BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the balanced management of the public 

lands and resources and their various values so that they are considered in a combination that 

will best serve the needs of the American people. Management is based upon the principals of 

multiple use and sustained yield, a combination of uses that takes into account the long-term 

needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources. These resources include 

recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, fish and wildlife, wilderness and natural, scenic, 

scientific, and cultural values. 

BLM/NM/PL-07-03-1610




Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS i Table of Contents

April 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................S-1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1-1 

 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN......................................................................1-1 

 1.2 PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................1-2 

 1.2.1 Planning Area Location ......................................................................................1-2 

 1.2.2 Land Management Status in the Planning Area..................................................1-2 

 1.3 ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE RMPR .............................................................1-2 

 1.3.1 Planning Issues ...................................................................................................1-4 

 1.3.2 Management Concerns .......................................................................................1-8 

 1.3.3 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study...............................................................1-9 

 1.4 PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE RMPR/EIS ............................................................1-10 

 1.4.1 Step 1 – Identification of Issues........................................................................1-10 

 1.4.2 Step 2 – Development of Planning Criteria ......................................................1-11 

 1.4.3 Step 3 – Data and Information Collection ........................................................1-11 

 1.4.4 Step 4 – Management Situation Analysis .........................................................1-12 

 1.4.5 Step 5 – Formulation of Alternatives................................................................1-12 

 1.4.6 Step 6 – Estimation of Effects of Alternatives..................................................1-12 

 1.4.7 Step 7 – Selection of the Preferred Alternative ................................................1-13 

 1.4.8 Step 8 – Selection of the Plan Amendment ......................................................1-13 

 1.4.9 Step 9 – Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................1-13 

 1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO BLM POLICIES, PLANS, AND PROGRAMS ........................1-13 

 1.6 OVERALL VISION FOR THE RMPR/EIS..................................................................1-14 

 1.6.1 BLM Strategic Plan ..........................................................................................1-14 

 1.6.2 State Director Priorities ....................................................................................1-15 

 1.6.3 RMPR Goals.....................................................................................................1-15 

2.0 ALTERNATIVES.........................................................................................................................2-1 

 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................2-1

 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ..............................................2-1 

2.3 CONTINUING MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE AND MANAGEMENT COMMON 

TO ALL ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................2-2 

 2.3.1 Air Quality ..........................................................................................................2-2

 2.3.2 Soil and Water Resources ...................................................................................2-3 

 2.3.3 Vegetation...........................................................................................................2-4

 2.3.4 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species.................................................................2-5 

 2.3.5 Wildlife, Riparian Habitat, and Special Status Species ......................................2-6 

 2.3.6 Wild Horses ........................................................................................................2-8 

 2.3.7 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management ...........................................................2-9 

 2.3.8 Cultural Resources..............................................................................................2-9 

 2.3.9 Paleontological Resources ................................................................................2-11 

 2.3.10 Visual Resources...............................................................................................2-11 

 2.3.11 Wilderness Characteristics................................................................................2-12 

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

 2.3.13 Lands and Realty ..............................................................................................2-13 

 2.3.14 Forestry and Woodland Management...............................................................2-14 

 2.3.15 Rangeland Management ...................................................................................2-16 

 2.3.16 Minerals ............................................................................................................2-17

 2.3.17 Recreation .........................................................................................................2-19

 2.3.18 Renewable Energy ............................................................................................2-20 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS ii Table of Contents

April 2007

 2.3.19 Transportation and Travel Management...........................................................2-20 

 2.3.20 Hazardous Materials and Public Safety ............................................................2-22 

 2.3.21 Special Designations.........................................................................................2-22 

 2.3.22 Social and Economic Conditions......................................................................2-23 

 2.4 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES....................................................2-23 

 2.4.1 No-Action Alternative (Alternative A).............................................................2-23 

 2.4.1.1 Soils and Water Resources............................................................2-23 

 2.4.1.2 Vegetation (including Special Status Species)..............................2-24 

 2.4.1.3 Wildlife (including Special Status Species) ..................................2-24 

 2.4.1.4 Cultural Resources ........................................................................2-25 

 2.4.1.5 Paleontological Resources.............................................................2-25 

 2.4.1.6 Visual Resources...........................................................................2-26 

 2.4.1.7 Lands and Realty...........................................................................2-26 

 2.4.1.8 Forestry and Woodland Management ...........................................2-26 

 2.4.1.9 Rangeland Management................................................................2-26 

 2.4.1.10 Minerals.........................................................................................2-26 

 2.4.1.11 Recreation .....................................................................................2-27 

 2.4.1.12 Transportation and Travel Management .......................................2-27 

 2.4.1.13 Special Designations .....................................................................2-28 

 2.4.2 Action Alternatives...........................................................................................2-28 

 2.4.2.1 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)............................................2-28 

 2.4.2.2 Alternative C .................................................................................2-36 

 2.4.2.3 Alternative D.................................................................................2-42 

 2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL..................2-47 

 2.6 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS.....................................................................................2-47 

 2.7 MONITORING..............................................................................................................2-47

 2.7.1 Implementation Monitoring..............................................................................2-48 

 2.7.2 Effectiveness Monitoring..................................................................................2-49 

 2.7.3 Evaluation .........................................................................................................2-49

 2.7.4 Adaptive Management......................................................................................2-49 

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

 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................3-1

 3.2 RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................3-2 

 3.2.1 Air Quality ..........................................................................................................3-2

 3.2.1.1 Baseline Air Quality........................................................................3-2 

 3.2.2 Geology...............................................................................................................3-3

 3.2.3 Soil Resources.....................................................................................................3-4 

 3.2.4 Water Resources .................................................................................................3-5 

 3.2.4.1 Groundwater....................................................................................3-5 

 3.2.4.2 Surface Water..................................................................................3-6 

 3.2.4.3 Watersheds ......................................................................................3-6 

 3.2.4.4 Water Quantity ................................................................................3-8 

 3.2.4.5 Water Quality ..................................................................................3-9 

 3.2.5 Vegetation.........................................................................................................3-10

 3.2.5.1 Major Land Resource Areas..........................................................3-11 

 3.2.5.2 Vegetation Types...........................................................................3-14 

 3.2.6 Wildlife and Riparian Habitat...........................................................................3-18 

 3.2.6.1 Big Game ......................................................................................3-18 

 3.2.6.2 Small Game...................................................................................3-20 

 3.2.6.3 Nongame .......................................................................................3-20 

 3.2.6.4 Birds ..............................................................................................3-21 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS iii Table of Contents

April 2007

 3.2.6.5 Mammals.......................................................................................3-21 

 3.2.7 Special Status Species.......................................................................................3-22 

 3.2.7.1 Aplomado Falcon ..........................................................................3-22 

 3.2.8 Wild Horses ......................................................................................................3-23 

 3.2.9 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .........................................................3-23 

 3.2.9.1 Wildfire .........................................................................................3-23 

 3.2.9.2 Fire Treatments .............................................................................3-23 

 3.2.10 Cultural Resources............................................................................................3-24 

 3.2.10.1 Archaeological and Historical Sites ..............................................3-24 

 3.2.10.2 Special Status Cultural Resources.................................................3-26 

 3.2.10.3 Traditional Cultural Properties......................................................3-27 

 3.2.11 Paleontological Resources ................................................................................3-28 

 3.2.12 Visual Resources...............................................................................................3-30 

 3.2.13 Cave and Karst Resources ................................................................................3-30 

 3.2.13.1 Cave and Karst Regions in the Decision Area ..............................3-31 

 3.2.13.2 Significant Cave List.....................................................................3-31 

 3.2.14 Wilderness Characteristics................................................................................3-31 

 3.3 RESOURCE USES........................................................................................................3-32 

 3.3.1 Land Use and Facilities.....................................................................................3-32 

 3.3.1.1 Existing Land Uses........................................................................3-33 

 3.3.1.2 Planned Land Uses........................................................................3-34 

 3.3.2 Forestry and Woodlands ...................................................................................3-34 

 3.3.3 Rangeland Management ...................................................................................3-35 

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

 3.3.3.2 Rangeland Utilization and Condition............................................3-37 

 3.3.4 Minerals ............................................................................................................3-38

 3.3.4.1 Leasable Minerals .........................................................................3-38 

 3.3.4.2 Locatable Minerals........................................................................3-43 

 3.3.4.3 Salable Minerals............................................................................3-44 

 3.3.4.4 Potential for Occurrence of Mineral Resources ............................3-45 

 3.3.5 Recreation .........................................................................................................3-49

 3.3.5.1 Recreational Uses..........................................................................3-49 

 3.3.5.2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum.................................................3-51 

 3.3.6 Renewable Energy ............................................................................................3-51 

 3.3.6.1 Solar Energy..................................................................................3-51 

 3.3.6.2 Wind Energy .................................................................................3-51 

 3.3.7 Transportation and Travel Management...........................................................3-52 

 3.3.7.1 Transportation System...................................................................3-52 

 3.3.7.2 Traffic Volumes ............................................................................3-53 

 3.3.7.3 Access to Public Land...................................................................3-53 

 3.3.7.4 Off-highway Vehicle Use..............................................................3-54 

 3.3.8 Utility Corridors and Communication Sites .....................................................3-56 

 3.3.8.1 Rights-of-Way, Leases, and Permits .............................................3-56 

 3.3.8.2 Utility Corridors ............................................................................3-56 

 3.3.9 Land Tenure......................................................................................................3-56 

 3.3.10 Hazardous Materials and Public Safety ............................................................3-57 

 3.3.10.1 Hazardous Materials......................................................................3-57 

 3.3.10.2 White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Areas ..................3-58 

 3.4 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS.........................................................................................3-59 

 3.5 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS................................................................3-61 

 3.5.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................3-61 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS iv Table of Contents

April 2007

 3.5.2 Demographics ...................................................................................................3-61 

 3.5.3 Economic Activity, Employment, and Earnings...............................................3-62 

 3.5.3.1 Socorro County .............................................................................3-67 

 3.5.3.2 Catron County ...............................................................................3-69 

 3.5.3.3 Alamo Band of the Navajo Nation................................................3-70 

 3.5.4 Agricultural Statistics .......................................................................................3-70 

 3.5.4.1 Farms.............................................................................................3-70 

 3.5.5 Minority and Low-income Populations ............................................................3-71 

 3.5.5.1 Minority Populations.....................................................................3-71 

 3.5.5.2 Low-income Populations...............................................................3-72 

 3.5.6 Public Finance and Payments in Lieu of Taxes ................................................3-72 

 3.5.7 Social and Economic Conditions Related to BLM’s Decision Area ................3-73 

 3.5.7.1 BLM Socorro Field Office Budget................................................3-73 

 3.5.7.2 Livestock Grazing .........................................................................3-73 

 3.5.7.3 Energy and Mineral Resources .....................................................3-75 

 3.5.7.4 Forestry and Vegetative Material Sales Programs ........................3-76 

 3.5.7.5 Rights-of-Way and Land Use Authorizations...............................3-76 

 3.5.7.6 Recreation .....................................................................................3-77 

 3.5.7.7 Connections Between Protected Open Space and 

 Economic Growth .........................................................................3-79 

 3.5.7.8 Non-market Value.........................................................................3-79 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................4-1 

 4.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................4-1

 4.1.1 Analytical Assumptions......................................................................................4-1 

 4.1.2 Types of Effects to Be Addressed.......................................................................4-2 

 4.1.3 Incomplete or Unavailable Information..............................................................4-2 

 4.2 IMPACTS FROM ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES ........................4-2 

 4.3 ALTERNATIVE A – NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................4-5 

 4.3.1 Summary of Management Direction...................................................................4-6 

 4.3.2 Summary of Aggregate Effects of Alternative A................................................4-6 

 4.3.3 Air Quality ..........................................................................................................4-8

 4.3.4 Geology...............................................................................................................4-9

 4.3.5 Soil and Water Resources .................................................................................4-10 

 4.3.6 Vegetation.........................................................................................................4-11

 4.3.7 Wildlife, Riparian Habitat, and Special Status Species ....................................4-15 

 4.3.8 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .........................................................4-19 

 4.3.9 Cultural Resources............................................................................................4-20 

 4.3.10 Paleontological Resources ................................................................................4-21 

 4.3.11 Visual Resources...............................................................................................4-22 

 4.3.12 Cave and Karst Resources ................................................................................4-23 

 4.3.13 Wilderness Characteristics................................................................................4-23 

 4.3.14 Lands and Realty ..............................................................................................4-24 

 4.3.15 Forestry and Woodland Management...............................................................4-25 

 4.3.16 Rangeland Management ...................................................................................4-27 

 4.3.17 Minerals ............................................................................................................4-28

 4.3.18 Recreation .........................................................................................................4-29

 4.3.19 Renewable Energy ............................................................................................4-31 

 4.3.20 Transportation and Travel Management...........................................................4-31 

 4.3.21 Social and Economic Conditions......................................................................4-32 

 4.3.22 Environmental Justice.......................................................................................4-34 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS v Table of Contents

April 2007

 4.4 ALTERNATIVE B – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE.................................................4-35 

 4.4.1 Summary of Management Direction.................................................................4-35 

 4.4.2 Summary of Aggregate Effects of Alternative B..............................................4-35 

 4.4.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................4-36

 4.4.4 Geology.............................................................................................................4-37

 4.4.5 Soil and Water Resources .................................................................................4-37 

 4.4.6 Vegetation.........................................................................................................4-38

 4.4.7 Wildlife, Riparian Habitat, and Special Status Species ....................................4-42 

 4.4.8 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .........................................................4-45 

 4.4.9 Cultural Resources............................................................................................4-46 

 4.4.10 Paleontological Resources ................................................................................4-48 

 4.4.11 Visual Resources...............................................................................................4-48 

 4.4.12 Cave and Karst Resources ................................................................................4-49 

 4.4.13 Wilderness Characteristics................................................................................4-50 

 4.4.14 Land and Realty................................................................................................4-50 

 4.4.15 Forestry and Woodland Management...............................................................4-51 

 4.4.16 Rangeland Management ...................................................................................4-52 

 4.4.17 Minerals ............................................................................................................4-53

 4.4.18 Recreation .........................................................................................................4-55

 4.4.19 Renewable Energy ............................................................................................4-56 

 4.4.20 Transportation and Travel Management...........................................................4-57 

 4.4.21 Social and Economic Conditions......................................................................4-57 

 4.4.22 Environmental Justice.......................................................................................4-59 

 4.5 ALTERNATIVE C ........................................................................................................4-60 

 4.5.1 Summary of Management Direction.................................................................4-60 

 4.5.2 Summary of Aggregate Effects of Alternative C..............................................4-60 

 4.5.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................4-61

 4.5.4 Geology.............................................................................................................4-62

 4.5.5 Soil and Water Resources .................................................................................4-62 

 4.5.6 Vegetation.........................................................................................................4-63

 4.5.7 Wildlife, Riparian Habitat, and Special Status Species ....................................4-66 

 4.5.8 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .........................................................4-68 

 4.5.9 Cultural Resources............................................................................................4-69 

 4.5.10 Paleontological Resources ................................................................................4-70 

 4.5.11 Visual Resources...............................................................................................4-70 

 4.5.12 Cave and Karst Resources ................................................................................4-71 

 4.5.13 Wilderness Characteristics................................................................................4-71 

 4.5.14 Land and Realty................................................................................................4-71 

 4.5.15 Forestry and Woodland Management...............................................................4-72 

 4.5.16 Rangeland Management ...................................................................................4-74 

 4.5.17 Minerals ............................................................................................................4-74

 4.5.18 Recreation .........................................................................................................4-75

 4.5.19 Renewable Energy ............................................................................................4-76 

 4.5.20 Transportation and Travel Management...........................................................4-77 

 4.5.21 Social and Economic Conditions......................................................................4-77 

 4.5.22 Environmental Justice.......................................................................................4-78 

 4.6 ALTERNATIVE D........................................................................................................4-79 

 4.6.1 Summary of Management Direction.................................................................4-79 

 4.6.2 Summary of Aggregate Effects of Alternative D..............................................4-79 

 4.6.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................4-80

 4.6.4 Geology.............................................................................................................4-80
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS vi Table of Contents

April 2007

 4.6.5 Soil and Water Resources .................................................................................4-80 

 4.6.6 Vegetation.........................................................................................................4-80

 4.6.7 Wildlife, Riparian Habitat, and Special Status Species ....................................4-84 

 4.6.8 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .........................................................4-87 

 4.6.9 Cultural Resources............................................................................................4-88 

 4.6.10 Paleontological Resources ................................................................................4-89 

 4.6.11 Visual Resources...............................................................................................4-89 

 4.6.12 Cave and Karst Resources ................................................................................4-90 

 4.6.13 Wilderness Characteristics................................................................................4-91 

 4.6.14 Land and Realty................................................................................................4-91 

 4.6.15 Forestry and Woodland Management...............................................................4-92 

 4.6.16 Rangeland Management ...................................................................................4-93 

 4.6.17 Minerals ............................................................................................................4-94

 4.6.18 Recreation .........................................................................................................4-95

 4.6.19 Renewable Energy ............................................................................................4-96 

 4.6.20 Transportation and Travel Management...........................................................4-96 

 4.6.21 Social and Economic Conditions......................................................................4-97 

 4.6.22 Environmental Justice.......................................................................................4-98 

 4.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...........................................................................................4-98 

 4.7.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions..............................4-99 

 4.7.2 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................4-102 

 4.7.2.1 Air Quality ..................................................................................4-103 

 4.7.2.2 Soil and Water Resources ...........................................................4-104 

 4.7.2.3 Vegetation ...................................................................................4-105 

 4.7.2.4 Wildlife and Riparian Habitat .....................................................4-106 

 4.7.2.5 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management, and Forestry and 

 Woodland Management ..............................................................4-107 

 4.7.2.6 Cultural and Paleontological Resources......................................4-108 

 4.7.2.7 Visual Resources.........................................................................4-109 

 4.7.2.8 Wilderness Characteristics ..........................................................4-110 

 4.7.2.9 Land and Realty ..........................................................................4-110 

 4.7.2.10 Rangeland Management..............................................................4-111 

 4.7.2.11 Minerals and Energy ...................................................................4-113 

 4.7.2.12 Recreation and Transportation and Travel Management ............4-113 

 4.7.2.13 Social and Economic Conditions ................................................4-114 

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

 5.1 DESCRIPTION OF CONSULTATION AND COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS ...........5-2 

 5.1.1 Tribes ..................................................................................................................5-2 

 5.1.2 Intergovernmental Cooperation and Collaboration (State and Local Levels) ....5-2 

 5.1.3 Federal Agencies.................................................................................................5-5 

 5.1.4 Interest Groups....................................................................................................5-5 

 5.1.5 National Mailing List..........................................................................................5-6 

 5.2 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT RMPR/EIS ..................................................................5-6 

 5.3 LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................5-7 

6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................6-1 

Glossary 

Index
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS vii Table of Contents

April 2007

APPENDICES 

Appendix A – Planning Criteria 

Appendix B – Acts of Authority and Mandates for the BLM 

Appendix C – Best Management Practices 

Appendix D – Monitoring 

Appendix E – Recreational Opportunity Spectrum Definitions and Visual Resource Management Class 

Objectives

Appendix F – Lands and Minerals Disposal Policy and Right-of-way Exclusion and Avoidance Areas 

Appendix G – BLM Stewardship Contracting Guidance 

Appendix H – Rangeland Management 

Appendix I – Minerals Management 

Appendix J – Off-highway Vehicle Areas and Route Designations 

Appendix K – Existing Special Designations and Justification for Proposed Special Designations 

Appendix L – Wildlife and Special Status Species 

Appendix M – Paleontological Resources Management 

Appendix N – Old Forest Growth Definitions 

Appendix O – Analytical Assumptions 

LIST OF TABLES 

1-1 Surface Management in Socorro and Catron Counties.................................................................1-4 

1-2 Federal Mineral Estate Acreages by Surface Management Responsibility in Socorro and 

Catron Counties ............................................................................................................................1-4 

2-1 Alternatives Matrix .....................................................................................................................2-51 

2-2 Management Prescriptions in ACECs and SMAs.......................................................................2-66 

2-3 Management of Land Within WSAs If Released from Wilderness Review...............................2-85 

2-4 Route Designations in WSAs Proposed Under Alternatives B, C, and D (In Miles) .................2-87 

2-5 Summary of Impacts...................................................................................................................2-88 

3-1 2000 Monitoring Data at Coyote Hill Station, Springerville, Arizona ........................................3-3 

3-2 USGS-Designated Watershed Areas for Planning and Decision Areas........................................3-7 

3-3 Major Land Resource Areas in the Planning and Decision Areas ..............................................3-11 

3-4 Vegetation in the Planning and Decision Areas..........................................................................3-14

3-5 Summary of Cultural Resource Inventory after the 1989 RMP..................................................3-25 

3-6 VRM Classes in the Decision Area.............................................................................................3-30 

3-7 Acreages of WSAs on BLM-Managed Surface Estate ...............................................................3-32 

3-8 Wilderness Characteristics of Acquired Lands...........................................................................3-33

3-9 Livestock Use between 1992 and 2005.......................................................................................3-36

3-10 Ecological Status.........................................................................................................................3-37 

3-11 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volumes on Main Roads in Socorro and Catron Counties ........3-53 

3-12 Existing OHV Area Designations...............................................................................................3-54 

3-13 1990 and 2000 Registration Statistics for OHVs, Motorcycles, and Trucks ..............................3-55 

3-14 Recreation and Public Purposes Act Leases for Sanitary Landfills............................................3-57 

3-15 Number of Evacuations from White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Areas, 

2002-2004 ...................................................................................................................................3-58 

3-16 Special Designations on BLM-Managed Public Land................................................................3-59 

3-17 Acreages of Special Designations on BLM-Managed Public Land............................................3-60 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS ix Table of Contents

April 2007

LIST OF MAPS 

1-1 Surface Management Status 

2-1 Alternative B – Special Designations 

2-2 Puertecito SMA – Alternative B 

2-3 Stallion SMA – Alternative B 

2-4 Soaptree SMA – Alternative B 

2-5 Horse Mt ACEC – Alternative B 

2-6 Ladron Mt Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC – Alternative B 

2-7 Pelona Mt ACEC – Alternative B 

2-8 Alternative B – Fluid Mineral Leasing Designations 

2-9 Fort Craig SMA – Alternative B 

2-10 Penjeacu (Teypama) SMA – Alternative B 

2-11 Alternative B – Visual Resources Management Designations 

2-12 Alternative B – Lands and Realty 

2-13 Datil Well SRMA – Alternative B 

2-14 The Box SRMA – Alternative B 

2-15 Gordy’s Hill SRMA – Alternative B 

2-16 Quebradas Back Country Byway SRMA – Alternative B 

2-17 Socorro Nature Area SRMA – Alternative B 

2-18 Cerro Pomo ACEC – Alternative B 

2-19 Tinajas ACEC – Alternative B 

2-20 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Corridors SMA – Alternative B 

2-21 Alternative B – Off-Highway Vehicle Use Designations 

2-22 Alternative C – Special Designations 

2-23 Puertecito SMA – Alternative C 

2-24 Stallion SMA – Alternative C 

2-25 Soaptree SMA – Alternative C 

2-26 Horse Mt ACEC – Alternative C 

2-27 Ladron Mt Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC – Alternative C 

2-28 Pelona Mt ACEC – Alternative C 

2-29 Alternative C – Fluid Mineral Leasing Designations 

2-30 Fort Craig SMA – Alternative C 

2-31 Penjeacu (Teypama) SMA – Alternative C 

2-32 Town of Riley SMA – Alternative C 

2-33 Alternative C – Visual Resources Management Designations 

2-34 Alternative C – Lands and Realty 

2-35 Datil Well SRMA – Alternative C 

2-36 The Box SRMA – Alternative C 

2-37 Gordy’s Hill SRMA – Alternative C 

2-38 Quebradas Back Country Byway SRMA – Alternative C 

2-39 Socorro Nature Area SRMA – Alternative C 

2-40 Tinajas ACEC – Alternative C 

2-41 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA – Alternative C 

2-42 Alternative C – Off-Highway Vehicle Use Designations 

2-43 Alternative D – Special Designations 

2-44 Fence Lake SMA – Alternative D 

2-45 Puertecito SMA – Alternative D 

2-46 Stallion SMA – Alternative D 

2-47 Soaptree SMA – Alternative D 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS x Table of Contents

April 2007

2-48 Horse Mt ACEC – Alternative D 

2-49 Ladron Mt ACEC – Alternative D 

2-50 Pelona Mt ACEC – Alternative D 

2-51 Rio Salado SMA – Alternative D 

2-52 Fort Craig SMA – Alternative D 

2-53 Penjeacu (Teypama) SMA – Alternative D 

2-54 Alternative D – Fluid Mineral Leasing Designations 

2-55 Alternative D – Visual Resources Management Designations 

2-56 Alternative D – Lands and Realty 

2-57 Datil Well SRMA – Alternative D 

2-58 The Box SRMA – Alternative D 

2-59 Gordy’s Hill SRMA – Alternative D 

2-60 Quebradas Back Country Byway SRMA – Alternative D 

2-61 Socorro Nature Area SRMA – Alternative D 

2-62 San Lorenzo SRMA – Alternative D 

2-63 Tinajas ACEC – Alternative D 

2-64 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA – Alternative D 

2-65 Alternative D – Off-Highway Vehicle Use Designations 

3-1 Existing Conditions - Declared Groundwater Basins 

3-2 Existing Conditions - Watershed Basins 

3-3 Existing Conditions - Vegetation and MLRAs 

3-4 Existing Conditions - Bordo Atravesado Allotment Wild Horse Herd Management Area 

3-5 Existing Conditions - Visual Resource Management Classes 

3-6 Existing Conditions - Karst Potential 

3-7 Existing Conditions - Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) and Acquired Land Adjacent to and 

within WSAs 

3-8 Existing Conditions - Federal Minerals 

3-9 Existing Conditions - Oil and Gas Potential 

3-10 Existing Conditions - Coal Fields, Coal, and Coalbed Methane Resources 

3-11 Existing Conditions - Carbon Dioxide and Helium Potential 

3-12 Existing Conditions - Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Special Management 

Areas 

3-13 Existing Conditions - Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

3-14 Existing Conditions - Existing Access 

3-15 Existing Conditions - Off-Highway Vehicle Use Designations 

3-16 Existing Conditions - Right-of-Way Exclusion and Avoidance Areas 

3-17 Existing Conditions - Land Tenure 

3-18 Agua Fria ACEC – Alternative A 

3-19 Horse Mountain ACEC – Alternative A 

3-20 Ladron Mountain ACEC – Alternative A 

3-21 Tinajas ACEC – Alternative A 

3-22 The Box SMA – Alternative A 

3-23 Cerro Pomo SMA – Alternative A 

3-24 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA – Alternative A 

3-25 Fence Lake SMA – Alternative A 

3-26 Fort Craig SMA – Alternative A 

3-27 Harvey Plot SMA – Alternative A 

3-28 Pelona Mt SMA – Alternative A 

3-29 Puertecito SMA – Alternative A 

3-30 Rio Salado SMA – Alternative A 

3-31 San Lorenzo SMA – Alternative A 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS xi Table of Contents

April 2007

3-32 Soaptree SMA – Alternative A 

3-33 Stallion SMA – Alternative A 

3-34 Teypama SMA – Alternative A 

3-35 Town of Riley SMA – Alternative A 

3-36 Walnut Canyon SMA – Alternative A 

3-37 Datil Well Campground SMA – Alternative A 

D-1 High Coal Potential Lands Carried Forward 

J-1 Antelope WSA Routes – Alternative A 

J-2 Route Designations Within Antelope WSA – Alternative B 

J-3 Route Designations Within Antelope WSA – Alternative C 

J-4 Route Designations Within Antelope WSA – Alternative D 

J-5 Continental Divide WSA Routes – Alternative A 

J-6 Route Designations Within Continental Divide WSA – Alternative B 

J-7 Route Designations Within Continental Divide WSA – Alternative C 

J-8 Route Designations Within Continental Divide WSA – Alternative D 

J-9 Devil’s Backbone & Devil’s Reach WSA Routes – Alternative A 

J-10 Route Designations Within Devil’s Reach & Devil’s Backbone WSAs – Alternative B 

J-11 Route Designations Within Devil’s Reach & Devil’s Backbone WSAs – Alternative C 

J-12 Route Designations Within Devil’s Reach & Devil’s Backbone WSAs – Alternative D 

J-13 Eagle Peak WSA Routes – Alternative A 

J-14 Route Designations Within Eagle Peak WSA – Alternative B 

J-15 Route Designations Within Eagle Peak WSA – Alternative C 

J-16 Route Designations Within Eagle Peak WSA – Alternative D 

J-17 Horse Mountain WSA Routes – Alternative A 

J-18 Route Designations Within Horse Mountain WSA – Alternative B 

J-19 Route Designations Within Horse Mountain WSA – Alternative C 

J-20 Route Designations Within Horse Mountain WSA – Alternative D 

J-21 Jornado Del Muerto WSA Routes – Alternative A 

J-22 Route Designations Within Jornado Del Muerto – Alternative B 

J-23 Route Designations Within Jornado Del Muerto – Alternative C 

J-24 Route Designations Within Jornado Del Muerto – Alternative D 

J-25 Mesita Blanca WSA Routes – Alternative A 

J-26 Route Designations Within Mesita Blanca WSA – Alternative B 

J-27 Route Designations Within Mesita Blanca WSA – Alternative C 

J-28 Route Designations Within Mesita Blanca WSA – Alternative D 

J-29 Presilla WSA Routes – Alternative A 

J-30 Route Designations Within Presilla WSA – Alternative B 

J-31 Route Designations Within Presilla WSA – Alternative C 

J-32 Route Designations Within Presilla WSA – Alternative D 

J-33 Sierra De Las Canas WSA Routes –Alternative A 

J-34 Route Designations Within Sierra De Las Canas WSA – Alternative B 

J-35 Route Designations Within Sierra De Las Canas WSA – Alternative C 

J-36 Route Designations Within Sierra De Las Canas WSA – Alternative D 

J-37 Sierra Ladrones WSA Routes – Alternative A 

J-38 Route Designations Within Sierra Ladrones WSA – Alternative B 

J-39 Route Designations Within Sierra Ladrones WSA – Alternative C 

J-40 Route Designations Within Sierra Ladrones WSA – Alternative D 

J-41 Stallion WSA Routes – Alternative A 

J-42 Route Designations Within Stallion WSA – Alternative B 

J-43 Route Designations Within Stallion WSA – Alternative C 

J-44 Route Designations Within Stallion WSA – Alternative D 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS viii Table of Contents

April 2007

3-18 Selected Census 2000 Demographic Information.......................................................................3-63 

3-19 Historical and Projected Population Growth ..............................................................................3-64

3-20 Employment by Place of Work...................................................................................................3-65 

3-21 Employment by Industry from 1970 to 2000 in Socorro and Catron Counties ..........................3-66 

3-22 General Employment and Income Characteristics......................................................................3-67 

3-23 Minority and Low-Income Populations ......................................................................................3-72

3-24 PILT Payment and Entitlement Acreage, 2002 ..........................................................................3-73 

3-25 Grazing Fees in the Decision Area, 1992-2002 ..........................................................................3-74

4-1 Land Allocations Under All Alternatives .....................................................................................4-7 

4-2 Acreage by Vegetation Type in Right-of-Way Exclusion and Avoidance Areas 

for Alternative A.........................................................................................................................4-12 

4-3 Acreage of Vegetation Type on BLM-Managed Surface Land by OHV Area Designation 

for Alternative A.........................................................................................................................4-14 

4-4 Areas Managed to Protect Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat and Special Status Species Under 

Alternative A...............................................................................................................................4-15 

4-5 Average Local Expenditures per Visitor to BLM Sites ..............................................................4-34 

4-6 Acreage of Vegetation Type in Right-of-Way Exclusion and Avoidance Areas 

for Alternative B .........................................................................................................................4-39 

4-7 Acreage of Vegetation Type in Utility Corridors for Alternative B ...........................................4-40 

4-8 Acreage of Vegetation Type Closed to Fluid Minerals Leasing for Alternative B.....................4-41 

4-9 Acreage of Vegetation Type on BLM-Managed Surface Land by OHV Area 

Designation for Alternative B.....................................................................................................4-43 

4-10 Acreage of Vegetation Type in Right-of-Way (ROW) Exclusion and Avoidance Areas 

for Alternative C .........................................................................................................................4-63 

4-11 Acreage of Vegetation Type in Utility Corridors for Alternative C 

4-12 Acreage of Vegetation Type Closed to Fluid Minerals Leasing for Alternative C.....................4-65 

4-13 Acreage of Vegetation Type on BLM-Managed Surface Land by OHV Area 

Designation for Alternative C.....................................................................................................4-67 

4-14 Acreage by Vegetation Type in Right-of-Way (ROW) Exclusion and Avoidance Areas 

for Alternative D.........................................................................................................................4-82 

4-15 Alternative D Utility Corridors...................................................................................................4-83 

4-16 Acreage of Vegetation Type Closed to Fluid Minerals Leasing for Alternative D ....................4-86 

4-17 Acreage of Vegetation Type on BLM-Managed Surface Land by OHV Area 

Designation for Alternative D.....................................................................................................4-85 

4-18 Federal Land Management in the Planning Area......................................................................4-102 

4-19 Management by BLM in Special Designations ........................................................................4-103 

5-1 Summary of Agency Coordination Meetings and Public Involvement Events ............................5-1 

5-2 Agency Contacts ...........................................................................................................................5-3 

5-3 List of Preparers and Reviewers ...................................................................................................5-7 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS xii Table of Contents

April 2007

J-45 Veranito WSA Routes – Alternative A 

J-46 Route Designations Within Veranito WSA – Alternative B 

J-47 Route Designations Within Veranito WSA – Alternative C 

J-48 Route Designations Within Veranito WSA – Alternative D 

L-1 Bighorn Sheep Corridor 

M-1 Paleontological Management Classes 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS

xiii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

April 2007

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

o

F Degrees Fahrenheit

g/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

AADT annual average daily traffic

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

AD after death

APHIS-WS Animal Plant Health Inspection Services-Wildlife Services

AUM Animal Unit Month

BEA U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP best management practice

BPS Budget Planning System

BPS/MIS Budget Planning Systems / Management Information System

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs cubic feet per second

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CRMP Coordinated Resource Management Plan 

CWA Clean Water Act

dBA A-weighted decibels

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

Forest Service U.S. Forest Service

FRCC Fire Range Condition Class

FWIR Final Wilderness Inventory Report

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

HCA Head of Contracting Activity

HFRA Healthy Forests Restoration Act

HMP Habitat Management Plan

I-25 Interstate 25

IHICS Integrated Habitat Inventory Classification System

IMPROVE Integrated Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

IWIR Intensive Wilderness Inventory Report

KGRA Known geothermal resource area
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS

xiv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

April 2007

mg/L milligrams per liter

mgd million gallons per day

MLRA major land resource area

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MSA Management Situation Analysis

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

National Register National Register of Historic Places 

NBC National Business Center

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NFPORS National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting Systems

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMCRIS New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System

NMDGF New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

NMED New Mexico Environment Department 

NMEMNRD New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department 

NMMNH&S New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science

NMWQCC New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOI Notice of Intent

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OHV off-highway vehicle

pH The degree of acidity or alkalinity of a solution

PI Project Inspector

PILT Payments-in-lieu of taxes

P.L. Public Law

PM10 particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns diameter 

PM2.5 particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns diameter 

ppm parts per million

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development

Ridgeway Ridgeway Arizona Oil Corporation

RMP Resource Management Plan

RMPA Resource Management Plan Amendment

RMPR Resource Management Plan Revision

RMPR/EIS Resource Management Plan Revision/Environmental Impact Statement

ROS recreation opportunity spectrum

SAF Society of American Forests

SCS Soil Conservation Service

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SMA Special Management Area

SMZ streamside management zone

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

State Engineer New Mexico Office of the State Engineer
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS

xv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

April 2007

TDS total dissolved solids

US U.S Route

US 180 U.S. Highway 180

U.S.C. U.S. Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDI U.S. Department of the Interior

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VRM Visual Resource Management

WO Washington Office

WSA Wilderness Study Area

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS S-1 Executive Summary

April 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) is responsible for management of public land and its resources based on the 

principles of multiple use and sustained yield, diversity, and productivity of public lands for present and 

future generations. Management direction is provided by land use plans, which are used to determine 

appropriate multiple uses and allocate resources, develop strategy to manage and protect resources, and 

establish systems to monitor and evaluate status of resources and the effectiveness of management 

programs over time. The Socorro Field Office of the BLM has prepared this Resource Management Plan 

Revision (RMPR) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze and update BLM’s management 

of public land in Socorro and Catron Counties, New Mexico. The purpose of the RMPR is to provide a 

comprehensive framework for managing public land and allocating resources. The RMPR will update the 

1989 Socorro Resource Management Plan (RMP). The EIS prepared with the RMPR is intended to satisfy 

the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1500-1508), and other associated 

regulations.

Socorro and Catron Counties are located in the west-central portion of New Mexico. Public land (BLMadministered land) in the two counties includes approximately 1.5 million surface acres and 6 million 

acres of Federal mineral estate. While BLM can make decisions related only to public land and its 

resources, BLM is responsible for collaboratively planning with adjacent jurisdictions and the public to 

encourage compatible land uses within a regional context, and for considering potential impacts on all 

resources within the Planning Area regardless of ownership or management. The Planning Area referred 

to in this document includes all land within Socorro and Catron Counties; the term Decision Area is used 

to describe public land and its resources that are managed by the BLM, including Federal mineral estate, 

within the two counties. The term “BLM-managed surface estate” refers to the 1.5 million acres of 

surface land managed by BLM, exclusive of areas of Federal mineral estate that underlie land owned or 

managed by other entities. 

Circumstances have changed within the Planning Area since the last RMP was developed. Some of the 

original goals and supporting management decisions are no longer adequate to address the demographics, 

resource conditions, policies, and other circumstances that have changed over the years. Though BLM 

intends to carry forward the management strategies that have proven to be successful and are still vitally 

relevant, these changes warrant analysis of BLM’s current management direction. 

The planning process to revise the RMP was initiated in 2002 with the scoping phase, which included 

public meetings, the distribution of newsletters, and other activities to identify issues early in the analysis. 

The results of scoping are documented in the Scoping Report, dated August 2002 (available at the 

Socorro Field Office and online at www.nm.blm.gov/sfo/sfo_home.html). Issues identified through 

scoping for consideration include special designations, watersheds, mineral development, land use 

allocations, transportation and access, and cultural and recreational opportunities. Diverse opinions about 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use were expressed at all of the scoping meetings. To gain a better 

understanding of public sentiment regarding OHV use on public land, BLM conducted workshops 

specific to this topic in March and April 2003. The results of the OHV workshops are documented in the 

Off-Highway Vehicle Use: Public Workshops Report, dated August 2003 (available at the Socorro Field 

Office and online at www.nm.blm.gov/sfo/sfo_home.html). In addition, the BLM identified management 

concerns to be addressed through the RMPR, such as threatened and endangered species, wild horses, 

forest and woodland management, noxious weeds, and lands and realty management including right-ofway avoidance and exclusion areas. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS S-2 Executive Summary

April 2007

A Management Situation Analysis was prepared to compile available resource data and analyze the 

opportunities for changes to management of BLM’s Decision Area within Socorro and Catron Counties. 

Alternative management plans that were evaluated in the EIS were derived from this Management 

Situation Analysis, broad objectives (or desired future conditions) that were established for each resource 

or resource use, and the issues and concerns that were identified throughout scoping and the planning 

process.

Alternatives for management of BLM’s Decision Area are discussed in Chapter 2 of the RMPR/EIS. 

Chapter 3 provides a characterization of the existing environment. The analysis of impacts, conducted to 

evaluate the potential impacts that would result from each alternative, and cumulative impacts that also 

consider past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, is provided in Chapter 4 of the EIS.

ALTERNATIVES 

Four alternatives are considered in this RMPR/EIS. Under the No-Action Alternative (Alternative A), 

management decisions and guidance would continue as directed in the 1989 RMP and subsequent 

amendments published since the approval of the 1989 RMP. Alternatives B, C, and D represent variations 

from existing management. Overall, the alternatives may be distinguished generally as follows: 

x No Action Alternative (Alternative A), which represents the continuation of existing management 

plans, policies, and decisions as established in the 1989 Socorro RMP and applicable 

amendments 

x Alternative B, which represents a balance of resource use and conservation and is the preferred 

alternative at the time of this Draft RMPR/EIS 

x Alternative C, which provides an emphasis of resource conservation, protection, and 

enhancement of natural and cultural resources 

x Alternative D, which emphasizes resource use and production 

The alternatives are primarily distinguished by the degree of protection or use of the resources, with 

Alternative C providing the greatest potential for resource protection, Alternative D emphasizing resource 

use, and Alternative B providing a balance between the two. 

A major consideration within each alternative is the identification and management of special 

designations. The size and type of designation for areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), 

special management areas (SMAs), and special recreation management areas (SRMAs) varies among 

alternatives. Alternative C generally allows for the largest number of acres and the most restrictions on 

resource uses within special designations and overall; Alternatives B and D offer progressively smaller 

acreage and less restrictive management prescriptions. Management prescriptions for the special 

designations typically address motorized vehicle use, right-of-way and other land use authorizations, and 

minerals management as well as other resource considerations. 

Other key areas of comparison among the alternatives include: 

x At least one utility corridor is identified under all action alternatives; the 1989 RMP had not 

addressed utility corridors. 

x The extent and type of management applied to potential aplomado falcon habitat areas in southern 

Socorro County varies among the action alternatives. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS S-3 Executive Summary

April 2007

x Discretionary closures and additional stipulations on fluid minerals leasing are considered in 

different locations throughout the alternatives1

.

Several alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. A variety of areas were 

considered for special designations; however, only those areas meeting the BLM criteria for ACECs of 

relevance, importance, and need for special management were carried forward under the alternatives. 

Some alternative management strategies were considered including various best management practices, 

development of watershed management plans, and development of partnerships. These decisions can be 

implemented at any time without amending or revising the RMP; therefore, they were not included in the 

alternatives. Other proposed management strategies, such as maintaining vegetative cover and soil 

conditions, are managed under the New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management (hereafter New Mexico Standards and Guidelines) and do not require 

separate management decisions. Lastly, some management strategies were considered but eliminated 

because they were outside BLM’s jurisdiction. 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

To document the existing conditions on public land in Socorro and Catron Counties and establish a 

baseline for evaluating potential impacts, the current resources and land uses and their conditions are 

described in Chapter 3. The majority of the information was gathered from existing data maintained by 

BLM. The discussion is organized by resource and resource use, and includes the following sections: 

x Air Quality x Lands Use and Facilities 

x Geology x Forestry and Woodland Products 

x Soil Resources x Rangeland Management 

x Water Resources x Minerals

x Vegetation x Recreation 

x Wildlife and Riparian Habitat x Renewable Energy 

x Special Status Species x Transportation and Travel Management 

x Wild Horses x Utility Corridors and Communication Sites 

x Wildland Fire Ecology and Management x Land Tenure 

x Cultural Resources x Hazardous Materials 

x paleontological Resources x Special Designations 

x Cave and Karst Resources x Social and Economic Conditions 

x Wilderness Characteristics 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The predicted consequences, or potential effects, on the environment that would result from the 

implementation of the alternative management strategies were identified. An impact, or effect, is defined 

as a modification to the environment as it presently exists, that is brought about by an outside action. 

Impacts can vary in significance from no change or only slightly discernible change, to a full modification 

or elimination of the environmental condition. The following sections summarize the results from the 

impact analysis for each alternative. 

 

1

 Nondiscretionary closures to fluid mineral leasing are beyond the discretion of the BLM, and would be observed 

under all alternatives. In the Planning Area, these closures include all wilderness study areas (WSAs); the White 

Sands Missile Range and other military installations; National Park Service land; land managed by U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish; and towns, villages, and incorporated cities. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS S-4 Executive Summary

April 2007

Alternative A

In general, the management of soils, water and watershed resources, and vegetation would be expected to 

result in reduced potential for soil erosion and vegetation loss, and increased control of noxious weeds 

over time, as actions are taken to meet public land health standards in areas that are not currently 

achieving them and through protective management of more sensitive resources within special 

designations. Surface disturbance due to resource uses (such as mineral development, OHV use, or 

construction of right-of-way or other land use authorizations) could have localized effects on soil, water, 

and vegetation resources, including soil compaction and soil loss due to vegetation removal in the areas 

where the disturbance occurs. These impacts may be temporary if associated with construction activities, 

and the extent of long-term effects would be influenced by the intensity, frequency, and type of use in a 

specific area. These types of impacts would be most likely to occur outside of the restrictive land use 

allocations listed in Table S-1. 

TABLE S-1 

COMPARISON OF LAND USE ALLOCATIONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVES 

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Alternative 

D

Acres of BLM-managed surface estate within 

discretionary special designations (ACECs, 

SMAs, SRMAs) 

238,9361

 297,555 336,609 149,478 

Acres of BLM-managed surface estate within 

right-of-way exclusion areas 

39,148 402,758 716,100 301,081 

Acres of BLM-managed surface estate within 

right-of-way avoidance areas 

458,996 349,343 419,120 117,290 

Acres of BLM-managed surface estate 

identified for potential disposal 

86,458 91,599 42,913 212,323 

Acres of BLM-managed surface estate within 

closed OHV use area designations 

29,117 117,921 139,971 0 

Acres of BLM-managed surface estate within 

limited OHV use area designations 

562,901 1,389,624 1,366,866 1,504,540 

Acres of BLM-managed surface estate within 

open OHV use area designations 

851,234 0 0

Acres of Federal mineral estate within areas 

closed to fluid mineral leasing 

1,418,415 1,543,095 1,856,116 1,423,893 

Acres of Federal mineral estate that would be 

petitioned for withdrawal from location and 

entry under mining laws 

1,508 72,369 497,391 0

Acres of BLM-managed surface estate 

excluded from mineral material disposals 

0 340,066 484,133 291,859 

Acres of BLM-managed surface estate 

designated VRM Class I 

30,343 28,533 27,093 0 

Acres of BLM-managed surface estate 

designated VRM Class II 

385,781 488,339 715,706 354,222 

Acres of BLM-managed surface estate 

designated VRM Class III 

299,741 480,595 249,953 106,277 

Acres of BLM-managed surface estate 

designated VRM Class IV 

774,170 509,432 513,997 1,046,399 

NOTE: 1 This total includes an overlap between WSAs and ACECs. This type of overlap has been eliminated in all the action 

alternatives.

Special designations generally limit surface disturbance through a variety of land use restrictions; under 

Alternative A, a total of 238,936 acres in BLM’s Decision Area would be managed as discretionary 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS S-5 Executive Summary

April 2007

special designations (ACECs, SMAs, SRMAs) to protect watershed, vegetation, wildlife, and cultural 

resources. An additional 291,826 acres would be managed within WSAs in accordance with the Interim 

Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review, which requires nonimpairment of wilderness 

values, with the effect of supporting the maintenance and enhancement of native vegetation and wildlife 

habitat, scenic resources, and primitive recreational settings in those areas. 

General impacts on wildlife would be closely correlated with impacts on vegetation, which provides 

forage and cover. Generally, Alternative A would be expected to result in localized effects on wildlife due 

to surface-disturbing activities or in areas where land disposals cause effects such as habitat fragmentation 

or disruption of wildlife movement corridors. The aplomado falcon, a federally listed species, has been 

elevated as a species of concern in the Planning Area. Under Alternative A, no specific management 

decisions related to the aplomado falcon would be proposed; however, in the event of a proposed action, 

the legal provisions of the Endangered Species Act and NEPA would provide protection of the falcon 

from incidental takes and would require consideration and mitigation of potential effects to the species. 

Under Alternative A, damage to cultural and paleontological resources from permitted activities would be 

minimized through legally required site-specific environmental analysis, including inventory and 

evaluation. Damage to these resources would continue, however, from activities that do not require a 

permit, such as non-permit-related OHV use in areas open to cross-country travel. Known cultural 

resources that are sensitive or unique have been identified within special designations; a total of 20,450 

BLM-managed surface acres are identified for protection of cultural resources through special 

designations under Alternative A. These resources would be exposed to less potential for degradation due 

to disturbance as a result of management to minimize surface disturbance, typically a combination of 

restrictions on land use authorizations, mineral development activities, and motorized travel. Potential 

impacts under Alternative A to known sensitive cultural resources include continued vandalism as a result 

of access to the Newton Site. The Zuni Salt Lake also has been identified as a sensitive resource, and 

would be managed within a 4,839-acre SMA to regulate surface-disturbing activities. Under all 

alternatives, water quantity and quality within the lake, which is considered to be of significant religious 

and cultural value to the Zuni and other Tribes, would be evaluated continually through measures 

intended to regulate environmental impacts on a site- and project-specific basis in accordance with NEPA 

and other Federal and State laws. Because the Zuni Tribe has senior rights to the waters of the lake, any 

new diversion of ground or surface water would require that these rights not be impaired and the Tribe 

could protest any new application for water use filed by either BLM or a private party. 

Under Alternative A, 851,234 acres would be managed as open to cross-country, motorized travel. 

Generalized impacts from OHV use could include increased particulate and engine exhaust emissions; 

increased potential for soil erosion, sediment transport across public land and water quality degradation, 

and vegetation loss; damage to cultural and paleontological resources; and greater potential for conflicts 

with wildlife or habitat degradation. OHV use also may affect opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation through the introduction of noise and dust. However, impacts associated with OHV use could 

vary depending on the intensity and frequency of use as well as the type of vehicle and the type of soils in 

a particular location. 

The management of resource uses under Alternative A would accommodate diverse uses as required by 

BLM’s mandate to manage for multiple uses, including mineral exploration and development, developed 

and primitive recreation uses, grazing, and commodity production associated with woodcutting and plant 

material sales. Potential impacts on these resource uses would result from localized changes to access to 

achieve other resource objectives, although overall travel throughout the Planning Area and the overall 

balance of recreation opportunities would not be impaired or affected by the proposed management. 

Controlled surface use lease stipulations and limits on surface occupancy would curtail fluid mineral 

leasing and development activities if restrictions increase the cost and difficulty of exploration for and 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS S-6 Executive Summary

April 2007

development of mineral resources such that these activities cease to be economically feasible. The 

potential for this impact to occur would fluctuate depending on the variable price of minerals over time 

and the potential for the resource in a particular area, both of which influence economic feasibility of 

exploration and development. 

Alternative B

Some of the impacts that would be expected under Alternative B are the same as Alternative A. Reduced 

potential for soil erosion and vegetation loss, and increased control of noxious weeds over time would be 

expected to result as actions are taken to meet public land health standards in areas that are not currently 

achieving them and through protective management within special designations. However, the 

distribution of this protective management varies from Alternative A; generally this management would 

be applied to more acres in BLM’s Decision Area, increasing protection of resources as compared with 

Alternative A. Under Alternative B, acreages that would be managed to minimize various types of surface 

disturbance area identified in Table S-1. 

Public land that would be managed within discretionary special designations, and typically would be 

managed with a combination of the types of restrictive management included in Table S-1, would include 

297,555 acres to protect watershed, vegetation, wildlife, and cultural resources. An additional 291,826 

acres also would be managed within WSAs; the boundaries and management of WSAs would not vary 

among the alternatives. 

Expanded areas that would be managed to minimize surface disturbance, with the effect of reduced 

potential for soil erosion and loss of vegetation, also would influence the availability of habitat and forage 

for wildlife and reduce opportunities for noxious weed infestation. Compared to Alternative A, the areas 

that would be expected to experience these effects are in the Horse Mountain ACEC, Ladron MountainDevil’s Backbone Complex ACEC, Pelona Mountain ACEC, Cerro Pomo ACEC, Zuni Salt Lake ACEC, 

Tinajas ACEC, and Newton Site SMA. In the case of the Newton Site SMA, reduced access is expected 

to result in less degradation to resources due to vandalism. 

Under Alternative B, the Walnut Canyon SMA would be eliminated; this area contains habitat that 

supports a variety of species, including golden eagles, prairie falcons, and great horned owls. Since 

Alternative B continues the same type of OHV area designation and management of fluid minerals, no 

effect is anticipated to result from the change in designation. In addition, no distinct effects on natural or 

cultural resources would be expected to result from the elimination or reduction in size of other special 

designations that are proposed under Alternative B. This is because (1) land would be absorbed into a 

different special designation with management that restricts uses (i.e., Agua Fria ACEC, Fence Lake 

SMA, Mogollon Pueblo SMA, San Lorenzo SMA); (2) previously protected species have been de-listed, 

and special management beyond future NEPA compliance is not required to avoid losses of those species 

(i.e., Taylor Canyon, Iron Mine Ridge); and (3) sensitive areas would still be encompassed within smaller 

designations (i.e. Penjeacu SMA, Stallion SMA).

Under Alternative B, measures have been proposed to reduce the possibility of surface disturbance on up 

to 43,952 acres of Federal mineral estate (including 40,104 acres of BLM-managed surface land) of the 

Chihuahuan semi-desert grasslands, which is the major portion of the Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion and 

provides habitat for several raptor species. One of these species is the aplomado falcon and there is 

potential aplomado falcon habitat in southern Socorro County. These measures include closure to fluid 

mineral leasing, exclusions of mineral material disposals, and petitioning to withdraw the area from 

location and entry under the mining laws. OHV use also would be limited in these areas. These measures 

would impact habitat by minimizing loss of forage from resource uses, directly addressing the primary 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS S-7 Executive Summary

April 2007

threat to this species. These actions would be expected to contribute to the recovery of the species beyond 

what is proposed in Alternative A by implementing additional and proactive protection for the species. 

Similar to Alternative A, damage to cultural and paleontological resources from permitted activities 

would be minimized through site-specific environmental analysis. However, under Alternative B special 

designations to protect cultural resources would be expanded to 62,583 acres, primarily due to the 

expansion of the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. The elimination of open OHV areas would reduce impacts from 

non-permit-related OHV use. 

Management under this alternative would still accommodate diverse resource uses, although potential 

impacts on mineral development are anticipated. The acreage that would be closed to fluid mineral 

leasing includes areas of high potential for carbon dioxide and helium resources. In addition, if proposed 

mineral withdrawals are completed, some areas with high mineral resource potential would be unavailable 

for mineral development. If a no-surface-occupancy stipulation covers extensive acreage, the ability to 

target a fluid mineral resource using directional drilling technology becomes restricted or infeasible, 

effectively closing the land to fluid mineral development. 

Under Alternative B, a total of 100,358 BLM-managed surface acres would be designated as special 

designations (ACECs, SMAs, and SRMAs) to manage recreation uses. The management of public land 

within special recreation management areas would be expected to have the effect of increasing visitation, 

which typically occurs with the presence of developed facilities, improved recreation settings, and public 

knowledge that a particular area is an intended recreation destination. Increased visitation and recreational 

use can result in damage to cultural resource sites. Site hardening measures and access restrictions may be 

considered to reduce these impacts. Visitation could contribute to local economies that support visitation, 

particularly in service and retail industries, although the extent of this impact is difficult to predict due to 

the wide variety of factors influencing visitation trends and local economies. 

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, management to minimize surface disturbance would be expanded, largely in the 

northwestern corner of Catron County. Generally, Alternative C includes the most restrictive 

management, in that more resource uses (i.e., mineral extraction, OHV use) are excluded or limited over a 

larger area. Acreages that would be managed to minimize various types of surface use are identified in 

Table S-1. The effects of this management on natural resources would include localized and overall 

reduced soil and vegetation loss, which would contribute to the maintenance or enhancement of habitat

and reduce damage to cultural resources. In addition, actions to meet public land health standards in areas 

that are not currently achieving them would provide increased control of noxious weeds and reduced 

potential for soil erosion and vegetation loss over time. Reduced surface disturbance also would result in 

less habitat degradation, habitat fragmentation, or disturbance to wildlife movement corridors. 

The acreage that would be managed within discretionary special designations to protect natural and 

cultural resources would be expanded to a total of 336,609 acres. The primary variable in this increase 

over Alternative B is the expansion of the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC to 156,601 acres of BLM-managed 

surface estate. The impacts of the expanded Zuni Salt Lake ACEC include reduced potential for soil 

erosion and vegetation loss over Alternatives A and B. It is unclear whether the larger ACEC would have 

an incremental protective effect on groundwater resources over what is proposed in Alternative B due to a 

lack of knowledge regarding the hydrogeology of the area. Since public land within this ACEC would be 

closed to fluid mineral leasing, valuable carbon dioxide and helium resource would not be developed on 

public land. In addition, the closed mineral estate includes areas of moderate potential for oil and gas 

resources, which would not be available for leasing and development. The impacts of management of 

minerals in this area would include lost opportunities for wage income, induced income as wages 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS S-8 Executive Summary

April 2007

circulate through local economies, revenue for the State of New Mexico and the U.S. General Fund from 

royalties, and tax revenue generation for local jurisdictions.

Alternative C would increase the area of potential aplomado falcon habitat that would be managed to 

reduce the possibility of surface disturbance from minerals exploration and development and OHV use. 

This management would expand the effects that would occur in Alternative B over a larger area, and 

indirectly would maintain or enhance all wildlife habitat in those areas through protection from uses that 

could affect soil erosion potential, vegetation loss, or introduce more intense activity such as facility 

construction or extensive motorized travel. 

Management under this alternative still would accommodate diverse uses, although potential impacts on 

mineral development are anticipated. The types of impacts on minerals would be similar to Alternative B, 

except the restrictions associated with the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC would inhibit fluid minerals leasing and 

locatable minerals development over a larger area. The expanded acreage managed within special 

designations (and therefore typically subject to a combination of the restrictive management listed in 

Table S-1) would support the maintenance or enhancement of primitive and semi-primitive recreation 

settings over a greater area. In addition, localized effects would occur as opportunities for motorized 

recreation would be diminished due to more closures to OHV use as compared with Alternatives A and B. 

Under Alternative C, a total of 27,780 BLM-managed surface acres would be designated as special 

designations to manage recreation uses. The change in acreage from Alternative B is due to smaller 

special recreation management areas and a substantial reduction in size of the Continental Divide SMA. 

The effects of recreation management under Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B, although 

there could be additional dispersed recreational use under Alternative C. However, the designations 

would have the same type of localized effect with regard to increasing visitation as the result of the 

presence of developed facilities, improved recreation settings, and public knowledge that a particular area 

is an intended recreation destination. 

Alternative D

Alternative D is most oriented towards commodity production in BLM’s Decision Area. Actions taken to 

meet public land health standards in areas that are not currently achieving them would reduce soil erosion, 

vegetation loss, and wildlife habitat. Areas within special designations would receive additional 

protection; acreages that would be managed to minimize various types of surface use are identified in 

Table S-1. 

Generally, the effects of minimizing surface disturbance through these land use allocations would occur 

over a much smaller area in Alternative D than in Alternative B or C. Compared to Alternative A, 

Alternative D has no closed OHV areas, no areas open to cross-country travel, and expanded right-of-way 

exclusion areas. Special designations to protect cultural resources are expanded in Alternative D over 

Alternative A, with the expanded Cerro Pomo ACEC and Newton Site SMA. Several impacts would be 

expected as the result of these variations. Impacts that could result from overall increases in areas where 

motorized travel is permitted over Alternatives B and C could result in increased particulate and engine 

exhaust emissions; increased potential for soil erosion, sediment transport across public land and water 

quality degradation, vegetation loss, and damage to cultural resources; and greater potential for conflicts 

with wildlife. However, impacts associated with OHV use could vary depending on the intensity and 

frequency of use as well as the type of vehicle and the type of soils in a particular location. The expansion 

of protective management over Alternative A would reduce access and subsequently the potential for 

vandalism at Newton Site, and reduce access to the pueblos and other cultural resources within Cerro 

Pomo. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS S-9 Executive Summary

April 2007

Management of aplomado falcon habitat would be similar to Alternative A, with protection occurring 

largely through statutory compliance. In addition, establishment of additional utility corridors under this 

alternative could increase the potential for loss of raptor or migratory bird species over Alternatives B 

and C if linear facilities are built in multiple locations throughout the Planning Area. The higher acreages 

of Federal land identified for disposal could result in increased land use intensity and edge effects if more 

land is actually disposed, which in turn may result in habitat fragmentation, degradation, and disruption of 

wildlife movement corridors. 

Similar to the other alternatives, the management under Alternative D still would accommodate diverse 

resource uses. Access for motorized recreation would be most extensive under Alternative D. Overall, this 

would enhance recreation opportunities for OHV users and others who use OHV (such as hunters), and 

primitive and semi-primitive settings still would be available throughout the Planning Area. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are the effects that result from the incremental effect of an action when added to other 

past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. The results of the cumulative effects assessment do 

not vary appreciably between the alternatives. The majority of the impacts identified for each alternative 

would be localized, and occur at a small scale relative to the size of BLM’s Decision Area. There may be 

cumulative impacts associated with clustering of these localized impacts in the same area, for example 

aggregate unpaved road development that could result in increases in inhalable particulate concentrations 

and public access throughout the Planning Area. Mineral development or other surface-disturbing 

activities on State or private land that is adjacent to BLM’s Decision Area could trigger edge effects on 

wildlife, visual impacts, or proliferation of public access. 

This RMPR/EIS evaluates broad management objectives and management actions, and the alternatives do 

not include project- or site-specific actions that might occur in the future or would lead directly to 

surface-disturbing activities. More specific mitigation measures or additional NEPA analysis may be 

required for some future proposed uses and actions, and would be assessed on a case-by-case basis in 

accordance with the management framework provided in this RMPR and any applicable statutes. 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

This RMPR/EIS was completed in consultation other agencies, State, tribal, and local governments, and 

the public. These activities and participants are discussed in Chapter 5 of the RMPR/EIS. Consultation 

has been initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and a Biological Assessment will be completed 

prior to the Proposed RMPR/Final EIS. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and State 

Historic Preservation Office also have been contacted regarding this RMPR/EIS. BLM also contacted 

local tribes and government officials to inform them of the planning effort, request the identification of 

traditional cultural places and resources that should be considered, and invite them to participate in the 

preparation of the RMPR/EIS. The Zuni Pueblo and Catron County are participating in this effort as 

cooperating agencies. These cooperating agencies are playing a critical role in development of the 

RMPR/EIS and have been involved throughout the process by sharing information, participating in 

RMPR development, and reviewing draft documents. 

The Zuni Tribe participated in the ACEC identification process by proposing areas for special 

designation. BLM and the Zuni Tribe coordinated closely to determine the relevance, importance, need 

for special management, and appropriate size for the proposed Zuni Salt Lake ACEC; and also worked 

closely to determine the boundaries and recommended management strategies. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS S-10 Executive Summary

April 2007

The Draft RMPR/EIS will be distributed to agencies and the interested public for review and comment. 

About midway through the 90-day review period, BLM will conduct public hearings to listen to and 

understand the public’s comments on the Draft RMPR/EIS. All input on the Draft will be considered and 

addressed in the Proposed RMPR/Final EIS.

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-1 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

A resource management plan (RMP) provides a comprehensive framework for managing public land and 

allocating resources. Periodically, it becomes necessary to conduct a thorough review of the existing 

situation to examine the conditions of resources on public land, determine whether they are being 

managed to fulfill the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of public lands as originally set forth 

in the Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLMPA), and to evaluate the effects of current 

management. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Socorro Field Office completed an RMP in 1989 

and since then it has been providing management direction for public land in Socorro and Catron 

Counties, New Mexico. Time and experience have demonstrated the success and the continuing relevance 

and effectiveness of some elements of the RMP. This is also due in no small part to the cooperation of 

other Federal, State, county, and local agencies, and Tribes, organizations, and individuals, who have 

contributed greatly to the RMP’s success. 

However, circumstances have changed over the last 20 years. Some of the original goals and supporting 

management decisions are no longer adequate to address the demographics, resource conditions, policies, 

and other circumstances that have changed over the years. Though BLM intends to carry forward the 

management strategies that have proven to be successful and are still vitally relevant, these changes 

warrant analysis of BLM’s current management direction. 

The population growth in the Planning Area and statewide has placed increasing and often conflicting 

demands on the public lands managed by the BLM Socorro Field Office. This requires a different 

management approach in several management categories. For example, recreation such as off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) use is expected to increase even more than it has already over the past 20 years, and fire 

management becomes of increasing concern as populations move closer to the rural open space of public 

lands. In addition, the public lands managed by the Socorro Field Office hold potential for energy 

development (for example, carbon dioxide, helium, oil and gas, coal, biomass) that may support 

increasing demand. At the same time and in response to circumstances, BLM is increasing its policy 

emphasis on control of noxious weeds and invasive species, fire management, and other resource and land 

use management programs. In this RMP Revision (RMPR), BLM will also consider land exchanges, 

updated listings of threatened and endangered species, and updated resource inventory information. 

The purpose of revising an RMP is to re-evaluate existing conditions and reconsider an appropriate mix of 

multiple uses and appropriate levels of resource allocations in accordance with the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and other applicable statutes. As with all RMPs, the BLM is 

charged with the task of balancing resource development with resource protection as it seeks to determine 

a reasonable course between the two. It is necessary to watch over the often precarious balance by 

monitoring the status of resources and evaluating the effectiveness of the management programs over 

time. A range of possible resource management strategies were identified as part of this planning effort, 

and this RMPR/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes and evaluates those alternatives. 

This EIS will identify the potential impacts that implementation of the RMPR could have and the 

appropriate measures to mitigate those impacts. The primary purpose of this EIS is to analyze and 

document the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the reasonably foreseeable future actions 

resulting from BLM’s management decisions. By law, these impacts must be analyzed before BLM 

makes an irreversible commitment of public land resources. This EIS is intended to satisfy the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), FLPMA, and other associated regulations. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-2 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

1.2 PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION 

1.2.1 Planning Area Location

The public land managed by the BLM Socorro Field Office is located in the west-central portion of New 

Mexico within Socorro and Catron Counties (Map 1-1, Surface Management). Generally, public lands are 

consolidated in the Quemado, Pelona Mountain, Ladron, and Stallion areas. However, in large portions of 

the two counties, public land is isolated and scattered. The Planning Area referred to in this document 

includes all land—both public and private—within Socorro and Catron Counties. The BLM considers 

potential impacts on all resources within this inclusive Planning Area, regardless of jurisdiction or 

ownership. The term Decision Area is used to describe public land and Federal mineral estate 

administered by BLM within the two counties; Decision Area can refer to both surface acres and 

subsurface acres of Federal mineral estate. Use of the term “BLM-managed surface estate” refers to the 

surface acres managed by BLM, exclusive of acres of Federal mineral estate that underlie land owned or 

managed by other entities. While BLM’s jurisdiction is restricted to the Decision Area, it is responsible 

for collaboratively planning with adjacent jurisdictions and the public to encourage compatible land uses 

within a regional context.

1.2.2 Land Management Status in the Planning Area

Based on the existing ownership and management patterns, BLM currently administers approximately 

1.5 million acres2

 of surface land in Socorro and Catron Counties. Agencies other than BLM that administer Federal land within the Planning Area include the U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park 

Service, and Bureau of Reclamation (Map 1-1). A large amount of private land is found within large land 

grants, which generally include the lowlands of the Rio Grande Valley (e.g., Town of Socorro Grant, 

Sevilleta Grant, Casa Colorada Grant, and Pedro Armendaris Grant) (Bell 2003; BLM 1989a). 

BLM manages approximately 6 million acres of mineral estate within the two counties. This acreage 

includes mineral estate exchanges that have occurred within the Planning Area since adoption of the 1989 

RMP. BLM is responsible for administering the Federal mineral estate underlying land managed by other 

Federal agencies in consultation with those agencies. Tables 1-1 and Table 1-2 show the surface owner or 

administrator associated with surface and mineral estate acreage in Socorro and Catron Counties. 

1.3 ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE RMPR 

The BLM interdisciplinary team, cooperating agencies, other State and Federal agencies, and the general 

public raised a number of issues and concerns to be addressed in the RMPR. The BLM land use planning 

process is issue-driven in that it is undertaken to resolve resource management problems and take 

advantage of management opportunities. The following sections summarize the broad scope of the issues 

and management concerns that determined the alternatives and the scope of analysis for this RMPR/EIS. 

 

2

 Unless otherwise noted, geographic information system calculations of acreages based on best available data are 

used in this document and for analysis. 
Datil

Town of

Reserve

Bernardo

Claunch

Bingham

Glenwood

SanAntonio

Magdalena

SanMarcial

Pie Town

Quemado

Aragon

Gila

National

Forest

Apache

National

Forest

Cibola

National

Forest

Cibola

National

Forest

Pedro

Armendaris

Grant #33

Bosque Del Apache

National Wildlife

Refuge

Sevilleta National

Wildlife Refuge

White Sands

Missile Range

Cibola

National

Forest

Cibola

National

Forest

Gila Cliff

Dwellings

National

Monument

Salinas Pueblo

Missions

National

Monument

Ladron

Mountain

Chupadera Mesa Horse

Mountain

Sevilleta Grant

SocorroGrant

Alamo

Band 

of the

Navajo

Nation

Casa Colorada Grant

Pedro

Armendaris

Grant #34

Surface Management

Socorro RMPR/EIS

October 2006Universal Transverse MercatorZone 13, Units MetersGRS 1980 SpheroidNAD83 DatumP:\BLM\Socorro RMPR_EIS\GIS\plots\Draft-RMPREIS\Chap_1\Jurisdiction.pdf

Legend

Surface Management

Bureau of Land ManagementU.S. Forest ServiceNational Park ServiceU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceBureau of ReclamationDepartment of DefenseTribal LandsState Trust Lands

LEA

OTERO

CATRON

EDDY

CHAVES

SOCORRO

CIBOLA

UNION

SIERRA

SAN JUAN

GRANT

LINCOLN

LUNA

MCKINLEY

RIO ARRIBA

QUAY

COLFAX TAOS

HIDALGO

SAN MIGUEL

DONA ANA

SANDOVAL

MORA

TORRANCE

DE BACA

GUADALUPE

HARDING

ROOSEVELT

CURRY

SANTA FE

VALENCIA

BERNALILLO

LOSALAMOS

Location in

New Mexico

0 5 10 15 20 2.5

Miles

0 5 10 15 20 2.5

Kilometers

Reference Features

Planning Area BoundaryPublic Land Survey SystemRio Grande

R oi Grande

Transportation Routes (Federal and State Only)City, Town, or Village

PrivateProposed Urban Development

60

25

169

60

12

180

380

Lands Exchanged

Land Acquired Into Federal Management Since 1989Land Disposed Out of Federal Management Since 1989

T 4 N

T 2 N

T 2 S

T 4 S

T 6 S

T 8 S

T 10 S

T 12 S

R 18 W R 20 W R 16 W R 14 W R 12 W R 10 W R 8 W R 6 W R 4 W R 2 W

R 2 E

R 4 E

R 6 E R 8 E

Note:The locations of proprietary specially designated areashave not been mapped to ensure protection of sensitive resources.Source:Base Map Information: BLM, Socorro Field Office 2003Jurisdiction Information: BLM, Socorro Field Office 2003No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to theaccuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data forindividual use or aggregate use with other data, or for purposesnot intended by BLM. Spatial information may not meet National MapAccuracy Standards. This information may be updated without notification.

Map 1-1
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-4 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

TABLE 1-1 

SURFACE MANAGEMENT IN SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES 

Surface

Administrator/Owner

Socorro County 

(acres) 

Catron County 

(acres) 

Total 

(acres) 

Percent of 

Planning Area 

Bureau of Land Management 920,410 586,094 1,506,504 17.3 

Forest Service 614,660 2,193,982 2,808,642 32.3 

National Park Service 373 407 780 0.0 

Bureau of Reclamation 14,055 0 14,055 0.2 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 284,721 0 284,721 3.3 

Department of Defense 442,090 0 442,090 5.1 

American Indian Reservations 106,852 13,126 119,978 1.4 

State of New Mexico 529,814 511,764 1,041,578 12.0 

Private 1,339,830 1,135,282 2,475,112 28.5 

Totals 4,252,805 4,440,655 8,693,460 100.0 

SOURCE: Derived from BLM 2003a 

NOTES: Acreage based on best available GIS data

TABLE 1-2 

FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE ACREAGES BY SURFACE MANAGEMENT 

RESPONSIBILITY IN SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES 

Administrator/Owner

Socorro County

(acres) 

Catron County 

(acres) 

Total 

(acres) 

Percent of 

Federal Mineral 

Estate 

Bureau of Land Management 900,992 540,994 1,441,986 23.7 

Forest Service 612,492 2,180,935 2,793,427 45.8 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 227,599 0 227,599 3.7 

Department of Defense 441,507 0 441,507 7.2 

Bureau of Reclamation 1,046 0 1,046 0.0 

National Park Service 375 407 782 0.0 

American Indian Reservations 48,722 4,187 52,909 0.9 

State of New Mexico 51,425 18,222 69,647 1.1 

Private 490,557 575,963 1,066,520 17.5 

Totals 2,774,715 3,320,708 6,095,423 100.0 

SOURCE: Derived from BLM 2003a 

NOTES: Acreage based on best available GIS data

1.3.1 Planning Issues

An issue can be defined as an opportunity, conflict, or problem regarding the use or management of 

public land and resources. The following six broad issues and supporting sub-issues or questions 

represent the ideas discussed among the agencies and public throughout scoping and the subsequent 

planning process. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-5 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

Issue 1: Which areas, if any, should be designated for special management, what designations 

should apply (areas of critical environmental concern [ACEC], special management areas [SMA], 

or other), and how should these areas be managed? 

The special designations established in the 1989 RMP were reviewed to evaluate whether each 

designation met its objectives. New information on the habitat and resource needs of species have been 

identified since the 1989 RMP and should be incorporated into existing special designations. Additional 

areas have been identified that may be suitable for a special designation. 

Questions to be considered in resolving Issue 1: 

x Which areas should be designated as ACECs, SMAs, research natural areas, or other designation 

and how should they be managed in both the short term and long term? 

x Should any existing designations be dropped? 

x Which areas should be designated special recreation management areas (SRMAs) and how should 

they be managed?

x Do special management areas require additional facilities to meet public demands and/or public 

safety issues, and if so, which areas and what type of facilities?

x Which areas provide recreation experiences close to communities and which areas provide more 

remote, extensive recreation experiences and how should these areas be managed?

x How should areas, including acquired lands that have been identified as having naturalness, 

solitude, and primitive recreation character, be managed?

x Which river segments should be studied for wild, scenic, or recreation river designation?

x Do significant caves and karst resources exist in the Decision Area, and if so, how should they be 

managed?

x What would be the economic consequences of special designations to local communities in the 

Planning Area? 

x What areas should be identified as Traditional Cultural Properties and how should they be 

managed?

Issue 2: What type of management should be undertaken at the watershed level to improve soil and 

vegetation condition? 

Watershed concerns include non-point source pollution from watersheds that impact New Mexico 

designated impaired streams (303d list), designated priority subbasins, watersheds dominated by karst 

topography, watersheds that contain problem erosion areas, and woodlands that have high fuel loads due 

to fire suppression. Impaired steams that may be impacted by the Decision Area include Alamosa Creek 

near Montecello and the East Fork of the Gila River. Designated priority subbasins are essentially all the 

watersheds in Socorro County that drain into the Rio Grande. 

Questions to be considered in resolving Issue 2: 

x How can fire and fuels management, range management, wildlife habitat management, and the 

management of other resources be best combined for desired resource conditions at the watershed 

level?
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-6 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

x What are the desired levels of resource use and what types of constraints, if any, should be placed 

on resource use? 

x What is the desired vegetation and what is the best means to achieve it? 

x How should vegetation be managed to provide forage for livestock, wildlife, and wild horses 

(where they occur) as well as provide wildlife cover and watershed protection? 

x How should watersheds be prioritized and at what hydrologic unit level for treatment and 

improvement over the life of the plan? 

x Which best management practices should be implemented to improve soil and vegetation 

conditions at the watershed level? 

Issue 3: How should energy, fluid, and solid mineral development in the Decision Area be 

managed? 

The National Energy Policy and various Executive orders influence the management and development of 

these resources on public lands. These policies will be applied in resolving this issue. The 1989 RMP only 

addressed leasing of oil and gas in Socorro and Catron Counties and did not address any aspects of 

development. Conditions of approval will be developed in this RMPR. Locatable minerals management 

on acquired lands will be addressed, as well as reclamation of abandoned mine lands. The demand for 

saleable minerals has remained moderately high in the past several years. 

Questions to be considered in resolving Issue 3: 

x What is the potential for development of carbon dioxide and helium and how should development 

of these resources be managed? 

x How should BLM address correlative rights for helium production? 

x How should BLM manage any potential oil or natural gas production that might occur in the Zuni 

Salt Lake area while protecting the natural and cultural values associated with that area? 

x What would be the economic consequences of fluid and other mineral development on the local 

communities in the Planning Area? 

x What are the best opportunities for the development of alternative energy sources such as biomass 

use, wind, solar, geothermal, and others? 

x What areas should be closed to the extraction of saleable minerals? 

Issue 4: How should travel and transportation—including motorized vehicle use, OHV use, 

mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding and others—be managed to satisfy public demand while 

protecting the natural and cultural values of the public land? 

OHV, mountain biking, and other trail uses are increasing in the Planning Area. The 1989 RMP decisions 

regarding OHV designations are no longer consistent with current BLM policy. Public accessibility for 

both motorized and non-motorized recreation is a major concern for many outdoor recreationists in the 

Planning Area. Other concerns include how travel management in general may affect other public land 

resources.

Questions to be considered in resolving Issue 4: 

x Which areas should be designated open, closed, or limited for OHV use? 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-7 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

x Which vehicle routes in special management areas (including ACECs and wilderness study areas 

[WSAs]) should be designated closed or limited and what limitations (i.e., season of use, type of 

vehicle) should be applied? 

x Are there routes outside of SMAs, ACECs, SRMAs, or WSAs that should be closed? 

x What process will be used for designating the remainder of all routes in the Planning Area that 

are not designated in the RMPR? 

x Where is legal and physical public access to public lands needed and how should it be acquired? 

x Are new trails for OHV use, mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding, etc. needed to meet 

public demand and, if so, in what general locations? 

Issue 5: What land use allocations or initiatives need to be addressed in the RMPR to accommodate 

the effective management and support of other resource uses, both internal and external, within the 

Planning Area? 

Since the 1989 RMP was completed, the Socorro Field Office has consummated a number of land 

exchanges resulting in the exchange of about 127,000 acres of lands in and out of Federal ownership. 

Several new resource findings, issues, and concerns have been identified that require BLM to consider 

future appropriateness of the land tenure adjustment designations, right-of-way exclusion and avoidance 

area designations, and other land use appropriations such as land withdrawals. Current considerations for 

identifying lands for tenure adjustments, either acquisitions or disposals, include listing of new threatened 

or endangered species, rural subdivision development and associated impacts, mineral potential, cultural 

resource inventories, and other resource inventories. The White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation 

Areas to the north and west of the range are used on a regular basis by the military. This use needs to be 

addressed in terms of meeting military needs while providing for public access and safety, and the RMPR 

must consider how such use fits with BLM management of the Decision Area. 

Questions to be considered in resolving Issue 5: 

x Which lands or interests in lands, if any, should be identified for acquisition in support of 

resource programs or special designated areas? 

x What lands within the Decision Area should be identified for disposal, retention, and acquisition 

in order to improve development and manageability of BLM’s land ownership pattern to 

effectively manage its resource programs? 

x Which areas should be designated as right-of-way corridors and which areas should be designated 

for avoidance or exclusion of right-of-way? 

x How should the White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Areas be managed to meet the 

needs of the military as well as provide for safety and access of the public land users? 

x What are the implications of urban expansion and remote subdivision growth on management of 

resources on adjacent public lands, and how can BLM work to minimize negative effects on 

public lands and resources in these areas? 

x What are the economic impacts of land tenure adjustments and what can be done to lessen 

adverse impacts and increase beneficial impacts on local economies? 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-8 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

Issue 6: How should BLM best pursue cultural and recreational initiatives to provide the public 

with quality tourism and heritage tourism opportunities? 

BLM and the State of New Mexico have partnered in the construction and management of El Camino 

Real International Heritage Center to interpret and commemorate the Spanish, Mexican, American Indian, 

and United States history of the trail as well as the central New Mexico area. The Socorro Field Office of 

BLM is centrally located along the trail and the Rio Grande, which it follows. BLM has been and will 

continue to be involved with numerous activities related to the center and the trail. Fort Craig, a 

nineteenth century military fort, is a few miles north of the center. The management of important, 

publicly owned cultural sites in the Planning Area needs to be reviewed in regard to increased visitation 

and interest in cultural tourism. The New Mexico State Office of BLM has embarked upon a project to 

determine the feasibility of promoting cultural tourism on BLM lands in rural counties in the State. 

Questions to be considered in resolving Issue 6: 

x What should be BLM’s role in promoting heritage tourism in the Planning Area? 

x What are the economic benefits that can accrue from heritage tourism and how can they best be 

realized within BLM’s multiple-use management? 

x How can the public best benefit from BLM’s partnership in regional tourism opportunities, such 

as Boots and Saddles, Magdalena Trail Project, and activities associated with the operation of the 

El Camino Real International Heritage Center? 

x What historical and/or recreational interpretation, if any, should BLM develop along the 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, Quebradas Backcountry Byway, and the El Camino 

Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail? 

x How can BLM’s outdoor recreation program provide economic benefit to local communities? 

1.3.2 Management Concerns 

Management concerns are defined as concerns not included in the list of scoping issues, but still needing 

to be addressed through the land use planning process. Management concerns focus on use conflicts, 

requirements, or conditions that cannot be resolved administratively and were not raised as planning 

issues during scoping, but still require a resolution through the planning process. 

Threatened and Endangered Species: Currently there are 19 federally listed species, 42 State-listed 

species, and 50 BLM sensitive species that need to be considered in this RMPR/EIS. A number of areas 

have been identified that need to be analyzed to determine if they should be designated as an ACEC or 

SMA. In addition, several species have been delisted since the 1989 RMP. 

Wild Horses: The Bordo Atravesado Wild Horse Herd Management Area Plan will be revised to address 

habitat and population objectives, giving consideration to topics such as age structure, sex ratio, fertility 

control, and genetic viability. 

Forest and Woodland Management: The woodland portions of the Socorro Field Office Decision Area 

are primarily piñon-juniper, with some forest adjacent to Forest Service land, in WSAs, and isolated 

tracts, mainly ponderosa pine. Fuelwood is the main wood product produced from the woodlands and 

forests in the Socorro Field Office. Since the Field Office is located in the arid southwestern region of the 

United States, growth rates in woodlands and forests are slow, so careful consideration will have to be 

applied to ensure sustainable harvest of wood products. The Socorro Field Office will strive to provide 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-9 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

commercial opportunity for local industry with commercial fuelwood areas and other potential wood 

products, accessible public fuelwood areas, Christmas tree collection sites, and plant adoption sites. 

Partnerships and working relationships with local communities and State and Federal agencies should 

continue and expand to accomplish woodland and forest health goals. 

Noxious Weeds: The invasion of noxious weeds is becoming a critical concern throughout the West. Of 

primary concern is the transmission of seeds related to surface disturbance. Management practices need to 

be incorporated into all activities on BLM lands in an overall integrated pest management program with 

the aim of expanding inventory, treatment, monitoring, and education. Noxious weed infestations need to 

be identified in the Planning Area, control means must be applied, and follow-up monitoring is necessary 

to determine the efficacy of these treatments. BLM will continue working with all affected parties in 

applying a coordinated and integrated pest management program to the noxious weed problem. 

Lands and Realty: Right-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas and designated corridors need to be 

determined for a variety of facilities such as power lines, pipelines, access routes, communication sites, 

radio towers, above-ground storage tanks, and other energy facilities (i.e., wind energy). In addition, there 

is a need to identify land tenure adjustments to consolidate public land and serve community needs, and 

determine land withdrawals necessary to support special designations and protect sensitive resources such 

as cultural sites and sensitive species habitat. 

In addition, Catron County, a cooperating agency on this planning effort, provided a statement of issues, 

as follows: 

Catron County is concerned with the resource, economic and social health within the county 

boundaries. The lack of land stewardship and flexibility has resulted in the loss of economic 

stability, economic activity, and tax base and therefore the loss of custom and culture. It is in light 

of these concerns that the county must emphasize that the BLM consider the impacts of its 

planning and manage the land it is entrusted with to contribute to the stability of the county 

economy. The county requests that decisions be made that will enhance, not diminish, the natural 

resource industries within the county and that the frailness of these industries be weighed in all 

planning alternatives. Adaptive management should also be an important aspect of all 

alternatives, allowing the flexibility to adjust management decisions when are not effective. 

1.3.3 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study 

During the scoping process and the initial phases of plan development, a number of potential alternatives 

and issues were identified. However, after internal discussion and review, some of these issues were 

eliminated from further consideration. 

WSA Designations: During public scoping, it was suggested that BLM consider designating additional 

lands with wilderness values as WSAs. However, BLM policy does not allow for the designation of 

WSAs through the land use planning process. Therefore, designation of WSAs was not considered in the 

RMPR. Any areas with wilderness characteristics—such as being essentially natural or providing 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation—may be managed under another designation such 

as ACEC or SMA. 

Bioaccumulation of Contaminates in Fish and Wildlife Species: Bioaccumulation of contaminates in 

fish and wildlife species as a result of power plant emissions was raised as a concern during public 

scoping. This was not addressed as an issue in the RMPR for a number of reasons. At this time there is no 

proposal for the development of a coal-fired power plant anywhere in the Planning Area. Power plants 

outside of the Planning Area are beyond the scope of this RMPR and therefore cannot be addressed, even 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-10 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

though emissions from those plants may have an effect on resources within the Planning Area. If a 

proposal for a power plant in the Decision Area were to come forth at some time in the future, an EIS 

would be required as part of the permitting process. Such an EIS would consider all possible impacts 

from the plant, including emissions. Public Service Company of New Mexico is considering siting a 

biomass-fired power plant somewhere in the Planning Area within the next 10 years. A biomass plant 

would have different kinds of emissions than a coal-fired plant. If the Public Service Company of New 

Mexico does go forward with the proposal and a Federal action is required, an EIS or other NEPA 

document would be prepared to analyze possible impacts before a decision would be made regarding the 

proposed plant. 

Urban Interface Problems: During the scoping process, urban interface problems were raised as a 

possible issue. These issues centered on the second home/retirement home subdivisions in Catron County. 

In analyzing this concern, the planning team determined it is primarily a recreation issue. It was 

concluded that these problems could be adequately addressed through special designation management, 

OHV management, and trail and access management. 

Public Involvement: During scoping, some individuals expressed concern that perhaps BLM was not 

making a large enough effort to include or contact all concerned persons as part of the scoping process. 

Every effort was made to address as wide an audience as possible in gathering information, comments, 

and concerns during the public scoping effort. The next formal opportunity for the public to provide input 

is the public review period for this Draft RMPR/EIS. Again, BLM will make an effort to ensure that all 

who are interested will have an opportunity to read and comment on the document. A summary of public 

and agency input and collaboration that has occurred to date is provided in Chapter 5. 

1.4 PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE RMPR/EIS 

The RMPR process employs the nine basic steps of the BLM planning process, which are listed below 

and described in the planning regulations (BLM 2005): 

x Identification of issues

x Development of planning criteria 

x Data and information collection 

x Management situation analysis 

x Formulation of alternatives 

x Estimation of effects of the alternatives 

x Selection of the preferred alternative(s) 

x Selection of the plan amendment 

x Monitoring and evaluation 

The process requires the use of an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists to complete each step. 

1.4.1 Step 1 – Identification of Issues

Issues were identified through the scoping process at the beginning of the project. Scoping, and the 

RMPR/EIS process, began with the publication in the Federal Register of the Notice of Intent to revise 

the RMP, prepare an EIS, and conduct public scoping meetings. The Notice of Intent was published on 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-11 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

May 8, 2002. In addition to the notice, the BLM prepared a bulletin and scoping notice that was sent to 

approximately 1,465 individuals, agencies, and interested organizations in early August 2002. The BLM 

paid for advertisements to be published in local and regional newspapers. Also, a media release 

introducing the project and announcing the scoping meetings was prepared and issued by the BLM on 

June 11, 2002, to local and regional newspapers, television, and radio. A toll-free telephone line was 

established in mid-August 2002 for the public to request information, ask questions, or be added to the 

mailing list. A Web site (see http://www.nm.blm.gov) also provides project information. 

Three public scoping meetings were conducted by the BLM in August 2002 in Socorro, Quemado, and 

Zuni, New Mexico. A total of 49 people attended the three meetings and 76 oral comments were received. 

In addition to the comments received during the meetings, a total of 214 comment forms and letters were 

submitted to the BLM. Scoping ended on September 13, 2002; however, additional comments continued 

to be accepted after that date. 

All of the comments and questions received were compiled, reviewed, and analyzed to identify the issues 

to be addressed in the RMPR/EIS. Overall, comments highlighted concerns regarding the RMPR/EIS 

process and schedule, agency coordination, land use and access, SMAs, water resources, vegetation, 

wildlife, special status species, rangeland/livestock grazing, cultural resources, recreation and OHV, 

social and economic impacts, wilderness, hazardous materials, and fire management. The scoping 

process, including a summary of comments and issues, was documented in a Scoping Summary Report in 

September 2002 and sent to the interested parties on the mailing list. A complete record of scoping is on 

file at the BLM Socorro Field Office.

Based on the polarized nature of comments received during scoping, the BLM Socorro Field Office later 

held three focused meetings to solicit further comments from the public on issues and concerns related to 

OHV use in the Planning Area. Meetings were held during March 2003 in Datil, Albuquerque, and 

Socorro. The comments received from the public meetings primarily expressed concerns about OHV use 

and provided suggestions for future OHV management. Generally speaking, comments and suggestions 

received at the Datil meeting focused primarily on concerns ranchers have about damage to vegetation 

and ranch improvements (fences) caused by OHV use. In contrast, comments and suggestions received at 

the Albuquerque meeting focused primarily on concerns that OHV use will be further restricted in the 

future. In Socorro, comments and suggestions focused equally on ranching concerns, OHV user concerns, 

and general concerns about the health of the environment with regard to OHV use. More information on 

these meetings is provided in the OHV Baseline Report, available from the Socorro Field Office. 

1.4.2 Step 2 – Development of Planning Criteria

Planning criteria are established to provide focus for data collection efforts, ensure compliance with legal 

mandates, and facilitate decision making. General and specific criteria that pertain to this RMPR/EIS are 

included in Appendix A, Planning Criteria. 

1.4.3 Step 3 – Data and Information Collection

The majority of data and information were extracted from existing data on file at the BLM Socorro Field 

Office. Other data were obtained from relevant sources to update and/or supplement the BLM’s data, as 

appropriate for each resource. Data included published and unpublished reports, maps, and digital format 

(geographic information systems). Resources, resource uses, and related issues that are addressed include 

the following: 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-12 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

x Air quality 

x Geology and minerals 

x Soil and watershed resources 

x Vegetation

x Wildlife habitat 

x Special status species 

x Wild horses 

x Fire management 

x Cultural resources 

x Paleontological resources 

x Visual resources 

x Cave and karst resources 

x Wilderness characteristics 

x Land use and facilities 

x Forestry and woodland products 

x Rangeland management 

x Recreation 

x Renewable energy 

x Transportation and travel management 

(including OHV use)

x Utility sites and communication corridors 

x Land tenure 

x Hazardous materials and public safety 

x Special designations (WSAs, ACECs, 

SMAs, SRMAs) 

x Social and economic conditions 

1.4.4 Step 4 – Management Situation Analysis

The purpose of the Management Situation Analysis is to conduct a deliberate assessment of the current 

situation as it relates to natural and cultural resource management and resource use on public lands within 

Socorro and Catron Counties. The documentation is not a compilation of all available data, but is, rather, 

information appropriate to address the planning issues identified during scoping. The Management 

Situation Analysis provides a profile of the resource concerns on public lands within Socorro and Catron 

Counties, a description of the existing management situation as it pertains to management of the 

resources, and an analysis of opportunities to modify the existing management situation. The 

Management Situation Analysis and accompanying resource maps are on file at the BLM Socorro Field 

Office. An OHV Baseline Report and Baseline Socioeconomic Conditions Report were completed in 

support of the Management Situation Analysis. These documents also are on file with the BLM Socorro 

Field Office. 

1.4.5 Step 5 – Formulation of Alternatives

Four alternatives are examined in this Draft RMPR/EIS. These alternatives were developed to respond to 

issues identified through scoping and management concerns, explore alternatives to the existing 

management situation, comply with BLM’s planning guidelines for fluid mineral resources (Handbook 

H-1624-1), and comply with the FLPMA requirement of managing for multiple use and sustained yield 

on public land. 

1.4.6 Step 6 – Estimation of Effects of Alternatives

The predicted effects resulting from each of the alternatives were identified and evaluated. Mitigation 

measures also were considered in evaluating impacts. The baseline information that describes the existing 

environment in the Planning Area is included in Chapter 3, and potential environmental consequences are 

discussed in Chapter 4.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-13 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

1.4.7 Step 7 – Selection of the Preferred Alternative

Based on the information generated in Step 6, the Socorro Field Manager identified and recommended 

Alternative B to the BLM State Director as the preferred alternative. The next step is to distribute the 

Draft RMPR/EIS to the public for review and comment. BLM is presently at this step of the process. 

1.4.8 Step 8 – Selection of the Plan Amendment

Based on the results of public review and comments on this Draft RMPR/EIS, the Socorro Field Manager 

will recommend, and the BLM State Director will select, an alternative or a combination of the alternatives to be the Proposed RMPR, and will publish it along with the Final EIS. A final decision will be 

made after a 60-day Governor’s Consistency Review and a 30-day protest period. A Record of Decision 

and Approved RMPR then will be published. 

1.4.9 Step 9 – Monitoring and Evaluation

Over time, BLM will monitor and evaluate actions, resource conditions, and trends to determine if 

implementation of the RMPR is occurring as planned, management goals and objectives are being met, 

and whether there are unanticipated results from implementation. Monitoring and evaluation are essential 

components to an adaptive management approach, through which BLM can detect issues early enough to 

adjust implementation strategies as necessary to ensure that goals and objectives are achieved. The RMPR 

will be kept current through minor maintenance, amendments, or revisions as demands on resources 

change or new information is acquired. 

1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO BLM POLICIES, PLANS, AND PROGRAMS 

This RMPR/EIS has been prepared to reflect and be consistent with current laws, regulations, and 

supplemental land use guidance (BLM 2005) for resource management and provide the public the 

opportunity to provide input in the decision-making process. The RMPR/EIS provides a framework for 

management decisions; future site-specific projects may require additional study or approval in 

accordance with NEPA. 

The 1989 Socorro RMP and subsequent amendments set forth decisions that have been evaluated to 

determine their appropriateness for continuation, and previous decisions will be incorporated as appropriate into the RMPR. Since 1989, the following documents that amend the RMP have been published: 

x Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for 

the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail was published in 1993. This amendment provided 

for the route selection for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail between Pie Town and 

Cuba in Catron, Cibola, McKinley, and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico. 

x The El Camino Real International Heritage Center RMPA/EA provided for the construction 

and management of the El Camino Real International Heritage Center. Under this 2001 

amendment, ownership of approximately 120 acres of public land was transferred to New Mexico 

for construction and operation of the interpretive center. 

x The El Camino Real Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management 

Plan and Final EIS, published in 2004, provides guidance for administering the trail and 

establishes a trail corridor of approximately 5 miles on either side of the historic trail route. 

x The New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock and 

Grazing Management (New Mexico Standards and Guidelines) also amended the 1989 RMP. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-14 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

The standards of land health are expressions of physical and biological condition or functions 

required for healthy and sustainable ecosystems on public lands, and define the minimum 

resource conditions that must be achieved. The guidelines are only implemented for livestock 

grazing, if the standards are not being met and grazing is determined to be the cause for not 

meeting the standard. The process for assessing the condition of resources and evaluating 

attainment of standards and conformance to the guidelines is ongoing. 

x The Fire and Fuels Management Plan Amendment and EA for BLM Lands in New Mexico 

and Texas was prepared by the New Mexico BLM State Office. This document amended fire 

management in all New Mexico BLM RMPs and RMPAs in September 2004. The 

Programmatic Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan and EA was completed in 

2005 to provide an integrated program for burned areas in New Mexico. The Plan includes 

descriptions of emergency stabilization and rehabilitation treatments that would be implemented 

under normal conditions in the event of a wildland fire. 

x The Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development 

on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States was published in June 2005. The 

applicable policies, best management practices, and programmatic mitigation identified in this 

document have been incorporated into this RMPR. 

In addition, the RMPA/EA for the Devil’s Backbone Desert Bighorn Sheep Habitat Area was

published in 1998 and proposed the withdrawal from location and entry under mining laws of 

approximately 5,000 acres in the Devil’s Backbone area for the protection of State-listed endangered 

desert bighorn sheep. However, the Record of Decision was not completed for this EA. 

Thirteen WSAs are located within the Planning Area and are associated with additional management 

guidance. WSAs are designated by Congress and managed in accordance with the Interim Management 

Policy and Guidelines for Land Under Wilderness Review (BLM 1995), which allows some recreation 

and other uses and requires protection of wilderness values. If formally added to the Wilderness 

Preservation System, these areas would be managed in accordance with BLM regulations for wilderness 

management in 43 CFR 6300. If a WSA is released by Congress from consideration for wilderness 

designation, the area would be managed in accordance with this RMPR/EIS. 

Other agencies in the area with land use plans include Socorro County (1998) and Catron County (1992). 

Catron County has served as a cooperating agency during preparation of this RMPR/EIS. No 

inconsistencies were identified with state or local land use plans in relation to this RMPR/EIS. 

1.6 OVERALL VISION FOR THE RMPR/EIS 

Since the RMPR is intended to guide future management, a long-term view of resource goals and the 

overall vision for management of public land underlies the planning process. The establishment of an 

overall vision ensures that the resource-specific steps taken during implementation of the RMPR 

contribute to the larger goals for management of public lands, and that management direction in the 

Planning Area is consistent and mutually supportive with public land management throughout the State 

and agency. The overall vision for this RMPR is provided by the BLM Strategic Plan, State Director 

priorities, and goals that are specifically identified for this RMPR. 

1.6.1 BLM Strategic Plan

The mission of BLM is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and 

enjoyment of present and future generations. In order to accomplish that mission, BLM has developed a 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-15 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

strategic plan (BLM 1997a) containing a comprehensive set of broad goal statements and a subset of 

mission goals. The complete BLM Strategic Plan 2000-2005, the current plan at the time of this draft, is 

available at the BLM Web site: www.blm.gov/nhp/info/stratplan. Two goal statements with their 

corresponding subset of mission goals related to public land management are as follows: 

x Goal 1: Serve Current and Future Publics 

– Provide opportunities for environmentally responsible recreation 

– Provide opportunities for environmentally responsible commercial activities 

– Preserve natural and cultural heritage resources 

– Reduce threats to public health, safety, and property 

– Provide land, resource, and title information 

– Provide economic and technical assistance 

x Goal 2: Restore and Maintain the Health of the Land 

– Understand and plan for the condition and use of the public lands 

– Restore at-risk resources and maintain functioning systems 

1.6.2 State Director Priorities

The State Director has identified several priorities for the management of BLM-administered lands in 

New Mexico to be accomplished over the next several years: 

x Restore watershed health 

x Protect special landscapes 

x Reclaim “legacy” lands (lands that have been damaged by historic use or extraction of public 

resources)

x Help communities meet future needs 

x Enhance habitat for special status species 

x Consolidate land ownership patterns 

x Resolve mineral conflicts 

x Develop business solutions to benefit tomorrow’s customers 

1.6.3 RMPR Goals

Based on the BLM Strategic Plan, the State Director’s priorities, and the specific issues identified for this 

RMPR/EIS, the following goals were developed for this RMPR: 

x Manage for long-term sustainability and, where necessary, restore the health of the woodland, 

rangeland, and riparian landscapes in the Planning Area 

x Manage sensitive species and communities to ensure long-term viability, and promote delisting of 

threatened or endangered species 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 1-16 Chapter 1.0 Introduction

April 2007

x Within the capability of the Planning Area’s natural and cultural resources, provide tourism, 

recreational, educational, and research opportunities 

x Within the capability of the Planning Area resources, provide a predictable, sustained flow of 

economic benefits to individuals and local communities 

x Work with local American Indian Tribes and local communities to meet their needs within the 

mission of BLM 

These goals are incorporated into the range of management alternatives to be evaluated in this 

RMPR/EIS. The following chapter describes each of the alternatives. 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-1 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

2.0 ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The land use planning process is an opportunity for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Socorro 

Field Office to re-evaluate the way in which it manages the resources, resource uses, and other programs 

on public land within the Planning Area of Socorro and Catron Counties. As part of this Resource 

Management Plan Revision (RMPR) process, the BLM Socorro Field Office developed alternative landmanagement strategies to address the issues that were identified early in the planning process (see 

Chapter 1) and to achieve resource goals and objectives. The potential environmental consequences of 

these management alternatives, as well as a No-Action Alternative that represents the continuation of 

existing management, were evaluated (see Chapter 4). 

All alternatives are composed of land use plan-level decisions as defined in the BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook H-1601-1 (dated March 2005). Future proposals for site-specific actions may require more 

detailed environmental review in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) . 

This chapter describes the alternatives analyzed as part of this planning process. The following discussion 

is organized to provide (1) a general description of the alternatives, (2) the common elements among the 

alternatives (i.e., continuing management guidance and management common to all alternatives), 

(3) detailed descriptions of alternatives, (4) alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail, (5) a 

summary comparison of the potential impacts associated with each alternative, and (6) monitoring of the 

RMPR.

2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

Four alternatives are evaluated in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A summary of the 

management goals, land use allocations, and key management decisions for the alternatives is provided in 

Table 2-1, Alternatives Matrix, which is located at the end of this chapter. 

The No-Action Alternative (or Alternative A) represents the continuation of existing management, 

which is defined by the 1989 Resource Management Plan (RMP) and subsequent amendments. Under 

Alternative A, resource values or sensitive habitats would receive emphasis at present levels, and current 

management strategies would continue to be applied. Decisions from the 1989 RMP that have been 

implemented would continue, and those that have not been implemented would be carried forward in the 

future.

Three action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D) provide variations on the existing management 

strategy, and were developed to address current issues and concerns in the Planning Area (described in 

Chapter 1). In general, the three action alternatives range in emphasis from resource protection to 

resource use. 

Alternative B is the preferred alternative at the time of this draft. The overall goal of this alternative is to 

provide a balance between resource use and protection. Management under this alternative would balance 

the need to protect, restore, and enhance natural values with the need to provide for the production of 

food, fiber, and minerals, and to provide recreation, heritage tourism, and other services on public land. 

This balance would be achieved within the limits of the ecosystem’s ability to provide resources on a 

sustainable basis and within the constraints of applicable laws and regulations. Measures to protect 

sensitive resources would be implemented, but they would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-2 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

Alternative C provides greater emphasis on resource protection than Alternative B. This would be 

achieved primarily through more management emphasis on protection of resource values associated with 

special designations and special status species. In some areas, commodity production would be excluded 

to protect sensitive resources.

Alternative D emphasizes commodity production and use, including mineral leasing and mineral material 

sales, grazing, commercial recreation and tourism, and woodland-products harvesting. Under 

Alternative D, constraints on commodity production would be the least restrictive while still complying 

with applicable law, regulation, and BLM policy. Potential impacts on sensitive resources would be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

2.3 CONTINUING MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE AND MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

This section describes the legal and policy guidance, objectives for resource conditions and programs, and 

decisions that would apply to management by the Socorro Field Office under all alternatives. The section 

for each resource or program addresses both (1) continuing management guidance, or the applicable laws, 

regulations, and policy guidance with which BLM must comply; and (2) management decisions common 

to all alternatives, which are discretionary actions or decisions carried forward from previous planning 

documents that would be implemented under each alternative. Management for some resources and 

resource uses is described entirely in this section and not addressed in the alternatives descriptions in 

Section 2.4, as management would not change across alternatives. These resources include fire 

management, air quality, noxious weeds and invasive species, wild horses, caves and karst, and renewable 

energy. Additional information on applicable laws and policy is provided in Appendix B, Legal 

Authorities and Mandates and in the Management Situation Analysis, available at the Socorro Field 

Office.

2.3.1 Air Quality

2.3.1.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

BLM actions and use authorizations that may affect air quality must comply with applicable local, State, 

Tribal, and Federal air quality laws, statutes, regulations, standards, and implementation plans. The State 

of New Mexico air quality regulations are provided in the New Mexico Administrative Code, Title 20, 

Chapter 2. These regulations establish New Mexico Ambient Air Quality Standards that are equal to or 

more stringent than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In addition to the criteria pollutants 

covered by the National Standards, New Mexico has promulgated ambient air quality standards for total 

suspended particulate and hydrogen sulfide, and added a 24-hour nitrogen dioxide standard. New Mexico 

also requires that all pollutant concentrations be expressed in parts per million and adjusted for altitude 

and temperature at the measurement location. The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) also 

regulates smoke management through requirements for the use of prescribed fires (Title 20, Chapter 2, 

Part 65 of the New Mexico Administrative Code). 

2.3.1.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

Air quality issues in the Planning Area generally are related to fire management. Best management 

practices related to air quality are prescribed in the 2004 Fire and Fuels Management Plan Amendment 

and Environmental Assessment for Public Lands in New Mexico and Texas (also referred to as the 

Statewide Fire and Fuels Management Plan Amendment) and BLM Manual 7000, and are common to all 

alternatives (Appendix C, Best Management Practices).
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-3 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

2.3.2 Soil and Water Resources

2.3.2.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

Water Quantity 

All water rights are acquired in accordance with New Mexico substantive and procedural law, except 

where Congress or the Executive Branch has created a Federal reservation with a reserved water right. 

Surface water rights in New Mexico are based upon the principles of beneficial use and first 

appropriation, meaning that water rights are ranked in priority according to first beneficial use, and all 

unappropriated water belongs to the State. The New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (State Engineer) 

administers water rights for the use of ground and surface water in New Mexico. To ensure orderly 

development of groundwater resources, the State Engineer designates groundwater basins as declared or 

undeclared. Within a declared groundwater basin, an application to appropriate groundwater must be filed 

with and approved by the State Engineer. In an undeclared groundwater basin, water is not appropriated 

and wells may be drilled without approval from the State Engineer. The State Engineer assists the court in 

the determination of surface water rights and administers water conservation programs. 

Water Quality 

The Clean Water Act is the primary law in controlling water quality (see Appendix B), and provides 

instream water quality standards and maximum permissible pollution discharge levels. In New Mexico, 

water quality authority is vested in the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission and primarily 

administered by the various units of the NMED. Surface water quality standards are established by 

NMED and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Under Section 401 of the Clean Water 

Act, the State can deny certification of Federal permits based on anticipated water quality impacts. The 

BLM manages its resources to ensure that development practices comply with State water quality 

standards.

The BLM partners with New Mexico to control nonpoint-source pollution in accordance with the State’s 

Nonpoint Source Management Program (NMED 1999), which emphasizes the improvement of water 

quality in degraded stream systems. A memorandum of understanding between the BLM and State of 

New Mexico confirms that the BLM is the agency designated by the State of New Mexico for the 

reduction of nonpoint-source pollution on and from public land. The RMPR is the primary document 

establishing BLM compliance with the New Mexico nonpoint-source program. In the past, the Socorro 

Field Office has met this obligation by committing to specific watershed management programs and by a 

general policy of preventing excess erosion and sediment transport off public land. Nonpoint-source 

pollution is seen as optimally controlled by a spectrum of best management practices as prescribed by the 

Clean Water Act (see Appendix C). 

Riparian restoration in New Mexico, where not driven by the Endangered Species Act, is accomplished 

primarily under a variety of State-regulated Clean Water Act programs. The BLM is a major independent 

contributor to Clean Water Act-related restoration projects. Riparian sites must meet the riparian standard 

as outlined in the New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management (New Mexico Standards and Guidelines). Standards of land health are 

expressions of physical and biological condition or degree of function required for healthy and sustainable 

lands, and defines minimum resource conditions that must be achieved. Public land will be assessed to 

determine if the land is meeting the standard, moving toward the standard, or not achieving or moving 

toward the standard. Assessments will rely upon the best data and information available. The standards 

for the Field Office are described in Appendix H, Rangeland Management, and include the upland, 

riparian, and biotic standard. These standards apply to all resource uses on public land. 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-4 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

Soils and Watershed 

The BLM’s soil and watershed program emphasizes preventing or avoiding further degradation of soil 

and water resources, and managing for their conservation. The program supports and influences, and is 

influenced by other resource programs (i.e., range management, vegetation, and habitat). Policy and 

guidance for the management of both soil and water resources associated with land administered by the 

BLM are provided in Manual Sections 7000 and 7100. 

2.3.2.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, BLM would continue to monitor and assess public land health in accordance with 

the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (see Appendix B). The 1989 RMP included a decision to 

monitor and restrict surface-disturbing activities on land where potential erosion is a critical concern, and 

to reduce erosion on allotments. This decision would be carried forward, primarily through the 

implementation of the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines. 

The BLM’s general policy of preventing excess erosion and sediment transport off public land would be 

realized primarily through the implementation of best management practices (see Appendix C). In 

addition, BLM would continue the 1989 RMP decision to control water runoff by constructing detention 

dams, diversions, water spreaders, weirs, and wire checks as needed to reduce erosion. 

2.3.3 Vegetation

2.3.3.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

All BLM activities are expected to meet the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (see Appendix B). 

These standards describe conditions needed for healthy sustainable public land and must be maintained by 

all users of the public land. They provide the measures of resource quality, condition, or function by 

which public land health will be assessed. These standards describe the conditions needed for healthy 

public land under three categories: upland sites, biotic communities, and riparian sites. In accordance with 

BLM policy, the Socorro Field Office must evaluate activities on public land against indicators developed 

for each standard. 

For example, standards for riparian sites indicate that these areas should be in a “productive, properly 

functioning, and sustainable condition, within the capability of that site” and should consist of “adequate 

vegetation of diverse age and composition.” Indicators for these standards include factors that determine 

stream channel morphology and stability, streambank stability, and structural diversity of vegetation. 

Guidelines are either activity-specific or use-specific. Guidelines for livestock grazing are management 

tools, methods, strategies, and techniques designed to maintain or achieve standards. The guidelines apply 

to all programs and activities, which should be managed to ensure that standards are being met or areas 

are moving towards the standards. If current grazing practices are preventing an area from moving toward 

or reaching the standard, then the livestock guidelines would be utilized. When activities other than 

grazing are determined to be the factor in an area not moving toward or reaching the standard, then the 

BLM utilizes existing policy and manuals from its programs to implement corrective practices. 

2.3.3.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

Objectives for vegetation management are established in the Socorro Field Office and are described in 

general terms as kinds, types, amount, or appearance of vegetation that will provide the goods, values, 

and services needed in a geographic area. Specific objectives for monitoring, resource objectives, and 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-5 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

management of sensitive areas are developed at the activity plan level (e.g., allotment management plan, 

habitat management plan, fire management plan, etc.). The ecological site descriptions would provide the 

template for determining the appropriate amount, type, and distribution of vegetation reflecting the 

desired plant community. 

The standard practices that would be employed to meet vegetation objectives are as follows: 

x Maintain average utilization levels at or below 50 percent of annual production of key species. 

x Construct projects such as fences, water developments, and erosion control structures. 

x Implement grazing management treatments such as changes in season of use, class of livestock, 

or stocking rates. 

x Implement vegetation treatments, including prescribed fire, fuelwood sales, or chemical or 

mechanical treatments. 

Plant communities would be managed to achieve multiple-use goals and meet or move toward the upland 

standard. The description of plant communities would be developed by the Socorro Field Office by using 

ecological site descriptions developed by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. The plant 

communities would be based on the soil unit and associated ecological site description and other variables 

such as fire regime and others as needed. Plant communities may combine several ecological sites with 

similar characteristics and would be developed through consultation with interested public, local 

governments, and public-land users and during the activity plan process. 

2.3.4 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

2.3.4.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

Executive Order (EO) 13112, Invasive Species; the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974; the New Mexico 

Noxious Weed Management Act of 1978; and the Federal Plant Protection Act of 2000 require the 

development of a weed management program. This program focuses on the inventory of existing 

infestations, prevention of noxious weed invasion, monitoring revegetation efforts for invasive weeds, 

and assessment of the success of weed control efforts. 

EO 13112 also requires Federal agencies to (1) identify actions that may affect invasive species; (2) use 

relevant programs to prevent introduction of invasive species; (3) detect, respond, and control such 

species; (4) monitor invasive species populations; (5) provide for restoration of native species; 

(6) conduct research on invasive species; and (7) promote public education. 

2.3.4.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, management of noxious weeds would include (1) conducting field searches and 

inventories of invasive and noxious weeds throughout the year, (2) preventing the establishment of new 

infestations by closely monitoring newly disturbed and burn areas, (3) using an integrated weedmanagement approach that includes best management practices to prevent and control weed infestations, 

and (4) developing and continuing public outreach programs for invasive and noxious weed management. 

Noxious weed management would continue under the guidelines established in the following governing 

instruments:

x Socorro County Voluntary Noxious Plant Control Program 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-6 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

x Memorandum of Understanding among many parties, including the City of Socorro, Socorro 

County Commissioners, Socorro Soil and Water Conservation District, Natural Resource 

Conservation Service, BLM, New Mexico Highway Department, New Mexico State Land Office, 

and Cooperative Extension Service 

x Assistance Agreement between the Socorro Soil and Water Conservation District and the BLM 

x Socorro County’s Integrated Weed Management Plan for the Control and Management of 

Invasive/Noxious Weeds 

x Socorro County’s Invasive/Noxious Weed Rapid Response Plan 

2.3.5 Wildlife, Riparian Habitat, and Special Status Species

2.3.5.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

Wildlife and Riparian Habitat 

Federal legislation provides guidance and direction to the BLM on the management of public land and its 

natural resources. Legislation directs that the BLM is responsible primarily for protecting and improving 

wildlife habitat on public land. On the other hand, management of resident fish and wildlife species (with 

the exception of migratory birds and threatened and endangered species) is by the appropriate State 

agencies. This requires close cooperation between the two agencies. Memorandum of Understanding No. 

NMSO-41 between the BLM and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) provides for the 

cooperative development of fish and wildlife resource plans, sets forth responsibilities for coordination, 

identifies issues of concern, and establishes methods of coordination. The Socorro Field Office identifies 

opportunities to maintain, improve, and expand wildlife habitat on public land. This is generally guided 

by NMDGF big game and nongame species management plans, in a manner consistent with the 

principles of multiple use management. The New Mexico Habitat Stamp Program is a process authorized 

under the Sikes Act (Public Law 93-452) and establishes a mechanism to fund projects and programs to 

achieve the conservation, rehabilitation, and ecological diversification of wildlife habitats on land 

administered by the U.S. Forest Service and BLM. The New Mexico Habitat Stamp Program is the 

primary funding source for habitat enhancement projects on public land within the Socorro Field Office. 

Under the BLM’s multiple use management, program activities can affect the quality and health of 

riparian areas that are important to fish and wildlife. BLM management of riparian areas has the objective 

of restoring and protecting these areas within the context of authorizing other land management activities. 

Special Status Species 

The Endangered Species Act requires special protection and management for federally listed threatened 

and endangered species, species proposed to be listed as threatened and endangered, and designated and 

proposed critical habitat. The act also requires the development and implementation of recovery plans for 

the conservation and survival of threatened and endangered species. 

The BLM special status species policy applies to management for Endangered Species Act listed, 

proposed, or candidate species; BLM sensitive species; and State-listed species as directed in BLM 

Manual 6840. In accordance with BLM Manual 6840, State-listed species should be managed to the level 

of protection required by State law or under the BLM policy for species of concern (formerly known as 

candidate species) under the Endangered Species Act, whichever would provide the better opportunity for 

conservation. Although BLM sensitive and candidate species have no legal status or protection under the 

Endangered Species Act, it is BLM policy to manage such species to ensure that actions authorized, 

funded, or carried out by the BLM do not contribute to the need to list those species. 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-7 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

State laws protecting State-listed species apply to all BLM programs and actions to the extent that they 

are consistent with Federal authority. Applicable State legislation in the Planning Area includes the New 

Mexico Endangered Plant Species Act and the Wildlife Conservation Act. In accordance with these laws, 

lists of species that require protective measures are maintained by the State. 

Federal legislation requires actions by Federal agencies to protect other protected, nonfederally listed 

species and habitats. Executive Order 13186 “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory 

Birds,” highlights the need for Federal agencies, including BLM, to conserve migratory birds protected by 

the migratory bird conventions such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Title 16, Parts 703-711 of the 

United States Code [16 USC 703-711]), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts (16 USC 668-668d), 

and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661-666c). This responsibility includes the need to 

ensure that environmental analyses of Federal actions evaluate the effects of actions on migratory birds, 

with special emphasis on species of concern as identified in the periodic report ‘‘Migratory Nongame 

Birds of Management Concern in the United States,’’ priority migratory bird species as documented by 

established plans (such as Bird Conservation Regions in the North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

or Partners in Flight physiographic areas), and those species listed in 50 CFR 17.11. 

2.3.5.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

Wildlife and Riparian Habitat 

The objective of the Socorro Field Office’s wildlife management program is to facilitate the maintenance, 

restoration, and enhancement of all wildlife populations and habitat on public land through management 

plans and actions integrated with other uses of public land. In accordance with the New Mexico Standards 

and Guidelines (see Section 2.3.3), BLM actions should promote progress towards improved public land 

health through management that restores, protects, and enhances the resources necessary to support native 

wildlife species and their associated habitats in their historical proportions (as site potential allows). 

Under all alternatives, the Socorro Field Office would continue to implement habitat enhancement 

projects in cooperation with NMDGF and other partners including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, 

National Wild Turkey Federation, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Quail Unlimited, and the 

Mule Deer Foundation. These projects include, but are not limited to, vegetative treatments (prescribed 

fire, mechanical and chemical treatments), watershed protection and restoration, riparian protection and 

restoration, wildlife transplants, wildlife watering facilities, environmental education, public access 

enhancement, fence modification, and wildlife project maintenance. 

The Socorro Field Office will continue the 1989 RMP decision to develop, implement, and maintain 

wildlife habitat management plans (HMPs) and Coordinated RMPs for the benefit of wildlife, special 

status species, and riparian areas. Other management direction that would be carried forward include 

developing new projects to benefit wildlife or improve wildlife habitat, modifying existing projects to 

benefit wildlife, and continuing studies, surveys, and inventories to identify and protect crucial habitats. 

Animal damage control on BLM-administered land is conducted by U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Animal Plant Health Inspection Services-Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) in accordance with a nationallevel Memorandum of Understanding between APHIS-WS and the BLM. Department of the Interior 

policy and the annual Animal Damage Control Plan for the Socorro Field Office, prepared jointly by the 

APHIS-WS and the BLM, guide animal damage control activities on public land within the Planning 

Area. The APHIS-WS has overall responsibility for the program and supervises all control activities. The 

BLM has approval responsibility for the specific control actions on public land. BLM and APHIS-WS 

will continue to meet annually to develop and implement a work plan for the Socorro Field Office. 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-8 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

The goal of the Socorro Field Office’s riparian monitoring is to document the progress toward achieving 

and then maintaining proper functioning condition while being managed under multiple use and adaptive 

management concepts (Appendix D, Monitoring). Riparian and wetland areas are considered to be 

functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris are present to dissipate 

the stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water 

quality. 

There are a number of conditions related to wildlife habitat that would be applied under all alternatives 

for approval of permits to extract resources including fluid mineral leasing. These measures, in addition to 

appropriate best management practices (see Appendix C), would be implemented under all alternatives. 

Special Status Species

Federal- and State-listed species are protected by requiring site-specific evaluations and clearances and by 

applying more stringent management prescriptions in areas that have been specially designated to protect 

target species. The Socorro Field Office maintains a map that identifies the locations of listed species or 

potential habitat. This map is updated as new species are identified as threatened, endangered, or 

proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. When a proposed project is located within habitat 

that has been designated as having the potential to support a protected species, a field survey is required 

prior to authorization of the project. Any action that may affect federally listed species also requires 

consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

2.3.6 Wild Horses 

2.3.6.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (Public Law 92-195) requires BLM to 

protect and manage wild horses in the areas where they were found at the time of the Act, in a manner 

designed to achieve a thriving natural ecological balance in keeping with the multiple-use management 

concept of the public land. A wild horse or burro herd area is the public land identified as having been 

used by a herd as its habitat at the time of the passage of the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros 

Act (December 15, 1971). A herd management area is that portion of a herd area identified for 

maintenance or management of wild horses or burros. The BLM manages wild horses and burros in 

designated herd areas as free-roaming, self-sustaining populations that contain the optimum number of 

animals in a thriving natural ecological balance with other multiple-use resource components. This is 

determined through a manageability determination based on monitoring, research, and analysis of 

resource use. 

2.3.6.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, the Bordo Atravesado Wild Horse Herd Management Area would be managed 

pursuant to decisions established in the Herd Management Area Plan. Under all alternatives, at some 

point in the future, the Bordo Atravesado Wild Horse Herd Management Plan would be revised to address 

habitat and population objectives, giving consideration to topics such as age structure, sex ratio, fertility 

control, and genetic viability. Under all alternatives the appropriate management level range is 40 to 60 

adult horses. Genetic diversity can be increased in the small herd by introducing one to two outside 

mares, preferably from the Bookcliff Herd near Grand Junction, Colorado, on a cycle appropriate to herd 

conditions (approximately every 10 years is considered sufficient to maintain genetic variability) (CoatesMarkle 1999). 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-9 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

2.3.7 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

2.3.7.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

BLM policy, described in Manual 9211, provides guidance for identifying resource management 

objectives that consider and take advantage of natural processes, particularly fire. Fire Management Plans 

must be completed for all burnable acres in accordance with Federal fire policy. In 2004, the BLM New 

Mexico State Office prepared the Statewide Fire and Fuels Management Plan Amendment, which amends 

all of BLM’s New Mexico RMPs. The purpose of the amendment is to incorporate current fire 

management policy into RMPs, restore fires as an integral part of fire-adapted ecosystems in order to 

meet resource management objectives, improve the protection of human life and property through the 

reduction of hazardous fuels, and establish consistent methods of managing fire and fuels on public land 

in New Mexico and Texas. The amendment establishes objectives for fire and fuels management, 

delineates fire management categories (as defined in Appendix A.2 of the Resource Management Plan 

Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management on Public Land in New Mexico and Texas), identifies broad 

vegetation treatments, identifies general restrictions on fire management practices, and determines criteria 

for changing Fire Management Units. 

2.3.7.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

Fire management strategies would be guided by the resource objectives set forth in the RMPR. Overall 

goals for fire management are to reduce the risk to human life and property from wildland fire; reduce the 

risk and cost of fire suppression in areas of hazardous fuels buildup; and improve landscape health by 

returning fire to its natural role in the ecosystem. Under all alternatives, fires on public lands within the 

Planning Area would be managed according to the Statewide Fire and Fuels Management Plan 

Amendment and to meet resource objectives. The amendment prescribes a range of proactive and 

preventative measures for the incidence of fire on public land including prescribed fire to achieve 

resource objectives, fire suppression, and reduction of fuels to diminish the severity of wildland fires and 

control prescribed burns. Remedies for fuel build-up include manual, mechanical, and chemical means, 

depending on the need and circumstance (e.g., chemical treatment is preferred where other treatment 

would encourage expansion of noxious weeds or other invasive species). Methods to reduce density of 

trees and wildland fuels can include commercial thinning. 

Decisions are guided by annual assignment of lands to fire management units (areas identified by 

geographic, social, and political characteristics with specific objectives for fire and fuels management) 

with specific fire management categories that dictate a management approach for each unit. Fire 

Management Plans must be completed prior to use of wildland fire for resource benefit. A site-specific 

fire prescription would be prepared prior to the use of prescribed fires, and emergency stabilization 

treatments implemented and completed within 1 calendar year from the date of the control of fire. Plans 

for rehabilitation of wildland fires must be completed within 3 years of the date of the control of fire with 

funding for rehabilitation prioritized using common criteria (BLM 1999c). Wildland and prescribed fires 

are monitored according to variables described in the Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan for the 

Statewide Fire and Fuels Management Plan. 

2.3.8 Cultural Resources

2.3.8.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

BLM complies with numerous Federal laws, regulations, EOs, and other directives regarding cultural 

resources and historic preservation (see Appendix B). The requirement to appropriately manage cultural 

resources was incorporated into the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-10 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

this law remains the primary basis for BLM’s program for managing cultural resources in conjunction 

within the agency’s mandate to promote multiple, sustainable uses of resources on public land. 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act stipulates that Federal agencies give due 

consideration to historic properties (e.g., resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

[National Register]) as Federal undertakings (i.e., Federal projects or federally funded or licensed 

projects) are planned and implemented. Regulations for Protection of Historic Properties (Title 36, Code 

of Federal Regulations, Part 800 [36 CFR 800] define a process for consulting with State Historic 

Preservation Officers, the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other interested 

organizations and individuals. In 1997, the BLM negotiated a National Programmatic Agreement with the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers regarding the manner in which the BLM will comply with the National Historic Preservation 

Act. This nationwide agreement replaced a similar, earlier, State-level agreement that was in place when 

the 1989 RMP was prepared. The National Programmatic Agreement is implemented through a statespecific protocol negotiated with the State Historic Preservation Officer. 

Because the vast majority of the cultural resources in the BLM’s Decision Area are archaeological sites, 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act is an important basis for the Socorro Field Office cultural 

resource program. This Act and implementing regulations (43 CFR 296) gives the BLM permitting 

authority to restrict access to archaeological resources on public land and specifies that such permits can 

only be issued for scholarly research or resource preservation. Human remains, funerary objects, sacred 

objects, and objects of cultural patrimony affiliated with American Indians are sometimes associated with 

archaeological sites. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act stipulates how such 

remains and objects on Federal land are to be treated. 

The BLM applies a “rule of reason” in considering how potential effects of BLM actions on cultural 

resources will be considered on non-Federal land, as directed by BLM Manual 8100.07 and the National 

Programmatic Agreement. Under this policy, the BLM inventories, evaluates, and assesses potential 

effects on cultural resources on nonpublic land to the extent that effects stem from BLM decisions. These 

situations may arise for linear projects that cross land of various jurisdictions, including public land, or 

issuance of permits to drill on split-estate land. Cross-jurisdictional activities also may be subject to the 

New Mexico Cultural Properties Act, which addresses cultural resources on State land. 

2.3.8.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

Cultural resource surveys would continue to be conducted prior to authorization of any ground-disturbing 

activity or land disposal, with the possible exception of land disposed of to the State of New Mexico 

under an existing memorandum of understanding. This would be done in accordance with the National 

Programmatic Agreement and New Mexico protocol. In accordance with the protocol, the BLM approves 

and proceeds with projects that do not affect properties listed on or identified as eligible for the National 

Register without consulting with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The BLM 

submits documentation of such projects to the SHPO quarterly and also submits an annual report of the 

program. 

Affiliated American Indian Tribes would be consulted for all actions that may affect their interests. 

The BLM would continue to fund and conduct proactive cultural resource inventories in compliance with 

Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act and in accordance with cultural resource goals and 

evolving management priorities. Inventory would be conducted in the following areas, as funding is 

available:
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-11 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

x High Priority – Rural/urban interface areas and other areas identified as at-risk from vandalism or 

development (such as the Camino Real Corridor), areas where highly significant or vulnerable 

resources are suspected, survey necessary for understanding or identifying cultural landscapes, 

and other areas as identified based on evolving management priorities. 

x Medium Priority – Assess potential value of unreported late-1970s Class II survey data and 

analyze, if warranted, areas in the vicinity of large prehistoric villages where other sites are likely 

to be concentrated; management areas designated by other resource programs with potential 

conflicts with cultural resource program goals; or other areas as identified based on evolving 

management priorities. 

x Low Priority – Management areas designated by other resource programs with little potential for 

conflict with cultural resource program goals, and other areas as identified based on evolving 

management priorities.

BLM will partner with the State of New Mexico on regional tourism opportunities, including Boots and 

Saddles, Magdalena Trail Project, and activities associated with El Camino Real International Heritage 

Center. In addition, BLM will cooperate with the National Park Service, other agencies, Mexico, interested groups, and landowners in protecting and interpreting El Camino Real Adentro National Historic 

Trail in accordance with a comprehensive management plan (National Park Service and BLM 2004).

2.3.9 Paleontological Resources

2.3.9.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

The BLM has developed objectives for paleontological resources (BLM Manual 8270, Paleontological 

Resource Management; BLM Handbook H-8270-1, General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological 

Resource Management) to provide protection of the resources. It is the policy of BLM to manage 

paleontological resources to facilitate research and scientific and/or authorized collection on public land, 

and to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts that could result from other activities. 

The BLM State Office has an assistance agreement with the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and 

Science and the New Mexico Museum of Natural History Foundation to ensure the care, protection, and 

storage of paleontological resources collected from public land in New Mexico. The museum holds a 

statewide permit with the BLM for the collection of vertebrate fossils from public land. 

Management Common to All Alternatives 

The overall objectives for the paleontological resources program are to facilitate scientific, educational, 

and recreational uses of fossils, foster public awareness and appreciation for the area’s paleontological 

heritage, and manage paleontological values to protect and preserve specimens that are present in the 

Planning Area. Under the revised RMP, BLM would continue to use existing partnerships and 

information collected from the paleontological collection permits to evaluate the importance of specific 

areas on public land in the Planning Area. 

2.3.10 Visual Resources

2.3.10.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

The BLM has developed a comprehensive system for visual resource management (VRM) for the purpose 

of carrying out NEPA- and FLPMA-prescribed visual management objectives and preserving the natural 

scenic quality of Federal land. The BLM’s policy, described in BLM Manual Section 8400 – Visual 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-12 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

Resource Management, is that the BLM has a basic stewardship responsibility to identify and protect 

visual values on all BLM-managed public land.

BLM Handbook H-8410-1, Visual Resources Inventory, provides additional guidance on managing visual 

resources. The inventory consists of a scenic quality evaluation, a visual sensitivity level analysis, and a 

delineation of distance zones. Based on these three factors, BLM-administered land is placed into one of 

four visual resource inventory classes (Appendix E, Recreational Opportunity Spectrum Definitions and 

Visual Resource Management Class Objectives). 

2.3.10.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

VRM classes have been applied to all land within the BLM’s Decision Area under all alternatives. The 

acreage associated with the different management classes would vary, as described for each alternative. 

VRM classes acknowledge existing visual contrasts. More restrictive requirements would not be 

retroactively applied to existing projects should VRM classifications change as a result of this planning 

effort. New proposals would be managed to meet the intent of the VRM designations determined by this 

plan. Visual design considerations would be incorporated into all surface-disturbing projects regardless of 

size or potential impact and is a management responsibility shared by all resource management programs. 

Portions of the El Camino Real National Historic Trail that are BLM-administered land within the 

Planning Area will continue to be managed as VRM Class I or II, as prescribed in the El Camino Real de 

Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan and Final EIS. 

2.3.11 Wilderness Characteristics

2.3.11.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

WSAs will continue to be managed in accordance with the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines 

for Lands Under Wilderness Review until an area is either added to the National Wilderness Preservation 

System by Congress or released from further consideration. The purpose of BLM’s 1995 Interim 

Management Policy is to protect existing wilderness values, and manage valid existing rights and 

grandfathered activities until final wilderness suitability determinations have been made. If an area is 

designated as wilderness, it would be managed in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964 and BLM 

Wilderness Management Regulations (43 CFR 6300 and 8560).

Section 603 of FLPMA authorized BLM to classify and recommend suitable BLM land for wilderness 

designation. As of 1993, BLM no longer has the authority to designate new WSAs administratively or 

manage additional land under the nonimpairment standard prescribed by Section 603 of FLPMA. 

Instruction Memoranda 2003-274 – BLM Implementation of the Settlement of Utah vs. Norton Regarding 

Wilderness Study, and 2003-275 – Change 1 Consideration of Wilderness Characteristics in Land Use 

Plans state that the management of WSAs that have already been established through the Section 603 and 

Section 202 processes and recommended by the President to Congress, or of WSAs that were established 

legislatively, are unaffected. 

In accordance with Instruction Memorandum 2003-275 – Change 1 Consideration of Wilderness 

Characteristics in land use plans, wilderness characteristics may be protected administratively through the 

establishment of VRM classifications to guide the consideration of proposals that would adversely affect 

wilderness characteristics or guide the placement of roads, trails, and other facilities; protective conditions 

of use on permits, leases, or other use authorizations; or designating land as open, closed, or limited to 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. If appropriate, BLM also may designate areas of critical environmental 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-13 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

concern (ACECs), backcountry byways, watchable wildlife viewing sites, or other BLM administrative 

designations through the land use planning process in order to protect wilderness values. 

2.3.11.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

The objective of the wilderness program is to protect WSAs in accordance with applicable laws and 

regulations. The Socorro Field Office currently manages 13 WSAs, totaling 291,826 acres. Under all 

alternatives, WSAs would be managed in accordance with the Interim Management Policy. Lands 

acquired since the 1989 RMP that were identified as having wilderness characteristics are included within 

ACECs (see Section 3.2.14), and would be managed in accordance with the prescriptions outlined in 

Table 2-2 (located at the end of this chapter). Any WSAs released from wilderness study would be 

managed as determined by the selected plan alternative as described in Table 2-3, which is located at the 

end of this chapter.

Other management to protect wilderness characteristics outside of designated WSAs (e.g., naturalness, 

solitude, opportunities for primitive recreation) is achieved through the management prescriptions 

associated with VRM and recreation opportunity spectrum classes. 

2.3.12 Cave and Karst Resources

2.3.12.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

The BLM manages caves and karst on public land according to the Federal Cave Resource Protection Act 

of 1988 (Title 16, United States Code, Sections 4301-4309 [16 U.S.C. 4301-4309]). The law is intended 

to (1) secure, protect, and preserve significant caves on Federal land and (2) foster collaboration and 

exchange of information between government authorities and those who use caves on Federal land for 

scientific, educational, or recreational purposes. The statute directs that significant caves be identified on 

public land, and that use of those significant caves be regulated as appropriate. The criteria for identifying 

significant caves are found in 43 CFR 37.11 (C). BLM has the authority to administratively designate 

significant caves based on those criteria and develop management plans for their protection. The Onshore 

Oil and Gas Order No. 1 also provides authority for protection of cave resources. 

2.3.12.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

Eighteen significant caves have been identified consistent with the Federal Cave Resource Protection Act. 

A plan to manage caves and karst in BLM’s Decision Area will be developed within 2 years of the 

Record of Decision for this RMPR/EIS. 

2.3.13 Lands and Realty 

2.3.13.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

Land generally will remain in Federal ownership unless it meets specific criteria for disposal in FLPMA 

and existing land use plans. The primary mission of the lands and realty program in regard to land tenure 

is to conserve Federal ownership and consolidate administrative boundaries to create a more efficient and 

economical land ownership pattern. The acquisition of land that would enhance and protect important 

resources is an established priority for the Socorro Field Office. Land would be acquired only from 

owners willing to dispose of them. In addition, the exchange of land between BLM and the State of New 

Mexico would occur when the exchange improves the management potential of State and Federal land. 

Land identified for disposal prior to July 2000 may be sold in accordance with the Federal Land 

Transaction Facilitation Act. This Act allows BLM to retain the receipts from land sales that would be 

used to cover administrative costs and to acquire properties that would improve the nation's land 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-14 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

management pattern. Land identified for disposal in the 1989 RMP would be subject to the Act (see 

Map 3-17). 

2.3.13.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

All land and mineral disposal actions would conform to the criteria established in the Land and Mineral 

Disposal Policy (Appendix F, Land and Mineral Disposal Policy and Plan for Right-of-Way Exclusion 

and Avoidance Areas). Proposed realty actions would be subject to additional NEPA analysis, which 

considers a number of resources and uses when considering the merits of any disposal or acquisition. 

Under the authority of FLPMA and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (see Appendix B), the Socorro Field 

Office would continue to grant right-of-way leases and permits to qualified individuals, businesses, and 

government entities for use of public land. Right-of-way grants would include authorizations for access, 

utilities and telephone lines, fiber optic lines, and other communication sites. All right-of-way 

applications would continue to receive environmental review on a case-by-case basis and would be 

coordinated, to the fullest extent possible, with all potentially affected interest groups and agencies. 

All existing valid rights including leases, permits, easements, and withdrawals are recognized and would 

be carried forward in the Socorro RMPR. 

In conformance with the selected alternative, acquisition of nonpublic land to support wildlife and other 

programs would occur as needed, such as land adjacent to HMP areas, ACECs, special management areas 

(SMAs), or other areas of concern. 

Approximately 11,408 acres of land has been withdrawn from entry under all or some of the land or 

mining laws. In some cases withdrawals may transfer jurisdiction to another Federal agency. Under all 

alternatives, additional land with rare or sensitive resources may be identified for withdrawal if criteria 

are met (see Appendix F) and will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. 

All withdrawals have been or will be reviewed according to the requirements of laws and existing 

guidance. The review is to ensure the reasons for the withdrawals are still valid; concurrence of 

appropriate agency or landowner; and the necessary acreage needed is retained in withdrawn status. All 

unused or unnecessary withdrawals will either be terminated or modified to reduce the affected area. 

Upon revocation or modification of a withdrawal, all or part of the withdrawn land could be restored to 

multiple uses. 

2.3.14 Forestry and Woodland Management

2.3.14.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

The Mineral Material Disposal Act of 1947, as amended, establishes the authority under which BLM 

disposes of timber and other forest products. The Mineral Material Disposal Act and FLPMA direct that 

ponderosa pine stands be managed on a multiple-use, sustained-yield basis (see Appendix B). In addition, 

the Departmental Manual Part 586, Forest Management, Section 1.3, Policy states “Forest lands are to be 

managed to yield the highest combination of products and benefits consistent with the purposes specified 

by Congress. All Forest management activities are directed in accordance with sound silvicultural 

practices, multiple uses, and environmental enhancement. The protection of streams, wildlife, and other 

forest values are taken into account in developing a forest management plan. Further under this section 

under C (2) Forest regeneration, “non-stocked forest lands resulting from harvesting or fire will be 

promptly regenerated. The method of regeneration may be natural or artificial seeding or planting. The 

tree species used for reforestation purposes should be suitable to the site and climatic conditions so as to 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-15 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

produce optimum growth and yield.” Under Section 1.3 C (3), “Every reasonable effort will be made to 

protect forest values from destruction by fire, insects, diseases, and other destructive agents....” Other 

forest program information can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 5000. 

Silvicultural practices in WSAs would conform with the 1995 Interim Management Policy. In accordance 

with this guidance, pruning, site preparation, and reforestation will be permitted only in cases that satisfy 

the nonimpairment criteria. Reforestation using native species may be done following fire or other natural 

disaster if natural seeding is not adequate. In 2001, the U.S. Congress funded the National Fire Plan to 

reduce hazardous fuel and restore forests and rangeland. In response, the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

the Interior, along with western Governors and other interested parties, developed a 10-year strategy and 

implementation plan for protecting communities and the environment. National plans, together with the 

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2001), form a framework for Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

local governments, and communities to reduce the threat of fire, improve the condition of the land, restore 

forest and rangeland health, and reduce risk to communities. Both the forestry and fire programs operate 

under the 2004 Statewide Fire and Fuels Management Plan Amendment (also see Section 2.3.8, Fire 

Management). 

Several tools to attain management goals have been developed in two pieces of legislation passed since 

2002. The Healthy Forest Initiative of 2002 expands stewardship contracting authority with communities, 

the private sector, and others to allow the BLM and U.S. Forest Service to enter into long-term contracts 

to meet land management objectives, including reducing wildland fire risk and improving forest and 

woodland health (Appendix G, BLM Stewardship Contracting Guidance). Among other things, the new 

stewardship contracting authority allows forest products to be exchanged for ecological restoration 

services, which may include thinning and removing brush and trees. The 2003 Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act contains a variety of provisions to expedite hazardous-fuel reduction and forestrestoration projects on specific types of Federal land that are at risk of wildland fire or insect and disease 

epidemics. 

2.3.14.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

The forestry management program would maintain sustainable uses and improve woodland and forest 

health in the Socorro Field Office by implementing best management practices (see Appendix C), through 

application of the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines, and Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC). 

FRCC is an interagency, standardized tool for determining the degree of departure from reference 

condition vegetation, fuels, and disturbance regimes. Assessing FRCC can help guide management 

objectives and set priorities for treatments. The forestry program will work with the fire management 

program to manage the use of fire in the woodland and forest ecosystems to achieve resource goals. The 

following objectives also would apply to all alternatives: 

x Ensure forests and woodlands are healthy, functioning ecosystems that provide habitat for the 

wildlife species within New Mexico. 

x Manage forests and woodlands within a historic range of density and structure to achieve healthy 

and productive watersheds. 

x Return woodland stands to a condition where ecological processes, such as fire and insects, can 

exist without uncharacteristic effects. 

x Provide local communities with special forest products and business opportunities, while 

protecting cultural and other natural resources. 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-16 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

x Utilize management tools to implement the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003, the National 

Fire Plan, and the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative and the BLM New Mexico Fire and Fuels 

Management Plan. 

x Contribute to the Nation’s energy supply consistent with the National Energy policy. 

The Socorro Field Office vegetative sales program would strive to provide commercial opportunities for 

local industry with commercial fuelwood areas and other potential wood products, accessible public 

fuelwood areas, Christmas tree collection sites, and plant adoption sites. The vegetative material sales 

program would provide opportunities for vegetative sales to meet local and regional needs in a manner 

that minimizes impacts on resources. Vegetative materials may include fence posts, Christmas trees, 

piñon nuts, seeds, and wildlings (native perennial species such as yuccas, cactus species, etc.). A portion 

of wood harvested on BLM land annually could be used for biomass consumption for alternative energy 

development depending on demand and ecological site limitations. 

Partnerships and working relationships with local communities would continue and increase, along with 

partnerships with State and Federal entities to accomplish woodland and forest health management. 

Stewardship and service contracts would be used whenever feasible, thereby encouraging local small 

business opportunities.

Under all alternatives, the Pie Town Fuelwood Area would be managed as a designated fuelwood cutting 

area as appropriate to conform with sustainable harvesting guidelines. 

2.3.15 Rangeland Management

2.3.15.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

Rangeland management is authorized by FLPMA, the Taylor Grazing Act of 1937, and the Public 

Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (see Appendix B). 

Public rangeland would be managed to meet the standards of public land health as established in the New 

Mexico Standards and Guidelines (see Appendix H, Rangeland Management). If standards are not being 

met, the livestock grazing management guidelines offer tools to guide the Socorro Field Office in 

improving those areas. The livestock grazing guidelines are to be implemented at the watershed, 

allotment, or pasture level if it is determined that the standards are not being met, and that livestock 

grazing is the cause. Specific application of these guidelines occurs at the field office level in 

consultation, coordination, and cooperation with lessees, permittees, the interested public, and 

landowners. Guidelines for activities other than livestock grazing are not mandated through regulation; 

however, they may be developed should the need arise. If it is determined that the standards are not being 

met as a result of another activity (e.g., road placement, recreation, etc.), BLM resource specialists would 

determine the appropriate actions to ensure that standards can be met or that significant progress can be 

made towards meeting those standards. 

2.3.15.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

All allotments have been placed into one of three management categories based upon the categorization 

criteria (see Appendix H). The allotments are prioritized within each management category based on 

similar resource characteristics, management needs, and resource and economic potential. The 

management categories would be maintained under all alternatives. However, allotments may be 

recategorized as additional resource information becomes available. 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-17 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

The three selective management categories are: Maintain (M), Improve (I), and Custodial (C). The “M” 

category allotments will be managed to maintain the current satisfactory condition. The “I” category 

allotments will be managed intensively to improve unsatisfactory condition and/or to resolve resource 

conflicts. The “C” category allotments will be managed to prevent resource degradation. They have a low 

potential for improved ecological condition, improvement is not economically feasible, and/or current 

management is satisfactory, considering the current resource conditions. Under all alternatives, initial 

categorization would be 46 “I”, allotments, 201 “M” allotments, and 5 “C” allotments.

The 1989 RMP directed the development, review, and revision of allotment management plans; this 

decision would be carried forward in the Socorro RMPR. Under all alternatives, four areas totaling 

3,610 acres would be maintained as unalloted to livestock grazing. 

2.3.16 Minerals

2.3.16.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

The BLM is responsible for managing all 6 million acres of subsurface Federal mineral estate within the 

Planning Area, including minerals underlying land managed by private, State, and other Federal agencies. 

BLM coordinates closely with other surface owners or managers to ensure surface resource issues are 

considered before Federal mineral development occurs on split estate land. It is BLM policy to make 

mineral resources available for disposal and to encourage development of mineral resources to meet 

national, regional, and local needs, consistent with the national objective of maintaining an adequate 

supply of minerals at reasonable market prices. In addition, BLM regulates mineral development to 

reduce environmental impacts in accordance with applicable law. Applicable laws are summarized in 

Appendix B. 

Policy guidance for managing mineral resources is provided in several pieces of legislation as well as 

BLM Manuals and Handbooks. Many of these are described in Appendix B. The key directives are that 

(1) public land is to be managed for multiple use and (2) if it is determined to be necessary to place 

certain areas under special management, then that management must be the least restrictive necessary to 

protect the resource of concern to ensure that the area remains open to other uses. 

Recent instruction memoranda have provided bureauwide guidance regarding management of abandoned 

mine land. These have provided specific instruction for State and field offices to develop work plans for 

abandoned mine land program activities to foster long-range planning for interagency program 

coordination, strategic program support, and budget justifications. In New Mexico, BLM works closely 

with the abandoned mine lands program in the State Energy Mineral and Natural Resources Department 

to reclaim abandoned mines on public land. 

2.3.16.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

The planning analysis is based on the reasonable foreseeable development for leaseable, locatable, and 

saleable minerals, which includes forecasts of future exploration and development activity (BLM 2003g). 

If the actual level of intensity or amount or type of surface disturbance varies substantially from the 

forecasts, the Socorro Field Office may determine it is appropriate to amend the RMPR in the future 

and/or prepare additional NEPA documentation to analyze potential impacts of the variation in the 

forecasts.

In accordance with Instruction Memorandum 2005-219, the BLM New Mexico State Office would 

develop work plans for abandoned mine land program activities. Initial plans would cover an extended 

period from Fiscal Year 2007 through Fiscal Year 2013. These plans would determine the extent and type 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-18 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

of program regarding abandoned mine land that would be carried out in BLM’s Decision Area under all 

alternatives. As noted above and contingent upon funding, work would continue to be done according to 

the Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM and the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and 

Natural Resources Department, Abandoned Mine Lands Bureau. 

Leaseable Minerals 

Leasable minerals include nonrenewable energy fluid minerals (oil and gas), nonrenewable energy solid 

minerals (coal), and nonrenewable nonenergy fluid minerals (carbon dioxide and helium). The BLM is 

responsible for managing all leaseable Federal mineral estate—approximately 6 million acres in the 

Planning Area—regardless of surface area management or ownership. 

Nondiscretionary closures include land that is closed to fluid mineral leasing for reasons that are beyond 

the discretion of the BLM, and would be observed under all alternatives. In the Planning Area, these 

closures include all wilderness study areas (WSAs); the White Sands Missile Range and other military 

installations; National Park Service land; land managed by USFWS and NMDGF; and towns, villages, 

and incorporated cities. Nondiscretionary closures totaling 1,418,415 acres of Federal mineral estate 

would be common to all alternatives. BLM has proposed additional discretionary closures to fluid 

mineral leasing in Alternatives B, C, and D. Existing leases in areas identified as proposed for 

discretionary closure would not be renewed after the term of the lease is complete. Outside of the 

closures, public land is open to fluid mineral leasing under standard terms and conditions established in 

the lease unless additional stipulations are determined necessary to protect resources. A description of 

standard lease terms and conditions and stipulations are in Appendix I, Minerals Management. Under all 

alternatives, a total of 496,000 acres would be associated with NM-5, a lease notice for lessees in the 

White Sands Missile Range Evacuation Area (see Appendix I). In areas of split estate, the surface owner 

or manager is responsible for determining strategies to protect surface resources. Fluid leasing beneath 

Federal land other than those administered by BLM will be subject to land use planning determinations 

and/or withdrawal provisions. Federal mineral estate underlying land managed or owned by other entities 

would be managed by BLM in accordance with applicable plans and in cooperation with the surface 

owner or manager. Additional NEPA analysis may be required to address site-specific considerations 

related to a proposed action. 

Surface and mineral estate withdrawals, disposals, or BLM development would be restricted within coal 

fields. Coal leasing would occur in accordance with applicable laws in areas identified as potentially 

suitable for coal leasing.

Locatable Minerals 

Locatable mineral resources include metallic minerals (e.g., gold, silver, uranium) and nonmetallic 

minerals (e.g., gemstones, fluorspar, perlite). Unless identified as withdrawn to location and entry under 

the mining laws, public land would be open to mineral exploration and development activities in 

accordance with applicable laws. WSAs are managed for locatable minerals pursuant to 43 CFR 3802. 

Saleable Minerals 

Saleable mineral resources include sand, gravel, limestone, cinders, and building stone. Federal land in 

the Planning Area are important sources of mineral materials for construction projects in the region, 

including sand and gravel, rock and stone, and other fill materials. The Socorro Field Office issues 

Contracts and Free Use Permits for the removal of mineral materials managed under 43 CFR 3600. These 

contracts and permits can be issued for up to 5 years and 200,000 cubic yards of material per year, for a 

total contract quantity of 1 million cubic yards of material. Any material in excess of this quantity must be 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-19 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

offered through a competitive bid. A mining plan, reclamation plan, and weed management plan are 

required with the contract or permit application, and plans must conform to modern mining and 

reclamation standards. The proposed operation plan is analyzed through the NEPA process with the 

preparation of an environmental assessment. The Socorro Field Office is responsible for inspection and 

enforcement of all contracts and permits. 

The 1989 decision to designate pits for the sale of sand and gravel, consistent with other resources, would 

be carried forward under all alternatives.

2.3.17 Recreation

2.3.17.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

FLPMA provides for management of outdoor recreation on public land. Section 202(c)(9) calls for land 

use planning consistent with statewide outdoor recreation plans. Other national laws that govern 

recreation management in BLM’s Decision Area include the National Trails System Act of 1968, Land 

and Water Conservation Fund of 1964, and Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The BLM’s outdoor 

recreation program strives to provide a broad spectrum of resource-dependent recreation opportunities to 

meet the needs and demands of the public and visitors; to foster agency-wide efforts to improve services 

to the visiting public; to maintain high-quality recreation facilities to meet public needs and enhance the 

image of the agency; and to improve the public understanding and support of the BLM by effectively 

communicating the agency’s multiple-use management approach to the recreation visitor. 

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. The BLM’s Priorities for Recreation and Visitor 

Services are described in the “Purple Book,” dated May 2003, a work plan for fiscal years 2003-2007. 

Where the nature of the resource attracts intensive recreational use, public land may be managed as a 

special recreation management area (SRMA). Specific management direction in a SRMA is formulated 

by BLM to provide for resource protection and public health, safety, and enjoyment. Public land outside 

of SRMAs, where few BLM facilities or supervisory efforts exist, is referred to as an Extensive 

Recreation Management Area. 

2.3.17.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

Recreation use in BLM’s Decision Area would be managed to protect the health and safety of visitors; 

protect natural, cultural, and other resource values; facilitate public enjoyment of public land; and resolve 

or mitigate user conflicts. (Note: Management that is specific to access and OHV use is discussed in 

Section 2.3.19 below.) The recreation opportunity spectrum provides management objectives for different 

types of recreation settings, and public land would be managed in accordance with those classifications 

(see Appendix E). 

The Socorro Field Office issues Special Recreation Permits 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 events, and educational use. 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. Educational use 

is an academic activity sponsored by an accredited institution of learning. Under all alternatives, the 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-20 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

Socorro Field Office would continue to issue special recreation permits after appropriate environmental 

assessment is completed. 

Under the revised RMP, BLM will continue to cooperate with other agencies in the management of the El 

Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail in accordance with a comprehensive management 

plan (National Park Service and BLM 2004). Portions of the trail on land that are within BLM’s Decision 

Area will be managed as VRM Class I or II, as prescribed in the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro 

National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan. 

2.3.18 Renewable Energy

2.3.18.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

In June 2005, the BLM published the Final Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development on BLMAdministered Lands in the Western United States. This project is a part of BLM’s National Energy Policy 

Implementation Plan, an outgrowth of the President’s National Energy Policy, which addresses both 

renewable and nonrenewable energy sources. Under the proposed action of the Final Programmatic EIS, 

BLM would develop a Wind Energy Development Program to establish comprehensive policies and best 

management practices for wind energy development, including right-of-way authorizations, on BLM 

land. The programmatic EIS applies to all BLM land use plans as they are amended or revised. The 

policies, guidance, and procedures contained in the programmatic EIS are hereby incorporated into this 

plan to guide development of any future wind energy project that may occur in the Decision Area. 

2.3.18.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

Renewable energy projects may be proposed on BLM land in the future. These applications would 

undergo site-specific environmental analysis as part of the right-of-way or commercial lease process. Any 

proposed project could be tiered from the Final Programmatic EIS on Wind Energy Development. The 

policies, best management practices, and programmatic mitigation identified in the Final Programmatic 

EIS would apply to any proposed wind energy project in the Socorro Field Office Decision Area. The 

location of any potential wind energy projects would be determined by the wind resource level and by the 

location of avoidance and exclusion areas.

There is potential for future harvesting of woodland products on public land for biomass-fueled power 

generation. This project could occur under all alternatives; however, if such a project is proposed, it 

would undergo a site-specific environmental analysis as part of the project development process. 

2.3.19 Transportation and Travel Management

2.3.19.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

The policy set forth in 43 CFR 8340 provides for OHV use as a legitimate activity on public land 

wherever it is compatible with other resource management objectives. Additional policy guidance, 

definitions, and other information on OHV designations are provided in Appendix J, Off-Highway 

Vehicle Areas and Route Designations. 

Management direction associated with access typically is intended to enhance land management and 

protect unique resources or values where BLM determines it necessary. BLM guidance for OHV 

designations in the land use planning process is provided in Appendix C of BLM Manual H-1601-1, Land 

Use Planning Handbook. BLM Manual 9113 – Roads provides guidelines and standards for the 

construction and maintenance of transportation system roads on public land. 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-21 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

2.3.19.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

OHV use would be managed in accordance with applicable laws, which include the designation of areas 

that are open, limited, or closed to OHV use. Additionally, 43 CFR 8341 prohibits the operation of an offroad vehicle (now referred to as an off-highway vehicle, or OHV) in violation of state laws and 

regulations relating to use, standards, registration, operation, and inspection of off-road vehicles. To the 

extent that state laws and regulations do not exist or are less stringent, the regulations in this part are 

controlling. The State of New Mexico passed legislation to require registration of OHV, successful 

completion an off-highway vehicle safety training course by persons under age 18, and provide 

regulations for safe operation of OHVs including requiring the use of safety helmets. 

Cross-country use is permitted in areas designated as open for such travel; however, undue and 

unnecessary degradation of resources is not permitted on any area of public land under 43 CFR 8340. 

Exceptions may be made to OHV designations to accommodate emergency or permitted or authorized 

uses. This use is allowed for by the regulations governing OHV operations on public land. An off-road 

vehicle or OHV is defined by 43 CFR 8340.05 as any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for travel 

on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding (1) any nonamphibious registered 

motorboat; (2) any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency 

purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise 

officially approved or permitted; (4) vehicles in official use by administering agencies such as BLM or 

other agency; and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense 

emergencies. 

All public land is required to be designated for OHV use (43 CFR 8342.1). Areas must be classified as 

open, limited, or closed to motorized travel activities. These designations have been applied in all 

alternatives; the definitions for these designations are shown in Appendix J. Appendix C of H-1601-1, 

Land Use Planning Handbook, states that a defined travel management network must be completed 

during the development of the land use plan to the extent practical. If it is not practical to define or 

delineate the travel management network during the land use planning process, a preliminary network 

must be identified and a process established to select a final travel management network. In the case of 

this RMPR/EIS, the final travel management network would be deferred until after completion of the 

Record of Decision for the RMPR/EIS due to the fact that a definitive route inventory and route 

designation could not be completed except in the WSAs. The current route network is shown on 

Map 3-14. Until the final travel management network is established, motorized travel would be limited to 

existing routes within BLM’s Decision Area as defined by Map 3-14, unless specifically identified 

otherwise within this RMPR/EIS. 

As part of this planning process, a travel management network within the 13 WSAs in BLM’s Decision 

Area would be identified (a range of alternatives for this network is evaluated as part of the alternatives). 

Under all alternatives, preliminary travel management plan networks would be developed for areas 

outside of WSAs within 5 years of the completion of the Record of Decision for this RMPR/EIS 

(contingent upon available funding and staff resources). Priority areas for completing these travel 

management plans are as follows: (1) Gordy’s Hill, (2) ACECs, (3) SRMAs, (4) SMAs, and (5) all other 

BLM land.
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-22 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

2.3.20 Hazardous Materials and Public Safety

2.3.20.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

The BLM Manual Section 1703, Hazardous Materials Management, provides a framework for hazardous 

materials management by describing BLM’s objectives, defining policy and responsibilities, and citing 

authority for management of hazardous materials. 

2.3.20.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

All alternatives would comply with Federal and State hazardous materials management laws and 

regulations (see Appendix B). Management priorities would include maintenance of the health of 

ecosystems through assessment, cleanup, and restoration of contaminated sites; management of hazardous 

materials related risks, costs, and liabilities; and integration of environmental protection and compliance 

with all environmental statutes into all BLM activities. 

Adjacent to the north and west sides of the White Sands Missile Range in Socorro County, the 

U.S. Department of Defense has delineated and designated four areas as safety evacuation areas: 

e.g., areas evacuated of residents and nonresidents prior to and during missile firing on the White Sands 

Missile Range. These areas are a mix of public, State, and private lands. 

Personnel of the White Sands Missile Range follow a number of stipulations to communicate with and 

protect residents within the safety evacuation areas. All persons within these safety evacuation areas 

would be evacuated for 12 hours during a missile firing. Currently, the notification process for residents 

and the BLM Socorro Field Office requires a notice 30 days in advance of the firing followed by a 10-day 

notice, both of which are delivered by mail. These notices are followed by a hand-delivered notice 3 days 

in advance of the firing to those living in the safety evacuation area and to the BLM Socorro Field Office. 

During the 12-hour evacuation period, all primary roads into the areas are blocked and no one, including 

BLM personnel, recreational users, OHV users and other publics, is allowed to enter the areas until the 

missile firing procedures have been completed. 

While impacts off the Range are not intentional, these areas were imposed as safety fans in the event that 

missiles launched on the Range do result in impacts off the range. Procedures to handle such occurrences 

(e.g., impacts from projectiles or debris) have been established by the U.S. Department of Defense. 

The U.S. Department of Defense safety evacuation areas would be applicable to all of the alternatives 

and will be a part of the selected RMPR. 

2.3.21 Special Designations

2.3.21.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

BLM Manual 1613 and 43 CFR 1610.7-2 require that areas having potential for designation and 

protection as ACECs be identified and considered during the planning process. ACECs must meet 

relevance and importance criteria, and require special management to (1) protect the area and prevent 

irreparable damage to resources or the natural system or (2) protect life and promote safety in areas where 

natural hazards exist. 

2.3.21.2 Management Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, the Socorro Field Office would continue to designate ACECs, identify other SMAs 

and prescribe management to protect the resource values of those areas as described in Table 2-2. 
Management Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-23 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

SMAs are not provided for in the regulations as a specific designation. However, H-1601-1, Land Use 

Planning Handbook, provides for “other BLM administrative designations” in addition to ACECs, Wild 

and Scenic Rivers, Backcountry Byways, etc. SMAs are areas containing natural or cultural values that do 

not meet the ACEC or other regulatory or legislative criteria, but are areas that BLM wishes to identify in 

order to protect or manage the resources associated with the area. As with the management of ACECs and 

other designations and subject to valid existing rights, proposed actions that potentially would degrade the 

values within SMAs would be avoided.

2.3.22 Social and Economic Conditions

2.3.22.1 Continuing Management Guidance 

Appendix D of the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 addresses social science considerations 

in land use planning decisions and provides guidance on integrating social science information into the 

planning process. 

BLM Instruction Memorandum 2002-164, Guidance to Address Environmental Justice in Land Use Plans 

and Related National Environmental Policy Act Documents, provides additional information concerning 

BLM’s implementation of EO 12898, and replaces an earlier Instruction Memorandum providing policy 

and guidance for addressing environmental justice in land use planning. According to EO 12898, 

environmental justice demands that all people potentially impacted by environmental planning decisions, 

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, are treated fairly and are given opportunity for 

meaningful involvement with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including 

racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental 

consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of 

Federal, State, local, and Tribal programs and policies.

2.4 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

2.4.1 No-Action Alternative (Alternative A)

Under the No-Action Alternative, management would continue in accordance with the 1989 RMP and 

any plan amendments and activity plans completed and approved since 1989. The continuing 

management guidance and management common to all alternatives described under Section 2.3 would 

apply. Additional resource-specific land allocations and management strategies under the No-Action 

Alternative are provided below. This alternative provides a baseline for comparison with other 

alternatives, and may not adequately resolve the issues identified in the RMPR/EIS (see Chapter 1). 

A summary of the management goals, issues addressed by the actions, land allocations, and key 

management decisions under all alternatives is provided in Table 2-1. Table 2-2 provides additional detail 

on the management prescriptions for special designations. Tables and maps are located at the end of the 

chapter. Existing special designations are mapped in Maps 3-7, 3-12, and 3-18 through 3-37; maps of 

WSAs also are in Appendix J. Please note that certain special designations are proprietary in nature and 

their boundaries are not available for public viewing in this RMPR. Appendix K, Existing Special 

Designations and Justification for Proposed Special Designations, provides additional information on 

special designations. 

2.4.1.1 Soils and Water Resources 

Under the No-Action Alternative, watershed plans would be developed and watershed tillage practices 

would be implemented on grassland, treated rabbitbrush, and sagebrush areas. After identification of 
No-Action Alternative (Alternative A) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-24 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

suitable sites, piñon-juniper, rabbitbrush, greasewood, and sagebrush would be treated mechanically. This 

treatment would be followed with reseeding as necessary. 

Three special designations would continue to be maintained to manage areas with soil stability and other 

watershed-related issues in critical watershed areas (see also Table 2-2, Map 3-12, and Appendix K). 

These include: 

x Fence Lake SMA (25,453 acres)1

 (Map 3-25) 

x Puertecito SMA (7,156 acres) (Map 3-29) 

x Stallion SMA (19,702 acres) (Map 3-33) 

2.4.1.2 Vegetation (including Special Status Species) 

Under the No-Action Alternative, up to 244,170 acres would be treated to improve ecological conditions. 

Several special designations would continue to be maintained to protect special-status plant species: 

x Sawtooth Proprietary ACEC (125 acres) – manage to protect the Zuni fleabane, a federally listed 

species.

x Iron Mine Ridge Proprietary SMA (1,386 acres) – manage to protect special status plant species 

that have been downlisted (i.e., it is no longer federally listed as threatened or endangered) since 

the 1989 RMP. 

x San Pedro Proprietary ACEC (1,201 acres) – manage to protect Fugate’s blue star (special status 

plant species). 

x Soaptree SMA (1,296 acres) – manage to protect the soaptree yucca ecosystem (Map 3-32). 

x Taylor Canyon Proprietary SMA (384 acres) – manage to protect plants that were identified as 

rare at the time of the 1989 RMP, but are no longer considered to be rare. 

x Harvey Plot SMA (8 acres) – conduct research on vegetation (Map 3-27). 

More information on special designations is provided in Table 2-2, Map 3-12 (proprietary designations 

are not shown), and Appendix K. 

2.4.1.3 Wildlife (including Special Status Species) 

Several special designations would continue to be maintained to protect and manage wildlife and habitat 

resources, and wilderness characteristics. These include: 

x Agua Fria ACEC (9,571 acres) – manage to protect wildlife habitat, particularly raptor wintering 

and nesting habitats (Map 3-18). 

x Horse Mountain ACEC (7,490 acres) – manage to protect wildlife values by reducing habitat 

fragmentation through access management. In addition, potential habitats for a federally listed 

threatened species (the bald eagle) and a federally listed species of concern (peregrine falcon) are 

present within the ACEC (Map 3-19). 

 

1

 Throughout the description of alternatives, acreages are based on calculations using the best available geographic 

information system data. Acreage figures only include BLM-managed surface land. 
No-Action Alternative (Alternative A) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-25 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

x Ladron Mountain ACEC (57,195 acres) – manage to enhance and protect diverse wildlife habitat, 

with emphasis on habitat for desert bighorn sheep (Map 3-20). 

x Pelona Mountain SMA (70,838 acres) – manage to protect diverse wildlife habitat. The SMA 

serves as an important wildlife corridor between BLM and Forest Service lands, and contains 

potential habitat for a federally listed threatened species (the bald eagle), a federally listed species 

of concern (peregrine falcon), and one of New Mexico’s largest elk herds (Map 3-28). 

More information on special designations is provided in Table 2-2, Map 3-12, and Appendix K. 

2.4.1.4 Cultural Resources 

Under the No-Action Alternative, inholdings within some special designations would be identified for 

acquisition to protect cultural resources (see Table 2-2). No specific heritage tourism plan would be 

developed. Cultural resources would be managed in accordance with the legal requirements and 

management guidance described in Section 2.3.8. 

Several areas where sensitive or unique cultural resources exist would continue to be designated for 

special management. Generally, management prescriptions to protect resources in these areas would 

include reduced access and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. Under the No-Action Alternative, 

the following special designations are specifically related to cultural resources management and 

protection:

x Rio Salado SMA (5,946 acres) (Map 3-30) 

x Mockingbird Gap Proprietary SMA (8,685 acres) 

x Fort Craig SMA (149 acres) (Map 3-26) 

x Mogollon Pueblo Proprietary SMA (640 acres) 

x Newton Site Proprietary SMA (37 acres) 

x Playa Pueblos Proprietary SMA (203 acres) 

x Town of Riley SMA (533 acres) (Map 3-35) 

x Teypama SMA (37 acres)2

 (Map 3-34) 

x Zuni Salt Lake Proprietary SMA (4,839 acres) 

More information on special designations is provided in Table 2-2, Map 3-12 (proprietary designations 

are not shown), and Appendix K. 

2.4.1.5 Paleontological Resources 

The potential for paleontological resources would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when site-specific 

actions are proposed. Any resources that are discovered would be handled in accordance with applicable 

laws and agreements (see Section 2.3.9). 

 

2

 Note that the 1989 RMP states that Teypama SMA includes 17 acres, but the maps in the RMP show 37 acres 

within the SMA. The No-Action Alternative includes the entire 37 acres as mapped in the 1989 RMP. 
No-Action Alternative (Alternative A) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-26 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

2.4.1.6 Visual Resources 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 30,343 acres (2 percent of the surface area managed by BLM) would be 

managed as VRM Class I; 385,781 acres (26 percent) as Class II; and 299,741acres (20 percent) as 

Class III. The remaining 774,170 acres (51 percent) would be managed as Class IV (see Map 3-5). 

2.4.1.7 Lands and Realty 

Right-of-way exclusion areas are closed to all forms of new right-of-way development, unless mandated 

by law. Right-of-way avoidance areas are areas where future rights-of-way may be granted only when no 

feasible alternative route is available. Under Alternative A, 39,148 acres of BLM-managed surface estate 

would be managed as right-of-way exclusion areas and 458,996 acres as right-of-way avoidance areas. 

These areas were established in the 1989 RMP and are illustrated in Map 3-16. No utility corridors would 

be designated under the No-Action Alternative. 

Up to 86,458 acres of isolated parcels would be identified as suitable for disposal in accordance with the 

Land and Mineral Disposal Policy in Appendix G of the 1989 RMP (see Map 3-17). Approximately 

1,418,685 acres would be identified as areas to be retained in Federal ownership (see Map 3-17) based on 

criteria including the (1) consolidation of land within SMAs, and (2) restriction of disposals in coal areas. 

Up to 40,920 acres of nonpublic land would be acquired from willing sellers to support wildlife habitat, 

cultural resources, and other management programs as needed within and adjacent to HMP areas, WSAs, 

ACECs, SMAs, and other areas of concern. 

2.4.1.8 Forestry and Woodland Management 

Under the No-Action Alternative, no woodcutting would be allowed in areas of potential for moderate or 

high soil erosion. Public land containing vegetative products such as firewood, fence posts, Christmas 

trees, and wildlings would continue to be considered and designated for harvest. At the time of the 1989 

RMP, approximately 6,500 acres had been designated to meet the demand for vegetative products. 

However, it is estimated that no more than an average of 10 percent or 650 acres per year would be 

utilized.

2.4.1.9 Rangeland Management 

Under the No-Action Alternative, range conditions would be improved in accordance with the direction in 

the 1989 RMP and the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines. Seeding trials of less than 2 acres each 

would be performed on 33 sites to determine the potential forage production of reseeding. In addition, 

Soaptree SMA (1,296 acres) would be managed for continued livestock grazing. 

2.4.1.10 Minerals

Leasable Minerals

Under the No-Action Alternative, about 1,418,415 acres of Federal mineral estate (or 23 percent of 

Federal mineral estate in the Planning Area) would be closed nondiscretionarily to fluid mineral leasing 

(see Section 2.3.16). In accordance with the 1989 RMP and subsequent amendments, approximately 

3,312,904 acres would be open to mineral leasing with standard terms and conditions, and approximately 

736,000 acres would be open to leasing with stipulations in addition to the standard terms and conditions. 

Federal mineral estate underlying surface area managed or owned by private, State, or other Federal 

agencies would be managed in close coordination with the landowners or agencies. 
No-Action Alternative (Alternative A) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-27 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

In accordance with the 1989 RMP, 31,640 acres would be available for coal leasing. Any minerals 

development would be subject to additional NEPA analysis, as appropriate. 

Locatable Minerals 

Under existing management, there are 11,408 acres withdrawn from mineral entry on BLM-administered 

surface land, including the Sawtooth ACEC (125 acres) (see Appendix I for locations of these areas). 

Under the No-Action Alternative, BLM would petition to withdraw the following areas from location and 

entry under the mining laws: 1,500 acres within Tinajas ACEC and Harvey Plot SMA (8 acres). The 

remainder of public land within the Planning Area would be open for mineral location and entry unless 

restricted by law and policy. 

Saleable Minerals 

Areas that contain saleable resources would be identified and designated for future use. BLM’s Decision 

Area would be open to mineral material disposal unless restricted by law or policy. Management plans 

would be completed for the establishment of community pits. 

2.4.1.11 Recreation 

The 1989 RMP designated one ACEC and identified six SMAs that should be managed primarily to 

achieve recreation use objectives, as follows: 

x Tinajas ACEC (3,463 acres) (Map 3-21) 

x Datil Well SMA (669 acres) (Map 3-37)

x The Box SMA (300 acres) (Map 3-22) 

x San Lorenzo Canyon SMA (2,320 acres) (Map 3-31) 

x Cerro Pomo SMA (8,784 acres) (Map 3-23) 

x Walnut Canyon SMA (1,145 acres) (Map 3-36) 

x Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA (7,680 acres) (Map 3-24) 

Protection of primitive recreation resources also is noted as a management concern in the Horse Mountain 

ACEC, Ladron Mountain ACEC, Pelona Mountain SMA, and along the El Camino Real de Tierra 

Adentro National Historic Trail. The Quebradas Backcountry Byway would continue to be managed in 

accordance with existing guidance. 

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail would be managed for recreational use and to protect scenic 

values on the 34 miles of its length within the BLM’s Decision Area. Access across non-Federal land 

within 50 miles of each side of the trail corridor would be pursued to the extent possible from willing 

sellers once a final route is determined. 

More information on special designations is provided in Table 2-2, Map 3-12, and Appendix K. 

2.4.1.12 Transportation and Travel Management 

Under the No-Action Alternative, 851,234 acres would be managed as open to OHV use (see Map 3-15 

for OHV areas under existing management). This constitutes approximately 56 percent of the surface area 
No-Action Alternative (Alternative A) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-28 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

managed by the BLM in the Planning Area. Motorized vehicle use would be limited to existing or 

designated trails and roads on 562,901 acres (approximately 37 percent). An additional 20,119 acres 

would be limited seasonally to protect natural resources. About 29,117 acres would be closed to 

motorized vehicle travel, and about 36 miles of routes would continue to be closed within WSAs. 

Approximately 40,809 acres are undesignated under the previous RMP, and would be designated as 

limited to existing roads and trails (as identified in Map 3-15) until travel management plans are 

completed (within 5 years of the completion of the RMPR). 

Specific route designations were not identified in the previous RMP; however, they would be addressed 

as part of the travel management plans discussed in Section 2.3.19. 

2.4.1.13 Special Designations 

Under the No-Action Alternative, a total of 79,045 acres (about 5 percent of the surface area managed by 

the BLM in the Planning Area) would be designated as ACECs. A total of 159,891 acres (11 percent of 

BLM-managed surface area in the Planning Area) would be identified as SMAs. The specific acreages 

and management for each area with a special designation is described in the appropriate resource section 

above and summarized in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. Existing special designations are mapped on Maps 3-7 

and 3-12. 

2.4.2 Action Alternatives

The action alternatives represent different management strategies to achieve the resource objectives. The 

continuing management guidance and management common to all alternatives described under 

Section 2.3 would apply. Additional resource-specific land allocations and management strategies under 

the action alternatives are provided below. The management for some resources and programs is 

consistent for all the alternatives and, therefore, the management direction for those resources and 

programs is described entirely in Section 2.3. These resources include fire management, air quality, 

noxious weeds and invasive species, wild horses, and renewable energy. 

A summary of the management goals, land allocations, and key management decisions under all 

alternatives is provided in Table 2-1. Table 2-2 provides additional detail on the management 

prescriptions for areas within special designations. In addition, Appendix K includes information on the 

features requiring special management within the proposed designations under each action alternative. 

2.4.2.1 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Soils and Water Resources 

Two SMAs would be identified to manage uses and activities in critical watersheds to balance commodity 

production with provision for the attainment and maintenance of good watershed health and proper 

functioning conditions (see also Table 2-2, Map 2-1, and Appendix K). Under Alternative B, these SMAs 

include:

x Puertecito SMA (7,156 acres) (Map 2-2) 

x Stallion SMA (10,883 acres) (Map 2-3) 

In addition, watershed rehabilitation activities would be identified through assessment of the New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines. 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-29 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

Vegetation (including Special Status Species) 

Plant communities would be managed to achieve multiple use goals and to meet or move towards the 

upland, riparian, or biotic standard (for definitions, see Appendix H). The desired plant community would 

be identified based on ecological sites for the plant communities that are involved when developing 

activity plans to meet resource objectives. The goal of defining a desired plant community is to obtain the 

specific plant community that is possible on a site (defined by climate, soil type, and landform) to best 

meet a management plan’s objectives, considering all the potential values and uses for that site (Council 

for Agricultural Science and Technology 1996). In all cases, an ecological site must be capable of 

attaining the desired plant community through natural succession, management action, or both. 

Generally, special status plants would be managed through (1) conducting inventory and survey and 

(2) acquiring access for management purposes. 

One ACEC would be designated and two SMAs identified to protect special-status plant species: 

x Sawtooth Proprietary ACEC (125 acres) – manage to protect the Zuni fleabane, a federally listed 

species.

x San Pedro Proprietary SMA (1,201 acres) – manage to protect Fugate’s blue star (special status 

plant species). 

x Soaptree SMA (1,296 acres) – manage to protect the soaptree yucca ecosystem (Map 2-4). 

More information on special designations is provided in Table 2-2, Map 2-1 (proprietary designations are 

not shown), and Appendix K. 

Wildlife (including Special Status Species) 

Three ACECs would be designated primarily for the management of wildlife habitat, wilderness 

characteristics, and special status species. These include: 

x Horse Mountain ACEC (5,388 acres) – manage to protect wildlife values by reducing habitat 

fragmentation through access management. In addition, potential habitat for a federally listed 

threatened species (bald eagle) and a federally listed species of concern (peregrine falcon) is 

present within the ACEC (Map 2-5). 

x Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC (57,474 acres) – manage to enhance and 

protect diverse wildlife habitat, with emphasis on habitat for desert bighorn sheep. Under 

Alternative B, this ACEC is expanded from the No-Action Alternative to incorporate the former 

Rio Salado and San Lorenzo SMAs, and the Devil’s Backbone and Polvadera Mountain areas 

(Map 2-6). 

x Pelona Mountain ACEC (51,091 acres) – manage to protect diverse wildlife habitat, including a 

federally listed threatened species (the bald eagle), a federally listed species of concern (peregrine 

falcon), and one of New Mexico’s largest elk herds (Map 2-7). 

The land that was managed as part of the Agua Fria ACEC under Alternative A would be managed as part 

of the Cerro Pomo ACEC under this alternative (see Cultural Resources). More information on these 

ACECs is provided in Table 2-2, Map 2-1, and Appendix K. 

To protect desert bighorn sheep, a 10-mile-wide special buffer would be established around occupied and 

historic habitat areas within which domestic sheep and goats would be excluded. In addition, the desert 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-30 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

bighorn sheep travel corridor between Ladron Mountain and the Devil’s Backbone Mountains would be 

managed to reduce impacts to bighorn habitat resulting from access and surface disturbance. 

Under Alternative B, approximately 26 miles of roads outside of special designations would be closed to 

address wildlife concerns.

Within the Chihuahuan semi-desert grasslands, approximately 37,254 acres of Federal mineral estate 

would be excluded from fluid mineral leasing (this includes 33,779 BLM-managed surface estate) for the 

protection of aplomado falcon habitat. These areas also would be excluded from mineral material 

disposals (except for areas within 0.5 mile of Highway 380) and right-of-way authorizations, OHV use 

would be limited to designated routes, and BLM would petition to withdraw the area from location and 

entry under the mining laws. The same management would be applied to an additional 6,698 acres of 

potential aplomado falcon habitat on Federal mineral estate (including 6,325 acres of BLM-managed 

surface estate) to support the release of an experimental, nonessential population of aplomado falcons. 

Under the 10j rule, captive-raised aplomado falcons would be released in southern New Mexico to 

establish a viable population. 

Areas that meet the criteria for aplomado falcon habitat would be managed to minimize potential impacts 

from surface-disturbing activities. This management would include the implementation of fluid mineral 

leasing stipulations (see Map 2-8 and Appendix I) and other measures to regulate surface use and 

occupancy (as described in Appendix L, Wildlife and Special Status Species) in areas that are determined 

to be potential aplomado falcon habitat. Grazing allotments within areas identified as potential aplomado 

falcon habitat would be managed for a stable or increasing trend in range condition or desired plant 

community. Monitoring of trend plots would be prioritized in the area identified for special management 

for aplomado falcon. As additional data become available, these management prescriptions may be 

revisited to assess their effectiveness in protection of this species. 

Cultural Resources 

Under Alternative B, the cultural resources program would emphasize a balance between site protection 

and site use, for public enjoyment and economic benefit to communities. In addition to the management 

described as common to all alternatives (see Section 2.3.8), at least one new site would be developed for 

public visitation over the life of the plan, and some programs and products would be developed for sites 

already designated for public use, such as Fort Craig and Penjeacu. 

Land acquisition may be pursued in support of cultural resource management goals as opportunities arise 

(some priorities are identified in Table 2-2). These opportunities would be evaluated according to the 

following criteria: 

x Site significance 

x Site management feasibility 

x Partnership potential for site management 

x Community/public support for acquisition 

x Heritage tourism potential 

Socorro Field Office would promote heritage tourism sites and projects to promote public awareness and 

appreciation for cultural resource values, provide for public enjoyment of cultural resources on public 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-31 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

land, and support rural economies. Potential heritage tourism sites and/or projects would be evaluated 

according to the following criteria: 

x Degree of resource vulnerability to effects from heritage tourism 

x Potential for site protection through physical “site hardening” measures, administrative measures, 

or other means of mitigation 

x Community/public support and interest 

x Partnership opportunities for site management 

Current sites that are or could be managed for heritage tourism values and benefits include Magdalena 

Stock Driveway, Fort Craig, Camino Real National Historic Trail, and Penjeacu. Other sites may be 

identified over the life of this RMPR. 

Several areas where sensitive or unique cultural resources have been identified would be managed under 

special designations. Generally, management would protect resources in these areas by reducing access 

and restricting surface-disturbing activities. Under Alternative B, the following special designations are 

specifically related to cultural resources management and protection: 

x Zuni Salt Lake Proprietary ACEC (46,746 acres) – incorporates most of the former Fence Lake 

SMA

x Mockingbird Gap Proprietary ACEC (8,685 acres) 

x Fort Craig SMA (149 acres) (Map 2-9) 

x Newton Site Proprietary SMA (6,789 acres) 

x Playa Pueblos Proprietary SMA (203 acres) 

x Penjeacu SMA (11 acres) – formerly Teypama (Map 2-10) 

More information on special designations is provided in Table 2-2, Map 2-1 (proprietary designations are 

not shown), and Appendix K. Some fluid mineral leasing stipulations (see Appendix I and Map 2-8) were 

developed in part for protection of cultural resources and would be applied as appropriate. 

Paleontological Resources 

To achieve resource protection under Alternative B, public land has been assigned to management classes 

related to the potential for paleontological resources based on geology. When surface-disturbing activities 

are proposed, appropriate management prescriptions would be applied for each potentially affected 

management class. A map of management classes and detailed information on management prescriptions 

is provided in Appendix M, Paleontological Resources Management. Mitigation for proposed actions 

would be addressed on a case-by-case basis, as needed. 

Visual Resources 

Under Alternative B, 28,533 acres (2 percent of the surface area managed by BLM) would be managed as 

VRM Class I; 488,339 acres (32 percent) as Class II; and 480,595 acres (32 percent) as Class III. The 

remaining 509,432 acres (34 percent) would be managed as Class IV (Map 2-11). 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-32 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

Caves and Karst Resources 

Under Alternative B, caves and karst resources would be managed in accordance with the management 

plan identified in Section 2.3.12. Imminent threats from natural or human-caused deterioration, or 

potential conflict with other resource uses, would be reduced by identifying priority geographic areas for 

new field inventory, based on a probability for unrecorded significant resources. In addition, some areas 

are associated with stipulations on fluid minerals leasing for the purpose of protecting caves and karst 

regions (see Appendix I). Cave and karst resources would be delineated and mapped and a management 

plan would be prepared within 2 years of completion of this RMP revision. 

Lands and Realty 

Right-of-way exclusion areas are closed to all forms of new right-of-way development, unless mandated 

by law. Right-of-way avoidance areas are areas where future rights-of-way may be granted only when no 

feasible alternative route is available. A plan for managing right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas is 

provided as part of Appendix F. Under Alternative B, 406,283 acres would be managed as right-of-way 

exclusion areas and 347,950 acres would be managed as right-of-way avoidance areas (Map 2-12). Land 

identified as exclusion areas is within WSAs or Class I VRM areas. Land identified as avoidance areas is 

within special designations other than WSAs and in VRM Class II areas. Under Alternative B, a total of 

50 percent of BLM-managed surface land would be subject to restrictions on right-of-way development 

(either exclusion or avoidance). 

A utility corridor that is generally 2 miles wide would be established along the Interstate 25 corridor (see 

Map 2-12). This corridor was one of the four recommended in the Western Utility Group Study (Michael 

Clayton and Associates 1992). Applicants requesting new rights-of-way would be encouraged to use this 

corridor.

Up to 89,447 acres of isolated parcels would be identified as suitable for disposal pending environmental 

analysis, in accordance with the Land and Mineral Disposal Policy in Appendix H (see Map 2-12). 

Approximately 1,412,057 acres would be identified as areas to be retained in Federal ownership (see 

Map 2-12). Nonpublic land would be acquired from willing sellers to the extent possible within WSAs, 

ACECs, SMAs, cultural resource sites, or other areas, as identified, to achieve resource objectives. 

Forestry and Woodland Management 

Under Alternative B, piñon-juniper, ponderosa, and mixed conifer cover types would be managed to 

improve ecological condition, provide the needs of local communities, and improve wildlife habitat. 

These cover types include potential old-growth stands (Appendix N, Old Growth Forest Definitions). 

High-tree-density woodland sites would be managed to reduce woody species and allow for increases in 

herbaceous understory. Savannah grassland sites would be treated to remove encroaching woody species, 

to restore them to the historical grassland reference condition based on potential from ecological site 

description. Dominance of ponderosa pine would be reestablished in the sites that would support it. 

Retention of larger, fire tolerant trees would be a management goal, along with uneven stand 

management. Woodland and forest sites would be evaluated for meeting standards for forest health and 

those identified as not meeting the standard would be managed in accordance with best management 

practices to become properly functioning (see Appendix C). Assessment also would utilize FRCC. FRCC 

is an interagency, standardized tool for determining the degree of departure from reference condition 

vegetation, fuels, and disturbance regimes. Assessing FRCC can help guide management objectives and 

set priorities for treatments. Treatment techniques may include wildland fire use, prescribed fire, 

mechanical treatment, chemical treatment, or biological treatment to achieve management goals for 

woodland and forest health. 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-33 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

The Socorro Field Office would exclude or restrict woodcutting and plant materials sales in special 

designations as identified in Table 2-2. 

Areas would be designated for commercial and personal woodcutting based on the following criteria: 

x Accessibility – For personal woodcutting, there must be a road into the site. For commercial 

woodcutting, there must be a road into the general area of the site, though not necessarily to the 

site itself; access may require building temporary roads that can be removed or rehabilitated when 

the project is completed. 

x Site has been identified for treatment (using New Mexico Standards and Guidelines and Standard 

Forest Inventory). 

x Stable soils (resilient to disturbance). 

x Slopes of less than 40 percent. 

x No woodcutting in excepted areas – areas identified for no woodcutting for the protection of other 

resources.

If public demand warrants, areas would be designated for personal-use plant or plant materials sales based 

on the following criteria: 

x Accessibility. 

x Availability of plant species. 

x Type of removal work. 

x Potential of other use areas – BLM may consider public salvage of native plant species from a 

proposed project area (gravel pit, etc.) depending on public demand, location of the particular 

project (accessibility), and staffing levels. 

x No sales in excepted areas – areas identified for no plant collecting for the protection of other 

resources.

Rangeland Management 

Under Alternative B, long-term increases in vegetation would be allocated to wildlife, watershed, and 

livestock based on monitoring and other studies to support such increases. The allocations typically would 

be 50 percent to wildlife/watershed and 50 percent to livestock. In addition, the Soaptree SMA 

(1,296 acres) would be managed for grazing use. 

The first priority for funding new rangeland improvements would be given to those allotments that have 

been identified as not meeting the rangeland standard. The next priority would be given to allotments 

according to their categorization, beginning with “I” category, followed by “M” and “C” categories. On 

“I” category allotments that contain crucial wildlife habitat and/or critical watershed, the allocation may 

be greater than 50 percent for wildlife and watershed. Where forage increases occur on allotments with no 

resource problems or conflicts, the allocation of forage to livestorck may be greater than 50 percent. Each 

case will be handled individually based on site-specific analysis and to conform to the multiple-use 

objectives of the RMP. 

Contributions for rangeland improvement work in the form of labor, material, equipment, and funding 

would be encouraged, and would be a factor in determining priority ranking for allocating funds. 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-34 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

Vegetative treatments would be conducted to control the growth and spread of undesirable vegetation or 

to increase the abundance of desirable vegetation. Vegetative treatments could include prescribed fire, 

mechanical treatment by hand (chain saws) or heavy equipment (chaining, mowing, mulching, grubbing, 

etc.), or chemical treatment. Areas that are potentially suitable for treatment would be analyzed in 

accordance with NEPA. All projects would be consistent with multiple-use objectives and this RMPR. 

Allotment management plans would be developed as necessary to resolve identified resource problems or 

conflicts. The level of intensity and the suggested management actions for each allotment management 

plans would vary depending on the problems encountered and the objectives outlined for the allotment. 

Management actions may include proper placement of rangeland improvements, distribution of livestock, 

kind and class of livestock, salting, grazing systems, and vegetative land treatments. These plans would 

be prepared in accordance with Section 8 of the Public Rangeland Improvement Act of 1978, in “careful 

and considered, consultation, cooperation, and coordination” with affected allottees, affected interest and 

other interested parties (target group). Involvement of the target group will be at the request of the 

allottee. The target group consists of landowners, such as the State Land Commissioner or other lessees, 

New Mexico Department of Agriculture, NMDGF, Range Improvement Task Force, Natural Resource 

Conservation Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and other interested parties. 

Allotment management plans would include a grazing system to provide periodic rest to plants from 

livestock grazing. The type of system implemented would be tailored to meet the needs of the allotment 

and would be developed through consultation with the allottee. Consideration would be given to allottee 

needs, level of management, vegetation objectives, the degree and type of resource conflicts, initial costs 

to implement the system, and other factors. 

Grazing allotments within areas identified as potential aplomado falcon habitat would be managed for a 

stable or increasing trend in range condition or desired plant community. Monitoring of trend plots would 

be prioritized in the area identified for special management for aplomado falcon. 

Minerals

Leasable Minerals 

Under Alternative B, approximately 1,543,095 acres of Federal mineral estate would be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing to protect sensitive resources (Map 2-8). This includes 1,418,415 acres of Federal mineral 

estate that is closed nondiscretionarily. Approximately 3,035,925 acres would be open to mineral leasing 

with standard terms and conditions, and 1,516,824 acres would be open to leasing with stipulations in 

addition to the standard terms and conditions (see Map 2-8 and Appendix I). Federal mineral estate 

underlying surface area managed or owned by private, State, or other Federal agencies would be managed 

in close coordination with the landowners or agencies. 

A total of about 3,200 acres in the BLM’s Decision Area have been identified as not unsuitable for coal 

leasing (see Appendix I). Coal leasing in these areas would occur in accordance with applicable laws 

subject to surface owner consultation and additional NEPA analysis, as appropriate. 

Locatable Minerals

A total of 11,408 acres of BLM-administered surface land would continue to be managed as withdrawn 

from mineral entry (see Appendix I). Under Alternative B, BLM would petition to withdraw an additional 

72,369 acres of Federal mineral estate from location and entry under the mining laws as follows: a total of 

43,952 acres within potential aplomado falcon habitat areas; 1,500 acres within and in the vicinity of 

Tinajas ACEC; 149 acres within the Fort Craig SMA; 23,567 acres of medium and high potential within 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-35 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

the Ladron Mountain ACEC; 2,881 acres within the Protection Zone of the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC; and an 

additional 320 acres within The Box SRMA. The remainder of public land within the Planning Area 

would be open for mineral entry unless restricted by law and policy. 

Salable Minerals

On BLM-administered land, 340,066 acres would be excluded from mineral material disposals, which 

includes all WSAs and other special designations as indicated in Table 2-2. This total includes 

40,104 acres of potential aplomado falcon habitat areas on BLM-managed surface estate that would be 

excluded from mineral material disposals with the exception of public land within 0.5 mile of existing 

highways. The remainder of BLM’s Decision Area would be open for extraction of mineral material 

unless restricted by law or policy. 

Recreation 

To manage and protect recreational resources under Alternative B, five SRMAs and two ACECs would 

be designated and one SMA would be identified. These include those designations noted below. More 

information special designations is provided in Table 2-2, Map 2-1 (proprietary designations are not 

shown), and Appendix K. 

x Datil Well SRMA (669 acres) – Manage to provide recreation opportunities (including day use, 

camping, and group outings), basic services including visitor safety and comfort, facility and 

grounds maintenance, coordination of employee and volunteer schedules and projects, and 

development and implementation of interpretation and environmental education programs 

(Map 2-13).

x The Box SRMA (1,107 acres) – Manage to enhance the areas unique recreational values, 

primarily rock climbing and bouldering, maintain the scenic quality and ensure protection for 

cultural sites as well as desert bighorn sheep and bats and their habitats (Map 2-14). 

x Gordy’s Hill SRMA (7,647 acres) – Manage for recreation uses, including OHV, races, and group 

events (Map 2-15). 

x Quebradas Backcountry Byway SRMA (area within 0.25 mile of the Byway, or a total of 

3,130 acres) – Manage for a variety of recreation opportunities and experiences such as driving 

for pleasure, high scenic quality, geologic sightseeing, interpretation and environmental 

education, mountain biking, and access to hiking areas such as Presilla and Sierra de las Cañas 

WSAs with an emphasis on the development of interpretation opportunities (Map 2-16).

x Socorro Nature Area SRMA (80 acres) – Manage for recreational use and to provide 

environmental education and interpretation opportunities; experiences would be primarily 

picnicking, hiking, sightseeing in Bosque Habitat, access to the Rio Grande, camping, and 

mountain biking (Map 2-17). 

x Cerro Pomo ACEC (26,284 acres, includes the former Mogollon Pueblo SMA) – Manage to 

protect unique geologic features, paleontological resources, cultural resources, and high scenic 

quality while preserving appropriate recreation opportunities (Map 2-18).

x Tinajas ACEC (1,062 acres) – Manage to protect unique geologic features, cultural resources, and 

high scenic quality while preserving appropriate recreation opportunities (Map 2-19). 

x Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA (60,379 acres) – Manage to meet the objectives of 

the enabling legislation, establish and maintain a trail route through the Planning Area that would 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-36 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

meet up with trail routes to the south and the north, and provide a long distance trail hiking 

experience for the users (Map 2-20). 

Protection of primitive recreation resources is noted as a management concern in the Cerro Pomo ACEC, 

Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC, and Pelona Mountain ACEC. 

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail would be managed for recreational use and to protect scenic 

values on the 34 miles of its length within the BLM’s Decision Area. Trail corridors would be identified 

and legal access acquisition in the Pie Town and Quemado areas would be pursued to the extent possible 

from willing sellers. Acquisition of legal access would facilitate establishing an unbroken trail route 

throughout the state. 

Transportation and Travel Management 

For OHV area designations under Alternative B, 486,842 acres would be limited to existing routes, 

902,782 acres would be limited to designated routes, and 117,921 acres would be closed to motorized 

travel (Map 2-21; for definitions, see Appendix J). No public land would be designated as open to crosscountry travel. 

Routes would be designated within WSAs as described in Table 2-4, located at the end of this chapter 

(see maps in Appendix J). Cross-country motorized travel would not be permitted within these areas, nor 

would motorized travel on unauthorized routes. Outside of WSAs, travel management would be managed 

and planned as described in Section 2.3.19. 

Under Alternative B, approximately 26 miles of routes outside areas with special designations would be 

closed to address wildlife concerns. Where impacts to other resources are occurring as a result of roads or 

vehicle use, additional miles of roads could be closed as necessary to protect or recover resources. 

Special Designations 

Under Alternative B, a total of 196,855 acres (about 13 percent of the BLM-managed surface area in the 

Planning Area) would be designated as ACECs. The ACECs do not overlap with WSAs under this 

alternative, as occurs under Alternative A. A total of 12,633 acres (about 1 percent of the surface area 

managed by the BLM in the Planning Area) would be designated as SRMAs, and an additional 88,067 

acres (6 percent) would be identified as SMAs. The specific acreages and management for each area with 

a special designation is described in the appropriate resource section above, and summarized in Tables 2-

1 and 2-2. Proposed special designations under Alternative B are mapped on Map 2-1.

2.4.2.2 Alternative C 

Soils and Water Resources 

Two SMAs would be identified to manage uses and activities in critical watersheds to emphasize 

restoration, protection, or improvement of watershed function and processes, and deemphasize 

commodity production (see also Table 2-2, Map 2-22, and Appendix K). Under Alternative C, these 

SMAs include: 

x Puertecito SMA (7,156 acres) (Map 2-23) 

x Stallion SMA (10,883 acres) (Map 2-24) 

In addition, watershed rehabilitation activities would be implemented through application of the New 

Mexico Standards and Guidelines. 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-37 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

Vegetation (including Special Status Species) 

Plant communities would be managed to achieve multiple-use goals and to meet or move toward the 

upland, riparian, and biotic standards. The desired plant community would be identified based on 

ecological sites for the plant communities that are involved when developing activity plans to meet 

resource objectives.

One ACEC would be designated and two SMAs would be identified to manage for the protection of 

special-status plant species as follows: 

x Sawtooth Proprietary ACEC (125 acres) – manage to protect the Zuni fleabane, a federally listed 

species.

x San Pedro Proprietary SMA (1,201 acres) – manage to protect Fugate’s blue star (special status 

plant species). 

x Soaptree SMA (1,296 acres) – manage to protect the soaptree yucca ecosystem (Map 2-25). 

More information on special designations is provided in Table 2-2, Map 2-22 (proprietary designations 

are not shown), and Appendix K. 

Wildlife (including Special Status Species) 

Three ACECs would be designated primarily for the management of wildlife habitat, wilderness 

characteristics, and special status species. These include the following: 

x Horse Mountain ACEC (5,388 acres) – Same as Alternative B, manage to protect wildlife values 

by reducing habitat fragmentation through access management. In addition, potential habitat for a 

federally listed threatened species (the bald eagle) and a federally listed species of concern 

(peregrine falcon) is present within the ACEC (Map 2-26). 

x Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC (57,474 acres) – manage to enhance and 

protect diverse wildlife habitat, with emphasis on habitat for desert bighorn sheep. Similar to 

Alternative B, this ACEC is expanded from the No-Action Alternative to incorporate the former 

Rio Salado and San Lorenzo SMAs, and the Devil’s Backbone and Polvadera Mountain areas 

(Map 2-27). 

x Pelona Mountain ACEC (52,336 acres) – manage to protect diverse wildlife habitat. The ACEC 

serves as an important wildlife corridor between BLM and Forest Service lands, and contains 

potential habitat for a federally listed threatened species (the bald eagle), a federally listed species 

of concern (peregrine falcon), and one of New Mexico’s largest elk herds (Map 2-28). 

The land that was managed as part of the Agua Fria ACEC under Alternative A would be incorporated 

into and managed as part of the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC under this alternative (see Cultural Resources). 

More information on these designations is provided in Table 2-2, Map 2-22, and Appendix K. 

To protect desert bighorn sheep, a 20-mile-wide buffer would be established around occupied and historic 

habitat areas within which domestic sheep and goats would be excluded. In addition, the desert bighorn 

sheep travel corridor between Ladron Mountain and the Devil’s Backbone Mountains would be managed 

to reduce impacts due to access and surface disturbance. 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-38 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

Similar to Alternative B, about 26 miles of roads outside of special designations would be closed to 

address wildlife concerns. 

Approximately 68,679 acres of Federal mineral estate that are potential aplomado falcon habitat areas 

would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (this includes 63,808 BLM-administered surface acres). These 

areas also would be excluded from mineral material disposals (except areas within 0.5 mile of existing 

highways) and right-of-way authorizations, OHV use would be limited to designated routes, and the BLM 

would petition to withdraw the area from location and entry under the mining laws. 

Areas that meet criteria for aplomado falcon habitat would be managed to minimize potential impacts 

from surface-disturbing activities. This management would include the implementation of fluid mineral 

leasing stipulations (see Map 2-29 and Appendix I) and other measures to regulate surface use and 

occupancy (see Appendix L) in areas that are determined to be potential aplomado falcon habitat. Grazing 

allotments within areas identified as potential aplomado falcon habitat would be managed for a stable or 

increasing trend in range condition or desired plant community. Monitoring of trend plots would be 

prioritized in the area identified for special management for aplomado falcon. As additional data become 

available, these management prescriptions may be revisited to assess their effectiveness in protection of 

this species. 

Cultural Resources 

Under Alternative C, program emphasis would be on-site protection and research, and a greater number 

of sites would receive protection by virtue of the land use restrictions associated with special 

designations.

Criteria for acquiring land to protect cultural resources and identifying heritage tourism sites would be the 

same as Alternative B. However, heritage tourism sites would be developed with an emphasis on site 

protection to facilitate visitation. Current sites that are or could be managed for heritage tourism values 

and benefits include Magdalena Stock Driveway, Fort Craig, and Penjeacu. Other sites may be identified 

over the life of this RMPR.

Several areas where sensitive or unique cultural resources have been identified would be managed under 

special designations. Generally, management prescriptions to protect resources in these areas would 

include reduced access and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. Under Alternative C, the 

following special designations are specifically related to cultural resources management and protection: 

x Zuni Salt Lake Proprietary ACEC (156,601 acres) – manage to protect Zuni Salt Lake 

(incorporates former Fence Lake SMA and Cerro Pomo ACEC). 

x Mockingbird Gap Proprietary ACEC (8,685 acres) 

x Fort Craig SMA (149 acres) (Map 2-30) 

x Newton Site Proprietary SMA (6,789 acres) 

x Playa Pueblos Proprietary SMA (203 acres) 

x Penjeacu SMA (11 acres) – formerly Teypama (Map 2-31) 

x Town of Riley SMA (533 acres) (Map 2-32) 

The Cerro Pomo ACEC, which was included in Alternative B, is incorporated into and managed as a part 

of the Zuni Salt Lake Proprietary ACEC under this alternative. More information on special designations 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-39 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

is provided in Table 2-2, Map 2-22 (proprietary designations are not shown), and Appendix K. Some fluid 

mineral leasing stipulations were developed (see Appendix I and Map 2-29) in part for protection of 

cultural resources and would be applied as appropriate. 

Paleontological Resources 

Same as Alternative B. 

Visual Resources 

Under Alternative C, 27,093 acres (about 2 percent of the surface area managed by the BLM) would be 

managed as VRM Class I; 715,706 acres (48 percent) as Class II; and 249,953 acres (17 percent) as 

Class III. The remaining 513,997 acres (34 percent) would be managed as Class IV (Map 2-33). 

Caves and Karst Resources 

Same as Alternative B. 

Lands and Realty 

Under Alternative C, 716,100 acres would be managed as right-of-way exclusion areas and 419,120 acres 

as right-of-way avoidance areas (see Map 2-34). Under Alternative C, a total of 75 percent of BLM’s 

Decision Area would be subject to restrictions on right-of-way authorizations (either exclusion or 

avoidance).

A utility corridor would be established along the Interstate 25 corridor (Map 2-34). This is a preliminary 

corridor under consideration in the West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS project. Applicants 

requesting new rights-of-way would be encouraged to use this corridor. Up to 42,913 acres of isolated 

parcels would be identified as suitable for disposal in accordance with the Land and Mineral Disposal 

Policy in Appendix F (Map 2-34). Approximately 1,461,191 acres would be identified as areas to be 

retained in Federal ownership (see Map 2-6). Nonpublic land would be acquired from willing sellers 

within WSAs, ACECs, SMAs, cultural resource sites, or other areas as identified to achieve resource 

objectives.

Forestry and Woodland Management 

Similar to Alternative B, piñon-juniper, ponderosa, and mixed conifer cover types would be managed to 

improve ecological condition, provide the needs of local communities, and improve or maintain wildlife 

habitat. However, to achieve management objectives, emphasis would be placed on wildland fire use and 

prescribed fire, although mechanical treatment, chemical treatment, or biological treatment may be 

considered to achieve the goals of woodland and forest health. 

Criteria for woodcutting would be the same as Alternative B, except that vehicle travel would be limited 

to existing roads (no new roads would be allowed) for commercial and personal woodcutting. The sale of 

plants would be limited to designated plant collection areas and specified salvage areas. Exclusions or 

restrictions of these activities in special designations would occur as identified in Table 2-2. 

Rangeland Management 

Increases in forage would be reserved for wildlife habitat and watershed needs. Increases in livestock use 

would be secondary after other resource objectives had been met. Range improvements would be 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-40 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

designed primarily to benefit wildlife and watershed resources and to move towards meeting the upland, 

riparian, or biotic standard. 

Grazing allotments within areas identified as potential aplomado falcon habitat would be managed for a 

stable or increasing trend in range condition. Monitoring of trend plots would be prioritized in the area 

identified for special management for aplomado falcon. 

Minerals

Leasable Minerals 

Under Alternative C, approximately 1,856,116 acres of Federal mineral estate would be closed to fluid 

mineral leasing to protect sensitive resources (Map 2-29). This total includes 1,418,415 acres of Federal 

mineral estate closed nondiscretionarily. Approximately 3,296,806 acres would be open to mineral 

leasing with standard terms and conditions and 947,044 acres would be open to leasing with stipulations 

in addition to the standard terms and conditions (see Map 2-29 and Appendix I). Federal mineral estate 

underlying surface area managed or owned by private, State, or other Federal agencies would be managed 

in close coordination with the landowners or agencies.

Areas determined to be not unsuitable for coal leasing would be the same as in Alternative B. 

Locatable Minerals

Management of locatable minerals would be the same as under Alternative B, except that BLM would 

petition for withdrawal from location and entry under the mining laws for the following additional areas: 

68,679 acres of Federal mineral estate within potential aplomado falcon habitat; Zuni Salt Lake 

Proprietary ACEC, Mesita Blanca WSA, and Eagle Peak WSA (315,490 acres of Federal mineral estate); 

and a total of 400 acres from The Box SRMA (an increase from the 320 acres in Alternative B). 

Salable Minerals

On BLM-administered land, 484,133 acres would be excluded from mineral material disposals within 

WSAs and other special designations as indicated in Table 2-2. This total includes 63,808 acres of BLMmanaged surface estate within potential aplomado falcon habitat, which would be excluded from mineral 

material disposals with the exception of public land within 0.5 mile of Highway 380. The remainder of 

the BLM’s Decision Area would be open for extraction of mineral materials unless restricted by law or 

policy. 

Recreation 

To manage and protect recreational resources under Alternative C, five SRMAs and one ACEC would be 

designated, and one SMA would be identified (see Map 2-22). These include: 

x Datil Well SRMA (669 acres) – Manage to provide recreation opportunities (including day use, 

camping, and group outings), basic services including visitor safety and comfort, facility and 

grounds maintenance, coordination of employee and volunteer schedules and projects, and 

development and implementation of interpretation and environmental education programs 

(Map 2-35). 

x The Box SRMA (1,501 acres) – Manage to enhance the areas unique recreational values, 

primarily rock climbing and bouldering, maintain the scenic quality and ensure protection for 

cultural sites as well as desert bighorn sheep and bats and their habitats (Map 2-36). 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-41 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

x Gordy’s Hill SRMA (2,876 acres) – Manage for recreation uses, including OHV, races, and group 

events (Map 2-37). 

x Quebradas Backcountry Byway SRMA (3,130 acres) – Manage for a variety of recreation 

opportunities and experiences such as driving for pleasure, high scenic quality, geologic 

sightseeing, interpretation and environmental education, mountain biking, and access to hiking 

areas such as Presilla and Sierra de las Cañas WSAs with an emphasis on the development of 

interpretation opportunities (Map 2-38). 

x Socorro Nature Area SRMA (80 acres) – Manage for recreational use and to provide 

environmental education and interpretation opportunities; experiences would be primarily 

picnicking, hiking, sightseeing in Bosque Habitat, access to the Rio Grande, some camping, and 

mountain biking (Map 2-39). 

x Tinajas ACEC (7,767 acres) – Manage to protect unique geologic features, cultural resources, and 

high scenic quality while preserving appropriate recreation opportunities (Map 2-40). 

x Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA (11,757 acres) – Manage to meet the objectives of 

the enabling legislation, establish and maintain a trail route through the Planning Area that would 

meet up with trail routes to the south and the north, and provide a long distance trail hiking 

experience for the users (Map 2-41). 

Protection of primitive recreation resources is noted as a management concern in the Ladron MountainDevil’s Backbone Complex ACEC, Pelona Mountain ACEC, and Tinajas ACEC. 

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail would be managed for recreational use and to protect scenic 

values on the 34 miles of its length within the Decision Area. Trail corridors would be identified and legal 

access acquisition in the Pie Town and Quemado areas would be pursued to the extent possible from 

willing sellers. Acquisition of legal access would facilitate establishing an unbroken trail route throughout 

the state.

More information on special designations is provided in Table 2-2, Map 2-22, and Appendix K. 

Transportation and Travel Management 

For OHV area designations under Alternative C, 476,908 acres would be limited to existing routes, 

889,958 acres would be limited to designated routes, and 139,971 acres would be closed to motorized 

travel (Map 2-42; for definitions, see Appendix J). No public land would be designated as open to crosscountry travel. 

Routes would be designated within WSAs as described in Table 2-4 (see maps in Appendix J). Crosscountry motorized travel is not permitted within these areas, and motorized travel on unauthorized routes 

is not permitted. Outside of WSAs, travel would be managed and planned as described in Section 2.3.19. 

Similar to Alternative B, approximately 26 miles of routes outside of areas with special designations 

would be closed to address wildlife concerns. Where impacts to other resources are occurring as a result 

of roads or vehicle use, additional miles of roads could be closed as necessary to protect or recover 

resources.

Special Designations 

Under Alternative C, a total of 288,378 acres (19 percent of the surface area managed by BLM in the 

Planning Area) would be designated as ACECs. The ACECs do not overlap with WSAs under this 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-42 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

alternative, as occurs under Alternative A. A total of 8,256 acres (under one percent of the surface area 

managed by the BLM in the Planning Area) would be designated as SRMAs, and an additional 39,975 

acres (3 percent) would be identified as SMAs. The specific acreages and management for each area with 

a special designation is described in the appropriate resource section above, and summarized in Tables 

2-1 and 2-2. The proposed special designations are mapped on Map 2-22; proprietary designations are not 

mapped.

2.4.2.3 Alternative D 

Soils and Water Resources 

Three SMAs would be maintained to manage uses and activities in critical watersheds to emphasize 

commodity production while providing protection of watershed health (see also Table 2-2, Map 2-43, and 

Appendix K). Under Alternative D, these designations include the following: 

x Fence Lake SMA (25,452 acres) (Map 2-44) 

x Puertecito SMA (7,156 acres) (Map 2-45) 

x Stallion SMA (10,883 acres) (Map 2-46) 

In addition, watershed rehabilitation activities would be implemented through application of the New 

Mexico Standards and Guidelines. 

Vegetation (including Special Status Species) 

Plant communities would be managed to achieve multiple-use goals and to meet or move toward the 

upland standard (see Appendix H). The desired plant community would be identified based on ecological 

sites for the plant communities that are involved when developing activity plans to meet resource 

objectives.

One ACEC would be designated and two SMAs would be identified to protect special-status plant 

species:

x Sawtooth Proprietary ACEC (125 acres) – manage to protect the Zuni fleabane, a federally listed 

species.

x San Pedro Proprietary SMA (1,201 acres) – manage to protect Fugate’s blue star (special status 

plant species). 

x Soaptree SMA (1,296 acres) – manage to protect the soaptree yucca ecosystem (Map 2-47). 

More information on special designations is provided in Table 2-2, Map 2-43 (proprietary designations 

are not shown), and Appendix K. 

Wildlife (including Special Status Species) 

Three ACECs would be designated primarily for the management of wildlife habitat, wilderness 

characteristics, and special status species (see Map 2-43). These include: 

x Horse Mountain ACEC (2,596 acres) – manage to protect wildlife values by reducing habitat 

fragmentation through access management. In addition, potential habitat for a federally listed 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-43 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

threatened species (bald eagle) and a federally listed species of concern (peregrine falcon) is 

present within the ACEC (Map 2-48). 

x Ladron Mountain ACEC (20,155 acres) – manage to enhance and protect diverse wildlife habitat, 

with emphasis on habitat for desert bighorn sheep (Map 2-49). 

x Pelona Mountain ACEC (34,547 acres) – manage to protect diverse wildlife habitat, including 

habitat for a federally listed threatened species (bald eagle), a federally listed species of concern 

(peregrine falcon), and one of New Mexico’s largest elk herds (Map 2-50). 

More information on special designations is provided in Table 2-2, Map 2-43, and Appendix K. 

The measures that would be implemented to protect desert bighorn sheep (establish buffer to exclude 

domestic sheep and goats, and manage travel corridor to reduce impacts) would be the same as in 

Alternative B.

Similar to Alternative B, about 26 miles of roads outside of special designations would be closed to 

address wildlife concerns.

Areas that meet criteria for aplomado falcon habitat would be managed to minimize potential impacts to 

surface-disturbing activities. This management would include the implementation of measures to regulate 

surface use and occupancy (see Appendix L) in areas that are determined to be potential aplomado falcon 

habitat. As additional data become available, these management prescriptions may be revisited to assess 

their effectiveness in protection of this species. 

Cultural Resources 

Under Alternative D, the cultural resources program emphasis would be on resource use for the economic 

benefit of surrounding communities. Other resource programs also would emphasize resource production 

and economic benefit by maintaining a minimum of limitations or restrictions on development. New sites 

would be designated for public use over the life of the plan as appropriate and feasible. Sites would be 

chosen based on community support and public involvement, as well as a site’s appropriateness for 

visitation (based on an evaluation of the site’s vulnerability to the effects of visitation). In addition to the 

new sites designated for public use, at least one new program or product per year would be developed for 

sites that are already designated, such as Fort Craig and Penjeacu. 

Criteria for acquiring land to protect cultural resources and for identifying heritage tourism sites would be 

the same as Alternative B. However, heritage tourism sites would be developed with an emphasis on site 

hardening and other protective measures in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. Current sites that are or could be managed for heritage tourism values and benefits 

include Magdalena Stock Driveway, Fort Craig, Newton Site, and Penjeacu. Other sites may be identified 

over the life of this RMPR. 

Several areas where sensitive or unique cultural resources have been identified would be managed under 

special designations. Generally, management prescriptions to protect resources in these areas would 

include reduced access and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. Under Alternative D, the 

following special designations are specifically related to cultural resources management and protection: 

x Cerro Pomo Proprietary ACEC (449 acres) – includes former Mogollon Pueblo SMA 

x Zuni Salt Lake Proprietary ACEC (2,107 acres) 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-44 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

x Rio Salado SMA (5,946 acres) (Map 2-51) 

x Mockingbird Gap Proprietary SMA (8,685 acres) 

x Fort Craig SMA (149 acres) (Map 2-52) 

x Newton Site Proprietary SMA (6,789 acres) 

x Playa Pueblos Proprietary SMA (203 acres) 

x Penjeacu SMA (11 acres) – formerly Teypama (Map 2-53) 

More information on special designations is provided in Table 2-2, Map 2-43 (proprietary designations 

are not shown), and Appendix K. Some fluid mineral leasing stipulations (see Appendix I and Map 2-54) 

were developed in part for protection of cultural resources and would be applied as appropriate. 

Paleontological Resources 

Same as Alternative B. 

Visual Resources 

Under Alternative D, zero acres would be managed as VRM Class I; 354,222 acres (24 percent of the 

surface area managed by BLM) as Class II; and 106,277 acres (7 percent) as Class III. The remaining 

1,046,398 acres (70 percent) would be managed as Class IV (Map 2-55). 

Cave and Karst Resources 

Same as Alternative B. 

Lands and Realty 

Under Alternative D, 301,081 acres would be managed as right-of-way exclusion areas and 177,290 acres 

as right-of-way avoidance areas (Map 2-56). Under Alternative D, about 32 percent of BLM-managed 

surface area would be subject to restrictions on right-of-way (either exclusion or avoidance). 

All utility corridors recommended by the Western Utility Group Corridor Study would be established 

(Michael Clayton and Associates 1992). The proposed width of each corridor would be 2 miles, 1 mile to 

each side of the corridor centerline (see Map 2-56). 

Up to 212,323 acres of isolated parcels would be identified as suitable for disposal in accordance with the 

Land and Mineral Disposal Policy in Appendix F (see Map 2-56). Approximately 1,292,952 acres would 

be identified as areas to be retained in Federal ownership (see Map 2-56). Nonpublic land would be 

acquired from willing sellers within WSAs, ACECs, SMAs, cultural resource sites, or other areas as 

identified to achieve resource objectives. 

Forestry and Woodland Management 

Similar to Alternative B, piñon-juniper, ponderosa, and mixed conifer cover types would be managed to 

improve ecological condition, provide the needs of local communities, and improve wildlife habitat. 

However, to achieve management objectives, emphasis would be placed on mechanical treatment, 

although wildland fire use and prescribed fire, chemical treatment, or biological treatment may be 

considered to achieve the goals of woodland and forest health. 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-45 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

Criteria for woodcutting and plant materials sales would be the same as Alternative B. Exclusions or 

restrictions of these activities in special designations would occur as identified in Table 2-2. 

Rangeland Management 

As forage increases become available, they would be allocated to livestock first and then to wildlife and 

watershed. Range improvements would be designed and constructed to benefit livestock grazing, and 

other resources would receive secondary consideration. 

Minerals

Leaseable Minerals 

Under Alternative D, 1,419,456 acres of Federal mineral estate would be closed to fluid mineral leasing to 

protect sensitive resources (Map 2-54). This includes 1,418,415 acres of Federal mineral estate closed 

nondiscretioniarily. Approximately 3,888,528 acres would be open to mineral leasing with standard terms 

and conditions and 785,484 acres would be open to leasing with stipulations in addition to the standard 

terms and conditions (see Map 2-54 and Appendix I). Federal mineral estate underlying surface area 

managed or owned by private, State, or other Federal agencies would be managed in close coordination 

with the landowners or agencies. 

Areas determined to be not unsuitable for coal leasing would be the same as in Alternative B. 

Locatable Minerals 

A total of 11,408 acres of BLM-administered surface land would continue to be managed as withdrawn 

from mineral entry (see Appendix D). The remainder of public land within the Planning Area would be 

open for mineral location and entry unless restricted by law and policy. 

Salable Minerals 

On BLM-administered land, about 291,859 acres would be excluded from mineral material disposals, 

including all WSAs, 22 acres within the Tinajas ACEC, and 11 acres in the Penjeacu SMA. The 

remainder of the BLM’s Decision Area would be open for extraction of mineral material unless restricted 

by law or policy. 

Recreation 

To protect and manage recreational resources under Alternative D, six SRMAs and one ACEC would be 

designated and one SMA would be identified (see Map 2-43). These include:

x Datil Well SRMA (669 acres) – Manage to provide recreation opportunities (including day use, 

camping, and group outings), basic services including visitor safety and comfort, facility and 

grounds maintenance, coordination of employee and volunteer schedules and projects, and 

development and implementation of interpretation and environmental education programs 

(Map 2-57). 

x The Box SRMA (300 acres) – Manage to enhance the area’s unique recreational values, primarily 

rock climbing and bouldering, maintain the scenic quality and ensure protection for cultural sites 

as well as desert bighorn sheep and bats and their habitats (Map 2-58). 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-46 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

x Gordy’s Hill SRMA (7,174 acres) – Manage for recreation uses, including OHV use, races, and 

group events (Map 2-59). 

x Quebradas Backcountry Byway SRMA (3,130 acres) – Manage for a variety of recreation 

opportunities and experiences such as driving for pleasure, high scenic quality, geologic 

sightseeing, interpretation and environmental education, mountain biking, and access to hiking 

areas such as Presilla and Sierra de las Cañas WSAs with an emphasis on the development of 

interpretation opportunities (Map 2-60). 

x Socorro Nature Area SRMA (80 acres) – Manage for recreational use and to provide 

environmental education and interpretation opportunities; experiences would be primarily 

picnicking, hiking, sightseeing in Bosque Habitat, access to the Rio Grande, some camping, and 

mountain biking (Map 2-61). 

x San Lorenzo SRMA (2,320 acres) – Manage for diverse recreational opportunities, particularly 

day use, while protecting wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and scenic values (Map 2-62). 

x Tinajas ACEC (22 acres) – Manage to protect unique geologic features, cultural resources, and 

high scenic quality while preserving appropriate recreation opportunities (Map 2-63). 

x Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA (8,703 acres) – Manage to meet the objectives of 

the enabling legislation, establish and maintain a trail route through the Planning Area that would 

meet up with trail routes to the south and the north, and provide a long distance trail hiking 

experience for the users (Map 2-64). 

Protection of primitive recreation resources is noted as a management concern in the Horse Mountain 

ACEC, Ladron Mountain ACEC, and Pelona Mountain ACEC. 

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail would be managed for recreational use and to protect scenic 

values on the 34 miles of its length within the Decision Area. Trail corridors would be identified and legal 

access acquisition in the Pie Town and Quemado areas would be pursued to the extent possible from 

willing sellers. Acquisition of legal access would facilitate the establishment of an unbroken trail route 

throughout the State. 

More information on special designations is provided in Table 2-2, Map 2-43, and Appendix K. 

Transportation and Travel Management 

For OHV area designations under Alternative D, 799,757 acres would be designated as limited to existing 

routes and 704,783 acres would be limited to designated routes (Map 2-65; for definitions, see 

Appendix J). No public land would be designated as open to cross-country travel. 

Routes would be designated within WSAs as described in Table 2-4 (see maps in Appendix J). Crosscountry motorized travel is not permitted within these areas, and motorized travel on unauthorized routes 

is not permitted. Outside of WSAs, travel management would be managed and planned as described in 

Section 2.3.19. 

Similar to Alternative B, approximately 26 miles of routes outside of areas with special designations 

would be closed to address wildlife concerns. Where impacts to other resources are occurring as a result 

of roads or vehicle use, additional miles of roads could be closed as necessary to protect or recover 

resources.
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-47 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

Special Designations 

Under Alternative D, a total of 60,002 acres (about 4 percent of the surface area managed by the BLM in 

the Planning Area) would be designated as ACECs. The ACECs do not overlap with WSAs under this 

alternative, as occurs under Alternative A. A total 13,004 acres (under 1 percent of the surface area 

managed by the BLM in the Planning Area) would be identified as SRMAs, and an additional 

76,472 acres (5 percent) would be designated as SMAs. The specific acreages and management for each 

area with a special designation is described in the appropriate resource section above, and summarized in 

Tables 2-1 and 2-2. The proposed special designations are mapped on Map 2-43.

2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL 

Some of the management strategies considered throughout the planning process were eliminated from 

detailed consideration in this RMPR/EIS. These include various ACECs, management strategies 

associated with special designations, and an east-west utility corridor. In addition, some of the proposed 

management strategies did not require RMP-level decisions and were therefore eliminated from further 

analysis. Management strategies outside BLM’s jurisdiction also were eliminated. 

Through this planning process, BLM considered and evaluated public land for ACEC designation. BLM 

policy (BLM Manual 1613 and 43 CFR 1610.7-2) requires that before an ACEC can be designated, it 

must meet certain criteria to establish the area’s relevance and importance. If the area meets the relevance 

and importance criteria, it must then be demonstrated to require special management attention to protect 

the important and relevant values. That is, the area must require management prescriptions or measures to 

protect the important and relevant values from the potential effect of actions permitted by the RMP. 

Initially, BLM identified broad areas of public land to evaluate under the ACEC designation criteria. 

These areas were identified by individual resource specialists under specific resource programs including 

wildlife, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, and recreation. As the evaluation and 

coordination process progressed, multiple resource values were recognized in some areas, consolidating 

some ACEC designation proposals. During this process, some proposed ACEC areas were eliminated 

because they did not meet the ACEC designation criteria. Acreages and special management prescriptions 

were modified throughout the process with the goal of identifying only those areas most suitable for 

ACEC designation. These areas were carried forward under the alternatives. 

Some of the management strategies considered, such as implementation of various best management 

practices, development of watershed management plans, and development of partnerships, do not require 

RMP-level decisions to implement. These decisions can be implemented at any time without amending or 

revising the RMP; therefore, they were not included in the alternatives descriptions. Other proposed 

management strategies, such as maintaining vegetative cover and soil conditions, are managed under the 

New Mexico Standards and Guidelines and do not require separate management decisions. 

Lastly, some management strategies were considered but eliminated because they are outside of the 

BLM’s jurisdiction. For example, requiring licenses and permits or imposing fees on OHV use is not 

within BLM’s jurisdiction. Likewise, providing access across private land or authorizing or restricting 

activities on nonpublic land (except activities associated with Federal subsurface minerals) is not within 

BLM’s jurisdiction.

2.6 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS 

The analysis of impacts associated with each alternative is provided in Chapter 4. A summary of impacts 

is provided in Table 2-5, located at the end of this chapter. 
Monitoring

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-48 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

2.7 MONITORING 

The BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.4-9) call for the monitoring of RMPs on a continual basis 

with a formal evaluation to be completed at 5-year intervals. The Socorro RMPR would be monitored on 

a continual basis to (1) ensure that decisions described in the RMPR are being implemented, (2) allow upto-date evaluations, and (3) respond to changing situations. Management actions or projects arising either 

internally or externally would be evaluated to determine conformance with the RMPR. If the project is in 

conformance, it could proceed contingent upon environmental analysis or, if not in conformance, the 

project would be abandoned or the RMPR amended to allow the project or action. 

A detailed monitoring and evaluation plan will be published with the Proposed RMPR/Final EIS. It will 

guide formal evaluations of the RMPR at intervals not to exceed 5 years. All plan monitoring would 

assess the following: 

x Whether management actions are resulting in satisfactory progress toward management goals 

x Whether actions are consistent with current policy 

x Whether original assumptions were correctly applied and impacts correctly predicted 

x Whether mitigation measures are satisfactory 

x Whether the RMP is consistent with the plans and policies of state and local government, other 

Federal agencies, and American Indian Tribes 

x Whether new data are available that would require alteration of the plan 

Monitoring is an essential component of natural resource management because it provides information on 

the relative success of management strategies. Land use plan monitoring is the process of (1) tracking the 

implementation of land use planning decisions (implementation monitoring) and (2) collecting 

data/information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning decisions (effectiveness 

monitoring). 

Monitoring is integral to management approaches such as adaptive management. Monitoring results 

would provide managers with the information to determine whether an objective has been met, and 

whether to continue or modify the management direction. Findings obtained through monitoring, together 

with research and other new data, would provide a basis for adaptive management changes to the RMPR. 

The processes of monitoring and adaptive management share the goal of improving effectiveness and 

permitting dynamic response to increased knowledge and a changing landscape. 

2.7.1 Implementation Monitoring

Implementation monitoring is the process of tracking and documenting the implementation (or the 

progress toward implementation) of land use decisions. This would be done annually throughout the life 

of the RMPR and would be documented in the form of a tracking log or report. The report would be 

available for public review (H-1601-1, Land Use Planning Handbook, BLM 2005). 

The monitoring plan would be evaluated periodically to ascertain that the monitoring questions and 

standards are still relevant, and would be adjusted as appropriate. Some monitoring items may be 

discontinued and others may be added as knowledge and issues change with implementation. If 

monitoring and evaluation indicate that modifying an RMP is necessary, the RMP may be changed 

through the amendment process. Monitoring and evaluation findings, new data, and new or revised 
Monitoring

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-49 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

policies will be evaluated to determine if there is a need for an amendment. Any changes in circumstances 

or conditions which affect the scope, terms, or conditions of the RMP may warrant an amendment. In all 

cases, a proposed action that does not conform to the RMP, or is not addressed by the RMP and warrants 

further consideration before an RMP revision is scheduled would require an amendment. Generally, an 

RMP amendment is site-specific or involves only one planning issue. An RMP revision, if necessary, 

would involve the preparation of a new RMP for the entire Planning Area. 

Potential minor changes, refinements, or clarifications to the RMP may take the form of maintenance 

actions. Maintenance actions incorporate minor data changes and are usually limited to minor refinements 

and documentation such as correction of acreages or other numbers, clarifying language, refining known 

habitat of special status species addressed in the RMP and similar refinements (H-1601-1 Land Use 

Planning Handbook, BLM 2005). RMP maintenance would not result in expansion of the scope of 

resource uses or restrictions or change the terms, conditions and decisions of approved RMP. 

Maintenance actions are not considered plan amendments and do not require a formal public involvement 

and interagency coordination process. 

RMP monitoring would be conducted at multiple levels and scales and in the most cost-effective manner. 

Monitoring would be conducted in a manner that allows localized information to be compiled and 

considered in a broader regional context, thereby address both local and regional issues. At project level, 

monitoring would examine how well specific management direction has been applied on the ground and 

how effectively it produces expected results. Monitoring at broader levels would measure how 

successfully projects and other activities have achieved the objectives for those management areas. 

Monitoring would be coordinated with other appropriate agencies and organizations in order to enhance 

efficiency and usefulness of the results across a variety of administrative units and provinces. The 

approach would build on past and present monitoring work. 

Monitoring results would be reported in an annual program summary (such as a Socorro Field Office 

Update), which would be published on the Field Office Web site, the second year following initial 

implementation of this RMP. The annual program summary would track and assess the process of RMP 

implementation, state the findings made through monitoring, specifically address the implementation 

monitoring questions posed in each section of this monitoring plan, and serve as a report to the public. 

2.7.2 Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring is the process of collecting data and information for specific resources or 

programs to determine whether or not desired outcomes (expressed as goals and objectives in the land use 

plan) are being met (or progress is being made toward meeting them) as the allowable uses and 

management actions are implemented. A brief discussion of the effectiveness monitoring that would be 

carried out for each resource or program to determine if the actions described in the RMPR are meeting or 

moving toward management goals is provided in Appendix D. 

2.7.3 Evaluation

Land use plans are evaluated to determine if (1) decisions remain relevant to current issues, (2) decisions 

are effective in achieving (or making progress toward achieving) management goals, (3) any decisions 

need to be revised, (4) any decisions need to be dropped from further consideration, and (5) any areas 

require new decisions. The Socorro RMPR would be formally evaluated at least every 5 years. These 

evaluations may identify resource need and means for correcting deficiencies and addressing issues 

through plan maintenance, amendments, or new starts. Evaluations should also identify where new and 

emerging resource issues and other values have surfaced. 
Monitoring

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-50 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

2.7.4 Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is a procedure in which decisions and changes in management are made as part of 

an ongoing process. It is a continuous process of planning, implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and 

incorporating new information into strategies to meet the goals and objectives of the management 

described in the RMP. This process builds on current knowledge, observation, experimentation, and 

learning from experience. A continuous feedback loop allows for mid-course corrections in management 

to meet goals and objectives. It also provides a model for adjusting goals and objectives as new 

information develops and public desires change. 

The complex interrelationships of physical, biological, and social components of the ecosystem and how 

they react to land management practices are often not fully understood when a land use management plan 

is developed. To be successful, plans must have the flexibility to adapt and respond to new knowledge or 

conditions.

The following briefly describes the four parts of adaptive management: 

x Planning/Decision – Plan development or revision is the process leading to decision making. It 

starts with issue identification and goal development. The next step is to gather information 

necessary to develop alternatives for management direction that address the issues and goals. The 

final stage is to develop alternative management strategies to address issues and meet the 

management goals, analyze the consequences of the alternatives, and choose a preferred 

alternative for implementation. 

x Implementation – The process of putting a plan or decision into effect. Implementation includes 

short- and long-term actions. It is assumed that all management direction would be implemented 

within 10 years. Standards are defined addressing how to achieve management goals; standards 

can include requirements to refrain from taking action in certain situations. 

x Monitoring – Detects changes so management activities can be modified to achieve management 

goals. Monitoring data provide information on the condition and trend of the ecosystem. 

Monitoring data would be collected to determine if plan objectives are being met. This is 

discussed further in Appendix D. 

x Evaluation/Assessment – The point where plans and monitoring data are reviewed. This phase of 

adaptive management is used to judge the success of existing plans in meeting goals and 

objectives, and makes recommendations for corrections. The understanding gained through 

evaluations is critical to managing sustainable, healthy, and productive ecosystems. Evaluations 

are a key component of the adaptive management process. An evaluation may lead to a change in 

management actions. 

As part of the Evaluation/Assessment section above and upon completion of periodic evaluations, the 

Socorro Field Office Manager would determine what, if any, changes are necessary to ensure that 

management actions are consistent with management goals. It is possible a plan amendment or revision 

may be initiated because of a need to consider monitoring findings, new data, new or revised policy, or a 

proposed action that may result in a change in the terms, conditions, or decisions of the approved RMP. 

In developing the Socorro RMPR/EIS, the BLM used the best science and resource management 

information available. The staff also collaborated with other Federal, Tribal, State, and local government 

agencies, and involved the public. However, the agency’s knowledge would change as local 

environmental conditions change, as new management techniques are learned, and as advances in science 

and technology are better understood. As a result, it is inevitable that in the future some of the 
Monitoring

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-51 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives

April 2007

management direction in the RMP would be found to be inadequate or in need of update. To rectify such 

situations, implementation of the Socorro RMPR would occur through the use of an adaptive management 

approach in a continual process to modify management actions to incorporate new knowledge gained over 

time. New information also could cause a plan amendment or revision to be prepared. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-52 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES Soils Management Goal: Manage uses to minimize and mitigate disturbances to soils and loss of soil sediments from erosion. Maintain soil stability to protect soil ecological health 

and long-term productivity. Water Resources Management Goal: Manage uses to maintain or improve overall watershed health by maximizing infiltration for groundwater recharge. Manage uses to maintain 

or improve surface water quality in watersheds, and watersheds that affect streams that are listed as water quality limited under the Clean Water Act, Section 303 (d). Manage resources to maintain or reduce salinity loading in accomplishing the goals and objectives outlined in the Colorado River Salinity Control Act. 

Surface Water Objective: Maintain and enhance the existing beneficial uses of surface water and protect the function of watersheds for habitat, grazing, and other ecological needs. 

Watershed rehabilitation Issue 2 

Control water runoff on approximately 80,695 acres through a variety of means. Develop watershed plans. Maintain three SMAs to manage critical watersheds (Puertecito, Fence Lake, Stallion). Implement watershed tillage practices on grassland, treated rabbitbrush and sagebrush areas. After identification of suitable sites, mechanically treat piñon-juniper rabbitbrush, greasewood, and sagebrush. Follow with reseeding when needed. 

Identify Puertecito and Stallion SMAs to manage use and activities in critical watersheds. Designate Zuni Salt Lake ACEC to protect resources associated with Zuni Salt Lake.Management would be implemented with the objective of balancing commodity production with providing for the attainment and maintenance of good watershed health, and proper functioning conditions. Watershed rehabilitation activities would be implemented in areas identified as priority areas through Standard Assessments, and sitespecific analysis would be completed. 

Identify Puertecito and Stallion SMAs to manage use and activities in critical watersheds. Designate Zuni Salt Lake ACEC to protect resources associated with Zuni Salt Lake.Management would emphasize restoration, protection, or improvement of watershed function and processes, and deemphasize commodity production. Watershed rehabilitation activities would be implemented in areas identified as priority areas through Standard Assessments, and sitespecific analysis would be completed. 

Identify Puertecito, Stallion, and Fence Lake SMAs to manage use and activities in critical watersheds. Designate Zuni Salt Lake ACEC to protect resources associated with Zuni Salt Lake. Management would emphasize commodity production while providing protection of watershed health. Watershed rehabilitation activities would be implemented in areas identified as priority areas through Standard Assessments, and sitespecific analysis would be completed. 

3 Issues are numbered and described in Chapter 1. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-53 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

VEGETATION (INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES) Management Goal: Achieve healthy, productive, and sustainable upland and riparian communities within the capability of a site through best management practices and 

appropriate public use. Vegetation will be managed to achieve the type, amount, and/or pattern of vegetation that minimizes erosion and assists in meeting rangeland health standards and State and Tribal water quality standards. Desired conditions for upland plant communities include soils that are stabilized and exhibit infiltration and permeability rates that are appropriate for the soil type, climate, and landform. Riparian vegetation will be managed to achieve a diverse age and structural composition that withstands high 

stream flows, captures sediment, recharges groundwater, and provides high-quality habitat for wildlife. 

Vegetation Issue 2 

Treat up to 244,170 acres to improve ecological condition. 

Manage plant communities to achieve multiple use goals and meet or move toward the upland standard. Manage some special status species through special designations 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Desired plant community Issue 2 

No desired plant community decision identified. Vegetation management would occur in accordance with New Mexico Standards and Guidelines. 

Identify desired plant community based on ecological sites for plant community involved when developing activity plans to meet resource objectives. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Special status speciesIssues 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Maintain two ACECs and four 

SMAs to manage for the protection of special status or rare species. 

Designate one ACEC and identify two SMAs to manage for protection of special status species. 

Designate one ACEC and identify two SMAs to manage for protection of special status species. 

Designate one ACEC and identify two SMAs to manage for protection of special status species. 

WILDLIFE (INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES) Management Goal: Ensure optimum populations of and a natural abundance and diversity of wildlife resources on public land by restoring, maintaining, and enhancing habitat 

conditions through management plans and actions integrated with other uses of public land through coordination with other programs, management initiatives, and habitat enhancement projects, while mitigating and/or reducing adverse impacts of other resource uses and human-wildlife interactions. 

Wildlife habitat No specific management decisions 

identified. 

Enhance and protect wildlife in priority areas (including ACECs and SMAs).

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Bighorn sheep Issues 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 

No specific management decisions identified. 

To protect desert bighorn sheep, establish a 10-mile special buffer to exclude domestic sheep and goats from occupied and historic habitat areas.Manage resource uses to minimize surface disturbance and unnecessary human/wildlife interactions in the 

To protect desert bighorn sheep, establish a 20-mile special buffer to exclude domestic sheep and goats from occupied and historic habitat areas.Manage resource uses to minimize surface disturbance and unnecessary human/wildlife interactions in the 

Same as Alternative B. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-54 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

desert bighorn sheep corridor to reduce adverse impacts to desert bighorn sheep and their habitat. 

desert bighorn sheep corridor to reduce adverse impacts to desert bighorn sheep and their habitat. 

Special Status SpeciesIssues 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Manage special status species to meet laws regulations, and policy.Aplomado falcons are not addressed under existing management. Maintain three ACECs and identify one SMA to manage wildlife habitat and special status species.

Close approximately 37,254 acres of Federal mineral estate (this includes 33,779 BLM-managed surface acres) within potential aplomado falcon habitats to fluid mineral leasing. In these areas, also exclude mineral material disposals (except within 0.5 mile of Highway 380) and rightof-way authorizations, limit OHV use to designated routes, and petition to withdraw from location and entry. On an additional 6,698 acres of potential aplomado falcon habitat on Federal mineral estate (this includes 6,325 acres of BLM-managed surface acres), close to fluid mineral leasing and exclude mineral material disposals (with the exception of areas within 0.5 mile of Highway 380) and rights-of-way. In addition, limit OHV use to designated routes, and petition to withdraw from mineral location and entry to support the release of an experimental, nonessential population of aplomado falcons. In areas that meet criteria for aplomado falcon habitat, apply fluid mineral leasing stipulations and other measures to regulate surface use and occupancy (see Appendix L). As additional data become available, these prescriptions may be revisited 

Close approximately 68,679 acres of potential aplomado falcon habitats on Federal mineral estate (this includes 63,808 BLM-managed surface acres) to fluid mineral leasing. In these areas, also exclude mineral material disposals (except within 0.5 mile of Highway 380) and right-of-way authorizations, limit OHV use to designated routes, and petition to withdraw from mineral location and entry.Apply fluid mineral leasing stipulations and other measures to regulate surface use and occupancy (see Appendix L) in areas that meet criteria for aplomado falcon habitat. As additional data become available, these prescriptions may be revisited to assess their effectiveness in protection of this species. Designate three ACECs to manage wildlife habitat and special status species.

Apply measures to regulate surface use and occupancy (see Appendix L) in the areas that meet criteria for aplomado falcon habitat. As additional data become available, these prescriptions may be revisited to assess their effectiveness in protection of this species. Designate three ACECs to manage wildlife habitat and special status species.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-55 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

to assess their effectiveness in protection of this species. Designate three ACECs to manage wildlife habitat and special status species.

CULTURAL RESOURCES Management Goal: Preserve, protect, study, and interpret significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations. Imminent threats from natural or human-caused deterioration, or potential conflict with other resource uses, are reduced by identifying priority geographic areas for new field inventory, based on a probability for unrecorded significant resources and known or suspected risk factors. Land acquisition Issues 5 and 6 

No areas are identified for acquisition nor acquisition criteria identified. 

Acquire non-Federal cultural resource areas based on identified criteria:

x Site significance x Site management feasibility x Partnership potential 

x Community/public support 

x Heritage tourism potential 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Heritage tourism Issue 6 

No specific heritage tourism plan identified or developed. 

Promote heritage tourism at sites or areas that meet the following criteria: 

x Low resource vulnerability to 

effects from Heritage Tourism 

x Potential for site protection 

through physical “site hardening” measures, administrative measures or other means of mitigation 

x Community/public support and 

interest 

x Partnership opportunities 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Cultural resources protection 

Maintain nine SMAs to protect and manage cultural resources. 

Designate two ACECs and identify four SMAs to protect and manage cultural resources. 

Designate two ACECs and identify five SMAs to protect and manage cultural resources. 

Designate two ACECs and identify six SMAs to protect and manage cultural resources. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-56 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Management Goal: Manage and protect paleontological resources found on public land. Paleontological resources Issue 5 

No specific management decisions identified. 

Locate and evaluate paleontological resources based on management prescriptions by class and potential for occurrence.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

VISUAL RESOURCES Management Goal: Maintain the Visual Resource Management (VRM) database and the quality of visual values in accordance with VRM class objectives.VRM Classes Issue 5 

Manage 30,343 acres as Class I; 385,781 acres as Class II; 299,741 acres as Class III; and the remaining 774,170 acres as Class IV. 

Manage 28,533 acres as Class I; 488,339 acres as Class II; 480,595 acres as Class III; and the remaining 509,432 acres as Class IV. 

Manage 27,093 acres as Class I; 715,706 acres as Class II; 249,953 acres as Class III; and the remaining 513,997 acres as Class IV. 

Manage zero acres as Class I; 354,222 acres as Class II; 106,277 acres as Class III; and the remaining 1,046,399 acres as Class IV.

CAVES AND KARST RESOURCES Management Goal: Protect, preserve, study, and identify karst features and significant caves, and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations. Significant Caves and Karst Features Issues 1 and 5 

Manage according to Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988, and BLM policy. 

A plan to manage caves and karst will be developed within 2 years of the Record of Decision for this RMPR.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

LANDS AND REALTY Management Goal: Respond to public requests for land use authorization, sales, and exchanges; support the multiple-use management goals and objectives of other resource 

programs as they relate to land and realty actions; and acquire access to provide continuing administrative and public needs and to facilitate the acquisition and disposal of public 

land, or interests in public land, in order to promote enhanced management and multiple uses of resources. 

Right-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas Issues 4 and 5 

Manage 39,148 acres as right-of-way exclusion areas, and 458,996 acres as right-of-way avoidance areas. 

Manage 406,283 acres as right-ofway exclusion areas, and 349,343 acres as right-of-way avoidance areas.

Manage 716,100 acres as right-ofway exclusion areas, and 419,120 acres as right-of-way avoidance areas.

Manage 301,081 acres as right-ofway exclusion areas, and 177,290 acres as right-of-way avoidance areas.

Utility corridors Issue 5 

No utility corridors are identified. Designate one north-south utility 

corridor. The proposed width of the corridor would be 1 mile on each side of centerline of the proposed corridor.

Designate one north-south utility 

corridor as identified by theWestern Utility Group Corridor study. The proposed width of the corridor would be 1 mile on each side of centerline of the proposed corridor. 

Designate four utility corridors as identified by the Western Utility Group Corridor study. The proposed width of the corridors would be 1 mile on each side of centerline of the proposed corridor. 

Land tenure Issue 5 

Identify up to 86,458 acres in isolated parcels as suitable for disposal in accordance with the Land and Mineral Disposal Policy in 

Identify up to 89,447 acres as suitable for disposal in accordance with the Land and Mineral Disposal Policy (Appendix F). Retain 

Identify up to 42,913 acres as suitable for disposal in accordance with the Land and Mineral Disposal Policy (Appendix F). Retain 

Identify up to 212,323 acres as suitable for disposal in accordance with the Land and Mineral Disposal Policy (Appendix F); retain 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-57 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Appendix G of the 1989 RMP. Retain 1,418,685 acres in Federal ownership based on criteria including (1) consolidating land within SMAs and (2) restricting disposals in coal areas.

approximately 1,412,057 acres in Federal ownership. 

approximately 1,461,191 acres in Federal ownership. 

approximately 1,292,952 acres in Federal ownership. 

Acquisition Issues 4 and 5 

Acquire up to 40,920 acres nonpublic land to support wildlife 

habitat, cultural resources, and other management programs where needed within and adjacent to WSAs, HMP areas, ACECs, SMAs, and other areas of concern. 

Acquire non-Federal land from willing sellers within WSAs, ACECs, special management areas, cultural resource sites, or other areas that are identified based on resource and program objectives. Acquire legal access as needed throughout the planning area based on resource objectives as acquisition opportunities arise to support all resource programs. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

FORESTRY AND WOODLAND MANAGEMENT Management Goal: Maintain sustainable uses and improve woodland and forest health by implementing best management practices. Employ silvicultural practices that will reduce 

encroachment of woodland species, encourage natural regeneration, and increase individual tree vigor. 

Woodland Management Issues 2 and 5 

No specific forest and woodland management decisions. 

Manage piñon-juniper, ponderosa, savannah, and mixed conifer cover types to improve ecological condition, provide for needs of local communities, and improve wildlife habitat. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Commercial wood cutting and personal fuel-wood cutting Issues 2 and 5 

Wood cutting would be restricted on soils in moderate or high erosion areas.Establish three forest and four woodland monitoring areas. 

Permit commercial woodcutting in areas that meet following criteria: 

x Accessibility – There must be a 

road into the general area of the site, though not necessarily to the site itself; access may require building temporary roads that can be removed or rehabilitated when the project is completed. 

x Site has been identified for 

treatment (using New Mexico 

Same as Alternative B, except that no new roads are permitted for personal or commercial woodcutting. 

Same as Alternative B.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-58 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Standards and Guidelines and Standard Forest Inventory) 

x Stable soils (resilient to 

disturbance) 

x Slopes of less than 40 percent x Excepted areas – areas identified 

for no woodcutting 

Permit personal-use woodcutting in areas according to the same criteria, except that there must be a road into the site. Silvicultural practices in WSAs would conform to the Interim Management Policy (see Section 2.3.15). 

Plant or plant materials sales areasIssues 2 and 5 

Public land containing vegetative products such as firewood, fence posts, Christmas trees, and wildlings will continue to be considered and designated for harvest. 

Permit personal-use plant or plant materials sales if public demand warrants, in areas that meet identified criteria:

x Accessibility x Availability of plant species x Type of removal work x Potential of other use areas – 

BLM may consider public salvage of native plant species from a proposed project area (gravel pit, etc.) depending on public demand, location of the particular project (accessibility), and staffing levels. 

x Excepted areas – areas identified 

for no plant collecting. 

Personal use plant or plant material sales would be permitted in designated areas and salvage areas only. 

Same as Alternative B. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-59 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

RANGELAND MANAGEMENT Management Goal: Manage the rangeland in an efficient manner by providing effective management on those allotments where it is needed most to maintain, improve, and monitor the rangeland health. The program will follow current BLM policy, regulation, and law. Rangeland Management Issues 2 and 5 

Maintain or improve range conditions. Establish seeding trials. Perform seeding trials, of not less than 2 acres each, in each of 33 sites to determine potential forage production by reseeding. 

Allocate long-term increases in vegetation to wildlife, watershed, and livestock. The allocations would usually be 50 percent to wildlife/watershed and 50 percent to 

livestock. Conduct rangeland improvements and vegetation treatments to meet BLM policy and resource objectives. Develop allotment management plans to resolve identified resource problems or conflicts.

Forage increases would be reserved for wildlife and watershed needs. Increases to livestock use would be secondary after other resource objectives had been met. Range improvements would be designed primarily to benefit wildlife and watershed resources. 

Forage increases become available, they would be allocated to livestock first and then to wildlife and watershed. Range improvements would be designed and constructed to benefit livestock grazing and other resources would receive secondary consideration. 

Unalloted Areas Issue 2 

Maintain four areas totaling 3,610 acres as unalloted to livestock grazing. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

MINERALS Management Goal: Make mineral resources available for development or extraction and encourage development of these resources to meet national, regional, and local needs, 

consistent with national objectives of an adequate supply of minerals at market prices. At the same time, strive to assure that mineral development is carried out in a manner that 

reduces environmental impacts and provides for the reclamation of affected land. Fluid mineral leasingIssues 2 and 3 

1,418,415 acres would be closed nondiscretionarily to fluid mineral leasing. 3,312,904 acres would be open to leasing with standard terms and conditions; and about 736,000 acres would be open to leasing with stipulations in addition to the standard terms and conditions. 

1,543,095 acres would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (which includes 1,418,415 acres of nondiscretionary closures). 3,035,925 acres would be open to leasing with standard terms and conditions; and about 1,516,824 acres would be open to leasing with stipulations in addition to the standard terms and conditions. 

1,856,116 acres would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (which includes 1,418,415 acres of nondiscretionary closures). 3,296,806 acres would be open to leasing with standard terms and conditions; and about 947,044 acres would be open to leasing with stipulations in addition to the standard terms and conditions. 

1,419,456 would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (which includes 1,418,415 acres of nondiscretionary closures). 3,888,528 acres would be open to leasing with standard terms and conditions; and about 785,484 acres would be open to leasing with stipulations in addition to the standard terms and conditions. 

Coal leasing Issues 2 and 3 

In accordance with the 1989 RMP, 31,640 acres would be available for coal leasing subject to additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, as appropriate. 

Coal leasing could occur on about 3,200 acres in accordance with applicable laws subject to surface owner consultation and additional NEPA analysis, as appropriate. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-60 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Saleable minerals Issues 2 and 3 

Identify and designate areas that contain saleable resources for future use. Complete management plans for designated material disposal sites. 

About 340,066 acres would be excluded from mineral material disposals in special designations. 

About 484,133 acres would be excluded from mineral material disposals. 

About 291,859 acres would be excluded from mineral material disposals. 

Mineral withdrawal Issues 1, 2, and 3 

Manage 11,408 acres currently 

withdrawn from mineral entry. Petition to withdraw 1,508 acres from location and entry under the mining laws. 

Manage 11,408 acres currently 

withdrawn from mineral entry. Petition to withdraw 72,369 acres of Federal mineral estate from location and entry under the mining laws. 

Manage 11,408 acres currently withdrawn from mineral entry. Petition to withdraw 497,391 acres of Federal mineral estate from location and entry under the mining laws. 

Manage 11,408 acres currently withdrawn from mineral entry. 

RECREATIONManagement Goals: Provide for a wide range of highly desirable recreation experiences commensurate with demand, both non-motorized and motorized, for visitor and community 

residents, while protecting other resource values. Manage recreational use to protect the health and safety of visitors and resolve user conflicts. Capitalize on the unique resources 

and diverse management situations of the Field Office by providing uncommon recreation opportunities and experiences. 

SRMAs and other specialdesignations Issue 1 

Maintain one ACEC and six SMAs (24,361 acres total) to manage for recreation use.

Designate five SRMAs (12,633 acres total) and two ACECs to manage for recreation use. Identify one SMA to manage for recreation use. 

Designate five SRMAs (8,256 acres total) and one ACEC to manage for recreation use. Identify one SMA to manage for recreation use. 

Designate six SRMAs (13,673 acres total) and one ACEC to manage for recreation use. Identify one SMA to manage for recreation use. 

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT Management Goals: Manage OHV use to protect resource values, promote public safety, provide OHV use opportunities where appropriate, and minimize conflicts among various 

users. Address all resource use aspects and accompanying modes and conditions of access and travel across public land; including motorized, non-motorized, and mechanized 

forms of travel. 

OHV Area Designations Issues 2 and 4 

Maintain the following OHV use area designations: 29,117 acres would be closed to OHV use; 562,901 acres would be limited to existing or designated routes; 20,120 acres would be limited seasonally; and 851,234 acres would be open to cross-country travel. About 40,809 acres that were undesignated in the 1989 RMP would be managed as limited to existing roads and trails until travel 

management plans are completed. 

Designate 117,921 acres as closed to motorized travel; 486,842 acres as limited to existing routes; and 902,782 acres limited to designated routes. No public land would be designated as open to cross-country travel.

Designate 139,971 acres as closed to motorized travel; 476,908 acres as limited to existing routes; and 889,958 acres as limited to designated routes. No public land would be designated as open to cross-country travel. 

Designate 799,757 acres as limited to existing routes; and 704,783 acres as limited to designated routes. No public land would be designated as open to cross-country travel. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-61 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Routes Designations within WSAs Issues 1, 2, and 4

36 miles of routes closed in certain WSAs since 1989 RMP. 

Within WSAs, designate 102.75 miles of routes as open; designate 75.70 miles as closed (except for authorized uses); and designate 86.45 miles as closed and rehabilitated. 

Within WSAs, designate 73.75 miles of routes as open; designate 83.5 miles as closed (except for authorized uses); and designate 100.2 miles as closed and rehabilitated. 

Within WSAs, designate 198.25 miles of routes as open; designate 14 miles as closed (except for authorized uses); and designate 43.2 miles as closed and rehabilitated. 

Route closures outside of WSAs Issues 2 and 4 

No previous decisions identified. Close approximately 26 miles of 

routes outside of SMAs to address wildlife concerns 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS – WSAs, ACECs, SMAs, National Trails, Backcountry Byways, SRMAs Wilderness Management Goal: Manage WSAs in accordance with the Interim Policy and Management Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review. Manage WSAs in a 

manner that does not impair their suitability for designation as wilderness; subject to valid existing rights. ACECs Management Goal: Identify and designate areas on public land where special management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important 

historic, cultural, paleontologic, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural system or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. 

SMAs Management Goal: Identify and designate areas on public land that requires special management by BLM to protect one or more resource values. SMAs may include 

nonpublic land that BLM wishes to acquire or bring under a Cooperative Management Agreement to manage the valued resource better.Trails Management Goal: Provide a variety of diverse motorized and nonmotorized opportunities along trails, which may include recreational, scenic, historic or cultural values. Backcountry Byway Management Goal: Provide backcountry areas where people can drive for pleasure to experience scenic corridors and a variety of outdoor activities.

SRMAs Management Goal: Provide opportunities for a variety of outdoor recreation opportunities in designated areas while protecting other resources.

Wilderness Study AreasWSAs Issue 1 

Manage all 13 WSAs totaling 291,826 acres according to the Interim Management Policy. Any 

WSAs released from wilderness review would be managed as described in Table 2-3 for the appropriate alternative.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-62 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern4Proposed ACECs Designate a total of 79,045 acres of 

BLM-managed surface estate as ACECs.

Propose a total of 196,855 acres of BLM-managed surface estate for designation as ACECs. 

Propose a total of 288,378 acres of BLM-managed surface estate for designation as ACECs. 

Propose a total of 60,002 acres of BLM-managed surface estate for designation as ACECs. 

Agua Fria ACEC Issues 1 and 6 

Manage 9,571 acres as the Agua Fria ACEC for the protection and management of wildlife habitat. 

Eliminate the Agua Fria ACEC and incorporate the area into the Cerro Pomo ACEC.

Eliminate the Agua Fria ACEC and incorporate the area into the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. 

Eliminate the Agua Fria ACEC designation. 

Cerro Pomo SMA Issues 1 and 6 

Manage 8,784 acres as the Cerro Pomo SMA for the protection and management of recreation and cultural resources. 

Designate 26,284 acres as the Cerro Pomo ACEC for protection and management of recreational, cultural, and other resources. 

Eliminate the Cerro Pomo SMA and incorporate the area into the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. 

Designate 449 acres as the Cerro Pomo Proprietary ACEC to protect and manage cultural resources. 

Horse Mountain ACECIssue 1 and 5 

Manage 7,490 acres as the Horse Mountain ACEC for the protection and management of wildlife habitat and recreation resources. 

Designate 5,388 acres as Horse Mountain ACEC for the protection and management of wildlife habitat and recreational resources. 

Same as Alternative B. Designate 2,596 acres as Horse 

Mountain ACEC for the protection and management of wildlife habitat and recreational resources. 

Ladron MountainDevil’s Backbone Complex ACEC Issues 1 and 5 

Manage 57,195 acres as the Ladron ACEC for the protection and management of wildlife habitat. 

Designate 57,474 acres as Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC for the protection and management of wildlife habitat, scenic resources and cultural resources. 

Same as Alternative B. Designate 20,155 acres as the 

Ladron Mountain ACEC for the protection and management of wildlife habitat. 

Mockingbird Gap ACECIssues 1 and 6 

Manage 8,685 acres as the Mockingbird Gap SMA for the protection and management of cultural resources. 

Manage 8,685 acres as the Mockingbird Gap proprietary ACEC for the protection and management of cultural resources. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. 

Pelona Mountain ACECIssues 1 and 5 

Manage 70,838 acres as the Pelona Mountain SMA for the protection and management of wildlife habitat and recreation resources. 

Designate 51,091 acres as the Pelona Mountain ACEC for the protection and management of wildlife habitat, recreation, and other resources.

Designate 52,336 acres as the Pelona Mountain ACEC for the maximum protection of wildlife, recreation, and other resources. 

Designate 34,547 acres as the Pelona Mountain ACEC for the protection and management of the most important wildlife habitat and recreation resources. 

Sawtooth ACEC Issues 1 and 5 

Manage 125 acres as the Sawtooth ACEC for the protection and management of special status plant species.

Designate 125 acres as the Sawtooth Proprietary ACEC to protect and manage special status plants. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

4 This table highlights the differences in land allocations (i.e., the amount of acreage that would be designated) across the range of alternatives. Management 

prescriptions associated with each area under the alternatives are described in Table 2-2. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-63 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Tinajas ACEC Issues 1 and 6 

Manage 3,463 acres as the Tinajas ACEC for the protection and management of cultural and recreation resources. 

Designate 1,062 acres as the Tinajas ACEC for the protection and management of cultural, scenic, geologic, and recreation resources. 

Designate 7,767 acres as the Tinajas ACEC for the maximum protection of cultural, scenic, geologic, and 

recreation resources in the area. 

Designate 22 acres as the Tinajas ACEC for the protection of cultural and recreation resources. 

Zuni Salt Lake ACECIssues 1, 3, 5, and 6

Manage 4,839 acres as the Zuni Salt Lake SMA for the protection and management of cultural and hydrologic resources. 

Designate 46,746 acres as the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC for the protection and management of cultural resources, sacred sites, and hydrologic resources. 

Designate 156,601 acres as the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC for maximum protection and management of the cultural resources, sacred sites, and hydrologic resources. 

Manage 2,107 acres as the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC for the management of cultural and hydrologic resources. 

Special Recreation Management Areas5Proposed SRMAs No SRMAs. Designate a total of 12,633 acres of 

BLM-managed surface estate as SRMAs.

Designate a total of 8,256 acres of BLM-managed surface estate as SRMAs.

Designate a total of 13,004 acres of BLM-managed surface estate as SRMAs.

The Box SMA/SRMAIssue 1 

Manage 300 acres as The Box SMA for the protection and management of recreation resources. 

Designate 1,107 acres as The Box SRMA for the protection and management of recreation, wildlife, and cultural resources. 

Designate 1,501 acres as The Box SRMA for the maximum protection of recreation, wildlife, and cultural resources. 

Designate 300 acres as The Box SRMA for protection and management of the highest value recreation, wildlife, and cultural resources. 

Datil Well SRMA/SMA Issue 1 

Manage 669 acres as the Datil Well SMA for the protection and management of recreation and cultural resources. 

Designate 669 acres including the campground as the Datil Well SRMA for the protection and management of recreation and cultural resources. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Gordy’s Hill SRMAIssues 1 and 4 

Manage 1,200-acre area as open to cross-country travel. 

Designate 7,647 acres as the Gordy’s Hill SRMA for management of recreational uses, including OHV. 

Designate 2,876 acres as the Gordy’s Hill SRMA for management of recreational uses, including OHV. 

Designate 7,174 acres as the Gordy’s Hill SRMA for management of recreational uses, including OHV. 

Quebradas Back Country Byway SRMAIssues 1 and 4 

Manage as a designated backcountry byway. 

Designate 24 miles of road and 3,130 acres as the Quebradas Back Country Byway SRMA for management of recreation and scenic resources. 

Designate 24 miles of road and 2,919 acres as the Quebradas Back Country Byway SRMA for management of recreation and scenic resources. 

Same as Alternative B. 

5 This table highlights the differences in land allocations (i.e., the amount of acreage that would be designated) across the range of alternatives. Management 

prescriptions associated with each area under the alternatives is described in Table 2-2. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-64 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Socorro Nature Area Issue 1 

No existing designation. Manage in accordance with the 1989 RMP. 

Designate 80 acres as the Socorro Nature Area SRMA for protection and management of recreation resources and environmental education purposes. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Special Management Areas6

Proposed SMAs Identify a total of 159,891 acres of 

BLM-managed surface estate as SMAs.

Identify a total of 88,067 acres of BLM-managed surface estate as SMAs.

Identify a total of 39,975 acres of BLM-managed surface estate as SMAs.

Identify a total of 76,472 acres of BLM-managed surface estate as SMAs.

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA Issues 1 and 4 

Manage 34 miles of the trail (7,680 acres) on BLM land for recreation use and to protect scenic values. Pursue access (from willing sellers) on approximately 50 miles of nonBLM land. 

Designate 57,663 acres as the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA and establish corridors to pursue legal access (from willing sellers) in the Pie Town and Quemado areas. 

Designate 11,755 acres as the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA and establish corridors to pursue legal access (from willing sellers) in the Pie Town and Quemado areas. 

Designate 8,703 acres as the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA and establish corridors to pursue legal access (from willing sellers) in the Pie Town and Quemado areas. 

Fence Lake SMA Issues 1 and 2 

Manage 25,453 acres as the Fence Lake SMA for the protection and management of critical watershed. 

Eliminate the Fence Lake SMA and incorporate the area into the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. 

Fort Craig SMA Issues 1 and 6 

Manage 149 acres as the Fort Craig SMA to protect, preserve, and interpret the Fort Craig Historical Site.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Harvey Plot Issue 1 

Manage 8 acres as the Harvey Plot SMA for protection and management of vegetation resources. 

Eliminate the Harvey Plot SMA designation. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Iron Mine Ridge SMAIssue 1 

Manage 1,386 acres as the Iron Ridge SMA for the protection and management of wildlife habitat and special status plants. 

Eliminate the Iron Mine Ridge SMA due to downlisting of special status plant species. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Mogollon Pueblo SMAIssues 1 and 6 

Manage 640 acres as the Mogollon Pueblo SMA for protection and management of cultural resources. 

Eliminate the Mogollon Pueblo SMA designation, and incorporate the site into the Cerro Pomo ACEC. 

Eliminate the Mogollon Pueblo SMA 

designation, and incorporate the site into the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. 

Same as Alternative B. 

6 This table highlights the differences in land allocations (i.e., the amount of acreage that would be designated) across the range of alternatives. Management 

prescriptions associated with each area under the alternatives is described in Table 2-2. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-65 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Newton Site SMA Issues 1 and 6 

Manage 37 acres as the Newton site SMA for the protection and management of cultural resources. 

Designate 6,789 acres as the Newton Site Proprietary SMA for the protection and management of cultural resources. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Playa Pueblos SMAIssues 1 and 6 

Manage 203 acres as the Playa Pueblos SMA for the protection and management of significant cultural 

sites.

Identify 203 acres as the Playa Pueblos Proprietary SMA to protect cultural resources. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Puertecito SMA Issues 1 and 2 

Manage 7,156 acres as the Puertecito SMA for the management of critical watershed. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Rio Salado SMA Issues 1, 2, and 6 

Manage 5,946 as the Rio Salado SMA for the protection and management of cultural resources. 

Eliminate the Rio Salado SMA designation and incorporate the area into the Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. 

San Lorenzo Canyon SMA Issues 1 and 5 

Manage 2,320 acres as the San Lorenzo Canyon SMA for the protection and management or recreation resources. 

Eliminate the San Lorenzo Canyon SMA designation and incorporate the area into the Ladron MountainDevil’s Backbone Complex ACEC. 

Same as Alternative B. Designate 2,320 acres as the San 

Lorenzo Canyon SRMA for the protection and management or recreation resources.

San Pedro SMA Issue 1 

Manage 1,201 acres as the San Pedro Proprietary ACEC for the protection of special status plants. 

Manage 1,201 acres as the San Pedro SMA for the protection of special status plants. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Soaptree SMA Issues 1 and 2 

Manage 1,296 acres as the Soaptree SMA for the protection and management of vegetation resources. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Stallion SMA Issues 1 and 2 

Manage 19,702 acres as the Stallion SMA for the management of watershed resources. 

Designate 10,883 acres as the Stallion SMA for the management of watershed resources. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Taylor Canyon SMAIssues 1 and 5 

Manage 384 acres as the Taylor Canyon SMA for the protection and management of wildlife habitat and sensitive plant species. 

Eliminate Taylor Canyon SMA due to downlisting of special status plant species.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Town of Riley Issues 1 and 6 

Manage 533 acres in and around the Town of Riley as an SMA for protection and management of cultural resources. 

Eliminate Town of Riley SMA designation. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative B. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-66 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-1 

ALTERNATIVES MATRIX 

Resources and 

Planning Issues3

Addressed 

Alternative A – 

No-Action Alternative Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Teypama/ Penjeacu SMA Issues 1 and 6 

Manage 37 acres as the Teypama SMA for the protection and management of cultural resources. 

Designate 11 acres as the Penjeacu SMA for the protection and management of cultural resources. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Walnut Canyon SMAIssue 1 

Manage 1,145 acres as Walnut Canyon SMA for protection and management of recreation and wildlife resources. 

Eliminate Walnut Canyon SMA designation. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-67 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Agua Fria ACEC 

(9,571 acres, includes 8,626 acres of 

overlap with WSAs) 

1. Limit vehicle use to existing roads 

and trails. 

2. Avoid the authorization of rights-ofway and leases. 

3. Exclude from woodcutting. 

4. Limit mineral material disposal. 

5. Acquire non-Federal land. 

6. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation SRA-2, seasonal restrictions. 

Eliminate the Agua Fria Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) designation, and incorporate the area into the Cerro Pomo ACEC. 

Eliminate the Agua Fria ACEC, and incorporate the area into the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. 

Eliminate the Agua Fria ACEC. 

Cerro Pomo Special Management 

Area (SMA) 

(8,784 acres, all overlapping with 

WSAs) 

Cerro Pomo ACEC 

(26,284 acres) 

Cerro Pomo Proprietary ACEC 

(449 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for rights-ofway and leases. 

3. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

4. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special management. 

5. Develop Cerro Pomo cultural site. 

6. Exclude from woodcutting. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way within the ACEC. 

3. Allow mineral material disposals 

within the ACEC contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

4. Pursue acquisition of nonpublic land 

within and contiguous to the ACEC.

5. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-VRM-II within the ACEC.

6. Research, study, and protect cultural 

sites and apply Cultural Resource Use Allocation a. Scientific Use. 

Eliminate the Cerro Pomo ACEC, and incorporate the area into the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of rights-ofway and leases. 3. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-CSU-C4. 

5. Research, study, and protect cultural 

sites and apply Cultural Resource Use Allocation d. Public Use. 

6. Permit commercial woodcutting 

only to support BLM-authorized projects to meet resource management objectives. 

7 All overlap between WSAs and ACECs has been eliminated under Alternatives B, C, and D. Any overlap under Alternative A is noted.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-68 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

7. Permit commercial woodcutting 

only to support BLM-authorized projects to meet resource management objectives. 

8. Provide opportunities for heritage 

tourism with appropriate mitigation measures as determined in coordination with SHPO and Tribes. 

7. Provide opportunities for heritage 

tourism with appropriate mitigation measure as determined in coordination with SHPO and Tribes. 

Horse Mountain ACEC 

(7,490 acres, includes 4,301 acres of 

overlap with WSAs) 

Horse Mountain ACEC 

(5,388 acres) 

Horse Mountain ACEC 

(5,388 acres) 

Horse Mountain ACEC 

(2,596 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Close 2 miles of certain vehicle 

trails.

3. Exclude authorization for right-ofways and leases. 

4. Acquire nonpublic land. 5. Apply Fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-3, no surface occupancy 

6. Restrict mineral material disposals. 7. Exclude from woodcutting. 8. Implement fire management plan. 9. Restrict geophysical operations. 10. Close to domestic sheep and goats. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes within the ACEC. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases within the ACEC. 

3. Pursue acquisition of nonpublic land 

within and contiguous to the ACEC. 

4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-NSO-W within the ACEC.

5. Allow mineral material disposals 

within the ACEC contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

6. Permit commercial woodcutting 

only to support BLM-authorized projects to meet resource management objectives. 

7. Exclude grazing on land that have 

not been allotted. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes within the ACEC. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases within the ACEC. 

3. Pursue acquisition of nonpublic land 

within and contiguous to the ACEC. 

4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-NSO-W within the ACEC.

5. Allow mineral material disposals 

within the ACEC contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

6. Exclude woodcutting. 7. Exclude vegetative material sales. 8. Exclude grazing on land that has not 

been allotted. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases within the ACEC. 

3. Pursue acquisition of nonpublic land 

within and contiguous to the ACEC. 

4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-VRM-II within the ACEC.

5. Allow mineral material disposals 

within the ACEC contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

6. Permit commercial woodcutting only 

to support BLM-authorized projects to meet resource management objectives. 

7. Exclude grazing on land that has not 

been allotted. 

Ladron Mountain ACEC 

(57,195 acres, includes 35,114 acres of 

overlap with WSAs) 

Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone 

Complex ACEC 

(57,474 acres) 

Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone 

Complex ACEC 

(57,474 acres) 

Ladron Mountain ACEC 

(20,155 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Close 18 miles of certain vehicle 

trails.

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes within the ACEC. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases within the ACEC. 

Avoid the authorization of right-of1. Limit motor vehicle use to designated routes within the ACEC. 2. Exclude the authorization of right- of-way and leases within the 1. Limit motor vehicle use to designated routes. 2. Avoid the authorization of right-of- way and leases within the ACEC. Avoid the authorization of right-of-
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-69 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

3. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

4. Apply fluid leasing stipulations 

SRA-1, special values or special management, and SRA-2, seasonal restrictions. 

5. Limit fire suppression. 

6. Exclude from woodcutting. 

7. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

8. Acquire nonpublic land. 

9. Restrict geophysical operations. 

10. Maintain closure of former 

allotment No. 1152 to grazing. 

11. Close to domestic sheep and goats. 12. Reintroduce desert bighorn sheep. 

way and leases within the Desert Bighorn Sheep Corridor. 

3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-NSO-W within the ACEC.

4. Allow mineral material disposals 

within the ACEC contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

5. Pursue acquisition of nonpublic land 

within and contiguous to the ACEC. 

6. Exclude grazing on land that has 

not been allotted. 

7. Maintain and/or implement closure 

to domestic sheep and goats within 10 miles of bighorn habitat. 

8. Maintain viable populations of 

desert bighorn sheep through activities such as habitat improvements and coordination with NMDGF on desert bighorn sheep reintroductions. 

9. Withdraw from location and entry 

for locatable minerals under the mining laws all land with medium and high mineral potential (23,567 acres) for the protection of desert bighorn sheep within the ACEC (see Maps 3-9, 3-10, and 3-11). 

10. Encourage inventory and research 

of cultural resource sites and apply Cultural Resource Use Allocation a. Scientific Use to cultural resource sites.

11. Permit commercial woodcutting 

only to support BLM-authorized projects to meet resource management objectives. 

ACEC. Exclude the authorization of right-of-way and leases within the Desert Bighorn Sheep Corridor. 

3. Exclude mineral leasing. 4. Exclude mineral material disposals. 5. Pursue acquisition of nonpublic 

land within and contiguous to the ACEC.

6. Exclude grazing on land that has 

not been allotted. 

7. Maintain and/or implement closure 

to domestic sheep and goats within 20 miles of bighorn habitat. 

8. Maintain viable populations of 

desert bighorn sheep through activities such as habitat improvements and coordination with NMDGF on desert bighorn sheep reintroductions. 

9. Withdraw from location and entry 

for locatable minerals under the mining laws all land within the ACEC for the protection of desert bighorn sheep. 

10. Encourage inventory and research 

of cultural resource sites and apply Cultural Resource Use Allocation a. Scientific Use. 

11. Exclude woodcutting. 12. Exclude the San Lorenzo area from 

vegetative material sales, with the exception of exotic species. Allow vegetative sales elsewhere within the ACEC contingent upon sitespecific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

way and leases within the Desert Bighorn Sheep Corridor. 

3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-VRM-II within the ACEC.

4. Allow mineral material disposals 

within the ACEC contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

5. Pursue acquisition of nonpublic land 

within and contiguous to the ACEC. 

6. Exclude grazing on land that has not 

been allotted. 

7. Maintain and/or implement closure 

to domestic sheep and goats within 10 miles of bighorn habitat. 

8. Maintain viable populations of 

desert bighorn sheep through activities such as habitat improvements and coordination with NMDGF on desert bighorn sheep reintroductions. 

9. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use to cultural resource sites. 

10. Permit commercial woodcutting 

only to support BLM-authorized projects to meet resource management objectives. 

11. Allow vegetative sales contingent 

upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-70 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

12. Exclude the San Lorenzo area 

from vegetative material sales, with the exception of exotic species. Allow vegetative sales elsewhere within the ACEC contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

Pelona Mountain SMA 

(70,838 acres, includes 39,730 acres of 

overlap with WSAs) 

Pelona Mountain ACEC 

(51,091 acres) 

Pelona Mountain ACEC 

(52,336 acres) 

Pelona Mountain ACEC 

(34,547acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Close 5 miles of certain vehicle 

trails.

3. Restrict authorization for right-ofways and leases. 

4. Apply fluid leasing stipulations 

SRA-1, special values or special management, and SRA-2, seasonal restrictions. 

5. Exclude from woodcutting. 

6. Acquire nonpublic land. 

7. Implement fire management plan. 

8. Restrict geophysical operations. 

9. Develop Allotment Management 

Plans on all allotments. 

10. Develop Bat Cave Cultural Site. 11. Close to domestic sheep and goats. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes within the ACEC. 

2. Exclude authorization of right-ofway and leases within the ACEC. 3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations S-CSU-W1 and SVRM-II within the ACEC. 

4. Pursue acquisition of nonpublic 

land within and contiguous to the ACEC.

5. Pursue legal access for the ACEC. 6. Allow mineral material disposals 

within the ACEC contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

7. Permit commercial woodcutting 

only to support BLM-authorized projects to meet resource management objectives. 

8. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use to Bat Cave Cultural Site. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes within the ACEC.

2. Exclude authorization of right-ofway and leases within the ACEC. 3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations S-VRM–II and S-NSOW within the ACEC. 

4. Pursue acquisition of nonpublic 

land within and contiguous to the ACEC.

5. Pursue legal access for the ACEC. 6. Exclude mineral material disposals. 7. Exclude woodcutting. 8. Exclude vegetative material sales. 9. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use to Bat Cave cultural site. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases within the ACEC. 

3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-VRM-II within the ACEC.

4. Pursue acquisition of nonpublic 

land within and contiguous to the ACEC boundary. 

5. Pursue legal access for the ACEC. 6. Allow mineral material disposals 

within the ACEC contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

7. Permit commercial woodcutting 

only to support BLM-authorized projects to meet resource management objectives. 

8. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use to Bat Cave cultural site. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-71 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Sawtooth ACEC 

(125 acres) 

Sawtooth Proprietary ACEC 

(125 acres) 

Sawtooth Proprietary ACEC 

(125 acres) 

Sawtooth Proprietary ACEC 

(125 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Exclude authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

3. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-3, no surface occupancy. 

4. Maintain withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry. 

5. Acquire legal access. 

6. Initiate monitoring studies. 

7. Develop an allotment management 

plan. 

8. Designate as a fire suppression area. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases. 

3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-NSO-T&E. 

4. Maintain withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry. 

5. Acquire legal access. 

6. Exclude from vegetative material 

sales.

7. Exclude mineral material disposals. 

8. Develop an allotment management 

plan. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases. 

3. Exclude fluid mineral leasing. 4. Maintain withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry. 

5. Acquire legal access. 6. Exclude from vegetative material 

sales.

7. Exclude mineral material disposals. 8. Develop an allotment management 

plan. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 

3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-NSO-T&E. 

4. Maintain withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry. 

5. Acquire legal access. 6. Allow vegetative material sales 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

Tinajas ACEC 

(3,463 acres, includes 3,423 acres of 

overlap with WSAs) 

Tinajas ACEC 

(1,062 acres) 

Tinajas ACEC 

(7,767 acres) 

Tinajas ACEC 

(22 acres) 

1. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

2. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

3. Withdraw 1,500 acres from 

locatable mineral entry. 

4. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

5. Close 2 miles of motor vehicle 

routes. 

6. Increase size of management area. 

7. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-3, no surface occupancy, and NM-5, White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Zone. 

1. Close to motorized vehicle use. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases. 

3. Exclude mineral material disposals. 

4. Petition to withdraw 1,500 acres 

from entry and location under the mining laws. 

5. Exclude mineral leasing. 

6. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation C, Traditional Use, to Arroyo del Tajo Pictograph site. 

1. Close to motorized vehicle use. 2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases. 

3. Exclude mineral material disposals. 4. Petition to withdraw 1,500 acres 

from entry and location under the mining laws. 

5. Exclude mineral leasing. 

1. Close approximately 2 miles of 

existing routes to motor vehicle use. Limit motor vehicle use to designated routes. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases. 3. Exclude mineral material disposals. 

Zuni Salt Lake Proprietary SMA 

(4,839 acres) 

Zuni Salt Lake Proprietary ACEC 

(46,746 acres) 

Zuni Salt Lake Proprietary ACEC 

(156,601 acres) 

Zuni Salt Lake Proprietary ACEC 

(2,107 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. Avoid designations that would impact the 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-72 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofways and leases. 

3. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

4. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special management. 

5. Restrict geophysical operations. 

values of Zuni Salt Lake. 

2. Avoid or mitigate actions that will 

impact the cultural resources (including TCPs) through consultation with SHPO and the Zuni Heritage and Historic Preservation Office. Avoid or mitigate actions that will impact natural resources. 

3. Restrict actions that alter, in a way 

that degrades the uses and values of the Zuni Salt Lake, the quality and quantity of water resources that supply the lake. 

4. Exclude fluid mineral leasing. 

5. Withdraw locatable minerals within 

the 4,839-acre Zuni Salt Lake Protection Zone (a total of 2,881 acres of Federal mineral estate) from location and entry under the mining laws. 

6. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases within the Zuni 

Salt Lake Protection Zone (4,839 acres that surround the Salt Lake). Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases in the ACEC. 

7. Allow geophysical, geologic, or 

hydrologic and related operations for research to understand and protect the Zuni Salt Lake or for regional scientific study. 

8. Exclude mineral material disposals 

within the Zuni Salt Lake Protection Zone (4,839 acres that surround the Salt Lake). Allow mineral material disposals in the remainder of the ACEC contingent upon site-specific 

2. Avoid or mitigate actions that will 

impact the cultural and natural resources associated with Zuni Salt Lake through consultation with SHPO, the Zuni, and other Tribes. A Memorandum of Understanding will be developed to detail the procedures for consultation with the Zuni Tribe. 

3. Exclude fluid mineral leasing. 4. Petition to withdraw locatable 

minerals on 315,490 acres of Federal mineral estate from location and entry under the mining laws. 

5. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases. 

6. Allow mineral material disposals 

within the ACEC contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

7. Acquire nonpublic land within and 

contiguous to the ACEC boundary. 

8. Research, study, and protect Cerro 

Pomo, Cox Ranch Pueblo, and related cultural sites and apply Cultural Resource Use Allocation a. Scientific Use. 

9. Exclude woodcutting. 10. Provide opportunities for heritage 

tourism with appropriate mitigation measures as determined in coordination with SHPO and Tribes. 

11. BLM will not grant permission as 

landowner for any new well applications for permits to use or appropriate groundwater within specified Eastern and Southern townships/ranges of ACEC. BLM 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofways and leases. 

3. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

4. Acquire nonpublic land within and 

contiguous to the ACEC boundary. 

5. Exclude woodcutting. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-73 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

9. BLM will consult with the Governor 

of Zuni and other tribes based on agreed provisions of a joint memorandum of understanding for any proposed actions within the ACEC, to be initiated by BLM within six months of the signing of the Record of Decision for this RMP.

10. Acquire nonpublic land within and 

contiguous to the ACEC. 

11. Exclude woodcutting. 

will grant permission as landowner for new stock well applications only, up to a total of 3 wells per township/range, 3 acre-feet per well, for remainder of the ACEC (OSE applications for permits to use or appropriate underground waters). 

Mockingbird Gap SMA 

(8,685 acres) 

Mockingbird Gap Proprietary ACEC 

(8,685 acres) 

Mockingbird Gap Proprietary ACEC 

(8,685 acres) 

Mockingbird Gap Proprietary SMA 

(8,685 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofways and leases. 

3. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

4. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special management, and NM-5, White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Zone. 

6. Nominate to National Register. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 

3. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations S-CSU-C3 and Lease Notice NM-5. 

5. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use to cultural sites. 

6. Research, study, and protect cultural 

resource sites. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases. 

3. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

4. Exclude mineral leasing. 5. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use to cultural sites. 

6. Research, study, and protect cultural 

resource sites. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 3. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations S-CSU-C2 and Lease Notice NM-5. 

6. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use to sites in the Mockingbird Gap SMA. 

7. Research, study, and protect 

cultural resource sites. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-74 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA) 

The Box SMA 

(300 acres) 

The Box SRMA 

(1,107 acres) 

The Box SRMA 

(1,501 acres) 

The Box SRMA 

(300 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

3. Withdraw 40 acres from locatable 

mineral entry. 

4. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special management. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Exclude the authorizations of rightof-way and leases. 

3. Maintain the existing 40-acre 

withdrawal from location and entry under the mining laws, and withdraw an additional 320 acres. 

4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-VRM-II. 

5. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

6. Inventory for cultural resources. 

7. Implement actions to protect 

significant at-risk cultural resources from other conflicting uses. 

8. Maintain closure to shooting of 

weapons within SRMA. 

9. Pursue renewal of the existing road 

easement across private land, and continue to maintain road. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Exclude the authorizations of rightof-way and leases. 

3. Maintain the existing 40-acre 

withdrawal from location and entry 

under the mining laws, and withdraw an additional 400 acres. 

4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-VRM-II. 

5. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

6. Inventory for cultural resources for 

expanded acreage. 

7. Emphasize cultural resource 

protection and recreational opportunities, and manage to minimize conflicts between recreational use and cultural resource protection. 

8. Implement actions to protect 

significant at-risk cultural resources from other conflicting uses. 

9. Pursue renewal of the existing road 

easement across private land, and continue to maintain road. 

10. Maintain closure to shooting of 

weapons within SRMA. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 3. Maintain the existing 40-acre 

withdrawal from location and entry under the mining laws. 

4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-VRM-II. 

5. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

6. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation d. Public Use to cultural sites if research potential is realized or adequate protection provided for. 

7. Pursue renewal of the existing road 

easement across private land, and continue to maintain road. 

8. Maintain closure to shooting of 

weapons within SRMA. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-75 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Continental Divide National Scenic 

Trail SMA (7,680 acres) 

Continental Divide National Scenic 

Trail SMA (57,663 acres) 

Continental Divide National Scenic 

Trail SMA (11,755 acres) 

Continental Divide National Scenic 

Trail SMA (8,702 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

3. Limit fire suppression. 

4. Exclude from woodcutting. 

5. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

6. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special management. 

7. Implement decision in the 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail Comprehensive Plan, 1985. 

8. Acquire legal access (with 

concurrence from private and State landowners). 

9. Restrict geophysical operations to 

nonvehicular methods. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes on the northern portion of the trail. On the southern portion of the trail, close to motor vehicle use within the Continental Divide WSA, and limit motor vehicle use to designated routes elsewhere in the SMA. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases within the WSA. 

Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases within the SMA and outside the WSA. 

3. Outside of the WSA, permit 

commercial woodcutting within only to support BLM-authorized projects to meet resource management objectives. 

4. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

5. Exclude mineral leasing in the 

Continental Divide WSA. Apply fluid mineral leasing stipulations SVRM-II and Lease Notice NM-6 within the SMA and outside the WSA. 

6. Pursue acquisition of legal access. 

7. Retain all land within the corridors 

identified for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail in the SMA. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes on the northern portion of the trail. On the southern portion of the trail, close to motor vehicle use within the Continental Divide WSA, and limit motor vehicle use to designated routes elsewhere in the SMA. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases within the WSA. 

Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases within the SMA and outside the WSA. 

3. Exclude woodcutting. 4. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

5. Exclude fluid mineral leasing in 

Continental Divide WSA. Apply fluid mineral leasing stipulations SVRM-II and Lease Notice NM-6 within the SMA and outside the WSA. 

6. Pursue acquisition of legal access. 7. Retain all land within the corridors 

identified for the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail in the SMA.

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases within the WSA. 

Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases within the SRMA and outside the WSA. 

3. Outside of the WSA, permit 

commercial woodcutting within only to support BLM-authorized projects to meet resource management objectives. 

4. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

5. Exclude mineral leasing in 

Continental Divide WSA. Apply Lease Notice NM-6 within the SMA and outside the WSA. 

6. Pursue acquisition of legal access. 7. Retain all land within the corridors 

identified for the Continental 

Divide National Scenic Trail in the SMA.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-76 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Datil Well Campground SMA 

(669 acres) 

Datil Well SRMA 

(669 acres) 

Datil Well SRMA 

(669 acres) 

Datil Well SRMA 

(669 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and all leases. 

3. Exclude from woodcutting. 

4. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-3, no surface occupancy. 

5. Withdraw 80 acres from locatable 

mineral entry. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 

3. Within the SRMA, permit 

commercial woodcutting only to support BLM-authorized projects to 

meet resource management objectives. 

4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-VRM-II. 

5. Maintain 80-acre withdrawal from 

location and entry under the mining laws.

6. Exclude mineral material disposals. 

7. Maintain closure to weapons 

shooting within SRMA. 

8. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation d. Public Use to Datil Well and related Cultural Resource sites.

9. Pursue acquisition of private land 

contiguous to the SRMA. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases. 3. Exclude woodcutting. 4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-VRM-II. 

5. Maintain 80-acre withdrawal from 

location and entry under the mining laws.

6. Exclude mineral material disposals. 7. Maintain closure to weapons 

shooting within SRMA. 

8. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation d. Public Use to Datil Well and related cultural sites. 

9. Pursue acquisition of private land 

contiguous to the SRMA. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 3. Within the SRMA, permit 

commercial woodcutting only to support BLM-authorized projects to meet resource management objectives. 

4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-VRM-II. 

5. Maintain 80-acre withdrawal from 

location and entry under the mining laws.

6. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

7. Maintain closure to weapons 

shooting within SRMA. 

8. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation d. Public Use. 

Gordy’s Hill 

Gordy’s Hill SRMA 

(7,647 acres) 

Gordy’s Hill SRMA 

(2,876 acres) 

Gordy’s Hill SRMA 

(7,174 acres) 

Not designated in 1989 RMP. 1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Prepare Recreation Area 

Management Plan. 

3. Exclude target shooting within 

0.5 mile of designated trails. 

4. Avoid authorization of right-ofways and leases. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Prepare a Recreation Area 

Management Plan. 

3. Exclude target shooting within 

0.5 mile of designated trails. 

4. Avoid authorization of right-of-ways 

and leases. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Prepare a Recreation Area 

Management Plan. 

3. Avoid authorization of right-of-ways 

and leases. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-77 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Quebradas Backcountry Byway 

Quebradas Backcountry Byway 

SRMA (3,130 acres) 

Quebradas Backcountry Byway 

SRMA (3,130 acres) 

Quebradas Backcountry Byway 

SRMA (3,130 acres) 

Designate and manage as a backcountry byway. 

1. Maintain the byway open to motor 

vehicle use. Close the buffer area surrounding the byway (i.e., 0.25 mile from centerline in each direction, for a buffer area that is 0.5 mile wide overall) to OHV within the WSA boundaries, and limit OHV use to designated routes elsewhere in the buffer zone. 

2. Provide for interpretation and 

signing. 

3. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases within the WSA. 

Avoid the authorizations of right-ofway and leases in the remainder of the buffer area. 

4. Allow mineral material disposals 

within the buffer area contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

5. Exclude mineral leasing within the 

Presilla and Sierra de las Canas WSAs. Apply fluid mineral leasing stipulation S-VRM-II within the buffer area and outside the WSAs. 

6. Exclude from vegetative material 

sales within the buffer area. 

7. Maintain existing Socorro County 

Road Maintenance Agreement. 

1. Maintain the byway open to motor 

vehicle use. Close the buffer area surrounding the byway (i.e., 0.25 mile from centerline in each direction, for a buffer area that is 0.5 mile wide overall) to OHV within the WSA boundaries, and limit OHV use to designated routes elsewhere in the buffer zone. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases within the buffer 

area.

3. Exclude mineral material disposals 

within the buffer area. 

4. Exclude mineral leasing within the 

WSAs. Apply fluid mineral leasing stipulation S-VRM-II within the buffer area and outside of the WSAs. 

5. Maintain existing Socorro County 

Road Maintenance Agreement. 

6. Exclude from vegetative material 

sales within the buffer area. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Provide for interpretation and 

signing. 

3. Exclude the authorization of rightof-ways and leases within the WSA. 

Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases within the buffer area (i.e., 0.25 mile from centerline in each direction, for a buffer area that is 0.5 mile wide overall) and outside the WSAs. 

4. Allow mineral material disposals 

within the buffer area contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

5. Exclude mineral leasing within the 

WSAs. Apply fluid mineral leasing stipulation S-VRM-II within the buffer area. 

6. Restrict vegetative material sales 

within the buffer area. 

7. Maintain existing Socorro County 

Road Maintenance Agreement. 

Socorro Nature Area Socorro Nature Area SRMA 

(80 acres) 

Socorro Nature Area SRMA 

(80 acres) 

Socorro Nature Area SRMA 

(80 acres) 

Not designated; area would be managed in accordance with 1989 RMP. 

1. Complete a comprehensive 

management plan. 

2. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

1. Complete a comprehensive 

management plan. 

2. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

1. Complete a comprehensive 

management plan. 

2. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-78 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

3. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-NSO-R. 

5. Exclude mineral material disposals. 6. Exclude grazing on land that has not 

been allotted. 

3. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-NSO-R. 

5. Exclude mineral material disposals. 6. Exclude grazing on land that has not 

been allotted. 

3. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-NSO-R. 

5. Allow mineral material disposals 

within the buffer area contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

6. Exclude grazing on land that has not 

been allotted. 

Special Management Areas 

Fence Lake SMA 

(25,453 acres) 

 Fence Lake SMA 

(25,452 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

3. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special 

management 

4. Designate grazing allotment in “M” 

category.

5. Close and rehabilitate certain 

vehicle trails.

Eliminate Fence Lake SMA designation and incorporate the area into the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. 

Eliminate Fence Lake SMA designation and incorporate the area into the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 

3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-CSU-S. 

Fort Craig SMA 

(149 acres) 

Fort Craig SMA 

(149 acres) 

Fort Craig SMA 

(149 acres) 

Fort Craig SMA 

(149 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Acquire all minerals. 

3. Acquire legal access. 

4. Continue grazing closure. 

5. Apply fluid leasing stipulation SRA3, no surface occupancy. 

6. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

7. Restrict mineral material disposals 

8. Develop visitor facilities and public 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Acquire all minerals. When 

acquired, petition for mineral withdrawal from location and entry under the mining laws. 

3. Exclude grazing on land that has not 

been allotted. 

4. Exclude fluid mineral leasing. 5. Avoid authorization of right-of-way 

and leases. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Acquire all minerals. If acquired, 

petition for mineral withdrawal from location and entry under the mining laws.

3. Exclude grazing on land that has not 

been allotted. 

4. Exclude mineral leasing. 

5. Avoid authorization of right-of-way 

and leases. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Exclude grazing on land that has not 

been allotted. 

3. Apply fluid mineral leasing stipulations S-VRM-II and S-CSU-C4. 

4. Avoid authorization of right-of-way 

and leases. 

5. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-79 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

interpretation values. 6. Exclude mineral material disposals. 

7. Develop visitor facilities and public 

interpretation values. 

8. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation d. Public Use. 

6. Exclude mineral material disposals. 

7. Develop visitor facilities and public 

interpretation values. 

8. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation d. Public Use. 

mitigation as necessary. 

6. Develop visitor facilities and public 

interpretation values. 

7. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation d. Public Use. 

Harvey Plot SMA (8 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for rightof-way and leases. 

3. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special 

management, and NM-5, White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Zone. 

4. Withdraw from locatable mineral 

entry.

Eliminate the Harvey Plot SMA designation. 

Eliminate the Harvey Plot SMA designation. 

Eliminate Harvey Plot SMA designation. 

Iron Mine Ridge SMA 

(1,386 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

3. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special 

management, and NM-5, White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Zone. 

4. Exclude from woodcutting. 

5. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

Eliminate Iron Mine Ridge SMA due to downlisting of special status plant 

species.

Eliminate Iron Mine Ridge SMA due to downlisting of special status plant species.

Eliminate Iron Mine Ridge SMA due to downlisting of special status plant species.

Mogollon Pueblo SMA 

(640 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofways and leases. 

3. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

4. Fence core area and stabilize. 

Eliminate Mogollon Pueblo SMA and incorporate the area into the Cerro Pomo ACEC.

Eliminate Mogollon Pueblo SMA and incorporate the area into the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. 

Eliminate Mogollon Pueblo SMA and incorporate the area into the Cerro Pomo ACEC.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-80 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

5. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-2, seasonal restrictions. 

6. Exclude livestock grazing (12-acre 

core area). 

Newton Site SMA 

(36 acres) 

Newton Site Proprietary SMA 

(6,789 acres) 

Newton Site Proprietary SMA 

(6,789 acres) 

Newton Site Proprietary SMA 

(6,789 acres) 

1. Nominate to National Register. 

2. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

3. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

4. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special management. 

5. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

6. Exclude from woodcutting. 

7. Stabilize ruins. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-NSO-C. 

4. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

5. Provide opportunity for research. 6. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use to Newton Site and associated complex of sites. 

7. Acquire administrative access. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases. 

3. Exclude mineral leasing. 4. Exclude mineral material disposals. 5. Provide opportunity for research. 6. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use. 

7. Acquire administrative access. 8. Conduct cultural inventory. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 

3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-CSU-C3. 

4. Allow mineral material 

disposals contingent upon sitespecific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

5. Provide opportunity for 

research. 

6. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use. 

7. Acquire administrative access. 

Teypama SMA 

(37 acres) 

Penjeacu SMA (formerly Teypama) 

(11 acres) 

Penjeacu SMA (formerly Teypama) 

(11 acres) 

Penjeacu SMA (formerly Teypama) 

(11 acres) 

1. Close to motor vehicle use. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

3. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

4. Exclude livestock grazing on 17 

acres by expanding the enclosure. 

5. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-3, no surface occupancy. 

1. Limit vehicle use to designated 

routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 3. Exclude mineral material disposals. 4. Maintain nongrazing status. 5. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-NSO-C. 

6. Conduct cadastral survey to 

determine boundaries. 

7. Pursue acquisition of non-Federal 

portion of the cultural site. 

8. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation d. Public Use. 

1. Close to motor vehicle use. 2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases. 3. Exclude mineral material disposals. 4. Maintain nongrazing status. 5. Exclude fluid mineral leasing. 6. Conduct cadastral survey to 

determine boundaries. 

7. Pursue acquisition of non-Federal 

portion of the cultural site. 

8. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use. 

9. Research, study, and protect the 

pueblo. 

1. Limit vehicle use to designated 

routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 3. Exclude mineral material disposals. 4. Maintain nongrazing status. 5. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-NSO-C. 

6. Provide opportunities for heritage 

tourism with appropriate mitigation measures as determined in coordination with SHPO and Tribes. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-81 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

9. Research, study, and protect the 

pueblo.

7. Conduct cadastral survey to 

determine boundaries. 

8. Pursue acquisition of non-Federal 

portion of the cultural site. 

9. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation d. Public Use. 

10. Research, study, and protect the 

pueblo. 

Playa Pueblos SMA 

(203 acres) 

Playa Pueblos Proprietary SMA 

(203 acres) 

Playa Pueblos Proprietary SMA 

(203 acres) 

Playa Pueblos Proprietary SMA 

(203 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases 

3. Acquire nonpublic land. 

4. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

5. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special 

management, and NM-5, White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Zone. 

6. Exclude livestock grazing. 

7. Fence and stabilize ruins. 

8. Include in the thematic Tompiro 

National Register Nomination. 

9. Close certain vehicle trails - .04 

miles.

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2 Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 3. Pursue the acquisition of nonpublic 

land. 

4. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

5. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations S-NSO-C and Lease Notice NM-5. 

6. Exclude livestock grazing by 

fencing. 

7. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use to Playa Pueblos. 

8. Include in thematic Tompiro 

National Register Nomination. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases. 3. Pursue the acquisition of nonpublic 

land. 

4. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

5. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations S-NSO-C and Lease Notice NM-5. 

6. Exclude livestock grazing by 

fencing. 

7. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use. 

8. Include in thematic Tompiro 

National Register Nomination. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 3. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations S-NSO-C and Lease Notice NM-5. 

5. Exclude livestock grazing by 

fencing. 

6. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-82 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Puertecito SMA 

(7,156 acres) 

Puertecito SMA 

(7,156 acres) 

Puertecito SMA 

(7,156 acres) 

Puertecito SMA 

(7,156acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

3. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special 

management. 

4. Designate grazing allotment in “M” 

category.

5. Close and rehabilitate certain 

vehicle trails as part of the activity plan. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to designated 

routes. 

2. Avoid the authorizations of right-ofway and leases. 3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations S-CSU-C1 and S-CSU-S. 

4. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use to cultural sites within Puertecito SMA. 

5. Research, study, and protect cultural 

sites within the SMA. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Exclude the authorizations of rightof-way and leases. 3. Exclude mineral leasing. 4. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use. 

5. Research, study, and protect cultural 

sites within the SMA. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-CSU-C1. 

4. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use to cultural sites in the SMA. 

5. Research, study, and protect cultural 

sites within the SMA. 

Rio Salado SMA 

(5,946 acres, includes 924 acres of 

overlap with WSAs) 

 Rio Salado SMA 

(5,946 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

3. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

4. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special management. 

5. Nominate as district to National 

Register. 

6. Exclude from woodcutting. 

7. Restrict geophysical operations. 

8. Implement present Cultural 

Resources Management Plan for 20 acres. 

Eliminate Rio Salado SMA and incorporate the area into the Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC.

Eliminate Rio Salado SMA and incorporate the area into the Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC.

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 

3. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-CSU-C1. 

5. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use to cultural sites in the SMA. 

6. Exclude grazing on land that has 

not been allotted. 

San Lorenzo SMA 

(2,320 acres) 

 San Lorenzo SRMA

(2,320 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for new rightof-way and leases. 

Eliminate San Lorenzo SMA and incorporate the area into the Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC.

Eliminate San Lorenzo SMA and incorporate the area into the Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC.

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-83 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

3. Acquire 2,240 acres of nonpublic 

land. 

4. Restrict geophysical operations. 

Apply fluid leasing stipulation SRA-1, special values or special management. 

3. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

4. Pursue acquisition of nonpublic 

land within and contiguous to the SMRA boundary. 

5. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-VRM-II. 

6. Allow woodcutting contingent 

upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

7. Exclude from vegetative material 

sales.

8. Close to domestic sheep and goats. 

9. Apply Cultural Resource Use 

Allocation a. Scientific Use to cultural sites in the SMRA. 

10. Exclude grazing on land that has 

not been allotted. 

San Pedro ACEC 

(1,201 acres) 

San Pedro Proprietary SMA 

(1,201 acres) 

San Pedro Proprietary SMA 

(1,201 acres) 

San Pedro Proprietary SMA 

(1,201 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Exclude authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

3. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special 

management, and NM-5, White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Zone. 

4. Initiate monitoring studies. 

5. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations S-NSO-T&E and Lease Notice NM-5. 

5. Exclude mineral material disposals. 6. Exclude from vegetative material 

sales.

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases. 

3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations S-NSO-T&E and Lease Notice NM-5. 

4. Exclude mineral material disposals. 5. Exclude from vegetative material 

sales.

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases. 3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations S-NSO-T&E and Lease Notice NM-5. 

4. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-84 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Stallion SMA 

(19,702 acres, includes 9,479 acres of 

overlap with WSAs) 

Stallion SMA 

(10,883 acres) 

Stallion SMA 

(10,883 acres) 

Stallion SMA 

(10,883 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

3. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special 

management, and NM-5, White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Zone. 

4. Designate grazing allotment in “M” 

category.

5. Acquire nonpublic land. 

6. Close and rehabilitate certain 

vehicle trails as part of the activity plan.

1. Close to motor vehicle use within 

the WSAs (Sierra de las Canas and Presilla). Limit motor vehicle use to designated routes elsewhere within the SMA. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases within Sierra de 

las Canas and Presilla WSA. Avoid the authorization of right-of-way and leases within the SMA and outside the WSA. 

3. Exclude mineral leasing within the 

WSA. 

4. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations S-CSU-S, S-CSU-K, and Lease Notice NM-5 within the SMA and outside the WSA. 

1. Close to motor vehicle use within 

the Sierra de las Canas WSA. Limit motor vehicle use to designated routes elsewhere within the SMA. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rightof-way and leases within the Sierra 

de las Canas WSA. Exclude the authorization of right-of-ways and leases within the SMA and outside the WSA. 

3. Exclude mineral leasing within the 

WSA. Apply fluid mineral leasing stipulations S-CSU-S, S-CSU-K, and Lease Notice NM-5 within the SMA and outside the WSA.

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid the authorization of right-ofway and leases within the SMA. 

3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations S-VRM-II, S-CSU-K, and Lease Notice NM-5 within the SMA.

Soaptree SMA 

(1,296 acres) 

Soaptree SMA 

(1,296 acres) 

Soaptree SMA 

(1,296 acres) 

Soaptree SMA 

(1,296 acres) 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

3. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special management. 

4. Exclude vegetative material sales. 

5. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

1. Avoid authorization of right-of-way 

and leases. 

2. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations S-VRM-II and S-CSUV.

3. Exclude from vegetative material 

sales.

4. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Exclude authorization of right-ofway and leases. 

3. Exclude fluid mineral leasing. 4. Exclude from vegetative material 

sales.

5. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to 

designated routes. 

2. Avoid authorization of right-of-way 

and leases. 

3. Apply fluid mineral leasing 

stipulation S-CSU-V. 

4. Exclude from vegetative material 

sales.

5. Allow mineral material disposals 

contingent upon site-specific assessment of resources and mitigation as necessary. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-85 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Taylor Canyon SMA 

(384 acres) Taylor Canyon SMA Taylor Canyon SMA Taylor Canyon SMA 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

3. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special 

management, and NM-5, White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Zone. 

4. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

Eliminate Taylor Canyon SMA due to downlisting of special status plant species.

Eliminate Taylor Canyon SMA due to downlisting of special status plant species.

Eliminate Taylor Canyon SMA due to downlisting of special status plant species.

Town of Riley SMA 

(533 acres) Town of Riley SMA 

Town of Riley SMA 

(533 acres) Town of Riley SMA 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

3. Survey Federal ownership within 

historic town. 

4. Exclude from woodcutting. 

5. Restrict mineral material disposals. 

6. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special management. 

7. Restrict geophysical operations. 

8. Nominate to National Register. 

Eliminate Town of Riley SMA. Same as Alternative A, except fluid 

mineral leasing stipulation S-CSU-C1 would be applied. 

Eliminate Town of Riley SMA. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-86 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-2 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN ACECS AND SMAS

No-Action Alternative7

(Alternative A) Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Walnut Canyon SMA 

(1,145 acres) Walnut Canyon SMA Walnut Canyon SMA Walnut Canyon SMA 

1. Limit motor vehicles to existing 

roads and trails. 

2. Restrict authorization for right-ofway and leases. 

3. Exclude from woodcutting. 

4. Restrict mineral material deposits. 

5. Acquire nonpublic land. 

6. Apply fluid leasing stipulation 

SRA-1, special values or special management. 

7. Restrict geophysical operations. 

Acquire legal access. 

Eliminate the Walnut Canyon SMA. Eliminate the Walnut Canyon SMA. Eliminate the Walnut Canyon. 

TABLE 2-3 

MANAGEMENT OF LAND WITHIN WSAs IF RELEASED FROM WILDERNESS REVIEW 

WSA Alternative A Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Antelope(20,541 acres) 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in the 1989 RMP.

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Continental Divide (69,240 acres) 

Manage 39,730 acres as part of the Pelona Mountain SMA. The remainder would be managed in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Manage within the Pelona Mountain ACEC.

Manage within the Pelona Mountain ACEC.

Manage 58,744 acres as part of the Pelona Mountain ACEC. 

Devil’s Backbone (8,967 acres) 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in the 1989 RMP. 

Manage within the Ladron MountainDevil’s Backbone Complex ACEC. Manage as part of the Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex 

ACEC.

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Devil’s Reach (684 acres) 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in the 1989 RMP. 

Manage within the Ladron MountainDevil’s Backbone Complex ACEC. Manage within the Ladron Mountain- Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC. Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in this 

RMPR/EIS. 

Eagle Peak (43,975 acres) 

Manage 6,326 acres as part of the Agua Fria ACEC, and 8,784 acres as part of the Cerro Pomo SMA. The remainder would be managed in accordance with the prescriptions identified in the 1989 RMP. 

Manage 23,236 acres as Cerro Pomo ACEC and 16,373 acres as Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. The remainder would be managed in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Manage 43,974 acres as Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. The remainder would be managed in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Manage 12,692 acres as Cerro Pomo ACEC and 2,732 acres as Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. The remainder would be managed in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-87 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-3 

MANAGEMENT OF LAND WITHIN WSAs IF RELEASED FROM WILDERNESS REVIEW 

WSA Alternative A Alternative B (Preferred) Alternative C Alternative D 

Horse Mountain (4,894 acres) 

Manage 4,301 acres as part of the Horse Mountain ACEC. The remainder would be managed in accordance with the prescriptions identified in the 1989 RMP. 

Manage within the Horse Mountain ACEC.

Manage within the Horse Mountain ACEC.

Manage within the Horse Mountain ACEC.

Jornada del Muerto (26,771 acres) 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in the 1989 RMP. 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Mesita Blanca (19,214 acres) 

Manage 2,300 acres as part of the Agua Fria ACEC. The remainder would be managed in accordance with the prescriptions identified in the 1989 RMP.

Manage 1,963 acres as part of the Cerro Pomo ACEC and 3,469 acres as part of the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. The remainder would be managed in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS.

Manage 19,211 acres as part of the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. 

Manage 3,473 acres as part of the Cerro Pomo ACEC. The remainder would be managed in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Presilla(7,884 acres) 

Manage 3,423 acres as a part of the Tinajas ACEC, and 382 acres as part of the Stallion SMA. The remainder would be managed in accordance with the prescriptions identified in the 1989 RMP. 

Manage within the Tinajas ACEC, except for the 279 acres within the Quebradas Backcountry Byway SRMA. 

Manage within the Tinajas ACEC, except for the 279 acres within the Quebradas Backcountry Byway SRMA. 

Manage 3,423 acres as part of the Tinajas ACEC, except for the 279 acres within the Quebradas Backcountry Byway SRMA. 

Sierra de las Canas (13,185 acres) 

Manage 9,097 acres as part of the Stallion SMA. The remainder would be managed in accordance with the prescriptions identified in the 1989 RMP. 

Manage within the Tinajas ACEC, except for the 743 acres within the Quebradas Backcountry Byway SRMA. 

Manage within the Tinajas ACEC, except for the 743 acres within the Quebradas Backcountry Byway SRMA. 

Manage 18 acres as part of the Tinajas ACEC, and 743 acres as part of the Quebradas Backcountry Byway SRMA. The remainder would be managed in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Sierra Ladrones (45,559 acres) 

Manage 35,114 acres as part of the Ladron Mountain ACEC, and 924 acres as part of the Rio Salado SMA. The remainder would be managed in accordance with the prescriptions identified in the 1989 RMP. 

Manage within the Ladron MountainDevil’s Backbone Complex ACEC. Manage within the Ladron Mountain- Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC. Manage 37,046 acres as part of the Ladron Mountain ACEC and 924 

acres as part of the Rio Salado SMA. 

Stallion(23,671 acres) 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in the 1989 RMP. 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Veranito(7,241 acres) 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in the 1989 RMP. 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 

Manage in accordance with prescriptions identified in this RMPR/EIS. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-88 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-4 

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS IN WSAs PROPOSED UNDER 

ALTERNATIVES B, C, AND D (IN MILES) 

WSA Open 

Closed

(Rehabilitate) 

Closed

(Authorized Use Only) 

Total 

Closed

 B C D B C D B C D B C D 

Antelope 4.0 0.0 9.0 10.5 12.0 9.0 4.5 7.0 0.0 15.0 19.0 9.0 Continental Divide 23.5 16.0 40.0 12.5 12.5 10.5 21.0 28.5 6.5 33.5 41.0 17.0 Devil’s Backbone 3.0 1.5 3.5 1.5 5.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 7.5 7.0 5.0 Devil’s Reach 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Eagle Peak 29.5 22.5 40.5 16.5 16.0 6.0 5.5 12.0 4.0 22.0 28.0 10.0 Horse Mountain 0.0 0.0 8.5 6.0 8.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 8.5 0.0 Jornada del Muerto 10.75 9.75 12.5 3.5 2.5 2.5 5.75 2.75 0.0 9.25 5.25 2.5 Mesita Blanca 14.5 6.5 18.5 5.0 9.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 5.0 13.0 1.0 Presilla 0.0 0.0 8.5 11.0 11.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 2.5 Sierra de las Canas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 Sierra Ladrones 15.5 15.5 35.25 6.5 6.5 4.5 17.75 17.75 0.0 24.25 24.25 4.5 Stallion 2.0 2.0 19.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 9.0 9.0 0.0 17.0 17.0 0.0 Veranito 0.0 0.0 2.0 5.25 9.0 7.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 9.25 9.0 7.0 Totals 102.75 73.75 197.25 86.95 100.20 45.20 75.00 83.50 14.0 161.95 183.70 59.20 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-89 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-5 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS8

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Air Quality  Temporary and localized 

impacts from fugitive dust caused largely by surface disturbance and motorized travel on unpaved roads. 

 Mitigation for fugitive dust 

through best management practices (BMPs), palliatives, road-watering, and planting compatible roadside vegetation. 

 Management within special 

designations (238,936 acres) would reduce fugitive dust from surface disturbance in those areas. 

 The effects of OHV use would 

be avoided on 29,117 acres that would be closed to OHVs. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management within expanded 

special designation boundaries (to 297,555 acres) would reduce dust from surface disturbance; and 

 increased restrictions on 

motorized travel (no areas open to cross-country travel, closed areas expanded to 117,921 acres) would diminish impacts in localized areas. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management within expanded 

special designation boundaries (to 336,609 acres) would reduce dust from surface disturbance; and 

 increased restrictions on 

motorized travel (no areas opento cross-country travel, closed areas expanded to 139,971 acres) would diminish impacts in localized areas. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management within 

expanded special designation boundaries (149,478 acres) would reduce dust from surface disturbance; 

 the elimination of areas 

open to cross-country travel would diminish impacts in localized areas; and

 Alternative D would 

expose 29,117 previously closed acres to motorized travel.

Geology  Recreation use could cause 

cumulative impacts to cliff faces or geological features. 

 Surface-disturbing activities 

could have localized impacts due to degradation or damage to geologic resources; mitigation would be identified through NEPA. 

 Management within special 

designations provides protection from surface disturbance (238,936 acres). 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 the expansion of management 

in special designations to 297,555 acres would indirectly increase protection for geologic resources in those areas. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 the expansion of management 

in special designations to 336,609 acres would indirectly increase protection for geologic resources in those areas. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 the expansion of 

management in special designations to 149,478 acres would indirectly increase protection for geologic resources in those areas.

8 Unless otherwise noted, all acre figures refer to acres of BLM-managed surface land. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-90 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-5 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS8

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Soil and Water Resources

 Surface-disturbing activities 

could cause soil disturbance and compaction, resulting in erosion and decreased soil infiltration and productivity in localized areas. Long-term effects (particularly from OHV use) would depend on the intensity, frequency, and type of use as well as the soil type and moisture content. 

 Mitigation through BMPs and 

further NEPA analysis. 

 Protective management to 

minimize or avoid these impacts would be applied primarily in special designations (238,936 acres). 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 protective management would 

be expanded, particularly in special designations (297,555 acres);

 closure to mineral development 

within Zuni Salt Lake ACEC would provide a conservative approach to reduce the potential of groundwater impacts; and 

 the elimination of areas open to 

cross-country travel and increased limitations on OHV use would diminish impacts in those areas. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 protective management would 

be expanded, particularly in special designations (336,609 acres); and 

 larger closures and greater 

limitations on OHV use would diminish impacts in those areas.

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 protective management 

would be expanded, particularly in special designations (149,478 acres);

 the elimination of the areas 

open to cross-country travel and increased limitations on OHV use would diminish impacts in those areas. 

Vegetation  Development of watershed 

management plans would increase soil stabilization, reduce water runoff , and subsequently improve the quality of vegetation. 

 Surface-disturbing activities 

could result in localized loss of or damage to vegetation, although mitigation would occur through BMPs and further NEPA analysis. 

 Management to minimize 

surface disturbance would reduce loss or disturbance of 

vegetation, primarily in special designations (238,936 acres) and closed OHV areas (29,117 acres).

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance would be expanded, especially in special designations (297,555 acres) and potential aplomado falcon habitat (40,104 acres of BLMmanaged surface area); 

 the elimination of areas open to 

cross-country traveland increased limitations on OHV use would diminish impacts in those areas; 

 the designated utility corridor 

would cluster impacts from construction activities within the right-of-way in areas of previously disturbed vegetation; and 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance would be further expanded, particularly in special designations (336,609 acres) and potential aplomado falcon habitat (63,808 acres of BLMmanaged surface area); 

 larger closures and greater 

limitations on OHV use would diminish impacts in those areas; and 

 commercial woodcutting would 

be allowed in fewer areas. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance would be expanded, particularly in special designations (149,478 acres); 

 the elimination of the areas 

open to cross-country traveland increased limitations on OHV use would diminish impacts in those areas; and 

 management of 

woodcutting would have the same effects as described for Alternative B.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-91 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-5 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS8

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

 Vehicles could facilitate the 

dispersion of noxious and invasive weeds, but management would prevent the spread of these species and ensure mitigation for any proposed projects. 

 management of woodcutting 

would reduce the potential for unsustainable vegetation loss. 

Wildlife, Riparian Habitat, & Special Status Species 

 About 150,931 acres would be 

managed specifically to protect sensitive or special status species.

 Management to minimize 

surface disturbance would protect against habitat loss or fragmentation, disruption of movement corridors, or direct impacts on wildlife, particularly in special designations (238,936 acres). 

 Mitigation of potential impacts 

to wildlife would occur through BMPs and further NEPA analysis.

 Open OHV area designation on 

851,234 acres would increase access to habitat areas and could affect plains-mesa sand scrub and juniper savanna habitats that support raptor and other wildlife species. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 a larger area would be managed 

to protect sensitive or special status species (117,682 acres), and management priorities would be shifted away from species that are no longer federally listed; 

 the expansion of the Ladron 

Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC would expand protection for sensitive habitats 

in that portion of the Planning Area;

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance would be expanded, especially in special designations (297,555 acres) and potential aplomado falcon habitat areas (40,104 acres of BLM-managed surface area); 

 management to reduce or avoid 

impacts to areas that meet criteria for the aplomado falcon habitat; and 

 the elimination of areas open to 

cross-country travel and increased limitations on OHV use would diminish impacts in those areas. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 118,321 acres would be 

managed to specifically protect sensitive or special status species;

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance would be further expanded, particularly in special designations (336,609 acres) and potential aplomado falcon habitat areas (63,808 acres of BLMmanaged surface area); and 

 larger closures and greater 

limitations on OHV use would diminish impacts in those areas.

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 60,220 acres managed to 

specifically protect sensitive or special status species;

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance would be expanded, particularly in special designations (149,478 acres); 

 management to reduce or 

avoid impacts to the aplomado falcon in areas that meet criteria for its habitat; and 

 the elimination of areas 

open to cross-country travel and increased limitations on OHV use would diminish impacts in those areas. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-92 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-5 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS8

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Wildland Fire Ecology & Management 

 Treatment of up to 244,170 

acres to improve ecological conditions would improve FRCC in those areas. 

 Surface-disturbing hazardous 

fuels reductions and fireline construction would be limited in special designations (238,936 acres). 

 Limits on hazardous fuel 

reductions in Agua Fria, Horse Mountain, and Ladron Mountain ACECs would occur in proximity to wildland-urban interface areas. 

 Linear facilities present hazards 

during fire suppression operations; these facilities would be limited within rightof-way exclusion areas (39,148 acres).

 Ignitions may be caused by 

OHV use or other recreational uses. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management that could affect 

surface-disturbing hazardous fuel reductions and fireline construction would be expanded, especially in special designations (297,555 acres) and potential aplomado falcon habitat areas (40,104 acres of BLM-managed surface area); 

 limits on hazardous fuel 

reductions close to wildlandurban interface areas would occur in Horse Mountain ACEC;

 linear facilities that would pose 

hazards during fire suppression activities would be limited over a larger area (406,283 acres within right-of-way exclusion areas);

 the designation of a utility 

corridor would promote the consolidation of linear facilities into a single location, minimizing hazards elsewhere; and

 increased restrictions on OHV 

use would reduce the potential for ignitions. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 increased restoration efforts 

would improve FRCC; 

 management that could affect 

surface-disturbing hazardous fuel reductions and fireline construction would be expanded, especially in special designations (336,609 acres) and potential aplomado falcon habitat areas (63,808 acres of BLM-managed surface area); 

 limits on hazardous fuel 

reductions close to wildlandurban interface areas would occur in Horse Mountain and Zuni Salt Lake ACECs; 

 linear facilities would be 

limited over a larger area (716,100 acres within right-ofway exclusion areas); and 

 larger closures and greater 

limitations on OHV use would further reduce potential for ignitions. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management that could 

affect surface-disturbing hazardous fuel reductions and fireline construction would be expanded, especially in special designations (149,478 acres);

 limits on hazardous fuel 

reductions close to wildland-urban interface areas would occur in Horse 

Mountain ACEC; 

 linear facilities that would 

pose hazards during fire suppression activities would be limited over a larger area (301,081 acres within right-of-way exclusion areas); and 

 increased restrictions on 

OHV use would reduce the potential for ignitions. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-93 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-5 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS8

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Cultural Resources  Effects from activities 

requiring Federal authorization would continue to be avoided or mitigated through compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and/or NEPA. 

 Management to reduce erosion 

and other effects of surface disturbance would provide coincidental protection of cultural resources, particularly in special designations (238,936 acres). 

 Specially designated areas 

where protection of cultural resources would be a primary or secondary objective would total 20,450 acres. 

 Cultural resources in areas with 

reduced access to motorized vehicles, such as closed OHV areas (29,117 acres) or limited OHV designations (565,159 acres) would be less likely to experience disturbance from dispersed recreation and OHV use.

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance would be expanded, especially in special designations (297,555 acres) and potential aplomado falcon habitat areas (40,104 acres of BLM-managed surface area); 

 specially designated areas 

where protection of cultural resources would be a primary or secondary objective would total 149,179 acres, expanding mainly in Zuni Salt Lake and Cerro Pomo ACECs and Newton Site SMA; and 

 greater protection from 

dispersed recreation and OHV use would be provided through the elimination of areas open to cross-country travel and the expansion of closed OHV areas (117,921 acres) and limited OHV designations (1,389,624 acres).

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance would be further expanded, particularly in special designations (336,609 acres) and potential aplomado falcon habitat areas (63,808 acres of BLMmanaged surface area); 

 specially designated areas 

where protection of cultural resources would be a primary or secondary objective would total 240,382 acres, expanding over Alternative B mainly in Zuni Salt Lake and Tinajas ACECs; and 

 protection from dispersed 

recreation and OHV use would be increased over Alternative B due to larger closed OHV areas (139,971 acres). 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance would be expanded, particularly in special designations (149,478 acres); 

 specially designated areas 

where protection of cultural resources would be a primary or secondary objective would total 25,330 acres, expanding over Alternative A in Cerro Pomo ACEC; and 

 greater protection from 

dispersed recreation and OHV use would be provided through the elimination of areas open to cross-country travel. 

Paleontological Resources

 Effects from activities 

requiring Federal authorization would continue to be avoided or mitigated through compliance with NEPA. 

 Management to reduce erosion 

and other effects of surface disturbance would provide coincidental protection of paleontological resources, 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance would be expanded, especially in special designations (297,555 acres) and potential aplomado falcon habitat areas (40,104 acres of BLM-managed surface area); 

 the elimination of areas open to 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance would be further expanded, particularly in special designations (336,609 acres) and potential aplomado falcon habitat areas (63,808 acres of BLMmanaged surface area). 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance would be further expanded, particularly in special designations (149,478 acres).
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-94 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-5 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS8

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

particularly in special designations (238,936 acres). 

 OHV use in areas designated as 

open (851,234 acres) could result in damage or loss to paleontological resources, depending on the location and frequency of OHV use. 

cross-country travel would reduce the likelihood of impacts on paleontological resources. 

Visual Resources  The most protective VRM 

classes would be applied to 30,343 acres (Class I) and 385,781 acres (Class II). 

 Management to maintain, 

enhance, or protect natural or cultural resources also would enhance and protect scenic values. 

 Impacts on visual resources 

from ground-disturbing activities associated with activities requiring Federal authorization would be mitigated through NEPA and compliance with VRM objectives. 

 Open OHV areas (851,234 

acres) allow proliferation of travel routes, which could affect vegetation and soils (and subsequently scenic quality), particularly where open areas are adjacent to sensitive viewers in special designations such as Town of Riley and Rio Salado SMAs. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 VRM Class I objectives would 

be applied to slightly fewer areas (28,533 acres) and VRM Class II would be applied to an expanded area (488,339 acres); 

 management to maintain, 

enhance, or protect natural or cultural resources would apply to expanded areas; 

 the proposed utility corridor 

would promote the consolidation of linear facilities in one area, reducing overall visual impacts in the Planning Area, but sensitive viewers could experience new projects within their viewshed, particularly residential areas along I-25, Veranito WSA, and other special designations; and 

 the elimination of areas open to 

cross-country travel would reduce the likelihood of impacts on visual resources in those areas. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 VRM Class I objectives would 

be applied to slightly fewer areas (27,093 acres) and VRM Class II would be applied to an expanded area (715,706 acres); and

 management to maintain, 

enhance, or protect natural or cultural resources would be expanded further. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 no areas would be 

managed as VRM Class I, and 354,222 acres would be managed as Class II; 

 management to maintain, 

enhance, or protect natural or cultural resources would apply to expanded areas; 

 the proposed utility 

corridors cross numerous special designations, which are more sensitive to changes to visual or scenic resources; and 

 the elimination of areas 

open to cross-country travel would reduce the likelihood of impacts on visual resources in those areas.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-95 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-5 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS8

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Cave & Karst Resources

 Effects from activities 

requiring Federal authorization would continue to be avoided or mitigated through compliance with NEPA. 

 Management to protect 

resources and reduce effects of surface disturbance would provide coincidental protection of caves and karst resources, particularly in special designations (238,936 acres). 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management to protect 

resources, particularly in special designations, would be expanded and would include more areas of high karst potential near the Puertecito SMA and WSMR Safety Evacuation Zone; 

 the elimination of areas open to 

cross-country travel would provide protection to some resources by restricting access. 

Impacts would be more similar to Alternative B, except 

 management to protect 

resources, particularly in special designations, would be expanded further. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management to protect 

resources, particularly in special designations, would be expanded; and 

 the elimination of areas 

open to cross-country travel would provide protection to some resources by restricting access.

WildernessCharacteristics 

 WSAs would continue to be 

managed to maintain their suitability for preservation as 

wilderness in accordance with the Interim Management Policy. 

 OHV use on existing routes in 

some WSAs would introduce noise and dust, diminishing solitude or the primitive recreation experience, depending on the frequency and duration of OHV use. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 more areas within WSAs would 

be closed to OHV use (33,888 acres compared to 13,185 acres under Alternative A) and route designations would reduce the potential for noise and dust to affect wilderness character; and 

 management objectives to 

reduce impacts from heavy OHV use in Gordy’s Hill SRMA would reduce effects from adjacent OHV use on Veranito and Presilla WSAs. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 additional areas within WSAs 

would be closed to OHV use (a total of 54,429 acres) and route designations would reduce the potential for noise and dust to affect wilderness character. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 designation of multiple 

utility corridors could result in facilities being located near the Eagle Peak WSA, Continental Divide WSA, and Veranito WSA, causing indirect effects on wilderness characteristics such as naturalness and solitude; 

 OHV travel would be 

permitted in 3 WSAs that previously were closed to OHV use; and 

 management objectives to 

reduce impacts from heavy OHV use in Gordy’s Hill SRMA would reduce effects from adjacent OHV use on Veranito and Presilla WSAs. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-96 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-5 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS8

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Land and Realty  Right-of-way authorizations 

would be excluded on 39,148 acres and avoided on 458,996 acres.

 Lands identified as suitable for 

disposal typically are isolated parcels located near rural communities, and disposal of these parcels would allow BLM to focus its resources on managing larger, contiguous tracts of land. 

 Impacts from realty actions 

requiring Federal authorization would continue to be avoided or mitigated through compliance with NEPA. 

 Depending on the site 

conditions and frequency of use, OHV use could indirectly affect adjacent land uses with vehicle-generated dust or noise. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 BLM-managed surface land 

that would be available for right-of-way authorizations would be reduced, as such authorizations would be excluded on 406,283 acres and avoided on 349,343 acres; 

 the location of right-of-way 

exclusion and avoidance areas would limit opportunities for siting east-west utilities to the east of I-25; and 

 the designation of a utility 

corridor would promote the collocation of utilities in previously disturbed areas. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 BLM-managed surface land 

that would be available for right-of-way authorizations would be reduced further, as such authorizations would be excluded on 716,100 acres and avoided on 419,120 acres; and 

 the expanded right-of-way 

exclusion areas could affect the ability to develop some rural residential areas near I-25 and near the Zuni Salt Lake; and 

 the designation of a utility 

corridor may be incompatible with some right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 BLM-managed surface 

land that would be available for right-of-way authorizations would be reduced, as such authorizations would be excluded on 301,081 acres and avoided on 177,290 acres; 

 more land would be 

identified as suitable for disposal, which would increase land resources available to support subdivisions and the growth of rural communities; and 

 the designation of multiple 

utility corridors would promote the collocation of utilities while providing flexibility to site facilities, but some corridors would cross right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas that would be incompatible with the purpose of the utility corridor.

Forestry and Woodland Management 

 Tillage practices and treatment 

to improve ecological conditions would improve forest health and promote restoration of historic woodland structure. 

 Management of special 

designations or to meet VRM 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management in special 

designations or VRM Class I and II areas that would affect treatment methods would be expanded to more areas. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 management would place more 

emphasis on restoration, which would result in greater potential to maintain and improve forest and woodland structure; 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management in special 

designations areas that would affect treatment methods would be expanded to more areas. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-97 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-5 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS8

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Class I and Class II objectives may affect the types of woodland treatment methods available for use in those areas. 

 Woodcutting and other 

treatments would reduce fuel loading, improving FRCC in those areas. 

 more successful restoration 

would reduce the risks from wildfires; and 

 management in special 

designations or VRM Class I and II areas that would affect treatment methods would be expanded further. 

Rangeland Management 

 Grazing would be managed to 

meet public land health standards; over the long term, this would promote the sustainability of grazing on 

BLM-managed surface land. 

 Vegetation treatment or 

rehabilitation projects could reduce or exclude grazing or affect available forage in the short-term, but over the longterm would increase forage production. 

 Management to minimize 

surface disturbance, particularly in special designations, would minimize competitive uses, potentially improving grazing conditions. 

 Activities associated with rightof-way authorizations, harvesting operations, and mineral 

development would create short-term and temporary impacts to grazing through noise, closures, or reduction of available forage. Development of roads associated with these projects would allow use by permittees for livestock 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance, particularly in special designations, would be expanded; and 

 the elimination of areas open to 

cross-country travel and increased limitations on OHV use would diminish impacts from recreation use in those areas.

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance, particularly in special designations, would be expanded further; 

 management would prioritize 

wildlife and watershed needs over livestock, which would reduce the number of range projects but would improve overall range conditions; and 

 increased limitations on OHV 

use would diminish impacts from recreation use in those areas.

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management to minimize 

surface disturbance, particularly in special designations, would be expanded; 

 management would increase 

the number of range projects and could allow for augmented stocking rates; and

 the elimination of areas 

open to cross-country travel would diminish impacts from recreation use in those areas.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-98 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-5 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS8

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

operations. Impacts from activities requiring Federal authorization would be avoided or mitigated through compliance with NEPA. 

 Dispersed recreation and OHV 

use could disturb livestock, result in forage loss, and contribute to the spread of invasive species. 

Minerals  Fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations (applied to a total of 736,000 acres of Federal mineral estate) would increase the cost and difficulty of developing fluid mineral resources. 

 Application of a no-surfaceoccupancy over an area of at 

least 1 square mile would eliminate the possibility of directional drilling and constitute a de facto closure in that area. 

 1,418,415 acres of Federal 

mineral estate would be closed to fluid mineral leasing, 

 within these closed areas, 

646,901 acres are of moderate potential for oil and gas and 28,570 acres are of high potential for carbon dioxide and helium. 

 The continued withdrawal of 

11,408 acres of Federal mineral estate and proposal to withdraw an additional 1,508 acres of Federal mineral estate would 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations would be expanded to apply to 1,515,544 acres of Federal mineral estate; 

 1,543,095 acres of Federal 

mineral estate would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (the majority of the difference from Alternative A is due to management in Zuni Salt Lake ACEC);

 within these closed areas, 

761,155 acres are of moderate potential for oil and gas and 36,345 acres are of high potential for carbon dioxide and helium; 

 additional Federal mineral 

estate would be withdrawn (a total of 72,369 acres), including areas with high and moderate potential; 

 the acres potential available for 

coal leasing would be reduced to 3,200 from 31,640, limiting the opportunities to achieve the 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations would be expanded to apply to 947,044 acres of Federal mineral estate; 

 1,856,116 acres of Federal 

mineral estate would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (the majority of the difference from Alternative B is due to the expanded Zuni Salt Lake ACEC);

 within these closed areas, 

1,022,038 acres are of moderate potential for oil and gas and 135,578 acres are of high potential for carbon dioxide and helium; 

 additional Federal mineral 

estate would be withdrawn (a total of 497,39 acres), including areas with high and moderate potential, primarily in Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex and Zuni Salt Lake ACECs;

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations would apply to more areas (785,484 acres of Federal mineral estate); 

 1,419,456 acres of Federal 

mineral estate would be closed to fluid mineral leasing;

 within these closed areas, 

648,312 acres are of 

moderate potential for oil and gas and 28,582 acres are of high potential for carbon dioxide and helium; 

 no additional mineral 

estate would be withdrawn; 

 the acres potential 

available for coal leasing would be reduced to 3,200 from 31,640, limiting the opportunities to achieve the RFD on public land; and

 exclusions on right-of-way 

and access restrictions 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-99 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-5 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS8

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

affect a small portion of the Decision Area. 

 Decisions about access 

(closures or limitations on motorized vehicle use) and realty (right-of-way exclusion or avoidance areas) could encourage or restrict exploration and development of mineral resources. 

RFD on public land; and 

 exclusions on right-of-way and 

access restrictions would be increased. 

 the exclusion of 484,133 from 

mineral material disposal would result in localized impacts but overall availability of saleable minerals would be adequate to meet demand; and 

 exclusions on right-of-way and 

access restrictions would be increased further. 

would be increased. 

Recreation  Management to protect natural, 

cultural, and scenic resources, particularly in special designations and VRM Class I and II areas, would displace some motorized uses but enhance opportunities for primitive recreation. 

 Right-of-way authorizations, 

mineral development, and land acquisition could provide additional access for motorized and dispersed recreation in localized areas. 

 Mineral development could 

result in localized impact by displacing users and changing the character of an area, but impacts would be avoided or mitigated in compliance with NEPA. 

 About 95 percent of BLMmanaged surface land would 

accommodate motorized travel. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management in special 

designations or VRM Class I and II areas that would enhance opportunities for primitive recreation would be expanded; 

 increased acreage closed to 

fluid mineral leasing would provide more protection for primitive recreation opportunities, especially in the Fence Lake and Ladron Mountain areas; and 

 OHV use would be more 

restricted, and about 92 percent of BLM-managed surface land would accommodate motorized travel.

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 management in special 

designations or VRM Class I and II areas that would enhance opportunities for primitive recreation would be expanded further; and 

 OHV use would be further 

restricted in WSAs. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management in special 

designations that would enhance opportunities for primitive recreation would be expanded; 

 the reduced acreage 

managed in accordance with VRM Class I and II objectives would deemphasize the maintenance of scenic resources that contribute to the recreational setting and experience; and 

 OHV use would be more 

restricted due to the elimination of areas open to cross-country travel, although no areas would be closed to motorized access.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-100 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-5 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS8

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Renewable Energy  Management to minimize the 

intensity and location of surface-disturbing activities, particularly in special designations (238,936 acres), could affect the ability to site renewable energy generation and transmission facilities. 

 Management to meet VRM 

Class I and II objectives could affect siting of wind turbine towers, solar panels, or other highly visible facilities, although mitigation would be identified during further NEPA analysis.

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management to minimize the 

intensity and location of surface-disturbing activities would be expanded, particularly in special designations (297,555 acres); and

 areas managed to meet VRM 

Class I and II objectives would be expanded. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 management to minimize the 

intensity and location of surface-disturbing activities would be expanded further, particularly in special designations (336,609 acres); and

 areas managed to meet VRM 

Class I and II objectives would be expanded. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 management to minimize 

the intensity and location of surface-disturbing activities would be expanded, particularly in special designations (149,478 acres); 

 fewer areas would be 

managed to meet VRM Class I and II objectives. 

Transportation & Travel Management 

 Access often increases for 

recreational and other users when roads are constructed or upgraded as part of land use authorizations, mineral development, or other activities. This effect would be minimized in right-of-way exclusion areas or areas where surface occupancy or mineral development is excluded. 

 29,117 acres would be closed 

to OHV use, but the majority of BLM-managed surface land would be accessible for motorized travel. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 the expansion of right-of-way 

exclusion areas and restrictions on mineral development would affect new access development in those areas; 

 the presence of a utility corridor 

would provide additional access to public land if rights-of-way are developed in the area; and 

 the closure of more public land 

to OHV use (117,921 acres) and the elimination of areas open to cross-country travel would change local travel patterns, which could increase travel on routes that remain open. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 further expansion of right-ofway exclusion areas and 

restrictions on mineral development would affect new access development in those areas;

 the closure of additional land to 

OHV use (139,971 acres) would affect local travel patterns and access in those areas. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

 the expansion of right-ofway exclusion areas would 

affect new access development in those areas; 

 the areas that are currently 

closed to OHV would be accessible via existing or designated routes; and 

 areas that previously were 

designated as open to crosscountry travel would be limited to existing or designated routes, which would change local travel patterns. 

Social & Economic Conditions

 Right-of-way exclusion and 

avoidance areas could require project proponents to select less 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-101 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-5 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS8

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

desirable or more expensive sites.

 It is not expected that land in 

Federal ownership would vary greatly, and acquisition would occur on a willing-seller basis. 

 Mineral development typically 

would generate direct and induced wage income, royalties, and tax revenue. Project-specific effects would be identified through further NEPA analysis. 

 BLM management of livestock 

grazing supports an important sector of the local economy. 

 Recreation opportunities on 

BLM-managed land support local retail and other service industries. 

 The protection of open space, 

scenic resources, and natural landscapes supports the quality of recreational opportunities. 

 the expansion of right-of-way 

exclusion areas and designation of a utility corridor affect siting decisions, but also would streamline the authorization process and promote efficiencies through co-location of utilities within the same corridor; 

 additional closures and 

restrictions on mineral development would reduce the possibility of capitalizing on economic opportunities in areas where mineral potential exists; 

 the expansion of management 

to protect natural and cultural resources, particularly within special designations, would enhance scenic views and primitive recreation settings that contribute to the local economic benefits from visitation; and 

 the addition of SRMAs and 

other special designations where recreation management is a primary objective would allow more visitors to be accommodated in those areas, improve the recreation setting and experience, and identify certain areas as recreation destinations, all of which could increase fees received by BLM and revenues generated in local communities due to increased visitation. 

 further expansion of right-ofway exclusion areas would 

restrict options for utility development; 

 further closures and restrictions 

on mineral development would limit economic opportunities in areas where mineral potential exists; 

 further expansion of protective 

management would support primitive recreation opportunities and associated economic effects; and 

 developed recreation and OHV 

use would be more restricted, affecting local interest groups. 

 the expansion of right-ofway exclusion areas would 

affect siting decisions, but the designation of multiple utility corridors would increase the potential for gaining efficiencies from co-location of facilities and streamlining authorization processes;

 further limitations on the 

land available for consideration for coal leasing would reduce the possibility of capitalizing on economic opportunities in areas of coal potential; 

 expansion of protective 

management, particularly within special designations, would support primitive recreation opportunities and associated economic effects;

 the management of 

SRMAs and other special designations where recreation management is a primary objective would have the same impact as described for Alternative B.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 2-102 Chapter 2.0 Alternatives April 2007 

TABLE 2-5 

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS8

Resource

Alternative A 

(No Action) 

Alternative B 

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Environmental Justice  No BLM actions would cause 

disproportionate effects on minority or low-income populations. 

 Management to make 

additional Federal minerals and land unavailable for fluid mineral leasing or locatable mineral development could have socioeconomic effects in some low-income areas such as northwestern Catron County. 

 The Zuni Salt Lake ACEC, 

where mineral development and other surface-disturbing activities are restricted to protect resource values, is of cultural and religious value to 

the Zuni tribe, an environmental justice population. 

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except 

 larger areas are closed to 

mineral development, which would affect more areas with mineral development potential; and

 the expansion of Zuni Salt Lake 

ACEC would provide additional protection for the lake (and associated socio-cultural values) from surface disturbance; the extent of the additional protective effect on water in the lake it is uncertain due to lack of knowledge about the hydrogeology of the area 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A. 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-1 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides a summary of the current conditions of the resources, resource uses, and programs 

within the Planning Area (i.e., Socorro and Catron Counties). Pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act regulations codified in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1502.15 (40 CFR 1502.15), 

the purpose of the affected environment chapter is to describe the human and natural environment that 

potentially could be affected, beneficially or adversely, by the alternatives.

The majority of the data that are used to characterize the affected environment was collected from the 

Socorro Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Federal, State, county, and local 

agencies including but not limited to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF); and other State agencies, 

counties, and public and private sources. Where data were lacking, information was interpreted from the 

best available sources. Field verification of the data was not conducted. Acreages used for analysis in this 

Resource Management Plan Revision/Environmental Impact Statement (RMPR/EIS) reflect the best 

available geographic information system (GIS) data maintained by the BLM. 

In this chapter, the affected environment is characterized using the following categories: 

x Resources:

 Air quality 

 Geology 

 Soil resources 

 Water resources 

 Vegetation

 Wildlife and riparian habitat 

 Special status species 

 Wild horses 

 Wildland fire ecology and 

management

 Cultural resources 

 Paleontological resources 

 Visual resources 

 Cave and karst resources 

 Wilderness characteristics (including 

wilderness study areas) 

x Resource uses: 

 Land use and facilities 

 Forestry and woodland management 

 Rangeland management 

 Minerals

 Recreation 

 Renewable energy 

 Transportation and travel 

management (includes off-highway 

vehicle use) 

 Utility corridors and communication 

sites

 Land tenure, including withdrawals 

 Hazardous materials and public 

safety 

x Special designations (including areas of 

critical environmental concern and 

special management areas) 

x Social and economic conditions 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-2 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

3.2 RESOURCES 

3.2.1 Air Quality

The information provided in this section is summarized from the Air Quality Baseline Report (BLM 

2003b). Existing conditions for air quality were characterized for Socorro and Catron Counties plus 

(1) the Gila Wilderness pristine quality airshed, which includes portions of southern Catron County and 

northern Grant County, New Mexico, and (2) portions of western Apache County, Arizona, which contain 

sources of air pollutants. 

The air quality in this study area appears to meet the New Mexico and Federal ambient air quality 

standards. Ambient air monitoring data for criteria pollutants in Socorro and Catron Counties historically 

have not been collected. Consequently, these counties are designated as “unclassified” with respect to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This designation indicates that the status of 

attainment has not been verified through data collection. For permitting of new sources, an unclassified 

area is treated as an attainment area. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maintains a nationwide Class I area visibility-monitoring 

network in accordance with the Regional Haze Regulations for Protection of Visibility in National Parks 

and Wilderness Areas. This monitoring program is titled IMPROVE, for Integrated Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments, and is administered by Crocker Nuclear Laboratory at the University of 

California, Davis. Currently, the IMPROVE measurement program is collecting data to establish baseline 

visibility and aerosol conditions in mandatory Class I areas and identify chemical species and emission 

sources responsible for the existing visibility impairment. These data will then be used to determine longterm trends and assess progress towards the national visibility goal. Currently, there are two IMPROVE 

monitoring sites in the study area. These sites are located in the two Class I areas, Gila Wilderness, 

managed by the Forest Service in Catron County, and Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, 

managed by USFWS in Socorro County. 

3.2.1.1 Baseline Air Quality 

As of 2005, ambient air monitoring stations have not been deployed in the Planning Area. The closest 

ambient pollutant monitoring station within the air resource study area is in Apache County, Arizona at 

Coyote Hill, approximately 10 miles west of the New Mexico border and 2 miles north of U.S. Route 60 

(US 60). This station was established in part to monitor impacts from the Springerville Generating Station 

and Coronado Generating Station in eastern Arizona. These two coal-fired generating stations are the 

major source for criteria pollutants and the largest source of emissions located in the region. 

The Coyote Hill monitoring station records data for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 

particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The most recent published data from this 

station as presented in Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s 2001 Air Quality Report and the 

NAAQS are listed in Table 3-1. The highest 24-hour average PM10 concentration recorded in the past year 

was 20 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

), which is well below the NAAQS of 150 μg/m3 for a 24-hour 

average PM10 concentration. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-3 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

TABLE 3-1 

2000 MONITORING DATA AT COYOTE HILL STATION, 

SPRINGERVILLE, ARIZONA 

Maximum Values 

Pollutant, Station, and 

Standard 

Annual 

Average 

One-Hour

Average 

Three-Hour

Average 

24-Hour 

Average 

Valid 

Samples

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

 Station 0.001 ppm 0.021 ppm — 0.005 ppm 7,858 

NAAQS 0.053 ppm 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

 Station 0.65 μg/m3 — 47 μg/m3 11 μg/m3 7,718 

NAAQS 0.03 ppm 0.50 ppm 0.14 ppm 

Particulates equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10)

 Station 9.6 μg/m3 — — 20 μg/m3 42 

NAAQS 50.0 μg/m3 150 μg/m3

SOURCE: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2001 

NOTE: ppm = parts per million 

The influence of anthropogenic air pollutant sources is expected to be minimal in the Planning Area, due 

to a lack of air emission sources in the region. Elevated localized concentrations of PM10 may be 

attributed to wind-blown dust over disturbed land surfaces and emissions from vehicles on unpaved roads. 

On a regional basis, power generation emission sources in eastern Arizona may affect the air quality in 

Socorro and Catron Counties due to transport with the prevalent west-to-east winds in the southwestern 

United States. 

There are only eight facilities with air emission permits issued by the State of New Mexico within 

Socorro and Catron Counties, of which only two may be currently in operation. The operational facilities 

are minor sources (emit less than 100 tons per year of a criteria pollutant), both in Socorro County: (1) the 

Socorro Perlite Plant, and (2) fuel-burning equipment at the Very Large Array facility. According to data 

received from the New Mexico Air Quality Bureau, the Perlite Plant is the largest source of emissions and 

operates within its allowable emission rates for all criteria pollutants, with the exception of volatile 

organic compounds. The operator of the Very Large Array has reported no actual emissions since 1997. 

In addition to the permitted sources in the Planning Area, there are a relatively small number of minor 

sources of air emissions that are not required to have an operating permit. For example, mining operations 

are regulated under the Mining Act Reclamation Program and are not monitored by the Air Quality 

Bureau.

3.2.2 Geology

Three distinct physiographic provinces have influenced the geologic history and rock types in the 

Planning Area (Grant and Foster 1989). In northwestern Socorro and northern Catron Counties, thick 

sequences of Permian and Cretaceous marine and continental sedimentary rocks characterize the stable 

platform of the Colorado Plateau province. In east-central Socorro and southern Catron Counties, 

Pennsylvanian marine and Permian continental sediments were uplifted and exposed in mountain ranges 

or block-faulted basins characteristic of the Basin and Range province. A Transitional province between 

the stable Colorado Plateau and the structurally complex Basin and Range provinces is characterized by 

large blocks of Colorado Plateau terrain separated from the craton by block-faulted grabens and basins. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-4 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

The Tertiary-age opening of the Rio Grande Rift through central New Mexico combined with the Basin 

and Range extension to generate massive intrusives and volcanic activity through western Socorro County 

and much of Catron County. Tertiary alluvial sediments and volcanic plugs, flows, and ash-flow tuffs 

constitute most of the basin-fill material in the Transitional province. 

Additional information on the geology of the Planning Area, including mapped data, is available in the 

Management Situation Analysis and the Energy and Minerals Potential Report (both are available in the 

Socorro Field Office).

3.2.3 Soil Resources

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service) has mapped most of the soils in Socorro County and northern Catron County 

(USDA Soil Conservation Service 1985, 1988). Soils were mapped at series, complex, and association 

levels; mapped information is provided in the Management Situation Analysis, which is available from 

the Socorro Field Office. The soils in Socorro and Catron Counties are derived from a variety of rock 

types, including granitic, volcanic, sedimentary formations, and alluvial and eolian sediments. There are 

three broad categories of soils within the two counties: (1) very shallow to deep, well-drained sandy 

loams with small rock fragments (gravel, cobbles) found on mesas, hills, mountains, ridges, slopes, and 

upland plains; (2) deep, well-drained very stony to very fine sandy and silty clay loams found on fan 

terraces, bajadas, and swales; and (3) deep, poor- to well-drained clay loams to loamy very fine sands 

found in the Rio Grande floodplain. Soils in the first category generally support piñon-juniper trees and 

grasses, which support livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and woodland. Soils in the second category 

support grasses including blue grama and western wheatgrass; shrubs; and some trees. These areas are 

primarily used for open-land and rangeland livestock grazing and wildlife habitat. Soils within the Rio 

Grande floodplain are used as irrigated cropland and pastureland, and support urban development. 

Exposed rock outcrops, consisting of weathered and unweathered basalt, rhyolite, limestone, shale, and/or 

sandstone, occur throughout the two counties. The rock outcrops support little, if any, vegetation (USDA 

Soil Conservation Service 1985, 1988). Most of the soils are in the neutral to strongly alkaline range (pH 

of 6.6 to 9.0 standard units). 

Erosion is one form of soil degradation; other types of degradation include soil compaction, low organic 

matter, loss of soil structure, poor internal drainage, salinization, and soil acidity problems. Factors that 

contribute to soil erosion include wind, rain, and stormwater runoff; soil type, slope length and steepness; 

and absence of or damage to the plant or vegetative cover. Other factors, such as off-road vehicles, 

improperly built or maintained roads and trails, and overgrazing accelerate the natural erosion process. 

Generally, soils with faster infiltration rates and higher levels of organic matter have a greater resistance 

to erosion. Sand, sandy loam, and loam-textured soils tend to be less erodible than silt, very fine sand, and 

certain clay textured soils. Mapping of areas with potential for soil erosion is included in the Management 

Situation Analysis, available from the Socorro Field Office. 

Some areas within the Planning Area exhibit soil piping, bank sloughing, and bank cutting. These 

conditions usually occur in areas that receive heavy runoff. Soils in the resultant swales and gullies 

typically are clays or silty clays that have very high shrink and swell potential, and that can contribute to 

soil cracking and tunneling (BLM 1989a). 

Prime farmland soils are defined by USDA as those that are “best suited to producing food, seed, forage, 

fiber, and oilseed crops” (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1988). Prime farmland soils are typically 

loams, silt loams, silts, and clay loams that have developed on floodplains. According to USDA (Soil 

Conservation Service 1985, 1988), there are no prime farmland soils in any of the surveyed areas in 

Socorro or Catron Counties. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-5 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

3.2.4 Water Resources

3.2.4.1 Groundwater

Socorro and Catron Counties rely entirely on groundwater for drinking water. Groundwater also is used 

for agricultural irrigation, stock water, and industrial development. Degradation of groundwater supplies 

can result from both point and non-point source pollution. Point-source facilities that have the potential to 

impact groundwater include domestic wastewater treatment systems, mining operations, dairies, and 

industrial plants. Non-point source pollution from irrigated crops, feedlots, application of pesticides and 

fertilizers, and concentrated animal feeding operations can contribute nutrients, sediment, animal waste, 

salts, and pesticides to stormwater runoff that can then threaten the groundwater. In urbanized areas 

within the Planning Area, large numbers of domestic septic tanks and cesspools can contribute to nonpoint source groundwater pollution. 

Four declared groundwater basins are located within the boundaries of Socorro and Catron Counties: Rio 

Grande, Gila-San Francisco, Gallup, and Tularosa. A small portion of an undeclared groundwater basin is 

located in the northeastern corner of Socorro County (New Mexico Office of the State Engineer [State 

Engineer] 2003). Map 3-1, Declared Groundwater Basins, shows the boundaries of the groundwater 

basins.

The Rio Grande Basin is the largest groundwater basin in New Mexico, extending approximately 

250 miles south from the Colorado-New Mexico border to just south of Socorro County. Approximately 

80 percent of Socorro County and 30 percent of Catron County lie within the Rio Grande groundwater 

basin. Depth to water in the Rio Grande Basin ranges from 12 feet to over 500 feet below ground surface, 

but is typically between 50 and 300 feet below ground surface (Roybal 1991). Groundwater flow 

direction in the Rio Grande Basin is controlled by the Rio Grande, local canals and conveyance channels, 

and areas of local pumping (Anderholm 1987). 

Available data from wells in the Rio Grande Basin indicate that groundwater quality varies from good 

(total dissolved solids less than 1,000 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) to brackish (total dissolved solids 

between 1,000 and 10,000 mg/L) (Roybal 1991). In general, groundwater quality near the mountain fronts 

is good. Closer to the Rio Grande Valley, total dissolved solids concentrations range from less than 

200 mg/L to over 3,000 mg/L (Roybal 1991). 

The Gila-San Francisco groundwater basin, located in south, west, and southwestern Catron County, 

includes both the Gila and San Francisco surface water drainages. Groundwater within the alluvial 

deposits of the San Francisco Basin is unconfined and provides sufficient water for many domestic and 

stock wells. Reported yields from the alluvial aquifer range from 1 to 375 gallons per minute 

(Basabilvazo 1997). Underlying the alluvial deposits in the Gila-San Francisco Basin is the Quaternary to 

Tertiary Gila Conglomerate, which produces moderate to poor quantities of water (reported yields of 2 to 

5 gallons per minute) (Basabilvazo 1997). 

The northwestern quarter of Catron County lies within the Gallup groundwater basin, which is adjacent to 

the western border of the Rio Grande Basin. Groundwater quality data for the Gallup and Gila-San 

Francisco basins are limited, but indicate that the quality generally is good. Groundwater in the vicinity of 

Zuni Salt Lake, located in the northwestern corner of the Gallup Basin, contains elevated concentrations 

of sodium (up to 400 mg/L) (Basabilvazo 1997). 

A small portion of southeastern Socorro County lies in the northwestern end of the Tularosa Basin. The 

primary aquifer in the Tularosa Basin is the basin-fill aquifer, located in the center of the basin, in Lincoln 

and Otero Counties. Most groundwater in this area is used for livestock watering (Roybal 1991). Sources 

of recharge to the groundwater basins include mountain-front recharge from snowmelt and rain, seepage 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-6 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

from the Rio Grande and ephemeral streams, recharge from excess applied irrigation water, and subflow 

from adjoining groundwater basins (Anderholm 1987; Roybal 1991). 

According to the State Engineer’s office, there are approximately 2,350 registered groundwater wells in 

Socorro County used for domestic and stock purposes and another 430 wells registered for nondomestic 

uses, including irrigation, mining, municipal, observation, and water for dairies (State Engineer 2003). 

Catron County has approximately 2,600 registered groundwater wells used for domestic and/or stock 

purposes and 40 registered wells for irrigation, commercial, and other uses (State Engineer 2003). The 

actual number of groundwater wells may be greater than the number of registered wells because, under 

New Mexico law, registration of wells is not required until the groundwater basin is declared by the State 

Engineer’s office. 

A total of 42,184 acre-feet of groundwater were withdrawn in Socorro County in 1995 (State Engineer 

2003). For the same year, Catron County reported a total of 964 acre-feet of groundwater withdrawn. Of 

the combined two counties’ groundwater withdrawals for 1995, 88 percent was used for agricultural 

irrigation (State Engineer 2003). Groundwater withdrawals in 1995 indicate an 8 percent increase from 

the total reported groundwater usage for 1975 (State Engineer 2003). 

3.2.4.2 Surface Water 

The Rio Grande bisects the eastern half of Socorro County for approximately 88 miles and is the effectual 

base level for all eastward-draining watersheds. The Continental Divide cuts across a portion of central 

Catron County, separating catchments that topographically drain to the Rio Grande from those that 

comprise the headwaters of the Gila and Little Colorado Rivers. Topographically, the Planning Area lies 

within the Gila River, San Francisco River, and the Rio Grande Basins region, as defined by the New 

Mexico Environment Department (NMED) (New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission 2002) for 

enforcement of the U.S. Clean Water Act (Title 33, United States Code, Section 1251, et seq. [33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.]); and the New Mexico Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Streams (New Mexico 

Administrative Code 20.6.4). 

3.2.4.3 Watersheds 

The Planning Area is divided into numerous watersheds and subwatersheds. Perhaps the most basic 

division is the Continental Divide, which separates drainages that topographically descend to the 

Colorado River from those that descend to the Rio Grande. Beyond this, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code system divides Socorro and Catron Counties into 9 and 12 watersheds, 

respectively (Table 3-2 and Map 3-2, Watershed Basins). Because of the small size of some watersheds, 

not all are visible on the map. 

One watershed of particular interest is the portion of Carrizo Wash that supplies Zuni Salt Lake, a feature 

of considerable geologic and cultural significance. Concern was first heightened when Salt River Project 

was granted a permit to mine coal from the Moreno Hill Formation at French’s Arroyo, about 12 miles 

from Zuni Salt Lake. The intention was to use groundwater from the Dakota Formation at the mine site 

included in the mine permit. It was originally believed, based upon existing hydrologic and geologic 

studies of the area (McGurk and Stone 1986; New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources 

Department [NMEMNRD] 1994), that the hydraulic behavior of the aquifers (leaky versus confined), 

insufficient hydrogeologic continuity, and the distance would preclude impacts to Zuni Salt Lake. Further, 

the source of water to the lake appeared to emanate from much deeper than the Dakota Formation 

(Willard 1957).
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-7 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

TABLE 3-2 

USGS-DESIGNATED WATERSHED AREAS FOR PLANNING AND DECISION AREAS 

Name 

USGS Hydrologic 

Unit Classification 

Number

Acres of BLMManaged Surface 

Land

Planning Area 

Acres

Percent of BLMManaged Surface 

Land in the 

Watershed Area 

Carrizo Wash 15020003 356,613 1,109,978 32.1 

Elephant Butte Reservoir 13020211 118,993 911,123 13.1 

North Plains 13020206 12,858 189,199 6.8 

Plains of San Agustin 13020208 137,842 1,267,315 10.9 

Rio Salado 13020209 18,161 155,199 11.7 

San Francisco 15040004 740 1,092,479 0.1 

Upper Gila 15040001 77,254 792,702 9.7 

Jornada Del Muerto 13020210 115,283 850,125 13.6 

Rio Grande-Albuquerque 13020203 276,817 934,046 29.6 

Rio Puerco 13020204 99,071 812,647 12.2 

Tularosa Valley 13050003 108,565 399,029 27.2 

SOURCE: U.S. Geological Survey 2003 

Subsequent work contracted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (King Engineering 2001) and the Zuni 

Nation (Glorieta Geosciences 1997, 2001) challenged these results; the BIA and Zuni Nation reports were 

counter-challenged (Duke Engineering 2001a, 2001b; U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI], Office of 

Surface Mine Reclamation and Enforcement 2001), and a controversy began that has not been resolved. 

Several pump tests were conducted on wells in the basin to evaluate (1) the behavior of the Dakota and 

Atarque Formation aquifers and (2) the effects of the proposed pumping by the Salt River Project on 

adjacent wells. The initial hydrologic work for the permit contracted by Salt River Project was directed 

primarily at establishing the potential for impairment to existing stock watering and domestic wells in the 

basin, not the impact on Zuni Salt Lake. Much of the exception taken by BIA and the Zuni Nation was 

based upon alternative interpretations of these results. Although a MODFLOW computer model was 

created for the prediction of impacts to both the Atarque and Dakota Formations (Glorieta Geosciences 

1997, 2001), these models again were focused upon the potential effects of the proposed mine operations. 

Recently, additional drilling and well testing has provided new insight into the hydrogeology of the lake 

(Glorieta Geoscience 2003). The Atarque Sandstone, which is found at, or very close, to the surface in the 

basin, appears to be contributing groundwater flow to the Zuni Salt Lake. The basin has not yet been 

investigated with any sort of predictive, quantitative hydrogeological/ geochemical model that represents 

the known complexity of the region, as was originally suggested by the NMEMNRD study (NMEMNRD 

1994). An extensive drilling and well-testing investigation also would be required since much of the data 

required by a regional model is confined to two small areas. 

Given the contentious nature of the situation, a study conducted and funded independent of any of the 

parties involved would be more likely to assist in resolving the controversy. 

However, the abandonment by the Salt River Project of the Fence Lake Mine project, removing any 

commercial impetus to answer these questions, has put such a plan on hold. At the present time, technical 

studies only support that groundwater extraction or injection in the basin could have an impact on the 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-8 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

chemical water quality or quantity of the Zuni Salt Lake and that the mitigation of such impact is within 

the land management decision-making capability of BLM. 

3.2.4.4 Water Quantity 

In most of the Planning Area, surface water is used only sporadically. Dependable, year-round sources of 

surface water are rare in this arid region. Those supplies that have been historically used at a high level, 

such as the Rio Grande, are under enormous pressure between exploding urban and suburban growth, 

industrial needs, agricultural water rights, and ecosystem survival. In addition, the overdrafted aquifers 

and potential for long-term drought have pushed these resources to critically low levels (State Engineer 

2002). 

USGS 1995 water use data reflects diverse water use in the Planning Area (Solley et al. 1998) For the 

period of record, uses in Socorro County consumed about 110 million gallons per day (mgd) and in 

Catron County, 16.6 mgd of surface water. This is approximately a third of the total surface water use in 

the 12 watersheds that are included within the two counties. Agricultural irrigation was the most 

prodigious user of surface water with a total use of 109 mgd in Socorro County and 16.2 mgd in Catron 

County. 

Surface water is not used domestically on any measurable scale within either the Planning Area or the 

greater watershed areas. However, individuals may capture rainwater for various nonpotable uses. 

Similarly, there is no surface water use for mining, industry, or power production within the Planning 

Area, although within the Rio San Jose watershed there are mouth-of-mine, coal-fired generating facilities 

in Cibola County that use surface water. Hydroelectric power also is generated below Elephant Butte 

Dam, located outside of the Planning Area. 

Livestock grazing remains the only other surface water use in the Planning Area, utilizing about 

0.32 mgd. Away from the Rio Grande, stock watering is a highly important consumptive use of surface 

water. Although many groundwater supplies are used in the livestock industry, numerous constructed or 

improved water facilities are scattered across the Planning Area in the form of check dams, earthen tanks, 

and other impoundments. In addition, some stock watering occurs along springs and seeps. Within the 

Plains of San Agustin, North Plains, and Jornada del Muerto closed basins, stock watering is the only 

measurable use of surface water. More information on surface water use in the Planning Area is available 

in the Management Situation Analysis on file in the Socorro Field Office. 

Use of water by wildlife and riparian habitat is not quantified by the USGS database, although studies 

demonstrate that it is an important resource (Arid West Water Quality Research Project 2002). The 

amount of water necessary to sustain aquatic or terrestrial ecosystems remains an intensely site-specific 

and complex quantity to define (Poff and Ward 1989). The consumptive use of water by healthy 

rangeland has been examined recently from a qualitative perspective (Pellant et al. 2000), but a regional 

or watershed-scale usage estimate, encompassing all of the different ecological functions of water, 

remains an open question. Thus, it is impossible to estimate the general use of water by ecosystems within 

the Planning Area. 

Perhaps the closest approximation to an ecological use of water in the terrestrial parts of the Planning 

Area is being developed at the Sevilleta Long Term Ecological Research site. A detailed water balance is 

one of the funded projects integrated with the Sevilleta Long Term Ecological Research program goals. 

The water balance will be correlated to changes in vegetation patterns and stream hydrology on the site. 

Much of the soil moisture, precipitation, and evapotranspiration data collected on the site is to be used for 

this modeling. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-9 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

The San Acacia reach of the Rio Grande is designated as critical habitat for the federally listed Rio 

Grande silvery minnow. Although this listing is discussed in other sections from a biological perspective, 

the critical impact causing the listing is declining flows on the mainstem of the river in the Planning Area. 

The reasons for this decline are complex and controversial. The flow in the river is managed by the 

Bureau of Reclamation through releases at upstream dams as part of the Rio Grande Project. Delivery of a 

portion of this water to Elephant Butte Reservoir is a stipulation of the Rio Grande Compact and other 

Federal water rights obligations. 

In June 2001, a Biological Opinion released by the USFWS indicated that the following hydrologic 

conditions must be met to avoid damaging the middle Rio Grande critical habitat within the Planning 

Area: (1) continuous flow from October to July would be required with a target at the San Marcial gage of 

50 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a minimum flow of 40 cfs; (2) in May and June the minimum flow at 

San Marcial would increase to 50 cfs; (3) during the spring, initiate a brief increase in flows to simulate 

snowmelt flooding and cue spawning; and (4) from July through October, 50 cfs over the San Acacia 

diversion dam would be required to maintain the habitat. In addition, other river restoration and 

enhancement projects were required (USFWS 2001). In October 2002, the U.S. District Court rejected the 

revised Biological Opinion and required Reclamation to maintain the 50 cfs flows in the San Acacia 

reach. There is no indication how this matter finally will be resolved, particularly given the continued 

drought in New Mexico, but it is clear that the court will require all Federal agencies to work on 

maintaining stream flows in the Rio Grande. It is also clear that the City of Albuquerque and agricultural 

irrigators will press for their legal share of any water that flows through the Planning Area. 

What does seem clear is that all Federal land management within the watershed of the San Acacia reach 

will be required to maximize surface flows to the river and otherwise protect aquatic and riparian habitat 

on the river. Although it does not manage river flows, BLM is currently playing an important part in 

riparian restoration along the river and manages a large percentage of this watershed. It is likely that all 

future actions that suggest an impact to the quality of runoff to the Rio Grande will require some analysis 

of the impact to listed species such as the silvery minnow. 

3.2.4.5 Water Quality 

Quality of the surface water in the Planning Area varies considerably. Several of the USGS stations 

maintain, or formerly maintained, water-quality monitoring stations in the various watersheds. NMED 

also monitors stream and lake water-quality data as part of their obligations under 308(d) of the Clean 

Water Act. USFWS monitors water quality in support of the two National Wildlife Refuges, and the 

Sevilleta Long Term Ecological Research has some limited data on sediment transport in their research 

plots.

Within Socorro County, the Socorro wastewater treatment plant (National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permit number NM0028835) discharges to the Luis Lopez Drain, which flows into 

the Riverside Drain and, ultimately, to the Rio Grande. Discharge from the facility is about 1.0 mgd. The 

facility is required to submit reports to NMED on water-quality monitoring of the released effluent. 

Water-quality concerns reported by the discharger are pesticides and sludge. 

The NMED 2002-2004 305(b) report on water quality in New Mexico was completed in July of 2002 

(New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission 2002). This report is the basis for listing on the 303(d) 

list of impaired State waters. Within the Rio Grande-Albuquerque watershed, NMED monitors the Rio 

Grande between San Acacia and San Marcial. No Rio Grande reaches located in the Planning Area are 

listed as impaired. The Rio Salado is monitored at the boundary with the Alamo Navajo Reservation. The 

report does not indicate any current water quality problems on these reaches. In the Tularosa Valley, 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-10 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

13 water bodies are monitored by NMED (including the evocatively named “Lake Stinky”). None of the 

Planning Area is impacted by any surface water-quality problems in the Tularosa Valley. 

Four lakes, including Quemado Lake, are monitored by NMED in the Carrizo Wash watershed. The lake 

has been classified by NMED as impaired by nuisance algae, excess nitrogen and phosphorus, and 

sediment, with extreme eutrophication problems. Three lakes are monitored in the Plains of San Agustin 

watershed; however, they do not appear to have any problems. The Rio Puerco, from the mouth on up, 

has been listed for excess silt disposition and this appears to be a continuing problem. However, NMED 

considers the stream as currently meeting all water quality standards. 

There are numerous monitoring sites in the San Francisco River watershed including Apache Canyon, 

Centerfire Creek, Glenwood Pond, Mineral Creek, Mule Creek, Negrito Creek (2), San Francisco River 

(5), Silver Creek, Trout Creek, Tularosa River (2), and Whitewater Creek (3). These sites have resulted in 

various listings for temperature, conductivity, total ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorus, fecal coliform, low 

dissolved oxygen, cyanide, aluminum, zinc, turbidity, riparian vegetation, and streambank destabilization. 

Many of these problems have been attributed to natural background or poor quality/incorrect data. 

However, several streams (Centerfire Creek, Negrito Creek, San Francisco River, Tularosa River, and 

Whitewater Creek) still have problems with a variety of parameters. 

The Upper Gila River also has been heavily monitored by NMED with sites within the Planning Area at 

Beaver Creek, Black Canyon Creek, Canyon Creek, Diamond Creek, Gila River (East Fork), Gila River 

(Middle Fork), Gila River (West Fork), Gilita Creek (2), Hoyt Creek, Iron Creek, Snow Canyon Creek, 

Taylor Creek (2), Willow Creek, and Wall Lake. Numerous problems have emerged from these data 

including temperature, phosphorus, nitrogen, low dissolved oxygen aluminum, turbidity, sediments, 

and/or nuisance algae. Wall Lake was found choked with macrophytes (water plants) and high in nutrients 

and sediment. As was the case for the San Francisco watershed, many of these water-quality issues were 

determined by NMED to be based on poor or incorrect data. Nevertheless, problems remain at Wall Lake, 

Black Canyon Creek, Canyon Creek, the East Fork of the Gila River, the Middle Fork of the Gila River, 

Gilita Creek, Taylor Creek, and Turkey Creek and all are listed as not supporting their designated use due 

to water quality impairments. 

The Elephant Butte Reservoir watershed is drained by several streams that flow out of the southern part of 

the Planning Area. The only stream that is monitored by NMED is Alamosa Creek. Alamosa Creek has 

been listed since 1998 for excess sediment and riparian vegetation and streambank destabilization. 

3.2.5 Vegetation

The information used to characterize current conditions in Socorro and Catron Counties was obtained 

from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) 

descriptions (BLM 2000a) and vegetation types classified by Dick-Peddie (1993). Southwestern ReGAP 

data were released in December 2005 and its field verification is ongoing, although the Chihuahuan 

Desert Ecoregion has been field-verified and will be cross-referenced in this document. Future planning 

efforts requiring vegetation data likely will utilize the ReGAP data, as available and appropriate. 

MLRAs identify homogeneous areas in terms of land use, elevation, topography, climate, water resources, 

potential natural vegetation, and soils. These broad scale descriptions are based on aggregations of 

geographically associated areas derived from state soil geographic database map unit boundaries, 

commonly referred to as ecological site descriptions. Vegetation types classified by Dick-Peddie are subtypes of the six major vegetation types found in New Mexico: tundra, forest, woodland, grassland, 

scrubland, and riparian. The MLRA model uses a soils-up approach to identify vegetative communities 

and habitat and the Dick-Peddie model uses a vegetation-down approach. Because the Dick-Peddie 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-11 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

dataset emphasizes vegetative communities and provides greater detail in describing the different plant 

communities, it is used to a greater extent to describe the overall vegetation composition and to assess 

impacts within the Planning and Decision Areas. 

3.2.5.1 Major Land Resource Areas 

The Planning Area contains parts of four MLRAs. MLRAs are broad geographic areas that have a distinct 

combination of climate, topography, vegetation, land use, and general type of farming (USDA, Soil 

Conservation Service 1981). The four MLRAs within the Planning Area include the (1) New Mexico and 

Arizona Plateaus and Mesas; (2) Arizona and New Mexico Mountains; (3) Southern Desert Basins, 

Plains, and Mountains; and (4) Pecos-Canadian Plains and Valleys. These categories are based on USDA 

classifications, and are shown on Map 3-3, Vegetation and Major Land Resource Areas. Rangelands also 

are divided into ecological sites for the purposes of inventory, evaluation, and management. Ecological 

sites are correlated between areas, states, and MLRAs on the basis of soils, proportion of species, and 

annual production of the potential plant communities. 

The acreage of each MLRA in the Planning and Decision Areas is provided in Table 3-3. The full extent 

of the Planning Area was not mapped due to low data resolution; therefore, the total number of acres of 

vegetation does not equal the total number of acres in the Planning Area. The following MLRA 

descriptions were taken directly from Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of The 

United States Agriculture Handbook 296 (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1981).

TABLE 3-3 

MAJOR LAND RESOURCE AREAS IN THE PLANNING AND DECISION AREAS 

Major Land Resource Areas (Vegetation Type)

Acres in 

Planning Area 

Acres in 

Decision Area 

Acres on BLMManaged 

Surface Lands 

New Mexico and Arizona Plateaus and Mesas 3,465,186 2,071,099 647,335 

Arizona and New Mexico Mountains 2,731,306 2,395,327 155,707 

Southern Desert Basins, Plains, and Mountains 1,750,938 1,195,302 505,986 

Pecos-Canadian Plains and Mountains 749,980 498,825 197,867 

Total 8,697,410 6,160,463 1,506,895 

SOURCE: Bureau of Land Management 2003a 

New Mexico and Arizona Plateaus and Mesas 

Elevation and Topography. Elevation ranges from 1,500 to 2,300 meters, but a few isolated mountains 

are higher than 2,600 meters. These plateaus and mesas have gentle slopes, but precipitous slopes occur 

along valley walls and edges of the mesas. 

Climate. Average annual precipitation is between 250 and 325 millimeters in most of the area but higher 

elevations receive an average of 375 millimeters. About two-thirds of the precipitation falls from 

midsummer to early autumn. The average annual temperature ranges from 9 to 12 degrees Celsius and the 

average freeze-free period is between 120 to 180 days. 

Water. Water is scarce because of the low precipitation and sparse streamflow. 

Soils. Most of the soils are Argids and Orthents. They are well drained and fine-textured to mediumtextured and have a mesic temperature regime, an aridic moisture regime, and mixed mineralogy. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-12 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Potential Natural Vegetation. Most of this area supports grassland vegetation. Indian ricegrass, blue 

grama, dropseed, and galleta are the major species. Alkali sacaton, fourwing saltbush, winterfat, and 

rabbitbrush grow in the valleys between mesas. Piñon-juniper woodland occur at the higher elevations 

and also on shallow soils and escarpments. The understory includes western wheatgrass, galleta, sideoats 

grama and, in some places, big sagebrush. 

Arizona and New Mexico Mountains 

Elevation and Topography. In most places, elevation ranges from 1,400 to 2,400 meters, with a 

maximum height of 3,800 meters. This area is mostly very hilly and mountainous, but an upland plateau 

is dissected by many deep canyons. 

Climate. The average annual precipitation ranges 275 to 900 millimeters, increasing with elevation. The 

average annual temperature is between 5 and 15 degrees Celsius. In timbered areas at higher elevations, 

the average is 7 degrees Celsius, and at lower elevations it is 10 degrees Celsius. The average freeze-free 

period ranges from less than 70 days at higher elevations to 170 days at lower elevations, averaging about 

115 days. 

Water. This MLRA supplies water for much of the adjoining irrigated areas. Because more than one-half 

of the annual precipitation occurs in winter, there is a general deficiency of moisture during the growing 

season. Several of the larger streams and a few of their larger tributaries maintain a yearlong flow. Much 

of this water is stored in reservoirs near or below the southern edge of the area and is used for irrigation 

and municipal water supplies. Small natural and artificial lakes at higher elevations are used for fishing 

and other recreation. Annual runoff into all reservoirs is highly variable, and most of the smaller lakes and 

reservoirs are dry in some years. Groundwater is limited and usually occurs at great depth. 

Soils. The dominant soils are borolls, boralfs, ustolls, ustalfs, orthents, and orthids. They have a cryic, 

frigid, or mesic temperature regime, depending mainly on elevation. 

Potential Natural Vegetation. This area supports alpine vegetation, conifer forests, chaparral, and grasses 

because of the broad elevation range. Cushion plants such as moss campion, kobresia, alpine timothy, and 

many low-growing forbs grow above timberline. 

Spruce-fir woodland characterizes the area below timberline. Aspen grows on sites that have not been 

disturbed by past fires. The understory includes Thurber fescue, brome, bluegrasses, mountain muhly, 

Arizona fescue, lupine, aspen peavine, penstemons, and daisies. The major part of the area is a vast 

ponderosa pine forest. Common understory plants include bromes, Junegrass, pine dropseed, 

wheatgrasses, mountain muhly, blue grama, sedges, and snowberry. Piñon-juniper woodland occurs at 

elevations below 2,100 meters. The understory includes blue grama, tobosa, sideoats grama, and western 

wheatgrass. Below elevations of about 1,800 meters, turbinella oak, mountain mahogany, hollyleaf 

buckthorn, ceanothus, and manzanita grow along with sideoats grama, blue grama, Junegrass, longtongue 

muttongrass, squirreltail, and bluegrasses. 

Southern Desert Basins, Plains, and Mountains 

Elevation and Topography. Elevation ranges from 800 to 1,500 meters in basins and valleys, but reaches 

more than 2,600 meters in the mountains. Broad desert basins and valleys are bordered by gently sloping 

to strongly sloping fans and terraces. Steep north-south trending mountain ranges and many small mesas 

occur in the western portion of the MLRA. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-13 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Climate. The average annual precipitation ranges from 200 to 325 millimeters. Maximum precipitation 

occurs from midspring to midautumn. The average annual temperature is between l3 and 18 degrees 

Celsius. An average freeze-free period of 200 to 240 days occurs in most of the area but only 180 days are 

freeze-free in the northern ends of the Pecos and Rio Grande valleys. 

Water. The Rio Grande and Pecos Rivers and a few of their larger tributaries are the only perennial 

streams. Water for irrigation generally is obtained from these rivers or from wells. Groundwater in deep 

valley fill provides water for domestic use and livestock, and in some places provides for irrigation. 

Soils. Most of the soils are argids and orthids. They are well drained and medium-textured and have a 

thermic temperature regime, aridic moisture regime, and mixed or carbonatic mineralogy. 

Potential Natural Vegetation. This area supports desert grass-shrub vegetation. Giant dropseed and mesa 

dropseed, along with scattered shrubs such as sand sagebrush and yuccas, grow on the sandier soils. 

Creosotebush, tarbush, catclaw, and javalinabush are found on gravelly, calcareous foot slopes. Giant 

sacaton, vine-mesquite, desert willow, brickellbush, and mesquite grow in drainageways and depressions. 

Piñon-juniper, scattered ponderosa pine, and Douglas fir also occur. 

Pecos-Canadian Plains and Mountains 

Elevation and Topography. Elevation ranges from 1,200 to 2,100 meters, increasing gradually from 

southeast to northwest, but reaches 2,400 meters on a few mesas and mountains. Most of these dissected 

high plains are gently sloping to rolling, but bands of steep slopes and rough broken land border the 

stream valleys. A few isolated mountains, mesas, and canyon walls have steep to very steep slopes. 

Valley floors are mostly narrow and cut by stream channels. 

Climate. The average annual precipitation is between 300 and 400 millimeters, but it fluctuates widely 

from year to year. Maximum precipitation occurs from late spring to early autumn. The average annual 

temperature ranges from 10 to 16 degrees Celsius, and the average freeze-free period is between 135 to 

200 days, decreasing from southeast to northwest. 

Water. Water is scarce throughout the area because of the low and erratic precipitation and the few 

perennial streams. Groundwater in deep sand and gravel in the north and from limestone in the southern 

two-thirds of the area provides water for domestic use and livestock; locally it provides water for 

irrigation. Groundwater is scarce in areas where shale and sandstone occur near the surface. 

Soils. Most of the soils are orthids, argids, and ustolls. They are well drained and moderately fine textured 

to moderately coarse textured and have mixed mineralogy. In the north and west, these soils have a mesic 

temperature regime and in the south and east a thermic temperature regime. They have an ustic or aridic 

moisture regime. 

Potential Natural Vegetation. This area supports plains grassland vegetation that is dominated by short 

and mid-grasses. Blue grama is the dominant species. Western wheatgrass is the associated species in the 

northern part of the area, while lesser amounts of blue grama in association with black grama, galleta, 

New Mexico feathergrass, and a variety of shrubs, halt shrubs, and forbs characterize the southern part. 

Scattered piñon-juniper with an understory of sideoats grama, bottlebrush squirreltail, and western 

wheatgrass grow on shallow soils and in escarpments. Ponderosa pine grows on north and east slopes of 

the high mesas. 

Cattle and sheep grazing is the principal enterprise. Eastern slopes of the high mesas in the north are 

covered by forest vegetation, but the total forested area is small. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-14 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

3.2.5.2 Vegetation Types 

Thirteen major vegetation types were identified for Socorro and Catron Counties with grasslands and 

desert scrub occupying the greatest area in Socorro County (Table 3-4). Catron County is a mix of 

mountain ranges with coniferous forests, woodlands and desert grasslands. These vegetation types are 

shown on Map 3-3, which is based on vegetation types classified by Dick-Peddie (1993). The acreage of 

each vegetation community in the Planning and Decision Areas is provided in Table 3-4. The full extent 

of the Planning Area was not mapped; therefore, the total number of acres of vegetation does not equal 

the total number of acres in the Planning Area. Following the table is a description of the vegetation 

types.

TABLE 3-4 

VEGETATION IN THE PLANNING AND DECISION AREAS 

Vegetation Type 

Acres in 

Planning Area 

Acres in 

BLM-Managed 

Surface Land 

Montane Grassland 441,716 0

Plains-Mesa Grassland 1,037,039 258,389 

Desert Grassland 1,015,066 316,268 

Subalpine Coniferous Forest 133,049 0

Montane Coniferous Forest 1,584,002 30,945 

Coniferous and Mixed Woodland 1,551,918 143,686 

Juniper Savanna 1,734,816 324,153 

Montane Scrub 87,000 11,456 

Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 603,066 201,015 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 531,604 168,059 

Closed Basin Scrub 189,832 13,941 

Lava Beds* 59,004 21,353 

Urban, Farmland, or Open Water 

Areas* 

109,697 15,518 

Total 8,670,812 1,504,782 

SOURCE: Dick-Peddie 1993 

NOTES: *These are land covers and not vegetation types. 

There are additional lava beds that are not shown in the Dick-Peddie data, as noted in Section 

3.2.5.2.4. 

Grasslands

Montane Grassland 

Montane grasslands are found within the subalpine and montane coniferous forest, usually occur from 

8,900 to 11,500 feet, and are best developed on a smooth terrain. Forbs share dominance with grass in this 

vegetation type. The dominant grasses are tall (up to 3 feet) bunch grasses including fescue (Festuca sp.), 

oatgrass (Danthonia sp.), junegrass (Koeleria sp.), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia sp.), and some species 

of bluegrass (Poa sp.) and muhly (Muhlenbergia sp.). Distribution of montane grassland in the Planning 

Area is limited to meadows in between the Mogollon and Elk Mountains in the south-central portion of 

Catron County. 

Plains-Mesa Grassland 

Plains-mesa grassland is the most extensive grassland in New Mexico. It merges with savanna or 

woodland at the highest elevational boundaries and with desert grassland or desert scrubland at its lowest 

elevational boundaries. Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) is the dominant species throughout this 

community, but other species also are common including buffalograss (Buchloe dachtyloides), galleta 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-15 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

(Hilaria jamesii), New Mexico feathergrass (Stipa neomexicana), and needle-and-thread grass (Stipa

comata). Forbs do not play a significant role in plains-mesa grassland, but some forb species are used as 

indicator species including red globemallow (Sphaeralcea cocinea), curly cup gumweed (Haplopappus 

spinulosus), coneflowers (Ratibida sp.), and Rocky Mountain zinnia (Zinnia grandiflora). A few shrubs 

may be scattered in the grassland including soapweed (Yucca glauca), fringed sage (Artemisia frigida),

winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), Bigelow sagebrush (Artemisia bigelovii), and honey mesquite 

(Prosopis glandulosa). Distribution of plains-mesa grassland in the Planning Area occurs on the plains of 

eastern Socorro County and northwestern and central Catron County, primarily on Chupadera Mesa in 

Socorro County and the North and San Agustin Plains in Catron County. 

Desert Grassland 

Desert grassland is a transitional zone between plains-mesa grassland or montane scrub at its higher 

elevational boundaries and Chihuahuan desert scrub or Great Basin desert scrub at its lower elevational 

boundaries. Under Southwestern ReGAP, this area is classified as Chihuahuan semi-desert grassland, 

which is further broken down to Chihuahuan piedmont semi-desert grassland and Chihuahuan sandy 

plains semi-desert grasslands. The list of major plants constituting desert grassland vegetation is extensive 

and variable, due to the transitional nature of this community. The dominant grass species is black grama 

(Bouteloua eriopoda) and other common grasses include bush muhly (Muhlenbergia porteri), sand 

dropseed (Sporobolis cryptandrus), and purple three awn (Aristida purpurea). Some common shrubs are 

longleaf ephedra (Ephedra trifurca), thick-leaved yuccas (Yucca baccata, Y. torreyi), and soaptree yucca 

(Y. elata). Subshrubs may include snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), feather peabush (Dalea formosa),

false mesquite (Caliandra eriophylla), various prickly pears (Opuntia spp.), and barrel cactus (Ferocactus

wislizenii). Desert grasslands are found along the Rio Grande and in the northwestern part of Catron 

County. Semi-desert grasslands are recognized for their regional biological value, especially their 

importance to grassland birds (NMDGF 2005a). Various raptor species utilize these grasslands, including 

the aplomado falcon. 

Woodland/Forests

Subalpine Coniferous Forest 

Subalpine coniferous forests occur generally from 9,500 feet to 12,000 feet. These forests have short 

growing seasons and heavy snow accumulation. This community is very important in the watershed, 

contributing to water storage and discharge from snow. The climate is cold, with a mean annual 

temperature at 34 to 36 degrees Fahrenheit and an annual precipitation of 34 inches per year. 

Characteristic trees include Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and corbark fir (Abies lasiocarpa var.

arizonica). Common shrubs are currants (Ribes montigenum) and bearberry honeysuckle (Lonicera

involucrate). Common grasses are fringed brome (Bromus ciliatus), mountain trisetum (Trisetum

spicatum), bluegrasses (Poa glauca), and nodding woodrush (Luzula parviflora). Common herbs are 

wood nymph (Monesis uniflora), showy fleabane (Erigeron peregrinus), white-flowered lousewort 

(Pedicularis racemosa), and alpine clover (Trifolium dasyphyllum). Distribution of subalpine coniferous 

forest in the Planning Area occurs in the Magdalena Mountains and San Mateo Mountains in western 

Socorro County and in the Mogollon, Tularosa, and Gallo Mountains interspersed in Catron County. 

Montane Coniferous Forest 

Montane coniferous forests occur generally from 8,000 to 10,000 feet. Precipitation (rain and snow) is 

abundant, so soils are moist for most of the growing season. There is a long growing season of favorable 

temperatures, so high biomass forests are found within this community. At lower elevations (generally 

below 8,500 feet) of the montane coniferous forests, the growing season is shorter (180 days), and the soil 

may be dry during the months of May and June. Characteristic trees of the higher elevations include 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-16 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca), white fir (Abies concolor), blue spruce (Picea pungens),

aspen (Populus tremuloides), and several pine species. Characteristic trees of the lower elevations include 

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Chihuahua pine (Pinus leiophylla), piñon (Pinus edulis), junipers 

(Juniperus sp.), and several oaks (Quercus sp.). Gambel oak (Q. gambelii) is the major associated 

understory shrub, but other shrubs may include New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana), creeping 

mahonia (Berberis repens), and wood rose (Rosa arizonica). Common associated herbs include ross 

sedge (Carex rossii), vetch (Vicia americana), peavines (Lathyrus arizonica), yarrow (Achillea

millefolium var. lanulosa), and sages (Artemisia ludoviciana and A. franserioides). Grasses such as 

Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), muttongrass (Poa fendleriana),

and fringed brome (Bromus ciliatus) are common. Distribution of montane coniferous forest in the 

Planning Area occurs in the Magdalena Mountains and San Mateo Mountains in western Socorro County 

and in the Mogollon, Tularosa, Gallo, Datil, San Francisco, Gallo, and Elk Mountains interspersed 

throughout Catron County. 

Coniferous and Mixed Woodlands 

Woodland vegetation differs from forests in two ways: the canopies of individual woodland trees rarely 

overlap and woodland tree species are typically smaller than forest tree species. Coniferous woodland in 

New Mexico includes piñon-juniper and mixed woodlands. Colorado piñon (Pinus edulis) is the most 

common piñon and one-seed juniper (Juniperus monosperma) is the most common juniper in New 

Mexico. Mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus) is the dominant understory shrub and big 

bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) is the dominant grass in piñon-juniper communities in the Planning 

Area. Gambel oak (Quercus gambellii) is codominant in the woodland in the San Francisco and Tularosa 

Mountains. Distribution of coniferous and mixed woodland in the Planning Area occurs on the 

downslopes of the Magdalena and San Mateo Mountains in western Socorro County and the Mogollon, 

Tularosa, Gallo, Datil, San Francisco, Gallo, and Elk Mountains interspersed throughout Catron County. 

Juniper Savanna 

Savanna is a transitional zone between woodland and grassland, when individual trees are widely spaced 

(10 percent canopy) in grass. Juniper savanna has developed in the past century, displacing grassland 

communities. It is debatable whether there was any natural juniper savanna vegetation in New Mexico 

prior to the recent development of this plant community. Distribution of juniper savanna in the Planning 

Area occurs on the plateaus of northeastern and northwestern Socorro and Catron Counties, primarily on 

Chupadera Mesa in Socorro County and the North and San Augustin Plains in Catron County. In the 

vicinity of Pie Town there may be old growth juniper savannah stands co-occurring with piñon. The 

piñon was cored and aged, and determined to be pre-European settlement. Unfortunately, junipers cannot 

be aged by this method, but the large diameter of the trunks, crown and growth forms indicate a much 

older age class. 

Climate change has affected the range of juniper for thousands of years but the expansion of juniper in the 

last 120 years due to anthropogenic factors is unprecedented. Juniper continues to expand, since 

American-European settlement, in range and density throughout the west. In prehistory, wetter periods led 

to the expansion of juniper. Juniper has increased since about A.D. 1500. Prior to Euro-American 

settlement, juniper were located sparsely throughout savannah-like environs, restricted mostly to rocky 

outcrops and rocky soils. Juniper stands have expanded and become more dense, even invading riparian 

areas, in recent history due to human caused factors. Increased juniper leads to less grasses and forbs as 

forage for wildlife and livestock and causes decreased plant species richness. Juniper extract nutrients 

from inter-tree spaces and deposit them beneath the trees’ canopies. Juniper intercept 15 to 20 percent of 

precipitation, leaving less for forage plants. Juniper also provides forage for some wildlife species and 

shelter for wildlife. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-17 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Scrubs

Montane Scrub 

Montane scrub is found where available moisture is less than expected, such as a high windswept knolls, 

southwesterly facing slopes, or rocky slopes. Dominant shrubs of montane scrub also are found in 

montane coniferous forests and woodlands including mountain mohagany (Cercocarpus montanus),

skunkbush (Rhus aromatica), gray oak (Quercus grisea), and currants (Ribes sp.). Many dominant plants 

of lower montane scrub also are found in desert grasslands including agaves and yuccas. Several 

semiriparian species are important in montane scrub such as apache plume (Falugia paradoxa),

chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), bigtooth maple (Acer grandidentatum), and hoptree (Ptelea

angustifolia). Montane scrub is found on the western slopes of the Magdalena Mountains and in the Sierra 

Oscura range in the southeastern portion of Socorro County. 

Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 

Plains-mesa sand scrub is dominated by deep-sand tolerant or deep-sand adapted species. The most 

common shrub is sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia), but broom snakeweed (Guiterrezia sarothrae) and 

fringed sabebrush also are common. Major grasses include indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides),

blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), dropseeds (Sporobolus sp.), purple three-awn (Aristida purpurea), and 

plains bristlegrass (Setaria leucopila). The most common forbs are annual buckwheat (Eriogonum

annuum) and sand verbena (Abronia angustifolia). This vegetation community occurs in small patches in 

the northern portion of the Planning Area and in the western portions of the White Sands Missile Range. 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 

The Chihuahuan Desert is located primarily in Mexico, but portions of the desert extend north onto the 

mesas bordering the Rio Grande floodplains in New Mexico. Creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) is the sole 

dominant shrub. Scattered stands of tarbush (Flourensia cernua) and ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens) also 

occur within this community. Other common plants include black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda), fluff grass 

(Dasyochloa pulchellum), mariola (Parthenium incanum), feather peabush (Dalea formosa), field bahia 

(Bahia absinthifolia), and desert holly (Acourtia nana). Chihuahan Desert scrub is distributed in the 

Planning Area on the floodplains of the Rio Grande in Socorro County. 

Closed Basin Scrub 

Closed basin scrub is a semiriparian habitat found in broad, flat, or gently sloping areas where water 

flows tend to spread out rather than concentrate within gullies. Large areas with dense stands of fourwing 

saltbush (Atriplex canescens) are typical of closed basin scrub vegetation. Pale wolfberry (Lycium

pallidum) can occasionally be a co-dominant with four-wing saltbush. Alkali sacaton ( Sporobolis 

airoides) and forbs from the goosefoot family, Chenopodiaceae, are also common. Ground cover is 

sparse with clumps of burrowgrass (Scleropogon brevifolius), gyp grama (Bouteloua breviseta) and gyp 

dropseed (Sporobolis nealleyi), bristlely coldenia (Tequilia hispidissimus), and occasional forbs. Closed 

basin soils are often highly gypsiferous, such as the soils in the White Sands Missile Range. The closed 

basins in the White Sands Missile Range support forbs such as gyp moonpod (Selinocarpus lanceolatus)

and mustard (Nerisyrenia camporum). The closed basin scrub community occurs in the White Sands 

Missile Range and southwest of Datil. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-18 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Land Cover 

Lava Beds 

Lava beds are composed of broken and cracked basalt lava. Lava beds located in the southeastern corner 

of the Planning Area are part of the Valley of Fires Recreation Area near Carizozo, which is managed by 

the BLM Roswell Field Office. According to the BLM Roswell Field Office, lava flowed from Little 

Black Peak approximately 1,500 years ago and flowed south into the Tularosa Basin. The resulting lava 

flow is 4 to 6 miles wide, more than 160 feet thick at the center, and 44 miles long, covering over 

125 square miles (BLM 2003i). Lava flows also are present in the Jornada del Muerto WSA. BLM has 

identified lava beds in northwestern Catron County, along US 60 near the Arizona border; these areas are 

not reflected in the mapped data on Map 3-3. 

Urban, Farmland, or Open Water Areas 

Urban, farmland, or open water areas are those with significant urban development, concentrated 

agriculture, or open water (such as the Rio Grande). In the Planning Area, this classification is found in 

the Rio Grande Valley centered around Socorro. 

3.2.6 Wildlife and Riparian Habitat

3.2.6.1 Big Game 

Of the 14 big game species in New Mexico, the three most common that occur in the Planning Area are 

the mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pronghorn antelope (Antilocarpa americanus), and Rocky 

Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus). Wild turkey, mountain lions (Felis concolor), black bears (Ursus 

americanus), javelina (Tayassu tajacu sonoriensis), and desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana)

occur in the Planning Area, as well as several exotic species. NMDGF regulates the seasons, bag limits, 

and appropriate licensing of the harvest of game species in New Mexico1.

Mule deer may be found throughout the Planning Area, but are most common within the coniferous forest 

and mixed coniferous woodland, riparian, and to some extent various scrubland and grassland habitat. No 

published information is available on population estimates for New Mexico; however, according to the 

NMDGF, the population has experienced a slight decline primarily due to drought conditions (NMDGF 

2003a).

Pronghorn antelope predominantly utilize grassland habitats within the Planning Area. Pronghorn habitat 

requirements include grasslands in good ecological condition with little topographic relief, good 

visibility, and abundant supply of forbs. No information is available on population estimates for New 

Mexico; however, according to the NMDGF, the population has experienced a slight decline primarily 

due to drought conditions (NMDGF 2003a). 

Rocky Mountain elk are very adaptable, primarily grazers, and utilize a variety of habitat types within the 

Planning Area. They are most commonly associated with the coniferous forest, mixed coniferous 

woodland, riparian, and to some extent grassland habitat. Through protection and the availability of 

unoccupied range, Rocky Mountain elk were established successfully in both their own historic range as 

well as the range of the extinct Merriam’s elk. Rocky Mountain elk now occupy a large percentage of 

suitable range and habitat. The NMDGF estimates the current population in New Mexico at 61,900 to 

77,500 (NMDGF 2001). 

 

1

 Note that the Ladron Mountain population of the desert bighorn sheep currently is not hunted. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-19 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Wild turkey utilize a variety of habitat types, but are most common within the coniferous forest, mixed 

coniferous woodland, and riparian habitat types. Two of the five subspecies of turkey occur in the 

Planning Area: Rio Grande turkey is found along the Rio Grande (M.g. intermedia) and Merriam’s turkey 

(M.g. merriami) occurs within suitable habitat throughout Catron and Socorro County. According to the 

NMDGF (2002b), the present statewide estimate is likely around 31,300 individuals (30,000 Merriam’s 

and 1,300 Rio Grande). 

Mountain lions occur throughout all habitat types in the Decision Area, but are most common where 

abundant prey is available. Because deer and elk are the most common prey species, habitats suitable for 

mountain lions require adequate habitat for mule deer and elk (enough browse). A long-range plan for 

mountain lion management in New Mexico was developed in 1997 (NMDGF 1997). The NMDGF has 

established hunting seasons, bag limits, and depradation resolution, and provides information on harvest 

quota for New Mexico, but no information on population status was available. 

Black bears are found in a variety of habitat types in the Planning Area. Occupation of certain habitat 

types is dependent on the season and availability of food resources. Black bears typically are found in 

coniferous forests, mixed conifer woodland, and riparian habitats. In 1988, there were roughly 1,700 to 

1,800 black bears in New Mexico, and the population was considered stable (Biota Information System of 

New Mexico [BISON-M] database, NMDGF 2005b). The population estimate in 2000 was approximately 

5,000 black bears and is considered stable (NMDGF 2003b). NMDGF has established hunting seasons, 

bag limits, and depradation resolution and provides information on harvest quota for New Mexico, but no 

information on population status was available. 

Javelina occur within desert, semi-desert, woodland, and riparian habitats. Use of habitat is dependant on 

the availability of water. Abundance, distribution, and expansion of habitat is influenced more by weather 

than any other factor. They feed primarily on roots, tubers, fruits, and cacti, and to some extent eggs and 

carrion. Javelina originally lived in extreme southeastern and extreme southwestern New Mexico. The 

species is at the northern extremity of its range. Recent years of mild winters has allowed expansion in 

abundance and range within southwest New Mexico and the Socorro Field Office. NMDGF has 

established hunting season, bag limits, and depradation resolution and provides information on harvest 

quota for New Mexico, but no information on population status was available (NMDGF 2005b). 

The Ladron Mountain desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) population was established in 

1992 with 23 bighorn sheep transplanted from the New Mexico Red Rock bighorn sheep-breeding 

facility, and was supplemented the following year with 8 more sheep (also from Red Rock). From 1993 

through 2001, NMDGF released 43 desert bighorn sheep in the Ladron Mountains as part of a population 

restoration effort, and estimates of the population size have ranged from 23 to 39 individuals (BLM and 

NMDGF 2002). To enhance suitable habitat and encourage the use of otherwise suitable habitat for desert 

bighorn sheep, the BLM has conducted prescribed burns, restored natural water sources, installed 

artificial water facilities, opened up travel corridors, and enhanced and restored selected habitat areas 

through mechanical treatment of woody vegetation in the Ladron Mountains within the proposed LadronDevil’s Backbone Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) complex. A 2002 study, funded by 

BLM and NMDGF, concluded that the population appears stagnant and recommended that (1) more 

individuals be translocated to establish a sustainable population; (2) more habitat be enhanced and forage 

quality improved through prescribed burns and mechanical treatment of woody vegetation in crucial 

areas, such as enhancement of travel corridors to water sources and between core habitats and ranges; and 

(3) additional water sources be provided (BLM and NMDGF 2002). The Ladron Mountain population of 

desert big horn sheep is not hunted. 

In 1997, it was documented that mountain lion predation was the primary cause of adult mortality in 

bighorn sheep in New Mexico (NMDGF 2003d). The NMDGF implemented a mountain lion removal 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-20 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

program in three of the bighorn sheep ranges (Peloncillos, Hatchets, and Ladrons) by increasing the 

mountain lion quota. The program is designed with an adaptive management approach—as the number of 

bighorn sheep increases and the percent of bighorn killed by mountain lions decreases, the number of 

mountain lions harvested to protect bighorn will decrease. 

Oryx (Oryx gazella), a large exotic African antelope species, inhabit the desert and semi-desert areas 

within eastern Socorro County. NMDGF released oryx on the White Sands Missile Range in the 1960s as 

a game species. The oryx population has grown since that time and expanded its range. It is a highly 

adapted desert species that subsists on desert shrubs and forbs in desert grassland habitat. Due to 

expansion of the species onto public land, NMDGF authorizes hunting opportunities to control numbers. 

Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia), an exotic species native to northern Africa, were released along the 

Canadian River by NMDGF beginning in 1950. Barbary sheep are rare within the White Sands Missile 

Range and may be moving onto public lands. Due to their expansion onto public land, the NMDGF 

authorizes hunting opportunities to control numbers. Similar to native bighorn sheep of the southwestern 

deserts, barbary sheep are adapted to dry, rough, and barren habitats. 

3.2.6.2 Small Game 

There are 18 small game species that are harvested legally in New Mexico. The three most common small 

game species found within the Planning Area are Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii), scaled quail 

(Callipepla squamata), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Gambel’s quail and scaled quail inhabit 

brushy habitats and are predominantly associated with desert grassland, scrubland, and riparian habitats. 

Montezuma quail, although not common in the Planning Area, inhabit the coniferous forest and mixed 

conifer woodlands and to some extent upland grassland habitat. Population numbers of the quail species 

fluctuate, depending in part on precipitation. Mourning doves are common to abundant throughout the 

Planning Area. Abert’s squirrel occurs primarily in the coniferous mountain habitat type in the 

southwestern portion of the Decision Area, but this species is not abundant in this area. 

3.2.6.3 Nongame 

Nongame species occur throughout the Planning Area. A complete list of species is on file at the Socorro 

Field Office in the Integrated Habitat Inventory Classification System (IHICS) database. 

Many species of amphibians and reptiles inhabit the Planning Area, which includes turtles, whiptail 

lizards, horned lizards, rattlesnakes, rat snakes, skinks, salamanders, and frogs. Frogs, toads, turtles, and 

salamanders are found primarily near a water source, and lizards, skinks, and snakes are found throughout 

grasslands and scrub habitats. 

Western New Mexico University, under contract to BLM, conducted amphibian and reptile surveys in the 

Socorro area, North Ladron, Rio Salado, Pelona Mountain, Horse Mountain, and Redhill in the spring of 

1998 (BLM 1999a). For lizards, they reported five species of whiptail, collared lizard (Crotaphytus

collaris), two species of horned lizard, two species of spiny lizard, northern tree lizard (Urosaurus 

omatus), and side-botched lizard (Uta stansburiana). For snakes, the University reported western 

diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), and garter snake 

(Tamnophis sp.). Only two species of amphibians were reported: canyon tree frog (Hyla arenicolor) and 

New Mexico spadefoot (Spea multiplicata); however, unidentified tadpoles were observed in several 

springs. No turtles were reported during this survey. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-21 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

3.2.6.4 Birds

A wide variety of bird species are found throughout the Planning Area including many resident, 

migratory, wintering, and transient species. With such a high diversity of habitats, New Mexico has 

recorded the second highest number of bird species of any land-locked state in the United States. More 

than 280 species of birds breed in New Mexico and the extensive grasslands are important for wintering 

birds. The Rio Grande Valley and other riparian corridors, such as the Rio Salado, serve as important 

flyway and stopover areas for migratory bird species. Many species have different breeding requirements 

in New Mexico than elsewhere in their range. Even within New Mexico, breeding requirements for 

certain species may differ. A list of bird species is on file at the Socorro Field Office in the IHICS 

database.

BLM continues to conduct annual surveys for breeding and song birds, Southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax trailii extimus), gray vireo (Vireo vicinior), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), and 

five species of raptors within the Planning Area. 

Breeding Birds

BLM established long-term monitoring sites in various habitats to record species richness and diversity, 

and record any trends associated with various treatments that may be applied (BLM 2001a). Five overall 

habitat types have been assessed since 1994 (riparian, grassland, piñon-juniper, sagebrush, and ponderosa 

pine). Information gained would facilitate the Socorro Field Office’s ability to make effective 

management decisions to protect, enhance, and restore habitat conditions. 

Raptors

BLM has conducted annual surveys for raptors throughout BLM-managed surface estate, which includes 

the identification of historic and/or potential habitat areas. In addition to conducting monitoring of known 

raptor nests, BLM is also in the process of conducting a study to inventory and map all raptor nests for 

purposes of identifying high use and/or critical habitat areas. Information gained would facilitate the 

Socorro Field Office’s ability to make effective management decisions to protect, enhance, and restore 

habitat conditions. Information is available at the Socorro Field Office in the IHICS database. Surveys 

have been conducted for ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Mexican 

spotted owl (Strix occidentalis), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), and aplomado falcon (Falco

femoralis).

3.2.6.5 Mammals 

Common species of rodents within the Planning Area include species of pocket mouse (Chaetopidus sp.,

Perognathus sp.), vole (Microtus sp.), wood rat (Neotoma sp.), deer mouse (Peromyscus sp.), kangaroo 

rat (Dipodomys sp.), squirrel (Sciurus and Ammospermophilus sp.), ground squirrel (Spermophilus sp.), 

chipmunk (Tamais sp.), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii), and black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus

californicus). Predators include the black bear and mountain lion, in addition to the following furbearers 

that may be harvested subject to conditions outlined by the NMDGF: coyote (Canis latrans), kit fox 

(Vulpes macrotis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus scottii), badger (Taxidea taxus), and bobcat (Lynx

rufus).

BLM is in the process of conducting surveys for black-tailed (Cynomys ludovicianus) and Gunnison’s 

(Cynomys gunnisoni) prairie dogs for the purposes of inventorying, monitoring, and identifying occupied 

and suitable habitat within BLM-managed surface estate. Gunnison’s prairie dog is listed as a sensitive 

species in New Mexico (Appendix L). Information gained from surveys would facilitate the Socorro Field 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-22 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Office’s ability to make effective management decisions to protect, enhance, and restore habitat 

conditions. Additional information is available at the Socorro Field Office in the IHICS database. 

BLM has conducted annual surveys since 1998 to determine occurrence and distribution of bat species 

within the Decision Area. The study objectives were to (1) conduct an inventory of bat species, 

(2) provide information on individual bats captured (species, gender, reproductive status), and (3) make 

recommendations for additional surveys or studies and habitat management and mitigation (BLM 2002a). 

3.2.7 Special Status Species

Within the Planning Area, 115 species (flora and fauna) potentially occur that have been classified as one 

or more protected status. An estimated 19 federally listed species, 42 State-listed species, and 50 BLM 

sensitive species may occur within the Planning Area.2

 Federally listed, State-listed, and BLM sensitive 

species were identified through a review of the Biota Information System of New Mexico database 

(NMDGF 2005b). Some of the special status species in the Planning Area include the Southwestern 

willow flycatcher, black-tailed and Gunnison’s prairie dogs, and desert bighorn sheep. A table of all 

special status species identified in the area, as well as descriptions of federally listed species, is included 

in Appendix L. A draft Biological Assessment was prepared in support of this planning effort; this 

document provides additional information on special status species. 

3.2.7.1 Aplomado Falcon 

In the United States, aplomado falcons historically occurred in southern Texas, southern New Mexico, 

and southeastern Arizona. Although aplomado falcons once were considered fairly common throughout 

their U.S. range, populations declined rapidly after the 1930s. The aplomado falcon was federally listed as 

endangered in 1986. Starting in the early 1990s, increases in reliable falcon sightings prompted additional 

interest in recovery of the species in New Mexico. At that time, the closest known free-ranging population 

to New Mexico was in northern Chihuahua, Mexico (Young et al. 2002). 

A recent study was finalized to determine habitat suitability for northern aplomado falcons in the northern 

Chihuahuan Desert, throughout southern New Mexico, western Texas, and northern Chihuahua, Mexico 

(Young et al. 2002). Information from this project was designed to provide a tool for land managers to 

help prioritize areas for conservation actions. The underlying premise of the aplomado falcon predictive 

habitat model and associated maps is that they identify and depict potentially suitable habitat areas for 

prospective use by and conservation of aplomado falcons. These potentially suitable habitat predictions 

are not predictions of certain habitation by aplomado falcons; rather, they are starting points for more 

detailed conservation assessment or evaluation of the presence of requisite habitat features and advisability of specific management actions intended to benefit falcons and their habitat. Based on the model, 

over 74 percent of the Planning Area is over 6,000 feet in elevation and is, therefore, not considered 

suitable habitat. Of the remaining area, approximately 696,320 acres (8 percent of the Planning Area) 

consists of potential highly suitable habitat occurring in continuous patches, primarily on the east side of 

Interstate 25 (I-25) in the Jornado del Muerto (southeast of Socorro) and a small patch of habitat in the 

foothills of the Magdalena Mountains. In addition, an aplomado falcon prey base study was conducted in 

2004 and 2005. The results of this study indicate larger prey availability within the Planning Area than 

that available in Chihuahua, Mexico. The BLM Socorro Field Office is currently conducting a five-year 

study and habitat suitability assessments to inventory and identify suitable habitat areas, as depicted by 

the model. 

 

2

 Since there are duplicates among the federally listed, State-listed, and BLM sensitive species, these numbers do 

not add up to 115. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-23 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

In 2006, the USFWS approved a proposal to release a non-essential experimental population of aplomado 

falcons in Arizona and portions of New Mexico (10j rule). Under the 10j rule, populations would be 

treated as proposed for listing outside of National Wildlife Refuges and National Parks. Lands managed 

by the Socorro Field Office are identified under the 10j rule as habitat. In addition, the Armendaris Ranch, 

which is adjacent to BLM-administered land in the Planning Area, has been identified as a potential 

release site (USFWS 2005). 

The two last sightings of solitary aplomado falcons in the Planning Area were in 1998 north of Bernardo, 

and in 1992 west of Bingham. 

3.2.8 Wild Horses

The Bordo Atravesado Wild Horse Herd Management Area is located in Socorro County within the 

Bordo Atravesado grazing allotment. The herd management area encompasses 19,598 acres, which 

includes BLM, private, and State land (Map 3-4, Bordo Atravesado Wild Horse Herd Management Area). 

This boundary was established based upon observations of wild horse movement and use patterns, 

inventories, terrain, and existing fences.

3.2.9 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

3.2.9.1 Wildfire

Between 1968 and 2002, there were 158 wildfires on lands administered by the Socorro Field Office. 

During those years, annual ignitions ranged from zero in six of the 33 years to 10 ignitions in 1971, 13 in 

1983, and 13 in 1994. Over 85,000 acres burned during the entire period; however, 25 percent of that 

acreage burned in 1993 and 1994, and 38 percent in 2000 due to the Chance fire that burned more than 

32,000 acres. During this period, lightning caused 130 of the fires with sizes ranging from 0.1 acre to 

32,000 acres. Three of the fires were caused by arson and six by burning debris. Fuels consumed were 

primarily grass, piñon-juniper, sagebrush, and a small amount of creosote (BLM 1989a, 2002b). 

Wildfire history data are available for the Decision Area for the years between 1986 and 2002. During 

that time, the highest fire occurrence in the Decision Area was May through July with lower occurrence 

from March through April and August through October. As of September 10, 2002, two fires were 

recorded on lands administered by the Socorro Field Office. Both fires were started by lightning. The two 

recorded fires burned a total of 77 acres. Other lands in the Planning Area that are not managed by BLM 

recorded a total of 223 fires in 2002, for a combined total of 16,529 acres burned. The majority of those 

fires were caused by lightning strikes; however, nearly 40 were human-caused (Southwest Area Wildland 

Fire Operations 2002). 

As more people build homes, operate businesses, and recreate in areas bordered by wildlands, the threat 

to private property from wildland fire increases. BLM has identified the wildland-urban interface as a 

potential safety hazard with respect to fires and fire management. The Planning Area contains parcels of 

public land that are “checkerboarded” with private land. Small towns such as Socorro and Reserve are 

also a concern with regard to fire due to their proximity to public land. The heavy fuel loading on public 

and private land in this area generates a risk to the communities. In 2001 and 2002, efforts were made to 

create fuel breaks at Pie Town, Datil, Chupadera Mesa, Horse Mountain, and other areas with potential 

wildland-urban interface fire risks. 

3.2.9.2 Fire Treatments 

The Socorro Field Office has implemented more than 32,000 acres of fire-related treatments over the past 

eight years within designated fire management units. These treatments include prescribed fire, prescribed 

natural fire, mechanical, and chemical treatments. Prescribed fire involves designating and burning 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-24 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

specific areas while taking into consideration weather, intensity of burning, and vegetation type. Wildland 

fire use occurs when a wildfire starts in an area that would benefit from fuels reduction and the fire is 

allowed to naturally reduce fuels before it is suppressed. Mechanical treatment involves the use of various 

types of mechanized equipment to clear out understory, brush, and/or trees and then pile and burn it. 

Chemical treatment involves the use of herbicides to target species to reduce their competitive effect on 

more desirable species as well as to reduce fuel loadings. 

Future fire management and treatment will be guided by the 2004 Fire and Fuels Management Plan 

Amendment for BLM Lands in New Mexico and Texas. Appendix A of the Plan Amendment describes 

the Fire Management Units, and acres of Fire Regime Condition Class and Fire Management Units that 

are currently applied to the lands managed by the Socorro Field Office also are described in the Plan 

Amendment. Additional information on fire management is available in the Plan Amendment and the 

Management Situation Analysis, available in the Socorro Field Office. 

3.2.10 Cultural Resources

3.2.10.1 Archaeological and Historical Sites 

When the 1989 Socorro RMP was prepared, 2,918 archaeological and historical sites had been recorded 

in the Planning Area. Some sites reflect multiple occupations and, when different cultures or time periods 

can be recognized, they are recorded as separate temporal components. A total of 3,407 temporal 

components had been identified at the 2,918 sites that had been recorded. 

Approximately 27 percent of the recorded sites (787) were on public land managed by BLM. Public land 

constitutes about 17 percent (1,506,504 acres) of the Planning Area (8,693,460 acres). The average density 

of approximately one site recorded per 3 square miles of public land was higher than the average of 

approximately one site per 5 square miles on other land within the Planning Area. Information about the 

extent of cultural resource survey was not documented, and the variation in site density probably reflected 

more survey effort on public land rather than an actual difference in the density of archaeological and 

historical sites. Because the extent of survey was not documented, there was no firm basis for estimating 

the total number of archaeological and historical sites that might be present within the Planning Area. 

However, it was clear that only a small fraction of the archaeological and historical sites in the Planning 

Area had been discovered and recorded. The 1989 Resource Management Plan (RMP) reported an 

estimate that there could be 20,000 to 30,000 sites on public land within the Planning Area (BLM 1989a). 

The types and numbers of cultural components recorded on public land are similar to those recorded on 

nonpublic land. Paleoindian components are rare and constitute only 1 percent of the inventory. Archaic 

components are more common, constituting 14 percent of the public land inventory. Ceramic period 

components dominate the inventory, constituting approximately half of the recorded components. Navajo 

and Apache components are about as rare as Paleoindian components, and may be under-represented 

because they are so difficult to identify. Historic era components constitute 8 percent of the public land 

inventory. The cultural affiliation of 32 percent of components recorded on public lands are unidentified. 

BLM is cooperating with and providing financial support for the State Historic Preservation Office in 

developing the computerized New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System (NMCRIS), and is 

using NMCRIS to maintain an inventory of cultural resources recorded on public land throughout New 

Mexico. Originally, NMCRIS was a tabular database of archaeological and historical site attributes, but is 

now being upgraded into a GIS format. NMCRIS has incorporated GIS information about the nature and 

location of archaeological and historical sites in the Planning Area, and information on surveyed space is 

being entered into the database. It must be noted that the NMCRIS information was collected by many 

different researchers over a period of at least eight decades for a variety of reasons, and is subject to some 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-25 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

inconsistencies, incompleteness, and errors. However, the database is constantly being upgraded and 

expanded. Approximately 90 percent of the NMCRIS information about the Planning Area has been 

compiled by surveys undertaken since the 1970s in response to increasing Federal and State emphasis on 

historic preservation and cultural resource management. Even during the last 30 years, standards for 

intensive cultural resource survey and resource recording and evaluation have evolved considerably. 

The BLM Socorro Field Office prepares annual reports of cultural resource program activities and 

maintains an annual log of project reports. Table 3-5 summarizes inventory information tabulated in the 

reports since 1989. 

TABLE 3-5 

SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AFTER THE 1989 RMP 

 Projects1 Acres Surveyed Sites Recorded Sites Evaluated3

Fiscal Year BLM 

nonBLM2

 Total BLM 

nonBLM Total BLM non-BLM Total 

National

Register 

Eligible2

National

Register 

Ineligible2

1990 35 28 63 1,603 1,602 3,205 22.0 2.0 24 8 9

1991 14 19 33 210 137 347 6.0 2.0 8 3 1

1992 23 23 46 14,790 678 15,468 241.0 36.0 277 142 53

1993 65 10 75 478 1,933 2,411 17.0 58.0 75 16 4

1994 19 23 42 3,125 5,418 8,543 286.0 52.0 338 235 51

1995 22 23 45 478 177 655 4.0 19.0 23 13 9

1996 19 17 36 1,167 453 1,620 15.0 11.0 26 15 4

1997 21 11 32 650 350 1,000 6.0 8.0 14 17 4

1998 18 9 27 598 754 1,352 20.0 7.0 27 16 5

1999 14 20 34 585 809 1,394 16.5 27.5 44 29 4

2000 14 15 29 1,639 308 1,947 22.5 6.5 29 6 3

2001 14 16 30 1,747 588 2,335 54.5 26.5 81 30 15

2002 14 25 39 2,273 598 2,871 83.0 21.0 104 64 8

2003 11 13 24 773 229 1,002 56.0 4.0 60 4 3

2004 16 19 35 1,812 341 2,153 95.0 12.0 107 64 13

Totals 319 271 590 31,928 14,375 46,303 944.54 292.5 1237 662 186

square miles = 49.9 22.5 72.3

sites per square mile 18.9 13.0 17.1 

average 21 18 39 2,129 958 3087 63 20 82 44 12

 square miles = 3.3 1.5 4.8 78% 22%

10-year projection 393 21,285 9,583 30,869 630 195 825 

 square miles = 33.3 15.0 48.2

SOURCE: BLM Socorro Field Office Cultural Resource Program annual reports and report logs, 1990-2004 

NOTES: 1 Includes undertakings for which literature searches, field surveys, or other studies were conducted. 2

 Socorro Field Office has worked with approximately 2 to 12 cultural resource permittees annually in implementing the cultural

resource program. 3 Determinations of eligibility for the National Register are not limited to sites recorded in the current year. 4

 This sum plus the 787 recorded sites reported in the 1989 RMP indicates a total of 1,732 sites have been recorded on public 

land, but NMCRIS includes information for only 1,079 sites. The discrepancy could be due to many factors. The numbers are 

based on report logs, which include previously recorded sites that could have been counted more than once. Changes in 

jurisdiction and inconsistencies and ambiguities in record keeping could account for part of the discrepancy, and some sites may

not yet have been entered into the NMCRIS database. 

The information in the annual reports suggest there could be as many as 190,000 to 230,000 

archaeological and historical sites in Catron and Socorro Counties, including approximately 40,000 to 

50,000 on public lands. If the trends of the last 15 years hold, about 80 percent of those sites could have 

values that warrant protection. At the current rate of survey, another 1.5 percent of the public lands would 

be intensively inventoried over the next 10 years, and approximately 600 more archaeological and 

historical sites would be discovered and recorded. 

Evaluating the significance of the archaeological and historical sites recorded on public land is an 

ongoing, dynamic aspect of the cultural resource management program. Although records indicate that 

approximately 80 percent of the recorded sites are regarded as eligible for the National Register of 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-26 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Historic Places (National Register), a rigorous listing of significance evaluations has not been compiled. 

Most of the sites evaluated as eligible for the National Register are significant because of their potential to 

yield important information about the prehistory or history of the area (Criterion D), and these are 

assigned to BLM’s scientific use category. This is one of five use categories that BLM uses to facilitate 

management (see BLM Manual 8110.4). 

The significance of many of the recorded archaeological and historical sites has not been evaluated and, 

therefore, eligibility for the National Register remains unknown. Often, test excavations are needed to 

fully evaluate some archaeological sites. Until evaluated, these sites and similar unrecorded sites that may 

be eligible for the National Register because of their information potential are assigned to BLM’s 

category of scientific use until further investigation confirms or refutes the appropriateness of such 

assignments. Sites assigned to the scientific use category may not need to be conserved if a data recovery 

plan can be implemented to make appropriate use of their research importance. 

3.2.10.2 Special Status Cultural Resources

The 1989 RMP indicated that four properties on public land had been listed on the National Register, 

including the Ake site (LA 13423), Bat Cave (LA 4935), Cox Ranch Ruin (or Mogollon Pueblo, 

LA 13681), and Fort Craig (LA 1091). The Fort Craig site was acquired by the Archaeological 

Conservancy and donated to the BLM in 1981. Two other properties were identified as having been 

nominated to the National Register, including La Parida (a nineteenth- and early twentieth-century 

Hispanic village, LA 31718) and Piro thematic sites. The Teypama site (LA 282), one of the Piro thematic 

sites, was listed on the National Register in 1983. Site LA 282 was identified as the Piro village named 

Teypama (or Teypana) by the Oñate Expedition in June 1598. Subsequent research calls into question that 

identification and suggests Site LA 282 may be another Piro village named Penjeacu (Bletzer 2004). La 

Parida had been listed on the State Register in 1986. In addition, the Mockingbird Gap site (LA 26748) 

was listed on the State Register of Cultural Properties, and BLM managed the Arroyo del Tajo pictograph 

site (LA 31719) as an ACEC. Cultural resource management plans have been prepared for the Arroyo del 

Tajo pictograph site, Bat Cave, Fort Craig, and Teypama. 

When the 1989 RMP was prepared, more than 130 other properties on nonpublic land within the Planning 

Area had been designated as special status sites. These included the Gran Quivera unit of the Salinas 

Pueblo Missions National Monument and the Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument, both managed by 

the National Park Service. The Trinity Site on the White Sands Missile Range, which is where the first 

atomic bomb was detonated, is designated as a National Historic Landmark. National Register-listed 

properties on national forests included Gallinas Springs Ruin and five properties listed as part of the 

National Forest Fire Lookouts in the Southwestern Region thematic resource nomination. The Socorro 

Mining Company Fannie Hill Mill in Mogollon and the Mogollon Historic District also were listed. 

Fourteen historic buildings in Magdalena had been listed along with the Clemens Ranch House south of 

Magdalena. The Sagrada Familia de Lemitar Church in Lemitar and six historic buildings in Socorro were 

listed as well. 

In 1989, almost one hundred properties had been listed on the State Register but not on the National 

Register. Most of these were historic buildings, including approximately 73 in Socorro, five in San 

Antonio, five in Mogollon, one in Polvadera, and a historic town site, Paraje de Fra Cristobal, near San 

Marcial. Other historic-era properties included the Whitewater Canyon Pipeline in Glenwood, a church 

and mine at the ghost town of Kelly, and the Ojo Caliente military post in the vicinity of Winston. The 

historic Magdalena Stock Driveway also was listed on the State Register, but the listing included only a 

small commemorative area adjacent to US 60 near Magdalena and did not encompass the stock driveway 

itself, which was about 5 to 10 miles wide, stretching approximately 120 miles from Springerville, 

Arizona to the railhead at Magdalena. Eight other listed properties were large archaeological sites, 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-27 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

including the Mogollon Village site (near Glenwood), Apache Creek Ruin (near Apache Creek), Tularosa 

Cave (near Aragon), Goesling Ranch Pueblo (near St. Johns), Hubble Corner Pueblo (near Quemado), 

Tom’s Rock Pueblo (near Pie Town), Alamo School Pueblo (near Alamo), and Sandal Cave (near San 

Antonio). Zuni Salt Lake also was listed on the State Register. 

The 1989 RMP expanded and formalized the Tinajas ACEC, which included the Arroyo del Tajo 

pictograph site. The 1989 RMP also designated nine special management areas (SMAs) to protect cultural 

resources. These included three properties listed on the National Register (149 acres at Fort Craig, 

640 acres at Cox Ranch Ruin [Mogollon Pueblo], and 17 acres at Teypama), and two listed on the State 

Register (12,139 acres at Mockingbird Gap, and 5,926 acres at Zuni Salt Lake). In addition, two SMAs 

were designated along the Rio Salado, one of 6,028 acres to protect a cluster of about 30 archaeological 

sites dating from the Basketmaker III through Pueblo II periods, and another of 563 acres around the 

historic town of Riley (Santa Rita) settled in the 1880s. Two other SMAs were designated to protect large 

archaeological sites including 37 acres around the Newton Site, a 150- to 200-room pueblo on the 

periphery of the Acoma cultural province, and 245 acres around two sites known as the Playa Pueblos 

(Fernandez Pueblo, LA 781, and Pueblo del Cerrito, LA 782). Each of these pueblos has 200 or more 

rooms, and was occupied from about A.D. 1150 to perhaps as late as 1700, probably by peoples that were 

known as the Tompiro or Piro in the early historic era. 

The 1989 RMP designated 13 other SMAs primarily for wildlife, sensitive plant, watershed, rangeland, 

and recreation values. Many of these also provide protection opportunities for cultural resources. For 

example, Bat Cave is within the Pelona Mountain SMA designated for wildlife, the Cerro Pomo Ruin is 

within the Cerro Pomo SMA designated for recreation, and the historic Datil Well, associated with the 

Magdalena Stock Driveway, is within the Datil Well SMA designated for recreation. Cultural resources 

also are identified as secondary resources that would be protected within the Ladron Mountain, Agua 

Fria, Stallion, Fence Lake, Walnut Canyon, and San Lorenzo Canyon SMAs that were established for 

wildlife, watershed, and recreation resources. 

Most special status properties and any similar unrecorded sites are assigned to the BLM category of 

conservation for future use. This classification indicates these resources are worthy of segregation from 

other land or resource uses that would threaten maintenance of their current condition or setting, including 

studies.

Selected special status sites, including Fort Craig and Datil Well, are assigned to BLM’s public use 

category. Such resources are appropriate for public interpretation or related educational and recreational 

uses. The Zuni Salt Lake SMA and Town of Riley SMA are assigned to BLM’s traditional use category. 

These resources are managed to accommodate their continuing traditional uses. 

3.2.10.3 Traditional Cultural Properties 

When the 1989 RMP was prepared, two resources were identified as having traditional cultural values, 

and subsequently these types of resources have come to be referred to as Traditional Cultural Properties. 

These included Zuni Salt Lake and the community of Riley (Santa Rita). As discussed in the previous 

section, the 1989 RMP designated both of these as SMAs. 

After Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was enacted in 1990, the BLM New 

Mexico State Office compiled an inventory of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and items 

of cultural patrimony that had been collected from public land in New Mexico prior to 1990. The 

inventory included 13 sets of human remains and 13 funerary objects from five sites within the Socorro 

Planning Area. Once the inventories were completed, cultural affiliations were evaluated and tribes 

determined to be affiliated were notified. None of these communities requested that any of the inventoried 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-28 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

remains and cultural items be repatriated, and they remain at the Museum of New Mexico in Santa Fe or 

the University of New Mexico Maxwell Museum of Anthropology in Albuquerque (Fosberg 2003). 

Since the 1989 RMP was completed, the Socorro Field Office has continued to consult with numerous 

American Indian communities with traditional cultural interests in the Planning Area, but these 

communities have not identified any additional Traditional Cultural Properties. As discussed in the 

previous section, Zuni Salt Lake and the surrounding area has been the one Traditional Cultural Property 

that has been the focus of attention (Hart and Ferguson 1993). Zuni Pueblo, Pueblo of Acoma, Hopi 

Tribe, Ramah Band of the Navajo, and other communities were concerned that the proposed development 

of the Fence Lake Coal Mine by Salt River Project would adversely affect Zuni Salt Lake and associated 

cultural resources. However, in August 2003, Salt River Project decided not to pursue development of the 

mine.

Additional information on cultural resources, including a narrative on cultural history, is included in the 

Management Situation Analysis that is available from the Socorro Field Office. 

3.2.11 Paleontological Resources

Socorro and Catron Counties have a large variety of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks 

representing all of the major geologic time periods from the Precambrian to Quaternary, except the 

Jurassic. Paleontological resources may be found in the sedimentary rocks of these time periods as well as 

in the more recent unconsolidated deposits of the Pleistocene. The paleontological resources are discussed 

based on the Planning Area since known fossil localities may occur outside of BLM-managed public land, 

but serve as an indication of possible resources that may be found in rock formations and deposits that 

crop out on public land. 

The geologic units range from almost two billion years old to the present. In the Planning Area, the 

formations of the early Paleozoic (limestones, sandstones, shales, and conglomerates) are exposed only in 

portions of Socorro County and represent nearly 320 million years of deposition of marine sediments with 

invertebrate fossils. Rocks of the early Paleozoic crop out along escarpments of the Sacramento, 

Mockingbird, San Andres, San Mateo, Chupadera, Sierra Cuchillo, Magdalena, and Ladron Mountains in 

west central New Mexico. There are no known Cambrian vertebrates in New Mexico. A few 

heterostracan tessarae (early fish) were found in glauconitic sandstone in the northern part of the 

Sacramento Mountains. The sandstone is believed to be part of the Cambro-Ordovician Bliss Formation. 

The overlying younger Paleozoic sediments include marine and continental sandstones, redbeds, 

limestones, and gypsiferous units. No Silurian vertebrates are known to occur in New Mexico. There are 

several reports of late Devonian vertebrates (bone beds with abundant ichthyoliths and conodonts) in the 

Sacramento Mountains in the easternmost portion of Socorro County (Zidek and Kietzke 1993). 

Mississippian invertebrates and sharks teeth have been found in Socorro County (Ratkevich and La Fon 

1978). The Pennsylvanian Madera Formation and Astrasado Formation have yielded several species of 

early fishes and sharks. Various reptiles, amphibians, and fish have been found in outcrops of the Permian 

Bursum, Abo, and Yeso formations. The Abo Formation along the Rio Grande has yielded numerous 

Permian vertebrate fossils including several species of amphibians and reptiles, and fragments of Eryops, 

Sphenacodon, and Ophiacodon (New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science [NMMNH&S] 

2002; Zidek and Kietzke 1993). 

The Mesozoic Era is known as the Age of Reptiles, which included dinosaurs. Triassic deposits are 

exposed in northwest Socorro and Catron Counties and include conglomerates, sandstones, and siltstones 

primarily of the Santa Rosa Sandstone and Chinle Formation. The Chinle has yielded some of New 

Mexico’s oldest dinosaurs. Trackways and bone fragments of theropods, ornithischians, and coelophysis 

have been recorded. Triassic fossils in northern Socorro County include petrified wood and fragments of 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-29 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

phytosaur bone (Lucas and Heckert 1994). Petrified wood has been found in the Chinle in northwestern 

Catron County. There are no Jurassic-aged rocks in southern New Mexico (Hunt and Lucas 1993a, 

1993b). During the Cretaceous, New Mexico was on the western margin of a vast epicontinental seaway 

that split the North American continent into two landmasses. A series of transgressive-regressive cycles 

moved the shoreline from central Arizona to northeastern New Mexico. Numerous Cretaceous formations 

crop out along the northern portion of the Planning Area. The Cretaceous units consist of shoreline and 

near shore deposits (sandstone, siltstone, shale, and coal) from the numerous marine transgressive and 

regressive sequences. Most Cretaceous vertebrate fossils in New Mexico are found in the non-marine and 

shallow marine sequences (Hunt and Lucas 1993c). Cretaceous dinosaur fossils have been discovered in 

the Moreno Hill Formation in west-central New Mexico and the McRae Formation in south-central New 

Mexico. In west-central New Mexico, the lower part of the Moreno Hill Formation preserves a vertebrate 

fauna that includes fish, crocodiles, turtles and dinosaurs. A new ceratopsian dinosaur discovered in the 

Zuni Basin has been described from this geologic unit called Zuniceratops christopheri from skull, jaw 

and horn elements of the animal (Wolf and Kirkland 1997). The Zuni Basin has yielded several other 

significant paleontological resources including Nothronychus (bird-like theropods), the first therizinosaur 

from the United States, and other species that may change the perceptions about dinosaur origins and 

evolution (Edgar 2001). A series of Tyrannosaurus rex fossils from the McRae Formation have been 

documented near Elephant Butte Reservoir. Cretaceous marine and terrestrial fossils have been found in 

the Carthage area. The Atarque Sandstone Member (shoreline sandstone) of the Tres Hermanos 

Formation has yielded evidence of remnants of numerous varieties of chondrichtyes (cartilaginous fishes) 

and reptile (crocodile, plesiosaur, dinosaur, and turtles) (Hunt and Lucas 1993c; Lucas and Heckert 2000). 

Cenozoic rocks crop out extensively in the Planning Area. The Tertiary units consist of a complex suite of 

sedimentary and volcanic rocks. The sedimentary rocks include sandstones, mudstones, and 

conglomerates of the Eocene Baca Formation, Miocene-Pliocene Popotosa Formation, Plio-Pleistocene 

Sierra Ladron Formation, and unconsolidated silts, sands, and gravels of the Pleistocene. These are 

typically basin fill, alluvial, pluvial, and colluvial deposits. 

Cenozoic vertebrates have been located in several localities in Socorro and Catron Counties. Fossil 

vertebrates have been found in late Eocene deposits in the Caballo Mountains. The Miocene-Pliocene 

deposits exposed along the Rio Grande from Albuquerque to Las Cruces have produced a diverse fossil 

fauna assemblage of mammals such as camels, gomphotheres (stegomastodons, mastodons), horses, 

antelope, and more (NMMNH&S 2002). Vertebrate fossils from Arroyo de la Prada near Socorro have 

been found in an ancestral Rio Grande river facies of the Palomas Formation. These Late Pliocene 

deposits include several species of land tortoise, ground sloth, horse, camel, pronghorn, and 

proboscideans (Sealy et al. 2001). In 1998, a Pliocene vertebrate site was discovered by a person leasing 

public land near Elephant Butte Reservoir. BLM and NMMNH&S resource specialists conducted an 

investigation and collected fossils at the site. At this Silver Canyon site, the Palomas Formation has 

yielded a rodent jaw, horse bones, proboscidean teeth, and tusk fragments (NMMNH&S 1999). There are 

several other documented localities with a variety of Quaternary vertebrates in the Planning Area. Catron 

County sites include: San Agustin Plains, Tularosa Cave (marmot study), San Francisco River, and Bat 

Cave. Socorro County sites include: White Lake, San Antonio, and Mockingbird Gap (mammoth study) 

(Harris 1993). A summary of vertebrate fossil occurrences is available the Management Situation 

Analysis, on file in the Socorro Field Office. 

Many areas in Socorro and Catron Counties have not been explored or surveyed for paleontological 

resources. To date, there has not been a comprehensive survey conducted for the Planning Area although 

significant and important paleontological resources occur in Socorro and Catron Counties and in the 

formations that crop out in these and adjacent counties. There are no designated SMAs, wilderness study 

areas (WSAs), Resource Natural Areas, National Natural Landmarks, or ACECs specifically for 

paleontological resources in the Planning Area. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-30 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

3.2.12 Visual Resources

Visual resources include the natural and manmade physical features that give a particular landscape its 

character and value. The features that form the overall impression a viewer has of an area include 

landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and manmade (cultural) modifications 

(BLM 1986). 

The natural landscape of the Planning Area is dominated by forested mountain ranges, desert vistas, 

expansive rangeland, and large river systems. Variations in elevation and precipitation result in diverse 

vegetative regimes (e.g., desert shrub, creosote flats, piñon-juniper woodlands, ponderosa pine, and 

riparian areas near the Rio Grande). Large areas of piñon-juniper woodlands, and ponderosa pine and 

spruce/fir forests are present at higher elevations. Both Chihuahuan and Sonoran Desert influences are 

present in the vegetation at lower elevations (BLM 2001b). In Catron County, the open, broken terrain is 

characterized by grassy flatlands, mesas, moderately steep canyons, rolling upland ridges, and hills (BLM 

1989b). A majority of the cultural landscape is defined by the natural setting, with concentrated areas of 

human modification. Livestock grazing is the predominant land use, but outdoor recreation, residential 

dwellings, and mining uses are apparent on the landscape (BLM 1989b). Additionally, modifications to 

the natural setting include agricultural features (e.g., fences, windmills, watering tanks), roadways, 

isolated homesteads, pipelines, power lines, the Langmuir Laboratory, and the National Radio 

Observatory’s Very Large Array. 

To manage visual resources, BLM assigns visual resource management (VRM) classifications—VRM 

Classes I, II, III, and IV—that guide the extent and type of modifications to the natural setting. The 

objectives for VRM Classes are summarized in Appendix G. BLM completed the inventory for public 

land in the eastern half of the Planning Area in 1979 with some updates in 1986, and the western half in 

1981 (BLM 1989b). Each inventory class was determined through a matrix, which combined scenic 

quality, visual sensitivity, and distance zones. Subsequent to assigning inventory classes, the BLM, 

through its RMP process, assigned visual resource management classes to all public land in the Planning 

Area as illustrated in Map 3-5, Visual Resource Management Classes. The acreage included within each 

VRM Class is presented in Table 3-6. 

TABLE 3-6 

VRM CLASSES IN THE DECISION AREA 

VRM Class Acres of BLM-Managed 

Surface Land1

Class I 30,343

Class II 385,781 

Class III 299,741 

Class IV 774,170 

Total acres 1,490,036 

SOURCE: Bureau of Land Management 2003e 

NOTE: 1

 Calculated based on best available GIS data.

3.2.13 Cave and Karst Resources

The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (16 U.S.C. 4301-4309) defines a cave as any natural 

occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages which occurs beneath the surface of 

the earth or within a cliff or ledge (including any cave resource therein, but not including any vug, mine, 

tunnel, aqueduct, or other manmade excavation), and which is large enough to permit an individual to 

enter, whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or manmade. Features that do not meet these criteria 

are considered to be karst features. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-31 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

3.2.13.1 Cave and Karst Regions in the Decision Area 

Substantial karst topography is located from a point about 6 miles east of Socorro to the Lincoln/Socorro 

county line and beyond, and from central White Sands Missile Range north to the to the Socorro/Torrance 

county line and beyond. This karst region is primarily comprised of San Andres limestone layers 10 to 

50 feet thick overlying massive gypsum and constitutes about 576,000 acres. Shield lava flows 

characteristic of the Rio Grande Rift occur in several locations throughout the Planning Area. These flows 

contain an undocumented number of lava tubes and bubbles. These features also are considered caves. 

Both karst and lava cave features contain various types of cave-adapted animal and plant life. A number 

of caves and hundreds of karst features, primarily sinkholes and blowholes, exist in this region. 

BLM outdoor recreation specialists with caving experience, geologists, and caving volunteers developed 

descriptions of karst lands, primarily based on regional geographic features. Overall, 12 karst regions 

were identified within the Planning Area. Files are kept for each cave or sensitive location on BLMmanaged surface estate at the Socorro Field Office. Karst potential is shown on Map 3-6. 

3.2.13.2 Significant Cave List 

The Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 directs the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and 

maintain a listing of significant caves. The criteria for listing of significant caves are found in 43 CFR 

Part 37.11 (C) Section 5(a) of the Federal Cave Resource Protection Act and indicate that the location of 

significant caves should be kept confidential in order to protect these resources from unauthorized use and 

vandalism. It has been determined that 18 caves on public land managed by the BLM meet one or more of 

the significant cave criteria listed in 43 CFR, Part 37.11(C). 

3.2.14 Wilderness Characteristics

Wilderness characteristics are defined as naturalness, solitude, and primitive, unconfined recreation 

opportunities. Naturalness measures the degree to which the imprint of human activity is substantially 

unnoticeable (BLM 2003c). Evidence of human activity typically would include travel routes or trails, 

fences, or other landscape modifications. Naturalness also is characterized by the presence of native 

vegetation communities and the degree to which the area contributes to the connectivity of habitats. 

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” (BLM 2003c). Characteristics of 

solitude include the presence of landforms with 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 consists of non-motorized, nonmechanical uses in areas of no or 

minimal developed recreational facilities. Opportunities for primitive recreation are marked by a lack of 

developed recreational facilities, a sufficiently large area to allow these types of outdoor recreational uses, 

and features or attractions that lend themselves to primitive and unconfined types of recreational uses. 

Thirteen areas exhibiting wilderness characteristics were designated as WSAs within the Planning Area in 

November of 1980 (BLM 1980). The WSAs are listed in Table 3-7 (see Map 3-7). Two acreage totals are 

included in Table 3-7; the acres calculated using the best available GIS data vary from the numbers cited 

in the 1989 RMP (and the acres designated as WSAs in 1980). 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-32 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

TABLE 3-7 

ACREAGES OF WSAs ON BLM-MANAGED SURFACE ESTATE 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Acres in

1989 RMP 

Acres as 

Calculated in GIS 

Antelope 20,710 20,541 

Continental Divide 68,761 69,240 

Devil’s Backbone 8,904 8,967 

Devil’s Reach N/A 684

Eagle Peak 43,960 43,975 

Horse Mountain 5,032 4,894 

Jornada del Muerto 31,147 26,771 

Mesita Blanca 19,414 19,214 

Presilla 8,680 7,884 

Sierra de las Canas 12,838 13,185 

Sierra Ladrones 46,308 45,559 

Stallion 24,238 23,671 

Veranito 7,206 7,241 

TOTALS 297,198 291,826 

SOURCE: Bureau of Land Management 2003a, 1989a 

Since November of 1980, the WSAs have been managed under the Interim Policy and Management 

Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review (1995) until Congress either designates them as 

wilderness or releases them from further wilderness review (see Section 2.3.11). The New Mexico 

Wilderness Study Report (BLM 1991a), completed in September of 1991, made recommendations from 

the Secretary of the Interior (October 1991) to the President as to the suitability of these areas as 

wilderness. The President then forwarded the recommendations to Congress by 1993. Congress will 

ultimately make the final determination as to wilderness designation. 

Wilderness characteristics on acquired lands have been identified as shown in Table 3-8. All of the 

acquired lands identified as having wilderness character are within proposed ACECs. A land exchange 

with the State of New Mexico resulted in BLM’s acquisition of about 52,230 acres, including lands 

within and adjacent to the Sierra Ladrones, Continental Divide, Devil’s Backbone, and Horse Mountain 

WSAs. The criteria used to identify these characteristics are based on the 1978 Wilderness Inventory 

Handbook. Specifically, these criteria include (1) size, at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres of public 

land; (2) naturalness, the imprint of man’s work must be substantially unnoticeable; and (3) an 

outstanding opportunity for solitude or an outstanding opportunity for a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation. The term “roadless” is defined in the 1978 Wilderness Inventory Handbook as “the absence of 

roads that have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to insure relatively regular and 

continuous use; a way solely maintained by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road.” (BLM 

1978). Map 3-7 shows the acquired land listed in Table 3-8. 

3.3 RESOURCE USES 

3.3.1 Land Use and Facilities

Notable facilities in the Planning Area include the Very Large Array operated by the National Radio 

Observatory and the El Camino Real International Heritage Center. Other notable facilities include those 

on the White Sands Missile Range, an explosives testing and research facility at New Mexico Tech, and 

visitor facilities at the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge. Overall, the area is rural and sparsely 

populated. General land use patterns are discussed below; note that utilities and communication sites are 

discussed specifically in Section 3.3.8. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-33 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

TABLE 3-8 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS OF ACQUIRED LANDS1

Unit Name Unit Number 

Wilderness Character 

Identified 

No Wilderness Character 

Identified 

Shaw Mountain 010 X

Batton Canyon 020 X

Coyote Canyon 030 X

040 

041 X 

042 X 

043 X 

044 X 

045 X 

046 X 

047 X 

048 X 

049 X 

141 X 

142 X 

143 X 

Pelona Mountain 

144 X 

050 

051 X 

052 X 

053 X 

Devil’s Backbone 

054 X 

060 

061 X 

062 X 

Horse Mountain 

063 X 

070 

071 X 

072 X 

073 X 

074 X 

075 X 

076 X 

171 X 

172 X 

173 X 

Sierra Ladrones 

174 X 

SOURCE: Carson 2005 

NOTE: 1 Unit report findings and maps of the units are available in the Socorro Field Office. 

3.3.1.1 Existing Land Uses 

The Planning Area is characterized by rural qualities and vast open spaces; however, some urban and 

suburban development occurs throughout. Outside of the Rio Grande Valley, the primary uses of land are 

livestock grazing and agricultural uses (BLM 1989a). Ranching is estimated to constitute about 

70 percent of the land use in Socorro County (Socorro County 1998). Farming plays a large role within 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-34 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

the Rio Grande Valley and along I-25 and US 60 (Socorro County 1998). Ranching and farming also are 

primary land uses in Catron County. 

Other land uses in the Planning Area include military activities; residential, commercial, and industrial 

development; and mining activities. Developed residential, commercial, and industrial land uses 

commonly are found near city limits and along I-25 and US 60 (Socorro County 1998). Natural or 

cultural resource protection occurs as a primary use within specially designated areas of public land. 

Dispersed recreational uses occur throughout the Planning Area, including in specially designated areas. 

Grazing is an important land use on BLM-administered land, and range improvements such as stock tanks 

and fences occur throughout the Decision Area. 

Military activities generally are limited to the White Sands Missile Range, which occupies approximately 

431,326 acres in southeastern Socorro County (Socorro County 1998). This land is closed to the public 

except when site tours are scheduled with the U.S. Department of Defense and during hunting seasons, 

which are regulated by the U.S. Department of Defense and NMDGF (NMDGF 2002a; White Sands 

Missile Range 2003). The military also maintains a safety zone beyond the boundaries of White Sands 

Missile Range; military activities require evacuation and closure of this area (including public land) one 

to three times per month (see Section 3.3.10.2 for more information). 

Mining is an ongoing activity within the Planning Area. Two active mines are Socorro Peak, which is 

located near the City of Socorro, and Taylor Creek, located in the southeastern corner of Catron County. 

3.3.1.2 Planned Land Uses 

Though a majority of the existing land uses are expected to continue, Socorro and Catron Counties have 

recorded an increased number of plans for subdivisions (see Section 3.5.2 for population projections). In 

Socorro County, urban development has been proposed along the I-25 corridor from just south of San 

Antonio, New Mexico, north to the boundary of the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge (proposed urban 

development areas are illustrated on Map 1-1). Another area of proposed urban development in Socorro 

County is located along US 60, east of Bernardo. In Catron County, numerous areas of scattered 

development have been proposed. The proposed development areas in the I-25 corridor and those near the 

Arizona border tend to be surrounded primarily by public lands. 

3.3.2 Forestry and Woodlands 

There are two major forest or woodland types within the Planning Area, occupying a total of 173,634 

acres. One type includes isolated stands of ponderosa pine forest located within WSAs and adjacent to 

U.S. Forest Service lands, totaling 10,043 acres. These tracts require silvicultural treatment if they are to 

remain pine sites and not revert to woodlands. Since the existing ponderosa pine forests are managed for 

the enhancement and protection of the stands instead of maximum production of wood products, no 

specific allowable cut goals are established. The last timber harvesting operation was carried out in 1976 

on Pelona Mountain. Several mistletoe eradication projects have been attempted and were partially 

successful. No follow-up projects were funded and no timber sales have been offered since that time. 

The second forest type in the Planning Area is piñon-juniper woodlands, the dominant forest type in 

BLM’s Decision Area, which covers approximately 163,094 acres. At this time, forest and particularly 

woodland stands are considered to be in Fire Regime Condition Class 2 and 3 (deviations from preEuropean settlement range of natural variation for community structure, fire frequency, and fire size). 

Changes that have occurred in these stands include:

x Reduced tree growth 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-35 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

x Stagnated nutrient cycles 

x Increased incidence of disease 

x Insect and parasite infestations 

x Decreased forage quality and quantity 

x Increased fuel loading 

x Increased vertical fuel continuity 

x Increased canopy cover 

x Increased severity of wildfires 

x Decreased water availability and stream flow 

x Fewer and smaller openings 

x Shifts in habitat quality 

x Lower aesthetic value 

Forest and woodland stands within the Decision Area will continue to deteriorate without implementation 

of corrective management actions. Severe drought stress and insect infestation in piñon, in particular, has 

been occurring in the past few years. There are stands within the Decision Area that qualify as old growth 

under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (see Appendix N). 

Fuelwood is the main wood product produced from the woodlands in the Decision Area. There is one 

active, designated fuelwood cutting area—the Pie Town Fuelwood Area—which has green one-seed 

piñon-juniper. Since the Socorro Field Office is located in the arid southwestern region of the United 

States, growth rates in woodlands and forests are slow, so careful consideration is applied to ensure 

sustainable harvest of wood products. 

Noncommercial demand for vegetative products has been minimal in the Decision Area, with some small 

interest in commercial Christmas tree sales areas. However, commercial and noncommercial demand for 

fuelwood has gradually increased, and with rising home heating fuel prices the demand for fuelwood 

could grow. In addition, urban development and the associated interest in utilizing native plants in 

waterwise landscaping could increase demand for native perennial plants in the coming years. 

The Public Service of New Mexico has proposed biomass harvesting on public lands to provide resources 

for a planned 35-megawatt capacity biomass generator in Catron County. In total, the proposed harvest 

would require the harvest of 6,000 to 8,000 acres of land per year, although not all of this would occur on 

BLM-administered land. The Socorro Field Office is planning to work with other agencies and the Public 

Service of New Mexico to address this demand, and would utilize stewardship contracting to implement 

the harvesting (see Appendix G).

3.3.3 Rangeland Management

Ranchers throughout the region have been authorized to use BLM-managed public land to support 

livestock grazing operations. Allotments may include a mix of Federal, State, and private lands, although 

BLM has the authority to authorize grazing on public land only (BLM 1989b). Livestock grazing 

programs on public land are currently authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (FLPMA), Public Rangelands Improvement Act, and the Taylor Grazing Act. Livestock grazing on 

public land within Socorro and Catron Counties is managed by the Socorro Field Office under the 1989 

Socorro RMP and the New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Management. 

BLM uses monitoring studies to determine if proper grazing management is occurring to meet public land 

health standards outlined in the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2000a). In addition, these 

guidelines describe the most beneficial approach to adjusting grazing management when it is determined 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-36 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

that livestock grazing is preventing the range from meeting the standards. Appendix H provides an 

expanded description of the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines. 

BLM organizes allotments into management categories (see Appendix H) to direct attention to areas 

where grazing management is needed most to improve the resource or resolve resource-use conflicts. 

Using these management categories as a tool, BLM creates allotment management plans or cooperative 

management plans. These plans are developed to achieve the stated goals of local RMPs. Specific 

methods for controlling when, where, and the amount of livestock grazing use are covered in the plans. 

Allotment management plans promote the protection of resource values, such as water quality and 

riparian area resource management, and coordinate livestock grazing with other resource uses. Plans also 

address needed rangeland improvements, monitoring methods, and an implementation schedule, including 

more efficient implementation of grazing systems, and identification of priority allotments for public 

investment, such as range improvement projects or vegetation treatments. Allotment management plans 

have been completed on 150 allotments. 

3.3.3.1 Livestock Use of Grazing Allotments 

Livestock grazing allotments within the Planning Area encompass approximately 3 million acres of 

public, State, and private lands. This total includes 1.5 million acres of BLM-managed lands (50 percent); 

569,023 acres of State lands (19 percent); 933,446 acres of private lands (31 percent); and 25,660 acres of 

other land (1 percent) divided into 252 livestock grazing allotments (see Appendix E). Of the 

252 allotments, about 20 are located partially or entirely outside of the Planning Area. However, the 

Socorro Field Office is responsible for the administration of livestock grazing for the entire allotments, 

including the BLM-managed lands outside the Planning Area boundaries, while other resources are 

administered by other BLM field offices. Livestock grazing within an allotment can vary each year 

depending on range conditions and livestock management needs. Animal unit months (AUMs) is the term 

BLM uses to identify the amount of grazing use authorized on a grazing permit or in an allotment. An 

AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one animal unit (e.g., a 1,000-pound cow and calf, five 

sheep, or five goats) for one month (BLM 2000a). As shown in Table 3-9, livestock use in the Planning 

Area between the years 1992 and 2004 ranged from a low of 145,565 total AUMs in 2002 to a high of 

180,504 total AUMs in 1998. 

TABLE 3-9 

LIVESTOCK USE 

BETWEEN 1992 AND 20051

Year Billed AUMs1 Year Billed AUMs1

1992 160,016 1999 172,249 

1993 163,835 2000 164,510 

1994 165,627 2001 167,678 

1995 165,680 2002 145,565 

1996 172,174 2003 166,395 

1997 170,067 2004 150,609 

1998 180,504 2005 150,609 

SOURCES: Lane 2006; Matthews 2005 

NOTE: 1

AUM = animal unit months 

There are presently 232 permittees in the Planning Area who are authorized to use 229,000 AUMs on 

252 allotments. Of the grazing permits issued within the Planning Area, 192 are issued under Section 3 of 

the Taylor Grazing Act, and 59 allotments are authorized by leases under Section 15 of the Taylor 

Grazing Act. Appendix E provides specific information for each allotment. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-37 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Allotments within the Planning Area vary in size from about 17 acres to 167,000 acres, with grazing 

preferences ranging from less than 10 AUMs to 11,880 AUMs (BLM 2003d). While grazing levels, 

season of use, and turn out dates vary by allotment and permittee, the majority of allotments are grazed 

year-round with some type of grazing system (pasture rotation, watering sites, salt placement, etc.) in 

place to reduce or disperse grazing impacts to soils and vegetation. Grazing levels, season of use, and turn 

out dates are authorized to allow time for pastures to rest for plant growth and development (see 

Appendix H). Livestock grazing systems also 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 (BLM 2000a). Types of livestock presently authorized 

in the Planning Area consist of cattle and horses. There are no sheep allotments. 

Most permittees run a cow/calf operation, with calving occurring generally during February and shipping 

from October to November. At times, heifers are held over as replacement stock. Some permittees run a 

yearling operation with a period of use generally from May 1 to November 1. Yearlings are purchased 

either locally or out-of-state (BLM 1989b). 

3.3.3.2 Rangeland Utilization and Condition 

Livestock grazing in the Planning Area is monitored to allow for an average of 50 percent utilization of 

key forage species per year (BLM 1989b). Utilization is defined as the degree of forage (grass, forbs, and 

shrub) removed from rangelands by grazing animals, both domestic and wild. Key forage species in the 

Planning Area include black grama, blue grama, drop seed spp., alkali sacaton, winterfat, and fourwing 

saltbush. The establishment and spread of invasive and noxious plant species are potential concerns 

throughout the Planning Area because these species can negatively affect rangeland health and available 

forage production for livestock and wildlife (BLM 1989b). 

Livestock numbers on individual allotments is related to forage consumption and the overall balance with 

management of other resources. Ecological condition is the present state of the vegetation on a range site 

in relation to the potential natural community for that particular site (BLM 2000a). It is an expression of 

the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of plants making up a community 

resemble that of the potential natural community. The BLM uses Ecological Site Descriptions to describe 

and identify plant communities and one of the methods of evaluating ecological sites is the similarity 

index. This method compares the present plant community to either the historic climax plant community 

or one of the potential vegetation states. Similarity index is a measure of the percentage, by weight, of the 

historic climax plant community or desired vegetation state that is present on a site. Seral stages can be 

used to identify the ecological conditions of a site as shown in Table 3-10. 

TABLE 3-10 

ECOLOGICAL STATUS 

Seral Stage 

Estimated Percentage of Resemblance 

to Potential Natural Community 

Historic Climax Plant Community 76-100 

Late 51-75 

Mid 26-50 

Early 0-25 

SOURCE: Bureau of Land Management 2000a 

Ecological conditions of allotments in the Planning Area were analyzed in various EISs. These include 

the East Socorro Grazing EIS (BLM 1979), West Socorro Rangeland Management Program EIS (BLM 

1982), and the Socorro RMP/EIS (BLM 1988). The most recent summary of ecological conditions for the 

Planning Area (BLM 2002c) classified 13,729 acres in historic climax plant community; 588,519 acres in 

late seral; 805,595 acres in mid seral; and 65,791 acres in early seral. A total of 62,976 acres has not been 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-38 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

classified. This information is based on a compilation of ecological site inventory data for the Chupadera 

Mesa and West Socorro allotments, and ocular assessments for the East Socorro allotments gathered at 

different points in time over the last few decades. 

The BLM’s most recent efforts to evaluate conditions have involved assessments of rangeland health; 

Rangeland Health assessments have been completed on 27 grazing allotments within the Grand Jean, 

Nogal, Sheep, and Milligan watersheds, as well as the Tularosa Valley (Largo and Ancho subbasins). The 

assessments concluded that all of the allotments are currently meeting the rangeland standards for upland 

and biotic health. This is an ongoing process and we will continue to work on completion of the rangeland 

health assessments on the remaining public land. 

3.3.4 Minerals

There are three basic categories of Federal minerals on public lands: leasable, locatable, and salable. 

These minerals have been defined by Federal laws, regulations, and legal decisions (BLM 1997b). 

Federal mineral ownership is shown on Map 3-8, Federal Minerals. 

Leasable minerals discussed in this section include: 

x Nonrenewable energy fluid minerals (oil and gas, geothermal) 

x Nonrenewable energy solid minerals (coal) 

x Nonrenewable nonenergy fluid minerals (carbon dioxide and helium) 

Locatable mineral resources discussed in this section include: 

x Metallic minerals (e.g., gold, silver, uranium) 

x Non-metallic minerals (e.g., gemstones, fluorspar, perlite) 

Salable mineral resources discussed in this section include sand, gravel, limestone, cinders, and building 

stone.

The sections below address known prospects, mineral occurrences, and mineralized areas; mining claims, 

leases, and material sites; types of mineral deposits in the area of interest; and mineral economics. 

Additional information is available from the Management Situation Analysis and the 2003 Energy and 

Mineral Potential Report, on file with the Socorro Field Office. 

3.3.4.1 Leasable Minerals 

Federal lands are available for leasing to develop certain Federal minerals, including fluid minerals. 

Lands that are open to leasing are subject to standard lease terms and conditions. BLM may apply 

additional stipulations to a lease in a sensitive area. Some areas, such as WSAs, are nondiscretionarily 

closed to leasing. Procedures for fluid mineral leasing and development are described in more detail in 

Appendix D. 

Oil and Gas 

Oil and gas are nonrenewable energy fluid mineral resources that typically are discovered and exploited 

by drilling exploratory and development wells into oil- and/or gas-bearing sedimentary rocks. 

Sedimentary rocks that have reservoir-quality porosity are proximal to petroleum source rocks, such as 

organic-rich shale or coal, and have formed a structural or stratigraphic trap that may accumulate oil 

and/or gas. From the early 1920s to 2004, there have been 45 exploratory wells drilled in Socorro County 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-39 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

and 43 exploratory wells drilled in Catron County (Map 3-9, Oil and Gas Potential). Well locations 

shown on Map 3-9 are described in the Energy and Mineral Resource Potential Report (BLM 2003g). 

Although there have been shows of oil and gas reported in several of those wells in each county, there has 

been no economic production to date. 

Coalbed methane is natural gas that is contained in coal beds, and is a nonrenewable, leasable energy 

fluid mineral resource. Prolific production of coalbed methane in the San Juan Basin of New Mexico and 

in other coal-bearing regions of the United States has stimulated interest in this resource. Coalbed 

methane usually exists in unexposed, water-saturated rock layers that occur downdip (the direction along 

the plane of a rock layer) from outcrops of coal-bearing formations. Coalbed methane is discovered and 

developed by drilling a well into the coal-bearing formation and completing the well in coal seams or 

other gas-bearing reservoir rocks.

Known Occurrences and Prospective Areas 

The following basins have experienced oil and gas exploration activity. 

Chupadera Mesa, located in eastern Socorro County, first was tested for oil and gas in the 1920s. Oil 

and/or gas shows were encountered in four wells drilled during the 1950s and 1960s, and two wells tested 

oil and/or gas shows in the 1970s. Two wells were drilled in the basin during the early 1990s, and one 

reported a gas show in lower Pennsylvanian sands and/or fractured Precambrian basement rocks. 

Two wells were drilled in the Carrizozo Basin east of Chupadera Mesa within the past six years. This is 

a deep “elevator basin” reported to contain mature Permian and Pennsylvanian sediments. The first well 

drilled a horst structure and had a gas show containing methane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and helium in 

Precambrian basement. A completion attempt was reported for that well. The second well in adjacent 

Lincoln County reportedly contained mature source rock. 

In the late 1930s to 1940s, six wells were drilled in the Albuquerque-Belen Basin in northern Socorro 

County, three of which had oil shows. Sporadic drilling activity since the late 1970s chased oil shows 

reported in previous exploration wells. Three wells drilled since 1996 have tested Tertiary sediments with 

no shows reported, although one well was abandoned temporarily and one attempted a completion. There 

have been many oil and gas shows in Cretaceous rocks in this basin north of Socorro County. 

Socorro Basin, San Marcial Basin, and La Jencia Basin – Three wells were drilled in the Socorro 

Basin during the 1920s and 1930s and reported oil and/or gas shows. No exploration has occurred in that 

basin or the adjacent basins since. These basins are in the Rio Grande Rift and the structural complexity, 

depth of suitable reservoir rock, and possible release of hydrocarbons along faults and fractures may be a 

deterrent to exploration. 

Three dry holes were drilled in the Jornada del Muerto Basin in 1948, 1955, and 1989. The lack of 

exploration in this basin may be due to the absence of suitable structural or stratigraphic traps. In addition, 

the White Sands Missile Range occupies a large portion of the basin and is excluded from exploration. 

The Acoma Basin in northwestern Socorro and northeastern Catron Counties has been extensively tested 

by the drill bit since the 1920s. Shows of oil were reported from the Cretaceous Dakota Formation in two 

wells. However, no shows were reported in seven wells drilled in the basin between 1978 and 1987. 

In the western end of the Zuni Uplift in Catron County, five wells drilled during the 1920s and 1930s 

reported oil and/or gas shows in Cretaceous rocks. Four dry holes were drilled in the 1970s. Exploration 

activity during the 1980s tested the Zuni Uplift and the western San Agustin Basin. Oil and gas shows 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-40 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

were reported from the Permian San Andres Formation where thin beds of thermally mature Permian 

source rocks were encountered. Reports of carbon dioxide from two drill stem tests of the Permian Yeso 

Formation indicate there is carbon dioxide and possibly helium potential in this area. 

Six wells drilled during the 1950s through the 1970s tested the Zuni Basin and no shows were reported. 

However, oil and gas shows have been reported in the adjacent Holbrook Basin in Arizona. The Zuni 

Basin has encountered producible quantities of carbon dioxide and helium. 

One well drilled in the San Agustin Basin during 1966 encountered gas shows. One dry hole was drilled 

in 1977. Broadhead et al. (2002a) suggest that volcanic activity in the vicinity of this basin may have 

“cooked” the source rock and rendered any hydrocarbons overmature and not likely to generate oil and 

gas.

Exploration for coalbed methane resources has experienced an increase in activity in northern New 

Mexico. However, there is currently no known coalbed methane activity in the Planning Area. Five 

prospective areas for coalbed methane development are shown on Map 3-10, Coal Fields, Coal, and 

Coalbed Methane Resources Potential, and discussed below. 

Catron County has two known occurrences of coal resources: the Salt Lake coalfield and the Datil 

Mountains coalfield. Prospective lands for coalbed methane development are located south and east of the 

Salt Lake coalfield. The southern limit of the geologic area that is prospective is uncertain but generally 

would conform to the basal Tertiary erosional unconformity. The eastern limit would correspond to the 

boundary between the Colorado Plateau and Rio Grande Rift provinces. 

The Jornada del Muerto coalfield contains coal-bearing units found in Late Cretaceous Mesa Verde 

Group sedimentary rocks. Prospective lands for coalbed methane development are located west of the 

outcrop of Mesa Verde Group rocks. The westward extent of the prospect is unknown due to lack of 

subsurface information.

In the Carthage coal district, coal-bearing units are found in the Late Cretaceous Mesaverde Group. 

Prospective lands for coalbed methane development probably are located west of the outcrop. The 

subsurface extent of the prospective area is unknown due to lack of information. 

An unnamed outcrop of coalbeds is located near La Joya in the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge in 

northeastern Socorro County. Coal-bearing units are found in the Late Cretaceous Tres Hermanos and 

Crevasse Canyon Formations. Prospects for development of that resource are unknown. 

Leasing Activity 

In eastern Socorro County, leasing for oil and gas exploration currently is active in the Chupadera MesaCarrizozo Basin area. Leasing activity near Bingham has included Federal and State lands, and all Federal 

mineral estate in this area has been leased or nominated for leasing in the past year. Leasing activity is 

ongoing in the Albuquerque-Belen Basin in northern Socorro County. 

Much of northwestern Catron County has been leased for oil and gas exploration. The most recent lease 

sales of State land were in October 2003. At the October 2003 Federal Oil and Gas Lease Sale, BLM 

offered all 124,000 acres nominated for lease in the Catron County area. As a result, BLM issued 

45 Federal oil and gas leases in the Catron County area covering 73,370 acres. There are pending 

Expression of Interest nominations in northern Socorro County in the Bingham and Chupadera Mesa 

areas.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-41 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Carbon Dioxide and Helium 

Carbon dioxide and helium are nonrenewable nonenergy fluid mineral resources typically discovered by 

exploratory oil and gas wells that encounter natural gas or nonflammable gas containing economic 

amounts of carbon dioxide and helium. If these gases can be economically separated, collected, and 

delivered to a market, then a gas field is developed.

Known Occurrences and Prospective Areas 

Economic amounts of carbon dioxide and helium have been discovered in five wells, and gas shows that 

may contain carbon dioxide and helium have been reported in 11 wells. Although these gases were not 

primary targets for exploration until the late 1990s, several wells reported shows of carbon dioxide and 

helium in gas analysis reports. Areas of carbon dioxide and helium shows or testing include Chupadera 

Mesa; Carrizozo Basin; Albuquerque-Belen Basin; Socorro Basin, San Marcial Basin, and La Jencia 

Basin; Acoma Basin; Zuni Uplift; and Zuni Basin. 

Leasing Activity 

Leasing for carbon dioxide is conducted under standard oil and gas leasing procedures (see Appendix D). 

There currently is no leasing activity in Socorro County specifically targeting carbon dioxide exploration 

and development. In Catron County, there is leasing activity in the Zuni Basin area specifically targeting 

carbon dioxide exploration and development. 

Although helium is an important component of carbon dioxide gas, it is not a leasable mineral. Helium is 

developed under extraction and sales contracts between the developer and the BLM instead of sales 

royalties under standard oil and gas leases. 

Coal

Coal is a nonrenewable, leasable, solid energy mineral resource. Coal resources in Socorro and Catron 

Counties typically are found in Cretaceous-age sedimentary formations. Locations where coal resources 

occur and can be mined are designated as coalfields. Coalfields are present in Late Cretaceous-age 

sedimentary rock in both Socorro and Catron Counties (see Map 3-10). 

Known Occurrences and Prospective Areas 

Catron County has two known occurrences of coal resources: the Salt Lake coalfield and the Datil 

Mountains coalfield. The Salt Lake coalfield covers approximately 120,000 acres in the northwestern 

corner of the county, and the field extends north into Cibola County. Coal-bearing units are found in the 

Late Cretaceous Moreno Hill Formation. Coal seams average 5 feet thick and can be up to 14 feet thick. 

Outcrops of the Moreno Hill Formation form an arcuate belt open to the west that is centered around Zuni 

Salt Lake. Coalbeds dip to the southeast at 3 to 5 degrees. Faulting has caused minor displacement of 

coal-bearing units in parts of the field. Mining in the coalfield was conducted by the Phoenix-based utility 

Salt River Project in 1987 for a test burn at its Coronado Generating Station in Arizona. About 100,000 

short tons of coal were extracted from the Fence Lake mine located on private land (Hoffman 2002). 

The Datil Mountain coalfield covers approximately 202,000 acres in northwestern Socorro and 

northeastern Catron Counties. This field also extends north into Cibola County. Coal-bearing units are 

found in the Late Cretaceous Tres Hermanos and Crevasse Canyon Formations. Coalbeds average less 

than 3 feet thick and can be up to 7 feet thick. Faulting and folding have affected the lateral continuity of 

the beds, and the field has been impacted by several Tertiary intrusive bodies. Several old mines 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-42 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

reportedly operated in the field, but the mines are abandoned and information on production is limited 

(Hoffman 2002). 

Three small coal fields are present in the Planning Area: the Jornada del Muerto coalfield covers approximately 11,900 acres in east-central Socorro County; the Carthage coal district covers approximately 

5,700 acres in east-central Socorro County; and the La Joya coalfield covers approximately 5,700 acres in 

east-central Socorro County. These coal fields are not well-suited for development because of structural 

complexity or thin, discontinuous coal seams. 

Leasing Activity 

Salt River Project leased 18,000 acres of State and Federal land for its Fence Lake Mine in the Salt Lake 

coalfield. Reserves were estimated at 120 million short tons. The State issued a mining permit to Salt 

River Project, but the permit was relinquished and coal is now being obtained by Salt River Project from 

another source. 

Geothermal 

Geothermal resources—nonrenewable leasable energy fluid resources—have a history of successful 

application in New Mexico. Current uses include residential and commercial space heating, greenhousing, 

aquaculture, crop and food processing, and heated swimming pools and spas. Sources of geothermal 

energy include artesian hot springs and wells that tap into groundwater or dry rock at elevated 

temperatures resulting from high heat flow gradients in the subsurface. New sources of geothermal energy 

have been discovered by drilling exploratory wells in areas of known or suspected high temperature 

gradients, or by coincidence during drilling for water resources. There currently are 16 geothermal 

resource locations in Socorro County and 23 geothermal resource locations in Catron County. 

Known Occurrences and Prospective Areas 

Information on the known occurrences of geothermal energy resources in the Planning Area are available 

in the Geothermal Resource Data Base for New Mexico prepared by the Southwest Technology 

Development Institute at New Mexico State University (Witcher 1995). The database reports sites with 

measured temperatures greater than 30 degrees Centigrade/86 degrees Fahrenheit. The geothermal energy 

resources are described in the Energy and Mineral Resource Potential Report (BLM 2003g). 

Geothermal energy resources in Socorro County range in temperature from 24.0 to 42.2 degrees 

Centigrade (75.2 to 107.9 degrees Fahrenheit). Eleven of the 16 known occurrences are at isolated 

locations within the county. The remaining five reported geothermal energy resources are clustered in a 

Known Geothermal Resource Area (KGRA) west of Socorro. None of the geothermal energy resources in 

Socorro County have been developed. 

Geothermal energy resources in Catron County range from 26.0 to 64.8 degrees Centigrade (78.8 to 

148.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Six of the 23 known occurrences are at isolated locations within the county. 

There are two KGRAs among the remaining 17 reported geothermal energy resources, as follows: 

x There are 12 reported locations in a KGRA along the Middle Fork of the Gila River in extreme 

southeastern Catron County near the Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument. Ten of those locations 

are hot springs or seeps; the remaining two are wells drilled to 182 meters (600 feet). Most of the hot 

springs have been incorporated into resort or spa facilities (Rural Economic Development through 

Tourism 2002). 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-43 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

x There are five reported hot spring locations in a KGRA along the San Francisco River in the 

southwestern part of the county south of Glenwood. The hot springs have been incorporated into 

resort or spa facilities (Rural Economic Development through Tourism 2002). 

Leasing Activity 

There is no reported leasing or development activity for geothermal energy resources in the Planning 

Area. Southwest Technology Development Institute has identified eight locations in New Mexico as 

priority sites for geothermal resource use. None of those locations are in or near the Planning Area. 

3.3.4.2 Locatable Minerals 

Locatable minerals include both metallic minerals (e.g., gold, silver, lead) and nonmetallic minerals 

(e.g., gemstones, kaolin, perlite). Locatable minerals can be obtained by filing a mining claim and can be 

extracted by mining or quarrying methods. 

Metallic Locatable Minerals 

Socorro and Catron Counties have several metallic mineral mining districts. Most of these districts have 

been mined historically and are no longer active; four are known prospects that have not been mined 

(McLemore 2002). Commodities historically produced by each mining district are discussed in further 

detail in the Management Situation Analysis and Energy and Minerals Potential Report. 

Known Occurrences and Prospective Areas 

Metallic and nonmetallic mineralized areas in the Planning Area are designated as mining districts. 

Mining districts are areas where prospective areas for mineral resources are located and/or mining has 

been conducted. There are 33 metallic mineral mining districts in Socorro and Catron Counties. Four of 

these districts are known prospects and have not been mined. Six mining districts extend south into Sierra 

County, two districts extend south into Grants County, and one district extends north into Valencia and 

Torrance Counties. The only known active metallic mineral mine in the Planning Area occurs in the 

Hiawatha and Little Jim Claims in Catron County. These claims for a placer tin mine are owned and 

operated by Volcanic Stone Company. The mine was being developed in 2001 and is presumed to be 

active today. 

Mineralized Areas and Types 

There are three mining districts that contain placer deposits: one mining district each in Socorro and 

Catron Counties contains placer gold deposits, and one mining district in Catron County contains placer 

tin deposits (McLemore 2002). 

There are three mining districts in Socorro County that have lead and zinc deposits in carbonate rock 

(McLemore 2002). Five mining districts in Socorro County have sandstone-hosted sedimentary copper 

and uranium deposits. The Chupadera Mountains district and the Lemitar Mountains district in Socorro 

County contain carbonatites, which are carbonate-rich rocks that have a magmatic origin (McLemore 

2002). Carbonatites are valuable mineralization types because they may contain rare-earth elements, 

uranium, thorium, niobium, copper, titanium, strontium, and manganese (McLemore 1983). Four districts 

in Socorro County have Precambrian-age veins and corresponding mineral replacement deposits 

(McLemore 2002). 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-44 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Nonmetallic Locatable Minerals 

There are three mining districts in the Planning Area that historically have mined nonmetallic locatable 

minerals. These nonmetallic minerals include gems, zeolite, gypsum, kaolin, and perlite. These mining 

districts are described in the Energy and Mineral Resource Potential Report (BLM 2003g). Locatable 

quality pumice is mined at two locations east of San Antonio that are not in a mining district. 

Known Occurrences and Prospective Areas 

There are two known prospective areas for nonmetallic mineral resources in Catron County. The Chloride 

mining district in Catron County historically has been mined for zeolite and is prospective for gems. 

Taylor Creek mining district is a known prospect for kaolin and industrial-grade garnet. In Socorro 

County, the Socorro Peak mining district historically has been mined for perlite and kaolin. 

The only known active nonmetallic mineral mine in the Planning Area is the Socorro Perlite Mine and 

Mill in Socorro County. 

Mineralized Areas and Types 

The development of kaolin, zeolite, and gems is associated with the Tertiary-age outcrops and 

sedimentary rocks in the mining districts in Socorro and Catron Counties. Kaolin is a group of clay 

minerals including kaolinite typically derived from the weathering of alkali feldspars and micas in 

granite. In the Planning Area, it is found as hydrothermal alteration of Tertiary-age tuffs and rhyolite 

porphyry, or sedimentary deposits (Isik et al. 1994). Zeolites are aluminosilicate minerals that typically 

form as crystals in basalt cavities or as alteration of volcanic units. 

Gem-quality minerals can form in the volcanic-epithermal processes described above and in vein 

deposits. Industrial-grade garnets are found in the massive replacement deposits (skarn) that have metallic 

minerals such as copper, lead, and zinc in the Taylor Creek mining district (Lueth 1996). Perlite is a 

volcanic glass with a high water content that is derived from high-silica rhyolite lava. When heated, 

perlite expands to many times the original volume, creating glass foam. Perlite is used in horticulture, 

light-weight construction material, and as a shipping material. Known locatable travertine building stone 

is found at three locations in northern Socorro County and are not associated with a mining district 

(Barker et al. 1996). 

3.3.4.3 Salable Minerals 

Since 1955, BLM defines common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, pumice, pumicite, cinders, and 

ordinary clay as salable, not locatable (BLM 1997b). Salable minerals include materials used for building 

and construction, both commercially and privately. Sand, gravel, aggregate, lime (limestone), cinders, and 

building stone are the more common salable minerals. 

Known Occurrences and Prospective Areas 

The locations of known occurrences and prospects for salable minerals are too numerous to discuss on an 

individual basis. A table of known occurrences and prospective areas, and an explanation of the symbols 

for the geologic formations, is provided in the Management Situation Analysis on file at the Socorro Field 

Office.

The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (State Highway Department) has 

prepared the Geology and Aggregate Resources Manual describing known occurrences and prospects of 

sand, gravel, and aggregate resources adjacent to public roads for road construction. The State Highway 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-45 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Department Manual was used to locate and assess sand, gravel, and aggregate salable mineral resources 

on Federal land in Socorro and Catron Counties (New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources 

2002). Most of the pits, quarries, and prospective areas listed by the State Highway Department Manual 

are Quaternary-age alluvial deposits consisting of unconsolidated sand and gravel adjacent to public 

roads.

Current Activity 

Use of salable minerals requires either a sales contract or a free-use permit. A search of the Case 

Recordation files on the BLM Land and Mineral Records LR 2000 database identified 27 saleable mineral 

pits on BLM-managed surface estate within the Planning Area. The New Mexico Highway Department 

and other sources indicate there are an additional 82 existing pits or quarries for sand, gravel, and 

aggregate resources and 5 travertine quarries or deposits. More information on the commodity type, 

volume and sales price of the commodity produced, and sales activity is included in the Management 

Situation Analysis, on file in the Socorro Field Office. The New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral 

Resources reports that some inactive or intermittently operated aggregate pits are located on public land 

in the Planning Area and they can be reopened for construction or local repairs at any time (Barker 2002). 

The Mine Safety and Health Administration reports one active and one intermittent aggregate pit on 

private land in Socorro County, and one intermittent pit on private land in Catron County (Mine Safety 

and Health Administration 2003). 

3.3.4.4 Potential for Occurrence of Mineral Resources 

This section describes the potential for occurrence of energy and mineral resources in Socorro and Catron 

Counties. The narrative references resource potential maps for each energy and mineral resources 

discussed above. The potential for occurrence of mineral resources are determined using guidance 

provided in BLM Manual 3031 – Energy and Mineral Resource Assessment. The manual sets standards 

for assessing, classifying, and reporting the potential for occurrence of mineral resources on lands 

managed by BLM. 

Definition of Mineral Resource Potential 

The potential occurrence of a mineral resource is a prediction of the likelihood that the mineral resource 

will occur in a given area. The potential occurrence of a mineral resource includes both exploitable and 

potentially exploitable occurrences, and does not evaluate whether the mineral resource can be developed 

economically. The four categories of mineral potential, as defined in BLM Manual 3031, are as follows: 

x (no potential) – the geologic environment, inferred geologic processes, and lack of mineral 

occurrences do not indicate potential for accumulation of mineral resources 

x L (low potential) – the geologic environment and inferred geologic processes indicate low potential 

for accumulation of mineral resources 

x M (moderate potential) – the geologic environment, inferred geologic processes, and reported mineral 

occurrences or valid geochemical/geophysical anomaly indicate moderate potential for accumulation 

of mineral resources 

x H (high potential) – the geologic environment, inferred geologic processes, and reported mineral 

occurrences or valid geochemical/geophysical anomaly, and known mines or deposits [within the 

same type of geologic environment] indicate high potential for accumulation of mineral resources 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-46 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

In addition to those four categories, within each mineral potential category the potential must be 

supported according to a level of certainty regarding the available data. The level of certainty is a measure 

of confidence in the data that were assessed. Mineral potential categories are displayed on the mineral 

resource potential maps. The levels of certainty are annotated in the narrative of mineral resource 

potential using the letter designations described below, and are not displayed on the mineral resource 

potential maps: 

x A: the available data are insufficient and/or cannot be considered as direct or indirect evidence to 

support or refute the possible existence of mineral resources within the respective area 

x B: the available data provide indirect evidence to support or refute the possible existence of mineral 

resources

x C: the available data provide direct evidence but are quantitatively minimal to support or refute the 

possible existence of mineral resources 

x D: the available data provide abundant direct and indirect evidence to support or refute the possible 

existence of mineral resources 

Leasable Mineral Potential 

Oil and Gas Potential 

Oil and gas potential is allocated to areas that have the following characteristics: 

x Source for hydrocarbons – e.g., an organic-rich shale or coal bed that has attained a level of thermal 

maturity through burial or other heating mechanism such that oil and/or gas could be generated. 

These data generally are obtained by testing core or drill cuttings samples in a laboratory. 

x Reservoir-quality rock – sandstone, limestone, or fractured rock having interconnected porosity and 

permeability into which oil and/or gas may migrate from the source rock and be trapped. 

x Trapping mechanism that prevents oil and/or gas from migrating out of the reservoir-quality rock; 

structural traps, stratigraphic traps, and faults are some common trapping mechanisms 

x Known deposits of oil and/or gas 

Areas having oil and gas potential are shown on Map 3-9. Using the criteria discussed above, no plays or 

basins in the Planning Area have high potential because there is no proven production from those areas. 

The following basins or plays have moderate potential: Chupadera Mesa, Carrizozo Basin, AlbuquerqueBelen Basin, Socorro Basin, Acoma Basin, Jornada del Muerto Basin, northern San Agustin Basin, 

Lucero Uplift, south-central Zuni Uplift, Zuni Basin, and the northern portion of the Los Pinos Uplift. 

The level of certainty for those plays is C because there is direct evidence through oil and gas shows, 

source rock, and geologic structures of the possible existence of oil and gas mineral resources. It is 

important to note that areas having moderate potential are not necessarily correlative with the basin 

boundaries shown on Map 3-9. For example, the depositional and tectonic history of the Planning Area 

has resulted in the uplift of reservoir-quality sedimentary rocks from Permian- and Pennsylvanian-age 

sedimentary basins to form the present-day Zuni and Lucero Uplifts (Broadhead et al. 2002b). There is 

potential for oil and gas accumulation in those reservoir-quality rocks even though they no longer occupy 

a structural basin. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-47 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Areas that have moderate potential for coalbed methane mineral resources contained in coal beds are 

shown on Map 3-10. Outcrops and drilling logs show that coal seams are present in those areas, and there 

are local shows of methane gas. However, there is no known methane production from those coalbeds, 

hence a level of certainty of “C” is assigned to the coalbed methane potential. The coal seams are ranked 

as sub-bituminous to bituminous, and have the requisite thermal maturity to generate methane gas (Kaiser 

and Ayers 1994). 

The southern San Agustin Basin, San Marcial Basin, La Jencia Basin, Mogollon-Datil Volcanic Field, 

Caballo Uplift, Los Pinos Uplift, and all but the south-central portion of the Zuni Uplift have low 

potential because there is no proven production, oil or gas shows, and no evidence for source rock. The 

level of certainty is “A” because there are insufficient data to evaluate those plays. 

The areas with no potential occur where reservoir-quality rocks have been uplifted and exposed, or 

removed by erosion adjacent to the Precambrian basement outcrops. The level of certainty is C because 

oil and gas potentially could escape through the exposed surface of reservoir-quality rock or through 

extensive fractures in uplifted fault blocks or overthrusts. 

Carbon Dioxide and Helium 

Carbon dioxide and helium potential is allocated to areas that have the following characteristics: 

x Source for carbon dioxide and helium such as thick volcanic sequences that may have locally charged 

reservoir-quality sediments. 

x Reservoir-quality rock – sandstone, limestone or fractured rock having interconnected porosity and 

permeability into which carbon dioxide and helium may migrate from the source area and be trapped. 

x Trapping mechanism that prevents carbon dioxide and helium from migrating out of the reservoirquality rock; structural traps, stratigraphic traps, and faults are some common trapping mechanisms. 

Areas having carbon dioxide and helium potential are shown on Map 3-11. The Zuni Basin has high 

potential because drilling has proven that known occurrences of carbon dioxide and helium exist. The 

level of certainty is “D” for the Zuni Basin. 

The Chupadera Mesa, Carrizozo Basin, Jornada del Muerto Basin, northern San Agustin Basin, and Zuni 

Uplift have moderate potential. These areas have had shows of carbon dioxide and helium in well tests 

but no known production. The level of certainty for those areas is “C” because of direct evidence for the 

occurrence of carbon dioxide and helium. 

The southern San Agustin Basin, Albuquerque-Belen Basin, Acoma Basin, San Marcial Basin, La Jencia 

Basin, Socorro Basin, Caballo Uplift, Los Pinos Uplift, Lucero Uplift, and Mogollon-Datil Volcanic Field 

have low potential because there are no known occurrences and no carbon dioxide and helium shows. 

However, the presence of volcanic activity and possible reservoir-quality rock in those areas provides 

some potential for carbon dioxide and helium resources. The level of certainty is “C” because in many of 

those areas drilling has not reported shows of carbon dioxide and helium. 

Areas with no potential occur where reservoir-quality rocks have been uplifted and exposed, or removed 

by erosion adjacent to the Precambrian basement outcrops. The level of certainty for those areas is “D” 

because carbon dioxide and helium would likely escape from reservoir-quality rock through the exposed 

surface or through extensive fractures in uplifted fault blocks or overthrusts. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-48 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Coal Potential 

Known occurrences and prospective lands for coal and coalbed methane mineral resources are shown on 

Map 3-10. Those areas are ranked as high potential for coal mineral resources based on outcrops and 

drilling logs. However, some of the areas may have limited economic potential because of faults, 

fractures, and steeply dipping beds; thin, discontinuous coal seams; and limited subsurface data. A level 

of certainty of “D” is assigned to coal potential. 

Areas depicted on Map 3-10 as possessing moderate potential for coalbed methane resources may also be 

considered to have moderate potential for coal, as coal-bearing formations are present at depth in this 

area. The level of certainty is C in the area of coalbed methane potential because there is direct evidence 

that coalbeds are present in that area. However, it may not be economically feasible to mine coal from 

some areas because the depth of burial and amount of overburden that would have to be removed to 

extract the coal would be prohibitively expensive under most economic conditions. 

Geothermal 

The potential for geothermal energy resources ranges from high to none. High potential occurs in two 

locations in southern Catron County and one location west of Socorro (BLM 2003g). Those locations are 

convective resource areas characterized by low-temperature geothermal energy resources suitable for 

heating buildings, swimming pools or spas, or for agriculture or aquaculture. Those locations have a level 

of certainty of “D”. 

Most of the Planning Area has moderate potential because of crustal thinning that occurred during Basin 

and Range extension and formation of the Rio Grande Rift. Isolated known occurrences of lowtemperature geothermal resources are located in the area of moderate potential. The level of certainty for 

moderate geothermal resources is “B” because for most of the area there are only isolated occurrences of 

geothermal resources. The areas east of the Rio Grande Rift and northwestern corner of Catron County 

have low or no geothermal resource potential and no known occurrences. The level of certainty for low or 

no geothermal resources potential is “B” because the absence of occurrences provides limited indirect 

evidence for no or low potential. 

Locatable Mineral Potential 

A map showing the known occurrences, prospective areas, and resource potential in Socorro and Catron 

Counties was prepared for locatable mineral resources and is available from the Socorro Field Office. 

Metallic Minerals 

High potential for metallic mineral resources occurs in areas of known occurrences of metallic minerals 

for each district. The level of certainty is “D” because available data provide abundant direct evidence 

that the metallic minerals occur in those districts. 

There is low potential for metallic minerals in areas of similar geology outside the known mining districts 

because no mineral occurrences are known and the geologic environment and geologic processes indicate 

low potential for occurrence. The level of certainty is “B” because the areas designated as having low 

potential are areas that generally have only indirect evidence that few or no metallic mineral resources 

exist (i.e., no mineral exploration has been conducted and/or no mining district has been established). 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-49 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Nonmetallic Minerals 

High potential for nonmetallic mineral resources occurs in mining districts with known occurrences of 

nonmetallic minerals listed for each district. The level of certainty is “D” because available data provide 

abundant direct evidence that the non-metallic minerals occur in those districts. 

As with metallic minerals, there is low potential for nonmetallic minerals in areas outside the mining 

districts.

Salable Mineral Potential 

The known occurrences, prospective areas, and potential of salable mineral resources in Socorro and 

Catron Counties are shown in the Management Situation Analysis. Quaternary-age geologic formations 

described as alluvial sand and gravel, colluvium, and eolian sand are considered high potential 

prospective areas for salable minerals. The level of certainty is “D” for those resources because they have 

been evaluated for quality by the State Highway Department. 

Quaternary-Tertiary-age sedimentary and volcanic formations, such as those mentioned as prospective 

materials in the State Highway Department Manual, are classified as moderate potential. The QuaternaryTertiary-age sedimentary deposits typically have more variable composition and are more indurated than 

Quaternary-age deposits. As such, certain outcrops of those deposits may be less suitable as salable 

mineral resources. For that reason, Quaternary-Tertiary-age deposits have moderate potential. The level 

of certainty is “C” because there is direct evidence for the occurrence of those resources, but the preferred 

salable mineral resource may not occur at all locations. 

3.3.5 Recreation

West-central New Mexico is rural in nature and generally characterized by sparse population with 

extensive open space and unique resources providing opportunities for a variety of recreational uses. 

Much of the land within the Planning Area is public domain and generally available to the public for a 

wide range of uses. Federal lands help satisfy the growing public demand for outdoor recreation. Most of 

the recreational uses depend on the natural and cultural features of the land. Estimated recreational use of 

public lands administered by the BLM in New Mexico totaled over 2.1 million visits and nearly 

1.8 million visitor days in Fiscal Year 2004 (BLM 2004a). 

Special Recreation Permits are issued to manage visitor use, protect natural and cultural resources, 

provide for the health and safety of visitors, and accommodate commercial recreational uses. There are 

four types of uses for which these permits are required: commercial, competitive, organized groups or 

events, and individual or group use in special areas. The Socorro Field Office issues and administers 

approximately 25 or more permits per year. The majority of permits are related to outfitting for hunting. 

Other permits include dog trials, motorcycle races, endurance horse races, astronomy events, mountain 

bike races, model rocket launches, climbing, reenactments at Fort Craig, and a variety of other activities. 

3.3.5.1 Recreational Uses 

Outdoor recreation in the Planning Area occurs in a variety of areas that range from predominantly 

natural, low-use areas to developed, intensive-use areas. The physical environment often determines 

where, when, and what type of recreational activities occur (BLM 1989a). Landscape attributes that 

enhance recreation opportunities and attract visitors to public land include desert badlands, mountains, 

canyons, lava features, grasslands, and wooded environments (BLM 1989a). A range of outdoor 

recreation experiences exists for pursuits such as backpacking, camping, sightseeing, motorcycling, 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-50 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

hunting, climbing, bouldering, caving, driving for pleasure, hiking, and horseback riding. Off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) use is addressed in Section 3.3.7, Transportation and Travel Management. 

Many of the special designations provide visitors with notable recreational opportunities (see Map 3-7; 

Map 3-12 shows the locations of SMAs). For example, badlands landscapes such as the Tinajas ACEC, 

Sierra de las Cañas WSA, and the Quebradas National Backcountry Byway offer unusual scenery with 

highly colorful rock formations, unusual banding, and a uniquely contrasting landscape with the adjacent 

Rio Grande and associated bosque (BLM 1989a). These scenic attributes make these areas popular for 

“geological sightseeing.” The Box, San Lorenzo Canyon, and Walnut Canyon SMAs afford visitors 

opportunities to rock climb, hike in washes and along ridges, experience solitude in canyons, and offer 

sweeping panoramic views of surrounding mountains and valleys. The Pelona Mountain SMA, 

Continental Divide WSA, and Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA are situated in a highly 

scenic, remote, natural region providing various opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation. 

Datil Well SMA is managed by the BLM on 669 acres in west-central New Mexico. Datil Well SMA 

contains hiking trails, 22 individual family camping units, and interpretive opportunities. Datil Well is a 

Pilot Fee Demonstration Site, and the BLM currently collects fees for camping only. Facilities and 

services available include picnic tables, fire pits, drinking water, firewood, and toilets. Occasionally, 

BLM personnel perform maintenance, patrol, environmental education, and visitor contact (BLM 1992). 

Since 1989, management has included the prohibition of woodcutting. BLM makes firewood available at 

the campground, which eliminates the need for such activities (BLM 1992). BLM has limited OHV use in 

the SMA to existing roads and trails. Generally, total campsite occupancy is about 25 to 50 percent during 

weekdays and about 60 to 90 percent during the weekend through the primary use season (April through 

November) (BLM 1992). The majority of visits to Datil Well Campground occur during hunting seasons 

(BLM 1992). Data presented below show an increase in visitor use since 1995, with a visit defined as 

overnight use (with varying lengths of stay) with an average party size of between two and three persons 

(BLM 1992, 2004a; Carson 2003a). 

x 1995 – 1,249 visits 

x 1996 – 2,398 visits 

x 1997 – 2,000 visits 

x 1998 – 2,245 visits 

x 1999 – 2,747 visits 

x 2000 – 3,200 visits 

x 2001 – 3,785 visits 

x 2002 – 4,500 visits 

x 2003 – 4,500 visits 

x 2004 – 4,875 visits 

Areas not specifically managed to maintain recreational values (i.e., areas other than special designations) 

are by default part of the Extensive Recreation Management Area. The Extensive Recreation 

Management Area, which does not require designation, is open for recreational uses. These areas are 

routinely monitored. Periodic patrol of the Extensive Recreation Management Area provides the 

necessary information for appropriate management and feedback to planning. 

Federal land not managed by BLM that provides recreational opportunities within the Planning Area 

includes three national forests, two National Wildlife Refuges, and two National Park Service properties. 

The national forests, including portions of the Cibola, Gila, and Apache National Forests, provide 

additional opportunities for dispersed recreation similar to that offered on public land; however, national 

forests provide more developed recreational sites for camping, picnicking, and other activities. Public 

land is located adjacent to the national forests in several areas where recreational uses may cross 

jurisdictional boundaries. The two National Wildlife Refuges managed by USFWS (i.e., Sevilleta 

National Wildlife Refuge and Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge) provide areas for 

birdwatching and unique wildlife viewing opportunities. Other activities at the bosque include fishing and 

small- and big-game hunting. Public land surrounds portions of the two National Wildlife Refuges; 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-51 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

however, visitors seem to stay within the National Wildlife Refuge boundaries due to the quality of 

wildlife viewing (Carson 2003a). 

3.3.5.2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) recognizes that people want and need different recreation 

experiences, and that the resource base has a varying potential for providing recreation experiences. 

Through ROS, BLM can characterize demand for various types of recreation settings and opportunities, 

and the capability of the resource to provide such experiences. All possible combinations of recreation 

experiences, setting, and activity opportunities can be arranged along a spectrum, or continuum. The ROS 

is divided into six classes: primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded 

natural, rural, and modern urban. Each class is defined in terms of a combination of activity, setting, and 

experience opportunities. Further information on ROS is provided in Appendix E. 

ROS classes are established as a result of inventory and are used as an analysis tool in the RMP process. 

A minimal level 1 inventory was completed for this plan and for use as a tool in developing alternatives 

and management actions related to recreation experiences. This inventory of ROS classes is presented in 

Map 3-13.

3.3.6 Renewable Energy

Interest in biomass-fueled power generation has been expressed within the Planning Area. Additional 

information is provided in Section 3.3.2, Forestry and Woodlands. 

3.3.6.1 Solar Energy 

Solar energy is a renewable energy resource that has excellent potential for generating electricity in 

Socorro and Catron Counties. Electricity is generated when sunlight contacts a photovoltaic cell that 

transforms solar energy to electricity. Solar energy resources are classified based on the amount of solar 

radiation that contacts the ground surface in a specified area. The amount of solar energy resource 

available at a specific location varies with the latitude of that location, the season, and the time of day. 

The Planning Area has generally uniform, high potential for solar energy generation. The relatively high 

elevation and arid climate are conducive to clear, sunny days with high solar radiation. However, there is 

no reported activity on public land for the testing or exploitation of commercial-scale solar resources in 

the Planning Area. 

3.3.6.2 Wind Energy 

Wind energy is a renewable energy resource that has excellent potential for generating electricity. Wind 

resources are classified based on the typical wind speed measured at a location or area. Wind-power 

classes range from lowest (Class 1) to highest (Class 7). Wind-power is considered economic for large 

turbines (utilities-scale) at Class 3 and higher, although a small turbine can be used at Class 1. 

There are four wind-power classes available in the Planning Area: Class 4, Class 3, Class 2, and Class 1. 

The areas having the highest wind-power class correspond to areas of higher elevation and higher relief as 

well as higher wind velocity. The locations for each wind-power class in the Planning Area are as 

follows:

Class 4 – includes the Oscura Mountains in southeastern Socorro County, which jut up from the flat 

Jornada del Muerto and Tularosa Valley; and the peak elevations in the Magdalena, Mogollon, and 

San Mateo Mountains. Wind-energy resources range from 400 to 500 watts per square meter at a 

turbine elevation of 165 feet above ground level. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-52 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Class 3 – includes the upper elevations of the San Mateo and Magdalena Mountains in southwestern 

Socorro County. This class includes the upper elevations of the mountain ranges in central and 

southern Catron County that follow the general trend of the Continental Divide including the Gallo, 

Tularosa, and Mogollon Mountains, and Black Range. Those ranges are within the Apache and Gila 

National Forests. Wind-energy resources range from 300 to 400 watts per square meter at a turbine 

elevation of 165 feet above ground level. 

Class 2 – includes the lower elevations of the mountain ranges in central and southern Catron County 

that follow the general trend of the Continental Divide, including the Gallo, Tularosa, and Mogollon 

Mountains, and Black Range. This class includes the lower elevations of the San Mateo and 

Magdalena Mountains in southwestern Socorro County, and the upper elevations of lesser mountains 

in eastern Socorro County and throughout Catron County. Wind-energy resources range from 200 to 

300 watts per square meter at a turbine elevation of 165 feet above ground level. 

Class 1 – includes the low-lying areas west of the Rio Grande in Socorro and Catron Counties, and 

relatively flat mesas and valleys east of the Rio Grande including the Jornada del Muerto, Tularosa 

Valley, and Chupadera Mesa. Wind-energy resources are less than 200 watts per square meter at a 

turbine elevation of 165 feet above ground level. 

Wind energy potential ranges from high to low and is dependent on the difference in elevation. Hence, the 

higher mountain elevations have greater wind energy potential. High potential is found at the highest 

elevations, which include Socorro Peak and the Magdalena, Mogollon, and San Mateo Mountains. 

Moderate potential is found at the intermediate elevations on those same mountains. Low potential is 

found in areas having lesser elevation differences and the low elevations, such as the flat valleys east of 

the Rio Grande River. There are no areas of no wind energy potential because even areas having light 

winds can generate power using small-scale wind turbines. 

At this time, there are no monitoring sites, commercial operations, or other activity reported in the 

Planning Area. However, wind energy is being actively developed on State land in the eastern part of the 

state. Resource assessments are in progress by commercial interests to identify sites for development. 

3.3.7 Transportation and Travel Management

3.3.7.1 Transportation System 

Within the Planning Area, roadways, railroads, and airports provide access to the general area and public 

land. Access to public land and its resources is provided largely by an extensive network of highways, 

roads, trails, and “ways” (primitive two-track trails located within WSAs). 

The existing transportation network is shown on Map 3-14, Existing Access. The major existing 

transportation facilities include I-25; US 60, US 180, and US 380; and NM 12 and NM 169. I-25 runs 

north to south through Socorro County as it parallels the Rio Grande. US 60 enters Catron County north 

of the Gila National Forest and travels easterly, linking the communities of Quemado, Pie Town, Datil, 

Magdalena, and Socorro. US 60 also travels east from Bernardo. US 180 extends from the Arizona border 

west of Reserve, south through the Gila National Forest, out of the Planning Area into Silver City and 

Deming. US 380 begins at the community of San Antonio and heads east and out of the Planning Area in 

southeastern Socorro County. Travel along US 380 is restricted at certain times due to White Sands 

Missile Range missile firings, yet it is seldom closed for more than a few hours (BLM 1989b). NM 12 

begins at US 180 and travels east through the Gila National Forest, connecting the towns of Reserve and 

Aragon before leaving the Gila National Forest and connecting with US 60 near Datil. The NM 169 is a 

road that leads from Magdalena to the north, providing access to the Alamo Band Navajo Indian 

Reservation. Numerous other State highways and county roads are located throughout the Planning Area. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-53 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Map 3-14 includes primitive routes3 or “ways” within WSAs. These “ways” were mapped by BLM 

between 1978 and 19804

.

3.3.7.2 Traffic Volumes 

State Highway Department reports annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts by roadway within 

individual counties. The AADT counts are reported at milepost increments with similar AADTs within 

each county for roads that cross county boundaries. AADT counts may vary significantly on the same 

stretch of roadway depending upon the surrounding land uses (i.e., rural versus urban areas). This factor 

makes documenting AADT counts by roadway and county difficult. Table 3-11 shows the range of 

AADT volumes for the five major roads within Socorro and Catron Counties. 

TABLE 3-11 

ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON MAIN ROADS 

IN SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES 

Road Range of Annual Average Daily 

Traffic Observed 

Average of All AADT Volumes 

Recorded within the Planning Area 

Interstate 25 1,737 – 6,662 4,104 

US 60 478 – 3,306 1,129 

US 180 1,261 – 2,532 1,284 

US 380 727 – 2,028 1,539 

NM 12 96 – 1,254 415 

SOURCE: New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department 2003 

3.3.7.3 Access to Public Land 

An extensive network of improved and unimproved roads and trails provides access to public land 

throughout the Planning Area. Based on the best available data, there are over 13,000 miles of routes 

providing motorized access to public land in the Planning Area. County roads are critical to providing 

access to public land, and other important routes are BLM roads. The full existing network of existing 

roads and trails is provided in Map 3-14. In addition, the Socorro Field Office has established foot trails 

to provide non-motorized access to public land. 

Since 1989, legal access has been acquired for the Pelona Mountain SMA, Fort Craig SMA, Cottonwood 

Canyon, Bat Cave, and areas of the Continental Divide Trail, as determined necessary in the 1989 RMP. 

Legal access also exists for Walnut Canyon via Socorro County Roads A128 and E128 (Bell 2003). Legal 

access has not been acquired for the Sawtooth ACEC, which also was determined as needed in the 1989 

RMP.

Map 3-14 identifies roads and trails within the Planning Area that have been closed. BLM has closed 

(through temporary or emergency trail closures) or proposed to close about 25.5 miles of roads or trails 

since 1989. However, none of these proposed closures have included RMP amendments, as required by 

43 CFR 8342. Therefore, these roads have not been closed formally through the planning process, but 

these closures are included in all of the action alternatives for this RMPR. 

 

3

 Primitive routes or ways are maintained solely by the passage of vehicles and do not constitute roads. A road is 

improved and maintained by mechanical means to ensure relatively regular and continuous use (BLM 2001c). 4

 These “ways” existed within the WSAs prior to the enactment of FLPMA in 1976; “existing facilities” and 

“grandfathered” uses are provided for under BLM’s Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness

Review (1995). Therefore, these pre-existing, or pre-FLPMA, routes have unique status and become the planning 

baseline for all route designations in the WSAs. Throughout the route designation process, “ways” may be 

referred to as “routes.” 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-54 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

Motorized vehicle access within WSAs is limited to “ways,” which were established prior to the 

implementation of FLPMA and that have not been closed by BLM since then (BLM closed 36 miles of 

ways with the 1989 RMP). Ways are defined as primitive routes that have been developed and maintained 

solely by the passage of vehicles and do not constitute roads. A road is improved and maintained by 

mechanical means to ensure relatively regular and continuous use (BLM 2001c). According to BLM 

policy, any vehicle routes established in WSAs after 1976, which were not identified in BLM Wilderness 

Inventories, are considered unauthorized. BLM management decisions detailed within the 1988 Proposed 

RMP Final EIS discussed access activity plans to be developed specifically to identify certain easement 

needs and target acquisition dates. Access activity planning determines whether the existing legal access 

is sufficient, insufficient, excessive, or in some cases a mix of the three (BLM 1989a). In activity 

planning analyses, the distinction between legal access and physical access will be addressed (BLM 

1989a). Legal access will be pursued, where needed, through the use of existing physical access routes 

before new road construction is considered, as long as the existing physical access route serves the 

intended purposes (BLM 1989a). Only one access activity plan has been initiated since adoption of the 

RMP, but this plan has not been completed (BLM 1999b). 

3.3.7.4 Off-highway Vehicle Use 

OHV use occurs throughout the Planning Area, as both a mode of transportation and a recreation use. 

OHVs transport people to remote areas for activities such as hunting. As a recreation use, OHVs are often 

used for touring, sightseeing, family activities, hill climbing, and various competitive events (Jaggers 

2003a). Motorized OHV use on BLM land has increased substantially in recent years (BLM 2001c). By 

far, most of the OHV activity within the Planning Area is dispersed and occurs during the fall and winter 

when hunters pursue big game. Most cross-country traffic (i.e., vehicle travel off of established trails and 

roads) occurs during this time period, resulting in the pioneering or proliferation of new trails (Jaggers 

2003b). 

To manage OHV use on public lands, including within WSAs, the BLM designates areas as open, limited, 

or closed to OHV use in accordance with 43 CFR 8340 (see Appendix J for additional information). 

Existing OHV area designations are shown in Map 3-15, Existing OHV Area Designations, and 

summarized by acres in Table 3-12. Approximately 57 percent of the Planning Area is open to 

unrestricted vehicle access, and about 38 percent is restricted to existing or designated roads and trails 

(Jaggers 2003a). Less than 2 percent of the road and trail system in the Planning Area is closed to vehicle 

use due to sensitive resources (e.g., cultural, scenic, or habitat resource protection). 

TABLE 3-12 

EXISTING OHV AREA DESIGNATIONS 

Area Designation Acres

Open to OHV use 851,234 

Limited to existing or designated roads and trails 562,914 

Seasonally limiteda 20,120 

Closed to motorized travel 29,117

Undesignatedb 40,810 

SOURCE: Bureau of Land Management 2003a 

NOTES: Acreage calculations are based on the BLM’s best available GIS data. a

 Limited to existing roads and trails between November 1 and March 31, otherwise designated as open 

for OHV use. 

bRecently acquired lands within WSAs are considered “undesignated” for OHV use. 

Although a majority of the OHV use on public land within the Planning Area is dispersed, BLM has 

recognized Gordy’s Hill as an “open” area where intensive OHV activity has occurred for more than 30 

years. This area is located in Socorro County on approximately 1,200 acres within T. 2 S., R. 1 E. A 

boundary was not designated in the 1989 RMP, but the “open” areas comprised the drainages of Arroyo 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-55 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

de la Parida, Arroyo del Coyote, and Arroyo de los Pinos, with the general ridge areas between the 

drainages “limited to existing roads and trails.” After the 1989 RMP went into effect, casual use OHV 

visitors expanded the area to an estimated 6,000 acres, sandwiched between the two WSAs, Veranito on 

the north and Presilla on the south. The estimated use area extends from near Pueblito east for about 

3.5 miles. The use area distance between the two WSAs is about 4 miles. BLM was unable to control this 

informal expansion. The current estimated use boundary is effectively defined by the WSA boundaries 

north to south, and west to east from the Pueblito hamlet to the private holdings and where the Quebradas 

Backcountry Byway turns south. 

The BLM Socorro Field Office estimates that approximately 20 miles of motorized trail have been 

established in the Gordy’s Hill area as a result of the intensive use. Within this area, BLM has issued use 

permits for OHV events such as hill climbs and motorcross. This area is the site of the annual 

“Socorro 100” motorcycle/all-terrain vehicle competition, which draws hundreds of participants and 

spectators each fall. The first competitions began in 1989, after BLM was approached by the New Mexico 

Desert Racing Association to locate a suitable track or course for its proposed motorized competition. 

Once the track was laid out and potential impacts analyzed in an environmental assessment, BLM issued 

a Special Recreation Use Permit for the event. BLM continues to issue a permit each year for this event. 

In 2002, approximately 160 entrants raced during two days of hill climbing and cross-country racing 

competitions on the existing trails in this area. 

Data supporting the increased use of OHVs were obtained from the New Mexico Department of Motor 

Vehicles. According to New Mexico Department of Motor Vehicles, vehicle registration of OHVs has 

increased throughout the State and within Socorro and Catron Counties. Data received from the New 

Mexico Department of Motor Vehicles is provided in Table 3-13. 

TABLE 3-13 

1990 AND 2000 REGISTRATION STATISTICS FOR 

OHVS, MOTORCYCLES, AND TRUCKS 

Geographic Area Vehicle Type 1990 2000 Change 

Off-Highway 23 119 417% 

Motorcycle 206 156 -24% 

Socorro County 

Truck 4,003 5,116 28% 

Off-Highway 21 41 95% 

Motorcycle 52 84 62% 

Catron County 

Truck 1,532 2,178 42% 

Off-Highway 2,995 7,457 149% 

Motorcycle 26,126 25,408 -3% 

New Mexico 

Truck 401,315 498,292 24% 

SOURCE: New Mexico Department of Motor Vehicles 2003 

NOTE: Trucks include sport utility vehicles. 

As indicated by these data, OHV registrations have increased substantially within the Planning Area, as 

well as in New Mexico, over the past 10 years. OHV users in the Planning Area may have their vehicle(s) 

registered in other counties (or possibly other states). The increased number of OHVs and trucks 

corresponds with increased use on and off roads and trails within the Planning Area. 

In areas adjacent to public land, OHV use occurs on national forest, State, and private land throughout the 

Planning Area. Due to the dispersed nature of recreation on State and private land, OHV activity in these 

areas is likely similar to the use occurring on BLM lands. Generally, most national forest land that 

interfaces with the Socorro Field Office is open to cross-country OHV use. Most Forest Service land that 

is closed to OHV use is within special designations (e.g., wilderness) and in areas where there is a need to 

protect sensitive species, important wildlife habitat, and other unique natural and historical resources. The 

USFWS prohibits the use of OHVs within the two national wildlife refuges. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-56 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

3.3.8 Utility Corridors and Communication Sites

3.3.8.1 Rights-of-Way, Leases, and Permits 

There are numerous existing road rights-of-way in the Planning Area, including Federal and State 

highways, county roads, and other access roads. Major utility right-of-way holders in the Planning Area 

include three American Telephone and Telegraph Company communication sites; two Quemado 

Television Association television translator sites near Quemado; a Western New Mexico Telephone 

Company communication site near Magdalena; and a double-track railroad that was granted to the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of the 27-antenna the Very Large Array project located in the 

Plains of San Agustin (BLM 1989b). 

3.3.8.2 Utility Corridors 

No designated right-of-way corridors exist on public land within the Planning Area. Instead, BLM has 

designated right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas to enhance right-of-way management, as 

described below. Many of the linear facilities authorized under various right-of-way grants have led to the 

establishment of de facto right-of-way corridors (BLM 1989a). The major utility rights-of-way in the 

Planning Area include Navopache Electric, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Socorro 

Electric Cooperative, Western New Mexico Electric, El Paso Electric, Plains Electric, and Eastern New 

Mexico Electric (Bell 2002a, 2003). 

The BLM designated right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas in the Planning Area through the 1989 

RMP. In May 1991, the Socorro Resource Area Right-of-Way Avoidance Area Plan (BLM 1991b) was 

initiated. BLM Manual 1623.51 states that right-of-way exclusion areas are areas where future rights-ofway may be granted only when mandated by law. Reasonable access cannot be denied to a mining 

claimant (43 CFR 3809) unless the land is withdrawn from mineral entry. Exclusion areas include Horse 

Mountain, San Pedro, and Sawtooth ACECs and all VRM Class I areas (Map 3-16, Right-of-Way 

Exclusion and Avoidance Areas). The VRM Class I areas include portions of the Tinajas SMA and the 

highlands of Ladron Mountain SMA. Designated right-of-way exclusion areas cover approximately 

39,745 acres of BLM-managed surface land. 

Right-of-way avoidance areas are defined as areas where future rights-of-way may be granted only when 

no feasible alternative route is available (BLM 1991b). Avoidance areas are identified based on resource 

management objectives, and occupy approximately 467,091 acres of BLM-managed surface land (see 

Map 3-16). The purpose of right-of-way avoidance areas is to reduce the likelihood of rights-of-way 

being placed in these areas. When possible, alternative routes and sites would be considered. 

3.3.9 Land Tenure

The purpose of land tenure adjustments is to provide for efficient management of public resources. The 

1989 RMP designated broad areas as BLM retention and disposal areas, as illustrated in Map 3-17, Land 

Tenure. Retention areas tend to encompass consolidated blocks of public land including special 

designations, such as WSAs, ACECs, and SMAs. Disposal areas include isolated, unmanageable public 

land parcels near and within well-blocked areas of private and State Trust Land, and areas that include 

scattered parcels of public land that have proven difficult to manage. In addition, the 1989 RMP restricted 

disposals or withdrawals within coal areas so that exploration and development would not be inhibited. 

Since the 1989 RMP was adopted, surface management status has changed as the result of certain land 

actions. BLM has completed a land exchange with the State of New Mexico and two exchanges with 

private landowners. One mineral estate exchange occurred with New Mexico and Arizona Land 

Company, resulting in the disposal of all minerals on approximately 14,704 acres and oil and gas on an 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-57 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

additional 1,240 acres. Adjustments to surface management resulting from these actions are shown on 

Map 1-1.

In addition to exchanges since 1989, disposals of public land have altered land tenure in the Planning 

Area. Disposals generally occurred pursuant to Section 203 of the FLPMA as BLM disposed of land 

under the Middle Rio Grande Occupancy Resolution Program. The program was developed to resolve 

long-standing title disputes in the Rio Grande Valley, where public land inadvertently had been treated as 

private land. Under this program, public land was disposed of through sales (competitive, modified 

competitive, and direct), and Color-of-Title disposals (Bell 2003). Through the late 1990s and early 

2000s, the number of disposals steadily declined as title problems were resolved with the issuance of 

numerous public land patents (Bell 2003). 

Since 1989, three Recreation and Public Purpose patent transactions have been issued. BLM conveyed to 

the State of New Mexico approximately 120 acres of public surface land for the construction of the 

El Camino Real International Heritage Center. In addition, 5 acres of public surface land were conveyed 

for the Luis Lopez Fire Station. In October 1995, Catron County acquired 150 acres of public land for a 

recreational area that includes a picnic and camping area, cemetery, rodeo arena, race track area, shipping 

pens, a little league ball park, and a transfer station. 

3.3.10 Hazardous Materials and Public Safety

3.3.10.1 Hazardous Materials 

BLM stores and uses hazardous substances at the Socorro Field Office, including a variety of flammable 

and combustible liquids. Types of hazardous chemicals used by BLM include paint, fuel, lubricants, oil, 

adhesives, antifreeze, propane, household cleaners, and fuses (for starting back fires) (Seagraves 2003). 

All of these materials are stored in fire-proof cabinetry or buildings at the Socorro Field Office and are 

used in de minimis quantities for construction and maintenance activities on the public land (Seagraves 

2003). That is, the chemicals are stored in quantities that generally do not represent a risk of harm to 

public health or the environment, or a condition that would be subject to regulatory enforcement. 

In the past, BLM has leased land to Socorro and Catron Counties under the Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act for use as sanitary landfills. The responsible parties for these areas with regard to the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act solid waste regulations are the counties to whom the land was 

leased. There have been seven separate leases executed for these purposes since 1965. Table 3-14 lists the 

common names of these lease areas and the initial date of execution for each. 

TABLE 3-14 

RECREATION AND PUBLIC PURPOSES ACT 

LEASES FOR SANITARY LANDFILLS 

Common Name Execution Date Acres 

Old San Antonio Landfill February 1965 10.00 

Old Lemitar Landfill February 1967 10.00 

Quemado Landfill February 1966 10.00 

Datil Landfill April 1966 10.00 

PieTown Landfill May 1966 10.00 

Lemitar Landfill July 1982 5.893 

San Antonio Landfill March 1983 8.800 

SOURCE: Lois Bell 2002b 

There are other activities taking place or may take place on public land that have the potential to use 

hazardous materials or generate hazardous wastes through leases, access agreements, or land use 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-58 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

designations. These activities include mining, oil and natural gas exploration and production, OHV use, 

and construction of power plants. Mining activities are regulated by the NMED, as well as by the Mining 

and Minerals Division of the NMEMNRD. The exploration and production of oil and natural gas in New 

Mexico, while excluded from Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, is regulated by the Oil 

Conservation Division of the NMEMNRD. OHV use, while a potential source for pollutants, is an 

activity conducted by individual private citizens and, therefore, not specifically subject to regulation. Any 

new power plants built would fall under regulation by the Air Quality Bureau of NMED. 

3.3.10.2 White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Areas 

The White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Areas are Federal (administered by BLM), State, and 

private lands outside the boundaries of the missile range that are used periodically for launching missiles 

onto the range or as safety “fans” for missiles that impact on the range near the boundaries. Although 

missiles may be launched from the Safety Evacuation Areas, they are not purposely impacted into the 

areas. The use of the Safety Evacuation Areas as safety fans around the impact zone on the missile range 

provides a margin of safety from missile debris. These fans may extend for several miles in all directions 

around the impact target. 

A number of people, mostly ranchers, live inside the Safety Evacuation Areas. These areas are also used 

by nonresidents, including recreationists and hunters. Whenever an area is needed for a launch or impact 

fan, all residents as well as any nonresidents within the area must evacuate for 12 hours. White Sands 

Missile Range has set up contracts with residents in the Safety Evacuation Areas that stipulate timing 

considerations and compensation for inconvenience of the evacuation and the time lost from pursuing 

their livelihood. The amount of the payments varies with the resident and the size of the ranch holding. 

The contracts generally stipulate the following: 

x The duration of the evacuation period is 12 hours. 

x There is a minimum of 48 hours between evacuation periods. 

x There are no evacuations during cattle shipping – October 15 to November 15 each year. 

x There are no evacuations on holidays or the day before holidays. 

x Evacuations occur no more than 25 times a year per area, and no more than 4 times per month. 

x The contracts is for 5 years. 

The notification or call-up process for residents in the Safety Evacuation Areas consists of a 30-day notice 

following the White Sands Missile Range monthly forecast of activity on the range. This is later followed 

by a 10-day notice (mailed 15 days before the activity). A 3-day notice is then hand delivered to those 

who are living within the Safety Evacuation Areas. 

Anyone using these areas who is not a resident therein, such as a hiker or hunter, would not have any 

advance notice that evacuations might occur in an area. All primary access roads in the areas are blocked 

during the 12-hour activity period, so a recreationist would not be aware of the evacuation unless a 

roadblock is encountered. This has resulted in a number of complaints, primarily from hunters, to BLM in 

the past. Table 3-15 shows the number of evacuations that have occurred in the last 3 years. 

TABLE 3-15 

NUMBER OF EVACUATIONS FROM WHITE SANDS 

MISSILE RANGE SAFETY EVACUATION AREAS, 2002-2004 

 2002 2003 2004 

Total 

2002-2004 

Annual Total 52 25 32 109 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-59 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

White Sands Missile Range has established procedures to handle a projectile impact off-range into one of 

the Safety Evacuation Areas. First, the location where the projectile impacted is determined. The rancher 

or landowner, including BLM or the New Mexico State Land Office, as appropriate, is notified. White 

Sands Missile Range receives permission from the rancher or landowner for recovery of the device. A 

land specialist accompanies the White Sands Missile Range Recovery/Explosive Ordnance Disposal team 

to the site. The device and associated debris are removed from the site and the impacts mitigated as 

needed.

3.4 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

BLM, through previous inventory and land planning efforts, has identified areas of public land for special 

designation, including WSAs, ACECs, SRMAs, SMAs, backcountry byways, and national historic or 

scenic trails (BLM 1990, 1989a). WSAs and national historic or scenic trails are units within the BLM’s 

National Landscape Conservation System. BLM established the National Landscape Conservation 

System in 2000 to increase public awareness of the scientific, cultural, educational, ecological, and other 

values present within certain special designations (BLM 2004b). 

The Planning Area includes 13 WSAs, 6 ACECs, and 22 SMAs (Maps 3-7 and 3-12). WSAs are 

described further in Section 3.2.14, Wilderness Characteristics. The special designations overlap in 

certain areas, particularly with respect to WSAs. For example, an ACEC or SMA may be partially or 

wholly located within the boundaries of a WSA. Only minimal overlap occurs between the designated 

SMAs and ACECs. In addition to these special designations, the Planning Area includes one National 

Backcountry Byway, one National Historic Trail, and one National Scenic Trail. 

The overall acreage of each designation within the Decision Area is presented in Table 3-16; no acreage 

values have been associated with the byway or trails. Table 3-17 provides the acreages for each special 

designation from the 1989 RMP, calculations of acreage based on GIS data, and a summary of the 

resource values protected by the designation. Acreages in Table 3-16 and Table 3-17 have been derived 

from the best available GIS data unless otherwise stated. As a result, there may be some variation from 

acreages in previous documents. Maps of the existing ACECs and SMAs (Maps 3-18 through 3-37) 

follow Table 3-17; additional information on these areas is provided in Appendix K. 

TABLE 3-16 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ON BLM-MANAGED PUBLIC LAND 

County Special Designation Acres of BLM-Managed

Surface Land 1

WSA 154,4922

ACEC 61,859 

Socorro 

SMA 49,250 

WSA 137,323 

ACEC 17,186 

Catron 

SMA 110,666 

SOURCE: Bureau of Land Management 2003a 

NOTES: 1 Acreage values should not be summed for the total of specially designated public land within each county 

because of overlap in designations. 2 The Jornada del Muerto WSA also includes 4,070 acres of public land in Sierra County, which is managed 

by the Las Cruces District Office. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-60 Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment

April 2007

TABLE 3-17 

ACREAGES OF SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ON BLM-MANAGED PUBLIC LAND 

Special Designation 

Acres in

1989 

RMP 

Acres as 

Calculated 

in GIS Resource Values Protected 

ACECs 

Agua Fria 10,770 9,571 Wildlife habitat, cultural resources, recreation, geologic, scenic 

Horse Mountain 7,720 7,490 Wildlife habitat, recreation, scenic, geologic 

Ladron Mountain 62,460 57,195 Wildlife habitat, special status sp. (plant and animal), recreation, 

scenic, geologic, paleontologic 

San Pedro Proprietary 1,200 1,201 Special status plants 

Sawtooth Proprietary 120 125 Special status plants 

Tinajas 3,520 3,463 Cultural resources, recreation 

SMAs

The Box 320 300 Recreational, scenic 

Cerro Pomo 8,840 8,784 Cultural resources, wildlife habitat, recreation 

Fence Lake 32,840 25,453 Watershed, range, wildlife habitat, minerals, cultural resources 

Fort Craig 160 149 Historic, recreation 

Harvey Plot 3 8 Vegetation 

Iron Mine Ridge 

Proprietary

1,440 1,386 Special status plants 

Mockingbird Gap 

Proprietary

11,970 8,685 Cultural resources 

Mogollon Pueblo 

Proprietary

640 640 Cultural resources 

Newton Site Proprietary 40 37 Cultural resources 

Pelona Mountain 78,320 70,838 Wildlife habitat, scenic, geologic, recreational, cultural resources 

Playa Pueblos Proprietary 320 203 Cultural resources 

Puertecito 10,040 7,156 Watershed 

Rio Salado 6,400 5,946 Cultural resources, special status plants 

San Lorenzo Canyon 4,800 2,320 Wildlife habitat, cultural resources, scenic 

Soaptree 1,200 1,296 Vegetation 

Stallion 22,840 19,702 Watershed, vegetation, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, mineral, 

recreation

Taylor Canyon 

Proprietary

320 384 Special status plants 

Teypama 17 37 Cultural resources

Town of Riley 600 533 Cultural resources 

Walnut Canyon 1,730 1,145 Wildlife habitat, geologic, recreation, scenic 

Zuni Salt Lake 

Proprietary

5,760 4,839 Cultural resources 

Datil Well 680 669 Recreation 

Backcountry Byway 

Quebradas – – Recreation, scenic, geologic, wildlife habitat 

Trails 

Continental Divide 

National Scenic Trail 

– – Recreation, scenic resources 

El Camino Real NHT – – Cultural resources, historic value 

SOURCES: Bureau of Land Management 1989a, 2003a 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-61 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

3.5 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

The information provided in this section is based on the Baseline Socioeconomic Conditions Report 

(BLM 2003e) and incorporates additional analysis pertinent to the RMPR. 

3.5.1 Study Area

The study area for social and economic conditions was defined as the potential area of influence of one 

potential resource management decisions in the RMPR. Data are analyzed for the following geographic 

areas:

x State of New Mexico 

x Socorro and Catron Counties 

x Municipalities: City of Socorro, village of Magdelena, village of Reserve 

x Unincorporated communities: Glenwood, Aragon, Quemado, Pie Town, Datil, Abeytas, La Joya, 

San Marcial, Bernardo, San Antonio, Bingham, Claunch 

x American Indian Tribes: Alamo Band of the Navajo Indian Reservation 

The region of potential impact extends beyond the Planning Area to account for direct and indirect social 

and economic effects related to the activities being evaluated on public land in Socorro and Catron 

Counties, including those related to environmental justice. 

Since 1990, the percent increase in the population in the Planning Area has been large, but the number of 

new people is not large relative to the total State population, and the area remains sparsely populated 

overall. From 1990 to 2000, Socorro and Catron Counties grew 22 percent and 38 percent, respectively, 

more rapidly than the overall statewide growth rate of 20 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2002a). The 

growth in Catron County during this period also is notable in light of the reversal from the population 

decline during the 1980s. This growth in population has resulted in expanding urbanization, consequent 

growth of the urban-rural interface, and increasing demands on public lands within Socorro and Catron 

Counties for recreation, open space, and other resources. Population growth elsewhere in the State also 

may contribute to increased demand for the recreation and other resources provided within the Planning 

Area, which is within a day’s driving distance from population centers such as Albuquerque. 

3.5.2 Demographics

Selected demographic data from the 2000 U.S. Census, including total population, gender, age, and race 

and ethnicity, are presented in Table 3-18 for Socorro and Catron Counties. Socorro County, at 18,078 

residents, is almost five times more populous than Catron County, which has about 3,543 residents. 

Together, the two counties constitute 1.2 percent of the population of New Mexico. However, in terms of 

land area, the two counties combined constitute 11.2 percent of New Mexico. According to the 2000 

U.S. Census, there are 0.5 persons per square mile within Catron County and 2.7 persons per square mile 

within Socorro County. This same statistic for New Mexico is 15.0 persons per square mile, and there are 

79.6 persons per square mile nationwide (U.S. Census Bureau 2002b). 

There are no notable differences in gender distribution. With a median age of 47.5 years, Catron County 

has an older population than Socorro County or the State, overall. Race distribution within the counties 

differs dramatically, with a significantly higher percentage of Caucasian people living in Catron County 

(87.8 percent) than the percentage of Caucasian people living in Socorro County (62.9 percent). The 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-62 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

percentage of Caucasians in Socorro County is similar to that of the State of New Mexico (66.8 percent), 

but is much lower than the national percentage (77.1 percent). In contrast, Catron County has a 

significantly higher percentage of Caucasians than either New Mexico or the United States. At 

2.2 percent, Catron County’s American Indian/Alaska Native population compares closely to that of the 

Nation (1.5 percent), but is far below that of the State of New Mexico (9.5 percent). In contrast, Socorro 

County’s American Indian/Alaska Native population, at 10.9 percent, is more closely comparable to that 

of the State of New Mexico than that of the United States. No other racial category accounts for more 

than 2.2 percent of the population in either county. Catron County has a much smaller proportion of the 

population that is of Hispanic or Latino origin5

 than that of New Mexico (19.2 percent compared to 

42.1 percent), while Socorro County’s percent of persons of Hispanic or Latino origin is somewhat higher 

(48.7 percent). All of these percentages are substantially higher than the Hispanic/Latino population of the 

United States, at 12.5 percent. 

The Alamo Band of the Navajo Nation includes Tribal trust lands held by both the Alamo Band and 

Navajo Nation and individual BIA allotments (Socorro County 1998). The Alamo Navajo Reservation, 

which is situated 220 miles southeast of the Navajo Nation capital of Window Rock, is isolated 

geographically from the Navajo Reservation. The Alamo Navajo Reservation also comprises the Alamo 

Chapter of the Navajo Nation, one of the 110 of these political entities or subdivisions of the Navajo 

Nation, which are similar to counties. The population of the reservation in 2000 was 2,072, of which 95.7 

percent was American Indian/Alaska Native. The median age, at 24.0, is quite young in comparison to 

other areas in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2002g). 

Historical and projected population growth for 1980 to 2020 is presented in Table 3-19. According to the 

data, Catron County experienced a population decrease of approximately 5.7 percent in the decade from 

1980 to 1990, but an increase of 38.2 percent during the next decade. Socorro County’s population 

increased 17.2 percent from 1980 to 1990 and 22.4 percent from 1990 to 2000. During the 20-year period, 

both counties exceeded the population growth experienced within the State and nationally. Projected 

growth rates for Socorro County for the next two decades slightly exceed those of New Mexico, and are 

more than double national projected growth rates. Projected growth rates for Catron County are slightly 

less than the State but greater than the Nation. 

3.5.3 Economic Activity, Employment, and Earnings 

In general, growth in the economies of Socorro and Catron Counties has been commensurate with 

population growth. As the population in the two counties combined increased by 81 percent from 1970 to 

2000, jobs in the two counties combined more than doubled from 4,220 in 1970 to 8,583 in 2000 

(U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2003a). Table 3-20 presents employment 

data by type and by industry. 

While there are quite a few North American Industry Classification System sectors for which data were 

suppressed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the available data together with the trend data in 

Table 3-21 provides adequate baseline data for employment. Table 3-21 presents trend data for the six 

major industry groupings in the two counties. In some cases, particularly for Catron County, data are 

 

5

 Based on Office of Management and Budget guidelines, there are the five minimum categories for data on race 

and two categories for data on ethnicity: “Hispanic or Latino” and “Not Hispanic or Latino” (Executive Office of 

the President, Office of Management and Budget 1997). People of Hispanic or Latino origin may be of any race. 

People of Hispanic or Latino origin, in particular, include those who indicate their origin as Mexican, Puerto 

Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or some other Hispanic origin. For example, people who indicate that 

they are of Mexican origin may be born either in Mexico or of Mexican heritage. The U.S. Census Bureau uses 

the terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” interchangeably (U.S. Census Bureau 2001b). 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-63 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment April 2007 

TABLE 3-18 

SELECTED CENSUS 2000 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 

Socorro County Catron County New Mexico United States 

Total Population 18,078 3,543 1,819,046 281,421,906 Persons per Square Mile 2.7 0.5 15.0 79.6 Gender Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Male 9,184 50.8 1,812 51.1 894,317 49.2 138,053,563 49.1 Female 8,894 49.2 1,731 48.9 924,729 50.8 143,368,343 50.9 AgeUnder 20 Years 5,904 32.6 807 22.8 564,859 31.0 84,522,713 30.0 20 to 64 Years 10,207 56.5 2,069 58.4 1,041,962 57.3 161,907,440 57.6 Age 65 and Older 1,967 10.9 667 18.8 212,225 11.7 34,991,753 12.4 Median Age 32.4 N/A 47.8 N/A 34.6 N/A 35.3 N/A Race and Ethnicity White 11,365 62.9 3,109 87.8 1,214,253 66.8 216,930,975 77.1 Black or African American 116 0.6 10 0.3 34,343 1.9 36,419,434 12.9 American Indian/Alaska Native 1,974 10.9 78 2.2 173,483 9.5 4,119,301 1.5 Asian 206 1.1 24 0.7 19,255 1.1 11,898,828 4.2 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 10 0.1 2 0.1 1,503 0.1 874,414 0.3 Hispanic or Latino (any Race) 8,810 48.7 679 19.2 765,386 42.1 35,305,818 12.5 

Graphical Representation of Race Distribution 

0

908070605040302010

Socorro County Catron County New Mexico United States

Percentage

White Black/African AmericanAmerican Indian/Alaska NativeAsian Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific IslanderHispanic or Latino (any race)

SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau 2002b, 2002c 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-64 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment April 2007 

TABLE 3-19 

HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH 

Historical Population Growth Projected Population Growth Rate of Change 

GeographicArea 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

1980 to 

1990 

1990 to 

2000 

2000 to 

2010 

2010 to 

2020 

United States 226,542,199 248,718,291 281,421,906 287,716,000 299,862,000 312,268,000 324,927,000 9.8 13.1 6.6 8.4 New Mexico 1,303,302 1,515,069 1,819,046 1,970,982 2,112,957 2,251,249 2,382,999 16.2 20.1 16.2 12.8 Socorro County 12,566 14,764 18,078 19,802 21,421 23,000 24,493 17.5 22.4 18.5 14.3 Catron County 2,720 2,563 3,543 3,828 4,063 4,275 4,459 -5.7 38.2 14.7 9.7 

Graphical Representation – Counties

0

5,000

25,00020,00015,00010,000

1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Year

Population Catron County Socorro County

SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau 1990, 2002c Population Projections: For the U.S.: U.S. Census Bureau 2000; For New Mexico: University of New Mexico Bureau of Business and Economic Research 2002
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-65 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment April 2007 

TABLE 3-20 

EMPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK 

United States New Mexico Socorro County Catron County 

Total Full-time and Part-time Employment1 167,535,600 989,989 7,394 1,457 By Type No. of Jobs % of Total No. of Jobs % of Total No. of Jobs % of Total No. of Jobs % of Total Wage and salary employment 139,165,000 83.1 802,681 81.1 5,728 77.5 710 48.7 Proprietors’ employment 28,380,600 16.9 187,681 18.9 1,666 22.5 747 51.3  Farm proprietors’ employment 2,205,000 1.3 14,785 1.5 409 5.5 216 14.8  Nonfarm proprietors’ employment2 26,165,600 15.6 172,523 17.4 1,257 17.0 531 36.4 By Industry No. of Jobs % of Total No. of Jobs % of Total No. of Jobs % of Total No. of Jobs % of Total Farm employment 3,075,000 1.8 21,444 2.2 574 7.8 268 18.4 Nonfarm employment 164,460,600 98.2 968,545 97.8 6,820 92.2 1,189 81.6  Private employment 141,296,600 84.3 763,793 77.2 4,386 59.3 840 57.7  Forestry, fishing, related activities, and other3 908,100 0.5 6,401 0.6 (D) (D) 78 5.4  Mining 783,200 0.5 19,519 2.0 (D) (D) (L) (L)  Utilities 626,400 0.4 4,371 0.4 (D) (D) (D) (D)  Construction 9,841,800 5.9 64,945 6.6 299 4.0 (D) (D)  Manufacturing 17,025,100 10.2 46,818 4.7 187 2.5 (D) (D)  Wholesale trade 6,323,300 3.8 29,076 2.9 (D) (D) (L) (L)  Retail trade 18,679,100 11.1 113,769 11.5 562 7.6 81 5.6  Transportation and warehousing 5,460,500 3.3 23,581 2.4 112 1.5 (D) (D)  Information 4,065,700 2.4 19,764 2.0 54 0.7 17 1.2  Finance and insurance 8,143,200 4.9 33,762 3.4 174 2.4 17 1.2  Real estate and rental and leasing 5,602,200 3.3 32,001 3.2 144 1.9 (D) (D)  Professional and technical services 10,525,100 6.3 60,463 6.1 552 7.5 (D) (D)

Management of companies and enterprises 1,796,600 1.1 6,130 0.6 (D) (D) 0 0.0 

 Administrative and waste services 9,827,500 5.9 54,730 5.5 (D) (D) (D) (D) Educational services 2,952,600 1.8 12,115 1.2 (D) (D) (D) (D)  Health care and social assistance 15,520,600 9.3 88,493 8.9 (D) (D) (D) (D)  Arts, entertainment, and recreation 3,290,500 2.0 20,218 2.0 (D) (D) (D) (D)  Accommodation and food services 11,014,100 6.6 78,257 7.9 (D) (D) (D) (D)  Other services, except public administration 8,911,000 5.3 49,380 5.0 318 4.3 108 7.4  Government and government enterprises 23,164,000 13.8 204,752 20.7 2,434 32.9 349 24.0  Federal, civilian 2,728,000 1.6 28,771 2.9 235 3.2 125 8.6  Military 2,097,000 1.3 17,070 1.7 58 0.8 11 0.8  State and local 18,339,000 10.9 158,911 16.1 2,141 29.0 213 14.6 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2003a. NOTES: 1 Based on the 2002 North American Industry Classification System 

2 Excludes limited partners. 

3 “Other” consists of the number of jobs held by residents of the United States employed by international organizations and foreign embassies and consulates in the United States. 

 (D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals.  (L) Less than 10 jobs, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-66 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

TABLE 3-21 

EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY FROM 1970 TO 2000 

IN SOCORRO AND CATRON COUNTIES 

Socorro County 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

196919711973

19751977

1979

198119831985

198719891991199319951997

1999

Jobs (Thousands)

Government 

Construction

M anufacturing (incl.

forest products)

Farm and Agricultural

Services

M ining

Services and

Professional

Catron County 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

196919711973197519771979

1981198319851987198919911993

1995

19971999

Jobs

Government 

M anufacturing (incl.

forest products)

M ining

Farm and Agricultural

Services

Services and

Professional

Construction

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2003b 

NOTES: Based on Standard Industrial Classification divisions 

Data points not included above are due to data that are (1) not disclosed by the BEA because to do so would disclose confidential

information, (2) excluded because the number of jobs in a particular sector was fewer than 10, or (3) otherwise not available. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-67 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

incomplete because data are (1) not disclosed by the BEA because to do so would disclose confidential 

information, (2) excluded because the number of jobs in a particular sector was fewer than 10, or 

(3) otherwise not available. However, even with data lacking, some evident trends are discussed below in 

Subsections 3.6.3.1 (Socorro County), 3.6.3.2 (Catron County), and 3.6.3.3 (Alamo Band of the Navajo 

Nation).

Data on income generally correspond with the employment data, although some sectors generally have 

higher average earnings (e.g., technical and professional services) and others have lower average earnings 

(e.g., accommodation and food services). Where relevant, earnings relative to employment are discussed 

in Subsections 3.6.3.1 (Socorro County) and 3.6.3.2 (Catron County). A notable trend in the Planning 

Area is the increase in non-labor sources of income, which is a mix of dividends, interests, and rent 

(money earned from past investments) and transfer payments (government payments to individuals). 

Table 3-22 presents income, poverty, and unemployment data for the two counties, New Mexico, and the 

United States. With the exception of unemployment data, the predominant source of data in this table is 

the 2000 U.S. Census, which is based on 1999 income data. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics unemployment data are presented for 1999, 2000, and 2001. These data generally show lower 

income rates, higher poverty rates, and higher unemployment rates for both counties as compared to the 

State and Nation. These per capita income, unemployment, and poverty statistics are further discussed in 

Subsections 3.6.3.1 (Socorro County) and 3.6.3.2 (Catron County). 

TABLE 3-22 

GENERAL EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME CHARACTERISTICS 

Socorro 

County

Catron 

County

New 

Mexico 

United 

States

Income

Per Capita Personal Income $12,826 $13,951 $17,261 $21,587

Median Household Income $23,439 $23,892 $34,133 $41,994

Unemployment (Civilian Labor Force) 

Unemployment Rate (1999) 5.3% 9.8% 5.6% 4.2%

Unemployment Rate (2000) 5.4% 8.0% 4.9% 4.0%

Unemployment Rate (2001) 6.1% 6.8% 4.8% 4.8%

Poverty

Number of Persons below Poverty Level 5,539 860 328,933 33,899,812

Poverty Rate among Individuals 31.7% 24.5% 18.4% 12.4%

Children below the Poverty Level (<18 years) 2,178 283 122,488 11,386,031

Percent Children below the Poverty Level (<18 years) 43.6% 39.6% 24.6% 16.1%

SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau 2002c; U.S. Department of Labor 2002a, 2002b, 2002c 

3.5.3.1 Socorro County 

At 4,255,845 acres, Socorro County is the third largest county in New Mexico (U.S. Census Bureau 

2002b). The Federal Government administers more than 65 percent of the land within Socorro County. 

Much of the Federal land, including Cibola National Forest, Sevilleta and Bosque del Apache National 

Wildlife Refuges, and BLM WSAs and ACECs, offers opportunities that support tourism and related 

service industries. The extensive open space also attracts the movement of people to the area who can 

work remotely or rely on non-labor sources of income such as pensions, dividends, interest, and rent. A 

portion of the White Sands Missile Range, which supports defense-related employment and earnings, is 

located in southern Socorro County. The City of Socorro, located near the geographic center of New 

Mexico, on the west bank of the Rio Grande, is the largest municipality in the county. The city is the 

home of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (New Mexico Tech), a top-rated technical 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-68 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

college that is the largest employer in the area with an annual payroll of approximately $25 million. The 

school, which opened as the New Mexico School of Mines in 1889, has an enrollment of about 1,500 

students, with plans to add an additional 300 by 2008. Numerous high-tech facilities occupy the northern 

portion of the White Sands Missile Range and the surrounding area. The Very Large Array National 

Radio Telescope, located in the Plains of San Agustin in the western portion of the county, also provides 

employment and expenditures in the high-tech industry (Socorro Chamber of Commerce 2000). 

Government and government enterprises constitute the largest employers in the county. This sector 

employed 2,434 persons in 2001, representing almost one-third (32.9 percent) of the work force in 

Socorro County. This is far greater than the percentage of workers in this sector either in the State of New 

Mexico or nationally (20.8 and 13.8, respectively) (see Table 3-20). Earnings in this sector totaled about 

$79 million, by far the largest percentage of earnings in any of the sectors represented in Socorro County 

and representing a higher share than earnings in this sector within the State as a whole (28.2 percent) 

(BEA 2003c). Of those nonfarm private industries in Socorro County where data are disclosed, the largest 

employer is the retail trade industry, with 562 persons employed (7.6 percent) (see Table 3-20). Earnings 

for this sector were approximately $8.4 million in 2001, or 4.7 percent, slightly lower than the statewide 

average of 7.7 percent (BEA 2003c). The second largest nonfarm private employment sector is the 

professional and technical services industry, employing 552 persons in 2001 (7.5 percent). By percentage, 

this is slightly greater than employment in the professional and technical services industry statewide and 

nationally. 

Farm employment provided 574 jobs in Socorro County in 2001. This percentage of farm employment 

(7.8 percent) is much higher than the State (2.2 percent) and Nation (1.8 percent) (see Table 3-20). As is 

typical of the farm sector, earnings (at $10.3 million) are low in comparison to other private industries 

supporting a similar number of jobs (e.g., professional and technical services) (BEA 2003c). 

Long-term trends in job and income growth show that the services and professional and government 

sectors have consistently been the largest source of jobs and labor income in Socorro County (see 

Table 3-20). There also has been growth in nonlabor income, from 27 percent of total personal income in 

1970 to 39 percent in 1990. These were mostly transfer payments from age-related resources (retirement, 

disability, insurance payments, and Medicare) and dividends, interest, and rent. Farm employment and 

earnings have decreased from 13.3 percent of employment and 7.1 percent of income to 8.1 percent of 

employment and 4.6 percent of employment. The relative 6.5 percent reduction in employment to 

3.5 percent reduction suggests that farms have become more efficient during this time period (BEA 

2003b). 

The per capita income for persons in Socorro County reported by Census 2000, at $12,826, was slightly 

lower than the per capita income for Catron County and was substantially lower than the State and 

national averages. Specifically, the per capita income for Socorro County was only about two-thirds that 

of the State and one-half that of the United States. The median household income was similar to Catron 

County and also lower than the State and national average (see Table 3-22). The average earnings per job 

in Socorro County in real terms have fallen slightly from $23,962 in 1970 to $23,542 in 2000 

(BEA 2003b). 

Unemployment in Socorro County in 1999, reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was 5.3 percent, 

slightly lower than that of New Mexico as a whole at 5.6 percent, but higher than the 4.2 percent national 

rate (see Table 3-22). Bureau of Labor Statistics data from 1988 to present show that the annual average 

unemployment rate has fluctuated fairly consistently with the state and national rates, with the state and 

national rates typically being lower than that of Socorro County. The highest unemployment rate during 

this time frame was near 10 percent in 1993 and the lowest was 5.3 percent in 1999. Since 1999, the 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-69 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

unemployment rate in Socorro County has risen slightly to about 6.1 percent in 2001, while New 

Mexico’s and the United States’ unemployment rates were both at 4.8 percent (U.S. Department of Labor 

2003). The percentage of persons below the poverty level in Socorro County, at 31.7 percent, was greater 

than that of Catron County, and was significantly higher than either the State or Nation as a whole. The 

figures are proportionately higher for children less than 18 years living below the poverty level (see 

Table 3-22). 

3.5.3.2 Catron County 

Although Catron County is the largest county in New Mexico in terms of area, it is one of the State’s 

most sparsely populated. About 75 percent of the land in Catron County is administered by the Federal 

Government and is managed in a manner that preserves open space. This includes the Cibola, Apache, 

and Gila National Forests, four BLM SMAs, and two BLM ACECs. As a result of the natural resources 

found in these and surrounding areas, numerous recreational opportunities support the service and tourism 

industries. There is also approximately 13,000 acres of Tribal land, which is land held in trust by the 

Federal Government, in the northeastern portion of the county. The Village of Reserve, located in the 

west-central portion of the county, is the county seat. Similar to Socorro County, government and 

government services represent the largest industry in the county. The government and government 

enterprises sector employed 349 persons, or almost one-fourth of the county’s work force in 2001. This 

percentage is greater than state and national employment in this sector, which were at 20.7 and 13.8, 

respectively, in 2001 (see Table 3-20). In terms of earnings, the government and government services 

sector contributed $12.5 million, translating to 66.2 percent of all personal income in the county 

(BEA 2003c).

As with Socorro County, much of the data on nonfarm, private employment is undisclosed for Catron 

County. Where data are disclosed, the largest employment sector is services other than public 

administration at 7.4 percent of all jobs (108 employees), followed by the retail trade industry at 

5.6 percent of all jobs in the county (81 employees). Because these jobs traditionally tend to pay less than 

the government and government services industry jobs, income generated from these sectors is proportionately less, yielding only 5.5 and 3.0 percent of personal income, respectively (BEA 2003c). Farm 

employment in Catron County provided 268 jobs (18.4 percent of all employment), which was greater 

than any other sector where data were unsuppressed. Although farm industry earnings were reported as a 

loss of $2.9 million in 2001, Catron County’s economy is highly dependent on agrarian enterprise, 

specifically livestock production (BEA 2003c). 

Long-term trends in job and income growth show that, like Socorro County, government has consistently 

been one of the largest sources of jobs and labor income. From 1970 to 2000, farm employment and 

income decreased, with employment dropping from 39.4 percent to 18.9 percent of all jobs and with a 

share of total income decreasing from 18.6 percent to minus 2.5 percent. There also has been a substantial 

decrease in manufacturing (including forest products) from 6.7 percent of all jobs and 7.8 percent of all 

income to 3.3 percent of all jobs and 1.0 percent of all income, a trend attributable to the closure of the 

timber mill in Reserve during the late 1980s. The largest growth in income has been in nonlabor income, 

mostly in dividends, interest, and rent, and from age-related sources (retirement, disability, and Medicare) 

(BEA 2003b). 

Both the average per capita annual income ($13,951) and median household income ($23,892) for Catron 

County are significantly lower than the State and national averages (see Table 3-22). Average earnings 

per job, in real terms, have fallen from $21,503 in 1970 to $14,916 in 2000. In Catron County, there was a 

dramatic decrease in earnings in the early 1980s and another downturn in the mid-1990s. This pattern is 

somewhat matched by Socorro County (although there was much less of an effect on annual average 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-70 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

earnings in Socorro County in the early 1980s) and is not matched by the State, which has remained 

relatively even with a slight decrease; or the Nation, which has experienced a moderate increase (see 

Table 3-22). 

In 2001, the annual unemployment rate in Catron County reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics was 

6.8 percent, down from the 9.8 percent reported in 1999 when it was about double that of the state and 

national averages (see Table 3-22). The unemployment rate in Catron County has been much higher at 

times, reaching highs around 15 percent in 1991 and 1996, but has been decreasing steadily from about 

12 percent since 1998 (U.S. Department of Labor 2003). The percent of persons living below the poverty 

level in Catron County in 1999 was 24.5, while the rate of families living in poverty was 17.4 percent. 

Children under 18 years living below the poverty level represent 39.6 of the population, and 32.7 percent 

of families with related children below the age of 18 live in poverty (see Table 3-22). These rates are 

significantly higher than both the state and national poverty statistics. 

3.5.3.3 Alamo Band of the Navajo Nation 

The socioeconomic conditions of the Alamo Band of the Navajo Reservation are a reflection of the 

isolation of this area, not just from the main Navajo Reservation, but from other economic opportunities 

and communities as well. Within the Alamo Chapter, 55.7 percent of individuals fall below the 1999 

poverty level, with a median household income of $19,306 and per capita income of $6,528 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2002g). Much of the area’s economy is based on livestock-based agriculture along with the 

services industry. Most of the sheep and lamb reported in Socorro and Catron Counties are located on the 

Alamo Indian Reservation and are important both economically and culturally. The Alamo Navajo School 

provides a principal source of direct and indirect employment and earnings (Socorro County 1998). 

3.5.4 Agricultural Statistics 

The USDA (2000) estimates that in the western United States, farming jobs account for only about 

8 percent of all jobs that comprise the system required to produce farm products and move them to 

consumers. The importance of agriculture to the economy in the Planning Area is evident in the share of 

employment (USDA 2000). In 2001, farm employment accounted for 18.4 percent of all employment in 

Catron County, and 7.8 percent of all employment in Socorro County. In comparison, farm employment 

accounted for 2.2 percent of the jobs in the State and 1.8 percent of the jobs in the Nation. 

New Mexico’s agricultural industry is a major component of the state’s economy with annual crop and 

livestock sales exceeding $2 billion. Agriculture directly employs an average of 24,448 people in the state 

and is indirectly responsible for employment of approximately 78,780 people in the food processing 

industry, retail food establishments, and other food-related industries. 

New Mexico’s farms and ranches produce numerous agricultural commodities including beef, chile, corn, 

milk, pecans, apples, lamb, sorghum, wheat, and wool. Livestock products continue to be a major 

economic force in New Mexico and the statewide agricultural leader in terms of cash receipts generated 

from agrarian enterprise. Sales from livestock and livestock products totaled over $1.6 billion in 2001. 

Agriculture lends support to many local businesses including those associated with farm equipment, feed, 

and fertilizer. In 2001 feed sales totaled 1,765,139 tons, while fertilizer shipments were estimated at 

180,900 tons creating additional jobs in sales, service, and transportation industries. 

3.5.4.1 Farms

There is a higher proportion of farms relative to population in Socorro and Catron Counties than in New 

Mexico. Based on the 1997 Census of Agriculture, the farms in Socorro and Catron Counties together 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-71 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

constitute 4.4 percent of all farms and 7.5 percent of all farm acreage in the State. The average size of 

farms in both Socorro and Catron County is substantially greater than the statewide average, particularly 

in Catron County where the average acreage of farms was 2.5 times greater than that of the State in 1997. 

While the number of farms in Socorro County and New Mexico has remained fairly stable since 1987, the 

number of farms in Catron County is decreasing (17 percent over the last 10 years). However, during the 

same time period, the average acreage of farms in Catron County has increased by 28 percent (National 

Agriculture Statistics Service 1997).

Most farms in Socorro and Catron Counties are individually or family owned. While statewide and in 

Socorro County the number of individual and family farms has decreased only slightly from 1992 to 

1997, there has been a decrease of 12 percent in these types of farms in Catron County. There also is a 

notable percent increase in partnership or corporate farms in Catron County in comparison to Socorro 

County and the State, where the number of such farms has decreased. A slight majority of farms in both 

Socorro and Catron Counties are farms with less than $10,000 in annual sales (55 percent and 52 percent, 

respectively). In Socorro County, there has been a slight shift toward more farms in the less-than-$10,000 

annual sales category to farms in the $10,000-or-more annual sales category, particularly from 1992 to 

1997 (National Agricultural Statistics Service 1997). 

3.5.5 Minority and Low-income Populations

The identification of minority and low-income populations is relevant for this study because Executive 

Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations, requires that Federal agencies make achieving environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations, low-income 

populations, and Native American tribes. 

Those minority and/or low-income populations that could potentially be adversely affected by BLM 

resource management decisions are identified to provide a baseline for evaluating the potential for 

adverse impacts to disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations. For purposes of this 

analysis, minority populations and low-income populations are defined as follows: 

x Minority populations are persons of Hispanic or Latino origin of any race; Blacks; American 

Indian/Alaska Native; and Asian or Pacific Islanders (without double-counting persons of 

Hispanic/Latino origin who are also contained in these racial groups). 

x Low-income populations are persons living below the poverty level. 

3.5.5.1 Minority Populations 

For this analysis, census tracts were identified as containing disproportionately high percentages of 

minority populations if either of two criteria were met: (1) the percentage of persons in minority 

populations in the census tract exceeds the average for the comparison population (New Mexico), which 

is 55.3 percent; or (2) the minority population exceeds 50.0 percent, indicating that in that census tract, 

minorities constitute a majority of the persons who potentially could be affected by the project. As shown 

in Table 3-23, only two census tracts did not fall within these parameters: 9782, which covers most of 

western Socorro County, and 9762, which covers nearly all of Catron County. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-72 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

3.5.5.2 Low-income Populations 

As shown in Table 3-23, the poverty rates among individuals in Socorro and Catron Counties are higher 

than those experienced statewide. The statewide poverty rate of 18.4 percent was compared against the 

poverty rate in the Planning Area as reported in the eight census tracts in Table 3-23. All census tracts 

exceed the 18.4 percent threshold for identification of disproportionately low-income populations. The 

census tract that constitutes almost all of Catron County (9762) showed an average poverty rate of 

24.4 percent, similar to the countywide rate of 24.5 percent. Poverty rates in Socorro County ranged from 

22.7 percent to 70.1 percent. The census tract in Socorro County showing the highest poverty rate 

(70.1 percent) is located in the northwestern portion of the Planning Area and includes the Alamo Band of 

the Navajo Reservation (Census Tract 9461). 

TABLE 3-23 

MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS 

New Mexico 

(Comparison 

Population) 

Minority Population = 55.3% Low-Income Population = 18.4% 

Minority Population Low-Income Population 

Census Tract 

Total 

Minority1 >50% >55.3% 

Poverty

Rate2

Poverty

Rate 

>50% 

Poverty

Rate 

>18.4% 

9461, Socorro County 99.4% yes yes 70.1% yes yes

9781, Socorro County 57.4% yes yes 22.7% no yes

9782, Socorro County 49.8% no no 24.7% no yes

9783.01, Socorro County 60.0% yes yes 31.0% no yes

9783.02, Socorro County 54.3% yes no 32.6% no yes

9783.03, Socorro County 68.1% yes yes 29.0% no yes

9762, Catron County 23.8% no no 24.4% no yes

9415, Catron, Socorro, and 

Cibola Counties3 99.5% yes yes 29.8% no yes

SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau 2002c, 2002d, 2002e, 2002f 

NOTES: 1 The total minority population includes individuals of Hispanic/Latino origin, but those that also are Black/African Americans, American 

Indian/Alaska Natives, Asians, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders are not included in the Hispanic/Latino total in order to 

avoid double counting. 2 Poverty rate among individuals, based on poverty status in 1999. 3

 The majority of the census tract is located north of Catron and Socorro Counties, in Cibola County; however, a small portion occurs in 

both Socorro and Catron Counties.

3.5.6 Public Finance and Payments in Lieu of Taxes

The principal sources of revenue for local governments include county-enacted taxes and fees including 

the Gross Receipts Tax, state-shared taxes including property taxes, and federally shared taxes including 

payment-in-lieu of taxes (PILT). There are various other sources of intergovernmental revenue available 

to the counties from State and Federal grants and loans (New Mexico Association of Counties 2002). Of 

these, the most relevant to this RMPR/EIS is the PILT. The Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976, as 

amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), defines lands that are eligible for PILT as including lands administered 

by the BLM and Federal lands in the National Forest System and National Park System. PILT payments 

are determined on a formula basis, with the number of Federal acres constituting the principal variable 

determining payments. The logic behind PILT is that Federal lands within county boundaries are not part 

of the county’s tax base and that the county should be compensated for lost revenue opportunities. PILT 

payments are made for tax-exempt Federal land administered by the BLM, National Park Service, 

USFWS (all agencies of the Interior Department), Forest Service, and for Federal water projects and some 

military installations. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-73 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

Total PILT payments for Socorro and Catron Counties and New Mexico in 2002 are shown in Table 3-24. 

The BLM accounts for 58.3 percent of all entitlement acreage in Socorro County and 21.8 percent of all 

entitlement acreage in Catron County, as compared to the 56.5 percent share of BLM entitlement acreage 

statewide. The Forest Service is a greater source of PILT payments in Catron County than the BLM. 

These entitlement acreages have varied slightly over recent years, but the relative share of agency PILT 

payments has remained fairly constant. 

TABLE 3-24 

PILT PAYMENT AND ENTITLEMENT ACREAGE, 2002 

Area Payment Total Acres BLM Portion1

Catron County $280,882.00 2,749,802 $61,173.76 

Socorro County $781,870.00 1,600,779 $455,996.20 

New Mexico $19,012,423.00 22,591,875 $10,735,133.88 

SOURCES: Bureau of Land Management 2002d, 2002e 

NOTE: 1

BLM portion is based on entitlement acreage, which is 58.3 percent for Socorro County, 

21.8 percent for Catron County, and 56.5 percent for New Mexico. 

3.5.7 Social and Economic Conditions Related to BLM’s Decision Area

Some social and economic conditions within the Planning Area are related more closely to BLM management decisions. Specifically highlighted here are the (1) BLM Socorro Field Office budget, (2) livestock 

grazing allotments administered by the BLM, (3) energy and mineral resources, (4) forestry and 

vegetative material sales, (5) rights-of-way and land use authorizations, (6) recreational resources, 

(7) connections between protected and open space growth and (8) non-market value. 

3.5.7.1 BLM Socorro Field Office Budget

There currently are 35 full-time employees in the BLM Socorro Field Office and there are six unfilled 

positions (Lane 2002). The Fiscal Year 2002 total revenue/planned budget was $3,135,200. In total, 

expenditures were 51 percent labor and 49 percent operational, matching the percent in each major 

category allocated. Some components of the budget vary widely on an annual basis, while others such as 

administrative support and annual maintenance remain fairly consistent (BLM 2000b, 2001d, 2002f). 

3.5.7.2 Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing on public lands in the Planning Area is authorized through grazing permits and leases, 

which typically are issued for a 10-year term. Livestock grazing on Federal lands is a privilege and not a 

right nor an interest in property. Authorization of grazing in allotments is limited to those who own 

nearby property, known as base property (Cody and Baldwin 1998). 

Grazing on allotments that include public land helps to support local economies. The average ranch 

spends $20,000 a year in the local economy. Expenditure multipliers for rural economies are fairly small 

(approximately 1.8), which indicates that an additional $0.80 is generated in the community for every 

$1.00 originating in the livestock sector as the expenditure turns within the community before the dollars 

leak from the local economy (Fowler 2000). 

The grazing fee for western public lands administered by the BLM and the Forest Service is set according 

to a formula established by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act and continued under Executive 

Order 12548, Grazing Fees, issued in 1986. The 2003 fee is $1.35 per AUM (BLM 2003f), down from 

$1.43 in 2002. As shown in Table 3-25, over the past 10 years the fee of $1.35 per AUM has been the 

most common although it has fluctuated higher in the early 1990s, with a high of $1.98 per AUM in 1994. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-74 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

The grazing fees charged for livestock grazing allotments on State Trust lands are consistently higher than 

those charged for grazing on Federal rangelands. 

Table 3-27 shows how the estimated total grazing fees have fluctuated when the variations in fee are 

combined with the 10-year trend in active-use AUMs for the Decision Area. The highest total fees have 

corresponded with the higher fee per AUM (e.g., 1994) rather than higher AUM stocking rates 

(e.g., 1998). Variations in active AUMs are attributable to range conditions (and consequently, forage 

production), economics, and animal husbandry practices. 

Currently, grazing fees in the Decision Area are paid by approximately 260 authorized operators 

(Mendenhall 2002) on 204 allotments authorized by permits issued under Section 3 of Taylor Grazing Act 

and 56 allotments authorized by leases under Section 15 of Taylor Grazing Act (BLM 2000a). The 

allotments vary in size and capacity and consist of intermingled private, State, and public lands. Some of 

the allotments are overlapping. The majority of the operations are commercial cow/calf enterprises, using 

a variety of breeds. The grazing authorization on BLM allotments allows the permittee to graze livestock, 

but the permittee is responsible for maintenance of range improvements on the allotment. Many initial 

range improvements in the Planning Area involved the construction of boundary fences, interior fences, 

and water developments by allottees during the 1950s and 1960s (Matthews 2002, 2003a, 2003b). Since 

that time, allottees have continued to implement range improvements in cooperation with the BLM and 

other agencies. 

TABLE 3-25 

GRAZING FEES IN THE DECISION AREA, 1992-2002 

Fee Year 

Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act of 1978 

Grazing Fee 

Active-Use AUMs 

in the Decision Area 

Estimated Total 

Annual Fee 

1992 $1.92 160,016 $307,231 

1993 $1.86 163,835 $304,733 

1994 $1.98 165,627 $327,941 

1995 $1.61 165,680 $266,745 

1996 $1.35 172,174 $232,435 

1997 $1.35 170,067 $229,590 

1998 $1.35 180,504 $243,680 

1999 $1.35 172,249 $232,536 

2000 $1.35 164,510 $222,089 

2001 $1.35 167,678 $226,365 

20021 $1.43 145,565 $208,158 

$ Estimated Total Annual Grazing Fee

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

SOURCES: Bureau of Land Management 2003f; Cody 1996; Matthews 2002; Mendenhall 2002 

NOTE: 1

 2002 data are not yet complete. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-75 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

3.5.7.3 Energy and Mineral Resources 

Sections 3.4.4 and 3.4.6 provide detailed information on the mineral and energy resources in the Planning 

Area and Decision Area, while the information that follows is focused more closely on the employment 

and expenditures from current or proposed development of these resources. 

Leasable Minerals 

Although moderate oil and gas potential is identified in some areas, there has not been economic 

production of these resources. As noted in Section 3.4.4, leasing for oil and gas exploration is currently 

active and there is continued significant interest in leasing for oil and gas exploration in some portions of 

the Planning and Decision Areas. 

Ridgeway Arizona Oil Corporation (Ridgeway) has been investigating the development of a carbon 

dioxide field in western Catron County. In adjacent Apache County, Arizona, there are currently three 

employees at Ridgeway and an additional three to four employees at the carbon dioxide compressor plant 

near Springerville, operated by Reliant Processing. An EIS was begun in 1998 for larger scale 

development, but Ridgeway postponed development and the EIS and is currently working on securing 

contracts for the product (White 2003). Potential exists for future development and economic opportunity 

associated with development of carbon dioxide fields in western Catron County. 

Recent mining and test burning have proven the potential for occurrences of leasable solid energy coal 

minerals in the Salt Lake coalfield in northwest Catron County. Salt River Project had leased 18,000 acres 

of State Trust land and Federal land for the proposed Fence Lake Mine. However, due to public 

controversy, Salt River Project opted to relinquish permits and leases that were acquired for the mine in 

favor of purchasing coal from another source. Although this project will not go forward, the potential for 

future development and economic opportunity remains. Economic development of the Datil Mountains 

coalfield and in three small fields in east-central Socorro County is expected to follow the increasing 

demand for coal to fuel power plants in the Southwest. 

There is no notable economic activity associated with the development of geothermal, solar, or wind 

energy, although potential exists throughout much of the Planning Area. 

Locatable Minerals 

Past mining for metallic minerals in the Planning Area has primarily produced gold, silver, copper, lead, 

zinc, and uranium and for nonmetallic minerals included gemstones, kaolin, zeolites, and perlite. With the 

exception of perlite, the metallic and nonmetallic locatable mineral resources in the Planning Area are not 

being actively mined. Economic factors contributing to the lack of mining activity may include the value 

of the deposit, current market demand, and expenses for development. Perlite is actively being mined 

immediately west of Socorro. This relatively small Socorro deposit (mined by Dicaperl) has 

approximately 37 employees (United Mine Workers Journal 2001). 

Salable Minerals and Materials 

A wide variety of salable minerals are available in the Planning Area. Aggregate pits in the Planning Area 

are generally inactive or intermittent, although any pit can be re-opened for construction or local repairs at 

any time. BLM’s policy is to make these materials on public lands available to the public and local 

governmental agencies whenever possible and wherever environmentally acceptable. BLM issue permits 

to dispose of (sell) mineral materials to the public at fair market value. BLM issues free-use permits to 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-76 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

states, counties, or other government entities for public projects and, in limited amounts, to non-profit 

groups. Materials obtained free of charge cannot be bartered or sold. BLM shares a portion of the 

revenues from the sale of mineral materials with the state where the minerals are produced. Regulations 

that guide BLM’s mineral materials program are found in 43 CFR 3600 (BLM 2003h). Information on 

use of salable minerals for a specific parcel of land where mineral resources are administered by the BLM 

is maintained at the Socorro Field Office. 

3.5.7.4 Forestry and Vegetative Material Sales Programs 

Commercial and personal use woodcutting occurs within the Planning Area. BLM charges $10 per cord 

for fuelwood for personal use. Prices vary for commercial wood resources, depending on accessibility, 

terrain, and other factors. Noncommercial demand for vegetative products has been minimal for the 

Decision Area, with some small interest in commercial Christmas tree sales areas. However, commercial 

and noncommercial demand for fuelwood has gradually increased, and with rising home heating fuel 

prices the demand for fuelwood could grow. In addition, urban development and the associated interest in 

utilizing native plants in waterwise landscaping could increase demand for native perennial plants in the 

coming years. 

Public Service Company of New Mexico has proposed biomass harvesting on public lands to provide 

resources for a planned 35-megawatt capacity biomass generator in Catron County. In total, the proposed 

harvest would require the harvest of 6,000 to 8,000 acres of land per year, although not all of this would 

occur on BLM-administered lands. 

Vegetation treatment efforts to achieve fire management or other resource objectives are a cost to BLM. 

The Fire and Fuels Management Statewide RMPA estimated that prescribed burns cost $50 per acre, 

mechanical treatment costs $500 per acre, and chemical treatments would cost $25 per acre. Using these 

estimates, annual treatments on BLM-managed surface land in the Planning Area could cost about $5 

million, although this figure would vary depending on how many acres are actually treated each year. 

3.5.7.5 Rights-of-Way and Land Use Authorizations 

Rights-of-Way

BLM issues rights-of-way on public land to authorize a specific piece of land for specific facilities for a 

period of time. The vast majority of right-of-way grants are authorized under Title V of FLPMA (43 

U.S.C. 1761-1771) and the Mineral Leasing Act (Section 28 as amended, 43 U.S.C. 185). Fees received 

by the BLM include fees for processing the application and monitoring compliance with the terms and 

conditions of the right-of-way grant and the annual rental, which is based on fair market rental value. 

Rental rates are based on land values in the area and are adjusted annually in accordance with an 

economic index. 

There are various types of rights-of-way currently in place or that would be possible under current 

management policy for the Planning Area. Direct economic impacts from the right-of-way applications 

vary by type, applicant, and purpose. While the value of some individual rights-of-way may benefit just a 

few (e.g., well sites for local water users), some rights-of-way are of benefit to many (e.g., providing 

utilities and transportation infrastructure to support residential and commercial uses).
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-77 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

Permits, Leases, and Easements

Proposals for non-Federal use of public land (for other than casual purposes) are outlined in 43 CFR 

2090. Collection of rental fees for these uses is determined by the BLM State Director and is to be based 

on fair market rates or competitive bidding. Leases and permits are issued for purposes such as: 

x commercial filming 

x advertising displays 

x commercial or noncommercial croplands 

x apiaries, livestock holding or feeding areas if not related to grazing permits or leases 

x harvesting of native or introduced species 

x temporary or permanent facilities for commercial purposes (does not include mining claims) 

x residential occupancy 

x ski resorts 

x construction equipment storage sites 

x assembly yards, oil rig stacking sites 

x mining claim occupancy if the residential structures are not incidental to the mining operation 

x water pipelines and well pumps related to irrigation and non-irrigation facilities 

Government reimbursement costs conditions are similar to those described for rights-of-way. The major 

types of these permits issued by the Socorro Field Office are Special Recreation Permits. 

3.5.7.6 Recreation 

The social and economic values of the recreational resources on the BLM lands in the Decision Area 

include hunting, camping, picnicking, backpacking, horseback riding, climbing, caving, hang gliding, 

motorcycling, four-wheel driving, nature observing, rockhounding, and photography. By some estimates, 

tourism is the largest employer and second largest industry in New Mexico, contributing more than 

$4 billion in direct economic impact. Key reasons cited for tourism are outdoor recreation opportunities 

and open space, which are prevalent assets in the Planning Area. 

Economic activity associated with recreational use in the Decision Area is difficult to quantify based on 

available data, but would include the purchases of services and sundries in nearby communities, fees paid 

for hunting and other recreational permits, and the outfitter industry. The socioeconomics of such 

recreation uses are temporally related to season, hunting seasons (particularly big game), and timing of 

recreational events. 

The BLM collects some fees for recreation use of public land in the Decision Area. During Fiscal Year 

2002, the BLM collected $27,971 in recreation fees (BLM 2002g). Estimates of total economic impact are 

limited to statewide estimates, which are largely focused on wildlife-associated recreation. Available data 

indicate that there were 884,000 total participants in wildlife-associated recreation, which generated in 

excess of $1 billion economic impact in New Mexico in 2001 (USFWS 2001). Nationwide, hunters spend 

an average of approximately $1,896 per hunter on an annual basis. The retail sales related to hunting, at 

$891 million, translated into more than $342 million in economic impact (International Association of 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-78 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2002). Although nonresident hunters comprise 22 percent of all hunters in 

New Mexico, they account for more than 70 percent of hunting license sales income (New Mexico State 

University 2003). The cost of hunting permits in the Planning Area varies from $5 to $3,064 based on a 

number of factors (e.g., type of permit, resident/nonresident, and fee reductions for handicapped, juniors, 

and seniors) (NMDGF 2002a).

According to the NMGFD outfitter’s database, active New Mexico outfitters total 246. Of these, the 

registration addresses of 30, or 12.2 percent, were within the Planning Area (NMDGF 2003c). By strictly 

applying this percentage to the total estimated economic impact of outfitting and guiding per the New 

Mexico State University 2003 study, the corresponding annual economic impact of these outfitters within 

the Planning Area is $27.2 million. A total of 53, or 21.5 percent, of the outfitters and guides in the 

NMGFD database have a registration address outside of New Mexico. Out-of-state addresses were mostly 

in Arizona, Colorado, and Texas, but some addresses were as far as New York and Michigan (NMDGF 

2003c).

The New Mexico BLM issues Special Recreation Use Permits for outfitters and guides that are registered 

with the NMGFD (Sykes 2003). Typically, about 15 to 20 active Special Recreation Use Permits are 

issued per year in the Decision Area (primarily for elk hunting, but also includes deer, antelope, and other 

hunts). Outfitter group size varies from fewer than five to as many as 20 to 30 hunters. Days of use vary 

from one to five, depending on the hunt and a variety of other factors. Total annual visitor use associated 

with outfitted hunters can vary from as few as about 300 to 400 days to as many as 1,500 to 2,000 days. 

Many outfitters receive about $1,500 per hunter for low-end hunts and up to $4,000 per hunter for highend hunts. Assuming 15 Special Recreation Permits with 10 hunters, this translates to a low-end annual 

income of $225,000 and a high-end annual income of $600,000. Most of this use occurs in Catron 

County, but some occurs within Socorro County (Carson 2003b). 

A 2003 New Mexico Council of Outfitters and Guides study notes that outfitting and guiding in rural 

communities generates a source of income in areas impacted by curtailed logging and mining activities 

and limitations on livestock grazing. The study estimates that, annually, New Mexico’s big game and 

outfitting industry generates $127.7 million in direct economic impact, provides 4,680 in direct full- and 

part-time jobs (with total employment compensation of $29.2 million), and generates indirect and 

secondary impacts to reach a total estimated economic impact of $223 million, with total employment of 

6,082 and $54.6 million in employment compensation. From 1989 to 2002, the number of outfitters in 

New Mexico has more than doubled, increasing from 80 to 260. Similarly, the demand for the service has 

increased from 6,204 clients to 20,540 clients (New Mexico State University 2003). 

Various annual events have economic impacts that can result in a short-term influx of expenditures in the 

area, which may dramatically influence some businesses (e.g., vendors of recreational supplies) and affect 

some business decisions (e.g., inventory, staffing, etc.). Recreational events that draw users to the 

Decision Area include the Enchanted Sky Star Party (one to four days, approximately 200 participants), 

Fat Tire Fiesta (one weekend, about 100 to 200 participants), Rock Hounding Days (one-day event, about 

50 participants), Fort Craig Re-enactment (usually a weekend, approximately 100 participants), Socorro 

Valley 100 Motorcycle Races (two days, 100 to 200 participants), Dog Trials (about five times a year, 

30-75 participants), Model Rocket Launches (small groups, about 15 to 20 times a year), and visitation 

associated with the annual Festival of the Cranes at the nearby Bosque Del Apache National Wildlife 

Refuge (Carson 2003b). 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 3-79 Chapter 3.0 – Affected Environment 

April 2007 

3.5.7.7 Connections Between Protected Open Space and Economic Growth 

The vast expanses of open space and protected land in the Planning Area are a fundamental asset. In the 

past decade, a widening body of research has shown that amenities associated with open space and 

protected land influence peoples’ decisions to live and to do business in rural areas. Quality of life assets 

in the Planning Area include environmental quality, a slower pace of life, relatively low crime rates, 

scenery, and recreational opportunities. The economic value of protected land and open space has long 

been established and demonstrated by increased demand and prices for properties located near or adjacent 

to open spaces (Muro 2002; National Park Service 1995; Sonoran Institute 2004; Trust for Public Lands 

1999). 

According to the Sonoran Institute (2004), protected land has the greatest influence on economic growth 

in rural isolated counties that lack easy access to larger markets, such as Socorro and Catron Counties. 

However, while public land is important for growth in such areas, other factors are even more important, 

including (1) the proportion of the workforce employed in producer services, arts and entertainment; 

(2) the presence of a ski area and commercial airport; (3) the education of the workforce; and (4) the 

presence of mountains. Economic diversity also influences growth. Specialized economies are associated 

with slower growth, especially if the specialization is in mining, oil and gas development, logging, wood 

products manufacturing, or other resource extractive sectors. Ready ability to travel to larger population 

centers remains key despite advances in telecommunications. The influx of newcomers is closely tied to 

economic growth (Sonoran Institute 2004). In the Planning Area, these factors are largely lacking. 

3.5.7.8 Non-market Value 

Many characteristics associated with public land are not marketed, but they are scarce and provide 

satisfaction and enjoyment; thus, they have value even if no money changes hands. Non-market values 

represent economic benefits to user groups that may not be adequately reflected in local area spending 

(e.g., the excess that a purchaser would be willing to pay for use of public lands over that which is paid, 

also known as consumer surplus). Impacts to non-market values may be perceived both locally 

(e.g., ranchers, recreationalists) and nonlocally (e.g., interest groups) (Loomis 2002). Non-market values 

can be analyzed quantitatively, but can also be assessed qualitatively in terms of social values that may 

include adequate access, natural and cultural resource protection, recreation, hunting, and the ability to 

maintain a livestock grazing/ranching-oriented lifestyle.

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-1 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter characterizes the potential impacts on the environment of implementing the alternatives 

described in Chapter 2. The remainder of this introductory section addresses the methods and approach to 

the impact analysis by identifying analytical assumptions, defining the types of effects, and disclosing any 

critical elements that are not addressed or present and areas of incomplete information. Subsequent 

sections of this chapter characterize the impacts that are predicted to result from actions that are common 

to all alternatives; the impacts that are predicted to result from each Alternative A, B, C, and D; and 

cumulative effects. 

Throughout this chapter, the terms Planning Area and Decision Area are used to reference geographic 

boundaries. The Planning Area includes all land, both public and private, within Socorro and Catron 

Counties. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) considers potential impacts on all resources within 

this inclusive Planning Area, regardless of jurisdiction or ownership. The term Decision Area is used to 

describe public land and the subsurface Federal mineral estate administered by BLM within the two 

counties, a total of about 6 million acres, for which BLM has the authority to make decisions. The phrase 

“BLM-managed surface land” refers to only the approximately 1.5 million acres of surface land that is 

managed by the BLM, where many of BLM’s management actions would be implemented. 

4.1.1 Analytical Assumptions

The impact analysis is based on an understanding of the existing conditions in the Planning Area as 

characterized in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment) and the Management Situation Analysis (on file in the 

Socorro Field Office), and descriptions of the alternatives provided in Chapter 2 (Alternatives). 

The alternatives in this Draft Resource Management Plan Revision (RMPR)/ Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) are designed to provide general management guidance for all resource programs in most 

cases. Specific projects for some areas or resource programs may be detailed in future activity plans, 

project plans, and site-specific proposals. These plans and projects may be derived from broader decisions 

in the RMPR or from internal management decisions. These projects and plans would address more 

precisely how a particular area or resource is to be managed and must comply with the management 

direction in the approved RMPR. Additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and 

documentation would be conducted as needed. Usually this would occur when the project or activity plan 

has not been specifically addressed in the RMPR. These plans and projects may include such things as 

developing a travel management plan, issuing a right-of-way, constructing a range improvement, or 

approving an application for a permit to drill for oil or gas. NEPA analysis in these cases would consist of 

determination of NEPA adequacy, a categorical exclusion, an environmental assessment with 

accompanying Finding of No Significant Impact, or an EIS if the situation warrants. These documents can 

and should be, where appropriate, tiered to this RMPR/EIS. 

In all alternatives, it is assumed that best management practices would be used to reduce potential impacts 

on resources. Best management practices are discussed in Appendix C; additional best management 

practices specific to wildlife are included in Appendix L. The impact analysis incorporates consideration 

of reasonably foreseeable future actions by the BLM; these are described in Section 4.7 as part of the 

discussion of past, present, and future actions that informed the cumulative effects analysis. Appendix O 

provides definitions of impacts, additional assumptions, or other information that may be useful in 

understanding the approach to the analysis for each resource or resource use. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-2 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

4.1.2 Types of Effects to Be Addressed 

An impact, or effect, is defined as a modification to the environment as it presently exists, that is brought 

about by an outside action. Impacts can vary in significance from no change or only slightly discernible 

change, to a full modification or elimination of the environmental condition. Impacts may be beneficial 

(positive) or adverse (negative). 

Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by 

the proposed action and occur later in time or farther in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Cumulative effects result from incremental impacts of actions when added to other past, present, and 

future actions regardless of what person or agency undertakes those actions. In addition, effects may be 

short-term (temporary) or long-term (permanent and long-lasting). 

4.1.3 Incomplete or Unavailable Information

Existing data were used for preparation of this RMPR/EIS and, for the most part, were sufficient for the 

RMP-level decisions. However, scenic quality data are not available for the Planning Area; therefore, it is 

assumed that the existing visual resource management (VRM) classes generally represent the type of 

existing scenic quality within the Planning Area. 

Project-specific information on future activities and uses in BLM’s Decision Area are unknown at this 

time. As activities and uses are proposed throughout the life of the plan, it is assumed that subsequent 

NEPA analysis would occur as appropriate to evaluate the types of impacts that could occur on a sitespecific basis, as described above in Section 4.1.1. 

4.2 IMPACTS FROM ACTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

This section describes the impacts that would result from the implementation of the actions that are 

common to all alternatives (see Section 2.3 of Chapter 2) and would be identical impacts across the 

alternatives. Not all resource topics are addressed in this section; some topics are covered entirely in the 

discussion of each alternative (Sections 4.3 through 4.6). 

The possibility for widespread direct impacts on air quality would be related primarily to the potential for 

a large commodity production project to be located in the Planning Area, which would be subject to 

additional NEPA analysis if the project were a Federal action. Even if such a project were located off 

public land, the BLM, as a Federal land manager with jurisdiction over areas that may experience 

impacts, could elect to review and comment on Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits that would 

be required for larger projects. 

Prescribed burns and wildfires would create emissions that affect air quality. All alternatives would 

provide for fuels reduction activities that would decrease the risk of large wildland fires and associated 

emissions. In addition, the New Mexico Environment Department’s Air Quality Bureau would regulate 

smoke from all sources to ensure that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are not violated. 

The New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management 

(New Mexico Standards and Guidelines) would be applied under all alternatives. The public land health 

standards apply to all resource programs, although the guidelines are specific to grazing management. 

Guidelines for livestock grazing management are applied after an interdisciplinary team has evaluated a 

particular watershed, determined that it was not meeting public land health standards, and determined that 

grazing was the reason for that particular watershed not meeting the standards. These guidelines would 

help to guide the mitigation, restoration, or other measures needed to improve rangeland health.
Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-3 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Management of public land to meet or move towards public land health standards would reduce erosion 

and improve ecological processes that support the desired diversity of native vegetation. Increasing soil 

stabilization to meet the upland sites standard would decrease the loss or degradation of vegetation due to 

erosion. When soils erode, topsoil, which has organic matter and nutrients, is lost and therefore soil 

productivity and vegetation quality are reduced. Improvement of ecological processes (hydrologic, 

nutrient, and energy flow) to meet the biotic communities standard would support diverse native species, 

maintain and conserve desired plant communities, and restore native plants. Improvement of riparian 

areas to meet the riparian sites standard through the use of adequate vegetation to withstand high stream 

flow, capture sediment, provide for groundwater recharge, and meet water quality standards would benefit 

riparian vegetation, as well as all vegetation within the watershed. Management of plant communities to 

meet public land health standards would benefit wildlife and special status species in riparian or other 

areas by maintaining or enhancing habitat. The improvement of rangeland conditions in accordance with 

the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines also could alter the number of acres associated with Fire 

Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 3 to FRCC 2, or from FRCC 2 to FRCC 1 (see Section 3.3.2). Where 

the FRCC of rangelands change to a lower category, fire return intervals would more resemble the 

historic fire regime. This would result in a decreased risk of stand-replacing fires in forests and could 

decrease the average size of fires in grasslands.

Under all alternatives, management of noxious weeds would continue in accordance with all applicable 

guidance and agreements. Identification and control of invasive species populations would help prevent 

further spread of these species into native vegetation communities, reduce competition with native 

species, improve the ability of native communities to recover from disturbances (e.g., grazing, mining, 

fire, etc.), and minimize edge effects on wildlife habitats throughout the Planning Area1

. In addition, 

potential impacts from invasive weeds would be mitigated through standard conditions for operators of 

projects that are disturbing native vegetation, enabling any invasive species introductions that are detected 

to be managed and remediated. Management of noxious weeds throughout the Planning Area would result 

in continued protection of the diversity of vegetation and forage in wildlife and riparian habitats. This 

management would support special status species by improving the ecological integrity of these habitats 

and increasing their ability to recover from natural and manmade disturbances. 

Under all alternatives, best management practices (Appendix C and Appendix L) would apply to all 

surface-disturbing activities, and would result in increased protection of wildlife and special status species 

and the habitats that support them. In addition, monitoring and adaptive management (described in 

Section 2.7) would provide a mechanism through which BLM can alter its management to better meet 

resource objectives over time.

Fire management would continue in accordance with the Statewide Resource Management Plan 

Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management under all alternatives. Impacts were evaluated as part of the 

planning process for the Resource Management Plan Amendment. Generally, the use of best management 

practices and the assessment of vegetation through FRCC would promote biological diversity and 

minimize the potential for loss or alteration of vegetation and habitat caused by large wildland fires. 

 

1

 Edge effects occur when natural habitats are interrupted by development or other human-induced disturbances, including 

roads, structures, and trampling or vehicle tracks. Edge effects affect wildlife species in very different ways, depending on 

the life history of the species, and cause behavioral modifications that can lead to fragmentation of habitat. Some 

disturbance-adapted species, especially shrub/scrub bird species, thrive along edges of roads and other developed areas. 

Other wildlife species, especially large mammals, avoid human-disturbed areas and do not tend to cross roads. Roads also 

increase mortality of small mammals from both increased vehicle collisions and increased predation from large mammals, 

while roads increase mortality of large mammals as a result of vehicle collisions. Pollution and bioaccumulation are 

secondary effects of roads and other development that increase edge effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats.
Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-4 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Historic suppression of fires has allowed piñon-juniper, sagebrush, creosotebush, and other shrub and 

woodland species to encroach into historically grassland-dominated communities (White, Loftin, and 

Hofstad 1999). As brush and woodland communities spread into grassland sites, the more palatable grass 

and forbs species are out-competed, which reduces the amount of forage available for livestock, as well as 

the fuels needed to carry natural wildfires. Treating these sites through fuel reductions could reestablish 

natural fire return intervals and reduce competition from brush and woodland species, but would have 

short-term impacts on grazing by reducing the available forage and restricting access during posttreatment rest or deferral periods. However, over the long-term, increases in the amount of grass and forbs 

species available for grazing would increase available forage and promote the reestablishment of 

structural and functional components of the landscape. 

Prescribed and nonprescribed burns would result in short-term impacts on visual resources resulting from 

smoke and burn effects on the landscape. Impacts from smoke would affect visibility temporarily. 

Scorching of the land would create a contrast with adjacent landscapes untouched by the burn. Impacts on 

sensitive viewers and the natural landscapes would be temporary as areas become revegetated. Fire 

management activities also could result in indirect impacts on land uses where large blocks of BLMmanaged surface land abut wildland-urban interface areas or proposed urban development areas, 

particularly in areas designated for fire use when opportunities arise or as fire use emphasis areas. If and 

when BLM uses fire in these areas, local communities (i.e., in Socorro County along Interstate 25 [I-25]) 

would be subject to impacts from smoke and/or temporary restrictions to uses on nearby BLM-managed 

surface land. 

Under all alternatives, cultural and paleontological resources would continue to be impacted by natural 

weathering and erosion processes, and some resources may be lost by removal from and vandalism on 

public land. These resources are subject to an active discovery process so additional cultural and 

paleontological resources may be found on BLM-managed surface land, but quantity and quality are not 

known until discovered and properly evaluated. Any actions proposed for BLM-managed surface land or 

by the BLM will include an evaluation of (1) the potential for the presence of important resources, (2) 

potential impacts on resources due to the type of project action that may allow for surface disturbance or 

easier access to the resource, and (3) appropriate mitigating actions to protect those resources. Access or 

surface disturbance associated with a specific future action may result in damage or loss of the resource; 

however, important resources also may be discovered and would need to be properly evaluated and 

curated.

The management of the 13 wilderness study areas (WSAs) on BLM-managed surface land would 

continue in accordance with the 1995 Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review 

(Interim Management Policy). As a result, mineral exploration and development activities and realty 

actions would be excluded or limited in these areas. Management in WSAs would support the 

maintenance and enhancement of primitive and semi-primitive recreation settings. In addition, incidental 

protection of natural and cultural resources would occur in those areas. 

There is potential for harvesting woodland products on public land for biomass-fueled power generation. 

Impacts resulting from these activities would include tree removal, primarily piñon and juniper, and 

possible conversion of areas from woodland to grass and shrub vegetation types. Any ground-disturbing 

activities associated with exploration or development of renewable energy or minerals would undergo 

site-specific environmental analysis in accordance with NEPA and other statutes, similar to other future 

actions. Piñon and juniper woodlands would be harvested sustainably, by reducing high-density stands to 

a historic range of density and structure. As a result, grasslands or juniper savannah that have been 

heavily encroached upon with one-seed juniper and piñon will be returned to historic grassland 

conditions.
Impacts from Actions Common to All Alternatives 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-5 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Throughout all the alternatives, grazing would be permitted on the majority of BLM-managed surface 

land; therefore, no impacts on the general availability of land for this use are anticipated. Changes to 

grazing numbers or range management could occur if determined necessary to meet public land health 

standards or as part of noxious weed treatment programs. Over the long term, livestock grazing reductions 

could result in healthier, more stable plant communities, which would produce more desirable, predictable 

forage that would be more resistant to grazing impacts. Weed treatment programs that reduce noxious or 

invasive weed species also could reduce unpalatable or toxic species and reduce competition with 

desirable forage species. 

Range management tools such as fences, water, and salt placement would be used as part of ongoing 

management, allowing for greater control of livestock and therefore more flexible rangeland management, 

as well as plant reproduction and increased vigor. Within WSAs, the installation of new improvements 

would be limited in accordance with the Interim Management Policy. In areas outside the WSAs, range 

improvements may be installed contingent upon site-specific analysis and potential mitigation as 

identified in additional NEPA analysis. 

Under all alternatives, about 1,418,415 acres of Federal mineral estate within BLM’s Decision Area 

would be closed nondiscretionarily to fluid mineral leasing in WSAs and other areas (described in Section 

2.3.16). These closures directly affect the ability to develop 646,901 acres identified as having moderate 

oil and gas potential, including portions of the following sedimentary basins: San Agustin, Zuni, BelenAlbuquerque, and Jornada del Muerto, and the Chupadera Mesa and Rio Grande Rift (see Map 3-8). 

Although this management would not affect existing conditions, as prices for these resources rise, the 

economic feasibility of exploration and development for oil and gas also increases. The inability to 

explore or develop resources on this acreage would reduce the ability to consolidate larger blocks of land 

on which it would be more cost-effective to pursue exploration and development activities, potentially 

resulting in lost economic opportunities that would otherwise be realized. 

Under all alternatives, no impacts are anticipated on existing major transportation facilities in the 

Planning Area (I-25; U.S. Highway 60, U.S. Highway 180, and U.S. Highway 380; and New Mexico 

(NM) 12 and NM 169). Secondary or unauthorized route proliferation could occur if route designations 

are not enforced, potentially resulting in changes to access patterns and traffic circulation. 

Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations would minimize potential impacts related to the use 

and disposal of hazardous wastes and materials. Health and safety requirements for future activities and 

uses on public land would be uniform under all alternatives, but the level of effort to monitor activities 

and the level of risk to public health and safety would vary according to the number of permits and other 

approvals issued. Future site-specific NEPA analysis would identify specific risks and any appropriate 

mitigation.

Under all alternatives, limited economic opportunities associated with BLM’s wildfire management 

program would continue. The current practice of BLM offering contracts to local enterprises to assist with 

tasks related to fire management, such as clearing areas and removing fuel materials and/or debris, would 

remain under any alternative. Expanded stewardship contracting authority sets parameters to continue to 

engage local businesses in long-term ecological restoration services. This would generate income and 

result in direct and induced revenue in local economies if local businesses are used.

4.3 ALTERNATIVE A – NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Impacts on the environment that would occur as a result of the continuation of existing management are 

discussed below by resource management category (e.g., vegetation or rangeland management). Each 

discussion provides, as appropriate, characterizations of impacts that could result from the management of 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-6 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

other resources and resource uses. Management that is expected to have no effect on a resource or 

resource use is not included in the discussion. 

4.3.1 Summary of Management Direction

The No-Action Alternative (or Alternative A) represents the continuation of existing management, as 

defined by the 1989 RMP and subsequent amendments. Under Alternative A, resource values or sensitive 

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

continue to be used. Decisions from the 1989 RMP that have been implemented would continue in force, 

and those that have not been implemented would be carried forward into the future. A summary of 

Alternative A also is provided in Table 2-1, Chapter 2, while a summary of management prescriptions for 

areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and special management areas (SMAs) under 

Alternative A is provided in Table 2-2. 

4.3.2 Summary of Aggregate Effects of Alternative A

Management of soils, water and watershed resources, and vegetation would be expected to reduce soil 

erosion and vegetation loss, and increase control of noxious weeds over time. These effects would occur 

as actions are taken to meet public land health standards in areas that are not currently achieving them and 

as a result of management designed to protect sensitive resources within specially designated areas. 

Surface disturbance such as that caused by mineral development, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and 

construction of facilities within rights-of-way or other land use authorizations could have localized, shortterm direct effects on soil, water, and vegetation, including soil compaction and vegetation loss. The 

extent of long-term effects would depend on the intensity, frequency, and type of use in a specific area. 

Impacts would be greater outside areas where use restrictions apply (see Table 4-1, Land Allocations 

Under All Alternatives).

Public land within special designations typically would be managed to protect resources by minimizing 

surface disturbance. Under Alternative A, a total of 238,936 acres of BLM-managed surface land would 

be managed as discretionary special designations (ACECs and SMAs) to protect watershed, vegetation, 

wildlife, and cultural resources. An additional 291,826 acres within WSAs would be managed in 

accordance with the Interim Management Policy, which requires nonimpairment of wilderness values, 

with the effect of supporting native vegetation and wildlife habitat, preserving scenic resources, and 

maintaining primitive recreational settings in those areas until the areas are designated as wilderness or 

dropped from further wilderness study. 

Impacts on wildlife are closely correlated with impacts on vegetation, which provides forage and cover. 

Generally, Alternative A would be expected to have localized direct effects on wildlife where surfacedisturbing activities occur. In some cases, land disposal allows for land uses to be developed that would 

result in effects such as habitat fragmentation2

, degradation, or disruption of wildlife movement corridors. 

Since the 1989 RMP, the federally listed aplomado falcon has been elevated as a species of concern in the 

Planning Area. Existing management (Alternative A) has no specific management decisions related to the 

aplomado falcon; however, in the event of a proposed action, the legal provisions of the Endangered 

Species Act and NEPA provide protection of the falcon from incidental takes and require consideration 

and mitigation of potential effects on the species. 

 

2

 Habitat fragmentation occurs when native vegetation is cleared, often as a result of fire or human development, and habitats that 

were once continuous become fragmented or isolated from one another. Habitat fragmentation can result in edge effects. 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-7 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences April 2007

TABLE 4-1 

LAND ALLOCATIONS UNDER ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Land Allocation Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Total acres in discretionary special designations (ACECs, SMAs, SRMAs) 

238,936 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

297,555 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

336,609 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

149,478 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

Acres in WSAs 291,826 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land 

291,826 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

291,826 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

291,826 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

Right-of-way exclusion areas 39,148 acres of BLM-managed

surface land 

406,283 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

716,100 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

301,081 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

Right-of-way avoidance areas 458,996 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land 

349,343 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

419,120 acres of BLMmanaged surface land 177,290 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

Land identified as suitable for disposal

86,458 acres of BLM-managedsurface land 

89,447 acres of BLM-managedsurface land 

42,913 acres of BLM-managedsurface land 

212,323 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

Closed OHV area designations 29,117 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land 

117,921 acres of BLMmanaged surface land 139,971 acres of BLM-managed surface land 0 acres of BLM-managed surface land

Limited OHV area designations 565,159 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land 

1,389,624 acres of BLMmanaged surface land 1,364,742 acres of BLM- managed surface land 1,504,534 acres of BLM- managed surface land 

Open to cross-country travel 851,234 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land 

0 acres of BLM-managed surface land

0 acres of BLM-managed surface land

0 acres of BLM-managed surface land

Areas closed to fluid mineral leasing 1,418,415 acres of Federal 

mineral estate 

1,543,095 acres of Federal mineral estate 

1,856,116 acres of Federal mineral estate 

1,419,456 acres of Federal mineral estate 

Areas that would be withdrawn from location and entry under the mining laws

1,508 acres of Federal mineral estate 

72,369 acres of Federal mineral estate 

497,391 acres of Federal mineral estate 

0 acres of Federal mineral estate 

Areas excluded from mineral material disposals 

0 acres of BLM-managed surface land

340,066 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

484,133 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

291,859 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

VRM Class I 30,343 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land 

28,533 acres of BLM-managedsurface land 

27,093 acres of BLM-managedsurface land 

0 acres of BLM-managed surface land

VRM Class II 385,781 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land 

488,339 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

715,706 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

354,222 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

VRM Class III 299,741 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land 

480,595 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

249,953 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

106,277 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

VRM Class IV 774,170 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land 

509,432 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

513,997 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

1,046,399 acres of BLMmanaged surface land 

NOTE: ACEC = area of critical environmental concern  SMA = special management area  SRMA = special recreation management area  OHV = off-highway vehicle  VRM = visual resource management 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-8 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Under Alternative A, the potential for cultural and paleontological resource degradation due to future 

surface-disturbing actions would be minimized through established legal requirements and the requisite 

NEPA or other analysis that would occur on a site-specific basis. These resources are subject to an active 

discovery process, and typically the approval process for surface-disturbing activities would result in 

survey, potential discovery, and contribution to knowledge of cultural history and/or paleontology. A total 

of 20,450 acres of BLM-managed surface land is identified specifically for protection of some known 

sensitive and/or unique cultural resources within special designations under Alternative A. Management 

to minimize surface disturbance in these areas typically would include a combination of restrictions on 

land use authorizations, mineral development activities, and motorized travel. 

The Zuni Salt Lake, a sensitive resource of cultural value to the Zuni Tribe, as well as other southwestern 

tribes such as the Acoma Pueblo, Hopi Tribe, Laguna Pueblo, Ramah Navajo, and Taos Pueblo would be 

managed within a 4,839-acre SMA to regulate surface-disturbing activities. Water quantity and quality 

within the lake would be evaluated continually through measures intended to regulate environmental 

impacts on a site- and action-specific basis in accordance with NEPA and other Federal and State laws. 

Because the Zuni Tribe has senior rights to the waters of the lake, any new diversion of ground or surface 

water would require nonimpairment of those rights, and the Tribe has legal standing to protest any new 

application for water use filed by either BLM or a private party. 

Under Alternative A, 851,234 acres of public land would remain open to cross-country travel use. Impacts 

would include increased particulate and engine exhaust emissions; increased potential for soil erosion, 

sediment transport across public land, water quality degradation, and vegetation loss; potential damage to 

cultural resources; and greater potential for conflicts with wildlife, including habitat degradation. 

Opportunities for solitude and primitive recreational experiences would likely decrease due to OHVgenerated noise and dust. Impacts would vary according to the intensity and frequency of use as well as 

the soil types within affected areas. 

Alternative A would accommodate diverse uses of public land, including mineral exploration and 

development, developed and primitive recreational activities, grazing, and commodity production 

associated with woodcutting and plant material sales. Potential impacts on these resource uses would 

include localized effects on access, although overall travel throughout the Planning Area and the overall 

balance of recreation opportunities would not be impaired or affected by the management under this 

alternative. Lease stipulations to control surface use and limit surface occupancy would discourage fluid 

mineral leasing and development activities if such restrictions increase the cost and difficulty of 

exploration for and development of mineral resources such that these activities cease to be economically 

feasible. The potential for this impact would fluctuate according to the variable price of minerals over 

time and the known potential for the minerals in a particular area, both of which influence the economic 

feasibility of exploration and development. 

4.3.3 Air Quality

Management under Alternative A would be expected to maintain air quality that would meet the New 

Mexico and Federal ambient air quality standards, and there are no specific resource management actions 

included in Alternative A that would result in widespread direct effects on air quality. Generally, direct 

and indirect effects on air quality would result from earth-moving or vehicle traffic associated with 

development of mineral and energy resources, transportation and travel routes, utility corridors, and other 

surface-disturbing activities. 

Fugitive dust from unpaved access roads and commodity production sites would increase under 

Alternative A with any increase in roads and commodity production projects within the Planning Area. 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-9 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Pollutant concentrations from expanded construction and use of unpaved roads and transportation 

corridors would be dispersed over relatively short distances, less than 1 mile, from rights-of-way. For 

construction projects, these direct effects would occur for a period of a few weeks or months. Quantifying 

the direct effects of a given project, or new activity, would be based on published air pollutant emission 

factors. Particulate emissions are the most prevalent direct effect. Typically, the air emissions from heavy 

construction (defined as use of mechanized earthmoving vehicles for scraping, blading, and contouring 

the project site) are estimated to be 2.69 milligrams/hectare/month of activity (1.2 tons/acre/month of 

activity) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency AP-42, Section 13.2.3). 

In general, the estimation of dust emissions resulting from OHV and other vehicle traffic would occur as a 

function of several variables, including the surface materials’ silt and moisture content, vehicle speed, and 

other factors such as 1980s vehicle fleet exhaust, brake wear, and tire wear. Some natural mitigation of 

fugitive dust would occur with precipitation. Application of treatments that alleviate dust, such as road 

watering and planting of compatible roadside vegetation, could prevent 50 to 80 percent of the direct 

effects from fugitive dust generation. 

Particulate emissions from coal mining and associated material handling activities would be correlated 

with the soil silt and moisture content at the mine site. Emission factors provided by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency for surface coal production operations range from 0.01 to 0.03 pound 

of particulate emission per ton of coal for haul truck and rail car loading of coal or overburden, and up to 

0.4 pound of particulate emission per ton of coal for overburden removal (scraping or bulldozing). Wind 

erosion of dust from exposed areas at coal mine sites is characterized by a general emission factor of 

0.38 ton per acre per year. Under the reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) scenario (described 

under Section 4.7), up to 18,000 acres could be disturbed to extract coal. 

4.3.4 Geology

Potential impacts could result from surface disturbance to accommodate mineral exploration and 

development, land use authorizations, or other activities. Potential direct impacts could include vegetation 

removal and soil disturbance that increases erosion. Construction activity on mountain ridges could 

degrade and damage resources, and excavation on mountainsides for sand and gravel operations would 

affect geological features. Such activities could impact resources with unusual geological, mineralogical, 

or paleontological information, or natural scenic value, unless mitigated on a project-by-project basis. 

Overall, protection against effects from any new proposed projects or activities that require permits or 

BLM approval would be provided by mandatory, site-specific NEPA analysis to identify impacts and 

appropriate mitigation. 

Some management under Alternative A would protect geological resources; specially designated areas to 

protect natural, cultural, and recreation resources (a total of 238,936 acres) also would protect geologic 

resources against impacts associated with surface disturbance (described above) in those areas. Land use 

restrictions in special designations include right-of-way exclusion areas, restrictions on OHV use, closure 

of areas to mineral leasing, or withdrawal from location and entry under the mining laws (see Table 4-1). 

Geological resources on 851,234 acres open to cross-country OHV under Alternative A would be 

vulnerable to degradation or damage. Other recreation activities, such as rock-climbing, mountain biking, 

and horseback riding, could cause cumulative damage to cliffs faces and other geological features. In 

addition, natural erosion processes could degrade or enhance geologic resources. 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-10 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

4.3.5 Soil and Water Resources

The construction of facilities or access roads on BLM-managed surface land to support mineral 

development or other activities would require additional authorization from BLM. Consequently, effects 

would be evaluated on a site-specific basis during additional NEPA analysis. It is assumed that impacts 

on soil and water resources that result from these activities would be mitigated through the application of 

best management practices (see Appendix C) or other mitigation identified during additional NEPA 

analysis. Potential direct impacts that might be considered on a site-specific basis include temporary soil 

erosion in clearance areas or long-term erosion that could result from more intense activity. The intensity 

of the activity and, therefore, the potential effects would depend on variables such as the size and type of 

equipment used, access requirements for facilities maintenance, and increased access to public land with 

new access roads. 

Alternative A provides protection for soil and water resources in some areas from the effects of these 

surface-disturbing activities through right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas and restrictions on 

mineral development (see Table 4-1 for total acres associated with this management). In these areas, 

management to prohibit or minimize major surface-disturbing activities would result in protection against 

soil disturbance and compaction, which would promote reduced erosion and increased soil infiltration and 

productivity. In addition, management of VRM Class I and II areas to retain natural landscapes on a total 

of 416,124 acres would protect or enhance soils and watershed resources in those areas because an 

emphasis on maintaining existing vegetation and terrain features would be inherent to the management 

objectives for those areas. 

The potential effects of BLM management on Zuni Salt Lake have been identified as a key area of 

concern within the Planning Area. Under Alternative A, the 4,839-acre Zuni Salt Lake SMA would 

continue to protect soil and watershed resources in that area through limits on surface disturbance from 

land use authorizations, mineral development, and OHV use. The Zuni Tribe has senior rights to the 

waters of the lake, and any diversion of ground or surface water cannot violate those rights. Existing law, 

regulations, and policy provide abundant protection of the Tribe’s rights to beneficial use of Zuni Salt 

Lake. Under existing State law, the Tribe could protest any new application for water use filed by either 

BLM or a private party. 

Potential impacts on soil and water resources from grazing are addressed as part of the discussion on 

vegetation (Section 4.3.6). 

Several fluid mineral leases have been issued previously by BLM for areas in the vicinity of Zuni Salt 

Lake. Any removal or re-injection of production water into the subsurface as a consequence of resource 

extraction would require a permit from the State Oil Conservation Commission; impacts on water rights, 

including rights to the Zuni Salt Lake, would be a determining factor in the outcome of the permitting 

process. Mandatory NEPA analysis would assess specific proposed activities or uses, and identify 

mitigation measures. 

Under Alternative A, up to 31,640 acres would continue to be available for coal leasing in northwestern 

Catron County, with permitting restrictions. The Salt River Project had obtained a coal-mining permit and 

lease for the Fence Lake Mine, but has since vacated them. State permits would be required for any new 

mining exploration or extraction, and potential lessees would be required to demonstrate that existing 

water resources, including Zuni Salt Lake, would be unimpaired by mining activity. In addition, 

mandatory site-specific NEPA analysis would identify potential impacts on the lake water’s quality and 

quantity, and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate those impacts would be identified as part of that 

process.
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-11 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Motorized vehicle travel could contribute to soil loss and impact water quality when OHV use causes soil 

disturbance. The extent of impacts would be determined by several factors, including the frequency, 

duration, intensity, and location of OHV use; the types of vehicles involved in the activity; the pattern of 

precipitation (which would affect the water content of soil); and the silt and moisture content of soil 

(which affect a soil’s vulnerability to disturbance). Soil loss would most likely occur in areas designated 

as open to cross-country travel (851,234 acres of public land under Alternative A), and in higher intensity 

OHV use areas where silt and moisture content are such that the soils are more vulnerable to disturbance. 

Closed areas under Alternative A total 29,117 acres of public land; in these areas, soil and water resources 

would not be subjected to the potential effects of motorized vehicle travel. 

4.3.6 Vegetation

The development of watershed plans designed to improve, protect, and rehabilitate critical watersheds by 

increasing soil stabilization, improving soil structure and water quality, and reducing water runoff and 

sediment transport would have the indirect effect of improving the quality of vegetation within the 

watersheds. Practices such as natural and artificial revegetation after treatment (mechanical) to control 

undesirable vegetation, watershed tillage practices, and weed control would improve vegetation quality 

and reduce competition from noxious weeds or non-native species. Naturally occurring and manmade 

water resources are often focal points of use by domestic and wild animals, which may result in loss of 

vegetation and rare plants found only in riparian zones. 

Under Alternative A, approximately 238,936 acres of BLM-managed surface land within special 

designations would be managed to protect or enhance natural and cultural resources. Vegetation within 

these special designations would be protected from ground-disturbing activities, which would minimize 

vegetation loss in those areas. Ground disturbance would be allowed in some special designations to 

accommodate scientific investigations and to construct infrastructure associated with tourism or 

education. The VRM Class I or II in special designations and other areas (a total of 416,124 acres of 

BLM-managed surface land) would support the maintenance or enhancement of existing vegetation 

communities in accordance with VRM objectives through mitigation measures when a surface-disturbing

action is proposed. 

The construction of facilities within rights-of-way or associated with other land use authorizations would 

remove vegetation and likely increase erosion, reduce soil or water quality due to run-off, and increase the 

likelihood of the occurrence of noxious weeds or invasive species in localized areas. However, these 

impacts would be mitigated on a site-specific basis through use of best management practices or other 

measures as identified in subsequent, site-specific NEPA analyses. Impacts from invasive weeds also 

would be mitigated through standard conditions for operators that are disturbing native vegetation by 

managing and remediating any invasive species introductions that are detected. The establishment of 

right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas would protect vegetation in those areas by limiting land use 

authorizations that might cause surface disturbance. The number of acres per vegetation type managed 

within exclusion and avoidance areas for Alternative A is summarized in Table 4-2. Approximately a 

third of the montane coniferous forest areas on BLM-managed surface land would be protected within 

exclusion areas, and a substantial portion (about 72 percent) of the closed basin scrub on BLM-managed 

surface land would be managed within avoidance areas. Some areas with lava beds in northwestern 

Catron County (additional to the acres noted in Table 4-2) would be available for right-of-ways; however, 

additional mitigation measures would be identified during the required NEPA analysis. 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-12 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

TABLE 4-2 

ACREAGE BY VEGETATION TYPE IN RIGHT-OF-WAY 

EXCLUSION AND AVOIDANCE AREAS FOR ALTERNATIVE A 

Vegetation Type 

Acres of 

BLMManaged 

Surface Land 

Right-ofway 

Exclusion

Percent of 

BLMManaged 

Surface

Land

Population 

Right-ofway 

Avoidance

Percent of 

BLMManaged 

Surface

Land

Population 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 168,059 12,989 8 27,419 16 

Closed Basin Scrub 13,941 0 10,016 72 

Coniferous And Mixed Woodland 143,686 8,655 6 60,164 42 

Desert Grassland 316,268 7,009 2 131,107 41 

Juniper Savanna 324,153 90 0 90,906 28 

Lava Beds 21,353* 0 21,319 100* 

Montane Coniferous Forest 30,945 10,262 33 7,733 25 

Montane Scrub 11,456 0 1,250 11 

Plains-Mesa Grassland 258,389 13 0 64,019 25 

Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 201,015 130 0 44,105 22 

Urban, Farmland or Open Water 15,518 0 764 5 

TOTALS 1,504,783 39,148 3 458,802 30 

SOURCE: Dick-Peddie 1993 

NOTES: Acreage based on best available GIS data. 

 *The data on which these calculations are based do not include some additional lava beds in northwestern Catron County. These areas

are addressed in the text, as appropriate. 

BLM has identified approximately 40,920 acres of land for acquisition because of its suitable habitat for 

wildlife, including special status species. These acquisitions would enhance the BLM’s ability to 

effectively support wildlife in the Decision Area. About 86,458 acres have been identified as suitable for 

disposal; vegetation could be lost in those areas if disposal occurs and surface-disturbing activities are 

initiated. Increased development adjacent to public land could result in a direct loss of vegetation due to 

construction of supporting infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.) on BLM-managed surface land. 

The reduction of woodcutting in high erosion areas would reduce impacts on soil productivity and thus 

vegetation. Activities associated with vegetative sales would cause localized loss of vegetation and habitat 

due to construction of access routes and other surface disturbance during the removal of vegetation, and 

increased water run-off and erosion. Loss of habitat and vegetation due to construction of road access 

would be mitigated by road placement through best management practices (Appendix C). Potential 

increases in the spread of noxious weeds or invasive species could occur in those areas, but likely would 

be avoided or mitigated due to the application of weed control guidelines procedures described in Section 

2.3.4. As part of the monitoring program, site visits would pick up early infestations of introduced 

noxious weeds and they would be treated accordingly. 

Vegetation could be removed during ground-disturbing activities associated with mineral exploration and 

development. Construction and operation of infrastructure associated with those activities (i.e., access 

roads, supply lines, laydown areas, etc.) would require removal of vegetation and increase the likelihood 

of invasive species or noxious weeds. According to the RFD (see Section 4.7.1), fewer than 1,000 acres in 

BLM’s Decision Area would be disturbed due to oil and gas development, and approximately 50,000 

acres (with well spacing of 320 acres) would be disturbed for carbon dioxide and helium development. 

Under the RFD, up to 18,000 acres could be disturbed for coal development. The estimated size of the 

disturbance areas is a small portion of the overall Planning Area. Localized impacts from future actions 

would be mitigated on a site-specific basis through use of best management practices or other measures as 

identified in subsequent, site-specific NEPA analyses. 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-13 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Both positive and negative conclusions about the effects of livestock grazing on vegetation have been 

derived from studies. Overall, however, the impacts on vegetation on BLM-managed surface land would 

be minimal if grazing is managed to meet public land health standards in accordance with the New 

Mexico Standards and Guidelines. Grazing has been shown to increase soil compaction and thus decrease 

water infiltration (Fleischer 1994), thereby affecting conditions for vegetation. These effects generally 

increase with stocking rates, but are moderated by soil moisture conditions at the time of trampling 

(Warren et al. 1996). Soil compaction would reduce water infiltration, restrict root depth, and limit seed 

germination (Hart and Ferguson 1993). Mechanical impacts on soils and biologic crusts would reduce soil 

stability and fixed nitrogen availability (Belnap 1995; Eldridge and Green 1994). Soil disturbance from 

hoof sheer and bedding would create habitat for non-native invasive and noxious weed species, which 

would likely increase the overall competition with native species for limited resources (water, nutrients, 

space, etc.) (Laycock and Conrad 1981). Each of these indirect impacts, or a combination of all, would 

reduce the reproductive capacity of residual perennial communities (Cook and Child 1971; and Yensen 

1982). Long-term impacts from reduced perennial reproduction and increased competition from invasive 

species would likely result in increased fuel loads that would decrease the interval between disturbance 

events (wildfire) and potentially enhance the size and severity of those events resulting in an accelerated 

expansion of exotic annual dominated communities. 

However, livestock grazing after seed set could have limited beneficial, short-term indirect impacts on 

upland vegetation by dispersing seeds and creating microhabitats for native species through localized soil 

disturbance (Burkhardt 1996). In addition, Holechek (1981), Daddy et al. (1988), and Klipple and 

Costello (1960) concluded that moderate grazing had a more positive effect on plant communities than no 

grazing. Blackburn (1984) also argues that the moderate, continuous grazing or specialized grazing 

systems would reduce sediment losses to a minimum. Grazing that is managed to meet public land health 

standards could increase infiltration and sediment yield (McGinty et al. 1979). 

Ground disturbance caused by motorized vehicles, camping, hiking, day use, horseback riding, mountain 

biking, and trail maintenance would directly impact vegetation through loss and trampling. Concentration 

of these activities within special designations for recreational use would restrict loss of vegetation to 

localized areas, and those designated areas would be managed to accommodate concentrated use in such a 

way as to reduce overall impacts. 

OHV use affects vegetation primarily by crushing plants. Repeated disturbances could eliminate 

vegetation within frequently used tracks and could alter species composition and community dynamics 

within immediately adjacent areas by compacting and disturbing soils and causing the dusting of 

vegetation. Route designation would eliminate some redundant routes, resulting in larger contiguous areas 

that are not subjected to effects associated with OHV activities. 

Vehicles can facilitate the dispersion of invasive and noxious weeds. Vehicles driving through 

populations of invasive plants often get seed entrapped in tire tread and undercarriages, move to another 

area and then drop seeds into a previously uninfested area. A study performed by Trunkle and Fay (1991) 

determined that an average of 1,644 knapweed seeds became attached to a pickup truck after backing 40 

feet through an infested area and then pulling back out. After driving one mile, 14 percent of the seeds 

were still attached, and after 10 miles, only 8 percent remained attached. This type of seed attachment and 

dispersal is likely common for any number of weed species and shows the impact the motorized vehicle 

users can cause unknowingly on the landscape. In addition, continued OHV use in an area often reduces 

vegetation and exposes soil, creating favorable conditions for germination of weed seeds (Gelbard and 

Belnap 2003; Greenberg et al. 1997; Harrison et al. 2002; Hobbs and Heunneke 1992). 

The number of acres per vegetation type managed under each OHV area designation for Alternative A is 

summarized in Table 4-3. Open areas, where cross-country use is permitted and impacts on previously 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Preliminary Draft 2 Socorro RMPR/EIS 4-14 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences April 2007

TABLE 4-3 

ACREAGE OF VEGETATION TYPE ON BLM-MANAGED SURFACE LAND 

BY OHV AREA DESIGNATION FOR ALTERNATIVE A 

Closed to OHV 

OHV Limited to 

Designated or Existing 

Roads 

Seasonal Limitations on 

OHV Open to OHV 

Vegetation Type 

Acres of BLMManaged 

Surface Land Acres

Percent of 

BLMManaged 

Surface

Land Acres 

Percent of 

BLMManaged 

Surface

Land Acres 

Percent of 

BLMManaged 

Surface

Land Acres 

Percent of 

BLMManaged 

Surface

Land

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 168,059 1,364 1 66,443 40 0 0 100,201 60Closed Basin Scrub 13,941 0 0 4,313 31 0 0 9,623 69Coniferous and Mixed Woodland 143,686 11,997 8 58,623 41 0 0 68,567 48Desert Grassland 316,268 11,813 4 153,489 49 19,434 6 122,981 39Juniper Savanna 324,153 0 0 115,710 36 0 0 192,578 59Lava Beds 21,353* 0 0 21,341 100* 0 0 3 0Montane Coniferous Forest 30,945 2,229 7 11,182 36 0 0 15,603 50Montane Scrub 11,456 0 0 2,491 22 0 0 4,326 38Plains-Mesa Grassland 258,389 1,672 1 46,066 18 686 0 204,564 79Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 201,015 5 0 83,989 42 0 0 117,013 58Urban, Farmland or Open Water 15,518 37 0 1,512 10 0 0 13,967 90Totals: 1,504,783 29,117 21 565,159 38 20,120 6 849,426 56 

SOURCE: Dick-Peddie 1993 NOTES: Some acreage is undesignated under this alternative, and would be managed as limited to existing routes.  The acre totals may not equal the calculations for area designations in Chapter 2, due to variations in datasets and calculation methods.  *The data on which these calculations are based do not include some additional lava beds in northwestern Catron County. These areas are addressed in the text, as appropriate. 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-15 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

undisturbed vegetation are most likely, total 851,234 acres of BLM-managed surface land and are mostly 

characterized by plains-mesa grassland, juniper savanna, desert grassland, and plains-mesa sand scrub. 

Some areas with lava beds in northwestern Catron County (additional to the acres noted in Table 4-3) 

would be managed as open to OHV use; effects on vegetation could occur if motorized travel affect 

certain vegetation types that grow in lava beds. 

Restriction of motorized vehicle use to existing or designated trails would minimize impacts on 

vegetation in those areas (about 565,159 acres of BLM-managed surface land under Alternative A). 

Minimal loss of vegetation would occur on existing trails and roads, as they are already disturbed. 

Vegetation in areas closed to OHV use would be protected from the impacts described above. 

4.3.7 Wildlife, Riparian Habitat, and Special Status Species

Management of 150,931 acres of special designations would protect the habitats of special status species 

and other wildlife, including riparian habitat and raptor nesting and wintering habitat, by limiting access 

and restricting surface-disturbing activities. A description of these areas and associated habitat types is 

provided in Table 4-4. Site-specific NEPA analysis of future actions would determine mitigation of 

impacts or rehabilitation of wildlife and riparian habitats or habitats that support special status species. 

TABLE 4-4 

AREAS MANAGED TO PROTECT WILDLIFE, WILDLIFE HABITAT AND 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES UNDER ALTERNATIVE A 

Name of Area Habitat Type Focus of Management Acres

Horse Mountain 

ACEC

Remote, roadless, and rarely grazed 

rugged canyons and mountains. Good 

habitat for diverse wildlife species; 

potential for bald eagles and peregrine 

falcons. 

Protect habitat for bald eagle and 

peregrine falcon (federally listed species), 

wildlife corridor between BLM and U.S. 

Forest Service (Forest Service) land, and 

crucial mule deer habitat from OHV, 

subdivision, and energy exploration. 

7,490 

Ladron Mountain 

ACEC

Rough topography and highly diverse 

vegetation, habitat for desert bighorn 

sheep and critical to raptor wintering 

and nesting habitat. Habitat for rare and 

endemic plant species including 

Wright’s spiderlily, threadleaf false 

carrot, and planks catchfly. 

Manage rare and endemic plants 

including three State sensitive plants; 

protect riparian habitat that supports 

residential and non-residential species; 

Protect desert bighorn sheep critical 

habitat, habitat for several special status 

bat species, and crucial mule deer habitat. 

Threats include urbanization, increased 

recreation use, military activities, fuels 

reduction, and unauthorized OHV use. 

57,195 

Sawtooth

Proprietary

ACEC

Steep ridges and foot slopes with piñonjuniper vegetation that provide habitat to 

small Zuni fleabane population. 

Protect and enhance habitat for federally 

threatened Zuni Fleabane that is 

associated with uranium deposits in 

piñon-juniper vegetation communities. 

Threats include intensive recreational or 

livestock use and fires. 

125 

San Pedro 

Proprietary

ACEC

Low ridges, slopes, arroyos and 

watercourses that support isolated 

Fugate’s blue star population. 

Protect New Mexico State sensitive 

Fugate’s blue star, found in Chihuahuan 

desert scrub, from surface-disturbing 

activities and to maintain habitat. 

1,201 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-16 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

TABLE 4-4 

AREAS MANAGED TO PROTECT WILDLIFE, WILDLIFE HABITAT AND 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES UNDER ALTERNATIVE A 

Name of Area Habitat Type Focus of Management Acres

Agua Fria ACEC Mesas and open grasslands, with 

volcanic features and vertical cliffs. 

Provides habitat for bald eagles, golden 

eagles, peregrine falcons, and prairie 

falcons. 

Protect raptor wintering and nesting 

habitats. 

9,571 

Soaptree SMA Large dense yucca stands in mesa sand 

scrub habitat. 

Protect yucca ecosystem while 

maintaining area for livestock grazing and 

improving recreational opportunities. 

1,296 

Pelona Mountain 

SMA

Relatively roadless area; rugged 

canyons and hilly to mountainous 

country with piñon-juniper and 

grassland habitats. Provides potential 

habitat for bald eagles, peregrine 

falcons, black-footed ferrets, and other 

wildlife including big game species. 

Protect habitat for bald eagle, peregrine 

falcon wintering and nesting habitats, 

wildlife corridor between BLM and 

Forest Service land, crucial mule deer 

habitat, and one of largest New Mexico 

elk herds from energy exploration and 

surface disturbance. 

70,838 

Taylor Canyon 

Proprietary SMA 

Habitat for several species of rare and 

endemic plants. 

Protect State-listed sensitive species 

including threadleaf horsebrush, gypsum 

blazing star and other State-listed species. 

384 

Iron Mine Ridge 

Proprietary SMA 

Habitat for several species of rare and 

endemic plants. 

Protect State-listed sensitive species 

including Wright’s spiderfly, desert 

parsley, threadleaf false carrot and other 

State-listed species. 

1,386 

Walnut Canyon 

SMA

Rugged desert foothill with wide arroyo 

canyons that support diverse vegetation 

and habitat for golden eagles, prairie 

falcons, great horned owls, and a variety 

of big game species. 

Protect raptor wintering and nesting 

habitat. 

1,145 

The Box SMA Chihuahuan desert scrub habitat. Manage recreation opportunities for 

bouldering and rock climbing, with 

special protection given to desert bighorn 

sheep and bat habitats. 

300 

Total 150,931 

Exclusion of or limitations on rights-of-way, OHV use, and mineral and renewable energy exploration 

activities within the Horse Mountain and Agua Fria ACECs and Taylor Canyon, Iron Mine Ridge, and 

Walnut Canyon SMAs would continue to provide protection of special-status raptor nesting and wintering 

habitat and habitat for dwindling mule deer populations by excluding surface-disturbing activities 

associated with road construction, mineral extraction, and development of utility corridors. These surfacedisturbing activities could increase the potential for erosion or the loss or degradation of wildlife and 

riparian habitats that support special status species. Rights-of-way and leases would be restricted in both 

the Ladron Mountain ACEC and Pelona Mountain SMA. Impacts on individual species, to the extent 

possible, will be discussed in detail in the Biological Assessment associated with U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) Section 7 consultation for this document. 

Exclusion of domestic sheep and goats from the Horse Mountain ACEC and Pelona Mountain SMA 

would have direct and indirect effects on elk and mule deer habitat and similar effects on desert bighorn 

sheep habitat in the Ladron Mountain ACEC by decreasing the potential for disease transmission to 

wildlife species from domesticated animals. The potential for loss of habitat through the establishment of 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-17 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

invasive or exotic species as a result of soil compaction from trampling by sheep and goats also would be 

decreased. Soil compaction, which can lead to decreased water infiltration, and exposed soils from 

overgrazing can affect the productivity and resilience of vegetation, which in turn could cause the loss of 

special status, rare, or endemic plant species. The grazing exclusions would further allow vegetative 

succession to proceed under more natural conditions, vegetation would maintain greater diversity, and the 

potential for water runoff and erosion would be reduced. The Box SMA management prescriptions would 

provide further protections to bat habitats; protection for bighorn sheep also would be incorporated into 

the SMA.

The Sawtooth, San Pedro, and Ladron Mountain ACECs and the Soaptree, Taylor Canyon, and Iron Mine 

Ridge SMAs currently protect several currently or formerly designated special status, rare, or endemic 

plant species and special status wildlife and their habitats. The management programs for these specially 

designated areas would include right-of-way exclusions, mineral leasing stipulations, and road closures, 

as well as requirements for site-specific permitting prior to ground disturbance. These restrictions would 

allow retention of large, contiguous areas on BLM-managed surface land, which would limit potential 

edge effects on wildlife and minimize habitat fragmentation. Additionally, completion and 

implementation of the current habitat and other related management plans, as well as implementation of 

right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas, road closures, fluid mineral leasing stipulations, woodcutting 

exclusions, and bighorn sheep reintroduction activities associated with the various special designations, 

would protect existing habitat and/or increase the availability of habitat within the special designations. 

Special designations for cultural resources also would restrict land disturbance and thus indirectly 

minimize loss or degradation of wildlife habitat. 

Under Alternative A, land under VRM Class I and II (a total of 416,124 acres of BLM-managed surface 

land) would be managed to minimize change to the existing character of the landscape, which may 

support and enhance existing habitat. VRM designation of Class I or II would not preclude proactive 

habitat management or enhancement. The potential for increased land use intensity under Class IV 

(774,170 acres) could allow actions that increase susceptibility to habitat degradation, fragmentation, and 

edge effects from the potential increase in human activity. However, all proposed activities would be 

subject to NEPA analysis on a site-specific basis, and impacts on wildlife and special status species 

within the specific sites would be minimized and mitigated through the NEPA process. 

Construction within rights-of-way or as a result of other land use authorizations could cause habitat 

fragmentation, loss or degradation of wildlife habitat, or edge effects in areas that support local and 

regionally important wildlife travel corridors. Habitats within right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas 

would be protected from these effects. Under Alternative A, 39,148 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

would be managed as right-of-way exclusion areas. These areas, composed mainly of desert scrub, 

grassland, and mountain coniferous forest habitats, support a diversity of wildlife species. A total of 

458,996 acres would be managed as right-of-way avoidance areas; they are located mainly within 

Chihuahuan Desert scrub, Chihuahuan Desert grassland, juniper savanna, mountain coniferous and mixed 

woodlands, and plains-mesa grassland and sand scrub habitats that provide habitat for a diversity of 

wildlife species including raptor and several special status species. Under Alternative A, plains-mesa 

grassland, including those that contain the soaptree yucca ecosystem, and Chihuahuan Desert grassland 

habitats that support aplomado falcon, bald eagle, elk, and mule deer would receive the most protection. 

Land disposal also could result in habitat fragmentation, loss or degradation of habitat, or edge effects. 

The likelihood of these effects would increase if disposed parcels are located near developing areas and 

development occurs on the site. However, the criteria used to determine disposal of land would be based 

on an overall goal to consolidate land within special designations to maintain wildlife corridors and core 

habitat areas. Up to 40,920 acres of nonpublic land within and adjacent to special designations would be 

pursued for acquisition as the opportunity allows to consolidate areas for the best management potential. 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-18 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

This would minimize the potential for habitat fragmentation or disturbance of local or regionally 

important wildlife travel corridors and maintain the quality of game and nongame wildlife and special 

status species habitat within those areas. 

The effects of harvesting of plant materials on public land would include loss or degradation of habitat for 

a diversity of wildlife species where woodcutting is allowed, and potential for increased water runoff, 

erosion, and damage to soil structure in areas lacking vegetative cover. Exclusion of woodcutting would 

reduce these surface-disturbing activities and associated effects on wildlife habitat or special status 

species. However, reduction of fuels also may have the effect of enhancing wildlife habitat and reducing 

the potential for wildfire. 

Under Alternative A, much of the areas that are available for mineral extraction are located within 

Chihuahuan desert scrub, desert and montane grasslands, and coniferous forests that support many 

different wildlife or special status species, including game and nongame species that have extensive 

ranges. Surface-disturbing activities associated with mineral exploration and extraction could lead to an 

increase in land use intensity in some areas that could result in loss of wildlife and their habitats; habitat 

fragmentation or edge effects in wildlife habitats near new extraction areas; and potential disruption of 

local wildlife movement corridors. The RFD estimates a relatively small amount of disturbance from oil 

and gas development (about 1,000 acres throughout the entire Planning Area) and well spacing of 

320 acres is anticipated for any carbon dioxide and helium development. Implementation of additional 

fluid mineral leasing stipulations on 736,000 acres could mitigate potential impacts, or additional 

mitigation would be identified on a site-specific basis in accordance with NEPA and the Endangered 

Species Act. Habitat within areas that are closed to fluid mineral leasing (1,418,415 acres of mineral 

estate) or withdrawn from mineral entry (up to 12,916 acres of BLM-managed surface land) would be 

protected from these impacts. 

Direct effects on habitat from livestock grazing would include land disturbance such as trampling and 

construction of rangeland improvements that can cause habitat fragmentation and limit or eliminate use of 

areas by wildlife (see Section 4.3.6). Improperly managed grazing could increase the potential for the 

establishment of invasive exotic species and subsequently cause loss of rare, endemic, or listed plant 

species, although management in accordance with the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines would be 

expected to avoid or mitigate these effects (see Section 4.2). Grazing by domestic sheep and goats in 

desert bighorn sheep and other wildlife habitats could also occur in this alternative and could lead to 

degradation of vegetation and forage for wildlife by causing increased potential for erosion and 

establishment of invasive plants and noxious weeds as well as increased potential for disease transmission 

from domesticated animals, except in existing special designations that exclude goats and sheep.

Recreational use could result in chronic or short-term disturbance of wildlife or special status species 

habitats, human disturbance of wildlife or special status species, including desert bighorn sheep, and 

increased edge effects (e.g., noise, lighting, dust, erosion, and sedimentation) as defined in Section 4.2. 

The potential for impacts would be higher within the 24,361 acres of special designations to be managed 

for recreational use, especially if those designations result in increased or concentrated recreational use in 

those areas. The Walnut Canyon SMA contains habitat that supports golden eagles, prairie falcons, and 

great horned owls, and management includes activities that specifically protect raptor nesting and 

wintering habitat. The Box SMA management activities also specifically protect bighorn sheep and bat 

habitat as compatible with recreational uses. However, the presence of humans would inhibit bighorn 

sheep use where recreational activities are frequent or intense. Several bat species are likely to use this 

habitat; however, these species are not likely to be affected by recreational use since they are nocturnal 

foragers and their roost sites typically are not easily accessible to recreational users. The San Lorenzo 

Canyon SMA would continue to be managed to protect wildlife habitat. 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-19 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

A substantial amount of land would remain open to cross-country travel within plains-mesa sand scrub 

and juniper savanna habitats that support raptor species and both game and nongame wildlife species. 

Activities allowed under this alternative could increase access to habitat areas or special status species 

habitats, and cause increased potential for loss or degradation of wildlife habitats, habitat fragmentation, 

associated edge effects, and increased potential for the illegal harvest of both game and nongame wildlife 

species. The approximately 29,117 acres that would be closed to OHV use are composed largely of scrub, 

grassland, and coniferous forest habitats that support diverse wildlife, including special status species; 

these areas would be protected from the effects of OHV use. Road construction or maintenance could 

alter and/or fragment habitats, and potentially disrupt wildlife movement corridors. Best management 

practices that have been established for this RMP (Appendix C) would be adhered to for all activities 

related to OHV use.

4.3.8 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

Treatment of up to 244,170 acres (16 percent) of BLM-managed surface land to improve ecological 

conditions could improve FRCC by altering the structure of vegetation communities to better resemble 

their historic ranges. Woody species encroachment into historic grasslands would be reduced, allowing 

for establishment of grasses and forbs. Forests that have become dense from a century of fire suppression 

also would benefit from treatments by reducing the amount of vertical fuels that create a high risk of stand 

replacing fires. Fire suppression activities by BLM staff would be less hazardous if the FRCC were 

improved. 

Surface-disturbing hazardous fuels reductions and fireline construction likely would be limited within 

special designations (a total of 238,936 acres of BLM-managed surface land). In areas with cultural 

resources, a resource advisor would be required during suppression activities within these areas to ensure 

protection of cultural resources. Fuels treatments may be focused around the perimeters of these areas in 

order to prevent mortality of special status plants resulting from wildfire spread. The southern extent of 

the Agua Fria ACEC is less than 2 miles away from a wildland-urban interface area to the south, which 

presents a potential impact on fire managers. Hazardous-fuel reduction opportunities would be limited 

north of the urban area because woodcutting is not allowed within the ACEC, and fires that originate in 

the ACEC and spread south may not be pursued as aggressively due to concerns about surface disturbance 

within the ACEC.

A large wildland-urban interface area also exists immediately north of the Horse Mountain ACEC. The 

Horse Mountain area is designated as a Category D-fire use emphasis area (BLM 2004c). However, the 

presence of a large developed area to the north and the consequent heightened public safety concerns may 

require reevaluation of the Horse Mountain Fire Management Unit designation. The proximity of the Fire 

Management Unit to the wildland-urban interface area presents limited opportunities for aggressive 

suppression tactics in case a fire-use activity was to get out of control. Opportunities for hazardous-fuel 

reductions, generally necessary adjacent to wildland-urban interface areas, would be limited due to the 

Horse Mountain ACEC’s Category D designation, as well as the potential presence of habitat for two 

federally listed threatened and endangered species within the ACEC. A similar relationship would exist 

under this alternative between the Ladron Mountain ACEC and the Riley community. 

Hazardous fuels treatments that result in a discernible change in color, line, form, and texture to the 

landscape would be prohibited or greatly restricted on 416,124 acres of BLM-managed surface land as a 

result of the VRM Class I and II designations. 

Linear utilities (e.g., high tension power lines, gas pipelines, etc.) present safety hazards during fire 

suppression operations. The continued management of right-of-way exclusion areas (39,148 acres of 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-20 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

public land) and avoidance areas (458,996 acres of BLM-managed surface land) would minimize or 

eliminate those dangers in those areas. 

Land disposal could increase areas of wildland-urban interface, and thereby increase areas of priority 

where fire must by aggressively suppressed if structures and human development were constructed on the 

parcel(s). Disposal would have less of an impact if parcels are very isolated from development. If public 

land is consolidated through acquisitions, more contiguous blocks of public land could increase the 

efficiency of fire and fuels management as fewer landowners would be involved in suppression and fuels 

management activities. 

Harvesting of vegetative products such as firewood, fence posts, Christmas trees, and wildings by public 

and commercial entities would reduce fuel loads. These products are often derived from younger trees, or 

downed material in the case of firewood. However, woodcutting would be prohibited in special 

designations totaling 171,274 acres (11 percent) of BLM-managed surface land. In areas where 

woodcutting activities are restricted, fire staff may need to increase hazardous fuels reductions where 

stand density increases. 

Fire suppression activities would be limited within the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA 

(7,680 acres). Fuels treatments that alter the appearance of the landscape likely would be limited in the 

SMA due to its visual sensitivity. The impact would be minimal due to the relatively small size of the 

area. Other fire management tools, such as wildland fire use and prescribed fire, would still be available 

to managers. 

Ignitions have been caused on public land by OHV use, where fine fuels were ignited by sparks or heat 

from exhaust manifolds. There are also risks of human-caused ignition as a result of campfires or 

cigarettes. Under Alternative A, the probability of human-caused fire ignition would be reduced on 

29,117 acres of BLM-managed surface land that are closed to OHV use. Conversely, areas open to crosscountry OHV use (851,234 acres of BLM-managed surface land) would continue to be associated with an 

increased risk of ignition. 

4.3.9 Cultural Resources 

Management of cultural resources is usually a nondisturbing activity that involves inventory, site 

monitoring, and occasionally placement of site protection signs. Some cultural resource management 

activities, such as installation of protective fencing to exclude livestock or motorized vehicles, research 

involving excavation, and development of interpretive projects or facilities, such as signs, kiosks, and 

public events, could directly affect cultural resources, as well as other resources. Such projects rarely 

involve disturbance of more than 1 acre in any given year. When these kinds of projects are proposed, 

they will be analyzed through the NEPA and Section 106 processes in consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer and affiliated tribes, as appropriate.

Under Alternative A, approximately 238,936 acres (15 percent) of BLM-managed surface land within 

special designations would be managed to protect or enhance natural and cultural resources. Because 

those special designations tend to limit or carefully manage ground-disturbing activities they also provide 

some coincidental, indirect protection of cultural resources. 

Alternative A does not address use of cultural resources for heritage tourism, but Fort Craig, the Camino 

Real, and the Datil Well (Magdalena Stock Driveway) campground have been developed for public 

interpretation, and those efforts would continue under Alternative A. 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-21 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Activities and projects associated with the management of natural resources include range improvements, 

erosion control structures, habitat improvement projects (such as wildlife water catchments), and 

vegetation treatments, which may include prescribed fire, herbicide applications, or mechanical removal. 

When the proposed projects have the potential to affect cultural resources, they are evaluated on a caseby-case basis so that potential negative effects on cultural resources can be avoided, reduced, or 

mitigated. Some resource management projects can help protect cultural resources by reducing erosion, 

reducing heavy fuel loads, or improving livestock distribution. Effects from these land management 

activities would be similar across all alternatives. 

Uses of public land include mineral exploration and extraction, livestock grazing, granting of rights-ofway, recreation, and research projects. When these uses require Federal authorization they are reviewed to 

ensure that potential effects on cultural resources are considered. Many uses, including issuance of rightsof-way, livestock facilities, and mineral development, have secondary, indirect effects because they create 

new vehicle access, which often leads to inadvertent damage and vandalism of fragile cultural resources. 

By altering the local environment, these developments also can degrade the integrity of some types of 

nearby cultural resources if their settings or sense of feeling are important aspects of their historical 

values.

Activities that are not subject to the permitting process, such as dispersed recreation and cross-country 

OHV use, also have the potential to disturb cultural resources. Alternative A provides the least protection 

for cultural resources from these uses because it would impose the least restrictions on development and 

OHV use (851,234 acres or almost 57 percent of the BLM-managed surface land in the Planning Area 

would remain open to cross-country travel). 

Alternative A does not address changes in uses that have occurred since the 1989 RMP, such as the 

increase in motorized recreation, nor does it incorporate resource data that have been collected since 

1989. Negative effects on cultural resources resulting from development on adjacent nonpublic land, such 

as subdivisions, can be expected under all alternatives. Under Alternative A, public education and 

awareness efforts, which do not require a plan decision, would be one way of addressing these concerns. 

4.3.10 Paleontological Resources

Management to protect natural resources within special designations through minimizing surface 

disturbance would decrease the potential for increased erosion that could potentially expose 

paleontological resources to discovery or loss. The following special designations include geologic 

formations with the potential for paleontological resources varying in significance, abundance, and 

predictable quality (by total acreage of potential paleontological resources; see Appendix M for 

locations).

x Agua Fria ACEC (6,095 acres) 

x Horse Mountain ACEC (162 acres) 

x Ladron Mountain ACEC (overlaps with Sierra Ladrones WSA) (19,551 acres including locations 

of known paleontological resources) 

x San Pedro ACEC (915 acres) 

x Sawtooth ACEC (125 acres) 

x Fence Lake SMA (11,977 acres including highly fossiliferous geologic units) 

x Tinajas ACEC (2,930 acres) 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-22 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

x Zuni Salt Lake SMA (1,608 acres)

x Cerro Pomo SMA (5,330 acres including important known paleontological resources) 

Outside of special designations, the impacts discussed under Impacts from Actions Common to All 

Alternatives (Section 4.2) would apply. 

OHV use in areas designated as open to cross-country travel would cause surface disturbance that could 

result in damage or loss of paleontological resources. Under Alternative A, 851,234 acres of BLMmanaged surface land would be designated as open. The degree of impact would depend on the location 

and frequency of OHV use.

4.3.11 Visual Resources

Under Alternative A, management to stabilize soils and maintain or enhance natural vegetation would 

enhance scenic values associated with natural landscapes or sensitive viewers throughout the Planning 

Area. Large-scale management actions, such as a prescribed burn, could alter the natural landscape 

temporarily, until the area recovered and revegetated. Management within special designations (238,936 

acres of BLM-managed surface land) would limit disturbances in those areas that could alter the natural 

landscape or impair experiences of sensitive viewers. Generally, management to protect or interpret 

cultural resources also would support the preservation of natural landscapes and maintain areas of visual 

interest. In addition, BLM-managed surface land would be managed in accordance with VRM objectives 

as identified in Table 4-1.

Under Alternative A, approximately 1,008,753 acres of BLM-managed surface land would be relatively 

open for BLM to authorize development of power lines, pipelines, roads, or other facilities. If 

construction activities occur as the result of those authorizations, scenic quality could be directly 

impacted by loss of vegetation and/or addition of elements within the landscape in those areas. Activities 

within rights-of-way granted near population centers and/or special designations could impact sensitive 

viewers in those locations. Visual impacts from installation of new aboveground linear facilities that 

could be seen from a distance (e.g., power lines) could be mitigated if facilities are sited adjacent to each 

other or in proximity to similar facilities. Site- and project-specific evaluations prior to development 

activities would identify appropriate mitigation measures. Management within right-of-way exclusion and 

avoidance areas would avoid or reduce these visual impacts on a total of approximately 498,144 acres of 

BLM-managed surface land. 

Acquisitions that consolidate public land ownership within special designations would enhance 

management’s ability to preserve their high scenic quality. The disposal of public land in the future (of up 

to 86,458 acres) could affect viewsheds if disposed land are developed; site-specific impacts and 

mitigation would be identified during additional NEPA analysis when a disposal is proposed. 

Mineral development could impact visual resources by disturbing natural landscapes that can be seen by 

sensitive viewers from residential and recreational areas and roadways throughout the Planning Area. 

Exploration and development would remove vegetation, modify landforms, and add structural elements to 

the landscape. Ground-disturbing activities associated with construction and operation of facilities would 

generate fugitive dust, increase traffic on access roads, and potentially use nighttime lighting. Distant 

views from VRM Class I areas are vulnerable to visual impacts where mineral development occurs in 

proximity to Class I areas. 

Fluid mineral leasing stipulations to mitigate the impacts of surface-disturbing activities on wildlife, 

vegetation, and cultural or other resources generally would reduce potential change to the landscape by 

controlling or restricting surface disturbance. In addition, implementation of best management practices 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-23 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

would mitigate impacts on sensitive viewers (see Appendix C). Site- and project-specific evaluations 

prior to exploration and development activities would identify appropriate mitigation measures. 

Closure of about 1,418,415 acres of mineral estate to fluid mineral leasing would result in avoidance of 

these effects in those areas. Withdrawing areas from mineral entry (up to 12,916 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land) would open the possibility of reclaiming past mineral development land, which would 

restore the natural landscape; reduce the contrasts of form, line, color, and texture within the landscape; 

and improve scenic quality. 

Nonmotorized recreational uses (e.g., camping, hiking, bird-watching) generally would have no impacts 

on scenic quality or sensitive viewers, with the exception of development of staging/camping areas and 

visitor facilities (parking areas, signs) to support this type of recreation. Localized, direct impacts on 

visual resources through land clearance and the addition of structures could occur. As with other activities 

requiring Federal authorization, potential impacts would be mitigated in compliance with NEPA and 

VRM objectives.

Motorized recreation, where authorized, would disturb natural vegetation and generate dust, affecting 

sensitive viewers. Areas that are open to cross-country travel (on 851,234 acres of BLM-managed surface 

land) allow unimpeded proliferation of travel routes, which increases vulnerability to vegetation loss, soil 

compaction, and soil erosion. Sensitive viewers would be most impacted where open areas are adjacent to 

special designations (i.e., Rio Salado, Riley, Fence Lake, and Puertecito SMAs, and the Ladron and Horse 

Mountain ACECs) or populated areas. Commercial and motorized events could alter the natural landscape 

by increasing litter on public land, disturbing vegetation and soils, and reducing visibility with fugitive 

dust and vehicle emissions. 

Under Alternative A, The Box SMA would remain a VRM Class IV area, allowing for intense 

recreational use (as well as other uses that could modify the natural landscape). A stated objective for 

designating The Box is to protect scenic resources; however, VRM Class IV would not necessarily 

support the protection of scenic values within the natural landscape of this area. 

4.3.12 Cave and Karst Resources

Management to protect natural and cultural resources also would protect caves and karst areas on land 

within BLM’s Decision Area. Caves and karst resources would be protected by management decisions to 

protect bats and other cave-dwelling species and their habitats. Karst terrain could be protected by 

management decisions to prevent runoff of silt- or debris-laden water, or prevent polluted water from 

contaminating groundwater. Caves could be protected by management decisions to protect soil and 

vegetation to reduce potential for erosion that might affect geologic features or water movement in caves. 

Management of cultural resources could result in protection of caves as cultural sites, if evidence 

indicates historic or prehistoric inhabitation. 

Development of mineral resources could damage caves or degrade karst features and drainage systems if 

lease stipulations or permit restrictions are not in place to protect those resources. However, it is expected 

that additional NEPA analysis related to future proposed activities would identify appropriate, sitespecific mitigation measures. 

4.3.13 Wilderness Characteristics

WSAs would be managed to maintain their suitability for preservation as wilderness (in accordance with 

the Interim Management Policy; refer to Section 4.2). Management of natural and cultural resources could 

have temporary or short-term impacts on the wilderness characteristics of an area where it becomes 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-24 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

necessary to introduce vehicles, people, and noise to conduct treatments (e.g., treatments to eradicate 

invasive species). However, because BLM must comply with the nonimpairment standard, such 

management would ensure that treatments would cause no long-term impacts on the naturalness of 

wilderness areas, and no long-term loss of opportunity to experience solitude and primitive, unconfined 

recreation in those areas. 

Motorized travel would be allowed within WSAs on routes and ways that were in existence before the 

WSA was designated, with the exception of routes that were closed by the 1989 RMP. The presence of 

vehicles, people, and noise has potential to impact the natural quality of those areas, and diminish solitude 

or the primitive recreation experience. The intensity of impact would vary with the amount and duration 

of OHV use within a particular area. Impacts would be avoided on portions of the Continental Divide, 

Presilla, and Sierra Ladrones WSAs, which are closed to OHV travel. The Devil’s Reach WSA would be 

open to vehicle travel; however, consistent with the nonimpairment standard, travel would be limited to 

existing routes. Should any of these WSAs be released from wilderness review, in most areas protection 

would be provided by overlapping special designations. A summary of how these areas would be 

managed is provided in Table 2-3. 

4.3.14 Lands and Realty 

Management of land and realty has potential to support or prevent new land uses, and affect existing land 

uses. Under Alternative A, right-of-way and other land use authorizations would continue to be allowed 

to support local and regional utility and infrastructure needs on about 1,008,753 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land; 458,996 acres would be managed within right-of-way avoidance areas where land use 

authorizations would be permitted within limited dimensions to protect resources. The introduction of 

utilities to an undeveloped area or increased access to an area could result in changes to the uses in that 

area, by contributing to more intense or less primitive recreational use. All proposed utility or 

infrastructure projects would require additional authorization by BLM, and therefore would be subject to 

additional, site-specific NEPA analysis to identify impacts and appropriate mitigation. 

Under Alternative A, approximately 86,458 acres of remote BLM-managed surface land located within or 

adjacent to developing rural communities would be designated for disposal, and would not be expected to 

impact existing and planned land uses within the resource area. If a disposal is proposed, additional 

NEPA analysis would evaluate the potential effects on land uses that would be relevant to the specific 

parcel and circumstances. Overall, disposal of isolated parcels would allow BLM to focus its resources on 

managing larger, contiguous tracts of land. 

Management of visual resources likely would not prohibit some land uses in Class I or II areas 

(416,124 acres), although mitigation for future proposed projects could be applied on a site-specific basis 

to promote compliance with the visual resource management objectives. Management under VRM classes 

is not expected to affect land use or the realty program. 

About 4.5 million acres of Federal mineral estate would be open to fluid mineral leasing (with or without 

stipulations), but under the RFD scenario, it is anticipated that less than about 1,000 acres for oil and gas 

would be leased, and one 50,000-acre carbon dioxide/helium field could be developed with 320-acre well 

spacing. Because of the small percentage of BLM’s Decision Area that could be affected and the expected 

well spacing, minimal changes to overall land use patterns in the Planning Area would result from fluid 

mineral leasing decisions. Less than half of 1 percent of the Planning Area (about 31,640 acres) would be 

available for coal leasing, most in northwestern Catron County. Clustering of coal lease areas in this high 

potential area could discourage other land uses. The RFD scenario for mineral materials estimates that 

saleable mineral uses would disturb five 10-acre sites, and land uses likely would be displaced in those 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-25 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

areas. Mandatory, site-specific NEPA analysis would be required for any mineral development project, 

and would identify potential impacts on land uses and appropriate mitigation measures. 

OHV use could have direct and indirect effects on land uses. Alternative A limits OHV travel to existing 

or designated roads and trails (year-round or seasonally) on 565,159 acres. Vehicle-generated dust and 

noise could indirectly impact land uses along those routes, but there would likely be no direct impacts. 

OHV use on 851,234 acres open to cross-country travel could disturb the natural environment, directly 

affecting some land uses; noise and dust could indirectly affect nearby land uses. Impacts would be 

greatest in areas of concentrated OHV use, and the severity of impacts would depend on site conditions 

and circumstances (e.g., vehicle type, existing vegetation, soil, weather, etc.). Closure of 29,117 acres to 

OHV use would continue to prevent vehicle-related disturbance to existing land uses in those areas. 

4.3.15 Forestry and Woodland Management

Tillage practices that reduce the cover of piñon-pine and juniper trees would alter the composition of the 

plant community by mimicking the disturbance that has historically been created by fire events. As a 

result, tillage in these areas would promote restoration of historic woodland structure. Indirect effects 

would include reduced potential for wildfire ignition and spread in grasslands and shrub habitats, leading 

to a lower likelihood of wildfire spreading into forests and causing tree mortality or injury. 

Treatment of up to 244,170 acres (16 percent) of BLM-managed surface land to improve ecological 

conditions could benefit forest health directly where key ecological processes such as fire were 

reintroduced. Reintroduction of fire in some forest types such as Ponderosa pine forests would increase 

resiliency and reduce the likelihood of stand-replacing crown fires. 

Forest harvest, including woodcutting and other surface-disturbing activities, would continue to be 

limited within some special designations to protect special status plants, wildlife habitat, and cultural 

resources. In areas where fire exclusion has altered the structure of forests and woodlands, woodcutting 

represents one way that forest and woodland structure can be restored; use of this tool to restore the 

structure of these areas within special designations to within their historic ranges of variability would be 

lost. Other methods of restoration (e.g., wildland fire use, prescribed fire) may still be acceptable. 

Specifically, the reduction of hazardous fuels through wildfire use in Horse Mountain ACEC, Ladron 

Mountain ACEC, and Pelona Mountain SMA would help maintain forest structure, reduce the potential 

for hazardous, stand-replacing fires, and improve forest health over the long-term. However, management 

of Ladron Mountain ACEC would limit fire suppression activities. Among special designations to protect 

cultural resources, only the Rio Salado and Riley SMAs have potential for forest and woodland resources. 

Harvest of timber and other forest products that alter the color, line, and texture of the landscape would be 

limited in the Ladron Mountain ACEC because the area is designated as VRM Class I. Large-scale 

commercial timber harvest in the region of Pelona Mountain SMA would be prohibited due to its VRM 

Class II designation. Small-scale harvest of firewood, or other forest products may still be appropriate, if 

the resulting landscape does not attract attention of the casual observer. 

Of the 498,784 forest and woodland acres on BLM-managed surface land (including juniper savannah), 

177,810 acres would be designated as right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas. The Sawtooth, San 

Pedro, Horse Mountain, and Ladron Mountain ACECs, and the Pelona Mountain and Taylor Canyon 

SMAs have forested areas where right-of-way and other land use authorizations would be excluded or 

avoided. This would have indirect impacts on forest health, as surface disturbance associated with road 

construction and utility corridors that could increase erosion potential would be limited in these areas 

Land disposal and acquisition that results in more contiguous areas of BLM-managed surface land would 

allow for consistent forest and woodland management practices throughout large blocks of public land. 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-26 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Activities associated with mineral exploration and development would include surface-disturbing 

activities that may occur in forests and woodlands throughout the Planning Area such as removal of trees 

to make room for infrastructure. Mitigation for these impacts may be identified as the result of sitespecific NEPA analysis when a project is proposed. The maximum potential area of disturbance from 

these activities, according to the RFD, is small relative to the size of BLM’s Decision Area. For example, 

two small (500-acre) oil and gas fields and up to 18,000 acres of coal development could occur in 

woodland areas.

An improvement in rangeland conditions could help achieve an improvement in FRCC where 

consumption of herbaceous species by livestock were reduced enough to allow a build up of fine fuels 

capable of carrying wildfire through a forest, or woodland. Where FRCC is at or near 1, maintenance or 

improvement of rangeland conditions could help maintain historic fire regimes. Where FRCC was 

restored, fire return intervals would more resemble the historic fire regime, making forests more resilient 

when disturbances from wildfire occur and decreasing safety hazards during suppression operations due 

to the reduced likelihood of stand-replacing fires. 

Exclusion of domestic sheep and goats from the Horse Mountain and Ladron Mountain ACECs and the 

Pelona Mountain SMA would allow forest succession to proceed under more natural conditions by 

reducing grazing pressure on native herbaceous plant species. Heavy livestock grazing pressures in forest 

vegetation types can alter forest structure by favoring shade-tolerant trees in the canopy understory and 

reducing herbaceous understory. The elimination of domestic sheep and goats from the Horse Mountain 

and Ladron Mountain ACECs would promote the maintenance of historic forest structure by removing 

those species of herbivores that have been introduced by man in the last century. 

Impacts from commercial and personal woodcutting activities would depend on the types of trees that 

were cut. Harvest of old growth and late seral (i.e., generally more than 100 years old depending on forest 

type) timber would alter the structure of the forest and reduce the genetic material from which new 

cohorts of trees could be propagated. An alteration of forest structure from the harvest of old growth and 

late seral timber could change the FRCC of the forest. Harvest of late-seral trees would be done on a caseby-case basis. The selective harvest of some late seral forest species may be necessary for the purpose of 

forest health and possible salvage harvest of fire killed timber. The use of uneven-aged silviculture 

regeneration systems would be the most appropriate to manage all size classes of forest species. 

Harvest of young, early seral trees (1 to 10 inches diameter breast height, depending on forest type) 

within forested areas could lead to improving or maintaining FRCC. Woodcutting activities could reduce 

fuel loadings in areas where historic suppression activities have resulted in increased surface fuels to 

beyond historic ranges, leading to an improved FRCC. In addition, a reduction in tree density and ladder 

fuels resulting from woodcutting would reduce the potential for large canopy fires that might endanger 

lives and private property. 

Harvesting of vegetative products such as firewood, fence posts, Christmas trees, and wildings on 

6,500 acres (less than 1 percent of BLM-managed surface land) would continue to reduce young cohorts 

of trees that historically have been reduced through ecological processes such as wildfire. The thinning of 

certain forest types (e.g., Ponderosa pine, Douglas fir) would decrease the potential of stand-replacing 

fires by reducing fuel loads. Thinning activities by the public would improve forest health by increasing 

the resiliency of forests to pests and disease. However, harvest of timber and forest products, including 

woodcutting, would not occur on 171,274 acres within special designations.

Forest and woodland areas managed for recreational uses would include the Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail SMA (7,680 acres of BLM-managed surface land) and Datil Well SMA (669 acres of BLMmanaged surface land). Woodcutting would be prohibited in these areas. Because this represents less than 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-27 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

1 percent of BLM-managed surface land and less than 5 percent of the forest and woodland areas on 

BLM-managed surface land, only negligible impacts on forest and woodlands would be anticipated as a 

result of managing these areas for recreational uses. 

4.3.16 Rangeland Management

Improving the ecological condition of an area (i.e., reestablishing watershed health or making progress 

toward proper functioning condition) through water-control measures (such as erosion control structures 

like spreader dams or retention structures), vegetation treatments, or rehabilitation of identified sites could 

reduce or exclude grazing uses within the affected sites over the short term, during post-treatment rest or 

deferment periods. In the short-term, these types of controls and treatments also could reduce the amount 

of overall available forage within an allotment or pasture by decreasing its vigor, abundance, and ability 

to reproduce, thereby limiting the capacity of residual perennial communities to reestablish. Construction 

of water-control measures would result in localized forage losses near the construction site, but the site 

stabilization provided by these structures would improve the vigor and production of vegetation in the 

area. A chemical or burn vegetation treatment would cause a short-term loss of forage but ultimately 

would enhance the vegetation community by eliminating the target species and decreasing the 

competition for water. In addition, maintaining or improving riparian plant communities for proper 

functioning condition would reduce the potential for localized increases in livestock stocking rates and 

limit prospective rangeland improvements related to livestock grazing.

Management to reestablish the structural and functional components of degraded sites could increase the 

overall production of desirable forage on a site and its ability to resist less desirable invasive species 

(BLM 2000a; Finch et al. 1999; Young and Evans 1978). Similarly, rehabilitation or treatment projects 

that restore structural or functional components to sites could increase the resistance or resilience of 

vegetation to disturbances, such as grazing and fire (Peters and Bunting 1992; Laycock and Conrad 

1981). If management increases the ability of a site to resist disturbances or naturally reestablish after a 

disturbance, the amount of time that livestock grazing would be reduced (due to rest or deferment) could 

be decreased over the long term. 

Several management actions to protect wildlife would directly affect the ability of BLM to authorize 

grazing. Under Alternative A, livestock grazing would be excluded on former allotment 1152 within the 

Ladron Mountain ACEC. In addition, the Ladron Mountain and Horse Mountain ACECs and Pelona 

Mountain SMA exclude grazing by domestic sheep and goats on approximately 135,523 acres. Based on 

the absence of sheep and goat operations within BLM’s Decision Area and the small share of BLMmanaged surface land that would be affected, the impacts of these restrictions on livestock grazing at the 

landscape level would be marginal. 

Under Alternative A, management to protect cultural resources would require the exclusion of livestock 

in the Playa Pueblos and Fort Craig SMAs, and in portions of the Teypama and Mogollon SMAs (a total 

of 381 acres). While these are long-term impacts, they are site-specific and would have only a localized 

effect on a small portion of BLM-managed surface land; therefore, this alternative would have a limited 

overall impact on the availability of public land for livestock grazing. 

Construction that would result from right-of-way grants and land use authorizations could create noise 

disturbances for livestock, limit the area available for livestock distribution, and reduce available forage 

near project sites. However, the development of access and maintenance roads associated with right-ofway and other land use authorizations could indirectly affect rangeland management by providing better 

access to allotments and range projects (water sites, fences, corrals, etc.) and could be used by permittees 

to guide or retrieve livestock. 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-28 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Any land acquired by BLM likely would be part of an existing ranch or grazing allotment. If land were 

acquired that is not part of an allotment and BLM intended to authorize grazing, potential effects would 

be evaluated as part of the site-specific analysis. Disposal of BLM-managed surface land could directly 

affect grazing if all or part of an existing allotment is transferred to another owner that removes the 

grazing use. However, since grazing occurs on a large amount of acreage within the Planning Area, the 

disposal area would have to be very large to change grazing patterns substantially in a particular area. 

Available forage for grazing might be affected by woodlands harvesting or vegetation sales. Harvesting 

crews, machinery, and transports associated with permitted commercial or private harvesting of forest and 

woodland systems within active grazing allotments likely would have direct, short-term impacts on 

livestock grazing by displacing or disturbing livestock, increasing the potential for vehicle/animal 

collisions, and reducing available forage through trampling. However, post-harvest conditions would 

result in short-term indirect impacts by opening the canopy, which could then support a greater abundance 

of available forage in the form of early seral grasses and forbs. Impacts related to vegetation material 

sales within grazing allotments would have similar short-term impacts. However, these sales also would 

potentially reduce the vigor, abundance, and ability of individuals to reproduce, thereby, limiting the 

capacity of residual perennial communities to reestablish for future forage production. 

The RFD estimates that a total of up to 19,000 acres could be disturbed for oil, natural gas, or coal 

production over the life of the plan. In these areas, mineral development could compete with livestock 

grazing for access to available public land. When these resource uses overlap, construction, maintenance, 

and other activities associated with mineral development could disturb livestock with noise, increase the 

potential for vehicle/animal collisions, and reduce the availability of forage (if surface-disturbing 

activities occur). The NEPA analysis that would occur prior to any mineral development activities would 

identify site-specific impacts and mitigation measures. The RFD also calls for a well field to be developed 

for carbon dioxide and helium production, totaling 50,000 acres. The well spacing would be 320 acres, 

which limits the possibility that such a use would compete with livestock grazing. Similar to other types 

of mineral development, site-specific analysis would occur and mitigation would be identified. 

Livestock could be disturbed by recreational activity, and trampling or soil compaction could reduce 

available forage. Most of the impacts from dispersed recreation would be site-specific and temporary. 

OHV use in grazing allotments would disturb livestock and reduce available forage through trampling or 

soil compaction. Regular OHV use in an area could result in a change in grazing habits or animal-vehicle 

collisions. OHV use also could introduce invasive species and noxious weeds (see Section 4.3.6), and 

accidentally ignite wildfires. The avoidance of these impacts from OHV use in closed areas (on 

29,117 acres) would increase the amount of residual perennial vegetation, and improve overall vegetation 

conditions, which would likely result in increased forage availability. Closed OHV designations would 

not preclude permitted access for grazing purposes if such access is determined necessary by the 

Authorized Officer. 

4.3.17 Minerals

Under Alternative A, fluid mineral leasing stipulations would continue to be applied to reduce potential 

impacts on natural and cultural resources from mineral development activities. Fluid mineral leasing 

stipulations that control surface use and limit surface occupancy could increase the cost and difficulty of 

exploration and development of fluid mineral resources to a point where these activities become 

economically infeasible. A no-surface-occupancy lease stipulation could double the drilling costs when 

exploration drilling has to be conducted from adjacent land using complex directional drilling methods 

(Society of Petroleum Engineers 1999). 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-29 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Extensive application of a no-surface-occupancy stipulation in one area could affect the ability to target a 

fluid mineral resource using directional drilling technology if the distance from the mineral source is too 

great, rendering this extraction method infeasible and effectively closing the area to fluid mineral 

extraction. Factors influencing when this situation might occur include the depth to the resource being 

extracted and rock types, as some rocks may be more difficult to drill. As a general estimate, the 

application of a no-surface-occupancy stipulation over an area of at least 1 square mile could eliminate 

the possibility of directional drilling and constitute a de facto closure to those minerals. However, a sitespecific analysis would be needed to determine the actual distance for a particular extraction project. 

Under Alternative A, the areas closed to fluid mineral leasing would total 1,418,415 acres of Federal 

mineral estate. These areas overlap 646,901 acres of fluid mineral estate with moderate potential for oil 

and gas (or 16 percent of moderate potential areas in the Planning Area). No areas of high potential for oil 

and gas are closed under Alternative A; the remaining closed areas are of low potential for these 

resources. Closures of areas to fluid mineral leasing also would affect the ability to extract carbon dioxide 

and helium resources. The closed areas include 28,570 acres of high potential for these gases (or 9 percent 

of high potential areas in the Planning Area), and 489,964 acres of moderate potential (or 13 percent of 

moderate potential areas in the Planning Area). 

The RFD for fluid minerals predicts that 1,000 acres would be required for development of oil and gas 

and 50,000 acres for carbon dioxide and helium over the next 15 years. There would be adequate Federal 

minerals available to accommodate this demand, since 3,312,904 acres of Federal mineral estate would be 

open under standard terms and conditions, and 736,000 acres of Federal mineral estate would be available 

with stipulations. These areas include 1,756,886 acres of Federal mineral estate that are of moderate 

potential for oil and gas resources (no areas of high potential for oil and gas are present in the study area). 

Current mineral withdrawals (on 11,408 acres of public land) and saleable minerals management would 

be continued under Alternative A. BLM also would withdraw 1,508 acres of Federal mineral estate within 

the Tinajas ACEC and Harvey Plot SMA. The overall availability of salable mineral resources for 

extraction from public land would not be changed, as mineral material deposits are available in moderateto-high potential areas throughout BLM-managed surface land. 

Decisions about access and realty could indirectly encourage or restrict exploration and development of 

mineral resources. The development of a right-of-way may provide new access that could be used for 

exploration and development of mineral resources. Restrictions on access could limit the ability to pursue 

mineral development. Under Alternative A, the 29,117 acres closed to OHV and the 562,901 acres limited 

to designated routes could affect access for mineral development in some areas. 

Acquisition of land with mineral resources suitable for development would have a direct impact on the 

availability of those minerals for development and could increase the potential for development. For 

example, if the BLM acquired land with a high potential to yield coal adjacent to public land and 

determined that the land is suitable for coal leasing (Figure I-1 in Appendix I; Section 13, Township 4 

North, Range 17 West), the combined acreage could be more economically suitable for coal leasing. 

However, land acquired within special designations or with unique resource values likely would be 

managed with restrictions on mineral development and other surface-disturbing activities. 

4.3.18 Recreation

Management to protect natural and cultural resources within 238,936 acres of special designations, and to 

protect cave, karst, and paleontological resources from surface-disturbing activities could result in 

localized impacts on recreational opportunities, including displacement if access into those areas were 

restricted and opportunities for motorized recreation were diminished on either a permanent or seasonal 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-30 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

basis. However, management within special designations would indirectly enhance and maintain 

opportunities for primitive types of recreation (e.g., sightseeing, hiking, backpacking, and opportunities 

for solitude). Areas designated as VRM Class I (about 30,343 acres of BLM-managed surface land) and 

VRM Class II (about 385,781 acres) also would limit surface-disturbing activities and support primarily 

primitive recreational opportunities. Areas designated as VRM Class III (about 299,741 acres) and VRM 

Class IV (774,170 acres) would allow for more developed recreational opportunities to continue. 

Designation of right-of-way exclusion areas on 39,148 acres (about 2.6 percent of BLM-managed surface 

land) and right-of-way avoidance areas on 458,996 acres (over 30 percent of BLM-managed surface land) 

would not affect existing recreational opportunities in WSAs, ACECs, and SMAs. Right-of-way could be 

authorized on the remaining 66 percent of BLM-managed surface land following site-specific 

environmental analyses, which could provide additional access for motorized recreation in localized 

areas, particularly if a publicly accessible road were established as part of the right-of-way. Authorization 

of rights-of-way would not be expected to result in the loss of recreational opportunities throughout the 

Planning Area, though there could be some localized, temporary impacts (e.g., displacement during 

development of the right-of-way). 

About 86,458 acres of BLM-managed surface land (or about 6 percent) would be identified as suitable for 

disposal under Alternative A. The dispersed recreational opportunities on this land would still be 

available on BLM-managed surface land and within the overall Planning Area even if all parcels were 

disposed. Recreation could be affected by disposals of BLM-managed surface land in areas that are 

immediately south of the Pelona SMA or on isolated parcels northeast and southwest of the Cibola 

National Forest, just south of Magdalena. Impacts could be experienced through loss of access from land 

adjacent to the SMA or National Forest or indirectly through restrictions on recreational uses in the SMA 

or National Forest to maintain compatibility with changing land uses on disposed land. Acquisitions of 

land could increase recreational opportunities, protect existing opportunities from incompatible adjacent 

land uses, and improve access to other recreational areas. 

Impacts resulting from the development of leaseholds would be localized (due to the small amount of 

acreage expected to be disturbed in the RFD, described in Section 4.7.1, relative to the size of the entire 

Planning Area) and temporary, since drill pad sites would be restored upon completion of activities. 

Access roads would be developed to support fluid mineral leasing activities, which would increase 

motorized access and OHV uses. Based on the area where coal leasing could occur (up to 31,640 acres) 

and the RFD, which indicates that up to 18,000 acres could be disturbed for coal development, less than 

1 percent of the Planning Area would be disturbed due to development of coal leases. Based on the RFD, 

a total of approximately 50 acres would be disturbed for saleable mineral uses, which over the entire 

Planning Area would not change the recreational opportunities available.

Mineral development and extraction could result in localized and direct impacts on recreational 

opportunities, including displacement of recreational opportunities and changes to the character of those 

areas resulting from loss of vegetation and increased activity and noise. Extraction of coal or saleable 

minerals would prohibit recreation. Depending on the specific location, extent, and duration of extraction, 

localized impacts on recreation could occur if other opportunities are not available in the area, or if the 

areas disturbed provide unique recreational opportunities or are in proximity to primitive settings. Sitespecific mitigation may include rehabilitation or other measures to minimize long-term impacts. 

Impacts from reduction of access would include route closures totaling 36 miles across all of the WSAs 

and localized or seasonal restrictions in specific areas to meet other management goals. Overall, any 

access restrictions would not be expected to change the overall type, quantity, or quality of recreational 

experiences available throughout the Planning Area. Under Alternative A, over 56 percent of BLMmanaged surface land would be open to cross-country travel and an additional 39 percent would be 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-31 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

limited to existing or designated roads. Therefore, 95 percent of BLM-managed surface land would 

accommodate some sort of motorized travel, providing extensive opportunities for motorized recreation 

(as noted in Table 4-1). OHV use could limit the opportunities for solitude and more primitive forms of 

recreation on BLM-managed surface land, depending on the intensity and location of the use. Route 

closures in the WSAs could enhance opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude in those areas. 

4.3.19 Renewable Energy

Management to minimize the intensity and location of surface-disturbing activities within special 

designations for the protection of natural or cultural resources (238,936 acres of BLM-managed surface 

land) could affect the ability to site renewable energy generation and transmission facilities in those areas. 

Restrictions on land uses to support management of other resources on BLM-managed surface land could 

inhibit development of renewable energy development. For example, development of renewable energy 

resource could be prevented where right-of-way exclusion areas (39,148 acres) would prohibit placement 

of transmission facilities. In addition, restrictions on the amount of surface disturbance in an area could 

inhibit construction of large, commercial-scale facilities. These effects would be most relevant in areas of 

moderate-to-high wind, solar, and biomass resource potential (identified in the February 2005 BLM 

Management Situation Analysis). 

Management of visual resources could affect the placement of wind turbine towers, solar energy panels, 

or other highly visible facilities in some areas, particularly in VRM Class I and II areas (a total of 

416,124 acres). Site-specific impacts and mitigation measures would be identified during additional 

NEPA analysis.

4.3.20 Transportation and Travel Management

Management to minimize surface disturbance, particularly in special designations for the protection of 

natural or cultural resources (238,936 acres of BLM-managed surface land) could diminish opportunities 

for motorized travel in those areas. Overall, the routes located within these areas represent a small 

percentage of the overall route network and do not serve as primary or secondary transportation system 

routes. Moreover, the transportation and access-related management for special designations generally 

places a greater emphasis on limiting access to designated roads and trails (with some seasonal use 

considerations) or existing roads and trails rather than closing roads. Though no specific management 

actions have been identified for cave and karst resources and paleontological resources, management of 

these resources consistent with their goals could result in localized impacts on transportation if motorized 

access into specific areas were restricted. Areas designated as VRM Class I (about 30,343 acres of BLMmanaged surface land) and VRM Class II (about 358,781 acres) also would limit surface-disturbing 

activities such as the construction of new travel routes; however, the existing travel network would not be 

impacted by VRM designation. 

Management of right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas on 33 percent of BLM-managed surface land 

(498,144 acres) would reduce the construction or expansion of access routes that typically accompany 

right-of-way and land use authorizations in those areas. Access roads that are developed to construct and 

maintain land uses generally are available for recreational use by the public. Existing access would not be 

affected as the result of the establishment of exclusion and avoidance areas, although there could be 

localized, temporary impacts on travel (e.g., displacement during development of the right-of-way) during 

construction. However, the establishment of exclusion and avoidance areas could result in increased use 

of fewer roads in areas where access roads are more likely to be constructed or maintained through use 

depending on demand and the specific road network available in that particular area. Increased use likely 

would not occur in areas where redundant routes occur or where intensity of use is low. 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-32 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Under Alternative A, up to 6 percent of BLM-managed surface land (86,458 acres) could be disposed, 

resulting in the loss of public access in localized areas and possible displacement of motorized travel onto 

other routes crossing public land. However, an extensive travel network still would be available in the 

Planning Area. Land acquisition could increase access opportunities unless access is restricted in acquired 

parcels to support wildlife habitat, cultural resources, or other management programs. 

The construction or upgrading of roads to access mining activities indirectly would increase motorized 

public access if the authorized routes are made available for public use. If the routes are not authorized for 

public use, then restrictions for motorized access could result in localized reductions within those specific 

areas; however, the restrictions would not be expected to change the overall type or quantity of 

transportation uses available within the Planning Area because of the minimal acreage affected. 

Access restrictions would occur in specific areas and/or during certain times (i.e., seasonally) to meet 

natural or cultural resource management goals. However, 95 percent of BLM-managed surface land 

would accommodate some sort of motorized travel (see Table 4-1). Route closures totaling 36 miles 

across all of the WSAs result in localized impacts on transportation uses and motorized access (Appendix 

J). However, relative to the remaining travel route opportunities available throughout the Planning Area, 

these impacts would be negligible. Closure of these routes would not be expected to generate a noticeable 

increase in use on other routes within the WSAs or Planning Area. 

4.3.21 Social and Economic Conditions

The protection of open space, scenic value, and natural landscapes may have an indirect economic effect 

on local economies, to the extent that these factors contribute to quality-of-life assets in the Planning Area 

that could increase prices and demand for land. This type of management occurs in special designations, 

which include 238,936 acres under Alternative A. However, as described in Section 3.5.7.7, some of the 

key factors that allow communities to translate public land amenities into economic development 

opportunities are lacking in the Planning Area; therefore, these impacts could be negligible overall. 

Within the Planning Area, the Zuni Salt Lake has been identified as an area of cultural and social 

importance and attachment. The quantity and quality of the water within the lake are integral to its 

cultural value. Potential effects on water resources in the lake from the proposed management are 

described in Section 4.3.5. Other activities could be permitted in the area that may be perceived as 

affecting the landscape and resources that are considered sacred, including the introduction of equipment 

and facilities associated with mineral development activities. 

The implementation of right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas would limit the options for where 

right-of-way projects would be considered. A proponent of a right-of-way or other land use action may be 

prohibited from completing a proposed project due to incompatibilities with land management decisions 

or may have to select a less desirable and/or more expensive location, routing, or design/build process.

It is not expected that land in Federal ownership will vary greatly. This is due to the relatively low historic 

rates of disposal and the potential that land to be disposed of will be offset by land proposed for 

acquisition. Consequently, there will be no foreseeable substantial change in payments to Socorro and 

Catron Counties under the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes program. 

Land identified for disposal could become available for State or local governments or developers for a 

variety of uses. The socioeconomic impact of land disposals cannot be adequately identified unless 

potential future uses are identified. However, future uses would be required to conform with existing 

county and community land use plans and regulations. Any major project would be evaluated by local 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-33 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

governments and may involve Federal government review, both of which would provide opportunity for 

public input and potentially environmental review. 

Land acquisition for WSAs, ACECs, and SMAs may preclude development on acquired parcels that 

would provide economic development opportunities. Because acquisition would occur on a willing-seller 

basis, existing landowners would not be affected negatively by BLM’s decisions regarding acquisition. 

Under Alternative A, the majority of BLM’s Decision Area would be available for mineral development. 

The RFD indicates that leaseable and locatable development is expected to occur, including exploratory 

wells, two small oil and gas fields, and a 50,000-acre field of carbon dioxide and helium wells (see the 

RFD in Section 4.7.1). Coal development is expected to include the development of a new coal field that 

would extract 80 million tons of coal over its 50-year life. Alternative A would continue to provide for 

coal development opportunities on up to 31,640 acres. The location and size of the public land area that is 

potentially suitable for coal leasing could accommodate coal extraction operations on a scale similar to 

that of the previously proposed Fence Lake Mine, where employment was estimated to be 200 during 

start-up and between 75 and 150 for the duration of mining operations, generating approximately 

$60 million in taxes and $60 to $70 million in royalties. 

Typically, fluid mineral, coal, and locatable extraction activity would result in direct wage income from 

jobs, induced income as wages circulate through the local economy, revenue generation for the State of 

New Mexico and U.S. General Fund from royalties, and tax revenue generation for local jurisdictions. 

Since mining has not been a primary job contributor in either Socorro or Catron Counties, needed skilled 

labor could relocate from elsewhere to meet employment needs. Although existing local residents may 

not receive the full wage benefits, local businesses and jurisdictions would receive tax and other income 

from additional residents. In some cases, an influx of workers that may be temporary residents could 

result in social conflicts within existing communities. Direct and indirect employment and income that 

would be generated from mineral exploration and development are project-specific and would be 

evaluated further through additional NEPA analysis. 

Controlled surface use lease stipulations and limits on surface occupancy (a total of about 736,000 acres) 

would curtail fluid mineral leasing and development activities if restrictions increase the cost and 

difficulty of exploration for and development of mineral resources such that these activities cease to be 

economically feasible (e.g., if more expensive directional drilling is required). 

Maintaining the existing policy for saleable minerals would continue to allow for this type economic 

opportunity in BLM’s Decision Area. The types of effects that would result from saleable mineral 

extraction include direct employment and induced income effects, the generation of revenue from sales 

that is shared by the BLM and New Mexico, and local tax revenue for local jurisdictions. In addition, 

saleable mineral development such as sand, gravel, and building stone may support other industries 

locally, including construction, and support State road projects that benefit local communities. However, 

the socioeconomic impact of saleable mineral extraction would be localized and minimal based on 

historic use rates and the relatively small RFD scenario estimates (five new salable mineral pits or 

community permitted or reactivated in the next 15 years). 

There is little current economic activity associated with vegetative sales on BLM-managed surface land. 

The management objective for vegetative sales is to meet local and regional needs in a manner that 

minimizes impacts on resources. Individuals or groups that currently take advantage of the vegetative 

sales still would have access to some public land for such uses. 

Livestock grazing contributes to the important ranching and farming economic sector in the Planning 

Area. BLM management that provides availability of public land for grazing and assures management of 
No-Action Alternative – Alternative A 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-34 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

rangeland to meet public land health standards would support the continued viability of this industry. The 

closure to domestic sheep and goats of approximately 135,523 acres allocated as grazing land within the 

Horse Mountain and Ladron Mountain ACECs and the Pelona Mountain SMA would be expected to have 

little or no effect on existing conditions, since current grazing activities in the Planning Area are typically 

commercial cow/calf enterprises rather than domestic sheep and goats. The grazing closures for former 

allotment 1152 (Ladron Mountain ACEC) and within the Fort Craig SMA, Playa Pueblos SMA, 

Mogollon SMA, and Teypama SMA potentially would have localized impacts for limiting this type of 

socioeconomic use, but would not be expected to affect overall grazing opportunities on public land.

The recreation opportunities provided on public land support retail, food and accommodation, and other 

service industries in local economies by attracting visitation from outside the local area. This results in 

economic impacts via jobs and income in these industries, induced income as wages circulate through the 

local economy, and tax revenue for local jurisdictions. Recreation opportunities on public land also 

provide a local social amenity that is valued by local residents. Future visitation is difficult to predict 

because it is influenced by so many variables outside of BLM’s control, but typical expenditures 

associated with visitation are summarized in Table 4-5. 

TABLE 4-5 

AVERAGE LOCAL EXPENDITURES PER VISITOR TO BLM SITES 

Lodging $284.60 

Guide fees $168.08

Equipment rentals $127.74 

Other expenses (not listed in this table) $98.25 

Shopping $89.29 

Restaurant dining $89.16 

Groceries $74.33 

Local transportation $66.88 

Camping fees $24.90 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 2004 

The special designations under Alternative A include some areas where recreation use and/or resource use 

would be promoted (e.g., Cerro Pomo SMA – development of a cultural site, Datil Well SMA) and other 

areas where recreation use would be restricted to protect resources (e.g., ACECs to protect sensitive 

resources). Areas promoted for recreation use, whether developed or primitive recreation, would provide 

social and economic value to local, regional, and national visitors. Restriction of access for resource 

protection would be viewed positively by those who value resource protection in the affected areas, but 

could be viewed negatively by those who are generally against restricting such forms of access to public 

land. OHV use could be an economic opportunity based on regional demand for areas available to use 

OHV; however, public scoping comments also indicated that OHV use is sometimes socially undesirable 

due to the potential for resource degradation. 

4.3.22 Environmental Justice

During the course of this analysis, no alternative considered resulted in identifiable effects or issues 

specific to any minority or low-income population or community as defined in Executive Order 12898. 

While there are some areas within the socioeconomic study area that are home to large minority and lowincome populations, no BLM actions proposed in any of the alternatives have been identified as causing 

disproportionate effects on these populations. 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-35 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

4.4 ALTERNATIVE B – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

4.4.1 Summary of Management Direction

Alternative B is the preferred alternative at the time of this Draft RMPR/EIS. The overall goal of this 

alternative is to provide a balance between resource use and protection. Management under this 

alternative would balance the need to protect, restore, and enhance natural values with the need to provide 

for the production of food, fiber, minerals, and recreation, heritage tourism, and other services on public 

land. This balance would be achieved within the limits of the ecosystem’s ability to provide resources on 

a sustainable basis and within the constraints of applicable laws and regulations. A summary of 

Alternative B also is provided in Table 2-1, Chapter 2, while a summary of management prescriptions for 

ACECs and SMAs in Alternative B is provided in Table 2-2. 

4.4.2 Summary of Aggregate Effects of Alternative B

Some of the impacts that would be expected under Alternative B would be the same as those in 

Alternative A. Reduced potential for soil erosion and vegetation loss, and increased control of noxious 

weeds would be expected to result as actions are taken to meet public land health standards in areas that 

are not currently achieving them and from protective management that regulates surface disturbance, 

including restrictions on right-of-way and land use authorizations, OHV use, and minerals exploration 

and development activities. However, generally, this protective management would be applied to more 

acres of BLM-managed surface land under Alternative B than Alternative A. Acreages that would be 

managed to minimize various types of surface use under Alternative B are identified in Table 4-1. 

In addition, public land that would be managed within discretionary special designations, and that 

typically would be managed with a combination of these types of restrictive management, would include 

297,555 acres to protect watershed, vegetation, wildlife, and cultural resources. Similarly to 

Alternative A, an additional 291,826 acres would be managed within WSAs in accordance with the 

Interim Management Policy. 

Under Alternative B, larger areas would be managed to minimize surface disturbance, which would 

reduce potential for soil erosion and loss of vegetation, influencing the availability of habitat and forage 

for wildlife and reducing opportunities for noxious weed infestation. This would reduce the potential for 

habitat degradation and fragmentation throughout the Planning Area. Compared to Alternative A, these 

effects would occur in increased acreages within the Horse Mountain ACEC, Ladron Mountain-Devil’s 

Backbone Complex ACEC, Pelona Mountain ACEC, Cerro Pomo ACEC, Zuni Salt Lake ACEC, Tinajas 

ACEC, and the Newton Site SMA. Reduced access to the Newton Site SMA could reduce degradation of 

cultural resources due to vandalism. 

Under Alternative B, the Walnut Canyon SMA designation would be eliminated; this area is characterized 

by habitat that supports a variety of species, including golden eagles, prairie falcons, and great horned 

owls. However, since Alternative B would continue the same type of OHV area designation and 

management of fluid minerals in that area, there would be minimal effect on management from the 

change in designation. The elimination of the Town of Riley SMA designation also would not be 

expected to affect cultural resources substantially since regulatory reviews still would be required. In 

addition, no distinct effects on natural or cultural resources would be expected to result from the 

elimination or reduction in size of other special designations that are proposed under Alternative B, for 

the following reasons: (1) the land (i.e., the Agua Fria ACEC, and the Fence Lake, Mogollon Pueblo, and 

San Lorenzo SMAs) still would be managed within other special designations; (2) previously protected 

species have been delisted, and special management beyond future NEPA compliance to avoid losses of 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-36 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

those species is no longer required (i.e., Taylor Canyon and Iron Mine Ridge SMAs); and (3) sensitive 

areas still would be encompassed within smaller designations (i.e., the Teypama and Stallion SMAs). 

Under Alternative B, management would reduce the possibility of surface disturbance on up to 

43,952 acres of Federal mineral estate (including 40,104 acres of BLM-managed surface land) within 

Chihuahuan semi-desert grassland that may provide aplomado falcon habitat in southern Socorro County, 

including closure to fluid mineral leasing, exclusions of mineral material disposals, and petitioning to 

withdraw the area from location and entry under the mining laws. OHV use also would be limited. These 

measures would impact habitat by minimizing loss of forage, directly addressing the primary threat to this 

species. These actions would be expected to contribute to the recovery of the aplomado falcon beyond 

what is proposed in Alternative A by implementing additional and proactive protection for the species. 

Management under this alternative would accommodate diverse resource uses, although potential impacts 

on mineral development are anticipated. The acreage that would be closed discretionarily to fluid mineral 

leasing includes areas of high potential for carbon dioxide and helium resources (36,345 acres) in Ladron 

Mountain ACEC. In addition, if proposed mineral withdrawals are completed, some areas with high 

mineral resource potential would be unavailable for mineral development. If a no-surface-occupancy 

stipulation covers extensive acreage, the ability to target a fluid mineral resource using directional drilling 

technology becomes restricted or infeasible, effectively closing the land to fluid mineral development. 

Under Alternative B, a total of 100,358 acres of BLM-managed surface land would be managed as special 

designations for protection and enhancement of recreation opportunities. Effects to natural and cultural 

resources resulting from recreational use as the result of enhanced opportunities could be minimized 

through access restrictions and site hardening measures, as warranted. The management of public land 

within special recreation management areas (SRMAs) would be expected to increase visitation; such 

increases typically occur in response to the development of facilities, improved recreation settings, and 

public knowledge of intended recreation destinations. Visitation could contribute to local economies that 

support visitation, particularly in service and retail industries, although the extent of this impact is 

difficult to predict due to the wide variety of factors influencing visitation trends and local economies. 

4.4.3 Air Quality

Expansion of areas for management and protection near existing ACECs under Alternative B may have 

long-term benefit for preservation of air quality. In particular, expansion of the Pelona Mountain ACEC 

by about 70 percent under this alternative, to 51,091 acres, could improve air quality in the Gila 

Wilderness Class I area located to the south. Restricting commodity production, woodcutting, or other 

surface-disturbing activities in some areas could cause these uses to intensify in other areas. Depending 

on the extent of this activity, there could be an increase in air pollutant emissions in that area during 

project construction. However, most of these impacts would be limited to the actual period of 

construction and the vicinity of the activity. 

Under Alternative B, the acreage of land that is available for coal leasing also would decrease to about 

3,200 acres. Potential impacts on air quality would be the same as Alternative A unless the reduced 

acreage limits the ability to achieve the RFD in the Salt Lake Coal Field (see Section 4.4.17 for further 

discussion of the RFD). It is possible that the RFD would still be achieved primarily or entirely on State 

or private land in the Planning Area, although this may be affected by the reduced acreage of public land 

identified as “not unsuitable,” as described in Section 4.4.17. 

The application of specific criteria in Alternative B to identify appropriate areas for commercial 

woodcutting, such as the presence of suitable access roads and stable soils, would reduce fugitive dust, 

soil erosion, and other impacts. Construction of roads according to best management practices 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-37 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Appendix C) for woodcutting and forestry management access would promote road surface conditions 

that are less likely to generate fugitive dust and thereby create localized dust impacts. Based on these 

practices, direct effects on air quality would be limited to an extent of less than 1 mile surrounding an 

activity. 

Under Alternative B, no public land would be open to cross-country travel, which could result in 

incremental direct benefits for air quality as compared with Alternative A. Alternative B substantially 

increases the area that would be limited to existing or designated routes to 1,389,624 acres of BLMmanaged surface land, and would result in the closure of four times as many acres to OHV travel (see 

Table 4-1). Over time, the aggregated particulate and engine exhaust emissions associated with motorized 

travel throughout the Planning Area would be expected to decrease, though this effect would be 

influenced by the frequency and duration of use as well as site-specific factors related to soil type and 

moisture content. 

4.4.4 Geology

Potential impacts on geologic resources from surface disturbance could occur as described for 

Alternative A; however, the use restrictions within special designations and some other areas that provide 

coincidental protection of geological resources would be expanded under Alternative B (see Table 4-1). 

Similar to Alternative A, it is expected that potential impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be 

mitigated through measures identified through site-specific NEPA analysis. 

The elimination of cross-country travel on BLM-managed surface land under Alternative B would 

minimize the potential for vegetation loss, soil disturbance, and increased soil erosion that might affect 

geologic resources in those areas. The potential for localized disturbances to geologic resources from 

dispersed recreation activities such rock-climbing or mountain-climbing would be the same as described 

for Alternative A. 

4.4.5 Soil and Water Resources

Similar to Alternative A, the application of best management practices and other mitigation that would be 

identified during additional NEPA analysis would address the potential for site-specific impacts on soils 

from surface-disturbing activities. Alternative B increases the protection for soil and water resources by 

expanding special designations for the protection of natural or cultural resources to 297,555 acres, an 

increase of 58,619 acres (or 25 percent) over Alternative A. The expansion of right-of-way exclusion 

areas (an additional 376,135 acres over Alternative A), areas associated with fluid minerals leasing 

stipulations (an additional 780,824 acres), and areas closed to fluid mineral leasing (an additional 124,680 

acres) would reduce erosion and increase soil infiltration and productivity in those areas. The additional 

protection under Alternative B would occur primarily on 46,746 acres of BLM-managed surface land in 

the vicinity of Zuni Salt Lake (in northwestern Catron County) and in potential aplomado falcon habitat 

areas (in Socorro County). 

Alternative B would increase protective measures for cultural resources associated with Zuni Salt Lake, 

as compared with Alternative A. The current 4,839-acre Zuni Salt Lake SMA would be replaced with the 

Zuni Salt Lake ACEC on 46,746 acres of BLM-managed surface land that are centered on the lake. There 

is no known hydrogeologic basis for this boundary. Management within this ACEC would minimize the 

potential for surface disturbance over a larger area that was determined to be eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places. Soil disturbances and compaction would be reduced, resulting in reduced 

erosion and increased soil infiltration and productivity. 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-38 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

The Zuni Tribe and BLM would develop a memorandum of understanding outlining consultation 

procedures for management of cultural and natural resources in the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. The intent of 

the agreement would be to reduce the potential for impacts on the groundwater systems that are presumed 

to supply water to the Zuni Salt Lake, in combination with closure to fluid mineral leasing and other 

locatable and saleable mining activities. Although no direct hydrogeologic connection between the 

Moreno Hill Formation and the Zuni Salt Lake has been demonstrated (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 

2004), evidence suggests that the Dakota Formation may behave as a leaky confined aquifer (Brown 

1989; New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department 1994) and some hydrologic 

communication between the Moreno Hill Formation and the Atarque Sandstone and deeper aquifers is 

possible. Until a better understanding of the regional hydrogeology of the Zuni Salt Lake is acquired, this 

management approach would be highly conservative. 

A new utility corridor would reduce the acreage exposed to potential soil disturbance (assuming that 

facilities would be collocated within the corridor). The expansion of VRM Class I or II areas to 

516,872 acres (24 percent more acreage than Alternative A) would promote greater protection of soil and 

water resources in those areas, because of the management emphasis on maintaining existing vegetation 

and terrain features in those areas. 

The management of commercial and personal-use woodcutting and plant material sales under 

Alternative B would reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires and improve surface water infiltration. 

Impacts on soils and water resources from grazing are addressed as part of the Vegetation discussion 

(Section 4.4.6). 

Under Alternative B, the land available for coal leasing would decrease relative to Alternative A (to 3,200 

from 31,640 acres). This would reduce the area where coal extraction activities could disturb or compact 

soil, thereby reducing the potential for impacts on erosion and soil infiltration and productivity. Potential 

impacts on water resources would be the same as those under Alternative A, as mandatory NEPA analysis 

and permitting requirements to ensure nonimpairment of existing water resources would be the same. 

Exclusion of mineral material disposals on about 340,066 acres of BLM-managed surface land under 

Alternative B also would reduce potential impacts on soil erosion in those areas, relative to Alternative A. 

However, about 291,826 acres that are excluded would be within WSAs, which are already managed as 

de facto exclusion areas in accordance with the Interim Management Policy. Therefore, the effects of this 

management would be most apparent in the potential aplomado falcon habitat areas in Socorro County 

and some special designations, as identified in Table 2-2. 

Under Alternative B, cross-country travel would be eliminated and there would be a substantial increase 

in acres with limitations on OHV use (1,389,624 versus 565,159 acres under Alternative A). This would 

decrease the potential for soil loss and impacts on water quality related to soil disturbance from OHV use. 

Additional “closed” and “closed and rehabilitated” routes within WSAs (Appendix J) and the closure of 

26 additional miles of routes for wildlife concerns also would shield more soil from vehicle disturbance. 

4.4.6 Vegetation

The effects of developing watershed management plans would be the same as Alternative A. Under 

Alternative B, management would be implemented with the objective of balancing commodity production 

with providing for maintenance of good watershed health. Increased watershed quality would increase the 

health of vegetation within the watershed.

Under Alternative B, special designations to protect natural and cultural resources would be expanded to 

297,555 acres. In addition, Alternative B includes management to protect 40,104 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land identified as potential aplomado falcon habitat areas. Vegetation in these areas would be 

protected from surface-disturbing activities that would result in loss of vegetation, reduce soil stability, 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-39 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

increase erosion, or reduce watershed health. The intensity of these effects would vary by the actual use 

allowed within each area. Overall, more vegetation would be subject to the type of management under 

Alternative B compared to Alternative A. More vegetation would be protected within special designations 

for special status or rare plant species under Alternative A than under Alternative B, due to the delisting 

of several special status plant species, but rare plant protection areas would be the same for both 

alternatives.

The VRM Class I or II would be expanded to 516,872 acres under Alternative B, increasing the areas 

where the maintenance or enhancement of existing vegetation communities is supported in accordance 

with VRM objectives through mitigation measures when a surface-disturbing action is proposed. 

Similar to Alternative A, the effects related to soil erosion, water quality, and invasive species could 

result from surface-disturbing activities such as construction in rights-of-way, although it is expected that 

mitigation would be identified as part of the site-specific NEPA analysis. However, under Alternative B 

more vegetation would be protected from the effects of these activities due to the expansion of right-ofway exclusion areas to 406,283 acres of BLM-managed surface land. Right-of-way exclusion and 

avoidance areas together would total 755,626 acres. The number of acres per vegetation type managed as 

exclusion and avoidance areas is summarized in Table 4-6. Desert grassland and plains-mesa sand scrub 

are the most common vegetation types within exclusion areas. Avoidance areas would include over half 

of the montane scrub on BLM-managed surface land. Overall, almost 75 percent of desert grassland on 

BLM-managed surface land would be included within one of these land use allocations. The remaining 

grasslands on public land would be subject to right-of-way authorizations, but additional mitigation 

measures would be identified for any potential impacts on vegetation during the NEPA analysis required 

prior to an authorization. Some areas with lava beds in northwestern Catron County (additional to the 

acres noted in Table 4-6) would be available for right-of-ways; however, additional mitigation measures 

would be identified during the required NEPA analysis. 

TABLE 4-6 

ACREAGE OF VEGETATION TYPE IN RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) EXCLUSION AND AVOIDANCE 

AREAS FOR ALTERNATIVE BA

Vegetation Type 

Acres of BLMManaged 

Surface Land 

Right-ofway 

Exclusion

Percent of 

BLM-Managed 

Surface Land 

Population 

Right-ofWay

Avoidance

Percent of 

BLMManaged 

Surface Land 

Population 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 168,059 35,146 21 56,169 33

Closed Basin Scrub 13,941 1,455 10 3,076 22

Coniferous And Mixed Woodland 143,686 46,253 32 31,525 22 

Desert Grassland 316,268 123,609 39 109,423 35

Juniper Savanna 324,153 54,718 17 85,627 26

Lava Beds 21,353* 21,353 100* 0 0

Montane Coniferous Forest 30,945 7,487 24 8,902 29

Montane Scrub 11,456 1,250 11 6,320 55

Plains-Mesa Grassland 258,389 43,002 17 34,734 13

Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 201,015 67,758 34 12,995 6

Urban, Farmland or Open Water 15,518 727 5 353 2

Totals 1,504,783 402,758 27 349,124 23 

SOURCE: Dick-Peddie 1993

NOTES: aAcreage based on best available GIS data. 

 *The data on which these calculations are based do not include some additional lava beds in northwestern Catron County. These areas are 

addressed in the text, as appropriate.

A north-south utility corridor would be established along the I-25 corridor. Construction in this utility 

corridor would result in a direct loss of vegetation due to ground-disturbing activities. However, due to 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-40 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

the presence of I-25 and development along it, about 40 percent of the vegetation in the corridor is likely 

to be previously disturbed. The number of acres per vegetation type managed within the utility corridor is 

summarized in Table 4-7. The utility corridor includes only a small amount of BLM-managed surface 

land of which urban areas, farmland, and open water—where vegetation has been previously disturbed—

would be most potentially impacted. 

TABLE 4-7 

ACREAGE OF VEGETATION TYPE IN UTILITY CORRIDOR 

FOR ALTERNATIVE B 

Acres of BLMManaged 

Surface Land 

Utility Corridor 

(BLM-Managed 

Surface Land Only) 

Percent of BLMManaged 

Surface Land 

Population 

Utility Corridor 

(All Land) 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 168,059 704 0 31,490 

Closed Basin Scrub 13,941 0 0 0

Coniferous And Mixed Woodland 143,686 0 0 0 

Desert Grassland 316,268 0 2 1

Juniper Savanna (Ecotone) 324,153 0 0 0

Lava Beds 21,353 0 0 5,405 

Montane Coniferous Forest 30,945 0 0 0

Montane Scrub 11,456 0 0 0

Plains-Mesa Grassland 258,389 0 0 0

Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 201,015 0 0 20,784 

Urban, Farmland Or Open Water 15,518 3,417 22 38,467 

Totals: 1,504,783 4,121 0 96,147 

SOURCE: Dick Peddie 1993 

Impacts related to land acquisition would be the same as those under Alternative A. The BLM-managed 

surface land identified as suitable for disposal would be expanded to 89,447 acres. In these areas, 

vegetation could be lost in those areas if disposal occurs and surface-disturbing activities are initiated.

Management under Alternative B would focus on improving the ecological condition in forests and 

woodlands, which would increase the general health of vegetation throughout those areas. Although 

activities associated with woodcutting could cause loss of vegetation and increase the likelihood of 

invasive species, increased management of woodcutting through the criteria the described in Chapter 2 

and the best management practices for forestry and weed management (Appendix C) would minimize the 

potential for these effects to occur. 

As with Alternative A, mineral development activities could result in loss of vegetation and the potential 

for spread of noxious weeds, but these effects would be mitigated through measures identified through 

additional NEPA analysis. However, more vegetation would be protected in areas closed to minerals 

leasing under Alternative B (1,543,095 acres of Federal mineral estate, of which 375,157 acres are on 

BLM-managed surface land). As summarized in the Table 4-8, desert grassland, coniferous and mixed 

woodland, and plains-mesa grassland would be most protected. Some areas with lava beds in 

northwestern Catron County (additional to the acres noted in Table 4-8) would be open to fluid mineral 

leasing under standard terms and conditions; however, mitigation measures would be identified as 

appropriate during additional NEPA analysis. 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-41 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

TABLE 4-8 

ACREAGE OF VEGETATION TYPE CLOSED TO FLUID MINERALS 

LEASING FOR ALTERNATIVE BA

Vegetation Type 

Acres of Federal 

Mineral Estate 

Federal Mineral 

Estate Closed to 

Leasing 

Percent of 

Population on 

Federal Mineral 

Estate 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 378,821 192,292 51

Closed Basin Scrub 122,868 83,473 68

Coniferous And Mixed Woodland 1,248,813 221,527 18 

Desert Grassland 585,991 204,829 35

Juniper Savanna (Ecotone) 1,020,984 187,578 18

Lava Beds 21,370* 21,337 100* 

Montane Coniferous Forest 1,459,415 221,761 15

Montane Grassland 44,451 789 2

Montane Scrub 75,986 57,280 75

Plains-Mesa Grassland 546,079 36,791 7

Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 398,119 224,118 56

Subalpine Coniferous Forest 131,501 69,629 53

Urban, Farmland or Open Water 41,777 15,663 37

Total 6,076,174 1,537,067 25

SOURCE: Dick-Peddie 1993 

NOTE: a

Acreage based on best available GIS data. 

 *The data on which these calculations are based do not include some additional lava beds in northwestern Catron County. These 

areas are addressed in the text, as appropriate. 

Approximately 3,200 acres would be available for coal leasing, subject to site-specific NEPA analysis. 

Extraction of coal would result in loss of vegetation during any ground-disturbing activities; fewer areas 

would be subject to these types of impacts than under Alternative A due to the change in acreage that is 

identified as “not unsuitable.”

Mineral material disposals would be excluded from approximately 340,066 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land under Alternative B. Vegetation within these areas would be protected by restrictions on 

ground-disturbing activities associated with mineral material extraction. However, there is little actual 

difference from Alternative A since most of the excluded areas are within WSAs that are already 

managed in accordance with the Interim Management Policy. 

In addition to the 11,408 acres already withdrawn from mineral entry, approximately 72,369 acres of 

Federal mineral estate would be petitioned to be withdrawn from mineral entry. Vegetation occurring 

within these areas would be protected from ground-disturbing activities associated with locatable mineral 

development. More vegetation would be protected from impacts associated with mineral entry under 

Alternative B than Alternative A. 

The types of effects and factors influencing impacts from grazing would be the same as Alternative A. 

The type of impacts on vegetation from recreation would be the same as those under Alternative A. 

Although some vegetation would be lost due to site-hardening measures or trampling that results directly 

from recreational use, the management emphasis on accommodating recreation in SRMAs may divert use 

that is creating impacts elsewhere to locations where it can be managed effectively, limiting overall 

effects on vegetation from recreational uses. 

The Gordy’s Hill SRMA (7,647 acres of BLM-managed surface land) would be managed to limit vehicle 

use to designated routes, which would limit further loss of vegetation when compared to the current 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-42 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

management allowing cross-country travel in this area. Alternative B would eliminate the cross-country 

travel, increasing protection in those areas from loss of vegetation or impacts on soils that could affect 

vegetation. The number of acres per vegetation type within each OHV area designation is summarized in 

Table 4-9. The most common vegetation types within OHV areas are juniper savanna and Chihuahuan 

desert scrub. Some areas with lava beds in northwestern Catron County (additional to the acres noted in 

Table 4-9) would be managed as limited to designated routes, which would ensure that resource values 

that require protection would be closed to motorized travel through the transportation planning process. 

4.4.7 Wildlife, Riparian Habitat, and Special Status Species

A total of 117,682 acres of BLM-managed surface land would be designated as special designations 

focused on protection of wildlife habitats and special status species. The number of acres designated 

specifically for wildlife habitat management under Alternative B would be greater than Alternative A. 

The larger Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC would expand the protection of habitats 

that support rare and endemic species, desert bighorn sheep crucial habitat and travel corridors, special 

status bat species, crucial mule deer habitat, and riparian habitat that supports southwestern willow 

flycatcher and other resident and non-resident bird species. 

This alternative would protect raptor wintering and nesting habitat, especially habitat for northern 

aplomado falcon through the closure of up to 40,104 acres of BLM-managed surface land (43,952 acres 

of Federal mineral estate) of potential aplomado falcon habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing, exclusions 

from right-of-way authorizations, exclusions from mineral material disposals, and limits on OHV use. In 

addition, management prescriptions to protect acres that meet criteria for aplomado falcon habitat would 

be implemented as described in Appendix L. These measures would increase protection of grassland 

habitats that support aplomado falcon. Best management practices for special status species also would be 

followed to protect aplomado falcon and special status species. The best management practices include 

survey protocols, raptor nest survey and avoidance requirements, wet-period avoidance for surfacedisturbance activities, avoidance of occupied habitat, and others (Appendix C). OHV prescriptions within 

aplomado falcon and other special status species habitat include the use of wide, flat-tread balloon tires 

and all-terrain vehicles rather than large vehicles and the timing of activities to avoid wet periods. 

Removal of the Walnut Canyon SMA designation would affect an area with habitat for golden eagles, 

prairie falcons, great horned owls, and a variety of big game species. However, site-specific NEPA 

requirements and BLM guidance would continue to protect these species and habitats for specific surfacedisturbing activities, and fluid mineral leasing stipulations and OHV limitations still would be applied to 

the former Walnut Canyon SMA area under Alternative B. 

In Alternative B, protection of special status plant species, a large, established yucca population, and 

native grasslands that provide prey base habitat and nesting structure for the aplomado falcon, also would 

be achieved through special designations. The Sawtooth Proprietary ACEC (Zuni fleabane) and San 

Pedro Proprietary SMA (Fugates blue star) would provide management of special-status plant species 

through restrictions on rights-of-way, minerals and energy exploration, and OHV use, as well as 

continued inventory and survey activities. An increase in acreage associated with use restrictions under 

Alternative B would result in less surface-disturbing activities that could lead to loss or degradation of 

wildlife habitat, edge effects, and habitat fragmentation, especially in desert scrub, mountain coniferous 

forest, and grassland habitats that are most susceptible to OHV use. The Iron Mine Ridge and Taylor 

Canyon SMAs would be removed as special designations due to delisting of special status species that are 

located within their boundaries. Similar to Alternative A, management within special designations to 

protect critical watersheds also would protect and enhance wildlife habitat and riparian systems. 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-43 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences April 2007 

TABLE 4-9 

ACREAGE OF VEGETATION TYPE ON BLM-MANAGED SURFACE LAND BY OHV 

AREA DESIGNATION FOR ALTERNATIVE BA

Closed to OHV 

OHV Limited to 

Designated Roads 

OHV Limited to Existing 

Roads 

Open to Cross-Country 

Travel 

Vegetation Type 

Acres of 

BLMManaged 

Surface

Land Acres

Percent of 

BLMManaged 

Surface

Land

Population Acres

Percent of 

BLMManaged 

Surface

Land

Population Acres

Percent of 

BLMManaged 

Surface

Land

Population Acres

Percent of 

BLMManaged 

Surface

Land

Population 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 168,059 7,118 4 77,949 46 82,992 49 0 0 Closed Basin Scrub 13,941 0 0 6,717 48 7,224 52 0 0 Coniferous and Mixed Woodland 143,686 34,594 24 63,401 44 45,690 32 0 0 Desert Grassland 316,268 35,123 11 236,125 75 45,018 14 0 0 Juniper Savanna 324,153 28,361 9 114,459 35 181,320 56 0 0 Lava Beds 21,353* 0 0 21,352 100 0 0 0 0 Montane Coniferous Forest 30,945 7,485 24 10,580 34 12,879 42 0 0 Montane Scrub 11,456 0 0 11,418 100 38 0 0 0 Plains-Mesa Grassland 258,389 1,956 1 215,063 83 41,361 16 0 0 Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 201,015 3,283 2 137,914 69 59,817 30 0 0 Urban, Farmland or Open Water 15,518 0 0 6,205 40 9,265 60 0 0 Totals 1,504,783 117,921 8 901,184 60 485,605 32 0 0 

SOURCE: Dick-Peddie 1993 NOTES: aAcreage based on best available GIS data. 

 *The data on which these calculations are based do not include some additional lava beds in northwestern Catron County. These areas are addressed in the text, as appropriate. 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-44 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

The type of impacts from management of visual resources would be the same as under Alternative A, 

although more acres would be managed as VRM Class I and II (516,872 acres of BLM-managed surface 

land) and less land would be managed as VRM Class IV (509,432 acres). All proposed projects would be 

subject to NEPA and Endangered Species Act review and mitigation on an individual basis prior to 

implementation. 

Effects on wildlife and riparian habitat from management of land and realty in this alternative would be 

similar to those under Alternative A, but there would be a ten-fold increase in exclusion area acreage and 

a 24 percent decrease in avoidance area acreage, as noted in Table 4-1. Because management as an 

exclusion area would prohibit future rights-of-way, this would result in an overall decrease in the 

potential for habitat fragmentation and edge effects in a variety of wildlife habitats within the exclusion 

areas (refer to Table 4-7). Special status species that use these habitats would be protected from surfacedisturbing activities. The establishment and use of a 2-mile-wide utility corridor would not substantially 

change the current condition of wildlife habitats in areas that are previously disturbed. The greatest 

potential to affect habitats would occur on lands that are not managed by the BLM. For instance, the 

corridor would cross the Bosque Del Apache National Wildlife Refuge. Impacts from individual projects 

would be evaluated during further NEPA analysis. 

Land disposal and acquisition would have similar effects to those described under Alternative A, except 

that slightly more land would be identified as suitable for disposal under this alternative, resulting in 

greater potential for impacts on wildlife and special status species habitat if more land is disposed. 

However, isolated parcels generally are selected for disposal and would not be likely to result in negative 

impacts on wildlife habitats (see Table 4-1). Nonpublic land within and adjacent to special designations 

would be pursued for acquisition as the opportunity allows to consolidate areas for the best management 

potential. This would minimize the potential for habitat fragmentation or disturbance of local wildlife 

movement corridors and maintain the quality of game and nongame wildlife and special status species 

habitat within those areas. 

Potentially there could be localized loss or short-term impacts from plant harvesting activities, but plant 

harvesting would be within management prescriptions, providing products for the public through salvage 

or in designated areas. Management would work toward achieving ecological goals toward habitat 

improvement. Monitoring would prevent over-harvesting of a particular plant product. Additionally, the 

establishment of criteria that must be met before woodcutting or plant materials sales permits would be 

granted would limit the surface disturbance associated with the collection of plant materials, subsequently 

minimizing loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat in comparison with Alternative A. 

The types of effects on wildlife and riparian habitats as a result of mineral extraction would be similar to 

those described for Alternative A. However, more acres would be closed to fluid mineral leasing under 

Alternative B (see Table 4-1) and implementation of fluid mineral leasing stipulations on 1,516,824 acres

of federal mineral estate would mitigate potential impacts in sensitive areas. Additional mitigation could 

be identified on a site-specific basis in accordance with NEPA and the Endangered Species Act. Habitat 

in areas that would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (1,543,095 acres of mineral estate, of which 

375,157 acres are BLM-managed surface land) would be protected from the effects of fluid mineral 

development activities. Although all special designations for wildlife resources offer varying levels of 

protection from mineral exploration, several designations in this alternative are more specific and offer 

increased levels of protection to wildlife and special status species habitats, and are identified as the 

Horse Mountain, Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone, Sawtooth Proprietary, and Pelona Mountain 

ACECs and San Pedro SMA. Areas withdrawn from mineral entry (up to 83,777 acres of Federal mineral 

estate) would be protected from the effects of mineral development. Mineral withdrawal within the 

Sawtooth Proprietary ACEC would me maintained under all alternatives. There is minimal actual effect 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-45 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

from the exclusions from mineral material disposals in Alternative B, since most of the excluded areas are 

within WSAs that are already managed in accordance with the Interim Management Policy. However, 

additional protection would occur in 48,240 additional acres outside of WSAs, primarily in potential 

aplomado falcon habitat areas. 

The types of impacts from livestock grazing and range management would be the same as Alternative A, 

except that additional acreage would be excluded from domestic sheep and goats in the Ladron MountainDevil’s Backbone Complex. In addition, NEPA analysis and mitigation would be required for each 

project on a site-specific basis. 

The types of impacts from recreation management would be the same as described under Alternative A, 

but with greater emphasis on protection of wildlife and special status species resources. The expanded 

acreage that would be managed for recreation uses within special designations under Alternative B 

(a total of 100,358 acres of BLM-managed surface land) could increase recreational uses and associated 

effects in those areas. However, if the management in these areas diverts use that is creating impacts 

elsewhere on locations where it can be managed effectively, overall effects on habitat and wildlife from 

recreational uses may be reduced. 

The types of impacts associated with OHV use would be similar to those described for Alternative A, but 

variations in OHV area designations under Alternative B would lead to long-term benefits to wildlife and 

riparian habitats by minimizing impacts associated with OHV and motorized vehicle use. Under 

Alternative B, the closure of routes within WSAs (Appendix J) would protect wildlife and wildlife habitat 

in those areas, as would restriction of motorized vehicle use to existing or designated trails, where 

minimal loss of habitat would occur as existing trails and roads are already disturbed. However, 

unauthorized OHV use in the Planning Area could cause an increased potential for loss or degradation of 

wildlife habitat and associated edge effects. 

4.4.8 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

Under Alternative B, fuels treatments would be conducted to meet resource objectives, which would 

restore those areas to FRCC 1 and consequently reduce the risk for large wildfires. Similar to 

Alternative A, surface-disturbing hazardous fuels reductions and fireline construction likely would be 

limited within special designations (a total of 297,555 acres of BLM-managed surface land). This 

protection would be applied to 31 percent of BLM-managed surface land, compared with 16 percent 

under Alternative A (see Table 4-1). Fuels treatments would be focused around the perimeters of these 

areas in order to prevent direct mortality of special status plants resulting from wildfire spread. 

Potential indirect adverse impacts associated with wildland-urban interface areas and the designation of 

Horse Mountain ACEC would be the same as those described under Alternative A. Although the Horse 

Mountain ACEC would be expanded under this alternative, the corresponding wildland-urban interface 

area to the north would not change. Similar to Alternative A, hazardous fuels treatments that result in 

discernible changes in color, line, form, and texture within the landscape would be limited in VRM Class 

I and II areas, which would include 516,872 acres under Alternative B. 

Impacts on fire management associated with right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas would be 

similar, but more widespread compared to those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, 

406,283 acres of BLM-managed surface land would be excluded from right-of-way and 349,343 acres 

would be designated as right-of-way avoidance areas. Land disposal would have similar impacts on those 

described under Alternative A, but these effects could be somewhat more widespread under this 

alternative because there would be 89,447 acres (6 percent) of BLM-managed surface land identified as 

suitable for disposal. 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-46 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

Development within a utility corridor could have indirect impacts on fire suppression activities by 

creating additional hazards to fireline personnel, but also could minimize these impacts elsewhere in 

BLM’s Decision Area if utilities are consolidated in one location rather than dispersed throughout 

multiple areas. However, the location of this corridor primarily off of BLM-managed surface land would 

mean few, if any changes to fire management on BLM-managed surface land. 

Treatment techniques used to improve the ecological condition of forests and woodlands, reduce hightree-density woodland sites, and promote herbaceous understory likely would rely heavily on fire 

management. In areas where wildland fire use is employed rather than traditional suppression activities, 

fire management would realize a direct cost savings benefit over the short term. The average per acre cost 

of fire suppression is higher than the average per acre cost of wildland fire use activities. Long-term 

impacts on fire management would include a reduction of surface fuels where wildland fire use, 

prescribed fires, mechanical treatments, chemical treatments, or biological treatments were used. The 

reduction of surface fuels in these areas would decrease the likelihood of large canopy fires, resulting in 

both a reduction in the cost of suppression and a safer environment for fireline personnel. 

Commercial and personal woodcutting activities would be allowed in accordance with criteria identified 

in Chapter 2. More areas would be open to woodcutting activities under this alternative than under 

Alternative A. These activities reduce fuel loadings in areas of historic suppression activities and surface 

fuels in excess of historic ranges. The cost of hazardous fuels reduction in woodcutting areas would be 

borne by the commercial or personal entity, rather than BLM, resulting in a direct cost savings to BLM. 

In addition, a reduction in tree density and ladder fuels resulting from woodcutting would reduce the 

potential for large canopy fires that endanger lives and private property. 

Allocation of vegetation to wildlife, watershed, and livestock may impact fuel loadings depending on the 

amount of vegetation left on the landscape for watershed and wildlife. Fine fuels could increase in sitespecific areas where herbaceous species are left for wildlife and watershed protection but not used by 

wildlife. The overall impact on fire management would be less than slight. 

Vegetative treatments that control the spread of undesirable vegetation would benefit fire management by 

reducing surface fuels in treated areas. Treatments that increase the abundance of desirable vegetation 

also would increase surface fuels; however, the plant community structure of desirable vegetation 

established might more closely resemble native plant communities, resulting in no impact on fire 

management.

Impacts from increased ignition potential in areas open to cross country OHV use would be similar but 

less widespread than those described in Alternative A. The elimination of the cross-country travel under 

Alternative B reduces the potential areas where this would be likely to occur. In addition, closed areas, 

where probability of human-caused ignition is reduced, would be expanded to 117,921 acres. Closing 26 

miles of roads outside of special designations would indirectly limit the potential for human-caused 

ignitions along these roads. 

4.4.9 Cultural Resources 

The potential impacts of activities and projects associated with the management of cultural and natural 

resources under Alternative B would be similar to and addressed as described under Alternative A. 

Alternative B would maintain three of the eight SMAs designated under Alternative A specifically to 

protect cultural resources (Mockingbird Gap, Fort Craig, and Playa Pueblos). The other five would be 

modified. The Newton Site SMA would be substantially expanded from 37 acres to 6,789 acres. The 

Mogollon Pueblo SMA would be eliminated but would be incorporated into the expanded Cerro Pomo 

SMA and the ruin and associated sites would continue to be managed to protect cultural resources. 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-47 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

Similarly, the Rio Salado SMA would be eliminated but the land would be incorporated into the Ladron 

Mountain-Devil’s Backbone ACEC and the cultural resources would continue to be managed for 

protection. The Penjeacu/Teypama SMA would be reduced from 37 to 11 acres to reflect the actual extent 

of the site on public land. The Town of Riley SMA would be eliminated because it is not needed to 

protect the traditional cultural values of the community, which is mostly on private land. 

One ACEC (Tinajas) and two SMAs (Cerro Pomo and Zuni Salt Lake), designated to protect cultural 

resources along with recreational or hydrological resources, also would be expanded, and Zuni Salt Lake 

would be expanded and redesignated as an ACEC. In total, 149,179 acres would be managed within 

special designations to protect cultural resources as a primary or secondary objective. Special 

designations for protection of natural resources also would be expanded under Alternative B, providing 

additional, coincident protection of cultural resources compared with Alternative A. 

In contrast to Alternative A, heritage tourism is identified as a program goal under Alternative B. 

Designation of the Quebradas Back County Byway SRMA, Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

SMA, and Socorro Nature Area SRMA under Alternative B may provide additional opportunities for 

public interpretation of cultural resources in conjunction with the recreational and educational uses of 

those resources. Other opportunities would be considered in response to community and public support 

and partnership opportunities. Designation of the Gordy’s Hill SRMA (7,647 acres or about 12 square 

miles) would provide an opportunity to better manage ongoing recreational uses. In conjunction with 

development of a transportation plan network, inventories of designated routes would be conducted to 

identify and protect cultural resources. 

Alternative B also would provide more protection for cultural resources compared with Alternative A by 

modified management of the uses of other resources on the public land. Proposed realty actions would be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis for the potential to affect cultural resources, just as with Alternative A. 

Identification of retention and disposal areas and right-of-way avoidance restrictions under Alternative B 

incorporate data that were not available when the 1989 RMP was written, and identification of utility 

corridors could help reduce impacts on cultural resources outside the corridors (particularly from access, 

erosion, and alterations of site settings). 

Although proposals related to mineral exploration and extraction would be analyzed on a case-by-case 

basis, just as in Alternative A, more acres would be protected under Alternative B by imposing 

restrictions in areas of special designation. In some areas, stipulations would provide additional specific 

protection for cultural resources, for example, by requiring not only surface surveys but also subsurface 

testing to identify potential buried archaeological resources in areas of shifting sands. In other areas, 

increased restrictions would benefit cultural resources by reducing access, erosion, and changes in site 

settings that could occur with development. 

Impacts on cultural resources from recreation activities requiring a permit, such as commercial and 

competitive events, are addressed through NEPA and Section 106 processes. Recreational use of public 

land is increasing greatly due to population growth in metropolitan areas, proliferation of urban interface 

areas associated with subdivisions, and the increasing popularity of outdoor recreation activities. 

Alternative B would increase protection of cultural resources over Alternative A by eliminating crosscountry travel. This change would further reduce impacts on cultural resources if implemented through a 

combination of public education and enforcement of restrictions. Closing routes should help protect 

cultural resources in WSAs (Appendix J) and areas with other limited use designations as well. 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-48 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

4.4.10 Paleontological Resources

Under Alternative B, the expansion of special designations would increase protection for paleontological 

resources in those areas as a result of the regulation of surface disturbance. Due to changes in the 

boundaries of some special designations under Alternative B, the designations would provide additional 

protection for geologic formations with the potential for paleontological resources within the following 

areas:

x Horse Mountain ACEC 

x Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC (including areas known to contain 

paleontological resources) 

x Pelona Mountain ACEC 

x Cerro Pomo ACEC (including important known paleontological resources) 

x Tinajas ACEC 

x Zuni Salt Lake ACEC (including highly fossiliferous geologic units) 

The increase in areas that are closed to OHV use (117,921 acres, or over 400 percent more than 

Alternative A) also could protect areas with paleontological resources from surface disturbance. The 

increase in acres that would be limited to designated or existing routes (1,389,624 acres, or 146 percent 

more than Alternative A) would have a similar effect of reducing the amount of public land that would be 

exposed to surface disturbance from OHV use. Under Alternative B, there would be no areas designated 

as open to cross-country travel, which would eliminate a likely source of resource degradation in those 

areas.

4.4.11 Visual Resources

Under Alternative B, public land managed within special designations to protect natural or cultural 

resources would increase to 297,555 acres, and management to protect habitat for the aplomado falcon 

would be established on 40,104 acres of BLM-managed surface land. These measures would expand the 

areas managed to limit disturbances that could alter the natural landscape or impair experiences by 

sensitive viewers. 

Potential impacts on visual resources from construction activities associated with land use authorizations 

or mineral development would be similar to those under Alternative A, except that the land identified for 

right-of-way exclusion and avoidance would increase to 755,626 acres of BLM-managed surface land. 

The increase in protective management would reduce the potential for effects on visual resources in these 

areas. However, though fewer acres would be open to development of rights-of-way, the actual amount of 

disturbance to scenic quality and sensitive viewers would depend on the type and location of facilities that 

are constructed.

The establishment of a designated utility corridor would consolidate utilities along a major transportation 

route, reducing overall visual impacts throughout the Planning Area. However, sensitive viewers where 

residences are clustered along the highly traveled I-25 transportation corridor would be affected by the 

addition of a utility corridor in that area if new utilities are developed within their viewshed. The utility 

corridor runs adjacent to the northwest corner of the Veranito WSA, a VRM Class II area. Rights-of-way 

authorized adjacent to the WSA would impact sensitive viewers within the WSA if visible from within 

the WSA.
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-49 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

Similar to Alternative A, any acquisitions that consolidate public land would enhance management ability 

to preserve scenic quality in those areas. The disposal of public land in the future (of up to 89,447 acres) 

could affect viewshed if disposed land is developed; site-specific impacts and mitigation would be 

identified during additional NEPA analysis when a disposal is proposed. The public land identified as 

suitable for disposal would increase 2,989 acres over Alternative A, and land identified for retention 

would decrease to 1,412,057 acres; this would slightly decrease the effectiveness of visual resource 

management in comparison with Alternative A if more land is actually disposed. Retention areas are 

generally large blocks of land, which facilitates management of visual resources. 

The types of impacts on visual resources from minerals development would be similar as described under 

Alternative A. However, the acres associated with fluid mineral leasing stipulations are greater in 

Alternative B than in Alternative A, and it is expected that appropriate mitigation would be identified 

under standard terms and conditions or additional stipulations determined on a site-specific basis. 

Closures to mineral leasing on 1,543,095 acres of Federal mineral estate (approximately 25 percent) and 

petitioning to withdraw an additional 72,369 acres of Federal mineral estate from mineral entry would 

help protect scenic quality and avoid impacts on sensitive viewers in those areas. 

Mineral exploration and development activities adjacent to VRM Class I areas could impact distant views 

from within the Class I area. Alternative B designates 1,810 fewer acres as VRM Class I than 

Alternative A, resulting in slightly more potential for impacts on sensitive viewers in VRM Class I areas; 

however, future NEPA analysis would be expected to identify appropriate mitigation measures for 

proposed projects and activities. 

Under Alternative B, the land potentially available for coal leasing would be reduced, resulting in less 

potential for change to the landscapes in those areas, as compared with Alternative A. Extraction of 

saleable minerals and coal could result in major changes to landform and natural setting. Mitigation for 

visual resource impacts resulting from any future proposed project would be identified in subsequent 

NEPA analysis. 

Impacts associated with nonmotorized recreation would be the same as those described for Alternative A. 

Under Alternative B, cross-country travel would be eliminated; visual impacts from OHV activity (related 

to vegetation disturbance and dust) would therefore be less widespread under Alternative B. OHV-use 

areas adjacent to special designations (i.e., the Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC, and 

the Puertecito and Continental Divide Trail SMAs) could affect sensitive viewers, depending on the 

intensity and conditions of OHV use. 

Alternative B also identifies substantially more land as closed to OHV, reducing the possibility of impacts 

on the visual setting due to motorized travel in those areas. Designating more land as limited or closed to 

OHV use than Alternative A allows more areas to revegetate back to the natural landscape. 

4.4.12 Cave and Karst Resources

Under Alternative B, the potential impacts on cave and karst resources would be similar to those under 

Alternative A, but special designations would increase (to 297,555 from 238,936 acres) and would 

provide more coincidental protection of those resources. The increase in acreage under special 

designations would protect more area of high karst potential, such as land adjacent to the Puertecito SMA 

and the White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Zone. The elimination of cross-country travel may 

provide protection to some resources by reducing access to some areas. 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-50 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

4.4.13 Wilderness Characteristics

The impacts on wilderness characteristics would be similar to those under Alternative A, but more land 

within WSAs would be undisturbed by OHV use. Under Alternative B, OHV travel would be restricted to 

designated routes in most WSAs, except where complete closures would occur. A total of 33,888 acres 

within five WSAs (Devil’s Reach, Horse Mountain, Presilla, Sierra de las Canas, and Veranito) would be 

closed to motorized travel (versus 13,185 acres under Alternative A). Portions of the Sierra Ladrones and 

Continental Divide WSAs would be closed to motorized travel (see maps in Appendix J). The reductions 

in motorized access due to route closures would enhance wilderness character. 

The authorization of a north-south utility corridor would cause indirect effects on the WSAs located 

within or adjacent to the corridor. Although the 1995 Interim Management Policy precludes the 

authorization of rights-of-way within WSAs, facilities that are located close to the WSAs could affect 

wilderness characteristics such as naturalness and solitude if they are visible from the WSA or associated 

access routes increase motorized access to the general area. Under Alternative B, the utility corridor 

would run adjacent to the northwest corner of the Veranito WSA and the Presilla WSA. 

Intense OHV use in the Gordy’s Hill SRMA could diminish wilderness characteristics in the adjacent 

Veranito and Presilla WSAs by generating dust and noise. However, more intensive management of this 

area would mitigate effects on and from OHV users. 

A summary of how WSAs would be managed should they be released from wilderness review is provided 

in Table 2-3. 

4.4.14 Lands and Realty 

Under Alternative B, the BLM-managed surface land that generally would be available for land use 

authorizations would decrease from Alternative A, to about 751,271 acres. About 349,343 acres would be 

managed as right-of-way avoidance areas, where land use authorizations would be permitted within 

limited dimensions. The primary effect of management would be to increase the acreage that would be 

excluded from right-of-way authorizations by 367,135 acres over the area in Alternative A. 

Federal agencies manage the majority of surface estate east of I-25 (refer to Map 1-1 or 2-12). BLMmanaged surface land would provide the most suitable opportunities for locating utilities and/or 

infrastructure east of I-25, since such utilities are largely incompatible with the missions and mandates 

associated with other Federal land in that area (such as the national wildlife refuges and the White Sands 

Missile Range). Because of the right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas on BLM-managed surface 

land located to the east of I-25 (see Map 2-12), the placement of east-west utilities on public land could be 

hindered in this area under this alternative. Limited opportunities would exist to cross BLM surfacemanaged land east of I-25 in Socorro County, if such an alignment were necessary. 

The establishment of a utility corridor under Alternative B would promote the consolidation of locations 

for new linear facilities along I-25. It is expected that the land available within the utility corridor would 

be adequate to accommodate the anticipated volume of right-of-way applications. Because the corridor is 

adjacent to a major roadway, locating rights-of-way in this corridor would reduce additional impacts if 

previously disturbed areas are used. However, the location of the corridor may be incompatible with 

adjacent right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas (see sections 4.4.11 and 4.4.13). 

Although more land is identified as suitable for disposal under Alternative B than under Alternative A, an 

increase of 2,989 acres, this management would not impact existing and planned land uses within the 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-51 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

resource area. If a disposal were proposed, additional NEPA analysis would evaluate the potential effects 

on land uses that would be relevant to the specific parcel and circumstances. 

More land would be managed as VRM Class I and II areas relative to Alternative A (516,872 versus 

416,124 acres), but this management would not be expected to effectively prohibit particular land uses 

since mitigation for any future proposed projects would be applied on a site-specific basis to promote 

compliance with the visual resource management objectives. 

Under Alternative B, more area would be closed to fluid mineral leasing than under Alternative A 

(1,543,095 versus 1,418,415 acres of Federal mineral estate). Based on land requirements for fluid 

mineral development predicted in the RFD, it is anticipated that there would be adequate land available 

for leasing to meet demand. (Note: the availability for leasing land with high potential for the occurrence 

of fluid minerals is described in the Minerals section.) 

Under Alternative B, fewer acres would be available for coal leasing (3,200 versus 31,649 acres). Similar 

to Alternative A, a cluster of coal extraction activities in high potential areas could effectively limit or 

exclude other land uses in those areas. Mandatory, site-specific NEPA analysis would be required for any 

mineral development project, and would identify potential impacts on land uses and appropriate 

mitigation measures. 

Under Alternative B, the majority of BLM-managed surface land in the Planning Area would be open for 

mineral material disposals; 23 percent (340,066 acres) would be excluded from such uses. However, 

based on the RFD, impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A because the relatively 

small amount of land identified in the RFD would be readily available, and mitigation measures would be 

identified during NEPA analysis. 

More public land would be closed to OHV use relative to Alternative A (117,921 versus 29,117 acres), 

and Alternative B also would result in a substantial reduction in the acreage that is designated as open to 

cross-country travel (reducing to 0 acres from 851,234 acres under Alternative A). Indirect impacts on 

land uses from OHV-related noise and dust would be confined to areas along existing or designated 

routes. The additional areas that would be designated as closed or limited to designated routes could result 

in loss of access for some uses, particularly some types of recreation. About 188 miles of roads and trails 

would be closed, which would result in negligible impact on land uses (beyond those described in the 

wilderness characteristics and recreation sections). 

4.4.15 Forestry and Woodland Management

Vegetative treatments that control the spread of undesirable vegetation, reduce surface fuels, or provide 

for a native plant community that is better adapted to disturbance from fire, would improve the ability of 

forested systems to withstand disturbance, particularly the risk of stand-replacing fires.

Woodcutting and vegetative material sales may be permitted in portions of the Pelona Mountain, Ladron 

Mountain, and Horse Mountain ACECs. Woodcutting activities and vegetative material sales would 

reduce fuel loads in areas that are in need of fuels reductions, resulting in benefits to forest structure. The 

surface disturbance associated with woodcutting activities and vegetative material sales could have an 

adverse impact on forest and woodland soils; however, these impacts would be slight and soils would 

likely recover over the short term with the application of best management practices for forestry (see 

Appendix C). Vegetative treatments and harvest of forest resources that result in a discernible change in 

color, line, form, and texture within a landscape would be limited in VRM Class I areas, 28,533 acres of 

BLM-managed surface land under this alternative. The impact on forest and woodland management 

would be less than slight due to the relatively small size of the area affected. 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-52 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

Impacts on forest and woodland resources associated with right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas 

would be similar to those under Alternative A. However, approximately 234,512 acres of forested BLMmanaged surface land would be designated as right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas, limiting 

surface-disturbing activities in more areas than Alternative A. Impacts from land disposal, land 

acquisition, and minerals development would be similar to those described under Alternative A. However, 

slightly more land would be designated as suitable for disposal under this alternative. 

Forest and woodland management would impact forest health over the short and long term under this 

alternative. Treatment techniques used to improve the ecological condition of forests and woodlands, 

reduce high-tree-density woodland sites, and promote herbaceous understory would likely improve the 

FRCC of these forest types, especially in piñon-juniper, ponderosa, and mixed-conifer types. A reduction 

of surface fuels and corresponding reduction in the likelihood of stand-replacing fires would lead to an 

improvement of ecological condition and an increase in the ability of these areas to withstand disturbance 

from insects and disease. 

The types of impacts from commercial and personal woodcutting activities would be similar to those 

described for Alternative A. The harvest of forest products would result in surface disturbance with 

impacts on forest health with the degree dependent on the type of equipment used and amount of erosion 

that results. However, areas (forest and woodland) meeting the criteria listed in Chapter 2 are limited on 

BLM-managed surface land. 

Personal-use plant or plant materials sales would have short-term impacts on forest resources due to the 

surface disturbance associated with the activity. These activities could potentially reduce hazardous fuel 

levels that have accumulated, depending on the specific location. Harvest areas would likely recover over 

the long term from plant material sales. 

Impacts of rangeland management would be the same as described for Alternative A. Allocation of 

vegetation to wildlife, watershed, and livestock at the proposed levels would not have any appreciable 

impact on forest and woodland resources. The exclusion of domestic sheep and goats to all areas of the 

Ladron Mountain ACEC within 10 miles of bighorn sheep habitat would have similar types of impacts as 

those under Alternative A. 

Woodcutting or thinning would only be allowed in the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA 

(outside the Continental Divide WSA), Datil Well SRMA, The Box SRMA, and Cerro Pomo ACEC to 

support BLM–authorized projects to meet management objectives of woodland or forest health. Harvest 

of young trees (1 to 10 inches diameter breast height, depending on forest type) within these areas could 

result in improving or maintaining FRCC, as described above. Impacts associated with woodcutting in 

these areas are anticipated to be negligible and localized because of the relatively small percentage of 

BLM-managed surface land in forested areas that would be affected. 

4.4.16 Rangeland Management

The impacts on grazing from water-control measures (such as erosion control structures like spreader 

dams or retention structures), vegetation treatments, or rehabilitation of identified sites would be the same 

as those Alternative A. However, special designations for the protection of natural and cultural resources, 

which are more likely to be subject to this management, would be increased to a total of 297,555 acres of 

BLM-managed surface land; therefore, overall positive or negative impacts would have the potential to 

occur over a greater area than in Alternative A. Impacts associated with grazing exclusions would be less 

than under Alternative A, with a total of 214 acres closed to grazing in the Penjeacu and Playa Pueblos 

SMAs. Under Alternative B, the exclusions to domestic sheep and goat use would be eliminated in the 

Horse Mountain and Pelona Mountain ACECs, but would be applied to a larger Ladron Mountain ACEC 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-53 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

(57,474 acres of BLM-managed surface land) plus a 10-mile buffer of bighorn sheep habitat. Since there 

are currently no authorized sheep or goat operations on BLM-managed surface land, there would be no 

impact on current conditions. 

Promotion of heritage tourism on BLM-managed surface land could have long-term direct impacts on 

livestock grazing by creating disturbances for livestock, limiting the area available for distribution of 

livestock, and reducing available forage through site-hardening measures. However, these impacts 

generally would be very site-specific and would affect a limited number of acres. 

Substantially more acreage would be excluded from right-of-way authorizations under Alternative B 

(406,283 acres) than under Alternative A (39,148 acres), and less would be included in avoidance areas 

(about 109,653 fewer acres). The potential for noise and other disturbances from activity and 

infrastructure within rights-of-way and utility corridors would therefore be reduced in those areas, as 

would the impacts on available forage. Limitations on right-of-way authorizations would have the indirect 

effect of limiting construction of access roads, which might have been used for range management 

activities.

Potential effects on grazing from land acquisition and disposal would be the same as Alternative A, since 

any acquisitions likely would be part of an existing grazing allotment and mitigation would be identified 

as part of the NEPA analysis.

Under Alternative B, use restrictions associated with woodlands harvesting or vegetation sales would 

increase relative to Alternative A. With increased restrictions, indirect impacts associated with a reduced 

canopy would be diminished. Reduced plant material sales could limit direct impacts associated with 

forage loss. However, it is expected that vegetative materials would not be harvested to the extent that it 

will impede individuals to reproduce. Typical plant species of interest to the public would be small 

shrubs, yucca, hedgehog cactus species and prickly pear species. This would not affect forage other than 

in a positive manner, allowing for perennial grasses to colonize areas that experienced the short-term 

effects of plant removal or soil disturbance. 

Under Alternative B, there are more restrictions on mineral development but the RFD would be the same. 

In localized areas where restrictions are increased over Alternative A, this alternative would result in 

fewer short-term direct impacts (i.e., disturbances associated with construction, such as noise and 

accessibility of forage) and more long-term indirect impacts (less competition with other uses if mineral 

activities are excluded) for livestock grazing. Impacts associated with the overall RFD would be the same 

as Alternative A.

Impacts from dispersed, nonmotorized recreational activity would be the same as Alternative A. Crosscountry travel would be eliminated; therefore, direct impacts associated with forage loss and livestock 

disturbance, and indirect impacts associated with invasive species and wildfire would be reduced in areas 

where motorized travel is excluded (117,921 acres, 88,804 more than under Alternative A) or restricted 

(1,389,624 acres, 826,723 more than under Alternative A), resulting in fewer impacts on livestock grazing 

than Alternative A. 

4.4.17 Minerals

Closures to fluid mineral leasing would exclude those areas from extraction of resources such as oil, gas, 

carbon dioxide, and helium, and fluid mineral leasing stipulations that control surface use and limit 

surface occupancy could increase the cost and difficulty of exploration and development of fluid mineral 

resources to a point where these activities become economically infeasible. The effect of placing a nosurface-occupancy stipulation over large areas would have the same effects as described for 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-54 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

Alternative A. However, under Alternative B, 1,543,095 acres of Federal mineral estate would be closed 

to leasing, which includes 1,418,415 acres of nondiscretionary closures and an additional 124,680 acres 

compared with Alternative A. Lease stipulations would be attached to 1,516,824 acres of Federal mineral 

estate (an additional 780,824 acres over Alternative A). 

Of the acreage proposed for closure to fluid mineral leasing, 82,216 acres of Federal mineral estate are 

within northwestern Catron County, an area of cultural significance to the Zuni Tribe and other tribes. 

This area also has moderate potential for oil and gas resources. Throughout the entire Planning Area, 

closed areas overlap with 0 acres of high potential for oil and gas, and 761,155 acres of closed Federal 

mineral estate are associated with moderate potential for oil and gas (or 18 percent of moderate potential 

areas in the Planning Area). The remainder are areas of low potential for these resources. 

In September and October 2003, active leasing of State land occurred in northwestern Catron County, 

driven by the discovery of economically developable carbon dioxide and helium resources in the St. 

John’s field in eastern Apache County, Arizona, and westernmost Catron County, New Mexico. Under 

Alternative B, 36,345 acres of Federal mineral estate with high potential for carbon dioxide and helium 

resources would be closed to fluid mineral leasing (or 11 percent of high potential areas) and 

596,249 acres of Federal mineral estate with moderate potential would be closed (or 16 percent of 

moderate potential areas in the Planning Area). 

The revenue lost to the U.S. general fund resulting from these closures to fluid mineral leasing is 

uncertain, but may be substantial. Revenue lost from Federal lease sales, using an estimated lease fee of 

$2.00 per acre per year, could total $100,000 per year if 50,000 acres were leased. The loss of royalties 

for production of carbon dioxide and helium also is uncertain. Using the St. John’s field as an analogy, 

50,000 acres of Federal land could contain up to 2.5 trillion cubic feet of carbon dioxide and 11 billion 

cubic feet of helium. If half of those estimated carbon dioxide reserves are recovered, sales of 1.25 trillion 

cubic feet of carbon dioxide could generate up to $1.25 billion at $1.00 per thousand cubic feet delivered. 

If half of those estimated helium reserves are recovered, sales of 11 billion cubic feet of helium could 

generate up to $577 million using the $52.50 per thousand cubic feet sales price for helium established by 

the Federal government in 2003 (USGS 2004). 

The RFD for fluid minerals predicts that 1,000 acres would be required for development of oil and gas 

and 50,000 acres for carbon dioxide and helium over the next 15 years. There would be adequate Federal 

minerals available to accommodate this demand, since 3,035,925 acres of Federal minerals would be open 

under standard terms and conditions, and 1,516,824 acres of Federal minerals would be available with 

stipulations. These areas include 1,642,632 acres that are of moderate potential for oil and gas resources. 

To protect wildlife, vegetation, and cultural resources, BLM would petition to withdraw additional acres 

from mineral entry in the high and medium mineral resource potential areas in Ladron Mountain ACEC 

(23,567 acres), 43,952 acres of Federal mineral estate identified for protection of potential aplomado 

falcon habitat, 1,500 acres within and in the vicinity of Tinajas ACEC, all Federal minerals within the 

Protection Zone of the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC (2,881 acres), 320 additional acres in The Box SRMA, and 

149 acres within Fort Craig SMA (when all minerals are acquired). If these proposed withdrawals are 

completed, the locations of some of these withdrawals would include areas with high or moderate 

locatable mineral resource potential. 

As part of this RMPR, the BLM completed a coal screening assessment of high coal potential areas 

within the Planning Area that included application of 20 unsuitability criteria (see Appendix I). The 

analysis resulted in the classification of about 3,200 acres as not unsuitable for coal leasing in the Salt 

Lake Coal Field, in northwestern Catron County. As a result, about 28,440 fewer acres with high potential 

would be available for consideration for coal leasing on BLM-managed surface land compared to 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-55 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

Alternative A. The RFD estimates that one new coal field producing 80 million tons of coal would be 

permitted and developed within the Planning Area. Opportunities to achieve this RFD on public land 

within the high coal potential area near the Salt Lake Coal Field would be limited due to the reduced 

acreage identified as “not unsuitable” for coal leasing. In addition, the unavailability of BLM-managed 

surface land in this high coal potential area would affect coal development opportunities on adjacent State 

and private land if the lack of contiguous development opportunities limits the ability to have a large 

enough coal extraction operation to be cost-effective. 

Approximately 340,066 acres would be excluded from mineral material disposal. This would effectively 

represent only a slight increase in restrictions over Alternative A, since under both alternatives about 

291,826 acres are in WSAs and would be managed under the Interim Management Policy, which 

generally disallows activities that would be incompatible with the nonimpairment criteria. The overall 

availability of salable mineral resources for extraction from public land would not be compromised, 

because mineral materials deposits are available in moderate to high potential areas throughout BLMmanaged surface land. 

Decisions about access and realty could indirectly encourage or restrict exploration and development of 

mineral resources in a similar way as described for Alternative A, except under Alternative B the 

exclusions and restrictions on right-of-way and access increase. Under Alternative B, a total of 

755,626 acres would be managed as right-of-way exclusion or avoidance areas (an increase of 257,482 

acres over Alternative A). A total of 117,921 acres would be closed to OHV (an increase of 88,804 acres 

over Alternative A) and 902,782 acres of BLM-managed surface land would be limited to designated 

routes (an increase over Alternative A). The expansion of areas with restrictions on access could affect 

the ability to develop the infrastructure needed to explore and develop mineral resources in some areas. 

The impacts associated with the land acquisitions would be the same as Alternative A. 

4.4.18 Recreation

Similar to Alternative A, management within special designations and to meet VRM Classes I and II 

objectives would enhance opportunities for primitive recreation. However, special designations for the 

protection of these resources would increase to 297,555 acres and VRM Classes I and II areas would 

expand to 516,872 acres. Relative to Alternative A, Alternative B would provide more opportunities for 

primitive types of recreation due to the expansion of the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC and the Ladron MountainDevil’s Backbone Complex ACEC, while potentially diminishing opportunities for motorized recreation. 

However, given the opportunities for these types of uses elsewhere on BLM-managed surface land, these 

restrictions would not be expected to impact the overall availability and/or quality of recreational 

opportunities throughout the Planning Area. 

Under Alternative B, 406,283 acres (27 percent of BLM-managed surface land) would be allocated as 

right-of-way exclusion areas, and 349,343 acres (23 percent) would be allocated as right-of-way 

avoidance areas. Restrictions on right-of-way and land use authorizations within special designations are 

consistent with maintaining a more primitive, dispersed recreational setting that is typically associated 

with those areas. In areas outside of right-of-way exclusion or avoidance areas (on 50 percent of BLMmanaged surface land as opposed to 67 percent under Alternative A, refer to Table 4-1), the resulting 

impact on recreational opportunities would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative B approximately 2,989 additional acres would be identified as suitable for disposal 

compared to Alternative A. Land identified as suitable for disposal typically is dispersed and remote, and 

does not provide special or unique recreational opportunities. If all land identified was disposed of, areas 

open for OHV use would not be reduced and compared with Alternative A, there are no specific areas 

where recreation would be affected by disposals of surface estate adjacent to existing special designation. 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-56 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

In addition, BLM would acquire non-Federal cultural resource areas as the opportunity allows based on 

criteria for significance, feasibility, tourism potential, etc. These land acquisitions could bring more 

recreation users to those areas, which provides for additional opportunities for recreation users. 

Alternatively, land acquisitions only for the purposes of protecting cultural resources could result in 

restrictions to recreation uses and opportunities (e.g., area closures to motorized access or OHV 

activities).

The types of impacts on recreation from management of minerals would be the same as those under 

Alternative A. The overall balance of recreational opportunities within the Planning Area would not likely 

be affected by fluid mineral leasing, as a variety of recreation settings would still be widely available and 

not directly affected by exploration and development activities. However, the increased acreage closed to 

leasing could result in more protection for existing primitive and semi-primitive recreation settings in the 

Fence Lake and Ladron Mountain areas due to the exclusion of equipment, access roads, and activities 

from those areas. There could be localized impacts on the character of the recreation setting in areas 

where mineral development activities are clustered into smaller areas of mineral development potential. 

Under Alternative B, impacts related to coal extraction and mineral material disposals would be similar to 

Alternative A. In addition, given the small acreage identified for coal extraction (less than 0.04 percent of 

the Planning Area), overall impacts on recreational opportunities in the Planning Area would be expected 

to be negligible. 

OHV use would be more restricted under Alternative B than under Alternative A. No BLM-managed 

surface land would be designated as open for cross-country travel, resulting in fewer opportunities for this 

type of motorized recreation. However, about 1,389,624 acres (or 92 percent) of BLM-managed surface 

land would continue to allow motorized travel (and its associated recreational uses) on existing or 

designated routes. About 117,921 acres (or 8 percent) of BLM-managed surface land would be closed to 

OHV travel compared with 2 percent under Alternative A. The additional areas that would be designated 

as closed under Alternative B include 60 percent of the existing routes within WSAs (Appendix J). Based 

on the change from limited to closed in WSAs, existing OHV uses in these areas would be displaced to 

other areas and/or routes; but closure of these areas also would provide increased opportunities for 

primitive (nonmotorized) recreation and solitude within the WSAs. Although the effects from these 

closures would be greater compared with impacts under Alternative A, impacts would be negligible 

considering the existing, extensive route network. 

4.4.19 Renewable Energy

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except the management to minimize the intensity and location 

of surface-disturbing activities would be expanded over a larger area of special designations to protect 

natural and cultural resources (297,555 acres of BLM-managed surface land, or 58,619 acres more than 

Alternative A). In addition, right-of-way exclusion areas would be increased by 367,135 acres to total 

406,283 acres of BLM-managed surface land. As stated for Alternative A, these effects would be most 

relevant in areas of moderate to high wind, solar, and biomass resource potential (identified in the 

February 2005 Management Situation Analysis). 

Management of VRM Class I and II areas could affect the placement of or required mitigation for 

renewable energy facilities as described for Alternative A, but the acreage managed under these VRM 

classes would be expanded to 516,872 acres (100,748 acres more than Alternative A). 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-57 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

4.4.20 Transportation and Travel Management

Management to protect natural or cultural resources associated with special designations would be applied 

to additional acreage under Alternative B (for a total of 297,555 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

compared with 238,936 acres under Alternative A). The types of impacts associated with management in 

special designations would be the same as those under Alternative A. However, new limitations placed on 

existing uses and access could cause the diversion of travel to other routes, affecting the intensity of use 

on nearby routes or causing the development of additional unauthorized routes to accommodate demand. 

Restrictions would not be expected to affect overall travel throughout the Planning Area because of the 

relatively low acreage that would be impacted. 

The types of impacts associated with right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas are similar to those 

described under Alternative A, but under Alternative B these designations would be expanded to include a 

total of 50 percent of BLM-managed surface land (755,626 acres). The establishment of a utility corridor 

under Alternative B would be expected to result in the co-location of utilities along the I-25 corridor. 

Overall, access roads that would be associated with any new rights-of-way in the corridor would improve 

overall access to public land from I-25, the primary transportation route in the Planning Area, by 

expanding the network of roads within the corridor. Impacts from land disposal or acquisition would be 

similar to Alternative A. Under both alternatives 6 percent of BLM-managed surface land is identified for 

disposal, with 2,989 additional acres identified for disposal under Alternative B compared with 

Alternative A. Land identified as suitable for disposal is typically dispersed and remote, and disposal 

would not diminish transportation opportunities in the Planning Area. 

The types of impacts on transportation from minerals management would be similar to those described 

under Alternative A, in that new public access typically accompanies mineral development. However, the 

reduction in acres that would be potentially available for coal leasing would result in fewer routes and less 

truck traffic from coal extraction activities than would be expected under Alternative A. In addition, the 

specific areas where localized impacts could occur would vary due to the increased areas closed to fluid 

mineral leasing and identified exclusion areas for mineral material disposals compared to Alternative A. 

Similar to Alternative A, restriction of travel could result in localized impacts. However, 92 percent of 

BLM-managed surface land (1,389,624 acres) would accommodate motorized travel (Table 4-1). Under 

this alternative, there would be 157 miles of route closures within WSAs, a 23 percent increase over 

Alternative A (Appendix J). Twenty-six miles of road also would be closed outside WSAs to 

accommodate wildlife concerns; no roads have been identified for closure outside WSAs in 

Alternative A. Closures could cause an increase in traffic volume on routes that remain open, and 

localized impacts requiring higher levels of maintenance could occur. 

4.4.21 Social and Economic Conditions

Under Alternative B, areas managed to protect natural and cultural resources within special designations 

would be expanded to 297,555 acres, a 25 percent increase over Alternative A. This management also 

would preserve and enhance scenic views and primitive recreation settings; this could contribute to 

positive perceptions of the area, increase visitation, and thus impact local economies in the Planning Area. 

However, since the Planning Area does not provide some of the variables that typically correlate with the 

ability to translate these types of amenities into economic development potential, the incremental effect 

over Alternative A of the additional acreage that would be managed to protect natural and cultural 

resources under Alternative B is expected to be minimal. 

With regard to Zuni Salt Lake, a conservative management approach under this alternative would reduce 

the likelihood of impacts on the quantity and quality of water resources (and consequently the associated 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-58 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

sociocultural values) in the lake; however, a better understanding of the incremental effect of 

Alternative B over Alternative A would require additional hydrogeologic study (see Section 4.4.5). In 

addition, the development of a memorandum of understanding between the BLM and Zuni Tribe would 

have the effect of formalizing communication regarding future activity on public land in the area of this 

culturally important resource, with the potential effect of improving collaborative local decision-making. 

Under Alternative B, the expansion of right-of-way exclusion areas (to 406,283 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land) and designation of a right-of-way corridor could result in denial of some linear 

developments based on location alone, but would likely streamline the approval/review process. Cost of 

development for utility companies could increase if the corridor is not ideally compatible, but 

commonality of location would increase efficiencies (e.g., established access points). Socioeconomic 

impacts associated with land acquisition and disposal would be the same as Alternative A. 

The socioeconomic impacts of fluid mineral, coal, and locatable extraction activity in areas that are open 

to such activities under standard terms and conditions would be the same as Alternative A. These include 

direct and induced income generation, payment of royalties to the State of New Mexico and U.S. General 

Fund, and tax payments to local jurisdictions. However, under Alternative B 124,680 additional acres of 

Federal mineral estate would be closed to fluid mineral leasing to achieve other resource objectives. Areas 

that would be closed to fluid minerals leasing include 36,345 acres with high potential for carbon dioxide 

and helium and 761,155 acres with moderate potential for oil and gas resources. In these areas, the 

closures would eliminate the possibility of capitalizing on economic opportunities to extract these fluid 

minerals. In addition, BLM would petition to withdraw 72,369 acres of Federal mineral estate, an 

additional 70,861 acres as compared with Alternative A. 

Similar to Alternative A, controlled surface use lease stipulations and limits on surface occupancy would 

curtail fluid mineral leasing and development activities if restrictions increase the cost and difficulty of 

exploration for and development of mineral resources such that these activities cease to be economically 

feasible (for example, if more expensive directional drilling is required). However, under Alternative B 

the areas subject to these stipulations would expand to 1,516,824 acres, or more than double the acreage 

with stipulations under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative B, a smaller area (about 3,200 acres) is identified as potentially suitable for coal 

leasing. As a result, 59,504 acres of areas with high potential for coal in Catron County would be 

excluded from coal leasing in order to achieve other resource objectives, although the difference in “not 

unsuitable” areas compared to Alternative A would be about 28,440 acres. Economic and social effects 

that would result from this management include lost opportunities for wage income from employment, 

lost induced income from wages that would circulate through the local economy, lost revenue generation 

for the State of New Mexico and U.S. General Fund from royalties, and lost tax revenue generation for 

local jurisdictions.

There are also factors influencing private decisions to develop coal resources in this area that are outside 

of BLM’s authority, as demonstrated by Salt River Project’s decision to relinquish its permits to extract 

coal from the Fence Lake Mine for reasons unrelated to BLM management, including as a response to 

public controversy. Although closures to coal leasing of public land in this area certainly disallows the 

economic opportunity altogether, historically, the availability of public land for coal extraction has not 

been the sole factor in predicting outcomes related to the type of economic development that occurs. 

Under Alternative B, 340,066 acres would be excluded from mineral material disposals. About 

291,826 acres (or 86 percent) of this total are within WSAs. In accordance with the Interim Management 

Policy (which would provide management direction in WSAs under all alternatives), the sale and free use 

of mineral materials would not be allowed in WSAs in most instances because it would be incompatible 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-59 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

with the nonimpairment criteria. Therefore, the more formal exclusion of these areas under Alternative B 

in these areas would not likely result in an actual decrease in the land that would be approved for mineral 

material disposals. Due to the fairly small (relative to the size of the Planning Area) RFD and the fact that 

exclusions within the potential aplomado falcon habitat areas make exception for areas in proximity to 

Highway 380 (the most likely locations to experience demand for mineral materials extractions), overall 

socioeconomic effects from this management would be negligible. 

Under Alternative B, there would be adjustments to vegetative sales areas for protection of resources, 

although no measurable social or economic impact is expected to result due to the low volume of sales 

and the flexibility in the management to continue to meet local and regional needs. 

Similar to Alternative A, management of public land would continue to provide opportunities for grazing 

and would result in the sustainable management of grazing (through adherence to public land health 

standards). This supports the continued viability of ranching, an important component of local economies. 

Under Alternative B, there would be changes in the areas closed to domestic sheep and goats (expanded 

area for Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC, discontinued for the Pelona Mountain and 

Horse Mountain ACECs). However, associated social and economic impacts would likely be minor given 

that domestic sheep and goats are not the primary livestock grazed in the Planning Area. Areas in special 

designations where livestock grazing is currently excluded would be reduced due to changes in SMA 

boundaries with grazing exclusions (Penjeacu SMA reduced from 17 acres to 11 acres and Playa Pueblos 

SMA would remain at 245 acres). This could have localized socioeconomic impacts on affected livestock 

operators if it increases available forage and area available for grazing uses. In addition, the expansion of 

special designations under this alternative could affect grazing management or the forage available for 

grazing in those areas. 

The types of socioeconomic impacts from recreation management would be similar to those under 

Alternative A. However, management under Alternative B would expand the areas managed in special 

designations for recreation use to 100,358 (an increase of 75,997 acres over Alternative A). This type of 

management could accommodate more people at developed recreation sites, improve the recreation 

setting and experience, and convey to the public that these areas are available as recreation destinations. 

All of these effects could contribute to increases in visitation to developed sites and on public land 

generally. This would result in increases in fees received by BLM; however, the more substantial 

economic effects would include increased local expenditures in local communities such as Datil, Socorro, 

and other communities along I-25 that would provide services and equipment to visiting recreationists. 

The types of expenditures that would be likely are estimated under Alternative A in Table 4-5. In 

addition, the identification of specific recreation areas could contribute to local economic development 

efforts that are built on tourism. 

Although the management of OHV area designations varies from Alternative A, social and economic 

resources generally are not expected to experience incremental impacts from those changes since overall 

travel throughout the Planning Area would not be inhibited. 

4.4.22 Environmental Justice

Under Alternative B, management to make additional Federal minerals and land unavailable for fluid 

mineral leasing or locatable mineral development through closure or withdrawal could have 

socioeconomic effects in low-income areas. The reduced acreage of public land potentially suitable for 

coal development would have a similar effect. Possible locations where these impacts would occur are in 

northwestern Catron County, where such management is proposed in the vicinity of the Salt Lake Coal 

Field and areas with high potential for carbon dioxide and helium, and moderate potential for oil and gas 

resources. BLM management would exclude development opportunities related to these resources through 
Action Alternative – Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-60 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

closure; as noted in Section 4.4.17, a stipulation of no-surface-occupancy over an area greater than one 

square mile (although this distance could vary depending on site-specific conditions) would result in a de 

facto closure since the area could not be accessed via directional drilling. It is difficult to isolate the fiscal 

effects of this management since specific development proposals have not been made and, as noted in 

Section 4.4.21 above, factors outside of BLM’s authority also have influenced the development of 

resources in the area. 

Census tract 9762 encompasses all of Catron County, and its poverty rate of 24.4 percent exceeds the 

statewide figure of 18.4 percent. Communities such as Quemado and Pie Town could be affected by the 

restrictions on mineral development, as loss of potential for mineral development would eliminate 

potential for direct, indirect, and induced income from mining, as well as tax revenue for those 

communities. However, direct employment effects from mining would be minimal if skilled labor were to 

relocate to the area to fill any new mining jobs; a large mining labor pool does not currently exist within 

the community. In this case, though, mining would still provide indirect and induced income in local 

communities. In addition to these effects, potential development of mineral resources on State and private 

land in the area could be affected, where economies of scale were inhibited through unavailability of 

developable land, and if specific locations with higher resource value were not available. 

Conversely, the restrictions on mineral development have as their objective the protection of resources 

with significant cultural and religious value to American Indians, another environmental justice 

population. The area within the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC proposed under Alternative B conforms to the area 

with a formal Determination of Eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. The area has 

historic value as a location where six tribes have traditionally ceased hostilities to allow salt gathering. 

Zuni Salt Lake is considered to be a sacred site with ceremonial importance. The impact analysis 

determined that Alternative B would not result in impacts on Zuni Salt Lake, due to established Federal 

and State law and policy and management to minimize surface disturbance in the area of the lake. 

4.5 ALTERNATIVE C 

4.5.1 Summary of Management Direction

Alternative C provides greater emphasis on resource protection than Alternative B. This would be 

achieved primarily through more management emphasis on protection of resource values associated with 

special designations and special status species. In some areas, commodity production would be excluded 

to protect sensitive resources. A summary of Alternative C also is provided in Table 2-1, Chapter 2, while 

a summary of management prescriptions for ACECs and SMAs in Alternative C is provided in Table 2-2. 

4.5.2 Summary of Aggregate Effects of Alternative C

Under Alternative C, management to minimize surface disturbance would be expanded, largely in the 

northwestern corner of Catron County. Generally, Alternative C includes the most restrictive 

management—more resource uses (i.e., mineral extraction, OHV use) would be excluded or limited over 

a larger area. The effects of this management would include localized and overall reduction of soil and 

vegetation loss, and consequent maintenance or enhancement of habitat. In addition, reduced surface 

disturbance also would result in less habitat degradation and fragmentation, and would reduce disturbance 

to wildlife movement corridors. Acreages that would be managed to minimize various types of surface 

use are identified in Table 4-1. 

The total area within special designations to protect natural and cultural resources would be expanded to 

336,609 acres, due primarily to expansion of the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC to 156,601 acres of BLMmanaged surface land. This would reduce potential for soil erosion and vegetation loss over Alternatives 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-61 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

A and B. It is unclear whether the larger ACEC would have an incremental protective effect on 

groundwater resources over what is proposed in Alternative B due to a lack of knowledge regarding the 

hydrogeology of the area. Public land within the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC that has moderate potential for oil 

and gas resources would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. As a result, valuable carbon dioxide and 

helium resources would not be developed on public land; however, those resources could be drained by 

development on adjacent State and fee land. The unavailability of these areas for leasing could result in 

lost opportunities for wage income, induced income as wages circulate through local economies, revenue 

for the State of New Mexico and the U.S. General Fund from royalties, and tax revenue for local 

jurisdictions.

Alternative C would increase the protection of habitat for the aplomado falcon and other species that 

utilize Chihuahuan semi-desert grassland. These habitat areas would be managed to reduce surface 

disturbance from minerals exploration and development, right-of-way development, and other surfacedisturbing activities through land allocations (Table 4-1) and management described in Appendix L. 

These protective measures would increase overall protection of general wildlife and special status species 

habitat and would expand the effects that would occur in Alternative B throughout a larger portion of the 

Decision Area. 

Management under this alternative would still accommodate diverse uses, although impacts on mineral 

development are anticipated. The expanded acreage managed within special designations (and therefore 

typically subject to a combination of the restrictive management listed in Table 4-1) would support the 

maintenance or enhancement of primitive and semi-primitive recreation settings over a greater area. In 

addition, localized effects would occur as opportunities for motorized recreation would be diminished due 

to more closures to OHV use as compared with Alternatives A and B. The types of impacts on minerals 

would be similar to Alternative B, except for the restrictions in the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC that would 

further inhibit fluid minerals leasing as described above. 

Under Alternative C, a total of 27,780 BLM-managed surface land would be designated as special 

designations to manage recreation uses. The change in acreage from Alternative B is due to smaller 

SRMAs and a substantial reduction in the size of the Continental Divide SMA. The effects of recreation 

management under Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative B, although there could be 

additional dispersed recreational use under Alternative C. However, the designations would have the 

same type of localized effect with regard to increasing visitation as the result of the presence of developed 

facilities, improved recreation settings, and public knowledge that a particular area is an intended 

recreation destination. 

4.5.3 Air Quality

Expansion of the Pelona Mountain ACEC to 52,336 acres could serve to improve the protection of air 

quality in the Gila Wilderness Class I area, located to the south, similar to Alternative B but to a greater 

degree than Alternative A. The potential for direct air quality effects from mineral development under 

Alternative C would also be the same as Alternative B as the same acreage of land is identified as 

potentially suitable for coal leasing. 

Changes in allocated utilization of OHV use area designations also could result in incremental direct 

benefits for air quality, as compared with Alternative A. As noted in Table 4-1, Alternative C would 

eliminate cross-country travel and increase the acreage closed to OHV use 5-fold compared with 

Alternative A and an additional 19 percent compared with Alternative B. As a result, the aggregated 

particulate and engine exhaust emissions throughout the Planning Area under Alternative C would be 

expected to be less than both Alternatives A and B.
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-62 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

4.5.4 Geology

Potential impacts on geologic resources from surface disturbance could occur as described for 

Alternative A; however, the use restrictions within special designations and some other areas that provide 

coincidental protection of geological resources would be expanded under Alternative C (see Table 4-1). 

Similar to Alternative A, it is expected that potential impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be 

mitigated through measures identified through site-specific NEPA analysis. 

Similar to Alternative B, there would not be any areas open to cross-country travel under Alternative C. 

The potential for localized disturbances to geologic resources from dispersed recreation activities such 

rock-climbing or mountain-climbing would be the same as described for Alternative A. 

4.5.5 Soil and Water Resources

Similar to Alternative A, the application of best management practices and other mitigation that would be 

identified during additional NEPA analysis would address the potential for site-specific impacts on soils 

from surface-disturbing activities. However, under Alternative C, there would be an expansion of special 

designations for the protection of natural and cultural resources to 336,609 acres, an increase of 

97,673 acres (41 percent) over Alternative A. The management within expanded special designations 

would reduce overall soil disturbances, compaction and erosion; prevent water quality degradation from 

sediment; and maintain or increase soil productivity. Potential aplomado falcon habitat areas would be 

protected on 63,808 acres of BLM-managed surface land, producing the same types of effects on soils 

over a larger area in southern and central Socorro County. 

Under Alternative C, there would be an expansion of right-of-way exclusion areas to 716,100 acres of 

BLM-managed surface land (676,852 acres over Alternative A), areas associated with fluid mineral 

leasing stipulations to 947,044 acres (an additional 211,044 acres), and areas closed to fluid mineral 

leasing to 1,856,116 acres (an additional 437,701 acres). This type of management to limit surface 

disturbance would reduce soil erosion and increase soil infiltration and productivity. 

Under Alternative C, the current 4,839-acre Zuni Salt Lake SMA would be replaced with the Zuni Salt 

Lake ACEC on approximately 156,601 acres of BLM-managed surface land. This area would be closed to 

fluid mineral leasing, BLM would petition to withdraw it from location and entry under the mining laws, 

and it would be excluded from mineral material disposals. In addition, the restrictions on commercial 

water wells would support other management limiting surface disturbance within the area. Due to 

incomplete knowledge about the hydrogeology of the area, it is unclear whether the management within 

the larger ACEC would have an incremental protective effect on groundwater resources over what is 

proposed in Alternative A or B. 

The impacts associated with the utility corridor would be the same as Alternative B, except the potential 

for soil disturbance in sensitive areas would increase where the corridor overlaps with right-of-way 

exclusion areas.. The areas managed as VRM Class I and II areas would be expanded to 742,799 acres (a 

79 percent increase over Alternative A). Soil and watershed resources would be protected or enhanced in 

those areas as a result of the management emphasis on maintaining existing vegetation and terrain 

features in those areas. 

The management of commercial and personal-use woodcutting and plant material sales under 

Alternative C would reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires and improve surface water infiltration. 

The exclusion of new road building would further decrease the amount of land accessible to disturbance 

from these activities. Impacts on soil and water resources from grazing are described as part of the 

Vegetation discussion (Section 4.5.6). 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-63 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

Impacts associated with the identification of about 3,200 acres as potentially suitable for coal leasing 

would be the same as Alternative B. Under Alternative C, the areas where mineral material disposals are 

excluded would be expanded to 484,133 acres of BLM-managed surface land, increasing protection from 

soil disturbance.

Under Alternative C, no BLM-managed surface land would be open to cross-country travel, and there 

would a substantial increase in acres with limitations on OHV use relative to Alternative A (1,366,866 

versus 562,901 acres of BLM-managed surface land). This would reduce the potential for soil loss and 

water quality impacts due to OHV use over a wider area; the degree and pattern of impacts would depend 

on the intensity, location, and type of OHV use. 

The designation of additional “closed” and “closed and rehabilitated” routes within WSAs would reduce 

disturbance to soil and water resources, similar to Alternative B. Alternative C would add additional route 

closures, primarily in the Antelope, Continental Divide, Eagle Peak, Horse Mountain, and Mesita Blanca 

WSAs (Appendix J).

4.5.6 Vegetation

Management in critical watershed areas would protect vegetation by reducing erosion and improving 

water quality within those watersheds. The types of impacts on vegetation associated with management to 

minimize surface disturbance in special designations would be the same as described under Alternative A. 

However, special designations to protect natural and cultural resources would total 336,609 acres, 

41 percent more than Alternative A. Approximately 63,808 acres of potential aplomado falcon habitat 

areas on BLM-managed surface land would be managed to minimize surface disturbance, indirectly 

affecting vegetation. Monitoring would occur to ensure a stable or increasing trend on allotments with 

aplomado habitat. More vegetation would be protected from surface disturbance within special 

designations to protect natural and cultural resources, bighorn sheep habitat, and potential aplomado 

falcon habitat under Alternative C than all other alternatives.

The types of impacts identified for land and realty and visual resources management under Alternatives A 

and B would be the same under Alternative C. However, right-of-way exclusion areas would total 

716,100 acres, avoidance areas would total 419,120 acres, and VRM Class I and II would be expanded to 

742,799 acres. Protection of vegetation associated with these land allocations would be greatest under 

Alternative C. The number of acres per vegetation type managed as right-of-way exclusion and avoidance 

areas is summarized in Table 4-10. Exclusion areas would protect coniferous mixed woodland, desert 

grassland, plains-mesa grassland, and plains-mesa sand scrub. In avoidance areas, juniper savanna would 

be the most represented type. Some areas with lava beds in northwestern Catron County (additional to the 

acres noted in Table 4-10) generally are identified as right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas. 

TABLE 4-10 

ACREAGE OF VEGETATION TYPE IN RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) EXCLUSION AND 

AVOIDANCE AREAS FOR ALTERNATIVE CA

Vegetation Type 

Acres in BLMManaged 

Surface Land 

Right-ofWay

Exclusion

Percent of 

population 

Right-ofWay

Avoidance

Percent of 

Population 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 168,059 65,814 39 39,787 24 

Closed Basin Scrub 13,941 4,529 32 987 7 

Coniferous And Mixed Woodland 143,686 65,606 46 46,810 33 

Desert Grassland 316,268 212,155 67 78,812 25 

Juniper Savanna 324,153 117,032 36 111,783 34 

Lava Beds 21,353* 21,345 100* 0 0 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-64 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

Vegetation Type 

Acres in BLMManaged 

Surface Land 

Right-ofWay

Exclusion

Percent of 

population 

Right-ofWay

Avoidance

Percent of 

Population 

Montane Coniferous Forest 30,945 11,084 36 15,240 49 

Montane Scrub 11,456 3,050 27 4,524 39 

Plains-Mesa Grassland 258,389 114,779 44 62,088 24 

Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 201,015 98,631 49 53,282 27 

Urban, Farmland or Open Water 15,518 995 6 4,955 32 

Total 1,504,783 715,020 48 418,268 28 

SOURCE: Dick-Peddie 1993 

NOTE: a

Acreage based on best available GIS data. 

*The data on which these calculations are based do not include some additional lava beds in northwestern Catron County. These areas

are addressed in the text, as appropriate. 

Impacts related to land acquisition, land disposal (up to 74,313 acres), would be the same as those under 

Alternatives A and B. Under Alternative C, the north-south utility corridor would be in a slightly different 

location than Alternative B. The Alternative C corridor would be located further off of the I-25 corridor, 

resulting in impacts to more acres of Chihuahuan desert scrub and desert grasslands. About 15 percent of 

the corridor would be located in previously disturbed areas. The number of acres per vegetation type 

managed within the utility corridor is summarized in Table 4-11. 

TABLE 4-11 

ACREAGE OF VEGETATION TYPE IN UTILITY CORRIDOR 

FOR ALTERNATIVE C 

Acres of BLMManaged 

Surface Land 

Utility Corridor 

(BLM-Managed 

Surface Land 

Only)

Percent of BLMManaged 

Surface Land 

Population 

Utility Corridor 

(All Lands) 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 168,059 19,532 12 58,465 

Closed Basin Scrub 13,941 0 0 0

Coniferous And Mixed Woodland 143,686 0 0 0 

Desert Grassland 316,268 5,883 2 22,368 

Juniper Savanna (Ecotone) 324,153 0 0 0

Lava Beds 21,353 0 0 0

Montane Coniferous Forest 30,945 0 0 0

Montane Scrub 11,456 0 0 0

Plains-Mesa Grassland 258,389 0 0 0

Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 201,015 0 0 0

Urban, Farmland Or Open Water 15,518 2,794 18 14,545 

Totals: 1,504,783 28,209 2 95,378 

SOURCE: Dick Peddie 1993 

The types of impacts from forestry and woodland management under Alternative C would be the same as 

those under Alternative B, except more areas would be closed to woodcutting under Alternative C 

because commercial woodcutting is permitted only in areas with existing roads (no temporary roads could 

be constructed). Therefore, more vegetation would be protected under Alternative C than the other 

alternatives.

The emphasis on wildlife and water resources over grazing resource objectives under Alternative C may 

result in changes to grazing management in some areas. For example, range improvements might not be 

permitted in some special designations or would be built to suit resource objectives other than grazing. 

Although this management may result in some localized effects on vegetation, the overall difference in 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-65 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

impacts on vegetation from grazing compared to Alternative A may not be substantial, since BLM would 

manage public land to meet public land health standards regardless of alternative. 

The types of impacts on vegetation that would result from ground-disturbing activities associated with 

mineral exploration and development are the same as Alternative A. However, more vegetation would be 

protected from ground disturbance in areas closed to minerals leasing under Alternative C. Desert 

grassland, juniper savanna, and plains-mesa sand scrub would be most commonly protected; the number 

of acres per vegetation type managed for minerals leasing is summarized in Table 4-12. Some areas with 

lava beds in northwestern Catron County (additional to the acres noted in Table 4-12) would be managed 

under a controlled surface use lease stipulation. 

TABLE 4-12 

ACREAGE OF VEGETATION TYPE CLOSED TO FLUID MINERALS 

LEASING FOR ALTERNATIVE CA

Vegetation Type 

Acres on Federal 

Mineral Land 

Federal Mineral 

Estate Closed to 

Leasing 

Percent of 

Population 

on Federal 

Mineral

Estate 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 378,821 209,407 55

Closed Basin Scrub 122,868 86,147 70

Coniferous And Mixed Woodland 1,248,813 224,339 18 

Desert Grassland 585,991 305,555 52

Juniper Savanna (Ecotone) 1,020,984 253,756 25

Lava Beds 21,370* 21,395 100 

Montane Coniferous Forest 1,459,415 221,761 15

Montane Grassland 44,451 789 2

Montane Scrub 75,986 61,914 81

Plains-Mesa Grassland 546,079 117,817 22

Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 398,119 256,619 64

Subalpine Coniferous 131,501 69,629 53

Urban, Farmland or Open Water 41,777 15,663 37

Total 6,076,174 1,844,791 41

SOURCE: Dick-Peddie 1993 

NOTE: *The data on which these calculations are based do not include some additional lava beds in northwestern Catron County. 

These areas are addressed in the text, as appropriate. 

The number of acres available for coal leasing under Alternative C is the same as identified for 

Alternative B; therefore, the impacts would be the same. Approximately 484,133 acres would be excluded 

from mineral material disposal. In addition to the 11,408 acres managed as withdrawn from mineral entry, 

BLM would petition to withdraw approximately 497,391 acres of Federal mineral estate from mineral 

entry. More vegetation would be protected from impacts associated with vegetation loss due to mineral 

material extraction or locatable mineral development under Alternative C than the other alternatives. 

The impact types associated with management of recreation identified under Alternative C would be the 

same as those under Alternative A, although special designations managed to protect and manage 

recreation resources would total 27,780 acres. Management of the Datil Well, Quebradas Backcountry 

Byway, and Socorro Nature Area SRMAs would be the most restrictive of activities that result in grounddisturbance under Alternative C, as compared with all the other alternatives. The Gordy’s Hill SRMA 

would be managed to limit vehicle use to existing routes; this would limit further loss of vegetation when 

compared to the current management of open OHV use throughout the entire area. 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-66 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences 

April 2007 

The types of impacts from management associated with transportation identified under Alternative C 

would be the same for Alternatives A and B. In general, more vegetation would be protected under this 

alternative, because it includes the most acreage closed to OHV use (139,971 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land). Vegetation closely associated with designated or existing roads would be directly impacted 

in these areas, but vegetation further from these roads would be protected from further impact. The 

number of acres per vegetation type managed for transportation is summarized in Table 4-13. Some areas 

with lava beds in northwestern Catron County (additional to the acres noted in Table 4-13) would be 

managed as limited to designated routes, which would ensure that resource values that require protection 

would be closed to motorized travel through the transportation planning process. 

4.5.7 Wildlife, Riparian Habitat, and Special Status Species

The types of impacts from management of special designations to protect natural and cultural resources 

would be the same as those under Alternative A, but would apply to the greatest number of acres 

(336,609 acres) under Alternative C. In addition, Alternative C would result in more protective measures, 

stipulations and designations than any other alternative (see Table 4-1). 

Wildlife habitat would be managed much the same as in Alternative B, but with slightly more acreage 

managed under special designations focused on wildlife habitat and special status species (118,321 acres 

of BLM-managed surface land). The resulting effects on wildlife and riparian habitats would be the same 

with two exceptions that increase protection of wildlife. A 20-mile-wide buffer instead of a 10-mile-wide 

buffer would be established to exclude domestic sheep and goats from occupied and historic desert 

bighorn sheep habitat. Approximately 68,679 acres of Federal mineral estate underlying potential 

aplomado falcon habitat areas would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. Areas that meet criteria for 

aplomado falcon habitat would be subject to the management prescriptions described in Appendix L. Best 

management practices for special status species would also be followed to protect aplomado falcon 

habitat and other special status species. Potential aplomado falcon habitat areas on 63,808 acres of BLMmanaged surface land also would be excluded from right-of-way authorizations (an increase of 23,704 

acres over Alternative B). These measures to protect special status species would effectively protect 

wildlife habitat in general.

The type of impacts from management of visual resources would be the same as under Alternative A, 

although more acres of BLM-managed surface land would be managed as VRM Class I and II (742,799 

acres) and less land would be managed as VRM Class IV (513,997 acres). All proposed activities would 

be subject to NEPA analysis on a site-specific basis, and impacts on wildlife and special status species 

within the specific sites would be minimized and mitigated through the NEPA process. 

The types of impacts that would result from management of land and realty, such as construction of rightof-way or other land use authorizations, would be the same as Alternative A. However, more vegetation 

would be protected from the effects of these activities due to the expansion of right-of-way exclusion and 

avoidance areas to 1,135,152 acres, or 75 percent of BLM-managed surface land (an increase in 

protection in every habitat type from all other alternatives), which increases protection from the effects of 

surface disturbance (such as habitat fragmentation) in these areas (see Table 4-1). Rights-of-way 

constructed within the 2-mile-wide utility corridor would be more likely to affect desert scrub and desert 

grassland habitats located within the corridor. The effects resulting from land identified for disposal or to 

be retained and acquisition of nonpublic land would be the same as in Alternative B. However, compared 

with the other alternatives, the greater number of acres under this alternative identified for special 

designation could lead to the acquisition of more nonpublic land within and adjacent to special 

designations as the opportunity allows to consolidate areas for the best management potential. 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-67 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences April 2007 

TABLE 4-13 

ACREAGE OF VEGETATION TYPE ON BLM-MANAGED SURFACE LAND BY OHV 

AREA DESIGNATION FOR ALTERNATIVE CA

Vegetation Type 

Acres on 

BLMManaged 

Surface

Land

Closed to 

OHV

Percent of 

Population 

OHV Limited 

to Designated 

Roads 

Percent of 

Population 

OHV

Limited

to 

Existing 

Roads 

Percent of 

Population 

Open to 

CrossCountry 

Travel 

Percent of 

Population 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 168,059 18,528 11 66,532 40 82,999 49 0 0Closed Basin Scrub 13,941 0 0 6,717 48 7,224 52 0 0 Coniferous and Mixed Woodland 143,686 34,853 24 63,264 44 45,562 32 0 0 Desert Grassland 316,268 40,081 13 243,730 77 32,457 10 0 0 Juniper Savanna 324,153 32,569 10 106,980 33 184,599 57 0 0 Lava Beds 21,353* 0 0 21,353 100* 0 0 0 0 Montane Coniferous Forest 30,945 7,486 24 9,652 31 13,804 45 0 0 Montane Scrub 11,456 0 0 11,416 100 40 0 0 0 Plains-Mesa Grassland 258,389 1,985 1 216,208 84 40,189 16 0 0 Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 201,015 3,631 2 137,555 68 59,829 30 0 0 Urban, Farmland or Open Water 15,518 837 5 5,369 35 9,263 60 0 0Total 1,504,783 139,971 9 889,958 59 476,908 32 0 0

SOURCE: Dick-Peddie 1993 

NOTE: aAcreage based on best available GIS data. 

 The acre totals may not equal the calculations for area designations in Chapter 2, due to variations in datasets and calculation methods. 

*The data on which these calculations are based do not include some additional lava beds in northwestern Catron County. These areas are addressed in the text, as appropriate. 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-68 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Management of forests and woodland materials would be the same as under Alternative B, except that no 

new roads would be permitted for personal or commercial woodcutting, and personal use of plants or 

plant material sales would be permitted in designated areas and salvage areas only. In addition, any 

temporary access routes would be permitted and impacts mitigated on a project-by-project basis under the 

NEPA process. This would decrease the potential for loss or degradation of wildlife and riparian habitats, 

habitat fragmentation, edge effects, or disruption of local wildlife movement corridors. 

The types of effects on wildlife and riparian habitats as a result of mineral extraction would be similar to 

those described for Alternative A, although more areas (1,856,116 acres) would be closed to fluid mineral 

leasing (see Table 4-1). In addition, Alternative C would exclude the greatest number of acres from 

mineral material disposals. About 484,133 acres (32 percent of the BLM-managed surface land) would be 

excluded from saleable mineral material disposals, which represent a substantial increase in protection of 

habitats from surface disturbance over Alternatives A and B (see Table 4-1). Although protective 

measures increase in nearly every habitat type, the habitats with the greatest increase in protection would 

be plains-mesa sand scrub, juniper savanna, and desert grassland habitats, which support aplomado falcon 

and other native and special status wildlife species. Impacts on special status species are discussed in 

detail in the Biological Assessment for this RMPR, on file in the Socorro Field Office. Best management 

practices and the analysis under NEPA process would also be followed throughout the Planning Area for 

any projects that are proposed or implemented. 

The impact types associated with management of recreation identified under Alternative C would be the 

same as those under Alternative A, although special designations managed to protect and manage 

recreation resources would total 27,780 acres. Management of the Datil Well, Quebradas Backcountry 

Byway, and Socorro Nature Area SRMAs would be the most restrictive of activities that result in grounddisturbance under Alternative C, as compared with all the other alternatives, and the Gordy’s Hill SRMA 

would be managed to limit vehicle use to existing routes. These management actions would limit further 

loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, and edge effects when compared to the current management of 

cross-country travel throughout the entire area. 

Road construction or maintenance can lead to alteration of wildlife habitat, edge effects, and potential 

disruption of local wildlife movement corridors. The types of impacts associated with OHV use would be 

the same as those described for Alternative A, but substantially more public land would be closed to OHV 

use or placed under limitations (see Table 4-1). Additionally, OHV use would be limited in areas that 

meet criteria for aplomado falcon habitat. This would result in an increase in protection of wildlife 

habitats and special status species over Alternative A, especially in Chihuahuan desert scrub, juniper 

savanna, plains-mesa sand scrub, and desert grassland habitats. 

4.5.8 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

Impacts on fire management under this alternative would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B; however, additional acres likely would be restored to FRCC 1 from FRCC 2 or 3. If 

restoration efforts were to bring increased acres into FRCC 1, wildfires would generally be smaller and 

less intense. Restoration efforts would occur on more acres under this alternative than any of the others. 

Surface-disturbing activities, including fireline construction and hazardous fuels reduction, could be 

limited on a total of 336,609 acres (22 percent of BLM-managed surface land) as a result of special 

designations to protect natural and cultural resources, more than any other alternative (see Table 4-1). 

The incorporation of the former Agua Fria ACEC into the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC could present potential 

indirect impacts on fire management associated with the wildland-urban interface area directly to the 

north of the ACEC. These impacts would be similar but more widespread than those described for the 

Agua Fria ACEC under Alternative A because the expanded Zuni Salt Lake ACEC would be associated 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-69 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

with additional wildland-urban interface areas to the west. Although the Horse Mountain ACEC would be 

expanded under this alternative, the corresponding wildland-urban interface area to the north would not 

change. Therefore, potential indirect impacts associated with wildland-urban interface areas and 

designation of the Horse Mountain ACEC would be the same as those described under Alternative A. 

Similar to Alternatives A and B, hazardous fuels treatments that result in discernible changes in color, 

line, form, and texture within the landscape would be limited in VRM Class I and II areas, which would 

include 742,799 acres (49 percent of BLM-managed surface land) under Alternative C. 

The management of right-of-way exclusion areas would have similar but more widespread impacts than 

those under Alternatives A and B because of larger right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas (a total of 

1,135,220 acres). The impacts associated with designation of a north-south utility corridor would be the 

same as those described under Alternative B. Land disposal would have impacts similar to those under 

Alternative A, but would not be as widespread; 42, 913 acres (3 percent) of BLM-managed surface land 

would be designated for disposal, the fewest acres of any alternative (see Table 4-1). 

Restrictions on woodcutting would have the same effects as described under Alternative B. However, 

under Alternative C, areas excluded from woodcutting would include the Horse Mountain, Ladron 

Mountain, Pelona Mountain, and Zuni Salt Lake ACECs; Continental Divide and Town of Riley SMAs; 

and Datil Well SRMA. These areas total 284,758 acres (19 percent) of BLM-managed surface land.

Impacts from rangeland management would be similar to those under Alternative B. Fine fuels in areas 

where forage increases were reserved for watershed and wildlife needs would likely increase; this would 

result in a very slight increase in ignition potential and fire rate of spread.

The types of impacts associated with the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA would be similar 

to those under Alternative A, but would be applied over a larger area (11,755 acres) under this alternative. 

Under Alternative C, 139,971 acres of BLM-managed surface land (9 percent) would be closed to 

motorized travel, reducing the potential for ignition from motorized vehicles in more areas than 

Alternative A or B. Similar to Alternative B, the closure of 26 miles of roads outside special designations 

would indirectly limit the potential for human-caused ignitions along these roads. 

4.5.9 Cultural Resources 

The potential impacts of activities and projects associated with the management of cultural and natural 

resources under Alternative C would be similar to Alternative A and would be addressed as described for 

Alternative A. The heritage tourism goals and opportunities under Alternative C would be similar to those 

under Alternative B. 

Alternative C would maintain four of the eight SMAs designated under Alternative A specifically to 

protect cultural resources (Mockingbird Gap, Fort Craig, Playa Pueblos, and Town of Riley). The other 

four would be modified, as they would be under Alternative B. 

Alternative C would eliminate the Cerro Pomo SMA (which was designated to protect cultural and 

recreational resources), but would incorporate it into a greatly expanded Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. 

Alternative C also would expand the Tinajas ACEC more than Alternative B (7,767 acres compared to 

1,062 acres). A total of about 240,382 acres (16 percent) of BLM-managed surface land would be 

designated to protect cultural resources as a primary or secondary purpose. Under Alternative C, the total 

acreages of special designations would be higher than under any of the other alternatives, providing some 

increase in coincidental protection of cultural resources. 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-70 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

As described for Alternative B, Alternative C also provides more protection for cultural resources than 

Alternative A through modified management of the use of other resources on the public land. Compared 

to Alternative A, Alternative C would expand the acreage that would be managed within land allocations 

to minimize surface disturbance, with the overall effect of reducing potential effects on cultural resources 

over a greater area relative to the other alternatives. 

4.5.10 Paleontological Resources

Under Alternative C, the expansion of special designations for the protection of natural or cultural 

resources to 336,609 acres (97,673 acres more than Alternative A) would further protect resources from 

surface disturbance. Some areas with geologic formations with the potential for paleontological resources 

are included within ACECs and would receive protective management, including the following: 

x Horse Mountain ACEC 

x Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC (including areas containing paleontological 

resources)

x Pelona Mountain ACEC 

x Tinajas ACEC 

x Zuni Salt Lake ACEC (with some highly fossiliferous geologic units; includes the Cerro Pomo 

sites with important known paleontological resources) 

Alternative C would increase the area closed to OHV use to 139,971 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

(110,854 acres more than Alternative A), which would protect paleontological resources from surface 

disturbance that could degrade or damage resources. Similar to Alternative B, there would be no areas 

that are open to cross-country travel, which would limit OHV as a source of potential degradation relative 

to Alternative A.

4.5.11 Visual Resources

Under Alternative C, public land managed for the protection of natural and cultural resources within 

special designations would increase to 336,609 acres, and management to protect potential aplomado 

falcon habitat areas would be established on 63,808 acres of BLM-managed surface land. These measures 

would expand the areas managed to limit disturbances that could alter the natural landscape or impair 

experiences by sensitive viewers over both Alternatives A and B. 

Under Alternative C, public land identified for right-of-way exclusion and avoidance would increase to 

1,135,220 acres (or 75 percent) of BLM-managed surface land. Alternative C provides protection of 

natural landscapes by identifying more land as exclusion and avoidance areas than Alternatives A or B, 

which typically contributes to the enhancement or protection of scenic values within the natural landscape 

by minimizing right-of-way authorizations in those areas. However, though fewer acres would be open to 

development of rights-of-way, the actual amount of disturbance to scenic quality and sensitive viewers 

would depend on the type and location of facilities that are constructed. 

The types of potential impacts on scenic values and sensitive viewers from the designated utility corridor 

would be similar to Alternative B. However, the Alternative C corridor crosses fewer previously disturbed 

acres than Alternative B. 

Similar to Alternative A, any acquisitions that consolidate public land ownership would enhance 

management ability to preserve scenic quality in those areas. The disposal of public land in the future (of 

up to 42,913 acres) could affect viewsheds if disposed lands are developed; site-specific impacts and 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-71 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

mitigation would be identified during additional NEPA analysis when a disposal is proposed. The land 

identified as suitable for disposal decreased by 43,545 acres compared to Alternative A and land 

identified for retention increased to 1,461,191 acres (approximately 97 percent of BLM-managed surface 

land), which would increase BLM’s ability to manage visual resources compared to Alternatives A and B 

if more land is retained. 

The types of potential impacts on visual resources from mineral development activities would be similar 

to those described under Alternative A, except that Alternative C would close more mineral estate to fluid 

mineral leasing (1,856,116 acres), exclude mineral material disposals on 484,133 acres, and 497,391 acres 

of Federal mineral estate would be petitioned to be withdrawn from mineral entry, all of which would 

reduce the potential for future land disturbance. 

Mineral exploration and development activities adjacent to VRM Class I areas could impact distant views 

from within the Class I area. Alternative C designates 3,250 fewer acres as VRM Class I than 

Alternative A, although future NEPA analysis would be expected to identify appropriate mitigation 

measures for proposed projects and activities. 

Impacts associated with nonmotorized recreation would be the same as Alternative A. Under 

Alternative C, no BLM-managed surface land would be designated as open to cross-country travel and 

139,971 acres would be closed to OHV use. Visual impacts from OHV activity (related to vegetation 

disturbance and dust) would therefore be less widespread under Alternative C compared to Alternative A. 

Designating more land as limited or closed to OHV use than Alternative A also would allow areas that 

were previously subject to more intense use to revegetate back to natural landscape conditions. 

4.5.12 Cave and Karst Resources

Under Alternative C, the potential impacts on cave and karst resources would be similar to those under 

Alternative A, but special designations for the protection of natural or cultural resources would increase to 

336,609 acres (97,673 acres more than Alternative A) and could provide more coincidental protection of 

those resources. Similar to Alternative B, the elimination of areas open to cross-country travel may 

provide protection to some resources by reducing access to some areas. 

4.5.13 Wilderness Characteristics

The impacts on wilderness characteristics would be similar to Alternative B, but more land within WSAs 

would be closed to OHV use. Six WSAs would be completely closed to OHV travel—Antelope, Devil’s 

Reach, Horse Mountain, Presilla, Sierra de las Canas, and Veranito WSAs—totaling 54,429 acres (versus 

13,185 acres in Alternative A) (see maps in Appendix J). The reductions in motorized access due to route 

closures would enhance wilderness character. 

Impacts from designation of a north-south utility corridor would be similar to Alternative B, except the 

utility corridor identified under Alternative C is located further away from the Priscilla WSA. 

Similar to Alternative B, OHV use in the Gordy’s Hill SRMA could diminish wilderness characteristics 

in the Veranito WSA; activity in the intensely used OHV area has potential to generate enough dust and 

noise to affect the wilderness characteristics and recreation experience in that WSA. However, more 

intensive management within the SRMA would mitigate effects on and from OHV users. The Gordy’s 

Hill SRMA would not be adjacent to the Presilla WSA under Alternative C. 

A summary of how these WSAs would be managed should they be released from wilderness review is 

provided in Table 2-3. 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-72 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

4.5.14 Lands and Realty 

Under Alternative C, the BLM-managed surface land within right-of-way exclusion areas would total 

716,100 acres of BLM-managed surface land. About 419,120 acres would be managed as right-of-way 

avoidance areas, where land use authorizations would be permitted within limited dimensions. The 

overall effect of management would be to increase the acreage that would be excluded from right-of-way 

authorizations by 676,952 acres over the area in Alternative A. 

The expansion of right-of-way exclusion areas under Alternative C could affect the ability to develop 

facilities on adjacent land or in some communities. Expanded right-of-way exclusion areas in areas with 

checkerboard ownership patterns, near rural residential areas near I-25, and in the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC 

could experience these limitations. In addition, under Alternative C the utility corridor would cross rightof-way exclusion and avoidance areas that may be incompatible with the purpose of the corridor. 

Although less land is identified as suitable for disposal under Alternative C than under Alternative A, a 

decrease of 43,545 acres, this management would not impact existing and planned land uses within the 

resource area. If a disposal is proposed, additional NEPA analysis would evaluate the potential effects on 

land uses that would be relevant to the specific parcel and circumstances. 

More land would be managed as VRM Class I and II areas relative to Alternative A (742,799 versus 

416,124 acres), but this management would not be expected to effectively prohibit particular land uses 

since mitigation for any future proposed projects would be applied on a site-specific basis to promote 

compliance with the visual resource management objectives. 

Under Alternative C, more area would be closed to fluid mineral leasing than under Alternative A 

(1,856,116 acres versus 1,418,415 acres of mineral estate). Because the RFD predicts land requirements 

for fluid mineral development to be less than 700 acres, it is anticipated that there would be adequate land 

available for leasing to meet demand. (Note: the availability of land with high potential for fluid minerals 

is described in the Minerals section.) 

The land identified as suitable for coal leasing under Alternative C is the same as under Alternative B. 

However, the expanded right-of-way exclusion area associated with the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC would 

effectively limit the development of this area by excluding any additional right-of-way authorizations. 

Under Alternative C, the majority of BLM-managed surface land in the Planning Area would be open for 

mineral material disposals; 32 percent (484,133 acres of BLM-managed surface land) would be excluded 

from such uses. However, impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A because the 

relatively small amount of land identified in the RFD would be readily available, and mitigation measures 

would be identified during NEPA analysis. Additionally, although no areas are formally excluded under 

Alternative A, of the exclusion areas identified for Alternative C, 291,826 acres are within WSAs, and 

would be managed under the Interim Management Policy, which generally disallows activities that would 

be incompatible with the nonimpairment criteria. 

More public land would be closed to OHV use relative to Alternative A (171,406 versus 29,117 acres), 

and Alternative C also would result in a substantial reduction in the acreage that is designated as open to 

cross-country travel (reducing to 0 acres from 851,234 acres under Alternative A). Indirect impacts from 

OHV-related noise and dust would be confined to areas along existing or designated routes. The 

additional areas that would be designated as closed or limited to designated routes could result in loss of 

access for some uses, particularly some types of recreation. About 209 miles of roads and trails would be 

closed, which would result in negligible impact on land uses (beyond those described in the wilderness 

characteristics and recreation sections). 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-73 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

4.5.15 Forestry and Woodland Management

Impacts on forest health under this alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative B. 

However, this alternative would have greater potential to maintain and/or improve forest and woodland 

structure over the long-term than either Alternative A or B due to an emphasis on restoration. The degree 

of benefit would depend on the number of acres restored to FRCC 1 from FRCC 2 or 3. Where successful 

restoration brought increased acres into FRCC 1, wildfires would generally be smaller and less intense, 

resulting in a lower risk of fires within these areas spreading into adjacent forests and causing tree 

mortality. Fires that do spread into adjacent forests would likely be smaller, less intense fires that promote 

a natural maintenance of forest ecosystems through a key ecological process. 

Surface-disturbing activities within areas managed for wildlife habitat would be more restricted under this 

alternative than Alternatives A or B. In contrast to Alternative B, woodcutting would be excluded 

throughout the Ladron Mountain, Horse Mountain, and Pelona Mountain ACECs. Vegetative material 

sales would be excluded throughout the Pelona Mountain and Horse Mountain ACECs and most of the 

Ladron Mountain ACEC. Impacts from vegetative material sales that take place inside the Ladron 

Mountain ACEC would be the same as those described for Alternative B. Woodcutting and timber sales 

would be excluded on a total of 284,758 acres (19 percent of BLM-managed surface land) as a result of 

these designations. Vegetative plant material sales would be excluded on 62,666 acres within specially 

designated areas plus the area within a 1/4-mile of the Quebradas Backcountry Byway. 

Impacts associated with surface disturbance and alteration of the plant community due to vegetative plant 

material sales would still occur within the Ladron Mountain ACEC. The exclusion of timber sales and 

woodcutting in areas designated for wildlife management would reduce the areas available for the agency 

to generate income from the harvest of forest products. 

Impacts on forests and woodland from VRM Class I designated areas would be similar to those described 

under Alternative B. However, VRM Class II areas would total 715,706 acres, or 48 percent of BLMmanaged surface land compared with 17 percent under Alternative A and 32 percent under Alternative B 

(see Table 4-1). 

Impacts on forest and woodland resources associated with right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas 

and mineral development would be similar to those described under Alternative A. However, 

approximately 367,488 acres of forested BLM-managed surface land would be designated as right-of-way 

exclusion and avoidance areas, limiting surface-disturbing activities in more areas than Alternatives A 

or B. 

Impacts associated with woodland management and commercial woodcutting would be similar to those 

described under Alternative B. However, there would be less potential for impacts on forest and 

woodland soils under this alternative than under either Alternatives B or D because no new roads would 

be constructed. In addition, restoration activities would emphasize wildland fire use and prescribed fire 

and less emphasis would be placed on mechanical fuels treatments under this alternative. 

Personal-use plant or plant materials sales would have similar, but less widespread, impacts compared to 

those described under Alternative B because plant material sales would be permitted in designated areas 

and salvage areas only. These activities could take place in fewer areas that meet identified criteria 

depending on public demand compared to Alternative B. 

There would be five SRMAs, one ACEC, and one SMA designated to manage and protect recreational 

resources under this alternative. Of the areas designated, only three have forest resources that could be 

impacted. Woodcutting would be excluded from both the Datil Well SRMA and Continental Divide 

National Scenic Trail SMA; therefore, surface-disturbing activities associated with woodcutting would be 

reduced in these areas. 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-74 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

4.5.16 Rangeland Management

Generally, the impacts on grazing from water-control measures (such as erosion control structures like 

spreader dams or retention structures), vegetation treatments, or rehabilitation of identified sites would be 

the same as those Alternative A. However, special designations for the protection of natural or cultural 

resources, which are more likely to be subject to this management, would be increased to a total of 

336,609 acres of BLM-managed surface land. In addition, management decisions regarding forage 

increases and range improvements would prioritize wildlife and watershed needs over livestock. While 

Alternative C could result in a reduced number of range projects for improving conditions for livestock, it 

would not reduce or restrict the current stocking rates. However, by prioritizing watershed health and not 

increasing animal units per month (AUMs) for livestock, overall range conditions are likely to improve at 

a faster rate. Improving the overall range conditions of an allotment would indirectly result in long-term 

impacts by reducing the potential for not meeting or making progress toward upland and riparian 

standards, which would also decrease the potential for future AUM reductions, restrictions, or exclusions. 

Under Alternative C, the area excluded to domestic sheep and goat use would be larger than in 

Alternative B because the exclusion would be applied to a larger (20-mile) buffer area around bighorn 

sheep habitat in the Ladron Mountain ACEC. However, as described for Alternative B, there would be no 

impact on current conditions. The former allotment 1152 would continue to be closed to livestock 

grazing. Impacts on grazing from management for heritage tourism would be the same as Alternative B. 

Substantially more acreage would be managed as right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas under 

Alternative C (1,135,220 acres) than under Alternative A (498,144 acres). The potential for noise and 

other disturbances from activity and infrastructure within rights-of-way and utility corridors would 

therefore be reduced in those areas, as would the impacts on available forage. However, by limiting the 

area available for rights-of-way authorizations, access roads also would be limited. 

Potential effects on grazing from land acquisition and disposal would be the same as Alternative A, since 

any acquisitions likely would be part of an existing grazing allotment and mitigation would be identified 

as part of the NEPA analysis. Impacts from woodland harvesting and vegetation sales would be the same 

as Alternative B, except that Alternative C would place greater restrictions on access. 

Alternative C generally excludes more mineral estate from mineral leasing and development than any 

other alternative. Overall, this alternative would result in the fewest short-term direct (i.e. disturbances 

associated with construction such as noise, accessibility of forage) and the most long-term indirect 

impacts (less competition with other uses if mineral activities are excluded) for livestock grazing of the 

four alternatives. 

Impacts from dispersed, nonmotorized recreational activity would be the same as Alternative A. OHV use 

would be limited substantially in comparison to Alternative A; therefore, direct impacts associated with 

forage loss and livestock disturbance, and indirect impacts associated with invasive species and wildfire 

would be reduced in areas where motorized travel is excluded (139,971 acres, 110,854 more than under 

Alternative A) or restricted to designated or existing routes (1,366,866 acres, 803,965 more than under 

Alternative A), resulting in fewer impacts on livestock grazing than Alternative A. 

4.5.17 Minerals

Closures to fluid mineral leasing would exclude those areas from extraction of resources such as oil, gas, 

carbon dioxide, and helium, and fluid mineral leasing stipulations that control surface use and limit 

surface occupancy could increase the cost and difficulty of exploration and development of fluid mineral 

resources to a point where these activities become economically infeasible. The effect of placing a nosurface-occupancy stipulation over large areas would have the same effects as described for 

Alternative A. However, under Alternative C, 1,856,116 acres of federal mineral estate would be closed 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-75 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

to leasing, which includes 1,418,415 acres of nondiscretionary closures and an additional 437,701 acres 

compared with Alternative A. Lease stipulations would be attached to 947,044 acres of Federal mineral 

estate (an additional 211,044 acres over Alternative A). Under Alternative C, the overall effect would be 

to close more Federal land to fluid mineral development and increase the management restrictions 

associated with natural and cultural resources protection. 

Of the acreage proposed for closure to fluid mineral leasing, 315,490 acres of Federal mineral estate are 

located within northwest Catron County, an area of cultural significance to the Zuni Tribe and other 

tribes. This area also has moderate potential for oil and gas resources. Overall, closed areas overlap with 

1,022,038 acres of moderate potential for oil and gas (or 25 percent of moderate potential areas in the 

Planning Area). The remainder are areas of low potential for these resources. 

In September and October 2003, active leasing of State land occurred in this area driven by the discovery 

of economic carbon dioxide and helium resources in eastern Apache County, Arizona and westernmost 

Catron County, New Mexico. For example, Ridgeway Petroleum has 280,000 acres of State and fee land 

leased in the St. John’s field, with estimated reserves of 14 trillion cubic feet of carbon dioxide and 

64 billion cubic feet of helium (Ridgeway Petroleum Corporation 2002). Under Alternative C, 135,578 

acres of high potential for carbon dioxide and helium resources would be closed to fluid mineral leasing 

(or 42 percent of high potential areas) and 722,982 acres of moderate potential would be closed (or 19 

percent of moderate potential areas in the Planning Area). 

Approximately 484,133 acres of BLM-managed surface land would be excluded from mineral material 

disposal. Discounting the WSAs managed under the Interim Management Policy, which generally 

disallows activities that would be incompatible with the nonimpairment criteria, this is an increase in 

restrictions of 192,307 acres over Alternative A. These restrictions would result in localized impacts on 

the ability to extract saleable resources. However, the overall availability of salable mineral resources for 

extraction from public land would not be compromised, because mineral materials deposits are available 

in moderate to high potential areas throughout BLM-managed surface land.

To protect wildlife, vegetation, and cultural resources, 497,391 additional acres of Federal mineral estate 

would be petitioned for withdrawal from mineral entry. The change in acreage is due to the proposed 

withdrawal in the entire Ladron Mountain ACEC, a larger Zuni Salt Lake ACEC, and 400 acres within 

The Box SRMA. If these proposed withdrawals are completed, the two proposed ACEC withdrawals 

would exclude mining from areas with high potential for leaseable and locatable mineral resources. The 

impact on the ability to develop coal resources is the same as for Alternative B. 

Decisions about access and realty could indirectly encourage or restrict exploration and development of 

mineral resources in a similar way as described for Alternative A, except under Alternative C the 

exclusions and restrictions on right-of-way and access increase. Under Alternative C, a total of 

1,135,220 acres of BLM-managed surface land would be managed as right-of-way exclusion or avoidance 

areas (an increase of 637,076 acres over Alternative A). A total of 139,971 acres would be closed to OHV 

(an increase of 110,854 acres over Alternative A) and 889,958 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

would be limited to designated routes (an increase over Alternative A). The expansion of areas with 

restrictions on access could affect the ability to develop the infrastructure needed to explore and develop 

mineral resources in some areas. The impacts associated with the land acquisitions would be the same as 

Alternative A. 

4.5.18 Recreation

Impacts from management of cave and karst resources, visual resources, and natural and cultural 

resources under Alternative C are similar to Alternative A. However, the extent and specific locations 

where ground-disturbing activities could occur would decrease because more acreage (approximately 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-76 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

336,609 acres overall) would be managed within special designations. More acres also would be 

identified as VRM Classes I and II (742,799 acres). The expansion of management to protect existing 

resources under this alternative would provide the most support for opportunities for primitive types of 

recreation (e.g., sightseeing, hiking, backpacking, and opportunities for solitude), while potentially 

diminishing more opportunities for motorized recreation. 

Under Alternative C, approximately 47 percent of BLM-managed surface land would be allocated as a 

right-of-way exclusion area and approximately 28 percent would be allocated as a right-of-way avoidance 

area (refer to Table 4-1). The exclusion or restriction of new rights-of-way across 75 percent of BLMmanaged surface land in the Decision Area would increase protections supportive of primitive or semiprimitive recreation. In areas where rights-of-way would be authorized (up to 25 percent of BLMmanaged surface land), the resulting impacts would be similar as described for Alternative A. 

Authorization of rights-of-way would not be expected to result in the loss of recreational opportunities 

throughout the Planning Area, though there could be some localized, negligible impacts (e.g., 

displacement during development of the right-of-way). 

Impacts on recreational opportunities from land acquisition or disposal would be similar to Alternative B. 

Under Alternative C, only 3 percent of BLM-managed surface land would be identified as suitable for 

disposal (3 percent less than Alternative A or B). Therefore, any effects on recreation uses or 

opportunities from land disposal would be negligible. 

Impacts on recreation from fluid mineral leasing would be the same as Alternative B, except that less 

acreage would be open to leasing and there would be a greater emphasis on resource protection. Impacts 

on recreation from leasing for coal development and the exclusion of mineral material disposals (about 

484,133 acres) would be the same as Alternative B due to the relatively small amount of disturbance 

expected based on the RFD. 

Under Alternative C, OHV use area designations and impacts would be similar to Alternative B, although 

more area (approximately 11 percent of BLM-managed surface land) would be closed to OHV travel 

compared to 8 percent under Alternative B and 2 percent under Alternative A (see Table 4-1). The 

additional areas designated as closed under Alternative C are within WSAs and generally were designated 

as limited in Alternative B, resulting in similar impacts as Alternative B (Appendix J). Based on the 

change from limited to closed, there would be displacement of existing OHV uses in these areas to other 

areas and/or routes, but the closure of these areas also would provide increased opportunities for primitive 

recreation and solitude within the WSAs. 

4.5.19 Renewable Energy

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except the management to minimize the intensity and location 

of surface-disturbing activities would be expanded over a larger area of special designations for the 

protection of natural or cultural resources (336,609 acres of BLM-managed surface land, or 97,673 acres 

more than Alternative A). In addition, right-of-way exclusion areas would be increased by 676,952 acres 

to total 716,100 acres of BLM-managed surface land. As stated for Alternative A, these effects would be 

most relevant in areas of moderate to high wind, solar, and biomass resource potential (identified in the 

February 2005 Management Situation Analysis). 

Management of VRM Class I and II areas could affect the placement of or required mitigation for 

renewable energy facilities as described for Alternative A, but the acreage managed under these VRM 

classes would be expanded to 742,799 acres (326,675 acres over Alternative A). 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-77 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

4.5.20 Transportation and Travel Management

Management to protect natural or cultural resources associated with special designations would be applied 

to additional acreage under Alternative C (for a total of 336,609 acres of BLM-managed surface land 

compared with 238,936 acres under Alternative A). New limitations placed on existing uses and access 

could cause the diversion of travel to other routes, affecting the intensity of use on nearby routes or 

causing the development of additional unauthorized routes to accommodate demand. Restrictions would 

not be expected to affect overall travel throughout the Planning Area because of the relatively low acreage 

that would be impacted. 

The types of impacts from land and realty management under Alternative C would be similar to those 

described in Alternative A except that management of right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas would 

be applied to about 75 percent of the surface land managed by BLM (1,135,220 acres). The remaining 25 

percent of BLM-managed surface land would be open for rights-of-way subject to additional NEPA 

analysis, allowing for establishment of additional motorized access routes. This could result in potential 

increases in access and motorized vehicles uses in the open areas, but much less than under Alternative A 

or B. Similar to Alternative A, authorization of rights-of-way would not be expected to result in the loss 

of transportation uses or motorized access throughout the Planning Area, though there could be some 

localized, negligible impacts (e.g., displacement during development of the right-of-way). Impacts would 

be similar to those described under Alternative A regarding land tenure adjustments, with the exception 

that 5 percent of BLM-managed surface land could be disposed (compared to 6 percent in Alternative A). 

The types of impacts from minerals management would be similar to those described under Alternative A, 

in that new public access typically accompanies mineral development. However, the specific areas where 

localized impacts could occur would vary due to the increased areas closed to fluid mineral leasing and 

identified exclusion areas for mineral material disposals compared to Alternatives A and B. Impacts 

associated with the areas available for coal leasing would be the same as described for Alternative B. 

Impacts from transportation and travel management would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B except that this alternative would provide for 184 miles of route closures within WSAs, 

compared to about 162 miles in Alternative B (Appendix J). Impacts from route closures outside of 

WSAs would be the same as Alternative B. 

4.5.21 Social and Economic Conditions

Under Alternative C, areas managed to protect natural or cultural resources within special designations 

would be expanded to 336,609 acres, a 41 percent increase over Alternative A. The types of 

socioeconomic impacts from this management would be similar to those described under Alternative B. 

Although Alternative C would provide greater protection of the natural landscape and cultural resources 

via expanded management to minimize surface disturbance, the incremental socioeconomic effects would 

be expected to be minimal. 

The socioeconomic impacts on Zuni Salt Lake as a sociocultural resource would be the same as 

Alternative B, with the exception that the much larger Zuni Salt Lake ACEC would create a larger buffer 

around the lake within which changes to the landscape on public land would be limited. Although this 

could contribute to maintaining the visual and natural landscape, the effects could be limited by uses that 

would occur on nonfederal land in the area. 

The types of socioeconomic impacts associated with right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas would 

be similar to those described under Alternative B, except that right-of-way exclusion areas would be 

expanded to 716,100 acres. Under Alternative C, the effects of increased costs on utility companies would 

be more pronounced if the expanded restrictions on right-of-way approval further limit the options for 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-78 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

locating needed facilities. Given that the anticipated right-of-way demand is not expected to grow 

substantially, the incremental effect of Alternative C over Alternative B may be negligible. 

Under Alternative C, socioeconomic impacts associated with the utility corridor would be the same as 

Alternative B. Socioeconomic impacts associated with land acquisition and disposal would be the same as 

Alternative A. 

The types of impacts associated with closure of an area to fluid mineral leasing or withdrawal from 

location and entry under the mining laws would be the same as described for Alternative B. However, 

under Alternative C, 437,701 additional acres would be closed to fluid mineral leasing and the BLM 

would petition to withdraw an additional 495,883 acres compared to Alternative A. About 135,578 acres 

of high potential for carbon dioxide and helium and 1,022,038 acres of medium potential for oil and gas 

are included within areas that would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. In these areas, the closures would 

eliminate the possibility of capitalizing on economic opportunities to extract these fluid minerals. 

Socioeconomic impacts associated with the land identified as potentially suitable for coal leasing are the 

same as Alternative B. 

The additional acreage that would be excluded from mineral material disposals would result in localized 

socioeconomic impacts if mineral sources proximate to roadway projects or other sites where those 

minerals are utilized would be unavailable. However, the overall effect would be limited because the 

fairly small RFD suggests that adequate resources would be available to meet demand throughout the 

Planning Area. 

Socioeconomic impacts related to vegetative sales would be the same as Alternative B. 

Similar to Alternative A, management of public land would continue to provide opportunities for grazing 

and would result in the sustainable management of grazing (through adherence to public land health 

standards). This supports the continued viability of ranching, an important component of local economies. 

The expansion of the area that would be closed to domestic sheep and goats would not impact existing 

conditions, similarly to Alternatives A and B. Localized impacts would occur as areas where grazing 

would be excluded are expanded. However, the small portion of BLM’s Decision Area and the allotments 

on it that would be affected suggests that the overall socioeconomic effect on grazing operations that rely 

on public land grazing would be limited. 

Although the acreage that would be managed within special designations for recreation would be reduced 

under Alternative C, opportunities for recreation within more primitive settings would be enhanced as a 

result of management efforts to enhance protection of natural resources. Therefore, the type of 

socioeconomic effects from recreation use would be similar to Alternative B. However, localized impacts 

on OHV users would occur due to greater restrictions on access under Alternative C. Because non-market 

values associated with protection of resources have a tendency to be more regional or national issues (i.e., 

special interest groups), this alternative potentially would be perceived as having the greatest social value 

among these interest groups. 

4.5.22 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice considerations would be similar to Alternative B, although the closures to fluid 

mineral leasing and planned petitions to withdraw areas from location and entry under the mining laws 

would be expanded to encompass a larger area. As a result, the economic effects on local low-income 

communities described for Alternative B would have a more pronounced effect with regard to lost 

opportunities for local economies to the extent that additional high and moderate potential areas are 

restricted from development. 
Action Alternative – Alternative C 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-79 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Impacts on Zuni Salt Lake would disproportionately affect the Zuni Tribe, for whom the lake is a 

significant religious and historic resource. Under Alternative C, no impacts on Zuni Salt Lake are 

anticipated, and the expanded ACEC would provide an additional buffer within which surface disturbance 

would not occur that could impact the landscape. 

4.6 ALTERNATIVE D 

4.6.1 Summary of Management Direction

Alternative D emphasizes commodity production and use, including mineral leasing and mineral material 

sales, grazing, commercial recreation and tourism, and woodland-products harvesting. Under 

Alternative D, constraints on commodity production would be the least restrictive while still complying 

with applicable law, regulation, and BLM policy. Potential impacts on sensitive resources would be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A summary of Alternative D also is provided in Table 2-1, Chapter 2, 

while a summary of management prescriptions for ACECs and SMAs in Alternative D is provided in 

Table 2-2. 

4.6.2 Summary of Aggregate Effects of Alternative D

Alternative D is the alternative most oriented towards commodity production in BLM’s Decision Area. 

However, management within special designations would result in protected or enhanced habitat due to 

the combination of restrictive management that would be applied in those areas and monitoring to ensure 

public land is moving toward or meeting the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines. Under 

Alternative D, acreages that would be managed to minimize various types of surface use are identified in 

Table 4-1. 

Generally, the effects of minimizing surface disturbance through these land allocations would occur over 

a much smaller area in Alternative D than in Alternative B or C. Alternatives A and D have similar 

effects, with the exceptions of no closed OHV areas under Alternative D and more right-of-way exclusion 

areas under Alternative D. In addition, special designations to protect sensitive resources are expanded in 

Alternative D over Alternative A, with the expanded Cerro Pomo ACEC, Tinajas ACEC, and Newton 

Site SMA. Several impacts would be expected as the result of these variations. Impacts that could result 

from overall increases in areas where motorized travel is permitted could result in increased particulate 

and engine exhaust emissions; increased potential for soil erosion, sediment transport across public land 

and water quality degradation, and vegetation loss; and greater potential for conflicts with wildlife. 

However, impacts associated with OHV use could vary depending on the intensity and frequency of use 

as well as the type of vehicle and the type of soils in a particular location. The expansion of protective 

management would reduce access and subsequently the potential for vandalism at Newton Site, and 

reduce access to the pueblos and other cultural resources within Cerro Pomo. 

Management of aplomado falcon habitat would be similar to Alternative A, with protection occurring 

largely through statutory compliance. Although this management is expected to result in measures to 

identify potential site-specific impacts and mitigation to protect the aplomado falcon, Alternative D does 

not include the type of use restrictions to avoid surface disturbance in potential habitat areas as in 

Alternatives B and C. The higher acreages of Federal land identified for disposal could result in increased 

land use intensity and edge effects, which in turn may result in habitat fragmentation, degradation, and 

disruption of wildlife movement corridors. 

Similarly to the other alternatives, the management under Alternative D would still accommodate diverse 

resource uses. Access for motorized recreation would be most extensive under Alternative D. Overall, this 

would enhance recreation opportunities for OHV users and others who use OHV (such as hunters), and 

primitive and semi-primitive settings would still be available throughout the Planning Area. 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-80 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

4.6.3 Air Quality

Discernable effects on air quality from management of natural resources under Alternative D would not 

differ substantially from Alternative B. Expansion of the Pelona Mountain ACEC to 34,547 acres would 

involve fewer acres under this alternative than Alternatives B and C, but the change in acreage managed 

in this ACEC still would represent about a 32 percent increase compared to Alternative A. Even this more 

limited increase may serve to improve the protection of air quality in the Gila Wilderness Class I area, 

located to the south.

There is a marked increase in the linear mileage of utility corridor designation under Alternative D. These 

corridors may be found suitable for utility, pipeline, or roadway development, to support a generally 

increased level of commodity production activity. The potential for additional surface-disturbing activities 

under Alternative D could result in more incremental direct effects on air quality in localized areas along 

the corridors compared with Alternative A, based on air pollutant emission factors described in Section 

4.3.3. However, as previously noted, impacts from construction generally would be limited to the actual 

period of construction and to an extent of less than 1 mile surrounding an activity. 

Over time, the aggregated particulate and engine exhaust emissions throughout the Planning Area would 

be expected to increase under Alternative D as compared to Alternative A, as the reduction in crosscountry OHV use would not offset the increase in the acreage open to existing routes. Generally, 

Alternative D allows for a general increase over Alternatives B and C in the acreage open to existing 

routes; and a decrease in acreage open to cross-country OHV use compared to Alternative A (see 

Table 4-1). Alternative D does not designate any areas as closed to OHV use.

4.6.4 Geology

Use restrictions within special designations to protect natural, cultural, and recreational resources would 

protect geological resources on 149,478 acres; this provides protection over a larger area than 

Alternative A, which includes 128,555 acres of special designations (not including areas of overlap with 

WSAs).

The potential for localized disturbances to geologic resources from dispersed recreation activities such 

rock-climbing or mountain-climbing would be the same as described for Alternative A. 

4.6.5 Soil and Water Resources

Similar to Alternative A, the application of best management practices and other mitigation that would be 

identified during additional NEPA analysis would address the potential for site-specific impacts on soils 

from surface-disturbing activities. Alternative D would increase the protection for soil and water 

resources by expanding the special designations for the protection of natural or cultural resources to 

149,478 acres, an increase of 20,923 acres (16 percent) over Alternative A when overlap with WSAs are 

discounted. The expansion of right-of-way exclusion areas to 301,081(an additional 261,933 acres over 

Alternative A) and areas closed to fluid mineral leasing to 1,419,456 acres of Federal mineral estate (an 

additional 1,041 acres) would reduce erosion and increase soil infiltration and productivity in those areas. 

Areas associated with fluid minerals leasing stipulations would include 785,484 acres, 49,484 acres more 

than under Alternative A. The increase of right-of-way exclusion areas is largely due to the increased 

protection in WSAs. 

Under Alternative D, the 4,839-acre Zuni Salt Lake SMA would be replaced with a 2,107-acre ACEC. 

The difference in acreage between Alternatives A and D is the result of eliminating the area of overlap 

with WSAs. Management of the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC under Alternative D would produce the same 

effect on soil and water resources as management under Alternative A, although the additional limitation 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-81 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

on motorized travel (since travel would be limited to designated routes under Alternative D, rather than 

limited to existing routes under Alternative A) would reduce the likelihood of localized soil disturbance. 

The establishment of four utility corridors under Alternative D would increase the vulnerability of soil 

and water resources within those corridors, but co-location of facilities within the corridors could result in 

an overall decrease in soil disturbance on BLM-managed surface land, as compared with Alternative A. 

The potential for soil disturbance in sensitive areas would increase where corridors would overlap with 

special designations. 

Management of visual resources under Alternative D would designate 354,222 acres as VRM Class II 

areas, and there would be no VRM Class I designations (versus 30,343 Class I areas and 385,781 Class II 

areas under Alternative A). Though more area would be managed as one of the two classifications under 

Alternative D, Class I areas under Alternative A would receive greater protection against change to the 

existing vegetation and terrain (and related effects on soil and watershed resources).

The effects of the management of commercial and personal-use woodcutting would be the same as 

Alternative B. The effects on soils and water resources from grazing are addressed as part of the 

Vegetation discussion (Section 4.6.6). 

Impacts associated with the identification of about 3,200 acres as potentially suitable for coal leasing 

would be the same as Alternative B. Under Alternative D, about 291,859 acres of BLM-managed surface 

land would be excluded from mineral material disposals. However, with the exception of the Tinajas 

ACEC (22 acres) and 11 acres with Penjeacu SMA, these areas coincide with WSAs that are already 

managed as de facto exclusion areas in accordance with the Interim Management Policy. Therefore, the 

effects of this management would be the same as Alternative A. 

Management of OHV use under Alternative D would designate fewer areas as open to OHV use relative 

to Alternative A (0 versus 851,234 acres under Alternative A), and the acreage with limitations on OHV 

use to designated or existing routes would increase (to about 1.5 million acres, or all BLM-managed 

surface land versus 562,901 acres under Alternative A). The more restrictive management in some areas 

would result in reduced impacts from soil disturbance, including soil loss and erosion. No land would be 

closed to OHV use (versus 29,117 acres under Alternative A). The return of motorized travel to these 

areas could increase soil loss and affect water quality; the degree of impact would depend upon the 

frequency, duration, and intensity of travel that occurs in the area. 

OHV use would have potential to impact two streams in the Planning Area that are on the Clean Water 

Act 303 (d) list: Alamosa Creek for sedimentation/siltation; and the East Fork of the Gila River for 

chronic aluminum. Probable sources of aluminum impairment are OHV use, other recreation uses, 

silviculture practices, and fire suppression. The probable source of impairment in the Alamosa Creek is a 

low water crossing where vehicles drive through the creek, directly impacting soil and water resources. 

Twice as many vehicle miles would be designated as open within WSAs compared to Alternative B (see 

Appendix J), which would increase the potential for soil erosion due to vehicle disturbance in these areas. 

The degree and pattern of this impact would depend on the location, intensity, and type of motorized 

travel on open routes. 

4.6.6 Vegetation

Management in critical watershed areas would protect vegetation by reducing erosion and improving 

water quality within those watersheds. The types of impacts on vegetation associated with management in 

special designations to minimize surface disturbance would be the same as described under Alternative A. 

However, more vegetation would be protected from surface disturbance within special designations to 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-82 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

protect natural and cultural resources, a total of 149,478 acres under Alternative D, 16 percent more than 

Alternative A if areas of overlap with WSAs are discounted. The types of impacts associated with visual 

resource management would be the same as those that would occur under Alternative A, although no land 

would be managed as VRM Class I and Class II land would total 354,222 acres. 

The types of impacts from realty decisions identified under Alternative A would be the same under this 

alternative, although the least amount of vegetation would be protected from surface-disturbing activities 

associated with right-of-way development under Alternative D compared to all other alternatives. Desert 

grassland would be the most common vegetation type in right-of-way exclusion areas. In avoidance areas, 

desert grassland juniper savanna would be most represented. The number of acres per vegetation type 

managed as exclusion and avoidance areas is summarized in Table 4-14. Some areas with lava beds in 

northwestern Catron County (additional to the acres noted in Table 4-13) would be available for right-ofways; however, additional mitigation measures would be identified during the required NEPA analysis. 

Four utility corridors identified by the Western Utility Group Corridor Study would be proposed under 

this alternative. Construction in these utility corridors would result in a direct loss of vegetation due to 

ground-disturbing activities. As summarized in Table 4-15, 11 percent of vegetation on BLM-managed 

surface land would be in the utility corridors, of which urban or open water (previously disturbed areas 

along I-25 corridor), desert grassland, and Chihuahuan desert scrub would potentially be the most 

impacted. One of the proposed utility corridors would cross lava beds in northwestern Catron County. 

More land is identified for disposal under Alternative D (up to 212,323 acres) than all the other 

alternatives, which could result in a direct loss of vegetation currently managed by the BLM. Impacts 

related to land acquisition would be the same as Alternative A. 

The impacts of forestry and woodland management under Alternative D would be same as those 

identified under Alternative B, while the types of effects from grazing would be the same as 

Alternative A.

TABLE 4-14 

ACREAGE OF VEGETATION TYPE IN RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) EXCLUSION AND 

AVOIDANCE AREAS FOR ALTERNATIVE DA

Vegetation Type 

Acres of 

BLMManaged 

Surface Land 

Right-ofWay

Exclusion

Percent of 

population 

Right-ofWay

Avoidance

Percent of 

population 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 168,059 12,434 7 34,660 21 

Closed Basin Scrub 13,941 1,072 8 3,076 22 

Coniferous And Mixed Woodland 143,686 44,006 31 22,265 15 

Desert Grassland 316,268 88,756 28 42,849 14 

Juniper Savanna 324,153 51,240 16 44,504 14 

Lava Beds 21,353* 21,353 100* 0 0 

Montane Coniferous Forest 30,945 7,483 24 3,423 11 

Montane Scrub 11,456 1,250 11 1,603 14 

Plains-Mesa Grassland 258,389 44,101 17 10,335 4 

Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 201,015 28,659 14 14,363 7 

Urban, Farmland or Open Water 15,518 726 5 215 1 

Total 1,504,783 301,080 20 177,293 12

SOURCE: Dick-Peddie 1993 

NOTE: a

Acreage based on best available GIS data. 

The acre totals may not equal the calculations for area designations in Chapter 2, due to variations in datasets and calculation methods. 

* The data on which these calculations are based do not include some additional lava beds in northwestern Catron County. These areas

are addressed in the text, as appropriate. 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-83 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

TABLE 4-15 

ALTERNATIVE D UTILITY CORRIDORS 

Acres of BLMManaged 

Surface Land 

Utility Corridors 

(BLM-Managed 

Surface Land Only) 

Percent of BLMManaged Surface 

Land Population 

Utility

Corridors

(All Land) 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 168,059 39,222 23 116,621 

Closed Basin Scrub 13,941 807 6 8,423 

Coniferous And Mixed Woodland 143,686 6,759 5 73,797 

Desert Grassland (Ecotone) 316,268 47,258 15 172,738 

Juniper Savanna (Ecotone) 324,153 24,975 7 107,760 

Lava Beds* 21,353 0 0 4,524 

Montane Coniferous Forest 30,945 1,878 6 90,833 

Montane Scrub 11,456 0 0 0

Plains-Mesa Grassland 258,389 30,458 12 105,443 

Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 201,015 15,896 8 41,492 

Urban, Farmland or Open Water 15,518 3,860 25 18,736 

Totals: 1,504,783 171,113 11 740,367 

SOURCE: Dick-Peddie 1993 

NOTE: Acreage based on best available GIS data. 

 The acre totals may not equal the calculations for area designations in Chapter 2, due to variations in datasets and calculation methods. 

 *The data on which these calculations are based do not include some additional lava beds in northwestern Catron County. These areas are 

addressed in the text, as appropriate.

The types of impacts on vegetation that would result from ground-disturbing activities associated with 

mineral exploration and development and amount of vegetation that would be protected in areas closed to 

minerals leasing are the same as Alternative A. In areas closed to minerals leasing, 23 percent of 

vegetation on Federal mineral estate would be protected from ground disturbance, of which the most 

common vegetation types would be coniferous and mixed woodland, grassland and montane coniferous 

forest. The number of acres per vegetation type managed for minerals leasing is summarized in Table 

4-16. Some areas with lava beds in northwestern Catron County (additional to the acres noted Table 4-16) 

would be open to fluid mineral leasing under standard terms and conditions; however, mitigation 

measures would be identified as appropriate during additional NEPA analysis. 

TABLE 4-16 

ACREAGE OF VEGETATION TYPE CLOSED TO FLUID MINERALS 

LEASING FOR ALTERNATIVE DA

Vegetation Type 

Acres of 

Federal

Mineral Estate 

Federal Mineral 

Estate Closed to 

Leasing 

Percent of 

Population on 

Federal Mineral 

Estate 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 378,821 182,661 48

Closed Basin Scrub 122,868 82,375 67

Coniferous And Mixed Woodland 1,248,813 221,529 18 

Desert Grassland 585,991 157,964 27

Juniper Savanna (Ecotone) 1,020,984 161,759 16

Lava Beds 21,370* 21,368 100* 

Montane Coniferous Forest 1,459,415 221,763 15

Montane Grassland 44,451 789 2

Montane Scrub 75,986 57,280 75

Plains-Mesa Grassland 546,079 36,802 7
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-84 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Vegetation Type 

Acres of 

Federal

Mineral Estate 

Federal Mineral 

Estate Closed to 

Leasing 

Percent of 

Population on 

Federal Mineral 

Estate 

Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 398,119 184,251 46

Subalpine Coniferous Forest 131,501 69,628 53

Urban, Farmland or Open Water 41,777 15,663 37

Total 6,076,174 1,413,832 23

SOURCE: Dick-Peddie 1993 

NOTE: a

Acreage based on best available GIS data. 

 *The data on which these calculations are based do not include some additional lava beds in northwestern Catron County. 

These areas are addressed in the text, as appropriate. 

The same number of acres potentially available for coal leasing under Alternative D is the same as 

identified for Alternative B; therefore, the impacts would be the same. Approximately 291,859 acres 

would be excluded from mineral material deposits; impacts on vegetation would be similar to 

Alternative A. Approximately 11,408 acres would be managed as withdrawn from mineral entry, the least 

of any alternative. 

The impact types associated with management of recreation identified under Alternative D would be the 

same as those under Alternative A, although more land would be managed to accommodate recreation 

together with other resource objectives within special designations under Alternative D (22,398 acres) 

than Alternative A. The Gordy’s Hill SRMA would be managed to limit vehicle use to existing routes 

under Alternative D, which would limit further loss of vegetation when compared to the current 

management under Alternative A that allows cross-country travel throughout the entire area. 

The types of impacts from management associated with transportation identified under Alternative A 

would be the same for this alternative, although Alternative D would provide no closed OHV areas and 

the associated protection for vegetation. The number of acres per vegetation type managed for 

transportation is summarized in Table 4-17. Some areas with lava beds in northwestern Catron County 

(additional to the acres noted in Table 4-17) would be managed as limited to existing routes, which would 

limit motorized travel in that area compared to Alternative A. 

4.6.7 Wildlife, Riparian Habitat, and Special Status Species

The types of impacts associated with special designations for natural and cultural resources management 

would be the same as Alternative A, except that there would be an increase in acres of special 

designations over Alternative A (see Table 4-1). Acres of special designations that are focused on 

management of wildlife habitat and special status species would total 60,220 acres, a slight increase over 

Alternative A. Areas of potential aplomado falcon habitat would be managed to protect the Plains-Mesa 

sand scrub and desert grasslands habitats and minimize potential loss of foraging habitat for raptor species 

from surface-disturbing activity, including measures to regulate surface use and occupancy (see Appendix 

L).

The type of impacts from visual resources management would be the same as under Alternative A, except 

more land would be managed as VRM Class I and Class II than in Alternative A. In this alternative, 

1,046,399 acres would be managed as VRM Class IV, which is an increase over all alternatives. All 

proposed activities would be subject to NEPA analysis on a site-specific basis, and impacts on wildlife 

and special status species within the specific sites would be minimized and mitigated through the NEPA 

process.
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-85 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences April 2007

TABLE 4-17 

ACREAGE OF VEGETATION TYPE ON BLM-MANAGED SURFACE LAND BY OHV 

AREA DESIGNATION FOR ALTERNATIVE DA

Vegetation Type 

Acres of 

BLMManaged 

Surface

Land

Closed 

to 

OHV

Percent of 

Population 

OHV

Limited to 

Designated 

Roads 

Percent of 

Population 

OHV

Limited to 

Existing 

Roads 

Percent of 

Population 

Open to 

OHV

Percent of 

Population 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub 168,059 0 0 98,462 59 69,588 41 0 0 Closed Basin Scrub 13,941 0 0 4,228 30 9,713 70 0 0 Coniferous and Mixed Woodland 143,686 0 0 80,953 56 62,699 44 0 0 Desert Grassland 316,268 0 0 181,825 57 134,419 43 0 0 Juniper Savanna 324,153 0 0 150,275 46 173,797 54 0 0 Lava Beds 21,353* 0 0 21,351 100* 0 0 0 0 Montane Coniferous Forest 30,945 0 0 13,700 44 17,239 56 0 0 Montane Scrub 11,456 0 0 7,564 66 3,890 34 0 0 Plains-Mesa Grassland 258,389 0 0 55,535 21 202,837 79 0 0 Plains-Mesa Sand Scrub 201,015 0 0 85,264 42 115,733 58 0 0 Urban, Farmland or Open Water 15,518 0 0 5,621 36 9,841 69 0 0 Total 1,504,783 0 0 704,778 47 799,756 53 0 0 

SOURCE: Dick-Peddie 1993 NOTES: a Acreage based on best available GIS data. 

 The acre totals may not equal the calculations for area designations in Chapter 2, due to variations in datasets and calculation methods. 

 *The data on which these calculations are based do not include some additional lava beds in northwestern Catron County. These areas are addressed in the text, as appropriate.
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-86 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Effects on wildlife and riparian habitats from management of land and realty under this alternative and the 

types of impacts associated with this management would be similar to Alternative A. However, a total of 

478,371 acres would be managed as right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas, which equates to 

approximately 32 percent of BLM-managed surface land (a decrease from 34 percent under 

Alternative A).

Compared with Alternative A, more acreage would be identified as right-of-way exclusion areas but less 

identified as avoidance areas (see Table 4-1). The greatest decrease in protection from right-of-way 

exclusions and avoidance would occur in Chihuahuan desert scrub, desert grassland, mountain coniferous 

forest, plains-mesa sand scrub, and plains mesa grassland habitats, which support diverse wildlife species, 

including aplomado falcon and other raptor nesting and wintering habitats. 

All utility corridors recommended by the Western Utility Group Corridor Study would be established. 

Approximately 171,113 acres would be affected, comprised mainly of Chihuahuan desert scrub, desert 

grassland, plains-mesa grassland, plains-mesa sand scrub, and juniper savanna habitats throughout BLMmanaged surface land. Establishment of new power line corridors could increase the potential for loss of 

raptor and migratory bird species from collisions with new power lines. However, the best management 

practices in Appendix L include standards that would be required for all new power line construction for 

constructing power lines to protect raptor species. 

Up to 212,323 acres of isolated parcels would be identified for disposal, and 1,292,952 acres would be 

retained within Federal ownership. If additional land is disposed and developed as a result of the 

increased acreage identified as suitable for disposal, then this alternative could result in an increase in 

land use intensity, which would result in a higher potential for loss or degradation of wildlife habitat, 

habitat fragmentation, edge effects and disruption of local wildlife movement corridors throughout BLMmanaged surface land. However, isolated parcels are generally selected for disposal and would not be 

likely to result in negative impacts on larger wildlife habitat areas. Each proposed disposal would be 

further evaluated and mitigation measures identified through additional NEPA analysis. 

Additional nonpublic land within and adjacent to special designations would be pursued for acquisition to 

meet various resource objectives. Acquisitions would consolidate habitat areas for the best management 

potential.

Management of forestry and woodland products would be similar to Alternative B. When economically 

feasible, emphasis would be placed on the use of mechanical treatments and secondarily on wildland and 

prescribed fire, chemical treatment, or biological treatments to achieve goals of woodland and forest 

health. Temporary effects on wildlife and riparian habitats would be the same as in all other alternatives, 

and include removal of wildlife habitat and forage and increased erosion potential in riparian habitats. 

Long-term effects would be similar to those in Alternatives B and C.

Management actions associated with leasable fluid minerals would have similar effects on wildlife 

habitats and special status species to those described for Alternative A, although Alternative D would 

provide more area open to fluid mineral leasing under standard terms and conditions. A total of 

approximately 3,888,528 acres of Federal mineral estate would be open to fluid mineral leasing activities 

with standard terms and conditions while 1,419,456 acres would be closed to leasing activities (see 

Table 4-1). 

Impacts associated with saleable mineral material disposals would be the same as those described under 

Alternative A. About 291,859 acres would be excluded from saleable mineral material disposals; no 

potential aplomado falcon habitat would be excluded. This would effectively represent only a slight 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-87 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

increase in restrictions over Alternative A, since under both alternatives about 291,826 acres are in WSAs 

and would be managed under the Interim Management Policy, which generally disallows activities that 

would be incompatible with the nonimpairment criteria. Effects associated with locatable minerals would 

be the same as in Alternative A. 

This alternative is less restrictive to mineral material extraction than any of the other alternatives. The 

amount of mineral exploration and extraction that would occur under this alternative would create a 

substantial increase in land use intensity, and would result in greater potential for loss or degradation of 

wildlife and riparian habitats that support special status species. Habitat fragmentation, edge effects, and 

disruption of local wildlife movement corridors throughout the Planning Area could also occur as a result 

of this alternative.

The impact types associated with management of recreation identified under Alternative D would be the 

same as those under Alternative A. Slightly more land would be managed to protect and accommodate 

recreation within special designations under Alternative D (22,398 acres) than Alternative A (24,361 

acres). Management for the Datil Well SRMA, Quebadras Backcountry Byway SRMA, and Socorro 

Nature Area SRMA would be the least restrictive of activities that result in ground-disturbance under 

Alternative D when compared to all the other alternatives, which may result in higher impacts on wildlife 

in these areas if management results in increased or concentrated recreational use in those areas. The 

Gordy’s Hill SRMA would be managed to limit vehicle use to existing routes under Alternative D. These 

management actions would limit further loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, and edge effects when 

compared to the current management of open cross-country travel on 1,200 acres. 

Under Alternative D, impacts from motorized travel would be similar to Alternative A except no surface 

area under BLM management would be closed to OHV use. In this alternative 57 miles of routes within 

WSAs would be closed compared to 36 miles under Alternative A (Appendix J). A total of 799,757 acres 

of BLM-managed surface land would be limited to existing roads (or about 53 percent of BLM-managed 

surface land in the Planning Area), and 704,783 acres (47 percent) would be limited to designated routes 

(see Table 4-1). This would result in increased land use intensity in some locations that are designated as 

closed under Alternatives B and C. However, the elimination of cross country motorized travel would 

decrease the potential for loss or degradation of wildlife and riparian habitats, that may support special 

status species, and associated edge effects in those areas. 

4.6.8 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

Impacts on fire management under this alternative would be similar to those described under 

Alternative B; however, fewer acres likely would be restored due to the emphasis on commodity 

production. Surface-disturbing activities including fireline construction and hazardous fuels reduction 

could be limited on a total of 149,478 acres (10 percent of BLM-managed surface land) as a result of 

special designations for the protection of natural or cultural resources. Though the Horse Mountain ACEC 

would be expanded under this alternative, the corresponding wildland-urban interface area to the north 

would not change and impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A. 

Similar to Alternatives A and B, hazardous fuels treatments that result in discernible changes in color, 

line, form, and texture within the landscape would be limited in VRM Class II areas, which would include 

354,222 acres (24 percent of BLM-managed surface land) under Alternative D. 

Right-of-way exclusion areas would total 301,081 acres (20 percent of BLM-managed surface land) and 

avoidance areas would total 177,290 acres (12 percent of BLM-managed surface land) resulting in similar 

types of impacts on those described under Alternative A, but in more locations. The designation of four 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-88 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

utility corridors would have similar types of impacts as those described under Alternative B, although the 

impacts would occur in more locations due to the increase in the number of corridors. 

Land disposal would have similar impacts on those described under Alternative A but could be more 

widespread as this alternative would designate the most acres of land for disposal than any other 

alternative, up to 212,323 acres (14 percent) of BLM-managed surface land. 

Allocating forage increases to livestock before wildlife and watershed protection may result in an increase 

in utilization over Alternative A and could indirectly result in a reduction of fine fuel loadings. However, 

in accordance with public land health standards, utilization would not exceed 50 percent. Therefore, the 

changes to fire management compared to Alternative A would be negligible.

Impacts associated with the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA would be similar but more 

widespread to those described under Alternative A. The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA 

would be expanded to 8,703 acres (less than 1 percent of BLM-managed surface land) under this 

alternative.

No areas would be closed to motorized vehicle travel under this alternative. This would result in increased 

ignition potential from vehicles and humans in areas previously closed. No public land would be 

designated as open to cross-country OHV use, reducing the area where potential ignitions from motorized 

vehicles could occur. Closing 26 miles of roads outside special designations would indirectly limit the 

potential for human-caused ignitions along these roads. 

4.6.9 Cultural Resources 

The potential impacts of activities and projects associated with the management of cultural and natural 

resources under Alternative D would be similar to and addressed as described for Alternative A. The 

heritage tourism goals and opportunities under Alternative D would be similar to those for Alternative B. 

Alternative D would maintain four of the eight SMAs designated under Alternative A specifically to 

protect cultural resources (Mockingbird Gap, Fort Craig, Playa Pueblos, and Rio Salado). Four others 

would be modified as they would be under Alternative B (Mogollon Pueblo, Newton Site, Penjeacu/ 

Teypama, and Town of Riley). The total area encompassed in these cultural resource SMAs would be 

about 21,781 acres of BLM-managed surface land. 

The one ACEC (Tinajas) and four SMAs (Cerro Pomo, Datil Well, San Lorenzo Canyon, and Zuni Salt 

Lake) identified in Alternative A for special management of cultural resources and other resources 

(particularly recreation) are also included in Alternative D, except that Zuni Salt Lake and Cerro Pomo 

would be redesignated as ACECs. The total acreage included in these special designations would be same 

as Alternative A, except the Cerro Pomo ACEC would increase by 449 acres (discounting overlap with 

the Mesita Blanca and Eagle Peak WSAs) and the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC would decrease to 2,107 acres 

(eliminating 2,732 acres of overlap with the Eagle Peak WSA). However, these areas would be much 

larger under Alternatives B and C, providing greater protection to cultural resources under those 

alternatives compared with Alternative D. 

Under Alternative D, a total of about 25,330 acres (or 2 percent of BLM-managed surface land) would be 

designated to protect cultural resources as a primary or secondary purpose (compared to 2 percent for 

Alternative A, 10 percent for Alternative B, and 16 percent for Alternative C). The total area of special 

designation for Alternative D that would provide either direct or coincident protection of cultural 

resources would be 127,749 acres (8 percent) of BLM-managed surface land, slightly more than 

Alternative A but much less than Alternatives B and C (see Table 4-1). 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-89 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Like Alternatives B and C, Alternative D also provides more protection than Alternative A for cultural 

resources by modified management of other resource use on the public land. Under Alternative D, OHV 

use on 704,783 acres would be limited to designated routes, and the remainder of BLM-managed surface 

land in the Planning Area would be limited to existing routes. This increase protection for resources over 

Alternative A due to the elimination of cross-country travel, but reduces protection relative to 

Alternatives B and C, because no public land would be closed to OHV use and fewer acres would be 

limited to designated routes, the more restrictive category. 

4.6.10 Paleontological Resources

Under Alternative D, special designations for the protection of natural or cultural resources would be 

expanded to 149,478 acres, 20,923 acres more than Alternative A (discounting overlap with WSAs), 

increasing protection for paleontological resources from surface disturbance. The following special 

designations have geologic units varying in significance, abundance and predictable quality and include: 

x Horse Mountain ACEC 

x Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC (some areas contain paleontological 

resources)

x Pelona Mountain ACEC 

x Sawtooth ACEC

x Fence Lake SMA (some highly fossiliferous geologic units) 

x Cerro Pomo ACEC (including important known paleontological resources) 

x Tinajas ACEC 

x Zuni Salt Lake ACEC (including highly fossiliferous geologic units) 

Under Alternative D, no BLM-managed surface land would be closed to OHV use. About 29,117 acres 

that are currently closed could experience OHV use and the potential impacts related to surface 

disturbance, although travel would be limited to roads that are previously disturbed. Similar to the other 

action alternatives, Alternative D would eliminate cross-country travel, improving protection on 851,234 

acres of BLM-managed surface land compared to Alternative A. 

4.6.11 Visual Resources

Under Alternative D, public land managed for the protection of natural or cultural resources within 

special designations would increase to 149,478 acres. These measures would expand the areas managed to 

limit disturbances that could alter the natural landscape or impair experiences by sensitive viewers. 

The impacts on visual resources from right-of-way authorizations would be similar to those described 

under Alternative A, except land identified for right-of-way exclusion and avoidance would expand to 

478,371 acres (or 32 percent) of BLM-managed surface land, an increase of 261,933 acres within 

exclusion areas over Alternative A. Therefore, the potential to alter the natural landscape through 

vegetation loss and/or addition of new elements within the landscape due to construction of right-of-way 

authorizations would be reduced in those areas. However, though fewer acres would be open to 

development of rights-of-way, the actual amount of disturbance to scenic quality and sensitive viewers 

would depend on the type and location of facilities that are constructed. 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-90 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Four utility corridors designated in Alternative D would allow for greater ability to consolidate utilities 

throughout the Decision Area, reducing the potential for dispersed rights-of-way that could impact 

sensitive viewers in more locations. Alternative D may result in impacts on fewer locations than 

Alternative A, if rights-of-way are consolidated in accordance with BLM policy and demand for new 

right-of-way is consistent across the alternatives. 

However, the utility corridors in Alternative D cross special designations (Pelona Mountain ACEC, Eagle 

Peak WSA, Continental Divide Trail SMA, Datil Well SRMA, San Lorenzo SRMA, Veranito WSA, The 

Box SRMA, Fort Craig SMA, Sierra de las Cañas WSA, Quebradas Back County Byway SRMA, and 

Penjeacu SMA) resulting in potential impacts on sensitive viewers by the addition of structures in areas 

designated for special management that typically supports preservation of natural landscapes. Therefore, 

Alternative D could result in impacts on sensitive viewers if rights-of-way are constructed in the proposed 

utility corridors throughout the Planning Area. 

Similar to Alternative A, any acquisitions that consolidate public land ownership would enhance 

management ability to preserve scenic quality in those areas. The disposal of public land in the future (of 

up to 212,323 acres) could affect the viewshed if disposed land is developed; site-specific impacts and 

mitigation would be identified during additional NEPA analysis when a disposal is proposed. The public 

land identified as suitable for disposal would increase by 125,865 acres over Alternative A. This would 

result in greater potential for diminishing natural landscapes if land is actually disposed and no longer 

under the public domain. 

The types of impacts on visual resources from minerals development would be similar to the impacts 

described under Alternative A. Although Alternative D would designate more land as open to mineral 

leasing under standard terms and conditions, visual resources would not necessarily vary substantially 

because higher-quality resources identified with special designations would continue to have protective 

restrictions and it is expected that appropriate mitigation would be identified under standard terms and 

conditions or additional stipulations determined on a site-specific basis and in accordance with the 

appropriate VRM classification. In addition, closures to mineral leasing on approximately 1,419,456 acres 

(23 percent) of BLM-managed mineral estate (an increase of 1,041 acres over Alternative A) and 

maintaining withdrawals on 11,408 acres of BLM-managed surface land from mineral entry would help 

protect scenic quality and avoid impacts on sensitive viewers in those areas.

Mineral exploration and development activities adjacent to VRM Class I areas could impact distant views 

from within the Class I area. Alternative D designates 30,343 fewer acres as VRM Class I and 31,559 

fewer acres as VRM Class II than Alternative A, although future NEPA analysis would be expected to 

identify appropriate mitigation measures for proposed projects and activities. 

Impacts on visual resources from nonmotorized recreation would be the same as described under 

Alternative A. Under Alternative D, no public land would be designated as open to cross-country travel, 

compared to 851,234 open acres under Alternative A. Therefore, visual impacts from intense OHV use 

areas would decrease throughout BLM-managed surface land, depending on the change in the type and 

intensity of use and subsequent effect on the landscape. Areas that were designated as open to crosscountry travel adjacent to special designations (i.e., Ladron Mountain-Devil’s Backbone Complex ACEC, 

Puertecito SMA, Rio Salado SMA, San Lorenzo SRMA, Horse Mountain ACEC, Continental Divide 

Trail SMA, Mesita Blanca WSA, Eagle Peak WSA) would be less likely to result in impacts on sensitive 

viewers, compared to Alternative A. 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-91 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

4.6.12 Cave and Karst Resources

Under Alternative D, the potential impacts on cave and karst resources would be similar to those under 

Alternative A, but special designations for the protection of natural or cultural resources would increase 

slightly (to 149,478 acres from 238,936 acres) and could provide more coincidental protection of those 

resources. Similar to Alternative B, the elimination of cross-country travel may provide protection to 

some resources by reducing access to some areas. 

4.6.13 Wilderness Characteristics

The impacts on wilderness characteristics would be similar to Alternative B, but OHV travel would be 

allowed on designated routes within all WSAs, exposing some previously closed areas (Continental 

Divide, Horse Mountain, and Sierra Ladrones WSAs) to vehicle-related dust and noise and impacting the 

wilderness character in the areas previously not exposed to vehicle traffic. 

The authorization of utilities within the multiple utility corridors would cause indirect effects on some 

WSAs that are located within the corridors. Although the 1995 Interim Management Policy precludes the 

authorization of rights-of-way within WSAs, facilities that are located close to the WSAs could affect 

wilderness characteristics such as naturalness and solitude if they are visible from the WSA or associated 

access routes increase motorized access to the general area. Under Alternative D, the utility corridors 

would cross or include parts of the Eagle Peak WSA, Continental Divide WSA, and Veranito WSA. 

Potential impacts on the Veranito and Presilla WSAs resulting from OHV use in the Gordy’s Hill SRMA 

would be similar to those described under Alternative B. Should any of these WSAs be released from 

wilderness review, impacts could be experienced in portions of the Horse Mountain, Continental Divide, 

Sierra Ladrones, and Presilla WSAs. A summary of how these areas would be managed is provided in 

Table 2-3. 

4.6.14 Lands and Realty 

Under Alternative D, the BLM-managed surface land that would be managed within right-of-way 

exclusion areas would increase from Alternative A, to about 301,081 acres. In addition, 177,290 acres 

would be managed as right-of-way avoidance areas, where land use authorizations would be permitted 

within limited dimensions. The overall effect of management would be to increase the acreage that would 

be excluded from right-of-way authorizations by 261,933 acres over the area in Alternative A. 

Designation of multiple utility corridors would encourage co-location of facilities on public land in the 

Planning Area, which could limit the proliferation of linear facilities in the Planning Area and 

consequently reduce changes to land uses. The increased number of corridors would provide additional 

flexibility for future planning in locating utilities on public land and could encourage major right-of-way 

and/or large energy project development. However, the corridor locations identified in Alternative D are 

incompatible with some special designations that are crossed (see Maps 2-43 and 2-56). The corridors 

would overlap with right-of-way exclusion areas associated with the Eagle Peak WSA, Continental 

Divide WSA, and Veranito WSA. The 1995 Interim Management Policy would disallow the authorization 

of new rights-of-way in WSAs, and would take precedence over the utility corridor. The corridors also 

would cross right-of-way avoidance areas located north of Eagle Peak WSA, in Pelona Mountain ACEC, 

on public land west of San Antonio and south of the The Box SRMA, and in the San Lorenzo SRMA. 

Although some right-of-way authorizations would be permitted within right-of-way avoidance areas, 

there would be limitations on the size and type of those rights-of-way that might conflict with the purpose 

of the utility corridor to accommodate most rights-of-way. 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-92 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Under Alternative D, more acreage (212,323 acres of BLM-managed surface land) would be identified as 

suitable for disposal than under Alternative A (86,458 acres). This change in management would not 

directly impact existing and planned land uses within the resource area, although more public land would 

be available to support subdivisions and the growth of rural communities. If a disposal were proposed, 

additional NEPA analysis would evaluate the potential effects on land uses that would be relevant to the 

specific parcel and circumstances.

Less land would be managed as VRM Class I and II areas relative to Alternative A (354,222 versus 

416,124 acres), but this management would not be expected to impact particular land uses since 

mitigation for any future proposed projects would be applied on a site-specific basis to promote 

compliance with the visual resource management objectives. 

Under Alternative D, slightly more area would be closed to fluid mineral leasing than under Alternative A 

(1,419,456 acres versus 1,418,415 acres of mineral estate). Because the RFD predicts land requirements 

for fluid mineral development to be less than 1,000 acres, it is anticipated that there would be adequate 

land available for leasing to meet demand. (Note: the availability of land with high potential for fluid 

minerals is described in the Minerals section.) Impacts from coal leasing and extraction activities would 

be the same as discussed under Alternative B, except that there are fewer right-of-way avoidance areas in 

the vicinity of high-potential areas in the northwestern section of the Planning Area, which would better 

facilitate the location of linear facilities to support coal operations. 

Under Alternative D, the majority of BLM-managed surface land in the Planning Area would be open for 

mineral material disposals; 19 percent (291,859 acres) would be excluded from such uses. However, 

based on the RFD, impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A because the relatively 

small amount of land identified in the RFD would be readily available, and mitigation measures would be 

identified during NEPA analysis. Additionally, with the exception of 22 acres, all of the land excluded is 

located within WSAs, and would be managed under the Interim Management Policy, which generally 

disallows activities that would be incompatible with the nonimpairment criteria. 

No areas would be closed to OHV travel under Alternative D. However, Alternative D also would 

eliminate cross-country travel on BLM-managed surface land (reducing to 0 open acres from 851,234 

acres under Alternative A). This would result in the loss of access for some activities, including 

recreational activity. Similar to Alternative A, dust and noise generated from OHV travel could result in 

indirect impacts on nearby land. About 83 miles of roads and trails would be closed under this alternative; 

resulting impacts on land uses would be negligible (beyond those described in the wilderness and 

recreation sections). 

4.6.15 Forestry and Woodland Management

Special designations managed for natural and cultural resource management would include approximately 

149,478 acres, resulting in impacts similar to Alternative B, except across fewer forest and woodland 

acres overall. Surface-disturbing activities would be less restricted under this alternative than any other. 

Woodcutting and the disposal of timber and other forest products would be allowed within the Pelona 

Mountain ACEC (34,547 acres of BLM-managed surface land), the Ladron Mountain ACEC (20,155 

acres, or 1 percent of BLM-managed surface land), and Horse Mountain ACEC (2,596 acres, or less than 

1 percent of BLM-managed surface land). Impacts from surface disturbance and forest structure alteration 

would be similar to those described under Alternative B. In contrast to the other alternatives, there would 

be no acres designated for VRM Class I. VRM Class II designations would total 354,222, slightly less 

than Alternative A.
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-93 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Impacts on forest and woodland resources associated with right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas 

would be similar to those described under Alternative A. However, approximately 172,921 acres of 

forested BLM-managed surface land would be designated as right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas, 

allowing for surface-disturbing activities in more forested areas than the other alternatives. 

The designation of four utility corridors would allow rights-of-way to pass through forested areas of 

BLM-managed surface land (approximately 8,637 acres) whereas in Alternatives B and C the utility 

corridor did not affect forested areas. This reduction in tree cover could involve either tree mortality or 

pruning in order to make room for utility infrastructure. Indirect impacts would result where road 

construction in forested areas occurred in conjunction with these utility corridors. 

Land disposal and acquisition would have the same impacts on forest and woodland resources as those 

described under Alternative B. Management actions associated with leasable fluid minerals would have 

similar but more widespread impacts on those described under Alternative B because 3,888,528 acres 

would be open to fluid mineral leasing activities with standard terms and conditions. This alternative 

provides more area open to fluid mineral leasing under standard terms and conditions than any other 

alternative. Impacts associated with saleable mineral material disposals would be similar to Alternative A. 

Allocations of forage to livestock over wildlife and watershed function would reduce herbaceous cover in 

site-specific forested areas during years when increased forage was available. Increased potential for 

adverse impacts on forest soils would occur where livestock congregate. These impacts would be more 

widespread than under Alternative C because wildlife use patterns would be dispersed across the 

landscape more than livestock. These impacts would be only slightly more widespread under this 

alternative when compared to Alternative B. 

Impacts on forest and woodland resources would be similar those described under Alternative B. As with 

Alternative B, there would be a restoration of FRCC through the alteration of forest and woodland 

structure; however under this alternative there would be greater emphasis on mechanical fuels than on 

wildland fire use and prescribed fire compared to other alternatives. There would be more potential for 

surface disturbance and soil erosion in forest and woodland cover types under this alternative than under 

Alternative C due to road construction activities. Indirect impacts from the surface disturbance associated 

with new road construction would be the same as under Alternative B. 

Of the eight areas designated especially for management of recreation under this alternative, only four 

have forest resources that could be impacted. These include the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

SMA, San Lorenzo SRMA, The Box SRMA, and Datil Well SRMA. Impacts on forest resources 

associated with management of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA are discussed in 

Section 4.6.7. Specific impacts would be similar to those described Alternative B, though on slightly 

different acres. Woodcutting and harvest of forest resources would be allowed within the 2,320-acre San 

Lorenzo SRMA (less than 1 percent of BLM-managed surface land). Harvest of forest resources would be 

allowed within the 300-acre The Box SRMA (less than 1 percent of BLM-managed surface land). 

Woodcutting and harvest of forest resources would be allowed within the 669-acre Datil Well SRMA 

(less than 1 percent of BLM-managed surface land). 

4.6.16 Rangeland Management

Generally, the impacts on grazing from water-control measures (such as erosion control structures like 

spreader dams or retention structures), vegetation treatments, or rehabilitation of identified sites would be 

the same as those under Alternative A. However, special designations for the protection of natural or 

cultural resources, which are more likely to be subject to this management, would be increased to a total 

of 149,478 acres of BLM-managed surface land. Alternative D would likely increase the number of range 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-94 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

projects for improving conditions for livestock, and could allow for augmented stocking rates. As a result, 

livestock grazing would benefit more and the increase of AUMs could be greater compared with the other 

alternatives. Range condition would not be compromised because management objectives still would 

include meeting public land health standards. 

Exclusions to domestic sheep and goat use would be applied to a 10-mile buffer around bighorn sheep 

habitat in the 20,155-acre Ladron Mountain ACEC. As described for Alternative B, this would not result 

in impacts on existing conditions. 

Under Alternative D, approximately 301,081 acres would be excluded from right-of-way authorizations 

(261,933 more than Alternative A) and 177,290 acres would be designated as avoidance areas 

(281,706 acres fewer than Alternative A). The potential for noise and other disturbances from activity and 

infrastructure within rights-of-way and utility corridors would therefore be reduced in those areas, as 

would the impacts on available forage. The designation of four utility corridors would not be expected to 

have a pronounced impact on grazing outside of the specific areas that could be affected along the 

corridors, and it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified during the required NEPA 

analysis. 

Potential effects on grazing from land acquisition and disposal would be the same as Alternative A, since 

any acquisitions likely would be part of an existing grazing allotment and mitigation would be identified 

as part of the NEPA analysis. Potential impacts associated with woodlands harvesting or vegetation sales 

would be the same as Alternative B. 

Alternative D would exclude roughly the same amount mineral estate from mineral leasing and 

development as Alternative A (1,419,456 acres, 1,041 acres more than Alternative A), there would be 

fewer acres withdrawn from mineral entry and a greater number of acres would be open without 

stipulations. In addition, a greater number of acres would be excluded from mineral material disposals 

(291,859 acres total). However, this would effectively represent only a slight increase in restrictions over 

Alternative A, since under both alternatives about 291,826 acres are in WSAs and would be managed 

under the Interim Management Policy, which disallows activities that would be incompatible with the 

nonimpairment criteria. The impacts associated with the RFD would be the same as Alternative A. 

Under Alternative D, no areas would be closed to access and OHV use, and most BLM-managed surface 

land would be managed as limited to existing routes. Direct impacts associated with forage loss and 

livestock disturbance, and indirect impacts associated with invasive species and wildfire, would be more 

widespread than Alternative B or C.

Impacts from dispersed, nonmotorized recreational activity would be the same as Alternative A. OHV use 

would be limited in comparison to Alternative A; therefore, direct impacts associated with forage loss and 

livestock disturbance, and indirect impacts associated with invasive species and wildfire would be 

reduced in areas where cross-country motorized travel previously was allowed (851,234 acres). 

4.6.17 Minerals

Closures to fluid mineral leasing would exclude those areas from extraction of resources such as oil, gas, 

carbon dioxide, and helium, and fluid mineral leasing stipulations that control surface use and limit 

surface occupancy could increase the cost and difficulty of exploration and development of fluid mineral 

resources to a point where these activities become economically infeasible. The effect of placing a 

no-surface-occupancy stipulation over large areas would have the same effects as described for 

Alternative A. However, under Alternative D, 1,419,456 acres of Federal mineral estate would be closed 

to leasing, which includes 1,418,415 acres of nondiscretionary closures and an additional 1,041 acres 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-95 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

compared with Alternative A. Lease stipulations would be attached to 785,484 acres of Federal mineral 

estate (49,484 acres more than Alternative A). Although more public land would be excluded from fluid 

mineral leasing, under Alternative D more public land also would be available for leasing under standard 

terms and conditions. 

Under Alternative D, closed areas overlap with 648,312 acres of moderate potential for oil and gas (or 

16 percent of moderate potential areas in the Planning Area). The remainder are areas of low potential for 

these resources. The closed areas also include 28,582 acres of high potential for carbon dioxide and 

helium (or 9 percent of high potential areas in the Planning Area), and 491,343 acres of moderate 

potential (or 13 percent of moderate potential areas in the Planning Area). 

Approximately 11,408 acres would be withdrawn from mineral entry, and no additional acreage would be 

petitioned for withdrawal. Fewer areas would be excluded from locatable mineral development under 

Alternative D than all other alternatives, since no additional public land would be petitioned for 

withdrawal.

Approximately 291,859 acres would be excluded from mineral material disposal. This acreage represents 

the area within WSAs and would be managed under the Interim Management Policy, which generally 

disallows activities that would be incompatible with the nonimpairment criteria. An additional 22 acres in 

the Tinajas ACEC and 11 acres within the Penjeacu SMA that are not included in the WSA also would be 

excluded. Impacts would be the same as described in Alternative A. The impact on the ability to develop 

coal resources is the same as for Alternative B. 

Decisions about access and realty could indirectly encourage or restrict exploration and development of 

mineral resources in a similar way as described for Alternative A, except under Alternative D the overall 

exclusions and restrictions on right-of-way would decrease, but right-of-way exclusions would increase in 

some areas. Under Alternative D, a total of 478,371 acres would be managed as right-of-way exclusion or 

avoidance areas (a decrease of 19,773 acres from Alternative A). Although no public land would be 

closed to OHV under Alternative D (a decrease of 29,117 acres from Alternative A), all cross-country 

travel would be eliminated. In addition, areas limited to designated routes would increase to 704,783 acres 

(from 562,901 acres under Alternative A). The additional restrictions on access could affect the ability to 

develop the infrastructure needed to explore and develop mineral resources in some areas. The impacts 

associated with the land acquisitions would be the same as Alternative A. 

4.6.18 Recreation

Under Alternative D, impacts on recreation from management of cave and karst, visual, natural, and 

cultural resources are similar to Alternative A. However, although more acres would be in special 

designations for protection of natural or cultural resources (approximately 149,478 acres overall) 

compared with Alternative A, less acreage would be designated as special designations compared with 

Alternatives B and C. Therefore, the extent and specific locations where ground-disturbing activities 

could occur would increase over Alternatives B and C. In addition, no acres would be designated as VRM 

Class I, while 354,222 acres would receive a Class II designation. 

The types of impacts on recreation from rights-of-way and other land use authorizations would be similar 

to those described under Alternative A, although Alternative D would include more acres within right-ofway exclusion areas. Under Alternative D, approximately 20 percent of BLM-managed surface land 

would be allocated as right-of-way exclusion areas (301,081 acres) and approximately 12 percent would 

be allocated as a right-of-way avoidance areas (177,290 acres). These exclusion and avoidance areas 

generally correspond to existing WSAs and ACECs and SMAs proposed under this alternative, resulting 

in no impacts on existing recreational opportunities within special designations. In areas where rights-of-
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-96 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

way would be authorized following site-specific environmental analysis (on 68 percent of BLM-managed 

surface land), the resulting impact on recreational opportunities could include increased access for 

motorized recreation in localized areas. Authorization of rights-of-way would not be expected to result in 

the loss of recreational opportunities throughout the Planning Area, though there could be some localized, 

negligible impacts (e.g., displacement during development of the right-of-way). 

Although 14 percent of BLM-managed surface land is identified as suitable for disposal under 

Alternative D, compared with 6 percent under Alternative A (see Table 4-1), impacts would be similar to 

Alternative A as most of the areas identified for disposal provide recreational opportunities that would 

still be available on BLM-managed surface land and within the overall Planning Area. In addition, the 

dispersed and remote nature of the land identified for disposal does not provide special or unique 

recreational opportunities. The types of impacts on recreational opportunities resulting from land (and 

access) disposals or acquisitions would be similar to those described for Alternative A.

Impacts on recreation from fluid mineral leasing would be the same as Alternative A as the acreage that 

would be closed to fluid mineral leasing would be very similar under these two alternatives, and the 

variations related to application of stipulations would not be expected to affect the types of potential 

impacts. Although Alternative D excludes 291,859 acres from mineral material disposals, the impacts 

associated with saleable minerals management also would be the same as Alternative A, since the 

exclusion areas are within WSAs, which generally disallows activities that would be incompatible with 

the nonimpairment criteria. Additionally, mineral material disposals would not impact the balance of 

recreational opportunities available within the Planning Area. Impacts on recreation from coal 

development would be the same as Alternative B. Mineral withdrawals on about 11,408 acres would not 

impact recreational opportunities available within the Planning Area. 

The elimination of the closed OHV area designation and designation of fewer acres as limited to 

designated routes than Alternative B or C would result in increased opportunities for this type of 

motorized recreation throughout the Planning Area. Alternative D would limit OHV use to a higher 

degree than Alternative A, primarily due to the lack of areas open to cross-country travel. More routes 

would be closed in WSAs (57 miles), resulting in similar impacts as those described for Alternative A. 

4.6.19 Renewable Energy

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except the management to minimize the intensity and location 

of surface-disturbing activities would be expanded over a slightly larger area of special designations for 

the protection of natural or cultural resources (149,478 acres of BLM-managed surface land, or 

20,923 acres more than Alternative A when areas of overlap with WSAs are discounted). Under 

Alternative D, right-of-way exclusion areas would be increased by 261,933 acres to total 301,081 acres of 

BLM-managed surface land. This change would reduce the opportunities to site renewable energy and 

transmission projects in those areas. These effects would be most relevant where special designations 

overlap with areas of moderate to high wind, solar, and biomass resource potential (identified in the 

February 2005 Management Situation Analysis). 

Management of VRM Class I and II areas could affect the placement of or required mitigation for 

renewable energy facilities as described for Alternative A, but the acreage managed under these VRM 

classes would be decreased to 478,371 acres (19,773 acres less than Alternative A). 

4.6.20 Transportation and Travel Management

The types of impacts associated with management to protect natural or cultural resources in special 

designations under Alternative D (149,478 acres) would be the same as those under Alternative A. 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-97 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

However, this management would be applied to less acreage than Alternatives B and C and to slightly 

more acreage than Alternative A. These restrictions would not be expected to affect overall travel 

throughout the Planning Area because of the relatively low acreage that would be impacted. 

The type of impacts from management of land and realty under Alternative D would be similar to those 

described for Alternative A, except that right-of-way exclusion areas would encompass about 20 percent 

and right-of-way avoidance areas 12 percent of surface land managed by BLM. The remaining 68 percent 

of BLM-managed surface land would be open for rights-of-way, allowing for establishment of additional 

motorized access routes, slightly more than Alternative A (see Table 4-1). 

Additional utility corridors proposed under Alternative D would not be expected to have a notable 

incremental effect on travel compared with the utility corridors proposed under Alternatives B and C. 

Land tenure adjustments would result in impacts similar to those described under Alternative A, with the 

exception that 14 percent of BLM-managed surface land could be disposed (compared to 6 percent in 

Alternative A) and result in the loss of public access in localized areas and possible displacement of 

motorized travel onto other routes crossing public land. 

The types of impacts from minerals management also would be similar to those described for 

Alternative A, except the specific areas where localized impacts could occur would vary due to the 

increased area closed for fluid mineral leasing. Impacts associated with saleable minerals management 

also would be the same as Alternative A, since the exclusion areas are within WSAs managed under the 

Interim Management Policy, which generally disallows activities that would be incompatible with the 

nonimpairment criteria. Conversely, Alternative D may allow for the development of more roads 

associated with minerals development compared to Alternatives B and C due to less areas closed to fluid 

mineral leasing and excluded from mineral materials development. 

Impacts from transportation and travel management would be the same as described under Alternative A 

except that this alternative provides for 57 miles of route closures within WSAs compared to 36 miles in 

Alternative A (Appendix J). Impacts from route closures outside of WSAs would be the same as 

Alternative B. 

4.6.21 Social and Economic Conditions

Under Alternative D, areas managed to protect natural and cultural resources within special designations 

would be expanded to 149,478 acres, an 16 percent increase over Alternative A (when areas of overlap 

with WSAs are discounted). The types of socioeconomic impacts from this management would be similar 

to those described under Alternative B. Although Alternative D would provide greater protection of the 

natural landscape and cultural resources via expanded management to minimize surface disturbance, the 

incremental socioeconomic effects would be expected to be minimal. 

The socioeconomic impacts on Zuni Salt Lake as a sociocultural resource would be the same as 

Alternative A. 

The types of socioeconomic impacts associated with right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas would 

be similar to those described under Alternatives A, B, and C. Under Alternative D, utility companies 

would have more leeway to site facilities in the most economically efficient locations than under 

Alternatives B or C, reducing the potential that additional costs would be incurred by project proponents. 

Under Alternative D, the expansion of right-of-way exclusion areas (to 301,081 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land) could result in denial of some linear developments based on location alone. Cost of 

development for utility companies could increase if the corridor is not ideally compatible. Of all the 

alternatives, the inclusion of multiple utility corridors in Alternative D maximizes the potential for 
Action Alternative – Alternative D 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-98 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

gaining efficiencies from commonality of location (e.g., established access points along the utility 

corridors) and from streamlining of the review process, which would reduce expenses for both the BLM 

and project proponent. 

Socioeconomic impacts associated with land acquisition and disposal would be the same as Alternative A. 

The types of impacts associated with closure of an area to fluid mineral leasing or withdrawal from 

location and entry under the mining laws would be the same as described for Alternative B. However, 

under Alternative D, 1,041 additional acres would be closed to fluid mineral leasing and the BLM would 

not petition to withdraw any additional acres, compared to Alternative A. About 28,582 acres of high 

potential for carbon dioxide and helium and 648,312 acres of moderate potential for oil and gas are 

included within areas that would be closed to fluid mineral leasing. In these areas, the closures would 

eliminate the possibility of capitalizing on economic opportunities to extract these fluid minerals. 

Socioeconomic impacts associated with the land identified as potentially suitable for coal leasing are the 

same as Alternative B. Socioeconomic impacts associated with exclusions of mineral material disposals 

would be the same as Alternative A, since the land identified for exclusion is within WSAs and therefore 

such disposals would be similarly limited under all alternatives. 

Similar to Alternative A, management of public land would continue to provide opportunities for grazing 

and would result in the sustainable management of grazing (through adherence to public land health 

standards). This supports the continued viability of ranching, an important component of local economies. 

The closures to domestic sheep and goats would not impact existing conditions. Localized impacts on 

grazing operators would be the least under Alternative D because it includes the fewest acres on which 

grazing would be excluded. Socioeconomic impacts related to vegetative sales would be the same as 

Alternative B. 

It is anticipated that the socioeconomic impacts associated with the designation of SRMAs would trigger 

the same types of impacts on visitation as described for Alternative B. Since there are no areas closed to 

OHV use under Alternative D, localized impacts on OHV users would be minimized in certain locations. 

In addition, the lack of closures to OHV use under Alternative D could distribute that type of recreation 

use (and any associated expenditures) over a larger area and might increase the likelihood that large 

organized events could be held in the Planning Area, which would result in short-term, localized increases 

in expenditures in nearby communities. 

4.6.22 Environmental Justice

Impacts with regard to mineral development and protective measures associated with Zuni Salt Lake 

would be the same as described for Alternative A. 

4.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Regulations prepared by the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA require Federal 

agencies to analyze and disclose effects that could result from the incremental effect of an action “when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal 

or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor 

but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). 

For the cumulative impacts analysis, potential impacts were considered within the Planning Area 

boundary, which encompasses all of Socorro and Catron Counties, New Mexico. The timeframe 

considered for the analysis is between 15 and 20 years, although some resource-specific considerations 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-99 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

may vary as noted in the individual resource discussions in Section 4.7.2. Because proposed management 

decisions in this RMPR are plan-level, broad land allocations and management objectives, it is not always 

possible to quantify cumulative impacts on specific resources or resource uses. The types of cumulative 

impacts that could occur often would be dependent on the location or scale of a future action or proposal, 

and are discussed qualitatively in the absence of information on specific future actions. Additionally, it is 

assumed that future, site-specific proposals on public land would require additional NEPA analysis. As 

appropriate, any variation in cumulative impacts among the alternatives is discussed in Section 4.7.2. 

4.7.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

This section summarizes the key past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that were 

evaluated in combination with the alternatives to assess cumulative impacts. 

Past Actions. Past actions are events that have occurred and accumulated to create the existing conditions 

in the Planning Area. Key past actions within the Planning Area include the following. 

x A transportation infrastructure is present that has evolved from County, State, and local road 

improvements; BLM road maintenance; and the creation of roads and trails due to use by 

motorized and mechanized vehicles. 

x Land exchanges and disposals have occurred since the 1989 RMP (Map 1-1) 

x The Rio Grande has experienced dewatering due to upstream dams and other water projects. 

x Historic grazing has occurred throughout the Planning Area. 

x Military activities occur on withdrawn public land on White Sands Missile Range in the 

southeastern portion of the Planning Area. 

x Campgrounds and other recreational facilities have been established at Datil Well, Fort Craig, 

Box Canyon, and other dispersed locations throughout the Planning Area. 

x BLM partnered with the State of New Mexico to establish the El Camino Real International 

Heritage Center within Socorro County; about 120 acres of public land were transferred to the 

State for the site. 

x There has been sporadic oil and gas exploration in Socorro and Catron Counties since the 1920s, 

with a total of 85 exploratory wells drilled. Much of northwestern Catron County has been leased 

for oil and gas exploration, with the most recent lease sales of State land in October 2003. No oil 

and gas production has occurred in the Planning Area and there are no documented proven 

reserves. 

x There has been substantial carbon dioxide and helium exploration in the Planning Area since 

1998. Five wells testing producible carbon dioxide and helium have been completed in that area 

by the Ridgeway Corporation. 

Present Actions. There is extensive federally managed land (over 50 percent of total surface area) within 

the Planning Area. The BLM manages just over 17 percent of the surface land area within the Planning 

Area. The Forest Service manages over 32 percent of the Planning Area, including almost half of the land 

area within Catron County. The management actions and uses on Federal land substantially represent the 

ongoing activities in the Planning Area. 

Throughout the Planning Area, livestock grazing occurs on public, State, and private land. In 2005, there 

were 232 permittees in the Planning Area authorized to use 229,000 AUMs on 252 allotments. These 

allotments vary in size from about 17 acres to 167,000 acres, with grazing preferences ranging from less 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-100 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

than 10 AUMs to 11,880 AUMs. About 3 million acres are included within grazing allotments throughout 

the Planning Area (note that allotments may include land managed by parties other than BLM). 

Additional information on ongoing grazing activities is provided in Chapter 3 and Appendix H. 

Recreation activities such as OHV use, hiking, hunting, wildlife watching, and mountain biking occur on 

BLM-managed surface land and throughout the Planning Area. Estimated recreational use of public land 

administered by the BLM in New Mexico totaled over 2.1 million visits and nearly 1.8 million visitor 

days in Fiscal Year 2004 (BLM 2004a). Visitor use of Datil Well Campground has been increasing 

between 1995 and 2004, reaching an estimate of 4,875 visits in 2004. Additional information on 

recreation is provided in Chapter 3. In addition, the Socorro Field Office issues and administers 

approximately 25 or more special recreation permits per year. The majority of permits are related to 

outfitting for hunting. Other permits include dog trials, motorcycle races, endurance horse races, 

astronomy events, mountain bike races, model rocket launches, climbing, reenactments at Fort Craig, and 

a variety of other activities. Dispersed recreation activities also occur on land managed by the Forest 

Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including wildlife viewing in wildlife refuges and primitive 

recreation opportunities in Gila National Forest. The Gila has averaged 1,300 visitor-days for the last five 

years. 

There is continued significant interest in leasing Federal land as shown by the numerous Expression of 

Interest nominations for parcels in Catron County. These Expression of Interest nominations are currently 

in pending status. In Catron County, there is leasing activity in the Zuni Basin area specifically targeting 

carbon dioxide exploration and development. 

In eastern Socorro County, leasing for oil and gas exploration currently is active in the Chupadera MesaCarrizozo Basin area. Leasing activity near Bingham has included Federal and State land, and all Federal 

mineral estate in this area has been leased or nominated for leasing in the past year. Leasing activity is 

ongoing in the Albuquerque-Belen Basin in northern Socorro County. 

Other current mineral development activities in the Planning Area include several saleable mineral pits on 

private land. Historic locatable mining districts are not currently active. Additional information regarding 

current mineral exploration and development is in Chapter 3 and the 2003 Energy and Mineral Resource 

Potential Report, available from the Socorro Field Office. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are projections of the uses 

and activities that are likely to occur in the Planning Area in the foreseeable future. New Mexico, as well 

as the southwestern United States generally, is projected to continue experiencing population growth. 

Residential development is expected to occur in the Planning Area, particularly along the I-25 corridor 

and in some communities like Pie Town. Growth may be more rapid in communities that are outside of 

the Planning Area, and this could have the effect of increasing the population of nearby recreation users 

that travel to the Planning Area. 

In BLM’s Decision Area, ongoing administrative activities would result in surface disturbance. The types 

and extent of these administrative activities are described by resource or resource use in Section 4.7.2. 

Generally, administrative activities include development of access roads, recreation trails and facilities, 

signage; vegetation treatments; data recovery (cultural resources); and mineral materials disposals. 

The Forest Service also conducts administrative actions such as fuel reduction projects, including 

wildland urban interface fuel breaks; implementation of various management plans (i.e., mining and 

wildlife); range improvements; new wildlife water structures; improvements of access to private 

inholdings; watershed management; vegetation treatments; special use permit renewals for recreation and 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-101 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

utilities; mining permits for saleable minerals; and mine and landfill reclamation. Grazing allotments on 

Forest Service land are managed in accordance with operating instructions that are updated annually. 

Management of all National Forests is guided by a Land and Resources Management Plan prepared in 

compliance with the National Forest Management Act. The purpose of the Land and Resources 

Management Plan is to guide all natural resource management activities for a 10- to 15-year period. Both 

the Cibola and Gila National Forests will be updating their Land and Resources Management Plans 

beginning in 2007. Additionally, the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget includes a legislative proposal 

that would grant the Forest Service authority to sell small tracts of forest land that are isolated or 

inefficient to manage due to their location or other characteristics. Land that is potentially eligible for this 

proposal has been identified in the Cibola National Forest. 

Training and testing activities at the White Sands Missile Range will continue into the foreseeable future. 

However, as is the nature of military facilities, the military mission for this facility could change at any 

time, either reducing or increasing military activity on the Range. The website for the White Sands 

Missile Range notes that there is an increased emphasis on joint operations and that the facility continues 

to develop its capabilities for testing of major missile and rocket systems (White Sands Missile Range 

2006). 

As part of an Energy and Mineral Resource Potential Report dated 2003, RFDs for mineral development 

were estimated for the entire Planning Area. The analysis to generate the RFD is based on available 

geologic information, and does not address market and production economics, conflicts with other 

resources, or land ownership. Projected mineral development activities in the Planning Area include: 

x The RFD for oil and gas development in the Planning Area estimates that 22 exploratory wells 

will be drilled. Compared to the previous 15 years when 14 wells were drilled, an estimated 

1.5 wells per year will be drilled in the next 15 years. An estimated two exploratory wells 

(10 percent of the total drilled) will lead to the discovery and production of two small economic 

oil and gas (or coalbed methane) fields in the next 15 years. The two discovered fields will be 

small (less than 500 acres). An estimated 12 development or production wells will be drilled to 

delineate and exploit each oil and gas discovery field, approximately one per 40 acres. 

x The RFD for carbon dioxide and helium development in the Planning Area estimates that 

150 exploratory and development wells will be drilled. This assumes one 50,000-acre field will 

be discovered and developed with a well spacing of 320 acres. 

x The RFD for coal development in the Planning Area estimates that one new coal field will be 

permitted and developed. A total of 80 million tons of coal will be mined during the 50-year life 

of the mine (affecting up to 18,000 acres). 

x The RFD for geothermal resource development in the Planning Area expects that no leasing, 

exploration, or development will occur in the next 15 years. Costs to develop low-temperature 

geothermal resources are prohibitive compared to the potential revenue generation and limited 

uses of those resources. 

x The RFD for solar energy resources in the Planning Area is that two right-of-way permits will be 

issued in the next 15 years. Incentives to develop solar energy resources will include Federal and 

State programs designed to encourage use of renewable energy resources, such as tax incentives 

and low-interest business loans. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-102 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

x The RFD anticipates permitting one right-of-way totaling 40 acres for construction of a wind 

farm facility. The facility will occupy most of the permitted acreage with 40 wind turbines 

(approximately one per acre), access roads, battery storage facilities, and power transfer stations. 

The wind farm will require a right-of-way permit for an estimated 50 total miles of transmission 

lines to the end-user or regional transmission lines. 

x The RFD for locatable mineral resources in the Planning Area expects that some exploration will 

occur in the next 15 years and two underground locatable mineral deposits will be developed. 

x An estimated five new salable mineral pits or community pits will be permitted or reactivated in 

the next 15 years. The type and volume of salable minerals disposed is uncertain and depends on 

the increase in community development. An estimated 50,000 cubic yards will be removed per 

year from each pit in the next 15 years, for a total disposal of 3,750,000 cubic yards. 

Additional future actions throughout the Planning Area may include development of carbon dioxide and 

helium in northwestern Catron County on State and private land, consistent with the RFD and locations 

of high potential areas identified for those resources. 

4.7.2 Cumulative Impacts

Over 58 percent of the Planning Area is managed by Federal agencies (see Table 4-18). Management of 

most of this area is guided by mandates to protect sensitive resources in accordance with all applicable 

environmental regulations and to sustainably manage multiple resources and uses (including grazing and 

dispersed recreation). Some portions of federally managed land, such as wildlife refuges, are managed 

with the objective of protecting vegetation and habitat resources. Military areas such as White Sands 

Missile Range generally exclude public access and resource uses, and military activities often impact a 

relatively small percentage of the acreage, resulting in overall minimal disturbances to environmental 

resources. The overall goal of Federal management in the Planning Area is to promote environmental 

analysis of future proposed actions, conservation of sensitive or unique environmental resources, 

accommodation of multiple resource uses, and a comprehensive, landscape-oriented management 

approach on much of the land in the Planning Area. 

TABLE 4-18 

FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE PLANNING AREA 

Federal Agency 

Acres in

Planning Area 

Percent of 

Planning Area 

Surface land managed by BLM 1,507,126 17.3 

Surface land managed by Forest Service 2,809,876 32.3 

Surface land managed by USFWS 284,721 3.3 

Surface land managed by National Park Service 782 0

Surface land managed by other Federal agencies 

(Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Defense) 

456,892 5.3 

Total acres managed by Federal agencies 5,059,397 58.2 

SOURCE: Bureau of Land Management 2003a 

Special designations are a key element of the management strategy in each of the alternatives for this 

RMPR. Table 4-19 provides a comparison of the special designations among alternatives. Special 

designations represent areas where resource uses are managed to minimize effects from surface 

disturbance on environmental resources. Generally this management would correspond to greater 

conservation and/or restoration of natural resources and would have incidental beneficial effects on 

primitive recreation settings from management to conserve existing natural landscapes. In combination 

with management on other public land in the Planning Area, protective management in special 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-103 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

designations would contribute to the preservation of an undeveloped, natural landscape within most of the 

Planning Area. This environment would continue to be well-suited for many types of primitive and semiprimitive recreation and grazing activities. There is some variation in this effect among alternatives. As 

shown in Table 4-19, Alternatives B and C would result in protective management on about 40 percent of 

BLM-managed surface land, which equates to about 7 percent of the entire Planning Area. 

TABLE 4-19 

MANAGEMENT BY BLM IN SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Surface land managed by BLM 1,507,126 1,507,126 1,507,126 1,507,126

Surface land managed by BLM 

within special designations 

(including WSAs, ACECs, 

SMAs, SRMAs) 

420,381 589,381 628,435 441,304 

Percent of BLM-managed 

surface land managed within 

special designations 

27.9 39.1 41.7 29.3 

Percent of Planning Area 

managed within BLM special 

designations 

4.8 6.8 7.2 5.1 

SOURCE: Bureau of Land Management 2006

Additional cumulative effects are characterized below by resource or resource use, as appropriate. Each 

discussion specifies the contribution of past and present actions in the Planning Area to the current 

conditions and the additional effect of reasonably foreseeable future actions on each resource or resource 

use.

4.7.2.1 Air Quality 

Past Actions. Emissions in the Planning Area from past actions have resulted from the evolution of the 

transportation network due to population growth and increased use, mineral exploration, and various 

construction projects. The Springerville and Coronado generating stations in Arizona, 10 miles west of 

the New Mexico border, are the largest source of emissions located in the region, with an additional eight 

permitted sources in the Planning Area qualified as minor sources. However, the area is still qualified as 

“unclassified” with regards to the NAAQS, indicating that there have been no cumulative effects from 

these actions resulting in emission levels exceeding New Mexico or Federal ambient air quality standards. 

Present Actions. Current management allows the use of cross-country travel on some portions of BLMmanaged land, resulting in a proliferation of routes and potential dust emissions. Oil and gas exploration 

is active in portions of the Planning Area. However, cumulative impacts to air quality have not resulted in 

exceeding state or Federal air quality standards. The Perlite Plant in Socorro continues to operate within 

the allowable emission rates for all criteria pollutants, with the exception of volatile organic compounds. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Cumulative impacts on air quality would result when the 

geographic areas experiencing direct effects from different activities overlap. For instance, if a mineral 

recovery project is undertaken near an area where wood harvesting or a prescribed burn will take place, 

the separate activities would contribute to cumulative impacts in a certain locale. A heavily traveled 

unpaved road, in combination with other road traffic activity, would increase inhalable particulate 

concentrations.

In the Decision Area, it is estimated that about 40 percent of BLM’s annual vegetation treatments would 

utilize fire, or an annual average of 20,500 acres (BLM 2004c). Prescribed burns also could occur on land 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-104 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

managed by the Forest Service, which would have an additive effect on air quality. The New Mexico 

Environment Department’s Air Quality Bureau regulates smoke from all sources and has the discretion to 

stop, reduce, or postpone prescribed burns, to ensure compliance with the NAAQS. Consequently, the 

cumulative effect of burns would not violate air quality standards. Under all alternatives, the risk of 

wildfire (and associated air emissions) would be reduced through fuels treatments in accordance with 

resource objectives and the statewide RMPA for Fire and Fuels Management. 

In cases where commodity production or industrial projects qualify for air quality permitting, the 

assessments required to obtain the permit would identify the possibility for cumulative impacts. If such 

impacts violate regulatory criteria, then the permit would impose mitigation as appropriate. 

As there are no specific project locations identified under the alternatives, the geographic areas that could 

be subject to cumulative impacts are not identifiable. The types of locations most at risk for cumulative 

impacts would be areas surrounding paved or unpaved roads. The application of best management 

practices to the development of unpaved roads and road expansion projects would mitigate the cumulative 

impacts from other projects near the road. However, because growth is occurring in the area, short-term 

cumulative effects could occur if development on adjacent land occurs in proximity to any projects 

occurring on BLM land. 

Because Alternative A would allow cross-country travel and designate fewer acres of special designations 

with associated limitations on surface disturbance, cumulative effects on air quality would be higher 

under this alternative if coincident development and fugitive dust from travel resulted in short-term, 

localized impacts to air quality. Although Alternative D would eliminate areas open to cross-country 

travel, cumulative impacts under this alternative also could be higher than those under Alternatives B and 

C as fewer areas would be subject to protective management within special designations and no acres 

would be closed to OHV use. 

4.7.2.2 Soil and Water Resources 

Past Actions: Groundwater withdrawals in the Planning Area increased 8 percent between 1975 and 1995. 

Studies regarding the flow of the Rio Grande and impacts to the San Acacia reach have been ongoing, 

with the Bureau of Reclamation managing the flow in the river through releases at upstream dams. The 

Gila National Forest has conducted watershed restoration along the San Francisco River involving 

removal of non-native vegetation and replanting native species as part of the Collaborative Forest 

Restoration Program (Forest Service 2006). 

Present Actions: Because BLM has adopted the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines, cumulative 

impacts from grazing on soil and water resources would be managed sustainably (to achieve public land 

health standards) throughout the Planning Area under all alternatives. These range management strategies 

are currently consistent with the research on arid-southwestern-grasslands, ecological science, and would 

be adapted to future research and the condition of the Planning Area as appropriate to maintain 

conformity to BLM policy and regulations. In addition, because of the strong reliance of the New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines on basic science and data collection, cumulative water and soil impacts on 

habitat and ecosystem health from grazing and recreation would be monitored and addressed. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Cumulative water and soil impacts would occur as other 

management decisions combine to deplete or impair resources over time. In most cases, NEPA 

documentation would identify the cumulative impacts, if any, from individual watershed restoration 

activities.
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-105 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

BLM’s management to meet public land health standards would continue under all alternatives, and 

therefore cumulative water and soil impacts on habitat and ecosystem health from resource uses would be 

monitored and addressed as needed to ensure sustainable management of resources. Cumulative 

watershed impacts also would continue to be assessed as watershed plans and environmental assessments 

are implemented. 

Despite all of this, some inevitable cumulative watershed impacts would be expected when all of the 

alternatives are compared to other foreseeable future actions on the Planning Area. As disturbance in the 

watershed increases, the hydrologic function of a watershed tends to degrade, as soil erosion and gullying 

are followed by lowered plant productivity and increased sedimentation. The severity of these cumulative 

impacts would be dependent upon prompt identification of the problems and long-term observation of the 

performance of the watershed, in addition to the implementation of best management practices or other 

mitigation measures to reduce direct and cumulative impacts. 

Closure or restrictions on fluid mineral leasing on public land would occur in the Zuni Salt Lake area to 

some extent under all alternatives. However, the potential for coal and fluid mineral production in 

northwestern Catron County is such that activities to extract resources could be undertaken on State and 

private land in the area. Future coal mining and fluid mineral production could have a cumulative effect 

on the water resources of Salt Lake Coal Field and the lake itself. Particularly under Alternative D, which 

allows for more mineral development on public land in the area, cumulative impacts could increase if a 

change in exploration and mineral value sharply increased. Although development of mines and 

production wells in the Moreno Hill Formation does not suggest an impact (USGS 2004), there is no way 

at this time of assessing an impact on water resources from a prodigious increase in exploration and 

development activity. However, because the Zuni Tribe has senior rights to the waters of the lake, any 

new diversion of ground or surface water would require that these rights not be impaired. In addition, the 

Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and State surface coal mining regulations 

specifically require that a Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Analysis be completed and regularly updated 

for rapidly expanding coal fields, as has occurred for the Salt Lake coal field (New Mexico Energy, 

Minerals, and Natural Resources Department 1994). These studies would require review by BLM and the 

cooperating agencies to assure an adequate characterization of cumulative impacts on water quantity and 

quality. Because of the general recognition of the importance and fragility of the Zuni Salt Lake, these 

issues would be addressed. 

The potential for general oil and gas exploration and development cumulatively affecting the Zuni Salt 

Lake seems a more likely consequence of expected future growth than coal or coalbed methane 

development. Under current management guidance, each lease application would receive full BLM and 

NEPA scrutiny as it is proposed. Thus cumulative effects would be addressed incrementally, as directed 

by BLM NEPA policy guidance. 

Water resources are scarce in the Planning Area and the support of existing and planned uses of the land 

require adequate ground water to continue. The Planning Area supports grazing and wildlife use with 

ground water wells and stock tanks, which also would supply wildlife. These needs, along with BLM’s 

general responsibility for water conservation, suggest that ground water resource conservation in the 

Planning Area is critical. Actions taken by all entities with the authority to influence groundwater use in 

the Planning Area will influence the availability of water for uses on BLM-managed surface land and 

elsewhere in the Planning Area. 

4.7.2.3 Vegetation

Past Actions. BLM management measures to improve vegetation have included brush control, grazing 

deferment, erosion control, and prescribed burns. Within the Planning Area, the Forest Service also has 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-106 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

conducted vegetative treatments and fuel reduction projects. The Gila National Forest has completed

forest restoration treatment on 450 acres near Reserve in the Sheep Basin area as part of the Collaborative 

Forest Restoration Program. 

Outside of public land, the Planning Area has experienced population growth, particularly along the I-25 

corridor and in towns along major roads. This has resulted in the loss of vegetation and the introduction of 

noxious weeds or invasive species in those areas. 

Present Actions. Current management of livestock, vegetation, and wildlife is intended to facilitate 

achievement of the standards for public land health. This management approach would reduce erosion 

and improve ecological processes that support the desired diversity of native vegetation. The ongoing 

implementation of programs to manage noxious weeds continue to address and reduce the problem 

though inventory, treatment, and public outreach programs. .

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. The primary impact on vegetation is a result of activities that 

cause surface disturbance, which could lead to vegetation loss and the potential introduction of noxious 

weeds. Direct, localized impacts on vegetation would occur to varying degrees on Federal, State, or 

private land as a result of the RFDs (see Section 4.7.1) under any of the alternatives addressed in this 

document. However, the cumulative impact on vegetation is expected to be low due to the small, 

predicted disturbance area relative to the large size of the Planning Area. Special designations restricting 

surface-disturbing activities in each of the alternatives would reduce direct cumulative impacts to 

vegetation, with the most pronounced effects occurring under Alternative C. Under Alternatives B and C, 

cumulative effects on vegetation would be further reduced in areas (40,104 and 68,679 acres of BLMmanaged surface estate, respectively) of potential aplomado falcon habitat areas that would be protected 

from surface-disturbing activities. Other Federal efforts to support the release of an experimental, 

nonessential aplomado falcon population in this area could have the coincidental effect of protecting or 

restoring native vegetation in the southern portion of the Planning Area. 

The BLM expects to treat approximately 60,000 acres of vegetation annually using a variety of treatment 

methods (BLM 2004c), which would result in an improved condition for vegetation. The land in the 

Planning Area under the jurisdiction of other Federal agencies, notably the Forest Service and USFWS, 

generally would be managed to meet goals of sustainable use and habitat protection in accordance with 

applicable mandates, with the cumulative effect of maintaining or enhancing vegetation over a large 

portion of the Planning Area. The Forest Service is planning for forest restoration projects in several 

areas, in part associated with the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program. 

Regional population growth potentially would increase the extent and intensity of all types of recreational 

use and development-related rights-of-way that could disturb vegetation and increase the likelihood of 

expanding invasive species distributions. 

Cross-country travel has been eliminated under all action alternatives, potentially reducing cumulative 

impacts to vegetation because of the large area (about 851,234 acres) that would be affected by this 

management. If BLM restrictions result in the transfer of OHV activities to State or private land, impacts 

on vegetation could increase in those areas.

4.7.2.4 Wildlife and Riparian Habitat

Past Actions. The BLM developed four HMPs to improve and protect habitat for various wildlife species.

BLM has also developed water catchments, spring enclosures, land treatment plans, identified 

ecologically unique areas, blocked access routes for the protection of wildlife, and implemented fencing 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-107 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

standards. The Forest Service and USFWS have completed projects to protect habitat and benefit wildlife 

on the land managed by each agency, which often is contiguous with BLM-managed land.

Developments within the Planning Area (such as residential growth or right-of-way development for 

roads and utilities) have had the effect of habitat fragmentation and loss, and creating wildlife-human 

interactions.

Present Actions. BLM conducts annual surveys for some species to determine distribution and if 

additional protective measures are necessary. BLM’s annual ongoing efforts for the protection of wildlife 

include modifying livestock grazing management as necessary, developing escape ramps, protecting 

riparian habitat, suppressing fires in riparian areas, developing wildlife waters, installing antelope panels 

or passes where necessary, and conducting wildlife studies on various allotments to determine habitat 

capacity to support anticipated numbers of livestock and wildlife. 

Projects to benefit wildlife also occur on land managed by the Forest Service and USFWS. On all Federal 

land in the Planning Area, compliance with the Endangered Species Act and NEPA is required, resulting 

in surveys and habitat protection. Cumulatively, these actions move towards adaptive management and 

protection of wildlife species, as federally managed land subject to these statutes covers over 58 percent 

of the Planning Area. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Regional population growth would potentially increase the 

extent and intensity of all types of development-related activities and recreational use that could disturb 

wildlife and riparian habitats, lead to increased edge effects and habitat fragmentation, disruption of local 

wildlife movement corridors, and increase the likelihood of expanding invasive species distribution. 

Increased development adjacent to BLM-managed surface land could result in a direct loss of wildlife 

habitat due to construction of supporting infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.) on BLM-managed surface 

land. Cumulative effects from right-of-way development could be more pronounced under Alternatives A 

and D as multiple utility corridors would be possible (rather than one corridor under Alternatives B and 

C), which would promote the viability of more locations outside of BLM-managed land. 

Special designations for the protection of special status species and wildlife habitats (117,682 acres of 

BLM-managed surface estate under Alternative B and 118,321 acres under Alternative C) would mitigate 

cumulative effects from the pressures of adjacent development on private land by providing protection 

and restrictions to surface disturbance on public land. The Forest Service, responsible for the management 

of almost one-third of the Planning Area, also conducts forest restoration activities, such as the planned 

restoration of streams near Glenwood and Reserve to expand loach minnow and other native fish habitat 

(Forest Service 2006). Management that would protect the aplomado falcon under Alternatives B and C 

would reinforce other Federal efforts to support the release of an experimental, nonessential aplomado 

falcon population in the southern portion of the Planning Area. These activities also would provide 

coincident protection of other wildlife species and habitats. 

4.7.2.5 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management, and Forestry and Woodland Management 

Past Actions. Fire suppression policies of the past 100 years have been partially responsible for a 

reduction in fire frequency in the forests of the management area. While fires during this period have 

become less frequent, forest structure has been altered. Many forests now carry hazardous fuel loads that 

promote intense, large-scale fires that cause mortality to entire stands of timber when ignited. These fires 

are difficult to control, especially during times of extreme fire weather. The Healthy Forest Restoration 

Act, Healthy Forest Initiative, and National Fire Plan are intended in part to address these hazards.
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-108 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Between 1968 and 2002, there were 158 wildfires on lands administered by the Socorro Field Office. In 

2001 and 2002, efforts were made to create fuel breaks in several communities with potential wildlandurban interface fire risks. In the past 8 years, the Socorro Field Office has implemented more than 32,000 

acres of fire-related treatments within designated fire management units. 

Present Actions. Current fire management and treatment is guided by the 2004 Fire and Fuels 

Management Plan Amendment for BLM Lands in New Mexico and Texas, which outlines fire 

management units and categories that currently apply to the lands managed by the Socorro Field Office. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Cumulative effects to fire management would result collectively 

from management of lands adjacent to those managed by the Socorro Field Office and facilities that 

present a barrier to effect fire suppression on public land (e.g., utility corridors). The Gila National Forest 

has been a leading area for restoration of forest health. Forests and woodlands within the Socorro Field 

Office jurisdiction that are adjacent to the Gila National Forest land would benefit as a result. Due to the 

active restoration of historic fire regimes and forest structure within the Gila National Forest, wildfires 

that originate in the Gila National Forest are less likely to become crown fires that spread into forests 

managed by the Socorro Field Office. However, projected development within Socorro and Catron 

Counties could result in a cumulative increase in wildland-urban interface areas, and consequently the 

threat to private property from wildland fire would increase. There also is a greater safety hazard from 

wildfires in wildland-urban interface areas. 

The development of linear utilities outside of BLM-managed surface land could cause barriers and safety 

hazards during fire treatment and suppression. However, because of the extensive public land in the 

Planning Area, BLM’s designation of a utility corridor(s) would have a broad effect in promoting the 

consolidation of linear facilities into one area. The designation of multiple utility corridors under 

Alternative D and none under Alternative A would allow the development of more barriers to effective 

fire suppression than the single corridor proposed in Alternatives B and C. Additionally, all action 

alternatives eliminate cross-country travel, therefore reducing the potential for human-caused wildfires. 

4.7.2.6 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Past Actions. Almost 7,500 archaeological and historical sites have been recorded within the Planning 

Area and almost 1,100 of those are on public land. The types and numbers of cultural components 

recorded on public land are similar to those recorded on nonpublic land. Only a small fraction of the 

Planning Area and public land has been intensively surveyed for cultural resources. Since the completion 

of the 1989 RMP, an average of about 3.5 square miles have been inventoried annually, primarily to 

facilitate project reviews in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Almost 800 archaeological and historical sites were discovered by those surveys, which is an average of 

approximately 17 sites per square mile on public land. It is estimated that there could be as many as 

210,000 to 220,000 archaeological and historical sites in the Planning Area, including approximately 

35,000 to 40,000 on public land. About 80 percent of the recorded sites have been evaluated as having 

significant values that warrant protection. 

Since the 1989 RMP was adopted, an average of about 18 archaeological and historical sites on public 

land were threatened annually by various proposed uses of the public land but impacts were avoided as a 

result of project review. An annual average of about 6 significant sites could not be entirely removed from 

the area of effect, and various mitigation measures were implemented including avoidance of all 

mechanical disturbance, monitoring, or in a few cases data recovery. 

Present Actions. The cultural resource program initiates very few surface-disturbing projects; however 

data recovery (excavation) does occur through partnerships with research institutions and universities. 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-109 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

Additional surveys are completed in association with project reviews, as described above. An 

approximate 7,000 archaeological sites could occur in special designations for cultural resources as a 

primary or secondary consideration. Cross-country travel on public land (under Alternative A only) or on 

State and private land could impact as many as 22,000 archaeological sites. These sites may be exposed to 

more theft or damage than if access were limited to existing or designated routes, as under the action 

alternatives.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Because of the effort and expense required for intensive 

inventory, only a small percentage of the resources potentially occurring in the Planning Area are ever 

likely to be identified, recorded, and evaluated. If BLM-initiated data recovery continued at predicted 

levels, data recovery would occur for four to six weeks per year at a total of five sites over the life of the 

plan. Up to 50, 1-meter square test pits would be excavated per year for a total of less than 1/10th of an 

acre per year. Over a 20-year period, the total estimated surface disturbance would be less than 2 acres. 

Statistics indicate that something on the order of 250 archaeological and historical sites might be 

threatened over the next 10 years, and some direct or indirect effects on 60 significant sites might be 

unavoidable. Even if that estimate were doubled or tripled, only a fraction of a percent of the estimated 

total number of significant archaeological and historical sites on the public land would be affected. The 

Section 106 review process would ensure that those impacts are carefully considered, and there is good 

potential to satisfactorily mitigate those impacts through data recovery or other means. Additional sites 

could be adversely affected by natural erosion or vandalism. 

All of the alternatives would provide some level of potential beneficial impacts on cultural resources 

through management of special designations. The available information about site density suggests that 

the numbers of archaeological and historical sites within ACECs, SMAs, and SRMAs with protection of 

cultural resources identified as primary or secondary management objectives are of the following 

magnitude:

x Alternative B 13,000 sites 

x Alternative C 21,000 sites 

x Alternative D 7,000 sites 

Because cultural resources are essentially nonrenewable, damage or destruction of cultural resources 

represents a permanent, irreversible, and irretrievable loss. However, the potential for adequate mitigation 

measures and the beneficial impacts of special designations for protecting cultural resources are likely to 

offset, by a considerable margin, any cumulative adverse impacts regardless of which alternative is 

selected. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions include several potentially large-scale surface-disturbing activities 

primarily related to mineral and energy resources exploration and development, and increased public 

access to BLM-managed land. Increased access to public land may result in discovery, theft, or vandalism 

of cultural or fossil resources. Although BLM management addresses survey and assessment of 

mitigation for cultural and paleontological resources in the event of a proposed activity or use on public 

land, similar development on nonfederal land could result in damage or loss of resources. 

4.7.2.7 Visual Resources 

Past and Present Actions. Public land within the Planning Area was inventoried during 1979 and 1981 

with some updates occurring in 1986; visual inventory classes were assigned as a result of this inventory. 

Management actions or proposals within the VRM classes must meet the objectives of the class, in some 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-110 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

instances requiring mitigation to reduce visibility or impacts to sensitive viewers. The Forest Service 

developed the Visual Management System to inventory, classify, and manage its visual resources. 

Population growth and development in the Planning Area has resulted in land use development and linear 

utility development that have altered views of the landscape. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. The presence of large amounts of Federal land within the 

Planning Area overall affects scenic resources since BLM, Forest Service, and USFWS land would be 

managed to protect scenic resources in higher quality areas or indirectly through habitat management. 

Although management activities by other Federal agencies likely would maintain or enhance scenic 

resources through management objectives or mitigation measures, surface-disturbing activities on 

nonfederal land adjacent to BLM-managed surface land could impact sensitive viewers, if activities that 

are incompatible with VRM Class I or II objectives occur within the viewshed of those areas. Under the 

alternatives, it is possible that Alternative D would have higher cumulative impacts to visual resources as 

no land is designated as Class I, and much more land is designated as Class IV, allowing the greatest level 

of change to the landscape.

4.7.2.8 Wilderness Characteristics 

Past and Present Actions. Thirteen WSAs are located in the Planning Area and are managed according to 

the 1995 Interim Management Policy. A land exchange with the State of New Mexico resulted in BLM’s 

acquisition of about 52,230 acres of lands within and adjacent to the Sierra Ladrones, Continental Divide, 

Devil’s Backbone, and Horse Mountain WSAs, helping to facilitate management and preservation of 

wilderness characteristics in those areas. With the 1989 RMP, BLM closed 36 miles of ways within 

WSAs, preserving the characteristics of naturalness and primitive recreation in those areas. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. In the event that Congress releases any one of the WSAs in the 

Planning Area from wilderness review, there may be impacts on wilderness characteristics in those areas 

if uses occur that had been prohibited under the Interim Management Policy. However, the alternatives 

evaluated in this plan generally would provide protective management in the event an area is released 

from wilderness review (see also Table 2-3 for management of WSAs should they be released from 

wilderness review). Under all action alternatives cumulative effects on wilderness characteristics could be 

experienced in the Veranito WSA due to a north-south utility corridor located adjacent to the WSA, 

adjacent OHV use in the Gordy’s Hill SRMA, and other activities on State or private land that would be 

compatible with BLM management in those areas. Effects on wilderness characteristics such as 

naturalness and solitude could be experienced if utilities are visible from the WSA, associated access 

routes increase motorized access to the general area, or dust and noise from OHV use penetrates the 

WSA. The elimination of cross-country travel under all action alternatives would mitigating potential 

impacts from OHV use in this area and adjacent to other WSAs. Additionally, Alternatives B and C 

would close substantially more routes within WSAs than either Alternative A or D, preserving wilderness 

characteristics in those areas. 

Within the Decision Area, administrative actions would be completed in WSAs including the installation 

of up to 100 signs, disturbing up to 2 acres. In addition, up to 75 barriers would be built, disturbing up to 

3 acres. Total surface disturbance anticipated over the next 20 years from these actions would be 5 acres 

or 0.0000016 percent of the BLM-managed surface land managed as WSAs. Cumulative effects from 

these administrative actions would be minimal due to the relatively small amount of land affected. 

4.7.2.9 Land and Realty 

Past Actions. Many of the linear facilities authorized under various right-of-way grants have led to the 

establishment of de facto right-of-way corridors. In 1992 the Western Utility Group identified five utility 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-111 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

corridors in the Planning Area to be considered during future planning efforts. (These are reflected in the 

proposed utility corridors under Alternative D.) Since the 1989 RMP, land tenure changes have resulted 

in the following changes of surface ownership: 

x Transfer of 47,212 acres of public land into State ownership 

x Transfer of 15,222 acres of public land into private ownership 

x Transfer of 64,822 acres of State or private land into public ownership 

x Disposal of public land in the Rio Grande Valley to resolve title disputes 

x Conveyance of approximately 125 acres through two Recreation and Public Purchase patent 

transactions

Present Actions. No formal designated corridors exist on public land in the Planning Area, although the 

BLM manages avoidance and exclusion areas in accordance with the 1989 RMP. Applications for new 

rights-of-way are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. An effort is underway by the BLM, Forest Service, 

and other agencies to designate corridors on public land throughout the western U.S. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Surface land disposals would allow conversion of land from 

current uses, likely grazing and potentially dispersed recreation, to other uses. Due to the remoteness of 

most of the land identified for disposal, changes to land uses would not be anticipated (i.e., ranch land 

would continue to be ranch land, just under different ownership). Potential disposal of land managed by 

the Cibola National Forest due to 5-year reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community 

Self-Determination Act of 2000 also would not be likely to result in changes to land uses. In this instance, 

the money received from these disposals would go towards funding states and counties impacted by the 

loss of receipts associated with lower timber harvests on Federal land. 

Population growth is expected to continue, and Socorro and Catron Counties have recorded an increased 

number of plans for urban development. The proposed development areas in the I-25 corridor and those 

near the Arizona border tend to be surrounded primarily by public land. New development within the 

Planning Area and particularly adjacent to public lands would have the cumulative effect of increasing 

areas of urban interface, the demand for recreation opportunities, additional traffic, and the need for new 

utilities to serve development . Increased urban interface areas would cause effects on other resources 

such as wildlife, vegetation, and fire management (as described in those sections). The designation of a 

utility corridor could help reduce cumulative effects by minimizing surface disturbance caused by a 

network of linear rights-of-way and consolidating these facilities into a single corridor. Designation of a 

utility corridor also would help the Socorro Field Office to meet the multiple use mandate of Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Because Alternative D identifies multiple utility 

corridors, rather than a single corridor as identified in Alternatives B and C, this alternative would be 

better able to meet adjacent demand for facilities but could result in higher cumulative impacts to other 

resources.

4.7.2.10 Rangeland Management 

Past Actions: Many boundary fences and water developments were constructed by allottees in the 

Planning Area during the 1950s and 1960s. Livestock use in the Planning Area in the past 15 years has 

ranged from a low of 145,565 AUMs in 2002 to a high of 180,504 AUMs in 1998. Rangeland health 

assessments have been completed on 27 grazing allotments, all of which were concluded to be meeting 

the rangeland standards for upland and biotic health. BLM’s approval of the New Mexico Standards for 

Public Land Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management initiated changes to range management. The 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-112 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

overall effect of these actions has been to more efficiently manage grazing and livestock movements, and 

meet or move towards meeting the public land health standards. 

Present Actions: BLM’s present actions relative to livestock grazing are described in Section 4.7.1 and 

Chapter 3. Current management of livestock, vegetation, and wildlife is intended to facilitate achievement 

of the standards for public land health. Guidelines for livestock grazing management guide the mitigation, 

restoration, or other measures needed to improve rangeland health. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. The surrounding population and the need for land development 

associated with residential and commercial properties is expected to increase in the future. As the amount 

of land required for these types of developed or urban uses increases, impacts on vegetation and other 

resources from land development, including expanded transportation corridors, utility corridors, and 

others also are likely to increase. The cumulative impacts on available forage from proliferation of travel 

routes or construction of utilities throughout the Planning Area to serve a growing population could be 

higher under current management than under the action alternatives. Cumulative impacts to grazing from 

additional travel routes or utility corridors also may be higher under Alternative D than Alternatives B 

and C because Alternative D provides four utility corridors and closes no areas to OHV use. These 

impacts likely would be expressed through a reduction in AUMs to help impacted areas meet or maintain 

public land health standards. 

As these types of resource uses increase and public perceptions or needs shift, conflicts between new uses 

and historic livestock grazing could occur. These conflicts could result in a reduction in the land available 

for open range livestock grazing and increased interactions between livestock and the urban interface. 

This could result in increased potential for automobile-livestock accidents, as well as increased livestock 

damage to private property and amplified disturbance-related complaints from the public. Over time, 

public safety and disturbance issues could have a cumulative effect on livestock grazing by reducing 

available grazing locations, the duration and season of use, and utilization levels.

Overlapping land requirements and user conflict between private development and livestock operations 

also would require increased resources to manage livestock. To compensate for increased interactions, the 

BLM or livestock operator would have to expend more resources (man-hours, vehicles, signs, fences, 

etc.) managing active allotments and monitoring livestock movements. The result could be fewer 

resources available to the BLM for other projects or personnel. 

The increased growth in the surrounding communities also is likely to lead to an enhanced need for 

recreational opportunities. Based on the availability of numerous recreational activities, the proximity to 

major cities, and the availability of maintained roads, there is a high probability that recreation use would 

continue to increase in the future. The increased public use in and around the area could lead to more 

human-caused wildfires, augmented dispersal of invasive plant and noxious weed species, and increased 

degradation of native plant communities, which could potentially reduce access to and the amount of 

available forage. If the conditions were to decline appreciably, livestock grazing activities could be 

restricted or eliminated to compensate. 

Future development, shifting resource needs, and a potential increased expenditure of resources for 

livestock management could potentially restrict or exclude livestock grazing operations within portions of 

the Planning Area. Cumulative impacts due to population growth and development on private land could 

contribute to downward range condition trends on BLM-managed land, resulting in a potential reduction 

of AUMs to compensate. Subsequent impacts on livestock grazing could be more pronounced under 

Alternative C, as any forage increases would be first reserved for wildlife and watershed needs, and range 

improvements would be designed primarily for wildlife and watershed resources with livestock grazing as 

a secondary objective after other resource objectives have been met. Conversely, under Alternative D 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-113 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

both forage allocation and range improvements would prioritize livestock grazing, with other resources 

receiving secondary consideration, thus potentially reducing cumulative impacts on grazing compared 

with Alternative C. Alternative B would balance these impacts by allocating vegetation increases between 

livestock grazing and other resource needs evenly at 50 percent. 

4.7.2.11 Minerals and Energy 

Past Actions. Since the early 1920s, there have been 45 exploratory wells drilled for oil and gas in 

Socorro County, and 43 exploratory wells drilled in Catron County. Although there have been shows of 

oil and gas reported in several of the wells in each county, there has been no economic production to date. 

Mining districts in the Planning Area have been mined historically and are no longer active. Development 

of the Fence Lake Coal Mine was pursued, but ultimately the permits were relinquished and Salt River 

Project opted to not pursue the project. Recordation files identified 27 saleable mineral pits on BLMmanaged surface estate; additional mineral material extraction occurs on State and private land.

Present Actions. Since the 1989 RMP, interest in fluid mineral increased after a carbon dioxide discovery 

was reported on the Arizona/New Mexico border. However, major production has not occurred. There is 

only one known active metallic mineral mine in the Planning Area, in Catron County. The majority of 

abandoned mines in the Planning Area are on private and Forest Service land. 

The Socorro Field Office currently has 2 common-use areas, 2 community pits, 1 fee-use permit, and 2 

negotiated sales covering 167 acres. The majority of continuing actions related to mineral material 

extraction are in response to highway construction and repair. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Given the RFD and the potential for fluid mineral resource 

development in parts of the Planning Area, particularly northwestern Catron County and eastern Socorro 

County, it is likely State and private land would be developed in the future. Although leasing activity 

would be restricted on BLM-managed land in the northwestern corner of Catron County (primarily under 

Alternatives B and C), this management would not affect the ability to extract minerals from other areas. 

However, it may be more difficult to find suitable sites for fluid mineral and coal leasing due to the 

combination of BLM management under Alternative B or C and management of other Federal lands 

within the Planning Area. 

While BLM’s Decision Area contains a multitude of mining districts and old mines, these deposits are 

generally small in size. While the Socorro Field Office expects to continue to have one or two Notices of 

Intent per year, and a Plan of Operations every two or three years, it likely will not have any major new 

mines (defined as greater than 20 acres of disturbance). Total ground disturbance over the next 20 years is 

likely to be less then 200 acres. Based on past experience with the New Mexico Abandoned Mine Lands 

Program, five abandoned mines, totaling 20 acres, would be reclaimed in the next 20 years. 

It is estimated that one action for the mining of saleable minerals would occur every year, disturbing 10 

acres per action. Total ground disturbance over the next 20 years would be 200 acres. Overall, the 

additive effect of BLM management of locatable and saleable minerals would not affect the ability to 

extract these resources throughout the Planning Area. 

4.7.2.12 Recreation and Transportation and Travel Management 

Past Actions. BLM has developed campgrounds and other recreational facilities in several locations 

throughout the Planning Area, as noted in Section 4.7.1. Since 1989, legal access has been acquired to the 

Pelona Mountain SMA, Fort Craig SMA, Cottonwood Canyon, Bat Cave, and areas of the Continental 

Divide Trail. OHV registrations have increased substantially within the Planning Area over the last 10 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-114 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

years, in some instances resulting in a proliferation of routes, particularly during the fall and winter 

months when hunters pursue big game. 

Present Actions. Current recreation use of BLM land is summarized in Section 4.7.1 and Section 3.3.5. 

Other recreation opportunities in the Planning Area are provided by two National Wildlife Refuges 

managed by the USFWS, three national forests, and two National Park Service properties. Recreation 

opportunities available in the Planning Area include developed recreational sites for camping, picnicking, 

and other activities; OHV use areas; and primitive settings for backpacking and wildlife viewing. 

Because the majority of the land in the Planning Area is managed by Federal agencies, there is a variety 

of opportunities for both developed and dispersed recreation. Hunting is managed by the NMDGF; data 

available between 1990 and 2000 show an increase in hunting as a recreational use. OHV also is a 

popular recreational activity, and under current management cross-country travel is allowed on 851,234 

acres of BLM-managed surface area. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Population growth in the Planning Area and the State overall 

could lead to increased demand for recreation opportunities. Potential impacts would occur if a setting is 

degraded or the experience diminished because of greater use. Increased demand for a variety of 

recreation uses also would increase the possibility of use conflicts. 

If current trends persist, use of OHVs would continue and increase throughout the Planning Area, as 

population and the popularity of motorized sports increases. Limitations on cross-country travel on public 

land (which occur under Alternatives B, C, and D) could increase cross-country OHV use on private land, 

potentially affecting opportunities for primitive recreation experiences or other use conflicts. 

As transmission lines, pipelines, and transportation routes are developed off of BLM-managed surface 

land, access roads to these linear facilities for operations and maintenance also could be used by the 

public for recreational access. If this occurs, it could trigger proliferation of access throughout the area, 

including on BLM-managed surface land. The establishment of one designated utility corridor under 

Alternative B and C would promote the consolidation of access routes into an area that is largely 

previously disturbed, which would limit the opportunities for public access to proliferate but could protect 

solitude and naturalness in other, more primitive recreation settings. 

Over the life of this plan, it is anticipated that the BLM would complete administrative actions to improve 

recreational access and experiences in the Planning Area. These actions would include the construction or 

upgrading of up to 20 miles of access routes to provide improved and enhanced access to recreation sites. 

This would disturb up to 10 acres. Up to 5 restrooms would be constructed, disturbing up to 2 acres. Up to 

5 parking areas would be constructed, disturbing up to 10 acres. Up to 10 trailheads would be constructed, 

disturbing up to 5 acres. Up to 25 miles of fencing would be constructed in and around recreation sites. 

Up to 50 signs would be installed at various recreation sites disturbing up to 2 acres. Up to 25 campsites 

would be developed, disturbing up to 5 acres. Up to 10 miles of trail would be constructed, disturbing up 

to 10 acres. Up to 50 barriers would be constructed disturbing up to 5 acres. Up to 20 wayside exhibits 

would be developed, disturbing up to 10 acres. Up to 6 entrance areas for recreation sites would be 

established, with up to 2 acres disturbed. Up to 6 bat gates would be installed, disturbing 1⁄2 acre. Total 

disturbance of these anticipated actions over the next 20 years would range from 62 to 65 acres, or 

.000043 percent of BLM’s Decision Area. 

4.7.2.13 Social and Economic Conditions 

Past and Present Actions. Historical socioeconomic data on population and employment are discussed in 

Section 3.5.The Catron County Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies three areas for coordinated 

planning with Federal agencies: (1) range improvement through piñon-juniper management, (2) timber 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-115 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

management through saw log and small diameter tree management, and (3) recreation development 

(Catron County 1992). The Socorro County Comprehensive Plan established Economic Development 

Goals including keeping farming as an industry in Socorro County and maintaining the current rural 

lifestyle (Socorro County 1998). 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Trends such as population growth, shifts in economic sector 

employment and earnings, growth in non-labor income, and the increasing importance of open space and 

preserved land to the economies of the Planning Area are largely independent of the alternatives, but have 

potential for additive or interactive effects with them. Cumulative impacts are evaluated in terms of the 

affected communities’ capacity for change, which is interactive with the diversity of the economy and 

opportunities elsewhere locally and regionally. 

As statewide and local economies shift towards the services sector and non-labor sources of income, the 

opportunities for recreation, tourism, and land preservation/open space on BLM-managed surface land 

would take a greater role in community economic development. All alternatives provide for generally 

consistent management for the most notable attractions in the Decision Area, such as Datil Well and the 

Quebradas Back Country Byway. Recreational demand would be expected to grow by virtue of the 

growing statewide population regardless of the alternative selected. Assuming that specially designated 

areas for management of recreation use would be most likely to experience the effects of increased 

recreation use/tourism, all alternatives would have the potential for cumulative beneficial socioeconomic 

impact when combined with other recreation opportunities in the area. Other recreation/tourism related 

attractions in the area include Gila, Apache, and Cibola National Forests and the Bosque del Apache and 

Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuges. If recreational demand is expanded and the alternatives promote or 

accommodate such use, there could be increased opportunities for private sector business growth. 

Grazing would be permissible throughout the Planning Area under all alternatives, which supports the 

viability of the local ranching economy. Although a reduction in AUMs is not expected as a direct result 

of the alternatives, reduced AUMs could be a cumulative effect of the implementation of the New Mexico 

Standards and Guidelines, ongoing drought conditions, and development that encroaches on land 

available for open range livestock grazing. These impacts could lead ranchers to seek off-ranch forms of 

income or sell assets, place additional grazing pressure on private land, and/or increase the demand for 

hay or other forage alternatives. Any adverse impacts on ranching as a viable industry could translate into 

social impacts, in terms of changes to the long-standing social ties of the ranching lifestyle to custom and 

culture in the Planning Area. Effects on rural community stability would be dependent on the degree of 

reliance on public land for grazing and ranching for household income. The lack of diversification in the 

economy and historic reliance on ranching would potentially exacerbate the impact, particularly in Catron 

County. As noted in Section 3.5.7.2, the average ranch spends $20,000 a year in the local economy. 

Socioeconomic activity related to mineral and energy resource development and land and realty actions 

on public land are influenced by industry demand and public interests. Interest in fluid mineral leasing 

exists in the Planning Area, particularly in eastern Socorro County and parts of Catron County. The past, 

present, and future development of coal in the Planning Area will continue to be largely driven by 

industry demand and public and tribal concerns about the impact of mining activity on other resources, 

particularly groundwater, in addition to BLM policies. The cumulative effects of continued construction 

activity to meet the needs of a growing population in the Planning Area would result in the development 

of more utility, transportation, and communication projects and salable mineral pits. 

Public interests, attitudes, and values in public land emphasize the importance of the natural resources to 

the past and future economies of the area and a desire to preserve agricultural land and maintain the rural 

atmosphere. The RMPR could provide a positive cumulative effect in combination with county policies 

and goals by enhancing the natural environment while allowing for grazing on appropriate land and 
Cumulative Impacts 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 4-116 Chapter 4.0 Environmental Consequences

April 2007

providing the flexibility of additional grazing on newly acquired appropriate land. Public interests, 

attitudes, and values in public land would be expected to change commensurate with changes in 

demographics, community characteristics, and economic conditions. The action alternatives evaluated in 

this RMPR provide an incremental cumulative social and economic impact in that they would provide an 

updated management policy that is reflective of public interests, attitudes, and values of today rather than 

those of the 1989 RMP. Adoption of Alternative C, which is the alternative that places the most emphasis 

on resource protection, could add to the concern of some residents about increasing government control 

over public land. Adoption of Alternative D, which provides a greater emphasis on resource production 

and use, could contribute to an increasing concern for natural and cultural resource, to individuals and 

groups who place a high value on protection of these resources. 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 

5-1 Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination 

April 2007 

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

Consultation and coordination with Federal and intergovernmental agencies, organizations, American 

Indian Tribes, and interested groups and individuals is important to (1) ensure that the most appropriate 

data have been gathered and employed for the analyses and (2) ensure that agency and public sentiment 

and values are considered and incorporated into decision making. During the planning process for this 

Resource Management Plan Revision (RMPR)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), formal and 

informal efforts were made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to involve Tribes, other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments, and the public. 

Coordination efforts were initiated during the scoping period, from May to September 2002. A scoping 

notice to announce the commencement of the RMPR/EIS planning process was distributed to 

approximately 400 agencies, interested organizations, and individuals. In addition, a planning bulletin, 

media release, and paid notices in local newspapers announced the project. To facilitate continuous 

communication with interested parties, BLM established a toll-free information line, web page, and 

mailing list. Numerous agency coordination meetings, public meetings, and other collaborative efforts 

occurred during the scoping period and have continued as needed, appropriate, or requested since that 

time. Table 5-1, Summary of Agency Coordination Meetings and Public Involvement Events, summarizes 

key meetings that have occurred. 

TABLE 5-1 

SUMMARY OF AGENCY COORDINATION MEETINGS AND 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT EVENTS 

Date Meeting or Event Attendance 

August 5, 2002 Coordination meeting between BLM and New Mexico Department 

of Game and Fish 

12

August 15, 2002 Meeting of cooperating agencies (BLM, Pueblo of Zuni, Socorro 

County, Catron County) 

9

August 21, 2002 Public scoping meeting in Socorro, New Mexico 25 

August 28, 2002 Public scoping meeting in Quemado, New Mexico 28 

August 29, 2002 Public scoping meeting in Zuni, New Mexico 8 

September 18, 2002 Coordination meeting between BLM and Bureau of Indian Affairs 6

September 18, 2002 Coordination meeting between BLM and New Mexico State Land 

Office

5

September 19, 2002 Coordination meeting between BLM and New Mexico Bureau of 

Geology and Mineral Resources 

5

September 20, 2002 Coordination meeting between BLM and New Mexico Energy, 

Minerals and Natural Resources Department Oil Conservation 

Division 

4

September 20, 2002 Coordination meeting between BLM and New Mexico Energy, 

Minerals and Natural Resources Department Mining and Minerals 

Division 

8

March 26, 2003 Public meeting in Datil, New Mexico to discuss off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) issues 

10

March 27, 2003 Public meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico to discuss OHV issues 23 

April 2, 2003 Public meeting in Socorro, New Mexico to discuss OHV issues 22

September 10, 2003 Coordination meeting between BLM and Catron County 6

March 16, 2005 Coordination meeting between BLM and Catron County 6

October 27, 2005 Update meeting between Zuni and BLM 9
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 

5-2 Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination 

April 2007 

The three public scoping meetings were held in August 2002 to obtain public input that would help BLM 

in determining the issues and the planning criteria that were relevant and appropriate to the RMPR/EIS 

process, and to determine the scope of the RMPR/EIS. Several displays illustrating or explaining the 

different components of the RMPR/EIS were stationed around the meeting room for those in attendance 

to review. Each meeting began with a presentation by BLM representatives, followed by a question-andanswer session. BLM received a total of 76 oral comments from attendants at those meetings, as well as 

follow-up input in the form of 214 comment forms and letters that were later submitted to BLM. The 

official scoping period ended on September 13, 2002; however, additional comments continued to be 

accepted after that time. A Summary Scoping Report was issued in September 2002 that provides further 

description of the scoping process and summarizes the public comments and the issues raised. 

Four informational planning bulletins were submitted to the public by the date of this document; the fifth 

will be distributed to the public mailing list to announce the selection of a proposed RMPR. The first two 

bulletins introduced the project and provided a project update. The third bulletin, distributed in August 

2005, provided a project update and requested information to update the public mailing list for the Draft 

RMPR/EIS. A postage-paid return form was included with the bulletin, advising recipients that should 

they wish to remain on the project mailing list or receive the draft RMPR/EIS they must return the form 

and verify their mailing information. The fourth bulletin announced the availability of the Draft 

RMPR/EIS.

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF CONSULTATION AND COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS 

This section describes specific options to consult and coordinate Tribes; Federal, State, and local agencies 

and organizations; other interest groups; and the national mailing list.

1.1.1 Tribes

In the summer of 2002, BLM invited a number of agencies and governments to participate in the 

RMPR/EIS process as cooperating agencies. The Zuni Nation, Ramah Navajo Band, and Navajo Nation 

were among those invited. The Zuni Tribe accepted the invitation and a Memorandum of Understanding 

between the two parties—the Tribe and BLM—established the terms of the Tribe’s participation in the 

process. The Tribe has since participated in the development of alternatives, review of draft materials, and 

other coordination efforts. Following the issuance of a Record of Decision, the BLM and Zuni Tribe 

would initiate a Memorandum of Understanding that will outline the procedures for consultation related 

to future actions that might affect the Zuni Salt Lake, a site of religious and historical importance to the 

Zuni.

In December 2002, BLM contacted the Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of Laguna, Ysleta del 

Sur Pueblo, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation (and the Alamo and Ramah Navajo Chapters of the Navajo 

Nation), Mescalero Apache, and Fort Sill Apache to inform them that an RMPR/EIS was being prepared 

for Socorro and Catron Counties. BLM provided the Tribes with information about the plan for 

developing the cultural resource component of the RMPR/EIS, and requested that they identify any 

traditional cultural places and resources that should be considered as part of the RMPR/EIS process. 

1.1.2 Intergovernmental Cooperation and Collaboration (State and Local Levels)

The New Mexico State Land Office, Socorro County, and Catron County also were invited to participate 

as cooperating agencies in the planning process. Catron County accepted and has been involved in the 

development of alternatives and in the review of draft materials, and has participated in coordination 

meetings (see Table 5-1).
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 

5-3 Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination 

April 2007 

As part of scoping, all Federal, State, County, and local agencies or governments that could have an 

interest in the process were issued invitations to participate in the preparation of the RMPR/EIS. 

Approximately 75 letters, which introduced the RMPR/EIS and invited the recipients’ participation, were 

mailed to them during the week of September 23, 2002. BLM also made every effort to contact each 

agency or government by telephone to ensure that the agencies and governments were aware of the 

RMPR/EIS, and that the process would soon be commencing. Table 5-2, Agency Contacts, identifies 

agency contacts for this planning process. 

TABLE 5-2 

AGENCY CONTACTS 

FEDERAL

Department of Defense 

Army Corps of Engineers 

Director, Planning Division 

Albuquerque District 

Chief, Albuquerque District 

White Sands Missile Range 

Brigadier General USA 

Department of the Interior 

Chief Operating Officer and Technical Director 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

National Environmental Policy Act Coordinator, 

Albuquerque Area Office 

Superintendent, Fort Apache Agency 

Superintendent, Mescalero Agency 

Director, Navajo Area Office 

Phoenix Area Office 

Superintendent, Southern Pueblos Agency 

Bureau of Land Management 

New Mexico State Office 

Albuquerque Field Office 

Farmington Field Office 

District Manager, Las Cruces District Office 

Manager, Roswell Field Office

Bureau of Reclamation 

Manager, Socorro Field Office 

Rio Grande Project 

National Park Service 

Regional Director, Intermountain Region 

Superintendent, Intermountain Land Resource Program 

Center

Associate Director, Office of Natural Resource 

Stewardship and Science 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Regional Director, Southwest Region 2 

Chief, Division of Endangered Species 

Chief, Division of Habitat Conservation 

Chief, Refuge Management 

Manager, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge 

Manager, Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge 

Special Status Species 

United States Geological Survey 

New Mexico Water District Chief, Water Resources 

Division

Department of Agriculture 

National Forest Service 

Regional Geologist, Southwest Region 

Forest Supervisor, Apache Sitgreaves National Forest 

Planner, Cibola National Forest 

Forest Supervisor, Gila National Forest 

Planner, Gila National Forest 

District Ranger, Magdalena District 

District Ranger, Quemado Range 

District Ranger, Reserve Ranger District 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

District Conservationist, Datil Service Center 

District Conservationist, Socorro Field Office 

District Conservationist, Sierra District 

State Conservationist 

Other 

Very Large Array 

National Radio Astronomy Observatory 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

Chief

Area Chief 

Director 

Invertebrate Zoologist 

Wildlife of Concern 

Department of Transportation 

Environmental Design Department 

Economic Development Department 

Director, Economic Development Division 

Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department 

Director 

Cabinet Secretary 

Director, Forestry Division 

Special Plant Status 

Director, Oil Conservation Division 

Director, Mining and Minerals Division 

Environmental Coordinator, Abandoned Mine Land Bureau 

Environmental Department 

Secretary 

Administrator, Environmental Improvement Board 

Chairperson, Environmental Improvement Board 

Bureau Chief, Surface Water Quality 

Office of Cultural Affairs 

Chairman, Science Department 

Director, State Historic Preservation Division 

State Land Office 

State Lands Resource Manager 

Commissioner of Public Lands 

Livestock Grazing Resource Area 

Director, Oil, Gas, and Minerals Division 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 

5-4 Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination 

April 2007 

Units Manager, Oil, Gas, and Minerals Division 

Socorro District 

Water 

Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources 

Director 

Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer 

State Engineer 

COUNTY

Catron County 

Southwest Center for Resource Analysis 

County Commissioners 

Socorro County 

County Manager 

County Commissioners 

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

City of Socorro 

Mayor 

City Councilmembers 

Village of Reserve 

City Clerk 

Village of Magdalena 

City Clerk 

Chambers of Commerce 

Executive Director, Socorro County 

President, Glenwood Area 

TRIBAL

Governor, Ysleta del Sur

Governor, Ysleta Pueblo 

President, Navajo Nation 

Executive Director, Navajo Nation Division of Natural 

Resources

Navajo Nation Traditional Culture Program 

Director, Navajo Nation Land Department 

Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Office 

Executive Director, Navajo Nation 

Governor, Pueblo of Acoma 

Ramah Navajo Band 

Zuni Natural Resources Department 

Governor, Zuni Pueblo 

Zuni Tribal Council 

Laguna Pueblo 

Community Services Coordinator, Alamo Chapter of the 

Navajo Nation 

President, Hopi Tribe 

Chair, Mescalero Tribe 

Chairperson, Fort Sill Apache 

Initial meetings took place in September 2002 to introduce the RMPR/EIS process; ascertain the issues, 

concerns, and ideas germane to the task at hand; and discuss the various roles and responsibilities of the 

agencies. Representatives from the following State and local governments and agencies were included in 

those initial meetings: 

x State Land Office, Public Land Resources

x New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources 

x Environment Department, Surface Water Quality Division (Bureau Chief) 

x Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department

 Oil Conservation Division (Senior Petroleum Geologist) 

 Mining and Minerals Division (Division Director) 

x State Forestry Division 

x Socorro and Catron Counties 

BLM has consulted with several State agencies at various times throughout the planning process to 

address specific resources. Consistent with legislation protecting State-listed species, the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish and the New Mexico Energy, Mineral, and Natural Resources Department 

have been contacted regarding the presence (or potential presence) of State-listed threatened and 

endangered plant and animal species in the Planning Area. 

In accordance with the New Mexico Protocol Agreement and the BLM National Programmatic 

Agreement, BLM notified the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in October 2002 

that an RMPR/EIS was being prepared for public lands in Socorro and Catron Counties. In December 

2002, BLM conferred with SHPO regarding the extent of the area of potential effect, data sources, and 

appropriate Tribal consultation. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 

5-5 Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination 

April 2007 

The SHPO concurred with the proposed strategy to address cultural resources as appropriate and 

expressed a concern they had about the potential impacts of subdivision development in the Planning 

Area. The SHPO declined BLM’s offer to prepare sections of the RMPR/EIS. BLM will solicit review 

comments from the SHPO on the Draft RMPR/EIS and, in accordance with the BLM National 

Programmatic Agreement and New Mexico Protocol, will continue to consult about undertakings pursued 

in accordance with an adopted RMP. 

1.1.3 Federal Agencies

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) did not accept BLM’s invitation to participate as a cooperating 

agency; however, representatives of the BLM and BIA met to discuss the RMPR/EIS as part of scoping in 

September 2002 (see Table 5-1). Other potentially interested Federal agencies were informed of the onset 

of the RMPR/EIS process. Table 5-2 lists agency contacts. The following Federal agencies participated in 

September 2002 meetings: 

x BIA, Albuquerque Area Office 

x U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

 Bosque del Apache Wildlife Refuge 

 Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge 

x U.S. Forest Service 

 Cibola National Forest 

 Gila National Forest 

x Bureau of Reclamation, Socorro Field Office 

x BLM New Mexico State Office and all New Mexico Field Offices (through Executive 

Management Team briefings) 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Title 16, United States Code, Sec. 661 et seq. [16 U.S.C. 661 

et. seq.]) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec 1531 et seq.) require consultation with 

the USFWS prior to initiation of any BLM project that has potential to affect any federally listed specialstatus species or its habitat. This RMPR/EIS is considered a major Federal action, and therefore 

consultation has been initiated. As part of the data collection effort, the USFWS provided a list of 

federally listed species that may occur in Socorro and Catron Counties. This letter is on file in BLM’s 

Socorro Field Office. The USFWS data will be incorporated into the Biological Assessment that will be 

completed as a condition of issuing the Proposed RMPR/Final EIS. The Biological Assessment and 

associated correspondence also will be on file at the BLM Socorro Field Office.

1.1.4 Interest Groups

The BLM has coordinated with a variety of special interest groups during the planning process. 

Coordination has included maintaining contacts on the project mailing list and individual meetings. 

Special interest groups the BLM has worked with throughout the process include the New Mexico 

Wilderness Alliance, Continental Divide Trail Alliance, and Continental Divide Trail Society, among 

other organizations such as sportsmen or recreation groups. 

In addition, attendants at the three August 2002 scoping meetings expressed diverse opinions about OHV 

use in the Planning Area. This lack of public concordance alerted BLM to the importance of further 

clarifying and refining the issues in order to develop adequate alternatives and ensure balanced OHV-use 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 

5-6 Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination 

April 2007 

decisions. After the initial scoping period was completed, BLM thoroughly reviewed the law and current 

policy associated with OHV use, and gathered a comprehensive set of data regarding trends and forecasts 

for the number of OHV registrations and hunting permits. 

To gain a better understanding of the public sentiment regarding this issue, BLM also conducted three 

workshops focused on the issue of OHV use (see Table 5-1). The BLM used these workshops to inform 

the public about the law and policy governing OHV use, the current BLM management guidelines and 

practices, and the relevant land management challenges specific to this RMPR/EIS. The public was given 

the opportunity to respond with concerns, ideas, and suggestions for future OHV management on public 

land in the Planning Area. The workshops were announced in a planning bulletin sent to all entities on the 

mailing list, through media releases, and by telephone calls to individuals and organizations that had 

expressed interest in the issues surrounding OHV use. A total of 55 people attended the three workshops 

and a total of 19 comment forms and letters were received. An additional 108 oral comments were 

recorded at these meetings. Additional information is available in the OHV report, available from the 

Socorro Field Office or http:\\www.nm.blm.gov. 

1.1.5 National Mailing List

The national mailing list was developed by the BLM to assist with distribution of the informational 

planning bulletins. The list includes local elected officials, interested publics, special interest groups, and 

agencies at the Federal, county, and local level, including cooperating agencies. The list was 

supplemented throughout the duration of the project to include meeting attendees and as requested by 

interested parties. After distribution of the third planning bulletin, the mailing list was reduced to those 

who returned the form included with the planning bulletin, indicating a desire to remain on the project 

mailing list or receive the Draft RMPR/EIS. The mailing form clearly stated that those who did not return 

it would be deleted from the list. 

1.2 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT RMPR/EIS 

Concurrent with the distribution of the Draft RMPR/EIS, a Notice of Availability was published in the 

Federal Register announcing the availability of the draft document for public review and comment; this 

marks the beginning of the 90-day review and comment period. During the remainder of the review 

period for this Draft RMPR/EIS, BLM will hold public hearings for the purpose of soliciting and 

understanding public comments on the Draft RMPR/EIS. The Draft RMPR/EIS was sent to the agencies 

listed in Table 5-2, additional agencies with a potential interest, and as requested in responses to the 

August 2005 planning bulletin or through other means. The Draft RMPR/EIS also is available from 

http:\\www.nm.blm.gov. 

Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the 

BLM Socorro Field Office, 901 South Highway 85, Socorro, New Mexico, 87801, during regular 

business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays, and may be published 

as part of the Proposed RMPR/Final EIS. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish 

to withhold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests 

will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public inspections in their entirety. 

All written and oral comments received during the 90-day period will be compiled, analyzed, and 

summarized. A Proposed RMPR/Final EIS will be prepared that addresses and provides responses to the 

comments received on the Draft RMPR/EIS. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 

5-7 Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination 

April 2007 

1.3 LIST OF PREPARERS 

Table 5-3 lists the Draft RMPR/EIS preparers and members of the interdisciplinary team. 

TABLE 5-3 

LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS

Name Title RMPR/EIS Responsibility 

BLM

Brian Bellew Assistant Field Manager Planning Team Leader (June 2006-Present) 

Mark Lane Assistant Field Manager Management Oversight 

John Merino Field Manager Management Oversight 

Dwayne Sykes Planning and NEPA Coordinator, 

New Mexico State Office 

Planning Team Leader (January 2005-May 

2006) 

New Mexico State Office Representative 

Lois Bell Realty Specialist, Environmental 

Planning Coordinator 

Planning Team Leader (August 2003-

December 2004) 

Lands and Access (May 2002-December 

2004) 

Charles Carroll Environmental Planning Coordinator Planning Team Leader (May 2002-July 

2003) 

Don Ellsworth Acting Field Manager Management Oversight (June 2005-Present) 

Kate Padilla Field Manager Management Oversight (May 2002-May 

2005) 

Jon Hertz Assistant Field Manager Advisor, Management Oversight 

Frank Lewark Rangeland Management Specialist Contracting Officer’s Representative, 

Noxious Weeds 

Jane Farmer Geographic Information System 

Specialist 

Geographic Information System 

Mark Mathews Rangeland Management Specialist Range Management 

Melanie Mendenhall Natural Resource Specialist Range Management 

Wes Anderson Wildlife Biologist Wildlife, Vegetation, Threatened and 

Endangered Species (May 2002-August 

2003) 

Carlos Madril Wildlife Biologist Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered 

Species (2003-Present) 

Jessica Rubado Wildlife Biologist Wildlife, Special Status Species (2005-

Present) 

Sheila RichmondWilliams Natural Resource Specialist Forestry and Woodland Management (2004-

Present) 

Brenda Wilkinson Archaeologist Cultural Resources 

David Sitzler Mining Engineer, Albuquerque Field 

Office

Geology, Energy and Minerals 

Edward Wells Geologist Geology, Minerals (2002-March 2005) 

Jonathan Smith Fire Management Officer Fire Management 

Sarah Naranjo Realty Specialist Lands and Realty (2005-Present) 

Sabrina Flores Natural Resource Specialist Soils and Water, Hazardous Materials (2005-

Present) 

Clarence Seagraves Natural Resource Specialist Hazardous Materials; Soils, Water, Air, 

Watershed (2002-December 2004) 

Mike Bilbo Outdoor Recreation Specialist OHV, Recreation, Transportation, Caves 

(2004-Present) 

Kevin Carson Outdoor Recreation Specialist Recreation, Visual, Wilderness 

(2002-Present) 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 

5-8 Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination 

April 2007 

TABLE 5-3 

LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS

Name Title RMPR/EIS Responsibility 

Rob Jaggers Outdoor Recreation Planner OHV, Recreation, Transportation 

(2002-2004) 

Patricia Hester Regional Paleontologist Paleontological Resources 

J.W. Whitney Program Analyst/Planning, New 

Mexico State Office 

Planning and Environmental Coordination 

(May 2002-December 2004) 

Signa Larralde Planning, New Mexico State Office Planning and Environmental Coordination 

(January 2005-Present) 

URS Corporation and Subconsultants 

Cindy Smith Principal Project Management, Public Involvement 

Jennifer Pyne Environmental Planner Project Management, Social and Economic 

Conditions (June 2004-Present) 

Lyndy Long Environmental Planner Project Coordination, Public Involvement 

Paige Rhodes, Weston 

Solutions 

Environmental Scientist, Biologist Project Management (July 2002-May 2004), 

Natural Resources Team Lead (October –

December 2005) 

Jennifer Wennerlund Geographer Geographic Information Systems 

Glenn Emanuel Geographer Geographic Information Systems 

Peter Martinez Geographer Geographic Information Systems 

Bob Farmer, PhD Chemical Engineering Air Quality 

Barbara Sprungl Chemical Engineering Air Quality 

Mark Murphy, PhD Environmental Scientist Natural Resources Team Lead (July 2002-

May 2004), Soils, Water Resources, 

Watershed 

Jennifer Nelson Environmental Planner Soils, Water Resources 

Karen Schwab Water Resource Specialist Soils (2002-2004) 

Dave Palmer Geologist Geology, Energy and Mineral Resources, 

Caves and Karst 

Barbara Murphy, Clear 

Creek Associates 

Geologist Paleontology 

Pat Mock, PhD Biologist Vegetation, Wildlife, Special Status Species 

Sheyna Wisdom Biologist Vegetation 

Theresa Miller Biologist Wildlife, Special Status Species 

Charlie Baun Grazing and Range Management 

Specialist 

Livestock Grazing and Rangeland 

Management 

Kavi Koleini Biologist Fire Management, Forestry and Woodland 

Management 

Jaime Wood Environmental Planner Visual Resources, Lands and Realty 

Jennifer Frownfelter Environmental Planner Lands and Realty, Transportation and Travel 

Management, Recreation, Visual Resources, 

Wilderness Characteristics 

Carol Wirth Ecologist, Environmental Planner Social and Economic Conditions (2002-

2004) 

A.E. (Gene) Rogge, PhD Anthropologist Cultural Resources 

Kirsten Erickson Historian Cultural Resources 

Tamara Carroll Environmental Planner Fire Management, Hazardous Materials 

(2002-2004) 

Travis Bunger Environmental Scientist Hazardous Materials

Sunny Bush Environmental Planner Hazardous Materials
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 

5-9 Chapter 5 – Consultation and Coordination 

April 2007 

TABLE 5-3 

LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS

Name Title RMPR/EIS Responsibility 

Kim Bidle Environmental Planner Transportation and Travel Management, 

Wilderness Characteristics, Recreation 

Wendy Gabriel Writer, Editor Editing 

Colleen Mahoney Word Processor Document Production 

Mitch Meek Graphic Artist Graphics 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 6-1 Chapter 6.0 References 

April 2007 

6.0 REFERENCES

Anderholm, Scott K. 1987. Hydrogeology of the Socorro and La Jencia Basins, Socorro County, New 

Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 84-4342. 

Arid West Water Quality Research Project. 2002. Habitat Characterization Study. Contractor report to Pima 

County (Tucson) Wastewater Management Department. 1 CD. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2001. Fiscal Year 2001 Air Quality Report. Available at: 

http://www.azdeq.gov/function/-forms/download/2001/summary.pdf. 

Barker, James M. 2002. Letter from James M. Barker, Geologist, New Mexico Bureau of Geology and 

Mineral Resources, to David P. Palmer, URS Corporation. November 19. 

Barker, James M., George S. Austin, and David J. Sivils. 1996. Travertine in New Mexico: Commercial 

Deposits and Otherwise. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Bulletin 154. 

Barroll, Margaret W. 1989. Analysis of the Socorro Hydrothermal System, central New Mexico. New 

Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Open-file Report 361.

Basabilvazo, George T. 1997. Ground-Water Resources of Catron County, New Mexico. U.S. Geological 

Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 96-4258. 

Bell, Lois. 2003. Written communication to URS Corporation regarding the Preliminary Draft 1 MSA. 

March 14. 

_____. 2002a. Personal communication between Lois Bell, Realty Specialist, BLM Socorro Field Office, 

and Carol Wirth, URS Corporation. December 4. 

_____. 2002b. Electronic mail from Lois Bell, BLM Socorro Field Office, to Travis Bunger, 

URS Corporation. December 13. 

Belnap, J. 1995. Soil surface disturbances: their role in accelerating desertification. Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment, 37: 39–57. 

Blackburn, W.H. 1984. Impacts of grazing intensity and specialized grazing systems on watershed 

characteristics and responses. In: Developing strategies for rangeland management. National 

Research Council / National Academy of Sciences.

Bletzer, Michael. 2004. The First Province in This Kingdom: Notes on the Pre-Revolt History of the Piro 

Area. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, 

Texas.

Broadhead, Ronald F., Brian F. Brister, and Bill Raatz. 2002a. Letter from Ronald F. Broadhead, Brian F. 

Brister and Bill Raatz, Geologists, New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, to 

David P. Palmer, URS Corporation. November 19. 

Broadhead, Ronald F., Brian F. Brister, and Gretchen Hoffman. 2002b. Letter from Ronald F. Broadhead, 

Gretchen Hoffman and Brian Brister, Geologists, New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral 

Resources, to David P. Palmer, URS Corporation. December 9. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 6-2 Chapter 6.0 References 

April 2007 

Brooks, Matthew L., James B. Grace, Jon E. Keeley, and David A. Pyke. 2004. Effects of Invasive Alien 

Plants on Fire Regimes. Bioscience 54:7. 

Brown, P.E. 1989. Preliminary Evaluation of the Potential Hydrologic Impacts of the Fence Lake Project, 

Catron County, New Mexico: Consultant Report to Fuels Department, Salt River Project, Phoenix, 

Arizona.

Burkhardt, J.W. 1996. Herbivory in the intermountain west: an overview of evolutionary history, 

historic cultural impacts and lessons from the past. University of Idaho Station Bulletin 58. 

Carson, Kevin. 2005. Table of Wilderness Characteristics of Acquired Lands. 

_____. 2003a. Written communication between Kevin Carson, Recreation Specialist, BLM Socorro Field 

Office, and Jennifer Frownfelter, URS Corporation, regarding recreational uses in Socorro and 

Catron Counties. January 6. 

_____. 2003b. E-mail communication from Kevin Carson, Bureau of Land Management, to Jen 

Wennerlund, URS Corporation. January 17. 

Catron County. 1992. Catron County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Published by the National Federal 

Lands Conference. October. 

Coates-Markle, Linda. 1999. Summary Recommendations – BLM Wild Horse and Burro Population 

Viability Forum. April 21. BLM, Montana State Office. 

Cody, B.A. 1996. Congressional Research Service Report: Grazing Fees: An Overview. May 21. Available 

from: http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Agriculture/ag-5.cfm.

Cody, P., and P. Baldwin. 1998. Congressional Research Service Report IB 96006: Grazing Fees and 

Rangeland Management. December 4. 

Cook, C. Wayne, and R. Dennis Child. 1971. Recovery of desert plants in various states of vigor. Journal of 

Range Management. 24: 339-343 [677]. 

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 1996. Grazing on Public Lands. Task Force 

Report No. 129. Ames, Iowa. 

Daddy, F., M.J. Trlica, and C.D. Bonham. 1988. Vegetation and soil water differences among big 

sagebrush communities with different grazing histories. The Southwestern Naturalist 33(4):413-

424.

Dick-Peddie, W.A. 1993. New Mexico Vegetation: Past, Present, and Future. Albuquerque: University of 

New Mexico Press.

Duke Engineering & Services. 2001a. Comments on King Engineering’s Report Entitled: Potential 

Hydrologic Impacts of Pumping at Fence Lake Coal Mine on Zuni Salt Lake. 

_____. 2001b. Comments on Glorieta Geoscience Report Entitled: Geology of Nations Draw Area from 

Zuni Salt Lake to Proposed Fence Lake Coal Mine: Review of Salt River Project Hydrology 

Submittals for Fence Lake Coal Mine Permit Application Package. 

Edgar, Blake 2001. Two New Dinosaurs Unveiled. Discovery News, June 18, 2001. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 6-3 Chapter 6.0 References 

April 2007 

Eldridge, D.J., and R.S.B. Green. 1994. Microbiotic soil crusts: a review of their roles in soil and 

ecological processes in the rangelands of Australia. Australian Journal of Soil Research 32:389-

415.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. 1997. Revisions to the Standards for 

the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. 

October 30.

Finch, D., W. Jeffery, K. Jeffery, and L. Samuel. 1999. Rio Grande Ecosystems: Linking Land, Water, and 

People. Toward a Sustainable Future for the Middle Rio Drande Basin. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Proc. RMRS-P-7. Ogden, Utah. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing in Western North America. Conservation 

Biology 8: 629-644. 

Fosberg, Stephen. 2003. Telephone conversation call from Gene Rogge, URS Corporation, to Stephen 

Fosberg, BLM State Archaeologist. 23 and 29 January. 

Fowler, John. 2000. Livestock Management in the American Southwest, Ecology, Society and Economics. 

Gelbard, J.L., and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as Conduits for Exotic Plant Invasions in a Semiarid Landscape. 

Conservation Biology 17: 420-432. 

Glorieta Geosciences. 2003. Evaluation of Pumping Effects at Zuni Salt Lake in the Atarque Sandstone 

Aquifer from Fence Lake Mine. Unpublished consulting report to the Pueblo of Zuni. 

_____. 2001. Analysis of Potential Impacts on Zuni Salt Lake from Proposed Fence Lake Mine 

Groundwater Diversions. Unpublished consulting report to the Pueblo of Zuni. Prepared by Paul 

Drakos, Jay Lazarus, Jim Riesterer, Meghan Hodgins, Mustafa Chudnoff. 

_____. 1997. Hydrogeology of Nations Draw Area from Zuni Salt Lake to Proposed Fence Lake Coal 

Mine: Review of Salt River Project Hydrology Submittals for Fence Lake Coal Mine Permit 

Application Package. Unpublished consulting report to the Pueblo of Zuni. Prepared by Paul 

Drakos, Jay Lazarus & Jim Riesterer.

Grant, Philip R., Jr., and Roy W. Foster. 1989. Future Petroleum Provinces in New Mexico. New Mexico 

Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, 94 pages. Figure 2b. 

Greenberg, C.H., S.H. Crownover, and D.R. Gordon. 1997. Roadside Soils: A Corridor for Invasion of 

Xeric Scrub by Nonindigenous Plants. Natural Areas Journal 17:99-109. 

Harris, Arthur. 1993. “Quaternary Vertebrates of New Mexico” in Vertebrate Paleontology in New Mexico. 

New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 2. 

Harrison, S., C. Hohn, and S. Ratay. 2002. Distribution of Exotic Plants along Roads in a Peninsular Nature 

Reserve. Biological Invasions 4: 425-430. 

Hart, E. Richard, and T.J. Ferguson, eds. 1993. Traditional Cultural Properties of Four Tribes: The Fence 

Lake Mine Project. Institute of the North American West, Seattle, Washington. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 6-4 Chapter 6.0 References 

April 2007 

Hobbs, R.J., and L. Huenneke. 1992. Disturbance, Diversity, and Invasion: Implications for Conservation. 

Conservation Biology 6(3): 324-337. 

Hoffman, Gretchen K. 2002. Letter from Gretchen Hoffman, Geologist, New Mexico Bureau of Geology 

and Mineral Resources, to David P. Palmer, URS Corporation. November 19. 

Holechek, J.L. 1981. Livestock grazing impacts on public lands: A viewpoint. Journal of Range 

Management 34:251-254.

Hunt, Adrian, and Spencer Lucas. 1993a. “Triassic Vertebrate Paleontology and Biochronology of New 

Mexico” in Vertebrate Paleontology in New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and 

Science Bulletin 2. 

_____. 1993b. “Jurassic Vertebrates of New Mexico” in Vertebrate Paleontology in New Mexico. New

Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 2. 

_____. 1993c. “Cretaceous Vertebrates of New Mexico” in Vertebrate Paleontology in New Mexico. New 

Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 2. 

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2002. The Economic Importance of Hunting. 

Available from: http://www.iafwa.org/Attachments/Hunting%20Economic%20Impact%202001.pdf.

Isik, Iskender, Kenneth F. Clark, and George S. Austin. 1994. Geology and Alteration of the Kline 

Mountain Kaolin Deposit, Sierra County, New Mexico. New Mexico Geological Society 

Guidebook, 45th field conference, Mogollon Slope, west-central New Mexico. 

Jaggers, Robert. 2003a. Written communication to URS Corporation regarding the Preliminary Draft 1 

MSA. March 14. 

_____. 2003b. Written communication between Rob Jaggers, Recreation Specialist, BLM Socorro Field 

Office, and Jennifer Frownfelter, URS Corporation, regarding current OHV use in Socorro and 

Catron Counties. January 11. 

Kaiser, William R., and Walter B. Ayers, Jr. 1994. Coalbed Methane Production, Fruitland Formation, San 

Juan Basin: Geologic and Hydrologic Controls. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral 

Resources Bulletin 146. 

King Engineering. 2001. Potential Hydrologic Impacts of Pumping at Fence Lake Coal Mine on Zuni Salt 

Lake. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Responsibilities, Washington D.C., February. 

Klipple, G.E., and D.F. Costello. 1960. "Vegetation and Cattle Responses to Different Intensities of 

Grazing on Shortgrass Ranges of the Central Great Plains." U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1216. 

Lane, Mark. 2006. Written communication regarding AUMs Authorized for Socorro Field Office for Fiscal 

Year 2006. June 14. 

_____. 2002. Record of conversation between Mark Lane, Socorro Field Office, and Carol Wirth, URS 

Corporation. December 20.

Laycock, W., and P. Conrad. 1981. Responses of Vegetation and Cattle to Various Systems of Grazing on 

Seeded and Native Mountain Rangelands in Eastern Utah. Journal of Range Management 53:52-59. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 6-5 Chapter 6.0 References 

April 2007 

Loomis, John B. 2002. Integrated Public Lands Management: Principles & Applications to National 

Forests, Parks, Wildlife Refuges, & BLM Lands. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press. 

Lucas, Spencer G., and Andrew B. Heckert. 2000. Dinosaurs of New Mexico: An Overview. Dinosaurs of 

New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. Bulletin No.17. 

_____. 1994. Triassic Stratigraphy in the Lucero Uplift, Cibola, Valencia and Socorro Counties, New 

Mexico. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 45th Field Conference, Mogollon Slope, WestCentral New Mexico and East-Central Arizona, 1994. 

Lueth, Virgil W. 1996. Garnet Resource Potential in Southern New Mexico. New Mexico Bureau of Mines 

and Mineral Resources Bulletin 154. 

Matthews, Mark. 2005. Communication with Charles Baun, URS Corporation. December. 

_____. 2003a. Written communication to URS Corporation regarding the Preliminary Draft Baseline 

Socioeconomic Conditions Report and the Preliminary Draft 1 Management Situation Analysis. 

Matthews, Mark. 2003b. Telephone call from Danielle Stearns, URS Corporation, to Mark Matthews, BLM 

Socorro Field Office. January 17. 

_____. 2002. Record of conversation between Mark Matthews, BLM Socorro Field Office, and Carol 

Wirth, URS Corporation. November 27. 

McGinty, W.A., F.E. Smeins, and L.B. Merrill. 1979. Influence of soil, vegetation, and grazing 

management on infiltration rate and sediment production of Edwards Plateau rangeland. Journal of 

Rangeland Management. 32:33-37. 

McGurk, Brian, and Jeffrey Stone. 1986. Conceptual Hydrologic Model of the Nations Draw Area, Catron 

and Cibola Counties, New Mexico. Report to Fuels Department, Salt River Project. 

McLemore, Virginia T. 2002. Letter from Virginia T. McLemore, Geologist, New Mexico Bureau of 

Geology and Mineral Resources, to David P. Palmer, URS Corporation. November 19. 

_____. 1983. Carbonatites in the Lemitar and Chupadera Mountains, Socorro County, New Mexico. New

Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 34th field conference, Socorro Region II. 

Mendenhall, Melanie. 2002. Clarification on Socorro Field Office AUMs. Provided by Melanie 

Mendenhall, natural resource specialist, BLM Socorro Field Office, to Carol Wirth, URS 

Corporation, by e-mail on January 10. 

Michael Clayton and Associates. 1992. Western Regional Corridor Study. Prepared for Western Utility 

Group.

Mine Safety and Health Administration. 2003. Information obtained from: 

www.msha.gov/drs/ASP/BasicMineInfo.asp 

Muro, Mark. 2002. The Economics of Large-Scale Conservation: A Framework for Assessment in Pima 

County. Phoenix: the Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1997. Census of Agriculture. Sheets for New Mexico, Socorro 

County, and Catron County. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 6-6 Chapter 6.0 References 

April 2007 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 2003. Information obtained from: 

http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm.

National Interagency Fire Center. 2001. Review and update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy. Boise, Idaho. 

New Mexico Association of Counties. 2002. Principal Sources of Revenue. 

New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources. 2002. New Mexico State Highway Department. 

Undated (circa 1968). Geology and Aggregate Resources, District 1. Open-file Report 462 a and b. 

In CD format. 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF). 2005a. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy. Available at http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/conservation/index.htm. 

_____. 2005b. Biota Information System of New Mexico (BISON-M). Species List. Information obtained 

from http://wildlife.state.nm.us/. 

_____. 2003a. Personal communication with Barry Hale, Deer and Pronghorn Biologist, NMDGF, and 

Sheyna Wisdom, URS Biologist. February 10. 

_____. 2003b. Personal communication with Bill Dunn, Supervisory Biologist, Predator Management, 

NMDGF, and Sheyna Wisdom, URS Corporation Biologist. February 10. 

_____. 2003c. Active New Mexico Outfitters Database including Name, Organization Name, Address, 

Phone No “LCLED_ACTIVE_OUTFITTERS.rdf” May 8. Updated lists can be accessed from 

www.gmfsh.state.nm.us

_____. 2003d. Plan for the Recovery of Desert Bighorn Sheep in New Mexico 2003-2013. 

_____. 2002a. Big Game and Furbearers Rules and Information. 2002-2003 License Year. Santa Fe. 

_____. 2002b. Long-range Plan for the Management of Wild Turkey in New Mexico 2001-2005. October 

2002. 

_____. 2001. Elk Regional Management Plan. Available at: http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/publications-

/documents/elkregionalmagtdocument.pdf

_____. 1997. Long-range Plan for the Management of Cougar in New Mexico. 

New Mexico Department of Motor Vehicles. 2003. Motor Vehicle registration statistics for 1990 and 2000, 

provided by Keith Perry and Diane Martinez to Rob Jaggers, BLM Socorro Field Office. 

January 29 and February 7. 

New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department (NMEMNRD). 1994. Cumulative 

Hydrologic Impact Assessment. Fence Lake Coal Mine. Prepared by Coal Mine Reclamation 

Bureau, Mining and Minerals Division. 

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). 1999. New Mexico Nonpoint Source Management 

Program. Surface Water Quality Bureau, NPS Pollution Section. Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

December. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 6-7 Chapter 6.0 References 

April 2007 

New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science (NMMNH&S). 2002. List of paleontological 

localities in Socorro and Catron Counties, New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science 

database, December. 

New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science. 1999. Annual Report on Paleontological Use by the 

New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management. January. 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (State Engineer). 2003. Information obtained from: 

http://www.seo.state.nm.us/.

_____. 2002. Drought Management Plan, New Mexico Drought Task Force. 

New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department. 2003. Information from the Consolidated 

Highway Database report entitled Road Segments by Traffic (AADT). Information provided in 

electronic mail correspondence by Elizer Pena, Traffic Counting Commission Bureau, NMSHTD, 

to Jaime Wood, URS Corporation. February 7. 

New Mexico State University. 2003. New Mexico Council of Outfitters and Guides. Beyond Sport: An 

Analysis of the Economic Impact of the Professional Hunting Industry on New Mexico’s Economy. 

Economic Development Specialist Range Improvement Task Force Cooperative Extension Service, 

Nick Ashcroft. February 28. 

New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. 2003. Water Quality Management Plan. New Mexico 

Environment Department. Santa Fe, New Mexico. May 13. 

_____. 2002. A Report Prepared for Submission to the Congress of the United States by the State of New 

Mexico Pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act: New Mexico Environment 

Department Technical Report NMED/SWQ-02/1. Information obtained from: 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/305b/2002/index.html

Pellant, Mike, Patrick Shaver, David A. Pyke, and Jeffrey E. Herrick. 2000. Interpreting Indicators of 

Rangeland Health. USDI, BLM Technical Reference 1734-6. 

Peters, E., and S. Bunting. 1992. Fire Conditions Pre- and Postoccurrence of Annual Grasses on the Snake 

River Plain. Symposium on Ecology, Management, and Restoration of Intermountain Annual 

Grasslands, Boise, Idaho. 

Pfeil, John J., and Alysia J. Leavitt, editors. 2001. Mines, Mills and Quarries in New Mexico. New Mexico 

Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral 

Resources, and New Mexico Bureau of Mines Inspection. 

Poff, N.L., and J.V. Ward. 1989. Implications of Streamflow Variability and Predictability for Lotic 

Community Structure: A Regional Analysis of Streamflow Patterns. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 46:1805-1818. 

Ratkevich, Ron, and Neal La Fon. 1978. Field Guide to New Mexico Fossils. Dinograph Southwest. 

Alamogordo, New Mexico. 

Ridgeway Petroleum Corporation. 2005. Shareholder update November 15, 2005. Available at: 

www.ridgewaypetroleum.com/sharupdt/su051115.pdf. Accessed November 16. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 6-8 Chapter 6.0 References 

April 2007 

Roybal, F. Eileen. 1991. Ground-Water Resources of Socorro County, New Mexico. U.S. Geological 

Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 89-4083. 

Rural Economic Development Through Tourism. 2002. Hot Springs and Soaking Tubs. Available from 

New Mexico State University Web site: www.nmsu.edu/~redtt/Resources/html/HotSprings/html. 

Seagraves, C. 2003. Electronic mail from Clarence Seagraves, BLM Socorro Field Office, to Travis 

Bunger, URS Corporation. January 17. 

Sealy, Paul L., Gary Morgan, Spencer Lucas, Sean Connell, David Love, and Patricia Jackson-Paul. 2001. 

The Medial Blancan (Late Pliocene) Arroyo De La Parida Local Fauna, Socorro County, New 

Mexico. Rocky Mountain (53rd) and South-Central (35th) Sections, Geological Society of America, 

joint annual meeting. April 29–May 2. 

Society of Petroleum Engineers. 1999. Horizontal and multilateral wells. Available at: 

www.spe.org/spe/jsp/basic_pf/0,1104_1714_1003974,00.html. Accessed November 15, 2005.

Socorro Chamber of Commerce. 2000. Destination Socorro. Produced for the Socorro Chamber of 

Commerce by pen gwen productions. 

Socorro County. 1998. Socorro County Comprehensive Plan. Socorro, New Mexico. 

Solley, W.B., R.R. Pierce, and H.A. Perlman. 1998. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995. 

United States Geological Survey. Circular 1200. 

Sonoran Institute. 2004. Prosperity in the 21st Century West: The Role of Protected Public Lands. By Ray 

Rasker, Ben Alexander, Jeff van den Noort, and Rebecca Carter. July. 

Southwest Area Wildland Fire Operations. 2002. Southwest Area Fire History 2002 Year-to-Date (by 

agency and unit) as of December 12, 2002. Information obtained from: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/fire/Path: Fire Information-YTD/History, Fires & Acres (by agency and 

unit).

Sykes, Dwayne. 2003. Memo addressed to those (New Mexico BLM personnel) responsible for the Special 

Recreation Use Permits for Outfitters and Guides. Dated 30 May. 

Tabet, David E. 1979. Geology of the Jornada del Muerto Coal Field, Socorro County, New Mexico. New 

Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources Circular 168. 

Trunkle, T., and P. Fay. 1991. Transportation of spotted knapweed seeds by vehicles. Proceedings, Montana 

Weed Control Association Annual Conference, Butte, Idaho. 

Trust for Public Lands. 1999. The Economic Benefits of Parks and Open Space: How Land Conservation 

Helps Communities Grow Smart and Protect the Bottom Line. 

United Mine Workers Journal. 2001. On the Grow. http://www.umwa.org/journal/VOL112NO1/onthegrow.shtml. Volume 112, No. 1. January-February. 

United States Census Bureau. 2002a. P5. Urban and Rural - Universe: Total population. From Data Set: 

Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data. Information obtained from: 

http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed November 22. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 6-9 Chapter 6.0 References 

April 2007 

United States Census Bureau. 2002b. State and County Quick Facts. Last revised September 24. 

Information obtained from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35/35003.html and 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35/35053.html.

_____. 2002c. Demographic Profile Tables from the 2000 Census DP-1 to DP-4 for Socorro County and 

Catron County, New Mexico, and the United States. The DP-1 table is part of the Summary File 1 

(SF 1) data set, and the other three tables are available as part of the Summary File 3 (SF 3) data 

set. Information obtained from: http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/2002/demoprofiles.html. New Mexico (including county data) released May 24. 

U.S. released June 4. 

_____. 2002d. Poverty 2000. Poverty thresholds for 1999, by size of family and number of related children 

under 18 Years (Dollars). Created: September 20, 2000; last Revised August 22. 

_____. 2002e. Table P-7, Hispanic and Latino by race. Universe: Total population. Data Set: Census 2000 

Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data. Information obtained from: http://factfinder.census.gov for 

selected census tracts. Accessed November 25. 

_____. 2002f. Table P-87, Poverty Status in 1999 by Age- Universe: Population for whom poverty status is 

determined. Information obtained from: http://factfinder.census.gov for selected census tracts. 

Accessed November 25. 

_____. 2002g. Summary File 3 (SF 3) data sets available for Tribal Subdivision/Remainder for the 22

Alamo Chapter; Navajo Nation Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land, AZ—NM—UT. 

From the American Factfinder, www.census.gov. 

_____. 2001a. Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics. 2000 Census of Population and Housing. 

New Mexico. DP-1 tables for all of New Mexico, including counties, incorporated communities, 

metropolitan statistical areas, and Indian Reservations. Issued in May. 

_____. 2001b. The Hispanic Population. Census 2000 Brief. C2KBR/01-3. Issued May. 

_____. 2000. Annual Projections of the Total Resident Population as of July 1: Middle, Lowest, Highest, 

and Zero International Migration Series, 1999 to 2100. Information obtained from: 

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t1.txt. Internet release date: 

January 13, 2000. Revised Date: February 14, 2000. 

_____. 1990. 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Population and Housing Unit Counts, United States. 

Economics and Statistics Administration. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2000. Economic Research Service. Rural Conditions and 

Trends – Rural Industry. Volume 10, Number 2. July. 

USDA, Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and Forest Service. 1988. Soil Survey of Socorro County Area, 

New Mexico.1:24000. December. 

_____. 1985. Soil Survey of Catron County, New Mexico – Northern Part. 1:24000. May. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 6-10 Chapter 6.0 References 

April 2007 

USDA, SCS. 1981. Agriculture Handbook 296: Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of 

The United States. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2003a. BEA statistics for 1969 to 

2001 as compiled by the BLM/Sonoran Institute Cooperative Economic Profile System (EPS) for 

Socorro and Catron Counties. Last run January 3. 

_____. 2003b. Regional Economic Information System. CA25 – Total full-time and part-time employment 

by industry series for 2001 for the United States, New Mexico, Socorro County, and Catron 

County. Available at http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/. Released in May. Accessed 

September 22. 

_____. 2003c. Regional Economic Information System. CA05 – Personal income by major source and 

earnings by industry in thousands of dollars. For 2001 for the United States, New Mexico, Socorro 

County, and Catron County. Information obtained from: http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/reis/. 

Released in May; accessed September 29. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2006. Alternative allocations data 

provided by Socorro Field Office. 

_____. 2005. Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1. (Supersedes Rel. 1-1667) March 2005. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/200/wo-210/landuse_hb.pdf. 

_____. 2004a. Public land statistics. Available from http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls04/.

_____. 2004b. The Bureau of Land Management’s National Landscape Conservation System. Available at: 

www.blm.gov/nlcs/brochure/index.htm Accessed March 8, 2004. 

_____. 2004c. Decision Record and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels 

Management on Public Land in New Mexico and Texas. BLM-NM-PL-013-2824. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office. 

_____. 2004d. 2004 BLM visitor survey results. National Recreation Office, Washington, D.C. Prepared by 

Jennifer L. Hoger, Steven J. Hollenhorst, and Lena Le, University of Idaho. 

_____. 2003a. Mapping of land tenure, ownership, and other existing data. Socorro Field Office, Socorro, 

New Mexico. 

_____. 2003b. Preliminary Draft Air Quality Baseline Report. Unpublished draft. 

_____. 2003c. Instruction Memorandum 2003-275 - Change 1: Consideration of Wilderness Characteristics 

in Land Use Plans (excluding Alaska). October.

_____. 2003d. Socorro allotment information. Socorro Field Office. February. 

_____. 2003e. Bureau of Land Management Socorro Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and 

Environmental Impact Statement Baseline Socioeconomic Conditions Report, Socorro and Catron 

Counties, New Mexico. December 2003. 

_____. 2003f. “2003 Grazing Fee Announced.” Information obtained from: 

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/releases/pages/2003/pr030206_graz-ing.htm. February 6. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 6-11 Chapter 6.0 References 

April 2007 

USDI, BLM. 2003g. Preliminary Draft Energy and Mineral Resource Potential Report. Unpublished draft. 

_____. 2003h. Solid Minerals, Mineral Materials. http://www.blm.gov/nhp/300/wo320/minmat.htm.

_____. 2003i. Roswell Field Office. Internet Web site: http://www.nm.blm.gov/www/rfo/index.htm. Last 

updated January 14, 2003.

_____. 2002a. Bat Diversity and Maternity Roost Survey of the BLM Socorro Resource Area. Prepared by 

Western Bat Working Group. Summer 2000. 

_____. 2002b. Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement for 

McGregor Range: Preliminary Draft 2–Management Situation Analysis. New Mexico. 

_____. 2002c. Livestock use data. Socorro Field Office. December. 

_____. 2002d. PILT Payments. Information obtained from http://www.blm.gov/ess/pilt.htm. 

_____. 2002e. PILT Payments. Summary by State and County for New Mexico for 1999 to 2002 and 

Entitlement Acreage by County and Agency for 1999 to 2002. Information obtained from: 

http://www.blm.gov/pilt/search.html. Accessed December 23. 

_____. 2002f. Management Information System, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management Reporting Office by Subactivity by Major Category for the Socorro Field Office. 

www.mis.blm.gov.

_____. 2002g. Socorro Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and Environmental Impact 

Statement Scoping Report. Socorro Field Office, New Mexico. 

_____. 2001a. Annual Report For Breeding Bird Surveys within the Socorro Resource Area. Prepared by 

Rio Grande Bird Research Inc. October. 

_____. 2001b. The Socorro Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and Environmental Impact 

Statement Preparation Plan. Socorro, New Mexico. 

_____. 2001c. Source Item Description List, BLM New Mexico GIS Data Standard. Socorro Field Office, 

New Mexico.

_____. 2001d. Management Information System, Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Reporting Office by Subactivity by Major Category for the Socorro Field Office. Available at 

www.mis.blm.gov.

_____. 2001e. Record of Decision, New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management. New Mexico State Office. Santa Fe, New Mexico. January. 

_____. 2001f. BLM Manual 6840: Special Status Species Management. Renewable Resources and 

Planning. January. 

_____. 2000a. New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management Proposed Statewide Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. New Mexico State Office. Santa Fe. April. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 6-12 Chapter 6.0 References 

April 2007 

USDI, BLM. 2000b. Management Information System, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management Reporting Office by Subactivity by Major Category for the Socorro Field Office. 

Available from www.mis.blm.gov.

_____. 2000c. Proceedings: Sagebrush steppe ecosystem symposium. Entwistle, P.G. et al. (compilers). 

Publication No. BLM/ID/PT-001001+1150, Idaho State Office, Boise, Idaho. 

_____. 1999a. Spring Survey of Reptiles and Amphibians in the Socorro Resource Area, conducted by 

Western New Mexico University Department of Natural Science. 

_____. 1999b. BLM Socorro Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision Management Decisions 

from 1989 RMP. Socorro, New Mexico. 

_____. 1999c. Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Handbook H-1742-1. July. 

_____. 1997a. Bureau of Land Management Strategic Plan www.blm.gov/nhp/info/stratplan. September 30. 

Website last updated March 9, 2000. 

_____. 1997b. Mining Claims and Sites on Federal Lands. BLM Solid Minerals Group brochure. 

_____. 1997c. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State 

Historic Preservation Officers. 1997. Memorandum of Understanding: The Manner In Which BLM 

Will Meet Its Responsibilities Under the National Historic Preservation Act. 

_____. 1995. H-8550-1 Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review. Washington D.C. 

_____. 1992. Recreation Management Plan, Datil Well Campground. Las Cruces District Office, Socorro 

Resource Area, Socorro, New Mexico. 

_____. 1991a. New Mexico Wilderness Study Report Statewide Summary. 

_____. 1991b. Socorro Resource Area Right-of-Way Avoidance Area Plan. Socorro Field Office, Socorro, 

New Mexico.

_____. 1990. Letter from Harlen Smith, area manager, Socorro Resource Area, BLM, to New Mexico 

Bureau of Mines regarding the nomination of the Quebradas Backcountry Byway. August 21. On 

file with the BLM Socorro Field Office, Socorro, New Mexico. 

_____. 1989a. Socorro Resource Management Plan. Las Cruces District, New Mexico. August. 

_____. 1989b. Management Situation Analysis Resource Area Profile and Existing Management Situation.

Las Cruces District, Socorro Resource Area, Socorro, New Mexico. January. 

_____. 1988. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Las Cruces 

District, Socorro Resource Area. September. 

_____. 1986. H-8410-1. Visual Resource Inventory. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 

_____. 1982. West Socorro Rangeland Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Socorro, NM: San Augustine Resource Area. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 6-13 Chapter 6.0 References 

April 2007 

USDI, BLM. 1981. Nogal Wildlife Habitat Management Plan, Nogal Wildlife Habitat Area (NM02-WHAT11). Jornada Resource Area. Socorro District Office, New Mexico. 

_____. 1980. New Mexico Wilderness Study Area Decisions. New Mexico State Office. November. 

_____. 1979. East Socorro Grazing Environmental Statement.

_____. 1978. Wilderness Inventory Handbook: Policy, Direction, Procedures and Guidance for Conducting 

Wilderness Inventory on Public Lands. September 27. 

USDI, BLM and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (BLM and NMDGF). 2002. Population 

Enumeration and Habitat Management Assessment for Desert Bighorn Sheep in the Ladron 

Mountains, New Mexico. Prepared by the New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

Unit. July. 

USDI, National Park Service. 1995. Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway 

Corridors: A Resource Book. Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance. Fourth Edition. Revised. 

USDI, National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management. 2004. El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro 

National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Long Distance Trails Group—Santa Fe, National Park Service, and New Mexico State Office, 

Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe. 

USDI, Office of Surface Mine Reclamation and Enforcement. 2001. Memorandum to Acting Assistant, 

Land and Minerals Management Regarding Bureau of Indian Affairs, Final Report, Potential 

Hydrologic Impacts of Pumping at Fence Lake Coal Mine on Zuni Salt Lake. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003. Bureau of Labor Statistics data for 1969 to 

2001 as compiled by the BLM/Sonoran Institute Cooperative Economic Profile System (EPS). Last 

run January 3. 

_____. 2002a. Unemployment Rates by County, October 2001-September 2002 Averages. Information 

obtained from: http://data.bls.gov/lau/maps/twmcort.gif. Accessed November 22. 

_____. 2002b. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local Area Unemployment Statistics, New Mexico. Information 

obtained from: http://data.bls.gov/servlet/ Accessed November 22. 

_____. 2002c. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unemployment Rate – Civilian Labor Force, United States. 

Information obtained from: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost. Accessed November 25. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Draft Environmental Assessment for Reestablishment of 

the Endangered Northern Aplomado Falcon into New Mexico and Arizona. 

_____. 2001. Programmatic Biological Opinion on the Effect of Actions Associated with the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation’s, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ and Non-Federal Entities Discretionary Actions 

Related to Water Management on the Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico. Regional Director’s Office, 

Region 2. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Helium. U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries. 

January. Available at: minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/helium/heliumcs04.pdf. 

Accessed November 15, 2005. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS 6-14 Chapter 6.0 References 

April 2007 

USGS. 2003. USGS-Designated Watershed Areas for Planning and Decision Areas. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/metadata/hydunits.htm. 

University of New Mexico Bureau of Business and Economic Research. 2002. New Mexico Population 

Projections by County 1990-2030. Information obtained from: 

http://www.unm.edu/~bber/demo/table1.htm. Accessed November 15. 

Warren, S.D., T.L. Thurow, W.H. Blackburn, and N.E. Garza. 1996. The influence of livestock trampling 

under intensive rotation grazing on soil hydrologic characteristics. Journal of Range 

Management 39: 491-495. 

White, C., S. Loftin, and S. Hofstad. 1999. Response of vegetation, soil nitrogen, and sediment transport to 

a prescribed fire in semiarid grasslands. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Ogden, Utah. Proceedings RMRS-P-1:83-92. 

White, Tom. 2003. Record of Conversation between Tom White, Ridgeway Arizona Oil Corporation, and 

Carol Wirth, URS Corporation. February 3.

White Sands Missile Range (WMSR). 2006. http://www.wsmr.army.mil/bd/who.html. General information 

obtained June 7, 2006. 

_____. 2003. Public Affairs Miscellany. Information obtained from: 

http://www.wsmr.army.mil/paopage/Pages/pamisc.htm#restric.

Willard, M.E. 1957. Reconnaissance geologic map of Piñonville thirty-minute quadrangle: New Mexico 

Bureau of Mines and Mineral resources, Geologic Map 3, scale 1:126,720. 

Witcher, James C. 1995. Geothermal resource database, New Mexico. Southwest Technology Development 

Institute.

Wolf, Douglas G., and James I. Kirkland. 1997. Zuniceratops christopheri n.gen & n sp., a ceratopsian 

dinosaur from the Moreno Hill Formation (Cretaceous, Turonian) of West Central New Mexico. In 

Lower and Middle Cretaceous Terrestrial Ecosystems. New Mexico Museum of Natural History 

and Science Bulletin No. 14. Lucas, S.G., J.I. Kirkland and J.W. Estep, editors, 1998.

Yensen, D.L. 1982. A grazing history of southwestern Idaho with emphasis on the Snake River Birds of 

Prey Study Area. Unpublished. rep. U.S. Dept. Int., Bureau Land Management, Boise, ID. 82 pp. 

Young, J.A., and R.A. Evans. 1978. Population dynamics after wildfires in sagebrush grasslands. Journal of 

Range Management (31:283-289). 

Young, K., B.C. Thompson, D.M. Browning, Q. Hodgson, J.L. Lanser, A. Lafon Terrazas, W.R. Gould, and 

R. Valdez. 2002. Characterizing and predicting suitable aplomado falcon habitat for conservation 

planning in the northern Chihuahuan Desert. New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

Unit, Las Cruces, New Mexico. 

Zidek, Jiri, and Kenneth Kietzke. 1993. “Pre-Permian Vertebrates of New Mexico, with Remarks on Some 

Early Permian Specimens” in Vertebrate Paleontology in New Mexico. New Mexico Museum of 

Natural History and Science Bulletin 2.

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-1 Glossary

April 2007

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

Acre-foot: The volume (as of irrigation water) that would cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot (43,560 cubic 

feet).

Action: In the context of the National Environmental Policy Act, describes actions proposed to meet a 

specific purpose and need and that may have effects on the environment, which are potentially subject to 

Federal control and responsibility. Federal actions generally fall into the categories of adoption of official 

policy, formal plans, and programs; or approval of specific projects. 

Agency: Any Federal, State, or county government organization with jurisdictional responsibilities. 

Air quality: A measure of the health-related and visual characteristics of the air, often derived from 

quantitative measurements of the concentrations of specific injurious or contaminating substances. 

Air quality standard: Levels of air pollutants prescribed by regulations that may not be exceeded during 

a specified time in a defined area. 

Allocated uses: Bureau of Land Management allocates cultural resources to one of five categories 

including (1) scientific use, (2) conservation for future use, (3) traditional use, (4) public use, or 

(5) experimental use. If cultural resources are evaluated as lacking significant values, they are categorized 

as discharged from management. 

Allotment (range): A designated area of land available for livestock grazing upon which a specified 

number and kind of livestock may be grazed under management of an authorized agency. An allotment 

generally consists of Federal rangelands, but may include intermingled parcels of private, State, or 

Federal lands. BLM and the Forest Service stipulate the number of livestock and season of use for each 

allotment.

Allotment management plan (AMP): A written program of livestock grazing management including 

supportive measures, if required. An AMP is designed to attain specific management goals in a grazing 

allotment and is prepared cooperatively with the permittee(s) or lessee(s). 

All-terrain vehicle (ATV): A small motor vehicle with wheels or tractor treads often used for crosscountry travel including traveling over rough ground, snow, or ice. For the purposes of this document, an 

all-terrain vehicle is defined as a motor vehicle that: (a) is designed primarily for recreational nonhighway all-terrain travel, (b) is fifty or fewer inches in width, (c) has an unladen weight of eight hundred 

pounds or less, (d) travels on three or more low pressure tires, and (e) has a seat designed to be straddled 

by the operator, and handlebars for steering control. An ATV is a type of off-highway vehicle. 

Alternative: Any one of a number of options for a project.

Ambient (air): The surrounding atmospheric conditions to which the general public has access. 

American Indian tribe (or tribe): Any American Indian group in the conterminous United States that 

the Secretary of the Interior recognizes as possessing tribal status (listed periodically in the Federal 

Register).
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-2 Glossary

April 2007

Animal unit: A unit of measure for rangeland livestock equivalent to one mature cow or five sheep or 

five goats, all over 6 months of age. An animal unit is based on an average daily forage consumption of 

26 pounds of dry matter per day. 

Animal unit month (AUM): The amount of forage needed to sustain one cow, five sheep, or five goats, 

for a month. A full AUM’s fee is charged for each month of grazing by adult animals if the grazing 

animal (1) is weaned, (2) is 6 months old or older when entering public land, or (3) will become 

12 months old during the period of use. For fee purposes, an AUM is the amount of forage used by five 

weaned or adult sheep or goats or one cow, bull, steer, heifer, horse, or mule. The term AUM is 

commonly used in three ways: (1) stocking rate as X acres per AUM, (b) forage allocation as in X AUM’s 

in allotment A, and (3) utilization as in X AUMs consumed from Unit B. 

Aquifer: A water-bearing rock unit (unconsolidated or bedrock) that will yield water in a usable quantity 

to a well or spring. 

Archaeology: The scientific study of the life and culture of past, especially ancient, peoples, by 

excavation of ancient cities, relics, artifacts, etc. 

Archaeological site: A discrete location that provides physical evidence of past human use. 

Area of critical environmental concern (ACEC): An area of public lands designated by Bureau of Land 

Management for special management attention 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/provide safety from natural hazards. Areas designated as ACECs have met criteria for 

importance and relevance that are outlined in 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b). 

Artifact: A human-made object. 

Assessment: The act of evaluating and interpreting data and information for a defined purpose. 

Attainment area: An area that meets a Federal primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the 

pollutant.

Avoidance area: An environmentally sensitive area where rights-of-way may be granted only when no 

feasible alternative route is available. 

Baseline: The existing conditions against which impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives can be 

compared. 

Basin: A depressed area having no surface outlet (topographic basin); a physiographic feature or 

subsurface structure that is capable of collecting, storing, or discharging water by reason of its shape and 

the characteristics of its confining material (water); a depression in the earth’s surface, the lowest part 

often filled by a lake or pond (lake basin); a part of a river or canal widened (drainage, river, stream 

basin).

Best management practices (BMPs): A suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to, 

management actions to aid in achieving desired outcomes and help to protect the environmental resources 

by avoiding or minimizing the impacts of an action. BMPs are often developed in conjunction with land 

use plans, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the land use plan specifies that they 

are mandatory. They may be updated or modified without a plan amendment if they are not mandatory. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-3 Glossary

April 2007

Bureau of Land Management (BLM): An agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior responsible for 

managing most Federal government subsurface minerals. It has surface management responsibility for 

Federal lands designated under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

Cave: The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act (FCRPA) of 1988 defines a cave as any natural 

occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages which occurs beneath the surface of 

the earth or within a cliff or ledge (including any cave resource therein, but not including any vug, mine, 

tunnel, aqueduct, or other manmade excavation), and which is large enough to permit an individual to 

enter, whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or manmade. 

Chemical treatment: Involves the use of herbicides to target species to reduce their competitive effect on 

more desirable species as well as to reduce fuel loadings and wildfire risk.

Clean Air Act of 1990: Federal legislation governing air pollution. The Clean Air Act established 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate 

matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead. Prevention of Significant Deterioration classifications define the 

allowable increased levels of air quality deterioration above legally established levels. They include the 

following:

Class I – minimal additional deterioration in air quality (certain national parks and wilderness areas) 

Class II – moderate additional deterioration in air quality (most lands) 

Class III – greater deterioration for planned maximum growth (industrial areas) 

Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1987: Federal legislation governing water quality. The CWA refers to a 

series of Federal laws and regulations that attempt to restore the beneficial uses of surface waters of the 

United States (also referred to as “waters of the U.S.”). The CWA regulates such programs as the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, a permit-based set of regulations that control the 

discharge of pollution to U.S. waterways from an individual point (for example, the end of a pipe) and the 

discharge of concentrated storm water from highways, cities, and other built environments. The CWA 

also regulates the placing of fill in streams and washes for the construction of road crossings, pipelines, 

and power lines. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

which in some cases has extended responsibilities to the individual States, regulate these programs. 

Closed: Generally denotes that an area is not available for a particular use or uses; refer to specific 

definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual programs. For 

example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 sets forth the specific meaning of “closed” as it relates to off-highway vehicle 

use, and 43 CFR 8364 defines “closed” as it relates to closure and restriction orders. 

Community (natural community): The living part of an ecosystem. Communities change with 

succession, thereby forming distinctive ecological units both in time and space. The plant community and 

the animal community together form the biotic community. Size is not implied (i.e., organisms associated 

with a decaying log or with an entire forest each represent communities). 

Cooperating agency: Assists the lead Federal agency in developing an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act define a cooperating agency as any agency that has jurisdiction by 

law or special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA (40 CFR 1501.6). Any Federal, state, local 

government jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency by agreement with 

the lead agency. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-4 Glossary

April 2007

Cubic foot/feet per second (cfs): As a rate of stream flow, a cubic foot of water passing a reference 

section in one second of time. One cfs flowing for 24 hours will yield 7.983 acre-feet of water.

Cultural resources: Any definite location of past human activity, occupation, or use, identifiable through 

inventory, historical documentation, or oral evidence. Cultural resources include archaeological, historic, 

or architectural sites, structures, places, objects, and artifacts. 

Cumulative impacts (or effects): An impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact 

of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Cumulative impacts are evaluated as part of the environmental impact statement, and may include 

consideration of additive or interactive effects regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other 

actions.

Decision Area: Public land and Federal mineral estate managed by the BLM within the Planning Area 

are referred to in this document as BLM’s Decision Area. 

Developed recreation: Recreation that requires facilities that result in further concentrated use of the 

area. For example, off-road vehicles require parking lots and trails; campgrounds require roads, picnic 

tables, and toilet facilities. 

Dispersed recreation: Recreation that does not occur in a developed recreation site, such as hunting, 

backpacking, and scenic driving. 

Distance zones: A subdivision of the landscape as viewed from an observer position. The subdivision 

(zones) includes foreground-middleground, background, and seldom seen. 

x Foreground-middleground zone – The area that can be seen from each travel route for a distance 

of 3 to 5 miles where management activities might be viewed in detail. The outer boundary of this 

distance zone is defined as the point where the texture and form of individual plants are no longer 

apparent in the landscape. 

x Background zone – The remaining area that can be seen from each travel route to approximately 

15 miles. In order to be included within the distance zone, vegetation should be visible at least as 

patterns of light and dark. 

x Seldom-seen zone – Areas that are not visible within the foreground-middleground and 

background zones, and areas beyond the background zones. 

Easement: A right afforded a person, agency, or organization to make limited use of another’s real 

property for access or other purposes. 

Ecosystem: Any area or volume in which there is an exchange of matter and energy between living and 

nonliving parts; that is, the biotic community together with soil, air, water, and sunlight form an 

ecosystem. Ecosystems are the best units for studying the flow of energy and matter. 

Edge effect: Edge effects occur when natural habitats are interrupted by development or other humaninduced disturbances, including roads, structures, and trampling or vehicle tracks. Edge effects affect 

wildlife species in very different ways, depending on the life history of the species, and cause behavioral 

modifications that can lead to fragmentation of habitat. Some disturbance-adapted species, especially 

shrub/scrub bird species, thrive along edges of roads and other developed areas. Other wildlife species, 

especially large mammals, avoid human-disturbed areas and do not tend to cross roads. Roads also 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-5 Glossary

April 2007

increase mortality of small mammals from both increased vehicle collisions and increased predation from 

large mammals, while roads increase mortality of large mammals as a result of vehicle collisions. 

Pollution and bioaccumulation are secondary effects of roads and other development that increase edge 

effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats.

Effect (or impact): A modification of the existing environment as it presently exists, caused by an action 

(such as construction or operation of facilities). An effect may be direct, indirect, or cumulative. The 

terms effect and impact are synonymous under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Endangered species: A plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Environmental assessment (EA): A concise public document for which a Federal agency is responsible. 

An EA serves (1) to briefly provide enough evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact; and (2) to aid an agency’s 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act when no EIS is needed; and (3) to facilitate 

preparation of an EIS when one is needed.

Environmental impact statement (EIS): An analytical document that portrays potential impacts on the 

human environment of a particular course of action and its possible alternatives. Required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act, an EIS is prepared for use by decision makers to assess the environmental 

consequences of a potential decision. 

Environmental justice: The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including 

racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental 

consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of 

Federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies (see Executive Order 12898). 

Ephemeral stream: A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation in the immediate 

watershed or in response to the melting of a cover of snow and ice and has a channel bottom that is 

always above the local water table.

Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geologic agents and 

by such processes as gravitation creep.

Exclusion area: An environmentally sensitive area where rights-of-way would be granted only in cases 

where there is a legal requirement to provide such access. 

Extraction: The removal of mineral resources from the land by mining, quarrying, or excavation. 

Federal lands: Lands, or interests in lands (such as easements and rights-of-way), owned by the United 

States.

Fire regimes: The characteristics of fire in a given ecosystem, including factors such as frequency, 

intensity, severity, and patch size. The terms used for the different fire regimes are: Nonlethal, Mixed 1, 

Mixed 2, and Lethal. Nonlethal fires are generally of the lowest intensity and severity with the smallest 

patches of mortality, while lethal fires are generally of the highest intensity and severity with the largest 

patches of mortality. The others fall in between. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-6 Glossary

April 2007

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC): An interagency, standardized tool for determining the degree of 

departure from reference condition vegetation, fuels, and disturbance regimes. Assessing FRCC can help 

guide management objectives and set priorities for treatments.

Fire intensity: The effects of fire on the above-ground vegetation generally described in terms of 

mortality. 

Fire severity: Fire effects at and below the ground surface. Describes the impacts to organic material on 

the ground surface, changes to soils, and mortality of below-ground vegetative buds, roots, rhizomes, and 

other organisms. 

Fire suppression tactics: The tactical approaches regarding suppression of a wildland fire. These range 

from Control, Confine, Contain, and Monitor. Control is the most aggressive tactic, while Monitor is the 

least.

Fire use: The combination of wildland fire use and prescribed fire application to meet resource 

objectives.

Floodplain: The land that borders a water body and is subject to flooding on a periodic basis.

Fluid minerals: In this case, oil, gas, geothermal resources, carbon dioxide, helium, and coal bed 

methane.

Fossil: Any remains, trace, or imprint of a plant or animal that has been preserved by natural process in 

the earth’s crust since some past geologic time.

Geographic information system: A system of computer hardware, software, data, people and 

applications that capture, store, edit, analyze, and graphically display a potentially wide array of 

geospatial information.

Grazing: Consumption of native forage from rangelands or pastures by livestock or wildlife. 

Grazing allotment: An area where one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. An allotment 

generally consists of Federal land but may include parcels of private or State-owned land. 

Grazing district: An administrative unit of BLM-managed rangelands established by the Secretary of the 

Interior under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. Grazing units are not the same as BLM administrative 

districts.

Grazing fee: A charge, usually on a monthly basis, for grazing a specific kind of livestock. 

Grazing lease: A document authorizing use of the public lands outside of an established grazing district. 

Grazing leases specify all authorized use including livestock grazing, suspended use, and conservation 

use. Leases specify the total number of animal unit months apportioned, the area authorized for grazing 

use, or both. 

Grazing permit: An authorization that allows grazing on public lands. Permits specify class of livestock 

on a designated area during specified seasons each year. Permits are of two types: preference (10-year) 

and temporary nonrenewable (1 year). 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-7 Glossary

April 2007

Grazing preference: The total number (active and suspended non-use) of animal unit months of livestock 

grazing on public land, apportioned and attached to base property owned or controlled by a permittee. 

Grazing season: On Federal lands, an established period for which grazing permits or leases are issued. 

Grazing system: A systematic sequence of grazing use and nonuse of an allotment (pasture or 

management unit) to meet multiple use goals by improving the quality and amount of vegetation. 

Ground water: Subsurface water that fills available openings in rock or soil materials to the extent that 

they are considered water saturated.

Guidelines: Actions or management practices that may be used to achieve desired outcomes, sometimes 

expressed as best management practices. Guidelines may be identified during the land use planning 

process, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the plan specifies that they are 

mandatory. Guidelines for grazing administration must conform to 43 CFR 4180.2. Guidelines: 

(1) typically identify and prescribe methods of influencing or controlling specific public land uses; (2) are 

developed and applied consistent with the desired condition and within site capability; and (3) may be 

adjusted over time.

Habitat: A specific set of physical conditions in a geographic area(s) that surrounds a single species, a 

group of species, or a large community. In wildlife management, the major components of habitat are 

food, water, cover, and living space. 

Habitat corridors: A strip or block of habitat connecting otherwise isolated units of similar habitat that 

allows the dispersal of organisms and the consequent mixing of genes. 

Habitat fragmentation: The division of large, continuous areas of habitat into smaller patches isolated 

from one another. The effects of habitat fragmentation include loss of habitat area and the creation of 

smaller, more isolated patches of remaining habitat. 

Habitat management plan (HMP): A written and officially approved plan for a specific geographical 

area of public land that identifies wildlife habitat and related objectives, establishes the sequence of 

actions for achieving objectives, and outlines procedures for evaluating accomplishments. 

Hazardous materials: Substances or mixtures of substances that have the capability of either causing or 

significantly contributing to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating 

reversible illness, or posing a substantial present or potential risk to human health or the environment. 

Hazardous substance: Term used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for chemicals that must 

be reported if released into the environment above a certain amount and, depending on the threat to the 

environment, Federal involvement in handling the incident can be authorized under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. 

Hazardous waste: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act defines hazardous waste as a solid 

waste that may cause an increase in mortality or serious illness or pose a substantial threat to human 

health and the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise 

managed. A waste is hazardous if it appears on a series of lists compiled by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency or exhibits characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-8 Glossary

April 2007

Heritage tourism: The business and practice of attracting and accommodating visitors to a place or area 

based especially on the unique or special aspects of that locale's history, landscape (including trail 

systems), and culture.

Hydrology: The study of the movement, distribution, and quality of water throughout the earth, addresses 

both the hydrologic cycle and water resources.

Indirect effect (or impact): Secondary effects that occur in locations other than the initial action or later 

in time, but that are caused by the proposed action.

Interdisciplinary team: A team of varied land use and resource specialists formed to provide a 

coordinated, integrated information base for overall land use planning and management. 

Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review: This policy 

provides guidance for managing existing Wilderness Study Areas to ensure that an area’s wilderness 

values are not impaired prior to the establishment of a wilderness area or an area’s release from 

consideration for this status.

Invasive species: A species that is not native to an ecosystem whose introduction does or is likely to 

cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. 

Issue: Describes the relationship between actions (proposed, connected, cumulative, similar) and 

environmental (natural, cultural, and socioeconomic) resources. Issues may be questions, concerns, 

problems, or other relationships, including beneficial ones. Issues do not predict the degree or intensity of 

harm the action might cause, but alert the reader as to what the environmental problems might be. The 

National Environmental Policy Act document should address issues identified through interaction with 

agencies and/or the public, and/or through resource studies.

Jurisdiction: The legal right to control or regulate use of land or a facility. Jurisdiction requires authority, 

but not necessarily ownership. 

Karst: Irregular limestone region with sinks, underground streams, and caverns. Karst landscapes owe 

their existence to the removal of bedrock in solution and to the development of underground drainage 

without the development of surface stream valleys. Within these broad constraints, karst landscapes show 

much variation and are usually described in terms of a dominant landform. 

Karst feature: Cavities, sinkholes, or other solution features in karst terrain that seem to be a cave, but 

do not quite fit the definition given above. Lava tubes and bubbles, while not karst, are included as caves 

if they meet the cave definition. 

Landform: A discernible natural landscape that exists as a result of geological activity, such as a plateau, 

plain, basin, or mountain. 

Land use plan: A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an administrative 

area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of Federal Land Policy and Management Act; an 

assimilation of land-use-plan-level decisions developed through the planning process outlined in 43 CFR 

1600, regardless of the scale at which the decisions were developed. Resource management plans are land 

use plans. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-9 Glossary

April 2007

Landscape: An area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated because of geology, landform, 

soils, climate, biota, and human influences throughout the area. Landscapes are generally of a size, shape, 

and pattern, which is determined by interacting ecosystems. 

Lease: An authorization or contract by which one party (lessor) conveys the use of property, such as real 

estate, to another (lessee) in return for rental payments. In addition to rental payments, lessees also pay 

royalties (a percentage of value) to the lessor from resource production. 

Leasable minerals: Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920. They include coal, phosphate, asphalt, sulfur, potassium and sodium minerals, and oil, gas, and 

geothermal resources. 

Locatable mineral: Any valuable mineral that is not salable or leasable, including gold, silver, copper, 

uranium, etc., that may be developed under the General Mining Law of 1872. 

Management Situation Analysis (MSA): Assessment of the current management direction. It includes a 

consolidation of existing data needed to analyze and resolve identified issues, a description of current 

BLM management guidance, and a discussion of existing problems and the opportunities for solving 

them.

Mechanical treatment: Involves the use of various types of mechanized equipment to clear out 

understory, brush, and/or trees and then pile and burn it to reduce fuel loadings and wildfire risk.

Mineral entry: The location of mining claims by an individual to protect his/her right to a valuable 

mineral.

Mineral potential: The four categories of mineral potential are defined in BLM Manual 3031 and are 

based on the geologic environment, inferred geologic processes, and reported mineral occurrences. 

Mineral potential is designated as none, low, moderate, or high. In addition, each mineral potential 

category is supplemented with a designation of the level of certainty regarding the level of confidence in 

the assessed data. 

Mineral rights: Outstanding third-party rights or an interest in minerals not owned by the person or party 

conveying the land to the United States. Mineral rights are an exception in a deed that is the result of 

prior conveyance separating title of certain minerals from the surface estate. 

Mineral withdrawal: A withdrawal of public lands, which are potentially valuable for leasable minerals. 

This precludes the disposal of the lands except with a mineral reservation, or unless the lands are found to 

not be valuable for minerals. 

Mitigation: The abatement or reduction of an impact on the environment by (1) avoiding a certain action 

or parts of an action, (2) employing certain construction measures to limit the degree of impact, 

(3) restoring an area to preconstruction conditions, (4) preserving or maintaining an area throughout the 

life of a project, (5) replacing or providing substitute resources to the environment, or (6) gathering data 

(e.g., archaeological or paleontological) prior to disturbance.

Multiple use: Multiple use as defined by the Multiple Use – Sustained Yield Act of 1960 means, (1) the 

management of all the various renewable surface resources so that they are used in the combination that 

will best meet the needs of the American people, (2) making the most judicious use of the land for some 

or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-10 Glossary

April 2007

periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions, (3) that some land will be used 

for less than all of the resources, and (4) harmonious and coordinated management of the various 

resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration 

being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses 

that will be given the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): The allowable concentrations of air pollutants in 

the air specified by the Federal government. The air quality standards are divided into primary standards 

(based on the air quality criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety and requisite to protect the 

public health) and secondary standards (based on the air quality criteria and allowing an adequate margin 

of safety and requisite to protect the public welfare) from any unknown or expected adverse effects of air 

pollutants.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): An Act that encourages productive and enjoyable 

harmony between man and his environment and promotes efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the 

environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; enriches understanding of the 

ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation, and established the Council on 

Environmental Quality.

National Register of Historic Places (National Register): A listing of architectural, historical, 

archaeological, and cultural sites of local, State, or national significance. The list of sites was established 

by the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and is maintained by the National Park Service. 

Native species: With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other than as a result of an 

introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem. 

Nonpoint source pollution: Pollution from diffuse sources caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over 

and through the ground. 

Notice of intent (NOI): The first formal step in the EIS process, consisting of a written notice that 

includes proposed actions and alternatives, proposed scoping process, and identification of a lead agency 

contact person.

Noxious weeds: Plant species that have been legally designated as unwanted or undesirable. This 

includes national, State, and county or local designations. Typically, an undesirable noxious weed species 

can crowd out more desirable species. According to the Federal Noxious Weed Law, native plant species 

are not designated “noxious.” Native plant species that may be of management concern, such as 

poisonous plants or desert shrub and subshrub species, are not considered priorities for noxious weed 

work or funding. 

Objectives: The planned results to be achieved within a stated time period. Objectives are subordinate to 

goals, more narrow in scope, and shorter in range. Objectives must specify time periods for completion, 

and products or achievements that are measurable. 

Off-highway vehicle (OHV): A vehicle (including four-wheel drive, trail bikes, all-terrain vehicles, and 

snowmobiles, but excluding helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, and boats) capable of traveling off road over 

land, water, ice, snow, sand, marshes, and other terrain. OHV designations are defined in Appendix J. 

Open: Generally denotes that an area is available for a particular use or uses. Refer to specific program 

definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual programs. For 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-11 Glossary

April 2007

example, 43 CFR 8340.0-5 defines the specific meaning of “open” as it relates to off-highway vehicle 

use.

Paleontology: The science of animal and plant fossil remains. 

Particulate matter: Includes dust, soot, and other tiny bits of solid materials that are released into and 

move around in the air. Particulates are produced by many sources, including burning of diesel fuels by 

trucks and buses, incineration of garbage, mixing, and application of fertilizers and pesticides, road 

construction, industrial processes such as steel making, mining operations, agricultural burning (field and 

slash burning), and operation of fireplaces and woodstoves. 

Perennial plant: A plant that has a life cycle of 3 or more years. 

Perennial stream: A stream or that part of a stream that flows continuously during all of the calendar 

year as a result of ground-water discharge or surface runoff.

Permeability: The ease with which gases, liquids (water), or plant roots penetrate or pass through a bulk 

mass of soil or a layer of soil. Since different soil horizons vary in permeability, the particular horizon 

under question should be designated. 

Permit: Permits are one of three forms of a land use authorization (the others are leases and easements). 

Permits are short-term, revocable authorizations to use public lands for specific purposes that involve 

either little or no land improvement, construction, or investment that can be amortized within the term of 

the permit. A permit conveys no possessory interest. The permit is renewable at the discretion of the 

authorized officer and may be revoked in accordance with its terms and applicable regulations. 

Permitted livestock use: The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable land use plan 

for livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease and expressed in animal unit months. 

Place-based values: Refers to an individual’s or group’s attachment to a specific geographic area. It 

relates to the concept of “sense of place,” or a link between social experiences and geographic areas. 

Contributing qualities include personal memory, community history, physical landscape appearance, and 

emotional attachment. These values are subjective, and may be developed based on perceptions about 

amenities (such as recreational opportunities), historic or symbolic activities and places, or landscape and 

scenic vistas. 

Planning Area: As used in this document, includes all land within Socorro and Catron Counties 

regardless of jurisdiction or ownership. 

Planning criteria: The standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and interdisciplinary 

teams for their use in forming judgments about decision making, analysis, and data collection during 

planning. Planning criteria streamline and simplify the resource management planning actions. 

Point-source pollution: Pollution that comes from an identified source or location—“end-of-the-pipe” 

pollution. 

Potable water: Water suitable for drinking. 

Prescribed fire: Fire set intentionally in wildland fuels under prescribed conditions and circumstances. 

Prescribed fire should be used to mitigate the suppression of natural fires. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-12 Glossary

April 2007

Prevention of significant deterioration: A Clean Air Act requirement to include a permit review process 

applicable to the construction and operation of new and modified stationary sources in attainment areas. 

Programmatic environmental impact statement: A comprehensive National Environmental Policy Act 

document prepared to analyze the environmental consequences of alternative programs or management 

strategies under consideration. A programmatic EIS is prepared to help determine a consistent, broad 

management approach that can be used by BLM field-level staff for local land use planning. The 

programmatic environmental impact statement is intended to support and expedite site-specific analysis or 

NEPA efforts for individual projects. 

Public land: Land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior through the BLM without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, except lands 

located on the Outer Continental Shelf, and land held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos.

Raptors: Birds of prey, such as the eagle, falcon, hawk, owl, or vulture. 

Reclaim/reclamation: The process of converting disturbed land to its former use or other productive 

uses. In some instances, the term is also used for the act of adapting wild or natural resources to serve a 

utilitarian purpose such as converting riparian habitats to agriculture. 

Recreation experiences: Psychological outcomes realized either by recreation-tourism participants as a 

direct result of their onsite leisure engagements and recreation-tourism activity participation or by nonparticipating community residents as a result of their interaction with visitors and guests within their 

community and/or interaction with the BLM and other public and private recreation-tourism providers 

and their actions. 

Recreation opportunities: Favorable circumstances enabling visitors’ engagement in a leisure activity to 

realize immediate psychological experiences and attain more lasting, value-added beneficial outcomes. 

Recreational opportunity spectrum (ROS): A conceptual planning tool that characterizes recreation 

opportunities in terms of setting, activity, and experience opportunities. ROS is based on a set of criteria 

according to a land’s physical, social, and managerial settings, which in combination define a land area’s 

capability and suitability for providing a particular range of recreational experience opportunities. In 

ROS, the setting, activities, and opportunities for experiences are arranged along a spectrum of six 

classes: (1) primitive, (2) semi-primitive non-motorized, (3) semi-primitive motorized, (4) roaded natural, 

(5) rural, and (6) urban. The resulting ROS analysis defines specific geographic areas on the ground, each 

of which encompasses one of the six classes. 

Recreation settings. The collective, distinguishing attributes of landscapes that influence, and sometimes 

actually determine, what kinds of recreation opportunities are produced. These include opportunities for 

engaging in specific recreation activities, attaining both satisfying and dissatisfying recreation 

experiences, and attaining both beneficial and unbeneficial outcomes. 

Rehabilitate: Restore to a state of good condition or operation (e.g., a management alternative and/or 

practice that restores landscapes to a desired condition). 

Reserved mineral rights: The retention of ownership of all or part of the mineral rights by a person or 

party conveying land to the United States. Conditions for the exercising of these rights have been defined 

in the Secretary of the Interior’s “Rules and Regulations to Govern Exercising of Mineral Rights 

Reserved Conveyance to the United States” attached to and made a part of deeds reserving mineral rights. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-13 Glossary

April 2007

Restore/restoration: The process of restoring site conditions as they were before land disturbance. Note: 

restoration involves restoring a site to a specific point in time. 

Resource management plan (RMP): A land use plan that establishes land use allocations, multiple-use 

guidelines, and management objectives for a given planning area. The RMP planning system has been 

used by the BLM since 1980. 

Revision: The process of completely rewriting the land use plan due to changes in the planning area 

affecting major portions of the plan or the entire plan. 

Right-of-Way: Land authorized to be used or occupied for the construction, operation, maintenance, and 

termination of a project, pursuant to a right-of-way authorization. 

Riparian: Areas of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. These 

areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface or subsurface water 

influence.

Riparian habitat: Riparian habitat is an ecological transition between an in-stream community of plants 

and animals and the adjacent, upland community. Normally the term is used for perennial, or year-round 

flowing streams. The term xeroriparian habitat is used to describe the distinct plant and animal 

communities that concentrate around dry washes and are sustained by desert storms. 

Roadless: Refers to the absence of roads constructed and maintained by mechanical means.

Roads: Vehicle routes that are improved and maintained by mechanical means to ensure relatively regular 

and continuous use. (A way maintained strictly by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road.) 

Sacred sites (American Indian): Defined in Executive Order 13007 as “any specific, discrete, narrowly 

delineated location on Federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe, or Indian individual determined to 

be an appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established 

religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the tribe or appropriately 

authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site.”

Salable minerals: Minerals that may be sold under the Material Sale Act of 1947, as amended. Included 

are common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, and clay. 

Saturated: When referring to soil, the maximum amount of water that can be held either when the soil is 

frozen or the spaces between the soil particles are filled with water. Any additional seepage over saturated 

soil will result in runoff. 

Scenic area: An area with a landscape character that exhibits a high degree of variety and harmony 

among the basic elements that results in a pleasant landscape to view. 

Scenic quality: The relative worth of a landscape from a visual perception point of view. The seven 

factors (landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modifications) used to 

evaluate the scenic quality of a landscape. The relative scenic quality (A, B, or C) assigned to a landscape 

by applying the scenic quality evaluation key factors, with scenic quality A being the highest rating. The 

scenic-quality-rating unit is defined as a portion of the landscape that displays primarily homogenous 

visual characteristics of the basic landscape features (land and water form, vegetation, and structures). 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-14 Glossary

April 2007

Scoping: A term used to identify the process for determining the scope of issues related to a proposed 

action and for identifying significant issues to be addressed in an environmental impact statement. 

Season of use: The time during which livestock grazing is permitted on a given range area, as specified in 

the grazing permit. 

Sensitive species: Species not yet officially listed but that are undergoing status review for listing on the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service official Threatened and Endangered list; species whose populations are 

small and widely dispersed or restricted to a few localities; and species whose numbers are declining so 

rapidly that official listing may be necessary. 

Site hardening: Site hardening is a measure, or combination of measures, taken to make an 

archaeological or historic site less vulnerable to effects from visitation. These measures may include 

surface collection, signing, on-site hosts, vehicle barriers, data recovery, or other means. 

Special management areas (SMAs): An area identified by the BLM for the management of a specific 

resource or resources. 

Special recreation management area (SRMA): A public lands unit identified in land use plans to direct 

recreation funding and personnel to fulfill commitments made to provide specific, structured recreation 

opportunities (i.e., activity, experience, and benefit opportunities). The BLM recognizes three distinct 

types of SRMAs: community-based, intensive, and undeveloped big open. 

Special status species: Includes proposed species, listed species, and candidate species under the 

Endangered Species Act; state-listed species; and BLM state director-designated sensitive species (see 

BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Policy). 

Standard: A description of the physical and biological conditions or degree of function required for 

healthy, sustainable lands (e.g., Land Health Standards). To be expressed as a desired outcome (goal). 

Structural diversity: The diversity of the composition, abundance, spacing, and other attributes of plants 

in a community.

Sustainable use (production): The continuation of livestock grazing at a uniform level while 

maintaining a healthy desired plant community. 

Terms and conditions: Stipulations contained in livestock grazing permits and leases as determined by 

the Authorized Officer to be appropriate to achieve management and resource condition objectives for the 

public lands and other lands administered by BLM and to achieve standards for rangeland health and 

ensure conformance with guidelines for grazing administration. Terms and conditions also apply to fluid 

mineral leases, as defined in Appendix D. 

Threatened species: Any animal or plant species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all of a significant portion of its range. These species are listed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Total dissolved solids (TDS): A water quality criterion defining the concentration of dissolved organic 

and inorganic chemicals in water. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-15 Glossary

April 2007

Travel and transportation management system: A program to be developed by BLM to manage access 

for motorized, mechanized, and nonmotorized recreation. Travel would be managed through a network of 

authorized routes and access points. A management plan would be developed to provide policy and 

guidance for addressing the regulation, maintenance, and monitoring of the routes and other components 

of the travel and transportation system. 

Unclassified area (for air quality): An area that cannot be classified on the basis of available 

information as meeting or not meeting the Federal primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for 

the pollutant. 

Utility corridor: A linear corridor usually designated for facilities such as power lines, pipelines, fiber 

optic cables, roads, etc. 

Viable: A [wildlife] population that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive 

individuals to insure its continued existence. 

Viewshed: The landscape that can be directly seen under favorable atmospheric conditions, from a 

viewpoint or along a transportation corridor. 

Visual resources: The visible physical features on a landscape (e.g., land, water, vegetation, animals, 

structures, and other features). Visual resources are managed by inventory and planning actions taken to 

identify resource values and to establish objectives for managing those values; and the management 

actions taken to achieve the visual management objectives.

Visual resource management (VRM): The inventory and planning actions taken to identify visual 

resource values and to establish objectives for managing those values, and management actions taken to 

achieve the established objectives. 

Visual resource management classes: Categories assigned to public lands based on scenic quality, 

sensitivity level, and distance zones. There are four classes. Each class has an objective that prescribes the 

amount of change allowed in the characteristic landscape. 

Ways: Primitive two-track trails located within wilderness study areas.

Wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration 

sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically 

adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Examples of wetlands include marshes, shallow swamps, 

lakeshores, bogs, muskegs, wet meadows, estuaries, and riparian areas. 

Wilderness area: An area officially designated as wilderness by Congress. Wilderness areas will be 

managed to preserve wilderness characteristics and shall be devoted to “the public purposes of recreation, 

scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.” 

Wilderness study area (WSA): Areas under study for possible inclusion as a wilderness area in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Wildland fire (or wildfire): Any unplanned fire, as opposed to a prescribed fire, that occurs in a natural 

or wildland setting and does not involve a home or other structure. These fires may require suppression 

actions.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-16 Glossary

April 2007

Wildland fire use (for resource benefits): The management of naturally ignited wildland fires to 

accomplish specific, pre-stated resource management objectives in predefined geographic areas outlined 

in fire management plans, such as in areas that would benefit from fuels reduction. 

Wildland-urban interface: The line, area, or zone where structures and other human developments meet 

or intermingle with wildland or vegetative fuel. Interface is further delineated by (1) developed areas 

with residential structures where many structures border wildland on a broad front or (2) developed areas 

with private residential structures where developments are few in number scattered over a large area 

surrounded by wildland. 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-1 Index 

April 2007

INDEX

Abandoned Mine Land program..............................................................................................................2-17 

Affected Environment...................................................................................................................................3 

Agua Fria ACEC.........S-6, 2-24, 2-29, 2-37, 4-16, 4-19, 4-21, 4-35, 4-68, Table 2-1, Table 2-2, Table 4-4 

Air quality ............. S-3, 1-12, 2-2, 2-28, 3-1, 2-2, 4-2, 2-2, 4-36–4-37, 4-61, 4-80, 4-103–4-104, Table 2-5 

Alternatives..............................................................................................................................................1-12 

Animal unit months........................................................................3-36, 3-73, 3-74, 4-74, 4-93, 4-99, 4-112 

Aplomado falcon............................... 3-15, 3-21, 3-22–3-23, 4-6, 4-17, 4-42, 4-48, 4-68, 4-79, 4-86, 4-107 

Habitat. S-2, S-6, S-8, 2-30, 2-34, 2-35, 2-38, 2-40, 2-43, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-42, 4-45, 4-54, 4-59, 4-62, 

4-63, 4-66, 4-68, 4-70, 4-79, 4-84, 4-86, 4-106, Table 2-1, Table 2-5 

AUMs .................................................................................................................... See Animal unit months 

Best management practices S-3, 1-6, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-8, 2-15, 2-20, 2-47, 4-1, 4-3, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-

19, 4-36, 4-37, 4-40, 4-42, 4-51, 4-62, 4-66, 4-68, 4-80, 4-86, 4-104, 4-105 

Biotic communities ....................................................................................................................................2-4 

Bordo Atravesado Wild Horse Herd Management Area Plan ...................................................................1-8 

Camping........................................................................ 2-35, 2-40, 2-41, 2-45, 2-46, 3-49, 3-50, 3-57, 3-77

Carbon dioxide..S-7, 1-1, 1-6, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-47, 4-18, 4-24, 4-29, 4-33, 4-53, 4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-74, 

4-75, 4-78, 4-94, 4-95, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-113 

Cave resources ..............................................1-5, 1-12, 2-13, 4-23, 4-29, 4-31, 4-49, 4-71, 4-75, 4-90, 4-95 

Cerro Pomo SMA .................................................. 2-27, 3-27, 4-22, 4-34, 4-46, 4-69, Table 2-1, Table 2-3 

Clean Water Act...............................................................................................................2-3, 2-51, 3-9, 4-81 

Climate 2-29, 3-10, 3-11 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail SMA .2-27, 2-35, 2-41, 2-46, 3-50, 4-20, 4-26, 4-47, 4-52, 4-69, 

4-73, 4-88, 4-93, Table 2-2, Table 2-1 

Cultural resources2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1-11, 1-12, 1-16, 2-9–2-11, 2-25, 2-30–2-31, 2-38–2-39, 2-43–2-44, 3-1, 

3-24, 4-6, 4-8, 4-11, 4-17, 4-19, 4-20–4-21, 4-23, 4-25, 4-27, 4-29, 4-31, 4-32, 4-35, 4-37, 4-46–

4-47, 4-52, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-60, 4-63, 4-66, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-74, 4-75, 4-77, 4-79, 4-

80, 4-81, 4-84, 4-87, 4-88–4-89, 4-90, 4-93, 4-95, 4-96, 4-100, 4-108 

Cumulative impacts ................................................................................................................... 2, 1-1, 4-113 

Datil Well SRMA/SMA.2-27, 2-40, 2-45, 3-27, 3-50, 4-26, 4-34, 4-52, 4-68, 4-69, 4-73, 4-87, 4-90, 4-93, 

Table 2-1, Table 3-17, 

Demographics .............................................................................................................................. 1, 1-1, 3-61 

Desert bighorn sheep. 1-14, 2-25, 2-29, 2-30, 2-35, 2-37, 2-40, 2-43, 2-45, 3-18, 3-19, 3-22, 4-15, 4-16, 4-

18, 4-42, 4-66, Table 2-1, Table 2-2 

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail .................................................... 1-8, 2-20, 2-27 

El Camino Real International Heritage Center ........................................... 1-8, 1-13, 2-11, 3-32, 3-57, 4-99 

Endangered Species Act ........................................................ S-5, 2-3, 2-6, 2-8, 4-6, 4-18, 4-44, 4-107, 121 

Environmental justice .............................................................2-23, 3-61, 4-34, 4-59–4-60, 4-78–4-79, 4-98 

Erosion control.................................................................................2-5, 4-21, 4-27, 4-52, 4-74, 4-93, 4-105 

Extensive Recreation Management Area....................................................................................... 2-19, 3-50 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976..S-1, 1-1, 1-12, 2-9, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16, 2-19, 3-35, 

3-54, 3-57, 4-111 

Fence Lake SMA ............................................S-6, 2-24, 2-31, 2-38, 2-42, 4-21, 4-89, Table 2-1, Table 2-2 

Fire management.1-1, 1-11, 1-12, 1-14, 2-2, 2-9, 2-28, 3-23, 3-24, 3-76, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-19, 4-20, 4-45, 4-

46, 4-68, 4-87, 4-88, 4-108, 4-111, Table 2-2 

FLPMA ................................................................... See Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-2 Index 

April 2007

Fluid mineral leasing... S-5, S-6, S-7, 4-5, 4-7, 4-8, 4-17, 4-18, 4-22, 4-24, 4-28, 4-30, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-

42, 4-44, 4-51, 4-53, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-66, 4-68, 4-71, 4-74, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-83, 

4-86, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-105, 4-115 

Forestry program......................................................................................................................................2-15 

Fort Craig SMA .....2-25, 2-31, 2-34, 2-38, 2-44, 3-53, 4-27, 4-34, 4-54, 4-90, 4-113, Table 2-1, Table 2-2 

Geographic information system... 1-11, 3-24, 3-31, 3-59, 3-60, 4-12, 4-39, 4-41, 4-43, 4-64, 4-67, 4-82, 4-

84, 4-85 

Geology.........................................................................S-3, 1-12, 3-1, 3-3, 4-9, 4-37, 4-62, 4-80, Table 2-5 

Geothermal energy resources................................................................................................ 3-42–3-43, 3-48 

GIS .................................................................................................See Geographic Information System 

Grazing allotments..................................2-30, 2-34, 2-38, 2-40, 3-36–3-37, 3-38, 4-28, 4-99, 4-100, 4-111 

Grazing fees ......................................................................................................................... 3-74, Table 3-25 

Groundwater ......................................... S-7, 3-5–3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-12, 3-13, 4-23, 4-61, 4-104, 4-105, 4-115 

Habitat

Fragmentation S-5, S-7, S-9, 2-24, 4-6, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-42, 4-44, 4-66, 4-68, 4-79, 4-86, 4-87, 4-107 

Special status species ...................................................... 1-9, 1-15, 2-6, 2-8, 4-18, 4-19, 4-42, 4-44, 4-61 

Wildlife S-3, S-5, S-8, 1-5, 1-12, 2-6, 2-7, 2-24, 2-32, 2-37, 2-39, 2-42, 2-52, 3-4, 3-18–3-22, 3-55, 4-3, 

4-6, 4-15, 4-17, 4-18, 4-25, 4-32, 4-42, 4-44, 4-45, 4-66, 4-68, 4-73, 4-84, 4-86, 4-107 

Harvey Plot SMA............................................................................... 2-24, 2-27, 4-29, Table 2-1, Table 2-2 

Hazardous materials................................................................................................................S-3, 1-11, 1-12 

Helium S-7, 1-1, 1-6, 4-12, 4-18, 4-24, 4-29, 4-33, 4-36, 4-53, 4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-78, 4-94, 4-95, 4-98, 4-

99, 4-101, 4-102 

Hiking 1-6, 1-7 

Horse Mountain ACECS-6, 2-24, 2-27, 2-29, 2-37, 2-42, 2-46, 4-16, 4-19, 4-21, 4-23, 4-25, 4-27, 4-35, 4-

45, 4-48, 4-51, 4-59, 4-68, 4-70, 4-73, 4-87, 4-89, 4-90, 4-92, Table 2-1, Table 2-2, Table 2-3, 

Table 2-5, Table 4-4 

Hydrologic unit classification ....................................................................................................................3-7 

IMPROVE ...................................................... See Integrated Monitoring of Protected Visual Environment 

Integrated Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments.........................................................................3-2

Iron Mine Ridge Proprietary SMA ........................................................................................ 2-24, Table 4-4 

Issues ..............................................................................S-1, 1-2, 1-4–1-8, 1-9, 1-10–1-11, 1-15, 2-1, 2-6 

Jurisdiction...............................................................................................................S-1, S-7, 1-2, 2-14, 2-47 

Karst resources........ S-3, 2-13, 2-32, 2-39, 2-44, 2-94, 3-30, 4-23, 4-29, 4-31, 4-49, 4-71, 4-75, 4-90, 4-95 

Known Geothermal Resource Area .........................................................................................................3-42 

Ladron Mountain ACEC 2-25, 2-27, 2-35, 2-43, 2-46, 4-16, 4-17, 4-19, 4-21, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-34, 4-36, 

4-52, 4-54, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-92, 4-94, Table 2-1, Table 2-2, Table 2-5, Table 4-4 

Livestock grazing.. 2-4, 2-16, 2-17, 2-26, 2-45, 3-4, 3-8, 3-30, 3-33, 3-36, 3-37, 3-73–3-74, 4-2, 4-5, 4-13, 

4-16, 4-18, 4-21, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-33, 4-45, 4-53, 4-59, 4-74, 4-93, 4-99, 4-107, 4-112, 4-115 

Low-income populations ............................................................................................ 3-71–3-72, Table 3-23 

Magdalena Stock Driveway...................................................................... 2-31, 2-38, 2-43, 3-26, 3-27, 4-20

Major Land Resource Area..................................................................................3-10, 3-11–3-13, Table 3-3 

Mammals ....................................................................................................................................... 3-21–3-22 

Management Situation Analysis ... S-2, 1-10, 1-12, 2-2, 3-4, 3-8, 3-24, 3-28, 3-43, 3-44, 4-1, 4-31, 4-56, 4-

76, 4-96 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act .........................................................................................................................2-7 

Minerals . 3, 5, 7, 8, 1-12, 2-17–2-19, 2-26, 2-34, 2-40, 2-45, 3-1, 3-38–3-49, 4-4, 4-8, 4-28–4-29, 4-35, 4-

42, 4-49, 4-52, 4-53–4-55, 4-56, 4-74–4-75, 4-94–4-95, 4-113 

Leasable .................................................................... 2-18, 2-26, 2-34, 2-40, 3-38–3-43, 3-75, 4-86, 4-93

Locatable.....................1-6, 2-18, 2-27, 2-34, 2-40, 2-45, 3-43, 3-75, 4-41, 4-54, 4-59, 4-75, 4-87, 4-101 

Salable............................................................................................................ 2-27, 2-35, 2-40, 2-45, 3-75 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-3 Index

April 2007

Saleable..................................................................................................................................................1-6 

Minority populations................................................................................................................................3-71 

Mitigation S-5, 1-12, 1-14, 2-31, 3-22, 4-2, 4-5, 4-6, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-15, 4-18, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-

26, 4-28, 4-30, 4-31 

MLRA .........................................................................................................See Major Land Resource Area 

Mockingbird Gap Proprietary SMA ............................................................................. 2-25, 2-43, Table 2-2

Mogollon Pueblo Proprietary SMA .........................................................................................................2-25 

Monitoring .1-1, 1-9, 1-10, 1-13, 2-4, 2-5, 2-8, 2-30, 2-38, 2-40, 2-47–2-50, 4-3, 4-12, 4-20, 4-44, 4-63, 4-

79, 4-108, 4-112 

NAAQS....................................................................................See National Ambient Air Quality Standards

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.........................................................................2-2, 3-2, 4-2, 4-103

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969........2-1, 2-11, 2-14, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-27, 2-34, 2-88–2-101 

National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................................2-10, 2-43, 2-92, 4-108 

National Park Service ....................................S-3, 1-2, 1-4, 2-11, 2-18, 3-26, 3-50, 3-72, 4-102, 4-114, 119 

National Register ............................................................................See National Register of Historic Places 

National Register of Historic Places ................................................2-10, 2-73, 2-81, 3-26, 3-27, 4-37, 4-60 

national wildlife refuge ............................................................................................................................3-55 

National Wildlife Refuge......... 3-2, 3-9, 3-23, 3-32, 3-34, 3-40, 3-50, 3-51, 3-67, 3-78, 4-44, 4-114, 4-115 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ............................................................ 2-10, 3-27 

Native American tribes ............................................................................................................................3-71 

Natural Resource Conservation Service ....................................................................2-5, 2-6, 2-34, 3-4, 119

NEPA ...............................................................................See National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

New Mexico Air Quality Bureau...............................................................................................................3-3 

New Mexico Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................................................................2-2 

New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System ..............................................................................3-24

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish S-3, S-9, 2-6, 2-7, 2-18, 2-34, 2-69, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-

34, 4-114 

New Mexico Environment Department ............................................................ 2-2, 2-3, 3-6, 3-9, 3-10, 3-58 

New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science ................................................................. 2-11, 3-28 

New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission...................................................................... 2-3, 3-6, 3-9 

Newton Site Proprietary SMA ........................................................................... 2-25, 2-31, 2-38, 2-44, 2-64

NMCRIS ...............................................................See New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System 

NMDGF ............................................................................. See New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

NMED ......................................................................................See New Mexico Environment Department

NMMNH&S ...................................................... See New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science 

Nondiscretionary closure .............................................................................................2-18, 4-54, 4-75, 4-94 

Nonpoint-source pollution .........................................................................................................................2-3 

Nonrenewable energy fluid mineral resources.........................................................................................3-38 

Notice of intent ........................................................................................................................................1-10 

Off-highway vehicle ................................................... S-1, S-4, S-5, S-6, S-7, S-8, S-9, 1-1, 1-6, 1-11, 1-12 

OHV ................................................................................................................... See Off-highway vehicle 

Oil and gas resources .........................................................................S-7, 4-29, 4-54, 4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-75 

Paleontological resources....S-3, S-5, S-7, 1-12, 2-11, 2-35, 3-1, 3-28–3-29, 4-4, 4-21–4-22, 4-29, 4-31, 4-

48, 4-89, 4-108–4-109 

Paleontological Resources ................................................................................. 2-25, 2-31, 2-39, 2-44, 4-70 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes ........................................................................................................................3-73 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes.......................................................................................................................3-72 

Pelona Mountain SMA .............................2-25, 2-27, 3-27, 3-50, 3-53, 4-16, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-34, 4-113 

PILT ..........................................................................................................See Payments in Lieu of Taxes 

Planning criteria..................................................................................................................... 1-10, 1-11, 118 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-4 Index 

April 2007

Planning processS-1, 1-2, 1-4, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10–1-13, 2-1, 2-13, 2-21, 2-22, 2-23, 2-47, 3-53, 4-3, 4-66, 117, 

118, 120, 121 

Playa Pueblos Proprietary SMA ..................................................................................2-25, 2-31, 2-38, 2-44 

Poverty 3-67, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72 

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 ............................................................................... 2-16, 3-74

Public safety..................................................................................................................................... 1-5, 1-12 

Puertecito SMA................................................................................2-24, 2-28, 2-36, 2-42, 4-23, 4-49, 4-90 

Purpose and need .......................................................................................................................................1-1 

Quebradas Backcountry Byway.....................................................................................1-8, 2-27, 4-65, 4-68 

Quebradas Backcountry Byway SRMA ............................................................................... 2-35, 2-41, 2-45

Rangeland ......................................................................................................................... 3, 1-12, 1-15, 2-15 

Rangeland management .............................................................................................................................4-5 

Rangeland Management..2-16–2-17, 2-26, 2-33–2-34, 2-39, 2-45, 3-1, 3-35–3-38, 4-27–4-28, 4-27, 4-52–

4-53, 4-69, 4-74, 4-93–4-94, 4-111–4-113 

Reasonably foreseeable development . 4-9, 4-12, 4-18, 4-24, 4-26, 4-28, 4-30, 4-33, 4-36, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54 

Recreation .1-1, 1-5, 1-8, 1-9, 1-11, 1-12, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 4-4, 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-15, 4-18, 4-22, 4-24, 4-26, 

4-28, 4-29–4-31, 4-34, 4-41, 4-45, 4-47, 4-51, 4-55–4-56, 4-59 

RFD See Reasonably foreseeable development 

Right-of-way..............................................................................................................................................1-7 

Avoidance areas1-7, 1-9, 2-26, 2-32, 2-39, 2-44, 3-56, 4-10, 4-11, 4-17, 4-20, 4-22, 4-24, 4-25, 4-30, 4-

31, 4-32, 4-39, 4-45, 4-50, 4-52, 4-53, 4-55, 4-57, 4-63, 4-66, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-

75, 4-77, 4-86, 4-87, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94, 4-95, 4-97, TABLE 4-14, Table 4-10 

Exclusion areas .. 8, 1-7, 1-9, 2-26, 2-32, 2-39, 2-44, 3-56, 4-9, 4-17, 4-19, 4-30, 4-31, 4-39, 4-55, 4-56, 

4-58, 4-62, 4-63, 4-69, 4-71, 4-72, 4-76, 4-77, 4-80, 4-82, 4-87, 4-91, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, Table 4-1, 

Table 2-5, Table 2-1, Tabls S-1 

Rio Salado SMA ....................................................................................... 2-25, 2-43, 2-64, 2-81, 4-47, 4-90 

San Lorenzo Canyon SMA ......................................................................................................................4-18 

San Pedro Proprietary ACEC................................................................................................ 2-24, 2-64, 4-15 

Sawtooth Proprietary ACEC........................................................................................ 2-71, 4-15, 4-42, 4-44 

Scoping ........................................................................................................... 1-4, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12 

Soaptree SMA..........................................................................................................................................4-16 

Social and economic conditions...............................................................................................................1-12 

Social and Economic Conditions ............................................4-32–4-34, 4-57–4-59, 4-77–4-78, 4-97–4-98 

Soils 1-5, 1-6, 1-12, 4-6, 4-10, 4-17, 4-22, 4-23, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-42, 4-51, 4-62, 4-73, 4-80, 4-81, 4-

93

Special designations....................1-5, 1-9, 1-12, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-11, 4-13, 4-15, 4-17, 4-19, 4-20, 4-22 

Special status species ......1-11, 1-12, 4-3, 4-12, 4-15–4-19, 4-42–4-45, 4-61, 4-66–4-68, 4-84–4-87, 4-107 

Stallion SMA ...........................................................................................................................................4-36 

Surface water ..................................................................................................... 4-8, 4-10, 4-38, 4-62, 4-105 

Taylor Canyon Proprietary SMA.............................................................................................................4-16 

Teypama SMA................................................................................... 2-25, 4-34, 4-47, Table 2-2, Table 2-1 

The Box SMA..........................................................2-27, 4-17, 4-18, 4-23, Table 4-4, Table 2-2, Table 2-1 

Tinajas ACEC .............................................4-21, 4-29, 4-35, 4-48, 4-54, 4-69, 4-70, 4-79, 4-81, 4-89, 4-95 

Town of Riley SMA.............................................................................................................. 4-35, 4-47, 4-69 

Trails 1-7, 4-15, 4-25, 4-31, 4-45, 4-51, 4-72, 4-92, 4-99, 4-100 

Transportation.................1-6, 1-12, 4-8, 4-31–4-32, 4-47, 4-48, 4-57, 4-65, 4-96–4-97, 4-84, 4-113–4-114 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service................................................................................................................... 1-4

Vegetation..............................................................................................1-5, 1-6, 1-11, 1-12, 4-3, 4-11–4-15 

Invasive species .................................. 2-2, 2-5, 2-9, 4-3, 4-11, 4-12, 4-28, 4-40, 4-53, 4-74, 4-94, 4-106 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-5 Index 

April 2007

Noxious weeds1, 4, 6, 1-1, 1-9, 2-2, 2-5, 2-9, 2-28, 4-3, 4-6, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-18, 4-28, 4-35, 4-40, 4-

106

Visual resources. 4-4, 4-22–4-23, 4-24, 4-31, 4-44, 4-48–4-49, 4-63, 4-66, 4-70–4-71, 4-81, 4-84, 4-89–4-

90, 4-109 

Walnut Canyon SMA...................................................................................................4-16, 4-18, 4-35, 4-42 

Water resources...........1-11, 4-10–4-11, 4-32, 4-37–4-38, 4-57, 4-62–4-63, 4-64, 4-80–4-81, 4-104–4-105 

White Sands Missile Range ........................................................................... 4-49, 4-50, 4-99, 4-101, 4-102

Wilderness characteristics................................................................1-9, 1-12, 4-23, 4-50, 4-71, 4-91, 4-110 

Wildland urban interface........................................................................................................................4-100 

Woodcutting.. 4-8, 4-12, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-25, 4-26, 4-36, 4-38, 4-40, 4-44, 4-46, 4-51, 4-52, 4-62, 

4-64, 4-66, 4-69, 4-73, 4-81, 4-92, 4-93 

Zuni Salt Lake..........................................................................................................................................4-10 

Zuni Salt Lake ACEC 4-35, 4-37, 4-38, 4-48, 4-54, 4-55, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-72, 4-75, 4-

77, 4-80, 4-89 

Zuni Salt Lake SMA ....................................................................................................4-22, 4-37, 4-62, 4-80