BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

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

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

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

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

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

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

scientific, and cultural values. 

BLM/NM/PL-07-03-1610

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS A-1 Appendix A

April 2007

APPENDIX A 

PLANNING CRITERIA

GENERAL PLANNING CRITERIA 

The following general planning criteria have guided the preparation of this Resource Management Plan 

Revision/Environmental Impact Statement and will continue to guide land use decisions made in the 

future.

x Apply the principles of multiple use and sustained yield as set forth in the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act and other applicable laws. 

x Use a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, 

biological, economic, social, and environmental aspects of public land management. 

x Give priority to the identification, designation, protection, and special management of areas of 

critical environmental concern. 

x Consider the relative significance of the public land products, services, and uses to local 

economies. 

x Rely on available inventories of the public lands, their resources, and other values with updating 

the inventory to the extent necessary to reach sound management decisions. 

x Consider present and potential uses of the public lands. 

x Consider impacts of uses on adjacent or nearby non-Federal lands and on nonpublic land surface 

over federally owned minerals. 

x Consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the availability of alternative means 

(including recycling) and sites for realization of those values. 

x Weigh long-term benefits and detriments against short-term benefits and detriments. 

x Comply fully with applicable pollution control laws, regulations, and policies, including State and 

Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans. 

x Coordinate Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource inventory, planning, and management 

activities with the resource planning and management programs of other Federal departments and 

agencies, State and local governments, and Native American Tribes to the extent consistent with 

the laws governing the administration of the public lands. 

x Provide for public involvement including early notice and frequent opportunity for citizens and 

interested groups and others including Native American Tribes to participate in and comment on 

the preparation of plans and related guidance. 

x Comply fully with all Federal laws that guide management of specific resources such as the 

Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Taylor Grazing 

Act, and others. 

x Comply fully with the BLM national policy on special status species that states “BLM shall carry 

out management consistent with the principles of multiple use, for the conservation of candidate 

(and sensitive) species and their habitats and shall ensure that actions authorized, funded, or 

carried out do not contribute to the need to list any of these species as threatened or endangered.” 

(BLM 6840 Manual) 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS A-2 Appendix A

April 2007

x Reflect Federal land management agency obligations under applicable Tribal treaties and laws or 

executive orders relating to Native American reserved rights, religious freedoms, traditional use 

areas, etc. 

PLANNING CRITERIA SPECIFIC TO RESOLVING THE ISSUES FOR THE RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

As noted in Chapter 1, six issues have been identified that need to be resolved through the planning 

process. In addition to the general planning criteria identified above, other specific planning criteria have 

been developed to aid in resolving the issues. These criteria are described below and are the standards that 

BLM will consider in developing resolutions to the issues. 

Issue 1. Which areas if any should be designated for special management, what designations should 

apply (areas of critical environmental concern, special management areas, or other), and how 

should they be managed? 

To resolve this issue, BLM will consider: 

x Resource to be managed 

x Manageability of the areas 

x Existing areas of critical environmental concern representation 

x Current and potential land uses 

x Effects of designation on other resources and uses 

x Effects of nondesignation on resources 

x Social and economic effects 

x Public interests and attitudes 

x Consistency of designation with resource plans of other agencies, local government, or Tribes 

x Long-term versus short-term benefit 

x Public health and safety 

Issue 2. What type of management should be undertaken at the watershed level to reduce erosion, 

improve surface water quality, maintain and improve vegetation, and reduce non-point source 

pollution?

To resolve this issue, BLM will consider: 

x Watershed condition and trend and productivity potential 

x Resource values 

x Current and potential land uses 

x Social and economic effects 

x Public interests and attitudes 

x Condition and trend of native plant communities 

x Presence of special status species, both plants and animals 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS A-3 Appendix A

April 2007

x Need for increased vegetation cover to reduce soil erosion, increase livestock forage, improve 

wildlife habitat and improve water quality 

x Habitat fragmentation/connectivity for all wildlife species 

x Use of land treatments to maintain or improve plant communities 

x Maintenance or enhancement of biological diversity 

x Presence of noxious weeds and conflicts between exotic and native species 

x Input from the scientific community 

Issue 3. How should potential energy, fluid, and solid mineral development in the Planning Area be 

managed? 

To resolve this issue, BLM will consider:

x Resource values 

x Current and potential land uses 

x Social and economic effects 

x Public interests and attitudes 

x National energy policy 

x Potential for alternative energy sources 

x Input from the scientific community 

x Reasonable foreseeable development of the resource 

x Effects on other resources 

x Habitat fragmentation/connectivity for all wildlife species 

x Presence of special status species, both plant and animal and their habitats 

Issue 4: How should travel and transportation including motorized vehicle use, off-highway 

vehicles, mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding, and others be managed to satisfy public 

demand while protecting the natural values of the public land? 

To resolve this issue, BLM will consider: 

x Existing route network and designations 

x Public demand for additional activities and locations 

x Compatibility with adjacent land uses and resources 

x Effects of vehicle uses on other resources and uses 

x Public health and safety 

x Social and economic effects 

x Public access to public land 

x Needs of other resource uses 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS A-4 Appendix A

April 2007

x Route designation and closure criteria (as described in Appendix J) 

Issue 5: What land use allocations or lands and realty program initiatives need to be addressed in 

the plan to accommodate the effective management and support of other resource programs within 

the area? 

To resolve this issue, BLM will consider: 

x Current and future uses of public land 

x Social and economic effects 

x Public interest and attitudes 

x Compatibility of adjacent land uses and resources 

x Public access to public lands 

x Long-term versus short-term benefit 

Issue 6: How should BLM best pursue cultural and recreational initiatives to provide the public 

with quality tourism and cultural heritage tourism opportunities? 

To resolve this issue, BLM will consider: 

x Current and future uses of public land 

x Public interest and attitudes 

x Social and economic effects 

x Public access to public lands 

x Local community and Tribal needs and interests 

x Input from the scientific community 

x Opportunities for local partnerships 

x Long-term versus short-term benefit 

x Site hardening and vulnerability to effects from visitation 

PLANNING CRITERIA FOR SELECTING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

In selecting the preferred alternative and the Resource Management Plan, BLM will consider: 

x The degree of progress towards the identified management goals and resolution of issues 

x The discretionary limits established through applicable laws, regulations, and agency policies 

x Reasonable, feasible, and practical guidance for managing public lands and resources through a 

full range of options 

x Adequacy for a complete land use plan 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS B-1 Appendix B

April 2007

APPENDIX B 

ACTS OF AUTHORITY AND MANDATES FOR THE BLM

A number of Federal statutes have been enacted over time to establish and define the authority of the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to make decisions on the management and use of resources on 

public land. Following is a list of major legal authorities relevant to BLM land use planning. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended (43 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] 1701 et seq.) provides the authority for BLM land use planning. This statute and its 

implementing regulations define principles for the management of public land and its resources. This Act 

directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans that 

provide for the use of public land managed on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless 

otherwise specified by law. Through FLPMA, BLM is responsible for the balanced management of the 

public land and resources and their various values. FLPMA specifically states that public land will be 

managed under the principles of multiple use, and, further, indicates that multiple use includes 

harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent impairment of the 

productivity of the land and the quality of the environment. 

Section 102 (a) (7) and (8) sets forth the policy of the United States concerning the management 

of BLM lands. 

Section 201 requires the Secretary to prepare and maintain an inventory of all BLM lands and 

their resource and other values, giving priority to areas of critical environmental concern, and, as 

funding and workforce are available, to determine the boundaries of the public lands, provide 

signs and maps to the public, and provide inventory data to state and local governments. 

Section 202 (a) requires the Secretary, with public involvement, to develop, maintain, and when 

appropriate, revise land use plans that provide by tracts or areas for the use of the BLM lands. 

Section 202 (c) (9) requires that land use plans for BLM lands be consistent with Tribal plans 

and, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable Federal laws, with State and local plans. 

Section 202 (d) provides that all public lands, regardless of classification, are subject to inclusion 

in land use plans, and that the Secretary may modify or terminate classifications consistent with 

land use plans. 

Section 202 (f) and 309 (e) provide that Federal, State, and local governments and the public be 

given adequate notice and an opportunity to comment on the formulation of standards and criteria 

for, and to participate in, the preparation and execution of plans and programs for the 

management of the public lands. 

Section 302 (a) requires the Secretary to manage BLM lands under the principles of multiple use 

and sustained yield, in accordance with, when available, land use plans developed under Section 

202 of FLPMA, except that where a tract of BLM lands has been dedicated to specific uses 

according to any other provisions of law, it shall be managed in accordance with such laws. 

Section 302 (b) recognizes the entry and development rights of mining claimants, while directing 

the Secretary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS B-2 Appendix B

April 2007

Section 603 specifically directs BLM to carry out a wilderness review of public land and directs 

the BLM to manage such lands in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for 

preservation as wilderness. 

The National Environment Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires the 

consideration and public availability of information regarding the environmental impacts of major Federal 

actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The law further requires the Federal 

Authorized Officers to identify and describe the significant environmental issues associated with their 

decisions and to develop alternatives to a proposed action (including the alternative of no action). Federal 

Authorized Officers must disclose the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the decisions; adverse 

environmental effects that cannot be avoided; the relationship between short-term uses of the human 

environment and the maintenance of long-term productivity; and any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources made by the decision. 

The Clean Air Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7418) requires Federal agencies to comply with all 

Federal, state, and local requirements regarding the control and abatement of air pollution. This includes 

abiding by the requirements of state implementation plans. The Clean Air Act provides that each state is 

responsible for ensuring achievement and maintenance of air quality standards within its borders so long 

as such standards are at least as stringent as Federal standards established by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1987, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251) establishes objectives to restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s water. Upon passage of the 

Environmental Quality Acts and adoption of the water quality standards, State agencies were empowered 

to enforce water quality standards as long as they are at least as stringent as the Federal standards 

established by the Environmental Protection Agency. The State of New Mexico has not been delegated 

authority from the Federal Government for any of the major water quality programs under the CWA, 

including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Pretreatment, Sludge Management, and 

Wetlands. Also, Section 404 of the CWA, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, requires 

that “waters of the U.S.” be protected by permits prior to dredge or fill activities occurring in such areas. 

Waters include intermittent streams, mud flats, and sand flats. Wetlands that meet jurisdictional criteria of 

Section 404 of the CWA are partially protected in that a permit is required prior to any dredge or fill 

activity occurring in such areas. 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) provides a means 

whereby the ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species depend may be conserved and to 

provide a program for the conservation of such threatened and endangered species (section 1531 (b), 

Purposes). The ESA requires all Federal agencies to seek to conserve threatened and endangered species, 

utilize applicable authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA (Sec. 1531 (c) (1), Policy), and 

avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of any species that is listed or proposed for listing as 

threatened and endangered or destroying or adversely modifying its designated or proposed critical 

habitat (Sec. 1536 (a), Interagency Cooperation). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is 

responsible for administration of this Act, which also requires all Federal agencies to consult (or confer) 

in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA with the Secretary of the Interior, through the USFWS and/or the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, to ensure that any Federal action (including land use plans) or activity 

is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed or proposed to be listed under the 

provisions of the ESA, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed 

critical habitat (Sec. 1536 (a), Interagency Cooperation, and 50 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 402). 

Mitigation measures are developed through the consultation process and are put forth as suggested 

conservation measures included in a formal USFWS Biological Opinion, which addresses whether the 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS B-3 Appendix B

April 2007

proposed action would jeopardize the continued existence of any officially listed endangered or 

threatened species.

BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning Handbook, provides supplemental guidance for 

implementing the BLM land use planning requirements established by Sections 201 and 202 of FLPMA 

and the regulations in 43 CFR 1600. The handbook provides guidance for preparing and amending land 

use plan decisions through the planning process, and for maintaining resource management plans. The 

handbook also provides guidance for developing implementation plans and program-specific and 

resource-specific decisions. 

The Statewide Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement for New Mexico 

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

Guidelines) established a set of standards and guidelines for public land health and guidelines for 

livestock grazing management in New Mexico. Standards of land health are expressions of physical and 

biological conditions or degree of function required for healthy and sustainable lands, and define 

minimum resource conditions that must be achieved. Standards describe conditions needed for healthy 

sustainable public rangelands and relate to all uses of public land. They provide the measure of resource 

quality and functioning condition by which the health of public lands will be assessed. In order to 

measure the effectiveness of each standard, a set of measurable indicators and associated criteria were 

identified. Specific standards and indicators are defined for upland sites, biotic communities (including 

native, threatened, endangered, and special status species), and riparian sites. 

Guidelines are practices, methods, or techniques determined to be appropriate to ensure that standards can 

be met or that significant progress can be made toward meeting those standards. Guidelines are tools such 

as grazing systems, vegetative treatments, or improvement projects that help managers and permittees 

achieve standards. Guidelines for livestock grazing are described in the Standards and Guidelines. The 

livestock grazing guidelines were designed to improve public land health and are to be implemented at the 

watershed, allotment, or pasture level if it is determined that the standards are not being met, and 

livestock grazing is the cause. Guidelines for activities other than livestock grazing are not mandated 

through regulation; however, they may be developed should the need arise. If it is determined that the 

standards are not being met as a result of another activity (i.e., road placement, recreation, etc.), program 

leads would determine appropriate actions to ensure that standards can be met or that significant progress 

can be made toward meeting those standards. 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1323) requires the Federal land manager to comply 

with all Federal, State, and local requirements, administrative authority, process, and sanctions regarding 

the control and abatement of water pollution in the same manner and to the same extent as any 

nongovernmental entity. 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 201) is designed to make the Nation’s waters “drinkable” as 

well as “swimmable.” Amendments in 1996 established a direct connection between safe drinking water 

and watershed protection and management. 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Public Law [P.L.] 89-72) gave the 

Environmental Protection Agency the authority to control hazardous waste from "cradle-to-grave." This 

includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The Act also 

set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous wastes. 

The National Trails System Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1241-1249) provides that the 

establishment of National Recreation and National Scenic Trails would closely follow original routes of 

national historic significance. The purpose of the Act is to provide for the ever-increasing outdoor 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS B-4 Appendix B

April 2007

recreation needs of an expanding population and to promote the preservation of public access to, travel 

within, and enjoyment and appreciation of the open-air, outdoor areas, and historic resources of the 

Nation.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) requires the Federal land 

management agencies to identify potential river systems and then study them for potential designation as 

wild, scenic, or recreational rivers. 

The Wilderness Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) authorizes the President to make 

recommendations to the Congress for Federal lands to be set aside for preservation as wilderness. 

The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431-433) protects cultural and paleontological resources on 

Federal lands and authorizes the President to designate national monuments on Federal lands. 

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C 470) secures, for the present and future 

benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites which are on public 

lands and Indian lands, to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between 

governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals having 

collections of archaeological resources and data which were obtained before October 31, 1979. 

The National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470) expands protection of historic and 

archaeological properties to include those of national, state, and local significance and directs Federal 

agencies to consider the effects of proposed actions on properties eligible for or included in the National 

Register of Historic Places. The Act mandates that when Federal undertakings (i.e., Federal projects or 

Federally funded or licensed projects) are planned and implemented, the responsible Federal agencies 

give due consideration to historic properties (i.e., resources eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places), regardless of land status. Regulations for Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800) 

define a process for demonstrating such consideration by consulting with the State Historic Preservation 

Officers, Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other interested organizations and 

individuals. 

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996) establishes a national policy to 

protect and preserve the right of American Indians to exercise traditional Indian religious beliefs or 

practices.

The Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. §461-467) defines a national policy to identify and preserve 

historic sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance. The law authorizes the Secretary 

of the Interior to conduct surveys, collect and preserve data, and acquire historic and archaeological sites. 

The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. §§469-469c) provides for 

preservation of archaeological and historical information that might otherwise be lost as a result of 

Federal construction projects and other Federally licensed activities and programs. This Act stipulates that 

up to one percent of the funding appropriated by Congress for Federal undertakings can be spent to 

recover, preserve, and protect archaeological and historical data. A subsequent amendment authorized the 

one percent limit to be administratively exceeded under certain circumstances. 

The Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. §§3001-3013) protects 

the human remains of indigenous peoples and funerary objects, sacred objects, and items of cultural 

patrimony on Federal lands. The Act also provides for the repatriation of such remains and cultural items 

previously collected from Federal lands and in the possession or control of a Federal agency or Federally 

funded repository. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS B-5 Appendix B

April 2007

The Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections (36 CFR Part 79) 

stipulates standards for facilities that curate Federally owned archaeological collections, which include 

not only artifacts but also all associated records and reports, in order to ensure long-term preservation of 

such collections. 

The White House Memorandum on Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments of 1994 set forth guidelines requiring Federal agencies to adhere to directives designed to 

ensure that the rights of sovereign tribal governments are fully respected 

The Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-278) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (with 

respect to land under the jurisdiction of the BLM) or the Secretary of Agriculture (with respect to land 

under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service), within 120 days after the request of an Indian tribe to enter 

into an agreement or contract to carry out a project to protect Indian forest land or rangeland (including a 

project to restore Federal land that borders on or is adjacent to such land) that meets specified criteria, to 

issue public notice of initiation of any necessary environmental review or of the potential of entering into 

such an agreement or contract under which the Indian tribe would carry out activities to achieve land 

management goals for Federal land under the Secretary's jurisdiction and bordering or adjacent to the 

Indian forest land or rangeland under the Indian tribe's jurisdiction.

The Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.) authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to lease or convey BLM lands for recreational and public purposes under 

specified conditions. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 460l-4, et seq.) provides funding to assist in 

preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to outdoor recreation resources including but not 

limited to parks, trails, wildlife lands, and other lands and facilities desirable for individual active 

participation.

The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (30 U.S.C. 201 [a] [3] [A] [i]) requires that coal 

leases be issued in conformance with a comprehensive land use plan. 

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) requires application 

of unsuitability criteria prior to coal leasing and also to proposed mining operations for minerals or 

mineral materials other than coal. 

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) authorizes the development and 

conservation of oil and gas resources. 

The Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) requires that potential oil 

and gas resources be adequately addressed in planning documents; the social, economic, and 

environmental consequences of exploration and development of oil and gas resources be determined; and 

any stipulations to be applied to oil and gas leases be clearly identified. 

The General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.) allows the location, use, and 

patenting of mining claims on sites on public domain lands of the United States. 

The Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a) establishes a policy of fostering 

development of economically stable mining and minerals industries, their orderly and economic 

development, and studying methods for disposal of waste and reclamation. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS B-6 Appendix B

April 2007

The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001-1027) governs the lease of geothermal steam and 

related resources on public lands. The Act prohibits issuing geothermal leases on virtually all USFWSadministered lands. 

The Minerals Material Disposal Act of 1947, as amended establishes the authority under which BLM 

disposes of timber and other vegetative and forest products. 

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315) establishes grazing districts of vacant, unappropriated 

and unreserved land from any parts of the public domain, excluding Alaska, which are not national 

forests, parks and monuments, Indian reservations, railroad grant lands, or revested Coos Bay Wagon 

Road grant lands, and which are valuable chiefly for grazing and raising forage crops, and uses a 

permitting system to manage livestock grazing in the districts. In addition, the Act provides for the 

protection, administration, regulation and improvement of the grazing districts; promotes the adoption of 

regulations and cooperative agreements necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act; regulates 

occupancy and use; preserves the land and resources from destruction or unnecessary injury; and provides 

for orderly improvement and development of the range. The Act also allows for the continuing study of 

erosion and flood control and performance of work to protect and rehabilitate areas subject to the Act. 

Willful violations of the Act, or of its rules and regulations, are punishable by fine. 

The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901) provides that the public rangelands be 

managed so that they become as productive as feasible in accordance with management objectives and the 

land use planning process established pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1712. 

The Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 (43 CFR 37.11[C] & [F]) provides protection for 

caves containing significant resources such as geological, biological, historical, cultural, etc. 

The Healthy Forest Initiative Act of 2002 expanded stewardship contracting authority, among other 

provisions including accelerating unnecessary delays and removing barriers to forest and rangeland 

restoration activities. 

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) outlines administrative procedures for 

hazardous-fuel-reduction projects on Forest Service and BLM lands to reduce wildfire risks to 

communities, municipal water supplies, and other at-risk Federal land and to protect, enhance, and restore 

forest ecosystem components. 

The Carlson-Foley Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-583) directs Federal agencies to enter upon lands under their 

jurisdiction having noxious plants (weeds), and destroy noxious plants growing on such land. 

The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2801-2814) provides for the control and management 

of nonindigenous weeds that injure or have the potential to injure the interests of agriculture and 

commerce, wildlife resources, or the public health. The Act requires that each Federal agency develop a 

management program to control undesirable plants on Federal lands under the agency's jurisdiction; 

establish and adequately fund the program; implement cooperative agreements with state agencies to 

coordinate management of undesirable plants on Federal lands; establish integrated management systems 

to control undesirable plants targeted under cooperative agreements. A Federal agency is not required to 

carry out management programs on Federal lands unless similar programs are being implemented on state 

or private lands in the same area.

The Act also directs the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to coordinate programs for control, 

research, and educational efforts associated with noxious weeds. The Secretaries must identify regional 

control priorities and disseminate technical information to interested State, local, and private entities. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS B-7 Appendix B

April 2007

The Plant Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-224) prohibits the import, export, and movement in interstate 

commerce, or mailing of any plant pest unless authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture; authorizes the 

Secretary to prohibit or restrict the import, export, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant 

product, biological control organism, noxious weed, or means of conveyance to prevent the introduction 

or dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed; and combines all or a portion of 11 acts or resolutions 

into one act. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-712) implements various treaties and 

conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the 

protection of migratory birds. Under the Act, taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful. 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, as amended (16 U.S.C 661-667) proposes to assure that 

fish and wildlife resources receive equal consideration with other values during the planning of water 

resources development projects. The Act requires coordination with USFWS by the U.S. Department of 

Energy when a project is planned that may affect a body of water. It also requires coordination with the 

head of the state agency that administers wildlife resources in the affected state. 

The Sikes Act of 1960, as amended (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) seeks to promote effectual planning, 

development, maintenance, and coordination of wildlife, fish, and game conservation and rehabilitation in 

military reservations. 

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2901-2911) authorizes financial and technical 

assistance to the states for the development, revision, and implementation of conservation plans and 

programs for nongame fish and wildlife. 

The Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 (16 U.S.C. 1331) places all wild and free 

roaming horses and burros under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Interior for the purpose of 

management and protection to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public 

lands. The Act calls for the maintenance of current population inventories, provides for the humane 

destruction of sick or lame animals, and allows for adoption by qualified individuals in the case of excess 

populations. 

Executive Order 11644 - Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands (as amended by Executive Order 

11989) (37 Federal Register 2877 [1971]), establishes policies and provides for procedures that will 

ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as to protect the 

resources of those lands, promote the safety of all users of those lands, and minimize conflicts among the 

various uses of those lands. 

Executive Order 12898 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations (49 Federal Register 7629 [1994]) requires that each Federal agency consider 

the impacts of its programs on minority populations and low-income populations. 

Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites (61 Federal Register 26771 [1996]), requires Federal 

agencies to the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency 

functions to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious 

practitioners and avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. 

Executive Order 13287 – Preserve America directs Federal agencies to provide leadership in preserving 

America’s heritage by actively advancing the protection, enhancement and contemporary use of historic 

and paleontological properties owned by the government, emphasizing partnerships. Under this order, 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS B-8 Appendix B

April 2007

agencies shall cooperate with communities to increase opportunities for public benefit from, and access 

to, Federally owned historic and paleontological properties. 

Executive Order 13084 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments provides, in 

part, that each Federal agency shall establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with 

Indian Tribal governments in the development of regulatory practices on Federal matters that significantly 

or uniquely affect their communities. 

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species provides that no Federal agency shall authorize, fund, or carry 

out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species 

unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its 

determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive 

species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk or harm will be taken in conjunction 

with the actions. 

Secretarial Order 3175 (incorporated into the Departmental Manual at 512 DM 2) requires that if 

Department of the Interior agency actions might impact Indian trust resources, the agency explicitly 

address those potential impacts in planning and decision documents, and the agency consult with the 

Tribal government whose trust resources are potentially affected by the Federal action. 

Secretarial Order 3206 – American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act requires the U.S. Department of the Interior agencies to consult with Indian 

Tribes when agency actions to protect a listed species, as a result of compliance with the ESA, affect or 

may affect of Indian lands, Tribal trust resources, or the exercise of American Indian Tribal rights. 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-1 Appendix C

April 2007

APPENDIX C 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

INTRODUCTION

Best management practices (BMPs) are those land and resource management techniques designed to 

maximize beneficial results and minimize negative impacts of management actions. BMPs are defined as 

methods, measures, or practices selected on the basis of site-specific conditions to provide the most 

effective, environmentally sound, and economically feasible means of managing an activity and 

mitigating its impacts. Interdisciplinary site-specific analysis is necessary to determine which 

management practices would be necessary to meet specific goals. BMPs include, but are not limited to, 

structural and nonstructural controls, operations, and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied 

before, during, and after pollution-producing or surface disturbing activities to reduce or eliminate the 

introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (40 Code of Federal Regulation 130.2(m), Environmental 

Protection Agency Water Quality Standards Regulation) or to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation 

of resources.

BMPs are identified as part of the National Environmental Policy Act process, with interdisciplinary 

involvement. Because the control of nonpoint sources of pollution and prevention of damage to other 

resources is an ongoing process, continual refinement of BMP design is necessary. This process can be 

described in five steps, which are: (1) selection of design of a specific BMP; (2) application of BMP; 

(3) monitoring; (4) evaluation; and (5) feedback. Data gathered through monitoring is evaluated and used 

to identify changes needed in BMP design, application, or in the monitoring program. 

BMPs described in this appendix are a compilation of existing policies and guidelines and commonlyemployed practices designed to assist in achieving the objectives for maintaining or minimizing water 

quality degradation from nonpoint sources, loss of soil productivity, providing guidelines for aesthetic 

conditions within watersheds, and mitigating impacts to soil, vegetation, or wildlife habitat from surface 

disturbing activities. BMPs are selected and implemented as necessary, based on site-specific conditions, 

to meet a variety of resource objectives for specific management actions. Therefore, this document does 

not provide an exhaustive list of BMPs, as additional BMPs or modifications may be identified to 

minimize the potential for negative impacts when evaluating site-specific management actions through an 

interdisciplinary process. 

In addition, implementation and effectiveness of BMPs need to be monitored to determine whether the 

practices are achieving resource objectives and accomplishing desired goals. Adjustments will be made as 

necessary. 

Each of the following BMPs are a part of the coordinated development of this Resource Management 

Plan and may be updated as new information becomes available to ensure objectives are met and to 

conform with changes in Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulations, policy, direction, or new 

scientific information. Applicants also may suggest alternate procedures that could accomplish the same 

result. These guidelines will apply, where appropriate, to all use authorizations, including BLM-initiated 

projects. Any BMP listed may be used in any program wherever it may be effective. 

ROAD DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE 

1) Design roads to minimize total disturbance, to conform with topography, and to minimize 

disruption of natural drainage patterns. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-2 Appendix C

April 2007

2) Base road design criteria and standards on road management objectives such as traffic 

requirements of the proposed activity and the overall transportation objectives, and minimizing 

damage to the environment. 

3) Locate roads on stable terrain such as ridgetops, natural benches, and flatter transitional slopes 

near ridges and valley bottoms and moderate sideslopes and away from slumps, slide prone areas, 

concave slopes, clay beds, and where rock layers dip parallel to the slope. Locate roads on welldrained soil types; avoid wet areas. 

4) Construct cut and fill slopes to be approximately 3(h):1(v) or flatter where feasible. Locate roads 

to minimize heights of cutbanks. Avoid high, steeply sloping cutbanks in highly fractured 

bedrock.

5) Avoid head walls, midslope locations on steep, unstable slopes, fragile soils, seeps, old 

landslides, sideslopes in excess of 70 percent, and areas where the geologic bedding planes or 

weathering surfaces are inclined with the slope. Implement extra mitigation measures when these 

areas cannot be avoided. 

6) Construct roads for surface drainage by using outslopes, crowns, grade changes, drain dips, 

waterbars and/or insloping to ditches as appropriate. 

7) Sloping the road base to the outside edge for surface drainage is normally recommended for local 

spurs or minor collector roads where traffic volume is low and lower traffic speeds are 

anticipated. This is also recommended in situations where long intervals between maintenance 

will occur and where minimum excavation is wanted. Out-sloping is not recommended on steep 

slopes. Sloping the road base to the inside edge is an acceptable practice on roads with steep 

sideslopes and where the underlying soil formation is very rocky and not subject to appreciable 

erosion or failure. 

8) Crowning and ditching are recommended for arterial and collector roads where traffic volume, 

speed, intensity and user comfort are considerations. Recommended gradients range from 0 to 15 

percent where crowning and ditching may be applied, as long as adequate drainage away from the 

road surface and ditch lines is maintained. 

9) Minimize excavation when constructing roads through the use of balanced earthwork, narrowing 

road widths, and end hauling where sideslopes are between 50 and 70 percent. 

10) If possible, construct roads when soils are dry and not frozen. When soils or road surfaces 

become saturated to a depth of 3 inches, BLM-authorized activities should be limited or cease 

unless otherwise approved by the authorized officer. 

11) Consider improving inadequately surfaced roads that are to be left open to public traffic during 

wet weather with gravel or pavement to minimize sediment production and maximize safety. 

12) Retain vegetation on cut slopes unless it poses a safety hazard or restricts maintenance activities. 

Roadside brushing of vegetation should be done in a way that prevents disturbance to root 

systems and visual intrusions (i.e., avoid using excavators for brushing). 

13) Retain adequate vegetation between roads and streams to filter runoff caused by roads. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-3 Appendix C

April 2007

14) Avoid riparian/wetland areas where feasible; locate in these areas only if the roads do not 

interfere with the attainment of proper functioning condition and riparian management objectives. 

15) Minimize the number of unimproved stream crossings. When a culvert or bridge is not feasible, 

locate drive-through (low water crossings) on stable rock portions of the drainage channel. 

Harden crossings with the addition of rock and gravel if necessary. Use angular rock if available. 

16) Locate roads and limit activities of mechanized equipment within stream channels to minimize 

their influence on riparian areas. When stream crossing is necessary, design the approach and 

crossing perpendicular to the channel where practical. Locate the crossing where the channel is 

well defined, unobstructed, and straight. 

17) Avoid placing fill material in floodplain unless the material is large enough to remain in place 

during flood events. 

18) Use drainage dips instead of culverts on roads where gradients would not present a safety issue. 

Locate drainage dips in such a way so water would not accumulate or where outside berms 

prevent drainage from the roadway. Locate and design drainage dips immediately upgrade of 

stream crossings and provide buffer areas and catchment basins to prevent sediment from 

entering the stream. 

19) Construct catchment basins, brush windrows, and culverts in a way to minimize sediment 

transport from road surfaces to stream channels. Install culverts in natural drainage channels in a 

way to conform with the natural streambed gradients to outlets that discharge onto rocky or 

hardened protected areas. 

20) Design and locate water crossing structures in natural drainage channels to accommodate 

adequate fish passage, provide for minimum impacts to water quality, and capable of handling a 

100-year event for runoff and floodwaters. 

21) Use culverts that pass, at a minimum, a 50-year storm event and/or have a minimum diameter of 

24 inches for permanent stream crossings and a minimum diameter of 18 inches for road cross 

drains.

22) Replace undersized culverts and repair or replace damaged culverts and downspouts. Provide 

energy dissipaters at culvert outlets or drainage dips. 

23) Locate culverts or drainage dips in such a manner as to avoid discharge onto unstable terrain such 

as head walls or slumps. Provide adequate spacing to avoid accumulation of water in ditches or 

road surfaces. Culverts should be placed on solid ground to avoid road failures. 

24) Proper sized aggregate and riprap should be used during culvert construction. Place riprap at 

culvert entrance to streamline water flow and reduce erosion. 

25) Establish adapted vegetation on all cuts and fill immediately following road construction and 

maintenance.

26) Remove berms from the downslope side of roads, consistent with safety considerations. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-4 Appendix C

April 2007

27) Leave abandoned roads in a condition that provides adequate drainage without further 

maintenance. Close abandoned roads to traffic. Physically obstruct the road with gates, large 

berms, trenches, logs, stumps, or rock boulders as necessary to accomplish permanent closure. 

28) Abandon and rehabilitate roads no longer needed. Leave these roads in a condition that provides 

adequate drainage. Remove culverts. 

29) When plowing snow for winter use of roads, provide breaks in snow berms to allow for road 

drainage. Avoid plowing snow into streams. Plow snow only on existing roads. 

30) Maintenance should be performed to conserve existing surface material, retain the original 

crowned or out-sloped, self-draining cross section, prevent or remove rutting berms (except those 

designed for slope protection) and other irregularities that retard normal surface runoff. Avoid 

wasting loose ditch or surface material over the shoulder where it can cause stream sedimentation 

or weaken slump-prone areas. Avoid undercutting back slopes. 

31) Do not disturb the toe of cut slopes while pulling ditches or grading roads. Avoid sidecasting road 

material into streams. 

32) Grade roads only as necessary. Maintain drain dips, waterbars, road crown, in-sloping and outsloping, as appropriate, during road maintenance. 

33) Maintain roads in special management areas according to special management area guidance. 

Generally, retain roads within existing disturbed areas and side cast material away from the 

special management area. 

34) When landslides occur, save all soil and material usable for reclamation or stockpile for future 

reclamation needs. Avoid side casting of slide material where it can damage, overload, and 

saturate embankments, or flow into down-slope drainage courses. Reestablish vegetation as 

needed in areas where vegetation has been destroyed due to side casting. 

35) Strip and stockpile topsoil ahead of construction of new roads, if feasible. Reapply soil to cut and 

fill slopes prior to revegetation. 

SURFACE-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES 

1) Special design and reclamation measures may be required to protect scenic and natural landscape 

values. This may include transplanting trees and shrubs, mulching and fertilizing disturbed areas, 

removal of surfacing material, imprinting, irrigation, use of low profile permanent facilities, and 

painting to minimize visual contrasts. Surface-disturbing activities may be moved to avoid 

sensitive areas or to reduce the visual effects of the proposal.

2) Above ground facilities requiring painting should be designed to blend in with the surrounding 

environment. 

3) Surface disturbance will be restricted in areas that have special topographic (steep or broken 

terrain and/or benches) and soil concerns in order to reduce impacts caused by soil erosion and 

habitat disturbance. Development in these areas will be considered on a case-by-case basis and 

will contain site-specific mitigation designed to prevent increased sediment from being 

transported into drainages and to prevent fragmentation of areas determined to provide important 

wildlife habitat.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-5 Appendix C

April 2007

4) 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. 

5) Only excavate topsoil and subsoil where it is absolutely necessary. Consider brush-beating, 

mowing, and/or parking on vegetation for surface disturbing activities. 

6) Disturbed areas should be contoured to blend with the natural topography. Blending is defined as 

reducing form, line, and color contrast associated with the surface disturbance. Disturbance 

should be contoured to match the original topography, where matching is defined as reproducing 

the original topography and eliminating form, line, and color caused by the disturbance as much 

as possible.

7) Interim reclamation should be implemented concurrent with construction and site operations to 

the fullest extent possible. Final reclamation actions shall be initiated within 6 months of the 

termination of operations unless otherwise approved in writing by the authorized officer. 

8) Fill material should be pushed into cut areas and up over back slopes. Depressions should not be 

left that would trap water or form ponds unless the Authorized Officer has determined that dips or 

depressions may be used to assist reclamation efforts and seed propagation. 

9) Reclaimed soil will be free of contaminants and will have adequate depth, texture, and structure 

to provide for successful vegetation reclamation. Vegetation reclamation will be considered 

successful when healthy, mature perennials are established with a composition and density that 

closely approximates the surrounding vegetation as prescribed by the BLM, and the reclamation 

area is free of noxious weeds. 

10) If necessary after reclamation, a BLM-standard barbed wire fence will be constructed to exclude 

livestock for a minimum of at least two successful growing seasons. 

11) The project proponent will include a restoration plan for habitat of special status species when the 

BLM determines it is appropriate. The restoration plan will be developed in consultation with, 

and approved by, the BLM. 

12) Additional reclamation measures may be required based on the conditions existing at the time of 

abandonment. 

13) Oil and fuel for equipment and vehicles must be carefully handled and disposed to prevent soil or 

water contamination. 

14) Develop a spill contingency plan which identifies all actions to be taken in the event of a 

chemical spill including phone numbers for Federal, State, and local agencies which must be 

notified.

15) Time activities to avoid wet periods. 

OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES 

1) Field development plans are encouraged to minimize unnecessary disturbance. Field development 

plans should address sensitive area avoidance or mitigation, potential road, utility, and well 

locations, road classes, and plans for interim and final reclamation. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-6 Appendix C

April 2007

2) Dual completion, re-completion, commingling (both downhole and at the surface), the drilling of 

multiple wells from a single location, and centralized tank batteries will be encouraged and 

permitted in order to reduce the number of new well pads and consequent surface disturbance. 

This will reduce impacts to soil and vegetation, reduce air impacts caused by dust, reduce habitat 

fragmentation, and offer less opportunity for the spread of noxious weeds. 

3) Operators will be encouraged to unitize in areas of dense development to increase management 

efficiency and facilitate operations in sensitive areas. Unitization is the process by which multiple 

lease holders in a geographic area share facilities so as to reduce surface disturbance caused by 

multiple duplicate facilities such as pipelines and compressor stations.

4) Reduce the size of the well pad whenever possible, without compromising safety. 

5) Remote monitoring of wells and related production equipment is encouraged to reduce wildlife 

disturbance and road deterioration. 

6) Pipelines associated with oil and gas activities will follow existing roads and rights-of-way 

corridors where possible to minimize surface disturbance. 

7) The burial of pipelines associated with oil and gas exploration, development, production, and 

transportation is preferred. Pipelines greater than 4 inches in nominal diameter, all injection lines, 

and gas lines with a pressure greater than 125 pounds per square inch must be buried and 

constructed of steel. The use of plastic pipe will be approved by the authorized officer on a caseby-case basis. A waiver of the requirement to bury pipelines will be considered in the following 

situations:

x The temporary (one year or less) surface installation of plastic pipelines, after considering the 

length of the pipeline, its proposed location, the potential hazards present, the characteristics 

of the pipe regarding deterioration, the American Society for Testing and Materials or similar 

specifications for the pipe, the intended use of the pipeline, and other appropriate factors 

x Where rock outcrops at the surface make the burial of pipeline impractical, such as when 

unreasonable and unreclaimable surface disturbance would result. Where the pipeline is 

exposed, painting may be required in accordance with the painting policy for visual resource 

management areas and Notice to Lessees 87-1, New Mexico. Waiver of the requirement for 

painting will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

x Where the surface ownership along the pipeline route is mixed, and the majority of surface 

ownership is not public. In those cases, the installation of pipelines on public land will 

conform to the practice to be employed on the remainder of the pipeline, unless special 

resource management concerns dictate strict adherence to this policy. 

8) Minimize noise in sensitive wildlife habitats. Consider using noise reduction mufflers, earthen 

berms, walls, sheds, and/or distance to reduce sound levels. 

9) All production related pits and tanks, regardless of size, would be covered and fenced to exclude 

wildlife.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-7 Appendix C

April 2007

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:

x 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 

required distances described under the Well Sites section. A “raptor nest” is defined as any raptor 

or corvid nest. 

x In areas that constitute occupied or potential 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. 

x During operations at any time, large (greater than 6 feet in height) trees or shrubs containing or 

capable of containing a raptor nest will be avoided by vehicular traffic or other activities likely to 

destroy them. 

x 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. 

x 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. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY 

1) All renewable wind energy projects will be subject to the BMP’s identified in the Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLMAdministered Lands in the Western United States, U.S. Department of Interior, BLM, June 2005. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-8 Appendix C

April 2007

BMP’s are identified in Section 2.2.3.2 of this document, which can be viewed online at 

http://www.windeis.anl.gov/.

RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND UTILITY CORRIDORS 

1) Rights-of-way and utility corridors should use areas adjoining or adjacent to previously disturbed 

areas whenever possible, rather than traverse undisturbed vegetation communities. 

2) Waterbars or dikes should be constructed on all of the rights-of-way and utility corridors, and 

across the full width of the disturbed area, as directed by the authorized officer. 

3) Disturbed areas within road rights-of-way and utility corridors should be stabilized by vegetation 

practices designed to hold soil in place and minimize erosion. 

4) Sediment barriers should be constructed when needed to slow runoff, allow deposition of 

sediment, and prevent transport from the site. Straining or filtration mechanisms may also be 

employed for the removal of sediment from runoff. 

FOREST MANAGEMENT 

1) Design harvest units and forest health treatments to blend with natural terrain. 

2) Utilize silvicultural regeneration systems that are most appropriate for treatment objectives. 

Utilize uneven-aged silviculture for most treatments; however, even-aged systems may be 

appropriate in situations to accomplish insect and disease control, aspen regeneration, or other 

site-specific objectives. Consider a range of maximum stand density index by species to 

accomplish forest health goals. 

3) When soils or road surfaces become saturated to a depth of 3 inches, BLM-authorized activities, 

such as log yarding and hauling, should be limited or cease unless otherwise approved by the 

authorized officer. 

4) Scatter unmerchantable material (tops, limbs, etc.) in cutting units and treatment areas, consistent 

with fuel loading limitations. 

5) Locate skid trails on upper slope positions, as far as possible from surface water. Avoid skidding 

across drainage bottoms or creating conditions that concentrate and channelize surface flow. 

6) Use directional felling, when applicable, to minimize skidding distance and locate skid trails as 

far as possible from sensitive areas. 

7) Install waterbars and apply native seed, when available, to skid trails and landings prior to 

temporary seasonal closures and following harvest operations. Consider ripping or subsoiling on 

skid trails and abandoned haul roads to reduce compaction where soil and slope conditions 

permit. 

8) Locate landings away from surface water. Design landings to minimize disturbance consistent 

with safety and efficiency of operation. 

9) Use low pressure grapple equipment, if possible, when piling slash.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-9 Appendix C

April 2007

10) Conduct forested land treatments when soil surfaces are either frozen, dry, or have adequate 

snowpack to minimize impacts to soil and water resources. 

11) Prepare pre-harvest plan for efficient forest and site harvesting and road systems. Use topographic 

maps, aerial photographs, soil surveys, and field trips to determine site conditions. Use global 

positioning system to geolocate field data for incorporation into the geographic information 

system. Plan should clearly outline BMPs to be followed before, during, and after harvest; 

identify area to be harvested; locate special areas of protection (wetlands and streamside 

vegetation); allow for proper timing of activities; describe management measures for road layout, 

design, construction, maintenance, harvesting methods, and forest regeneration. As part of plan: 

x Consider natural drainage channels; threatened, endangered, and special status species 

habitat; topography; and soil types in determining boundaries of timber harvest activities, 

location and design of roads and landings, selection of harvesting method, reforestation 

techniques.

x Avoid sensitive areas such as wetlands and important wildlife habitats. If avoidance is not 

possible, choose harvest practices with least serious effects or schedule to avoid areas during 

critical time periods (e.g., nesting or breeding seasons). Where access to adjacent land would 

allow for more efficient road system or avoidance, consider working with landowner to 

obtain an easement. 

x Time construction and harvest activities to take advantage of seasonal conditions. When 

possible, avoid construction during heavy rains or freeze/thaw conditions to avoid potential 

for runoff and erosion. 

12) Conduct rapid revegetation of areas disturbed by harvesting operations or road construction to 

reduce erosion and sedimentation. Equipment and site preparation methods must consider site 

topography, soil type, natural drainage, amount of rainfall, and kind of vegetation. Site 

preparation may include: 

x Removal of logging roads, landings, and drainage structures. 

x Mechanical activities to chop, root rake, disk and blade the soil in the disturbed areas in 

preparation for planting. 

x Prescribed fires to reduce logging residue and undesirable trees and vegetation. 

13) Establish vegetative cover planting on erodible areas that were cultivated in the fall but will not 

be planted until spring. 

14) Stabilize steep slopes prior to planting. 

15) Use native grasses or other plant species to reseed bare-erodible areas; do not introduce invasive 

non-native plants under any circumstance. 

16) Windrow logging debris along contours, in gullies, and on skid trails to stabilize these areas. 

17) Remove unneeded logging roads and skid trails immediately. Do not wait for entire harvest 

operation to be completed. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-10 Appendix C

April 2007

18) Smooth, grade and revegetate landings and, where appropriate, main haul roads. 

19) Remove temporary drainage structures and clean permanent drainage structures. 

20) Minimize the use and maximize the benefit of chemicals through skilled and appropriate 

management and application. To ensure safe use of chemicals, consider the following: 

x Transportation, handling, storage, application and disposal of pesticides, fire retardants, and 

fertilizers must comply with applicable local, state and federal regulations. 

x Monitor weather conditions such as rain, wind speed, temperature and humidity during 

application to prevent drift, volatilization, and surface water runoff. 

x Do not apply chemicals in streamside management zones or wetlands. 

x Note that fertilizers and fire retardants contain high amounts of both nitrogen and phosphorus 

and are easily transported overland and deposited in stream along with the sediment. These 

compounds can accelerate eutrophication (a process whereby water bodies are choked by 

overabundant plant life and algae due to higher levels of nutrients such as nitrogen and 

phosphorus). 

FOREST WETLANDS 

1) Establish and maintain a streamside management zone (SMZ) along surface waters to buffer 

against detrimental changes in the temperature regime of the waterbody, provide bank stability, 

provide a filter to keep sediment and pollutants out of the stream, and withstand wind damage. 

The SMZ should be sufficiently wide, and should include a sufficient number of canopy species. 

The width should be based on erosiveness of the soil, steepness of bank slopes, proximity to 

municipal watersheds, protection of adjacent wetlands, and sensitivity of fish and wildlife habitat 

and other critical areas. The SMZ should incorporate nearby wetlands. 

2) Limit disturbances in SMZs by the following methods: restrict road construction except at 

designated stream or wetland crossings; operate vehicles only on roads; do not deposit road 

construction material, waste timber, or slash into SMZs; do not handle, store, apply, or dispose of 

hazardous chemicals, fertilizers, or pesticides in SMZs. Timber harvesting should be conducted 

only selectively if at all, and should consider following practices: 

x Retain the appropriate diversity and size of tree and shrub species. 

x Protect and retain trees and shrubs and snags that are below harvest quality. 

x Retain bank edge trees for stream channel stability and to shade stream. 

x Maintain sufficient ground cover to trap sediment. 

x Immediately remove any logging debris that enters the stream channel. 

3) Use ultrawide, high-flotation tires on logging trucks and skidders to reduce soil compaction and 

erosion.

4) Suspend or limit forest operations when soils become saturated. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-11 Appendix C

April 2007

5) Maintain natural contour of the site and take action to ensure that forestry activities do not 

immediately or gradually convert the wetland to dry land. 

6) Where roads are constructed, provide cross drainage to maintain natural surface and subsurface 

flow.

7) Construct road fills only when absolutely necessary. Use gravel or crushed rock as fill to provide 

for water movement. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION 

1) Minimize surface disturbances and avoid the use of heavy earth-moving equipment where 

possible, on all fire suppression and rehabilitation activities, including mop-up, except where high 

value resources (including lives and property), are being protected. 

2) Install waterbars and seed all constructed firelines with native or adapted nonnative species as 

appropriate and in accordance with the BLM Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Handbook (BLM 

1999c).

3) Avoid dropping fire retardant detrimental to aquatic communities on streams, lakes, ponds and in 

riparian/wetland areas. 

4) The location and construction of handlines should result in minimal surface disturbance while 

effectively controlling the fire. Hand crews should locate lines to take full advantage of existing 

land features that represent natural fire barriers. Whenever possible, handlines should follow the 

contour of the slope to protect the soil, provide sufficient residual vegetation to capture and retain 

sediment, and maintain site productivity. 

5) Suppression in riparian areas should be by hand crews when possible. 

PRESCRIBED BURNING 

1) To protect soil productivity, burning should be conducted, if possible, under conditions when a 

low intensity burn can accomplish stated objectives. Burn only when conditions of organic 

surface or duff layer have adequate moisture to minimize effects to the physical and chemical 

properties of the soil. When possible, maximize the retention of the organic surface or duff layer. 

2) Slash should not be piled and burned within riparian/wetland areas. If riparian/wetland areas are 

within or adjacent to the prescribed burn unit, piles should be firelined or scattered prior to 

burning. 

3) When preparing the unit for burning, avoid piling concentrations of large logs and stumps; pile 

small material (3 to 8 inches diameter). Slash piles should be burned when soil and duff moisture 

are adequate to reduce potential damage to soil resources. 

4) All fire management activities will be subject to the BMP’s identified in the Decision Record and 

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

Mexico and Texas, U.S. Department of Interior, BLM New Mexico State Office, September 

2004c. BMPs are identified in Chapter 2 of this document, which can be viewed online at 

http://www.nm.blm.gov.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-12 Appendix C

April 2007

LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT 

All rangeland projects and vegetative land treatments will meet current BLM policy and objectives of this 

Resource Management Plan. Rangeland improvements projects and vegetative treatments are constructed 

as a portion of adaptive management to reduce resource conflicts and to achieve multiple use objectives. 

They have been standardized over time to mitigate impacts and will be adhered to in the construction and 

maintenance of rangeland projects within the planning area. Rangeland improvements are structures, 

facilities and practices to improve or facilitate the grazing management and improve the resources. 

Grazing Management Practices are developed through consultation on an allotment specific objectives 

and progress toward multiple use objectives and sustainability of resources. Grazing Management 

Practices may include herding, grazing and deferment periods, use of supplement, change of class of 

livestock and increase or decrease of livestock numbers. 

MINING 

1) Reclaim all disturbed surface areas promptly, performing concurrent reclamation as necessary, 

and minimize the total amount of all surface disturbance. 

2) All surface soil should be stripped prior to conducting operations, stockpiled, and reapplied 

during reclamation, regardless of soil quality. Minimize the length of time soil remains in 

stockpiles and the depth or thickness of stockpiles. When slopes on topsoil stockpiles exceed 

5 percent, a berm or trench should be constructed below the stockpile to prevent sediment 

transport offsite. 

3) Strip and separate soil surface horizons where feasible and reapply in proper sequence during 

reclamation. 

4) Locate soil stockpiles and waste rock disposal areas away from surface water to minimize off-site 

drainage effects. 

5) Establish vegetation cover on soil stockpiles that are to be in place longer than 1 year. 

6) Construct and rehabilitate temporary roads to minimize total surface disturbance, consistent with 

intended use. 

7) Consider temporary measures such as silt fences, straw bales, or mulching to trap sediment in 

sensitive areas until reclaimed areas are stabilized with vegetation. 

8) Reshape to the approximate original contour all areas to be permanently reclaimed, providing for 

proper surface drainage.

9) Leave reclaimed surfaces in a roughened condition following soil application. 

10) Complete reclamation and seeding during the fall if possible. 

INVASIVE/NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT 

1) All surface disturbing equipment should be inspected and cleaned prior to coming onto public 

lands. This is especially important on vehicles from out of state or if coming from a weed infested 

area.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-13 Appendix C

April 2007

2) If fill dirt or gravel is brought onto public lands, the source needs to be noxious weed free. 

3) Construction sites should be monitored for the life of the project for the presence of 

Invasive/Noxious weeds (includes maintenance and construction activities). If weeds are found 

the Socorro Field Office will be notified and it will determine the best method for the control of 

the particular weed species. 

4) All seed shall be certified noxious weed free. Areas will be monitored to determine the success of 

re-vegetation, the presents of invasive/noxious weeds, and will be reseeded if necessary. 

5) Consider livestock quarantine, removal, or timing limitations in invasive/noxious weed-infested 

areas.

6) All seed, hay, straw, mulch, or other vegetation material transported and used on public land for 

site stability, rehabilitation, or project facilitation shall be certified noxious weed free of all 

reproductive parts upon the passage of a weed free law in the state of New Mexico. All baled 

feed, pelletized feed, and grain used to feed livestock shall also be certified as free of noxious 

weed seed. 

7) It is recommended that all vehicles, including off-road and all-terrain, traveling in or out of weedinfested areas should clean their equipment before and after use on public land. 

DEVELOPED RECREATION 

1) Construct recreation sites and provide appropriate sanitation facilities to minimize impacts to 

resource values, public health and safety, and minimize user conflicts of approved activities and 

access within an area as appropriate. 

2) Minimize impacts to resource values or to enhance a recreational setting and recreation 

experience. Harden sites and locations subject to prolonged/repetitive concentrated recreational 

uses with selective placement of gravel or other porous materials and allow for dust abatement, 

paving, and engineered road construction. 

3) Use public education and/or physical barriers (such as rocks, posts, vegetation) to direct or 

preclude uses and to minimize impacts to resource values and the quality of recreation 

experience.

4) As appropriate, employ limitations of specific activities to avoid or correct adverse impacts to 

resource values, public safety issues, and/or conflicts between recreational uses. 

5) Employ land use ethics programs and techniques such as “Leave No Trace” and “Tread Lightly” 

programs. Use outreach efforts of such programs to lessen needs to implement more stringent 

regulatory measures to obtain resource protection and a quality recreation experience. 

WILDLIFE AND RIPARIAN HABITAT 

1) Prior to the initiation of a surface-disturbing activity, the project area will be surveyed for raptor 

nests or active prairie dog towns. Surveys will be conducted by professional biologists approved 

by the Authorized Officer. All raptor nests and active prairie dog towns will be avoided by the 

distances and seasonal periods listed below. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-14 Appendix C

April 2007

x Eagle – 0.5 mile, February 1-July 15 

x Prairie Falcon – 0.5 mile, March 1-August 1 

x Ferruginous Hawk – 0.5 mile, February 1-July 15 

x Aplomado Falcon – 0.5 mile, January 1-July 31 

x Gunnison Prairie Dog – 0.25 mile, February 15-June 15 

x Black-Tailed Prairie Dog – 0.25 mile, January 1-June 15 

x All other raptor species – 0.25 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, which 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. 

2) Ensure that all fences are constructed to BLM Socorro Field Office Fence Specifications to 

mitigate impacts to wildlife. 

3) Ensure that escape wildlife escape ramps are installed and maintained on all applicable water 

development projects on public lands (see BLM Manual Handbook H-1741-2 Water 

Developments November 6, 1990). 

4) Construct all new water improvements so that they are located a minimum of 30 meters away 

from fences or other structures likely to pose a collision threat to bats. 

5) Surface disturbance will not be allowed within up to 0.5 mile of the outer edge of 100-year 

floodplains, playas, all artificial water developments (tanks, guzzlers, etc.), and riparian habitat 

(seeps, arroyos, etc.). Exceptions to this requirement will be considered on a case-by case basis. 

6) In areas where habitat and/or rangeland enhancement projects have been implemented, with the 

exception of large landscape projects (prescribed burns, chemical treatments, and mechanical 

treatments), adverse impacts to the landscape will be avoided by minimizing or excluding certain 

surface-disturbing activities that may degrade the objectives or intent of the project. Exceptions to 

this requirement will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

7) In all crucial calving, lambing, kidding, and fawning areas and wintering ranges, all surfacedisturbing activities, permanent or temporary, will be avoided during the appropriate time 

periods.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS C-15 Appendix C

April 2007

8) Prior to initiating geophysical or other preliminary surveys during the raptor breeding season, the 

area will be surveyed for the presence of raptor nests. 

9) In siting facilities, the following measures must be followed: 

x In areas that constitute occupied or potential 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. 

x During operations at any time, all habitat features (pinnacles, cliffs, ledges, caves, and trees 

and shrubs greater than 6 feet in height) containing or capable of containing raptor nests or 

bat habitat will be avoided by vehicular traffic or other surface-disturbing activities likely to 

remove or destroy them unless authorized by BLM authorized officer. 

x Tree and vegetation clearing will be limited to the minimum area required. 

x Construction activities will be timed to avoid wet periods. 

x 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. 

x All equipment installed on Federal lands will be constructed to prevent birds and bats from 

entering them and, to the extent practical, to discourage perching and nesting. 

x 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. 

VISUAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

BMPs to address visual resource concerns have been incorporated into the above resource discussions, as 

appropriate. Additional BMPs dealing with visual resource management considerations in oil and gas 

development can be found on the BLM website at www.blm.gov/bmp/. BMPs dealing with visual 

resource management considerations in general are available at www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/destech.

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS D-1 Appendix D

April 2007

APPENDIX D 

MONITORING

Effectiveness monitoring is the process of collecting data and information in order to determine whether 

or not desired outcomes (expressed as goals and objectives in the land use plan) are being met (or 

progress is being made toward meeting them) as the allowable uses and management actions are being 

implemented. This appendix describes the process for effectiveness monitoring that would be carried out 

for each resource or program to determine if the actions described in the Resource Management Plan 

Revision are meeting or moving toward management goals.

VEGETATION 

Monitoring to determine success in meeting vegetation management objectives would include periodic 

measurements of plant composition, vigor, and productivity, as well as measurement of the amount and 

distribution of plant cover and litter which protects the soil surface from raindrop impact, detains overland 

flow, protects the surface from wind erosion, and retards soils moisture loss through evaporation. 

Additional data to determine the effectiveness of established tools in meeting objectives may include 

herbaceous or woody utilization, actual use, and climatic conditions. 

Determination of trends in production, structure, composition of vegetation and determination of soil/site 

stability, watershed function, and integrity of biotic community would be done through the rangeland 

health assessment process prescribed in the most current versions of Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland 

Health (Shaver et al. 2000), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Manual 4180 and Handbook H4180-1 guiding implementation of the rangeland health standards (BLM 2001). 

Special Status Plants 

Monitoring would include surveys to determine the distribution, resource conditions, and trends of special 

status plant species and representative habitats. This would include determining plant composition at the 

site, checking for invasion of exotic species, monitoring localized disturbances (from off-highway vehicle 

[OHV] use, recreational use, etc.), and determining trends in special status plant attributes. Monitoring 

methods would include establishing photo points and doing periodic ocular surveillance. Any new 

ground-disturbing activities or National Environmental Policy Act actions would require a survey 

clearance for presence or absence of special status plants. Trends in special status plants and vegetation 

would be determined and could include such things as demographic studies, density, cover, and frequency 

(in exclosures versus open areas). Methods to accomplish this could include establishing new exclosures 

to determine effects of use versus nonuse, developing conservation agreements/conservation strategies, 

and conducting vegetative attribute sampling in accordance with Measuring and Monitoring Plant 

Populations (Elzinga et al. 1998). 

Invasive/Noxious Weeds

Evaluation of treatments would continue in cooperation with the State of New Mexico, Socorro and 

Catron Counties, and private interests as well as neighboring counties and Federal jurisdictions. 

Inventories to identify new introductions, distribution, and density of noxious weed populations would be 

carried out on an annual basis in cooperation with the aforementioned entities. Known noxious weed 

sites, which are identified for treatment, will be visited each year and evaluated for effectiveness of 

control. Known sites not identified for treatment will be visited on a rotational basis over three years. All 

known sites visited will be located with a global positioning system (GPS) unit, photographed, measured, 

and a determination of the need for future treatment will be made. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS D-2 Appendix D

April 2007

Inventories for new noxious weeds will be conducted each year on a three-year rotation through the 

resource area. All burned areas (natural and prescribed) will be surveyed for noxious weeds for three 

years following the burn. Any newly discovered sites will be located with a GPS unit, photographed, 

measured, and a determination of the need for future treatment will be made. Ecological trends due to 

changes in vegetation composition over time, in areas dominated by competing undesirable plant species, 

would be measured through periodic rangeland health assessments following procedures outlined in 

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (Shaver et al. 2000). 

RANGELAND 

Monitoring studies have been established on all allotments in BLM’s Decision Area. Data such as actual 

livestock use, utilization of forage species, climatic data, rangeland condition, and trend would continue 

to be collected from these studies. The intensity and frequency of monitoring data collection would vary 

by management category. Allotments in the “I” category are monitored at a greater intensity than the 

allotments in categories “M” and “C.” The monitoring schedule will be dependant on staffing and budget. 

The frequency of evaluations will likewise vary due to staffing and budget. At a minimum, evaluations 

should be coordinated with the renewal schedule of the 10-year permit. Where allotment management 

plans are in place, the evaluation would coincide with the end grazing cycle. Since 1999, 129 allotments 

have been evaluated as a result of the permit renewal process.

WILDLIFE HABITAT AND SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Monitoring of wildlife enhancement projects will be implemented annually or semiannually as time, 

funding, and availability of personnel allows. Data will be used to help determine areas where habitat is 

limited and where special management may be needed. Where vegetation treatments are applied, annually 

or semiannually monitor results with photo points and vegetation sampling that includes species and 

structural composition of the sites both pre-and post-treatment, if possible. Baseline big game and nongame use patterns and estimated population levels would be calculated using information collected 

annually from the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. These would be compared with posttreatment use patterns and population numbers, along with vegetation sampling, and would be used to 

determine the relative effectiveness of the treatment. This monitoring would be accomplished by contract 

or with the aid of Federal, State, and private employees. Every five years or as time, funding, and 

availability of personnel allows, the number of acres of bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, and pronghorn 

antelope habitat that has undergone vegetation treatments would be evaluated to determine what 

percentage of the proposed treatment has been completed. In addition, every five years, population levels 

and distribution of these species within the resource area would be evaluated using annual observations 

and herd counts conducted by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 

Monitoring could consist of intensive research projects or passive population inventories designed to help 

identify the extent of the populations and the habitats that are being used. Inventories of special status 

species would be completed once every one to three years for species known to occur within the Decision 

Area.

Annually or semi-annually assess landscape changes in a variety of vegetative communities from wildfire, 

prescribed fire, vegetation treatments, insect infestation, or other major influences. These changes will be 

mapped using GPS, geographic information system, and remote sensing technologies. The number of 

acres will be reported for each type of action. Assessments will be based on changes in the size and 

composition of each major vegetative community. Changes will reflect suitability for dependent/obligate 

species for each vegetative community. Each vegetative community would be evaluated periodically 

during Rangeland Health Assessments and after major catastrophic events such as large-scale wildfires. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS D-3 Appendix D

April 2007

Where necessary, recommendations will be made for protection and restoration of damaged or degraded 

habitats.

Riparian Habitat

The goal of the Socorro Field Office riparian monitoring is to document the progress toward achieving 

and then maintaining Proper Functioning Condition while being managed under the multiple use and 

adaptive management concepts. Riparian and wetland areas are considered to be functioning properly 

when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris are present to dissipate stream energy 

associated with high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality. The process used 

to assess Proper Functioning Condition is described in BLM Technical References 1737-9 and 1737-15. 

Proper Functioning Condition is reassessed on a three-year rotating basis. A binder containing monitoring 

information, such as Proper Functioning Condition results, reassessment schedules, and photo-point 

monitoring photos, for each designated riparian reach is being compiled and maintained in the Socorro 

Field Office. 

Although the BLM standard is to use proper functioning condition assessments, trend assessments can 

quickly provide initial information about progress toward desired conditions. Trend assessments include 

the following: wildlife and aquatic monitoring, water quality monitoring, Rosgen channel typing, riparian 

site classification, assessment of change over time towards meeting desired range of conditions, low-level 

aerial photography, and remote-sensing technologies. Riparian areas also are required to meet the riparian 

standard of the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines (see Appendix E). 

Attainment of Proper Functioning Condition (BLM 1993, 1998) objectives is considered a minimum 

step in the process of achieving desired range of conditions. Proper Functioning Condition and other 

riparian objectives in most cases do not equate to the desired range of conditions. Determination of 

Proper Functioning Condition and riparian management objectives is an interdisciplinary process. To 

determine improvement in conditions relating to lotic proper functioning condition, monitoring methods 

are described for all assessment categories in BLM Technical Reference 1737-15 (1998). 

Photo Points and Aerial Photos – Photo points are established during Proper Functioning Condition 

assessments. Photo sets taken at specific repeatable locations subjectively show changes in stream 

channels and vegetation over time. Photo points can be very useful to illustrate changes at specific points 

over time. Aerial photos show changes in channel and vegetation over the length of a stream. They 

include enough detail to monitor woody species changes over time. 

Wild Horses

A monitoring plan will be developed to measure the achievement or nonachievement of objectives. 

Routine monitoring within the Herd Management Area would be conducted on habitat and wild horses at 

a minimum of once every three years or prior to the next gather. Monitoring of habitat may consist of 

utilization of key forage species, trend of vegetation, precipitation, and water availability. 

Various types of census methods may be used to determine the number and distribution of wild horses. 

Census methods recommended by the National Academy of Science Committee on Wild Free-Roaming 

Horses and Burros will be used to determine population size. 

Data used to assess herd condition and health will be collected during the census, when conducting 

gathers, or from routine observations. This can include age and sex structure of the herd, lactation and 

pregnancy, distribution, band size, color, height, physical condition, and behavior. At times, blood 

samples may be drawn from horses to test genetic diversity. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS D-4 Appendix D

April 2007

FORESTRY AND WOODLAND 

The forestry program will be monitored prior to and following silvicultural treatments utilizing standard 

forest stand exams to determine forest or woodland species, trees per acre, size classes, and overall forest 

or woodland health. Permanent plots will be established, including photo points. Line transects will also 

be utilized to determine cover and composition changes over time. These plots will be read on a schedule 

that reflects condition of the site and goals for future desired condition of the vegetation. 

The vegetative sales program would be monitored prior to and following establishment of vegetative sales 

collection sites using permanent plots established for photo points. These plots will be read on a schedule 

that reflects condition of the site, to ensure no undue resource damage has occurred from harvesting plant

materials. 

For both the forestry and vegetative sales programs, regular site visits throughout the year would be a part 

of the monitoring program to ensure signs are in place, the public is properly permitted, and the public is 

not entering areas under wet conditions. 

OUTDOOR RECREATION 

Monitoring would occur on an ongoing annual basis and would include periodic patrols to check 

boundaries of recreation areas and signing; ensure visitor compliance with rules and regulations; establish 

baseline data, as needed; determine current impacts from recreational use; and record data to help 

determine appropriate levels and patterns of recreational use and the influences of other resource uses. 

Monitoring would focus on visitation levels; compliance with rules, regulations, and permit stipulations 

for developed sites; dispersed uses; permits; and prescribed standards and guidelines as set forth in 

planning documents and the recreation opportunity spectrum classes. Methods of monitoring could 

include one or more of the following: traffic counters; surveillance at developed sites; limits of acceptable 

change studies, as needed; user contacts; monitoring of permitted events; and photo documentation of 

changes in resource condition over time. These data would be used to manage visitor use, develop plans 

and projects to reduce visitor impacts, and meet visitor expectations and demands. The level of 

monitoring would be contingent on available funding. 

TRANSPORTATION/ACCESS – OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES 

Overall monitoring and evaluation of the Socorro Field Office’s Transportation System would be 

reviewed and updated as needed. 

Monitoring OHV uses within the Planning Area would be ongoing with a focus on compliance with 

specific designations, as well as determining whether these uses are in compliance and/or causing adverse 

effects on various resources. Methods of monitoring would include visitor contacts, permit review, visual 

surveillance, traffic counters, periodic patrols to check area boundaries and routes, signing, and visitor 

use. Aerial reconnaissance and use of satellite imagery could be used as well. Closures would be 

monitored to ensure public safety and protect affected roadbeds or areas. Baseline data would be 

established for sites where OHV use is occurring, and sites would be rehabilitated or closed as necessary, 

contingent on available funding. 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Monitoring would be ongoing for all projects (including but not limited to projects associated with any 

developments, land alterations, vegetation manipulation, etc.), which could potentially affect visual 

resources. These projects would be monitored to ensure compliance with established visual resource 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS D-5 Appendix D

April 2007

management classes. Monitoring would include use of the visual contrast rating system, described in 

BLM Manual 8400 (BLM 1984), where appropriate, during project review. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

There are two kinds of cultural resource site monitoring: one consists of field examination to assess 

whether any impacts have occurred resulting from Section 106 undertakings, and the other is to assess 

any natural or human-caused impacts that are not related to authorized Federal undertakings. 

Section 106 monitoring will be conducted when deemed appropriate by the Resource Area archaeologist 

or the Socorro Field Office Manager (i.e., when project design constraints do not allow for standard 

buffers for site avoidance). 

Non-Section 106 monitoring of BLM-administered cultural resources in the Socorro Field Office area of 

jurisdiction will be conducted as staffing levels and workload permit, with a minimum of 10 site visits per 

year. Sites for non-Section 106 monitoring will be prioritized as follows: 

1. National Register eligible sites reported to be undergoing effects from natural or human caused 

phenomena. 

2. Sites of outstanding significance, particularly if they are considered vulnerable or at-risk such as 

sites in areas of intense recreation use and sites in urban interface areas. 

3. Sites chosen based on accessibility to staff or volunteers. For example, sites near a current project 

area.

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS 

Wilderness Study Areas

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) would be managed under the Interim Policy and Guidelines for Lands 

Under Wilderness Review (BLM 1995). The interim management policy requires monitoring of all WSAs 

on a regular basis to ensure wilderness characteristics are maintained. Monitoring levels could vary by 

WSA depending on use, access, conflicts, and other considerations. Monitoring boundaries and OHV area 

and route designations is a priority action during patrols of WSAs. Methods of monitoring could be both 

motorized along WSA boundaries and open routes, and non-motorized. Aerial surveillance, visitor 

contact, and permit compliance also would be used as part of monitoring. Projects or uses allowed under 

the interim management policy also would be closely monitored to ensure compliance and protection of 

wilderness characteristics. WSAs also would be monitored to ensure any unauthorized activities are 

documented and rehabilitated as needed. 

Special Designations Management

All the special designations including areas of critical environmental concern, special recreation 

management areas, and special management areas would be assessed on a periodic schedule in order to 

evaluate maintenance and enhancement of relevant and important values, in the case of areas of critical 

environmental concern, and the other values for which other areas were designated for special 

management. All areas also would be evaluated to determine the effectiveness of management in 

maintaining those values. Monitoring may include collection of both qualitative and quantitative data. 

Monitoring methods would be the same or similar to those described above for the various resource 

management programs. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS D-6 Appendix D

April 2007

LAND AND REALTY 

All authorized rights-of-way, permits, and leases including recreational and public proposes 

authorizations will be monitored by both the holder and the Authorized Officer. The holder will be 

responsible for complying with the terms and conditions of the grant and 43 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) 2805.12 to ensure that public health, safety, and welfare are protected, and that the right-of-way, 

permit, or lease is in accordance with the State and local laws and that the terms and conditions of the 

authorization are being followed. The monitoring may involve but not be limited to conducting repetitive 

inspections, data gathering, or technical investigation. The frequency and type will depend on the 

resource values at risk, the holder’s past performance record, and the ability to obtain monitoring services. 

The Authorized Officer will periodically conduct inspections of the area to ensure the protection of 

resources and that the management objectives in the land use plan are being met. These inspections will 

also confirm the holder is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the authorization, rental fees are 

being properly calculated, and the protection of the public health and safety is not being jeopardized. The 

Authorized Officer may conduct joint inspections with the holder. Written documentation of the 

inspections will be file in the casefile. 

Prior to surface-disturbing activities, the Authorized Office may require the holder not to proceed until the 

Authorized Officer has issued written notice to proceed. The Authorized Officer may conduct inspections 

during construction. The frequency and type of inspection will be depend on the resource values at risk, 

type of activities involved with the authorization, and the holder’s previous performance record. 

Each Recreation and Public Purpose Act lease and patent will periodically receive an examination as to 

the terms, plan of development, timetable for construction plan of management, etc., in order to comply 

with the law. According to the BLM Handbook H-2740-1 Chapter 8, compliance checks should be 

scheduled at a minimum at intervals of five years after a lease or patent has been issued. Additional 

checks may be required in circumstances where the plan of development shows completion or substantial 

development of the proposed project in less than five years, the lease specifies a nonuse period shorter 

than five years, or receipt of a complaint alleging lands are being used for a purpose not authorized in the 

lease or patent. The compliance checks may be conducted by the holder, a third-party contractor, or other 

regulatory entity. 

SOILS

Manage uses to minimize and mitigate disturbances to soils and loss of soil sediments from erosion. 

Maintain soil stability to protect soil ecological health and long-term productivity. 

Soil health will be monitored through the use of the Rangeland Standards assessments that assess 

vegetative and soil conditions. The schedule of monitoring varies for allotment evaluations. These 

evaluations monitor utilization, vegetative trends, and ground cover. Specific localized soil erosion areas 

will be evaluated for rehabilitation efforts. 

WATER RESOURCES 

Manage uses to maintain or improve overall watershed health by maximizing infiltration for groundwater 

recharge. Manage uses to maintain or improve surface water quality in watersheds, and watersheds which 

affect streams that are listed as water quality limited under the Clean Water Act, Section 303 (d). Manage 

resources to maintain or reduce salinity loading in accomplishing the goals and objectives outlined in the 

Colorado River Salinity Control Act.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS D-7 Appendix D

April 2007

Watershed health will be monitored through the use of the Rangeland Standards assessments that assess 

vegetative and soil conditions. The schedule of monitoring varies for allotment evaluations. These 

evaluations monitor utilization, vegetative trends, and ground cover.

AIR QUALITY 

Ensure BLM authorizations and management activities comply with Federal, State, and local air quality 

regulations, requirements, and implementation plans. Protect ground cover to minimize wind erosion of 

soils. No specific air monitoring is planned. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Monitoring studies would be encouraged on all emergency fire rehabilitation projects to determine 

whether emergency fire rehabilitation objectives were met. 

Monitoring would be implemented on all projects that employ new techniques, seed mixes, or 

rehabilitation methods. Emergency fire rehabilitation funds may be used to fund monitoring studies for up 

to three growing seasons following fire control. 

Pre-fire condition and post-fire effects would be determined by monitoring plant community composition 

and trend in burn areas to determine natural recovery, responses from seed planting, and weed and 

cheatgrass invasion. Monitoring methods would include establishing photo points, density, cover, 

frequency plots (pre- and post-burn), and ocular estimates. 

MINERALS 

Monitoring of activities on mining claims would be conducted to ensure compliance with the 43 CFR 

3802/3809 regulations. These regulations provide for locatable mineral activities on public lands while 

preventing unnecessary or undue degradation, and provide for reclamation of disturbed areas and 

coordination with State agencies. BLM policy establishes minimum inspection frequencies for mining 

operations as follows: quarterly inspections are required for all operations using cyanide, and biannual 

inspections are required for all other active operations. Operations in sensitive areas or operations with a 

high potential for greater than usual impacts are inspected more often. 

For fluid mineral leases, inspections would be conducted to determine compliance with applicable laws, 

regulations, conditions of leases, and the requirements of approved exploration and development plans. 

Where mineral production is occurring, inspections would ensure (1) an accurate accounting of materials 

removed; (2) proper compensation to the Federal government; (3) protection of the environment, public 

health and safety; and (4) identification and resolution of salable mineral trespass. Operations in sensitive 

areas or operations with a high potential for greater than usual impacts would be inspected more 

frequently. 

For saleable mineral operations, inspections would be conducted to determine compliance with applicable 

laws, regulations, and the requirements of approved mining plans. Where mineral production is occurring, 

the goals of the salable mineral inspection and enforcement/production verification program are (1) an 

accurate accounting of materials removed; (2) proper compensation to the Federal government; 

(3) protection of the environment, public health and safety; and (4) identification and resolution of salable 

mineral trespass. Operations in sensitive environmental areas or operations with a high potential for 

greater than usual impacts would be inspected more often. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS D-8 Appendix D

April 2007

CAVES AND KARST RESOURCES 

The purpose of a monitoring program for Cave and Karst areas is to facilitate improved management 

through monitoring and research and to protect natural and scenic values while allowing for recreation, 

and educational and scientific uses where such use does not conflict with protecting unique values. 

Conduct inventories and long-term general and specific ecological studies relating to the requirements of 

cave habitats for special status species. Determine population trends, threats, and habitat change by 

monitoring populations of all special status species using cave or karst habitats. Gather baseline 

information on habitat use by all species. Establish photo monitoring points and periodically take photos 

to record any changes. Use Limit of Acceptable Change techniques to monitor impacts from visitor use. 

Employ visitor surveys to determine visitor use, visitor satisfaction with their experience, and 

effectiveness of any interpretation or educational programs and facilities. Monitor the effects of any 

constructed projects or developments on wildlife and habitat use. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS D-9 Appendix D

April 2007

REFERENCES 

Elzinga, C.L., D.W. Salazer, and J.W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations. 

BLM Technical Reference 1730-1. Copies available from BLM National Business Center. 

Denver, Colorado.

Shaver P., M. Pellant, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2000. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health, 

version 3. Technical Reference 1734-6. USDI, BLM, National Science and Technology Center, 

Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Department of Interior (USDI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2001. H-4180-1 Rangeland 

Health Standards Handbook. Washington, D.C. 

______. 1998. A user guide to assess proper functioning condition and support science for lotic areas

(supplement to T-1737-9). USDI, BLM, Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 

______. 1995. H-8550-1 Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review. 

Washington, D.C. 

______. 1993. Riparian Area Management, Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. 

Technical Reference 1737-9. USDI, BLM, Service Center, Denver, Colorado.

______. 1984a. Visual Resource Management, BLM Manual Handbook 8400. Washington, D.C.

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS E-1 Appendix E

April 2007

APPENDIX E 

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM DEFINITIONS AND 

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CLASS OBJECTIVES 

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM 

The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) provides the conceptual framework for inventory, planning, 

and management of recreation resources. The ROS recognizes that people differ in their needs and the 

experience they desire. Also, the resource base is not uniform; it varies in its potential for providing 

recreation experiences. The ROS provides a way to characterize either the capability of a resource to 

provide an experience or the demand for an experience in terms of the activity opportunity and setting 

opportunity provided or demanded. Therefore, recreation opportunities can be expressed in terms of three 

components: (1) the activities, (2) the setting, and (3) the experience. The possible combinations of these 

three components are arranged along a continuum or spectrum. The ROS is divided into six classes, with 

each class defined in terms of its combination of activity, setting, and experience opportunities. The six 

classes are primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and 

urban. As conceived, the spectrum has application to all land, regardless of ownership or jurisdiction. 

Classes are described as follows. 

Primitive

This is essentially an unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Use of motorized vehicles is 

prohibited. There is an extremely high probability of experiencing isolation, closeness to nature, and selfreliance on outdoor skills. Activities may include hiking, nature study, fishing, cross-country skiing, and 

floatboating.

Semi-primitive Non-motorized

This is a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Minimum onsite controls and restrictions may be present. Use of motorized vehicles is prohibited. There is a high 

probability of experiencing isolation, closeness to nature, and self-reliance in outdoor skills. Activities 

may include camping, hunting, snowshoeing, and floatboating. 

Semi-primitive Motorized

This is a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. User 

interaction is low, but there is evidence of other users. Minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be 

present. Use of motorized vehicles is permitted. There is a moderate probability of experiencing isolation, 

closeness to nature, and self-reliance in outdoor skills. Activities may include boating, motor biking, 

specialized landcraft use, mountain climbing, driving for pleasure, camping, and picnicking. 

Roaded Natural

This is a predominantly natural-appearing environment with moderate evidence of humans. Evidence 

usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Management provides for the use of conventional 

motorized vehicles. There is an equal probability to experience affiliation with other user groups and for 

isolation and interaction with the natural environment. Challenge and risk opportunities are not very 

important, although testing of outdoor skills may be. Opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized 

recreation are available. Activities may include bus touring, water skiing, walking, canoeing, sledding, 

and driving for pleasure. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS E-2 Appendix E

April 2007

Rural

This is a substantially modified environment. Resource modifications and utilization practices are to 

enhance specific recreation activities. Facilities are designed for use by a large number of people. 

Motorized use and parking opportunities are available. The probability of user interaction is moderate to 

high, as is the convenience of sites and opportunities. These factors are generally more important than the 

physical setting. Wildland challenges and testing of outdoor skills are generally unimportant. Activities 

may include interpretive services, swimming, bicycling, recreation cabin use, and skiing. 

Urban

This is a substantially urbanized environment, although the background may have natural-appearing 

elements. Renewable resource modernization and urbanization practices are to enhance specific recreation 

opportunities. Vegetative cover is often exotic and manicured. Large numbers of users can be expected on 

site and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified motor-vehicle use and parking are available. The 

probability of user interaction is high, as is the convenience of sites and opportunities. Experiencing 

natural environments and uses of outdoor skills are relatively unimportant. Opportunities for competitive 

and spectator sports and for passive uses are common. Activities may include resort lodging, ice skating, 

team sports participation, tour boat use, and picnicking. 

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CLASS OBJECTIVES 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act requires the Bureau of Land Management to consider the 

effects of management actions on the visual quality of the landscape. To protect visual resources, all 

public land is inventoried to determine its Visual Resource Management classification. The Visual 

Resource Management objectives for each of the four possible classifications are described below. 

Class I

The objective of this classification is the preservation of the existing landscape’s character. Providing for 

natural ecological changes, this class allows limited management activity. The very low level of change 

must not attract attention. Class I is assigned to those areas in which management decisions have been 

made to preserve a natural landscape. Thus, the class includes wilderness study areas and other 

congressionally and administratively designated areas. 

Class II

The retention of the existing character of the landscape is the objective of this classification. The level of 

change to landscape characteristics should be low; management activities may be seen but should not 

attract the attention of a casual observer. Any alterations must conform to the basic elements of form, line, 

color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

Class III 

The objective of Class III is the partial retention of the existing landscape character. Moderate levels of 

change are acceptable. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the casual 

observer’s view. Changes should conform to the basic elements of the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS E-3 Appendix E

April 2007

Class IV 

Class IV provides for major landscape modification management activities. These management activities 

may dominate the view and become the focus of viewer attention. Every effort should be made to 

minimize the impact of these projects by carefully locating activities, minimizing disturbance, and 

designing the projects to conform to the characteristic landscape. 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS F-1 Appendix F

 April 2007

APPENDIX F 

LAND AND MINERALS DISPOSAL POLICY AND

PLAN FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY EXCLUSION AND AVOIDANCE AREAS 

SURFACE ESTATE DISPOSAL POLICY 

All surface estate disposal actions require the preparation of a mineral report to assess the mineral 

potential of the property prior to disposal. 

Any potential interference with mineral development will be considered through the disposal process. The 

creation of a split surface-mineral estate causing surface interference with Federal mineral development 

will be avoided to the extent possible. Any surface disposal action will closely analyze potential impacts 

to Federal mineral material development. All surface estate patents within areas of known coal potential 

will carry a reservation of surface owner consent rights under the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977. 

The following items will be examined when considering the merits of any disposal: 

x Consistency and conformance with current planning 

x Consistency with mineral resource policy and fluid mineral leasing procedures 

x Potential effects on special status species and their habitat 

x Potential effects on recreation and wilderness values 

x Potential effects on prime and unique farmland 

x Floodplain and flood hazard evaluation 

x Potential effects on cultural and paleontological resource values 

x Potential effects on American Indian religious values 

x Potential effects on visual resources 

x Potential effects on ACECs 

x Potential effects on wetlands 

x Potential effects on existing rights and uses 

x Public controversy 

x Potential effects on health and safety 

x Potential effects on adjacent uses and ownership 

x Potential effects on air resources 

The following procedures will be followed for the various types of surface estate land disposal actions in 

the Socorro Field Office Area: 

Exchanges

Disposal by exchange must meet the criteria outlined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) Sec. 206, whereby it is determined that the public interest will be well served by making the 

proposed exchange. Exchanges within designated retention areas may be possible if it is clearly 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS F-2 Appendix F

 April 2007

determined that it is in the best interest of the public. The following principles will guide the Socorro 

Field Office in its land exchange program. 

1. The Socorro Field Office will continue to strive to process mutually benefiting, public 

interest land exchanges in a timely and efficient manner. 

2. Acquisition through exchange rather than purchase of lands or interests in lands required for 

resource management programs will always be the preferred method of acquisition, as this 

will reduce the expansion of Federal real estate holdings and help to assure the integrity of 

State and local tax basis.

3. Comments from State and local governments and the general public shall be sought and 

considered before completion of each exchange. 

4. Patent and deed reservations and conditions will be kept to the absolute minimum necessary 

to complete the transaction. Rights of third-party right-of-way holders and other legal 

interests in the exchanged lands will be protected. 

5. The generally preferred rule is for both surface and subsurface (mineral) estates to be traded 

in an exchange. However, due to third-party encumbrances, or difficulties in the valuation 

process, it may be preferable to complete certain exchanges with reservations. Such 

exceptions to the generally preferred rule are to be made on a case-by-case basis. 

6. Exchanges shall be utilized to consolidate the surface and subsurface estates for both the 

Federal government and non-Federal owners in split estate situations.

7. Exchanges may be utilized to affect ownership and management area boundary changes or 

adjustments and to form more logical and efficient land and resource management areas for 

both the Federal government and non-Federal owners. 

8. As the law permits, expenses incurred by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on 

exchange actions for the benefit of other Federal agencies shall be recovered from the 

benefiting agency. The BLM shall not attempt to recover nominal costs. 

9. When an exchange involves the cancellation in hold or in part of a grazing permit or lease, 

the compensation for rangeland improvements and 2-year notification requirements of 

Section 402(g) of the FLPMA and 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 4110 will be met. 

10. The acquisition of nonpublic lands containing unique or unusual historic, cultural, mineral, 

recreational, scientific, and scenic or wildlife habitat values will be pursued when formulating 

any exchange proposal. 

Sales

Property selected for sale must be identified as being potentially suitable for disposal in an approved 

land use plan and must meet one or more of the criteria outlined in the FLPMA Sec. 203. In addition, 

if the tract is 2,500 acres or more, procedures outlined in Sec. 203(c) must also be followed. The 

disposal criteria is as follows:

x Such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to 

manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another Federal 

department or agency; or 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS F-3 Appendix F

 April 2007

x Such tract was acquired for a specific purpose, and the tract is no longer needed for that or 

any other Federal purpose; or 

x Disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to 

expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently 

or feasibly on land other than public land and which outweighs other public objectives and 

values, including but not limited to recreation and scenic values, which would be served by 

maintaining such tract in Federal ownership. 

Anticipated environmental impacts to existing resources such as minerals, wildlife, recreation, range, 

cultural resources, wilderness values, floodplains, paleontological values, visual resources, areas of 

critical environmental concern, wetlands, threatened or endangered rivers, prime or unique farm 

lands, and social and economic conditions, will be considered during the preparation of each 

environmental assessment. The environmental assessment will be used to determine whether the 

subject parcel is suitable to be offered for sale. Once this determination has been made, a fair market 

appraisal of the property will be completed to set the minimum acceptable bid. 

If a tract is determined suitable for sale, the environmental assessment will analyze the method of sale 

that will be used to dispose of the tract. Several factors are considered in determining the method of 

sale which include but are not limited to the needs of State and/or local governments, adjoining 

landowners’ interests and concerns, public policies, historical uses, and equitable distribution of the 

land. In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3, the Socorro Field Office policy for determining the sale 

method is as follows: 

1. Competitive bidding is the preferred method of sale and will be used where clearly there will 

be a number of interested parties bidding for the land and they could make practicable use of 

the land regardless of adjoining landownership. Competitive bidding will also be used where 

the land is clearly within a developing or urbanizing area and land values are increasing due 

to their location and interest on the competitive market. If there are no overriding bases for 

modifying competition or direct sale, the land will be offered through competitive bidding. 

The normal practice for competitive sales is to first offer the land for sale by sealed bids; if 

unsold, the tract is offered for sale over-the-counter. 

2. Modified competitive bidding may be used to permit the existing grazing user or adjoining 

landowner to meet the high bid or to limit the number of persons permitted to bid on the land. 

These sales will normally be for lands not located near urban expansion areas or in areas with 

rapidly increasing land values, when there is a need to avoid jeopardizing existing use of 

adjacent land, to assure compatibility of the possible uses with adjacent lands, and avoid 

dislocation of existing users. This procedure will allow for limited competitive bidding to 

protect ongoing use. 

3. Direct (without competition) sales may be used when, in the opinion of the Authorized 

Officer, the public interest would best be served. Examples include but are not limited to: 

x A tract identified for transfer to State or local governments or nonprofit organizations; or 

x A tract identified for sale that is an integral part of a project or of public importance and 

speculative bidding would jeopardize the timely completion and economic viability of the 

project; or 

x There is a need to recognize authorized use such as an existing business which would be 

threatened if the tract were purchased by other than the authorized user, or 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS F-4 Appendix F

 April 2007

x A tract is surrounded by land in non-Federal ownership and does not have public access; 

or

x The lands support inadvertent unauthorized use or occupancy. 

4. When lands have been offered for sale under direct or modified bidding procedures and they 

remain unsold, then the land will be re-offered by the competitive bidding procedure. In no 

case will the land be sold for less than fair market value. 

Public participation and intergovernmental coordination will be sought and encouraged during the 

development of each sale. Where a decision is made to dispose of land within a grazing allotment, 

permittees and lessees shall be given 2 years prior notification before their grazing preference may be 

cancelled in whole or part. A permittee or lessee may unconditionally waive the 2-year prior 

notification.

The lands may be disposed at any time, provided a condition of the exchange or sale allows the 

existing grazing user to continue grazing livestock on the land for at least 2 years from the date the 

2-year notice is received. 43 CFR 2711.1-3 addresses sales requiring grazing permit or lease 

cancellations. 

In such cases, the condition of the disposal will include the same terms and conditions as the 

permit/lease in regard to numbers, kind of livestock, season-of-use, animal unit months, and 

maintenance of range improvements. Fees must be the same as the Federal grazing fees. 

Grazing permittees/lessees will receive fair market value (less salvage value) for their interest in 

authorized permanent rangeland improvements located on public lands in accordance with 43 CFR 

4120.3-6. Compensation for grazing improvements under the land sale action is addressed in 43 CFR 

2711.4-1. If floodplain tracts are designated for disposal, the patent will contain language 

indemnifying the United States against any claims for loss or injury due to flooding. 

Lands designated as retention areas may be offered for disposal through a competitive sale unless the 

authorized officer determines the interest of the public would best be served by modified competitive 

bidding or direct sale (WO IM-2002-143). Land ownership pattern within these areas are moderately 

consolidated and contain small tracts of land. Land sale may be pursued if the disposal of lands within 

designated retention areas, not including areas of critical environmental concerns (ACECs), special 

management areas (SMAs), and special recreational management areas (SRMAs) would help enhance 

manageability and consolidate land status. Several parcels have no legal public access which makes 

manageability difficult. The parcels offered for disposal shall contain no known significant resources 

values.

Wilderness study areas (WSAs) and retention areas within ACECs, SMAs, and SRMAs shall be excluded 

and unavailable for disposal through sales and/or exchanges. Consolidation of ownership within these 

specially managed areas would be through acquisition of state and private lands to continue improving the 

ownership and manageability. Any exchange involving lands within retention areas must be exchanged 

for lands with a higher resource value than lands being disposed. 

Direct sales must be clearly determined by the authorized officer to ensure that the sale is in the best 

interest of the public. When lands have been offered for direct or modified bidding and they remain 

unsold, the land will be re-offered under competitive bidding procedures. Mineral (subsurface) estate 

will be retained for all sales that occur within designated retention areas. Permittees will be given 2 

years prior notification to disposal of lands within a grazing allotment (permits/leases) before their 

grazing may be cancelled in whole or part. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS F-5 Appendix F

 April 2007

Recreation and Public Purposes Patents

The Socorro Field Office will continue to issue patents to qualified governmental and nonprofit 

entities for public parks and recreations sites under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act. 

These patents may be issued at less than fair market value as outlined in 43 CFR 2740. Applications 

for patent of public lands under the R&PP Act will be processed as a Socorro Field Office priority 

under the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and will be subject to public 

review. Current policy dictates that new sanitary landfill sites will be patented and no new lease will 

be issued in the Socorro Resource Area pursuant to the R&PP Act. R&PP applications may be 

entertained in either retention or disposal zones; yet, a determination must always be made that the 

disposal action is in the public's interest. 

Mineral Estate Disposal Policy

Disposal of the mineral estate is possible under Sections 206 and 209 of the FLPMA. It is the policy 

of the BLM to avoid disposing of the surface estate while retaining the mineral estate unless there are 

areas of "known mineral value," as defined in 43 CFR 2720.0.5. In areas of "known mineral value," 

the mineral estate (and the surface estate if substantial interference to development will result) should 

be retained except as described below. 

Prior to any land disposal a "mineral value" determination must be made following a field 

reconnaissance by a BLM mineral examiner. A mineral report must be written to evaluate the 

leaseable, locatable, and saleable mineral potential of each proposed sale or exchange. Under the 

FLPMA, the conclusion of the mineral examiner will include an opinion as to whether the lands have 

"known mineral values." If professional judgment concludes that the land does not contain "known 

mineral values," the surface and subsurface estate may be conveyed, subject to any existing mining 

claim(s) or mineral leases. 

A mining claim of record under Section 314 of the FLPMA generally prevents an exchange or sale. If 

the land is under mining claim, the surface should be retained under Federal ownership or the claim 

examined for validity. However, a validity examination may be waived and the BLM may proceed 

with the sale or exchange of both the surface and the mineral estate, subject to the existing mining 

claim(s) if: 

x The land meets the criteria for disposal as determined through land-use planning; and 

x The land has no "known mineral value" as determined by a BLM geologist or mining 

engineer; and 

x The prospective patentee is willing to accept defensible title, preserving whatever rights the 

mining claimant may have. Conveyance of the surface and mineral estate would be subject to 

"existing mining claim(s)," allowing the mining claimant to apply for and receive full fee 

patent if a valid discovery were made prior to the date of transfer under Sections 206 or 209, 

or alternatively, receive patent to the mineral estate only if discovery were made after the 

original conveyance. 

The BLM will proceed with a sale or exchange only after reasonable efforts have been made to secure 

relinquishment of the mining claims(s). If the mining claimant opposes the action, the Notice of 

Realty Action protest procedures will apply. 

For a direct sale or an exchange, the proponent must be informed early and fully of the potential title 

conflicts and rights of the mining claimant under the law. The BLM should then proceed only if these 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS F-6 Appendix F

 April 2007

conditions are acceptable to the proponent. For a proposed competitive sale, the field office must 

carefully consider the effect on sale price, likelihood of success, and interests to be served if the sale 

is made subject to the rights of the mining claimant. If it is clearly in the public interest to proceed, 

the BLM must secure purchaser waiver of any liability against the United States in the event of 

subsequent title litigation. 

In cases where lands are patented without a reservation of locatable minerals, a FLPMA patent is 

believed to have standing to bring private contest (43 CFR 4.450) against the mining claim(s). Should 

he or she do so, the burden is upon the patentee to prove lack of discovery. If the patentee is 

successful, or if the claims are abandoned or relinquished, the land will not be open to further 

location, and the patentee will receive full title to the involved locatable minerals. 

Mining claim locations and mineral leases for lands in which the surface title has passed under the 

FLPMA disposal authority may be made only after regulations providing for such locations or leasing 

have been promulgated. Because these regulations have not as yet been issued, lands disposed of 

under the FLPMA are subject to de facto withdrawal. Lands disposed of under the FLMPA are not 

withdrawn from mineral material sales or free-use permits. 

All minerals must be reserved if the Federal lands are conveyed out of Federal ownership pursuant to 

the FLPMA disposal authority, except in the limited instances that follow: 

1. Sales 

a. If the public lands proposed for sale are determined to have "known mineral values" for 

locatable, leaseable, or saleable minerals, one of the following courses of action may be 

taken:

(1) Reject the offer to purchase or cancel the offer of sale. 

(2) Dispose of the surface estate and reserve all of the mineral interests to the United 

States.

(3) Dispose of the surface and convey all or part of the mineral interests under terms set 

forth in Section 209(b) of the FLPMA. 

b. If the lands have no "know mineral value," the mineral interests may be simultaneously 

disposed of with the surface estate under authority of Section 209(b) of the FLPMA. 

2. Exchanges 

a. Public lands which do not have "known mineral values" may be offered to exchange 

without any mineral reservation. This will apply whether or not the non-Federal party in 

an exchange controls the minerals under his or her land. 

b. If the public lands have some potential for mineral development, reserving the mineral 

interests is not mandatory as long as the values can be equalized by the payment of 

money and so long as the payment does not exceed 25 percent of the total value of the 

land.

In any case, normally it is desirable to keep surface and mineral ownership together in an 

exchange, whenever possible, to eliminate future problems associated with split estate 

ownership.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS F-7 Appendix F

 April 2007

c. If the public lands in an exchange are determined to have "known mineral values" for 

locatable, leasable, or saleable minerals, it may be in the public interest to cancel the 

offer, depending upon the significance of the deposits. The leasable minerals alone can be 

reserved if significant. 

RIGHT-OF-WAY AVOIDANCE AND EXCLUSION AREAS PLAN 

The Draft Socorro Resource Management Plan Revision/Environmental Impact Statement identified a 

number of right-of-way avoidance and exclusion areas within the Socorro Decision Area. This approach 

would allow a right-of-way applicant to review resource area maps to determine what areas are closed to 

development and which open areas are subject to thorough examination with the potential for application 

rejection. All applicants would be notified that their project, if placed in an avoidance area, may be 

subject but not limited to requirements for recontouring and/or revegetating disturbed areas, painting 

certain above-ground structures to blend with the surrounding landscape and vegetation, and using special 

tower design and/or pole color. 

All designated right-of-way exclusion areas would be closed to all forms of new right-of-way 

development. BLM Manual 1623.51 A. 1c states that right-of-way exclusion areas are areas where future 

right-of-way may be granted only when mandated by law. Mining claimants cannot be denied reasonable 

access to an exclusion area unless the land is withdrawn from mineral entry (see 43 CFR § 3809.0-6). The 

majority of the right-of-way exclusion areas are within wilderness study areas, areas of critical 

environmental concern, and areas assigned visual resource inventory class I (Visual Resource 

Management Class I). Class I is assigned to areas where management decisions have been made to 

preserve the scenic values within the natural landscape. The objective of this class is to greatly minimize 

any level of change to the existing characteristic of the landscape. As a point of clarification, it should be 

recognized that many of the areas or portions thereof discussed within this plan are presently under 

wilderness review and designated as wilderness study areas. There are 13 wilderness study areas totaling 

approximately 291,826 acres within the Socorro Decision Area. These lands are presently being managed 

under the Interim Policy and Guidelines for Land Under Wilderness Review dated July 5, 1995, and will 

continue to be managed until they are either added to the National Wilderness Preservation System or 

removed from wilderness review. Any right-of-way authorizations granted in these areas after they are 

removed from wilderness review would be managed under the prescriptions within this plan. 

All right-of-way applicants should be aware that a mining claimant may refuse to allow a right-of-way to 

cross a claim if such claim was located prior to July 23, 1955. In such cases, BLM would reject a right-ofway application request or would help the applicant in the consideration of an alternative route which 

would be acceptable.

The right-of-way avoidance areas are defined in the BLM Manual 1623.52 as areas where future rightsof-way may be granted only when no feasible alternative route is available. The purpose of the right-ofway avoidance areas is to reduce the likelihood of rights-of-way being placed in these areas. When 

possible, alternative routes and sites would be considered. The Authorized Officer would closely review 

goals and objectives for special designated areas identified as avoidance areas in the resource 

management plan. This process would guide the Authorized Officer to determine which right-of-way 

applications would be rejected upon submittal or processed for issue. All issued right-of-way grants 

would be subject to special resource mitigating measures or stipulations. The terms and conditions of all 

right-of-way grants depend upon the sensitivity of the affected resource, applicable laws and regulations, 

and management objectives of special designated areas identified in the Socorro Resource Management 

Plan. All right-of-way proposals would require the preparation of a site specific environmental analysis to 

determine impacts and mitigating measures needed to specifically protect sensitive resource values. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS F-8 Appendix F

 April 2007

The right-of-way avoidance areas also apply to land use leases and permits in accordance with Section 

302 of the FLMPA. The special designated areas identified in the Resource Management Plan, including 

areas of critical environmental concern, special recreation management areas, and special management 

areas, include management prescriptions which exclude or avoid leases as well as rights-of-way. Leases 

and permits related to realty or land actions would be discouraged within avoidance areas. In cases when 

the location of the proposed activity cannot be avoided, the Authorized Officer will analyze it on a caseby-case basis. All leases and permits would be subject to the same review as stated in the paragraph 

above. All issued leases and permits would be subject to special resource mitigating measures and/or 

stipulations. These mitigation measures and/or stipulations prescribed would depend on the sensitivity of 

the affected resources, applicable laws and regulations, and the objective identified in the Resource 

Management Plan. 

All expansions of existing right-of-ways, permits, and leases located within the avoidance areas would be 

avoided. When avoidance is impossible, the proposed expansion would be subject to mitigation measures. 

The Authorized Officer would closely review the goals and objectives of the management area in which 

the proposed expansion would occur. This would help determine whether to reject or authorize the 

proposed expansion. All expansions which significantly conflict with the goals and objectives for special 

designated areas identified in the Resource Management Plan would be rejected upon submittal. 

When the number of facilities within an avoidance area reaches the point of saturation, the Authorized 

Officer may determine that no additional authorization will be granted. This determination would be 

made on the basis of whether the management objectives for the Visual Resource Management class for 

the area can no longer support additional facilities without jeopardizing the visual quality of the area. 

This plan may be modified by the Authorized Officer at any time and is intended strictly as a guideline 

for the authorization of new proposed right-of-way project within the Socorro Resource Area. 

Right-of-way application requests for the following uses in avoidance areas would be rejected upon 

submittal: 

x Power lines larger than 14 kilovolt 

x Aboveground oil, gas, and water pipelines 

x Radio telescopes 

x Airport runways 

x New roads with more than a 14-foot-wide driving surface 

x Advertisement signs 

x Artillery testing 

x Dams/reservoirs 

x Railroads

x Tramways and conveyors 

x Communications sites 

x Solar energy development projects greater than 5 acres 

x Wind power energy facilities 

The following right-of-way applications may be issued on a case-by-case basis within avoidance areas: 

x Solar energy facilities such as photovoltaic systems 

x Irrigation ditches and canals 

x Buried oil, gas, and water pipelines 

x Power lines smaller than 14 kilovolt

x Telephone lines (buried preferred) 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS F-9 Appendix F

 April 2007

x Water storage tanks 

x Air quality monitoring stations 

x Staging areas 

x Fiber optics (buried preferred) 

x Water wells 

x New roads with equal to or less than a 14-foot-wide driving surface 

x Monitoring and testing facilities 

x Filming permits 

x Biomass facilities 

x Wind energy facilities 

The above lists are not all-inclusive and further analysis may result in denial of the right-of-way 

application or mitigation of the proposed right-of-way to meet management objectives for avoidance 

areas.

The above criteria apply to all avoidance areas included within any special designation boundaries. The 

avoidance areas within special designations will have different criteria to allow for issuance of rights-ofway, permits, and leases. The special designated area goals and resource avoidance criteria are identified 

in the management prescriptions for wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern, 

special recreation management areas, and special management areas. 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-1 Appendix G

April 2007 

APPENDIX G 

BLM STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING GUIDANCE

The following information provides guidance on the preparation, implementation, and tracking of 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) stewardship projects, in accordance with Section 323 of Public 

Law 108-7, the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003. 

Authorization: Section 323 of Public Law 108-7 (Title 16, United States Code, Section 2104 as revised 

February 28, 2003 to reflect Sec. 323 of H.J. Res. 2 as enrolled [16 U.S.C. 2104]), the Consolidated 

Appropriations Resolution, 2003, amended Pub. L. 105-277, sec. 347, to grant the Forest Service (FS) 

and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) authority until September 30, 2013, to enter into stewardship 

projects with private persons or public or private entities, by contract or by agreement, to perform 

services to achieve land management goals for the National Forests or public lands that meet local and 

rural community needs.

A. General 

1. Definition – Stewardship projects are those activities used to accomplish one or more of the 

goals (section B (1)) listed in P.L. 108-7, Section 323 (b) where the BLM would enter into 

contract or agreement for services to achieve land management goals and meet local and rural 

community needs. In addition, a source for performance under a contract must be selected on a 

best value basis. The legislation authorizes the value of vegetative material to be applied as an 

offset against the cost of services received; and multi-year contract authority greater than five 

years but not to exceed 10 years. 

2. Stewardship Contracting is not a replacement for our (BLM) established timber sale program. 

Forest management projects designed primarily to enhance volume are not suitable for 

stewardship contracting. 

3. Ensure all stewardship projects comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations, 

including the appropriate level of environmental review under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), and are consistent with the applicable land use plans. 

4. Field units may use stewardship contracting as a tool to achieve resource work identified 

through the normal planning processes and as described in the 10-year Implementation Plan for 

the National Fire Plan. 

5. Any vegetative material removal must be a by-product of meeting the stewardship contracting 

project goals as stated in section B (1). Removal of these products must be consistent with the 

objectives developed through the collaborative process and the applicable land use plan 

objectives.

B. Project Design 

1. The primary objective of a stewardship contracting project is to achieve one or more of the land 

management goals that meet local and rural community needs. These goals as identified in the 

authorizing legislation may include but are not limited to: 

a. road and trail maintenance or obliteration for improved water quality; 

b. soil productivity, habitat for wildlife and fisheries, or other resource values; 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-2 Appendix G

April 2007 

c. setting prescribed fires to improve composition, structure, condition, and health of 

stands or to improve wildlife habitat; 

d. removing vegetation or other activities to promote healthy forest stands, reduce fire 

hazards or achieve other land management objectives; 

e. watershed restoration and maintenance; 

f. restoration and maintenance of wildlife and fish habitat; and control of noxious and 

exotic weeds and reestablishing native plant species. 

2. When designing stewardship contracting projects, consider projects involving treatments and 

techniques available to make forests, woodlands, and rangelands more resilient to natural 

disturbances such as fire, insects, disease, wind, and flood. 

3. For contracts exceeding five years in duration, Field Managers will include a concise rationale 

for contracts in project documentation. This rationale should consider such factors as the scope 

of the project, the type of the material to be treated, the availability of local capacity to process 

and use the material removed from the land, and the potential development of new markets for 

small diameter material, as well as operational factors such as local weather patterns, sensitive 

wildlife species habitat use cycles, and seasonal restrictions for wildfire prevention. 

4. An open, collaborative process shall be used to identify local and rural community needs. Seek 

early involvement of tribal governments and local government agencies, and any interested 

groups or individuals in various phases of project development and implementation. Utilize 

existing processes (publication of legal notices, newsletters, web based information, etc.) to 

publicize the opportunity for public involvement and the availability of environmental 

documents. 

C. Roles and Responsibilities 

1. Washington Office 

a. The responsibility of the Washington Office (WO), AD-200 Directorate, is to work with 

the WO AD-800 Directorate, the National Office of Fire and Aviation, and the BLM 

National Business Center to develop and implement automated methodology to track the 

value of goods exchanged and services provided in conjunction with stewardship 

contracting projects. 

b. AD 200 will produce the annual report to Congress required by the authorizing legislation. 

c. The BLM national headquarters office (AD 200) will review and the DOI Assistant 

Secretary for Land and Minerals Management will approve proposed stewardship 

contracts.

d. The national office will assign unique project numbers from a block reserved by the 

National Business Center (NBC). See F (2). 

2. State Director 

a. State Director approval for proposed stewardship contracting projects will be required 

prior to submission to the Washington Office. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-3 Appendix G

April 2007 

b. BLM State Directors must ensure that field offices complete the reporting and tracking 

requirements identified in this directive. 

c. State Directors will set priorities for stewardship contracting projects within their state.

d. The proper use and management of stewardship contracting authority must be assessed as 

a normal part of BLM statewide or national resource program and activity reviews for 

those programs utilizing the authority. Particular programs of interest include Forest and 

Woodland Management, and Fire/Fuels Management.

3. State Coordinators – Each State Office has assigned a stewardship contracting project 

coordinator for their respective state. Responsibilities of the stewardship contracting project 

coordinator include: 

a. clarifying stewardship contracting project guidance 

b. obtaining State Director review and approval 

c. monitoring project status 

d. ensuring that project reporting is accurate and timely 

e. soliciting Field Office feedback and making recommendations to the WO on ways to 

improve the effectiveness of the stewardship contracting tool. 

4. Field Office 

a. Submit proposed stewardship contracting contracts to the state coordinators using the 

Budget Planning System (BPS) format (Attachment 1) Stewardship Proposal Format, 

including fuels funded projects. All submissions must contain project objectives, 

location/size, type of treatment in detail, partners and collaborative processes used, length 

of project, status of NEPA, issues and highlights and a list of contacts. 

b. During all phases of stewardship contracting (i.e. planning, contract development, 

funding, implementation and monitoring), the process will be integrated with other Field 

Office programs and activities, utilizing multiple resource specialists, including 

contracting personnel. 

5. Contracting Officers 

a. Contracting Officers with Level III and IV warrants in the BLM National Business 

Center and Oregon State Office are delegated stewardship contracting authority 

according to the attached Delegation of Authority memorandum (Attachment 2), dated 

September 16, 2003, from the Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget. 

b. After successful implementation of stewardship contracting projects, BLM may consider 

authorizing contracting officers in additional locations to assist in awarding stewardship 

contracts and agreements. At that time, the Head of Contracting Activity (HCA) should 

submit nomination(s) to the Office of Acquisition and Property Management for review 

and approval. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-4 Appendix G

April 2007 

6. Contracting Officer’s Representative - The “Contracting Officer's Representative (COR)” is the 

on-the-ground administrator for the Contracting Officer. 

The COR’s authorities and responsibilities are defined in the COR’s Designation Letter. The 

COR is authorized to clarify technical requirements, and to review and approve work clearly 

within the scope of work. The COR is NOT authorized to issue changes pursuant to the changes 

clause or to in any other way modify the scope of work. 

7. Project Inspector – “Project Inspector” (PI) means the person designated by the COR to 

perform, as needed, on-the-job government inspection of work accomplished by the Contractor. 

The PI is responsible for checking the Contractor’s compliance with the technical specifications, 

drawings, work schedule, and labor provisions at the site of the work. 

D. Value Offset 

1. The value of vegetative material may be used to offset the amount of appropriated funds 

necessary to accomplish service work as part of a stewardship contracting project. 

2. Products that may be removed under stewardship contracting authority include vegetative 

material, such as, but not limited to sawlogs, firewood, post and poles, biomass, seed, shrubs, 

forage, fungi, and Christmas trees. See Special Forest Product Handbook, H-5400-2 or state 

specific Miscellaneous Forest Products Price Schedule, H-9352. 

3. Vegetative material removed will be appraised at fair market value. Where practicable, and 

warranted by the market for such material, the value of the material will either be determined 

through a competitive bidding process or will be a specific required element of the best value 

criteria. In all cases, the value of the by-product for exchange must equal or exceed the 

appraised fair market value. Guidance on appraising the value of this material is provided in 

Attachment 3, Forest Products Appraisal Guidance for Stewardship Contracting. 

4. The value of the vegetative material and the cost of the services to be performed must be clearly 

documented in the contract and on the Product Removal Report (see section J (1)). Before 

work can begin, the contractor must provide the government a proposed schedule of work (for a 

minimum of one work season), consistent with the contract for product removal, service work 

and net payments. As the contract is performed, the Field Office will record the actual volume 

and value (based on the contract bid price) removed, services performed, and net payments 

made as outlined in "Product Tracking Requirements," Section J. 

E. Excess Receipts 

1. When the value of the vegetative material exceeds the cost of the service work being performed 

in a stewardship project, the BLM is authorized to retain the excess receipts and to apply them 

to other stewardship projects without further appropriation. 

2. Excess receipt collections from stewardship contracting projects shall be deposited according to 

BLM collection procedures into the Stewardship Project Fund and managed according to the 

definition and requirements contained in the BLM Fund Coding Handbook, H-1684-1. See 

Attachment 4, Subactivity 5921 Description. 

3. In general, excess receipts shall be used to fund other stewardship projects within the State 

where the receipts were generated, as allocated by the State Director. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-5 Appendix G

April 2007 

4. Funds generated as excess offset values (Section E (2)) from other stewardship contracting 

projects may also be used to fund the collaborative process used for multi-party monitoring and 

direct on-the-ground implementation costs. Excess offset values shall not be used to fund 

program planning, environmental assessments, overhead, administrative, or indirect costs. 

Managers should consult with the public and interested stakeholders early in the collaborative 

process for input on where excess offset values could be utilized within a stewardship project. 

F. Project Submission, Funding and Accomplishment 

1. Funds from a number of appropriated subactivities and permanent operating accounts may fund 

stewardship contracting project planning, preparation, implementation, administration, and 

monitoring. Offices should use the benefiting subactivity concept in determining which funding 

is appropriate to use.

2. All approved stewardship contracting projects will tracked in the appropriate budget submission 

and accomplishment tracking database, applicable to the funding used. Fuels – NFPORS, all 

other subactivities – BPS/MIS, see B(4)(a). 

3. Each stewardship contracting project will be assigned a project code by the national office from 

a specific set of codes reserved for stewardship contracting projects for the purpose of tracking 

project costs and accomplishments in the Management Information System (MIS). Where other 

projects codes have already been assigned, such as in the Fuels Program, those assigned project 

codes will be reported to the Headquarters Office and used to track the costs associated with 

those projects The workload measure appropriate for the project will maintain the sub-activity 

specific tracking requirements. 

G. Contracting/Product Sales 

1. Stewardship contracting authority provides for the sale or exchange of vegetative material and 

the procurement of service work within one contract or agreement. 

2. For stewardship contracting projects to be completed by contract with a combined value in 

excess of $100,000 (services plus product value), the contracts must be prepared using the 

Performance Based Acquisition format (under development – will be available on the National 

Acquisition webpage at http://web.blm.gov/natacq/).

3. For stewardship projects below the $100,000 threshold in G (2), either a service contract or an 

approved product sale instrument may be used. Typical prescriptive contract language 

(provisions or stipulations) would be used as appropriate for the contract/instrument and 

objectives of the project. 

4. In addition to cost or price, the contracting officer must consider other “best value” factors, such 

as contractor past performance, technical approach, and local community benefits in 

determining contract award. 

5. The use of nontraditional contractors, such as counties or not-for-profit or nongovernmental 

organizations, should be considered where interest is expressed and is consistent with existing 

authorities. Stewardship contracting contracts should not be automatically set aside for small 

business concerns.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-6 Appendix G

April 2007 

6. For performance based contracts, the government reserves the right to review and revise the 

performance standards annually over the life of the contract by contract modification. 

7. A stewardship contracting contract is not a timber sale contract and, as such, is not subject to the 

requirements contained in 43 CFR, Part 5400, Sale of Forest Products. However, it does not 

preclude including these requirements within a stewardship contract to adequately protect the 

government’s interests (i.e. export restriction and Non-substitution provisions). 

8. Service Contract Act wage rates apply to the stewardship contracting contract. Contract 

solicitations should be arranged to separate bid prices, specifications, and payments for service 

work, construction work, and product removal work to help distinguish where these wage rates 

apply. 

9. When required by law, bonding must be used to protect the public interest. When not required 

by law, bonding may be used when deemed necessary. 

a. Payment protection in the form of payment bonds should be used to protect the value of 

the by-product to be removed when the product will be removed prior to cash payment or 

the contractor’s earning of conservation credits under the contract. 

b. If necessary, performance bonds should be used to cover the value of the service to be 

provided. 

c. In either case: (i) performance bond value should be set at no less than 20% of the value 

of the awarded service work; and (ii) payment bonds should be at least equal to 20% of 

the value of the by-product not covered by cash payment and/or earned conservation 

credits.

d. Contracting officers are encouraged to strive toward the concept of a single bond to cover 

"performance", which would include the product value (payment) and the service work 

rolled into one bond. The value of the bond would be the larger of the performance bond 

or payment bond as described above. 

e. If construction activities are included, bonding for the construction activities shall be in 

accordance with the Miller Act. 

10. Offices must ensure that the value of the product cut and/or removed does not exceed the value 

of the performance bond (not including the portion used to cover 20% of the awarded service 

work or Miller Act requirements) plus the value of any unpaid service work completed 

(conservation credits) plus any cash deposits made by the contractor. Field Offices should use 

the Stewardship Project Tracking Report, Attachment 4, to track the volume and value of the 

products removed to ensure that contract bonding and service work cover the government’s 

interests.

11. If utilized, conservation credits (the value of unpaid service work completed) earned by a 

contractor are not transferable to another stewardship contract held by the same contractor. 

Conservation credits will be tracked via the Stewardship Project Tracking Report (page 2, 

Service Completion Form), Attachment 5. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS G-7 Appendix G

April 2007 

H. Agreements. 

1. Assistance agreements are designed to be used when an outside party requests government 

financial assistance to support a public purpose. Stewardship contracting projects are designed 

to achieve specific land management goals, consistent with applicable land use plans. As such, 

use of assistance agreements to implement stewardship contracting project treatments must be 

carefully screened and limited use of such agreements may result. (See Agreements Handbook 

H-1511-1)

2. Decisions to use Assistance Agreements rather than contracts must comply with existing BLM 

guidance implementing the Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act of 1977, as amended. 

I. Monitoring 

1. BLM will use multiparty monitoring, open to all interested parties, to monitor and evaluate a 

representative sampling of projects and programs at the appropriate levels. Project level 

monitoring should be conducted where sufficient public interest exists and funding and/or 

sufficient volunteer workforce permits. Where adequate up-front funding does not exist to 

support multiparty monitoring, excess offset values may be used to conduct multi-party 

monitoring, Section E (2). 

2. WO-270 will coordinate with the Forest Service, on an appropriate time frame, a process to 

establish and/or conduct interagency multi-party monitoring for evaluating and reporting on 

collaboration and the role of local communities and other external stakeholders in the 

development of stewardship contracting contracts and agreements. One objective of this 

monitoring effort is to analyze the effectiveness of stewardship contracting relative to other 

management tools. 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS H-1 Appendix H

 April 2007

APPENDIX H 

RANGELAND MANAGEMENT

NEW MEXICO STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 

The 1989 Socorro Resource Management Plan was amended by the New Mexico Standards for Public 

Land Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management Statewide Resource Management Plan 

Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement (New Mexico Standards and Guidelines). As a result of 

the amendment, the New Mexico Standards and Guidelines were incorporated into the 1989 Resource 

Management Plan, and would be carried forward in this Resource Management Plan 

Revision/Environmental Impact Statement. 

The standards of land health are expressions of physical and biological condition or degree of function 

required for healthy, sustainable lands and define the minimum resource conditions that must be achieved. 

The three standards that apply to the Planning Area are: 

1. Upland Sites Standard 

Upland ecological sites are in a productive and sustainable condition within the capability 

of the site. Upland soils are stabilized and exhibit infiltration and permeability rates that 

are appropriate for the soil type, climate, and landform. The kind, amount, and/or pattern 

of vegetation provides protection on a given site to minimize erosion and assist in 

meeting State and Tribal water quality standards. 

Indicators for this standard may include but are not limited to: 

 Consistent with the capability of the ecological site, soils are stabilized by appropriate 

amounts of standing live vegetation, protective litter, and/or rock cover. 

Erosion is indicated by flow patterns characteristic of surface litter soil movement, gullies 

and rills, and plant pedestalling. 

Satisfactory plant protection is indicated by the amount and distribution of desired 

species necessary to prevent accelerated erosion. 

2. Biotic Communities, Including Native, Threatened-Endangered, and Special Status Species 

Standard

Ecological processes such as hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow support 

productive and diverse native biotic communities, including special status, threatened, 

and endangered species appropriate to site and species. Desired plant communities goals 

maintain and conserve productive and diverse populations of plants and animals, which 

sustain ecological functions and processes. 

 Indicators for this standard may include but are not limited to: 

Commensurate with the capability of the ecological site, plant and animal populations are 

productive, resilient, diverse and sustainable. 

Landscapes are composed of communities in a variety of successional stages and 

patterns.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS H-2 Appendix H

 April 2007

Diversity and composition of communities are indicated by the kinds and amount of 

species.

Endangered and special status species are secure and recovering, with the goal of 

delisting and ensuring that additional species need not be listed within New Mexico. 

3. Riparian Sites Standard 

Riparian areas are in a productive, properly functioning, and sustainable condition, within 

the capability of that site. Adequate vegetation of diverse age and composition is present 

that will withstand high stream flow, capture sediment, provide for groundwater recharge, 

provide habitat, and assist in meeting State and Tribal water quality standards.

Indicators for this standard may include but are not limited to: 

Stream channel morphology and stability as determined by gradient, width/depth ratio, 

cannel roughness, and sinuosity. 

Streambank stability as determined by degree of shearing and sloughing, vegetative cover 

on the bank. 

Appropriate riparian vegetation includes a mix of communities of species with a range of 

age, density and growth form. 

When an evaluation determines that one or more standards are not being met, then the causal factor or 

factors will be determined. As stated in the Record of Decision for the Standards for Public Land Health 

and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management: “When an evaluation concludes that an area does not 

meet one or more standard(s), the Bureau of Land Management will determine the causal factor(s) in not 

meeting the standard(s). When current livestock grazing practices or levels of grazing use are determined 

to be significant factors, the Bureau of Land Management authorized officer shall take appropriate action 

as soon as practical, but no later than the next grazing year (43 Code of Federal Regulations 

Section 4180.2 (c)).” Guidelines were established for livestock grazing to be implemented when an area 

was not meeting the standard or standards and the causal factor was determined to livestock grazing 

practices or levels of grazing use. Guidelines are tools such as grazing systems, vegetative treatments, or 

range improvement projects designed to assist in grazing management. Implementation of guidelines will 

be done in consultation, cooperation and coordination with the grazing permittee/leasee, involved 

landowners, and interested public.

Guidelines pertain to livestock grazing only and if the causal factor is determined to be another activity; 

there are not established guidelines to be implemented. When other activities appear to be the reason for 

not meeting the standard, management actions that address that particular activity will be implemented 

that is consistent with policy and regulations governing that activity. 

The processes for assessing the standards are evaluated at the watershed level and are an ongoing process. 

The Socorro Field Office has initiated assessments on approximately 218,000 acres and has determined 

those areas to be meeting the standards. Assessments are completed by utilizing existing data and 

Indicators of Rangeland Health (TR 1734-6). The assessment characterizes the status of the ecological 

processes (water cycle, energy flow and nutrient cycle) by interpreting attributes such as the soil/site 

stability, hydrologic function, and biotic integrity in relation to the ecological site. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS H-3 Appendix H

 April 2007

ALLOTMENT STATISTICS 

Table E-1 lists the 2005 grazing allotments that are completely or partially within the Planning Area. 

Grazing allotments are mapped in the Management Situation Analysis, on file in the Socorro Field Office. 

TABLE H-1 

GRAZING ALLOTMENT STATISTICS

Allotment 

No. Allotment Name 

Preference

Code 

Management 

Code 

Permitted

AUMS 

00054 Shaw Canyon 03 M 6,936 

00077 Emery 15 M 96 

00079 Stokes Flat 03 M 5,017 

00080 Box Car 7 03 M 12 

00081 Estrada Ranch 15 I 2,100 

00083 Cat Mountain 03 M 240 

00084 Paul Lund 03 I 204 

00085 Patterson Canyon 03 M 192 

00087 Cottonwood Spring 03 M 31 

00088 Mariano Mesa Ranch 03 M 96 

00089 South La Jencia 15 M 564 

00090 Panther Canyon 15 M 54 

00091 Cerro Prieto 15 M 24 

00092 Agua Fria Creek 03 M 3,780 

00093 Tres Montosas 03 M 234 

00094 Escondido Creek 03 I 1,488 

00095 Datil Airstrip 03 M 48 

00097 Tanque De Caballos 03 M 108 

00098 Chavez Ranch 03 M 70 

00099 Florenio Orona 03 I 420 

00100 Gatlin Lake 03 M 576 

00102 Orona Largo Creek 03 M 678 

00103 Lopez Draw 03 M 59 

00105 North Fork Alamocito 15 M 24 

00106 Santa Rita 03 I 1,618 

00107 Summers Community 03 M 271 

00107 Summers Community 03 M 173 

00107 Summers Community 03 M 233 

00107 Summers Community 03 M 1,020 

00107 Summers Community 03 M 95 

00108 Reynolds 03 M 132 

00109 Pattys Hole 03 M 751 

00117 North Fox Mountain 03 M 108 

00125 Semi Lonesome 03 I 1,682 

00127 Bat Cave 03 M 11 

00128 Williams Home 03 M 12 

00129 R M Chavez 03 M 60

00132 W Ranch 15 M 48 

00133 Tres Lagunas 15 M 288 

00134 Coal Canyon 03 M 60 

00135 Bill G & W F Green 15 M 252 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS H-4 Appendix H

 April 2007

TABLE H-1 

GRAZING ALLOTMENT STATISTICS

Allotment 

No. Allotment Name 

Preference

Code 

Management 

Code 

Permitted

AUMS 

00136 Silver Creek 15 I 1,284 

00137 Pietown Dike 15 M 52 

00138 Iron Mountain 15 M 132 

00139 Pietown TR 15 15 M 8 

00141 Sawtooth Mountain 15 M 120 

00144 NM AZ State Line 15 M 48

00146 Monticello Canyon 15 M 72 

00147 Kinsely Canyon 15 M 120 

00148 Wahoo Ranch 15 M 1,503 

00149 Williamson 15 M 60 

00150 Cat Lake 15 M 192 

00151 Montoya 03 M 109 

00152 Dusty Ranch 03 M 24 

00154 Nichols Individual 15 M 36 

00155 San Ignacio 03 I 156 

00164 Lew Daniels 03 M 12 

00165 Snake Hill 03 M 354 

00168 Tarpley 03 M 48 

00192 West Emery 03 M 36 

01106 Ojo Saladito 03 M 1,562 

01107 Bear Springs 15 M 4 

01112 Riley Community 03 M 156 

01112 Riley Community 03 M 36 

01112 Riley Community 03 M 60 

01116 Puertecito Baranco 03 M 1,750 

01117 Canon Bonito 15 M 408 

01121 Rio Salado West 03 M 756 

01122 Abeytas 03 M 300 

01123 Abeytas 15 M 48 

01125 San Ignacio Creek 03 I 804 

01126 Cow Springs 03 I 1,332 

01127 Santa Rita 15 M 9 

01128 Patterson 03 M 1,588 

01129 New Driveway 03 M 201 

01136 Rio Puerco 03 M 1,176 

01137 North Ladron 03 M 1,620 

01140 Monte Negro 03 I 1,929 

01143 Comanche Arroyo 15 I 24 

01145 D Cross Mountain 15 M 356 

01159 La Jencia Creek 03 I 2,013 

01177 Ladron Peak 03 M 600 

01181 Lopez Community 03 M 575 

01181 Lopez Community 03 M 325 

01186 West Ladron 03 M 2,574 

01250 Buffalo Head 03 I 144 

01251 Harless Ranch 03 M 1428 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS H-5 Appendix H

 April 2007

TABLE H-1 

GRAZING ALLOTMENT STATISTICS

Allotment 

No. Allotment Name 

Preference

Code 

Management 

Code 

Permitted

AUMS 

01252 Silver Road 03 I 1,608 

01253 Sand Sage 03 I 240 

01254 Bordo Atravesado 03 I 2,714 

01255 Bosquecito 03 I 312 

01256 Llano 03 M 612 

01258 Tio Bartolo 03 M 365 

01259 Four Hills 03 I 360 

01260 Sierra Larga 03 M 2,112 

01261 Scott Ranch 03 M 2,163 

01262 Las Cañas 03 I 1,296 

01263 Black Mesa 03 I 873 

01264 Armijo Community 03 I 667 

01264 Armijo Community 03 I 308 

01266 Coyote Spring 03 M 1,512 

01268 Ryan Hill 03 M 246 

01269 Torreon Community 03 M 2,822 

01269 Torreon Community 03 M 976 

01270 Milligan Gulch 03 C 485 

01271 Mesa Redonda 03 M 1,704 

01272 San Pasqual 03 M 1,836 

01273 Bruton River 03 M 1,800 

01274 Rock Creek 03 C 198 

01275 Oscura 03 M 5,182 

01276 Four Sections 03 M 362 

01277 San Jose Canyon 03 I 2,135 

01278 Anaya Well 03 I 348 

01279 Silver Canyon 03 I 1,298 

01280 Tecolote Draw 03 I 2,388 

01281 So Ranch 03 M 696 

01282 Bingham 03 M 180 

01283 Blackington Mountain 03 I 1,572 

01284 Mesa Well Canyon 03 I 1,287 

01285 Sand Mountain 03 M 1,884 

01286 Blackington Mountain West 03 M 840 

01288 Rio Grande 03 I 315 

01289 Jornada Community 03 M 300 

01289 Jornada Community 03 M 96 

01289 Jornada Community 03 M 600 

01289 Jornada Community 03 M 72 

01289 Jornada Community 03 M 84 

01289 Jornada Community 03 M 144 

01290 Rock Springs Canyon 03 M 1,344 

01291 Prairie Springs 03 M 1,536 

01292 Chaunte Canyon 03 M 543 

01293 Malpais 03 M 5,427 

01294 Hickman Ranch 03 M 936 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS H-6 Appendix H

 April 2007

TABLE H-1 

GRAZING ALLOTMENT STATISTICS

Allotment 

No. Allotment Name 

Preference

Code 

Management 

Code 

Permitted

AUMS 

01295 Pipe Ranch 03 M 1,632 

01296 Antelope West 03 M 247 

01297 Puertecito Del Lemitar 03 M 1233 

01298 Wineglass 03 M 690 

01299 Pequeno 03 C 422 

01300 Casas De Piedras 03 M 318 

01301 White Sage 03 I 4,727 

01302 So Ranch 15 M 544 

01303 Jornada Individual 03 M 1,032 

01305 Chato 03 M 6 

01306 Veranito 03 M 445 

01308 San Antonito 03 I 146 

01309 S Mesa Redonda 03 M 684 

01310 Chupadera Wash 03 M 525 

01312 La Arenosa 03 I 535 

01315 Polvadera 03 C 102 

01317 San Pedro 03 I 240 

01318 Pueblito Community 03 C 24 

01318 Pueblito Community 03 C 34 

01321 Puertecito Gap 03 M 684 

01322 Parida 03 M 1,248 

01323 Water Canyon 03 M 508 

01324 Water Canyon 15 M 240 

01327 Cedar Pass 03 M 1,035 

01328 Jones 03 M 912 

01329 Las Lomas 03 M 240 

01330 East Well 03 M 461 

01339 Twin Tanks 15 M 65 

01340 Twin Tanks 15 M 155 

01341 Scholle 15 M 23 

01342 Cerro Pelon 15 M 300 

01343 Abo 15 M 144 

01344 La Jencia Ranch 15 M 708 

01345 Oso Flatts 15 M 96 

01346 La Jencia Ranch 03 M 36

01347 Blue Springs 15 M 15 

01348 Cerro Montoso 15 M 407 

01349 Dripping Springs 15 M 234 

01350 Viejo Arroyo 15 M 237 

01351 Rienhardt Individual 15 M 216 

01352 U Butte 15 M 624 

01353 Red Tanks Canyon 15 M 276 

01354 Granite Mountain 15 M 13 

01356 Tip Top 15 M 24 

01361 Brushy Mountain 15 M 166 

01365 Black Hills Ranch 03 M 6,696 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS H-7 Appendix H

 April 2007

TABLE H-1 

GRAZING ALLOTMENT STATISTICS

Allotment 

No. Allotment Name 

Preference

Code 

Management 

Code 

Permitted

AUMS 

01366 Dragoo Tank 03 M 1,968 

01367 Lobo Canyon 03 M 2,762 

01368 Chupadera Mesa 03 M 7,776 

01369 Lincoln County 03 M 132 

01370 Cat Mesa East 03 M 1,218 

01371 Cuate Canyon 03 M 858 

01372 Largo Canyon 03 M 2,592 

01373 Carrizozo 03 M 2,160 

01374 Red Lake 15 M 48 

01375 Claunch Se 15 M 168 

01376 Gallacher North 03 M 1,821 

10001 Twin Peaks 03 M 134 

10002 Qualls 15 M 120 

10003 Qualls 03 M 132 

10004 Criswell 03 M 744 

10005 Horse Springs 03 M 168 

10007 Mcbroom 03 M 180 

10008 Quemado Breaks 03 I 162 

10009 Sullivan 03 M 408 

10010 Kellog Canyon 15 I 2,387 

10011 Vevarosa 03 I 1,968 

10014 Half Circle D 03 M 72 

10015 Mangas 03 M 84 

10016 Jones Place 03 M 144 

10017 Patterson Canyon 03 M 514 

10018 Tejana Mesa 03 M 1,128 

10019 East Salt Lake 03 M 132 

10020 Wilbur Wadley Draw 03 M 96 

10023 Box Lake 03 M 2,688 

10024 Coyote Canyon 03 M 4,360 

10027 Burnett 03 M 108 

10028 Y Ranch 03 I 4,329 

10029 Cross Line 03 M 1,152 

10030 Butler 03 M 864 

10031 Arroyo Baca 03 M 67 

10032 Adobe Ranch 03 I 7,973 

10033 Castillo 03 M 50 

10034 Fria Creek 03 M 168 

10035 Mesa Ranch 03 M 504 

10036 Toms Rock 15 M 30 

10037 Wilbur Wadley Draw 15 M 120 

10038 Red Hill South 03 M 1,716 

10039 Pedro A Chavez Est 03 M 12

10040 Coyote Canyon 15 M 854 

10041 Richard M Chavez 03 M 360 

10042 Rito Creek 03 M 60 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS H-8 Appendix H

 April 2007

TABLE H-1 

GRAZING ALLOTMENT STATISTICS

Allotment 

No. Allotment Name 

Preference

Code 

Management 

Code 

Permitted

AUMS 

10043 Zuni Plateau 03 M 540 

10045 West Salt Lake 03 M 84

10046 Walker 03 M 499 

10047 Durfee 03 M 356 

10048 Curtis Ranch 03 M 864 

10049 Baca Spring 03 M 76 

10050 Eagar Red Hill 03 M 864 

10051 Emery 03 I 379 

10052 Cemetery Road 15 M 25 

10053 Estrada Ranch 03 I 1,764 

10055 Kiehne Place 03 M 552 

10056 Headquarters 03 I 2,220 

10057 Carrizo Creek North 03 M 1,536 

10058 Morine-White 03 M 2,232 

10059 Sitka Spruce 03 M 48 

10062 Red Hill North 03 I 3,607 

10063 Anderson Peak 03 M 540 

10064 Evans Well 03 M 104 

10065 Zuni Plateau 15 M 32 

10067 East Rito Creek 03 M 540 

10068 Panther Canyon 03 M 192 

10069 Cerro Prieto 03 M 588 

10070 Rancho Alegre 03 M 8,726 

10071 North Fork Alamocito 03 M 543 

10072 Mangas Ranch 03 M 2,328 

10073 Heavenly Acres 03 M 192 

10074 Crosby Canyon 03 M 72 

10110 West Horse Mountain 03 I 732 

10111 East Horse Mountain 03 I 308 

10113 Big Tiny Little 15 M 3 

10114 Datil Airstrip 15 M 3 

10115 Largo Creek 03 M 168 

10116 Spring Canyon Ranch 03 I 514 

10118 Alamito Ranch 03 M 6 

10119 Windrider 03 M 444 

10120 Aragon Well 03 M 264 

10121 Big Tiny Little 03 M 3 

10122 Shay 15 M 72 

10123 Goat Tank Canyon 03 M 228 

10124 Hale Well 15 M 6 

10126 Limestone Canyon 03 I 1,123 

NOTES: C = Custodial 

 I = Improve 

 M = Maintain 

 AUM = animal unit per month 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS H-9 Appendix H

 April 2007

In the 1980s, the Bureau of Land Management developed classification criteria to assist field offices in 

identifying management priorities by allotment. Allotments are placed in one of three categories—

Maintain, Improve, or Custodial—based on certain criteria, as follows: 

Maintain (M) Category

x Present range condition is satisfactory 

x Allotments have moderate to high resource production potential and are producing near their 

potential (or trend is moving in that direction) 

x No serious resource-use conflicts and/or controversies exist 

x Opportunities may exist for positive economic return from public investment 

x Present management appears satisfactory 

x Other local criteria 

Improve (I) Category

x Present range condition is unsatisfactory 

x Allotments have a moderate or high resource production potential and are producing at low to 

moderate levels 

x Serious resource-use conflicts and/or controversies exist 

x Opportunities exist for positive economic return for public investment 

x Present management appears unsatisfactory 

x Other local criteria 

Custodial (C) Category

x Present range condition is not a factor 

x Allotments have a low resource production potential and are producing at low to moderate levels 

x Limited resource-use conflicts and/or controversies may exist 

x Opportunities for positive economic return on public investments do not exist or are constrained 

by technological or economic factors 

x Opportunities exist to achieve the allotments’ potential through changes in management 

x Other local criteria 

Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-1 Appendix I

April 2007

APPENDIX I 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT

This appendix describes (1) the results of the application of unsuitability criteria for coal leasing that is 

part of the Federal coal lands review process, (2) standard lease terms and conditions and lease 

stipulations for fluid minerals leasing, and (3) existing withdrawals from mineral entry. 

APPLICATION OF SUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR COAL LEASING 

As required by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, the Department of Interior has 

developed criteria to determine whether public lands are unsuitable for further consideration for coal 

leasing. This unsuitability assessment was applied to the portion of the Planning Area identified as having 

high coal potential (see the Energy and Minerals Potential Report dated October 2003). In the following 

discussion, the results of the application of each of the unsuitability criteria and exceptions are described. 

The 20 unsuitability criteria contained in 43 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 3461.5 were used to 

assess the unsuitability for mining in the area of high coal potential. The intent of the unsuitability criteria 

application is to identify the areas with resources that could not be properly protected or maintained if the 

area were leased for coal mining. 

After initial survey of the high coal potential area, unsuitable areas (as defined by specific criteria) were 

identified. Following the identification and formulation of alternatives to be addressed by this Resource 

Management Plan and as a result of public comments submitted, affected resources within the high coal 

potential area were reexamined in light of the current set of unsuitability criteria. 

Summary

At this time, the area of high coal potential does not contain lands meeting unsuitability Criteria No. 1, 

Federal Land Systems; No. 2, Rights-of-way; No. 4, Wilderness Study Areas; No. 5, Scenic Class One 

Lands; No. 6, Scientific Study Areas; No. 8, Natural Areas; No. 9, Federal Listed Species/Habitats; 

No. 10, State Listed Species/Habitats; Criteria No. 11, Eagle Nests; No. 12, Eagle Roosts; No. 13, Falcon 

Nests; No. 17, Municipal Watersheds; No. 18, National Resource Waters; No. 19, Alluvial Valley Floors; 

and No. 20, State Criteria. 

Mitigating measures have been developed which would allow lands identified as meeting Criteria No. 3, 

Roads and Dwellings; No. 14, High Interest Federal Species; No. 15, High Interest State Species; and 

No. 16, 100-year Floodplains, to be considered suitable for coal leasing. 

Criteria No. 7, National Register of Historic Places and multiple-use screening criteria; No. 12, Cultural 

Resource Sites Eligible for Inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places; and No. 13, Native 

American Areas of Cultural Significance have removed lands from being suitable to coal leasing. 

After applying the unsuitability criteria and multiple use screening analysis, approximately 3,200 acres 

are carried forward as suitable for coal leasing (Figure D-1, High Potential Coal Lands Carried Forward).
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-2 Appendix I

April 2007

Unsuitability Criteria

3461.5(a)(l) Criterion No. 1 

All Federal lands included in the following land systems or categories shall be considered 

unsuitable: National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National System of Trails, 

National Wilderness Preservation System, National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, National 

Recreation Areas, lands acquired with money derived from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund, National Forests, and Federal lands in incorporated cities, towns, and villages. 

There are no Federal lands systems within the San Augustine Coal Area; therefore, this criterion does not 

apply. 

3461.5(b)(l) Criterion No. 2 

Federal lands within rights-of-way or easements or within surface leases for residential, 

commercial, industrial, or other public purposes. Federally owned surface shall be considered 

unsuitable.

There are no Federal lands rights-of-way or easements in the high coal potential area; therefore, this 

criterion does not apply. 

346l.5(c)(l) Criterion No. 3 

Federal lands affected by section 522(e)(4) and (5) of the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 shall be considered unsuitable. This includes lands within 100 feet of 

the outside line of the right-of-way of a public road or within 100 feet of a cemetery, or within 

300 feet of any public building, school, church, community or institutional building or public 

park or within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling. 

Presently there is only one dwelling located on Federal lands within the high coal potential area. No 

cemeteries, including single grave sites or public road rights-of-way, have been identified within the area 

under review.

Exceptions - Lands within the area of high coal potential, which are affected by this criterion, can be 

considered suitable for further coal lease consideration with the following stipulation:

1. A lease may be issued for lands for which owners of occupied dwellings have given written 

permission to mine within 300 feet of their buildings. 

346l.5(d)(1) Criterion No. 4 

Federal lands designated as wilderness study areas shall be considered unsuitable while under 

review by the Administration and the Congress for possible wilderness designation. For any 

Federal land which is to be leased or mined prior to completion of the wilderness inventory by 

the surface management agency, the environmental assessment or impact statement on the lease 

sale or mine plan shall consider whether the land possesses the characteristics of a wilderness 

study area. If the finding is affirmative, the land shall be considered unsuitable, unless issuance 

of noncompetitive coal leases and mining on leases is authorized under the Wilderness Act and 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. 

There are no WSAs in the high coal potential area; therefore, criterion does not apply. 
Map I-1

T4N

R18W

T3N

T2N

R17W

R16W

EAGLE PEAK

036 1.5 Miles

Legend

Mineral ownership

All Federal Minerals

Coal Only

Oil, Gas & Coal Only

No Federal Minerals

Oil & Gas Only

BLM

Private

State

NOT UNSUITABLE

(Lands Carried Forward) ±

Catron County

High

Coal Potential

Lands

Carried

Forward

High Coal Potential

Indian Trust

Wilderness Study Area

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for

individual use or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes

not intended by BLM. Spatial information may not meet National

Map Accuracy Standards. This information may be updated

without notification.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-4 Appendix I

April 2007

3461.5(e)(l) Criterion No. 5 

Scenic Federal lands designated by visual resource management analysis as Class I (an 

area of outstanding scenic quality or high visual sensitivity) but not currently on the 

National Register of Natural Landmarks shall be considered unsuitable. A lease may be 

issued if the surface management agency determines that surface coal mining operations 

will not significantly diminish or adversely affect the scenic quality of the designated 

area.

There are no visual resource management (VRM) Class I areas in the high coal potential area; therefore, 

this criterion does not apply. 

3461.5(f)(1) Criterion No. 6 

Federal lands under permit by the surface management agency, and being used for scientific studies 

involving food or fiber production, natural resources, or technology demonstrations and experiments shall 

be considered unsuitable for the duration of the study, demonstration or experiment, except where mining 

could be conducted in such a way as to enhance or not jeopardize the purposes of the study, as determined 

by the surface management agency, or where the principal scientific user or agency gives written 

concurrence to all or certain methods of mining. 

The high coal potential area does not contain lands being utilized for this purpose. 

3461.5(g)(l) Criterion No. 7 

All publicly and privately owned places on Federal lands which are included in the National 

Register of Historic Places shall be considered unsuitable. This shall include any areas that the 

surface management agency determines, after consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), are necessary to protect the 

inherent values of the property that made it eligible for listing in the National Register. 

This area has a high density of recorded and unrecorded cultural resource sites. Much of the high coal 

potential area has been inventoried for cultural resources. All surveyed areas show a high density of sites, 

and many of the sites have been determined eligible or potentially eligible to the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

For the remaining high coal potential areas, a literature search was performed to determine if sites eligible 

to the National Register were present. The literature search was conducted on areas meeting all three of 

the following criteria:

1. Within boundaries of high coal potential coal areas 

2. Federal mineral ownership 

3. Outside the boundary of the Zuni Salt Lake Sanctuary site 

A total of 181 sites were identified as having been recorded in the areas meeting the three criteria. 

Approximately two-thirds were found to be eligible or potentially eligible to the National Register. 

NOTE: These archaeological sites and socio-cultural sites clearly meet the definition of a resource of a 

unique nature with local or regional importance. These sites are considered under the multiple-use screen. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-5 Appendix I

April 2007

346l.5(h)(l) Criterion No. 8 

Federal lands designated as natural areas or as National Natural Landmarks shall be considered 

unsuitable.

The high coal potential area does not contain lands designated as natural areas or National Natural 

Landmarks.

3461.5(i)(l) Criterion No. 9 

Federally designated critical habitat for threatened or endangered plant and animal species, and 

habitat for Federal threatened or endangered species which is determined by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the surface management agency to be of essential value and where the 

presence of threatened or endangered species has been scientifically documented, shall be 

considered unsuitable.

At this time, the high coal potential area does not contain federally designated critical habitat for 

threatened or endangered plant and animal species or habitat for threatened or endangered species 

determined to be of essential value by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the surface 

management agency. 

346l.5(j)(l) Criterion No. 10 

Federal lands containing habitat determined to be critical or essential for plant or animal species 

listed by a State pursuant to State law as endangered or threatened shall be considered unsuitable.

At this time, the high coal potential area does not contain Federal lands containing habitat determined to 

be critical or essential for plant or animal species listed by the State of New Mexico as threatened or 

endangered.

3461.5(k)(l) Criterion No. 11 

A bald or golden eagle nest or site on Federal lands that is determined to be active and an 

appropriate buffer zone of land around the nest site shall be considered unsuitable. Consideration 

of availability of habitat for prey species and of terrain shall be included in the determination of 

buffer zones. Buffer zones shall be determined in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Eagle nesting habitat was surveyed during the summer/fall of 1983. A Raptor Nest Report was initiated 

for each nest or group of nests located. Tentative buffer zones were identified. Following a nesting survey 

conducted during the spring of 1987, those locations identified as active were retained as unsuitable based 

on this criterion.

Exception - The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with concurrence from the USFWS, has determined 

that mitigating measures are neither practical nor desirable at this time.

346l.5(l)(l) Criterion No. 12 

Bald and golden eagle roost and concentration areas on Federal lands used during migration and 

wintering shall be considered unsuitable. 

Year-round eagle roosting areas have been identified within the high coal potential area. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-6 Appendix I

April 2007

Exception - The BLM with concurrence from the USFWS has determined that mitigating measures are 

neither practical nor desirable at this time.

3461.5(m)(1) Criterion Number 13 

Federal lands containing a falcon (excluding kestrel) cliff nesting site with an active nest and a 

buffer zone of Federal land around the nest site shall be considered unsuitable. Consideration of 

availability of habitat for prey species and of terrain shall be included in the determination of 

buffer zones. Buffer zones shall be determined in consultation with the USFWS.

Falcon nesting habitat located within the high coal potential area was surveyed during the summer/fall of 

1983. A Raptor Nest Report was initiated for each nest or suspected nest located. Following a nesting 

survey conducted during the spring of 1987, those locations determined to be active were retained on the 

unsuitability criterion. Additional spring surveys are conducted within the high coal potential area yearly. 

Results of these surveys may change the amount of Federal mineral estate determined unsuitable because 

of this criterion.

Exception - The BLM, with concurrence from the USFWS, has determined that mitigating measures are 

neither practical nor desirable at this time.

3461.5(n)(1) Criterion No. 14 

Federal lands that are high priority habitat for migratory bird species of high Federal interest on a 

regional or national basis, as determined jointly by the surface management agency and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, shall be considered unsuitable. 

High priority habitat is defined as an area containing one or more limited environmental factors needed to 

support a population of at least one of the listed species. All high priority habitat must meet the following 

criteria:

1. It must be used regularly (use may be limited to one season during the year) by one or more 

of the listed species.

2. Its availability for uses such as feeding, reproduction, nesting, molting and/or wintering must 

be either limited or supportive of concentrations of a listed species in the indicated coal 

region or sub region. 

3. It must contain a combination of natural or manmade factors; e.g., riparian vegetation, 

reservoirs, cliff sites, tall buildings, etc. that provide an essential quantity or quality of one or 

more of the habitat requirements of a listed species; i.e., food, water, cover or space. 

In order to assess an area as being unsuitable for all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining, both the 

“high Federal interest” and the “high priority habitat” aspects of this criterion must be met; e.g., an area 

must support listed species and contain habitat of these species which meet all three of the above 

indicated habitat criteria.

The areas identified as meeting criterion No. 14 are intermittent wetlands, playas or reservoirs that 

contain water during the spring and early summer, produce forbs during the summer, and contain water 

during the fall and winter. These areas are known to be utilized during the spring and fall migrations by: 

white-faced ibis, western grebe, great blue heron, long-billed curlew, and large concentrations of 

migratory waterfowl which provide a prey base for wintering bald eagles. At this time no ferruginous 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-7 Appendix I

April 2007

hawk nest locations are known to occur on Federal mineral estate within the high coal potential area. 

Additional surveys will be conducted within the high coal potential area yearly. Results of these surveys 

may change the amount of Federal mineral estate determined to be unsuitable because of this criteria.

Exceptions- The 640 acres identified as meeting criterion No. 14 within the high coal potential area can 

be considered suitable for further coal lease consideration by applying the following stipulations:

1. Affected wetlands and appropriate drainages sufficient to provide equal or enhanced habitat 

values will be replaced by the lessee on a site-specific basis. 

2. The lessee will consult with the BLM; the BLM will consult with the surface owner, USFWS 

and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) prior to alteration of the affected 

wetland.

3461.5(o)(1) Criterion Number 15 

Federal lands which the surface management agency and the State jointly agree are fish and 

wildlife habitat for resident species of high interest to the State and which are essential for 

maintaining these priority wildlife species shall be considered unsuitable. 

The areas identified under criterion No. 14 can also be applicable to criterion No. 15; in addition, the 

NMDGF has identified mule deer and ferruginous hawks. Pronghorn antelope are included under this 

criterion because of the occurrence of an isolated herd utilizing a restricted habitat on a mesa top in the 

area.

Areas identified as mule deer winter range within the high coal potential area are also adjacent to 

or included in the areas covered by criterion No. 12, eagle roosting areas. Mule deer wintering 

range (80 acres) are included under this criterion. 

Those areas identified under criterion No.14 are included in the exception for that criterion. 

Exceptions — The areas identified as prairie dog locations will be suitable for further coal lease 

consideration by incorporating the following stipulations: 

1. Proposed activities in or adjacent to the identified area will be preceded by a complete blackfooted ferret inventory of the prairie dog colony. 

2. All black-footed ferret inventory and survey procedures conducted by the lessee will be 

reviewed and approved by BLM, in consultation with the USFWS and the NMDGF. 

3461.5(p)(l) Criterion No. 16 

Federal lands in riverine, coastal and special floodplains (100-year recurrence interval) on which 

the surface management agency determines that mining could not be undertaken without 

substantial threat of loss of life or property shall be considered unsuitable for all or certain 

stipulated methods of coal mining. 

The first drainages that were analyzed for 100-year floodplain determination were those that drained at 

least 10 square miles. Watersheds were delineated and tentative floodplain transect locations established. 

Two or more transects were run for each probable floodplain location using the stadia method. Channel 

cross sections were drawn and flood stages marked on them. The U.S. Geological Survey method from 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-8 Appendix I

April 2007

Water Resources Investigations 82-24, “Techniques for Estimated Flood Discharges for Unregulated 

Streams in New Mexico”, and H. R. Hejl, Jr.’s (U.S. Geological Survey) draft paper “Stream flow 

Characteristics as Related to Basin Characteristics in Strippable Coal-Resource Areas of Northwestern 

New Mexico” were used to determine the 100-year flood discharge. The resultant discharges computed 

using the two different methods were very close. Using the Manning’s equation and knowing the channel 

geometry and stage relationship, the 100-year floodplain was then determined and drawn on 7.5-minute 

topographic maps. The floodplains were later verified with aerial photographs. To accurately determine 

the 100-year floodplain, USGS said that about 20 floodplain transects per area are needed and the 

floodplains should be mapped on one-foot contour interval maps. Due to the tight budget, large area, and 

lack of manpower, it was not possible to delineate the floodplains to that degree of accuracy. 

Playas were delineated by aerial photo interpretation, vegetative types, and field observations. Four large 

detention dams that hold between 55 and 152 acre-feet of water were also considered unsuitable. 

Although the 1,800 acres delineated as floodplains are blocked out in 40-acre tracts, the actual floodplain 

usually represents a much smaller area. Actual floodplain boundaries have been digitized and maps are 

available for reviewing at the Socorro Field Office.

All of the 100-year occurrence floodplains in the high coal potential area can be mitigated because they 

do not represent a substantial threat to life or property.

3461.5(q)(l) Criterion No. 17 

Federal lands which have been committed by the surface management agency to use as municipal 

watersheds shall be considered unsuitable. 

At this time, the high coal potential area does not contain any municipal watersheds. 

346l.5(r)(l) Criterion No. 18 

Federal lands with national resource waters, as identified by states in their water quality 

management plans, and a buffer zone of Federal lands 1⁄4 mile from the outer edge of the far 

banks of the water, shall be unsuitable. 

At this time, the high coal potential area does not contain lands identified by the State of New Mexico as 

meeting this criterion. 

3461.5(s)(1) Criterion No. 19 

Federal lands identified by the surface management agency, in consultation with the State in 

which they are located, as alluvial valley floors according to the definition in 3400.0-5(a) of this 

title, the standards in 30 CFR Part 822, the final alluvial valley floor guidelines of the Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement when published, and approved State programs 

under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, where mining would interrupt, 

discontinue, or preclude faming, shall be considered unsuitable. Additionally, when mining 

Federal land outside an alluvial valley floor would materially damage the quantity or quality of 

water in surface or underground water systems that would supply alluvial valley floors, the land 

shall be considered unsuitable.

At this time, the high coal potential area does not contain lands identified as alluvial valley floors 

(30 CFR Chapter VII).
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-9 Appendix I

April 2007

3461.5(t)(l) Criterion No. 20 

Federal lands in a state to which is applicable a criterion (i) proposed by that state or Indian tribe 

located in the planning area, and (ii) adopted by rule making by the Secretary, shall be considered 

unsuitable.

At this time, the State of New Mexico has not proposed nor has the Secretary adopted any special or 

additional criterion other than those criterion presented in Parts 2, 3, and 4 of the New Mexico Coal 

Surface Mining Commission Rule 80-1 which corresponds with segments of the Federal 3461.1 

regulations.

Multiple-Use Conflict Analysis 

The multiple-resource use screens are intended to eliminate lands from further consideration for coal 

leasing if other resources on those lands are determined to be locally important or unique. In general, a 

multiple-use trade-off is appropriate when one land use (e.g., mining) would be likely to preclude or limit 

use of other valuable resources not otherwise covered by the 20 unsuitability criteria. The readjustments 

at this stage in the land use planning process are made to accommodate unique, site-specific resource 

values clearly superior to coal but which are not included in the unsuitability criteria. A prime recreation 

site or campground might be an example. 

The multiple-use analysis weighs the effects of the additional multiple-use screens on the areas, which 

have passed the previously mentioned screens. The results of these analyses are summarized below. It 

should be noted that additional inventory for cultural resources, raptor nests, etc., could require the 

reapplication of multiple-use and unsuitability criteria screens at the coal activity planning stage. 

Multiple-Use Screening Analysis 

No. 1: Wetlands

Wetlands larger than one acre will be considered unacceptable.

Definition: BLM Manual 6740 defines wetlands as follows: 

“Permanently wet or intermittently flooded areas where the water table (fresh, saline, or brackish) 

is at, near, or above the soil surface for extended intervals, where hydric wet soil conditions are 

normally exhibited, and where water depths generally do not exceed two meters. Vegetation is 

generally comprised of emergent water-loving forms (hydrophytes), which require at least a 

periodically saturated soil condition for growth and reproduction. In certain instances vegetation 

may be completely lacking. Marshes, shallows, swamps, muskegs, lake bogs, and wet meadows 

are examples of wetlands.” 

These are poorly drained areas, as a rule having impervious soils (no substantial groundwater recharge). 

They may on occasion be in contact with the groundwater system, but for the most part they receive water 

from precipitation and overland runoff. 

The above definition will be used for the multiple-use screen with the following modification. Marshes, 

shallows, swamps, and wet meadows less than one acre will not be considered under this definition. It 

will not include saltgrass flats associated with intermittent arroyos or small seasonally flooded livestock 

reservoirs that do not support emergent vegetation. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-10 Appendix I

April 2007

Analysis: There are no wetlands larger than one acre in the areas under consideration. This analysis is 

based on field inventories.

No. 2: Riparian Habitat 

Riparian habitat will be considered unacceptable. 

Definition: Manual 6740 defines riparian habitat as follows: 

“A specialized form of wetland restricted to areas along, adjacent to, or contiguous with 

perennially and intermittently flowing rivers and streams, also, periodically flooded lake and 

reservoir shore areas, as well as lakes with stable water levels with characteristic vegetation. This 

habitat is transitional between true bottomland wetlands and upland terrestrial habitats and, while 

associated with water courses, may extend inland for considerable distances. Soils of the riparian 

habitat may not exhibit typical wet soil characteristics of other wetlands. If not, wet soil 

characteristics will exist close enough to the surface for the water to be used directly by 

vegetation. This vegetation may range from water-loving hydrophytes (such as pond weeds) 

through terrestrial forms (such as sycamores, cottonwoods, and willows).” 

In these areas, soil and soil structure permit groundwater movement both vertically and horizontally. 

Groundwater recharge can occur. 

For the purpose of the multiple-use screen the above definition will be used with the following condition: 

isolated cottonwood trees, tamarisk stands less than one acre, and desert arroyos with greasewood, 

rabbitbrush, or fourwing saltbush borders will not be considered as riparian habitat. They are more 

properly treated as special habitat features. 

Analysis: Using the above definition, there is no riparian habitat in any of the areas under consideration. 

This analysis is based on field inventories. 

No. 3: Proposed Threatened and Endangered Species 

Habitat supporting populations or individuals of species proposed for Federal or State listing as 

threatened or endangered will be considered unacceptable.

Analysis: There are no proposed threatened or endangered species known to be within any of the areas 

under consideration. This analysis is based on field inventories and consultations with the USFWS and 

NMDGF.

No. 4: Federal Lands Contiguous to the National Trail System and the National Wilderness System 

Federal lands within 0.5 mile of units of the National System of Trails, and the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, shall be considered unacceptable. 

Analysis: There are no Federal land systems within 0.5 mile of any of the areas under consideration. 

No. 5: Class II VRM Areas 

Areas that contain VRM Class II objectives shall be considered unacceptable for surface coal mining. 

Analysis: There are no areas under consideration that are managed under VRM Class II management 

objectives.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-11 Appendix I

April 2007

No. 6: Areas of Significant Recreation Use or Opportunity 

Special Recreation Management Areas and areas that contain Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

management objective for the primitive class shall be considered unacceptable for surface coal mining. 

Analysis: There are no areas managed as Special Recreation Management Areas or Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum Primitive class management objectives in the high coal potential area. 

No. 7: Sole-Source Aquifers 

An area formally designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a sole-source aquifer 

shall be considered unacceptable. 

Analysis: The sole-source aquifer program under the Safe Drinking Water Act permits citizens to petition 

EPA for designation of an area as a sole-source aquifer if it is the principal water supply. If so designated, 

EPA reviews all federally assisted projects, which may affect the quality of groundwater in the solesource aquifer.

There have been no sole-source aquifer designations in the high coal potential area under this program to 

date.

No. 8: Air Quality

Lands within 15 miles of air quality Class I Prevention of Significant Deterioration areas shall be 

considered unacceptable.

Analysis: There are no Class I Prevention of Significant Deterioration areas within or adjacent to the high 

coal potential area.

No. 9: Reserved Federal Lands 

All Federal lands included in the following land systems or categories shall be considered unacceptable: 

Federal Aviation Administration facilities; all site withdrawals (administrative, school, etc.) for Federal 

agencies and leases acquired under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. 

Analysis: There are no Federal lands within the high coal potential area under consideration which are 

reserved for Federal Aviation Administration facilities, site withdrawals for Federal agencies 

(administrative, school, etc.) or leases acquired under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. 

Exception: A lease may be issued and mining operations approved if, after consultation with the affected 

Federal agency or lessee, the surface management agency determines that the facility will not be 

adversely affected by all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining. 

No. 10: Right-of-Way Windows or Corridors 

Federal lands which have been committed by the surface management agency to use as rights-of-way 

windows or corridors shall be considered unacceptable. 

Analysis: No Federal lands that have been designated or recommended for designation, as rights-of-way 

windows or corridors, are within the areas under consideration.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-12 Appendix I

April 2007

No. 11: Paleontological Resources 

Any paleontological resources which are type localities for fauna that define regional or larger timestratigraphic units, and special management areas set aside for their paleontological values, shall be 

considered unacceptable. However, coal mining can be allowed if the authorized officer (in consultation 

with affected Federal/State agencies) determines that mining activities will enhance and facilitate access 

and scientific evaluation of paleontological resources. 

Analysis: This multiple-use screen does not apply to any areas under consideration with the high coal 

potential area.

No. 12: Cultural Resource Sites Eligible for Inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places 

All properties which have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and which 

are of exceptional complexity, or areas of properties which must be considered together to achieve 

adequate mitigation through data recovery, shall be considered unacceptable. This shall include areas that 

the surface managing agency determines, after consultation with the SHPO and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, are necessary to protect the inherent values of the property that made it eligible for 

the National Register.

Prior to approval of surface-disturbing activities, Class III inventories will be conducted and subsequent 

mitigation of impacts will be required on all National Register eligible sites. Consultation between BLM, 

Office of Surface Management, and SHPO will occur to determine if newly recorded sites are eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register. If adequate mitigating measures for impacts to these site(s) cannot be 

developed, the sites and appropriate buffer zones will not be surface-mined or allowed to be disturbed by 

underground mining activities. 

Analysis: This area has a high density of recorded and unrecorded cultural resource sites. Much of the 

high coal potential area has been inventoried for cultural resources, and much of the inventory related to 

coal extraction proposals. All surveyed areas show a high density of sites, and many of the sites have been 

determined eligible or potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). 

A large portion of the high coal potential area falls within the boundaries of the Zuni Salt Lake Sanctuary 

site, which has been determined eligible to the National Register. These areas were eliminated from 

further consideration for coal leasing.

For the remaining high coal potential area, a literature search was performed to determine if sites eligible 

to the National Register were present. The literature search was conducted on areas meeting all three of 

the following criteria:

1. Within boundaries of high coal potential coal areas 

2. Federal mineral ownership 

3. Outside the boundary of the Zuni Salt Lake Sanctuary site 

A total of 181 sites were identified as having been recorded in the areas meeting the three criteria. 

Approximately two thirds were found to be eligible or potentially eligible to the National Register. These 

areas were eliminated from further consideration for coal leasing. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-13 Appendix I

April 2007

No. 13: Native American Areas of Cultural Significance 

Federal lands containing specific sites that have been identified as sacred and essential to the practice of 

traditional Native American religion shall be considered as unacceptable. This shall also include any areas 

that the surface management agency determines, after consultation with the appropriate tribal 

representative, as necessary to protect the inherent values of the area and to ensure that the natural 

character of the area remains unaltered so it may continue to be used for prayer or other religious 

practices.

Analysis: An overview of Native American traditional use of the original SACA region (Kelly in Camilli 

et al. n.d.) has shown that this screen may apply to sites, localities, and linear features (trails). A large 

portion of the high coal potential area falls within the boundaries of the Zuni Salt Lake Sanctuary site, 

which has been determined eligible to the National Register. These areas were eliminated from further 

consideration for coal leasing. 

FLUID MINERALS LEASING 

Federal fluid minerals are made available for leasing through the Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, as 

amended, and the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. The Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, 

provides the Secretary of the Interior with authority to issue leases on lands where the mineral rights are 

held by the Federal government. This authority has been delegated to the BLM State Directors. The BLM 

is required to determine (1) which lands are suitable and available for leasing and subsequent 

development and (2) how those leased lands will be managed. On lands administered or owned by an 

entity other than BLM (referred to as split estate), BLM’s environmental objectives and constraints apply 

equally to these areas; however, such constraints are developed at the permit stage in consultation with 

the other surface-managing agency or surface owner. Wilderness study areas are closed to mineral leasing 

by the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. 

A lease is a contract that conveys to an operator the right to develop and produce fluid minerals for a 

specific period of time under certain agreed-upon terms and conditions. The issuance of a lease grants to 

the lessee exclusive rights to as much of the leased land as is needed to conduct exploratory drilling and 

development operations in the leasehold subject to stipulations attached to the lease; restrictions derived 

from specific nondiscretionary statutes; and reasonable measures as may be required by the surfacemanagement agency to minimize adverse impacts on other resource values, land uses, or users.

Before consent can be given for leases to be issued by BLM, regulations require (1) verifying that leasing 

on specific lands is consistent with the land use plan; (2) ensuring that conditions of surface occupancy 

are properly included (as stipulations) in resulting leases; and (3) determining that operations and 

development could be allowed somewhere on each proposed lease except where a stipulation would 

prohibit all surface occupancy. 

Standard Lease Terms and Conditions 

Areas may be open to leasing with no specific management decisions defined in a resource management 

plan. However, these areas are subject to the lease terms and conditions as defined on the appropriate 

lease form (Form 3100-11, Offer to Lease and Lease for Oil and Gas; and Form 3200-24, Offer to Lease 

and Lease for Geothermal Resources). The forms include lease terms and conditions that address subjects 

such as bonding, rentals, royalties, inspections, and safety. Of particular interest for this discussion is 

Section 6, Conduct of Operations, of the lease form, which establishes the general and reasonable 

requirements for the protection of surface resources and is referred to as “standard lease terms and 

conditions.” The Authorized Officer has the right to relocate proposed facilities, control timing of 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-14 Appendix I

April 2007

operations, and impose other mitigation in accordance with Sections 2 and 6 of the standard oil and gas 

lease terms. Each proposed site would be investigated and, if site-specific conditions warrant more 

restrictive protection, such protective measures could be imposed through conditions of approval at the 

time of an application for permit to drill. 

In addition, the standard lease terms and conditions specifically require that the lessee contact the lessor 

prior to disturbing the surface. They also specify that the lessee may be required to complete inventories 

or special studies in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) of 1966, and other applicable laws. 

Fluid Mineral Lease Stipulations

Constraints in the form of stipulations are conditions included in a lease when environmental and 

planning analyses have demonstrated that additional and more stringent environmental protection is 

needed. Stipulations are provisions that modify the standard lease rights and are made part of the lease. 

The operator would be expected to comply with the stipulations that are attached to a lease. Lands 

currently under lease would not be affected by the stipulations identified in this Resource Management 

Plan Revision/Environmental Impact Statement. New leases would be required to adhere to the 

stipulations as identified in the Resource Management Plan Revision upon its completion. 

A number of stipulations for fluid minerals leasing are proposed for specific areas in the alternatives for 

this RMPR/EIS as follows:

S-CSU-C1 – Protection of Cultural Resources 

S-CSU-C2 – Protection of Cultural Resources 

S-CSU-C3 – Protection of Cultural Resources 

S-CSU-C4 – Protection of Cultural Resources 

S-CSU-K – Potential Cave or Karst Occurrence Area 

S-CSU-P – Protection of Paleontological Resources 

S-CSU-R – Protection of Riparian Areas 

S-CSU-S – Protection of Slopes and Fragile Soils 

S-CSU-V – Protection of Natural Values 

S-CSU-W1 – Protection of Wildlife Resources 

S-CSU-W2 – Protection of Wildlife Projects 

S-CSU-W3 – Protection of Raptor and Prairie Dog 

Habitat

S-CSU-W4 – Protection of Potential Northern Aplomado 

Falcon Habitat 

S-CSU-Z – Protection of Zuni Salt Lake 

S-NSO-V – Protection of Natural Resources 

S-NSO-C – No Surface Occupancy to Protect 

Cultural Resources 

S-NSO-R – No Surface Occupancy to Protect 

Special Recreation Areas 

S-NSO-T&E– No Surface Occupancy to Protect 

Threatened or Endangered Species 

S-NSO-W – No Surface Occupancy to Protect 

Wildlife Resources 

S-VRM-II – Protection of Visual Resource 

Management Class II Areas 

NM-5 – White Sands Missile Range Safety 

Evacuation Zone 

NM-6 – Continental Divide Trail 

Additional information on the purpose of each stipulation and the type of conditions that would be 

applied to a lease are described below. 

S–CSU–C1 – Protection of Cultural Resources 

For the purpose of: Protection of highly significant and sensitive historic and prehistoric resources that 

might not be detected by means of standard Class III cultural resource surface inventory from direct and 

indirect effects of lease development. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-15 Appendix I

April 2007

Waiver: None 

Exception: Requests for exception would be based on a case-by-case basis sensitivity evaluation and on 

available information regarding site-specific soil stability, site probability and any proposal for alternate 

forms of mitigation. 

Modification: None 

Justification: Nationally significant sites of both prehistoric and historic origin are located in the area. 

Many of these sites are not easily identified through standard Class III cultural resource inventory. 

Stipulation: Access to the lease will be limited to routes designated in the approved permit for lease 

operations. Applications for surface disturbing aspects of lease development will be evaluated for 

potential proximity to sensitive nationally significant cultural resources (known and suspected) and could 

require expanded pre-field records search, subsurface testing and/or metal detector survey in addition to 

routine cultural resource surface inventory for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the costs of 

which will be borne by the lessee. This could result in extended time frames for processing authorizations 

for development activities. 

All proposed surface-disturbing aspects of lease development will be located to avoid and/or protect the 

cultural resources present. 

S-CSU-C2 – Protection of Cultural Resources 

For the purpose of: Ensuring that highly sensitive subsurface sites of national significance are not 

destroyed because they lack surface manifestations. 

Waiver: None 

Exception: Requests for exception would be addressed on a case-by-case basis and evaluated based on 

available information regarding site-specific soil stability, site probability, and proposals for alternate 

forms of mitigation. 

Modification: None 

Justification: Archaeological sites in this area are extremely significant, rare, and fragile. Standard 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA through Class III surface inventory is not sufficient to protect 

vulnerable resources of national significance. Subsurface testing is necessary to ensure that highly 

sensitive sites are not destroyed due to a lack of surface features and artifacts. 

Stipulation: Access will be limited to designated routes. All surface-disturbing aspects of lease 

development will require subsurface testing in addition to cultural resource surface inventory for 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. 

S-CSU-C3 – Protection of Cultural Resources 

For the purpose of: Ensuring that highly sensitive sites of national significance are not destroyed. 

Waiver: None 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-16 Appendix I

April 2007

Exception: Requests for exception would be addressed on a case-by-case basis and evaluated based on 

available information regarding site-specific soil stability, site probability, and proposals for alternate 

forms of mitigation. 

Modification: None 

Justification: Archaeological sites in this area are extremely significant, rare, and fragile. Standard 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA through Class III surface inventory is not sufficient to protect 

vulnerable resources of national significance. Subsurface testing is necessary to ensure that highly 

sensitive sites are not destroyed due to a lack of surface features and artifacts. 

Stipulation: All drill sites will be located adjacent to designated routes. All surface-disturbing aspects of 

lease development will require subsurface testing in addition to cultural resource surface inventory for 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. 

S-CSU-C4 – Protection of Cultural Resources 

For the purpose of: Ensuring that highly sensitive sites of national significance are not destroyed. 

Waiver: None 

Exception: None 

Modification: None 

Justification: Archaeological sites in this area are extremely significant, rare, and fragile. Standard 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA through Class III surface inventory is not sufficient to protect 

vulnerable resources of national significance. 

Stipulation: All proposed surface-disturbing aspects of lease development may be moved to protect the 

cultural resources present. 

S-CSU-K – Potential Cave or Karst Occurrence Area 

For the purpose of: Protecting cave and karst resources. 

Waiver: Waiver of this requirement will be considered for projects that enhance or protect renewable 

natural resource values, or when an approved plan of operations ensures the protection of cave and karst 

resources.

Exception: None

Modification: None 

Justification: Stipulating controlled surface use is deemed necessary based on the need to protect cave and 

karst resources in these areas. 

Stipulation: All or portions of the lease are located in a potential cave or karst occurrence area. Within 

this area, cave or karst features such as sinkholes, passages, and large rooms may be encountered from the 

surface to a depth of as much as 2,000 feet, within areas ranging from a few acres to hundreds of acres. 

Due to the sensitive nature of the cave or karst systems of this area, special protective measures may be 

developed during environmental analyses and be required as part of approvals for drilling or other 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-17 Appendix I

April 2007

operations on this lease. These measures could include changes in drilling operations, special casing and 

cementing programs, modifications in surface activities, or other reasonable measures to mitigate impacts 

to cave or karst values.

Surface disturbance will not be allowed within up to 200 meters of known cave entrances, passages or 

aspects of significant caves, or significant karst features. 

S-CSU-P – Protection of Paleontological Resources 

For the purpose of: Ensuring that sensitive paleontological sites of national significance are not 

destroyed. 

Waiver: None 

Exception: None 

Modification: None 

Justification: Paleontological sites in this area are extremely significant, rare, and fragile. 

Stipulation: A paleontological survey by a qualified paleontologist must be conducted prior to any 

surface-disturbing activities. All proposed surface-disturbing activities of lease development must be 

located to avoid and/or protect the paleontological resources present. 

S-CSU-R – Protection of Riparian Areas

For the purpose of: Protection of riparian habitat for purposes of preventing further habitat fragmentation 

and loss of use of otherwise suitable/effective habitat. 

Waiver: If circumstances or relative resource values change or if the lessee demonstrates that the 

operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts, or in emergency situations or if the 

disturbance or impacts associated with the proposed activity is of short duration, such as a habitat or range 

improvement project, and will not result in permanent adverse impacts to the landscape or degrade 

wildlife habitat, exceptions or waivers will be considered with appropriate mitigation, as determined by 

the Authorized Officer at the time of permitting. 

Exception: Based on a site-specific evaluation by the Authorized Officer if an approved plan of operations 

assures the protection of water, soil, and habitat resources. 

Modification: Based on a site-specific evaluation by the Authorized Officer if an approved plan of 

operations assures the protection of water, soil, and habitat resources. 

Stipulation: Surface-disturbing or long-term noise producing activities which exceed a noise level of 

75 A-weighted decibels (75dbA), measured at the perimeter of the 400-meter protective spatial buffer, 

will not be allowed within 400 meters of riparian areas (springs, seeps, tanks, rivers, streams, playas, 

canyon bottoms, and floodplains). If the 75dbA noise level is determined to not provide adequate 

protection from the auditory impact created by lease operations, a stricter level shall be applied prior to 

authorizing lease operations. The BLM Authorized Officer will work with lease holder on a case-by-case 

basis to achieve an acceptable level of noise mitigation. A more restrictive spatial buffer may be applied 

where the 400-meter spatial buffer has been documented to not provide adequate protection. Appropriate 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-18 Appendix I

April 2007

modifications to the imposed restrictions will be made for the maintenance and operations of producing 

oil and gas wells. 

S-CSU-S – Protection of Slopes and Fragile Soils 

For the purpose: Protection of fragile soils and natural resources. 

Waiver: None 

Exception: Exceptions will be made if the operator can show that operations can be conducted without 

adversely affecting the protected resources. 

Modification: Based on a site-specific evaluation by the Authorized Officer, appropriate modifications to 

the imposed restrictions will be made for the maintenance and operations of producing oil and gas wells. 

Stipulation: All or portions of the lease area contain slopes over 30 percent and/or fragile soils that require 

special protection to prevent further resource degradation. Surface disturbance will not be allowed on 

slopes over 30 percent. Occupancy upon areas containing fragile soils will be evaluated and special 

measures applied to prevent erosion of fragile soils. 

S-CSU-V – Protection of Natural Values 

For the purpose of: Protection of unique scenic and natural values from the direct and indirect impacts of 

lease development. 

Waiver: Requests for waiver would be addressed on a case-by-case basis and evaluated based on available 

information regarding the proposed activity or disturbance, possible mitigations, and considering the sitespecific scenic and natural values. 

Exception: Based on an individual case sensitivity evaluation by the Authorized Officer. 

Modification: None

Justification: The protection of the special scenic and natural values. 

Stipulation: Access will be limited to routes designated in the approved permit for lease operations. 

Applications for surface-disturbing activities will be evaluated for their proximity to the mature yucca 

stands and for their short and long-term impacts to the special aesthetic and natural values of the dense 

stands of mature yuccas that dominate the desert scenery. 

S-CSU-W1 – Protection of Wildlife Resources 

For the purpose: Protection of a designated Area of Critical Environmental Concern for wildlife 

resources.

Waiver: Upon request, if circumstances or relative resource values change or if the disturbance or impacts 

associated with the proposed activity is of short duration, such as a habitat or range improvement project, 

and will not result in continued activity or permanent adverse impacts to the landscape or resources of 

concern, exceptions or waivers will be considered with appropriate mitigation, as determined by the 

Authorized Officer at the time of permitting. 

Exception: None 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-19 Appendix I

April 2007

Modification: Based on a site-specific evaluation by the Authorized Officer, appropriate modifications to 

the imposed restrictions will be made for the maintenance and operations of producing oil and gas wells.

Stipulation: All or portions of the lease area contain special wildlife habitat features that require special 

protection to prevent further degradation or damage. Applications for surface-disturbing or long-term 

noise producing activities, which exceed a noise level of 75dbA at the edge of the well pad, will be 

authorized only when lessee/operator demonstrates that the area is essential for operations and when the 

lessee/operator submits a satisfactory surface use and operations plan that provides protection for these 

special resource values. If the 75dbA noise level is determined to not provide adequate protection from 

the auditory impact created by lease operations, a stricter level shall be applied as a condition of approval 

for lease operations. The BLM Authorized Officer will work with the lease holder on a case-by-case basis 

to achieve an acceptable level of noise mitigation. 

S-CSU-W2 – Protection of Wildlife Habitat Projects 

For the purpose of: Protection of wildlife habitat enhancement projects for purposes of preventing further 

habitat fragmentation and loss of use of otherwise suitable/effective habitat. 

Waiver: If circumstances or relative resource values change or if the lessee demonstrates that the 

operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts, or in emergency situations or if the 

disturbance or impacts associated with the proposed activity is of short duration, such as a habitat or range 

improvement project, and will not result in permanent adverse impacts to the landscape or degrade 

wildlife habitat, exceptions or waivers will be considered with appropriate mitigation, as determined by 

the Authorized Officer at the time of permitting. 

Exception: None 

Modification: Based on a site-specific evaluation by the Authorized Officer. 

Stipulation: Surface-disturbing or long-term noise producing activities which exceed a noise level of 

75dbA, measured at the perimeter of the 400-meter protective spatial buffer, will not be allowed within 

400 meters of existing or planned wildlife habitat improvement projects. If the 75dbA noise level is 

determined to not provide adequate protection from the auditory impact created by lease operations, a 

stricter level shall be applied as a condition of approval for lease operations. A more restrictive spatial 

buffer may be applied where the 400-meter spatial buffer has been documented to not provide adequate 

protection. Use and occupancy within the 400-meter spatial buffer will be authorized only when lessee/ 

operator demonstrates that the area is essential for operations and when the lessee/operator submits a 

satisfactory surface use and operations plan, which adequately protects resources of concern. This 

requirement will be considered for a waiver with appropriate off-site mitigation, if the proposed activity is 

of short duration (e.g., habitat enhancement project, fences, pipelines), and will not result in continued 

activity in proximity to the habitat project, as determined by the Authorized Officer. 

Appropriate modifications to the imposed restrictions will be made for the maintenance and operations of 

producing oil and gas wells. 

S-CSU-W3 – Protection of Raptor and Prairie Dog Habitat 

For the purpose of: Protection of raptor and prairie dog habitat. 

Waiver: Waivers will be considered with appropriate mitigation, as determined by the Authorized Officer 

at the time of permitting in the following situations: relative resource values change, the lessee 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-20 Appendix I

April 2007

demonstrates that the operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts, in emergency 

situations, or if the disturbance or impacts associated with the proposed activity are of short duration, such 

as a habitat or range improvement project, and will not result in permanent adverse impacts to the 

landscape or degrade wildlife habitat. 

Exception: Based on a site-specific evaluation by the Authorized Officer. 

Modification: Based on a site-specific evaluation by the Authorized Officer. 

Stipulation: Prior to survey/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, bald eagle wintering areas, and prairie 

dog colonies, will be avoided by the distances and seasonal periods listed below. 

Distance:

x Eagle – 0.5 mile, February 1-July 15 

x Prairie Falcon – 0.5 mile, March 1-August 1 

x Ferruginous Hawk – 0.5 mile, February 1-July 15 

x Aplomado Falcon – 0.5 mile, January 1-July 31 

x Gunnison Prairie Dog – 0.25 mile, April 1-September 15 

x Black Tailed Prairie Dog – 0.25 mile, January 1-June 15 

x All other raptor species – 0.25 mile, during observed nest establishment through 

fledgling

Long-term surface use activities will not be allowed within the species-specific spatial buffer zone of 

active nests or occupied prairie dog towns listed above. Short-term activities will be avoided within the 

species-specific spatial buffer zones during the dates listed above. 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 surface use activities may commence a raptor and prairie dog survey must be completed. 

A short-term activity is defined as an activity, which would begin outside of a given breeding season and 

end prior to initiation of a given breeding season. A long-term 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.

S-CSU-W4 – Protection of Potential Northern Aplomado Falcon Habitat 

For the purpose of: Habitat protection for a Federally listed endangered species. 

Waiver: Waivers will be considered with appropriate mitigation, as determined by the Authorized Officer 

at the time of permitting in the following situations: relative resource values change, the lessee 

demonstrates that the operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts, in emergency 

situations, or if the disturbance or impacts associated with the proposed activity are of short duration, such 

as a habitat or range improvement project, and will not result in permanent adverse impacts to the 

landscape or degrade wildlife habitat. 

Exception: Based on a site-specific evaluation by the Authorized Officer. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-21 Appendix I

April 2007

Modification: Based on a site-specific evaluation by the Authorized Officer. 

Stipulation: Surface use or occupancy is subject to the following special operating constraints in areas 

identified as having habitat potential for northern aplomado falcons. The lease operator is required to 

submit a Plan of Development for the entire leasehold prior to commencing drilling activity. Requests for 

exceptions or changes to the Plan of Development are not allowed without approval by the BLM 

authorized officer. Prior to surveying/flagging locations for pads, routes for roads, and other preliminary 

activities, a protocol northern aplomado falcon survey must be completed. In areas determined to have 

potential habitat, specialized surface use and occupancy requirements will be applied as conditions of 

approval for all surface-disturbing activities, including preliminary investigations. 

S-CSU-Z – Protection of Zuni Salt Lake 

For the purpose of: To protect the aquifers that feed Zuni Salt Lake. 

Waiver: None 

Exception: None 

Modification: None 

Justification: Protection of Zuni Salt Lake and other significant sites and resources in the area. 

Stipulation: No diversions from the Moreno Hill, and other underlying aquifers, without re-injection and 

with the following conditions to protect the hydrologic balance and chemistry of the Zuni Salt Lake: 

1. Define disposal locations to mitigate all effects on the Zuni Salt Lake. 

2. Produced water must be re-injected into the same aquifer, and water quality must be 

compatible with the injection interval. 

3. Produced water shall be returned by vacuum. 

S-NSO-V – Protection of Natural Resources 

As described below, all or a portion of the lease contains natural resource values of concern requiring 

extraordinary protection. No surface occupancy is deemed necessary because standard mitigation 

measures and best management practices are not adequate to protect these significant, rare and/or fragile 

resources. It is the intention of the lessor that this lease be developed by directional drilling from or 

prorationing with adjacent locations. 

For the purpose of: Protection of highly sensitive natural resource values from direct and indirect impacts 

of lease development. 

Waiver: If circumstances or relative resource values change or if the lessee demonstrates that the 

operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts, and will not result in permanent 

adverse impacts to the landscape or degrade resource values, a waiver will be considered with appropriate 

mitigation, as determined by the Authorized Officer at the time of permitting. Requests for waiver will be 

addressed on a case-by-case basis and evaluated based on available information regarding the proposed 

activity or disturbance, possible alternate forms of mitigation and consideration of the site-specific natural 

resource values.
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-22 Appendix I

April 2007

Exception: No exceptions; see waiver criteria. 

Modification: None

S-NSO-C – No Surface Occupancy to Protect Cultural Resources 

For the purpose of: Protection of highly sensitive cultural resource sites from direct and indirect impacts 

of lease development, including increased access and erosion. 

Waiver: Requests for waiver would be addressed on a case-by-case basis and evaluated based on available 

information regarding site-specific soil stability, site probability, and proposals for alternate forms of 

mitigation.

Exception: None 

Modification: None

Justification: Stipulating no surface occupancy is deemed necessary to protect archaeological sites which 

are extremely significant, rare, and fragile. Standard compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA through 

Class III surface inventory is not sufficient to protect vulnerable resources of national significance. 

S-NSO-R – No Surface Occupancy to Protect Special Recreation Areas 

For the purpose of: Protection of a high value recreation site and activity area from direct and indirect 

impacts of lease development. 

Waiver: Requests for waiver will be addressed on a case-by-case basis and evaluated based on available 

information regarding the proposed activity or disturbance, possible mitigation and considering the sitespecific scenic, natural, recreational, and cultural values. 

Exception: Based on an individual case sensitivity evaluation by the Authorized Officer. 

Modification: None 

Justification: The protection of the special scenic, natural, recreational, and cultural values and activities 

inherent in the designated sites. 

S-NSO-T&E – No Surface Occupancy to Protect Threatened or Endangered Species 

For the purpose of: Habitat protection of listed threatened plants, by the USFWS, under the Endangered 

Species Act and nominated by the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department and 

the Nature Conservancy for special protection and management. 

Waiver: If circumstances or relative resource values change or if the lessee demonstrates that the 

operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts, or in emergency situations or if the 

disturbance or impacts associated with the proposed activity is of short duration, such as a habitat or range 

improvement project, and will not result in permanent adverse impacts to the landscape or degrade 

wildlife habitat, exceptions or waivers will be considered with appropriate mitigation, as determined by 

the Authorized Officer at the time of permitting. 

Exception: None 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-23 Appendix I

April 2007

Modification: None

Justification: The projection of threatened plants.

S-NSO-W – No Surface Occupancy to Protect Wildlife Resources 

For the purpose of: Protection of wildlife habitat and other resources of concern.

Waiver: If circumstances or relative resource values change or if the lessee demonstrates that the 

operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts, or in emergency situations or if the 

disturbance or impacts associated with the proposed activity is of short duration, and will not result in 

permanent adverse impacts to the landscape or degrade wildlife habitat, exceptions or waivers will be 

considered with appropriate mitigation, as determined by the Authorized Officer at the time of permitting. 

Exception: None

Modification: None

Justification: Protection of wildlife habitat and other resources of concern.

S-VRM-II – Protection of Visual Resource Management Class II Areas 

For the purpose of: To minimize contrasts to the characteristic landscape of each area. 

Waiver: None

Exception: None

Modification: None 

Justification: Stipulating controlled surface use is deemed necessary based on the need to protect visual 

resources in these areas. The objectives for VRM Class II areas are to manage activities so that the 

changes in any of the basic visual elements (form, line, color, and texture) are not evident in the 

landscape. A contrast may be seen but should not attract attention. 

Stipulation: To meet the VRM objectives described below, and upon determinations made by the BLM 

Authorized Officer, new disturbance will be minimized as follows: 

1. Painting of facilities in accordance with Notice to Lessees NM-87-1 “Painting of Oil Field 

Facilities” shall be required to meet VRM objectives. 

2. Proposed disturbances may be moved distances greater than 200 meters to meet VRM Class 

II objectives.

3. Low-profile facilities may be required to reduce visual impacts. 

4. Visual simulations will be required as part of the surface use plan for lease operations in 

sensitive view sheds such as Class II areas along scenic highways, trails, and back country 

byways. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-24 Appendix I

April 2007

NM-5 – White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Zone 

For the purpose of: Providing notice to lessees that they may be required to periodically evacuate this 

area when White Sands Missile Range conducts missile firings. 

Waiver: None 

Exception: None 

Modification: None

Justification: To ensure that the lessee is aware that White Sands Missile Range conducts testing of 

missiles during which times White Sands Missile Range requires that the area be evacuated. Closing the 

area to leasing or attaching a stipulation to this lease is deemed overly restrictive since the area is viable 

for fluid minerals development during other times. 

Stipulation: Prior to beginning exploration activities, the lessee must contact the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers in Albuquerque and the Master Planning Branch at White Sands Missile Range to be advised 

of terms of the safety evacuation agreement and missile-firing schedules. 

Specific locations of the White Sands Missile Range Safety Evacuation Zone should be verified in the 

Socorro Field Office. 

NM-6 – Continental Divide Trail 

No occupancy or other surface-disturbance will be allowed within 1,000 feet of the Continental Divide 

National Scenic Trail Treadway. This distance may be modified when specifically approved in writing by 

the Socorro Field Office, BLM. 

Specialized Surface Occupancy Requirements for Northern Aplomado Falcon Potential Habitat 

For the purpose of: Protecting grassland habitat and associated special status species of wildlife through 

improved planning for future oil and gas development on a unit.

Requirement: In areas of potential northern aplomado falcon habitat that are open to leasing with a 

unitization requirement, new lessees form exploratory units prior to commencing drilling activity. This 

protection measure would allow the BLM to manage the surface in an orderly way and control the rate of 

reservoir development. The BLM has the authority to approve 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). A simple definition of unitization is the 

operation of multiple leases as a single lease under a single operator. Unitization would result in less 

surface disturbance since wells would be drilled in the most favorable locations without regard for 

spacing, and the operator and BLM would establish corridors for access roads and pipelines, eliminating 

the need for redundant facilities. Lessee benefits include that individual leases could be extended beyond 

their primary term without actual production, as long as there is production on the unit. 

WITHDRAWALS FROM MINERAL ENTRY 

Table D-1 displays locations that have been withdrawn from location or entry under the mining laws. 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-25 Appendix I 

April 2007 

TABLE I-1 

WITHDRAWALS FROM MINERAL ENTRY 

Serial Number Withdrawn 

Geographic

Name Location (NMPM) 

Type of 

Withdrawal Segregation Acres 

NMNM095102 10/19/1999 Datil Well 

Campground 

T. 2 S., R. 10 W., sec 10, sec 11. Recreational 

Purpose

Locatable Minerals All surface 

680 

NMNM0038148 08/05/1960 Middle Rio 

Grande Project 

T. 3 S., R. 1 E.,  sec 31, lot 50; T. 4 S., R. 1 E.,  sec 5, Eastern Most 1/5 POR L28; lots 26, 27, 33, 36, 37;  sec 8, lot 54;  sec 17, lot 19;  sec 21, lots 12-14, 17, 18;  sec 28, lots 18, 21;  sec 33 lots 13,14. 

Reclamation Locatable Minerals 

All surface 

97.645 

NMNM0013651 07/08/1955 White Sands 

Missile Range 

T. 6 S., R. 7 E.,  Sec 6, lot 5 that portion south  and west of ROW of US HWY  380; T. 6 S., R. 8 E.,  Sec 18, that portion south and west of ROW of US HWY 380;  Sec 20, that portion south and west of ROW of US HWY 380,  Sec 28, that portion south and west of ROW of US HWY 380. 

Department of Army 

All Minerals All Surface 

310.00 

NMNM095103 01/29/1999 Ladron 

Mountain ACEC

T. 2 N., R. 2 W,  Sec 2 lots 1-8, S1⁄2N1⁄2, N1⁄2S1⁄2;  Sec 32, lots 1-4, W1⁄2SW1⁄4; T. 3 N., R. 2 W.,  Sec 16,  Sec 32,  Sec 36, T. 2 N., R. 3 W.,  Sec 2, lot 4, S1⁄2N1⁄2, S1⁄2; T. 2 N., R. 3 W.,  Sec 36, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄2SW1⁄4; T. 3 N., R. 3 W.,  Sec 36, N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4. 

BLM special Designation 

Locatable Minerals All Surface 

4,556.6 
Socorro Draft RMPR/EIS I-26 Appendix I 

April 2007 

Serial Number Withdrawn 

Geographic

Name Location (NMPM) 

Type of 

Withdrawal Segregation Acres 

NMNM095104 03/25/1999 T. 5 S., R. 3 W., 

 Sec 16, lots 5-8, N1⁄2, N1⁄2SW1⁄4;  Sec 21,  Sec 28,  Sec 29,  Sec 32; T. 6 S., R. 3 W.,  Sec 4, lots 3,4, SW1⁄4,  Sec 9, W1⁄2,  Sec 15, W1⁄2,  Sec 16,  Sec 22, E1⁄2, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4; T. 5 S., R. 4 W,  Sec 25, E1⁄2. 

BLM Special Designation 

Locatable Minerals All Surface 

5,607.520 

NMNM095118 10/09/2001 Sawtooth ACEC T. 1 N., R. 11 W., 

 Sec 6, lot 7, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4. 

BLMMiscellaneous 

Locatable Minerals All Surface

116.120 

NMNM08384 06/01/1995 The Box T. 3 S., R. 1 W., 

 Sec 31, lot 18. 

BLMMiscellaneous 

EXC Minerals All Surface 

39.950