Final Chapter 2 - Northern Arizona University

Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS CHAPTER 2—CONTINUING MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE

2-1

CHAPTER 2CONTINUING MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE AND ALTERNATIVES

This chapter is divided into two sections:“Continuing Management Guidance” andresource management “Plan Alternatives.” Thefirst section is a summary of the objectives,basic management policy, and programdirection that is applicable regardless of whichalternative is selected. The second section is apresentation of four plan alternatives developedas possible solutions to the issues discussed inChapter 1. Each alternative presents a differentblend and balance of resource allocations andemphasis. All alternatives comply with theFLPMA requirement that the public lands bemanaged by the principles of multiple use andsustained yield. When coupled with thecontinuing management guidance, any of theplan alternatives could be implemented as theselected RMP.

This RMP will provide multiple use planningfor the area while consolidating and updatingthe existing management decisions contained inexisting plans. Appendix A lists previousdecisions that have been carried forward and,based on new resource information andupdated Bureau guidance, provides the basisfor determining which decisions remain validand which will be revised through this RMP.The decisions presented in Appendix Areceived environmental analysis in previousland use or activity planning efforts. Thesedecisions represent continuing management ormonitoring requirements tied back to continuedimplementation of existing activity plans,regulation, or policy. When approved, theFarmington RMP will constitute the final landuse plan that will supersede all previous landuse planning decisions.

The RMP alternatives are designed toprovide a management foundation for thepublic lands. Where necessary, specific actionswill be detailed in future activity plans withaccompanying Environmental Assessments(EA). Activity plans describe how a particulararea or resource will be managed, and will

comply with the allowable resource uses, levelsof production, resource condition goals,program constraints, and general managementpractices documented in the RMP.

CONTINUING MANAGEMENT

GUIDANCE

This section describes the objectives, basicmanagement policy, and program direction thatwill continue to apply under all alternatives.This direction is fundamental and its associatedguidance is based on laws, regulations, manu-als, policies, executive orders, memoranda, andapplicable planning documents. A summary ofauthorizing actions that guide BLM manage-ment decisions is included in Appendix K. Theinformation that follows pertains to public landin the FFO area, except as noted.

MineralsIt is the policy of the BLM to make mineral

resources available for disposal and toencourage development of mineral resources tomeet national, regional, and local needs,consistent with national objectives of anadequate supply of minerals at reasonablemarket prices. At the same time, the BLMstrives to ensure that mineral development iscarried out in a manner that minimizesenvironmental damage and provides for therehabilitation of affected lands. The followingsections describe continuing managementguidance for oil and gas, coal, and salable andlocatable minerals.

Oil and GasIn developing the alternatives for analysis,

the BLM commissioned a study conducted byNew Mexico Institute of Mining andTechnology (NM Tech) working with oil andgas industry representatives to identifyreasonable foreseeable demand for oil and gasdevelopment in the San Juan Basin. This studyresulted in a RFDS, which forms the basis forprojected oil and gas development in the

CHAPTER 2—CONTINUING MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS

2-2

planning area over the next 20 years. TheRFDS (Engler et al. 2001) projects 9,970 newwell bores on federal minerals and a total of12,461 new well bores on all land in the SanJuan Basin over the next 20 years. Anestimated 54 percent of these wells areexpected to involve new surface disturbance.The remaining 46 percent of the wells isanticipated to be developed on existingdisturbed sites through re-completion, dualcompletion, or directional drilling. Each newwell pad is estimated to average two acres infinished size and involve another acre ofassociated road and pipeline disturbance(50-foot right-of-way [ROW] for both road andpipeline).

This section addresses policies guiding oiland gas on federal land in the San Juan Basinin New Mexico, including USFS and USBRland. The 1920 Mineral Leasing Act, asamended, authorizes the Secretary of theInterior to lease oil and gas resources on allpublic domain and federally acquired lands.Lands excluded from such leasing by legislationor secretarial policy are listed in CFR Title 43,Part 3100.0-3. They include units of theNational Park System; incorporated cities,towns, and villages; and lands recommendedfor wilderness study, as well as lands within theNational Wilderness Preservation System. BLMLease Form 3100-11, Offer to Lease and Leasefor Oil and Gas, contains STCs that grant theleaseholder the right to develop the oil and gasresource and provide for the general protectionof surface and subsurface resources undernormal operations.

The BLM, as agent for the Secretary of theInterior, is responsible for processing APDs andadministering or assisting with the mineralsdevelopment programs on BLM, USBR, USFSand other lands with federal minerals. BLMresponsibilities include conducting pre-drillinspections of the proposed drill sites; assessingthe status of cultural and threatened orendangered species clearances; conductingcompliance inspections and enforcementactions for lease terms and conditions, safety,production verification, and site maintenance;

and abandonment inspections of drillinglocations. In situations where there are federalminerals underlying tribal, state, private, orother land ownership (split estate), the BLMissues the APDs and encourages the operatoror lessee to obtain consent and agreements forsurface use from the private surface owner.

BLM regulations, orders, notices, standardconditions of approval, and generalrequirements constitute the range of standardprocedures and environmental protectionmeasures that are applied to individualoperators and projects, as applicable, and areauthorized by 43 CFR 3160. BLM Onshore Oiland Gas Orders and Notices to Lessees areapplied as standard operating procedures.

The New Mexico BLM has issued a numberof Notice to Lessees (NTL) to those companiesthat operate on federal and Indian leases. TheNTLs provide instructions for a specific field orarea of a jurisdictional BLM district or state.The NTLs are consistent with or exceed theminimum standards specified in the 43 CFR3160 regulations or Onshore Orders.

Because of growing concerns and publiccomplaints over the increased amount of loud,continuous noise in the field office area, theFFO staff has developed an NTL to addressnoise. Equivalent wording will be used in astipulation applied to noise generating activitiespermitted by ROWs. The objective of the NTLor stipulation is to maintain noise from oil andgas development on public lands at levelscompatible with other uses. The two NTLs areanalyzed in this document under Alternatives Cand D. The NTLs are located in Appendix E.

Noise associated with oil and gasdevelopment varies according to the activityoccurring. Noise occurs at different levelsduring construction, drilling, production, andabandonment phases. Noise generated may beshort-term and transient in nature (i.e.,construction noise generated from heavyequipment used for building roads, pipelines, orwell pads). Noise created during theconstruction process would be localized andoccur during daylight hours for the period oftime it takes to complete the project; then, it


2-3

would stop. Oil and gas related noise may alsobe continuous and long-term, such as thatassociated with compressor stations, well headcompressors, and pumpjacks used during theproduction phase of development.

The BLM applies STCs and specialstipulations to the construction and operation ofwells, pipelines, and compressors. STCsaddress the condition and management of thewell location, associated equipment, accessroad, and reseeding and abandonment. STCsalso ensure protection of cultural resources,compliance with the Endangered Species Act(ESA) of 1973, as amended, and theconservation of sensitive species. The FFO usesthe “BLM General Requirements for Oil andGas Operations on Federal and Indian Lands”as a COA that describes general requirementsand standard plan of operations for wells drilledin its jurisdiction. The conditions may besupplemented by additional mitigationmeasures supplied by applicable surfacemanaging agencies or surface owners in casesof split estates. If a surface managing agency orsurface owner has supplied to the BLM and theoperator a written environmental requirement,the requirement would be incorporated into theAPD if it does not affect adjacent federal orIndian surface; does not compromise safety orconservation; or does not negate minimalfederal restoration requirements in cases ofabandonment. Surface managing agenciesinclude the USBR, USFS, BIA, and NationalPark Service (NPS). Surface owners caninclude private surface owners, Indian tribes,and the State of New Mexico. The BLM grantsapprovals for routine modifications to a well’sconstruction and operating plan via sundrynotice.

The BLM must decide what lands are to beleased to access federal minerals and whetherspecial management constraints modifying theSTCs are needed to protect the environmentand other resources. For example, many ofthese constraints are designed to reduce erosionand sedimentation in order to minimize theimpacts on soil and water resources. Theseconstraints are generally appended to a lease at

the time of lease offer or as COAs on APDs,often within special management designationssuch as Special Management Areas (SMA) orAreas of Critical Environmental Concern(ACEC).

Stipulations include seasonal closures, orTiming Limitations (TL), that prohibitexploration, development, or any surfacedisturbing activities for designated time periodsduring the year to benefit wildlife. ControlledSurface Use (CSU) constraints are used toidentify restrictions on well locations, surfaceuse, or operations year-round in order toprotect specific resource values or uses. NoSurface Occupancy (NSO) constraints areintended for use when other constraints areinsufficient to adequately protect the resourcevalues and uses.

Lease exceptions, modifications, andwaivers of management constraints can only begranted by the BLM if circumstances havechanged or if the lessee demonstrates thatoperations can be conducted without harmingthe protected resource values and uses.Exceptions, modifications, and waivers areconsidered on a case-by-case basis as changesin the resource or management situation occur.An EA that meets NEPA requirements isprepared to evaluate the potential impacts ofthe proposed change.

Site-specific EAs are required prior to sitinga new well. During this process, environmentalimpacts are identified and managementconstraints are developed, which will mitigateimpacts to the environment, public health andsafety, cultural resources, and threatened,endangered, and sensitive species. Themitigation measures become the COAsattached to the permits for surface disturbingactivities, such as APDs and sundry notices.Similarly, mitigation measures are attached asstipulations to ROW grants, terms, andconditions on geophysical operations. Eachmitigation measure is applied to protect aresource that would be affected by theoperation being approved, even on existingleases. A reclamation plan and a weedmanagement plan are also required.


2-4

The USFS cooperates with the BLM toensure that management goals and objectivesare achieved, surface impacts are mitigated tothe maximum degree practicable, and the landaffected is rehabilitated. The Federal Oil andGas Leasing Reform Act of 1988 bestowedupon USFS the authority to consent to BLMleasing decisions. The Act gave USFS theauthority to approve surface use plans filed aspart of APDs. The USFS responds to BLMproposals to issue mineral leases and permitsafter reviewing its land management plans. TheUSFS requires reclamation plans for allproposed surface-disturbing activities to returnthe land to productive uses consistent with theecological capability of the area and inaccordance with land management goals.Applicable plans in the planning area are theCarson National Forest Plan, September 1986,as amended in October 1990, and Santa FeNational Forest Plan, as amended in October1996.

Numerous mineral leases were located onUSBR lands at Navajo Reservoir prior to theirwithdrawal for construction and operation ofthe dam and reservoir. The USBR is in theprocess of developing an RMP (USBR 1999),which is presently in the draft stage. One of theplan’s objectives is to formally coordinatemanagement of USBR lands with the BLM,which manages adjacent lands and isresponsible for the management of mineralsdevelopment on USBR lands. The BLM’sresponsibility extends to environmentalprotection, public health, and safety associatedwith federal oil and gas operations. Lease rightsgranted by the BLM include the right to occupyas much of the lease surface as is reasonable toextract the resource and the right to remove oiland/or gas. On USBR lands, these leases aremanaged by the BLM under the terms of a1967 agreement that provides for review andconcurrence by the USBR. As part of the reviewand concurrence process, the USBR hasdefined mitigation measures that are applicableto mineral extraction activities on USBR lands.The BLM may also grant, with USBRconcurrence, approval for other uses, such as

utility ROW on withdrawn lands not specificallyallocated to recreation or fish and wildlifepurposes.

CoalThe Surface Mining Control and Reclama-

tion Act (SMCRA) of 1977 (30 USC 1201 etseq.) requires application of “unsuitabilitycriteria” prior to coal leasing. Unsuitabilitycriteria are used to screen out areas unsuitablefor mining for various reasons (e.g.,environmental conflicts). The criteria are part of43 CFR 3461, and are included in Appendix C.Project-specific EAs are developed prior toleasing and before mining is approved, with thepurpose of analyzing the impacts of coal miningon the natural and cultural resources in the areaof the proposed mine site. During this processBLM coordinates with all appropriate agenciesof state, federal, and tribal governments. Areclamation plan and a weed management planare also required.

The FFO is responsible for inspection andenforcement on all coal leases to ensurecompliance with lease terms and conditionsand with stipulations for developmentexploration. Inspections are performed toensure maximum economic recovery andconformance with the approved mining orexploration plan. The FFO is also responsiblefor product verification by independentlyauditing mine production reports to ensure fairroyalty reporting to the federal government andThe Navajo Nation.

Salable and Locatable MineralsFederal lands in the planning area are

important sources of mineral materials forconstruction projects in the region, includingsand and gravel, rock and stone, and other fillmaterials. The FFO issues Contracts (Form3600-9 and 5450-5) and Permits (Form5510-1) for the removal of mineral materialsmanaged under 43 CFR 3600. These contractsand permits can be issued for up to five yearsand 200,000 cubic yards of material. Anyamount greater than 200,000 cubic yards mustbe offered through a competitive bid. A miningplan, a reclamation plan, and a weed


2-5

management plan are required with thecontract or permit application, and plans mustconform with modern mining and reclamationstandards. The proposed operation plan goesthrough the NEPA process with the preparationof an EA, and is approved if the mining andreclamation plans comply with the FFO RMPand include appropriate mitigation measures, ifneeded. The FFO is responsible for inspectionand enforcement on all contracts and permits.

The program to manage the extraction oflocatable minerals, such as uranium, is alsounder the purview of the FFO under 43 CFR3809. This program is currently inactive due tothe lack of demand. The FFO program definesthree levels of activity: 1) casual use using non-mechanized equipment, 2) notice levelcomprising less than five acres of surfacedisturbance, and 3) plan level comprising morethan five acres of surface disturbance and heapleaching operations.

Renewable Energy ProgramAt present there are no renewable energy

facilities on public lands in the FFO. The BLM,in conjunction with the Department of Energy’sNational Renewable Energy Laboratory, hasconducted an assessment of the opportunitiesfor development of renewable energy resourceson lands managed by the BLM. The draftreport, Assessing the Potential for RenewableEnergy on Federal Lands (BLM 2002b),indicates that the Farmington Field Office is inthe list of top 25 BLM planning units with highpotential for concentrating solar power sites.The FFO did not meet the screening criteria tobe considered as a potential area for thelocation of wind, biomass, or geothermalenergy generation facilities. According to theRenewable Energy Atlas of the West (Nielsen etal. 2002) the planning area is rated as Class 1(Poor) for wind power generation and exhibitsan Annual Solar Insolation Average of 5.6-6.0kilowatt hours per meter squared per day(kWh/m2/day). With present technology, it isestimated that a 4-acre array of solar panelswould be required to generate the energy

equivalent to an average natural gas well in theSan Juan Basin.

Economic and societal forces beyond thecontrol of the BLM dictate the level of interestin renewable energy. To date, the FFO has notreceived any applications for location ofrenewable energy generation sites. Futureapplications would undergo site-specificenvironmental analysis as part of the right-of-way or commercial lease process.

LandsThe objective of the FFO lands program is

to facilitate the acquisition, exchange, ordisposal of public lands in order to provide themost efficient management of public resources.The program is responsible for processing landwithdrawals, granting ROWs and easements onpublic lands, and acquiring easements on non-public lands where necessary. The landsprogram also issues leases and patents underthe R&PP Act, and licenses and permits forspecific uses such as filming or special events.

Land Ownership AdjustmentThe basic concept of land ownership

adjustment for the FFO follows therequirements of FLPMA. Land will generallyremain in federal ownership unless it meetsspecific criteria in FLPMA and existing land useplans. The primary goal is conserving federalownership while consolidating administrativeboundaries to create a more efficient andeconomical land ownership pattern. This isaccomplished through retaining, acquiring, anddisposing of land for the purposes ofconsolidation that is in the public interest.

Acquisition of lands that would enhanceand protect important resources will continue tobe a priority for the FFO. Lands would only beacquired from owners willing to dispose ofthem. Currently, there are 145,000 acres ofnon-federal land within special managementdesignations that are a high priority foracquisition. Also, a program to facilitateexchange of land between BLM and the Stateof New Mexico will continue when theexchange improves the management potential


2-6

of state and federal land. Where state or privatelands are intermingled with public land, BLMmay acquire land to help consolidate public useareas. Disposal may be by means of transfer,exchange, sale, withdrawal (to another federalentity), or other means. Lands will betransferred to another federal agency if use andmanagement by that agency is suitable andserves a purpose. Lands may be exchanged orsold if they are difficult or uneconomical tomanage, are not suitable for management byanother federal entity, no longer serve a specificpurpose, or if disposal would serve importantpublic objectives. Disposal of lands meeting theabove criteria is a priority.

Much of the land south and west of U.S.Highway 550 (US 550) is currently identifiedfor exchange. The FFO has been successfulover the last 25 years in transferring about131,000 acres and exchanging 150,000 acreswith The Navajo Nation. Exchanges haveslowed down, since the most easily executedexchanges have been completed. However, theFFO will continue to process exchanges that areidentified in the future.

Sales of public land identified in the 1988RMP will continue. Appendix F includes a list ofisolated disposal parcels. Sales will all beconsidered on a case-by-case basis forconformity with FLPMA criteria. Land sales willbe disposed of at or above fair market value.

All land adjustment actions must go throughthe NEPA process. In general, under all landadjustments, the BLM will protect valid existingrights. These would include authorized permits,leases, ROW, and licenses. The FFO willcontinue a prevention program developed byBLM, The Navajo Nation, and BIA to preventunauthorized occupation.

Recreation and Public PurposeLands will continue to be available for

disposal to governmental or non-profit entitiesunder the R&PP Act for public parks, buildingsites and correction centers, or other publicpurposes. BLM generally leases the land for upto five years or until substantial developmenthas been completed and then the land may be

patented. All applications are subject to publicreview and the NEPA process.

Land WithdrawalThe FFO will continue to review existing

withdrawals on a periodic basis to ensure thatthe reasons for the withdrawal are still valid andonly the acreage needed is retained inwithdrawn status. Policy will continue tominimize the amount of land withdrawn(particularly from mining and mineral leasing)in favor of leases, permits, or cooperative useagreements that are more flexible. Uponrevocation or modification of a withdrawal, allor part of the withdrawn land could be restoredto multiple use. Additional land may beidentified for withdrawal if criteria are met andwould be processed on a case-by-case basis.

Rights-of-WayUnder the authority of FLPMA and the

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the FFO grantsROW leases and permits to qualifiedindividuals, businesses, and government entitiesfor use of public lands. Since the 1950s, oil andgas production, and to a lesser extent coalmining, has been the major industry in theregion. This has made energy-related ROWs forroads and pipelines one of the primary activitiesin the FFO lands program. The FFO processesROW applications for access, utilities andtelephone lines, fiber optic lines, and othercommunication sites. All ROW applications willcontinue to receive environmental review on acase-by-case basis.

To the extent possible, new ROWs will belocated within or parallel to existing ROWs orROW corridors to minimize resource impacts.Priority will be given to the ROWs identified inthe 2002 Western Utility Group (WUG) revision(WUG 2002) of the 1992 Western RegionalCorridor Study (WRCS) (WUG 1992) whenconsidering corridor needs. BLM regulationsspecify the typical width allowed for differentuses, including pipelines, roadways, and utilitylines.


2-7

Lee Acres LandfillThe Lee Acres Landfill is a closed landfill

formerly operated under permit from BLM bySan Juan County as a municipal solid wastedisposal site from 1962 to 1986. During the1980s use of the landfill expanded to also allowthe disposal of liquid waste. In 1985maintenance activities resulted in a release ofliquid waste and hydrogen sulfide gas. Severalpeople were hospitalized due to inhalation ofthe gas. Closure of the landfill occurred shortlythereafter and the area was evaluated becauseof hazardous material concerns. Evaluationsresulted in the landfill being listed on theNational Priorities List by EPA. This listingrequired further assessment and developmentof a plan to remediate the potential hazardousmaterial concerns at the landfill. BLM iscurrently in negotiation with the EPA and NewMexico Environment Department (NMED) on aRecord of Decision (ROD) under authority ofthe Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),which will guide the final cleanup at the landfill.

The Lee Acres Landfill ROD will guide anddirect how cleanup will proceed at the site, howmonitoring will be conducted and anynecessary follow-up actions would beimplemented. Additionally the ROD mayprovide guidance on other actions, whichshould be taken to protect the public health,welfare and environment from hazardoussubstances that may remain on the landfillfollowing completion of remedial action. Inorder to assist with the institutional controlsrequired to implement the ROD the BLM hasalready withdrawn 134.68 acres of public land,within which the landfill is located, fromsettlement, sale, location and entry as describedin Public Land Order No. 7234 (62 FederalRegister 2177, January 15, 1997). The currentwithdrawal will remain in effect until Janu-ary 15, 2047.

The withdrawal does not prohibit allactivities on the withdrawn land. A primaryintention of the withdrawal is to preventwithdrawal of ground water beneath the site inorder to preclude unacceptable risk to human

health or the environment due to exposure tohazardous substances remaining at the site.Other activities may occur at BLM’s discretion ifthey do not interfere with protecting the publichealth and environment from hazardoussubstances as outlined by the objectives andrequirements identified in the Lee Acres LandfillROD.

Roads and AccessThe FFO has not had an active easement

acquisition program. This is largely due to thenumerous roads located throughout the FFOarea that have historically been open to thepublic. For the most part, this network of roads(estimated at over 15,000 miles) was generatedby oil and gas development in the San JuanBasin. Normally, only one or two easementsare acquired each year. As required by Bureaupolicy, these easements generally provide legalaccess to BLM-initiated range improvementprojects and recreation areas.

The FFO has designated 13 OHVManagement Units to serve as the basis formaintenance and transportation planning. Thefield office is conducting an inventory of theexisting road system to identify the majorcollector roads that could serve as thebackbone for the FFO road network. This is thefirst step in a process to classify and designateall levels of roads within the system based ontraffic levels, type of use, condition and othercriteria. Subsequently, any special restrictions,needs, or actions would be defined.Improvements would be based on the “GoldBook” (USDI 1989) that provides genericguidelines and basic stipulations for roaddevelopment. The BLM Manual 9113 onRoads provides additional guidelines andstandards for construction and maintenance oftransportation system roads on public lands.

The San Juan Basin Public RoadsCommittee includes members from the oil andgas industry and the FFO. The committee hasdeveloped and agreed upon a set of bylaws,which constitute a San Juan Basin PublicRoads Maintenance Committee agreement(Appendix D) that will address the issue of road


2-8

maintenance on BLM system roads within theSan Juan Basin. Under this agreement, 95percent of the cost for system roadmaintenance will be paid by the oil and gasindustry. FLPMA enables the use of cost-shareauthorizations to provide the financing by usersfor road construction and maintenance. BLMwould still incur the cost of upgrading andmaintaining system roads that access federalfacilities through the Deferred Maintenance andCapital Improvement Process.

The USFS is beginning a Roads AnalysisPolicy that is an integrated ecological, social,and economic science-based approach totransportation planning that addresses existingand future road management options. Threelevels of analysis to be conducted includeForest-wide evaluation of major arterial andcollector roads, inventory of all roads within afifth order watershed, and project-level analysisif roads are required. Currently, all roads areclassified as Level 2 maintenance standard,which is typically 1 or 1½ lanes wide, withturnouts, crowned, and ditched.

Public Land HealthAll BLM activities are expected to meet the

New Mexico Standards for Public Land Healththat were accepted by the Secretary of theInterior as part of the Record of Decision for theStatewide RMP Amendment/EIS for Standardsfor Public Land Health and Guidelines forLivestock Grazing Management (BLM 2000a).BLM staff determines whether activities meetthe standards by evaluating the results againstindicators developed for each standard. Thestandards describe the conditions needed forhealthy public lands under three categories,Upland Sites, Biotic Communities, andRiparian Sites, summarized below.

Upland Sites StandardHealthy upland ecological sites are in a

productive and sustainable condition within thecapability of the site. Upland soils meeting thestandard are stabilized and exhibit infiltrationand permeability rates that are appropriate forthe soil type, climate, and landform. Thecombined kind, amount, and/or pattern of

vegetation provide protection on a given site tominimize erosion and assist in meeting stateand tribal water quality standards. Indicators forthis standard may include, but are not limitedto, the following:

• Consistent with the capability of theecological site, soils are stabilized byappropriate amounts of standing livevegetation, protective litter and/or rockcover.

• Erosion is indicated by flow patternscharacteristics of surface litter soilmovement, gullies and rills, and plantpedestalling.

• Satisfactory plant protection is indicatedby the amount and distribution ofdesired species necessary to preventaccelerated erosion.

Biotic Communities, IncludingNative, Threatened, Endangered, andSpecial Status Species Standard

Ecological processes such as the hydrologiccycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow supportproductive and diverse native bioticcommunities, including special status,threatened, and endangered species. Desiredplant community goals maintain and conserveproductive and diverse populations of plantsand animals that sustain ecological functionsand processes. Restoration should first beachieved with native plants, and whenappropriate, non-native plants. Indicators forthis standard may include, but are not limitedto, the following:

• Commensurate with the capability ofthe ecological site, plant and animalpopulations are productive, resilient,diverse, and sustainable.

• Landscapes are composed ofcommunities in a variety of successionalstages and patterns.

• Diversity and composition ofcommunities are indicated by the kindsand amount of species.

• Endangered and special status speciesare secure and recovering, with the goal


2-9

of delisting and ensuring that additionalspecies need not be listed within NewMexico.

Riparian Sites StandardHealthy riparian areas are in a productive,

properly functioning, and sustainable condition,within the capability of each site. There ispresent adequate vegetation of diverse age andcomposition to withstand high stream flow,capture sediment, provide for groundwaterrecharge, provide habitat, and assist in meetingstate and tribal water quality standards.Indicators for this standard may include, but arenot limited to the following:

• Stream channel morphology andstability as determined by gradient,width/depth ratio, channel roughness,and sinuosity.

• Streambank stability as determined bydegree of shearing, sloughing, andvegetative cover on the bank.

• Appropriate riparian vegetation includesa mix of communities comprised ofspecies with a range of age, density,and growth form.

Specially Designated AreasThe objective of the SDAs in the FFO is to

protect, maintain, and enhance the specialresource values on public lands. Areas thathave special resource values are identifiedwhere some uses may be restricted in order toprotect the resources. These areas includepublic lands such as SMAs, ACECs, WildernessAreas (WA), Wilderness Study Areas (WSA),Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA),and Research Natural Areas (RNA). The FFOand AFO generally identify areas with specialdesignations as SMAs or ACECs. Other federallands and state facilities within the planningarea are also managed for special purposes.The FFO will continue to designate ACECs andother SDAs and to apply managementprescription to protect the resource value ofthose areas.

Visual Resource ManagementLegislation such as FLPMA, NEPA, and

SMCRA outline the BLM’s responsibilities forprotecting the quality of the visual (scenic)values of public lands. Policy and managementguidance is also provided in BLM manuals8400, 8410-1, and 8431-1.

Public lands have a variety of visual values.These different values warrant different levels ofmanagement. Because providing the same levelof management for all visual resources isneither desirable nor practical, the BLMsystematically identifies and evaluates theseresources to determine an appropriate level ofmanagement.

Visual values are identified through theBLM Visual Resource Management (VRM)inventory process and are considered withother resource values in the RMP. Theinventory consists of a scenic qualityevaluation, a visual sensitivity level analysis,and a delineation of distance zones. Based onthese three factors, BLM-administered lands areplaced into one of four visual resourceinventory classes (Class I through Class IV). AVRM class identifies suggested degrees ofhuman modifications that should be allowed ina landscape to protect visual resources, withClass I allowing the least modification andClass IV the most. VRM classes are not used asa device to stop surface disturbing activities.Most of the planning area is presentlydesignated as a Class III or Class IV. Theseclasses provide the visual managementstandards for the design and development offuture projects and for rehabilitation of existingprojects. Visual design considerations shall beincorporated into all surface-disturbing projectsregardless of size or potential impact and is amanagement responsibility shared by allresource management programs.

The inventory classes represent the relativevalue of the visual resources, with Class Iassigned to areas where the visual value is thegreatest. These include WAs, WSAs, wild andscenic rivers, and other congressionally andadministratively designated areas where


2-10

decisions have been made to preserve a naturallandscape. Each class designation has a definedmanagement objective.

• Class IPreserve the existing characterof the landscape. This class provides fornatural and ecological changes;however, it does not preclude verylimited management activity. The levelof change can be very low and notattract attention.

• Class IIRetain the existing characterof the landscape. The level of change tothe characteristic landscape should below. Management activities may beseen, but should not attract theattention of the casual observer. Anychanges must repeat the basic elementsof form, line, color, and texture found inthe predominant natural features of thecharacteristic landscape.

• Class IIIPartially retain the existingcharacter of the landscape. The level ofchange to the characteristic landscapeshould be moderate. Managementactivities may attract attention, butshould not dominate the view of thecasual observer. Changes should repeatthe basic elements found in thepredominant natural features of thecharacteristic landscape.

• Class IVProvide for managementactivities that require majormodification of the existing character ofthe landscape. The level of change tothe characteristic landscape can behigh. These management activities maydominate the view and be the majorfocus of viewer attention. However,every attempt should be made tominimize the impact of these activitiesthrough careful location, minimaldisturbance, and repeating the basicelements.

VRM classes acknowledge existing visualcontrasts. More restrictive requirements wouldnot be retroactively applied to existing projectsshould VRM classifications change as a result of

this planning effort. New proposals would bemanaged to meet the intent of the VRMdesignations determined by this plan.

Soils and WaterThe BLM’s soil and watershed program

places emphasis on preventing and/or avoidingfurther degradation of soil and water resources,as well as their conservation. The programcontributes to the success of other resourceprograms and has a legislation mandate for theprotection, restoration, and improvement ofthese resources. The BLM will continue tosupport the Natural Resources ConservationService (formerly Soil Conservation Service) inthe National Cooperative Soil Survey.

The 1974 Colorado River Basin SalinityControl Act (as amended, 1984) directs theSecretary of the Interior to “…develop acomprehensive program for minimizing saltcontributions to the Colorado River from landsadministered by the Bureau of LandManagement.” Although the BLM is the largestlandowner in several subwatersheds of the SanJuan Basin, other owners and agencies must beinvolved in improving environmentalconditions. Coordinated Resource ManagementPlans have been a successful means for theparticipation of a diverse group in improvingresource management. The FFO will promotethe Coordinated Resource Management Planprocess within the San Juan Basin to improveresource conditions when opportunities arise.

Soil and water conservation practices willbe used to develop site-specific BestManagement Practices (BMP) at the projectlevel to prevent or reduce the amount ofpollution to a level compatible with waterquality goals.

The soils program will continue to providesupport to other resource activities in the FFOand also continue to emphasize its legislativemandates for the protection, maintenance, andenhancement of the soil resources. Policy andguidance for the management of soil resourcesassociated with lands administered by the BLMare administered in Manual Sections 7000 and7100.


2-11

Legislative mandates are also in place forthe protection of water resources through theClean Water Act (CWA) program for theNonpoint Source Pollution program, whichemphasizes improving water quality indegraded stream systems; the riparian program,which is concerned with maintenance andrestoration of riparian zones both vegetativelyand hydrologically; and the Colorado RiverBasin Salinity Control Act, which intends toreduce salt loading throughout the San JuanBasin. All three programs have parallel orsimilar goals, and accomplishments in any oneusually are beneficial to the others.

All water rights are acquired in accordancewith state substantive and procedural law,except where Congress or the Executive Branchhas created a federal reservation with areserved water right.

Federal reserved water rights are definedbased on the Interior Solicitors’ Opinion ofJune 25, 1979, as modified by SolicitorColdiron’s September 11, 1981, opinion.BLM’s federal reserved water rights claims areprimarily associated with the withdrawalestablished by the Executive Order (EO) ofApril 17, 1926, dealing with public waterreserves, and the withdrawal for converted oiland gas wells under the Oil and Gas WellConversion Act of June 6, 1934.

Water quality regulations in the U.S. receiveits basic authority from two laws. The FederalWater Pollution Control Act of 1972, asamended by the CWA of 1977, is the basicauthority for instream water quality standardsand maximum permissible pollution discharges.The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 is thebasic authority for domestic water qualitystandards.

The BLM’s water resource programincludes participation with the state and EPA inwater quality management. Specifically, theBLM works to ensure that the management anddevelopment practices comply with state waterquality standards.

The hydrology program will continue toemphasize legislative mandates of protections,

maintenance, and enhancement of theresources, as well as provide support to otherresource activities for the FFO. Policy andguidance for the management of waterresources associated with lands administered bythe BLM is summarized in Manual Sections7000 and 7200.

Air QualityAll BLM actions and use authorizations

must comply with all applicable local, state,tribal, and federal air quality laws, statutes,regulations, standards, and implementationplans. Prior to implementation, all BLM-initiated or authorized activities within non-attainment areas must undergo a determination(when applicable) of conformity with theNational Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS) according to the General ConformityRule (40 CFR Part 93.150). If the NAAQS arebeing met, the area is designated as attainment,and if the status of attainment has not beenverified through data collection, the area isunclassified. For permitting purposes, anunclassified area is treated as an attainmentarea. The counties in the planning area areclassified as in attainment of all state andnational ambient air quality standards.

The New Mexico Air Quality Bureau(NMAQB) is responsible for enforcing the stateand national ambient air quality standards inNew Mexico. Any emission source proposed forthe RMP would have to comply with theNMAQB regulations. For example, any new ormodified stationary source that has thepotential to emit more than 10 tons per year(TPY) of any regulated air contaminant or 1TPY of lead has to file a notice of intent (NOI)prior to construction and thereafter submitannual emissions inventories. Proposed sourcesthat emit more 10 pounds per hour or 25 TPYof any air pollutant for which there is a nationalor state ambient air quality standard wouldhave to demonstrate that these emissions wouldnot contribute to an exceedance of an ambientair quality standard or substantially degrade airquality within pristine federal Class I areas, suchas National Parks greater than 6,000 acres or


2-12

National Wilderness Areas (NWA) greater than5,000 acres. Within the project region, theseareas could include the San Pedro Parks NWAin New Mexico and the Mesa Verde NationalPark and Weminuche NWA in Colorado.

For any proposed coal developmentassociated with the RMP, increase in currentextraction or use, the BLM would coordinatewith all appropriate agencies of state, federal,and tribal governments to ensure compliancewith laws and regulations. Project specificdispersion modeling and an environmentalassessment will be prepared with theopportunity for public input. Air quality will beexamined in conjunction with the NMAQB,following applicable permit procedures.

Invasive Weed ManagementEO 11312, Invasive Species-1999, the

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, the NewMexico Noxious Weed Management Act of1978, and the Federal Plant Protection Act of2000 require the development of a weedmanagement program. This program focuseson the inventory of existing infestations,prevention of noxious weed invasion,monitoring revegetation efforts for invasiveweeds, and assessment of the success of weedcontrol efforts.

The mission of the FFO is to detect newinvasive plant species populations, prevent thespread of new invasive populations, manageexisting populations using tools of integratedweed management, and eradicate invasivepopulations. This is accomplished when andwhere possible using the safest environmentalmethods available in a timely manner (Heil andWhite 2000). Prevention and management ofinvasive plants assists in improving the health ofpublic lands.

A plan developed for the FFO includes thefollowing program procedures.

• Prevention and Detectiondevelop aprevention and early detection pro-gram.

• Education and Awarenessgenerateinternal and external support for

noxious weed control. The FFO has aone-week invasive plant workshop atSan Juan College in July.

• Inventoryensure that adequate base-line data are available on the distribu-tion of weeds.

• Planninginclude provisions for nox-ious weed management in all BLMfunded or authorized actions.

• Integrated Weed Managementdeter-mine the best methods for an integratedapproach to weed management andimplement on-the-ground operations.

• Coordinationensure management fornoxious weeds is carried out efficientlyand consistently across jurisdictionaland political boundaries. San JuanCounty is in the process of forming aweed management team that consists ofmembers from the BLM, San JuanCounty officials, Cities of Farmington,Aztec, and Bloomfield, BIA, and SanJuan College.

• Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, andTechnology Transferensure sufficientdata are available to evaluatemanagement actions, provide a basisfor making informed decisions, assessprogress towards managementobjectives, and develop new and moreeffective management methods.

For all actions on public lands that involvesurface disturbance or rehabilitation,reasonable steps would be required to preventthe introduction or spread of noxious weeds,including requirements for using weed seed-freehay, mulch, and straw.

Special Status SpeciesSpecial status species are managed in

accordance with BLM Manual 6840. The ESA(Public Law [PL] 93-205), as amended (PL100-478), requires special protection andmanagement for federally listed threatened andendangered (T&E) species, species proposed tobe listed as T&E, and designated and proposedcritical habitat. The act also requires the


2-13

development and implementation of recoveryplans for the conservation and survival of T&Especies. FFO activities to implement recoveryplans are described in the BiologicalAssessment for the RMP/EIS (BLM 2002c). Inaccordance with BLM Manual 6840, BLM alsomanages a large number of sensitive, non-listedspecies to protect them and prevent the need tolist them as threatened or endangered. Thepurpose of this management prior to federallisting is to use a broad range of managementoptions to protect a species.

Federal and state listed species areprotected by requiring site-specific evaluationsand clearances and by applying more stringentmanagement prescriptions in areas that havebeen specially designated to protect targetspecies. The FFO maintains a conflict map thatidentifies the location of listed species orpotential habitat to guide any staff responsiblefor authorization of specific projects. When aproposed project falls within habitat that hasbeen designated as having the potential tosupport a protected species, a field survey isrequired prior to authorization of the project.When a new threatened, endangered, orproposed species protected by the ESA is listed,any potential habitat for that species is added tothe conflict map. Any action that may affectfederally listed species also requiresconsultation with the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (USFWS) under Section 7 of the ESA.

Major legislation requiring actions byfederal agencies to protect T&E species, as wellas other protected, non-federally listed speciesand habitats, include the following:

• Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of1980 (PL 96-366).

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of1958 (PL 85-654).

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1976 (PL94-576).

• Plant Protection Act of 2000 (PL 106-224).

Wildlife and Wildlife HabitatThe objectives of BLM’s wildlife

management program are to ensure optimumpopulations and a natural abundance anddiversity of fish and wildlife values by restoring,maintaining, and enhancing habitat conditions(BLM 1987b). The objective of the FFO wildlifeprogram is to maintain, improve, and expandwildlife habitat on public lands for bothconsumptive and non-consumptive uses.Wildlife management on BLM lands hasemphasized the perpetuation of a biologicallydiverse plant and animal community. Prioritywildlife management activities conducted in theFFO include big game management and baldeagle protection. The FFO is determining thenumbers, habitat needs, and distribution ofnon-T&E bird species, including migratorysongbirds. The protection and enhancement ofwildlife habitat is accomplished through anaggressive program of habitat improvementprojects, designation of SMAs with wildlifefriendly management prescriptions, and theapplication of mitigation measures on keywildlife lands where oil and gas reserves arebeing developed. Stipulations on oil and gasactivities are applied to mitigate the impacts onwildlife. The FFO administers a small amountof fisheries habitat on small, generally isolatedtracts of public land mostly along the San JuanRiver.

Legislation such as FLPMA, the ESA, andthe Public Rangelands Improvement Act of1978 provide direction to the BLM forimproving wildlife habitat. It is the responsibilityof the FFO to identify opportunities tomaintain, improve, and expand wildlife habitaton the public lands. The Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU) No. NMSO-41 betweenthe BLM and the New Mexico Department ofGame and Fish (NMDGF) provides for coop-erative development of fish and wildliferesource plans. In addition to earlier HabitatManagement Plans (HMP), in recent years theRattlesnake Canyon and Crow Mesa HMPswere prepared. Implementation of these activityplans will continue and others will bedeveloped as needed.


2-14

Department of the Interior policy and theannual Animal Damage Control Plan for theAlbuquerque District, prepared jointly by theU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and theBLM, guide animal damage control activities onpublic lands in the planning area. The USDAhas overall responsibility for the program andsupervises all control activities. The BLM hasapproval responsibility for the specific controlactions on public lands.

RiparianUnder the BLM’s multiple use

management, a variety of activities, such aslivestock grazing, timber harvest, mining,recreation, roads, and utility corridors, takeplace on public lands. These activities can affectthe quality and health of riparian areas that areimportant to fish and wildlife. Recentmanagement guidance is provided in theRiparian and Aquatic Habitat ManagementPlan (BLM 2000b, c). BLM guidance on themanagement of riparian areas has the objectiveof restoring and protecting those areas withinthe context of authorizing other landmanagement activities.

The goal of the FFO riparian monitoringplan is to document the progress towardachieving and then maintaining ProperFunctioning Condition (PFC) while beingmanaged under the multiple use and adaptivemanagement concepts outlined in the Riparianand Aquatic Habitat Management Plan (BLM2000b, c). Riparian and wetland areas areconsidered to be functioning properly whenadequate vegetation, landform, or large woodydebris are present to dissipate stream energyassociated with high water flows, therebyreducing erosion and improving water quality.The process used to assess PFC is described inBLM Technical References 1737-9 and 1737-15. PFC is reassessed on a 3-year rotatingbasis. A binder containing monitoringinformation, such as PFC results, reassessmentschedules, and photo-point monitoring photos,for each designated riparian reach is beingcompiled and maintained in the FFO.

WildernessThe objective of the FFO wilderness

program is to protect and manage the WA andthe WSA in accordance with appropriate lawsand regulations. Currently, the FFO managesthe 44,608-acre Bisti/De-na-zin WA and the6,653-acre Ah-shi-sle-pah WSA.

In 1996, Congress designated as wildernessapproximately 16,525 acres located betweenthe Bisti WA (3,946 acres) and the De-na-zinWA (24,137 acres). As a result, the Bisti andDe-na-zin were combined to create onewilderness unit (PL 104-333). Management ofthe WA will be in accordance with the Bisti/De-na-zin Wilderness Expansion and Fossil ForestProtection Act of 1996 (PL 104-333), the SanJuan Basin Wilderness Protection Act of 1984(PL 98-603), the Wilderness Act of 1964 (PL88-577), and BLM Wilderness ManagementRegulations (43 CFR 6300 and 8560).

The Bisti/De-na-zin WA contains threepreviously designated ACECs: Badlands, LogJam, and Lost Pine. These areas are requiredto be managed under the non-impairmentstandards of the Wilderness Act. Existingmanagement plans prepared for both the Bistiand De-na-zin WAs are proposed to bereplaced by one updated management planthat includes the newly acquired acreage.

The Ah-shi-sle-pah WSA will be managedunder the Interim Management Policy andGuidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Reviewuntil the area is either added to the NationalWilderness Preservation System by Congress orremoved from further consideration (BLM1995c). The purpose of BLM’s InterimManagement Policy is to protect existingwilderness values, manage valid existing rightsand grandfathered activities until finalwilderness suitability determinations have beenmade. If designated wilderness, the area will bemanaged under the enabling legislation, theWilderness Act of 1964, and BLM WildernessManagement Regulations (43 CFR 6300 and8560). If released from further wildernessconsideration, the area will be managed under


2-15

the principles prescribed in the appropriate landuse plan for the FFO.

The New Mexico Wilderness Study Report(BLM 1991b) recognized the outstandingwilderness values found in the Ah-shi-sle-pahWSA. However, the report did not recommendthe WSA for wilderness designation due to theknown coal reserves, the existence of PRLAs on90 percent of the WSA acreage, the anticipatedlikelihood of future mineral development, andthe potential transfer of 3,094 acres in the WSAto the Navajo Tribe. Currently, no change inland ownership or surface disturbing activityhas occurred in the area. However, the WSAwould be difficult to manage as wildernessshould the above conditions be realized.

In the AFO, five WSAs lie either wholly orpartially within the planning area. Theseinclude Cabezon, Empedrado, Ignacio Chavez,Chamisa, and La Lena WSAs, with a combinedacreage of 70,475 acres. They have beenclosed to mineral leasing since 1982, but thereare pre-existing leases that were issued beforethen (BLM 1991b).

ForestryThe objective of the forestry program is to

manage woodlands and timber stands for theproduction of forest products to supportmultiple uses and sustained yields. Multipleuses include recreation, timber sales, andharvesting of fuelwood. Timber sales are notactive in the FFO area. Restoration projectsfocus on improving the 7,400 acres ofponderosa pine through cutting or burning theencroaching piñon and juniper. The MaterialDisposal Act of 1947, as amended, establishesthe authority under which the BLM disposes oftimber and other forest products.

Fire ManagementThe objective of the FFO fire program is to

manage and use fire consistent with its naturalrole in the functioning ecosystem, and theprotection of life and property.

The Farmington Interagency Fire Programoperates with the cooperation of the FFO andthe Jicarilla Ranger District. The program

guidance is documented in the 2001Farmington Field Office Fire Management Plan(BLM 2001a), which addresses all fuelsmanagement guidance and provides the basisfor decisions regarding evaluation and responseto wildfires. The plan adheres to the FederalWildland Fire Policy (updated in 2000) andBLM Policy 92-13-1.

All fire management activities must alsocomply with other federal regulations onwilderness management, T&E speciesprotection, cultural and historic preservation,and air and water quality standards andguidance. During reclamation after a fire, aweed management plan is required.

Lightning causes the majority of wildfires inthe FFO area, with fires caused by people,either accidentally or intentionally, as the nextmajor source. The increasing population in thetri-cities area has resulted in an increase in firesin the wildland/urban interface area. Fuelloadings in the urban areas are often moderate,with an occasional area of heavy fuel loadings.With the existing fuel loadings, a wind-drivenfire in these areas under dry conditions couldthreaten structures. Areas containing high fuelloadings, such as cottonwood trees, willows,saltcedar, and alkali sacaton, are usuallylocated on private land. There have been noknown fires in either of the WAs during the past10 years due to the predominance of badlandswith little vegetation and scattered stands ofsagebrush and grass.

The FFO has agreed to suppress fires onapproximately 1.5 million acres of public land,300,000 acres on USFS land, and, under theJoint Powers Agreement, on another 700,000acres of private, state, and Indian lands wherefires may occur and pose a threat to the publicland.

RangelandThe objective of the rangeland program is

to promote healthy sustainable rangelandecosystems; to accelerate restoration andimprovement of public rangeland to properlyfunctioning condition; to promote the orderlyuse, improvement, and development of the


2-16

public lands; to efficiently and effectivelyadminister domestic livestock grazing; and toprovide for the sustainability of the westernlivestock industry and communities that aredependent upon productive, healthy publicrangelands. The program cares for and isworking toward improving the overall health ofall public lands within the BLM’s responsibility.

The livestock grazing program is authorizedprincipally by FLPMA, the Taylor Grazing Actof 1937, and the Public RangelandsImprovement Act of 1978. When grazingallotments are planned for disposal, the BLM isrequired to provide notification to permitteestwo years in advance.

Three major parts of the program aregrazing administration, resource inventory andmonitoring, and range improvement. Grazingadministration consists of issuing andsupervising permits and leases that authorizelivestock grazing. Related tasks includedetecting and abating unauthorized use andsupervising allotments. Analyses of resourcemonitoring and inventory information is used toevaluate and adjust grazing use. Rangeimprovement helps enhance rangelandresource conditions for a variety of uses,including domestic livestock and wildlife forageand watershed protection. Public rangeland willbe managed to meet the Standards for PublicLand Health (BLM 2000a). If the Standards arenot met, the Livestock Grazing Managementguidelines offer tools to guide the FFO toimprove those areas not meeting the Standards.

Guidelines are reasonable and practicalmanagement options, which when applied,move rangelands toward the statewidestandards. The guidelines are developed forpublic land livestock grazing, not for unsuitableland or land where livestock grazing does notoccur. They are based on science, past andpresent management experience, and publicinput. These guidelines will be used to developgrazing management practices that will beimplemented at the watershed, allotment, orpasture level.

Specific application of these guidelines, orLivestock Grazing Management Practices, occur

at the field office level, in consultation,cooperation, and coordination with lessees,permittees, interested public, and landowners.Their implementation is carried out withrecognition for the impact that BLM’smanagement objectives have on adjacentlandowners.

Guidelines are designed to encourageinnovation and experimentation in thedevelopment of alternative livestock grazingmanagement practices. They improverangeland health and consider the naturalmigration patterns of wildlife. The goals of theLivestock Grazing Management Practices aresummarized below.

• Promote native plant health, soilstability, microorganisms, water quality,stream channel morphology, functionand habitat for native wildlife includingthreatened and endangered and specialstatus species.

• Provide the basic requirements ofrangeland ecological sites, includingallowing for plant recovery and growth;allowing residual vegetation on uplandand riparian sites to protect the soilfrom wind and water erosion, improveinfiltration, and improve soil permeabil-ity; and improve or restore riparian-wetland functions.

• Use livestock to integrate organic matterinto the soil, distribute seeds andestablish seedings, prune vegetation tostimulate growth, and enhance waterinfiltration into the soil.

• Allow for flexibility in season, duration,frequency, and intensity of use.

• Consider climate topography, vegeta-tion, wildlife, kind and class of livestock.

• Give priority to rangeland improve-ments and land treatments that offer thebest opportunity for achieving standardsof rangeland health.

• Incorporate the use of other landmanagement practices where needed toachieve the desired plant community,


2-17

including, but not limited to prescribedfire, and biological, mechanical, andchemical land treatments.

• Use non-native plant species only inthose situations where native speciesare not readily available or areincapable of maintaining or achievingproperly functioning conditions andbiological health.

Cultural ResourcesThe BLM’s Cultural Resource Management

Program is a comprehensive system foridentifying, planning the appropriate use of,and managing cultural resources on publiclands within areas of BLM responsibility. Theprogram objectives are as follows:

• Respond in a legally and professionallyadequate manner to (1) the statutoryauthorities concerning historic preserva-tion and cultural resource protection,and (2) the principles of multiple use.

• Recognize the potential public andscientific uses of, and the valuesattributed to, cultural resources on thepublic lands, and manage the lands andcultural resources so that these uses andvalues are not diminished, but ratherare maintained and enhanced.

• Contribute to land use planning and themultiple use management of the publiclands in ways that make optimum useof the thousands of years of land usehistory inherent in cultural resourceinformation, and that safeguardopportunities for attaining appropriateuses of cultural resources.

• Protect and preserve in placerepresentative examples of the full arrayof cultural resources on public lands forthe benefit of scientific and public useby present and future generations.

• Ensure that proposed land uses,initiated or authorized by BLM, avoidinadvertent damage to federal andnon-federal cultural resources.

These program objectives are carried outthrough two program components: protectionand utilization. The protection component isconcerned with safeguarding and maintainingcultural resources for the public. Included areproactive management activities such asphysical protection, preservation, and interpre-tation of cultural resources along with publiceducation. The protection component is alsoconcerned with support to other activities sothat the management and development ofpublic lands can proceed in accordance withlegal and regulatory requirements. Theutilization component is concerned withscientific research and collection management.

Specific legal requirements, which the BLMand other federal agency cultural resourcemanagement programs operate under to meetthe program objectives, include:

• American Antiquities Act of 1906 (PL59-209; 34 Stat. 225; 16 USC 432,433). The act is implemented byuniform regulations at 43 CFR Part 3.

• Recreation and Public Purposes Act of1926 (PL 69-386; 44 Stat. 741; 43 USC869). See 43 CFR Subpart 2741 andManual Section 2740.

• Historic Sites Act of 1935 (PL 74-292;49 Stat. 666; 16 USC 467-467).Regulations implementing theLandmarks program are at 36 CFR Part65.

• Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, asamended by Archaeological and His-toric Preservation Act of 1974 (PL 86-523; 74 Stat. 220, 221; 16 USC 469,PL 93-291; 88 Stat. 174; 16 USC 469).

• National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA) of 1966 (PL 89-665; 80 Stat.915; 16 USC 470 et seq.), as amended.Section 106 of the act is implementedby regulations of the Advisory Councilon Historic Preservation (ACHP), 36CFR Part 800.

• National Environmental Policy Act of1969 (PL 91-190; 83 Stat. 852; 42 USC4321). The act is implemented by


2-18

regulations of the Council onEnvironmental Quality, 40 CFR 1500-1508.

• Archaeological and Historic Preserva-tion Act of 1974 (PL 86-523; 16 USC469-469c).

• Federal Land Policy and ManagementAct of 1976 (PL 94-579; 90 Stat. 2743;43 USC 1701; “FLPMA”).

• American Indian Religious Freedom Actof 1978 (PL 95-431; 92 Stat. 469; 42USC 1996).

• Archaeological Resources ProtectionAct of 1979 (PL 96-95; 93 Stat. 721; 16USC 47Oaa et seq.) as amended (PL100-555; PL 100-588). It isimplemented by uniform regulationsand departmental regulations, both in43 CFR Part 7.

• Native American Graves Protection andRepatriation Act of 1990 (PL 101-601;104 Stat. 3048; 25 USC 3001). TheSecretary of the Interior’s implementingregulations are in 43 CFR Part 10.

• EO 11593 (“Protection andEnhancement of the CulturalEnvironment,” 36 FR 8921, May 13,1971).

• EO 13007 (“Protection of ReligiousPractices and Sacred Sites” [1996]).

• 36 CFR 60—National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP) (1981).

• 36 CFR 63—Determinations ofEligibility for Inclusion in the NRHP.

• 36 CFR 79—Curation of FederallyOwned and Administered Archaeologi-cal Collections.

• Guidelines for Federal AgencyResponsibilities, Under Section 110 ofthe NHPA.

• The Secretary of the Interior’sProfessional Qualifications Standards(48 FR 44716, September 29, 1983).

• The Secretary of the Interior’sStandards for the Treatment of HistoricProperties, 1995.

In addition, the Farmington andAlbuquerque Field Offices manage specificChacoan outliers, as directed, in:

• New Mexico Wilderness Act of 1980(PL 96-550; Title V; “Chaco CultureNational Historic Park”; Sec. 501-508.

• Chacoan Outliers Protection Act of1995 (PL 104-11).

The BLM cultural program operates undera national programmatic agreement with theACHP and State Historic Preservation Officers.As part of the agreement, a Preservation Boardwas established. Implementation of theagreement in New Mexico is through a protocolagreement with the State Historic PreservationOffice (SHPO). Relevant documents include:

• Programmatic Agreement among theBLM, the ACHP, and the NationalConference of State HistoricPreservation Officers regarding themanner in which BLM will meet itsresponsibilities under the NHPA (1997).

• BLM Charter for the Preservation Board(1997).

• Protocol Agreement between NewMexico BLM and New Mexico StateHistoric Preservation Officer (1998).

Program guidance for the BLM culturalresources program is found in theseWashington Office released manuals:

• 8100 Manual—Cultural ResourceManagement.

• 8110 Manual—Identifying CulturalResources.

• 8120 Manual—Protecting CulturalResources.

• 8130 Manual—Utilizing CulturalResources for Public Benefit.

• 8160 Manual—Native AmericanCoordination and Consultation.

Specific BLM cultural resource programguidance for the public lands under the


2-19

responsibility of the New Mexico State Office isprovided in the Handbook H-8100-1,Procedures for Performing Cultural ResourcesField Work on Public Lands in the Area of NewMexico State BLM Responsibility (2002).

InventoryPublic lands administered by the BLM are

inventoried for cultural resources whileimplementing both program components. Forexample, as part of the proactive culturalresources program, areas may be inventoriedwhile implementing a cultural resourcemanagement plan, or to investigate areaswhere data is lacking and to identify at-riskcultural resources. Lands are inventoried tomeet the legal requirements of taking intoaccount the effect of a federal undertaking oncultural resources. All inventories and siterecording are conducted under the guidanceand standards found in Handbook H-8100-1.

The Albuquerque and Farmington FieldOffices each maintain copies of the investigativerecords prepared for cultural resourcesassociated with federal undertakings that theyhave responsibility, and this contributes to theutilization component of the program. Thisinformation, coupled with base maps showingthe location of recorded sites and inventoriedareas, is used to guide agency decisionsregarding appropriate utilization of theresources. The BLM also contributes to themaintenance of an archaeological computerdata base sponsored by the ArchaeologicalRecords Management Section of the NewMexico Historic Preservation Division. Sitesrecorded on public lands make up a majority ofthe sites on record at the Laboratory ofAnthropology, and contribute significantly tothe historical and scientific research beingconducted throughout New Mexico.

PlanningCultural resources can be identified as

ACECs or SMAs in RMPs or amendments. Inthe Farmington RMP (BLM 1988), 41 areaswere designated as ACECs or SMAs, one ofwhich has since been deleted. The CulturalResource Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern RMP Amendment (BLM 1998b)designated 44 ACECs, two of which had beenpreviously designated as SMAs in the earlierRMP.

The primary purpose of ACEC and SMAdesignation of cultural resources is to providespecial management attention to protect andprevent irreparable damage to importanthistoric and cultural values. Specialmanagement prescriptions affect the kinds ofdiscretionary and non-discretionary actions atACECs or SMAs. Management objectives forthe existing ACECs or SMAs are predominantlyprotection and preservation of the culturalvalues, with some areas identified for protectionof both the cultural and recreational values.

Special Designations

National Register of Historic PlacesThe NRHP is the nation’s official list of

properties (districts, sites, buildings, structures,and objects) that are significant in Americanhistory, architecture, archaeology, engineering,and culture.

NRHP properties in the planning area areprehistoric, proto-historic, and historic,representing a variety of cultural groupsoccupying the San Juan Basin and adjacentareas. Prehistoric and proto-historic propertieswithin the planning area that are currently listedon the NRHP are under a variety of ownershipand management jurisdictions. Culturesrepresented on the list include Archaic, Anasazi,and Navajo. The NRHP properties dating post-1800 are primarily within towns, not on publicland.

State of New Mexico Register of HistoricPlaces

The New Mexico Historic PreservationDivision maintains a list of cultural resourcesthat meet guidelines as being important to theprehistory and history of the state. All of thesites on the NRHP are also listed on the StateRegister of Historic Places (SRHP). Five BLMChaco protection sites are listed on the SRHPbut are not yet listed on the NRHP.


2-20

Chaco Culture Archaeological ProtectionSites

Public Law 96-550, Title V Chaco CultureNational Historical Park, Section 501-508 ofthe New Mexico Wilderness Act of 1980designated 33 Chacoan outliers as ChacoCulture Archaeological Protection Sites(Protection Sites) and Chaco Canyon NationalMonument as Chaco Culture National HistoricPark. The purpose of the title was “to recognizethe unique archaeological resources associatedwith the prehistoric Chacoan culture in the SanJuan Basin; to provide for the preservation andinterpretation of these resources; and tofacilitate research activities associated withthese resources [Sec. 501(b)].” Four BLM siteswere included. The BLM was also directed tomonitor three privately owned sites and seek acooperative arrangement with the owners. Theremaining sites were on Indian allotted, NavajoReservation and fee, and Ute Mountain Utelands. In 1991, five Navajo fee Protection Siteswere transferred to the BLM through a landexchange and one was acquired by the BLMthrough a combination exchange/purchase.

The need to amend PL 96-550, to addadditional Protection Sites, adjust boundaries ofexisting Protection Sites and to delete SquawSprings at the request of the Ute MountainUtes, was identified. As a result, the ChacoanOutliers Protection Act of 1995 (PL 104-11)deleted two and added eight new ProtectionSites including three on BLM land.

World Heritage ListNatural and cultural resources throughout

the world that are of international importancemay be designated as World Heritage Sites byinclusion on the World Heritage Listmaintained by United Nations Educational,Scientific, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO). Five BLM Chacoan outliersdesignated as Chaco Culture ArchaeologicalProtection Sites in 1980 were included withChaco Canyon as a World Heritage Site in1987.

Protection and UtilizationThe objectives of the BLM cultural resource

management program protection component“are aimed towards protecting the significanceof cultural resources by ensuring that they aremanaged in a manner suited to thecharacteristics, attributes, and uses thatcontribute to their public importance; towardsgiving adequate consideration to the effects ofBLM land use decisions on cultural properties;towards meeting legal and regulatoryobligations through a system of compliancefitted to BLM’s management system, andtowards ensuring that the cultural resources onpublic land are safeguarded from improper useand responsibly maintained in the publicinterest” (BLM Manual 8120 – ProtectingCultural Resources). The major emphasis of theBLM’s cultural resource management programobjectives involves the protection, preservation,and enhancement of the cultural resources forpresent and future generations. Bothadministrative and physical measures areundertaken to ensure these objectives are met.Special designation administrative measuresmay include determination of eligibility forlisting on the NRHP and/or UNESCO WorldHeritage List, designation as ACECs, ordesignation as a National Historic Landmark.Cultural resources may also be considered forspecial designation through Public Law (e.g.,Chaco outliers). Other administrative measuresinclude limiting multiple use activities that mayimpact cultural resources. Some of themeasures which may be taken are mineralwithdrawals, road closures, closing to grazing,closing or restricting specific uses to previouslydisturbed areas, OHV designations and publiceducation. Physical protection measures consistof activities such as stabilization, monitoring ofsite condition, patrol and surveillanceprograms, signing, and fencing.

The emphasis of site protection activitieshas been on the identification and proactivemanagement of a wide variety of site types.Many of these sites have been designated asACECs and SMAs. A major focus of theprotection program has been implementation of


2-21

PL 96-550 and PL 104-11. Both administrativeand physical protection measures have beenundertaken to ensure the long-termpreservation of the Chacoan outliers designatedas Chaco Culture Archaeological Sites in theselaws. In addition to the Chacoan outliers, otherAnasazi sites, early Navajo, and historic sitesare being actively protected.

A stabilization program was established inthe mid-1970s and remains an active program.Since then the architecture of 24 Navajopueblitos and six Chacoan outliers has beendocumented and stabilized, includingemergency stabilization at one historichomestead site. An active Site StewardProgram is an important aspect of the FFO siteprotection program. The Site Protection ActionList – Farmington Field Office was prepared toidentify and establish specific managementprescriptions to protect at-risk cultural sites.Specifically, the plan established a SiteProtection Plan, identified management actionsto protect site integrity from visitor use anddeficiency in survey coverage, and assessedstabilization needs of the ACECs or SMAs.Cultural inventory (survey) to identify at-riskand other cultural sites is part of the culturalresource program responsibility under Section110 of the NHPA, as amended, and toimplement management prescriptions identifiedduring ACEC and SMA designation. Theseinventories are considered part of theprogram’s proactive protection componentrather than inventories required to meet Section106 requirements.

The objectives of the BLM cultural resourceprogram’s utilization component “are tofacilitate appropriate scientific use of culturalproperties on public lands; to ensure thatcollections of archaeological materials removedfrom public lands and records relating to themare maintained in qualified public repositoriesas U.S. property and are used for appropriateresearch or educational purposes; and toensure that the public receives tangible benefitsfrom all uses of public land cultural resources”(BLM 8130 ManualUtilizing CulturalResources for Public Benefit). Use Category

Designations are an assessment by BLM of theappropriate use that a cultural property may besubjected to and is a mechanism for assistingmanagement in making decisions about landuse. Use categories include scientific use,conservation for future use, traditional use,public use, experimental use, and dischargefrom management.

Currently within the FFO, no sites arespecifically allocated for experimental use or fordischarge from management. Sites that may notbe eligible for the NRHP, a significantbenchmark for evaluating significance andguiding management decisions, are oftendisturbed or destroyed during construction.Those that are not destroyed are not otherwiseactively managed, but they are not formallydischarged from management. Within the FFO,approximately 20 percent or less of the sitesdocumented in any given year are notconsidered significant.

Three sites have been specifically allocatedfor traditional use: Cho’li’i, Huerfano Mesa, andSalt Point. All three are also speciallydesignated as ACECs or SMAs. Numerous sitesand landscape features are known or suspectedto have traditional use, but they have not beenspecially allocated for such. Sites allocated forpublic use include one Chacoan outlier, eightNavajo pueblitos, one Navajo rock art site, fourhistoric homesteading era sites, and one home-steading era schoolhouse. Fifteen Chacoanoutlier sites and three Chaco road sites areallocated for conservation for future use. Thesesites are currently designated as ACECs orSMAs. The remainder of the sites (more than8,000) is allocated for scientific use.

When use warrants, the BLM issues permitsto appropriate, qualified non-federal applicantsfor survey and recording, and for excavationand/or removal. In addition permits may begranted for limited testing and/or removal.Within the FFO the majority of the permits areissued to meet Section 106 compliance and areassociated with oil and gas field developmentand transportation.


2-22

ComplianceOne of the objectives of the protection

component of the cultural resources programinvolves compliance with numerous federallegal and regulatory obligations. Taking intoaccount the effect of federal undertakings(actions or authorizations) on cultural resourcesis mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA of1966, as amended. Section 106 of the act isimplemented by regulations of the ACHP, 36CFR Part 800.

The New Mexico BLM cultural resourceprogram operates under the provisions of a1997 National Programmatic Agreementamong the BLM, the ACHP, and the NationalConference of State Historic PreservationOfficers, and a 1998 Protocol Agreementbetween New Mexico BLM and New MexicoState Historic Preservation Officer. Theseagreements recognize the cultural resourcesexpertise that BLM has in its professional staffand as a result, have significantly streamlinedthe manner in which the BLM meets itsresponsibilities under the NHPA, and hasreduced the often time consuming project byproject consultation that had been historicallyrequired in compliance with Section 106.Although these agreement documents havegreatly streamlined the BLM interaction withSHPO and the ACHP, the BLM still hassignificant and ongoing consultation obligationsand responsibilities with Native American tribes,local and state governments, other federalagencies, and interested groups andindividuals.

Much of the workload of the culturalresource staff involves ensuring that federalundertakings associated with but not limited tooil and gas development, extraction andtransportation are in compliance with Section106 and other applicable preservation laws andregulations. Over 1,000 undertakings arereviewed each year, ranging from a single wellpad to major pipeline gathering systems. TheBLM’s policy has been to prevent impacts byplanning the undertaking to avoid culturalresources, however since the “boom” ofFruitland coal gas development in the early

1990s avoidance has not always been possibleor recommended due to other constraints. Ifimpacts to the cultural resources cannot beavoided, mitigation of the effect is conductedprior to approval of the undertaking or requiredas a stipulation on the approval. A wide rangeof measures is used to avoid or mitigateimpacts on cultural resources. Measurescommonly used include project relocation orredesign, fencing and barriers, monitoring ofconstruction activities and site condition, anddata recovery. Most protective measures areattached to the undertaking (APD, ROW, etc.)as stipulations (COAs).

Program Direction

Protection and PreservationCultural resources are a finite, non-

renewable resource, which require protectionand preservation to ensure their existence forfuture generations to learn from and appreciate.These resources are the cultural heritage of allAmericans and warrant pro-activemanagement. The major protection andpreservation measure has been the designationof cultural resources as ACECs and SMAs.Management prescriptions have beenimplemented through several programsincluding patrol and surveillance, monitoring,and stabilization. The patrol and surveillanceprogram has been expanded through the use ofvolunteer Site Stewards who also serve aseducational points of contact with visitors in thefields. The involvement of the public in themanagement of cultural resources is anemphasis of the cultural program and willcontinue. Also emphasized is the role of lawenforcement in the protection of culturalresources. A stabilization program was begun inthe mid-1970s that provides for long-termpreservation of significant standing architecture.Stabilization of 24 pueblitos and six Chacoanoutliers has been conducted. Stabilization ofother prehistoric and historic sites andmaintenance of previously stabilized sites willcontinue. Prior to stabilization the structures arerecorded through Historic American Building


2-23

Survey (HABS) or other detailed methods ofdocumentation.

Public UseSeveral objectives of the BLM Cultural

Resources Management Program areconcerned with the management of culturalresources for public use by present and futuregenerations. A variety of public uses arepossible. The most visible public use isrecreational and educational site visitation. TheAmerican public along with others are keenlyinterested in both the prehistory and history ofthe San Juan Basin. Visitation to BLMadministered sites continues to increase eachyear. Eight pueblitos, one petroglyph site andone Chacoan outlier have been prepared forrecreational public visitation in the FFO. A largeformat interpretive brochure and map has beenprepared to direct the public to the pueblitosand petroglyph site. Management prescriptionsfor four homesteads and a school houseidentified as ACECs in 1998 include preparingof the sites for public visitation andinterpretation. Actions proposed to beundertaken as part of the preparation of thesesites for public visitation will include gatheringof information on the historic occupation of theupper Largo Canyon area with an emphasis onthe ACECs and the associated community. Inaddition to researching the history of humanoccupation of the ACECs, HABSdocumentation of the structures will beconducted followed by stabilization. Visitorfacilities such as parking areas and trails will beconstructed along with signing of the sites andpreparation of interpretive brochures. OtherACECs or SMAs and possibly additional sitesmay be identified and prepared for futurevisitor use.

ResearchThe most obvious cultural resources

managed by the BLM are the physical remainsof past human occupation, such as artifacts,hearths, trails and roads, structures, and rockart. In addition to physical remains the BLM isresponsible for the management of areas oftraditional and sacred use by Native Americans.

When appropriate to the utilization designationsof the resource, the BLM encourages research.Such research may include broad surveys,photographic documentation and analysis,collections of artifact specimens, and in somecases excavation. Other research methods, suchas the collection of oral histories, may also benecessary to preserve information that isseldom reflected or recognizable in thearchaeological record.

Additional research is needed to helpanswer questions necessary for thedevelopment of best management practices andvisitor uses. Areas of research concern vary;however, the Fruitland Coal Gas DataRecovery Project research design identifiedmany of the basic archaeological concerns forprehistoric and protohistoric sites. Otherresearch concerns for archaeological valuesinclude understanding the function of theChacoan system, pueblito and historic sitesarchitecture, the nature and function of rock art,and site preservation methods.

Tribal ConsultationResponsibilities

The BLM, USFS, and USBR all work incooperation with the Native American tribesand the BIA to coordinate and consult beforemaking decisions or approving actions thatcould result in changes in land use, physicalchanges to lands or resources, changes inaccess, or alienation of lands. FLPMA requirescoordination with tribes in preparing andmaintaining inventories of the public lands anddetermining their various resource and othervalues; in developing and maintaining long-range plans providing for the use of the publiclands; and in managing the public lands.Federal programs are required to be carried outin a manner sensitive to Native Americanconcerns and tribal government planning andresource management programs.

PaleontologyPaleontological resources are managed on

public lands because they are nonrenewableresources of value to scientists, educators,


2-24

hobbyists, commercial collectors, and othermembers of the public. Without protection, theresources may be intentionally orunintentionally damaged or destroyed, causingvaluable information to be lost. Paleontologicalresource protection objectives includefacilitating research and collection on publiclands, use for education and recreation,protecting scientifically valuable resources thatmay be in conflict with other land and resourceuses, and protecting scientifically valuablefossils, as required by law.

The paleontology program achieves theseobjectives through the following activities (BLM1987a):

• Identifying and evaluating paleontologi-cal resources so they may beadequately addressed in planning andenvironmental analysis documents.

• Maintaining and conducting an effectiveand continuing protection program.

• Increasing the awareness of federal landmanagers and the public regarding thesignificance of paleontological resourcesand management requirements, andencouraging public participation inresource management.

• Developing volunteer or cooperativemanagement agreements and associa-tions with individuals, professionalpaleontologists, local organizations andgovernments, and the scientificcommunity.

• Avoiding or mitigating impacts to valu-able paleontological resources.

• Avoiding publicizing the exact locationsof scientifically significant paleontologi-cal resources if such attention wouldconflict with management objectives.

• Managing and issuing collection permitswhen appropriate.

RecreationThe objective of the FFO outdoor

recreation program is to ensure the continuedavailability of public land for a diverse array ofquality resource-dependent outdoor recreation

opportunities. Recreation use is managed toprotect the health and safety of visitors; toprotect natural, cultural, and other resourcevalues; to stimulate enjoyment of public lands;and to resolve user conflicts. Visitor demandsand new recreation uses and opportunities willcontinue to influence how and whatrecreational opportunities are provided in theFFO area.

FLPMA provides for management ofoutdoor recreation on public lands. Section202(c)(9) calls for land use planning consistentwith statewide outdoor recreation plans. Othernational laws that govern recreationmanagement in the FFO area include theNational Trails System Act of 1968, asamended; the Land and Water ConservationFund Act of 1964, as amended; the R&PP Act,as amended; and the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Most public lands are managed to maintaina freedom of recreational choice with aminimum of regulatory constraints. Few BLMrecreational facilities or supervisory efforts existon these lands, which are sometimes referred toas Extensive Recreation Management Areas.

Where the nature of the resource attractsintensive recreational use, public lands may bemanaged as a SRMA. These are areas wherethe BLM makes major investments inrecreational facilities and visitor assistance.Specific management direction in a SRMA isformulated by the BLM to provide for resourceprotection and public health, safety, andenjoyment.

Developed RecreationDeveloped sites and areas are places that

contain structures or capital improvementsprimarily used by the public for recreationpurposes. These sites may include such thingsas delineated spaces for parking, camping, orboat launching; sanitary facilities; potablewater, grills or fire rings; tables; or controlledaccess.

Detailed management direction is providedthrough Recreation Area Management Plans forSimon Canyon Recreation Area and ACEC, theDunes Vehicle Recreation Area, and the Glade


2-25

Run Trail System (GRTS) Recreation Area. TheFarmington RMP (BLM 1988) provides generalmanagement direction for Angel PeakRecreation Area and ACEC and Head CanyonOHV Competition Area.

Dispersed RecreationCurrent management direction for

dispersed recreation opportunities is providedfor in the CFR (Title 43, Part 8300) and BLMmanuals. The Farmington RMP providesgeneral management direction for ThomasCanyon SMA, Carracas Mesa SMA, and NegroCanyon SMA. Detailed direction for primitiveand unconfined types of recreation can befound in management plans for the Bisti andDe-na-zin WAs. The two management planswill be replaced by one updated managementplan, including the additional acreage added tothe WA. Recreation opportunities in the WSAwill be managed under BLM’s InterimWilderness Management Policy and Guidelinesfor Lands Under Wilderness Review.

Recreation Opportunity SystemThe outdoor recreation program uses the

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) as thebasic tool for inventory and management toensure the general public a continued variety ofquality recreational opportunities. Providingopportunities for backcountry recreation andmore developed types of recreation close tomajor urban areas is emphasized. An effort ismade to locate and establish use areas andtrails compatible with social and naturalenvironments in close proximity to heavilypopulated areas.

A broad range of outdoor recreationopportunities such as backpacking, camping,sightseeing, fishing, boating, picnicking,horseback riding, wildlife viewing, OHV use,mountain biking, and motorcycling is providedfor, in an attempt to meet varying public needs.Access is maintained and developed, wherenecessary, to enhance recreation opportunitiesand allow public use. Currently, five recreationSMAs have ROS class management objectivesin the management prescriptions.

Special Recreation PermitsThe FFO issues Special Recreation Permits

(SRP) to authorize certain recreational uses oflands administered by the BLM. Authority toissue SRPs is provided in CFR Title 43, Part8370. Permits are issued for competitive events,commercial events, and educational use.Commercial use is recreational use of publiclands for business or financial gain. Competitiveuse is any formally organized or structured use,event, or activity on public land in which thereare the elements of competition between two ormore contestants, registration of participants,and/or a predetermined course or area isdesignated. Competitive use also includesindividuals contesting an established recordsuch as speed or endurance. Educational use isan academic activity sponsored by anaccredited institution of learning.

The FFO issues permits for a range ofrecreational activities annually. These includecommercial guide services, hunting guides,competitive events (i.e., mountain bike races,OHV rock crawling events, motocross races,equestrian events), special large group events,and educational activities.

The increase in demand for these activitiesinfluences how the BLM plans for futurerecreational needs. It is anticipated thatrecreational activity will continue to grow in theFFO area and that the BLM will strive to meetthe demand.

Off-Highway Vehicle Use43 CFR 8340 provides for OHV use as a

legitimate activity on public land wherever it iscompatible with other resource managementobjectives. OHV designations are admin-istrative, allowing management flexibility inresponse to changes in the environment. Allpublic land is designated as “open,” “limited,”or “closed” to motorized vehicles. Thesedesignations are made in RMPs for public landsin each field office. The designations providefor the following uses:

• Open Area: Areas on public land whereOHVs may be operated, subject to theconditions set forth in 43 CFR 8341


2-26

through 8343. Open designationsgenerally include areas where there areno compelling resource protectionneeds, use conflicts, or public safetyissues that would warrant limiting OHVuse.

• Limited Area: Areas on public landwhere OHVs may be restricted atcertain times, in certain areas, and/or tocertain vehicular use. These restrictionsmay be of any type, including thefollowing categories: number ofvehicles; types of vehicles; time orseason of vehicle use; permitted orlicensed use only; use on maintainedroads and trails; use on designated roadand trails; and other restrictions.Limitations may be used to meetspecific resource management objec-tives, protect resources or public safety.

• Closed Area: Areas on public landwhere OHV use is prohibited. Closuresmay be necessary to protect resources,ensure visitor safety, or reduce useconflicts.

Emergency OHV limitations of use, andclosure of areas and trails to OHV use, canoccur under the authority of 43 CFR 8341.2.However, emergency closures are not OHVdesignations. Emergency closures can be doneon a case-by-case basis to prevent or stopunnecessary degradation of resources oradverse effects to other authorized uses.Emergency closures remain in effect only untilan interim or standard designation can bemade, or until the adverse effects areeliminated and measures to prevent theirrecurrence have been implemented.

OHV use has increased substantially in theFFO over the last decade and is an increasingconcern for all resource programs. The outdoorrecreation program is concerned with providingaccess to recreational areas and opportunitiesin appropriate settings for OHV activitieswithout degrading the intrinsic qualities of thelandscape that are important for a range ofpublic land resource values. BLM is also

concerned with providing adequate access toresources and facilities on federal land.

The FFO has designated 13 OHVManagement Units for 499,040 acres of thefield office. A plan has been developed for oneunit to limit OHV use on 40,960 acres of publicland. SMAs, ACECs, RNAs, WAs, and WSAsalso have OHV use designations. Theremainder of the public lands within the FFO iscurrently designated as “open,” allowing cross-country travel in vehicles. The FFO willcontinue to apply OHV designations in order toprovide for resource protection, access, andrecreational use.

It is difficult to provide one definition ofmotorized wheeled cross-country travel andhave that definition fit all the situations thatmight occur. Roads and trails appear differentlyto individuals because of the variety of terrain,vegetation and soil type found in the FFO.Cross-country travel is wheeled motorizedtravel by any vehicle, recreational or other, offof roads and trails. The following examplesfurther clarify this definition.

Motorized travel is considered cross-countrywhen:

• The passage of motorized vehiclesdepresses undisturbed ground andcrushes vegetation.

• The motorized vehicle maximum width(the distance from the outside of the lefttire to the outside of the right tire ormaximum tire width for motorcycles)does not easily fit the road or trailprofile. However, an all-terrain vehicle(ATV) traveling within a two-track routeestablished by a pickup truck is notconsidered cross-country travel.

• Motorized vehicles use livestock andgame trails, unless the trails are clearlyevident, or continuous single-trackroutes used by motorcycles over aperiod of years.

Motorized travel is not considered cross-country when:


2-27

• Motorized vehicles use constructedroads that are maintained by the oil andgas industry and/or the BLM, unlessspecifically closed to use throughsigning and/or gates. Constructed roadsare often characterized by a road prismwith cut and fill slopes.

• Motorized vehicles use trails specificallydesignated for the vehicle being used.For example, this would include thesingle-track trails within SDAs that aredesigned for motorcycles.

• Motorized vehicles use clearly evidenttwo-track and single-track routes withregular use and continuous passage ofmotorized vehicles over a period ofyears. A route is a track where perennialvegetation is devoid or scarce, or wherewheel tracks are continuous depressionsin the ground, evident to the casualobserver, but are vegetated.

• Travel is within a dry wash or arroyothat is as wide as the motorizedvehicle’s maximum width and there areno other resource concerns such asriparian areas or springs.

The entire route must meet the abovespecifications. Newly created routes should beeasily identified as not meeting thespecifications because many portions would notshow signs of regular and continuous passageof motorized vehicles and many areas wouldstill be fully vegetated with no wheeldepressions. This definition does have someambiguity that will continue to exist until formaldesignation of routes, trails, and areas withinthe OHV Activity Plans is completed. Thisdefinition only applies to cross-country travel inthe dispersed area and not to cross-countrytravel within the SDAs and ACECs. An SDA orACEC may have its own management plan thatdefines cross-country travel within itsboundaries.

Law EnforcementThe FFO Field Office Ranger works closely

with the Field Manager to prioritize actions in

support of resource management objectives.The Field Office Ranger’s responsibilitiesinclude criminal investigations, response topublic complaint, surveillance, and patrols ofsensitive areas. The law enforcement activitiesare conducted in accordance with U.S.Department of the Interior (USDI) and BLMmanuals, regulations, and policies.

The BLM Law Enforcement Program workscooperatively with other agencies in the FourCorners Area including the New Mexico StatePolice, San Juan County Sheriff’s Office,Farmington Police Department, New MexicoDepartment of Game and Fish, DrugEnforcement Administration, Area II NarcoticsEnforcement, Chaco Culture National HistoricPark, and the Civil Air Patrol.

There are seven areas of emphasis for theLaw Enforcement Program in the planningarea:

1. Oil and GasThere are approximately18,000 producing wells within theplanning area. Activity focuses on thesupport of the Petroleum EngineeringTechnicians on the theft of product,vandalism to facilities and equipment,and compliance checks.

2. Cultural ResourcesThere are manysignificant cultural resources in theplanning area that are accessiblethrough the road network. Theft andvandalism of these resources areconstant threats. Support includespatrol, surveillance, and cooperativeinformation sharing on suspectedcriminal activity. FFO’s lawenforcement program is also involved inthe investigation of illegal activities andthe arrest and prosecution of thosecaught doing illegal activities.

3. Paleontological ResourcesWithin theplanning area, there are pockets ofdense, high quality fossil items. Boththe Bisti and De-na-zin WAs werespecifically designed to protect theseresources and provide for orderly,scientific investigations. Support focuses


2-28

on extended patrols of risk areas andrecruiting volunteers to assist inproviding coverage.

4. Controlled SubstancesControlled sub-stance trafficking, production, cultiva-tion, and use occur within the planningarea. Law Enforcement efforts focus onmaintaining visibility to deter illegalsubstance activity on the public lands,while continuing close coordinationwith other law enforcement organiza-tions within the planning area.

5. Vegetation TheftThe illegal cuttingand removal of woodland productscontinues to increase in the planningarea. This activity is seasonal withdemand increasing in the fall. Thecutting and vehicle traffic associatedwith removal damages soil, plants, andwildlife habitats. The theft of plantsfrom the designated SMAs for theKnowlton’s and Mesa Verde cactithreatens these endangered species.Law enforcement efforts focus onprevention through education andpermitting, patrols, and public supportin reporting illegal activity.

6. Employee SafetyResource specialistswork in remote areas, and lawenforcement supports safe operations inisolated areas through direct support,overflight safety checks, and provisionof safety information and equipment.With awareness of any potential threatof interference, the Law EnforcementRanger will accompany resourcespecialists to the field.

7. RecreationThere are numerous andvaried outdoor recreation opportunitiesand activities occurring on the publiclands within the planning area,including rafting, swimming, fishing,hunting, horseback riding, mountainbiking, backpacking, bird watching,rockhounding, vehicle camping, andOHV use. Law enforcement assists therecreating public with information onspecial areas, permitting, opportunities,access, and land status. Support focuseson patrol of developed sites, visitorinformation and education, andcoordination with other agencies duringspecial events.

Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVES

2-29

ALTERNATIVES

This section describes the alternativesconsidered in detail for meeting the purposeand need for the proposed revision to theFarmington RMP. These alternatives wereselected based on the following criteria:

• Provide for maximum practicablerecovery of oil and gas resources in theplanning area.

• Comprehensively address and incorpo-rate previously approved real estate andland management actions in the FFOarea.

• Provide a complete and adequate RMPfor the FFO area.

• Adequately protect sensitive resourcesand the environment.

• Provide a reasonable range ofmanagement options for the FFO.

Application of these criteria resulted in theidentification of three action alternatives fordetailed analysis, in addition to the no actionalternative. Alternatives considered but notcarried forward for detailed analysis arediscussed at the end of the chapter.

OverviewThe alternatives described in this section

define a range of land use managementoptions. Alternative A is no action, in whichmanagement would remain under current RMPdocuments and policies. This alternative isrequired by Council on Environmental Quality(CEQ) regulations and provides a basis ofcomparison for the other alternatives.Alternative B emphasizes maximum recovery ofthe hydrocarbon resources as the primary goal.Alternative C emphasizes conservation,protection, and enhancement of natural andcultural resources through special managementof designated areas. Alternative D balances thetwo goals to achieve maximum practicablerecovery of oil and gas, while also maximizingprotection of the most sensitive environmentalresources.

Each alternative addresses oil and gasleasing and development for BLM, USFS, andUSBR lands in the planning area, andcomprehensive resource management for BLMlands only. The alternatives differ primarily inthe boundaries of some special managementdesignations and in management prescriptions.In general, there are more acres of specialmanagement designations and themanagement prescriptions are more stringentunder Alternative C, compared to AlternativesA, B, and D. The section on Alternative Adescribes current practices. The sections onAlternatives B, C, and D describe changes instipulations, special management designations,management prescriptions, and other actionscompared to Alternative A. The ContinuingManagement Guidance would remain in effectunder all alternatives.

Since the 1988 RMP and later amendmentsfor the FFO area were completed, the BLM hasbeen converting land management informationfrom paper maps into electronic GeographicInformation System (GIS) data. This includesdata such as special management designationboundaries, wells, roads, range allotments, andwatershed boundaries. For each alternative, theGIS data were used to generate the acreage ofeach special management designation, oil andgas lease, and the amount of land affected byconstraints on oil and gas activities. GIS datawere also used to determine the number ofexisting and projected wells within thoseboundaries for each alternative. Thesecalculations differ in some cases from acreageslisted in previous RMP documents due to suchfactors as digitizing error, different projections,or other factors. These differences are identifiedin the Specially Designated Areas section ofAlternative A. For this EIS, the GIS-calculatedacreages were used for analysis and discussionof all alternatives to provide a consistent basisfor comparison.

Each of the alternative descriptions in thefollowing sections address how the alternativewould affect the following:

CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVES Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS

2-30

1. Oil and gas leasing and development.2. Modification of BLM ownership pat-

terns and ROW corridor designations.3. Modification and addition of areas with

special administrative designation.4. OHV designations of open, closed,

limited.5. Identification of additional coal leasing

areas to meet anticipated productionneeds for the next 15 to 20 years.

Most of the limitations on land use wouldbe applied through management prescriptionswithin SDAs or USBR land around NavajoReservoir. The boundaries of many of the SDAsoverlap other areas, with differing managementprescriptions described in these overlappingareas. To determine the acreage under eachmanagement constraint, the most limiting

constraint was applied in overlapping areas andthat acreage was tallied and excluded from theacreage of the less limiting constraint. The totalacreage of public land or federal minerals listedfor the identified constraints under eachalternative does not double-count theoverlapping acreage. Under Alternative D forexample, Cho’li’i (Gobernador Knob) is acultural ACEC with NSO constraints on oil andgas development whose boundary overlapsGobernador and Cereza Canyon Fossil Areathat has CSU constraints. The acreage ofCho’li’i has been added to the total acreage ofNSO constraints under Alternative D, and thisacreage has been subtracted from the acreageof CSU constraints. For this reason, totaling theacreage of each SDA under the same constraintwill not result in the total acreage listed undereach alternative.

Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVE A

2-31

Alternative AUnder this alternative, the FFO would

continue to manage oil and gas leasing andother resource responsibilities as it doescurrently. Management guidance,implementation procedures, and specialmanagement designations would remain asthey currently exist under the 1988 RMP, the1991 Amendment for oil and gas leasing anddevelopment, the 1995 RMP Amendment forOHV use, the 1995 RMP Amendment for OHVuse in the GRTS, the 1998 RMP Amendmentaddressing coal leasing, the 1998 Amendmentfor cultural resources, the 2000 Final EIS forRiparian and Aquatic Habitat Management inthe Farmington Field Office, and the 2000 RMP

Amendment providing standards for public landhealth and guidelines for livestock grazing.

Oil and Gas Leasing andDevelopment

The EIS prepared for the 1991 Oil and GasLeasing and Development Amendmentanalyzed the impacts of 4,512 additional wellsin the planning area to be developed by 2011,with an estimated 28,750 acres of additionalsurface disturbance due to oil and gas activities.All of these wells are projected to be located inthe high development area shown onMap 2-1.

Following is a summary of the acreage offederal minerals in the planning area subject tovarious constraints under this alternative:

Constraint Acreage within HighDevelopment Area

Acreage in Rest ofPlanning Area

TotalAcreage

Leasing

Nondiscretionary Closure 349 110,799 111,148Discretionary Closure 21,545 31,671 53,216

Development

STC 1,380,723 1,356,971 2,737,694CSU 81,322 77,392 158,714NSO 7,769 5,368 13,137TL 173,786 21,380 195,166

Notes: STC = open under Standard Terms and Conditions; CSU = Controlled Surface Use;NSO = No Surface Occupancy; TL = Seasonal Timing Limitation.

Within the high development area, morethan 99 percent of the federal oil and gasresources are currently leased. In areasidentified for discretionary closure in the RMP,the development of existing leases wouldcontinue according to the terms of the lease.The BLM would continue to implement theportions of the lease that require lessees toconduct operations in a manner thatminimizes adverse impacts to other resourcesand other land uses and users.

Geologic changes over time have createdvarious layers of sedimentary rocks and

interspersed reservoirs containinghydrocarbon resources. The resultingformations contain deposits of coal, oil, andgas. There are five primary subsurfacehydrocarbon formations in the planning area:the Fruitland Formation (natural gas, coalbedmethane [CBM], and coal), Pictured Cliffs(gas), Mesaverde (gas and oil), Mancos (oiland gas), and the Dakota Formation (gas, oil,and coal). More information on the geology ofthe planning area is provided in Chapter 3.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

"��#

�$�%

��

��

��

��

�� !�� "� #$$�%�&"'�(��(�� "� #$$�%�)�� $ ��%"!�� *��+��" ��#�",-� �� .�/�"�0!��

��1,2�� )��

��

�%"� �� "��

�&�&��

%��'()*�+��,��$��

��

��

��

��


2-33

The location of a well drilled to a specifiedformation is determined by the well spacingfor that formation. Spacing is regulated by theBLM and the New Mexico Oil ConservationDivision (NMOCD) and is intended tomaximize the economic recovery of theresource while protecting correlative rights. Ifspacing is not defined for a formation in aparticular area, a well must be drilledaccording to statewide rules. The formationsin the New Mexico portion of the San JuanBasin are all spaced at 160 acres, except forthe Dakota, Mesaverde, and Fruitland CBMFormations, which are all spaced at 320 acres.There are provisions for infill wells within aspacing unit if it can be demonstrated that thereservoir will support an increase in welldensity. The Dakota and Mesaverde haveboth been approved by the BLM andNMOCD for infill drilling of up to threeadditional wells per spacing unit. TheFruitland CBM Formation is currentlyundergoing the same consideration for160-acre increased density.

Under this alternative, the number of wellsanalyzed by the EIS prepared for the RMPAmendment for oil and gas development(BLM 1991a) would support approval ofapproximately 223 new APDs per year overthe next 9 years. Once the 17 wells that wouldbe inaccessible due to NSO constraints aresubtracted from the total, this would result in1,990 new wells in the planning area onpublic land over 9 years, with an amendmentto the RMP required at the end of this period.If this rate were continued over the 20-yearterm of this Proposed RMP/Final EIS, it wouldresult in 4,438 potential new wells. For thepurpose of comparing impacts acrossalternatives, impact analysis will consider theeffects of developing 4,421 projected newwells (4,438 less the 17 inaccessible wells dueto NSO constraints). No infill drilling with newsurface disturbance would be permitted if theincreased density was approved after the1991 Amendment, except where it occurs onexisting infrastructure. New oil and gasdevelopment would need to be offset with

reclaimed area to achieve no net increase insurface disturbance.

The mitigation measures listed inAppendix B-9 of the 1991 Amendment (BLM1991a) would remain in effect. Thesemeasures were developed for environmentalprotection in cooperation with representativesfrom industry and state agencies.

A raptor noise policy has been in effectsince February 2000 in which the FFOestablished a buffer zone concept to minimizenoise impacts from wellhead compression.This noise policy was developed to minimizedisturbances to raptor nest sites for goldeneagles, ferruginous hawks, and prairie falconsby providing a reasonable margin around thenest. A buffer zone is defined as an areasurrounding the nest for ⅓ mile on either side,or a circle of ⅔ mile diameter, measured fromthe center of the nest site. Oil and gasoperators must meet a maximum noise levelof 48.6 dBA (A-weighted decibels) at 300 feetfrom the compressor. Otherwise they mustsubmit a Sundry Notice prior to installing acompressor to obtain an evaluation of thesituation and a recommended mitigation thatwould not be more than 48.6 dBA. Noiseassociated with oil and gas development thataffects other resource values and receptors arehandled on a case-by-case basis. Each case ishandled under a collaborative method toarrive at a solution to mitigate the impacts tothe affected resource or receptor.

Oil and gas development on the landaround Navajo Reservoir would continue tobe permitted by the FFO with review andconcurrence from the USBR. In addition tothe stipulations applied by the BLM, USBRstipulations on oil and gas activities includethe following:

• Drilling and well locations would berestricted to more than 1,500 feetfrom Navajo Dam and its appurtenantstructures.

• No wells would be located within 500feet of the high water line on NavajoReservoir (elevation 6,101.5 feet

CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVE A Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS

2-34

above mean sea level [MSL]) so anNSO constraint applies. An NSOconstraint would be applicable alongthe San Juan River.

• Production facilities would not belocated within 650 feet from theshoreline or on the ridgeline above thereservoir. They would be designed tominimize their visibility from the lakeand other public use areas.

• The location of compressors would bereviewed to determine if mitigation isneeded to minimize noise atrecreation use areas and othersensitive locations.

• Co-location of gas well facilities wouldbe encouraged to minimize surfacedisturbance and the duplication offacilities.

• TL constraints would be in effectwithin designated elk and mule deercritical winter range betweenDecember 1 and March 31, andwithin designated elk calving areasbetween December 1 and July 14.

Oil and gas development on USFS land inthe planning area would continue to bepermitted by the FFO with concurrence by theUSFS. Site-specific EAs would continue to be

completed by USFS staff for all wells orgroups of wells within the same drainage, andclearances would be required to ensure nodamage to significant cultural resources, T&Especies, and other resources of concern.Winter closures for drilling and workoveroperations from November 1 to March 31would remain in effect on the Jicarilla RangerDistrict. Development on the Santa FeNational Forest would be implemented underStandard Terms and Conditions.

Land Ownership Adjustments

DisposalUnder this alternative, the land ownership

adjustments identified in the previous RMPand amendments would be carried forward.Exchange, sale, disposal under the R&PP Act,or other legal disposal would be considered ifthe disposal met the criteria listed inChapter 1. These lands include the land southand west of US 550, and approximately 2,640acres of isolated public lands (Appendix F).Table 2-1 shows the amount of land thatwould be available for disposal underAlternative A. Map 2-2 shows the disposalarea under this alternative.

Table 2-1. Land Ownership Adjustments (in Acres) for Alternatives A, B, C and D

Land Adjustment Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Disposal 280,7821 347,5051,2 338,0671,2 340,1181,2,4

Acquisition 127,782 77,589 189,6793,5 178,2375

Notes: (1) Includes BLM lands south of US 550, outside of SDAs.(2) Does not include acreage for parcels with substantial structures that may be identified in the future.(3) Does not include acreage in riparian areas that may be identified for acquisition in the future.(4) Does not include acreage for potential R&PP adjustments identified through scoping.(5) Does not include acreage of BLM lands surrounding SDAs that may be identified for acquisition in the future.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

"��#

�$�%

��

��

��

��

��

��

�!"��#"��$

%&�' �(�)�'*�'��

��+,%-��

+�� '��

��

��'

�&�&��

%��'(')�&*�� +��, "��+�-��.

��

�.�� - ��' ��/�(0�� 12�2�� /�(0��

��

��

��


2-36

AcquisitionInholdings in all the approved SDAs would

remain on the priority list for acquisition. Otherlands that consolidate public ownership orbenefit a resource program could also beacquired, if the acquisition were determined tobe in the public interest. Any lands acquiredwould be managed in the same manner as theadjacent or surrounding public lands. Table 2-1shows the amount of land that would be apriority for acquisition under Alternative A.

OHV UseUnder Alternative A, public land in the FFO

would be open to OHV use as described in the1988 RMP, unless otherwise designated. In1995, an RMP Amendment and EA wereprepared to address management of OHV usein the FFO to protect wildlife habitat (BLM1995b). The resulting Decision Recordidentified 13 OHV Management Unitscomprising a total of 499,040 acres shown inMap 2-3. A plan has been completed for RosaMesa that limits OHV use to designatedmaintained roads and seasonal closures on40,960 acres of public land. Plans would bedeveloped for 12 units that would specifylimitations for the remaining 432,787 acresbased on resource needs and public use.Development of plans would involveenvironmental review and public input. Untilthen, these areas would continue to be open toOHV use.

Also in 1995, BLM prepared the ProposedGRTS Off-Highway Vehicle RMP Amendmentand EA. The resulting 1996 Decision Recordlimited OHV use to designated routes onapproximately 22,800 acres and 4,600 acresunder open designation within the GRTS. A1998 RMP Amendment for 44 new culturalACECs specified OHV managementprescriptions. (Note that some plans specifiedprescriptions for Off-Road Vehicles, or “ORVs.”For consistency in terminology, the FFO isusing OHV in future plans or revisions to referto any motorized or mechanized vehicle. Thisterm will supercede and incorporate anypreviously approved and continuing guidancefor vehicles). Table 2-2 summarizes open,closed, and limited designation for all publicland within the FFO for this alternative. Allexisting and proposed SMAs and ACECs havespecific OHV designations (see section onSpecially Designated Areas below). Table 2-3lists several activities that may involve cross-country travel and issues related to cross-countytravel. For Alternative A, access and cross-country travel would be allowed unlessspecifically prohibited. OHV designations andmanagement would only apply to BLM surface-owned lands. For lands acquired in the future,the OHV management prescription wouldgenerally be the same as the surrounding unitor the SDA.

Table 2-2. Comparison of OHV Designations (in Acres) in the FFO by Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative DDesignation

BL M1 BL M1 BL M1 BL M1

Open 1,230,839 4,6162 4,616 4,6162

Limited 122,063 1,352,931 1,352,117 1,353,301

Closed 62,384 57,739 58,553 57,369

Total 1,415,286 1,415,286 1,415,286 1,415,286Notes: (1) Existing public (BLM surface-owned) land.

(2) Acreage under open designation does not include additional acreage to be considered for opendesignations under Alternatives B and D during future activity planning. Open acreage couldbe as much as 99,003 in Alternative B and 65,806 in Alternative D as shown in Table 2-10.

��

��

��

��

Bloomfield

Nageezi

��550

��57

��64

Rio ArribaSandoval

Far

min

gto

n F

OA

lbu

qu

erq

ue

FO

Aztec

Farmington

��371

San Juan

6

1

3

2

8

4

12

13

511

10

7

9

�Map 2-3: Existing OHV

Management Units in the FFO Area

Source: BLM FFO

6 0 63

Scale in Miles

UT CO

AZ NM

San Juan Rio Arriba

McKinley

Sandoval

Area Shown

OHV Management Unit*

BLM Field Office Boundary

Carson National Forest

County Boundary

Navajo Reservoir

Municipal Area

Chaco Culture NHP

6

*Individual OHV units are delineated with unique numbers and shade patterns

��

1831089641

Major Road

��

Interstate Highway

U.S. Route

State Highway

�� TownLEGEND

��


2-38

Table 2-3. Summary of Dispersed Area OHV Cross-Country Issues and Exceptions

Issue Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Cross-CountryTravel

Majority of theFFO open to cross-country travel.

Permitted in SDAswithin OHVManagement Units.

Not allowed. Same asAlternative B.

Emergency Use Allowed. Same asAlternative A.

Same asAlternative A.


Administrative Use Allowed. Allowed unlessspecificallyprohibited.

Not allowedunless specificallyauthorized.

Same asAlternative B.

Lease and PermitHolders

Allowed. Allowed unlessspecificallyprohibited.

Not allowedunless specificallyauthorized.

Same asAlternative C.

In Proximity toResidences

Allowed. Allowed unlessspecificallyprohibited.

Not allowedwithin ½ mile ofany residenceunless on amaintained roador a designatedtrail or route.

Same asAlternative C.

Wetlands andRiparian Areas

Complete limitedORV designationplan to restrictvehicles todesignated roads.

Prohibited. Travellimited tomaintained roads.



Exceptions for OHV Cross-Country Travel

Camping Allowed. Allowed within300 feet of roadsby the most directroute.

Allowed within50 feet of roadsby the most directroute.


Dry Washes Allowed unlessspecificallyprohibited.

Allowed unlessspecificallyprohibited forprotection of otherresources.

Prohibited unlessspecificallydesignated.


Game Retrieval Allowed unlessspecificallyprohibited.

Allowed by themost direct routeunless specificallyprohibited.

Prohibited unlessspecificallyauthorized.


Disabled Access Allowed perprovisions ofRehabilitation Act.




Firewood andChristmas TreeCollection

Allowed unlessspecificallyprohibited.

Not allowed unlessspecificallyauthorized bypermit.

Not Allowed. Same asAlternative B.


2-39

Specially Designated AreasUnder Alternative A, 131 areas in the FFO

with special administrative designations (SMAs,ACECs, RNAs, WAs, and WSAs) approvedthrough previous land use planning would becarried forward. Table 2-4 summarizes thetotal acreage in these areas under eachalternative, and Table 2-5 summarizes themanagement prescriptions and actions for eachSDA. The acreage in the table is derived fromcurrent BLM GIS data, which is different, insome cases, from that shown in previousplanning documents. Previous documents werenot always consistent in how the acreage was

calculated or listed for each area. In somecases, only the acreage of public land withinSDAs was listed, while in others the acreage ofall land within the boundary was shown.Adjustments have been made in some of thedigitized boundaries to correct previous errorsand to account for updated information. Asactivity plans are prepared for these areas in thefuture, more accurate and detailed maps will bedeveloped. Those new plans will note changesand corrections to GIS mapping. Legalboundaries for cultural ACECs are maintainedon Master Title Plats in the field offices (FFOand AFO). These are the official records.

Table 2-4. Acreage of Specially Designated Areas in the FFO

Surface Ownership Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

BLM 491,945 468,410 713,710 649,470

Non-BLM 127,782 77,589 189,679 158,300

Total Surface1 619,727 545,999 903,389 807,770

Note: (1) Acres within boundary of SDAs; includes BLM and USBR lands.

The total footprint with special designationis 619,727 acres in the FFO area, of whichBLM manages the surface on 491,945 acres(Table 2-4). Table 2-6 lists the SDAs in theAFO and the oil and gas managementprescriptions that would apply under allalternatives. Map 2-4 (large fold-out map forAlternative A, located at end of document,inside back cover) shows the boundaries ofdesignated areas. The following changes inspecial designations have been approved andimplemented since the 1988 RMP wereadopted:

• In 1996, Congress designated theBisti/De-na-zin WA to create onewilderness unit comprised of the Bistiand De-na-zin WAs and 16,525additional contiguous acres. The newunit included the Badlands, Log Jam,

and Lost Pines ACECs, which wereoriginally within WA boundaries;

• In 1998, an amendment was completedto designate 44 new cultural ACECs,including Chacoan outliers, Chacoanroads, Navajo Refugee sites, Navajohabitation sites, petroglyph andpictograph sites, historic sites, andNative American traditional use sitesand sacred area;

• The original 150-acre GRTS wasexpanded to include 32,423 acres thatare managed for recreationalopportunities for trail and OHV use.

TO VIEW TABLE 2-5 (PAGES 2-40 THROUGH 2-213), OPEN FILE ENTITLED “TABLE 2-5.PDF”


2-213

Table 2-6. Oil and Gas Management Prescriptions for Specially Designated Areas in the AFO

Area TotalAcres1

PublicLandAcres1

FederalMineralAcres1

Resource Value ManagementPrescriptions

1870s Wagon Road TrailSMA

6302 UNK UNK Cultural Oil and gas: CSUrestrictions.

Historic Homesteads SMA 33 33 33 Cultural Oil and gas: CSUrestrictions.

Jones Canyon SMA 651 415 651 Cultural Oil and Gas: NSOstipulation.

Cuba Airport SMA 176 92 176 Lands Oil and Gas: NSOstipulation.

San Luis Cliffs WindowSMA

9,810 8,283 9,806 Lands Oil and gas: CSUrestrictions.

Torrejon Fossil FaunaACEC

6,499 6,497 6,084 Paleontology Oil and gas: CSUrestrictions.

Azabache Station SMA 81 0 81 Recreation Oil and Gas: NSOstipulation.

Cabezon Peak ACEC 1,764 1,187 1,197 Recreation Oil and Gas: Closed.Cañon Jarido SMA 1,800 1,800 1,800 Recreation Oil and gas: CSU

restrictions.Continental Divide TrailSMA

1,9402 UNK UNK Recreation Oil and gas: CSUrestrictions. TL 2/1-7/1.

Headcut PrehistoricCommunity SMA

2,276 933 2,276 Recreation Oil and gas: CSUrestrictions.

Ignacio Chavez SMA 42,827 42,650 42,768 Recreation Oil and gas: All but 830acres are closed; remaining830 acres are CSUrestrictions. TL 11/16-5/14.

Pelon Watershed SMA 848 848 848 Watershed Oil and Gas: Closed.Cabezon WSA 1,817 1,803 1,803 Wilderness Oil and Gas: Closed.Chamisa WSA 12,394 12,394 12,394 Wilderness Oil and Gas: Closed.Empedrado WSA 8,934 8,869 8,897 Wilderness Oil and Gas: Closed.Ignacio Chavez WSA 32,245 32,238 32,240 Wilderness Oil and Gas: Closed.La Lena WSA 10,175 10,128 10,163 Wilderness Oil and Gas: Closed.Elk Springs ACEC 10,300 6,390 9,996 Wildlife Oil and Gas: CSU

restrictions. TL 11/16-5/14.

Empedrado WatershedStudy Area

630 317 78 Watershed Oil and Gas: Closed.

Juana Lopez RNA 38 38 38 Geology Oil and Gas: Closed.San Luis Mesa RaptorACEC

9,279 7,773 7,802 Wildlife Oil and gas: CSUrestrictions. TL 2/1-7/1.

Notes: (1) All acreage listed is for the planning area, which in some cases is less than the total acreage of the specially designatedarea.

(2) Estimated acreage.UNK Unknown.


2-214

Coal Leasing Suitability Assessment

Preference Right Leasing ApplicationsThere are 14 PRLAs within the FFO

boundaries. The leasing of these tracts wasanalyzed in the San Juan River Regional CoalEIS (BLM 1984). These tracts were identifiedfor future leasing in the Farmington RMP(BLM 1988).

The PRLAs are located north and east ofChaco Culture National Historic Park. SeveralPRLAs fall within cultural ACECs, WSAs,RNAs, and WAs. According to regulatoryrequirements (43 CFR 3461.5), unsuitabilitycriteria (Appendix C) have been applied tothe 14 PRLAs. PRLAs NM-003835 (in part)and NM-006802 (in part) have beenidentified as being unsuitable for leasingunder Criterion No. 1. PRLAs NM-003918 (inpart) and NM-003919 (in part) were identifiedas being unsuitable for leasing under CriterionNo. 4. Parts of three PRLAs, NM-003753,NM-003754, and NM-003835, weredetermined to be unsuitable under CriterionNo. 6. One PRLA, NM-003755 (in part), wasdetermined to be unsuitable under CriterionNo. 7.

There are two PRLAs (NM-006802 andNM-003835 both in part) in the Bisti/De-na-zin WA and two PRLAs (NM-003919 andNM-003918 both in part) in the Ah-shi-sle-pah WSA. Parts of three PRLAs (NM-003753,NM-003835, and NM-003754) fall within theFossil Forest RNA, and one PRLA (NM-

003755 in part) is within the Ah-shi-sle-pahRoad cultural ACEC. Congressionaldesignation of the Bisti/De-na-zin WA andFossil Forest RNA prevents the leasing of coalin these areas and, until Congress reaches adecision, no coal leases would be granted inAh-shi-sle-pah WSA. Under Public Law 104-333, Section 1022, the Secretary of theInterior is authorized to issue coal leases inNew Mexico in exchange for those parcels ofPRLAs that are in a WA or RNA, if theexchange is in the public interest. Leasingmay occur in the Ah-shi-sle-pah WSA, ifCongress does not designate the area asWilderness.

The remaining seven PRLAs would beprocessed and the applications approved ordenied according to the criteria established bythe Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) of 1920, asamended. These leasing criteria areconcerned with leasing coal in (1) commercialquantities, (2) in areas with a coaltransportation system, and (3) when there is aviable market for the coal. If the MLA criteriaare met, leases would be issued to thecompanies that submitted these applications.At the time lease applications are processed,the unsuitability criteria would be appliedagain, if necessary.

The PRLA serial numbers, total acreage,surface acreage ownership and acreageaffected by unsuitability criteria are presentedin Table 2-7. The location and boundaries ofthe 14 PRLAs are shown on Map 2-8.


2-215

Table 2-7. Preference Right Lease Applications in the Planning Area

PRLA Serial No. Federal CoalAcreage

BLM SurfaceAcreage

Indian SurfaceAcreage

State SurfaceAcreage

CriterionRemovedAcreage

NM-008128 4,499 1,007 2,811 681 0NM-008130 2,133 608 1,525 0 0NM-011670 1,119 639 0 480 0NM-003752 3,760 2,876 844 0 980NM-003753 2,951 825 2,126 0 825NM-003754 2,875 1,875 1,000 0 280NM-003755 2,588 973 1,615 0 669NM-003918 3,357 2,998 359 0 884NM-003919 3,598 3,598 0 0 3,124NM-003835 375 650 0 85 325NM-003837 560 560 0 0 0NM-007235 160 160 0 0 0NM-008745 520 320 200 0 0NM-006802 213 213 0 0 170

Total Acreage 28,708 17,302 10,480 1,246 7,257Source: Digitized from BLM maps.

Competitive Coal TractsThere are 17 competitive coal tracts

available for leasing. The leasing of these tractswas analyzed in the San Juan River RegionalCoal EIS (BLM 1984). These tracts wereidentified for future leasing in the FarmingtonRMP (BLM 1988).

The La Plata tracts are located southwest ofthe La Plata Coal Mine. The Kimbeto and Bistitracts are located northeast and northwest,respectively, of the Chaco Culture NationalHistoric Park. The Catalpa Canyon andSundance tracts are located south of Gallup,which is outside the planning area but stillunder the management of the FFO throughInter-Area Agreement NM-010-071, dated July2, 1992. The Catalpa and Sundance tracts willnot be addressed further in this ProposedRMP/Final EIS. The remaining tracts arelocated south of the Chaco Culture NationalHistoric Park. The tract name, federal surface

acres, federal recoverable coal reserves, andfederal mineable coal reserves are listed inTable 2-8. The boundaries and location of thecompetitive coal lease tracts are shown onMap 2-8.

These tracts contain approximately 763million tons of mineable federal coal (647recoverable) within 48,661 federal subsurfaceacres (17,927 surface) (BLM 1984). Thedelineation and designation of these coal tractswere based on the application of theunsuitability criteria, surface owner consultationdata, and application of a series of multiple usescreens (43 CFR 3461). Companies interestedin mining the coal from these tracts would needto submit an application to lease the coal. The20 unsuitability criteria (Appendix C) describedin 43 CFR 3461.5 would be applied during theleasing process.


2-216

Table 2-8. Competitive Coal Lease Tracts

Tract Name Federal Surface(acres)

Federal Coal(acres)

MineableCoal Reserves

(millions of tons)

RecoverableCoal Reserves

(millions of tons)

Bisti #1 2,933 3,713 150 127

Bisti #4 1,040 2,600 35 30

Bisti #6/8 240 520 1 1

Sundance 0 720 4 1

Catalpa Canyon 0 120 0.4 0.3

Chico Wash South 10,070 11,670 74 63

Crownpoint East 160 9,880 149 124

Divide 400 3,031 16 14

Gallo Wash #1 120 320 11 10

Kimbeto #2 640 640 20 18

La Plata #1 200 200 9 8

La Plata #3 160 200 2 2

Lee Ranch East 0 969 16 14

Lee Ranch Middle 0 5,068 86 73

Lee Ranch West 160 6,410 101 86

Star Lake East #1 1,364 1,840 61 52

Star Lake West #2 440 760 28 24

Total 17,927 48,661 763 647Source: Digitized from BLM maps.

Coal Belt SMAThe Coal Belt SMA, encompassing

approximately 98,800 acres of federal minerals,was established in 1988 to ensure orderlydevelopment of coal resources along theFruitland Formation. The Coal Belt SMAcontains an estimated four billion tons of coal(BLM 1988). The SMA is located along theFruitland coal (outcrop) belt from the NavajoReservation near Bisti Trading Post to a pointnear Johnson Trading Post in westernSandoval County. The southern line representsthe outcrop of the lowest coal seam; thenorthern boundary of the SMA is located wherethe overburden on the uppermost coal seam is350 feet thick. The depth of the coal seam tothe amount of overburden would result inextraction of most of the coal in the SMA using

surface mining methods. The FFO would retainthe public (surface) land in the SMA because ofthe large coal deposits and the possibility ofconflicts between other future surface ownerregarding coal leasing and/or mining.

Companies interested in obtaining a coallease in the SMA would need to submit anapplication to the FFO. The 20 unsuitabilitycriteria would be applied during the leasingprocess. Portions of the Coal Belt SMA arewithin the southern and western boundaries ofthe Bisti/De-na-zin WA and entirely within theFossil Forest RNA and Ah-shi-sle-pah Roadcultural ACEC. Another portion of the SMAfalls within the Ah-shi-sle-pah WSA.Congressional designation of the Bisti/De-na-zin WA and Fossil Forest RNA prevents theleasing of coal in these areas. Until Congress


2-217

reaches a decision on the status of the Ah-shi-sle-pah WSA, no coal leases will be granted inthat area. Leasing may occur in the Ah-shi-sle-pah WSA, if Congress does not designate thearea as Wilderness. The SMA boundary ismapped by legal subdivisions and shown onMap 2-4.

License to Mine [Home Use Fuel (Coal)Source]

The existing domestic coal licenses onpublic lands would continue to be managed bythe BLM. Navajo allottees in the area havehistorically used coal from surface outcrops asfuel for cooking and heating. There is onedomestic use mining license issued to theTorrejon Chapter. The licenses allow membersof a Chapter to collect federal coal for personaluse. New domestic coal license applicationswould be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Fire/Fuels ManagementThe FFO has developed a Fire

Management Plan to provide managers in theFire Program with a functional document forintegrating fire management with all otherresource management programs. The planestablishes fire/fuels management and fireresponse/suppression direction based on safety,resource management objectives, and land useallocation objectives. Within SDAs (SMAs,ACECs, WAs, WSAs, RNAs, etc.), managementactions adhere to the following guidance:

• Address Fire/Fuels Management for allland use allocations as part ofwatershed analysis and/or projectplanning. This will include determina-tions of the role of fire and the risk oflarge-scale, high-intensity wildfires atthe landscape level.

• Use prescribed fire or other fuelmanagement treatments to reduce fuelhazards and the risk of large-scale, high-intensity fire, consistent with the naturalrole of fire and protection standards foreach special administrative designationarea. Strategies will recognize the role offire in ecosystem function and identify

those instances where fire suppressionor fuel management activities could bedamaging to long-term ecosystemfunction.

• Locate incident bases, camps, helibases,staging areas, helispots, and othercenters for incident activities outside ofspecial administrative designation areas.If the only suitable location for suchactivities is within the specialadministrative designation areas, anexemption may be granted following areview and recommendation by aresource advisor. The advisor willprescribe the location, use conditions,and rehabilitation requirements.

• Minimize delivery of chemical retardant,foam, or other additives to surfacewaters. An exception may be warrantedin situations where overridingimmediate safety imperatives exist or,following a review and recommenda-tion by a resource advisor, when anuncontrolled fire would cause morelong-term damage.

• Immediately establish an emergencyteam to develop a rehabilitationtreatment plan needed to attain specialadministrative designation areasobjectives, whenever a wildfire or aprescribed fire burning outsideprescribed parameters significantlydamages them.

• Allow some natural fires to burn underprescribed conditions. This decision willbe based on additional analysis andplanning.

• Locate and manage water-drafting sites(e.g., sites where water is pumped tocontrol or suppress fires) to minimizeadverse effects on riparian habitat andwater quality.

Under Alternative A, this guidance wouldapply to the SDAs in the FFO. In other FFOareas, the emphasis in most cases consists ofaggressive initial attack to extinguish fires at thesmallest size possible.


2-218

For wildland fires that escape initial attack,a Wildland Situation Analysis is performed todevelop a suppression strategy to evaluate thedamage induced by suppression activitiescompared to expected wildfire damage.Suppression tactics consider:

• Public and firefighting personnel safety;

• Protection of specific attributes of eachland use allocation;

• Coordination of wildfire suppressionactivities to avoid causing adverseimpacts on federal and non-federallands;

• Appropriate use of suppression toolssuch as aircraft, dozers, pumps, andother mechanized equipment, and cleardefinitions of any restrictions relating totheir use;

• The potential adverse effects onmeeting ecosystem managementobjectives.

Fuels management activities are employedto modify fuel profiles in order to lower thepotential of fire ignition and rate of spread;protect and support land use allocationobjectives by lowering the risk of high-intensity, stand-replacing wildfires; and adhereto smoke management and air qualitystandards. Fire hazards are reduced throughmethods such as prescribed burning,mechanical or manual manipulation ofvegetation and debris, removal of woodlandvegetation and debris, and combinations ofthese methods. Hazard reduction plans will bedeveloped through an interdisciplinary teamapproach and will consider the following:

• Safety of firefighting personnel;

• Developing a fuel profile that supportsland allocation objectives;

• Reducing the risk of wildfire in a cost-efficient manner;

• Interagency cooperation to assure cost-effective fuel hazard reduction acrossthe landscape;

• Adherence to smoke management andair quality standards;

• Consistency with objectives for land useallocations;

• Maintenance or restoration of ecosys-tem processes or structure;

• The natural role of fire in specificlandscapes, current ecosystem needs,and wildfire hazard analysis included inthe fire management plan.

Management of woodland fuels isimportant for preventing and controllingwildfire. In managing woodlands, this involvesthe manipulation of the fuels (vegetativematerials) either by mechanical or manualmethods, or through prescribed fire. Fuelstreatment is an especially importantconsideration in the rural/urban interface areas,where forest fuels are in close proximity toprivate dwellings, businesses, and otherstructures. Mechanical and manual methodswould be used in these areas and in areaswhere air quality considerations requirereduced smoke emissions. Partial entry ofprescribed fire may be initiated into naturalstands where severe natural fuels buildupwould contribute to high-intensity stand-destroying fires.

The use of prescribed fire will be based onthe risk of high-intensity wildfire, and theassociated cost and environmental impacts ofusing prescribed burning to meet protection,restoration, and maintenance of critical standsthat are currently susceptible to large-scalecatastrophic wildfire.

Under-burning will be reintroduced in areasover a period of time to create a mosaic ofstand conditions. Treatments should be site-specific because some species with limiteddistributions are fire intolerant. The use ofprescribed burning will be based on aninterdisciplinary evaluation. Funding authority,therefore, must reflect the range of objectivesidentified for using fire under ecosystemmanagement.

Project level prescribed fire plans will bedeveloped using an interdisciplinary teamapproach. Plans will address: (1) adherence tosmoke management and air quality standards,


2-219

(2) meeting stated objectives for the land useallocations, (3) maintaining or restoringecosystem processes or structure, and (4) therole of natural fire in specific landscapes,current ecosystem needs, and wildfire hazardanalysis included in the fire management plan.

Prescribed fire is used to emulate thenatural role of fire to achieve resourceobjectives for wildlife enhancement, plantspecies maintenance, woodland biodiversity,and site preparation. Prescribed under-burningsome proportion of homogeneous plantcommunities would be dependent on the typeand amount of complexity that would beneeded for any one plant community. Thetypes of plant communities that may betargeted for burning would include contiguousmonotypic sagebrush or woodland stands topromote more diversity or heterogeneity. Firewould be the preferred method of disturbancefor biological reasons, but other methods ofdisturbance may produce similar results, suchas chemical treatment or manipulation bymachine.

In order to ensure that resource objectivessuch as wildlife and botanical speciesmaintenance are met and that biodiversityelements are perpetuated, it may be necessaryto employ applications of natural cycle relatedcool fires. There are approximately 175,000acres of the FFO land base that could lend

themselves to fire entry under prescription. It isreasonable to assume that at least an annualaverage of 500 acres of prescribed burning maybe implemented to meet resource objectives.This would assume an approximate 30 to 50-year rotation cycle on some sites throughoutthe 175,000-acre land base. It is neitherpossible nor desirable to burn every acre on a30 to 50-year cycle. Some sites would notbenefit positively from the entry of eitherprescribed fire or wildfire; however, manywould. Resource specialists must developspecific resource objectives and developextensive plans to determine specific siteswhere benefits can occur. The need forprescribed fire varies for each resource. Forexample, botanical enhancement fires mayneed to be introduced on an annual basis onsome sites. On other sites, such as under oldgrowth stands (Douglas fir), the rotationalburning could be up to 60-plus yearsdepending on the particular site, soil structure,or other mixed plant communities. As specificarea studies are developed, the need for fireapplications upon a particular site will be clearlydefined and activity plans developedaccordingly.

Air quality considerations are also a factorin prescribed burns, in accordance withregulation and the New Mexico SmokeManagement Plan.

CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVE B Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS

2-220

Alternative BUnder Alternative B, the Farmington RMP

would be amended to allow for maximum oiland gas development in the planning area andmaximization of other public use of FFO land.Access and land use limitations would beminimized, consistent with the continuingmanagement guidance. In the event of land useconflicts, priority would be given to mineralsrecovery.


This alternative would provide for thedevelopment of 13,275 wells in the planningarea, after the 17 wells that would be

inaccessible due to NSO constraints aresubtracted from the total. For analysis purposesonly, no commingling of wells is assumed tooccur under this alternative in order to evaluatemaximum potential surface disturbance.Approximately 660 APDs per year would beapproved over the next 20 years (Engler et al.2001). The STCs on oil and gas leases wouldbe the same as those in Alternative A. Themitigation measures listed in Appendix B-9 ofthe 1991 Amendment (BLM 1991a) wouldremain in effect.




TotalAcreage

LeasingNondiscretionary Closure 349 110,799 111,148Discretionary Closure 6,001 22,272 28,273

DevelopmentSTC 1,324,428 1,335,557 2,659,985CSU 150,083 86,187 236,270NSO 10,847 2,443 13,290TL 175,852 64,207 240,059

Note: STC = open under Standard Terms and Conditions; CSU = Controlled Surface Use;NSO = No Surface Occupancy; TL = Seasonal Timing Limitation.

Within the high development area, morethan 99 percent of the federal oil and gasresources are currently leased. In areas beingconsidered for discretionary closure in theRMP, the development of existing leaseswould continue according to the terms of thelease. The BLM would continue to implementthe portions of the lease that require lessees toconduct operations in a manner thatminimizes adverse impacts to other resourcesand other land uses and users.

Assumptions related to oil and gasdevelopment that were prepared by FFO staffwith concurrence from industry include thefollowing:

• New surface disturbance would occuron 54 percent of all new wells, while46 percent would be on existing sitesthrough re-completion, dual comple-tion, or directional drilling.

• The surface disturbance associatedwith each new well pad wouldaverage 2 acres, after interimreclamation or site rehabilitation takesplace.

• The road and pipeline disturbanceassociated with each new well wouldaverage 1 additional acre. The roadand pipeline will be constructed withinthe same 800-foot by 50-foot ROW.

Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVE B

2-221

• Reclamation would be completed atan initial rate of 133 well pads andassociated ROWs per year andaverage 3 acres per well. The pluggingand abandonment (P&A) rate isprojected to increase at the rate of5 percent per year over 20 years. MostP&As would occur in the fringe areasof the project, with abandoned sites inthe high development area likely to beused again.

As described under Alternative A, theraptor noise policy, in effect since February2000, in which the FFO established a bufferzone to minimize noise impacts from wellheadcompression on raptor nest sites for goldeneagles, ferruginous hawks, and prairie falconsby providing a reasonable margin around thenest would be implemented.

Oil and gas development on the landaround Navajo Reservoir would be managedunder CSU constraints approved by the FFOin cooperation with the USBR. There wouldbe no change from Alternative A on theCarson and Santa Fe National Forests.


DisposalUnder this alternative, all of the lands

identified for disposal in Alternative A wouldbe available. In addition, lands within threemiles of the city limits of Aztec, Bloomfieldand Farmington (Map 2-5) would beavailable (except BLM land within SDAs).Exchange, sale, disposal under the R&PP Act,or other legal disposal would be considered ifthe disposal met the criteria listed in Chapter1. Parcels on which substantial improvementshave be inadvertently placed would also bemade available for disposal, if the Authorized

Officer determines that such disposal is in thepublic interest. Table 2-1 shows the total acresavailable for disposal under this alternative.

AcquisitionInholdings in all of the approved SDAs

would make up the priority list foracquisitions. Other lands that consolidatepublic ownership or benefit a resourceprogram could also be acquired, if theacquisition were determined to be in thepublic interest. Any lands acquired would bemanaged in the same manner as the adjacentor surrounding public lands. Table 2-1 showstotal acquisition under this alternative.

ROW CorridorsUnder this alternative, the ROW corridors

identified by the 2002 WUG revision (WUG2002) of the 1992 WRCS would bedesignated for powerline and pipeline use.Any specific proposals would still be requiredto go through the environmental andpermitting process. Proposed uses that aredetermined to unreasonably interfere with theuse of these corridors may not be authorized.Map 2-2 shows the general alignment of thecorridors.

Mineral MaterialsThe FFO has identified six areas (16,520

acres) of salable minerals such as sand andgravel that needs to be well managed.Additional areas could be identified in thefuture. Some of these areas are within thedisposal area identified above. The purpose ofdelineating these areas is to inform managersand potential users of other resources in theseareas of their value for salable minerals, sothat value would be considered prior to theauthorization of other actions.

��

��

��

CrouchMesa

��64

��550��371

��170

��

!"!#�

��

��

��

CrouchMesa

��64

��550��371

��170

�Source: BLM FFO

4 0 42

Scale in Miles

Area Shown

San Juan Rio Arriba

McKinley

Sandoval

UT CO

AZ NM

Major Road

BLM Owned Land

Alt D Aztec-Bloomfield Corridor

Municipal Boundary

RMP/EIS Boundary

Area of Potential Land Disposal

��

1143800835

��

Interstate Highway

U.S. Route

State Highway

�� Town

��


2-223

OHV UseUnder this alternative, the FFO would

create 13 new OHV Management Unitscovering the entire field office. The 13 areaswere derived by access routes, entry points,and use patterns for more effectivemanagement. Map 2-6 shows the redefinedunits. Seven trails have been identified in fourOHV Management Units (Table 2-9). Thegeneral location of these trails is shown inMap 2-7. Final alignment and use of theproposed trails would be determined whenindividual OHV Activity Plans are developed.Additional routes, trails, and areas may beidentified, as plans are developed for eachOHV Management Unit. Plans would bewritten based on priority of resourceprotection needs and the amount of publicuse. Plan development would be based onenvironmental review and publicinvolvement. The individual OHV ActivityPlans should be completed within 15 years.

OHV designations for SDAs may bedifferent than the surrounding OHVManagement Unit. Table 2-2 summarizes theacreage of open, limited and closed OHVdesignation for Alternative B.

In addition to the preparation of OHVActivity Plans, the FFO will prepare aTransportation Plan. The Transportation Planwill identify collector and resource roads thatwould be needed for use over the long-term.These roads would remain open for publicaccess when oil and gas development in thearea ceases. Roads identified in theTransportation Plan would be included in theindividual OHV Activity Plans.

Table 2-9. Proposed Multi-Use Trails forAlternatives B, C, and D

OHV Unit Trail Length (miles)Farmington Bohanan Canyon

Kiffen Canyon19.713.4

Aztec Aztec to Alien Run 6.7San Juan Aztec City

BloomfieldHorn Canyon

12.19.4

19.7Bloomfield Kutz Canyon 12.6

Under Alternative B, OHV use would belimited to maintained roads, designated trails,routes and areas on public lands in allManagement Units, except where conditionsare determined to be suitable for cross-country travel. Table 2-10 summarizes theacreage that the FFO considers potentiallysuitable for cross-country travel in each of theproposed OHV Management Units. To besuitable, the land had to be:

• BLM surface;

• Outside an SDA;

• Outside a designated disposal area.Land meeting the above criteria were

identified as dispersed recreation areas, towhich additional criteria were applied todetermine the amount of each OHVManagement Unit that would not likely bedamaged by cross-country travel. In order toexclude the land that would be mostsusceptible to wind and water erosion,damage to vegetation or soil biological crusts,and prime farmland, land meeting thefollowing criteria were excluded:

• Slopes greater than 30 percent;

• South-facing slopes steeper than 15percent;

• Seasonal high water table;

• Depth to bedrock less than 20 inches;

• Highly erodible by wind or water.The dispersed recreation areas that could

be designated as open to cross-country travelwould be further refined as OHVManagement Unit plans are developed byFFO staff. Other site-specific screening criteriathat could further restrict the potentially openareas would be applied during plandevelopment, including avoidance of culturalresources, sensitive species habitats, riparianareas, and proximity to residences.

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

Bloomfield

Nageezi

��550

��57

��64

San JuanMcKinley

Rio ArribaSandoval

Far

min

gto

n F

OA

lbu

qu

erq

ue

FO

Aztec

Farmington

Shiprock

Little Water

Newcomb

Thoreau

��666

��40

��371

��509

MiddleMesaNavajo

Reservoir

Gallup

Chaco

Checkerboard

Largo

Bisti

Aztec

CarsonSan Juan

Animas

Bloomfield

Farmington

Dunes

�LEGEND

Map 2-6: Proposed OHV ManagementUnits in the FFO Area

Source: BLM FFO

7 0 73.5

Scale in Miles

Area Shown

UT CO

AZ NM

San Juan Rio Arriba

McKinley

Sandoval

*Individual OHV units are delineated with unique names and shade patterns

��

1314411277

OHV Management Unit*Bisti

Chaco Culture NHP

Navajo Reservoir

County Boundary


�� Town

Major Road

�� Interstate Highway

�� U.S. Route

� State Highway

Carson National Forest

��

Bloomfield

��64

Aztec

Farmington

��71

Farmington

San Juan

Kutz Canyon Trail

Aztec to Alien Run

Aztec City Trails

Horn Canyon Trail

Kiffen Canyon Trail

Bohanon Canyon Trail

Bloomfield Trail

��550

��550��170

Aztec

Bloomfield

Animas

Largo

Dunes

�LEGEND

Map 2-7: Proposed Recreational Use Trails for Alternatives B, C, and D

Source: BLM FFO

Area Shown

San Juan

Rio Arriba

Sandoval

McKinley

UT CO

AZ NM

Municipal Boundary

Major RoadTrail

OHV Units*Aztec

*Individual OHV units are delineated with unique names and shade patterns

��

��

-174616001

��

Interstate HighwayU.S. Route

State Highway Scale in Miles

1 0 1 2 30.5


2-226

Table 2-10. Areas Potentially Suitable for Open OHV Designation, by Management Unit

Alternative B Alternative DPotentiallySuitable for

OpenDesignation

PotentiallySuitable for

OpenDesignation

OHVManagement

Unit

TotalAcres BLM

Acres

DispersedArea

(acres)1

Acres %

BLMAcres

DispersedArea

(acres) 1

Acres %

Animas 105,572 51,758 15,301 311 2% 51,758 13,156 30 0%Aztec 133,558 101,937 85,725 5,420 6% 101,937 19,651 853 4%Bisti 291,535 165,040 110,440 7,583 7% 165,040 110,409 7,567 7%Bloomfield 149,337 121,149 69,917 12,658 18% 121,149 36,896 5,387 15%Carson 134,783 73,681 39,190 6,365 16% 73,681 2,485 336 14%Chaco 857,597 216,008 172,956 21,886 13% 216,008 172,367 21,886 13%Checkerboard 1,509,255 104,842 102,235 874 1% 104,842 102,235 874 1%Dunes 4,633 2,627 1,814 91 5% 2,627 1,814 91 5%Farmington 145,066 73,380 41,946 3,872 9% 73,380 26,976 2,135 8%Largo 484,871 379,455 351,789 37,514 11% 379,455 196,715 23,434 12%Middle Mesa 52,566 27,276 10,434 106 1% 27,276 9 0 0%NavajoReservoir

18,803 12,302 254 10 4% 12,302 17 2 9%

San Juan 143,496 68,696 67,827 3,213 5% 68,696 67,770 3,211 5%Total 4,031,072 1,398,151 1,069,829 99,903 — 1,398,151 750,501 65,806 —

Sources: BLM FFO, SAIC GIS data.Note: (1) Dispersed area is comprised of BLM surface lands that are not within an SDA (where management prescriptions for OHV use

for the managed area would apply).

Specially Designated AreasUnder Alternative B, 545,999 acres in the

FFO would have special management, of whichBLM currently manages the surface on 468,410acres. Areas with special administrativedesignations (SMAs, ACECs, RNAs, WAs, andWSAs) approved through previous land useplanning would be carried forward withchanges described below. Accounting for thesechanges, there would be 135 SDAs in the FFOunder Alternative B. Changes in managementprescriptions for new and existing areas aredescribed in Table 2-5. Map 2-8 (large fold-out map for Alternative B, located at end ofdocument, inside back cover) shows adjustedboundaries under this alternative. Please referto Table 2-5 for name changes.

Areas Not Carried Forward• The Coal Belt SMA would be removed

because all areas that are suitable forcoal would be available forconsideration for coal extraction underthe lease by application procedures.

• The Right-of-Way Windows (4 units)would be removed.

• Farmington Lake Watershed would beremoved because most of the propertywithin the SMA is not owned by BLM,and a small portion is within the GRTSSMA.

• Lost Pine, Log Jam, and BadlandsACEC designations would be removedbecause they are within the Bisti/De-na-zin WA and consequently protected forwilderness values.


2-227

• Aztec Gilia ACEC designation would beremoved, as the range and distributionof Aztec gilia is more extensive thanpreviously identified.

• Tanner Lake Battlefield was droppedbecause surface ownership wastransferred to The Navajo Nation aspart of the Navajo-Hopi land exchange.

Areas Added or Changed

Wildlife and Threatened and EndangeredSpecies

• Laguna Seca Mesa SMA would beenlarged and designated as the MexicanSpotted Owl ACEC and themanagement emphasis would changefrom forestry to T&E habitat values inorder to delineate the critical habitatdesignated by the USFWS.

• The Ephemeral Wash Riparian Areawould be added to provide protectionof riparian resources. Managementwould be applied to promote theattainment and maintenance of properfunctioning conditions and providehabitats for wildlife.

Recreation

• Simon Canyon ACEC would beexpanded to include the portion of theSimon Canyon Recreation Area thatextends beyond the ACEC boundary.The SMA designation would beremoved and the area would bemanaged as an ACEC.

• GRTS will change names to Glade RunRecreation Area. In addition, itsboundary would be changed to betterreflect the area of current use. Thiswould result in a reduction in acreage.

• Piñon Mesa Recreation Area would bedesignated for recreational values.There would be several trails withdifferent types of use.

• Rock Garden Recreation Area would bedesignated for recreational values. The

area would be used by OHVs ondesignated trails.

• Navajo Lake Horse Trail RecreationArea would be designated for recrea-tional values, promoting equestrian use.Designated trail corridors would definethe area.

• Alien Run Mountain Bike TrailRecreation Area would be designatedfor recreational values, and non-motorized use on the trail corridors.

• The boundary of Thomas CanyonRecreation Area would be enlarged anda wildlife management componentwould be added to the larger SMA, inaddition to current recreationalemphasis.

• Carracas Mesa Recreation Area wouldadd a wildlife management componentin addition to the current recreationalemphasis.

Paleontology

• The Piñon Mesa Fossil Area would beadded to protect significant paleon-tological values.

• Gobernador and Cereza Canyon FossilAreas would be added to protectsignificant paleontological values.

• The Lybrook Fossil Area would beadded to protect significant paleon-tological values.

• The Bohanon Canyon Complex wouldbe added to protect significant paleon-tological values.

• The Carson Fossil Pocket would beadded to protect significant paleon-tological values.

• The Kutz Canyon Paleontological Areawould be expanded to protect signifi-cant paleontological values.

Coal Leasing Suitability AssessmentUnder this alternative, emphasis of the

other resource uses in the PRLAs andcompetitive coal tracts would shift so coal


2-228

development would become the primaryresource use and the emphasis of other,existing resource uses would change. Shouldany of the existing oil and gas leases expire inthese areas, the leases would not be reissueduntil coal mining is completed. There would beno future leasing of oil and gas resources untilall mining is completed or specific areas arereleased for leasing. Current oil and gasoperations and facilities may include, but arenot limited to (1) P&A, producing, andabandoned wells, (2) redrilling of these wellsafter mining has progressed past the welllocation, (3) purchasing the product estimatedto be produced for the remainder of the life ofthe well, (4) compensating the operator/lesseefor any surface damage to facilities, or (5)replacement of surface and pipeline facilitiesafter mining is completed. Future welldevelopment on existing oil and gas leaseswould be coordinated with the BLM staff andthe mining company to avoid proposed andactive coal mining areas.

Preference Right Leasing ApplicationUnder this alternative, the 14 PRLAs

identified and described in Alternative A wouldbe carried forward for further consideration forcoal leasing. Those PRLAs that fall within thecultural ACECs, WA, and RNA would not beapproved for coal mining. No coal leases orPRLAs would be granted in the Ah-shi-sle-pahWSA until Congress reaches a decision on itswilderness designation. This would includeapproximately 4,008 (844 acres in PRLANM-003918 and 3,124 acres in PRLANM-003919) acres that would not be availablefor coal leasing. Leasing may occur, if Congressdoes not designate the area as wilderness.Those portions of PRLAs affected byCongressional designations may be exchangedfor coal leases in New Mexico if the exchange isin the public interest. The PRLAs that are notrejected through adjudication would be issuedto companies that submitted applications, ifthey meet the MLA criteria. The 20 unsuitabilitycriteria (Appendix C) described in 43 CFR3461.5 would be reapplied during the leasingprocess.

Competitive Coal TractsThe 17 competitive coal tracts discussed as

available for leasing in Alternative A would beconsidered for leasing under this alternative.Those companies that are interested in miningcoal from these tracts would need to submit anapplication to lease the coal. The 20unsuitability criteria (Appendix C) described in43 CFR 3461.5 would be reapplied during theleasing process.


The need for domestic home fuel needswould continue as described in Alternative A.New domestic coal license applications wouldbe considered on a case-by-case basis.

Additional Coal InterestsTwo coal mining companies, Peabody

Natural Resources, Inc. (Peabody) and BrokenHills Proprietary Company, Limited (BHP),have expressed interest that additional tracts ofland be considered for future coal leasing.These lands are in the vicinity of the LeeRanch, Twin Peaks, and East Piñon areas. Map2-8 shows the location of these tracts.

Peabody owns reserves consisting primarilyof state and fee land, which frequently occur inblocks in a checkerboard pattern that do notextend over a logical mining unit. Some ofthese areas have adjacent federal coal reservesthat could be logically developed in conjunctionwith Peabody’s existing holdings. Peabody’sadditional coal tracts interests would augmentthe three Lee Ranch competitive coal tracts.There is a potential for coal and coal firedpower generation to increase in thesouthwestern U.S. Therefore, adjacent federalcoal reserve areas may provide the potential fornew mine development or to extend the life ofthe existing Lee Ranch Coal Mine.

BHP’s San Juan Coal Company (SJCC)currently operates coal surfacing miningoperations within the boundaries of the FFO.Presently, SJCC is developing an undergroundmine (Deep Lease and Deep Lease Extension)adjacent to its present surface mining


2-229

operations. The Twin Peaks area contains acoal tract that has the potential to extendSJCC’s planned underground mine adjacent tothe San Juan Coal Mine, located adjacent toand east of the SJCC’s Deep Lease Extension.SJCC has examined the potential that this tractcould be mined following completion of miningunderground coal within its Deep Lease (LeaseNo. NM-28093) and the Deep Lease Extension(Lease NM-99144) leases. Informationobtained from the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) for existing gas wells and extrapolationof drilling and trends conducted from the TwinPeaks and East Piñon areas were used toestimate tonnage projections. This potentialconsists of federal coal with the exception ofone state section (Section 16, T30N, R14W).The surface of this area is also federally ownedexcept for approximately 120 acres of feesurface (private) in Section 33, 50 acres inSection 8, all in T30N, R14W, and the statesection described above.

To protect recreation values nounderground mining would be permitted alongthe trail corridor in the part of the Twin Peaksarea that overlies the Piñon Mesa TrailCorridor. The remainder of the Twin Peaksarea would be available for leasing. To protectpaleontology values, paleontological surveyswould be conducted for fossil remains prior tounderground mining. During activeunderground mining, periodic monitoring maybe required for paleontological resources thatmay be exposed as a result of subsidence.

The East Piñon area tract represents apossible coal resource for SJCC to mine byunderground methods following completion ofmining underground coal within its Deep Leaseand the Deep Lease Extension. This area liesadjacent and north of the Deep Lease andDeep Lease Extension areas. No drilling todetermine coal tonnage, quality, and trend hasbeen undertaken for this tract. Drilling data ofexisting SJCC coal leases, USGS data, and gaswell information in the area have been used toextrapolate tonnage projections. Coal quality isexpected to be comparable to the coal seams

being currently mined to the west and the DeepLease tract to the south. All coal in this is area isfederally owned. However, approximately one-third of the surface is federally owned and two-thirds is privately owned fee surface.

Suitable Future Leasing and DevelopmentCoal Areas

All lands within the FFO boundaries havebeen identified as potentially being suitable forfuture coal mining development. The 20unsuitability criteria that eliminate such land aswilderness areas, designated T&E specieshabitat, ROWs/easements, and culturallysignificant areas (Appendix C) have beenapplied throughout the planning area to theextent possible at a small scale and withcurrently available data. If changing conditionswarrant, the unsuitability criteria would be re-applied. Any proposed areas would beprocessed through a Lease by Application afterundergoing further site-specific application ofthe unsuitability screening criteria. It wasdetermined that 378,875 acres would besuitable to consider for future leasing anddevelopment in the FFO area. The generallocation of these areas remaining afterapplication of most of the unsuitability criteria isshown on Map 2-9. The remainder of the FFOboundary can be considered if there are (1)commercial quantities, (2) areas with a coaltransportation system, and (3) when there is aviable market for the coal. Additional data willbe required to make determinations on thelocation of commercial quantities of coalthroughout the FFO area. These data would beobtained as companies do developmentalexploration to identify potential coal tracts formining.

Fire/Fuels ManagementFire/fuels management procedures under

Alternative B will be the same as Alternative A,except in the number of acres in SDAs. Underthis alternative, 468,410 acres of public landwould fall under the guidance for these areas.Other areas would be managed in accordancewith the procedures described for Alternative A.

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

�

T29N

T28N

T27N

T26N

T25N

T24N

T23N

T22N

T21N

R06WR07WR08WR09WR10WR11WR12WR13W

Bloomfield

Nageezi

��550

��57

��64

San JuanMcKinley

Rio Arriba

Sandoval

Far

min

gto

n F

OA

lbu

qu

erq

ue

FO

Aztec

Farmington

T30N

T31N

T20N

T19N

T18N

T17N

T16N

T15N

T15N

R14W

Shiprock

Newcomb

��Crownpoint

Little Water

Thoreau

Gallup

��666

��40

��371

��197

R15WR16WR17WR18WR19WR20WR21W

�LEGEND

Map 2-9: Areas Suitable for Coal Development in the FFO Area

Source: BLM FFO

10 0 105

Scale in Miles

Navajo Reservoir

County Boundary


Areas of Coal Suitability

National Forest

Major Road

RMP/EIS Boundary

Township and Range

��

��

175038085

��

Interstate Highway

U.S. Route

State Highway

Chaco Culture NHP

�� Town

Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVE C

2-231

Alternative CAlternative C emphasizes conservation,

protection, and enhancement of natural andcultural resources through managementmeasures that provide limitations on surfacedisturbing activities. Additional areas would bedelineated for special management designation.


This alternative would result in thedevelopment of approximately 9,836 wells,after the 134 wells that would be inaccessibledue to NSO constraints are subtracted from thetotal. In addition to the STCs imposed underAlternative A, more limiting stipulations andother agency management restrictions would be

imposed. Commingling would be required tominimize surface disturbance. The FFO wouldpermit 80-acre spacings for the Mesaverde andthe Dakota Formations, but only on the samewell pad. The Fruitland Formation would beapproved on 160-acre spacings, but only wherethe wells fall on or adjacent to existinginfrastructure. The BLM would work withNMOCD to allow operators to access theDakota Formation from Mesaverde sites at thediscretion of the operator. The number of APDsto be approved would remain at approximately500 per year over the next 20 years.




TotalAcreage

LeasingNondiscretionary Closure 349 110,799 111,148

Discretionary Closure 74,897 39,203 114,100Development

STC 1,180,511 1,398,772 2,579,283

CSU 200,002 75,190 275,192

NSO 35,949 19,121 55,070

TL 573,980 64,421 638,401Notes: STC = Open under Standard Terms and Conditions; CSU = Controlled Surface Use; NSO = No Surface Occupancy;

TL = Seasonal Timing Limitation.

Within the high development area, morethan 99 percent of the federal oil and gasresources are currently leased. In areas beingconsidered for discretionary closure in the RMP,the development of existing leases wouldcontinue according to the terms of the lease.The BLM would continue to implement theportions of the lease that require lessees toconduct operations in a manner that minimizesadverse impacts to other resources and otherland uses and users.

Noise from oil and gas compressors hasbeen identified by the public as an issue ofprimary concern in the planning area. Toaddress these concerns, the FFO developed aNoise Policy, which would be implemented in

the form of an NTL to oil and gas operators orROW stipulation that would require mitigationof noise levels measured within and adjacent todesignated Noise Sensitive Areas (NSA). TheNSAs include 92 SDAs managed by the FFO,as well as all or part of seven areas within theUSFS Jicarilla Ranger District, all of the USBRland, and one NPS area. The public landsurface of these areas totals approximately338,680 acres.

Noise levels inside an NSA would be limitedto no more than 48.6 dBA equivalent soundlevel (Leq) at 300 feet in all directions from thenoise source. For noise sources located outsideof designated NSAs, the standard of 48.6 dBALeq would be met at the boundary of the NSA.

CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVE C Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS

2-232

Noise sources located within 300 feet of theNSA boundary would be allowed to meet thestandard 300 feet from the source. For noisesources involving federal or Indian leaseslocated near occupied dwellings or buildings,the standard of 48.6 dBA Leq would be met100 feet from such structure. Additionalinformation on the Noise Policy is included inAppendix E.

In addition to implementation of the NoisePolicy, the raptor noise policy to minimize noiseimpacts from wellhead compression on raptornest sites would be implemented as describedunder Alternative A.

The mitigation measures listed in AppendixB-9 of the 1991 RMP Amendment (BLM1991a) would be replaced with moregeneralized narrative that accomplishes thesame overall goal of minimizing erosion andwildlife habitat disturbance. The followingmitigation measures would be implementedwhere applicable, depending on site-specificconditions and requirements:

• Make every effort to minimize surfacedisturbance and intrusion intoundisturbed areas through such actionsas twinning of wells and directionaldrilling, unorthodox locations,recompletions, commingling of gas, andclosed loop mud systems. Pipelineswould follow existing roads.

• Development would be restricted inareas that have special topography(steep or broken and/or on benches)and soil concerns. Development inthese areas would be considered on acase-by-case basis and would containsite-specific mitigation stipulations.

• Operators would be encouraged tounitize in areas of heavy developmentto increase management efficiency andfacilitate operations in sensitive areas.

• Off-site mitigation may be indicated incrucial areas, such as areas with wildlifemonitoring or studies, habitatreplacement, water development, andwatershed protection measures.

• Vehicle traffic and resource damagewould be reduced by using newtechnology such as electronic datainterchange and piping of producedwater.

Listed below is a summary of the types ofactivities that would not be permissible during aclosure period in an area under TL constraints.Emergency repairs needed for human safetyand environmental contamination would notrequire prior authorization. Emergency repairsinclude a break in a gas or water line, repairs oftank battery facilities, and wellhead repairs.

• Any construction, including new wellpads, roads, pipelines, installation ofcompressors, surfacing of roads, power-lines. Well pad, road construction androad improvement.

• Drilling.

• P&A (unless required to preventenvironmental damage).

• Seismic exploration.

• Workovers or any activity requiring adrilling rig, unless required to preventenvironmental damage, or to prevent apermanent loss of reserves. Priorapproval must be approved beforebeginning this type of work.

Activities that are routine and do notconflict with the seasonal restrictions includeroutine daily operations, road maintenance,and routine pipeline maintenance.

Oil and gas development on the landaround Navajo Reservoir would be managedunder NSO constraints. All of the USBR landaround the lake would be identified as NSO. Asa result, new wells would be required to bedirectionally drilled from outside the boundaryof USBR land.

There would be no change from AlternativeA on the Carson and Santa Fe NationalForests, except for the application of the NoisePolicy in designated areas on USFS land.


2-233


DisposalUnder this alternative, the isolated tracts

(approximately 2,640 acres) previouslyidentified and BLM lands south and west of US550 would remain available for disposal. Inaddition, the public lands on Crouch Mesabetween Aztec, Bloomfield and Farmington(Map 2-5) would be added to the list fordisposal. Exchange, sale, disposal under theR&PP act, or other legal disposal would beconsidered if the disposal met the criteria listedin Chapter 1. Table 2-1 provides the disposalacreage under this alternative.

AcquisitionInholdings and lands surrounding SDAs

would be the priority for acquisition. Additionalriparian areas would also be a priority foracquisition, if their acquisition is determined bythe Authorized Officer to be in the publicinterest. Other lands that consolidate publicownership or benefit a resource program couldalso be acquired. Any lands acquired would bemanaged in the same manner as the adjacentor surrounding public lands. Table 2-1 providesacquisition acreage under this alternative.


identified by the 2002 WUG revision of the1992 WRCS would be designated for powerlineand pipeline use. Any specific proposals wouldstill be required to go through theenvironmental and permitting process.Proposed uses that are determined tounreasonably interfere with the use of thesecorridors may not be authorized. Map 2-2shows the general alignment of the corridors.


acres) of salable minerals such as sand andgravel that needs to be well managed.Additional areas could be identified in thefuture. Some of these areas are within thedisposal area identified above. The purpose ofdelineating these areas is to inform managersand potential users of other resources in these

areas of their value for salable minerals, so thatvalue would be considered prior to theauthorization of other actions.

OHV UseOHV management would be similar to

Alternative B. Management Unit boundarieswould be the same as Alternative B, shown inMap 2-6. Acreage for each OHV designation isprovided in Table 2-2. The table reflectschanges in proposed SDAs for this alternativethat would slightly alter the acreage for eachdesignation. Proposed designated trailsdescribed for Alternative B would also apply forthis alternative (Table 2-9). OHV use would belimited to maintained roads, designated trails,routes, and areas on public lands in all OHVManagement Units. Some SDAs would beclosed to vehicular use. Additional routes, trails,areas, and final alignments may be identified asplans are developed for each OHVManagement Unit.

OHV Activity Plans would be written basedon priority of resource protection needs and theamount of public use. The individual OHVActivity Plans should be completed within 15years. In addition to the preparation of theOHV Activity Plans, the FFO will prepare aTransportation Plan. The Transportation Planwill identify collector and resource roads thatwould be needed for use over the long-term.These roads would remain open for publicaccess when oil and gas development in thearea ceases. Roads identified in theTransportation Plan would be included in theindividual OHV Activity Plans.

Specially Designated AreasUnder Alternative C, 903,309 acres in the

FFO would have special management, of whichBLM currently owns the surface on 713,710acres. Areas with special administrativedesignations (SMAs, ACECs, RNAs, WAs, andWSAs) approved through previous land useplanning would be carried forward withchanges described below. Accounting for thesechanges, there would be 141 SDAs in the FFOunder Alternative C. This reflects consolidationof several areas into larger contiguous areas to


2-234

provide for more efficient management.Changes in management prescriptions for newand existing areas are described in Table 2-5.Map 2-10 (large fold-out map for AlternativeC, located at end of document, inside backcover) shows adjusted boundaries under thisalternative. Please refer to Table 2-5 for namechanges.

Areas Not Carried Forward• Lost Pine, Log Jam, and Badlands

ACEC designations would be removedsince they are within the Bisti/De-Na-Zin WA and require no furtherdesignation.

• The Coal Belt SMA would be removedbecause all areas that are suitable forcoal would be available forconsideration for extraction under thelease by application process.


• Farmington Lake Watershed SMAwould be removed because the majorityof the ownership is non-federal, and asmall portion is within the GRTS.




Wildlife

• East La Plata Wildlife Area would beadded for protection of deer winterrange.

• Rattlesnake Canyon Wildlife Areawould be added for deer winter rangeand fall/winter use by wild turkeys.

• Middle Mesa Wildlife Area would beadded for protection of deer winterrange.

• Rosa Mesa Wildlife Area would beadded for protection of deer winterrange.

• Gonzales Mesa Wildlife Area would beadded for protection of deer winterrange.

• Crow Mesa Wildlife Area would beadded for deer and elk use all year.

• Cox Canyon Wildlife Area would beadded for protection of deer winterrange.

• Ensenada Mesa Wildlife Area would beadded for year-long use by antelope,deer and elk.

• Cereza Canyon Wildlife Area would beadded for protection of deer and elkwinter range.

• Manzanares Mesa Wildlife Area wouldbe added for protection of deer and elkwinter range.

• Delgadito Mesa Wildlife Area would beadded to provide for resident andmigratory deer and elk.

• Angel Peak Wildlife Area would beadded for antelope habitat.

• Laguna Seca Mesa Wildlife Area addedfor wild turkey, deer, elk, bear andAbert’s squirrel.

T&E Species

• The Ephemeral Wash Riparian Areawould be added to provide protectionof riparian resources. Managementwould be applied to promote theattainment and maintenance of properfunctioning conditions and providehabitats for the southwestern willowflycatcher.

• Within the Laguna Seca Mesa SMAwould be the Mexican Spotted OwlACEC, designated to protect the T&Ehabitat values in the critical habitatdesignated by the USFWS.


2-235

Cultural

All cultural SMAs carried forward fromprevious plans and amendments would bedesignated as ACECs.

Chacoan Outliers• Twin Angels ACEC would be enlarged.

• Jacques ACEC would be enlarged andrenamed as Jacques ChacoanCommunity ACEC.

Anasazi Communities (Non-Chacoan)• Cedar Hill ACEC would be added.

• East Side Rincon Site would beenlarged and changed to an ACEC.

• The existing Chacra Mesa ComplexACEC and the Shephard Site SMAwould be combined with surroundinglands.

• La Jara ACEC would be added.

Early Navajo Defensive Sites andCommunities

• Adams Canyon SMA would change toan ACEC designation and beexpanded.

• Blanco Mesa ACEC would be enlarged.

• Cottonwood Divide ACEC would beadded upon acquisition of state landand mineral rights.

• Existing Crow Canyon District ACEC,NM-01-39344 ACEC, and UnreachableRockshelter SMA, would be combinedwith surrounding lands and would becalled Crow Canyon ACEC.

• Deer House ACEC would be enlarged.

• Existing Casa Mesa Diablo SMA andYe’is-in-Row ACEC would becombined with surrounding lands andcalled Devil’s Spring Mesa ACEC.

• The existing Adolfo Canyon SMA, BigStar ACEC, Carrizo Cranes ACEC,Gomez Canyon Ruin SMA, GomezPoint ACEC, Hill Road Ruin SMA, NM-01-39236 ACEC, and Rabbit TracksACEC would be combined with

surrounding lands and called EncinadaMesa-Carrizo Canyon ACEC.

• The existing Frances Ruin ACEC andRomine Canyon SMA would becombined with surrounding lands andcalled Frances Mesa ACEC.

• Kachina Mask ACEC would beenlarged.

• Kiva ACEC would be enlarged.

• Muñoz Canyon ACEC would be added.

• Pointed Butte SMA would be enlargedand designated as an ACEC.

• Pork Chop Pass ACEC would be addedupon acquisition of state land andmineral rights.

• Rincon Largo District SMA would beenlarged and designated as an ACEC.

• Rincon Rock Shelter SMA would beenlarged and designated as an ACEC.

• Star Rock ACEC would be added.

• String House ACEC would be addedupon acquisition of state land andmineral rights.

• Existing Cibola Canyon ACEC,Compressor Station SMA, Foothold andOverlook Ruins District SMA, HoodedFireplace and Largo School DistrictACEC, and Superior Mesa CommunityACEC would be combined withsurrounding lands and called SuperiorMesa ACEC.

• Tapacito and Split Rock ACEC wouldbe enlarged.

• Truby’s Tower ACEC would be addedupon acquisition of state land andmineral rights.

Petroglyph and Pictograph Sites• Bi Yaazh ACEC would be enlarged.

• The existing Delgadita/Pueblo CanyonsACEC and Delgadito Pueblito SMAwould be combined with surroundinglands into the Delgadita-PuebloCanyons ACEC.


2-236

• Hummingbird Canyon ACEC would beadded.

• Star Spring ACEC would be enlargedand renamed Star Springs-JesusCanyon ACEC.

• Martinez Canyon ACEC would beenlarged.

Historic Sites• Albert Mesa ACEC would be added.

• The Haynes Trading Post ACEC wouldbe added.

• The Moss Trail ACEC would be added.

Paleontology• The Piñon Mesa Fossil Area would be

added to protect significant paleon-tological values.

• Gobernador and Cereza Canyon FossilArea would be added to protect signifi-cant paleontological values.





Recreation• Simon Canyon ACEC would be

expanded to include the portion of theSimon Canyon Recreation Area thatextends beyond the ACEC boundary.The SMA designation would beremoved and the area would bemanaged as an ACEC.

• The GRTS name would change toGlade Run Recreation Area and theboundary would be changed to better

reflect the area of current use. Thiswould result in a reduction in acreage.

• Piñon Mesa Recreation Area would bedesignated for recreational,paleontological, and visual values.There would be several trails withdifferent types of use. The managedarea would include the corridors andsurrounding land.

• Rock Garden Recreation Area would bedesignated for recreational values. Thearea would be for OHV, equestrian andother recreational use on designatedtrails, routes and areas. Managementwould be applied to the trails andsurrounding land.

• Navajo Lake Horse Trail would bedesignated for recreational values,promoting equestrian use. Themanaged area would include thecorridors and surrounding land.

• Alien Run Mountain Bike Trail wouldbe designated for recreational values,and non-motorized use on trailcorridors and surrounding land.

• The boundary of Thomas CanyonRecreation Area would be enlarged anda wildlife management componentwould be added to the larger SMA, inaddition to the current recreationalemphasis.

• In addition to current recreationalemphasis, Carracas Mesa RecreationArea would add a wildlife managementcomponent in addition to the currentrecreational emphasis.

Coal Leasing Suitability Assessment

Preference Right Leasing ApplicationThe 14 PRLAs discussed in Alternative A

would be carried forward under this alternative.The unsuitability criteria that limited severalPRLAs would still be in effect. Those PRLAsthat are affected by Congressional designationof the WA and RNA may, under public law, beexchanged for coal leases in New Mexico if it isin the public interest. At the time any of the


2-237

PRLAs are processed, the unsuitability criteriawould be applied again, if necessary.

The acres in Ah-shi-sle-pah WSA would notbe available for future coal leasing anddevelopment until Congress reaches a decisionon the Ah-shi-sle-pah WSA status.

Competitive Coal TractsThe 17 competitive coal tracts would not be

available for leasing and coal developmentunder this alternative. Existing coal mineswould continue to extract from existing coalleases until recovery of in-place coal reservesare complete. The existing La Plata, San Juan,and McKinley Mines would not be able toexpand their existing mining operations. Thepotential for coal mines and a power generatingplant in the southern portion of the FFO wouldno longer exist. Approximately 560 million tons

of mineable federal coal would not berecovered.


The need for domestic home fuel needswould continue as identified in Alternative A.The historic use of coal from surface outcropsby Navajo allottees in the area would continue.New domestic coal license applications wouldbe considered on a case-by-case basis.


Alternative C would be the same as AlternativeA, except in the number of acres in SDAs.Under this alternative, 713,710 acres of publicland would fall under the guidance for theseareas. Other areas would be managed inaccordance with the procedures described forAlternative A.

CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVE D Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS

2-238

Alternative DAlternative D includes aspects of the other

three alternatives, with the goal of balancingextraction of the mineral resource, multiple usesof public lands, and protection of natural andcultural resources. The goal of this alternative isto have full field subsurface development, asdescribed in the RFDS, while minimizingsurface disturbance to the extent possible.


This alternative would provide fordevelopment of 9,942 new wells in theplanning area, after the 28 wells that would beinaccessible due to NSO constraints are

subtracted from the total. This would includesome commingling as projected in the RFDS(Engler et al. 2001). Commingling would beencouraged where possible, includingconsideration of opportunities to combine oiland gas operations across leases and betweendifferent companies. The theme of thisalternative would focus on permitting mineralproduction while mitigating impacts to otherresources. The number of APDs to be approvedwould be approximately 500 per year over thenext 20 years.



Acreage in Restof Planning Area

TotalAcreage

LeasingNondiscretionary Closure 349 110,799 111,148Discretionary Closure 35,000 46,000 81,000

DevelopmentSTC 1,218,650 1,378,543 2,597,193CSU 206,668 80,242 286,910NSO 20,041 5,401 25,442TL 419,386 64,421 483,807

Note: STC = Open under Standard Terms and Conditions; CSU = Controlled Surface Use; NSO = No Surface Occupancy; TL = Seasonal Timing Limitation.

Within the high development area, morethan 99 percent of the federal oil and gasresources are currently leased. In areas beingconsidered for discretionary closure in the RMP,the development of existing leases wouldcontinue according to the terms of the lease.The BLM would continue to implement theportions of the lease that require lessees toconduct operations in a manner that minimizesadverse impacts to other resources and otherland uses and users.

Mitigation of impacts would beaccomplished by the application of thefollowing new technology, regulatory changes,and off-site mitigation, as appropriate (practicaland reasonable) to reduce the footprint from

each proposed well. This framework would beapplied on a case-by-case basis for eachproposed well, in addition to theimplementation of the continuing managementguidance that is common to all alternatives.

• New TechnologyConstruction andProduction Techniques: coil tubedrilling for CBM wells, directionaldrilling from existing pads, use ofremote sensing and telemetry to reducetraffic, surface use of produced water(could apply off-site) to create riparianand wetland habitats, transport injectedproduced water via pipeline instead oftrucking to reduce traffic, closed loopmud systems.

Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVE D

2-239

• Regulatory ChangesStandardize thedrilling window off-sets in the federalunits; encourage/permit dual comple-tion, re-completion and commingling(both downhole and at the surface),from multiple producing formations, toreduce the total number of well pads;consider the creation of additionalfederal units.

• Off-Site MitigationUtilize the voluntar-ily contributed funding from the oil andgas industry to monitor impacts,develop adaptive managementstrategies, implement managementprescriptions in the SDAs, and enhanceresource conditions off-site. Contributedfunds could be utilized to:

♦ Monitor impacts to vegetation, soil,water, air, wildlife and habitats;

♦ Purchase and construct signs, gates,access and property within SDAs;

♦ Stabilize and interpret significantcultural resources;

♦ Enhance habitats and meet publicland health standards throughvegetation manipulation, creation ofadditional water sites, application ofproduced water for riparian areasand wetlands, construction ofstructures and facilities to supportsite-specific management objectivessuch as kiosks, interpretive sites,parking areas, gates, fences, signs,etc.

The mitigation measures described underAlternative C that minimize erosion and wildlifehabitat disturbance would be implementedwhere applicable, depending on site-specificconditions and requirements. They include thefollowing:

• Make every effort to minimize surfacedisturbance and intrusion intoundisturbed areas through such actionsas twinning of wells and directionaldrilling, unorthodox locations, re-completions, commingling of gas, and

closed loop mud systems. Pipelineswould follow existing roads.

• Development would be restricted inareas that have special topographic(steep or broken and/or on benches)and soil concerns. Development inthese areas would be considered on acase-by-case basis and would containsite-specific mitigation stipulations.

• Operators would be encouraged tounitize in areas of heavy developmentto increase management efficiency andfacilitate operations in sensitive areas.

• Off-site mitigation may be indicated incrucial areas, such as areas with wildlifemonitoring or studies, habitatreplacement, water development, andwatershed protection measures.

• Vehicle traffic and resource damagewould be reduced by using newtechnology such as electronic datainterchange and piping of producedwater.

Listed below is a summary of the types ofactivities that would not be permissible during aclosure period in an area under TL constraints.Emergency repairs needed for human safetyand environmental contamination would notrequire prior authorization. Emergency repairscan include downhole or surface equipmentrepairs and/or modifications necessary tosustain the productive capability of the well.

• Any construction, including new wellpads, roads, pipelines, installation ofcompressors, surfacing of roads, power-lines. Well pad, road construction androad improvement.

• Drilling.

• Plugging and abandonment (unlessrequired to prevent environmentaldamage).

• Seismic exploration.

• Workovers or any activity requiring adrilling rig, unless required to preventenvironmental damage, or topermanent loss of reserves. Prior


2-240

approval must be approved beforebeginning this type of work.

Activities that are routine and do notconflict with the seasonal restrictions includeroutine daily operations, road maintenance,and routine pipeline maintenance.

Noise from oil and gas compressors hasbeen identified by the public as an issue ofprimary concern in the planning area. Toaddress these concerns, the FFO developed aNoise Policy, which would be implemented inthe form of an NTL to oil and gas operators orROW that would require mitigation of noiselevels measured within and adjacent todesignated NSAs or within a specified distancefrom designated point receptors.

Receptor-focused controls would apply tospecific locations within 46 BLM and four USFSdesignated areas. Boundary-focused controlswould apply to all designated acreage within7 BLM, 3 USFS, and 1 NPS NSAs. All USBRland would be considered a boundary-focusedNSA. For receptor-focused NSAs, the noisestandard of 48.6 dBA Leq would be achievedwithin 100 feet of agency-established receptorpoints within the designated NSAs. Establishedreceptors are generally defined as visitor useareas, camp or picnic areas, habitat forthreatened or endangered species,archaeological sites, and recreation trails, andmay vary in size from a single point to severalacres based on the features and resourcecomponents being managed.

In boundary-focused NSAs, the standardwould be 48.6 dBA Leq, at 400 feet in alldirections from the noise source. For noisesources located outside of designated NSAs, thenoise standard of 48.6 dBA Leq would be metat the boundary of the NSA. Noise sourceslocated within 400 feet of the NSA boundarywould generally be allowed to meet thestandard 400 feet from the source.

For noise sources involving federal orIndian leases located near occupied dwellingsor buildings, the standard of 48.6 dBA Leqwould be met 100 feet from such structure.

Additional information on the Noise Policy isincluded in Appendix E.

In addition to implementation of the NoisePolicy, the raptor noise policy to minimize noiseimpacts from wellhead compression on raptornest sites would be implemented as describedunder Alternative A.

Oil and gas development on the landaround Navajo Reservoir would be managedunder NSO constraints in the following areas:

• Within 1,500 feet of Navajo Dam andits appurtenant structures;

• Within 500 feet of the maximum highwater line (elevation 6,101.5 feet aboveMSL);

• Within 500 feet of the San Juan River;• On all new leases.The remainder of the area would be

managed under CSU constraints. Unlessexempted by USBR, there would be a timinglimitation applied to the entire area fromDecember 1 through March 31, and all USBRland would be managed as a boundary-focusedNSA. Production facilities would not be locatedon the ridgeline above the reservoir and wouldbe designed to minimize their visibility from thelake and other public use areas. Co-location ofgas well facilities would be encouraged tominimize surface disturbance and theduplication of facilities.


DisposalUnder this alternative, all of the land

identified for disposal in Alternative A would beavailable. In addition, the lands on CrouchMesa and the lands along and less than onemile east of US 550 between Aztec andBloomfield (Map 2-5) would be a priority fordisposal. Exchange, sale, disposal under theR&PP Act or other legal disposal would beconsidered if the disposal met the criteria listedin Chapter 1. Additional areas identified by thevarious governmental entities and non-profitorganizations during the scoping process forR&PP purposes (Appendix H) may be availablefor disposal if determined by the Authorized


2-241

Officer to be in the public interest. In someinstances, the FFO would consider disposal ofparcels within SDAs. Decisions would be basedon an evaluation of the overall public benefitserved by either disposal or continuedmanagement of special resource values.Identified parcels on which substantialimprovements have been inadvertently placedwould be made available for disposal, if theAuthorized Officer determines that suchdisposal would be in the public interest. Table2-1 provides the disposal acreage under thisalternative.

AcquisitionInholdings and lands surrounding SDAs

would be the priority for acquisition. Additionalriparian areas would also be a priority foracquisition, if their acquisition is determined bythe Authorized Officer to be in the publicinterest. Other lands that consolidate publicownership or benefit a resource program couldalso be acquired. Any lands acquired would bemanaged in the same manner as the adjacentor surrounding public land. Table 2-1 providesthe acquisition acreage under this alternative.


identified by the 2002 WUG revision of the1992 WRCS would be designated for powerlineand pipeline use. Any specific proposals wouldstill be required to go through theenvironmental and permitting process.Proposed uses that are determined tounreasonably interfere with the use of thesecorridors may not be authorized. Map 2-2shows the general alignment of the corridors.

The 2002 WUG revision of the 1992WRCS proposed corridors as shown on Map2-2 would be the designated ROW corridors forthe FFO. In most cases, these corridors followthe routes of existing major electric transmissionlines or petroleum transportation pipelines.

The goal of designating proposed corridorsis to facilitate the transport of energy-relatedresources and products while minimizingenvironmental impacts to all lands. The FFOwould encourage the use of the designatedROW corridors and ROW use areas, to theextent possible, but depending upon on site-specific needs, actual locations may vary. Utilitycorridors can often accommodate othercompatible uses such as maintenance roadsand other facilities, thus minimizing theproliferation of separate ROWs.

Designation of ROW corridors does noteliminate the requirement for the environ-mental analysis of any new ROW projectproposals. The designated corridors wouldfunction as the agency preferred location forfuture ROWs. Future proposals may benefitfrom the surveys and impact analysesconducted for existing projects. ROW proposalsoutside of designated corridors would not beexcluded. However, such proposals may entailgreater scope of analyses and increased timenecessary to analyze impacts and alternativeroutes.

Activities which would generally beexcluded from ROW corridors include mineralmaterial sales, range and wildlife habitatimprovements involving surface disturbance orfacility construction (such as water catchments,corrals, holding pens), campgrounds and publicrecreational facilities or other facilities whichwould attract public use. New oil and gas wellswould be sited outside of ROW corridors.

Fourteen SDAs that would be within oradjacent to proposed WUG corridors are listedin Table 2-11. In most cases, the designatedSDA is of such small size and/or steeptopography that linear energy projects could berouted around these areas. This table identifiesproposed management of ROW applications ineach SDA.


2-242

Table 2-11. SDAs in Proximity to WUG Corridors

SDA Name ROW Prescription

The Hogback Allowed with site-specific stipulations.Piñon Mesa Fossil Area Allowed with site-specific stipulations.Glade Run Allowed with site-specific stipulations.Rattlesnake Canyon Allowed with site-specific stipulations.Crow Mesa Allowed with site-specific stipulations.Dzil’na’oodlii(Huerfano Mesa)

No new ROWs on mesa top (37 acres). Inremaining area, new ROWs restricted toexisting disturbance.

Lybrook Fossil Area Allowed with site-specific stipulations.Torrejon Fossil Fauna Allowed with site-specific stipulations.North Road Segment #2 No new ROWs. One proposed corridor near

north boundary. Minor routing change mightbe required.

North Road Segment #7 No new ROWs.San Luis Cliffs Window New ROWs restricted to existing corridor.Betonnie Tsosie Allowed with site-specific stipulations.Bi Yaazh – Cultural New ROWs restricted to existing

disturbance.River Tracts Allowed with site-specific stipulations.

The developed network of existing facilitiesthroughout and across the FFO provides aneffective network for using corridors to transporthydrocarbons, and electrical energy resourcesacross or out of the San Juan Basin. Thisnetwork, in conjunction with the designatedutility corridors, should accommodate futureROW needs for the next 10-15 years. Thus, thedesignation of SDAs in the Farmington RMPwill have minimal to no adverse impacts toeither interstate or intrastate transportation ofenergy products.


acres) of salable minerals (Map 2-8) such assand and gravel that needs to be well managed.Additional areas could be identified in thefuture. Some of these areas are within thedisposal area identified above. The purpose ofdelineating these areas is to inform managersand potential users of other resources in theseareas of their value for salable minerals, so that

value would be considered prior to theauthorization of other actions.

OHV UseOHV management would be similar to

Alternative B. Management unit boundarieswould be the same as Alternative B, shown inMap 2-6. Acreage for each OHV designation isprovided in Table 2-2. The table reflectschanges in proposed SDAs for this alternativethat would slightly alter the acreage for eachdesignation. Restrictions on cross-country traveldescribed in Table 2-3 would apply. Proposeddesignated trails described for Alternative B(Table 2-9) would also apply for thisalternative. Table 2-10 quantifies the amount ofland in each Management Unit that maypotentially be considered suitable for opendesignation as OHV Management Unit plansare developed. These areas could be furtherreduced depending on site-specific sensitivitiesas described under Alternative B.


2-243

OHV Activity Plans would be written basedon priority of resource protection needs and theamount of public use and should be completedwithin 15 years. In addition to the preparationof the OHV Activity Plans, the FFO will preparea Transportation Plan. The Transportation Planwill identify collector and resource roads thatwould be needed for use over the long-term.These roads would remain open for publicaccess when oil and gas development in thearea ceases. Roads identified in theTransportation Plan would be included in theindividual OHV Activity Plans.

To improve management of roads used foroil and gas, the AFO would establish a roadManagement Unit in the Lindrith/Cuba areapatterned after the OHV Management Units inthe FFO Transportation Plan.

Specially Designated AreasUnder Alternative D, 811,810 acres in the

FFO would have special management, of whichBLM currently manages the surface on 649,470acres. Areas with special administrativedesignations (SMAs, ACECs, RNAs, WAs, andWSAs) approved through previous land useplanning would be carried forward withchanges described below. Accounting for thesechanges, there would be 137 SDAs in the FFOunder Alternative D. This reflects consolidationof several areas into larger contiguous areas toprovide for more efficient management.Changes in management prescriptions for newand existing areas are described in Table 2-5.Map 2-11 (large fold-out map for AlternativeD, located at end of document, inside backcover) shows adjusted boundaries under thisalternative. Please refer to Table 2-5 for namechanges.

Areas Not Carried Forward• Lost Pine, Log Jam and Badlands

ACEC designations would be removedsince they are within the Bisti/De-Na-Zin WA and require no furtherdesignation.

• The Coal Belt SMA would be removedbecause all areas that are suitable for

coal would be available forconsideration for extraction under thelease by application process.


• Farmington Lake Watershed SMAwould be removed because the majorityof the ownership is non-federal, and asmall portion is within the GRTS.




Wildlife

• The East La Plata Wildlife Area wouldbe added for protection of deer winterrange.

• Rattlesnake Canyon Wildlife Areawould be added for deer winter rangeand fall/winter use by wild turkeys.

• The Middle Mesa Wildlife Area wouldbe added for protection of deer winterrange.

• The Rosa Mesa Wildlife Area would beadded for protection of deer winterrange.

• Gonzales Mesa Wildlife Area would beadded for protection of deer winterrange.

• Crow Mesa Wildlife Area would beadded for deer and elk use all year.

• Ensenada Mesa Wildlife Area would beadded for year-long use by antelope,deer and elk.

• Cereza Canyon Wildlife Area would beadded for protection of deer and elkwinter range.


2-244

• Laguna Seca Mesa Wildlife Area addedfor wild turkey, deer, elk, bear andAbert’s squirrel.

T&E Species

• The Ephemeral Wash Riparian Areawould be added to provide protectionof riparian resources. Managementwould be applied to promote theattainment and maintenance of properfunctioning conditions and providehabitats for the southwestern willowflycatcher.

• Within the Laguna Seca Mesa SMAwould be the Mexican Spotted OwlACEC, designated to protect the T&Ehabitat values in the critical habitatdesignated by the USFWS.

Cultural

• All cultural SMAs carried forward fromprevious plans and amendments wouldbe designated as ACECs.

Chacoan Outliers• Twin Angels ACEC would be enlarged.

• Jacques ACEC would be enlarged andrenamed as Jacques Chacoan Commu-nity ACEC.

Anasazi Communities (Non-Chacoan)• Cedar Hill ACEC would be added.

• East Side Rincon Site would beenlarged and changed to an ACEC.

• The existing Chacra Mesa ComplexACEC and the Shephard Site SMAwould be combined with surroundinglands. La Jara ACEC would be added.

Early Navajo Defensive Sites andCommunities

• Adams Canyon SMA would change toan ACEC designation and beexpanded. Blanco Mesa ACEC (130acres) would be enlarged.

• Cottonwood Divide ACEC would beadded upon acquisition of state landand mineral rights.

• Existing Crow Canyon District ACEC,NM-01-39344 ACEC, and UnreachableRockshelter SMA would be combinedwith surrounding lands and would becalled Crow Canyon ACEC.

• Deer House ACEC would be enlarged.

• Existing Casa Mesa Diablo SMA andYe’is-in-Row ACEC would becombined with surrounding lands andcalled Devil’s Spring Mesa ACEC.

• The existing Adolfo Canyon SMA, BigStar ACEC, Carrizo Cranes ACEC,Gomez Canyon Ruin SMA, GomezPoint ACEC, Hill Road Ruin SMA, NM-01-39236 ACEC, and Rabbit TracksACEC would be combined withsurrounding lands and called EncinadaMesa-Carrizo Canyon ACEC.

• The existing Frances Ruin ACEC andRomine Canyon SMA would becombined with surrounding lands andcalled Frances Mesa ACEC.

• Kachina Mask ACEC would beenlarged.

• Kiva ACEC would be enlarged.

• Muñoz Canyon ACEC would be added.

• Pointed Butte SMA would be enlargedand designated as an ACEC.

• Pork Chop Pass ACEC would be addedupon acquisition of state land andmineral rights.

• Rincon Largo District SMA would beenlarged and designated as an ACEC.

• Rincon Rock Shelter SMA would beenlarged and designated as an ACEC.

• Star Rock ACEC would be added.

• String House ACEC would be addedupon acquisition of state land andmineral rights.

• Existing Cibola Canyon ACEC,Compressor Station SMA, Foothold andOverlook Ruins District SMA, Hooded


2-245

Fireplace and Largo School DistrictACEC, and Superior Mesa CommunityACEC would be combined withsurrounding lands and called SuperiorMesa ACEC.

• Tapacito and Split Rock ACEC wouldbe enlarged.

• Truby’s Tower ACEC would be addedupon acquisition of state land andmineral rights.

Petroglyph and Pictograph Sites• Bi Yaazh ACEC would be enlarged.

• The existing Delgadita-Pueblo CanyonsACEC and Delgadito Pueblito SMAwould be combined with surroundinglands into the Delgadita-PuebloCanyons ACEC (360 acres).

• Hummingbird Canyon ACEC would beadded.

• Star Spring ACEC would be enlargedand renamed Star Springs-JesusCanyon ACEC.

• Martinez Canyon ACEC would beenlarged.

Historic Sites• Albert Mesa ACEC would be added.

• The Haynes Trading Post ACEC wouldbe added.

• The Moss Trail ACEC would be added.

Paleontology

• The Piñon Mesa Fossil Area would beadded to protect significantpaleontological values.

• Gobernador and Cereza Canyon FossilArea would be added to protect signifi-cant paleontological values.





Recreation

• Simon Canyon ACEC would beexpanded to include the portion of theSimon Canyon Recreation Area thatextends beyond the ACEC boundary.The SMA designation would beremoved and the area would bemanaged as an ACEC.

• The GRTS boundary would be changedto better reflect the area of current use.This would result in a reduction inacreage.

• Piñon Mesa Recreation Area would bedesignated for recreational,paleontological, and visual values.There would be several trails withdifferent types of use. The managedarea would include corridors andsurrounding land.

• Rock Garden Recreation Area would bedesignated for recreational values. Thearea would be designated for OHV,equestrian and other recreational useon designated trails, routes and areas.Management would be applied to thearea including trails and surroundingland.

• Navajo Lake Horse Trail would bedesignated for recreational values,promoting equestrian use. Themanaged area would include corridorsand surrounding land.

• Alien Run Mountain Bike Trail wouldbe designated for recreational values,and non-motorized use on trailcorridors and surrounding land.

• The boundary of Thomas CanyonRecreation Area would be enlarged and


2-246

wildlife management added as aresource value.

• In addition to current recreationalemphasis, Carracas Mesa RecreationArea would add a wildlife managementcomponent.

Coal Leasing Suitability AssessmentUnder this alternative there would be no

shift in resource uses, but rather a balancedapproach in the proposed leasing areas.Existing program policies and decisions forother resource programs would not change.The BLM would encourage and assist coallessees and oil and gas lessees in their efforts toreach a cooperative development independ-ently that would achieve the goals of bothparties.

Preference Right Leasing ApplicationsThe 14 PRLAs discussed in Alternative A

would be carried forward under this alternative.The unsuitability criteria that affected severalPRLAs would be in effect. Those PRLAs thatare affected by Congressional designation ofthe WA and RNA may be exchanged for coalleases in New Mexico if it is in the publicinterest. At the time any of the PRLAs areprocessed, the unsuitability criteria would bereapplied on a site-specific basis.

The area would not be available for futurecoal leasing and development until Congressreaches a decision on the Ah-shi-sle-pahwilderness status.

Competitive Coal TractsThe 17 competitive coal tracts were

discussed and available for leasing underAlternative A would be considered for leasingunder this alternative. Those companies thatare interested in mining coal from these tractswould submit an application to lease the coaland the 20 unsuitability criteria would bereapplied during the leasing process. It wasdetermined that 378,285 acres would besuitable to consider for future leasing anddevelopment in the FFO area.


The need for domestic home fuel needswould continue as identified in Alternative A. Itis assumed that the historic use of coal fromsurface outcrops by Navajo allottees in the areawould continue. New domestic coal licenseapplications would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Additional Coal InterestsThe two Peabody and BHP coal tracts

identifying federal lands suitable for coal leasingdescribed under Alternative B would beconsidered under this alternative. These landsare in the vicinity of Lee Ranch, Twin Peaks,and East Piñon areas (see Map 2-4) for thelocation of these tracts. The 20 unsuitabilitycriteria would be applied during the leasingprocess.

In the Twin Peaks area, land acreagetotaling approximately four sections inTownship 30N Range 14W (Sections 10, 14,15, 22 [NE ¼ of NE ¼], 23 [E ½ and N ½ ofthe NW ¼], and 26 [NE ¼ and N ½ of the SE¼]) underlie the Piñon Mesa Fossil Area andPiñon Mesa Recreation Area. This land wouldnot be available for coal mining. The remainingacreage in the Twin Peaks area would beavailable for coal mining with stipulations thatprotect paleontological resources, includingpaleontological surveys prior to undergroundmining and periodic monitoring during activeunderground mining to identify paleontologicalresources that may be exposed as a result ofsubsidence.


Alternative D would be the same as AlternativeA, except in the number of acres under specialadministrative designation. Under thisalternative, 649,470 acres of public land wouldfall under the guidance for these areas. Otherareas would be managed in accordance withthe procedures described for Alternative A.

Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

2-247

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT

ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED

ANALYSIS

Alternatives A, B, and C represent a rangeof possible management approaches to oil andgas leasing and development in the planningarea and resource management in the FFOarea. Alternatives considered and eliminatedfrom detailed analysis are briefly describedbelow.

Prohibit any new oil and gas developmenton federal land in the planning area. Thisalternative was considered unreasonablebecause of the national need for energyresources and the BLM’s legal mandate underthe Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 andthe Minerals Policy Research and DevelopmentAct of 1980.

Prohibit any new oil and gas developmentoutside of the high intensity oil and gas area ofthe FFO. This alternative was rejected becauseit would severely limit access to availablemineral reservoirs and is inconsistent withfederal laws and mandates for multiple use ofpublic lands. STCs and NSO provisions wereconsidered adequate to protect sensitiveenvironmental resources without completelyprohibiting oil and gas development.

Eliminate NSO restrictions in specialmanagement areas. This was not considered areasonable alternative because it would result inviolations of federal laws such as the WildernessAct, ESA, NHPA, and FLPMA.

Eliminate restrictions on placement of roadsand pipelines. This alternative would eliminatethe requirement to place roads and pipelinessupporting oil and gas development within thesame ROWs and allow new roads and pipelinesto be constructed cross-country withoutrestrictions. The alternative was rejectedbecause the extreme surface disturbance thatwould result was considered inconsistent withBLM, USBR, and USFS policies for preservingresources and managing multiple uses.

Eliminate all restrictions on OHV use in theplanning area. This alternative was considered

unreasonable because the alternativesexamined in detail provide for a wide range ofOHV access, and removing all restrictionswould subject special management areas todamage from OHV use that would jeopardizethe resources those areas were established toprotect.

Alternatives Proposed DuringPublic Comment Period

Public comments on the Draft RMP/EISsuggested two additional alternatives: onewhich would allow no new or no net increase insurface disturbance and another which wouldprohibit further leasing of oil and gas. Thesealternatives and the reasons they wereeliminated from detailed analysis are describedbelow.

No New Surface Disturbance and No NetIncrease in Surface Disturbance. Severalcomments were received on the Draft RMP/EISrequesting consideration of an alternative thatwould substantially reduce new welldevelopment and avoid associatedenvironmental impacts. Specifically, commen-tors requested an alternative that wouldpreclude further habitat fragmentation inwildlife management areas by limiting well pad,road, and pipeline construction. The FFO hasconsidered such an alternative and determinedthat it is not practical or reasonable, for reasonsexplained in the following paragraphs.

The planning area is comprised of a total ofapproximately 3 million acres of federalminerals. A little over half of this acreage is inthe high development area for oil and gas.Within the high development area, more than99 percent of the federal oil and gas resourcesare already leased, and many of those leasesare held by production. The leaseholders havepaid the federal government for the right toextract the minerals covered by those leases.The government, in turn, has entered into acontractual agreement to permit leaseholders todevelop those resources. Leaseholders are, infact, required by regulation to diligently developand efficiently extract the resources covered bytheir leases.

CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS

2-248

Approximately 128,000 acres of public landin the high development area are in existingCritical Big Game Habitat Management Areas.This could increase to as much as 397,000acres under Alternative C. This is the acreagethat would be subject to no new surfacedisturbance in an alternative designed toprohibit increased habitat fragmentation.Within the 397,000 acres, there are 4,528existing oil and gas wells and 2,700 new wellsprojected for development. Assuming anaverage production of 1.12 billion standardcubic feet (Bscf) per well, if the 2,700 projectednew wells were not permitted, the potential lossof production would be approximately 3,000Bscf (27 percent) of the total productionpotential of the federal minerals in the region.At an estimated $3 per thousand cubic foot(NMDFA 2001), this would represent lostrevenue of about $9 billion to the leaseholders.

Precluding leaseholders from extractingthese resources violates the BLM’s contractresponsibilities and would likely requirecompensation by the federal government.While it is not known what the extent of thecompensation would be, it is clear from thenumbers given above that the magnitude of theeconomic impact far exceeds a reasonableability of the federal government to compensateleaseholders for the loss. In addition toeconomic issues, an alternative requiring no netincrease in surface disturbance would preventthe orderly drainage of gas from undergroundformations and could lead to a violation ofcorrelative rights. Linking new development tothe rate of plugging and abandonment of oldwells would cut the number of new wells toapproximately one half that projected for thenear future. This would result in a reduction ofnatural gas output from the Basin requiringexisting customers to seek other sources ofnatural gas. Such an alternative would also runcounter to National Energy Policy direction tomeet increased demands for natural gas.

Commentors proposing either a no newsurface disturbance or no net increase insurface disturbance alternative do not presentsite-specific data to indicate which wildlife

populations would benefit from such anapproach. There are virtually no pristine wildlifehabitats in the FFO. Over 50 years ofdevelopment have left no large blocks ofunfragmented habitat. The BLM does not havescientific information to indicate which, if any,wildlife populations have declined due to oiland gas development. Mule deer have declinedacross their range in the West, including manyareas without oil and gas development. Otherspecies, such as elk, peregrine falcon, andwintering bald eagles have increased in the SanJuan Basin during the past 20 years of ongoingoil and gas development.

Additional oil and gas development andmaintenance activities on State and privatelands would continue to impact wildlife habitatswithin the San Juan Basin. In order to protectnatural and cultural resources while enablingoperations to extract minerals on public lands,the BLM has developed stipulations, BMPs,and constraints, such as timing constraints inthe wildlife management areas, which areaddressed in the COAs accompanying eachAPD. These provisions have been implementedin the past to reduce impacts to wildlife. Theyare expected to mitigate potential adverseimpacts and reduce, though not eliminate,further habitat fragmentation.

No Further Leasing. No further leasing ofoil and gas has been proposed as an alternativethat would reduce impacts of oil and gasdevelopment. In the Draft RMP/EIS, no newleasing was presented as a managementprescription for some SDAs. However, due tothe presence of prior existing leases, applicationof the prescription can only occur if leasesexpire.

In addition, it is BLM policy (BLM Manual3031.06A, Minerals Policy) “…to keep publiclands open to mineral exploration anddevelopment, unless closure or restriction ismandated by Congress or justified in thenational interest.”

Over 90 percent of the available lands inthe planning area are already under existing oiland gas leases. Virtually all of the leases in thehigh development area of the planning area

Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

2-249

were leased in the 1950s and 1960s and havebeen held by production. Prohibiting furtherleasing of Federal oil and gas in the planningarea would not have any effect on the ongoingdevelopment of existing Federal leases or stateor private leases. Lands that are presentlyavailable for leasing are generally on the fringesof the oil- and gas-producing region. Throughthe planning process, the lands with specialvalues such as important cultural resources orcrucial wildlife habitats have been designated asrequiring special management prescriptions. Insome cases these prescriptions indicate no

leasing for oil and gas or not re-offering leases ifan existing lease is allowed to expire.

Lands nominated for leasing are reviewedfor the presence of potential conflicts withexisting land use plans or other potential landuse conflicts. If conflicts exist, the affectedparcels are either withdrawn from the leaseoffering or special stipulations are attached tothe lease. This procedure is effective inprotecting sensitive resources while still allowingfor the potential development of energyresources.

CHAPTER 2—COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS

2-250

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES A,B, C, AND D

This section presents the impacts of thealternatives in comparative form to define thedifferences and provide a basis for choiceamong the options. Table 2-12 provides a

summary of selected actions proposed undereach alternative. Table 2-13 summarizes thecomparative effects of each alternative asreflected in various measurements related toeach of the resource areas discussed in detail inChapter 4, Environmental Consequences.

Table 2-12. Summary of Actions by Alternative

Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Number of New Wells on Federal Land(over 20-year period) 4,421 13,275 9,836 9,942

New Roads for Oil and Gas Development(miles)

358 1,075 797 805

FFO Land Available for Disposal (acres) 280,782 347,505 338,067 340,118

Acres Identified for Acquisition by FFO(acres) 127,782 77,589 189,679 178,237

OHV Limitations in the FFO (acres)OpenLimitedClosed

1,230,839122,063

62,384

4,6161

1,352,93157,739

4,6161,352,117

58,533

4,6161

1,353,30157,369

Public Land in SDAs (acres) 491,945 468,410 713,710 649,470

Federal Minerals with Oil and GasStipulations (acres)

Non-Discretionary ClosuresDiscretionary ClosuresControlled Surface UseNo Surface OccupancyOpen with STCsTiming Limitations

111,14853,216

158,71413,137

2,737,694195,166

111,14828,273

236,27013,290

2,659,985240,059

111,148114,100275,192

55,0702,579,283

638,401

111,14881,000

286,91025,442

2,597,193483,807

Note: (1) Open acreage could be as much as 99,003 in Alternative B and 65,806 in Alternative D as shown in Table 2-10.

Table 2-13. Comparison of Impacts by Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Net Long-Term SurfaceDisturbance from Oil and GasDevelopment (acres)

934 24,781 18,238 18,577

Initial, Short-term SurfaceDisturbance from Oil and GasDevelopment (acres)

13,971 41,941 31,459 36,451

Estimated Future Oil and GasProduction (Bscf)

4,910 11,158 11,002 11,125

Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS CHAPTER 2—COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

2-251


Potential for Soils Impacts Increase in erosiondue to increase inbare ground,unpaved roads,and open OHVaccess.

Greatest increasein erosion due toincrease in bareground, unpavedroads.

Increase in erosiondue to increase inbare ground,unpaved roads(more thanAlternative A).

Increase in erosiondue to increase inbare ground,unpaved roads(more thanAlternative A).

Water Required for DrillingOperations (acre-feet)

3,313 9,347 6,925 7,000

Native Vegetation Loss (acres) 13,971 41,941 31,459 36,451Riparian Areas and Wetlands Beneficial impacts

within designatedRiver Tracts SMA(2,500 acres).Increased potentialfor damage due toopen OHV access.

Beneficial impactswithin moreprotected riparianareas (10,000acres) and morelimited OHVaccess. Potentialnegative impactson isolated patchesof riparianvegetation fromOHV traffic in drywashes.



Potential Habitat Loss in FFOWildlife Habitat Areas (acres)

Within 660 Feet of RoadsWithin 1,320 Feet of Roads

245,440405,870

285,760486,510

273,600462,190

273,600462,190

Special Status Species Effects Sensitive speciesand habitats notprotected underESA receivespecialmanagement whenwarranted.

Sensitive speciesand habitats notprotected underESA receivespecialmanagement whenwarranted.

Sensitive speciesand habitats notprotected underESA receivespecialmanagement whenwarranted.

May affect, notlikely to adverselyaffect, all listed orproposed speciesand designatedcritical habitats(BLM 2002c).Sensitive speciesand habitats notprotected underESA receivespecialmanagement whenwarranted.

Air Emissions, Net Change over20 Years (tons per year) beforeMitigation

VOC:CO:NOx:PM10:

744.112,621

.713,102

.75.3

VOC: CO:NOx:PM10:

2,771.560,462.

362,160.

726.2

98% of that underAlternative B.

99.7% of thatunder AlternativeB.

FFO Land in SDAs LimitingGrazing (acres)

17,954 17,273 72410 33,673

Increase in Split Estate (acres) 264,800 329,300 14,000 329,000

CHAPTER 2—COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS

2-252


Impacts on Wilderness Potential for directand indirectimpacts frommineraldevelopment onIndian-allottedlands in WA, onprior existingleases in WSA,and open OHVdesignation onsurrounding land.

Potential for directand indirectimpacts frommineraldevelopment onIndian-allottedlands in WA andon prior existingleases in WSA.Beneficial impactfrom changingOHV designationon surroundingland from Open toLimited. Proposedacquisition ofadjacent landswould benefit WAand WSA.

Same asAlternative B


Acres in VRM ClassesClass IClass IIClass IIIClass III/IV

71,948399,466

1,013,0992,587,591

100,600409,960

1,020,0842,541,460

135,106590,479

1,123,8302,222,689

83,433560,143

1,104,7172,323,810

Acres Managed for RecreationalValues in the FFO

52,804 51,881 75,174 74,664

Estimated Number of RecordedArchaeological Sites Affected byOil and Gas Activity

736 2,211 1,658 1,896

Effects on Cultural Resources Least potential fordamage fromsurface distur-bance; least effectdue to landdisposal; greatestpotential forimpacts due toOHV cross-country travel.

Highest potentialfor damage fromsurface distur-bance; greatesteffect due to landdisposal;decreasedpotential forimpacts due toOHV cross-country travel.

Less potential fordamage fromsurfacedisturbance thanAlternative B andmore thanAlternative A;least effect due toland disposal andOHV cross-country travel;highest acreage ofprotected areas.

Less potential fordamage fromsurfacedisturbance thanAlternative B andmore thanAlternative A;similar to butslightly greaterthan Alternative Cin potential effectsdue to landdisposal, OHVcross-countrytravel, and acreageof protected areas.

Farmington Proposed RMP/Final EIS CHAPTER 2—COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

2-253


Effects on PaleontologicalResources

Least potential fordamage fromsurface distur-bance.

Highest potentialfor damage fromsurface distur-bance. Increase inacreage ofprotected areas.

Less potential fordamage fromsurfacedisturbance thanAlternative B.Increase inacreage ofprotected areas.

Similar toAlternative C.

Noise Mitigation N/A N/A 101 boundary-focused NSAsmitigate noise in206,000 acres.

12 boundary-focused NSAsand receptors in50 other NSAsmitigate noise inless acreage thanunderAlternative C.

Oil and Gas Employment, Changefrom Current Level over 20 Years

-1,210 1,460 500 540

Total Oil and Gas Expendituresover 20 Years ($000)

$3,448,200 $10,345,000 $7,887,000 $7,973,000

Environmental Justice Impacts No dispropor-tionately high andadverse impactsexpected.

No dispropor-tionately high andadverse impactsexpected.



THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Final Chapter 2 - Northern Arizona University

Documents

Transcript of Final Chapter 2 - Northern Arizona University