Free Declaration - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 42-34

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 1 of 8

EXHIBIT 30

'~ ~ ..
. "',
.. .

.- Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
Department of
United States

Document 42-34
- '.
,.

Filed 08/15/2008

Agriculture

Forest Service

Lincoln National

Federal. Building iri~
11 th & New York .q

Page 2 of 8

Forest

Alamogordo, NM 8831'd.

Reply To: 2670
'.,.

Dat-e: February 11, 1985

'.

Regional Director
U.S. fish and Wl1d~lfe Service Box 1306 Albuquerque, NM 87103
Dear Sir:

In re3ponse to YQur request for economic information on proposed critical habitat for Cirsium vinaceuIDr you will find enclosed the most oomplete iofer-matioo we have available per your questions of

December 26, '.984..

If add.ltion-al information or- clarification of information provided
is necessary, please contact St~ve Lucas of my staff- .at (505)
437-6030 _

)

YiIÛ Bowma
JAME"S R. ABBOTT

Forest Supervisor

EnClOSUre

51g( ¡1s J1c//n

-~
8002157

. -

. .,.

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 42-34

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 3 of 8

.. . I ~

")

A. USE OF WATER BODY
1. Q. Ar there any ~roposed projects for the water bodies?

A. There are 26 separate fencing projects planned for protection
habitats ~hich would enclose 29 water bodies.

2. Q. At what level of completion is the planing or construction
of these projects?

A. To date, fencing of habitats has been on a case by case basis.
The 26 projects identified have not been entered into the planning

process.
3. Q. Is there an EIS avsilable for the project?
A. No J none 1s planed.

4. Q. What 1s the su~rounding land use?

A. Rage, recreation, timber, special uses. transportation, wildlife,

)

_and watershed uses.

5. Q. Would a change in use of the surrounding land affect the quality of critical habitat?
A. Yes, on. some 61te~ not all. As an example, if moto~cycie use was dete~red, populations would be p~ote~ted from abuse. The same applies to doæesti~ and non-domestic grazing use.

6. Q. Would a change in the water body affect tbe quality of the critical
habitat. ?

A. Yes. due to the biological requirements of the plant.
E. CONSUMTIVE USE OF WATER
i. Q. Is use by others seasonal?
A. In some cases. others not.
2. Q. Are there alternative water supplies available'!

A. Yes, ground water is available. In aome instances surface water can be captured by mitigating the situation. Yell drilling cost is $14.00 per foot cased.

_..~
8002158

...

, Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
2

Document 42-34

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 4 of 8

2670, Forest Superyisor, 1/31/85

.,

3. Q. Wb t is the water rights aystem1
A. Appropriations.

4. Q. Is yater supplied by Federal projects1

A. No.
-More Involved Analysis:

i. Alternative water uses are described above.

2. Water uses occur both seasonally and yearlong. Springs are~
in all cases. continuous.

3. You cannot put a price of water in these areas. None is being sold. the price of water is 'Q~weii or other diversion.
4. Value of production cannot be estimated.

5. You ca determine volume by gallons per minute.

~

6. Same 8S above.

C. RECREATIONAL LAN USE

Basis I
i. Q. What recreational activity is takig place?

A. Disper-sed recreational use with exception to the Bluff Springs
recr~ationai site. This site receives heavy concentrated use aod has historically been due to aesthetical value of water source.

2. Q. What conflict exists between this use and the critical habitat.

A. Designated motorcycle and pr~itive road use conflicts with habitat and occupied habitat. Dispersed recreational use (throwdow camp sites) occurs on habitats as well as human trampling of species.

3. Q. Is the form of recreation specific to this location?
A. Yes, in some cases ~ater is the critical factor.

4. Q. Are there possible non-conflicting adjustments in the boundaries?

-J

-A. Yes, in nearly all cases. It would be very difficult to adjust use because of human's attraction to water.

8002159

. 'I .

,.

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
3

Document 42-34

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 5 of 8

2670? Forest Supervisor. .¡¡31/8S

'"

5. Q. Wht portion of the critical habitat is used for recreational
'. A. Stream cburs~s. bluffs. waterfalls and marshlands. (401).

purposes?

-Important II

1. Q. Season of .use.
A.

March through November annually.
Number of users.

2.

Q.
A.

Over entire critical habitat, 32.100 recreational visitor days.
Length of s~ay of users.

3.

Q.
A.

A quarter of an hour 1s th~ average.

4.

Q. A.

Past levels and forms o( recreational use of habitat?
Camping, hiking and ma torcycle use on trails.
Is there are" user fee?

)
D.

5.

Q. A.

No.

6.

Q.
A.

AI.
No.

permits necessary?

7.

-NA

LEAE OR PERMIT (NOT GRING)

1.

Q.

Agency issuing leB8es?

A.

U.S.D.A.

Forest Service.

2.

Q.

Number of leases and

issue dates?

A.

One special use permit to City of. Alamogordo. New Mexico issued August 26, 1977. Special use is for 'Woter transmission line from spring development on habitat. Numerous 011 and gas leases are

existing.

3. Q. Statement of why leases exist?
A. City of Alamogordo lease is to provide water transmission for human consumption. Oil and gss leases and in accordance tith Department of Interior policies.

---)

8002160

.'.
.. -'. ~

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
4

Document 42-34

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 6 of 8

2670, Yarest Superv'ior. :)./31/85

)

4. Q. What 1s leased or permitted by the lease and for ho\¥ long?
A. City 6f Aieigordo water transnission lease is cont.inuous. Oil and gas leases expire at different int.ervals coordinat.ed

..... .

by t.he Bureau of Lad Hanagement and Department. of Int.erior.
5. Q. Coat.- of lea!3~ t.o iniUvidual?

A. City of Alamogordo lease is free nse. We do not. know cost or bida on 011 and gas leases.

6. Q. If commercial. list the gross dollar volume of sales involved.

A. -NA~Approxtmte Federal cost to issue City pf Alamogordo lease was $6,000.00

E. u. USE GRAING
1. Q. Why does a conflict exist?
A.

)

Livestock watering. cases.

and wildlife roam at will and utilize habitat for Elk use habitat for bedding as well as deer in some

2.

Q. A.

Is the conflict. seasonal?

Wildlife use is yearlong. Livestock (catt.le) use is seasonal
May 1st
t.brough Oct.ober

annually.

3.

Q.

Wht is the Animal Unit Months
400 AUMs.

.(AUH)

of

critical habitat.?

A. Elk, 317 AUM and catt.le. 82.5 or 83 AUM. Combined total equal

4. Q. Does this differ for the surrounding area?
Aó Yea, because this is marshland production approximately 20000 per acre of useable forage as compared to adjace~t bluegrass
production of 600 to 100011 per acre..

5. Q. Number of animals involved?
A. Elk, 45 an:1als; cows, 12 aniials both based on seven month

season of use.

6. Q. Type of operation?
A. Cow/calf.

,)
8002161

..
.. ~.. .

,'.

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
5

Document 42-34

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 7 of 8

2670, Porest Supervisor,. 1/31/85

(

'l

7. Q. Season of grazing?
A. Six to seven mC)nths.

8. Q. li:1als grazed?

A. Elk and caule.
9. Q. Number and size of ranches involved?

A. Three ranches involved: (1) 146 head of cattle yearlong,
(2) 553 head of cattle yearlong and (3) 100 head of cattle

yeai:long.
10. Q. Portion (in acres) of the ranches. AUM in critical habitat.

A. Cattle~ 33 acres and elk 64 acres.
11. Q. Is a permit necessary?

A. Yes. permits issued on a Term basis (10 years).

(

)

12.. Q. Agency issuing permit?
A. U.S .D.A. Forest Service.

13. Q. What is the cost of the pe~it?
A. Fee is bàsed on cost per annum of grazing, $1.3S/Animal Month

14. Q. Wht does- the permit allow? A. Use of forage.
15. Q. Past levels of grazing use?
A.
Prior to i~oo. large herds utilized meadows and drainages. this period, numbers have been r~uced to levels identified

Since

in

(19 above.
16. Q. Recommended future levels for range maintenance1

A. Same.

17. Q. Availability of alternative grazing areas?
A. None, is not needed to sustain existing numbers.

(

.~

18. Q. What is the estimted capacity tn acres per AUM for the area
affected by the critical habitat?

A. Elk, .20 acres per AUM; cattle, .40 acres per AUM.

8002162

..

.~.....

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 42-34

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 8 of 8

.. .., . 6 2670, Forest Supervisor, ,1/31/85

)

Involved II

1. Q.

Cost snd '. - . availability of alternative feed?

A. Not necessary, however, $10.20 per Alis is used.
2. Q. Value added by grazing?

A.". $206.00.
3. Q. Value added divided by total acres grazed?
A. Cattle - $206.00 + 33 = 6.2.

4. Q. Yhat is the average cost of production as compared with regional and national figures? A. Cannot answet this question. Do not have figures necessary
to respond.

5. Q. What is the current cost of issuing the permits?

)

A. Administrative cost incurred is $266.00 per grazing permit.
Based upon current and past contracts, it is estimated that it will cost .87 cents per foot at constructed fence. Spring developments are averaging $800.00 per

structure.

~)
8oo2l63