,133 11,757 11,603 4,759

Piñon-juniper 7,081 42,105 41,953 11,659

Ponderosa pine 12 2,954 2,954 12

Riparian/Wetland 55 1,185 1,183 175

Shrub, steppe, scrub 25,635 53,385 45,818 14,789

Total ACEC acres 46,252 133,494 123,167 37,720

Percent of BLM 

lands in the 

Planning Area

6% 18% 17% 5%

4.2.11.2.14 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions

Alternatives B proposes to manage 37,514 acres of land to protect wilderness characteristics, 

while Alternative C would manage 26,110 acres to protect wilderness characteristics and 4,075 

acres of lands to partially protect wilderness characteristics. These alternatives would generally 

benefit special-status species by reducing habitat degradation and fragmentation, with 

Alternative B having a more beneficial impact because more acres would be protected from 

surface-disturbing activities. Protection of lands with wilderness characteristics under 

Alternatives B and C includes limiting vehicle access and excluding or avoiding new rights-ofway and renewable energy developments. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-234

Table 4.89 displays the proposed lands that would be managed to protect or partially protect 

wilderness characteristics, by habitat type.

Volcano Hill and Cimarron Mesa are mostly comprised of short to medium shrubby, grasslands. 

There are small sections within Cimarron Mesa that are piñon-juniper woodlands, lightly to 

moderately dense. Neither of these habitat types is suitable for either area’s two known T & E 

species with critical habitat requirements, the Pecos Sunflower and the Mexican Spotted Owl. 

Due to the lack of suitable habitat in either Volcano Hill or Cimarron Mesa, it is not expected 

that there will be any impacts to T & E species. Some Bureau Sensitive plant species are known 

to occur in these habitat types and would be adversely impacted under Alternative A due to the 

open travel area at Cimarron Mesa. This use would have adverse impacts on rare plants due to 

direct disturbance of vegetation by vehicular travel. 

Table 4.89: Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (acres), by Habitat Type

Vegetation/Habitat 

Type

Petaca 

Pinta A

Ignacio 

Chavez A

Ignacio 

Chavez B

Ignacio 

Chavez C

Chamisa 

E

Volcano 

Hill

Cimarron 

Mesa

Aquatic 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 

Grassland 0 811 440 17 0 3,972 538 

Other 0 102 32 0 4 11,539 5,540 

Piñon-juniper 0 6 54 0 1,233 1,017 671 

Ponderosa pine 0 0 0 0 559 0 0 

Riparian/Wetland 0 0 0 0 200 26 3 

Shrub, steppe, scrub 38 1,543 1,014 55 243 7,274 575 

Total 38 2,462 1,541 72 2,239 23,833 7,329

4.2.11.2.15 Travel Management Decisions

The impacts of travel decisions on special-status species would primarily depend on the number 

of acres open and closed to motorized travel use under each alternative. Motorized travel use 

can cause damage to vegetation used as wildlife forage and cover, as well as cause noise 

disturbance. OHV use therefore generally has adverse impacts to special-status species, 

especially birds, in the Planning Area (Reijnen and Foppen 1994; Gelbard and Belnap 2003). 

Areas closed to OHV use would include some WSAs. OHV use also contributes to habitat 

fragmentation and habitat degradation, including the spread of noxious weeds. Habitat 

fragmentation may be less obvious than direct impacts such as vehicle collisions with species or 

vegetation removal, but often carries considerable consequences for long-term population and 

reproductive success. In general, the fewer routes available for motorized travel, the less habitat 

loss and/or fragmentation that would occur. Table. 4.90 shows the proposed acreages closed to 

travel on BLM lands in the Planning Area. 

Table 4.90: Closed Areas of BLM lands within the Planning Area by Alternative (acres)

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Aquatic 2 34 13 7

Grassland 5,672 28,775 19,820 15,751

Other 824 24,434 16,966 5,487
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-235

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Piñon-juniper 1,142 45,084 33,219 32,185

Ponderosa pine 0 3,233 2,891 2,891

Riparian/Wetland 85 1,246 1,081 1,043

Shrub, steppe, scrub 12,591 74,434 50,085 42,759

Total 20,316 177,240 124,075 100,123

Percent of BLM lands in 

the Planning Area 3% 24% 17% 13%

4.2.11.2.16 Vegetative Communities Decisions

Vegetative treatment could result in improvements to habitat that may benefit special-status 

species, with the assumption such treatments are carefully prescribed and carried out with 

specific special status species objectives in mind. Sagebrush thinning treatments that provide 

minimal disturbance to soils, including the use of prescribed fire, chemical treatments, or 

mechanical blading (shaving), could increase vegetative diversity, providing greater habitat 

choices to a variety of species. However, special status species dependent on or utilizing 

sagebrush ecosystems would suffer from eradication of sagebrush in areas treated by the aerial 

application of chemical herbicides. Piñon-juniper thinning, either through prescribed fire or 

mechanical means, would allow more sunlight and water to reach the understory for grass and 

forb growth and increased vegetative diversity and structure, which provide additional habitat for 

more species of animals. Type conversion Over-thinning of piñon-juniper woodlands to 

grasslands would have an adverse impact to piñon-juniper obligate species.

Vegetative treatments, to reduce noxious or invasive species, such as saltcedar, cheatgrass, 

thistles, or knapweeds, would be beneficial to special-status species habitat because treatments 

restore native plant communities and improve ecological health of the area. This determination 

relies on the assumption that treatments to control or eradicate noxious or invasive species are 

followed by actions that encourage re-establishment or reintroduction of native desired plant 

species, and re-establishment of noxious/invasive species is discouraged or prevented. 

Vegetative treatments of saltcedar could result in short-term adverse impacts to nesting specialstatus bird species. For example, southwestern willow flycatchers are known to nest in saltcedar. 

Under all alternatives, projects involving treatment of saltcedar in known southwestern willow 

flycatcher habitat would require consultation with the USFWS. Prescribed fire would likely 

result in the temporary loss of habitat, but would have beneficial impacts in the long term. 

All alternatives could benefit special-status species habitat by using prescribed burning, planting 

native seed when possible and where beneficial to the habitat, and establishing natural 

disturbance regimes across the landscape to increase biodiversity and structure diversity, adding 

long-term benefits to habitat for as many species as possible.

4.2.11.2.17 Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions

Wildlife and fisheries improvement projects would have beneficial impacts to special-status 

species if planned and conducted consistently with special status species habitat improvement 

objectives. Accessible watering sites and wildlife-adapted fences would improve the mobility of 

special-status species. Conversely,, it is possible that wildlife improvements, such as vegetation
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-236

treatments, for one particular species would adversely impact another species. Site-specific 

NEPA documentation would be completed before habitat improvement projects are approved by 

the RPFO, and impacts to special-status species from other wildlife improvement projects would 

be analyzed at that time. Many decisions common to all alternatives that are aimed at protection 

of wildlife and fisheries would have beneficial impacts on special status species. They include, 

but are not limited to the following:

The BLM would design all range and watershed improvements to achieve range, 

watershed, and wildlife objectives for maintaining, improving or enhancing habitats.

The BLM would install wildlife escape ramps in all new and existing water tanks or 

troughs. 

The BLM would require all new power lines to be built to “electrocution-proof” 

specifications for protection of migratory birds, using the Suggested Practices for Avian 

Protection on Power Lines (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, 2006).

4.1.1.1.1 Visual Resource Management Decisions

The BLM would implement prairie dog augmentation in support of the black-footed ferret 

Recovery Plan, but that would support other special status species that depend on or utilize 

prairie dog ecosystems or populations for all or a part of their life cycle. Visual Resources 

Decisions

The impacts to special-status species from visual resources decisions are primarily associated 

with limitations on surface disturbance intended to reduce impacts to areas with high visual 

resource values. VRM Class I and II designations are the most restrictive of oil and gas

development and other surface-disturbing activities and would therefore be the most beneficial to 

special-status species and their habitats. In areas designated as VRM Class I or II, surfacedisturbing activities are generally prohibited or limited. Table 4.91 shows the proposed VRM 

classes in acres. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the most acres for VRM Class I would be 

proposed while Alternative A would propose the least. Alternative B would propose the most 

acres for VRM Class II, while Alternatives C and D would propose the least.

Table 4.91: Proposed VRM Classes (acres) for BLM Lands in the Planning Area

VRM Class Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

VRM I 97,646 97,296 97,474 97,516

VRM II 84,449 318,931 68,510 21,549

VRM III 61,789 27,529 80,931 83,050

VRM IV 153,250 300,631 497,471 542,272

Total 397,133 744,387 744,387 744,387

4.2.11.3 Cumulative Impacts

Reasonably foreseeable projects that could adversely impact special-status species include 

developments that would result in habitat loss or fragmentation. Mineral developments, new road 

projects, transmission lines, growth of urban areas, renewable energy projects, and other surfacedisturbing activities that occur on public, private, or tribal lands near the Planning Area could 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-237

remove species habitat. These projects, where specific project areas are known, account for 

approximately 6,000 acres of habitat disturbance.

Beneficial cumulative impacts to special-status species would occur from such restoration 

projects as the Southwest Jemez Mountains Restoration Project, the Valles Caldera Landscape 

Restoration and Management Plan, statewide fuel treatments, and riparian restoration projects. 

These projects would lead to restored native ecosystems that could support special-status species 

and provide improved habitat areas for seasonal migrations. The planning area for these projects 

account for approximately 500,000 acres of forest restoration within and near the RMP Planning 

Area. The BLM estimates that federal and state agencies would treat up to 206,800 acres with 

prescribed fire, 35,900 acres with mechanical treatments, and 10,000 acres with chemical

treatments over 20 years (BLM 2004). The Southwest Jemez Mountains Restoration Project and 

Valles Caldera Landscape Restoration Plan are currently in the planning phases; the specific 

treatment areas are unknown at this time. The planning area for the projects is approximately 

210,000 acres in the southwest Jemez Mountains. 

4.1.2Travel Management

Travel management affects a variety of travel modes and opportunities for access to public lands. 

The alternatives vary in providing motorized and non-motorized access. Motorized access 

would be managed under four possible categories based on BLM land use planning decisions 

considering natural resource protection, route utility, and public safety: 1) open, which allows for 

unlimited travel, including cross country; 2) limited to designated routes, and 3) closed to 

motorized use. The fourth category, limited to existing routes, serves as an interim category 

applied to areas where inventories and subsequent designations have not been completed. 

The indicators for analyzing impacts to travel are:

Efficacy of road and trail densities to support goals related to conservation of scenic 

quality or sensitive habitat management or to accommodate certain uses. 

Whether the road provides access to an important destination; provides access to private, 

state, or other federal lands; or is critical for recreation and resource use activities.

The number of acres designated as open, closed, or limited to existing routes for 

recreation opportunities and access. 

4.2.11.4 Direct and Indirect Impacts

4.2.11.4.1 Travel Designations Decisions

Travel areas classified as open or limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails would 

allow all forms of travel (i.e., motorized, mountain biking, and non-mechanized hiking and 

equestrian), which would have beneficial impacts to travel by providing opportunities for a wide 

range of travel modes. Areas closed to motorized travel would adversely affect travel because of 

the reduced opportunities for motorized access to areas on BLM lands within the Planning Area. 

The number of acres designated as open, limited, or closed to travel are shown in Table 4.92. 

Under Alternative B, the most acres would be closed to motorized travel and the least acres, 

along with Alternative A, would be open to motorized travel. Under Alternative A, the least 

number of acres would be closed to motorized travel. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-238

Table 4.92: Proposed Travel Management Categories (acres), by Alternative

Category Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Open 303,580 4,551 18,269 19,456

Limited 420,491 562,596 602,043 624,808

Closed 20,316 177,240 124,075 100,123

Total 744,387 744,387 744,387 744,387

4.2.11.5 Cumulative Impacts

Reasonably foreseeable future actions impacting travel management include the addition of 

routes for fire and fuels management to reduce the risks of wildland fire, new minerals 

exploration and development routes, increased recreational demand and visitation by adding new 

routes, and other changes in travel management. The proposed N55 Road Improvement Project 

and Northwest Loop Road would impact travel management within the Planning Area. The N55 

Road would improve an existing route in the Planning Area by paving and improving the 

engineered aspects of the road. This would beneficially impact travel in the vicinity of the road 

because the public and local landowners would have improved access to their land, grazing 

allotments, and other resources in the area. The length of the proposed N55 Road Improvement 

Project is approximately 31 miles. The Northwest Loop Road, approximately 39 miles, would 

also beneficially impact travel within the Planning Area. The public would have decreased travel 

times within the project vicinity. It is anticipated that at least 45 to 60 minutes of travel time 

between Interstate 40 and U.S. Highway 550 could be saved by the proposed Northwest Loop 

Road. 

Transportation and road networks adjacent to BLM lands include routes shared with other 

federal agencies, the SLO, tribes, and private landowners. Cumulative impacts to transportation 

and access would occur primarily from actions that facilitate, restrict, or preclude motorized 

access. Management actions that restrict OHV use would limit the degree of travel opportunities 

and the ability to access certain portions of the Planning Area. The continued maintenance of 

federal and state highways would provide arterial connections to BLM roads. County-maintained 

routes that connect federal and state highways to BLM-system routes would maintain and 

improve access to resources in the Planning Area.

The RPFO has reviewed the travel management plans for the neighboring Santa Fe and Cibola 

National Forests. The cumulative impacts of travel management decisions in the these plans, as 

well as other jurisdictions, would have beneficial cumulative effects on recreational and visitor 

services when travel management decisions by other agencies support the proposed travel 

management decisions in this RMP/EIS, especially for shared roads. For example, if the U.S. 

Forest Service shares management of a road with the RPFO, and the travel management 

decisions for how to manage the road are the same (i.e., agencies manage a road as limited to 

existing), this would lead to beneficial impacts to recreation. In this case, recreation user groups 

would have consistent access to public lands. The Santa Fe National Forest would open 186 

miles of road that is currently not open, would close 2,469 miles of road to motorized use, and 

would add 23 miles of new routes. The Mt. Taylor Ranger District, within the Cibola National 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-239

Forest, would open 98 miles of road that are currently closed or unauthorized and would close 

465 miles of roads to motorized use.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-240

Map-089-Travel Designations A
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-241

Map-090-Travel Designations B
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-242

Map-091-Travel Designations C
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-243

Map-092-Travel Designations D
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-244

4.2.12 Vegetative Communities

For the purposes of this DRMP/DEIS, the primary indicator of impacts to vegetation is the acres 

of surface disturbance caused by management decisions regarding other resources. Such surface 

disturbance would impact vegetation resources to varying degrees, depending on the amount, 

location, and type of surface disturbance and the disturbed vegetation’s characteristics or ability 

to withstand surface disturbance. Surface-disturbing activities that currently occur and that are 

expected to continue include livestock grazing, lands and realty (granting of rights-of-way), fire 

and fuels management, special designations, minerals development, travel management, and 

recreation and visitor services. These activities would be required to follow the BMPs outlined 

in Appendix G.

4.2.12.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

4.2.12.1.1 Livestock Grazing Decisions

Livestock grazing management decisions would have both adverse and beneficial impacts to 

vegetative communities within the Planning Area. In general, making areas unavailable for 

grazing would provide long-term protection and enhancement of vegetation because it would 

limit the loss of vegetative cover and the trampling of species. Areas available for livestock 

grazing generally suffer some short-term adverse impacts from decreased growth or loss of 

riparian and other vegetation. Livestock grazing could provide beneficial impacts to vegetative 

communities by controlling the spread of noxious and invasive weeds when the appropriate 

timing and intensity of grazing in applied in the spring.

Under all alternatives, livestock grazing would be managed in order to achieve and maintain the 

New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001). Under these guidelines, the PFC of 

wetlands and riparian areas would be promoted, the use and perpetuation of native species would 

be emphasized, noxious weed establishment and spread would be minimized, and adjustments 

would be made to grazing practices when vegetation PFC is not being met. The New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines would mitigate the impacts of livestock grazing to vegetation 

resources; however, the potential for impacts still exists and would be greater under alternatives 

with a higher percentage of lands available for grazing. 

4.2.12.1.2 Lands and Realty Decisions

Lands and realty management decisions that have the potential to have adverse impacts to 

vegetation would result from authorizations of right-of-way grants and the expansion or 

development of utility corridors. These actions would create surface disturbances of various 

magnitudes depending on the size and location of the project. Surface impacts from construction 

of communication facilities, transmission lines, pipelines, and roads would be disclosed in sitespecific NEPA documentation. There would also be potential for the introduction of noxious or 

invasive plant species via construction equipment, vehicles, and personnel. However, the 

adverse impacts would be mitigated through BMPs, noxious weed controls, and restoration and 

rehabilitation measures. Lands and realty decisions that would also adversely impact vegetative 

communities would be those decisions to dispose of BLM lands thus removing the vegetative 

communities from BLM administration and protective measures. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-245

Beneficial impacts would result from identification of exclusion and avoidance areas for rightsof-way and mineral withdrawals. Exclusion areas would offer greater protections for vegetation

than avoidance areas because they would completely preclude surface-disturbing activities. 

4.2.12.1.3 Fire Management Decisions

Under all alternatives, the Fire and Fuels Plan Amendment would be implemented in fire-related 

actions (BLM 2004). As discussed in Section 4.2.4 Fire Management, the RPFO would treat 

approximately 32,000 acres annually (approximately 4% of the Planning Area), depending on 

budgetary and time constraints. Wildland fire use would not be authorized in areas that are 

known to be highly susceptible to post-fire weed invasion, areas with important terrestrial and 

aquatic habitats, and non-fire-adapted vegetation communities unless reasonable resource 

protection measures are in place. These actions would have long-term beneficial impacts to 

vegetation by reducing the opportunities for the spread of weeds and exotic, invasive species into 

native vegetation communities.

Vegetation treatments such as mechanical and manual treatments, prescribed fire, chemical or 

biological vegetation control, and aerial/ground seeding would have both beneficial and adverse 

impacts to vegetation communities in fire-treated areas. Long-term beneficial impacts to 

vegetation would occur in treated areas once invasive species competition is eliminated or 

reduced, assuming that a diverse native community has the potential to establish in the area. The 

short-term adverse impacts of fuels management actions on vegetation would include the 

unavoidable potential trampling and disturbance of native species and the thinning and removal 

of ecologically desirable species. These actions could result in a short-term adverse reduction of 

native species diversity. However, these treatments would improve vegetation communities in 

the long term once natives are re-established. These beneficial impacts would include more 

diverse species and habitat structure, multiple age classes, and openings for forbs and woody 

species recruitment. 

4.2.12.1.4 Special Designations Decisions

Special designations would have a beneficial impact to vegetative communities because of 

management restrictions that are applied within the boundaries of the particular designation. 

Travel and mineral resource management decisions are the two major surface-disturbing 

activities that would be restricted within special designations and that also indirectly protect 

vegetative communities. ACECs and National Scenic Trails are the two special designations that 

are proposed in the DRMP/DEIS. The only National Scenic Trail on BLM lands within the 

Planning Area is the CDT. Table 4.93 provides the proposed number and acres of special 

designations, by alternative. Under Alternative B, the most acres would be proposed for special 

designations. Under Alternative D, the least number of acres would be proposed for special 

designations.

Table 4.93: Proposed Special Designations (number and acres) with the Planning Area, by Alternative

Special Designations Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

ACEC 10 ACECs

53,765 acres

18 ACECs

149,974 acres

18 ACECs

137,029 acres

11 ACECs

42,899 acres

WSA/Wilderness Area 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963 acres
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-246

Special Designations Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

CDNST

1 trail

11,474 acres

1 trail

38,808 acre

1 trail

23,607 acres

1 trail

11,474 acres

Total special designations in 

Planning Area 137,720 acres 185,625 acres 178,000 acres 126,392 acres

4.2.12.1.5 Mineral Resources Decisions

Management decisions to allow mineral development would have short- and long-term adverse 

impacts to vegetative communities. In the short term, loss of vegetation associated with surface 

disturbances for well pads, access roads, and minerals infrastructure would increase the potential 

for invasion of undesirable plant species, and cause a potentially irretrievable loss of vegetation 

productivity during the period of disturbance though all disturbed areas will be fully reclaimed 

prior to release of bonds.

According to the RFD for mineral resources, development of leasable, saleable, and locatable 

mineral resources would contribute to surface disturbance equating to 1.1% of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area over the next twenty years. The typically slow regrowth of vegetation within the 

Planning Area would cause surface disturbance to have long-term, indirect, adverse impacts to 

vegetation resources. Initial establishment of native species following seeding is estimated to 

take three to four years, depending on the successful deferment or exclusion of livestock grazing

and the prevention of the establishment of weedy annuals from the site during this time (Monsen 

et al. 2004). Revegetation is especially difficult in desert shrub habitat, because soils are shallow 

and highly saline, and moisture availability is relatively low (Monsen et al. 2004). Three leasing 

stipulations are proposed under Alternatives B and C that would protect vegetative communities. 

The lease reclamation stipulation would require leases containing well pads, roads, and/or 

facilities that are not plugged and/or reclaimed to current standards must be either put to 

beneficial uses or reclaimed within two years of lease issuance. The RPFO would also 

implement a NSO leasing stipulation that would prohibit the removal of ponderosa pine trees for 

authorized surface-disturbing activities. Under Alternatives B and C, oil and gas leasing 

stipulations would implement CSU for low reclamation soils. This stipulation would have a 

beneficial impact to vegetative communities because it would help preserve communities that are 

difficult to re-create by restriction oil and gas development in low reclamation potential areas. In 

addition, under Alternative B, habitat areas for special-status plant species that are located in low 

reclamation potential soils would be closed to oil and gas leasing. 

4.2.12.1.6 Travel Management Decisions

Travel management decisions would have both beneficial and adverse impacts to vegetative 

communities. Areas closed to motorized travel would reduce trampling activities on the closed 

BLM roads and trails, thereby encouraging revegetation of the roadways. Areas open to travel 

have the potential to adversely impact vegetative communities by allowing off-road travel to 

occur, which could introduce invasive and noxious weeds to these areas. Areas limiting travel to 

existing roads and trails would provide access to BLM lands within the Planning Area while 

minimizing adverse impacts to vegetative communities. Table 4.94 shows the proposed travel 

management decisions, by alternative, within the Planning Area. Under Alternative B, the 

largest number of acres would be closed to motorized travel and no areas would be open to 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-247

motorized travel. Under Alternatives C and D, the most acres would be open to motorized 

travel. 

Table 4.94: Proposed Travel Management Decisions (acres) on BLM Lands within the Planning Area, by 

Alternative

Category Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Open 303,580 4,551 18,269 19,456 

Limited 420,491 562,596 602,043 624,808 

Closed 20,316 177,240 124,075 100,123 

Total 744,387 744,387 744,387 744,387 

4.1.2.1.1 Recreation and Visitor Services Decisions

In general impacts from recreation activities on vegetative communities would be limited to 

isolated surface disturbances where activities such as dispersed camping and cross-country 

hiking occur. Where recreation is managed using a SRMA or ERMA, BLM rules and guidelines 

would limit or control activities through specialized management tools such as designated 

campsites, permits, area closures, and limitations on number of users and duration of use. 

Adverse impacts from recreation activities on vegetative communities could occur if visitors 

engage in unauthorized plant harvesting, such as the removal of rare plants, cacti, or penstemon 

plants. In addition, efforts would be made to educate public land visitors and users about the 

ethics of responsible use.

4.2.12.1.7 Renewable Energy

Lands and realty management decisions that have the potential to have adverse impacts to 

vegetation would result from authorizations of renewable energy projects. These actions would 

create surface disturbances of various magnitudes depending on the size and location of the 

project. Surface impacts from construction for renewable energy development would be 

disclosed in site-specific NEPA documentation. There would also be potential for the 

introduction of noxious or invasive plant species via construction equipment, vehicles, and 

personnel. However, the adverse impacts would be mitigated through BMPs, noxious weed 

controls, and restoration and rehabilitation measures. 

Beneficial impacts would result from identification of exclusion and avoidance areas for 

renewable energy projects. Exclusion areas would offer greater protections for vegetation than 

avoidance areas because they would completely preclude surface-disturbing activities. 

4.2.12.2 Cumulative Impacts

Any reasonably foreseeable future activity that involves surface disturbance would have a shortterm cumulative impact to vegetative communities within the Planning Area. Mineral 

developments, new road projects, urban growth, renewable energy projects, and other surfacedisturbing activities that occur on public, private, or tribal lands within the Planning Area could 

introduce or spread noxious weeds within the Planning Area. Changes in land use could result in 

habitat loss for some vegetative species. The Desert Rock Power Plant, new transmission 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-248

corridors, the proposed N55 Road Improvement Project, new uranium mines, and the Northwest 

Loop Road could result in habitat fragmentation and habitat loss for vegetative species, including 

rare plants. The planning area for these projects account for approximately 500,000 acres of 

forest restoration within and near the RMP Planning Area. The BLM estimates that federal and 

state agencies would treat up to 206,800 acres with prescribed fire, 35,900 acres with mechanical 

treatments, and 10,000 acres with chemical treatments over 20 years (BLM 2004). The 

Southwest Jemez Mountains Restoration Project and Valles Caldera Landscape Restoration Plan 

are currently in the planning phases; the specific treatment areas are unknown at this time. The 

planning area for the projects is approximately 210,000 acres in the southwest Jemez Mountains. 

The proposed fire and fuels management projects, described in Table 4.3, would have short-term 

adverse and long-term beneficial impacts to vegetative communities. Short-term impacts include 

the risk of prescribed fires getting out of control and moving across the landscape into RPFOmanaged areas. In the long term the fire and fuel treatment projects would restore the native 

vegetative communities across the state, which would reduce the threat of high-intensity 

wildfires from moving into the Planning Area. Similarly, the Southwest Jemez Mountains 

Restoration Project and the Valles Caldera Landscape Restoration and Management Plan would 

also reduce the threat of high-intensity wildfires and reduce the potential spread of non-native

species across jurisdictional boundaries. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-249

Map-093-Level 3 Ecoregions
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-250

Map-094-MLRA
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-251

4.2.13 Visual Resources

The RPFO completed a BLM Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) in 2010 to determine the relative 

value of visual resources throughout the Planning Area and rate all lands with an assigned VRI 

class number. There are four VRI classes: Classes I and II represents the most or more valued 

visual resources, Class III represents moderate value, and Class IV represents the least valued

(see Table 4.95). These VRI class ratings are informational in nature and provide a basis for 

considering visual values in the RMP process. VRI class ratings, however, do not establish 

management direction and should not be used as the basis for constraining or limiting surfacedisturbing activities. 

Table 4.95: VRI for BLM lands in the Planning Area (acres)

VRI Class Acres Inventoried

VRI I 96,460

VRI II 1,222

VRI III 24,748

VRI IV 621,957

Total 744,387

In addition to completing a VRI, BLM is also required to designate all public lands with a VRM 

class objective to provide a management threshold or level of acceptable impacts to visual 

resources. The proposed VRM class objectives (see Table 4.96) reflect not only the VRI but also 

take into account other proposed resource allocations and needs that may/would result in future 

visual intrusions e.g., rights-of-way, recreation facilities, mineral leases, etc.

The following BLM VRM class objectives and descriptions are summarized from BLM Manual 

Handbook H-8431-1 (1986).

VRM Class I – The objective of VRM Class I is to preserve the existing character of the 

landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not 

preclude very limited management activities. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be very low and should not attract attention.

VRM Class II – The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the landscape should be low. Management activities 

may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes to 

the landscape must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the 

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

VRM Class III – The VRM Class III objective is to partially retain the existing character 

of the landscape. The level of change to the landscape should be moderate. Management 

activities may attract the attention of the casual observer, but should not dominate the 

view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the 

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

VRM Class IV – The objective of VRM Class IV is to provide for management activities 

that require major modifications to the existing character of the landscape. The level of 

change to the landscape can be high. The management activities may dominate the view 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-252

and may be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made 

to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, 

and repetition of the basic visual elements of form, line, color, and texture. 

4.2.13.1 Analysis Assumptions

The visual resource impact(s) analysis throughout this chapter is broad scale and uses the number 

of acres proposed for each VRM class objective and the respective level of visual intrusions or 

surface disturbances permitted under each objective.

The assumptions for analyzing the impacts to visual resources in the Planning Area are: 1) the 

greater the size and/or severity of surface disturbance and/or degree of air quality degradation, 

the greater the impact there would be to scenic quality; 2) all Planning Area resources with 

management actions that permit surface disturbances or degrade air quality would have adverse 

impacts to visual resources to some degree; 3) surface disturbances would introduce new visual 

elements onto the landscape or intensify existing visual elements, altering the line, form, color, 

and/or texture that characterize the existing landscape; and 4) changes in air quality, either from 

smoke, dust, haze, or other pollutants could potentially reduce or degrade scenic quality by 

obscuring distant views in the short and long term. 

4.2.13.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts

4.2.13.2.1 Visual Resource Decisions

VRM decisions would either have an adverse or beneficial impact to visual resources within the 

Planning Area depending on the variation between the visual resource inventory class and VRM 

management class for a particular area. Table 4.96 shows the proposed VRM management 

classes (in acres), by alternative. Please note that the VRM inventory and assigned management 

classes under the 1986 RMP and No Action Alternative did not include all BLM lands in the 

Planning Area. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the most acres for VRM Class I would be 

proposed while Alternative A would propose the least. Alternative B would propose the most 

acres for VRM Class II, while Alternatives C and D would propose the least.

Table 4.96: VRM Classes (acres), by Alternative

VRM Class Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

VRM I 97,646 97,296 97,474 97,516

VRM II 84,449 318,931 68,510 21,549

VRM III 61,789 27,529 80,931 83,050

VRM IV 153,250 300,631 497,471 542,272

Total 397,133 744,387 744,387 744,387

4.2.13.2.1.1 Impacts from Management Specific to Alternative A

Under Alternative A, nearly all VRI Class I acres would be in VRM Class I, resulting in 

preservation of the existing visual character of those lands. Less than 1% of VRI I acres would 

be in VRM Class II or VRM Class III, potentially resulting in only partially retaining the 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-253

character of those lands. Table 4-97 shows how much of each VRI class would be managed 

under each VRM class under Alternative A, both as acres and percentage of the VRI class.

Table 4.97: Alternative A VRM Decisions by VIR (acres and percent)

Alternative 

A VRM Acres

VRI Class I VRI Class II VRI Class III VRI Class IV Total

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres

VRM I 97,645 95,909 99 0 0 52 0 601 0 96,562

VRM II 84,449 379 0 50 4 2,890 12% 59,716 10 63,035

VRM III 61,789 78 0 0 0 0 0 61,711 10 61,789

VRM IV 153,250 0 0 0 0 2,545 10 150,705 24 153,250

Sum 397,133 86,590 100 50 4 5,487 22 272,733 44 374,636

*For Alternative A, the VRM class acreages do not match the acreages of the updated VRI because of 

changes in the Planning Area. As a result, the sum of the values within a column does not match the total 

VRI acres for each VRI class. 

4.2.13.2.1.2 Impacts from Management Specific to Alternative B

Under Alternative B, nearly all VRI Class I acres would be in VRM Class I, resulting in 

preservation of the existing visual character of those lands. Additionally, 13% of VRI Class I 

acres would be in VRM Class II. With regard to VRI Class II lands, 100% would be in VRM 

Class II, allowing a low level of change. Table 4-98 shows how much of each VRI class would 

be managed under each VRM class under Alternative B, both as acres and percentage of the VRI 

class.

Table 4.98: Alternative B VRM Decisions by VRI (acres and percent)

Alternative B 

VRM Acres

VRI Class I VRI Class II VRI Class III VRI Class IV TOTAL

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres

VRM I 97,296 96,329 100 0 0 0 0 967 0 97,296

VRM II 318,931 131 0 1,222 100 21,832 88 295,747 48 318,932

VRM III 27,529 0 0 0 0 642 3 26,887 4 27,529

VRM IV 300,631 0 0 0 0 2274 9 298,356 48 300,630

Sum 744,387 96,460 100 1,222 100 24,748 100 621,957 100 744,387

4.2.13.2.1.3 Impacts from Management Specific to Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, all VRI Class I acres would be in VRM Class I, resulting in preservation of 

the existing visual character of those lands. With regard to VRI Class II lands, 100% would be in 

VRM Class II, allowing a low level of change. Table 4-99 shows how much of each VRI class 

would be managed under each VRM class under Alternative C, both as acres and percentage of 

the VRI class.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-254

Table 4.99: Alternative C VRM Decisions by VRI (acres and percent)

Alternative C 

VRM Acres

VRI Class I VRI Class II VRI Class III VRI Class IV TOTAL

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres

VRM I 97,474 96,446 100 0 0 0 0 1,028 0 97,474

VRM II 685,11 6 0 49 4 7,891 32 60,565 10 68,511

VRM III 80,931 8 0 0 0 0 0 80,923 13 80,931

VRM IV 497,471 0 0 1,173 96 16,857 68 479,441 77 497,471

Sum 744,387 96,460 100 1,222 100 24,748 100 621,957 100 744,387

4.2.13.2.1.4 Impacts from Management Specific to Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, all VRI Class I acres would be in VRM Class I, resulting in preservation of 

the existing visual character of those lands. With regard to VRI Class II lands nearly all would 

be in VRM Class II, allowing a low level of change; and less than 1% would be in VRM Class 

IV, potentially resulting in a high level of change to those acres. Table 4-100 shows how much 

of each VRI class would be managed under each VRM class under Alternative D, both as acres 

and percentage of the VRI class.

Table 4.100: Alternative D VRM Decisions by VRI (acres and percent)

Alternative D 

VRM Acres

VRI Class I VRI Class II VRI Class III VRI Class IV TOTAL

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres

VRM I 97,516 96,44

6

10

0

0 0 0 0 1,070 0 97,516

VRM II 21,549 6 0 49 4 2,053 8 19,441 3 21,549

VRM III 83,050 0 0 0 0 12,314 50 70,736 11 83,050

VRM IV 542,272 8 0 1173 96 10,381 42 530,71

0

85 542,272

Sum 757,074 86,59

0

10

0

13,36

3

10

0

330,65

0

10

0

32,647

1

10

0

757,074

4.1.2.1.2 Fire Management Decisions

Short-term, direct impacts of prescribed burning would result in the obvious visual contrasts 

created in treated or burned over areas. Generally, the use of prescribed fire would have a longterm benefit on visual resources by decreasing the frequency, size, and opportunity for 

unmanaged and catastrophic wildland fire, thereby increasing the opportunity to maintain various 

mosaics of live vegetation that would, overall, tend to increase more desirable and naturally 

occurring visual contrasts.

4.1.2.1.3 Land Use Authorization Decisions

Impacts from land use authorizations and realty management decisions would include both short 

and long term visual impacts. These effects would include, but are not limited to, the short term 

effects of construction activities such as fugitive dust and temporary placement of construction 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-255

equipment and vehicles; and the undesirable, long term visual contrasts created by clearings, 

removal of vegetation, and installation of facilities such as new roads, water tanks, power 

transmission lines, etc. Areas identified for ROW avoidance and exclusion would reduce or 

prohibit related activities/disturbances resulting in the long-term protection of visual and scenic 

resources.

Minerals and hydrocarbon leasing would have direct and indirect adverse impacts on visual 

quality, both short and long term. The effects on visual quality would include, but not limited to, 

visual contrasts created with the construction of well pads, access roads, drilling rigs, pipelines, 

and processing and support facilities. Indirect impacts to visual quality would result from soil 

erosion on disturbed areas, fugitive dust created during construction, and/or haze from 

compressor and generator emissions that can obscure or degrade scenic vistas. Areas withdrawn 

or excluded from oil and gas leasing would eliminate associated impacts of mineral 

development, resulting in long term protection of visual and scenic resources.

4.1.2.1.4 Travel Management Decisions

Continued recreational OHV use would tend to cause both long and short-term adverse impacts 

to visual quality under all alternatives. Direct, long term impacts from motorized use would 

result from visual contrasts caused by pioneering of new routes, soil erosion and widening of 

trails, and the short term or temporary impacts resulting from vehicles generating localized dust. 

4.2.13.3 Cumulative Impacts

Mineral development, including oil and natural gas well drilling, is expected to increase at a low 

level over the next 20 years. VRM classes and associated mitigation would likely limit the 

impacts to viewsheds with high scenic quality in the Planning Area and in the adjacent National 

Forests. The proposed Desert Rock Power Plant could potential have long-term adverse impacts 

to visual resources within the Planning Area. Air pollution and haze from the plant could 

potentially be seen from within the Planning Area under certain weather conditions. The Red 

Mesa Wind Farm would also have long-term impacts to visual resources within the central 

portion of the Planning Area near Mount Taylor. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-256

Map-095-VRM A
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-257

Map-096-VRMB
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-258

Map-097-VRM C
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-259

Map-098-VRM D
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-260

4.2.14 Wildlife and Fisheries

Actions that remove, degrade, or fragment wildlife habitats are considered adverse. Beneficial 

impacts include actions that conserve or improve habitats, such as big game crucial winter range, 

nest sites, or leks.

Direct impacts to wildlife could result from the loss of habitats or key habitat features, such as a 

nest site or lek area, or from the immediate loss of life. Wildlife also can be directly disturbed by 

human activities, potentially causing wildlife to abandon a nest, lek, or home range. Disturbance 

during sensitive periods (e.g., winter, nesting) is known to adversely impact wildlife. Human 

activities, such as OHV use, recreation, and noise from equipment associated with development 

and surface-disturbing activities, impact some wildlife species. These activities are considered to 

be particularly detrimental to nesting and lekking grouse, nesting raptors, and wintering big 

game. Disturbance impacts range from short-term displacement and shifts in activities to longterm abandonment of home range (Yarmaloy et al. 1988; Miller et al. 1998; Connelly et al. 

2000).

Habitats can be lost and fragmented by activities such as vegetation treatments, fire management

and ecology, mineral exploration and extraction, construction and maintenance of roads and 

trails, and development of wind-energy facilities.

Indirect impacts to wildlife can occur by changing habitat characteristics or quality. Habitat 

quality can be impacted by various surface-disturbing activities and other actions that remove 

vegetation and disturb soil. Indirect impacts to potential habitats for wildlife also could occur. 

Activities on public lands that could result in adverse impacts to wildlife and fisheries

include, but are not limited to: Direct or indirect harm, harassment, or loss of an 

individual animal regardless of how long the impact may occur;

Toxic contamination of wildlife or the loss of habitat for populations to re-establish 

caused by toxic material either on the surface or below ground;

Short- or long-term loss or degradation of wildlife abundance, diversity, or habitat from 

impacts to key wildlife habitat areas;

Impacts from inadvertent violations of federal, state, or local plans, regulations, laws, and 

statutes for the protection of wildlife, regardless of how long the infraction may occur; 

and

Loss or degradation of wildlife habitat from introduction of invasive, non-native, or 

exotic flora or fauna. 

Avoidance is the preferred method to prevent loss or degradation to wildlife or habitat. If a 

measure to prevent the loss of habitat is not available, then an action (mitigation) would be 

designed to minimize impacts to all affected areas, including consideration of off-site mitigation 

and studies to determine the magnitude of impacts for adaptive resource management techniques, 

which would adjust management accordingly. Potential impacts from cave and karst resources, 

cultural resources, fire management, forests and woodlands, lands and realty, livestock grazing, 

mineral resources, recreation and visitor services, renewable energy, riparian resources, soil and 

water, lands with Wilderness characteristics, travel management, special designations, special-
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-261

status species, visual resource management, and wildlife management decisions are expected to 

impact wildlife and fisheries in the Planning Area. The adverse and beneficial impacts are 

described below for each resource.

4.2.14.1 Analysis Assumptions

Table 4.101 below summarizes the habitat types utilized by the representative wildlife species 

found on BLM lands in the Planning Area. These representative species were chosen for their 

high public interest, such as deer or elk, or because they represent an important ecological group, 

such as neotropical birds. Most of the quantitative analyses in this section report impacts by 

habitat type, since there are too many wildlife species to address each one individually. 

Assumptions used in this impact analysis include the following:

The BLM is responsible for managing habitats, whereas state and federal wildlife 

management agencies (e.g., NMDGF, USFWS) oversee management of wildlife species. 

Therefore, this analysis primarily relies on changes to vegetation types to estimate 

impacts to wildlife habitats.

For each alternative, changes to vegetation types, either in quantity, quality, or increased

fragmentation, are compared to baseline conditions. Adverse and beneficial impacts to 

vegetation types (i.e., wildlife habitats) are assumed to have a corresponding adverse or 

beneficial impact on wildlife species.

Disturbance impacts to wildlife are evaluated by comparison to current management 

practices in the planning area; increased protection in time or space are beneficial, where 

as reduced protection result in adverse impacts.

Disturbance during sensitive periods adversely impacts wildlife.

Habitat fragmentation adversely impacts wildlife.

Prescribed fire is a tool used to manage vegetative communities and can result in shortterm adverse impacts with long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats.

Management actions aimed at benefiting specific wildlife species can have adverse or 

beneficial impacts on other wildlife species.

Alternatives with a larger number of acres of surface water developed will exhibit a 

greater benefit to migratory game birds and other riparian/wetland wildlife species when 

compared to alternatives with smaller acreage of surface water developed.

The potential for adverse and beneficial impacts to wildlife is anticipated to be 

commensurate with the intensity of allotment monitoring and the amount of forage

utilization from livestock grazing in the planning area.

The more acreage of habitats protected from fragmentation, the greater the benefit to big 

game and other wildlife species. Alternatives proposing to protect the most habitats from 

fragmentation are anticipated to have the most beneficial impact on wildlife.

Prohibiting surface disturbance or occupancy is more restrictive and provides more 

protection for wildlife than avoiding surface disturbance or occupancy.

The more surface disturbance that occurs on steep slopes or on highly erosive soils, the 

greater the potential for adverse impacts to wildlife habitats.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-262

The more area used by OHVs and the higher the density of OHV use, the more adverse 

impacts are anticipated to wildlife habitats.

The BLM will utilize best available information, management and conservation plans, 

and other research and related directives, as appropriate, to guide wildlife habitat 

management on BLM administered lands.

All active grazing allotments will be managed in accordance with the conditions of the 

grazing permits.

Table 4.101: Grouping of Wildlife Species by Habitat Type and Habitat Availability on BLM lands within the 

Planning Area

Vegetation/Habitat Type Acres Wildlife Associations

Aquatic 435 Amphibians, fish

Grassland 156,708 Pronghorn, bobcat, coyote, small mammals, raptors, upland 

game birds, neotropical bird, reptiles, amphibians

Other 60,306

Piñon-juniper 177,521 Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, coyote, small mammals, 

neotropical birds, raptors, upland game birds, reptiles

Ponderosa pine 3,867 Elk, mule deer, bobcat, black bear, mountain lion, small 

mammals, raptors, neotropical birds, upland game birds, 

reptiles

Riparian/Wetland 3,664 Bobcat, small mammals, neotropical birds, wetland game 

birds, amphibian, fish, reptiles

Shrub, steppe, scrub 341,886 Mule deer, elk, pronghorn, raptors, small mammals, 

neotropical birds, upland game birds, reptiles

Total 744,387

4.2.14.2 Direct and Indirect Impacts

4.2.14.2.1 Cave and Karst Resources Decisions

Cave and karst resources management decisions would beneficially impact wildlife because

caves can provide unique habitat to wildlife, specifically roosting, maternity and hibernation 

habitat for bats. The Pronoun Cave Complex is the only known cave system on BLM lands 

within the Planning Area. A bat survey conducted in 1998 found eleven species of bats in the 

Planning Area, five of which were documented in or near the cave complex (Gannon et al. 

1998). The Pronoun Cave Complex would be protected through an ACEC designation under 

Alternatives A, B, and C; therefore, bat species and other wildlife that utilize the caves would be 

protected under these alternatives from such activities as oil & gas and renewable energy

development. Site-specific NEPA analysis would be completed for proposed actions that occur 

within or near the Pronoun Cave Complex. 

4.2.14.2.2 Cultural Resources Decisions

Cultural resources management decisions would have beneficial impacts to wildlife because of 

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities that directly protect cultural resources, and that would

indirectly protect wildlife habitat. There are four cultural resource areas, Big Bead Mesa, 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-263

Headcut Prehistoric Community, Azabache Station, Fort Site and Ojo Pueblo, which have 

proposed surface restrictions under various alternatives. The surface restrictions, which vary by 

alternative and are described in Chapter 2, could include NSO or CSU for leasable fluid 

minerals, avoid or close to saleable mineral extraction, and/or withdrawn from locatable mineral 

entry. Motorized travel is also generally limited to existing primitive roads and trails for these 

areas. Table 4.102 shows the number of acres for each cultural resource site that would have 

surface restrictions applied, by alternative.

Table 4.102: Proposed Cultural Resource Areas with Surface Restrictions (acres), by Alternative

Cultural Resource Area Alternative A

No Action Alternative B

Alternative 

C

Preferred

Alternative 

D

Big Bead Mesa 340 340 340 340

Headcut Prehistoric Community 960 1,280 1,280 960

Azabache Station 81 81 81 0

Fort Site and Ojo Pueblo 0 1,130 1,130 0

Total 1,381 2,831 2,831 1,300

4.2.14.2.3 Fire Management Decisions

Under all alternatives, the Fire and Fuels Plan Amendment would be implemented in fire-related 

actions (BLM 2004). Adherence with the Fire and Fuels Plan Amendment (which mandates the 

maintenance of existing healthy ecosystems and the protection of threatened, endangered, and 

special-status species) would have beneficial impacts to wildlife habitat on BLM lands in the 

Planning Area wherever wildlife habitat overlaps with that of protected special-status species and

would ensure that healthy ecosystems are not adversely impacted by fire management and fuels 

reduction. 

Fuels management actions include fuels reduction treatments on 32,000 acres annually. These 

actions include mechanical and manual treatments, prescribed fire, chemical or biological

vegetation control, and aerial/ground seeding. These fuels management decisions would likely 

have a beneficial long-term impact to wildlife and fish populations by helping to restore the 

natural fire regime, which would improve habitat health (Lewis and Harshbarger 1976), forage, 

nesting opportunities, and cover. Restoring the natural fire regime would also reduce the chance 

of catastrophic wildfire and the subsequent loss of major ecosystem components. In the short 

term, vegetation treatments could result in adverse impacts such as trampling or removal of 

wildlife forage and/or habitat and human-caused wildlife disturbance. Table 4.103 displays the 

number of acres proposed for fire management treatments within each habitat type. 

Table 4.103: Proposed Fire Management Treatments (acres), by Habitat Type 

Vegetation/Habitat Type Proposed Fire Management 

Treatments (acres)

Aquatic 95

Grassland 146,922

Other 19,594
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-264

Vegetation/Habitat Type Proposed Fire Management 

Treatments (acres)

Piñon-juniper 161,374

Ponderosa pine 3,825

Riparian/Wetland 3,554

Shrub, steppe, scrub 277,594

Total 612,958

Percent of BLM lands in 

the Planning Area 82%

4.2.14.2.4 Forests and Woodlands Decisions

Forest and woodland management decisions would impact wildlife because wildlife habitat 

would be open to forest products removal under each alternative. Adverse impacts to wildlife 

from the removal of forest products could include direct habitat loss, forage loss, habitat 

degradation, and habitat fragmentation. Short-term indirect, adverse impacts of wood gathering 

on wildlife species and their habitats include trampling and removal of native vegetation, which 

result in habitat degradation that can include reduced prey species, forage species, and cover. 

Indirect, adverse impacts of wood gathering to bird species would also include reduced 

reproductive opportunity due to removal of trees causing a decrease in nesting substrate.

Collection of dead and down fuelwood would also have adverse impacts to those wildlife species 

that utilize such habitats for all or a part of their life cycle. Fuelwood collection would also cause 

additional direct impacts such as increased illegal off-highway vehicle use. Monitoring data has 

shown a common occurrence of unauthorized off-highway vehicle use in areas open to fuelwood 

collection. This type of activity causes habitat loss and fragmentation and can cause nest 

abandonment during critical nesting periods.

Forest and woodland management decisions would have a beneficial impact to wildlife. The 

goals and objectives of the forests and woodlands program not only focus on harvesting of forest 

products, but also on managing forested areas for ecosystem health (including, but not limited to:

wildlife habitat, watershed process, and riparian restoration and enhancement). Forest 

restoration projects including those with forest product removal can be designed to improve 

habitat by favoring certain vegetation types over others, reducing tree densities, altering spatial 

distribution of trees or by reducing erosion and increasing herbaceous ground cover through lop 

and scatter of slash. Vegetative treatment would result in improvements to habitat that may 

benefit many wildlife species. Studies have shown that where dense stands of piñon-juniper have 

been thinned, understory vegetation increased dramatically on the heaviest thinned plots and the 

number of vegetation species present also increased significantly. Under all alternatives, the 

RPFO would consider the New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles (2006) and the New 

Mexico Forest and Watershed Health Plan (New Mexico Forest and Watershed Health Planning 

Committee 2004). Table 4.104 shows the proposed forest product harvest areas that would be 

available on BLM lands in the Planning Area, by habitat type and alternative.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-265

Table 4.104: Proposed Forest Product removal Areas (acres) within Habitat Types on BLM lands in the 

Planning Area, by Alternative 

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Aquatic 2 324 412 428

Grassland 865 29,095 123,840 140,964

Other 200 6,018 36,309 54,778

Piñon-juniper 5,543 22,395 133,074 145,273

Ponderosa pine 417 69 894 975

Riparian/Wetland 183 378 2,325 2,589

Shrub, steppe, scrub 4,976 61,156 263,467 299,125

Total 12,186 119,435 560,321 644,132

Percent of BLM lands in 

the Planning Area 2% 16% 75% 87%

4.2.14.2.5 Lands and Realty Decisions

Lands and realty management decisions that have the potential to have adverse impacts to 

wildlife and wildlife habitat would result from authorizations of right-of-way grants and the 

expansion or development of utility corridors. These actions would create surface disturbances 

of various magnitudes depending on the size and location of the project. Surface impacts from 

construction of communication facilities and other developments requiring a right-of-way would 

be disclosed in site-specific NEPA documentation, but generally result in habitat loss and 

fragmentation due to the clearing of vegetation for development of facilities such as 

communication towers, power lines, and placement of pipelines. New road construction is also 

typically associated with rights-of-way, due to the maintenance requirements of facilities. New 

road construction is a direct adverse impact of issuing rights of way, and causes long-term 

habitat loss, unless the roads can be rehabilitated post construction. There would also be 

potential for the introduction of noxious or invasive plant species via construction equipment, 

vehicles, and personnel. Although the adverse impacts would be mitigated through BMPs, 

noxious weed controls, and restoration and rehabilitation measures, mitigation does not 

guarantee the site will return to its pre-construction condition, and the risk of adversely 

impacting wildlife habitat is present. 

Lands and realty decisions would also adversely impact wildlife by those decisions to dispose of 

BLM lands. Disposal of lands could result in fragmentation of otherwise contiguous habitat, 

depending on land use and ownership patterns. By transferring lands to private ownership, 

development, and human activities, including introduction of domestic pets or livestock, could 

disturb wildlife or degrade adjacent habitat quality. Indirect impacts from land disposals could 

include disturbance to wildlife and degradation of habitat on those lands that remain in public 

ownership adjacent to the associated disposed lands. Land disposals surrounding urban areas 

could result in the potential elimination of a buffer zone protecting wildlife and wildlife habitats. 

Conversely, disposals have the possibility to coincide with acquisitions as part of a land swap, in 

which case can result in beneficial impacts in the form of acquiring more valuable/high quality 

habitat, and consolidating BLM land ownership for more effective wildlife habitat management. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-266

Table 4.105 displays the number of acres proposed for land disposal, by alternative. Under 

Alternative A, the most acres are proposed for disposal while under Alternative B, the least 

number of acres are proposed for disposal.

Table 4.105: Proposed Land Disposals (acres), by Alternative and Vegetation Type

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Aquatic 269 269 269 269

Grassland 14,377 14,429 14,723 15,897

Other/Not Classified 4,071 4,398 4,417 4,461

Piñon-juniper 24,937 26,155 26,867 26,867

Ponderosa pine 221 482 749 749

Riparian/Wetland 663 730 801 801

Shrub, steppe, scrub 10,846 11,009 11,084 13,007

Total 55,384 57,472 58,910 62,051

Beneficial impacts would result from land acquisitions and the identification of exclusion and 

avoidance areas for rights-of-way. Land acquisitions could result in the protection of specialstatus species habitat that may not otherwise occur if the land in question was managed by a 

private entity. Exclusion areas would offer greater protection for wildlife habitat than avoidance 

areas because they would completely preclude surface-disturbing activities. 

4.2.14.2.6 Livestock Grazing Decisions

Livestock grazing can have both adverse and beneficial impacts to wildlife. Livestock grazing 

could have adverse impacts on elk and mule deer due to foraging niche overlap with cattle 

(Torstenson et al., 2006). Livestock grazing could have adverse impacts on ground-nesting birds 

through trampling of nesting habitat (Fondel and Ball 2003and indirectly through increased 

parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Walsberg, 2005). 

Livestock grazing management decisions, including the continuing implementation of the New 

Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM, 2001) could benefit some wildlife habitat by promoting 

regrowth of forage species, reducing the prevalence of some invasive plants, and creating 

openings and disturbed areas used by some species. Other beneficial impacts from livestock

grazing for wildlife and wildlife habitat would occur when range improvements are implemented 

in the Planning Area. Wildlife use range improvements, such as watering tanks, when placed 

within or near their habitat. 

Under Alternative A, 22 allotments (16,833 acres, 1,907 AUMs) are in non-use status. Under 

Alternative B, these areas would be closed to authorized livestock grazing use. Under Alternative 

C, these areas would remain in non-use status until such time that conditions warrant 

authorization of livestock grazing (i.e., until the BLM receives an application for permit). 

Alternative B would have the most beneficial impacts to wildlife habitat because there would be 

no foraging niche overlap between wildlife species and livestock. Alternative C could have 

adverse impacts to wildlife because, in the event grazing permits are issued for those areas, 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-267

resource conflict could occur and wildlife would be in competition with livestock for forage and 

water resources

Under Alternative A, there are eight permitted grazing allotments (12,553 acres, 1,581 AUMs) in 

the southeast portion of Sandoval County that would be closed to grazing under Alternative B. 

Under Alternative C, six of the eight allotments would remain permitted, and two (totaling 64 

acres, 22 AUMs) would be leased until they are disposed of. Alternative B would have beneficial 

impacts to wildlife because there would be no foraging niche overlap between wildlife species 

and livestock. Alternative C could have adverse impacts to wildlife habitat because resource 

conflict could occur and wildlife would be in competition with livestock for forage and water 

resources.

Under Alternative A, 1,180 AUMs are in suspension until monitoring data determines the forage

can be available on a long-term sustainable basis. Under Alternative B, the BLM would close 

these AUMs, which would avoid foraging niche overlap with wildlife. Under Alternatives C and 

D, the BLM would reauthorize the suspended AUMs for livestock grazing under prescribed 

grazing management on allotments meeting the NM Standards and Guides (BLM 2001as shown 

by supporting monitoring data. Alternative B is the most beneficial decision for wildlife. 

Alternatives C and D could have adverse impacts on wildlife because resource conflict could 

occur. 

Under Alternative A, there are 149 allotments permitted for yearlong livestock grazing. Under 

Alternative B, BLM would convert those allotments to seasonal grazing systems. Under 

Alternative C, BLM would convert those allotments to seasonal grazing systems, as necessary, to 

make significant progress towards meeting the goals and objectives for livestock grazing. Under 

Alternative D, the BLM would convert allotments to yearlong or seasonal grazing systems in an 

attempt to provide flexibility in livestock management. Under all alternatives, the acres grazed 

and AUMs would remain the same, and only season of use would differ. In general, Alternative 

B would have the most beneficial impacts to wildlife because wildlife would be in competition 

with livestock only part of the year, rather than all year with yearlong grazing. Additionally, if 

the season of use is prescribed to maximize vegetative output, it would have positive 

implications for wildlife habitat. Alternatives C and D would have equivalent impacts to wildlife 

and wildlife habitat, with yearlong or seasonal grazing systems being implemented where they 

are necessary. If yearlong grazing is implemented on allotments, there could be an adverse 

impact on perennial plants because reproduction could be limited by year-round foraging, 

possibly resulting in a loss of favored native plant species. The loss of these species could allow 

an increase in noxious, invasive, or non-native plant species. 

Under Alternatives A, C and D, the BLM would manage riparian areas in accordance with the 

EIS for Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Management in the Albuquerque Field Office (BLM 

2000). Under Alternative B, the BLM would prohibit livestock grazing in riparian areas by 

removing 1,582 acres from livestock grazing. Adaptive management is the emphasis of the 

Riparian EIS, and this approach would have beneficial impacts to riparian areas because it would 

rely on management changes based on quantitative monitoring data indicating the trend of 

individual riparian systems. Livestock grazing would only be allowed in riparian areas that are in 

Properly Functioning Condition and that have monitoring data to suggest they are sustainable 

with prescribed grazing. Removal of grazing from riparian areas would have beneficial impacts 

to wildlife that utilize riparian habitats. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-268

Currently, grazing occurs in special designation areas. Under Alternative B, the BLM would 

exclude livestock grazing from all areas with special designations. Under Alternative C, the 

BLM would allow prescribed grazing in specially designated areas where grazing would not 

conflict with resources protected by the special designation. Excluding grazing in all special 

designation areas would benefit wildlife because it would eliminate competition for forage and 

water resources. Alternative C would only have beneficial impacts to wildlife in areas that are 

specially designated for the protection of wildlife or Special Status Species habitat. Areas that 

are specially designated for the protection of other resources such as cultural or paleontological 

resources are generally accompanied by restrictions for actions that cause surface disturbance, 

and therefore would also limit disturbance to wildlife habitat. For this reason, Alternative B 

would have the most beneficial impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat.

4.2.14.2.7 Mineral Resources Decisions

Impacts from minerals decisions on wildlife and their habitats would include short and long term

habitat loss and/or degradation resulting from the removal of vegetation (surface disturbance), 

and subsequent occupation of areas for oil and gas well pads, open pit mines, and associated 

roads and infrastructure. Wildlife avoidance of disturbed and occupied areas would reduce their 

value as habitat. Many species of wildlife avoid areas with high or inconsistent levels of noise, 

roads with frequent automobile/truck traffic, areas that are heavily lit at night, and areas 

surrounding structures. Impacts of minerals decisions on wildlife resources would be reduced by 

the implementation of leasing stipulations and BMPs. Restrictions include no surface-disturbing 

activities within riparian habitat, required revegetation of oil and gas well sites upon project 

completion, and land management that meets or moves toward meeting New Mexico Standards 

and Guidelines (BLM 2001). 

Under Alternative B, C, and D, the RPFO would implement a buffer around occupied and 

unoccupied raptor nests, between March 1 and June 30, where leasable fluid mineral activities 

would be prohibited. Under Alternative B, the buffer would be 1 mile, under Alternative C, the 

buffer would be 0.5 mile, and under Alternative D, the buffer would be 0.25 mile. 

Under Alternatives B and C, the RPFO would also implement restrictions on leasable fluid 

mineral activities within big game winter range between November 15 and April 30. This would 

be applied to winter range for mule deer, elk, and antelope. Travel on designated roads may be 

included in the timing limitations. 

Under Alternatives B and C, the RPFO would prohibit leasable fluid mineral activities within 

fawning and calving habitat for mule deer, elk, and antelope. The restrictions would occur from 

May 1 to August 31 for mule deer, May 1 to June 30 for elk, and May 1 to July 15 for antelope. 

Surface disturbance would also be prohibited near wildlife habitat projects under Alternatives B 

and C. Both alternatives include a restriction to restrict leasable fluid mineral activities up to 200 

meters (656 feet) of existing or planned wildlife improvement projects. 

In addition, the implementation of BMPs for the benefit of wildlife and their habitats (e.g., 

centralization of drill rigs and storage tanks, reduction of the number of access roads, and interim 

and final reclamation practices) would also reduce some of the short- and long-term impacts 

listed above. Interim reclamation occurs during the operational phase of a project and consists of 

revegetating all areas surrounding wells and roads that are not actively used during oil or gas 

production. Final reclamation occurs when a well has been plugged and abandoned and includes 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-269

the practices of recontouring soil surfaces to match surrounding landforms, replacing topsoil, and 

reseeding with native plant species. The number of years required for successful final 

reclamation would depend on the habitat type; grasslands recover more quickly than sagebrush 

or desert shrublands, which recover more quickly than forested areas such as piñon-juniper or 

ponderosa pine habitat. A commonly used average value and goal for reclamation across the 

project area is ten years. Following the successful reclamation of a well site or road, the longterm adverse impacts to wildlife species would be largely eliminated.

The amount of land that is open to oil and gas leasing or other mineral use is not necessarily 

indicative of the number of acres that would be directly disturbed. Areas managed under 

standard or TL and/or CSU stipulations allow mineral development, but not all of those acres 

would be subjected to surface disturbance. Habitat quality may be preserved by the 

implementation of seasonal restrictions and spatial buffers that protect crucial habitats. For 

example, under Alternative B, big game winter range and wildlife habitat projects areas that are 

also designated by the USDA-NRCS as having low reclamation opportunity would be closed to 

oil and gas leasing. Areas categorized as NSO or closed preclude all surface-disturbing mineral 

development and therefore improve the quality and condition of wildlife habitats. Table 4.106

shows the number of acres that would be managed as NSO, TL/CSU, or closed to oil and gas 

leasing, by alternative and habitat type. 

Table 4.107 shows the number of acres closed to saleable mineral extraction, and

Table 4.108 shows the number of acres that would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry, 

by alternative and habitat type.

Table 4.106: Habitat Type (acres) Proposed as NSO, CSU, or Closed to Oil and Gas Leasing, by Alternative

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Aquatic 12 80 80 78

Grassland 17,512 59,177 57,081 54,075

Other 4,030 21,739 19,242 20,288

Piñon-juniper 17,274 45,647 45,412 43,913

Ponderosa pine 32 352 352 352

Riparian/Wetland 152 446 444 403

Shrub, steppe, scrub 45,787 154,192 153,493 148,452

Total 84,799 281,633 276,104 267,561

Table 4.107: Habitat Type (acres) Proposed as Closed to Saleable Mineral Extraction, by Alternative

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Aquatic 8 20 8 8

Grassland 17,063 34,549 22,457 16,775

Other 4,194 16,941 10,481 4,041
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-270

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Piñon-juniper 35,420 47,025 39,619 37,208

Ponderosa pine 2,345 3,235 3,235 2,904

Riparian/Wetland 904 1,335 1,187 1,123

Shrub, steppe, scrub 45,720 80,615 57,869 45,387

Total 105,654 183,720 134,856 107,446

Table 4.108: Habitat Type (acres) Proposed as Withdrawn from Locatable Mineral Entry, by Alternative

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Aquatic 7 71 70 7

Grassland 4,084 59,513 53,115 6,039

Other 777 21,428 20,044 2,198

Piñon-juniper 722 59,684 59,758 4,033

Ponderosa pine 0 3,275 3,275 560

Riparian/Wetland 103 1,291 1,256 347

Shrub, steppe, scrub 10,890 147,194 140,230 14,436

Total 16,583 292,456 277,748 27,620

4.2.14.2.8 Recreation and Visitor Services Decisions

In general, wildlife can be adversely impacted by recreation caused by human interactions, 

including higher noise levels, litter, and wildlife harassment and/or degradation of habitat 

(Knight and Gutzwiller 1995). While camping tends to be more concentrated along riparian

areas, such as Bluewater Creek, locally there can be major impacts to vegetation and stream bank 

stability. 

During hunting seasons, mostly in Sandoval County, nominal impacts occur in upland pine 

forests. In these undeveloped settings, wildlife could be collected or harvested, displaced, 

harassed, and disturbed, and degradation of habitat can occur from trampling or vegetative 

collection (authorized and unauthorized firewood collection, plant/seed collection, etc.). 

Collection of firewood for campfires has the potential to adversely impact wildlife with removal 

of live, dead, and downed material. This material provides shelter for various species, including 

birds, small mammals, bats, reptiles, and amphibians. OHV use and other disturbances to soils 

from unauthorized travel increase soil loss from wind and water erosion, which can further 

degrade habitat quality. Where this occurs repeatedly, impacts to wildlife, vegetation, and soils 

could be an issue at the site, but minor at the landscape level. 

Increased development of trails, climbing routes, and other recreation pursuits throughout the 

Planning Area could increase habitat fragmentation and adversely impact wildlife (Rost and 

Bailey 1979; Wisdom et al. 2005). Under Alternatives B, C, and D, 231,325 acres of SRMAs

and ERMAs are proposed on BLM lands within the Planning Area. These areas could attract an 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-271

increase of visitors because they are managed to provide specific recreation opportunities. 

Increased visitation by recreational user groups could result in an increase in human disturbance 

to wildlife. Table 4.109 shows the proposed SRMA and ERMAs and the habitat types the 

designated areas would encompass. 

Table 4.109: Vegetation/Habitat Types (acres) within the Proposed SRMA and ERMAs

SRMA and ERMA 

Name

Vegetation Type

Aquatic Grassland PiñonJuniper

Ponderosa

Pine

Riparian/

Wetland

Shrub,

Steppe,

Scrub

Other Total

Continental Divide 

Trail SRMA

6 1,365 4,111 470 69 4,450 525 10,996

Ancestral Way 

ERMA

0 1,112 261 0 0 3,832 693 5,898

Azabache ERMA 6 4,530 154 0 4 8,081 124 12,899

Bony Canyon ACEC 

ERMA

0 632 29 0 0 585 68 1,314

Ceja Pelon ERMA 9 1,107 858 0 2 3,720 17 5,713

Cerro ERMA 4 3,705 45 0 0 7,783 899 12,436

Cerro Verde ERMA 0 503 56 0 0 932 3,127 4,618

Chijuilla ERMA 16 3,248 10,297 12 10 27,696 791 42,070

Cimarron Mesa 

ERMA

3 1,895 4,101 0 96 3,069 9,105 18,269

Crest of Montezuma 0 44 532 261 45 26 9 917

La Mesita Blanca 

ERMA

0 3,218 25 0 0 2,416 40 5,699

Las Milpas ERMA 0 789 8 0 0 1,668 58 2,523

Oh-My-God 100 

ERMA

0 1,874 3,642 25 0 11,527 340 17,408

Pronoun Cave 

ERMA

0 440 267 0 0 393 0 1,100

Prospect ERMA 0 4,892 747 0 2 5,594 208 11,443

Sandy Wash ERMA 3 5,687 3 0 7 11,403 1,371 18,474

San Luis Mesa 

ERMA

14 3,748 370 0 7 7,789 309 12,237

San Miguel Dome 

ERMA

0 1,927 9 0 0 4,890 135 6,961

San Ysidro Trials 

Area ERMA

3 1,202 96 22 29 3,323 468 5,143

Torreon Fossil East 

and West ERMA

0 1,510 235 0 0 3,852 324 5,921
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-272

SRMA and ERMA 

Name

Vegetation Type

Aquatic Grassland PiñonJuniper

Ponderosa

Pine

Riparian/

Wetland

Shrub,

Steppe,

Scrub

Other Total

Volcano Hill ERMA 7 5,276 793 0 40 8,499 12,042 26,657

White Mesa Bike 

Trails ERMA

2 791 4 0 12 1,957 780 3,546

Total SRMA and 

ERMA Acreage 

73 49,495 26,643 790 323 123,485 31,433 232,246

Percent of BLM 

lands in the Planning 

Area

- 7% 3% - - 17% 4% 31%

4.2.14.2.9 Renewable Energy Decisions

Renewable energy management decisions that have the potential to have adverse impacts to 

wildlife and wildlife habitat would result from authorizations for development of renewable 

energy projects. Renewable energy projects would create surface disturbances of various 

magnitudes depending on the size and location of the project. Impacts from wind, solar, and 

geothermal energy developments would include vegetation removal and habitat fragmentation. 

Additionally, wind farms are known to cause high rates of mortality for birds and bats. . There 

would also be potential for the introduction of noxious or invasive plant species via construction 

equipment, vehicles, and personnel. Although the adverse impacts would be mitigated through 

BMPs, noxious weed controls, and restoration and rehabilitation measures, the success levels of 

rehabilitating such large acreages of cleared vegetation (from projects with similar surface 

disturbance such as oil & gas and mineral development) are variable, and the long lifespan of 

renewable energy projects generally means an increase in cost associated with noxious weed 

control.

Beneficial impacts would result from the identification of exclusion and avoidance areas for 

renewable energy projects. Exclusion areas would offer greater protections for wildlife and 

wildlife habitat than avoidance areas because they would completely preclude surface-disturbing 

activities. 

4.2.14.2.10 Riparian Resources Decisions

There are many goals shared by the riparian and wildlife programs, the main one being the 

protection, restoration, and enhancement of riparian ecosystems and biodiversity. Many wildlife 

species are riparian obligate or facultative species that heavily rely on riparian habitat for all or 

part of their life cycle. Due to this close association, riparian resources management decisions 

would have beneficial impacts to wildlife habitat in the Planning Area. 

Under Alternatives B and C, restrictions on surface-disturbing activities are proposed for 

protection of riparian resources. Under Alternative B, surface-disturbing activities would be 

prohibited within 200 meters (656 feet) of the channels of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial 

streams, or within 200 meters (656 feet) of the outer margins of riparian and wetland areas. 

Under Alternative C, surface-disturbing activities would be subject to restrictions within 200 

meters (656 feet) of the channels of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams, or within 200 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-273

meters (656 feet) of the outer margins of riparian and wetland areas. Under Alternatives A and 

D, no restrictions are proposed to protect riparian areas from surface-disturbing activities. 

Alternatives B and C would protect riparian habitat from surface-disturbing activities.

4.2.14.2.11 Special-status Species Decisions

Under all alternatives, no management action would be permitted on public lands that would 

jeopardize the continued existence of plant or animal species that are listed, officially proposed, 

or candidates for listing as threatened and endangered. The BLM would commit to current and 

future conservation agreements, management plans, and recovery plans specific to threatened 

and endangered species and BLM sensitive species, as described in the Special-status Species 

section of Table 2.58 (in Chapter 2). Although meant to protect and conserve special-status 

species, the actions would also benefit other wildlife species that share habitat with the targeted 

special-status species. 

Special Status Species management in the RPFO heavily emphasizes protection, restoration and 

enhancement of riparian habitats because many special status species depend on riparian areas 

for all or a portion of their life cycle including the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and the 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Similarly, a plethora of wildlife species rely on these habitats as well 

because they are rare oases in the desert southwest. The SSS decision common to all alternatives 

to implement the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan would beneficially impact 

wildlife because so many other wildlife species utilize riparian habitats as well. 

The SSS decision to designate suitable habitat for prairie dog population augmentation would 

benefit wildlife because prairie dogs are a keystone species that perform a multitude of 

ecosystem functions such providing a prey base for predators such as raptors, creating and 

maintaining burrow systems that are used by other wildlife and special status species for 

reproduction, and increase water infiltration into local soil benefitting the plant community and 

reducing the chance of erosion. Studies have shown that when keystone species are removed 

from an ecosystem, species richness decreases. Decisions to protect prairie dog populations from 

shooting would benefit wildlife because shooting produces noise disturbance that can disrupt 

foraging, reproductive patterns and other processes that are essential to survival. Additionally, 

prohibiting shooting in these areas would lessen the chance that other (including sensitive) 

wildlife species would become the target. Controlling surface disturbing activities around and 

within prairie dog populations would benefit wildlife species that co-occur with prairie dogs or 

that utilize the ecosystems for all or a part of their life cycle. Surface disturbance directly 

adversely impacts this habitat and results in habitat loss and fragmentation.

4.2.14.2.12 Soil and Water Decisions

Under all alternatives, soils and water management decisions would comply with New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001). In addition, all floodplains and riparian/wetlands would 

be managed in accordance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, which would protect the 

quality of stream water and federally listed species habitat. Uses on BLM lands in the Planning 

Area would be managed to minimize and mitigate damage to soils, and activities located in areas 

with sensitive soils would be subject to site-specific NEPA analysis. These restrictions would 

decrease the number of acres on BLM lands in the Planning Area subject to the adverse impacts 

of surface-disturbing activities on wildlife habitats, including surface water contamination and 

sedimentation by runoff from disturbed soils.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-274

Under Alternative B, and C, the RPFO would prohibit surface-disturbing activities within 200 

meters (656 feet) of riparian areas and springs. Oil and gas leasing stipulations would implement 

CSU for 15% to 30% slopes, NSO for slopes over 30%, and CSU for low reclamation soils. 

These actions would help to mitigate the adverse impacts of surface-disturbing activities to 

wildlife and wildlife habitat. These management decisions would also help to mitigate adverse 

impacts to fish and other aquatic species’ habitat from increased overland flow associated with 

upland soil disturbance. 

4.2.14.2.13 Special Designations Decisions

Special designation areas, such as ACECs, would generally have long-term positive impacts to 

wildlife and fisheries that occur within their boundaries by limiting or preventing surface 

disturbance, human activities, and associated habitat degradation and fragmentation. Impacts to 

wildlife and fisheries vary between alternatives primarily according to the proposed acreage of 

these specifically designated areas. 

ACECs designated specifically to protect wildlife and vegetation would directly benefit wildlife 

species and their habitats. ACECs designated to preserve historic, cultural, and scenic values (as 

opposed to wildlife or vegetation) would indirectly benefit wildlife by limiting human and 

surface disturbance, preserving habitat, or preventing noise. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, 

ACECs would be evaluated as potential avoidance areas for rights-of-way and renewable energy

developments, including wind, solar energy, and geothermal sites. Prohibiting these uses within 

ACECs would prevent adverse impacts to wildlife related to these developments. The 

designation of ACECs could potentially increase recreational use in those areas, resulting in a 

greater amount of impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Increased interpretation, monitoring, 

maintenance, and enforcement along proposed ACECs by the BLM and interested partners 

would strive to minimize existing or additional impacts to wildlife from recreational use. Table 

4.110 shows the number of size of proposed ACECs designated for protection of wildlife values 

and other values in the Planning Area. Under Alternative B, the most acres would be proposed 

for special designations. Under Alternative D, the least number of acres would be proposed for 

special designations.

Table 4.110: Proposed Special Designations (acres) in the Planning Area, by Alternative

Special Designations Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

ACECs managed for wildlife 

and rare plant values

8 ACECs

52,136 acres

11 ACECs

136,618 acres

11 ACECs

123,993 acres

7 ACECs

41,732 acres

ACECS managed for other 

values

2 ACECs

1,629 acres

7 ACECs

13,356 acres

7 ACECs

13,036 acres

3 ACECs

1,167 acres

WSA/Wilderness Area 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963 acres 97,963 acres

CDNST

1 trail

11,474 acres

1 trail

38,808 acres

1 trail

23,607 acres

1 trail

11,474 acres

Total special designations in 

Planning Area 137,720 acres 185,625 acres 178,000 acres 126,392 acres
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-275

4.2.14.2.14 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Decisions

Volcano Hill (23,833 acres) and Cimarron Mesa (7,329 acres) are mainly composed of short to 

medium shrubby, grasslands. These grasslands are prime habitat for pronghorn antelope, the 

species likely to be most affected by any of the alternative prescriptions. Cimarron Mesa has 

little piñon-juniper woodland, low to moderate in tree density, which is potential habitat for elk 

and deer. 

If BLM managed Volcano Hill and Cimarron Mesa as Land with Wilderness Characteristics per 

Alternative A, no change of management would occur in these areas. This “no-action” 

alternative could lead to negative impacts on wildlife in response to allowance of extraction of 

leasable minerals, mineral sales, and surface disturbance activities. These allowances entail a 

considerable amount of surface disturbance, which leads to vegetation destruction and ultimately 

the destruction of habitat for species in the area. Forest product removal would be permitted and 

could negatively impact wildlife with destruction of elk and deer woodland habitat. Unrestricted 

travel would make vehicle collisions with wildlife and vegetation destruction more likely. 

Construction of new rights-of-way (addition of roads, pipelines, transmission lines, or 

communication sites to the area) could lead to habitat degradation by vegetation and landscape 

disturbance and destruction. Livestock grazing would be permitted in the Volcano Hill and 

Cimarron Mesa area. Grazing would create competition between wildlife and cattle for forage

and will lead to vegetation destruction by direct forage or footpath damage, which ultimately 

leads to soil degradation. Creation of new recreational developments would bring more travelers 

to the area, which increases likelihood of disturbance. A positive impact on wildlife per 

Alternative A lies in the potential installation of new wildlife developments such as, wildlife 

drinkers and exclosures which are meant to augment and preserve habitat in an area.

Alternative B could positively impact wildlife through the restrictions on the development of 

mineral materials, travel, rights-of-way, livestock grazing, recreational developments, and 

surface disturbance activities. All of these actions have potential for disturbance or removal of 

wildlife habitat (as discussed above, for Alternative A). Exclusion of fire product removal would 

positively impact wildlife due to the elimination of associated adverse impacts such as illegal 

off-highway vehicle use. However, an accumulation of fire fuel in the area may lead to a higher 

temperature fire potential. Alternative B would also restrict the development of new wildlife 

habitat improvement projects in these areas that are developed for the benefit of wildlife.

Alternative C would have positive impacts on wildlife by the complete exclusion of extraction of 

leasable minerals. Extraction leads to habitat loss and fragmentation, and often results in the 

introduction and/or spread of noxious/invasive weeds. Management under this alternative would 

include evaluation of surface disturbance activities on a case-by-case basis, which, with 

interdisciplinary planning, would lead to mitigation proceedings for the benefit of wildlife and 

wildlife habitat. Under Alternative C, forest products removal and management would be 

allowed. Allowing forest product removal has the potential to positively and negatively impact 

wildlife. Forest products include vegetative material found on public lands that can be harvested 

for recreation, personal use, or as a source of income. Some examples are grasses, seeds, roots, 

bark, berries, mosses, greenery, edible mushrooms, tree seedlings, transplants, poles, posts, and 

firewood. Due to the biological nature of these products, there are ecological costs associated 

with removing them from an ecosystem. Many wildlife species rely on these products for 

various reasons (e.g., forage, nesting substrate, etc.). More specifically, removing whole trees 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-276

for fuelwood would cause nesting habitat loss for some species including but not limited to the 

Piñon Jay and Gray Vireo. Vehicle use would be limited to the use of designated routes, which 

would cause less impact than unrestricted travel, but more impact than a no-travel alternative. 

Livestock grazing would be permitted under Alternative C. Grazing would cause direct 

disturbance of vegetation due to cattle foraging, footpaths, waste and associated soil degradation. 

To reduce adverse impacts, all construction of new range improvements would be consistent 

with maintenance of wilderness characteristics. Under Alternative C, the lands would be 

managed as VRM II, for which the emphasis is on retention of the existing character of the 

landscape (per the management type, the level of change to the characteristic landscape should 

be low).

Alternative D reflects Alternative A. Both alternatives entail a “no-action” approach, resulting in 

the same management prescriptions, and related impacts.

Table 4.111: Proposed Lands Managed for Wilderness Characteristics (acres), by Alternative

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Chamisa E X 2,239 2,239 2,239

Ignacio Chavez A X 2,462 2,462 X

Ignacio Chavez B X 1,541 1,541 X

Ignacio Chavez C X 72 72 X

Volcano Hill X 23,833 23,833 X

Cimarron Mesa X 7,329 X X

Petaca Pinta A X 38 38 X

Total X 37,514 30,185 2,239

Note: X indicates no management decisions to manage lands with wilderness characteristics to protect or 

partially protect wilderness characteristics. 

4.2.14.2.15 Travel Management Decisions

The impacts of travel decisions to wildlife would primarily depend on the number of acres open 

and closed to motorized travel use under each alternative. Motorized travel use can cause 

damage to vegetation used as wildlife forage and cover, cause noise disturbance, and result in 

mortality of wildlife through vehicular collisions or unauthorized removal of both plant and 

animal species. OHV use therefore generally has adverse impacts to wildlife species, especially 

birds, in the Planning Area (Reijnen and Foppen 1994; Gelbard and Belnap 2003). Areas closed 

to OHV use would include some WSAs. OHV use also contributes to habitat fragmentation and 

habitat degradation, including the spread of noxious weeds. Habitat fragmentation may be less 

obvious than direct impacts such as vehicle collisions with wildlife or vegetation removal, but 

often carries considerable consequences for long-term population and reproductive success. 

Large expanses of habitat may be required to meet the minimum habitat requirements of the 

largest, most widely roaming species, including top carnivores and large migrating herd animals. 

Table 4.112 shows the proposed acreages closed to travel on BLM lands in the Planning Area. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-277

Table 4.112: Wildlife Habitat Closed to Motorized Travel, by Alternative

Vegetation/Habitat Type Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Aquatic 1 35 13 7

Ponderosa pine 0 3,233 2,891 2,891

Piñon-juniper 1,142 45,084 33,219 32,185

Riparian/Wetland 85 1,246 1,081 1,043

Shrub, steppe, scrub 12,591 74,434 50,085 42,759

Grassland 5,672 28,775 19,819 15,751

Other 824 24,434 16,966 5,487

Total 20,316 177,240 124,075 100,124

Percent of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area

% % %

Note: The No Action Alternative does not sum to the same acreage totals as Alternatives B, C, or D 

because of different planning direction under the 1986 RMP, as amended.

4.2.14.2.16 Vegetative Communities Decisions

Vegetative treatment would result in improvements to habitat that may benefit many wildlife 

species. Studies have shown that where dense stands of piñon-juniper have been thinned, 

understory vegetation increased dramatically on the heaviest thinned plots and the number of 

vegetation species present also increased significantly. While vegetation composition changed, 

deer use increased in correlation with the amount of trees removed, and overall small mammal 

abundance increased on all treated plots (Abert et al. 1994).

Sagebrush treatments that provide minimal disturbance to soils, including the use of prescribed 

fire or mechanical blading (shaving), would increase vegetative diversity, providing greater 

habitat choices to a variety of species. Piñon-juniper thinning, either through prescribed fire or 

mechanical means, would allow more sunlight and water to reach the understory for grass and 

forb growth or increased vegetative diversity and structure, which provide additional habitat for 

more species of animals. Some areas would be treated for priority species habitat, such as mule 

deer, which would benefit other species, such as hawks, rodents, game birds, reptiles, and 

amphibians. Over-thinning of piñon-juniper ecosystems could also have an adverse impact to 

piñon-juniper obligate species.

Vegetative treatments to reduce invasive species, such as saltcedar, cheatgrass, thistles, or 

knapweeds, would be beneficial to wildlife habitat because treatments restore native plant 

communities and improve the ecological health of the area. Prescribed fire would likely result 

in the temporary loss of habitat, but would have beneficial impacts in the long term. 

All alternatives would benefit wildlife habitat by using prescribed burning, planting native seed 

when possible, and establishing natural disturbance regimes across the landscape to increase 

biodiversity and structure diversity, adding long-term benefits to wildlife habitat for as many 

species as possible. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-278

4.2.14.2.17 Wildlife and Fisheries Decisions

Wildlife and fisheries management decisions would have beneficial impacts to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat. The RPFO has proposed a series of restrictions on surface disturbing activities 

to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat. Under Alternative B, C, and D, the RPFO would 

implement a buffer around occupied and unoccupied raptor nests, between March 1 and June 30, 

where surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited. Under Alternative B, the buffer would 

be one mile, under Alternative C, the buffer would be 0.5 mile, and under Alternative D, the 

buffer would be 0.25 mile. 

Under Alternatives B and C, the RPFO would also implement restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities within big game winter range between November 15 and April 30. This would be 

applied to winter range for mule deer, elk, and antelope. Travel on designated roads may be 

included in the timing limitations. 

Under Alternatives B and C, the RPFO would prohibit surface disturbing activities within 

fawning and calving habitat for mule deer, elk, and antelope. The restrictions would occur from 

May 1 to August 31 for mule deer, May 1 to June 30 for elk, and May 1 to July 15 for antelope. 

Surface disturbance would also be prohibited near wildlife habitat projects under Alternatives B 

and C. Both alternatives include a restriction to restrict surface disturbing activities up to 200 

meters (656 feet) of existing or planned wildlife improvement projects. Large-scale vegetation

manipulation, such as prescribed burns would be excepted.

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the RPFO would prohibit surface disturbing activities near 

prairie dog towns. Under Alternative B, surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be 

strictly controlled within 0.5 mile of prairie dog towns if an activity would adversely impact 

prairie dogs and/or associated species. Under Alternative C, surface disturbing and disruptive 

activities would be strictly controlled within 0.25 mile of prairie dog towns. Under Alternative

D, surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be strictly controlled within prairie dog 

towns. 

Wildlife and fish improvement projects would have beneficial impacts to wildlife. Wildlifeaccessible watering sites and wildlife-adapted fences would improve mobility of wildlife species. 

Conservation, enhancement, and restoration projects for special-status species would have 

beneficial impacts to wildlife habitat within the Planning Area. It is also possible that wildlife 

improvements, such as vegetation treatments, for one particular species could adversely impact 

another species. Site-specific NEPA documentation would be completed before habitat 

improvement projects are approved by the RPFO. Impacts to wildlife from other wildlife 

improvement projects would be analyzed at that time. 

4.2.14.2.18 Visual Resources Decisions

The impacts to wildlife from visual resources decisions are primarily associated with limitations 

on surface disturbance intended to reduce impacts to areas with high visual resource values. 

VRM Class I and II designations are the most restrictive of oil and gas development and other 

surface-disturbing activities and would therefore be the most beneficial to wildlife and their 

habitats. In areas designated as VRM Class I or II, surface-disturbing activities are generally 

prohibited or limited. Table 4.113 shows the proposed VRM classes in acres. The most acres for 

VRM Class I are proposed under Alternatives B, C, and D while under Alternative A the least 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-279

acres would be managed as VRM I. Under Alternative B, the most acres for VRM Class II are 

proposed, while under Alternatives C and D the least acres are proposed for VRM II.

Table 4.113: Proposed VRM Classes (acres) on BLM Lands in the Planning Area

Class Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

VRM I 97,646 97,296 97,474 97,516

VRM II 84,449 318,931 68,510 21,549

VRM III 61,789 27,529 80,931 83,050

VRM IV 153,250 300,631 497,471 542,272

Total 397,133 744,387 744,387 744,387

4.2.14.3 Cumulative Impacts

Reasonably foreseeable projects that would adversely impact wildlife include developments that 

would result in habitat loss or fragmentation. Mineral developments, new road projects, urban 

growth, renewable energy projects, and other surface-disturbing activities that occur on public, 

private, or tribal lands near the Planning Area could displace wildlife for the length of the 

project. Change in land use could result in habitat loss for some wildlife species. The Desert 

Rock Power Plant, new transmission corridors, the proposed N55 Road Improvement Project, 

new uranium mines, and the Northwest Loop Road could result in habitat fragmentation and 

habitat loss. Linear projects, such as roads and transmission lines could have adverse impacts for 

migrating wildlife species if not properly mitigated with appropriate wildlife crossing areas. 

These projects, where specific project areas are known, account for approximately 6,000 acres of 

habitat disturbance.

Beneficial cumulative impacts to wildlife would occur from such restoration projects as the 

Southwest Jemez Mountains Restoration Project and the Valles Caldera Landscape Restoration 

and Management Plan. The proposed fire and fuel management projects on public lands in New 

Mexico would also have long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife. These projects would lead to 

restored, native ecosystems that support healthy populations of wildlife and provide improved 

habitat areas for seasonal migrations. The planning area for these projects account for 

approximately 500,000 acres of habitat restoration within and near the RMP Planning Area. The 

BLM estimates that federal and state agencies would treat up to 206,800 acres with prescribed 

fire, 35,900 acres with mechanical treatments, and 10,000 acres with chemical treatments over 

20 years (BLM 2004). The Southwest Jemez Mountains Restoration Project and Valles Caldera 

Landscape Restoration Plan are currently in the planning phases, the specific treatment areas are 

unknown at this time. The planning area for the projects is approximately 210,000 acres in the 

southwest Jemez Mountains. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-280

Map-099-Vegetation Cover Types
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-281

4.2.15 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Unavoidable adverse impacts are those that remain following the implementation of mitigation 

measures or impacts for which there are no mitigation measures. Mitigation measures include 

stipulations and the BMPs specified for the RMP alternatives. These measures also include 

compliance with the applicable laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines. Furthermore, 

implementation decisions require project-specific planning and NEPA analysis where additional 

mitigation measures are imposed as conditions of approval. 

Some unavoidable adverse impacts would occur as a result of implementing the decisions in the 

RMP. Implementation decisions require appropriate project-specific planning and NEPA 

analysis and constitute the BLM’s final approval for authorizing on-the-ground activities to 

proceed. 

Surface-disturbing activities (e.g., construction of well pads and roads, renewable energy

projects, pipelines and transmission lines, mining, and vegetation treatments), OHV use, fire 

management, some recreational activities, and operation and maintenance of existing facilities 

and infrastructure on BLM lands in the Planning Area would cause fugitive dust, exhaust 

emissions, and smoke, thereby adversely impacting air quality.

Surface-disturbing activities, OHV use, fire management, some recreational activities, 

uncontrolled animal concentrations, and operation and maintenance of existing facilities and 

infrastructure on BLM lands in the Planning Area may cause soil erosion. These same activities, 

in combination with precipitation events, also may result in runoff and sedimentation to existing 

surface waters. Additional unavoidable adverse impacts from these activities include the 

transport and spread of noxious weeds on BLM lands in the Planning Area. Noxious weeds 

would continue to spread via the wind, in water courses, and by attaching to livestock, wildlife, 

humans, and vehicles. The presence of noxious weeds in the Planning Area is considered an 

unavoidable impact.

Surface-disturbing activities and the development of mineral, energy, and other facilities on 

BLM lands in the Planning Area are expected to cause the unavoidable degradation, loss, and 

fragmentation of habitats. OHV use, fire management, some recreational activities, concentrated 

livestock grazing, and operation and maintenance of existing facilities and infrastructure on 

BLM lands in the Planning Area may contribute to the unavoidable degradation, loss, and 

fragmentation of wildlife habitats. Section 4.2.22 provides the detailed analysis of these impacts 

on wildlife and fisheries within the Planning Area.

Protection of some resource values (e.g., wildlife, special-status species, cultural, and 

paleontological resources) would adversely impact the use of other resources, such as minerals 

and renewable energy. Conversely, use of minerals and renewable energy are expected to 

adversely impact the distribution of some wildlife, special-status species, and vegetative 

communities.

Minerals exploration and development, rights-of-way development, road and trail construction, 

fence and water developments, and mechanical vegetation manipulation would cause 

unavoidable beneficial impacts to the economic well-being of the Planning Area, while having 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-282

minimal impacts on the natural character and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation 

through project location, design, and BMPs.

Surface-disturbing activities and development from BLM actions would cause minimal change

to the landscape, scenic quality, and setting in the Planning Area. Non-BLM actions on lands 

adjacent to BLM-administered lands also would cause change to the landscape and setting. Fire, 

insect and disease damage, and development also are expected to temporarily impact the scenic 

quality of the Planning Area. Surface-disturbing activities, OHV use, vandalism, and natural 

processes (e.g., fire and erosion) would impact cultural and paleontological resources in the 

Planning Area.

There would continue to be impacts to cultural and paleontological resources associated with 

dispersed recreation activities, OHV use, vandalism, and other types of activities not authorized 

by the BLM. Unavoidable damage to cultural resources from permitted activities could occur if 

resources undetected during surveys were identified during ground-disturbing activities. In these 

instances, further impacts would be ceased upon discovery and measures would be taken to 

mitigate the adverse impact to the resource. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of 

Resources

Section 1502.16 of CEQ regulations requires that the discussion of environmental consequences 

include a description of “any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources which would 

be involved in the proposal should it be implemented.” An irreversible commitment of resources 

refers to decisions impacting the use of nonrenewable resources and results in the resource being 

permanently lost. For example, the production of oil and gas is an irreversible commitment of 

these resources. An irretrievable commitment of a resource refers to decisions resulting in the 

loss of production or use of a resource over a given period of time. For example, in the 

construction of a road, the forage is lost for as long as the road remains. 

Given the definitive nature of irreversible commitments of resources, their consideration is 

imperative in land use planning. Soil erosion, loss of productivity, and soil structure might be 

considered irreversible commitments to resources. These effects are caused by surfacedisturbing activities, such as construction of corridors and mineral resources development. 

Although they might be mitigated, the loss of soil and soil productivity is still anticipated. 

Irretrievable commitments are perhaps the predominant type of commitment that the BLM 

makes for the resources it manages, given that over time, whether during the life of the plan or 

beyond, most current resources and opportunities can be restored. Diminished water quality 

from sedimentation, salinity, and non-point source pollution caused largely by anticipated 

surface-disturbing activities associated with mineral resource development and recreation use 

could be restored. Resource management decisions under Alternatives B, C, and D to limit 

disturbance to soil and water would decrease the potential for impact. 

4.2.15.1 Cultural Resources

Disturbance to cultural resources of any kind, whether associated with cultural- and heritageoriented recreation, mineral resource development, renewable energy, or other uses of public 

lands, typically are irreversible. Any activity managed by the BLM that disturbs the surface and 

subsurface or causes wear could destroy cultural materials. This would also apply to 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-283

paleontological resources, for which any damage, including loss of opportunity to collect 

scientific data, would be irreversible. 

Because the location and nature of all cultural resources in the area under consideration are 

unknown, it is not possible to determine the amount or level of irreversible and/or irretrievable 

impacts to cultural resources in the Planning Area. However, it is likely that, in spite of Section 

106 of the NHPA and BLM policy and guidelines, some non-mitigatable impacts would occur 

and would likely be irreversible since restoration of an archaeological site is typically very 

difficult, if not impossible. 

4.2.15.2 Fire Management

The prohibition of fuels reduction and vegetation treatments could result in irretrievable 

increases in fire suppression costs, as well as irretrievable losses in habitat value as vegetation 

types move away from the desired future condition. However, non-surface-disturbing vegetation 

treatments and/or effective suppression followed by effective rehabilitation/restoration could 

prevent these impacts from being irreversible. It should be noted that reactive fire management

(fire suppression and rehabilitation) is typically more expensive, time consuming, and damaging 

than proactive fire, fuels, and vegetation management (prescribed burns, mechanical thinning, 

chemical treatment, and subsequent restoration).

4.2.15.3 Lands and Realty

All alternatives permit land tenure adjustments (sales, exchanges) that may result in the 

permanent loss of lands from public ownership if they enter state or private ownership. 

4.2.15.4 Livestock Grazing

Areas not available for livestock grazing would result in an irretrievable loss of forage for 

livestock under the life of the plan. Also, vegetation treatments, prescribed burns, and wildland 

fire would result in an irretrievable loss of vegetation and forage for livestock grazing until the 

vegetation is restored. 

4.2.15.5 Minerals

The extraction and development of mineral resources from BLM lands in the Planning Area 

would result in both an irreversible and irretrievable loss of those mineral resources because of 

the finite nature of the resource. The impacts would be irretrievable and irreversible because 

once extracted, the mineral resource cannot be used again, nor can it be replaced in the 

foreseeable future. BLM Handbook H-1624-1, Planning for Fluid Minerals, acknowledges 

leasing of oil and gas resources as an irreversible commitment. 

4.2.15.6 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Any loss of size, naturalness, and/or opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined 

recreation within lands with wilderness characteristics caused by surface-disturbing activities 

such as mineral development, forest product harvest, and cross-county travel would most likely

be irretrievable until and if the impact area is fully reclaimed. The scenic quality of areas with 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-284

scenic values that are proposed to be managed as VRM III, as in Cimarron Mesa, could be 

degraded over the life of the plan. 

4.2.15.7 Recreation and Visitor Services

There would be no irreversible losses of recreation resources for any of the alternatives. 

Irretrievable impacts to recreation resources would be caused by: 1) short-term loss or 

diminishing of recreation-related scenic quality from vegetation treatments, fuel reductions, or 

invasive weed control until vegetation regrowth; and 2) short-term irretrievable loss of scenic 

recreational opportunities caused by mineral development until disturbances are reclaimed.

4.2.15.8 Riparian Resources

Irretrievable loss of riparian habitat could occur because of grazing, visitor trampling, and 

construction-related removal of riparian habitat. However, this habitat could eventually be 

restored, so those impacts would not be irreversible. It is possible that noxious weed infestation 

of disturbed riparian areas could become an irreversible impact based on past difficulties in 

controlling invasive species, such as saltcedar and Russian olive. An irretrievable loss of 

riparian habitat could also occur if riparian habitat is converted to upland habitat (by filling, 

draining, or other landscape alterations) in association with the placement of utility corridor 

infrastructure.

4.2.15.9 Soil and Water

Where surface-disturbing activities occur and are not mitigated, an irreversible loss of soil and 

soil productivity would result. Where surface disturbance affects sensitive soils, the impacts 

would be irretrievable in the long term because of these soils’ limitations. Either of these types 

of impacts may result from livestock grazing, mineral development, or recreation or travel 

(including the use of OHVs).

4.2.15.10 Special-status Species

Irretrievable impacts associated with surface-disturbing activities proposed throughout the 

Planning Area include the loss of special-status species habitat value from mineral development, 

fire treatments, renewable energy development, and motorized travel. These resource values 

would be lost until successful restoration/rehabilitation takes place. Implementation of 

reclamation/rehabilitation would prevent these impacts from being irreversible.

4.2.15.11 Travel Management

All routes not designated would be irretrievable in that the use of that travel resource would be 

irretrievably lost until the routes were designated for use. However, none of these nondesignations would be irreversible, in that it is possible to make these routes available for use 

again subject to additional analysis and/or adaptive management response.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences of Proposed Plan and Draft Alternatives

4-285

4.2.15.12 Vegetative Communities

There could be irretrievable impacts associated with surface-disturbing activities and livestock 

grazing proposed on BLM lands in the Planning Area. The protective measures required by the 

RPFO include the reclamation of disturbed areas following completion of the management action 

(e.g., well pad deconstruction, road rehabilitation, reseeding, and weed eradication). Vegetation 

resources would be restored or rehabilitated after proposed disturbance and/or development; 

therefore, minimal irreversible impacts to native vegetation resources would be associated with 

the management decisions proposed for BLM lands in the Planning Area. If vegetative 

communities found on sensitive soils are disturbed, restoration and rehabilitation efforts may not 

be as effective and could result in irreversible impacts to native vegetative communities. 

Livestock grazing could also result in irretrievable impacts to vegetative communities if 

livestock grazing is not appropriately managed, especially during drought conditions. 

4.2.15.13 Visual Resources

Irretrievable impacts to visual resources would also be produced by surface disturbances such as 

mineral development, access road construction, renewable energy development, fire 

management, and vegetation treatments. This irretrievable loss would be most apparent under 

those alternatives that propose lower visual protections for those areas. The visual resources 

impacted by such developments would be irretrievably lost until those areas are rehabilitated or 

restored. However, because they can be restored, these impacts would not be irreversible.

4.2.15.14 Wildlife and Fisheries

Irretrievable impacts associated with surface-disturbing activities proposed throughout the 

Planning Area include the loss of wildlife habitat value from mineral development, fire 

treatments, or motorized travel. These resource values would be lost until successful 

restoration/rehabilitation takes place. Implementation of reclamation/rehabilitation would 

prevent these impacts from being irreversible.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

5-1

5 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1 Introduction

This chapter documents the consultation and coordination efforts undertaken by the BLM 

throughout the process of preparing the RMP and developing the Draft EIS. Title II, Section 202 

of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) directs the BLM to 

coordinate planning efforts with American Indian tribes, other federal departments, and agencies 

of the state and local governments as part of its land use planning process. Also to be involved 

are interest groups and individuals.

Consultation and coordination are important to ensure that: (1) the most appropriate data have 

been gathered and employed for the analyses; (2) agency and public concerns are considered and 

incorporated into the planning process; and (3) paperwork and delays are reduced (40 CFR 

1500.4-5). BLM managers and the Interdisciplinary Team of agency specialists have 

accomplished coordination with other agencies and consistency with other plans through 

ongoing communications, meetings, and collaborative efforts.

The BLM is also directed to integrate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements 

with other environmental review and consultation requirements to reduce paperwork and delays 

(40 CFR 1500.4-5).

5.2 Public Scoping Meetings, Input, and Other Initial 

Meetings

A Notice of Intent (NOI) published in the Federal Register (FR) on January 29, 2008, formally 

announced the intent of the BLM to revise the existing plan and prepare the associated EIS. 

Publication of the NOI initiated the scoping process and invited participation by affected and 

interested agencies, organizations, and the general public to determine the scope and issues to be 

addressed in the alternatives and analyses of the EIS.

5.2.1 Scoping Meetings

The scoping period for this planning effort began on March 1, 2008, with the period’s end date 

extended from June 1, 2008, to September 30, 2008, at public request. The BLM sent a scoping 

notice to governmental agencies, interested organizations, and individuals for this planning 

process, in addition to placing paid notices in local newspapers. Table 5.1 lists the eight public 

scoping meetings held. The Scoping Report is available at the Rio Puerco RMP Revision website 

cited below (Section 5.2.4).

Table 5.1: Public Scoping Meetings

Date Location Attendance

Wednesday, April 2, 2008 Albuquerque Marriott Pyramid Hotel 42

Thursday, April 3, 2008 Los Lunas Museum of Heritage & Arts 5

Monday, April 7, 2008 Cuba Senior Center 17

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 Bernalillo High School Gymnasium 41
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

5-2

Date Location Attendance

Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Moriarty Civic Center 2

Thursday, April 10, 2008 Loma Colorado Library, Rio Rancho 9

Wednesday, April 16, 2008 Grants Convention Center 7

Thursday, April 17, 2008 University of NM, Gallup Campus 1

5.2.2 Planning Themes Raised in Scoping Comments

Over 95 percent of the comment submissions were from individuals. The majority of comments 

were nearly evenly divided between four major land or resource uses, referred to as “Planning 

Themes”: minerals and energy development, off-highway vehicle use, recreation and visitor 

services, and special area designations. These four themes were addressed in the comments of 

approximately 90 percent of responding individuals.

Those individuals and entities involved in the scoping process identified public and agency 

concerns, defined relevant issues, and suggested possible alternatives that are being considered in 

the Draft RMP Revision/Draft EIS. In reviewing the scoping comments, the BLM ID Team 

assigned each comment received to one or more of the following five categories.

1. Addressed through RMP Revision planning decisions. (These comments are being 

addressed in this document, either through new decisions or decisions carried forward 

from the 1986 RMP.)

2. Resolved outside the RMP Revision process by following policy or taking 

administrative action (in compliance with national laws, regulations, and BLM 

policies).

3. Addressed outside the RMP Revision process as part of existing BLM staff work 

(e.g., Wilderness Study Areas, “stand-alone” amendments to the 1986 RMP 

completed since its adoption).

4. Addressed independent of the RMP Revision through national planning and 

environmental analysis efforts (e.g., for the West-Wide Energy Corridor, renewable 

energy development).

5. Determined to be outside the scope of the BLM’s RMP Revision—considered but not 

addressed (e.g., the proposed Northeast Loop Road, Sandoval County Plan, proposed 

Wild Horse State Park—refer to Chapters 1 and 2 for further explanation).

5.2.3 Economic Profile System Workshops

In addition to scoping meetings, the BLM held two Economic Profile System (EPS) workshops, 

inviting local citizens and community leaders to develop a common economic understanding. 

The first EPS workshop was held in Albuquerque on July 29, 2008, with the second held in 

Grants on July 31, 2008. Both workshops covered topics including the changing economy in the 

Western U.S., trends in local economies, adapting to change, an EPS demonstration, the EPS 

profile of local counties, and the role of public land management in local economies.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

5-3

5.2.4 Training Sessions

The agency also conducted two training sessions for agency staff and members of the public, 

“BLM Planning Concepts,” and “Nuts and Bolts of the Planning Process.” Both sessions were 

held in Albuquerque, with the first on November 27-29, 2007, and the second on February 25-

28, 2008.

5.2.5 Website

A website for the Rio Puerco RMP Revision continues to help facilitate public notification and 

involvement at: 

http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/fo/Rio_Puerco_Field_Office/rpfo_rmp_revision.html.

5.3 Description of Consultation and Collaborative Efforts

This section describes consultation and collaborative efforts with local American Indian entities, 

federal, state, and local agencies, and interest groups.

5.3.1 Cooperating Agencies

Potential cooperating agencies were identified and invited to enter formal agreements early in the 

planning process. The criteria used to identify potential cooperators were that they be 

governmental entities that have jurisdiction by law, or special expertise with respect to potential 

impacts (40 CFR 1506.1). Federal agencies that manage lands adjacent to BLM lands within the 

Planning Area were also invited to cooperate.

The RPFO extended invitations for cooperating agency status to 45 federal, state and local 

agencies and jurisdictions, in addition to the leaders of 35 American Indian tribes, nations and 

pueblos. Those entities that have agreed to formal cooperation status under a Memorandum of 

Understanding are listed in Table 5.2 below.

Table 5.2: Agencies Cooperating in the BLM Planning Process for this RMP Revision

Federal Agency State Agencies

U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife

Service

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

Local Agency New Mexico Department of Game & Fish

City of Albuquerque, Open Space Division

The BLM invited the cooperating agencies to participate in developing RMP alternatives, 

supplying existing data and other information relative to their agency responsibilities, goals, 

mandates, and expertise. Agency representatives provided input during the initial scoping 

process on issues of special expertise or legal jurisdiction. In addition, they participated in a 

series of alternative formulation workshops, reviewed draft information and documents, and 

periodically met with BLM managers and resource specialists to discuss planning issues and give

input.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

5-4

5.3.2 American Indian Entities

Thirty-five tribes, tribal organizations, pueblos, and Navajo chapter houses have lands located 

within the Planning Area or contiguous to it. These are listed in Table 5.3 below.

Tribal consultation began with a letter announcing the start of the RMP Revision and inviting 

local tribes, nations and pueblos to participate in the process. Subsequently, 25 meetings were 

held with various American Indian leaders, soliciting input and hearing their concerns. The 

concerns included but were not limited to land tenure, energy corridors and access to various 

parcels. Additionally, the tribes were invited to several planning training sessions, alternative 

development and analysis workshops, with several tribal members participating.

Rio Puerco Field Office managers and staff are continuing consultation with American Indian 

entities on a government-to-government basis throughout the planning process. American Indian 

governments have been encouraged to identify issues, express concerns, and provide information 

they would like the BLM to consider in its decision-making process. The agency has provided 

the entities with information about the plan for developing the cultural resource component of 

the RMPR/EIS, and requested that they identify any traditional cultural places and resources that 

should be considered. Agency staff and managers continue to seek opportunities to develop 

cooperative management partnerships with these groups where appropriate.

Table 5.3: American Indian Entities Contacted for Plan Participation

Tribes & Nations Tribes & Nations

Comanche Tribe Navajo Nation &

Navajo Nation

Historic 

Preservation 

Department

Fort Sill Apache Tribe

Jicarilla Apache Nation

Mescalero Apache Tribe

White Mountain Apache Tribe Navajo Chapters

Hopi Tribe Alamo

Southern Ute Tribe Baca/Haystack

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Break Springs

Pueblos Cañoncito Bank

Acoma Casamero Lake

Cochiti Counselor

Isleta Little Water

Jemez Ojo Encino

Laguna Pueblo Pintado

San Felipe Ramah

Sandia Red Rock

Santa Ana To’hajiilee

Santo Domingo Torreon

Zia Tsayatoh

Zuni Whitehorse Lake
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

5-5

5.3.3 Federal Agencies and Members of Congress

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 [Title 16, United States Code, Sec. 661 et seq. 

(16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.)], as amended, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 

1531 et seq.) require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) before 

initiation of any BLM project that has potential to affect any federally listed, special-status 

species or its habitat. Because the Rio Puerco RMP Revision is considered a major federal 

action, the Rio Puerco Field Office has initiated consultation with the USFWS. While informal 

consultation has been occurring since May 2010, formal consultation will not begin until the 

BLM submits a Biological Assessment (BA) to USFWS for their review and concurrence.

Other federal agencies contacted and invited to participate in this planning process include those 

listed in Table 5.4 below.

In addition to the agencies listed in the table, the BLM also informed the Honorable Senators and 

Representatives Jeff Bingaman, Pete V. Domenici, Tom Udall, Heather Wilson, Martin Heinrich, 

and Ben Lujan of the Rio Puerco RMP Revision process. These individuals currently serve or 

have served the citizens of New Mexico in the U.S. Congress.

Table 5.4: Federal Agencies Conctacted for Plan Participation

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of Agriculture

 Bureau of Indian Affairs Forest Service

 Bureau of Reclamation Cibola National Forest

 National Park Service Natural Resources Conservation 

Service

 Bandelier National Monument U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency

 El Malpais National Monument U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

 El Morro National Monument

 Fish & Wildlife Service

 Geological Survey

5.3.4 State and County Agencies and Other Local Entities

Staff and managers at the BLM Rio Puerco Field Office have contacted other interested agencies 

or governments by telephone, e-mail and formal correspondence to share information regarding 

the BLM‘s RMP Revision process. Agencies contacted are listed in Table 5.5 below.

Consistent with legislation protecting state-listed species, the BLM has contacted the New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish and the New Mexico Energy, Mineral, and Natural 

Resources Department regarding the potential presence of state-listed threatened and endangered 

plant and animal species in the Planning Area.

Under the New Mexico Protocol Agreement and the BLM National Programmatic Agreement, 

the BLM notified the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in March 2008 

that an EIS was being prepared for management of public lands in Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, 

Sandoval, Torrance, and Valencia counties. In 2008, the BLM conferred with the SHPO 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

5-6

regarding the extent of the area of potential effect, data sources, and appropriate tribal 

consultation. In accordance with the BLM National Programmatic Agreement and New Mexico 

Protocol, BLM staff will continue to consult on undertakings pursued in accordance with an 

Approved RMP once the planning process is complete.

Table 5.5: State, County, Local, and Private Entities Contacted for Plan Participation

State Government Agencies Cities, Towns & Villages

Governor of New Mexico

Attorney General

Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources

Bureau of Mines

Dept. of Agriculture

Dept. of Cultural Affairs

Dept. of Energy, Minerals & Natural 

Resources

Forestry Division

Parks & Recreation Division

Dept. of Finance & Administration

Dept. of Game & Fish

Dept. of Health & Human Services

Dept. of Indian Affairs

Dept. of Tourism

Dept. of Transportation

Environment Department

Farm & Livestock Bureau

Oil Conservation Division

Soil & Water Conservation Division

State Engineer

State Historic Preservation Office

State Land Office

State Monuments

Albuquerque

Bernalillo

Corrales

Cuba

Estancia

Gallup

Grants

Ojo Encino

Placitas

Rio Rancho

San Luis

San Ysidro

Torreon

Soil & Water Conservation Districts

Claunch

Cuba

East Torrance

Edgewood

Lava

Pinto

Valencia

Counties Local Entities

Bernalillo

Catron

Cibola

McKinley

Sandoval

Santa Fe

Socorro

Torrance

Valencia

Las Huertas Watershed Group (Placitas)

Las Placitas Association

Livestock Water Associations

Placitas Board of Realtors

San Luis Domestic Water Association

Private Companies

Jemez Electric Cooperative

La Farge

Public Service Co. of NM

5.3.5 Interest Groups

An effective means of sharing information and collecting input for the RMP Revision has been 

one-on-one or small-group discussions with interested parties, at their request. BLM staff and 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

5-7

managers have engaged in discussions with a variety of special interest groups during the 

planning process. Coordination has occurred with the East Mountain Regional Trails Council, 

New Mexico Off-Road Vehicle Association, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, San Antonio de 

Las Huertas Land Grant, San Juan Badlands Group, Western Watersheds Project, Wild Earth 

Guardians, Wilderness Society, and Wild Horse Observers Association.

5.4 Lists of Preparers and Reviewers

Reviewers and preparers of the Draft RMP/EIS (including members of the Interdisciplinary 

Team) are listed in Tables 5.6 through 5.10 below.

Table 5.6: Rio Puerco Field Office/NMSO Interdisciplinary Team

Name Title and/or Responsibility

Angel Martinez RMP Team Lead, Planning & NEPA Coordinator

Melanie Barnes RMP Team Lead (Former), Surface Protection

Joe Blackmon RMP Team Lead (Former)

Sabrina Flores RMP Team Technical Coordinator (Former)

Kent Hamilton Planning & NEPA Coordinator (Retired)

Matt Atencio Rangeland Management, Vegetation

Mike Bilbo Cave & Karst Resources

Andrea Chavez Fish & Wildlife, Special-Status Species, Threatened & Endangered Species 

Consultation

Donna Dudley Recreation, Wilderness & Wilderness Study Areas (Retired)

J.J. Gallegos Facilities

Jamie Garcia Recreation, Wilderness & Wilderness Study Areas

Brittany Gaudette Geology (Former)

John Gilmore Geology (Retired)

Cynthia Herhahn American Indian Tribal Interests, Cultural Resources

Pat Hester Paleontological Resources (Retired)

Jeanne Hoadley 

(NMSO)

Air Quality (Retired)

Jeremy Kruger Woodland & Forest Management

David Mattern Air Quality, Soil Resources, Water Resources

Joe Mirabal Geology, Public Safety

Danny Randall National Recreation Areas

Todd Richards Fire Management

Arlene Salazar Land Tenure Adjustments, Land Use Authorizations, Utility 

Corridors/Communication Sites, Withdrawals, Renewable Energy

Table 5.7: Technical and Administrative Support Team

Name Title and/or Responsibility

M’Lee Beazley Printing

Dawn Chavez Geographical Information Systems, Visual Resources

Yari Estrada Support Services

Melissa Goldin Desktop Publishing

Theresa Nallick Geographical Information Systems (Former)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination

5-8

Name Title and/or Responsibility

Sarah W. Spurrier Records Administrator

Britni Vickers Support Services

Martin Visarraga Geographical Information Systems

Table 5.8: Managers and Reviewers – State Office Management Team

Name Title and/or Responsibility

Jesse Juen BLM State Director

Linda S.C. Rundell BLM State Director (Retired)

Bill Merhege Deputy State Director, Resources 

Ron Dunton Deputy State Director, Resources (Retired)

Melanie Barnes State Planning & Environmental Coordinator

Meagan Stouffer State Planning & Environmental Coordinator

Mark Spencer State Planning & Environmental Coordinator (Former)

Table 5.9: Albuquerque District/Rio Puerco Field Office Management Team

Name Title and/or Responsibility

Edwin J. Singleton Albuquerque District Manager

Thomas E. Gow Rio Puerco Field Manager

Lindsey Eoff Assistant Field Manager, Renewable Resources (Former)

David Sitzler Assistant Field Manager, Multi-Resources (Retired)

Table 5.10: State Office Review Team

Roger Cumpian Powell King Sarah Schlanger

Brad Higdon Signa Larralde James Sippel

Rebecca Hunt Debbie Lucero John Sherman

Roger Jaggers Marikay Ramsey Jay Spielman

5.5 Plan Evaluation

The plan should be periodically evaluated (at a minimum of every 5 years) as documented in an 

evaluation schedule. Plan evaluations should also be completed before initiation of any plan 

revisions and for major amendments. Special or unscheduled evaluations may also be required to 

review unexpected management actions or significant changes in the related plans of American 

Indian entities, other federal agencies, and state and local governments, or to evaluate legislation 

or litigation that has the potential to trigger an RMP Amendment or Revision. More information 

concerning plan evaluations and other planning issues can be found in the BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook (H-1601-1; USDI, BLM 2005)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

References

References-1

REFERENCES

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. 2006. Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power 

Lines: the State of the Art in 2006. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1983. Final ACEC Plan Element for Bluewater Canyon. 

———. 1984. BLM Manual H-8410-1 Visual Resource Inventory.

———. 1986. Rio Puerco Resource Management Plan. Albuquerque District Office. Rio Puerco 

Resource Area. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

———. 1987a. Final Protection Plan for Cabezon Peak ACEC. September. 

———. 1987b. Final Protection Plan for Canon Tapia Area of Critical Environmental Concern. 

September.

———. 1987c. Final Protection Plan for Ball Ranch ACEC. September.

———. 1987d. Final Protection Plan for Ojito Area of Critical Environmental Concern. September.

———. 1987e. Final Protection Plan for San Luis Mesa Raptor Area ACEC. September.

———. 1988. BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern.

———. 1989. Protection Plan for Jones Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern. July.

———. 1991a. Albuquerque District Oil and Gas Leasing and Development RMP Amendment and EIS. 

———. 1991b. Final (Revised) Protection Plan for Elk Springs ACEC. September. 

———. 1993. BLM Manual 8351- Wild and Scenic Rivers – Policy and Program Direction for 

Identification, Evaluation, and Management.

———. 1995. Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review. July 5.

———. 1996. Environmental Assessment and Plan Amendment for Vehicle Use in the Ignacio Chavez 

Special Management Area. August. 

———. 1998. Rio Puerco Resource Area Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Management Plan. April. 

———. 2000. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Management in 

the Albuquerque Field Office- New Mexico. BLM document number BLM/NM/PL-00-010-

1040. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

References

References-2

———. 2001. Record of Decision for New Mexico Standards for Public Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing. New Mexico State Office. January.

———. 2002. Rio Puerco Field Office Drought Action Plan. July.

———. 2004. Decision Record and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels 

Management on Public Land in New Mexico and Texas. BLM-NM-PL-013-2824. New 

Mexico State Office. 31p. + appendices.

———. 2005a. Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1. March.

———. 2005b. Final Wind Energy Programmatic EIS. Available at: http://windeis.anl.gov. Accessed 

July 2010.

———. 2007a. Record of Decision for the Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Programmatic 

EIS. September.

———. 2007b. BLM Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development. Available at: 

at:http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/gold_bo

ok.html. Accessed July 2010.

———. 2008. Public Scoping Summary Report for the Rio Puerco Resource Management Plan 

Revision/Environmental Impact Statement. September. 

———. 2009. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for 

Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land Management Administered Lands in the 

11 Western States. Available at: http://corridoreis.anl.gov/documents/ 

docs/Energy_Corridors_final_signed_ROD_1_14_2009.pdf. Accessed July 2010.

———. 2010a. Mineral Resource Potential and Reasonably Foreseeable Development. Prepared for the 

BLM Rio Puerco Field Office in Albuquerque, NM. Prepared by Intera. January 11, 2010. 

———.2010b. Rio Puerco Field Office Fire Management Plan. January.

———. Undated. BLM Manual Subpart 8310 – Recreation Inventory.

New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles. 2006. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/spf/nm-restorprinciples-122006.pdf. Accessed July 2010.

New Mexico Forest and Watershed Health Planning Committee. 2004. The New Mexico Forest and 

Watershed Health Plan. Available at: 

http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/main/documents/FWHPLAN033005.pdf. Accessed July 2010.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

References

References-3

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2010. 

Ecological Site Descriptions website. Available at: 

http://esis.sc.egov.usda.gov/Welcome/pgReportLocation.aspx?type=ESD. Accessed July 2010.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1982. National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System; Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification and 

Management of River Areas. Available at: http://www.rivers.gov/publications/guidelines.pdf

———. 2008. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing 

in the Western United States. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURC

E_PROTECTION_/energy/geothermal_eis/final_programmatic.Par.90935.File.dat/ROD_Geot

hermal_12-17-08.pdf. Accessed July 2010.

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) and U.S. Department of Energy. Date TBD. Solar Energy 

Development Programmatic EIS. Available at: http://solareis.anl.gov. Accessed October 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Plan Available at 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A004. Accessed July 

2010.

———. 1999. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection From Human and Land use 

Disturbances. Available at: 

https://fs.ogm.utah.gov/pub/mines/coal_related/MiscPublications/USFWS_Raptor_Guide/RAP

TORGUIDE.PDF. Accessed July 2010.

———. 2002. Final Recovery Plan for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Available at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B094. Accessed July 

2010.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1993. Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Decision Notice and Finding 

of No Significant Impact. February.