The Bureau of Land Management sustains the health,

diversity, and productivity of the public lands

for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

BLM/NM/PL-12-10-1610
Rio Puerco

Resource Management Draft Plan & 

Environmental Impact Statement

Volume I

August 2012

United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Albuquerque District

Rio Puerco Field Office




TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Introduction and Background ...................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Historical Overview ...............................................................................................................1-1

1.1.2 Description of the Planning Area...........................................................................................1-2

1.1.3 Ecoregions of the Planning Area ...........................................................................................1-2

1.1.4 Land Ownership in the Planning Area...................................................................................1-6

1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Resource Management Plan Revision ........................... 1-6

1.2.1 Purpose of the RMP Revision ................................................................................................1-7

1.2.2 Need for Revising the Existing Plan......................................................................................1-8

1.3 Decision Framework....................................................................................................1-8

1.3.1 Planning Issues.......................................................................................................................1-9

1.3.2 Planning Criteria...................................................................................................................1-14

1.3.3 Relevant Statutes, Limitations, and Guidelines...................................................................1-15

1.3.4 Other Related Plans..............................................................................................................1-16

1.4 The Planning Process.................................................................................................1-16

1.4.1 Steps in the Process..............................................................................................................1-16

1.4.2 Resource Management Plan Implementation ......................................................................1-18

2 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Description of Alternatives.......................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.1 Brief Summary and Highlights of the Proposed Alternatives...............................................2-4

2.1.2 Travel Management................................................................................................................2-5

2.1.3 Recreation and Visitor Services.............................................................................................2-5

2.1.4 Mineral Resources..................................................................................................................2-6

2.1.5 Special Designations ..............................................................................................................2-9

2.1.6 Proposed ACECs....................................................................................................................2-9

2.1.7 Visual Resource Management..............................................................................................2-10

2.1.8 Lands and Realty ..................................................................................................................2-11

2.2 Proposed Alternatives................................................................................................ 2-12

2.2.1 Air Resources .......................................................................................................................2-12

2.2.2 Cave and Karst Resources....................................................................................................2-13

2.2.3 Cultural Resources................................................................................................................2-16

2.2.4 Fire Management..................................................................................................................2-23

2.2.5 Forests and Woodlands ........................................................................................................2-25

2.2.6 Health and Safety .................................................................................................................2-29

2.2.7 Lands and Realty ..................................................................................................................2-30

2.2.8 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics................................................................................2-38

2.2.9 Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................2-40

2.2.10 Mineral Resources...............................................................................................................2-45

2.2.11 Paleontological Resources...................................................................................................2-54

2.2.12 Recreation and Visitor Services..........................................................................................2-56

2.2.13 Renewable Energy...............................................................................................................2-73

2.2.14 Riparian Resources..............................................................................................................2-76

2.2.15 Soil and Water Resources....................................................................................................2-80

2.2.16 Special Designations ...........................................................................................................2-81

2.2.17 Special Status Species.......................................................................................................2-123

2.2.18 Travel Management...........................................................................................................2-128

2.2.19 Vegetative Communities...................................................................................................2-132
2.2.20 Visual Resource Management...........................................................................................2-135

2.2.21 Wild and Scenic Rivers.....................................................................................................2-135

2.2.22 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources......................................................................................2-139

2.3 Summary of Impacts................................................................................................ 2-144

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis............................ 2-192

2.4.1 No Grazing Alternative ......................................................................................................2-192

2.4.2 Wild Horse Preserve, Sanctuary, State Park, or Herd Management Area Alternative.....2-193

2.4.3 Placitas ACEC....................................................................................................................2-193

2.4.4 Las Huertas Creek Wild and Scenic River Special Designation.......................................2-195

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Air Resources............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Air Quality..............................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Clean Air Act Protection Classes...........................................................................................3-2

3.1.3 Climate....................................................................................................................................3-2

3.1.4 Climate Change ......................................................................................................................3-4

3.2 Cave and Karst Resources ........................................................................................... 3-5

3.3 Cultural Resources....................................................................................................... 3-7

3.3.1 Cultural History of the Planning Area ...................................................................................3-7

3.3.2 Current Condition...................................................................................................................3-9

3.3.3 Indicators ................................................................................................................................3-9

3.3.4 Trails, Roads and Railroads .................................................................................................3-10

3.3.5 Key Features.........................................................................................................................3-14

3.4 Fire Management ....................................................................................................... 3-14

3.4.1 Wildland Fire Management Strategies.................................................................................3-16

3.4.2 Current Conditions ...............................................................................................................3-19

3.5 Forestry and Woodland Resources ............................................................................ 3-19

3.5.1 Current Conditions ...............................................................................................................3-20

3.6 Geologic Resources ...................................................................................................3-22

3.6.1 Physiographic Provinces......................................................................................................3-23

3.6.2 Rock Units............................................................................................................................3-23

3.7 Health and Safety....................................................................................................... 3-24

3.7.1 Motorized Vehicle Use.........................................................................................................3-25

3.7.2 Recreational Shooting and Hunting .....................................................................................3-26

3.7.3 Other Recreational Activities...............................................................................................3-26

3.7.4 Abandoned Mines and Prospects.........................................................................................3-26

3.7.5 Air Transportation and Military Operations........................................................................3-27

3.7.6 Livestock Operations............................................................................................................3-27

3.7.7 Crimes against Persons and Property...................................................................................3-28

3.7.8 Wildfires...............................................................................................................................3-28

3.7.9 Regulated Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste Sites.....................................................3-28

3.7.10 Hazardous Materials............................................................................................................3-28

3.8 Lands and Realty........................................................................................................ 3-29

3.8.1 Land Use Authorizations......................................................................................................3-30

3.8.2 Utility Corridors ...................................................................................................................3-30

3.8.3 Communication Sites ...........................................................................................................3-31

3.8.4 Withdrawals..........................................................................................................................3-31

3.8.5 Access...................................................................................................................................3-32

3.9 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics...................................................................... 3-33
3.9.1 Chamisa E.............................................................................................................................3-34

3.9.2 Cimarron Mesa .....................................................................................................................3-35

3.9.3 Ignacio Chavez A, B, and C.................................................................................................3-35

3.9.4 Petaca Pinta A.......................................................................................................................3-36

3.9.5 Volcano Hill .........................................................................................................................3-36

3.10 Livestock Grazing...................................................................................................... 3-36

3.10.1 Livestock Use of Grazing Allotments.................................................................................3-36

3.10.2 Selective Management Categorization ...............................................................................3-38

3.10.3 Continuing Management Guidance for Resolution of the Vegetative Uses Issue.............3-40

3.10.4 Land Health .........................................................................................................................3-40

3.10.5 Range Improvements...........................................................................................................3-41

3.10.6 Forecast................................................................................................................................3-42

3.10.7 Key Features........................................................................................................................3-42

3.11 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................... 3-42

3.11.1 Salable Minerals..................................................................................................................3-42

3.11.2 Locatable Minerals..............................................................................................................3-44

3.11.3 Leasable Minerals................................................................................................................3-47

3.12 Paleontological Resources......................................................................................... 3-53

3.12.1 Cibola County and Southeast McKinley County ...............................................................3-54

3.12.2 Bernalillo County and portions of Cibola and Valencia Counties.....................................3-55

3.12.3 Torrance County..................................................................................................................3-55

3.12.4 Sandoval County..................................................................................................................3-56

3.12.5 Eastern Sandoval County ....................................................................................................3-57

3.12.6 Cibola County and SE McKinley County...........................................................................3-59

3.13 Recreation and Visitor Services................................................................................. 3-59

3.13.1 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ......................................................................................3-59

3.14 Renewable Energy ..................................................................................................... 3-64

3.14.1 Biomass Energy...................................................................................................................3-64

3.14.2 Solar Energy ........................................................................................................................3-65

3.14.3 Wind Energy........................................................................................................................3-65

3.15 Riparian Resources .................................................................................................... 3-66

3.16 Social and Economic Conditions............................................................................... 3-70

3.16.1 Methodology for Analysis...................................................................................................3-70

3.16.2 Impact Area .........................................................................................................................3-71

3.16.3 Cultural Identity...................................................................................................................3-74

3.16.4 Population and Demographic Change.................................................................................3-74

3.16.5 Economic Specialization and Employment ........................................................................3-76

3.16.6 Economic Well-Being and Poverty.....................................................................................3-77

3.16.7 Components of Personal Income ........................................................................................3-78

3.16.8 Contributions to the Area from BLM Management ...........................................................3-79

3.16.9 Tourism and Recreation ......................................................................................................3-80

3.16.10 Livestock Production.........................................................................................................3-81

3.16.11 Forest Products..................................................................................................................3-83

3.16.12 Mining................................................................................................................................3-83

3.16.13 Externally Funded Ecosystem Restoration .......................................................................3-84

3.16.14 Revenue Sharing................................................................................................................3-84

3.16.15 BLM Expenditures and Employment ...............................................................................3-85

3.16.16 Renewable Energy Development......................................................................................3-85

3.16.17 RPFO Contributions by Industry ......................................................................................3-86

3.16.18 Non-market Economic Value............................................................................................3-87
3.16.19 Community Resiliency......................................................................................................3-87

3.16.20 Communities Living in the Area and Interested in the BLM within the RPFO ..............3-88

3.16.21 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................................3-89

3.17 Soil and Water Resources.......................................................................................... 3-89

3.17.1 Soil Resources .....................................................................................................................3-89

3.17.2 Water Resources..................................................................................................................3-91

3.18 Special Designations..................................................................................................3-93

3.18.1 Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas............................................................................3-93

3.18.2 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail...........................................................................3-96

3.18.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers.......................................................................................................3-96

3.18.4 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Special Management Areas......................3-98

3.19 Special Status Species.............................................................................................. 3-104

3.19.1 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher......................................................................................3-105

3.19.2 Black-footed Ferret............................................................................................................3-106

3.19.3 RPFO Sensitive Species....................................................................................................3-107

3.19.4 Migratory Birds .................................................................................................................3-109

3.20 Travel Management .................................................................................................3-110

3.21 Vegetative Communities.......................................................................................... 3-112

3.21.1 Community Characterization Background .......................................................................3-112

3.21.2 EPA Level III Ecoregions .................................................................................................3-112

3.21.3 Major Land Resource Areas..............................................................................................3-113

3.21.4 Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project .......................................................................3-114

3.21.5 Riparian..............................................................................................................................3-114

3.21.6 Noxious and Invasive Species...........................................................................................3-115

3.21.7 Vegetation Inventories ......................................................................................................3-116

3.21.8 Land Health .......................................................................................................................3-117

3.22 Visual Resources...................................................................................................... 3-118

3.22.1 Landscape Scenic Quality .................................................................................................3-119

3.23 Wildlife, Fish, and Habitat....................................................................................... 3-120

3.23.1 Seasonal Habitats...............................................................................................................3-121

3.23.2 Special Designation Areas ................................................................................................3-122

3.23.3 Habitat Trends ...................................................................................................................3-127

3.23.4 Species with Special Management Emphasis...................................................................3-128

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Acres of Level III EPA Ecoregions within the Rio Puerco Planning Area ................ 1-6

Table 1.2: Acreage of Surface Land Ownership in the Rio Puerco Planning Area..................... 1-6

Table 1.3: Acreage of Mineral Ownership in the Rio Puerco Planning Area.............................. 1-6

Table 2.1: OHV Area Designations (acres), by Alternative ........................................................ 2-5

Table 2.2: Proposed SRMA and ERMAs (acres), by Alternative ............................................... 2-6

Table 2.3: Leasable Fluid Mineral Restrictions (acres), by Alternative ...................................... 2-8

Table 2.4: Salable Mineral Extraction Restrictions (acres), by Alternative (see Maps 43-46).. 2-8

Table 2.5: Locatable Mineral Entry Restrictions (acres) by Alternative .................................... 2-8

Table 2.6.: Potential ACECs (quantity and acres), by Alternative ............................................. 2-9

Table 2.7: VRM Management Classes (acres), by Alternative ................................................ 2-11

Table 2.8.: Parcels Identified For Disposal and Retention (Acres) by Alternative .................. 2-11

Table 2.9: Cultural Resources Management Decisions by Alternative .................................... 2-18
Table 2.10: Summary of Approved 2004 Fire and Fuels RMP Amendment and Additional 

Proposed Fuels Management Treatments by FMU and FRCC ..................................... 2-24

Table 2.11: Forest and Woodland Management Decisions by Alternative .............................. 2-27

Table 2.12: Rights-of-Way Management Decisions by Alternative.......................................... 2-34

Table 2.13: Land Tenure Adjustment Decisions by Alternative ............................................... 2-37

Table 2.14: Summary of Management Decisions for LWCs by Alternative........................... 2-39

Table 2.15: Livestock Grazing Management Decisions Across Alternatives ........................... 2-42

Table 2.16: Salable Mineral Management Decisions (Acres) by Alternative .......................... 2-47

Table 2.17: Locatable Mineral Management Decisions (Acres) by Alternative ...................... 2-48

Table 2.18: Leasable Mineral Management Decisions (Acres) by Alternative......................... 2-50

Table 2.19: Fluid mineral leasing stipulation abbreviations...................................................... 2-51

Table 2.20: Summary of General Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations by Alternative .............. 2-52

Table 2.21: Summary of Acres of Fluid Mineral Stipulations within Special Designations 

Managed for Resource Objectives................................................................................. 2-54

Table 2.22: Special Recreation Permit (SRP) Guidance by Alternative .................................. 2-58

Table 2.23: Management Prescriptions for the Continental Divide NST SRMA by Alternative2-60

Table 2.24: San Juan Basin Badlands ERMA Management Decisions by Alternative............. 2-62

Table 2.25: Petaca Pinta ERMA Management Decisions by Alternative ................................. 2-64

Table 2.26: Boca del Oso ERMA Management Decisions by Alternative................................ 2-66

Table 2.27: San Ysidro ERMA Management Decisions by Alternative ................................... 2-69

Table 2.28: Herrera ERMA Management Decision by Alternative .......................................... 2-71

Table 2.29: Crest of Montezuma ERMA Management Decisions by Alternative .................... 2-73

Table 2.30: Renewable Energy Management Decisions by Alternative ................................... 2-74

Table 2.31: Riparian Resource Management by Alternative..................................................... 2-79

Table 2.32: Soil Management Decisions by Alternative ........................................................... 2-81

Table 2.33: CDNST Management Decisions by Alternative..................................................... 2-83

Table 2.34: Bluewater Canyon ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative ........................ 2-85

Table 2.35: Bony Canyon Management Decisions by Alternative............................................ 2-89

Table 2.36: Cabezon Peak ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative ............................... 2-91

Table 2.37: Canon Jarido ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative................................. 2-93

Table 2.38: Canon Tapia ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative ................................. 2-94

Table 2.39: Cerro Verde ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative .................................. 2-96

Table 2.40: Elk Springs ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative ................................... 2-98

Table 2.41: Espinosa Ridge ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative ........................... 2-102

Table 2.42: Guadalupe Ruin and Community ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative2-105

Table 2.43: Ignacio Chavez ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative ........................... 2-107

Table 2.44: Jones Canyon ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative.............................. 2-110

Table 2.45: Ojito ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative............................................ 2-113

Table 2.46: Petaca Pinta ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative ................................ 2-115

Table 2.47: Pronoun Cave Complex ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative.............. 2-117

Table 2.48: San Luis Mesa Raptor Area ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative........ 2-119

Table 2.49: San Miguel Dome ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative....................... 2-121

Table 2.50: Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative.................. 2-122

Table 2.51: Gunnison Prairie Dog Management Decisions by Alternative............................. 2-126

Table 2.52: Special Status Plant Species Management Decisions by Alternative................... 2-128

Table 2.53: Travel Management Decisions by Alternative ..................................................... 2-131
Table 2.54: Vegetative Community Management Decisions by Alternative .......................... 2-134

Table 2.55: VRM Management Decisions by Alternative (acres)........................................... 2-135

Table 2.56: Wild & Scenic River Management Decisions by Alternative (Bluewater Creek) 2-136

Table 2.57: Wildlife and Fisheries Management Decisions by Alternative ............................ 2-141

Table 2.58: Impacts Summary Table ....................................................................................... 2-145

Table 3.1: Climate Data from Weather Stations in the Planning Area ........................................ 3-2

Table 3.2: Cave and Karst Potential By County.......................................................................... 3-6

Table 3.3: Class III and Site Status (All Jurisdictions).............................................................. 3-10

Table 3.4: Linear Transportation Corridors within the Planning Area...................................... 3-11

Table 3.5: Special-Status Cultural Resources in the Planning Area.......................................... 3-12

Table 3.6: Site Probabilities by Acres........................................................................................ 3-14

Table 3.7: Current Fire Regime Condition Classes................................................................... 3-15

Table 3.8: Fire Regime Condition Class Acreages by Fire Management Unit ......................... 3-16

Table 3.9: Prescribed Fire on Public Land of the Planning Area, 2001–2008 .......................... 3-18

Table 3.10: Forest Inventory Analysis for the Planning Area by County ................................. 3-21

Table 3.11: Forest and Vegetation Type by Fire Regime Condition Class (Acres) .................. 3-21

Table 3.12: Physiographic Provinces and Corresponding Counties and Planning Units .......... 3-23

Table 3.13: Geologic Epoch and Major Rock Units Found within the Planning Area ............. 3-23

Table 3.14: Lands with Wilderness Characteristics................................................................... 3-34

Table 3.15: Summary of Locatable Mineral Presence in the Planning Area............................. 3-45

Table 3.16: Reasonably Foreseeable Fluid Mineral Development In The RPRA..................... 3-49

Table 3.17: Riparian Areas In The Rio Puerco Field Office ..................................................... 3-67

Table 3.18: Number and Percent of Persons of Hispanic Origin (of Any Race)....................... 3-75

Table 3.19: Population Comparison by Race ............................................................................ 3-76

Table 3.20: Estimated Annual Employment (Full- And Part-Time Jobs) and Labor Income 

(Thousands 2012 $) Contributions................................................................................. 3-80

Table 3.21: Annual AUM Authorizations in the RPFO ............................................................ 3-82

Table 3.22: RPFO Expenditures and Employment.................................................................... 3-85

Table 3.23: Federally Protected Species In Planning And Decision Areas............................. 3-104

Table 3.24: RPFO Sensitive Species in the Decision Area ..................................................... 3-107

Table 3.25: Identified Road Projects for 2009–2013............................................................... 3-111

Table 3.26: Ecoregions in the Decision Area .......................................................................... 3-113

Table 3.27: MLRAS and LRUS in the Planning Area............................................................. 3-113

Table 3.28: LRUs by County Within the Planning Area ......................................................... 3-114

Table 3.29: Acres of Herbicide Application by Year and Species .......................................... 3-117

Table 3.30: Acres of BLM-Administered Lands within Each Visual Resource Inventory 

Class............................................................................................................................. 3-119

Table 3.31: Major Vegetation Communities of the RPFO (Acres) ......................................... 3-121

Table 3.32: Critical Winter Range within the RPFO............................................................... 3-121

Table 3.33: Changes in Special Designations with Habitat Values......................................... 3-122
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS LIST

Acronym Meaning

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AML Abandoned Mine Lands

APD Application for Permit to Drill

ATV all-terrain vehicle

AUM animal unit month

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CSU controlled surface use

CWA Clean Water Act

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area

ESA Endangered Species Act

FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class

GPS global positioning system

HSP Habitat Stamp Program

IMP Interim Management Policy

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning

LN lease notice

m Meter

MFP Management Framework Plan

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

New Mexico Standards and 

Guidelines

New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NM state-wide stipulations (for surface protection)

NMDGF New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

NOx nitrogen oxide

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSO no surface occupancy

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic Rivers System

OHV off-highway vehicle

PFC Proper Functioning Condition

PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification 

PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller

POD Plan of Development

PSD prevention of significant deterioration

RAMP Recreation Area Management Plan

RMP/EIS Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement

RMZ recreation management zones

ROD Record of Decision

RP Rio Puerco Field Office only stipulations (for surface protection)

RPFO Rio Puerco Field Office

SMA Special Management Area
Acronym Meaning

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

SRP Special Recreation Permit

SWFL southwestern willow flycatcher

TCP Traditional Cultural Property

TL timing limitations

TLS timing limit stipulations (for surface protection)

TMP Travel Management Plan

USC United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDA-NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

USDI U.S. Department of the Interior

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VRM visual resource management

WO Washington Office stipulations (for surface protection)

WSA Wilderness Study Area

WSR Wild and Scenic River

WUI Wildland Urban Interface
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-1

1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Introduction and Background

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) develops and periodically revises its land-use plans. These plans are

commonly referred to as “Resource Management Plans” (RMPs), which guide management of 

BLM-administered public lands.

The BLM Rio Puerco Field Office (RPFO) is revising its existing RMP, originally approved in 

1986. This revised plan, now called the “Rio Puerco Resource Management Plan Revision” 

(RMP Revision) is being prepared along with an associated Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS), in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The 

RMPR/EIS provides future management direction for public lands within the boundaries of the 

Rio Puerco Planning Area (Planning Area).

The Planning Area consists of approximately 744,387 acres of BLM-managed public surface

land and approximately 3,617,510 acres of federal mineral estate in Bernalillo, Cibola, Torrance 

and Valencia counties, most of Sandoval County, and portions of McKinley County in central 

and west-central New Mexico (refer to Map 1). In this RMP Revision, the BLM addresses

mineral decisions on 1,894,672 acres of the mineral estate associated with BLM-managed public 

land and private surface ownership. The lands where private surface is associated with the 

federal mineral estate are referred to as “split-estate lands,” which total about 1,214,457 acres.

In this Draft RMP Revision/Draft EIS, BLM staff members on an Interdisciplinary (ID) Team 

have described and analyzed alternative ways of managing public lands, resources, and uses 

administered by the RPFO in the future. The Rio Puerco RMP Revision applies to all BLMmanaged public lands within the Planning Area boundaries, except for the portion of the Field 

Office administrative area already addressed in the Proposed El Malpais Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (USDI, BLM 2000) and the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks 

National Monument Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (USDI, BLM 2006 – these are amendments to the 1986 RMP that are called “standalone” plans). Also excluded are lands identified as being under BLM administration that have, 

under Public Land Order 2198, been assigned to Bureau of Indian Affairs to be administered for 

Indian use.

1.1.1 Historical Overview

In 1946, the BLM was formed by a Congressional merger of the Grazing Service with the 

General Land Office. The foundation of the BLM dates back to the Land Ordinance of 1785, 

which established the public domain and led to the creation of the General Land Office. The 

Northwest Ordinance of 1787 instituted the survey and settlement of lands ceded from the 13 

colonies to the federal government and lands later acquired by the government from other 

countries. During the nation’s westward land base expansion, the settlement of western lands 

was encouraged through the enactment of a variety of laws, including the Homestead Acts and 

the Mining Law of 1872.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-2

Over time, encouraging pioneers to settle the west became less necessary and the commercial 

value of these lands increased. A variety of statutes enacted to manage mineral, timber, or 

livestock foraging activities on public lands followed. For example, the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities such as coal, oil, gas,

and sodium on public lands. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 provided for management of the 

public lands for livestock grazing. Since the passage of FLPMA, BLM-administered lands have 

been managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The agency manages for 

multiple uses and a balance between increasing and competing demands for resources on public 

lands.

1.1.2 Description of the Planning Area

The Planning Area extends from the eastern boundary of Torrance County west through 

Torrance, Bernalillo, Valencia, Cibola, and McKinley counties to the New Mexico-Arizona 

boundary, and from the Valencia County southern boundary north through Valencia, Bernalillo, 

and Sandoval counties to the Sandoval-Rio Arriba County boundary. Interstate 40 (I-40) crosses

the Planning Area east-west, while Interstate 25 (I-25) runs north-south. These interstate 

highways intersect each other in Albuquerque. Other cities and towns from east to west on I-40 

include Moriarty, Grants, Milan and Gallup. The I-25 cities and towns from south to north are 

Belen, Los Lunas, and Bernalillo; the highway leaves the Planning Area as it exits Sandoval 

County. These highways also cross American Indian Pueblo and Tribal lands as they pass 

through the Planning Area.

Approximately 13 percent of New Mexico’s lands make up the Planning Area and are home to

approximately 45 percent of New Mexico’s population. Sandoval County public lands exist in 

noncontiguous blocks of ownership (known as a “checkerboard pattern”), creating some access 

and management concerns.

1.1.3 Ecoregions of the Planning Area

The public land acres in the Planning Area make up portions of four of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Level III ecoregions. Level III mapping describes smaller 

ecological areas nested within Level II regions. At Level III, the continent currently contains 182 

ecological regions. These smaller divisions enhance regional environmental monitoring, 

assessment, and reporting, as well as decision-making. Because Level III regions are smaller, 

they allow locally defining characteristics to be identified, and more specifically oriented 

management strategies to be formulated.

Over 85 percent of the public lands in the Planning Area are in the Arizona/New Mexico Plateau 

ecoregion, with the rest being in the other three ecoregions, the Arizona/New Mexico Mountains, 

the Southern Rockies, and the Southwestern Tablelands (refer to Map 2 and Table 1.1, which 

follows Maps 1 and 2). The Arizona/New Mexico Plateau represents a large transitional region 

between the semiarid grasslands and low-relief areas of the Southwestern Tablelands. The 

Arizona/New Mexico Mountains are distinguished from neighboring mountainous ecoregions by 

their lower elevations and associated vegetation indicative of drier, warmer environments, due in 

part to the region’s more southerly location. The Southern Rockies are composed of steep, 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-3

rugged mountains with high elevations. Although coniferous forests cover much of the region, as 

characteristic of most of the mountainous regions in the western United States, the ecoregion’s 

vegetation, soil and land use follow a pattern of elevational banding. The Southwestern 

Tablelands flank the High Plains with red-hued canyons, mesas, badlands, and dissected river 

breaks. (Source: Primary Distinguishing Characteristics of Level III Ecoregions of the 

Continental United States, July, 2010--Level III and IV Ecoregions of the Continental United 

States.)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-4

Map 001: RMP Location Map (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-5

Map-002: Rio Puerco Planning Area (full color, size 11”x17”)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-6

Table 1.1: Acres of Level III EPA Ecoregions within the Rio Puerco Planning Area

Ownership/Management Ecoregion Acreagea

ANMM ANMP SR ST Total

BLM-Managed Surface b1,561,425 5,418,600 591,767 1,935,298 9,507,090

Notes: a ANMM—Arizona/New Mexico Mountains; ANMP—Arizona/New Mexico Plateau; SR—Southern Rockies; ST—

Southwestern Tablelands.

b The acreages calculated with the BLM’s Geographic Information System are used because they allow for production of 

maps and easier analyses based on computerized data.

1.1.4 Land Ownership in the Planning Area

As defined by FLPMA, “...‘public lands’ means any land and interest in land owned by the 

United States within the several States and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through 

the Bureau of Land Management...” The U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), BLM Rio 

Puerco Field Office is responsible for managing public lands. State, tribal and county

governments have land-use planning responsibility for other lands under their jurisdiction.

Tables 1-2 and 1-3 break down the surface and mineral acreage in the Planning Area by 

ownership.

Table 1.2: Acreage of Surface Land Ownership in the Rio Puerco Planning Area

Owner/Manager Total Acreage

BLM( included in this plan) 744,387

BLM (not included in this plan) 259,393

Dept. of Defense 54,947

U.S. Forest Service 1,023,739

Indian/Tribal 2,497,534

National Park Service 143,886

Private 4,032,645

State of New Mexico 652,811

State Dept. of Game & Fish 3,464

State Park 7,136

Valles Caldera National Preserve 86,235

 Total 9,506,176

1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Resource Management 

Plan Revision

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations [at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR), Part 1502.13 and Part 1600] require the purpose and need of an EIS to “briefly specify 

the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives 

including the proposed action.” This section of this EIS provides a context and framework for 

establishing and evaluating the reasonable range of alternatives described in Chapter 2.

Table 1.3: Acreage of Mineral Ownership in the Rio Puerco Planning Area

Mineral Ownership Acreage a

BLM--All Minerals 2,936,258
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-7

Mineral Ownership Acreage a

BLM--Coal only 53,161

BLM--Oil & gas only 20,939

BLM--Oil, gas & coal only 7,532

BLM--Other minerals 599,620

Total BLM mineral acres 3,617,510

No BLM minerals 5,834,348

Grand Total 9,451,859

Notes: a By GIS calculation, the difference between mineral ownership & surface ownership for the 

Planning Area is 160 acres. The acreages calculated with the BLM’s GIS system are being refined, 

& are used because they allow for production of maps & easier multiple analyses based on 

computerized data.

1.2.1 Purpose of the RMP Revision

Section 102 of FLPMA establishes the policy for periodically projecting the present and future 

use of public lands and their resources using the land-use planning process. Sections 201 and 202 

establish the BLM’s land-use planning requirements. BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use 

Planning Handbook, provides guidance for implementing the BLM land-use planning 

requirements established by Sections 201 and 202 of FLPMA and the regulations at 43 CFR 

1600.

The purpose, or goal, of the land-use plan is to ensure that BLM-administered lands are managed 

in accordance with FLPMA and the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. In general, the 

purpose of this RMP Revision is to provide a comprehensive framework for the BLM’s

management of public lands within the Planning Area, along with the allocation of resources 

under the multiple use and sustained yield mandates of FLPMA. In addition, the purposes of the 

plan revision are as follows:

Consolidate the existing RMP and its amendments.

Reevaluate, with public involvement, existing conditions, resources, and uses.

Reconsider the mix of resource allocations and management decisions designed to balance 

uses, and the protection of resources under FLPMA and other applicable laws.

Resolve multiple-use conflicts or issues between resource values and resource uses.

Establish consolidated guidance and updated goals, objectives, and management actions for 

the public lands in the Decision Area. (Note: The Decision Area is that portion of the larger 

Planning Area made up only of BLM-managed public lands.) The RMP is comprehensive in 

nature and addresses issues that have been identified through agency, interagency, and public 

scoping efforts.

Under the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), its implementing 

regulations, and other applicable laws, disclose and assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts of the reasonably foreseeable future actions resulting from the potential 

implementation of each proposed alternative.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-8

1.2.2 Need for Revising the Existing Plan

The BLM has identified the need to revise the existing plan through a formal internal evaluation, 

the results of an internal Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS), and examination of 

issues identified during the public scoping process and through collaboration with cooperating 

agencies. In the 25 years since the Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in January 1986 for the 

existing plan, new data have become available, new policies have been established, and old 

policies have been revised.

The expanding population of the Planning Area over the last 25 years has resulted in competition 

for public land resources, as was evident during the internal and external scoping process. This

competition, along with emerging issues and changing circumstances, resulted in the need to 

revise the existing plan.

In addition, the existing plan’s decisions no longer serve as a useful guide for resource 

management in the Planning Area. For example, the development of the New Mexico Standards 

for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (USDI, BLM 2000) 

and the emphasis on recreation and visitor services have resulted in different priorities than were 

unforeseen when the existing plan was approved in 1986. Renewable energy has become an 

emerging issue.

Additionally, BLM guidelines for specially designated areas have changed, so previously 

designated areas must be reevaluated to comply with these new requirements. Tribal concerns 

about land tenure, mineral use, access issues, and urban expansion reflect changes since the 

signing of the existing plan. These identified changes, along with the issues and resource 

conflicts identified in both internal and external scoping, frame the need for a plan revision.

1.3 Decision Framework

As identified both internally and externally, the planning issues drive the need for this RMP 

Revision. Together with these issues, the planning criteria provide the framework in which RMP 

decisions are made. “RMP decisions” are those decisions established or determined in the 

Approved RMP. For example, the BLM received several nominations for Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs) during the scoping process for this RMP Revision. These 

issues fall within one of the planning criteria (refer to the “Planning Criteria,” Section 1.3.2 

below), which is the need to identify and analyze areas potentially suitable for ACEC 

designation. In the Approved RMP Revision, BLM managers and staff will determine whether 

any ACECs will be designated within the Planning Area. In this example, the land-use planning 

decision is referred to as a “special designation.”

The BLM’s Interdisciplinary (ID) Team has developed management strategies that provide

viable options for addressing the planning issues. These strategies provide the building blocks 

from which general management scenarios and eventually, the more detailed resource 

management alternatives are developed. The resource management alternatives reflect a 

reasonable range of management options that fall within limits set by the planning criteria. The 

planning issues and planning criteria used to revise the existing plan are described in the 

following sections.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-9

1.3.1 Planning Issues

Planning issues express opportunities, conflicts, and problems associated with the management 

of public lands. Issues also reflect new data, new or revised policies, and changes in resource 

uses that affect the Planning Area.

Public input was generated through a formal public scoping period, which began with the 

publication of a notice in the Federal Register on February 29, 2008. The BLM held seven 

public meetings during the scoping period. The formal scoping period was scheduled to end May 

31, 2008, but at public request was extended through September 30, 2008.

For a discussion of the planning issues identified during scoping, please refer to the RPFO Final 

Scoping Report (BLM). This report is available on the Rio Puerco RMP Revision website at Rio 

Puerco (Albuquerque) Resource Management Plan Revision and Environmental Impact 

Statement. Other resource and use issues are identified in the BLM Planning Handbook (H1601-1) and BLM Manual 1610.

1.3.1.1 Issues Considered in this RMP Revision

Those planning issues determined to be within the scope of the RMP Revision/EIS were used to 

develop one or more of the alternatives, or are addressed in other parts of the document. For 

example, as planning issues were refined, the BLM collaborated with cooperating agencies to 

develop a reasonable range of alternatives designed to address and/or resolve key planning 

issues, such as what areas are suitable for energy and mineral resource development. A 

reasonable range of alternatives provides various scenarios for how the BLM and cooperating 

agencies can address this and other key planning issues, including the management of resources 

and resource uses in the Planning Area. In other words, key planning issues serve as a guide for 

the development of management alternatives. The key planning issues identified for use in 

developing the alternatives addressed in this EIS are listed below.

1.3.1.1.1 Land Tenure Adjustment

What land tenure adjustments are needed to improve access to and management of public 

lands?

1.3.1.1.2 Mineral and Energy Development

What areas are suitable or unsuitable for energy and mineral resource development?

What level of development should be allowed in areas suitable for energy and mineral 

development?

1.3.1.1.3 Recreation and Visitor Services

What areas should be managed as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) or 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs)?

What facilities should be provided?

What services should be provided?

1.3.1.1.4 Visual Resources Management (VRM)

What visual resources should be considered for management?
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-10

What classes should be assigned for visual resource management?

1.3.1.1.5 Special Designations

What areas, if any, contain unique or sensitive resources requiring special management?

Do these areas meet importance and relevance criteria? Why not consider them as ACECs?

1.3.1.1.6 Travel and Trails Management

Where are trails needed for access (of any type—motorized, hiking, or equestrian) to certain 

resources or their protection?

Where are roads needed?

Where is there a need to close roads?

Which closed roads should be rehabilitated?

1.3.1.1.7 Public Land-Urban Interface

What areas need management to improve health and safety in this interface?

What areas need management to reduce user conflict in this interface?

1.3.1.1.8 Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use

What areas are attractive for OHV use?

What areas have resources tolerant of or compatible with OHV use?

How can consistency with all resource program goals and objectives be achieved?

Who are the primary travelers?

What are the objectives for allowing travel in the area?

Which characteristics of the setting are to be maintained (including VRM settings)?

What are the primary means of travel to be allowed to accomplish program objectives and 

maintain the setting characteristics?

1.3.1.2 Issues Not Addressed in this RMP Revision

1.3.1.2.1 Policy or Administrative Actions

These include actions implemented by the BLM because they are standard operating procedures, 

federal law requires them, or they are required under BLM policy. They are therefore 

eliminated from detailed analysis in this planning effort. Administrative actions do not require 

a planning decision for implementation.

1.3.1.2.2 Issues Beyond the Scope of the RMP Planning Process and Eliminated from Detailed 

Analysis

These include decisions that are not under the jurisdiction of the BLM, particularly those that are 

within the jurisdiction of other governmental agencies (e.g., tribal entities, state, county, or local 

jurisdictions),or those beyond the capability of the BLM to resolve as part of the planning 

process. Issues identified in this category include the following.

New proposals for wilderness or Wilderness Study Area designation.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-11

Activities and uses beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM, including changes in existing laws, 

policies, and regulations.

Availability of funding and personnel for managing resource and use programs.

Consideration of alternative energy sources as substitutes for activities related to mineral 

development.

The State of New Mexico and the counties addressed in this RMP/EIS may hold valid existing 

rights-of-way in the Planning Area under Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477 (Act of July 28, 1866; 

Chapter 262262, 8, 14, Stat. 252, 253 codified at 43 U.S.C. 932). On October 21, 1976, the 

Congress repealed R.S. 2477 by passing FLPMA. This RMP does not adjudicate, analyze, or 

otherwise determine the validity of claimed rights-of-ways. Additionally, nothing in the RMP 

extinguishes any valid right-of-way, or alters in any way the legal right the state and counties 

have to assert and protect R.S. 2477 rights, or to challenge in federal court or other appropriate 

means any use restrictions imposed by the RMP that they believe are inconsistent with their 

rights.

Additional reasons why some issues have been categorized as being beyond the scope of the 

planning process are discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.3) of this document.

1.3.1.3 Management Concerns

Management concerns are topics or points of dispute that involve a resource management 

activity or land use. While some of these concerns may overlap the issues, a management 

concern is generally more important to an individual or group, whereas a planning issue has the 

potential to be a more widespread source of conflict or opportunity. The management concerns 

that have received consideration in the planning process are as follows.

1.3.1.3.1 Air Quality

The document identifies (1) all potentially affected Class I areas; (2) actions that could be taken 

to protect these areas; and (3) area-wide criteria or restrictions that will be applied to any activity 

authorized by the Rio Puerco Field Office to ensure compliance with all local, state, federal or 

tribal air quality standards and implementation plans.

1.3.1.3.2 Cave Resources

As a part of this planning effort, BLM staff will determine whether or not caves located on Rio 

Puerco Field Office public lands meet the criteria for significance as set forth at 43 CFR 

37.11(c). As they meet the criteria, the RPFO will describe management objectives and 

prescriptions for those areas. Cave-specific wildlife may also be addressed under wildlife 

resources, and caves may be managed as wildlife habitat.

1.3.1.3.3 Resources and Traditional Cultural Values

Through the planning process, BLM staff members have done the following: (1) described the 

cultural resource values located within the Planning Area; (2) established goals for their 

management, including protection by preservation of significant cultural resources, reduction of 

imminent threats, and the resolution of potential conflicts from natural or human-caused 

deterioration or from other resource uses; and (3) addressed the allocation of recorded sites to 

use categories as identified in BLM Manual 8110. In addition to assigning use categories to 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-12

known cultural resources, BLM staff are also carrying out the following: (1) developing a 

strategy for how those cultural resources assigned to use categories may realize their use 

potential; and (2) specifying that all authorizations for land and resource use will comply with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

1.3.1.3.4 Engineering

The RMP Revision provides guidance for building and maintaining resource improvements for 

watershed, wildlife, recreation and livestock grazing. This guidance is consistent with resource 

management objectives for livestock grazing on allotments and use areas (BLM Manual 9101).

1.3.1.3.5 Environmental Justice

BLM staff have determined if actions proposed in the RMP Revision would adversely and 

disproportionately impact minority populations, low-income communities, and local American 

Indian tribes, nations, and pueblos (under Executive Order No. 12989, Environmental Justice). 

While the analysis of environmental justice is specifically concerned with disproportionate 

effects on these populations, the social and economic analysis produced under NEPA has 

identified all potential social and economic effects, positive and negative, on any distinct group.

1.3.1.3.6 Lands and Realty

In the RMP Revision, BLM staff have identified land use authorizations under 43 CFR 2800, 

2880, and 2920, including but not limited to: transportation and utility needs, land acquisitions 

adjacent to the EL Malpais NCA, and needs under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.

1.3.1.3.7 Paleontological Resources

Through the RMP Revision, BLM staff have developed measures for managing paleontological 

resources. These measures are in accordance with the management classes established in the 

BLM 8270 Handbook and current policy guidance found in various Washington Office 

Instruction Memoranda.

1.3.1.3.8 Recreation and Visitor Services

In developing the RMP Revision, agency staff have identified how many Extensive Recreation 

Management Area (ERMAs) and Special Recreation Areas (SRMAs) will be identified within

the Planning Area. For each ERMA or SRMA, the following aspects of recreation management 

are addressed: management of resources, visitors, and facilities; marketing (outreach, 

interpretation, environmental education and other visitor services); monitoring (social and 

environmental); and administration (regulatory; permits and fees, concessions).

1.3.1.3.9 Social and Economic Concerns

The Rio Puerco Field Office manages land within six counties, near larger cities such as 

Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, and Gallup, but also near smaller towns or communities such as 

Belen, Bernalillo, Bosque Farms, Corrales, Cuba, Edgewood, Estancia, Grants, Jemez Springs, 

Los Lunas, Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, Milan, Moriarty, Mountainair, Placitas, San Ysidro, 

Tijeras, and Willard. The concerns among residents about potential public land management 

decisions vary in the Planning Area, and are being considered during the RMP Revision process. 

The BLM held two Economic Strategy Workshops in 2008 to: (1) develop with rural community 

residents a common understanding of regional economic changes; and (2) give those citizens an 

opportunity to discuss challenges and opportunities with resource specialists.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-13

1.3.1.3.10 Soil Resources

Soil resources will be managed to maintain or improve soil health and productivity, and to 

minimize adverse impacts to these resources through management activities. Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures will be implemented at the site-specific 

activity/project level to prevent or reduce soil erosion and compaction, especially for soils with 

severe erosion susceptibility.

1.3.1.3.11 Vegetative Communities

BMPs and mitigation measures will be implemented at the site-specific activity/project level to 

address invasive species and noxious weeds. Brush management will be used where species such 

as big sagebrush, piñon and juniper trees are invasive. Saltcedar is a special-category, listed 

noxious weed that infests the riparian areas of the Rio Puerco and is targeted for eradication from 

Field Office management areas. Cheatgrass is also a new special-category, listed noxious weed 

that infests the Upper Rio Puerco and will be targeted for large-scale treatment.

1.3.1.3.12 Visual Resources Management (VRM)

Based on an assessment of changing conditions, agency staff have updated the existing (1979) 

VRM inventory for the Decision Area. The intent is to balance the need for development with 

protecting scenic values. Staff members have identified (1)areas in which maintaining the 

landscape is deemed more important than landscape development (e.g., with energy 

development, fuels reduction, utility corridors, road and trail development, or recreational 

facility development), and (2) other areas in which such development activities may be 

allowed. In assigning management classes, fragmented ownership has been an important 

consideration so as to avoid managing scenic values on small land parcels where BLM 

ownership is too limited to affect the overall landscape.

1.3.1.3.13 Water Quality

BLM staff have worked closely with the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) 

regarding water quality planning and management. Data examined have included (but were not 

limited to) that pertaining to the NMED’s identified impaired streams [in category (303(d)], 

riparian condition, land jurisdiction, water quality, and water quantity. BMPs to protect or 

improve water quality have been developed, including those required (1) for watersheds, as the

result of the 303(d)/Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process, (2) under the New Mexico 

Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (USDI, 

BLM 2000), and (3) under existing Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the State of New 

Mexico.

1.3.1.3.14 Wildfire and Prescribed Fire Management

The fire management portion of the RMP Revision will be monitored through local Fire 

Management Plan (FMP) evaluation and accomplishments. As prescribed by requirements of the 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 [Public Law (P.L.) 108-148], BLM staff have also 

addressed emergency stabilization and rehabilitation activities on landscapes and in communities 

affected by wildland fire through the use of Community Wildfire Protection Plans. Additionally, 

the RMP Revision is consistent and in compliance with applicable New Mexico State smoke 

management requirements.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-14

1.3.2 Planning Criteria

Planning criteria are constraints or ground rules that guide and direct the development of the 

plan. They ensure that the plan is tailored to the identified issues, while unnecessary data 

collection and analyses are avoided. The criteria may be adjusted during RMP development 

based on management concerns and the results of the overall public scoping process. The RMP 

Revision/EIS has been developed in compliance with FLPMA, NEPA, and all other applicable 

laws, regulations, and policies. The criteria listed below also help to guide final plan selection 

and are used as a basis for evaluating the responsiveness of the planning options.

Land use decisions in the RMP Revision will apply to the surface and subsurface estate 

managed by the BLM.

For program-specific guidance for decisions at the land-use planning level, the process is 

following the BLM’s policies in the Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601.

Broad-based public participation and collaboration are an integral part of the planning 

process.

BLM staff have endeavored to make decisions in the plan that are compatible with the 

existing plans and policies of adjacent local, state, and federal agencies and local American 

Indian tribes/nation/pueblos, as long as the decisions are consistent with the purposes, 

policies, and programs of federal law and regulations applicable to public lands.

In the RMP Revision, the BLM recognizes the state’s responsibility and authority to manage 

wildlife. The BLM continues to consult with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

The RMP Revision recognizes valid existing rights.

The RMP Revision/EIS incorporates, where applicable, management decisions brought 

forward from existing planning documents.

BLM staff are working collaboratively with cooperating agencies and all other interested 

groups, agencies, tribal entities, and individuals.

The BLM and cooperating agencies have jointly developed alternatives for resolution of 

resource management issues and management concerns.

Each area with special or unique resource values has been evaluated for a potential 

administrative designation, including Area of Critical Environmental Concern, Wild and 

Scenic River, or other appropriate designation.

Any free-flowing river and its associated land corridor found to be eligible for inclusion in the 

Wild and Scenic River System have been addressed in the RMP Revision/EIS by developing 

alternatives for protective management.

Wilderness Study Areas will continue to be managed under the BLM’s Interim Management 

Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review (IMP) until the Congress either designates all or 

portions of the WSAs as wilderness, or releases the lands from further wilderness 

consideration. The BLM no longer designates additional WSAs through the RMP Revision 

process, nor manages any lands other than existing WSAs in accordance with the Wilderness 

IMP. Areas outside of WSAs found to have wilderness characteristics, however, are 

considered in the RMP Revision as described in Appendix C of the Land Use Planning 

Handbook and in accordance with Instruction Memorandum (IM) 2011-154 (“Requirement to 

Conduct and Maintain Inventory Information for Wilderness Characteristics and to Consider 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-15

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in Land Use Plans”). Any recently acquired lands have 

been evaluated for wilderness characteristics.

Forest management strategies are consistent with the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003.

Fire management strategies are consistent with the current Decision Record and Resource 

Management Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management on Public Land in New 

Mexico and Texas (USDI, BLM 2004).

In the RMP Revision, BLM staff have considered public welfare and safety when addressing 

hazardous materials and fire management.

Geographic Information System (GIS) data and metadata meet Federal Geographic Data 

Committee (FGDC) standards, as required by Executive Order 12906. All other applicable 

BLM data standards also have been followed.

The planning process has incorporated ongoing consultation with American Indian tribal, 

national, and pueblo governments, and the RMP Revision includes strategies for protecting 

recognized traditional uses.

Planning and management direction have focused on the relative values of resources, not the 

combination of uses that would give the greatest economic return or economic output.

In the plan, the BLM has considered the quantity and quality of non-commodity resource 

values.

Where practicable and timely for the planning effort, the best available scientific information, 

research, and new technologies have been used.

Actions proposed in the plan comply with all applicable regulations, are reasonable and

achievable, and allow for flexibility while supporting adaptive management principles.

The Economic Profile System (EPS) has been used as one source of demographic and 

economic data for the planning process. This system has provided baseline data and 

contributed to estimates of existing and projected social and economic conditions.

Planning decisions have been made with consideration of the impacts of climate change on 

resources, as well as the potential contributions to climate change as the result of greenhouse 

gases.

1.3.3 Relevant Statutes, Limitations, and Guidelines

Numerous federal and state laws and applicable regulations, policies, and actions have 

influenced the development of the alternatives analyzed in this EIS. FLPMA is the primary 

authority for the BLM’s management of public lands. This law provides the overarching policy 

by which public lands are managed and establishes provisions for land use planning, land 

acquisition, administration, range management, rights-of-way (ROWs), designated management 

areas, and the repeal of certain laws and statutes. FLPMA also requires the BLM to provide food 

and habitat for fish, wildlife, and domestic species. In addition, the BLM is integrating the results

of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act Reauthorization of 1998 (P.L. 105-388) and the 

Energy Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-469 , discussed in Chapter 2) into all RMPs. NEPA provides for 

public input regarding issue identification and consideration of the environmental impacts of 

major federal actions on the quality of the human environment. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-16

1.3.4 Other Related Plans

BLM planning policies require that the agency review approved or adopted resource plans of 

other federal, state, local, and tribal governments and, where practicable, be consistent with those 

plans. Plans related to the management of land and resources such as this RMP Revision are

coordinated with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Specifically, coordination 

addresses potential impacts to crucial wildlife habitats. The following are related plans and 

environmental analyses that BLM staff members have reviewed for consistency.

Socorro Resource Management Plan Revision and Environmental Impact Statement 

(USDI, BLM 2010d)

Final Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD, Designation of 

Energy Corridors on Federal Land in 11 Western States (USDI, BLM & USDOE, 2008)

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on 

Bureau of Land Management-Administered Lands in the Western United States (USDI, 

BLM 2008)

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Geothermal Leasing in the 

Western United States (USDA, FS & USDI, BLM 2008)

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in 

Six Southwestern States (USDOE & USDI, BLM, 2011)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Travel Management on the Santa Fe National 

Forest (USDA, FS)—available at Travel Management: DEIS Information

Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Plan (USDI, FWS)—available at Black-footed Ferret 

Recovery Plan

Final Recovery Plan for the Southwest Willow Flycatcher, (USDI, FWS)—available at 

Final Recovery Plan for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Sandoval County Comprehensive Plan (2001)

Valencia County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (2005)

Placitas Open Space Master Plan (Sites Southwest, LLC 2002)

1.4 The Planning Process

Revision of an existing land use plan is a major federal action for the BLM. NEPA requires 

federal agencies to prepare an EIS for major federal actions; thus, an EIS accompanies this

revision of the existing plan. In Chapter 4 of this document, analysis of the impacts of four 

alternative RMPs for the Planning Area is contained, including the No Action Alternative. The 

No Action Alternative reflects current management (the existing plan, as amended). NEPA 

requires analysis of a No Action Alternative.

1.4.1 Steps in the Process

The list below shows the required planning steps for EIS-level planning efforts, as does Figure 

1.1 (which follows the list).

Prepare to plan.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-17

The Preparation Plan was written by a full BLM Interdisciplinary (ID) Team. This 

document provides the foundation for the entire planning process by identifying the 

preliminary issues to be addressed and the skills needed to address them. It also outlines a 

preliminary budget, preliminary planning criteria, data and metadata available and 

needed.

Issue a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the RMP/EIS and conduct scoping.

Scoping is a requirement of both the NEPA regulations and the BLM planning 

regulations. Before scoping begins, the BLM must publish an NOI in the Federal Register

to announce its decision to prepare an EIS (and associated planning document). The Rio 

Puerco Field Office published an NOI in the Federal Register on February 29, 2008, 

distributed scoping notices simultaneously to the public, mailed cooperating agency 

invitations (refer to Chapter 5 of this document), and held eight scoping meetings (refer 

to Table 5-1 in Chapter 5).The scoping period was scheduled to end on May 31, 2008, 

but at public request, was extended through September 30, 2008. The agency published a 

Public Scoping Summary Report in September of 2008 with the results of the input.

Analyze the management situation.

The Rio Puerco RMPR ID Team analyzed the available inventory data and other 

information to characterize the Resource Area profile, portray the existing management 

situation, and outline management opportunities to respond to identified issues. The 

Analysis of the Management Situation was completed in December 2009 and is on file at 

the Field Office.

Formulate alternatives.

In compliance with 40 CFR 1502.14, the ID Team considered a reasonable range of 

alternatives. These alternatives outline various ways of addressing the planning issues,

management of the resources and uses in the Planning Area.

Analyze the impacts of the alternatives.

The ID Team estimated and described the physical, biological, economic and social 

impacts of implementing each alternative. The alternatives have been considered in 

detail, including the No Action alternative (43 CFR 1610.4-6).

Select a Preferred Alternative.

By evaluating the alternatives in the EIS, the BLM ID Team has determined which 

combination of potential planning decisions contained in the alternatives best meets the 

mandates of multiple use and sustained yield contained at Section 103(c) of FLPMA [43 

U.S.C. 1702(c)].

Prepare a Draft RMP and Draft EIS.

The draft document describes the purpose and need for the plan, the affected 

environment, the alternatives for managing the public lands within the Rio Puerco 

Planning Area (including the Preferred Alternative), the environmental impacts of 

implementing those alternatives, and the consultation and coordination in which the BLM 

engaged during plan development.

Publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) and provide a public comment period.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-18

Following publication of the NOA in the Federal Register by the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the BLM will provide 90 days for the public to comment on the Draft 

RMP/EIS. The Rio Puerco Field Office will also announce the start of the comment 

period (and the dates, times, and locations of public meetings) through other means, such 

as direct mailings, e-mailings, and Internet postings.

Prepare a Proposed RMP and Final EIS.

The Proposed RMP/Final EIS builds on the Draft RMP/EIS, including appropriate 

responses to public comments received on the Draft, as well as a description of the 

comments received. It also corrects errors in the Draft RMP/EIS identified through the 

public comment process and internal BLM review. The Proposed RMP /Final EIS may 

contain modification of the alternatives and the accompanying impact analysis contained 

in the Draft RMP/EIS.

Publish a Notice of Availability (NOA), provide a protest period, and resolve protests.

The issuance of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS officially occurs with the EPA’s 

publication of a NOA for the document in the Federal Register. The BLM publishes a 

NOA as well, which contains information about the project, protest period and filing 

instructions, contact information, and other supplemental information not contained in the 

EPA’s NOA. Individuals and entities have 30 days from the publication of EPA’s NOA 

for the document to file a protest with the BLM Director. BLM staff then will review and 

respond to valid protests by publishing a Protest Resolution Report. Protests may lead to 

changes in the Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved RMP.

Provide a Governor’s consistency review period.

In addition to a 30-day protest period, the BLM must also provide a 60-day review period 

for the Governor of New Mexico to examine consistency with state and local plans, 

policies, and programs.

Prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved RMP.

The Rio Puerco RMP is officially approved when the State Director signs a ROD. The 

Approved RMP outlines the goals, objectives and management actions chosen by the 

State Director from the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The ROD provides rationale for these 

decisions. The Record of Decision/Approved RMP serves as a concise and useful tool for 

land managers and stakeholders. 

1.4.2 Resource Management Plan Implementation

After issuing the Approved Plan and ROD, BLM staff will develop an Implementation Strategy . 

This strategy will include budget and workload priorities, and will be developed in cooperation 

with other agencies and interest groups. Planning and decision-making for managing BLMadministered lands is a tiered, ongoing process. Documents produced during each successive tier 

are progressively more focused in scope, and thus are more detailed in identifying specific 

measures to be undertaken and impacts that may occur. The four tiers are described briefly 

below.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-19

The RMP provides an overall vision of the future (goals and objectives) and includes 

measurable steps, anticipated management actions, and allowable uses to achieve that vision.

Upon approval of the RMP, subsequent implementation decisions are carried out by 

developing activity-level or project-specific plans.

If an activity-level plan is developed, it usually describes multiple projects for a single 

resource program (e.g., wildlife habitat management) or multiple projects for multiple 

resource programs.

If a project-specific plan is developed, it usually describes a single project or several related 

projects.

In general, a planning-level EIS is prepared at the RMP tier and a more detailed Environmental 

Assessment is prepared at the implementation tier. The activity- or project-level plans reflect the 

management direction and vision articulated in the RMP. In most cases, these subsequent plans 

include additional public review and environmental compliance.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-20

Figure 1.1: EIS-level Planning Process – Required Steps for New Plans, Revisions, and Amendments
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1-21

The RMP provides basic program direction with the establishment of goals, objectives, and 

allowable uses. It focuses on what resource conditions, uses, and visitor experiences should be 

achieved and maintained over time. Because this involves considering natural processes with 

long-term timeframes, the RMP must incorporate a long-term view.

This RMP Revision represents only the first of these tiers. As a result, activity- and project-level 

plans are not considered further in this document.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-1

2 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES

This chapter presents the proposed alternatives for the Rio Puerco Draft Resource Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rio 

Puerco Field Office (RPFO) has formulated these proposed alternatives for managing public 

lands and resources within the Planning Area. These alternatives address issues and concerns 

raised during the scoping period (see Chapter 1), planning criteria, and the guidance applicable to 

resource uses. The proposed alternatives consist of a range of management actions anticipated to 

achieve the goals and objectives. Some management actions are constant across all alternatives, 

whereas others vary by alternative. In the description of proposed alternatives (Section 2.2), 

management actions that apply to all alternatives are listed for each resource topic immediately 

following the goals and objectives for each resource topic. Management actions that vary across 

alternatives highlight different priorities for resource use and protection while meeting the 

purpose and need of the RMP. This Draft RMP/EIS analyzes each alternative in Chapter 4 to 

examine the potential impacts of the proposed decisions. 

To the extent possible, the proposed alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, and D) are crafted using 

input from public scoping comments and cooperating agencies. Other alternatives have been 

considered for detailed analysis but do not meet the purpose and need for this plan revision or are 

not technically feasible or economically practical to carry forward. These alternatives are 

eliminated from detailed consideration and are briefly discussed at the end of this chapter 

(Section 2.4).

Chapter 2 has been organized in the following manner:

Section 2.1 provides a brief summary of the major components of each proposed alternative. 

Section 2.2 provides the detailed alternative management strategies proposed under all four 

alternatives, including management common to all alternatives. Resources and resource uses 

are described in alphabetical order.

Section 2.3 provides a comparative summary of the environmental impacts associated with 

each alternative. 

Section 2.4 outlines those alternatives the BLM initially considered, but later eliminated, and 

the justifications for their dismissal from further evaluation. 

Evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives is required by the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] 1502.14), as well as BLM planning regulations. As is also required in the CEQ 

regulations, one alternative consists of “No Action,” which is the same as the continuation of 

existing management under the current RPFO RMP (BLM 1986) and subsequent plan 

amendments. The range of alternatives has been developed to:

Meet the purpose and need;

Satisfy statutory requirements; and

Address key planning issues identified both internally and externally. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-2

2.1 Description of Alternatives

The alternatives were developed to consider a range of allowable uses and management actions 

that would achieve, with varying emphases, the BLM’s goals and objectives. The BLM 

identified goals and objectives through reconciliation of national laws, regulations, and policies, 

and public scoping. Goals and objectives provide overarching direction for BLM actions in 

meeting the agency’s legal, regulatory, policy, and strategic requirements. Goals are broad 

statements of desired outcome (e.g., maintain ecosystem health and productivity, promote 

community stability, ensure sustainable development) that usually are not quantifiable. 

Objectives identify specific desired outcomes for resources. Objectives are usually quantifiable 

and measurable and may have established timeframes for achievement as appropriate. 

The alternatives were developed in response to the issues and management concerns identified 

during internal and external scoping. The alternatives were used to explore the different methods 

of meeting the BLM’s goals and objectives while addressing unresolved conflicts associated with 

the alternative uses of available resources and meeting the purpose and need. Also taken into 

account in the development of alternatives were the planning criteria, federal laws and 

regulations, and BLM policies. 

Management decisions are proactive measures or limitations intended to guide BLM activities on 

BLM-administered lands or subsurface mineral estate in the Planning Area. Two types of 

management decisions are included in the following sections of Chapter 2: management common 

to all alternatives, and management by alternative. 

The first type of management decision, management common to all alternatives, includes the 

goals, objectives, and continuing management guidance that apply regardless of which 

alternative is selected. Land use plans must identify the actions anticipated to achieve desired 

outcomes, including actions to maintain, restore, or improve land health (allowable uses). These 

actions include proactive measures (e.g., measures that will be taken to enhance watershed 

function and condition), as well as measures or criteria that will be applied to guide day-to-day 

activities occurring on public land. Land use plans also establish administrative designations 

such as ACECs, recommend proposed withdrawals, land tenure zones, and recommend or make 

findings of suitability for congressional designations (such as components of the National Wild 

and Scenic River System). 

The land use plan must set the stage for identifying site-specific resource use levels. Sitespecific use levels are normally identified during the subsequent implementation planning or the 

permit authorization process. At the land use plan level, it is important to identify reasonable 

development scenarios for allowable uses such as mineral leasing, locatable mineral 

development, recreation, timber harvest, utility corridors, and livestock grazing to enable the 

orderly implementation of future actions. These scenarios provide a contest for the land use 

plan’s decisions and an analytical base for the NEPA analysis. The BLM may also establish 

criteria in the land use plan to guide the identification of site-specific use levels for activities 

during plan implementation.

The second type of management decision, management by alternatives, represents the range of 

options considered across alternatives. An example of this type of management decision is to 

designate a specific area with cultural values as an Area of Environmental Concern (ACEC). The 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-3

management decisions associated with designating the ACEC varies across alternatives; for 

example, the acreage of the ACEC may change under different alternatives, or one alternative 

may include the option of not designating the area as an ACEC.

Allowable uses identify the types of uses and where they would be allowed, restricted, or 

prohibited on all BLM-administered surface and federal mineral estate in the Planning Area. 

Alternatives may include specific land use restrictions to meet goals and objectives, and may 

exclude certain land uses to protect resource values. Because the alternatives identify whether 

particular land uses are allowed, restricted, or prohibited, the alternatives discussed in this 

chapter often include a spatial (map) component. 

The alternatives in this chapter meet the RMP’s purpose and need, as well as goals and 

objectives. They also establish the framework for evaluating the potential impacts of the 

proposed management decisions in Chapter 4. The four alternatives presented in detail in Section 

2.2 of this chapter are as follows:

Alternative A is the No Action Alternative, and is often referred to as the “existing 

management situation.” It is required by NEPA to serve as a baseline for comparison against 

the other alternatives. It retains the current management under the current RPFO RMP (BLM 

1986), as amended, as well as current BLM policy and guidance. Resource uses and values 

would receive emphasis at present levels, and current management strategies would continue 

to be applied. Decisions from the 1986 RMP that have been implemented would continue, and 

those that have not been implemented would be carried forward in the future. 

Alternative B maximizes efforts to protect, maintain, restore, or improve components of the 

ecosystem using natural processes. This would be achieved primarily through increased 

management emphasis on the use of special designations to address unique or critical resource 

concerns while allowing for resource uses in areas without special designations. In some 

areas, commodity production or resource uses would be excluded to protect sensitive 

resources. For example, under Alternative B, livestock grazing would be prohibited in all 

proposed special designations. 

Alternative C is the Preferred Alternative for the RPFO. As defined by the BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook (BLM 2005a), the Preferred Alternative meets statutory requirements, 

represents that best combination of decisions to achieve the goals and polices of the BLM as 

reflected through the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (USDI’s) Strategic Plan and State 

Director guidance, best responds to the purpose and need, and best resolves the issues 

pertinent to the planning effort. Management under this alternative would balance the 

protection, restoration, and enhancement of natural and cultural values with resource use and 

development. This balance would be achieved within the limits of ecosystem sustainability 

and within the constraints of applicable laws and regulations. Measures to protect sensitive 

resources would be implemented, but they would be less restrictive than proposed 

management decisions under Alternative B. For example, under Alternative C, prescribed 

livestock grazing would be applied on BLM lands in the Planning Area, including special 

designations where protected resource values would be compatible with livestock grazing. 

Alternative D emphasizes resource uses and commodity production with the least constraints, 

while still complying with applicable laws, regulations, and BLM policies. For example, 

under Alternative D, the RPFO would maximize livestock grazing on BLM lands within the 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-4

Planning Area by reinstating suspended animal unit months (AUMs) where applicable, and 

using year-long and seasonal grazing to maximize flexibility in management. In addition, the 

RPFO would reduce ACEC acreage and increase areas open to fuelwood harvesting.

Some of the decisions in this RMP/EIS are carried forward from the existing RPFO RMP (BLM 

1986) because the decisions are still valid and do not need to change. These decisions are 

common to all alternatives; thus, a range of alternative decisions is not necessary for these 

resources or uses. These documents can be found on the New Mexico Planning site, 

http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/planning.1.html. This RMP/EIS also incorporates 

management decisions from the following RMP Amendments and Programmatic EISs:

Final Environmental Impact Statement for Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Management in the 

Albuquerque Field Office (BLM 2000) 

Record of Decision for New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing (BLM 2001)

Decision Record and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels 

Management on Public Land in New Mexico and Texas (Fire and Fuels RMP Amendment) 

(BLM 2004) 

Final Wind Energy Programmatic EIS (BLM 2005b) 

Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in 

the Western United States (USDI and U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2008)

Record of Decision for the Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides Programmatic EIS 

(BLM 2007a)

Oil and Gas Leasing and Development RMP Amendment and EIS (BLM 1991a)

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant 

Impact (U.S. Forest Service 1993)

Decision Record for Vehicle Use in the Ignacio Chavez Special Management Area (BLM 

1996)

Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision for Designation of 

Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land Management Administered Lands in the 11 Western 

States (BLM 2009). 

2.1.1 Brief Summary and Highlights of the Proposed Alternatives

The major resources and resource uses where issues were identified during scoping are travel 

management, recreation and visitor services, mineral resources, special designations, visual 

resource management (VRM), and lands and realty. These resources and resource uses, among 

others, are displayed under a range of management alternatives that set forth different priorities 

and measures to achieve specific goals or objectives outlined in detail in Section 2.2. The 

proposed alternatives consist of a range of management actions anticipated to achieve the BLM’s 

goals and objectives. Below is a brief summary of the range of alternatives for those major 

resources and resource uses brought forward during scoping. More detail for each of these 

resources and uses, among others, and their proposed management is provided in Section 2.2.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-5

2.1.2 Travel Management

Specific to travel and trails management, the public scoping comments reflect the most interest 

and concern in off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. All public lands are required to have OHV area 

designations and must be classified as either “open” (areas where off-road vehicles may engage 

in cross country travel), “limited” (areas where travel restrictions may apply and travel is limited 

to primitive roads, roads, and trails), or “closed” (travel not allowed without authorized use) to 

motorized travel (see 43 CFR 8342.1). The RPFO is deferring the development of a Travel 

Management Plan (TMP) and designation of routes until after the RMP/EIS is complete. The 

BLM staff is in the process of completing TMP route inventories, and will then conduct public 

scoping leading to the selection or formal designation of a transportation network of roads, 

primitive roads, and trails. For this RMP/EIS, OHV designation areas, or categories, are listed by 

alternative in Table 2.1 (see Maps 89-92). The range of alternatives reflect a shift in BLM policy 

from historically allowing more open travel to the current policy of designating specific routes 

for travel on BLM lands. Within the “limited” category, motorized travel would be limited to 

existing roads, primitive roads, and trails, and subsequent travel planning decisions would 

transition to “limited to designated routes.”

Table 2.1: OHV Area 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 420,491 562,596 602,043 624,808

Closed 20,316 177,240 124,075 100,123

Total 744,387 744,387 744,387 744,387

2.1.3 Recreation and Visitor Services

The two areas of the Recreation and Visitor Services program that require land use planning 

decisions are special recreation permits (SRPs) and designation of Recreation Management 

Areas. Both items are discussed in detail in Section 2.2.12. 

Recreation Management Areas (RMAs) are land units where Recreation and Visitor Services 

objectives are recognized as a primary resource management consideration and specific 

management is required to protect the recreation opportunities. RMAs are classified as either 

special recreation management areas (SRMAs) or extensive recreation management areas 

(ERMAs). SRMAs are administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation 

opportunities and recreation setting characteristics are recognized for their unique value, 

importance, or distinctiveness, especially as compared to other areas used for recreation. This 

RMP/EIS classifies the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail as a SRMA (10,996 acres). 

Although SRMAs may be subdivided into Recreation Management Zones (RMZs), the CDNST 

SRMA is not subdivided into RMZs. 

ERMAs are administrative units that require specific management consideration in order to 

address recreation use, demand, or recreation and visitor services program investments. ERMAs 

differ from SRMAs in that ERMAs need not provide unique, important, or distinctive recreation 

opportunities (see BLM Instruction Memorandum 2011-004). This RMP/EIS classifies six areas 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-6

ERMAs, covering 317,565 acres. Within each ERMA, management decisions may apply to the 

entire ERMA or only to a subset of the ERMA. 

The variation among the proposed SRMA and ERMA management decisions are mainly related 

to travel designations within the zones, as well as management of the zones that are also 

proposed as ACECs under different alternatives. Other proposed recreation management 

decisions related to Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) are also addressed in Section 2.2. 

Table 2.2: Proposed SRMA and ERMAs (acres), by Alternative

RMA 

Type Name Alternative ANo Action Alternative B Alternative C Preferred Alternative D

SRMA

Continental 

Divide National 

Scenic Trail

0 10,996 10,996 10,996

ERMA

San Juan Basin 

Badlands 0 71,114 71,114 71,114

Petaca Pinta 0 69,119 69,119 69,119

Boca del Oso 0 50,432 50,432 50,432

San Ysidro 0 11,212 11,212 11,212

Hererra 0 18,456 18,456 18,456

Crest of 

Montezuma 0 917 917 917

Total 0 232,246 232,246 232,246

2.1.4 Mineral Resources 

The Public Scoping Report (BLM 2008) has identified that special attention is needed to address 

mineral development within the Planning Area (i.e., leasable, salable, and locatable minerals) in 

consideration of other land and resource uses and values. The alternatives provide a range of 

options for managing all mineral opportunities, itemized by category. 

Leasable fluid minerals include oil, gas, coalbed methane, geothermal, carbon dioxide and 

helium, oil shale, native asphalt, and oil-impregnated sands (BLM 2010a). Leasable solid 

minerals include coal, potash, phosphate, sulfur, and sodium (BLM 2010a). The potential for, 

and current activity in, leasable minerals, is show in maps 30-31.

For leasable fluid minerals, one of the major decisions in an RMP is to determine which areas should be: 1) 

open to leasing with standard terms and conditions; 2) open to leasing subject to moderate constraints such 

as timing limitations (TL) or controlled surface use (CSU) restrictions; 3) open to leasing subject to major 

constraints such as no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulations; or 4) unavailable to leasing. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-7

Table 2.3 shows how leasable fluid minerals would be managed under each alternative (see 

Maps 35-38). For coal, a leasable solid mineral, the RPFO would make decisions based on the 

coal unsuitability criteria. While acreages closed to mineral leasing are relatively similar across 

the action alternatives, constraints vary widely, most often in special designations, where 

restrictions reflect the need to protect important natural values. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-8

Table 2.3: Leasable Fluid Mineral Restrictions (acres), by Alternative

Designation Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred 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

Salable minerals include common variety sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, basalt, clay, 

rock, petrified wood, and travertine, under certain conditions (BLM 2010a). For salable minerals, 

one of the major decisions in an RMP is to determine which areas should be: 1) closed to salable 

mineral extraction; 2) avoided or open to salable extraction with stipulations; or 3) open to 

salable mineral development. Table 2.4 depicts how salable minerals would be managed under 

each alternative (see Maps 43-46). 

Table 2.4: Salable Mineral Extraction Restrictions (acres), by Alternative

Category Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Open 1,711,415 1,646,554 1,659,585 1,707,930

Open with moderate 

constraints (Avoid) 13,683 478 36,311 15,376

Closed 105,654 183,720 134,856 107,446

Total 1,830,752 1,830,752 1,830,752 1,830,752

Locatable minerals consist of metallic and non-metallic minerals. The metallic minerals include 

gold, silver, nickel, copper, lead, zinc, iron, uranium, lithium, vanadium, molybdenum, 

manganese, cobalt, beryllium, and tungsten. The non-metallic minerals include zeolites, silica, 

perlite, mica, block pumice, limestone of chemical or metallurgical grade, gypsum, barite, 

fluorspar, and gem minerals (BLM 2010a). For locatable minerals, one of the major decisions in 

an RMP is to determine which areas should be open to or recommended for withdrawal from 

locatable mineral entry. Table 2.5 depicts how locatable minerals would be managed under each 

alternative (see Maps 39-42).

Table 2.5: Locatable Mineral Entry Restrictions (acres) by Alternative

Category Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Open to mineral entry 1,814,168 1,538,295 1,553,004 1,803,131

Recommended for 

withdrawal 16,584 292,457 277,748 27,621

Total 1,830,752 1,830,752 1,830,752 1,830,752
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-9

Federal mineral estate is classified as either open to locatable mineral entry or recommended for 

withdrawal from locatable mineral entry.

2.1.5 Special Designations

The BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) (BLM 2005a) requires considering the 

application of special designations, such as ACECs and Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs), when 

developing RMPs.

The RPFO currently manages 23 areas that were designated as Special Management Areas 

(SMAs) in the 1986 RMP (BLM 1986). Under current BLM guidance, SMAs are not recognized 

as valid area designations. The BLM has, through analysis and evaluation, determined a 

proposed designation for each listed SMA and other prospective special areas based on 

established criteria specific to the above administrative designations. Following evaluation, 

some SMAs were not carried forward for designation in any of the action alternatives if they did 

not meet the criteria for another designation. (See Map 68).

2.1.6 Proposed ACECs 

The RPFO currently manages 10 ACECs that were designated in the current RPFO RMP (BLM 

1986). Eight additional areas have been considered for ACEC designation. In order to be 

considered and carried forward into the range of alternatives for planning, an ACEC must meet 

the relevance and importance criteria in 43 CFR 1610.7-2(a) and must require special 

management. The relevance and importance criteria for these ACECs encompass scenery, 

sensitive and rare plant species, cultural and historic resources, wildlife, fish, natural systems, 

and natural hazards. Detailed analysis of the relevance and importance criteria that was used to 

evaluate each proposed ACEC can be found in the RMP Administrative Record.

Table 2.6 shows that 18 ACECs are proposed in Alternatives B and C, while 11 ACECs are 

proposed under Alternative D (see Maps 69-88). The existing designated ACECs in the Planning 

Area are presented under Alternative A (see Map 68). 

Table 2.6.: Potential ACECs (quantity and acres), by Alternative

Proposed ACEC Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Bluewater Canyon 97 941 941 941

Bony Canyon 0 1,150 1,150 1,150

Cabezon Peak 5,765 17,150 17,150 6,984

Canon Jarido 1,794(SMA) 6,536 6,536 1,794

Canon Tapia 990 990 990 0

Cerro Verde 0 5,292 5,292 0

Elk Springs 10,334 10,324 10,324 10,324

Espinosa Ridge 

(formerly Ball Ranch) 1,478 10,295 7,687 1,478

Guadalupe Ruin and 

Community 478 (SMA) 478 478 478

Ignacio Chavez Grant 43,026 (SMA) 43,026 43,026 0
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-10

Proposed ACEC Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

Jones Canyon 639 959 639 639

Legacy Uranium Mines 0 50 50 50

Ojito 16,310 16,310 6,454 0

Petaca Pinta 13,723 (SMA) 13,723 13,723 13,723

Pronoun Cave Complex 1,181 1,342 1,181 0

San Luis Mesa Raptor 

Area 10,483 10,483 10,483 0

San Miguel Dome 0 4,437 4,437 0

Torreon Fossil Fauna 6,488 6,488 6,488 6,488

Total ACECs

Total Acres 112,786 149,974 137,029 44,049

2.1.7 Visual Resource Management

The designations or assignment of VRM Class objectives (I–IV) is ultimately based on the 

management decisions made in the RMP. However, visual values must be considered throughout 

the RMP process. 

The first step in evaluating the visual values for an RMP is to inventory the visual resources 

present in the planning area. This involves identifying the visual resources of an area and 

assigning them to inventory classes using BLM’s visual resource inventory process. The process 

involves rating the visual appeal of a tract of land, measuring public concern for scenic quality, 

and determining whether the tract of land is visible from travel routes or observation points. The 

process is described in detail in BLM Handbook H-8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory. The 

results of the visual resource inventory become an important component of the BLM’s RMP for 

the area. The RMP establishes how the public lands will be used and allocated for different 

purposes, and it is developed through public participation and collaboration. Visual values are 

considered throughout the RMP process, and the area’s visual resources are then assigned to 

management classes with established objectives:

Class I Objective: To preserve the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to 

the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention 

Class II Objective: To retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to 

the characteristic landscape should be low 

Class III Objective: To partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of 

change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. 

Class IV Objective: To provide for management activities which require major modification 

of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape 

can be high. 

Actions proposed following the RMP process that would result in surface disturbance must 

consider the importance of the visual values and the impacts the project may have on those 

values, and management decisions in the RMP must reflect the value of visual resources. It is 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-11

BLM policy to designate all Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) as VRM Class I. 

Table 2.7 outlines the VRM classes proposed under each alternative (see Maps 95-98).

Table 2.7: VRM Management Classes (acres), by Alternative

VRM Class Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative D

VRM I 97,645 97,296 97,474 97,516

VRM II 84,449 318,931 68,511 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

*The number of acres proposed for visual resource management under Alternative A is less that 

Alternatives B, C, and D because the 1986 RMP, as amended, did not provide visual resource 

management classes for all BLM lands within the Planning Area.

2.1.8 Lands and Realty

Resolving fragmented land management and resource conflicts drives the BLM’s decisions 

regarding land tenure adjustment, including disposal, acquisition, and retention of public lands. 

For example, the checkerboard ownership patterns of the Planning Area create difficulties with 

access and resource management. The RPFO has considered the particular resource values of 

each parcel of public land and the most effective land ownership and management strategies for 

those parcels. No specific parcels have been identified for acquisition by the RPFO. Table 2.8

lists the parcels identified for disposal and retention under each alternative (see Maps 11-14). 

Table 2.8.: Parcels Identified For Disposal and Retention (Acres) by Alternative

Status Alternative A

No Action

Alternative B Alternative C

Preferred Alternative D

Disposal 97,645 97,296 97,474 97,516

Retention 84,449 318,931 68,511 21,549

Total 61,789 27,529 80,931 83,050

Other management decisions related to lands and realty are the proposed avoidance and 

exclusion areas for rights-of-way, including transmission lines, roads, pipelines, and sites (such 

as communication tower sites). The proposed avoidance and exclusion areas for rights-of-way 

are provided under the Lands and Realty section (2.2.7). 

For the RMP/EIS, renewable energy management decisions are separate from the Lands and 

Realty section. Please see the Renewable Energy section (2.2.13) for avoidance and exclusion

areas related to solar, wind, and geothermal projects on BLM lands within the Planning Area. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-12

2.2 Proposed Alternatives

2.2.1 Air Resources

2.2.1.1 Goals

Minimize the impact of management actions in the planning area on air quality by complying 

with all applicable air quality laws, rules, and regulations including the Clean Air Act and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act. 

Work cooperatively with interested parties (such as other government entities, scientific 

organizations, and industry) to incorporate measures to reduce or prevent emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with BLM-authorized activities in the planning 

area.

Avoid or reduce negative impacts on air quality due to wildland fire management.

Consider the impacts of BLM-authorized activities on greenhouse gas emissions in the 

Planning Area.

2.2.1.2 Objectives

Evaluate the impact of management actions on the attainment of applicable state and federal 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for criteria pollutant concentration levels and 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), when applicable. 

Meet prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) pollutant concentration standards 

associated with management actions in compliance with the applicable increment (Class I or 

II). 

Comply with Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Regulations when planning 

activities within the county boundaries. 

Use quantitative air quality analysis methods to analyze impacts of proposed actions on air 

quality when appropriate, as determined by the BLM.

Develop and incorporate air resource mitigation measures into BLM planning documents and 

authorizations

Prescribed burns will be carried out in compliance with NMED Smoke Management Plan 

Guidance. 

Estimate the contribution of BLM-authorized activities on the emission of greenhouse gasses 

in the planning area and evaluate them in the context of national and global emissions. 

When appropriate, include an analysis of the contribution of BLM-authorized activities to 

greenhouse gas emissions in NEPA documents.

2.2.1.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would manage all BLM-authorized activities to maintain air quality within State of 

New Mexico and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), meet prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) Class II standards, and protect the air quality values in Class I 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-13

Wilderness and protect air and atmospheric values consistent with FLPMA’s “multiple use” 

mission.

The BLM would use Best Management Practices (BMPs) and site-specific mitigation 

measures (such as nitrogen oxide [NOx] emissions limits for compressor engines used in 

leasable fluid minerals development) to reduce emissions, when appropriate, based on sitespecific conditions. 

Project-specific analysis would consider use of quantitative air quality analysis methods (i.e., 

modeling), when appropriate as determined by the BLM consistent with BLM and applicable 

DOI policies and guidance. 

2.2.2 Cave and Karst Resources

2.2.2.1 Goals

Manage cave and karst resources to preserve and protect for appropriate uses for present and 

future generations, according to current laws and regulations.

2.2.2.2 Objectives

Establish inventory programs for high potential cave and karst areas within the RMP planning 

area. 

Promote stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of cave and karst resources.

Maintain and enhance programs that provide opportunities for scientific research of cave and 

karst resources.

2.2.2.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would inventory and manage any new caves identified by the RPFO consistent with 

the Federal Cave Resource Protection Act.

The BLM would manage the Pronoun Cave Complex as described in the Special Designations 

Section.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-14

Map 003-Geology (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-15

Map 004-Cave/Karst potential (11x17)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-16

2.2.3 Cultural Resources

2.2.3.1 Goals 

Identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available 

for appropriate use by present and future generations. 

Reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or human-caused 

deterioration or potential conflict with other resource uses by ensuring that all authorizations 

for land use and resource use would comply with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA).

Increase stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of cultural resources.

Establish and maintain working relationship with Native American Tribes.

Protect and interpret National Historic Trail routes and historic settings, remnants, and 

artifacts for public use and enjoyment. 

2.2.3.2 Objectives

Develop project plans or protective measures for special areas or cultural resources in areas of 

high risk for development or at high risk for adverse impacts

Increase proactive cultural resource management as funding and staffing become available, 

which could include, but is not limited to, detailed documentation of sites, nominating 

outstanding cultural sites for listing in the NRHP, inventories, and ethnographic studies. 

Establish cultural resource inventory priority areas in the RMP implementation strategy 

document.

Use BMPs and site-specific mitigation measures, when appropriate, based on site-specific 

conditions to avoid and/or minimize impacts to cultural resources. 

Maintain and enhance programs that provide opportunities for scientific research involving 

cultural resources.

Maintain and improve educational opportunities and public outreach programs focused on 

cultural resources.

Develop and maintain interpretation of cultural resources in areas of high public interest and 

access.

Consult with Native American tribal governments on proposed land uses having the potential 

to impact cultural resources identified as having tribal interests or concerns, or that could 

affect traditional uses. 

Maximize opportunities for cooperation with tribal governments for managing cultural 

resources and public education.

Identify Historic trail routes within the Planning Area and identify physical remains within the 

decision area.

Preserve the associated high-potential historic sites and route segments, physical remnants, 

and contributing features.

Interpret the historic aspects of the trails for the protection of the resource.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-17

Enhance understanding and enjoyment of these trails in cooperation with trail-administering 

agencies and non-profit partners. 

2.2.3.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would comply with all pertinent statutes, regulations, formal agreements, Executive 

Orders, and policies as they apply to cultural resource management for all actions resulting 

from decisions in this RMP/EIS (Federal Land Policy and Management Act [FLPMA], 

Section 103(c), 201(a), and (c); NHPA, Sections 106, Section 110(a); and Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act, Section 14(a)). 

The BLM would manage Native American burial sites, associated funerary items, and sacred 

objects in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 

The BLM would consider Native American requests to practice traditional activities on public 

lands on a case-by-case basis and would be allowed where practical and appropriate. The 

BLM would allow reasonable access to specific sacred sites under the American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act. 

The BLM would honor trust responsibilities as they apply to public lands within the Planning 

Area.

The BLM would allocate known and yet-to-be discovered sites and segments of historic trails 

(including those listed in Chapter 3) to cultural resource use categories following BLM 

Manual Section 8130 and the relevant management documents developed for individual 

Historic Trails. The BLM would comply with NHPA Section 106 for any projects that may 

occur within the Mount Taylor Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) or other National Register 

of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible TCPs. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-18

2.2.3.4 Alternatives

Table 2.9: Cultural Resources Management Decisions by Alternative

Item Alternative A: No Action Alternative B Alternative C: Preferred Alternative D

Site Surveillance Conducted by BLM staff 

only.

Conducted by BLM staff, Site 

Watch, and other BLM 

volunteer programs.

Same as Alternative B. Site surveillance would no 

longer be conducted.

NRHP No similar action. Prioritize detailed 

documentation and 

nomination of local, state, and 

nationally significant sites for 

listing on the NRHP as 

funding and staffing allow.

The BLM would prioritize 

detailed documentation and 

nomination of state and 

nationally significant sites as 

funding and staffing allow.

The BLM would conduct no 

detailed documentation and 

nomination of significant sites

Inventory No similar action. The BLM would prioritize 

proactive inventory of 

geographic areas of 

increasing public visitation 

that have been determined to 

impact cultural resources.

The BLM would prioritize 

proactive inventory of 

geographic areas with little 

existing inventory and high 

public use as funding and 

staffing allow.

The BLM would not conduct 

proactive inventory.

Site Protection, 

Stabilization, or 

Restoration

No similar action. The BLM would prioritize 

proactive site protection/ 

stabilization/restoration 

projects on local, state, and 

nationally significant sites as 

funding and staffing allow.

The BLM would prioritize 

proactive site protection/ 

stabilization/restoration 

projects on state and 

nationally significant sites as 

funding and staffing allow.

The BLM would not carry out 

proactive site protection, 

stabilization, or restoration

projects.

Ojo Pueblo and Fort 

Site 

Ojo Pueblo: 0 Acres

Fort Site: 0 Acres

There is currently no 

special designation 

for the Ojo Pueblo 

and Fort Site areas.

Ojo Pueblo: 478 acres

Fort Site: 652 acres

Leasable fluid 

minerals: NSO (780 

acres) 

Salable minerals: 

Closed (60 acres); 

Ojo Pueblo: 478 acre

Fort Site: 652 acres

Leasable fluid 

minerals: CSU (780 

acres) 

Salable minerals: 

Closed (60 acres); 

Ojo Pueblo: 0 acres

Fort Site: 0 acres

No special designation. 

Motorized vehicle 

travel: limited to 

designated primitive 

roads and trails. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-19

Item Alternative A: No Action Alternative B Alternative C: Preferred Alternative D

Avoid (720 acres)

Locatable minerals:

Recommend 

Withdrawal (60 acres)

Open (720 acres)

Motorized vehicle 

travel: limited to 

designated primitive 

roads and trails.

Avoid (720 acres) 

Locatable minerals: 

Recommend 

Withdrawal (60 acres) 

Open (720 acres) 

Motorized vehicle 

travel: limited to 

designated primitive 

roads and trails. 

Azabache Station 

(80 acres)*

81 total acres

1986 RMP 

designated Azabache 

Station as an SMA.

Develop an activity 

plan. 

Leasable fluid 

minerals: NSO 

Salable and 

Locatable Minerals: 

Recommend 

withdrawal 

Motorized vehicle 

travel: Closed 

81 total acres

The Azabache Station 

SMA designation (80 

acres) would be 

removed.

Activity plan would not 

be developed. 

Nominate site to the 

NRHP.

Leasable fluid 

minerals: NSO 

Salable minerals: 

Closed 

Locatable minerals: 

Recommend 

withdrawal

Motorized vehicle 

travel: Limited to 

existing primitive roads 

Same as Alternative B. 81 total acres

The Azabache Station 

SMA designation (80 

acres) would be 

removed. 

The area would be 

managed with standard 

terms and conditions 

for all resources and 

resource uses. 

Leasable Minerals: 

Open

Salable and Locatable 

Minerals: Withdrawal 

would be allowed to 

expire. 

Motorized vehicle 

travel: Limited to 

existing primitive roads 

and trails.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-20

Item Alternative A: No Action Alternative B Alternative C: Preferred Alternative D

and trails.

Big Bead Mesa

(320 acres)* 

340 total acres

Develop an activity 

plan.

Leasable fluid 

minerals: NSO 

Salable and 

Locatable Minerals: 

Recommend 

withdrawal 

Motorized vehicle 

travel: Limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails.

340 total acres

No overnight camping 

allowed.

Hiking access to the 

mesa top allowed by 

permit only.

Work with the Pueblo 

of Laguna to acquire 

access.

Monitor the site biannually. 

Leasable fluid 

minerals: NSO 

Salable minerals: 

Closed 

Locatable minerals: 

Recommend 

withdrawal

Motorized vehicle 

travel: Limited to 

existing primitive roads 

and trails.

340 total acres

No overnight camping 

allowed.

Hiking access to the 

mesa top allowed by 

permit only.

Work with the Pueblo 

of Laguna to acquire 

access.

Monitor the site 

annually.

Leasable fluid 

minerals: NSO 

Salable minerals: 

Closed 

Locatable minerals: 

Recommend 

withdrawal 

Motorized vehicle 

travel: Limited to 

existing primitive roads 

and trails.

340 total acres

No overnight camping 

allowed.

Work with the Pueblo 

of Laguna to acquire 

access.

Monitor the site 

quarterly. 

Leasable fluid 

minerals: NSO 

Salable minerals: 

Closed 

Locatable minerals: 

Recommend 

withdrawal 

Motorized vehicle 

travel: Access to the 

mesa top allowed.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-21

Item Alternative A: No Action Alternative B Alternative C: Preferred Alternative D

Headcut Prehistoric 

Community*

2,278 total acres

Designated as an 

SMA in the 1986 

RMP.

Allow further 

approved scientific 

study. 

Maintain existing 

conditions until 

completion of a 

comprehensive 

management plan. 

The planned actions 

include:

Acquire non-public 

lands. 

Develop an activity 

plan

Motorized vehicle 

travel: Limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails.

2,601 total acres

Acquire non-public 

lands from willing 

sellers. 

Leasable fluid 

minerals: CSU within 

the original SMA 

boundary and one halfsection to the south. 

Salable minerals: 

Closed 

Motorized vehicle 

travel: Limited to 

existing primitive roads 

and trails. 

2,601 total acres

Acquire non-public 

lands from willing 

sellers. 

Leasable fluid 

minerals: CSU within 

the original SMA 

boundary and one halfsection to the south. 

Salable minerals: 

Avoid

Motorized vehicle 

travel: Limited to 

existing primitive roads 

and trails. 

Same as Alternative C, 

except:

2,279 total acres

The BLM would retain 

the original SMA 

boundary. 

Leasable fluid 

minerals: Open under 

standard terms and 

conditions. 

Mesa Portales* 0 total acres

There is currently no 

special designation for

Mesa Portales.

4.743 total acres

The BLM would manage 

Mesa Portales as described 

under Cañon Jarido ACEC in 

the Special Designations 

section. 

Same as Alternative B. 4.743 total acres

Special management 

would include:

Motorized vehicle 

travel: Limited to 

existing routes. The 

area would be a priority 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-22

Item Alternative A: No Action Alternative B Alternative C: Preferred Alternative D

area for route 

designation and closure 

of redundant routes that 

impact cultural sites. 

Leasable fluid 

minerals: CSU 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-23

2.2.4 Fire Management

Fire management goals and objectives are in priority order according to IAW policy. 

2.2.4.1 Goals

Manage wildland fire and fuels for the protection of firefighter and public health, safety, 

property, and resource values.

Manage vegetation communities to maintain areas in Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 1. 

Those vegetation communities in FRCC 2 and 3 would be managed to restore such 

communities toward FRCC 1. (See Map 6.)

Manage hazardous fuels in areas of urban and industrial interface to reduce potential of loss 

due to catastrophic fire.

Work collaboratively with Communities-at-Risk within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) 

to develop plans for risk reduction. 

Implement emergency stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration efforts to protect and 

sustain resources, public health and safety, and community infrastructure. 

2.2.4.2 Objectives

Prevent the loss of life or improved property from wildland fire.

Manage wildfire with minimal damage to other resources.

Utilize the full range of fire and fuels management strategies to reduce hazardous fuels.

Establish fire management strategies for each fire management unit throughout the planning 

area.

When possible, allow for wildland fire for resource benefit or limited suppression tactics, 

enabling fire to act in its natural role as a disturbance.

Maintain a landscape of diverse plant communities and successional stages similar to those 

created by historic fire regimes.

Implement wildfire rehabilitation efforts to protect and sustain ecosystems, protect public 

health and safety, and help communities protect infrastructure.

Cooperate with adjacent landowners (Federal, State, tribal, and private) in fire management 

activities across jurisdictional boundaries

2.2.4.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

National Fire Suppression Guidelines and the current Fire Management Plan for the Rio 

Puerco Field Office will guide fire suppression on public lands.

Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (National 

Interagency Fire Center, 2001).

The most current guidance for the implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy and direction and guidance approved by the Fire and Fuels RMP Amendment would be 

carried forward under all alternatives and incorporated by reference into this RMP/EIS. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-24

Wildland fire is authorized, when appropriate, to allow naturally ignited wildland fire to 

accomplish specific resource management objectives.

The RPFO would follow the BMPs outlined in Table 2.7 in Chapter 2 of the Fire and Fuels 

RMP Amendment (BLM 2004).

To reduce hazards and restore ecosystems, authorized fuels management actions include 

wildland fire for resource benefit, prescribed fire, and mechanical, manual, chemical, 

biological, and seeding treatments.

According to the 2004 Fire and Fuels RMP Amendment, approximately 23,171 acres of 

vegetation would be treated on lands in the RPFO on an annual basis:

5,122 acres treated mechanically

16,621 acres treated by prescribed burn

1,428 acres treated chemically

The BLM would update and amend the RPFO Fire Management Plan (FMP) (BLM 2010b), 

as necessary, to meet the direction and objectives of the RPFO RMP/EIS. The FMP 

establishes fire suppression objectives with minimum and maximum suppression targets for 

each Fire Management Unit (see Map 5) within the RPFO. 

The RPFO would continue to participate in the Cibola, Santa Fe, and Gila/Las Cruces Zone 

Operating Plans established under the “Joint Powers Agreement” between the State of New 

Mexico, the USDA, and the USDI. This agreement provides for reciprocal fire protection 

services among participating agencies with wildland fire protection responsibilities.

The BLM would retain and/or create snags in areas that have less than one to two snags per 

acre in ponderosa and/or piñon-juniper forest types. 

The BLM would utilize wildland fire to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and, when 

possible, would be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. 

The BLM would use hazardous fuels reduction treatments to restore ecosystems; protect 

human, natural, and cultural resources; and reduce the threat of wildfire to communities. 

Fire suppression would prioritize firefighter and public safety as well as benefits and values to 

be protected that are consistent with resource objectives. 

Table 2.10: Summary of Approved 2004 Fire and Fuels RMP Amendment and Additional Proposed Fuels 

Management Treatments by FMU and FRCC

Fire Management Unit FRCC I

Acres

FRCC 2

Acres

FRCC 3

Acres

Not

Inventoried Total

C1. North Malpais 4,109 77,619 39,404 1,390 122,522

C3. Wilderness and 

WSAs 2,870 32,883 1,448 2,661 39,862

C5. Mesa Chivato 3,122 37,707 17,124 421 58,374

B6. Sandia 1,460 7,512 2,971 981 12,924

C7. Scattered 

Grass/Shrub 70,195 357,322 43,500 38,441 509,458

B8. Candy Kitchen 572 5,869 6,378 9 12,828

Total 83,328 518,912 110,825 43,903 755,968
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-25

Fire Management Unit FRCC I

Acres

FRCC 2

Acres

FRCC 3

Acres

Not

Inventoried Total

Total Acres Needing 

Treatment 518,912 110,825 629,737

In the simplest definition, a fire regime describes the basic "personality" of fire for a given 

vegetation type. Although fire frequency and severity are the most commonly used descriptors, 

many other aspects have been studied, such as fire spread patterns, fire seasonality, and post-fire 

patch dynamics.

2.2.5 Forests and Woodlands

2.2.5.1 Goals

Manage forests and woodlands for ecosystem health, including but not limited to wildlife

habitat, watershed process, and riparian restoration and enhancement.

Restore forests and woodlands to the pre-fire suppression range of historic variability for 

species composition, age, size, and density classes.

Keep forested areas in close proximity to economically disadvantaged communities available 

for fuelwood harvesting.

2.2.5.2 Objectives

Use forest management activities including silvicultural treatments and forest restoration

treatments to re-establish the appropriate spatial patterns of forest vegetation.

Provide forest products to meet public needs consistent with maintaining ecosystem health

and other resource management objectives.

Identify, maintain, and restore forests with late-succession (old-growth) characteristics under 

direction provided by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 or the most current 

applicable legislation.

Reduce the incidence and impacts of timber trespass and tree theft. This includes, but is not 

limited to, collaborating with other agencies, increasing collection areas, and increasing the 

presence of law enforcement.

Prevent unnecessary hardship with management decisions on individuals and families who 

use fuelwood as the primary source for cooking food and heating their homes. 

2.2.5.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

2.2.5.3.1 Forest Restoration and Management Activities Common to All Alternatives

All forest management activities would comply with the New Mexico Standards and 

Guidelines (BLM 2001) and all applicable BMPs.

Forest management activities would consider the New Mexico Principles of Forest 

Restoration (NMBETF 2006) and the New Mexico Forest and Watershed Health Plan (NMSF 

2004). 

Silvicultural treatments may include but are not limited the following activities:
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-26

o Mechanical treatments such as mastication, mowing, chopping, chipping/grinding 

(brush cutter), or cutting.

o Manual treatments such as hand-cutting (chainsaw or handsaw) and hand-piling of 

slash.

o Prescribed fire including broadcast, underburn, and hand-pile burn.

o Chemical application or biological treatments such as insects or goats/sheep.

o Biomass removal from forest restoration and fuels treatment projects.

o Seeding including aerial or ground application (manual or mechanical).

o Wildland fire for resource benefit.

Identified areas may be treated in phases over a period of several years and may involve 

multiple and varied silvicultural treatments that emphasize forest stand diversity and large tree 

retention.

Treatments would implement, when possible, other resource management objectives such as 

erosion control and wildlife habitat improvement. 

Identified areas may be treated in phases over a period of several years and may involve 

multiple and varied treatments.

No ponderosa pine would be removed during leasable fluid minerals development.

2.2.5.3.2 Fuelwood Management Activities Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would continue to sell permits for harvest of woodland products to the public, 

consistent with the availability of woodland products and the protection of sensitive resource 

values including seasonal restrictions for fuelwood collection for resource protection.

Permitted activities would be consistent the most current CFR. 

The BLM would locate fuelwood areas, including greenwood and dead and downed woody 

material, where harvesting would maintain and improve long-term sustainability of resource 

values and uses, and would not conflict with other permitted activities. 

The BLM would continue to make downed woody material available for recreational purposes 

(i.e., campfires) without a permit in accordance with BLM regulations.

Fuelwood area development would minimize the deterioration of existing roads, while 

discouraging the proliferation of new roads, and fuelwood would not be made available where 

soil damage or accelerated erosion would result.

The BLM would allow no driving off of existing or designated roads for collection of forest 

products unless permitted by the Authorized Officer.

The BLM would allow Native American non-commercial traditional use of forest and 

woodland products for the collection of herbs, medicines, traditional use items, or items 

necessary for traditional, religious, or ceremonial purposes through permits.

The BLM would enact seasonal fuelwood area closures as necessary to ensure long-term 

resource protection and/or sustainability.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-27

2.2.5.4 Alternatives

Table 2.11: Forest and Woodland Management Decisions by Alternative

Alternative A: No Action Alternative B Alternative C: Preferred Alternative D

All forestry practices currently 

being implemented are in 

conformance with the 1981 

Timber Management Plan, 

covering the BLM RPFO and 

Socorro Field Office. 

The BLM would not treat 

woodland encroachment in 

grassland, sagebrush, and other 

vegetative communities.

The BLM would treat woodland 

encroachment in grassland, sagebrush, 

and other vegetative communities

where it is determined that the New 

Mexico Standards and Guidelines

(BLM 2001) for rangeland health are 

not being met for the site.

Same as Alternative C

The BLM would retain and/or 

create snags in areas determined 

to be snag deficient. 

The BLM would retain and/or create 

snags in areas determined to be snag 

deficient. 

The BLM would implement no 

specific snag management 

activities.

The BLM would prioritize 

treatments through concentrating 

forest management activities in 

areas of FRCC 1 (maintenance 

emphasis). 

The BLM would prioritize treatments 

through concentrating forest 

management activities in areas of 

FRCC 2 and 3 (restoration emphasis).

Same as Alternative C

The BLM would create vegetation

mosaics in forests and woodlands 

only through the use of prescribed 

fire without prior silvicultural

treatments.

The BLM would create vegetation

mosaics in forests and woodlands 

through silvicultural treatments to 

provide diversity of species 

composition and spatial distributions 

and as a way to prepare forests for the 

reintroduction of fire.

Same as Alternative C

Fuelwood would be available to 

the public through home use 

sales from approximately 

12,186 acres of piñon-juniper 

woodland of public land. Small 

amounts of fuelwood would be 

made available to the public as 

The BLM would allow forest 

product harvest (including but not 

limited to green and dead and 

down fuelwood/firewood, vigas, 

latillas, wood pellets, fuelwood, 

biomass, posts, nuts, berries, 

piñon nuts, and wildings) areaThe BLM would permit forest product 

harvest (including but not limited to 

green and dead and down 

fuelwood/firewood, vigas, latillas, 

wood pellets, fuelwood, biomass, posts, 

nuts, berries, piñon nuts, and wildings) 

area-wide with the following 

The BLM would permit forest 

product harvest (including but not 

limited to green and dead and 

down fuelwood/firewood, vigas, 

latillas, wood pellets, fuelwood, 

biomass, posts, nuts berries, piñon 

nuts, and wildings) area-wide with 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-28

Alternative A: No Action Alternative B Alternative C: Preferred Alternative D

a result of wildlife habitat 

improvement projects, 

ponderosa pine stand 

maintenance projects, right-ofway clearings, and as dead and 

down wood.

wide with the following 

exceptions:

Forest product harvest 

would be prohibited in all 

special designation areas, 

including riparian areas, 

ACECs, Wilderness Areas, 

WSAs, VRM Class I areas, 

SRMAs, and lands with 

wilderness characteristics.

Forest product harvest 

would be prohibited where 

soil erosion hazard rating is 

severe or very severe for 

roads, trails, or off-road 

routes.

exceptions:

Forest product harvest would be 

prohibited in riparian areas, 

ACECs, Wilderness Areas, 

WSAs, and lands with 

wilderness characteristics

managed to protect wilderness 

characteristics. (See Maps 7-10)

On lands with wilderness 

characteristics managed to 

minimize impacts to wilderness 

characteristics, access for forest 

product removal would be 

limited to existing routes. 

- Small amounts of fuelwood

would be made available to the 

public as a result of wildlife

habitat improvement projects, 

ponderosa pine stand 

maintenance projects, right-ofway clearings, and as dead and 

down wood.

following exceptions:

Forest products would be 

prohibited in Wilderness 

Areas and lands with 

wilderness characteristics

managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics.

The BLM would periodically 

identify and designate specific 

fuelwood areas in approximately 

119,435 acres of BLM lands in 

the Planning Area (see Maps 7-

10). 

The BLM would identify and designate 

specific fuelwood areas in 

approximately 560,321 acres of BLM 

land in the Planning Area (see Maps 7-

10).

The BLM would identify and 

designate specific fuelwood areas 

in approximately 644,132 acres of 

BLM land in the Planning Area 

(see Maps 7-10)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-29

2.2.6 Health and Safety

2.2.6.1 Goal

Protect public health and safety and environmental resources through complying with federal 

and state hazardous materials laws and regulations; maintaining the health of ecosystems

through assessment, cleanup, and restoration of contaminated sites; and integrating 

environment protection and compliance into all BLM activities.

2.2.6.2 Objectives

Ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act where applicable.

Prioritize wildland fire management to protect human health and safety.

Ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act where applicable. 

2.2.6.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would comply with applicable Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) policies, including 

discouraging recreational activity within and near AML sites.

The BLM would enforce no surface occupancy (NSO) for leasable fluid minerals, close to 

extraction of salable minerals, install no range improvements, and allow no motorized vehicle 

use on tailings piles, spoil piles, or reclaimed uranium mines.

The BLM would enforce limitations to OHV use in extraction of salable minerals areas, as 

necessary, to preserve public health and safety. 

The BLM would inspect and monitor dams meeting dam safety criteria per BLM Manual 

9177. 

The BLM would work with the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division and industry to plug 

orphan wells.

The BLM would identify and clean up unauthorized dumping sites and hazardous materials 

spills in the RPFO Planning Area in compliance with applicable state, local, and federal 

regulations. 

The BLM would coordinate with local and tribal entities to establish transfer stations or solid 

waste disposal areas, where needed. 

The BLM would monitor leasable fluid minerals operations for compliance according to the 

annual Air Force Mission Support System Inspection and Enforcement Matrix.

The BLM would implement emergency stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration efforts to 

protect and sustain resources, public health and safety, and community infrastructure. 

Temporary closure or restrictions on public land use (e.g., camping, gathering firewood) 

would be enacted at the discretion of the RPFO Manager as necessary to resolve management 

conflicts and protect persons, property, and public lands and resources. A closure or restriction 

order would be considered only after other management strategies and alternatives have been 

explored. Appropriate NEPA analysis would be conducted before the BLM closes public 

lands to certain uses or restricts specific uses under 43 CFR 3864.1, 3851.2-1, and 6302.19. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-30

2.2.7 Lands and Realty

2.2.7.1 Goals

Manage the acquisition, disposal, and use of public lands to meet the needs of internal and 

external customers and to preserve important resource values.

Retain and acquire lands within the BLM administration to accomplish resource goals and 

objectives.

Manage the disposal of public lands to preserve important resource values.

Lands disposals would be planned to ensure no net loss of wetland values.

Manage Land Use Authorizations to benefit public use and preserve resource values.

2.2.7.2 Objectives

Implement land tenure adjustments to improve administration of public lands by disposing of 

isolated, unmanageable parcels and acquiring inholdings within large blocks of federal land.

Acquire and maintain access to public lands where needed to improve management efficiency 

and facilitate multiple use.

Public lands would be retained if they provide access to large blocks of other federal lands, 

unless access rights for public use can be reserved in the patent.

Land acquisitions would be a priority if they are within or adjacent to federally designated 

areas such as WSAs, ACECs, SRMAs, Wilderness Areas, lands with wilderness 

characteristics, etc.

The BLM would acquire land only from owners willing to dispose of them and if adverse 

effects can be mitigated.

The BLM would retain lands that would otherwise be disposed of if adverse impacts to 

NRHP-eligible properties cannot be avoided, minimized, or mitigated at a reasonable cost. 

Acquired lands or interest in lands would take on the management of the surrounding or 

adjacent public lands.

Valuable wildlife habitat and 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.

WSAs and Wilderness Areas would be exclusion areas for any rights-of-way. (FLPMA, 

section 501(a)).

New ROW applicants would be encouraged to stay within already established corridors.

Recognize existing authorized easements, permits, leases, rights-of-way, and withdrawals as 

valid existing rights and carry forward.

All right-of-way applications would continue to receive environmental review on a case-bycase basis and would be coordinated, to the fullest extent possible with all potentially affected 

interest groups and agencies.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-31

2.2.7.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

2.2.7.3.1 Land Tenure

The RPFO would use the following criteria for considering disposal or acquisition of lands:

Existing parcels identified for disposal in the Rio Puerco RMP 1986 will be brought forward 

into this plan.

Public lands would not be disposed of if NRHP-eligible properties cannot be avoided, 

minimized, or mitigated at a reasonable cost. 

Lands within WSAs would not be disposed of unless released from WSA status and disposal

would meet the other management objectives within the RMP/EIS. 

Land disposals would be planned to ensure no net loss of wetland values. 

Section 15 (Taylor Grazing Act) livestock grazing allotments under 100 acres would be 

considered for disposal.

Isolated parcels that are small in size and considered “unmanageable” lands by the RPFO 

would be considered for disposal.

Under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, state, county, municipal, and qualified nonprofit organizations would have the opportunity to obtain public lands identified for disposal.

Where possible, public lands identified for disposal would be exchanged for non-federal or 

tribal lands that have been identified for acquisition to enhance BLM resource management 

programs.

Lands identified for disposal would be disposed of at or above fair market value (excluding 

those lands disposed of under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act).

Lands identified for disposal that have no legal public access and only one adjacent landowner 

would be offered in non-competitive sales at fair market value.

Valuable wildlife habitat and 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. 

Public lands would not be disposed of if they provide access to large blocks of other federal 

lands, unless access rights for public use can be reserved in the patent.

Exchange of lands between the BLM and the State of New Mexico would occur when the 

exchange improves the management potential of state and federal land.

Public lands not identified for disposal would be considered for exchange and Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act disposals on a case-by-case basis after consultation and coordination with 

federal, state, county, and local governments and agencies, and after public and environmental 

review. 

Public lands that are congressionally designated Wilderness would be retained in public 

ownership.

Lands identified for disposal under Sections 203, 206, and 209 of FLPMA and identified as 

such in this plan are hereby classified for disposal under Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act

of 1934, as amended (43 United States Code [USC] 315f).

Lands and/or interest in lands (such as minerals and conservation easements) acquired through 

future land tenure adjustments would take on the management of the surrounding public lands. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-32

The BLM would acquire land only from owners willing to dispose of them.

Land acquisitions would be prioritized if they are within or adjacent to federally designated 

areas such as WSAs, ACECs, SRMAs, Wilderness Areas, National Conservation Areas, 

National Monuments, National Historic and Scenic Trails, Research Natural Areas, or in areas 

of high recreational or paleontological values, with sensitive cultural resources, and along 

historic trails that would benefit BLM resources management programs. 

Exchanges are developed on a case-by-case basis. As such, no quantification of disposal and 

acquisition acreages can be made before the specific exchange proposal is developed.

2.2.7.3.2 Land Use Authorizations

Existing authorized easements, permits, leases, rights-of-way, and withdrawals would be 

recognized as valid existing rights and carried forward.

WSAs and Wilderness Areas would be exclusion areas for any rights-of-way (FLPMA, 

Section 501(a)). 

Rights-of-way for extraction leasable fluid minerals and other surface-disturbing activities 

would comply with stipulations identified in the RMP/EIS. 

The BLM would complete all environmental compliance surveys, including the appropriate 

level of effort to identify historic properties under NHPA Section 106, prior to land disposal,

acquisition, transfer, exchange, lease, permit, or grant.

All right-of-way applications would continue to receive environmental review on a case-bycase basis and would be coordinated, to the fullest extent possible, with all potentially affected 

interest groups and agencies.

The BLM would consider agency requests for withdrawals on a case-by-case basis. In 

addition, the BLM would consider agency requests for withdrawal extensions or 

modifications on a case-by-case basis. All withdrawals have been or would be reviewed 

according to the requirements of laws and existing guidance. Withdrawn areas returned to 

BLM administration would be managed consistently with land use plan decisions for the 

surrounding area, as appropriate. 

Designated corridors determined in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, 

Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western States (BLM 2008) 

records the decision of the ASLM to amend relevant BLM land use plans (identified in 

Appendix E of this document) and to incorporate Section 368 corridors therein. This decision 

to amend the land use plans is supported by the information and findings in the PEIS 

(DOE/EIS-0386). The PEIS identified potential Section 368 corridors; evaluated effects of 

potential future development within designated corridors; identified mitigation measures for 

such effects; and developed IOPs applicable to planning, construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of future projects within the corridors. 

2.2.7.4 Alternatives

All areas not excluded or avoided are considered open. The table below describes actions the 

RPFO would take when siting pipelines, roads, sites, or transmission lines on BLM lands within 

the Planning Area. Resource areas, such as Wilderness Areas, critical habitat, floodplains, etc., 

are identified. Each alternative explains how a pipeline, road, site, or transmission line would be 

treated within a particular area. The term “exclude” means that the project would not be 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-33

approved for construction within the resource area. “Avoid” indicates that the RPFO would 

attempt to site the project outside the particular resource area; however, the project could be 

considered within the resource area if no other viable alternative is available. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-34

Table 2.12: Rights-of-Way Management Decisions by Alternative

Area Alternative A* Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

100-year floodplains No specific 

management decisions

Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

ACECs** Depends on the ACEC; 

some avoid, others 

exclude ROWs

Pipeline: Exclude

Road: Exclude

Sites: Exclude

Trans: Exclude

Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

Same as Alternative C

Active floodplains No specific 

management decisions

Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Exclude

Trans: Avoid

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

Cave/Karst areas No specific 

management decisions

Pipeline: Exclude

Road: Exclude

Sites: Exclude

Trans: Exclude

Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

Same as Alternative C

Critical habitat for federal 

threatened and endangered 

species (designated and 

proposed)

No specific 

management decisions

Pipeline: Exclude

Road: Exclude

Sites: Exclude

Trans: Exclude

Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

Same as Alternative C

Cultural sites (eligible for the 

NRHP)

Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Eligible WSRs No specific 

management decisions

Pipeline: Exclude

Road: Exclude

Sites: Exclude

Trans: Exclude

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

Habitat for BLM sensitive 

plant and animal species 

(includes rare plants)

No specific 

management decisions

Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

Habitat for Federal candidate No specific Pipeline: Avoid Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-35

Area Alternative A* Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

species management decisions Road: Avoid

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

Habitat for federal 

listed/proposed threatened and 

endangered species for which 

critical habitat has not been 

designated

No specific 

management decisions

Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

Habitat State-listed as 

crucial/sensitive 

No specific 

management decisions

Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics managed to 

protect wilderness 

characteristics

No specific 

management decisions

Pipeline: Exclude

Road: Exclude

Sites: Exclude

Trans: Exclude

Same as Alternative B Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

National Scenic and Historic 

Trails (as delineated by 

SRMA, ACEC, or VRM 

areas)

No specific 

management decisions

Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Exclude

Trans: Avoid

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

Soils, highly erodible (per 

sensitive soils definition) and 

all slopes >15% (see Maps 66-

67)

No specific 

management decisions

Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Exclude

Trans: Avoid

Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

Same as Alternative C

TCPs Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

VRM Class I Pipeline: Exclude

Road: Exclude

Sites: Exclude

Trans: Exclude

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

VRM Class II Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-36

Area Alternative A* Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

Wetlands and riparian areas No specific 

management decisions

Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

Wilderness Areas Pipeline: Exclude

Road: Exclude

Sites: Exclude

Trans: Exclude

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

WSAs Pipeline: Exclude

Road: Exclude

Sites: Exclude

Trans: Exclude

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A

Withdrawn lands No specific 

management decisions

Pipeline: Avoid

Road: Avoid

Sites: Avoid

Trans: Avoid

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B

Total Acres – Open PTR1: 6,346

Sites: 6,346

PTR: 24,088

Sites: 24,088

PTR: 32.105

Sites: 32,105

Total Acres – Avoid PTR: 400,345

Sites: 77,685

PTR: 596,025

Sites: 468,969

PTR: 611,844

Sites: 486,788

Total Acres – Exclude PTR: 337,696

Sites: 660,356

PTR: 124,274

Sites: 251,330

PTR: 100,438

Sites: 225,494

Total Acres

744,387

PTR: 744,387

Sites: 744,387 PTR: 744,387

Sites: 744,387

PTR: 744,387

Sites: 744,387

 

1

PTR = pipelines, transmission lines, and roads
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-37

Table 2.13: Land Tenure Adjustment Decisions by Alternative

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C – Preferred Alternative D

Approximately 55,384 acres of 

scattered and isolated public 

land were identified as 

potentially available for 

disposal.

Parcels identified for disposal

total 57,472 acres and are shown 

on Maps 11-14. These lands 

meet the referenced criteria. 

Parcels identified for disposal total 58,910 

acres and are shown on Maps 11-14. These 

lands meet the referenced criteria. 

Parcels identified for disposal

total 62,051acres and are 

shown on Maps 11-14 These 

lands meet the referenced 

criteria.

Approximately 689,003 acres 

were identified for retention.

Approximately 686,915 acres 

would be retained in BLM 

ownership.

Approximately 685,477 acres would be 

retained in BLM ownership.

Approximately 682,336 acres 

would be retained in BLM 

ownership.

Consider direct transfer of land 

in Torrance County to the 

National Park Service or other 

such agency if the transfer 

would provide for the protection 

of cultural and paleontological 

resources of national, state, 

regional or local significance; 

the protection of valuable 

wildlife habitat; and the 

protection of other natural 

resources

Proposed Priority Areas for 

Land Ownership Adjustment*

Golden Area in Unit 5 –

cultural resources are 

located on the properties 

that have to be protected 

or mitigated prior to 

disposal. 

Crest of Montezuma –

may consider transferring 

management jurisdiction 

to another public land 

management agency. 

Proposed Priority Areas for Land 

Ownership Adjustment*

All BLM land in Torrance County.

Lands within the Baca-Prewitt 

Chapter of Navajo Nation – acquire 

land (through exchange) to expand 

Bluewater Canyon ACEC. 

Checkerboard areas (for 

consolidation).

Placitas – isolated 200-acre parcel 

and the Wessley property.

Golden Area in Unit 5 – cultural 

resources are located on the 

properties that have to be protected 

or mitigated prior to disposal.

Crest of Montezuma – may consider 

transferring management 

jurisdiction to another public land 

management agency.

11-acre parcel near the intersection 

of Rio Puerco and Interstate 40. 

Proposed Priority Areas for 

Land Ownership Adjustment*

Parcels listed under 

Alternative C and entire 

public land holdings in 

Placitas.

*Note: This list does not include all BLM lands eligible for disposal within the Planning Area.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-38

2.2.8 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

The BLM has identified lands with wilderness characteristics (LWCs) for management 

consideration in this planning effort. Wilderness characteristics include the combination of size 

(the area has at least 5,000 acres or is of sufficient size to be managed as Wilderness), 

naturalness (the area generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, 

with the imprint of human work substantially unnoticeable), and outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation.

2.2.8.1 Goal

Protect wilderness characteristics on those lands with wilderness characteristics (as defined in 

section 3.2.11) that are identified for protection through this RMP.

2.2.8.2 Objectives

Minimize surface disturbing activities such that the natural quality of the area is maintained.

Maintain opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation where they occur in these areas.

2.2.8.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

Land areas identified as having wilderness characteristics that would be protected or impacted 

minimally would be a priority for acquisition. 

2.2.8.4 Alternatives

For the seven areas identified as lands with wilderness characteristics, the BLM selected one of 

three sets of management decisions for each area under each alternative: protect wilderness 

characteristics, minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics, or no protection of wilderness 

characteristics. Descriptions of each set of management decisions are described below. 

2.2.8.4.1 Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Lands with wilderness characteristics that would be managed to protect wilderness 

characteristics by applying the following prescriptions:

Close to extraction of leasable minerals. 

Close to mineral sales. 

Withdraw from mineral location.

Retain public lands in federal ownership.

Prohibit forest product removal.

Close to travel, except for authorized use.

Allow no new rights-of-way.

Allow no new wildlife developments.

Allow no new recreational developments.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-39

Allow surface disturbance activities on a case-by-case basis when necessary for reclamation, 

emergencies, or valid existing rights. Include mitigation to minimize impacts to wilderness 

characteristics.

Manage lands as VRM II.

2.2.8.4.2 Minimize Impacts to Wilderness Characteristics

Lands with wilderness characteristics that would be managed to minimize impacts to wilderness 

characteristics by applying the following prescriptions:

Close to extraction of leasable minerals. 

Evaluate surface disturbance activities, including extraction of saleable minerals, on a caseby-case basis. Include mitigation to minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics.

Retain public lands in federal ownership.

Manage forest product removal consistent with wilderness characteristics by assuring new 

routes are not established and that harvested areas are followed by prescribed fire to eliminate 

evidence of stumps. 

Manage vehicle use as limited to designated routes as of the approval date of the RMP. In 

areas with overlapping designations, the more restrictive travel designation will prevail. 

Allow current authorized livestock grazing in lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Allow construction of new range improvements that are consistent with maintenance of 

wilderness characteristics.

Manage lands as VRM II.

2.2.8.4.3 Not Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Lands with wilderness characteristics that would not be managed to protect wilderness 

characteristics would have the following prescriptions applied:

Evaluate surface disturbance activities, including extraction of salable and leasable minerals, 

on a case-by-case basis. Include mitigation to minimize impacts to wilderness characteristics, 

when possible.

Retain public lands in federal ownership.

Open to forest product removal. 

Cimarron Mesa Only: Open to vehicle use as of the approval date of the RMP. Vehicle use 

management in this area will be further refined during Travel Management Planning.

Petaca Pinta A and Volcano Hill: Manage vehicle use as limited to designated routes as of the 

approval date of the RMP. In areas with overlapping designations, the more restrictive travel 

designation will prevail. 

Table 2.14: Summary of Management Decisions for LWCs by Alternative

Unit Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Chamisa E 

(2,239 acres)

Lands with 

wilderness 

characteristics 

Protect Protect Protect

Ignacio Chavez A Protect Minimize Impacts Not Protected
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-40

Unit Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

(2,462 acres) were not 

addressed in the 

1986 RMP, as 

amended.

Ignacio Chavez B 

(1,541 acres) Protect Minimize Impacts Not Protected

Ignacio Chavez C 

(72 acres) Protect Minimize Impacts Not Protected

Petaca Pinta A 

(38 acres) Protect Protect Not Protected

Volcano Hill 

(23,833 acres) Protect Protect Not Protected

Cimarron Mesa 

(7,329 acres) Protect Not Protected Not Protected

Total acres Protected 37,514 26,110 2,239

Total acres Minimize Impacts 0 4,075 0

Total acres Not Protected 0 7,329 35,275

2.2.9 Livestock Grazing

2.2.9.1 Goals 

Manage to achieve the New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health (BLM 2001) and other 

desired resource conditions through the implementation of the Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management (BLM 2001). 

Achieve healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystems that support the livestock industry while 

providing for other multiple resource values such as wildlife habitat, recreational 

opportunities, clean water, and functional watersheds.

2.2.9.2 Objectives

Integrate livestock grazing management planning (Allotment Management Plans/Coordinated 

Resource Management Plans) and actions with other resource program objectives. 

Determine if existing livestock management practices are meeting land use planning and 

resource objectives through the collection of monitoring data. 

Develop grazing prescriptions throughout the Planning Area to be consistent with the New 

Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001), which include meeting required forage and 

cover requirements for species of wildlife that could occur within an allotment based on the 

quality and quantity of habitat present. Areas to prioritize such action include those with high 

wildlife value (i.e., riparian areas, threatened and endangered species habitat, and special 

designation areas for wildlife). 

Define Selective Management Categorization (M, I, and C) for allotments through 

administrative procedures based on monitoring and land health data. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-41

2.2.9.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would reimburse holders of range improvement permits and cooperative range 

improvement agreements covered by the land improvement section (43 CFR 4100) of the 

Taylor Grazing Act for financial investments they have made in rangeland improvements on

public land if the BLM disposes of the land. 

The BLM would follow the current New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001) for 

all future livestock grazing activities. 

The RPFO would comply with the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 

17 Western States Programmatic EIS (BLM 2007a). 

On all allotments, the BLM would allow allotment boundary adjustments, joining and 

splitting, and modification of livestock grazing season subject to appropriate NEPA review 

and analysis (Maps 27-28, Appendix E). 

The BLM would address unauthorized livestock grazing and trespass using 43 CFR 4100. 

164,776 acres and 19,342 AUMs within BLM grazing allotments currently managed by the 

Farmington Field Office, but located in the RPFO, would continue to be managed by the 

Farmington Field Office. 

Permittees and interested members of the public would be notified by letter of any changes in 

Selective Management Categorization.

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.

Range improvements would be proposed and implemented as necessary to meet the goals and 

objectives of this RMP/EIS. 

NEPA analysis would be prepared for all vegetation treatments, new permits, and permit 

renewals that would address New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001). 

2.2.9.3.1 Relinquishment of Preference

Voluntary relinquishments of livestock grazing permits and preference, in whole or in part, 

submitted by a permittee in writing to the BLM, would be handled on a case-by-case basis. 

Relinquished permits and the associated preference would remain available for application by 

qualified applicants after the BLM considers if such action would meet rangeland health 

standards and is compatible with achieving land use plan goals and objectives.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-42

2.2.9.4 Alternatives

Table 2.15: Livestock Grazing Management Decisions Across Alternatives

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Currently 22 allotments are in nonuse status (classified as vacant 

with no permit issued to graze 

livestock). The 22 allotments total 

16,833 acres providing a total of 

1,907 AUMs of available forage. 

The RPFO would convert 22 

vacant allotments totaling 16,833 

acres to other resource benefit 

areas by reassigning 1,907 AUMs 

for other resource benefits and 

would be designated as 

unavailable for livestock grazing

and devoted to a public purpose 

that precludes livestock grazing. 

Same as Alternative A; this 

alternative would allow for forage

reserve on all 22 vacant allotments 

when conditions would warrant 

authorization of livestock grazing, 

making 1,907 additional AUMs 

and 16,833 acres available for 

livestock grazing on a case-bycase basis.

Same as Alternative C. 

In the southeast portion of 

Sandoval County there are 

currently eight allotments with 

permitted grazing. The allotments 

total 12,553 acres and provide 

1,581 AUMs of available forage. 

Eight active allotments totaling 

12,553 acres in the southeast 

portion of Sandoval County would 

be designated as unavailable for 

livestock grazing .All 1,581 AUMs 

would be available for other 

resource benefits. The allotments 

would be designated as 

unavailable for livestock grazing 

and devoted to a public purpose 

that precludes livestock grazing. 

The eight allotments in the 

southeast portion of Sandoval 

County, totaling 12,553 acres and 

1,559 AUMs, would remain 

permitted for prescribed livestock 

grazing use. Two allotments

(00120-Tejon, 00924-Wessely 

Lease) making up the remaining 

64 acres and 22 AUMs would 

continue to be authorized under 

Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing 

Act until such time these lands are 

disposed.

All eight allotments within the 

southeast portion of Sandoval 

County would remain active and 

all 12,553 acres and 1,581 AUMs 

would be available for forage. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-43

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Of the total 195 allotments 

included in this plan, 18 are 

classified as Section 15 lands, each 

having total acreage less than 100 

acres. The 18 allotments total 

1,024 acres and 285 AUMs of 

available forage. 

Eighteen Section 15 allotments 

with acreages less than 100 total 

acres would be designated as 

unavailable for livestock grazing. 

Therefore, 1,024 acres would be 

designated as unavailable for 

livestock grazing and devoted to a 

public purpose that precludes 

livestock grazing and 285 AUMs 

for other resource benefits.

Eighteen Section 15 allotments 

with acreages less than 100 acres 

total would not be permitted for 

prescribed livestock grazing in 

cases where they could not be 

lumped into larger BLM allotment

tracts. Livestock grazing would 

continue to be authorized under 

Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing 

Act until such time these lands are 

disposed. (1,024 acres)

Eighteen Section 15 allotments 

with acreages less than 100 acres 

would remain available for 

livestock grazing, would possibly 

be offered in exchange to the 

adjacent producer for private lands 

in an attempt to block BLM lands 

or would possibly be sold to the 

producer. This alternative would 

maintain the 1,024 acres and 285 

AUMs for permitted livestock 

grazing. 

The BLM would maintain 1,180 

AUMs in suspension until 

monitoring data determines the 

forage is available on a long-term 

sustainable basis. 

The BLM would permanently 

suspend 1,180 AUMs, which 

would make them available for 

other resource benefits.

The BLM would reauthorize 1,180 

AUMs in suspension for livestock 

grazing under prescribed grazing 

management on allotments 

meeting the New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines (BLM 

2001) and supporting monitoring

data. 

The BLM would reauthorize 1,180 

AUMs in suspension for livestock 

grazing on allotments meeting the 

New Mexico Standards and 

Guidelines (BLM 2001) and 

supporting monitoring data.. 

Within the Planning Area, there 

are 149 allotments with permitted 

yearlong livestock grazing

systems. 

The BLM would convert 149 

allotments with yearlong systems

to seasonal grazing systems. 

AUMs and acres grazed would 

remain as permitted. 

The BLM would implement 

seasonal use, as necessary, to make 

significant progress towards 

meeting the goals and objectives 

for livestock grazing. AUMs and 

grazed acres would remain as 

permitted. 

The BLM would convert 

allotments to yearlong or seasonal 

grazing systems in an attempt to 

provide flexibility in livestock 

management. Total AUMs would 

stay the same as the No Action 

Alternative; only season of use 

would differ. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-44

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Current management is in 

compliance with the EIS for 

Riparian and Aquatic Habitat 

Management in the Albuquerque 

Field Office (BLM 2000). 

All riparian areas would be 

unavailable to livestock grazing on 

1,582 acres. 

The BLM would allow prescribed 

livestock grazing in riparian areas 

that meet the Riparian Sites 

Standards of the New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines (BLM 

2001). Prescribed livestock 

grazing in riparian areas 

(approximately 1,582 acres) would 

follow the EIS for Riparian and 

Aquatic Habitat Management in 

the Albuquerque Field Office 

(BLM 2000).

Same as Alternative C. 

Currently there are approximately 

697,405 acres (BLM only) and 

87,176 AUMs (BLM only) 

classified as areas of special 

designations (WSA, ACEC, SMA, 

Research Natural Areas) scattered 

throughout the Planning Area 

within active grazing allotment

boundaries. 

The BLM would exclude livestock 

grazing in all areas with existing 

and proposed special designations. 

This would remove 771,308 acres 

and 96,414 AUMs from livestock 

grazing within special 

designations. This includes all 

allotments (BLM, state, private). 

Please refer to the Special 

Designation section for more 

detail.

The BLM would allow prescribed 

grazing in all areas with special 

designations where grazing would 

not conflict with resources 

protected by the special 

designation. 

Same as Alternative C. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-45

2.2.10 Mineral Resources 

2.2.10.1 All Mineral Types

2.2.10.1.1 Goals 

Provide opportunities for environmentally responsible exploration and development of 

mineral and energy resources subject to appropriate BLM policies, laws, and regulations.

2.2.10.1.2 Objectives

Mineral operations permits would identify requirements and BMP’s necessary to avoid or 

minimize adverse effects on natural resources.

Mineral activity would be managed to meet, or move toward meeting, Land Health Standards.

Where no alternative to road construction exists, road (including roads in riparian areas) 

would be kept to the minimum necessary for the approved mineral activity.

2.2.10.1.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The RPFO would manage mineral and energy development on split-estate lands in the following ways:

Private surface owners must allow for cultural resources surveys, surveys for threatened and 

endangered species, and other work, including excavation, when determined necessary by the 

BLM. 

Private surface owners have the right to determine how cultural resources are used after 

completion of the federal action. 

In consultation with the private landowner, the BLM can suggest mitigation and reclamation 

measures to the operator. The BLM can enforce those measures that are included in leasing 

stipulations or applications for permits to drill on split estate lands.

The BLM must fulfill the requirements of NEPA, the NHPA, the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and other applicable laws regarding surface resources. 

The private surface owner is entitled to the same level of resource protection provided on 

federally owned surface during permit review. 

During surface reclamation, the private surface owner may provide views on reclamation to 

the BLM for careful consideration and may concur that final reclamation is satisfactory or 

may recommend additional actions.

On split-estate lands (private surface/federal minerals) and lands administered by other federal 

agencies, the surface owner or surface management agency is responsible for imposing 

surface restrictions. The BLM administers the operational aspects of mineral leases. 

WSAs and designated Wilderness (344,901 total acres in the Planning Area) would be 

designated as unavailable to mineral leasing and development. WSAs are open to locatable 

mineral entry subject to Wilderness non-impairment standards. While not expressly 

prohibited by law or regulation, sale and free use of mineral materials in WSAs would not be 

allowed in most instances because it would not be compatible with the non-impairment 

criteria. The non-impairment criteria require the BLM to manage lands under Wilderness 

review in such a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as 

Wilderness.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-46

Where public lands are sold or exchanged under 43 USC 682(B) (Small Tracts Act), 43 USC 

869 (Recreation and Public Purposes Act), 43 USC 1718 (Sales), or 43 USC 1716 

(Exchanges), the BLM would not allow remove the minerals from the operation of the mining 

laws unless a subsequent land use planning decision expressly recommends withdrawal from 

mineral entry. 

Areas closed to mineral development under this RMP/EIS would not apply to valid, existing 

rights. 

Minerals decisions for ACECs and SRMAs are included where the management decisions for 

specific ACECs and SRMAs are discussed.

For additional information, see the following maps:

o Map 29: Mineral Ownership, 

o Map 30: Fluid Mineral Potential, 

o Map 31: Fluid Minerals Leased Areas, 

o Map 32: Solid Mineral Potential Locatables, 

o Map 33: Solid Mineral Potential Saleable, 

o Map 34: Locatable and Saleable Activities, respectively) and 

o Maps 38-46: (Alternatives for Surface Restrictions, Leasables, Locatables, and 

Saleables, respectively).

2.2.10.1.4 Alternatives

The range of alternatives for minerals largely focuses on the resource conflicts associated with 

wildlife, special designations, and soil. The open, closed, and limited areas were based on 

creating a range over how these conflicts are addressed. For example, in one alternative 

sensitive soils are closed to minerals but in others CSU stipulations are used to address the 

conflict and potential impacts. Finally, there is more range within the limited areas as the 

stipulations vary throughout the alternatives. 

Management decisions related to salable mineral development are described under the 

benefitting resource section. Some of the benefitting resources include Cultural Resources, 

Recreation and Visitor Services, Special Designations, Wildlife and Fisheries, and Special Status 

Species. 

2.2.10.2 Salable Minerals

2.2.10.2.1 Goal

Manage salable mineral permitting and development on BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area while minimizing impacts to other resource values.

2.2.10.2.2 Objectives

Facilitate the evaluation of public lands for salable mineral potential.

Facilitate reclamation of lands disturbed for mineral exploration and development to maintain 

health and diversity of public lands.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-47

2.2.10.2.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

Disposals of salable minerals are discretionary actions; therefore, disposal would be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. Stipulations to protect important resource values would be 

based on interdisciplinary review of individual proposals. Extraction of salable mineral 

operations on BLM-administered lands would be conducted in compliance with BLM mineral 

materials disposal regulations (43 CFR 3600). 

Riparian areas would be closed to salable mineral extraction and disposal.

All actions pertaining to salable minerals are discretionary and subject to the NEPA decisionmaking process. 

2.2.10.2.4 Alternatives

Alternative A (No Action): 

Disposal of salable minerals would not be authorized in the following SMAs: Pelon 

Watershed, 858 acres; San Luis Mesa Raptor Area,640 acres; Azabache Station, 80 acres; Big 

Bead Mesa, 311 acres; Guadalupe Ruin and Community, 485 acres; Elk Springs, 40 acres;

Ojito (Querencia Watershed, 640 acres; Ball Ranch 1,278 acres. 

In the following SMAs, salable mineral contracts would be allowed only under exceptional 

circumstances: Torreon Fossil Fauna, 2,981 acres; Historic Homesteads, 16 acres; Canon 

Jarido, 1,803 acres; Jones Canyon, 649 acres; Headcut Prehistoric Community, 2,274 acres; 

San Luis Mesa Raptor area, 8,369 acres; Cabezon Peak, 5,053 acres; Ignacio Chavez, 43,134 

acres; Canon Tapia, 906 acres; Elk Springs, 9,682 acres; Ojito, 11,590 acres; Pronoun Cave 

Complex, 938 acres; Continental Divide Trail, 715 acres; 1870s Wagon Trail, 630 acres; 

Petaca Pinta, 5,363 acres; Bluewater Canyon, 89 acres. 

Alternatives B, C (Preferred), and D: 

Management decisions related to salable mineral development are described under the 

benefitting resource section. 

Table 2.16: Salable Mineral Management Decisions (Acres) by Alternative

Management Decision Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Open 1,711,415 1,646,554 1,659,585 1,707,930

Avoid 13,683 478 36,311 15,376

Closed 105,654 183,720 134,856 107,446

Total 1,830,752 1,830,752 1,830,752 1,830,752

2.2.10.3 Locatable Minerals

2.2.10.3.1 Goal

Manage mining claim location, prospecting, and mining operations in a manner that will not 

cause unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-48

2.2.10.3.2 Objectives

Facilitate the evaluation of public lands for locatable mineral potential.

Facilitate reclamation of lands disturbed by mineral exploration and development to maintain 

health and diversity of public lands. 

2.2.10.3.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

Riparian areas would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry.

Existing operations would continue to be subject to the stipulations developed for the notice or 

the plan of operations. The BLM would evaluate all operations authorized by the mining laws 

in the context of its requirement to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of federal 

lands and resources. Consistent with the rights afforded claimants under the mining laws, 

operations conducted after this RMP/EIS would be required to conform to the surfacedisturbing stipulations developed in this RMP/EIS and as required by current regulations and 

guidance.

Operations on BLM-administered lands open to mineral entry must be conducted in 

compliance with the BLM's surface management regulations (43 CFR 3715, 3802, 3809, and 

3814). BLM surface management regulations do not apply to operations on other federal lands 

but do apply to split-estate lands.

2.2.10.3.4 Alternatives

Alternative A (No Action)

Lands in the following SMAs would be recommend for withdrawal from mineral entry: Pelon 

Watershed, 858 acres; Jones Canyon, 649 acres; San Luis Mesa Raptor Area, 640 acres; 

Azabache Station, 80 acres; Big Bead Mesa, 311 acres; Guadalupe Ruin and Community, 485 

acres; Elk Springs, 40 acres; Ojito, 7,480 acres; Ball Ranch, 1,278 acres. 

Alternatives B, C (Preferred), and D

Management decisions related to salable mineral development are described under the 

benefitting resource section. 

Table 2.17: Locatable Mineral Management Decisions (Acres) by Alternative

Management Decision Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative 

B

Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Open 16,584

292,4

57 277,748 27,621

Recommended (or 

previously recommended) 

for withdrawal

1,814,16

8

1,538

,295

1,553,0

04

1,803,1

31

Total

1,830,752

1,830,75

2 1,830,752 1,830,752

2.2.10.4 Leasable Minerals 

2.2.10.4.1 Goals

Manage leasable mineral development, while minimizing impacts to other resource values.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-49

Support the domestic need for energy resources.

2.2.10.4.2 Objectives

Make coal available for leasing, and respond to coal leasing and exploration applications in a 

timely manner.

Make other solid leasable minerals available for leasing, and respond to applications in a 

timely manner. 

Facilitate the evaluation of public lands for fluid mineral potential by processing geophysical 

exploration permits and other exploratory permits.

Facilitate oil and gas development by making federal mineral estate available to oil and gas 

leasing with appropriate special leasing stipulations to protect other resources, and by 

monitoring the effectiveness of leasing stipulations in meeting resource objectives.

Facilitate oil and gas development by responding to applications for permits to drill in a 

timely manner. 

Promote environmentally responsible development of fluid minerals by requiring the 

incorporation of fluid mineral Best Management Practices into proposed development actions, 

and carrying out inspection and enforcement activities to monitor the effectives of such 

measures. 

Facilitate the reclamation of lands disturbed for leasable mineral exploration and development 

by working closely with proponents to design projects that can achieve final reclamation 

objectives through appropriate site location, design, construction, maintenance, and final 

reclamation procedures. 

Maintain opportunities to explore and develop federal oil and gas resources and other leasable

minerals.

Maintain opportunities for the collection of subsurface geological (geophysical) data to aid in 

the exploration of oil and gas resources.

Maintain opportunities to explore and develop coal resources within the planning area.

2.2.10.4.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The RPFO is open to leasable mineral development unless specifically identified as closed by 

statute or administratively unavailable for the life of the plan for mineral leasing. The BLM 

would manage these open areas on a case-by-case basis. An appropriate NEPA review will be 

conducted before lease is offered for sale. Leasing is discretionary even if an area is open to 

development. Stipulations are added at the leasing stage depending on inventory and analysis 

and are non-discretionary based on presence of the resource or impacts identified. 

The BLM would require on-site inspections, including surveys for threatened or endangered 

species, waters of the U.S., and cultural resources when the RPFO receives an Application for 

Permit to Drill (APD). 

The RPFO would apply the same lease stipulations on split-estate lands as on BLM lands with 

similar resource conditions. 

Those lands currently open to oil and gas leasing would continue to be open to geophysical 

operations. Those lands open to oil and gas leasing, but subject to an NSO restriction, may be 

open to geophysical operations should site-specific NEPA analysis disclose a finding of no 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-50

significant impact. No geophysical exploration notice of intent would be approved in areas 

closed to oil and gas leasing.

Interim reclamation would be required for oil and gas wells. 

Undesirable events, which include oil spills and explosions occurring in production facilities, 

would be required to be promptly reported to the BLM. 

All actions pertaining to leasable fluid minerals are discretionary and subject to the NEPA 

decision-making process. 

In total, 8,020 acres in the area of maximum development potential would be available for 

further consideration for coal leasing. This area contains approximately 100 million tons of 

coals recoverable by surface mining methods, nearly all of which are federally owned. 

2.2.10.4.4 Alternatives

Alternative A (No Action)

Leasable minerals would be recommended for withdrawal in these SMAs: Pelon Watershed, 

858 acres; San Luis Mesa Raptor Area (Arroyo Empedrado Watershed), 640 acres; Guadalupe 

Ruin Community, 485 acres; Elk Springs (Juana Lopez Research Natural Area), 40 acres; 

Ojito (Querencia Watershed), 640 acres; Ball Ranch, 1,278 acres.

The right-of-way corridors and windows would not be open to leasing. This leaves 8,020 

acres in the area of maximum development potential available for consideration for coal

leasing. This area contains approximately 100 million tons of coal recoverable by surface 

mining methods, nearly all of which are federally owned.

Alternative B

Placitas would be NSO for extraction of leasable fluid minerals, closed to extraction of salable 

minerals, and recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Minerals decisions for 

ACECs and SRMAs are included where the management decisions for specific ACECs and 

SRMAs are discussed.

Alternative C (Preferred)

Placitas would be managed as controlled surface use (CSU) for extraction of leasable fluid 

minerals, open to extraction of salable minerals and locatable mineral entry in Section 13, 

Township 13 North, Range 4 East and Section 18, Township 13 North, Range 5 East.

Alternative D

Placitas would be managed as CSU for extraction of leasable fluid minerals, open to 

extraction of salable minerals, and open to locatable mineral entry.

Table 2.18: Leasable Mineral Management Decisions (Acres) by Alternative

Management Decision Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Open with standard 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 6,660 32,211 27,350 7,629
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-51

Management Decision Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

(NSO)

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

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

2.2.10.5 Leasable Fluid Mineral Special Leasing Stipulations

The items below are proposed changes to the RPFO fluid mineral leasing stipulations. The 

purpose of fluid mineral lease stipulations is to provide adequate protection for other resources 

beyond the standard leasing terms and conditions. The standard lease terms state that the BLM 

may request the operator to move a well bore location 200 meters (m) (656 feet) in any direction 

or delay drilling by up to 60 days (43 CFR 3101.1-2). When a parcel is nominated for leasing, 

RPFO resource specialists would review the location of the parcels and choose appropriate 

stipulations to provide adequate protection for other resources within the parcel. The lease 

stipulations are legally binding to the lessee once they are issued the lease and remain in place 

for the life of the lease. Site-specific measures can be addressed when drilling is proposed via 

Conditions of Approval. Reclamation activities would attempt to reclaim the resources to the 

conditions associated with the goals and objectives in the planning area.

Table 2.19: Fluid mineral leasing stipulation abbreviations

Abbreviation Meaning

CSU Controlled surface use; the BLM may require additional measures for extraction of 

leasable fluid minerals beyond standard lease terms and conditions.

LN Lease notice; provides important information to the lessee.

NM BLM New Mexico stipulations; apply statewide

NSO No surface occupancy; leasable fluid minerals may be accessed via directional drilling 

from adjacent areas where surface occupancy is allowed.

RP BLM RPFO stipulations; apply within Rio Puerco Field Office

TLS Timing limit stipulations; seasonal restriction. 

WO BLM Washington Office stipulations; apply nationwide.

2.2.10.5.1 Management Common to All Alternatives

The stipulations below, common to all alternatives, were created by the BLM Washington Office 

or the New Mexico State Office and are available to be applied to parcels as resource specialists 

deem appropriate. These stipulations are listed here because they provide the protection of 

resources that the RPFO manages. 

Bureau of Reclamation – Section 7 Consultation (WO-BOR-7): No surface-disturbing 

activities would be allowed on lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that 

contain riparian and aquatic habitat that may be suitable for special-status species until a 

Biological Evaluation has been completed that meets requirements of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

Cultural Resource and Tribal Consultation Stipulation: Notification to lessee that BLM may 

not allow activities that could impact cultural resources and cannot be avoided, minimized, or 

mitigated.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-52

Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation (WO-ESA-7): All development activities 

proposed under the authority of the lease are subject to compliance with Section 7 of the ESA. 

Ground-disturbing activity would not be approved that may affect any threatened and 

endangered species or critical habitat until requirements such as conferences or consultations 

have been completed. Compliance could also require modification or disapproval of 

proposals.

Lease Notice – Cultural Resources (NM-11-LN): All development activities proposed under 

the authority of this lease are subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and 

Executive Order 13007. Compliance could require intensive cultural resource inventories, 

Native American consultation, and mitigation measures to avoid adverse effects. 

Lease Notice – Coal Protection (NM-8-LN): Federal coal resources exist on this lease. 

Operations authorized by this lease may be altered or modified by the authorized officer in 

order to conserve and protect the mineral resources and provide for simultaneous operations.

Lease Notice – Drainage (NM-10-LN): When all or part of the lands within a lease are 

subject to drainage by wells on adjacent leases, the lessee would be required within six 

months of lease issuance to submit to the Authorized Officer plans for protecting the lease 

from drainage. 

Lease Notice – Split Estate: APDs or project Plans of Development (PODs) on split-estate 

lands would not be approved unless the operator a) certifies that a surface owner agreement 

has been reached or b) certifies in a statement that an agreement could not be reached. The 

operator must obtain a bond sufficient to cover the anticipated damages to the surface owners’ 

crops or surface improvements 43 CFR 3814.

Controlled Surface Use – Highway Material Site Right-of-Way (NM-4-CSU): For leases 

containing a highway material site right-of-way, the lessee must operate the lease following 

specific requirements that ensure the state highway department would have access to the site. 

No Surface Occupancy – Continental Divide Trail (NM-6-NSO): No occupancy or other 

surface disturbance would be allowed within 305 m (1,000 feet) of the Continental Divide 

National Scenic Trail. 

No Surface Occupancy – Occupied Structures & Dwellings (NM-12-NSO): All or a portion 

of the lease contain occupied dwellings or structures. Surface occupancy of these lands would 

not be allowed. These lands can be accessed remotely by directionally drilling outside the 

NSO zone.

No Surface Occupancy – Pooling Purposes Only (NM-9-NSO): No surface occupancy or use 

is allowed on the lease. The purpose of this lease is solely for participation in a unit or for 

pooling purposes.

2.2.10.5.2 Alternatives

Table 2.20: Summary of General Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations by Alternative

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

CSU: National Register of 

Historic Places (RP-6-CSU) 

CSU: National Register of 

Historic Places (RP-6-CSU) 

Same as 

Alternative B. 

Same as 

Alternative B. 

CSU: Torreon Fossil ACEC – CSU: Paleontological Same as Same as 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-53

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Paleontological Resources (RP11-CSU) Resources Alternative 

B.

Alternative B.

NSO: Churches & Cemeteries 

(RP-10-NSO) 

NSO: Churches & Cemeteries 

(RP-10-NSO) 

Same as 

Alternative B. 

Same as 

Alternative B. 

Geology and Mineral Resources

None NSO: Cave & Karst CSU: Cave & 

Karst 

None

None CSU: Plan Of Development Same as 

Alternative B.

None.

None CSU: Orphan wells Same as 

Alternative B.

None.

Soil, Water, and Riparian Resources

None CSU: Steep Slopes, 15%–30% Same as 

Alternative B. 

None

None NSO: Steep Slopes, Over 30% Same as 

Alternative B. 

Same as 

Alternative B. 

None CSU: Low Reclamation 

Opportunity 

Same as 

Alternative B.

None

None NSO: Streams, Riparian & 

Wetland Areas 

CSU: Streams, 

Riparian & 

Wetland Areas 

None.

Vegetation

None CSU: Lease Reclamation 

(current SENM-47) 

Same as 

Alternative B.

None.

None NSO: Ponderosa Pine Same as 

Alternative B.

None.

No Surface Occupancy: 

Cultural Resources & Aviation 

Facilities (RP-3-NSO) 

NSO: Aviation Facilities (RP3-NSO) Same as 

Alternative B. 

Same as 

Alternative B. 

Wildlife and Special Status Species

None CSU: Designated Sensitive 

Species Measures 

CSU: Same as 

Alternative B.

CSU: Same as 

Alternative B.

None CSU: Prairie Dog Towns, 0.5 

mile 

CSU: Prairie 

Dog Towns, 0.25 

mile

CSU: Prairie 

Dog Towns

TLS: Important Seasonal 

Wildlife Habitat, Feb. 1 to July 

1 (RP-8-TLS) 

TLS: Raptor Nests, 1 mile, 

March 1 to June 30 

TLS: Raptor 

Nests, 0.5 mile, 

March 1-June 30 

TLS: Raptor 

Nests, 0.25 mile, 

March 1-June 30 

TLS: Important Seasonal 

Wildlife Habitat, July 2 to Jan. 

31 (RP-1-TLS) 

TLS: Big Game Winter Range, 

Nov. 15 to April 30 –

Same as 

Alternative B.

None

TLS: Important Seasonal 

Wildlife Habitat, May 15 to 

Nov. 15 (RP-2-TLS)

TLS: Big Game Fawning/ 

Calving Range, Mule Deer 

May 1 – Aug 31; Elk May 1 –

Jun 30; Pronghorn May 1 – Jul 

Same as 

Alternative B.

None
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-54

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

15 

None CSU: Wildlife Habitat Projects CSU: Same as 

Alternative B.

None

Impacts to the Public

CSU: Canon Jarido –

Recreation (RP-9-CSU) 

NSO: Recreation Same as 

Alternative B

None.

None CSU: Residential Interface. None None

Below is a table showing the fluid mineral stipulations that would be applied in special 

designations and other areas as appropriate to meet resource objectives. More specifically, the 

stipulations in Table 2.21 would be applied to protect the relevance and importance criteria of 

each ACEC. For instance, the Pronoun Caves ACEC would be managed for paleontological and 

wildlife values. If a parcel of land were leased in the Pronoun Caves ACEC, stipulations 

regarding Paleontological Resource Values and Wildlife Resource Values would be attached to 

the lease. Whether the stipulation would be CSU or NSO, or not attached at all, depends on 

which alternative is selected.

Table 2.21: Summary of Acres of Fluid Mineral Stipulations within Special Designations Managed for Resource 

Objectives

Resource

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

CSU NSO CSU NSO CSU NSO CSU NSO

Cultural Resources 15,4

51

1,63

0

16,3

10

68,6

72

64,6

86

17,7

98

17,3

43 0

Paleontological 

Resources

20,1

45 0

17,4

55 2

27,7

50

6,49

0

15,5

58 2

Geologic Resources 6,14

8

0

17,6

51

37,2

22

20,6

07

31,9

30

36,1

54 0

Biological Soil Crusts 0 0 0

4,43

7

0

4,43

7

4,43

7

0

Wildlife Resources 11,3

50

1,79

4

1,34

1

60,9

85

50,7

43

11,4

23

2,97

5

941

Rare Plants 20,1

45 0

16,3

10

17,1

59

14,1

34

23,6

47

20,2

43 0

Health & Safety 0 0 0 50 0 50 0 50

2.2.11 Paleontological Resources

2.2.11.1 Goals 

Protect paleontological resources from natural or human-caused deterioration, or potential 

conflict with other resource uses and resource development.

Promote stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of paleontological resources.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-55

2.2.11.2 Objectives

Refine and keep current the Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system with locality 

data as it becomes available.

Develop project or site-specific treatment plans or other protective measures for high potential 

areas where development and risk of adverse impacts are present. 

Maintain and enhance programs that provide opportunities for scientific research of 

paleontological resources.

Develop and maintain interpretation of paleontological resources in areas of high public 

interest and access.

Maintain and enhance educational opportunities and public outreach programs through 

assistance agreements and other partnerships.

2.2.11.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would complete/require assessment and mitigation for paleontological resources for 

proposed actions, including but not limited to: land disposal actions, surface-disturbing 

activities, and OHV open areas. Actions may include inventories, monitoring, or data 

recovery. 

The BLM would apply regulations implementing Public Law 111-11, the Omnibus Public 

Lands Act – Paleontological Resource Preservation Act, to all alternatives. 

The BLM would use the PFYC system to identify criteria or use restrictions to ensure that 

areas containing, or that areas likely to contain, vertebrate or noteworthy occurrences of 

invertebrate of plant fossils are identified and evaluated prior to authorizing surface-disturbing 

activities.

Vertebrate fossils may be collected only by qualified individuals under a permit issued by the 

BLM New Mexico State Office. Vertebrate fossils include bones, teeth, eggs, and other body 

parts of animals with backbones such as dinosaurs, fish, turtles, and mammals. Vertebrate 

fossils also include but are not limited to: trace fossils, such as footprints, burrows, gizzard 

stones, and dung. 

Fossils collected under a permit would remain the property of the federal government and 

must be placed in an approved repository (such as a museum or university) identified at the 

time of permit issuance.

The BLM would require permits for excavation activities.

2.2.11.4 Alternatives

In addition to those goals, objectives, and management actions located in this section, there are 

also management actions associated with special designations and mineral leasing that provide 

additional range to the alternatives. These are located this chapter’s Mineral Resources –

Surface Protection Stipulations (2.2.10.5, Table 2.20 and Table 2.21) and Special Designations 

(2.2.16.3). 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-56

2.2.12 Recreation and Visitor Services

2.2.12.1 General

2.2.12.1.1 Goals

Provide for multiple recreation uses of the public lands. 

Sustain a wide-range of recreation opportunities and potential experiences for visitors and 

residents.

Support local economic stability and sustain the recreation resource base while protecting 

sensitive resource values. 

Develop and maintain cooperative relationships with national, state, and local recreation 

providers, tourism entities, and local recreational groups.

Develop and maintain appropriate recreational facilities, balancing public demand, protection 

of the public resources, and fiscal responsibility.

2.2.12.1.2 Objectives

Support and collaborate with local governments, recreational and public groups, and service 

providers to provide recreational opportunities for visitors to achieve quality-of-life benefits 

from the public lands.

Emphasize and support collaborative public outreach, awareness events, and programs that 

promote public service and stewardship. 

Encourage sustainable travel and tourism development with gateway communities and 

provide community-based conservation support for visitor services.

The RPFO would build and maintain additional recreation facilities consistent with the 

planning process. In the absence of a Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP), facilities 

may be considered through the NEPA process where they support the objectives of the various 

management areas.

The RFPO may construct campground facilities; however, they would be located to avoid 

wetland, riparian, cultural resources, floodplains, and special-status plant and animal species 

habitats. If avoidance were not possible, mitigation would be implemented.

The RPFO would continue to manage and maintain for recreation use in all existing developed 

recreation sites. 

The RPFO would continue to allow existing rights-of-way within all recreational facilities. 

2.2.12.1.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would allow recreational casual collection of a reasonable amount of common 

invertebrate and plant fossils without a permit. Surface disturbance must be negligible, and 

collectors may only use non-powered hand tools. Wilderness and WSAs are closed to 

collecting of any kind. 

Geocaching is a recognized sport in the RPFO Planning Area. If monitoring shows that 

placement of a geocache is causing resource damage by evidence of social trails or vandalism 

to cultural sites, the BLM would work with the geocachers to either relocate or remove the 

geocache.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-57

The BLM would not require a permit for dead and down firewood collected on public land to 

be used for camping on public land, consistent with restriction identified in the Forests and 

Woodlands section. 

Where damage to the long-term sustainability of natural or cultural resources by recreational 

use is anticipated or observed, the BLM would seek to limit or control recreational use by 

managing the nature and extent of the recreational use or by providing site improvements that 

make the activity more sustainable or by a combination of management controls and facility 

development. Such management actions would seek to reduce or eliminate the adverse impact 

while maintaining the economic benefits associated with a wide range of recreation uses. 

In providing recreation opportunities and managing recreation use and visitor services, the 

BLM would consider the need to protect riparian resources, special-status species, and 

wildlife habitats. Management methods may include limitation of visitor numbers, camping 

and travel controls, implementation of fees, alteration of when use takes place, and other 

similar actions to be approved through normal BLM procedures.

The BLM would work with agency and government officials and permit holders to develop 

procedures, protocols, permits, or other types of authorization, as appropriate. 

The BLM would restrict camping and campfires in areas that have a threat of high fire danger.

No dispersed camping would be allowed within 46 m (150 feet) of riparian areas. When 

planning and/or establishing designated campgrounds near riparian areas, sensitive wildlife

habitat needs would be incorporated into all planned construction and design.

Temporary closure or restrictions on the use of public lands (e.g., camping) can be enacted at 

the discretion of the RPFO Manager to resolve management conflicts and protect persons, 

property, and public lands and resources. A closure or restriction order should be considered 

only after other management strategies and alternatives have been explored. NEPA analysis is 

required prior to the BLM closing the public lands to certain uses or restricting specific uses 

of public lands under the authorities of 43 CFR 8364.1, 8351.2-1, and 6302.19. Most closures 

and restrictions implemented by the BLM fall into these categories.

The RPFO would provide visitor information and outreach programs that emphasize the value 

of public land resources and low impact recreation techniques while also providing 

information about recreation activities, experiences, and benefits.

The RPFO would not allow fireworks use on public lands. 

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 especially in riparian

areas.

The RPFO would manage developed sites as necessary under the authority of 43 CFR 8360, 

inclusive of published closures, restrictions, and supplemental rules developed for the public 

lands within the Planning Area to protect visitor health and safety, reduce visitor conflicts, and 

provide for the protection of government property and resources.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-58

2.2.12.2 Special Recreation Permits

2.2.12.2.1 Goal

Issue Special Recreation Permits in an equitable manner for specific recreational uses of 

public lands and related waters as a means to minimize user conflicts, control visitor use, 

protect recreation resources, and provide for private and commercial recreation use.

2.2.12.2.2 Objective

Complete processing requirements for requested Special Recreation permits. 

2.2.12.2.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would issue SRPs as a discretionary action as a means to help meet management 

objectives, provide opportunities for economic activity, facilitate recreational use of the public 

lands, control visitor use, protect recreational and natural resources, and provide for the health 

and safety of visitors. The BLM would apply cost recovery procedures for issuing SRPs 

where appropriate.

All SRPs would contain stipulations appropriate for the type of activity and may include 

additional stipulations necessary to protect lands or resources, reduce user conflicts, or 

minimize health and safety concerns. 

The BLM would allow no competitive mechanized or motorized events in WSAs. 

The BLM would limit permitted competitive events, such as the Oh-My-God 100, to existing 

primitive roads and trails. The BLM would modify existing roads and trails as needed under 

SRPs and would be preceded by required environmental compliance activities. 

The BLM would determine requirements for solid and human waste disposal on a case-bycase basis. 

2.2.12.2.4 Alternatives

Table 2.22: Special Recreation Permit (SRP) Guidance by Alternative

Alternative A 

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Continue to issue and 

manage SRPs (e.g., 

four-wheel drive vehicle 

tours, horseback trips, 

bear hunting camps, 

survival school) to 

enhance outdoor 

recreational 

opportunities and 

provide business 

opportunities for private 

enterprise. 

Continue to permit 

A SRP Group Permit 

would be required if:

The group consists of 

four or more vehicles 

and/or 20 or more 

people staying two or 

more consecutive 

nights in the same 

public land location.

The group consists of 

15 or more vehicles 

and/or 30 or more 

people using public 

land as day-use. 

SRP fees may be 

Same as Alternative B. A SRP Group Permit 

would be required if:

The group consists 

of 20 or more 

vehicles and/or 50 

or more people for 

day use. 

The group consists 

of 10 or more 

vehicles and/or 25 

or more people 

staying overnight 

for two or more 

nights in the same 

public land location.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-59

Alternative A 

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

competitive and 

noncompetitive OHV 

events.

Continue to permit large 

non-commercial 

overnight groups.

waived only for 

research and/or 

scientific, therapeutic, 

or administrative use 

directly related to 

management of the 

permit area, or if the 

event or activity is 

co-sponsored by 

BLM.

2.2.12.3 Special Recreation Management Areas

The only Special Recreation Management Area under consideration for this revision is the 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.

2.2.12.3.1 Goals

Manage the SRMA with a commitment to emphasize their unique value, importance, and /or 

distinctive recreation opportunities on a sustained or enhanced long-term basis. 

2.2.12.3.2 Objective

Provide a valued hiking and travel experience within the SRMA while protecting its historic 

and cultural significance.

2.2.12.3.3 Recreational Setting Characteristics (RSC) 

Activities: Hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking.

Experiences: Remoteness, solitude and enjoying a wide-open natural setting.

Benefits: Social, Individual Experience, Physical Fitness, Environmental and Historic 

edification.

Physical Components: Historic, Cultural, Remoteness, Naturalness. 

Social Components: Community involvement in promoting and maintaining the area through 

social awareness projects and fund raising opportunities.

Operational Components: Create partnerships with other agencies to include Tribal Nations to 

enhance visitor services.

2.2.12.3.4 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would manage all public lands within SRMAs for retention in federal ownership 

consistent with the land tenure decisions identified in the RMP/EIS.

If use and conditions warrant, camping may be restricted to designated sites through 

Supplementary Rule-making (see 43 CFR, 8365.1-6).

The BLM would manage all SRMAs according to VRM class for each respective alternative 

to protect scenic values and settings important to recreation.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-60

Recreation management areas with complex implementation issues may require a subsequent 

implementation-level Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP).

2.2.12.3.5 Alternatives

Table 2.23: Management Prescriptions for the Continental Divide NST SRMA by Alternative

Resource Alternative A (No 

Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Corridor size Management 

prescriptions would 

apply to a 2,000 

foot-wide corridor 

around the CDNST 

(11,474 acres) 

Management 

prescriptions would 

apply to a half-milewide corridor 

around the CDNST 

(38,808 acres)

Management 

prescriptions would 

apply to a half-milewide corridor 

around the CDNST 

where routes have 

not yet been 

determined, and to a 

2,000 foot-wide 

corridor for the 

remainder of the 

trail (23,607 acres)

Management 

prescriptions would 

apply to a 2,000 

foot-wide corridor 

around the CDNST 

(11,474 acres)

Leasable Fluid 

Minerals

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with a NSO 

stipulation.

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with a NSO 

stipulation.

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with a NSO 

stipulation.

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with a NSO 

stipulation.

Salable 

Minerals

Open to extraction 

of salable minerals.

Closed to extraction 

of salable minerals.

Extraction of salable 

minerals would be 

avoided.

Open to extraction 

of salable minerals.

Locatable 

Minerals

Open to locatable 

mineral entry.

Open to locatable 

mineral entry.

Open to locatable 

mineral entry.

Open to locatable 

mineral entry.

Forest 

Products

Open to forest 

product removal.

Closed to forest 

product removal.

Forest product 

removal would be 

avoided.

Open to forest 

product removal.

Motorized 

Vehicle Use

Open to motorized 

vehicles.

Closed to motorized 

vehicles.

Motorized vehicle 

use would be 

limited to existing 

roads and trails.

Motorized vehicle 

use would be 

limited to existing 

roads and trails.

VRM Corridor would be 

managed as 

prevailing VRM 

class.

Corridor would be 

managed as VRM 

II.

Corridor would be 

managed as 

prevailing VRM 

class. 

Corridor would be 

managed as 

prevailing VRM 

class.

2.2.12.4 Extensive Recreation Management Areas

2.2.12.4.1 Goal

Manage ERMAs with recreation as planned actively on an interdisciplinary basis in concert 

with other resources/resource programs. 

2.2.12.4.2 Objective

Strive to achieve the objectives for the identified ERMAs.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-61

2.2.12.4.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM limits recreation management actions within an ERMA to only those of a custodial 

nature.

The BLM may designate ERMA lands as SRMAs in the future based on intensity of use and 

would be analyzed through the plan amendment process.

The BLM may construct minimal facilities in the ERMA as needed to ensure visitor health 

and safety, reduce user conflict, and protect resources.

The BLM would monitor recreation activity in the RPFO ERMA to maintain recreation 

opportunities and protect resource values.

The BLM would manage ACECs with recreational values as described under the ACEC 

section.

2.2.12.4.4 Alternatives

ERMAs are administrative units that require specific management considerations in order to 

address recreation use, demand, or Recreation and Visitor Services (R&VS) program 

investments where a commitment has been made to emphasize recreation by managing for 

specific recreation opportunities and setting on a sustained or enhanced long-term basis. (See

Map 55.)

2.2.12.4.4.1 San Juan Basin Badlands ERMA Objective Statement, R&VS, Implementation 

Decision

The San Juan Basin Badland ERMA is located in the northwest corner of the RPFO in an area 

with mesas and scenic badlands. The ERMA would consist of four zones: Torreon Fossil Fauna 

East and West zones, Oh-My-God 100 (A-C) zones, Ceja Pelon zone, and Chijuilla zone. The 

Torreon Fossil Fauna East and West zones correspond to the Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC. 

Management decisions for the ACEC are described in the special designations section. 

Objective Statement: By 2015, the San Juan Basin Badlands ERMA will offer dispersed 

recreational opportunities, including hiking, wildlife viewing, paleontological 

interpretation, off-highway vehicle use, and other activities.

Acres: 71,155

R&VS: OHV restrictions and stipulations on types of modes of travel designations.

Other Programs: Stipulations on mineral development.

Implementation Decision: Designate motorized travel areas and address specific sites 

and conditions for mineral development.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-62

Table 2.24: San Juan Basin Badlands ERMA Management Decisions by Alternative

Zone Name/ 

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Torreon 

Fossil Fauna 

East and 

West Zones 

(ACEC)

0 acres

See “Special 

Designations –

ACECs” section.

5,921 acres

These zones would 

be closed to 

motorized travel 

except for authorized 

use and managed as 

described in the 

ACEC section.

No petrified wood 

collection would be 

allowed. 

5,921 acres

The BLM would 

allow motorized 

travel on the access 

route only. The 

BLM would manage 

the zones as 

described in the 

ACEC section.

Same as 

Alternative C. 

Oh-My-God 

100 Race 

(A-C) Zones

0 acres

Races would continue 

to be a permitted 

activity per regulations 

in 43 CFR, Part 2930; 

courses would be 

rotated on a three-year 

basis. 

17,408 acres

Same as Alternative 

A, except no new 

trails would be 

considered. 

17,408 acres

Same as Alternative 

A, except new trails 

would be considered 

on a case-by-case 

basis.

Same as 

Alternative C.

Ceja Pelon 

Zone

0 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails.

5,713 acres

The zone would be 

closed to motorized 

travel except for 

authorized use.

No petrified wood 

collection would be 

allowed.

5,713 acres

Motorized travel 

would be allowed on 

the access route 

only.

5,713 acres

Motorized travel 

would be allowed 

on the access 

route only. New 

roads would be 

considered on a 

case-by-case 

basis. 

Chijuilla 

Zone

0 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails.

42,070 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails. 

42,070 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails. 

Construction of new 

roads would be 

considered on caseby-case basis for 

permitted special 

event activities. 

Same as 

Alternative C.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-63

Zone Name/ 

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Historic 

Homesteads

The BLM would 

continue to manage the 

Historic Homesteads 

for maximization of 

the interpretive and 

educational potential 

of the sites, while 

protecting their 

inherent cultural 

values.

Same as Alternative 

A.

Same as Alternative 

A.

Same as 

Alternative A.

Leasable 

Fluid 

Minerals

Pelon Watershed 

Study Area would be 

closed to fluid mineral 

leasing; Historic 

Homesteads SMA 

would be leased with a 

CSU stipulation; 

remainder would be 

leased with standard 

terms and conditions. 

Fluid minerals 

would be leased with 

a CSU stipulation.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Salable 

Minerals

Open to extraction of 

salable minerals, 

except closed in Pelon 

Watershed Study Area 

and avoided in 

Historic Homesteads 

SMA. 

Open to extraction 

of salable minerals.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as 

Alternative B.

Locatable 

Minerals

Open to locatable 

mineral entry, except 

for Pelon Watershed 

Study Area.

Recommend for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Open to locatable 

mineral entry.

Note: Management decisions for Alternative A (No Action Alternative) are not listed because 

ERMAs were not identified in the 1986 Rio Puerco RMP, as amended. See the special 

designations section for management decisions for the Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC zone.

2.2.12.4.4.2 Petaca Pinta ERMA, Objective Statement, R&VS, Implementation Decision.

The Petaca Pinta ERMA is located in a remote area southwest of Los Lunas and Belen, NM. 

There are five zones within the ERMA: Pronoun Cave ACEC zone, Cerro Verde ACEC zone, 

Volcano Hill zone, Cimarron Mesa zone, and Sandy Wash zone. The Volcano Hill and Cimarron 

Mesa zones roughly correspond to the areas of the same name identified as lands with wilderness 

characteristics. The Petaca Pinta WSA is adjacent to this ERMA. Management of the Petaca 

Pinta ERMA would focus on dispersed recreational activities including hiking, wildlife viewing, 

and off-highway vehicle use. 

Objective Statement: By 2015 the Rio Puerco Field Office will promote the dispersed 

recreational activities in the Petaca Pinta ERMA to include hiking, wildlife viewing, and 

off-highway vehicle use in non-restricted areas.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-64

Acres: 69,118

R&VS: OHV restrictions, and stipulations on types of modes of travel.

Implementation Decision: Designated OHV areas and address specific sites and 

conditions of mineral development. 

Table 2.25: Petaca Pinta ERMA Management Decisions by Alternative

Zone Name/ 

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Pronoun Cave 

ACEC Zone

0 acres

See “Special 

Designations—

ACECs” 

section.

1,100 acres

The cave complex 

would be closed to 

recreational use. The 

BLM would manage 

the zone as described 

in the ACEC section.

1,100 acres

Motorized vehicle 

use would be limited 

to existing primitive 

roads and trails. The 

BLM would manage 

the zone as described 

in the ACEC section.

Same as Alternative 

C.

Cerro Verde 

ACEC Zone

0 acres

See “Special 

Designations—

ACECs” 

section.

4,618 acres

Travel would be 

limited to nonmotorized use, 

unless authorized by 

permit. 

4,618 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails. The 

BLM would manage 

the zone as described 

in the ACEC section.

Same as Alternative 

C.

Volcano Hill 

Zone

0 acres

Open to 

motorized 

vehicle use. 

26,657 acres

Travel would be 

limited to nonmotorized use, 

unless authorized by 

permit.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as Alternative 

B.

Cimarron Mesa 

Zone

0 acres

Open to 

motorized 

vehicle use.

18,269 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails.

18,269 acres

The BLM would 

manage this zone as 

an open OHV area.

Same as Alternative 

C.

Sandy Wash 

Zone

0 acres

Open to 

motorized 

vehicle use.

18,474 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-65

Zone Name/ 

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Leasable Fluid 

Minerals

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with standard 

terms and 

conditions, 

except CSU in 

Pronoun Caves 

ACEC. 

Fluid minerals would 

be leased with a CSU 

stipulation. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Salable Minerals Open to salable 

mineral 

extraction, 

except avoided 

within Pronoun 

Caves ACEC.

Open to extraction of 

salable minerals. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Locatable 

Minerals

Open to 

locatable 

mineral entry. 

Recommend for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Open to locatable 

mineral entry. 

Note: Management decisions for Alternative A (No Action Alternative) are not listed because 

ERMAs were not identified in the 1986 Rio Puerco RMP, as amended. See the special 

designations section for management decisions for the Pronoun Caves ACEC and Cerro Verde 

ACEC zones.

2.2.12.4.4.3 Boca del Oso ERMA, Objective Statement, R&VS, and Implementation Decision.

The Boca del Oso ERMA (134,474 acres) is located in southwestern Sandoval County and 

southeastern McKinley County in an area of the field office with numerous WSAs. There are 

eleven zones within the Boca del Oso ERMA: Ignacio Chavez ACEC zone, Cabezon Peak 

ACEC zone, San Luis Mesa ACEC zone, San Miguel Dome ACEC zone, Azabache zone, 

Ancestral Way zone, the Cerro zone, and the Continental Divide Trail zone. In addition to 

ACECs, these zones contain other areas with special management prescriptions, including 

special cultural resource areas and lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Objective Statement: The Boca del Oso ERMA would focus and promote by 2018 the 

protection of wilderness values and dispersed recreational activities, including hiking, 

hunting, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, cross-country skiing, and other activities. 

Promote interpretation through advance technologies.

Acres: 50,431

R&SV: OHV restrictions, and stipulations on types of modes of travel.

Other Programs: Provide guidance for public awareness on weed free feed for livestock 

and pack animals utilized in the Boca del Osa ERMA.

Implementation Decisions: Designated motorized access areas and address specific sites 

and conditions of mineral development. By 2020 RPFO will develop downloadable 

narrative and Bar Code Technology Access for interpretive guides.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-66

Table 2.26: Boca del Oso ERMA Management Decisions by Alternative

Zone Name/ 

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Chamisa WSA 

Zone

See “Special 

Designations –

Wilderness and 

Wilderness 

Study Areas” 

section.

Travel would be 

limited to nonmotorized travel 

only.

Toro, Ned, and 

Medio stock tank 

access roads would 

remain closed; 

motorized access 

would be allowed by 

permit only. 

Motorized use on 

BLM Road 1103 

would have a 

seasonal closure of 

November 30 

through April 15.

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails. 

Ignacio Chavez 

ACEC Zone

See “Special 

Designations—

ACECs” 

section.

The BLM would 

manage this zone as 

described in the 

ACEC section.

Same as Alternative 

B, except:

- Seco, Heifer, and 

Los Indios stock tank 

access roads would 

remain closed; 

motorized access 

would be allowed by 

permit only. 

Motorized use BLM 

Road 1103 would 

have a seasonal 

closure of November 

30 through April 15. 

BLM Road 1103 

would be open yearround when 

maintenance is 

completed. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-67

Zone Name/ 

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Cabezon Peak 

ACEC Zone

See “Special 

Designations—

ACECs” 

section.

The cherry-stem 

route would be 

closed that provides 

access to the 

Cabezon Peak 

trailhead. No 

maintenance would 

be allowed on this 

route. Limit 

motorized travel to 

authorized use. The 

ACEC portion of this 

zone would be 

managed as 

described in the 

ACEC section.

The cherry-stem 

route that provides 

access to the 

trailhead would be 

open to motorized 

vehicles and regular 

maintenance by the 

county would be 

requested. The 

ACEC portion of this 

zone would be 

managed as 

described in the 

ACEC section.

The trailhead would 

be open to motorized 

travel. The 

remaining zone 

would be limited to 

motorized travel by 

authorized use. The 

ACEC portion of 

this zone would be 

managed as 

described in the 

ACEC section. 

San Luis Mesa 

ACEC Zone

See “Special 

Designations—

ACECs” 

section.

12,237 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing roads, 

primitive roads, and 

trails. The ACEC 

portion of this zone 

would be managed 

as described in the 

ACEC section.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as Alternative 

B, except new 

primitive roads for 

special events would 

be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. 

San Miguel 

Dome ACEC 

Zone

See “Special 

Designations—

ACECs” 

section.

6,961 acres

Motorized travel 

would be allowed 

with permit only. 

The ACEC portion 

of this zone would be 

managed as 

described in the 

ACEC section.

6,961 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails. The 

ACEC portion of this 

zone would be 

managed as 

described in the 

ACEC section.

6,961 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails. The 

zone would be 

managed as 

described in the 

ACEC section.

Ancestral Way 

Zone

See 

management of 

Big Bead 

Mesa, 

Guadalupe 

Ruin, and 

Canon Tapia in 

the “Cultural 

Resources” 

section.

5,898 acres

Travel would be 

open to motorized 

use on existing 

roads/trails with 

seasonal closures

5,898 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads/trails with no 

seasonal closures. 

Same as Alternative 

C.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-68

Zone Name/ 

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Azabache Zone See “Cultural 

Resources” 

section.

12,889 acres

The Azabache 

Station SMA that 

lies in this zone 

would be closed to 

motorized travel 

except for authorized 

use; motorized 

existing primitive 

roads and trails 

would be allowed on 

remainder of zone. 

Azabache Station 

would be allocated to 

cultural resource 

scientific use, then to 

public use after 

adequate study and 

site “hardening” 

activities.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

12,889 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails. 

Azabache Station 

would be allocated 

to cultural resource 

scientific use, then to 

public use after 

adequate study and 

site “hardening” 

activities. The BLM 

would develop a 

non-collection 

permit system for 

metal detection 

studies by members 

of the public.

Cerro Zone Motorized 

travel would be 

limited to 

existing 

primitive roads 

and trails. 

12,436 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as Alternative 

B except existing 

roads in the SRMA 

would be maintained 

and additional roads 

would be developed 

on a case-by-case 

basis in 

conformance with 

existing laws and 

regulations.

Leasable Fluid 

Minerals

See notes for 

individual 

zones. 

Fluid minerals would 

be leased with a CSU 

stipulation. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Salable Minerals See notes for 

individual 

zones.

Open to extraction of 

salable minerals.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Locatable 

Minerals

See notes for 

individual 

zones.

Recommend for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Open to locatable 

mineral entry.

Note: Management decisions for Alternative A (No Action Alternative) are not listed because 

ERMAs were not identified in the 1986 Rio Puerco RMP, as amended. See the special 

designations section for management decisions for the Ignacio Chavez, Cabezon Peak, San Miguel 

Dome, and San Luis Mesa and Canon Tapia ACEC zones. Where mineral resource management 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-69

decisions listed for the ERMA do not match the management decisions listed for ACEC zones of 

the ERMA, the more restrictive management decision would prevail.

2.2.12.4.4.4 San Ysidro ERMA, Objective Statement, R&VS, and Implementation Decision

The San Ysidro ERMA (11,839 acres) is located in Sandoval County north and west of the 

Village of San Ysidro. The area, located near the Rio Salado and Highway 550, is characterized 

by gypsum-rich soils, unique geologic features, and springs. There are four zones within the San 

Ysidro ERMA: Ojito ACEC zone, Las Milpas zone, White Mesa Bike Trails zone, and San 

Ysidro Trials Area zone. 

Objective Statement: San Ysidro ERMA will have a balance use of dispersed recreation 

activities, including areas managed for motorized travel, mechanized travel, hiking, horseback 

riding, and other activities. 

Acres: 11,212

R&SV: OHV restrictions, and stipulations on types of modes of travel and associated

restrictions.

Implementation Decisions: Identify and designate authorized travel routes for mechanized 

and motorized travel. By 2020 RPFO will create access from nearby highway to the hiking 

trail system and develop downloadable narrative and Bar Code technology access for 

interpretive guides.

Table 2.27: San Ysidro ERMA Management Decisions by Alternative

Zone Name/ 

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Ojito ACEC 

Zone

See “Special 

Designations—

ACECs” section.

This zone would be 

closed to motorized 

travel except for 

authorized use and 

managed as 

described in the 

ACEC section.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Las Milpas 

Zone

Access would be 

limited to authorized 

users.

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with a CSU 

stipulation. 

2,523 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing roads, 

primitive roads, and 

trails. The BLM 

would designate a 

defined area (about 

700 acres) of the old 

Las Milpas Gas 

Storage Facility as a 

BLM administrative 

site closed to general 

public entry unless 

authorized by the 

activity plan. 

Same as Alternative 

B.

2,523 acres

This zone would be 

open to public entry. 

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-70

Zone Name/ 

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

White Mesa 

Bike Trails 

Zone

White Mesa Bike 

Trails allow 

authorized use of 

bike trails and 

limited use of trails 

for equestrian use 

(semi-primitive, 

non-motorized). 

3,546 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing roads, 

primitive roads, and 

trails, as posted. 

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

San Ysidro 

Trials Area

Zone

The San Ysidro 

Trials motor bike 

area would continue 

to meet both 

competitive and play 

needs. This area 

would be closed to 

motorized travel, 

unless permitted.

5,143 acres

This zone would be 

closed to motorized 

travel except for 

authorized use. 

Gates would remain 

locked, but nonmotorized and 

mechanized travel 

would be allowed. 

5,143 acres

Motorized travel 

would be limited 

only to the access 

road, except for the 

continued authorized 

use of both play area 

and events for New 

Mexico Trials 

Association would 

be allowed on 

authorized trails. 

Mechanized travel 

would be allowed on 

existing roads and 

trails. The existing

gates into the area 

would remain 

locked, key 

available at the 

BLM RPFO for 

checkout. 

One petroglyph site 

at San Ysidro would 

be allocated to 

public use for 

interpretation after 

site “hardening” 

activities. The BLM 

would add the site to 

the list of sites

monitored by Site 

Stewards volunteers.

Same as Alternative 

C.

Leasable 

Fluid 

Minerals

Open to fluid 

mineral leasing 

(except as noted for 

Ojito ACEC and Las 

Milpas zones).

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with a CSU 

stipulation.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-71

Zone Name/ 

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Salable 

Minerals

Open to extraction 

of salable minerals 

(except as noted for 

Ojito ACEC zones).

Open to extraction 

of salable minerals.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Locatable 

Minerals

Open to locatable 

mineral entry 

(except as noted for 

Ojito ACEC zone 

above).

Recommend for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Open to locatable 

mineral entry

Note: Management decisions for Alternative A (No Action Alternative) are not listed because 

ERMAs were not identified in the 1986 Rio Puerco RMP, as amended. See the special 

designations section for management decisions for the Ojito ACEC zone. Where mineral resource 

management decisions listed for the ERMA do not match the management decisions listed for 

ACEC zone of the ERMA, the more restrictive management decision would prevail.

2.2.12.4.4.5 Herrera ERMA, Objective Statement, R&VS, Implementation Actions

The Herrera ERMA (18,457 acres) is located west of Albuquerque and north of Interstate 40. 

There are three zones within the Herrera ERMA: Bony Canyon ACEC zone, Prospect zone, and 

La Mesita zone. 

Objective Statement: Management of the Herrera ERMA would focus on off-highway 

vehicle (dune buggy) use, and paleontological interpretation and study. By 2018 OHV 

competitive events permitting process will be analyzed and updated to meet any changes 

related to completive OHV events.

Acres: 18.456

R&VS: Stipulate permitting requirements for dune buggy events.

Implementation Actions: Designate dune buggy events and motorized vehicle areas. 

Provide public outreach to educate motorized users of restrictions and permitting 

requirements for competitive events.

Table 2.28: Herrera ERMA Management Decision by Alternative

Zone Name/ 

Resource

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C(Preferred) Alternative D

Bony Canyon 

ACEC Zone

Motorized vehicle 

use would be 

limited to existing 

roads and trails. 

1,314 acres

This zone would be 

managed as nonmotorized, except 

for authorized or 

permitted motorized 

use, and as 

described in the 

ACEC section.

Same as Alternative 

B.

1,314 acres

Motorized use 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-72

Zone Name/ 

Resource

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C(Preferred) Alternative D

Prospect 

Zone

Motorized vehicle 

use would be 

limited to existing 

roads and trails. 

11,443 acres

The BLM would 

limit motorized 

vehicles to existing 

routes and would 

work towards 

maintaining existing 

routes and consider 

developing 

additional routes for 

motorized use in the 

future through the 

travel planning 

proves.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

La Mesita 

Zone

Motorized vehicle 

use would be 

limited to existing 

roads and trails. 

5,699 acres

The BLM would 

limit motorized 

vehicles to existing 

routes and would 

work towards 

maintaining existing 

routes and consider 

developing 

additional routes for 

motorized use in the 

future through the 

travel planning 

process.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Leasable 

Minerals

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with standard terms 

and conditions.

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with a CSU 

stipulation. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Salable 

Minerals

Open to extraction 

of salable minerals

Same as Alternative 

A. 

Same as Alternative 

A.

Same as Alternative 

A.

Locatable 

Minerals

Open to locatable 

mineral entry. 

Recommend 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry

Same as Alternative 

B.

Open to locatable 

mineral entry. 

Note: Management decisions for Alternative A (No Action Alternative) are not listed because 

ERMAs were not identified in the 1986 Rio Puerco RMP, as amended. See the special 

designations section for management decisions for the Bony Canyon ACEC zone. Where mineral 

resource management decisions listed for the ERMA do not match the management decisions 

listed for ACEC zone of the ERMA, the more restrictive management decision would prevail.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-73

2.2.12.4.4.6 Crest of Montezuma ERMA, Objective Statement, R&VS, Implementation Actions

The Crest of Montezuma ERMA is located in southeastern Sandoval County north of the Sandia 

Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest and east of the San Antonio de las Huertas Land 

Grant and the Village of Placitas. 

Objective Statement: By 2020 assess the recreational potential and coordinate effort with 

surrounding high-density communities and applicable agencies. 

Acres: 917

R&SV: The management of the Crest of Montezuma would focus on primitive and semiprimitive non-motorized travel, especially hiking and mountain biking.

Implementation Decision: Designated motorized access areas and address specific sites 

and conditions of mineral development. 

Table 2.29: Crest of Montezuma ERMA Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred) Alternative D

Travel Closed to motorized travel 

except for authorized use. 

Open to primitive nonmotorized travel. 

Motorized travel would be 

limited to existing roads and 

trails for permitted use. 

Open to primitive nonmotorized travel.

Same as Alternative C. 

Leasable 

Minerals

Fluid minerals would be 

leased with a CSU 

stipulation. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Salable 

Minerals

Closed to extraction salable 

minerals.

Same as Alternative B. Open to extraction of salable 

minerals.

Locatable 

Minerals

Recommend for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral 

entry.

Same as Alternative B. Open to locatable mineral 

entry.

Note: Management decisions for Alternative A (No Action Alternative) are not listed because no 

similar management decisions were identified in the 1986 Rio Puerco RMP, as amended.

2.2.13 Renewable Energy

2.2.13.1 Goal

Promote renewable energy on public lands where compatible with land management goals. 

2.2.13.2 Objectives

Authorization of any rights-of-way for wind or solar energy development would incorporate 

BMPs, including the USFWS’s “Guidelines for Wind Power” and provisions contained in the 

Final Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development (BLM 2005b).

The RPFO would follow the decisions made under the Final Programmatic EIS, Geothermal 

Leasing in the Western United States (BLM and U.S. Forest Service 2008) and the Final 

Programmatic EISs on Wind Energy and Solar Development Program (USDI 2005). 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-74

Renewable Energy projects will be pursued if the area has been identified as having medium 

to high potential in a previous study.

2.2.13.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

Proposals for renewable energy projects on public land would undergo site-specific 

environmental analysis as part of the right-of-way process.

Energy corridors located in the Planning Area and designated in the Record of Decision and 

Final Programmatic EIS Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western 

States (BLM 2009) would be incorporated into the RMP/EIS

2.2.13.4 Alternatives

The table below describes actions the RPFO would take when siting wind, solar, and geothermal

projects on BLM lands within the Planning Area. Resource areas, such as Wilderness Areas, 

critical habitat, floodplains, etc., are identified. Each alternative explains how a wind, solar, or 

geothermal project would be treated within a particular area. The term “exclude” means that the 

renewable energy project would not be approved for construction within the resource area. The 

term “avoid” indicates that the RPFO would attempt to site the project outside the particular 

resource area; however, the project could be constructed within the resource area if no other 

viable alternative is available.

Table 2.30: Renewable Energy Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource/Area (No Action) 

Alternative A* Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D

100-year 

floodplains

No specific 

management 

decisions

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Avoid

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Avoid

Same as Alternative 

C

ACECs Depends on the 

ACEC; some 

avoid, others 

exclude ROWs

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Avoid

Same as Alternative 

C

Active 

floodplains

No specific 

management 

decisions

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Avoid

Same as Alternative 

B

Same as Alternative 

B

Cave/Karst areas No specific 

management 

decisions

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Avoid

Geo: Avoid

Critical habitat 

for federal 

threatened and 

endangered 

species

(designated and 

proposed)

No specific 

management 

decisions

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Avoid

Same as Alternative 

C

Cultural sites 

(eligible for the 

NRHP)

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Avoid

Geo: Avoid

Same as Alternative 

A

Same as Alternative 

A

Same as Alternative 

A
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-75

Resource/Area (No Action) 

Alternative A* Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D

Eligible WSRs No specific 

management 

decisions

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Same as Alternative 

B

Same as Alternative 

B

Habitat for BLM 

sensitive plant 

and animal 

species (includes 

rare plants)

No specific 

management 

decisions

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Avoid

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Avoid

Geo: Avoid

Habitat for 

Federal 

candidate 

species

No specific 

management 

decisions

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Avoid

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Avoid

Geo: Avoid

Habitat for 

federal listed/ 

proposed 

threatened and 

endangered 

species for 

which critical 

habitat has not 

been designated

No specific 

management 

decisions

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Avoid

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Avoid

Geo: Avoid

Habitat Statelisted as 

crucial/sensitive

No specific 

management 

decisions

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Avoid

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Avoid

Geo: Avoid

Lands with 

wilderness 

characteristics 

managed to 

protect 

wilderness 

characteristics

No specific 

management 

decisions

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Avoid

Geo: Avoid

Same as Alternative 

C

National Scenic 

and Historic 

Trails (as 

delineated by 

SRMA, ACEC, 

or VRM areas)

No specific 

management 

decisions

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Same as Alternative 

B

Same as Alternative 

B

Soils, highly 

erodible (per 

sensitive soils 

definition) and 

all slopes >15%

No specific 

management 

decisions

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Avoid

Geo: Avoid

Same as Alternative 

B

Same as Alternative 

B

TCPs Wind: Avoid

Solar: Avoid

Geo: Avoid

Same as Alternative 

A

Same as Alternative 

A

Same as Alternative 

A

VRM Class I Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Same as Alternative 

B

Same as Alternative 

B
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-76

Resource/Area (No Action) 

Alternative A* Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D

VRM Class II Wind: Avoid

Solar: Avoid

Geo: Avoid

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Avoid

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Avoid

Geo: Avoid

Same as Alternative 

C

Wetlands and 

riparian areas

No specific 

management 

decisions

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Same as Alternative 

B

Same as Alternative 

B

Wilderness 

Areas

Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Same as Alternative 

A

Same as Alternative 

A

Same as Alternative 

A

WSAs Wind: Exclude

Solar: Exclude

Geo: Exclude

Same as Alternative 

A

Same as Alternative 

A

Same as Alternative 

A

Withdrawn lands No specific 

management 

decisions

Wind: Avoid

Solar: Avoid

Geo: Avoid

Same as Alternative 

B

Same as Alternative 

B

Total Acres –

Open 

Geo: 6,346

Solar: 6,346

Wind: 6,346

Geo: 24,088

Solar: 24,088

Wind: 24,088 

Geo: 32,105

Solar: 32,105

Wind: 32.105

Total Acres –

Avoid 

Geo: 373,047

Solar: 215,085

Wind: 219,890

Geo: 428,538

Solar: 293,140

Wind: 468,061

Geo: 603,728

Solar: 460,117

Wind: 485,789 

Total Acres –

Exclude 

Geo: 364,994

Solar: 522,956

Wind: 518,151

Geo: 291,761 

Wind: 252,238

Solar: 427,159 

Geo: 108,554

Solar: 252,165

Wind: 226,493 

Total Acres 744,387 744,387 744,387 744,387

2.2.14 Riparian Resources

2.2.14.1 Goal

Protect and restore riparian/wetland areas, and avoid or minimize the disturbance, loss, or 

degradation of riparian, wetland, and associated floodplains; preserve and enhance natural and 

beneficial values; and provide for fish, wildlife, and special-status species habitats. 

2.2.14.2 Objectives

Implement management strategies that restore degraded riparian communities; protect natural 

flow requirements; protect water quality; manage for stable, non-eroding banks; and manage 

for year-round flows where applicable. 

Manage riparian areas for Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) and toward an advanced 

ecological status, and ensure stream channel morphology and functions are appropriate for 

local soil type, climate, and landform. All riparian areas must meet the Riparian Sites 

Standard outlined in the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001). PFC is an 

element of the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and required by the Riparian Sites 

Standards and regulations in 43 CFR 4180.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-77

Implement riparian/wetland restoration projects with objectives of maintaining species 

diversity (wildlife and vegetation) and protecting or recovering special status species that 

heavily depend on these habitats. Emphasize projects aimed at increasing riparian/wetland 

areas for the benefit of these species.

2.2.14.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would carry forward adaptive management strategies and permit conditions 

developed in accordance with the EIS for Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Management in the 

Albuquerque Field Office (BLM 2000), except for the two management decisions varied in 

the proposed range of alternatives below related to surface disturbance restrictions for riparian

areas and potential closing riparian areas to livestock grazing under Alternative B. 

The BLM would continue to manage southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL) habitat in the 

RPFO Planning Area, inventory new habitat, and update existing habitat in accordance with 

the SWFL Management Plan (BLM 1998) and the SWFL Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002). The 

BLM would also seek out guidance from USFWS specialists and new scientific literature that 

pertains to arising issues involving SWFL management not covered in these documents.

The BLM would maintain all properly functioning springs and associated riparian/wetland 

habitats at the PFC level. The BLM would assess and reassess PFC for all riparian areas in the 

RPFO Planning Area. Those features in the Nonfunctional and Functional At-Risk categories 

would be managed to improve them to PFC. The RPFO would use exclosures or implement 

grazing management practices to maintain and/or improve to PFC. Other activities would be 

limited as necessary to achieve or maintain PFC (BLM IM 2010-101). 

The BLM would prioritize restoration activities in riparian systems that contain SWFL 

habitat, are Functioning at-Risk, or are Nonfunctioning. Saltcedar is now considered suitable 

SWFL nesting habitat; therefore, projects involving treatment of saltcedar in known SWFL 

habitat would require consultation with the USFWS. 

The BLM would address riparian habitat values for all surface and vegetation disturbing 

actions within or close to riparian areas. 

Any management actions for riparian areas would include appropriate tribal consultation 

regarding potential TCPs.

Mitigation to reduce impacts to floodplains and riparian areas may include but are not limited 

to:

1. Where feasible and consistent with user safety, developed travel routes would be located or 

relocated away from sensitive riparian and wetland areas.

2. Dispersed camping would be prohibited within 46 m (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. 

3. Stream crossings would be limited in number dictated by the topography, geology (see Map 3), 

and soil type. Any necessary stream crossings would be designed to minimize sedimentation, soil 

erosion, and compaction (to minimize longitudinal routes along stream banks, crossings would be 

designed perpendicular to the stream).

4. Where necessary, recreational use would be controlled by changing location or kind of activity, 

season, intensity, distribution, and/or duration.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-78

5. Livestock grazing actions would be implemented to meet riparian objectives, including vegetation

use limits, fencing, herding, and change of livestock class, temporary closures, season, and/or 

alternate development or relocation of water sources.

6. Any water diversions from riparian areas by the BLM or non-BLM entities would be designed 

and constructed to protect ecological processes and functions.

7. Weed management stipulations and education would be implemented to reduce spread of noxious

weeds within riparian corridors. 

8. Riparian areas would be closed to motorized travel.

The BLM would continue to apply integrated species management to accomplish riparian

restoration through chemical, mechanical, and manual methods (e.g., saltcedar control, willow 

plantings). 

The BLM would acquire riparian lands and water resources (from willing sellers), and work 

with cooperating adjacent landowners to preserve and maintain multi-jurisdictional riparian 

areas for increased habitat quality and instream flow. 

The BLM would plan land disposals to ensure no net loss of wetland values. 

The BLM would prohibit woodland harvest, except where permitted for restoration to benefit 

riparian values. 

The BLM would manage riparian areas to ensure a multi-aged, multi-layered structure, 

allowing for retention of snags and diseased trees. 

The BLM would close riparian areas to extraction of salable minerals and recommend for 

withdrawing them from locatable mineral entry.

The BLM would avoid aerial application of retardant or foam within 91 m (300 feet) of 

waterways and any ground application of wildland fire chemicals into waterways. Waterways 

include any body of water including lakes, rivers, stream, springs, and ponds regardless if they 

contain aquatic life. This includes all wildland fire chemicals, including water enhancers.

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.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-79

2.2.14.4 Alternatives

Table 2.31: Riparian Resource Management by Alternative

Resource Use Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Surface 

Disturbing 

Activities

Current management would 

follow the EIS for Riparian 

and Aquatic Habitat 

Management in the 

Albuquerque Field Office 

(BLM 2000).

Surface-disturbing activities 

would be prohibited within 

200 m (656 feet) of the 

channels of ephemeral, 

intermittent, and perennial 

streams, or within 200 m (656 

feet) of the outer margins of 

riparian and wetland areas.

Surface-disturbing activities 

would be subject to 

restrictions within 200 m (656 

feet) of the channels of 

ephemeral, intermittent, and 

perennial streams, or within 

200 m (656 feet) of the outer 

margins of riparian and 

wetland areas.

None.

Livestock 

Grazing

Current management would 

follow the EIS for Riparian 

and Aquatic Habitat 

Management in the 

Albuquerque Field Office 

(BLM 2000). 

The BLM would prohibit 

livestock grazing in riparian

areas by removing 1,582 acres 

from livestock grazing. 

The BLM would allow 

prescribed livestock grazing

in riparian areas that meet the 

Riparian Sites Standards of 

the New Mexico Standards 

and Guidelines (BLM 2001). 

Prescribed livestock grazing 

in riparian areas 

(approximately 1,582 acres) 

would follow the adaptive 

management strategies and 

permit conditions developed 

in accordance with the EIS for 

Riparian and Aquatic Habitat 

Management in the 

Albuquerque Field Office 

(BLM 2000).

Same as Alternative C. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-80

2.2.15 Soil and Water Resources

2.2.15.1 Goals

Protect and improve surface water and groundwater quality and overall watershed condition 

by initiating watershed improvement projects and efforts within the BLM's Soil, Water and 

Air Program, and through collaboration and support to other BLM programs and land use 

activities. 

Protect and improve soil stability and soil productivity through the reduction of and 

prevention of accelerated erosion and sedimentation.

2.2.15.2 Objectives

The BLM would develop and implement watershed projects for the protection, maintenance, 

restoration, or enhancement of watershed resources in the Planning Area. Types of projects 

include, but are not limited to: upland and channel erosion control projects, vegetation

treatments, dam maintenance and construction, restoration/reclamation of abandoned project 

sites, headcut and gully treatments, and roadwork.

The BLM would work with partners including academic, federal, state, and local entities to 

implement BMPs for areas affecting water bodies on current versions of the impaired waters 

list (NMED, 2010) and/or Total Maximum Daily Load lists. 

The BLM would implement BMPs to prevent erosion and reduce point and non-point source 

pollution from authorized land use activities or treatments. BMPs include but are not limited 

to those identified in the most current version of the New Mexico Nonpoint Source 

Management Program (NMED, 2009); BMPs are also listed in other BLM planning 

documents, such as statewide fire planning (USDI BLM, 2004) and other management 

decisions (e.g., mitigation measures under the Riparian section). 

Transportation planning would include BMPs for eliminating and restoring unneeded roads, 

relocating poorly situated roads, and implementing proper road location and design. The BLM 

would identify roads that have a significant impact to watershed stability, investigate road 

closures, and establish criteria for closing roads based on erosion concerns. 

The BLM would avoid surface disturbance in areas identified as having "sensitive soils" 

unless impacts are mitigated. 

The BLM would apply environmental BMPs to all extraction of leasable fluid minerals 

authorizations in accordance to Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2007-021 and 

the most current version of the Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development (commonly referred to as the Gold Book) (USDI BLM and 

USDA FS 2007). 

The BLM would implement BMPs from Technical Reference 1730-2 on Biological Soil 

Crusts (USDI, 2001) to protect or restore the functions of biological soil crusts. 

2.2.15.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, 

Executive Orders, and management policies of the BLM for managing watershed resources. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-81

The BLM would use the most current published soil survey information on soil properties and 

interpretations for decision-making in the Planning Area. The RPFO would work with the 

USDA-NRCS to update soil surveys and Ecological Site Descriptions. 

The BLM would inventory, monitor, and evaluate soil and water resources to determine 

existing conditions, make cause/effect determinations of resource activities on watershed 

resources, and recommend appropriate actions. 

The BLM would work with partners including academic, federal, state, and local entities to 

collect watershed resources data and manage watershed resources within the legal authorities 

of the BLM. 

The BLM would open the portions of Empedrado, Pelon, and Querencia watersheds that are 

not within Wilderness Areas or WSAs to locatable mineral entry.

The BLM would not make fuelwood available where soil erosion would be accelerated by the 

activity (i.e., activities that have the potential to increase amounts of unauthorized off-road 

vehicle use). 

2.2.15.4 Alternatives

Table 2.32: Soil Management Decisions by Alternative

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

No similar action. The BLM would designate the 

San Miguel Dome area as an 

ACEC and the area would be 

managed as prescribed in the 

ACEC section below.

Same as 

Alternative B. 

The BLM would not designate 

the San Miguel Dome area as 

an ACEC. This area would be 

managed as the San Miguel 

Dome zone in the Boca del Oso 

SRMA.

2.2.16 Special Designations

2.2.16.1 Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas

2.2.16.1.1 Goal

Manage WSAs to protect Wilderness characteristics until designated or released from further 

consideration by Congress. 

2.2.16.1.2 Objectives

The BLM would monitor Wilderness Areas and WSAs to identify and/or prevent 

unauthorized uses.

2.2.16.1.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would manage WSAs under the IMP for Lands Under Wilderness Review (BLM 

1995) and for the continued preservation of each WSA’s Wilderness character. 

For WSAs, no surface disturbance, permanent new development, or rights-of-way are 

allowed, and the lands are closed to extraction of leasable fluid minerals. WSAs are open to 

locatable mineral entry subject to Wilderness non-impairment standards. While not expressly 

prohibited by law or regulation, sale and free use of mineral materials in WSAs would not be 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-82

allowed because it would not be compatible with the non-impairment criteria. The nonimpairment criteria require the BLM to manage lands under Wilderness review in such a 

manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as Wilderness.

The BLM manages designated Wilderness Areas with a separate Wilderness management 

plan tiered to the RMP. The Ojito Wilderness Management Plan will be drafted upon 

completion of this RMP/EIS. For the RMP/EIS, the Ojito Wilderness Area (11,183 acres) 

would be managed consistent with the Wilderness Act. As required by the enabling 

legislation, lands in Wilderness are closed to extraction of leasable fluid minerals and 

recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry.

Only Congress can release a WSA from Wilderness consideration. Should any WSA, in part 

or in whole, be released from Wilderness consideration, those lands would be managed 

according to the underlying or adjacent (non-Wilderness) land prescriptions of the RMP. 

The BLM would designate WSAs and Wilderness Areas as VRM Class I. 

The BLM would monitor Wilderness Areas and WSAs to identify and/or prevent 

unauthorized uses.

2.2.16.2 Congressionally Designated Trails

2.2.16.2.1 Goals 

Manage trails for long-term recreational values and to enhance the public experience. 

Reduce imminent threats from natural or human-caused deterioration or potential conflicts 

with other resource uses.

2.2.16.2.2 Objectives

Sites associated with trails will be interpreted and developed as needed. 

Maintain setting for trail segments as an aspect of integrity by utilizing view-shed 

management tools.

Maintain activity plans for trails segments and associated sites identified as high risk for 

adverse impacts.

Maximize partnership and cooperative management opportunities (e.g., cooperate with private 

landowners to install trail markers, provide public access, etc.).

2.2.16.2.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

Management of the Continental Divide Trail would follow objectives established by the 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan (USDA FS, 2009). Continental 

Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) Comprehensive Plan requires the BLM to develop land 

and resource management plans that are designed to integrate all resource management activities 

that may occur within a land use unit into a coordinated system that reflects the interaction of 

management activities in achieving long-range objectives and goals for public land management. 

See sections III and IV in the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan.

2.2.16.2.4 Alternatives

Management decisions associated with the CDNST are listed in Table 2.33, below. The width of 

the CDNST corridor varies across alternatives and depends on whether the corridor is for an area 

where the trail route has been identified. See Maps 49-52 for the locations of existing and 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-83

potential CDNST routes. For some resource uses, management decisions do not vary across 

alternatives, but the size of the area in which the management decisions apply varies. 

Table 2.33: CDNST Management Decisions by Alternative

Item Alternative A (No 

Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 11,474 38,808 23,607 11,474

Corridor Width –

Existing Route

1,000 feet from 

trail

1⁄2 mile from trail 1,000 feet from 

trail

1,000 feet from 

trail

Corridor Width – 

Areas without 

identified route

No corridor width 

specified

1⁄2 mile from trail 1⁄2 mile from trail No corridor width 

specified

Forest Product 

Removal

The trail corridor 

would be open to 

forest product 

removal. 

The trail corridor 

would be closed to 

forest product 

removal. 

Forest product 

removal would be 

avoided within the 

trail corridor. 

The trail corridor 

would be open to 

forest product 

removal. 

Leasable 

Minerals

Fluid minerals 

within the trail 

corridor would be 

leased with a NSO 

stipulation. 

Same as 

Alternative A.

Same as 

Alternative A.

Same as 

Alternative A.

Locatable 

Minerals

The trail would be 

open to locatable 

mineral entry.

Same as 

Alternative A.

Same as 

Alternative A.

Same as 

Alternative A.

Recreation Continue making 

improvements to 

sites and areas as 

necessary and 

supported by 

activity and project 

level planning to 

balance demand for 

recreation 

opportunities and 

protection of the 

recreation resource 

base. 

SRPs would not 

be granted for 

CDNST activities. 

Special events 

requiring a permit 

would be 

considered per 

regulations and 

policy under 

BLM’s Special 

Recreation Permit 

program (see 43 

CFR, Part 2930).

Special events 

requiring a permit 

would be 

considered per 

regulations and 

policy under 

BLM’s Special 

Recreation Permit 

program (see 43 

CFR, Part 2930).

Renewable 

Energy

No comparable 

CDNST 

management 

decision.

Renewable energy 

projects would be 

excluded within the 

corridor. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Same as 

Alternative B.

ROWs: Pipelines, 

Roads, 

Transmission 

Lines

No comparable 

CDNST 

management 

decision. 

Siting of linear 

ROWs would be 

avoided within the 

corridor. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Same as 

Alternative B.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-84

Item Alternative A (No 

Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

ROWs: Sites No comparable 

CDNST 

management 

decision.

ROW sites would 

be excluded within

the corridor.

Same as 

Alternative B.

Same as 

Alternative B.

Salable Minerals The trail corridor 

would be open to 

extraction of 

salable minerals.

The trail would be 

closed to 

extraction of 

salable minerals.

Extraction of 

salable minerals 

within the trail 

corridor would be 

avoided. 

The trail corridor 

would be open to 

extraction of 

salable minerals.

Travel Open to motorized 

and mechanized 

travel.

Closed to 

motorized and 

mechanized travel.

Motorized and 

mechanized travel 

limited to existing 

roads and trails.

Same as 

Alternative C

VRM Class Corridor would be 

managed as the 

prevailing VRM 

Class.

Corridor would be 

managed as VRM 

II.

Corridor would be 

managed as the 

prevailing VRM 

Class.

Same as 

Alternative C

2.2.16.3 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The term "Area of Critical Environmental Concern" means an area within the public lands where 

special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no 

development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, 

cultural, or scenic values; fish and wildlife resources; or other natural systems or processes, or to 

protect life and safety from natural hazards (FLPMA, 43 USC 1702(a)).

If the alternative chosen designates the ACECs listed below, the following goals, objectives and 

management actions would be common to all designated ACECs.

2.2.16.3.1 Goal – General

Manage areas as ACECs where special management attention is required to protect and 

prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values; fish and wildlife

resources; or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural 

hazards.

2.2.16.3.2 Management Common to All Alternatives – General 

The BLM would remove the SMA designations implemented in the 1986 RMP, as amended. 

In those areas where ACECs overlap with WSAs, the WSA management prescriptions would 

take precedence.

The BLM would exclude solar energy sites from ACEC areas. 

Unless specified below, ACECs would be avoidance areas for all rights-of-way, including 

wind energy and communication sites.

The BLM would designate ACECs managed for scenic values as VRM Class II. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-85

If the RMP alternative selected removes ACEC designation and the area falls within an 

SRMA, the BLM would manage the area as an SRMA.

2.2.16.3.3 Bluewater Canyon ACEC

2.2.16.3.3.1 Goals

Wildlife and Riparian Resources

Manage the ACEC for riparian restoration and enhancement for the benefit of wildlife species.

Scenic Resources

Manage Bluewater Canyon ACEC (941 acres) as a VRM Class II Area.

2.2.16.3.3.2 Objectives

Wildlife and Riparian Resources

o Maintain Bluewater Canyon riparian area at proper functioning condition level and 

strive to meet an advanced ecological status as defined in BLM Manual 1737. 

o Where possible, enhance riparian conditions consistent with the Southwest Willow 

Flycatcher Recovery Plan. 

o Emphasize frequent noxious weed monitoring and control measures to preserve native

plant community.

o Continue monitoring activities for breeding birds and special status species.

o Continue to prohibit motorized vehicle use and exclude livestock grazing within the 

ACEC.

Scenic Resources

o Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be low. 

o Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer.

o Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

2.2.16.3.3.3 Alternatives

Items listed under Alternative A are described in more detail in the Bluewater Canyon Final 

ACEC Plan Element (BLM 1983). Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the ACEC would be 

expanded to include all of Section 6, the BLM land in Section 5, and all lands between 

Bluewater Lake and the canyon.

Table 2.34: Bluewater Canyon ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Item/Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 97 941 941 941
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-86

Item/Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Cultural 

Resources

Survey for possible 

archaeological sites. 

Restore and interpret, 

to the degree feasible, 

any archaeological 

sites for unique 

cultural values. 

Protect sites from 

future deterioration by 

proper maintenance 

and regular patrolling 

of the area, if deemed 

necessary. 

No comparable 

management 

decisions.

No comparable 

management 

decisions.

No comparable 

management 

decisions.

Fire 

Management

Do not permit any 

large mechanized 

firefighting equipment 

in the ACEC. 

Chemical drops are to 

be prohibited except 

with permission of the 

Area Manager. 

Mechanized 

firefighting 

equipment and 

chemical, forestry 

management, and 

fire hazard 

reduction would be 

allowed. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Forest Product 

Removal

No intensive forestry 

management is to be 

practiced in the area, 

nor is fire hazard 

reduction. The area 

would be closed to 

forest and vegetative 

product removal and 

permit sales. 

Permits for the 

removal of 

vegetative or forest 

products would be 

prohibited. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Forest product 

removal would be 

allowed outside 

riparian areas. 

Land Tenure 

Adjustment

Acquire non-public 

lands. 

Any new land 

acquisitions 

adjacent to 

Bluewater Canyon 

would be managed 

as an ACEC.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Leasable 

Minerals

Fluid minerals in the 

canyon would be 

leased with a NSO 

stipulation. 

Fluid minerals 

within the ACEC 

would be leased 

with a NSO 

stipulation. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-87

Item/Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Livestock 

Grazing

Prohibit livestock 

grazing within the 

canyon, though 

livestock grazing may 

occur on the upper 

rims. Both ends of the 

canyon would be 

fenced and the canyon 

would have a pass 

made to allow people 

to continue down the 

trail (Volton S. 

Tietjen Allotment 

#0194).

Livestock grazing 

would be 

designated as 

unavailable within 

the ACEC. 

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC. 

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed 

within the ACEC. 

Any suspended 

AUMs would be 

reinstated to 

active use.

Locatable 

Minerals

The ACEC would be 

open to locatable 

mineral entry.

The BLM would 

recommend the 

ACEC for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry. 

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as 

Alternative B.

Recreation Installation of a 

parking lot with 

picnic tables on the 

rim where a trail 

would start leading to 

the canyon bottom. 

Recreation 

developments would 

be made contingent 

on BLM’s ability to 

fund and supervise 

them. 

Camping would be 

prohibited within 

46 m (150 feet) of 

the riparian zone. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Salable 

Minerals

The Bluewater 

Canyon area would be 

closed to extraction of 

salable minerals.

The ACEC would 

be closed to 

extraction of 

salable minerals.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Travel Designate the public 

land in the canyon as 

“closed to off road 

vehicles Designate the 

remaining portion of 

the ACEC (above 

2,134-m [7,000-foot 

contour]) as “limited 

to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and 

trails.”

Non-motorized 

travel would be 

allowed in the 

ACEC; the ACEC 

would be closed to 

motorized travel 

except for 

authorized use.

Non-motorized 

travel would be 

allowed in the 

canyon; motorized 

travel would be 

limited to existing 

primitive roads and 

trails outside the 

canyon. 

Same as 

Alternative C. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-88

Item/Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

VRM Discourage activities 

that would take place 

near enough to the rim 

to cause aesthetic 

impacts, which would 

be noticeable from the 

canyon interior. 

The BLM would 

manage the ACEC 

as VRM II.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as 

Alternative B.

Wildlife & 

Riparian 

Manage the area to 

prevent degradation of 

any wildlife habitat. 

Trout fishing may be 

improved by 

increasing the pool to 

riffle ratio and 

increased vegetation

along the stream 

edges to create shade. 

Same as 

Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

A.

Same as 

Alternative A.

2.2.16.3.4 Bony Canyon ACEC 

2.2.16.3.4.1 Goals

Protect paleontological resources in the Bony Canyon area from human-caused deterioration, 

or potential conflict with other resources uses and resource development. These include 

significant Jurassic vertebrate fossils.

Facilitate the scientific study and documentation of paleontological resources in Bony 

Canyon.

2.2.16.3.4.2 Objectives

Manage as a proprietary area to prevent unauthorized removal of paleontological resources.

Monitor the area to ensure that unauthorized activities are not degrading the resources.

Develop a site-specific maintenance plan or other protective measures for this area.

Limit surface and sub-surface disturbance due to mineral development, motorized vehicle 

access, and livestock grazing.

Maintain and enhance programs that provide opportunities for scientific research of 

paleontological resources.

Maintain and enhance educational opportunities and public outreach programs.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-89

2.2.16.3.4.3 Alternatives

Table 2.35: Bony Canyon Management Decisions by Alternative

Note: Alternative A (No Action) is not included in the table because there is currently no special 

designation for Bony Canyon in the Rio Puerco RMP, as amended. 

2.2.16.3.5 Cabezon Peak ACEC

2.2.16.3.5.1 Goals 

Wildlife and Special Status Species

o Manage the ACEC for protection of raptor nesting sites, raptor prey base, and rare 

plants.

Geologic Resources

o Protect the geologic resources within Cabezon Peak ACEC, which include a unique 

concentration of volcanic necks, from human-caused deterioration, or potential 

conflict with other resource uses and resource development.

o Promote awareness of geologic resource values.

Item/Resource Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 1,150 1,150 1,150

Leasable 

Minerals

Fluid minerals within the 

quarry area (2 acres) would 

be leased with a NSO 

stipulation. The remainder 

of the ACEC (1,145 acres) 

would be leased with a 

CSU stipulation. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Livestock 

Grazing

Livestock grazing would be 

designated as unavailable 

within the ACEC.

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC.

Livestock grazing would be 

allowed within the ACEC. 

Any suspended AUMs would 

be reinstated to active use.

Locatable 

Minerals

The BLM would 

recommend the ACEC for 

withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Paleontology The ACEC would include a 

Research Natural Area to 

allow excavation for 

vertebrate fossils to 

continue. 

Same as Alternative B. The Research Natural Area 

would allow excavation for 

vertebrate fossils to continue. 

Salable Minerals The ACEC would be closed 

to extraction of salable 

minerals.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Travel Travel in the ACEC would 

be limited to authorized use 

only. 

Same as Alternative B. Motorized use would be 

limited to existing primitive 

roads and trails. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-90

Scenic Values

o Manage Cabezon Peak ACEC as a VRM Class II Area.

Traditional Cultural Values

o Promote sensitivity to the traditional cultural significance of Cabezon Peak

2.2.16.3.5.2 Objectives

Wildlife and Special Status Species

o Protect raptor prey base (specifically prairie dog colonies) by discouraging shooting 

and poisoning efforts through internal bureau directives, coordination with livestock 

grazing permittees and public education. 

o Protect rare plant species populations through prescriptive livestock grazing practice. 

Conduct rare plant surveys, and follow up by coordinating with livestock grazing 

permittees on strategic placement of livestock waters, pipelines, mineral supplements 

and other range improvement projects. 

o Apply species-specific spatial and temporal raptor nesting protection measures to 

projects causing noise disturbance within close proximity of active raptor nests. 

o Collaborate with the Seeds of Success program to conserve rare plant populations. 

Geologic Resources

o Limit surface and subsurface disturbance due to mineral development, motorized 

vehicles, and livestock grazing.

o Maintain or expand interpretation signs along trails.

o Maintain interpretational materials for public information, including brochures, web 

pages, and other information.

Scenic Values

o Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be low. 

o Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

o Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Traditional Cultural Values

o Maximize opportunities for cooperation with tribal governments and culturally 

affiliated Native American tribes for managing cultural resources and public 

education, and regarding implementation of decisions from this plan and existing or 

revised site-specific plans.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-91

2.2.16.3.5.3 Alternatives

Table 2.36: Cabezon Peak ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Item/Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 5,765 17,150 17,150 6,984

Geographic 

Description

The ACEC is 

5,765 acres, of 

which 5,112 

acres are 

managed by 

the BLM.

The BLM would 

maintain the ACEC 

designation and 

expand it to include 

Cerro Guadalupe, 

Cerro Chato, Cerro 

Santa Clara, and 

Cerro Quate to 

include prairie dog 

reintroduction area 

and geologic 

features.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

The BLM would 

expand the ACEC 

to include Cerro 

Guadalupe. 

Leasable Minerals The ACEC 

would be 

closed to fluid 

mineral 

leasing.

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with an NSO 

stipulation.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with a CSU 

stipulation.

Livestock Grazing Prescribed 

livestock 

grazing would 

be allowed 

within the 

ACEC. 

Livestock grazing 

would be 

designated as 

unavailable within 

the ACEC. 

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC. 

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed 

within the ACEC. 

Any suspended 

AUMs would be 

reinstated to active 

use.

Locatable Minerals The ACEC 

would be open 

to locatable 

mineral entry. 

The BLM would 

recommend for 

withdrawal the 

ACEC from 

locatable mineral 

entry. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Salable Minerals Extraction of 

salable 

minerals 

would be 

avoided.

The ACEC would 

be closed to 

extraction of 

salable minerals.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Scenic Resources & 

VRM

Protect visual 

values.

The BLM would 

manage the ACEC 

as VRM II.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-92

Item/Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Travel Control visitor 

use.

Manage semiprimitive nonmotorized, 

semi-primitive 

motorized, and 

roaded natural 

recreational 

opportunities. 

Prevent 

motorized 

vehicle use in 

semi-primitive 

non-motorized 

portion.

The BLM would 

close the cherrystem route that 

provides access to 

the Cabezon Peak 

trailhead. No 

maintenance would 

be allowed on this 

route. Motorized 

travel would be 

limited to 

authorized use. 

Same as Alternative 

B, except the 

trailhead would be 

open to motorized 

travel but limited to 

authorized use. 

Same as 

Alternative B, 

except the trailhead 

would be open to 

motorized travel. 

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

authorized use. 

Wildlife & Special 

Status Species

Protect raptor 

habitat and 

rare cactus 

species.

Prevent 

surface 

disturbance.

The BLM would 

implement prairie 

dog stipulation as 

described in the 

Special Status 

Species section.

The BLM would 

protect raptor 

habitat and rare 

cactus species.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Note: Alternative A management decisions are described in more detail in the Cabezon Peak 

ACEC Protection Plan (BLM 1987a).

2.2.16.3.6 Canon Jarido ACEC: Manage for scenic, wildlife, and cultural values

2.2.16.3.6.1 Goals 

Wildlife and Riparian

o Manage ACEC for deer/elk winter range habitat, riparian area restoration and 

enhancement

Cultural Resources

o Promote stewardship, conservation, scientific research, protection and appreciation of 

traditionally and scientifically significant Ancestral Pueblo and Navajo archaeological 

sites.

Scenic Values

o Manage Cabezon Peak ACEC as a VRM Class II Area.

2.2.16.3.6.2 Objectives

Wildlife and Riparian

o Conduct habitat improvement projects for the protection and enhancement of crucial 

wintering habitat for deer/elk winter range such as forest treatments and rainfall water 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-93

catchments. Prevent establishment of new roads and decommission roads where 

possible.

o Maintain Canon Jarido and Kinaird Arroyo riparian areas at the proper functioning 

condition level and strive to meet an advanced ecological status as defined in BLM 

Manual 1737. 

Cultural Resources

o Maintain and enhance programs that provide opportunities for appropriate scientific 

research involving cultural resources

o Maintain and improve educational opportunities and public outreach programs

o Coordinate with affiliated Tribes regarding implementation of decisions from this plan 

and existing or revised site-specific plans. 

Scenic Values

o Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be low. 

o Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

o Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in

the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

2.2.16.3.6.3 Alternatives

Table 2.37: Canon Jarido ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 1,794 (SMA) 6,536 6,536 1,794

Geographic 

Description

1986 RMP 

designated the 

Canon Jarido area as 

an SMA.

The BLM would 

designate the Canon 

Jarido SMA as an 

ACEC and would 

expand the ACEC to 

include Mesa 

Portales.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

The BLM would 

designate the Canon 

Jarido SMA as an 

ACEC. See Table 

2.9 for management 

of Mesa Portales

under Alternative D.

Leasable 

Minerals

Fluid minerals 

would be leased with 

timing limitations 

and control surface 

use stipulations. 

Time constraint runs 

from February 1 to 

July 1.

Fluid minerals 

would be leased with 

a NSO stipulation. 

Fluid minerals 

would be leased with 

a CSU stipulation. 

Same as Alternative 

C.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-94

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Livestock 

Grazing

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed. 

Livestock grazing 

would be designated 

as unavailable within 

the ACEC.

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC.

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed 

within the ACEC. 

Any suspended 

AUMs would be 

reinstated to active 

use.

Salable 

Minerals

Extraction of salable 

minerals would be 

avoided. 

The ACEC would be 

closed to extraction 

of salable minerals.

Extraction of salable 

minerals would be 

avoided.

Same as Alternative 

C.

Scenic and 

VRM

Prevailing VRM 

class.

The BLM would 

manage the ACEC 

as VRM II.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Travel Motorized vehicle 

use would be limited 

to existing roads and 

trails, and no surface 

disturbance would 

be allowed. 

Motorized vehicle 

use would be limited 

to existing primitive 

roads and trails. The 

BLM would 

prioritize areas for 

travel management

to designate routes to 

minimize conflict 

with sites, with no 

motorized travel in 

riparian areas.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

2.2.16.3.7 Canon Tapia ACEC

2.2.16.3.7.1 Goal

Promote stewardship, conservation, protection and appreciation of traditionally and 

scientifically significant cultural resources

2.2.16.3.7.2 Objectives

Improve access and management through consolidation of public ownership.

Maintain and improve educational opportunities and public outreach programs.

Maximize opportunities for cooperation with tribal governments for managing cultural 

resources and public education, and regarding implementation of decisions from this plan and 

existing or revised site-specific plans.

Maintain and enhance programs that provide opportunities for appropriate scientific research 

involving cultural resources.

2.2.16.3.7.3 Alternatives

Table 2.38: Canon Tapia ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-95

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred)

Acres 990 990 990

Cultural Resources Complete cultural 

resource inventory and 

evaluation. Promote 

public awareness.

The BLM would 

promote public 

awareness of cultural 

values.

Same as Alternative B.

Geographic Description The ACEC contains 

both public and private 

lands (BLM 1987b).

The BLM would 

maintain Canon 

Tapia as an ACEC 

(990 acres). 

Same as Alternative B.

Land Tenure Consolidate federal 

ownership and public 

access.

The BLM would 

consolidate federal 

ownership and public 

access.

Same as Alternative B.

Leasable Minerals Fluid minerals would 

be leased with a NSO 

stipulation.

Same as Alternative 

A. 

Fluid minerals would be 

leased with a CSU 

stipulation.

Livestock Grazing Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC. 

Livestock grazing 

would be designated 

as unavailable within 

the ACEC. 

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be allowed 

within the ACEC. 

Locatable Minerals The ACEC would be 

open to locatable 

mineral entry.

The BLM would 

recommend the 

ACEC for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry.

Same as Alternative B.

Salable Minerals Extraction of salable 

minerals would be 

avoided in the ACEC.

The ACEC would be 

closed to extraction of 

salable minerals.

Same as Alternative B.

Travel Manage according to 

semi-primitive, nonmotorized recreation 

objectives. Control 

visitor use.

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails.

Same as Alternative B.

Note: Under Alternative D, the BLM would remove the ACEC designation and would manage 

Canon Tapia as part of the Ancestral Way zone within the Boca del Oso ERMA. For this reason, 

there is no column for Alternative D in the table.

2.2.16.3.8 Cerro Verde ACEC

2.2.16.3.8.1 Goals 

Geologic Resources

o Protect geologic resources (including a unique shield volcano with associated basalt

flows) from human-caused deterioration, or potential conflict with other resource uses 

and resource development.

Scenic Values

o Manage Cerro Verde ACEC as a VRM Class II Area.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-96

Wildlife

o Manage ACEC for the protection of pronghorn antelope population.

2.2.16.3.8.2 Objectives

Geologic Resources

o Limit surface and subsurface disturbance due to mineral development, motorized 

vehicles, and livestock grazing.

Scenic Values

o Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be low. 

o Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

o Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Wildlife

o Conduct habitat improvement projects for the protection and enhancement of antelope 

habitat. 

o Continue to maintain existing rainfall catchments designed for wildlife. 

o Modify fences for antelope passage (smooth bottom wire 18 inches above ground 

level).

o Prevent establishment of new roads and decommission roads where possible.

2.2.16.3.8.3 Alternatives

Table 2.39: Cerro Verde ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 5,292 5,292 0

Geographic 

Description

The Cerro Verde area, 

within the Petaca Pinta 

ERMA, between the 

Volcano Hill and 

Cimarron Mesa lands with 

wilderness characteristics

would be designated as an 

ACEC.

Same as Alternative B. The BLM would not 

designate Cerro Verde as 

an ACEC. This area would 

be managed as the Cerro 

Verde zone in the Petaca 

Pinta ERMA. 

Leasable Minerals Fluid minerals would be 

leased with a NSO 

stipulation. 

Fluid minerals would be 

leased with a CSU 

stipulation.

Same as Alternative C. 

Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing would 

be designated as 

unavailable within the 

ACEC. 

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be allowed 

within the ACEC.

Livestock grazing would 

be allowed. Any 

suspended AUMs would 

be reinstated to active use.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-97

Resource Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Locatable 

Minerals

The BLM would 

recommend the ACEC for 

withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry. 

Same as Alternative B. The area would be open to 

locatable mineral entry.

Salable Minerals The ACEC would be 

closed to extraction of 

salable minerals.

Extraction of salable 

minerals would be 

avoided.

The area would be open to 

extraction of salable 

minerals.

Scenic Resources 

& VRM

The BLM would manage 

the ACEC as VRM II.

Same as Alternative B. Prevailing VRM class.

Travel Motorized travel would be 

limited to authorized use. 

Same as Alternative B. Motorized travel would be 

limited to existing 

primitive roads and trails.

Note: Alternative A (No Action) is not included in the table because there are currently no 

management decisions associated with special designation of the Cerro Verde area. 

2.2.16.3.9 Elk Springs ACEC

2.2.16.3.9.1 Goals

Geologic Resources

o Protect geologic resources, especially the Juana Lopez Member of the Mancos Shale 

stratigraphic reference section locality, from human-caused deterioration, or potential 

conflict with other resource uses and resource development.

Scenic Values

o Manage Elk Springs ACEC as a VRM Class II Area.

Wildlife

o Provide quality winter range for the Jemez elk and deer herds by providing optimal 

cover and forage, thus alleviating big game depredations on adjacent private lands. 

2.2.16.3.9.2 Objectives

Geologic Resources

o Limit surface and subsurface disturbance due to mineral development, motorized 

vehicles, and livestock grazing.

Scenic Values

o Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be low. 

o Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

o Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Wildlife

o Improve vegetation condition ratings for composition, density and vigor utilizing 

prescribed fire, herbicides and erosion control measures. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-98

o Assess habitat for and treat noxious weeds. 

o Coordinate with adjacent private landowners on habitat improvements. 

o Continue maintenance of existing and development of new rain catchment wildlife

drinkers. 

2.2.16.3.9.3 Alternatives

Table 2.40: Elk Springs ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 10,334 10,324 10,324 10,324

Geographic 

Description

The ACEC is 9,485 

acres, of which 

6,148 acres are 

managed by the 

BLM. 

The ACEC would be 

expanded to include 

acquisitions of 

previously nonpublic lands within 

the original SMA 

boundary.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Geologic 

Resources

Manage the Juana 

Lopez Member 

Reference section as 

a Research Natural 

Area. 

The BLM would 

maintain the Juana 

Lopez Research 

Natural Area.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Land 

Tenure

The BLM would 

consolidate federal 

ownership of lands 

located within 

ACEC.

Same as Alternative 

A. 

Same as Alternative 

A.

Same as Alternative 

A.

Leasable 

Minerals

Fluid minerals in the 

Juana Lopez RNA 

would be leased with 

a NSO stipulation. 

Fluid minerals in the 

remainder of the 

ACEC would be 

leased with a timing 

limit stipulation 

between December 

and May. 

The ACEC would be 

closed to fluid 

mineral leasing.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Fluid minerals in the 

ACEC would be 

leased with a CSU 

stipulation. 

Livestock 

Grazing

Implement existing 

Allotment 

Management Plans

on the Los Pinos 

Arroyo and Coal 

Creek Allotments.

Livestock grazing 

would be designated 

as unavailable within 

the ACEC. 

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC. 

- The BLM would 

include the Juana 

Lopez Research 

Natural Area into the 

adjacent livestock 

grazing allotment.

- Livestock grazing 

would be allowed 

within the ACEC. 

Any suspended 

AUMs would be 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-99

Resource Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

reinstated to active 

use.

Locatable 

Minerals

The ACEC would be 

open to locatable 

mineral entry, except 

for the Juana Lopez 

RNA, which would 

be recommended for 

withdrawal.

The BLM would 

recommend the 

ACEC for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry. 

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

A.

Salable 

Minerals

The ACEC would be 

closed to extraction 

of salable minerals.

Same as Alternative 

A. 

Same as Alternative 

A.

Same as Alternative 

A.

Scenic 

Resources 

& VRM

The BLM would 

manage the ACEC 

as VRM II.

The BLM would 

manage the ACEC 

as VRM II.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Travel Limit motorized 

vehicle use to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails. 

Close ACEC to 

motorized vehicle 

use from 

approximately 

December to May 

depending on 

weather and wildlife

conditions. 

Motorized vehicle 

use would be limited 

to existing primitive 

roads and trails. The 

BLM would close 

the ACEC to 

motorized vehicle 

use from 

approximately 

December to May 

depending on 

weather and wildlife

conditions.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Wildlife, 

Vegetation 

& Riparian 

Resources

- Allow no surface 

disturbance from 

November 16 to 

May 14 (fluid 

minerals and all 

other activities) to 

protect and reduce 

stress to wintering 

big game. 

- Ensure adequate 

forage allocation for 

wildlife on all 

adjacent BLM lands 

and coordinate 

population needs 

with the U.S. Forest 

Service.

- Develop an area 

specific Habitat 

Management Plan or 

The BLM would 

designate the ACEC 

as crucial winter 

range for elk and 

mule deer and 

provide quality 

winter range for the 

Jemez elk and deer 

herds by providing 

optimal coverage 

and forage.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-100

Resource Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

include an area 

specific subsection 

in the Upper Rio 

Puerco Habitat 

Management Plan. 

- Work in 

cooperation with the 

New Mexico 

Department of Game 

and Fish (NMDGF) 

in planning 

management 

activities for the 

area. 

- Maintain existing 

wildlife water 

developments and 

develop new water 

sources in critical 

areas. 

- Increase quality 

and quantity of key 

forage species 

through maintenance 

of existing seeding 

and chaining 

projects and through 

burning, cutting, 

thinning, and 

herbicide treatments 

of sagebrush and 

piñon-juniper trees 

in new areas. 

- Determine areas 

where erosion 

control structures 

can be placed to 

control loss of 

habitat due to gully 

and sheet erosion.

- Develop a 

watershed protection 

plan for the area.

Note: Management decisions under Alternative A (No Action) are described in more detail in the 

Elk Springs ACEC Protection Plan (BLM 1991b).
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-101

2.2.16.3.10 Espinosa Ridge ACEC (formerly known as Ball Ranch ACEC

2.2.16.3.10.1 Goals 

Special Status Species and Riparian Resources

o Manage the ACEC for riparian restoration and enhancement, and for the protection of 

rare plant populations.

Geologic & Paleontological Resources

o Facilitate the scientific study and documentation of paleontological resources in the 

Espinosa Ridge ACEC

o Protect geologic and paleontological resources from human-caused deterioration, or 

potential conflict with other resource uses and resource development. 

Scenic Values

o Manage Espinosa Ridge ACEC as a VRM Class II Area

Cultural Resources

o Promote stewardship, conservation, protection and appreciation of cultural resources

consistent with the Galisteo Basin Archaeological Site Protection Act.

2.2.16.3.10.2 Objectives

Special Status Species and Riparian Resources

o Conduct riparian functional assessment, and determine appropriate management 

prescriptions for managing to PFC, and strive toward meeting an advanced ecological 

status for the benefit of wildlife species.

o Conduct rare plant surveys, and manage livestock grazing to protect rare plant species.

o Collaborate with the Seeds of Success program to conserve rare plant populations. 

Geologic & Paleontological Resources

o Maintain and enhance programs that provide opportunities for scientific research of 

paleontological resources.

o Maintain and enhance educational opportunities and public outreach programs. 

o Limit surface and subsurface disturbance due to mineral development, motorized 

vehicles, and livestock grazing.

o Protect paleontological resources by closing the area to casual collection of 

paleontological resources.

Scenic Values

o Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be low. 

o Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

o Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Cultural Resources

o Improve management through consolidation of public ownership

o Maintain and improve educational opportunities and public outreach programs
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-102

o Maximize opportunities for cooperation with tribal governments for managing cultural 

resources and public education, and regarding implementation of decisions from this 

plan and existing or revised site-specific plans. Maintain and enhance programs that 

provide opportunities for appropriate scientific research involving cultural resources

2.2.16.3.10.3 Alternatives

Table 2.41: Espinosa Ridge ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 1,478 10,295 7,687 1,478

Geographic 

Description

The ACEC is 

approximately 

1,520 acres, all of 

which is BLM 

administered.

The BLM would 

expand the 

Espinosa Ridge 

ACEC to include 16 

sections and would 

include cultural 

values in the 

designation (10,295 

acres). This 

expansion would 

include the Camino 

Real National 

Historic Trail. 

The BLM would 

expand the 

Espinosa Ridge 

ACEC to include 12 

sections and would 

include cultural 

values in the 

designation (7,687 

acres).

The BLM would 

not expand the 

Espinosa Ridge 

ACEC (1,478 

acres).

Leasable 

Minerals

The ACEC would 

be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing.

The ACEC would 

be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing. 

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with a CSU 

stipulation, except 

for the Espinosa 

Ridge Pueblo and 

the Camino Real, 

which would be 

leased with a NSO 

stipulation.

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with a CSU 

stipulation 

throughout the 

ACEC.

Livestock 

Grazing

Control livestock 

grazing.

Livestock grazing 

would be 

designated as 

unavailable within 

the ACEC. 

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC, except 

grazing would be

excluded from 

Espinosa Ridge 

Pueblo, if acquired.

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed 

within the ACEC. 

Any suspended 

AUMs would be 

reinstated to active 

use.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-103

Resource Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Locatable 

Minerals

The BLM would 

recommend the 

ACEC for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry.

The BLM would 

recommend the 

ACEC for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry.

The BLM would 

maintain existing 

withdrawal. The 

Espinosa Ridge 

Pueblo and the 

Camino Real would 

be recommended 

for withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry, if acquired. 

The BLM would 

open the rest of the 

ACEC to locatable 

mineral entry in 

certain locations. 

The BLM would 

open the entire 

ACEC to locatable 

mineral entry.

Salable 

Minerals

The ACEC would 

be closed to 

extraction of salable 

minerals.

The ACEC would 

be closed to 

extraction of salable 

minerals.

The ACEC would 

be open to 

extraction of salable 

minerals, except for 

the Espinosa Ridge 

Pueblo and the 

Camino Real, 

which would be 

closed.

The ACEC would 

be open to 

extraction of salable 

minerals.

Scenic 

Resources & 

VRM

The BLM would 

manage the ACEC 

as VRM II.

The BLM would 

manage the ACEC 

as VRM II.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as Alternative 

B

Travel Control visitor use 

of the ACEC.

Motorized ravel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails. The 

BLM would 

maintain controlled 

access.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-104

Resource Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Wildlife, 

Special Status 

Species & 

Riparian 

Resources

Establish 

monitoring studies 

for rare and 

endemic plants in 

the ACEC.

- The BLM would 

prioritize rare plant 

survey and 

monitoring, and 

work with agency 

partners to 

implement 

population 

augmentation 

projects, if 

appropriate. 

- The BLM would 

modify authorized 

surface disturbing 

activities to 

minimize or 

eliminate impacts to 

known locations of 

special-status 

plants.

- The BLM would 

prioritize rare plant 

survey and 

monitoring, and 

work with agency 

partners to 

implement 

population 

augmentation 

projects, if 

appropriate. 

- The BLM would 

modify grazing 

prescriptions and 

surface disturbing 

activities to 

minimize or 

eliminate impacts to 

known locations of 

special-status 

plants. 

- The BLM would 

design placement of 

water developments 

and salt and mineral 

supplements for 

livestock at least 

152 m (500 feet) 

away from known 

locations of specialstatus plants.

- The BLM would 

prioritize rare plant 

survey and 

monitoring. 

- The BLM would 

design placement of 

water developments 

and salt and mineral 

supplements for 

livestock at least 91 

m (300 feet) away 

from known 

locations of specialstatus plants. The 

BLM would 

consider the 

concentration of 

browsing/grazing 

animals on known 

locations of specialstatus plants.

Note: Espinosa Ridge ACEC was formerly known as Ball Ranch ACEC. Additional description of 

the management decisions under Alternative A (No Action) are described in the Ball Ranch ACEC 

Protection Plan (BLM 1987c).

2.2.16.3.11 Guadalupe Ruin and Community ACEC 

The 1986 RMP designated the Guadalupe Ruin as an SMA. The BLM would designate the 

Guadalupe Ruin and Community SMA (478 acres) as an ACEC. The BLM would manage the 

ACEC under the cultural resource scientific and cultural goal category. 

2.2.16.3.11.1 Goals 

Cultural Resources

o Promote stewardship, conservation, protection and appreciation of significant Chacoan 

and other Ancestral Pueblo archaeological sites. 

Scenic Values
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-105

o Manage Espinosa Ridge ACEC as a VRM Class II Area.

2.2.16.3.11.2 Objectives

Cultural Resources

o Maintain and enhance programs that provide opportunities for appropriate scientific 

research involving cultural resources

o Maintain and improve educational opportunities and public outreach programs

o Maintain and improve opportunities for public interpretation of appropriate sites

o Maximize opportunities for cooperation with tribal governments for managing cultural 

resources and public education, and regarding implementation of decisions from this 

plan and existing or revised site-specific plans.

Scenic Values

o Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be low. 

o Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

o Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

2.2.16.3.11.3 Alternatives

Table 2.42: Guadalupe Ruin and Community ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 478 (SMA) 478 478 478

Cultural 

Resources

Management of this 

SMA would 

incorporate the 

existing Cultural 

Resource 

Management Plan 

for the main ruin 

and extend cultural 

resource 

conservation and 

scientific goals 

category 

management 

considerations to 

the surrounding 

community. This 

would allow 

maintenance of 

present conditions 

while providing 

public visitation 

and a more 

The BLM would 

allocate only 

Guadalupe Ruin for 

interpretation and 

public visitation. 

(Any additional 

sites would not be 

allocated or 

developed for 

public use and 

interpretation.)

The BLM would 

allocate three 

additional sites for 

interpretation and 

public visitation. 

Sites selected for 

public visitation 

would meet the 

following criteria:

(1) Low resource 

vulnerability to 

effects from 

heritage tourism.

(2) Potential for site 

protection through 

physical, 

administrative, or 

other means of 

mitigation or “site 

hardening.”

(3) Community or 

public support and 

The BLM would 

allocate six 

additional sites for 

interpretation and 

public visitation. 

Sites selected for 

public visitation 

would meet the 

following criteria:

(1) Community or 

public support and 

interest.

(2) Partnership 

opportunities.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-106

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

comprehensive 

management 

approach to a high 

value, high density 

cultural area.

interest.

(4) Partnership 

opportunities.

Geographic 

Description

The 1986 RMP 

designated the 

Guadalupe Ruin as 

an SMA. 

The BLM would 

designate the 

Guadalupe Ruin 

and Community 

SMA as an ACEC.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Leasable 

Minerals

The SMA would be 

closed to fluid 

mineral leasing. 

The ACEC would 

be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Livestock 

Grazing

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

area. 

Livestock grazing 

would be 

designated as 

unavailable within 

the ACEC. 

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC. 

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed 

within the ACEC. 

Any suspended 

AUMs would be 

reinstated to active 

use.

Locatable 

Minerals

The BLM would 

recommend the 

SMA for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry. 

The BLM would 

recommend the 

ACEC for 

withdrawal from

locatable mineral 

entry. 

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Salable 

Minerals

The SMA would be 

closed to extraction 

of salable minerals. 

The ACEC would 

be closed to 

extraction of salable 

minerals. 

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Scenic 

Resources & 

VRM

The area would be 

managed as VRM 

II. 

The BLM would 

manage the ACEC 

as VRM II.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Travel The 40-acre fenced 

area would be 

closed to motorized 

vehicle use. 

Motorized vehicle 

use would be

limited to existing 

primitive roads and 

trails in the 

remainder of the 

area.

The BLM would 

close the 40-acre 

fenced area to 

motored vehicle use 

except for 

authorized use.

Motorized vehicle 

use would be 

limited to existing 

primitive roads and 

trails in the

remainder of the 

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-107

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

area.

2.2.16.3.12 Ignacio Chavez ACEC

The Ignacio Chavez area was designated as an SMA (43,182 acres) and WSA (33,182 acres) in 

the Rio Puerco RMP (BLM, 1986). The Ignacio Chavez ACEC would be managed for wildlife

and scenic values. The BLM would designate the ACEC boundary to correspond to the SMA 

boundary (43,026 acres). 

2.2.16.3.12.1 Goals 

Wildlife and Special Status Species

o Manage the ACEC for the protection of multiple wildlife and special status species

values.

Scenic Values

o Manage Ignacio Chavez ACEC as a VRM Class II Area.

2.2.16.3.12.2 Objectives

Wildlife and Special Status Species

o Conduct special status species surveys/monitoring for ten sensitive animal species and 

four sensitive plant species. 

o Continue to conduct habitat improvement projects including wildlife water 

development, a limiting factor in the Ignacio Chavez ACEC. 

o Due to resource conflicts between livestock grazing and wildlife habitat management, 

assessments of rangeland health should be conducted to determine the efficiency of 

livestock grazing operations and the possible need for changes to grazing 

prescriptions.

Scenic Values

o Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be low. 

o Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

o Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

2.2.16.3.12.3 Alternatives

Table 2.43: Ignacio Chavez ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative A (No 

Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 43,026 (SMA) 43,026 43,026 0
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-108

Resource Alternative A (No 

Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Geographic 

Description

The Ignacio Chavez 

area is designated as 

an SMA (43,182 

acres) and WSA 

(33,182 acres)

The BLM would 

designate the ACEC 

boundary to 

correspond to the 

SMA boundary 

(43,026 acres).

Same as Alternative 

B.

The BLM would not 

designate Ignacio 

Chaves as an ACEC. 

This area would be 

managed as the 

Ignacio Chavez 

Grant zone in the 

Boca del Oso 

SRMA. 

Leasable 

Minerals

Standard fluid 

mineral leasing 

stipulations would 

be determined 

during activity-level 

planning.

Fluid minerals 

would be leased with 

a NSO stipulation. 

Fluid minerals 

would be leased with 

a CSU stipulation. 

Extraction of 

leasable fluid 

minerals would be 

managed with 

special lease 

stipulations.

Livestock 

Grazing

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

area.

Livestock grazing 

would be designated 

as unavailable within 

the ACEC.

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC.

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed. 

Any suspended 

AUMs would be 

reinstated to active 

use.

Locatable 

Minerals

The area would be 

open to locatable 

mineral entry.

The BLM would 

recommend the 

ACEC for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry. 

Same as Alternative 

B.

The area would be 

open to locatable 

mineral entry.

Salable 

Minerals

Salable mineral 

extraction would be 

avoided in the 

ACEC.

The ACEC would be 

closed to extraction 

of salable minerals. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

The area would be 

closed to extraction 

of salable minerals.

Scenic 

Resources 

& VRM

The BLM would 

manage the area as 

VRM II.

The BLM would 

manage the ACEC 

as VRM II.

Same as Alternative 

B.

The BLM would 

manage the area as 

VRM II.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-109

Resource Alternative A (No 

Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Travel Travel would be 

limited to existing 

primitive roads and 

trails, with 

motorized seasonal 

closures of BLM 

Road 1103. 

Management would 

be the same as 

amended in the 

Ignacio Chavez 

Special Management 

Area Plan 

Amendment (BLM 

1996) for vehicle 

use. 

Travel would be 

limited to existing 

primitive roads and 

trails, with 

motorized seasonal 

closures of BLM 

Road 1103: July 1 to 

September 15 and 

November 30 to 

April 15. Motorized 

travel would be 

limited to authorized 

use during closed 

periods. 

The BLM would 

allow mechanical 

use on all existing 

primitive roads 

within the ACEC

year-round.

Travel would be 

limited to existing 

primitive roads and 

trails, with 

motorized seasonal 

closures on BLM 

Road 1103: 

November 30 to 

April 15. Motorized 

travel would be 

limited to authorized 

use during closed 

periods. 

When BLM 1103 

road maintenance is 

complete, the road 

would be open yearround.

The BLM would 

allow mechanized 

travel on existing 

primitive roads yearround.

Motorized vehicle 

use would be 

allowed on BLM 

Road 1103 and 

access roads to Seco, 

Ned, Medio, Toro, 

and Heifer tanks. 

The BLM would 

allow mechanized 

travel on existing 

roads year-round.

2.2.16.3.13 Jones Canyon ACEC

As described in the Jones Canyon ACEC Protection Plan (BLM 1989), the ACEC is 640 acres in 

size with 240 private surface acres. The area was designated as an ACEC based on cultural 

resources, scenic values, riparian habitat, and recreational use. The following are components of 

the Proposed Action as described in the Environmental Assessment for the Protection Plan

2.2.16.3.13.1 Goals

Cultural Resources

o Promote stewardship, conservation, protection and appreciation of traditionally and 

scientifically significant Ancestral Pueblo and historic cultural resources.

Scenic Values

o Manage Jones Canyon ACEC as a VRM Class II Area.

2.2.16.3.13.2 Objectives

Cultural Resources

o Improve access and management through consolidation of public ownership

o Maintain and improve educational opportunities and public outreach programs

o Maximize opportunities for cooperation with tribal governments for managing cultural 

resources and public education, and regarding implementation of decisions from this 

plan and existing or revised site-specific plans.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-110

o Maintain and enhance programs that provide opportunities for appropriate scientific 

research involving cultural resources

Scenic Values

o Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be low. 

o Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

o Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape

2.2.16.3.13.3 Alternatives

Table 2.44: Jones Canyon ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 639 959 639 639

Geographic 

Description

The ACEC is 640 

acres with 240 

private surface acres.

The BLM would 

maintain the ACEC 

designation and 

expand the boundary 

1⁄2 mile to the north.

The BLM would 

maintain the size of 

the ACEC 

designation at 639 

acres.

Same as Alternative 

C. 

Scenic

Resources 

& VRM

The BLM would 

manage the ACEC 

as VRM II.

The BLM would 

manage the ACEC 

as VRM II.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Cultural 

Resources

Complete cultural 

resource inventory 

and evaluation. 

Promote public 

awareness.

The BLM would 

promote public 

awareness.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Land 

Tenure

Consolidate federal 

ownership and 

public access.

The BLM would 

consolidate federal 

ownership and 

public access.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Travel Manage according to 

semi-primitive, nonmotorized recreation 

objectives. Control 

visitor use.

Travel would be 

limited to existing 

primitive roads and 

trails.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Livestock 

Grazing

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed.

Livestock grazing 

would be designated 

as unavailable within 

the ACEC.

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC.

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed. 

Any suspended 

AUMs would be 

reinstated to active 

use.

Leasable 

Minerals

Fluid minerals 

would be leased with 

a NSO stipulation. 

Same as Alternative 

A. 

Same as Alternative 

A. 

Fluid minerals 

would be leased with 

a CSU stipulation. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-111

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Salable 

Minerals

Salable mineral 

extraction would be 

avoided in the 

ACEC. 

The ACEC would be 

closed to extraction 

of salable minerals.

Extraction of salable 

minerals would be 

avoided.

Same as Alternative 

C. 

Locatable 

Minerals

The BLM would 

recommend the 

ACEC for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry.

Same as Alternative 

A. 

Same as Alternative 

A.

The BLM would 

allow the locatable 

mineral entry 

withdrawal to expire.

Note: Management decisions for Alternative A (No Action) are described in more detail in the 

Jones Canyon ACEC Protection Plan (BLM 1989).

2.2.16.3.14 Legacy Uranium Mines ACEC

2.2.16.3.14.1 Goals

Promote public health and safety by preventing disturbance of reclaimed Legacy Uranium 

Mines.

2.2.16.3.14.2 Objectives

Limit surface and subsurface disturbance due to mineral development and placement of rightsof-way.

Monitor the integrity of remedial actions. 

2.2.16.3.14.3 Alternatives

Table 2.44: Legacy Uranium Mines ACEC management decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 50 50 50

Leasable 

Minerals

Fluid minerals would be 

leased with a NSO 

stipulation. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Livestock 

Grazing

Livestock grazing would 

be designated as 

unavailable within the 

ACEC.

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be allowed 

within the ACEC. 

Livestock grazing would 

be allowed within the 

ACEC. Any suspended 

AUMs would be reinstated 

to active use.

Locatable 

Minerals

The ACEC would be open 

to locatable mineral entry.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Rights-of-Way Rights-of-way would be 

avoided.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Salable Minerals The ACEC would be 

closed to extraction of 

salable minerals. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-112

Resource Alternative B Alternative C

(Preferred) Alternative D

Scenic 

Resources & 

VRM

VRM would be managed 

to VRM of surrounding 

land.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Travel Motorized travel would be 

limited to authorized use. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Note: Management decisions for Alternative A (No Action) are not listed because there is 

currently no special designation for these areas.

2.2.16.3.15 Ojito ACEC

The ACEC is 13,657 acres, of which 11,697 acres are managed by the BLM (BLM 1987d). 

Because a portion of the Ojito WSA, which is within the Ojito ACEC, was designated as the 

Ojito Wilderness in 2005, the alternatives below include reducing the acreage of the Ojito ACEC 

to exclude the wilderness area. 

2.2.16.3.15.1 Goals

Geologic & Paleontological Resources

o Protect the unique geologic and paleontological resources, including the Tierra 

Amarilla Anticline and sandstone tinajas, from human-caused deterioration, or 

potential conflict with other resource uses and resource development.

o Promote awareness of geologic and paleontological resource values.

Scenic Values

o Manage Ojito ACEC as a VRM Class II Area.

Wildlife and Special Status Species

o Manage the ACEC for the protection of raptor nesting habitat, antelope, other wildlife

and special status plant species.

Cultural Resources

o Promote stewardship of Ancestral Pueblo and historic cultural resources.

2.2.16.3.15.2 Objectives

Geologic & Paleontological Resources

o Limit surface and subsurface disturbance due to mineral development, motorized 

vehicles, and livestock grazing.

o Expand interpretation signs along trails.

o Develop updated interpretational materials for public information, including 

brochures, web pages, and other information.

o Promote educational visits to the area.

Scenic Values

o Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be low. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-113

o Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

o Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Wildlife and Special Status Species

o Conduct rare plant surveys and monitoring, and manage livestock grazing to protect 

rare plant species. 

o Survey and monitor bluffs and mesa edges for nesting raptors, and protect and enhance 

suitable nesting habitat.

o Manage suitable habitat for antelope, and use interdisciplinary planning to incorporate 

antelope habitat objectives into livestock grazing prescriptions for joint management.

o Collaborate with the Seeds of Success program to conserve rare plant populations. 

Cultural Resources

o Maintain and improve educational opportunities and public outreach programs

o Coordinate with affiliated Tribes regarding implementation of decisions from this plan 

and existing or revised site-specific plans. 

o Maintain and enhance programs that provide opportunities for appropriate scientific 

research involving cultural resources.

2.2.16.3.15.3 Alternatives

Table 2.45: Ojito ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative A (No 

Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

ACEC Acres 16,310 16,310 6,454 0

Geographic 

Description

The ACEC is 

13,657 acres, of 

which 11,697 acres 

are managed by the 

BLM.

The BLM would 

maintain the ACEC 

(16,310 acres) 

designation.

The BLM would 

change the ACEC 

boundary to exclude 

the Ojito 

Wilderness Area. 

The BLM would 

remove the ACEC 

designation. This 

area would be 

managed as the 

Ojito Wilderness 

zone in the San 

Ysidro SRMA. 

Leasable 

Minerals

The Tierra Amarilla 

Anticline and 

Querencia 

Watershed Study 

Area would be 

closed to mineral 

leasing. 

Fluid minerals in 

the ACEC would be 

leased with a CSU 

stipulation, except 

for the Tierra 

Amarilla Anticline, 

which would be 

closed to fluid 

mineral leasing. 

Fluid minerals in 

the ACEC would be 

leased with a CSU 

stipulation. 

Fluid minerals in 

the ACEC would be 

leased with a CSU 

stipulation. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-114

Resource Alternative A (No 

Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Livestock 

Grazing

Implement existing 

Allotment 

Management Plans.

Livestock grazing 

would be 

designated as 

unavailable within 

the ACEC. 

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC. 

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed. 

Any suspended 

AUMs would be 

reinstated to active 

use.

Locatable 

Minerals

The Tierra Amarilla 

Anticline and 

Querencia 

Watershed Study 

Area would be 

recommended for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry. 

The BLM would 

recommend the 

ACEC for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry.

The ACEC would 

be open to locatable 

mineral entry.

The area would be 

open to locatable 

mineral entry.

Salable 

Minerals

The Tierra Amarilla 

Anticline and 

Querencia 

Watershed Study 

Area would be 

closed to extraction 

of salable minerals. 

The ACEC would 

be closed to 

extraction of salable 

minerals.

Extraction of 

salable minerals 

would be avoided.

The area would be 

open to extraction 

of salable minerals.

Scenic 

Resources & 

VRM

The BLM would 

manage the ACEC 

as VRM II. 

The BLM would 

manage the ACEC 

as VRM II.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Travel Control visitor use. 

Close the Querencia 

Watershed Study 

Area and the Las 

Milpas pipeline and 

well areas to all but 

authorized users.

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

authorized use. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails. 

Wildlife, 

Special Status 

Species, 

Vegetation & 

Riparian 

Resources

Protect rare cactus 

species. Implement 

the Upper Rio 

Puerco Habitat 

Management Plan.

The BLM would 

implement raptor 

stipulations, 

prioritize rare plant 

surveys, and follow 

the Protection Plan 

for Ojito (BLM 

1987) to manage 

wildlife and special 

status species. 

The BLM would 

implement raptor 

stipulations, 

prioritize rare plant 

surveys, and follow 

the Protection Plan 

for Ojito (BLM 

1987) to manage 

wildlife and special 

status species.

The BLM would 

implement raptor 

stipulations, 

prioritize rare plant 

surveys, and follow 

the Protection Plan 

for Ojito (BLM 

1987) to manage 

wildlife and special 

status species.

Note: Alternative A (No Action) management decisions are described in more detail in the 

Protection Plan for Ojito, an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (BLM 1987d).
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-115

2.2.16.3.16 Petaca Pinta ACEC 

The 1986 Rio Puerco RMP designated the Petaca Pinta as a SMA (13,789 acres) and WSA 

(11,668 acres). Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the BLM would designate the ACEC boundary 

to correspond with SMA boundary (13,723 acres) and manage the ACEC for wildlife and scenic 

values. 

2.2.16.3.16.1 Goals 

Scenic Values

o Manage Petaca Pinta ACEC as a VRM Class II Area.

Wildlife Resource Values

o Manage the ACEC for wildlife resources values.

o Manage piñon-juniper and sagebrush habitats for breeding birds.

2.2.16.3.16.2 Objectives

Scenic Values

o Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be low. 

o Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. 

o Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Wildlife Resource Values

o Establish wildlife water catchments for game and non-game species habitat 

enhancement.

o Develop an activity plan for management of the ACEC. 

o Conduct surveys and monitoring of migratory bird species to determine the current 

level of use in Petaca Pinta ACEC habitats.

o Carry out vegetation management treatments outside of the breeding season of birds 

occupying habitat within Petaca Pinta ACEC.

o Conduct surveys and monitoring before and after vegetation treatments and other 

management activities to determine the impact of such activities on bird and wildlife

populations. 

o Use adaptive management principles to adjust management techniques to meet the 

resource objectives of the ACEC.

2.2.16.3.16.3 Alternatives

Table 2.46: Petaca Pinta ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 13,723 (SMA) 13,723 13,723 13,723

Geographic 

Description

The Petaca Pinta 

area is designated as 

an SMA (13,789 

The BLM would 

designate the ACEC 

boundary to 

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-116

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

acres) and WSA 

(11,668 acres).

correspond with 

SMA boundary.

Leasable 

Minerals

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with a CSU 

stipulation. 

The ACEC would 

be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing. 

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Livestock 

Grazing

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed 

within the ACEC.

Livestock grazing 

would be designated 

as unavailable 

within the ACEC. 

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC.

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed 

within the ACEC. 

Any suspended 

AUMs would be 

reinstated to active 

use.

Locatable 

Minerals

The ACEC would 

be open to locatable 

mineral entry. 

The BLM would 

recommend the 

ACEC for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Salable 

Minerals

Extraction of salable 

minerals in the 

ACEC would be 

avoided. 

The ACEC would 

be closed to 

extraction of salable 

minerals.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Scenic 

Resources & 

VRM

Develop an activity 

plan.

The BLM would 

manage the ACEC 

as VRM II.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Travel Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails. 

Same as Alternative 

A.

Same as Alternative 

A.

Same as Alternative 

A.

2.2.16.3.17 Pronoun Cave Complex ACEC

2.2.16.3.17.1 Goals 

Geologic & Paleontological Resources

 Protect geologic and paleontological resources from human-caused 

deterioration, or potential conflict with other resource uses and resource 

development.

 Promote stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of cave resources.

 Promote stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of paleontological 

resources.

Wildlife Resources

 (PC-4): Manage the cave complex for the protection of hibernating or roosting 

bat species. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-117

2.2.16.3.17.2 Objectives

Geologic & Paleontological Resources

o Limit surface and subsurface disturbance due to mineral development, motorized 

vehicles, and livestock grazing.

o Foster partnership with local universities for geologic and cave studies.

o Develop partnerships with local spelunking groups. 

o Identify management prescriptions for specific caves.

o Maintain partnership with New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science for 

research and curation of specimens.

o Identify management prescriptions for specific caves.

Wildlife Resources

o Survey for hibernating and roosting bats, and control access by recreational cavers and 

researchers to prevent human assisted spread of the fungal agent causing white-nose 

syndrome. Caves should be restricted or re-opened based on recommendations by the 

USFWS.

2.2.16.3.17.3 Alternatives

Table 2.47: Pronoun Cave Complex ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 1,181 1,342 1,181 0

Geographic 

Description

Designated as SMA 

and ACEC in the 

1986 RMP. 

The BLM would 

expand the ACEC to 

include updated 

inventory of cave 

resources. 

The BLM would 

maintain the ACEC 

designation with no 

expansion.

The BLM would 

remove the ACEC 

designation. This 

area would be 

managed as the 

Pronoun Cave zone 

in the Petaca Pinta 

SRMA. 

Leasable 

Minerals

Fluid minerals 

would be leased with 

a CSU stipulation. 

Fluid minerals in the 

ACEC would be 

leased with a CSU 

stipulation. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as Alternative 

B.

Livestock 

Grazing

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed.

Livestock grazing 

would be designated 

as unavailable within 

the ACEC.

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC. 

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed. 

Any suspended 

AUMs would be 

reinstated to active 

use.

Locatable 

Minerals

The ACEC would be 

open to locatable 

mineral entry. 

The BLM would 

recommend the 

ACEC for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry.

The BLM would 

recommend the 

ACEC for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry.

The area would be 

open to locatable 

mineral entry.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-118

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Salable 

Minerals

Extraction of salable 

minerals would be 

avoided. 

The ACEC would be 

closed to extraction 

of salable minerals.

Extraction of salable 

minerals would be 

avoided.

The area would be 

open to extraction of 

salable minerals. 

Travel Motorized vehicle 

use would be limited 

to existing roads and 

trails. 

The ACEC would be 

closed to all travel 

except for authorized 

use.

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails.

Same as Alternative 

C. 

Wildlife & 

Geologic 

Resources

There are currently 

no restrictions to 

cave access. 

Caves would be 

closed to recreation 

for protection of bat 

species.

Caves would be 

closed to recreation 

during winter 

hibernation period 

(October 1–April 30) 

for protection of bat 

species.

Caves with 

confirmed bat 

hibernacula would 

be closed to 

recreation during 

winter hibernation 

period (October 1–

April 30) for 

protection of bat 

species.

2.2.16.3.18 San Luis Mesa Raptor Area ACEC

Currently, the ACEC is 9,556 acres, of which 8,121 acres are managed by the BLM, 149 acres 

are private, and 1,286 acres are managed by the State of New Mexico (BLM 1987e). Alternatives 

B and C would maintain the ACEC designation (10,482 acres) and manage the ACEC for 

wildlife and geologic values. 

2.2.16.3.18.1 Goals

Geologic Resources

o Protect geologic resources, including the exemplary exposure of Mancos Shale and 

Point Lookout Sandstone outcrops, from human-caused deterioration, or potential 

conflict with other resource uses and resource development.

Wildlife Resources

o Manage San Luis Mesa and surrounding prairie for raptor nesting and prey base 

habitat.

2.2.16.3.18.2 Objectives

Geologic Resources

o Limit surface and subsurface disturbance due to mineral development, motorized 

vehicles, and livestock grazing.

Wildlife Resources

o Conduct regular nesting raptor surveys. 

o Apply spatial and temporal mitigation measures to projects involving noise and 

surface disturbing impacts. 

o Protect raptor prey base populations within the ACEC and surrounding habitat 

(specifically prairie dog habitat).
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-119

o Implement and coordinate with private land owners public education and outreach 

efforts to discourage prey base shooting and poisoning efforts in the area. 

o Adopt recommendations outlined in the book “Suggested Practices for Raptor 

Protection on Power Lines” when issuing right-of-way permits for power lines within 

the ACEC.

2.2.16.3.18.3 Alternatives

Table 2.48: San Luis Mesa Raptor Area ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative A (No 

Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 10,483 10,483 10,483 0

Geographic 

Description

The ACEC is 9,556 acres, 

of which 8,121 acres are 

managed by the BLM, 

149 acres are private, and 

1,286 acres are managed 

by the State of New 

Mexico (BLM 1987e).

The BLM would 

maintain the 

ACEC designation.

Same as 

Alternative B.

The BLM would 

remove the ACEC 

designation. This 

area would be 

managed as the 

San Luis Mesa 

zone in the Boca 

del Osa SRMA.

Leasable 

Minerals

Allow no surface 

disturbance in the 

Empedrado Watershed 

Study Area and no 

surface occupancy from 

February 1 to July 1.

Fluid minerals in 

the ACEC would 

be leased with a 

NSO stipulation. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Fluid minerals in 

the ACEC would 

be leased with a 

CSU stipulation.

Livestock 

Grazing

Implement livestock 

grazing systems through 

existing Allotment 

Management Plans.

Livestock grazing 

would be 

designated as 

unavailable within 

the ACEC.

Prescribed 

livestock grazing

would be allowed 

within the ACEC.

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed. 

Any suspended 

AUMs would be 

reinstated to active 

use.

Locatable 

Minerals

Recommend the 

Empedrado Watershed 

Study Area for 

withdrawal from future 

mineral entry. 

The BLM would 

recommend the 

ACEC for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry.

The ACEC would 

be open to 

locatable mineral 

entry. 

The area would be 

open to locatable 

mineral entry.

Salable 

Minerals

Allow no surface 

disturbance in the 

Empedrado Watershed 

Study Area.

The ACEC would 

be closed to 

extraction of 

salable minerals.

The area would 

avoid extraction of 

salable minerals.

The area would be 

open to extraction 

of salable minerals. 

Travel Limit motorized vehicle 

use to existing primitive 

roads and trails.

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails.

Same as 

Alternative B.

Motorized travel 

would be limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-120

Resource Alternative A (No 

Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Wildlife 

Resources

- Coordinate annually 

with the NMDGF to 

inventory, monitor, and 

document nest site 

locations and 

reproductive success.

- Coordinate with the 

NMDGF and power 

industry biologists to 

inventory all power lines 

in the ACEC.

- Provide non-game and 

waterfowl habitat for 

raptor prey around 

existing and future water 

impoundments.

- Restrict human activities 

and surface disturbances 

around nest sites from 

February 1 to July 15. 

- Protect nests from 

harassment, vandalism, 

photographers, or illegal 

take. 

- Discourage land use 

practices and 

development that 

adversely alter or 

eliminate the character of 

hunting habitat or prey 

base.

The BLM would 

implement prairie 

dog and raptor 

stipulations.

Same as 

Alternative B.

- Provide nongame and 

waterfowl habitat 

for raptor prey in 

areas surrounding 

nest sites.

- Restrict human 

activities and 

surface 

disturbances 

around nest sites 

from February 1 to 

July 15. 

- Protect nests from 

harassment, 

vandalism, 

photographers, or 

illegal take. 

- Discourage land 

use practices and 

development that 

adversely alter or 

eliminate the 

character of 

hunting habitat or 

prey base.

2.2.16.3.19 San Miguel Dome ACEC

There is currently no special designation for the San Miguel Dome area. Under Alternatives B 

and C, the BLM would designate the San Miguel Dome area as an ACEC (4,437 acres) managed 

for geologic values and biologic soil crusts. Under Alternative D, the BLM would not designate 

the San Miguel Dome area as an ACEC, and would manage the area instead as part of the Boca 

del Oso SRMA.

2.2.16.3.19.1 Goals

Geologic Resources

o Protect the unique geologic resources of the San Miguel Dome, which include 

Cretaceous formations of the Mesa Verde Group representing a retreating ocean, from 

human-caused deterioration, or potential conflict with other resource uses and resource 

development.

Biological Soil Crusts
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-121

o Manage the ACEC for the protection of significant biological soil crust populations in 

accordance with BLM Technical Reference 1730-2 Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology 

and Management.

2.2.16.3.19.2 Objectives

Geologic Resources

o Limit surface and subsurface disturbance due to mineral development, motorized 

vehicles, and livestock grazing.

Biological Soil Crusts

o Discourage livestock use of the area by strategically placing water sources and mineral 

supplements away from San Miguel Dome. 

2.2.16.3.19.3 Alternatives

Table 2.49: San Miguel Dome ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 4,437 4,437 0

Geographic 

Description

The BLM would designate 

the San Miguel Dome area 

as an ACEC.

Same as Alternative B. The BLM would not 

designate the San Miguel 

Dome area as an ACEC. 

This area would be 

managed as the San Miguel 

Dome zone in the Boca del 

Oso SRMA.

Leasable 

Minerals

Fluid minerals in the ACEC 

would be leased with a NSO 

stipulation. 

Same as Alternative B. Fluid minerals in the ACEC 

would be leased with a CSU 

stipulation. 

Livestock 

Grazing

Livestock grazing would be 

designated as unavailable 

within the ACEC. 

Prescribed livestock grazing

would be allowed within the 

ACEC. 

Livestock grazing would be 

allowed. Any suspended 

AUMs would be reinstated 

to active use. 

Locatable 

Minerals

The BLM would 

recommend the ACEC for 

withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry.

The ACEC would be open 

to locatable mineral entry.

The area would be open to 

locatable mineral entry.

Salable 

Minerals

The ACEC would be closed 

to extraction of salable 

minerals.

Extraction of salable 

minerals would be avoided.

The area would be open to 

salable mineral extraction.

Travel - Motorized travel would be 

limited to existing primitive 

roads and trails.

- Pedestrian access would 

be allowed only on 

designated hiking trails.

Same as Alternative B. - Motorized travel would be 

limited to existing primitive 

roads and trails.

- Pedestrian access would 

not be limited to designated 

hiking trails.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-122

Note: Alternative A is not included in the table below because there is currently no special 

designation for the San Miguel Dome area.

2.2.16.3.20 Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC

The 1986 Rio Puerco RMP designated this area as a SMA and ACEC (6,488 acres) in order to 

protect the Torreon Fauna Type Locality for scientific study. Alternatives B, C, and D would 

maintain the ACEC designation and manage the area for paleontological resource values. 

2.2.16.3.20.1 Goals and 

Paleontological Resources

o (TF-1): Protect the unique paleontological resources of the Torreon Fossil Fauna 

ACEC, from human-caused deterioration, or potential conflict with other resource uses 

and resource development. These paleontological resources include an exposed 

Paleocene Nacimiento formation bearing the type reference faunas for the Puercan and 

Torreonian land-mammal ages, and this is the largest intact area of this resource in 

North America.

2.2.16.3.20.2 Objectives

Paleontological Resources

o (TF-1): Limit surface and subsurface disturbance due to mineral development, 

motorized vehicles, and livestock grazing.

o Maintain and enhance opportunities for scientific research on paleontological 

resources. 

2.2.16.3.20.3 Alternatives

Table 2.50: Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 6,488 6,488 6,488 6,488

Leasable 

Minerals

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with a CSU 

stipulation. 

The ACEC would 

be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing.

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with a NSO 

stipulation. 

Fluid minerals 

would be leased 

with a CSU 

stipulation. 

Livestock 

Grazing

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed.

Livestock grazing 

would be prohibited 

in the ACEC. 

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC. 

Prescribed livestock 

grazing would be 

allowed within the 

ACEC, and any

suspended AUMs 

would be reinstated.

Locatable 

Minerals

The ACEC would 

be open to locatable 

mineral entry. 

The BLM would 

recommend the 

ACEC for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry. 

Same as Alternative 

B.

The ACEC would 

be open to locatable 

mineral entry. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-123

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Paleontological 

Resources

The ACEC would 

be managed to 

protect the area for 

scientific study of 

the Torreon Fauna 

Type Locality.

No invertebrate 

fossil or petrified 

wood collection 

would be allowed.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Invertebrate fossil 

and petrified wood 

collections would 

be allowed. 

Salable 

Minerals

Extraction of 

salable minerals in 

the ACEC would be 

avoided. 

The ACEC would 

be closed to 

extraction of salable 

minerals.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Salable mineral 

extraction in the 

ACEC would be 

avoided. 

Travel Travel would be 

limited to existing 

primitive roads and 

trails. 

The ACEC would be 

closed to motorized 

travel except for 

authorized use.

Travel would be 

limited to the single 

access route only. 

Same as Alternative 

C.

2.2.17 Special Status Species

Special-status species are collectively, federally listed or proposed and Bureau sensitive species, 

which include both Federal candidate species and delisted species within five years of delisting. 

Bureau sensitive species are species that require special management consideration to avoid 

potential future listing under the ESA and that have been identified in accordance with 

procedures set forth in BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management. See Appendix J

for specific list information.

2.2.17.1 Goals 

Conserve and/or recover ESA-listed species and the ecosystems on which they depend so that 

ESA protections are no longer needed for these species.

Conserve and enhance habitats of Bureau Sensitive plant and animal species to prevent the 

listing of these species under the Endangered Species Act.

2.2.17.2 Objectives

Implement projects to maintain, protect, and enhance special status species habitats, including 

but not limited to designated critical habitat of federally listed species. 

Prescribe mitigation measures that reduce or eliminate threats to BLM sensitive species to 

minimize the likelihood of and need for listing of these species under the ESA. 

Allow, initiate, or participate in scientific research of federally threatened, endangered, 

candidate, proposed, and BLM sensitive species and their habitats. Goals for research should 

be aimed at determining population trends, habitat condition and suitability, and should follow 

objectives and guidance provided by USFWS, recovery plans, and relevant scientific 

literature. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-124

Where existing data on listed species is limited or unavailable for RPFO managed lands, 

conduct surveys and inventory known or potential habitat for species occupation, consult with 

USFWS when new information on listed species is discovered on RPFO managed land, and 

proceed with management as directed by USFWS, species recovery plans, and BLM guidance 

and directives.

Regularly monitor Bureau sensitive plant and animal species to determine population trends, 

and develop, where necessary and appropriate, projects to restore, enhance, or create habitat 

for these species. 

Where existing data on Bureau sensitive species is limited or unavailable for RPFO managed 

lands, conduct surveys and inventory known or potential habitat for species occupation. When 

new information on Bureau sensitive species is discovered on RPFO managed land, proceed 

with management as directed by BLM SSS management guidance and other applicable land 

or species management policies and best management practices. 

Allow, initiate, or participate in research of Bureau sensitive species and their habitats.

Avoid or mitigate actions that have potential to degrade Bureau sensitive species populations 

or habitat, or that would result in a significant decline of the species or its potential to occur in 

suitable habitat.

The BLM would mitigate habitat losses for special-status species as required by policy and 

law.

2.2.17.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would support and implement current and future special-status species recovery and 

conservation plans, strategies, and agreements in coordination/consultation with the USFWS, 

the NMDGF, the New Mexico State Forestry Division, and other interested entities. The BLM 

would be an active participant in recovery implementation teams.

The BLM would consider the protection of habitat for listed and BLM sensitive plant and 

animal species prior to authorizing any actions that could alter or disturb such habitat. 

The BLM would permit no management action on public lands that would jeopardize the 

continued existence of plant or animal species that are listed or candidate species or are 

proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA. 

The BLM would require surveys for listed, candidate, and proposed species prior to taking 

any action that could affect these species’ habitat or potential habitat. Population and/or 

habitat monitoring should be ongoing for all special-status species and should utilize 

established and, where possible, USFWS-recommended protocols. Any special-status species 

survey must be conducted by BLM-approved biologists, botanists, or ecologists. 

The BLM would avoid/exclude disturbance of special-status species dependent on species 

rareness or habitat requirements. The BLM would evaluate surface-disturbing activities on a 

case-by-case basis.

When possible, The BLM would actively pursue cooperative agreements with other agencies 

or entities to inventory and/or monitor existing or potential habitat for special-status species. 

The BLM would prioritize planning and implementation assessment and monitoring plans for 

federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-125

The BLM would allow translocations and population augmentation of special-status species to 

aid in conservation and recovery efforts. Implement necessary habitat manipulations and 

monitoring to ensure successful translocation efforts. 

The BLM would coordinate with the USFWS in all black-footed ferret and Gunnison’s prairie 

dog recovery decisions/actions.

2.2.17.4 Migratory Birds

The BLM would implement Executive Order 13186, "Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory Birds," during all activities to protect habitat for migratory birds. 

Management would emphasize birds listed on the current USFWS "Birds of Conservation

Concern" and Partners-in-Flight priority species (as updated). The BLM would adhere to 

BLM MOU WO-230-2010-04: Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department 

of the Interior Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. 

As specific habitat needs and population distribution to "Birds of Conservation Concern" and 

Partners-in-Flight priority species are identified, the BLM would use adaptive management 

strategies to further conserve habitat and avoid impacts to these species. Adaptive 

Management is defined as, “ a system of management practices based on clearly identified 

outcomes, monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting outcomes, and, if not, 

facilitating management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or to re-evaluate 

the outcomes,” in the H-1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook.

The BLM would prioritize the maintenance and/or improvement of lowland riparian, 

wetlands, and low and high desert scrub communities, which are the four most important and 

used habitat types by migratory birds in the RPFO Planning Area. 

The BLM would minimize the spread of invasive and non-native plants, especially cheatgrass, 

saltcedar, and Russian olive, and would strive for a dense understory of native species in 

riparian areas with a reduction in saltcedar and improvement of cottonwood and willow 

regeneration. 

During the nesting season for migratory birds (May 1–July 31), the BLM would conduct 

NEPA analysis including breeding bird surveys prior to implementing surface-disturbing 

activities, vegetative-altering projects, and broad-scale use of pesticides.

The BLM would implement BMPs for raptor protection, including requiring all new power 

lines to be built to “electrocution-proof” specifications. To avoid collisions with migrating 

birds, the mitigating measures identified by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

(2006) would be incorporated into all new power lines. Existing lines that are identified as 

causing electrocution and/or collision problems may also be modified where feasible. 

Refer to http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ for a current list of the migratory birds that are 

protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

2.2.17.5 Gunnison Prairie Dog (Cynomys gunnisoni)

2.2.17.5.1 Management Common to All Alternatives

The following management actions are in conformance with Gunnison’s Prairie Dog 

Conservation Strategy [NMDGF]:
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-126

The BLM would design and implement a plague management plan to increase survivorship 

and build population strength, numbers, and acreage suitable for black-footed ferret 

reintroduction. 

The BLM would designate suitable habitat for prairie dog translocation and also identify focal 

areas to allow for habitat connectivity.

The BLM would monitor to assess population trends of the species and the effectiveness of 

translocations.

The BLM would complete NHPA Section 106 consultation prior to prairie dog 

reintroductions.

2.2.17.5.2 Alternatives

Table 2.51: Gunnison Prairie Dog Management Decisions by Alternative

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C(Preferred) Alternative D

No similar 

action.

The RPFO would protect 

prairie dogs on BLM land 

by restricting shooting in 

identified augmented 

prairie dog areas yearround.

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.

The BLM would enforce no 

restrictions on prairie dog 

shooting.

No similar 

action.

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.

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.

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.

2.2.17.6 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)

All agencies of the U.S. government are authorized and obligated to proactively promote 

conservation and recovery of the endangered SWFL (Section 2 of the ESA). Policies protecting 

the SWFL include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, FLPMA National Forest Management Act, 

CWA, and New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act.

2.2.17.6.1 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would follow the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002). 

Recovery actions include but are not limited to:

Increasing and improving occupied, suitable, and potential breeding habitat

Increasing metapopulation stability

Improving demographic parameters

Minimizing threats to wintering and migration habitat

Surveying and monitoring
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-127

Conducting research

Providing public education and outreach

Assuring implementation of laws, policies, and agreements that benefit the SWFL

Tracking recovery progress

The BLM would monitor SWFL habitat for presence or absence annually during the breeding 

season (May 15–July 17)

The BLM would continue PFC assessments in riparian areas and initiate riparian restoration 

projects in areas deemed Functional At-Risk or Nonfunctional. Monitoring should be ongoing 

and include continual use of the PFC assessment. If an area is rated as Functional, habitat 

enhancement projects should be conducted on a case-by-case basis.

The BLM would consult with the USFWS regarding invasive species treatments within 

potential SWFL habitat.

The BLM would follow the guidance for managing SWFL when managing for the yellowbilled cuckoo.

2.2.17.7 Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes)

All agencies of the U.S. government are authorized and obligated to proactively promote 

conservation and recovery of the endangered black-footed ferret (Section 2 of the ESA). Policies 

protecting the black-footed ferret include the FLPMA, National Forest Management Act, and 

New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act.

2.2.17.7.1 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would follow the Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998) and consult 

with the USFWS on prairie dog management and reintroduction efforts. 

The BLM would identify recovery areas based on prairie dog inventory data and known 

historical range. The BLM would continue to inventory prairie dog habitat and monitor 

population levels to determine possible reintroduction sites. 

In cooperation with USFWS and other cooperators, the BLM would implement a plague 

management plan utilizing the most current scientific information and techniques prior to 

and/or at the time of reintroduction of the black-footed ferret.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-128

2.2.17.8 Plant species

Table 2.52: Special Status Plant Species Management Decisions by Alternative

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C(Preferred) Alternative D

No similar action. The BLM would design 

placement of water 

developments and salt 

and mineral supplements 

for livestock at least 0.25 

mile away from known 

locations of special-status 

plants. The BLM would 

consider the 

concentration of 

browsing/grazing 

animals on known 

locations of special-status 

plants.

The BLM would design 

placement of water 

developments and salt 

and mineral supplements 

for livestock at least 152 

m (500 feet) away from 

known locations of 

special-status plants. The 

BLM would consider the 

concentration of 

browsing/grazing 

animals on known 

locations of special-status 

plants.

The BLM would design 

placement of water 

developments and salt 

and mineral supplements 

for livestock at least 91 m 

(300 feet) away from 

known locations of 

special-status plants. The 

BLM would consider the 

concentration of 

browsing/grazing 

animals on known 

locations of special-status 

plants.

No similar action. Habitat areas for special 

status plant species that 

are designated by the 

USDA-NRCS as having 

“low” or “not rated” 

reclamation opportunity 

would be closed to oil 

and gas leasing. 

None. None.

2.2.18 Travel Management

2.2.18.1 Goal

Provide for a range of motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities and 

administrative access across public lands while protecting resources, promoting use safety, 

and minimizing user conflicts. 

2.2.18.2 Objectives

Establish a comprehensive approach to travel planning and management. 

Implement comprehensive travel management planning utilizing strategies for motorized, 

mechanized, and other non-motorized recreation. 

Work collaboratively with the public, including tribal, state and local governments, user 

groups, and individuals to develop an appropriate transportation system on BLM-administered 

public lands, including motorized and non-motorized recreational trails.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-129

2.2.18.3 Management Common to All Alternatives 

The following management prescriptions would be in place as interim management until the 

Travel Management Plan (TMP) is complete:

A preliminary inventory of the existing road, primitive road, and trail network is shown in 

Maps 73 - 76. These routes were inventoried, ground verified, and mapped using aerial 

photographs and global positioning system (GPS) devices. This map does not include an 

inventory of existing single-track routes. A road is a linear route declared a road by the 

owner, managed for use by low-clearance vehicles having four or more wheels, and 

maintained for regular and continuous use. A primitive road is a linear route managed for use 

by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles. These routes do not normally meet any BLM 

road design standards. An existing road is one that appears on the road inventory.

Unless otherwise restricted by management actions identified by specific resource or special 

designation, all public lands would be open to non-motorized modes of travel (horseback, 

bicycle, foot, etc). Any non-emergency closure of public lands to non-motorized use would 

occur through the process of supplementary rulemaking (see 43 CFR 8365 1–6).

All areas within the RPFO would be designated as either limited, open, or closed to motorized 

travel.

Unless otherwise restricted by management actions identified by specific resource or special 

designation, motorized travel in OHV areas designated as “limited” would be restricted to 

existing roads, primitive roads, and trails (note that the combination of roads, primitive roads, 

and trails are referred to as “routes”).

The BLM would not restrict OHV use related to mining claim operations, except by 

regulations and requirements found in 43 CFR 3809, as amended. 

The BLM would not restrict OHV use performed in conformance with existing leases, 

permits, right-of-way stipulations, or other land use authorizations. 

Where OHVs are causing or would cause considerable adverse effects on soil, vegetation, 

wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historical resources, threatened or endangered 

species, Wilderness suitability, other authorized uses, or other resources, the BLM would 

immediately close the affected areas to the type(s) of vehicle causing the adverse effect until 

the adverse effects are eliminated and measures implemented to prevent recurrence. 

Designation for OHV use would consider the long-term sustainability of resources such as 

wildlife habitat, cultural resource values, Wilderness values, watersheds, visual quality, 

recreational values, and other resource uses. 

Motorized vehicle travel on existing primitive roads and trails would be allowed where the 

existing route is as wide as or wider than the vehicle. Motorized vehicle travel along singletrack routes would be limited to two-wheeled vehicles that would not promote the expansion 

of those routes into two-track routes.

The BLM would consider existing routes open to vehicle travel unless indicated as closed on 

the ground by signs, barricades, or other physical structures or topography those appropriately 

direct users. 

“Closed or “limited” designations would not affect the use of military, fire, emergency, or law 

enforcement vehicles for emergency purposes; vehicles whose use is expressly authorized by 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-130

the RPFO Manager or otherwise officially approved; vehicles in official use; and combat or 

combat support vehicles when used in times of national defense emergencies.

2.2.18.3.1 Travel Management Planning

Travel management planning would be completed within five years and could redefine the 

existing route network currently available for travel on BLM lands within the Planning Area. 

Travel management planning would use a collaborative approach; public involvement and 

coordination with tribes, other agencies, and local governments would be encouraged. The 

OHV area designation of “limited to existing” routes is an interim designation and would 

change to “limited to designated” routes as future activity level travel management plans are 

completed

In the development of future TMPs, baseline road and trail network(s) would be identified 

using existing inventories, the 2009 National Agriculture Imagery Program digital aerial 

photograph layer and comparable (in time) digital ortho quads and U.S. Geological Survey 

topographic maps.

At the implementation phase of future TMPs, the RPFO would: 1) establish a process to 

identify and sign routes available for travel; 2) produce a map or maps for all travel modes; 3) 

identify limitations for specific roads and trails; 4) develop criteria to select or reject specific 

roads and trails for travel; and 5) develop guidelines for monitoring and maintenance of the 

route network.

The BLM would prioritize selection of future activity-level travel planning areas based on: 1) 

the degree of conflicts with other resources/uses; 2) the proximity of areas to population 

centers and residential areas; 3) special management areas and special designations; and 4) 

areas and associated boundaries where private and other federal lands are contiguous to public 

lands. 

Future activity-level travel planning would consider specific route-by-route designations 

based on types of desired use (i.e., motorized, mechanized, non-motorized, and nonmechanized) and motorized vehicle type and size limitations (e.g., >50-inch wheel base for 

full-size vehicles, <50-inch wheel base for all-terrain vehicles [ATVs]). 

Transportation planning would include BMPs for eliminating and restoring unneeded roads, 

relocating poorly situated roads, and implementing proper road location and design. The 

BLM would identify roads that have a significant impact on watershed stability and would 

investigate road closures and establish criteria for closing roads based on erosion concerns. 

At a minimum, future travel planning criteria would include and/or consider the following: 

need for administrative access, recreation demand (motor and non-motorized), public safety, 

noise, potential for community/residential development; ability to properly maintain roads; 

and resource concerns such as protection of cultural resources, historic sites/areas, sacred and 

traditional areas, visual resources, special status species habitat, water quality, wildlife habitat, 

weed invasion, retention of wilderness characteristics, and wetland and riparian habitat. 

The authorized officer shall designate all public lands as open, limited, or closed to off-road 

vehicles. All designations shall be based on the protection of the resources of the public lands, 

the promotion of the safety of all the users of the public lands, and the minimization of 

conflicts among various uses of the public lands; and in accordance with the following 

criteria: 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-131

(a) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, air, or 

other resources of the public lands, and to prevent impairment of wilderness suitability. 

(b) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant 

disruption of wildlife habitats. Special attention will be given to protect endangered or 

threatened species and their habitats. 

(c) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and 

other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to 

ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into 

account noise and other factors. 

(d) Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness areas or primitive 

areas. Areas and trails shall be located in natural areas only if the authorized officer 

determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, 

esthetic, scenic, or other values for which such areas are established (see 43 CFR 

8342.1 Designation criteria). 

2.2.18.4 Alternatives

Table 2.53: Travel Management Decisions by Alternative

Management

Alternative A 

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Open Open: 303,580

acres.

Open: 4,551

acres.

Open: 18,269

acres. Areas 

designated as 

open were 

selected based 

on minimal 

conflicts with 

resource and 

resource use. 

Additionally, 

opportunities 

for OHV use 

and efficient 

management of 

designated 

areas were 

considered.

Open: 19,456

acres. Areas 

designated as 

open were 

selected based 

on minimal 

conflicts with 

resource and 

resource use. 

Additionally, 

opportunities 

for OHV use 

and efficient 

management 

of designated 

areas were 

considered. 

Limited Limited to 

existing 

routes: 

420,491 acres.

Limited to 

existing 

primitive roads 

and trails: 

562,596 acres.

Limited to existing 

primitive roads 

and trails: 602,043

acres.

Limited to 

existing primitive 

roads and trails: 

624,808 acres
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-132

Management

Alternative A 

(No Action)

Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

Closed Closed: 20,316

acres

Closed: 177,240

acres.

Closed: 

124,075 acres.

Closed: 

100,123 acres.

BLM Road 

1103

Travel would 

be limited to 

existing 

primitive roads 

and trails, with 

motorized 

seasonal 

closures of 

BLM Road 

1103. 

Management 

would be the 

same as 

amended in 

the Ignacio 

Chavez 

Special 

Management 

Area Plan 

Amendment 

(BLM 1996) 

for vehicle 

use. 

Motorized 

seasonal 

closures of 

BLM Road 

1103: July 1 to 

September 15 

and November 

30 to April 15. 

Limit 

motorized 

travel to 

authorized use 

during closed 

periods.

Motorized 

seasonal 

closures of 

BLM Road 

1103: 

November 30 

to April 15. 

BLM Road 

1103 would 

open yearround when 

maintenance is 

completed. 

Limit 

motorized 

travel to 

authorized use 

during closed 

periods.

Motorized 

vehicle use 

allowed on 

BLM Road 

1103 and 

access roads 

to Seco, Ned, 

Medio, Toro, 

and Heifer 

tanks.

Note: Total acres 744,387

2.2.19 Vegetative Communities

2.2.19.1 Goals

Manage vegetation resources for ecological diversity, stability, and sustainability, including 

the desired mix of vegetation types, structural stages, and landscape/riparian function. Provide 

for livestock grazing and for native plant, fish, and wildlife (see Map 99) habitat requirements. 

Manage for vegetation restoration, including control of undesirable and invasive plant 

infestations (native and non-native species) to achieve healthy, sustainable rangeland 

ecosystems that support resource values such as, but not limited to, wildlife habitat, and 

functional watersheds.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-133

2.2.19.2 Objectives

Restore and maintain vegetative communities within the RPFO Planning Area to desired

states within reference and conditions as noted in USDA-NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions 

(2010). 

Maintain, protect, and enhance special-status plant and animal habitats in such a manner that 

the potential need to consider any of these species for listing as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA does not arise. 

Riparian habitat would be restored to desired future conditions as prescribed by the EIS for 

Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Management in the Albuquerque Field Office (BLM 2000).

Provide opportunities for seed gathering of various vegetation types while protecting other 

resources. 

Emphasize vegetative treatments within areas identified as not meeting New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001). 

Control noxious, invasive and non-native plant species and prevent the introduction of new 

invasive species by implementing a comprehensive weed program (per national guidance and 

local weed management plans in cooperation with state, federal, and affected counties), 

including coordination with partners, prevention and early detection/rapid response, 

education, inventory and monitoring, and principles of integrated pest management. 

Conduct a full inventory of saltcedar/Russian olive infested areas and reduce where 

appropriate using allowable vegetation treatments. 

The BLM would continue to work with partners under cooperative agreements, assistance 

agreements, and memoranda of agreement to treat noxious and invasive plant species on lands 

within the Planning Area. 

2.2.19.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would utilize adaptive management prescriptions for all resource uses during times 

of extended drought. Adaptive Management is defined as, “ a system of management 

practices based on clearly identified outcomes, monitoring to determine if management 

actions are meeting outcomes, and, if not, facilitating management changes that will best 

ensure that outcomes are met or to re-evaluate the outcomes,” in the H-1601-1 Land Use 

Planning Handbook.

The BLM would follow the current Field Office Drought Action Plan (BLM 2002). 

The BLM would complete NEPA analysis for future vegetation treatments and treatments of 

noxious/invasive plant species.

The BLM would prioritize vegetative treatments in areas not meeting management goals and 

objectives. 

Restoration and rehabilitation would use native seed mixes wherever possible. Non-native 

species may be used as necessary for emergency stabilization or to prevent infestation

invasive non-native weed species. 

Where appropriate, the BLM would replant riparian vegetation subsequent to wildland fire or 

other disturbance in riparian areas. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-134

The BLM would use integrated pest management tools to manage vegetative communities. 

These tools are outlined in BLM Handbook H-1740-2. The RPFO would not use chaining as a 

management tool. 

All vegetation treatments would comply with guidance identified in the Vegetation 

Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic EIS (BLM 

2007a). 

The BLM would comply with NHPA Section 106 for any projects that may occur within the 

Mount Taylor TCP or other NRHP-eligible TCPs. 

The BLM would apply environmental BMPs to all extraction of leasable fluid minerals 

authorizations in accordance to Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2007-021 and 

the most current version of the Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development (commonly referred to as the Gold Book) (BLM 2007b). 

Livestock grazing would not be allowed, unless otherwise stated, in the EIS for Riparian and 

Aquatic Habitat Management in the Albuquerque Field Office (BLM 2000), in exclosures

constructed within riparian areas or uplands using HSP dollars.

2.2.19.4 Alternatives

The BLM vegetation alternatives rely heavily on the management outlined in the fire and fuels 

amendment. Additionally, the BLM Rio Puerco Field Office intends to develop a Vegetation 

EIS that will follow the goals and objectives in this land use plan and will identify a range of 

implementation activities to meet these goals. Many of the vegetation resources goals, 

objectives, and management actions are intertwined with other resources such as range, wildlife

and fire. Also, additional support for the vegetation range of alternatives can be found in the 

Riparian, Wildlife and Fisheries, Fire Management, Forest and Woodlands, Livestock grazing 

and Mineral sections. 

Table 2.54: Vegetative Community Management Decisions by Alternative

Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C 

(Preferred) Alternative D

No similar action. The BLM would not 

plan or implement 

vegetation treatments, 

allowing for natural 

vegetative processes to 

occur with no 

restrictions and or 

limitations to vegetative 

progression through all 

vegetative stages of 

succession. 

The RPFO would plan 

and implement 

vegetation treatments 

that would enhance or 

benefit areas not 

meeting the New 

Mexico Standards and 

Guidelines (BLM 2001). 

The RPFO would plan 

and implement 

vegetation treatments 

that would increase 

overall harvest to all 

available vegetative 

products.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-135

2.2.20 Visual Resource Management

2.2.20.1 Goals 

Manage public lands in a manner that protects the quality of scenic values. 

Recognize and manage visual resources for overall multiple use. 

2.2.20.2 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would designate ACECs managed for scenic values as VRM Class II.

The BLM would manage WSAs and designated Wilderness Areas as wild as VRM Class I. 

The BLM would incorporate visual design considerations into surface-disturbing projects 

regardless of size of potential impact or VRM class. 

The BLM would exclude lands with Class I VRM classifications from all rights-of-way 

(including renewable energy), which means no projects would be approved for construction.

The BLM would avoid lands with Class II VRM classifications for all rights-of-way 

(including renewable energy), which means the RPFO would attempt to site the project 

outside the particular area; however, the project could be constructed within the area if no 

other viable alternative is available.

The BLM would avoid lands with Class II VRM classifications for all rights-of-way 

(including renewable energy), which means the RPFO would attempt to site the project 

outside the particular area; however, the project could be constructed within the area if no 

other viable alternative is available.

2.2.20.3 Alternatives

Table 2.55: VRM Management Decisions by Alternative (acres)

VRM 

Class

Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Class I 97,645 97,296 97,474 97,516

Class II 84,449 318,931 68,511 21,549

Class III 61,789 27,529 80,931 83,050

Class IV 153,250 300,631 497,471 542,272

Note: The location of the VRM classes is shown on the following maps: Alternative A, Map 95; 

Alternative B, Map 96; Alternative C, Map 97; Alternative D, Map 98. 

2.2.21 Wild and Scenic Rivers

2.2.21.1 Goals

Develop interim management restrictions to protect the quality of wild, scenic, and 

recreational values of waterways eligible for consideration as Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

2.2.21.2 Objectives

Maintain the existing condition of the river.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-136

Provide a basis for the Congress to determine whether the eligible waterway should be added 

to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

2.2.21.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

VRM Class II designation would be applied.

Grazing would be excluded from the designated eligible area.

Exclude new rights-of-ways for utilities or road usage within designated area.

Exclude OHV use with the exception of vehicles and equipment necessary for fire suppression

and management.

Acquire selected private, state and tribal lands, if landowners are willing to dispose to those 

lands.

Manage all woodland and forestry resources to enhance wildlife habitat.

2.2.21.4 Alternatives

Table 2.56: Wild & Scenic River Management Decisions by Alternative (Bluewater Creek)

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Acres 97 409 409 409

Cultural 

Resources

Survey for possible 

archaeological sites. 

Restore and interpret, 

to the degree feasible, 

any archaeological 

sites for unique 

cultural values. 

Protect sites from 

future deterioration by 

proper maintenance 

and regular patrolling 

of the area, if deemed 

necessary. 

Same as 

Alternative A.

Same as Alternative 

A.

Same as 

Alternative A.

Fire 

Management

Do not permit any 

large mechanized 

firefighting equipment 

in the designated wild 

or scenic river area. 

Chemical drops are to 

be prohibited except 

with permission of the 

Area Manager. 

Mechanized 

firefighting 

equipment and 

chemical, forestry 

management, and 

fire hazard 

reduction would be 

allowed. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-137

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Forest Product 

Removal

No intensive forestry 

management is to be 

practiced in the area, 

nor is fire hazard 

reduction. The area 

would be closed to 

forest and vegetative 

product removal and 

permit sales. 

Permits for the 

removal of 

vegetative or forest 

products would be 

prohibited. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Forest product 

removal would be 

allowed outside 

riparian areas. 

Land Tenure 

Adjustment

Acquire non-public 

lands. 

Any new land 

acquisitions 

adjacent to 

Bluewater Creek 

would be managed 

as wild or scenic 

river designations.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Leasable 

Minerals

Fluid minerals in the 

creek would be leased 

with a NSO 

stipulation. 

Fluid minerals 

within the wild or 

scenic area would 

be leased with a 

NSO stipulation. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Livestock 

Grazing

Prohibit livestock 

grazing within the 

canyon, though 

livestock grazing may 

occur on the upper 

rims. Both ends of the 

canyon would be 

fenced and the canyon 

would have a pass 

made to allow people 

to continue down the 

trail (Volton S. Tietjen 

Allotment #0194).

Livestock grazing 

would be 

designated as 

unavailable within 

the designated wild 

or scenic river area. 

Same as alternative 

B.

Livestock grazing 

would be allowed 

within the 

designated wild or 

scenic river area. 

Any suspended 

AUMs would be 

reinstated to active 

use. 

Locatable 

Minerals

The Bluewater Creek 

area would be open to 

locatable mineral 

entry.

The BLM would 

recommend the 

designated wild or 

scenic river area for 

withdrawal from 

locatable mineral 

entry. 

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as 

Alternative B.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-138

Resource Alternative A 

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Recreation Installation of a 

parking lot with picnic 

tables on the rim 

where a trail would 

start leading to the 

canyon bottom. 

Recreation 

developments would 

be made contingent on 

BLM’s ability to fund 

and supervise them. 

Camping would be 

prohibited within 

46 m (150 feet) of 

the riparian zone. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Salable 

Minerals

The Bluewater Creek 

area would be closed 

to extraction of salable 

minerals.

The designated area 

would be closed to 

extraction of 

salable minerals.

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Same as 

Alternative B.

Travel Designate the public 

land in the canyon as 

“closed to off road 

vehicles Designate the 

remaining portion of 

the designated wild or 

scenic river area 

(above 2,134-m 

[7,000-foot contour]) 

as “limited to existing 

roads, primitive roads, 

and trails.”

Non-motorized 

travel would be 

allowed in the 

designated wild or 

scenic river area; 

the area would be 

closed to motorized 

travel except for 

authorized use.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Non-motorized 

travel would be 

allowed in the 

canyon; motorized 

travel would be 

limited to existing 

primitive roads 

and trails outside 

the designated 

wild or scenic 

river area. 

VRM Discourage activities 

that would take place 

near enough to the rim 

to cause aesthetic 

impacts, which would 

be noticeable from the 

canyon interior. 

The BLM would 

manage the 

designated wild or 

scenic area as 

VRM II.

Same as Alternative 

B.

Same as 

Alternative B.

Wildlife & 

Riparian 

Manage the area to 

prevent degradation of 

any wildlife habitat. 

Trout fishing may be 

improved by 

increasing the pool to 

riffle ratio and 

increased vegetation

along the stream edges 

to create shade. 

Same as 

Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative 

A.

Same as 

Alternative A.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-139

2.2.22 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

2.2.22.1 Goals 

Manage for the biological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to sustain vegetation, 

fish, wildlife, and special-status species with emphasis on ecosystem health and species 

biodiversity. 

Manage all BLM actions or authorized activities to sustain plant, fish, and wildlife

populations and their habitats to avoid contributing to the listing of or jeopardizing the 

continued existence or recovery of special-status species and their habitats.

2.2.22.2 Objectives

Maintain a diversity and distribution of plant species, habitats, seral stages, and types (e.g., 

age, structure, cover, classes, density), including forests and woodlands, grasslands, mountain 

shrublands, sagebrush, riparian/wetland areas, and desert shrublands. 

Maintain forest stands at optimal health (using Forest Health Indicators in Land Health 

Standards for Forested Public Land) by maintaining properly functioning communities. 

Gather and maintain internal (BLM) and external support for managing invasive and noxious

pest species using an integrated pest management approach for the detection, control, or 

eradication of new infestations. Coordinate detection and control activities across 

jurisdictional and political boundaries and include provisions for noxious and invasive species 

management for all BLM-funded or authorized actions.

Maintain or improve the continuity and productivity of wildlife habitats to support NMDGF 

wildlife population objectives. 

Maintain and improve seasonal habitats of fish, wildlife and special-status species on a 

landscape scale through interdisciplinary planning and use of the most current scientific 

literature on landscape restoration treatments.

Manage crucial, high-value, and non-fragmented habitats as management priorities for 

protection and/or restoration. Emphasis should be placed on areas specially designated for 

protection due to rare biological values (e.g., critical elk winter range).

Minimize adverse impacts and mitigate unavoidable impacts to plants, fish, wildlife, and 

special-status species and their habitats from BLM actions and authorized activities (under 

NEPA and other applicable land use and species management policy). 

Cooperate and coordinate with external entities including other federal agencies, state 

agencies, and non-governmental organizations on project that benefit and protect wildlife

and/or contribute to the scientific community.

2.2.22.3 Management Common to All Alternatives

The BLM would prioritize land disposal or exchanges of wildlife habitat on public lands with 

agencies that have wildlife management responsibilities.

The BLM would design all range and watershed improvements to achieve range, watershed, 

and wildlife objectives for maintaining, improving, or enhancing habitats.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-140

Fences would be built to BLM specifications and would accommodate wildlife movement, 

which includes constructing wire fences to accommodate migration of big game species and 

modifying any existing fences that demonstrate specific impediment to wildlife movement. 

The BLM would install wildlife escape ramps in all new and existing water tanks or troughs. 

RPFO resource specialists would work collaboratively with BLM range program specialists 

and grazing permittees to retrofit existing tanks and troughs with escape ramps. Rangeland 

improvement project development would be coordinated with the interdisciplinary team.

The BLM would require all new power lines to be built to “electrocution-proof” specifications 

for protection of migratory birds and their habitat. Mitigation measures identified by the 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (2006) would be incorporated into the planning and 

construction of all new power lines. 

The BLM would follow the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan (USFWS 1988) for guidance 

on reintroduction of the ferret into suitable established reintroduction habitat. Prairie dog 

augmentation and related subsequent black-footed ferret reintroduction activities would be 

coordinated with the USFWS. 

The BLM would coordinate with the NMDGF and other partners to help accomplish the 

population and habitat goals and objectives of big game herd management that are consistent 

with and meet the goals and objectives of the BLM’s wildlife habitat management.

The BLM would coordinate predator management with Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service-Wildlife Services and the NMDGF. 

The BLM would continue to coordinate with, and provide support to, the NMDGF for 

introduction/reintroduction of native or naturalized fish or wildlife species into historic or 

suitable habitats as determined appropriate. 

The BLM would manage raptors under the auspices of BMPs, which would include 

implementation of spatial and seasonal buffers. These BMPs implement the Guidelines for 

Raptor Protection from Human and Land-use Disturbances (USFWS 1999), with 

modifications allowed as long as protection of nests is ensured. The RPFO would support and 

implement current and future animal species conservation plans, strategies, and agreements. 

The BLM would coordinate actions with the NMDGF and other involved entities, along with 

supporting population and habitat monitoring. 

The BLM would continue involvement with the HSP, as authorized by the Sikes Act. 

The BLM would implement guidelines from Technical Reference 1730-2, to protect or restore 

the functions of biological soil crusts. 

The BLM would prevent excessive use and degradation of riparian areas from livestock 

grazing using behavioral management, wildlife-friendly fencing, and/or upland water 

developments.

The BLM would construct and maintain rainfall catchments to provide water for wildlife

where needed. The BLM would evaluate the effectiveness of old water catchments and 

remove, replace, or relocate those that are defunct or obsolete.

The BLM would identify and manage crucial big game fawning/calving habitat and develop 

objectives to meet vegetation height requirements for improved fawning/calving success. 

The BLM would not allow mineral development activities to occur during seasonal closure 

periods for big game crucial wintering and fawning habitat.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-141

General project disturbance mitigation measures for project-related disturbance (i.e., surface, 

noise) would be applied at the project level on a case-by-case basis. These mitigation 

measures are being analyzed in the wildlife alternatives (below) and would pertain to 

surface/noise disturbing activities other than oil and gas leasing.

2.2.22.4 Alternatives

Table 2.57: Wildlife and Fisheries Management Decisions by Alternative

Resource Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Big game 

winter 

range & 

wildlife

projects 

No similar action. Big game winter 

range and wildlife

project areas that are 

also designated by 

the USDA-NRCS as 

having “low” or “not 

rated” reclamation 

opportunity would be 

closed to oil and gas

leasing. 

None. None.

Big Game 

Winter 

Range

General Project 

Disturbance 

Mitigation – Big 

Game Winter 

Range, Nov. 15 to 

April 30 

– Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would be 

prohibited from 

November 15 to 

April 30 within 

winter range for 

mule deer, elk, and 

antelope. Travel on 

identified designated 

roads may include 

these timing 

restrictions or limited 

site visits. 

General Project 

Disturbance 

Mitigation – Big 

Game Winter 

Range, Nov. 15 to 

April 30 

– Surface-disturbing 

and disruptive 

activities would be 

prohibited from 

November 15 to 

April 30 within 

winter range for 

mule deer, elk, and 

antelope. Travel on 

identified designated 

roads may include 

these timing 

restrictions or limited 

site visits.

Same as Alternative 

C.

Big Game 

Fawning 

or Calving 

Range

General Project 

Disturbance 

Mitigation – Big 

Game Fawning or 

Calving Range, 

Mule Deer May 1 –

Aug 31; Elk May 1 –

Jun 30; Pronghorn 

May 1 – Jul 15 –

Surface-disturbing 

General Project 

Disturbance 

Mitigation – Big 

Game Fawning or 

Calving Range, 

Mule Deer May 1 –

Aug 31; Elk May 1 –

Jun 30; Pronghorn 

May 1 – Jul 15 –

Surface-disturbing 

Same as Alternative 

C.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-142

Resource Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

and disruptive 

activities would be 

prohibited in each 

species-dependent 

time frame within 

fawning/calving 

habitat for mule deer, 

elk, and antelope. 

Travel on identified 

designated roads 

may include these 

timing restrictions or 

limited site visits. 

and disruptive 

activities would be 

prohibited in each 

species-dependent 

time frame within 

fawning/calving 

habitat for mule deer, 

elk, and antelope. 

Travel on identified 

designated roads 

may include these 

timing restrictions or 

limited site visits. 

Livestock 

grazing 

and mule 

deer 

habitat

Design and 

implement livestock 

grazing systems to 

protect mule deer 

habitat by scheduling 

non-use or rest 

during critical 

periods in essential 

winter ranges and 

fawning areas.

The BLM would 

remove livestock 

grazing entirely from 

fawning areas to 

promote growth of 

adequate neonatal 

hiding cover and 

nutritious native

forbs for maternal 

consumption during 

gestation and 

lactation periods. 

Livestock grazing 

should be deferred 1) 

in fawning areas 

during the fawning 

period where spatial 

overlap among 

livestock and deer is 

expected, and 2) in 

crucial winter range 

winter, late summer, 

and fall to avoid 

excessive use of 

desirable shrubs.

Livestock grazing 

should be deferred 1) 

in fawning areas 

during the fawning 

period where spatial 

overlap among 

livestock and deer is 

expected, and 2) in 

crucial winter range 

winter, late summer, 

and fall to avoid 

excessive use of 

desirable shrubs.

Livestock 

Grazing & 

Winter 

Range

In cooperation with 

the Range Program, 

the BLM would 

develop livestock 

grazing systems in 

crucial big game 

winter range and 

fawning areas that 

promote adequate 

forage and cover

requirements for 

mule deer, elk, and 

pronghorn. The 

BLM would avoid 

passive, season-long 

livestock grazing and 

consider spatial and 

temporal effects of 

livestock grazing on 

wildlife habitat. 

Same as alternative 

C.

Noxious No similar action. The BLM would The BLM would Same as Alternative 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-143

Resource Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Weeds treat noxious weeds

in crucial winter 

range areas to 

prevent replacement 

of nutritious native

forbs and browse 

with non-native

species of lower 

nutritional value 

using mechanical 

methods or 

prescribed fire only. 

No chemical

applications would 

occur in crucial big 

game winter range or 

fawning/calving 

habitat.

treat noxious weeds

in crucial big game 

winter range areas to 

prevent replacement 

of nutritious native

forbs and browse 

with non-native

species of lower 

nutritional value 

using mechanical 

methods or 

prescribed fire first 

and chemical

application only 

when mechanical 

treatment or 

prescribed fire is not 

appropriate. 

C.

Prairie 

Dog 

Towns

General Project 

Disturbance 

Mitigation – Prairie 

Dog Towns, 0.5 mile

– 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.

General Project 

Disturbance 

Mitigation – Prairie 

Dog Towns, 0.25 

mile 

– 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.

General Project 

Disturbance 

Mitigation – Prairie 

Dog Towns 

– 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.

Raptor 

Nests

No similar action. General Project 

Disturbance 

Mitigation – Raptor 

Nests, March 1 to 

June 30 

– No surface 

disturbance would be 

allowed within 1.0 

mile of any occupied 

or unoccupied raptor 

nest. 

General Project 

Disturbance 

Mitigation – Raptor 

Nests, March 1 to 

June 30 

– No surface 

disturbance would be 

allowed within 0.5 

mile of any occupied 

or unoccupied raptor 

nest. 

General Project 

Disturbance 

Mitigation – Raptor 

Nests, March 1 to 

June 30 

– No surface 

disturbance would be 

allowed within 0.25 

mile of any occupied 

or unoccupied raptor 

nest. 

Wildlife 

Habitat 

Projects

General Project 

Disturbance 

Mitigation – Wildlife 

Habitat Projects –

General Project 

Disturbance 

Mitigation – Wildlife 

Habitat Projects –

Same as Alternative 

C.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-144

Resource Alternative A

(No Action) Alternative B Alternative C (Preferred) Alternative D

Surface disturbance 

would not be allowed 

within up to 200 m 

(656 feet) of existing 

or planned wildlife

habitat improvement 

projects. Large-scale 

vegetation

manipulation 

projects such as 

prescribed burns 

would be expected.

Surface disturbance 

would not be allowed 

within up to 200 m 

(656 feet) of existing 

or planned wildlife

habitat improvement 

projects. Large-scale 

vegetation

manipulation 

projects such as 

prescribed burns 

would be expected.

Note: Alternative A (No Action) management decisions are not listed because there are no comparable 

management decisions.

2.3 Summary of Impacts

Table 2.58 provides a brief comparative summary of the environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed alternatives fully described in Chapter 4. The purpose of Chapter 4 is to analyze the 

impacts of proposed resource management decisions on other relevant resources. Table 2.58 is 

presented in the same order as above. Each resource described could be impacted by other 

proposed resource management decisions. Table 2.58 is organized by the impacted resource in 

the grey horizontal header. Those resources that provide either adverse or beneficial impacts are 

listed in the left column under the impacted resource header with a brief comparison of the 

impacts analysis read from left to right. For example, the first impacted resource in the table is 

air quality. Three sets of resources management decisions, fire management, mineral resources, 

and recreation and visitor services, provide either beneficial or adverse impacts to air quality. 

The brief comparison of the impacts, by alternative, is listed in rows below the air quality header. 

For the detailed impacts analysis for each resource, please refer to Chapter 4. Section citations 

are listed for easy reference to Chapter 4.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-145

Table 2.58: Impacts Summary Table

Management Action Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative Alternative D

Air Quality (Section 4.2.1)

Fire Management

(Section 4.2.1.4.1)

Fire management decisions would have both adverse and beneficial impacts to air quality. Fuel treatments are proposed for up to 

32,000 acres per year in the Planning Area. Short-term impacts include increase in particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or 

smaller (PM2.5), carbon dioxide, and ozone during prescribed fires. Long-term impacts include reduction of wildfire threat, healthier 

vegetation, and carbon sequestration. 

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.1.4.2)

Increased emissions from oil and 

gas development would have an 

adverse impact to air quality. The 

impact is expected to be minimal 

due to the low level of reasonably 

foreseeable development in the 

Planning Area. Those areas closed 

to leasable fluid minerals would 

have beneficial impacts to air 

quality. 59,470 acres would be 

closed to leasable fluid minerals. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

98,454 acres would be closed to 

leasable fluid minerals. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

78,638 acres would be closed 

to leasable fluid minerals.

Same as Alternative A, except 

56,696 acres would be closed 

to leasable fluid minerals.

Travel Management

(Section 4.2.1.4.3)

Increased recreation activity would 

adversely impact air quality through 

increased vehicle emissions where 

motorized travel is:

open: 303,580 acres

limited to existing roads 

and trails: 420,491 acres

closed: 20,316 acres

There would be beneficial 

impacts to air quality through 

reduced vehicle emissions where 

motorized travel would be 

closed (177,240). No areas 

would be fully open to 

motorized travel. There would 

be some adverse impacts to air 

quality due to vehicle emissions 

where motorized travel would be 

limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails on 

562,596 acres. 4,551acres would 

remain open.

Same as Alternative A, 

except motorized 

travel would be open 

on 18,269 acres and 

limited to existing 

roads, primitive 

roads, and trails on 

602,043 acres. 

124,075 acres would 

be closed.

Same as Alternative C, except 

motorized travel would be 

open on 19,456 acres and 

limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails on 

624,808 acres. 100,123 acres 

would be closed.

Cave and Karst Resources (Section 4.2.2)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-146

Management Action Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative Alternative D

Cultural Resources

(Section 4.2.2.1.4)

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. 

Lands and Realty

(Section 4.2.2.1.1)

Karst areas and other unidentified 

caves may be located on parcels 

identified for disposal, which would 

result in an adverse impact to cave 

and karst resources. 

55,384 acres have been identified 

for disposal.

Same as Alternative A, expect 

57,472 acres have been 

identified for disposal.

Same as Alternative A, expect 

58,910 acres have been 

identified for disposal.

Same as Alternative A, expect 

62,051 acres have been 

identified for disposal.

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.2.1.2)

Mineral resources management 

decisions would adversely impact 

cave and karst resources where 

proposed mineral extraction 

activities would take place in or 

near cave or karst features. 566,462

acres of cave and karst features are 

open with standard leasing terms 

and conditions. The RPFO would 

be able to move the location of oil 

and gas wells up to 200 m (656 

feet) for mitigation purposes.

Same as Alternative A, except 

that all known cave entrances, 

passages or aspects of 

significant caves, or significant 

karst features would be managed 

as NSO within 200 m (656 feet) 

of known features.

Same as Alternative A, except 

that all known cave entrances, 

passages or aspects of 

significant caves, or 

significant karst features 

would be managed as CSU 

within 200 m (656 feet) of 

known features.

Same as Alternative A.

Recreation and Visitor 

Services

(Section 4.2.2.1.3)

Recreation and visitor services 

management decisions would have 

both adverse and beneficial impacts 

to cave and karst resources. 

Increased visitation could result in 

degradation of unique features. 

Areas closed to OHV travel could 

have beneficial impacts to cave and 

karst resources. SRMAs are not 

proposed under this alternative.

Same as Alternative A except 

41,072 acres of cave/karst 

features would be located within 

proposed SMRAs and ERMAs.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-147

Management Action Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative Alternative D

Special Designations

(Section 4.2.2.1.5)

Special designations would have a 

beneficial impact to cave and karst 

resources when they impose 

restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities within the boundaries of the 

particular designation. 137,720 acres 

of ACEC designations are proposed.

Same as Alternative A, except 

185,625 acres are proposed for 

ACEC designation.

Same as Alternative B, except 

178,000 acres are proposed 

for ACEC designation.

Same as Alternative A, except 

126,392 acres are proposed 

for ACEC designation and 

34,804 acres for WSA.

Soil and Water

(Section 4.2.2.1.6)

Soil and water decisions 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.

Paleontological Resources

(Section 4.2.2.1.7)

Paleontological resources decisions would provide an indirect benefit to caves and karst features because less surface disturbance is 

generally allowed to take place near paleontological resource sites.

Special-status Species

(Section 4.2.2.1.8)

Special-status species decisions 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. 

Cultural Resources (Section 4.2.3)

Cultural Resources

(Section 4.2.3.2.6)

Cultural resource management 

decisions would have beneficial 

impacts to cultural resources

because Azabache Station, Big 

Bend Mesa, and the Headcut 

Prehistoric Community would be 

managed to protect the cultural 

resources from surface-disturbing 

activities.

Same as Alternative A, except 

Fort Site and Ojo Pueblo would 

also be managed to restrict 

surface-disturbing activities 

from occurring within the 60-

acre parcel where the sites 

occur.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A, except 

Azabache Station would be 

managed to protect the 

cultural resources from 

surface-disturbing activities.

Fire Management

(Section 4.2.3.2.2)

Proposed fuels treatments would both adversely and beneficially impact cultural resources. Adverse impacts include potential burning 

of artifacts. Beneficial impacts include improved herbaceous cover and the reduction of catastrophic wildfire risk to sites. Fuels 

treatments would take place on 12,967acres with high site probability and 238,822 acres with medium site probability.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-148

Management Action Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative Alternative D

Forests and Woodlands

(Section 4.2.3.2.8)

Forest and woodland management 

decisions would have beneficial 

impacts to cultural resources

because no lands with high site 

probability would be proposed for 

forest product harvest areas.

Forest and woodland 

management decisions could 

have adverse and beneficial 

impacts to cultural resources. 

3,381 acres with high site 

probability would be proposed 

for forest product harvest areas.

Same as Alternative B, except 

9,791 acres with high site 

probability would be proposed 

for forest product harvest 

areas.

Same as Alternative B, except 

12,011 acres with high site 

would be proposed for forest 

product harvest areas.

Lands and Realty

(Section 4.2.3.2.3)

Proposed land disposals would have 

adverse impacts to cultural 

resources when cultural resource 

sites are located on the proposed 

disposal parcels. 1,071 acres with 

high site probability for cultural 

resources would be proposed for 

disposal.

Same as Alternative A, except 

no lands (0 acres) with high site

probability for cultural resources

would be proposed for disposal.

Same as Alternative A, except 

1,266 acres with high site 

probability for cultural 

resources would be proposed 

for disposal.

Same as Alternative A, except 

4,407 acres with high site 

probability for cultural 

resources would be proposed 

for disposal.

Livestock Grazing

(Section 4.2.3.2.7)

Livestock grazing management 

decisions would adversely impact 

cultural resources when livestock 

trample cultural resource sites. 

Grazing allotments make up 

approximately 95% of BLM lands 

in the Planning Area, of which there 

are 15,056 acres of high site 

probability for cultural resources. 

Same as Alternative A, and 

livestock grazing management 

decisions would beneficially 

impact cultural resources

because grazing would be 

prohibited within all special 

designations (149,990 acres) and 

riparian areas (1,582 acres). 

Same as Alternative B, except 

livestock grazing would only 

occur where grazing does not 

conflict with resources 

protected by the special 

designation and riparian areas.

Same as Alternative C. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-149

Management Action Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative Alternative D

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.3.2.1)

Cultural resources could be adversely impacted by mineral resources management decisions. However, because of the low predicted 

mineral development over the next 20 years (1.1% of BLM lands in the Planning Area), NHPA Section 106, and the leasing 

stipulations that would be applied to specific mineral development activities, impacts are predicted to be negligible.

Recreation and Visitor 

Services

(Section 4.2.3.2.5)

Management decisions for 

recreation and visitor services could 

have adverse impacts to cultural 

resources from increased visitation. 

Recreation would continue to occur 

in the Planning Area as currently 

managed. 15,056 acres within BLM 

lands have a high site probability. 

No SRMAs are proposed under 

Alternative A. 

Management decisions for 

recreation and visitor services

would have both beneficial and 

adverse impacts to cultural 

resources. 232,246 acres would 

be managed as SRMAs, which 

would provide protection from 

mineral resource development 

activities. The SRMAS would 

be managed as CSU for leasable

fluid minerals, open to salable 

mineral extraction, and 

recommend for withdrawal from

locatable mineral entry.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B, except 

that SMRAs would be open to 

locatable mineral entry.

Special Designations

(Section 4.2.3.2.3)

Special designations would provide 

long-term benefits due to reduced 

surface disturbance within 137,720

acres managed as special 

designations. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

185,625 acres would be 

managed as special designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

178,000 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

126,392 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-150

Management Action Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative Alternative D

Travel Management

(Section 4.2.3.2.9)

Travel management decisions that 

decrease motorized access would 

have beneficial impacts to cultural 

resources, while those decisions to 

open areas to motorized travel 

would have adverse impacts to

cultural resources. 10,711 acres of 

high cultural resource site densities 

would be managed as limited to 

existing roads, primitive roads, and 

trails. 52 acres of high cultural 

resource site densities would be 

closed to motorized travel. 4,291

acres of high cultural resource site 

densities would be open to 

motorized travel.

Same as Alternative A, except 

8,456 acres of high cultural 

resource site densities would be 

managed as limited to existing 

roads, primitive roads, and trails. 

3,095 acres of high cultural 

resource site densities would be 

closed to motorized travel. 3,504

0 acres would be open. 

11,959 acres would be 

limited. 3,095 acres would be 

closed.

Same as Alternative A, except 

11,959 acres of high cultural 

resource site densities would 

be managed as limited to 

existing roads, primitive 

roads, and trails. 3,095 acres 

of high cultural resource site 

densities would be closed to 

motorized travel. 0 acres 

would be open.

Fire Management (Section 4.2.4)

Cultural Resources

(Section 4.2.4.1.1)

Cultural resources decisions may have adverse impacts to fire management because of restrictions on potential treatment areas. 

Restrictions would be applied on a case-by-case basis and site-specific NEPA analyses would be applied for prescribed burn

activities.

Forests and Woodlands

(Section 4.2.4.1.2)

Forest and woodland management 

decisions would have short-term 

adverse impacts because of the 

increased fuel load for thinned trees 

on the ground. Long-term beneficial 

impacts because the fuelwood

harvest would reduce fuel load once 

firewood is removed. Accordingly, 

there would be 12,186 total acres of 

designated forest product harvest 

areas within the RPFO Fire 

Management Units.

Same as Alternative A, except 

there would be 119,435 total 

acres of designated forest 

product harvest areas within the 

RPFO Fire Management Units.

Same as Alternative A, except 

there would be 560,321 total 

acres of designated forest 

product harvest areas within 

the RPFO Fire Management 

Units.

Same as Alternative A, except 

there would be 644,132 total 

acres of designated forest 

product harvest areas within 

RPFO Fire Management 

Units.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-151

Management Action Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative Alternative D

Fire Management

(Section 4.2.4.1.3)

Fire management decisions would have beneficial impacts on fire management because they would improve FRCC levels within the 

Planning Area. Approximately 32,000 acres of land rated FRCC 2 or 3 would be treated annually on BLM lands within the Planning 

Area depending on budgetary and time constraints. 

Lands and Realty

(Section 4.2.4.1.4)

Lands and realty decisions could 

have adverse impacts to fire 

management because the disposal

of land could lead to an increased 

development of infrastructure 

adjacent to public lands. There 

would be 50,646 total acres of 

proposed disposal in FRCC 2 and 3.

Same as Alternative A, except 

there would be 52,466 total 

acres of proposed disposal in 

FRCC 2 and 3.

Same as Alternative A, except 

there would be 53,459 total 

acres of proposed disposal in 

FRCC 2 and 3.

Same as Alternative A, except 

there would be 55,660 total 

acres of proposed disposal in 

FRCC 2 and 3.

Livestock Grazing

(Section 4.2.4.1.5)

Livestock grazing would have both 

adverse and beneficial impacts to 

fire management. Adverse impacts 

from grazing would result in 

alterations to FRCC within the 

Planning Area. Beneficial impacts 

could occur from reducing the 

understory vegetation fuel load and 

an increased availability of water 

for fire suppression. There would be 

613,768 acres of proposed livestock 

grazing within RPFO Fire 

Management Units.

Same as Alternative A, except 

there would be 231,921 acres of 

proposed livestock grazing

within RPFO Fire Management 

Units.

Same as Alternative A, except 

there would be 392,048 acres 

of proposed livestock grazing

within RPFO Fire 

Management Units.

Same as Alternative C. 

Travel Management

(Section 4.2.4.1.6)

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. 20,316 acres would 

be closed to travel.

Same as Alternative A, except 

177,240 acres would be closed 

to travel.

Same as Alternative A, except 

124,075 acres would be closed 

to travel.

Same as Alternative A, except 

100,123 acres would be closed 

to travel.

Vegetative Communities

(Section 4.2.4.1.7)

Vegetation treatment would have beneficial impacts on fire management because it would result in the long-term reduction of fire 

threats. Because vegetation treatments within the Planning Area are not identified in the RMP/EIS, site-specific NEPA analysis would 

need to occur prior to the implementation of said treatments.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-152

Management Action Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative Alternative D

Wildlife and Fisheries

(Section 4.2.4.1.8)

No adverse impacts to fire 

management are expected. 

Proposed surface restrictions to 

protect wildlife could require the 

modification of fire management 

activities during specific time 

periods and thus result in 

adverse impacts to fire 

management decisions. 242,563 

acres of surface protection 

would be proposed to protect 

wildlife within the Planning 

Area.

Same as Alternative B, except 

195,144 acres of surface 

protection would be proposed 

to protect wildlife within the 

Planning Area.

Same as Alternative B, except 

12,219 acres of surface 

protection would be proposed 

to protect wildlife within the 

Planning Area. 

Forests and Woodlands (Section 4.2.5)

Fire Management

(Section 4.2.5.2.1)

Approximately 32,000 acres of land rated FRCC 2 or 3 would be treated annually on BLM lands within the Planning Area. Fire 

management decisions would provide long-term beneficial impact to forests and woodlands because fuels treatments would lead to 

improved forest conditions. Short-term adverse impacts would include the removal of vegetative cover resulting from fuels 

treatments.

Forests and Woodlands

(Section 4.2.5.2.2)

Forest and woodland management decisions would have a beneficial impact to forest health because the RPFO would use the New 

Mexico Forest Restoration Principles and the New Mexico Forest and Watershed Health Plan. 

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.5.2.3)

Mineral resources management 

decisions could adversely impact 

forests and woodlands if proposed 

mineral extraction activities take 

place in forest product harvest 

areas. Beneficial impacts would 

occur where forests and woodlands 

are NSO, CSU, or closed to fluid 

mineral leasing (84,798 acres), 

closed to salable mineral extraction 

(105,654 acres), and recommended 

for withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry (16,584 acres). 

Same as Alternative A, except 

281,632 acres would be 

managed as NSO, CSU, or 

closed to fluid mineral leasing; 

183,720 acres would be closed 

to salable mineral extraction; 

and 292,457 acres would be 

recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry.

Same as Alternative A, except 

276,104 acres would be 

managed as NSO, CSU, or 

closed to fluid mineral 

leasing; 134,856 acres would 

be closed to salable mineral 

extraction; and 277,748 acres 

would be recommended for 

withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry.

Same as Alternative A, except 

267,561 acres would be 

managed as NSO, CSU, or 

closed to fluid mineral 

leasing; 107,446 acres would 

be closed to salable mineral 

extraction; and 

27,621 acres would be 

recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-153

Management Action Alternative A

No Action Alternative B Alternative CPreferred Alternative Alternative D

Travel Management

(Section 4.2.5.2.4)

Travel management decisions 

would have both beneficial and 

adverse impacts to forests and 

woodlands. No forest product 

harvest acres would be open or 

closed to motorized travel; 12,186

acres would be limited to existing 

roads, primitive roads, and trails.

Same as Alternative A, except 

270 acres would be closed to 

motorized travel, 119,141 acres 

would be limited to existing 

roads, primitive roads, and trails 

within the forest product harvest 

areas, and 24 acres would be 

open.

Same as Alternative A, except 

81 forest product harvest acres 

would be closed to motorized 

travel, 18,269 acres would be 

open, and 541,971 acres 

would be limited.

Same as Alternative A, except 

52 forest product harvest acres 

would be closed to motorized 

travel, 19,456 acres would be 

open, and 624,624 acres 

would be limited.

Health and Safety (Section 4.2.6)

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.6.1.1)

Hazardous materials risk from the 

use, generation, storage, 

transportation, and/or disposal of 

hazardous materials would be 

negligible given the small number 

of wells projected. Nevertheless, 

any mineral exploration and 

development could increase the 

potential for adverse hazardous 

materials risks in the Planning Area. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

that the RPFO would manage 50 

acres as the Legacy Uranium 

Mines ACEC for protection of 

health and safety by leasing 

fluid minerals with a NSO 

stipulation and closing the 

ACEC to salable mineral 

extraction. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Special Designations

(Section 4.2.6.1.2)

Special designations would provide 

long-term benefits because of 

surface disturbance restrictions 

within 137,720 acres managed as 

special designations. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

185,625 acres would be 

managed as special designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

178,000 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

126,392 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-154

Lands and Realty (Section 4.2.7)

Land Tenure Adjustments

(Section 4.2.7.2.1)

The types of direct impacts to the 

lands and realty program occur 

when other resources are present, 

preventing or making it 

considerably more difficult to 

complete a transaction. 55,384 acres 

are proposed for disposal. 

Approximately 689,003 are 

proposed for retention. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

57,472 acres are proposed for 

disposal. Approximately 

686,915 are proposed for 

retention.

Same as Alternative A, except 

58,910 acres are proposed for 

disposal. Approximately 

685,477 are proposed for 

retention.

Same as Alternative A, except 

62,051 acres are proposed for 

disposal. Approximately 

682,336 are proposed for 

retention.

Rights-of-way Right-of-way development would 

be allowed on 676,755 acres, 

avoided on 15,501 acres, and 

excluded on 64,798 acres. 

Pipeline, road, and transmission 

line right-of-way development 

would be allowed on 6,346

acres, avoided on 400,345 acres, 

and excluded from 337,696

acres.

Site right-of-way development 

would be allowed on 6,346

acres, avoided on 77,685 acres, 

and excluded from 660,356

acres.

Pipeline, road, and 

transmission line right-of-way 

development would be 

allowed on 24,088 acres, 

avoided on 596,025 acres, and 

excluded from 124,274 acres.

Site right-of-way development 

would be allowed on 24,088

acres, avoided on 468,969

acres, and excluded from 

251,330 acres.

Pipeline, road, and 

transmission line right-of-way 

development would be 

allowed on 32,105 acres, 

avoided on 611,844 acres, and 

excluded from 100,438 acres.

Site right-of-way development 

would be allowed on 32,105

acres, avoided on 486,788

acres, and excluded from 

225,494 acres.

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (Section 4.2.10)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-155

Fire Management

(Section 4.2.10.1.1)

There are no management decisions 

specific to lands with wilderness 

characteristics under this 

alternative.

Fire management would cause 

short-term adverse impacts 

caused by noise and presence of 

people, equipment, and 

operations, and evidence of 

stumps, while resulting in longterm beneficial impacts from the 

restored natural landscape that 

would enhance wilderness 

characteristics. 22,490 fuel 

treatment acres occur within 

lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Same as Alternative B, except 

that 20,084 fuel treatment 

acres occur within lands with 

wilderness characteristics.

Same as Alternative B, except 

that 2,238 fuel treatment acres 

occur within lands with 

wilderness characteristics.

Forests and Woodlands 

(Section 4.2.10.1.6)

There are no management decisions 

specific to lands with wilderness 

characteristics under this 

alternative.

Lands with wilderness 

characteristics (37,514 acres) 

would be closed to forest 

product removal. This closes an 

additional 1,083 acres of lands 

with wilderness characteristics

to forest product removal that do 

not fall within SRMAs, which 

are also closed to forest product 

removal under Alternative B.

7,329 acres of lands with 

wilderness characteristics

managed to partially protect 

wilderness characteristics 

would be open to forest 

product removal under 

Alternative C. Vehicle travel 

associated with forest product 

removal would be limited to 

existing routes. 26,110 acres 

of lands with wilderness 

characteristics managed to 

protect wilderness 

characteristics would be 

closed to forest product 

removal, but there are no fuel 

wood harvest removal areas 

within this area. 4 ,075 acres 

would be open to limited 

forest product removal.

2,239 acres would be closed 

to forest product removal. 

35,275 acres would be open to 

forest product removal. 0 

acres would be open to limited 

forest product removal.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-156

Livestock Grazing

(Section 4.2.10.1.2)

There are no management decisions 

specific to lands with wilderness 

characteristics under this 

alternative.

No acres are proposed for 

livestock grazing. The 

naturalness and outstanding 

opportunities for a primitive and 

unconfined form of recreation 

within the areas would be 

improved as no livestock 

facilities would be needed, and 

no evidence of grazing impacts 

would be present.

Livestock facilities and 

grazing impacts would be 

evident on 37,514 acres of 

lands with wilderness 

characteristics under this 

alternative. 

Livestock facilities and 

grazing impacts would be 

evident on 37,514 acres of 

lands with wilderness 

characteristics under this 

alternative. 

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.10.1.3)

There are no management decisions 

specific to lands with wilderness 

characteristics under this 

alternative.

Mineral resources decisions 

would provide long-term 

benefits due to the closure of 

37,514 acres of lands with 

wilderness characteristics to 

mineral extraction.

30,185 acres would be closed 

to fluid mineral leasing. The 

BLM would evaluate 

extraction of saleable minerals 

on a case-by-case basis on 

4,075 acres of lands with 

wilderness characteristics, 

whereas 26,110 acres of lands 

with wilderness characteristics 

would be closed to saleable 

and locatable mineral 

extraction. Where permitted, 

the localized area affected by 

those operations could 

adversely impact wilderness 

characteristics.

2,239 acres would be closed 

to fluid mineral leasing and 

salable mineral extraction and 

recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-157

Travel Management

(Section 4.2.10.1.4)

There are no management decisions 

specific to lands with wilderness 

characteristics under this 

alternative.

Lands with wilderness 

characteristics (37,514 acres) 

would be closed to motorized 

travel. 

26,110 acres of lands with 

wilderness characteristics

would be closed to vehicle 

travel, which would be 

beneficial to the naturalness 

and outstanding opportunities 

for primitive and unconfined 

recreation. On 4,075 acres of 

lands with wilderness 

characteristics, vehicles would 

be limited to existing 

primitive routes. This may 

adversely compromise the 

viewshed and/or soundscape 

within lands with wilderness 

characteristics, but no more so 

than Alternative A. 7,329 

acres of lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be open 

to vehicle use, which would 

adversely impact wilderness 

characteristics.

Same as Alternative C except 

that 2,239 acres of lands with 

wilderness characteristics

would be closed to motorized 

vehicle travel, 0 acres would 

be limited to existing 

primitive routes, and 35,275

acres would be open to 

motorized vehicles. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-158

Visual Resources

(Section 4.2.10.1.5)

There are no management decisions 

specific to lands with wilderness 

characteristics under this 

alternative.

The BLM would manage all 

lands with wilderness 

characteristics (37,514 acres) as 

VRM Class II. The level of 

change to the landscape would 

be low. Potential future projects 

would be constructed in such a 

way as to not attract the 

attention of the casual observer, 

The BLM would manage 

26,110 acres of lands with 

wilderness characteristics as 

VRM Class II. In Class II 

management areas, the level 

of change to the landscape 

would be low. Potential 

future projects would be 

constructed in such a way as 

to not attract the attention of 

the casual observer. 4,075

acres of lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be 

managed as VRM Class III. 

The level of change to the 

landscape would be moderate. 

Potential future projects may 

attract attention, but not 

dominate the view of the 

casual observer. This may 

result in a loss of wilderness 

characteristics in the localized 

area of a project, but not in the 

unit as a whole.

The BLM would manage 

2239 acres of lands with 

wilderness characteristics as 

VRM Class II.

Livestock Grazing (Section 4.2.8)

Cultural Resources

(Section 4.2.8.2.8)

Adverse impacts are expected where grazing is restricted to protect cultural sites. 95% of BLM lands within the Planning Area are 

grazing allotments. 13,985 acres of BLM lands within the Planning Area are predicted to have a high probability of cultural resources,

25,921 acres have a medium site probability, and 237,368 acres have a low site probability.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-159

Lands and Realty

(Section 4.2.8.2.1)

Lands and realty decisions could 

have both adverse and beneficial 

impacts to livestock grazing. 

Adverse impacts would result from 

a loss of forage from lands disposed 

and devoted to other public 

purposes, and the loss of AUMs 

from rights-of-way. Beneficial 

impacts would be result from the 

addition of forage through land 

acquisition. There would be 44,625

acres of grazing allotments and 

5,674 AUMs lost by proposed land 

disposals.

Same as Alternative A, except 

45,774 acres of grazing 

allotments and 5,674 AUMs 

would be lost by proposed land 

disposals.

Same as Alternative A, except 

46,618 acres of grazing 

allotments and 5,779 AUMs 

would be lost by proposed 

land disposals.

Same as Alternative A, except 

49,733 acres of grazing 

allotments and 6,169 AUMs 

would be lost by proposed 

land disposals.

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.8.2.4)

Mineral extraction activities would adversely impact livestock grazing because acres and AUMs would be lost in areas where mineral 

extraction would occur. These activities would be located in areas to avoid impacts to livestock grazing. Site-specific NEPA analysis 

would be completed for applications for disturbance, thereby reducing opportunities for direct adverse impacts related to this 

disturbance.

Recreation and Visitor 

Services

(Section 4.2.8.2.7)

Management decisions associated with recreation and visitor services would have adverse impacts to livestock grazing. If increased 

recreational activities occur in the long-term, vegetation may be trampled or eliminated in some areas. Livestock grazing would incur 

minor impacts from vegetation loss associated with recreation.

Renewable Energy

(Section 4.2.8.2.2)

Renewable energy developments could adversely impact livestock grazing because they would remove AUMs from 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. 

Special Designations

(Section 4.2.8.2.5)

Both adverse and beneficial impacts 

to livestock grazing would result 

from special designations. 2,750 

acres (344 AUMs) would be closed 

to grazing. 697,405 acres (87,175 

AUMs) would be subject to 

prescribed grazing. 78,165 acres 

would be subject to NSO. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

137,627 acres (17,203 AUMs) 

would be closed to grazing. No 

land (0 acres) would be subject 

to prescribed grazing. 1,064,095 

acres would be subject to NSO.

Same as Alternative A, except 

no land (0 acres) would be 

closed to grazing. Up to 

859,659 acres (0–116,836 

AUMs) would be subject to 

prescribed grazing. 538,299 

acres would be subject to 

NSO.

Same as Alternative C, except 

125,163 acres would be 

subject to NSO for leasable

fluid minerals.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-160

Special-status Species

(Section 4.2.8.2.9)

Special-status species management 

decisions would adversely impact 

livestock grazing when grazing is 

restricted within wildlife exclosures, 

breeding habitat, and occupied 

habitat.

Same as Alternative A, except 

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. 

The BLM would also consider 

the concentration of browsing 

and grazing animals on known 

locations of special-status plants 

and make adjustments as 

needed.

Same as Alternative A, except 

the BLM would require the 

placement of water 

developments, salt 

supplements, and mineral 

supplements for livestock to 

be located at least 152 m (500 

feet) away from known 

locations of special-status 

plants.

Same as Alternative A, except 

the BLM would require the 

placement of water 

developments, salt 

supplements, and mineral 

supplements for livestock to 

be located at least 91 m (300 

feet) away from known 

locations of special-status 

plants.

Travel Management

(Section 4.2.8.2.6)

Both adverse and beneficial impacts 

to livestock grazing would result 

from travel management decisions.

Beneficial impacts are expected 

with an increase in the closure or 

limited use of roads. Under 

Alternative A, 20,316 acres would 

be closed, 303,580 acres would be 

open, and 420,491 acres would be 

limited to existing roads and trails.

Same as Alternative A, except 

177,240 acres would be closed 

to motorized vehicle travel, 

4,551 acres would be open, and 

562,596 acres would be limited 

to existing roads and trails.

Same as Alternative A, except 

124,075 acres would be closed 

to motorized vehicle travel, 

18,269 acres would be open, 

and 602,043 acres would be 

limited to existing roads and 

trails.

Same as Alternative A, except 

100,123 acres would be closed 

to motorized vehicle travel, 

19,456 acres would be open, 

and 624,808 acres would be 

limited to existing roads and 

trails.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-161

Vegetation Management

(Section 4.2.8.2.3)

Vegetation management decisions 

would have both adverse and 

beneficial impacts to livestock 

grazing. Adverse impacts would last 

from immediately after vegetation

treatments until revegetation is 

complete. Long-term beneficial 

impacts would occur from increased 

rangeland health. Fuels treatments 

would take place within 629,737 

acres of grazing allotments. 

Proposed forest product harvest 

areas would occur on 12,162 acres 

of grazing allotments. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

proposed forest product harvest 

areas would occur on 76,339

acres of grazing allotments.

Same as Alternative A, except 

proposed forest product 

harvest areas would occur on 

434,873 acres of grazing 

allotments.

Same as Alternative A, except 

proposed forest product 

harvest areas would occur on 

513,780 acres of grazing 

allotments.

Mineral Resources (Section 4.2.9)

Cave and Karst Resources

(Section 4.2.9.2.1)

Cave and karst resource 

management decisions would have 

adverse impacts on mineral 

resources where extraction 

opportunities are limited in order to 

protect cave and karst features. The 

Pronoun Cave ACEC (1,181 acres) 

would be open to locatable and 

leasable mineral extraction. The 

ACEC would be avoided for salable 

mineral extraction.

Same as Alternative A, except 

oil and gas stipulations would 

prohibit disturbance within up to 

200 m (656 feet) of cave or karst 

features. The Pronoun Cave 

ACEC (1,342 acres) would be 

managed as CSU for leasable

fluid minerals, closed to 

extraction of salable minerals, 

and recommended for 

withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry.

Same as Alternative A, except 

oil and gas stipulations would 

impose CSU restrictions for 

surface disturbance within up 

to 200 m (656 feet) of cave or 

karst features. The Pronoun 

Cave ACEC (1,181 acres) 

would be managed as CSU for 

leasable fluid minerals and 

extraction of salable minerals 

would be avoided.

Same as Alternative A, except 

oil and gas stipulations would 

be applied for cave/karst 

areas. The Pronoun Cave 

would not be managed as an 

ACEC, but CSU would be 

applied for leasable fluid 

minerals and the area would 

be open to salable and 

locatable mineral extraction. 

Cultural Resources

(Section 4.2.9.2.3)

Oil and gas leasing activities would be adversely impacted by cultural resource leasing stipulations. Increased mineral development 

costs may be incurred due to cultural resource inventories, relocation of facilities to avoid cultural site(s), implementation of 

alternative drilling techniques, and/or site excavation if avoidance of sites is not possible. Discovery of previously undocumented sites 

during construction could delay project implementation.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-162

Lands and Realty

(Section 4.2.9.2.2)

Lands and realty management 

decisions could have adverse 

impacts to mineral resources

through land disposal. Proposed 

land disposals would include 0 

acres of moderate to high potential 

areas for leasable fluid minerals, 

11,253 acres of moderate to high 

potential areas for salable minerals, 

and 4,831 acres of moderate to high 

potential areas for locatable 

minerals.

Same as Alternative A except 

proposed land disposals would 

include 0 acres of moderate to 

high potential areas for leasable

fluid minerals, 12,511 acres of 

moderate to high potential areas 

for salable minerals, and 5,755

acres of moderate to high 

potential areas for locatable 

minerals.

Same as Alternative A, except 

proposed land disposals would 

include 0 acres of moderate to 

high potential areas for 

leasable fluid minerals, 12,753

acres of moderate to high 

potential areas for salable 

minerals, and 6,282 acres of 

moderate to high potential 

areas for locatable minerals.

Same as Alternative A, except 

proposed land disposals would 

include 0 acres of moderate to 

high potential areas for 

leasable fluid minerals, 15,895

acres of moderate to high 

potential areas for salable 

minerals, and 6,350 acres of 

moderate to high potential 

areas for locatable minerals.

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics

(Section 4.2.9.2.4)

There are no management decisions 

for lands with wilderness 

characteristics under Alternative A. 

Lands with wilderness 

characteristics managed to 

protect wilderness 

characteristics (37,514 acres) 

would be closed to extraction of 

leasable, salable, and locatable 

minerals. There are no moderate 

or high potential areas for 

leasable, salable, or locatable 

minerals located within lands 

proposed for management of 

wilderness characteristics; 

therefore, there would be 

minimal to no impact to 

minerals from these 

management decisions. 

Lands with wilderness 

characteristics managed to 

protect wilderness 

characteristics (26,110 acres) 

would be closed to the 

extraction of leasable, salable, 

and locatable minerals. Lands 

with wilderness characteristics 

managed to minimize impacts 

to wilderness characteristics 

(4,075 acres) would be closed 

to extraction of leasable fluid 

minerals and extraction of 

saleable and locatable 

minerals would be evaluated 

on a case-by-case basis. There 

would be an adverse impact 

on mineral resources where 

minerals cannot be extracted.

Lands with wilderness 

characteristics managed to 

protect wilderness 

characteristics (2,239 acres) 

would be closed to the 

extraction of leasable, salable, 

and locatable minerals. There 

would be an adverse impact 

on mineral resources in these 

areas because minerals could 

not be extracted.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-163

Paleontological Resources

(Section 4.2.9.2.5)

Mineral resources would be 

adversely impacted by 

paleontological resources 

management decisions that restrict 

mineral development. The Torreon 

Fossil Fauna ACEC (6,488 acres) 

would be open to locatable and 

leasable mineral extraction. The 

ACEC would be avoided for salable 

mineral extraction.

The Bony Canyon ACEC is not 

proposed under Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A except, 

the leasing stipulation for

paleontological resources would 

implement CSU for leasable

fluid minerals in areas of PFYC 

4 and 5. The Torreon Fossil 

Fauna ACEC (6,488 acres) 

would be closed to the 

extraction of leasable, salable, 

and locatable minerals. 

Bony Canyon ACEC (1,150

acres) would be NSO for 

leasable fluid minerals, closed to 

the extraction of salable 

minerals, and recommended for 

withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry.

Same as Alternative A except 

the leasing stipulation for 

paleontological resources 

would implement CSU for 

leasable fluid minerals in areas 

of PFYC 4 and 5. 

Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC 

(6,488 acres) would be NSO 

for leasable fluid minerals, 

closed to the extraction of 

salable minerals, and 

recommended for withdrawal

from locatable mineral entry.

Bony Canyon ACEC (1,150

acres) would be NSO for 

leasable fluid minerals, closed 

to the extraction of salable 

minerals, and recommended 

for withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry.

Same as Alternative A, except 

the leasing stipulation for 

paleontological resources 

would implement CSU for 

leasable fluid minerals in 

areas of PFYC 4 and 5. 

Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC 

(6,488 acres) would be CSU 

for leasable fluid minerals; 

extraction of salable minerals 

would be avoided and open to 

locatable mineral entry.

Bony Canyon ACEC (1,150

acres) would be NSO for 

leasable fluid minerals, closed 

to the extraction of salable 

minerals, and recommended 

for withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry..
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-164

Recreation and Visitor 

Services

(Section 4.2.9.2.6)

Adverse impacts to mineral 

resources would occur if sitespecific NEPA analysis requires 

proposed mineral projects to be 

modified or prohibited to avoid 

impacts to recreation areas. 

No recreation-specific leasing 

stipulations are proposed for 

recreation and visitor services under 

this alternative. 

Mineral resources would be 

adversely impacted by 

recreation and visitor services

management decisions that 

restrict mineral development 

within developed recreation 

areas and RMAs. A proposed 

leasing stipulation would 

prohibit surface-disturbing 

activities within the line of 

site/sound or 0.25 mile 

(whichever is closer) of 

developed recreation areas and 

undeveloped recreation areas 

received concentrated public 

use. ERMAs would also be 

managed as CSU for leasable

fluid minerals, open to salable 

mineral extraction, and 

recommend for withdrawal from 

locatable mineral extraction.

Same as Alternative B, except 

a proposed leasing stipulation 

would prohibit surfacedisturbing activities within the 

line of site/sound or 200 m 

(656 feet) (whichever is 

closer) of developed 

recreation areas and 

undeveloped recreation areas 

received concentrated public 

use.

ERMAs would be managed as 

CSU for leasable fluid 

minerals, open to salable 

mineral extraction, and open 

to locatable mineral 

extraction.

Riparian Resources

(Section 4.2.9.2.7)

Mineral resources management 

decisions could be adversely 

impacted by proposed leasing 

stipulations for riparian areas on 

BLM lands within the Planning 

Area. The Bluewater Canyon 

ACEC (97 acres) would be 

managed as NSO for leasable fluid 

minerals, open to locatable mineral 

entry, and extraction of salable 

minerals would be avoided. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

18,186 acres of moderate to high 

mineral potential areas within 

riparian areas (18% of BLM 

lands in the Planning Area) 

would be protected by the 

riparian-specific leasing 

stipulation. 

The Bluewater Canyon ACEC 

(941 acres) would be NSO for 

leasable fluid minerals, closed to 

the extraction of salable 

minerals, and recommended for 

withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry. 

Same as Alternative B. No leasing stipulations 

specific to riparian areas 

would be proposed under this 

alternative. The Bluewater 

Canyon ACEC would be 

managed as described in 

Alternative B.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-165

Soil and Water

(Section 4.2.9.2.8)

There would be no specific 

management decisions targeting the 

protection of sensitive soils under 

this alternative. 

Mineral resources management 

decisions could be adversely 

impacted by proposed 

stipulations for low reclamation 

potential soils and steep slopes 

on BLM lands within the 

Planning Area. 51,803 acres of 

low reclamation potential soils 

would be managed as CSU for 

leasable fluid minerals within 

moderate to high potential 

mineral areas. 5,267 acres of 

steep slopes (15% or greater) 

would be managed as NSO for 

leasable fluid minerals within 

moderate to high potential 

mineral areas. 

Same as Alternative B, except 

steep slopes would be 

managed as follows: 

4,181 acres of slopes between 

15% and 30% would be 

managed as CSU for leasable

fluid minerals within 

moderate to high potential 

mineral areas and 1,026 acres 

of steep slopes greater than 

30% would be managed as 

NSO for leasable fluid 

minerals within moderate to 

high potential mineral areas. 

Same as Alternative A. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-166

Special Designations

(Section 4.2.9.2.9)

Special designations would have 

potential adverse impacts to mineral 

resources where a designation 

includes closures for salable and 

locatable extraction or NSO leasing 

stipulations. 19,632 acres of 

moderate to high mineral potential 

areas would be managed as CSU, 

NSO, or closed to leasable fluid 

mineral extraction. 

13,583 acres of moderate to high 

mineral potential areas would be 

managed as avoidance or closed 

areas for salable minerals. 

11,789 acres of moderate to high 

mineral potential areas would be 

managed as recommended for 

withdrawal from locatable mineral 

entry. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

23,066 acres of moderate to high 

mineral potential areas would be 

managed as CSU, NSO, or 

closed to leasable mineral fluid 

extraction.

No areas of moderate to high 

mineral potential areas would be 

managed as avoidance or closed 

areas for salable minerals. 

18,286 acres of moderate to high 

mineral potential areas would be 

managed as recommended for 

withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry.

Same as Alternative A, except 

24,063 acres of moderate to 

high mineral potential areas 

would be managed as CSU, 

NSO, or closed to leasable

mineral fluid extraction.

7,891 acres of moderate to 

high mineral potential areas 

would be managed as 

avoidance or closed areas for 

salable minerals. 

10,316 acres of moderate to 

high mineral potential areas 

would be managed as 

recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry.

Same as Alternative A, except 

18,118 acres of moderate to 

high mineral potential areas 

would be managed as CSU, 

NSO, or closed to leasable

mineral fluid extraction.

11,624 acres of moderate to 

high mineral potential areas 

would be managed as 

avoidance or closed areas for 

salable minerals. 

No areas of moderate to high 

mineral potential areas would 

be managed as recommended 

for withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry.

Special-status Species

(Section 4.2.9.2.10)

Mineral resources could be 

adversely impacted by discretionary 

surface disturbance restrictions that 

are proposed for special-status 

species. Under all alternatives, the 

BLM would consult with the 

USFWS for mineral resource 

development activities. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

an additional leasing stipulation 

would be applied for surfacedisturbing activities within 0.5 

mile of active prairie dog 

colonies. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

an additional leasing 

stipulation would be applied 

for surface-disturbing 

activities within 0.25 mile of 

active prairie dog colonies.

Same as Alternative A, and 

surface-disturbing activities 

would be strictly controlled 

within prairie dog towns if an 

activity would adversely 

impact prairie dogs and/or 

associated species.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-167

Visual Resources

(Section 4.2.9.2.11)

Mineral resources management 

decisions could be adversely 

impacted by VRM decisions, 

specifically in VRM Classes I and 

II, where surface-disturbing 

activities would be the most 

restricted. 97,645 acres would be 

managed as VRM Class I and 

84,449 acres as VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative A, except 

97,296 acres would be managed 

as VRM Class I and 318,931

acres would be managed as 

VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative B, except 

97,474 acres would be 

managed as VRM Class I, and 

68,511 acres would be 

managed as VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative B, except 

97,516 acres would be 

managed as VRM Class I, and 

21,549 acres would be 

managed as VRM Class II.

Wildlife and Fisheries

(Section 4.2.9.2.12)

Discretionary measures required to 

mitigate the adverse impacts of 

mineral development activities to 

wildlife would adversely impact 

mineral resources. No leasing 

stipulations would be applied for 

wildlife habitat under this 

alternative. However, mineral 

resource developers would be 

required to avoid surface-disturbing 

activities in occupied migratory bird 

habitat during the nesting season.

Same as Alternative A, and 

proposed restrictions would be 

implemented for surface 

disturbance located near raptor 

nests, big game winter range, 

big game fawning/calving 

habitat, prairie dog towns, and 

wildlife habitat projects.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A, and 

proposed restrictions would be 

implemented for surface 

disturbance located near 

raptor nests and prairie dogs 

towns. 

Paleontological Resources (Section 4.2.11)

Lands and Realty

(Section 4.2.11.1.1)

Lands and realty decisions would 

have adverse impacts if lands 

proposed for disposal lead to the 

loss of paleontological resources. 

3,790 acres of PFYC 4 would be 

disposed of and 854 acres of PYFC 

5 are proposed for disposal.

Same as Alternative A. 4,353 acres of PFYC 4 are 

proposed for disposal, and 854

acres of PFYC 5.

Same as Alternative A, except 

6,133 acres of PFYC 4 are 

proposed for disposal.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-168

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.11.1.3)

Paleontological resources would be 

negligibly impacted by mineral 

resources due to the low predicted 

mineral development over the next 

20 years (1.1% of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area).

Mineral resources decisions 

would have adverse impacts to 

paleontological resources by 

potentially disturbing areas with 

PFYC 4 and 5. The RPFO is 

proposing to implement an oil 

and gas stipulation that limits 

the amount of surface 

disturbance near paleontological 

resources. CSU for leasable

fluid minerals would be 

implemented in areas of PFYC 4 

and 5, and a determination by 

the BLM would be made as to 

whether a survey by a qualified 

paleontologist would be 

necessary prior to disturbance. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Renewable Energy

(Section 4.2.11.1.4)

Renewable energy development 

may result in long-term adverse 

impacts because there would be no 

avoidance or exclusions areas for 

renewable energy projects.

Decisions may have an adverse 

impact to paleontological 

resources if renewable energy

projects are proposed in areas 

with vertebrate fossils or 

noteworthy occurrences of 

invertebrate or plant fossils. 

Site-specific NEPA analysis 

would be conducted prior to the 

RPFO approving renewable 

energy projects within the 

Planning Area.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Special Designations

(Section 4.2.11.1.2)

Special designations would have a 

beneficial impact to paleontological 

resources because of management 

restrictions that are applied within 

the boundaries of the particular 

designation. 137,720 acres would 

be managed as special designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

185,625 acres would be 

managed as special designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

178,000 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

126,392 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.

Recreation and Visitor Services (Section 4.2.12)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-169

Cultural Resources

(Section 4.2.12.1.5)

Cultural resource management 

decisions would have both adverse 

and beneficial impacts to recreation. 

Camping would be prohibited at 

Big Bead Mesa (340 acres). Three 

sites are proposed for allocation for 

public use and would provide 

beneficial impacts to recreation. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, except 

seven sites are proposed for 

allocation for public use.

Same as Alternative A except 

10 sites are proposed for 

allocation for public use.

Lands and Realty

(Section 4.2.12.1.6)

Lands and realty decisions could 

have both adverse and beneficial 

impacts to recreation and visitor 

services. 55,384 acres are proposed 

for disposal, which could adversely 

impact dispersed recreation. Any 

future acquisitions that increase 

recreational opportunity within the 

RPFO would provide beneficial 

impacts.

Any future acquisitions that 

increase recreational opportunity 

within the RPFO would provide 

beneficial impacts to recreation. 

There are no proposed land 

disposals within SRMAs in the 

RMP/EIS.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Livestock Grazing

(Section 4.2.12.1.1)

Adverse impacts from livestock 

grazing to recreation and visitor 

services could occur where 

livestock compromises the 

recreational setting for recreational 

users. 

Grazing allotments make up 

approximately 82% of BLM lands 

in the Planning Area. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

livestock grazing would be 

prohibited within all special 

designations (182,122 acres) and 

riparian areas (1,582 acres). 

Same as Alternative A, except 

livestock grazing would only 

occur where grazing does not 

conflict with resources 

protected by the special 

designation.

Same as Alternative C. 

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.12.1.11)

Mineral resource decisions would have an adverse impact on recreation and visitor services, resulting in reduced recreation potential 

on lands developed for mineral resources and decreased recreational experience for most users on adjacent lands. This impact would 

be negligible because mineral development would take place on 1.1% of BLM lands in the Planning Area. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-170

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics

(Section 4.2.12.1.4)

lands managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics are not 

proposed under this alternative.

lands managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics 

(37,514 acres) would be 

beneficial to those visitors 

seeking recreational 

opportunities that prefer solitude 

and non-motorized recreation. 

Those groups seeking more 

developed forms of recreation, 

especially motorized forms of 

recreation, would not have those 

opportunities. 

There would be 26,110 acres 

of lands managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics; on 

4,075 acres of lands managed 

to partially protect wilderness 

characteristics, primitive 

routes would remain available 

for use by motorized vehicles. 

7,329 acres of lands with 

wilderness characteristics not 

managed to protect wilderness 

characteristics will be open to 

vehicle travel. 

2,239 acres would be 

managed to protect wilderness 

characteristics, which would 

benefit recreational 

opportunities. 35,275 acres 

would not be managed to 

protect wilderness 

characteristics.

Recreation and Visitor 

Services

(Section 4.2.12.1.3)

SRMAs are not proposed under this 

alternative. 

Recreation management 

decisions would have a 

beneficial impact to recreation. 

Five SRMAs, totaling 232,242

acres of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area are proposed 

under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Renewable Energy

(Section 4.2.12.1.7)

Renewable energy developments would have negative impacts on recreation and visitor services because they would remove 

recreation potential on the lands being developed and would degrade the recreation experience for most users on adjacent land.

Special Designations

(Section 4.2.12.1.2)

Special designations would provide 

long-term benefits to recreation 

because of restricted development. 

137,720 acres would be managed as 

special designations. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

185,625 acres would be 

managed as special designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

178,000 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

126,392 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.

Special-status Species

(Section 4.2.12.1.9)

Special-status species decisions would cause short-term adverse impacts to recreation and provide long-term beneficial impacts for 

improved recreational setting for hikers, campers, and wildlife viewers. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-171

Travel Management

(Section 4.2.12.1.8)

Travel management decisions could 

have both adverse and beneficial 

impacts to recreation, depending on 

the type of recreationist. 20,316

acres would be closed to motorized 

travel, 303,580 acres would be 

open, and 420,491 acres would be 

limited to existing roads, primitive 

roads, and trails. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

177,240 acres would be closed 

to motorized travel, 4,551 acres 

would be open, and 562,596

acres would be limited to 

existing roads, primitive roads, 

and trails.

Same as Alternative A, except 

124,075 acres would be closed 

to motorized travel, 18,269

acres would be open, and 

602,043 acres would be 

limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails.

Same as Alternative A, except 

100,123 acres would be closed 

to motorized travel, 19,456

acres would be open, and 

624,808 acres would be 

limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails.

Vegetation Management

(Section 4.2.12.1.10)

Vegetation treatments would cause short-term adverse impacts from potential closures during vegetation treatments but long-term 

beneficial impacts from improved forage for wildlife and recreational setting for hikers, campers, and wildlife viewers. 

Renewable Energy (Section 4.2.13)

Renewable Energy

(Section 4.2.12.1.1)

Wilderness areas (11,183 acres) 

would be excluded from renewable 

projects.

Wilderness areas (11,183 acres) 

would be excluded from 

renewable projects.

Wilderness areas (11,183 

acres) would be excluded 

from renewable projects.

Wilderness areas (11,183 

acres) would be excluded 

from renewable projects.

Riparian Resources (Section 4.2.14)

Fire Management

(Section 4.2.14.2.1)

Adherence to the Fire and Fuels Plan Amendment would have beneficial impacts to riparian resources in the Planning Area. 3,855 

acres of riparian areas would undergo fuels treatment projects under all alternatives. The BLM would implement BMPs to mitigate 

adverse impacts from the fuel treatments since the goal of the treatments would be to restore the native plant communities within 

riparian areas.

Forests and Woodlands

(Section 4.2.14.2.2)

Forest and woodland decisions would be beneficial because forest product harvest activities would be prohibited in riparian areas, 

except where forest restoration would benefit riparian areas.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-172

Livestock Grazing

(Section 4.2.14.2.3)

Livestock grazing management 

decisions would have both adverse 

and beneficial impacts to riparian

resources. Adverse impacts would 

result if improper livestock 

management practices resulted in 

the loss of riparian vegetation and 

trampling of soils. Beneficial 

impacts would occur from the 

stimulation of vegetation, removal 

of standing dead vegetation, and 

seed distribution. Riparian areas 

would be managed as described in 

the EIS for Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitat Management in the 

Albuquerque Field Office (BLM 

2000).

Same as Alternative A, except 

the RPFO would remove 

grazing from 1,582 acres of 

riparian areas. Riparian areas 

would be the most protected 

from livestock grazing impacts 

under this alternative.

Same as Alternative B, expect 

prescribed grazing would be 

applied in riparian areas that 

meet the New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines

(BLM 2001).

Same as Alternative C.

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.14.2.4)

Mineral development would 

adversely impact riparian resources 

within the Planning Area because 

no surface disturbance restrictions 

are proposed for riparian resources.

Same as Alternative A, except 

surface-disturbing activities 

would be prohibited (NSO) 

within 200 m (656 feet) of the 

channels of ephemeral, 

intermittent, and perennial 

streams, or within 200 m (656 

feet) of the outer margins of 

riparian and wetland areas.

Same as Alternative A, except 

surface-disturbing activities 

would be subject to CSU for 

leasable fluid minerals 

restrictions within 200 m (656 

feet) of the channels of 

ephemeral, intermittent, and 

perennial streams, or within 

200 m (656 feet) of the outer 

margins of riparian and 

wetland areas.

Same as Alternative A.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-173

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics

Alternative A would be the least 

protective of riparian resources 

because it would not manage areas 

within the Planning Area to protect 

wilderness characteristics.

Managing lands to protect 

wilderness characteristics would 

be beneficial to riparian

resources because surfacedisturbing activities are 

restricted. Alternative B would 

be the most protective since 

37,514 acres would be managed 

to protect wilderness 

characteristics and would be the 

most restrictive for surfacedisturbing activities. There are 

243 acres of riparian habitat 

within these lands. 

Same as Alternative B, except 

that 26,110 acres of lands 

with wilderness characteristics

would be managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics, and 

4,075 acres would be 

managed to partially protect 

wilderness characteristics. . 

Surface-disturbing activities 

within the lands with 

wilderness characteristics 

would be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. There are 

26 acres of riparian habitat 

within these lands. Within 26, 

110 acres of lands with 

wilderness characteristics 

managed to protect those 

characteristics, 236 acres of 

riparian habitat would benefit 

from restrictions on surfacedisturbing activities. 

There would be 2,239 acres of 

lands managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics. 

Within these lands, there are 

198 acres of riparian habitat.

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics

(Section 4.2.14.2.11)

Alternative A would be the least 

protective of riparian resources 

because it would not manage areas 

within the Planning Area to 

maintain Wilderness characteristics.

Managing lands to maintain 

their Wilderness characteristics 

would be beneficial to riparian

resources where NSO 

stipulations or closing an area to 

oil and gas leasing are 

employed, precluding surfacedisturbing activities. Alternative 

B would be the most protective 

since 37,514 acres would be 

managed to maintain Wilderness 

characteristics and would be the 

most restrictive for surfacedisturbing activities.

Same as Alternative B, except 

surface-disturbing activities 

within the lands with 

Wilderness characteristics 

would be considered on a 

case-by-case basis.

Same as Alternative A.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-174

Recreation and Visitor 

Services

(Section 4.2.14.2.5)

Recreation decisions would have beneficial impacts to riparian resources because dispersed camping would be prohibited within 46 m 

(150 feet) of riparian areas.

Renewable Energy

(Section 4.2.14.2.6)

Renewable energy development 

would adversely impact riparian

resources because no surface 

disturbance restrictions would be 

proposed for general riparian 

resources or floodplains.

Management decisions would 

beneficially impact riparian

resources because active 

floodplains and 100-year 

floodplains are identified as 

exclusion or avoidance areas for 

wind, solar, and geothermal

projects. Additionally, surfacedisturbing activities would be 

prohibited within 200 m (656 

feet) of the channels of 

ephemeral, intermittent, and 

perennial streams, or within 200 

m (656 feet) of the outer 

margins of riparian and wetland 

areas.

Same as Alternative B, except 

surface-disturbing activities 

would be subject to 

restrictions within 200 m (656 

feet) of the channels of 

ephemeral, intermittent, and 

perennial streams, or within 

200 m (656 feet) of the outer 

margins of riparian and 

wetland areas.

Management decisions would 

beneficially impact riparian

resources because active 

floodplains and 100-year 

floodplains are identified as 

exclusion or avoidance areas 

for wind, solar, and 

geothermal projects.

Riparian Resources

(Section 4.2.14.2.7)

Management decisions would 

adversely impact riparian resources 

because no surface disturbance

restrictions are proposed for riparian 

resources.

Management decisions would 

beneficially impact riparian

resources because surfacedisturbing activities would be 

prohibited within 200 m (656 

feet) of the channels of 

ephemeral, intermittent, and 

perennial streams, or within 200 

m (656 feet) of the outer 

margins of riparian and wetland 

areas.

Management decisions would 

beneficially impact riparian

resources because surfacedisturbing activities would be 

subject to restrictions within 

200 m (656 feet) of the 

channels of ephemeral, 

intermittent, and perennial 

streams, or within 200 m (656 

feet) of the outer margins of 

riparian and wetland areas.

Same as Alternative A.

Special-status Species

(Section 4.2.14.2.9)

Special-status species decisions would provide long-term benefits because 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.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-175

Special Designations

(Section 4.2.14.2.10)

Riparian areas would receive 

indirect beneficial impacts from 

proposed special designations

because surface restrictions would 

be implemented within the special 

designations. 137,720 acres would 

be managed as special designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

185,625 acres would be 

managed as special designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

178,000 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

126,392 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.

Soil and Water

(Section 4.2.14.2.9)

Adverse impacts would be 

mitigated because soils and water 

management decisions would 

comply with New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines (BLM 

2001) and would be managed in 

accordance with Executive Order 

11988.

Same as Alternative A. 

Additionally, the RPFO would 

prohibit surface-disturbing 

activities within 200 m (656 

feet) of riparian areas and 

springs. Oil and gas leasing 

stipulations would implement 

CSU for 15% to 30% slopes, 

NSO for leasable fluid minerals 

for slopes over 30%, and CSU 

for low reclamation soils. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A.

Travel Management

(Section 4.2.14.2.12)

All alternatives would have beneficial impacts because riparian areas would be closed to motorized travel.

Vegetative Communities

(Section 4.2.14.2.13)

All alternatives would have beneficial impacts because vegetative treatments would reduce invasive species, restore native plant 

communities, improving the ecological health of the area.

Wildlife and Fisheries

(Section 4.2.14.2.14)

All alternatives would have a beneficial impact to riparian resources when projects are proposed to protect wildlife that use riparian 

areas as habitat.

Social and Economic Resources (Section 4.2.15)

BLM Expenditures and 

Employment

(Section 4.2.15.2.8)

Average annual BLM expenditures would continue to support 120 jobs and $4.6 million in labor income. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-176

Environmental Justice

(Section 4.2.15.3.1)

All alternatives could result in increased employment and labor income relative to current conditions over the 

next decade, from which minority and low-income populations may benefit. 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.

Externally Funded 

Ecosystem Restoration

(Section 4.2.15.2.6)

Approximately one job and $31,000 in labor income would be supported annually. 

Fire Management

(Section 4.2.15.2.4)

Under 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.

Forest and Woodlands

(Section 4.2.15.2.3)

This alternative would continue to 

maintain the current accessibility of 

permit issuing stations and forest 

product collection areas (12,523

acres) that communities are 

accustomed to, decreasing travel 

time and the use of substitute heat 

sources.

Same as Alternative A, except 

141,748 acres are reserved as 

forest product harvest areas. 

Adverse impacts could occur 

because a change in forest 

product areas has changed, 

creating more distance between 

forest products and 

communities.

Same as Alternative B, except 

548,001 acres are reserved as 

forest product harvest areas.

Same as Alternative B, except 

754,835 acres are reserved as 

forest product harvest areas.

Impacts to Counties

(Section 4.2.15.2.7)

Payments to counties would total 

$2,142,195 annually.

Payments to counties would 

total $2,139,549 annually.

Payments to counties would 

total $2,139,771 annually.

Same as Alternative C.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-177

Livestock Grazing

(Section 4.2.15.2.2)

Livestock grazing decisions would 

have beneficial impacts to social 

and economic resources because 

approximately 187 jobs and $1.5

million in labor income would be 

supported annually. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

approximately 151 to 187 jobs 

and $1.1 to $1.4 million in labor 

income would be supported.

There would be a higher 

maximum potential permitted 

use. On average, the range of 

potential permitted AUMS 

would support 151 to 190 jobs 

and $1.1 to $1.4 million in 

labor income.

Same as Alternative C.

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.15.2.5)

Mineral resource decisions would 

have beneficial impacts to social 

and economic resources because 

approximately 15 jobs and 

$808,000 in labor income would be 

supported annually.

The RPFO would implement two 

leasing stipulations that would 

apply NSO for leasable fluid 

minerals to cultural resources and 

aviation facilities located Township 

11N, Range 1E, as well as churches 

and cemeteries. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

the RPFO would implement a 

leasing stipulation requiring 

NSO for leasable fluid minerals 

within areas managed for the 

maintenance of public health 

and safety and CSU for leasable

mineral development near 

private residences. Alternative B 

would provide the greatest 

protection for social and 

economic resources in this 

RMP/EIS. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A, except 

the RPFO would implement a 

leasing stipulation requiring 

NSO for leasable fluid 

minerals within areas 

managed for the maintenance 

of public health and safety.

Recreation and Visitor 

Services

(Section 4.2.15.2.1)

Recreation and visitor decisions would have beneficial impacts to social and economic resources because expenditures related to 

recreation would support approximately 34 jobs and $1.1 million in labor income annually. 

Role of Amenities, 

Migration, and Nonmarket Values

(Section 4.2.15.2.10)

224,233 acres of land would be 

managed as ACEC, managed to 

protect wilderness characteristics, 

and VRM Class I and II which 

would enhance non-market values 

associated with natural amenities.

The most amount of land 

(616,396 acres) would be 

managed as ACEC, managed to 

protect wilderness 

characteristics, and VRM Class I 

and II which would enhance 

non-market values associated 

with natural amenities.

318,284 acres of land would 

be managed as ACEC, 

managed for wilderness 

characteristics, and VRM 

Class I and II which would 

enhance non-market values 

associated with natural 

amenities.

The least amount of land 

(153,381 acres) would be 

managed as ACEC, managed 

to protect wilderness 

characteristics, and VRM 

Class I and II which would 

enhance non-market values 

associated
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-178

Travel Management

(Section 4.2.15.3.10)

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 case-by-case basis by the RPFO.

Soil and Water (Section 4.2.16)

Livestock Grazing

(Section 4.2.16.2.2)

Livestock grazing would be managed in order to achieve and maintain the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001), 

generally mitigating the impacts of grazing to soil and water resources. Up to 470,644 acres of sensitive soils would be available to 

livestock grazing.

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.16.2.3)

No stipulations for riparian areas 

are proposed.

Alternative B would implement 

CSU for leasable fluid minerals 

on steep slopes between 15% 

and 30%, NSO for leasable fluid 

minerals on slopes over 30%, 

and CSU for leasable fluid 

minerals on soils with low 

reclamation potential. 

Additionally, NSO for leasable

fluid minerals within 200 m 

(656 feet) of channels 

ephemeral, intermittent, and 

perennial streams of within the 

outer margins of 

riparian/wetland areas would be 

implemented.

Same as Alternative B, except 

CSU for leasable fluid 

minerals within 200 m (656 

feet) of channels ephemeral, 

intermittent, and perennial 

streams of within the outer 

margins of riparian/wetland 

areas would be implemented.

Alternative D would 

implement NSO for leasable

fluid minerals on steep slopes 

over 30%.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-179

Renewable Energy

(Section 4.2.16.2.4)

Alternative A would result in longterm adverse impacts because there 

would be no avoidance or 

exclusions areas for renewable 

energy projects.

Alternative B may have longterm beneficial impacts on soil 

and water because sensitive soils 

are identified as avoidance areas 

for wind, solar, and geothermal

projects; wetland and riparian

areas are identified as exclusion

areas for wind, solar, and 

geothermal projects; active 

floodplains are identified as 

exclusion areas for wind and 

solar projects and avoidance 

areas for geothermal projects; 

and 100-year floodplains are 

identified as avoidance areas for 

wind and geothermal projects 

and exclusion areas for solar 

projects.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Travel Management

(Section 4.2.16.2.5)

Travel management decisions 

would have both adverse and 

beneficial impacts to soil and water

resources. Where roads are closed, 

vegetation communities could 

become re-established and improve 

soil conditions. Open travel 

management areas could result in 

vegetation loss, rutting, and 

increased soil erosion. 20,316 acres 

would be closed to travel and 

303,580 acres would be open to 

travel. 420,491 acres would limit 

travel to existing roads and trails.

Same as Alternative A, except 

177,240 acres would be closed 

to travel, 562,596 acres would 

limit travel to existing roads, 

and 4,551 acres would be open 

to travel. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

124,075 acres would be closed 

to travel, 602,043 acres would 

limit travel to existing roads 

and trails, and 18,269 acres 

would be open to travel. 

15,188 acres of the open 

travel area contain sensitive 

soils.

100,123 acres would be closed 

to travel, 19,456 be open, and 

624,808 acres would limit 

travel.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-180

Vegetation Management

(Section 4.2.16.2.1)

Short-term adverse impacts could 

occur from vegetation treatments, 

but BMPs would be implemented to 

mitigate adverse impacts. Longterm beneficial impacts would 

occur from vegetation treatments. 

12,015 acres are proposed for forest 

product harvest areas with sensitive 

soils. 32,000 acres per year would 

be treated for fire management. 

Same as Alternative A, except 0 

acres are proposed for forest 

product harvest areas with 

sensitive soils.

Same as Alternative A, except 

426,239 acres are proposed 

for forest product harvest 

areas with sensitive soils.

Same as Alternative A, except 

488,149 acres are proposed 

for forest product harvest 

areas with sensitive soils.

Special-status Species (Section 4.2.17)

Cave and Karst Resources

(Section 4.2.17.2.1)

The Pronoun Cave Complex would 

be managed as an ACEC and would 

protect special-status bat species 

known to occur within the complex. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. The ACEC designation would 

be removed from the Pronoun 

Cave Complex. Bat species 

would continue to be 

considered under site-specific 

NEPA analysis.

Cultural Resources

(Section 4.2.17.2.2)

Cultural resources management decisions may have beneficial impacts to special-status species because of restrictions on surfacedisturbing activities that directly protect cultural resources and could indirectly protect habitat and critical habitat. 

Fire Management

(Section 4.2.17.2.3)

All alternatives would result in short-term adverse impacts due to habitat loss, along with long-term beneficial impacts from reduced 

fuel loading, reduced fire risk, and diversified habitat. 

Forests and Woodlands

(Section 4.2.17.2.4)

Both adverse and beneficial impacts 

to special-status species would 

occur from forest and woodland 

management decisions. 2% of BLM 

lands in the Planning Area would be 

available for forest product harvest. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

16% of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area would be 

available for forest product 

harvest.

Same as Alternative A, except 

75 % of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area would be 

available for forest product 

harvest.

Same as Alternative A, except 

87% of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area would be 

available for forest product 

harvest.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-181

Lands and Realty

(Section 4.2.17.2.5)

Adverse impacts could occur from 

proposed land disposals. 55,384

acres of BLM land are proposed for 

disposal. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

beneficial impacts could occur 

from rights-of-way 

avoidance/exclusion areas. 

57,472 acres of BLM land are 

proposed for disposal. 

Same as Alternative B, except 

58,910 acres of BLM land are 

proposed for disposal.

Same as Alternative B, except 

62,051 acres of BLM land are 

proposed for disposal. 

Livestock Grazing

(Section 4.2.17.2.6)

Grazing allotments make up 

approximately 95% of BLM lands 

in the Planning Area. Adverse 

impacts from livestock grazing to 

special-status species could occur. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

livestock grazing would be 

prohibited within all special 

designations (182,122 acres) and 

riparian areas (1,582 acres). 

Same as Alternative A, 

except, livestock grazing

would only occur where 

grazing does not conflict with 

resources protected by the 

special designation.

Same as Alternative C. 

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.17.2.7)

Mineral resource decisions would 

have both adverse and beneficial 

impacts to special-status species. 

Those areas that have restrictions 

for mineral development would 

beneficially impact special-status 

species and their habitat. 6% of 

special-status species habitat would 

be managed as NSO, CSU, or 

closed to leasable fluid minerals. 

6% would be closed to mineral 

extraction. 1% would be 

recommended for withdrawal from 

locatable mineral entry.

Same as Alternative A, except 

20% of special-status species 

habitat would be managed as 

NSO, CSU, or closed to leasable

fluid minerals; 10% would be 

closed to mineral extraction; and 

16% would be recommended for 

withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry.

Same as Alternative A, except 

20% of special-status species 

habitat would be managed as 

NSO, CSU, or closed to 

leasable fluid minerals; 7% 

would be closed to mineral 

extraction; and 15% would be 

recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry.

Same as Alternative A, except 

19% of special-status species 

habitat would be managed as 

NSO, CSU, or closed to 

leasable fluid minerals; 6% 

would be closed to mineral 

extraction; and 2% would be 

recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-182

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics

(Section 4.2.17.2.14)

lands managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics are not 

proposed under this alternative.

Decisions to manage lands with 

wilderness characteristics to 

protect wilderness 

characteristics on 37,514 acres 

would have beneficial impacts to 

special-status species by 

reducing habitat degradation and 

fragmentation.

Same as Alternative B except 

that under this alternative 

26,110 acres would be 

managed to protect wilderness 

characteristics, which would 

benefit special-status species 

by reducing habitat 

degradation and 

fragmentation. On 4,075 acres 

managed to partially protect 

wilderness characteristics, 

more miles of primitive routes 

would be available for 

motorized use. 7,329 acres 

would be open to vehicle 

travel.

2,239 acres would be 

managed to protect wilderness 

characteristics and 35,275

acres would not be managed 

to protect wilderness 

characteristics.

Recreation and Visitor 

Services

(Section 4.2.17.2.8)

Recreation management decisions 

could have adverse impacts to 

special-status species due to habitat 

loss and human disturbance. No 

SRMAs are proposed.

Same as Alternative A, except 

five SRMAs, totaling 10,996

acres of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area, are proposed 

under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Renewable Energy

(Section 4.2.17.2.9)

Avoidance and exclusion areas 

would not be implemented under 

this alternative. 

Avoidance and exclusion areas 

identified under this alternative 

would provide protection for 

special-status species habitat.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Riparian Resources

(Section 4.2.17.2.10)

There is no surface disturbance

restriction for riparian areas under 

this alternative. 

Management decisions to 

protect riparian areas would 

have beneficial impacts to 

special-status species. Surfacedisturbing activities would be 

prohibited within 200 m (656 

feet) of riparian areas. 

Same as Alternative B, except 

surface-disturbing activities 

would be subject to 

restrictions within 200 m (656 

feet) of riparian areas. 

Same as Alternative A. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-183

Special-status Species

(Section 4.2.17.2.11)

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 or endangered. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

two restrictions would be 

applied: 1) for surfacedisturbing activities within 0.5 

mile of active prairie dog 

colonies and 2) placement of

water developments and salt and 

mineral supplements for 

livestock would be located 0.25 

mile from known locations of 

special-status plants.

Same as Alternative B, except 

surface-disturbing activities 

would be restricted within 

0.25 mile of active prairie dog 

colonies and water 

developments and salt and 

mineral supplements for 

livestock would be placed at 

least 152 m (500 feet) from 

special-status plants.

Same as Alternative B, except 

surface-disturbing activities 

would be restricted within 

active prairie dog colonies and 

water developments and salt 

and mineral supplements for 

livestock would be placed at 

least 91 m (300 feet) from 

special-status plants.

Soil and Water

(Section 4.2.17.2.12)

No surface disturbance protections 

for soil and water are proposed 

under this alternative. 

Management decisions to 

protect soil and water resources 

would also beneficially impact 

special-status species because 

surface-disturbing activities 

would be restricted. Surfacedisturbing activities would be 

prohibited within 200 m (656 

feet) of riparian areas. 

Same as Alternative B, except 

surface-disturbing activities 

would be subject to 

restrictions within 200 m (656 

feet) of riparian areas. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Special Designations

(Section 4.2.17.2.13)

Special designations management 

decisions would have beneficial 

impacts to special-status species 

because restrictions to surfacedisturbing activities, such as 

mineral development, would be 

implemented in special 

designations. 137,720 acres would 

be managed as special designations. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

185,625 acres would be 

managed as special designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

178,000 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

126,392 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-184

Travel Management

(Section 4.2.17.2.15)

Travel management decisions 

would have both adverse and 

beneficial impacts to special-status 

species. Closed areas would provide 

protection to special-status species 

habitat. 3% of special-status species 

habitat would be closed to 

motorized travel. 

Same as Alternative A, 

except24% of special-status 

species habitat would be closed 

to motorized travel.

Same as Alternative A, 

except17% of special-status 

species habitat would be 

closed to motorized travel.

Same as Alternative A, 

except12% of special-status 

species habitat would be 

closed to motorized travel.

Vegetative Communities

(Section 4.2.17.2.16)

Vegetation treatments would cause short-term adverse impacts from habitat loss, but long-term beneficial impacts from improved 

vegetative communities and diversified habitat. 

Visual Resources

(Section 4.2.17.2.18)

VRM Class I and II areas would be 

the most restrictive to surface 

disturbance. 

97,645 acres would be managed as 

VRM Class I and 84,449 acres as 

VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative A, except 

97,296 acres would be managed 

as VRM Class I and 318,931

acres would be managed as 

VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative A, except 

97,474 acres would be 

managed as VRM Class I and 

68,511 acres would be 

managed as VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative A, except 

97,516 acres would be 

managed as VRM Class I and 

21,549 acres would be 

managed as VRM Class II.

Wildlife and Fisheries

(Section 4.2.17.2.17)

Wildlife and fisheries management 

decisions would have beneficial

impacts to special-status species 

and their habitat. Surface 

disturbance restrictions would 

benefit special-status species. No 

surface disturbance restrictions are 

proposed under Alternative A.

Proposed restrictions would be 

implemented for surface 

disturbance located near raptor 

nests, big game winter range, 

big game fawning/calving 

habitat, prairie dog towns, and 

wildlife habitat projects.

Same as Alternative B. Proposed restrictions would 

be implemented for surface 

disturbance located near 

raptor nests and prairie dog 

towns.

Travel Management (Section 4.2.18)
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-185

Travel Management

(Section 4.2.18.1)

Travel management decisions 

would have beneficial impacts to 

travel management because specific 

areas on BLM lands within the 

Planning Area would have a clear 

travel category. This alternative 

closes 20,316 acres to motorized 

travel, opens 303,580 acres, and 

limits 420,491 acres to existing 

roads and trails.

Same as Alternative A, except 

177,240 acres would be closed 

to motorized travel, 4,551 acres 

would be open, and 562,596

acres would be limited to 

existing roads and trails.

Same as Alternative A, except 

124,075 acres would be closed 

to motorized travel, 18,269

acres would be open, and 

602,043 acres would be 

limited to existing roads and 

trails.

Same as Alternative A, except 

100,123 acres would be closed 

to motorized travel, 19,456

acres would be open, and 

624,808 acres would be 

limited to existing roads and 

trails.

Vegetative Communities (Section 4.2.19)

Fire Management

(Section 4.2.19.1.3)

Short-term adverse impacts would include loss of vegetation during and after fuels treatments. Long-term beneficial impacts would 

include native and diverse vegetative communities.

Lands and Realty

(Section 4.2.19.1.2)

Adverse impacts to vegetation would occur if rights-of-way are granted for surface-disturbing activities. Beneficial impacts would 

occur in avoidance/exclusion areas for rights-of-way. 

Livestock Grazing

(Section 4.2.19.1.1)

Livestock grazing would be managed to achieve New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001); therefore, beneficial impacts to 

vegetative communities would result from livestock grazing. 

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.19.1.5)

All alternatives would cause adverse impacts from surface disturbance associated with mineral development; however, reasonably 

foreseeable development is estimated to be 1.1% of BLM lands in the Planning Area. 

Recreation and Visitor 

Services

(Section 4.2.19.1.7)

Impacts to 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 an SRMA, BLM rules and guidelines would limit or control activities 

through specialized management tools such as designated campsites, permits, area closures, and limitations on the number of users 

and duration of use.

Renewable Energy

(Section 4.2.19.1.8)

Renewable energy management decisions would have adverse and beneficial impacts to vegetative communities. Renewable energy 

projects would create surface disturbances of various magnitudes depending on the size and location of the project. Beneficial impacts 

would result from identification of exclusion and avoidance areas for renewable energy projects. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-186

Special Designations

(Section 4.2.19.1.4)

Special designations would provide 

long-term benefits from restricted 

surface disturbance within 137,720

acres of special designations. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

185,625 acres would be 

managed as special designations. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

178,000 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

126,392 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.

Travel Management

(Section 4.2.19.1.6)

Travel management decisions 

would have both adverse and 

beneficial impacts to vegetative 

communities. Closed areas would 

allow vegetation to become reestablished, while open areas would 

result in vegetation loss. 20,316

acres would be closed to motorized 

travel, 303,580 acres would be 

open, and 420,491 acres would be 

limited to existing roads, primitive 

roads, and trails. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

177,240 acres would be closed 

to motorized travel, 4,551 acres 

would be open, and 562,596

acres would be limited to 

existing roads, primitive roads, 

and trails.

Same as Alternative A, except 

124,075 acres would be closed 

to motorized travel, 18,269

acres would be open, and

602,043 acres would be 

limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails.

Same as Alternative A, except 

100,123 acres would be closed 

to motorized travel, 19,456

acres would be open, and 

624,808 acres would be 

limited to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails.

Visual Resources (Section 4.2.20)

Visual Resources

(Section 4.2.20.2.1)

Alternative A would manage for the 

following VRM classes:

Class I: 97,645 acres.

Class II: 84,449 acres. 

Class III: 61,780 acres.

Class IV: 152,250 acres.

Alternative B would manage for 

the following VRM classes:

Class I: 97,296 acres.

Class II: 318,931 acres. 

Class III: 27,529 acres.

Class IV: 300,631 acres.

Alternative C would manage 

for the following VRM 

classes:

Class I: 97,474 acres.

Class II: 68,511 acres. 

Class III: 80,931 acres.

Class IV: 497,471 acres.

Alternative D would manage 

for the following VRM 

classes:

Class I: 97,516 acres.

Class II: 21,549 acres. 

Class III: 83,050 acres.

Class IV: 542,272 acres.

Wilderness Areas (Section 4.2.21)

Lands and Realty

(Section 4.2.21.1.2)

Adverse impacts could result from land disposals that occur adjacent to Wilderness Areas because development on disposed lands 

would compromise Wilderness values.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-187

Livestock Grazing

(Section 4.2.21.1.4)

Livestock grazing would have 

adverse impacts to Wilderness 

Areas. Livestock grazing would be 

allowed within Wilderness Areas. 

Livestock grazing would be 

prohibited within Wilderness 

Areas. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Surface Disturbance

(Section 4.2.21.1.3)

Adverse impacts could result from surface disturbance that occurs adjacent to Wilderness Areas because development could 

compromise Wilderness values.

Visual Resources

(Section 4.2.21.1.1)

Adverse impacts would result from VRM Class III or IV lands managed adjacent to Wilderness Areas. Beneficial impacts would 

result from VRM Class I and II areas adjacent to Wilderness Areas. 

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources (Section 4.2.22)

Cave and Karst Resources

(Section 4.2.22.2.1)

Cave and karst management 

decisions would have beneficial 

impacts to wildlife. The Pronoun 

Cave Complex would be managed 

as an ACEC and would protect bat 

species known to occur within the 

complex. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. The ACEC designation would 

be removed from the Pronoun 

Cave Complex. Bat species 

would continue to be 

considered under site-specific 

NEPA analysis. 

Cultural Resources

(Section 4.2.22.2.2)

Cultural resources management decisions may have beneficial impacts to wildlife because of restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities that directly protect cultural resources and could indirectly protect habitat. 

Fire Management

(Section 4.2.22.2.3)

Fire management would cause short-term adverse impacts from habitat loss, but long-term beneficial impacts from reduced fuel 

loading, reduced fire risk, and diversified habitat. 

Forests and Woodlands

(Section 4.2.22.2.4)

Forest and woodland management 

decisions would have both adverse 

and beneficial impacts to wildlife. 

Wildlife habitat could be degraded 

or enhanced depending on the 

location, goals, methods used for 

forest product harvest projects. 2% 

of BLM lands would be available 

for forest product harvest. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

16% of BLM lands would be 

available for forest product 

harvest.

Same as Alternative A, except 

75% of BLM lands would be 

available for forest product 

harvest.

Same as Alternative A, except 

87% of BLM lands would be 

available for forest product 

harvest.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-188

Lands and Realty

(Section 4.2.22.2.5)

Lands and realty management 

decisions could have adverse 

impacts to wildlife through land 

disposals and through the 

authorization or expansion of 

rights-of-way. 55,384 acres are 

proposed for land disposal. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

beneficial impacts could occur 

from rights-of-way 

avoidance/exclusion areas and 

57,472 acres are proposed for 

land disposal.

Same as Alternative B, except 

58,910 acres are proposed for 

land disposal.

Same as Alternative B, except 

62,051 acres are proposed for 

disposal. 

Livestock Grazing

(Section 4.2.22.2.6)

Grazing allotments make up 

approximately 95% of BLM lands 

in the Planning Area. Livestock 

grazing decisions could result in 

both adverse and beneficial impacts 

to wildlife. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

livestock grazing would be 

prohibited within all special 

designations (149,990 acres) and 

riparian areas (1,582 acres). 

Same as Alternative A, except 

livestock grazing would only 

occur where grazing does not 

conflict with resources 

protected by the special 

designation.

Same as Alternative C. 

Mineral Resources

(Section 4.2.22.2.7)

Mineral resource management 

decisions would have both adverse 

and beneficial impacts to wildlife. 

Beneficial impacts would result 

from closing or restricting mineral 

extraction activities in wildlife 

habitat. 6% of wildlife species 

habitat would be managed as NSO, 

CSU, or closed to leasable fluid 

minerals; 6% would be closed to 

mineral extraction; and 1% would 

be recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry.

Same as Alternative A, except 

20% of wildlife species habitat 

would be managed as NSO, 

CSU, or closed to leasable fluid 

minerals; 10% would be closed 

to mineral extraction; and 16% 

would be recommended for 

withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry.

Same as Alternative A, except 

20% of wildlife species 

habitat would be managed as 

NSO, CSU, or closed to 

leasable fluid minerals; 7% 

would be closed to mineral 

extraction; and 15% would be 

recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry.

Same as Alternative A, except 

19% of wildlife species 

habitat would be managed as 

NSO, CSU, or closed to 

leasable fluid minerals; 6% 

would be closed to mineral 

extraction; and 2% would be 

recommended for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-189

Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics

(Section 4.2.22.2.14)

lands managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics are not 

proposed under this alternative.

37,514 acres of lands managed 

to protect wilderness 

characteristics would provide 

beneficial impacts to wildlife

and fisheries by reducing habitat 

degradation and fragmentation.

Same as Alternative B except 

that under this alternative, 

26,110 acres would be 

managed to protect wilderness 

characteristics, benefitting 

wildlife and fisheries. 4,075

acres managed to partially 

protect wilderness 

characteristics would allow 

motorized travel on existing 

routes. 7,329 acres would be 

open to vehicle travel and

other activities that may cause 

habitat fragmentation.

2,239 acres would be 

managed to protect wilderness 

characteristics, benefitting 

wildlife. 35,275 acres would 

be open to vehicle travel and 

other activities.

Recreation and Visitor 

Services

(Section 4.2.22.2.8)

Wildlife could be adversely 

impacted by recreational activities 

due to wildlife harassment, habitat 

fragmentation, and habitat 

degradation. SRMAs are not 

proposed under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

five SRMAs, totaling 10,996

acres of BLM lands in the 

Planning Area, are proposed 

under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Renewable Energy

(Section 4.2.22.2.9)

Renewable energy decisions would 

have adverse and beneficial impacts 

to wildlife. Decisions to avoid or 

exclude certain areas from 

renewable energy development 

would result in beneficial impacts to 

wildlife. Avoidance and exclusion

areas would not be implemented 

under this alternative. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

avoidance and exclusion areas 

identified under this alternative 

would provide protection for 

wildlife habitat.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-190

Riparian Resources

(Section 4.2.22.2.10)

Riparian resource management 

decisions would have beneficial 

impacts to wildlife. Restrictions on 

surface-disturbing activities within 

riparian areas would have indirect 

impacts to wildlife. There is no 

surface disturbance restriction 

proposed for riparian areas under 

this alternative. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

surface-disturbing activities 

would be prohibited within 200 

m (656 feet) of riparian areas. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

surface-disturbing activities 

would be subject to 

restrictions within 200 m (656 

feet) of riparian areas. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Special Designations

(Section 4.2.22.2.13)

Special designations proposed 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. 137,720 acres 

would be managed as special 

designations. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

185,625 acres would be 

managed as special designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

178,000 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.

Same as Alternative A, except 

126,392 acres would be 

managed as special 

designations.

Special-status Species

(Section 4.2.22.2.11)

Activities meant to protect and conserve special-status species would also benefit other wildlife species that share habitat with 

targeted special-status species. 

Soil and Water

(Section 4.2.22.2.12)

Soil and water resource 

management decisions would have 

beneficial impacts to wildlife. 

Restrictions on surface-disturbing 

activities on steep slopes and low 

reclamation soils would have

indirect impacts to wildlife. No 

surface disturbance protections for 

soil and water are proposed under 

this alternative. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

surface-disturbing activities 

would be prohibited within 200 

m (656 feet) of riparian areas. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

surface-disturbing activities 

would be subject to 

restrictions within 200 m (656 

feet) of riparian areas. 

Same as Alternative A. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-191

Travel Management

(Section 4.2.22.2.15)

Travel management decisions 

would have adverse and beneficial 

impacts to wildlife. Areas proposed 

for closure to motorized travel 

would protect wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. 3% of wildlife habitat 

would be closed to motorized 

travel. 

Same as Alternative A, except 

24% of wildlife habitat would be 

closed to motorized travel.

Same as Alternative A, except 

17% of wildlife habitat would 

be closed to motorized travel.

Same as Alternative A, except 

13% of wildlife habitat would 

be closed to motorized travel.

Vegetative Communities

(Section 4.2.22.2.16)

Vegetation treatments would cause short-term adverse impacts from habitat loss, but long-term beneficial impacts from improved 

vegetative communities and diversified habitat. 

Visual Resources

(Section 4.2.22.2.18)

VRM Class I and II areas would be 

the most restrictive to surface 

disturbance and would provide 

indirect beneficial impacts to 

wildlife. 

97,645 acres would be managed as 

VRM Class I and 84,449 acres as 

VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative A, except 

97,296 acres would be managed 

as VRM Class I and 318,931

acres would be managed as 

VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative A, except 

97,474 acres would be 

managed as VRM Class I and 

68,511 acres would be 

managed as VRM Class II.

Same as Alternative A, except 

97,516 acres would be 

managed as VRM Class I and 

21,549 acres would be 

managed as VRM Class II.

Wildlife and Fisheries

(Section 4.2.22.2.17)

Wildlife and fisheries management 

decisions would have beneficial 

impacts to wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. Surface disturbance 

restrictions would benefit wildlife. 

No surface disturbance restrictions 

are proposed under Alternative A.

Proposed restrictions would be 

implemented for surface 

disturbance located near raptor 

nests, big game winter range, 

big game fawning/calving 

habitat, prairie dog towns, and 

wildlife habitat projects.

Same as Alternative B. Proposed restrictions would 

be implemented for surface 

disturbance located near 

raptor nests and prairie dog 

towns.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-192

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Analysis

2.4.1 No Grazing Alternative

An alternative that proposes to make the entire Planning Area unavailable for grazing would not 

meet the multiple-use mandate set forth in the purpose and need of the RMP/EIS. FLPMA 

requires that public lands be managed on a “multiple use and sustained yield basis” (FLPMA, 

Sections 302 (a) and 102 (7)), and includes livestock grazing as a principal or major use of public 

lands. While multiple use management does not require that all lands be used for livestock 

grazing, complete removal of livestock grazing on the entire Planning Area would not meet the 

principle of multiple use and sustained yield. 

NEPA requires that agencies study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to a 

recommended course of action in any proposal that involves unresolved conflicts concerning 

alternative uses of available resources. Livestock grazing was not identified as an issue during 

external scoping (BLM, 2008 Scoping Report). During internal scoping, potential resource 

conflicts between livestock grazing and riparian resources, wildlife resources, and special status 

species were identified. These resource conflicts were addressed through varying management 

decisions for these resources across alternatives. Elimination of livestock grazing on all BLM 

lands in the Planning Area was not identified as a potential management decision that would 

resolve these resource conflicts. 

A range of livestock grazing alternatives was defined in two ways. First, under Alternative B, 

livestock grazing would be eliminated in WSAs, ACECs, and lands with wilderness 

characteristics (151,184 acres less than current levels). This would preclude resource conflicts 

between livestock grazing and other resources in these areas. Second, under Alternatives C and 

D, variable grazing levels would be allowed via adaptive management according to the New 

Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001). Management prescriptions for each allotment or 

pasture would depend on the current condition of the area, and management would be adjusted in 

response to the findings of periodic monitoring. Adaptive management of allotments that do not 

meet the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001) might include reducing AUMs, 

grazing rotation, prescribed rest periods, varying the duration or timing of grazing, adding or 

relocating water developments, or elimination of grazing in certain areas. The appropriate 

adaptive management prescription for each allotment is determined in site-specific 

environmental analyses, such as grazing permit renewal EAs. Through adaptive management, a 

range of allowable livestock grazing acres and AUMs could be reach under Alternatives C and 

D. 

Riparian, wildlife, and special status species resource management decisions relative to livestock 

grazing vary as well. Under Alternative B for riparian resources, livestock grazing within 

riparian areas (about 1,582 acres) would be prohibited, and grazing would be allowed under 

Alternatives C and D only in riparian areas that meet the Riparian Sites Standards of the New 

Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2001). For special status species, water developments 

and mineral supplements for livestock management would be located a certain distance from 

known special status plant populations, with the buffer distance varying across alternatives. The 

wildlife resource alternatives address livestock grazing by spatially or temporally limiting 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-193

grazing in big game winter range and fawning or calving habitat. The range of management 

decisions for these resources addresses the identified resource conflicts. 

2.4.2 Wild Horse Preserve, Sanctuary, State Park, or Herd 

Management Area Alternative

In 1971, Congress enacted the Wild-Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, 16 U.S.C. § 

1331 et seq. (the “Wild Horse Act”). The Wild Horse Act required the BLM to inventory public 

lands to identify areas where wild horses were located in 1971. During this inventory effort, the 

BLM identified herd areas, the geographic areas used by wild horse herds as habitat in 1971. 

Using these herd areas, the BLM established herd management areas for the maintenance of wild 

horse herds. The BLM is required to managing wild horses so that the distribution of animals is 

limited to herd areas, where herds existed in 1971 (43 C.F.R. § 4710.4). 

Following passage of the Wild Horse Act, the BLM inventoried all public lands in New Mexico 

for wild horses and the BLM identified herd areas. The BLM determined that there were no wild 

horses or herd areas within the Rio Puerco Planning Area. Therefore, the 1986 RPFO RMP did 

not establish any herd management areas. 

Because there are no herd areas or herd management areas in the Planning Area of the RPFO, 

this RMP does not address the Wild Horse and Burro Program. Any unclaimed or unbranded 

horses currently within the Planning Area are not subject to management under the Wild Horse 

Act. The BLM does not have authority to designate a herd area or herd management area in a 

location where wild horses were not present in 1971. Such authority lies exclusively with 

Congress. The feral and unclaimed horses in the Planning Area are trespassing on BLMadministered lands, are not a part of the BLM’s inventory or management program as a result of 

the Wild Horse Act, and will not be considered as a part of the BLM’s resource management 

program in this RMP/EIS process. 

The public scoping comments indicate a desire for the BLM to establish a wild horse state park 

or wild horse sanctuary. The BLM lacks authority to designate land as a state park. As 

described above, there is no herd area within the Rio Puerco Planning Area. BLM’s regulations 

call for the BLM to manage herds so that the distribution of animals is limited to herd areas 

where herds existed in 1971. Therefore, a wild horse sanctuary within the Rio Puerco Planning 

Area would be contrary to the BLM’s wild horse management practice. Any establishment of a 

wild horse herd management area within the Planning Area would be similarly contrary to the 

BLM’s regulations. 

2.4.3 Placitas ACEC

ACEC designations highlight areas where special management attention is needed to protect and 

prevent irreparable damage to important historical, cultural, and scenic values; fish or wildlife

resources; or other natural systems or process, or to protect human life and safety from natural 

hazards (BLM 1988). In order to be considered for an ACEC designation, the area must meet one 

or more of the following relevance criteria:
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-194

1) A significant historical, cultural, or scenic value (including but not limited to rare or 

sensitive archaeological resources and religion or cultural resources important to Native 

Americans). 

2) A fish and wildlife resource (including but not limited to habitat for endangered, 

threatened, or sensitive species or habitat essential for maintain species diversity). 

3) A natural process or system (including but not limited to endangered, sensitive, or 

threatened plant species; rare, endemic, or relic plants or plant communities that are 

terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian; or rare geological features). 

4) Natural hazards (including but not limited to areas of avalanche, dangerous flooding, 

landslides, unstable soils, seismic activity, or dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by 

human action may meet the relevance criteria if it is determined through the RMP process 

that is has become part of a natural process. 

The values, resources, systems, processes, or hazards described in the relevance section must 

have substantial significance and values to meet the importance criteria. This generally means 

that the value, resource, system, process, or hazard is characterized by one or more of the 

following:

1) Has more than locally significant qualities that give it special worth, consequence, 

meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar 

resource.

2) Has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change. 

3) Has been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority 

concerns or to carry out the mandates of FLPMA. 

4) Has qualities that warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or management concerns 

about safety and public welfare.

5) Poses a significant threat to the human life and safety of property. 

Each potential ACEC within the Planning Area has been reviewed following the ACEC 

relevance and importance criteria summarized above and outlined in BLM Manual 1613. The 

proposed Placitas ACEC was raised during the public scoping period based on the local 

residents’ interest in cultural resources in the area. This public scoping comment was considered 

by the RPFO through the application of the ACEC relevance and important criteria analysis. The 

Placitas ACEC does not meet the relevance criteria for fish and wildlife, natural process, or 

natural hazards. In addition, the historical, cultural, and scenic values of the area do not meet 

importance criterion of “having more than locally significant qualities that give it worth, 

consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar 

resource.” As a result, the Placitas ACEC is not considered under detailed analysis in this 

RMP/EIS.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-195

While the Placitas area does contain cultural resources, many that are on BLM land are not 

eligible for listing on the NRHP, based on BLM staff review of existing survey data. Those that 

are eligible would be protected (although not necessarily preserved in place) under Section 106 

of the NHPA if any undertakings with the potential to affect cultural resources were proposed. 

The BLM does own a small piece of the NRHP-listed site of San Antonio de Las Huertas, which 

is of national significance under the NHPA and is also protected under the Galisteo Basin 

Archaeological Sites Protection Act of 2004. Undertakings with the potential to adversely affect

this site would be subject to consultation not only with the New Mexico State Historic 

Preservation Officer, but also with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Therefore, 

designation of the potential Placitas ACEC is not necessary to protect the site. 

2.4.4 Las Huertas Creek Wild and Scenic River Special Designation

The potential for Las Huertas Creek to be designated as a WSR was raised during internal 

scoping by members of the RPFO RMP Revision Interdisciplinary Team. The RPFO considered 

the recommendation of Las Huertas Creek for designation using the guidance provided by BLM 

Manual 8351 – Wild and Scenic Rivers – Policy and Program Direction for Identification, 

Evaluation, and Management (BLM 1993). Program guidance is also provided to aid in 

fulfilling requirements of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, including BLM Manual 8351 Section 

1623.41A2d and the Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification, and Management of 

River Areas (USDI and USDA 1982). This guidance provides the line manager and program 

staff professionals with specific policies related to the WSR eligibility determination process, 

integration of WSR studies within the RMP process, WSR river protection and management, 

environmental analyses, legislative reporting, and other matters. 

In order to be considered eligible for determination of suitability for Congressional designation 

into the NWSRS, a river is evaluated using the following process: 

1) Identify segments to be inventoried (only sections falling under BLM jurisdiction). Las 

Huertas Creek is approximately 16 miles long, of which approximately one mile crosses 

BLM-managed land.

2) Determine if segments are free flowing and have any outstandingly remarkable values. 

Las Huertas Creek has been determined to be free flowing but does not have any 

outstanding remarkable values. The outstanding remarkable values considered and 

rationale are as follows:

a) Scenic: The Las Huertas Creek landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water color, 

and related factors do not result in notable or exemplary visual features or attractions 

within the geographic region. The rating area is not “Scenic Quality A,” as defined in the 

BLM Visual Resource Management Manual (BLM 1984). 

b) Recreation: Las Huertas Creek is not eligible because it does not provide a critically 

important regional recreation opportunity. The creek is not a significant component of a 

regional recreation opportunity spectrum setting. The portion of Las Huertas Creek in the 

RPFO Planning Area consists of a dry wash with intermittent water during heavy 

rainstorms and during snowmelt runoff from the Sandia Mountains. Recreation consists 

of people who enjoy looking at and collecting river rock. The creek wash is flat with no 

boundary sides. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 2: Proposed Alternatives

2-196

c) Wildlife Populations: Las Huertas Creek does not contain nationally or regionally 

important populations of resident or indigenous wildlife species dependent on the creek’s 

environment, particularly when considering unique species or populations of state, 

federally listed, or candidate threatened and endangered species.

d) Wildlife Habitat: The area of Las Huertas Creek does not provide high-quality habitat for 

wildlife of national or regional significance or a critical link in habitat conditions for state, 

federally listed, or candidate threatened and endangered species.

e) Cultural: The sites within the RPFO portion of Las Huertas Creek are not rare or have 

exceptional human-interest values. The sites do not have national or regional importance 

for interpreting prehistory.

Segments that are free flowing and have at least one outstanding remarkable value are considered 

eligible. Las Huertas Creek is free flowing but does not have at least one outstanding remarkable 

value; therefore, the creek is not considered eligible for further evaluation as to its suitability as a 

WSR.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-1

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Introduction

Chapter 3 describes the existing conditions and future trends for resources and resource uses 

within the RPPA. Where appropriate, indicators are identified for each resource to further 

describe current conditions. Information from this chapter will be used to analyze the potential 

effects of the proposed alternatives in Chapter 4: Environmental Effects.

Available data have been gathered from various sources (e.g., BLM, other agencies, published 

and unpublished reports, databases, and maps) and compiled to create an inventory. Condition 

will be determined by comparing the value of the indicator(s) to an established standard (current 

plan goal or objective) and/or benchmark. The condition assessment will relate to Land Health 

Standards as appropriate. The scale of the analysis may extend beyond the immediate planning 

area boundary and encompass a logical landscape (the analysis area) to support certain land uses.

3.1 Air Resources

3.1.1 Air Quality

Air resources indicators can be both monitored (measured by an instrument) and modeled 

(estimated by a computer model). Monitoring is used to measure actual values in a specific place 

at a specific time, while modeling is used to estimate values in areas without monitoring and to 

estimate potential future values. The Environmental Protection Agency has established National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants. Measurement of values 

nearing or exceeding these standards is an indication of air quality issues which need to be 

addressed.

All areas in the U.S. are designated to reflect compliance with the NAAQS. Attainment areas are 

areas for which compliance with the NAAQS has been demonstrated; non-attainment areas are 

areas in which pollution levels persistently exceed the NAAQS; maintenance areas are former 

non-attainment areas; unclassifiable areas are areas for which data are not available to determine 

attainment. There are currently no violations of the NAAQS in the Planning Area.

Most air quality monitoring sites in the planning area are located in the Albuquerque 

metropolitan area and therefore may not be representative of outlying public lands which are 

further from major emissions sources. However, in general, trends for criteria pollutants in the 

Albuquerque area are flat to declining. The exception is for ozone which is showing a slight 

increase at some observation sites (USEPA. 2010). This increase is associated with increasing 

population and automobile traffic and not related to activities on public lands managed by BLM. 

How air quality will change over time will depend on trends in air pollution associated with 

population and economic activity and technological changes associated with a variety of mobile 

and stationary sources. Air quality also will be affected by the adoption and implementation of 

federal, state, and local regulations intended to control emissions. Improvements in engine 

efficiency and fuel quality will continue to help to reduce many air pollutants in this area. At the 

same time growing populations could cause increased levels of pollution due to increases in 

traffic and congested roadways and increased demand for electricity generation. Requirements 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-2

for improvement in visibility under the Regional Haze Rule are also forcing states to strategize 

for further improvements in emissions reduction technology. There may, however, be some 

temporary impairment of air quality due to increases in prescribed burning and management of 

wildland fire for resource benefit.

Visibility data have been measured by the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) network in Bandelier National Park from 1989 through the present

and at San Pedro Parks Wilderness from 2001 to the present. Visibility at Bandalier has stayed 

about the same since 1989. Mean annual visual range varies from 125 to 150 miles on clear days, 

90 to 108 miles on average days, and 60 to 83 miles on hazy days. Visibility at San Pedro Parks 

has stayed about the same since 2001. Mean annual visual range varies from 170 to 190 miles on 

clear days, about 120 miles on average days, and 80 to 90 miles on hazy days. 

3.1.2 Clean Air Act Protection Classes

The Clean Air Act (CAA) accords the strictest air quality protection to Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Class I Areas. The Bandelier National Monument is within the RPPA, the 

San Pedro Parks are adjacent to the RPPA, and several other Class I areas are nearby. Efforts 

must be taken to ensure minimal impact to air quality in these areas by BLM activities.

Areas not designated as Class I are considered Class II for air quality planning. Although some 

degradation in air quality is allowable in Class II areas, some areas are more sensitive than others 

and require a greater level of protection. There are three sensitive Class II Areas within the 

Planning Area (Cebolla, Ojito and West Malpais Wilderness Areas). 

3.1.3 Climate

Climate is the composite of generally prevailing weather conditions of a particular region 

throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. Climate within the planning area exhibits 

considerable variation largely influenced by elevation and topography. Arid to semiarid lower 

elevations transition into more moist and cool areas at higher elevations. In general, the area 

experiences warm summer temperatures (daytime highs around 80-90°F) and moderately cold 

winters (nighttime lows between 10-25°F). Most annual precipitation occurs during the summer 

months associated with the Southwest Monsoon though rain and snow associated with Pacific 

weather systems can also occur during winter.

Temperature and precipitation vary considerably across the planning area. Weather stations in 

the planning area with continuous data availability were selected to demonstrate the climate of 

the planning area. 

Table 3.1: Climate Data from Weather Stations in the Planning Area

County Station Elev. 

(ft.)

Avg. 

Max. 

Temp. 

(°F)

Avg. 

Min. 

Temp. 

(°F)

Avg. Tot. 

Precip. 

(in.)

Avg. Tot. 

Snowfall 

(in.)

Period of 

Record

Bernal

illo

Albuquer

que Int’l 

Airport

5,31

0

69.9 43.3 8.72 9.6 1914-

2010
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-3

County Station Elev. 

(ft.)

Avg. 

Max. 

Temp. 

(°F)

Avg. 

Min. 

Temp. 

(°F)

Avg. Tot. 

Precip. 

(in.)

Avg. Tot. 

Snowfall 

(in.)

Period of 

Record

Cibola

Grants/M

ilan Mun. 

Airport

6,52

0

68.0 33.0 10.36 12.5 1953-

2010

Fence 

Lake

7,06

5

65.8 31.7 14.13 31.5 1933-

2007

McKin

ley Zuni 6,311

67.8 33.5 11.91 18.0 1949-

2010

Torran

ce

Mountain

air

6,52

0

67.4 35.5 14.43 27.5 1902-

2010

Estancia 6,12

0

68.0 33.1 12.90 18.7 1904-

2010

Sando

val

Cuba 7,04

5

63.8 28.5 13.16 28.6 1938-

2010

Torreon 

Navajo 

Mission

6,70

0

66.0 34.7 10.24 19.9 1961-

2010

Valenc

ia

Los 

Lunas

4,84

0

72.9 37.8 9.05 4.3 1923-

2010

Elev., elevation; avg. max. temp., average maximum temperature; avg. min. temp., average 

minimum temperature; avg. tot. precip., average total precipitation; avg. tot. snowfall, average 

total snowfall; ft., feet; °F, degrees Fahrenheit; in., inches. Note that the period of record varies by 

station. The average period of record presented is 22 years (Western Regional Climate Center 

2011).

Portions of the planning area have shown overall temperature increases in the past 40 years while 

no change or a slight cooling trend has occurred in other parts of the planning area (Enquist and 

Gori, 2008). An extended period of drought from 2000 to 2005 affected much of the state of 

New Mexico, including portions of the planning area. However, much of the planning area 

experienced wetter conditions from 1991-2005 compared with a baseline of 1961-1990 (Enquist 

and Gori, 2008). 

Temperature variability patterns in the tropical Pacific Ocean, referred to as the El Niño

Southern Oscillation (ENSO), are important drivers of weather patterns in the planning area. 

During the El Niño phase, the equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures increase to above 

average, while during the La Niña phase, the ocean temperature trends to below average. 

Analysis of El Niño patterns indicates that precipitation in the planning area tends to be above 

average during the El Niño phase, with an increasing trend from north to south. During the La 

Niña phase, there is generally a reduction of precipitation as compared to the average, especially 

toward the south (National Weather Service, 2011). 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-4

3.1.4 Climate Change

Climate is the long-term average of annual and seasonal weather conditions in a region. 

Greenhouse gases are compounds in the atmosphere that absorb infrared radiation and re-radiate 

a portion of that back to the earth’s surface, thus trapping heat and warming the atmosphere. 

Changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have the potential to affect 

climate patterns, which in turn can affect resource management. The most important naturally 

occurring greenhouse gas compounds are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and 

water vapor. Although naturally present in the atmosphere, increasing concentrations of carbon 

dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are due to industrial processes, transportation technology, 

urban development, agricultural practices, and other human activity. 

During the 20th century, global average temperature rose by about 1.5oF. Depending on the level 

of greenhouse gas emissions, global averages are projected to rise by another 2-11.5oF by the 

end of the 21st century. The U.S. average temperature has risen by a comparable amount and is 

very likely to rise more than the global average over this century, with some variation from place 

to place (USGCRP 2009).

In its 2007 Summary for Policy Makers, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated 

that “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 pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years.” 

They further stated that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the 

mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas

(GHG) concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over 

the past 50 years averaged over each continent.” (IPCC, 2007a)

The U.S. Global Change Research Program Report on Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States indicates that average annual temperatures in New Mexico have increased by 1-2

o

F 

over a baseline period of 1961 to 1979. Using a 1961-1990 baseline and estimating temperatures 

using the Prism model, Enquist and Gori (2008) found that over 95% of the geographical area of 

the state had experienced temperature increases in recent years. Precipitation was less well 

defined with 54% of the state showing wetter conditions, 41% drier conditions, and 5% showing 

no change. 

Global Change Models (GCMs) project that New Mexicans will experience average annual 

temperatures 2-3 oF warmer than the average for the 1961-1979 baseline period by the middle of 

the 21st Century under a lower emissions scenario. Four to five degrees (F) of total warming in 

average annual temperatures is predicted by the end of the century under the same scenario. This 

scenario assumes no effort to reduce emissions but a lower rate of growth than other scenarios 

(USGCRP 2009). Higher emissions scenarios result in 3-4 degrees of warming in New Mexico 

by 2050 and 8-10 degrees by the end of the century.

GCMs remain unreliable at the regional scale and are not as robust at predicting precipitation 

changes as temperature changes. In the southwest, these models consistently predict drier 

conditions but are not yet able to resolve the southwest monsoon or El Niño, both of which have 

a strong influence on precipitation in New Mexico (IPCC, 2007b). While many resources are 

affected by changes in climate, whether natural or anthropogenic, it is not always possible to 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-5

make a direct connection between resource changes and climate. The spectrum of resources 

impacts including climate change, are addressed when describing the affected environment for a 

specific resource. 

3.2 Cave and Karst Resources

Karst is a type of topography that is formed in soluble rock such as limestone and gypsum. It is 

characterized by sinkholes caves, and underground drainages. A cave is defined as any naturally 

occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages occurring beneath the 

surface of the Earth or within a cliff or ledge large enough to permit an individual to enter, 

whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or human-made Federal Cave Resources 

Protection Act [FCRPA], Sec. 3(1)). In the Planning Area, travertine, gypsum, and lava tube 

caves are the most common types of cave formations. 

Under the FCRPA, a cave is considered significant if it meets one or more of the following 

criteria:

Biota — The cave serves as seasonal or year-long habitat for organisms or animals or 

contains species or subspecies of flora or fauna native to caves, or that are sensitive to 

disruption, or that are found on state or federal sensitive, threatened, or endangered species 

lists.

Cultural — The cave contains historic or archaeological resources included in or eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP because of its research importance for history or prehistory, its 

historical association, or other historical or traditional significance.

Geological/Mineralogical/Paleontological — The cave possesses one or more of the 

following features: geologic or mineralogical features that are fragile or exhibit interesting 

formation.

Hydrologic — The cave is part of a hydrologic system or contains water important to 

humans, biota, or development of cave resources.

Recreational — The cave provides or could provide recreational opportunities or scenic 

values.

Educational or Scientific — The cave offers opportunities for educational or scientific use or 

is in a virtually pristine state, lacking evidence of contemporary human disturbance or impact, 

or the length, height, volume, total depth, or similar measurements are notable.

The 1986 Rio Puerco RMP addressed management actions for cave resources in the Pronoun

Cave Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), which currently has no management 

plan. No other caves within the Planning Area have been identified and inventoried. 

Unpublished data provided by the USGS in addition to published geologic maps show that karst 

exposures are widespread throughout the Planning Area. Additionally, according to Daniel 

Doctor (pers. comm. November 2009) of the USGS, “The extent of buried evaporite and 

carbonate karst is grossly under-represented in the data. Buried karst (i.e., cavities in soluble 

units that are not exposed at the surface but are covered by some thickness of overlying strata) 

can present significant hazards to development, particularly related to drilling of water or oil/gas 

wells.” A similar observation has been made by Dr. George Veni of the National Cave and Karst 

Institute (pers. comm. November 2009).
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-6

A map of cave and karst potential will be maintained and will serve as a potential indicator for 

encountering caves or karst. The cave and karst potential zones were identified using geologic 

maps and other existing information on caves and karst. There are approximately 1.9 million 

acres of karst within the entire Planning Area, regardless of surface ownership. This estimated 

acreage was taken from map data in USGS unpublished report and includes areas of volcanic 

pseudokarst, carbonate karst, and evaporite karst. 

Qualitative trend data for cave resources in the Planning Area are not available. Recreational 

cavers constitute the majority of cave users. Animal and human visitations into caves, even by 

competent, careful cavers, impact these resources to some degree. Caves are a target of looters 

in the Planning Area, and a few are exposed to livestock seeking shelter from the elements. 

Given the lack of condition or trend data collected for caves in the Planning Area, predicting 

changes given current management is not possible. The potential for additional cave discoveries 

in the Planning Area is high considering the abundance of karst topography. Based on 

consultation with members of the Southwest Region, National Speleological Society (NSS; 

Table 3.1), BLM cave specialists believe that a number of undiscovered caves occur within the 

Planning Area. BLM staff will determine whether or not caves on RPFO public lands meet the 

criteria for significance as set forth at 43 CFR 37.11(c). If so, the RPFO will describe 

management objectives and prescriptions. Data to make an accurate estimate of the total number 

of caves in the Planning Area are not available.

Key features for cave and karst resources are areas underlain by soluble rock types. The 

potential for cave and karst features are listed by county in Table 3.2, which is based on geologic 

maps. All cave and karst substrates (volcanic pseudokarst, evaporate and carbonate karst) are 

represented in the potential table. 

Table 3.2: Cave and Karst Potential By County

Cave-Karst Potential Cibola 

County

Bernalillo 

County

Torrance 

County

Sandoval 

County

Eastern 

Sandoval 

County

High:

Probability of Cave/Karst is 

certain

X X X X

Medium:

Probability of Cave/Karst is 

likely.

X X X

Low:

Probability of Cave/Karst is 

possible.

X X X

None:

Probability of Cave/Karst is 

unlikely.

X X X
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-7

3.3 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources as defined by the BLM consist of “a definite location of human activity, 

occupation, or use identifiable through field inventory (survey), historical documentation, or oral 

evidence” (USDI BLM 2004) and include archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, and 

traditional cultural properties. Archaeological, historic, and architectural sites are spatially finite 

areas containing physical remains of past human activity. They are important for the information 

they can provide regarding past lifeways and as a tangible link to the past. Traditional cultural 

properties (TCP) are definite locations deriving significance from traditional values associated 

with them by a cultural group such as an Indian tribe or local community (USDI BLM 2004, see 

also USDI, NPS 1998).

Because cultural resources have intrinsic values (e.g., scientific, traditional, or public 

interpretation values) that, under FLPMA, must be managed, planning and implementing 

management practices related to cultural resources involves a multiple resources approach. 

NEPA, NHPA (as amended), and other Federal legislation require that the BLM assess the 

impacts of a proposed action to cultural resources. 

The RPPA has a wide variety of environmental settings and resources and has long been used by 

humans. The planning area encompasses a large and diverse assemblage of prehistoric 

archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites and localities, and locations of traditional 

religious and cultural importance to Indian tribes. For BLM management purposes, these 

remains take the form of sites, artifacts, buildings, structures, ruins, features, and natural 

landscapes with particular cultural importance. With a few exceptions, these remains must be at 

least fifty years old. In the case of traditional cultural places, the period of traditional use of that 

place must also be at least fifty years old. 

3.3.1 Cultural History of the Planning Area

Occupation of what is today the Rio Puerco Planning Area is divided into several time periods 

based largely on variation in artifact assemblages and feature types. The dates provided here 

serve only as general time-frame markers; any new dating technology advances or new 

discoveries will likely alter these date ranges somewhat. Nevertheless, five broad time periods 

will serve as temporal foundations for explaining human behavior in this area. An outline of 

these five periods, typical resources, and their associated behavioral trends is summarized below.

The Planning Area encompasses a long history of occupation, beginning with Paleoindians who 

camped on Albuquerque’s West Mesa at least as early as Folsom times (ca. 9,000 years before 

present). Sites dating to Paleoindian, Archaic, Ancestral Puebloan, and Historic time periods are 

represented within the Planning Area. Many other sites lack temporally diagnostic artifacts, 

precluding assignment to any of the above periods. A brief summary of the culture history of the 

Rio Puerco Planning Area follows.

The Paleoindian Period (12,000-7,500 years before present) is represented in the Rio Puerco 

Planning Area as isolated finds as well as more substantial sites. Paleoindians were highly 

mobile hunters and gatherers living during the Late Pleistocene age. Paleoindians are best 

known from sites where now extinct Pleistocene fauna (like mammoth) were killed and 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-8

butchered. Most sites consist of limited activity artifact scatters, but some more substantial 

scatters are also found.

The Archaic Period (5500 BC–AD 200) is well represented within the Rio Puerco Field Office. 

The Archaic way of life was based on hunting of small and medium-sized animals and gathering 

of wild plants. The Late Archaic period includes what is known as the Basketmaker II period, 

which marks the transition to the subsequent Puebloan, or Anasazi Period. Archaic site types 

include special activity sites such as limited activity artifact scatters, hunting blinds and stone

quarries, as well as habitation sites with shallow pit structures.

The Rio Puerco Field Office, as well as a much larger region including the four corners, has 

abundant Ancestral Puebloan (AD 600–1600) sites, which include the archaeological cultures 

popularly known as the Anasazi and the Mogollon. The Ancestral Puebloan Culture is 

highlighted by the development of agriculture, architecture, ceramics, and complex social 

organization. The Planning Area encompasses the southeastern portion of the archaeological 

culture known as the Chaco Anasazi, represented by several Chacoan outliers that are protected 

under the Chacoan Outliers Protection Act (COPA). One of these sites is a UNESCO World 

Heritage Site. In addition, two of the large Ancestral Puebloan communities protected under the 

Galisteo Basin Archaeological Sites Protection Act (GBASPA) are located within the Planning 

Area. Puebloan presence extends into the present in the form of pueblos that have been 

continuously occupied for centuries.

Archaeological evidence of Navajo and Apache occupation of the area appears as early as the 

late 1400s to 1500s and continues into the present. Site types include culturally modified trees, 

artifact scatters, and habitation sites. Habitation sites can include shallow pit structures, forked 

stick hogans, cribbed log hogans, stone hogans, and pueblitos in defensive settings. In the 

RPPA, culturally modified trees and forked stick hogans are the most common site types. 

European settlement of the area that is now the Rio Puerco Planning Area began shortly after the 

Coronado expedition entered the middle Rio Grande Valley in 1540. The earliest route of 

Spanish settlement in New Mexico, El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro (designated as a National 

Historic Trail [NHT]), passes through the Planning Area, and Hispanic communities, some of 

which were established before the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, are found here. One, San Jose de las 

Huertas, is also protected under the Galisteo Basin Archaeological Site Protection Act. Largescale cattle ranching in New Mexico began in the 1880s, a decade characterized by the arrival of 

the railroads and thriving grasslands due to wetter than normal conditions. A combination of a 

return to more arid conditions, falling cattle prices after World War II, institution of more 

sustainable grazing practices, and development of a feedlot cattle business led to smaller herds 

on the ranges and abandonment of many small ranching homesteads established under the 

Homestead Act and the Stock Raising Homestead Act.

For a complete culture history of the Planning Area, see Cordell (l997). Mangum (1990) 

summarizes the history of El Malpais, and Baker and Durand (2003) presents much information 

regarding the middle Rio Puerco Valley. Much of the information in these two sources pertains 

to the rest of the Planning Area. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-9

3.3.2 Current Condition

This section provides information on the cultural resources of the Planning Area in terms of their 

management, current state of knowledge of their nature, historic context, condition, and spatial 

distribution.

3.3.3 Indicators 

Given the goals and objectives of the cultural resources program, several indicators are 

identified. These are designed to facilitate evaluation of the degree to which the goals and 

objectives are being met through management action guided by the land use planning process. 

These indicators and those that will be used for impact analyses in Chapter 4 are based on the 

same data, but they are not equivalent. Factors relevant for describing the condition of cultural 

resources of the Planning Area include the: 

Extent of inventory survey and number, type, and significance of identified cultural resources

Identification of, and responses to threats to the integrity of cultural resources

Archaeological sites are abundant in the region and little funding for proactive inventory, as 

required by Section 110 of the NHPA, has been available. Inventory of cultural resources is 

typically done during the NHPA Section 106 compliance process for projects sponsored both 

internally by the BLM and by external proponents. Therefore, the distribution of known sites in 

the Planning Area is highly correlated with the location of past federal undertakings which 

required inventory to complete Section 106 compliance. The distribution of known sites does 

not necessarily reflect the actual distribution of all archaeological sites created through past 

human occupation. There may be areas that were extensively used prehistorically that have 

abundant archaeological sites, but because those areas are not currently the location of federal 

undertakings, no inventory has been undertaken, and no archaeological sites identified. This 

underlines the importance of proactive inventory. 

Threats and disturbances are identified programmatically through the NEPA and Section 106 

process and through direct observations made by field personnel on a site-by-site basis often 

associated with compliance activities. The RPFO also partners with the New Mexico Historic 

Preservation Department’s SiteWatch program to visit thirty high-value cultural resources on a 

quarterly basis and document resource damage. Responses to threats often involve some level of 

NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA compliance that identifies cultural resources in the area of 

potential effect, potential impacts, and mitigation measures. The specific responses or 

mitigations depend on the nature of the impacts and cultural resources involved and are 

determined on a case-by-case basis. These often include documentation, signage, fencing, or 

increased patrols.

Information about the status of the inventory and evaluation of cultural resources within the 

Planning Area are available from two sources: 1) annual tracking data from the RPFO Cultural 

Resource Program; and 2) the New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System (NMCRIS). 

Both sources of information have their limitations, but together, they provide a basis for 

characterizing the current state of knowledge of cultural resources of the Planning Area. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-10

The RPFO began electronic tracking of data from annual reports in fiscal year (FY) 99, 

providing a general indication of the volume of inventory conducted by the BLM and external 

project proponents for projects that include BLM land, as well as the number of sites recorded 

within a FY. The data for inventory and recorded sites on public lands in the Planning Area for 

FY99 through FY08 are shown in Table 3.3 and will provide the data discussed in the Trends 

section. Note that eligibility information is incomplete for FY02 through FY06. 

Table 3.3: Class III and Site Status (All Jurisdictions)

Fiscal Year

Class III Acres

Newly Recorded Sites

Site Updates

Total Sites in survey

1 site per x acres

Eligible

Not Eligible

Undetermined

Sites with eligibility 

information

Percent of sites eligible 

or potentially eligible

FY99 2,583 30 0 30 86

FY00 2,250 24 8 32 70

FY01 12,538 240 9 249 50 23 2 3 28

FY02 7,672 171 39 210 37 89 21 49 159 86.79 

FY03 5,285 182 51 233 23 91 9 36 136 93.38 

FY04 2,342 86 27 113 21 65 25 21 111 77.48 

FY05 3,324 126 23 149 22 77 39 30 146 73.29 

FY06 5,450 96 10 106 51 57 29 13 99 70.71 

FY07 1,948 42 47 89 22 23 41 25 89 53.93 

FY08 2,086 65 25 90 23 65 17 8 90 81.11 

Total 45,478 1062 239 1301 35 493 187 188 868 78.46 

The number of acres surveyed per year varies unpredictably based on the kinds of projects 

carried out in a given fiscal year. Some projects are large, while others involve only a few acres. 

The number of sites discovered generally increases with increased survey coverage, but some 

areas of the RPPA exhibit lower site density than others. For the most part, the RPPA has a high 

proportion of eligible sites. Some areas contain a larger numbers of sites not meeting the criteria 

for listing on the NRHP. If survey activities during a given fiscal year were concentrated in a 

low site density area, or an area with many ineligible sites, this will be reflected in lower 

numbers of sites overall and lower numbers of eligible sites regardless of the acres surveyed. 

The NMCRIS database was used as another source of information about the extent of inventory 

and evaluation of cultural resources within the Planning Area that is broken down by planning 

unit. NMCRIS is a statewide database that was developed and is maintained by the State Historic 

Preservation Division (with support from BLM). 

3.3.4 Trails, Roads and Railroads

Historic trails, roads, and railroads are another type of cultural resource that is difficult to include 

in tables such as those in the preceding section. Laboratory of Anthropology numbers can be 

assigned to segments that are identifiable on the ground, but this results in a single linear site 

being comprised of many Laboratory of Anthropology numbers. Within the Planning Area, a 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-11

number of historic trails, roads, and railroads have been identified through a Class I Inventory of 

these linear cultural resources within the RPPA, resulting in the identification of trail, road, and 

railroad corridors (Myers 2009). No field surveys have been carried out to identify the physical 

remains of the features on the ground. Seven trail or road corridors cross public lands within the 

Planning Area. The linear transportation corridors are listed in Table 3.4. 

Table 3.4: Linear Transportation Corridors within the Planning Area

Type Non-BLM BLM

Trails and 

Roads

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro 

(a NHT)

Long Walk (Forced removal of the 

Navajo and Mescalero Apache to 

the Bosque Redondo)

Coronado Expedition Trail

Routes Between Zuni Pueblo and 

Albuquerque

 Amiel Weeks Whipple

 Edward Fitzgerald Beale

 Juan de Oñate

 Dominguez-Escalante

 Lorenzo Sitgreaves

Captain John N. Macomb, 1859, 

Return from Utah

The Road from Jemez to Navajo

 Simpson, Washington - 1849

 Backus - 1858

 Shepherd - 1859

The Road from Jemez to Abiquiu

Roads from Anton Chico and 

Santa Fe to Fort Stanton

Carleton Expedition to Abó

The Road from Albuquerque to 

Pecos River

Stage Route from Tijeras to Cañon 

Blanco

Santa Fe, New Mexico to Prescott, 

Arizona Stage line

Route 66

Long Walk (Forced removal of 

the Navajo and Mescalero 

Apache to the Bosque Redondo)

Santa Fe, New Mexico to 

Prescott, Arizona Stage line

Captain John N. Macomb, 1859, 

Return from Utah

The Road from Jemez to Navajo

 Simpson, Washington -

1849

 Backus - 1858

 Shepherd - 1859

Coronado Expedition Trail

Routes Between Zuni Pueblo and 

Albuquerque

 Amiel Weeks Whipple

 Edward Fitzgerald Beale

Route 66

Railroads Santa Fe to Torrance 

Moriarty to almost Hagan

Algodones to Hagan and Coyote

Bernalillo to San Ysidro to Porter

Bernalillo to San Ysidro and La 

Ventana

Domingo to Boom

Moriarty to almost Hagan

Bernalillo to San Ysidro to 

Porter

Bernalillo to San Ysidro and La 

Ventana
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-12

Type Non-BLM BLM

Zuni Mountain Rail Lines

3.3.4.1 Special-Status Resources

Another aspect of evaluation is designating special-status resources. These include national 

historic sites, national cultural historical parks, national monuments, national historic landmarks, 

cultural ACECs (Table 3.5), and cultural properties listed on the National or State Registers. 

Resources determined NRHP-eligible are afforded the same consideration as those that are 

actually listed, but the additional effort entailed in listing properties often reflects a higher degree 

of publicly perceived significance or sentiment for preservation in place. National Historic 

Landmarks (NHL) are nationally significant sites that have received a higher degree of 

recognition than sites listed only on the NRHP. Table 3.5 lists special status resources in the 

Planning Area with the exception of NRHP-listed and state-listed historic properties, a list of 

which is maintained by the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, Historic Preservation 

Division (http://www.nmhistoricpreservation.org/PROGRAMS/registers.html). There are 257 

state-listed properties in the Planning Area. 

Table 3.5: Special-Status Cultural Resources in the Planning Area

Type In Planning Area, not managed by BLM-RPFO Managed by BLMRPFO

National 

Monuments

Bandelier (south of Frijoles Canyon)

El Malpais 

El Morro 

Petroglyph 

Salinas Pueblo Missions 

Kasha-Katuwe Tent 

Rocks (contains 

cultural resources)

National 

Historic Trails

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro

Long Walk (proposed)

Long Walk (proposed)

National 

Historic 

Landmarks

Abo

Acoma Pueblo

Ernie Pyle House

Hawikuh

Quarai

Sandia Cave

San Estevan del Rey Mission Church

Zuni-Cibola Complex

Manuelito Complex

Big Bead Mesa

Designated 

Chacoan 

Outliers (P.L. 

104-11)

San Mateo

Manuelito-Atsee Nitsaa

Manuelito-Kin Hochoi

The Dittert Site 

(within El Malpais 

NCA)

Guadalupe Ruin

Casamero * 

Andrews Ranch* 

Kin Nizhoni*

Galisteo Basin Pa’ako San Jose de las 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-13

Type In Planning Area, not managed by BLM-RPFO Managed by BLMRPFO

Sites (P.L. 

108-208)

San Jose de Las Huertas

Espinoso Ridge Pueblo

Huertas

Cultural 

ACECs

No equivalent designations Canon Tapia

Jones Canyon

Pronoun Cave 

Complex

New Mexico 

State Register 

of Cultural 

Properties

See list at http://www.nmhistoricpreservation.org/

documents/PropertiesByCounty.pdf

San Antonio de 

Padua de Carnue

Mount Taylor 

Cultural Landscape 

Ojo Pueblo

Route 66

* located within Farmington Planning Area but administered by RPFO under inter-area agreement 

NM-010-071

3.3.4.2 Congressionally Designated or Presidentially Proclaimed Cultural 

Resources 

These cultural resources are nationally significant cultural resources such as national 

monuments, national historic sites, national historical parks, and NHTs. While Kasha-Katuwe 

Tent Rocks and El Malpais NCA have cultural resource values that are included in their 

designation, both areas are excluded from consideration in this planning effort; both areas have 

stand-alone land use plans. 

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro (the Royal Road of the Interior), one of 19 designated NHTs, 

crosses through the RPPA. The trail connected Mexico City with New Mexico’s Spanish 

colonial capitals The identified corridor of El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro roughly parallels 

the Rio Grande. El Camino Real does not currently include public lands in the RPPA, but it 

would be desirable for the BLM to obtain portions of this NHT in the future from willing sellers. 

The proposed Long Walk NHT records the route taken by the U.S. military as they forced the 

Navajo people to relocate from their homeland in Arizona and western New Mexico to Fort 

Sumner in 1862. Some portions of this route are on public lands, but most are not. 

In addition to these designations, two laws have recognized the national significance of certain 

sites within the Planning Area: 1) Chaco Outlier Protection Act of 1995 (which amended PL 96-

550 of 1980, the law that originally designated Chacoan Outliers as special sites); and 2) Galisteo 

Basin Archaeological Site Protection Act of 2004. These laws recognize that thirty-nine

Chacoan Outliers and twenty-four Galisteo Basin sites have special value to the nation through 

their research and interpretive potential and their value to traditional communities. While most 

of the Chacoan Outliers are managed by the FFO and most of the Galisteo sites are managed by

the Taos Field Office, some are located within the Planning Area, as noted in Table 3.5. These 

legislatively designated sites have provisions for management in the legislation. Both acts allow 

for the addition of sites in the future.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-14

3.3.4.3 Traditional Cultural Properties

As defined at the beginning of this section, traditional cultural properties (TCPs) are definite 

locations deriving significance from traditional values associated with them by a cultural group 

such as an Indian tribe or local community. The RPPA is known to contain TCPs affiliated with 

a number of Native American tribes, pueblos, and traditional Hispanic communities such as land 

grant communities. Some of these locations have been identified, and it is likely that other TCPs 

exist within the RPPA, but have not been identified to the BLM as TCPs by affiliated groups. 

The identification of TCPs is an ongoing process of consultation on a project-by-project basis. 

Within a given project area, it is possible that only TCPs that will be affected by that particular 

project will be identified. When subsequent projects involving different activities are proposed, 

it is possible that additional TCPs may be identified if the project’s activities are determined by 

the affiliated group to have potential impacts. Additionally, groups may decide that revealing the 

location of TCPs may have greater impacts than allowing the project to proceed without 

identification. For this reason, affiliated groups’ silence on the existence of TCPs within the 

RPPA should not be interpreted to mean that there are no additional TCPs present, and 

underscores the need for consultation on a case-by-case basis, and for consultation early in the

planning process. 

3.3.5 Key Features 

The geographic distribution of cultural resource features described above is not known due to the 

limited percentage of lands within the Planning Area that have been inventoried for cultural 

resources. To address this lack of 100% inventory and to guide land use allocation or 

management decisions through analysis in Chapter 4, a cultural resources sensitivity model has 

been developed. The relative site density potential for areas within the Planning Area was 

estimated using known site locations. All areas of the Planning Area were then ranked as having 

high, medium, or low potential for containing cultural sites. Table 3.6 summarizes the acreage of 

the three site probability categories estimated within the Planning Area. A detailed description of 

the factors considered and methodology used to assess site probability is provided in Chapter 4. 

Although the model does not attempt to distinguish site type, temporal period, cultural affiliation, 

or NRHP eligibility, the information presented in this chapter provides the general characteristics 

that can be expected from the cultural resources modeled.

Table 3.6: Site Probabilities by Acres

High Medium Low No Data

BLM Surface Ownership 15,056 294,947 28,540 418,531

Acres All Jurisdictions 387,457 2,707,283 267,285 6,141,906

3.4 Fire Management

Land managers have recognized fire as a natural disturbance that plays a significant role in 

healthy ecosystem function, and that there is a need to reintroduce fire into the landscape. The 

frequency of fire is often used as an indicator of how well ecosystems are adapted to fire. This 

can be discussed in terms of fire regime, which is the combination of fire frequency, 

predictability, intensity, seasonality, and extent characteristic of fire in an ecosystem. 

Classification of fire regime may be based on the characteristics of the fire itself or on the effects 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-15

produced by the fire (Agee 1993). Fire regimes have been described by factors such as 

frequency, severity, intensity, and size of burn.

The ways in which fire regimes change over both time and space are vitally important to 

understanding the role of fire in ecosystems. For this reason, the current fire regime condition 

class (FRCC) of an ecosystem is often described in terms of how it differs from its historic 

FRCC. By delineating current FRCCs within the context of the historic fire regime, land 

managers may be better able to predict fire extent, severity, intensity, and effects. 

The 2001 Federal Fire Policy references preliminary FRCC data as a way of inferring risk to 

ecosystem sustainability and risk of uncharacteristic wildland fire behavior and effects (Schmidt 

et al. 2002). These are qualitative measures that incorporate the concept of historic fire regimes

as a baseline against which current conditions are compared. Table 3.7 describes the attributes 

associated with each FRCC.

Table 3.7: Current Fire Regime Condition Classes

Condition 

Class Attributes Example Management Options

Condition 

Class 1

Fire regimes are within or near a historical range.

The risk of losing ecosystem components is low.

Fire frequencies have departed from historical 

frequencies by no more than one return interval.

Vegetation attributes (species composition and 

structure) are intact and functioning within a 

historical range.

Where appropriate, these 

areas can be maintained 

within the historical fire 

regime by treatments such 

as wildland fire for 

resource benefit.

Condition 

Class 2

Fire regimes have been moderately altered from 

their historical range.

The risk of losing key ecosystem components has 

increased to moderate.

Fire frequencies have departed (either increased 

or decreased) from historical frequencies by more 

than one return interval. This will result in 

moderate changes to one or more of the 

following: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, 

or landscape patterns.

Vegetation attributes have been moderately 

altered from their historical range.

Where appropriate, these 

areas may need moderate 

levels of restoration 

treatments, such as 

wildland fire for resource 

benefit and hand or 

mechanical treatments, to 

be restored to the 

historical fire regime.

Condition 

Class 3

Fire regimes have been significantly altered from 

their historical range.

The risk of losing ecosystem components is high.

Fire frequencies have departed from historical 

frequencies by multiple return intervals. This will 

result in dramatic changes to one or more of the 

following: fire size, frequency, intensity, severity, 

or landscape patterns.

Vegetation attributes have been significantly 

Where appropriate, these 

areas may need high 

levels of restoration 

treatments, such as hand 

or mechanical treatments.

These treatments may be 

necessary before fire is 

used to restore the 

historical fire regime.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-16

Condition 

Class Attributes Example Management Options

altered from their historical range.

Source: USDI BLM 2004a

Historic fire regimes in New Mexico were developed through an interaction of vegetation

communities, topography, climate, and ignition sources. Lightning has been a source of fire 

ignition over geologic time, and the use of fire by Native Americans during the past several 

centuries is probably not fully understood (Denevan 1992). The term “historic” generally refers 

to the period from about 1500 to late 1800, a time before extensive settlement by EuropeanAmericans in many parts of North America, before intense conversion of wildlands for 

agricultural and other purposes, and before fire suppression effectively altered fire frequency in 

many areas (Brown et al. 2000).

The development of Fire Management Units (FMUs) is an attempt by managers to allow fire to 

play its role as a natural disturbance within social constraints. FMUs are predetermined areas 

that have similar fuels, topography, management objectives, and resource needs that allow each 

area to be managed as a unit. In terms of fire management, FMUs are important planning 

categorizations that allow management to determine how to respond to wildfire in a given area 

and where to focus resources in case of multiple ignitions. FMUs are delineated with 

consideration of public safety concerns first and natural resource values second. These FMU

categories are shown on Map 5.

Based on the historic fire regimes and on-the-ground conditions, the BLM had assigned lands 

within the Planning Area into the three FRCCs (USDI BLM 2004a). Table 3.8 summarizes 

current FRCC acres for the Planning Area. The geographical locations of the FRCC are included 

Map 6.

Table 3.8: Fire Regime Condition Class Acreages by Fire Management Unit

Fire Management Unit Class 1 

Acres

Class 2 

Acres

Class 3 

Acres

Not 

Inventoried Total

B6. Sandia 1,460 7,512 2,971 981 12,924

B8. Candy Kitchen 572 5,869 6,378 9 12,828

C1. North Malpais 4,109 77,619 39,404 1,390 122,522

C3. Wilderness & WSAs 2,870 32,883 1,448 2,661 39,862

C5. Mesa Chivato 3,122 37,707 17,124 421 58,374

C7. Scattered Grass/Shrub 70,195 357,322 43,500 38,441 509,458

Total 82,328 518,912 110,825 43,902 755,967

Total Acres Needing 

Treatment 518,912 110,825 629,737

Source: USDI BLM 2004a

3.4.1 Wildland Fire Management Strategies

Within the defined FMUs, the BLM has developed specific management strategies to meet 

public safety and resource objectives. For example, fires within ACECs and WSAs may not 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-17

pose a threat to public safety if allowed to burn. The resource values associated with ACECs and 

WSAs may necessitate a high fire suppression priority; therefore, these areas may be assigned to 

FMU Category A. Other areas are high priority suppression areas because they pose a high 

public safety threat.

The number and size of wildland fires is heavily dependent on environmental factors that are 

variable over time. Fuel characteristics, climate, topography, and suppression activities all 

interplay to create the dynamics of wildland fire. Some trends may be apparent by analyzing the 

number and size of past fires.

3.4.1.1 Fuels Treatments

According to coarse-scale spatial estimates for New Mexico, the fire regimes and frequencies on 

about 7.8 million of the 13.4 million acres of BLM-administered public lands in the state have 

been either moderately or significantly altered (USDI BLM 2004b). The result is moderate to 

dramatic changes in fire size, intensity, severity, and/or landscape patterns. Based on estimates 

of the condition, these 7.8 million BLM-administered acres in New Mexico need treatments to

restore the historical fire regime. The RPPA contains 629,737 acres that need to be treated.

Fuels treatment uses various tools (i.e., prescribed fire, mechanical, biological, chemical) to 

reduce hazardous fuel loads, or to achieve resource objectives. A goal of treating 23,500 acres 

by prescribed fire and non-fire treatments annually for the RPPA was developed in the Decision 

Record and RMP Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management on Public Land in New Mexico 

and Texas (USDI BLM 2004a). The acreage goal was based on a full funding and staffing 

scenario. Actual prescribed fire accomplishments vary greatly from year to year due to weather 

patterns; actual mechanical treatment accomplishments tend to be based on annual budget 

allocation. 

Prescribed burning within the RPPA takes place year round. The majority of pile burning takes 

place during the winter and late spring, but also can take place during monsoon season. 

Grassland burns take place before green-up in late winter. Ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper 

burns take place during late spring and summer and have the tightest windows for opportunity, as 

they require the warmest and driest parameters to meet objectives. Table 3.8 shows approved 

fuels management treatments for the FMUs in the RPPA.

3.4.1.2 Fire Suppression

Residential developments in outlying areas that are surrounded by lands in the RPPA are termed 

wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas. These are high priority suppression areas due to public 

safety concerns. The following is a list of WUI areas in the Planning Area:

Tent Rocks (In separate planning unit)

Sandia

Candy Kitchen

The communities of Candy Kitchen and Pueblo de Cochiti (B4.FMU) are listed in the Federal 

Register as a community at risk from wildfire. The National Fire Plan directs funding to projects 

designed to reduce the risks to these identified communities.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-18

The RPPA contains seventeen rural volunteer fire departments that are eligible for rural fire 

assistance grant funding. From 2001 to 2006, thirty-two grant requests were filled for a total of 

$299,316. This funding goes to the departments to enhance their abilities to fight wildland fires 

on BLM or nearby lands and are typically used for wildland firefighting equipment and training.

Fire suppression in the Planning Area has been influenced primarily by direction provided in the 

Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (National 

Interagency Fire Center 2001). This policy emphasizes the role of fire as a natural process and 

contains guidance to allow fire to function in this role, among other things (refer to above policy 

for more information). Expanding WUI areas are creating more areas where wildfire poses a risk 

to the public. These areas may demand high suppression priority. Collaborative efforts in 

Sandoval and Cibola counties have created countywide fire risk and hazard mitigation plans and 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs).

WUI areas are expected to grow, or remain static over the next 20 years, which would result in 

fire suppression in more areas to respond to public safety concerns. Risk associated with fire 

danger will increase as population and recreational use increases and will continue to rise until 

communities complete community wildfire protection plans, or countywide fire risk and hazard 

mitigation plans. Completion of these plans will enhance agency partnerships and the potential of 

communities to receive rural fire assistance funding and grants.

The RPFO has completed CWPPs for the communities of Candy Kitchen and Wild Horse 

(USDI, BLM. 2006). Plans for protection of these communities and other communities at risk 

(Pueblo de Cochiti) and communities of interest (Village of Cuba, Zuni Mountain) are also 

addressed in county-wide CWPPs completed for Sandoval, Cibola, and Catron counties. Any 

future CWPPs would be tiered to the respective county plan.

3.4.1.3 Fire Regimes

From 1980 through 2008, the RPPA averaged seven fires per year, burning an average of 1,119

acres annually. Generally, lightning or naturally-caused fires accounted for approximately 

eighty percent of the fires, while a variety of human-caused fires account for the other twenty

percent. The majority of the lightning-caused fires occurred from May to September, while 

human-caused fires have occurred at all times of the year (USDI BLM 2004a).

While the majority of fires are relatively insignificant in terms of size and fire intensity, periodic 

large fire events typically burn at high-intensity levels. These fires can reach several thousand 

acres in size in a short period of time. The majority of large fires in the RPPA occur in shortgrass savanna, short-grass shrub vegetation, and ponderosa pine. Other large fires occur in the 

piñon-juniper shrublands.

Table 3.9: Prescribed Fire on Public Land of the Planning Area, 2001–2008

Year

Prescribed Fire Treatments

Planned Acres Implemented 

Acres

2001 1,200 1,592

2002 1,000 1,137
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-19

Year

Prescribed Fire Treatments

Planned Acres Implemented 

Acres

2003 5,325 4,251

2004 3,849 3,815

2005 3,824 1,398

2006 2,225 1,757

2007 2,565 1,510

2008 3,200 1,246

Total 23,188 16,706

All burns were on FRCC 2 lands with about seventy percent moving to FRCC 1 after the burns. 

The fire management staff, in collaboration with the resource specialist staff, (e.g., wildlife

biologists, range conservationists) initiates most of the prescribed fire projects.

3.4.2 Current Conditions

Natural and human-caused fires will continue throughout the Planning Area. The majority of 

natural fires will be ignited by lightning every year from May to September. Natural fires are 

expected to continue to account for approximately eighty percent of the annual number of 

ignitions. The size of these fires will depend on weather, topography, fuel characteristics, and 

suppression response times.

Human-caused fires will continue to occur year round and likely will increase in ignitions per 

year over the next twenty years. The primary drivers for increased human-caused ignitions in the 

Planning Area are activities associated with recreation, land tenure, and WUI areas. Places that 

draw recreation and development have an increased potential for ignition from human activities.

The likelihood that any fire will improve the FRCC of an ecosystem will depend on two things –

first, the condition of the system before the burn, and second, the management of the community 

after the burn. For example, a community that is in FRCC 3 due to high densities of invasive

grasses will not likely improve as a result of fire alone. Disturbance from fire creates niches for 

colonizing plants and releases a pulse of nutrients to the soil. These conditions create ideal 

conditions for opportunistic and invasive plant colonization. If the fire does not burn hot enough 

to destroy the existing seedbank of invasive grass, or if there is a seed source adjacent to the 

burned area, the FRCC may not be improved and could potentially deteriorate.

In addition, the management of an area after a burn will continue to play a key role in the 

resulting FRCC. Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation practices may improve FRCCs by 

altering the post-burn plant community. FRCC is improved when the resulting plant community 

better resembles those plant community characteristics present under the historic fire regime. 

These characteristics involve surface fuel continuity, fuel structure, fuel moisture, and 

photosynthetic processes.

3.5 Forestry and Woodland Resources

The forestry program within the RPPA consists of managing 3,309 acres of ponderosa pine 

forest and 188,975 acres of piñon-juniper woodlands. Forests and woodlands are managed for 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-20

providing ecosystem services such as wildlife habitat, forage, watershed requirements, carbon 

sequestration, recreational values, as well as renewable wood products (i.e. special forest 

products). Within the RPPA, woodlands on BLM-administered lands are still a vital source of 

fuelwood for heating and cooking.

Forestry and woodland products within the RPPA are managed primarily in conjunction with the 

District Fire Program. Under this program, woodlands are managed to provide fuelwood for 

local communities through hazardous fuels reduction and forest health improvement projects. 

No sale of commercial saw timber is occurring within the RPPA. However, permits are 

allowable up to a certain volume for commercial species to be purchased under authorities found 

in 43 CFR 5400 and following ecological principles to achieve land management objectives. 

Permits are also sold for non-commercial use under contract and stewardship authority for 

special forest products such as fuelwood, Christmas trees, transplants, and fenceposts.

The following factors are used in the assessment of this resource:

Number of acres moved into FRCC

Presence of management actions to restore ecosystem health to forest (acres thinned, 

regenerated, and/or prescribed burned).

Contribution to the economic base of local communities by providing a sustained yield of 

special forest products at a level consistent with local market demands, and desired ecological 

conditions. 

Stand Density Index (SDI) is an index of competitive interaction. Expressed as a maximum, it 

indicates the maximum density that a given species can attain at a given reference diameter. 

3.5.1 Current Conditions

Forest health in the RPPA is variable across the landscape; however, the majority of forest and 

woodlands are outside their historical range of conditions (NMSF 2010). Approximately 87% 

of forest types are in FRCC 2 or 3; in other words, close to 90% of the forestland has had its fire 

regime altered from historic fire intervals. A result of reduced fire frequency has been an 

increase in the amount of smaller diameter trees (<16”) found throughout the RPPA. 

The current conditions of forest and woodlands are described in part by a forest inventory 

conducted in 1999–2000 by the USFS Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) Group (USDA 2000). . 

Stand data for these plots was collected. In thirty-nine piñon-juniper woodland stands and five

Ponderosa pine stands within the RPPA. Table 3.10 gives the current condition of the forest 

stands within the Decision Area, while Figure 3.1shows the distribution of age class densities 

(trees per acre (TPA) versus diameter breast height (DBH)) for the inventory of forest and 

woodlands described in the above table. Table 3.11 shows forest and vegetation type by FRCC in 

acres.

In addition to FRCCs, SDI gives insight into forest conditions. At 25 percent of maximum SDI, 

trees begin competing with each other (and begin to out compete understory species; Long 1985)

At 35 percent of maximum SDI, trees fully occupy the site. At higher densities competition 

between trees either results in reduced growth and vigor of individual trees or may result in 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-21

competitive stress and tree mortality (perhaps due in part to secondary agents such as insects that 

are attracted to stressed trees). The RPFO Forest types are currently at 32 percent of maximum.

Optimal forest health and productivity as expressed by the SDI method can currently be achieved 

in piñon–juniper woodlands by managing forest density through the management of trees in all

diameter classes (DBH). The young- to middle-diameter classes will provide the majority of 

woodland products in the form of fuelwood or other biomass utilization.

Table 3.10: Forest Inventory Analysis for the Planning Area by County

County Species

# plots

Average Age

Average

Elevation

(ft)

Basal Area/ac

(Sq.ft)

Average 

Trees/ac

Volume/ac

Cu. ft.

Volume/ac

Board feet/ac

Cibola Piñon-Juniper 

Woodland (PJ)

22 85 7,400 80 149 696 -

McKinley PJ 7 79 7,330 63 224 412 -

Sandoval PJ 10 101 6,760 -

Cibola Ponderosa Pine (PIPO) 4 116 7,650 70 195 910 3,101

McKinley PIPO 1 58 8,200 89 930 697 836

Table 3.11: Forest and Vegetation Type by Fire Regime Condition Class (Acres)

Forest & Vegetation Type Total FRCC 1 FRCC 2 FRCC 3

Ponderosa Pine 3,909 17 244 3,625

Piñon/Juniper 188,975 14,863 110,230 62,746

Riparian/Wetland 3,965 78 478 3,377

Shrub, Steppe, Scrub 341,037 58,221 260,640 20,244

Grasslands 157,642 7,904 130,345 18,456

Other 61,095 - - -

Total 757,074 81,083 501,937 108,448

Without restoration of natural disturbance process such as fire, the trend of increasing stand 

densities will most likely continue. For example, encroachment of small diameter junipers into 

grasslands would continue until management actions designed to restore woodlands are 

implemented. Similarly, historical spatial distribution would continue to become modified as 

trees per acre increased. Research has shown that lack of disturbance in many of the piñonjuniper woodlands is reducing overall forest ecosystem health and increasing susceptibility to 

insects, disease, and wildfire. Management actions such as mechanical treatments or prescribed 

fire may be used to improve woodland health. Forest health may also be achieved through 

fuelwood gathering activities and biomass utilization when these activities are properly designed 

and monitored accordingly (Miller 2001). 

Figure 3.1: Distribution of Age Class Densities for the Inventory of Forest and Woodlands
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-22

Fuelwood demand by local communities also shows an upward trend (based on number of 

permits sold). Portions of the local population rely on fuelwood (primarily piñon pine and 

juniper) as a source of heat and for cooking. As the population increases the demand for quality 

fuelwood will also increase. The RPFO has also seen an increase in theft of fuelwood primarily 

in the area west of Cuba, NM.

Other forecasts relevant to forestry and woodland products are found in the Wildland Fire 

Ecology and Management section, where the trends in fire regime condition class are discussed 

in relation to current woodland condition, forecasts are described, and treatment objectives are

identified.

3.6 Geologic Resources

Factors that describe the condition of geologic resources may include the demand for and 

establishment of reserves or parks in areas having unique geologic features of interest or scenic 

value, and the public desire to have existing scenic views unaffected by surface mining activities 

or development of oil and gas fields. A prime example is the 2001 creation of the Kasha–Katuwe 

Tent Rocks National Monument administered by the RPFO. This Monument was designated in 

order to protect geologic and other resource interests and provide opportunities to study, observe, 

and experience special geologic processes within the Monument. The impact on geologic 

resources resulting from uses of mineral resources, such as surface mines or quarries, affects the 

quality of the geology resource.

The geologic resources of the RPPA are best understood within the context of the regional 

physiography, broad scale regional subdivisions based on terrain texture, rock type, and geologic 

structure and history (Map 3). The physiography, geologic structure, tectonic history, and rock

units of the Planning Area are discussed below. 

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 2 0 2 2 2 4 2 6

DBH

TPA

Existing

SDI
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-23

3.6.1 Physiographic Provinces

The Colorado Plateau, Rio Grande Rift, and Southern Rocky Mountain physiographic provinces

are represented within the Rio Puerco Planning area (Map 3). The Colorado Plateau is a crustal 

block that has been uplifted, and has maintained its elevation despites crustal thinning in the 

surrounding basin and range province. The Rio Grande Rift, a subset of the Basin and Range 

province, is an area characterized by crustal extension, or the divergence of tectonic plates. The 

mountain ranges within the Southern Rocky Mountain province resulted from the collision of 

tectonic plates in a series of mountain building events such as the Laramide Orogeny. 

Table 3.12: Physiographic Provinces and Corresponding Counties and Planning Units

3.6.2 Rock Units

Major rock units in the planning area consist of Quaternary alluvium, Cretaceous mudstone and 

sandstone, Tertiary volcanic rocks, Jurassic sandstone, gypsum, limestone, and sedimentary units 

from the Triassic and Jurassic. 

Table 3.13: Geologic Epoch and Major Rock Units Found within the Planning Area

This is not a complete list of units found within the planning area, merely the most significant based 

the combination of surface exposure, mineralized zones, and depositional environments. 

There is a trend of increased public interest in scenic, unique, fragile, or scientifically important 

geologic resources within the Planning Area. In the past, areas of geologic interest have been 

proposed for and given special designation by the BLM. For example, on January 17, 2001, 

Presidential Proclamation 7394 designated Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument to 

provide opportunities for visitors to observe, study, and experience geological processes and 

other objects of interest, and to protect these resources. Current special designations known as 

ACECs have been identified specifically for geologic values. Current areas of interest include 

Physiographic Province Counties

Colorado Plateau Cibola, West half of Sandoval, Southwest portion of McKinley

Rio Grande Rift Torrance, Valencia, Bernalillo, Southeast portion of Sandoval

Southern Rocky Mountains Northeast portion of Sandoval

Epoch (mya) Rock Units

Quaternary (present -2.5) Santa Fe Group

Tertiary (2-65) Volcanics of various ages, including lava flow, volcanic plugs, 

and volcanic ash

Cretaceous (65-145)

Fruitland-Kirtland Formation

Menefee Formation

Pointlookout Sandstone

Mancos Shale

Jurassic (145-200) Morrison Formation

Todilto Formation

Triassic Chinle Group

Permian Yeso Formation
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-24

Cabezon Peak, Pronoun Caves, and the San Juan Badlands. Geologic resources within the 

planning area host a variety of uses from recreation to scientific research. These types of 

proposals indicate a desire by the public and BLM to protect areas which contain special 

geologic values.

3.6.2.1 Cibola County and the SE Portion of McKinley County

The foremost geologic feature is the structural Zuni uplift, which includes the Zuni Mountains, a 

slightly elongated dome, and the Nutria monocline, which is part of the dome’s western flank. 

The northwest end of the uplift and the Nutria monocline can be seen just east of Gallup, New 

Mexico. This scenic geologic feature would provide a worthy addition to any proposed or 

existing special designations in the area.

3.6.2.2 Bernalillo County and Northern Valencia County

The Rio Grande rift is the defining feature in this area. There are not many known areas where 

narrow rifts are tectonically pulled apart, symmetrically stretching the continental crust and 

producing volcanic activity. The subsequent Rio Grande valley is atypical as it was not formed 

by stream erosion but by regional extension and mantle upwelling. Therefore, the Rio Grande 

follows an established and partly filled rift valley. This key feature continues to be studied today 

and will provide future opportunities for exploration and scientific investigation.

3.6.2.3 Torrance County

The key feature in this area is the Estancia Valley basin, a feature associated with the Rio Grande 

rift. See the reference section for detailed information sources.

3.6.2.4 Sandoval and Bernalillo Counties

The key features are the Rio Grande Rift (Depression) and associated San Juan and Albuquerque 

Basins, Jemez Volcanic Field, Nacimiento Uplift, and their related major mount ranges. 

Minerals are currently being mined in these key features and will need to be mined in the future 

if New Mexico hopes to continue to provide mining-related commodities to the public.

3.7 Health and Safety

Public safety issues can arise from a variety of circumstances ranging from natural to manmade 

hazards. In remote areas, natural environmental circumstances pose safety issues, including 

extreme temperature variations, storms and inclement weather, flooding, debris flows, and the 

presence of aggressive or venomous animals. Manmade hazards include the presence of active or 

abandoned mines, unexploded ordnance (UXO) located in and near military training areas,

recreational activities such as target shooting, and the presence of hazardous materials, hazardous 

wastes, and solid wastes. Public safety issues associated with specific geographic areas or BLM 

programs are described below.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-25

3.7.1 Motorized Vehicle Use

The greatest risk on and to access to public lands is related to the use of motorized vehicles in 

remote locations. Whether for recreational or commercial purposes, access to public lands is 

generally through the existing network of federal, state, or county transportation routes.

Safety issues associated with the use of these roadways may have implications for the 

management of or access to public lands. Such access must consider a variety of user needs.

Public land provides public access via traditional established public routes to rural communities 

and individual homes. Public land access routes lead to lease and ROW destinations, as well as 

general public access to public land for recreation to specific area destination for focused 

recreation and lawful harvest of natural resources.

3.7.1.1 Off-highway Vehicles

OHV use, which by definition includes any motor vehicle that may travel over land, occurs 

throughout the Planning Area for purposes of transportation as well as for recreation. OHVs are 

used to transport recreational visitors to recreation sites and as a recreational activity in itself 

with any of several classes of OHV. Specialized activities for motorcycles and ATVs include 

organized and informal races and hill climbing. This recreational activity has its own safety 

implications due to the nature of the vehicles, rough terrain, and an active style of operation. 

Nationwide, data on OHV injuries and deaths are estimated by the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. These statistics show that of the 4,541 OHV-related deaths that have been reported 

in the U.S. since 1982, 40 have occurred in New Mexico. This includes accidents which occurred 

in relation to agricultural and municipal operation. Nationwide, the cumulative number of 

reported deaths associated with OHVs increased by 459 since the 2000 to 2001 report. This is 

partly attributable to more complete data on public road fatalities that have become available 

since 1999. The deaths reported represent a minimum count of OHV-related deaths. Using a 

statistical approximation method, an estimated 547 deaths occurred from OHVs in 2000; a 15.4

percent increase from the 1999 estimate of 474 deaths (Ingle 2002). Estimates of OHV injuries 

requiring an emergency room visit have more than doubled in recent years – from 54,700 in 

1997 to 111,700 in 2001. There was a statistically significant increase in the estimated number of 

injuries for 2001, up about 17 percent from 2000. About a third of the victims injured in 2001 

were younger than 16 years old (Ingle 2002).

The popularity and availability of ATVs has dramatically increased in the past ten years. During 

the tenure of the present District Law Enforcement Ranger (1995 to the present), there have been 

no deaths or serious injuries related to recreational use of OHVs on public lands within the 

Planning Area. Safety training such as that offered by the ATV Safety Institute, manufacturer 

recommendations for age/size appropriate vehicles, and strict adherences to applicable state laws 

have shown to be highly influential in reducing accident statistics. Another safety factor to 

consider is creating specially designated areas where vehicle-specific recreation can take place 

with minimum conflict with other activities.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-26

3.7.2 Recreational Shooting and Hunting

All firearm use, including recreational target shooting and hunting, carries a certain degree of 

risk to both participants and nonparticipants. Recreational shooting occurs at organized shooting 

ranges in the Shooting Range State Park, the only remaining public shooting range in the greater 

Albuquerque area. This range was created under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

(R&PP). Open shooting also occurs in dispersed, informal locations throughout the Planning 

Area. Dispersed recreational shooting is not prohibited from BLM-administered lands. Although 

recreational shooting has not been officially sanctioned, so long as the activity is conducted in 

accordance with state and federal law, it is recognized as a traditional use of public land. 

Shooting restrictions do not prohibit legitimate hunting activities except within one-half mile of 

developed recreational sites or areas.

Concerns were raised during public scoping regarding the safety of some recreational shooting 

and hunting activities. These concerns pertained principally to hunters and recreational shooters 

leaving trash behind, including homemade targets and empty cartridges that may pose a safety or 

contamination hazard (USDI BLM 2005e). A major problem occurs when the community 

discovers a site littered by shooting debris and decides to bring household trash and appliances 

onto the site, creating a dump. Existing criminal laws are adequate to address these concerns; 

however, law enforcement resources are spread thin. Law enforcement is active in the 

recommendation of suitable areas for specific recreational shooting activities. As part of an 

ongoing public outreach, the District Ranger will offer safe firearms handling information in 

impromptu and opportunistic encounters in the field. Localization of these areas makes patrol 

function more efficiently. Recent land exchanges that removed land from public administration 

and the closure of R&PP ranges in the Grants and Rio Rancho areas have further concentrated 

the creation of social or unofficial shooting ranges. 

The public lands in Milan, west of Grants, that had been an R&PP public park and shooting 

range are still being used as an unofficial range. Access difficulties and a lack of sponsorship 

have created a problem for patrol and litter removal. An already popular area east of the Ojito 

Wilderness has gained in popularity due to the loss of public lands in Ball Ranch and 

development of private land north and west of Rio Rancho – both of which were very popular for 

informal shooting. Directed patrol activities and peer pressure have been instrumental in limiting

adverse impact in these areas. Another area of concern is a long-time unofficial range in 

Valencia County – more specifically, near Bernardo, an area south of Los Lunas. This area has 

an informal group of regulars who have helped limit trash and who, by repeated use, have 

established safe impact berms.

3.7.3 Other Recreational Activities

Almost any recreational activity may be hazardous to the participants and, in some 

circumstances, to nonparticipants. Exercising appropriate caution, using appropriate gear, and 

wearing the correct clothing helps to reduce the risk of injury.

3.7.4 Abandoned Mines and Prospects

A number of active and abandoned mines and prospects are located throughout the Planning 

Area. Visitors often find abandoned mines and prospects attractive to explore and may be 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-27

exposed to hazards at these sites. Features that could pose public safety hazards at abandoned 

mining sites include, but may not be limited to the following:

Open and unstable shafts, adits, drifts, pits, tailings piles, wells, or other excavations

Dilapidated and unstable buildings or other structures

Collapsed buildings or other structures

Mining implements or construction debris

Hazardous or toxic materials

On-the-ground abandoned mine lands inventories have been conducted under a 1993 BLM 

directive that established common data elements to ensure that abandoned mine land information 

would be characterized consistently. To date, only a small percent of all public lands have been 

inventoried. The available abandoned mine lands data collected have been compiled into the 

Abandoned Mine Site and Clean Up Module (AMSCM). Locatable, leasable, and saleable 

mining districts are shown on Maps 30, 32, and 33.

While most mines are hazardous primarily in terms of public safety, the potential for hazardous 

material and solid waste dumping in old mine shafts exists. As these areas are made known, they 

are compiled into the AMSCM. Mine tailings located at both active and closed mine sites pose 

additional potential hazardous effects, including leaching of chemicals into the soil and/or 

groundwater from mine tailing piles and airborne hazardous wastes.

3.7.5 Air Transportation and Military Operations

Military operations are conducted within the Planning Area. These military operations use 

airspace for low-level training exercises. While rare, there is a remote possibility of aircraft 

crashes during military training operations.

3.7.5.1 Unexploded Ordnance

Live munitions are often used during military training operations. In most cases, these munitions 

detonate on impact, but there is the remote possibility that the ordnance would not explode. 

UXO, which represents an immediate public safety hazard, may be located on the ground surface 

or may be buried beneath the surface as a result of the momentum of impact. The U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, through their Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Military Munitions 

Response Program, identified four WWII era precision bombing ranges located within our 

planning area. Initial site screening investigations conducted by the Corps indicated the sites 

were low hazard/low risk; however, the Corps recommended the sites for additional RI/FS 

review. The Corps is continuing to review the identified sites. When projects are recommended 

within these identified sites the BLM requests the Corps to provide clearance of the site.

3.7.6 Livestock Operations

Livestock grazing operations present minimal overall risk to visitors to public lands. Potential 

risks associated with livestock grazing operations include collisions between livestock and 

vehicles, encounters with agitated livestock, and visitor mishaps at range improvements such as 

stock ponds, fences, or wells.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-28

3.7.7 Crimes against Persons and Property

Illegal dumping, vandalism, and discharging of firearms were listed as concerns during the 

scoping process (USDI BLM 2005e). 

Specific issues of crimes against persons have been limited to intimidation and interference with 

lawful users by physical obstructions. Thefts of resources such as live plants and landscaping 

rock have increased with the increasing population desiring these items for their homes. 

Similarly, theft of fuel wood for residential wood burning stoves has been increasing, both in 

cases of personal use and commercial theft for resale.

3.7.8 Wildfires

Wildfires have the potential to endanger persons or property. The density and types of vegetation

and the consequent likelihoods of natural or human-caused fires vary greatly due to differences 

in elevation, climate, soils, and topography in the Planning Area.

3.7.9 Regulated Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste Sites

No Superfund sites are known to be located in the RPFO Decision Area.

3.7.9.1 Regulated Landfills

The construction of landfills on BLM-administered public land has historically been 

accomplished under the R&PP. The RPFO does not have any active landfills at this time. Five 

R&PP leases were issued for landfill facilities in the Decision Area between 1966 and 1980. Two 

cases have been closed and three have expired. The most recent one to expire was in February 

1992. The BLM no longer has the authority to lease public land for landfills; landfills must go 

directly to patent.

3.7.9.2 Illegal Dump Sites

A significant issue related to hazardous and nonhazardous waste on public lands is the practice 

of abandoning solid and hazardous waste items. Unregulated sites include illegal wildcat dump 

sites, where solid and hazardous wastes are abandoned in locations other than established landfill 

facilities. These occurrences range in severity and volume from isolated episodes of individuals 

dumping household trash and appliances, to regular use by family and community groups, and 

disposal of items by businesses.

3.7.10 Hazardous Materials

As part of the maintenance and management of the public lands, a variety of hazardous materials 

are utilized. These include products such as paint (both in gallon cans and spray cans), paint 

thinner, automobile lubricants (oil and grease), chainsaw fuel and lubricants, fusee, propane, drip 

torch fuel, and petroleum products. The use, storage, and transport of hazardous substances on 

public land, by the BLM or authorized users, may lead to accidental releases. Some examples 

include the above common chemical products, pesticide applications, military operations, 

construction activities, mining activities, concessionaire operations, commercial transportation, 

and oil and gas operations.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-29

3.8 Lands and Realty

The 1986 Rio Puerco RMP designated areas for retention and disposal to maintain lands of 

particular resource and/or use value and to provide for orderly disposition, respectively. 

Retention areas are generally relatively concentrated blocks of public land that include scattered 

or isolated parcels of state trust land, or special designations, such as WSAs and ACECs. 

Disposal areas include tracts of land that are difficult and uneconomic to manage, do not have 

legal access, or parcels that could serve important public objectives including, but not limited to:

community expansion and economic development. Some parcels within Torrance County have 

been identified for disposal because of the lack of legal access. 

Since the 1986 Rio Puerco RMP was adopted, several adjustments to surface ownership have 

occurred as the result of certain realty actions including exchanges, sales, and patents under the 

R&PP. Under the R&PP, the BLM issues leases and patents of public land to governmental and 

non-profit entities for public purposes such as public parks, building sites, schools, and landfills 

(patent only). 

Fifty-seven land sales have occurred for a total of 3,780 acres since 1986. The purpose of most 

of the sales has been for R&PP and to resolve long-standing occupancy trespass situations in the 

Planning Area. (LR2000 database report November 2008). The primary means of land 

ownership adjustment within the Planning Area has been through exchange. Thirty-three 

exchanges affecting federal and/or non-federal lands within the RPFO Decision Area have been 

completed since 1986. Through those actions, 165,682 acres left federal ownership and 170,881 

acres came into federal ownership. Local governments and special interest groups continue to 

place a high priority on the BLM’s RPFO land acquisitions.

Public lands are fairly well consolidated in Sandoval County, while a checkerboard pattern 

predominates in those areas of Cibola, Bernalillo, Valencia, McKinley, and Torrance Counties 

within the Planning Area. Over fifty small tracts are scattered throughout Torrance County. The 

existing surface management pattern within the Planning Area is shown on Map 2 and land 

ownership adjustment areas are shown on Maps 11-14.

Land tenure (or land ownership) adjustment refers to those actions that result in the disposal of 

BLM-administered lands and the acquisition of non-federal lands or interests in land. Current 

planning guidance with respect to land ownership is provided by the 1986 Rio Puerco RMP. 

This direction establishes land exchange as the predominant method of land ownership 

adjustment and categorizes BLM-administered lands into management areas or adjustment areas. 

The goal in management areas is to retain or enhance public land holdings within retention 

zones. Management areas typically include the large blocks of BLM-administered lands that 

meet the retention criteria, but also may include areas in which there are high public values 

suitable for BLM management. Lands outside these management areas are in the adjustment 

areas, and are generally available for the full range of land ownership adjustment opportunities 

including exchange, sale, or other methods of disposal. Land ownership adjustment proposals in 

the RPFO Planning Area are analyzed in project specific reviews. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-30

3.8.1 Land Use Authorizations

The realty program in the RPFO is responsible for processing ROW applications, Land Use 

Authorization applications, and R&PP applications. All resource values and uses are considered 

and environmental impacts analyzed prior to the issuance of leases, grants, patents, and permits. 

The RPFO processes approximately twenty ROW actions annually. These include ROW 

applications for new facilities (e.g., roads, power lines, telephone lines, communication sites, 

water facilities) as well as amending, assigning, renewing, or relinquishing existing ROW grants 

(e.g., roads, railroads, power lines, communication sites, water facilities, energy). The RPFO 

administers 434 ROWs, encumbering 18,673 acres of public land (LR2000 Database Report 

2008).

The RPFO currently administers one temporary land use permit involving about two acres of 

BLM-administered lands (LR2000 Database Report 2008). These permits are issued for a term of 

up to three years and are for the temporary use of public lands. Most of these permits are used to 

authorize permittees to temporarily occupy or use land for a short term. Several permits have 

been issued for commercial filming projects on a one-time basis. No easements have been 

authorized.

3.8.2 Utility Corridors 

The BLM has formally designated ROW corridors and use areas within the RPFO Planning 

Area, and attempts are made to group compatible facilities where possible. Deviations from 

designated corridors have been permitted based on the type and need of the proposed facility, 

and lack of conflicts with other resource values and uses. The RPFO currently has no ROW

exclusion or avoidance areas in existing land use plans, although specially designated areas, such 

as ACECs and WSAs, do restrict such development. Corridors are designated in areas where 

topographic or land ownership constraints make it advantageous to locate transmission lines and 

pipelines on public lands. 

In addition to designated corridors, the Western Utility Group (an ad hoc organization of major 

western gas, electric, and telecommunication companies) developed the Western Regional 

Corridor Study in 1992 to promote ongoing interagency dialogue regarding future utility corridor

needs (USDI BLM and USDA USFS 1993). This reference document identifies the segments of 

four potential utility corridors within the Planning Area. Several corridors cross public lands

administered by the BLM. There are designated corridors in the counties within the Planning 

Area except Torrance County (Map 24-26).

Many of the linear facilities authorized under various ROW grants have led to the establishment 

of de facto ROW corridors. The corridor philosophy within the BLM is to manage current and 

future uses of ROWs on public land through a system of designated corridors. The presence of 

designated ROW corridors does not preclude the granting of a ROW on public land outside a 

designated corridor although we do encourage placement near or in existing ROW.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-31

3.8.3 Communication Sites

Thirteen communication site rights-of-way occupying four different communication site 

locations are authorized within the planning area. Potential new users are encouraged to locate 

within existing locations. Communication site plans are in the process of being finalized for the 

sites.

The Rio Puerco RMP provides general direction for the placement of any new ROW to be 

located near existing sites or in existing corridors. As a result, many of the current ROW holders 

in these areas are authorized to sublease to other users.

3.8.4 Withdrawals 

The BLM uses withdrawals for the purpose of withholding an area of federal land from 

settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or all of the general land laws; for the purpose of 

limiting activities under those laws to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the 

area for a particular public purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of 

federal land. Under Section 204 of FLPMA, the BLM has been given the responsibility of 

reviewing all land classifications and withdrawals on BLM-administered lands. The review 

ensures that the reasons for the withdrawal are still valid and that the smallest acreage possible is 

retained in withdrawal status (USDI BLM 1986a). Withdrawals can be continued, modified, 

revoked, or terminated, consistent with the needs, as justified by the withdrawing agency. As 

withdrawals are revoked or terminated, the land use decisions in the RMP will apply to those 

areas. For withdrawals where the BLM presently has management responsibility, all RMP 

decisions covering those areas apply (USDI BLM 1993a). This management guidance applies in 

Planning Area.

The RPFO currently uses nine types of withdrawals. The first is a wilderness designation 

withdrawal which includes the Ojito Wilderness and includes 11,183 acres. There is one power 

site withdrawal, which includes 207 acres in the Planning Area. The miscellaneous withdrawals 

include a variety of purposes, but usually protect a BLM recreation site or other facility that 

would otherwise be adversely affected by mineral entry. The RPFO administers eight such 

withdrawals, involving a total of 20,333 acres. The only National Monument withdrawal is to the 

NPS for 5,280 acres for the Petroglyphs National Monument. There are thirty-five withdrawals 

to the USFS that are spread across the Planning Area. There are 45,148 acres withdrawn to the 

Department of Air Force for Sandia Base in Bernalillo County, and three acres are withdrawn to 

the Federal Aviation Administration for an air naval facility. 

Secretarial orders have been used in the RPFO to withdraw public lands from general use by 

transferring management responsibility to other USDI agencies, such as the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). Public lands have been transferred by 

Executive Order (EO) to agencies outside the USDI, such as the Department of Defense and the 

Federal Aviation Administration. In such cases, both the lands and responsibility for their 

management are transferred.

Withdrawals to the BIA for the purpose of benefiting Indian groups will be used only for 

segregating the land from operation of the other land and mining laws in preparation for the 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-32

processing of a land exchange or sale. Such withdrawals will not be used for transferring 

management responsibility.

In an effort to keep as much of the public land open to the widest variety of uses as is possible, 

the RPFO reviews all existing withdrawals on a periodic basis. Such review ensures that the 

reasons for the restrictions are still valid and that the smallest acreage possible is included in 

withdrawal status. The need for new withdrawals of public land within the Planning Area should 

continue to decrease in the future. Most BLM-administered lands containing resources that need 

to be protected by withdrawals already have such protection in place.

3.8.5 Access

For the purposes of this section, access refers to the physical ability and legal right of the public, 

agency personnel, and authorized users to reach public lands. The lands and realty program 

primarily assists in the acquisition of easements to provide for legal access where other programs 

have identified a need.

Access to public lands administered by the RPFO is an issue of concern to both agency personnel 

and the public. The existing, fragmented ownership pattern of BLM-administered lands

intermingled with private, state, and other federal lands complicates the access situation. 

The RPFO uses the acquisition of road and trail easements as the primary means of obtaining 

legal access to public lands where it does not currently exist. There are three types of easements: 

exclusive easements, where the BLM acquires full public rights to the road in perpetuity and 

exclusively manages all other uses; nonexclusive easements, where the BLM acquires only the 

right to use the road in perpetuity but does not control other uses; and temporary easements, 

where the BLM acquires only the right to use the road for a fixed period. 

When possible, emphasis for easement acquisition is on those roads or trails identified through a 

route analysis process. Although used much less frequently than easement acquisition, the RPFO

uses land exchanges on occasion to acquire needed access to public lands. Access is typically 

just one of many benefits of these exchanges. The consolidation of BLM land ownership 

patterns by exchange has generally improved the access situation in the RPFO Planning Area. 

When disposing of BLM parcels containing roads or trails necessary for access to other public 

lands, the RPFO protects these access routes by reserving them in the conveyance documents. 

Access needs within the RPFO Planning Area are predicted to remain at a relatively constant 

level. Recreation access to public land should still be a high priority in the future.

The scattered public land pattern in the RPFO Planning Area contributes to trespass problems, 

particularly where patented mining claims make the determination of federal/private property 

lines difficult. The RPFO attempts to abate trespassing by prevention, detection, and resolution. 

In the lands and realty program, priority for resolving trespass in the Planning Area is accorded 

to those newly discovered ongoing uses, developments, or occupancies where resource damage 

is occurring and needs to be halted to prevent further environmental degradation. Lesser priority 

is accorded those historic trespass cases where little or no resource damage is occurring. Realty 

trespass cases in this latter category are resolved as time permits. Trespass problems are 

anticipated to remain at current levels within the Planning Area. With the BLM’s scattered land 

pattern, encroachments on public land will likely continue to occur.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-33

Based on the projected growth of the communities in the Planning Area, particularly near 

Albuquerque, the number of land disposals likely will increase. Disposals could occur for 

various uses, particularly under R&PP leases and patents where public lands administered by the 

BLM provide opportunities for uses such as schools and parks (New Mexico does not set aside 

state trust land for schools). In addition to more public land disposals for developed uses, more 

public land may be disposed of for parks and recreation areas as communities are seeking 

dedicated open space in perpetuity, rather than assuming that what now may appear as open 

space (i.e., state trust land or BLM-administered public land presently serving as de facto open 

space) will continue to be undeveloped in the future. As part of the lands and realty program, the 

BLM will continue to coordinate disposals with state, county, and local agencies, as appropriate, 

to consider consistency with existing plans for the Planning Area.

Based on past trends, the BLM anticipates that requests for land use authorizations, such as 

ROWs, will continue, with the greatest proportion of requests in designated corridors and 

developing areas. Additionally, the projected population growth will likely drive an increase in 

the demand for facilities to accommodate this growth, including transmission lines, 

communication sites, and other utilities.

3.9 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Wilderness characteristics are defined by sufficient size, naturalness, and either outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. In addition, it may also 

possess supplemental values. 

Sufficient size is defined as 5,000 acres of contiguous roadless BLM land, or large enough to 

make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition. Areas under 5,000 acres may 

also meet the size criteria under certain circumstances, such as islands; lands adjacent to other 

federal lands where wilderness characteristics are being protected (for example adjacent to a 

BLM WSA or a National Forest Wilderness); or natural areas where topography clearly makes 

possible the opportunity to experience outstanding opportunities for solitude and there is strong 

public agreement with this conclusion. 

Naturalness is a measure of the degree to which the area appears to have been affected primarily 

by the forces of nature, and the degree that human work is substantially unnoticeable. Examples 

of human-made features that may be, in certain cases, considered substantially unnoticeable are: 

trails, trail signs, trail bridges, fire breaks, fire presuppression facilities, pit toilets, fire rings, 

water quantity and quality measuring devices, research monitoring markers and devices, air 

quality monitoring devices, fencing, spring developments, occasional ways, and small reservoirs.

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation means that the 

opportunities must stand out among others of their kind. This, however, does not mean that no 

better opportunities can be found. The area does not have to possess outstanding opportunities 

for both elements, nor does it need to have outstanding opportunities on every acre, so long as 

these opportunities are identified somewhere within the area. 

Solitude is “the state of being alone or remote from others; isolation; a lonely or secluded place” 

(BLM IM 2011-154). Solitude is often present in landforms of rugged relief or vegetation that 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-34

may provide screening from other visitors and the ability to enjoy the area without experiencing 

frequent contact with others or evidence of other visitors.

Primitive and unconfined recreation occurs where there are minimal or no developed recreational 

facilities. Areas that offer opportunities for primitive recreation are marked by the absence of 

developed recreational facilities, are sufficiently large enough to allow these types of outdoor 

recreational uses, and may contain features or attractions that lend themselves to primitive and 

unconfined types of recreational uses.

The BLM is required under Sec. 201 of FLPMA to maintain a current inventory of the public 

lands, including those areas with wilderness characteristics. In 1980, the BLM conducted a 

nationwide inventory of its lands for wilderness characteristics. That inventory included the 

lands within the Rio Puerco planning area. Where changes to the landscape have occurred since 

the 1980 inventory, there is the potential for wilderness characteristics to now be present where 

they were not before. Examples of changes that could lead to the presence of wilderness 

characteristics include land acquisition, road decommissioning, facility removal, and reclamation 

projects. The BLM reviewed its records to identify these and similar changes and evaluated 

public scoping comments to identify areas where the potential for wilderness characteristics 

exists. Where these factors were identified, the BLM conducted new wilderness inventory to 

update the 1980 inventory. The new inventory resulted in the identification of seven areas 

outside of WSAs or Wilderness as having wilderness characteristics:

Table 3.14: Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Name Acres

Chamisa E 2,239 

Cimarron Mesa 7,329

Ignacio Chavez A 2,462

Ignacio Chavez B 1,541

Ignacio Chavez C 72 

Petaca Pinta A 38 

Volcano Hill 23,833

3.9.1 Chamisa E 

This area is located between the Chamisa WSA, Ignacio Chavez WSA, and the Cibola National 

Forest in western Sandoval and eastern McKinley counties. The BLM 1103 Road forms the 

northwestern boundary between the Chamisa E unit and the Ignacio Chavez WSA. In 1991, the 

New Mexico Wilderness Study Report recommended that this inventory unit be designated as 

wilderness (USD1 BLM, 1991). In 1980 the area was separated by a road from the Chamisa 

WSA to the east. That road, however, was closed to the public and is no longer maintained for 

regular and continuous use. As a result, the 2,239-acre Chamisa E unit is of sufficient size to 

make managing to protect its wilderness characteristics practical. 

The Chamisa E unit meets the wilderness characteristic criteria of naturalness because the 

scattered imprints of human activity, such as primitive vehicle routes and fences, are 

substantially unnoticeable due to the dense vegetation, rugged foothills, and steep slopes. The 

Chamisa E unit also possesses outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive unconfined 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-35

recreation because of its proximity to the Chamisa WSA. The topographic and vegetative 

screening provides outstanding opportunities for the experience of solitude. A variety of 

primitive and unconfined recreational opportunities exist in this area, including hiking, camping, 

hunting, wildlife viewing, horseback riding, and photography. 

3.9.2 Cimarron Mesa 

The Cimarron Mesa inventory unit is located east of the Volcano Hill inventory unit and 

Pronoun Caves ACEC. In 1985, the BLM completed a land exchange in this area that created a 

contiguous block of public lands. The 7,329-acre Cimarron Mesa inventory unit is of sufficient 

size to make protection of wilderness characteristics practicable, and is predominantly natural,

having several stock tanks and fences which are substantially unnoticeable. The screening 

provided by topography and vegetation of the area provides areas in which solitude is 

outstanding, and the area also includes outstanding opportunities for hiking, hunting, and other 

primitive forms of recreation.

3.9.3 Ignacio Chavez A, B, and C 

All three Ignacio Chavez inventory units meet the wilderness characteristic criteria of naturalness 

because the scattered imprints of human activity, such as primitive vehicle routes and fences, are 

substantially unnoticeable due to the dense vegetation, rugged foothills, and steep slopes. These 

three inventory units also possess outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive 

unconfined recreation because of their proximity to the Ignacio Chavez WSA. These areas have 

topographic and vegetative screening that provides outstanding opportunities for the experience 

of solitude, and a variety of primitive and unconfined recreational opportunities exist in this area, 

including hiking, camping, hunting, wildlife viewing, horseback riding, and photography. 

The Ignacio Chavez A inventory unit is located between the Ignacio Chavez WSA to the east, 

the San Miguel Dome (proposed ACEC) to the north, and the Cibola National Forest to the south 

and west. In 1980, the 2,462-acre unit was separated from the Ignacio Chavez WSA by a road. 

The road is no longer in use and has returned to a natural condition. As a result, when the area is 

considered in conjunction with the Ignacio Chavez WSA, the area is of sufficient size to make 

protection of wilderness characteristics practicable.. 

The Ignacio Chavez B inventory unit is located between the Ignacio Chavez WSA to the south 

and east and BLM lands to the north (RPFO) and west (Farmington Field Office). A road leading 

to a line camp along the east boundary of this unit partially separates it from the adjacent WSA. 

However, the southern part of the unit is not separated from the Ignacio Chavez WSA. The 

activities associated with the road and line camp are outside the unit and do not affect wilderness 

characteristics in the unit. As a result, the 1,541-acre Ignacio Chavez B inventory unit, when 

considered in conjunction with the adjacent WSA, is of sufficient size to make protection of 

wilderness characteristics practicable.. 

The Ignacio Chavez C inventory unit is located between the Ignacio Chavez WSA to the south, 

the Ignacio Chavez B inventory unit to the west, BLM land to the north, and private land to the 

east. The 72-acre Ignacio Chavez C inventory unit is separated from the Ignacio Chavez WSA by 

a quarter-section line. When considered in conjunction with the adjacent WSA, this inventory 

unit is of sufficient size to make protection of wilderness characteristics practicable.. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-36

3.9.4 Petaca Pinta A 

The Petaca Pinta A inventory unit is located between the Petaca Pinta WSA to the north and 

west, state land to the east, and Native American land to the south. This 38-acre inventory unit 

was separated from the WSA by a road at the time of the 1980 inventory. The road is no longer 

in use, and has been reclaimed. When the inventory unit is considered in conjunction with the 

Petaca Pinta WSA, the area is of sufficient size to make protection of wilderness characteristics 

practicable. 

This unit also meets the naturalness criteria because the imprint of human activities is 

substantially unnoticeable. No range improvements are located within this parcel. The Petaca 

Pinta A inventory unit possesses outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive unconfined 

recreation due to its proximity to the Petaca Pinta WSA. The physical isolation and topographic 

screening provide outstanding opportunities for solitude. There are a variety of opportunities for 

primitive and unconfined recreation, such as hiking, backpacking, and photography. 

3.9.5 Volcano Hill 

The Volcano Hill inventory unit is located between the Petaca Pinta WSA and the Pronoun 

Caves ACEC. In 1985, the BLM completed a land exchange in this area that created a 

contiguous block of public lands. The 23,833-acre inventory unit meets the 5,000-acre size 

exception. The unit is predominantly natural, having several stock tanks and fences which are 

substantially unnoticeable. The screening provided by topography and vegetation of the unit 

provides areas in which solitude is outstanding, and the area also includes outstanding 

opportunities for hiking, hunting, and other primitive forms of recreation.

3.10 Livestock Grazing 

The livestock grazing resource is measured in forage acres available for livestock grazing 

expressed in animal unit months (AUMs), which determines livestock carrying capacity. 

Livestock grazing management practices are assessed using the NM Standards and Guidelines, 

which bridges the health of the public lands to the occurring multiple uses. 

3.10.1 Livestock Use of Grazing Allotments

Grazing use is authorized and billed on the basis of the number of Animal Unit Months (AUMs) 

that the forage on a particular allotment will sustain. An AUM is the amount of forage needed 

by one animal unit (e.g., a 1,000 pound cow and calf) for one month (USDI-BLM Grazing 

Regulations 43 CFR Part 4100 Sec 4100.0-5). There are a total of 119,064 AUMs authorized for 

livestock grazing within the Planning Area. Grazing operations range in size from small to large. 

In addition to variations in size of operations, there are variations in individual allotment use. 

For example, one individual may be authorized to graze livestock on several different allotments, 

or may only be authorized to graze a few head of livestock as part of a community allotment. 

Grazing authorizations on community allotments are held by more than one individual or family 

that run livestock in conjunction with one another.

There are a total of 213 grazing allotments within the planning area of the Rio Puerco Field 

Office. There are 195 allotments within the decision area that total 711,716 acres of public land 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-37

within Sandoval, Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, Valencia, Socorro, and Torrance counties. 

Surface ownership of lands within grazing allotments consists of BLM, private, state, and tribal 

lands. A description of each allotment by acreage and authorized public AUMs within the 

planning area can be found in Appendix B.

Grazing is administered by the RPFO on forty allotments within the boundaries of the 

Farmington Field Office (FFO) as well as three allotments partially within the boundaries of the 

Socorro Field Office (SFO). Both the SFO and FFO administer grazing on allotments that are 

within the boundaries of the RPFO. Exchanges in allotment administration between the FFO and 

the RPFO are outlined in a memorandum of understanding. Administration of thirty allotments 

located in Rio Arriba County (FFO) was returned to the FFO in 2006 by the RPFO. 

Authorized use varies each year depending upon a number of factors, including the current range 

condition, the ability of the permittee/lessee to purchase livestock, and long-term weather 

patterns. Long-term weather patterns and the ability of the permittee/lessee to purchase livestock 

are interrelated. Often permittees/lessees remove livestock from their grazing allotment and sell 

them during a period of prolonged drought. In many cases, it may take a number of years for an 

individual to purchase the authorized number of livestock even if range conditions are suitable. 

Prior to the annual generation of grazing bills, a grazing application is mailed to each 

permittee/lessee as a courtesy. The grazing application allows the permittee/lessee to designate 

the number of livestock that will be run on a particular allotment in that year up to the number 

authorized on the permit or lease. During this time, the permittee/lessee is allowed to designate 

non-use, which means that they will not place a specified number of livestock on the allotment 

during a specified period of use and will not be billed for those livestock.

The number of cattle or AUMs within an allotment can vary each year, depending on current 

range conditions and livestock management needs. The majority of allotments are grazed yearround, with some type of grazing system (pasture rotation, watering sites, salt placement) in 

place to reduce or disperse grazing impacts on soils and vegetation. Grazing systems (grazing 

prescriptions) can vary within the Planning Area, ranging from intensive management, where 

cattle are moved every couple of days, to a rotational grazing plan that provides grazing and 

deferment periods throughout the year (see Appendix C).

Of the 195 allotments, 149 are grazed year-long, while forty-six are grazed seasonally. Grazing 

is authorized both seasonally and year-long on nine community allotments. Permittees/lessees

that graze allotments seasonally are authorized to graze on allotments managed by the USFS. 

Generally, these individuals graze on Forest Service allotments from June to the middle of

October. 

One hundred and four of the 213 allotments within the planning area are authorized by Section 

15 of the Taylor Grazing Act, while the other 109 are under the authority of Section 3 of the 

Taylor Grazing Act (see Appendix E). Grazing allotments authorized by Section 3 of the Taylor 

Grazing Act are located within a grazing district, while those allotments authorized by Section 

15 of the Taylor Grazing Act are outside of grazing district boundaries. Grazing permits are 

issued to qualified individuals for Section 3 allotments while grazing leases are issued to 

qualified individuals for Section 15 allotments. Private land capable of supporting livestock 

grazing (base land) as well as permanent watering sources (base water) qualifies as base property

for Section 3 allotments. Issuance of grazing permits/leases is dependent upon base property
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-38

owned or controlled by the individual applying for grazing privileges. Base property 

qualifications are the primary difference between allotments inside and outside grazing district 

boundaries. Base land adjacent to BLM land qualifies as base property for Section 15 allotments 

(4110 Handbook). 

3.10.1.1 Lands Removed From Grazing

Livestock grazing has been removed in the interest of wildlife values from the following 

allotments: Molino, Rock Ridge, San Miguel, Bama, and Elk Springs. AUMs on the Molino, 

Rock Ridge, San Miguel, and Bama allotments were identified in the 1978 Rio Puerco Grazing 

EIS for wildlife use only. Livestock grazing on the Elk Springs allotment was removed in 

October of 1991 through a cooperative agreement between the BLM and The Rocky Mountain 

Elk Foundation (RMEF). The Elk Springs Allotment is within a designated ACEC because of 

key deer and elk winter range values. Grazing privileges would likely have been granted to 

RMEF due to their purchase of the base property for the Elk Springs allotment. RMEF agreed to 

relinquish grazing privileges, however, in return for the retirement of the allotment from 

livestock grazing by the BLM.

According to the Kasha–Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument Proposed RMP and Final EIS, 

annual grazing of both the Tent Rocks and Peralta allotments is to be discontinued. This action 

is in accordance with Presidential Proclamation 7394 (USDI BLM 2007).

In establishing the El Malpais National Monument, Congress transferred over 100,000 acres of 

public land formerly administered by the BLM as multiple use lands to the NPS. Public Law

100-225 provided that livestock grazing in the monument could continue until December 31, 

1997, under BLM administration. Now that such use has been discontinued in the monument, the 

BLM has adjusted all affected grazing permits to reduce livestock numbers. (USDI BLM 1999).

Grazing has also been excluded from certain riparian areas managed by the RPFO, which are 

described in detail in the Final EIS for Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Management (USDI BLM 

2000).

3.10.2 Selective Management Categorization

In the 1980s, the BLM developed classification criteria to assist field offices in identifying 

management priorities by allotment. Allotments are placed in one of three selective management 

categories – Maintain, Improve, or Custodial – based on the following criteria (USDI BLM 

2000a):

3.10.2.1 Maintain (M) Category:

Present range condition is satisfactory

Allotments have moderate to high resource production potential, and are producing near their 

potential (or trending in that direction)

No serious resource-use conflicts and/or controversies exist

Opportunities may exist for positive economic return from public investment

Present management appears satisfactory
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-39

Other local criteria

Allotments will be managed to maintain current satisfactory ecological condition

3.10.2.2 Improve (I) Category:

Present range condition is unsatisfactory

Allotments have a moderate or high resource production potential, and are producing at low to 

moderate levels

Serious resource-use conflicts and/or controversy exist

Opportunities exist for positive economic return for public investment

Present management appears unsatisfactory

Other local criteria

Allotments will be managed intensively to improve unsatisfactory ecological condition and 

resolve resource conflicts

3.10.2.3 Custodial (C) Category:

Present range condition is not a factor

Allotments have a low resource production potential, and are producing at low to moderate 

levels

Limited resource-use conflicts and/or controversy may exist

Opportunities for positive economic return on public investments do not exist or are 

constrained by technological or economic factors

Opportunities exist to achieve the allotments’ potential through changes in management

Other local criteria

Allotments will be managed to prevent resource degradation 

Selective management categorization provides a system for establishing priorities for 

implementing changes in grazing management based on the need for improved management, and 

the potential for improved ecological condition, with consideration for cost-effectiveness. 

Selective management categories can be changed as additional resource data becomes available. 

Changes in categories would result in management changes appropriate to the new category, 

consistent with the objectives of the approved RMP.

Each allotment was placed into one of the three selective management categories based on 

present resource conditions and potential for improvement. Management categorization allows 

the establishment of priorities for implementing grazing management based on the need for 

management and potential for improved range condition, with consideration for costeffectiveness. 

Allotment categories enable the BLM to direct attention to those areas in greatest need of 

management to improve a resource or resolve serious resource-use conflicts. Using management 

categories as a tool, BLM managers can create allotment management plans (AMPs) and 

cooperative management plans (CMPs). AMPs and CMPs are developed in an effort to help 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-40

achieve the stated goals of RMPs. Specific methods for controlling when, where, and how much 

livestock grazing takes place are covered in both types of plans. AMPs promote the protection 

of resource values, such as water quality and riparian area resource management, and coordinate 

livestock grazing with other resource uses. Both plans also address needed rangeland 

improvements, monitoring methods, and implementation schedules.

Information including the unit each grazing allotment is located in, allotment management 

category, Section 3 or 15 status of each allotment, and the EIS relevant to each allotment is 

outlined in Appendix E.

Three types of monitoring studies were conducted on public land in the RPFO. Condition and 

trend studies were established and conducted in accordance with the Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act of 1978. Intensive vegetative monitoring studies, including the collection of 

precipitation, utilization, and actual use data, were conducted on the “I” category allotments to 

evaluate the success of changes in grazing management and to aid in the determination of 

livestock grazing capacities. In addition, the USFS Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experimental Station have conducted vegetative studies in the Rio Puerco Grazing ES (USDI 

BLM 1978b) area in support of the results of the intensive monitoring studies.

3.10.3 Continuing Management Guidance for Resolution of the 

Vegetative Uses Issue

This issue considers the range resource on the public lands that were not covered by an approved 

grazing ES/EISs. In the 1986 RMP, ninety-two allotments in the vegetative uses issue area had 

been placed into one of three selective management categories based on the present resource 

condition and the potential for improvement. Currently fifty-seven (or about 62%) of the ninetytwo original allotments within the vegetative uses issue area remain. Many of these allotments 

no longer exist due to the transfer of BLM land to the New Mexico State Land Office as a result 

of the 1987 El Malpais/Torrance County Land Exchange. Various other land exchanges have 

contributed to changes in surface ownership within the RPFO boundary, resulting in a loss of the 

remainder of grazing allotments covered under the vegetative uses issue. 

Thirty-two of the allotments administered by the RPFO that are within the decision area of the 

FFO are covered under the Vegetative Uses Section of the Proposed Farmington RMP/Final EIS. 

These allotments were not previously addressed in the San Juan Grazing Management EIS. The 

main objective of this issue that was relevant to these particular allotments was the determination 

of correct levels of vegetative use based on a five-year monitoring plan.

3.10.4 Land Health

Rangeland Health Assessments (RHAs) are completed prior to each permit renewal process. The 

permit renewal process is initiated by a transfer between permittees or every ten years, 

whichever comes first. Yearly RHAs are prioritized by those allotments that have never been 

analyzed with the NEPA process using environmental assessments (EAs). One hundred thirty-six 

allotments have had an initial health assessment conducted from 1999 to 2011. Of the one 

hundred thirty-six assessments, sixty were assessed using the New Mexico Standards and 

Guidelines, (USDI BLM 2001a) both primary and secondary since 2007, with the rest being

assessed using the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43 CFR 4180.1). Forty of the one 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-41

hundred thirty-six allotments were prescribed with a necessary management change required to 

achieve a sustainable level of public land health that was identified through the RHA/permit 

renewal/EA process. Appendix F contains a brief description of the relationship between the

Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and the Standards and Guidelines.

3.10.5 Range Improvements

Typical rangeland improvements and the general procedures to be followed in implementing 

them are described in Appendix D. Future rangeland improvements will be designed and

constructed to meet the management objectives proposed in the DRMP. The extent, location, 

and timing of such actions would depend on the improvements needed for each allotment, 

allottee contributions, and BLM funding capability, and would be developed with consideration 

for other resource uses. 

Fifty percent of all BLM grazing fees, or $10 million, whichever is greater, is allocated to the 

range improvement fund annually, pursuant to section 401 of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act . Range improvements should be consistent with multiple use management and 

the objective of improvement projects should meet one of the following criteria: enhance or 

improve livestock grazing management, improve watershed conditions, enhance wildlife habitat, 

or serve similar purposes (43 CFR subpart 4100). These improvements can be both structural 

and nonstructural and include, but are not limited to, prescribed burns, chemical brush control, 

mechanical brush control, water wells, water pipelines, and fencing. Range improvement funds 

in the RPFO are typically allocated to the treatment of brush or invasive species with aerially 

applied herbicides as well as structural improvements such as water wells, water pipelines, and 

fencing.

3.10.5.1 Pipeline Systems

Several water wells (Chiuilla, Continental Divide, Pan Am, Pelon, and Piedra Lumbre) were 

drilled in the 1960s in support of the Rio Puerco Watershed Project. At that time, water was

needed for the proper compaction of retention and detention dams being constructed in the 

western portion of Sandoval County. After the completion of the Rio Puerco Watershed Project 

in the 1970s, these wells were converted to facilitate livestock grazing management. In the 

1980s, maintenance was assigned to permittees for the pipeline systems with the exception of the 

wells themselves and wildlife watering points. Complete maintenance of the Chiuilla and 

Continental Divide systems is now the responsibility of the permittees. User fees based on the 

number of AUMs serviced by the well/pipeline are currently being collected by the BLM for the 

Pan Am, Pelon, and Piedra Lumbre systems. These fees are collected to pay for electrical usage 

and well maintenance (well pulling, electrical problems, and pump maintenance/replacement).

The largest well/pipeline system in the Planning Area is the Cabezon pipeline system. A test 

hole, drilled during a period of uranium exploration, produced a high output artisan well (the 

Homestake Well), which was subsequently developed into an extensive pipeline system. The 

well and pipeline system provide water for livestock to approximately twenty grazing allotments 

from nearly 100 miles of pipeline. At this time, the BLM has maintenance responsibility of the 

main trunkline. Maintenance responsibility has been assigned to the Cabezon Water User 

Association for the rest of the system.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-42

3.10.6 Forecast

Future livestock grazing management will be determined according to precipitation and the 

corresponding condition of native and desirable upland and riparian species, riparian proper 

functioning condition, and overall biotic health. Increased demand from other resources may 

result in new challenges and opportunities in grazing management. Other factors such as high 

input costs (e.g. fuel, and supplemental feed) as well as an aging population of permittees/lessees

may affect the future of livestock grazing on lands managed by the RPFO. It may no longer be 

economically feasible for permittees/lessees who live a great distance from their grazing 

allotment to run livestock, especially on small allotments. It is possible that these 

permittees/lessees would relinquish grazing rights on these allotments, and the allotments would 

be absorbed into larger neighboring allotments.

3.10.7 Key Features 

Allotments within the “I” category would be considered key features, as additional management 

activities are required to improve the public land health in these areas. Livestock grazing must be 

achieved in a manner consistent with land use plans, the principles of multiple use and sustained 

yield, environmental values, public land health standards, economic and other objectives stated 

in 43 CFR 1600, Subpart 1610; the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended (Title 43 

of the USC, Chapter 315), 43 CFR 4180.1, and Section 102 of the FLPMA of 1976 (43 USC 

1740). 

3.11 Mineral Resources

Leasable minerals discussed in this section include the following:

Nonrenewable energy fluid minerals – oil and gas, coalbed methane (CBM) 

Nonrenewable nonenergy fluid minerals – carbon dioxide and helium

Nonrenewable energy solid minerals – coal, potash, sulfur, and sodium

Locatable mineral resources discussed in this section include the following:

Metallic minerals―e.g., gold, silver, base metals, and rare earth elements (REE)

Nonmetallic minerals―e.g., gemstones, fluorspar, gypsum, perlite, uranium

Salable mineral resources discussed in this section include sand, gravel, limestone, cinders, and 

building stone.

The mineral resource discussions include known prospects, mineral occurrences, and mineralized 

areas; mining claims, leases, and material sites; and types of mineral deposits in the area of 

interest. 

3.11.1 Salable Minerals

Salable minerals include sand and gravel, cinders, scoria, non-block pumice, building stone, 

limestone, common clay, and humate. These minerals must be purchased from the BLM and are 

sold by the ton or cubic yard at an estimated fair-market value. Certain governmental agencies 

and organizations, such as the New Mexico Highway Department, can qualify for a free use 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-43

permit and are not charged for mineral extraction on public land. Applications for mineral 

material sales must go through NEPA review, unless they are sales and free use from community 

pits and common use areas. Permit stipulations to protect surface values are based on 

interdisciplinary review of the environmental impacts of the application request. Regulations 

pertaining to this program are found in 43 CFR 3600. In keeping with regulations in 43 CFR 

3000.11, the applicant must pay a reimbursable fee estimate before the BLM can process a 

request for a mineral material sale. This fee estimate is based on the reasonable cost the BLM 

expects to incur in processing an application and issuing a mineral material contract. In addition, 

reclamation bonds are required and held by the BLM for mineral material permits.

The availability of BLM-administered lands for extraction of salable minerals can be measured 

by the number of acres of federally-owned minerals open, open with limitations, or closed to 

mineral material sales. The actual amount of salable mineral development in the Planning Area 

can be quantified by the number of mineral material sales and the tonnage of mineral material 

produced. As of January 2010, there are 20 mineral material sales in the RPFO authorized on 

2,070 acres.

Sand and gravel is abundant in the Planning Area. In general, sand and gravel deposits in the 

area are located in Quaternary and Teriary age deposits in playas, fluvial areas, channels, and 

drainages. There are currently four mineral material sales of sand and gravel in the Planning 

Area, located in Sandoval, Cibola, Valencia, and Torrance Counties. There are also non-federal 

sand and gravel mining operations on Indian lands in the Planning Area.

Limestone is present in Cibola, Bernalillo, SE McKinley, and northern Valencia Counties in the 

Jurassic-age Todilto formation, Pennsylvanian-age members of the Madera group, and the 

Permian Age San Andres formation. In Bernalillo and Valencia Counties, limestone is found in 

the Lucero Uplift, the Manzano Mountains, and the Albuquerque Basin. There is currently one 

mineral material sale of limestone in the Grants area (Cibola County).

Scoria is only found in Cibola and SE McKinley Counties in Tertiary-Age volcanic flows 

associated with the Zuni Mountains and El Malpais. There is currently one mineral material sale 

of scoria in Cibola County.

Moss rock, which is lichen-covered sandstone, is found scattered throughout the Planning Area 

in Precambrian-Quaternary age formations. There is currently one common-use area for which 

the BLM sells permits in the Bluewater area (Cibola County).

Humate is found in Sandoval County in the Cretaceous-age Menefee formation. There are 

currently two humate material sales in the Planning Area. There are also non-federal humate 

mining operations on Indian lands in the Planning Area.

Baked shale (red dog) is located in Sandoval County, where deposits in the Upper Cretaceous 

age Menefee Formation and is interbedded with mudstones, siltstones, sandstones, and coals. 

Some shales are heated up (baked), causing them to turn red, hence the name, red dog. There are 

currently two mineral material sales of baked shale in the Planning Area, as well as one free-use 

area.

Basalt is being mined for riprap in Sandoval County and is present as angular blocks and comes 

from several successive Quaternary age lava flows of the San Felipe volcanic field. This 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-44

extensively faulted field forms the Santa Ana Mesa, north of the Rio Grande and Jemez river 

confluence. There is currently one free-use area where basalt is being removed.

Sandstone is being mined in a common use area 11 miles south of Cuba (Sandoval County). The 

sandstone here is most likely from landslide deposits of the Cretaceous age Mesa Verde Group 

or Dakota Formation. 

The demand for industrial minerals (including sand, gravel, and scoria) continues to rise over 

time as these mineral materials supply construction industries. Because of the current downturn 

in the housing industry, new home sales are sluggish. When the industry rebounds, construction 

of new residential (and commercial) properties will increase demand for salable mineral 

materials. Depending on the rate of future commercial and residential development in the 

region, it is expected that there will be continued demand for salable minerals in the Planning 

Area. 

In particular, increased demand for salable minerals is expected in Valencia County, which is 

predicted to be one of the fastest growing counties in New Mexico over the next five years. 

Also, on public land around nearby Albuquerque, sand and gravel deposits are nearly depleted. 

Therefore, in the future more sand and gravel may need to be brought into the Albuquerque 

metropolitan area from outlying areas, some of which may include portions of the Planning Area.

In Sandoval County, there is likely to be a sustained interest in the development of salable 

mineral resources, particularly for baked shale (red dog). Baked shale is popular for xeriscaping 

lawns and other areas; therefore, demand for this salable mineral should increase as water is now 

becoming scarce and more costly. Demand for humate, basalt, and sandstone should remain 

constant barring economic fluctuations.

In Cibola and McKinley Counties, key features for the presence of salable mineral materials are 

Quaternary age terrace, alluvial fan, stream, and alluvium deposits, mountainous areas like the 

Zuni uplift, and scattered volcanic flows. In Cibola, Valencia, and Bernalillo Counties, sand and 

gravel deposits are present in Tertiary-Quaternary age playa, fluvial, and terrace features 

throughout Bernalillo and northern Valencia Counties, particularly along drainage systems. 

Other salable minerals can be present in Quaternary-Precambrian age deposits in the Lucero 

Uplift, Manzano Mountains, and Albuquerque Basin features. In Torrance County, sand and 

gravel can be found in Quaternary age alluvial fans, pediment, bolson, bench, and lacustrine 

deposits of the Estancia Basin. In Sandoval County, humate is found where the coal-bearing part 

of the Menefee Formation crops out. Baked shale (red dog) is also associated with the Menefee 

Formation and can be found in the northern part of Sandoval County near Torreon. Basalt is 

found in areas of Quaternary age lava flows. In eastern Bernalillo and southeastern Sandoval 

Counties, sand and gravel deposits are present in Tertiary age Ortiz Fanglomerate and from Rio 

Grande braided channel deposits which comprise a series of Quaternary age terraces.

3.11.2 Locatable Minerals

Public land is open to mineral entry unless previously withdrawn. The 1872 Mining Law allows 

for the location of mining claims on public land for the purpose of exploration, development, and 

production of minerals. Exploration and development, and filing for a mining claim are 

regulated under 43 CFR 3800. The RPFO’s responsibility consists of completing validity exams 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-45

for patent or BLM actions, and review and inspection of notices and plans filed under 43 CFR 

3809 regulations. Most solid minerals are locatable, but exceptions exist (e.g., coal, potash, 

sulfur, and sodium). Locatable minerals are metallic (e.g., gold and silver) and nonmetallic (e.g., 

gemstones, perlite).

Before any surface disturbing mining can begin, an operator must submit a notice (for disturbing 

five acres or less) or a plan of operations (more than five acres disturbance) describing the 

proposed activities. For a plan of operations, an EA must be prepared and a reclamation bond is 

required. For a notice, preparation of a NEPA document is not required though a reclamation 

bond is. 

The availability of BLM-administered lands for mining claim location can be measured by the 

number of acres of federally-owned minerals that are open to or withdrawn from location. 

According to the Rio Puerco RMP/ROD (November 1986), all BLM-managed federal mineral 

estate in the RPFO is available for claim location except for the Special Management Areas 

(SMAs) that had been withdrawn. There were a total of 11,821 acres withdrawn from location in 

nine SMAs. 

The actual amount of claim location in the Planning Area can be quantified by the number of 

claims filed and the acreage that is actively claimed. As of January 2010, there are 427 mining 

claims in the RPFO and these occupy 64,131 acres. However, very few of these mining claims 

are actively producing locatable minerals.

3.11.2.1 Mining Districts

A mining district is an area of land which has been designated by name, having described 

boundaries under which mineral resources are worked under rules and regulations prescribed by 

the miners themselves. A mining area is an area of land where minerals are worked, but have not 

been designated as a mining district.

Table 3.15: Summary of Locatable Mineral Presence in the Planning Area

Mining District Area Minerals Active 

Claims

Active 

Mines

Chupadera Mesa Torrance County (3) Iron, Sulfide, Silver, Lead, 

Fluorite, limestone, 

sandstone

No No

Cochiti Sandoval County 

(4)

Gold, Silver, Copper, Lead, 

Uranium

No No

Cuba Sandoval County 

(4)

Manganese Yes No

Grants Uranium Cibola County (1) Uranium Yes No

Hagan Basin Sandoval (5) Uranium Yes No

Hell Canyon Valencia County (2) Gold, Silver, Copper No No

Jemez Pumice Sandoval County 

(4)

Pumice Yes No

Jemez Springs Sandoval (4) Copper, Gold, Silver, 

Uranium

Yes No
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-46

Mining District Area Minerals Active 

Claims

Active 

Mines

La Ventana-Collins Sandoval County 

(4)

Uranium, Vanadium Yes No

Manzano 

Mountains

Valencia County (2) 

Torrance County (3)

Gold, Silver, Lead, Copper, 

Uranium

No No

Marquez Uranium, Molybdenum Yes No

Mesa Aparejo Valencia County (2) Travertine Yes Yes

Nacimiento Sandoval County 

(4)

Copper, Gold, Silver, 

Uranium, Vanadium

Yes No

Pedernal Hills Torrance County (3) Gold, Silver, Uranium, Iron, 

Copper, Sulfides

No No

Placitas Sandoval (5) Fluorite, Barite, Copper, 

Galena, Gold, Silver, Zinc

Yes No

Rio Puerco Sandoval County 

(1)

Copper, Silver, Uranium No No

Scholle Valencia County (2)

Torrance County (3)

Copper, Uranium, Vanadium, 

Gold, Silver, Lead

No No

Tijeras Canyon Bernalillo (2/5) Gold, Silver, Copper, Lead, 

Zinc, Barite, Fluorite, Galena

Yes No

White Mesa Sandoval County 

(4)

Gypsum Yes No

Zuni Mountains Cibola County (1) Gold, Silver, Copper, Iron, 

Uranium, Fluorite, Barite

No No

(See Map 34).

The BLM has a policy to make mineral resources available for disposal and encourage 

development of these minerals to meet local and national needs. In the near future, the mining 

industry will have to locate their operations further away from populated areas where zoning 

restrictions, land development regulations, and environmental concerns discourage or prohibit 

mining actions. As a result, shortages of certain mineral resources in urban and industrial areas 

will increase and these resources will have to be obtained from outside sources at a much greater 

cost to public users. 

3.11.2.1.1 Uranium

The economic feasibility of uranium development depends upon the price of uranium, the 

availability of mill-sites and transportation, and the political and regulatory framework for 

uranium extraction in New Mexico. In 2007, the price of uranium rose high enough ($60.00 to 

$135.00 per pound) to make uranium economic to mine in New Mexico. Since then, most likely 

due to the current economic slump, demand for uranium has dropped, along with interest in 

development of uranium resources. However, it is predicted that demand will increase in the 

future as more alternative energy sources are needed, and if the price of uranium remains high or 

continues to increase. New Mexico’s uranium mills have been dismantled, leaving the area 

without a local means of processing uranium ore. A Texas-based company, Uranium Resources, 

Inc., announced plans in 2007 to open a new uranium mill near Grants, New Mexico. However, 

these plans are currently on hold. Should uranium prices rise again, the most likely area to be 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-47

targeted for development is the Grants Uranium district, followed by the Rio Puerco district. 

The Hagen Basin is not as likely to be developed because of high production costs, and lowgrade ore. If prices become high enough, it may be economic to produce uranium deposits in the 

Hagen Basin area. Uranium deposits are most likely to be explored in the Grants District (along 

with associated vanadium and molybdenum the Zuni uplift and the Rio Puerco District, 

southeastern Valencia and southwestern Torrance Counties, the Marquez-Bernabe Montano and 

Nacimiento Districts, and the Hagen Basin.

3.11.2.1.2 Metals

The mining of metallic mineral resources is in a supply and demand market. Mining overseas 

has increased and metallic minerals are being imported, resulting in less development of smaller 

deposits in the U.S. Demand is increasing and prices are rising, which could make exploration 

for, and mining of, metals in the Planning Area more economically viable in the future. Should 

prices rise high enough, some of these favorable environments could be economic enough to 

increase exploration and production of some locatable mineral occurrences. The mining districts

most likely to experience development are the Cochiti, Nacimiento, or Jemez Spring districts. 

The Tijeras Canyon and Placitas districts are less likely to experience development because of 

low-grade ore-bodies, regulatory obstacles, and residential expansion. Metals, including gold, 

silver, copper, iron, lead, zinc, and manganese, are most likely to be developed in the Zuni Uplift 

area (Cibola County), the Rio Puerco District (Sandoval County) the Lucero area, the Manazano 

Mountains area, and in the mining districts located in central Sandoval County and eastern 

Bernalillo County. 

Fluorite and barite deposits are most likely to be explored and developed in the Zuni Uplift area 

(Cibola County). There should be a sustained demand for decorative rock (travertine), which is 

produced in Valencia County. It is probable that there will be continued claim location and 

extraction of travertine deposits in the Planning Area. Travertine is most likely to be developed 

in Valencia County, where travertine deposits are already being mined.

3.11.2.2 Travertine

Gypsum deposits are found primarily in Sandoval County, the Lucero Uplift, Manzano 

Mountains, Albuquerque Basin, and the western edges of the Nacimiento Mountains. The 

gypsum deposits are found primarily in the Jurassic-age Todilto formation. There are currently 

two gypsum operations located within the Planning Area, both on Indian lands. The first is 

White Mesa, located on Zia Pueblo land, near San Ysidro (Sandoval County). The other is Bar J 

Gypsum on San Felipe land (Sandoval County). Gypsum demand is currently lower due to the 

downturn in the housing and other construction markets, but should increase when the slump is 

over. 

3.11.3 Leasable Minerals

Leasable minerals are from three categories: energy fluid minerals (e.g., oil and gas, coal-bed 

methane, and geothermal), non-energy fluid minerals (e.g., carbon dioxide and helium), and 

leasable solid minerals (e.g., coal, potash, sulfur, and sodium). Requirements for extraction of 

leasable minerals from public lands are a lease and royalty payment. Leasable minerals include 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-48

oil and gas, geothermal, coal, coalbed methane, oil shale, tar sands, phosphate, sodium, and 

potash. 

Oil and gas leases are sold by auction on a quarterly basis, as are leases for other fluid minerals, 

such as carbon dioxide and helium. Coal leases are processed in a “lease by application” 

procedure (see Appendix H) for a more detailed description of the process by which the BLM 

makes leasable minerals available). 

The USGS designates areas prospectively valuable for geothermal energy as Known Geothermal 

Resource Areas (KGRAs). The New Mexico State Land Office designates favorable areas as 

Known Geothermal Resource Fields (KGRFs). 

The availability of BLM-administered lands for mineral leasing can be measured by the number 

of acres of federally-owned minerals that are open to leasing, open to leasing with moderate 

constraints (controlled surface use or timing limit leasing stipulations), open to leasing with 

major constraints (no surface occupancy leasing stipulations), or closed to leasing. 

The actual amount of leasing of federal mineral estate in the Planning Area can be quantified by 

the number of leases authorized and the acreage that is currently leased. As of July 2010, there 

are ninety-seven fluid mineral leases in the RPFO and these occupy 82,190 acres.

Another indicator of leasable mineral development in the Planning Area is the number of wells 

that have been drilled and the amount of fluid minerals that have been produced from those 

wells. There have been 889 wells drilled in the RPFO, of which 189 wells produced oil or gas, or 

were used as service well (such as for salt water disposal). There has been no development of 

leasable minerals other than oil and gas resources. 

3.11.3.1 Oil and gas

The primary oil and gas fields in New Mexico are located in the northwestern and southeastern 

parts of the state. However, there are oil and gas resources located within the RPFO. Most of 

the exploration and development of oil and gas resources in the Planning Area has taken place in 

the northwestern portion of Sandoval County, which is on the fringe of the highly-productive 

San Juan Basin. Small amounts of exploration and production have taken place in other areas of 

the Planning Area.

Although there are currently no oil and gas leases in Cibola County and SE McKinley County 

(Map 31), there are potential reservoirs in the area that have undergone exploration in the past.

These were primarily in Cretaceous and Pennsylvanian sandstone formations in the Lucero 

Uplift, Acoma Basin, Baca Basin, the Zuni Uplift, the Gallup sag, and the southern fringe of the 

San Juan Basin in McKinley County. There have been oil and gas shows from exploratory wells 

drilled in this part of the Planning Area, but there are currently no producing wells on BLMadministered mineral ownership.

Very little petroleum has been produced in Bernalillo County and northern Valencia County, but 

there have been several exploratory drilling programs in the Albuquerque Basin between 1912 

and 2007. There is currently one oil and gas lease in Valencia County, and there were recently 

as many as fifteen leases that have now expired (see Map 31). The best petroleum source rocks 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-49

are located in the Valencia County part of the Albuquerque Basin, in the Lucero Uplift, and the 

Rio Puerco Fault Belt.

Very little, if any, petroleum has been produced in Torrance County, but there are currently six

oil and gas leases located in the southeastern Torrance County (see Map 31). The best petroleum 

reservoir rocks are predominantly in sandstones, but can be present in sandy limestone. There 

have been oil and gas shows reported primarily in rocks from the Permian age Abo Formation 

and from Pennsylvanian units located on the flanks of the Pedernal Uplift, Chupadera Mesa in 

southwestern Torrance County, and the Punta del Agua and Buffalo anticlinal traps in the 

Estancia Basin.

There are currently eighty oil and gas leases located mainly in the northwest corner Sandoval 

County, west and southwest of Cuba, New Mexico, within Sandoval County (see Map 31). 

These leases contain approximately 44 producing oil, gas, or water injection wells associated

with oil and gas field development. 

For details on porosity, permeability, various structural and stratigraphic trapping mechanisms, 

and production statistics the reader is referred to the reference section, specifically, McLemore 

1984.

There is currently one oil and gas lease near Placitas, New Mexico (see Map 31), although there 

has been exploration in the area in the past. The best potential for petroleum occurrence here is 

in the Albuquerque and Hagan basins. Potential source rocks in these basins include bituminous 

shales of the Pennsylvanian age Magdalena Group and those of the Upper Cretaceous, and 

limestones of the Jurassic age Todilto Formation. The best reservoir goals in the basins are the 

Upper Cretaceous fluvial and marine sandstones, which should be similar to those in the San 

Juan Basin. Other possible reservoirs are from the Jurassic age Entrada Sandstone, 

Pennsylvanian and Permian age sandstones, and Pennsylvanian age limestones. 

Increased oil and gas exploration and development is a direct result of the price of a barrel of 

crude oil, which is a function of supply and demand. Crude oil demand and prices are likely to 

continue to increase over time, which, in turn, can cause more exploration in hitherto unexplored 

areas, potentially resulting in new oil and gas fields. Secondary and tertiary petroleum recovery 

from known producing and past producing formations and reservoirs should also become 

economically viable. Oil and gas lease sales are likely to increase within the Planning Area in 

the future. Petroleum resources in the Albuquerque, Hagan, and Espanola basins, the Nacimiento 

Uplift, and the Sandia Mountains, which in the past had low potential, may also become

economic to mine. The proximity of the Planning Area to major transportation routes and 

pipeline corridors may also attract exploratory drilling. 

Table 3.16: Reasonably Foreseeable Fluid Mineral Development In The RPRA

County Past No. Wells Reasonably Foreseeable 

No. Wells

McKinley 76 No more than 1

Cibola 34 No more than 1

Valencia 55 No more than 1

Bernalillo 27 No more than 1

Torrance 128 No more than 1
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-50

County Past No. Wells Reasonably Foreseeable 

No. Wells

Sandoval 569 1 to 3

Likely areas for oil and gas exploration and development in Cibola County and SE McKinley 

County are Permian-Cretaceous age rocks in sedimentary basin features such as the Acoma and 

San Juan basins, the Lucero and Zuni uplifts, and areas near the Rio Grande Rift.

In the Albuquerque Basin, key petroleum features are the dark grey shale of the Cretaceous age 

Mancos and Menefee formations as well as the Gallup and Dakota sandstones, the Jurassic age 

Todilto Formation, the Pennsylvanian age Madera Formation, and the Tertiary age Santa Fe 

Group. All of these may be sources of oil and natural gas as these formations are petroleum 

sources or producers in the San Juan Basin. The dark grey shale from the Pennsylvanian age 

Madera Formation may contain source rocks in the Lucero Uplift area. Here too, possible 

reservoirs are in Pennsylvanian age limestones and sandstones of the Madera and Sandia 

formations. The Rio Puerco Fault Belt, located north of the Lucero Uplift, contains Cretaceous 

age Mancos Shale, limestone of the Jurassic age Todilto Formation, and dark grey shale from the 

Pennsylvanian age Madera Formation, all of which contain possible source rocks for petroleum. 

Possible reservoirs here are in the Cretaceous age Dakota Sandstone, Jurassic age Entrada 

Sandstone, and the limestone and sandstone from the Pennsylvanian age Madera and Sandia 

formations.

Key Features for petroleum resources in Torrance County are Permian and Pennsylvanian age 

sandstones in the Pedernal Uplift, Chupadera Mesa, and the Punta del Agua and Buffalo 

anticlinal traps in the Estancia Basin.

Jurassic, and mainly Cretaceous, rocks are sources of oil and gas in Sandoval County mainly in 

the San Juan Basin part of the unit. The best reservoir rocks here are from the Jurassic age 

Entrada Sandstone and the Upper Cretaceous age sandstones, namely the Dakota, Hospah, basal 

Niobrara, Hosta, Point Lookout, the upper Mancos Shale, and the Chacra producing interval. All 

of these rock units produce or have produced petroleum in the San Juan Basin. Other key 

features include favorable source rocks, structures, and stratigraphic facies present in the 

Albuquerque, Hagan, and Espanola basins, Sandia Mountains, and the Nacimiento Uplift. For 

additional details, see McLemore 1984.

In the Albuquerque and Hagan basins, Pennsylvanian and Upper Cretaceous age shales, and the 

Jurassic age Todilto Formation are key features which can contain petroleum sources. Oil and 

gas trap features include fault blocks, rollover anticlines, lenses, and pinchouts. 

3.11.3.2 Coal

Coal normally crops out in coal-bearing sedimentary rocks. Locations where coal occurs and is 

mineable are designated as coal fields. Deposits are ranked on quality and are based on carbon 

content, volatile and water content, hardness, and heat released during burning. Lowest to 

highest quality are termed lignite, sub-bituminous, bituminous, and anthracite. 

There are no active coal leases in Cibola and SE McKinley Counties. Coal is present within this 

area, but it is currently uneconomic to mine due to depth and quality. Cibola County contains 

Cretaceous age coal-bearing outcrops that are designated as recognized fields. The formations 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-51

present in outcrops are the Crevasse Canyon, Moreno Hill, Menefee Formation, and the Gallup 

and Dakota sandstones. The coal fields here are southwestern East Mount Taylor, South Mount 

Taylor, northern Datil Mountains, northern Salt Lake, and southern Zuni fields. See McLemore 

et al. 1986 for physiographic and detailed geologic description of the coals in each field. The 

portion of McKinley County within the Planning Area contains a portion of the Gallup and Zuni 

recognized fields. The Gallup Field coal-bearing rock units are the Gallup Sandstone, Gibson 

and Dilco members of the Crevasse Canyon Formation, and the Cleary Coal Member of the 

Menefee Formation. The Zuni Field is defined by outcrops of the Dakota Sandstone, Gallup 

Sandstone, and Dilco Member.

There are no active coal leases in Bernalillo and northern Valencia Counties. Coal is present 

within the unit, but it is currently uneconomic to mine due to thin beds, high-angle faulting, and 

quality. Valencia County contains Cretaceous age coal-bearing outcrops in the southern part of 

the Rio Puerco recognized field from the Cretaceous age Dilco and Gibson members of the 

Crevasse Canyon Formation. Coal here ranks sub-bituminous A to high volatile C bituminous. 

Ash content is low (less than 8.0 percent) and the sulfur content high (greater than 1.5 percent; 

McLemore 1985).

There are no coal leases, no Cretaceous age coal bearing rocks due to erosion or non-deposition, 

and no other coal-bearing units in Torrance County.

There are no active coal leases in Sandoval County. Sandoval County contains a major part of 

the San Juan Basin coal fields. These fields are defined by the coal-bearing Fruitland, Menefee, 

and Crevasse Canyon formations. The coal fields here are La Ventana, northeast East Mount 

Taylor, northeast Rio Puerco, east Chacra Mesa, east San Mateo, and east Star Lake. La Ventana 

field coals are from the Allison and Cleary Members of the Menefee Formation. The northeast 

East Mount Taylor field contains coals in the Gibson Member of the Crevasse Canyon 

Formation. The northeast Rio Puerco field consists of Mesaverde Group sediments, specifically 

in the Dilco and Gibson members of the Crevasse Canyon Formation. Most of the coal in the 

east Chacra Mesa field is found in the Cleary Member of the Menefee Formation, but can also be 

present in the Allison Member. In the east San Mateo field coals crop out in the Cleary Member 

of the Menefee Formation, along with some Allison Member coals. Star Lake coals are present 

in outcrops of the Fruitland Formation.

There are no active coal leases in eastern Sandoval County. This area contains the Hagan and 

Placitas fields in the southeastern corner of Sandoval County, and the Tijeras field in 

northeastern Bernalillo County. The Hagan field, structurally a syncline, contains coals of the 

Menefee Formation that are exposed near the structural axis. The Placitas field coals are also 

from the Menefee and occur in the steeply dipping beds of the formation. The Tijeras field coals 

are found in the Mesaverde Group. Here the structure is two synclines in which the coals dip up 

to thirty degrees. Two coal zones are present with the upper zone containing the best quality 

coal.

An increase in demand for coal would likewise increase new coal mine development, although 

coal resources in the Planning Area are not suitable for economic development without a 

commensurate price increase. For example, the steep dip and thinness of the beds makes strip 

mining economically impractical in the Tijeras Field and transportation to market would need to 

be made available. If construction of coal-fired power plants increases, the demand for coal will 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-52

also increase and leases will again be issued. Coal resources in the Planning Area are 

uneconomical to mine commercially at this time.

Coal, when economic, will be found in Cibola and SE McKinley Counties in features such as the 

Zuni, Mt. Taylor, and Salt Lake designated coal fields, and in Cretaceous age rocks of 

formations such as the Fruitland and Menefee. In Bernalillo and northern Valencia Counties, 

coal will be found in features such as the Rio Puerco recognized field, in Cretaceous age coalbearing outcrops from the Dilco and Gibson members of the Crevasse Canyon Formation. Coal 

sources in Sandoval Counties are from the Fruitland, Menefee, and Crevasse Canyon formations 

in the coal fields discussed above. In eastern Sandoval County, coal will be found within coalbearing sedimentary rocks of the Cretaceous age Mesaverde Group, in areas such as the Hagan, 

Placitas, and Tijeras fields discussed above.

3.11.3.3 Geothermal 

Two KGRAs have been identified by the USGS, the Baca Location #1 and San Ysidro. These 

are both located in Sandoval County. KGRFs have been identified by the New Mexico State 

Land Office in the following locations: western McKinley and Cibola Counties, the Lucero 

Uplift in eastern Cibola County, western Valencia County, the Rio Grande rift, and the Jemez 

Mountains (which includes the two KGRAs). Geothermal resources will be found in areas like 

the KGRFs. These features are typically associated with volcanism and have a magmatic source 

for geothermal energy. Another source is in active tectonic sedimentary basins, which contain 

warm waters that circulate to great depth along major fault systems. A different system is that of 

hot dry rock, where water is not present. The geothermal energy is extracted from hot rock via 

injected water. Geothermal areas are found in various host rocks, generally late Tertiary to 

Quaternary in age. Although there are known geothermal resources in the Planning Area, there 

are no leases at this time. 

New geothermal resources may be discovered by drilling exploratory wells in areas of high 

temperature gradients or in areas of oil and gas exploratory drilling. Geothermal resources may 

not be economically competitive with other energy forms, however, as drill holes are very 

expensive to drill and distances to market are enough to add significantly to the cost (USDI BLM 

2008). Exploration for and development of geothermal resources should continue as petroleum 

resource costs are on the rise, creating a demand for renewable energy forms such as geothermal.

3.11.3.4 Carbon Dioxide

The Estancia Basin (eastern Sandoval County) contains carbon dioxide reservoirs that were 

explored from 1934 to 1942. Depending upon the demand for carbon dioxide and the supply 

available from other resources, it is possible that the carbon dioxide resources in the Estancia 

Basin could be developed in the coming years. Carbon dioxide reservoirs are also located in the 

Nacimiento Mountains (Sandoval County), Mesita (Cibola and SE McKinley Counties), and 

Valencia County, but these areas are rated as only having moderate potential. 

3.11.3.5 Sodium/Halite

There is a high potential source location for sodium in playas located in Torrance County, but the 

development potential of this mineral resource is low. There are no other sources of 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-53

sodium/halite in the Planning Area. Although there are sulfur and sodium/halite resources within 

the Planning Area, the development potential for these is likely to remain low.

3.11.3.6 Sulfur

There are sources of sulfur in the Planning Area at Sulfur Springs and San Diego, but there is 

low development potential for these resources.

3.11.3.7 Helium

The Nacimiento Mountains of Sandoval County and the Mesita area of Cibola County have 

moderate deposits of helium. The development potential of these helium reservoirs is also 

moderate because other sources of helium are becoming limited. If demand cannot be met by 

other helium sources (such as the Bravo Dome in northeastern New Mexico), it is possible that 

exploration and development of helium in the RPPA could occur. 

Helium and carbon dioxide resource development potential depends on the longevity of existing 

sources of these gases as well as the level of demand in the future. If demand remains high for 

these gases and the existing sources dwindle, it is likely that development of these resources in 

the RPFO will occur.

3.12 Paleontological Resources

The fossils found on public lands are considered part of our national heritage and are therefore 

afforded protection. Vertebrate fossils or other noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate and plant 

fossils are considered significant by the BLM. Invertebrate and plant fossils are typically more 

abundant, and the BLM does not ordinarily consider them to be of significance.

Indicators for the condition of paleontological resources are as follows:

Type of fossil resource present (vertebrate, invertebrate, or plant).

Prevalence of the fossil resource in the area.

Physical condition of the fossil.

Scientific, educational, and/or recreational value of the resource.

A classification scale, termed the Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC), has been 

developed to estimate the potential for discovering significant fossils during any surfacedisturbing activity in specific geologic formations. Based on specific geologic formations, the 

scale uses a ranking of 1 through 5, with Class 5, 4, and 3 being assigned to high potential rock 

units. 

Fossil resources are part of the geologic formation in which they occur. Most fossils occur in 

sedimentary rock formations, where they may be distributed extensively both vertically and 

horizontally throughout the formations, or they may occur in discontinuous pockets. Few 

geologic formations are uniformly rich in fossils throughout, and some are richer in fossils than 

others. Although experienced paleontologists can predict which formations will contain fossils 

and, in general, what types of fossils will be found based on the age of the formation and its 

depositional environment, predicting the exact location where fossils will be found without field 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-54

surveys is not possible. Development of the PFYC is based in part on known fossil occurrences, 

and geology (see Map 47). Acreages of each class can be expected to change as more data is 

collected from ongoing field surveys and inventories. 

The PFYC map (Map 47) was developed by the BLM. Since the scale of the base map is 

1:500K, the RPFO would refine the data as part of plan implementation. The geologic units 

range from almost two billion years old to the present. Almost all fossils are found in 

sedimentary deposits. Sedimentary rocks form in marine and non-marine environments and 

include sandstone, siltstone, shale, and limestone. There are caves in lava tubes in volcanic 

fields and limestone terrains within the Planning Area that can serve as traps for animals and 

have preserved a record of the changing conditions through the ice ages (New Mexico Museum 

of Natural History and Science [NMMNHS] 2005). The PFYC of both volcanic and limestone 

areas may be 1, 2, or 3, but cave and karst conditions should enter into decisions. 

Within the Planning Area, Class 5, 4 and Class 3 geologic formations account for approximately 

31% of the total acreage, including all ownerships. About 32% of public land in the Planning 

Area is underlain by Class 2 formations, and Class 1 makes up 37% of the Planning Area.

Although the Planning Area contains rocks as old as 2 billion years, known fossil deposits 

represent about 300 million years, reflecting a long history of life on earth. Many major fossil 

bearing formations identified within New Mexico are present in the Planning Area. Vertebrates 

represented within these sedimentary rocks range from fish, reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, 

birds, and mammals. Rock units exposed in the Planning Area include some important 

boundaries, including the transition from fish to early land dwelling animals, into a dinosaur 

dominated ecosystem, through early and middle portions of the predominance of mammals. 

Data contained in this section is derived from the NMMNHS Collections database. 

3.12.1 Cibola County and Southeast McKinley County

Located in west-central New Mexico contains 364,208 acres of surface estate where BLM has 

direct responsibility for management of surface resources. In the case of split estate, any 

paleontological resources belong to the surface owner. The BLM’s obligation in a case where a 

federal action may affect the paleontological resources is to ensure the action is conditioned with 

appropriate paleontological mitigation recommendations to protect the interests of the surface 

owner. For this reason, the tables of PFYC at the end of this section are not separated by surface 

ownership. 

Specific physiographic features occurring within the area include: the Zuni Uplift, Zuni Basin, 

and the Zuni Bandera Lava Fields. Various geologic formations occur at the surface of the earth 

within these physiographic features and vary in potential to contain significant fossil resources. 

Cibola County and southeast McKinley County contain geologic formations ranked 4 and 3 for 

potential to produce significant fossil resources. Formations that occur in the described area and 

have produced vertebrate fossils include: (oldest to youngest) Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, 

Paleogene and Neogene rock units.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-55

3.12.2 Bernalillo County and portions of Cibola and Valencia 

Counties

Located in the Central New Mexico, this area contains 139,724 acres of surface estate where 

BLM has direct responsibility for management of surface resources. In the case of split estate, 

any paleontological resources belong to the surface owner. The BLM’s obligation in a case 

where a federal action may affect the paleontological resources is to ensure the action is 

conditioned with appropriate paleontological mitigation recommendations to protect the interests 

of the surface owner. For this reason, the tables of PFYC at the end of this section are not 

separated by surface ownership. 

Specific physiographic features occurring within the described area include: the Acoma Sag, 

Mount Taylor Volcanic Field, Lucero Uplift, Rio Puerco Fault Zone and the Albuquerque Basin. 

Various geologic formations occur at the surface of the earth within these physiographic features 

and vary in potential to contain significant fossil resources. 

This area contains geologic formations ranked 3 and 2 for potential to produce significant fossil 

resources. Formations that occur in Bernalillo and northern Valencia Counties and have 

produced vertebrate fossils include: (oldest to youngest) Pennsylvanian, Permian, Triassic, 

Jurassic, Cretaceous, Paleogene and Neogene rock units. 

Within this area, the surface acreage is concentrated within the Acoma Sag and the Lucero 

Uplift. Geologic formations exposed at the surface include Permian, Triassic, Jurassic and 

Cretaceous sedimentary rocks. Some checkerboard pattern of BLM-administered lands occurs 

within the Albuquerque Basin east of the Lucero Uplift where Neogene formations are exposed. 

These rock units are all given Class 3 sensitivity and would require some level of screening for 

paleontological resources when considering land use authorizations. Site specific clearances will 

be considered when permitting surface disturbing activities. Known localities have been 

documented within the rock units exposed in this area. 

In addition, there have been excavations and recovery of significant fossil resources within caves 

formed in mineral spring deposits and along fault scarps and landslide deposits. 

Rock units within this area have produced important vertebrate fossils, but very little survey has 

been completed on these rocks. Pennsylvanian, Permian, and Triassic sedimentary rocks 

containing key features occur within this area. There is a significant invertebrate locality and 

potential exists to discover additional localities. Key features also occur around Cerro Verde and 

Volcano Hill. In addition, travertine cave deposits have produced important Pleistocene fossil 

material. 

3.12.3 Torrance County

Located in central New Mexico, this area contains 16,356 acres of surface estate where the BLM 

has direct responsibility for management of surface resources. In the case of split estate, any 

paleontological resources belong to the surface owner. The BLM’s obligation in a case where a 

federal action may affect the paleontological resources is to ensure the action is conditioned with 

appropriate paleontological mitigation recommendations to protect the interests of the surface 

owner. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-56

Specific physiographic features occurring within this area include: the east slope of the Manzano 

Mountains and the Estancia Basin. Various geologic formations occur at the surface of the earth 

within these physiographic features and vary in potential to contain significant fossil resources. 

The concentration of public surface is located within what was the center of Pleistocene Lake 

Estancia. Today, remnants of the lake exist as playa lakes (Laguna del Perro). 

Although the sensitivity level given to the area is class 1 because of map scale, localities have 

been documented and recorded in the NMMNHS. All of the localities are recorded within 

Pleistocene lake margin and shoreline deposits. The fossil material has been discovered in areas 

where mineral materials were being extracted.

Actions that could affect paleontological resources would include extraction of mineral materials 

from surface estate parcels near the margins of the playa lakes. Consideration for these resources 

could be made by including stipulations to mitigation in the event of discovery during mineral 

operations. 

Pleistocene lake margins have produced vertebrate fossils within Torrance County. Mineral 

materials sales in this area could expose or encounter fossils resources.

Sandoval County contains key features where Cretaceous and Paleocene rocks have produced 

significant vertebrate fossils for over 150 years. This area preserves rocks that record the end of 

the dinosaurs and the expansion of mammals to fill that empty niche. An important and active 

Jurassic bone bed quarry occurs within this unit. Other important Jurassic localities occur within 

designated wilderness. 

3.12.4 Sandoval County

Located in the northwestern New Mexico, Sandoval County contains 465,670 acres of surface 

estate where the BLM has direct responsibility for management of surface resources. In the case 

of split estate, any paleontological resources belong to the surface owner. The BLM’s obligation 

in a case where a federal action may affect the paleontological resources is to ensure the action is 

conditioned with appropriate paleontological mitigation recommendations to protect the interests 

of the surface owner. 

Specific physiographic features occurring within Sandoval County include: the eastern edge of 

the San Juan Basin, the Nacimiento Uplift, the Acoma Sag, the Rio Puerco Fault Zone and the 

Albuquerque Basin. Various geologic formations occur at the surface of the earth within these 

physiographic features and vary in potential to contain significant fossil resources. 

Sandoval County contains geologic formations ranked 5, 4, and 3 for potential to produce 

significant fossil resources. Formations that occur in the unit and have produced vertebrate 

fossils include: (oldest to youngest) Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Paleogene, and Neogene 

units.

The San Juan Basin has been an important fossil producing area for the last two centuries and 

continues to produce material important to science. Within Sandoval County, there are areas 

designated for paleontological resources and a number of areas where exposed badlands occur on 

the surface of the earth. In these areas, very little soil formation has occurred and bedrock is 

essentially exposed at the surface. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-57

These rock units are all given level 5, and 4 sensitivity and would require some level of 

screening for paleontological resources when considering land use authorizations. Numerous 

localities have been documented within the rock units exposed in this area. Site-specific 

clearances will be considered when permitting surface disturbing activities. Leasing actions for 

oil and gas, geothermal, or other land use authorizations, and exchanges should consider affects 

on paleontological resources prior to permitting activities or disposal of public lands. Any 

surface disturbing activity or permitted use should consider paleontological resources. 

There are areas within the unit where active excavation of fossil resources occurs. One locality 

has produced important dinosaur material and excavation has been ongoing for seventeen years. 

Another area has produced fossils that define part of the geologic time scale for the Paleocene. 

The excavations have been conducted by the NMMNHS. These areas and localities could be 

considered for some special designation.

3.12.5 Eastern Sandoval County

Located in central New Mexico, eastern Sandoval County contains 11,069 acres of surface estate 

where the BLM has direct responsibility for management of surface resources. In the case of 

split estate, any paleontological resources belong to the surface owner. The BLM’s obligation in 

a case where a federal action may affect the paleontological resources is to ensure the action is 

conditioned with appropriate paleontological mitigation recommendations to protect the interests 

of the surface owner. Specific physiographic features occurring within the area include: the 

Albuquerque Basin, the Hagen Basin, and a portion of the Sandia Uplift. Various geologic 

formations occur at the surface of the earth within these physiographic features and vary in 

potential to contain significant fossil resources. These formations have been given a Class 3 and 

2 level of sensitivity and have produced important paleontological resources. Formations that 

occur in eastern Sandoval County and have produced vertebrate fossils include: (oldest to 

youngest) Cretaceous, Paleogene, and Neogene units. 

Site-specific clearances will be considered when permitting surface disturbing activities. 

Leasing actions for oil and gas, geothermal, or other land use authorizations, and exchanges 

should consider affects on paleontological resources prior to permitting activities or disposal of 

public lands. Any surface disturbing activity or permitted use should consider paleontological 

resources. In addition, there are known areas within the area that might warrant some special 

designation. 

Specific fossil resources in the Planning Area have been, and will continue to be, identified by 

field surveys conducted by permitted paleontologists, including faculty at universities and 

curators at museums, as well as by students conducting research. Additional fossil resources 

may be identified by consultants conducting environmental reviews of specific land use 

proposals and as discoveries reported by members of the public. There are four active research 

paleontology permits in the Planning Area (two survey permits, two excavation permits), 

representing six different researchers. Two of these active permits are issued statewide to the 

NMMNHS and active research is being conducted under these permits within the Planning Area. 

Student researchers are considered and encouraged to pursue research under the supervision of a 

qualified advisor. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-58

Collection of fossils from public lands is allowed with some restrictions, depending on the 

significance of the fossils. Under existing regulations, hobby collection of common invertebrate 

or plant fossils by the public is allowed in reasonable quantities using hand tools, and no 

commercial use of these hobby collections is allowed. Current regulations do not allow any 

commercial collecting of paleontological resources. The public is allowed to collect petrified 

wood without a permit for personal, noncommercial purposes. They can collect up to twenty-five

pounds plus one piece per person per day, with a maximum of 250 pounds in one calendar year.

Collection of significant fossils, which includes all vertebrate (body and trace fossils) and any 

administratively designated plant or invertebrate fossil locality, may only be done under 

authority of a permit issued to qualified individuals. Two types of permits are issued. The basic 

permit is the survey and limited surface collection permit, issued for reconnaissance work and 

collection of surface finds, with a one square meter limit on surface disturbance. If the work will 

exceed one square meter, the researcher must apply for an excavation permit. Prior to 

authorization of an excavation permit, BLM must assess and complete the appropriate level of 

review under NEPA for the proposed action. 

All fossils collected under a permit remain public property and must be placed in an approved 

repository. Permits issued to qualified researchers must include The NMMNHS, a New Mexico 

state institution under the Department of Cultural Affairs, serves as the official repository for 

fossils recovered from BLM land. Research permits would be issued to qualified researchers and 

yearly reports of findings including locality and specimen information are required to be 

submitted to the BLM. In addition to permit reporting requirements, the NMMNHS shares data 

with the BLM to identify new localities, legacy data, and at-risk collections to ensure 

preservation of public fossils. Management tools for land use planning have been developed as a 

partnership relationship between the BLM and the NMMNHS. This data is not subject to the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This would include any required data submitted by other 

researchers working in New Mexico. 

Trends within the RPFO are for increased use of the landscape for resource extraction, increased 

recreational use both permitted and unpermitted use, and decreasing funding and personnel for 

resource protection. Such trends are expected to have an effect on some important 

paleontological resources from permitted and unpermitted uses. Over the past twenty years, 

BLM New Mexico has worked cooperatively with the NMMNHS. The partnership is expected 

to continue if personnel are present to maintain the partnership. 

As the public lands within the Planning Area become subject to more use for a variety of 

purposes, significant fossil resources might be more likely to be affected from the use. The 

increase of uses within key areas will require additional measures to be taken in order to manage 

these resources according to BLM policy and laws. New species may be discovered at any time, 

and even fragments may yield important information. The scientific, educational, and 

recreational value of any discovered resource must be determined with each discovery and by 

careful examination and evaluation by a paleontological resource specialist.

There are key features in the Planning Area where important fossil-bearing rock units are well 

exposed on the earth’s surface with minimal soil development. Exposure of the rock at the 

surface allows for easier discovery of significant fossils. There are also some important 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-59

localities known that will require monitoring and more intense management to conserve and 

management these resources according to BLM policy. 

Key features within this area consist of important localities of the Eocene Era. In addition to 

fossil resources, the area preserves interesting geologic features which have served as an outdoor 

classroom for the NMMNHS.

3.12.6 Cibola County and SE McKinley County

Important vertebrate fossils, including new species of dinosaurs discovered in Catron County, 

outside of Cibola County, and in southeast McKinley County; however, the same type rocks 

occur within the Cibola County area. 

3.13 Recreation and Visitor Services

3.13.1 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

A Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) inventory was conducted for the RPFO and is 

described in the 1986 RMP. According to BLM Manual 8320, ROS is defined as a continuum 

used to characterize recreation opportunities in terms of setting, activity, and experience 

opportunities. ROS is a conceptual planning tool that applies a set of criteria to a land area’s 

physical, social, and managerial settings to describe the existing conditions, which in 

combination define a land area’s capability and suitability for providing a particular range of 

recreational experience opportunities.

The ROS is subdivided into six classes that cover the full spectrum of experience opportunities: 

primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and 

urban. Once these opportunities have been defined, managers are able to determine which 

opportunities are provided and are able to assess the impacts of other resource actions on the 

recreation resource. 

BLM assessed ROS for specific management areas:

Azabache Station—Roaded Natural

Cabezon Peak—Semi-primitive Non-motorized 

Guadalupe Ruin—Semi-primitive Non-Motorized

Ignacio Chavez—23,587 acres of Primitive, 8,800 acres of Semi-primitive Non-motorized, 

3,696 acres of Semi-primitive Motorized, and 7,065 acres of Roaded Natural

Oh My God Motorcycle Race Tracks—Roaded Natural

Perea Nature Trail—Roaded Natural

San Ysidro Trials Area—Semi-primitive Motorized

White Mesa Bike Trails—Semi-primitive Non-motorized

Recreation programs in the RPFO are managed according to multiple use principles, unless 

specified otherwise by law. The RPFO’s primary goal is to ensure the continued availability of 

outdoor recreation opportunities which are not readily available from other sources. Recreation 

use is managed to protect the health and safety of users, to protect natural and cultural resource 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-60

values, and to promote public use and enjoyment of the public lands. Public recreational 

opportunities located in north-central New Mexico occur on lands managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service, the BLM, NM State Parks, the National Park Service, Valles Caldera National Preserve, 

USACE, Indian Tribe Nation, and Pueblo Lands, as well as local government. Landscape 

attributes that enhance opportunities for recreation and attract visitors to public land include 

volcanic necks, lava fields, rolling hills, arroyos, canyons, sandstone mesas, and wooded 

environments. With this diverse landscape, the Planning Area provides various opportunities for 

sightseeing, wildlife viewing, hiking, backpacking, picnicking, horseback riding, sport shooting, 

bird and big game hunting, rock climbing, biking, OHV use, geocaching/orienteering, camping, 

as well as solitude. A majority of the recreational uses occurring on public land are dispersed. 

Most public land is managed to maintain a freedom of recreational choice with a minimum of 

regulatory constraints. Current management direction for dispersed recreation is provided in 43 

CFR 8300 and subsequent BLM manuals, guidance, and policy. RPFO management priorities 

are to congressionally recognized areas, administratively recognized areas, and to undeveloped 

areas currently experiencing resource damage, user conflicts, or threatening visitor safety. 

Management priority is also given to those areas where use exceeds current capacity and to areas 

near urban centers. Additionally, unique and/or scenic attractions adjoining heavily traveled 

highways are managed on a priority basis. Other priorities are preservation and protection of 

natural and cultural resources, including scenic, historic, and archeological values, and primitive 

environments. 

The RPFO issues Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) to authorize certain recreational uses of 

land administered by the BLM. Authority to issue these permits is provided in 43 CFR 2932. 

Permits are issued for competitive events, commercial use, organized groups, and recreation use 

in special areas. Commercial use is recreational use of public land for business or financial gain. 

Competitive use is any formally organized or structured use, event, or activity on public land in 

which there are elements of competition between two or more contestants, registration of 

participants, and/or a predetermined course or area is designated. Competitive use also includes 

individuals contesting an established record such as speed or endurance. Organized group 

activity means a structured, ordered, consolidated, or scheduled event on, or occupation of, 

public lands for the purpose of recreational use that is not commercial or competitive. The 

RPFO would continue to issue SRPs after the appropriate NEPA is completed. The RPFO 

administers approximately twenty-eight SRPs annually, nineteen of which are authorized within 

the Planning Area. Recreation resources will continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as 

part of project level planning. Such evaluation will consider the significance of the proposed 

project and the sensitivity of recreation resources in the affected area. Stipulations will be 

attached as appropriate to assure compatibility of projects with recreation management 

objectives and the BLM’s policy of multiple use.

During the 2007/2008 season, the following SRPs were issued: thirteen Big Game Outfitting, 

one motorcycle race, one Trials Event, one Llama Hike, one Environment Education, and two 

Jeep Tours. The remaining fifteen permits were commercial tours to the Kasha–Katuwe Tent 

Rocks National Monument. 

As a result of the resolution of the RMP for the Planning Area in the Albuquerque District 

(USDI BLM 1986), thirteen areas were identified as containing important and valuable 

recreation values and opportunities which warrant special management attention. These thirteen
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-61

areas are located within the following SMAs: Historic Homesteads, Canon Jarido, Jones Canyon, 

Azabache Station, Cabezon Peak, Ignacio Chavez, Elk Springs, Ojito, Pronoun Cave Complex, 

Continental Divide Trail, 1870s Wagon Road Trail, Petaca Pinta, and Bluewater Canyon. In the 

1986 RMP, Tent Rocks and El Malpais were listed in the count of thirteen, making the actual 

number fifteen. Both areas now have their own RMPs. 

Included in the Planning Area are El Malpais NCA and Kasha Katuwe Tent Rocks National 

Monument. Stand alone plans exist for the management of these BLM-designated areas. 

In addition to BLM-administered lands, other recreation providers include New Mexico State 

Parks and State Land Office; NPS, Valles Caldera National Preserve; USFS; USACE; Indian 

Tribe, Nation, and Pueblo Lands; as well as local government.

As the population in the area continues to increase, the demand for recreational uses of public 

land and visitor services has also increased. The public has expressed interest in adopting 

various RPFO areas for hiking, camping, and OHV use. 

Albuquerque and Santa Fe, the largest population areas in New Mexico, are located within the 

Planning Area. The population growths of these two cities are expected to continue. The vast 

majority of this population use the public lands for their recreation purposes.

The BLM’s 2003 Priorities for Recreation and Visitor Services acknowledges that the ways in 

which people use public land is changing as a result of evolving values and advances in 

technology. For example, baby boomers increasingly access BLM-administered lands for 

traditional recreational purposes, while younger generations commonly use new technologies 

such as OHV equipment for extreme sports such as rockcrawling. In addition, the demographics 

of people using local public lands for recreational purposes are changing. Growing populations 

tend to strain the land and its resources due to increased demand for recreation opportunities in 

the same areas. 

The changing demographic profile of recreation users in New Mexico was identified as a 

recreation planning issue in the New Mexico 2004 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plan (SCORP). Concern was expressed for the challenges of providing future 

recreational activities for both youth and the aging baby boomers. Around the state of New 

Mexico, recreation is viewed as critical for youth development and playing an important role in 

providing youth with positive outlets for energy as well as instilling an environmental ethic at an 

early age. In addition, the existing recreation areas might need to be retrofitted to accommodate 

the needs of an active and growing senior population.

The BLM’s Recreation 2000 Strategic Plan recognizes that the BLM’s recreation program is an 

important part of the economic base of the western states, and helps to satisfy the growing public 

demand for outdoor recreation by providing tourism-related opportunities on BLM-administered 

lands. 

In addition, the BLM will need to provide for recreational activities involving new technological 

developments (e.g., recreational vehicles, new camping equipment) as they gain popularity 

among the public. According to the strategic plan, the primary concern in providing future 

recreation opportunities will include how to provide for resource protection, visitor services, and 

maintenance and effective management of the existing and future resources and facilities.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-62

Some recreation activities, such as paintball, rockcrawling, and geocaching are beginning to pose 

management concerns. These uses likely will increase as population in the Decision Area grows. 

Key features in the Decision Area are areas or features that experience high demand for 

dispersed or developed recreational uses, have the potential to accommodate demand, or provide 

unique recreational amenities. These key features include areas that offer opportunities for 

recreational activity within SMAs.

3.13.1.1 White Mesa Bike Trails

Located southwest of San Ysidro, New Mexico, the bike trail crosses a landscape of spectacular 

beauty and exceptional geology, meandering through the Pueblo of Zia, state of New Mexico, 

and public lands managed by the RPFO. White Mesa is named for the color of the gypsum that 

forms much of the mesa and majority of the bike trails. Trails were developed primarily for 

mountain biking; however, hikers are welcome and often find the trails as exhilarating as the 

bikers. 

3.13.1.2 Oh My God Race Courses

Three separate and unique loop trails were designed and implemented for the Oh My God 

competitive motorcycle race. Oh My God consists of three courses, race course A, B, and C, 

which are designed solely for event use once every three years. Race course A is twenty-two 

miles, B is twenty-eight miles, and C is thirty-six miles. All three courses are only two to three 

miles from each other and are located west of Cuba, New Mexico, and north of State Road 197. 

3.13.1.3 San Ysidro Trials Area

Located approximately one mile west of San Ysidro, New Mexico, north of U.S. 550, is the San 

Ysidro Trials Area, which is quite popular with hikers, mountain bike enthusiasts, as well as the 

trials bike community. The San Ysidro Trials Area is a unique slot canyon area that offers 

recreation for anyone with an appreciation of natural wonders. The entire recreation area lies at 

the southern tip of the Jemez Mountain range and is open for hiking, primitive camping, 

equestrian activities, and mechanical vehicles such as mountain bikes. The area is closed to offroad motorized vehicles except for the special use permitted to the New Mexico Trials 

Association, which uses the area for competitive and practice events.

3.13.1.4 Perea Nature Trail 

A mountain peak dominates the one-mile Perea Nature Trail located just outside the village of 

San Ysidro in northwest New Mexico. The mountain highlights the Jemez Mountain Range, 

which is the southern start of the Rocky Mountains that extend northward to Alaska. The Perea 

Nature Trail offers a short, refreshing hike. Visitors to the Perea Nature Trail may look to the 

southwest over the Rio Salado riverbed to view an outstanding geologic setting. Blanco Mesa, 

known for its unusual white surface, is used as a creative backdrop for motion pictures and 

photography. The high rock formations with purple hues seen in the distance are part of the 

Nacimiento Mountain chain, and are some of the oldest rocks in the area.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-63

3.13.1.5 Guadalupe Ruin

The Guadalupe Ruin is a prehistoric Chacoan outlier of about forty-five rooms (of which about 

one-half have been excavated and stabilized). The earliest date of occupancy occurred 

approximately A.D. 918; by A.D. 1140. Guadalupe was abandoned. A second occupation 

occurred in the late 1200s with migrations from the Mesa Verde region. The central ruin and 

community lie on the western edge of the Rio Puerco Valley immediately below the confluence 

of the Arroyo Chico and Rio Puerco. 

3.13.1.6 Ojo Azabache Old Stage Station

Located in the northern boundary area of the Ignacio Chavez SMA, along County Road 25, is the 

old stage station at Ojo Azabache. This station served as a way stop for travelers on the route 

from Santa Fe to old Fort Wingate during the 1870s.

3.13.1.7 Cabezon Peak

Cabezon Peak’s dramatic volcanic formation is one of the most well-known landmarks in 

northwest New Mexico. With an elevation of 7,785 feet, the Peak is part of the Mount Taylor 

volcanic field and is the largest of fifty volcanic necks rising from the Rio Puerco Valley. The 

peak is believed to have religious significance for the Pueblo and Navajo Indians, and remnants 

of their visits still exist. Cabezon, rising nearly 2,000 feet above the valley floor, is a popular 

area for rock climbing and scrambling. A climb to the summit provides an expansive view of the 

Rio Puerco Valley.

3.13.1.8 Ignacio Chavez Grant

Steep canyons and high, rugged cliffs provide rewarding challenges for the backcountry hiker 

within Ignacio Chavez. The Ignacio Chavez Grant was awarded to settlers in 1768 by the 

Spanish government for establishing communities. Because these communities were never 

developed, the U.S. government later acquired the land grant. Activities such as hiking, hunting, 

backpacking, mountain biking, and horseback riding can all be enjoyed without a permit in this 

remote, secluded area. The sensitivity of the resources in the area makes it necessary for the 

BLM to close Road 1103 to motorized vehicles certain times of the year. Unless specifically 

designated, all roads and trails are open to mountain biking.

3.13.1.9 Continental Divide Trail

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail provides for high quality, scenic, primitive hiking 

and horseback-riding recreational experiences. Extending 3,100 miles between Mexico and 

Canada, the trail traverses landscapes primarily on public lands within fifty miles of the natural 

geographic feature of the divide. This National Scenic Trail was established in 1978 through the 

authority of the National Trails System Act (PL 90-543) and is one of the outstanding resources 

of the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-64

3.14 Renewable Energy

In some locations within the Planning Area, it may be economic to produce renewable energy

resources (e.g., wind, biomass, solar, and geothermal). Where feasible, BLM policy is to make 

possible environmentally sound development of renewable energy projects. Renewable energy 

resources in the Planning Area can be managed if the BLM authorizes the use of public lands for 

the development of various energy-generating facilities. Applications for commercial renewable 

energy projects are processed as ROW authorizations under Title V of FLPMA and under 43 

CFR 2800.

3.14.1 Biomass Energy

Biomass is material derived from trees, shrubs, plants, agricultural crops, agricultural or forestry 

residues, and other plant waste that can be burned or processed into fuel to produce energy. 

Biomass is a relatively untapped energy resource because there are few facilities to process and 

burn it. Substantial biomass material is placed in landfills or allowed to decompose unharvested 

in locations such as forests and scrubland. As the demand for biomass increases, fast-growing 

trees, shrubs, and grasses (so-called energy crops) could be grown to meet that demand and 

provide sustainable energy. In addition, collection and processing facilities may be constructed 

and use available biomass to produce electricity.

During a 2001 Biomass Technology meeting with the DOE and the BLM, a new approach was 

offered to rate the biomass resources in a given area (DOE 2003). Areas are assessed for longterm sustainability to support biomass plants using satellite imagery. The assessment is based 

on the monthly Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) developed by the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for measurement of biomass using very highresolution satellite data. The data have a resolution equivalent to an area of sixty-four square 

kilometers (twenty-five square miles).

The monthly NDVI is calculated from the visible (VIS) and near-infrared (NIR) light reflected 

by vegetation. Vegetation appears very different at visible and near-infrared wavelengths. In 

visible light, vegetated areas are very dark while desert regions are light. At near-infrared 

wavelengths, the vegetation is brighter and deserts are about the same. The relative amount of 

vegetation is measured by comparing visible and infrared light. Healthy vegetation absorbs most 

of the visible light that hits it, and reflects a large portion of the near-Infrared light. Unhealthy or 

sparse vegetation reflects more visible light and less near-infrared light. The formula for 

calculating the NDVI is NDVI = (NIR - VIS)/(NIR + VIS). Satellite images can be processed 

using this formula to calculate the NDVI for an area. Periodic images are used to calculate 

monthly NDVI values. Variables such as time of year and climate play important roles in data 

interpretation. 

The report prepared by the DOE and the BLM identified the Planning Area as having a fair 

biomass potential (DOE 2003). On public lands within the Planning Area, there currently are no 

commercial biomass facilities.

In the Planning Area, the forecast for biomass resources is dependent on the cost of 

nonrenewable energy resources such as petroleum. If biomass resources become competitive 

with other energy resources and thereby economic to produce, new facilities will need to be 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-65

constructed for processing and burning. This should lead to more biomass harvesting, especially 

in areas where downed trees, tree limbs, and underbrush have not been harvested or cleared.

Agricultural and forested areas within the Planning Area contain biomass resources for energy 

production, but due to arid conditions biomass may not be as sustainable as in other states.

3.14.2 Solar Energy

The report prepared by the DOE and the BLM identified lands within the Planning Area as 

having large acreage with high-potential concentrations of solar power and/or photovoltaic sites 

(DOE 2003). Solar energy is a renewable energy resource that has excellent potential for 

generating electricity in the Planning Area. Solar energy resources are classified based on the 

amount of solar radiation that contacts the ground surface in a specified area. 

Solar energy in the Planning Area ranges from 5.6 to 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day 

(see Maps 60-62). There are no commercial solar energy facilities currently on public lands 

within the Planning Area.

Applications for commercial solar energy facilities will be processed under Title V of FLPMA 

and Title 43, Part 2800, and will be in conformance with the current RPFO land use plan. 

The development forecast for solar resources in the Planning Area is directly tied to solar 

technology cost, suitable areas for solar, and the availability of transmission corridors. With 

technological advances in and mass production of solar collection equipment, costs should 

decrease in the long run. Cost increases for non-renewable energy resources will also help to 

make solar energy more competitive in the future market.

New Mexico, including the Planning Area, receives a large amount of annual sunshine. The 

Planning Area is well located for development of PV and CSP solar energy resources. The 

Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in Albuquerque has the largest Native American PV installation 

(carport) in the U.S. This system delivers about twenty-three megawatt hours per year to the 

local utility grid (PNM).

3.14.3 Wind Energy

Wind resources are classified based on the wind power density at a location or area and in units 

of watts per square meter of surface land area. Wind power is dependent on the height of the 

wind turbine above ground level. The current commercial standard is fifty meters (150 feet). 

Effective wind power classes range from lowest (class 1) to highest (class 7). Wind power is 

considered economic for large turbines (utilities-scale) at class 4 and higher for short-term 

installation and operation and class 3 and higher for long-term installation and operation, 

although a small non-commercial turbine can be used at class 1.

The report prepared by the DOE and the BLM identified lands within the Planning Area as 

having minimal acreage with high-potential wind power density (DOE 2003). The majority of 

the Planning Area falls into wind power density class 1 (poor), but there are a few high elevation

sites that fall into class 2 (marginal) and class 3. There are no commercial wind energy facilities

currently on public lands within the Planning Area.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-66

The DOE and BLM survey of topographic and historical wind conditions has identified locations 

in the Planning Area where wind resources are available for development. 

There are no commercial wind energy facilities on public lands within the Planning Area, but 

there are private commercial operations outside the Planning Area towards the eastern border of 

New Mexico. A number of companies have recently expressed an interest in possible wind 

power projects in Torrance County, and increased interest in this resource is forecasted. Future 

wind resource use is dependent on cost of installing and operating wind resource facilities. 

Technological advances may decrease costs for equipment and facilities making this resource 

economically competitive with non-renewable resources. Requests for ROW permits for wind 

facility installation in some areas may conflict with other resources, such as visual.

Areas with the highest wind resource classification, crests and slopes of mountains, highlands, 

mesa tops, and the eastern plains are key features for wind power resources. The majority of the 

Planning Area falls into the poor wind power density class, with only a few locations containing 

key features. These areas are in the marginal-fair wind power density classes. 

The forecast for renewable energy sites is unclear because only one site exists in the Planning 

Area, although there have been numerous inquiries. More renewable energy sites may be 

developed, requiring additional ROWs from BLM. Public lands in the RPFO provide 

opportunities for wind energy. A 2003 study by the BLM and US Department of Energy (DOE) 

found several locations of medium-to-high wind energy potential, generally located on higher 

elevations (USDI BLM and DOE 2003). Private companies have expressed interest in 

developing potential sites in Torrance County, but no permits have been issued. There is also the 

potential for the development of solar energy resources in the Planning Area, although no 

applications have been received.

3.15 Riparian Resources

The indicators for soil and site stability within riparian areas are listed as Standard Checklist 

items Pritchard 1999, 1998) for both lotic (flowing water, i.e., stream) and lentic (standing water, 

i.e., pond, marsh systems) systems. 

Many of the specific indicators and standard checklist items from these assessments have been 

incorporated into the New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management (referred to as the Standards and Guidelines; USDI BLM

2001a). For New Mexico, the Riparian Sites Standard is “Riparian areas are in a productive, 

properly functioning, and sustainable condition within the capability of that site. Adequate 

vegetation of diverse age and composition is present that will withstand high stream flow, 

capture sediment, provide for groundwater recharge, provide habitat and assist in meeting State 

and Tribal water quality standards. An indicator that is listed for this standard that directly 

relates to soil erosion is “streambank stability as determined by degree of: shearing or sloughing, 

and vegetative cover on the bank.” 

In the Planning Area, existing roads and other developed infrastructure (e.g., oil and gas

exploration and development) on public land can cause erosion and sedimentation, potentially 

degrading upland, riparian, and habitat function. The soil impacts from roads and other 

developments should be judged against land health standards for upland and riparian sites, as 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-67

appropriate. Also, there are standards and guidelines for soil erosion for road construction, 

maintenance, and reclamation developed for oil and gas operations (USDI and USDA 2007), and 

these guidelines also can be applicable to other land disturbing activities on public lands.

Riparian-wetland areas, though they comprise a small percent of the total land base, are the most 

productive resources on BLM land. Riparian areas make up less than 2 percent of the land base 

in New Mexico, but are critical areas in relation to the total amount of land administered by the 

Rio Puerco Field Office. These areas represent important migratory bird flyways and nesting 

areas for threatened and endangered species and have been found to contain large populations of 

bird species in desert areas (USDA 2005).

Riparian zones are the most critical wildlife habitats in managed rangelands. More wildlife 

species depend entirely on or spend disproportionately more time in this habitat than any other. 

The zone is also disproportionately important for grazing, recreation, fisheries production, road 

location and other similar developments, and water quality and quantity. 

The major watersheds occurring in the planning area are the Rio Grande and Rio Puerco. Aquatic 

and riparian habitats are relatively rare in the Rio Puerco Field Office. Rivers and creeks in the 

decision area include the Rio Puerco, Las Huertas, Bluewater, Rio Senorito, Rio Gallina, Rito 

Leche, Rio Salado and others. The Rio Puerco Resource Area riparian areas also include a 

number of springs and seeps.

Riparian-wetland areas in the RPFO traverse portions of public, state, tribal and private land, and 

therefore not all habitats have been completely mapped and studied. Also, due to recent land 

acquisitions, some riparian-wetlands have not been inventoried at all. Riparian monitoring and 

management emphasis is based upon the degree to which that portion of the riparian area has 

existing use and impact, or the potential for increased use or impact. A great deal of variation can 

occur between riparian zones and even within (or along) the same drainage.

The 2000 Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Management Plan for the Albuquerque Field Office 

represents an adaptive management strategy for maintaining, restoring, improving, protecting 

and expanding riparian areas in the planning area. The table below lists mapped riparian areas in 

the field office. 

Table 3.17: Riparian Areas In The Rio Puerco Field Office

Riparian/Wetland Area Area (Acres) Length (Feet) PFC Status

Arroyo Chico – Azabache 380 43,200 FAR – D (1998)

Arroyo Chico – Charlotte’s Well 15 3,300 PFC (1998)

Arroyo Chico – Chico Crossing 206 50,000 NF (1998)

Azabache Flowing Artesian Well 16 - PFC (1998)

Bluewater Canyon 25 10,800 PFC (1998)

Cabezon Community 45 10,200 FAR – U (1998)

Cachulie 26 11,500 FAR – D (1998)

Cebolla Canyon 91 23,300 FAR – U (1998)

Cebolla Spring 7.2 - PFC (1998)

Cerros Colorados 43 12,500 FAR – NA (1998)

Chamisa Losa Spring & Canyon 0.25 - NR
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-68

Riparian/Wetland Area Area (Acres) Length (Feet) PFC Status

Charlotte’s Well 1.5 - PFC (1998)

Coal Creek 100 18,500 FAR – U (1998)

Guadalupe Community 77 10,500 NF (FAP) (1998)

La Lena Artesian Well 0.5 - PFC (1998)

Las Huertas Creek - - NR

Long Ridge 36 7,000 NF (FAP) (1998)

Lost Valley 103 21,600 FAR – U (1998)

Mound Springs 50 - NR

Oak Spring 3 - NR

Ojo de las Yeguas 0.25 - NR

Ojo Frio 1.5 - NR

Rinconada Canyon 15 3,000 FAR – NA (1998)

Rio Gallina 10 2,000 FAR – U (1998)

Rio Salado Community 143 18,000 NF (FAP) (1998)

Rio Salado Community 

(Jemez Valley Irrigation)

12.6 - PFC (1998)

Rito Leche 9.6 2,800 PFC (1998)

Road Spring 0.2 - NR

San Luis Community 22 6,000 FAR – D (1998)

Senorito Canyon 35 9,800 PFC (1998)

Two Bridges 30 10,000 N/A

Wilson Canyon 77 12,000 FAR – U (1998)

Total 1,581.6 286,000 

(~55 miles)

PFC = Properly Functioning Condition NR = Not Rated

FAR = Functional At Risk N/A = Not Applicable

FAP = Functioning At Potential NF = Non-Functional

Out of all inventoried/assessed riparian areas, 8 are at proper functioning condition, eleven are 

functioning at risk and four are non-functional. Currently, the RPFO is actively involved in 

riparian restoration projects that include physical reconstruction of hydrologic flow, revegetation, 

exclusion of livestock and more. These projects are aimed at bringing the above riparian areas up 

to PFC and/or maintaining them at that level or above. The RPFO continues to acquire new 

critical riparian areas through land exchanges with the state and private groups or individuals, 

and also manages riparian values through partnerships with Federal, state and private 

cooperators. 

The desired condition for riparian-wetland management areas is described in Technical 

Reference 1737, Riparian Area Management, and is measured by the Properly Functioning 

Condition assessment. Though PFC is a qualitative assessment, it shall be used as an indicator 

that the trend of the resource condition will be based on because quantitative data do not exist 

that describe or explain these trends. Additionally, the adoption of the Standards for Public Land 

Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management incorporate soil and site stability 

indicators from BLM assessment methods. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-69

Up to 90% of natural riparian communities in New Mexico have been lost or significantly altered 

due to human activity, resulting in loss of habitat for wildlife, increased/decreased streamflows, 

increased erosion, and altered stream channel configurations. More recently, streams and rivers 

have been impounded for flood control, irrigation water storage, agriculture, and municipal uses. 

Flood plains have been constricted and wetland areas drained for development. The resulting 

hydrologic changes (drop in water tables, diminished flow rates, lack of overbank flooding, and 

reduced in-channel scouring), have decreased natural regeneration of native vegetation, and 

allowed for uncontrolled growth of exotic, nonnative vegetation. Invasive species, especially 

Russian olive and saltcedar are outcompeting native cottonwoods and willows. 

The presence of water often attracts people for recreation activities, especially in the desert 

southwest where water is scarce and its presence creates a unique ecosystem. Riparian habitats 

support a high diversity of plant and animal communities, which also attracts human use.

Several activities permitted on BLM land have the potential to impact riparian resources. 

Threats to habitat include but are not limited to recreation, livestock grazing, agricultural 

development, water diversion and impoundment, and mineral development. The two most 

common issues that have led to the degradation of riparian habitat in the RPFO are overgrazing 

by livestock and the replacement of native habitats by introduced vegetation such as saltcedar

and Russian olive. Improper livestock grazing practices in and around riparian areas may harm 

riparian habitat and the rich diversity of wildlife that thrives in these environments. Overgrazing 

reduces water quality, changes stream flow, compacts and erodes soil, and affects native plants 

and animals that live in and around riparian-wetland areas. To protect critical areas, the RPFO 

has limited livestock access to some riparian zones, and alternate water sources have been 

provided.

In the 2000 Riparian & Aquatic Management Plan for the Albuquerque District Office, there 

were approximately twenty-four riparian areas assessed for PFC. Out of those twenty-four, 

thirteen were grazed and eleven were un-grazed. Out of those that were grazed, only 8% were 

rated at PFC, while 92% were either functioning at risk or non-functional. Out of those that 

excluded from grazing via fencing structures, 73% were rated at PFC, while 27% were either 

functioning at risk or non-functional. At least sixty projects, aimed at riparian restoration and 

enhancement, have been conducted since the 1986 RMP. The majority of these projects 

involved riparian fencing to exclude livestock grazing. Project types included treatment of 

noxious weeds, cottonwood and willow pole and seed plantings, development and fencing of 

natural springs, construction of hydrologic structures such as retention dams, beaver 

reintroductions and others. 

From the data described above, there is a higher occurrence of riparian-wetland areas rated at 

PFC in areas protected from livestock grazing than areas unfenced from grazing. From this 

qualitative analysis, the trend for areas protected from livestock grazing seems to be in upward 

mobility. Due to a lack of regular monitoring and quantitative data from the riparian-wetland 

areas in the RPFO, this conclusion is based on the assumption that the increased quality of areas 

protected from livestock grazing is a direct effect of removal of grazing (grazing as independent 

variable). Without detailed monitoring data, we cannot conclude that the removal of livestock 

grazing has in fact been the only factor contributing to this change. However, it can reasonably 

be assumed for analysis purposes.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-70

Currently, a number of noxious weeds treatments are ongoing within the Rio Puerco watershed. 

While the condition of riparian plant communities is important to the hydrologic function and 

water quality of these systems, it also contributes to the health of habitat for special status 

species, specifically the endangered southwest willow flycatcher. The goal of ongoing invasive

weed projects is to develop and protect riparian ecosystems by controlling and removing 

invasive, nonnative vegetation, restoring native plant cover, and improving wildlife habitat for a 

variety of terrestrial and aquatic species. 

BLM biologists and range conservationists in the RPFO are increasing efforts to monitor riparian

areas to determine if land use plans and subsequent management actions are meeting the resource 

objectives. This information advises managers on the effectiveness of land use and activity plans 

and recommends where changes in management strategies are needed. As for the current trends 

in riparian resource condition in the RPFO, current management practices are addressing the 

threats to riparian habitat and in the past ten years have shifted management to focus on 

restoration and enhancement of these habitats. 

The geographic location, distribution, functioning status and habitat management objectives 

(including those of special status species) of riparian-wetland resources are key features that 

guide the allocation of land uses and management decisions. There are approximately 1,600 

acres of riparian area described in the 2000 Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Management Plan for 

the Albuquerque District Office. These areas along with those not described in the document 

represent important considerations for land management authorizations including livestock 

grazing, recreation activities, mineral development, and potential sites for renewable energy and 

rights of way. The Proper Functioning Condition assessment is a key feature in determining 

compliance with bureau policies including the New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health. 

3.16 Social and Economic Conditions

Certain defining features of every area influence and shape the nature of local economic and 

social activity. Among these are the local history, population, presence of or proximity to large 

cities or regional population centers, types of longstanding industries such as agriculture and 

forestry, predominant land and water features, and unique area amenities. The BLM operates as a 

steward of many of these area resources and opportunities and thus plays a principal role in the 

community. This discussion gives further insight on the character and extent of these community 

connections.

3.16.1 Methodology for Analysis

The economic analysis focuses on changes in demand for goods and services from BLMadministered lands within the Planning Area. These lands contribute a wide range of economic 

values to people. Market goods such as minerals, timber, livestock, and recreation generate 

payments to local communities and some revenue for the federal treasury. Non-market goods 

such as the existence values of cutthroat trout or other unique ecosystems and habitats generate 

value everyone reaps but do not necessarily pay for. Other goods such as outdoor recreation and 

scenery are valued by the people who use them, but only a portion of this value is represented in 

market purchases.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-71

While a value for ecological or recreational goods may exist, it is difficult to quantify. Direction 

provided in the Land Use Planning Handbook (Appendix D of the Handbook; pages 6, 7 and 10; 

BLM 2005) suggests the use of benefit transfer to evaluate the effects of these non-market 

values. In the absence of quantitative information for these goods, they are discussed 

qualitatively where appropriate.

These are important considerations alongside contributions to local jobs and income from a 

change in demand for goods and services provided by the BLM. If demand exists for these 

goods and services, employment and income would likely be supported in other areas if these 

goods and services are provided by other means. Therefore it is important to consider the 

efficiency of using these resources alongside potential job and income generation from their use.

3.16.2 Impact Area

To accurately portray the relationship of current BLM management and the community, the 

social and economic geographic scope of analysis must be defined. The economic effects from 

changes on BLM-administered lands feasibly extend beyond the immediate vicinity of these 

lands. The role of BLM-administered lands within the larger region must be addressed while not 

masking change within smaller counties and communities in the Planning Area. A 

multidimensional approach is thus appropriate, examining both the role of BLM-administered 

lands at a broad regional scale and smaller county level scale.

At the broad scale, economic areas from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) are used. 

These economic areas represent the relevant regional markets for labor, products, and 

information, and are mainly determined by commuting patterns. This delineates local labor 

markets and also serves as a proxy for local markets where businesses in the areas sell their 

products (US Department of Commerce 2004).

The BEA’s Albuquerque economic area contains all counties within the Rio Puerco Planning 

Area except McKinley County, which falls within the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale economic area. 

Analysis of these two economic areas would mask social and economic relationships with BLM 

in the smaller communities within the Planning Area; however, it can be reasonably assumed 

that the small portion of McKinley County overlapping the Planning Area is integrated with the 

other five impact area counties. While geographic relationships are important to communities of 

place, social relationships extend beyond geographic characteristics and are examined in this 

document as they relate to communities interested in BLM management within the Rio Puerco 

RMP Planning Area.

3.16.2.1 History

Central New Mexico was home to social and cultural groups long before Europeans reached the 

Americas. Approximately 5,000 years ago, the lifestyles of local people were based on hunting 

game and gathering wild plants. Around 200 A.D., people lived in year-round pit houses and 

depended intimately on the land for their food, clothing, and shelter. The switch to a less 

nomadic lifestyle supported the development of infrastructure, communities, and cultural 

distinctions between groups not present earlier. In the late eleventh century, multi-storied 

pueblos began to appear and soon after the Athabascan people (now called Apaches and 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-72

Navajos) began to settle in the area. Land now administered by the BLM within the Planning 

Area has been supporting social and cultural traditions for thousands of years.

In 1540, pueblos in the area had their first contact with the Spanish during Don Francisco de 

Coronado’s expedition, near present day Bernalillo. Spanish colonizers brought cattle and sheep 

to the area and taught the Pueblos how to raise them. The Pueblos in return taught the Spanish 

how to grow corn and other native plants and how to subsist in New Mexico. In 1598, Juan de 

Oñate led an expedition from Compostela, Mexico to the Tewa village of Ohkay Owingeh, 

located near the confluence of the Rio Chama and the Rio Grande. They renamed the village San 

Juan de los Caballeros and established the first Spanish capital of New Mexico. This event often 

marks the formal Spanish colonization of New Mexico.

Following Oñate, colonists from Mexico and Spain continued to come to the area along the 

Camino Real de Tierra Adentro trail, which covered 2,000 miles from Mexico City to Santa Fe 

through the Planning Area. Spanish colonizers brought cattle and sheep to the area and taught the 

Pueblos how to raise them. The Spanish also brought mining and forging techniques, and the 

Pueblos learned to use metals for weapons, tools, and art. El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro was 

used by settlers, missionaries, the military, and traders for almost 300 years. When the railroad 

reached New Mexico in 1880, the Camino Real gradually fell out of use.

In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain and the vast area of "Nuevo México" was 

divided into four cabeceras (headquarters) in 1823. In 1846, the U.S. Congress declared war 

against Mexico, and General Stephen Kearny entered Santa Fe on August 18 and took possession 

of New Mexico. In 1852, the seven original counties of the New Mexico Territory were created 

by the New Mexico Territorial Legislature.

3.16.2.2 Bernalillo County

The Mexican governmental division of the area in 1823 extended as far south as Socorro and can 

be considered the origin of Bernalillo County. Bernalillo was also one of the original seven 

counties recognized by the New Mexico Territorial Legislature. Albuquerque has been thriving 

since 1706 and is the center of commercial and cultural activity. In terms of population, 

Bernalillo is the largest county in New Mexico, with a population of over 635,000 in 2008, and 

benefits from the economic and social diversity that comes with the Albuquerque metropolitan 

area. This county also includes communities of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, Tijeras, and a 

number of unincorporated communities.

3.16.2.3 Cibola County

Cibola County was created in 1981 from the western portion of Valencia County and is the last 

county to form in New Mexico. In the 1950s, uranium mining took off in the Grants area and 

continued until prices fell in the 1980s. Today milling, tourism, and outdoor recreation are 

considered important to the area economy. Area attractions include mountain biking in the Zuni 

Mountains, El Malpais National Monument, El Moro National Monument, Mount Taylor, and 

Acoma Sky City (Cibola County 2008).
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-73

3.16.2.4 McKinley County

In the 1880s, farmers and coal miners began to arrive on the Overland stage, and a way station 

was established near Gallup. In 1881, the Atlantic and Pacific railroad reached Gallup. Ten years 

later, Gallup became an incorporated town and McKinley County was created in 1899. Coal 

production waned in the 1920s, but continues today along with oil and gas production and 

refinement. Uranium, vanadium, crushed stone, and perlite are also produced and are considered 

important to the economy, as is tourism. Local attractions include Navajo and Zuni art and 

cultural opportunities, Red Rock State Park, and the Chuska and Zuni mountains (McKinley 

County 2008).

3.16.2.5 Sandoval County

Sandoval County is one of the most geographically and culturally diverse counties in New 

Mexico. Sandoval County was created in 1903 from part of Santa Ana County. The county 

contains numerous sites of cultural importance depicting Puebloan, Spanish, Mexican, and Anglo 

histories. This rich cultural history attracts many visitors to sites such as Bandelier National 

Monument, Coronado and Jemez state monuments, Casa San Ysidro, the DeLavy House, and 

area pueblos. In addition to cultural attractions, outdoor opportunities at Valles Caldera National 

Preserve, Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, as well as excellent hunting and 

fishing attract visitors to the area. While tourism is important to the county, semiconductor 

manufacturing and construction are considered important to the economy. Its largest city is Rio 

Rancho and the county seat is Bernalillo, which is one of the oldest cities in the nation. Other 

communities include Corrales, Cuba, Jemez Springs, and San Ysidro. Pueblos within the county 

include Cochiti, Jemez, Sandia, San Felipe, Santa Ana, Santo Domingo, and Zia, as well as 

portions of the Navajo and Jicarilla Apache Nations.

3.16.2.6 Torrance County

Torrance County was created in 1903, and this farming area was devastated by drought at the 

late 1940s. Today, agriculture remains important and focuses more on livestock industry and 

orchards. In addition to agriculture, area residents find appeal in the rural lifestyle and commute 

to Albuquerque (MRCOG 2009). Tourism plays some role in the local economy; the Cibola 

National Forest, Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument, and Manzano Mountain State 

Park attract visitors to the area. Moriarty is the largest city and Estancia is the county seat. Other 

communities include Mountainair, Willard, Encino, Manzano, Tajique, and Torreon.

3.16.2.7 Valencia County

Valencia County was one of the original seven counties that made up the New Mexico Territory 

in 1852. The proximity of Los Lunas to Albuquerque and its rural amenities have made it an 

attractive area for retirees and commuters to Albuquerque who are looking for alternatives to city 

living. Real estate and new home construction have played a large role in the area economy 

recently. Further south, the community of Belen has maintained an identity connected to 

agricultural traditions and also relies on transportation sectors (MRCOG 2009).
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-74

3.16.3 Cultural Identity

High concentrations of Hispanic and Native American groups have lived in the Planning Area 

for centuries. Europeans have been in the area since Coronado’s party arrived in 1540. 

Throughout the Planning Area, the merging of Native American, Hispanic, and Anglo histories 

provides a diversity of cultural traditions and identities in the area. While these groups 

historically may have clashed and culturally identified as disparate groups, the lines between 

them have often become less discernible over time. Cultural identity continues to diversify as 

new settlers move in, attracted by unique natural and cultural opportunities.

Native American groups with land within the boundaries of the RPFO include the Pueblos of 

Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Jemez, Laguna, San Felipe, Sandia, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santo 

Domingo, Zia, and Zuni. The Jicarilla Apache and Navajo Nations are also located in the 

Planning Area. The Southern Ute, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Comanche, and pueblos of Taos, 

Picuris, Ohkay Owingeh, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, Nambe, Tesuque, Keresan, Ysleta del Sur 

and Santo Domingo and Hopi are not located in the Planning Area, but may have associated 

historical and cultural ties. These groups are ancestors to people who inhabited many of the 

archaeological sites within the Planning Area.

3.16.4 Population and Demographic Change

Population change in the Planning Area increased by 132% (563,489 persons) between 1970 and 

2010 outpacing the state and the nation, which increased by 102% and 52% (1.04 and 105 

million persons), respectively. Most of this growth occurred in Sandoval County, which 

increased by 648% or 114,684 persons; more than 10% of the total statewide increase. 

Population growth in Bernalillo, McKinley, and Torrance counties also increased by 109%, 65%, 

and 196%, respectively, over this period. The aggregate total of Cibola and Valencia counties 

increased by 211% over this period (63,267 persons). Cibola County saw a decrease in its share 

of population of 3.2% (902 persons) from its inception in 1981 to 2010 (U.S. Department of 

Commerce 2011).

Population projections suggest all counties in the impact area will increase in the next 20 to 25 

years. Projections suggest that between 2010 and 2035, Bernalillo will increase the most 

(502,165 persons) while Torrance County will have the greatest increase as a share of its total 

population (89%) followed by Bernalillo County (76%). Cibola County will increase the least in 

absolute terms (7,315 persons) and as a share of its population (27%; University of New Mexico 

2008). These trends reflect existing urban and rural character of impact area counties discussed 

below. The population density of the entire impact area and Bernalillo, Sandoval and Valencia 

counties was greater than the state of New Mexico in 2010 (17 persons per square mile) 

containing 51, 573, 36 and 72 persons per square mile, respectively. Cibola, McKinley, and 

Torrance counties had population densities of 6, 13, and 5 persons per square mile in 2010 (U.S. 

Department of Commerce 2011). 

The BEA estimates the flow of annual earnings of in-commuters and out-commuters for a given 

county. Commuting data shows all counties except Bernalillo County have received more 

income from people commuting out of the county in which they live between 2000 and 2010. In 

this manner, they can be thought of as bedroom communities since income from people 

commuting out of the counties to work exceeds the income from those commuting into the 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-75

counties. Bernalillo County can be described as an employment hub since income derived from 

people commuting into the county to work exceeds the income from those commuting out of the 

county (U.S. Department of Commerce 2006a). While these trends are true for earnings from all 

industries, they may vary for specific industries within counties. In this manner, these 

classifications may mischaracterize actual commuting patterns for certain industries where 

commuting patterns cannot be characterized by earnings data for all industries. For example, 

ranchers in Cibola County likely live and work within the county instead of commuting to 

Bernalillo County.

The population in the impact area has slightly aged since 2000, as the median age in 2010 was 

higher than 2000 in all individual counties. The largest age category is 45 to 49 years. Between 

2000 and 2010, age groups between 45 and 64, which include some of the baby boomer 

population, showed the largest increases in their share of total population while those aged 35 to 

44 showed decreases (U.S. Department of Commerce 2012).

In 2010, 46% of New Mexico’s population was composed of Hispanic Americans (comprised of 

both recent immigrants and descendants of Spanish colonists), which was higher than all other 

states (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). Hispanic groups make up a substantial portion of the twentyfirst-century population. (Table 3.18). The share of total population of Hispanic descent 

increased in four of the impact area counties between 1980 and 2010, while the share decreased 

in Torrance County and remained the same in McKinley County. Since Cibola County was 

formed from Valencia County in 1981, data is not available for Cibola County. The aggregate 

share of both counties increased from 44-to 93% in 1980 and 2010, respectively. Within the 

impact area as a whole, the number of people of Hispanic origin increased by 211,523 persons 

and these increases accounted for 44% of the total Hispanic population increase and 28% of the 

total population increase within the state.

Table 3.18: Number and Percent of Persons of Hispanic Origin (of Any Race)

1980 2000 2010

Number Share % Number Share % Number Share %

New Mexico 477,051 37 765,610 42 953,400 46

Impact Area 201,675 35 320,342 39 413,198 43 

Bernalillo County 154,638 37 233,527 42 302,480 47 

Cibola County NA NA 8,441 33 9,763 36 

McKinley County 7,531 13 9,303 12 9,393 13 

Sandoval County 9,586 28 26,426 29 42,527 34 

Torrance County 3,076 41 6,282 37 6,281 38 

Valencia County 26,844 44 36,363 55 42,754 57 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000

Race and Ethnicity are broken out separately since Hispanics can be of any race. Within the 

impact area, the share of total population increased for all races except White and American 

Indian and Alaska Native races. At the county level, decreases were seen for several non-white 

races. On a national level, New Mexico had the second-highest percentage of American Indians 

and Alaska Natives (10 percent) after Alaska (15 percent) in 2008, and McKinley County has the 

highest share in the state (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). Regardless, American Indian populations 

decreased in McKinley County, Sandoval County, and the impact area as a whole between 2000 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-76

and 2008. All other races increased as a share of county population except the share of Native 

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders in Sandoval County, which decreased slightly.

Table 3.19: Population Comparison by Race

White 

Alone

American 

Indian and 

Alaska 

Native 

Alone

Black or 

African 

American 

Alone

Asian 

Alone

Native 

Hawaiian 

and Other 

Pacific 

Islander 

Alone

Two or 

more races

New Mexico 9.7% 3.0% 1.4% 0.1% 1.8% 84.0%

Impact Area 80.1% 12.3% 3.5% 1.9% 0.2% 2.1%

Bernalillo County 86.1% 5.1% 4.1% 2.3% 0.2% 2.2%

Cibola County 53.9% 42.4% 1.6% 0.5% 0.1% 1.6%

McKinley County 21.6% 74.1% 1.4% 0.8% 0.1% 2.0%

Sandoval County 80.1% 13.5% 2.9% 1.5% 0.1% 1.8%

Torrance County 92.5% 2.6% 2.4% 0.4% 0.1% 1.9%

Valencia County 91.7% 4.0% 1.9% 0.7% 0.1% 1.6%

3.16.5 Economic Specialization and Employment

Employment within the impact area is distributed amongst industry sectors and displayed below 

in Figure 2.40 (IMPLAN 2009). The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

identified communities that were specialized with respect to employment. Their method used the 

ratio of the percent employment in each industry in the region of interest (counties within the 

impact area) to an average percent of employment in that industry for a larger area (the reference 

region; the BEA’s Economic Areas). For a given industry, when the percent employment in the 

analysis region is greater than in the reference region, local employment specialization exists in 

that industry (USFS 1998). Using this criterion applied with 2009 data, counties within the 

impact area can be characterized as specialized with respect to a variety of sectors. Of particular 

concern are counties where specialization occurs within industries related to BLM management. 

In Valencia and McKinley counties, varying degrees of specialization exists in the Agricultural 

industry which includes the livestock industry, while McKinley and Cibola counties are 

specialized with respect to the mining industry.

From 1970 to 2006, total employment in the impact area increased by 227 percent (from 166,907 

to 546,007 jobs classified as full- and part-time employment). The state of New Mexico saw an 

increase in total employment of 176 percent. Between 1970 and 2006, the rate of job growth in 

Bernalillo, Sandoval, and Torrance counties (315, 1,173, and 314 percent, respectively) was 

faster than the state (276 percent) and the nation (195 percent), while the rate of employment 

growth in McKinley County (214 percent) and the aggregate of Cibola and Valencia (270 

percent) were slower than the state and faster than the nation. The employment growth seen in all 

impact area counties combined was largely due to estimated increases between 1982 and 2000 in 

Service and Professional sector employment (includes retail trade, health and social services and 

the combined services sector) which accounted for approximately 75 percent of new area 

employment1. In addition, the share of total employment attributable to this sector increased by 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-77

5.9 percent; from 61.6 to 67.5 percent. Thus, the service and professional related sectors have 

been an important part of area employment. Jobs in the government sector decreased in their 

share of total employment (by 4.2 percent; from 21.9 to 17.8 percent) indicating a decrease in 

specialization in the government sector over this period (U.S. Department of Commerce 2000; 

Economic Profile System 2009).

Employment changes in the farm, mining, and manufacturing sectors translated into smaller 

portions of total employment in 2000, decreasing by 0.5, 1.3, and 0.6 percent, respectively. 

These natural resource elated sectors have provided a small and slightly decreasing portion of 

total area employment while the Service and Professional sector has maintained a steady increase 

(U.S. Department of Commerce 2000; Economic Profile System 2009).

3.16.6 Economic Well-Being and Poverty

As noted above, the service and professional sectors increased in their share of total employment 

while the farm and agriculture services, mining, and manufacturing sectors experienced 

decreases between 1982 and 2000. The service and professional sector jobs may not pay as 

much, which could decrease area economic well being. Within the impact area, the private 

sectors examined can be lumped into goods producing sectors (natural resources, construction, 

and manufacturing) and service-providing sectors (e.g., trade, transportation, utilities, finance, 

education, and health). In 2006, the goods-producing and service-providing sectors paid average 

annual wages of $42,783 and $33,326, respectively (U.S. Department of Commerce 2000b). 

These statistics demonstrate that while the service sector accounts for an increasing share of total 

employment, these jobs do not pay as much. The welfare implications of these changes are not so 

clear. The population changes in some counties noted above suggests some people may be 

moving away instead of taking lower paying jobs in the service sector. Other people might move 

to the area to take a service sector job, but exchange the lower wage they may receive for the 

unique natural and cultural amenities. In this manner, some may benefit from a secondary 

income not provided by their place of employment but by the benefits they gain from living in 

the area. 

Total personal income (TPI) and per capita personal income (PCPI) are useful measures of 

economic well-being. From 1970 to 2006, annual TPI in the economic impact area increased by 

$21 billion to $28.7 billion, and annual PCPI increased from $17,295 to $31,373 (all measures 

adjusted for inflation to 2006 dollars). This translates to a TPI increase of 290 percent (roughly 8 

percent annually) and a PCPI increase of 81 percent (roughly 2 percent annually) over this time 

period. Average PCPI in the economic impact area was higher than the state ($29,929) and lower 

than the nation ($36,714) in 2006 (U.S. Department of Commerce 2006b).

While PCPI is a useful measure of economic well-being, it should be examined alongside 

changes in real earnings per job. Since PCPI includes income from 401(k) plans as well as other 

non-labor income sources such as transfer payments, dividends, and rent, it is possible for per 

capita income to rise, even if the average wage per job declines over time. While PCPI rose 

between 1970 and 2006, average earnings per job rose from $36,898 to $39,591 (values adjusted 

for inflation to 2006 dollars), indicating a possible increase in area economic well-being (U.S. 

Department of Commerce 2006b).
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-78

From 1993 to 1999, average annual unemployment rates in the six-county impact area fell along 

with national and state levels to 4.2. After 1999, unemployment continued to follow state and 

national trends rising to 5.6 in 2003 and then falling to 3.5 in 2007. With the recent national 

economic downturn, unemployment has started to rise again, which is reflected in the increase to 

4.2 percent in 2008 seen in Figure 2.41 below. Individually all counties were at 10-year 

unemployment lows in 2007 and have increased in the last year. In 2008, all counties except 

Bernalillo had unemployment levels lower than the nation (5.8 percent) but higher than the state 

(4.2 percent); they were 3.9, 4.3, 4.9, 4.8, 4.7, and 4.5 percent in Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, 

Sandoval, Torrance, and Valencia, respectively (U.S. Department of Labor 2009). New jobs 

created in an area are filled from two principal sources: local unemployment and in-migration. If 

unemployment remains high, new jobs are likely to be filled by local area residents; however, if 

unemployment is persistently low, new jobs could be filled more often by new area residents.

While the number of people living below the poverty level increased in New Mexico, the impact 

area and all counties, except Cibola, between 1989 and 1999, the share of those persons, from the 

number of persons for whom poverty status was assessed, remained stable. The largest decreases 

occurred in Cibola County where the level fell by 9 percent. Despite these decreases in the share 

of individuals living below the poverty level, shares in Cibola, McKinley, and Torrance counties 

remained greater than the state in 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).

3.16.7 Components of Personal Income

Further examining trends within personal income provides insight to the area economy and its 

connection to the lands administered by the BLM. There are three major sources of personal 

income: 1) labor earnings or income from the workplace; 2) investment income, or income 

received by individuals in the form of rent, dividends, or interest earnings; and 3) transfer 

payment income or income received as Social Security, retirement and disability income or 

Medicare and Medicaid payments.

Labor earnings were the largest source of income in the impact area accounting for 67 percent of 

all income in 2006. In New Mexico, labor earnings also made up 65 percent of TPI. The 

government and manufacturing sectors were the largest components of labor income in 2006 for 

the economic impact area. The contributions from the BLM represent only a portion of the 

economic activity reflected in industry sectors.

While labor earning’s share of TPI has decreased from 1970 to 2006 (from 79 to 67 percent), the 

share of non-labor income has risen (from 21 to 33 percent). As a share of TPI, investment 

income and transfer payments rose from 12 to 16 and 9 to 16 percent, respectively, over this 37-

year time period. The increase in transfer payments are not entirely due to increases in welfare or 

unemployment related payments. Data show the share of transfer payments from unemployment 

payments decreased from 5 to 1 percent and the share from income maintenance benefit 

payments, or welfare decreased from 18 to 11 percent. In 2006, the largest component of transfer 

payments were the age related payments (classified as Old Age, Survivors, and Disability 

Insurance and Medicare Benefits) accounting for 51 percent of total transfer payments (U.S. 

Department of Commerce 2006).

These patterns reflect the importance of the aging population noted above, who are more likely 

to have investment earnings than younger adults. As the population of the area continues to age, 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-79

the share of income from these non-labor sources should continue to rise as long as residents 

continue to stay in the area after retirement or new retirees move in. Rural county population 

change, the development of rural recreation and retirement-destination areas are all related to 

natural amenities (Knapp and Graves 1989, Clark and Hunter 1992, Treyz et al. 1993, Mueser 

and Graves 1995, McGranahan 1999, Lewis et al. 2002). Many of the natural amenities in the 

area are managed by the BLM and thus, indirectly contribute to area labor and non-labor income.

3.16.8 Contributions to the Area from BLM Management

BLM-administered lands in the Planning Area contribute to the livelihoods of area residents 

through subsistence uses as well as through market-based economic production and income 

generation. Public lands provide products of value to households at no or low cost (permit fees) 

such as fuelwood, wood posts, and livestock. Additional products with subsistence value may 

include fish, game, plants, berries, and seeds. Use of these products is often part of traditions that 

sustain local culture.

Contributions to the area economy through market-based production can be measured using the 

impact analysis for planning (IMPLAN) input-output model. Input-output models describe 

commodity flows from producers to intermediate and final consumers. The total industry 

purchases are equal to the value of the commodities produced. Industries producing goods and 

services for final demand purchase goods and services from other producers. These other 

producers, in turn, purchase goods and services. This buying of goods and services continues 

until leakages from the region stop the cycle. The resulting sets of multipliers describe the 

change of output for regional industries caused by a change in final demand in an industry. The 

IMPLAN database describes the economy in 440 sectors using federal data from 20092. These 

sectors are further aggregated below to better identify areas relevant to BLM management 

activities.

Using the most recent data available, IMPLAN response coefficients were applied to BLM 

outputs and expenditures to estimate the economic contribution of the BLM within the analysis 

area. While the discussion above examines the current situation and historical context, this 

analysis examines the linkages and interdependencies among businesses, consumers, and the 

RPFO resources on which some area economic activity depends. IMPLAN allows a more 

complete examination of these linkages.

IMPLAN not only examines the direct contributions from the RPFO but also indirect and 

induced contributions. Indirect employment and labor income contributions occur when a sector 

purchases supplies and services from other industries in order to produce their product. Induced 

contributions are the employment and labor income generated as a result of spending new 

household income generated by direct and indirect employment. The employment estimated is 

defined as any part-time, seasonal, or fulltime job. In Table 3.20, direct, indirect, and induced 

contributions are included in the estimated BLM contributions.

2 IMPLAN data are derived from a variety of sources included the Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and U.S. Census.

3 Rates of change in employment and labor income as final demand changes.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-80

Table 3.20: Estimated Annual Employment (Full- And Part-Time Jobs) and Labor Income (Thousands 2012 $) 

Contributions

Resource or Resource Value Jobs Labor Income

Recreation130 $949

Wildlife and Fish Rec. 2 $73

Grazing 117 $925

Timber 0.05 $0.03

Minerals 15 $808

Ecosystem Restoration 1 $31

Payments to Counties 29 $1,398

BLM Expenditures 120 $4,627

Total BLM Management2314 $8,811

1Expenditures by local residents for recreation on BLM do not introduce new money into the 

economy. If local residents could not recreate on BLM-administered lands, they would likely find 

other forms of recreation in the area and continue to spend their recreation dollars in the local 

economy. Therefore, these portions of employment (and labor income below) are not necessarily 

dependent on the existence of the opportunities provided by BLM.

2Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: IMPLAN 2009

3.16.9 Tourism and Recreation

BLM land within the RPFO provides a variety of recreational opportunities. While USFS lands 

are often closed in the summer due to the fire danger, BLM land in the Planning Area is often 

open. Field office staff estimate that there were 55,000 recreational visits to the Planning Area on 

an average annual basis between October 2006 and September 2007. On their way to the 

Planning Area, and once they arrive, these visitors spend money on goods and services they 

would spend elsewhere if these opportunities did not exist. In this manner, the opportunities on 

BLM-administered lands contribute to the local economy by attracting these visitors.

Analyses of expenditures reported by national forest visitors show the primary factor 

determining the amount spent by a visitor was the type of trip taken and not the specific activity 

or forest visited (Stynes and White 2005). Since expenditure information for the type of trip 

taken is not yet available, National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data from adjacent national 

forests will serves as a proxy. These six trip type segments are defined below;

Visitors who reside greater than 50 miles from visited BLM:

Non-local residents on day trips

Non-local residents staying overnight on BLM

Non-local residents staying overnight off BLM

Visitors who live within 50 miles of the visited BLM:

Local residents on day trips
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-81

Local residents staying overnight on BLM

Local residents staying overnight off BLM

Non-primary visits were not included since primary activities on BLM-administered lands are of 

most interest. In accordance with the report prepared for the USFS by the American Sportfishing 

Association (2006), the data used to divide total visits into these trip types were provided by 

Stynes and White (2005). An average of the visitation proportions for a national forest closest to 

the Planning Area (Cibola National Forests) was used (Stynes and White 2005). Generalizing 

from the NVUM data also indicates approximately 7 percent of all visits to BLM-administered 

lands were wildlife related. The largest trip type segment was non-wildlife related local day trips 

which numbered 30,690.

While providing recreation opportunities to local residents is an important contribution, the 

recreation expenditures of locals do not represent new money introduced into the economy. If 

BLM-related opportunities were not present, residents would likely participate in other locally 

based activities and their money would still be spent in the local economy. After separating the 

contributions made from local residents, recreation contributes 32 jobs and $1.02 million in labor 

income (see Table 3.20). Local recreationists on BLM-administered lands contribute another 12 

jobs and $416,000 in labor income for a total of 44 jobs and $1.4 million in labor income on an 

average annual basis.

3.16.10 Livestock Production

Within the Planning Area, agriculture plays an important economic and social role; area residents 

identify with the tradition, land-use, and history. In 2007, Torrance and McKinley counties were 

New Mexico’s 11th and 12th largest cattle producers containing 2.7 and 2.2 percent of the total 

state cattle inventory. The most recent USDA’s Census of Agriculture (2007) reports all six 

counties within the Planning Area had 5,690 farms and ranches and of these, 48 percent (2,750 

operators) were engaged in cattle production, with total cattle numbering 135,108 in 2007. While 

the number of total farms and farms engaged in cattle production has risen dramatically since 

1997 (by 84 and 64 percent, respectively), the share of farms engaged in cattle production has 

decreased by 6 percent over the last 10 years (USDA 2007).

On BLM-administered lands, approximately 220 permittees operate in the six-county area with 

most in Sandoval and McKinley counties (50 and 16 percent, respectively; USDI BLM 2009). 

The established preference limit for AUMs in the Planning Area is currently 129,815 AUMs. 

This is the maximum number of AUMs that could be offered under ideal forage conditions. 

Actual use of AUMs has ranged between 45 and 67 percent (58,663 to 87,118 AUMs) of the 

preference limit in the last 10 years due to factors such as drought, financial limitations on 

operators, market conditions, and implementation of grazing practices to improve range 

conditions. Grazing in the Planning Area occurs year-round and quite a few permittees also have 

USFS permits that they move to from June to October. Table 3.21 provides authorized use 

numbers between 1999 and 2008.

Authorized use of AUMs has remained relatively stable, but shows a decreasing trend despite the 

recent jump in authorized AUMs in 2007 (Table 3.21). Possible decreases in authorized use 

could be explained by a tendency of ranching operations to subdivide and sell, often breaking 

longstanding family ranching traditions. In addition, with rising operating costs smaller operators 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-82

are finding it more difficult to remain in the industry (personal communication with Nathan 

Combs, July 28, 2008). Between 1999 and 2008, averages of 74,339 cattle AUMs have been 

provided. The forage provided represents approximately 9 percent of the forage required for the 

2007 cattle inventory within the six-county Planning Area (USDI BLM 2009 and USDA 2007).

Table 3.21: Annual AUM Authorizations in the RPFO

Year AUMs Preferred 

AUMs %

2008 70,010 129,815 54

2007 84,554 129,815 65

2006 70,414 129,815 54

2005 58,663 129,815 45

2004 70,160 129,815 54

2003 69,430 129,815 53

2002 76,623 129,815 59

2001 78,243 129,815 60

2000 87,118 129,815 67

1999 84,943 129,815 65

Source: BLM Rangeland Administration System

A thin profit margin often separates these livestock producers from negative net earnings. Often, 

employment outside the ranch augments livestock producer income. Federal grazing land is 

particularly valuable because of the low grazing fees charged for use of this land. Fees charged 

by BLM for grazing are calculated using the formula required under BLM grazing regulations 

found at 43 CFR 4130.81(a)(1) and are considerably less than those charged for private grazing 

land. In 2007, the statewide average AUM price for private land was $11 (USDA 2008). The 

BLM formula yielded a fee of $1.35 per AUM in 2008, which is down from $1.56 in 2006. This 

federal land is the least expensive grazing land available, hence use and access is coveted by area 

ranchers even though additional costs are usually incurred to use these lands. It is estimated that 

in 2008 the benefit of low cost BLM AUMs used in the RPFO was $675,600 to area ranchers. 

The active use levels of grazing on BLM currently support approximately 117 jobs and $925,000 

in labor income on an average annual basis (Table 3.18). While these numbers appear small, it 

must be remembered that BLM allotments provide an important complement to ranching 

operations that also occur on national forest and privately leased land.

Ranching operations within the RPFO are both large and small operations. In 2008, the ratio of 

AUM use to the number of permittees was somewhat lower within the RPFO than for New 

Mexico as a whole (355 versus 550 AUMs per permittee in the state overall; USDI BLM 2009) 

due to some small scale subsistence ranching in the Planning Area. Small-scale non-commercial 

family herds for local use have been a tradition in the area for centuries (Atencio 2004a). 

According to field office data, roughly 70 percent of these operators are authorized to run less 

than 80 head per year (USDI BLM 2009).

Information on the ethnicity of operators is available from the USDA National Agricultural 

Statistical Service and indicates New Mexico had the largest share of principle operators of 

Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin of all 50 states; its share of 28 percent was 19 percent greater 

than California, which had the second largest state share in the nation. Within the impact area, all 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-83

counties except McKinley exceeded the state share (28 percent) of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino 

operators, while Valencia County had the greatest share (49 percent). Bernalillo, Cibola, 

McKinley, Sandoval, and Torrance counties had 41, 33, 3, 42, and 32 percent, respectively. 

3.16.11 Forest Products

Recent examination of forest product patterns on northern New Mexico national forests (e.g., 

volume of wood cut, number of permits, and contracts) reveals that the majority of area logging 

and woodcutting is smaller in scale and primarily for local use (Atencio 2004b). Fuelwood has 

historically been an important forest product provided by lands within the RPFO. Fuelwood use 

can be considered traditional as those with access to electric or gas stoves often prefer cooking 

with wood (Atencio 2004b).

Between 2003 and 2007, an annual average of 19,000 cubic feet (CCF) of fuelwood was cut 

from the Cibola and Santa Fe national forests (USFS cut and sold reports for Region 3). RPFO 

staff estimate approximately 700 CCF of fuelwood is currently removed from BLMadministered lands, which amounts to 3.7 percent of the average annual contribution from area 

national forests. While small relative to fuelwood cut from USFS lands, BLM contributions are 

still locally important. In winter months, fuelwood gathering occurs on BLM since USFS 

collection areas are closed and inaccessible due to snow and mud (Borland pers. comm. 2008).

While fuelwood collected on RPFO land is important for household use, some of this fuelwood 

is sold by contractors to area distributors. The sale of fuelwood from BLM by these contractors 

supports less than 1 job and $3,000 in labor income on an average annual basis (see Table 3.18); 

however, these estimates do not account for the household use of fuelwood from BLM.

A different and possibly more accurate measurement of benefits to local communities from 

fuelwood is the number of permits issued, which may reflect the number of families receiving 

the direct benefit of these resources. On an average annual basis, RPFO staff estimate 

approximately 330 permits are issued each year, while on the Santa Fe National Forest the 

number of woodcutting permits issued averaged 7,950 between 1992 and 1999 (Atencio 2004b). 

Thus, the contribution to area families from the BLM is far less than that received from area 

national forests. As noted above, the importance of the BLM contribution remains; for example, 

the season of use often differs from fuelwood collection on the national forest.

3.16.12 Mining

Of the nation’s 33 oil and gas producing states, New Mexico ranked fifth in number of crude oil 

wells drilled, sixth in crude oil production, and fourth in both the number of wells drilled and 

production of natural gas in 2004 (IPA 2008). Oil and gas production is primarily located in two 

regions of the state, the northwest and southeast corners. The northwest corner is the primary gas 

producing region, with San Juan County accounting for most of the production. The southeast 

corner of New Mexico primarily produces oil, with Lea and Eddy counties accounting for the 

majority of production.

In 2008, Sandoval County produced the least amount of oil and gas in the state and was the only 

county producing oil and gas from BLM managed mineral estate in the Planning Area. Total 

production of oil from all ownerships and production from BLM-managed mineral estate 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-84

decreased in Sandoval County between 1999 and 2008 (by 34,500 and 66,400 barrels, 

respectively). The share of total oil production from BLM-managed mineral estate decreased 

over this period from 71 percent in 1999 to 33 percent in 2008. Total production of gas in 

Sandoval County decreased alongside oil over this period; however, it has steadily increased 

since 2004. The share of total gas produced from BLM managed mineral estate increased over 

this period from 32 to 42 percent (Figure 2.43). Oil and gas production from BLM managed 

mineral estate over this 10-year period generates 7 jobs and $382,000 in labor income on an 

average annual basis. Oil and gas well drilling has also contributed jobs and income to the 

impact area.

Total wells spud have fallen in the county from their high of 63 in 1981 to an average below 5 

per year from 1994 to 2004 (State of New Mexico 2008b). Oil and gas drilling on BLMmanaged mineral estate contributes approximately 8 jobs and $405,000 in labor income on an 

average annual basis in the impact area.

Saleable mineral material removed from the RPFO includes general stone, common variety 

crushed stone, construction sand and gravel, humate and scoria. The scoria and crushed stone are 

most often used for highway resurfacing, while construction sand and gravel is often used for 

concrete or other construction purposes such as bank stabilization. General stone is used for a 

wide variety of applications, including decorative purposes, while humate is used often as a soil 

conditioner. The removal of these materials generates approximately one job and $21,000 in 

labor income on an average annual basis within the impact area.

The combined leasable, locatable, and salable mining activity in the Planning Area supports 

approximately 15 jobs and $808,000 in labor income on an average annual basis.

3.16.13 Externally Funded Ecosystem Restoration

A portion of the management activities occurring on BLM-administered lands in the area are 

performed with funds not accounted for under general BLM ecosystem restoration projects 

support approximately one job and $31,000 in labor income in the impact area economy on an 

average annual basis.

Ecosystem restoration in the form of reclamation of disturbances created by mineral extraction 

(e.g., oil and gas drilling, gravel mining) also creates job opportunities for area residents. 

Reclamation of mining disturbance is funded by the company (operator) that caused it, and is 

overseen by BLM personnel. Operators may hire any contractor they choose that is able to 

accomplish the prescribed reclamation actions, and while some operators hire out-of-area 

contractors, many choose locally-based contractors.

3.16.14 Revenue Sharing

In 1976, Congress passed legislation to provide funding to counties through Payments in Lieu of 

Taxes (PILT) in order to compensate for tax revenues not received from federal lands. These 

taxes would typically fund various services that are provided by counties (road maintenance, 

emergency services, and law enforcement). The PILT payments are determined using a formula 

which accounts for the county acreage of federal land, county population, and the previous year’s 

revenue sharing from resource uses on federal land (e.g., timber, range, mining). In all impact 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-85

area counties, payments attributable to BLM entitlement acreage have increased since 1999. In 

November of 2008, additional payments were authorized by the Emergency Economic 

Stabilization Act of 2008 (PL 110-343). The law authorized counties to receive their full 

entitlement level payment from 2008 through 2012.

In addition to PILT, counties receive a share of range revenues under the 1934 Taylor Grazing 

Act. Receipts from mineral material removal, oil and gas production, and revenues from leased 

land are also shared with counties under the 1920 Mineral Lands Leasing Act and the 1902 

Reclamation Act. These payments support approximately 29 jobs and $1.4 million in labor 

income on an average annual basis.

3.16.15 BLM Expenditures and Employment

The RPFO is located in Albuquerque, providing a direct contribution to the area economy. BLM 

operations and management make direct contributions to area economic activity by employing 

people who reside in the area and by spending dollars on project-related goods and services 

throughout the impact area (Table 3.22). Management of BLM-administered lands in the 

Planning Area is largely carried out through a professional and administrative staff in the RPFO. 

Staffing levels of these BLM employees have decreased since 2004. In addition to these full-time 

equivalent (FTE) employees, seasonal staff work and live in the area (other than permanent 

[OTP]). Contracts for facilities maintenance, shuttling vehicles, and projects contribute directly 

to the area economy and social stability as well. Many of these impacts are captured in from the 

total expenditures BLM makes in the Planning Area. Although total expenditures within the 

Planning Area had been decreasing, expenditures rose again in 2007, largely due to an increase 

in project-related spending.

Table 3.22: RPFO Expenditures and Employment

Total

Expenditures FTEs OTPs

2004 $ 6,894,399 70 15

2005 $ 4,692,644 60 15

2006 $ 3,512,051 60 15

2007 $ 4,358,461 60 15

2008 $ 4,403,756 60 15

Source: Pers. comm. Danette Herrera 2009

Project-related expenditures are attributable to project work for all BLM program areas, while 

the contributions from the specific resource programs in Table 3.20 do not also include these 

BLM expenditures. Thus, these contributions accrue to the area in addition to other program 

specific contributions. On an average annual basis, RPFO expenditures and employment support 

120 jobs and $4.6 million in labor income), accounting for the largest employment and labor 

income contribution to the impact area of all categories.

3.16.16 Renewable Energy Development

Wind generation is becoming a larger part of the New Mexico landscape and economy. The 

landscape has always been subject to strong winds, which are now being harnessed by wind 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-86

farms. Local businesses and counties are benefiting from the influx of resources and tax revenue 

from these projects. It remains to be seen whether BLM land can contribute to the Planning Area 

economy and community well-being through provision of energy leases.

Small community/cooperative projects sell power through power purchase agreements with 

regulated utilities. These projects are attractive because they can become community revenue 

generators, involve schools and local interests, and help supplement future power growth. Large 

commercial projects are sited in areas of strong winds, transmission access, and market demand. 

As suitable windy areas become more saturated with development, the availability of leases on 

federal land may play a larger role in the industry.

Installed wind power capacity in New Mexico has increased from one megawatt (MW) of power 

in 1999 to 497 MWs as of March 31, 2009 (DOE 2009). No wind projects are currently under 

construction in the Planning Area. Existing projects are found in Guadalupe County, which is 

adjacent to the Planning Area, as well as in Curry, Debaca, and Quay further to the east (AWEA 

2009). No BLM land in the Planning Area is being leased for alternative energy. Two 

applications for wind energy meteorological testing have been received in Torrance County. 

These applications have not yet been processed; however, if granted, these companies would be 

issued a three-year permit for wind monitoring. If wind energy development were to occur on 

BLM administered-lands in the impact area, employment and labor contributions would result. 

Per 1.5 MW turbine, 11 full-time equivalent jobs and $400,000 in labor income would result 

during construction and one full-time equivalent and $64,500 labor income would be provided 

during normal operation on an average annual basis (DOE 2009).

3.16.17 RPFO Contributions by Industry

The RPFO-related employment and labor income contributions listed here exclude those made 

from local resident recreation. In total, management activities of the RPFO account for 0.06 

percent of jobs and 0.03 percent labor income in the impact area. The two largest employment 

and labor income contributions would occur in the Agriculture and the Accommodation and 

Food Services sectors. The industry sector with the highest level of dependence on the BLM 

Planning Area contributions is the Agricultural sector, relying on BLM for approximately 2.5 

percent of employment and less than one percent of labor income. Employment and income 

generated by activities on BLM account for less a half of one percent of impact area totals in all 

other industry sectors 

While data were not available to examine contributions by county or community, the labor 

income and employment generated from activities on BLM-administered lands in the Planning 

Area may be more important to smaller communities within the impact area. Consequently, 

changes in activities on BLM administered lands could result in localized effects that are not 

readily apparent across the broader six-county impact area. Specialization of individual counties 

within the impact area is discussed above. While contributions across the broad, six-county 

impact area are seemingly small, counties with dependence on sectors influenced by BLM may 

be more susceptible to changes on BLM-administered lands under this RMP. 

Government, agriculture, retail trade, and the accommodation and food services sectors are those 

sectors receiving most of the contributions from BLM and make up 74 percent of the total 

employment and 60 percent of the total labor income contribution. Individual counties within the 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-87

impact area identified as specialized in the Agricultural sector include McKinley and Valencia 

counties. In addition, other counties in the impact area can be considered specialized with respect 

to the government sector (Valencia, Sandoval and Cibola counties), Retail Trade (Valencia, 

Sandoval and McKinley counties) and the Accommodation & Food Services sector (Sandoval 

and McKinley counties) thus may be more susceptible to changes within the impact area given 

their specialization in these sectors connected to the BLM.

3.16.18 Non-market Economic Value

The value of resource goods traded in a market can be obtained from information on the quantity 

sold and market price; however, markets do not exist for some resources, such as recreational 

opportunities and environmental services. Measuring their value is important, since without 

estimates, these resources may be implicitly undervalued and decisions regarding their use may 

not accurately reflect their true value to society. Because these recreational and environmental 

values are not traded in markets, they can be characterized as non-market values.

Non-market values can be broken down into two categories; use and non-use values. The use 

value of a non-market good is the value to society from the direct use of the asset; within the 

Planning Area this occurs through activities such as recreational fishing, hunting, and bird 

watching. The use of non-market goods often requires consumption of associated market goods, 

such as lodging, gas, and fishing equipment. Non-use values of a non-market good reflect the 

value of an asset beyond any use. These can be described as existence, option, and bequest 

values. Existence values are the amount society is willing to pay to guarantee that an asset 

simply exists. An existence value of BLM-administered lands within the RPFO might be the 

value of knowing that undisturbed areas of cultural importance to Pueblos exist on BLMadministered lands. Other non-use values are thought to originate in society's willingness to pay 

to preserve the option for future use; these are referred to as option values and bequest values. 

Option values exist for something that has not yet been discovered, such as the future value of a 

plant as medicine.

Non-market use and non-use values can be distinguished by the methods used to estimate them. 

Use values are often estimated using revealed preference methods or stated preference methods, 

while non-use values can only be estimated using hypothetical methods. Although use and nonuse values exist for the Planning Area, evaluation is not always feasible during the planning 

process; however, this does not preclude their consideration in the planning process.

3.16.19 Community Resiliency

Community resilience can be described as the existence, development, and engagement of 

community resources to thrive in a dynamic environment characterized by change, uncertainty, 

unpredictability, and surprise. Resilient communities intentionally develop personal and group 

capacity to respond to and influence change, to sustain and renew the community, and to develop 

new trajectories for the community’s future (Magis 2007). How a community faces change is 

also tied to community well-being.

The well-being of the community is an integral part of life, necessary to survival (Raish and 

McSweeney et al. 2003).Community resiliency and well-being can be tied to the resources or 

assets available to a community. Community resources or assets, when invested, become 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-88

community capital, which the community can then reinvest in a cycle of community 

development. These are not limited to financial investments, and can include investment in 

collective action and cooperation. Using a community capital framework enables the 

identification of the entire range of community assets. It also provides a systematic structure with 

which to analyze the existence, change, and development of community resources (Flora et al. 

2004). Descriptions of these capitals are listed below:

Natural Capital – Air, soils, water (quality and quantity), landscape, and biodiversity

Cultural Capital – Language, rituals, ethnicity, generations, stories and traditions, 

spirituality, habits, and heritage

Human Capital – All the skills and abilities of people, self-esteem, education, leadership, 

knowledge, the ability to access resources, and human health

Social Capital – Groups, organizations, networks in the community, the sense of belonging, 

bonds between people, trust, and reciprocity

Political Capital – Connections to people in power, access to resources, leverage, and 

influence to achieve goals

Financial Capital – Money, charitable giving, grants, access to funding, and wealth

Built Capital – Buildings and infrastructure in a community, schools, roads, water and sewer 

systems, and main streets

Assessing the capital assets of communities within the RPFO first requires identification of these 

communities. For communities living in the area and those outside the area but interested in 

BLM-administered lands, discussion of community capitals connected to BLM management are 

included below.

3.16.20 Communities Living in the Area and Interested in the BLM 

within the RPFO

Communities within the Planning Area can be described by the areas they live in and by their 

connections to the local landscape. During the resource management planning process, the public 

has given the BLM insightful information about their connections to the land and their interests 

in BLM management. This information has provided BLM with community characteristics and 

values that help when defining these communities.

When we look at the effects of federal land management actions, the most critical impacts may 

be to small, rural communities (USDA USFS 2000). Consequently, geographically defined 

communities are an important and relevant level for social assessment. Not all social scientists 

agree that the geographically based community is always the appropriate level of analysis. 

FEMAT makes the point that this view “only refers to physical or political boundaries and not to 

the relationships among people who reside within such boundaries” (1993).

Communities of interest bring together stakeholders from different backgrounds to solve a 

problem of common concern (Fischer 2001). Brown and Duguid describe communities of 

interest as “communities-of-communities” (Brown and Duguid 1991). They provide unique 

opportunities to explore the linkages between people and public land that may transcend the 

geographically defined community.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-89

While communities of interest often form temporarily, the issues that bring them together in the 

Planning Area often present no immediate resolution. While BLM might foster resolution of 

their issues, many communities of interest may need involvement outside the scope of BLM 

management or the formation of networks to help bring them together. These networks provide a 

structure for individuals to form communities of interest and address these concerns.

3.16.21 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all 

races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement 

of environmental laws, regulations, programs, and policies. EO 12898 requires federal agencies 

to “identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations.”

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Environmental Justice Guidelines 

for NEPA “minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of 

the affected area exceeds 50 percent; or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected 

area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or 

other appropriate unit of geographic analysis” (1997). Table 3.18 above shows that Bernalillo 

and Valencia counties’ share of those of Hispanics origin was greater than the state and 

economic impact area in 2008. Table 3.19 shows the American Indian share of population in 

Cibola, McKinley, and Sandoval counties were greater than the impact area and the state in 

2008. The U.S. Census data suggest minority populations within the economic impact area meet 

the CEQ’s Environmental Justice criterion. 

3.17 Soil and Water Resources 

3.17.1 Soil Resources

Soil types and properties vary within the Planning Area. Soils are formed on volcanic and 

sedimentary bedrock, and on water-deposited and wind-deposited sediments on the landscape.

The overriding importance of stable soils on the landscape is to support vegetation. Soil 

properties, in combination with the precipitation and topography, are key factors in determining 

what vegetation types are supported. The soils support forest, woodland (piñon-juniper), brush, 

and grass vegetation types that provide livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and watershed 

stability. Rock outcrops and rubble fields occur in many areas, which support little, if any, soil 

and vegetation. 

In a semi-arid landscape typical of the RPFO, naturally-occurring surface water runoff and 

flooding may create sheet, rill, gully, and stream bank erosion on some areas of public lands. A 

normal degree of soil erosion caused by wind or water is expected under natural conditions, but 

erosion that exceeds natural rates because of land use activities is referred to as accelerated 

erosion, which will result in the loss of soil productivity and stability. The deposition of eroded 

soil particles is referred to as sedimentation and also is a natural landscape process to some 

degree. However, sedimentation resulting from accelerated water erosion may create water 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-90

quality and channel stability problems or may destructively cover upland vegetation. Deposition 

from accelerated wind erosion also can suppress vegetation and produce air quality problems. 

In this planning document, “sensitive soil” refers to: 1) erosion-sensitive soils that have higher 

susceptibility to wind or water erosion; and 2) reclamation-sensitive soils that would be difficult 

to restore or reclaim with vegetation after drastic disturbance of the soil profile has occurred. 

This sensitive soil description is based on detailed soil information found in soil surveys 

published by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with other 

entities including the BLM (USDA NRCS 2011). Due to soil mapping procedures, most soil 

mapping units (the individual areas outlined on soil maps) contain at least two major soil types 

that have different properties; the proportions of the different soils within the mapping unit are 

specified, but the spatial locations of the different soils are not shown. There is some overlap 

between the erosion-sensitive soils and reclamation-sensitive soils. Soil mapping units that are 

dominantly erosion-sensitive and reclamation-sensitive are depicted on maps 66 and 67, 

respectively. Additional discussion of sensitive soils follows.

Erosion-sensitive soils would include those with higher susceptibility to wind erosion as 

indicated by a wind erosion potential rating of “high” or “very high” in the soil survey. Soils 

that are rated as such are due to a surface layer that has a sandy particle size, high carbonate 

content, low organic matter content, or no coarse fragment protection. These soils occur as the 

dominant condition on approximately 399,000 acres of soil mapping units on RPFO lands.

Erosion-sensitive soils also would include those with higher susceptibility to water erosion as 

indicated by a water erosion potential rating of “high” or “very high” in the soil survey. Soils 

that are rated as such are due to unfavorable particle sizes and low organic matter content, in 

combination with high runoff, that have low resistance to water erosion processes. These soils 

occur as the dominant condition on approximately 159,000 acres of soil mapping units on RPFO 

lands. Areas that are dominantly water or wind erosion-sensitive are depicted in Map 67. 

Reclamation-sensitive soils would include those with a rating of "poor" for potential reclamation 

in the soil survey, which indicates that revegetation and stabilization are expected to be difficult 

and costly following drastic disturbances such as oil and gas field development, temporary road 

construction, or similar disturbances. This rating of the disturbed soil and its subsequent 

reclamation potential is based on the soil properties that affect erosion and stability of the surface 

and the vegetation productivity potential of the reclaimed soil. These properties include the 

content of sodium, salts, and calcium carbonate; reaction; available water capacity; edibility; 

texture; content of rock fragments; and content of organic matter and other features that affect 

fertility. These soils occur as the dominant condition on approximately 393,000 acres soil of soil 

mapping units on RPFO lands. Areas that are dominantly rated as poor reclamation potential are 

depicted in Map 67. 

Development of infrastructure and soil disturbance on steeper slopes (greater than 15% slope) 

generally increases the down slope water erosion potential because of increased runoff volumes 

and rates. This typically would be expected with permanent surface installations such as

windfarms, solar arrays, pipelines, roads, communication sites, transmission lines, and oil and 

gas production facilities. The appurtenant access roads required for most of these would be a 

part of the increased runoff and erosion potential. Therefore, the effect of slope steepness on soil 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-91

stability would be considered when authorizing land uses where disturbance on slopes could 

present increased runoff and erosion potential.

3.17.2 Water Resources

Surface water and ground water is an important factor in public land management. The 

overriding importance of surface water is the support of upland and riparian vegetation through 

recharge of soil water and ground water aquifers. In addition, streams and ponds provide 

wildlife and livestock water, and support recreation and aesthetics. Ground water from wells and 

springs has been developed for public water supply, livestock, and wildlife use, and for on-going 

or temporary industrial uses such as mining and road construction activities. 

The BLM files claims for existing water uses in accordance with applicable state and federal 

laws and regulations, and participates in adjudications. The RPFO holds ground water and 

surface water permits and rights for livestock and wildlife watering and for public water supply.

3.17.2.1 Surface and Ground Water

The occurrence of surface water and ground water on BLM land varies considerably with the 

diversity in geology, topography, and climate in the Planning Area. The Continental Divide runs 

through the west part of Planning Area, separating streamflow between the Rio Grande River

and the Colorado River basins. Most of the RPFO drains to the Rio Grande through the Rio 

Puerco, Arroyo Chico, and Rio San Jose drainages, which have the greatest acreage of BLM land

in the RPFO. 

Streams on BLM lands are dominantly ephemeral or intermittent channels (normally dry washes 

and stream beds) that flow for brief periods only in response to rainfall and snowmelt. Runoff 

and stream flow may result from summertime thunderstorms, melting snow in higher terrain, and 

frontal system rainfall. Many perennial and intermittent streams, springs, or seeps within the 

Planning Area occur on higher terrain within National Forest boundaries or on private lands both 

upstream and downstream from BLM-administered lands. 

Ground water is an important resource in the Planning Area, and its distribution and quality are 

complex and not completely defined. The principal aquifers within the planning area are the Rio 

Grande aquifer system and the Colorado Plateau aquifers (Robson and Banta 1995). The more 

important ground water discharge areas in the planning area are exemplified by the presence of 

perennial and intermittent streams and springs. A number of these water sources occur on BLM 

lands and support riparian/wetland areas that are detailed in the EIS for Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitat Management (USDI BLM 2000). 

BLM land management does have a direct influence on ground water recharge in both upland 

and stream channel environments. Increasing infiltration is identified as an objective in the 

Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing (USDI BLM 2001a). 

Riparian and upland vegetation communities are dependent upon infiltration and recharge to 

provide reliable amounts of shallow ground water and soil moisture.

In the RPFO, an extensive watershed management practice in the past was to construct earthen 

erosion control dams and diversions. In the 1950s through the 1970s, approximately 650 dams 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-92

and diversions were built to reduce peak flows and stabilize stream channels, and many of them 

have filled with sediment and require regular maintenance so that stored sediment is not lost 

downstream, and so that runoff and erosion rates remain controlled. Many of these 

dams/reservoirs continue to serve as a source for livestock and wildlife water.

The occurrence of 100-year floodplains as designated by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) is a key feature in complying with the Executive Order (EO) 11988-Floodplain 

Management. Digital data for these areas was available for Sandoval, McKinley, and Bernalillo 

counties, which shows that there currently are 10,769 acres of this designation on BLMadministered lands for these three counties; this should include the majority of the acreage in the 

decision area under this designation as it includes the major streams such as the Rio Puerco, 

Arroyo Chico, and the Rio San Jose. In addition, 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 (USDI USGS, 2011). An acreage figure for active 

floodplains on the decision area is not readily known because this is not usually mapped for 

channels. Both kinds of floodplains areas are important considerations for land management 

authorizations including but not limited to rights-of-ways and potential sites for renewable 

energy facilities.

3.17.2.2 Water Quality

The BLM complies with applicable water quality laws, chiefly the federal Clean Water Act, and 

therefore protection and improvement of water quality is a primary goal for the BLM. Water 

quality protection and improvement on BLM land is achieved mainly through the 

implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs are implemented in land 

management actions that are carried out by the BLM (e.g. vegetation management projects) as 

well as in actions that are authorized on BLM land but are conducted by another party (e.g., 

rights-of-way developments) .

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) assesses and monitors water quality under 

the Clean Water Act, and designates surface waters that are not meeting water quality standards 

in the CWA §303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies (NMED, 2010). No water bodies on the 

2010-2012 303(d) list are on RPFO lands. Impaired waters within the planning area are 

generally perennial streams that are upstream from BLM land, or are the major perennial rivers 

such as many reaches of the Rio Grande. Ground water protection is achieved largely through 

State of New Mexico drilling regulations for water wells and oil and gas wells, and by 

controlling surface pollution that could migrate to ground water.

In addition to the many erosion control structures built from the 1950s through the 1970s (as 

previously described), watershed protection and improvement in the RPFO continues through 

implementation of BMPs and watershed restoration and stabilization projects. Other agencies 

and watershed interest groups as well as the BLM have focused on planning and project efforts 

to improve watershed conditions, especially in the Rio Puerco watershed. Current management 

activities include fuels and vegetation treatments, grazing management actions, transportation 

management, and erosion control projects such as stream stabilization and restoration of 

disturbed areas (e.g., unused/unneeded dirt roadbeds.) 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-93

3.17.2.3 Trends 

Surface water quality and watershed health in the Planning Area is improving over time through 

continuing implementation of both regulatory and non-regulatory programs. In the Planning 

Area, voluntary water quality improvement projects are funded by programs such as the CWA 

Section 319 grants, public land management agency efforts, and private land initiatives (e.g., 

USDA NRCS landowner programs). The designation of impaired water bodies by NMED on the 

CWA §303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies will be potential key areas for management 

attention if they are on BLM-administered lands or if public lands are tributary to these waters. 

The BLM New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management includes erosion assessments to inform and guide management for the protection or 

improvement of water quality and watershed health.

Surface water quality is probably most vulnerable to increased urbanization, conversion of 

rangeland to suburbs, and development of more roads. Increased runoff associated with these 

factors usually increases erosion from uplands and stream channels and increases turbidity and 

sedimentation. Urban and suburban surface water quality issues might increasingly be a factor in 

public land management decisions where public lands are in close proximity to these areas.

In the Planning Area, surface water supplies always are subject to climatic conditions. Ground 

water withdrawals for public water supply and agricultural irrigation represent the largest water 

current water use in the Rio Grande corridor (NMOSE, 2008). Increased withdrawals for public 

water supply represent the largest potential ground water demand in the middle Rio Grande 

region, and population increases here already have caused dramatic increases in ground-water 

withdrawals from the aquifer system, resulting in large ground-water level declines (Mid-Region 

Council of Governments, 2004).

The use of ground water from non-public lands adjacent to public land has not yet presented 

apparent problems. Under current RPFO management, the supply and quality of water, both 

surface and underground, have not been identified as major limiting factors for public land 

management. It is likely that there will be growing interest in surface and ground water on the 

public lands corresponding with regional growth and increasing use of the public lands. 

3.18 Special Designations

Special designations include areas provided special management prescriptions to protect certain 

significant values, Congressional designations, or other Administrative or Executive designation 

giving emphasis to significant resources or activities. Such designations within the planning area 

include ACECs, SMAs, WSRs, WSAs, and Wilderness. Many of these areas are currently 

designated, while other areas have been determined to quality for special management 

subsequent to previous land use planning efforts. 

3.18.1 Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas

Wilderness characteristics are defined by sufficient size, naturalness, and either outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. In addition, it may also 

possess supplemental values. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-94

Sufficient size is defined as 5,000 acres of contiguous roadless BLM land, or large enough to 

make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition. Smaller areas that may be 

practical for preservation include: islands; lands adjacent to other federal lands where wilderness 

characteristics are being protected (for example adjacent to a BLM WSA or a National Forest 

Wilderness); or natural areas where topography clearly makes possible the opportunity to 

experience outstanding opportunities for solitude and there is strong public agreement with this 

conclusion. 

Naturalness is a measure of the degree to which the area appears to have been affected primarily 

by the forces of nature, and the degree that human work is substantially unnoticeable. Examples 

of human-made features that may be, in certain cases, considered substantially unnoticeable are: 

trails, trail signs, trail bridges, fire breaks, fire presuppression facilities, pit toilets, fire rings, 

water quantity and quality measuring devices, research monitoring markers and devices, air 

quality monitoring devices, fencing, spring developments, occasional ways, and small reservoirs.

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation means that the 

opportunities must stand out among others of their kind. This, however, does not mean that no 

better opportunities can be found. The area does not have to possess outstanding opportunities 

for both elements, nor does it need to have outstanding opportunities on every acre, so long as 

these opportunities are identified somewhere within the area. 

Solitude exists in an area “when the sights, sounds, and evidence of human activity are rare or 

infrequent, and where visitors can be isolated, alone, or secluded from others” (USDI BLM 

2003c). Solitude is often present in landforms of rugged relief or vegetation that may provide 

screening from other visitors and the ability to enjoy the area without experiencing frequent 

contact with others or evidence of other visitors.

Primitive and unconfined recreation occurs where there are minimal or no developed recreational 

facilities. Areas that offer opportunities for primitive recreation are marked by the absence of 

developed recreational facilities, are sufficiently large enough to allow these types of outdoor 

recreational uses, and may contain features or attractions that lend themselves to primitive and 

unconfined types of recreational uses.

3.18.1.1 Wilderness

One designated wilderness is located within the Planning Area; Ojito Wilderness (11,183 acres). 

Only Congress may designate Wilderness areas. 

The Ojito Wilderness Act was signed into law on October 27, 2005. The Ojito Wilderness 

includes 11,183 acres of public land, with 640 acres of state land and approximately 160 acres of 

private land included as inholdings as well as 116 acres still in WSA status. The wilderness is 

located in Sandoval County, approximately 5 miles southwest of San Ysidro, New Mexico. 

Mesas, cuestas, rock terraces, retreating escarpments, canyons, arroyos, and badlands all make 

up the dramatic landscape of the wilderness. The natural qualities of the area are highlighted by 

multi-colored rock formations, sculptured badlands, and expansive plateaus and mesa tops. The 

scenic values of these diverse landforms and close proximity to the population centers of 

Albuquerque and Santa Fe contribute to the area’s outstanding opportunities for solitude and 

primitive and unconfined recreation. The cultural resources include Archaic and other prehistoric 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-95

and historic sites. Paleontological sites include fossil resources including petrified wood, plant 

fragments, mollusks, and dinosaur bones. The longest dinosaur ever recovered, Seismosaurus, 

was discovered here. In addition, the rare plant species are found in the Ojito Wilderness. 

Wilderness management is guided by Manual 8560 to preserve wilderness characteristics. A 

Wilderness Management Plan for the Ojito Wilderness will be prepared when the Rio Puerco 

RMP is complete. 

3.18.1.2 Wilderness Study Areas

The BLM was authorized to consider areas under its management for wilderness designation 

upon passage of FLPMA in 1976. An inventory was conducted in 1980 that identified which 

areas met the wilderness criteria of naturalness and ability to provide an outstanding opportunity 

for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. These areas must also be 5,0-00 acres or 

larger in size. The 1980 inventory resulted in the designation of 8 WSAs. A portion of Ojito 

WSA was later designated as a Wilderness, while the others remain in WSA status. 

There are 8 WSAs for a total of 87,061 acres in the planning area:

Cabezon Peak WSA, NM-010-022 (8,162 acres)

Chamisa WSA, NM-010-021 (14,510 acres)

Ignacio Chavez WSA, NM-010-020 (32,431 acres)

La Lena WSA, NM-010-063A (10,252 acres)

Petaca Pinta WSA, NM-010-014 (11,664 acres)

Empedrado WSA, NM-010-063 (9,035 acres)

Manzano WSA, NM-010-092 (896 acres)

Ojito WSA, NM-010-024 (111 acres)

No additional areas can be considered for designation as WSA because the congressional 

authorization to do so expired. However, the BLM does recognize that some public land areas 

that have been acquired since the 1986 Rio Puerco RMP, or that have seen more limited use 

since the inventory was completed, have wilderness characteristics that should be considered in 

the planning g process. 

Management of the WSAs is guided by Manual 8550 to prevent impairment of their suitability 

for preservation as wilderness. Each WSA is managed under the IMP until added to the National 

Wilderness Preservation System or removed by Congress from further wilderness consideration. 

The BLM manages WSAs to ensure that existing wilderness characteristics (naturalness, 

solitude, primitive and unconfined-type recreation opportunities, and special features) are not 

impaired. Current allowable uses of these WSAs include hiking, hunting, horseback riding, 

backpacking, and biking or vehicle use on ways (undeveloped vehicle routes) that were present 

upon the establishment of the WSA. Other activities that may occur include livestock grazing, 

wildlife management, certain mineral uses, restoration activities, or other activities that do not 

result in impairment of the wilderness values. The Ignacio Chavez and Chamisa WSAs have 

higher densities of conifer species than is natural due to past land use practices including fire 

suppression and grazing. Detailed information and descriptions of the WSAs within the 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-96

Planning Area can be found in the USDI BLM New Mexico Wilderness Study Report, Volume 1 

(September 1991). 

Human activity and its effects in the WSAs are increasing as the population continues to grow in 

both Albuquerque and Santa Fe. Visitation to Cabezon WSA draws the largest number of 

visitors due to the uniqueness of the peak, a large volcanic plug, and the climbing experience. A 

visitor-created trail provides access to the base of the peak. The Ignacio Chavez and Chamisa 

WSAs draw fewer visitors, but are an attraction because of the pine forests (their visitation peaks 

during hunting season). The increasing levels of use of the WSAs may continue to diminish the 

ability to find solitude. The other WSAs are much less frequently visited, and are places where 

those looking for solitude are the primary visitors. Many of the access roads are impassible 

during inclement weather. The only designated trail in the WSAs is the Continental Divide 

National Scenic Trail, which passes through the Ignacio Chavez, Empredrado, and La Lena 

WSAs.

3.18.2 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail

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.

3.18.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Planning Area was inventoried for the presence of rivers eligible for designation as Wild and 

Scenic. Wild and Scenic Rivers must have at least one outstandingly remarkable value 

associated with the river. Eligible rivers are managed under Manual 8351 to protect their freeflowing qualities, outstandingly remarkable values, and tentative classification until superseded 

by Congressional action. Land use controls on private land are a matter of state and local 

zoning. Although the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 includes provisions encouraging 

protection of river values through state and federal land use planning, these provisions are not 

binding on local governments. The federal government is responsible for ensuring that 

management of designated rivers meets the intention of the act. In the absence of local or state 

river protection provisions, the federal government could ensure compliance through acquisition 

of the private lands or other interest lands. 

There are no congressionally-designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in the planning area. The BLM 

evaluated all flowing streams and other courses based on public scoping or resource information 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-97

provided by staff specialists. One stream was found to be eligible as a Wild and Scenic River: 

Bluewater Creek. Bluewater Creek is approximately thirty miles long and the area is rated as 

scenic quality “A,” as defined in the BLM Visual Resource Inventory Handbook. Bluewater 

Creek contains four relevant environmental resources which require special management 

attention. These resources are: (a) natural systems, (b) scenic values, (c) wildlife resources, and 

(d) cultural values. Bluewater Creek is the only perennial stream on public land in the Rio 

Puerco Field Office. The beginning of Bluewater Creek is below the dam of Bluewater 

Reservoir which receives recreation use year-round, but this use is heaviest during the 

spring/summer seasons. 

Natural System – Bluewater Creek is composed of riparian habitat and a perennial stream. 

The habitat contains large cottonwoods, dense vegetation, and abundant wildlife.

Scenic Values – Bluewater Creek contains outstanding scenic values and have been rated as a 

Class II Visual Resource Management area. The steep rocky canyon walls offer a pleasant 

contrast to the vegetation that grows along them and the lush vegetation in the canyon bottom 

provides an agreeable setting for primitive recreation opportunities.

Wildlife Resources – Adequate water contributes to wildlife concentrations. The canyon 

walls provide potential habitat for the peregrine falcon along with several other species as 

identified in 1983 Environmental Assessment for Bluewater Canyon ACEC Plan Element.

Cultural Values – Bluewater Creek contains one identified “moki” ruin. This is a single 

storage bin located three-fourths of the way up one of the canyon walls. Mokis were usually 

used to store corn, beans, grains, etc., and are usually found either on cliff as an isolated 

occurrence or in a pueblo ruin.

A three-phase process is used for Wild and Scenic River inventory: eligibility determination, 

tentative classification (wild, scenic, or recreation), and suitability determination. 

3.18.3.1 Phase One: The Eligibility Determination

A determination that a river is eligible for designation does not lead immediately to a 

recommendation that it should be added to the system. The eligibility study simply determines 

whether a river should be carried into classification and suitability phases of the study.

According to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, eligible river segments must be free flowing and , 

with their immediate environment, possess one or more outstandingly remarkable values 

(ORVs), such as scenic, recreational, geological, fish habitat, wildlife, historic, ecological or 

cultural resource values. “Free flowing” is defined as “existing or flowing in natural condition 

without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping or other modifications to the 

waterway that would encourage future construction of such structures. Free flowing should not 

be confused with naturally flowing, a state in which the river flows without any upstream 

manipulation except by nature. Many designated Wild and Scenic River segments are damned 

on either or both ends. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-98

3.18.3.2 Phase Two: The Classification Analysis

The classification analysis determines whether a river should be tentatively classified as “Wild”, 

“Scenic” or “Recreational”. The three classification categories for eligible rivers are defined as 

follows:

Wild Rivers: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive.

Scenic Rivers: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments with 

shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but 

accessible by roads. 

Recreational Rivers: Those rivers or sections or rivers that are readily accessible by road or 

railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have 

undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.

3.18.3.3 Phase Three: The Suitability Assessment

The Suitability Assessment identifies the impacts of designation and manageability of eligible 

rivers. In considering suitability, the criteria below specified in Section 4a of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act provide the basis for the assessment.

Characteristics that do or do not make the river corridor a worthy addition to the WSR system;

Current status of land ownership and uses in the area;

Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would be enhanced, 

foreclosed or curtailed if the river were designated;

Estimated costs of acquiring necessary lands and interests in lands, and of administering the 

river if designated;

Ability of the agency to manage the river and protect identified values;

Historical or existing right what would be adversely affected by designation;

Other issues and concerns identified in the land use planning process.

3.18.4 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Special 

Management Areas

The ACEC is unique to the BLM, and is authorized be section 202 of FLPMA. ACEC 

designation highlight areas where special management attention is needed to protect and prevent 

damage to important historic, cultural, scenic, or natural resources or values. For an area to be 

eligible for designation as an ACEC, it must meet one or more relevance criteria, and one or 

more importance criteria (BLM Manual 1613). It must also require special management to 

protect the resources or values identified for the area. The special management prescriptions for 

each of the existing or potential ACECs are presented in their respective sections in Ch. 2. 

3.18.4.1 Relevance

An area meets relevance criterion if it contains one or more of the following: 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-99

R-1. A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value (including, but not limited to, rare or 

sensitive archeological resources and religious or cultural resources important to Native 

Americans).

R-2. A fish and wildlife resource (including, but not limited to, habitat for endangered, 

sensitive, or threatened species, or habitat essential for maintaining species diversity). 

R-3. A natural process or system (including, but not limited to, endangered, sensitive, or 

threatened plant species; rare, endemic, or relic plants, or plant communities that are 

terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian; or rare geological features). 

R-4. Natural hazards (including, but not limited to, areas of avalanche, dangerous flooding,

landslides, unstable soils, seismic activity, or dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by human 

action may meet the relevance criteria if it is determined through the resource management 

planning process to have become part of a natural process. 

3.18.4.2 Importance

In order to satisfy the importance criterion, the value, resource, system, process, or hazard 

described above must have substantial significance, generally characterized by one or more of 

the following:

I-1. More than locally significant qualities that gives it special worth, consequence, meaning, 

distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to any similar resource. 

I-2. Qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, 

unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change. 

I-3. Recognized as warranting protection to satisfy national priority concerns or to carry out 

the mandates of FLPMA.

I-4. Qualities that warrant highlighting to satisfy public or management concerns about safety 

and public welfare. 

I-5. Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to property. 

3.18.4.3 Existing ACECs/SMAs

Both ACECs and SMAs are described below. Because SMA is a designation that is no longer 

used by the BLM, RPFO staff determined whether each SMA met relevance and importance 

criteria for ACEC designation. All but two SMAs (Pelon Watershed and Historic Homesteads) 

were found to meet the relevance and importance criteria for ACEC designation. The results of 

the evaluation of each area for the presence of relevance and importance criteria are included in 

the description of each area. 

3.18.4.3.1 Azabache Station SMA (80 Acres)

The Azabache Stage Station is an abandoned, four-room, sandstone masonry ranch house with 

spring house, corral, and evidence of at least two other buildings built near the base of Mesa La 

Azabache, next to a small spring known as Ojo Azabache. The ruin is located along the old Santa 

Fe-Prescott wagon road and the even older Zuni-Jemez trail about 15 miles west of the Village of 

Cabezon. The house was built and occupied during the late territorial period (1846-1880), 

homesteaded following World War I, and was abandoned around 1925. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-100

Evaluation of Azabache Station as an ACEC found that the SMA does not have relevance 

criteria, but does possess one importance criteria due to its fragility (I-2). As such, the SMA does 

not qualify as an ACEC, but would be managed instead as a Cultural Resource Area to protect 

and preserve the important cultural values present at this site. 

3.18.4.3.2 Ball Ranch (1,278 acres)

The Ball Ranch ACEC is located in Sandoval County, approximately 30 miles north of 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. This ACEC is divided into three small tracts or segments. This area 

contains extensive paleontological deposits of petrified wood. In the 1940’s Charles E. Stearns 

discovered a deposit of fossil material along Arroyo Pinovetito. The fossil material is composed 

largely of bones of titanotheres, a group of extinct, horned, odd-toed ungulates related to horses 

that reached the size of small elephants. In addition, the area also has several populations of 

endangered plant species. A past survey conducted by Paul J. Knight found five plant species of 

concern to be within the area.

3.18.4.3.3 Big Bead Mesa (311 Acres)

This site presents and excellent opportunity for archaeologists to study the effects of intertribal 

relations, conflicts, and alliances. It is an important representation of trade patterns and raiding 

that characterized Navajo relations with Pueblos, Apache, and Hispanics. It is the best known 

site of its time period and cultural affiliation. It is the first National Historic Landmark 

designated with Navajo cultural affiliation.

The importance ranking for this site is I-1 for importance based on is rarity and ranks and R1 for 

relevance based on its significant historic value.

3.18.4.3.4 Bluewater Canyon (89 acres)

Bluewater Canyon ACEC, located in an area of sandstone mesas, is a steep-walled canyon. This 

canyon contains the only perennial stream within the Rio Puerco Field Office. The canyon 

bottom is composed of riparian habitat and a perennial stream. The availability of water leads to 

a heavy concentration of birds and mammals. The canyon contains outstanding scenic values 

and has been rated as a Class II Visual Resource Management (VRM) area. The canyon contains 

a unique and aesthetically appealing combination of vegetation, which includes cotton-woods, 

piñon-juniper, ponderosa pine, oak and willow; along with various grasses, shrubs, and cacti. 

Under some alternatives the canyon would be expanded to include the entire stretch of the creek 

that meets up with Bluewater Lake.

3.18.4.3.5 Cabezon Peak ACEC (5,765 acres)

Cabezon Peak, at over 8,000 feet high, is one of the most prominent local landmarks in the Rio 

Puerco Valley. It is a popular recreation site for casual visitation and rock climbing. The area 

also contains raptor nesting sites, and various raptor species have been observed using the area. 

The peak has populations of the rare plant species Mammillaria wrightii, Sclerocactus 

papyracanthus, Abronia bigelovii, and Astragalus knightii. Cultural resources are also present on 

the peak, and the peak has religious significance for both Pueblo and Navajo tribes. In addition to 

being a traditional cultural place, the peak also served as a boundary marker and reference point 

in prehistoric times. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-101

Because of these geologic, biologic, and cultural values, Cabezon Peak ACEC possesses 

relevance (R-1, R-2, R-3) and importance (R-1, R-2, R-3) criteria. Several other volcanic necks 

in the area also possess these criteria, and under some alternatives the ACEC would be expanded 

to include Cerro Guadalupe, Cerro Chato, Cerro Santa Clara, and Cerro Quate. 

3.18.4.3.6 Cañon Jarido SMA (1,803 acres)

Cañon Jarido is a steep-sided sandstone canyon cut approximately 100 feet into Mesa Portales 

which provides raptor nesting sites. The vegetative community also provides good mule deer 

habitat. There are five springs in the canyon, two of which are associated with historic 

homesteads settled during the early 1900s. Additional historic and prehistoric cultural resources

have also been identified in the canyon. Due to the presence of these scenic, wildlife, and 

cultural resources, the Cañon Jarido SMA possesses relevance and importance criteria (R-1, R-2, 

I-1, I-2). The same relevance and importance criteria are also present in an adjacent area, Mesa 

Portales, which is proposed to be included in the Cañon Jarido ACEC under some alternatives. 

3.18.4.3.7 Canon Tapia (1,093 Acres)

The Canon Tapia ACEC is located in Sandoval County, about 80 miles northwest of 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. The ACEC is located within a five mile section of Tapia Canyon, a 

major secondary drainage that flows eastward into the Rio Puerco about a mile away in T. 15 N, 

R. 3 W. The ACEC is approximately 1,093 acres in size and contains three privately-owned 

segments. The BLM currently manages approximately four of the five miles comprising the 

designated ACEC. Important resources within the ACEC include very high densities of both 

prehistoric and historic art in petroglyph and pictograph forms, related small storage and 

residential structures, spectacular views of contrasting red, orange, and brown high sandstone

cliffs, and a large natural sandstone bridge. Resource management objectives within Canon 

Tapia would include: (1) maintain current conditions of rock art and other cultural and natural 

features; and (2) maintain existing environmental conditions and promote awareness of and 

provide recreational use of unique visual values. 

3.18.4.3.8 El Malpais (305,400acres) RMP/EIS Completed September 2001

The Albuquerque Field Office has prepared a “stand-alone plan” – the El Malpais Plan – to 

consolidate the RMP amendment decisions and activities as they relate to El Malpais National 

Conservation Area (NCA). The El Malpais lies south of the city of Grants, New Mexico, 

primarily in Cibola County. The Plan Area encompasses approximately 266,100 acres of 

Federal land, 36,800 acres of private land, and 2,500 of Indian land. 

3.18.4.3.9 Elk Springs (10,300 Acres)

The Elk Springs ACEC is located in Sandoval County, approximately 65 miles northwest of 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. Access to the ACEC is available from New Mexico State Highway 

44 and several dirt roads leading to northern, central, and southern portions of the area. Several 

miles of road leading to the northern and central parts of Elk Springs cross private land. The 

topography of the ACEC is characterized by mesa tops with steep rocky sides and rimrock cut by 

narrow drainages and valleys. Elevations range to 8,000 feet. The ACEC is bounded on the east 

by the steep cliffs and rocky slopes of the Nacimiento Mountains, which also form the western 

boundary of the Santa Fe National Forest. The Jemez Indian Reservation lies just south of the 

ACEC, and the Rio Puerco is located about one and one-half miles west of the area. The 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-102

adjacent land to the north of the ACEC is privately owned. Vegetation is characterized by types 

typical of piñon-juniper woodlands and sagebrush-dominated valleys. Key forage species for 

livestock and wildlife include mountain mahogany, Gambel’s oak, four-wing saltbush, big

sagebrush, western wheatgrass, mutton bluegrass, alkali sacaton, bottlebrush squirrel-tail, and 

Indian ricegrass. The management goals of the Elk Springs ACEC continue to be providing

quality winter range for the Jemez elk and deer herds by providing optimal cover and forage, 

thus alleviating big game depredations on adjacent private lands.

3.18.4.3.10 Guadalupe Ruin and Community (487 acres)

Guadalupe Ruin is a single-story masonry 10th – 13th century pueblo situated on an isolated 

sandstone mesa rising nearly 200 feet above the valley floor and isolated by sheer walls on all 

sides. The ruin consists of at least 39 rectangular rooms and 7 kivas. Archaeological 

investigations conducted in the 1970s suggest that the site was originally built as a Chacoan 

Outlier, but was reoccupied in the late 13th century by immigrants from the Mesa Verde area. 

The surrounding community consists of 157 recorded sites. Curiously, most outliers are situated 

at locations generally north, west, and south of Chaco Canyon, while Guadalupe stands out 

nearly alone in its eastern placement in the Chaco world and may have been positioned to take 

advantage and possibly control a migration and trade route between the San Juan Basin and the 

Rio Grande. Guadalupe Ruin is one of the Chaco Outliers protected under PL 96-550 and is 

recognized as one of the earliest firmly dated Chaco Outliers. This site has been excavated and 

some of the masonry walls stabilized, including two kivas which also have protective roofs over 

them to protect them while leaving them open for public visitation. These special qualities rate 

the site as for Importance (I-2, I-2) and Relevance (R-1).

3.18.4.3.11 Headcut Prehistoric Community SMA (2,274 acres)

The Headcut Prehistoric Community SMA contains a prehistoric Pueblo II-III community with a 

large isolated kiva, at least five major pueblos ranging in size from 45 to 100 rooms, and 

numerous smaller sites. This site is likely a Chacoan outlier. The Headcut Prehistoric 

Community SMA did not meet the ACEC relevance and importance criteria, but will be 

managed as a Cultural Resource Area to protect and preserve the significant cultural resources in 

this area.

3.18.4.3.12 Historic Homesteads SMA (16 acres)

This SMA consists of nine historic log cabin sites scattered through the northern portion of the 

planning area. These cabins were constructed between 1900 and 1940. RPFO staff did not find 

that the Historic Homesteads SMA met ACEC relevance and importance criteria. In addition, 

cultural resource staff at RPFO determined that the small size of each homestead site (10 acres or 

less) would be adequately protected by standard cultural resource survey techniques. 

3.18.4.3.13 Ignacio Chavez ACEC (43,182 acres)

The Ignacio Chavez ACEC is located approximately 25 miles west of San Ysidro, New Mexico,

in Sandoval and McKinley counties. The ACEC has a variety of landforms, including mesas, 

cuestas, rock terraces, canyons, basalt plains, cinder cones, and talus slopes. The proximity of 

these landforms to one another creates a striking landscape and gives the area a high scenic 

quality. The habitat in the Ignacio Chavez ACEC is a mix of piñon-juniper woodland, ponderosa 

pine with oak understory, and open grasslands. The ACEC provides excellent habitat for many
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-103

wildlife and plant species. Because of these scenic and wildlife values, the Ignacio Chavez 

ACEC meets the relevance (R-2) and importance (I-2) criteria. 

3.18.4.3.14 Jones Canyon ACEC (649 acres)

Nationally significant cultural resources are present in Jones Canyon ACEC. Most notably, the 

large prehistoric Pueblo II-III, with nearly 200 rooms and numerous other prehistoric dwellings 

present in the area. As such, Jones Canyon ACEC continues to meet the relevance (R-1) and 

importance (I-1, I-2) criteria. An additional 320 acres adjacent to the existing ACEC also possess 

these relevance and importance criteria and would be included in the ACEC under some 

alternatives. 

3.18.4.3.15 Ojito (13,657 acres)

The Ojito ACEC consists of 13,657 acres. The BLM administers 11,697 acres of the surface 

estate, 1,600 acres belong to the State, and 360 are privately owned. The Ojito ACEC is located 

in west-central Sandoval County approximately 40 air miles northwest of Albuquerque and 6 

miles west of San Ysidro. The Ojito ACEC is located in a rather special setting in that it is 

situated at the intersection of the Navajo and Datil sections of the Colorado Plateau 

physiographic province, and the southern terminus of the Southern Rocky Mountains 

physiographic province. Expressions of these physiographic subdivisions which occur in and 

around the Ojito ACED include lava flows, volcanic necks and plugs, cuestas, fault block 

mountains, desert plains, and canyoned plateaus.

3.18.4.3.16 Pelon Watershed SMA (858 acres)

The Pelon Watershed SMA is one of three Watershed Study Areas that were part of the Rio 

Puerco Hydrology Study. The objectives of the study was to monitor hydrologic responses to the 

Rio Puerco grazing management programs, which was achieved by allowing grazing in the 

watershed study areas but excluding all other surface disturbing activities. The watershed study 

ended in 2004, so the management actions associated with the Watershed Study Area are no 

longer necessary. 

3.18.4.3.17 Petaca Pinta (13,789 acres)

The area is a Wilderness Study Area and has unique geological formations. Because of these 

values, the area meets relevance (R-1, R-2, R-3) and importance (I-3,I-4). 

3.18.4.3.18 Pronoun Cave Complex (1,194 acres)

The travertine deposit housing these caves is proposed to be some of the most unusual in the 

world, (Forbes, 1993). Entering the caves is equated to entering the throat of an extinct

travertine-depositing spring. In addition, paleontolgic resources are abundant within the caves 

and have been used for paleoclimate reconstruction. Given the well preserved spring vent 

depositional environment, hydrologic interaction between the lower San Andres limestones, and 

extensive paleontological resources, this are rate Relevance (R-30) and Importance (I-1, I-2).

3.18.4.3.19 San Luis Mesa Raptor Area ACEC (10,447 acres)

The San Luis Mesa Raptor Area ACEC consists of about 20 miles of sandstone bluffs about 100 

to 200 feet high. The geologic values associated with these bluffs are exemplary exposure of 

Mancos Shale and Point Lookout Sandstone outcrops, with implications for paleographical

reconstruction. Ledges carved in the bluff by wind erosion form excellent raptor nest sites, and
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-104

numerous raptor species have been observed nesting there. Because of these wildlife and 

geologic values, the San Luis Mesa Raptor Area meets relevance (R-2, R-3, R-4) and importance 

(I-1, I-2, I-3) criteria. 

3.18.4.3.20 Tent Rocks (11,743 acres)

Located in north-central New Mexico in the foothills of the Jemez Mountains on the Pajarito 

Plateau, the Kasha-Katuwe Tents Rocks National Monument is in Sandoval County. The 

Monument was designated by Presidential Proclamation 7394 on January 17, 2001. With a 

standalone plan, existing actions, decisions, and guidelines under which the ACEC have been 

managed have effectively met public needs and /or resolved issues; thus, the BLM will continue 

to use them as specified in the Final Protection Plan for Tent Rocks.

3.18.4.3.21 Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC (2,981 acres)

This area, located near the head of Torreon Wash, is a major collecting area for fossil mammals. 

Wood et al (1941) formally defined this area as the type locality for the Torreon Fauna. A type 

locality is an important paleontological feature in that it represents the place at which a fossil 

assemblage is typically displayed and from which it derives its name. Type specimens of the 

Torreon Fauna were originally recognized and described from this locale. Thus, the area 

represents a unique and irreplaceable resource. Because of these important paleontological 

resources, this area meets the relevance (R-1, R-3) and importance (I-1, I-2, I-3) criteria. 

3.19 Special Status Species

Suitable habitat is the prerequisite for the presence and continued existence of special status 

species. Furthermore, the condition and health of habitats are associated with the potential for 

presence and maintenance of special status species in that particular habitat. Therefore, the 

condition of the environment is one indicator of the condition and/or viability of special status 

species. Another indicator of this condition is the trend that can be seen in the actual presence or 

occupancy of special status species, as measured by survey and monitoring efforts. 

The RPFO maintains a Special Status Species List that contains both federally protected species 

as well as BLM sensitive species. Many species listed by the New Mexico Department of Game 

and Fish are contained in this list as well. Monitoring for many special status species has been 

ongoing since the 1986 RMP. However, many data gaps exist due to budget and staffing 

constraints throughout the years. The following description of the current conditions of Special 

Status Species within the RPFO was ascertained from the current available data within the field 

office as well as outside data sources. 

The following table represents the federally endangered, threatened, and proposed species that 

occur within the affected environment. 

Table 3.23: Federally Protected Species In Planning And Decision Areas

Species Status County Occurrence

Occurs in 

Planning 

Area

Occurs in 

Decision 

Area

Black-footed ferret, 

Mustela nigripes Endangered Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, Sandoval, No No
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-105

Species Status County Occurrence

Occurs in 

Planning 

Area

Occurs in 

Decision 

Area

Torrance, Valencia

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher, Empidonax 

traillii extimus

Endangered

Bernalillo, Cibola, 

McKinley, Sandoval, 

Valencia

Yes Yes

Rio Grande silvery 

minnow, 

Hybognathus amarus

Endangered Bernalillo, Sandoval, 

Valencia Yes No

Mexican spotted owl, 

Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened

Bernalillo, Cibola, 

McKinley, Sandoval, 

Torrance, Valencia

Yes No

Pecos sunflower, 

Helianthus paradoxus Threatened Cibola Yes No

Zuni fleabane, 

Erigeron rhizomatus Threatened Cibola, McKinley Yes No

Mountain plover, 

Charadrius montanus Proposed

Bernalillo, Cibola, 

McKinley, Sandoval, 

Torrance, Valencia

Yes Yes

The current condition of federally listed special status species within the planning area is best 

described by analyzing the availability and health of critical habitat based on defined key habitat 

types. For federally listed species, designation of critical habitat is used. Critical habitat for 

Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus 

amarus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and Pecos sunflower 

(Helianthus paradoxus) exists within the planning area, but no critical habitat exists within the 

decision area. Out of these four species, suitable habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher 

occurs within the decision area. 

According to current RPFO data, the only federally listed species known to occur within the 

Planning Area is the Southwestern willow flycatcher. The RPFO contains habitat that may 

support the Mexican spotted owl, but higher densities of this species are more likely found in 

higher elevation mixed conifer forests. No data suggests the RPFO supports the Rio Grande 

silvery minnow or the Pecos sunflower. However, these habitats may be considered part of the 

affected environment as management decisions within the planning area may have the potential 

to affect these species populations that are outside the planning area. For example, the Rio 

Puerco feeds into a segment of the Rio Grande River that contains designated critical habitat for 

the southwest willow flycatcher and the Rio Grande silvery minnow, therefore decisions made 

affecting the condition of the Rio Puerco have the potential to affect this critical habitat.

3.19.1 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

The RPFO has conducted annual surveys for the flycatcher in multiple locations throughout the 

field office where it has been positively identified, and seven other riparian sites are monitored 

annually for all breeding birds. The three sites that have been most consistently monitored for 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-106

SWFL are Bluewater Canyon (south of Bluewater, NM), Lost Valley (north of Cabezon Peak) 

and San Ysidro (on southern edge of San Ysidro, NM). From 1996 to 2009, the occurrence of 

SWFL at Bluewater and Lost Valley appears to be in a downward trend according to survey data 

taken throughout those years (r2=0.01 for Bluewater, r2=0.2 for Lost Valley). The only site that 

appears to have an upward trend in occurrence is San Ysidro (r2=0.1). The goodness-of-fit 

values, as measured by r2, indicate that although we can see a general upward or downward 

trend, none of the data is significantly conclusive of the trend of this species in each site 

surveyed. However, since the southwestern willow flycatcher is a riparian obligate species, we 

can look to the current condition of riparian areas in the RPFO to indicate trends in the habitat of 

this endangered species. 

Riparian/wetland areas represent important migratory bird flyways and nesting areas for 

threatened and endangered species and have been found to contain large populations of bird 

species in desert areas (USDA 2005). Riparian-wetland areas in the RPFO traverse portions of 

public, state, tribal, and private land, and therefore not all habitats have been completely mapped 

and studied. Out of all inventoried/assessed riparian areas, eight are at proper functioning 

condition, eleven are functioning at risk, and four are non-functional. Currently, the RPFO is 

actively involved in riparian restoration projects that include physical reconstruction of 

hydrologic flow, re-vegetation, exclusion of livestock and others. Many of these projects include 

the objective of recovery of the southwestern willow flycatcher. Threats to their habitat include,

but are not limited to: recreation, livestock grazing, agricultural development, water diversion 

and impoundment, and mineral development. Riparian habitat is discussed in detail in Section 

3.1.14.

The general condition for southwestern willow flycatcher habitat in the RPFO is in an upward 

trend. However, many threats to the species’ habitat from multiple land uses remain present, and 

there is still a great need to continue with restoration projects to improve this habitat for riparian

obligates such as the flycatcher as well as other southwestern species dependent on the rare oases 

these habitats provide in the desert southwest.

3.19.2 Black-footed Ferret

The other federally listed endangered species that warrants discussion is the black-footed ferret 

(Mustela nigripes). This species is considered extirpated in the state of New Mexico 

(Natureserve). However, opportunities exist to implement certain measures of the Black-footed 

Ferret Recovery Plan (USFWS, 1988) involving enhancement of prairie dog colonies/complexes. 

Currently, the El Malpais Plan (BLM/NM/PL-01-007-1610) designates the historic location of 

the largest known prairie dog colony within the RPFO as a prairie dog colony enhancement area. 

This effort was initiated to benefit two local special status species, the burrowing owl and the 

mountain plover. However, if the colony can be expanded to the appropriate size and density, it 

will be a potential release site for an experimental population of the endangered black-footed 

ferret. 

The RPFO is actively augmenting this population of Gunnison’s prairie dog. Based on ongoing 

monitoring and surveys, if this effort is successful at expanding the colony, it would pave the 

way for future augmentation projects within the RPFO RMP decision area. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-107

3.19.3 RPFO Sensitive Species

In addition to management of federally listed threatened, endangered, and proposed species, the 

RPFO also maintains a list of bureau sensitive species which includes rare plants. This list is 

below.

Table 3.24: RPFO Sensitive Species in the Decision Area

Species Status County Occurrence

Millipede, 

Totecus chihuanus

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Arthropod)

Bernalillo

Ferruginous Hawk, 

Buteo regalis

RPFO Bureau Sensitive (Bird) Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, 

Sandoval, Torrance, Valencia

Northern Goshawk, 

Accipiter gentilis

RPFO Bureau Sensitive (Bird) Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, 

Sandoval, Torrance, Valencia

Mountain Plover, 

Charadrius montanus 

RPFO Bureau Sensitive (Bird) Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, 

Sandoval, Torrance, Valencia

Black Tern, 

Chlidonias niger

RPFO Bureau Sensitive (Bird) Bernalillo, McKinley, 

Torrance

White-faced Ibis, 

Plegadis chihi

RPFO Bureau Sensitive (Bird) Bernalillo, McKinley, 

Sandoval, Valencia

Western Burrowing Owl, 

Athene cunicularia hypugea

RPFO Bureau Sensitive (Bird) Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, 

Sandoval, Torrance, Valencia

Loggerhead Shrike, 

Lanius ludovicianus

RPFO Bureau Sensitive (Bird) Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, 

Sandoval, Torrance, Valencia

Gray vireo, 

Vireo vicinior

RPFO Bureau Sensitive (Bird) Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, 

Sandoval

Baird's Sparrow, 

Ammodramus bairdii

RPFO Bureau Sensitive (Bird) Bernalillo, Sandoval, 

Torrance, Valencia

Flathead chub, 

Platygobio (Hybopsis) gracilis

RPFO Bureau Sensitive (Fish) Bernalillo, Sandoval, Valencia

Zuni bluehead sucker, 

Catostomus discobolus 

yarrowi

RPFO Bureau Sensitive (Fish) Cibola, McKinley

Cebolleta southern pocket 

gopher, 

Thomomys umbrinus paquatae

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Mammal)

Cibola

New Mexican jumping mouse, 

Zapus hudsonius luteus

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Mammal)

Bernalillo, Sandoval, Valencia

Pecos River muskrat, 

Ondatra zibethicus ripensis

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Mammal)

Valencia

Fringed myotis, 

Myotis thysanodes

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Mammal)

Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, 

Sandoval, Torrance, Valencia

Long-eared myotis, 

Myotis evotis

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Mammal)

Cibola, McKinley, Sandoval, 

Valencia

Long-legged myotis, 

Myotis volans

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Mammal)

Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, 

Sandoval, Torrance, Valencia
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-108

Species Status County Occurrence

Occult myotis, 

Myotis occultus (check on 

latest)

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Mammal)

Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, 

Sandoval

Small-footed myotis, 

Myotis ciliolabrum 

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Mammal)

Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, 

Sandoval, Torrance, Valencia

Yuma myotis, 

Myotis yumanensis 

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Mammal)

Bernalillo, Cibola, Sandoval, 

Valencia

Pale Townsend's big-eared bat, 

Corynorhinus townsendii 

pallescens

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Mammal)

Bernalillo, Cibola, Sandoval

Spotted bat, 

Euderma maculatum

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Mammal)

Bernalillo, Cibola, Sandoval, 

Valencia

Big free-tailed bat, 

Nyctinomops macrotis

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Mammal)

Bernalillo, Cibola, Sandoval, 

Valencia

Acoma fleabane, 

Erigeron acomanus

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Plant)

Cibola, McKinley

Cinder phacelia, 

Phacelia serrata

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Plant)

Cibola

Grama grass cactus, 

Sclerocactus papyracanthus

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Plant)

All

Gypsum townsendia, 

Townsendia gypsophila

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Plant)

Sandoval

Knight's milk-vetch, 

Astragalus knightii

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Plant)

Sandoval

New Mexico spiny milkvetch, 

Astragalus kentrophyta var. 

neomexicana

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Plant)

McKinley, Sandoval

Santa Fe Milkvetch, 

Astragalus feensis

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Plant)

Bernalillo, Sandoval, Torrance

Sivinski's fleabane, 

Erigeron sivinskii

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Plant)

McKinley

Tufted evening primrose, 

Oenothera caespitosa

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Plant)

Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, 

Sandoval, Torrance, Valencia

Tufted sand verbena, Abronia 

bigelovii

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Plant)

Sandoval

Wright’s nipple cactus, 

Mammillaria wrightii

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Plant)

Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, 

Sandoval, Torrance, Valencia

Texas horned lizard, 

Phrynosoma cornutum

RPFO Bureau Sensitive 

(Reptile)

Cibola, Torrance

Currently, the RPFO maintains little data on the previously mentioned RPFO bureau sensitive 

animal species. One-time surveys have been conducted for few of them, and there are no 

monitoring programs in place for any of them. The majority of bureau sensitive species include 

bats, birds, and plants. A survey in 1998 documented thirteen bat species, many of which are 

special status species, in five sites. Two riparian sites (Rio Salado Marsh and Bluewater 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-109

Canyon), two piñon-juniper sites (Canyon Jarido and Pronoun Caves), and one site with 

characteristics of both riparian and piñon-juniper habitat types (Cebolla Canyon) were surveyed, 

and the following species were identified: Pallid bat, Townsend’s Big-eared bat, Big brown bat, 

California myotis, Western small-footed Myotis, Long-eared myotis, Little brown bat, Fringed 

myotis, Long-legged myotis, Yuma myotis and Spotted bat. A roost of Townsend’s big-eared 

bat was located at Pronoun Caves. The caves also provide important winter hibernacula for bat 

species. 

Although the 1986 RPFO RMP designated Pronoun Caves as a SMA for protection of resources, 

the area the SMA covers currently has mining claims on it. There are large travertine deposits in 

the area and two active mines within one mile of the caves. It is likely that these mining 

activities are having a negative effect on bats utilizing the Pronoun Caves due to their close 

proximity and the noise/ground disturbance they produce. 

Sensitive bird species in the RPFO occupy a variety of habitats including piñon-juniper, desert 

scrub, riparian/wetlands, and grassland savannahs. The main habitat type that most birds in the 

desert southwest gravitate toward is riparian/wetland due to its ability to provide food, water, 

shelter and nesting substrate. Riparian restoration is one common objective of the Wildlife, 

Riparian and Special Status Species program goals in the RPFO. Annual breeding bird 

monitoring in riparian/wetland areas is ongoing. Current threats to special status bird species 

include landscape level mechanical and chemical treatments of sagebrush and piñon-juniper 

encroached grasslands, livestock grazing in riparian areas and the invasion of noxious weeds in 

all native habitats. 

Management of special status species in the RPFO is often done through the designation and 

protection of Special Management Areas (SMAs) and ACECs. Currently, the RPFO manages 

four ACECs for the protection of rare plants. These areas include: Cabezon Peak ACEC

(Abronia bigelovii, Astragalus knightii, Mammillaria wrightii and Sclerocactus papyracantha);

Cañon Tapia ACEC ( Astragalus knightii); Espinosa Ridge ACEC (formerly Ball Ranch ACEC) 

( Astragalus feensis, Astragalus kentrophyta var. neomexicana, Oenothera caespitosa spp. 

navajoensis, Sclerocactus papyracantha (synonymous with genera Toumeya and Pediocactus) 

(Abronia bigelovii); Ignacio Chavez Grant SMA (Sclerocactus papyracantha, Mammillaria 

wrightii, and Corypantha missouriensis); and Ojito ACEC (Scerocactus papyracantha and 

Astragalus knightii). Surveys were conducted (anywhere from 5-20 years ago) to determine the 

extent of the populations, however, regular monitoring programs are not in place, and it is 

difficult to determine the trends of these species and their occupied habitat. There are few to no 

projects that protect sensitive plant species from resource uses in the RPFO. 

Threats likely to be affecting special status plant species on the RPFO include recreation uses 

such as motorized and non-motorized OHV use, special recreation events, recreational visitors 

leaving authorized roads and trails, trampling due to livestock grazing, habitat loss due to the 

creation of roads, trails, rights of way, mineral development facilities, and any other surface 

disturbing activities that occur within the RPFO. 

3.19.4 Migratory Birds

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) implements various treaties and conventions between the 

U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-110

birds. Under the Act, taking, killing or possessing migratory birds is unlawful. Over 800 species 

are covered under the treaty. The RPFO protects migratory birds by designating ACECs, 

protecting riparian areas, and implementing best management practices and mitigation during all 

construction and project activities (analyzed through NEPA). Three areas that are protected for 

raptors specifically are San Luis Mesa Raptor ACEC, Cabezon Peak ACEC, and Cañon Tapia 

ACEC. Protection of these areas includes protection of prairie dog towns adjacent to suitable 

nesting habitat for prey base. In the 1986 RMP, one management objective for San Luis Mesa 

Raptor ACEC was to alter livestock grazing patterns within the ACEC and surrounding 

allotments to improve raptor prey base. However, management prescriptions to accomplish this 

objective were never implemented, and reports of raptor numbers in the ACEC have been lower 

than expected. 

The main threats to migratory birds in the RPFO are depletion of water resources and 

riparian/wetland areas, mineral development and construction activities during the nesting season 

and habitat loss, specifically to nesting areas and migratory bird flyovers/migration corridors. 

3.20 Travel Management

The existing RMP does address OHV (formerly known as off-road vehicle, or ORV) 

designations, but does not include access and transportation program issues throughout the 

Planning Area. These designations will not be covered in this section. A formal transportation 

plan was scheduled for 1987, but was not completed due to inadequate staffing and funding. As 

a result, only minimal information is known about the transportation network for the Planning 

Area. No documentation was found on the current goals, objectives, or actions taken in regards 

to transportation and access. There are twenty-nine roads and fifteen trails currently tracked in 

the BLM FAMS for the RPFO. The FAMS database is the official repository of current 

information on the BLM’s transportation systems.

The Rio Puerco Field Office used the BLM Facility Inventory System to manage and maintain 

their roads and trails up until 2002 when the Bureau switched over to FAMS. There are 

currently twenty-eight roads and one primitive road tracked in the Planning Area. Two of the 

twenty-nine are located in Cibola and southeast McKinley Counties and the rest are located in 

Sandoval County. In addition, the BLM has sixty-seven existing road ROWs in the Planning 

Area. Each of the roads listed below are traveled by a variety of users, including BLM 

personnel, hunters, recreationists, and ranchers. 

The RPFO currently tracks fifteen trails in FAMS. These trails have never been formally 

condition assessed, and minimal information is known about the current condition of the trails. 

These trails are maintained through a combination of annual maintenance funding, recreation 

funding, and volunteer support.

In the 1986 RMP, the RPFO delineated twenty-three SMAs. These areas were analyzed and 

planned actions were made on how each area would be classified. Classifications include open, 

limited, or closed to motorized travel. 

There has been a noticeable deterioration of the roads listed above. County maintenance of BLM 

roads has increased, but still does not account for all of the roads listed above. Trails have seen 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-111

minimal maintenance, with the focus being on maintaining recreational sites; not much 

maintenance has been achieved due to lack of funding. 

There is also a large portion of linear features within the Rio Puerco Management Area that may 

qualify as roads, primitive roads, and trails that has yet to be assessed. Once the Transportation 

Plan has been completed for the RPFO, the number of roads, primitive roads and trails being 

tracked in FAMS will increase. Current maintenance funding will continue to be inadequate as it 

will be spread across more linear features. With an increase of annual maintenance that was not 

performed when it was scheduled or was delayed for a future period then increases the DM need. 

The RPFO has five road projects identified in the DM 5-Year Plan for 2009-2013 (Table 3-26). 

The total deferred maintenance cost for these assets is $4,930,000. 

Table 3.25: Identified Road Projects for 2009–2013

Project Title (PDS)

Includes Asset 

in Quadrant 2? 

DOI Ranking 

Score

Deferred 

Maintenance

Capital 

Improvements

Total 

Investment

Projected Year 

in 5-year Plan

Ignacio Chavez Road No 530 $1,703,00

0 

$0 $1,703,000 2010

Cebolla Canyon Road No 490 $1,547,00

0 

$0 $1,547,000 2010

Chiuilla Road 

Reconstruction

Yes 460 $1,155,00

0 

$0 $1,155,000 2011

Starveout Canyon Road 

Reconstruction

No 400 $210,000 $0 $210,000 2013

Ojo Hallado Road 

Reconstruction

No 400 $315,000 $0 $315,000 2013

As the population in the Planning Area continues to grow, so does the demand for access to 

public lands. Sandoval County currently holds the highest volume of BLM roads in the Planning 

Area. With the population growth in the city of Rio Rancho, development will continue to

increase and encroach upon BLM-administered lands located within Sandoval County, which is 

a high use area. The maintenance on these roads, primitive roads, and trails that provide public 

land access also increases while funding to accomplish the maintenance decreases annually. 

Funding will play a vital role in the classification of the road as open, limited use, or closed.

The growing populations in urban areas such as Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, and Los Lunas may 

demand additional access to BLM-administered lands.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-112

The checkerboard surface ownership pattern allows private entities to block access to some 

BLM-administered lands. Legal access has the potential to be illegally gated by private 

landowners or permittees. Areas where access may be an issue extend throughout the Planning 

Area, and are not necessarily concentrated within a particular geographic area.

Route inventories have been completed for ACECs and WSAs in the Planning Area. Designating 

routes in portions of the Decision Area as open or closed will assist BLM in managing 

transportation and access within and to these areas.

Open, limited, and closed designations should be evaluated to ensure that resources or resource 

uses that are sensitive to motorized travel have been adequately protected. OHV designations 

will also assist BLM in managing recreation-related transportation.

3.21 Vegetative Communities 

3.21.1 Community Characterization Background

The information used to characterize current conditions within Bernalillo, Cibola, Sandoval, 

Valencia, Torrance, and McKinley counties was obtained from the following four information 

sources: 1) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Level III Ecoregions descriptions; 2) NRCS 

Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) descriptions; 3) ecological site descriptions (USDA 

NRCS), and 4) land cover information derived from the SWReGAP) data (USDI USGS). 

Ecological regions or ecoregions are designed to serve as a spatial framework for environmental 

resource management; ecoregions denote areas within which ecosystems (type, quality, and 

quantity of environmental resources) are generally similar. 

The MLRAs provide a coarse-scale description of the vegetation and habitat found within the 

Planning Area; this information – presented below – has been excerpted from the New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines (USDI BLM 2001a). Ecological site descriptions provide more 

detailed information on vegetation within the MLRAs (based on a general association of these 

two datasets). 

The Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) data has been aggregated using the 

National Landcover Dataset Classification (NLDC) system (USDI USGS 2004a, b), developed 

in collaboration with NatureServe (2003) to represent the U.S. National Vegetation 

Classification system (USNVC). The NLDC system combines finer-scale units defined by the 

USNVC to provide the basis for interpreting coarse scale ecological systems more practically. 

The USNVC categories are further combined into Natural Land Cover Types (NLCT) for coarsescale analysis, for which NLDC Classifications would be impractical. The following discussion 

integrates these data sets in order to most accurately describe the current condition and trend of 

vegetation, as they relate to both the Planning Area and Decision Area.

3.21.2 EPA Level III Ecoregions

Ecological regions or ecoregions are identified through the analysis of the patterns and the 

composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in ecosystem 

quality and integrity (Wiken 1986; Omernik 1987, 1995). These phenomena include geology, 

physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-113

importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another regardless of the 

hierarchical level. Because of possible confusion with other meanings of terms for different 

levels of ecological regions, a Roman numeral classification scheme has been adopted for this 

effort. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into fifteen ecological regions, 

whereas at Level II the continent is subdivided into fifty-two classes (CEC 1997). For portions 

of the United States, the ecoregions have been further subdivided to Level IV. The applications 

of the ecoregions are explained in Gallant et al. (1989). Level III Ecoregions and estimated 

BLM acres within each are identified in the table below. Descriptions of each ecoregion within 

the planning area can be found at (http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions.htm).

Table 3.26: Ecoregions in the Decision Area

Ecoregion BLM Acres

Arizona/New Mexico Mountains 63,406

Arizona/New Mexico Plateau 668,937

Southern Rockies 10,095

Southwestern Tablelands 14,669

3.21.3 Major Land Resource Areas

MLRAs found within the Planning Area classify nearly homogeneous areas in terms of land use, 

elevation, topography, climate, water resources, potential natural vegetation, and soils. These 

coarse-scale descriptions of the Planning Area are based upon aggregations of geographically 

associated areas derived from New Mexico State soil geographic database map unit boundaries, 

and include the known plant community types that could potentially occur. Information specific 

to each MLRA including; physiography, geology, climate, water, soils, biology, and land use can 

be found in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296 (USDA NRCS). Each MLRA is 

broken down further into Land Resource Units:

Land resource units (LRUs) are the basic units from which major land resource areas (MLRAs) 

are determined. They are also the basic units for State land resource maps. They are typically 

coextensive with State general soil map units, but some general soil map units are subdivided 

into land resource units because of significant geographic differences in climate, water resources, 

or land use. (USDA NRCS)

The Planning Area is classified within six MLRAs, and 10 LRUs as described by the USDA 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) shown in the table below. The MLRAs 

and LRUs are broken down by county within the Planning Area in Table 3.27 below.

Table 3.27: MLRAS and LRUS in the Planning Area

MLRA LRU

35) Colorado Plateau 35.1 Colorado Plateau Mixed Grass Plains

35.3 Colorado Plateau Sagebrush-Grasslands

35.6 Colorado Plateau Piñon-Juniper-Sagebrush

35.7 Colorado Plateau Piñon-Juniper

35.8 Colorado Plateau Ponderosa Pine Forest

36) Southwest Plateaus, Mesas, and 

Foothills

36.2 Southwestern Plateaus, Mesas, and Foothills, 

Warm Semiarid Mesas and Plateaus
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-114

MLRA LRU

39) Arizona and New Mexico Mountains 39.2 Central New Mexico Mountains

42) Southern Desertic Basins, Plains, and 

Mountains

42.1 Upper Rio Grande Rift Valley

48) Southern Rocky Mountains 48A.1 Southern Rocky Mountains-High 

Mountains and Valleys

70C) Central New Mexico Highlands 70C.1 Central New Mexico Highlands

Table 3.28: LRUs by County Within the Planning Area

MLRA

*LRU by County

McKinley Cibola Valencia Bernalillo Sandoval Torranc

e

35 35.1, 35.6, 

35.7, 35.8

35.1, 35.6, 

35.7, 35.8 35.7 35.1 35.3, 35.1, 35.8

36 36.2

39 39.2 39.2 39.2 39.2

42 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1

48 48A.1

70C 70C.1 70C.1 70C.1

*Units provided include RPFO lands outside of the decision area.

LRUs are broken down further into ecological site descriptions (ESD; USDA NRCS). An 

ecological site, as defined for rangeland, is a “distinctive kind of land with specific physical 

characteristics that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and 

amount of vegetation” (NRCS 2003). A large number of ESDs occur within the Planning Area

and can be found in the NRCS Field Office Technical Guide on line at: 

http://www.nm.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/fotg/section-2/esd.html. State and Transition Models 

associated with ecological sites specify indicators of ecological resilience and thresholds. 

Ecological sites are currently being updated to include state and transition models in the state of 

New Mexico. The BLM uses state and transition models as guides to manage vegetative 

communities in a manner that will result in a stable or desired state.

3.21.4 Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project

While the MLRA model uses a soils-based approach to identify and describe potential vegetative 

communities and habitat, the SWReGAP model uses canopy cover and reflectance values in a 

vegetation-based approach to map and assess current vegetative communities (USDI USGS). 

The SWReGAP data set emphasizes the vegetative communities more than the MLRA data set 

and provides greater detail describing the different plant communities. SWReGAP data is 

available online at: http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/.

3.21.5 Riparian

Riparian and wetland areas within the Planning Area were identified in the Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitat Management Plan (USDI BLM 2000). The purpose of the plan is to provide guidance for 

the restoration and protection of riparian habitats under the jurisdiction of the RPFO. Standard 3

of New Mexico Standards and Guidelines also addresses the riparian health standards. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-115

Native species such as cottonwoods and willows have been replaced by exotic invaders such as 

saltcedar and Russian olive. Only fragmented stands of cottonwoods/willows are now found 

along streambanks.

In the riparian-wetland ecosystem, there are certain plants or organisms that are more important 

than others and are considered dominant species. In the Rio Puerco basin, the Fremont 

cottonwood should be dominant and form the main tree canopy in the riparian zone. Beneath the 

cottonwoods, a shrubby layer of willows should develop and below the willows an herbaceous 

layer of rushes, sedges, grasses, and other riparian plants should occur at the water’s edge. 

Emergent or aquatic plants such as bullrushes or cattails should be evident in slow water or 

marshy areas. This layering of vegetation is referred to as stratification. This structural layering 

should also contain diverse age classes.

Among other factors, a proper functioning riverine riparian area should have bank vegetation, 

with root masses capable of withstanding high stream flow events. This vegetation should 

protect stream banks and dissipate energy. 

Riparian and wetland resources are discussed further within their own section in this chapter.

3.21.6 Noxious and Invasive Species

The establishment and spread of invasive species can directly affect vegetation by increasing the 

overall competition with native species for limited resources (e.g., water, nutrients, space), 

limiting the capacity of native or desirable communities to reestablish. Over time, invasive 

species also can alter the structural and functional components of a system (e.g., soil 

structure/function, hydrologic function, fire return intervals, energy flow) severely enough that 

reestablishment of native or desirable species is not feasible (Barbour et al. 1999; West 1993).

Noxious weeds are non-native plants that have been designated noxious by state law because of 

their potential harm to the state economy, generally associated with agriculture and livestock. 

Under the Noxious Weed Act of 1963 noxious weeds are identified as, “any species of plant, 

which is liable to be detrimental or destructive, and difficult to control or eradicate.” Common 

locations for noxious weed infestations in the Planning Area include roadsides and areas that are 

highly disturbed or degraded.

Appendix K lists the noxious weeds that have been identified as occurring on lands within the 

boundaries of the RPFO. The 2009 New Mexico Noxious Weed List can also be found in 

Appendix K. This list is updated as new infestations are discovered and/or eradicated. 

In addition to the Noxious Weed Prevention Schedule for the RPFO, the Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau 

of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States was released to the public on June 29, 2007. 

To facilitate the implementation of the PEIS, the Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2008-030, 

November 13, 2007, Instructions for Implementing the Final PEIS Record of Decision requires 

the inclusion of Best Management Practices (Appendix B) and Vegetation Treatment Mitigation 

Measures (Appendix C) found in the PEIS to be integrated into RMPs.

The trend for noxious weed abundance and distribution is difficult to assess because some of the

comprehensive data for noxious weed occurrence was collected based on presence/absence, 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-116

providing little abundance data. Noxious weeds continue to expand their distribution by a variety 

of mechanisms, and often the mechanism is associated with human activity and soil disturbance. 

Abundance of most noxious weed species results from their ability to out-compete local native

species for water or other resources. 

The forecast for the noxious weeds in the Planning Area varies by species because of the variety 

of natural strategies each species possesses for survival. In some instances, a plant is relatively 

widespread but responds to management actions to control it if implemented consistently over 

time. Because other species cannot be controlled with current established methods, preventing 

their initial establishment is the only means of managing them.

Based on current weed management for both invasive and noxious species, BLM is likely to 

continue individual and cooperative efforts to inventory the extent and location of existing 

populations, and to control and/or prevent new infestations where possible. As the amount and 

types of human uses increase, so does the potential for the spread and establishment of invasive 

and noxious weed species. Therefore, unless management and control measures are intensified to 

address increased land uses, it is likely that invasive and noxious weed species could proliferate 

throughout the Planning Area. Upon completion of an Integrated Weed Management 

Environmental Assessment, an Early Detection/Rapid Response Program would be implemented 

to treat new weed infestations as they are discovered. All herbicide treatments would be 

conducted in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and mitigating factors as 

listed in the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM-administered lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (see Appendices M and N).

3.21.7 Vegetation Inventories

Five rangeland inventories have been conducted in the Planning Area since 1975. The Rio 

Puerco RMP/EIS range inventory utilized the SCS (now NRCS) range site methodology, as 

directed by BLM Instruction Memoranda WO-83-340 and 83-394 (USDI BLM 1983j and 

1983f). The NRCS inventory was completed on the Section 3 permit lands only. Section 3 

permit lands are public lands within Grazing Districts for which livestock grazing is authorized 

under Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act. These are generally more consolidated blocks of 

public land. The Section 15 leased lands were not inventoried because a decision was made not 

to invest public funds on lands being considered for disposal or having limited potential for 

improved resource condition. Section 15 leased lands are public lands outside Grazing Districts 

for which livestock grazing is authorized under Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act.

The inventory data collected for the Section 3 permit lands were used to calculate an ecological 

condition rating for each allotment. An ecological condition rating is the comparison of the 

current vegetative production to the potential vegetation of a range site (an area possessing the 

capacity to produce a distinct and unique vegetative community), and is expressed as a 

percentage of the potential vegetation. The ecological condition ratings are one criterion used to 

determine the Selective Management Category (Maintain, Improve, or Custodial) for each 

allotment (Appendix E; USDI BLM 1986).

A stocking rate analysis was performed for the Section 15 leased lands to indicate where forage

allocation problems might exist. This analysis involved the comparison of the current stocking 

rates determined from the grazing case files to an estimation of the potential stocking rate for 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-117

each leased area. An assumption was made that all range sites in the leased areas were in high 

fair ecological condition and the stocking rates recommended in the individual NRCS Range Site 

Guides, currently known as Ecological Site Descriptions, were used to represent potential 

stocking for this analysis. The results of the stocking rate comparisons were used as the basis for 

establishing selective management categories for the Section 15 leased lands.

3.21.8 Land Health

Rangeland Health Assessments (RHAs) are completed prior to each permit renewal process. The 

permit renewal process is initiated by a transfer between permittees or every ten years, 

whichever comes first. Yearly RHAs are prioritized by those allotments that have never been 

analyzed with the NEPA process using environmental assessments (EAs). Rangeland Health 

Assessments are based off the BLM and National Science and Technology Center Technical 

Reference, Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (Pellant et. al. 2005). One hundred 

thirty-six allotments have had an initial health assessment conducted from 1999 to 2011. Of the 

one hundred thirty-six assessments, sixty were assessed using the New Mexico Standards and 

Guidelines, (USDI BLM 2001a) both primary and secondary since 2007, with the rest being 

assessed using the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43 CFR 4180.1). Forty of the one 

hundred thirty-six allotments were prescribed with a necessary management change required to 

achieve a sustainable level of public land health that was identified through the RHA / permit 

renewal / EA process. Management changes include but are not limited to vegetation

manipulation projects as well as grazing prescriptions. Appendix F contains a brief description of 

the relationship between the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and the Standards and 

Guidelines.

Several types of vegetation manipulation activities have been administered by the RPFO since 

the completion of the 1986 RMP. Activities affecting trend utilized by the RPFO on a large 

scale include, but are not limited to: herbicide application, prescribed fire, and woodland 

thinning/mastication. Other forms of vegetation manipulation activities performed to a relatively 

minor extent include: rangeland re-seeding, cottonwood pole planting, and sagebrush shaving. 

Herbicide application to Great Basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), saltcedar (Tamarix 

spp.), and piñon /juniper (Pinus edulis/Juniperus monosperma) is summarized by acres treated 

and year of treatment in the table below.

Table 3.29: Acres of Herbicide Application by Year and Species

Year

Acres of Herbicide Application by 

Species

Sagebrush Saltcedar Piñon–Juniper

1988 780 - -

1989 860 - -

1990 550 - -

1991 2,020 - -

1992 - - -

1993 5,538 - -

1994 2,230 - -

1995 6,418 - -
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-118

Year

Acres of Herbicide Application by 

Species

Sagebrush Saltcedar Piñon–Juniper

1996 - 28 -

1997 7,350 132 -

1998 6,970 13 -

1999 - 5 -

2000 10,498 100 -

2001 - 44 -

2002 5,742 - -

2003 1,060 263 -

2004 1,951 - -

2005 - - -

2006 2,510 181 -

2007 810 374 -

2008 1,421 340 7,473

Total 56,708 1,480 7,473

Forecasts of public land health would depend on comprehensive baseline data and good trend 

data over a long period of time, combined with expected weather conditions. A forecast of a 

maintenance or improvement of public land health would require a stable or improving trend, 

properly implemented management actions based on monitoring results and sufficient 

precipitation to allow vegetation to respond after being disturbed. BLM will continue to collect 

monitoring data, similar to historical efforts and in accordance with the Standards and 

Guidelines. This data will be analyzed and used to make management decisions. Future trends in 

vegetation would be dependent on a number of changing environmental variables as well as 

management direction.

3.22 Visual Resources

The BLM is responsible for ensuring that RMPs consider the scenic values of public lands. The 

BLM accomplishes this through the visual resource management (VRM) system that follows the 

management guidelines in BLM Manual Section 8400, Information Bulletin No. 98-135, and 

Instruction Memorandum No. 98-164. The objective of the VRM system is to manage public 

lands in a manner that will preserve the quality of the scenic (visual) values of those lands. 

Three indicators are used to characterize and determine the relative values of the visual resources 

within the Planning Area: 1) landscape scenic quality;2) viewer sensitivity; and 3) distance 

zones. VRM Classes may differ from Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) Classes reflecting visual 

resource management objectives that balance resource allocations decisions with protecting 

visual values. Ensuing projects and resource development would be required to conform to the 

visual resource management class decisions and respective visual management objectives. VRM 

Class conformance is determined through use of the BLM Contrast Rating procedures described 

within BLM Handbook H-8431-1.

The Scenic Quality Evaluation is the first step in the Visual Resource Inventory. Scenic quality 

is a measure of the visual appeal of a tract of land. In the visual resource inventory process, 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-119

public lands are give an A, B, or C rating based on the apparent scenic quality which is 

determined using seven key factors: landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, 

scarcity, and cultural modifications.

Delineation Scenic Quality Rating Units (SQRU’s) is done in the office before the scenic quality 

evaluations are completed. The planning area is subdivided into scenic quality rating units for 

rating purposes. Rating areas are delineated on a basis of: like physiographic characteristics; 

similar visual patterns, texture, color, variety, etc.; and areas which have similar impacts from 

man-made modifications. The size of SQRU's may vary from several thousand acres to 100 or 

less acres, depending on the homogeneity of the landscape features and the detail desired in the 

inventory. The Planning Area had a total of 16 SQRU. These SQRU’s were delineated using 

GIS with the assistance of an ID team. 

The BLM currently authorizes activities on BLM-administered lands that range from vegetation

and habitat improvement projects to large-scale energy, mineral and mining operations, all of 

which have the potential to impact visual resources. The BLM updated a VRI of the Planning 

Area. The results of this inventory to be used to assist in establishing VRM Classes during this 

planning process. See Table 3.30 below.

Table 3.30: Acres of BLM-Administered Lands within Each Visual Resource Inventory Class

VRI Class I VRI Class II VRI Class III VRI Class IV Total

86,590 acres 13,363 acres 330,649 acres 326,472 acres 757,074

3.22.1 Landscape Scenic Quality

While the RPFO is still largely undeveloped, urban sprawl coupled with increased resource 

demand has occurred. VRM in the Planning Area focuses on values and resources existing 

throughout the Planning Area. VRM addresses the visual quality of landscapes and covers views 

of native landscapes and unique areas with high visual quality. All lands have scenic value, but 

areas with the most variety and the most harmonious composition have the greatest scenic value.

Cultural modifications are defined as any human-caused change in the landform, water or 

vegetation, or the addition of a structure that creates a visual contrast when evaluated against the 

basic elements (form, line, color, texture) of the natural character of a landscape (USDI BLM 

1984a). This does not mean that human-made features within a landscape necessarily detract 

from the scenic value: human-made features that complement the natural landscape may enhance 

the scenic value (USDI BLM 1986c). Much of the Planning Area retains its natural visual 

qualities, though numerous landscape modifications exist. The introduction of new structures, or 

other manmade changes, into the landscapes of the Planning Area primarily occur near areas of 

urban and residential development, which are dispersed throughout the Planning Area. Existing 

changes (cultural modifications) in the Planning Area include the following:

Access roads, ranging from highways to two-track roads

Public utilities, including electric transmission lines and distribution lines, and gas, water, 

fiber optic, and telecommunication lines

Agricultural fields, including range improvements

Communication sites, particularly on mountaintops
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-120

Residential, commercial, and industrial development

Recreational development, including picnic areas, parking lots, visitor centers, and trails

Special management areas generally contain areas of high scenic quality. Special designations 

with landscapes of visual interest within the Planning Area include:

Pronoun Caves ACEC

Petaca Pinta SMA and WSA

Azabache Station SMA

Cabezon Peak ACEC, SMA, and WSA

Canyon Jarido SMA

Canyon Tapia SMA and ACEC

Chamisa WSA

Ignacio Chavez SMA and WSA

Elk Springs SMA and ACEC

Empedrado WSA

Historic Homestead SMA

La Lena WSA

Ojito Wilderness Area and ACEC

Pelon Watershed SMA

San Luis Raptor Area ACEC

Tent Rock National Monument (not included in this RMP)

Torreon Fossil Fauna ACEC

Ball Ranch ACEC

Modifications added are generally considered to be of lower scenic quality and hence the visual 

conditions would not be significantly impacted by change. Open space, parks, and recreational 

areas are commonly used within the Planning Area and the landscape characters of these lands 

are valued by the community. Also, BLM and other federal and state agencies have protected 

valuable landscapes of high scenic quality by designating specific lands as ACECs, WSAs, 

wildlife refuges, or scenic corridors. Typically, any special designation that regulates use of an 

area serves to preserve scenic views as well as natural vegetation, wildlife, and wildlife habitat.

3.23 Wildlife, Fish, and Habitat

The Rio Puerco Field Office (RPFO) wildlife program works with Federal, state and other 

cooperators to protect and enhance wildlife habitat and to mitigate, where necessary, the impacts 

of other resource uses. A goal of the wildlife program is to maintain wildlife habitat and species 

occurrence data with an emphasis on biodiversity and ecosystem management. These data are 

used in land use planning, habitat management, and program coordination for multiple use 

decisions. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-121

All proposed actions are reviewed and given site-specific analysis through the NEPA process to 

determine whether the action will affect special status species, terrestrial, wetland or riparian

ecosystems. Impacts to resident species’ habitat, habitat management projects and compatibility 

with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) habitat objectives are 

considered. The El Malpais Plan (USDI; BLM, 2000), the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National 

Monument RMP (USDI; BLM, 2007) and the Riparian & Aquatic Habitat Management Plan for 

the Albuquerque District Office (USDI; BLM, 2000) contain wildlife habitat goals, objectives 

and management actions that provide direction for implementation of the wildlife program across 

the planning area. A number of Special Management Areas since the 1986 RPFO RMP have 

been designated as ACECs, and protection plans have been developed that outline management 

prescriptions for sensitive wildlife/habitat areas. 

Priority landscapes have been identified through the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation

Strategy for New Mexico (New Mexico Department of Game & Fish, 2006) and the BLM’s

HMPs, ACECs and SMAs. These areas have been identified for habitat improvement projects

based on their ecological value. Priorities have also been placed on the twenty-four

riparian/wetland areas identified in the Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Management Plan for the 

Albuquerque District (USDI; BLM, 2000). Implementation of HMPs has resulted in wildlife

water projects, fence modifications, livestock exclusions, vegetation treatments and other 

projects that improve habitat for wildlife in the RPFO. 

Wildlife population sizes and species diversity within the planning area vary depending upon the 

extent and type of habitat. For example, dry upland habitat may support low species diversity 

and scattered populations over extensive areas, while riparian habitat and lands adjacent to them 

contain more plant and animal species during certain seasons than much larger areas year-round. 

The major ecosystems of the RPFO are scrub/steppe/shrub, piñon-juniper, grassland, ponderosa 

pine, riparian/wetland and aquatic. 

Table 3.31: Major Vegetation Communities of the RPFO (Acres)

Ecosystem Types Acres

Aquatic 451

Grassland 157,641

Other 60,205

Piñon-Juniper 188,974

Ponderosa Pine 3,909

Riparian/Wetland 3,965

Shrub/Steppe/ Scrub 341,036

Total 756,181

3.23.1 Seasonal Habitats

Critical winter range for elk and mule deer is located within the planning area. The Elk Springs 

ACEC and Ignacio Chavez SMA are managed for this value. Mesa Portales also provides crucial 

winter habitat for these species but is not yet managed for this particular value. 

Table 3.32: Critical Winter Range within the RPFO

Management Area Designation Acreage
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-122

Management Area Designation Acreage

Elk Springs ACEC 10,303

Ignacio Chavez Grant SMA 42,857

Mesa Portales No Designation 6,536

3.23.2 Special Designation Areas

Special Management Areas (SMAs) were delineated in prior planning efforts. Management 

prescriptions were developed to enhance and protect key winter ranges, improve habitat privacy, 

promote habitat diversity, protect and enhance riparian and aquatic habitat, and increase forage

availability. Since the 1986 RPFO RMP, the designation of SMA has become obsolete, and has 

since been replaced with the designation of Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). 

Some former SMAs have been designated as ACECs. Key management prescriptions for these 

areas are summarized in SMA and ACEC protection plans. 

In the 1986 RPFO RMP, thirteen SMAs were listed as containing significant wildlife habitat 

values or features that warrant special management attention. These areas were: Bluewater 

Canyon, Canyon Jarido, Jones Canyon, San Luis Mesa Raptor Area, Ignacio Chavez Grant, Elk 

Springs, Tent Rocks, Ojito, El Malpais, Cañon Tapia, Pronoun Cave Complex, Cabezon Peak, 

and Ball Ranch. Three of these areas provide protection for rare plants (Cabezon Peak, Ojito and 

Ball Ranch). Since the 1986 RPFO RMP, many of these areas have been designated as ACECs. 

The following table indicates these changes. 

Table 3.33: Changes in Special Designations with Habitat Values

Name of Area 1986 RMP 

Designation

Current 

Designation Resource Values Protected

Bluewater Canyon SMA ACEC

Endangered species habitat (Southwest 

willow flycatcher), and high quality 

riparian habitat

Canyon Jarido SMA SMA Critical winter deer/elk range, and riparian

area

Canon Tapia SMA SMA

Sensitive plant species (Astragalus 

knightii), keystone species and raptor prey 

base habitat (Cynomys gunnisoni)

Jones Canyon SMA SMA Riparian habitat

San Luis Mesa 

Raptor Area SMA ACEC Critical raptor nesting area

Ignacio Chavez 

Grant SMA SMA

Exemplary diverse wildlife habitat, critical 

winter elk/deer range, sensitive plant 

species

Elk Springs SMA ACEC Crucial winter deer/elk range, riparian

areas

Tent Rocks SMA National 

Monument

N/A
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-123

Name of Area 1986 RMP 

Designation

Current 

Designation Resource Values Protected

Ojito SMA ACEC

Raptor nesting habitat, sensitive plant 

populations (Sclerocactus papyracantha

and Astragalus knightii)

El Malpais SMA

National 

Conservation

Area

N/A

Cabezon Peak SMA ACEC

Raptor nesting sites, sensitive plant 

populations (Abronia bigelovii, Astragalus 

knightii, Mammillaria wrightii and 

Sclerocactus papyracantha)

Ball Ranch SMA Espinosa 

Ridge ACEC

Sensitive plant populations (Astragalus 

feensis, Astragalus kentrophyta var. 

neomexicana, Oenothera caespitosa spp. 

navajoensis, Sclerocactus papyracantha

(formerly of the genus Toumeya) and 

Abronia bigelovii), riparian areas

Pronoun Cave 

Complex SMA SMA Bat roost habitat and winter hibernacula

These special designation areas are crucial in the protection of wildlife in the RPFO. The 

following discussion describes their habitat values and how the RPFO is currently managing for 

the resources these areas were designated to protect. The Tent Rocks SMA has been designated 

as the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, and management of the area is covered 

under its own stand-alone Resource Management Plan. El Malpais SMA has been designated as 

a National Conservation Area and is also covered under its own stand-alone plan. Therefore 

these areas will not be discussed further. 

3.23.2.1 Bluewater Canyon ACEC

Bluewater Canyon ACEC is located in an area of sandstone mesas and contains a steep-walled 

canyon. This stream is the only perennial stream in the southern portion of the RPFO. The 

riparian habitat contains large cottonwoods, dense willow stands, and abundant water for 

wildlife. Bluewater Canyon provides some of the highest quality habitat for the endangered 

southwestern willow flycatcher within the planning area. The RPFO conducts annual monitoring

in this riparian area for the endangered southwestern willow flycatchers (SWFL). Restoration

projects have greatly enhanced the habitat, and a very high concentration of resident, migratory 

and nesting birds inhabit the area. There are also a number of active beavers within the canyon. 

Livestock grazing was found to be the main reason the riparian area was not meeting PFC in the 

past. Therefore, it has been excluded to promote the restoration of riparian functioning and 

increase the quality of habitat for wildlife. The implementation of restoration projects and 

removal of grazing have increased the quality of wildlife habitat in Bluewater Canyon. 

However, the increase of recreational interest in the area has led to increased pedestrian traffic 

that is possibly having a negative effect on the wildlife species utilizing the area. 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-124

3.23.2.2 Cañon Jarido SMA

Cañon Jarido consists of a steep-sided sandstone canyon cut approximately 100 feet into Mesa 

Portales, which provides raptor nesting sites. Lower elevations consist of sage cover

interspersed with piñon and juniper. This vegetative community progresses into ponderosa pine 

and Gambel’s oak, providing good mule deer habitat. Five springs are located within the 

canyon. Currently, the largest spring in Canyon Jarido has been fenced to exclude livestock in 

cooperation with the NMDGF. This riparian area is managed to support the general wildlife

population in the area, with an emphasis on the support of mule deer. Adjacent Mesa Portales 

consists of crucial winter habitat for the Jemez/Nacimiento deer and elk herds. Currently, 

chemical treatments of sagebrush within the canyon are aimed at improving rangeland health for 

both livestock and wildlife. Chemical treatments of this type may have both negative and 

positive impacts on wildlife species, but will in the long term benefit wildlife. 

3.23.2.3 Jones Canyon

Vegetation in Jones Canyon is typical of the dry, high elevation plateaus of north-central New 

Mexico (6,800 – 7,200 ft elev.). Dense juniper and piñon are the dominant species, with 

scattered grasses, Gambel’s oak, cliff rose, sage, squawberry, yucca, cholla, and ponderosa pine 

also present. Recent reconnaissance of this area has shown an apparent increase in the 

occurrence of sagebrush. This area was once thought to have riparian characteristics due to a 

spring development and a detention damn on the adjacent private land. However, the spring no 

longer produces water, and there are only remnants of the development. The area no longer 

harbors particularly valuable wildlife habitat. 

3.23.2.4 San Luis Mesa Raptor ACEC

San Luis Mesa Raptor ACEC consists of approximately twenty miles of sandstone bluffs 100 to 

200 feet high. The exposure is generally to the south and southeast. Ledges carved in the bluff 

by wind erosion form excellent nesting substrate for birds of prey (raptors). Some species which 

have been recorded nesting at San Luis Mesa are golden eagle, prairie falcon, great horned owl, 

red-tailed hawk, and raven. Management actions of the 1986 RPFO RMP included designating 

the area (former SMA) as an ACEC. The area is currently designated as an ACEC, and 

management objectives set at the time of its designation were to protect raptor nesting sites and 

manage the adjacent lands for prey base by adjusting livestock grazing practices to provide 

increased quality habitat for prairie dogs and associated prey species. However, specific 

management of these prey populations has never been implemented, and according to the most 

current reports the RPFO maintains, numbers of raptors utilizing the nesting habitat are lower 

than would be expected given the quality of the nesting substrate provided by the sandstone 

bluffs. 

3.23.2.5 Ignacio Chavez Grant SMA

The Ignacio Chavez Grant SMA is within one of the most diverse and productive wildlife habitat 

areas on BLM-administered lands in northwest New Mexico. The mix of piñon-juniper 

woodland ponderosa pine with oak understory, and open grassland parks in the Ignacio Chavez 

SMA, along with the protection afforded by the steep slopes and cliffs of Mesa Chivato, provide 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-125

excellent habitat for many species of wildlife. The area provides important habitat for a large 

variety of wildlife, including at least six game species (mule deer, elk, Merriam’s turkey, black 

bear, tassel-eared squirrel, and mourning dove). Management of the Ignacio Chavez Grant SMA 

emphasizes maintenance of current wildlife habitat diversity by maintaining the current mix of 

three representative ecosystems. This has been done through prescribed fire and fuels 

treatments. Wildlife waters have also been developed in this area to support big game species, 

particularly elk. 

3.23.2.6 Elk Springs ACEC

The western foothills and piedmont of the Nacimientos were designated as a crucial winter range 

for the Jemez elk and deer herds in the New Mexico Comprehensive Wildlife Plan (NMDGF, 

1980). The portion of this area north of the Jemez Indian Reservation is predominantly public 

land managed as the Elk Springs ACEC (former SMA). In the past, chaining and seeding 

projects have been completed to improve winter forage for big game species. More recently, an 

integrated approach utilizing chemical and mechanical treatments and prescribed fire has been 

implemented to accomplish the same goal more efficiently with lower disturbance to the 

ecosystem. Wildlife waters have also been developed for the primary benefit of elk and deer, but 

benefit all wildlife in the area. The productivity of the area has also benefited from the exclusion

of livestock grazing in this ACEC.

3.23.2.7 Ojito ACEC

The Ojito ACEC (former SMA) has a particularly high density and wide variety of special 

features. The landscape is characterized by a central valley which has been cut into red-brown 

rocks of Mesozoic age and a surrounding rimrock composed of gray-white Jurassic-aged 

gypsum. Landforms in this region include mesas, cuestas, rock terraces, escarpments, canyons, 

arroyos and badlands. Two sensitive plant species occur in this ACEC. Although wildlife is not 

abundant, a diversity of species is present. A number of bluffs and mesa edges in the SMA 

provide excellent nesting habitat for raptors, swallows, and swifts. Several stock ponds provide 

resting areas for migrating waterfowl. Scaled quail and mourning doves inhabit the brushy 

draws and rocky wooded hillsides. Mule deer occupy the piñon-juniper ecotype, and antelope 

range into the northwest corner of the ACEC. There are several possible reasons why wildlife is 

not more abundant in this area. The heavily visited White Mesa bike trails are adjacent to the 

Ojito ACEC, and consequently, the nearby areas receive elevated levels of visitor traffic. This 

area has also become very popular for recreational shooting. This type of activity has a tendency

to drive out wildlife temporarily, and possibly permanently, if it occurs on a regular basis. This 

area is currently receiving increased interest from multiple recreational and professional shooting 

groups. Furthermore, this area includes Las Milpas natural gas storage facility. Although this 

facility is no longer in operation, the surface disturbance it caused was never reclaimed and has 

resulted in a certain degree of habitat loss due to replacement of native vegetation with noxious

weeds. 

3.23.2.8 Cañon Tapia SMA

The Cañon Tapia SMA is located within a large secondary drainage that empties into the Rio 

Puerco south of the Village of Guadalupe. Juniper and piñon are the dominant species along the 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-126

canyon rim, with piñon, juniper, and saltcedar dominant within the canyon itself. There is a 

population of the sensitive/rare plant Astragalus knightii within the Canyon Tapia ACEC 

boundary. The north part of the ACEC contains a prairie dog population that has potential to be 

proposed as part of a prairie dog augmentation area to benefit nesting, migratory and resident 

raptors in the nearby Cabezon Peak ACEC and adjacent volcanic plugs. Currently, no specific 

management of these biological resources is occurring. The canyon bottom is highly infested 

with invasive weeds, predominantly saltcedar.

3.23.2.9 Cabezon Peak ACEC

The Cabezon Peak ACEC contains Cabezon Peak, one of the most prominent local landmarks in 

the Rio Puerco Valley. The surrounding low-lying foothills give way to large rugged shoulders 

that support a nearly cylindrical neck from which the Peak receives its name. Vegetation is 

confined primarily to the rolling foothills, and consists of cactus, shrubs, grasses and some piñon 

juniper. The area contains raptor nesting sites and two rare cactus species. Raptors using the 

area include golden eagle, prairie falcon, great horned owl, sparrow hawk, raven, and red-tailed 

hawk. Management actions from the 1986 RPFO RMP included designating the area (former 

SMA) as an ACEC. Currently, Cabezon Peak is designated as an ACEC, and management 

objectives include managing the raptor prey base in adjacent BLM lands. After an evaluation of 

existing and potential biological special management areas in the RPFO, it was recommended to 

include four adjacent volcanic plugs and prairie dog habitat in the Cabezon Peak ACEC because 

they also provide excellent nesting substrate (The Nature Conservancy, 1992). This has yet to 

occur but is being considered as an alternative in Chapter 2 of this document.

3.23.2.10 Espinosa Ridge ACEC

The Espinosa Ridge ACEC (Formerly Ball Ranch ACEC) was originally designated as an SMA 

to protect sensitive plant species. Five sensitive plant species are known to occur there. Those 

species are Astragalus feensis, Astragalus kentrophyta var. neomexicana, Oenothera caespitosa 

spp. navajoensis, Sclerocactus papyracantha (synonymous with genera Toumeya and

Pediocactus), and Abronia bigelovii. This ACEC also contains an active spring that feeds into 

two substantially large ponds both supporting riparian vegetation and multiple species of 

wildlife. This resource is on newly acquired land (FY2010), and has yet to be fully inventoried. 

During several brief visits to this riparian site, it was noted that the area appears to be infested 

with invasive bullfrogs. This could possibly be having a detrimental impact on the native aquatic 

and riparian fauna. Management of this riparian area will follow management prescriptions in 

the RPFO Riparian EIS (2000), but should also involve an evaluation of invasive aquatic pest 

species. 

3.23.2.11 Pronoun Cave Complex SMA

The Pronoun Cave Complex consists of What Cave, Which Cave, That Cave, and approximately 

six additional caves. These vertical caves are particularly valued for their paleontological values 

and habitat for several species of bats. The Which Cave is a known winter hibernaculum for 

chiropteran species. Summer roosting has also been reported (RPFO 1991 SMA Survey). Winter 

hibernacula warrant special protection because bats are particularly sensitive to disturbance 

during the hibernation period, and populations can be significantly negatively impacted if 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-127

disturbance is severe enough to wake them prior to the end of this period. Caves have also been 

documented to be some of the least known ecosystems due to their rarity and the physical 

difficulty associated with studying them. They have also been known to reveal a significantly 

high amount of biodiversity. The Pronoun Caves are known to harbor sensitive species 

including Townsend’s big-eared bat. They continue to warrant protection from mining activities 

and recreational visitors. The main threats to these caves include the nearby active travertine

mining operations and the possible introduction of the white-nose fungus that is projected to 

enter New Mexico (USFWS). 

3.23.3 Habitat Trends

Increasing residential and recreational development presents a source of change and potential 

departure from management objectives for wildlife habitat in the planning area. Change in the 

extent of various land cover types has been driven primarily by human land and water uses over 

the past 400 years, and is now possibly affected by climate change. Habitat conversion in the 

form of development and aquatic habitat alteration due to draining and channelization are 

priority conservation management issues in the Rio Grande watershed (NMDGF 2005). 

While there is no recent habitat monitoring data available, observations by BLM staff suggest 

most suitable mule deer habitat is in a status of downward trend due to lack of fire, the early 

succession vegetation component, and edge habitat upon which the species depends. BLM staff 

and NMDGF observations suggest habitat conditions on the public land in the planning area for 

elk are in an upward trend, while pronghorn habitat remains static. Improvement projects are 

targeted for mule deer and elk habitats to increase cool season grasses and forbs, as well as a 

mosaic of habitat types.

Habitats have been fragmented by roads, highways, and utility corridors, and lost because of 

human population growth and development. Continued encroachment of subdivisions and roads 

into previously undisturbed areas is an important factor in habitat fragmentation. Recent road 

inventory data will be used in the upcoming RPFO Travel Management Plan to estimate the 

levels of habitat fragmentation in the planning area. To date, exploration for energy or mineral 

materials has not had a major influence on habitat fragmentation in the planning area. Mineral 

potential in the RPFO is somewhat limited when compared with other BLM field offices in New 

Mexico. Therefore, it does not appear to be a significant threat to wildlife species. However, 

important wildlife areas should be protected from energy and mineral exploration and 

development through exclusion, closure, and application of mitigation stipulations. 

Given the synergistic effects of these and other factors, the planning area has a lesser ability to 

produce and maintain wildlife habitat when compared to the past. However, conditions improve 

for wildlife as meaningful cooperative relationships with other agencies and organizations are

developed, appropriate objectives are incorporated into grazing allotment management plans, and 

stipulations are provided for BLM-approved authorizations to mitigate impacts and protect 

and/or enhance wildlife habitat.
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-128

3.23.4 Species with Special Management Emphasis

3.23.4.1 Gunnison’s Prairie Dog

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) is discussed in the Special Status Species section 

of this chapter with respect to the endangered black-footed ferret. However, it warrants 

discussion here because of its ecological value as a keystone species. A keystone species is a 

species whose ecological influence in a biotic community is disproportionately large with respect 

to its numerical abundance. Keystone species typically function as predators, prey, mutualists, 

or habitat modifiers. Prairie dogs differ from most conventional keystone species because they 

exhibit more than one of these functions. They act as prey and modify habitat structure and 

dynamics in many ways (Kotliar et al., 1999). Species in the RPFO that benefit from prairie 

dogs include burrowing owl, mountain plover, and raptors. Currently, the RPFO is conducting a 

prairie dog population augmentation project in El Malpais National Conservation Area to 

enhance the largest historical colony of prairie dogs in the field office. If successful, the 

possibility of conducting this type of project will open up for the area covered under this RMP.

3.23.4.2 Big Game Species

The primary big game species in the planning area are Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer and 

pronghorn antelope. The NMDGF is the agency with the authority and responsibility for 

managing big game populations. The BLM works in partnership with the NMDGF to establish 

population goals in big game management units that include public land and to manage habitats 

to try to achieve those goals. 

3.23.4.3 Mule Deer

Much of the BLM land managed by the RPFO is important winter and/or summer habitat for 

mule deer. Areas with important winter range include Elk Springs, Ignacio Chavez Grant and 

Mesa Portales. While mule deer occur throughout most of the planning area in woodland and 

timbered areas as well as adjacent shrublands, observations are infrequent and management 

emphasis in these areas is to increase the quality of habitat and potential habitat. Mule deer are 

known to utilize 167 vegetative types as a food source throughout the year. In the RPFO, the 

mule deer’s diet is made up of sagebrush, mountain mahogany, cliff rose, oaks, etc., and 

primarily occurs within the Madrean Pine-Oak Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland/Intermountain 

Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland key habitat types as described in the Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (CWCS). Mule deer are a Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

(SGCN) within New Mexico’s Wildlife Conservation Strategy (NMDGF) and include a 

browse/shrub component within their habitat.

Projects for deer include wildlife waters and vegetation treatments such as prescribed 

thinning/burning to increase diversity of vegetation composition and structure. Currently, the 

RPFO conducts numerous chemical treatments to control encroaching sagebrush and piñonjuniper into historic grass/shrublands. An arising concern is that large scale chemical treatments 

have potential to wipe out forb species highly valuable to species such as mule deer. Prior to 

chemical treatments, the RPFO should conduct vegetation surveys of treatment areas and 

exclude those areas with high density browse species to preserve mule deer habitat. There are no 
Rio Puerco Field Office RMP/EIS

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

3-129

established studies within these key habitat areas that address the condition of the mule deer 

habitat, and subsequently, the current condition of the habitat is unknown. Therefore, rangeland 

health standards assessments will be utilized to look at the habitat components and to address 

any degradation that might occur.

3.23.4.4 Rocky Mountain Elk

The RPFO also provides important winter and/or summer habitat for Rocky Mountain elk. 

Crucial winter range occurs in the Elk Springs, Ignacio Chavez Grant, and Mesa Portales areas 

for the Jemez/Nacimiento elk herds. Management of these areas has included designation of Elk 

Springs as an ACEC, the installation of wildlife waters, vegetation treatments, and seasonal 

closure of roads. Removal of livestock grazing has occurred on the Elk Springs ACEC and has 

greatly benefitted the resource. Chapter 2 of this document identifies both Ignacio Chavez Grant 

and Mesa Portales as eligible for designation as an ACEC, and presents these alternatives for 

analysis. Elk habitat management should prioritize crucial winter and summer ranges, migration 

corridors and calving areas. The RPFO does not yet have calving areas identified. However, in 

order to conserve and enhance big game calving and fawning habitat, identification of these 

areas should receive priority. 

3.23.4.5 Bats

In the past two decades, considerable research emphasis has been placed on bat habitat 

relationships and population characteristics in the western states. The BLM signed a 

memorandum of understanding with Bat Conservation International in 1993 which increased 

BLM efforts to consider bat habitat protection in its management activities. Important habitat for 

bats includes cliffs, trees, caves, and abandoned mines. The RPFO is known to contain habitat 

for at least thirteen bat species. Pronoun Cave Complex is known to harbor a roost of 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, a sensitive bat species in the RPFO. It is also a known winter 

hibernaculum. Although the Pronoun Caves are currently a Special Management Area and are 

proposed in Chapter 2 of this RMP as an ACEC, the area is covered in mining claims.