United States Department of Agriculture

Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project

Priority Area 3

Environmental Assessment

for: Sacramento Ranger District Lincoln National Forest

Lincoln Sacramento Forest Service January, 2017 National Forest Ranger District

Responsible Official: Elizabeth Humphrey District Ranger P.O. Box 288 (#4 Lost Lodge Road) Cloudcroft, New Mexico 88317

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, status as a parent (in education and training programs and activities), because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, or retaliation. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs or activities.) If you require this information in alternative format (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice or TDD). If you require information about this program, activity, or facility in a language other than English, contact the agency office responsible for the program or activity, or any USDA office. To file a complaint alleging discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call toll free, (866) 632- 9992 (Voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. You may use USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Forms AD-3027 or AD-3027s (Spanish) which can be found at: http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and http://www.ascr.usda.gov/es_us/sp_complaint_filing_cust.html or upon request from a local USDA office.

Cover Photo. Photo by: Conor Flynn, SWCA Environmental Consultants

Westside Sacramento Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Content Chapter 1 Purpose and Need ...... 1 1.1 Introduction...... 1 1.1.1 Project Phases ...... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ...... 3 1.3 Decision Framework ...... 3 1.3.1 Forest Plan Direction ...... 3 1.4 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ...... 4 1.5 Issues ...... 4 1.5.1 Internal Scoping ...... 4 1.5.2 External Scoping ...... 5 1.5.3 Issues Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ...... 5 Chapter 2 Alternatives ...... 7 2.1 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 7 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 7 2.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 7 2.2.2 Alternative 2 – Westside Watershed CFRP Implementation (Proposed Action) ... 7 2.3 Project Design Features that Ensure Environmental Protection ...... 10 2.3.1 Project Design Features ...... 10 2.3.2 Monitoring Requirements ...... 16 Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences ...... 19 3.1 Introduction...... 19 3.2 Vegetation, Including Invasive Species ...... 19 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 19 3.2.2 Habitat – Ecosystem Response Units ...... 19 3.2.3 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 21 3.2.4 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 21 3.3 Fuels ...... 22 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 22 3.3.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 24 3.3.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 25 3.4 Heritage Resources ...... 26 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 26 3.4.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 30 3.4.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 30 3.5 Social and Economic Effects Including Environmental Justice ...... 31 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 31 3.5.2 Environmental Justice ...... 33 3.5.3 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 34 3.5.4 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 34 3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species...... 35 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 35 3.6.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 37

i Westside Sacramento Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

3.6.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 37 3.7 Forest Service Region 3 Sensitive Species ...... 41 3.7.1 Affected Environment ...... 41 3.7.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 49 3.7.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 50 3.8 Management Indicator Species...... 55 3.8.1 Affected Environment ...... 55 3.8.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 57 3.8.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 57 3.9 Migratory Birds ...... 58 3.9.1 Affected Environment ...... 58 3.9.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 60 3.9.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 60 3.10 Soils ...... 61 3.10.1 Affected Environment ...... 61 3.10.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 63 3.10.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 64 3.11 Air Quality and Climate ...... 65 3.11.1 Affected Environment ...... 65 3.11.2 Climate Change ...... 66 3.11.3 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 67 3.11.4 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 68 3.12 Hydrology, Watersheds, and Riparian Habitat ...... 69 3.12.1 Affected Environment ...... 69 3.12.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 72 3.12.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 72 3.13 Inventoried Roadless Area ...... 73 3.13.1 Affected Environment ...... 73 3.13.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 74 3.13.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 74 3.14 Range ...... 76 3.14.1 Affected Environment ...... 76 3.14.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 76 3.14.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 76 3.15 Recreation ...... 77 3.15.1 Affected Environment ...... 77 3.15.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) ...... 78 3.15.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...... 78 3.16 Cumulative Effects ...... 79 3.16.1 Cumulative Environmental Consequences ...... 80 Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination ...... 85 4.1 Interdisciplinary Team Members ...... 85 4.2 Other Contributors ...... 85 4.3 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 85

ii Westside Sacramento Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

4.4 Native American Tribes ...... 85 Chapter 5 Literature Cited ...... 87 Appendix A: Best Management Practices ...... 93 Appendix B: Comment-Response Tables ...... 101

List of Tables Table 1.1. Management Areas within the Project Area ...... 4 Table 2.1. Proposed Activities in the Project Area ...... 8 Table 3.1. ERU Habitat Acres ...... 19 Table 3.2. Vegetation Type Fire Regime and Fire Regime Condition Class ...... 24 Table 3.3. Pre-treatment Fire Behavior Characteristics ...... 25 Table 3.4. Post-Treatment Fire Behavior Characteristics ...... 26 Table 3.5. Sites and Historic Structures within the Project Area Recommended Not Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places...... 27 Table 3.6. Sites and Historic Structures within the Project Area Recommended Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places ...... 28 Table 3.7 Economic Comparison Data ...... 31 Table 3.8. Major Employment Sectors for Analysis Area (Otero County) ...... 31 Table 3.9. Comparison of Ethnic and Racial Populations ...... 34 Table 3.10. Federally Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species for the Lincoln National Forest ...... 35 Table 3.11. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Amphibians ..... 42 Table 3.12. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Birds ...... 42 Table 3.13. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Crustaceans ..... 44 Table 3.14. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Fish ...... 44 Table 3.15. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Insects ...... 45 Table 3.16. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Mammals ...... 45 Table 3.17. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Reptiles ...... 46 Table 3.18. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Snails ...... 46 Table 3.19 Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Plants ...... 47 Table 3.20. U.S. Partners in Flight Priority Bird Species on the Lincoln National Forest...... 59 Table 3.21. Lincoln National Forest Potential Soil Loss to Gully Erosion within Priority Area 3 of the Project Area ...... 62 Table 3.22. Lincoln National Forest Potential Soil Loss to Sheet Erosion within Priority Area 3 the Project Area ...... 62 Table 3.23. Available Woody Material in Priority Area 3 and the Range for Satisfactory Soils ...... 63 Table 3.24. Closest Class I Airsheds to Proposed Project Area ...... 66 Table 3.25. 12-digit HUC (6th Code) Watersheds Found within the Project Area ...... 71 Table 3.26. Grazing Allotments within the Priority Area 3 Project Area ...... 76 Table 3.27. Recreational Trails That Cross the Proposed Project Area ...... 77 Table 3.28. List of Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects Analysis ...... 79

iii Westside Sacramento Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

List of Figures Figure 1.1. Vicinity map...... 2 Figure 2.1. Location of Priority 3 area activities proposed under Alternative 2 – Proposed Action...... 9 Figure 3.1. Disturbed soils within the Alamo Creek Canyon that lack organic ground cover that is necessary for herbaceous vegetative growth and soil erosion protection...... 62 Figure 3.2. Water resources located throughout the proposed project area...... 70

iv Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Summary Through this Environmental Assessment (EA), the Sacramento Ranger District of the Lincoln National Forest is proposing the Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project (project), which involves prescribed fire and vegetation treatments that would restore ecological functionality to fire-adapted ecosystems within the project area. There is a need to improve watershed function and forest health and to decrease the potential for high-intensity, stand-replacing wildfire in the project area. Activities analyzed in this environmental assessment are proposed on 3,439.1 acres of U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) lands, and 202.7 acres of lands managed by the City of Alamogordo.

We prepared this EA to determine whether implementation of the Proposed Action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the Proposed Action, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document.

This EA discloses direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. The document is organized into five parts:

• Chapter 1 Purpose and Need: This chapter includes background information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. • Chapter 2 Alternatives: This chapter provides a detailed description of the agency’s Proposed Action for achieving the stated need, including project design features and mitigation measures, and a description of the No Action Alternative, which also serves as the baseline to compare and contrast with the Proposed Action. • Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes environmental effects of implementing the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. This analysis is organized by affected resource area. Within each resource section, the affected environment is described first, followed by effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison to the effects of the Proposed Action, which is described last. • Chapter 4 Supporting Information: This chapter provides a list of preparers, agencies, and tribes consulted during the development of this EA. It also includes references cited.

v Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank

vi Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 1.1 Introduction In recent decades, forested landscapes in the western United States have experienced large catastrophic wildfires that have resulted in loss of property, life, and resources. In 2012, the Little Bear fire burned 44,300 acres and 254 structures in Lincoln County, New Mexico (New Mexico Environment Department [NMED] 2012). The heavy rains that came after the Little Bear fire caused additional impacts in neighboring Otero County, where excessive amounts of sediment were deposited into the Bonito Lake watershed. The City of Alamogordo (City) relied upon the Lake Bonito watershed for 15% of its potable water and has temporarily lost that source of water as a result of the fire.

Disturbances, such as fire, are a natural ecosystem process. Short-term changes from disturbance can be dramatic and substantial, but forests will regenerate and thrive again. However, human influences on the landscape over the past century, such as wildfire suppression, have changed the forest composition and consequently changed the intensity and magnitude of impacts resulting from fire disturbance. A substantial amount of fire research exists that documents the shift from historic low-intensity, surface fire regimes to stand-replacing, crown fire regimes on southwestern forests (Cooper 1960; Covington 2000; Covington et al. 1997). Prescribed fire and vegetation thinning treatments are needed to restore forest health conditions and re-establish historic low-intensity fire disturbance on forested landscapes.

The Collaborative Forest Restoration Program (CFRP) provides funding for collaborative, community-level projects that address ecological restoration on public lands in New Mexico. In 2014, the City partnered with a collaborative group of partners in the region, including the Sacramento Ranger District of the Lincoln National Forest, to apply for a CFRP grant to reduce the threat of wildfire, protect watersheds surrounding Alamogordo that provide its water supply, and promote overall ecosystem health. The CFRP grant was pursued to leverage resources needed to complete treatments in the watersheds that supply the drinking water for the City.

The proposed project is located in the western slope of the Sacramento Mountains, an area identified in the New Mexico Communities at Risk Plan as having a high potential for catastrophic wildfire (New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department 2014). The CFRP grant partners identified three priority areas for treatments totaling 6,857 acres, including 6,650 acres of Forest Service lands and 207 acres of land owned by the City (Figure 1.1). The treatment areas were delineated using watershed boundaries and locations critical to the City’s water supply, including protection of waterline infrastructure. Site access and proximity to recently treated areas within the Sacramento Ranger District and on adjacent lands managed by the Mescalero Apache Tribe were also considered.

1.1.1 Project Phases The project is expected to be implemented in phases over several years. Given the time needed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), e.g., time for conducting biological and cultural surveys of the project area, analyzing impacts, and review periods, the CFRP grant collaborators selected to first complete the NEPA process for Priority Areas 1 and 2 in order to begin project implementation in these areas while completing the NEPA analysis for Priority Area 3. The Decision Notice for Priority Areas 1 and 2 was signed on July 18, 2017. This EA includes a detailed description of the Proposed Action and associated impacts for Priority Area 3 only.

1 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 1.1. Vicinity map.

2 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

1.2 Purpose and Need The purpose of and need for this project is to improve forest and watershed health and reduce the threat of a stand-replacing wildfire in the project area. This analysis is required in order to ensure activities are consistent with goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines of the Lincoln National Forest Land Management Plan, as amended (Forest Plan) (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1986). The purpose of this analysis is to analyze effects of alternatives and to ensure the proposed activities are implemented in a manner that maintains and/or moves the project area toward Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions (see Alternative 2 - Proposed Action).

The following needs have been identified for the project area: • reduce natural fuels to lessen the risk and intensity of large-scale, stand-replacing fires by reducing ladder fuels and crown bulk density; • reintroduce fire into fire-dependent ecosystems; • reduce the risk of insect- and density-related mortality on late or older successional trees by reducing stocking levels and increasing stand health and vigor; and • reduce forest stand stocking levels to move them toward a more historic range of variability for stand structure.

The objectives for the project are to improve watershed health by reducing fuel loadings (natural and activity created), reducing woody vegetation density, and increasing herbaceous ground cover through prescribed fire and vegetation thinning treatments. These activities would reduce the risk and intensity of a stand-replacing wildfire. The Proposed Action is designed to improve stand health, reduce fuel loadings, improve wildlife habitat, and move the project area toward a more resilient and sustainable condition. In the long-term, the desired condition is to manage vegetation to reduce the likelihood of a high-intensity, stand-replacing wildfire to affect the area and more probable that low-intensity fires would occur, which would in turn sustain desired species composition and densities maintaining improved watershed function.

1.3 Decision Framework The District Ranger of the Sacramento Ranger District is the responsible official and deciding officer for this project. The District Ranger will decide whether to authorize implementation of the Proposed Action as described in this EA, including treatment activities, mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements.

1.3.1 Forest Plan Direction This project is guided by management direction found in the Forest Plan (USDA 1986). The factors that will drive the decision are primarily how well each alternative meets the purpose and need and addresses key issues associated with environmental consequences of the project.

The project area coincides with three Management Areas (MAs) as described in Table 1.1 below. While each MA emphasizes management for different resources, they all contain management goals for improving watershed and ecosystem health and function, such as protecting water quality for municipal water supplies, improving structural and non-structural wildlife habitat, using prescribed fire with planned ignition to accomplish resource management objectives, protecting and enhancing threatened and endangered species, and protecting riparian habitat (USDA 1986). The Proposed Action would contribute

3 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

to the resource goals and priorities of each MA and additionally would contribute to the overall Forest Plan’s goals of protecting life, property, and resources from wildfire; minimizing impacts of insects and disease on resources; and protecting soil and water quality.

Table 1.1. Management Areas within the Project Area Management Area Acres Management Area Emphasis 2B-Alamo 2,887.7 Range management 2D-Sacramento River 45.3 Wildlife habitat and timber management 2E-Upper Peñasco 708.8 Recreation, wildlife habitat, and timber management

1.4 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation The Sacramento Ranger District involved interested parties throughout the project planning process. The project was first listed in the Lincoln National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions on October 1, 2015. Public scoping for all three proposed priority areas included giving notice, a 30-day comment period, and a public meeting. The Lincoln National Forest published a legal notice in the Alamogordo Daily News on October 9, 2015, and issued a press release the week of October 10, 2015, to request public comments on the project. A scoping letter was issued on October 8, 2015. The letter was mailed or emailed to 490 contacts, including local, state, and federal government agencies; elected officials; tribal councils and offices; interested individuals; media contacts; and the collaborative partners of the CFRP grant proposal. Native American tribes and pueblos contacted about the project included the Hopi, Mescalero-Apache, Zuni, Fort Sill Apache, Ysleta Del Sur, and Isleta. More information about the scoping process is available in the project scoping report, which is part of the project record and available upon request.

1.5 Issues Scoping is used to identify issues that relate to effects of the Proposed Action. Issues may come from the public, the Forest Service, or from another agency. Issues are considered concerns about potential effects on physical, biological, social, or economic resources as a result of the Proposed Action. Internal and external comments about the project were used to identify issues for analysis in this EA.

1.5.1 Internal Scoping Issues identified by the Forest Service interdisciplinary team for the project included the following:

• Ecosystem health – This issue expresses concern with the current unhealthy and unnatural condition of forest stands in the project area and the need to implement vegetation treatments and reintroduce low-intensity prescribed fires to help move the ecosystem back towards sustainable conditions that are capable of withstanding natural disturbances. The concern is that if left untreated, the current stand structures and fuel loads in the project area could result in a stand-replacing wildfire. Such high-intensity fire would impact all resources in the project area including soils, water, wildlife habitat, plants, water pipelines, etc., and have overall economic, social, and environmental impacts. • Watershed health – This issue expresses concern regarding the impacts to soils and water that could result from high-intensity wildfires, including erosion and runoff, sediment loading in streams, and reduced water quality and yield from the forest. This issue specifically includes the City’s concern that these forested landscapes be managed to protect and sustain the watershed

4 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

health and supply of water to Alamogordo. • Meadow restoration – This issue expresses concern that meadows could be converted to forest and thus result in loss of plant, shrubs, and animal diversity that comprise meadow ecosystems if the encroaching woody vegetation is not actively removed with vegetation treatments. Under more natural conditions, frequent low-intensity fires would prevent meadows from converting to forest. • Collaboration and community sustainability – This issue emphasizes the importance of collaboration among tribal, federal, local, county, state, and private land managers to leverage resources for implementing vegetation treatments needed to restore forest health and protect natural resources across the landscape.

• Inventoried Roadless Area – This issue emphasizes the importance of maintaining and protecting the characteristics of the West Face inventoried roadless area especially as a water source for the City of Alamogordo.

1.5.2 External Scoping Seven comment letters were received during the 30-day scoping period (October 9–November 9, 2015). Of the seven letters, two provided comments of general support, one comment related to monitoring, and four letters requested the EA contain analysis regarding the relationship between vegetation treatments and flooding within the city limits of Alamogordo. This topic is discussed below under Issues Dismissed from Detailed Analysis.

1.5.3 Issues Dismissed from Detailed Analysis The following issues were considered but not analyzed in detail in this EA. The issues considered but not analyzed in detail include issues brought up by the public comments (flooding) and other resource issues that were not present or are present, but not impacted by this project.

Flooding in the City of Alamogordo The proposed forest restoration activities would not impact the flooding within Alamogordo because the scale of the proposed restoration treatments is too small to see an increase in water yield on the landscape scale. The landscape would not be devoid of vegetation and the area would be expected to function as a healthy watershed after the treatments. Design features would be included to minimize erosion during and after treatment activities. Therefore, it is not expected that this project would contribute to increased flooding in Alamogordo.

Visual Resources The proposed project areas currently have a visual quality objective of partially retain with a small area (approximately 250 acres) of retention. Partially retain has a definition of activities not being readily apparent and the area appearing natural, retention has a definition of activities not being visually evident. The scenic integrity and visual quality objectives of the project areas should be unchanged by the proposed project and the natural appearance should be maintained. The proposed project is not expected to change the scenic quality of the general area after treatments are complete and no permanent structures would be added. There would be temporary visual disturbances during the restoration activities, but no issues with visual resources have been identified.

5 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Lands There is an existing utility line (overhead power line) within the project area. Buffers would be placed to protect the utility line from treatment activities and the utility company would be notified of planned treatments. The Forest Service would complete the necessary coordination with the utility company when treatments are planned to occur. No impacts are expected to the utility line.

6 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2 Alternatives This section describes and compares alternatives considered for the project. The alternatives are presented in comparative form, explaining the differences between them and illustrating how well each alternative meets the purpose and need for action.

2.1 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Detailed Study The only alternatives considered for this EA are the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action. No other alternatives have been considered.

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail Two alternatives were considered in detail for this project: • Alternative 1 – No Action • Alternative 2 – Westside Watershed CFRP Implementation (Proposed Action)

2.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No prescribed burning, vegetation and restoration treatments, or road maintenance would be implemented to accomplish project goals.

2.2.2 Alternative 2 – Westside Watershed CFRP Implementation (Proposed Action) The Proposed Action has been developed to meet the project’s purpose and need for implementing forest restoration treatments within piñon-juniper woodlands, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forest, and mixed conifer forest. The project area is located in the western slope of the Sacramento Mountains, and specifically at Township (T)s 16 South (S), Range (R) 11 East (E) Sections 29, 32, 34, 35; T. 17 S., R. 11 E. Sections 2-5, 8-11, 15-17, and 20-22. The Proposed Action would implement a combination of vegetation treatments across 3,439.1 acres of lands managed by the Sacramento Ranger District and 202.7 acres owned by the City of Alamogordo (3,641.8 acres total) to reduce the threat of high-intensity wildfires and promote healthy watersheds and ecosystem function. The Proposed Action would be implemented in Priority Area 3 shown in Figure 1.1 above. Priority Area 3 contains treatment areas in the vicinity of Cherry, Alamo, and Gordon Canyons.

The Proposed Action would provide the Forest Service with a variety of vegetation treatment tools that would allow managers to adapt treatments to changing landscape conditions. Specifically, the Proposed Action would include prescribed burning, hand and mechanical vegetation and restoration treatments, and road maintenance (Table 2.1).

7 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Table 2.1. Proposed Activities in the Project Area Proposed Activity Acres Brief Description Prescribed burning Up to 3,641.8 acres Includes pile and broadcast burning within entire project area. Vegetation and restoration Mechanical treatments on areas Includes hand and mechanical treatments such treatments with 0% to 30% slopes (1,964 as chipping and mastication along with areas of acres) personal and/or commercial fuelwood use. Also includes removal of encroaching woody Hand thinning on areas with 0% to vegetation in meadows, oak regeneration 40% slopes (2,588 acres) treatments, and erosion control treatments. Road maintenance Forest Road 90 and additional roads Maintenance of existing roads would occur as where necessary needed to access treatment areas.

Proposed Activities The Proposed Action is to implement the project within Priority Area 3 (Figure 2.1). All of the proposed management activities would occur within part of or throughout the entire project area of 3,641.8 acres. Proposed management activities in this alternative include the following:

Prescribed fire including pile and broadcast burning – Pile and broadcast burning would occur in phases to address activity generated slash and re-introduce fire to fire-adapted natural areas. Prescribed fire has been analyzed for the entire project area (up to 3,641.8 acres) to allow for burning in stands to reduce hazardous fuels and provide ecological benefits. Multiple entries of prescribed fire might be needed in some areas until desired conditions are met.

Prescribed fire could be applied to the landscape either in combination with mechanical treatments, thinning, and harvest methods described below or without mechanical treatment. The availability of multiple management tools and activities in the Proposed Action would provide fire and fuels managers the ability to efficiently achieve resource objectives.

Equipment used to conduct prescribed burns could include trucks, water tanks, ignition tools such as drip torches, railroad-type flares, flares fired from handheld pistols, gelled gasoline, and incendiary plastic spheres.

Vegetation and restoration treatments – Mechanical vegetation treatment would occur on slopes up to 30%, which includes 1,964 acres of the 3,641.8-acre project area. Hand thinning would occur on areas up to 40% slopes, which includes 2,588 acres of the 3,641.8-acre project area. The Proposed Action includes hand and mechanical treatments such as chipping and mastication along with areas of personal and/or commercial fuelwood use. Thinning of vegetation would be accomplished using hand-operated power tools and hand tools, such as chainsaws or other cutting tools, and wheeled or tracked mechanized equipment such as tractors, masticators, roller choppers, and similar equipment to construct fire lines, create fuel breaks, thin fuels, and clear vegetation.

Vegetation and restoration treatments would also include removal of woody vegetation encroaching into meadows and treatments to stimulate oak for wildlife habitat and browsing on slopes up to 30%. Encroachment of piñon-juniper, mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and woody species in meadow areas would be removed using various methods such as thinning, plucking, harvesting, and burning. Treatments to regenerate oak for wildlife browsing would include roller chopping, mowing, burning, or removal of small-diameter oak brush within the project area.

8 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 2.1. Location of Priority 3 area activities proposed under Alternative 2 – Proposed Action.

9 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Mechanical removal of vegetation in riparian areas would be avoided. Vegetation may be removed from riparian areas using hand tools, when deemed hazardous. Soil erosion structures, such as water bars, one- rock dams, and Zuni bowls would be used where applicable to correct and mend head cutting, where applicable.

Road maintenance – No new roads would be created as part of the Proposed Action. Maintenance of existing roads, such as Forest Road 90, would occur as needed to access treatment areas.

2.3 Project Design Features that Ensure Environmental Protection Section 2.3.1 includes design features and Section 2.3.2 includes monitoring requirements that would be implemented to avoid, minimize, or eliminate adverse impacts that might result from implementation of the Proposed Action. These design features are integral to, and are considered part of, the Proposed Action. The analysis of effects presented in Chapter 3 is based on implementation of these non- discretionary features. No mitigation actions are required to implement the Proposed Action because the analysis of effects (see Chapter 3) does not indicate the need for any protective measures in addition to the project design features.

2.3.1 Project Design Features General Design Features • Certified "weed-free" seed mix would be required for project seeding, following the latest Forest Service Region 3 guidance. • Equipment would be clean and free of weed seed prior to entering the project area. • Spreading weed seed would be reduced by following established best management practices (BMPs). • Individual trees would be removed by skidding parallel or sub-parallel to contour in an uphill direction or by hand treatments on slopes up to 40%. Trees would not be felled or skidded across drainages. Ground cover would be maintained following established BMPs. • An adequate amount of coarse woody material would be maintained. Coarse woody material consists of downed woody material greater than 3 inches in diameter. Soil quality guidelines recommend 5 to 10 tons per acre of coarse woody material in ponderosa pine forests and 7 to 14 tons per acre in mixed conifer (Forest Service Handbook 2509.18.2). • For hazard tree treatment within sensitive resource areas, dead trees would be felled bucked and slashed down to 12 inches and treated material would remain on-site. All dropped material would be deposited at distances 20 feet or greater from riparian zones, stream channels, or swales. This is to prevent or reduce the potential for large or coarse woody debris to be entrained into these areas during large precipitation events. • Chipped or masticated material would be distributed across a treatment unit, where prescribed. Material would be distributed in a discontinuous mosaic, with material depth being, on the average, less than 4 inches in all areas, except skid trails. Material depth can be up to 4 inches thick, on the average, but it would also be distributed in a discontinuous mosaic.

10 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

• Up to the five largest piñon-juniper trees would be retained within openings per acre. No mechanical treatment would occur on any piñon pine larger than 14 inches in diameter at root crown. No mechanical treatment would occur on any juniper greater than 18 inches in diameter at root crown.

Soil and Water • Refer to the Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook, Southwest Region (Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 1990) when applying treatments to the project area to minimize impact and apply erosion prevention measures on disturbed lands. This would reduce impact to soils and hydrology. See Appendix A for more specific BMPs. • Avoidance of ground-based equipment or prescribed fire within a 100-foot buffer zone from active wet areas (springs, seeps, wetlands) would be maintained to protect sensitive soils from compaction and other disturbances, to mitigate disturbance of riparian and wetland vegetation, and to protect water quality. • Impact to live waters would be minimized from project activities to protect streambanks, decrease accelerated erosion and input of excess sediment into stream channels, and mitigate riparian and wetland area disturbances. These practices may include, but not be limited to, avoiding ground base disturbances within stream channels, avoiding felling trees into stream channels, and using low ground pressure equipment near live waters where use of heavier equipment will cause disturbance. • The effects of soil-disturbing activities would be minimized and maintenance costs would be reduced by reseeding and mulching disturbed areas and by constructing erosion control structures. Some of these structures may include water bars, one-rock dams, and Zuni bowls. These latter structures would help to prevent channelizing and headcutting. • The use of heavy equipment would be excluded from operating during times when soils are saturated. This will minimize soil compaction, soil displacement, rutting and erosion. Areas known to have excess soil erosion will be given special consideration during project implementation. Methods to mitigate excess erosion will be implemented. These methods may include, but not be limited to, the use of wood chips, slash, or mulch, which are applied after treatments have occurred.

Vegetation, Including Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species • BMPs and all other mitigation measures would be followed in reference to vegetation treatments as recommended for other resources to minimize resource damage. • A minimum of 10 to 15 tons of downed woody material would be retained, not removing any logs greater than 12 inches in midpoint diameter and at least 8 feet long in mixed conifer and 5 to 7 tons in ponderosa pine. When large woody material is retained, it is treated in such a way that it still performs a biological purpose. Retention would be maintained by using a variety of methods (lining logs, wetting material, seasonal prescription, rotational lighting of piles, etc.). • Where mastication occurs, the accumulation of shredded wood would be limited to an average maximum of 4 inches deep in a discontinuous pattern over each treated unit. This would allow for grasses and other ground vegetation to grow up through the shredded woody mulch.

11 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

• If any new threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant species are found during the life of this project, a 200-foot buffer would be incorporated. If new science indicates that a buffer needs not to be incorporated, these buffers may be modified. If new threatened or endangered plants are found, the USFWS would be notified, and actions would follow recovery plan standards. • For known natural and transplant populations of Sacramento prickly poppy (Argemone pleiacantha ssp. pinnatisecta) (federally listed endangered species), a 200-foot buffer would be applied where Sacramento prickly poppy individuals occur. • For Sacramento Mountains thistle (Cirsium vinaceum) (federally listed threatened species), a 200- foot buffer would be applied around known populations of Sacramento Mountains thistle.

Fire and Fuels • A prescribed burn plan would be prepared to guide all burning activities and would specify personnel and burn organization, goals and objectives, protection of sensitive features and developments, prescribed burn parameters (weather and fuel conditions, rates of spread, flame lengths), smoke management, ignition and holding procedures, public information, safety, escaped fire contingency plan, and complexity level analysis. • In order to minimize new fire line construction, barriers used to control fire would incorporate vegetative and topographic breaks, as well as existing roads and trails. Any new fire line would be constructed with the least disturbing method that is effective. Water bars would be constructed for line that is on slopes greater than 40%. Action would be taken to obliterate any new line construction after burning.

Air Quality • All prescribed burning would be conducted in accordance with the rules and guidelines of the New Mexico Smoke Management Program (NMED 2005).

Wildlife, Including Management Indicator Species and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife Species • All known roost sites for wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) would be protected with a 330-foot buffer. • All known raptor nest sites would be protected with a 330-foot buffer. • All red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) cache sites would be retained with a 37-foot buffer. • Sensitive animal species would be managed based on the most up-to-date science.

Protection Measures Common to Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) and Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) • If at least three snags greater than 18 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) are not available, the three largest snags or snags with obvious wildlife use would be retained. To reduce losses of large snags (three per acre greater than 18 inches DBH) or snags with obvious heavy use (cavities present and visible) that are deemed as “hazards,” cutting unit boundaries and/or prescriptions would be modified to save the snag so that it is no longer a hazard.

12 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Mexican Spotted Owl Protection Measures • All activities within the Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and associated habitat would undergo consultation with the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) office. • Mechanical vegetation and prescribed fire treatments would be used to minimize risk of high- severity fire effects while striving to maintain or improve habitat conditions for the Mexican spotted owl and its prey. Treatments would be placed strategically to minimize risk of high- severity fire effects to the nest core while mimicking natural mosaic patterns. • No mechanical or prescribed fire treatments would occur within PACs during the breeding season from March 1 until August 31, unless it has been determined that the PAC is unoccupied or owls are not nesting that year as inferred from results of surveys conducted according to protocol. • No mechanical treatments or prescribed fire would occur within nest core areas. • If treatment occurs outside a PAC but is found less than 400 feet from the nearest known nest site within a PAC, treatment will not occur until the breeding season ends or non-nesting can be verified through formal monitoring. • Trees greater than 9 inches DBH cannot be cut inside of PACs • Prescribed fire treatments would only occur in Mexican spotted owl habitat if they were expected to burn at low intensity with low-severity effects. • Harvest fuelwood when it can be done in such a way that effects on the owl are minimized. Manage within the following limitations to minimize effects on the owl: 1) retain key forest species such as oak (Quercus sp.) and 2) retain substantive amounts of key habitat components such as snags and large downed logs (ex. snags 18 inches in diameter and larger, down logs over 12 inches midpoint diameter). • All trees greater than 24 inches DBH would be retained unless an overriding management situation requires removal to protect human safety and/or property. • All target restricted habitat would be managed to meet threshold conditions. • All treatments will retain some trees greater than 18 inch DBH in Mexican spotted owl habitat. • Treatments would strive to incorporate natural variation, such as irregular tree spacing and various stand/patch/group/clump sizes, into management prescriptions to create spatial heterogeneity. • In foraging/non-breeding habitat, large trees > 24 inches DBH would be retained unless needed to protect human safety and/or property or in situations where leaving large trees precludes reducing threats to owl habitat (e.g., creating a fuel break). To the extent practical, fuel breaks would be designed to avoid the removal of larger trees (trees over 18 inches DBH). Prescribed fire would be managed to avoid the loss of large trees >24 inches DBH, including using light burn prescriptions and removal of ladder fuels proximal to large trees. • Vegetation and fuels treatments in mixed conifer Mexican spotted owl habitat would be designed to retain hardwoods, including large snags (>18 inches DBH), large downed logs (>18 inches diameter at any point), and large trees (>18 inches DBH). • Suitable unoccupied acres that have survey information more than 5 years old would require a survey before project implementation.

13 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

• If new pairs are found during the implementation of this project, PACs would be established and this project would be managed accordingly to the Forest Plan (USDA 1986).

Northern Goshawk Protection Measures • All northern goshawk post-fledgling area (PFAs) would include breeding season restrictions from March 1 through September 30. Restrictions may be dropped if formal monitoring shows no reproduction for the year of the project. Any heavy equipment use associated with unplanned ignition would not take place in a PFA during the breeding season. • Goshawk habitat that has a survey more than 5 years old must be resurveyed the year before implementation. Surveys in unoccupied habitat greater than 5 years old would be surveyed prior to implementation. • All previously known nest locations would be buffered with a 330-foot buffer. • Maximum opening size is up to 4 acres with a maximum width of up to 200 feet in width. If an opening is greater than 1 acre, a group of three to five reserve trees would be retained. • Mixed conifer outside PFAs would strive to have the following canopy cover percentages: Vegetation Structural Stage (VSS) mid-aged (VSS4) averaging one-third >60% and two-thirds >60%, mature forest (VSS5) >50%, and old forest (VSS6) >60%. • Ponderosa pine outside PFAs would strive to have the following canopy cover percentages: mid- aged (VSS4) averaging >40%, mature forest (VSS5) 40%, and old forest (VSS6) 40%. • Mixed conifer within PFAs would strive to have the following canopy cover percentages: mid-aged (VSS4) averaging >60%, mature forest (VSS5) >60%, and old forest (VSS6) >60%. • Ponderosa pine within PFAs would strive to have the following canopy cover percentages: mid- aged (VSS4) averaging one-third >60% and two-thirds >50%, mature forest (VSS5) >50%, and old forest (VSS6) >50%. • At least five downed logs and 10 to 15 tons of woody debris per acre would be retained in mixed conifer when site conditions allow. • At least three downed logs and 5 to 7 tons of woody debris per acre would be retained in ponderosa pine when site conditions allow. • No non-emergency aircraft flight operations less than 500 feet would be permitted for prescribed fires over PFAs during the breeding season (March 1–September 30). • If the openings are greater than 1 acre, the three to five largest green trees per acre would be retained in ponderosa pine habitat and the six largest live trees per acre would be retained in mixed conifer. This may not occur if the mistletoe rating is greater than 0.4. If the mistletoe rating is less than 0.4, they would be retained. • All mechanical treatments would implement single tree group selection along with the use of fire to achieve uneven age stand structure. • A fire management plan with incorporated fire modeling for prescribed burning would be used prior to implementing fire.

Protective Measures for Other Sensitive Species • The design features for northern goshawk and Mexican spotted owl, if applicable, would benefit

14 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

the other sensitive species that share the same habitat. For sensitive species that do not occupy the same habitat as northern goshawk and Mexican spotted owl, the design of the prescriptions would be sufficient.

Heritage Resources • Archaeological survey, site identification, and standard site protection measures would occur per the Forest Plan, the Region 3 Programmatic Agreement, Appendix J (USDA 2010a), and Forest Service Region 3 standards. Site testing or data recovery would require additional consultation with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (not anticipated). Project managers must obtain archaeological site protection maps prior to implementation and discard these post- implementation.

o Fire-sensitive sites within the project area would be excluded from the project area treatments or protected from prescribed burning activities by hand line, black line, wet line, foam retardant, structural fire shelter, removal of heavy fuels from site by hand, or preventing in-situ heavy fuels that cannot be removed from ignition (e.g., flush-cut and bury stumps). These same protective measures would be implemented during future maintenance burns.

o Burning over non-fire-sensitive sites would be allowed provided there are no ignition points, no staging of equipment, and no slash piles within eligible or undetermined site boundaries.

o Safety zones and additional lines may be constructed in 100% surveyed areas, with archaeological monitoring as appropriate to assure historic properties are avoided.

o Fuelwood cutting within eligible or undetermined site boundaries sites would be allowed, provided that: . no vehicles are driven within the site boundary; . no logs, trees, or cut material is dragged across or within site boundaries; and . all materials removed from the site are removed by hand. o Fuelwood cutting would be allowed within areas of large, continuous, low-density artifact scatters, provided that: . all features and artifact concentrations are recorded and avoided; . use of vehicles is prohibited during wet ground conditions; and . periodic monitoring is used to assess impacts, and if impacts are noted, fuelwood cutting would be prohibited in the area. • With respect to the proposed treatments of mechanical fuel reduction, the following five guidelines should be followed for every site that has been recommended eligible or is currently undetermined for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP):

o An archaeologist must be present to monitor all treatments. For sites that are outside the view of roads, boundary trees must be flagged for avoidance. However, sites that are visible from roads or recreation trails are not flagged. Because only some sites are flagged, the archaeologist should have the site’s Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates and a copy of the site map in order to accurately locate or avoid the site and its features prior to treatment activities. Sites may require their boundaries to be flagged prior to treatment activities.

15 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

o Heavy equipment and fire line construction activities should not be allowed on sites. Both of these activities have the capacity to dramatically impact sites by damaging features and/or displacing intact cultural deposits. Flagged boundaries and a monitoring archaeologist can prevent inadvertent impacts from occurring by these associated activities.

o All thinning of vegetation should be done by hand and slash should be removed to outside the site boundary. Piling slash on sites creates a fire hazard that could impact features and/or cultural deposits by increasing fuel loads. Slash piles should be located beyond site boundaries or thinly scattered across the site to limit fires to low-intensity events.

o All downed fuels should be removed from aboveground architectural features, such as cobble field houses and pueblos. When features contain high-fuel loading conditions, a fire can consume a tree or stump into its subsurface root system causing a rapid collapse of the structure, as well as affecting the integrity of subsurface cultural deposits, datable samples, and botanical remains and artifacts.

o Standing trees should not be removed from architectural features. In most cases, live trees that are growing in features are helping to stabilize and protect the feature from erosion. However, thinning tree branches and removing brush by hand from architectural features would not impact the feature. Removal of lower branches reduces the chances of igniting canopy fuels during the event of a natural fire or possible prescribed burns, helping to prevent higher-intensity burns across archaeological sites.

o The preceding five guidelines do not apply to sites that have been recommended not eligible to the NRHP. Refer to Lincoln National Forest Cultural Resources Report No. R2017-03-08-00033 (USDA 2017a) for site-specific recommendations for the proposed project each site recommended eligible or undetermined for the NRHP.

Recreation • Trails disturbed by treatment activities would be rehabilitated after treatments are completed. Infrastructure • Project areas would be inspected for utility lines, municipal water pipelines, and range improvements (fences and livestock waters) prior to implementation of projects that may damage infrastructure and protect them from damage during implementation. • All utility lines, municipal water pipelines, and range improvements would be protected from damage during restoration activities through buffers or other methods. Utility lines, municipal water supply pipelines and range improvements would be identified on the treatment area map as protected improvements. • If any damage does occur to range improvements, the damage must be repaired. If any damage occurs to utility lines or municipal water pipelines, the applicable line owner will be contacted immediately.

2.3.2 Monitoring Requirements Soil, Water, and Weeds • Buffer zone restrictions would be monitored and confirmed as seen in the design features and

16 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

mitigation measures described above. Riparian areas and springs would be checked for disturbance within 100 feet. • Activity areas where soil disturbance may be most concentrated (such as areas where wheeled or tracked vehicles are used in conjunction with tree cutting or where hand fire lines are constructed) would be evaluated immediately following treatment and after the first runoff event following treatment to determine if stabilization measures are needed. • Monitoring for BMP implementation and effectiveness would be conducted to address sedimentation and erosion issues. • Ocular noxious weed monitoring would be conducted in project areas following treatments to ensure populations of noxious species are under control.

Mexican Spotted Owl • Monitoring would be designed and implemented to evaluate the effects of prescribed fire and hazardous fuel reduction treatments on Mexican spotted owl habitat and to retain or move towards Mexican spotted owl desired conditions.

Heritage Resources • All site monitoring would be documented on a site update form and/or monitoring report as appropriate. The Lincoln National Forest would maintain an updated list of sites/projects to be monitored, which would include the date monitoring is completed and the monitoring results. • For prescribed fires, the Lincoln National Forest would assess the effects of prescribed fire on both fire-sensitive and non-fire-sensitive sites to expand available information on the effects of prescribed fire on historic properties.

Fuels • On-site fire behavior observations would be collected during prescribed fire implementation. • On-site smoke monitoring would occur during prescribed fire implementation. • On-site weather data collection would occur during prescribed fire implementation. • District-level live and dead fuel moisture monitoring would occur before, during, and after implementation. • Fuelwood harvest areas would be routinely monitored to ensure resource damage from vehicle traffic is minimized. • Pre- and post-treatment Mexican spotted owl plots would be monitored. • Common Stand Exams to assess treatments would be completed post-treatment. Post-treatment stand exams would include fuels transects for more accurate estimates of surface fuels. Infrastructure • Infrastructure including utility lines, municipal water pipelines, and range improvements would be inspected during and post-activity to ensure damage did not occur from the treatments; any damages would be reported.

17 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

This page intentionally left blank

18 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences 3.1 Introduction This section summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. Complete Forest Service specialist reports for the project area are available in the project record.

3.2 Vegetation, Including Invasive Species 3.2.1 Affected Environment Elevations in Priority Area 3 range from 6,600 to 8,300 feet. The landscape consists of topographically varied canyons and mountainside with gently sloping valley bottoms separated by rugged, steep hillsides. Hilltops are capped with relatively flat-topped ridges. Intermittent streams flow from multiple springs in each canyon. Riparian vegetation occurs around the springs and stream bottoms. At lower elevations, south-facing slopes are dominated by eroding scree fields and Chihuahuan desert scrub. Moving upslope, piñon-juniper associations becomes dominant, and these woodlands become thicker and more robust until they grade into ponderosa pine and mixed conifer at the highest and most mesic landscape positions.

3.2.2 Habitat – Ecosystem Response Units The following vegetation descriptions are based on the mapping of Ecological Response Units (ERUs) by the USDA (2015). ERUs, like other vegetation classifications, stratify the landscape into meaningful units to facilitate analysis and strategic planning. ERUs combine vegetation classes from the U.S. National Vegetation Classification (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2014) with information from the Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory. An ERU is defined by similar ecosystem processes, successional dynamics, and potential vegetation. ERUs contain similar information to Fire Regime Condition Class, such as historic disturbance regimes and potential site vegetation. They also use much of the information from the Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory, including geology, geomorphology, and soils.

There are six mapped ERUs in the project area (Table 3.1). While six ERUs have been identified, the project area is dominated by three ERUs, i.e., Piñon-Juniper Woodland, Ponderosa Pine Forest, and Mixed Conifer – Frequent Fire.

Table 3.1. ERU Habitat Acres

Ecological Response Units Acres % Mixed Conifer – Frequent Fire 1,347.3 37.0% Ponderosa Pine Forest 1,062.2 29.2% Piñon-Juniper Woodland 1,091.3 30.0% Fremont Cottonwood/Shrub 58.7 1.6% Montane/Subalpine Grassland 50.1 1.4% Sparsely Vegetated 32.2 0.9% Total 3,641.8 100.0%

Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

19 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Mixed Conifer – Frequent Fire The Mixed Conifer – Frequent Fire ERU is also called dry mixed conifer. It is characterized by a historic fire regime of frequent (9–22 years) low-severity surface fires and infrequent mixed-severity fires. In the project area, this is the dominant ERU covering 1,347.3 acres (37%) of project area, often on steep north- facing slopes along deep canyons. The thick forest is dominated by ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir (Pseudostuga menziesii), and southwestern white pine (Pinus strobiformis). Shade-tolerant conifers such as Douglas fir and white fir (Abies concolor) have probably increased due to alterations in the fire regime. While sparse, some aspens (Populus sp.) are also present. Currently, much of this ERU is dominated by closed structure climax species as a result of fire suppression. Small inclusions of Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) shrublands may be due to soil conditions or small historical fires.

Piñon-Juniper Woodland The Piñon-Juniper Woodland ERU covers 30% of the project area, with 1,091.3 acres out of the total 3,641.8 acres. As mapped, this unit contains a number of distinct vegetation types, depending on slope and aspect. At low elevations, and especially on steep, south-facing slopes, the vegetation includes species typical of Chihuahuan desert scrub growing on loose rock and talus. On these hot and dry slopes, common sotol (Dasylirion wheeleri) is often dominant, with significant growth of ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens), prickly pear (Opuntia sp.), banana yucca (Yucca baccata), and very low perennial grass cover.

At slightly higher elevations and on north-facing slopes, a diverse mix of tree and shrub species occurs, dominated by oneseed juniper (Juniperus monosperma) with occasional piñon pine (Pinus edulis). Shrubs include skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), beargrass (Nolina sp.), banana yucca (Yucca baccata), Apache plume (Fallugia paradoxa), cliff fendlerbush (Fendlera rupicola), Wright’s silktassel (Garrya wrightii), gray oak (Quercus grisea), and many other species. These areas currently support very low herbaceous productivity in the project area, with only scattered grasses such as poverty threeawn (Aristida divaricata) and forbs such as hairy false goldenaster (Heterotheca villosa) and heartleaf goldeneye (Viguiera cordifolia). As this ERU moves up in elevation, these same shrubby species can be found, along with alderleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), cliff fendlerbush, and Gambel oak. The highest elevations of this ERU is dominated by piñon pine, with scattered alligator junipers (Juniperus deppeana) and an understory composed primarily of Gambel oak along with banana yucca and beargrass. These areas occur on gently sloping ridge tops and support taller and more continuous woodland growth than the lower elevations.

Ponderosa Pine Forest The Ponderosa Pine Forest ERU covers 1,062 of the 3,641 acres of the project area or 29.2%. These areas are dominated by thick even-aged ponderosa pine forests. Gaps in the overstory are occupied by thick patches of Gambel oak and piñon pine. The understory is usually sparse, with some perennial grasses such as Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica) and Canada wildrye (Elymus canadensis), forbs such as mountain tail-leaf forb (Pericome caudate), and shrubs such as wax currant (Ribes cereum), New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana), and littleleaf mock orange (Philadelphus microphyllus).

Fremont Cottonwood/Shrub The Fremont Cottonwood/Shrub ERU contains riparian vegetation along springs and drainages within the project area. As mapped, this ERU totals 58.7 acres (2%) out of the total project area of 3,641.8 acres. Riparian vegetation has also been mapped by the Forest Service Southwestern Region (USDA 2014) based on valley bottom geomorphology and high-resolution infrared photography. This mapping effort appears

20 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

to more accurately delineate the extent of wetland vegetation types in the project area and was used as the basis for setting 100-foot management activity buffers.

Riparian vegetation in the project area consists of an overstory of Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). A thick shrubby understory includes coyote willow (Salix exigua) and black willow (S. nigra). The wettest areas support narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) and sedges (Carex sp.).

Montane/Subalpine Grassland Also referred to as montane grasslands, this ERU occurs at elevations ranging from 8,000 to 11,000 feet and often includes several plant associations with varying dominant grasses and herbaceous species. Approximately 50 acres of this ERU occur within the 3,641.8-acre project area. Dominants within this unit may include Parry’s oatgrass (Danthonia parryi), Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica), Thurber’s fescue (F. thurberi), pine dropseed (Blepharoneuron tricholepis), various sedges (Carex sp.), and other bulrush species (Scirpus and/or Schoenoplectus sp.). Trees may occur along the periphery of the meadows and may include Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), blue spruce (P. pungens), Douglas-fir, and white fir. Some shrubs may be present. Meadows within this unit are seasonally wet and tied to snowmelt, though they typically do not undergo flooding.

Sparsely Vegetated This ERU includes areas that are barren and have low vegetation cover a majority of the time. This unit includes various sites, natural and anthropogenic, that possess less than 10% total vegetation cover. In Priority Area 3, it comprises approximately 32 acres.

3.2.3 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change to the current forest structure and plant community composition in the project area. The current unhealthy forest condition would be perpetuated over time and become more susceptible to disturbance by fire, drought, insects, and disease. The current homogenous stand age structure would be unchanged and habitat diversity would remain limited. Understory plant vigor would remain low, continuing to perpetuate limited species diversity.

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no actions to directly influence the current distribution of noxious weeds. However, in the event of an uncharacteristic wildfire, disturbed areas may become prone to weed infestations as native species are consumed by fire in the project area. Wildfire destruction of forest canopy and ground fuels has been significantly correlated with decreases in native species and increases in non-native species, at least in the first year post-fire (Omi and Martinson 2007).

3.2.4 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Under the Proposed Action, the proposed treatments would reduce vegetation density and create more varied structure in a manner that would restore the forest to a more sustainable condition. Forest health is expected to be improved with resultant increases in individual tree vigor and resilience to drought, disease, and insect infestation. The herbaceous plant community could have direct damaging effects from treatment activities, but would benefit from increased sunlight and reduced competition from the overstory vegetation. Studies of similar treatments in the Southwest have found herbaceous biomass to increase significantly following thinning treatments compared to control plots (Covington et al. 1997; Griffis et al. 2001).

21 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Prescribed fire would have both immediate and long-term impacts on the general plant community. Removal of surface fuels would prepare the forest floor and seed bed promoting increased seed germination. Based on studies of similar treatments, herbaceous plant biomass and diversity of native species are expected to increase (Griffis et al. 2001). Prescribed fire would also remove ladder fuels and reduce the density of small-diameter trees raising the average DBH in a stand and making the residual trees more resilient in the event of an uncharacteristic crown fire. Many species are also dependent on fire for regeneration, including ponderosa pine (Biswell 1973). Because ponderosa pine is shade intolerant, regeneration is limited by continuous canopy cover; forest treatments, such as hand and mechanical thinning or prescribed fire, that open up the canopy and increase sunlight to the ground surface can invigorate regeneration and recruitment of the species and strategic and long term management of regenerating seedlings and saplings can help create a more varied age structure.

Fuel treatments proposed under the Proposed Action may provide an opportunity for an increase in non- native species by thinning out the forest canopy and leaving more bare ground for establishment; however, the treatments reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire associated with higher risks of non- native plant establishment (Omi and Martinson 2007). Measures would be implemented to reduce the spread of invasive species, including cleaning equipment before and after entering the site, periodic and thorough inspection of all apparatuses and equipment, and minimization of soil disturbance through following BMPs.

3.3 Fuels 3.3.1 Affected Environment Vegetation Permanent plots were established in the project area to gather baseline data and to track changes to the landscape due to treatment. Stand data were collected in July 2016 based on Common Stand Exam protocols (Dixon 2015). Information for each vegetation type was derived from multi-stand summary data tables from the FSVeg database.

Vegetation Cover Vegetation cover data were collected in July 2016. Quantification of vegetation cover was determined using the FSVeg Cover Summary report provided by the Forest Service. Vegetation cover describes the amount of vegetation on the landscape, including shrubs, herbaceous layers, and grasses. These vegetation components can contribute to the spread of ground fire.

Fuel Loading Fuel loading data, collected in July 2016, have been derived from Common Stand Exam protocols for dead and down woody fuel sampling. Information was calculated through FSVeg for specific stands. Stands were combined to gain average fuel loadings across the landscape. Some areas may have individual pockets of high concentrations of dead and down fuels.

Piñon-juniper woodlands in the project area average 8 tons per acre. Junipers are dominant at lower elevations and piñon at high elevations. Ponderosa woodlands in the project area had an average fuel loading of 13 tons per acre. Mixed conifer forest fuel loading averaged of 15 tons per acre. For more information, see Table 3.2.

22 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Fire Regime A natural fire regime, or historic fire regime, is a general classification of the role fire would play throughout a landscape in the absence of modern human intervention, including the influence of aboriginal burning (Agee 1993; Brown 1995). Natural fire regime reference conditions have been developed for vegetation fuel class composition, fire frequency, and fire severity for the biophysical settings at a landscape level for the Southwest and most other parts of the United States (Hann et al. 2003).

The following five fire regime classifications are based on average number of years between fires (fire frequency or mean number of years between fires), combined with the severity (amount of vegetation replacement) of the fire and its effect on the dominant overstory vegetation (Hann et al. 2003):

I. 0–35 year frequency and low (mostly surface fires) to mixed severity (less than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation is replaced). II. 0–35 year frequency and high severity (more than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation is replaced). III. 35–200 or more year fire frequency and mixed severity (less than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation is replaced). IV. 35–200 or more year fire frequency and high severity (more than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation is replaced). V. 200 or more per year frequency and high severity (more than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation is replaced).

Fire Regime Condition Class The Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is a measure of the degree of departure from reference conditions, possibly resulting in changes to key ecosystem components such as vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances, such as insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought (Hann et al. 2003).

The three FRCC rankings are as follows:

FRCC 1: No or low departure from the central tendency of the reference conditions. FRCC 2: Moderate departure from the central tendency of the reference conditions. FRCC 3: High departure from the central tendency of the reference conditions.

All areas fall within Fire Regime I or III based on regional mapping of the areas (see Table 3.2). All areas show moderate to significant departure from historical ecosystem functions. Species composition, vegetative structure, and potential fire behavior due to vegetative structure do not reflect historical ecosystems. This is based on sampling, comparison to similar historically sampled areas, and understanding of fire occurrence as it affects and shapes vegetative structure.

The ponderosa pine dominated associations are a Fire Regime I where fire occurrence was historically of low intensity and severity with a return interval of 0 to 35 years. Mixed conifer in the project area also appears to be a Fire Regime I, with a return interval of 0 to 35 years of low-intensity surface fire. Piñon-

23 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

juniper is best described as Fire Regime I and III with a 0- to 35-year interval with both low-intensity surface fires and stand-replacing fire.

Data collected within the project area indicate a relatively short historical return interval of mixed severity fire, which incorporated both stand replacement and surface fire activity. Evidence from stand structure indicates stand replacement occurred in patches that affected all vegetation types within the project area.

Table 3.2. Vegetation Type Fire Regime and Fire Regime Condition Class

Vegetation Type Fire Regime Fire Regime Condition Class Piñon-juniper association 70% Fire Regime I, 20% Fire Regime FRCC 1 (15%) – low to moderate departure III FRCC 2 (70%) - moderate to high departure FRCC 3 (15%) - high departure Ponderosa pine Fire Regime I FRCC 3 (100%) - high departure Mixed conifer Fire Regime I FRCC 2 and FRCC 3 - moderately to severely departed Riparian Fire Regime I FRCC 3 - severely departed

Wildland Urban Interface The project areas are in proximity to wildland urban interface (WUI) areas as delineated in the Otero County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) (SWCA Environmental Consultants [SWCA] 2014). The CWPP delineates the WUI as an area 1 mile from the edge of a Community at Risk. Because of the rural nature of Otero County, Communities at Risk are in turn defined as all communities on the edge of urban areas. A 0.5-mile buffer is also delineated on either side of all major roads and railroads in the county. This would act as a fuel break from ignitions on the railroads or highways, as well as protection so that roads may serve as escape routes in the event of a wildfire. The Otero County CWPP (SWCA 2014) provides recommendations for fuel reduction treatments within WUI areas, prioritizing treatments that would protect life and property in designated WUI (SWCA 2014).

3.3.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) The No Action Alternative would result in no treatment of the existing forest conditions. Without improved wildfire management options, the forest ecosystem would remain susceptible to the adverse effects of uncharacteristic wildfires consistent with increased fuel loading, as well as vulnerable to insect/disease outbreaks. Stand diversity would remain low and competition for water, nutrients, and space would remain high. Wildfires would be harder to suppress and the potential for uncharacteristic high-intensity crown fire would be increased, putting public and firefighter safety at risk. Fire-related effects of an uncharacteristic wildfire include soil hydrophobicity, altered infiltration, increased runoff, sedimentation, and erosion. Recruitment of woody material is likely to occur at increased rates due to the potential for high tree mortality.

Fire Behavior Characteristics Potential fire behavior in the event of a moderate and a severe fire was modeled in FVS/FFE software, based on stand exam data collected in 2016. Canopy bulk density and canopy base height further indicate heavy understory reproduction, dominated by trees less than 5 inches in diameter. Generally, stands with heavy understory reproduction have the highest potential for torching (torching index), while crowning index indicates some level of resistance to sustained crown fire, unless very high winds occur. Modeling results are presented in Table 3.3.

24 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Table 3.3. Pre-treatment Fire Behavior Characteristics

Torching Index Crowning Index Canopy Base Canopy Bulk Vegetation Type (wind speed mph) (wind speed mph) Height (feet) Density (kg/m3) Ponderosa pine (14 stands) 20 59 14 0.037 Mixed conifer (27 stands) 51 34 10 0.083 Piñon-juniper (21 stands) 9 41 7 0.060 Note: mph = miles per hour; kg/m³ = kilograms per cubic meter.

3.3.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) The Proposed Action is based on the fuels reduction prescription and would have fewer trees, especially small-diameter trees that act as ladder fuels and increase the risk of torching, and an open canopy with lower canopy bulk density, which reduces the risk of sustained crown and overall fire behavior. The ecosystem should be resilient to natural disturbance events, including fire, drought, disease, and insect infestations. A desired future condition would allow fire to play its natural role in the environment and be maintained in a manner to alleviate resistance to control. Desired future conditions would mimic natural ecosystem traits, having a diverse mosaic of fuels that are arranged in a fashion not subject to uncharacteristic wildfire.

Fuel management actions through mechanical and hand thinning treatments would cause direct impacts to vegetation through removal of individual trees and shrubs and trampling and disturbance impacts to understory species. This impacts fuel loading by removing high densities of heavy aerial fuels. Changes in microclimate occur when canopy cover is removed, which creates indirect impacts to herbaceous plants as a result of drying or increased exposure to wind and precipitation. Fine fuels may also increase as a result of increased sunlight and nutrients. The retention of woody material improves soil condition where woody material is lacking and provides protection to soil during rainfall, mitigating the impact of the loss of vegetative cover. However, woody material contributes to increased fuel loading on the surface through the rearrangement of aerial fuels to surface fuels. Masticated material would be left in the openings and burned in later years reducing this surface fuel loading. Down woody material would be retained or returned to the sites after proposed activities to ensure appropriate levels to maintain soil quality are present.

Prescribed burning would remove masticated material and some understory and herbaceous layers. Prescribed fire improves soil nutrient cycling and in turn promotes plant productivity (Neary et al. 1999) so herbaceous species are expected to recover within one to two growing seasons. Prescribed fire helps thin encroaching scrub/shrub components, thereby reducing competition for limited resources and restoring native vegetation structure and composition. Prescribed fire could help control non-native invasive species. Control of invasive species helps prevent displacement of native plant populations. Prescribed fire does have potential to contribute to the spread of invasive non-native species through transport on firefighting apparatuses. BMPs, such as washing and inspecting all apparatuses prior to a prescribed fire, would be implemented to avoid and mitigate this threat. Additionally, in some instances, small sections of a prescribed burn may burn too hot, leading to excessive mortality and invasion of invasive species. The application of BMPs would minimize the potential for these adverse impacts to occur.

Overall, prescribed fire could result in the loss of individual plants; however, broader impacts to the plant population and community composition would be long term and beneficial due to beneficial impacts on

25 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

nutrient cycling, plant productivity, reduced invasive species cover, and improved resilience to unplanned ignitions.

The indirect effect of reduced potential for uncharacteristic wildfire as a result of the proposed vegetative treatment provides long-term benefits to forest resources. Thinning activities are a preferable alternative to wildfire, resulting in less impact to watersheds (Dore et al. 2010; Ffolliott et al. 2011).

Fire Behavior Characteristics Following treatment, canopy bulk density would decrease and canopy base height would increase, indicating stands with fewer, more mature trees. Modeling simulations suggest that in post-treatment stands the torching index and crowning index increases as compared to pre-treatment conditions. This means that the wind speeds needed to initiate torching and crowning are greater for post-treatment stands. Generally, dense stands have the highest potential for torching (torching index) due to heavy understory reproduction and ladder fuels, so thinning small-diameter trees is expected to increase stand resistance to torching and crown fire as seen below in Table 3.4. This table shows the significant increases in wind speed that is needed for both torching or crowning fires to occur following treatments. The decreased likelihood of torching and crowning would likely be reflected in lower mortality in the event of moderate fire.

Potential fire behavior in the event of a moderate and a severe fire following the Proposed Action was modeled using FVS/FFE software, with the following assumptions: 1) thinning would reduce density to 20 trees per acre in piñon-juniper and riparian areas, retaining all trees 18 inches DBH and greater; 2) thinning would reduce tree density to a basal area of 80 square feet per acre in ponderosa stands, retaining all trees 12 inches DBH and greater; and 3) thinning would reduce tree density to a basal area of 120 square feet per acre in mixed conifer stands, retaining all trees 12 inches DBH and greater. Results are presented in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4. Post-Treatment Fire Behavior Characteristics Torching Index Crowning Index Canopy Base Canopy Bulk Density Vegetation Type (wind speed (wind speed mph) Height (feet) (kg/m3) mph) Ponderosa pine (14 stands) 31 67 19 0.033 Mixed conifer (27 stands) 86 35 12 0.077 Piñon-juniper (21 stands) 16 75 16 0.031 Note: mph = miles per hour; kg/m³ = kilograms per cubic meter.

3.4 Heritage Resources 3.4.1 Affected Environment Several federal laws and implementing regulations apply to the evaluation and protection of significant cultural resource properties and preservation of cultural standards. Among the most significant of these laws and regulations are the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106, as amended (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800) and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 60). In compliance with these laws, the management of cultural resources on Forest Service lands is contained in the Forest Plan (USDA 1986), as amended, and the Region 3 Programmatic Agreement, Appendix J (USDA 2010a).

26 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

A pedestrian survey of 2,470 acres of the project area was completed to locate, identify, evaluate, and record all prehistoric and historic cultural resources, including all eligible and undetermined previously recorded sites within the project area (USDA 2017a). Steep slopes were excluded from the survey due to safety concerns and because sites generally are not found on slopes greater than 30 percent in this area. During the survey, 46 newly discovered archaeological sites were recorded and six previously recorded sites were updated. In total, 52 heritage properties were investigated within the project area. Of the 52 sites recorded or updated, 10 were prehistoric or protohistoric, five sites were Archaic, four were Archaic or Mogollon, two were Archaic to Protohistoric, 10 were Jornada Mogollon, one was Mogollon to Protohistoric, 10 were Euro-American and Historic or Recent in age, one is multicomponent Historic and Protohistoric Apache, and 10 sites were of mixed cultural affiliation with multiple components. Several of the historic or historic/recent period components appear to be the product of Euro-American homesteading or mining activities in the region. One is associated with Works Progress Administration water pipeline construction just prior to World War II (WWII) (USDA 2017a).

All cultural resources identified during the survey were evaluated with respect to their eligibility for the NRHP. These evaluations not only inform management of heritage resources for the Proposed Action, but the data will also inform future activities of the heritage resources present in this portion of the Sacramento Ranger District.

Thirteen of the 52 sites investigated were recommended not eligible for the NRHP because they did not meet any of the four eligibility criteria (Table 3.5).

Table 3.5. Sites and Historic Structures within the Project Area Recommended Not Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places

Forest Service Site Temporal Association LA Number Component Description Number (Period/Phase/Date Range) AR 03-08-02-01062 187711 Informal refuse dump NM Statehood/WWII–Recent Historic (1930–1967+) AR 03-08-02-01063 187712 Informal can dump NM Statehood/WWII–Recent Historic (1915–1950s) AR 03-08-02-01065 187714 Lithic scatter Unknown Prehistoric/Protohistoric (9500 B.C.–A.D. 1900) AR 03-08-02-01069 187718 Mine with 8 trenches, 5 tailings U.S. Territorial--Recent Historic (1900–1960s) piles, 1 shallow pit, and 2 mine claim markers AR 03-08-02-01083 187732 1 mineral prospecting trench, 1 Recent Historic (1948–1949) mine claim marker/cairn AR 03-08-02-01092 187741 Mining trench with artifact Recent Historic (1948–1949) concentration AR 03-08-02-01093 187742 Lithic scatter Early Archaic-Protohistoric (5500 B.C.–A.D. 1900) AR 03-08-02-01095 187744 Historic artifact scatter NM Statehood (1915–1920) AR 03-08-02-01097 187746 Lithic scatter Late Archaic-Doña Ana (A.D. 100–800/1200) AR 03-08-02-01101 187750 Lithic scatter Unknown Prehistoric/Protohistoric (9500 B.C.–A.D. 1900) AR 03-08-02-01102 187751 Prospect pit, rock alignment, 2 Recent Historic (1932–1952) artifacts AR 03-08-02-01104 187753 Telephone line NM Statehood/WWII (1912–1945) AR 03-08-02-01105 187754 Water pipelines WWII–Recent Historic (1940/41–1977/78)

27 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Protection for and avoidance by future activities is recommended for the sites that have been recommended eligible or undetermined for the NRHP, as these resources have the potential to yield important information that can be used to address issues relating to their period of use, cultural identity, subsistence strategies, land use strategies, and settlement patterns. Of the 52 sites recorded/updated in the project area, 39 were recommended eligible for the NRHP. The 39 sites recommended eligible for the NRHP are summarized in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6. Sites and Historic Structures within the Project Area Recommended Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places Forest Service Temporal Association LA Number Component Description Site Number (Period/Phase/Date Range) AR 03-08-02-00039 65423 Atkinson Homestead, Apache wickiup, U.S. Territorial–NM Statehood Ranching (1900–1930) U.S. Territorial–NM Statehood/WWII (1900– 1945) NM Statehood–Recent Historic (1930–1960s) AR 03-08-02-00225 22945 Massey Homestead U.S. Territorial–NM Statehood/WWII (1910– 1940s) AR 03-08-02-00340 86295 Surface stain with an associated lithic Unknown Prehistoric/Protohistoric scatter (9500 B.C.–A.D. 1900) AR 03-08-02-00387 98448 Lithic scatter Unknown Prehistoric/Protohistoric (9500 B.C.–A.D. 1900) AR 03-08-02-00941 160595 Fire-cracked rock (FCR) midden with an Archaic–Protohistoric associated lithic scatter and a telegraph (5500 B.C.–A.D. 1900) line, water pipeline, and associated U.S. Territorial–Recent Historic (1912–1967) artifacts AR 03-08-02-01005 173515 Isolated masonry structure, small room Doña Ana–El Paso block with plaza, 2 bedrock workstations, (A.D. 1050–1450) and 2 FCR features with associated U.S. Territorial–NM Statehood artifact scatter; series of masonry walls, (1880–1920) wooden fence line, with associated U.S. Territorial–Recent Historic artifacts; mineral prospecting pit and (1900–1960s) possible mine claim cairn with associated artifacts AR 03-08-02-01061 187710 Artifact scatter Doña Ana–Protohistoric (A.D. 1050–1550) AR 03-08-02-01064 187713 Prehistoric artifact scatter, historic Doña Ana–El Paso (A.D. 1050–1450) dugout, fence line segment, and rock- NM Statehood/WWII (1919–1945) lined depressions with associated Recent Historic–Modern (1946–present) artifact scatter, road and fire ring with associated artifacts AR 03-08-02-01066 187715 FCR concentration and lithic scatter Archaic–Protohistoric (5500 B.C.–A.D. 1900) AR 03-08-02-01067 187716 Artifact scatter Mesilla–El Paso (A.D. 400–1400)

AR 03-08-02-01068 187717 Chimney, rock alignment, iron pipe, Late Archaic–Mesilla rock-lined depression, mine pit, two FCR (100 B.C.–A.D. 900) concentrations and extensive prehistoric Doña Ana–El Paso and historic artifact scatters (A.D. 1050–1450) NM Statehood (1915–1930) Recent Historic–Modern (1946–present) AR 03-08-02-01070 187719 Bedrock mortar workstation, FCR Late Archaic–Mesilla (A.D. 100–900) concentration with associated artifact Doña Ana–El Paso (A.D. 1050–1450) scatter. Historic split-rail fence, corral, U.S. Territorial (pre-1880s) barbed-wire fence, and 2 mine NM Statehood/WWII (1915–1930) pits/trenches with associated artifacts Statehood/WWII–Recent (ca. 1912–1960s) AR 03-08-02-01071 187720 3 FCR scatters, 1 FCR concentration, 3 Archaic–Protohistoric FCR middens (5500 B.C.–A.D.1900) AR 03-08-02-01072 187721 1 FCR midden, 1 FCR scatter Doña Ana–El Paso (A.D. 1050–1450)

28 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Forest Service Temporal Association LA Number Component Description Site Number (Period/Phase/Date Range) AR 03-08-02-01073 187722 Kiva with associated artifacts Mesilla–El Paso (A.D. 400–1400) AR 03-08-02-01074 187723 Lithic scatter Unknown Prehistoric/Protohistoric (9500 B.C.–A.D. 1900) AR 03-08-02-01075 187724 Lithic scatter Late Archaic–Doña Ana (1000 B.C.–A.D. 900/1200) AR 03-08-02-01076 187725 Lithic scatter Late Archaic–Mesilla (1800 B.C.–A.D. 900)

AR 03-08-02-01077 187726 FCR concentration and associated lithic Late Archaic–Mesilla (1800 B.C.–A.D. 900) scatter AR 03-08-02-01078 187727 FCR concentration and associated lithic Late Archaic–Mesilla (100 B.C.–A.D. 900) scatter AR 03-08-02-01079 187728 Lithic scatter Unknown Prehistoric/Protohistoric 9500 B.C.–A.D. 1900 AR 03-08-02-01080 187729 Lithic scatter Middle–Late Archaic (3500 B.C.–A.D. 400)

AR 03-08-02-01081 187730 Rock feature and associated artifacts Archaic (4500–1500 B.C.) AR 03-08-02-01082 187731 Prehistoric lithic scatter and historic Unknown Prehistoric/Protohistoric depression and associated artifacts (9500 B.C.–A.D. 1900) NM Statehood–Recent Historic (1935–1970s) AR 03-08-02-01084 187733 Artifact scatter Mesilla–Protohistoric (A.D. 400–1900) AR 03-08-02-01085 187734 Lithic scatter, ring midden and boulder Late Archaic-Early Mesilla metate and associated artifact scatter, (1500 B.C.–A.D. 300) and a mineral prospecting pit and cairn Mesilla–Doña Ana (A.D. 200/400–1200) (mine claim marker) Recent Historic (1946+) AR 03-08-02-01086 187735 Lithic scatter Middle Archaic–Protohistoric (4000 B.C.–A.D. 1850) AR 03-08-02-01087 187736 Artifact scatter Late Mesilla phase (A.D. 880–1000) AR 03-08-02-01088 187737 Lithic scatter Middle-Late Archaic (4500 B.C.–A.D. 300) AR 03-08-02-01089 187738 Artifact scatter Mesilla–El Paso (A.D. 400–1400) AR 03-08-02-01090 187739 Lithic scatter Unknown Prehistoric/Protohistoric (9500 B.C.–A.D. 1900) AR 03-08-02-01091 187740 Lithic scatter, campground, with gravel Middle Archaic–Protohistoric road, 1 undefined rock alignment, 7 (4000 B.C.–A.D. 1900) hearths/fire rings, 1 privy, 1 milled- NM Statehood–Recent Historic lumber concentration, and 2 FCR (1920–1966+) middens with five pieces of worked glass Historic Apache (1920+) AR 03-08-02-01094 187743 Lithic scatter Unknown Prehistoric/Protohistoric (9500 B.C.–A.D. 1900) AR 03-08-02-01096 187745 Rock shelter and associated lithic scatter Archaic–Protohistoric (5500 B.C.–A.D. 1900) AR 03-08-02-01098 187747 Lithic scatter Middle–Late Archaic (2500–100 B.C.) AR 03-08-02-01099 187748 Prehistoric artifact scatter, undefined Mesilla–El Paso (A.D. 1050–1450) rock alignment, depression, and midden U.S. Territorial–NM Statehood/WWII and historic dugout (1880–1945) AR 03-08-02-01100 187749 Lithic scatter Unknown Prehistoric/Protohistoric (9500 B.C.–A.D. 1900) AR 03-08-02-01103 187752 Lithic scatter Unknown Prehistoric/Protohistoric (9500 B.C.–A.D. 1900) AR 03-08-02-01106 187755 Surface stain and associated artifact Mesilla–El Paso phase (A.D. 1050–1400) scatter

29 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

3.4.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) There would be no direct impacts to heritage resources from the No Action Alternative because the project would not be implemented, thus there would be no potential for heritage resources to be impacted from vegetation treatments, ground disturbance, or prescribed burning. Under this alternative, indirect effects to heritage resources could result from a wildfire within the project area. Unmanaged vegetation in the area could result in heavy fuel loads, causing wildfires to burn at higher than normal temperatures. Under increased fire intensity, heritage resources—both artifacts on or near the surface, as well as subsurface structures, could be burned, cracked, and destroyed. Additionally, post-fire impacts could cause erosion in archaeological sites and lead to exposing and/or destabilizing sites.

3.4.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Any surface-disturbing activity can cause alterations to the physical integrity of heritage resources. Activities such as ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and prescribed and natural fire all have potential to disturb, damage, or cause changes to the setting of heritage resources. Under the Proposed Action, mechanical vegetation treatments would be allowed on 1,964 acres, hand thinning vegetation would be allowed on 2,588 acres, and prescribed burning would be allowed within the entire 3,641.8-acre project area.

Direct impacts to heritage resources from vegetation treatments include potential damage or displacement of surface deposits and artifacts from ground disturbance and high temperature fires, impacts to the structural integrity of sites, and impacts to subsurface archaeological features. Indirect impacts include the potential for increased erosion in archaeological sites post-prescribed fire depending on the severity of the fire and timing of post-fire precipitation.

In order to minimize the potential impacts to heritage resources from actions associated with thinning, cutting, and removing vegetation, sites recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D (36 CFR 60.6) and sites with undetermined eligibility should be avoided during implementation of the Proposed Action. However, if a site cannot be avoided, the following mitigations would apply:

• Prior to project implementation, all site boundaries would be flagged in orange/white flagging tape for ease of identification. • Fuel reduction activities would be limited to hand thinning of trees and low limbs, and all motorized vehicles or heavy equipment would be prohibited from entering the site as they possess the potential to damage or displace surface deposits and artifacts. • Slash would be removed from the site before any prescribed burn is implemented so the exposed surface assemblage and deposits are not subjected to high temperatures from concentrated fuels burning on the surface. • No trees growing within or immediately adjacent to archaeological features would be removed, as they help stabilize and anchor sediments in place. • No fire control hand lines would be constructed within site boundaries in order to prevent potential damage to subsurface archaeological remains.

Under this alternative, prescribed fire could occur under minimal heat conditions throughout the 3,641.8-acre project area, including the inventoried archaeological sites. The primary impacts to heritage resources from prescribed burning include sooting, cracking, or destruction of surface and near-surface artifacts from fires burning at very high temperatures. To minimize the potential for high-intensity fire

30 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

within NRHP eligible and undetermined sites in the project area, slash would be removed from the site before any broadcast burn is implemented, so the exposed surface assemblage and deposits are not subjected to high temperatures from concentrated fuels burning on the surface.

Lastly, under the Proposed Action, there is also the possibility for archaeological sites that were not discovered during archaeological survey or project implementation to be damaged or destroyed. Provided the mitigations identified above are followed, and the design features listed in Section 2.3.1 are followed, impacts to heritage resources from the proposed vegetation and prescribed burning treatments within the project area would be minimal.

3.5 Social and Economic Effects Including Environmental Justice 3.5.1 Affected Environment The closest communities to the proposed project area are the City of Alamogordo and the Village of Cloudcroft, both located in Otero County. The Mescalero Apache Tribe is also located within proximity to the Priority 3 project area (see Figure 1.1). A summary of the socioeconomic profile for Alamogordo, Otero County, and the Mescalero Apache Tribe is provided in Table 3.7. These and other unincorporated communities within and adjacent to the Sacramento Mountains have historically been highly dependent on recreation and tourism, and more recently on rapidly growing amenity/seasonal home developments (USDA 2010b). These uses all depend on the recreational opportunities and the natural and aesthetic qualities afforded by the surrounding forest.

Table 3.7 Economic Comparison Data Median Household Per Capita Percent Individuals Geographic Area Total Population Income Income Below Poverty Level Alamogordo 31,060 $43,460 $22,768 18.5% Otero County 65,082 $40,614 $19,803 20.2% Mescalero Apache Tribe 3,613 $27,009 $10,008 Not reported United States 318,857,056 $53,482 $28,555 14.8%

Between 2011 and 2015, the unemployment rate for Otero County has dropped from 6.7% to 6.2% (New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions 2016). Table 3.8 shows the major employment sectors for the Alamogordo and Otero County (sectors in bold type represent the highest employment levels).

Table 3.8. Major Employment Sectors for Analysis Area (Otero County) 2015 (reported Percent Change 2014 Industry 2008 2014 through Q3) to 2015 Private Sector Agriculture 153 117 117 0 Mining 9 74 – – Utilities 72 121 120 -0.8 Construction 1,280 1,055 1,096 3.9 Manufacturing 260 177 93 -47.5

31 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

2015 (reported Percent Change 2014 Industry 2008 2014 through Q3) to 2015 Wholesale Trade 178 146 162 11.0 Retail Trade 2,210 2,128 2,313 8.7 Transport and Warehousing 368 271 280 3.3 Information 230 231 236 2.2 Finance and Insurance 401 391 379 -3.1 Real Estate 166 124 142 14.5 Prof. and Tech. Services 717 790 673 -14.8 Management of Companies and 31 11 – – Enterprises Admin. And Waste 729 1,167 1,179 1.0 Educational 42 91 33 -63.7 Health Care 2,090 2,277 2,418 6.2 Entertainment and Recreation 66 63 65 3.2 Food Services 1,555 1,664 1,710 2.8 Other 521 401 378 -5.7 Total Private* 11,077 11,297 11,468 1.5 Government Sector Federal 1,889 1,702 1,771 4.1 State 802 685 649 -5.3 Local 3,844 3,664 3,433 -6.3 Total Government 6,535 6,051 5,853 -3.3

* Totals presented as reported and not corrected for errors. Sources: Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of New Mexico (2016).

Table 3.8 above lists the total number of jobs in Otero County area by industry. Government supports the largest percentage (35%) of jobs and consists of federal, military, state, and local government employment. The second largest industry is health care, accounting for 13% of jobs, followed by retail trade (12% of jobs); both of these are service-related industries.

Surveys reveal that the second highest motivation for recreationists and tourists visiting the Sacramento Mountains is viewing forest scenery (Crown 1996). In addition, the Village of Cloudcroft advertises the region as a place to enjoy the mountains all year (Cloudcroft.com 2016). The condition and appearance of the forest surrounding area communities and subdivisions, along popular roads and trails, and in the visible areas is important to meeting visitors’ desires and expectations for scenic beauty, forest health, and natural-looking surroundings. Another major recreational use in the project area and Sacramento Mountains is hunting. The various hunting seasons that occur each year provide a major influx of in-state and out-of-state hunters that are very important to the local service sector (USDA 2010b). The quality and success rate of these hunts is critical in determining whether hunters return to the area in subsequent years. Similarly, purchasers of seasonal or retirement homes are driven by amenity considerations and are attracted to the Sacramento Mountains by cool summers and beauty and naturalness of the surrounding forests.

32 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Interviews with residents, business owners, realtors, and property developers in the Sacramento Mountains reveal a strong fear that the quality of life and the culture of the local communities and surrounding subdivisions would be severely negatively impacted if there is not effective intervention to reduce hazardous fuels and restore the forest (Thal 2008).

3.5.2 Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to focus attention on the human health and environmental conditions in minority1 and low-income communities2. The purpose of Executive Order 12898 is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects3 on minority and low-income populations.

Environmental justice means that, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment.

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, and incomes, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The goal of environmental justice is for federal agency decision makers to identify impacts that are disproportionately high and adverse with respect to minority and low-income populations4 and identify alternatives that would avoid or mitigate those impacts.

The emphasis of environmental justice is on health effects and/or the benefits of a healthy environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has interpreted health effects with a broad definition: “Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic or social impacts on minority communities, low-income communities or Indian Tribes when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment” (CEQ 1997). Table 3.9 summarizes the ethnic and racial demographics for Alamogordo, Otero County, the Mescalero Apache Tribe, and the state of New Mexico. The analysis area has a higher proportion of Hispanic and American Indian residents than the United States. The Hispanic and American Indian groups meet the environmental justice requirements of a minority population.

1 Minority means a person who is a member of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic (U.S. Department of Agriculture DR5600-002, 1997).

2 Low-income population means any readily identifiable group of low-income persons who live in geographic proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically dispersed/transient persons who will be similarly affected by U.S. Department of Agriculture programs or activities. Low-income populations may be identified using data collected, maintained, and analyzed by an agency or from analytical tools such as the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty (U.S. Department of Agriculture DR5600-002, 1997).

3 Human health and/or environmental effects as used in this Departmental Regulation include interrelated social and economic effects (U.S. Department of Agriculture DR5600-002, 1997).

4 Minority populations/communities means any readily identifiable group of minority persons who live in geographic proximity to and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically dispersed/transient persons who will be similarly affected by U.S. Department of Agriculture programs or activities (U.S. Department of Agriculture DR5600-002, 1997).

33 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Table 3.9. Comparison of Ethnic and Racial Populations

Geographic Total Population Groups by Percentage of Total Population Area Population African American White Asian Other Hispanic American Indian Alamogordo 31,060 76.8% 5.4% 1.4% 1.7% 5.2% 30.5% Otero County 65,082 72.7% 3.5% 6.7% 1.2% 4.4% 34.5% Mescalero Apache Tribe 3,613 4.7% 0.3% 92.3% 0.1% 2.6% 10.4% United States 318,857,056 72.4% 12.6% 0.9% 4.8% 3.1% 16.3%

Data source: U.S. Census Bureau (2010, 2014)

Table 3.9 above reports the percentage of individuals below the poverty level. Both Alamogordo and Otero County have poverty rates higher than the national average. Such rates suggest that a substantial proportion of the existing population should be considered as a low-income group.

In cases where management decisions are expected to create jobs and income in the local economy, it is unlikely that there would be a disproportionate adverse effect on minority and low-income populations. Individuals in those populations may benefit from any increase in jobs and income in the area. Alternatively, future management decisions that may negatively affect local employment and income conditions should carefully assess the distribution of effects across population demographics, paying careful attention to Hispanic, American Indian, and low-income populations.

3.5.3 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) The No Action Alternative would result in no change to the socioeconomic conditions of the local communities, including the Mescalero Apache Tribe.

3.5.4 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Under the Proposed Action mechanical vegetation treatments would be allowed on 1,964 acres, hand thinning vegetation would be allowed on 2,588 acres, and prescribed burning would be allowed within the entire 3,641.8-acre project area. The Proposed Action could be implemented using various administrative arrangements, including but not limited to firewood collection permits, timber contracts, youth crews, and Forest Service burn crews.

The commodity of firewood produced by the Proposed Action would be expected to generate some direct, indirect, and induced revenue to Otero County, but not a significant amount. A number of seasonal jobs would be supported through implementation of this project. In addition, while not quantitatively estimated, there is expected to be significant cost avoidance for needed wildfire risk mitigation (e.g., fuel reduction, suppression facilities, and activities) and hazard tree management that is incorporated into the project.

The Proposed Action would also result in long-term beneficial economic impacts to Alamogordo in the form of protected drinking waters supply infrastructure. There are three drinking water supply pipelines located either within or immediately adjacent to the proposed treatment areas within Alamo, Gordon, and Caballero Canyons (see Figure 2.1). These pipelines serve as collection locations for the larger watershed, which provides critical drinking water to Alamogordo. The nearby communities of High Rolls

34 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment and Cloudcroft would also receive long-term beneficial impacts in the form of watershed enhancement and protection, as the forest also provides drinking water to its residents.

The Proposed Action would not result in demographic changes, such as displacement of minorities, geographic changes in land use, or economic hardship such as an increase in taxes. The Proposed Action would provide a short-term employment opportunity for local residents. Wood product permits on Forest Service lands would be offered without prejudice toward any particular group under federal laws, regulations, and policies. No impacts to environmental justice communities would occur.

3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 3.6.1 Affected Environment According to the USFWS, the Lincoln National Forest comprises part of the potential range of nine federally threatened or endangered species, two candidate species, and one experimental population species (Table 3.10). Species that are not expected to occur near or within the proposed project area, due to the range of the species or lack of habitat, are assumed to be unaffected by the Proposed Action, and therefore are not carried forward in the analysis. Suitable habitat may exist for three listed species; the species are discussed below.

Table 3.10. Federally Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species for the Lincoln National Forest Common Name Potential for Occurrence Status* Range or Habitat Requirements (Species Name) in Project Area Least tern (Sterna USFWS Migratory species occurring in North America Unlikely to occur in the project antillarum) T during the breeding season, when it is area due to lack of suitable water associated with water (e.g., lakes, reservoirs, bodies. rivers). Mexican spotted owl USFWS Dependent on the presence of large trees, Known to occur. The project area (Strix occidentalis T snags, down logs, dense canopy cover, and contains the mixed conifer forest lucida) multi-storied conditions within predominantly type on steep hillsides that the mixed-conifer and pine-oak habitats on a species typically occupies. steep mountain hillside. Northern aplomado USFWS Strongly associated with semi-desert Unlikely to occur in the project falcon (Falco femoralis ENEP grasslands with scattered tall yuccas, area, which does not contain septentrionalis) mesquite, and cacti. Larger shrubs or small suitable open grasslands. trees must be widely spaced. Nest platforms are typically situated on tall yuccas 6–10 feet off the ground. The species has also been reintroduced on the Armendaris Ranch in New Mexico and on Bureau of Land Management and White Sands Missile Range lands. Yellow-billed cuckoo USFWS Typically found in riparian woodland Unlikely to occur. The project (Coccyzus T vegetation (cottonwood, willow, or saltcedar) area is above the typical americanus) at elevations below 6,600 feet. Dense elevational range and this understory foliage appears to be an important species has not been factor in nest site selection. documented on the forest. New Mexico meadow USFWS Occupies moist, streamside, dense Unlikely to occur in the project jumping mouse (Zapus E riparian/wetland vegetation up to an elevation area. The project area is not hudsonius luteus) of about 8,000 feet; utilizes two riparian within the critical habitat community types: 1) persistent emergent designated for this species. herbaceous wetlands and 2) scrub-shrub wetlands (USFWS 2017).

35 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Common Name Potential for Occurrence Status* Range or Habitat Requirements (Species Name) in Project Area Peñasco least USFWS Occurs in high elevation talus slopes of the Unlikely to occur in the project chipmunk (Tamias C Mescalero Apache Reservation and the White area due to lack of suitable minimus atristriatus) Mountain Wilderness Area of the Lincoln habitat, i.e., open understory in National Forest in ponderosa pine forest. high elevation ponderosa pine Prefers mature stands with open understory forest. The project area is with diverse herbaceous vegetation. A dominated by a dense vegetation Sacramento Mountain population has not understory. This taxon has not been relocated since 1966. been documented in the Sacramento Mountains in nearly 50 years. Kuenzler’s hedgehog E Limestone ledges and hills of coniferous and Unlikely to occur. No suitable cactus mixed woodlands at 5,200 to 6,900 feet in habitat is present within the (Echinocereus fendleri elevation. proposed project area. var. kuenzleri) Sacramento prickly E Canyon bottoms and slopes of Chihuahuan Known to occur. The Forest poppy desert scrub, and coniferous and mixed Service is monitoring natural and (Argemone woodlands at 4,800 to 7,000 feet in the transplant populations in Alamo pleiacantha ssp. Sacramento Mountains. and Gordon Canyons. pinnatisecta) Sacramento T Travertine deposits and outflows of natural Known to occur in the project Mountains thistle springs within montane coniferous forest area. The Forest Service has (Cirsium vinaceum) habitats and riparian areas at 7,400 to 9,000 been monitoring populations feet in the Sacramento Mountains. within the project area at springs and seeps in Alamo Canyon. Todsen’s pennyroyal E Endemic to the loose, gypseous-limestone Unlikely to occur. The Project (Hedeoma todsenii) soils associated with the Permian Yeso Area is outside of the designated Formation found in the San Andres and critical habitat for this species. Sacramento Mountains. Found on north- Despite extensive surveys, no facing slopes at elevations of 6,200 to 7,400 populations have been feet. documented in the project area. Wright’s marsh thistle C Wet, alkaline soils in spring seeps and marshy Unlikely to occur. No individuals (Cirsium wrightii) edges of streams and ponds at elevations of have been found during surveys 3,450 to 8,500 feet. of springs and seeps within the proposed project area. (See Section 3.7.3 for more explanation.) Lee’s pincushion T Restricted to Tansil Limestone Formation Unlikely to occur. The species is cactus generally growing on north-facing ledges at not known to occur at this (Coryphantha sneedii elevations of 3,900 to 4,900 feet in Eddy location and no suitable habitat is var. leei) County. present. * Federal (USFWS) status definitions: E = Endangered. Any species considered by the USFWS as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Endangered Species Act specifically prohibits the take of a species listed as endangered. Take is defined by the Endangered Species Act as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to engage in any such conduct. T = Threatened. Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Endangered Species Act specifically prohibits the take (see definition above) of a species listed as threatened. ENEP = Experimental, Non-essential Population. Any reintroduced population established outside the species’ current range, but within its historical distribution. For purposes of Section 7 consultation, experimental, non-essential populations are treated as proposed species (species proposed in the Federal Register for listing under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act), except on national wildlife refuges and national parks, where they are treated instead as threatened. C = Candidate. Any species of animal or plant that is proposed for threatened or endangered status by the USFWS to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. Except where otherwise noted, range or habitat information for wildlife species is taken from the Biota Information System of New Mexico (2017) website, the USFWS New Mexico Southwest Region Ecological Services Field Office (USFWS 2017), and Cartron (2010).

36 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

3.6.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) The No Action Alternative would defer any vegetation treatment at this time. There would be no pre- commercial or commercial treatments, no prescribed burning, and no meadow restoration or oak regeneration treatments.

The No Action Alternative would not treat any Mexican spotted owl habitat on the Sacramento Ranger District. Foraging or nesting habitat would not be increased or improved, and existing habitat would be maintained, but could further degrade overtime. Soil erosion in meadow habitat would continue to occur with conifer encroachment in meadows.

Since there would be no vegetation treatments, there would be no direct effects to federally listed rare plant species resulting from the Proposed Action.

The effects of deferred vegetation treatment may result in the continued build-up of fire fuels, which could contribute to more severe and stand-replacing wildfires. Such fires could produce a long-term decrease in canopy cover, which would contribute to erosion and possible sedimentation of spring and riparian areas, impacting the known populations of Sacramento Mountains thistle.

The No Action Alternative would not treat any Mexican spotted owl habitat on the Sacramento Ranger District. Foraging or nesting habitat would not be increased or improved, and existing habitat would not be maintained. Soil erosion in meadow habitat would continue to occur with conifer encroachment in meadows. Because there is no action, Mexican spotted owl habitat would continue to be in a state where fire risk is high and where stands would remain in an even-aged stand structure. Because there is no action, there are no direct or indirect effects to this species and its habitat. However, it also does not propose treatments that would enhance Mexican spotted owl habitat.

3.6.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) To prevent direct effects to breeding pairs of Mexican spotted owl from the implementation of the Proposed Action, this project would include breeding season restrictions within PACs and would maintain Region 3 Mexican spotted owl survey protocol within the project area. Additionally, vegetation thinning and prescribed burn treatments would be restricted in PACs as detailed in the project design features (see Section 2.3.1). There are no nest core areas within the project area; however, should a nest core area be established during the implementation phase of the project, all treatments would be prohibited within the nest core.

In isolated cases, treatment within a PAC during the breeding season restriction may be requested. This action would only be allowed if formal monitoring determines that reproduction for that year has not been successful. Surveying in unoccupied habitat prior to project implementation would prevent direct effects to any potential unknown breeding pairs. If a pair is found, a PAC would be designated. Enacting breeding season restrictions in PACs would prevent management activities from disturbing Mexican spotted owl reproduction.

The Proposed Action activities would treat Mexican spotted owl habitat, moving the stand condition toward uneven-aged structure through the use of mechanical thinning and prescribed burning. The use of thinning would affect the understory by thinning trees while reducing ladder fuels. Ladder fuels are a major component associated with stand replacing wildfire. The interlocking crown component and its

37 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

associated higher canopy cover with cooler and wetter sites would be retained. Late forest seral stages typical of Mexican spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat would not be taken out of suitable condition by thinning and/or burning. This is because large trees would not be removed by mechanical treatment and prescribed fire would be implemented under seasonal conditions where large tree mortality would be sporadic over the landscape.

Prescribed burning within Mexican spotted owl habitat would create mortality in all size classes over the landscape. The Mexican spotted owl habitat is not entirely in suitable condition, although portions of the area are suitable for owl occupation. The treatments have been prescribed to restore the natural functions over the landscape. These treatments would create uneven-aged stand structure with clumpy interlocked crown forests with small openings intermixed.

The goal of the Proposed Action is to provide a structure that mimics conditions critical to restoring a historical fire regime and desired future conditions. The use of fire is known to release nutrients back into the soil. Mechanical thinning and the use of fire would reduce tree canopy cover through the removal of shrubs and small trees, which allows for greater sunlight to the understory grasses and herbaceous layer. Increased plant production and diversity would support an increased prey base for owl foraging. This may allow for greater sustainable use for Mexican spotted owls within the project area, increasing the amount of forage and improving the condition may indirectly result in future occupation by Mexican spotted owls and successful reproduction.

The Proposed Action would create small openings within the forest canopy over the landscape of the project while maintaining the microsites with the high canopy cover preferred for nesting and roosting. Some trees that may be suitable for owl use may be removed or damaged by implementation of proposed treatments, but the proposal would still meet Forest Plan standards by implementing the design features detailed in Chapter 2.

Stand-replacing fire has been defined as a major threat to the Mexican spotted owl and its critical habitat. Canopy base height and surface fuel loading are the best measures for predicting crown fire. Potential crown fire is the major component for stand-replacing wildfire. Following treatments planned in the Proposed Action, crown fire hazard would decrease through fuel load reduction treatments. The ladder fuels would be cut out, resulting in increasing crown base height and decreasing canopy bulk density.

After a series of mechanical or burning treatments over the years, the residual mixed conifer should consist of a higher proportion of tree species that are adapted to a frequent low-intensity fire regime. Suppression resources would have more opportunities to safely fight fires under most fire weather conditions. The treatments associated by the prescribed burning are expected to create gaps in the oak scrub component and enhance habitat favoring prey species for the owl. The Proposed Action would help restore a healthy fire-adapted ecosystem in Mexican spotted owl habitat.

Some existing snags or downed woody material may be consumed through fire. However, fire would create additional snags and has been observed to put some existing snags on the ground to become downed woody material. Thus, with prescribed burning, there is expected to be a continued creation of snags or downed woody material. Existing downed woody material has the potential to be disturbed by mechanical treatment; however, it is not proposed to be targeted for sale and is expected to remain in place. Snags within the project area are not targeted for mechanical treatment. Snags may be felled if they are deemed a hazard for human safety. Specific project design features dealing with these issues have been created and are part of the Proposed Action (see Section 2.3.1 above).

38 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

The application of fire would aid the recruitment of future snags and downed woody material that Mexican spotted owl and its prey utilize. Snags and downed woody material are essential to the Mexican spotted owl’s “perch and pounce” hunting style. The treatments are expected to create and maintain an uneven-aged stand mixture over the landscape of the analysis area. With the implementation of the project design features, the Proposed Action favors large tree retention. This is essential to the Mexican spotted owl because owls choose higher canopy cover in cool micro-sites for roosting and nesting.

There would be no adverse effects to the Mexican spotted owl by the implementation of the Proposed Action because project design features would be followed to prevent disturbance of nesting pairs of Mexican spotted owl while treatments are expected to improve foraging, nesting, and roosting habitat. The short-term effects to habitat and the owl are insignificant because the project design features are designed to eliminate known impacts to nesting pairs of Mexican spotted owl.

The Proposed Action to restore the natural fire regime back into ecological processes on the landscape, through fire or mechanical thinning, is expected to manipulate the vegetative component to maintain or increase the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) within the analysis area. PCEs are physical and biological features necessary to ensure conservation of the species. The USFWS (2005) identified the PCEs in the August 2004 designation of Mexican spotted owl critical habitat.

The Proposed Action contains project design features and management recommendations that are focused on conservation of existing PCEs and enhancing or increasing these components within the critical habitat analysis area. The treatment makes up a small fraction of critical habitat within the Basin and Range East Recovery Unit and the Sacramento Ranger District. The proposed treatment alterations to habitat should result in habitat enhancement for owl use. Plant species and richness would be increased, while downed woody debris and large snag recruitment would be replaced, maintained, or increased through the implementation of prescribed fire, road closure, and mechanical thinning.

The Proposed Action activities would favor conditions within the stand where there is a greater mixture of tree species, such as ponderosa pine and hardwoods. The canopy cover required for nesting and roosting in mixed conifer stands would be maintained by implementing specifically applied thinning and cool burning prescriptions. The burning and thinning of current even-aged stands would help create uneven-aged forest conditions that are needed for this species. This would contribute to maintenance and potential increases of the PCEs associated with Mexican spotted owl critical habitat on the Sacramento Ranger District and the Basin and Range East Recovery Unit.

There would be no adverse effects to any of the PCEs. The short-term effects to the function and conservation role of the critical habitat relative to the entire designation are expected to be insignificant, based on the Proposed Action, the project design features and the relative size of the affected area relative to the overall critical habitat designation. The PCEs would continue to serve the intended conservation role for the species within the implementation of the Proposed Action.

Sacramento Prickly Poppy (Argemone pleiacantha ssp. pinnatisecta) Several project design features were included in the Proposed Action to avoid, minimize, or eliminate adverse impacts that might result from implementation of the Proposed Action. These project design features are integral to, and are considered part of the Proposed Action and included in the analysis of effects. With regard to the protection of threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species, the project design features state that all management activities would avoid known occurrences with a 200-foot buffer. Additionally, if any new threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species populations are found

39 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

during the life of this project, a 200-foot buffer would be incorporated. Therefore, no direct effects are anticipated to the Sacramento prickly poppy as a result of activities associated with implementation of the Proposed Action (e.g., heavy equipment use, fire line construction, tree thinning, road improvements, or ground disturbance of any type).

Impacts resulting from heavy equipment or that alter the hydrology or water flow of the poppy’s habitat could cause indirect impacts. In addition to the 200 foot buffer around known populations, all springs and wetland areas would be buffered by 100 feet from any management activity. Decreased water flow, alterations to hydrology, and diversion of water are not expected to significantly increase as a result of this project (vegetation management and prescribed burning). However, some of these insignificant indirect effects may still affect Sacramento prickly poppy individuals and their habitat. Additional indirect and cumulative effects may result from the use of heavy equipment. Although heavy equipment use within the project area is not likely to have a direct impact on threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species (due to avoidance, buffering, and timing of activity implementation), heavy equipment used to implement the Proposed Action could lead to an increase in site disturbance, which may lead to the introduction and/or spread of non-native invasive species. Non-native invasive species put competitive pressure on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and alter habitat conditions. Non-native invasive species compete with native species for space and resources, such as light, nutrients, and water. Since non-native invasive species, by definition, have been transplanted outside their original range, they often lack natural controls (e.g., disease, predators, parasites, or climate), which allows them to outcompete and eventually replace more sensitive native species. Once non-native invasive species become established, they are extremely difficult to eradicate, and the resulting change in community plant composition can alter ecosystem dynamics and functions over time. With any management activity that requires use of heavy equipment brought in from off-site or that disturbs the soil and increases sunlight exposure to the ground, there is a risk of transporting and spreading non-native invasive species into the project area. If these non-native invasive species were allowed to establish, they could easily compromise habitat quality, and thus jeopardize any existing or future populations of rare species in the project area. For instance, musk thistle (Carduus nutans) is known to occur within the proposed project area and is a highly competitive species that invades disturbed areas, pasture, rangeland, forest land, cropland, and waste areas. Musk thistle is a prolific seed producer and its seeds are easily dispersed by wind, water, birds, and other animals. Seeds can be carried long distances by adhering to surfaces and undercarriages of road vehicles and road maintenance equipment. Furthermore, the seeds remain viable in the soil for many years. Through these means, musk thistle spreads rapidly and forms extensive stands, which force out desirable native vegetation. Vegetation treatments that increase the level of site disturbance may exacerbate the infestation, thus altering potential habitat for the Sacramento prickly poppy. Design features and best management practices would be followed to reduce the likelihood of the introduction and spread of non-native species.

Sacramento Mountains Thistle (Cirsium vinaceum) Several project design features were included in the Proposed Action to avoid, minimize, or eliminate adverse impacts that might result from implementation of the Proposed Action. These project design features are integral to, and are considered part of the Proposed Action and included in the analysis of effects. With regard to the protection of threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species, the project design features state that all management activities would avoid known occurrences within a 200-foot buffer. Additionally, if any new threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species populations are found during the life of this project, a 200-foot buffer would be incorporated. Therefore, no direct effects are anticipated to the Sacramento mountain thistle as a result of activities associated with implementation of

40 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

the Proposed Action (e.g., heavy equipment use, fire line construction, tree thinning, road improvements, or ground disturbance of any type).

Indirect effects from heavy equipment or disturbance to the hydrology or water flow that support the thistle’s habitat may occur. To mitigate such impacts, all springs and wetland areas would be buffered by 100 feet from any management activity. Decreased water flow, alterations to hydrology and diversion of water are not expected to significantly increase as a result of this project (vegetation management and prescribed burning); however, some of these insignificant indirect effects may still affect Sacramento mountain thistle individuals and their habitat. Although heavy equipment use within the project area is not likely to have a direct impact due to avoidance, buffering, and timing of activity implementation, the use of heavy equipment could lead to an increase in site disturbance, which may lead to the introduction and/or spread of non-native invasive species. Non-native invasive species put competitive pressure on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and alter habitat conditions. Non-native invasive species compete with native species for space and resources, such as light, nutrients, and water. Since non-native invasive species, by definition, have been transplanted outside their original range, they often lack natural controls (e.g., disease, predators, parasites, or climate), which allows them to outcompete and eventually replace more sensitive native species. Once non-native invasive species become established, they are extremely difficult to eradicate, and the resulting change in community plant composition can alter ecosystem dynamics and functions over time. With any management activity that requires use of heavy equipment brought in from off-site or that disturbs the soil and increases sunlight exposure to the ground, there is a risk of transporting and spreading non-native invasive species into the project area. If these non- native invasive species were allowed to establish, they could easily compromise habitat quality, and thus jeopardize any existing or future populations of rare species in the project area. Design features and best management practices would be followed to reduce the likelihood of the introduction and spread of non- native species.

Thinning and prescribed burning would likely reduce the overall stand density, resulting in reduced fuel loads, which would decrease the risk of intense wildfires. Such wildfires could produce a long-term decrease in canopy and herbaceous cover, which would contribute to increased flooding and erosion. In effect, timber harvest and prescribed burning would decrease the potential loss of suitable habitat for the Sacramento Mountains thistle. However, reduction in stand density may facilitate the spread of insect pests through the forest from one thistle site to another. These insect pests have the potential to drastically decrease the seed productivity of existing thistle populations. Conversely, increased movement of insect pollinators between thistle sites may increase thistle seed production. Furthermore, more open forest stands may encourage increased livestock use in the treated areas. However, there is no quantifiable information on the likelihood of these factors affecting thistle populations or the extent and impact if they were to do so.

3.7 Forest Service Region 3 Sensitive Species 3.7.1 Affected Environment Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) were designated in 2013 by the Southwest Regional Office, with close input from biologists and botanists throughout the region. Species designated as RFSS on the Lincoln National Forest were also determined through coordination with the USFWS, the New Mexico Energy, Mineral and Natural Resources Department, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, the New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council (NMRPTC), and other taxonomic experts. The RFSS list for the southwestern region (Region 3) was reviewed to determine wildlife and plant species known to occur on the Lincoln National Forest. From this list of 56 species, suitable habitat for six wildlife species and nine

41 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment plant species may occur in the proposed project area (Table 3.11–Table 3.19). The Wildlife Specialist Report and the Botany Biological Evaluation for this project provide more information about the 56 species considered and those selected for detailed analysis (SWCA 2017b, 2017c).

Sensitive wildlife species that may occur or have potential habitat in the project area include northern goshawk, Arizona Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii arizonae), gray vireo (V. vicinior), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens), and western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii). The Arizona Bell’s vireo and gray vireo are analyzed under Migratory Birds section below and in the Wildlife Specialist Report.

Sensitive plant species that may occur or have the potential habitat in the project area include Chapline’s columbine (Aquilegia chaplinei), Tall milkvetch (Astragalus altus), Wright’s marsh thistle (Cirsium wrightii), Wooton’s hawthorn (Crataegus wootoniana), Villard pincushion cactus (Escobaria villardii), Alamo beardtongue (Penstemon alamosensis), Wooton’s alumroot (Heuchera wootonii), Arizona coralroot (Hexalectris arizonica), and Cloudcroft scorpionweed (Phacelia cloudcroftensis). Wright’s marsh thistle is analyzed under the Threatened and Endangered Species section and in the Botany BE.

Table 3.11. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Amphibians Potential for Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Sacramento Aneides hardii The Sacramento Mountains, Capitan Unlikely to occur. The Mountains Mountains, and Sierra Blanca in Lincoln and project area is below salamander Otero Counties above 7,900 feet in mixed 8,000 feet and forests on north- or east-facing slopes among generally not mesic Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce (Picea enough to support engelmannii), and white fir, often with an salamanders. understory of Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum). Known habitat in the Sacramento Mountains is mixed conifer and aspen forests at elevations of 8,000 feet and above, particularly on north-facing slopes.

Table 3.12. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Birds Potential for Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forest May occur. types, with a variety of age and size classes, Disturbance would are suitable goshawk habitat. The Region 3 manage for older Forest Service Policy recommendations call mature habitat that for VSS distribution of 10% grass/forb/shrub meets canopy (VSS1), 10% seedling sapling forest (VSS2), requirement of this 20% young forest (VSS3), 20% mid-aged species. forest (VSS4), 20% mature forest (VSS5), and 20% old forest (VSS6). Baird's sparrow Ammodramus bairdii Baird’s sparrow is a winter resident in New Unlikely to occur due Mexico. It has been found on Otero Mesa and to absence of open in the Animas Valley and may occur in other grasslands. areas of suitable winter habitat, particularly in the southeast portion of state. Generally prefers dense, extensive grasslands with few shrubs. Avoids heavily grazed areas.

42 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Potential for Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Present mainly during the breeding season in Unlikely to occur due (western) hypugaea the northern half of the state and present to lack of desert year-round in the southern half. Found in scrub vegetation in grasslands especially in association with the project area. prairie dog (Cynomys sp.) colonies, in desert scrub, and in agricultural and semi-urban environments. Depends on prairie dogs, rock squirrels (Otospermophilus variegatus), and other fossorial mammals for the availability of burrows. American peregrine Falco peregrinus A year-round resident and local breeder in Unlikely to occur in falcon anatum west Texas, this species nests in tall cliff the project area due aeries. Also known to migrate across state to the lack of from more northern breeding areas in United appropriate wetland States and Canada. Winters along coast and habitat. farther south; occupies a wide range of habitats during migration, including urban concentrations along coast and barrier islands; low-altitude migrant stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands. Bald eagle Haliaeetus Occurs in New Mexico year-round. Breeding Unlikely to occur in leucocephalus is restricted to a few areas mainly in the the project area due northern part of the state along or near lakes. to the lack of water, In migration and during winter months the perching trees, and species is found chiefly along or near rivers prairie dog colonies. and streams and in grasslands associated with large prairie dog colonies. Found on the Sacramento Ranger District in winter. Typically perches in trees. Arizona Bell's vireo Vireo bellii arizonae Thick riparian shrublands. A fundamental May occur. Areas of requirement is dense shrubby vegetation. dense vegetation and Proximity to water may also be important. riparian shrublands occur within the project area. See Section 3.9. Gray vireo Vireo vicinior A specialist of one-seed juniper savannahs, May occur. from 5,500–7,000 feet. Piñon-juniper habitat Management will thin that is too sparse or too thick is not utilized, piñon-juniper although foraging quality may improve in woodlands, thinned stands. Open, mature piñon-juniper potentially increasing woodland or juniper savannah with a shrubby herbaceous understory, especially on moderate rocky productivity and slopes. Nests are placed in small forks in low forage quality. Short- trees or shrubs, often less than 10 feet off the term impacts may ground. displace individuals. See Section 3.9.

43 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Table 3.13. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Crustaceans Potential for Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Dumont's fairy Streptocephalus Occurs in turbid, warm water temporary Unlikely to occur due shrimp henridumontis pools, stock tanks and playas. In the Forest, to lack of open water found only on Smokey Bear Ranger District. habitats. No stock tanks or playas occur in the project area. Not found on the Sacramento Ranger District

Table 3.14. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Fish Potential for Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Headwater catfish Ictalarus lupus Occurs in Texas, New Mexico, and Mexico. Unlikely to occur in the The species is native to the Pecos River project area due to drainage downstream of Sumner Reservoir lack of aquatic habitat. and also occurs in the Middle Rio Grande The project area is not Basin. Its habitat consists of clear temperate in the Guadalupe waters generally with a moderate gradient. Ranger District and Despite competition with the channel catfish does not cross the (Ictalurus punctatus), has persisted in Pecos River or any headwater streams and in fluctuating other flowing tailwaters of dams in the Pecos River. On drainages. Not found the Forest, it is found only in the Guadalupe on the Sacramento Ranger District. Ranger District. Greenthroat darter Etheostoma lepidum Native to the Pecos River drainage of Unlikely to occur in the Chaves and Eddy Counties. Known to occur project area, which in particular at Blue Spring and its outflow does not cross the stream, in the Pecos River between Lake Pecos River or any of McMillan and Avalon Reservoir, in the Rio its flowing tributaries Peñasco and Cottonwood Creek, and at and has no aquatic Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Found habitat. in swift-flowing streams and springs, especially vegetated riffle areas with gravel and rubble substrates. Also occurs in clear ponded-water habitats including sinkholes and littoral areas of other lentic systems with wave action and aquatic vegetation rooted in a gravel substrate. Rio Grande Oncorhynchus clarki The Rio Grande cutthroat trout is a Unlikely to occur in the cutthroat trout virginalis subspecies of cutthroat trout, endemic to the project area, which Rio Grande, Pecos, and possibly the does not cross the Canadian River Basins in New Mexico and Pecos River or any of Colorado. Optimal cutthroat trout stream its flowing tributaries habitat is characterized by clear, cold water, and has no aquatic a silt free rocky substrate in riffle-run areas; habitat. Not found on cutthroat trout are stream spawners and the Sacramento require tributary streams with gravel Ranger District. substrate in riffle areas for reproduction to occur. On the Forest, only found on Smokey Bear Ranger District in the Capitan mountains.

44 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Table 3.15. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Insects Potential for Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Sacramento Euphydryas anicia Restricted to montane meadows within the Unlikely to occur in Mountains cloudcrofti mixed-conifer forest at elevations between the project area, checkerspot roughly 7,800 and 9,000 feet in the vicinity of which does not butterfly the village of Cloudcroft include montane meadows above 7,800 feet. Caddisfly Psychoronia brooksi Occurs in the Smokey Bear Ranger District. Unlikely to occur in The type locality North Fork Rio Ruidoso is a the project area, flowing water stream, which has a maximum which is located in width of about 8 feet and pupae are located in the Sacramento aggregations of five to 10 along the lateral Ranger District and margins of the largest boulders just below the does not include water surface. flowing streams equivalent in size to the Rio Ruidoso. Bonita diving beetle Stictotarusus Freshwater aquatic habitats, typically high- Unlikely to occur in neomexicana (aka. elevation springs and streams. On the Lincoln the project area, Deroneotes n.) National Forest, only found on Smokey Bear which does not cross Ranger District in the Capitan Mountains. the Pecos River or any of its flowing tributaries and has no aquatic habitat. Not found on the Sacramento Ranger District.

Table 3.16. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Mammals Potential for Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Pale Townsend's Corynorhinus This bat has been found roosting in caves, May occur due to big-eared bat townsendii pallescens rock shelters, and mines at all elevations in presence of rocks New Mexico; however, it is most common in and cliffs. See evergreen forests and least common in xeric Section 3.7.3. shrub grasslands. This species is strongly correlated to the availability of caves or cave- like habitat, but it also uses abandoned buildings and rock crevices on cliffs. Spotted bat Euderma maculatum This species is a cliff dweller that roosts in May occur due to cracks and crevices in rock in forested areas presence of rocks near open water. and cliffs. See Section 3.7.3. Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii A migratory species, found throughout May occur due to western forests where roosting occurs in presence of trees. trees. See Section 3.7.3. Peñasco least Neotamias minimus Peñasco least chipmunk is endemic to forests Unlikely to occur in chipmunk atristriatus in the White and Sacramento Mountains. It the project area, appears to be extirpated from the Sacramento which is outside the Mountains, with the remaining known known range of this distribution restricted to the Sierra Blanca area species. of the White Mountains.

45 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Potential for Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in Project Area New Mexico shrew Sorex neomexicanus Known from a small range in the Capitan and Unlikely to occur, as Sacramento Mountains. Habitat includes this species prefers meadows and in leaf litter in canyons of higher-elevation and coniferous forests, often along streams, as more mesic habitats well as mesic conifer-aspen forest in sheltered than occur in the canyons. project area. Guadalupe pocket Thomomys bottae Restricted to poorer, thinner soils in the Unlikely to occur. gopher guadalupensis mountains. Feeds on underground parts of This species has not lechuguilla, mescal, sotol, and several cacti. been documented They have been located around 7,900 feet in from the area of the the Guadalupe Mountains. project.

Table 3.17. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Reptiles Potential for Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Mottled rock Crotalus lepidus Preferred habitats are rocky outcroppings and Unlikely to occur in rattlesnake lepidus talus slopes, but also found along road cuts. the project area, In New Mexico, this subspecies is known only which is not located from the southern Guadalupe Mountains and near the Guadalupe White Sands Missile Range. Mountains or White Sands Missile Range. Arid land Thamnophis proximus A semi-aquatic snake usually occurs in the Unlikely to occur in ribbonsnake (aka diabolicus vicinity of streams, lakes, or wetlands. Known the project area due western populations have been documented on the to the lack of water ribbonsnake) Guadalupe Ranger District. habitat; the project area is not in the Guadalupe Ranger District.

Table 3.18. Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Snails Potential for Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Capitan woodland Ashmunella Found in talus accumulations. Known only Unlikely to occur; snail pseudodonta from the Capitan mountains the project area is not in the Capitan Mountains. Rio Grande Gastrocopta Found in the Guadalupe Mountains and Unlikely to occur; snaggletooth riograndensis Texas. Habitat includes wooded the project area is environments as well as desert scrub with not in the adequate rock refugia. Guadalupe Mountains. Ruidoso Gastrocopta Found on bare soil, under stones, and in thin Unlikely to occur; snaggletooth ruidosensis accumulations of grass thatch and juniper the project area is litter on mid-elevation carbonate cliffs and not in the xeric limestone grasslands along the eastern Guadalupe slopes of the Sangre de Cristo and Mountains. Sacramento Mountains.

46 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Potential for Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Vagabond Holospira montivaga Found in wooded canyons along ledges Unlikely to occur; the holospira among ponderosa and piñon pines and project area is not in Gambel and live oak. Known only from the the Guadalupe Guadalupe Mountains (Metcalf and Smartt Mountains. 1997). Northern threeband Humboldtiana ultima Leaf litter in mesic canyons of limestone Unlikely to occur; the (snail) mountains; in soil, under rocks. Known only project area is not in from the southern Guadalupe Mountains and the Guadalupe the Sierra Diablo of Texas (Metcalf and Mountains. Smartt 1997) No common name Oreohelix nogalensis Found on steep, leafy slopes with very little Unlikely to occur; the (aka O. strigosa rock, among maple and aspens. Known only project area is not in nogalensis) from the Sierra Blanca Mountains. the Sierra Blanca Mountains.

Table 3.19 Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species – Plants Potential for Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Goodding’s onion Allium gooddingii Occurring in moist shaded canyons at 8,000 Unlikely to occur; not to 9,500 feet throughout its range (Arizona known to occur at this and New Mexico) but is found on north- location and no suitable facing, partially shaded slopes among the habitat is present. montane and subalpine coniferous forest habitats (9,300–11,250 feet) of the Smokey Bear District, Lincoln National Forest. Chapline’s Aquilegia chaplinei Endemic to the limestone canyon seeps May occur. Suitable columbine and springs in the Chihuahuan desert scrub habitat may exist in the of the Sacramento and Guadalupe project area. See Mountains. Section 3.7.3. Tall milkvetch Astragalus altus Endemic species found in limestone soils May occur. Suitable on steep slopes, openings, and road cuts in habitat exists in the lower montane coniferous forest habitats project area. See (6,500–8,200 feet) of the Sacramento Section 3.7.3. Mountains. Kerr’s milkvetch Astragalus kerrii Sandy soils within drainages and along Unlikely to occur; not roadsides at about 5,420–7,520 feet in known to occur at this elevation. location and no suitable habitat is present. Sierra Blanca Synthyris oblongifolia Endemic to the alpine meadows of the Unlikely to occur; not kittentails Sacramento Mountains (11,000–12,000 known to occur at this feet). location and no suitable habitat is present. Wooton’s hawthorn Crataegus wootoniana Canyon bottoms and forest understory at May occur. Suitable elevations of 6,500–8,000 feet. habitat exists and the project area is within the elevation range of the species. See Section 3.7.3. Yellow lady’s- Cypripedium Full sun to partial-shade in bogs, meadows, Unlikely to occur; not slipper parviflorum var. stream banks, drainages, seepages, and known to occur at this pubescens damp woods or higher elevations (8,000– location and no suitable 11,000 feet). habitat is present.

47 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Potential for Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Guadalupe Ericameria nauseosa Crevices of limestone cliffs and huge Unlikely to occur; not rabbitbrush var. texensis boulders in canyon woodland, and open known to occur at this gravel alluvium of stream beds in piñon- location and no suitable juniper woodlands and Chihuahuan desert habitat is present. scrub of the Guadalupe Mountains (4,900– 7,000 feet). Villard’s pincushion Escobaria villardii Loamy soils of desert grassland on broad May occur. Suitable cactus limestone benches in the western slopes of habitat may exist and the Sacramento Mountains (4,500–6,500 the project area is within feet). the elevation range of the species. See Section 3.7.3. Shootingstar Geranium Andesitic boulders and outcrops near the Unlikely to occur; not geranium dodecatheoides edge of canyon-bottom riparian forest at known to occur at this elevations of 7,550–9,900 feet. location and no suitable habitat is present. Capitan Peak Heuchera woodsiaphila Moist soil pockets in stable granitic talus on Unlikely to occur; not alumroot north and northeastern slopes in montane known to occur at this coniferous forest at elevations of 8,370– location and no suitable 9,510 feet. habitat is present. Wooton’s alumroot Heuchera wootonii Mountain slopes and, typically, north-facing May occur. Suitable rock outcrops, or Gambel oak thickets in habitat exists in the piñon-juniper woodland and montane project area. See coniferous forest in the White and Section 3.7.3. Sacramento Mountains (7,000–12,000 feet). Wright’s marsh Cirsium wrightii Wet, alkaline soils in spring seeps and May occur. Potentially thistle marshy edges of streams and ponds at suitable habitat exists, elevations of 3,450 to 8,500 feet. but no populations have been identified in the project area. Chisos Mountain Hexalectris revoluta Under canopy of trees and shrubs at the Unlikely to occur; not crested coralroot edge of canyon bottoms and in heavy leaf known to occur at this litter under oaks or in thin humus soils location and no suitable among rock outcrops at elevations of habitat is present. 4,100–8,000 feet. Arizona coralroot Hexalectris spicata var. Oak woodlands, wooded side canyons, and Unlikely to occur; not arizonica canyon bottoms of lower elevation range known to occur at this (5,400 feet). Hidden along the drip-line of location and no suitable oaks, pine, and companion shrubs at higher habitat is present. elevation range (6,500 feet). Sierra Blanca cliff Ionactis elegans Igneous rock faces/cliffs in montane Unlikely to occur; not daisy coniferous forest habitat at 7,600–9,500 known to occur at this feet. Endemic to the Sierra Blanca. location and no suitable habitat is present. Wood lily Lilium philadelphicum Wetlands and wet meadows associated Unlikely to occur; not with open, mature coniferous forests at known to occur at this 7,000–10,000 feet in elevation. location and no suitable habitat is present. Ladies’-tresses Microthelys General habitat includes moist gravelly Unlikely to occur; not orchid rubrocallosa soils in lightly to moderately wooded south- known to occur at this facing pine, fir, or oak forests at 6,000– location and no suitable 9,800 feet in elevation. habitat is present.

48 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Potential for Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Occurrence in Project Area Alamo beardtongue Penstemon Rocky, limestone bottoms and cool aspect May occur. Potential alamosensis slopes of canyons along the western slopes suitable habitat exists, of the Sacramento Mountains (4,500–5,300 but no populations have feet). been identified in the project area. See Section 3.7.3. Guadalupe Penstemon cardinalis Limestone slopes and canyon bottoms in Unlikely to occur; not penstemon ssp. regalis montane scrub, piñon-juniper woodland, known to occur at this and lower montane coniferous forest of the location and no suitable Guadalupe Mountains (4,500–6,000 feet). habitat is present. Cloudcroft Phacelia Disturbed sites arroyo channels or along May occur. Mixed scorpionweed cloudcroftensis roads, in mixed conifer forest down to conifer forest and upper piñon-juniper woodlands in the piñon-juniper Sacramento Mountains (6,500–7,700 feet). woodlands occur within the project area. See Section 3.7.3. Sierra Blanca Potentilla sierrae- Found on windswept areas with thin soil or Unlikely to occur; not cinquefoil blancae rocky outcrops in subalpine-montane known to occur at this grassland habitats of the Sacramento location and no suitable Mountains (8,100–11,975 feet). habitat is present. New Mexican Sedum integrifolium Igneous soils in alpine tundra, scree- Unlikely to occur; not stonecrop ssp. neomexicana slopes, and rocky openings in sub-alpine known to occur at this forest of the Sierra Blanca (9,900–11,800 location and no suitable feet). habitat is present. Guadalupe Soligado wrightii var. Limestone outcrops and substrate, most Unlikely to occur; not Mountains guadalupensis commonly associated with acacia-juniper- known to occur at this goldenrod dasylirion-lechuguilla, oak, oak-maple, and location and no suitable yellow pine-maple-hophornbeam-madrone habitat is present. habitats at elevations of 4,300–7,100 feet. Guadalupe mescal Sophora gypsophila Outcrops of pink, limy, fine-grained Unlikely to occur; not bean var. guadalupensis sandstone that is 1%–2% gypsum in known to occur at this Chihuahuan desert scrub and juniper location and no suitable savannah of the Guadalupe Mountains habitat is present. (5,000–6,650 feet). Guadalupe Streptanthus Endemic to the limestone gravel and Unlikely to occur; not jewelflower sparsiflorus boulders, found in the canyon bottoms and known to occur at this montane scrub of the Guadalupe location and no suitable Mountains (4,000–5,000 feet). habitat is present. Except where otherwise noted, range or habitat information for wildlife species is taken from the Biota Information System of New Mexico (2017) website, the NatureServe Explorer (2016) website, and the New Mexico Rare Plants (NMRPTC 1999) website.

3.7.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) The No Action Alternative would not work to restore or improve habitat for sensitive species occurring within the Sacramento Ranger District of the Lincoln National Forest. Wildlife habitat would not be increased or improved, and existing habitat would be maintained, but could further degrade overtime. Selecting the No Action Alternative would result in no management actions being taken; therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no impact on Chapline’s columbine, tall milkvetch, Wooton’s hawthorn, Villard pincushion cactus, Wooton’s alumroot, Arizona crested coralroot, Alamo beardtongue, and Cloudcroft scorpionweed.

49 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

3.7.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Implementation of the Proposed Action could result in long-term benefits for some of the sensitive species by providing essential habitat components such as diverse structural stages, snags, downed logs, and varied canopy cover necessary for potential occupancy of these species. The following section provides a species-specific discussion of effects from the Proposed Action.

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Northern goshawks require ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest types, with a variety of age and size classes. The Region 3 Forest Service policy recommendations call for vegetative structural stages distribution of 10% grass/forb/shrub (VSS1), 10% seedling sapling forest (VSS2), 20% young forest (VSS3), 20% mid-aged forest (VSS4), 20% mature forest (VSS5), and 20% old forest (VSS6).

There is one established PFA within the project area. All designated nest cores within the PFA were designated by past nest sites or the best mature stands of trees. There are approximately 2,409 acres of suitable habitat (mixed conifer and ponderosa pine) for this species to utilize for roosting or nesting within the project area. In the project area, ponderosa pine forests are 0% (VSS1), 4% (VSS2), 46% (VSS3), 32% (VSS4), 17% (VSS5), and 1% (VSS6), while the mixed conifer forests are 0% (VSS1), 5% (VSS2), 53% (VSS3), 33% (VSS4), 7% (VSS5), and 2% (VSS6). For more information on forest stand attributes in the project area, see the Westside Fire and Fuels Specialist Report (SWCA 2017).

The existing condition within the project area is not within the northern goshawk guidelines for VSS, which call for equal distributions of VSS3 through VSS6, along with scattered gaps of VSS1 and VSS2. The majority of VSS size classes are indicated in VSS3 and VSS4, indicating that treatments should target habitat toward upper VSS size classes for better VSS distribution. A majority of the VSS4 through VSS5 that was identified in this analysis was found in Mexican spotted owl PACs or was mixed conifer. No old forest (VSS6) was sampled in the project area. Openings are scattered throughout the project area, but are not frequent enough to contribute to adequate percentages of VSS1. VSS distribution both outside and within PFAs is lacking in VSS1, VSS2, VSS5, and VSS6.

Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer VSS classes can be treated with the use of fire. Mixed conifer would be treated primarily according to the Forest Plan, which would also indirectly manage toward northern goshawk guidelines through the use of uneven age management. The use of fire would be a major component of achieving uneven-aged stand structure. But the use of mechanical and hand thinning is also warranted because some of the existing stands are currently not safe to treat with fire unless mechanical treatment is done first. The use of mechanically treating through individual tree or group selection methods would enable the project to meet uneven-aged stand structure. All of these methods would lead to the desired VSS distribution both within and outside PFAs. Therefore, monitoring the treated areas would be done and adaptive management would be used, if monitoring indicates the need.

For ponderosa pine, the Forest Plan states that outside PFAs canopy cover should average more than 40% in VSS4, VSS5, and VSS6. For ponderosa pine within PFAs, average canopy cover in VSS4 should be one- third more than 60% and two-thirds more than 50%, and VSS5 and VSS6 should both average more than 50%. For mixed conifer, the Forest Plan states that outside PFAs canopy cover should average one-third more than 60% and two-thirds more than 40% in VSS4, more than 50% in VSS5, and more than 60% in VSS6. For mixed conifer within PFAs, canopy cover for VSS4 through VSS6 should average more than 60%. The canopy cover is currently being met in every VSS except the VSS4 mixed conifer in and out of PFAs. The desired clumped and grouped spatial arrangement of trees or uneven-aged forest structure is not

50 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

being met because it currently is in more of a young even-aged stand structure. By treating toward these conditions it is anticipated that the canopy cover for all VSS would be met in the future.

For ponderosa pine, the Forest Plan states that the three largest snags (emphasis on 18 inches DBH or greater) with 5 to 7 tons of woody debris per acre would be retained or created. For mixed conifer, the Forest Plan states that the three largest snags with 10 to 15 tons of woody debris per acre would be retained or created. After reviewing stand data and ground inspecting the analysis area, it was found that the suitable habitat within the analysis area meets or exceeds the snag and downed woody material requirements for northern goshawk. For example, mixed conifer currently averages 47 tons per acre fuel loading. Exceeding the tons per acre of downed woody material has contributed to some of the stands exhibiting high fire risk.

The Proposed Action would provide reduced potential of stand-replacing wildfire since fuels would be reduced throughout the area. The Proposed Action incorporates northern goshawk guidelines and measures to lessen effects to sensitive species. Short-term noise disturbance and human presence during treatment could temporarily disturb sensitive species.

Tree removal and forest burning activities may temporarily disturb northern goshawks if construction activities occur during breeding months (April–August). However, since the forest treatment includes thinning, burning, and creating an uneven-aged forest stand throughout the project area, this proposed project is likely to benefit the northern goshawk, whether it is currently present or not, by creating or enhancing habitat elements known to be used by the species.

The Proposed Action contains project design features that enable proposed activities to have no effect or discountable effects on the goshawk. The Proposed Action would retain and in some cases, create habitat attributes the goshawk and its prey base needs (ex. large snags, downed woody material, etc.). The design features enable the Proposed Action to maintain compliance with the Forest Service 1996 Forest Plan Amendment (USDA 1996) and Management Guidelines for Northern Goshawk (Reynolds et al. 1992). Based on these items and the analysis, the Proposed Action may impact individual goshawks, but it is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) The piñon-juniper woodlands that occur in the project area may serve as roosting habitat for the species, as well as any abandoned buildings in the project vicinity. No bats were observed during the field survey. Cattle ponds and meadow grasslands may provide foraging habitat for some individual species. Tree removal and burning activity may negatively impact the roosting sites of the species, especially if there is abundant tree removal. This proposed project may impact individuals of Townsend’s big-eared bat, but it is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) Spotted bats are migrants of the Lincoln National Forest (USDA 1995). Findley et al. (1975:161) suggest that spotted bats are residents of the ponderosa pine area in June and July and wander to lower elevations in late summer and autumn. The spotted bat is found in ponderosa pine montane forests, piñon-juniper woodlands, and open semi-desert shrublands. Rocky cliffs are necessary to provide suitable cracks and crevices for roosting, as is access to water. The bat shows apparent seasonal change in habitat, occupying ponderosa pine woodlands in the reproductive season and lower elevations at other times of the year (Biota Information System of New Mexico 2017). The main threats to the species are habitat alteration, over collection, toxic chemicals, and roost loss and modification.

51 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

The project area contains piñon-juniper woodlands and rocky outcrops that may serve as potential roosting habitat for the species. Tree removal and burning activity may negatively impact the roosting sites of the species, especially if there is abundant tree removal. Temporary noise impacts may disturb roosting bats in the immediate construction area. The proposed project may impact individual spotted bats, but it is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Western Red Bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) The forests that occur in the project area may serve as roosting and foraging habitat for the species, especially the riparian forests along Alamo Canyon. Tree removal and burning activity may negatively impact some roosting sites of the species. However, no management activities are planned within a 100- foot buffer from mapped riparian areas. This proposed project may impact individuals of the western red bat, but it is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Chapline’s Columbine (Aquilegia chaplinei) Chapline’s columbine is endemic to the limestone canyon seeps and springs in the Chihuahuan desert scrub of the Sacramento and Guadalupe Mountains. Chapline’s columbine has petals with slender spurs 1.2 to 1.6 inches long and grows along moist streambanks and limestone seeps and springs in the southwest mountains. In general this species is found in remote canyons where it is well protected from most human impacts. Nonetheless, populations located along the western slope of the Sacramento Mountains are vulnerable to habitat loss from water diversion for municipal use, and populations located in Sitting Bulls Falls in the Guadalupe Mountains may be slightly impacted by recreation activities. Although the New Mexico Rare Plant website describes suitable habitat occurring between 4,700 and 5,500 feet, there is a population south of the project area growing within a canyon at 7,500 feet elevation (NMRPTC 1999). Therefore, it is possible that this species can occur up to 7,500 feet.

The proposed project area ranges from approximately 6,600 to 8,300 feet and contains springs and seeps, so suitable habitat is present. Chapline’s columbine has not been observed when botanical collectors have visited springs (i.e., the columbine’s suitable habitat) within the project area. Therefore, while suitable habitat for this species does occur, no populations have been identified. Furthermore, all wetland, riparian, and spring habitats will be buffered by 100 feet from any management activity. It is recommended that this buffer be observed and monitored to ensure that suitable habitat is not impacted. The most significant potential impact to this species would be loss or diversion of water, which is not expected to increase as a result of this project. Implementation of the Proposed Action may impact Chapline’s columbine individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

Tall Milkvetch (Astragalus altus) Tall milkvetch grows in limestone soils on steep slopes and road cuts in lower montane coniferous forest around Cloudcroft from 6,500 to 8,200 feet (NMRPTC 1999). It is endemic to the west slope of the Sacramento Mountains. The proposed project area ranges from approximately 6,000 to 8,000 feet and contains steep slopes and road cuts, so suitable habitat is present. In fact, individuals have been documented in and adjacent to the proposed project area, including approximately 30 occurrences on public lands and a few more on tribal lands (NMRPTC 1999; Natural Heritage New Mexico 2017).

Threats to this species may include road maintenance and herbicide application along road rights-of-way, residential and recreation development, and occasional browsing by deer (Cervidae) and elk (Cervus canadensis). Currently, the effects of forest fire on this species are unknown (NMRPTC 1999). Due to small

52 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

scale and limited scope of the project, implementation of the Proposed Action may impact tall milkvetch individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

Wooton’s Hawthorn (Crataegus wootoniana) Wooton’s hawthorn is a small tree or shrub up to 10 feet tall. The branches are spined with 1.2- to 1.6- inch-long purplish brown thorns. The leaves are simple and alternate, with three to four broad lobes on the upper two-thirds of the margin. Habitat for this species consists of mid- to high-elevation coniferous forest understories along roadsides or in creek beds and canyon bottoms in moist canyons from 6,500 to 8,000 feet; hence the project area does contain features at an elevation that could provide suitable habitat for Wooton’s Hawthorn. Threats to this species are unknown but may include any activity that degrades riparian habitat.

Several populations of Wooton’s hawthorn occur along Agua Chiquita Road on the Sacramento Ranger District; however, none are known to occur near the proposed project area (Natural Heritage New Mexico 2017). However, no surveys were conducted for Wooton’s hawthorn within the proposed project area. Implementation of the Proposed Action may impact Wooton’s Hawthorn individuals or habitat but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

Villard Pincushion Cactus (Escobaria villardii) Villard pincushion cactus is endemic to the west slopes of the Sacramento Mountains and found on loamy, limestone-derived soils in desert grassland with Chihuahuan desert scrub on steep slopes and benches, from 4,500 to 7,500 feet (NMRPTC 1999). No surveys were conducted for this species within the proposed project area; however, no individuals are currently known to occur within the project area (Natural Heritage New Mexico 2017).

The proposed project area contains dry desert grasslands with elements of Chihuahuan desert scrub, so suitable habitat is present; however due to inaccessibility of its habitat (i.e., steep slopes where mechanical and hand thinning vegetation treatments are limited) it is unlikely that the Proposed action would impact the Villard Pincushion Cactus habitat. Due to the patchy distribution of fuels in its preferred habitat, implementation of prescribed fire is not likely to impact all individuals in any population that may occur. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action may impact Villard pincushion cactus individuals or habitat; however, it is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

Wooton’s Alumroot (Heuchera wootonii) Little is known about Wooton’s alumroot other than it is a rhizomatous perennial herb that flowers from June through September. Wooton’s alumroot is found on mountain slopes and north-facing rock outcrops or Gamble oak thickets in piñon-juniper woodland and montane coniferous forest in the White and Sacramento Mountains (7,000–12,000 feet). Disjunct populations are located within Otero, Lincoln, and Catron Counties; however, it is suggested that these populations may be a southern variety of littleleaf alumroot (Heuchera parvifolia). Threats to this species are unknown.

No surveys were conducted for this species within the proposed project area. Historic survey data show the potential for Wooton’s alumroot to occur within the project area; however, the most current record dates back to 1899. Additional populations of this species have been documented to the north of the project area in the White Mountains on the Smokey Bear Ranger District. These records also date back to the turn of the twentieth century (Natural Heritage New Mexico 2017).

53 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Arizona Crested Coralroot (Hexalectris arizonica) Arizona crested coralroot is a small, self-pollenating orchid with fleshy pinkish red stems and flowers. The flowers of this species are distinguished by their prominent ridges extending from the base of the flower lip to nearly the tip, and the entire (not deeply lobed) edges of the flower lip. The flowers rarely open, which distinguishes this species from the closely related spiked crested coralroot (Hexalectris spicata). There are several other similar orchids in the Hexalectris and Corallorhiza genera that could be confused with this species. However, the Corallorhiza flower lip has one to two short longitudinal ridges extending a short distance from base, whereas Hexalectris always have five to seven conspicuous ridges extending from the base to the tip of the flower lip. Arizona crested coralroot flowers May through July. Suitable habitat for this species consists of heavy leaf litter oak, pine, or juniper woodlands in limestone. Individuals and populations are small and may be easily obliterated by human activity. Specific threats to this species are unknown but may include habitat alteration by removal of leaf litter and canopy cover. No surveys were conducted for this species within the proposed project area; however it is possible that suitable habitat may exist within the project area for this species. Due to the limited scope of the project, the Proposed Action may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Wright’s Marsh Thistle (Cirsium wrightii) Wright’s marsh thistle is a tall (up to 8.2 feet) biennial or a weak monocarpic perennial forb in the Aster family (Asteraceae). Flower heads are produced from August to October and range in color from white to pale pink (Sacramento Mountain locations) or vivid pink (Pecos Valley locations) (Sivinski 2012). Typical habitat for this species includes wet alkaline soils in spring seeps and marshy edges of streams and ponds at elevations of 3,450 to 8,500 feet (Martin and Hutchins 1981; NMRPTC 1999). Currently, Wright’s marsh thistle occurs in Otero, Chaves, Guadalupe, Eddy, and Socorro Counties in New Mexico. The greatest threat to this species is the alteration of hydrology in wetland habitats, which may be the result of anthropogenic diversion of surface water or groundwater pumping, changing precipitation patterns, and drought. In addition, invasive species may directly threaten Wright’s marsh thistle individuals by increasing competitive pressure for resources (i.e., water and nutrients), while climate change exacerbates more direct threats, such as changing precipitation patterns, drought conditions, and invasive species competition (Sivinski 2012).

Two small populations have been documented in La Luz Canyon, north of the project area. While similar wetland habitat along canyon bottoms are found in the project area, surveys of springs and seeps throughout the project area have not resulted in locating additional populations. There are no known populations of marsh thistle in the project area. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action is not likely to impact Wright’s marsh thistle individuals nor is it likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

Alamo Beardtongue (Penstemon alamosensis) Alamo beardtongue is a perennial herb 12–29 inches tall, one to few purplish stems; basal leaves bluish- green, elliptical, glabrous, with entire undulating margins; stem leaves also bluish-green, two to four pairs, sessile, lanceolate, and much reduced. Flower corollas bright red/orange, lightly glandular, lanceolate, and slightly bilaterally symmetrical, 0.8–1.0 inch long, the throat of the corollas are moderately inflated with lobes 0.1–0.2 inch long. Flowering occurs from April through June. Alamo beardtongue is thought to be closely related to Big Bend beardtongue (P. havardii), which occurs in similar habitats in mountainous areas in west Texas, and northern Chihuahua and Coahuila, Mexico. Two other similar penstemons or

54 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

beardtongues with red/orange flowers co-occur with Alamo beardtongue: P. barbatus (beardlip penstemon) and P. cardinalis (cardinal beardtongue).

Alamo beardtongue occurs in southeastern New Mexico in Dona Ana, Lincoln and Otero Counties, on the west slope of the Sacramento Mountains and the east slope of the San Andres Mountains, and in the Alamo Hueco Mountains of El Paso County, west Texas. Alamo beardtongue is restricted to rocky limestone habitats in sheltered canyon sides and bottoms from 4,300 to 5,300 feet elevation where the species may be locally common. Alamo beardtongue occurs in relatively inaccessible rocky locations where it is not likely to be affected by current land uses.

No surveys were conducted for this species within the proposed project area. The proposed project area is within the west slope of the Sacramento Mountains and contains creek beds and canyon bottoms, so suitable habitat is present. However, the proposed project area ranges from approximately 6,600 to 8,300 feet, which is higher than known suitable habitat range for the Alamo beardtongue. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action is not likely to impact Alamo beardtongue individuals or habitat, and is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

Cloudcroft Scorpionweed (Phacelia cloudcroftensis) This species is found on disturbed sites in arroyo channels or along roads in mixed conifer forests as well as upper piñon-juniper woodlands from 6,500 to 8,550 feet in elevation (Roth 2012). Threats to Cloudcroft scorpionweed consist of seasonal flooding, off-road vehicle use, trail maintenance, and road maintenance and construction activities, including herbicide application, mowing, road improvement projects, and removal of debris. In addition, non-native invasive species, such as Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), musk thistle (Carduus nutans), and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), have been observed within occupied habitat and pose a threat to this species.

No surveys were conducted for Cloudcroft scorpionweed within the project area; however, populations of this species have been identified north of the proposed project area (Natural Heritage New Mexico 2017). These populations occur in Fresnal Canyon, off of U.S. Highway 82, within the mountain valley of Bent, and along the Trestle Trail (Roth 2012). The proposed project area contains disturbed sites such as road cuts and arroyo channels, so suitable habitat is present.

Although some of the proposed actions, such as mechanical treatment and prescribed fire, could impact Cloudcroft scorpionweed individuals, due to the limited scale and scope of the Proposed Action, it is unlikely that management activities would impact all individuals in any population that may occur. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action may impact Cloudcroft scorpionweed individuals or habitat; however, it is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

3.8 Management Indicator Species 3.8.1 Affected Environment Forest Service Manual 2621 Management Indicators directs the Forest Service to select management indicator species (MIS) in the Forest Plan for each forest that best represent the issues, concerns, and opportunities for wildlife on that forest. These selected MIS reflect general habitat conditions needed by other species with similar habitats. All MIS habitat on the forest was defined using ERU vegetation data.

55 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Indicator species were included in this analysis if their habitats were likely to be present within the proposed project area and were affected. Use of an indicator species approach to assess impacts of proposed projects is consistent with the direction in the Forest Plan (USDA 1986).

Rufous-crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps) The rufous-crowned sparrow is found in dry uplands with grassy vegetation and scattered shrubs. Dense woody growth is unsuitable habitat. The species is not migratory and inhabits these areas year-round. It feeds primarily on small grass and forb seeds, with insects also making up a proportion of the diet. Forage occurs on or near the ground in areas with thick cover. The sparrow nests in sparsely vegetation scrubland, building a nest on the ground or in a low bush. Nesting probably starts in April at lower elevations in the project area.

Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) In the Forest Plan the pygmy nuthatch was selected as an MIS for the ponderosa pine habitat found on the Lincoln National Forest (USDA 1986). The pygmy nuthatch is a primary cavity nester and prefers mature and old growth ponderosa pine and potentially adjacent mixed conifer as well. This species breeds from May to July and maintains a territory of 1 to 5 acres. Food consists of seeds, cones, spiders, larvae, and insects. Removal of snags has been shown to reduce densities of pygmy nuthatches.

Juniper Titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi) In the Forest Plan the juniper titmouse was selected as an MIS for the piñon-juniper habitat found on the Lincoln National Forest (USDA 1986). The juniper titmouse is managed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The juniper titmouse is a year round resident of the Sacramento Ranger District and nests primarily in piñon-juniper woodlands. It is a secondary cavity nester and uses either natural cavities or abandoned holes of primary cavity nesters. The juniper titmouse feeds on a variety of plants and animal matter. The major portion of the diet consists of caterpillars, beetles, ants, spiders, flies, fruits, and seeds. Although this species appears to prefer mature and old growth forests with open canopies for feeding, all structural stages are used. This species breeds from April through July. Limiting factors for juniper titmouse appear to be cavities. Older age class piñon and juniper trees in open canopy stands are the primary nesting habitat. Existing population trend for the species is downward statewide in New Mexico due to conversion of woodland habitat to rangeland, removal of mature and senescent trees in piñon- juniper habitat, and overall decline of this habitat due to drought and beetle infestation.

Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) In the Forest Plan mule deer was selected as an MIS for the piñon-juniper and mountain shrub habitat found on the Lincoln National Forest (USDA 1986). Mule deer is a year-long resident of the project area. Mule deer require an average of about 5 to 7 pounds of green forage per day. The species depends on early growing grasses and forbs in the spring and forbs in summer.

Elk (Cervus canadensis) In the Forest Plan, elk was selected as an MIS for mountain grasslands and mixed conifer habitat (USDA 1986). Mixed conifer habitat occurs on 97 acres of the proposed project area. Elk utilizes mountain grasslands and mixed conifer habitat found on the forest and can be found in the project area year-long. In general, elk prefer open grassy meadows located less than 0.5 mile from water. Sedges (Carex sp.) and rushes (Juncus sp.) are an important food source. Hiding cover for elk occurs in stands of trees 30 to 60

56 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

acres in size with 70% canopy cover. Road density is also an important habitat consideration with optimum road spacing at less than 0.25 mile of primary road per section.

3.8.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) The No Action Alternative would not treat any MIS habitat on the Sacramento Ranger District of the Lincoln National Forest. Wildlife habitat would not be increased or improved, and existing habitat would be maintained, but could degrade further overtime.

3.8.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) The Proposed Action would provide reduced potential of stand-replacing wildfire since fuels would be reduced throughout the area. The Proposed Action incorporates measures to lessen effects to MIS habitat. Short-term noise disturbance and human presence during treatment could temporarily disturb sensitive species.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in long-term benefits to MIS by providing essential habitat components such as diverse structural stages, snags, downed logs, and varied canopy cover necessary for potential occupancy of these species. The following section provides a species-specific discussion of effects from the Proposed Action.

Rufous-crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps) The dry hillsides at lower elevation in the project area would not be thinned due to a lack of tree cover, so effects to habitat would be minimal from mechanical or hand treatment. Periodic wildfire is generally beneficial to rufous-crowned sparrow habitat because this species prefers open habitat. Therefore, it is expected that the population trend for the rufous-crowned sparrow on the Lincoln National forest would remain stable.

Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) Suitable habitat for this species would be maintained or increased by mechanical thinning, prescribed burning, and wildland fire use, which would create open-canopy woodlands. Mature and old forests needed by the pygmy nuthatch would be maintained by removing overcrowding within the existing stands. Large-diameter snags used by the pygmy nuthatch for nesting would be retained. Old growth ponderosa pine stands important to the nuthatch would be maintained for the long term. The retention of snags and large trees would allow adequate nesting and foraging habitat during and after project implementation. Therefore, it is expected that the population trend for the pygmy nuthatch on the Lincoln National forest would remain stable.

Juniper Titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi) The Proposed Action would help enhance piñon-juniper woodlands by creating more of a mosaic habitat by reducing densities and managing for larger trees. The retention of the four to five largest trees per acre and size caps within the wildlife openings would allow adequate nesting and foraging habitat during and after project implementation. The Proposed Action would result in the removal of some trees within the piñon-juniper woodland; therefore the juniper titmouse may be displaced during treatment operations since the species is a year-round resident. The juniper titmouse could be impacted if cavity-bearing nest trees were cut during the breeding season. Resource protection measures required in the Proposed Action would limit this potential effect. Therefore, it is expected that the population trend for the juniper titmouse on the Lincoln National forest would remain stable.

57 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) The Proposed Action would target mule deer habitat improvement in piñon-juniper woodlands. The wildlife openings in piñon-juniper woodlands would produce the desired “edge” that this species desires and restore historical conditions.

Implementation of the project would not alter the number of acres currently typed as piñon-juniper but would change the density of trees in the existing piñon-juniper habitat, increasing herbaceous cover. Prescribed fire would increase the availability of early successional stages, favored by mule deer. The treatments in every vegetative type would benefit this species by increasing quality and quantity of browse species that this species utilizes.

Mule deer may be displaced during treatment operations. Populations of mule deer, though varying over the years, appear to be relatively stable, with some variability probably due to precipitation levels and lack of fires needed to keep vegetation at the lower successional stages. Based on data provided by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, the population trend for mule deer on the Lincoln National forest appears to be stable across the forest as a whole (USDA 2006). The observed forest-wide mule deer population trend would not be affected by the Proposed Action.

Elk (Cervus canadensis) Suitable habitat for this species would be maintained or increased by mechanical thinning, prescribed burning, and wildland fire use. Within mixed conifer stands, hiding cover would be retained. Elk forage habitat would be enhanced by removing conifers trees, leaving slash on the ground, and seeding. Therefore, the population trend is expected to be stable.

3.9 Migratory Birds On January 10, 2001, Executive Order 13186 was signed placing emphasis on conservation of migratory birds. The Executive Order supplements the MBTA, which has been in effect since the early 1900s. Effects to migratory birds are analyzed in the following manner: 1) effects to high priority birds listed by U.S. Partners in Flight, 2) effects to Important Bird Areas (IBAs), and 3) effects to important over-wintering areas.

Section D, Items 3(a) and (b) of the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and USFWS provides direction to “evaluate and balance long-term benefits of projects against any short- or long-term adverse effects when analyzing, disclosing, and mitigating the effects of actions” and to “pursue opportunities to restore or enhance the composition, structure, and juxtaposition of migratory bird habitats in the project area” (USFWS and USDA 2008). Item 3(c) includes direction to “consider approaches, to the extent practicable, for identifying and minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities.”

3.9.1 Affected Environment U.S. Partners in Flight maintains a list of national and regional high-priority species. Priority species are determined based on conservation importance at the continental scale, which factors in total breeding population, distribution, and habitat. Bird species meeting these requirements are denoted Priority Watch List species. Priority species can also include regional biodiversity goals. These species are denoted regional or state stewardship species. The following analysis includes all priority bird species known to occur on the Lincoln National Forest (Nature Conservancy 2008).

58 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

New Mexico Partners in Flight also ranks avian species based on overall conservation concern under Species Conservation (SC) and species of concern in maintaining state biodiversity under Biodiversity Conservation (BC). Level 1 includes species of high conservation concern in either the SC or BC category (SC1 and BC1, respectively). For the most part, these are species facing moderate to severe threats and showing unknown or declining local population trends. They are considered to be species in need of immediate conservation action. Level 2 species are considered to be of moderate or potential conservation concern in either the SC or BC category (SC2 and BC2, respectively). They show some signs of vulnerability and may warrant careful monitoring (New Mexico Partners in Flight 2007).

According to the Forest Service Region 3 Species Database (Nature Conservancy 2006), the Lincoln National Forest is home to at least 257 birds. Of the 100 birds species currently on the New Mexico Partners in Flight Watch List, 21 (21%) can be found on the Lincoln National Forest. This comprises 8.2% of the known 257 bird species that inhabit the forest. Of these species, 18 occur on the U.S. Partners in Flight Priority Watch List or stewardship list (Table 3.20).

Table 3.20. U.S. Partners in Flight Priority Bird Species on the Lincoln National Forest Priority Bird Species Habitat and Nesting Requirements (Conservation Concern Level) Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Mixed grassland, shrubland, and agricultural fields are needed for (SC2) (Priority Watch List) forages and nesting. Nesting occurs on isolated trees or utility poles. Band-tailed pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata) Piñon-juniper and montane oak scrub, depending on food availability, (SC2) (Priority Watch List) especially acorns and pine nuts. Nests are typically placed in conifers, 15 to 40 feet up, often in areas of lower tree density such as around clearings or forest edges. Elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi) (SC2) Nests in cavities in large riparian trees, especially cottonwoods (Populus (Priority Watch List) sp.). Flammulated owl (Psiloscops flammeolus) Open old growth ponderosa pine and mixed conifer. Nests in cavities (SC1) (Priority Watch List) excavated by woodpeckers in fairly large-diameter trees, usually 10 to 20 feet off the ground in ponderosa or piñon pine snags. White-throated swift (Aeronautes Nests in cliffs and rocks in mid-elevation forested areas and forages saxatalis) (SC2) (Priority Watch List) widely over adjacent forests. Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests, especially open forests with (BC2) (Priority Watch List) edges and snags. Nests are most frequently placed in the top half of conifers, on horizontal branches far from the trunk. Piñon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus) Piñon-juniper woodlands. Nests in piñon, juniper, and ponderosa pine (SC1) (Priority Watch List) trees, usually concealed under or amid thick canopies. Virginia’s warbler (Leiothlypis virginiae) Piñon-juniper, ponderosa pine, even mixed conifer wherever Gambel (SC1) (Priority Watch List) oak understory is present. Nests are generally in fairly open habitat with deciduous shrubs, Gambel oak, New Mexico locust, as well as pines and junipers. Grace’s warbler (Setophaga graciae) Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer when ponderosa are also present. (SC1) (Priority Watch List) Prefers Gambel oak understory. Nests are typically well hidden in outer foliage of upper branches, 26 to 39 feet high in ponderosa pines. Red-faced warbler (Cardellina rubrifrons) Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests, especially with complex (SC1) (Priority Watch List) structure and deciduous trees such as Gambel oak or aspen. They nest in a small hole or scrape on the ground, often with an overhanging rock, log, or grass clump for concealment. Black-chinned sparrow (Spizella Arid shrublands on south-facing slopes with mixed patches of brush, atrogularis) (SC1) (Priority Watch List) rocks, and grass.

59 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Priority Bird Species Habitat and Nesting Requirements (Conservation Concern Level) McCown’s longspur (Rhynchophanes Shortgrass prairie. mccownii) (SC1) (Priority Watch List) Scaled quail (Callipepla squamata) (SC2) Grasslands grading upward into desert shrubs, often near canyons with (Priority Watch List) greater roosting cover. Nests are located on the ground, in forbs, or under low shrubs. Montezuma quail (Cyrtonyx montezumae) Open pine grasslands from piñon-juniper to spruce-fir elevations. (SC2) (Priority Watch List) Especially prefers open pine/oak woodlands with substantial grassy understory. Nests are concealed in dense grassy areas with overhanging cover of tall grasses. They forage exclusively on the ground and require thick grasses for cover. Crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissale) Piñon-juniper, foothill washes, and areas with dense shrubs. Nests are (SC2) (Priority Stewardship - Southwest) typically placed in the interior of dense shrubs. Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) (BC1) Dry, open grasslands. (Priority Watch List) Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii) (SC1) (Priority Thick riparian shrublands. Watch List) Gray vireo (Vireo vicinior) (SC1) (Priority Open, mature piñon-juniper woodland or juniper savannah with a Watch List) shrubby understory, especially on moderate rocky slopes. Nests are placed in small forks in low trees or shrubs, often less than 10 feet off the ground.

3.9.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) The No Action Alternative would not treat any MBTA habitat on the Sacramento Ranger District. Foraging or nesting habitat would not be increased or improved, and existing habitat would be maintained, but could degrade further overtime.

Because there is no action, MBTA habitat would continue to be in a state where fire risk is high and where stands would remain in an even-aged stand structure. Because there is no action, there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to these species and their habitat. Additionally, this alternative would not adversely affect these species or their habitat. However, this alternative also does not propose treatments that would enhance MBTA habitat.

3.9.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) In general, there would be no change in the population or habitat trend of priority migratory species at the forest level. Implementation of the proposed project would result in short-term displacement due to treatment activity, but there should be a long-term increase in habitat quality, which may lead to enhanced population dynamics of MBTA species. Importantly, the risk of stand-replacing wildfire and insect outbreaks would be reduced, decreasingly the likelihood of local extirpation of MBTA species.

Unintentional take resulting in direct mortality of migratory birds could occur from cutting or burning of nest trees or nest sites. Some incidental take can also result from nest abandonment due to human activity. In all project areas, habitat features important to high-priority migratory birds would be retained. Large trees would be retained and a more natural spacing (similar to what occurs in fire-adapted ecosystems where small trees and overly dense stands are usually removed by natural fire) would result.

60 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Short-term impacts may include a reduction in both vertical and horizontal diversity within stands. Since trees would be removed to create groups and openings and to reduce the ladder fuels, this would increase the lower understory layers and eventually result in increased diversity within the stands. Most bird species do not utilize smaller-diameter trees as nesting substrate; however, trees in the 9-inch class (particularly in piñon-juniper stands) may occasionally be used as nesting substrates. The vertical stand diversity would be the component most affected by the Proposed Action (due to the removal of smaller, understory trees). Horizontal tree diversity (looking at the stand from directly above) would be impacted as trees between groups would be removed except for one or two of the larger-diameter trees that are retained between groups. For the most part, areas with extant small-diameter trees (where a larger overstory does not occur) may be removed, thus creating openings in the canopy where none existed. Some slight impacts could be expected in the short term to nesting habitat, but as noted, these small trees are generally not the preferred nest substrates.

Since trees would be cut on only a portion of the project area during any one year (during the primary breeding season), unintentional take of migratory birds is likely to occur in only the portion of the project area that is treated. In the short term, vehicle use and associated disturbance would increase in the project area. Populations of migratory birds dependent on piñon-juniper and oak woodlands, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer forests, and riparian areas would be maintained in the long term as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action.

In the long term, after the thinning occurs and the stands retain a more natural spacing, populations of birds of conservation concern are expected to show slight to moderate increase, as opening the understory to increase light to the forest floor would allow for an increased shrub and forb component, potentially increasing species utilized as food by granivorous birds (seed and berry eaters), as well as creating a greater mix of understory plant species utilized by insects, which are preyed upon by insectivorous bird species. Retaining the larger trees, as well as dead and dying trees with cavities present, would retain the important nesting substrates used by most of the species. Cavity trees may be reduced somewhat over time since removing the smaller trees would “release” larger trees (removing root competition allows the remaining trees to increase in size); thus, trees that may have succumbed earlier due to dense stocking rates would probably not be as prevalent.

3.10 Soils 3.10.1 Affected Environment Soil condition is an evaluation of soil quality based on an interpretation of factors that affect three primary soil functions: soil hydrology, soil stability and nutrient cycling. It is important to understand that these functions are interrelated. Soils within the project area can be characterized as mesic, shallow to very deep (depending on hill slope location), consisting of gravelly, cobbly loam to sandy loam, but all soils have a loamy texture. The soils within the project area can have high rates of erosion if surface cover is significantly removed or disturbed, but should be functioning properly if undisturbed. A majority of the soils within the project area are functioning properly; however, areas exists where the soils are impaired.

The causes of impaired soils within the analysis area generally stem from physical surface disturbances (roads and trails) and the lack of woody material on the ground that has led to a decrease in vegetative cover (Figure 3.1). This leads to an altered ecosystem state that has increased erosion/redistribution of soil (including organic matter and nutrients) by wind or water and results in lower cover/vigor of herbaceous vegetation, lower stability and protection of soil, and lower site resistance/resilience to extreme drought. All of the above mentioned effects can be found within the analysis area, resulting in

61 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

the present soil conditions. However, it should be noted that the majority of the soils that are in an impaired state are on slopes that exceed 40%, which make up 87% of the project area, or 3,157.2 acres. Implementation activities other than prescribed fire would not occur in areas with slopes that are greater than 40% in order to prevent further resource damage. Table 3.21 and Table 3.22 below highlights the different types of erosion hazards highlighted by the Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit (TEU) that could directly be impacted through ground disturbance resulting from the Proposed Action. Again, most of the areas of severe erosion potential are found on those slopes that are above 40%, which represents approximately 29% of the project area, or 1,053.4 acres.

Figure 3.1. Disturbed soils within the Alamo Creek Canyon that lack organic ground cover that is necessary for herbaceous vegetative growth and soil erosion protection.

Table 3.21. Lincoln National Forest Potential Soil Loss to Gully Erosion within Priority Area 3 of the Project Area Potential Soil Loss % Acres Severe 57 2,084.6 Moderate 42 1,524.9 Slight 1 32.4

Table 3.22. Lincoln National Forest Potential Soil Loss to Sheet Erosion within Priority Area 3 the Project Area Potential Soil Loss % Acres Severe 54 1,969.2 Moderate 36 1,300.5 Slight 10 372.2

62 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Where soils are currently impaired, high erosion rates and lack of woody material on the ground are the greatest causes. High erosion rates are related to the lack of ground cover and litter. In the piñon-juniper forest type, the loss of biotic crusts is widespread. The lack of woody material is largely the result of past management practices. In particular, large woody material greater than 16 inches in diameter is lacking in many areas, including wood that is in an advanced state of decay. This type of wood provides nutrients to the soil and habitat for soil biota. Impaired areas are also a result of the poor condition of the roads and trails in the project area, which are described more below in the watershed condition discussion.

Table 3.23 shows the woody material information for Priority Area 3. These data show the mean for the woody material data in the ponderosa pine vegetation type is higher than the amount needed generally for satisfactory soils. The large amount of woody material, litter, and duff found in these areas, however, could contribute to soil resource damage if a wildfire were to occur. These data suggest that woody material is not lacking within the project areas; however, fuel loading in certain locations, especially the ponderosa pine, has the potential to create excessive soil damage due to the large amounts of fuel material present. Overall, the data suggest that all the vegetation types appear to have adequate woody material.

Table 3.23. Available Woody Material in Priority Area 3 and the Range for Satisfactory Soils Total Range of Woody Material for Mean of Woody Material Vegetation Type Acreage Satisfactory Soils (tons/acre) Piñon-juniper woodland 1,091.3 2–8 tons/acre2 8 tons/acre Ponderosa pine 1,062.2 5–10 tons/acre1 13 tons/acre Mixed conifer 1,347.3 8–16 tons/acre1 13 tons/acre

1 USDA (1999) Forest Service Manual 2509.18-99-1, Soil Condition Rating Guide; 2 Ernest et al. (1993).

3.10.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the No Action Alternative, none of the proposed activities would occur. The greatest effect of this, an indirect effect, is potential for uncharacteristic wildfire. Under this alternative, the forest ecosystem would remain susceptible to the adverse effects of uncharacteristic wildfires without improved control options as provided by the action alternative. Wildfires would be harder to control and burn with susceptibility to crown fire likely increased. During wildfires excessive soil surface heating can raise the temperatures well above the values where organic matter is destroyed, amino acids are lost, and nitrogen is volatilized (DeBano et al. 1998). Fire-related effects include soil hydrophobicity, altered infiltration, increased runoff, sedimentation, and erosion. Nutrient cycling is also changed by heating of both organic and inorganic compounds. The effect would be dependent on fire behavior, but soils are likely to be heated, changing the physical and biotic characteristics of the soil. With high burn severity, soils may become water repellent, which increases runoff during storm events because water is not able to infiltrate soils.

There would be no direct effects on soil resources, such as ground disturbance or loss of tree cover. Locations where erosion is occurring such as roads and trails, both designated and user-created, would continue to contribute to soil loss. Areas where soil condition is less than satisfactory due to lack of woody material would remain in this condition. Recruitment of woody material is likely to occur as trees die.

63 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

3.10.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Under the Proposed Action, which includes the BMPs described in Appendix A, the activities of removing trees, adding woody material to the ground, prescribed fire including the potential for pile burning, driving on soils, and using and maintaining roads would cause direct effects to soil resources. These direct effects would lead to indirect effects. Creating the proposed openings could result in soil disturbance from mechanized equipment, removal of trees, mastication, and prescribed fire. Removing trees and soil disturbance would expose soil to precipitation events, leading to erosion and sediment transport. Soil disturbance would be reduced or prevented in some areas through design features and BMPs as described in Appendix A and Section 2.3.1 above. Erosion hazard and existing soil condition would guide the method of vegetation removal and slash treatment. Changes in microclimate occur when canopy cover is removed. However, leaving woody material on the ground improves soil condition where woody material is lacking and provides protection to soil during rainfall, making up for the loss of vegetative cover. Subsequent prescribed burning would remove masticated material while vegetation grows back in. Masticated material would be left in the openings and burned in later years. Down woody material would be retained or returned to the sites after proposed activities to ensure appropriate levels to maintain soil quality are present.

Driving on soils and the use and maintenance of roads related to the Proposed Action would cause compaction and increased sediment yields in these areas. Existing roads are already compacted; however, when masticators or other equipment is used off-road to remove trees, compaction occurs quickly. The existing road system would be used, with no new roads planned. Some of these are currently in poor condition with limited drainage features. As part of the BMPs prescribed for this area, water barring and other practices as needed would be used on the roads after completion to improve drainage and related effects such as erosion. For the purposes of analysis, it is assumed that the 100% of the project area under 40% slope could be subject to ground disturbance. Within these areas up to 50% of soil disturbance is assumed. As a result, up to 714.7 acres or 20% of the project area could have ground-disturbing activities occur on them, including large equipment such as masticators, pickups, or all-terrain vehicles.

Personal use fuelwood collection will be used a tool to remove project generated fuels where feasible. In certain areas, it may be necessary to buffer out or restrict vehicular access to sites where soil erosion hazard is severe. Research suggests that thinning can increase nitrogen transformations into available nitrogen (Kaye and Hart 1998), but that repeated prescribed burning for maintenance may result in increased nitrogen mobility (Wright and Hart 1997), leading to nitrogen losses from soils. Results from research on mastication and soil suggest that masticated material can reduce soil temperatures and increase soil moisture (Owen et al. 2009). Over time, mastication may negatively affect nitrogen dynamics (Gottfried and Overby 2011). The same study showed that pile burning increases soil temperatures, reduces soil moisture, changes soil structure, and causes nitrogen to be leached away.

Pile burning would only be used when wood loads are too great to be treated any other way. If pile burning occurs, several BMPs could be used to mitigate the effects to soil, such as burning piles in the winter.

The indirect effect of improving controllability of uncharacteristic wildfire behavior as a result of the proposed vegetative treatment is a benefit to soil resources. Thinning activities are a preferable alternative to wildfire, resulting in less impact to watersheds (Dore et al. 2010; Ffolliott et al. 2011). The Fire and Fuels Report lists the results of fire behavior model, BEHAVE, for this alternative (SWCA 2017a). This model shows that when weather conditions are severe, crown fire is less likely to occur in the piñon- juniper and ponderosa pine vegetation types as a result of the Proposed Action. The mixed conifer vegetation type would also have a decreased susceptibility to crown fire under this alternative. In the all

64 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

vegetation types, the model results for heat per unit area at the surface are reduced. In the piñon-juniper type, heat levels are not modeled to get high enough to volatilize nitrogen.

3.11 Air Quality and Climate 3.11.1 Affected Environment New Mexico has a mild, arid to semiarid, continental climate characterized by abundant sunshine, light total precipitation, low relative humidity, and relatively large annual and diurnal temperature ranges (New Mexico Climate Center 2016). The average hours of annual sunshine range from nearly 3,700 hours in the southwest portions of the state to 2,800 hours in the north-central portions. The freeze-free season ranges from more than 200 days in the southern valleys to less than 80 days in the northern mountains, where some high mountain valleys have freezes in the summer months.

Generally, July and August are the rainiest months of the year, with 30% to 40% of the state’s annual precipitation falling at this time. Summer rains fall almost entirely during brief, frequently intense thunderstorms. The moisture associated with these storms originates in the Gulf of Mexico. Spring and summer rains often encourage the growth of fine fuels such as grasses and forbs. Late in the season or the following year, these fine fuels can be very dry and actively carry a ground fire.

Winter is the driest season in New Mexico. During this season, precipitation is primarily a result of frontal activity associated with Pacific Ocean storms that move across the country from west to east. Much of this precipitation falls as snow in mountain areas. Snowpack provides water for tree growth and has broad reaching effects on overall forest health. In years with low snowpack, soil and fuels have more time to dry out before the fire season begins, which can result in more extreme fire behavior. In years with high snowpack, onset of the fire season may be delayed due to high soil and fuel moisture.

According to the Western Regional Climate Center (2017), the normal annual precipitation for Mountain Park, a close weather station to the project area, averaged 19.24 inches for the period of 1894 to 2015. Approximately 56% (10.8 inches) of the annual precipitation for the area occurs in June through September. The average maximum temperature for the area is 66.0 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with an average minimum temperature of 40.3°F (Western Regional Climate Center 2017).

The Clean Air Act and its amendments require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment (Public Laws 88-206, 90-148, 91-604, 95-95, and 101-549). These criteria pollutants include lead (Pb), nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5), and ozone (O3). The Clean Air Act also allows states to adopt additional ambient air quality standards. The State of New Mexico’s ambient air quality standards are more stringent for primary pollutants than the federal NAAQS. The project area lies within the El Paseo-Las Cruces-Alamogordo Interstate Air Quality Control Region 153 (NMED 2016). Doña Ana County is located within this air quality control region and is in non-attainment for PM10. Otero County is considered to be in attainment with all NAAQS and state air quality standards.

In addition, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Air Quality Bureau administers the state’s smoke management program and related smoke management regulations codified in 20.2.65 New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC). The smoke management program includes seven elements, under each of which are smoke management requirements for burn projects: 1) alternatives to burning, 2) actions to minimize emissions, 3) evaluation of smoke dispersion, 4) air quality monitoring, 5) public notification, 6) burn authorization, and 7) fire activity tracking (NMED 2005).

65 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Wildfires generate smoke and ash, and produce a number of criteria pollutants including particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), CO, NOx, and SO2 regulated under Title I of the Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, and the New Mexico Ambient Air Quality Standards (20.2.3 NMAC). NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) produced by wildfires can contribute to the formation of another criteria pollutant, O3. Wildfires also produce a number of toxic air pollutants, including but not limited to the VOCs, acrolein, benzene, and formaldehyde, but in much lower concentrations than particulate matter and CO (Ammann et al. n.d.; California Air Resources Board 2003). These toxic air pollutants are regulated under Title III of the Clean Air Act and 20.2.78 NMAC.

Since 1990, a total of 6,993,813 acres has been burned in New Mexico by human-caused and lightning- caused fires (Southwest Coordination Center 2016). This computes to an average of 268,993 acres per year. Between May 2015 and May 2016, 24,777 acres were burned over a series of 40 prescribed fire events in New Mexico to achieve ecological benefits and manage fuels that could lead to high-intensity, catastrophic wildfires (Southwest Coordination Center 2016).

The Clean Air Act all gives federal land managers the responsibility for protecting air quality and related values, including visibility, plants, animals, soils, water quality, cultural resources, and public health, from adverse air pollution impacts. Class I airsheds, established by the Clean Air Act and administered by the EPA, apply to national parks over 6,000 acres and wilderness areas and memorial parks over 5,000 acres that require the highest level of aesthetic protection. The closest Class I airsheds are listed in Table 3.24.

Table 3.24. Closest Class I Airsheds to Proposed Project Area Class I Airshed Distance from Project Area Jurisdiction White Mountain Wilderness Area 36 miles (north) Forest Service Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge 85 miles (northwest) USFWS Carlsbad Caverns National Park 97 miles (southeast) National Park Service

3.11.2 Climate Change Globally, the Earth’s surface temperature has increased by about 1.5°F in the past century, with most of the warming occurring in recent decades. Anthropogenic gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), are enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and likely contributing to an increase in these global average temperatures and related climate changes (EPA 2016). CO2 and other pollutants enter the atmosphere through burning of the fossils fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) that we depend on to meet our daily energy needs.

The potential effects of climate change on the environment would vary spatially. A study done by the Agency Technical Work Group (2005), in accordance with Executive Order 05-033, projects major environmental implications for the State of New Mexico from a changing climate. The agency has predicted some of the following environmental consequences in New Mexico if temperatures continue to rise at the current, “business-as-usual” rate:

• Average air temperature substantially warmer by 6°F–12°F • Greater warming for winter, nighttime minimum temperatures, and higher elevations • More episodes of extreme heat • Fewer episodes of extreme cold

66 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

• Longer frost-free period • Changes in average precipitation are uncertain, precipitation could increase or decrease • More extreme events (torrential rain, severe droughts) • Continuation of historical patterns of wet and dry cycles, including likely recurrence of multiyear drought • Winter rain instead of snow at all but highest elevations

Influence of Climate Change on Fire Frequency and Severity Climate change has played an extensive role in altering fire occurrence and severity by influencing the vegetative cover and available burnable fuel across the western landscape. In the past few years, fires have grown to record sizes, are burning earlier and longer, and are burning hotter and more intensely than they have in the past (Westerling et al. 2006). According to the National Interagency Fire Center, occurrence of uncharacteristic wildfires greatly increased over the last 20 years. Westerling et al. (2006) claim that a study of large (>1,000 acres) wildfires throughout the western United States from 1970 to 2003 saw a pronounced increase in frequency of fire since the mid-1980s. Fires from 1987 to 2003 were four times more frequent than the 1970–1986 average. After 1987, the length of the fire season was also observed to increase by 78 days.

Changes in relative humidity have been blamed for much of the changes as increased drying over much of the Southwest has led to an increase in days with high fire danger (Brown et al. 2004). Advanced computer models are now making national-scale simulations of ecosystems providing predictions of how fire regimes would change in the twentieth century (Neilson 2004). Predictions are that western grasslands would undergo increased expansion of woodier vegetation such as piñon-juniper associated with increased precipitation occurring during typical wet seasons. Summer months are predicted to be hotter and longer, which would also contribute to increased fire risk (Neilson 2004). Under greater climatic extremes widely predicted throughout the United States, fire behavior is expected to become more erratic, with longer flame lengths, increased torching and crowning, and more rapid runs and blowups associated with extremely dry conditions (Brown et al. 2004).

In a General Accounting Office report on climate change and federal lands, natural resource experts from numerous federal and state agencies and leading academic experts predict that climate change would cause forest fires to grow in size and severity (General Accounting Office 2007). This, in turn, would impact the safety of communities located not just in wildland urban interfaces but in even larger areas as a result of impaired air quality resulting from vast smoke production. The cost of fire suppression and the expense of fire preparedness is likely to increase in parallel with increasingly larger fires. Experts warn that Southwest fire and fuels management strategies and policies need to address these risks now in order to prepare for these changing regimes, while also accommodating complex changing ecosystems subject to growing human stresses (Brown et al. 2004).

3.11.3 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the No Action Alternative, adverse impacts to air quality would only occur in the event of an unplanned wildfire, contributing smoke to the local airshed lasting the duration for which the unplanned ignition burns. Visibility would likely be compromised during a wildfire, possibly impacting the closest Class I airsheds depending on atmospheric conditions and the size of the wildfire. The lack of control over atmospheric and drought conditions when unplanned wildland fires begin increases their potential to contribute emissions to the local airshed. If a wildfire does occur under drought conditions, the wildfire

67 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

could expand beyond the Lincoln National Forest boundaries, causing adverse air quality and visibility impacts for as long as the wildfire event occurs. The No Action Alternative would result in adverse impacts to air quality. In the event of an uncharacteristic wildfire, there could be a significant pulse of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere that may incrementally contribute to climate change conditions.

3.11.4 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Under the Proposed Action, smoke would be the primary impact to air quality from both prescribed burns and unplanned ignitions within the project area. The impact of smoke on local community members and visitors would depend on weather conditions when fires are active and an individual’s sensitivity to smoke. The Forest Service would take measures to manage smoke impacts resulting from prescribed fire. Prior to implementing a prescribed fire, a prescribed fire plan would be written that meets the requirements established in the Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide (National Wildfire Coordinating Group 2014, Product Management System [PMS] 484) The prescribed fire plan would follow the PMS 484 prescribed fire plan template (PMS 484 - Appendix A) to include a go/no go checklist, complexity analysis, site description, map, personnel and equipment to be used, desirable weather conditions, desired fire behavior factors, and emergency protocol. Additionally, prescribed fire plans would follow the New Mexico Smoke Management Program’s Guidance Document (NMED 2005).

This pre-burn planning and agency coordination would help guarantee that appropriate conditions exist during implementation of a prescribed fire and the likelihood for lower air emissions, such as smoke, to migrate away from the site-specific burn area. Prescribed fires would be carefully evaluated to consider smoke dispersal into nearby communities, including Cloudcroft, High Rolls, La Luz, and Alamogordo. As a result, the effects to air quality from prescribed fire would be short term and localized near the prescribed fire area. The duration of the impact would coincide with the duration of prescribed burn activities.

These mitigation measures would reduce, if not eliminate, smoke impacts to sensitive receptors in the nearby communities. Fuels management and preparation of the project area for prescribed burning could also improve the effectiveness of a response to unplanned ignitions, thereby resulting in beneficial impacts to regional air quality.

The Proposed Action may result in some short-term impacts to climate change, though on a project level the impacts on global climate change are difficult to quantify. Thinning treatments that reduce canopy cover would impact the global carbon cycle by removing trees that sequester CO2; however, the treatment would avoid large greenhouse gas emission pulses and effects to the carbon cycle by decreasing the potential for large-scale wildfire. Prescribed burning would also emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas emissions associated with a prescribed burn are expected to be significantly less than the emissions associated with an uncharacteristic crown fire, which has the potential to spread beyond the project area.

The use of prescribed fire with effective fuels management and restoration techniques would help re- establish natural fire regimes and reduce the potential for uncharacteristic wildfires associated with the changing climate.

68 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

3.12 Hydrology, Watersheds, and Riparian Habitat 3.12.1 Affected Environment Surface water is scarce within the project area and drains into the closed Tularosa Basin. There are 11 springs in Priority Area 3, which are Caballero, Woods, Upper Alamo, Potato Knob 1&2, San Andres, and five unnamed springs. Most if not all streams found within the project area are ephemeral streams, meaning they flow for brief periods in response to precipitation, but they are normally dry for most of the year. Figure 3.2 shows the location of the water resource features within the project area, including the different watersheds. Riparian areas are associated with the Alamo Canyon Creek drainage, springs, and numerous intermittent streams where groundwater is close to the surface. According to the TEU data, there are only 78 acres of wetlands within Priority Area 3.

Watersheds are identified with numbers called the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). Overall, the watershed conditions within the project area are functioning at risk or impaired as indicated by the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) (USDA 2016). All of the 6th code watersheds across the project area have been classified using this method. The WCF allows an interdisciplinary team to assess the risks to the condition of National Forest Service System (NFSS) lands within each watershed using defined criteria, leading to a rating for each watershed. Watersheds with less than 10% of NFSS lands are not rated. Twenty-four different criteria, including terrestrial, physical, and biological indicators and aquatic physical and biological indicators, were used to rate the watershed conditions. The resulting ratings indicate that the watershed condition on NFSS lands are “functioning properly” (good), “functioning at risk” (fair), or “impaired” (poor). Functioning properly means watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition; functioning at risk means watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition; and, lastly, impaired means watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Of the three watersheds in the project area, one was not rated, one was rated as functioning at risk, and the other was rated as impaired (Table 3.25). The likely cause of the impairments to these watersheds are also highlighted in table in order to understand the key drivers for the watershed condition rating.

69 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 3.2. Water resources located throughout the proposed project area.

70 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Watersheds are identified with numbers called the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). Overall, the watershed conditions within the project area are functioning at risk or impaired as indicated by the Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) (USDA 2016). All of the 6th code watersheds across the project area have been classified using this method. The WCF allows an interdisciplinary team to assess the risks to the condition of National Forest Service System (NFSS) lands within each watershed using defined criteria, leading to a rating for each watershed. Watersheds with less than 10% of NFSS lands are not rated. Twenty-four different criteria, including terrestrial, physical, and biological indicators and aquatic physical and biological indicators, were used to rate the watershed conditions. The resulting ratings indicate that the watershed condition on NFSS lands are “functioning properly” (good), “functioning at risk” (fair), or “impaired” (poor). Functioning properly means watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition; functioning at risk means watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition; and, lastly, impaired means watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Of the three watersheds in the project area, one was not rated, one was rated as functioning at risk, and the other was rated as impaired (Table 3.25). The likely cause of the impairments to these watersheds are also highlighted in table in order to understand the key drivers for the watershed condition rating.

Table 3.25. 12-digit HUC (6th Code) Watersheds Found within the Project Area

Fire Watershed Road and Water Acres within Soil Effects/Fire HUC 6 Code HUC 6 Name Condition Class Trail Quality project area Conditions Regime on NFS Lands Conditions Condition Condition

Functioning 130500031701 Alamo Canyon 3,250.3 Good Poor Poor Poor impaired Big Scuffle 130500031705 378.1 Functioning at risk Good Poor Good Poor Canyon Cox Canyon- 130600100302 13.5 Functioning at risk Fair Poor Poor Poor Rio Peñasco

The majority of the impairments as highlighted by the WCF are the poor road and trail conditions and the poor fire effects and regime condition within the project area. The overall soil condition within both rated watersheds are good in the WCF. The majority of the soil impairments, excessive erosion, are caused from poor road and trail conditions. Approximately 6.2 miles of roads exist throughout the project area; however, not all roads would be used during project implementation and no new roads would be created.

Due to the high departures from a normal fire regime (discussed in Section 3.3) within the different vegetation types in the project area, the overall functioning of the watersheds is in danger of severe resource damage if a high-intensity wildfire were to occur under current conditions.

Different from the WCF ratings used by the Forest Service, the Clean Water Act under Section 303(d) and 305 (b) periodically rates stream conditions. A review of the 2014 - 2016 State of New Mexico Clean Water Act Section 303(d)/Section 305(b) Integrated Report indicates that no impaired streams are located within the project’s analysis boundaries (New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission 2014).

71 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

3.12.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) There would be no direct effects on water resources or watersheds from the No Action Alternative. This is because there would be no active activities occurring that would cause ground disturbance to water resource features or loss of vegetative cover.

Water resources features would remain as described in the affected environment section. As described in the Fire and Fuels Report, under this alternative, existing forest conditions could lead to uncharacteristic wildfire with susceptibility to crown fire and high surface heating across large portions of the project area, as evidenced from recent wildfires in the surrounding areas (SWCA 2017a). Wildfire removes vegetation and causes bare soil, leading to increased erosion, sedimentation, and runoff (Eliot et al. 2010). As a result, channels adjust and water quality changes, depending on the severity and extent of the fire. Should this happen, most of these effects would decrease to undetectable levels within 10 years as revegetation occurs and water resources features such as channels and springs recover.

Water quality in the project area would remain much the same, with the continued susceptibility to uncharacteristic wildfire and sediment yield related to roads, including unauthorized roads. Unauthorized roads are not designed to a specification or maintained by the Forest Service. Because of this, they are a greater source of sediment and soil loss than the maintained Forest Service roads. Since there would be no increase in road use related to the proposed activities, sediment yields from the 6.2 miles of roads in Priority Area 3 would remain the same.

Change to water yields as a result of the No Action Alternative depend on whether a wildfire occurs within the time frame of analysis—10 years. Tree densities are likely to increase in many areas. Since streams in the project area are already intermittent and ephemeral, stream flow patterns are unlikely to change. Increased trees further increase the risk of wildfire. As mentioned, the susceptibility to crown fire is greatest under the No Action Alternative in the project area. Control opportunities for fighting wildfire would not be created under this alternative, leading to less control opportunities, which could lead to extensive wildfire that burns large percentages of watersheds. When large parts of watersheds are burned, flooding occurs in downstream areas (Eliot et al. 2010).

3.12.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Under this alternative, the activities of removing trees, adding woody material to the ground, using prescribed fire including the potential for pile burning, driving on soils, and using and maintaining roads would cause direct effects to watershed resources.

The direct effects to water resource features would be prevented and mitigated through the use of design features described in Section 2.3 above and the BMPs identified in Appendix A. Stream channels in the project area would not be used as pathways for motorized vehicles. Areas with riparian characteristics would be protected by buffer zones where trees would be retained and motorized vehicles would be excluded. These areas have some opportunities for site improvement as described in the Wildlife Report (SWCA 2017b), which could include removal of non-native plants and selected trees to promote desired species. Openings would not be created where stream channels are present or on concave slopes.

The reduced susceptibility to crown fire and increased control opportunities provided by this alternative could decrease the potential for uncharacteristic wildfire to burn water resource features and their watersheds. This protects these features from high-intensity effects related to wildfires of this type.

72 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

There would be little direct or indirect effects on surface water quality from the Proposed Action. There may be some increased sedimentation during runoff events from soil disturbance and road use within the project area. Under this alternative, roads in the project area would be improved for project activities, which would result in a shift towards overall improved watershed condition. However, no additional maintenance other than regular maintenance would be done on roads not proposed to be used for project implementation activities. Since storm runoff waters often include sediment, it is not likely that an increase would be detectable in these flows.

The removal of overstory vegetation across the project area would increase water reaching the surface, leading to more runoff and sedimentation. Snowmelt waters, however, are not naturally turbid, and increased sediment loads in these waters during early spring are likely if project activities occur during this time. The areas around springs and designated riparian areas would not be treated and would be buffered by 100 feet; these buffer zones would prevent sediment from entering these areas, thereby protecting their water quality.

Changes in runoff rates and water yield from area disturbance and vegetation removal in the project area and near stream channel bottoms could occur in some watersheds. Research suggests that removal of 15% of the basal area of a watershed is usually necessary to result in a detectable change in flows in the Rocky Mountain region (Stednick 1996; Elliot et al. 2010). More than 15% of the basal area is proposed for removal under the Proposed Action. If less than 15% of each watershed is treated every 3 to 5 years, it is unlikely that peak flows would be measurably changed during runoff events as long as roads are maintained and motorized cross-country travel for personal fuelwood removal is mitigated.

3.13 Inventoried Roadless Area 3.13.1 Affected Environment Inventoried roadless areas (roadless areas) provide relatively undisturbed areas that can provide a reference and a refuge when compared to other areas within the Forest that have experienced more management activities. Inventoried roadless areas were created to protect roadless characteristics, including high-quality or undisturbed soil, water, air; sources of public drinking water; diversity of plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species; primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation; reference landscapes; natural-appearing landscapes with high scenic quality; traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and other locally identified unique characteristics. There are 12 roadless areas within the Lincoln National Forest, totaling 178,582 acres, or 16% of the total forest. The Sacramento Ranger District has five roadless areas (Ortega Peak, West Face Sacramento Mountains, Grapevine, Culp, and Jefferies Canyon) totaling 66,989 acres. The proposed project area includes a small portion of the West Face Sacramento Mountains roadless area (see Figure 2.1). The West Face Sacramento Mountains roadless area encompasses 41,174 acres; the proposed project area includes 804 acres of the roadless area. The proposed project area within the West Sacramento Mountains roadless area represents 1.2% of the total roadless area acreage on the Sacramento Ranger District and 2% of the West Face Sacramento Mountains roadless area. The proposed project area within the roadless area is on top of ridges where the elevation drops off sharply to the west. There are no open authorized roads within the roadless area portion of the proposed project area.

73 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

3.13.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) The No Action Alternative would result in no change to the characteristics of the roadless area. Characteristics of the roadless would be at greater risk of being heavily impacted by an uncharacteristic wildfire if no treatments were to occur.

3.13.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) The Proposed Action would have short-term effects on the characteristics of the roadless area, but the characteristics would be protected and enhanced in the long term by the actions included in the Proposed Action. The expected impacts to roadless area characteristic are as follows:

• Undisturbed soil, water, air: Soil, water and air would be disturbed during the project implementation, but the Proposed Action would protect these characteristics after completion. The Proposed Action would improve watershed health and reduce erosion by opening the canopy and increasing herbaceous ground cover. The Proposed Action would reduce the risk of a high- severity wildfire, which would have a far greater impact to soil, water, and air quality than the proposed treatments. Design features to minimize treatment effects to soil, water, and air quality would be included as part of the Proposed Action to maintain desired characteristics. Sections 3.10, 3.11, and 3.12 have further details on effects from the Proposed Action to soil, water, and air.

• Sources of public drinking water: The City of Alamogordo has infrastructure that supplies public drinking water in place within the proposed treatment area. The Proposed Action protects public drinking water by reducing the threat of a stand-replacing wildfire, which would damage or destroy drinking water sources and infrastructure. The proposed treatments would reduce the fire risk and protect the sources and infrastructure that support public drinking water.

• Diversity of plant and animal communities: The Proposed Action protects a diversity of plant and animal species by creating mosaics and improving habitat for a diversity of species. The current habitat is an even-aged stand and does not support a wide diversity of species. A high-severity wildfire would reduce habitat suitability and also make the area more susceptible to colonization of invasive species, which could drastically reduce diversity. The treatments would reduce the threat of an uncharacteristic wildfire and make the habitat more resilient and inviting for a diversity of species. Section 3.8 further discusses effects to wildlife habitat from the proposed treatments.

• Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species: The Proposed Action would protect habitat for listed and sensitive species by reducing the chance of an uncharacteristic wildfire which would diminish habitat and result in direct mortality of species within the affected area. The Proposed Action would create a more diverse habitat and design features would be included to protect and enhance habitat for listed and sensitive species. Section 3.6 and 3.7 have further details on the expected impacts to listed and sensitive species from the Proposed Action.

• Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation: Dispersed recreation would not be affected by the Proposed Action and all uses would remain the same. All methods of recreation that are currently present would be maintained. The Proposed Action would reduce the risk of a high-severity wildfire which would better protect the

74 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

recreational opportunities and scenic value in the area. Section 3.15 discusses the expected impacts to recreation from the Proposed Action.

• Reference landscapes: The landscape would be maintained and protected by the Proposed Action. The current landscape, though relatively undisturbed, has still been impacted by human activities through past management activities such as fire suppression and grazing. The project area is not in a desired condition due to high fuel loading and lack of understory vegetation. The proposed restoration treatments would bring it back to a state that is closer to a more natural condition that could be utilized as a reference landscape. Section 3.2 further discusses effects to vegetation from the Proposed Action.

• Natural-appearing landscapes with high scenic quality: The Proposed Action would maintain the natural appearance of the landscape. The treatments would affect the appearance during implementation, but the area would still appear natural. No artificial structures or new roads would be added that would reduce the appearance of a natural landscape. Erosion control structures would be a minor component and would appear natural. The high scenic quality would be protected by reducing the threat of a high-severity wildfire, which could diminish the scenic quality for a long period of time. Section 3.15 further discusses impacts from the Proposed Action to the landscape appearance.

• Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites: Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites would be protected by the inclusion of the design features in the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would reduce the chances of a high-intensity wildfire, which could damage sacred sites.

• Other locally identified unique characteristics: There have been no other unique characteristics identified other than those mentioned above.

The proposed project is consistent with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation, Final Rule (36 CFR Part 294, 2001) guidance. The 2001 Roadless Area Rule limits road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest unless certain criteria are met. The proposed project would maintain or improve the roadless area characteristics and protect the watershed and habitat for listed species, including the Mexican spotted owl. The scenic quality would be maintained and cultural properties would be protected through the implementation of mitigation measures. No new roads would be created and areas used to access the project area for conducting treatment activities would be rehabilitated to prevent future use as a road. Restoration and road maintenance activities would reduce erosion, improving the health of the watershed. The Proposed Action would not change the acreages of the roadless areas on the Lincoln National Forest and would not change the status of roads or diminish the characteristics of any of the roadless areas.

Timber harvesting would be a small component of the project focusing on small-diameter trees in the form of limited amounts of personal and commercial fuelwood use. Under the 2001 Roadless Area Rule, timber harvesting is permitted if it is expected to be infrequent and it meets certain circumstances. In this case, harvesting would be in accordance with 36 CFR 294.13, b.1 (ii): “To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period.” The project is proposed to reduce the risk of an uncharacteristic wildfire, which would greatly alter the area and put the City of Alamogordo’s water supply at risk. There would be short term impacts to resources from the treatment activities, but the long-term effects would

75 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

benefit the characteristics of the inventoried roadless area and protect an important watershed and water supply for the City of Alamogordo.

3.14 Range 3.14.1 Affected Environment The proposed project crosses three grazing allotments managed by the Forest Service (Table 3.26). The Alamo Watershed Allotment, number 201, is 4,424.3 acres total and is closed to livestock grazing. The Dry Canyon Allotment, number 204, is 15,991.5 acres total. The Sacramento Allotment, number 217, is 111,008.9 acres total. Range improvements within the project area include approximately 3 miles of allotment boundary fences and one earthen tank (personal communication, Mark Cadwallader, Integrated Partnership Coordinator, Forest Service, via email with Coleman Burnett, SWCA, June 8, 2017).

Table 3.26. Grazing Allotments within the Priority Area 3 Project Area Portion of allotment within Total Allotment Size Allotment Number Allotment Name Project Area (acres) (acres) 201 Alamo Watershed 1,581.8 4,424.3 204 Dry Canyon 10.6 15,991.5 217 Sacramento 1,846.6 111,008.9 Total 3,439 131,424.7

3.14.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) As discussed in Section 3.2, under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change to the current forest structure and plant community composition in the project area. The current unhealthy forest condition would be perpetuated over time and become more susceptible to disturbance by fire, drought, insects, and disease. Understory plant vigor would remain low, continuing to perpetuate limited plant species diversity and providing limited forage for livestock. In addition, uncharacteristic wildfires could contribute to the spread of noxious weeds, which also adversely impacts livestock grazing through reduced forage and potential poisoning of grazing animals through ingestion.

3.14.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) The proposed project area overlaps with the three grazing allotments listed in Table 3.26. The primary impact to livestock grazing would be temporary removal of forage as a result of prescribed burns. This temporary impact would be minor as less than 1 % of the Dry Canyon allotment and 2% of the Sacramento allotment overlap with the Priority Area 3 treatment area. Furthermore, adequate rainfall would support conditions for successful vegetation regeneration within the project area within 2 years. Herbaceous production and forage levels may be restored and improved within two to three growing seasons.

The proposed project area also crosses approximately 3 miles of allotment boundary fences and one earthen tank. As detailed in Section 2.3, all range improvements within the project area would be inspected prior to restoration activities and protected. In the event of damage to any range improvements from the proposed treatment activities, the damage would be repaired.

76 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

3.15 Recreation 3.15.1 Affected Environment The Lincoln National Forest uses the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) to inventory and classify NFSS lands with respect to recreation opportunities. The ROS is a framework for inventorying, planning, and managing the recreational experience and setting. The range of recreational experiences, opportunities, and settings available on a given area of land is classified through the ROS. Classifications include primitive, semi-primitive-motorized, semi-primitive non-motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban.

The proposed project area is visited for the recreational experiences of hiking, scenic views, picnicking, hunting, horseback riding, and solitude. The following ROS classes apply to the project area:

• Roaded Natural – A predominantly natural environment where the evidence of sights and sounds of man is moderate, but in harmony with the natural environment. Opportunities exist for both social interaction and isolation.

• Semi-primitive Motorized – A natural or naturally appearing environment. Concentration of users is low but there is evidence of other users. Vehicle travel is on primitive roads and trails in areas of moderate to large size.

• Semi-primitive Non-motorized - A natural or naturally appearing environment. Concentration of users is low but there is evidence of other users. Motorized recreation use not permitted, local roads possibly used on a limited basis for other resource management activities, and the area managed to have minimal but subtle on-site controls and restrictions. Designated trails in the vicinity of the proposed project area include T103, T104, T105, T109, T110, T111, T125, and T235 (Table 3.27). All trails, other than T105, are lightly used. There are no developed recreation sites, such as campgrounds, within or near the proposed project area.

Table 3.27. Recreational Trails That Cross the Proposed Project Area Trail Trail Name Description Number

T103 Caballero 4.3 miles, light usage Canyon Trail The trail begins at the Alamo Canyon trail (T104) and ends at Forest Road 90. The trail is open to hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, motorcycle trail riding. T104 Alamo 7.3 miles, light usage Canyon Trail The trail begins at Forest Road 90 and ends at the mouth of Alamo Canyon in Alamogordo. The trail is open to hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and motorcycle trail riding. T105 National 31.2 miles, heavy usage Recreation Rim Trail The trail begins at the southern end of the Village Of Cloudcroft along NM 130 and ends 31.2 miles later at the Sacramento River Road south of Sunspot. The first 0.73 mile (to Slide Campground) is non-motorized with the rest of the trail south of Slide being motorized for motorcycles. There are multiple trailheads along the route. The trail is open to hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and motorcycle trail riding.

77 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Trail Trail Name Description Number

T109 Alamo Peak 3.0 miles, light usage Trail The trail begins at Forest Road 64D and ends at Forest Road 90. The trail is open to hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and motorcycle trail riding. T110 Pipeline Trail 1.7 miles, light usage

The trail begins at the Alamo Peak trail (T109) and ends at the Rim trail (T105). The trail is open to hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and motorcycle trail riding. T111 Atkinson Field 1.6 miles, light usage Trail The trail begins at the Rim trail (T105) and ends at the Alamo Peak trail (T109). The trail is open to hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and motorcycle trail riding. T125 San Andres 2.0 miles, light usage Canyon Trail The trail begins at the Rim trail (T105) and ends at Forest Road 90. The trail is open to hiking and horseback riding. T235 Heart Attack 1.4 miles, light usage Canyon Trail The trail begins at Forest Road 90 and ends at the Rim trail (T105). The trail is open to hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, motorcycle trail riding, and off-highway vehicles less than or equal to 50 inches wide.

Source: USDA (2017b)

Forest Service Road 90, also known as West Side Road, intersects the proposed project area, and a few small spur roads also enter the periphery of the project area (see Figure 2.1). Forest Service Road 90 receives low to moderate use, and there are no managed vista points along the road or within the project area.

3.15.2 Effects of Alternative 1 (No Action) The No Action Alternative would not impact recreation within the proposed project area.

3.15.3 Effects of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) A small number of recreation users (e.g., hikers, hunters, horseback riders, all-terrain vehicles riders) may occasionally be in the vicinity of the project area. The recreation activities may be temporarily impacted as a result of trail and area closures when vegetation treatments are being implemented. Some temporary and short-term displacement of recreationists during time when project activities are implemented is expected.

Thinning and prescribed fire activities would have minor impacts on remoteness as the sights and sounds of humans may become slightly more evident with removal of trees and burning. Opportunities for solitude as a result of the Proposed Action would be similar to the existing condition.

Prescribed fire and thinning activities would modify the recreation naturalness setting in the short term from naturally appearing settings to a slightly modified setting, but would not detract from overall recreation experience. ROS classification would remain the same. The Proposed Action would be consistent with forest plan standards and guidelines for recreation.

78 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Roads in the project area would receive maintenance as part of the proposed project, keeping them accessible to the public.

No long-term direct or indirect effects to recreation settings or overall recreation opportunities are expected from proposed activities.

3.16 Cumulative Effects Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes the action (40 CFR 1508.7).

The baseline used for cumulative effects analysis is the No Action Alternative. The cumulative effects analysis, while including some consideration of past human actions, does not fully quantify all effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. By looking at current conditions, we capture residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. The CEQ issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” The cumulative effects analysis in this EA is also consistent with Forest Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)). For these reasons, while some past actions are listed and considered, the focus of the cumulative analysis is based on present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions were identified by the Sacramento Ranger District and using a list of proposed projects for the Sacramento Ranger District available on the Lincoln National Forest website (USDA 2017c).

Table 3.28 summarizes the projects analyzed for cumulative effects in the resource sections below.

Table 3.28. List of Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects Analysis Project Brief Description Project Proponent Westside Watershed CFRP- Planning for treatments similar to what is described in this EA City of Alamogordo Priority Areas 1 and 2 to take place in the Priority Areas 1 and 2 of the Westside implementation Watershed CFRP, which is approximately 7 miles north of Priority Area 3. City of Alamogordo Municipal Issue a new special use permit for operation and City of Alamogordo Water Pipeline maintenance of existing pipeline in Alamo, Caballero and Gordon Canyons (south of the proposed action project area by approximately 9 miles). Issuing the new special use permit would involve administrative changes only Otero County Electric Replace ~12 miles of overhead line with buried line. Minimal Otero County Cooperative Power Line trees to cut (none over 18 inches DBH). Upgrade would better Electric Cooperative serve customers and provide more reliable, economical, and safe power. The power line starts near Cloudcroft and continues south near Sunspot Hwy. Approximately 3–12 miles from the proposed project area. Scott Able, Escondido, and Analysis of continuation of Grazing Authorization for Scott Sacramento Ranger San Andres Allotment Able, Escondido, and San Andres allotments. The allotments District Management are 13 or more miles south and east of the proposed project area.

79 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Project Brief Description Project Proponent Integrated Non-native The forest will be developing a proposal to manage the Lincoln National Invasive and Native Invasive existence of non-native invasive and native invasive plants Forest Plant Project within the Lincoln National Forest’s boundaries. Adaptive management would be incorporated into the analysis. Lincoln National Forest Plan The Forest Plan is a comprehensive document that Lincoln National Revision addresses many activities including hunting, hiking, camping, Forest skiing, grazing, and firewood collection. As a management goal, the Forest Service aims to balance public uses with the land’s health and capacity. While the Forest Plan does not authorize specific actions, once approved, all projects and proposals must comply with it, or the plan must be amended to allow the actions. Two Goats Fuel Reduction The fuels reduction project has treated 1,800 acres in the Lincoln National Project same project vicinity as the Proposed Action (south of the Forest; New Mexico proposed action project area). The goal of the project is to Energy, Minerals improve and protect municipal watersheds along the western and Natural escarpment of the Sacramento Mountains. The project is Resources planned for completion by December 2016. Department; City of Alamogordo; and Otero County Working Group South Sacramento Restore forest health on approximately 140,000-acre planning Lincoln National Restoration Project area in the southern Sacramento Mountains. Project is Forest; New Mexico designed to meet restoration objectives at a landscape-scale, Department of primarily in mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forest. Game and Fish New Mexico Meadow The Sacramento Ranger District of the Lincoln National Lincoln National Jumping Mouse Habitat Forest is proposing to construct habitat improvement projects Forest, Sacramento Improvement Projects on the Sacramento and Agua Chiquita Grazing Allotments to Ranger District aid in the protection of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse critical habitat Rio Penasco Wetland The Lincoln National Forest is proposing to restore a wetland Lincoln National Restoration and Road that has been modified and is no longer functioning and Forest, Sacramento Stabilization improve a road crossing to improve water quality and wildlife Ranger District habitat for a variety of species including federally listed species.

3.16.1 Cumulative Environmental Consequences Vegetation The project area has undergone very little management in the past century, with forest activities limited mainly to firewood collection, hunting, recreation, and grazing.

The proposed Integrated Non-native Invasive and Native Invasive Plant Project would be expected to treat existing or new populations of invasive weeds, which might mitigate any unintentional dispersal of weed seeds during project implementation. However, the proposed project in this analysis would not be expected to significantly increase the populations of invasive species, based on project design features that include use of certified weed-free seed and pre-project cleaning of machinery.

The current project is designed to reduce uncharacteristic wildfire and provide benefit for forest health and other resources, including wildlife habitat, soils, and water quality. No adverse cumulative effects on vegetation resources would be sustained from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in combination with the effects of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action in conjunction with previous

80 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

and current projects would provide cumulative benefit to the area by creating landscape-level hazardous fuels reduction.

Fuels Actions occurring within the Lincoln National Forest that could result in cumulative impacts to fuel conditions include vegetation treatment, thinning, prescribed fires, and grazing and wildlife habitat improvements. Past actions in the area have included recreation and livestock grazing.

The No Action Alternative has the most potential for changing forest condition due to the susceptibility for large wildfires. In 2012, the Little Bear Fire burned 44,300 acres and 254 structures in Lincoln County, New Mexico (USDA 2012). Lincoln County is a neighboring county to Otero County and the fire was in the Lincoln National Forest. A large wildfire has the potential to change forest conditions and move stand conditions further from desired minimum conditions for special status species.

Implementing the Proposed Action could provide suppression opportunities, thereby reducing the size and severity of potential wildfires. The Two Goats fuels reduction project has already treated 1,800 acres in the immediate project area. This project is a collaborative effort between the Lincoln National Forest, the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, the City of Alamogordo, and the Otero County Working Group to improve and protect municipal watersheds along the western escarpment of the Sacramento Mountains. The combination of these projects would be expected to further reduce the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires.

Heritage Resources Heritage resources tend to degrade over time from natural forces; however, many survive for hundreds or thousands of years. Any surface-disturbing activity can cause alterations to the physical integrity of cultural resources. Activities such as ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and prescribed and natural fire all have potential to disturb, damage, or cause changes to the setting of cultural resources. Past and present development activities have led to the collection of information, but also to the loss of sites.

Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are subject to cultural resources pedestrian survey. The predominant uses within or immediately adjacent to the project area include dispersed recreation, hunting, vegetation treatments, and prescribed burning; access is restricted to designated roads. Wildfires are also likely to occur within the area, which may also cause damage or discovery of cultural resources. Mitigation of impacts from these activities would occur through pre-project surveys and mitigations for restricting ground-disturbing activities; prohibiting vehicle, heavy equipment, and mechanical treatments within sites; and reducing fuel loads prior to prescribed burning. Identification and avoidance of NRHP- eligible sites through cultural surveys reduces disturbance and impacts to heritage resources. Where activities cannot avoid sites, acceptable mitigation is required by the Forest Service. Hence, adverse cumulative impacts to heritage resources would result primarily from unplanned or unauthorized activities on Forest Service lands. Beneficial cumulative impacts to heritage resources would result from planned activities where mitigation and avoidance can be incorporated into project design features prior to implementation.

While the projects listed in Table 3.28 above are proposed on the Sacramento Ranger District, many of these projects are not within or immediately adjacent to the proposed project area.

81 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Social and Economic Effects, Including Environmental Justice As discussed in Section 3.5, restoration of portions of the watershed, through the Proposed Action, would provide a beneficial impact to socioeconomics to the City of Alamogordo. The re-issuance of the City of Alamogordo municipal water pipeline would have a cumulative, beneficial impact on the socioeconomics for the City of Alamogordo. If the permit is renewed by the Forest Service, the water supply pipelines would continue to deliver drinking water from the watershed to the community.

The replacement of the Otero County Electric Cooperative power line would also result in long-term beneficial, cumulative impacts to socioeconomics by providing more reliable, economical, and safe power to electricity customers in the county. Potential threats of wildfire caused by downed trees on power lines would be reduced along the approximately 12 miles where the power line would be buried, thereby reducing the threat of high-intensity wildfire within the watershed.

Other watershed restoration and fuel reduction projects, such as the Westside Watershed CFRP for Priority Areas 1 and 2, the Two Goats Fuel Reduction Project, and the South Sacramento Restoration Project, would have long-term beneficial impacts to socioeconomics by reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfires in the Sacramento Ranger District. The watersheds where these projects are located provide drinking water via groundwater and surface water supplies to the local communities as well as draw recreation users to the area and provide forage for livestock. Protection of these resources provide beneficial impacts to socioeconomics because drinking water is a basic need of any community, and tourism and ranching is an important revenue source for Otero County.

Overall the effects of this proposal and other actions that have occurred or are reasonably foreseeable should have a positive cumulative impact through job creation, improving public safety and security by protecting watersheds, and providing forest products.

Threatened and Endangered Species, Forest Service Region 3 Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species, and Migratory Birds Past actions and natural disturbances, including fire suppression, timber harvests, insect and disease attacks, and livestock grazing, have contributed to the current environmental conditions and many of these past actions are likely to continue in the reasonably foreseeable future. The resulting cumulative effects of these actions and disturbance events may include an increased susceptibility of insect and disease attacks of timber stands with deferred vegetation management and a continuation of stand-replacing wildfire events resulting from increased stand density and subsequent fuel loading. A sudden decrease in canopy cover from wildfire or insect kill would likely result in more erosion and hence a less suitable habitat for some sensitive plant species. The Sacramento prickly poppy grows in areas of open, disturbed soil and, unless the population were directly consumed by wildfire, would not be negatively impacted by erosion. However, high-severity wildfires could sterilize the soil and seed bank, resulting in a long-term loss of suitable habitat for all threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species.

Cumulative effects related to the Proposed Action would result in some reduction in the threat of stand- replacing wildfire. Without reducing the danger from wildfire by some combination of thinning and burning along the entire wildland urban interface and beyond, fuels treatments in the proposed project area are likely to reduce the fire severity only within or near the project boundaries. Past, present, and future treatments on Forest Service lands would provide for more sustainable conditions to maintain vegetation structural and compositional diversity. Expected improvement of forage habitat on Forest Service lands would tend to reduce wildlife use during the project implementation, but increase use thereafter. The

82 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

cumulative effects of past and future fuels reduction to wildlife species dependent on these woodland and forest habitats would be overall beneficial.

Soils Cumulative impacts from the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects or actions that have affected or would affect the project area would primarily contribute incrementally to effects that have changed the ecological conditions of the area. The No Action Alternative would continue to change watershed conditions in the analysis area as the trend would continue to see decreasing vegetation coverage and soil erosion. Any adverse change from a No Action Alternative would primarily be as a result of a catastrophic fire.

Cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action would not contribute effects that would adversely change the soil conditions of the analysis area, but rather improve potential for soil health and functionality, as well as minimizing risk for catastrophic wildfires.

Air Quality and Climate Cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action to air quality and climate would primarily occur in the form of local and regional contributions of smoke and particulate matter emissions when prescribed burns occur at the same time as other wildland fires that could be burning in the area. The cumulative effects of the Proposed Action on air quality would be sporadic and temporary. The duration of the impact would coincide with the duration of prescribed burn activities. The application of the New Mexico Smoke Management Program’s Guidance Document (NMED 2005) would reduce the intensity and duration of those contributions.

Hydrology, Watersheds, and Riparian Habitat Actions occurring within the Lincoln National Forest that could potentially combine with the effects of the Proposed Action and result in significant environmental impacts include vegetation treatment, thinning, and prescribed fires. Past actions in the area have included recreation and livestock grazing. The No Action Alternative has the most potential for changing watershed condition due to the susceptibility for large wildfires. A large wildfire has the potential to change watershed condition to impaired on any of the 6th code watersheds in the project area. Implementing the Proposed Action could provide control opportunities, thereby reducing the size and severity of potential wildfires. This could prevent watershed condition moving to impaired.

Inventoried Roadless Areas The proposed project is consistent with the 2001 Roadless Area Rule (36 CFR 294) guidance. The Proposed Action would have no adverse impacts to the West Face Sacramento Mountains inventoried roadless area and would protect the roadless characteristics. The proposed South Sacramento Restoration Project consists of a large landscape restoration analysis and includes inventoried roadless areas. Cumulative impacts to roadless areas will be considered in that analysis which will be completed at a later time. No cumulative impacts to the West Face Sacramento Mountains inventoried roadless area or other roadless areas on the Lincoln National Forest are expected from this project due to the small scale and limited activities proposed.

83 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Grazing Restoration activities within portions of the watershed, through the Proposed Action, would have short- term impacts to grazing as a result of treatment activities, such as prescribed burns, that would reduce forage approximately two growing seasons.

Other watershed restoration and fuel reduction projects, such as the Westside Watershed CFRP for Priority Areas 1 and 2, the Two Goats Fuel Reduction Project, and the South Sacramento Restoration Project, would have similar temporary impacts to grazing. Beneficial impacts to grazing would be long-term because the restoration projects would protect allotments from catastrophic wildfire as well as possibly improve forage conditions within treatment areas.

Overall the effects of this proposal and other actions that have occurred or are reasonably foreseeable should have short-term adverse cumulative impacts to grazing as a result of temporary forage reduction and long-term beneficial cumulative impacts as a result of protection of grazing allotments from wildfire within the treatment area.

Recreation As discussed in Section 3.15, restoration of portions of the watershed, through the Proposed Action, would have short-term impacts to recreation as a result of trail closures and modifications of recreation characteristics.

Other watershed restoration and fuel reduction projects, such as the Westside Watershed CFRP for Priority Areas 1 and 2, the Two Goats Fuel Reduction Project, and the South Sacramento Restoration Project, would have similar temporary impacts to recreation. Portions of the forest and trails may need to be closed during forest restoration activities, such as prescribed burns and forest thinning, to protect public safety. Beneficial impacts to recreation would be long-term because the restoration projects would protect recreation areas from catastrophic wildfire.

Overall the effects of this proposal and other actions that have occurred or are reasonably foreseeable should have a short-term adverse cumulative impacts and long-term beneficial cumulative impacts to recreation as a result of temporary closures for public safety and long-term protection of watersheds, which also provide the setting for recreational opportunities in the Sacramento Ranger District.

84 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination The Forest Service consulted the following federal, state, and local agency personnel; tribes; and other contributors during development of this analysis.

4.1 Interdisciplinary Team Members Mark Cadwallader, Partnership Coordinator Ciara Cusack, NEPA Planner Hila Nelson, Archaeologist Bill Sapp, Archaeologist Pete Haraden, Hydrologist Jennifer Hickman, Soils Specialist Kim Kuhar, Fuels Specialist Tony McWilliams, Timber and Fuels Specialist Aurora Roemmich, Botanist Eboni Griffin, Wildlife Biologist Marcie Kelton, Recreation and Special Uses Staff Orlando Cortez, Range Management Specialist

4.2 Other Contributors SWCA Environmental Consultants Four Corners Research, Inc.

4.3 Federal, State, and Local Agencies U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office City of Alamogordo Otero County Village of Cloudcroft Otero Soil and Water Conservation District New Mexico Department of Agriculture New Mexico State University New Mexico Department of Game and Fish New Mexico Surface Water Quality Bureau New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department Local Fire Departments Bureau of Land Management Las Cruces District Office

4.4 Native American Tribes Mescalero Apache Tribe Hopi Tribal Council and Cultural Preservation Office Pueblo of Zuni Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Isleta Fort Sill Apache

85 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Other: The following non-governmental organizations were contacted during the scoping period and are on the project mailing list to receive updates specific to the Proposed Action: Center for Biological Diversity, Otero County Electric Cooperative, WildEarth Guardians, South Central Mountain Resource Conservation and Development Council, Western Watersheds Project, Sacramento Grazing Association, National Wild Turkey Federation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, sportsmen’s groups, livestock associations, New Mexico Forest Industry, and Native Plant Society of New Mexico Otero Chapter. Many other organizations and individuals were contacted during the scoping period and are on the project mailing list to receive updates.

86 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Chapter 5 Literature Cited Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Agency Technical Work Group. 2005. Potential Effects of Climate Change on New Mexico. Agency Technical Work Group, State of New Mexico. December 30, 2005.

Ammann, H., R. Blaisdell, M. Lipsett, S.L. Stone, and S. Therriault. n.d. Wildfire Smoke A Guide for Public Health Officials. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/smp/progdev/pubeduc/wfgv8.pdf. Accessed February 2016.

Biota Information System of New Mexico. 2017. BISON-M Homepage. Available at: http://www.bison- m.org. Accessed May 4, 2017.

Biswell, H.H. 1973. Fire ecology in ponderosa pine grassland. Proceeding of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 12:69–96.

Brown, J.K. 1995. Fire regimes and their relevance to ecosystem management. In Proceedings of Society of American Foresters National Convention, Sept. 18–22, 1994, Anchorage, Alaska, pp. 171–178. Washington, D.C.: Society of American Foresters.

Brown, T.J., B.L. Hall, and A.J. Westerling. 2004. The impact of twenty-first century climate change on wildland fire danger in the Western United States: An application perspective. Climatic Change 62:365–388.

Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of New Mexico. 2016. Employment data for Otero County. Available at: http://bber.unm.edu/county-profiles. Accessed May 6, 2016.

California Air Resources Board. 2003. Air Quality and the Wildland Fires of Southern California October, 2003. A preliminary review of particulate matter, air toxics, and carbon monoxide.

Cartron, J-L. 2010. Raptors of New Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Cloudcroft.com. 2016. The Travel and Visitor’s Guide to Cloudcroft, New Mexico. Available at: http://cloudcroft.com/contact.htm. Accessed May 16, 2016.

Cooper, C.F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure and growth of southwestern pine forests since white settlement. Ecological Monographs 30: 129–164.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice, Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Covington, W.W. 2000. Helping western forests heal: The prognosis is poor for US forest ecosystems. Nature 408(6809):135–163.

Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fulé, M.M. Moore, S.C. Hart, T.E. Kolb, J.N. Mast, S.S. Sackett, and M.R. Wagner. 1997. Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the southwest. Journal of Forestry 95: 23–29.

Crown, B.A. 1996. Summer Visitors to Cloudcroft, NM. Master’s thesis, New Mexico State University.

87 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

DeBano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P.F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons.

Dixon, G.E. 2015. Essential FVS: A User’s Guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Revised Internal Report. Fort Collins, Colorado: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center.

Dore, S., T.E. Kolb, M. Montes-Helu, S.E. Eckert, B.W. Sullivan, B.A. Hungate, J.P. Kaye, S.C. Hart, G.W. Koch, and A. Finkral. 2010. Carbon and water fluxes from ponderosa pine forest disturbed by wildfire and thinning. Ecological Applications 20(3):663–683.

Elliot, W.J., I.S. Miller, and L. Audin (eds.). 2010. Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Ernest, K.A., E.F. Aldon, and E. Muldavin. 1993. Woody debris in undisturbed piñon-juniper woodlands of New Mexico. In Managing Piñon-Juniper Ecosystems for Sustainability and Social Needs, Proceedings of the Symposium 1993 April 26-30; Santa Fe, New Mexico, pp. 117–123. U.S. Department of Agriculture GTR-RM-236.

Faber-Langendoen, D., T. Keeler-Wolf, D. Meidinger, D. Tart, B. Hoagland, C. Josse, G. Navarro, S. Ponomarenko, J.P. Saucier A. Weakley, and P. Comer. 2014. EcoVeg: a new approach to vegetation description and classification. Ecological Monographs 84(4):533–561.

Ffolliott, P.F., C.L. Stropki, H. Chen, and D.G. Neary. 2011. The 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Wildfire’s Impacts on Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Ecosystem, Hydrology, and Fuels. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-RP-85. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Findley, J.A., A.H. Harris, D.E. Wilson, and C. Jones. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

General Accounting Office. 2007. Climate Change – Agencies should develop guidance for addressing the effects on federal lands and water resources. Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO-07-863.

Gottfried, G., and S. Overby. 2011. Assessing mechanical mastication and thinning-piling Burning treatments on the pinyon-juniper woodlands of southwestern Colorado. Fire Science Brief 145:1–6.

Griffis, K. L., Crawford, J. A., Wagner, M. R., and Moir, W. H. 2001. Understory response to management treatments in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management 146:239–245.

Hann, W., D. Havlina, and A. Shlisky, 2003. Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) website. Available at: http://www.frames.gov/partner-sites/frcc/frcc-home. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior; the Nature Conservancy; and Systems for Environmental Management.

Kaye, J.P., and S.C. Hart. 1998. Ecological restoration alters nitrogen transformations in a ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ecosystem. Ecological Applications 8(4):1052–1060.

88 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Martin, W.C., and C. R. Hutchins. 1981. A Flora of New Mexico. 2 Vol. Vaduz, Germany: J. Cramer. Metcalf, A.L., and R.A. Smartt. 1997. Land snails of New Mexico. Bulletin of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science 10:1–145.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2014. Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide. PMS. 484. April 2015.

Natural Heritage New Mexico. 2017. Arizona-New Mexico Heritage Data Web Map. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Available at: https://nhnm.unm.edu/. Accessed June 19, 2017.

Nature Conservancy. 2006. U.S. Forest Service Region 3 Species Database. Available at: http://nmconservation.org/downloads/data/us_forest_service_region_3_species_database/. Accessed February 2016.

———. 2008. Ecological and Biological Diversity of the Lincoln National Forest.

NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer. Available at: http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed February 21, 2016.

Neary, D.G., C.C. Klopatek, L.F. DeBano, and P.F. Ffolliott. 1999. Fire effects on belowground sustainability: a review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management 122(1):51–71.

Neilson, R. 2004. Western Forests, Fire Risk and Climate Change. Science Update. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Issue 6.

New Mexico Climate Center. 2016. Climate of New Mexico. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. Available at http://weather.nmsu.edu/climate-in-new-mexico/. Accessed April 22, 2016.

New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions. 2016. Labor Analysis Statistics and Economic Research. Available at: https://www.jobs.state.nm.us/vosnet/lmi/default.aspx. Accessed May 6, 2016.

New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department. 2014. New Mexico Communities at Risk Plan. Available at: http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/SFD/FireMgt/documents/2014_CAR_PlanRevisionFinal_Minimui zed.pdf. Accessed May 26, 2016.

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). 2005. New Mexico’s Smoke Management Program Guidance Document. Available at: https://www.env.nm.gov/aqb/SMP/SmokeManagementGuidance.htm. Accessed February 21, 2016.

———. 2016. New Mexico Air Quality Control Regions website. Available at: https://www.env.nm.gov/aqb/modeling/aqcr_map.html. Accessed February 21, 2016.

New Mexico Partners in Flight. 2007. New Mexico Bird Conservation Plan Version 2.1. C. Rustay and S. Norris, compilers. Albuquerque, New Mexico: New Mexico Partners in Flight. Available at: http://www.nmpartnersinflight.org/bcp.html. Accessed March 10, 2016.

89 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council (NMRPTC). 1999. New Mexico rare plants (latest update: 20 April 2015). Albuquerque, New Mexico. Available at: http://nmrareplants.unm.edu/index.html. Accessed March 6, 2016.

Omi, P.N., and J. Martinson. 2010. Effectiveness of Fuel Treatments for Mitigating Wildfire Severity: A Manager‐Focused Review and Synthesis. Proceedings RMRS-P-29. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Owen, S.M., C.H. Sieg, C.A. Gehring, and M.A. Bowker. 2009. Above and belowground responses to tree thinning depend on the treatment of tree debris. Forest Ecology and Management 259:71–80.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Roth, D. 2012. Phacelia cloudcroftensis (Cloudcroft scorpion-weed): status report. Unpublished report prepared for the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2.

Sivinski, R.C. December 2012. Cirsium wrightii – Wright’s Marsh Thistle: A 2012 Population Assessment. Prepared for the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department – Forestry Division. Santa Fe, New Mexico: RCS Southwest.

Southwest Coordination Center. 2016. YTD Fires and Acres by State. Intelligence Operations and YTD/Historical Statistics Website. Available online: http://gacc.nifc.gov/swcc/predictive/intelligence/intelligence.htm. Accessed on May 13, 2016.

Southwest Environmental Information Network (SEINet). 2016. SEINet - Arizona Chapter 2009–2016. Available at: http://swbiodiversity.org/seinet/index.php. Accessed April 2016.

Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of Hydrology 176:79–95.

SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2014. Otero County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico: SWCA Environmental Consultants.

———. 2017a. Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Fire and Fuels Specialist Report. Albuquerque: SWCA Environmental Consultants.

———. 2017b. Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Wildlife Report. Albuquerque: SWCA Environmental Consultants.

———. 2017c. Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Botany BE. Albuquerque: SWCA Environmental Consultants.

90 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Thal, A. 2008. Socio-Economic Specialist Report for the Sacramento Mountains Defoliation Project, Unpublished report on file at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest, Alamogordo, New Mexico.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. American Community Survey Profile for Mescalero Reservation, NM. Table prepared by New Mexico Economic Development Department State Data Center. Available: https://gonm.biz/uploads/documents/MescaleroACSProfile.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2016.

———. 2014. Quick Facts for New Mexico, Otero County, and the City of Alamogordo. Available: http://quickfacts.census.gov. Accessed April 22, 2016.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA). 1986. Lincoln National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Alamogordo, New Mexico: U.S. Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev7_014272.pdf [amended over time].

———. 1990. Forest Service Handbook FSH 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Practices. Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region.

———. 1996. Lincoln National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment. Alamogordo, New Mexico: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lincoln National Forest, Supervisor’s Office.

———. 1999. FSM 2509.18-99-1, Soil Condition Rating Guide.

———. 2006. Lincoln National Forest Management Indicator Species Assessment Update. Danney Salas, Forest Biologist.

———. 2010a. Programmatic Agreement on Historic Preservation Regarding Wildland Urban Interface and Other Large-Scale Hazardous Fuels Reduction Projects. U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer, New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council.

———.2010b. Jim Lewis Environmental Assessment. Sacramento Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, Otero County, New Mexico.

_____. 2012. Little Bear Fire: Burned Area Response (BAER) Team White Paper. Available at: http://inciweb.nwcg.gov/photos/NMLNF/2012-06-21-16%3A12-little-bear- baer/related_files/ftp-20120704-124849.pdf. Accessed May 26, 2016.

———. 2014. Regional Riparian Mapping Project. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

———. 2015. Field Sampled Vegetation (FSVeg) Manual. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/nrm/fsveg/index.shtml. Accessed July 2015.

———. 2016. Watershed Condition Framework. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FS-977. Available at: http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nfs/nrm/wcatt/WCFMapviewer/. Accessed April 2016.

91 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

———. 2017a. The Westside II CFRP Archeological Survey. Lincoln National Forest Cultural Resources Report No. R2017-03-08-00033. DMG Four Corners Research, Inc. NMCRIS Project No. 137991.

———. 2017b. Lincoln National Forest – Recreation. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/activity/lincoln/recreation/hiking/?recid=34166&actid=50.

———. 2017c. Lincoln National Forest – Projects. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/lincoln/landmanagement/projects.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Climate Change: Basic Information. Available: https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/. Accessed: May 26, 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. August 2004 Designation of Mexican Spotted Owl Critical Habitat.

———. 2017. Information for Planning and Consultation System (IPaC). Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed April 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFWS and USDA). 2008. Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. Forest Service Agreement No. 08-MU-1113-2400-264.

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo., D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase in western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313(5789):940–943.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2017. Mountain Park, New Mexico. Available at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nm5960. Accessed April 22, 2017.

Wright, R.J., and S.C. Hart. 1997. Nitrogen and phosphorus status in a southwestern ponderosa pine forest after 20 years of interval burning. Ecoscience 4:526–533.

92 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Finding of No Significant Impact The significance of environmental impacts must be considered in terms of context and intensity. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human and national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the Proposed Action. In the case of a site-specific action, significance usually depends upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Intensity refers to the severity or degree of impact. (40 CFR 1508.27)

As the responsible official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the definition of significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have reviewed and considered the EA and documentation included in the project record, and I have determined that the proposed action and alternatives will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As a result, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. My rationale for this finding is as follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of significance cited above.

Context For the Proposed Action and alternatives the context of the environmental effects is based on the environmental analysis in this environmental assessment. Two alternatives were considered in detail for this analysis, no action (Alternative 1) and the Proposed Action (Alternative 2).

Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No prescribed burning, vegetation and restoration treatments, or road maintenance, would be implemented to accomplish project goals.

The Proposed Action would implement a combination of vegetation treatments across 3,439.1 acres of lands managed by the Sacramento Ranger District and 202.7 acres owned by the City of Alamogordo to reduce the threat of high-intensity wildfires and promote healthy watersheds and ecosystem function. Specifically, the Proposed Action would include prescribed burning, hand and mechanical vegetation and restoration treatments, and road maintenance.

This project would contribute to restoration across the landscape. Resources affected by this project during implementation activities and in the short term would include vegetation, wildlife, local residents, water resources, and heritage resources. Implementation of the Proposed Action could result in long- term benefits for some of the wildlife species by providing essential habitat components such as diverse structural stages, snags, downed logs, and varied canopy cover necessary for potential occupancy of these species. Forest health is expected to be improved with resultant increases in individual tree vigor and resilience to drought, disease, and insect infestation. The indirect effect of reduced potential for uncharacteristic wildfire as a result of the proposed vegetative treatment provides long-term benefits to forest resources.

The treatments, spread across a 3,641.8-acre area of Forest would leave a more diverse landscape of different conditions when compared to the No Action Alternative.

93 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information from the effects analysis of this environmental assessment and the references in the project record. The effects of this project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to concerns and issues raised by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained from field visits. The finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b).

Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. The effects to all resources of implementing the proposed action or alternative were disclosed in the EA and were determined to be local in context and short term in duration. In addition, implementation of project design features as described in the EA, Section 2.3, would further reduce project impacts. The Proposed Action will not significantly or adversely affect the natural or human environment. The degree to which the Proposed Action affects public health or safety. There would be no significant effects on public health and safety. The purpose of this project is to restore ecosystem components within the project area which include reducing hazardous fuels that could contribute to wildfire behavior that threatens public infrastructure. Treating vegetation and improving watershed conditions minimizes the threat to public safety from events, such as wildfires. Initiation of prescribed burning activities would only occur when weather conditions are favorable to help ensure control. Indicators include higher humidity and lower wind speeds and temperatures that would maintain lower fire intensities. Short term impacts to air quality may result from prescribed burning; however, all burning operations would be conducted in compliance with standards prescribed by New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Air Quality Bureau. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. There would be no effect to unique characteristics within the project area that would be significantly affected by treatment activities. Analysis in the EA did not identify the presence of any park lands, prime farmlands, or wild and scenic rivers. A pedestrian survey of 100% of the project area was completed to locate, identify, evaluate, and record all prehistoric and historic cultural resources, including all eligible and undetermined previously recorded sites within the project area. Sites eligible for the National Registry of Historic Places will be avoided whenever possible, if a site can’t be avoided, mitigation measures and design features will help to protect the site to keep any effects at a minimal level. Ecologically critical areas identified were Sacramento Mountains thistle, Sacramento prickly poppy, Mexican spotted owl and Northern goshawk habitat, but these areas are either being managed to the benefit of these species or avoided. Any active wet areas would be avoided, therefore wetlands should not be adversely impacted. An inventoried roadless area is included within the treatment area, but roadless characteristic will be maintained and protected by implementing this project. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.

94 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. Controversy, in this context, refers to opposing scientific opinions, not public opposition to a project. It is generally accepted that reducing the amount of hazardous fuel lowers the potential for high intensity wildfire behavior and addressing watershed and wildlife through restoration leads to improved conditions. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The Forest Service has considerable experience with the types of activities to be implemented. The analysis of the expected effects on all affected resources is disclosed in the EA. No unique or uncertain risks were identified in the EA. The environmental effects and associated risks of the types of treatments analyzed in the EA have been documented in many studies and post treatment monitoring has not disclosed adverse effects. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The implementation of this project would not establish a precedent for future actions or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. The proposed action and alternative would not be a major departure from the types of activities common to the Lincoln National Forest. Additionally, decisions made in regards to activities within this project area would not commit the Forest Service to actions on lands outside this project area. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. From analysis completed by all resource specialists, the effects of implementing the proposed action does not individually, nor when considered with other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions near the project area, reach a level of significance. Treatments would only occur where appropriate, and their impacts would be reduced by project design features and best management practices. For these reasons, I have determined the cumulative impacts of the project would not have a significant effect. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The project area has been inventoried for cultural resources. All cultural resources are evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places according to the criteria described in 36 CFR 60.4. In addition, implementation of specific historic resources project design features as described in the EA Section 2.3 and mitigation measures described in Section 3.4.3 would further reduce project impacts to cultural and historic resources. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. As required by the Endangered Species Act, analysis of the project area was completed to determine that the proposed action and alternative is “…not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats”.

95 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

The activities described in the proposed action and alternative are not likely to adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act. The list of endangered and threatened, and sensitive species analyzed for this project can be found in this EA in sections 3.6, and 3.7. Biological surveys and reports for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants, wildlife, and fish were conducted and concluded that implementation of the proposed action would have little or no effect/impact to these species. Interagency cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is underway. The Biological Assessment has been summarized in the EA and is located in the project file. Design features for the protection of wildlife habitats are presented in Section 2.3 of the EA. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The activities of this project would not violate applicable federal, state, or local laws enacted for the protection of the environment. The decision to implement the Selected Alternative is consistent with the goals and objectives as stated in the 1986 Lincoln National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). In addition, the proposed action and alternative meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act (1990), the Clean Water Act (1972), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918), the National Forest Management Act (1976), Forest Service Manual 2600 – Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended. The proposed action will not cause disproportionately high and adverse human health nor environmental effects on minority and low-income populations as discussed in EA Section 3.5 and in accordance with Executive Order 12898- Environmental Justice.

96 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Appendix A: Best Management Practices Soil and Water Conservation Practices The following are site-specific soil and water conservation practices, also known as BMPs, required for the project. The following list is divided into categories dealing with watershed, riparian areas, uplands, roads, and noxious weeds. Some of the BMPs listed in one category may overlap into another.

General Watershed BMPs If unforeseen events occur in the future (e.g., large wildfires, prescribed burns producing higher than planned levels of severely burned conditions) that result in significant disturbances to a 6th code watershed involved in this project that are above those anticipated from this project, an Equivalent Disturbed Area (EDA) analysis would be performed to determine if the watershed has sustained levels of disturbance that are above threshold values (generally interpreted as an EDA-level equivalent to 15% of a 6th code watershed). This analysis would be used, along with field investigations, to determine if the planned schedule of treatment activities in that watershed needs to be revised to allow for recovery of watershed conditions before the next treatment action there is taken.

Riparian/Stream Protection BMPs

1. Use of Project Area Maps for Designating Stream Courses for Water Quality Protection Locations of protected stream channels and filter strips (Streamside Management Zones [SMZs]) would be delineated on the project area and contract maps. Riparian areas designated for protection would also be delineated on the implementation documents such as contracts or permits.

2. Stream Channel and Wetland Protection Stream channels and other water resources to be protected would be shown on the project maps, along with their associated SMZs, if applicable. SMZs would be designated along intermittent and perennial stream channels and selected ephemeral channels. Stream channels would be crossed at designated crossings only and would be pre-approved by the authorized Forest Service Officer. Unless approved otherwise by the authorized Forest Service Officer, SMZ BMPs may prohibit, limit, or constrain mechanized activities within all or part of the SMZ. There would be no skidding or road construction longitudinally within stream channels. There would be no decking and machine piling of slash within stream channels. Lead-out ditches or water bars would not be constructed in such a manner as to divert runoff into stream channels. Unless designated by the authorized Forest Service Officer, debris generated from treatment activities would be removed from stream channels. Trees designated for removal would be felled outside the stream channel. Trees in or on the banks of stream courses that are providing bank and stream channel stability are not to be removed. The authorized Forest Service Officer would identify exceptions where restoration or additional thinning is needed for resource concerns. The authorized Forest Service Officer would use his or her authority for skid trail and log landing location to protect, as needed, stream courses that were not designated on the project contract map.

3. SMZ Designation a. SMZ width is based on the nature of resource values at risk (such as the presence of aquatic Endangered Species Act protected species or its potential introduction), special concerns for

97 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

water quality degradation, erosion hazard, existing vegetative ground cover conditions, stream bank and riparian conditions, natural geologic features, and flow regime. SMZ widths would be designated using the matrix at the end of this section as a guide: b. For SMZs along perennial and intermittent streams, directional falling of trees would be away from the stream channel. Ground skidding, decking of logs, and machine piling are permitted only on existing roadbeds that are located within SMZs. Road construction and burning of concentrated slash are prohibited within the SMZ. Stream channels to be protected within SMZs would be identified on watershed and project area contract or permit maps.

4. Treatment of Ephemeral and Intermittent Drainages Ephemeral drainages are recognized in the following ways: they form the lowest spot of the surrounding ground, they form obvious channel continuity along its length and joins with more obvious channels downstream, and they show evidence of having running water on previous occasions, i.e., litter and vegetation has moved, or there is a lack of litter in the channel.

The water quality objectives for harvest treatments within proximity to ephemeral drainages is to provide for or retain sufficient amounts of ground cover possible to mitigate sediment input to stream systems, maintain channel stability, and minimize the number of crossings to retain stream bank and stream bottom stability. No specific stream buffers are recommended; however, there are harvest techniques that aid in the retention of ground cover and are considered BMPs. The following are recommended BMPs for harvesting activities around ephemeral drainages, whether designated on a map or not.

c. No skidding would be allowed up or down ephemeral and intermittent drainages. b. Do not allow road construction in or immediately adjacent to ephemeral and intermittent drainages except at designated crossings. c. Designate and approve (by the authorized Forest Service Officer) all skid trails crossing drainages prior to activity and at right angles to stream banks. d. Minimize the number of skid trail and road crossings across these channels. e. Maintain an undisturbed filter strip of vegetation and litter between skid trails/log decks/roads and the channel wide enough to prevent sediment from entering the channel. f. Construct water control features (water bars, lead-out ditches, etc.) on these skid trails and roads. g. Minimize the amount of logging debris deposited in ephemeral and intermittent drainages and remove excess debris by hand or end lining except where woody material is needed for watershed health identified by watershed specialist. h. Do not cut trees where the root system is important in maintaining the integrity of the bank. i. Do not locate log decks within or immediately adjacent to the ephemeral and intermittent drainages. j. Place slash to drive equipment over to reduce rutting and soil disturbance. k. Place water control features so there is adequate filter distance between structure outlets and stream channels (minimum of 50 feet and increase width as slope steepness increases).

98 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

5. Log Landing Location Log landings (or decking areas) would not be allowed in or within 300 feet of meadows, riparian areas, stream channels, and springs.

6. Slash Treatments in Sensitive Areas Mechanical slash piling would not occur in meadows or water resource features such as stream channels, seeps, springs, and riparian areas.

7. Wetlands, Springs, Seeps, and Meadow Protection during Tree Removal Activities There would be a 100-foot buffer zone around all springs to exclude mechanized equipment. Smaller riparian areas as found in the project area would also be protected. Non-native vegetation may be removed in these areas using manual methods.

8. Prescribed Burning Treatments For the retention of long-term soil productivity, to maintain the sediment filtering capacity of streamside management zones, and to reduce erosion, prescribed fire would burn to allow for low to moderate burn intensities.

Fire control lines on slopes greater than 40% or within designated would be constructed by hand. Exceptions would be approved by the local District Ranger and specific mitigations would be determined and documented at that time. Lines would be treated (water bars, seeding etc.), preventing concentrated water flows and sediment to streams.

Ignition would be above slope breaks of channels. When adjacent upland zones have not recovered hydrologically from project entries, fire would be limited to 15% or less of the streamside management zone.

The BMPs for prescribed fire are to schedule burning when the soil moisture conditions would minimize heat conductivity into the soils. SMZs or buffers along stream channels can provide shade for stream temperatures and provide filter strips for sediment and nutrients as described later. Streamside buffers are often difficult to exclude from a prescribed burn, but the soil and vegetation are usually moist and do not burn.

9. Servicing and Refueling Equipment During servicing or refueling of equipment, pollutants would not be allowed to enter any waterway, riparian area, or stream course. Service and refueling areas would be selected well away from wet areas and surface water; berms would be constructed around such sites to contain spills. Spill prevention, containment, and countermeasure plans are required if the fuel exceeds 660 gallons in a single container or if total storage at a site exceeds 1,320 gallons. The project contract administrator would designate the location, size, and allowable uses of service and refueling areas. The authorized Forest Service Officer would be aware of actions to be taken in case of a hazardous substance spill.

The contractor would take all reasonable precautions to prevent pollution of all national forest soil and water. Equipment operators would maximize the recovery and proper disposal of all fuels, fluids,

99 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

lubricants, empty containers, and replacement parts. Refuse resulting from the contractor’s use, servicing, repair, or abandonment of equipment would be removed from NFSS lands by the contractor to the appropriate disposal facilities. Any leaks originating from contractor equipment would be repaired or the equipment replaced in a timely manner. Upland Related BMPs

1. Limit the Operating Season Ground-disturbing activities (tractor skidding, decking and machine piling, etc.) would be limited to dry or solidly frozen soil conditions to reduce compaction and soil displacement (rutting) that is associated with tree removal activities when soils are wet or are saturated. Hauling and skidding would be restricted on all soils by the contract administrator during wet periods to prevent damage to the road system.

2. Log Landing Erosion Prevention and Control Immediately after use, landings would be scarified as needed to eliminate compaction. Once scarified, log landings are to be reseeded, as needed, with an erosion control seed mix consisting of primarily native species. Slash or chips would be scattered on landings to further retard formation of rills and gullies.

3. Erosion Control on Skid Trails Skid trails would be water-barred, scarified, and seeded with primarily native species as needed. All berms and depressions such as ruts would be filled in or removed, restoring skid trails to the natural grade of the slope to the greatest extent possible. In addition, slash generated from the project may be spread in addition to water barring where conditions require.

4. Soil Productivity/Coarse Woody Debris To maintain or improve soil productivity in areas over 0.5 mile from private land, pine vegetation types would be managed towards a minimum of 5 to 10 tons/acre of coarse woody debris in the 3-inch plus size class. Mixed conifer sites would be managed towards a minimum of 8 to 16 tons/acre of large woody material (3-inch plus). All decayed large logs would be retained.

5. Machine Piling of Slash Soil-disturbing methods would not be used to pile slash. The use of slash piles would be minimized and slash piles would not be placed within 300 feet of water resources features. Where slash is machine piled, disturbance would be minimized to existing ground cover, surface soil, and rock material and any existing surface organic material (e.g., surface litter and duff and old semi-decomposed branches and logs). Refer to number 4 above for retention of coarse woody debris. Slash piles would be burned in the winter.

6. Conduct Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring for BMPs The desired result of BMP monitoring is to document that BMPs have been applied as prescribed and that they appear effective in reducing sediment and moderating flow regimes in forest streams. BMPs that are found to be ineffective in protecting identified resource, aquatic, and water quality goals would be adjusted.

100 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Appendix B: Comment-Response Tables Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Comment and Response Tables

This document contains the record of comments received during the scoping comment period and the notice and comment period for the draft environmental assessment for the Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project. The Comment and Response Tables below also identify the individual and organizations that submitted the comments, as well as responses to each comment.

All comments received on the project during the scoping comment period and the draft EA notice and comment period were thoroughly reviewed and considered. The scoping comment period occurred from October 10 to November 9, 2015, with a public scoping meeting on October 22, 2015. The draft environmental assessment notice and comment period occurred from August 23, 2017 to September 21, 2017.

101 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Table B.1. Comments Received during the Public Scoping Period (October 10–November 9, 2015)

Letter Commenter Comments Comment Response Number 1 C. Jeff Swanson Thanks for 22 Oct meeting in Alamogordo. I posted on local media the below No issue to address. comments to try to build citizen interest … and support collaboration with the FS…and push back on officials and agencies trying to disrupt progress. 2 Sylvia Aronson I am a resident of Alamogordo and have concerns regarding any activity that Comment addressed in the “Issues” section changes the routes that water takes as it drains west from the mountains into of the EA Ch. 1. the Sacramento valley. We of course are in an area that floods due to the runoff from the mountains. It has been suggested that this project be worked on in conjunction with the city of Alamogordo in order to insure that the runoff does not increase a chance of flooding in Alamogordo. I feel that all efforts should be made to minimize the impact of runoff into the City of Alamogordo. Every effort should be made to consider methods that would eliminate any risk of increasing the runoff into Alamogordo and other developed areas. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely, Sylvia Aronson 3 Donna Swanson I am a huge supporter of our local forest service. I thank you very much for Comment addressed in the “Issues” section everything you do to make Otero County beautiful place to live, and for your of the EA Ch. 1. outreach to the community. I appreciate you. I was at the meeting you held to inform the public of this meeting. I sent an email a few days ago (Oct. 28) requesting that you consider linking this project to the problem of flooding in Northern Alamogordo from Dry Canyon and Beeman Canyon into the streets of Alamogordo several inches to a foot deep with many rains we have currently. These waters flow down Cuba Avenue and Puerto Rico Avenue especially, and spread out to other areas, flooding past nursing homes, schools, The German School, and the Senior Center to the ditch along Indian Wells. I am very concerned that when trees in the forest are (much needed) thinned, and combined with a 100-500 year flood, we could have a catastrophe with international implications. So I ask to consider linking the two projects. (My husband has a video of the flooding if you have not seen it.) Thank you, Donna Swanson 4 C. Jeff Swanson, Thanks to USFS!! Please ensure flood effects are considered in all actions— Comment addressed in the “Issues” section cutting trees and landscaping. You are doing superb work. of the EA Ch. 1. Grateful citizen, C. Jeff Swanson

5 Pamela Heltner Thank you for the maps. It is greatly appreciated. Have a great day! No issue to address. Pamela

102 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Letter Commenter Comments Comment Response Number 6 Denise Lang Who, how will monitor for ALL the goals? How often? Will monitoring for bio Comment addressed in the monitoring diverse plant and wildlife habitat include recognition of invasive toxic or noxious section of the EA Ch. 2 and in the plants? Vegetation section of the EA Ch. 3, which Suggestion: Don't use acronyms like 'PJ' in describing vegetation. includes invasive species. No, I don't wish to have personal info withheld. 7 Donna Swanson I am a big supporter of our local forest service. I thank you for all u do to make Comment addressed in the “Issues” section Otero County a nice place to live, and for your outreach to the community. I of the EA Ch. 1. Flood control structures for appreciate you. the City of Alamogordo is out of scope of I was at the Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration & Fuels this NEPA process. Reduction Project. I was the person who asked the question about possible flooding after the trees are thinned. Thank you for your answer that evening that some water would better soak in due to thinning and floor preparation, but that not all water would be stopped. I spoke with some of you individually. I also spoke with City Commissioner Nadia Sikes about this idea who also attended your event. My comment and suggestion would be to include a very long studied and planned but still unfunded project for flood control from the Dry Canyon and Beeman Canyon where floods occur with nearly every rain into Northern Alamogordo to include past three nursing homes, many businesses, the German School, Sierra Elementary School, and past the Senior Center, pouring several inches deep down Puerto Rico Avenue and the Cuba Avenue areas. My husband has video of one of the flooding events that we can send to you. I see a scenario where the 100 yr or 500 yr flood will occur and that this project could receive some blame for huge tragedy. I would not like that to happen, although it is quite likely indeed. So I write. This is a very serious flood problem of which lawmakers are aware. However, funding and moving forward on the project has not happened. I talked with Shannon Manfredi, SWCA, that evening. She suggested I write u to see if the two projects could be one project. I was already planning to do just that. Please let me know what you think of what I have said, if it is a feasible plan to tie the two projects together to avoid a major flooding problem in Alamogordo, such as we have seen over and over again in the news this past summer in TX, SC, CA, and other places. If it happens here, it will be a huge disaster with the schools and the nursing homes, not to mention the international crisis pending with the German School in its path. Thank you for your time.

103 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Table B.2. Comments received during the notice and comment period for the draft environmental assessment (August 23, 2017 to September 21, 2017). Comment Commenter Comments Comment Response Number 1 Ysleta Del Sur We would like to request consultation should any human remains or artifacts No response needed, request noted. Pueblo unearthed during this project be determined to fall under NAGPRA guidelines. 2 Helen Wood In section 4.3 of the Westside Sacramento Mountains Project Area 3 listing This project included mailings to federal, Federal, State, and Local Agencies it is stated that Otero County was state, and local governments/agencies coordinated with. This is far from the actual truth and this is where the including Otero County and the county National Forest Management Act was violated by USFS/LNF. This grant commissioners throughout the NEPA issued for the Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration in process, specifically during scoping, 2014 which started this current EAS was done only with the coordination of a including the scoping meeting, and notice few people with the City of Alamogordo (Ex-Mayor Susie Galea, Ex- City and comment period. The grant that funded Manager Jim Stahle, Ex-City Attorney Stephen Thies, and a few others this NEPA process is outside of the scope including Brian Ceasar) This was done starting in late 2013 with at least 3 of this NEPA analysis because it supplied "secret" meetings with the above mentioned people and USFS James Duran funding to complete the NEPA process and Travis Mosely resulting in a Grant to the City of Alamogordo. The city in only. their FOIA answers denies these meetings, but through FOIA request to USFS the minutes from these meetings were obtained, how many other "secret" meetings there were will never be known as the City of Alamogordo made sure not to keep records. During the years of 2013-2016, at no time was the County involved nor informed of what was going on behind their backs and the above people made sure that the county was not coordinated with nor given any information on the project. Otero Working Group cannot be counted as the County as by law only Public Land Use Advisory Council and Grazing Board have the authority involving water projects of the City of Alamogordo outside of the City Limits. This project was never coordinated with the Board of County Commissioners and was not put together by them, there is no agreement between the City and County to allow the City to coordinate this project, therefore no one on the list above could commit the county to anything since none of the ones listed had the legal authority to do so. The City of Alamogordo personnel involved did not have the right to coordinate on anything more than their small pieces of land (about 300 acres total) where their pipelines run and that is required to be done through an Agreement with Otero County Board of Commissioners, plus again they never coordinated nor had a joint agreement with the Board of County Commissioners to go outside their pipeline watersheds as of this application for a new study in 2014- Present. All Public Records from 2013-2016 show that at no time did the City, USFS/LNF, nor any of the others listed in 4.3 coordinated with the Otero County Board of County Commissioners thus violating the National Forest Management Act. The County was just listed in handwriting by Jim Stahle in the application (pages 1-3) on Jan 2014, yet the county was no longer mentioned from that point and was never coordinated with. This grant and application came from “secret” meetings

104 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Comment Commenter Comments Comment Response Number with the final "secret meeting" being Dec 2013 between Jim Stahle and James Duran (USFS) in Jim Stahle’s office. This action makes the whole application again in violation of the National Forest Management Act. Another aspect to this whole study/grant starting in 2014 is that the Public Land Use Advisory Council nor the Grazing board was ever consulted with in regard to this action which again violates the National Forest Management Act as well as other Federal Acts. This EA Scoping fails to address the coordination with Otero County Board of Commissioners as well as the Property Owners affected. To address this effectively it must be done through several (not just one) targeted scoping meeting, yet since this was not done, but instead done through “secret meetings” it now makes this meeting and EA appear to violate several different Federal Acts which require such coordination. Those acts are as follows: Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (ICA 1968/1982), US Forest Management Act of 1962, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and Endangered Species Act of 1973. NEPA also requires this coordination with counties as well as with stakeholders having scoping meetings conducted by USFS. At no time were any of the requirements of NEPA and other Federal Acts followed by the USFS/LNF in coming up with this Scoping Meeting. There are no Memorandum of Agreements signed with the County Board of Commissioners, USFS/LNF, nor with the City with the County to allow this project to go forward again violating Federal Acts. 3 Helen Wood The Agricultural Businesses that own grazing allotments on the springs being Grazing on national Forest land is done looked at for Watershed Restoration are not permittees, nor are grazing through a permitting system. The permit holders. The Agricultural Business brings more dollars into the County language “grazing permit holder” or and to USFS/USDA (through their allotment fees and GRT to County from “grazing permittee” is used to refer to the the businesses – ref USDA report for 2016 that was released in June 2017). party that has the permit to graze on a These businesses not only own private property rights, but also priority water particular grazing allotment. The grazing rights as well as prior appropriation on the water. If one is to look at the water permit holders on the affected allotments rights on the springs in question, it becomes quite clear that the grazing were included as stakeholders and had the allotment owners have more rights than the City of Alamogordo as they do option to comment during the process. show beneficial use through providing water not only to livestock, but also to wildlife. This type of ownership of private property is known as a split estate, This analysis was for a watershed and the rights can be passed on from generation to generation. USFS/LNF restoration project that includes vegetation needs to quit degrading these property owners (reference video of meeting treatments, there will be no new water between an allotment owner and USFS/LNF personnel done around early developments that would relate to water 2017 and the way the allotment owner was treated by LNF personnel) and rights. start using the correct terms instead of putting out the misinformation to the public. These property owners are also stakeholders and proper Scoping Meetings should be held with all stakeholders as also with the County Board of Commission, Public Land Use Advisory Committee, and the Grazing Board. Keep in mind several Federal Acts show that if the livestock is moved the water follows the livestock and the City of Alamogordo cannot show

105 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Comment Commenter Comments Comment Response Number beneficial use as required by NM State Water Laws for livestock nor wildlife. In the past the city did provide water for stock tanks for livestock and wildlife thus being able to show beneficial use. The city has declared in 2016 they will no longer provide this and have stopped using any water for beneficial use. 4 Helen Wood When I say waste of Taxpayer money both Federal and State there was no The NEPA process in 2008 that was need for the Grant nor the NEPA study as 2 years was wasted on something referred to was to issue the City of that had already been given a 25 year permit in 2008 to the City of Alamogordo a permit to operate and Alamogordo and others to clean up the watersheds as a result of a very maintain the water pipelines across Forest expansive study of those watersheds as per many public records that are Land and did not cover the vegetation available resulting in the April 2008 letter from Department of Interior and treatments proposed in this analysis. USFWS granting the 25 year permit. This study also cost the Federal Govt and County/City taxpayers quite a bit of money to conduct. Numerous city meetings starting in 2008 up to 2013 occurred in discussion of how to meet the requirements for the cleanup of the watershed in Alamo/Caballero Canyons and all the other watersheds that the city had pipelines coming from as there were pipes that needed to be repaired as well as thinning needed to be done, and also included Sacramento Lake. The full NEPA study as well as a very extensive study on the watersheds from Dry Canyon, La Luz, Maruchi, Labrocita all the way to Dog Canyon as well as Sacramento Lake were all included in this 2005-2007 study which resulted in the 25-year permit being issued to the City of Alamogordo for the cleanup of all their watersheds, and again did not just cover the City of Alamogordo, but others with water rights, private land up there. At no point from 2013-Present was the Board of County Commissioners collaborated nor coordinated with, in fact all of this was being done behind their backs. Otero County Working Group did not represent the county in 2013-2017 and did not allow them into the meetings, yet only worked through the City of Alamogordo and collected money to do this study again through the new grant. The original study (2005-2007) did include a joint agreement with Otero County Board of Commissioners and the City of Alamogordo and extensively covered the whole entire Sacramento District, yet no agreement existed with the Board of County Commissioners with the current study, which again in redundancy covers the very areas that the 2005-2007 study covered, just not as extensive, therefore showing that the current study and grant were redundant and a misuse of taxpayer money to make only certain groups bottom line get fuller at the expense of taxpayers. This grant and study is nothing but an attempt to draw more taxpayer money for private groups in the name of the City with the powers of the County being circumvented. So far 9 years have been wasted with no-action, and it’s time to get started as there are now 16 years left to clean up those watersheds and restore the forest. The only money that now needs to be spent is not in another study but in the actual doing something with the 2008 findings and permits issued. This so far is a huge waste of taxpayer money as just think

106 Westside Sacramento Mountains Watershed Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Comment Commenter Comments Comment Response Number how much safer those watersheds would have been if the USFS/LNF, stakeholders (City in particular) had actually cleaned up those watersheds and repaired the leaking pipes! This present study of 2014-2016 should be abandoned and the money returned to the Federal Government. While this is being done, all groups that were involved with the 2005-2007 study, particularly the City of Alamogordo, be made to get started on their 25-year permits in cleaning up those watersheds – this would also include Mescalero and USFS/LNF, and to coordinate with the County Board of Commissioners, Public Land Use Advisory Council, and Grazing Board as per the Federal Management Act and other Federal Acts. Also, the proper agreements between the City of Alamogordo and Board of County Commissioners needs to be in place as well as the MOA between the County and USFS/LNF (not just Jim Stahle signing the Otero County name to the paperwork without the Board of County Commissioners knowledge.) City of Alamogordo and USFS/LNF also need to have proper agreements in place with all other private property owners/water rights owners on the springs. None of the coordinators listed for State, Local, Federal Agencies can speak for the Otero County Board of Commissioners, and without their approval there is a definite violation of Federal Acts. 5 Helen Wood Section 3.4 Heritage Resources – the table 3.5 fails to notate the findings of The treatment area was 100 % surveyed Joe Ben Sanders (Reference Foot Notes: Recollections of a New Mexican and a report was written on the findings Archaeologist Copyrighted 2010) in 2005 when he took a 3 day hike down that was approved by a Forest Service Alamo Canyon. There is absolutely no mention of the Oldest and Largest Archaeologist. Design features will be in Agave Oven along with 2 campsites that he found in the Canyon and notated place to protect sites where necessary. it for record with NMSU. This alone is an Archaeological Find that makes this canyon critical for the way treatment will be allowed. Nowhere in the appendix of resources is Mr. Sanders mentioned nor his book. Therefore, this omission leaves the feeling that the archaeological study is totally incomplete since it did not take all of his findings from 2005 and notate them. This violates Federal Archaeological Act since this study seems bent to achieve something other than what really can be done. The city was told by 2008 that they would have to avoid taking anything mechanized in that area and could only repair those pipes by hand and use of pack mules. This was discussed in City Meetings which the minutes are considered public record. There is also no record or discussion of the known fossilization formations that are found throughout the caves in that area. Alternative 2 Proposal needs to take all of this into consideration in great detail and needs to be redone. There is no listing nor mention of the Historic Alamogordo TB Sanitarium that was in Alamo Canyon area therefore again not taking into consideration the Archaeological Act.

107