Appendix J
 

Off-highway Vehicle Areas and Route Designations
 
 

APPENDIX J 

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE AREAS AND ROUTE DESIGNATIONS
 

In 1972, the President issued Executive Order 11644 requiring each Federal agency to designate “areas 

and trails” for off-road vehicle use or restriction and to develop regulations implementing this executive 

order. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulations (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 8340) 

established management areas as open, limited, or closed to off-road vehicle use. 

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) designations are determined through a comprehensive land use planning 

process, which serves as an adaptive and flexible approach to the management of all activities on public 

lands. As circumstances and conditions have changed over the past several decades, the BLM has made a 

concerted effort to focus the agency’s resources in the development of land use plans by seeking 

additional funding and staff to address issues associated with the increased population growth near the 

public lands. OHV designations are a major component of all future planning efforts. 

In addition, guidance in BLM Handbook H-1601, Appendix C directs BLM offices to delineate travel 

management areas, designate OHV management areas and include route designations, “where practical.” 

The Handbook further states, “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.” 

Alternatives proposed in this Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) include revised OHV area 

designations and route designations within 12 of the 13 wilderness study areas (WSAs) (see Chapter 2 

and Tables J-2 through J-13). No routes have been identified for the Devil’s Reach WSA under any 

alternative. 

The following appendix provides definitions of OHV area designations and associated terms, a summary 

of the route inventory and designation process within WSAs, and the alternative route designations. 

DEFINITIONS 

Definitions of the BLM’s OHV designations and associated terms are listed below. OHV designations are 

administrative, allowing management flexibility in response to changes in the environment. All public 

land is designated as “open,” “limited,” or “closed” to motorized vehicles in each field office’s Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) or travel and transportation management plan. The following terms are defined 

as stated in 43 CFR 8340.0-5. 

•	 Off-highway vehicle – any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or 

immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) any non-amphibious 

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; (4) vehicles in official use; and (5) any combat or combat support vehicle when used in 

times of national defense emergencies. OHV use is subject to operating regulations and vehicle 

standards set forth in 43 CFR 8341 and 8342. 

•	 Open area designation – any area where all types of vehicle use are permitted at all times, 

anywhere in the area subject to the operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth in 43 

CFR 8341 and 8342. Open designations generally include areas where there are no compelling 

resource protection needs, use conflicts, or public safety issues that would warrant limiting OHV 

use. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-1 Appendix J 

December 2008 
 

• Closed area designation – an area where the use of OHVs and mechanized vehicles (mountain 

bikes, wagons, wheeled-game carts) is prohibited. Closures may be necessary to protect 

resources, ensure visitor safety, or reduce use conflicts. Use of OHVs in closed areas may be 

allowed for certain reasons; however, such use shall be made only with the approval of the 

Authorized Officer. Closed (no rehab) designations are routes that remain usable for travel by 

foot, horse, or authorized vehicles. Vehicle uses that may be authorized by the BLM include 

grandfathered uses, valid existing rights, agency administrative use, or emergency use. 

•	 Limited area designation – an area restricted at certain times in certain areas, and/or to certain 

vehicular use. These restrictions may be of any type, but can generally be accommodated within 

the following categories: number of vehicles, types of vehicles, time or season of vehicle use, 

permitted or licensed use only, use on existing roads and trails, use on designated roads and trails, 

and other restrictions. Limitations may be used to meet specific resource management objectives, 

protect resources, or public safety. 

•	 Cross-country travel – wheeled, motorized travel by any vehicle (recreational or other), off of 

roads and trails. It is difficult to provide one definition of motorized wheeled cross-country travel 

and have that definition fit all the situations that might occur. Roads and trails appear differently 

to individuals because of the variety of terrain, vegetation, and soil type found in the Planning 

Area. 

Motorized travel is considered cross-country when: 

•	 The passage of motorized vehicles depresses undisturbed ground and crushes vegetation. 

•	 The motorized vehicle maximum width (the distance from the outside of the left tire to the 

outside of the right tire or maximum tire width for motorcycles) does not easily fit the road or 

trail profile. However, an all-terrain vehicle traveling within a two-track route established by a 

pickup truck is not considered cross-country travel. 

•	 Motorized vehicles use livestock and game trails, unless the trails are clearly evident, or 

continuous single-track routes used by motorcycles over a period of years, unless the trail are 

clearly evident. 

Motorized travel is not considered cross-country when: 

•	 Motorized vehicles use constructed roads that are maintained by the oil and gas industry and/or 

the BLM, unless specifically closed to use through signing and/or gates. Constructed roads are 

often characterized by a road prism with cut and fill slopes. 

•	 Motorized vehicles use trails specifically designated for the vehicle being used, unless the trail 

are clearly evident. 

•	 Motorized vehicles use clearly evident two-track and single-track routes with regular use and 

continuous passage of motorized vehicles over a period of years. A route is a track where 

perennial vegetation is devoid or scarce, or where wheel tracks are continuous depressions in the 

ground, evident to the casual observer, but are vegetated. While unauthorized routes are not part 

of the inventory, they are described as post-WSA routes on Tables J-2 through J-13. 

The entire route must meet the above specifications. Newly created routes should be easily identified as 

not meeting the specifications because many portions would not show signs of regular and continuous 

passage of motorized vehicles and many areas would still be fully vegetated with no wheel depressions. 

This definition does have some ambiguity that will continue to exist until formal designation of routes, 

trails, and areas within the entire Planning Area is completed. This definition only applies to crossSocorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-2 Appendix J 

December 2008 
 

country travel in the dispersed area and not to cross-country travel within special management areas. A 

special management area may have its own management plan that defines regulations for cross-country 

travel within its boundaries. 

ROUTE DESIGNATION AND CLOSURE CRITERIA 

Route Designation Criteria 

The following criteria apply to route designations within WSAs in the Socorro Field Office, to the extent 

specified by law. Designation of routes within WSAs must be in compliance with the Interim Policy and 

Management Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review (1995). 

Designation criteria are listed in 43 CFR 8342.1, a, b, c and d as follows: 

(a) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, air or 

other resources of the public lands, and to prevent impairment of wilderness suitability. 

(b) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption 

of wildlife habitats. Special attention will be given to protect endangered or threatened 

species and their habitats. 

(c) Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other 

existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to ensure 

the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account 

noise and other factors. 

(d) Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness areas or primitive 

areas. Areas and trails shall be located in natural areas only if the authorized officer 

determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, 

esthetic, scenic, or other values for which such areas are established. 

Other designation considerations include: 

•	 Routes that provide access to existing rights such as private land. 

•	 Routes that provide known access needs for the maintenance of authorized range improvements 

(pre-Federal Land Policy and Management Act [FLPMA]) or other authorized administrative 

activities. 

•	 Routes that provide access for unique recreational experiences and/or commercial activities 

(primarily outfitting). 

•	 Routes previously closed in the 1989 Socorro RMP. 

Route Closure Criteria 

Route closure criteria include the following: 

•	 Routes causing unacceptable resource damage, erosion (i.e.: wash outs, ruts, detours). 

•	 Routes through soils which are easily eroded or highly susceptible to resource damage. 

•	 Multiple or parallel routes in the same area (route proliferation). 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-3 Appendix J 

December 2008 
 

 

•	 Routes that are naturally re-vegetating and or no longer receiving motorized use. 

•	 Routes that have a high potential to negatively affect threatened or endangered or sensitive 

wildlife species or limited and important wildlife habitat. 

•	 Routes that have a high potential to encourage harassment or disruption to wildlife or wild horses. 

•	 Vehicle routes (ways) which did not exist when the area was designated a WSA in 1980 (refer to 

2002 Review of 1980 Ways Inventory of WSA in the Socorro Field Office). 

•	 Routes which may adversely affect areas of cultural or religious concern for Native Americans. 

•	 Routes which may adversely affect sites which may be eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS ROUTE INVENTORY 

Completing OHV route designations within the 13 WSAs (Table J-1) is an important goal in the effort to 

revise the Socorro Field Office 1989 RMP. The BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook H-16011-1 

(Appendix C, p 18) directs Field Offices that“[at] a minimum, the travel management area designation for 

wilderness study areas (WSAs) must be limited to ways and trails existing at the time the area became a 

WSA...Existing roads, ways and trails must be fully documented and mapped...In addition, future 

designations may be made for a WSA if it is released from study.” Without formal OHV route 

designations through the land use planning process, the Socorro Field Office would be unable to 

effectively carry out or enforce motorized OHV regulation and policy within its WSAs. 

TABLE J-1 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS WITHIN
 

SOCORRO FIELD OFFICE 

Antelope Mesita Blanca 

Continental Divide Presilla 

Devil’s Backbone Sierra de Las Cañas 

Devil’s Reach Sierra Ladrones 

Eagle Peak Stallion 

Horse Mountain Veranito 

Jornada del Muerto 

The Socorro Field Office completed “Vehicular Routes [Ways]” inventories for its 13 WSAs in 1980. 

Completing a formal designation of vehicle routes in the Socorro Field Office WSAs for the Proposed 

RMP required a baseline inventory of those routes (also referred to as “ways”) that existed at the time of 

inventory (1980) and/or prior to the enactment of FLPMA (October 21, 1976). While the 1980 inventory 

is generally a good representation of what existed on the ground at the time, the maps pre-date current 

mapping technology and standards. In some cases, the 1980 “Vehicular Route” maps are inaccurate. For 

example, some of the legal descriptions (in text) of “Vehicle Access Routes” do not correspond to 

mapped “Vehicular Routes.” In other instances, routes mapped in the 1980 inventory appear misplaced 

and/or drawn incorrectly. 

To facilitate the goal of route-by-route OHV designations in the WSAs, and to improve the integrity of 

the baseline data used in the planning process, this review was undertaken to integrate the old WSA route 

inventory into the geographic information system (GIS). The following discussion outlines the 

interpretive process and methodology used to make necessary changes and/or corrections in the 1980 

inventory. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-4 Appendix J 

December 2008 
 

 

Data Used 

The following sources of information were reviewed during the route inventory. Much of these data has 

been verified on the ground with global positioning system (GPS) technology. Although incomplete, 

these data are the best attempt (to date) at a comprehensive Field Office inventory of routes that are 

suitable for the gamut of motorized vehicle use. A large percentage of the access routes within the 

13 WSAs have been accurately recorded using the GPS over the past 5 to 10 years. 

1)	 “Vehicular Routes” Maps, Intensive Wilderness Inventory Report (IWIR), March 1980: These 

maps were intended as a complete inventory of existing WSA routes, or Ways (pre-FLPMA). 

Each map was hand drawn at a scale of 1⁄2 inch = 1 mile. The maps are crude, black and white, 

and show no features other than township and range, the WSA boundary, and approximate 

locations of routes. Upon careful inspection, the path and length of some of the routes are 

incorrectly drawn and located on the map. In a few other instances, mapped routes do not 

correspond to any kind of verifiable intrusion or disturbance when researched against the 

historical record. 

2)	 “Vehicle Access Routes” Descriptions, IWIR, March, 1980: Each of the mapped routes identified 

above correspond to written descriptions in the IWIR. These written descriptions include the 

approximate length of the route along with a legal description. Routes are sometimes described as 

“two track,” “substantially unnoticeable,” and “jeep trail.” In some cases, these descriptions do 

not correspond to the location of the mapped route(s). 

3)	 Assorted working maps and descriptive text found in the IWIR, March 1980: There are several 

maps and written inventory included in the 1980 IWIR – maps that describe photo-points, maps 

that identify intrusions (other than vehicle routes), county highway maps “Initial Wilderness 

Inventory Recommendations [maps],” photocopied U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 7.5 Minute 

Series, and maps found in the Las Cruces District, Final Wilderness Inventory Report, Vol. II.” 

The text in the Final Wilderness Inventory Report attempted to quantify the amount of vehicular 

route(s) in each WSA. 

4)	 1976 Aerial Photographs: This 1976 flight covers only the Continental Divide and Horse Peak 

WSAs. Most of this flight was developed in black and white, and a small portion in color. The 

scale is poor but the resolution is generally good. Although the coverage is limited, these photos 

were helpful in both confirming and eliminating some of the routes identified in the 1980 

inventory. 

5)	 Socorro Field Office Digitized Transportation, Road and Trail Inventory: These data are an 

ongoing Field Office inventory of both improved and unimproved roads and trails throughout the 

Socorro Field Office. Transportation system information has been digitized for each 1:250,000 

topographic map (7.5 minute). 

Data Interpretation and Review 

Using the 12 vehicular routes maps included in the 1980 IWIR as baseline data, all routes were reviewed 

in an effort to match/confirm their existence with at least one other data set, historical or current. Most of 

the routes in the 1980 inventory were easily authenticated and are included in the Socorro Field Office 

GIS Database. Data includes both GPS information as well as routes digitized off USGS 7.5 minute 

topographic maps. 

In a few circumstances where mapped vehicular routes did not correspond to the legal descriptions in 

vehicle access routes, and where there was reasonable evidence that the intended location of the route was 

nearby, the route was relocated and digitized. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-5 Appendix J 

December 2008 
 

In other circumstances, mapped vehicle access routes did not clearly correspond to any route(s) that have 

been mapped or photographed either on or before the 1980 IWIR. Under these circumstances, available 

spatial data were interpreted to discover nearby routes bearing a meaningful resemblance in shape and 

length to the IWIR mapped route(s). These routes were also relocated and digitized. 

In review of the entire record, current conditions on the ground can and do vary from the 1980 inventory. 

Some routes have disappeared or re-vegetated (lack of use), and new routes have appeared as a result of 

unauthorized use, but are not included in this inventory. 

Photocopies of all maps, inventory, text, and aerial photographs used in this review can be found in the 

notebook at the Socorro Field Office of the BLM. Additionally, the OHV Baseline Report, prepared on 

August 2003, also describes OHV and WSA information which will be carried forward for use in the 

Socorro Proposed RMP. 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREA ROUTE DESIGNATIONS 

Tables J-2 through J-13 detail miles of route designations by alternative within 12 of the 13 WSAs. Maps 

of alternative route designations follow each of the tables. No routes have been identified for the Devil’s 

Reach WSA under any alternative. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-6 Appendix J 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

TABLE J-2 

MILES OF ROUTE DESIGNATION BY ALTERNATIVE FOR 

ANTELOPE WILDERNESS STUDY AREA 

Route Miles of Route by Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Open A1 (3 miles) 

A2 (11⁄2 miles) 

A4 (21⁄2 miles) 

A5 (3 miles) 

A4 (21⁄2 miles) 

A5 (11⁄2 miles) 

A1 (3 miles) 

A2 (11⁄2 mile) 

A4 (21⁄2 miles) 

A5 (3 miles) 

Total 10 miles 4 miles 0 miles 10 miles 

Closed 

(rehabilitate) 

A3 

A7 

A2 (2 miles) 

A3 (31⁄2 miles) 

A5 (11⁄2 miles) 

A6 (1⁄2 mile) 

A7 (1 mile) 

A8 (2 miles) 

A2 (2 miles) 

A3 (31⁄2 miles) 

A5 (3 miles) 

A6 (1⁄2 mile) 

A7 (1 mile) 

A8 (2 miles) 

A2 (2 miles) 

A3 (31⁄2 mile) 

A6 (1⁄2 mile) 

A7 (1 mile) 

A8 (2 miles) 

Total 41⁄2 miles 101⁄2 miles 12 miles 9 miles 

Closed (authorized 

use only) 

A1 (3 miles) 

A2 (11⁄2 miles) 

A1 (3 miles) 

A2 (11⁄2 miles) 

A4 (21⁄2 miles) 

Total 0 miles 41⁄2 miles 7 miles 0 miles 

Post-WSA 

Route 

A2 (2 miles) 

A3 (31⁄2 miles) 

A6 (1⁄2 mile) 

A7 (1 mile) 

A8 (2 miles) 

Total 9 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

WSA = Wilderness Study Area 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-7 Appendix J 

December 2008 
Fite Ranch Rd 

A1 

A7 

A2 

A2 

A3 

A3 

A4 

A6 

CR 162 

29

15 14 13 18 17
 16 15 14 13 18
 17
 16 15
 

20
 21 22
 

19
 

30

A8

28 27
 

25
 

31
 

32 33 34
 

36
 T5S 6
 5
 4
 3 1
 

Bosque

del 12 7
 8
 9
 

Apache 11
 

13
 

White Sands


Missile Range
 

14
 18 17
 16

23
 24 19 20
 

21 1 22
 

27
 26
 25 30 29
 28
 

34 35
 36
 31 32
 33
 

33
 T6S
 

T7S
 3 2 1
 4 6 5 4
 3
 

9 A5 10 11 12
 7 8
 9
 10
 

8
 

17
 16
 15
 14 13 18 17
 16
 15
 R1E
 R2E
 

21 22 20 23 24
 19 20
 21
 19
 

30 29 28 27 26 25
 30 29
 28
 

31 32
 

0 1 2 4 Miles Legend 

WSA

Way
 

Post WSA Route
 

Closed Routes ANTELOPE WSA ROUTES

Land Status ALTERNATIVE A

BLM S o S o cc oo rro rro CC oo

DOD

FWS

No warranty is made by BLM

Private as to the accuracy, reliability, Antelope WSA 

or completeness of the data State

J-8 Map J-1
 

22

34

27

22

15

10

27
Fite Ranch Rd

Rio

Grande

A-1

A-2

A-2

A-3

A-3

A-8

A-4

A-6

A-7

CR 162

34

27

22

15

10 7 8 9 10 11 12
 7 8

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
 13
 18
 17
 

20
 

sdnaS tei h W 33

h e n

9

g 16
 

21

R e na 28

li M s 4
 

9
 

21
 

28
 

33
 

4
 

9
 

16 i i ss e e

21
 

28
 

33
 

19
 

29 30
 

25
 

31
 32
 

T5S 36
 

Bosque
 

del 6
 5 1
 

Apache

12
 7 8
 

11
 

1
 16
 

18
 

14
 13
 17

23 24 19
 20
 22
 23
 

27 26
 

34 35
 

3
 2
 

10
 

15 14
 

22 23
 

27 26
 

34 35
 

22
 

27
 26 25
 30 29
 

34 35
 36 31
 32
 

33
 T6S

T7S 4
 3
 2 1 6 5
 

A-5 9
 11 12
 7 8 10
 8
 

17
 16
 15 14 13 18 17
 

20 21 22
 23 24
 

R1E

19
 

R

2

E

20
 19
 

30
 29 28 27
 26 25
 30 29
 

31 32 33 34 35
 36 31 32
 

Legend 

WSA

Close (No Rehab)

Close (Rehab)

Open

Land Status

BLM

DOD

FWS

Private

State

0 1 2 4 Miles
 

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS
 

WITHIN ANTELOPE WSA
 

FINAL ALTERNATIVE
 

No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of these data.

SSoocc oo r rr roo CCoo

Antelope WSA 

J-9 Map J-2
 

3

15

10

11
g

Fite Ranch Rd

A-1

A-2

A-2

A-3

A-3

A-8

A-4

A-6

A-7

CR 162

7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10
 

15 14 13 18 17 16 15
 14 13
 18
 17
 16 15
 

20
 21 22
 

19
 

30
 29
 28 27 White Sands Missile Range

25
 

31
 32 33 34
 T5S
 36
 

6
 5
 4 1
 

Bosque

del 12 7
 8
 9 Apache 11
 

1
 

14
 13
 18 17
 16

23
 24 19 20
 21
 22
 23
 22
 

27
 26
 25 30 29
 28
 27
 26
 

34 35
 36 31 32
 33
 34
 35
 

T6S
 33
 

T7S 4
 3
 2 1 6 5
 4
 3
 2
 

A-5 9
 10 11 12
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 8
 

15 14 16 17
 13 18 17
 16
 15
 14
 R1E
 R2E
 

21 22 20 23 24
 19
 20
 21
 22
 19
 

30
 29
 28 27
 26 25 30 29
 28
 27
 

31 32 33 34
 35 36 31 32
 33
 34
 

Legend 0 1 2 4 Miles
 

WSA
 

Close (Permit)
 

Close (Rehab) ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

Open

Land Status WITHIN ANTELOPE WSA
 BLM ALTERNATIVE C S o S o c oc o r rr roo CC oo

DOD

Antelope WSA FWS No warranty is made by BLM

Private as to the accuracy, reliability,
 

State or completeness of the data
 

J-10 Map J-3
 

3

15

10

26

23
g

Fite Ranch Rd

A-1

A-2

A-2

A-3

A-3

A-8

A-4

A-6

A-7

CR 162

7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10
 

15 14 13 18 17 16 15
 14 13
 18
 17
 16 15
 

20
 21 22
 

19
 

30
 29
 28 27 White Sands Missile Range

25
 

31
 32 33 34
 T5S
 36
 

6
 5
 4 1
 

Bosque

del 12 7
 8
 9 Apache 11
 

1
 

14
 13
 18 17
 16

23
 24 19 20
 21
 22
 23
 22
 

27
 26
 25 30 29
 28
 27
 26
 

34 35
 36 31 32
 33
 34
 35
 

T6S
 33
 

T7S 4
 3
 2 1 6 5
 4
 3
 2
 

A-5 9 10 11 12
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 8
 

15 14 16 17
 13 18 17
 16
 15
 14
 R1E
 R2E
 

21 22 20 23 24
 19
 20
 21
 22
 19
 

30
 29
 28 27
 26 25 30 29
 28
 27
 

31 32 33 34
 35 36 31 32
 33
 34
 

Legend 0 1 2 4 Miles
 

WSA
 

Close (Permit)
 

Close (Rehab) ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

Open

Land Status WITHIN ANTELOPE WSA
 BLM ALTERNATIVE D S o S o c oc o r rr r oo CC oo

DOD

Antelope WSA FWS No warranty is made by BLM

Private as to the accuracy, reliability,
 

State or completeness of the data
 

J-11 Map J-4
 

3

15

10

26

23
 

 

TABLE J-3 

MILES OF ROUTE DESIGNATION BY ALTERNATIVE FOR 

CONTINENTAL DIVIDE WILDERNESS STUDY AREA 

Route Miles of Route by Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Open C1 (1 mile) 

C3 (2 1⁄2 mile) 

C5 (51⁄2 miles) 

C6 (21⁄2 miles) 

C9 (2 miles) 

C10 (3 miles) 

C12 (11⁄2 miles) 

C13 (2 miles) 

C14 (41⁄2 miles) 

C15 (11⁄2 miles) 

C16 (5 miles) 

C17 (2 1⁄2 miles) 

C8 (2 miles) 

C5 (51⁄2 miles) 

C6 (21⁄2 miles) 

C9 (2 miles) 

C13 (2 miles) 

C14 (41⁄2 miles) 

C15 (11⁄2 miles) 

C16 (5 miles) 

C5 (51⁄2 miles) 

C6 (21⁄2 miles) 

C9 (2 miles) 

C14 (41⁄2 miles) 

C15 (11⁄2 miles) 

C2 (11 miles) 

C5 (51⁄2 miles) 

C6 (21⁄2 miles) 

C8 (2 miles) 

C9 (2 miles) 

C12 (11⁄2 miles) 

C13 (2 miles) 

C14 (41⁄2 miles) 

C15 (11⁄2 miles) 

C16 (5 miles) 

C17 (21⁄2 miles) 

Total 351⁄2 miles 23 miles 16 miles 40 miles 

Closed 

(rehabilitate) 

C4 (1⁄2 mile) C13 (2 miles) 

C7 (4 miles) 

C11 (1⁄2 mile) 

C18 (11⁄2 miles) 

C19 (4 miles) 

C4 (1⁄2 mile) 

C13 (2 miles) 

C7 (4 miles) 

C11 (1⁄2 mile) 

C18 (11⁄2 miles) 

C19 (4 miles) 

C4 (1⁄2 mile) 

C4 (1⁄2 mile) 

C7 (4 miles) 

C11 (1⁄2 mile) 

C18 (11⁄2 miles) 

C19 (4 miles) 

Total 1⁄2 mile 121⁄2 miles 121⁄2 miles 101⁄2 miles 

Closed (authorized 

use only) 

C2 (11 miles) C12 (11⁄2 miles) 

C1 (1 mile) 

C2 (11 miles) 

C3 (21⁄2 miles) 

C8 (2 miles) 

C10 (3 miles) 

C17 (2 1⁄2 miles) 

C16 (5 miles) 

C17 (21⁄2 miles) 

C12 (11⁄2 miles) 

C1 (1 mile) 

C3 (21⁄2 miles) 

C8 (2 miles) 

C2 (11 miles) 

C10 (3 miles) 

C1 (1 mile) 

C3 (21⁄2 miles) 

C10 (3 miles) 

Total 11 miles 231⁄2 miles 281⁄2 miles 61⁄2 miles 

Post-WSA 

Route 

C3 (21⁄2 miles) 

C7 (4 miles) 

C10 (3 miles) 

C11 (1⁄2 mile) 

C19 (4 miles) 

Total 14 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

NOTE: WSA = Wilderness Study Area 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-12 Appendix J 

December 2008 
C3

C2

C1

C17

C4

C5

C19

C8

C9

C13

C12

C14

C16

C15

C11

C2

C10

C7

C16

C

R

019

4

28

5

29

20

36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 32 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 5 4 3 2 33 

1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

17 16 15 14 13

R13W

18 17 16 15 14 13

R12W

7 8 9 10 11 12

18 17 16 15 14 13

R11W7 8 8 9 10 11 12

R10W7 8 

18 17 17 16 15 14

13 18 17 

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 20 21 22 23

24 19 20 

27 26 25 30 29 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 29

28 28 27 26

25 30 29 

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 T6S 32 36 33 34 35 36 31 32 

3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 5 4 3 2 1 8 6 5 

8 9 11 12 7 8 9 12 7 10 9 10 10 11 11 12 7 8 8 10 9

11

12 7 8 

13 17 16 15 14 14 13 18 17 16 14 13 18 17 16 15 18 17 17 15 16 15 14

13 18 17 

21 

22 23 24 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 19 20 20 21 22 23

24

29

19 20 

28 27 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 26 25 30 29 29 28 27 26

25 30 29 32 

33 34 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 32 33 34 35T7S 35

36 31 32 5 4 

3 2 1 2 1 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3

6 5 

8 

9 10 12 7 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 163

7 8 

17 17 16 15 14 17 16 15 13 18 13 13 18 16 15 14 14 C6

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 Gila24

18 17 

29 28 27 26 25 24 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

National

Forest

23 24

25

19

30

20 

0 1 2

4 Miles Legend

Land Status WSA

Way 

BLM

Post WSA Route FS No warranty is made by BLM CONTINENTAL DIVIDE 

Closed Private as to the accuracy, reliability,

State or completeness of the data WSA ROUTES ALTERNATIV

J-13 
C1

2 C2

C3

C11

C12

C14

C13

C15

C16

C1

C17

C 0

C8

C9

C5

C

C7

R13W

R11W

te Canyon

R

d

C14

C14

13

9

4 3

10

28

21

33

5

22

29

32

8

20

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
 5 4 3 2 1
 6 5 5
 4 3 2 1
 

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33
 

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 8 9 10 11 12
 7
 8 9 10 11 12 7
 8 9 10 11 12 7

W

21 R 6

19
 

30
 

31
 

6
 

7 8
 

18
 

19
 

30 29
 

31
 32

8
 

18
 

19
 

W

01 R 6

18
 

19
 

30
 

31
 

6
 

7
 

18
 

19
 

30
 

M

18
 

8 8 9 10 11
 12
 

17 17 16
 15 14
 13
 

14 13
 

18
 

17
 16 15 14 13

7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 18 17 16 15
 17 16 15 14 13
 

17 16 15 14
 18 17 20 21
 22
 23
 20 21 22 23 24 24
 19
 20 21
 16 22 23 24
 19 20 20 21 22 23
 24
 21 22 23 24 19

28
 

20
 20 21 27
 26
 27
 26
 25
 29 28 25
 30
 29
 27
 26
 25 30
 29 29
 28 27
 26
 25
 35
 29
 28 27 26 25
 30 29
 28 34
 36 31
 32 33 34 35 36
 32
 33
 34 35 36 31
 32 T6S
 32 33
 34
 35
 36
 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33
 

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4
 

8
 9
 

17 16
 

C10

18

11
 

15
 14
 

12 7
 

13 18 17 16
 

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
 

6

C

5
 

8
 

2
 4
 3
 2
 1
 5 4
 3
 2 1 1
 6 5 5
 

9
 

4
 3
 2
 1
 

12
 

8 8
 

17
 

7

Coyo

10 9
 

16
 

8
 

17
 

11
 9 10
 11
 12 10 11 12 7
 

10
 

18 13
 

6

11

15
 14
 

15
 14
 

15
 17
 

9
 12
 

13

4 16

15 14 13
 17 16 17
 

20
 

14
 13 18
 16
 

23
 

26
 

24
 20
 21
 22
 23
 

26
 

1

24

25
 

22
 24
 19
 21 22 23
 19 20 20 21
 22
 23
 24

28
 

33
 

29 28
 27
 25 30
 29 28 27
 26
 25
 27 30 29 29 28
 27
 26
 25

35
 29

35
 

32 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 33 34
 36
 31 32
 33
 34 35 36 34
 36 31 32 32 33 T7S 34 
 35
 36
 2 31
 32

3
 

5 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 4 3
 2
 1
 4 3 2 1 6 6
 5 4
 1 6
 5
 

6
 5
 4 3 2 1 6 5 4

163

C19

11

14
 

11 9
 12 7 12 7
 8
 10
 12
 10
 11

13
 

7
 9

7
 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 8

C6 Gila 17
 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15
 13 17
 16 15 14
 

Nationa 15 14 13 18 17

Forest

Gil l

i

a 18
 17 16
 16

Nat ona

Forest
 

l 20 21
 23 20 21
 22 24
 19
 23 24
 20 21 24 22 23
 

23 24 19
 20
 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 29 28 27 26 25 24 29 28 27 26 25 30
 29 28 27
 26
 25 25 30
 29 28 30 29 28

0 1.5 3
 6
 iles

Legend C a t r o n C o

WSA Land Status

Close (No Rehab) BLM ROUTE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN

Close (Rehab) Private No warranty is made by BLM CONTINENTAL DIVIDE WSA

Open the accuracy, reliability,

or comp he dat FINAL ALTERNATIVE

Continental

Divide WSA

State as to

leteness of t a

J-14 Map J-6
 

8 9
C1

C2

C2

C3

C11

C12

C14

C13

C15

C16

C16

C17

C10

C8

C9

C5

C4

C19

C7

R13W 

R11W

Coyote Canyon Rd

C14

C14

C14

4 3

28

5

29

5 4 3 2 1 6 32 

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 

8 9 10 11 12 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 8 9 10 11

12 7 8 

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

R12W18 17 16 15 14 13 17 17 16 15 14

R10W18 13 17 

18 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 20 21 22 23

27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

24 19 20 

27 26 25 29 28 30 25 30 29 29 28 27 26

25 30 29 

32 33 34 35 35 36 31 32 33 31 32 33 34 34 35 36 31 T6S 32 32 36 33 34 35 36 31 32 

5 2 1 6 5 2 1 4 3 4 3 2 1 6 6 5 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 

8 9 10 11 12 7 12 7

8 11 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 8 10 9

11

12

13

17 7 8 

17 16 14 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 18

15

17 16

14

13 18 17 

20 21 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 20 21 22 23

24

29 19 20 

28 27 28 26 27 30 27 26 25 30 29 28 26 25 29 30 29 29 25 28 27 26

25 30 29 

32 33 35 34 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 32 33 T7S
 34 35

36 31 32 5 3

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

6 5 4 

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 163

7 8 9 

17 16 15 14 17 16 15 13 18 14 13 13 18 17C6 16 15 14 

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

Gila National 18 17 1

29 28 27 26 25 24 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

Forest 23 24 19 20 21 

25 30 29 28 

0 1.5

3

6 Miles

Legend 

WSA Land StatusClose (Permit) BLM ROUTE DESIGNATIONS WITH

Close (Rehab) Private No warranty is made by BLM CONTINENTAL DIVIDE WSA 

Open State as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data ALTERNATIVE

C

J-15 
C1

C2

C2

C3

C11

C12

C14

C13

C15

C16

C16

C17

C10

C8

C9

C5

C4

C19

C7

R13W 

R11W

Coyote Canyon Rd

C14

C14

C14

4 3

28

5

29

5 4 3 2 1 6 32 

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 

8 9 10 11 12 7 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 8 8 9 10 11

12 7 8 

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

R12W18 17 16 15 14 13 17 17 16 15 14

R10W18 13 17 

18 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 20 21 22 23

27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

24 19 20 

27 26 25 29 28 30 25 30 29 29 28 27 26

25 30 29 

32 33 34 35 35 36 31 32 33 31 32 33 34 34 35 36 31 T6S 32 32 36 33 34 35 36 31 32 

4 3 2 1 6 5 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 6 6 5 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 

8 9 10 11 12 7 12 7

8 11 10 8 9 10 11 8 9 12 7 8 10 9

11

12

13

17 7 8 

17 16 14 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 18

15

17 16

14

13 18 17 

20 21 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 20 21 22 23

24

29 19 20 

28 27 28 26 27 30 27 26 25 30 29 28 26 25 29 30 29 29 25 28 27 26

25 30 29 

32 33 35 34 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 32 33 T7S
 34 35

36 31 32 5 3

4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

6 5 4 

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 163

7 8 9 

17 16 15 14 17 16 15 13 18 14 13 13 18 17C6 16 15 14 

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

Gila National 18 17 1

29 28 27 26 25 24 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

Forest 23 24 19 20 21 

25 30 29 28 

0 1.5

3

6 Miles

Legend 

WSA Land StatusClose (Permit) BLM ROUTE DESIGNATIONS WITH

Close (Rehab) Private No warranty is made by BLM CONTINENTAL DIVIDE WSA 

Open State as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data ALTERNATIVE

D

J-16 
 

 

TABLE J-4 

MILES OF ROUTE DESIGNATION BY ALTERNATIVE FOR 

DEVIL’S BACKBONE WILDERNESS STUDY AREA 

Route Miles of Route by Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Open D1 (11⁄2 miles) 

D2 (2 miles) 

D3 (11⁄2 miles) 

D4 (1⁄2 mile) 

D3 (11⁄2 miles) D1 (11⁄2 miles) 

D3 (11⁄2 miles) 

D4 (1⁄2 mile) 

Total 51⁄2 miles 0 miles 11⁄2 miles 31⁄2 miles 

Closed 

(rehabilitate) 

D2 (2 miles) 

D5 (2 miles) 

D6 (1 mile) 

D2 (2 miles) 

D5 (2 miles) 

D6 (1 mile) 

D2 (2 miles) 

Total 0 miles 5 miles 5 miles 2 miles 

Closed (authorized 

use only) 

D1 (11⁄2 miles) 

D3 (1 1⁄2 miles) 

D4 (1⁄2 mile) 

D1 (11⁄2 miles) 

D4 (1⁄2 mile) 

D5 (2 miles) 

D6 (1 mile) 

Total 0 miles 31⁄2 miles 2 miles 3 miles 

Post-WSA 

Route 

D5 (2 miles) 

D6 (1 mile) 

Total 3 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

NOTE: WSA = Wilderness Study Area 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-17 Appendix J 

December 2008 
D1

D2

D5

D3

D6

D4

E2

8

29

Cibola National 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 Forest 

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 R4W R3W

Devil's Reach 

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

Devil's Backbone 

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35

T5S 5 T6S 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22

28 27 29 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

107 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35

Legend 

0 1 2 4 Miles

WSA

WAY DEVIL'S BACKBONE

Post WSA Route & DEVIL'S REACH

Land Status 

BLM

FS

WSA ROUTES

ALTERNATIVE A Socor Socorrr oo CCoo

Devil's Backbone 

No warranty is made by BLM and Devil's Reach 

WSA 

Private

State as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data

J-18 Map J-9 

23
D6

D5

D2

D1

D3

CR 26 

CR

47 

16

11

30

6 5 3 2 5 4 3 2 4 1 6

7 8 9 Cibola National 8 10 9 11 12

R

4

W

R

3

7 W

10 Forest

18 17 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

19 20 2 2 1 2 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35

T5S 

3 T2 6 5 4 6S 1 6 5 4 3 2

8 9 7 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11

18 17 16 15

18 17 16 15 14 13

19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 D4 22 23

30

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27

Cibola 34 35 36 31 National Forest 31 32 33 34 107 32 33

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

Legend 

Close(No

WSA

Rehab)
 ROUTE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN

Close(Rehab)
 

Open DEVILS REACH &

Land Status DEVIL'S BACKBONE WSAs

BLM

FS SSooccoorrrroo CCoo

Private

FINAL ALTERNATIVE

No warranty Devil's Backbone is made by BLM

State & Devil's Reach as to the accuracy, reliability, WSAs

or completeness of these data.

J-19 Map J-10 

26

14

35
D6

D5

D2

D1

D3

CR 89

CR 242 CR 2 

7 8 12

20

29

32

29

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

Cibola National

Forest 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 12 R4W
 R3W
 7

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36

T5S 

5 4 3 T6S 2 1 6 5 4 3 2

Pedro Armendaris

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

13

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 D4 23 22

24

28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

33 34 107 35 6

36 31 32 33 34 35 36

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 9

0 1 2 4 Miles

Legend 

WSA

Close(Permit)

Close(Rehab)

Open

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN

DEVILS REACH &

Land Status

BLM

FS

DEVIL'S BACKBONE WSAs

ALTERNATIVE C S o S occoorrrr oo CCoo

Private Devil's Backbone

State No warranty is made by BLM & Devil's Reach

as to the accuracy, reliability, WSAs

or completeness of the data

J-20 Map J-11 
D6

D5

D2

D1

D3

CR 89

CR 242 CR 2 

7 8 12

20

29

32

29

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

Cibola National

Forest 9 10 11 8 9 10 11 12 R4W
 R3W
 7

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36

T5S 

5 4 3 T6S 2 1 6 5 4 3 2

Pedro Armendaris

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

13

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 D4 23 22

24

28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

33 34 107 35 6

36 31 32 33 34 35 36

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 9

0 1 2 4 Miles

Legend 

WSA

Close(Permit)

Close(Rehab)

Open

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN

DEVILS REACH &

Land Status

BLM

FS

DEVIL'S BACKBONE WSAs

ALTERNATIVE D S o S occoorrrr oo CCoo

Private Devil's Backbone

State No warranty is made by BLM & Devil's Reach

as to the accuracy, reliability, WSAs

or completeness of the data

J-21 Map J-12 
 

 

 

TABLE J-5 

MILES OF ROUTE DESIGNATION BY ALTERNATIVE FOR 

EAGLE PEAK WILDERNESS STUDY AREA 

Route Miles of Route by Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Open E1 (3 miles) 

E3 (1 mile) 

E4 (31⁄2 miles) 

E5 (31⁄2 miles) 

E6 (11⁄2 miles) 

E7 (11⁄2 miles) 

E8 (1 mile) 

E9 (6 miles) 

E10 (3 miles) 

E12 (5 miles) 

E13 (2 miles) 

E14 (5 miles) 

E15 (2 miles) 

E16 (41⁄2 miles) 

E17 (1 mile) 

E18 (2 miles) 

E1 (1 mile) 

E9 (41⁄2 miles) 

E10 (3 miles) 

E12 (3 miles) 

E13 (2 miles) 

E14 (5 miles) 

E16 (21⁄2 miles) 

E1 (1 mile) 

E3 (1 mile) 

E6 (11⁄2 miles) 

E9 (6 miles) 

E10 (3 miles) 

E12 (3 miles) 

E13 (2 miles) 

E14 (5 miles) 

E1 (3 miles) 

E3 (1 mile) 

E4 (31⁄2 miles) 

E5 (31⁄2 miles) 

E6 (11⁄2 miles) 

E7 (11⁄2 miles) 

E8 (1 mile) 

E9 (6 miles) 

E10 (3 miles) 

E12 (5 miles) 

E13 (2 miles) 

E14 (5 miles) 

E16 (41⁄2 miles) 

Total 451⁄2 miles 21 miles 221⁄2 miles 401⁄2 miles 

Closed 

(rehabilitate) 

E1 (2 miles) 

E2 (1 mile) 

E3 (1 mile) 

E4 (31⁄2 miles) 

E7 (11⁄2 miles) 

E9 (11⁄2 miles) 

E12 (2 miles) 

E16 (2 miles) 

E19 (2 miles) 

E1 (2 miles) 

E2 (1 mile) 

E4 (31⁄2 miles) 

E7 (11⁄2 miles) 

E8 (1 mile) 

E11 (2 miles) 

E12 (2 miles) 

E17 (1 mile) 

E19 (2 miles) 

E2 (1 mile) 

E11 (2 miles) 

E17 (1 mile) 

E18 (2 miles) 

Total 0 miles 161⁄2 miles 16 miles 6 miles 

Closed (authorized 

use only) 

E5 (31⁄2 miles) 

E6 (11⁄2 miles) 

E8 (1 mile) 

E11 (2 miles) 

E15 (2 miles) 

E17 (1 mile) 

E18 (2 miles) 

E5 (31⁄2 miles) 

E15 (2 miles) 

E16 (41⁄2 miles) 

E18 (2 miles) 

E15 (2 miles) 

E18 (2 miles) 

Total 0 miles 13 miles 12 miles 5 miles 

Post-WSA 

Route 

E2 (1 mile) 

E11 (2 miles) 

E19 (2 miles) 

Total 5 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

NOTE: WSA = Wilderness Study Area 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-22 Appendix J 

December 2008 
CR015 CR012

Mckinley

Ranch Rd

E3

E1

E19

E2

E1

E4

E11

E9

E12

E10

E6

E7

E8

E16

E15

E18

E14

E16 E17

E14

E13

E9

R17W

7 1

11 12 7 8 9 10 11

17 16 13 18 17 15 14 18 13 18 17 15 14 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 R19W R18

19 20 21 22 W

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

31 32 33 34 35 36 60 32 33 31 1 34

CR013

30 29 28 27 26

35 36 31 32 33 34 35

6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 10 9 12 7 11 8 9 10 11 12

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

19 20 21 22 23 23 24 19 21 22 20 21 22 23 24

20 24 19

30 29 28 26 25 30 27 29 27 28 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

31 32 33

T2N 36 31 32 33 34 35 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36

6 5 T1N4 3 2 E5 5 4 3 1 6 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 9

11 12 7 8 9 10 11

10 11 12 7 8 9 10

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

26 25 30 29 28 27 26

30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27

31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 60 33 34 35 36

6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

Gila National 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 Forest 7 8 9 10 11 12

18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

Legend 0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles

WSA

Way

Post WSA Route EAGLE PEAK WSA ROUTES Eagle Peak WSA

Land Status ALTERNATIVE A

BLM

C a C a t rt r oo n n CC o o FS

No warranty is made by BLM
 

Private as to the accuracy, reliability,
 

or completeness of the data

State

J-23 Map J-13 

25

24

13

12
CR 015 

CR 012 

R

Mckinley 

anch Rd 

E3

E1

E19

E2

E1

E4

E11

E9

E12

E10

E

6

E

7

E8

E16

E15

E18

E14

E16

E1

E

7

14

E13

E9

R18

W 

R17

W 

21

12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 23 24

25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 26 25 30 27 29 28 27 26 25

CR 013 

36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 601 34 36 35 33

31 32 33 34 35 36

1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

10

12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 9 8 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

21

20

24 19 20 21 2 20 2 23 24 19

21 22 23

22 23 24 19

28 27 25 30 29 26 25 27 30 29 28 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

36 31 32

T2N 35 36 31 32 33 33 34

35 36 31 32 34 33 34 35

T 6 5 1 1N 3 2 4 2 1 6 5 E5 4 3 1 4 3 6 5 4 3 2 1

12 7 8 9

10

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 17 18 16 15 14 13

24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 24 19 2 2 3 0 21 60 22 23

25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 36 30

31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

1 6 5 4 3 2 1

R19W6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 3 2 4

12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 1 7 2 Gila National 8 9 10 Forest 11

13

24

18

19

17

20

16

21

15

22

14

23

13 18

19

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

Legend 

WSA

0 1.5 3 6 Miles

Land Status

Close(No Rehab)

Close(Rehab)

Open

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN

EAGLE PEAK WSA

BLM FINAL ALTERNATIVE Eagle Peak WSA

FS

Private No warranty is made by BLM
 

State as to the accuracy, reliability, CCaa ttrr oo n n CC oo
 

or completeness of these data.
 Tribal Trust

J-24 Map J-14 

1

24

36

12

25

24
C

R 015 

CR 012 

Mckinle

Ranch Rd 

y 

E3

E1

E19

E2 E1

E4

E11

E9

E12

E10

E6

E7

E8

E16

E15

E18

E14

E16

E17

E14

E13

E9

R18W 

R17W 

36

12 7 8 9 10
 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
 12 7 8
 9
 10
 11 12 13
 18
 17
 16
 15
 14
 13 18
 17
 16
 15
 14
 13 18
 17
 16
 15
 14 13
 

24 19
 20 21
 22
 23
 24
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 19 20
 21
 22
 23 24
 

25
 30
 29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 30
 29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 30
 29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 

36
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 31
 32 601
 34
 

CR 013 

33
 

35 36
 31
 32 33
 34
 35
 

1
 6
 5
 4
 3
 2
 1 6
 5
 4
 3
 2
 1 6
 5
 4
 3
 2 1
 

10
 

12
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12 7
 8
 9
 11 12 7 8
 9
 10
 11 12
 

13
 18
 17
 16 15
 14
 13 18
 17 16
 13 15
 14
 18
 17
 16
 15
 14 13
 

24
 19
 20
 21 22
 23
 24
 19
 21
 22 23 20
 24 19 20
 21
 22
 23 28
 

25
 30
 29
 26
 25 30 27 29 27 28
 26 25
 30
 29
 28 27
 26
 

36 31
 32

T2N 34 35
 36
 32
 33 31 33 
 34
 35 36
 31
 32
 33 34
 35
 

1 6 T1N 4
 6 3 5 2 1
 E5 3 5 4
 2 1
 6
 5
 4
 3
 2
 

12
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 7 8
 9
 10
 11 12
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 

13
 18
 17
 16
 15 14
 13
 18
 17 16
 15
 14 13
 18
 17
 16
 15
 14
 

24
 19
 20
 21 22
 23
 24
 19
 20 21
 22
 23
 24 19
 20
 21 60
 22 23
 

25
 30
 29 28
 27
 26 25 30 29
 28
 27
 26
 25 30
 29
 28
 27 26
 25
 30
 

32
 31 33 34 36 31 35 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 31
 32
 33
 34 35
 36
 31
 

1 6
 5 4
 3 2 1
 

R19W

6
 5
 4
 3 2
 1
 6
 5
 4
 3
 2
 

12 7
 8 9
 10 11 12 7 8
 9 11 12 10 Gila National
 7
 8
 9 10 Fores 11 t 12
 

13
 18
 17 16 15
 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
 18 17 16
 15 14
 13
 19 20
 21 22 19
 

0 1.5 3 6 Miles
 

Legend 

WSA
 

Close(Permit)
 ROUTE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN

Close(Rehab)

Open EAGLE PEAK WSA

Land Status

Eagle Peak WSA

BLM ALTERNATIVE C

FS

No warranty is made by BLM

Private as to the accuracy, reliability, C a C a t rt r oon n CC o o

or completeness of the data

State

J-25 Map J-15
 

11

24

13

12

36

25

24
C

R 015 

CR 012 

Mckinle

Ranch Rd 

y 

E3

E1

E19

E2 E1

E4

E11

E9

E12

E10

E6

E7

E8

E16

E15

E18

E14

E16

E17

E14

E13

E9

R18W 

R17W 

36

12 7 8 9 10
 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
 12 7 8
 9
 10
 11 12 13
 18
 17
 16
 15
 14
 13 18
 17
 16
 15
 14
 13 18
 17
 16
 15
 14 13
 

24 19
 20 21
 22
 23
 24
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 19 20
 21
 22
 23 24
 

25
 30
 29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 30
 29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 30
 29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 

36
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 31
 32 601
 34
 

CR 013 

33
 

35 36
 31
 32 33
 34
 35
 

1
 6
 5
 4
 3
 2
 1 6
 5
 4
 3
 2
 1 6
 5
 4
 3
 2 1
 

10
 

12
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12 7
 8
 9
 11 12 7 8
 9
 10
 11 12
 

13
 18
 17
 16 15
 14
 13 18
 17 16
 13 15
 14
 18
 17
 16
 15
 14 13
 

24
 19
 20
 21 22
 23
 24
 19
 21
 22 23 20
 24 19 20
 21
 22
 23 28
 

25
 30
 29
 26
 25 30 27 29 27 28
 26 25
 30
 29
 28 27
 26
 

36 31
 32

T2N 34 35
 36
 32
 33 31 33 
 34
 35 36
 31
 32
 33 34
 35
 

1 6 T1N 4
 6 3 5 2 1
 E5 3 5 4
 2 1
 6
 5
 4
 3
 2
 

12
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 7 8
 9
 10
 11 12
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 

13
 18
 17
 16
 15 14
 13
 18
 17 16
 15
 14 13
 18
 17
 16
 15
 14
 

24
 19
 20
 21 22
 23
 24
 19
 20 21
 22
 23
 24 19
 20
 21 60
 22 23
 

25
 30
 29 28
 27
 26 25 30 29
 28
 27
 26
 25 30
 29
 28
 27 26
 25
 30
 

32
 31 33 34 36 31 35 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 31
 32
 33
 34 35
 36
 31
 

1 6
 5 4
 3 2 1
 

R19W

6
 5
 4
 3 2
 1
 6
 5
 4
 3
 2
 

12 7
 8 9
 10 11 12 7 8
 9 11 12 10 Gila National
 7
 8
 9 10 Fores 11 t 12
 

13
 18
 17 16 15
 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
 18 17 16
 15 14
 13
 19 20
 21 22 19
 

0 1.5 3 6 Miles
 

Legend 

WSA
 

Close(Rehab)

Close(Permit)
 ROUTE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN

Open EAGLE PEAK WSA

Land Status

Eagle Peak WSA

BLM ALTERNATIVE D

FS

No warranty is made by BLM

Private as to the accuracy, reliability, C a C a t rt r oon n CC o o

or completeness of the data

State

J-26 Map J-16
 

11

24

13

12

36

25

24
 

 

 

TABLE J-6 

MILES OF ROUTE DESIGNATION BY ALTERNATIVE FOR 

HORSE MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS STUDY AREA 

Route Miles of Route by Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Open H1 (1mile) 

H2 (1⁄2 mile) 

H4 (4 miles) 

H5 (1 mile) 

H1 (1 mile) 

H2 (1⁄2 mile) 

H3 (2 miles) 

H4 (4 miles) 

H5 (1 mile) 

Total 61⁄2 miles 0 miles 0 miles 81⁄2 miles 

Closed 

(rehabilitate) 

H3 (2 miles) H3 (2 miles) 

H4 (4 miles) 

H5 (1 mile) 

H1 (1 mile) 

H2 (1⁄2 mile) 

H3 (2 miles) 

H4 (4 miles) 

H5 (1 mile) 

Total 2 miles 7 miles 81⁄2 miles 0 miles 

Closed (authorized 

use only) 

H1 (1 mile) 

H2 (1⁄2 mile) 

Total 0 miles 11⁄2 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

Post-WSA 

Route 

Total 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

NOTE: WSA = Wilderness Study Area 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-27 Appendix J 

December 2008 
CR 040 

H3 

H4 

H1 

H2 

H5 

4 

9 

16 

33 

16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 

Horse Mt. Subdivisions 

Last Frontier Tee Pee Ranch 28 Subdivision 27 26 Subdivision 25 30 29 28 27 

33 34 35 36 31 

H4

32 33 34 

T3 35 34 S 36 31 32 33 34 

T4S 

3 2 1 6 5 4 3 

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

15 14 13 

R13W


R12W


18 17 16 15 

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 

28 27 26 25 12 

30 29 28 27 

33 34 

Legend 

35 36 

0 0.5 

31 

1 

32 

2 Miles 

33 34 

Land Status 

Post WSA Route 

Way 

WSA 

Closed Route 

HORSE MOUNTAIN 

WSA ROUTES 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Horse Mt 

WSA 

BLM Cat Catr r o o n n C C o o No warranty is made by BLM 

Private as to the accuracy, reliability, 

State or completeness of the data 

J-28 Map J-17 
CR

040

H3

H4

H1

H2

H5

4

9

16

33

16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22

Horse Mt. Subdivisions

Last Frontier Tee Pee Ranch 28 Subdivision 27 26 Subdivision 25 30 29 28 27

33 34 35 36 31

H4

32 33 34

35 3 T 4 3S 31 36 32 33 34

T4S

3 2 1 6 5 4 3

10 11 12 7 8 9 10

18

15 14 13

R13

W

R12

W

17 16 15

21 22 21 23 24 19 20 22

28 27 26 12 25 30 29 28 27

33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34

Legend 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

Land Status 

BLM

Close(No Rehab)

Close(Rehab)

Open

WSA ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

WITHIN

HORSE MT WSA

FINAL ALTERNATIVE

CCaattrr oo nn CCoo

Horse Mt 

WSA 

Private

State

No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of these data.

J-29 Map J-18 
CR 040 

H3 

H4 

H1 

H2 

H5 

4 

9 

16 

33 

16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 

Horse Mt. Subdivisions 

Last Frontier Tee Pee Ranch 28 Subdivision 27 26 Subdivision 25 30 29 28 27 

33 34 35 36 31 

H4

32 33 34 

T3 35 34 S 31 36 32 33 34 

T4S 

3 2 1 6 5 4 3 

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

15 14 13 

R13W


R12W


18 17 16 15 

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 

28 27 26 25 12 

30 29 28 27 

33 34 

Legend 

35 36 

0 0.5 

31 

1 

32 

2 Miles 

33 34 

Land Status 

BLM 

Close(Permit) 

Close(Rehab) 

Open 

WSA ROUTE DESIGNATIONS 

WITHIN 

HORSE MOUNTAIN WSA 

ALTERNATIVE C Ca C a t tr r o o n n C C o o

Horse Mt 

WSA 

Private 

No warranty is made by BLM 

State as to the accuracy, reliability, 

or completeness of the data 

J-30 Map J-19 
CR 040 

H3 

H4 

H1 

H2 

H5 

4 

9 

16 

33 

16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 

Horse Mt. Subdivisions 

Last Frontier Tee Pee Ranch 28 Subdivision 27 26 Subdivision 25 30 29 28 27 

33 34 35 36 31 

H4

32 33 34 

T3 35 34 S 31 36 32 33 34 

T4S 

3 2 1 6 5 4 3 

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 

15 14 13 

R13W


R12W


18 17 16 15 

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 

28 27 26 25 12 

30 29 28 27 

33 34 

Legend 

35 36 

0 0.5 

31 

1 

32 

2 Miles 

33 34 

Land Status 

BLM 

Close(Permit) 

Close(Rehab) 

Open 

WSA ROUTE DESIGNATIONS 

WITHIN 

HORSE MOUNTAIN WSA 

ALTERNATIVE D Ca C a t tr r o o n n C C o o

Horse Mt 

WSA 

Private No warranty is made by BLM 

as to the accuracy, reliability, State 

or completeness of the data 

J-31 Map J-20 
 

 

TABLE J-7 

MILES OF ROUTE DESIGNATION BY ALTERNATIVE FOR 

JORNADA DEL MUERTO WILDERNESS STUDY AREA 

Route Miles of Route by Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Open J1 (2 miles) 

J2 (2 miles) 

J3 (2 miles - CS) 

J4 (2 miles) 

J5 (3 miles - CS) 

J7 (11⁄2 miles - CS 

J1 (2 miles) 

J2 (11⁄4 miles) 

J4 (2 miles) 

J5 (3 miles - CS) 

J7 (11⁄2 miles - CS) 

J1 (2 miles) 

J2 (11⁄4 miles) 

J4 (2 miles) 

J5 (3 miles - CS) 

J7 (11⁄2 miles - CS) 

J1 (2 miles) 

J2 (2 miles) 

J3 (2 miles - CS) 

J4 (2 miles) 

J5 (3 miles - CS) 

J7 (11⁄2 miles - CS) 

Total 121⁄2 miles 93⁄4 miles 93⁄4 miles 121⁄2 miles 

Closed 

(rehabilitate) 

 J6 (2 miles) 

J8 (1⁄2 mile) 

J6 (2 miles) 

J8 (1⁄2 mile) 

J6 (2 miles) 

J8 (1⁄2 mile) 

Total 0 miles 21⁄2 miles 21⁄2 miles 21⁄2 miles 

Closed (authorized 

use only) 

 J2 (3⁄4 mile) 

J3 (2 miles-CS) 

J2 (3⁄4 mile) 

J3 (2 miles-CS) 

Total 0 miles 23⁄4 miles 23⁄4 miles 0 miles 

Post-WSA 

Route 

J6 (2 miles) 

J8 (1⁄2 mile) 

Total 21⁄2 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

NOTE: CS = cherry-stem road, WSA = Wilderness Study Area 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-32 Appendix J 

December 2008 
Fite Ranch Rd

J2

J1

J3

J3

J4

J6

J7

J8

CR 15 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11

18

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35

T8S 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 9 10 9 10 12 7 11 8 White Sands 11

Missile Range Pedro Armendaris

16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

28 27 26 25 J5 30 29 28 27 26

33

34 35 36 31 32 33 Socorro County 34 35

T9S
 

Sierra County 3 2 1 T10S 6 5 4 3

10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

22 23 24

R1ER2E 19 20 21 22 23

27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

Legend 

0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles

Way

WSA

JORNADA DEL MUERTO

Post WSA Route WSA ROUTES

Land Status ALTERNATIVE A So S o c c o o r rr r o o C C o o

BLM

State

Private No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data.

Jornada del Muerto

WSA

J-33 Map J-21 

2
Fite Ranch Rd

J2

J1

J3

J3

J4

J6

J7

J8

CR

153

7

18

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35

T8S 

5 T9S 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2

White Sands

Missile Range

10 11

16 15 14

Pedro Armendaris

9 10 11 12 7 8 9

16 15 14 13 18 17

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

28 27 26 25 J5 30 29 28 27 26

33 34 35

33

34 35 36 31 32

Socorro County

Sierra County T10S 5 4 3 2 3 2 1 6

10 11 12 7 8 9 10

18 15 14 13

R1E

R

2

E

17 16 15 14

22 23 24 19 20 21 22

27 26 25 30 29 28 27

0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles

Legend

Close(No

WSA

Rehab)
 ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

Close (Rehab)
 

Open WITHIN JORNADA DEL MUERTO

Land Status FINAL ALTERNATIVE

BLM SSoo cc oo rrrr o o CC o o

Private No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability, State

or completeness of the data. Jornada del Muerto WSA 

J-34 Map J-22 

23

11
Fi

J2

te Ranch Rd

J1

J3

J3

J4

J6

J7

J8

CR 153

8 9 7 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 18

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

21 23 22 20 24 19 20 21 22 23

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35

T8S 

T9S 2 1 6 5 4 3 5 4 3

White Sands

Missile Range

10 9 10 12 7 11 8 9 Pedro Armendaris

16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

28 27 26 25 J5 30 29 28 27

33

34 35 36 31 32 33 34 Socorro County

Sierra County 3 2 1 T10S 6 5 4 3

10 11 12 7 8 9 10

15 14 13

R1E


R2E


18 17 16 15

22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

27 26 25 30 29 28 27

0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles

Legend 

Land Status

Close(Permit)

Close (Rehab)

Open

BLM

WSA ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

WITHIN JORNADA DEL MUERTO

ALTERNATIVE C

So S o c c o o r rr r o o C C o o

State

Private No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data. Jornada del Muerto WSA 

J-35 Map J-23 

2

14

11

35

26

2

14

11
Fite Ranch Rd

J2

J1

J3

J3

J4

J6

J7

J8

CR 153

7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11

18

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

21 23 22 20 24 19 20 21 22 23

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35

T8S 

T9S 2 1 6 5 4 3 5 4 3 White Sands Missile Range

10

9 10 12 7 11 8 9

Pedro Armendaris

16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

28 27 26 25 J5 30 29 28 27

33

34 35 36 31 32 33 34 Socorro County

Sierra County 3 2 1 T10S 6 5 4 3

10 11 12 7 8 9 10

15 14 13

R1E
R2E


18 17 16 15

22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23

27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles

Legend

WSA ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

Close(Permit)

Close (Rehab) WITHIN JORNADA DEL MUERTO

Open

Land Status ALTERNATIVE D

S o S o cc oo rrrr o o CC o o

BLM
 

No warranty is made by BLM Private

as to the accuracy, reliability,

State or completeness of the data. Jornada del Muerto WSA 

J-36 Map J-24 

2

14

11

35

26

2

14

11
 

TABLE J-8 

MILES OF ROUTE DESIGNATION BY ALTERNATIVE FOR 

MESITA BLANCA WILDERNESS STUDY AREA 

Route Miles of Route By Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Open M1 (4 miles) 

M2 (1 mile) 

M4 (21⁄2 miles) 

M5 (3 miles) 

M6 (8 miles) 

M1 (21⁄2 miles) 

M6 (11⁄2 miles) 

M1 (21⁄2 miles) 

M2 (1 mile) 

M5 (3 miles) 

M1 (4 miles) 

M2 (1 mile) 

M4 (21⁄2 miles) 

M5 (3 miles) 

M6 (8 miles) 

Total 181⁄2 miles 4 miles 61⁄2 miles 181⁄2 miles 

Closed 

(rehabilitate) 

M1 (11⁄2 miles) 

M2 (1 mile) 

M3 (1 mile) 

M4 (21⁄2 miles) 

M1 (11⁄2 miles) 

M3 (1 mile) 

M4 (21⁄2 miles) 

M6 (4 miles) 

M3 (1 mile) 

Total 0 miles 61⁄2 miles 9 miles 1 mile 

Closed (authorized 

use only) 

M6 (3 miles) M6 (4 miles) 

Total 0 miles 3 miles 4 miles 0 miles 

Post-WSA 

Route 

M3 (1 mile) 

Total 1 mile 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

NOTE: WSA = Wilderness Study Area 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-37 Appendix J 

December 2008 
M6

M5

M4

M2

M3

M1

Heap R anch M kinley Ranch Rd 8

29

17

20

29

4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18

20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

Rd 27 26 25 30 29 28 28 27 26 25

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

T2N 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 T1N 4 3 2 1 6 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

16 15 14 18 17

13 16 15 14 13 R20W R19

21 22 23 24 W19 20 c

21 22 23 24

28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 60 

1 6 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

Legend 

0 1 2 4 Miles

WSA

Land Status

Way

Post WSA Route

MESITA BLANCA WSA

ROUTES ALTERNATIVE A

Mesita Blanca

WSA

BLM C a C at rt r oonn CCoo No warranty is made by BLM Private as to the accuracy, reliability,

State or completeness of the data.

J-38 Map J-25 

7

19

18

30
Heap Ranch Rd

Mckinley Ranch Rd

M6

M5

M

4

M2

M3

M1

29

1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

8 9 10 11 1 7 2 8 9 1 1 0 1 12 7

1 1 7 1 6 1 5 4 1 1 3 8 17 16 15 14 13 18

2 2 0 2 1 2 23 24 19 20 21 2 2 2 3 24 19

28

27

26 25 30 2 2 9 8 27 26 25 30

32 33 34 3 3 5 6 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 5 6 31

T2N

3 4 5

T 5 2 1 6 1N 4 3 2 1 6

9 8 8 10 11 12 7 9 10 1 1 1 7 2

1 1 7 6 15

14

13 18 17 1 1 4 3 18

16 15

20

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 2 2 2 3 24

2 2 9 8 27 2 2 6 5 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

32

33 34 3 3 5 6

R

2

0

W

R19

W

3 3 2 3 34 3 3 5 6 31 31

5

2 3 4

5 1 6 4 3 2 6 1 0 6

8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9

0 1 2 4 Miles

Legend 

WSA

Close(No Rehab) ROUTE DESIGNATIONS Mesi

WSA

ta Blanca

Close(Rehab)

Open WITHIN MESITA BLANCA WSA CCaattrroonn CCoo

Land Status FINAL ALTERNATIVE

BLM

No warranty is made by BLM Private

as to the accuracy, reliability,

State or completeness of these data.

J-39 Map J-26 

19
Heap Ranch Rd

Mckinley Ranch Rd

M6

M5

M4

M2

M3

M1

29

1 6 5 4 3
 2
 1 6 8 9 12 10 11
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 7
 

17
 16
 15
 14
 13
 18
 17
 16
 15
 14
 13
 18
 

20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 19
 

27
 26
 25
 30
 29
 28 28
 27
 26
 25
 

32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36 31
 

T2N 5
 

2 3 4 1
 6 5
 T1N 4
 3
 2
 1
 6
 

8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 

17
 16
 15
 14
 13
 18
 17
 16
 15
 14
 13
 

20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 

29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 30
 29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 

32
 

33
 34
 35
 36
 

R20WR19W 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 

5
 4
 3
 2
 1 6 5
 4
 60
 3
 2
 6
 1
 

8 9
 10 11 12 7 8 9
 

0 1 2 4 Miles
 

Legend 

WSA ROUTE DESIGNATIONS Mesita Blanca Close(Permit) WSA

Close(Rehab)

Open WITHIN MESITA BLANCA WSA

Land Status ALTERNATIVE C C a C at rt roonn CCoo BLM

Private No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability, State or completeness of the data.

J-40 Map J-27
 

7

31

30

19

18

30
Heap Ranch Rd

Mckinley Ranch Rd

M6

M5

M4

M2

M3

M1

29

1 6 5 4 3
 2
 1 6 8 9 12 10 11
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 7
 

17
 16
 15
 14
 13
 18
 17
 16
 15
 14
 13
 18
 

20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 19
 

27
 26
 25
 30
 29
 28 28
 27
 26
 25
 

32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36 31
 

T2N 5
 

2 3 4 1
 6 5
 T1N 4
 3
 2
 1
 6
 

8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 

17
 16
 15
 14
 13
 18
 17
 16
 15
 14
 13
 

20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 

29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 30
 29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 

32
 

33
 34
 35
 36
 

R20WR19W 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 

5
 4
 3
 2
 1 6 5
 4
 60
 3
 2
 6
 1
 

8 9
 10 11 12 7 8 9
 

0 1 2 4 Miles
 

Legend 

WSA ROUTE DESIGNATIONS Mesita Blanca Close(Permit) WSA

Close(Rehab)

Open WITHIN MESITA BLANCA WSA

Land Status ALTERNATIVE D C a C at rt roonn CCoo BLM

Private No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability, State or completeness of the data.

J-41 Map J-28
 

7

31

30

19

18

30
 

 

 

 

 

TABLE J-9 

MILES OF ROUTE DESIGNATION BY ALTERNATIVE FOR 

PRESILLA WILDERNESS STUDY AREA 

Route Miles of Route by Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Open P1 (3 miles) 

P2 (21⁄2 miles)

 P1 (3 miles) 

P2 (21⁄2 miles) 

P3 (3 miles) 

Total 51⁄2 miles 0 miles 0 miles 81⁄2 miles 

Closed 

(rehabilitate) 

P3 (3 miles) 

P4 (21⁄2 miles) 

P1 (3 miles) 

P2 (21⁄2 miles) 

P3 (3 miles) 

P4 (21⁄2 miles) 

P1 (3 miles) 

P2 (21⁄2 miles) 

P3 (3 miles) 

P4 (21⁄2 miles) 

P4 (21⁄2 miles) 

Total 51⁄2 miles 11 miles 11 miles 21⁄2 miles 

Closed (authorized 

use only) 

Total 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

Post-WSA 

Route 

P4 (21⁄2 miles) 

Total 21⁄2 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-42 Appendix J 

December 2008 
CR 152

P2

P2

P3

P4

P3

Rio Grande Bosque c ito Rd 1

36

25

24 19 20 21 22
 23 24 19
 

25
 30 29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 30
 

36
 31
 32
 

33
 34
 35
 36
 

Quebradas Rd

31
 

T2S

T3S 4
 3
 2
 1
 6
 

Socorro

9
 10
 11
 12
 7
 

P1

16
 15
 14
 13
 P1 18
 

25
 

CR 163
 

21
 22 23
 24
 19
 R1E R2E30
 

28
 27
 26 25
 30
 29
 

31
 32
 33
 34
 35 36
 31
 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles
 Legend 

WSA

Way	 PRESILLA WSA ROUTES

Post WSA Route
 

Closed
 ALTERNATIVE A

Land Status

BLM Presilla No warranty is made by BLM WSA Private	 as to the accuracy, reliability,
 

or completeness of the data.
 State S o S o ccoo r rr roo CCoo

J-43	 Map J-29
 
CR 152 

P2

P2

P3

P4

P3

Bosqeci Rd

R

oi Grande

1

31

24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

36 31 32

33 34 35 36

Quebradas T2S
 

T3S
 

4 3 2 1

1 6

Socorro

9 10 11 12

to

P1

25 16 15 14

P1 18 13

CR 163 21 22 23 24 19

28 27 26 25 25 30 29

R1E

R

2

E

36 31

Legend 

WSA
 

Close(No Rehab)
 

Close(Rehab)
 

Open
 

Land Status

BLM

30

32 33 34 35 36 31

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

WITHIN PRESILLA WSA

FINAL ALTERNATIVE

Private

State

NMDG&F

No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of these data. S So oc c o o r rr r o o C Co o

Presilla WSA

J-44 Map J-30 

7
CR 152 

P2

P2

P3

P4

P3

Bosqeci Rd R oi Grande 1

25

24
 19
 20
 22 23 24 21 19
 

25
 30
 29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 30
 

36
 31 32
 

33
 34
 35
 36
 

Quebradas

31
 

T2S

T3S

4
 3 2
 1

1 6
 

Socorro 9 10
 11
 12
 7
 to

P1

16
 15
 14
 13
 P1 18
 

25
 

CR 163
 21
 22
 23
 24
 19
 R1E R2E

30
 

28
 27
 26
 25
 30
 29
 

36 31
 

Legend 

WSA

Close(Permit)

Close(Rehab)

Open

Land Status

BLM

Private

State

32 33
 34 35
 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles
 

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS
 

WITHIN PRESILLA WSA
 

ALTERNATIVE C
 

No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data.

36
 31
 

Presilla WSA

S o S o c oc o rrrro o CCo o

J-45 Map J-31
 
CR 152 

P2

P2

P3

P4

P3

Bosqeci Rd R oi Grande 1

25

24
 19 20 21 22 23 24 19
 

25
 30
 29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 30
 

36
 31 32
 

33
 34
 35
 36
 

Quebradas

31
 

T2S

T3S

4
 3 2
 1

1 6
 

Socorro 9 10
 11
 12
 7
 to

P1

16
 15
 14
 13
 P1 18
 

25
 

CR 163
 21
 22
 23
 24
 19
 R1E R2E

30
 

28
 27
 26
 25
 30
 29
 

36 31
 

Legend 

WSA

Close(Permit)

Close(Rehab)

Open

Land Status

BLM

Private

State

32 33
 34 35
 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles
 

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS
 

WITHIN PRESILLA WSA
 

ALTERNATIVE D
 

No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data.

36
 31
 

Presilla WSA

S o S o c oc o rrrro o CCo o

J-46 Map J-32
 
 

 

 

TABLE J-10 

MILES OF ROUTE DESIGNATION BY ALTERNATIVE FOR 

SIERRA DE LAS CAÑAS WILDERNESS STUDY AREA 

Route Miles of Route by Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Open 

Total 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

Closed 

(rehabilitate) 

 SC2 (1⁄8 mile) 

SC3 (1⁄4 mile) 

SC2 (1⁄8 mile) SC (1⁄8 mile) 

Total 0 miles 3⁄8 mile 1⁄8 mile 1⁄8 mile 

Closed (authorized 

use only) 

 SC1 (1⁄4 mile) SC1 (1⁄4 mile) 

SC3 (1⁄4 mile) 

SC1 (1⁄4 mile) 

SC3 (1⁄4 mile) 

Total 0 miles 1⁄4 mile 1⁄2 mile 1⁄2 mile 

Post-WSA 

Route 

SC1 (1⁄4 mile) 

SC2 (1⁄8 mile) 

SC3 (1⁄4 mile) 

Total 5⁄8 mile 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

NOTE: WSA = Wilderness Study Area 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-47 Appendix J 

December 2008 
CR 129

Quebradas

CR 145

CR 152

Rio G rande

SC1 osquecito Rd

12

13

24

22 23 19 24 19 20 21 22 23 19 19 20 21 20 21 22 24 23
 

25 30 29 28
 27 26 25
 30 29
 28
 27 26
 

36
 31 32
 

2 SC

33
 35 36 34 31 32
 33
 34 35
 

4 3
 2 1
 6 5 4
 3 2
 

9 10
 11
 12 B7 8
 9 10 11
 

SC3

Socorro 16 15 14
 13
 18 17
 16 15 14
 

CR163 21
 22
 23 24 19 20
 21 22
 23
 

28 27
 26 25
 25 30 29 30 29 28
 26 27
 

36
 31 32
 33 34
 35 36
 32 33 31 34 35
 T3S
 36 31
 33
 34 35
 36
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 

T4S
 1 6
 4
 3
 2 1
 6
 5 4
 3 2
 

5
 

7 8 9
 10
 11
 12
 

R1E

R2E7 8
 9 10 11
 

1
 18 17 16
 15 14
 13
 18
 17 16
 15
 14
 

21 22 19 20 23 24
 19 20
 21 22
 23
 24
 

25 30 29 28
 27 26 25
 30 29 28 27 26
 

024 1
 Miles

Legend 

WSA

Way SIERRA DE LAS CANAS

Post WSA Route WSA ROUTES

Land Status ALTERNATIVE A

BLM Sierra de las

Canas WSA 

Private No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability, S o S o cc oo r rr r oo CCoo State

or completeness of the data.

J-48 Map J-33
 
CR 129

CR 145

CR 152

Rio Grande

S

C1 Quebradas Back Country Byway

B

o

s

quecito

R

d

Farm

Marke

Rd

5

8

29

32

33 34 35 36
 31 32 33
 35 36
 

4 3
 2 1
 6 5 4
 2 1

t 17
 

34

3
 

10

S

C

2 15
 

15
 

9
 10 11
 12
 7 8
 9
 11 12
 

14 13
 

23
 

24
 

26 25
 

35 36
 

35 36
 

2 1
 

11 12
 

14 13
 

SC3

16 15
 14 13
 18 17 16
 

CR163 21 22 23
 24
 19
 20
 21 22
 

28 27 26
 25
 29
 30 29 28 27
 

32
 33 34
 35 36
 31 32
 33 34
 

32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 T3S 31
 32
 33 34
 

4
 T4S 3 2 1
 6
 5 4
 3
 

R1E7
 

R

2

9 10
 11 12
 E

8
 9 10
 

16
 

15 14 13
 18
 17 16
 

22
 

21
 

23
 20
 22 23
 24
 19
 20 21
 24
 

28
 27 26 25
 30 29
 28 27
 

33 34
 35 36
 31 32 33 34
 

26 25
 

35 36
 

0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles
 

Legend 

WSA

Close(No Rehab) ROUTE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN

Close(Rehab)

Open SIERRA DE LAS CANAS WSA

Land Status	 FINAL ALTERNATIVE

BLM

No warranty is made by BLM Sierra de las

Private	 Canas WSA as to the accuracy, reliability,
 

or completeness of these data.
 State SSooccoorrrroo CCoo

J-49	 Map J-34
 

30

7

19

18

6

31
t

CR 129

CR 145

CR 152

SC1 Quebradas Back Country Byway Bosque cito Rd Farm Marke Rd 1 4 8

29

32

33
 34 35
 36 31 32 33

2 SC 34 35
 36 SC

28 27 26
 25
 29
 30 29 28
 27
 26
 25

32 33
 34
 35 36
 31
 32
 33 34
 35
 36
 31
 

32 33
 34
 T3S 35
 36

t

3 2
 1
 6 5
 4
 3 2
 

9 10
 11
 12
 7
 8
 9 10 11 12
 

SC3

16
 15 14
 13
 18 17
 16
 15 14 13
 

CR163 21
 22
 23 24 19 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 

31
 32 33
 34
 35 36
 

5 4
 3 2
 T4S 1
 6 5
 4
 3
 2 1
 R1E
 R2E
 9 10
 11
 12
 8 9 7 10
 11 12
 

17
 16 15
 14 13
 18
 17 16
 13
 

20
 21
 22 23
 24
 19 20
 21
 24
 

28 27
 26 25
 30 29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 

33 34 35 36
 31 32
 33 34 35 36
 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles
 

Legend 

Close(Permit)

WSA


 ROUTE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN

Close(Rehab)

Open


 SIERRA DE LAS CANAS WSA

Land Status ALTERNATIVE C

BLM

Sierra de las No warranty is made by BLM

Private Canas WSA

r r

as to the accuracy, reliability,

State or completeness of the data. S o S occoor r oo CCoo

J-50 Map J-35
 

7

30

19

6

18
t

CR 129

CR 145

CR 152

SC1 Quebradas Back Country Byway Bosquecito Rd Farm Marke Rd 8

29

32

33 34 35 36 31 32 33

2 SC 34 35 36 SC

28 27 26 25
 29
 30 29 28
 27
 26 25

32
 33 34
 35 36
 31
 32
 33 34
 35
 36
 

32 33
 34
 T3S 35 36

t

4 3
 2
 1
 6
 5
 4 3
 2 1
 

9 10
 11
 12
 7
 8
 9 10 11 12
 

SC3

16
 15 14
 13
 18
 17
 16
 15 14 13
 

CR163 21
 22
 23 24 19 20
 21
 22
 23 24
 

31
 32 33
 34
 35
 36
 

5 4
 3 2
 T4S 1
 6 5
 4
 3
 2 1
 R1E
 R2E
 9 10
 11
 12
 7 8
 9
 10
 11 12
 

17
 16 15 14 13
 18 17
 16
 13
 

20
 21 22 23 24
 19 20
 21
 24
 

28 27
 26 25
 30 29
 28
 27
 26
 25
 

33 34
 35 36
 31 32 33 34 35 36
 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles
 

Legend 

Close(Permit)

WSA


 ROUTE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN

Close(Rehab)

Open


 SIERRA DE LAS CANAS WSA

Land Status ALTERNATIVE D

BLM

Sierra de las No warranty is made by BLM

Private Canas WSA

r r

as to the accuracy, reliability,

State or completeness of the data. S o S occoor r oo CCoo

J-51 Map J-36
 

30

7

19

18

6
 

 

TABLE J-11 

MILES OF ROUTE DESIGNATION BY ALTERNATIVE FOR 

SIERRA LADRONES WILDERNESS STUDY AREA 

Route Miles of Route by Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Open L6 (1 mile) 

L8 (1⁄4 mile) 

L12 (1⁄4 mile) 

L13 (1 mile - CS) 

L16 (9 miles) 

L17 (41⁄2 miles) 

L18 (1 mile) 

L19 (1 mile) 

L20 (11⁄2 miles) 

L21 (21⁄2 miles) 

L8 (1⁄4 mile) 

L12 (1⁄4 mile) 

L16 (9 miles) 

L17 (31⁄2 miles) 

L19 (1 mile) 

L20 (11⁄2 miles) 

L8 (1⁄4 mile) 

L12 (1⁄4 mile) 

L16 (9 miles) 

L17 (31⁄2 miles) 

L19 (1 mile) 

L20 (11⁄2 miles) 

L4 (1⁄2 mile) 

L6 (1 mile) 

L7 (21⁄2 miles) 

L8 (1⁄4 mile) 

L9 (1 mile) 

L10 (1⁄2 mile) 

L11 (1⁄4 mile) 

L12 (11⁄4 mile) 

L13 (1 mile) 

L14 (11⁄2 miles) 

L15 (6 miles) 

L16 (9 miles) 

L17 (41⁄2 miles) 

L18 (1 mile) 

L19 (1 mile) 

L20 (11⁄2 miles) 

L21 (21⁄2 miles) 

Total 22 miles 151⁄2 miles 151⁄2 miles 351⁄4 miles 

Closed 

(rehabilitate) 

*L2 (1⁄2 mile) 

*L3 (1 mile) 

 L4 (1⁄2 mile) 

L1 (1 mile) 

L2 (1⁄2 mile) 

L3 (1 mile) 

L5 (1 mile) 

L6 (1 mile) 

L14 (11⁄2 miles) 

L15 (1 mile) 

L18 (1 mile) 

L22 (1 mile) 

L1 (1 mile) 

L2 (1⁄2 mile) 

L3 (1 mile) 

L5 (1 mile) 

L6 (1 mile) 

L18 (1 mile) 

L22 (1 mile) 

L1 (1 mile) 

L2 (1⁄2 mile) 

L3 (1mile) 

L5 (1 mile) 

L22 (1 mile) 

Total 2 miles 9 miles 61⁄2 miles 41⁄2 miles 

Closed (authorized 

use only) 

L7 (21⁄2 miles) 

L9 (1 mile) 

L10 (1⁄2 mile) 

L11 (1⁄4 mile) 

L12 (1 mile) 

L14 (11⁄2 miles) 

L15 (6 miles) 

L4 (1⁄2 mile) 

L7 (21⁄2 miles) 

L9 (1 mile) 

L10 (1⁄2 mile) 

L11 (1⁄4 mile) 

L12 (1 mile) 

L13 (1 mile) 

L15 (5 miles) 

L17 (1 mile) 

L21 (21⁄2 miles) 

L4 (1⁄2 mile) 

L7 (21⁄2 miles) 

L9 (1 mile) 

L10 (1⁄2 mile) 

L11 (1⁄4 mile) 

L12 (1 mile) 

L13 (1 mile) 

L14 (11⁄2 miles) 

L15 (6 miles) 

L17 (1 mile) 

L21 (21⁄2 miles) 

Total 123⁄4 miles 151⁄4 miles 173⁄4 miles 0 miles 

Post-WSA 

Route 

L1 (1 mile) 

L5 (1mile) 

L22 (1 mile) 

Total 3 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

NOTE: CS = cherry-stem road, WSA = Wilderness Study Area 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-52 Appendix J 

December 2008 
CR

67

CR 7 0

CR 71

CR 65

CR 72

CR 76

L20

L19

L21

L4

L18

L18

L17

L15

L L22

L16

L13

L1

L6

L5

L7

L8

L9

L10

L11

L12

L15

L16

L16

L16 Camin o Sierra Ladrone Rd 4 94

16

16

28

25 30 28 27 26 25 29 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 25 28 27 26

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 34 35 36 31 32 36 31 33 35 36 31 32 33 36 31 34 35 36

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 6 3 2 1 1 R3W
 R2W
 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 12 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 7

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 14 13 18 17 16 15 13 18 13

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 19

25 30 27 26

26 25 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 25 30

34

35

35 33 34

T3N 32 33 35 36 31 32 33 34 36 31

36

T2N 3 2 3 2 1 6 5 4 L2 3 2 1 1 6 9 1411 10 11 7 12 8 10 12 7 L3 8 

15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17

19 20

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

28 27 26 25 30 L17 28 27 26 25 30 29

Sevilleta Wildlife

33 34 35 36 31 32 33 Refuge 34 35 36 31 32

L19

3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

10

0 Cibo 12 9 10la 11 7 8 9 11 12 7 8 National
 

Forest
 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17

21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20

28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29

33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32

Legend 0 1 2 4 6 Miles

WSA

Way

Post WSA Route

Closed

SIERRA LADRONES

WSA ROUTES

Land Status

BLM

FS

Private

State

ALTERNATIVE A

No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data.

S o S o cc oo rr rr oo CC oo

Sierra Ladrones

WSA

J-53 Map J-37 
9

2

0

Camino Sierra

Ladrone

Rd

C

R 

6

7 

CR 70 

CR 71 

CR 65 

CR 72 

CR 76 

L20

L21

L4

L18

L18

L17

L15 L14

L22

L16

L13

L1 L6

5

L7

L8

L9

L10

L11

L12

L15

L16

L16

L16

4

9

21

16

16

28

21 22 23 24 19 20
 21 22 23 24
 

28 27 26 25 30
 29 28 27 26 25
 30 29
 28 26 25 25 30 27
 

33 34 35 36 31
 32 33
 34 35 36 31 32 33 36 31 34 35 36
 

4 3
 2 1 6
 5 4 3
 2
 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 1

9 10 11 12
 7 8
 9 10 11
 12
 7 8
 9 10 11 12 12 7
 

9 10 11 12
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11 L

12 7
 8 9 10 11 12 12 7
 

15 14
 13 18
 17 16 15
 16
 

14
 

18 14
 13
 17
 15
 13 18 13
 

24
 

21 22 23
 24 19
 20 21 22
 23
 19 20
 21
 2 19 2 23 24 24
 

25 30
 27 26
 29 28
 27 27 26
 25 30 29 28
 26 25
 25 30

34
 

35
 36
 

36
 

35 33 34
 T3N 32 33
 35
 36 31 32
 33 34
 31
 

4 3
 T2N 

2
 3 2 1 6 5 4 L2 3 2 1 1
 6
 

L3 11
 10 11
 8 12 18 7 
 9
 10
 12 7
 

8
 

13
 

15 14
 13
 17
 16 15 14
 18
 17
 

22 23 24
 19 20 21
 22 23
 24 19
 20

Sevilleta Wildlife

26
 28 27 26 25 30
 2 Refuge L17 8 27

R

3

W

R

2

W

25 30 29
 

36 31
 33 34
 35
 36
 31
 L19 32
 33 34 35
 32
 

L19

3 2 1 6
 5 4 3
 2 1
 6 5 Cibola

National 9 10 11 12
 7 8 9 Forest 10
 11 12
 7 8
 

0

16 15 14 13 18 17
 16 15 14
 13 18 17
 

21 22
 23 24 19
 20 21 22 23 24
 19 20
 

28 27 26 25
 30 29
 28
 27 26
 25 30 29
 

0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles
 

Legend 

WSA
 

Close(No Rehab)
 ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

Close(Rehab)
 

Open
 WITHIN SIERRA LADRONES WSA

Land Status
 

BLM
 FINAL ALTERNATIVE

FS

Sierra Ladrones WSA

Private No warranty is made by BLM

State as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of these data.

FWS SSoo cc oo rr rr oo CC oo

J-54 Map J-38
 

5

2

3

2
Camino Sierra Ladrone R d

CR 67 

CR 70 

CR 71 

CR 65 

CR 72 

CR 76 

L20

L21

L4

L18

L18

L17

L15

L14 L22

L16

L13

L1

L6

L7

L8

L9

L10

L11

L15

L16

L16

L16

8 1

16 15 14

19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 23 24 24 19 20 22

30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 25 30 29

31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 36 31 32

5 4 6 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 1 6 5 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11L5

12 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 7

18 17 16 15 14

18 17 13 18 14 17 16 15 14 13 16 15 13 13 18 17

19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 19 20

25 30

26 25

30 29 28 27 26 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 3025

34 L1235

31 32 35 33 34 32 T3N
 33 35 36 31 32 33 34 36 31 32

36

6 5 4 3 T2N 2 3 2 1 6 5 4 L2 3 2 1 1 6 5

L3

12 7

8 7 8 9 10 11 8 1812 7 9 10 11

18 17 16 15 14 13 17 16 15 14 13 18 17

19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20

28 27 26 25 30 29 30 L17 28 27 26 25 30 29 Sevilleta Wildlife Refuge 32 33 34 35 36 31 L19 32 33 34 35 36 31 32

L19

5 4 3 2 6 6

Cibol 1 a 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

National 7 8 9 10 11 Fo 7 8 9 res 12 t 10 11 12 7 8 0

8 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17

9 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

R3W


R2W
 19 20

0 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32

6 5 4 3

0 1 2 4 6 Miles

Legend 

WSA

Close(Permit)

Close(Rehab)

Open

Land Status

BLM

FS

Private

State

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

WITHIN SIERRA LADRONES WSA

ALTERNATIVE C

No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data. S o S o cc oo rr rr oo CC oo

Sierra Ladrones WSA

J-55 Map J-39 

29
3

Camino Sierra Ladrone R d

CR 67 

CR 70 

CR 71 

CR 65 

CR 72 

CR 76 

L20

L21

L4

L18

L18

L17

L15

L14 L22

L16

L13

L1

L6

L5

L7

L8

L9

L10

L11

L15

L16

L16

L16

11

16 15 14

19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 19 20

30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 25 25 29 28 27 26 30 29

31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 36 31 32

5 4 6 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 1 6 5 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 7 8 9 10 12 7 8 9 10 12 12 7 8

18 17 16 15 14

18 17 16

13 18 14 17 16 15 14 13 15 13 13 18 17

19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 19 20

25 30

26 25

30 29 28 27 26 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 3025

34 L1235

31 32 35 33 34 32 T3N
 33 35 36 31 32 33 34 36 31 32

36

6 5 4 3 T2N 2 3 2 1 6 5 4 L2 3 2 1 1 6 5

L3

12 7

8 7 8 9 10 11 8 1812 7 9 10 11

18 17 16 15 14 13 17 16 15 14 13 18 17

19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20

28 27 26 25 30 29 30 L17 28 27 26 25 30 29 Sevilleta Wildlife Refuge 1 32 33 34 35 36 31 L19 32 33 34 35 36 31 32

L19

6 5 4 3 2 6 Cibol 1 a 5 4 3 2 1 6 5

National 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 Fores 8 9 t 10 11 12 7 8 0

8 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17

9 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

R3W


R2W
 19 20

0 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32

6 5 4

0 1 2 4 6 Miles

Legend 

WSA

Close(Permit)

Close(Rehab)

Open

Land Status

BLM

FS

Private

State

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS

WITHIN SIERRA LADRONES WSA

ALTERNATIVE D

No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data. S o S o cc oo rr rr oo CC oo

Sierra Ladrones WSA

J-56 Map J-40 

29
 

 

 

TABLE J-12 

MILES OF ROUTE DESIGNATION BY ALTERNATIVE FOR 

STALLION WILDERNESS STUDY AREA 

Route Miles of Route by Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Open S1 (2 miles) 

S2 (1 mile) 

S3 (8 miles) 

S4 (5 miles) 

S5 (3 miles) 

S1 (2 miles) S1 (2 miles) S1 (2 miles) 

S2 (1 mile) 

S3 (8 miles) 

S4 (5 miles) 

S5 (3 miles) 

Total 19 miles 2 miles 2 miles 19 miles 

Closed 

(rehabilitate) 

 S2 (1 mile) 

S4 (5 miles) 

S2 (1 mile) 

S4 (5 miles) 

S5 (2 miles) 

Total 0 miles 6 miles 8 miles 0 miles 

Closed (authorized 

use only) S3 (8 miles) 

S5 (3 mile) 

S3 (8 miles) 

S5 (1 mile) 

Total 0 miles 11 miles 9 miles 0 miles 

Post-WSA 

Route 

Total 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

NOTE: WSA = Wilderness Study Area 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-57 Appendix J 

December 2008 
CR 146

CR 1 

47

CR 127

CR 156

CR146 CR 146 CR 63

S1

S3

S4

S5

S3

2

36

23

14

12 7 8 9 10 11 12

15

14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

Sevilleta Wildlife

Refuge 20

21

22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

26 30

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35

35 36 31 T1S 

2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

24 19 20 S2 22 23 24 21 19 20 21 22 23 24

26 25 30 29 28 27 26 30 28 27 26 29 25 25

35 36 31

T2S
 

T3S
 

1 6

32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

13

R2E


18 17 16 15 14 13

R3E
 

R4E
 18 18 17 16 15 14 13

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

Legend 0 1 2 4 Miles

Land Status

WSA

Way STALLION WSA ROUTES

ALTERNATIVE A

BLM

Private

State

No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data S o S o cc oo rrror o CC oo

Stallion WSA

J-58 Map J-41 

30

19

18
CR 146 

CR 147 

CR 127 

CR 156 

CR 146 

C

R146 

CR 63 

S1

S3

S4

S5

13

36

14

23

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12

14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

15

Sevilleta Wildlife 22 23 24 19 20 2 2 1 1 22 23 24

Refuge 20

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25

26 30

35

36

31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35

T1S
 

T2S 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 3 2 1 4 6

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

17

16 15 14 13 18 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 14

23 24 19 20 21 S2 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

32

35 36 31 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

T3S 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 6 2 1 6

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

R

2

E

18 17 16 15 14 13

R

3

E

R

4

18 17 E

16 15 14 13

24 19 20 21 22 2 22 3 24 19 20 21 23 24

26 25 30 29

Legend 

WSA
 

Close(No Rehab)
 

Close(Rehab)
 

Open
 

Land Status

BLM

Private

State

28 27 26 25 30 29 28

0 1 2 4 Miles

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS
 

WITHIN STALLION WSA
 

FINAL ALTERNATIVE
 

No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of these data.

27 26 25

Stallion WSA

SSoo ccoo rrrr oo CCoo

J-59 Map J-42 

19

30

18

18
CR 146 

CR 147 

CR 127 

CR 156 

CR 146 

CR146 

CR 63 

S1

S3

S4

S5

2

36

25

12 7 8 9 10 11 12

14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

15

Sev 22 23 24 19 20 illeta Wildli 21 21 fe 22 23 24

Refuge 20

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

26 30

35 32 31 36 T1S 2 1 T2S6 5

33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35

4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

17 16 15 14 13 18 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18

23 24 19 20 S221 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

26 25 30 29 28 27 26 29 28 27 26 30 25 25 30

35 36 31 34 35 32 33 36 31 32 33 34 35 36

T3S 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

14 13

R2E

18 17 16 15 14 13

R3E

R4

18 17

E

16 15 14 13

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

Legend 

WSA

Close(Permit)

Close(Rehab)

Open

Land Status

BLM

Private

State

0 1 2 4 Miles

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS
 

WITHIN STALLION WSA
 

ALTERNATIVE C
 

No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data

Stallion WSA

S o S o cc oor rr roo CCoo

J-60 Map J-43 

18

31
CR 146 

CR 147 

CR 127 

CR 156 

CR 146 

CR146 

CR 63 

S1

S3

S4

S5

2

36

25

12 7 8 9 10 11 12

14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

15

Sev 22 23 24 19 20 illeta Wildli 21 21 fe 22 23 24

Refuge 20

29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

26 30

35 32 31 36 T1S 2 1 T2S6 5

33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35

4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

17 16 15 14 13 18 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18

23 24 19 20 S221 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

26 25 30 29 28 27 26 29 28 27 26 30 25 25 30

35 36 31 34 35 32 33 36 31 32 33 34 35 36

T3S 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6

11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7

14 13

R2E

18 17 16 15 14 13

R3E

R4

18 17

E

16 15 14 13

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19

26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30

Legend 

WSA

Close(Permit)

Close(Rehab)

Open

Land Status

BLM

Private

State

0 1 2 4 Miles

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS
 

WITHIN STALLION WSA
 

ALTERNATIVE D
 

No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data

Stallion WSA

S o S o cc oor rr roo CCoo

J-61 Map J-44 

18

31
 

 

TABLE J-13 

MILES OF ROUTE DESIGNATION BY ALTERNATIVE FOR 

VERANITO WILDERNESS STUDY AREA 

Route Miles of Route by Alternative 

Designation A B C D 

Open V1 (11⁄2 miles) 

V2 (1⁄2 mile) 

V3 (3 miles) 

V1 (11⁄2 miles) 

V2 (1⁄2 mile) 

Total 5 miles 0 miles 0 miles 2 miles 

Closed 

(rehabilitate) 

V3 (21⁄2 miles) 

V4 (1⁄4 mile) 

V5 (1⁄4 mile) 

V6 (31⁄2 miles) 

V1 (11⁄2 miles) 

V3 (3 miles) 

V4 (1⁄4 mile) 

V5 (1⁄4 mile) 

V6 (31⁄2 miles) 

V3 (3 miles) 

V4 (1⁄4 mile) 

V5 (1⁄4 mile) 

V6 (31⁄2 miles) 

Total 0 miles 61⁄2 miles 81⁄2 miles 7 miles 

Closed (authorized 

use only) 

V6 V1 (11⁄2 miles) 

V2 (1⁄2 mile) 

V3 (1⁄2 mile) 

V2 (1⁄2 mile) 

Total 0 miles 21⁄2 miles 1⁄2 mile 0 miles 

Post-WSA 

Route 

V4 (1⁄4 mile) 

V5 (1⁄4 mile) 

V6 (31⁄2 miles) 

Total 4 miles 0 miles 0 miles 0 miles 

NOTE: WSA = Wilderness Study Area 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS J-62 Appendix J 

December 2008 
CR 146

CR 93

CR 105 Midway Que rad a ck Coun try Byway

V2

V4

Rio Grande

Jo hnson H ill R d 2

11

14

23

Sevilleta Wildlife

Refuge 23 24
 

19
 

20
 21 22
 

23
 

R1W

R1E

26
 25
 30
 29
 28
 27
 26
 

25
 

V5

35
 36
 31
 32
 33
 34
 35
 36
 

V1 T1S

T2S

Socorro 1
 Nature 6
 5
 4
 3
 2 1
 

Area

12
 7
 

V6

8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 

V3

Schmittle Rd 13 18 17
 16 15
 14
 13
 

CR 145 24
 19 20
 21
 22
 23
 24
 

b s Ba

26 25 30 29
 26 25 28 27
 

0 0.5 1 2 Miles Legend 

WSA

Way VERANITO WSA ROUTES

Post WSA Route

Closed ALTERNATIVE A

Land Status

Veranito WSA 

BLM No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability, Private

or completeness of the data. S o S o cc oo rro rro C o C o

State

J-63 Map J-45
 
Johnson Hill Rd

CR 146

C

R 93

C

R 10

5

Midway

Quebrad

k Coun try Byway

V2

V4

Rio Grande

2

11

26

14 13

23 24

19

Sevilleta Wildlife

Refuge

20 21 22

23

26

408

25 30 29 28 27 26

V5 25

36 31

R1W

R1E

35 32 33 34 35 36

V1

T1S 

Socorro T2S

Nature 1 6

Area 1 5 4 3 2

V6

12 7 8 V3 9 10 11 12

25

1 S 4 chmittle Rd 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

1 C9 23 24 R 145 20 21 22 23 24

as Bac 25 30 29 26 25 28

Legend 

WSA
 

Close(No Rehab)
 

Close(Rehab)
 

Open

Land Status

BLM

Private

State

27

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS
 

WITHIN VERANITO WSA
 

FINAL ALTERNATIVE
 

No warranty Veranito WSA is made by BLM
 

as to the accuracy, reliability,
 

or completeness of these data.
 SSoo cc oo rrrr oo CC oo

J-64 Map J-46 
Johnson Hill Rd

CR 146

CR 93

CR 105 Midway Que rad a ck Coun try Byway

V2

V4

Rio Grande 2

11

14 13

Sevilleta Wildlife
 

Refuge
 23 24

19

20 21 22

23

26 25 30 29 28 27 26

25 V5

35 36 31 R1W
 R1E
 

Socorro

Nature 1 6

32 33 34 35 36

V1

T1S 

T2S 

1 5 4 Area 3 2

V6

12 7 V3 8 9 10 11 12

Schmittle Rd 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

23 24 CR 14519 20 21 22 23 24

26 25 30 29

b s Ba

26 25

Legend 

WSA

Close(Permit)

Close(Rehab)

Open

Land Status

BLM

Private

State

28 27

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS
 

WITHIN VERANITO WSA
 

ALTERNATIVE C
 

Veranito WSA 

No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data. S o S o c oc o rro rro CCoo

J-65 Map J-47 
Johnson Hill Rd

CR 146

CR 93

CR 105 Midway Que rad a ck Coun try Byway

V2

V4

Rio Grande 2

11

26

14 13

Sevilleta Wildlife
 

Refuge
 23 24

19

20 21 22

23

26 25 30 29 28 27 26

25 V5

35 36 31 R1W
 R1E
 

Socorro

Nature 1 6

32 33 34 35 36

V1

T1S 

T2S 

1 5 4 Area 3 2

V6

12 7 V3 8 9 10 11 12

Schmittle Rd 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13

23 24 CR 145

19 20 21 22 23 24

25 30 29

b s Ba

26 25

Legend 

WSA

Close(Permit)

Close(Rehab)

Open

Land Status

BLM

Private

State

28 27

0 0.5 1 2 Miles

ROUTE DESIGNATIONS
 

WITHIN VERANITO WSA
 

ALTERNATIVE D
 

Veranito WSA 

No warranty is made by BLM

as to the accuracy, reliability,

or completeness of the data. S o S o c oc o rro rro CCoo

J-66 Map J-48 
Appendix K
 

Existing Special Designations and Justification for 

Proposed Special Designations 
 

APPENDIX K 

EXISTING SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

AND JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

The following appendix contains (1) descriptions of the areas with special designations currently 

managed by the Socorro Field Office, (2) a description of the criteria and process for nominations for 

areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), and (3) descriptions and justifications for the proposed 

special designations. Acreages provided for the existing and proposed special designations are based on 

best available geographical information system (GIS) data and include only Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM)-managed lands. The acreages do not include State or privately owned inholdings that may be 

present within these areas. Differences between previous acreage estimates that were used in the 1989 

Resource Management Plan (RMP) and current GIS-based estimates are summarized in Table 3-9, 

Acreages of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) on BLM-Managed Surface Estate and Table 3-19, Acreages 

of Special Designations, in Chapter 3. 

EXISTING SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACECs are designated by the BLM where special management attention is needed to protect and prevent 

irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, and scenic values; fish and wildlife resources, or other 

natural systems or processes; or to protect human life and safety from natural hazards (BLM 2003). The 

six ACECs located within the Planning Area include Sawtooth, San Pedro, Ladron Mountain, Agua Fria, 

Horse Mountain, and Tinajas. These ACECs, except proprietary areas, are shown on Map 3-11, Special 

Designations: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Special Management Areas. The boundaries 

of the Sawtooth ACEC are proprietary due to the sensitivity of the resources being protected. A brief 

description of each ACEC is provided below. 

Sawtooth Proprietary ACEC 

The Sawtooth Proprietary ACEC, located in Catron County northwest of Datil, New Mexico, includes 

125 acres of public land. Steep ridges and foot slopes characterize the area. This ACEC provides habitat 

for a small population of Erigeron rhizomatous (Rhizome fleabane or Zuni fleabane). The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed this species as a threatened plant under the Endangered Species Act in 

1985. The ACEC provides a refuge for this small population by protecting the area from damage from 

off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, right-of-way authorizations, mineral entry, or other potentially disturbing 

activities (BLM 1989). 

The Sawtooth ACEC would be carried forward under all alternatives. 

San Pedro Proprietary ACEC 

The San Pedro Proprietary ACEC, located in Socorro County east of San Antonio, New Mexico, includes 

1,201 acres of public land. Low ridges, slopes, arroyos, and watercourses characterize the area. This 

ACEC is habitat to Amsonia fugatei (BLM 1989), a species listed as a New Mexico Rare Plant by the 

New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council (2003). This species of Amsonia, native to the southwestern 

United States and northwestern Mexico, consists of a few, generally small, isolated populations (BLM 

1989). Protection of this isolated population is important because “no two populations are precisely alike 

and classification is a problem when comparing phenotypic variation within and between populations” 

(McLaughlin 1985, as referenced in BLM 1989). 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-1 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

The San Pedro ACEC would be managed as a Special Management Area (SMA) under Alternatives B, C, 

and D. 

Ladron Mountain ACEC 

The Ladron Mountain ACEC, located in the north-central portion of Socorro County, New Mexico, 

includes 57,195 acres of public land; several private and State Trust land inholdings are located within the 

ACEC. The jagged peaks of the Sierra Ladron provide a prominent landmark as they rise from the Rio 

Grande Valley, from approximately 5,200 feet to an elevation of 9,176 feet. This rough topography, 

coupled with extreme vegetative diversity, makes the Sierra Ladron critical to the protection of raptor 

wintering and nesting habitat, and for dwindling mule deer populations (BLM 1989). The Ladron 

Mountain ACEC contains habitat for rare and endemic, State-listed sensitive plant species including the 

threadleaf false carrot (Aletes filifolia), planks catchfly (Silene Dlankii), and Wrights spiderlily 

(Tradescantia wriczhtii) (BLM 1989). The Ladron Mountain ACEC has served as an area for the 

successful reintroduction of desert bighorn sheep, a New Mexico State endangered species. This ACEC 

serves to protect habitat for various species of wildlife and plants, as well as geologic, recreational, 

paleontological, and scenic values. The Ladron Mountain ACEC overlaps with portions of the Sierra 

Ladrones WSA. 

The area managed as an ACEC would be expanded under Alternatives B and C, while the ACEC would 

be smaller under Alternative D. 

Agua Fria ACEC 

The Agua Fria ACEC, located in Catron County west of Quemado, New Mexico, includes 9,571 acres of 

public land. State Trust land and private inholdings also are present in the ACEC. Elevation varies from 

6,400 feet to 7,600 feet, with the majority of the ACEC characterized by mesas and open grasslands 

enhanced by volcanic features and vertical cliffs (BLM 1989). The Agua Fria Canyon and associated 

rimrocks and cliffs provide habitat for a great number of raptor species including bald eagles, golden 

eagles, peregrine falcons, and prairie falcons (BLM 1989). The ACEC is a long, wide, grass-covered 

valley bottom bordered with vertical basalt and sandstone cliffs, which provide unique visual resources 

and recreation opportunities (BLM 1989). In addition to the habitat values, the ACEC contains a large 

number of archaeological sites (i.e., petroglyphs, campsites, and villages) (BLM 1989). The ACEC serves 

to protect raptor wintering and nesting habitats, recreational opportunities, and geologic and scenic 

values. The Agua Fria ACEC overlaps with portions of the Mesita Blanca WSA and Eagle Peak WSA. 

The area within this ACEC would be incorporated in other designations under Alternatives B and C, and 

this ACEC is eliminated under Alternative D. 

Horse Mountain ACEC 

The Horse Mountain ACEC, which is located in Catron County, southwest of Datil, New Mexico, 

includes 7,490 acres of public land. The majority of the ACEC is characterized as an area of rugged 

canyons and rough mountainous country with elevations ranging from 7,650 feet to 9,490 feet. The 

ACEC is relatively remote and rarely grazed, resulting in good habitat conditions for a variety of wildlife 

species. This ACEC has been identified as providing potential habitat for bald eagles and peregrine 

falcons (BLM 1989). This ACEC serves to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat, as well as recreational, 

scenic, and geologic values (BLM 1989). The Horse Mountain ACEC overlaps with portions of the Horse 

Mountain WSA. 

The area managed as an ACEC would be reduced under Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-2 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

Tinajas ACEC 

The Tinajas ACEC, located east of Socorro, New Mexico, includes 3,463 acres of public land. The ACEC 

centers on a narrow incised canyon, within which lies the Arroyo del Tajo Pictograph Site. This ACEC 

serves to protect the pictographs for public interpretation and sociocultural values (BLM 1989). The 

Tinajas ACEC overlaps with the Presilla WSA. 

The ACEC designation would be eliminated under Alternative B. The ACEC boundaries would be 

expanded under Alternative C and reduced under Alternative D. 

BACKCOUNTRY BYWAY 

The Quebradas National Backcountry Byway, designated by the BLM in 1990, is located in Socorro 

County, New Mexico. The Quebradas National Backcounty Byway is a 24-mile drive along scenic 

colored cliffs, rock formations, and badlands with glimpses of the Rio Grande and surrounding 

mountains. The Byway can be accessed from Interstate 25 (I-25) and U.S. Highway 380 (US 380). The 

Byway currently is used most frequently for mountain biking and OHV riding. Surrounding uses include 

hiking, cultural resources viewing, livestock grazing, and wildlife management areas (e.g., wildlife 

refuges). Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the area around the byway would be managed as a Special 

Recreation Management Area (SRMA). 

NATIONAL TRAILS 

The Planning Area includes one Congressionally designated National Historic Trail and one National 

Scenic Trail (i.e., El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail, and Continental Divide 

National Scenic Trail, respectively). A brief description of each follows. 

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail 

The El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail recognizes the primary route between the 

colonial Spanish capital of Mexico City and the Spanish provincial capitals at San Juan de Los Caballeros 

(1598-1600), San Gabriel (1600-1609), and then Santa Fe (1610-1821) (BLM 2002). This historic road 

was in existence for more than 300 years and played a vital role in the settlement of the southwestern 

United States. The United States Congress and New Mexico State Legislature appropriated funds for the 

construction of an International Heritage Center to commemorate this historic road (BLM and New 

Mexico State Monuments Division 2001). This trail is shown on Map 3-11. All alternatives for this RMP 

Revision (RMPR) allow for corridors for a future trail through primarily private and State lands. 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail climbs and descends the peaks of the Rocky Mountains 

from Canada to Mexico, traversing mountainside meadows, granite peaks, and high desert saddles. As the 

trail winds through New Mexico, it crosses arid desert, rugged forested mountains, canyonlands, and lava 

flows. Two segments of this trail are located within Catron County, but only one is located primarily on 

public land. These segments of the trail are shown on Map 3-11. The southernmost segment is located 

primarily within the Pelona Mountain SMA and Continental Divide WSA, which overlap substantially. 

Within the Pelona Mountain SMA, BLM developed about 34 miles of primitive trail, between 1990 and 

1991 (Carson 2003). Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the area around the trail would be managed as an 

SMA. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-3 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

The public land within the Planning Area does not contain any river segments listed or suitable for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. 

WILDERNESS 

Wilderness located within the Cibola National Forest includes the Withington and Apache Kid 

Wilderness Areas. Wilderness located within the Gila National Forest includes the Blue Range, Gila, and 

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Areas. Designated wilderness located within the Bosque del Apache National 

Wildlife Refuge includes the Indian Wells, Chupadera, and Little San Pascual Wilderness Areas. There 

are currently no designated BLM wilderness areas within the Planning Area. 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 

The 13 WSAs located on public land within the Planning Area include Antelope, Continental Divide, 

Devil’s Backbone, Devil’s Reach, Eagle Peak, Horse Mountain, Jornada del Muerto, Mesita Blanca, 

Presilla, Sierra De Las Cañas, Sierra Ladrones, Stallion, and Veranito. These WSAs are shown on 

Map 3-7, Wilderness Study Areas. When BLM acquires lands within a WSA, that land is managed as part 

of the WSA. Six of the 13 WSAs partially overlap with other specially designated areas. 

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS 

SMAs are areas that have been identified by the BLM for the management of a specific resource or 

resources. Twenty-one SMAs are located within the Planning Area. Fifteen of these SMAs are shown in 

Chapter 3; the boundaries of six SMAs – Iron Mine Ridge, Taylor Canyon, Newton Site, Playa Pueblos, 

Mogollon Pueblo, and Mockingbird Gap – are proprietary due to the sensitivity of the resources being 

protected. A brief description of each SMA is provided below. 

Soaptree SMA 

The Soaptree SMA is located approximately 27 miles southeast of San Antonio, New Mexico. The SMA 

includes 1,296 acres of public land just north of the Jornada del Muerto WSA. The area was designated as 

an SMA because of the large amounts of yucca, which provide aesthetic and recreational values for 

wildlife viewing, sightseeing, and hiking (BLM 1989). The Soaptree SMA would be carried forward 

under all alternatives. 

Harvey Plot SMA 

The Harvey Plot SMA is located on 8 acres of public land northeast of Bingham, New Mexico. The area 

was established as a study plot to provide information to determine the effect of rodents on native 

vegetation as well as study the ecology of range for rainfall and soil types (BLM 1989). This SMA serves 

to provide vegetative use data for future scientific use (BLM 1989). 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, this designation would be eliminated since it no longer requires special 

management. 

Stallion SMA 

The Stallion SMA, located about 8 miles east of Socorro, New Mexico, includes 19,702 acres of public 

land. Private and State Trust land inholdings occur in the SMA. The western part of the SMA 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-4 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

encompasses the Sierra de las Cañas and Presilla WSAs. The SMA is varied in landscape with a rugged 

desert mountain range characterized by sheer rock escarpments, deep narrow canyons, ridges, mesa tops, 

broken badlands, rolling piñon-juniper, and grass covered hills (BLM 1989). Resources within the SMA 

include multiple vegetative communities for range and forestry, wildlife, cultural, mineral, and 

recreational resources (BLM 1989). This SMA serves to protect a critical watershed area through erosion 

control and the minimization of surface-disturbing activities. The Stallion SMA overlaps with portions of 

the Sierra de las Cañas WSA. 

The area managed as an SMA would be reduced under Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Puertecito SMA 

The Puertecito SMA is located about 40 miles northwest of Socorro, New Mexico. The SMA includes 

7,153 acres of public land, which does not include inholdings. The central portion of the SMA consists of 

deep alluvial flats, fans, and low hills. There is a series of low basalt dikes running north to northwest 

through this lowland area, while the Rio Salado drains eastward through the southern part of the SMA 

(BLM 1989). This SMA serves to protect a critical watershed area through erosion control and the 

minimization of surface-disturbing activities. 

The Puertecito SMA would be carried forward under all alternatives. 

Fence Lake SMA 

The Fence Lake SMA is located about 20 miles northwest of Quemado, New Mexico. The SMA includes 

25,453 acres of public land, which does not include the private and State Trust land inholdings present. 

There are three major landforms: the nearly level mesa tops, steep sandstone and shale escarpments and 

hills, and gently sloping alluvial fans and drainage ways. The soils and topography in the area’s watershed 

are subject to headcutting, soil piping, and sheet erosion, resulting in numerous continuous and discontinuous gullies (BLM 1989). Resources found within the SMA include wildlife, range, forestry, cultural, 

and minerals (a small portion of the SMA lies within the maximum coal-potential area) (BLM 1989). This 

SMA serves to protect a critical watershed area through erosion control and the minimization of surfacedisturbing activities. 

Under Alternatives B and C, this area would be incorporated into another ACEC, while the SMA 

boundaries under Alternative D would be similar to Alternative A. 

Pelona Mountain SMA 

The Pelona Mountain SMA is located about 29 miles southwest of Datil, New Mexico on 70,838 acres of 

public land. The SMA overlaps with the western portion of the Continental Divide WSA, which is 

characterized by rugged canyons and rough, hilly-to-mountainous country. The SMA has been identified 

as providing potential habitat for bald eagles, peregrine falcons, black-footed ferrets, and many other 

species of wildlife including a large number of big-game species (BLM 1989). Bat Cave, a highly 

significant archaeological site on the National Register, is located within the Pelona Mountain SMA 

(BLM 1989). The Pelona Mountain SMA serves to protect elk, deer, and raptor wintering and nesting 

habitats; geologic, scenic, and recreational values; and the Bat Cave cultural site (BLM 1989). It overlaps 

with portions of the Continental Divide WSA. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the area under special management would be expanded and designated as 

an ACEC. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-5 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

Iron Mine Ridge Proprietary SMA 

The Iron Mine Ridge Proprietary SMA, located northeast of Bingham, New Mexico, includes 1,386 acres 

of public land. The SMA serves to protect several species of rare and endemic plants that occur in the 

area, including Wright’s spiderlily (Tradescantia Wrightii), desert parsley (Pseudocymooterus 

longiradiatus), threadleaf false carrot (Aletes filifolius), and other State-listed sensitive species (BLM 

1989). 

Under all Alternatives B, C, and D, this designation would be dropped due to downlisting of the special 

status plant species. 

Taylor Canyon Proprietary SMA 

The Taylor Canyon Proprietary SMA, located east of Bingham, New Mexico, includes 384 acres of 

public land. The SMA serves to protect several species of rare and endemic plants that occur in the area, 

including threadleaf horsebrush (Tetradymia filfolia), gypsum blazing star (Mentzelia perrenis), and other 

State-listed sensitive species (BLM 1989). 

Under all Alternatives B, C, and D, this designation would be dropped due to downlisting of the special 

status plant species. 

Fort Craig SMA 

The Fort Craig SMA, located south of San Marcial, New Mexico, occupies 149 acres of public land. Fort 

Craig was founded in 1854 as one of the first and largest military strongholds in the Territory of New 

Mexico (BLM 1989). The Fort Craig SMA serves to protect cultural resource values, public interpretation 

and recreational opportunities, and potential future scientific use (BLM 1989). 

The Fort Craig SMA would be carried forward under all alternatives. 

Teypama SMA 

The Teypama SMA is located on 37 acres of public land south of Socorro, New Mexico. The Teypama 

Piro pueblo ruin, which is located in the SMA, is a late-prehistoric and early-historic habitation site of the 

Piro Indians, who occupied the central Rio Grande Valley at the time of Spanish contact (BLM 1989). 

Though the SMA has experienced damage in the past from vandals, the area serves to protect cultural 

resources and opportunities for public interpretation and future scientific investigation (BLM 1989). 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the area under special management would be reduced and renamed as the 

Penjeacu SMA. 

Newton Site Proprietary SMA 

The Newton Site Proprietary SMA is located on 37 acres of public land within Catron County. The SMA 

consists of a 150- to 200-room pueblo, a large, double-walled kiva or plaza, and associated outlying room 

blocks (BLM 1989). Though the site has been previously disturbed, the SMA serves to protect cultural 

resources and opportunities for public interpretation and future scientific investigation (BLM 1989). 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, this SMA would be expanded. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-6 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

Playa Pueblos Proprietary SMA 

The Playa Pueblos Proprietary SMA is located on 203 acres of public land in Socorro County. The SMA 

consists of two major prehistoric pueblo ruins probably associated with the Tompiro prehistoric culture 

area (BLM 1989). One of the pueblos has been vandalized in the past, but the other is virtually intact 

(BLM 1989). Though the site has been previously disturbed in the past, the SMA serves to protect 

cultural resources and opportunities for public interpretation and future scientific investigation (BLM 

1989). 

The Playa Pueblos SMA would be carried forward under all alternatives. 

Rio Salado SMA 

The Rio Salado SMA, located approximately 8 miles west of Ladron Mountain, includes 5,946 acres of 

public land. The Rio Salado SMA includes many known archaeological sites representative of 

developmental and early puebloan occupation along the middle Rio Salado drainage (BLM 1989). In 

addition to these cultural resource values, the SMA serves to protect an unusual plant community and two 

limestone cave formations (BLM 1989). The Rio Salado SMA overlaps with portions of the Sierra 

Ladrones WSA. 

Under Alternatives B and C, the area within this SMA is incorporated into another ACEC, while the SMA 

boundaries under Alternative D would be similar to Alternative A. 

Town of Riley SMA 

The Town of Riley SMA is located on the Rio Salado, north of Magdalena, New Mexico. This SMA 

includes 533 acres of public land. The SMA surrounds a ghost town originally known as Santa Rita, 

which was a town settled in the 1880s by Spanish-American homesteaders from Socorro and other 

villages along the Rio Grande (BLM 1989). This SMA serves to protect historical properties important to 

the “Followers of Santa Rita” (BLM 1989). 

Under Alternatives B and D, this designation would be eliminated in order to evaluate whether there is a 

need for special management in this area. Alternative C would be the same as Alternative A. 

Mogollon Pueblo Proprietary SMA 

The Mogollon Pueblo Proprietary SMA, located northwest of Quemado, includes 640 acres of public 

land. This SMA includes one of the southernmost Chacoa Great House communities. The site, which was 

occupied from about A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1150, includes a number of large room blocks with internal kivas, 

a great kiva, and numerous associated middens and petroglyph panels (Duff 2002). Vandals have 

damaged the site and the SMA was designated to protect the ruins and petroglyphs for scientific 

investigation and possible public interpretation in the future (BLM 1989). 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the area within this SMA would be incorporated into other designations. 

Mockingbird Gap Proprietary SMA 

The Mockingbird Gap Proprietary SMA is located on 8,685 acres of public land in Socorro County. The 

Mockingbird Gap site within the SMA is listed as a New Mexico State Cultural Property and consists of 

an extensive complex of Paleoindian campsites including both Clovis and Folsom elements (ca. 10,000 

B.C.) (BLM 1989). Paleoindian sites are rare, and this multicomponent site provides special opportunities 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-7 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

for research in the Southwest (BLM 1989). The SMA serves to protect cultural resources for future 

scientific investigation (BLM 1989). 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, this area would be managed as a proprietary ACEC. 

Zuni Salt Lake SMA 

The Zuni Salt Lake SMA is located northwest of Quemado, New Mexico. The SMA includes 4,839 acres 

of public land. The SMA is a location of traditional religious significance to the Zuni Tribe and to other 

Native American groups in the Southwest (BLM 1989). The lake itself lies in a volcanic crater and 

contains highly saline water, which has been used since prehistoric times. This SMA serves to protect 

sociocultural values and cultural resources (BLM 1989). The Zuni Salt Lake SMA overlaps with portions 

of the Eagle Peak WSA. 

Under Alternatives B and C, the area under special management would be expanded and designated as an 

ACEC. Under Alternative D, the boundaries of the area would be similar to Alternative A but the area 

would be designated as an ACEC. 

Cerro Pomo SMA 

The Cerro Pomo SMA is located west of Quemado, New Mexico, entirely within the Eagle Peak WSA. 

The SMA includes 8,784 acres of public land and contains significant cultural values. Diverse wildlife, 

vegetation, and landforms occur within the SMA (BLM 1989). The SMA serves to protect cultural and 

geologic resources, while providing and improving wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. 

Under Alternatives B and D, the area under special management would be expanded and designated as an 

ACEC. Under Alternative C, this area would be incorporated into another ACEC. 

Walnut Canyon SMA 

The Walnut Canyon SMA is located about 12 miles south of Socorro, New Mexico. The SMA includes 

1,145 acres of public land, which does not include the State Trust Land inholdings present. The SMA is 

characterized by a rugged canyon and associated rough foothill country. The landscape is rugged and 

exhibits the diversity of color, vegetation, relief, shape, and geology characteristic of desert foothill 

mountain communities dissected with long, deep, and wide-arroyo-type canyons (BLM 1989). The 

diverse vegetation and terrain provide habitat for a variety of big game species and other wildlife 

including golden eagles, prairie falcons, and great horned owls (BLM 1989). The SMA serves to protect 

raptor wintering and nesting habitat and geologic, recreational, and scenic values (BLM 1989). 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, this designation would be eliminated since it was determined to not 

require special management. 

The Box SMA 

The Box SMA is located about 6 miles southwest of Socorro, New Mexico, and includes 300 acres. Local 

rock climbers use the area on a regular basis, and climbers from other states and countries also often visit 

the SMA (BLM 1989). The SMA provides recreational opportunities, while serving to protect scenic 

quality in the area (BLM 1989). About 40 acres of this SMA have been withdrawn from entry for 

locatable minerals (Bell 2003). 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-8 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

Under Alternatives B and C, the area under special management would be expanded and designated as an 

SRMA. Under Alternative D, the boundaries of the area would be similar to Alternative D, but the area 

would be designated as an SRMA. 

San Lorenzo Canyon SMA 

The San Lorenzo Canyon SMA is located about 10 miles northwest of Socorro, New Mexico. It includes 

2,320 acres of public land. The SMA is characterized by the presence of a rugged, scenic canyon 

bordering the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge. Due to its proximity to Socorro, it offers excellent day 

use opportunities (BLM 1989). The SMA provides recreational opportunities, while serving to protect 

wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and scenic values (BLM 1989). 

Under Alternatives B and C, this area would be incorporated into other designations. Under Alternative 

D, this area would be designated as an SRMA. 

Datil Well Campground SMA 

BLM manages the Datil Well Campground SMA to provide camping opportunities in a roaded natural 

setting and to provide interpretative and educational opportunities. Consistent with a 1989 RMP decision, 

BLM developed the Datil Well Campground Recreation Management Plan in 1992. The management 

actions implemented in the SMA include limiting motor vehicle use to existing roads and trails, 

restricting the area from right-of-way authorizations and leases, and prohibiting surface occupancy for 

fluid mineral leasing. In addition, BLM has withdrawn 640 acres of the SMA from entry for locatable 

minerals and prohibits woodcutting in the area, fulfilling 1989 RMP decisions. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, this area would be managed as an SRMA. 

NOMINATIONS FOR AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

Regulations – 43 CFR 1610.7-2	 Guidance – BLM Manual 1613.1 

ACEC nominations may be made by members of the public, or other agencies or internally by BLM 

personnel. Potential ACECs must meet both of the following criteria: 

1. Relevance – An area meets the relevance criteria if it contains one or more of the following: 

•	 Significant historic, cultural, or scenic value (such as rare or sensitive archeological 

resources and religious or cultural resources important to Native Americans) 

•	 A fish or wildlife resource (such as habitat for endangered, sensitive or threatened species 

or habitat essential for maintaining species diversity) 

•	 A natural system or process (such as endangered, sensitive, or threatened plant species; 

rare, endemic, or relic plants or plant communities that are terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian 

or rare geological features) 

•	 Natural hazards (such as areas of avalanche, dangerous flooding, landslides, unstable 

soils, seismic activity, or dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by human action may meet 

the relevance criteria if it is determined during the planning process that it has become 

part of a natural process. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-9 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

2.	 Importance – The described value, resource, system, process or hazard must have substantial 

significance and values. Generally, this means that the value, resource, system, process, or 

hazard is characterized by one or more of the following: 

•	 Has more than locally significant qualities that give it special worth, consequence, 

meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern (particularly when compared to any 

similar resource) 

•	 Has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change 

•	 Has been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority 

concerns or to carry out the mandates of Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) 

•	 Has qualities that warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or management concerns 

about safety and public welfare 

•	 Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to property 

To be designated as an ACEC, an area must require special management attention to protect the important 

and relevant values. Special management attention refers to management prescriptions or measures 

developed during preparation of a planning document to protect the important and relevant values of an 

area from the potential effects of actions permitted by the RMP, including proposed actions deemed to be 

in conformance with the terms, conditions, and decisions of the RMP. A management measure is 

considered to be “special” if it is unique to the area involved and includes terms and conditions 

specifically to protect the important and relevant values of a specific area. Special management often 

provides for consultation and coordination with identified groups and/or experts having interest or 

expertise in the affected values. 

Publication: The State Director, upon approval of a draft RMP, plan revision, or plan amendment shall 

publish a notice in the Federal Register listing each ACEC proposed and specify the resource use 

limitations, if any, which would occur if it were formally designated. The notice shall provide a 60-day 

period for public comment on ACEC designations. Approval of the RMP, plan revision, or plan 

amendment constitutes formal designation. The approved plan shall include the general management 

practices and uses, including mitigating measures, identified to protect designated ACECs. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-10 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DESCRIPTIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR DESIGNATION OF 

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

Multi-Resource Nominations Management Team Review 

January 12, 2003 

I. Cerro Pomo (Acreage varies across alternatives) 

Reasons for Nomination: Cultural Values, Recreational and Paleontological 

It should be noted that this proposed ACEC includes the existing 9,571-acre Agua Fria ACEC, the 640-acre 

Mogollon Pueblo SMA, and 8,784-acre Cerro Pomo SMA. 

ACEC Nomination includes: Alternative B (28,248 acres) 

Alternative D, proprietary (449 acres)
 

Relevance (meets 3 of 6 criteria): Significant cultural values 

 Significant scenic values 

 Natural system or process 

Justification 

•	 Home to southernmost Chacoan greathouse community
 

- National Register of Historic Places 

•	 Multi-year cultural research project ongoing 

•	 High level of public interest 

•	 Cultural sites are of national significance 

•	 High scenic value 

•	 World class paleontological resources 

•	 Unique geologic features 

•	 Special management is needed for resources protection 

•	 Potential threats from oil and gas, coal, carbon dioxide, and helium development 

- Entire area has moderate potential for oil and gas 

- Potential for coal is high (a large portion of the nominated area lies within an identified coal field) 

- Approximately 50 percent of the area has a high potential for carbon dioxide and helium 

- Southeastern portion has moderate potential for coalbed methane 

•	 Potential threat to resource from surface-disturbing activities (e.g., mineral material disposal, rights-ofway, and OHV 

• Natural system (little impact from man)
 

•
 

Importance – Meets 13 of 16 Criteria 

More than local significance Is unique Public concern
 

Management concern Is sensitive National priority 

Is irreplaceable Is exemplary FLPMA mandate 

Is fragile Is threatened
 

Is rare Is vulnerable 

Management Team Review/Suggestion 

Threats: Erosion, Roads, Air Quality 

Recommended for Nomination as proposed 

Concur: Kate Padilla, Socorro Field Manager Do Not Concur: 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-11 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II. Tinajas (Arroyo del Tajo (Acreage varies across alternatives) 

Reasons for Nomination: Recreational and Cultural Values 

Cultural resource site falls within the expanded Tinajas ACEC. 

ACEC Nomination includes: Alternative C (7,767 acres) 

Alternative D (22 acres) 

Relevance (meets 3 of 6 criteria): Significant cultural values 

 Significant scenic values 

 Natural system or process 

Justification 

•	 Unique assemblage of pictographs (images painted on rock)
 

- Stereophotographic technique used to record figures in 1980s
 

•	 Sacred Native American Pueblo site and ceremonial figures 

•	 High level of public interest 

•	 Significant research site to scientists 

•	 High scenic value 

•	 Unique geologic formations and sinkhole features (Tinajas) 

• Opportunity for recreation (e.g., hiking and other non-disturbing activities) 

•
 

•	 Quebradas Backcountry Byway under National Backcountry Byway Program 

•	 High scenic values, and natural systems are threatened by vehicle conflicts 

Importance – Meets 12 of 16 Criteria 

More than local significance Is unique Is rare 

Management concern Is sensitive Is vulnerable 

Is irreplaceable Is exemplary Public concern 

Is fragile Is threatened FLPMA mandate 

Management Team Review/Suggestion 

•	 WSA acreages not recommended for designation 

•	 Controlled OHV use needed since OHV use is threat 

•	 Recommended for Nomination as proposed, with following addition: Alternative D to propose that 

expansion area be considered in whole or in part for designation as a National Recreation Area. 

Recommended for Nomination as proposed 

Concur: Kate Padilla, Socorro Field Manager Do Not Concur: 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-12 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III. Ladron Mountain – Devil’s Backbone (includes San Lorenzo Canyon and Rio Salado) 

Reasons for Nomination: Recreation, Wildlife, Cultural 

ACEC Nomination includes: Alternative B (57,474 acres) 

 Alternative C (57,474 acres) 

 Alternative D (20,155 acres) 

It should be noted that this proposed ACEC includes the existing 5,946-acre Rio Salado SMA and the 2,320­

acre San Lorenzo SMA. The proposed ACEC includes several areas that are addressed separately below: 

Ladron Mountain, Devil’s Backbone, and San Lorenzo. 

Ladron Mountain Area 

Relevance (meets 5 of 6 criteria): Significant cultural value 

 Significant scenic value 

 Significant historic value 

 Significant fish or wildlife resource 

 Natural system or process 

Justification 

•	 Area contains three State sensitive plant species (e.g., Aletes filifolia, Silene plankii and Tradescantia 

wrightii). 

•	 Originally the ACEC nominated by New Mexico Energy and Minerals and Natural Resource Division and 

the Nature Conservancy for management of rare and endemic plants 

•	 Great Basin and Chihuahuan floras overlap in the area, resulting in unusually plant communities 

•	 Area contains unique riparian habitat associated with several natural springs (10 to 12) 

- Provides habitat for residential and non-residential wildlife species 

•	 Critical habitat of State-listed desert bighorn sheep 

- Should be managed as federally listed per guidance under the Endangered Species Act 

- Since being re-introduced to the Ladron Area, sheep have expanded their range to include 

Polvadera Mountain and Sarca Mesa Area 

- San Lorenzo Canyon, Polvadera Mountain Area, and Sarca Mesa are now "core habitat" for the 

desert bighorn sheep and is a core travel corridor between the Ladron Mountains and the Devil's 

Backbone (which is a proposed future release site for the State-listed desert bighorns) 

- Special protection and management will help maintain and enhance genetic diversity and viability 

of desert bighorn herds and increase the probability of a self-sustaining population of the species 

•	 Habitat for several special status bat species 

- Should receive special protection to prevent future listing as a federally listed species under the 

Endangered Species Act 

•	 Habitat for dwindling mule deer population 

- Special management and protection needed to prevent further habitat fragmentation and 

degradation and to protect critical habitat and maintain viability of the mule deer population. 

Studies are ongoing to determine if ACEC is critical habitat for other special status species. 

•	 The nominated area’s visual rating has been designated as a Class I or II 

•	 High scenic values 

•	 High recreation values 

•	 Unique geological resources 

•	 Areas contain paleontological resources 

•	 Unique, varied archaeological sites (range from early puebloan occupation, Indian Wars, and the Civil 

Wars) 

4.	 Please explain why the area must require special management attention to protect the important and 

relevant values. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-13 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

Importance – Meets 9 of 16 Criteria 

More than local significance Is unique Is fragile
 

Is irreplaceable Is sensitive Is threatened
 

Is rare Is vulnerable Public concern
 

Management Team Review/Suggestion 

Threats:	 Urbanization/subdivisions, increased recreation use, fuels reduction, military activities, 

moderate potential for oil and gas 

Devil’s Backbone Area 

Reasons for Nomination: Wildlife 

Relevance (meets 1 of 6 criteria): Significant fish or wildlife resource 

Justification 

•	 Critical habitat for State of New Mexico Endangered desert bighorn sheep 

­ Travel corridor between Ladron Mountain and the Devil's Backbone WSA (located at south end of 

Magdalena Mountains) 

­ Future release site for desert bighorn sheep 

­ Should be managed as federally listed per guidance under the Endangered Species Act 

•	 Special protection and management of the proposed ACEC needed to 

­ Aid in maintaining and enhancing genetic diversity and viability and therefore, a healthy, self 

sustaining desert bighorn sheep population 

­ Protect wildlife habitat from further loss and fragmentation resulting from urbanization, energy 

exploration and development, unauthorized OHV use, and other similar activities that result in 

degradation of existing habitat 

•	 Volunteer and BLM investments to enhance wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities in the area 

­ Activates include prescribed fire, piñon-juniper thinning, wildlife water facilities, spring 

restoration, and enhancement and grassland restoration 

­ Habitat for dwindling mule deer population
 

•	 Special management and protection needed to prevent further habitat fragmentation and degradation and to 

protect critical habitat and maintain viability of the mule deer population 

•	 Adjacent acquired lands have wilderness character 

Importance – Meets 8 of 16 Criteria 

More than local significance Is unique Management concern 

Public concern Is rare FLPMA concern 

National priority Is irreplaceable 

Management Team Review/Suggestion 

Recommend nomination as proposed to be included in larger Sierra Ladron-San Lorenzo ACEC. The larger 

ACEC will include Sierra Ladron, San Lorenzo, and Rio Salado for Alternative B. Recommend adding this area 

to the combined ACEC, which would include Ladron, San Lorenzo, and Rio Salado under Alternative C. Need 

to include a fourth alternative (e.g., Alternative D). 

Threats:	 Low potential for oil and gas, low potential for carbon dioxide and helium, medium geothermal 

potential, medium potential for saleables 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-14 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rio Salado Area 

Relevance (meets 3 of 6 criteria): Significant historic value, significant cultural value, significant scenic value 

Provide a brief description of the specific relevance values (such as the specific endangered species and/or 

the habitat essential to maintain species diversity): 

This area contains significant prehistoric sites, including a high density of P-II roomblocks that are 

essential to our understanding of Anasazi cultural development and its local expression. The Rio Salado is 

also a natural travel corridor and contains significant sites related to its function as such. Many historic 

period sites having both national significance and an extremely high level of public interest also are 

present, including the retreat route of General Sibley’s Confederates after the battle of Glorieta, Indian War 

sites involving Apaches and Buffalo Soldiers, and other sites related to the area’s function as a travel 

corridor. 

Importance – Meets 9 of 16 Criteria 

More than local significance Is unique Management concern 

Public concern Is rare Is sensitive 

Is vulnerable Is irreplaceable Is fragile 

Provide a brief description of the importance of the resource(s) requiring special management attention. 

See explanation in paragraph above. 

Please explain why the area must require special management attention to protect the important and relevant values. 

The sites with great importance as described above are very vulnerable, and many are difficult or 

impossible to detect with routine surface inventory that is generally employed as part of the section 106 

National Historic Preservation Act process. Designation would afford a higher level of protection and 

indicate a management priority in terms of protection, research, and interpretation. 

Special management prescriptions are measures needed to protect the relevant values of an ACEC. At least one 

prescription is required for each nominated ACEC (BLM Manual 1613). Management prescriptions can vary 

across plan alternatives. Different management strategies set forth by the different prescriptions for the various 

alternatives will be analyzed in the environmental impact statement (EIS). 

Please provide a description of management prescriptions or measures needed for the ACEC. Please 

explain why the area must require special management attention to protect the important and relevant 

values. 

Controlled surface use: 

Increased surveys would be required, including archival work to identify sensitive areas lacking in surface 

manifestations. 

These measures are warranted by the national significance, vulnerability, scientific and interpretive potential 

described above, as well as by the high degree of public interest in these values. 

Recommended for Nomination to include expanded Ladron, San Lorenzo, and Rio Salado areas 

Concur: Kate Padilla, Socorro Field Manager Do Not Concur: 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-15 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV. Horse Mountain (Acreage varies across alternatives) 

Reasons for Nomination: Recreation, Wildlife 

ACEC Nomination includes: Alternative B (5,388 acres) 

Alternative C (5,388 acres) 

 Alternative D (2,596 acres) 

Relevance (meets 3 of 6 criteria): Significant fish or wildlife resources 

 Significant scenic values 

 Natural system or process 

Justification 

•	 The USFWS has identified the area as potential habitat for two federally listed threatened and endangered 

species: bald eagle and peregrine falcon 

- BLM is mandated to protect and enhance habitat for special status species under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act 

- Area is currently monitored and surveyed to determine extent of use by these species and to 

determine if the area provides critical habitat for other special status species 

- Raptor wintering and nesting habitat 

•	 Core wildlife habitat for a variety of wildlife species 

- Potentially occurring wildlife species (including elk, mule deer, wild turkey, black bear, javelina, 

mountain lion, bobcat, coyote, and gray fox) 

- Lands serves as a wildlife corridor between BLM and Forest Service lands 

- Variety of raptors, songbird, reptiles, amphibians, and rodents 

•	 Designated by New Mexico Department of Game and Fish as a "primitive," "quality," and "high demand" 

hunting unit due to unique setting and high quality wildlife habitat 

•	 Habitat for dwindling mule deer population 

- Special management and protection needed to prevent further habitat fragmentation and 

degradation and to protect critical habitat and maintain viability of the mule deer population 

•	 Considerable volunteer and BLM investment have been devoted to enhance wildlife habitat and 

recreational opportunities in the area 

- Activities include prescribed fire, piñon-juniper thinning, wildlife water facilities, spring 

restoration and enhancement, and grassland restoration 

- Area provides primitive recreation, significant scenic and geologic resources 

•	 Includes acquired lands with wilderness characteristics 

•	 The area is roadless, which protects the land from human disturbances 

•	 Area should be protected from OHV, subdivision and energy exploration to protect habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and scenic and natural conditions
 

Importance – Meets 6 of 16 Criteria 

More than local significance National priority 

Management concern FLPMA mandate 

Public concern Is unique 

Management Team Review/Suggestion 

Threats:	 Moderate potential for oil and gas, moderate potential for carbon dioxide and helium, moderate 

geothermal potential, moderate potential for saleables. 

Recommended for Nomination as proposed 

Concur: Kate Padilla, Socorro Field Manager Do Not Concur: 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-16 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V. Pelona Mountain 

Reasons for Nomination: Recreation, Wildlife 

ACEC Nomination includes: Alternative B (51,091 acres) 

 Alternative C (52,336 acres) 

 Alternative D (34,547 acres) 

Relevance (meets 4 of 6 criteria): Significant cultural value 

 Significant scenic value 

 Significant fish or wildlife resource 

 Natural system or process 

Justification 

•	 The USFWS has identified the area as potential habitat for two federally listed threatened and endangered 

species: bald eagle and peregrine falcon 

­ BLM is mandated to protect and enhance habitat for special status species under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

­ Area is currently monitored and surveyed to determine extent of use by these species and to 

determine if the area provides critical habitat for other special status species 

•	 Designated by New Mexico Department of Game and Fish as a "primitive," "quality," and "high demand" 

hunting unit due to unique setting and high quality wildlife habitat 

•	 Habitat to one of New Mexico's largest elk herds 

•	 Core wildlife habitat for a variety of wildlife species 

­ Wildlife species (including elk, mule deer, wild turkey, black bear, mountain lion, bobcat, 

coyote, and gray fox) 

­ Variety of raptors, songbird, reptiles, amphibians, and rodents 

•	 Habitat for dwindling mule deer population 

­ Special management and protection needed to prevent further habitat fragmentation and 

degradation and to protect critical habitat and maintain viability of the mule deer population 

•	 Serves as important wildlife corridor between BLM and Forest Service lands 

•	 Considerable volunteer and BLM investment has been devoted to enhance wildlife habitat and 

recreational opportunities in the area 

­ Activities include prescribed fire, piñon-juniper thinning, wildlife water facilities, spring 

restoration and enhancement, and grassland restoration 

­ Portions of a National Scenic Trail (The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail) located 

within nominated area 

•	 National significance 

•	 Includes acquired lands with wilderness characteristics 

•	 Provides primitive recreation 

•	 Area is relatively roadless, which protects the land from human disturbance 

•	 Area has significant scenic and geologic resources 

•	 Area contains historic structures 

‐ Bat Cave on National Register of Historic Places 

Importance – Meets 7 of 16 Criteria 

More than local significance Is unique Management concern 

Public concern Is sensitive 

National priority FLPMA concern 

Management Team Review/Suggestion 

Questions:	 How large is potential raptor habitat area? Identify mule deer fragmentation threat area? 

Threats:	 Moderate potential for oil and gas, moderate potential for carbon dioxide and helium, moderate 

geothermal potential, low/high potential for saleables 

Concur: Kate Padilla, Socorro Field Manager Do Not Concur: 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-17 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VI. Sawtooth 

1.	 Is the nomination a new ACEC? Yes □ No X 

If yes, specify the estimated acreage 125 acres. 

2.	 Is the nomination an expansion of an existing ACEC? Yes □ No X 

If yes, specify the size of the existing ACEC ________ acres and the number of acres 

proposed in the expansion _________. 

3. Indicate the relevance of the nomination: 

Significant historic value □ Significant fish or wildlife resource X
 

Significant cultural value □ Natural system or process □
 

Significant scenic value □ Natural hazard □
 

Provide a brief description of the specific relevance values (such as the specific endangered species and/or 

the habitat essential to maintain species diversity): 

The area contains the plant species Erigeron rhizomatous (Zuni fleabane). This plant species has been 

listed Federally Threatened (USFWS 1988) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The area was 

nominated in the prior 1989 Socorro RMP as an ACEC and special management due to the sensitivity of 

the species. This mutual concern is shared by both the New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural 

Resources Department and the Nature Conservancy. 

4. Indicate the importance of the described value, resource, system, process, or hazard: 

More than local significance X Is fragile X Is sensitive □

Is irreplaceable X Is rare X Is exemplary □

Public Concern X Is unique X Is threatened X 

National priority X 

FLMPA Mandate X 

Management Concern X 

Threats: 

Life □ Is vulnerable X 

Property □ Is endangered □

Safety □

Provide a brief description of the importance of the resource(s) requiring special management attention. 

The BLM is mandated by the Endangered Species Act to protect and enhance habitat for the federally listed 

species. 

The species is known from 12 scattered populations (11 on U.S. Forest Service lands, 1 on BLM lands) in 

the Zuni, Datil, and Sawtooth Mountains of west-central New Mexico. Erigeron rhizomatus is threatened 

by modification of its habitat due to mineral exploration and development (USFWS 1988). The distribution 

of Zuni fleabane is geologically associated with the distribution of uranium deposits in west-central New 

Mexico. Any significant development of these deposits would seriously jeopardize the Zuni fleabane and 

probably prompt reclassification from threatened to endangered. 

5.	 Please explain why the area must require special management attention to protect the important and 

relevant values. 

Planned actions and management prescriptions should be implemented to protect and enhance habitat to 

promote future delisting of the species. 

A planned action in the prior Socorro RMP was to withdraw minerals from the ACEC, which has been 

done (see serial number NMNM 095118 mineral withdrawal). 

Habitat for Zuni fleabane is found on steep north-facing slopes (up to 40 degrees) on the Baca formation 

clays, which are highly erodible. The vegetation community is piñon-juniper, which could make the 

population susceptible to wildfire. Other concerns may be intensive recreation or livestock use in the Zuni 

fleabane habitat. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-18 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.	 Special management prescriptions are measures needed to protect the relevant values of an ACEC. At least 

one prescription is required for each nominated ACEC (BLM Manual 1613). Management prescriptions 

can vary across plan alternatives. Different management strategies set forth by the different prescriptions 

for the various alternatives will be analyzed in the EIS. 

Please provide a description of management prescriptions or measures needed for the ACEC. Please 

explain why the area must require special management attention to protect the important and relevant 

values. 

Alternative B–Proposed Socorro RMP Revision 

1. Limit motor vehicle use to designated routes. 

2. Exclude the authorization of rights-of-way and leases. 

3. Apply fluid mineral leasing stipulation S-NSO-T&E. 

The above prescriptions are needed to protect the fragile soils and to prevent disturbance in Zuni 

fleabane habitat. 

4. Acquire legal access. 

This prescription would be for administrative purposes. 

5. Exclude from vegetative material sales. 

This prescription is needed to protect the fragile soils and to prevent disturbance in Zuni fleabane 

habitat. 

6. May be placed in Fire Management Unit Category A, B, C, or D. 

Fire suppression had been previously recommended for Zuni fleabane habitat. Considering the 

piñon-juniper community that this species is found in, it must have evolved with wildfire. Fire use 

may be considered depending on the condition class the habitat is in, and other existing conditions. 

7. Develop an allotment management plan. 

Concur: Kate Padilla, Socorro Field Manager Do Not Concur: 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-19 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VII. Mockingbird Gap 

1.	 Is the nomination a new ACEC? Yes X No □

If yes, specify the estimated acreage 8,685 

2.	 Is the nomination an expansion of an existing ACEC? Yes □ No □

If yes, specify the size of the existing ACEC ________ acres and the number of acres 

proposed in the expansion _________. 

3. Indicate the relevance of the nomination: 

Significant historic value X Significant fish or wildlife resource □

Significant cultural value X Natural system or process □

Significant scenic value □ Natural hazard □

Provide a brief description of the specific relevance values (such as the specific endangered species and/or 

the habitat essential to maintain species diversity): 

The Mockingbird Gap ACEC contains a rare complex of Paleoindian sites. Paleoindian sites represent the 

earliest uncontested cultural horizon in North America. Unlike later periods, this cultural expression was 

quite uniform throughout the continent, contributing to the national significance of the area. Very few sites 

of this time period are known, and it is imperative that these sites are preserved for research. In addition, 

while we are familiar with the sequence of cultural horizons, which archaeologists base on diagnostic tool 

types, and which in turn are based on prevailing technology, this area has yielded evidence of the transition 

from the technology and typology of the Clovis period to the Folsom period. This aspect of the 

Mockingbird Gap site is discussed in most archaeology textbooks dealing with the Paleoindian period in 

North America. 

4. Indicate the importance of the described value, resource, system, process, or hazard: 

More than local significance X Is fragile X Is sensitive X 

Is irreplaceable X Is rare □ Is exemplary X 

Public Concern □ Is unique □ Is threatened X 

National priority □

FLMPA Mandate □

Management Concern X 

Threats: Life □ Is endangered □

 Property □ Is vulnerable X 

 Safety □

Provide a brief description of the importance of the resource(s) requiring special management attention. 

See paragraph above. 

5.	 Please explain why the area must require special management attention to protect the important and 

relevant values. 

Because of their great antiquity, preservation issues related to the survival of different types of artifactual 

material from this time period, and due to depositional factors in the area, these sites are not always 

detected through routine surface inventory generally employed in compliance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. Extra care must be taken to see that these sites are preserved for future 

research. 

6.	 Special management prescriptions are measures needed to protect the relevant values of an ACEC. At least 

one prescription is required for each nominated ACEC (BLM Manual 1613). Management prescriptions 

can vary across plan alternatives. Different management strategies set forth by the different prescriptions 

for the various alternatives will be analyzed in the EIS. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-20 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please provide a description of management prescriptions or measures needed for the ACEC. Please 

explain why the area must require special management attention to protect the important and relevant 

values. 

1. Controlled surface use 

2. Increase standard cultural survey requirements to take into account potential impacts on subsurface 

sites which may lack surface manifestations. Requirements should be based on the nature of expected 

impacts from the proposed project, and may include monitoring for projects which include trenching. 

Proposed undertakings should be evaluated based on level of surface disturbance and the potential for 

the project to impact buried sites. Low impact projects such as fence replacements may not require 

more than standard section 106 compliance. 

3.	 Limit motor vehicle use to existing roads and trails. 

4.	 Restrict authorizations for rights-of-way and leases. 

Concur: Kate Padilla, Socorro Field Manager Do Not Concur: 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-21 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIII. Zuni Salt Lake Sanctuary Zone 

Alternative B (46,746 acres) 

Alternative C (156,601 acres) 

Alternative D (2,107 acres)
 

Cultural resource staff proposes that the existing 4,839-acre Zuni Salt Lake SMA be managed as an ACEC under the 

action alternatives. It is felt that the formal Determination of Eligibility to the Nation Register of Historic Places for 

the larger Sanctuary Area provides considerable protection through requirements to consult with Tribes and State 

Historic Preservation Office in the course of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; 

however, it does not preclude mineral leasing and potential impacts associated with development. These 

requirements to consult apply to any Federal undertaking within the boundaries of the site and have the potential to 

affect cultural resources. Any foreseeable impacts could be addressed during the consultation process. 

1.	 Is the nomination a new ACEC? Yes X No □

2.	 Is the nomination an expansion of an existing ACEC? Yes □ No X 

3. Indicate the Relevance of the nomination: 

Significant historic value X Significant fish or wildlife resource □

Significant cultural value X Natural system or process X 

Significant scenic value X Natural hazard □

Provide a brief description of the specific relevance values (such as the specific endangered species and/or 

the habitat essential to maintain species diversity): 

•	 Area is of great importance to the Zuni Tribe 

‐ Sacred site for the religious deity, the Salt Mother 

‐ Offerings are made on the site 

‐ A Salt gathering ceremony is performed by male Zuni youths at the site 

•	 The Sanctuary Zone has historic value 

‐ Place where six Tribes have ceased hostilities to allow salt gathering for time 

immemorial 

‐ Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

•	 Numerous cultural and burial sites are located throughout the area 

•	 Cultural sites are of national significance 

•	 High scenic value 

•	 Unique volcanic caldera produces a distinct and irreplaceable brine lake ecosystem 

•	 The lake is maintained through various groundwater contributions of water and soluble salts 

as well as surface runoff. The delicate hydrologic balance of the surrounding area must be 

preserved in order for the lake to continue and to continue the supply of salt for area Tribes. 

4. Indicate the importance of the described value, resource, system, process, or hazard: 

More than local significance X Is fragile X Is sensitive X 

Is irreplaceable X Is rare X Is exemplary X 

Public Concern X Is unique X Is threatened X 

National priority X 

 FLMPA Mandate X 

Management Concern X 

Threats: Life □ Is vulnerable X
 

Property □ Is endangered X
 

Safety □
 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-22 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provide a brief description of the importance of the resource(s) requiring special management attention. 

The volcanic caldera is a unique geologic formation in the region, producing a distinct and irreplaceable 

brine lake ecosystem maintained by various groundwater contributions of water and soluble salts, as well as 

surface runoff. The delicate hydrologic balance of the surrounding area must be preserved for the lake to 

continue, and to continue the supply of salt to the Tribes. The site is on the National Trust for Historic 

Preservation’s List of the Eleven Most Endangered Historic Places of 2003. 

5.	 Please explain why the area must require special management attention to protect the important and 

relevant values. 

The current RMP now under revision contains a “SMA” intended to protect the Zuni Salt Lake. Actions 

associated with the proposed development of the Fence Lake Mine, some 12 miles away, have been shown 

to negatively impact the lake and cultural resources within the Sanctuary Zone. For this reason the special 

management attention currently afforded by the BLM RMP is insufficient for insuring protections and 

therefore increased special management measures are needed in the revised RMP. 

6.	 Special management prescriptions are measures needed to protect the relevant values of an ACEC. At least 

one prescription is required for each nominated ACEC (BLM Manual 1613). Management prescriptions 

can vary across plan alternatives. Different management strategies set forth by the different prescriptions 

for the various alternatives will be analyzed in the EIS. 

Please provide a description of management prescriptions or measures needed for the ACEC. 

1.	 Limit motor vehicle use to existing roads and trails. 

2.	 Restrict authorization of rights-of-way and leases. 

3.	 Any proposed cumulative groundwater diversion over 3 acre-feet per year/per square mile within a 

60-mile radius of the Zuni Salt Lake will require BLM review and approval according to a 

protocol agreed upon by the BLM and Pueblo of Zuni. 

4.	 Any proposed actions (land, minerals, etc) within the ACEC will require consultation with the 

Governor of Pueblo of Zuni. 

5.	 Restrict mineral material disposals. 

6. Exclude the area from fluid leasing. 

7.	 Restrict geophysical operations. 

Why Special Management Attention: 

The Sanctuary Zone has been identified as a natural area of great significance to six Native American 

Tribes and contains numerous archaeology sites, burial sites, trails, and other traditional cultural properties 

important to the heritage of those Tribes and essential for their cultural memory as well as current use. 

Without special measures these values would decline. 

The Zuni Salt Lake is a unique and precarious ecosystem shared by Tribes and the reason for the existence 

of the Sanctuary Zone. Technical studies have revealed a vulnerability to the continued functioning of the 

lake ecosystem when sufficient water is withdrawn from aquifers connected to the lake or there is 

disturbance to the surface runoff. 

Management Team Review/Suggestions 

Threats:	 Actions associated with the proposed development of the Fence Lake Mine, some 12 miles 

away, may negatively impact the lake and cultural resources within the Sanctuary Zone. For 

this reason the special management attention currently afforded by the RMP is insufficient for 

insuring protections and therefore increased special management measures are needed in the 

revised RMP. 

Concur: Don Ellsworth, Acting Field Manager	 Do Not Concur: 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-23 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-24 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DESCRIPTIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR DESIGNATION OF
 

SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS 

I. Box Canyon SRMA 

Acreage: Alternative B (1,107 acres) 

Alternative C (1,501 acres) 

Alternative D (300 acres) 

Box Canyon SRMA is located 6 miles west of Socorro. The area can be reached within 15 minutes from 

Socorro. 

Box Canyon is proposed for management as a SRMA to manage unique recreation opportunities and 

experiences for climbing and bouldering. The 1989 RMP designated the area as a SMA managed primarily for 

recreation uses. 

A coordinated management plan was developed for the area in February 1999 and the management goal in that 

plan is as follows: “The Box will be managed to enhance recreational values, primarily rock climbing and 

bouldering, and to maintain the scenic quality. Special protection should be given to cultural sites as well as 

desert bighorn sheep and bats and their habitats. Any recreation facilities will be built and maintained to a 

standard that protects these and other resources, the public and fosters a pride of public ownership and 

partnership. Any development should blend with the landscape and not degrade scenic quality.” 

Vehicle use in the area will be designated as limited with all routes designated as open or closed. Travel 

management plans would be completed within five years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent upon the 

availability of funding and staffing resources. 

The existing Coordinated Activity Plan would be revised to incorporate decisions made in the RMPR. Revision 

of the Activity Plan would occur within five years of completion of the RMPR (contingent upon funding). 

II. Datil Well SRMA 

Acreage: 669 acres 

The site is located 1 mile west of Datil and one hour from Socorro. The site can be accessed from either 

Highway 12 or Highway 60. 

The area is proposed as a SRMA to manage for a variety of recreation experiences and opportunities. The 1989 

RMP designated the area as an SMA. 

A Recreation Area Management Plan was developed for the SMA in January 1992. Some of the opportunities 

associated with the site include day use, hiking on up to 3 miles of trails, group outings and the group shelter, 

camping, and wildlife observation. The Management Goal in the 1992 plan is that “The BLM will manage and 

maintain the Datil Well Campground recreation area to provide recreation opportunities, 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.” 

Under proposed management, main access routes would be designated open for vehicle use. Travel 

management plans would be completed within five years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent upon the 

availability of funding and staffing resources. 

The existing management plan would be evaluated and revised as needed to incorporate management decisions 

from this RMPR upon its completion. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-25 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Revision of the Recreation Area Management Plan, if needed, would be done within five years upon completion 

of the RMPR (contingent upon available funding). 

III. Socorro Nature Area SRMA 

Acreage: 80 acres 

The area is located east of Lemitar off of I-10 north of Socorro. 

This area was not addressed in the 1989 RMP. The area was developed as a result of local interest and efforts 

in recent years. It is proposed for management as a SRMA. 

Resources and activities available include primarily day use for picnicking and environmental education, 

hiking, sightseeing in Bosque Habitat, access to the Rio Grande, some camping, mountain biking, and 

interpretation. 

A management plan has not been prepared. An interim plan is currently being developed. The primary 

objectives would be to provide for day use and environmental education and interpretation. A volunteer host is 

also proposed for the site to reduce vandalism and have an on-site presence to enhance user’s experiences. 

Planned actions proposed in Appendix C will help improve these experiences and opportunities. 

Vehicle use within the area would be designated as limited to designated routes. Travel management plans 

would be completed within five years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent upon the availability of 

funding and staffing resources. An interim activity plan is being developed. A management plan would be 

developed within five years upon completion of the RMPR (contingent on funding). 

IV. Quebradas Backcountry Byway SRMA 

Acreage: Approximately 3,130 acres, which includes the area within a quarter-mile buffer from centerline of 

the roadway. 

The area is located east of Socorro and accessed from I-25 and US 380. The Byway can be reached within 15 

minutes from Socorro. 

The area is proposed for management as an SRMA to 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. 

The Backcountry Byway was designated in 1991 after completion of the 1989 RMP. It was established after 

receiving input from the local community, chamber of commerce, and various groups and individuals. A 

primary objective would be to manage for the values described above and emphasize the development of 

interpretation opportunities along the Byway through auto tour brochures, wayside exhibits, trailheads/parking 

area, and other tools to enhance visitor experiences and provide for health and safety. 

The route (Byway) is a county road and would be open for all vehicle use. The Byway is shown on Map 3-11. 

A travel management plan would be completed within five years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent 

upon the availability of funding and staffing resources. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-26 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

V. Gordy’s Hill SRMA 

Acreage: Alternative B (7,647 acres) 

Alternative C (2,876 acres) 

Alternative D (7,174 acres) 

The area is located about 7 miles northeast of Socorro and can be reached within 15 minutes. It was allocated as 

an “intensive use” Open Area for OHVs in the 1989 RMP and included about 1,200 acres. A larger area would 

be designated and managed as a SRMA for recreational activities, including OHV use, with use limited to 

designated routes. 

This area has historically been used by the OHV community for over 30 years. Uses include motorcycles, 

4-wheel-drive vehicles, and all-terrain vehicles. Additionally, this area is used annually for the Socorro Valley 

100 motorcycle races and hill climbs. The general area is also scenic and provides opportunities for mountain 

biking as well. 

The management objectives are to delineate routes and the types of use for those routes as well as to develop 

and implement management actions that would provide for health, safety, information, and enhance the user’s 

experience. Signing and facility development would be a key part of meeting these objectives. 

OHV use would be limited to designated routes. Travel management plans would be completed within five 

years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent upon the availability of funding and staffing resources. 

A map for public use showing routes open for use would be developed. An activity plan has not been developed 

for the area; however, there is a great need to develop a plan to manage the area. This area is the highest priority 

area to develop a management plan once the RMPR is completed. It should be completed within three years of 

the RMPR. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-27 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-28 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

DESCRIPTIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF 

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS 

I. Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

Acreage: Alternative B (57,663 acres)
 

Alternative C (11,755 acres) 

Alternative D (8,703 acres 

The trail corridor would be identified as a SMA. A portion of the trail passes through the Continental Divide 

WSA. 

The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail was established as a part of the National Scenic Trail system by 

Public Law 95-625, the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978. The trail runs the entire length of the 

Continental Divide within the United States from Mexico to Canada. As the trail winds through New Mexico, it 

crosses arid desert, rugged forested mountains, canyonlands, and lava flows. Two segments of the trail are 

located in Catron County, but only one is located primarily on public land. These segments are shown on 

Map 3-11. About 34 miles of trail has been developed within the Planning Area. Most of that is on Pelona 

Mountain within the Pelona Mountain SMA. The corridors were identified by user groups such as the 

Continental Divide Trail Alliance and the Continental Divide Trail Society. The corridors establish areas for a 

potential future trail location and emphasize management within the corridors, which would ultimately 

culminate in obtaining legal public access and an on-the-ground trail through areas which are primarily private 

(willing sellers, etc.), State, and BLM lands. Planned actions for the trail as well as retaining these areas would 

help in establishing a trail and maintaining experiences within the corridors. 

The Congressional designation of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail automatically gives the trail 

national significance in all its segments. The two organized national interest groups, Continental Divide Trail 

Association and Continental Divide Trail Society, monitor planning, construction, management, and use of the 

trail. 

The trail would be managed 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. 

The trail corridor would be limited to designated routes for motorized vehicles except for that portion inside the 

Continental Divide WSA, which would be closed to motorized vehicles. Travel management plans would be 

completed within five years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent upon the availability of funding and 

staffing resources. 

An activity plan would be prepared for the trail once a route has been established across non-Federal lands 

within the Planning Area, probably five to seven years from the completion of the Socorro RMPR. Any activity 

plan should be coordinated with neighboring BLM offices and agencies with Continental Divide Trail 

management responsibilities. 

II. Fence Lake SMA 

Acreage: Alternative D (25,453 acres) 

Fence Lake was identified as a SMA in the 1989 RMP. Under Alternatives B and C, this area would be 

incorporated into the Zuni Salt Lake ACEC. The proposed SMA under Alternative D is the same area that is 

currently managed as the Fence Lake SMA. 

Fence Lake SMA is located in the northwestern Catron County about 20 air miles northwest of Quemado, New 

Mexico. There are three major landforms: the nearly level mesa tops, steep sandstone and shale escarpments 

and hills, and gently sloping alluvial fans and drainages. The soils and topography are subject to headcutting, 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-29 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

soil piping, and sheet erosion resulting in numerous continuous and discontinuous gullies (BLM 1989). 

Resources found within the SMA include wildlife, range forestry, cultural, and minerals. A small portion of the 

SMA lies within the maximum coal potential area (BLM 1989). This SMA was designated to highlight the need 

to manage and protect a critical watershed through erosion control and minimization of surface-disturbing 

activities. 

Management objectives for the area primarily deal with protecting and rehabilitating the watershed condition. 

Motorized vehicle use would be limited to designated routes. Travel management plans would be completed 

within five years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent upon the availability of funding and staffing 

resources. 

III. Fort Craig SMA 

Acreage: 149 acres 

Fort Craig would be identified as a SMA under all alternatives. 

Fort Craig, now in ruins, was a U.S. territorial period military fort, critical in both the Indian Wars and the 

western theater of the Civil War. Founded in 1854, it was one of the first and largest forts established in the new 

U.S. Territory of New Mexico. The site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Fort Craig is 

developed, with interpretive facilities, restrooms, and picnic tables. 

Management goals are protection of cultural resource values, public interpretation, future scientific use, and 

recreational opportunities. 

Vehicle use would be limited to designated routes. Travel management plans would be completed within five 

years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent upon the availability of funding and staffing resources. An 

activity plan for management of the area has been developed and would be revised or amended as needed in the 

future. 

IV. Newton Site SMA 

Acreage: 6,789 acres 

Under the action alternatives, the Newton Site is expanded and identified as a Proprietary SMA. That is, 

location of the site would not be identified to the public in order to maximize protection of the area. 

The Newton Site consists of a 150- to 200-room Chacoan greathouse pueblo and surrounding prehistoric 

community. The site was occupied from about A.D. 1200 to A.D. 1325 and represents an important locus for 

scientific investigation. The site has been heavily disturbed by vandals and uncontrolled student excavations 

prior to acquisition by the Federal Government, but retains good potential for scientific research. 

Management goals are to preserve and protect significant cultural resource sites, provide opportunities for 

research, under Alternative D only, accommodate heritage tourism contingent on public/community demand 

and opportunities for appropriate mitigation of the effects of visitation. 

Vehicle use would be limited to designated routes. Travel management plans would be completed within five 

years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent upon the availability of funding and staffing resources. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-30 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V. Penjeacu (formerly Teypama) SMA 

Acreage: 11 acres 

Penjeacu would be identified as a SMA under all alternatives. 

Penjeacu Piro pueblo ruin is a late prehistoric and early historic habitation site of the Piro Indians, who 

occupied the central Rio Grande Valley at the time of Spanish contact. The site is listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places, and consists of over 200 rooms with kivas and a central plaza. It is located on a terrace of the 

west bank of the Rio Grande and overlooks the floodplain, where the agricultural economy of the occupants was 

no doubt based. The site has experienced severe damage from vandals, but retains great potential for scientific 

investigation. 

Management goals for the Penjeacu SMA would be manage the area for protection of cultural resource values, 

public interpretation, and present and future scientific use. 

Vehicle use would be limited to designated routes or eliminated, depending on the alternative selected. Travel 

management plans would be completed within five years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent upon the 

availability of funding and staffing resources. 

VI. Playas Pueblo SMA 

Acreage: 203 acres 

The Playas Pueblo would be identified as a proprietary SMA under all action alternatives. 

This SMA consists of two major prehistoric pueblo ruins probably associated with the Tompiro prehistoric 

culture area. These sites are notable in addition to their size (200 plus rooms each) because of the fact that they 

are not located on water courses, but rather seem to have exploited wide, shallow internal drainages and, if early 

ceramic assessments are correct, were occupied over extraordinarily long time periods. Ceramic sequences for 

one of the sites suggest occupation from about A.D. 1150 through the A.D. 1700s. One of the ruins has been 

extensively vandalized, but retains good scientific potential, while the other remains virtually intact. 

The management goal for the Playas Pueblo SMA is to preserve and protect the cultural resource sites of Playas 

Pueblo for current and future scientific use. 

Vehicle use would be limited to designated routes. Travel management plans would be completed within five 

years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent upon the availability of funding and staffing resources. 

VII. Puertecito SMA 

Acreage: 7,156 acres 

The Puertecito would continue to be identified and managed as a SMA under all alternatives. 

The Puertecito SMA is located approximately 40 miles northwest of Socorro. The central portion of the SMA 

consists of deep alluvial flats, fans, and low hills. A series of low basalt dykes run north to northwest through 

the lowland area. Many of the watersheds within the SMA begin outside the boundary of the SMA. Generally, 

the watersheds are subject to severe sheet erosion and gully erosion during intensive rainstorms. Much of the 

erosion is due to reduced surface cover, intensive rainfall and runoff periods, and the fact that many of the soils 

in the SMA are highly erodable. This SMA was designated for the purposes of focusing watershed 

management and to improve soil stability. Parts of the SMA have had erosion control projects and tests 

completed in the past. In 1964, 2,200 acres were ripped and seeded. An experimental dike project consisting of 

contour dikes (13,800 feet) and wire checks (4,150 feet) was constructed in 1982. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-31 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The management goal for the area are to protect and rehabilitate the critical watershed area and minimize 

surface-disturbing activities. 

Vehicle use would be limited to designated routes. Travel management plans would be completed within five 

years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent upon the availability of funding and staffing resources. 

VIII. San Pedro Proprietary SMA 

Acreage: 1,201 acres 

The San Pedro area would be identified as a proprietary SMA under all action alternatives. That is, the location 

of the area would not be identified to the public in order to maximize protection of special status plant species. 

The San Pedro Proprietary SMA contains populations of BLM special status species and New Mexico State 

sensitive species, Amsonia fugatei or Fugate’s blue star. In the previous RMP for the Socorro Field Office, this 

area had been nominated by the Nature Conservancy and New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural 

Resources Department for special management. Most of the known populations occur on public lands, with 

some smaller populations found on the Sevelleta National Wildlife Refuge and private lands. Habitat consists of 

limy conglomerate ridges and associated outwash slopes in Chihuahuan desert scrub at 5,000 to 5,900 feet in 

elevation. Vegetation within the area is composed of juniper, snakeweed, creosote bush, Apache-plume, black 

grama, galletta, fluffgrass, sand dropseed, and variety of other species. 

Fugate’s blue star is not palatable to the kinds of livestock presently occupying the area. Populations are small 

and localized, and individually may be severely impacted by human activity. 

Management goals for the San Pedro Proprietary SMA would be to protect the area from surface-disturbing 

activities and to maintain the habitat in which the special status species is found. 

IX. Soaptree SMA 

Acreage: 1,296 acres 

The Soaptree area would continue to be managed as a SMA. 

The Soaptree SMA is located approximately 27 miles southeast of San Antonio, New Mexico. The area is 

managed as an SMA because of the aesthetic and recreational values it possesses. The area lies just north of the 

Jornada del Muerto WSA. Large dense yucca stands dominate the desert scenery. Although yucca stands occur 

in other parts of the Planning Area, they do not attain the size and density that they do in this area. With the 

increasing demand for yucca for landscape purposes, it is prudent to monitor and conserve areas for future use 

by the public. 

Management goals for the Soaptree SMA would be to maintain the area for livestock grazing; protect the 

unique, natural and scenic yucca ecosystem; and to improve recreational opportunities. 

Motorized vehicles will be limited to designated routes. Travel management plans would be completed within 

five years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent upon the availability of funding and staffing resources. 

X. Stallion SMA 

Acreage: 10,883 acres 

The Stallion area would continue to be managed as a SMA. The SMA also includes portions of the Presilla and 

Sierra de las Canas WSAs. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-32 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Stallion SMA is located approximately 8 air miles east of Socorro, New Mexico. Vegetation in the SMA is 

typical of the upper Chihuahuan Desert at the northern extreme of its range. Major vegetation types include 

desert shrub, piñon-juniper, creosote bush, and grassland. Soils in the SMA vary from moderately deep to deep 

and loamy in swales and lowlands to coarse textured, gravelly, ranging from deep to shallow over bedrock. 

Much of the SMA is in a critical erosion class with the remaining area being moderate. Active and severe sheet 

and gully erosion is occurring over much of the SMA, particularly in the central and eastern parts. A number of 

erosion control projects have been completed in the past on portions of the SMA, primarily entailing 

construction of wire check dams. Most of the work appears to have been completed by 1965. 

Management goals for the SMA include protecting and rehabilitating the watershed condition by installing 

erosion control projects and controlling surface-disturbance activities. 

Motorized vehicle use would be limited to designated routes. Travel management plans would be completed 

within five years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent upon the availability of funding and staffing 

resources. 

XI. Town of Riley SMA 

Acreage: 533 acres 

The Town of Riley would be designated as a SMA under Alternatives A and C only. The designation was 

dropped under Alternatives B and D to evaluate whether this area requires special management to address 

resource concerns. 

Riley is something of a ghost town, but may be unique in that descendants of the original settlers of the town 

continue a cultural tradition known as “Followers of Santa Rita.” They perform religious observances and 

maintain the graveyard at Santa Rita Church. A religious task structure is maintained even though the 

descendants are scattered over a wide region, and return annually for a mass and fiesta. 

Management goals are to preserve and protect historic properties and to ensure that no adverse effects occur to 

the socio-cultural traditions of the “Followers of Santa Rita” as a result of BLM-authorized undertakings. 

Vehicle use would be limited to existing routes. Travel management plans would be completed within five 

years of the completion of the RMPR, contingent upon the availability of funding and staffing resources. An 

activity plan prescribing management for the area would not be developed. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-33 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-34 Appendix K 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES 

Bell, Lois. 2003. Personal communication between Lois Bell, Realty Specialist, BLM Socorro Field Office, and 

Jennifer Frownfelter, URS Corporation. February 5 and 11. 

Carson, Kevin. 2003. Written communication between Kevin Carson, Recreation Specialist, BLM Socorro Field 

Office, and Jennifer Frownfelter, URS regarding recreational uses in Socorro and Catron Counties. January 

6. 

Duff, Andrew I. 2002. Application for Cultural Resource Use Permit for Archaeological Survey of Lands 

Surrounding Cox Ranch Pueblo (LA 13681), Catron County, New Mexico. On file, Socorro Field Office, 

Bureau of Land Management, Socorro. 

New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council. 2003. New Mexico Rare Plants. 

http://nmrareplants.unm.edu/nmrptc/rarelist.htm. 

U.S. Department of Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2003. Definitions of Special Designation 

Areas. Information obtained from http://www.mt.blm.gov/mcfo/acecweb1.html 

_____. 2002. El Camino Real De Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Draft Comprehensive Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. New Mexico State Office, New Mexico. 

_____. 1989. Socorro Resource Management Plan. Las Cruces District, Socorro Resource Area, Socorro, New 

Mexico. August. 

USDI, BLM and New Mexico State Monuments Division (NMSMD). 2001. El Camino Real International Heritage 

Center State of New Mexico and BLM Interpretive Center, Resource Management Plan Amendment and 

Environmental Assessment. Socorro Field Office, Socorro, New Mexico. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Zuni Fleabane Recovery Plan. New Mexico Ecological Services 

Field Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS K-35 Appendix K 

December 2008 
Appendix L
 

Wildlife and Special Status Species
 
 

 

APPENDIX L 

WILDLIFE AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

This appendix includes supplementary information on (1) best management practices (BMPs) and 

management parameters that would apply to the wildlife habitat management program, (2) aplomado 

falcon management guidelines, (3) additional information on federally listed special status species, (4) a 

table of Federal- and State-listed species in the Planning Area (Table L-1 on page L-12), and (5) a table of 

noxious weeds that may be found in the Planning Area (Table L-2 on page L-17). 

HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS AND GENERAL BEST MANAGEMENT 

PRACTICES 

Habitat enhancement projects would be implemented at the landscape level. The following management 

parameters and associated BMPs would be utilized as needed to protect and enhance wildlife habitat: 

•	 Upland habitats, including grasslands, shrub steppe, forest, and woodlands, will be managed so 

that the forage, water, cover, structure, and security necessary for wildlife are available on public 

land. Vegetative communities will be managed for the desired plant community based on the 

ecological site. Management will be accomplished by enhancing, restoring, and maintaining 

wildlife habitat by reducing the amount of woody vegetation encroachment. 

•	 Restore, maintain, or improve riparian vegetation, habitat diversity, and associated watershed 

function to achieve healthy and productive riparian areas and wetlands. Management will be 

accomplished by enhancing, restoring, and maintaining, riparian areas which have been degraded 

through the invasion of non-native vegetation, such as Tamarisk and Russian olive. 

•	 Manage livestock forage production to support wildlife population levels identified by the New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF). 

•	 In addition to continuing management guidance, develop and apply appropriate BMPs, fluid 

mineral stipulations, and/or mitigation measures, as determined through the environmental 

analysis process, for renewable energy development, fluid mineral development, and other 

surface-disturbing activities within the Socorro Field Office resource area for the protection of 

wildlife resources within areas of critical environmental concern, special management areas, and 

habitat management plan/cooperative resource management plan management areas, and other 

crucial habitat areas identified through inventory, survey, and study. Areas may include habitat 

for special status species, nesting areas, raptor nests; prairie dog towns; and desert bighorn sheep, 

mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and elk birthing areas. 

•	 Apply seasonal use restrictions within crucial habitat areas or habitat for special status species, 

which may include high-use raptor areas, prairie dog towns, desert bighorn sheep, mule deer, 

pronghorn antelope, elk birthing areas, and other crucial habitat areas identified through 

inventory, survey, and study. 

•	 To protect desert bighorn sheep, domestic sheep, and goats will be excluded within occupied and 

historic habitat areas and the delineated desert bighorn sheep corridor/management area will be 

managed to enhance habitat conditions (Map L-1). 

•	 Limit human and wildlife interactions within crucial habitat areas identified through inventory, 

survey, and study. 

•	 The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) should take actions that further progress towards 

conditions indicating attainment of the Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS L-1 Appendix L 

December 2008 
 

 

Livestock Grazing Management. Such actions would include management that restores, protects, 

and enhances the resources necessary to support, as site potential allows, native wildlife species 

and their associated habitats in their historical proportions (BLM Manual Section 6840). 

The following BMPs and/or management parameters would apply to the wildlife habitat management 

program in the Socorro Decision Area. 

•	 Implement vegetative treatments to restore and enhance wildlife habitat. Treatments may include: 

– prescribed fire 

– mechanical treatment 

•	 hand crews with chain saws 

•	 heavy equipment (chaining, mowing, mulching, grubbing, etc.) 

– chemical treatments 

•	 Maintain integrity and safety of existing habitat improvement projects. 

– perform annual or biannual inspection of all projects 

– maintain projects as needed 

•	 Increase availability and distribution of year-round water. 

– develop springs/seeps where as necessary 

– construct artificial watering facilities where needed 

•	 Modify fences or other man-made structures to limit impacts to wildlife. 

•	 Construct/maintain watershed rehabilitation structures for purposes of reducing erosion. 

•	 Continue to inventory, survey, and study wildlife populations for purposes of determining habitat 

needs and requirements or areas which require special protection and management. 

•	 Limit adverse human/wildlife interactions. 

– limiting vehicle access into certain areas 

– road closures and obliterations (action alternatives include closure of approximately 

26 miles to address wildlife concerns. Closure of other selected routes would occur as 

needed). 

– implement seasonal use restrictions into areas of resource concern 

•	 Construct protective exclosures/fences around riparian areas, wildlife watering facilities, and 

other areas of resource concern. 

•	 Monitor and inventory all habitat improvement projects to ensure that project objectives are being 

met. 

– global positioning system and incorporate into geographic information system 

– monitor use and effectiveness 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS L-2 Appendix L 

December 2008 

 

•	 Implement/authorize predator damage management activities to meet species-specific 

management goals and objectives. 

•	 Reintroduce, supplement, or translocate native species in suitable habitat. 

•	 Implement environmental education events to meet management goals and objectives. 

•	 Install/maintain signage where necessary to meet management goals and objectives. 

•	 Implement updated Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection From Human and Land 

Disturbance (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Field Office). 

•	 Implement wildlife management BMPs that relate to wildlife management (see Appendix C). 

NORTHERN APLOMADO FALCON MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 

The following requirements would apply within the historic range of the northern aplomado falcon, in 

addition to a 15-mile buffer area around it in areas that are determined to be potential habitat. These 

requirements apply to all surface-disturbing activities. BMPs described for special status species would 

also apply to the northern aplomado falcon. 

Surface Occupancy Requirements for Northern Aplomado Falcon Habitat 

Unitization 

Outside of the areas that are discretionarily closed to fluid mineral leasing, potential northern aplomado 

falcon habitat would be open to leasing, but fluid mineral leasing stipulation S-CSU-W4 requires new 

lessees to form exploratory units and to submit a plan of development prior to commencing drilling 

activity. This special protection measure will allow the BLM to manage the surface in an orderly way, as 

well as to control the rate of reservoir development. The BLM has the authority to approve Unit 

Agreements; require specific provisions of Unit Agreements; establish the rate of exploration and 

development; approve the tract allocation formula; and terminate units that cease production (or where 

production was never established). The objective is to protect grassland habitat and associated special 

status species of wildlife through improved planning of future oil and gas development on a unit. A 

simple definition of unitization is the operation of multiple leases as a single lease under a single operator. 

A Federal Oil and Gas Unit would result in less surface disturbance. Wells would be drilled in the most 

favorable locations without regard for spacing. The operator and the BLM would establish corridors for 

access roads and pipelines, and there would be no need for redundant facilities. There are also lease 

benefits in that individual leases could be extended beyond their primary term without actual production, 

as long as there is production on the unit. The Socorro Field Office currently has one existing unit 

(Cathead Mesa Unit). 

Grazing Management Actions for the Protection of Aplomado Falcon Nests 

This is not a nest site plan. A nest site plan is site specific. This is a list of potential actions that may be 

undertaken when an aplomado nest or nest selection activities may be disturbed by livestock grazing and 

related activities. Other actions may be developed and substituted as we gain understanding of aplomados 

and their management. 

The objective is to avoid disturbance causing the loss of an aplomado falcon nest. Disturbance is defined 

here as activities of people or livestock that lead to the abandonment or loss of a potential (i.e., nest 

selection in progress) or existing aplomado falcon nest. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS L-4 Appendix L 

December 2008 
 

1.	 BLM will prepare an annual site plan, in cooperation with the grazing allottee, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), NMDGF, and other cooperators, for each aplomado nest or perhaps 

nest cluster, pasture, or allotment where nesting is discovered. 

2.	 Depending on the level of or potential for nest disturbance and the specific grazing allotment 

situation the following measures may be applied with respect to accomplishing the stated 

objectives with the least disturbance to both the falcons and the grazing allottee. 

a.	 Deactivate all livestock facilities (water troughs, supplement sites, etc.) within 2 miles of 

nest sites to divert cattle use to other areas of a pasture from March (or discovery of nest 

site) thru fledging (fledging may occur as early as May or as late as early August). 

Or 

b.	 Herd livestock away from the nest area. All herding activities must remain at least 

0.25 mile from active nest sites. 

Or 

c.	 Remove grazing from the nest pasture(s) from March (or discovery of nest site) thru 

fledging (fledging may occur as early as May or as late as early August). 

Or 

d.	 Remove grazing from the allotment from March (or discovery of nest site) thru fledging 

(fledging may occur as early as May or as late as early August). 

Or 

e.	 With US FWS approval, construct a temporary exclosure or drift fence to protect nest. 

Maintain a distance between 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 mile from nest. 

Or 

f.	 With USFWS approval, BLM may place a small cattle barrier to protect the nest 

tree/yucca (examples: powder river or hog wire panels with t posts; steel L-shaped frames 

wired together and staked to the ground; a small solar electric fence). Use of these 

measures has a high likelihood of causing serious disturbance to the nest. Measures 

would be taken to minimize the impact (minimize time to set up, minimize visual 

impacts, time during the day to prevent egg cooling, time during female feeding forays, 

etc). 

g.	 Enactment of livestock management measures should be accomplished within 1 week or 

as soon as possible thereafter. 

3.	 Modify open water storages within 3 to 5 miles of occupied aplomado habitat. Ensure that there 

is some form of open water left available to birds and bats if large water sources are covered. 

a.	 Cover open water storage units with small mesh netting. 

b.	 Install floating neoprene covers on open water storages. 

c.	 Replace open storages with closed ones. 

4.	 Install and maintain bird escape ramps on all water troughs on public land. 

5.	 Reduce human disturbance such as construction, working cattle, road, or range improvement 

maintenance within 0.25 to 0.50 mile of a nest. 

6.	 Reduce threat of wildfire impacting nest structure. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS L-5 Appendix L 

December 2008 
 

a.	 Because allottees are quite often important links in fire suppression and are likely to 

request help from local volunteer fire departments. The Socorro Field Office fire 

program should work closely with volunteer fire departments for quick, but appropriate, 

response to wildfire in nest areas. 

1.	 Avoid fire operations, including aircraft use, as much as possible in the immediate 

nest area. 

a.	 Keep ground operations at least 0.5 mile from nest site. 

b.	 Keep air operations above 2,000 feet above ground level within 0.5 mile of 

nest sites. 

b.	 Use fire retardant to create fire breaks and protect nest structures (yuccas) during critical 

periods. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Tracking the Reasonable Foreseeable Development 

The BLM will closely monitor acres disturbed to ensure the reasonable foreseeable development is an 

appropriate planning estimate. The number of acres projected to be disturbed directly from activities is 

420 acres over the next 15 years. For helium and carbon dioxide resources, the approximate number of 

acres that are projected to be disturbed from exploration and development activities is 1,000 acres. 

Preliminary Investigations 

Activities occurring during preliminary investigations may include remote sensing; mapping of rock 

outcrops and seeps (either of which result in little or no surface disturbance); and seismic, gravity, and 

magnetic surveys. 

A lease is not required to conduct such preliminary investigations. However, the geophysical operator is 

required to file a completed Form 3150-4, “Notice of Intent to Conduct Oil and Gas Exploration 

Operations” for all operations on public lands. 

In general, the BLM requires an examination of resource values and development of appropriate surface 

protection and reclamation measures prior to the geophysical contractor beginning surface-disturbing 

activities associated with preliminary investigations. The BLM will solicit involvement from public land 

users (e.g., grazing allottees) to develop site-specific protection measures and reclamation specifications. 

Compliance monitoring should occur during and after seismic exploration activities when or if necessary. 

Compliance inspections during the operation ensure that requirements and guidelines are being followed. 

Compliance inspections upon completion of work ensure that the lines are clean and drill holes are 

plugged properly. 

The frequency of authorized seismic exploration will be dependent upon resource conditions and seasonal 

restrictions (timing limitations) that may be imposed to reduce conflicts with watershed conditions, 

wildlife, and hunting. Management practices specific to wildlife and vegetation resources include the 

following: 

•	 Prior to surveying/flagging routes for geophysical surveys or other preliminary activities, the 

project area shall be surveyed for raptor nests. Surveys will be conducted by professional 

biologists approved by the Authorized Officer. The Universal Transmercator grid locations of all 

raptor nests will be reported to the Authorized Officer. All raptor nests will be avoided by the 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS L-6 Appendix L 

December 2008 
 

 

required distances described under the surface disturbing activities section. A raptor nest is 

defined as any raptor or corvid nest. 

•	 In areas that constitute occupied or potential northern aplomado falcon habitat, a protocol survey 

for this species will be conducted along with the general raptor nest survey described above, prior 

to surveying/flagging lines. 

•	 During operations at any time, all habitat features (pinnacles, cliffs, ledges, caves, and trees, 

shrubs, and yuccas greater than six feet in height) containing or capable of containing a raptor 

nest will be avoided by vehicular traffic or other activities likely to destroy them. 

•	 Time activities to avoid wet periods. 

•	 In areas that allow for off-road travel, minimize the off-road impact of large vehicles. Use wide, 

flat-tread, balloon tires (especially on seismic thumper trucks) where possible. Use all-terrain 

vehicles rather than large vehicles where possible. 

•	 Occupied habitat for special status species will be avoided in a manner similar to surface use 

requirements (avoid occupied habitat up to 0.5 mile) unless impacts are adequately mitigated. 

Surface-Disturbing Activities 

In siting facilities, the following measures must be followed: 

•	 Prior to surveying/flagging locations for pads, routes for roads, and any other preliminary activity, 

the project area will be surveyed for raptor nests. Surveys will be conducted by professional 

biologists approved by the Authorized Officer. All raptor nests will be avoided by the distances 

and seasonal periods listed below. 

Distance: 

- Eagle – 0.5 mile (February 1-July 15) 

- Prairie Falcon – 0.5 mile (March 1-August 1) 

- Ferruginous Hawk – 0.5 mile (February 1-July 15) 

- Aplomado Falcon – 0.5 mile (January 1-July 31) 

- Gunnison Prairie Dog – 0.25 mile (February 15-June 15) 

- Black Tailed Prairie Dog – 0.25 mile (January 1-June 15) 

- All other raptor species – 0.5 mile, during observed nest establishment through fledgling 

Long duration land use activities will not be allowed to occur within the species-specific spatial buffer 

zone of active nests or occupied prairie dog towns listed above. Short duration activities will be avoided 

within the species-specific spatial buffer zones during the dates listed above. Short duration activities will 

be limited to the spatial buffer zone outside of the boundary of the occupied prairie dog town and will not 

occur within the occupied town. All other raptor species nests will be avoided by the spatial buffer zone 

only during the period listed above, regardless of the duration of the activity. Before land use activities 

can commence a raptor and prairie dog survey must be completed. 

A short duration activity is defined as an activity that would begin outside of a given breeding season and 

end prior to initiation of a given breeding season. A long duration activity is defined as an activity which 

would continue into or beyond a given nesting/breeding season. An active nest is defined as any nest that 

has been occupied in the last seven years. A nest will be determined active or inactive by the Authorized 

Officer. Surveys will be conducted by professional biologists approved by the Authorized Officer. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS L-7 Appendix L 

December 2008 
 

 

•	 In areas that constitute occupied or potential northern aplomado falcon habitat, a protocol survey 

for this species will be conducted along with the above general raptor nest survey prior to 

surveying/flagging locations. 

•	 During operations at any time, all habitat features (pinnacles, cliffs, ledges, caves, and trees, 

shrubs, and yuccas greater than six feet in height) containing or capable of containing a raptor 

nest will be avoided by vehicular traffic or other activities likely to destroy them. 

•	 In areas that allow for off-road travel, minimize the off-road impact of large vehicles. Use wide, 

flat-tread, balloon tires (especially on seismic thumper trucks) where possible. Use all-terrain 

vehicles rather than large vehicles where possible. 

•	 Tree and vegetation clearing will be limited to the minimum area required. 

•	 Construction activities will be timed to avoid wet periods. 

•	 Power lines will be constructed to standards outlined in the most recent version of “Suggested 

Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines” published by the Edison Electric Institute/Raptor 

Research Foundation, unless otherwise agreed to by the Authorized Officer. The holder is 

responsible for demonstrating that power pole designs not meeting these standards are raptor safe. 

Such proof will be provided by a raptor expert approved by the Authorized Officer. The BLM 

reserves the right to require modifications or additions to power line structures constructed under 

this authorization, should they be necessary to ensure the safety of large perching birds. The 

modifications and/or additions will be made by the holder without liability or expense to the 

United States. 

•	 Occupied habitat for special status species will be avoided in a manner similar to surface use 

requirements (avoid occupied habitat up to 0.5 mile) unless impacts adequately mitigated. 

•	 All equipment installed on Federal leases will be constructed to prevent birds and bats from 

entering them and, to the extent practical, to discourage perching and nesting. 

•	 Open top tanks, reserve pits, disposal pits, or other open pits will be required to be equipped to 

deter entry by birds, bats, or other wildlife. 

•	 In areas that allow for off-road travel, minimize the off-road impact of large vehicles. Use wide, 

flat-tread, balloon tires (especially on seismic thumper trucks) where possible. Use all-terrain 

vehicles rather than large vehicles where possible. 

•	 Time activities to avoid wet periods. 

FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Table L-1 includes Federal- and State-listed species in the Planning Area. Federally listed special status 

species are discussed below. 

Zuni fleabane (Erigeron rhizomatus) 

Status: Federally listed as Threatened, State listed as Endangered 

Habitat: Nearly barren detrital clay hillsides with soils derived from shales of the Chinle or Baca 

formations (often seleniferous); most often on north- or east-facing slopes in open piñon-juniper 

woodlands at 7,300 to 8,000 feet. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS L-8 Appendix L 

December 2008 
 

Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis) 

Status: Federally listed as Threatened, State Species of Concern 

Habitat: Occurs in cienegas (wetland communities surrounded by arid lands), pools, livestock 

tanks, lakes, reservoirs, streams, and rivers from 3,200 to 8,900 feet in central and southwestern 

New Mexico. 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Status: Federally listed as Threatened, State listed as Threatened 

Habitat: Occurs in New Mexico mainly as a migrant and winter resident. Primarily occurs in 

riparian areas adjacent to major rivers, reservoirs, and ponds. Roosts in large trees that may be 

close to foraging areas. Other potential foraging habitats include grass flats, rolling uplands, and 

creosote rolling uplands. 

Least tern (Sterna antillarum) 

Status: Federally listed as Endangered, State listed as Endangered 

Habitat: Least tern nest on the ground, typically on sites that are sandy and relatively free of 

vegetation. Such areas include sandbars in river floodplains. In New Mexico and other parts of 

the southern Great Plains, alkali flats also are potential nesting areas. 

Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) 

Status: Federally listed as Threatened, State Species of Concern 

Habitat: Habitat characteristics highly sought by Mexican spotted owls include coniferous forests 

with high canopy closure, high stand density, a multi-layered canopy, uneven-aged stands, 

numerous snags, and high amounts of downed woody matter. 

Northern aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis) 

Status: Federally listed as Endangered, State listed as Endangered 

Habitat: Habitat consists of grassy plains interspersed with mesquite, cactus, and yucca. 

Piping plover (Charadrius mebdus) 

Status: Federally listed as Threatened, State listed as Endangered 

Habitat: Piping plover occur on sandflats or along bare shorelines of rivers and lakes. 

Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) 

Status: Federally listed as Endangered, State listed as Endangered 

Habitat: Breeding sites are associated closely with dense groves of willows, tamarisk, Russian 

olive, and other riparian woodland vegetation; often associated with a scattered overstory of 

cottonwood. 

Gila chub (Gila intermedia) 

Status: Federally Proposed Endangered, State listed as Endangered 

Habitat: Gila River basin. 

Gila trout (Oncorhynchus gilae) 

Status: Federally listed as Endangered, State listed as Threatened 

Habitat: Gila trout inhabits small, cool, clear mountain streams with riparian vegetation that 

provides a fairly complete canopy. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS L-9 Appendix L 

December 2008 
 

Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis) 

Status: Federally listed as Threatened, State listed as Threatened 

Habitat: The loach minnow inhabits riffle areas with moderate-to-rapid water velocities and 

moderate-to-high gradients. 

Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Hybognathus amarus) 

Status: Federally listed as Endangered, State listed as Endangered 

Habitat: Rio Grande silvery minnow occupy a variety of habitats in low-gradient, large streams 

with shifting sand or silty bottoms. 

Spikedace (Meda fulgidae) 

Status: Federally listed as Threatened, State listed as Threatened 

Habitat: The preferred habitat of spikedace varies with season and age class. Young fish typically 

occupy stream-margin habitats, where the water velocity is low and the depth is less than 

3 inches. Adults are most commonly found in main channel areas, where water velocity is higher 

and with depths of 3 to 8 inches. In winter months, the species tends to congregate along cobblebottomed stream margins where such habitats are available. 

Alamosa (springsnail) tryonia (Tryonia alamosae) 

Status: Federally listed as Endangered, State listed as Threatened 

Habitat: Alamosa spring snail is an aquatic species that occurs in low-velocity water near thermal 

spring sources. 

Socorro isopod (Thermosphaeroma thermophilus) 

Status: Federally listed as Endangered, State listed as Endangered 

Habitat: This species exists in extremely limited habitat – thermal spring waters with 

temperatures ranging from 25 to 33 degrees celcius. 

Socorro (springsnail) pyrg (Pyrgulopsis neomexicana) 

Status: Federally listed as Endangered, State listed as Endangered 

Habitat: The Socorro pyrg is an aquatic, gilled invertebrate found in springs and brooks, living 

among aquatic plants, on stones, or in the uppermost layer of an organic muck substratum. 

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) 

Status: Federally listed as Endangered, State Species of Concern 

Habitat: Black-footed ferret occur in mixed shrub habitats. They are associated closely with 

prairie dog colonies, whose burrows provide retreats for ferrets. The dependency of the blackfooted ferret on this prey species is such that reduction in the number of ferrets is directly related 

to reduction in prairie dog densities. 

Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) 

Status: Federally listed as Endangered, State listed as Endangered 

Habitat: Wolves were once found in shortgrass plains, sacaton grassland, sycamore, cottonwood, 

rabbitbrush, chapparal, and oak savanna. 

Pecos sunflower (Helianthus paradoxus) 

Status: Federally threatened, State listed as Endangered 

Habitat: A wetland species that grows on wet, alkaline soils at spring seeps, wet meadows, 

stream courses, and pond margins. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS L-10 Appendix L 

December 2008 
 

 

TABLE L-1 

FEDERAL AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES IN PLANNING AREA
 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status BLM County 

PLANTS 

Abajo penstemon Penstemon lentus Sensitive Catron 

Arizona sunflower Helianthus arizonensis Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Cory’s joint-fir Ephedra coryi Sensitive Sensitive Socorro 

Davidson's cliff carrot Pteryxia davidsonii Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Fugate's amsonia Amsonia fugatei Sensitive Sensitive Sensitive Socorro 

Gila groundsel Packera quaerens Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Gila thistle Cirsium gilense Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Gooding's bladderpod Lesqerella gooddingii Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Heartleaf groundsel Packera cardamine Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Hess' fleabane Erigeron hesssii Sensitive E Sensitive Catron 

Laguna fame flower Talinum brachypodium Sensitive Sensitive Socorro 

La Jolla prairie clover Dalea scariosa Sensitive Sensitive Sensitive Socorro 

Mogollon clover Trifolium longipes ssp. 

neurophyllum 

Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Mogollon death camas Anticlea mogollonensis Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Mogollon dock Rumex tomentellus Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Mogollon hawkweed 

Hieracium fendleri var. 

mogollense Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Mogollon whitlow grass Draba mogollonica Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Mohave panicum Panicum mohavense Sensitive Sensitive Sensitive Socorro 

Mount Graham beardtongue Penstemon deaveri Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

New Mexico beardtongue Penstemon neomexicanus D Catron 

Nutrioso milk-vetch Astragalus nutriosensis Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Organ Mountains giant 

hyssop 

Agastache pringlei var. 

verticillata 

Sensitive Rare Catron 

Organ Mountains paintbrush Castelleja organorum Rare Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Parish's alkali grass Puccinellia parishii Sensitive E Sensitive Catron 

Pecos sunflower Helianthus paradoxus T E Sensitive Socorro 

Plank's campion Silene plankii Sensitive Sensitive Sensitive Socorro 

Porter's globe mallow Sphaeralcea procera Rare Sensitive Socorro 

Rock fleabane Erigeron scopulinus Sensitive Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Sacramento groundsel Senecio sacramentanus Rare Catron 

San Andres rock daisy Perityle staurophylla var. 

homoflora 

Sensitive Sensitive Socorro 

San Mateo penstemon Penstemon pseudoparvus Sensitive Sensitive Socorro 

Sand pricklypear Opuntia arenaria Sensitive E Sensitive Socorro 

Southwest Solomon's seal Polygonatum cobrense Sensitive Catron 

Standley's whitlow grass Draba standleyi Sensitive Sensitive Sensitive Socorro 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS L-11 Appendix L 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE L-1 

FEDERAL AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES IN PLANNING AREA
 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status BLM County 

Tall bitterweed Hymenoxys brachyactis Sensitive Sensitive Socorro 

Wooton's alumroot Heuchera wootonii Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Wooton’s hawthorn Crataegus wootoniana Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Wright's campion Silene wrightii Sensitive Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Wright's globe mallow Sphaeralcea wrightii Sensitive Sensitive Socorro 

Wright’s marsh thistle Cirsium wrightii Sensitive Sensitive Sensitive Socorro 

Zuni fleabane Erigeron rhizomatus T E Sensitive Catron 

Zuni milk-vetch Astragalusmissouriensis var. 

accumbens 

Sensitive Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

WILDLIFE 

Amphibians 

Arizona toad Bufo microscaphus 

microscaphus 

 Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Chiricahua leopard frog Rana chiricahuensis C Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Lowland leopard frog Rana yavapaiensis Sensitive Catron 

Birds 

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum T Catron, Socorro 

Northern aplomado falcon Falco femoralis 

septentrionalis 

E E Socorro 

Baird's sparrow Ammodramus bairdii T Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Bald eagle Haleaeetus leucocephalus T T Catron, Socorro 

Bell's vireo Vireo bellii T Catron, Socorro 

Black tern 

Chlidonias niger 

surinamensis 

Sensitive Socorro 

Brown pelican 

Pelecanus occidentalis 

carolinensis 

E Catron 

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hyugaea Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Common black hawk Buteogallus anthracinus 

anthracinus 

T Catron, Socorro 

Common ground dove Columbina passerina 

pallescens 

E Socorro 

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Gila woodpecker Melanerpes uropygialis T Catron 

Gray vireo Vireo vicinior T Catron, Socorro 

Interior least tern Sterna antillarum E E Catron, Socorro 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida T Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Neotropic cormorant Phalacrocorax brasilianus T Socorro 

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS L-12 Appendix L 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE L-1 

FEDERAL AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES IN PLANNING AREA
 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status BLM County 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus T E Socorro 

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus 

E E Catron, Socorro 

Varied bunting Passerina versicolor T Catron 

Violet-crowned 

hummingbird Amazilia violiceps ellioti 

T Socorro 

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi Sensitive Socorro 

Whooping crane Grus americana E Socorro 

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus C Catron, Socorro 

Fish 

Chihuahua catfish Ictalurus sp. Sensitive Catron 

Desert sucker Catostomus clarki Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Flathead chub Platygobio gracilis Sensitive Socorro 

Gila chub Gila intermedia E Sensitive Catron 

Gila trout Onchorhynchus gilae E T Catron 

Loach minnow Tiaroga cobitis T T Catron 

Longfin dace Agosia chyrsogaster Sensitive Catron 

Rio Grande chub Gila pandora Sensitive Socorro 

Rio Grande shiner Notropis jemezanus Sensitive Sensitive Socorro 

Rio Grande silvery minnow Hybognathus amarus E E Socorro 

Roundtail chub Gila robusta E Sensitive Catron 

Sonora sucker Catostomus insignus Sensitive Sensitive Catron 

Speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus Sensitive Catron 

Spikedace Meda fulgida T T Catron 

Mammals 

Arizona montane vole Microtus montanus 

arizonensis 

E Catron 

Allen's big-eared bat Idionycteris phyllotis Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes E Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Cave myotis Myotis velifer Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Common hog-nosed skunk Conepatus leuconotus Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Desert bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis mexicana E Socorro 

Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis Sensitive Catron 

Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes 

thysanodes 

Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Gunnison's prairie dog Cynomys gunnisoni Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Desert pocket gopher Geomys bursarius arenarius Sensitive 

Hooded skunk Mephitis macroura milleri Sensitive Catron 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS L-13 Appendix L 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE L-1 

FEDERAL AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES IN PLANNING AREA
 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status BLM County 

New Mexico jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius luteus T Sensitive Socorro 

Little brown bat Myotis lucifigus occultus Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Long-eared myotis Mytois evotis evotis Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans interior Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Mexican gray wolf Canis lupus baileyi E E Catron 

Organ Mountains Colorado 

chipmunk 

Tamias quadrivattatus 

australis T Sensitive Socorro 

Oscura Mountain's Colorado 

chipmunk 

Tamias quadrivattatus 

oscuraensis 

T Sensitive Socorro 

Townsend's big-eared bat Plecotus townsendii 

pallescens 

Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Pecos River muskrat Ondatra zibethicus ripensis Sensitive Sensitive Socorro 

Red fox Vulpes vulpes Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Ringtail Bassariscus astutus Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Small-footed myotis 

Myotis ciliolabrum 

melanorhinus 

 Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum T Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii Sensitive Catron 

Western spotted skunk Spilogale gracilis Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

White-nosed coati Nasua narica Sensitive Catron 

Yuma myotis Mytois yumanensis Sensitive Sensitive Catron, Socorro 

Reptiles 

Narrowhead garter snake 

Thamnophis rufipunctatus 

rufipunctatus 

T Sensitive Catron 

Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum Sensitive Socorro 

Big Bend slider Trachemys gaigeae Sensitive Socorro 

Invertebrates 

Alamosa springsnail Tryonia alamosae E T Socorro 

Chupadera springsnail Pyrgulopsis chupaderae C E Socorro 

Gila springsnail Pyrgulopsis gilae C T Catron 

NM hot springsnail Pyrgulopsis thermalis C T Catron 

Ovate vertigo snail Vertigo ovata T Socorro 

Socorro isopod 

Thermosphaeroma 

thermophilus E E Socorro 

Socorro mountainsnail Oreohelix neomexicana Sensitive Socorro 

Socorro springsnail Pyrgulopsis neomexicana E E Socorro 

SOURCE: Federal and State listed species: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 2005 (BISON-M database); 

NOTES: C = Candidate D = Delisted E = Endangered T = Threatened 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS L-14 Appendix L 

December 2008 
 

 

NOXIOUS WEEDS 

Table L-2 includes noxious weeds that may occur in the Planning Area. This list is specific to Socorro 

County; to date, only salt cedar and Russian olive have been found on BLM land within Catron County. 

TABLE L-2 

NOXIOUS WEEDS POTENTIALLY OCCURING IN PLANNING AREA
 

Class “A” Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distribution in the County. High priority 

preventing new infestations and eliminating existing infestations. 

African Rue* Peganum harmala 

Alfombrilla Drymaria arenarioides 

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger 

Bull thistle* Cirsium vulgare 

Camelthorn* Alhagi pseudalhagi 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense 

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum L. 

Dalmation toadflax Linaria genisitifolia ssp dalmatica 

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa 

Dyer’s woad Isatis tinctoria 

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum 

Giant salvinia Salvinia molesta 

Halogeton Halogeton glomeratus 

Hoary cress* Cardaria draba 

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata 

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrical 

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula 

Malta starthistle* Centaurea melitensis 

Musk thistle Carduus nutans 

Onionweed Asphodelus fistulosus 

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum L. 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria 

Purple starthistle Centaurea calcitrapa 

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium 

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa 

Teasel Dipsacus fullonum 

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis 

Yellow toadflax* Linaria vulgaris 

Class “B: Weeds: Non-native species that are presently limited to portions of the County. 

Designated for control in areas where they are not yet widespread. 

Parrot feather* Myriophyllum aquaticum 

Perennial pepperweed* Lepidium latifolium 

Russian knapweed* Acroptilon repens 

Siberian Elm* Ulmus pumila 

Tree of Heaven* Ailanthus altissima 

Class “C” Weeds: Non-native species widespread in the County and State. Long-term 

programs are necessary to manage these species. 

Field bindweed* Convolvulus arvensis L. 

Russian olive* Elaeagnus angustifolia L. 

Salt cedar* Tamarix sp. 

* Indicates infestations currently found and mapped in Socorro County. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS L-15 Appendix L 

December 2008 
Appendix M
 

Paleontological Resource Management
 
 

APPENDIX M 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
 

Existing guidance provided in Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Manual 8270-1 “General Procedural 

Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management” and BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning 

Handbook were used to provide management common to all alternatives within the Planning Area. To 

protect vertebrate localities and noteworthy invertebrate or plant localities, BLM has developed a 

geographic information system (GIS) tool to classify the Planning Area based on a probability to discover 

important fossils in a particular area. Management prescriptions for specific sensitivity level areas provide 

procedures for BLM specialists and proponents of actions to follow while conducting site-specific 

analysis for future proposals within the Decision Area. 

Under all proposed action alternatives, the Socorro Field Office lands would manage paleontological 

resources based on the GIS database maps, other ongoing inventories and databases of fossil resources in 

New Mexico, and in some instances, on a case-by-case basis. Protection of such resources, where 

appropriate, would be accomplished to facilitate suitable 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 Decision Area. 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS BY CLASS 

Paleontological resource management classes are shown on Map M-1. 

Class 1: No concern related to paleontological resources unless other site specific surveys note fossil 

resources in the project area. 

Class 2: No concern related to paleontological resources unless other site-specific surveys note fossil 

resources in the project area. 

Class 3: Concern related to paleontological resources must be evaluated on a case-by-case project 

basis. Existing data available through the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and 

Science and BLM offices will be used to identify possible resources in the area. GIS tools 

would be used to screen for appropriate actions. Assessments and additional mitigation could 

be done on a case-by-case basis. 

Class 4: Concern related to paleontological resources is high and active management prescribed. 

Proposed ground-disturbing activities require assessment to determine whether significant 

paleontological resources occur in the area of a proposed action. Notification of requirements 

will be made to proponents prior to commitment of the resources (for example: leasing, land 

disposals, surface mines, pipelines, large scale construction projects). Use existing data, GIS 

screening tools, and site-specific inventories in the assessment. Based on the specific 

assessment, develop additional management actions, including mitigation for identified 

paleontological resources. 

Class 5: Concern related to Class 5 lands is towards identification and protection of paleontological 

resources. Identify Class 5 lands through existing and ongoing inventories, known localities, 

and ongoing refinement of the paleontological GIS layer for the Planning Area. 

Currently there are no mapped Class 5 fossils; however, there may be local occurrences of Class 4 or 5 

fossils determined from database searches of existing and ongoing inventories, and on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS M-1 Appendix M 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRESENCE OF RESOURCES 

Rock units representing more that 1.5 billion years of geologic time are present in the Socorro Field 

Office. Many of these units contain paleontological resources and specifically important vertebrate, 

noteworthy invertebrate, and plant fossils. The potential for a given geologic unit to contain 

paleontological resources varies by geologic time and the environment represented by specific rock units. 

As the potential for paleontological resources increases, the need for mitigating surface-disturbing 

activities also increases. 

The BLM has classified geologic formations in the Socorro Field Office according to the Probable Fossil 

Yield Classification. The planning tool provides for the development of sensitivity levels based on 

specific geologic units, usually at the formation level and are classified according to the probability of 

yielding paleontological resources. Probable Fossil Yield Classification is based on probabilities, not 

certainties or special circumstances. There will be exceptions to each criterion used as the basis for 

classification and should be handled as unique situations. Mitigation for these situations are handled on a 

case-by-case basis, as needed. Mitigation requirements may include: (1) additional database searches for 

site specific paleontological resources, (2) site specific on-the-ground surveys prior to surface disturbance 

or construction activities, (3) trained field monitors present during construction or ground disturbing 

activities, (4) recovery, evaluation and curation of the fossil, or (5) avoidance of the site because of the 

extent and significance of the fossil discovery. The classifications with descriptions follow. 

Class Description Basis Comments 

1 Igneous and metamorphic (tuffs are 

excluded from this category) geologic 

units or units representing heavily 

disturbed preservational environments 

that are not likely to contain 

recognizable fossil remains. 

• Fossils of any kind are not 

known to occur except in the 

rarest of circumstances 

• Igneous or metamorphic 

origin 

• Landslides deposits 

The land manager’s concern 

for paleontological 

resources on Class 1 acres is 

negligible. Grounddisturbing activities would 

not require mitigation 

except in rare 

circumstances. 

2 Sedimentary geologic units that are not 

likely to contain vertebrate fossils or 

scientifically significant non-vertebrate 

fossils. 

• Vertebrate fossils known to 

occur very rarely or not at all 

• Age greater than Devonian 

• Age younger than 10,000 

years 

• Deep marine origin 

• Aeolian origin 

• Diagenetic alteration 

The land manager’s concern 

for paleontological 

resources on Class 2 acres is 

low. Ground-disturbing 

activities are not likely to 

require mitigation. 

3 Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic 

units where fossil content varies in 

significance, abundance, and 

predictable occurrence. Also 

sedimentary units of unknown fossil 

potential. 

• Units with sporadic known 

occurrences of vertebrate 

fossils 

• Vertebrate fossils and 

significant nonvertebrate 

fossil known to occur 

inconsistently: predictability 

known to be low 

• Poorly studied/or poorly 

documented 

The land manager’s concern 

for paleontological 

resources on Class 3 acres 

may extend across the entire 

range of management. 

Ground-disturbing activities 

need to be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis for the 

need to mitigate. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS M-2 Appendix M 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Class Description Basis Comments 

4 Geologic units that are highly 

fossilferous and have produced 

significant vertebrate fossils and/or 

significant invertebrates. 

• Significant soil/vegetation 

cover; outcrop not likely to 

be impacted 

• Other characteristics that 

lower the vulnerability of 

both known and unidentified 

fossil sites 

The land manager’s concern 

for paleontological 

resources on Class 4 acres is 

toward management and 

away from unregulated 

access. Proposed grounddisturbing activities would 

require assessment to 

determine whether 

significant paleontological 

resources occur in the area 

of a proposed action and 

whether the action will 

impact the paleontological 

resources. Mitigation 

beyond initial findings 

would range from no further 

mitigation necessary to full 

and continuous monitoring 

of significant localities 

during the action. 

5 Highly fossiliferous geologic units that 

regularly and predictably produce 

vertebrate fossils and/or scientifically 

significant nonvertebrate fossils and 

that are at risk of natural degradation 

and/or human-caused impacts. 

• Vertebrate fossils and/or 

scientifically significant 

nonvertebrate fossils are 

known and documented to 

occur consistently, 

predictably, and/or 

abundantly 

• Unit is exposed: little or no 

soil/vegetative cover 

• Outcrop areas are extensive, 

outcrop erodes readily, may 

form badlands 

• Easy access to extensive 

outcrop in remote areas 

• Other characteristics that 

increase the sensitivity of 

both known and unidentified 

fossil sites 

The land manager’s highest 

concern for paleontological 

resources should focus on 

Class 5 acres. Mitigation of 

ground-disturbing activities 

is required and may be 

intense. Areas of special 

interest and concern should 

be designated and intensely 

managed. 

SOURCE: Originally developed by the Paleontology Center of Excellence and the Region 2 (U.S. Forest Service) Paleo 

Initiative, 1996. Some modification by Dale Hansen, Regional Paleontologist, Wyoming, 2002 and Patricia M. Hester, Regional 

Paleontologist, New Mexico, 2004. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS M-3 Appendix M 

December 2008 
! !

!

!

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!!

!

!! !

!! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

! !

! ! !

!

! !

!

!

!

R 20 W R 18 W R 16 W R 14 W R 12 W R 10 W T 4 N R 8 W R 6 W R 4 W R 2 

Ladron 

Mountain 

T 2 N 

! Quemado 

Pie Town Cibola 

! National 

Forest 

£¤60

Cibola 

National 

Forest CD169 

T 2 S Datil ! 

Magdalena 

!

C12 D 

Apache Horse Cibola 

T 4 S National Mountain National Forest Forest 

! 

Aragon 

Pedro 

Armendaris 

T 6 S Grant #34 

Cibola 

National 

Forest 

! Reserve Gila 

National 

Forest San Marci

T 8 S 

£¤180 

T 10 S 

Legend 

Paleo Classes Surface Management ! Glenwood 

Class 1 Bureau of Land M

Gila Cliff Class 2 

Dwellings 

National 

T 12 S Class 3 

Monument Class 4 

Paleontological Resource Management Classes 

Socorro RMP/EIS 

UNION SAN JUAN RIO ARRIBA TAOS COLFAX 

Universal Transverse Mercator MCKINLEY SAN MIGUEL SANDOVAL 

MORA 

HARDING 

SANTA FE 

LOS ALAMOS 

© Zone 13, Units Meters GRS 1980 Spheroid NAD83 Datum CIBOLA QUAY TORRANCE DE BACA GUADALUPE CURRY VALENCIA BERNALILLO 

CATRON SOCORRO LINCOLN ROOSEVELT CHAVES Miles SIERRA 

LEA 

OTERO 

EDDY 

GRANT 

LUNA 

HIDALGO 

0 5 10 15 20 2.5 

DONA ANA 

Kilometers 

0 5 10 15 20 2.5 Location in 

P:\BLM\Socorro_RMPR_EIS\GIS\plots\FINAL_RMP_EIS\xApp_M\Map M-1 Paleo_classes.pdf New Mexico 
Appendix N
 

Old Growth Forest Definitions
 
 

APPENDIX N 

OLD GROWTH FOREST DEFINITIONS 

OVERVIEW 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) National Science and Technology Center staff was asked to 

develop an information base of old-growth forest descriptions that could contribute to the use of the 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) authorities, and which might be used in BLM land use plans. 

Section 102(e)(2) of the HFRA provides that covered projects using HFRA authority are to “fully 

maintain, or contribute toward the restoration of, the structure and composition of old-growth stands 

according to the pre-fire suppression of old-growth conditions characteristic of the forest type, taking into 

account the contribution of the stand to landscape fire adaptation and watershed health, and retaining the 

large trees contributing to old-growth structure.” The Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act Interim Field Guide address the old-growth and large tree retention requirements on 

pages 25 through 29. 

The library staff at the National Science and Technology Center conducted an exhaustive literature search 

for old-growth descriptions. Although scientific literature citations related to old-growth forests are 

numerous, few publications or published articles contain more than generic definitions of old growth. A 

review of the definitions suggests that old-growth forest is typically distinguished by the following: 

• Large size trees of specific species 

• Wide variation in age classes and stocking levels 

• Accumulations of large-size dead standing and fallen trees 

• Decadence in the form of broken or deformed tops and boles 

• Multiple canopy layers 

• Canopy interspaces and under story patchiness 

In the early 1990s, each region of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Forest Service 

(Forest Service) developed descriptions of old growth for Society of American Foresters (SAF) forest 

cover types found in the region. The Forest Service’s national standard for the descriptions contains five 

structural attributes for consideration in developing minimum criteria for old-growth determination: live 

trees in the main canopy, variation in tree diameters, dead trees, tree decadence, and number of tree 

canopies. Descriptions did not have to include all five attributes. The descriptions could include additional 

region-specific attributes if they were considered important in determining old-growth stands. 

Copies of the Forest Service’s descriptions were obtained by the BLM library. They were reviewed for 

applicability to BLM-managed forests and to the HFRA requirement for “pre-fire suppression old-growth 

conditions.” A list of forest cover types for BLM-managed lands was obtained from the Forest Service’s 

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) database with assistance from FIA staff at the Rocky Mountain and 

Pacific Northwest Research Stations. The FIA and SAF cover types do not correlate one-to-one in all 

cases; FIA lists more cover types for the western United States than does the SAF. However, in most 

cases the relationship between the SAF and FIA cover types was fairly straightforward. 

Table N-1 (at the end of Appendix N) shows old-growth descriptions available by the Forest Service 

Region and SAF Forest Cover Type. It identifies their applicability to the BLM by listing the states or 

portions of a state encompassed within Forest Service regional boundaries. The “Meets HFRA 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS N-1 Appendix N 

December 2008 
 

Requirement” column identifies which descriptions likely meet the needs of the BLM with respect to the 

HFRA requirement for a pre-fire suppression condition. 

Most forest types on BLM-managed lands are included in the Forest Service’s old-growth descriptions. 

One should not take the information in the table at total face value; some generalizations had to be made. 

The Forest Service Region 1 descriptions are not for cover types defined by the SAF; they are regionspecific cover types. Those descriptions were correlated to the most similar SAF cover type for use in the 

table. 

Some forest cover types occur on BLM-managed lands that are not present, or are of minor occurrence, 

on National Forests. Consequently, old-growth descriptions for the several piñon, juniper, and oak cover 

types found on BLM-managed lands are not in the Forest Service’s descriptions. The FIA also includes a 

mesquite cover type in Arizona; an old-growth description for mesquite is not available. A description for 

old-growth western juniper, as noted in the references, was found in a separate published work from 

Forest Service Region 6 (Waichler et al. 2001) 

Although old-growth descriptions for most BLM cover types are included in the Forest Service work, 

there are some limitations with the descriptions themselves. Most of the descriptions do not explicitly 

describe “pre-settlement” old-growth conditions as per the HFRA requirement. Some descriptions do 

meet the requirement in that they address conditions (such as stocking, age, etc.) as would be found in a 

pre-settlement old-growth forest. For example, the Region 3 southwestern ponderosa pine description 

discusses the role of fire in old-growth development. Therefore, one can conclude that the description fits 

conditions before the influence of settlement and fire suppression. 

Each description was judged on its ability to meet the HFRA requirement for a pre-settlement or pre-fire 

suppression condition. In the case of dry forest types, to be HFRA applicable, a description had to include 

a discussion of the effects of fire and the fire return interval in creating old-growth stands. At higher 

elevations with more wet forest types, fire is generally a stand-replacing event which reverts the stand to 

an earlier seral stage or even causes a forest type conversion. All descriptions for high elevation forest 

types are believed to meet HFRA requirements. 

When in doubt about the role of fire, or where the description is vague about the influence of fire 

suppression, descriptions are believed to not meet HFRA requirements. The Region 5 and Region 6 

descriptions clearly identify conditions existing today that they consider old-growth. Their old-growth 

descriptions identify “average” characteristics of ecologically old stands, or stands beyond maturity in a 

timber management context. The descriptions include the effects of modern human influences on the 

forest. They do not describe a pre-settlement condition. 

Because of missing descriptions or descriptions not meeting the HFRA requirement, additional 

descriptions may need to be developed for some BLM cover types. Also, this section does not intend to 

imply that the references descriptions should be used as written. They may require changing to meet BLM 

situations. 

Much of this information cited in this section was developed before the advent of easily transferable 

documents and consequently is only partially available electronically. In some Forest Service Regions the 

information is posted on a website. In other instances, the information is available only in hard copy from 

Regional Offices. Copies of all documents are available from the BLM library but may have to be sent as 

a hard copy. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS N-2 Appendix N 

December 2008 
 

 

ATTRIBUTES AND CLASSIFICATION 

Old growth definition structural attributes were developed for the five primary forest cover types in the 

Southwest (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region 1992). The attributes 

shown in Table N-2 (at the end of Appendix N) for each of the forest cover types are to be used to 

inventory and identify candidate stands for old-growth forest classification. The structural attributes will 

help identify stands that meet the minimum threshold characteristics to be considered as old-growth 

forest, excluding any consideration of stand size or location. 

OLD GROWTH DEFINITIONS 

Piñon-juniper Forest Cover Type 

The piñon-juniper (239) woodland forest cover typed occupies approximately 6.6 million acres. 

The piñon and juniper species that are in the Southwest are Rocky Mountain piñon, Arizona piñon 

(single-leaf piñon), border piñon, alligator juniper, redberry juniper, Rocky Mountain juniper, one-seed 

juniper, Utah juniper, and Pinchot juniper. Piñon-juniper woodlands commonly integrate to such 

vegetation as chaparral (shrub-dominated communities), grasslands, shrubsteppes (codominant mixtures 

of grasses and shrubs), evergreen oak woodlands (or encinal), and ponderosa pine or other forest types. 

There are 70 piñon-juniper associations that can be described in the Southwest (Moir and Carleton 1987). 

The specific species or species mix found at any particular site is largely due to climatic, geographic, and 

elevation differences. Piñon and juniper trees are found on a wide range of soil conditions. 

Description 

Old-growth piñon-juniper will be late successional in development with large, old trees older than 150 

years, on low sites, and 200 years, on high sites. There may be a few standing and down dead trees, but 

dead branches/limbs and even parts of the stems of older piñon and juniper trees may help make up the 

dead material deficit. The piñon-juniper stands usually develop under all-aged conditions (early and mid 

successional stages) until the site becomes fully occupied with older trees (late successional stage). 

As indicated by the large number of associations, old-growth piñon-juniper is variable in composition. 

The typical woodland piñon-juniper old-growth would be fairly open with the presence of an understory 

of grass, forbs, and often shrubs. Since existing piñon-juniper stands are developing with reduced 

herbaceous understory competition and without low-intensity ground fires, as occurred prior to the late 

1800s, they typically have a larger number of stems and a denser canopy structure. The less shade tolerant 

herbaceous understory vegetation is reduced significantly when an overstory reaches around 30 percent. 

Age Longevity 

Swetnam and Brown (1992) recently reported that the mean age for piñon pine was 278 years, as 

represented from 43 sites and 719 old trees in Arizona and New Mexico. The oldest living piñon tree, at 

the time of sampling, was 666 years (Swetnam and Brown 1992). 

Ponderosa Pine Forest Cover Type 

The ponderosa pine (237) forest cover type in the Southwestern Region covers approximately 3.9 million 

acres outside of the wilderness areas and an undetermined amount within the reserved areas. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS N-3 Appendix N 

December 2008 
 

The dominant tree species in the ponderosa pine forest cover type is ponderosa pine. Minor tree species of 

piñon pine and juniper occur with ponderosa pine at lower elevations adjacent to the piñon-juniper forest 

cover type, although, Rocky Mountain and alligator juniper can occur any place within the ponderosa 

pine type. At higher elevations near the mixed-species group, Southwestern white pine and Gambel oak 

can be found in abundance, and frequently small amounts of Douglas-fir, white fir, and aspen are present. 

Ponderosa pine has been referred to as blackjack and yellow pine in the past. The term blackjack 

indicated a younger ponderosa pine with dark gray to black bark color. The blackjack’s bark is deeply 

furrowed with narrow ridges between the fissures. In contrast, the term yellow pine was used to indicate 

an older tree. The older yellow pine’s bark is reddish brown to yellow, carrying the color well into the top 

of the tree; the plates are usually very wide, long, and smooth. The bark color transition begins sometime 

between 120 to 150 years of age, depending upon the geographic location. The older trees also have large 

branches in the upper portion of the tree that tend to be perpendicular to the stem. In addition, the tree top 

is flatter than younger more vigorous trees. 

Fire was key in shaping Southwestern ponderosa pine forests prior to pre-European settlement. Lowintensity ground fires typically burned through ponderosa pine forests at 3- to 15-year intervals, keeping 

forests open in appearance, and removing competing understory vegetation and down material. Frequent 

burning resulted in irregularly-shaped large patches with even-aged groups of trees varying in size, age, 

and density over the landscape. 

Fire suppression, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, mining, and recreational uses have altered the presettlement conditions. Now the ponderosa pine forests are generally denser, with many small trees, have 

fewer large trees, have a greater accumulation of down material, and have sparse herbaceous understory. 

Description 

Old-growth ponderosa pine will be late successional in development with large trees older than 180 years 

of age; mature tree characteristics will be as described for yellow pine. The size and number of large trees 

will represent the productivity of the site, with fewer and smaller trees on the lower sites. Minimums are 

at least one large dead standing tree and two large-sized dead down trees per acre. More snags and down 

logs will not distract from the late successional old-growth characteristics. The structure may be either 

single-storied or multi-storied. Density will also vary with site productivity; with less basal area and 

canopy cover on the less productive land. 

Age Longevity 

Pearson (1950) states the oldest ponderosa pine recorded in the Southwest was 650 years. Trees over 400 

years are found occasionally, but mature trees in general are not much over 300 years old and most are 

less than 200 years old (Pearson 1950). 

White (1985) found that trees in the Gus Pearson Natural Area ranged in age up to 405 years, but the 

majority of the trees were less than 200 years; peak ages were between 145 and 165 years. Covington’s 

and Moore’s (1991) data appear to show a rapid decline in the number of large ponderosa pine trees at 

about 200 years of age when a dense understory exists. Daniel (1980) states that ponderosa pine remains 

physiologically young up to 200 years of age in its response to thinning. 

Swetnam and Brown (1992) recently reported that the mean age for ponderosa pine was 279 years. Their 

data set represented 62 sites and 915 old trees in Arizona and New Mexico. The oldest living ponderosa 

pine tree, at the time of survey, was 742 years (Swetnam and Brown 1992). 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS N-4 Appendix N 

December 2008 
 

Aspen Forest Cover Type 

The aspen forest cover type (217) seldom, if ever, occurs as a pure stand of quaking aspen or as the 

climax species in the Southwest; it always appears in association with one or more other tree species as 

the seral species. Species that are associated with it are ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, 

limber pine, subalpine fir, white fir, and Southwestern white pine. 

Aspen is one of the first species that regenerates after a wildfire or similar disturbance, if the clone is 

present. Aspen will quickly sucker from an existing live root system following a disturbance that kills the 

upper portion of the aspen tree (aspen does not normally regenerate from seed in the Southwest). Rapid 

growth occurs after suckering and during the early stand development years. With increasing stand age, 

conifer seedlings, from surrounding conifer seed trees, eventually become established and grow in the 

shade of the aspen, aspen acting like a nurse crop to the conifers. Since aspen is relatively short lived and 

conifers longer lived, the conifers eventually outgrow aspen, replacing the aspen, first as a mixed type and 

finally as a confer type. 

Description 

Aspen old-growth would be characterized as having a single canopy overstory layer of old aspen trees at 

least 100 years of age. There would be an understory of conifers; however, there could be instances where 

the understory conifers would be removed by cutting to keep an open appearance for a specific value. 

There would probably be few dead standing and down trees until the old aspen trees begin to degenerate 

from pathogenic causes, then down dead material would begin to accumulate. As the overstory aspen 

trees continue to die, the understory conifers would begin to dominate the stand as an early or mid 

successional stage, depending upon their size and development, and the old-growth stand will no longer 

exist. Aspen old-growth, at the best, is short term in duration. 

Age Longevity 

Aspen is a small- to medium-sized, fast-growing and short-lived tree. Aspen is susceptible to a large 

number of diseases and is host to a wide variety of insects. The insects, many of them defoliators, tend to 

reduce the tree’s vigor, but are not the major cause of tree death. Diseases are the primary cause for the 

short life of aspen. A few vigorous trees attain a maximum age of about 200 years; the oldest recorded is 

226. The pathological age of aspen in the West ranges from 80 to 120 years (Hunter 1989; Perala 1990). 

No habitat type list was developed for aspen. Aspen does not occur as a habitat type in the Southwest. 

Aspen can occur as a forest cover type in any plant association where aspen is present; however, aspen 

would be considered a seral species (as early successional species). 

Mixed-species Group Forest Cover Types 

There is several forest cover types included in the mixed-species group. The mixed-species group 

includes the Douglas-fir (210), white fir (211), blue spruce (216), and limber pine (219) forest cover 

types. Most often the mixed-species stands have a rich diversity of vegetation, including three or four 

different tree species, sometimes more (Krauch 1956). 

The major tree species found in this group are Douglas-fir and white fir. Often included in minor amounts 

are tree species such as subalpine fir, corkbark fir, Engelmann spruce, blue spruce, Southwestern white 

pine, ponderosa pine, aspen, and Gambel oak. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS N-5 Appendix N 

December 2008 
 

The mixed-species group is a productive forest component. This group occurs on the landscape at a 

middle elevation between the lower elevation ponderosa pine forest cover type and the higher elevation 

Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir forest cover type. The mean annual precipitation in the Douglas-fir zone 

averages a little more than 26 inches and the growing season is of adequate length for good growth 

response (Krauch 1956). 

The various tree species all have different shade tolerance levels, regeneration requirements, and growth 

characteristics. Therefore, for trees, the tolerance of most practical importance is their ability to establish 

and grow satisfactorily in the shade of, and in competition with, other larger trees. Shade tolerant tree 

species express their presence and increase in number as a mixed-species stand grows older (mid and late 

succession stages) and/or becomes denser. There is a gradual change in species composition to the more 

shade tolerant species without natural or man-caused disturbance. 

The tolerance of the associated species has been given as subalpine fir ≥ Englemann spruce ≥ corkbark fir 

≥ white fir ≥ Douglas-fir ≥ blue spruce > Southwestern white pine ≥ limber pine > ponderosa pine 

> aspen ≥ Gambel oak (Daniel 1980). Limber pine and Gambel oak were added to Daniel’s reference as 

observed in the Southwest. 

Before European settlement of the Southwest, low-intensity ground fires in mixed-species forests 

occurred at lesser intervals than in ponderosa pine. Ground fires burned more frequent on dry, low 

elevation sites and less frequent on moist, high elevation sites. The fires keep the forest open, allowing 

less shade tolerant tree species such as ponderosa pine, aspen, and Gambel oak to establish and grow. 

Since fire suppression management was started in the early 1900s, mixed-species forest structure and 

composition has changed. The structural change has been to increased crown cover and basal area 

densities, more trees, especially smaller trees, forming a multi-storied condition. The compositional 

change has been to the more shade tolerant species such as white fir and Douglas-fir. Furthermore, the 

lack of fire and change in conditions have increased the susceptibility of the forest to insect and disease 

agents. 

Description 

Old-growth mixed species group forest cover types will be late successional in development with large 

trees older than 150 years. The size and number of large trees will represent the productivity of the site, 

with fewer and smaller trees on the lower sites. The forest should have a diverse composition of tree 

species; aspen may not be present in this stage. At least 3.5 large, dead-standing trees and four large, dead 

down pieces per acre of any species will be present. The forest structure can be either single storied or 

multi-storied. Basal area and canopy cover densities will vary depending upon the productive capability 

of the land. 

Age Longevity 

Douglas-fir – Coastal Douglas-fir is considered very long lived. Ages in excess of 500 years are not 

uncommon and some have exceeded 1,000 years; however, interior Douglas-fir rarely lives more than 400 

years (Hermann and Lavender 1990). Hunter (1989) lists the maximum longevity age for Douglas-fir to 

be 1,000 years and the pathological longevity age of 150 years. Lynch (1990) reported sampling 13 live 

Douglas-fir trees on the Carson National Forest that were greater than 600 years of age; five of the trees 

were 700 to 779 years old. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS N-6 Appendix N 

December 2008 
 

Swetnam and Brown (1992) recently reported the mean age for Douglas-fir to be 278 years, as 

represented on 38 sites—526 old trees in Arizona and New Mexico. The oldest living Douglas-fir tree, at 

the time of the sampling, was 930 years. 

White Fir – Coastal white fir does not often exceed 350 years, but 500-year-old trees have been reported; 

however, the maximum age in the interior may be close to 300 years (Markstrom and McElderry 1984). 

Hunter (1989) lists the maximum longevity age for white fir to be 360 years and the pathological 

longevity age of 150 years. The oldest known living white fir tree in Arizona and New Mexico, at the 

time of sampling, was 333 years (Swetnam and Brown 1992). 

Subalpine Fir – The subalpine fir/corkbark fir trees often live for more than 250 years (Markstrom and 

McElderry 1984). Hunter (1989) lists the maximum longevity age for subalpine fir to be 250 years and 

the pathological longevity age of 130 years. Alexander (1987) recognized that the species suffers severely 

from heart rot; many trees either die or are complete culls at an early age. 

Engelmann Spruce – Engelmann spruce matures at about 300 years, often dominant spruce are 250 to 450 

years old, and trees 500 to 600 years are not uncommon (Alexander and Sheppard 1990). 

Blue Spruce – Blue spruce is apparently a long-lived tree, often reaching up to 600 years or more in age 

(Fechner 1990). 

Southwestern White Pine – Southwestern white pine has very little information concerning longevity; 

however, it is observed that Southwestern white pine could have the same longevity attributes as Eastern 

white pine. The maximum longevity is 450 years and the pathological longevity age is 160 to 170 years 

for Eastern white pine (Hunter 1989). The age of decline for Western white pine is 300 to 400 years and 

the oldest age 500 years (Graham 1990). The oldest known living Southwestern white pine tree in 

Arizona and New Mexico, at the time of the sampling, was 538 years (Swetnam and Brown 1992). 

Limber Pine – Preston (1961) indicates that limber pine reaches maturity in 200 to 300 years. One tree in 

southern California was found to be well over 1,000 years; another in central Idaho was 1,650 years old 

(Steele 1990). Lynch (1990) reported finding limber pine trees on the Carson National Forest that were 

hollow; the outer stem measured 1,500 to 1,700 years old. Lynch is confident that trees measuring 2,000 

years old are located in this area. The oldest known living limber pine found in Arizona and New Mexico 

reported by Swetnam and Brown (1992), at the time of sampling, was 1,670 years. 

Gambel Oak – Gambel Oak is considered a short-lived tree. A study in the Navajo National Monument, 

Arizona, indicated that oak stems rarely live longer than 80 years; 103 was the oldest stem found. In 

addition, 90 percent or more of the stems encountered in long-established clones were less than 10 years 

old (Brotherson et al. 1983). The oldest known living Gambel oak tree in Arizona and New Mexico, at the 

time of sampling, was 401 years (Swetnam and Brown 1992). 

Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Forest Cover Type 

The dominant tree species in the spruce-fir (206) forest cover type are Engelmann spruce and subalpine 

fir. Minor tree species of Douglas-fir, blue spruce, white fir, limber pine, aspen, and occasionally 

ponderosa pine associate at the lower elevations, and corkbark fir and bristlecone pine at the higher 

elevations. The bristlecone pine (209) forest cover type is included with the spruce-fir description. 

Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir occur as codominants or in nearly pure stands of one or the other 

species. Engelmann spruce generally extends above subalpine fir and corkbark fir, forming nearly pure 

stands at timberline. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS N-7 Appendix N 

December 2008 
 

 

Spruce-fir forests have lower fire frequencies than the ponderosa pine and mixed-species. The frequencies 

are from 63 to 400 years and are usually stand replacement events. 

Description 

Old-growth spruce-fir will be late successional in development with large trees older than 140 years 

where Engelmann spruce is less than 50 percent composition and 170 years old where Engelmann spruce 

is 50 or more percent composition of the stand. The size and number of large trees will vary with site 

productivity, with fewer and smaller trees on the lower sites. There is usually over-abundance of standing 

dead and down trees. The structure will more than likely be two or more storied with natural regeneration 

appearing in gaps or small openings caused by the death of one or more of the large trees. Density will 

usually be high; but will be slightly less on the less productive sites. 

Bristlecone pine is much less tolerant to shade than Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir and therefore 

would almost always be the pioneer species for spruce-fir stands. However, occasionally old-growth 

bristlecone pine may occur in small-sized patches on very harsh, exposed sites. Where it does occur, it 

would have small tree-sized characteristics. 

Age Longevity 

The pathological and maximum longevity ages for all species in the spruce-fir have been discussed in the 

mixed-species forest cover type except for bristlecone pine. The bristlecone pine grows very slow, 

reaches maturity in 200 to 250 years, obtaining ages of over 2,000 years, possibly the oldest living 

organism (Preston 1961). 

Swetnam and Brown (1992) recently reported that the oldest known living bristlecone pine and 

Engelmann spruce trees in Arizona and New Mexico, at the time of sampling, was 1,438 and 295 years, 

respectively. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS N-8 Appendix N 

December 2008 
 

 

 

TABLE N-1 

OLD-GROWTH DESCRIPTIONS
 

References States 

SAF Cover Types found on BLM with 

Old-growth Descriptions Available 

Meets HFRA 

Requirement 

SAF Cover Types Found 

on BLM without OldGrowth Descriptions 

Forest Service Region 1 

Green et al. Northern 205 Mountain hemlock Yes 217 Aspen* 

1992 Idaho, 206 Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir Yes 220 Rocky Mountain 

Montana, 208 Whitebark pine Yes juniper 

North Dakota 210 Interior douglas fir Yes 

212 Western larch Yes 

213 Grand fir Yes 

215 Western white pine Yes 

218 Lodgepole pine Yes 

219 Limber pine Yes 

224 Western hemlock Yes 

228 Western red cedar Yes 

237 Interior ponderosa pine Yes 

Forest Service Region 2 

Mehl 1992 Colorado, 206 Engelmann spruce-Subalpine Fir Yes 208 Whitebark pine* 

Wyoming, 210 Interior douglas fir Yes 219 Limber pine* 

South Dakota 217 Aspen Yes 220 Rocky Mountain 

218 Lodgepole pine Yes juniper 

237 Interior ponderosa pine (Front Range) Yes 

237 Interior ponderosa pine (Black Hills) Yes 

237 Interior ponderosa pine (Southwest) Yes 

239 Piñon-juniper Yes 

Forest Service Region 3 

USDA Arizona, 206 Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir Yes 220 Rocky Mountain 

Forest New Mexico 217 Aspen Yes juniper 

Service, 237 Interior ponderosa pine Yes 

Southwestern 239 Piñon-juniper Yes 

Region 1992 210 Interior douglas fir Yes 

211 White fir Yes 

216 Blue spruce Yes 

219 Limber pine Yes 

Forest Service Region 4 

Hamilton Southern 206 Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir Yes 220 Rocky Mountain 

1993 Idaho, 208 Whitebark pine Yes juniper 

Nevada, 209 Bristlecone pine Yes 223 Jeffery pine* 

Utah, 210 Interior douglas fir Yes 235 Cottonwood-willow 

Western 216 Blue spruce Yes 

Wyoming 217 Aspen Yes 

218 Lodgepole pine Yes 

219 Limber pine Yes 

237 Interior ponderosa pine (Northern Yes 

Plateau Race) Yes 

237 Interior ponderosa pine (Rocky Yes 

Mountain Race) 

239 Piñon-juniper 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS N-9 Appendix N 

December 2008 
 

 

 

TABLE N-1 

OLD-GROWTH DESCRIPTIONS
 

References States 

SAF Cover Types found on BLM with 

Old-growth Descriptions Available 

Meets HFRA 

Requirement 

SAF Cover Types Found 

on BLM without OldGrowth Descriptions 

Forest Service Region 5 

USDA California 207 Red Fir Yes 239 Piñon-juniper 

Forest 211 White Fir No 233 Oregon white oak 

Service, 218 Lodgepole pine Yes 238 Western juniper 

Pacific 229 Pacific douglas fir No 246 California black oak 

Southwest 232 Coast redwood No 249 Canyon live Oak 

Region 1992 234 Douglas fir/tanoak/madrone No 

237 Interior ponderosa pine No 

243 Mixed conifer No 

245 Pacific ponderosa pine No 

247 Jeffery pine No 

256 California mixed subalpine forests No 

Forest Service Region 6 

USDA Oregon, 206 Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir Yes 207 Red Fir 

Forest Washington 210 Interior douglas–fir Yes 238 Western juniper, (see 

Service, 211 White fir No Waichler et al. 2001) 

Pacific 213 Grand fir No 

Northwest 218 Lodgepole pine Yes 

Region 1993 224 Western hemlock Yes 

226 Coastal true fir-hemlock No 

229 Pacific douglas-fir Yes 

231 Port-orford-cedar No 

232 Redwood No 

234 Douglas fir–tanoak-pacific madrone No 

237 Interior ponderosa pine Yes 

Forest Service Region 10 

Capp et al. Alaska 201 White spruce Yes 

1992 204 Black spruce Yes 

205 Mountain hemlock Yes 

217 Aspen Yes 

223 Sitka spruce Yes 

224 Western hemlock Yes 

*A definition is available from one of the other regions. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS N-10 Appendix N 

December 2008 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE N-2 

OLD-GROWTH ATTRIBUTES BY FOREST COVER TYPE 

Piñon-Juniper 

Interior 

Ponderosa Pine Aspen 

Mixed Species 

Group 

Engelmann 

SpruceSubalpine Fir 

Forest Cover Type, 

SAF Code 

239 237 217 210, 211, 216, 219 206, 209 

Site Capability 

Potential 

Break Between Low 

and High Site 

55 Minor 50 Douglas-Fir 

Edminster and 

Jump 

50 Engelmann 

Spruce 

Alexander 

Live trees in main 

canopy Low High Low High All Low High Low High

 Trees/acre 

DBH/DRC 

Age (Years) 

12 30 

9" 12" 

150 200 

20 20 

14v 18" 

 180 180 

20 

14" 

100 

12 16 

18" 20" 

150 150 

20 30 

10" 14" 

1403

/1704 

Variations in tree 

diameters 

(y/n) 

No No No No No 

Dead trees standing Low High Low High All Low High Low High 

Trees/acre 

Size DBH/DRC 

Height (feet)

 0.51 1 

9" 10" 

8' 10' 

1 1 

14" 14"

 15' 25' 

No 

10" 

No 

2.5 2.5 

14" 16" 

20' 25' 

3 4 

12" 16" 

20' 30' 

Dead trees down Low High Low High All Low High Low High 

Pieces/acre 

Size (diam.) 

Length (feet) 

2 22 

9" 10" 

8' 10' 

2 2 

12" 12" 

15' 15' 

No 

No 

No 

4 4 

12" 12" 

16' 16' 

5 5 

12" 12" 

16' 16' 

Tree decadence Low High Low High All Low High Low High 

 Trees/acre No No No No No 

Number of tree 

canopies 

SS/MS SS/MS SS SS/MS SS/MS 

Total BA, Square feet 

per acre 

6 24 70 90 No 80 100 120 140 

Total canopy cover (%) 20 35 40 50 50 50 60 60 70 

NOTES: 1 Dead limbs help make up dead material deficit.

2 Unless removed for firewood or fire-burning activities. 

3 In mixed corkbark fir and Engelmann spruce stands where Engelmann spruce is less than 50 percent 

compositions in the stand. 4 In mixed corkbark fir and Engelmann spruce stands where Engelmann spruce is 50 or more percent 

composition in the stand. 

No: not determined SS: single storied MS: multi storied L: Live (trees in main canopy) 

DBH = 

DRC = 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS N-11 Appendix N 

December 2008 
 

REFERENCES 

Capp, J., B. Van Zee, P. Alaback, J. Boughton, M. Copenhagen, and J. Martin. 1992. Final Report, 

Ecological Definitions for Old-Growth Forest Types in the Alaska Region. Prepared by the Ecology 

Steering Committee, USDA Forest Service Alaska Region (Region 10). 

Green, P., J. Joy, D. Sirucek, W. Hann, A. Zack, and B. Naumann. 1992. Old-Growth Forest Types of the 

Northern Region. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana (Region 1). 

Hamilton, R.G., compiler. 1993. Characteristics of Old-Growth Forests in the Intermountain Region. 

USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah (Region 4). 

Mehl, Mel S. 1992. Old-Growth Descriptions for the Major Forest Cover Types in the Rocky Mountain 

Region, In: Kaufmann, M.R., W.H. Moir, and R.L. Bassett, technical coordinators, Old-Growth 

Forests in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain Regions: Proceedings of a Workshop. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General 

Technical Report RM 213 (Region 2). 

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 1992. Recommended Old-Growth Definitions and 

Descriptions and Old-Growth Allocation Procedure (Region 3). 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 1992. Old Growth Definitions/Characteristics for 

Eleven Forest Cover Types. Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, California (Region 5). 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 1993. Region 6 interim old growth definitions for the 

Douglas-fir series, grand fir/white fir series, interior Douglas-fir series, lodgepole pine series, Pacific 

silver fir series, ponderosa pine series, Port Orford cedar series, tanoak (redwood) series, western 

hemlock series. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon (Region 6). 

Waichler, W.S., R.F. Miller, and P.S. Doescher. 2001. Community characteristics of old-growth western 

juniper woodlands. Journal of Range Management, 54:518-527. 

Additional references are available for review at the Socorro Field Office. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS N-12 Appendix N 

December 2008 
Appendix O
 

Analytical Assumptions
 
 

APPENDIX O 

ANALYTICAL ASSUMPTIONS 

This appendix provides definitions of impacts, additional assumptions, or other information that may be 

useful in understanding the approach to the impact analysis for each resource or resource use. 

AIR QUALITY 

Impact Definitions 

An impact on air quality would occur when an action would result in (1) an increase in air pollutants that 

would exceed New Mexico or Federal ambient air quality standards, or (2) increased air emissions that 

would exceed Prevention of Significant Deterioration standards for Federal Class I areas. 

GEOLOGY, CAVES AND KARST RESOURCES 

Impact Definitions 

Impacts to geological resources, caves, or karst resources generally would occur as a result of damage to 

or destruction of resources, such as excavation or construction that damages or removes resources having 

unusual geological, mineralogical, or paleontological information or natural scenic value. 

SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES 

Impact Definitions 

The impacts on water resources possible under the alternatives might include changes in water quantity or 

quality to the extent that those changes affect domestic water supplies, livestock and other agricultural 

uses, and wildlife/natural vegetation use of water. 

Soil resources can be impacted by management decisions, either by the changing erosive actions of wind 

and water or by limiting the productivity of the soil. Soil resources also feed back into water resources 

when excessive erosion and sediment transport degrades water quality or habitat. 

Watershed impacts are an accumulation of all of these impacts such as to limit or enhance the ecology of 

an entire drainage basin. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) policy recognizes that many planning 

decisions need to consider impacts that are minor in any specific place but can cause serious damage to 

the land on a watershed basis. 

Additional Assumptions 

Short-term effects to the watershed and water resources are those that cause parameters such as 

groundwater levels or stream flow to exceed natural variations in these values but do not result in a 

change in the availability or designated use of the resources beyond the planning period of the resource 

management plan. For example, a diversion of stream flow to limit soil erosion would affect surface water 

quantity on the short term but would presumably not cause a permanent loss of the resource. A long-term 

effect would extend beyond the planning period; for example, the loss of topsoil, which requires 

thousands of years to develop naturally, would be a long-term effect. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS O-1 Appendix O 

December 2008 
 

VEGETATION 

Impact Definitions 

An impact on vegetation generally would occur due to (1) removal or crushing of vegetation, (2) soil 

erosion or reduction of soil or water quality due, or (3) the introduction of noxious or invasive weeds. 

Additional Assumptions 

It is assumed that the vegetation program would be managed in the same general manner under all 

alternatives in accordance with laws, regulations, and policies with the goal of meeting current standards. 

Before a site-specific project is authorized, Federal and BLM interagency consultation protocol requires 

that site-specific inventory and evaluation be completed and mitigation measures be identified to 

minimize adverse effects. Overall impacts could be minimized with mitigation measures including impact 

avoidance where practicable. Finally, it is assumed that ground-disturbing activities would result in a 

direct loss of vegetation. 

WILDLIFE (INCLUDING WILD HORSES) AND RIPARIAN HABITAT 

Impact Definitions 

An impact on wildlife generally would occur if: (1) impacts to vegetation occur that would degrade, 

eliminate, or improve wildlife habitat, (2) direct mortality of individual wildlife occurs, (3) a management 

action results in the fragmentation of habitat or disruption of wildlife movement corridors, or conversely, 

in the consolidation of habitat (such as through land acquisition), or (4) an increase in human disturbance 

or access occurs in habitat areas. 

Additional Assumptions 

The wildlife and riparian habitat management program would be managed in the same general manner 

under all alternatives in accordance with laws, regulations, and policies with the goal of meeting current 

standards. Before a site-specific project is authorized, Federal and BLM requirements of interagency 

consultation, site-specific inventory, and evaluation would be completed and mitigation measures would 

be identified to minimize adverse effects. Overall impacts could be minimized with mitigation measures 

including impact avoidance where practicable. 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Impact Definitions 

Impacts to special status plant and wildlife species would occur if impacts occur as defined for vegetation 

and wildlife (as discussed above). 

WILDLAND FIRE ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT 

Impact Definitions 

Impacts on wildlife fire ecology and management generally would occur if management actions (1) affect 

hazardous fuels build-up or reduction, (2) affect conditions for use of prescribed fire, (3) influence 

priorities or conditions for fire suppression activities. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS O-2 Appendix O 

December 2008 
 

 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Impact Definitions 

Impacts on cultural and paleontological resources generally would occur due to (1) loss or degradation of 

a resource through surface-disturbing activities or natural processes (such as soil erosion), or (2) increased 

human access, which exposes the resources to discovery, loss, or vandalism. 

Additional Assumptions 

The impact analysis assumed that regardless of which alternative is selected, the cultural resource 

program would continue to be implemented in accordance with BLM policies, which implement 

numerous Federal laws and regulations. The analysis of alternatives also assumed that the cultural 

resource program would continue to evaluate and allocate cultural resources to one of five use categories: 

(1) scientific use, (2) conservation for future use, (3) traditional use, (4) public use, and (5) experimental 

use. The extent of impacts on cultural resources among the alternatives considered varies in regard to two 

primary factors: (1) the types and intensities of uses of public land, especially the extent of ground 

disturbing activities, and (2) the extent of area specially designated to protect cultural resources. 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Impact Definitions 

The impact analysis considers the type of change that a management action might have on a visual setting 

or scenic resource, and whether the change occurs in an area of high viewer sensitivity. Impacts to visual 

resources generally occur if (1) a change to scenic quality occurs; (2) the changes to the landscape that 

could occur within an area do not support the Visual Resource Management (VRM) class objectives 

applicable to that area; and (3) a change to the visual setting occurs in an area of high sensitivity. Areas of 

high viewer sensitivity are considered to be more likely to experience impacts from changes to the visual 

setting, and occur in population centers such as Socorro and sensitive or unique areas such as special 

designations. An evaluation of potential impacts in areas of high viewer sensitivity considers duration of 

view and the experience the viewer is seeking (e.g., solitude, naturalness, scenic landscapes). Areas of 

low viewer sensitivity are generally near existing industrial uses such as mining areas. 

Additional Assumptions 

Because existing scenic quality data are not available, it is assumed that the existing VRM classes 

generally represent the existing scenic quality within the Planning Area; therefore, it is assumed that areas 

of higher scenic value generally occur within special designations. It is assumed that VRM class 

objectives will be implemented and enforced as designated, and that site-specific visual resource 

evaluations would be completed for each proposed project requiring a land use authorization consistent 

with guidance in BLM Manual 8430. 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

Impact Definitions 

Impacts to wilderness characteristics generally would occur if there is an impact to naturalness, 

opportunities for solitude, or opportunities for primitive, unconfined recreation. As such, impacts to 

wilderness characteristics are addressed indirectly through the analysis of recreation resources, visual 

resources, and vegetation. The wilderness characteristics sections throughout Chapter 4 address potential 

impacts that are not characterized in other resource sections. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS O-3 Appendix O 

December 2008 
 

Additional Assumptions 

As described in Chapter 3, wilderness characteristics within the Planning Area are found within 

wilderness study areas and sometimes in areas near or adjacent to wilderness study areas. Wilderness 

study areas would be managed under the Interim Management Plan and impacts would be controlled as a 

result. 

LAND AND REALTY 

Impact Definitions 

The impact analysis considers impacts resulting from management on (1) land uses, and (2) BLM’s 

ability to authorize uses (e.g., utilities). Impacts on land uses generally occur when management actions 

or prescriptions either (1) allow for the physical loss of land for a particular use or (2) preclude a change 

that might be warranted to meet National, State, or local needs (e.g., infrastructure). Impacts on 

mining/minerals management, recreation, wilderness characteristics, and grazing are discussed under 

those respective sections. 

Additional Assumptions 

It is assumed that applications for leases, permits, or easements for land authorizations would continue to 

be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. 

FORESTRY AND WOODLAND MANAGEMENT 

Impact Definitions 

Impacts on forestry and woodland management generally would occur as a result of (1) changes to the 

fire management program, (2) changes to vegetation that affect the woodland species, or (3) surface 

disturbance or other management actions that cause erosion or alter forest vegetation types. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING AND RANGE MANAGEMENT 

Impact Definitions 

Impacts to livestock grazing and range management could occur if (1) livestock grazing is excluded from 

an area, (2) available animal unit months are affected, or (3) the ability to construct or maintain range 

improvements is affected. 

MINERALS AND ENERGY 

Impact Definitions 

Impacts to minerals or renewable energy resources generally would occur as a result of (1) utilization of 

mineral resources in a manner that does not offer the highest value for the use of public land to the people 

of the United States, such as permitting the sale of crushed rock from an unusual type of granite outcrop 

that may bring higher value as quarried building stone, and (2) withdrawal or prohibition of the use of the 

land for the extraction of mineral resources, such as protection of other environmental resources by 

prohibiting leasing, exploration, and development of mineral resources. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS O-4 Appendix O 

December 2008 
 

Additional Assumptions 

In general, it is acknowledged that impacts adverse to mineral resources are beneficial to other resources 

and that mineral withdrawals or lease stipulations that limit mineral resource uses are protective of other 

resources determined to have greater value in the withdrawn area. Beneficial impacts to mineral resources 

may include development and sales of mineral resources such as leasing, exploration and development of 

oil and gas resources that increase jobs and stimulate the local economy, provide lease sales dollars to the 

general fund, and provide domestic sources of mineral, mineral material, and energy resources. 

RECREATION 

Impact Definitions 

Impacts on recreation resources generally occur due to (1) increases or reductions in public access, which 

could promote, discourage, or eliminate recreation uses in an area; (2) changes to or enhancement of the 

recreation setting or experience; or (3) closure to some or all types of recreation use, either directly 

through management decisions or indirectly through competition or incompatibility with other uses. 

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

Impact Definitions 

Impacts on transportation and travel management generally would occur when (1) areas are closed or 

limited to public access, or (2) new access is created or expanded. 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES 

Impact Definitions 

The social and economic impact of the alternatives are assessed in terms of the current contribution of 

BLM’s management of public land relative to the social and economic environment of the region. Key 

economic impact variables include employment, income, economic dependency, and market and nonmarket economic value of resources to users within the social and economic study area and at the regional 

and national levels. Key social impact variables include population change, community and institutional 

structures, political and social resources, community and family changes, and community resources. 

Additional Assumptions 

Since the alternatives are broad desired outcomes and land use allocations, modeling specific fiscal 

impacts is not possible. For example, identifying certain lands as available for coal leasing does not 

clarify whether actual economic activity would be proposed in the future, or what the size and type of 

operation might be. Therefore, this analysis largely focuses on qualitative impacts that BLM management 

decisions might have on businesses and communities. Site-specific analysis of the potential impacts of 

future proposed actions would occur in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other 

mandates. 

Socorro Proposed RMP/Final EIS O-5 Appendix O 

December 2008