United States Department of Agriculture

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-Decisional Environmental Assessment

Forest Service Cibola National Forest & National Grasslands Sandia Ranger District March 2016 For more information contact: Crystal Powell, District Ranger 11776 Highway 337 Tijeras, NM 87059 505-281-3304

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. Table of Contents 1 Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 1 1.1 Proposed Action ...... 1 1.2 Background ...... 1 1.3 Need for the Proposal ...... 3 1.4 Existing Conditions ...... 4 1.5 Desired Conditions ...... 7 1.6 Decision Framework ...... 11 1.7 Public Involvement ...... 11 1.8 Issues ...... 12 2 Alternatives ...... 13 2.1 Alternative A – No Action ...... 13 2.2 Alternative B – The Proposed Action ...... 13 2.3 Alterative C – No Herbicide Use ...... 26 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis ...... 29 2.5 Design Criteria Common to Action Alternatives ...... 29 2.6 New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles ...... 37 2.7 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 43 3 Environmental Consequences...... 44 3.1 Vegetation ...... 44 Affected Environment ...... 44 Environmental Consequences...... 47 Cumulative Effects ...... 50 3.2 Fuels and Fire Behavior ...... 51 Affected Environment ...... 51 Environmental Consequences...... 55 Cumulative Effects ...... 57 Air Resources ...... 57 Climate and Climate Change ...... 58 3.3 Soil ...... 60 Affected Environment ...... 60 Environmental Consequences...... 62 Cumulative Effects ...... 68 3.4 Water Resources ...... 68 Affected Environment ...... 68 Environmental Consequences...... 70 Cumulative Effects ...... 77 3.5 Wildlife...... 77 Affected Environment ...... 77 Environmental Consequences...... 88 Cumulative Effects ...... 113 3.6 Recreation Resources ...... 115 Affected Environment ...... 115 Environmental Consequences...... 115 Cumulative Effects ...... 120 3.7 Scenic Resources ...... 121 Affected Environment ...... 121 Environmental Consequences...... 121 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Cumulative Effects ...... 127 3.8 Transportation ...... 127 Affected Environment ...... 127 Environmental Consequences...... 128 Cumulative Effects ...... 130 3.9 Heritage Resources ...... 130 Affected Environment ...... 130 Environmental Consequences...... 130 Cumulative Effects ...... 132 3.10 Human Health and Safety ...... 133 Affected Environment ...... 133 Environmental Consequences...... 139 Cumulative Effects ...... 149 3.11 Socioeconomics ...... 149 Affected Environment ...... 149 Environmental Consequences...... 151 4 Consultation and Coordination ...... 152 Interdisciplinary Team Members ...... 152 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 152 Tribes ...... 152 Congressional/Others ...... 152 5 Literature Cited ...... 154 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... 166

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

1 Purpose of and Need for Action 1.1 Proposed Action The Sandia Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest and Grasslands (NF&NG) proposes the following actions to improve conditions in the Cedro Landscape Restoration Project: ◊ Vegetation treatments, including individual tree selection and temporary regeneration openings, thinning, and mastication; ◊ Fuelwood gathering; ◊ Prescribe burning in certain forest types; ◊ Improvement of riparian areas; ◊ Treatment of invasive plant species, using various methods; ◊ Closure of the analysis area to cross-country non-pedestrian travel; ◊ Closures of unauthorized roads and trails; ◊ Relocations of sections of trails; ◊ Construction of trails; ◊ Decommissioning of Deadman Recreation Area and NFSR (National Forest System Road) 515 into the recreation area ◊ ; and ◊ Installation of fire rings within designated camping corridors. This project is located in Bernalillo County, south of Interstate 40, around the community of Tijeras, New Mexico, with the following legal description: Township 10 North, Range 5 East: Sections 12, 13, 21, 22, 24-26, 28-32, 34-36; Township 10 North, Range 6 East: Sections 7, 17- 20, 29-32; Township 9 North, Range 5 East: Sections 1-3, 5, 6, 11-13, 24, 25, 36; Township 9 North, Range 6 East: Sections 5-8, 17-20, 30, 31; and Township 8 North, Range 6 East: Section 6 (see Figure 1-1). 1.2 Background In February 2011, the Cibola NF&NG Forest Supervisor and Sandia District Ranger signed endorsement letters for the Talking Talons Collaborative Forest Restoration Project (CFRP) and San Antonio de las Huertas CFRP, documenting that these projects would facilitate vegetation treatments and restoration work at a larger landscape on the Sandia RD. Consequently this project proposal was initiated later in 2011 as part of the Sandia Landscape Environmental Analysis set forth in the Forest Leadership Team (FLT) priorities. The FLT and Sandia Ranger District and through the East Mountain Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and the 2011 NM Communities at Risk Assessment Plan (New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department [NMEMNRD] 2007) recognized the need for restoration in the Wildland Urban Interface and conducting mutually beneficial, cross jurisdictional working relationships (Please see Map A-2 Communities at Risk in Appendix A). The CWPP identifies several Community Zones with high wildfire potential that fall within the project boundary and describes Community Suggestions for Risk Reduction and Mitigations for each of these zones and public lands. These suggestions range from thinning and ladder fuel reduction to forest health and restoration needs as a means of determining which type of thinning is appropriate. The purpose of these treatments would be to reduce the potential of uncharacteristic wildfires, increase forest, ecosystem and watershed health and protect community, cultural, scenic quality and natural resources at a landscape scale.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 1

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Figure 1-1. Cedro Landscape Restoration Analysis & Treatment Area

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 2

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

1.3 Need for the Proposal The proposed analysis area encompasses approximately 18,756 acres. The proposed invasive plant species treatments and proposed trail work would occur within the entire analysis area. The vegetation restoration treatments and scenery management would occur on 13,175 acres within the analysis area. The analysis area includes the following on-going projects with completed NEPA: Tablazon Timber Stand Improvement Project, David Canyon Fuels Reduction Project which is under the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis, and Talking Talons Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project. For location of proposed treatment areas refer to Figure 1-1. This project occurs in Management Area 2 as described in the 1985 Amended Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (ALRMP): “Management emphasis is on providing opportunities for a variety of year round recreational experiences consistent with guidelines established for maintaining viable wildlife populations and ecosystem health (page 84).” Wildlife diversity and habitat will be maintained and improved through prescribed fires, timber or fuelwood harvests, riparian area and meadow restoration. The purpose of the project is to restore the ecosystem to the desired conditions. High tree density and severe competition have created conditions compromising overall forest health, wildlife habitat, scenic quality, and leading to an increase in the likelihood of uncharacteristic wildfire. High tree densities also increase the potential for insect and disease outbreaks. During the summer of 2013 and 2014 there has been significant die-off of pinyon due to Pinyon IPS beetle also increasing the potential for uncharacteristic wildfire. Encroachment of trees into both riparian zones and meadows is also contributing to wildfire risk and reducing ecosystem function. Existing forest conditions are highly departed from natural range of variability, for example single story (even-aged), homogenous stand structure and continuous canopy cover in both pinyon/juniper and ponderosa pine stands. On a majority of the project area fire no longer plays its natural role in maintaining ecosystem structure and function within the project area. To facilitate restoration of fire regimes and natural range of variability, mechanical thinning treatments and prescribed burning is needed. The old and current road system has altered the hydrology and reduced the floodplain of the Cedro Creek Watershed. This has increased erosion and lessened wetland development. Roads have helped to disperse invasive species such as Siberian Elm and altered water flow within the drainage resulting in reduced riparian species diversity, headcuts, embedded stream reaches, decreased meander lengths, altered stream channels, and increased stream width. The proposed installation of structures, such as one rock dams, will help to address these concerns. Also, increased mountain biking and equestrian use on existing and non-system trails has contributed to soil erosion and sedimentation and there is a need to relocate some existing trails and obliterate non-system trails. These unregulated and unauthorized impacts have also contributed to infestation of invasive plants. Executive Order 13112 signed Feb. 3, 1999 specifically directs government agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. While the percent of forest lands covered by invasives is relatively small, these species multiply and spread readily. Invasive plant control treatments are more effective when the affected areas are still small. Once invasive populations become large, they can only be contained through constant, long-term

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 3

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

intervention. Complete eradication, once a species is well established, is extremely difficult and may be impossible. Invasive plants are aggressive, and gradually out-compete the desired native plant species for space, water, and nutrients due to characteristics that give them a competitive advantage. They demonstrate high reproductive capacity through prolific seed production and root sprouting. If left uncontrolled, they tend to dominate areas and in some cases can create large monocultures comprised of one or two invasive species. Therefore without effective control treatments, the continued spread of invasive plants would affect ecosystems and wildlife habitat; riparian areas; scenery, recreation, and heritage resources. For these reasons, there is a need to implement treatments to achieve desired vegetation, soil, and riparian conditions as described in the ALRMP (p. 71-5 through 71-8). Existing forest conditions, in all forest types, are described by: • Unnaturally high tree densities; • Continuous tree canopies and lack of openings; • Deficient of trees greater than 16 inch diameter at breast height (DBH) and diameter at root collar (DRC) (based on stand exam data); • Reduced understory productivity and diversity; • Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) (a classification of the amount of departure from the natural fire regime) of 3, which is characterized as “a significant departure from the natural range of variability and predisposed to a high risk of loss of key ecosystem components” (Hann and Bunnell 2001); and • Low crowning index (the wind speed in miles per hour necessary for a fire that reaches the forest canopy to continue as a crown fire) values meaning a crown fire would remain active even at relatively low wind speeds. 1.4 Existing Conditions

Vegetation The vegetation treatment area encompasses approximately 13,175 acres, while the total analysis area includes about 18,756 acres. A breakdown by dominant forest types based on stand exam data follows: 1) Pinyon/Juniper - Approximately 8,550 acres. These areas are primarily even-aged lacking structural diversity. Pinyon/Juniper areas were further identified into three sub-categories: a) Persistent – Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 inches DRC) range from 0-621 trees per acre (TPA). In addition, stands have an average of 1,833 TPA less than 5 inch DRC. Overall, canopy closure is over 60 percent. b) Shrub/Brush – Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 inches DRC) range from 0- 658 TPA. In addition, stands have an average of 3,760 TPA less than 5 inches DRC. Overall, canopy closure is over 60 percent. c) Savanna – Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 inches DRC) range from 0-629 TPA. In addition, stands have an average of 4,103 TPA less than 5 inches DRC. Overall, canopy closure is over 60 percent. 2) Pinyon/Juniper with Scattered Ponderosa Pine Overstory - About 3,700 acres. Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 inches DRC) range from 0-10,228 TPA. In addition, stands have an average of 3,628 TPA less than 5 inches DRC. Overall, canopy closure is over 60 percent.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 4

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

3) Ponderosa Pine - Approximately 250 acres. These areas are primarily even-aged lacking structural diversity. Ponderosa Pine was further identified into two sub-categories: a) Ponderosa Pine - Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 inches Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)) range from 0-821 TPA. In addition, stands have an average of 3,726 TPA less than 5 inches DBH. Overall, canopy closure is over 60 percent. b) Ponderosa Pine with a P/J Oak Midstory - Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 inches DBH) range from 0-561 TPA. In addition, stands have an average of 3,646 TPA less than 5 inches DBH. Overall, canopy closure is over 60 percent. 4) Oak Woodland - Approximately 130 acres. Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 inches DRC) range from 0-523 TPA. In addition, stands have an average of 5,712 TPA less than 5 inches DRC. Overall, canopy closure is less than 40 percent. These areas are primarily even-aged lacking structural diversity. 5) Riparian - Approximately 115 acres have been identified as riparian areas through the Regional Riparian Mapping Project (RMAP) mostly associated with CedroCreek. Existing riparian vegetation includes coyote willow, black willow, box elder, cottonwood, and several species of rushes. These riparian areas are further divided into the following condition: a) Nonfunctioning due to lack of vertical stability, incisement, lack of vegetative components, and lack of channel features to dissipate flood flows. b) Properly functioning at risk, largely due to the lack of channel features, sediment and erosion, and vegetative components. c) Properly functioning. This reach supported a good diversity of riparian plants, protecting streambanks, and dissipating flood flows. 6) Meadows - Approximately 430 acres of three meadow types based on Terrestrial Ecological Units (TEU, an ecological classification and mapping system to stratify landscapes into units with similar ecological features; for example soils, geology, and vegetation) have been encroached by native conifers from adjacent stands. a) Shrub meadow - Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 inches DRC) range up to 658 TPA. In addition, stands have as many as 1,232 TPA less than 5 inches DRC. Tree composition is mostly Pinyon/Juniper. Overall, canopy closure is at least 60 percent. TEU data suggests that there is more bare soil and less ground cover than natural conditions. b) Grass/forb meadow - Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 inches DRC) range up to 449 TPA. In addition, stands have as many as 1,292 TPA less than 5 inches DRC. Tree composition is mostly Pinyon/Juniper. Overall, canopy closure is at least 60 percent. TEU data suggest that ground cover is closer to natural conditions but is still below desired conditions. c) Scattered Tree Meadow - Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 inches DRC) range up to 511 TPA. In addition, stands have as many as 1,145 TPA less than 5 inches DRC. This type contains more Ponderosa Pine than Pinyon/Juniper. Overall, canopy closure is at least 60 percent. TEU data suggests that there is more bare soil and less ground cover than natural conditions.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 5

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Invasive Plant Species There are approximately 637 acres of inventoried invasive species within the 18,760-acre analysis area. These invasive plants are widely distributed in small patches and plant population densities are relatively low within the affected acreages; however, due to the nature and potential rapid spread of invasives, these populations may increase significantly, over time. Following is a list of the invasive species that have been noted in the project area. More information on these plant species can be found in the USDA Forest Service Field Guides produced by the Southwestern Region (USDA 2014 a-m, USDA 2015 a-c). Salt Cedar - Tamarix sp. Musk Thistle - Carduus nutans Bull Thistle - Cirsium vulgare Cheatgrass - Bromus tectorum Scotch Thistle - Onopordum acanthium Canada Thistle - Cirsium arvense Russian Knapweed - Centaurea repens Perennial Pepperweed - Lepidium latfolium White Top - Cardaria draba Jointed Goatgrass - Aegilops cylindrica Russian Olive - Elaegnus angustifolia Siberian Elm - Ulmus pumila Camelthorn - Alhagi pseudalhagi Dalmatian Toadflax - Linaria genistifolla Yellow Toadflax - Linaria vulgaris Sarah Mustard - Brassica tournefortii Poison Hemlock - Conium maculatum Spotted Knapweed - Centaurea maculosa Tree of Heaven - Ailanthus altissima Recreation The Cedro project area contains a wide range of recreation opportunities and infrastructure including two developed picnic grounds, one developed group campground, one developed recreation site that has fallen into disrepair, six motorized dispersed camping corridors, eight trailheads, approximately 85 miles of national forest system trails and 18 miles of National Forest System Roads. In 2008, the Sandia District Travel Management Decision Notice was released which designated national forest system (NFS) roads and NFS trails for motor vehicle use. In addition, six corridors were designated along certain roads for motorized dispersed camping (see Map A-5 in Appendix A) and motorized cross country travel was prohibited. The Sandia RD Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) displays these designations. There are no defined locations for campfires within the dispersed camping corridors; as a result, users are creating multiple fire scars within each corridor. The existing vegetation density along most trails and roads creates a corridor effect. This dense vegetation provides managers with a natural barrier to contain travel within the corridor, restricting and discouraging motorized cross-country travel. Currently, cross country travel is allowed for all non-motorized forms of travel. This fact has made it difficult to reduce the impact of an increasing number of unauthorized trails. An ever-

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 6

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

increasing number of these trails make trail management much more difficult as they give the appearance that they are National Forest System trails but receive no maintenance and are often very poorly located, creating erosion problems or destruction of natural, scenic and heritage resources. A majority of trails located within the project area are open to motorcycles as shown on the district MVUM. Approximately 12 miles of maintenance level 2 roads are open to all motor vehicles. Even though motorized cross country travel is prohibited, there remain an undetermined number of unauthorized trails and roads scattered across the landscape. The majority of use on the trail system is motorcycle and mountain bike with moderate hiker and equestrian use. The project area contains eight trailheads: Cedro, Coyote, Mars Court, Pine Flat, Chamisoso, Lower Pine, Otero Canyon, and Tunnel Canyon. Pine Flat Picnic Area receives low-to-moderate use and is co-located with the Pine Flat trailhead. Pine Flat is open mid-May through mid- October. Oak Flat Picnic Area also receives low-to-moderate use and open mid-May through mid-October, but must be reserved in advance. Cedro Peak Group Campground contains two group campsites that must be reserved in advance. This site receives low use and can be reserved mid-May through mid-October. The Cedro Trailhead is adjacent to Cedro Campground. 1.5 Desired Conditions

Vegetation Desired vegetation conditions for the entire project area is one that reduces the potential for active crown fires, increases forest and ecosystem health, reduces the risk for insect and disease outbreaks. 1) Pinyon/Juniper - On 20 percent of 8,550 P/J acres (approximately 1,710 acres) the desired condition will be to develop and maintain old growth conditions as defined in the ALRMP Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines p. 66, Table “The Minimum Criteria for the Structural Attribute Used to Determine Old Growth” These areas would be designated during the environmental analysis process (see Additional Maps in Appendix A). a) Persistent- Retain variable cover of shrubs, subshrubs, forbs, and grasses, but often sparse, with extensive areas of litter (beneath canopies) and bare soil or rock (intercanopy). All acres of Persistent P/J will be allocated for old growth. b) Shrub/Brush- Variable tree component that may range from very sparse to relatively dense and may include any of the pinyon and juniper species. Maintain uneven-age conditions to sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory and understory), age classes, and species composition well distributed across the landscape. Provide for reserve trees, snags, and down woody debris. Tree densities may range from 30 to 60 square feet of basal area (BA, the area of a given section of land that is occupied by the cross section of tree trunks and stems at their base). This BA equates approximately to a range of 50 to 120 trees per acre. The wide range of remaining trees per acre following treatment is because smaller trees have less basal area than larger trees so it takes more trees per acre to meet the desired BA. c) Savanna- Retain low to moderate density and cover of pinyon or juniper or both 2-25 TPA. Well-developed and nearly continuous grass (with forb) cover; shrubs may be present but are usually only a minor component.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 7

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

2) Pinyon/Juniper with Scattered Ponderosa Pine Overstory - Variable tree component that may range from very sparse to relatively dense and may include any of the pinyon and juniper species and ponderosa pine. Maintain uneven age conditions to sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory and understory), age classes, and species composition well- distributed across the landscape. Retain non-suppressed and open grown ponderosa pine overstory. Provide for reserve trees, snags, and down woody debris. Tree densities may range from 30 to 60 square feet of basal area. This BA equates approximately to a range of 50 to 120 trees per acre. The wide range of remaining trees per acre following treatment is because smaller trees have less basal area than larger trees so it takes more trees per acre to meet the desired BA. 3) Ponderosa Pine - Within the ponderosa pine forest type the desired condition would be to provide goshawk habitat that is consistent with the northern goshawk guidelines (ALRMP, page 71-5; Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States, General Technical Report RM-217. 1992). Overall the desired conditions include:

o Managing for uneven-age stand conditions for live trees to include tree groups and openings; o Retaining live reserve trees, snags (2/acre), large downed logs (3/acre), and woody debris levels (5-7 tons/acre) throughout woodland, ponderosa pine; o Managing for old age trees such that as much old forest structure as possible is sustained over time across the landscape; o Sustaining a mosaic of vegetation densities, age classes, canopy gaps and species composition across the landscape; o Maintaining a range of Vegetation Structural Stages (“VSS”, or growth stages of living trees) - treatments would strive to achieve, over time, a VSS distribution of 10% VSS 1 (grasses, forbs, and shrubs); 10% VSS 2 (seedlings and saplings; 1-inch- 4.9-inch DBH); 20% VSS 3 (young forest; 5-inch-11.9-inch DBH); 20% VSS 4 (mid- aged forest; 12-inch-17.9-inch DBH); 20% VSS 5 (mature forest; 18-inch-23.9-inch DBH); and 20% VSS 6 (old forest; 24-inch+ DBH) across the landscape. o Within Goshawk Post Fledgling Family areas (PFAs) and dispersal PFAs residual trees per acre (TPA) and canopy cover would be slightly higher due to habitat needs compared to Foraging areas (lands outside PFAs). o Nest areas would consist of a minimum 30-40 TPA in a size class distribution of VSS 5 and/or 6. o On 20% of the 250 ac. ponderosa pine acres (approximately 50 acres) the desired condition will be to develop and maintain old growth conditions as defined in the ALRMP Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines p. 66, Table “The Minimum Criteria for the Structural Attribute Used to Determine Old Growth” These areas would be designated during the environmental analysis process (see Additional Maps in Appendix A). o Temporary openings, for regeneration purposes, up to four acres with a maximum width of 200 feet exist on approximately 10 percent of the area. Three to five reserve trees per acre are maintained in these openings. Two large snags and three large logs per acre exist. Five to seven tons of woody debris is retained.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 8

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Figure 1-2 displays the arrangement of leave groups that would remain after treatment. Not shown are the temporary openings created for regeneration purposes and the irregular spacing between single trees and groups of trees.

Figure 1-2 - Illustration of Desired Spatial Arrangement of Leave Group

4) Ponderosa Pine with P/J and Oak mid-story - This forest type would be treated similar to Ponderosa Pine while considering: • Smaller temporary openings for regeneration purposes and reduces potential for increased oak regeneration; • Removal of ladder fuels primarily Pinyon and Juniper; • Retain 10 inches DRC and greater oak; • Sustainable fuelwood opportunities. 5) Oak Woodland - Within the oak woodland forest type the desired condition would be to develop and maintain a variety of wildlife habitat by having the area in uneven-aged stand structure the following: 1) 35 percent of the acreage in an early seral stage that would provide browse and forage, 2) 35 percent in a mid-seral stage that would provide browse, forage and cover and 3) 30 percent in a late seral stage that would provide mast, forage and cavities for cavity nesting birds. 6) Riparian - Aquatic Resource desired conditions include:

o Shade: Shading over perennial and intermittent water surfaces that is at least 80 percent of natural levels.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 9

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

o Bank Cover: Natural bank protection of at least 80 percent of natural levels. Stream bank stability provided by woody plant roots, particularly on outside bends of stream channel meanders. o Streambed Sedimentation: Composition of sand, silt, and clays within streambeds should not exceed 20 percent of natural levels. o Habitat: Aquatic pools are wet for longer periods of time to provide persistent habitat for aquatic species o Riparian areas will be in properly functioning condition Vegetation Resource (where site is capable of supporting woody plants):

• Species Composition: 60 percent of woody plant composition in three or more riparian species or as appropriate for the site. • Plant Structure: Three age classes of riparian woody plants with at least 10 percent of the woody plant cover in the sprout seedling and sapling stages and 10 percent in the mature and over-mature. • Crown Cover: Both trees and shrubs that is at least 60 percent of natural levels • Ground Cover: Ground cover and litter for site and ovestory conditions. 7) Meadows – Restore approximately 430 acres of three meadow types based on TEU have been encroached by native conifers from adjacent stands. a. Shrub meadow- This meadow is predominantly grass/forbs with a shrub component to sustain wildlife browsing. The shrub component averages 5 percent of the canopy cover. Natural ground cover conditions include an average of 70 percent vegetation and dead organic litter and 30 percent bare soil. Down woody material would be limited. b. Grass/forb meadow- This meadow is predominantly grass/forb with a limited Pinyon/Juniper and shrub component. The shrub component averages up to 10 percent of the canopy cover. Natural ground cover conditions in much of this area include an average up to 80 percent vegetative, dead organic material and rock fragments and up to 20 percent bare soil. Down woody material would be limited. c. Scattered Tree Meadow- This meadow is predominantly grass with a small shrub, Pinyon/Juniper and Ponderosa Pine component. The shrub component averages up to 2percent, Pinyon/Juniper averages up to 5 percent and Ponderosa Pine averages up to 12 percent of the canopy cover. Natural ground cover conditions include an average of 85 percent vegetative and dead organic material. Down woody material is less than 3-5 tons/acre. Invasive Plant Species The desired condition for all noxious and invasive plants is for these species to be eradicated, controlled or contained. Native species of plants will be re-established where feasible to replace noxious and invasive plants so that soil properties, water quality, wildlife habitat and other natural and cultural resource values in the project area are improved or maintained.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 10

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Recreation 1. Provide road and trail system that includes a broad spectrum of opportunities while also enhancing resource protection through improved trail design, removal of unauthorized trails and roads and limiting cross country travel. 2. Forest thinning and related actions are integrated with recreation and scenery objectives to enhance scenic quality, to impede future illegal motorized and non-motorized cross-country travel. Vegetation management activities along road and trail corridors are designed to reinforce travel management objectives of keeping motor vehicles on the designated routes and prohibiting motorized cross-country travel by not opening up large swaths of ground without barriers along the corridors. 3. Provide for high quality motorized dispersed camping opportunities while limiting the negative effects of fire by establishing campfire rings and requiring their use. 4. Provide high quality campground and picnic grounds with adjacent trail opportunities, sufficient screening, reduced overhead hazards, and a vibrant uneven-aged forest canopy. 1.6 Decision Framework The decision to be made is:

 Whether or not to restore ecosystem conditions through vegetation treatments, including individual tree selection and temporary regeneration openings, thinning, mastication, and fuelwood gathering;  Whether or not to reduce fuel loads and what prescribed fire actions to take;  Whether or not to improve riparian areas;  Whether or not to treat invasive plant species, and what methods to use;  Whether or not to close the analysis area to cross-country non-pedestrian travel;  Whether or not to manage the transportation system;  Whether or not to relocate and construct sections of trails;  Whether or not to decommission NFSR 515 into Deadman Recreation Area; and  Whether or not to install fire rings within designated camping corridors. 1.7 Public Involvement On April 9, 2013, a scoping letter and project location map was mailed to approximately 670 different agencies, businesses, individuals, tribes, and organizations interested in or determined to be potentially impacted by the proposed project. Comments were accepted through May 10, 2013. In addition, the proposal was posted on the Cibola NF&NG website in early April and was published in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on July 1, 2013. See Project Record for a list of comments received. Comments received during scoping were used to develop a list of issues and these issues helped guide the development of alternatives. On June 20, 2013 the Sandia RD invited the 670 organizations and individuals on the district scoping list to a public meeting about the Cedro Landscape Restoration Project. The Cibola NF&NG routinely consults with 12 American Indian Tribe and one Navajo Chapter that may have used and may continue to use lands managed by the Sandia Ranger District for traditional cultural or religious activities, and that might attach religious or cultural significance to properties within the Sandia and Manzanita Mountains. These include: the Pueblos of Acoma,

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 11

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Zuni, Isleta, Sandia, Santo Domingo, Santa Ana, San Felipe, San Ildefonso, Cochiti, Zia, and Jemez, the Navajo Nation, and the To’hajilee Chapter. 1.8 Issues The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: relevant and non-relevant to the proposed action. Relevant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-relevant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non- significant may be found in the project record. As for issues relevant to the Proposed Action, the Forest Service identified two topics raised during internal and external scoping. These issues are: 1. Applying herbicides to noxious weeds could lead to casual exposure and subsequent health problems. 2. Project activities could impact soil and water resources.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 12

Chapter 2. Alternatives

2 Alternatives This section describes the alternatives that have been considered in the development of this EA. The ID Team examined the issues and developed alternatives, based on the need for action and the major issues identified in scoping. The team developed alternatives that addressed one or more of the major issues identified in scoping and also met the need for action. The No Action Alternative may not meet the need for action, but provides a baseline for comparison of the action alternatives. 2.1 Alternative A – No Action None of the proposed management activities would be implemented under this alternative. No new treatments would be implemented to address existing vegetation, fuels, wildlife, watershed, or recreation concerns. Suppression of wildfire would continue but previously created fuelbreaks would not be maintained and no new fuelbreaks would be created. This alternative would not be consistent with the ALRMP over the long term as it would not meet the goals and objectives or provide the desired conditions described in the ALRMP. 2.2 Alternative B – The Proposed Action The Proposed Action has been changed since public scoping. The following are the changes: 1. During the process of defining the existing vegetation condition, 1,067 acres were identified as Ponderosa Pine using several different databases. Upon further analysis it was determined that these acres needed to be reclassified as Pinyon/Juniper/Ponderosa Pine to correctly reflect the existing conditions in the project area. The Proposed Action has been revised and the new information has been carried through all alternatives. 2. Through further analysis and for sake of consistency the acreage on all vegetative forest types was re-evaluated using the most up to date databases and analysis. The identified Pinyon/Juniper vegetation type acres were decreased to 8,550 acres, while increasing Pinyon/Juniper with Ponderosa Pine overstory vegetation type to 3,700 acres. Also the Oak Woodland acres were decreased from 460 acres to 130 acres. Vegetation The existing condition for both ponderosa pine and P/J woodland is deficient of trees greater than 16 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and diameter at root collar (DRC). This project proposes to not cut any trees over this diameter to assist in moving the area to desired condition. To move these stands toward the desired condition as described previously; an uneven-aged (where trees are found in three or more distinct age classes, either intimately mixed or in small groups) silvicultural system along with prescribe fire would be used. All treatment areas may be entered multiple times to meet the desired conditions described above. Mechanical and hand thinning along with prescribed fire would be the primary tools used to reduce tree densities and undesirable tree regeneration and promote grasses and forbs. TPA as described below will include all species 5 inches DBH or DRC or greater. The existing condition for all of the dominant forest types on Sandia RD is deficient of trees greater than 16 inches DBH and DRC (based on stand exam data). This project does not propose to cut any trees over this diameter in order to move the area toward the desired condition. Trees

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 13

Chapter 2. Alternatives

that are cut in road and trail corridors will have a maximum stump height of 6 inches outside of these corridors stump height will not exceed 12 inches. Slash generated through thinning operations will be lopped and scattered to a maximum of 18 inches and/or piled to a maximum of 10 feet by 10 feet. Pinyon-Juniper Treatments Shrub/Brush- Individual tree selection to a residual tree density of 55-92 trees per acre in an irregular and non-uniform spacing. Progressively remove smaller diameter trees (0.1 inch diameter root collar and larger) until the desired residual density/tpa/spacing is met. Once complete, the stand will consist of the larger diameter, healthy trees at the desired density. Persistent- Retain variable cover of shrubs, subshrubs, forbs, and grasses, but often sparse, with extensive areas of litter (beneath canopies) and bare soil or rock (intercanopy). Generally, treatments would not occur in this forest type except: • Vegetation treatments may occur near private property boundaries in the construction of prescribed fire control lines. These treatments would be similar to those occurring in the Shrub/Brush forest type. • Prescribed fire will not be utilized in this forest type, but will be used in adjacent forest types. In some cases the construction of control lines between the adjacent forest types and the persistent pinyon/juniper forest type will not be feasible. In these areas prescribed fire may enter the persistent pinyon/juniper forest type but would be on a very limited scale, and would not affect the natural process desired in the persistent pinyon/juniper forest type. Savanna- Retain low to moderate density and cover of pinyon or juniper or both 2-25 TPA. Well-developed and nearly continuous grass (with forb) cover; shrubs may be present but are usually only a minor component. Pinyon/Juniper with Scattered Ponderosa Pine Overstory- Individual tree selection would occur, to a residual tree density of 55-92 TPA in an irregular and non-uniform spacing. Progressively remove smaller diameter trees (0.1 inch diameter root collar and larger) until the desired residual density/TPA/spacing is met. Once complete, the stand will consist of the larger diameter, healthy trees at the desired density. Thinning would be accomplished by hand, mechanized equipment and/or mastication. Commercial contracts and personal-use fuelwood permits would be offered to remove the wood. Ponderosa Pine Treatments Ponderosa Pine- Temporary openings would be created for regeneration purposes, up to 4 acres but averaging 0.75-0.25 acres with a maximum width of 200 feet on approximately 10 percent of the area. Between the openings, designated trees would be thinned favoring healthiest crowns within all VSS classes to 50 to 75 square feet of basal area (BA). This BA equates approximately to a range of 50 to 150 trees per acre in lands outside of PFA’s, PFA’s and nest areas. Approximately 75-95 trees per acre would be on lands outside PFAs, 120-130 trees per acre in PFAs and nest areas. The wide range of remaining trees per acre following treatment is because smaller trees have less basal area than larger trees so it takes more trees per acre to meet the desired BA. On average at least two snags and 5 to 7 tons of downed woody debris per acre would be retained.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 14

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Ponderosa Pine with P/J and Oak midstory- This forest type would be treated similar to above while considering: • The lower BA target range may be less than that for ponderosa pine mainly because some stands do not currently support 50 BA; • Smaller temporary openings to limit oak regeneration; • Removal of ladder fuels primarily Pinyon and Juniper; • Retain 10 inch DRC and greater oak; and • Sustainable fuelwood opportunities. Thinning would be accomplished by mechanized harvesting equipment, by hand, prescribe fire and/or mastication. Commercial contracts and personal-use fuelwood permits would be offered to remove the wood. Oak Woodland Treatments- Prescribed fire would be used exclusively in these areas to develop and maintain a variety of wildlife food and cover habitat by having the area in the following un-even aged stand structure: 1) 35% of the acreage in an early seral stage that would provide browse and forage, 2) 35 % in a mid-seral stage that would provide browse, forage and cover and 3) 30% in a late seral stage that would provide mast, forage and cavities for cavity nesting birds. Meadows- Approximately 430 acres of three meadow types based on TEU have been encroached by native conifers from adjacent stands. • Shrub meadow- remove all Ponderosa Pine and P/J trees less than 16 inch DBH or DRC to promote grass/forb and shrub establishment as described in the desired conditions. Tree removal would be accomplished by mechanized harvesting equipment, by hand, prescribe fire and/or mastication. Commercial contracts and personal-use fuelwood permits would be offered to remove the wood. Seeding of native grasses, forbs, and shrub to accelerate moving the site to desired conditions. • Grass/forb meadow- remove Ponderosa Pine and P/J trees less than 16 inch DBH or DRC to promote grass/forb and shrub establishment as described in the desired conditions (Chapter 1). Tree removal would be accomplished by mechanized harvesting equipment, by hand, prescribe fire and/or mastication. Commercial contracts and personal-use fuelwood permits would be offered to remove the wood. Seeding of native grasses, forbs, and shrub to accelerate moving the site to desired conditions. • Scattered Tree Meadow- remove Ponderosa Pine and P/J trees less than 16 inch DBH or DRC to promote grass/forb and shrub establishment as described in the desired conditions (Chapter 1). Tree removal would be accomplished by mechanized harvesting equipment, by hand, prescribe fire and/or mastication. Commercial contracts and personal-use fuelwood permits would be offered to remove the wood. Seeding of native grasses, forbs, and shrub to accelerate moving the site to desired conditions. Riparian- Approximately 115 acres of riparian areas based on TEU have been encroached by native conifers and invasive deciduous trees from adjacent stands. • Remove one seed juniper less than 14 inch DRC and invasive trees, such as Russian Olives and Siberian Elm. • Maintain ponderosa pine. • Maintain native trees stabilizing banks and native plant wetland vegetation.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 15

Chapter 2. Alternatives

• Maintain and enhance existing pools by building structures to assist with headcuts, entrenched streambed, increasing meander lengths, placing creek in original channel, and decreasing width in stream. Structures installed may include: one rock dams, rock water harvesting structures, filter dams, rock weirs, Zuni bowls, baffles, vanes, and rock arch dams. • Close and/or relocate eroding trails and roads. Areas Over 40% Slope Dispersed throughout the project area is approximately 1,106 acres over 40% slope. These areas would not be treated mechanically and would be treated by hand as required by the ALRMP. Tree densities would be reduced by thinning and disposing of designated trees on site through prescribe burning or exclusively by prescribe burning. The following table describes proposed treatments to meet the desired condition for each Forest Type based on soil conditions, location and slope:

Table 2-1 – Proposed Vegetation Treatments Product/ Treatment Type Cutting Tree Removal Slash Treatment Non- Methods Will cut trees be What happens to tree tops and other Product How will excess removed from material that remains on the site after Removal trees be cut or the areas? cutting? Area otherwise handled? 1 – Satisfactory Mechanical None where Masticated material would be spread on soils on less than mastication mastication site to a depth of 0”-4”, other cut material 40% slope: within occurs lopped and scattered to a depth of 18” 0.25 mile along Chainsaws – max. Hand piles may be created where national forest contract or Commercial needed and piles will not exceed 10’x10’ system (NFS) Forest Service fuelwood, service Broadcast burning and/or pile burning Product roads, NFS trails, or Mechanized contracts and/or when management prescription Removal unauthorized roads. feller timber sale conditions are met. Area Approx acres contracts. Where 2,450. good access exists, material removed under permits for personal use firewood 2 - Impaired soils Mechanical None where Masticated material would be spread on on less than 40% mastication mastication site to a depth of 0”-4”, other cut material slope and occurs lopped and scattered to a depth of 18” satisfactory soils max. Hand piles may be created where with severe erosion needed and piles will not exceed 10’x10’ Product hazard rating: Broadcast burning and/or pile burning Removal within 0.25 mile when management prescription Area along NFS roads, conditions are met. NFS trails, or unauthorized roads. Approx. acres 2,200

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 16

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Product/ Treatment Type Cutting Tree Removal Slash Treatment Non- Methods Will cut trees be What happens to tree tops and other Product How will excess removed from material that remains on the site after Removal trees be cut or the areas? cutting? Area otherwise handled? Chainsaws – Commercial contract or fuelwood, service Forest Service contracts and/or Product Mechanized timber sale Removal feller contracts. Area

3 –Areas with 30%+ None- these None None slope and areas would be unsatisfactory soils: prescribe burned Non-Product within 0.25 mile only Removal along NFS roads, Area NFS trails, or unauthorized roads. Approx. acres 2,460. 4 – All areas with Chainsaws – None Cut material will be lopped and scattered greater than 30% contract or to a depth of 18” max. Hand piles may be Non-Product slope. Approx. Forest Service created where needed and piles will not Removal acres 1,600. and/or Prescribe exceed 10’x10’ Broadcast burning and/or Area burned only pile burning when management prescription conditions are met. 5 – All forest Mechanical None Masticated material would be spread on vegetation types mastication site to a depth of 0”-4”, other cut material that are Chainsaws – will be lopped and scattered to a depth of Non-Product inaccessible for contract or 18” max. Hand piles may be created Removal wood product Forest Service where needed and piles will not exceed Area removal. Approx. Mechanized 10’x10’. Broadcast burning and/or pile acres 4,350. feller and/or burning when management prescription prescribe burned conditions are met. only

For location of treatment types as described in the table, please see Map A-4, Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Vegetation Treatment Types in Appendix A. Dollars generated from the sale of the harvested material and fuelwood permits would be retained by the Forest Service under authority in the Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930 (KV) for rehabilitation activities. The rehabilitation activities could include: 1) decommissioning of unauthorized roads within the project area by ripping compacted soils, installing erosion control features, seeding the impacted areas with native grasses and using slash to cover impacted corridors to 80% coverage, 2) rehabilitating cross country travel corridors by ripping compacted soils, installing erosion control features, seeding the impacted areas with native grasses and using slash to cover impacted corridors to 80% coverage, 3) hand piling slash where needed to provide for manageable prescribed fire conditions, 4 ) lopping and scattering slash not collected through fuelwood gathering to 18-inch maximum height , and 5) conducting thinning within the project area. Slash Disposal

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 17

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Activity fuel such as bole wood, slash, hand piles, and mastication grindings would be treated as needed to meet fuels reduction and scenic quality objectives through prescribed burning and/or pile burning when conditions allow for safe and effective burning. All prescribed burning would comply with Bernalillo County air quality regulations and will be approved through appropriate permitting processes.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 18

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Transportation and Wood Hauling No new roads or temporary roads would be constructed for this project. All wood products generated from this project would be removed under permit using National Forest System (NFS) roads or trails or unauthorized roads and trails (see Map A-6 in Appendix A). The road decommissioning would be coordinated with the implementation phase approach described in the Migratory Bird Recommendation section above.

Table 2-2 – Haul Zone 1 Road#/Trail# Existing Status/Maintenance Post Treatment Status Length Level 462 High Clearance Level 2 Maintain to Standard Level 4 12 High Clearance Level 2 Maintain to Standard Level 1.5 13 High Clearance Level 2 Maintain to Standard Level 2 11A Basic Custodial Care (Closed) Maintain to Standard Level 0.5 Level 1 542 High Clearance Level 2 Maintain to Standard Level 2.5 252 High Clearance Level 2 Maintain to Standard Level 1 462A Suitable for Passenger Cars Level Maintain to Standard Level 1.5 3 26/26A Suitable for Passenger Cars Level Maintain to Standard Level 0.5 3 Non-system High Clearance Decommissioned 2.5

The roads listed above in Haul Zone 1 would be used to facilitate the removal of Pinyon, Juniper, and Ponderosa Pine trees through Personal and Commercial Fuelwood sales.

Table 2-3 – Haul Zone 2 Road#/Trail # Existing Post Treatment Length Status/Maintenance Status Level CT RD 242/Juan Tomas N/A N/A 6.5 05027 Bear Scat Double Track Single Track 1.5 05602 Mahogany Double Track Single Track 1 242B Decommissioned Obliterated 0.5 242DC1 N/A N/A 0.5 242DC3 N/A N/A 0.5

The roads listed above in Haul Zone 2would be used to facilitate the removal of Pinyon, Juniper, and Ponderosa Pine trees through Personal and Commercial Fuelwood sales. Fuelwood collected in this Haul Zone will be removed either on County Road 242 (Juan Tomas) or through Haul Zone 3, using the Mahogany Trail (05602). Post fuelwood removal, the Mahogany Trail will be converted back to a “single track” as described in the Sandia RD Travel Management Decision using receipts generated through the sale of fuelwood permits.

Table 2-4 – Haul Zone 3 Road#/Trail # Existing Post Treatment Status Length Status/Maintenance Level 05602 Mahogany Double Track Single Track 1 35B Basic Custodial Care Maintain to Standard Level 1 (Closed) Level 1 413A Moderate Degree of User Maintain to Standard Level 0.5 Comfort Level 4 413AA Moderate Degree of User Maintain to Standard Level 0.5 Comfort Level 4 Non-System Double Track Obliterated 1

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 19

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Road#/Trail # Existing Post Treatment Status Length Status/Maintenance Level 515 Suitable for Passenger Maintain to Standard Level 0.5 Cars Level 3 54A Suitable for Passenger Maintain to Standard Level 0.5 Cars Level 3

The roads listed above in Haul Zone 3 would be used to facilitate the removal of Pinyon, Juniper, and Ponderosa Pine trees through Personal and Commercial Fuelwood sales and Commercial wood products such as posts, poles,vigas, latillas, chips, and logs. Vehicles authorized to be used for product removal will include log trucks, pickup trucks, pick-up trucks with trailers, SUV’s, and OHV’s. In this Haul Zone landings, not to exceed 1/4acre, will be designated adjacent to the described roads to enable the removal of the generated wood products. Due to the variety of wood products and processing of these products, this area will be closed to public use during implementation and product removal.

Table 2-5 – Haul Zone 4 Road# Existing Post Treatment Status Length Status/Maintenance Level 320B High Clearance Level 2 Maintain to Standard Level 0.5 NM 337 N/A N/A N/A Non-System Double Track Obliterated 0.5

The roads listed above in Haul Zone 4 would be used to facilitate the removal of Pinyon, Juniper, and Ponderosa Pine trees through Personal and Commercial Fuelwood sales. Designated pull offs/outs or motorized cross-country travel will be used to provide safety and easy removal of fuelwood along Highway 337. Vehicles authorized to be used for product removal will include log trucks, pickup trucks, pick-up trucks with trailers, SUV’s, and OHV’s. The roads in the tables above would have the required maintenance accomplished at various times during implementation to mitigate resource damage and provide for safe use. Forest Service level 2 roads would have maintenance done at levels to facilitate access for high clearance vehicles such as pickup trucks and SUVs. NFS level 3 roads would have maintenance done at levels to facilitate access for passenger vehicles such as sedans. In addition to the National Forest System roads listed above there are 5 miles of GPSed non- system roads within the project area that would be used to facilitate access for fuels treatments, wood removal and as prescribed burn control lines. During the project these roads may receive maintenance work to mitigate resource damage and provide for safe use. There is also approximately 4 miles of double track trail that will be used to facilitate access for fuels treatments, wood removal and as prescribed burn control lines. Once these roads are no longer needed to implement the fuels reduction work they will be decommissioned by obliterating the roadbed by ripping compacted soils, installing erosion control features, seeding the impacted areas with native grasses and using slash to cover impacted corridors to 80% coverage. The double track trails that will be used during implementation will be restored to single track status as described in the Sandia District Travel Management Decision Notice post implementation. This work would be accomplished using KV receipts generated from the sale of the woody material and/or Forest Service appropriated funds. The road decommissioning would improve watershed conditions and wildlife habitat while making portions of the project less accessible for illegal wood collection and illegal game retrieval. Refer to Map A-6 in Appendix A for locations of roads described above and haul zone tables for pre and post treatment status.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 20

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Invasive Plant Species The Sandia Ranger District proposes to inventory, eradicate, control, or contain invasive plants that are scattered throughout the Cedro Landscape Restoration analysis and treatment areas (see map in Appendix A) on a long-term basis. The number of acres the district expects to treat annually would be based on size and extent of known populations, and detection of new populations. Invasive plant management would be implemented using an adaptive management strategy. An adaptive management strategy would address the following possible situations: • Selected integrated treatments methods fail to be effective. • New invasive plant populations or species are found. • Treatments need to be modified based on the results of monitoring. • New approved herbicides become available. Under the adaptive management strategy, treatment methods would need to be within the scope of the treatments and effects described in this document, and the same mitigation measures would apply to avoid or minimize adverse impacts. This proposed action would treat invasive plants using an “Invasive Species System Approach” framework (USDA 2013). Four key elements of the framework include: prevention, detection, control, and restoration. The proposed action would treat invasive plants using an “Integrated Pest Management” approach (USDA 2014) on all areas within the National Forest System, and on areas managed outside of the National Forest System under the authority of the Wyden Amendment (P.L. 109- 54, Section 434). IPM is defined as the process by which one selects and applies a combination of management methods or techniques (physical, cultural, biological, and chemical) that together will control a particular pest species or infestation with minimal adverse impacts to non-target species. The objective of the IPM process is to identify control methods or techniques that are effective while minimizing adverse ecological and social impacts. Reliance on one particular method or restricting use of one or more tools may prove less effective. The selection of the methods to apply to each invasive plant species (see Table 2-6) and site depends on the known effectiveness of various methods in eradicating, controlling, or containing each species, along with the size of the infestation, terrain features, sensitive resources at the treatment site, and other factors. The methods that would be used include: • Physical control: Physical methods such as manual methods (hand-pulling, hoeing, etc.), mechanical methods (tillage, mowing, etc.), and prescribed fire. • Cultural control: Cultural methods to control weeds are generally targeted toward enhancing desirable vegetation to minimize invasive plant invasions. Common cultural treatments are (1) planting or seeding desirable species to shade or out-compete invasive weeds, (2) applying fertilizers to establish or support desirable vegetation, and (3) controlling livestock grazing. • Biological Control: Biological control of invasive plants typically involves either livestock grazing or classical biological control. Livestock grazing may be used to reduce invasive plants either by direct consumption or else by manipulation of vegetative conditions on rangeland. Classical biological control is defined as the use of an exotic, host-specific natural enemy against exotic or native pests. Using sheep and goats to control invasive plants is not being considered because of the proximity to the Manzano bighorn sheep population.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 21

Chapter 2. Alternatives

• Chemical Control (Herbicide): Herbicides under consideration include: picloram, clopyralid, triclopyr, chlorosulfuron, glyphosate, metsulfuron methyl, imazapic, imazapyr ester, aminoclopyrachlor, and aminopyralid. These herbicides are marketed under a variety of trade names and have undergone individual human and environmental risk assessments. Greater detail on individual invasive plants and effective treatments can be found in the Field Guide Series for Managing Invasive Plants in Region 3 (http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r3/forest- grasslandhealth/invasivespecies). Where appropriate, invasive plant prevention is considered and included as a requirement in site- specific project planning and implementation, such as for vegetation management, facility construction, special uses, and other activities that can contribute to the spread of invasives.

Table 2-6 – Potential Invasive Plant Species and Treatment

Treatment Plant Name Comments Regarding Treatment Method Application Methods1

PHY: Effective if cut or pulled at base before seed production. Repeated mowing. Bull thistle PHY, CUL, BIO, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Cirsium HE BIO: Some biological controls effective, but can compromise native thistles. vulgare Grazing on young plants can be effective. HE: Effective control (Aminopyralid, Clopyralid) PHY: Handpull or dig to remove as much root as possible. Anticipate Camelthorn regrowth. Alhagi HE CUL: Establish alternative ground cover. pseudalhagi BIO: N/A HE: Effective control (Aminocyclopyrachlor+ imazapyr +metsulfuron methyl) PHY: Repeat mowing to deplete stored energy in roots..Prescribed fire not Canada recommended. thistle PHY, CUL, BIO, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require certified Cirsium HE weed free hay. arvense BIO: Some biological controls effective, but can compromise native thistles. HE: Effective control (Aminopyralid). PHY: Prescribed fire in combination with herbicide and reeseding efforts on large populations. Cheatgrass CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require certified Bromus PHY, CUL, HE weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. tectorum BIO: Early spring grazing prior to desirable cool season grass greenup. HE: Effective control (Imazapic) PHY: Hand pulling, digging, or hoeing can be effective for small infestations. Repeated treatments needed. Dalmatian CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require certified toadflax PHY, CUL, HE weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. Linaria BIO: Beetles, moths, or weevils as classical biological control agents, but genistifolla limited. HE: Effective control (Picloram) Yellow PHY: Hand pulling, digging, or hoeing can be effective for small infestations. toadflax Repeated treatments needed. PHY, CUL, HE Linaria CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require certified vulgaris weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts.

1 Codes used in this table are defined as follows: PHY - Physical; CU - Cultural; BIO – Biological; HE -Herbicidal

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 22

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Treatment Plant Name Comments Regarding Treatment Method Application Methods1

BIO: Beetles, moths, or weevils as classical biological control agents, but limited. HE: Effective control (Picloram)

PHY: Hand pulling, digging, or hoeing can be effective for small infestations. Repeated treatments needed. White Top CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require certified PHY, CUL, BIO, Cardaria weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. HE draba BIO: Prescribed grazing with sheep or goats may be considered in combination with other methods. HE: Effective control (Chlorsulfuron) PHY: Effective if pulled or hoed before seed production. Sahara CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require certified mustard PHY, CUL, HE weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. Brassica BIO: N/A tournefortii HE: Effective control (Aminopyralid) PHY: Effective if cut or pulled at base before seed production. Repeated Scotch mowing. Thistle PHY, CUL, BIO, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Onopordum HE BIO: Some biological controls effective, but can comprimise native thistles. acanthium Grazing on young plants can be effective. HE: Effective control (Aminopyralid) PHY: Effective if pulled at base before seed production. Repeated mowing each spring before seeds form. Jointed CUL: Avoid excessive disturbance. Implement requirements for vehicles in goatgrass HE infested areas. Sorghum BIO: Consider high intensity grazing with cattle during winter and early spring halepense followed by herbicide treatment. HE: Effective control (Glyphosate) PHY: Effective if cut or pulled at base before seed production. Repeated mowing. Musk thistle PHY, CUL, BIO, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Carduus HE BIO: Some biological controls effective, but can comprimise native thistles. nutans Grazing on young plants can be effective. HE: Effective control (Aminopyralid) PHY: Hand pulling, digging, or hoeing can be effective for small infestations. Repeated treatments needed. Mowing at flower bud stage, followed by Perennial herbicide. pepperweed PHY, CUL, BIO, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require certified Lepidium HE weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. latfolium BIO: Prescribed grazing with sheep or goats may be considered in combination with other methods. HE: Effective control (Chlorsulfuron) PHY: Mow close to the ground multiple times during growing season and combine with herbicide. Poison CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require certified hemlock PHY, CUL, BIO, weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. Conium HE BIO: Some native pests including hemlock moth, and leaf rolling caterpillar. maculatum Do not graze poisonous to humans and livestock. HE: Effective control (Aminopyralid +metsulfuron methyl, glyphosate, Imazypyr) PHY: Mow close to the ground multiple times during growing season and Russian combine with herbicide. Hand pulling, hoeing effective but all root stock must knapweed PHY, CUL, BIO, be removed. Centaurea HE CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require certified repens weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. BIO: A gall-forming nematode may be available. Possible late season grazing.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 23

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Treatment Plant Name Comments Regarding Treatment Method Application Methods1

HE: Effective control (Picloram, Aminocyclopyrachlor+metsulfuron methyl or Aminopyralid.)

PHY: Digging out saplings <3.5 inch diamter, larger trees extract with backhoe. Russian olive CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Reeseeding PHY, CUL, BIO, Elaegnus efforts. HE angustifolia BIO: Trained goats to browse seedlings and young trees in a short term prescribed grazing approach.. HE: Effective control (Glyphosate) PHY: Excavation, grubbing. CUL: N/A Saltcedar PHY, BIO, HE BIO: Tamarisk beetles (Diorhabdqa carinulata). Trained goats to browse Tamarix sp. seedlings and young trees in a short term prescribed grazing approach.. HE: Effective control (Triclopyr ester) PHY: Newly emerged seedlings and saplings with a stem diameter less than 3/8 inch are easily removed by hand pulling or hoeing. Siberian elm CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Reeseeding PHY, CUL, BIO, Ulmus efforts. HE pumila BIO: Some browsing with trained goats may be effective combined with other techniques. HE: Effective control Triclopyr ester) PHY: Mow close to the ground multiple times during growing season and combine with herbicide. Hand pulling, hoeing effective but all root stock must Spotted be removed. knapweed PHY, CUL, BIO, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require certified Centaurea HE weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. maculosa BIO: A gall-forming nematode may be available. Possible late season grazing. HE: Effective control (Picloram, Aminocyclopyrachlor+metsulfuron methyl or Aminopyralid.) PHY: Hand pull or dig out very young seedlings. Cut top growth with loppers, Tree of power saws etc. followed by herbicide treatment. Heaven PHY, CUL, BIO, CUL: After removal monitor for root sprouts, bag and dispose of seed in Ailanthus HE landfill. altissima BIO: Use of goats followed by herbicide treatment. HE: Effective control (Glyphosate)

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 24

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Recreation Management Alternative B proposes the following recreation management activities: 1. Prohibit cross-country travel for all non-pedestrian modes of travel. 2. Close and obliterate an undetermined amount of unauthorized trail miles. 3. Decommission 17 segments (approximately 6.5 miles) of trail on 16 separate trails and replace the decommissioned segments with approximately 10-15 miles of relocated trail. All segments of relocated trail will retain their designated Designed Use/Trail Class and motorized designation per the district MVUM as shown on the table below and Map A-5 in Appendix A. Relocated trail segments would be away from water resource features, including outside of floodplains and riparian areas except at stream crossings. A hydrologist would assist in the design of stream crossings. Table 2-7 – Cedro Landscape Trail Relocations Trail Trail Name Miles to Designed Use/ Trail New Trail Name New # Decomm Class Mileage ission 5027 Bear Scat 0.39 Motorcycle/TC 2 Bear Scat Relo 1.28 5184 Chamisoso 0.97 Motorcycle/TC 2 Chamisoso Relo 0.99 5543 Powerline 0.53 Motorcycle/ TC 2 Powerline Relo 1.2 5605 Rabbit Run 0.09 Motorcycle/ TC 2 Rabbit Run Relo 1 0.42 5605 Rabbit Run 0.26 Motorcycle/ TC 2 Rabbit Run Relo 2 0.11 5606 Lower Pine 0.76 Motorcycle/TC 2 Lower Pine Relo 0.5 5607 Pinion 0.27 Motorcycle/TC 2 Pinion Relo 0.43 5612 Poker Chip 0.22 Motorcycle/TC 2 Poker Chip Relo 0.3 5617 ATV Bypass 0.11 ATV 50 in. or less/TC 2 ATV Bypass Relo 0.12 5618 Gamble Oak 0.49 Motorcycle/TC 2 Gamble Oak Relo 0.86 5619 Coyote 0.36 Motorcycle/TC 2 Coyote Relo 0.33 Motorcycle/TC 2 Coyote-Chamisoso 5620 Coyote-Chamisoso Link 0.5 0.29 Link Relo 5624 Jackalope* 0.58 Motorcycle/TC 2 Jackalope Relo 1.2 5626 Rattlesnake 0.07 Motorcycle/TC 2 Rattleskake Relo 0.32 Meadow Singletrack 5632 Meadow Singletrack 0.31 Motorcycle/TC 2 0.56 Relo 5636 Pine Loop 0.28 Motorcycle/TC 2 Pine Loop Relo 0.62 Motorcycle/TC 2 Oak Flat Connector 5637 Oak Flat Connector 0.24 0.7 Relo Total Miles 6.43 Total Miles Relocated 10.23 Decommissioned 4. A portion of the proposed relocation of Jackalope and addition of Roadside Attraction are contingent upon needed improvements (to better ensure safe passage) to a culvert underneath NM Highway 337. Approval of design and construction by New Mexico Department of Transportation will be required for implementation. Improvements will include surfacing of culvert bottom as well as sound deadening. Design of improvements will be made in consultation with wildlife and hydrology specialists. 5. New trail additions (including designation of existing user created trails as well as new construction) totaling approximately 5.5 miles of trail to be designated as motorized single- track (motorcycle (to be added to the district MVUM)) and approximately 1 mile of trail designated for hiking only located in part at Ranger Rock and in part Coyote Trailhead. See table below and Map A-5 in Appendix A.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 25

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Table 2-8 – Cedro Landscape Trail Additions Aprox. Projected Trail Addition Name Current Status Miles Designation/Trail Class Middle-Cedro Singletrack Link 0.19 Existing user created Motorcycle/TC 2 Cedro Powerline Trail 0.55 Existing user created Motorcycle/TC 2 Ranger Rock Loop 0.23 Existing user created Hiker/TC 2 Oak Flats Addition 0.49 Existing user created Motorcycle/TC 2 Roadside Attraction Addition 1* 1.24 Existing user created Motorcycle/TC 2 Coyote Split Extension 1.09 Existing road bed Motorcycle/TC 2 Coyote Chamisoso Link Extension 0.15 Existing user created Motorcycle/TC 2 Tablazon Canyon Extension 0.39 Does not exist Motorcycle/TC 2 Coyote Trailhead Accessible Loop 0.47 Does not exist Hiker/ TC 4 Jackalope Addition 1.55 Does not exist Motorcycle/TC 2 Lower Pine Loop Addition 1.14 Does not exist Motorcycle/TC 2 Cedro Peak Extension 0.05 Does not exist Motorcycle/TC 2 Poker Chip Mahogany Link 0.49 Does not exist Motorcycle/TC 2 Total 8.03 N/A N/A 6. Thin trees within developed recreation sites while maintaining screening in order to establish and maintain uneven-age managed stands, reduce overhead hazards, and reduce hazardous fuel loading in and around sites. 7. Smaller trees will be left between picnic sites to create a screen, giving users privacy while enjoying the facilities. The majority of the wood cut from the recreation sites will be removed as fuel wood or timber sale. Cedro Campground, Pine Flat, and Oak Flat Picnic Areas may be closed during thinning operations to ensure the safety of the public, which would most likely take place between August and March. 8. Decommission Deadman Recreation Area and NFSR 515, which would include removing signs, kiosks, picnic tables, fences, demolishing and removing the toilets. 9. Locate fire rings for use in the dispersed camping corridors. Analyze the impacts of a forest closure order requiring fires to be built and maintained in the established fire ring in dispersed camping corridors. 2.3 Alterative C – No Herbicide Use Based upon comments received during the scoping period, a third alternative was developed to address the concerns of the use of herbicides to treat invasive plants in the project analysis areas. This alternative will include all treatments in Alternative B except herbicide use (please refer to Section 2.2 Alternative B). The alternative will read as follows for invasive species treatments. Invasive Plant Species Invasive plants within the Cedro Landscape Restoration analysis area would be inventoried, controlled, or contained without herbicides. The number of acres the District expects to treat per year would be based on size and extent of known populations, and detection of new populations. Invasive plant management would be implemented using an adaptive management strategy. This alternative would treat invasive plants using a combination of methods, including physical control, cultural control, and biological control, as described under Alternative B (p. 2-8). Where appropriate, invasive plant prevention is considered and included as a requirement in site- specific project planning and implementation, such as for vegetation management, facility construction, special uses, and other activities that can contribute to the spread of invasives.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 26

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Table 2-9 – Non-Herbicide Invasive Plant Treatment

Treatment Plant Name Comments Regarding Treatment Method Application Methods2

PHY: Effective if cut or pulled at base before seed production. Repeated mowing. Bull thistle PHY, CUL, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Cirsium vulgare BIO BIO: Some biological controls effective, but can compromise native thistles. Grazing on young plants can be effective. PHY: Handpull or dig to remove as much root as possible. Anticipate Camelthorn regrowth. PHY, CUL Alhagi pseudalhagi CUL: Establish alternative ground cover. BIO: N/A PHY: Repeat mowing to deplete stored energy in roots..Prescribed fire not recommended. Canada thistle PHY, CUL, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require Cirsium arvense BIO certified weed free hay. BIO: Some biological controls effective, but can compromise native thistles. PHY: Prescribed fire in combination with herbicide and reeseding efforts on large populations. Cheatgrass PHY, CUL, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require Bromus tectorum BIO certified weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. BIO: Early spring grazing prior to desirable cool season grass greenup. PHY: Hand pulling, digging, or hoeing can be effective for small infestations. Repeated treatments needed. Dalmatian toadflax CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require PHY,CUL Linaria genistifolla certified weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. BIO: Beetles, moths, or weevils as classical biological control agents, but limited. PHY: Hand pulling, digging, or hoeing can be effective for small infestations. Repeated treatments needed. Yellow toadflax CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require PHY, CUL Linaria vulgaris certified weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. BIO: Beetles, moths, or weevils as classical biological control agents, but limited. PHY: Hand pulling, digging, or hoeing can be effective for small infestations. Repeated treatments needed. White Top Cardaria PHY, CUL, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require draba BIO certified weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. BIO: Prescribed grazing with sheep or goats may be considered in combination with other methods. PHY: Effective if pulled or hoed before seed production. Sahara mustard CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require PHY, CUL Brassica tournefortii certified weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. BIO: N/A PHY: Effective if cut or pulled at base before seed production. Repeated Scotch Thistle mowing. PHY,CUL, Onopordum CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. BIO acanthium BIO: Some biological controls effective, but can comprimise native thistles. Grazing on young plants can be effective. PHY: Effective if pulled at base before seed production. Repeated Jointed goatgrass PHY, CUL, mowing each spring before seeds form. Sorghum halepense BIO CUL: Avoid excessive disturbance. Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas.

2 Codes used in this table are defined as follows: PHY - Physical; CU - Cultural; BIO – Biological

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 27

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Treatment Plant Name Comments Regarding Treatment Method Application Methods2

BIO: Consider high intensity grazing with cattle during winter and early spring.

PHY: Effective if cut or pulled at base before seed production. Repeated mowing. Musk thistle PHY, CUL, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Carduus nutans BIO BIO: Some biological controls effective, but can comprimise native thistles. Grazing on young plants can be effective. PHY: Hand pulling, digging, or hoeing can be effective for small infestations. Repeated treatments needed. Mowing at flower bud stage, Perennial followed by herbicide. PHY, CUL, pepperweed CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require BIO Lepidium latfolium certified weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. BIO: Prescribed grazing with sheep or goats may be considered in combination with other methods. PHY: Mow close to the ground multiple times during growing season and combine with herbicide. Poison hemlock PHY, CUL, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require Conium maculatum BIO certified weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. BIO: Some native pests including hemlock moth, and leaf rolling caterpillar. Do not graze poisonous to humans and livestock. PHY: Mow close to the ground multiple times during growing season and combine with herbicide. Hand pulling, hoeing effective but all root stock must be removed. Russian knapweed PHY, CUL, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require Centaurea repens BIO certified weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. BIO: A gall-forming nematode may be available. Possible late season grazing. PHY: Digging out saplings <3.5 inch diamter, larger trees extract with backhoe. Russian olive PHY, CUL, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Reeseeding Elaegnus BIO efforts. angustifolia BIO: Trained goats to browse seedlings and young trees in a short term prescribed grazing approach. PHY: Excavation, grubbing. Saltcedar CUL: N/A Tamarix sp. PHY, BIO BIO: Tamarisk beetles (Diorhabdqa carinulata). Trained goats to browse

seedlings and young trees in a short term prescribed grazing approach. PHY: Newly emerged seedlings and saplings with a stem diameter less than 3/8 inch are easily removed by hand pulling or hoeing. Siberian elm PHY, CUL, CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Reeseeding Ulmus pumila BIO efforts. BIO: Some browsing with trained goats may be effective combined with other techniques. PHY: Mow close to the ground multiple times during growing season and combine with herbicide. Hand pulling, hoeing effective but all root stock Spotted knapweed must be removed. PHY, CUL, Centaurea CUL: Implement requirements for vehicles in infested areas. Require BIO maculosa certified weed free hay. Reeseeding efforts. BIO: A gall-forming nematode may be available. Possible late season grazing.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 28

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Treatment Plant Name Comments Regarding Treatment Method Application Methods2

PHY: Hand pull or dig out very young seedlings. Cut top growth with loppers, power saws etc. followed by herbicide treatment. Tree of Heaven PHY, CUL, CUL: After removal monitor for root sprouts, bag and dispose of seed in Ailanthus altissima BIO landfill. BIO: Use of goats followed by herbicide treatment.

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Analysis Based on comments received during scoping an additional alternative was considered but eliminated from further analysis. This alternative would have included the vegetation and fire management treatments described in Alternative B but excluded elimination/removal of non- system trails as well as prohibitions on cross country travel by mountain bikers and equestrians (thereby limiting their travel to designated trails). Such an alternative would continue to allow the existence and further development of non-system trails. These unmanaged and non-designed trails contribute to resource damage (i.e. soil erosion) and lead to long-lasting and unsustainable recreation management problems. It has been determined that further analysis of this alternative is not necessary because it does not meet the purpose and need or restoration objectives of this project. 2.5 Design Criteria Common to Action Alternatives

Vegetation Restoration • Retain native deciduous species (oak, mountain mahogany, box elder, etc) 10 inches DRC and larger. Species less than 10 inches DRC would be retained within groups where retention would not compromise treatment objectives. • Retain mature (flattened crowns, red/yellow plated bark, little taper) ponderosa pine, regardless of size. • Maintain the mix of native tree species that currently exists. For example, if the area currently has 60% Pinyon pine, 25% Juniper and 15% Ponderosa pine, that same approximate ratio would exist after treatment. Trees that are healthy and could be reasonably expected to have longevity would be favored over less healthy, vigorous trees. • Ips Beetles - Create activity slash only between July through December unless woody material 3-inches or more in diameter can be removed within 30 days of being created; or unless the potential for Ips infestation is determined to be low. Avoid creating activity slash in the same area multiple years. Remove as much woody material 3inches or more in diameter from the site as possible. Promptly treat slash through lop/scatter, chipping, hand pile burning or prescribed burning. Accomplish chipping or masticating in the fall (after August) and early winter when beetles are not actively flying. Don’t allow concentrations of chipped/masticated material to accumulate over 3 inches in depth or lie immediately adjacent to live standing trees. Distribute chipped/masticated materials on slopes where they would dry quickly. Don’t consider burning of woody material to be an effective treatment for Pinyon Ips unless accomplished before beetles emerge from the woody material. Avoid mechanical damage to residual trees and their root systems to reduce risk of attracting bark

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 29

Chapter 2. Alternatives

beetles. Monitor slash during and after treatment for Ips beetle infestation. If found, contact Forest Silviculturist. • Dispose of all activity slash within seen area or up to approximately 200 feet on either side of roads and trails where the VQO (Visual Quality Objective) is retention. Retain/enhance retention by Landscape Architect (LA) specifying GSL, DBH and vista opportunities appropriate to each site and coordinated with special GSL and old growth requirements for wildlife. Use slash disposal techniques appropriate for given area. • Where the foreground VQO is partial retention, the following will be required: Dispose of all activity slash occurring within 200 feet of recreation sites, forest trails, forest roads, and paved or all-weather roads. Slash will be disposed of within 1 growing season after completion of the project which generates the slash. Regain/enhance partial retention areas by having the LA specify GSL, DBH and vista opportunities appropriate to a given site. Use slash disposal techniques appropriate for given area. • Newly created tree stumps in thinning areas will have cut-face away from any recreation sites, trails, or roads within 200 feet of the stumps. • Stumps would be cut to a 6 inch height throughout the project area. Within the immediate foreground areas (up to 300 feet) of trails, the face cut of stumps would be directed away from the trail, where possible. • Approximately 70% or more of the activity generated slash smaller than three inches in diameter within the immediate foreground (300 feet) of area trails and residences would be hand piled and burned, to meet visual quality objectives in Alternative B. • Piles created in the immediate foreground would be burned to achieve 95% or more consumption, and following burning, unconsumed slash will be scattered and the ground will be seeded with the approved seed mixture for this area. The burning of piles created within the immediate foreground between June and September of any year should be burned in September-November of that same year unless fuel or weather conditions are not conducive to attainment of the 95% consumption objective. These piles would be burned the following spring as soon as conditions permit. Piles created during a winter harvest operation would not be burned until the following September-November period. • Slash will be scattered within the foreground of area trails to reduce visual impacts. • Treatments applied within 300 feet of the 3 recreation day use sites within the project boundary will include keeping stump heights to below six inches, and considering options to reduce slash such as chipping and scattering. The chipped material in the recreation sites will be spread at a depth of 0-2 inches. • For roads and trails, water bars or other appropriate drainage structures will be constructed to divert runoff from the road surface at intervals sufficient to prevent rutting during rain events. For a road segment located on a side slope, runoff patterns are restored to as near natural as practicable by pulling the fill material up and blending it with the natural ground. • Project crews should use BMPs outlined in the USFS Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.22) and further described in Appendix B to limit impacts to watershed, soil, and riparian resources. a) Servicing and Refueling Equipment

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 30

Chapter 2. Alternatives

b) Prescribed Burning Treatments c) Wetland, Spring, Seep, and Meadow Protection during Tree Removal Activities d) Slash Treatments in Sensitive Areas e) Log Landing Location f) Treatment of Ephemeral and Intermittent Drainages g) SMZ Designation h) Stream Channel and Wetland Protection i) Use of Project Area Maps for Designating Stream Courses for Water Quality Protection • Stream channels and riparian areas will have a 300 foot buffer established around them where mechanized and motorized activities would not be allowed. • Springs will be protected by a 500 foot buffer. • Pile placement or jackpot burning (igniting concentrations of fuels on the forest floor, whether they are natural fuels or fuels resulting from treatment) should not be allowed on or within 300 feet of water resource features such as ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial channels and riparian areas. • Water barring and other practices as needed would be used on the roads and trails after completion to improve drainage and address related effects such as erosion. • Downed woody material would be retained or returned to the sites after proposed activities to ensure appropriate levels to maintain soil quality are present. • The areas where soil condition is less than satisfactory or where erosion hazard is severe would not be open to public fuelwood collecting to limit the amount of soil disturbance. • The depth of masticated material would not exceed 3 inches. • Pile burning would only be used when wood loads are too great to be treated any other way. • Piles would not exceed 10 feet by 10 feet and 5-10 piles per acre. Piles will be burned in the winter with a snowpack. • Best Management Practices (BMPs) for smoke management and compliance with Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board /Air Quality Bureau would mitigate smoke impacts derived from fuel treatment activities. Compliance with the BCAQB would ensure that Clean Air Act requirements are met. • Local area fire weather forecasts will be monitored daily before and during the implementation of any prescribed burn. Spot weather forecasts will be obtained daily for the operational periods of the burn. On-site weather readings will be monitored during operational periods as directed by the burn boss. • The Burn Boss will ensure that the project complies with all local, county, state, and federal air quality regulations. The project will be registered with the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board /Air Quality Bureau at least 2 weeks prior to implementation. Notification will be given 24-48 hours prior to ignition and a copy of the spot weather forecast will be faxed to the Sandia Ranger District. A copy of the smoke monitoring report will also be faxed. Coordination between the Albuquerque zone dispatch center, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board, and neighboring agencies

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 31

Chapter 2. Alternatives

will be established. Burn will be terminated if Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board or the National Weather Service issues an air stagnation alert. Heritage Resources • During mechanical thinning, all listed, eligible and unevaluated cultural sites should be flagged for avoidance prior to the implementation of mechanical treatments. All sites should be hand-thinned following mechanical treatments, as described below: a) Cutting is accomplished using hand tools only; b) Large diameter trees are felled away from all features; c) Materials removed from the site are removed by hand; d) No dragging of logs, trees, or thinned material across or within site boundaries; e) No use of vehicles or other mechanized equipment within site boundaries; f) No staging of equipment within site boundaries; g) No slash piles within site boundaries; and h) An archaeological monitor should be present during the thinning of sites with visible architecture. • If areas that have been thinned are going to be opened up to fuelwood collection, sites must be flagged prior to allowing collection in the area. Material thinned from the sites must be removed by hand from site boundaries prior to fuelwood collection. Logs, trees or thinned material should not be dragged across or within site boundaries. Vehicles or other mechanized equipment are not allowed within site boundaries during either hand thinning or fuelwood collection. Flagging needs to be removed prior to the area being opened to fuelwood removal. • To ensure the protection of fire sensitive sites during prescribe burning , various combinations of the following protection measures may be approved by the Forest Archaeologist to protect sites for projects listed in Appendix J of the First Amended Programmatic Agreement, for Large-Scale Fuels Reduction, Vegetation Treatment, and Habitat Improvement Projects. The protection measures do not require additional consultation with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO): a) Exclude from project area; b) Hand line; c) Black line; d) Wet line; e) Foam retardant; f) Structural fire shelter; g) Remove heavy fuels from site by hand; h) Prevent in-situ heavy fuels that cannot be removed from ignition (e.g., flush-cut & bury stumps); and i) Implement same protective measures for future maintenance burns. • Protect selected other sites from burning (optional). • Allow burning over non fire-sensitive sites provided: j) No ignition points within site boundaries

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 32

Chapter 2. Alternatives

k) No staging of equipment within site boundaries l) No slash piles within site boundaries. m) Allow construction of safety zones and additional lines in 100% surveyed areas, with archaeological monitoring as appropriate to assure historic properties are avoided. • Sites along Cedro Creek should be flagged prior to project implementation to ensure that project activities do not negatively affect cultural resources. Part of the original Cedro Creek proposal involved placement of dams along the creek. As there are some sites that fall within the floodplain, care should be taken to ensure that dams are placed in areas where increased water build up will not negatively affect archaeological sites (i.e. increase potential flooding resources during heavy flow). Also, two additional unevaluated and eligible sites (03-03-05- 00999 and 03-03-05-01015) that were discovered and documented in the area proposed for wetland rehabilitation. These sites should not be disturbed by project activities. Although site 03-03-05-01015 is currently being used as a trail, a back hoe should not make improvements along this segment of trail. • Use Appendix F of the First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities, Standard Consultation Protocol for Noxious Weed Control to determine which treatment activities require consultation, and protection measures for historic properties. Treatment methods that do not require further consultation include:

o Cultural methods using native species to control weeds that do not involve ground or surface disturbance. o Herbicide spray projects that will not affect properties of traditional cultural and religious value identified by tribes. o Hand treatments that involve little or no ground or surface disturbance, e.g. flower and seed head removal from annual plants, hand pulling young plants without the use of tools. • For other projects involving mechanized, grazing, prescribed burning, and other manual treatment methods, Section 106 consultation will be required. The types of manual treatments that will require Section 106 consultation include those treatments that involve digging or prying with hand tools such as shovels, pulaskis, or hoes, or mechanized tools that cause ground disturbance. The Forest Archaeologist, in consultation with the District Archaeologist, will assess proposals to use hand tools on a case-by-case basis to determine if consultation is required, or if it may be considered an undertaking exempt from consultation because of limited impact, or if the activity is to occur in an area previously surveyed with no historic properties identified. • Areas targeted for treatment using methods that are subject to further Section 106 consultation will be assessed by the Forest Archaeologist to determine the appropriate level of inventory needed in order to identify and assess effects to historic properties. If sites are present, the Forest Archaeologist will draw from, but not be limited to the following measures to ensure that effects to historic properties are avoided or minimized. • Using the following protection measures and situations may lead to a finding of “No Historic Properties Affected”:

o Prohibit mechanical treatments within site boundaries

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 33

Chapter 2. Alternatives

o Prohibit use or staging of ground disturbing mechanized equipment within site boundaries. o Prohibit pile burning within site boundaries o Allow broadcast burning of plants on sites, provide that fire-sensitive sites are protected o Allow low-impact or low-intensity hand tool treatments within site boundaries, e.g. using hand tools to pull a few scattered, herbaceous plants, torch burning individual plants, subject to approval by the Forest Archaeologist. • The following protection measures and situations are appropriate for a finding of “No Adverse Effect”:

o Allow other hand tool treatments within site boundaries, e.g. grubbing out larger, established woody plants with a Pulaski or hoe, provided the treatment is designed to minimize surface disturbance, based on the nature of the site and the nature of the treatment, subject to approval by the Forest Archaeologist. o Other treatments within the boundaries of eligible or unevaluated sites if the Forest and the SHPO agree that the activities will have no adverse effect on historic properties. • Previously unrecorded properties that are encountered during the course of project activities shall be protected in the same manner as other historic properties. If a forest heritage resource specialist determines that the property has been damaged, the District shall halt all activities that could result in further damage to the property and shall notify the SHPO concerning proposed actions to resolve adverse effects. • The portion of Bear Scat Trail that runs through four sites would only be used by contract crews during project implementation. It would be off limits to fuelwood sales. Wildlife • This project would be implemented in phases for the treatments types mentioned in Chapter 1 Proposed Action, so that fuel reduction activities and wood product removal can occur while providing mitigation for the unintentional take of migratory birds. The recommended Migratory Bird timing restriction for no management activity is from April 1st-July 31st. This timing restriction would be implemented annually on 2/3 of the project area, while on 1/3 activity would occur throughout the year. • The implementation of any of the proposed thinning activities within northern goshawk PFA’s and Nest Areas would occur from October 1st - February 28th. • A dispersal PFA will be designated based on forest plan direction (pg. 71-7). No timing restrictions would apply in this area; however, the desired condition for PFAs would be created within the dispersal area. • High intensity crown fires are not acceptable in the post-fledging family area or nest areas. Low intensity ground fires are allowed at any time in all forested cover types. Avoid burning the entire home range of a goshawk pair in a single year. For fires planned in the occupied nest area, a fire management plan should be prepared. The fire management plan should minimize the risk of goshawk abandonment while low intensity ground fire burns in the

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 34

Chapter 2. Alternatives

nesting area. Prescribed fire within nesting areas should be planned to move with prevailing winds away from the nest tree to minimize smoke and risk of crown fire developing and driving the adults off or consuming the nest tree. • In forested habitats, retain at least 2 snags per acre greater than 18 inches DBH and 30 feet tall, 3 downed logs per acre that are over 12 inches in diameter and 8 feet long, and 5-7 tons of woody debris per acre 3 inches or larger, except within fuel breaks and adjacent to control lines where retention would compromise fire fighter safety. Snags and logs that do not compromise fire fighter safety are to be left. Lighting techniques that allow for the retention of large logs and snags should be used. • Large, downed woody materials (12-inch diameter midpoint and greater) and snags would be retained within riparian areas. • Skid trails, landings and other intensely disturbed areas would be seeded with an approved native grass/forb/shrub seed mix. • For “occupied” sensitive wildlife species habitat where individuals in the population may be negatively impacted, consult with the Forest biologist on invasive species treatment methods that have been documented to have low risk to wildlife species. Apply mitigation measures that minimize those negative impacts to individuals while continuing to maintain population viability and avoid a trend toward Federal listing. Invasive Plant Species Treatment – Alternative B Only • Herbicides will not be used unless they have been registered for use by the EPA and have undergone Forest Service approved risk assessments. All EPA label requirements (including limitations) will be strictly followed. • In areas of human habitation or high use such as a recreation site, administrative site, or area where people often collect plants, the treatment method must have been documented to be low risk in areas of human occupation and use. Examples include non-herbicide methods or herbicides rated as having a very low risk of harmful effects to humans. • Herbicides may only be applied by a trained applicator under supervision of a licensed applicator, in accordance with Forest Service directives. • Herbicide use will comply with the direction in Chapter 2150 of FSM 2100 - Environmental Management (USDA FS, R3 2004), including the requirement that a Pesticide (Herbicide) Use Proposal (form FS-2100-2) be completed for all proposed herbicide uses on national forest system lands. • A Pesticide Use Proposal, for use of pesticides (herbicides) in wilderness, will be approved by the Regional Forester as specified in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2151.04a and 2109.14 Section 13. • Herbicide applicators will have the chemical spill plan and emergency cleanup kit onsite during treatments. The spill plan identifies methods to avoid accidental spills as well as how to report and clean up spills. The kit will contain appropriate spill cleanup supplies. • Workers will be required to wear personal protective equipment as required in the FS Safety Handbook.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 35

Chapter 2. Alternatives

• A Pesticide (Herbicide) Application Record will be completed daily for each project area detailing the herbicide application, treatment area, target species distribution and density, weather conditions, and recommendations for follow-up treatments or rehabilitation. • To further notify forest visitors and users, signs regarding herbicide use will be placed at access points to treatment areas prior to herbicide application. Signs will include the herbicide to be used, locations, effective dates, and phone number for acquiring more information. • Herbicide application methods will be limited to localized, ground-based spot, or broadcast spraying. In areas with sensitive vegetation, spot application will be used to treat individual invasive plants to protect native vegetation. • Mixing and loading of herbicides will not occur within 300 feet of live water, and will adhere to the other mitigations measures listed in the Chemical Spill Plan (see Appendix E). • No locations for herbicide treatment of invasive species are currently proposed for aquatic sites. In the event that some herbicide use in or near aquatic environments becomes necessary in the future, buffers will be established as described above. • Herbicide would not be applied near surface waters. • Heavy mechanized equipment such as tractors with tillers or mowers will not be used on slopes over 40 percent, to minimize erosion potential. • In riparian areas or next to live water bodies containing fish, methods used must have been documented to have low risk to aquatic species and be labeled for use in this type of area. • For “occupied” Prairie dog towns spot applications should occur in place of broadcast spraying so that treatment scale and harm to habitat is reduced. In addition, herbicides should only be applied once per year in these areas. • Herbicide applications will be limited to those herbicides and application rates documented to have a low risk to wildlife species. In addition, herbicides rated as Class 2 in the Avian Predator Toxicity Group (e.g. Dicamba) will not be used in occupied or unsurveyed habitat of these species. Invasive Plant Species Treatment – Alternatives B & C • Where treatments result in large amounts of dead vegetation that is easily viewed from recreation sites, trails or roads, and detracting from scenic values, remove that vegetation and replant where needed. This is to limit degrading scenic quality. • Traffic control and signing during treatment operations will be used as necessary to ensure safety of workers and the public. Recreation sites, roads, trails, or other areas scheduled for treatment may be temporarily closed during treatment activities to ensure public safety. • Invasive plant treatments will be coordinated with potentially affected adjacent landowners. Cooperative efforts on adjacent lands would increase treatment effectiveness and the ability to meet invasive plant control objectives. • Vehicles used for treatments will be properly cleaned of any plant or plant parts prior to entering national forest system lands and again before leaving the treated area to avoid further spread of invasives.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 36

Chapter 2. Alternatives

• Where treatments result in exposing bare mineral soil, those sites will be evaluated to determine the need for revegetation (seeding and/or planting), mulching, or other erosion or sediment control measures. The evaluation would consider the potential for subsequent re- invasion by invasive species, potential for erosion, water runoff, and/or stream sedimentation. Where seeding is used, certified “weed-free” seed will be required. Seed mixes will be based on site-specific conditions and objectives. • All invasive plants or parts of plants that are mechanically or hand excavated after flower bud stage will be double bagged and properly disposed of at an approved facility (e.g. covered landfill). • Use of prescribed fire must adhere to restrictions contained in the Forest Plan and agency directives, requirements for detailed burn prescriptions, and other requirements intended to avoid unexpected consequences. • Minimize introduction of and control new infestation of weeds discovered in project area. Require inspection and cleaning of equipment and vehicles involved in implementation of the project. Monitoring 1. Invasive plant inventories and mapping will be conducted as budgets allow, and treatment of newly found populations will be identified and prioritized based on criteria in the EA. 2. Monitor potential sources of introduction of invasive species into the project area; included are rehabilitation of trails, roads etc through grass establishment. 3. Smoke conditions must be monitored carefully to assess potential impacts to highway traffic and populated areas. Monitoring should be visual and also may include instrument monitoring. Adequate ventilation or winds that carry smoke away from traffic or populated areas may be required to minimize impacts. The Burn Boss will determine if conditions are favorable at time of ignition. 4. Precautions should be taken to ensure that the archaeological sites which may be fire sensitive are monitored before the onset of the proposed prescribe burns. Several of the possibly fire sensitive sites are located in areas with high fuel loads. In order to ensure that these sites are not subjected to damage from higher temperatures and prolonged exposure to heat, it is recommended that all possibly fire sensitive sites are monitored by a professional archaeologist prior to fire treatment plans. Depending upon the estimated fuel load and previous fire exposure, fuel loads and types that would adversely impact cultural material should be removed from sites prior to prescribed burns. It is essential that this effort is coordinated with the district or forest archaeologist. An archaeological monitor may be necessary to ensure that removal of fuels does not result in damage to sites. 2.6 New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles This project has considered all of the guidelines associated with the New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles. 1. Collaborate. Landscape scale assessment, and project design, analysis, implementation and monitoring should be carried out collaboratively by actively engaging a balanced and diverse group of stakeholders. Collaboration has occurred during all phases of the analysis and continues with a varied group of stakeholders, including known interested

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 37

Chapter 2. Alternatives

individuals and organizations, environmental and tribal groups, and governmental agencies at local, state and federal levels (EA, Chapter 1 Public Involvement Section, Chapter 4, and Project Record). 2. Reduce the threat of unnatural crown fire. A key restoration priority must be moving stands toward a more natural restored condition and the reduction of the risk of unnatural crown fires both within stands and across landscapes. Specific restoration strategies should vary based on forest vegetation type, fire regime, local conditions, and local management objectives. Forests and woodlands characterized by infrequent and mixed- severity fire should be managed toward a stand structure consistent with their historical ranges of variation—including, in some cases, high-density, continuous stands. Discontinuous stand structure may be appropriate to meet community protection objectives in areas such as the wildland urban interface for these forest and woodland types. Reducing the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire is part of the purpose and need of this analysis (EA, Chapters 1 and 3, Fire/Fuels Specialists Report). 3. Prioritize and strategically target treatment areas. Key considerations for prioritizing restoration treatment areas are: degree of unnatural crown fire risk, proximity to human developments and important watersheds, protection of old growth forests and habitats of federally threatened, endangered, or listed sensitive species, and strategic positioning to break up landscape-scale continuity of hazardous fuels. Treatments should be done at a landscape scale to decrease forest vulnerability to unnatural stand-replacing fire. This priority setting should take place during fire management planning, land management planning, and community wildfire protection planning. See discussion in Background and Purpose and Need sections, Proposed Action, Treatment Types, CWPP, allocated old growth for Ponderosa Pine and woodland veg types (EA, Chapter 1, Fire/Fuels Specialists Report). 4. Develop site-specific reference conditions. Site-specific historical ecological data can provide information on the natural range of variability for key forest attributes, such as tree age structure and fire regimes that furnish local “reference conditions” for restoration design. A variety of constraints, however, prevent the development of historical information on every hectare of land needing restoration. General goals should be to restore ecological integrity and function. The varied specialist reports and analyses are based on site-specific inventory information and were used as a basis to restore ecological integrity and function such as soil conditions, potential natural vegetation (PNV) and fire regime for Ponderosa Pine and woodland vegetation types (EA, Chapter 3). 5. Use low-impact techniques. Restoration treatments should strive to use the least disruptive techniques, and balance intensity and extensiveness of treatments. In many areas, conservative initial treatments would be the minimum necessary to adequately reduce the threat of unnatural crown fire. Wildland fire use or management-ignited fires may be sufficient to re-establish natural conditions in many locations. In the extensive areas where fire alone cannot safely reduce tree densities and hazardous ladder fuels, mechanical thinning of trees may be needed before the introduction of prescribed fire. Patient, effective treatments would provide more options for the future than aggressive attempts to restore 120 years of change at once. In certain areas, however, such as some wildland urban interfaces (WUIs), trade-offs with imminent crown fire risks require considerations of rapid, heavy thinning of mostly small diameter trees. A variety of tools,

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 38

Chapter 2. Alternatives

ranging from hand thinning to mechanical harvesting to prescribed fire, and mitigations would be used to meet treatment objectives. Mechanical treatments are strategically placed so prescribed fire can be used at a landscape scale as the primary restoration tool. (EA, Chapter 2). 6. Utilize existing forest structure. Restoration efforts should incorporate and build upon valuable existing forest structures, such as large trees, and groups of trees of any size with interlocking crowns, excluding aspen (Populus sp.). These features are important for some wildlife species, such as Abert’s squirrel and northern goshawk, and should not be removed completely just to recreate specific historical tree locations. Since evidence of long-term stability of precise tree locations is lacking, especially for piñon and juniper, the selection of “leave” trees and tree clusters in restoration treatments can be based on the contemporary spatial distribution of trees, rather than pre-1900 tree positions. Maximizing use of existing forest structure can restore historical forest structure conditions more quickly. Leaving some relatively dense within-stand patches of trees need not compromise efforts to reduce landscape-scale crown fire risk. The underlying successional processes of natural tree regeneration and mortality should be incorporated into restoration design. Southwestern conifer regeneration occurs in episodic, often region-wide pulses, linked to wet-warm climate conditions and reduced fire occurrence. Periods with major regeneration pulses in the Southwest occurred in the 1910s–1920 and 1978–1998. Some of this regeneration would have survived under natural conditions. Restoration efforts should retain a proportion of these cohorts. Working with and retaining, to the extent possible commensurate with project objectives, existing forest structure (including large trees) is an integral part of the design of this project (EA, Proposed Action and Desired Condition, Chapter1 and 2). 7. Restore ecosystem composition. Missing or diminished compositional elements, such as herbaceous understories, or extirpated species also require restoration attention. The forest understory, including shrubs, grasses, forbs, snags, and downed logs, is an important ecosystem component that directly affects tree regeneration patterns, fire behavior, watershed functioning, wildlife habitat, and overall patterns of biodiversity. Similarly, soil organisms, such as mycorrhizal fungi, are vital elements that can influence community composition and dynamics. A robust understory provides a restraint on tree regeneration and is essential for carrying surface fires. The establishment and maintenance of more natural patterns of understory vegetation diversity and abundance are integral to ecological restoration. Restoration planning should include the conservation of habitats for diminished or extirpated wildlife species. Comprehensive forest ecosystem restoration requires balancing fire risk reduction with retention of forest structures necessary for canopy-dependent species. Recovery plans and conservation plans for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species should be incorporated to the fullest extent possible in planning for comprehensive forest restoration (EA, Chapters 2 and 3). 8. Protect and maintain watershed and soil integrity. Low impact treatments would minimize sedimentation, disruption of surface runoff, and other detrimental ecosystem effects. Equipment and techniques should be managed according to soil and water conservation “best management practices” applicable to site-specific soil types, physiographic and hydrological functions.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 39

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Reconstruction, maintenance, or decommissioning of existing roads to correct for poor hydrologic alignment and drainage condition can greatly reduce soil loss and sedimentation rates. Projects should strive for no net increase in road density. Managing forest density and fuels to avoid uncharacteristically intense wildfire events would reduce the likelihood of uncharacteristic post-fire soil erosion and nutrient depletion from forested landscapes. Soil productivity should be protected and maintained by avoiding soil loss and compaction, and managing for on-site nutrient retention. Avoid repeated whole tree biomass removal from the forest to maximize nutrient retention. Whenever feasible, green foliage should be recycled by scattering on site followed by prescribed burning to release stored nutrients (EA, Chapter 2 and 3 and Soil and Water Resources Specialist Report). 9. Preserve old or large trees while maintaining structural diversity and resilience. Large and old trees, especially those established before ecosystem disruption by Euro- American settlement, are important forest components and critical to functionality of ecosystem processes. Their size and structural complexity provide critical wildlife habitat by broadly contributing crown cover, influencing understory vegetation patterns, and providing future snags. Ecological restoration should manage to ensure the continuing presence of large and old trees, both at the stand and landscape levels. This includes preserving the largest and oldest trees from cutting and crown fires, focusing treatments on excess numbers of small young trees. Develop “desired” forest condition objectives that favor the presence of both abundant large-diameter trees and an appropriate distribution of age classes on the landscape, with a wide distribution of older trees. It is generally advisable to maintain ponderosa pines larger than 16 inches DBH and other trees with old growth morphology regardless of size (e.g., yellow-barked ponderosa pine or any species with large drooping limbs, twisted trunks, or flattened tops). Treatments should also focus on achievement of spatial forest diversity by managing for variable densities. Overall, forest densities should be managed to maintain tree vigor and stand resiliency to natural disturbances. Disease conditions are managed to retain some presence of native forest pathogens on the landscape, but constrained so that forest sustainability is not jeopardized. Guidelines must provide opportunities to apply differing site-specific management strategies to work towards attainment of these goals and recognize that achievement may sometimes require more than one entry. Stand level even-aged management may be appropriate for some objectives, including disease management, post-wildfire tree regeneration, accelerating development of old growth characteristics, or for forest types for which even-aged stands are characteristic, such as spruce (Picea sp.) or aspen. Treatments should be identified through collaboration with key stakeholders. Some ponderosa pine forests contain extremely old trees and dead wood remnants that may be small but are important because they contain unique and rare scientific information in their growth rings. Such trees have become increasingly rare in the late twentieth century, and the initial reintroduction of fire often consumes these tree- ring resources. Restoration programs should preserve them where possible. The existing condition for both ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper woodland is deficient of trees greater than 16 DBH and DRC. This project proposes to not cut any trees over this diameter to assist in moving the area to desired condition (EA, Chapters 2 and 3).

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 40

Chapter 2. Alternatives

10. Manage to restore historic tree species composition. Forest density levels and the presence of fire in the ecosystem are key regulators of tree species composition. Where fire suppression has allowed fire-sensitive trees like junipers or shade-tolerant white fir or spruce to become abundant in historical ponderosa pine forests, treatments should restore dominance of more fire-resistant ponderosa pines. However, fire intolerant species sometimes make up the only remaining large tree component in a stand. Retention of these large trees is important to canopy-dependent wildlife species. In mixed conifer forests, landscapes should be managed for composition and structure that approximates the natural range of variability (EA, Chapters 2 and 3 and Vegetation Specialist report). 11. Integrate process and structure. Ecological sustainability requires the restoration of process and structure. Natural disturbance processes, including fire, insect outbreaks, and droughts, are irreplaceable shapers of the forest. In particular, fire regimes and stand structures interact and must be restored in an integrated way; mechanical thinning alone would not re-establish necessary natural disturbance regimes. At the same time, fire alone may be too imprecise or unsafe in many settings, so a combination of treatments may often be the safest and most certain restoration approach. The single best indicator of whether a proposed approach should be considered as “ecological restoration” is to evaluate if the treatment would help successfully restore the fire regime that is natural for that forest type. Approaches that do not restore natural fire regimes would not achieve full ecological restoration (EA, Chapter 3, Vegetation and Fuels Specialist Reports). 12. Control and avoid using exotic species. Seeding of exotic grasses and forbs should be prohibited as ecologically incompatible with good restoration. Once established, exotic species can be extremely difficult or impossible to remove. Seeding should be conducted with certified or weed free seeds to reduce the risk of contamination by invasive species or varieties. In general, it is ecologically desirable to allow native herbaceous vegetation to recover incrementally unless there is potential for serious soil erosion or the potential for establishment of invasive plants. If enhancement of herbaceous vegetation is needed, especially for road closures and recovery, using locally sourced native seeds or transplanting individuals from nearby areas into treatments is ecologically desirable. Restoration treatments should also routinely incorporate early actions to control the establishment and spread of aggressive exotics that can be expected from restoration- related site disturbance. Purpose and Need describes the need to eradicate and/or control exotic/invasive species (EA, Purpose and Need, Chapter 3). 13. Foster regional heterogeneity. Biological communities vary at local, landscape, and regional scales, and so should restoration efforts. Ecological restoration should also incorporate the natural variability of disturbance regimes across heterogeneous landscapes. Heterogeneity should be fostered in planning and implementing ecological restoration and all spatial scales, including within and between stands, and across landscape and regional scales (EA, Chapter 3, Vegetation and Wildlife Specialist reports—specifically the analysis at the Ecosystem Management Area scale and associated Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands Land Management Plan direction). 14. Protect sensitive communities. Certain ecological communities embedded within ponderosa pine or other types of forests and some riparian areas, could be adversely affected by on-site prescribed burning or mechanical thinning. Restoration efforts should

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 41

Chapter 2. Alternatives

protect these and other rare or sensitive habitats, which are often hotspots of biological diversity, particularly those that are declining in abundance and quality in the region (EA, Chapter 3 Wildlife Specialists report). 15. Plan for restoration using a landscape perspective that recognizes cumulative effects. Forest restoration projects should be linked to landscape assessments that identify historical range of variation (reference condition), current condition, restoration targets, and cumulative effects of management. Ecosystems are hierarchical; changing conditions at one level arise from processes occurring at lower levels and are constrained, in turn, by higher levels. The landscape perspective captures these complex relationships by linking resources and processes to the larger forest ecosystem. Forest restoration projects should incorporate plans for long-term maintenance of ecological processes (EA, Chapter 2 and 3, specifically the Purpose and Need and Proposed Action which includes maintenance as monitoring data show that desired conditions are surpassing thresholds). 16. Manage grazing. Grass, forbs, and shrub understories are essential to plant and animal diversity and soil stability. Robust understories are also necessary to restore natural fire regimes and to limit excessive tree seedling establishment. Where possible, livestock grazing after treatment should be deferred until the herbaceous layer has established its current potential structure, composition, and function. Sandia RD has not permitted grazing since the 1950’s. 17. Establish monitoring and research programs and implement adaptive management. Well-designed monitoring, research, and documentation are essential to evaluate and adapt ongoing restoration efforts. Monitoring programs must be in place prior to treatment and must evaluate responses of key ecosystem components and processes at multiple scales. Use research and monitoring results from a variety of sources to adjust and develop future restoration treatments. When possible, restoration projects should be set up as experiments with replicates and controls to test alternative hypotheses. The locations and prescriptions for all restoration treatments should be archived in a geographic information system (GIS), so that land managers and researchers have access to site-specific records of restoration treatments. Monitoring would occur during all phases of project implementation. In addition the Cibola NF&NG will actively seek out partners with an interest in restoration to assist with monitoring. 18. Exercise caution and use site-specific knowledge in restoring or managing piñon-juniper ecosystems and other woodlands and savannas. These systems are diverse and complex. Knowledge of local reference structure, composition, processes, and disturbance regimes is lacking or uncertain for many piñon-juniper ecosystem types. Given the diversity, variability, and complexity of piñon-juniper systems, identification of local reference conditions is critical to the development of restoration objectives. Exercise caution and use best available science and site-specific knowledge in planning and implementing ecological restoration projects. Active management may be appropriate to mitigate soil erosion, community wildland fire hazard, or degraded hydrologic function in cases where historical ecological dynamics are insufficiently understood to justify ecological restoration. Piñon-juniper sites may be particularly susceptible to ecological damage from treatments; for example, soil erosion and invasion by invasive plants. The varied specialist reports and analyses are based on site specific inventory information and were used as a basis to restore ecological integrity and function (EA, Desired Condition, Proposed Action, Chapter 3).

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 42

Chapter 2. Alternatives

2.7 Comparison of Alternatives Table 2-10 summarizes the differences among the alternatives and compares each of the alternatives against resource indicators.

Table 2-10 – Comparison of Alternatives Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Resource Indicator No Action Proposed Action No Herbicide Vegetation treatments 0 4,650 acres 4,650 acres Fuelwood gathering 0 4,650 ac 4,650 ac Prescribe burning 0 10,980 ac 10,980 ac Riparian area improvement 0 113 ac 113 ac Physical, cultural, Physical, Invasive plant treatments None biological, & cultural, & chemical biological Cross-country non-pedestrian travel closure 0 Unauthorized road & trail closure 0 6.5 miles 6.5 miles Trail relocation 0 10.5 mi 10.5 mi Trail construction 0 5.5 mi 5.5 mi Thinning in Cedro Campground & Oak Flat No Yes Yes & Pine Flat Picnic Areas Deadman Rec. Area decommissioning No Yes Yes Fire ring installation No Yes Yes

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 43

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

3 Environmental Consequences This section summarizes the physical, biological, and social environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. Complete specialist reports are in the project record. 3.1 Vegetation Affected Environment Overall (all forest types), trees larger than 16 inches in diameter (at either diameter breast height or diameter root collar) are deficient. A Northern Goshawk dispersal PFA has been established in the southern portion of the project area in the general vicinity of Deadman Recreation Area. Dwarf Mistletoe – As noted in the individual forest type narratives, mistletoe occurs at overall non-existent to low infection levels. Moderate or higher levels of infection are found in the pinyon-juniper woodland type. As evidenced by high tree densities and Stand Density Index values, all forest types remain susceptible to insect/disease outbreak and reduced resiliency. The high occurrence of ladder fuels, high tree densities and continuous canopy across the landscape provides conditions that promote active crown fire and catastrophic wildfire across the landscape. Invasive tree and herbaceous plant species do occur in the project area. Species such as Siberian elm and Russian olive are concentrated along travel ways, riparian areas and near developed recreation sites; however, isolated invasive tree and herbaceous species are found throughout the analysis area. Old Growth Old growth resources were analyzed at multiple scales, the first being the midscale “Manzano/Manzanita Ecosystem Management Area” (EMA) which includes National Forest lands south of Interstate 40 and outside the Manzano Wilderness; one scale above, which includes the Manzano/Manzanita ecosystem management area plus the Manzano Wilderness; and, at one scale below, at the Cedro Landscape Restoration Project level. Analysis maps are available in project record. GIS analysis was used to incorporate a variety of resource information including forest inventory data, soils data, local knowledge and a review of past disturbances relating to management, insect/disease and fire activity. Fully developed old growth structural conditions, as defined on page 65-66 of the ALRMP, are not yet present in any of the scales being analyzed. Allocation of at least 20%, by forested ecosystem management area, of old growth has been completed (ALRMP, page 65). Sites with the most potential to reach old growth status in the earliest timeframe have been allocated for each representative forest type in the project area. Midscale - The Manzano/Manzanita EMA is characterized by historical, but relatively localized, disturbance mostly from wood harvesting and grazing at the lower elevation ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper woodland forest types over the last 300-400 years. Lack of access to the higher elevation ponderosa pine and mixed species forests has minimized impacts to those areas. Fire activity has been minimal.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 44

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Table 3-1 shows the allocation of the forest types included in this project to be managed for old growth characteristics within the Manzano/Manzanita EMA. Included are “de facto” old growth areas (ALRMP, page 55) such as the Manzano Wilderness Area and goshawk nesting areas.

Table 3-1. Old Growth Allocation within the Manzano/Manzanita EMA Forest Type Gross Acres Old Growth Allocation (acres) Pinyon-juniper woodland 44,460 11,723 (26%) Ponderosa pine 23,329 4,911 (21%) One scale above - The Manzano Wilderness area supplements the Manzano/Manzanita ecosystem management area described above to comprise a scale above that initial area. Historic disturbances within the Wilderness area are more limited than in the Manzano/Manzanita ecosystem area due to lack of access, legislative withdrawal of the area as a Wilderness, and lack of historic fire activity. All forested areas within the Manzano Wilderness are considered “de facto” old growth (ALRMP, page 65). Table 3-2 displays the combined old growth allocated acres by forest type for both the Manzano/Manzanita ecosystem management area and the Manzano Wilderness.

Table 3-2. Old Growth Allocation within the Combined Manzano/Manzanita EMA and Manzano Wilderness Forest Type Gross Acres Old Growth Allocation (acres) Pinyon-juniper woodland 52,074 19,337 (37%) Ponderosa pine 28,212 9,794 (35%) One scale below - The Cedro Project area comprises the scale below the initially described Manzano/Manzanita ecosystem management area. This project area represents that lower elevation portion of the Manzano/Manzanita ecosystem management area that was typically most accessible for wood harvest resulting in disturbance related changes to stand structure over time. Table 3-3 shows those areas selected for allocation towards old growth by forest type.

Table 3-3. Old Growth Allocation within the Cedro Landscape Restoration Analysis Area Forest Type Gross Acres Old Growth Allocation (acres) Pinyon-juniper woodland 11,723 2,933 (25%) Ponderosa pine 247 90 (36%) Northern Goshawk Habitat Distribution of habitat structures (ALRMP, page 71-7.1985) for the Northern Goshawk are analyzed at the Manzano/Manzanita ecosystem area scale, the Cedro Landscape Restoration Project scale and site (stand) scale. The vast majority of the Cedro Landscape Restoration project area is classified as woodland forest type. Forest plan guidelines for the woodland forest type within landscapes outside goshawk post-fledgling family areas are; “Manage for uneven age conditions to sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory and understory), age classes, and species composition well distributed across the landscape. Provide for reserve trees, snags, and down woody debris.” Guidelines for woodland forest type within PFA and nesting areas are to “maintain existing canopy cover levels. (ALRMP, page 71-8).” There are no Vegetation Structural Stage (VSS) distribution guidelines for the woodland stands like there are for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and spruce-fir forest types. Therefore, no VSS analysis will be displayed for the woodland type. Data supporting this analysis is from 2000 and 2006 forest inventories; also, existing GIS coverage involving insect/disease activity, past

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 45

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences management, fire activity and vegetation. Table 3-4 displays the distribution of ponderosa pine forest type at each Vegetation Structural Stage (VSS).

Table 3-4. Vegetative Structural Stage Analysis – Ponderosa Pine Forest Type VSS 1&2(0- VSS 3 (5- VSS 4 (12- VSS 5 (18- VSS 6 (24 Scale 4.9 inch 11.9 inch 17.9 inch 23.9 inch inch+ dbh) dbh) dbh) dbh) dbh) Manzano/Manzanita 9% 3% 55% 22% 11% EMA Cedro Project Area <1% 62% 37% <1% 0% Stand (site) 0% 60% 20% 20% 0% Average tree densities (trees per acre 0 inch+ diameter) by forest type at the different scales are shown in Table 3-5. Relatively high, and consistent, tree densities at all scales reflect the lack of disturbance, either natural or through management, over time. Snag (standing dead trees) deficits in the Pinyon-Juniper and Ponderosa pine forest types at the site and project area levels reflect historical use and limited management (prescribed fire, etc). Relatively low levels of downed logs in the Pinyon-Juniper and Ponderosa pine forest types at the site and project area levels also reflect historical use and limited management. Downed logs at all scales are typically at higher stages of decay. The average number of snags and distribution of downed logs are both shown in Table 3-5. Canopy cover, for all forest types, tends to be consistently high at the EMA scale due to lack of disturbance and typically dense canopies in the upper elevation forest types. This remains mostly true at the Cedro Landscape Restoration Project area and site scales although somewhat reduced in the Ponderosa pine and Pinyon-Juniper forest types.

Table 3-5. Forest Structural Components by Forest Type at the Different Scales Cedro Landscape Manzano/Manzanita Structure Forest Type Restoration Site EMA Project Area Avg. Tree Densities Pinyon-juniper 3,119 3,738 93-17,244 (trees per acre) woodland Avg. Tree Densities 2,475- Ponderosa pine 2,625 3,845 (trees per acre) 5,045 Avg. Number of Snags Pinyon-juniper 9-12 <1 <1 per acre (>9 inch dbh) woodland Avg. Number of Snags Ponderosa pine 14-20 <1 <1 per acre (>9 inch dbh) Avg. Number of Pinyon-juniper Downed logs per acre 10-15 <2 <2 woodland (12 inch dbh, 8 ft. long) Avg. Number of Downed logs per acre Ponderosa pine 10-15 <2 <2 (12 inch dbh, 8 ft. long) Avg. % Canopy Cover Pinyon-juniper 35-50% 35-50% 48-72% per acre woodland Avg. % Canopy Cover Ponderosa pine 50-60% 40-50% 43-52% per acre Green House Gases (GHG) emissions and carbon sequestration are a consideration in any vegetation manipulation project. Forests play a major role in the carbon cycle. The carbon stored in live biomass, dead plant material, and soil represents the balance between carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere and its release through respiration, decomposition, and burning.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 46

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences Alternative A – No Action The No Action alternative would result in continuing management (no treatment) of existing forest vegetation conditions. The forest ecosystem would remain susceptible to the adverse effects of uncharacteristic wildfire and insect/disease outbreak. Fuel conditions (quantities and distribution) would remain relatively unchanged across the landscape. This, plus high tree densities, continuous canopy cover and ladder fuels would favor active crown fire and catastrophic fire events that would adversely affect forest vegetation. Stand structure (the horizontal and vertical distribution of forest components including the height, diameter, crown layers, and numbers of trees, shrubs, snags and down woody debris) would remain relatively unchanged. Ladder fuels would remain favoring movement of surface fires into tree canopies. Conditions related to high Stand Density Index values (full site occupancy by trees; severe competition between trees; active competition induced mortality; minimum individual tree diameter and volume growth; stagnation) would continue unless affected by natural events (wildfire, insect/disease outbreaks, etc). In a 50 year time frame, modeling indicates that the percent of maximum SDI values would average approximately 85% in both the woodland and Ponderosa pine forest types. In all cases, the SDI related conditions described in the Affected Environment section would continue to worsen. Forest vegetation would continue to grow but at reduced rates due to current high tree densities which favor overcrowding and competition for limited nutrients, water and sunlight. Trees, both on an individual and landscape basis, would continue to be stressed and more susceptible to drought and insect and disease attack. Higher rates of mortality, as a result, resulting from these causes could be expected. Average stem diameters would remain low. Modeling indicates the average stem diameter of trees greater than 5 inches dbh/drc would rise from approximately 8.5 inches to 10.4 inches over a forty year time frame. Currently undesirable structural conditions within Northern Goshawk foraging, PFA and nesting habitats and MSO Restricted Habitats would remain essentially unchanged and would remain so for an extended period of time until disturbed by natural factors (wildfire or insect/disease outbreak). In the event of such disturbances, such key habitat would be at risk. The dramatic increases in stand density and basal area over the last 80-90 years represent an increased susceptibility for bark beetle epidemics and stand-replacing wildfire (Margaret M. Moore, et al. 2004). Research indicates that risk of Mountain Pine beetle attack in Ponderosa pine increases from a level of low to moderate when residual basal areas exceed 100 sq ft/ac (Munson and Anhold. 2000). Modeling indicates basal areas within the Ponderosa pine forest type will increase from already high current levels of 127 sq ft/ac to 171 sq ft/ac in a forty year time period. The same concept would apply in the Pinyon-Juniper woodland in relation to the Pinyon Ips beetle. Invasive plant species would continue to be identified and mapped through random surveys in the area. The increase in size and density of invasive plants would continue to crowd out native plant communities. Areas along roadways, riparian areas and developed recreation sites and

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 47

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

disturbed sites would be most vulnerable to invasive species colonization, and these areas would be impacted earliest and most seriously. The grass/forb/shrub component would continue to lack in diversity, vigor and abundance. Recruitment and enhancement of old growth at all scales would continue to occur, although at the current, slower pace; in addition, such areas would be susceptible to uncharacteristic wildfire and/or insect/disease outbreaks. Green House Gases (GHG) emissions and carbon sequestration levels would continue at current levels. Alternative B The Proposed Action effectively provides for a more sustainable and resilient forest condition from the perspective of reducing the likelihood of both catastrophic wildfire and insect/disease outbreak. Reducing tree densities, ladder fuels, fuel loadings as well as improving both vertical and horizontal structural diversity will lessen the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire. Key wildlife habitat objectives (enhancement and protection of Northern Goshawk foraging, PFA and nesting sites; MSO Restricted Habitat; as well as old growth) would be more readily met. Old growth recruitment/development at the project scale would be enhanced through reduction of tree densities and resultant improvement in tree vigor and growth. Allocated old growth areas would be better protected from catastrophic wildfire and insect/disease outbreaks. Management objectives, including the implementation of uneven-aged management, as provided in the ALRMP are implemented. This alternative treats only a minor portion of the total landscape in need of treatment; however, from a smaller scale, effective vegetation treatments would be implemented that meet ALRMP goals on a site specific (localized) basis and in a strategic portion of the Sandia RD. Desired Vegetative Structural Stand (VSS) class distribution would be enhanced, and brought more into desired balances, through the recruitment of VSS classes 1 and 2 (seedlings and saplings) over approximately 10% of the each of the forest types Increased development of the mature and old forest classes through reduced competition and increased tree vigor would occur. These structural conditions would not be completely achieved in this initial entry but would be placed on a trajectory towards meeting those conditions in the future. The percent of maximum Stand Density Index levels would initially be decreased to 15-25 percent in the Pinyon-Juniper and Ponderosa pine forest types providing for more open forest conditions, increased tree growth/vigor and recruitment of understory grasses, forbs and shrubs. Subsequent levels would vary by forest type would generally provide for limited completion between trees and increased tree vigor and resiliency. Within the Mixed Conifer forest type, percent of maximum SDI levels would be higher but would still meet ALRMP direction for MSO Restricted Habitat and provide for enhanced forest health conditions. Average stem diameters can be expected to increase 3-5 times, over the next 50 years, as compared to the No Action alternative. At the group level, canopy cover would meet the ALRMP requirements within the VSS 4 through VSS 6 groups, in the ponderosa pine type and canopy cover will be maintained within PFA and nesting areas in the woodland type. Outside the analysis area, canopy cover levels would remain at current levels and continue to increase over time.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 48

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

The risk of Pinyon Ips (Pinyon-Juniper woodland) and Mountain Pine Beetle (Ponderosa pine) attack would be minimized through lower tree densities and increased tree vigor. The Gambel oak component can be expected to respond vigorously though the proposed treatments. In habitat types where Gambel oak is a significant component, “Gambel oak…can resprout prolifically” (Plant Associations of AZ and NM, Volume 1: Forests, pg 229). Native tree species composition would be maintained across the landscape and treatment of inventoried invasive tree species would occur. This alternative would apply an integrated approach to invasive species management. By including herbicide methods in combination with other methods, it represents the most efficient and cost effective control available. Consequently, this approach would provide the greatest long-term protection to the integrity of the native plant communities. Alternative B would assist the reestablishment of native plant communities by removing or controlling the spread of the dominant and aggressive invasives. Regardless of the methods used at each site, there would be a noticeable decline in invasives overall, and an increase in native plant abundance and vigor. As invasives are removed and the bare soil fills in with native plants, the plant community would become more resistant to reestablishment of invasives. Manual methods would usually avoid injury to the surrounding non-target plants. Manual methods would occasionally inadvertently injure or kill individual non-target plants if trampled by workers. At herbicide treatment sites, non-target vegetation may be occasionally impacted if non-selective herbicides are used. However, herbicide selection would be made based on the site and type of invasive species to be controlled. The most effective herbicide with the lowest impact on non-target vegetation would be selected. Impacts to desired native species can be minimized with proper herbicide selection, rate of application, and correct timing of application. Mechanical, grazing, and burning methods would pose the most risk of reducing native plant species where they are interspersed with invasives. Mechanical treatments alone would not eliminate the invasive plant population and must be carefully timed to avoid spreading seeds and plant parts to other areas. Prescribed burning would be effective in very few species in specific situations. There would be no effect on long-term ecosystem sustainability. Grazing would similarly not be effective alone as an eradication method for invasive plants, but may be used to help control the spread of certain species, especially in small areas that are heavily infested with invasives (USDA 2010). The proposal to burn natural and activity created woody material, either through prescribed or pile burning, within the project area would directly release carbon dioxide during the burning operations. This would contribute to increasing the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration. However, restoration (or maintenance) of the desired conditions would result in a lower risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfire for those treated acres. This reduced risk has a two-fold effect on GHG emissions or the carbon cycle: 1) There is a direct beneficial effect on climate change of decreased GHG emissions from these acres because the risk of acres being burned by uncharacteristically severe wildfires would be reduced, and 2) There is an indirect beneficial effect by treating these acres because live stands of trees would retain higher capacity to sequester carbon dioxide compared to stands killed by uncharacteristically severe wildfires, especially if not immediately reforested.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 49

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

It would be difficult to determine the significance of effects of one project on greenhouse gases directly, and therefore climate change indirectly, as there are currently no Federal statutes, regulatory standards, or policy direction on the significance of such effects. Until meaningful, accepted thresholds are adopted against which to weigh any project-related GHG emissions, it would not be possible to determine whether a specific project would have a significant effect under this factor. Alternative C This alternative excludes herbicide use in the management of invasive plant species within the scope of this project. It emphasizes use of primarily manual methods, alone or in combination with some mechanical, grazing, and prescribed fire methods, as described in Chapter 2. Selection of this alternative would result in effects on vegetation that fall between the Alternative A and Alternative B. In some cases, the non-herbicide treatments alone would slow the spread of some invasive species through reduced seed production. The non-herbicide methods including follow-up cultural treatments would be expected to limit the continued spread of many small infestations. Manual and mechanical treatments have limited success in some cases due to the deep rooting characteristics of many invasive species and the ability to reproduce new plants from root sections. Many of the species that occur on the Forest would not be effectively controlled without herbicide use. Invasives that are of large size and well-established in many riparian areas on the Forest, such as saltcedar, Russian olive, and Siberian elm would not be feasible to control where native riparian vegetation would be re-established. Alternative C would likely disturb more soil than Alternative B and create bare soil conditions favorable for germination of invasive plant seeds. This Alternative would likely incur a greater loss of non-target native plants than Alternative B, due to the fact that mechanical, grazing, and prescribed fire methods would be used more repeatedly on the same sites and grazing, fire, and mechanical methods are less selective than hand application of herbicides. Overall, under this Alternative, native plant diversity would continue to decline as invasive populations expand. There would be a high risk that the rate of spread would exceed the rate of control, and the Forest would not be able to get ahead of the invasives. Thus, effects in the long term would be more similar to those described for Alternative A (No Action) than Alternative B. Cumulative Effects

Current vegetation conditions (the affected environment) in the 90,549 acre Manzanita/Manzano ecosystem management area are a reflection of past and present treatments. Past activities – The area has a long (since the 1500’s) history of European influence which includes intensive grazing and harvest of wood products. That, as well as several decades of fire suppression, has altered the natural fire regime (Mountainair Ranger District Geographic Area Assessment). Much of the active forest management has occurred in the last ten years under the Thunderbird Ecosystem Management project, approved in 2004 and ongoing. This management includes the following: • Approximately 2,100 acres of wildlife habitat improvement. Activities include meadow restoration, rehabilitation of openings and other structural/nonstructural habitat improvement.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 50

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

• Approximately 10,756 acres thinning and selection harvests. Most of these treatments involved implementation of the northern goshawk management guidelines as a result of the 1996 amendment to the ALRMP. • Management of fuels (prescribed burning, burning of piles, rearrangement of fuels, etc) has occurred on an estimated 12,000 acres. • Wildfire activity during the last 10 years has affected approximately 16,700 acres within the ecosystem management area. The recent (2007, 2008) destructive wildfires in the Manzano Mountains alone eliminated existing forest cover on an estimated 7,000 acres of forest cover. Approximately 1,500 acres, of those areas conducive to planting, have been restored through reforestation activities. Oak has restored vegetation cover to all areas and natural regeneration of tree species is slowly occurring. Current activities –

o Approximately 500 acres of the he Thunderbird Ecosystem Management project remain to be implemented in 2015. These activities will primarily involve thinning and group selection treatments favoring habitat improvement for the northern goshawk. o Approximately 6,900 acres remain to be implemented from the Isleta EA. o Approximately 5,700 acres in the Northern Manzanos and Dog Head on the Mountainair Ranger District (RD). o Approximately 1,200 acres in David Canyon on the Sandia Ranger District. o Approximately 340 acres in Red Canyon on Mountainair RD o Approximately 40 acres in Espinoso on Mountainair RD o Approximately 195 acres in Tablazon on Sandia RD Foreseeable activities – Currently there are no foreseeable projects in the Ecosystem Management Area. The Cumulative Effect of vegetation treatments surrounding the project area will produce a mosaic of different forest stand conditions that will reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire while allowing natural disturbances, such as wildfire and insect and disease outbreaks to occur in the natural range of variability. Implementing either Alternative B or C will increase the heterogeneity of the project area and will aid in reducing uncharacteristic wildfire while the No Action Alternative will not meet the purpose and need of the project. 3.2 Fuels and Fire Behavior Affected Environment Historically, fire naturally burned throughout the project area relatively frequently, usually within a six year mean interval (Baisan, 1997). These high frequency and low intensity fires minimized the regeneration of tree and shrub species, leaving a mosaic pattern of tree densities in the pinyon/juniper (P/J) woodlands while in the ponderosa stands an open grassy park-like landscape with large fire resistant trees was typical. This natural process of forest self- management was changed in the 18th century. Management practices from the 18th century such as grazing, fire suppression, and timber harvesting led to significant impacts on the vegetation and altered the natural fire regime within the project area. Fire regime is a description of the role fire plays in an ecosystem without the

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 51

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

presence of modern human mechanical intervention, but including the influence of aboriginal burning (Agee, 1993). Spanish settlers grazed large flocks of sheep and goats essentially removing the fine fuel grasses which served as the primary carrier for the low intensity fire. Much of the pine forest in the project area was harvested as evidenced by remnant stumps. This created openings which allowed dense seedling establishment during wet years and no frequent fires to limit the stocking numbers. These events have now produced unnaturally dense stands of suppressed young trees. The historic practices of grazing, fire suppression and timber harvesting have led to the existing conditions of accumulated heavy fuel, and dense forests. The Cedro Landscape analysis area has 3 primary stand types: pinyon/juniper, ponderosa pine and oak woodland. District fire personnel and contractors conducted fuel transects throughout the project area to gather an overall baseline of tons per acre fuel loading. These transects show that some mortality is occurring due to trees stressed from competition and drought therefore, they are more susceptible to loss from insects and disease. As trees die and fall over, surface fuel loads increase. In these semi-arid systems where rates of biotic accumulation exceed the normal rate of decay fire plays a critical role in recycling biomass (Baisan and Swetnam 1995).

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Type The Pinyon-Juniper Woodland type occupies approximately 9,300 acres of the analysis area. This forest type is typically a mix of pinyon pine and one-seed/Rocky Mountain juniper with scattered ponderosa pine, alligator juniper, weavyleaf oak and gamble oak. The dominant habitat type is Pinyon pine/blue grama. There is a high confidence that tree density and canopy coverage have increased in many or most persistent woodlands during the 20th century although the precise magnitude of increase, causes, and geographic applicability are not adequately known. Some of these woodlands are sufficiently open to subdue a running crown fire but dense patches do exist which could sustain this type of fire behavior.

Figure 3-1. Pinyon-Juniper woodland. Note high tree density and continuous vegetative cover. Photo taken by Matt Rau.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 52

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Ponderosa Pine Forest The Ponderosa pine forest type occupies approximately 2,800 acres of the analysis area. Typically this is the “dry” end of the ponderosa pine type and has scattered pinyon pine and one- seed/alligator juniper as well as gamble/wavyleaf oak. The dominant habitat type is Ponderosa pine/Gamble Oak. Pondorosa pine in the Southwest experienced low-intensity fires every 5 to 20 years (Covington and Moore 1994). The mature pine was able to withstand low to moderate intensity fires due to its thick bark (Pollet and Omi 2000). These events have now produced unnaturally dense stands of suppressed young trees. This condition threatens any remaining older, larger trees through competition. Pondersosa pine forests in the Cedro project area are also at risk of being destroyed by extensive crown fires due to vertical continuity of the stand (Covington and Moore 1994, Omi and Martinson 2002). There is a lack of herbaceous understory but plenty of dead pine needles. Crown fires in the ponderosa pine type are absent in the historic, local, and regional fire scar records (Touchan and Swetnam 1991.

Figure 3-2. Ponderosa pine stand. Note dense tree stocking and lack of herbaceous understory. Photo taken by Matt Rau.

Oak Woodland The Oak Woodland forest occupies approximately 460 acres of the analysis area. Overall this forest type is just slightly departed from its natural range of variability. Most areas are primarily even aged and lack structural diversity. From a fire risk perspective, this forest type poses no real concern.

Fire Regime Condition Class To represent the vegetation and fuel loading departure from a historical state, three Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCC) are used as a qualitative measure. FRCC describes the overall vegetative condition of the ecosystem comparing the current condition to historical condition. In

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 53

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences addition to describing the condition class, fire regimes categorize major fuel types and the natural fire return interval. FRCC 1 areas are generally within or near the historical range and do not predispose the system to risk of loss of key ecosystem components. Vegetation groups are intact and functioning within the natural range of variability. FRCC 2 areas develop as one or more fire return intervals are missed resulting in continued growth of under-story and species reproduction. Vegetation composition and structure have moderate departure from the natural range of variability and are predisposed to risk or loss of key ecosystem components. Fires will burn with greater intensity making them difficult to suppress and will result in changes in biodiversity, soil productivity, and water quality. FRCC 3 can be described as significant departure from the natural range of variability and predispose the system to a high risk of losing key ecosystem components. Large scale insect damage and disease are usually present, and may become catastrophic while increasing available fuels. Extreme fire behavior is typical with this departure state, and usually will result in a complete stand replacement occurrence. The Cedro project area falls within this fire regime condition class.

Fire Regime Five primary fire regime groups have been developed by Hardy et al. (2001) and Schmidt et al. (2002). These are coarse scale and simplified categories that help in understanding the ecological fundamentals of the biotic systems that occur on this landscape, and its previous relationship with fire as a process which acted on them at different frequencies and resulting severities for thousands of years. Potential vegetative groups have been mapped for the Cibola National Forest and are assimilated with fire regimes. Of the approximately 2,800 acres of Ponderosa Pine, only 250 acres map out as pure Ponderosa Pine. The remaining acres are classified as a Woodland type with a Ponderosa Pine component. The pure Ponderosa Pine forest type group is most closely represented by Fire Regime I. The remaining Ponderosa Pine acres are a mix of Fire Regime I and II. The Hot Dry Shrub-lands and Woodlands including P/J are represented by Fire Regime II. Finally, the shrub group including Gambel oak is also represented by Fire Regime II. Fire Regime I-This system includes the lower and mid-elevation forested plant associations, Ponderosa Pine, and Douglas-Fir. These regimes historically had a high fire return interval (0-35 years) preventing high fuel loadings and produced limited layers within the system. The net result was more frequent and less severe fire occurrence. Fire Regime II-This system is also in the lower to mid elevation range; however it includes grassland plant associations. These regimes have a high fire return interval (0-35 years) with a mix of low and high severity fires. This system includes P/J, mountain mahogany, and other dry mountain shrub species. Fire Regime III-This system consists of forest plant associations located at mid elevation. Species found there are consistent with higher moisture availability such as Douglas fir, higher elevation bunch type grasses and forbs. The fire return interval is 35 to 100+ years with a mix in fire severity. Stand replacement fire may occur but are usually rare events. This regime is typically a heterogeneous landscape.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 54

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

The following table displays the fire regimes and existing condition class within the Cedro Landscape Project Area.

Table 3-6. Fire Regimes and Existing Condition Class Fire Regime Historic Fire Condition Class Approximate Group Return Interval Percentage within project area I 0 - 35 years 2 6 % I 0 – 35 years 3 8 % II 0 - 35 years 2 16 % II 0 - 35 years 3 70 % III 35 - 100+ years Any 0 %

Stand Density Index Stand density index (SDI) is defined as a comparison of stand density in relation to tree size that better reflects stand characteristics rather than looking at trees per acre or basal area alone. SDI is a measure that is used to compare density of the forest. At 35% of maximum SDI, trees fully occupy the site. At higher densities competition among trees either results in reduced growth and vigor on individual trees, or may result in competitive stress and tree mortality (Page 2006). Present average SDI for the project area is 60%, ranging from 32% to 92%. Most (77%) of the Cedro Landscape analysis area currently has a SDI greater than 35%. In terms of fire behavior this condition greatly contributes to crown fire potential. Environmental Consequences Components of fire risk are weather, fuels, and human influences. Fire risk is the potential for a fire to ignite given certain parameters and conditions. Fires start as the result of human activity or naturally by lightning. Due to the proximity of the project to Albuquerque, this area experiences approximately 2 million visitors annually, which greatly increases the potential for human-caused fires. Human caused fires account for the majority of the statistical fires within and directly outside the Cedro project area. If a fire does ignite, there is a high possibility of losing all or most vegetation leaving the land vulnerable to flooding within the watershed. Adverse impacts to soil, water quality, and wildlife habitat would also occur. Several communities as shown on Map A-2 (Appendix A) Communities at Risk could be greatly affected by smoke and or impacted by fire. With the population increase anticipated to continue, it can be expected that the use of the project area will increase at an equal rate. Consideration of increased risk could be managed under the Cibola Fire Management Plan which would restrict or close these areas under extreme fire conditions. Public access into areas currently prohibited or limited under previous decisions would continue as designated. Alternative A – No Action The No Action alternative would result in no treatment of the existing unhealthy forest vegetation conditions. The forest ecosystem would remain susceptible to the adverse effects of uncharacteristic wildfires consistent with increased population, public use, and fuel loading also vulnerable to insect/disease outbreaks. Forest vegetation would continue to grow but at reduced rated due to high tree densities, overcrowding and competition for limited nutrients, water and sunlight. Trees, both on an individual and landscape basis, would continue to be stressed and more susceptible to drought

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 55

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

and insect and disease attack. Higher rates of mortality resulting from these causes could be expected. The dramatic increases in stand density and BA over the last 80-90 years represent an increased susceptibility for bark beetle epidemics and stand-replacing wildfire (Moore, et. al. 2004). Stand structure (the horizontal and vertical distribution of forest components including the height, diameter, crown layers, and stems of trees, shrubs, snags and down woody debris) would remain homogenous and uniform. Recruitment and enhancement of old growth at all scales would continue to occur, although at the current, slower pace; in addition, such areas would be susceptible to uncharacteristic wildfire and/or insect/disease outbreaks. Stand diversity would remain low and competition for water, nutrients and space would remain high. All developments and resource values in this project area could be lost in a single burning period. From fire/fuels prospective this alternative is the least desirable. Alternative B This alternative would create a stand structure reducing the potential for crown fire although the potential for fine fuels such as grasses increases. Fine fuels could create an environment where ground fire moves faster, but fires would demonstrate low to moderate fire behavior with low resistance to control. This condition would be the case in the majority of the rooting zones and temporary openings. These areas would serve as randomly placed fuel breaks throughout the project area. Wildfires within the Cedro project area would be more likely to be contained before they enter either private land or wilderness utilizing these fuel breaks. Crown fires entering the Cedro project area from either private land or National Forest lands could potentially go back to a ground fire giving emergency personnel a chance to safely contain the fire. This would be a direct result from the reduction in canopy bulk density, increase in canopy base height, an overall lowering of the stand density index, and creation of the temporary openings. Maintenance of the Cedro project area through selected removal of understory and low intensity prescribed fire would help ensure the effectiveness of this project. Managed roads and trails could be effectively utilized for fire-line construction during an emergency or during fuel treatment projects. During fuel treatments, there is increased human activity and equipment that could start fires. However, that can be mitigated by starting the project during favorable weather conditions and limiting it to certain times in the year. An increase of fine fuels (grass) 0-2 tons per acre, can be expected. Grass will reduce the fire intensities and contribute to an overall lower resistance to control. Alternative C This alternative would also create a stand structure reducing the potential for crown fire although the potential for fine fuels such as grasses increases. Fine fuels could create an environment where ground fire moves faster, but fires would illustrate low to moderate fire behavior with low resistance to control. Wildfires within the Cedro project area will be more likely to be contained before they enter either private land or have undesirable effects on adjacent public lands. The tree removal prescription would create an open stand structure with a much lower stand density index. This open stand structure would also create a much lower crown bulk density due to the increase in canopy spacing and lowering in trees per acre. In the open thinned areas the trees would also be limbed up to remove the ladder fuels resulting in a much higher crown base height. This type of canopy spacing and limbing will result in an environment much less likely to support crown fire initiation or sustainment of a crown fire burning into the area.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 56

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Crown fires entering the Cedro project area from either Federal or private land could potentially go back to a ground fire giving emergency personnel a chance to safely contain the fire. This would be a direct result from the reduction in canopy bulk density, increase in canopy base height, and an overall lowering of the stand density index. Maintenance of the Cedro project area through selected removal of understory and low intensity prescribed fire would help ensure the effectiveness of this project. Managed roads and trails could be effectively utilized for fire-line construction during an emergency or during fuel treatment projects. During fuel treatments, there is increased human activity and equipment that could start fires. However, that can be mitigated by starting the project during favorable weather conditions and limiting it to certain times in the year. An increase of fine fuels (grass) 0-2 tons per acre, can be expected. As stated earlier in this report, grass will reduce the fire intensities and contribute to an overall lower resistance to control. Cumulative Effects For this project, the cumulative affects area was considered to be the project area and ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions that could affect fire and fuels. Fuel treatment on federal land, specifically the Heatherland Hills Fuel break, and the extensive work done in David Canyon under the Isleta CFRP, has reduced the fuel loading on adjacent lands bordering the project area. The Talking Talons and Tablazon projects are also bordering the Cedro project area. Those two projects together make up approximately 950 acres. The talking Talons project is a mosaic of treatments to include mastication, thin from below, and group selection. In the group selection and thin from below treatment areas prescribed fire was introduced after the fuel wood had been removed. The masticated treatment areas were not burned and are being monitored. All of these treatments will improve suppression capabilities on that land should a fire occur. Implementation of ecosystem restoration projects need to consider the intended recreation usage of the area. A symbiotic relationship exists regarding road and trails. One of the unintended results of fire-line construction or creation of fuel-breaks often result in increased traffic and user created routes that require mitigation or obliteration. An example is NFSR 9 which was simply an access route created by fuel wood permit holders during the Heatherland Hills Fuels Reduction & Wildlife Habitat / Forest Health Improvement project. It quickly became a high use area and because of the recreational value is now designated as a system route. Conversely, valued and managed recreational routes are usually located geographically and topographically so that they allow easy compartmentalization of areas without having to construct new fire-line. An example of this is the implementation of the David Canyon Forest Health Project (1998) in which entire trail systems made up the compartments for implementation of landscape prescribed fire. After the fuels reduction project was completed the trail was improved with erosion barriers, minor re-routing, and thus became more ecologically sustainable. Air Resources Best Management Practices (BMPs) for smoke management and compliance with Albuquerque- Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board /Air Quality Bureau would mitigate smoke impacts derived from fuel treatment activities. Compliance with the BCAQB would ensure that Clean Air Act requirements are met.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 57

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Local area fire weather forecasts will be monitored daily before and during the implementation of any prescribed burn. Spot weather forecasts will be obtained daily for the operational periods of the burn. On-site weather readings will be monitored during operational periods as directed by the burn boss using a belt weather kit. The weather data that is recorded from the belt weather kit will be the primary weather readings that will be the determination factor for the go-no-go and for the prescription parameters. The Burn Boss will ensure that the project complies with all local, county, state, and federal air quality regulations. The project will be registered with the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board /Air Quality Bureau at least 2 weeks prior to implementation. Notification will be given 24 - 48 hours prior to ignition and a copy of the spot weather forecast will be faxed to the Sandia Ranger District. A copy of the smoke monitoring report will also be faxed. Coordination between the Albuquerque zone dispatch center, Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board, and neighboring agencies will be established. Burn will be terminated if Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board or the National Weather Service issues an air stagnation alert. Smoke conditions must be monitored carefully to assess potential impacts to highway traffic and populated areas. Monitoring should be visual and also may include instrument monitoring. Adequate ventilation or winds that carry smoke away from traffic or populated areas may be required to minimize impacts. The Burn Boss will determine if conditions are favorable at time of ignition.

Climate and Climate Change The project area is located in the highland section of the Basin and Range Province physiographic zone along the eastern half of Bernalillo County, New Mexico. In the area covered by this analysis, precipitation seasonality varies due to the influence of the Arizona monsoon (a.k.a., the southwest monsoon). Areas affected by the southwest monsoon receive greater amounts of summer precipitation from moist air masses derived from the Gulf of Mexico and Gulf of California. Most of the annual precipitation comes in the form of rain originating from convective thunderstorms during the months of July through September. Higher elevations of the analysis area may also receive some cool season moisture in the form of snow. In addition to temporal variability of precipitation, spatial variability of precipitation is also a characteristic within the analysis area. Topography and storm type are two factors that control the spatial variability of precipitation. At the local scale, precipitation tends to increase with elevation due to the effects of orographic lifting. Summer precipitation tends to have more spatial variability than winter frontal storms. Within the analysis area, average annual precipitation is generally less than 14 inches per year. Precipitation intensity (amount of water/unit of time) tends to be very high in this part of the state due to the convective nature of the storms. For example, precipitation at Oak Flat (35.006 N 106.316W, 7650 feet) shows that the 2 year, 1-hour storm produces an average of 0.84 inches of water (NOAA 2014). Antecedent soil and vegetation conditions can help determine whether this amount of precipitation results in beneficial infiltration or erosion generating runoff. Droughts are common in New Mexico due to the overall low amount of annual precipitation and the previously described spatial and temporal variability of that precipitation. Regional precipitation patterns are regulated by global scale fluctuations in ocean surface temperatures. Over the long term, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) tends to influence the precipitation regime in this part of New Mexico. Studies of 20th century precipitation patterns show that there

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 58

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

have been three distinct precipitation regimes. The first was a relatively wet period from 1905 to 1941. Next was a period of dry from 1942 through 1977. This was followed by a period of wet from 1978 through 1998. The years since 1998 have marked a shift back to a dry period and suggest that we could be in for another 1-3 decades of drier than average conditions. This information has important implications on ecosystem management due to the influence of precipitation on disturbance regimes and the capacity of ecosystems to resist or recover from those disturbances. Globally, the Earth’s surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 ºF to 1.4ºF since 1900, with most of the warming occurring in recent decades. Anthropogenic gases, particularly CO2, are enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, and likely contributing to an increase in these global average temperatures and related climate changes (EPA 2010). CO2 and other pollutants enter the atmosphere through the 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 • 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 multi-year drought • Winter rain instead of snow at all but highest elevations

Impact 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-acre) 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 lead to an increase in days with high fire danger (Brown et al. 2004).

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 59

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

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 U.S., fire behavior is expected to become more erratic, with longer flame lengths, increased torching and crowning, and more rapid runs and blow-ups 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 the WUIs 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). Since Southwestern forest environments and ecological processes are influenced by climate, we need to be prepared to learn and understand changes in climate and ecosystem processes and function, and to employ adaptive management strategies to accommodate such changes over time. Although fire suppression is still aggressively practiced, fire management techniques are continually adapting and improving. Due to scattered human developments and values throughout the WUI, suppression would always have to be a priority in those areas. However, combining 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 our changing climate. 3.3 Soil Affected Environment Soil conditions in the project area were assessed using the Cibola Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) (Strenger et al. 2007) and field observations. The survey consisted of mapping and interpreting ecosystems through a systematic examination, description, classification and integration (gradient analysis) of the primary ecosystem components (soil/vegetation/climate). Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory information provided the initial ecological base for developing ecosystem management plans at the Forest or project level. Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory information was used to evaluate and adjust land uses to the limitations and potentials of natural resources. Field observations occurred in 2012 and 2013. Table 3-7 summarizes TES map units in the vegetation treatment areas and their related soil condition. Map A-7 in Appendix A shows the TE units locations in the project area.

Table 3-7. TE Units in the Cedro Landscape Analysis Area Acres in TE Unit Percent Soil Condition Erosion Hazard Analysis Area 16 22.1 0.12 impaired slight

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 60

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Acres in TE Unit Percent Soil Condition Erosion Hazard Analysis Area 22 9.3 0.05 impaired slight 23 112.4 0.60 satisfactory slight 85 99.4 0.53 satisfactory moderate 86 251.5 1.35 satisfactory slight 87 434.7 2.33 satisfactory slight 140 9.6 0.05 impaired moderate 166 11.3 0.06 satisfactory severe 177 2.3 0.01 unsatisfactory moderate 178 3.2 0.02 unsatisfactory moderate 266 1419.9 7.60 satisfactory moderate 267 1833.9 9.82 unsatisfactory moderate-severe 268 1046.3 5.60 impaired severe 269 2391.1 12.80 impaired moderate 270 3130.4 16.76 satisfactory severe 271 1388.9 7.44 satisfactory severe 272 460.5 2.47 satisfactory moderate 273 3476.7 18.62 satisfactory slight 277 1020.8 5.47 impaired moderate 319 262.5 1.41 satisfactory moderate 321 14.9 0.08 unsatisfactory moderate-severe 413 1266.1 6.78 unsatisfactory severe

Soil Condition ratings are tied to a given soil type found within the Terrestrial Ecological Units (Strenger, et. al. 2007). Soils were classified into three condition groups: Satisfactory, Impaired, and Unsatisfactory. • Satisfactory – Soil function is being maintained and is operating as expected. • Impaired – Ability of the soil to function properly has been limited or it has less resistance to the forces of degradation. Changes in management or mitigation measures may be appropriate. • Unsatisfactory – Loss or degradation of vital soil functions have occurred resulting in the inability to maintain resource values, sustain outputs and recover from impacts. Soils rated in this category are candidates for improved management or active restoration designed to recover soil functions. Soil condition is an evaluation of soil quality based on the interrelationship between soil hydrology, soil stability, and nutrient cycling. Soil hydrology is assessed using compaction. Compaction occurs on and adjacent to roads, trails, and recreation areas in the project area. Compaction reduces the ability of the soil to absorb, store, and transmit water. Soil stability is assessed through the erosion hazard rating and existing conditions on the ground. Nutrient cycling is assessed through levels of woody material which exist since wood is an important factor in maintaining soil organic matter. Soil condition integrates these three factors categories

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 61

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences to come up with a soil condition rating. Soil condition ratings for this project area were determined using guidelines found in the Technical Guidance document (USDA 2013). Table 3-8 lists the soil condition ratings in the project area and treatment area. Figure 3-4 shows locations of soil condition categories. Much of the project area is in satisfactory soil condition. Impaired and unsatisfactory soil conditions occur on about 40% of the area.

Table 3-8. Summary of Soil Condition Soil Condition Percent of Analysis Area Satisfactory 59.2 Impaired 24.1 Unsatisfactory 16.7

Where soils are currently impaired or unsatisfactory, high erosion rates and lack of woody material on the ground are the main causes. High erosion rates are related to the lack of ground cover, litter, and woody material in addition to compacted surfaces related to roads and trails. In the pinyon- 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. The erosion hazard interpretation determined from the TE data provides important information that helps determine the treatment methods that consider soil stability. Erosion hazard is based on the potential for soil loss from complete removal of vegetation and litter (USDA 1986). A severe rating indicates areas where mitigations are unlikely to prevent losses in soil productivity. Soils rated as moderate must be mitigated to prevent losses in soil productivity. Soils rated with a slight rating usually stabilize under natural conditions once the disturbance is removed. Map A-9 in Appendix A shows the location of erosion hazard categories in the project area. Environmental Consequences The analysis area for soil condition is the analysis area boundary. This is because it is the soils within this area have the potential to be directly and indirectly affected by the proposed activities. The measures for soil condition are acres of disturbance, and the heat per unit area and transition ratio, as modeled at the surface, listed in Table 3-9. The heat per unit area at the surface provides information about the heat the soil would be subject to during a wildfire under the modeled scenarios of the alternatives. The transition ratio is an indicator of the susceptibility for crown fire. Crown fire is associated with severe wildfires that are very hard to control. Severe wildfires result in greater amounts of damaged soil. The amount of woody material on the ground is a useful measure since lack of woody material has been observed and measured across the project area. Soil disturbance is an indicator where the soil is disturbed, resulting in soil loss and erosion. Soil disturbance is divided into two effects, area where compaction could occur from motorized vehicles and area under burn piles. The time period for analysis is 10 years since this time period allows time for changes to soil to be observed.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 62

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Table 3-9. Measures Used to Assess Effects on Soil Resources Activity/Effect Measures Compaction Acres disturbed by motorized vehicles Acres of hand piles Erosion Acres disturbed by motorized vehicles Acres of hand piles Fire Modeled heat per unit area Transition ratio

Alternative A – No Action Under the No Action Alternative none of the proposed activities would occur. 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, will continue to contribute to soil loss. Areas where soil condition is less than satisfactory due to lack of woody material will remain in this condition. Recruitment of woody material is likely to occur as trees die. The greatest effect of this, an indirect effect, is the effects of uncharacteristic wildfire. As discussed in the Fuels Report, 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 alternatives. Wildfires would be harder to control and burn hotter as indicated by the heat per unit area at the surface and transition ratio. Currently, the modeled surface heating in the 97 percentile scenario varies from 4344 Btu/ft2in the ponderosa pine type, and 640 Btu/ft2 in the PJ. These heating levels could lead to temperatures well above the values where organic matter is destroyed, amino acids are lost, and nitrogen is volatilized (Hungerford et al 1990). In both vegetation types, there is a susceptibility to crown fire as indicated by the modeled transition ratios of 2.26 in the PJ type and 2.62 in the ponderosa pine type. 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 also become water repellent which increases runoff during storm events because water is not able to infiltrate. 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, will continue to contribute to soil loss. Areas where soil condition is less than satisfactory due to lack of woody material will remain in this condition. Recruitment of woody material is likely to occur as trees die. Riparian restoration activities would not be implemented as part of this decision, should a no action alternative be selected. Alternative B Under this alternative, the activities of removing trees, adding woody material to the ground, prescribed fire including the potential for pile burning and driving on soils to remove wood products, could lead to direct effects to soil resources. These direct effects include compaction, bare ground, and loss of soil productivity. Creating the proposed openings could result in soil disturbance from mechanized equipment, removal of trees, mastication, and prescribed fire. Removing trees and soil disturbance exposes soil to precipitation events leading to erosion and sediment transport. In addition, there are changes in microclimate site occur when canopy and ground cover are disturbed or removed.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 63

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Soil disturbance would be reduced or prevented in some areas through design features and best management practices (BMPs) as described in the BMP appendix. Treatment types utilized information about soil conditions to determine proposed activities as shown in table 3-10.

Table 3-10. Proposed Treatment Types and Soil Characteristics Treatment Erosion Soil Condition Slope Soil Disturbance Fire Type Hazard Removal through Prescribed fire, slight or masticators, hand piles 1 satisfactory <40% moderate contractors, personal use Removal through Prescribed fire, 2 severe impaired <40% contractors, hand piles masticators slight, None Prescribed fire 3 moderate, unsatisfactory >30% severe slight, No removal chainsaw Prescribed fire, satisfactory, 4 moderate, >30% contracts for lop and hand piles impaired severe scatter <40% for No removal treatment Prescribed fire, mechanized; by masticators, hand piles slight, satisfactory, all slopes for mechanized feller, 5 moderate, impaired non- chainsaw contracts severe mechanized for lop and scatter methods

By considering soil characteristics, project design feature protect soil productivity by avoiding and reducing impacts to sensitive soils and improving soil characteristics. Where soil condition is unsatisfactory, soil disturbing activities are not proposed, except for prescribed fire. Less than satisfactory soil conditions are related to lack of ground cover and/or lack of woody material on the ground. In these areas, non-mechanized methods can be used to add woody material. Woody material in all size and decay classes improves soil condition where lacking. This wood provides protection to soil during rainfall, provides nutrients and microclimate, supporting soil processes. Where slopes are greater than 30%, motorized vehicles would not be allowed. Field observations reveal that motorized personal fuelwood collecting disturbs a large percentage of the area. As a result, personal fuelwood collecting is proposed for area where soil condition is satisfactory and erosion hazard is slight to moderate (Table 3-5). Subsequent prescribed burning would reduce masticated material, while vegetation grows back in. Masticated material is generally left in the openings and burned in later years. The depth of masticated material would not exceed 4 inches. Down woody material would be retained and/or appropriate levels would be restored 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. Compaction quickly occurs during the first few passes across soil, and in the P-J zone cryptogamic crusts are destroyed. Existing roads are already compacted, however when masticators or other equipment is used off road to remove trees, compaction occurs quickly. Motorized vehicles used by contractor or for personal fuelwood collection also compact soils. This effect could occur in treatment types 1, 2 and 5 from access by motorized vehicles, including masticators. As a result, about 15% of these areas have visible tire tracks and compacted surfaces (Cline, et al 2010). A similar assumption is made for personal fuelwood use collection since these areas are designed to be close to existing roads, thereby reducing the need for off road motorized access.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 64

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Therefore, for the purposes of analysis, it is assumed that the 15% of treatment types 1, 2, and 5 could be subject to ground disturbance when mastication or mechanized fellers are used. As a result, up to 1,343 acres could have motorized uses on them, including large equipment such as masticators, mechanized fellers, pickups, or off-highway vehicles. 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. Piles are proposed as a possible treatment method for slash in treatment types 1, 2, 4, and 5. Piles would not exceed 10 feet by 10 feet and 5-10 piles per acre. This could result in about 121- 241 acres of soils impacted below these piles. If pile burning occurs several best management practices 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 (Folliott, et al 2011 and Dore et al 2010). The fuels report lists the results of fire behavior model, BEHAVE Plus, for this alternative. This model shows that when weather conditions are severe, the model results for heat per unit area at the surface are reduced in the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer vegetation types. In the piñon-juniper type, the heat levels do not change regardless of the treatment method. This means the piñon-juniper type could still be subject to high heating levels during a wildfire, regardless of the alternative selected. Riparian restoration activities would implement projects identified in the Cedro Creek Assessment (2005). These activities include instream structures in the Cedro Creek watershed and restoring floodplain function by removing old road fill material in several locations. These activities would disturb soil in the short term on a maximum of 10 acres in total with this area spread out over several locations and different timing. Stabilization of these soils would occur quickly as they are located in riparian areas with sources of moisture for revegetation. Additional mitigations would be used to further ensure stabilization such as filter cloth, water bars, and other measures. Recreation proposals include decommissioning 6.4 miles of trails, adding 17.5 miles of motorized trails and 0.7 miles of un-motorized trails. In addition, decommissioning the Deadman Recreation area and the access road to it are also proposed. Table 3-11 shows the erosion hazard rating for the trails proposed for decommissioning and the proposed new trails.

Table 3-11. Erosion Hazard Rating for Proposed Trail Improvements Erosion Hazard Rating Miles of Trail Decommissioned Miles of Trail Additions Slight 0.6 2.0 Moderate 3.7 9.1 Severe 2.1 7.2 Total 6.4 18.2

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 65

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

There are 6.4 miles of trail proposed for decommissioning that would move towards an improved soil condition. Assuming a trail influence width of 10 feet, this is 7.8 acres. These trails would be stabilized using methods which decompact the soil, prevent concentration of water, and allow for revegetation. Possible practices include water bars, scarifying the soil, check dams, and adding slash or rocks to disperse runoff. This work would occur when the trail is closed. Approximately 18.2 miles of trail would be added to the trail system through new construction or use of existing unauthorized trail surfaces. Of the 18.2 miles, 17.5 miles are proposed to be motorized trails. This is approximately 22.1 acres that would be compacted and bare as a result of relocations and new trails, an unsatisfactory soil condition. Treatment to eradicate, control, and/or contain invasive plant across the analysis area is proposed as part of this alternative. An integrated management approach would be used. This is the similar to the approach documented in the Environmental Assessment for Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plant (USDA 2010) for the three other mountain districts and the Kiowa Rita Blanca Grasslands. Proposed activities which could impact soil resources are listed in Table 3-12. Biological agents are not expected to have any effect on soil condition. These activities could occur anywhere within the analysis area but not on more than 1% of the project area at any one time. Manual methods have the potential to disturb small areas which would recover quickly. Motorized mechanized methods would be limited to slopes less than 30% and could disturb soil on 100% of the area treated, depending on the extent of the weed being treated. These areas would be mitigated with erosion control methods, including restoration seeding and/or mulching or other practices if needed to stabilize soil. The use of herbicide could impact the soil by introducing chemicals which persist in the soil. Effects to microorganism were discussed earlier. Soil processes work to break down herbicide. Mitigations would be used to prevent overuse of herbicides in an area. This includes application by certified applicators. Controlled grazing could result in compacted and disturbed soils if concentrated too long in one area. Fire effects from prescribed burning are similar to those described in the vegetative treatment section.

Table 3-12. Invasive Plant Species Treatments and Effects to Soils Resources Proposed Method Activities Effect Manual digging, clipping, pulling out, and soil disturbance similar hand methods Mechanical mowing, or other mechanized methods soil disturbance involving motorized equipment compaction Herbicide manual or ground based application of bare soil herbicides chemical inputs to soil Controlled grazing Use of grazers such as cows, goats, compaction sheep loss of ground cover soil disturbance Prescribed burning fire heating of soil loss of nutrients

Three factors affect how herbicides persist in soils: soil characteristics, climatic conditions, and herbicidal properties. Soil characteristics which affect herbicide persistence are soil texture, organic matter content, pH, and microbial population. Soil textures in the project area contain an average of 19 – 48% clays (TEU 2007, NRCS 2015), generally sufficient to provide adsorption sites for those herbicides which are subject to this process as shown in Table 3-13. This can offset the lack of

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 66

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

organic matter in the project soils, all of which average less than 3% since organic matter works in a similar manner to clays by providing adsorption sites to which herbicides attach. Soil pH is slightly to moderately alkaline (7.5 – 8.2) across the project area. This decreases the rate of chemical breakdown for chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron methyl, and imazapic. Imazapic is primarily degraded by microbes so this mechanism will work to break it down. Chlorsulfuron and metsulfuron methyl also degrade to a lesser extent by microbes and by hydrolysis. Climatic factors in herbicide breakdown include moisture, temperature, and sunlight (Curran 2001). Generally, herbicide degradation increases with temperature and soil moisture. Temperatures are warm in the seasons when herbicides would be used in the project area. Soil moisture is dependent on precipitation in the project area. The wettest time occurs in the project area in the summer, shortly after the optimal time for most herbicide applications. Sunlight is important for herbicides that rely on photolysis to degrade, such as picloram and triclopyr. Sunlight is plentiful in the project area. While not entirely optimal, climate conditions in the project do support the degradation of the proposed herbicides due to warm and sunny conditions. Herbicide properties which affect persistence in soil include the adsorption properties, water solubility, and degradation pathways. These properties influence the half-life of the herbicide, a measure of how long it takes for half (50%) of the herbicide to degrade. Table 3-8 shows these properties for each of the proposed herbicides. For persistence risk, the half-life is compared to the expected interval of use. This gives a measure of how much herbicide could still be in the soil when the next application occurs. When the half-life is greater than the interval of use, the risk of persistence is high. For the proposed project, the interval of use is one year, 365 days Half-life values of less than 182 days are rated as low, with the values in between rated as moderate. This was confirmed by calculations (available in the project record) that show for a half-life value of ½ year, 8.2% of the original concentration remains in the soil at the end of three years (the expected duration of herbicide treatment). When the half-life is ¾ year, the remaining fraction is 24.4% of the original concentration. When the half-life is 1 year, 43.7% is the remaining fraction of herbicide at the end of three years. Table 3-8 shows the risk of persistence for each of the proposed chemicals based on the half-life.

Table 3-13. Risk of Persistence in Soil by Proposed Herbicide Herbicide Persistence (range of Persistence Risk in Soil half-life in soil), days Picloram 20-300 low to moderate Clopyralid 12-70 low Triclopyr 10-46 low Chlorsulfuron 10-185 low Glyphosate 1-180 low to moderate Metsulfuron Methyl 30-140 low Imazapic 31-410 low to high Imazapyr 25-180 low Aminocyclopyrachlor 114-433 low to high

Aminopyralid 14-143 low

Alternative C The only difference in Alternative C is that it does not include the use of herbicides for the treatment of non-native invasive plants. Other methods as shown in Table 3-12 would be utilized. These methods would have the same effects as described in Alternative B. In addition, all other proposed activities would have the same effects as described for Alternative B.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 67

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects generally refer to impacts that are additive or interactive (synergistic) in nature and result from multiple activities over time, including the project being assessed. The US Council on Environmental Quality defines cumulative effects as "the impacts on the environment that 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 nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions." Actions occurring within the Cibola National Forest that could potentially combine with the effects of the proposed action and result in environmental impacts include vegetation treatment, thinning, prescribed fires, road management, recreation, and wildlife habitat improvements. Road maintenance has a beneficial effect on watershed and soil condition as it improves road drainage and reduces erosion and sedimentation in the long-term. The effects from increased recreation activity in the Sandia Mountains have been considerable on watershed, soil condition, and riparian condition. New development is ongoing on private land. The cumulative effect of interest for soils is soil condition. The analysis area is the project area within a ten year timeframe. This is because ten years is long enough for effects to soil from the proposed activities to become apparent. The project area was selected since this project is designed to improve landscape condition. Project activities are expected to improve soil condition on over 4,967 acres of impaired and unsatisfactory soils in the treatment area. This is about 65% of the impaired soils in the project area. This makes an important gain in this area on improving soil condition for this landscape. 3.4 Water Resources Affected Environment Watersheds are areas drained by streams to a single location. These drainage areas are defined by the highest elevations surrounding a selected location on a stream so that a drop of water falling inside the boundary will drain to the stream while a drop of rain falling outside of the boundary will drain to another watershed. For the purposes of this project, smaller watersheds were delineated to assess vegetative treatment effects. These smaller watersheds allow for the analysis of potential effects from the proposed removal of trees and prescribed fire. There is no official hydrologic unit code number (HUC) associated with these smaller watersheds which will be referred to as project watersheds. Map A-11 in Appendix A shows these smaller project watersheds in relation to the treatment areas. The highest parts of these project watersheds are located on the ridge of the escarpment of the Sandia Mountains. The drainages are mostly ephemeral and flow to the east. Topography is generally moderately steep. The condition of these smaller watersheds is generalized from the larger scale watershed condition analysis. This means these project watersheds are also rated as ‘good’ (properly functioning) and ‘fair’ (functioning at risk). Water resource features include the streams, springs, and riparian areas that occur within project area. Stream and spring information is from the National Hydrography Data (NHD) maintained by USGS. The riparian data is from the RMAP (Regional Riparian Mapping Project) data layer created by the Forest Service. The GIS datasets are still being verified and updated as new information becomes available. Map A-12 in Appendix A shows the locations of the water

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 68

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences resource features within the project watersheds. Wetlands in project area are comprised of the small perennial portions of streams, intermittent streams, springs, and riparian areas. Perennial flow refers to stream where the water flows all of the time except possibly during periods of exceptional drought. Parts of the streams are intermittent which means they flow or awhile after the snowmelt or storm that supplied the moisture. These are shown on the map and are tend to be associated with riparian areas since the presence of water supports riparian vegetation. The majority of the streams are ephemeral which means they only flow in direct response to snow melt or rainfall. Ephemeral and intermittent streams have important values even though they do not flow continuously (Levick et al 2007). There are no perennial reaches within the project watersheds except for Tijeras Arroyo on the north end of the project area. Portions of Cedro Creek are intermittent, supporting riparian vegetation such as cottonwoods, box elder, willows, and non-native elms. There are 112.3 acres of mapped riparian areas in the project area shown in A-12 in Appendix A. These areas are coded Rio Grande Cottonwood- Shrub. In addition, at confluences with larger tributaries, unmapped riparian areas occur. Cedro Creek crosses NM 337 at several locations. Culverts at these sites are not wide enough to pass the bankful discharge, confining flows into a smaller channel when they do occur. Many of the culverts do not have stable inlets and outlets, resulting erosion at these locations. The gradient and alignment of the culverts contributes to this.

Figures 3-3 & 3-4. Culverts Passing Under NM State Highway 337. Photos taken by Livia Crowley.

The Cedro Creek Wetlands Action Plan was written cooperatively with New Mexico Environmental Department to address restoration needs in the Cedro watershed. This plan describes the setting of Cedro Creek and provides a list of restoration activities needed. A more detailed plan was developed in 2005 (Zeedyke 2005) with specific project designs. Some of these activities have already been implemented. In 2008, Cedro Creek Monitoring Report compared monitoring data from 2005 with post-restoration activities in 2007 to assess effectiveness of restoration treatments implement during this period. The lack of sediment has limited the success of structural measures designed to encourage aggradation, but some improvements were noted. The vegetation response increased the overall amount of wetland species such as rushes, cattails, and redtop grasses.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 69

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

A proper functioning condition (USDI-BLM 1998) assessment was completed on four reaches in Cedro Creek in 2013. This assessment found one reach nonfunctional due to lack of vertical stability, incisement, lack of vegetative components, and lack of channel features to dissipate flood flows. Two of the reaches were assessed properly functioning at risk, largely due to the lack of channel features, sediment and erosion, and vegetative components. Proximity to the main road and was a factor for these three reaches. Another reach was assessed as properly functioning. This reach supported a good diversity of riparian plants, protecting streambanks, and dissipating flood flows.

Water Quality A review of the 2012-2014 State of New Mexico’s Integrated Clean Water Act §303(d)/§305(b) Report (NMED 2012) indicates that the sub-watersheds, Upper and Middle Tijeras Arroyo have streams listed as impaired. The project area is Tijeras Arroyo, located on the north end of the analysis area as shown in Map A-10 in Appendix A. The listed reaches are in category ‘5C’ which means that available data and/or information indicate that at least one designated or existing use is not being supported but additional data are necessary to verify the listing before Total Maximum Daily Load Analyses are scheduled. The northern end of the project area drains to Tijeras Arroyo (assessment unit NM-9000.A_001), about three miles downstream from the project area. The designated use of warmwater aquatic life is not supported in this reach as assessed by benthic-macroinvertrebate bioassessment and nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators in 2008. Probable sources of impairment include channelization, discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, drought related impacts, local septic systems, rangeland grazing, wastes from pets, and unknown sources. Forest management activities in the project area do not contribute to any of these causes so it is unlikely that the project area contributes to the listed impairment. There is no water quality data available for the ephemeral and intermittent streams in the smaller watersheds. Water quality criteria for ephemeral and intermittent waters in New Mexico are linked to the designated uses of livestock watering, wildlife habitat, aquatic life and secondary contact. Criteria for secondary contact in these waters are limited to an E.coli bacteria standard. It is unknown whether or not this standard is met in ephemeral and intermittent water in the analysis area. It is likely that on National Forest System lands, this criterion is met due to limited sources of bacteria in the watershed since there are no livestock grazing or septic systems. Recreation use in areas without sanitary facilities does have the potential to increase these levels locally and for short periods of time. However, most recreation areas in the Cedro project area have sanitary facilities, camping activities are dispersed, and water flow is intermittent to ephemeral, therefore it is unlikely there is a measurable effect from these uses. Environmental Consequences The analysis area for the water resource features is the project area boundary. This includes the springs, stream channels, riparian areas, and project watersheds within the project area. Measures to assess effects to water resources were developed for each topic. The measures for water resources are listed in Table 3-14.

Table 3-14. Measures Used to Assess Potential Effects to Water Resources Resource Effect Measures Water Resource Changes to riparian Water resources features within analysis condition condition area

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 70

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Resource Effect Measures Changes to stream channels acres of riparian area miles of stream channel Water quality Sediment in water Acres proposed for treatment with Herbicides in water mechanized/motorized methods within 300 feet of water resource features Streams by type within 300 feet of proposed trail by type Stream crossings by type by proposed trails by type Acres potentially treated by herbicides within 300 feet of water resource features Water quantity Changes in water yield Percent treatment areas within project watersheds

The water resource features within the project area include stream channels and riparian areas. The effects to water resource features is assessed using the measures shown in Table 3-14. While these features will be mostly be buffered from treatment activities, the effectiveness of mitigations and project design features are not 100%. As a result, some effects would occur in these areas within the analysis timeframe of 10 years. The analysis area for water quality is the surface and ground waters within the project area. This includes the seasonal waters in the intermittent and ephemeral streams. The water quality components most likely to be affected by the proposed activities are sediment, dissolved nutrients such as nitrogen, and herbicide inputs. Ecosystems accumulate and cycle large quantities of nutrients. Fire and loss of vegetation can disrupt this cycle and cause nutrient leaching, volatilization, and transformation (Elliot et al 2010). Wildfire release more nitrogen into surfaces waters than prescribed fire (Stednick 2000). If vegetation is quickly reestablished, nutrient exports are short-lived and usually do not represent a threat to water quality (Elliot et al 2010). Because of this, nitrogen effects are not carried through the analysis. The measure for herbicide use is the risk of surface and ground water pollution by proposed herbicide. This measure was chosen because the extent and location of the invasive plants proposed for control and/or eradication using herbicides is not known. The risk to surface water was determined using the chemical’s solubility in water, adsorption properties, and half-life, using a basic method (Wright, Witkowski, and Schulze 2014). These risk values are approximations, dependent on actual site conditions. However, these values do provide relative risk estimates and are useful for showing differences between alternatives and between herbicides. The groundwater ubiquity score (GUS) is used to measure the mobility of an herbicide in soil, the potential to leach into the groundwater. GUS uses the half-life and soil absorption values to calculate this metric (Pesticide Research Institute 2015). These two factors have been shown to be the most relevant when considering risk to groundwater (Gustafon 1989). The range of values from the Forest Service risk assessments (Forest Service) were used to show the variation which can occur. The effects of herbicide use in riparian areas and along stream channels were discussed in the 2010 Environmental Assessment for Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants, which did not include Sandia Ranger District. However, similar mitigations and effects described in that report would also apply for the use of herbicides proposed for this project as described below. Potential plants in riparian areas and along stream channels proposed for herbicide treatment include salt cedar, Russian olive, and Siberian elm. Under this proposed alternative, appropriate aquatic approved herbicides would be allowed within riparian areas and

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 71

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences adjacent to channels. This use would be limited to spot treatments only during dry periods. The aquatic formulations of triclopyr-TEA (Garlon3A®), glyphosate (Rodeo®), imazapyr (Habitat®) are proposed for use in these areas. A combination of mechanical and chemical methods of control has been found to be the most effective control for all of these plants (USDA Forest Service, 2010, 2012a, 2012b). The measure for herbicide use is acres within 300 feet of water resource feature. Sediment is discussed in each alternative since sediment would be mobilized during proposed activities despite mitigations. Sediment is the result of soil disturbance, increased erosion, and subsequent transport to a stream channel or other water resource feature. Stream channels adjust to increased sediment loads. Fine sediment in channel bottoms, can cause changes to micro- invertebrates and changes in stream type. Increased site disturbance will result in increased soil erosion and subsequent sediment production (Elliot et al 2010). The measures for the potential to change sediment are acres of ground disturbance. Roads are the source of much of the sediment related to harvest activities (Elliot et al 2010). Increased traffic on roads related to tree removal activities leads to increased erosion and sediment from these roads and adjacent areas. The measures for sediment are acres treated with mechanized and/or motorized methods within 300 feet of water resource features and miles of trail re-routed away from Cañoncito. Three hundred feet was chosen as the buffer to use for this project since several sources suggest that 100m (303 feet) is generally effective in controlling sediment (Belt et al 1992). Therefore, identifying those activities which are within 300 feet of riparian areas, streams, and springs is a way to identify areas which are could contribute to sediment to these features. The timeframe for analysis is ten years since effects could be observable. Removing vegetation has the potential to increase water yields, change the timing of flow, and increase floods within a watershed (Elliot et al 2010). However, negligible water yield potential for piñon-juniper vegetation type has been reported (Zou, et al 2010). In the ponderosa pine vegetation type, there is the potential for some response, mostly from the redistribution of snow cover on north facing slopes (Baker, 1986). However, when precipitation is low as in the project area, water yield increases are less likely to occur, even in the ponderosa pine zone (Hibbert 1983, Bosch and Hewlett 1982, Brown et al 2005, and Zou et al 2010). Hibbert (1983) found that when precipitation is less than 18 inches and evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation, it is unlikely to reduce transpiration and observe measureable increases in water yield from vegetation treatments. In the Rocky Mountain region, the mean of reported change in peak flows begins to be important when at least 20% of the watershed is harvested (Stednick 1996). It is expected that this threshold is much higher for the project area, since the area has a high proportion of piñon-juniper and is not located on many north facing aspects. Many factors combine to produce potential water yield increases. These changes in peak flow are most evident during times of high soil moisture and high snowfall. To assess this effect, smaller project watersheds were delineated (Map A-11 in Appendix A) to assess how much of these smaller watersheds are proposed for treatment. The measure is percent of treatment areas within the project watershed. The timeframe for changes to annual water yield and small to moderate peak flows is 10 years since within this timeframe, potential water resources effects become undetectable with natural variability. Alternative A – 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 activities occurring that would cause ground disturbance to water resource features or loss of vegetative cover. There would be indirect effects from the no action alternative, largely due to the continued risk of uncharacteristic

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 72

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

wildfire and related effects. In addition, the sections of trail which are proposed for re-routing would not be re-routed, resulting in continued effects to soil and channels where they are crossed. The condition of water resources features would remain as described in the affected environment section. This includes the riparian areas and intermittent and ephemeral channels in the project area. As described in the Fire/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 area. Wildfire removes vegetation and causes bare soil, leading increased erosion, sedimentation, and runoff (USDA Forest Service 2010). As a result, channels adjust, water quality changes, depending on the severity and extent of the fire. If a wildfire were to occur within the project area it could have adverse effects on the riparian areas. A wildfire affects riparian areas both directly and indirectly. The direct effects consist mainly of consumption (removal) of the vegetation that intercepts precipitation, and the partial consumption of the underlying litter layer. The indirect affect to riparian areas it decreases watershed stability, and in steep erodible topography, debris flows are likely (USDA, 2005). However, depending on the severity, recovery of vegetation can be rapid within a couple years to pre-fire conditions in some environments; it is dependent on the combined disturbance of both the fire and the flooding. 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 spring 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 and trails, especially the user created trails in the south end of the project area and the actively eroding trails identified for re- routing. Under the no action alternative, no trails would be re-routed or created and eroding user created trails would not be addressed. Change to water yields in the project watersheds as a result of the no action alternative depends on whether or not a wildfire occurs within the timeframe of analysis – 10 years. There would be no change in water yield due to the proposed vegetative treatments. However, as mentioned in the Fuels report, the susceptibility for high heat per unit area values is greatest under this no action alternative for ponderosa pine and mixed conifer vegetation types. 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. Wildfire removes vegetation and causes bare soil, leading increased erosion, sedimentation, and runoff (Elliot et al 2010). Runoff from wildfire areas would also increase depending on the amount of fire within each watershed. Indirect effects from a wildfire have to potential to increase spring flows for up to five years should a large percentage of the watershed be burned as the result of decreased evapotranspiration similar to what is currently observed in the area of the Trigo Fire on the Mountainair District. Should this happen most of these effects would decrease to undetectable levels within 10 years as revegetation occurs. This alternative provides the least direct impact to water resources, but provides the greatest potential indirect effects due to risk to wildfire.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 73

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Table 3-15. Water Resource Measures Measure Alternative A Alt. B Alt. C Acres of mapped riparian area within 0 110 110 treatment area Acres of mapped riparian area within analysis 0 112.3 112.3 area Miles of mapped stream channels within 0 31.5 31.5 treatment area Miles of mapped stream channels within 0 38.5 38.5 analysis area Acres proposed for veg. treatment with 0 1,555.8 1,555.8 motorized methods within 300 feet of streams Acres proposed for veg. treatment with 0 180.8 180.8 motorized methods within 300 feet of riparian Acres proposed for herbicide treatments within 0 3,238 0 300 feet of streams Acres proposed for herbicide treatments within 0 615.5 0 300 feet of riparian

Alternative B Direct effects to water resources features related to the proposed action include the removal of trees, compaction and disturbance from motorized and mechanized equipment and vehicles, prescribed fire, hand piling, burning piles, and re-routing trails. Within the proposed analysis area, there are 112.3 acres of riparian areas and 38.5 miles of intermittent and ephemeral streams. Since the vegetative treatment area is smaller than the analysis area, there are fewer features; 110.0 acres of riparian area and 31.5 miles of stream channels. While these features will be protected through the use of project design features and mitigation, it is expected there will be some short term impacts to these features. The impacts will be prevented and mitigated through the use of design features and Best Management Practices as described in Appendix B. For example, stream channels in the project area would not be used as pathways for motorized vehicles. Trees within and adjacent to channels and riparian areas would be retained, except for some treatment of non-native trees, such as elms. 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, which could include removal of non-native plants and removal of selected trees to promote desired species. Some stream channels contain stringers of ponderosa pine as described in the vegetation report. These areas would be retained as groups of trees. Openings would not be created where stream channels are present or on concave slopes. These practices are described in Appendix B, Best Management Practices, based on soil and water conservation practices described in FSH 2509.22 (USDA 1990). Potential effects to water resource features are measured by the presence of these features in the treatment area since mitigations are not 100% effective and adaptive in nature. There is a process for assessing mitigations, also known as Best Management Practices (BMPs) which monitors the use of these practices. The implementation and effectiveness of BMPs is tracked to ensure these practices are reducing effects to water resources (USDA 2012). The use of BMPs which includes project design features and mitigations is detailed in BMP (Appendix B). Ground disturbing activities have the potential to mobilize sediment into adjacent water resources features. Riparian areas will have a 300 foot buffer established around them where mechanized and motorized activities would not be allowed. By implementing this buffer, there

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 74

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

would be little direct or indirect effects on water quality from the proposed activities. Ephemeral and intermittent waters would largely remain as described in the affected environment section. There may be some increased sedimentation during runoff events from soil disturbance within the project area. The prescribed buffers are expected to reduce the overland component of sediment. Other practices, such as water bars, restrictions on motorized use, and location of hand piles are expected to further reduce the input of sediment to these features. Concentrated surface runoff which has the potential to breach the prescribed buffers would be reduced by these practices. This will apply to the 31.3 acres of water resource features within 300 feet of the proposed treatments area. In addition, the direct effects of the proposed re-routes would mobilize sediment from these relatively undisturbed areas while at the same time allowing the old trail segments to stabilize and reduce sediment inputs. Since the new locations are located away from water resource features, the overall effect is to improve water resource condition in the area of the re-routes. Project design features and mitigations are used to ensure appropriate location of re-route, drainage features on these new trails, and rehabilitation of the old trail segments. This is especially true of the 0.4 miles of trail removed from the riparian area of the Cañoncito drainage. Because project design features and mitigations are expected to reduce inputs of sediment related to the proposed activities, it is unlikely there would be effects to the downstream impaired waters in each of the sub-watersheds intersecting the project area. Mechanical shredding has been shown to reduce sediment yields and improve infiltration in juniper woodlands (Cline et al 2010). The impaired reaches in San Pedro Creek and Tijeras Arroyo do not include sediment as a cause for not attaining the designated use. In addition, these two reaches are located miles downstream from the project area. By using the BMPs as described in the appendix, there would be no impact from the proposed activities to these impaired stream reaches. It is unlikely that there will be changes in water yield could occur in the project watersheds due to the removal of vegetation and ground disturbance in project area. To check the potential for this, the percent proposed for treatment in each project watershed was calculated using an assumption of 50% for removal. As mentioned previously, when at least 20 % of the forest cover in a watershed is removed; base flows can increase in locations with favorable characteristics (Brown et al 2005). Favorable characteristics in the project area generally do not exist in the piñon-juniper vegetation type but may occur occasionally in the higher elevation vegetation types when snow can accumulate. Water yield potential has been linked to vegetation type in several research papers (Zou et al 2010, Baker 1986, and Brown et al 2005). This link is related to the precipitation within the vegetation types with very little potential in the piñon juniper types. Where there is snow accumulation, as in the ponderosa pine, there is a greater potential for water yield increases related to vegetation treatments. Riparian restoration activities would implement projects identified in the Cedro Creek Assessment (Zeedyke 2005). These activities include structures to improve channel function and removal of old road fill to reconnect floodplains to channels. This work is expected to improve the proper functioning condition (PFC) of riparian areas in the Cedro Creek watershed so that areas currently at risk have an upward trend. Trail work includes re-routing trails and adding trails re-routes would result in an improvement in water resource condition on the closed sections of trail especially where these trails are relocated away from floodplains, channels, and riparian areas.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 75

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

However, relocations include stream crossing locations. At these sites, stream stability and functioning would be impacted as a result of motorized and non-motorized traffic at these sites. In particular, the proposed use of two culverts on Cedro Creek passing under NM 337, would worsen the effects currently occurring at these sites. As described earlier, the culverts are not aligned correctly, with widths too narrow to pass bankful discharges. Use as a crossings for trail, motorized or non-motorized, would further immobilize the streambed and increase sedimentation at the inlet and outlets. This would reduce the condition of Cedro Creek in these areas. Treatment to eradicate, control, and/or contain non-native invasive plants across the analysis area is proposed as part of this alternative. An integrated management approach would be used. These activities could occur anywhere within the analysis area. Manual methods have the potential to disturb small areas which would recover quickly, so would not be sediment sources for long. Motorized mechanized methods would be limited to slopes less than 30% and could cause disturbance on 100% of the area treated, depending on the extent of the weed being treated. These areas would be mitigated with erosion control methods, including restoration seeding and/or mulching or other practices if needed to stabilize the site and prevent sedimentation. The use of herbicide could impact the water resources by introducing chemicals which could impact water quality. There are 3,238 acres of the analysis area within 300 feet of stream channels and 615.5 acres within 300 feet of riparian areas. Mitigations would be used to prevent overuse of herbicides in an area with only spot treatments allow in stream channels and riparian areas, only during dry periods. Herbicide would not be applied near surface waters. Controlled grazing as a control method could result in compacted and disturbed soils if concentrated too long in one area. Fire effects from prescribed burning are similar to those described in the vegetative treatment section. The loss of large non-native trees in the riparian area as the result of treatment would reduce elements contributing to properly functioning riparian areas. This is because non-native elm trees provide much of the shade and bank stability in several areas along Cedro Creek. Removal of these trees would reduce shade and stability until other species can grow in.

Table 3-16. Potential Herbicide Movement Herbicide Alts. A & C Surface Alts. A & C Alt. B Surface Alt. B Leaching in Runoff Risk Leaching in Runoff Risk Groundwater Risk Groundwater Risk Picloram none none High Moderate to high Clopyralid none none Low Moderate to high Triclopyr none none Medium Low to high Chlorsulfuron none none High Moderate to high Glyphosate none none Medium Low to high Metsulfuron Methyl none none High Moderate to high Imazapic none none High Low to high Imazapyr none none High Moderate to high Aminocyclopyrachlor none none High High Aminopyralid none none high Low to high

Alternative C The only difference in between Alternatives B and C is that Alternative C does not include the use of herbicides for the treatment of non-native invasive plants. Other methods as shown in Table 2-6 would be utilized. These methods would have the same effects as described in Alternative B. Since herbicide use would follow mitigations to prevent water resource effects, there are no measureable differences expected.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 76

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

All other proposed activities would have the same effects as described for Alternative B. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effect of interest for water resources is watershed condition as described in the Watershed Condition Framework (USDA 2011). The cumulative effects boundaries for this project are the six 12 digit HUCs, sub-watersheds, shown on Map A-10, in Appendix A. Beyond this scale, any effects of the proposed action will become indistinguishable from background levels. Cumulative effects will be bound temporally 10 years in the past to 10 year in the future. 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 ‘poor’ on any of the 6th code watersheds in the project area. Implementing one of the action alternatives could provide control opportunities, thereby reducing the size and severity of potential wildfires. However, due to the small amount of treatment proposed and localized control opportunities that would be created, the proposed action would not reduce this risk enough to make a change in the potential for changing watershed condition class. 3.5 Wildlife The affected environment and environmental consequences each contain these four sections: 1. Threatened and Endangered Species 2. Sensitive Wildlife Species 3. Management Indicator Species 4. High Priority Migratory Birds Affected Environment Reduction of natural processes such as low fire intervals in the pinyon-juniper type have resulted in a tightly closed woodland canopy, and a reduced grass, shrub, and forb understory. Wildlife species dependent on diverse habitat within the woodland system are limited due to lack of understory vegetation. Pinyon-juniper woodlands (persistent, shrub and savanna) and pinyon- juniper woodlands with scattered ponderosa pine overstory are important to wildlife because they provide pinyon nuts and juniper berries that are readily available forage for many wildlife species. Other habitat features include important winter range for game mammals and birds, travel corridors, thermal cover, dead and down woody materials used for nesting and resting, and snags used by cavity nesting species. Ponderosa pine forests provide forage and cover for many species of wildlife. Habitat features common in ponderosa pine forest include roost and nest trees, snags and large downed logs, abundant needle litter, thermal cover, travel corridors, grassy forest openings, fawning areas for deer, and natural water sources. Much of this habitat type within the project boundary is vegetated by even-aged stands. These ponderosa pine stands lack the understory vegetation necessary for wildlife species diversity. There are very few older age class ponderosa pine stands with large diameter trees, snags and large downed logs. Management of habitat for the northern goshawk is an important consideration in this habitat type. The oak woodland or mountain shrub forest type is dominated by oak with scattered coniferous trees. Oak woodlands provide important habitat for many wildlife species, with understory vegetation providing browse species and mast crops, and thermal variation from surrounding

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 77

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences conifer forests. In general, areas of mountain shrub have decreased due to tree encroachment, largely resulting from fire suppression. Wildlife use riparian habitat types disproportionately more than the availability of these areas across the landscape. These areas provide essential components such as water and forage for many wildlife species. Some riparian areas have been degraded due to non-native plant species invasion and conifer encroachment, as well as shading and crowding out of riparian vegetation, as a result of past management practices such as the exclusion of fire. In these areas, there is little shrub or herbaceous understory and bank stability has been reduced allowing accelerated channel degradation and increases in sediment. Riparian areas are located in Cedro Creek. Meadows or mountain grasslands would be classified as a climax plant community under TES vegetation typing system based on climate, soil characteristics and slope even where there may be existing conifer encroachment. Recent landscape scale vegetation treatment projects have focused on maintaining and increasing meadow habitat through the removal of encroaching conifers and the maintenance of small forest openings.

Threatened and Endangered Species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list of threatened, endangered, and proposed species which may occur in the project area was reviewed to determine potential wildlife and plant species which may occur in the analysis area (USDI 2016; https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/). There is no Critical Habitat for listed species in the analysis area. Threatened, endangered, or proposed wildlife species which may occur or have potential habitat in the project area are listed in Table 3-17. Species whose habitats do not occur in the project area were not considered further. Table 3-17 displays species considered and whether they are likely to occur in the analysis area.

Table 3-17. Potential Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species Common Scientific Group Status Habitat Type Name Name Riparian- Occurs in lower elevation boggy riparian areas with an overstory of cottonwood Southwestern and willows. This habitat type does not occur Empidonax willow Bird Endangered within the analysis area. Habitat only occurs in traillii extimus flycatcher Bluewater Creek on the Mt. Taylor RD, and Tajique Canyon on the Mountainair RD. Needs larger habitat patches to form loose colonies. Aquatic- There is no direct connection for water to flow from the project area into occupied Silvery Minnow Habitat. Conservative measures Rio Grande Hybognathus Fish Endangered to protect soil and water resources are silvery minnow amarus incorporated into project design. Silvery Minnow are not considered to be highly sensitive to sedimentation. Mixed conifer- Occurs in Mixed conifer and Strix montane riparian habitat. There are 113 acres Mexican occidentalis Bird Threatened of riparian in the analysis area. There are no spotted owl lucida known PACs, protected habitat or designated Critical Habitat in the project area. Riparian- Occurs in areas adjacent to flowing New Mexico Zapus water with saturated soils dominated by tall meadow hudsonius Mammal Endangered sedges and forbs with relatively low canopy jumping mouse luteus cover near uplands for hibernation.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 78

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Common Scientific Group Status Habitat Type Name Name Riparian- Occurs in extensive, moist, lower elevation riparian habitat with large blocks of cottonwood and willows mixed with other shrubs. The project area occurs in the Yellow-billed Coccyzus Bird Threatened separation between the eastern and western Cuckoo americanus DPS which is along the watershed boundary between the Rio Grande and the Pecos Rivers where arid basins and isolated mountain ranges emerge from a high desert plateau.

MSO habitat existing condition: Mixed conifer forest types do not exist in the project area. A small amount of riparian habitat does occur within the project boundary. MSO habitat desired condition: The ALRMP describes standards and guidelines for management prescriptions for Mexican spotted owl habitat, as detailed in the original Recovery Plan (USDI 1995). Provide three levels of habitat management - protected, restricted, and other forest and woodland types to achieve a diversity of habitat conditions across the landscape. Protected areas include delineated protected activity centers (PACs; none in the project area); mixed conifer forests with slopes greater than 40 percent where timber harvest has not occurred in the last 20 years; and reserved lands which include wilderness, research natural areas, wild and scenic rivers, and congressionally recognized wilderness study areas. Restricted areas include all mixed-conifer and riparian forests outside of protected areas. While pine-oak is included in certain recovery units, this is not the case for the project area which is in the Basin and Range – East Recovery Unit. Other forest and woodland types include all ponderosa pine, spruce-fir, woodland, and aspen forests outside protected and restricted areas. Limit human activity in protected activity centers during the breeding season, which is March 1 to August 31.

Restricted Areas (Mixed conifer and riparian forests) Mixed Conifer Forests - Manage to ensure a sustained level of owl nest/roost habitat well distributed across the landscape. Create replacement owl nest/roost habitat where appropriate while providing a diversity of stand conditions across the landscape to ensure habitat for a diversity of prey species. The minimum mixed conifer restricted area includes 10 percent at 170 basal area and an additional amount of area at 150 basal area. The additional area of 150 basal area is +10 percent in BR-E and +15 percent in all other recovery units. The variables are for stand averages and are minimum threshold values and must be met simultaneously. In project design, no stands simultaneously meeting or exceeding the minimum threshold values should be reduced below the threshold values unless a district-wide or larger landscape analysis of restricted areas shows that there is a surplus of restricted area across simultaneously meeting the threshold values. Management should be designed to create minimum threshold conditions on project areas where there is a deficit of stands simultaneously meeting minimum threshold conditions unless the district-wide or larger landscape analysis shows there is a surplus. Attempt to mimic natural disturbance patterns by incorporating natural variation, such as irregular tree spacing and various patch sizes, into management prescriptions. Maintain all species of native trees in the landscape including early seral species. Allow natural canopy gap

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 79

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

processes to occur, thus producing horizontal variation in stand structure. Emphasize uneven- aged management systems. However, both even-aged and uneven aged systems may be used where appropriate to provide variation in existing stand structure and species diversity. Existing stand conditions will determine which system is appropriate. Extend rotation ages for even-aged stands to greater than 200 years. Silvicultural prescriptions should explicitly state when vegetative manipulation will cease until rotation age is reached. Save all trees greater than 18 inches DBH. Encourage prescribed and prescribed natural fire to reduce hazardous fuel accumulation. Thinning from below may be desirable or necessary before burning to reduce ladder fuels and the risk of crown fire. Retain substantive amounts of key habitat components:

• Snags 18 inches in diameter and larger • Down logs over 12 inches midpoint diameter • Hardwoods for retention, recruitment, and replacement of large hardwoods • Riparian Areas Riparian Areas - Emphasize maintenance and restoration of healthy riparian ecosystems through conformance with forest plan riparian standards and guidelines. Management strategies should move degraded riparian vegetation toward good condition as soon as possible. Damage to riparian vegetation, stream banks, and channels should be prevented.

Other Forest and Woodland Types Apply ecosystem approaches to manage for landscape diversity mimicking natural disturbance patterns, incorporating natural variation in stand conditions and retaining special features such as snags and large trees, utilizing appropriate fires, and retention of existing old growth in accordance with ALRMP old growth standards and guidelines.

Sensitive Species The 2013 Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list for the Southwestern Region was reviewed to determine potential wildlife or plant species which may occur in the analysis area (USDA 2013a, b). The yellow-billed cuckoo was also analyzed as a threatened species above. The following Forest Service Regional Forester’s sensitive species were considered but not evaluated due to the absence of suitable or potential habitat in the analysis area (Table 3-18).

Table 3-18. Sensitive Species Considered but not Evaluated Common Name Scientific Name Group Condition in Project Area Haliaetus Bald eagle Bird Occurs only as a rare transient in the project area. leucocephalus Falco peregrinus No preferred or available cliff nest sites affected; no Peregrine falcon1 Bird anatum direct link to prey. Yellow-billed Coccyzus No lower elevation riparian habitat within the project Bird Cuckoo2 americanus area. Heuchera Populations currently recorded from Sandia Mountain Sandia alumroot Plant pulchella near the crest, outside of the project area. 1U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Concern for planning purposes. 2U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened Species.

Sensitive wildlife species which may occur or have potential habitat in the project area include: Northern leopard frog, Northern goshawk, Gray vireo, Spotted bat, and Pale Townsend's big- eared bat (Table 3-19). A northern goshawk dispersal territory is located in the project area. A

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 80

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Post-Fledging Family Area (PFA) and associated nest areas were established within the project area and the territory is monitored annually (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006).

Table 3-19. Potential Sensitive Species Scientific Common Name Group Habitat Type Name Require dense aquatic emergent vegetation for breeding, Northern leopard Rana pipiens Amphibian larger streams for overwintering; no habitat in project frog area. Ponderosa pine-and oak habitat with open areas, woody debris to support abundant prey. There is one known territory in the project area and the ponderosa pine habitat is considered suitable for future occupancy. Surveys were conducted to protocol in the project area, but no other Accipiter Northern goshawk1 Bird territories were located. “Management Recommendations gentilis for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States” (Reynolds et al. 1992) outlines desired forest conditions for the 6,000 acre home range used by a breeding pair of goshawks including the viability of 14 important prey species. This species inhabits dry-shrub dominated landscapes mingled with networks of shallow arroyos. Elevations Gray vireo Vireo vicinior Bird where it nests range from 5,000 to 6,500 ft. There is no suitable habitat for this species in the project area. This species is a cliff dweller that roosts in cracks and Euderma crevices in rock in forested areas near open water. No Spotted bat Mammal maculatum surveys have been conducted for this species in the project area. Conifer forests strongly associated with the availability of Corynorhinus caves or cave-like roosting habitat (mines, buildings, etc.) Pale Townsend’s townsendii Mammal provide habitat for the Townsend’s big-eared bat. No big-eared bat1 pallescens surveys have been conducted for this species in the project area. 1U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Concern for planning purposes Northern Goshawk habitat existing condition: Management Scale - Distribution of habitat structures (tree size and age classes, tree groups of different densities, snags, dead and down woody material, etc.) was evaluated at the ecosystem management area level, at the mid-scale such as the project area, and at the small scale of site. The following tables were produced for the vegetation specialist report and are reprinted below. Refer to the vegetation specialist report in the project record.

Table 3-20. Distribution by VSS Class for the Ponderosa Pine Forest Type (percentage) for Forested Areas Within the Cedro project Area and scales above and below. Scale VSS 1/2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6 Manzano/Manzanita 9% 3% 55% 22% 11% EMA Cedro Project Area <1% 62% 37% <1% 0% Stand (site) 0% 60% 20% 20% 0%

Across the Ecosystem Management Scale, there is a surplus of VSS 4 in ponderosa pine forests, which are lacking trees in the mature VSS classes, especially 6. Ponderosa pine forests in the project area show a similar age class distribution as that reflected in the EMA scale, while there is a relatively small amount of mixed conifer in the project area exclusively in VSS 1/2 and 5/6. Ponderosa pine forests in the project area are lacking trees in VSS 6. Pinyon juniper woodlands in the EMA and project area are primarily older trees, lacking middle and younger age classes. Management activities will help push stands toward a more desirable age class distribution.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 81

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Average tree densities (trees per acre) by forest type at the different scales are shown in Table 3- 21. Relatively high and consistent tree densities, at all scales, reflect the lack of disturbance, either natural or through management, over time. Snag deficits in the pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine forest types at the site and Sulphur Forest Restoration analysis area levels reflect historical use and limited management (prescribed fire, etc) due to limited accessibility (Table 3-22). Higher snag levels, at the Sandia Ecosystem level, are a result of recent insect and disease activity across the landscape. Relatively low levels of downed logs in the Pinyon-Juniper and Ponderosa pine forest types at the site and project area levels reflect historical use and limited management due to accessibility. Downed logs at all scales are typically at higher stages of decay.

Table 3-21. Forest Structural Components by Forest Type at the Different Scales Cedro Landscape Manzano/Manzanita Structure Forest Type Restoration Site EMA Project Area Avg. Tree Densities Pinyon-juniper 3,119 3,738 93-17,244 (trees per acre) woodland Avg. Tree Densities Ponderosa pine 2,625 3,845 2,475-5,045 (trees per acre) Avg. Number of Pinyon-juniper Snags per acre (>9 9-12 <1 <1 woodland inch dbh) Avg. Number of Snags per acre (>9 Ponderosa pine 14-20 <1 <1 inch dbh) Avg. Number of Downed logs per Pinyon-juniper 10-15 <2 <2 acre (12 inch dbh, 8 woodland ft. long) Avg. Number of Downed logs per Ponderosa pine 10-15 <2 <2 acre (12 inch dbh, 8 ft. long)

Northern Goshawk habitat desired condition: The ALRMP describes standards and guidelines for ecosystem management in Northern goshawk habitat, as detailed in the General Technical Report RM-217 (Reynolds et al 1992). Establish a post-fledging family area that includes six nesting areas per pair of nesting goshawks. Manage for uneven-age stand conditions for live trees and retain live reserve trees, snags, downed logs, and woody debris levels throughout woodland, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and spruce-fir forest cover types. Manage for old age trees such that as much old forest structure as possible is sustained over time across the landscape. Sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory and understory), age classes and species composition across the landscape. Provide foods and cover for goshawk prey. Limit human activity in nesting areas during the breeding season. Home Range Establishment - Post-fledging family areas (PFA) will be approximately 600 acres in size. Post-fledging family areas will include the nest sites and consist of the habitat most likely to be used by the fledglings during their early development. Establish a minimum of three nest areas and three replacement nest areas per Post-fledging family area. The nest areas and replacement nest areas should be approximately 30 acres in size. A minimum total of 180 acres

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 82

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

of nest areas should be identified within each post-fledging family area. Manage for nest replacement sites to attain sufficient quality and size to replace the three suitable nest sites.

Vegetation Management Landscapes outside (Goshawk post-fledging family area's) - The distribution of vegetation structural stages for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and spruce-fir forests is 10 percent grass/forb/shrub (VSS1), 10 percent seedling-sapling (VSS2), 20 percent young forest (VSS3), 20 percent mid-aged forest (VSS4), 20 percent mature forest (VSS5), 20 percent old forest (VSS6). Identify and manage dispersal PFA and nest habitat at 2-2.5 mile spacing across the landscape. Mixed Conifer: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4) should average 1/3 60+ percent and 2/3 40+ percent, mature forest (VSS 5) should average 50+ percent, and old forest (VSS 6) should average 60+ percent. Maximum opening size is up to four acres with a maximum width of up to 200 feet. Retain one group of reserve trees per acre of 6 trees per group for openings greater than one acre in size. Leave at least three snags, five downed logs, and 10-15 tons of woody debris per acre. Ponderosa Pine: Canopy Cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4) should average 40+ percent, mature forest (VSS 5) should average 40+ percent, and old forest (VSS 6) should average 40+ percent. Opening size is up to four acres with a maximum width of up to 200 feet. One group of reserve trees, 3-5 trees per group, will be left if the opening is greater than an acre in size. Leave at least two snags per acre, three downed logs per acre, and 5-7 tons of woody debris per acre. Woodland: Manage for uneven age conditions to sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory and understory), age classes, and species composition well distributed across the landscape. Provide for reserve trees, snags, and down woody debris.

Within post-fledging family area's Provide for a healthy sustainable forest environment for the post-fledging family needs of goshawks. The principle difference between within the post-fledging family area and outside the post-fledging family area is the higher canopy cover within the post-fledging family area and smaller opening size within the post-fledging family area. Vegetative Structural Stage distribution and structural conditions are the same within and outside the post-fledging family area. Ponderosa Pine: Canopy Cover for middle aged forest (VSS 4) should average 1/3 60+ percent and 2/3 5O+ percent. Mature VSS 5) and old forest {VSS 6) should average 50+ percent. Woodland: Maintain existing canopy cover levels.

Within Nesting Areas Provide unique nesting habitat conditions for goshawks. Important features include trees of mature to old age with high canopy cover. The structure of the vegetation within nest areas is associated with the forest type, and tree age, size, and density, and the developmental history of the stand. Preferred treatments to maintain the desired structure are to thin from below with non- uniform spacing and use of hand tools and fire to reduce fuel loads. Lopping and scattering of thinning debris is preferred if prescribed fire cannot be used. Piling of debris should be limited.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 83

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

When necessary, hand piling should be used to minimize compaction within piles and to minimize displacement and destruction of the forest floor and the herbaceous layer. Do not grapple or dozer-pile debris. Manage road densities at the lowest level possible to minimize disturbance in the nest area. Use small, permanent skid trails in lieu of roads for timber harvesting. Mixed Conifer and Ponderosa Pine Cover Types: The nesting area contains only mature to old forest (VSS 5 & 6) having a canopy cover (measured vertically) between 50-70 percent with mid-aged VSS 6 trees 200-300 years old. Non-uniform spacing of trees and clumpiness is desirable. Woodland: Maintain existing canopy cover levels.

Human Disturbance Limit human activities in or near nest sites and post-fledging family area's during the breeding season so that goshawk reproductive success is not affected by human activities. The breeding season extends from March 1 through September 30. Low intensity ground fires are allowed at any time in all forested cover types, but high intensity crown fires are not acceptable in the post-fledging family area or nest areas. Avoid burning the entire home range of a goshawk pair in a single year. For fires planned in the occupied nest area, a fire management plan should be prepared. The fire management plan should minimize the risk of goshawk abandonment while low intensity ground fire burns in the nesting area. Prescribed fire within nesting areas should be planned to move with prevailing winds away from the nest tree to minimize smoke and risk of crown fire developing and driving the adults off or consuming the nest tree.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) The ALRMP identified 13 forest-wide MIS to estimate the effects planned activities may have on wildlife forest-wide and project level habitat and populations. All 13 MIS species were considered for this analysis, but only those species whose habitat occurs in the project area were considered further. Based on the habitat types that exist in the analysis area the following MIS were selected for analysis: elk, mule deer, juniper titmouse, pygmy nuthatch, Merriam’s turkey, and house wren. Only those MIS likely to occur in the project area were analyzed. Table 3-22 describes the habitat type, existing habitat trends, management indicator species, and existing MIS population trends. Refer to the Forest-wide MIS report in the project (USDA Forest Service 2014) which is incorporated by reference.

Table 3-22. Habitat Types, MIS, and Existing Forest-wide Habitat and Population Trends Acres in Existing Forest- Habitat Acres in Management Existing Forest-wide Project Area wide Habitat Type Forest Indicator Species Population Trend (% of Forest) Trend Pinyon- 12,250 Mule deer Downward 702,112 Stable juniper (1.7) Juniper titmouse Downward Ponderosa 250 Pygmy nuthatch Stable 454,780 Stable pine (0.05) Merriam’s turkey Upward Mountain 130 69,731 Downward Mule deer Downward shrub (0.2)

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 84

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Acres in Existing Forest- Habitat Acres in Management Existing Forest-wide Project Area wide Habitat Type Forest Indicator Species Population Trend (% of Forest) Trend Mountain 430 179,444 Stable Elk Upward grassland (0.2) 115 Riparian 7,569 Upward House wren Stable (1.5)

MIS for the pinyon-juniper woodland are mule deer and juniper titmouse. Mule deer can be found in the area yearlong. Mule deer numbers in general have decreased over the past decade and mid-successional habitats used by deer are being reduced due to a lack of disturbance from fire or restoration treatments. The juniper titmouse is a woodland species that nests in cavities. Older age class pinyon 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 pinyon- juniper habitat, and overall decline of this habitat due to drought and beetle infestation. MIS for the ponderosa pine forest are pygmy nuthatch and Merriam’s turkey. The pygmy nuthatch is a cavity nester and prefers old-growth ponderosa pine. The Merriam’s turkey is a habitat generalist that occurs in ponderosa pine, pine-oak and pinyon-juniper woodlands. It was reestablished in the Sandia Mountains in the early 2000’s and has continued to expand its range in the area. MIS for oak woodland (mountain shrub) habitat is the mule deer. As discussed for pinyon- juniper woodland, mule deer populations have been declining in the recent past. Mountain shrub habitat will continue to show a downward trend unless there are large wildfires or prescribed burns implemented to improve the quality of mountain shrub habitat. The change in the amount of this habitat type is due primarily to fire suppression and the trend is expected to continue to decline. MIS for mountain grassland is elk. In the ALRMP elk were selected as Management Indicator Species for the mountain grasslands and mixed conifer habitat found on the Forest. The justification for this selection reads as follows: “Elk – grazer, fairly adaptable, not representative over entire Forest, however, a good indicator of meadow types in those areas where it does appear. Easily monitored and identified. Is a species of high public interest and can be managed for.” MIS for riparian habitat is the house wren. The house wren feeds on insects in the understory of riparian vegetation primarily at elevations from approximately 7,500 feet to 8,500 feet. It is a summer resident of the project area and a Neotropical migrant. Limiting factors for house wrens appear to be suitable snags and cavities in proximity to riparian areas.

Migratory Birds On January 10, 2001, Executive Order (EO) 13186 was signed placing emphasis on conservation of migratory birds. The EO supplements the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA 1918) which has been in effect since the early 1900’s. Effects to migratory birds are analyzed in the following manner: (1) effects to Highest Priority Birds listed by Partners in Flight (PIF; New Mexico Partners in Flight 2007); (2) effects to Important Bird Areas (IBAs; USDA 2012); (3) effects to important over-wintering areas.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 85

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

On the Cibola NF&NG, populations of birds are monitored through the use of breeding bird surveys (BBS) on geographic areas to detect population and trend during the breeding period. There are two types of BBS survey done on the Cibola NF&NG: The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) monitoring routes, which are 24.5 miles in length, and BBS routes. These latter surveys are from one to two miles in length with either six to eleven points, respectively. Each point is surveyed for 10 minutes. There are two Cibola NF BBS routes in the project area. The Cedro and Otero Canyons routes are located in various habitat types representative of all habitats in the project area. The project area is also adjacent to the Kirtland Air Force Base and Department of Defense and Energy Withdrawals in the Manzanitas, also recognized as an IBA. Refer to the Cibola National Forest Breeding Bird supplement for 2012 for additional details (USDA Forest Service 2012). Priority Birds identified for the Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau Conservation Region were reviewed for potential occurrence in the project area. The loggerhead shrike and gray vireo were also considered as sensitive species, and the red-naped sapsucker and juniper titmouse were also analyzed as MIS. Priority bird habitat in the project area is: pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine, montane shrub, montane grassland and riparian. Different vegetation types provide habitat for a variety of migratory birds. There are no over-wintering areas identified in the project area. Migratory bird species evaluated are summarized in Table 9. Population trends were determined according to Partners In Flight assessments (New Mexico Partners in Flight 2007).

Table 3-23. Migratory Bird Species Evaluated In the Vegetation Types in the Analysis Area Habitat Population Species Comments Type Trend Occurs potentially throughout the project area in Pinyon/Juniper Pinyon- Pinyon jay Downward woodlands. Management would include maintaining large cone juniper producing trees, as well as replacement trees of all age classes. It is associated with piñon-juniper vegetation type, and its primary abundance lies at the lower end of the habitat spectrum Pinyon- Juniper Downward where juniper predominates. The elevation preference on the juniper titmouse Sandia RD is from 6000 feet to about 7200 feet, but can extend to 7500 on dry and open P/J sites. This mountain hummingbird is found from about 7,000 feet upwards. Frequents meadows and open forests with a shrubby Pinyon- Broad-tailed Downward component and forbs. Gooseberry, figwort and Indian Paintbrush juniper hummingbird are among its favorite flowers. Excessive grazing in meadows could remove an important source of nectar and insects. Relatively uncommon on district in juniper savannah or Pinyon- Loggerhead grassland/shrub habitats—generally below 7,000 feet. Since a Downward juniper shrike primary predator of young may be the Bull Snake, an environment that supports hawks is also good for the shrike. This bird is on the NM “Threatened” list, with a very local distribution pattern in juniper savannah probably not exceeding Pinyon- 6,800 feet in elevation. So far it has only been found on the Gray vireo Downward juniper Sandia RD at Kirtland AFB and the Bernalillo Watershed. NM PIF has accorded it highest priority, equal to that of the Willow Flycatcher. This bird is uncommon to rare in foothill washes in P/J (up to Pinyon- about 7000 feet) on the district. In the arroyo-bisected foothills of Crissal thrasher Stable juniper the Sandias, these birds can be found in shrubby, thicket-like habitat dominated by scrub live-oak. Common to fairly common in P/J, Ponderosa and even M/C, especially when Gambel Oak understory is present from about Pinyon- Virginia’s Stable 6,700 feet to at least 9,000 feet. Usually found on slopes, but juniper warbler also visits riparian corridors, even in the breeding season. Since this species is associated with leafy forest litter, grazing can

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 86

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Habitat Population Species Comments Type Trend have a serious impact when utilization is high and the overlying leafy litter blows away. Found in dry meadows with some shrub component on the Pinyon- Vesper sparrow Downward district from about 7,000 feet to at least 8,400 feet. Species has juniper seriously declined in NM, including the Cibola. Uncommon to fairly common in Mountain Shrub of often rugged Pinyon- Black-chinned Downward canyons on the district. Elevation is from about 6,500 ft. to 8,000 juniper sparrow ft. Found uncommonly in P/J with some oak understory and between 7000 to 8000 feet, but can be common in more mesic Pinyon- Black-throated P/J with high canopy closure, as in the Manzanitas on Sandia Downward juniper gray warbler RD, and if Otero Canyon in the Manzanitas represents typical habitat, then broken country with ridges and valleys may be an important habitat characteristic. Common to fairly common in P/J, Ponderosa and even M/C, especially when Gambel Oak understory is present from about 6,700 feet to at least 9,000 feet. Usually found on slopes, but Ponderosa Virginia’s Stable also visits riparian corridors, even in the breeding season. Since Pine warbler this species is associated with leafy forest litter, grazing can have a serious impact when utilization is high and the overlying leafy litter blows away. Breeds on Sandia RD, where they may be found from P/J up through Spruce/Fir, depending on availability of food that includes a wide variety of fruits and nuts, esp. acorns and pinyon Ponderosa Band-tailed Downward pine nuts. In August and September often descend into the Pine pigeon Sandia foothills to feast on Shrub Live-Oak and Gray Oak acorns. Nest was found in Sandias in a White Fir at about 8,000 feet. Numbers are declining. Occurs commonly on Sandia RD in Ponderosa, M/C and Spruce Ponderosa Flammulated Fir. Seems to prefer open, old growth Ponderosa forest mixed Stable Pine owl with Douglas Fir. Needs dense structure for roosting. Also uses aspen. Occurs potentially throughout the project area in Pinyon/Juniper Ponderosa Pinyon jay Downward woodlands. Management would include maintaining large cone Pine producing trees, as well as replacement trees of all age classes. This mountain hummingbird is found from about 7,000 feet upwards. Frequents meadows and open forests with a shrubby Ponderosa Broad-tailed Downward component and forbs. Gooseberry, figwort and Indian Paintbrush Pine hummingbird are among its favorite flowers. Excessive grazing in meadows could remove an important source of nectar and insects. Fairly common throughout the district in High Elevation Riparian Ponderosa Red-naped Woodland, Ponderosa, M/C and Spruce /Fir. Prefers aspen and Stable Pine sapsucker cottonwoods for nesting and often found in oaks in winter. Is especially fond of Siberian Elm for its sap. Ponderosa Williamson’s Uncommon in Ponderosa, M/C and Spruce/Fir throughout Stable Pine sapsucker district, especially in aspen groves. Ponderosa Olive-sided Rare on the district, occurring in Ponderosa, M/C and Spruce/Fir. Downward Pine flycatcher Favors open forest and forest edges with snags. Still fairly common in Ponderosa in the Sandi RD. May extend Ponderosa Grace’s warbler Downward into M/C if ponderosas also present. Goshawk management Pine guidelines are also likely to benefit this species. Mountain Black-chinned Uncommon to fairly common in Mountain Shrub of often rugged Downward shrub sparrow canyons. Elevation is from about 6,500 ft. to 8,000 ft. Common to fairly common in P/J, Ponderosa and even M/C, especially when Gambel Oak understory is present from about Mountain Virginia’s Stable 6,700 feet to at least 9,000 feet. Usually found on slopes, but shrub warbler also visits riparian corridors, even in the breeding season. Since this species is associated with leafy forest litter, grazing can

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 87

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Habitat Population Species Comments Type Trend have a serious impact when utilization is high and the overlying leafy litter blows away. This bird is on the NM “Threatened” list, with a very local distribution pattern in juniper savannah probably not exceeding Mountain 6,800 feet in elevation. So far it has only been found on the Gray vireo Downward shrub Sandia RD at Kirtland AFB and the Bernalillo Watershed. NM PIF has accorded it highest priority, equal to that of the Willow Flycatcher. This bird is uncommon to rare in foothill washes in P/J (up to about 7000 feet). On Albuquerque’s West Mesa this thrasher Mountain nests primarily in mature, well-developed Four-wing Saltbush, Crissal thrasher Stable shrub and in the arroyo-bisected foothills of the Sandias, these birds can be found in shrubby, thicket-like habitat dominated by scrub live-oak. This mountain hummingbird is found from about 7,000 feet upwards. Frequents meadows and open forests with a shrubby Mountain Broad-tailed Downward component and forbs. Gooseberry, figwort and Indian Paintbrush grassland hummingbird are among its favorite flowers. Excessive grazing in meadows could remove an important source of nectar and insects. Found in dry meadows with some shrub component from about Mountain Vesper sparrow Downward 7,000 feet to at least 8,400 feet. Species has seriously declined grassland in NM, including the Cibola. This mountain hummingbird is found from about 7,000 feet upwards. Frequents meadows and open forests with a shrubby Broad-tailed Riparian Downward component and forbs. Gooseberry, figwort and Indian Paintbrush hummingbird are among its favorite flowers. Excessive grazing in meadows could remove an important source of nectar and insects. Fairly common throughout the mountain districts in High Red-naped Elevation Riparian Woodland, Ponderosa, M/C and Spruce /Fir. Riparian Stable sapsucker Prefers aspen and cottonwoods for nesting and often found in oaks in winter. Is especially fond of Siberian Elm for its sap.

Environmental Consequences Alternative A – No Action Alternative A would not reduce the tree densities in the Cedro Landscape Restoration Project area; density and canopy cover of all forest types would continue to increase throughout the project area causing increased susceptibility to insect and disease outbreaks. Existing small openings and forb/shrub/grassland areas would continue to decrease in size providing less benefit to wildlife habitat. Fuels build-up would continue, leading to decreased scenic quality and increased potential for a crown fire if wildfire occurs in the area. Existing trails and unauthorized impacts would continue to impact soil conditions, and watershed degradation would also continue. Infestations of non-native invasive plants would not be limited from spreading, out- competing desirable native plant species and potentially becoming so well established they could be extremely difficult or impossible to remove. Alternative B In general Alternative B provides reduced potential of stand replacing wildfire since fuels would be reduced throughout the area. An uneven-aged forest structure with native species diversity and natural variation would be created by retaining all age classes and sizes. Such a forest would be resilient to insects and diseases, provide benefits for diverse wildlife species, and improve scenic quality. All large trees over 16 inch DBH or DRC will be retained.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 88

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Some trails in the project area are poorly located and significantly contributing to resource damage. Relocation of these trails will improve watershed condition. Additional non-system or user created trails will be obliterated and unauthorized activities like off-trail biking and equestrian use will be prohibited, further contributing to improved soil conditions. Motorized trail construction in riparian areas will cause short term disturbance to wildlife from construction activities and long term disturbance due to increased motorized use in important riparian corridors. If culverts used for trails are constructed in a manner that facilitates wildlife movements across NM-337, some benefit to wildlife may be realized by increasing permeability through a potential barrier to wildlife movements. Invasive plants would be eradicated, controlled or contained. Native species of plants would be reestablished where feasible to replace noxious and invasive plants so that soil properties, water quality, wildlife habitat and other natural and cultural resource values in the project area would be improved or maintained. Riparian treatments would improve riparian woodland corridors by removing non-native trees such as Russian Olive and Siberian Elm, and maintaining and planting native vegetation which would assist in bank stabilization. Aquatic habitat would be improved by improving stream morphology through building structures such as one rock dams and rock weirs to assist with things like headcuts and entrenched streambeds. Alternative C In general, Alternative C would have similar environmental consequences to wildlife as Alternative A. It would reduce the tree densities in the Cedro Landscape Restoration Project area; density and canopy cover of all forest types would be reduced throughout the project area causing decreased susceptibility to insect and disease outbreaks. Existing small openings and forb/shrub/grassland areas would be created providing benefit to wildlife habitat. Fuels build-up would be reduced, leading to increased scenic quality and decreased potential for a crown fire if wildfire occurs in the area. Existing trails and unauthorized impacts would not continue to impact soil conditions, and watersheds would be improved. Motorized trail construction in riparian areas will cause disturbance to wildlife. Culverts used for trails may facilitate wildlife movements across NM-337. However, ability to treat infestations of non-native invasive plants would be severely limited since some species only readily respond to herbicide treatments. In some cases, treatment without herbicide becomes too labor and cost intensive to be implementable at a practical level. Thus, populations of invasive plants are much less likely to be controlled or contained , resulting in higher potential for infestations of non-native invasive plants to spread, out-competing desirable native plant species and potentially becoming so well established they could be extremely difficult or impossible to remove.

General and Terrestrial Effects – Invasive Plant Species Treatment This section describes effects to all wildlife species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, snails, other crustaceans, and insects. For analysis of other issues related to how invasive plant control project activities may cause: habitat disturbance (noise and visual disturbance), toxic effects from herbicides used, or impacts to habitat quality from reductions in existing surface vegetation on other portions of the Cibola, refer to the EA for Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/ Invasive Plants (USDA 2010). Alternative A - No Action Without control treatments, invasive plants would continue to reduce the abundance and diversity of native vegetation that provides habitat for native wildlife species. For wildlife

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 89

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

species that rely on that habitat, a decline in habitat quality would occur. For species that do not rely on the displaced habitat, no effect would occur. The No Action Alternative would allow invasive populations to expand on and near the 18,756 acres proposed within the project boundary. The anticipated expansion rates vary between 8 and 12 percent annually, dependent on the invasive species and ecologic conditions at each infestation site. The anticipated effects of infestations on wildlife are typically a result of the loss of suitable habitat and the displacement of native palatable forage. Large areas of monocultures of invasives can develop and biological diversity can be lost. The effects can spread through the system causing habitat structure changes that can alter ecosystem interactions. Natural habitat for wildlife would be reduced, such as nesting and ground cover, grass production, seed producing food sources, and prey base. These effects can negatively affect populations of many big game, predator, small mammal, bird, reptile, and amphibian species. This alternative would cause the highest level of degradation of forage and prey base and loss of denning, nesting, hiding and other habitat features for wildlife species over time. Invasive infestations have had documented detrimental impacts to wildlife. Alternative B The key effect of this alternative would be an overall improvement in wildlife habitat conditions. Invasive plants would be eradicated or controlled on the acres treated, thus allowing for the restoration of native vegetation, and improvements in biological diversity. The improvement would be seen mostly for wildlife species that rely on the displaced habitat. As invasives are removed, these species would benefit from the native, more usable habitat. The treatment methods themselves pose a low risk to individual animals and no effect to populations. A small percentage of the 18,756 acres in the project boundary would be treated in a given year, and those acres would be widely distributed across the area. Many invasive plant treatments would occur along roadsides and recreation sites that are frequently disturbed and receive little use by wildlife. The following discussion describes effects specific to the key wildlife issues identified, considering all wildlife species including management indicators, Threatened, Endangered, Candidate or Sensitive species and high priority migratory birds. In addition, a species-specific effects analysis for those particular groups of species is contained in subsequent sections. Habitat Disturbance Effects: Disturbance in each treatment area would occur during both treatment and monitoring activities. Disturbance from vehicles, including trucks, off-highway vehicles, and humans on horseback or foot would increase during the activity periods. Effects of noise on wild animals can be classified as those affecting auditory physiology and sensory perception, those affecting behavior, and those affecting populations (Bowles 1995). Noise levels are expected to marginally increase with activity around the subject treatment areas for a very short period of time. As a result of increased human activity and noise from operation of vehicles and activities, some animals would avoid the local area during the period of treatment. However, due to the brief duration of the exposure, they would likely quickly resume their normal behavior after treatments were completed. Fluctuating noise levels may elevate heart rate, and stress hormone levels in wild animals, but these elevated levels are generally of short duration, and animals often habituate to these disturbances over time. Short-term increases in these measures do not correlate well with actual stress experienced by animals (Bowles 1995). As most wildlife would avoid the areas during treatment activities, this behavior would indirectly reduce the risk of direct herbicide exposure to those animals.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 90

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

The mechanical methods (mowing, tilling), broadcast burning treatments, and vehicle-mounted herbicide applications would cause the most noise disturbance. Manual methods, controlled grazing, and manual application of herbicides would cause minimal noise and habitat disturbance. Typically, the duration of traffic would be limited to 1 or 2 days and once complete, wildlife would return to these areas. The level of affect also depends on the current level of background noise for an area. Since many areas with infestations are near roads, trails and high use recreation sites, wildlife that use these areas should be habituated to human use and disturbance. Overall, habitat disturbance from treatments would not be expected to adversely impact wildlife species or populations. Habitat Modification Effects: All treatment methods aim to have some impact on the vegetation in an area. In most cases, the changes in vegetation structure would be slight because the target invasives make up only a small part of that structure. In some cases, changes in the habitat structure could be significant if the target plant species (such as salt cedar) is dominant. These changes would benefit wildlife species that rely on a more diverse habitat structure. Invasive plant treatments would cause temporary and localized reduction in existing vegetation, including some native vegetation that could be killed or removed along with the weeds. This would not measurably impact wildlife habitat qualities, due to the relatively small acreages that would be treated in a given time and location, and the mitigation measure that requires prompt revegetation of treated sites. Ground cover vegetation would be expected to return by the first growing season after treatment, and the natural abundance and diversity of vegetation would gradually return over subsequent growing seasons. Each method would have a slightly different and minimal effect on the structure and composition of wildlife habitat. None of the treatments would result in a loss of large trees, snags, or down log habitat components that are important for many species. Controlled grazing with sheep or goats would change the structure of vegetation, but the magnitude of this change would be small. Risks to bighorn sheep would be avoided by restricting grazing in bighorn sheep areas or in areas near known bighorn sheep populations. Manual methods of invasive plant control such as hand pulling, cutting, or digging would result in minimal changes in wildlife habitat quality, especially when conducted on such a small scale and spread widely across the project area. Mechanical methods would primarily involve mowing along existing road rights-of-way, in conjunction with roadside mowing done by other jurisdictions. Other mowing or mechanical invasive treatments would not result in any major alteration in habitat quality. Burning of individual invasives with a propane torch would leave the remaining habitat structure and composition intact. Broadcast burning of infestations in grasslands or similar habitats conducive to burning would result in a minor and temporary change to the seral stage and vegetation community. A controlled surface burn would result in little if any loss of large snags or down logs, so would not impact the habitat trend or populations of snag dependent bird species. Herbicide use impacts on vegetation structure depend on the specific application method, type of herbicide, rate of application, and season of application. Effects of herbicide application would be a change in composition of forbs, grasses, and shrubs in treatment areas. Non-target plants could be damaged by unintentional application, drift, or residual soil activity of herbicides. These

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 91

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

short-term impacts to plant composition and community diversity would likely be offset within as little as the first growing season. There would be no long-term loss of species diversity of native vegetation due to the proposed treatments, and species composition under most treatments is expected to resemble native plant assemblages within 1 to 3 years (Rice et al. 1997). Herbicide Toxicity Effects: The risk assessments prepared for the various herbicides considered toxicity, potential dosage through various routes (injection, inhalation, dermal), and length of exposure to a number of wildlife species (See references for information concerning risk assessments developed by SERA). The risk assessments concluded that potential risks for most wildlife species are low for most herbicides and surfactants using recommended application rates. Risk was rated as moderate to high for only a few species and a few herbicides under non-typical situations. In no case would extreme herbicide use occur under the proposed project. Concentrations of chemicals used in testing are typically at least 50 % chemical. Concentrations that would be used in implementing this project would come nowhere near those levels. Formulations of the proposed herbicides would likely be anywhere from tens to thousands of times below those resulting in impacts on animals. Most of the herbicides are either nontoxic or of low toxicity to birds, mammals, and insects. None of those tested have been shown to cause cancer, birth defects, genetic defects, or problems with fertility or reproduction. There is no evidence of synergistic effects or hormone disruption from these chemicals (SERA 2004a-d, SERA 2007, SERA 2011a-d, SERA 2012). Thus, the herbicides proposed for use, when used at the application rates and concentrations listed on the labels, would have a very low toxicity to wildlife species. Wildlife exposure to herbicides can occur through direct skin contact, ingestion of herbicide contaminated forage, inhalation of aerial spray or a combination of the above routes. The USDA Forest Service Risk Assessment for Herbicide Use (USDA FS 1992) evaluated the toxicity to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and invertebrate species of 21 herbicides, 3 carriers and one additive proposed for use by the Forest Service in the Rocky Mountain Region. For the purposes of the Risk Assessment, all herbicide treatments were assumed to involve broadcast applications from aircraft. Ground-based, site specific applications, as proposed on the Sandia Ranger District, were considered to have a very low potential to affect wildlife because of the reduced likelihood of an animal receiving a direct spray of herbicide and because of the much reduced size of the treatment area. There is a general lack of data and some uncertainty relative to herbicide effects on amphibians, so there is the potential for an unquantifiable negative impact on amphibians from herbicide application. Based on Mitigation Measures, BMPs and Conservation Measures, and risk assessment information, it is anticipated that there would be a low risk to amphibians from the proposed herbicide use. Mitigations are required that minimize herbicide delivery in or near water bodies, limit the amount of herbicide used within a given watershed, and limit the type of application permitted in riparian areas. Also, the extent of proposed herbicide treatments within potential amphibian habitat areas is small. If herbicides were to impact individual amphibians on a local basis, it would not affect the population as a whole. Population or habitat trends would not be impacted for any of the wildlife species that occur on the Forest being considered. The following discussion describes impacts of specific treatment methods.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 92

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Table 3-24. Fish and Wildlife Toxicity Data for Proposed Herbicides Mallard Bobwhite Bobwhite Mallard Duck Bluegill Rainbow Quail 8- Daphnia Quail Duck 8-day Honeybee 96-hr Trout day Earthworm 48-hr Herbicide & Oral Oral dietary Topical LC 50 96-hr dietary LC50 ppm LC50 Formulation LD50 LD50 LC50 LD50 mg/L LC50 LC50 (in soil) mg/L (in mg/kg mg/kg ppm ug/bee (in mg/L (in ppm (in water) BW BW (in water) water) food) food) Glyphosate acid >4640 >4640 No data 4640 No data >100 780 120 86 Glyphosate trimethylsulfo-nium No data >5000 950 >5000 No data >62.1 71 3500 1800 salt Roundup No data No data No data No data >5000 >100 5.3 5.8 8.2 Rodeo No data No data No data No data No data No data 930 >1000 >1000 Technical grade >1000 >5000 >1000 >5000 >2000 >25 370 >250 >250 chlorsulfuron Triclopyr acid No data 2934 1698 >5620 No data >100 133 148 117 Triclopyr butoxyethyl No data 5401 No data >5401 No data >100 1.7 0.36 0.65 ester Triclopyr No data >10000 3176 >10000 No data >100 775 891 613 triethylamine salt Clopyralid acid No data >4640 1465 >4640 1000 >0.1 232 125 104 Technical grade >2075 >5290 No data >5290 No data No data >19.9 >120 >13 aminocyclopyrachlor Technical grade >2250 >5620 No data >5620 >1000 >100 >100 >100 >100 aminopyralid Imazapyr acid >2150 >5000 No data No data No data >100 >100 >100 >100 Imazapic acid >2150 >5000 >2150 >50000 No data >100 >100 >100 >100 Technical grade No data >5620 >2510 >5620 >1000 >25 >12.5 >150 >150 metsulfuron methyl Technical grade 14.5- No data >5000 >2510 >5000 >1000 >100 34-76 5.5-19.3 picloram acid 44.5 Picloram K salt No data >5620 >2250 No data No data <63.8-226 >100 13-100 3.1-60 technical Picloram isooctyl No data >5620 No data No data No data >2250 No data No data No data ester technical Picloram TIPA salt No data >5000 >2510 No data No data >100 1225 109 51 technical LD50 - Lethal Dose 50; LC50 - Lethal Concentration 50; TL50 - Threshold Level 50. Source: Weed Science Society of America. Herbicide Handbook. Tenth Edition, 2014.

Ecological Risk Assessment Information by Herbicide Glyphosate: At the typical application rate (2 lbs. active ingredient per acre), exposures for terrestrial mammals, birds, insects, as well as fish and other aquatic receptors would be below the level of concern for toxic effects. Effects would be minimal. At the maximum rate reported for the Forest Service (7 lbs. active ingredient per acre), some risks exist for large mammals consuming foliage for an extended period of time in areas treated with the maximum application rate. Some risks exist for small birds consuming insects for an extended period of time. Some risk also exists for bees exposed to the direct spray of the maximum application rate. Additionally, some risks exists for fish near areas treated with maximum application rate using some of the more toxic formulations not labeled for use in aquatic settings (SERA 2011a). Chlorsulfuron: There would be no exposures at the typical application rate (0.056 lbs. active ingredient per acre), that would adversely affect terrestrial mammals, birds, insects, or fish or

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 93

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

other aquatic receptors. Adverse effects are unlikely from any application rate that might be used in Forest Service programs. (SERA 2004a). Triclopyr: At the typical application rate (1 lb. active ingredient per acre), no substantial risk exists for terrestrial mammals. For birds, the acute hazard quotient based on the consumption of contaminated vegetation in the application of trimethylamine (TEA) reaches the level of concern. The corresponding hazard quotient for butoxyethyl ester BEE exceeds the level of concern at the upper range of plausible exposures. No substantial risk exists for fish when triclopyr TEA salt formulations are applied at the typical rate. However, some risk to aquatic species exists when triclopyr BEE formulations are applied at the typical rate. At the maximum rate reported for the Forest Service (10 lbs. active ingredient per acre), some risks exist for mammals exposed via direct spray or consuming sprayed vegetation when applied at maximum rate. Some risks exist for large birds consuming sprayed vegetation. For fish and aquatic receptors, triclopyr TEA formulations result in exposures below the level of concern at maximum rates. However, substantial risk occurs when triclopyr BEE formulations applied at maximum rate. The level of concern is exceeded in several exposure scenarios. There was no information available for insects (SERA 2011d). Clopyralid: This herbicide is relatively non-toxic, with little potential for adverse effects to terrestrial mammals, birds, and fish. At typical and maximum rates, exposures are below the level of concern for mammals, birds, insects, and aquatic species (SERA 2004b). Aminocyclopyrachlor: EPA classifies this herbicide as Practically Non-toxic to quails and mallards and Slightly Toxic to mammals, fish, and aquatic invertebrates. In standard experimental toxicity studies, it has low acute oral toxicity. Exposures are below the level of concern for terrestrial mammals, birds, and insects. All of the hazard quotients for aquatic animals are extremely low. It is unlikely that adverse effects are likely to result, even at the highest application rate (SERA 2012). Aminopyralid: There is no basis for asserting that adverse effects are plausible in large or small mammals. The hazard quotients for mammals range from 0.00001 to 0.07. This range is below the level of concern (1.0) by factors of about 14 to 100,000. The risk characterization for birds is similar to mammals. No hazard quotients exceed the level of concern, however, the upper bound approach a level of concern at the highest application rate: 0.6 for large birds, 0.9 for small birds. None of the hazard quotients exceed a level of concern, and longer-term exposures for birds are very low at 0.00001 to 0.01. Secondary effects may occur due to changes in vegetation impacting food and habitat availability; these effects may be beneficial to some species and detrimental to others. While no field studies are available, oral and contact studies for honey bees and acute toxicity studies for earthworms have been conducted. Based on the available information, there is no basis for asserting that terrestrial insects or other terrestrial invertebrates will be directly affected by the use of aminopyralid. Based on the results of the acute toxicity studies of technical grade Aminopyralid, involving rainbow trout, bluegill sunfish and sheepshead minnow, it was classified as practically non-toxic to fish. No mortality or sublethal effects were observed in studies of amphibians. Aquatic invertebrate studies of Daphnia, oysters and shrimp found no mortality and no signs of toxicity. No adverse effects related to exposure were noted at any concentration, resulting in classification as practically non-toxic to fresh and salt water invertebrates. Mollusks were classified as slightly toxic due to experimental design, not necessarily increased sensitivity (SERA 2007). Imazapyr: Although only tested in a limited number of species, the weight of evidence suggests that no adverse effects in mammals or birds are plausible using typical or worst-case exposure

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 94

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

assumptions at the typical application rate of 0.45 lb/acre or the maximum application rate of 1.25 lb/acre. Very little information is available on the toxicity of imazapyr to terrestrial invertebrates. Limited testing on honeybee indicates that hazard quotients would not exceed the level of concern. Imazapyr appears to have a very low potential to cause any adverse effects in aquatic animals. All of the hazard quotients for aquatic animals are extremely low. Thus, there is no basis for asserting that effects on non-target aquatic species are plausible (SERA 2011b). Imazapic: Hazard quotients for the typical and maximum application rates are below the level of concern for mammals and birds. There is no basis for asserting that adverse effects are likely from acute or longer term exposures from application at any application rate. Very little information is available on the toxicity of imazapic to terrestrial invertebrates. Based on toxicity to honeybees, the hazard quotient is below the level of concern by a factor of 25 at the typical application rate and a factor of 12.5 at the maximum application rate. Imazapic appears to have a very low potential to cause any adverse effects in aquatic animals. All of the hazard quotients for aquatic animals are extremely low. There is no basis to assert that effects on non-target aquatic species are plausible (SERA 2004c). Metsulfuron methyl: The highest hazard quotient for any acute exposure to mammals is 0.08. Thus, there is no basis for asserting that adverse effects are likely from the application of metsulfuron methyl at any application rate, even the maximum application rate of 0.15 lb a.e./acre. Hazard quotients for the typical and maximum application rates are below the level of concern for birds. There is no basis for asserting that adverse effects are likely from acute or longer term exposures from application at any application rate. Based on toxicity to honeybees, the hazard quotient is below the level of concern by a factor of 50 at the typical application rate and a factor of 5 at the maximum application rate. There is a very low potential to cause any adverse effects in aquatic animals. All of the hazard quotients for aquatic animals are extremely low. The highest hazard quotient is below the level of concern by a factor of over 6000 (SERA 2004d). Picloram: For mammals and birds, estimates of the hazard quotients associated with the acute and longer-term exposure scenarios are below the level of concern at least a factor of 5, indicating that toxic effects attributable to picloram are not likely to occur. There is substantial variability in the toxicity of picloram to aquatic species. This variability has no substantial impact on the risk characterization. None of the hazard indices for fish, aquatic invertebrates, or aquatic plants reach a level of concern. There was no information available for insects (SERA 2011c). Alternative C Implementation of this alternative would improve native vegetation and help maintain or improve biological diversity, by suppressing, containing or eradicating invasives on treatment areas. However, given the same level of funding as Alternative B, the effectiveness of each treatment application would be less than Alternative B. For a number of invasive species that resprout from roots left after mechanical or manual treatments (e.g. Canada thistle or spotted knapweed), an even greater number of return treatments would probably not be highly effective at reducing populations. The site objectives for a given area would require concentrated effort over several years. In the places where invasive treatments are not successful, or if the spread rate of invasive plants continues to exceed the rate of control, the long-term effects would be similar to Alternative A (No Action). Control of salt cedar, Russian-olive and Siberian elm would be ineffective with this alternative, and habitat losses due to the replacement of native riparian vegetation with exotic trees and shrubs would continue to occur as noted in Alternative

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 95

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

A. Thus, the beneficial improvements to native vegetation and wildlife habitat would be lower for this Alternative compared to Alternative B. Short-term disturbance effects and habitat alteration effects to wildlife would be the same as described for Alternative B, except there would be more repeat treatments to achieve the objective so recovery of native vegetation would probably take longer. The difference with this Alternative is the elimination of the (low) risk to individual animals posed by herbicide toxicity effects. Manual and mechanical treatments are only somewhat effective for the control of other invasive plant species known to occur on the district. Thus, this alternative would allow degradation of habitat for wildlife, but this degradation would occur more slowly than in Alternative A due to some successes with manual control methods.

Aquatic Wildlife This section describes effects to aquatic species. The analysis focuses on how the invasive plant control portion of the project activities may cause impacts to habitat quality from reductions in existing surface vegetation or toxic effects from herbicides used. Alternative A - No Action Under the No Action Alternative, individual populations of noxious weeds may continue to be treated using a variety of methods, including herbicides. However, each treatment would be evaluated and authorized under a separate analysis. A programmatic approach to integrated vegetation management would not be taken. Given existing workloads, it is not likely that individual analyses and treatments would proceed with sufficient speed to have a significant effect on invasive plant infestations. Herbicides and other weed treatments would continue to be used in administrative sites and developed recreation areas. No direct effects are anticipated as a result of not adopting a programmatic approach to weed management. With regard to indirect effects, it is likely that treatment activities will continue to remain at existing levels and that noxious weed populations will continue to expand within aquatic environments on the Forest. One species, salt cedar, is currently found in or near aquatic sites. This species has the potential to develop large monocultures that could eventually affect the functioning of the aquatic systems. Salt cedar in large stands can crowd out native vegetation, increase salinity in riparian soils, and increase water consumption through transpiration, leading to the drying of springs and streams. Alternative B Herbicide applications provide perhaps the greatest risk to aquatic organisms. Herbicides can enter water sources through overspray, aerial drift, runoff after storm events and accidental spills. The degree of impact is influenced by the amount and type of herbicide being used, the volume of flow and the amount of mixing at the water source, and the type and abundance of organisms present in the aquatic site. The Risk Assessments (documented in the reports by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.) analyzed potential impacts to fish and aquatic invertebrates using a process similar to that described above for terrestrial wildlife. For purposes of the assessment, it was assumed that a water body would receive a direct spray of herbicide in the course of an aerial application. Herbicide applications on the Sandia Ranger District will be ground applications generally involving hand spraying of individual plants. Therefore, the potential that significant amounts of herbicide would enter water bodies is greatly reduced. Further, no locations for herbicide treatment of noxious weeds are currently proposed for aquatic

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 96

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences sites. In the event that some herbicide use in or near aquatic environments becomes necessary in the future, buffers will be established. Refer to the analysis for aquatic species in the references for more information about toxic characteristics of herbicides, amount of active ingredient in the water where aquatic organisms live and length of time an organism is exposed to the active ingredient.

Table 3-25. Herbicide Solubility, Half-Life and Aquatic Toxicity Data Herbicide Solubility Half-life in Water Aquatic Toxicity

Technical grade is moderately toxic to Rapidly dissipated fish. A formulation is registered for through adsorption to 12 days to 10 aquatic use that is practically non-toxic to Glyphosate suspended and bottom weeks fish, aquatic invertebrates, and sediments. amphibians. Does not bioaccumulate in fish (SERA 2011a).

From 23 days (at Limited data on toxicity to fish and aquatic pH 5) to >365 Low water solubility invertebrates. Some evidence of limited Chlorsulfuron days (at pH 7 and (SERA 2004a) accumulation in some fish tissue (SERA above) (SERA 2004a) 2004a) Ester formulation is extremely toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Acid and salt formulation is lightly toxic to fish and Salt formulation aquatic invertebrates. The hydrophobic can degrade in nature of the ester formulation allows it to Salt formulation is sunlight with a be readily absorbed through fish tissues water-soluble. The ester Triclopyr half-life of several where it is converted to triclopyr acid formulation is insoluble hours. The ester which can be accumulated to a toxic in water. formulation takes level. However, most authors have longer to degrade. concluded that if applied properly, triclopyr would not be found in concentrations adequate to harm aquatic organisms. Highly soluble in water Low toxicity to aquatic animals. No and will not bind with Clopyralid 8 to 40 days evidence of bioaccumulation in fish particles in water tissues. column. Appears to have a very low potential to cause any adverse effects in aquatic 1.3 days in natural EPA - 2810 mg/L; pH 7 animals or plants. The available data are water; pH 4 – 7.3 Aminocyclopyrachlor – 4200 mg/L (SERA sufficient to assert that no adverse effects days; EPA – 7.8 2012). are anticipated in fish, amphibians, days (SERA 2012) aquatic invertebrates or plants. (SERA 2012) There is no indication that aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish or amphibians will be adversely affected by aminopyralid. Has been tested in only a limited number of EPA - 2480 mg/L; pH 7 species and under conditions that may 0.6 days (SERA Aminopyralid – 205,000 mg/L; (SERA not well-represent populations of free- 2007). 2007). ranging aquatic animals. Based on the available toxicity studies, there is no basis for suggesting that adverse effects are plausible in fish, amphibians or aquatic invertebrates or plants (SERA 2007).

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 97

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Herbicide Solubility Half-life in Water Aquatic Toxicity Despite its potential mobility, imazapyr has not been reported in water runoff, and Tu et Low toxicity to fish and invertebrates. al. found no reports of average half-life of Does not bioaccumulate in terrestrial Imazapyr imazapyr contamination two days mammals; no information on aquatic in water. If it enters the species. water column, imazapyr can be photodegraded by sunlight Soluble in water and is not degraded hydrolytically in aqueous solution. In water is rapidly Moderate toxicity to fish, but rapidly Imazapic photodegraded by one to two days degrades in aqueous solution, rendering it sunlight. Field studies relatively safe to aquatic animals. do not indicate any potential for imazapic herbicide to move from soils with surface water. Low order of toxicity to fish. Mortality is not likely to occur in fish exposed to concentrations less than or equal to1000 Soluble in water (SERA 1-8 days (SERA Metsulfuron methyl mg/L. Aquatic invertebrates do not appear 2004 d) 2004d) to be sensitive to metsulfuron methyl. No bioaccumulation information. (SERA 2004d) Concentrations in water depend largely on the type of soil, rates of application, rainfall Slightly to moderately toxic to aquatic received post- species, but toxic levels are above the Picloram application, and 2-3 days peak runoff concentrations reported by distance from point of researchers under various environmental application to nearest conditions. Does not bioaccumulate. water body or groundwater Rapidly photodegraded in water. Note: Unless otherwise noted, data is from Tu et al. 2001. Alternative C (No Herbicide) The proposed manual control of weeds is not expected to directly affect aquatic organisms. The proposed methods consist of hand-pulling individual plants or using hand tools to cut the plants. The hand-pulling of weeds adjacent to streambeds will loosen the soil and may contribute sediment to the stream. This disturbance will be minimal and of short duration. Because of the low probability of weed treatments in and adjacent to aquatic sites, no indirect effects are anticipated as a result of treatment activities. Other indirect effects would be related to the effectiveness of the treatments at removing invasive species from aquatic sites. If treatments are effective, few indirect effects are anticipated. If manual treatments are not effective to control the spread of invasive plants, effects similar to those described under Alternative 1 would be expected. Salt cedar could potentially affect aquatic systems if allowed to spread. This species is capable of reproducing vegetatively after cutting, so manual treatments alone may have limited success.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 98

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Threatened and Endangered Species All action alternatives incorporate designs to lessen effects to threatened and endangered species. Implementation of Alternative B would provide essential habitat components such as snags, downed logs, residual basal area, and canopy cover necessary for potential occupancy of threatened and endangered species (ALRMP page 71-2). While the ALRMP still refers to terminology such as ‘protected’ and ‘restricted’ habitat, in December of 2012 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released a revised recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl (USDI 2012). This new recovery plan describes the difference between Riparian Recovery Habitat which could frequently be used by owls for foraging, roosting, daily movements, dispersal and potentially for nesting, and Other Riparian Forest consisting of riparian forests that are not regularly used by owls, but that may occasionally provide stepping stones for movement between population segments or be used by owls during the nonbreeding season. While there are small areas characterized by typical riparian species such as cottonwoods and willows, these areas are not large enough to support resident owls. The surrounding habitat is a mosaic of pinyon juniper woodlands with some areas of low elevation ponderosa pine forests. No mixed conifer forest exists in proximity to the project area to provide habitat. The project area does not contain any rocky-canyon habitat; owls in this area have not been known to nest in cliff faces. Therefore, these small areas of riparian habitat are considered Other Riparian Forests in regards to the Mexican spotted owl. These areas may facilitate gene flow, maintain connections between population regions, and provide foraging, dispersing and wintering habitat. Guidelines for managing these areas are to maintain or restore proper functioning ecological condition, and provide a mix of size and age classes of trees and shrubs that include snags and large trees, and vertical diversity. Alternative B provides the means to achieve these guidelines, and to a lesser extent Alternative C.

Table 3-26. Summary of Overall Effects Determinations to TE Species by Alternative

Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Mexican spotted No effect to species or its No effect to species or its No effect to species or its owl habitat. habitat. habitat.

Invasive Plant Species Effects previously described for all wildlife habitat and populations on the District apply to TE species. Effects are generally the same for all action Alternatives other than the minor differences noted in the general wildlife effects, such as the slower rate of native vegetation recovery under Alternative C. Also under Alternative C, the low risk of impacts to individual animals from herbicides would be eliminated. Mitigation measures, BMPs, and Special Conservation measures identified in the EA will provide protection for TE species. No treatments would occur in aquatic habitat. Required protection measures would ensure that herbicide treatments near aquatic habitat would not impact the aquatic species. No herbicides would be applied in watersheds where sensitive aquatic species occur without additional consultation with USFWS and NM Department of Game and Fish aquatic biologists.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 99

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Table 3-27. Effects to TE Species and Habitats from noxious weed treatments Expected Response to Noxious or TES Species and Invasive Plant Management Alternatives Invasive Weeds Alternative A Status and Location B and C (No Action) There are no PACs, habitat, or critical habitat in the project area. Conservation measures would require breeding season timing restrictions, nest buffers, and restriction of treatment methods in PACs in the unlikely case that owls were discovered within the Invasives would continue to reduce project area and PACs were established. understory vegetation used by owl’s Implementation of this alternative would have prey, thereby reducing the owl’s prey no effect to MSO or its habitat including Mexican spotted owl base. The rate of invasive plants designated Critical Habitat. Herbicide expanding into native habitat would applicators would follow the recommendations increase without treatment. in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional guidance concerning surveys and applications of herbicide in or near PACs. The risk assessments determined toxicity and exposure risk of herbicide use was low for birds comparable to the spotted owl. See the risk assessment for American kestrel.

Sensitive Species The southwestern goshawk conservation strategies (Reynolds et al. 1992) were developed in 1992 and subsequently incorporated as forest plan amendments in 1996. In ponderosa pine forest, the sustainable distribution approximated 10% of the area occupied by grasses, forbs, or shrubs, 10% by seedling-saplings, 20% by young trees, 20% by mid-aged trees, 20% by mature trees, and 20% by older trees. Some reviews of the SWGS were critical, and were mainly concerned with the degree to which forest structure in goshawk foraging habitat would be opened and fragmented (Greenwald et al. 2005). Others recognized that the SWGS includes a landscape-scale mosaic of age and structural classes intended to provide habitats for a broad spectrum of wildlife species maintained under an uneven-aged silvicultural system intended to approximate the composition, structure, and patterns within the range of natural variability existing in pre-settlement conditions of southwestern ponderosa pine forests before fundamental changes in natural disturbance regimes and forest structure (Logan and Smith 2000). Benefits identified included reduction of unnaturally high tree densities and the return of frequent low- intensity surface fires, as well as the ability to simultaneously recreate healthy forests, restore diversity, sustain ecological processes, and reduce fuel loads to avoid loss of life and property.

Table 3-28. Summary of Overall Effects Determinations to Sensitive Species by Alternative

Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

This alternative would Implementation of this alternative Implementation of this alternative allow fuels to build-up, would improve habitat conditions would improve habitat conditions leading to a potential for the goshawk’s prey species, for the goshawk’s prey species, crown fire if a wildfire and reduce potential for a crown and reduce potential for a crown occurs in the area. No fire if wildfire occurs in the area. fire if wildfire occurs in the area. Northern impact to the species in This alternative would treat the This alternative would treat the Goshawk the short term. In the dense, overstocked stands of dense, overstocked stands of long term habitat could ponderosa pine in the project ponderosa pine in the project become so densely boundary to the standards set boundary to the standards set stocked with trees that forth in the Management forth in the Management prey species habitat Recommendations for the Recommendations for the

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 100

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

would be reduced. Northern Goshawk (GTR RM- Northern Goshawk (GTR RM- Continued inaction 217) and LRMP. Treatment 217) and LRMP. Treatment would not meet the activities in PFAs would occur activities in PFAs would occur Forest Plan guidelines. outside of the nesting season outside of the nesting season (March 1 to September 31). (March 1 to September 31). Prescribed burns would be Prescribed burns would be conducted to retain habitat conducted to retain habitat components important to components important to northern goshawk including large northern goshawk including large trees, large snags and downed trees, large snags and downed logs. Trail reroutes are generally logs. Trail reroutes are generally not located in goshawk habitat not located in goshawk habitat but could cause short-term but could cause short-term effects due to use and/or effects due to use and/or rehabilitation efforts. In the long rehabilitation efforts. In the long term, trails will be rerouted, term, trails will be rerouted, improving habitat condition. May improving habitat condition. May impact individuals, but is not impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss toward federal listing or loss of viability. of viability. Watershed improvements would No impact to the Watershed improvements would benefit the species, but may species in the short benefit the species, but may cause short term disturbance. term. In the long term cause short term disturbance. Northern Noxious weed treatments would habitat could become May impact individuals, but is leopard frog be less effective. May impact deteriorated by further not likely to result in a trend individuals, but is not likely to departure from proper toward federal listing or loss result in a trend toward federal functioning condition. of viability. listing or loss of viability. Tree removal may have a Tree removal may have a Potential habitat would minimal impact on the species minimal impact on the species not be protected or during their breeding season, but during their breeding season, but maintained. phased approach would reduce phased approach would reduce Gray vireo Displacement of impacts. May impact impacts. May impact individuals would not individuals, but is not likely to individuals, but is not likely to occur. No impact to the result in a trend toward federal result in a trend toward federal species. listing or loss of viability. listing or loss of viability. This species is not likely to be affected through There would be slight direct There would be slight direct implementation of impact to the species but large impact to the species but large Alternative A since they trees would remain except in trees would remain except in roost in rocky cliffs and permanent openings. Riparian permanent openings. Riparian outcrops rather than areas would be improved areas would be improved Spotted Bat trees. Continuation of benefitting the species. May benefitting the species. May fuels build-up leading to impact individuals, but is not impact individuals, but is not a potential crown fire likely to result in a trend likely to result in a trend may improve prey toward federal listing or loss toward federal listing or loss species availability in of viability. of viability. the short term. No impact to the species. Continuation of fuels build-up could lead to a Snags and larger diameter trees Snags and larger diameter trees potential crown fire if would be retained except in would be retained except in wildfire occurs in the permanent openings improving permanent openings improving area thus increasing the roosting habitat somewhat, but roosting habitat somewhat, but Pale species’ prey population overall impacts (if any) are overall impacts (if any) are Townsend’s in the short term. Roost expected to be insignificant. expected to be insignificant. big-eared bat habitat would likely be May impact individuals, but is May impact individuals, but is lost in the event of a not likely to result in a trend not likely to result in a trend landscape scale toward federal listing or loss toward federal listing or loss wildfire. In the absence of viability. of viability. of these occurring, there

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 101

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

would be no impact to the species.

After the Project was scoped to the public on April 9, 2013, the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List for the Southwestern Region was revised, with the revised list available in September of 2013. In relation to this project, the Loggerhead shrike and Merriam’s shrew were removed from the 2007 list (USDA 2007a, b). The loggerhead shrike would otherwise now be analyzed under Migratory Birds as a priority species. Additionally, a manuscript was published as GTR-310 (Reynolds et al. 2013) which contains new information regarding management of frequent fire ponderosa pine forests that relates to the Northern goshawk. However, since this project had already undergone scoping and it would entail a Forest Plan amendment to incorporate these management recommendations, the current project will adhere to existing guidelines in the ALRMP. Future projects may incorporate this new information as the best available science.

Invasive Species Effects previously described for all wildlife habitat and populations on the District apply to Sensitive species. Effects are generally the same for all action Alternatives other than the minor differences noted in the general wildlife effects, such as the slower rate of native vegetation recovery under Alternative C. Also under Alternative C, the low risk of impacts to individual animals from herbicides would be eliminated. Mitigation measures, BMPs, and Special Conservation measures identified in the EA will provide protection for Sensitive species. No treatments would occur in aquatic habitat. Required protection measures would ensure that herbicide treatments near aquatic habitat would not impact the aquatic species. No herbicides would be applied in watersheds where sensitive aquatic species occur without additional consultation with USFWS and NM Department of Game and Fish aquatic biologists.

Table 3-29. Effects to Sensitive Species and Habitats from Invasive Plant Species Treatments Expected Response to Noxious or Invasive Plant Management Alternatives Sensitive Species Invasive Weeds Alternative A (No B and C Action) Spotted Bat Invasive plants would reduce the amount There would be little risk of this species of native vegetation that provides habitat ingesting prey that has been exposed to for invertebrates used by this species as herbicides. There would be no risk to food. The rate of invasive plants trees or crevices used by this species for expanding into native habitat would roosting. The risk assessment determined increase without treatment. toxicity and exposure risk of herbicide use was low for small mammals comparable in size to the spotted bat. See the risk assessment for mouse. Pale Townsend’s big- Invasive plants would reduce the amount There would be little risk of this species eared bat of native vegetation that provides habitat ingesting prey that has been exposed to for invertebrates used by this species as herbicides. There would be no risk to food. The rate of invasive plants trees, snags, caves or mines used by this expanding into native habitat would species for roosting. Mitigation measures, increase without treatment. BMPs, and Special Conservation measures identified will provide protection for this species. The risk assessment determined toxicity and exposure risk of herbicide use was low for small mammals comparable in size to the big-eared bat. See the risk assessment for mouse.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 102

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Expected Response to Noxious or Invasive Plant Management Alternatives Sensitive Species Invasive Weeds Alternative A (No B and C Action) Northern goshawk Invasives would reduce prey base habitat. Treatment would improve prey base The rate of invasive plants expanding into habitat. There would be few effects to the native habitat would increase without northern goshawk or its habitat. Mitigation treatment. measures, BMPs, and Special Conservation measures identified will provide protection for this species. The risk assessment determined toxicity and exposure risk of herbicide use was low for birds comparable to the goshawk. See the risk assessment for American kestrel. Gray vireo Native plant species would be displaced Treatments would improve native habitats reducing plant diversity. Cover and for this species. Mitigation measures, forage for prey would also be reduced. BMPs, and Special Conservation measures will provide protection for this species. The risk assessment determined toxicity and exposure risk of herbicide use was low for birds comparable to the vireo. See the risk assessment for Western kingbird. Northern leopard frog Vegetation is less important to this No treatments would occur in aquatic species than physical habitat therefore habitat. Required protection measures weed infestations are not a negative limiting types and timing of herbicide effect to this species. applications would ensure that impacts from herbicide treatments near potential habitat would be insignificant. There would be no impact on the northern leopard frog.

Management Indicator Species Alternative A Alternative A would not reduce the tree densities in the Cedro Landscape Restoration Project area; density and canopy cover of all forest types would continue to increase throughout the project area. Existing small openings and forb/shrub/grassland areas would continue to decrease in size. Forests would continue to be susceptible to insects and disease and uncharacteristic wildfire. Scenic quality, wildlife habitat, and watershed proper functioning condition would not be restored. For all the MIS listed below there would be a negligible impact to forest-wide population trend, or quantity or quality of forest-wide habitat since the amount of untreated acres represent a very small percentage of the total habitat available on the Forest. Elk – Mountain Grassland Habitat Habitat would not be improved as stands would remain in an overstocked condition with a dense canopy that has reduced the availability of understory forage. In the event of a stand replacing wildfire, elk foraging habitat would be improved once the area recovers, but cover conditions would no longer be met. Project level populations of elk would remain stable. It is unlikely there would be any long or short term increase or decrease in elk populations unless habitat was lost due to wildfire. Mule Deer – Pinyon Juniper Mountain Shrub Habitat There would be no change in the woodland canopy cover, thus there would be a continued lack of browse forage availability. Winter range cover would be retained and displacement due to human presence would not occur. In the event of a stand-replacing wildfire mule deer browse

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 103

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

forage would increase once the area recovers, but cover requirements would not be met, making foraging areas generally unavailable except along unburned edges. This alternative would not affect mule deer populations in the project area. Juniper titmouse – Pinyon Juniper Forest Habitat Habitat features such as old-growth and snags would not be protected from wildfire under this alternative. The titmouse would not be displaced given that no disturbance would occur. Project level populations of juniper titmouse are expected to continue to decline due to factors other than Alternative A. Pygmy Nuthatch – Ponderosa Pine Forest Habitat Ponderosa pine snags used for nesting would not be affected in the short term, but if landscape scale wildfire occurred, snags could be created. There would be no displacement due to human presence during treatments. Project level populations of pygmy nuthatch are expected to remain stable. In the long term not taking any action would not affect pygmy nuthatch unless local habitat was completely lost to landscape-scale fire. Merriam’s Turkey (Ponderosa Pine Forest Habitat) Habitat would not be improved since there would be no change to tree age and class structure, and the existing dense forest would not provide understory forage. Roost trees would not be protected from drought and fire effects. Trails would continue to cause habitat loss and displacement, but to a lesser degree in the short term than as described in the Alternative B. Project level populations of wild turkey are expected to remain upward for reasons unrelated to implementation of this alternative. In the long term, not taking any action would not affect the forest level population or habitat trend of wild turkey unless cover and forage habitat were completely removed as a result of a landscape-scale wildfire. House Wren (Riparian Forest Habitat) Habitat needs would continue to be met unless there was a stand replacing wildfire. There would be no displacement due to human presence during treatments. Riparian habitat would not be improved with trail reroutes. Project level populations are expected to remain stable. Alternative B In general there would be no change in the population or habitat trend of MIS species at the Forest level. Implementation of Alternative B would result in short term displacement due to treatment activity (noise and human presence). Snags used by cavity nesting MIS birds would be retained. In the long term, forage condition and availability would improve for all species due to reduced canopy cover and retention of oaks and other shrubs. Other habitat features common in ponderosa pine forests such as roost and nest trees and downed logs would be retained except in permanent openings. The risk of stand replacing wildfire would be reduced. Treatment activities would result in increased displacement of elk, deer, and turkey from preferred habitat. Trail reroutes would lessen the effect to riparian dependent species in the long term and would improve riparian habitat.

Table 3-30. Summary of Overall Alternative B Effects for MIS Management Short term project level Long term project level habitat indirect Forest wide Indicator species direct effects effects Population Species Effect (Habitat) Elk Short-term displacement due IC - Improves foraging habitat; may N (Mountain to human activity likely. compromise security cover (patches > 250 grassland) acres in size); no change in habitat quantity.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 104

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Management Short term project level Long term project level habitat indirect Forest wide Indicator species direct effects effects Population Species Effect (Habitat) Mule deer Short term displacement due IC - Improves browse forage availability and N (Pinyon-juniper, to human activity likely. quality; no change in habitat quantity. Tree mountain shrub) cutting would not occur during the fawning season benefitting the species. Most patches would be too small for thermal cover requirements (2 – 5 acres). Juniper Short term displacement due IC - Improves foraging habitat. Treatment N titmouse to human activity likely retains snags. There would be no change in (Pinyon-juniper) affecting foraging habitat. habitat quantity. Pygmy nuthatch Short term displacement due NC - Snags and large diameter trees would N (Ponderosa to human activity likely be retained. pine) affecting foraging habitat. Merriam’s Short term displacement due IC - Openings would provide improved forage N turkey to human activity. conditions for poults. No change in habitat (Ponderosa quantity. pine) House wren Short term displacement due IC - Snags would be retained and riparian N (Riparian) to human activity likely. habitat would be improved benefitting the species. No change in habitat quantity. IC = improves habitat condition, DC = decreases habitat condition, NC = no change in habitat condition since the amount of treated acres represents a very small percentage of the total habitat available on the Forest. N = No change in population trend at the Forest level. Alternative C In general there would be no change in the population or habitat trend of MIS species at the Forest level. Implementation of Alternative C would result in short term displacement due to treatment activity (noise and human presence). Snags used by cavity nesting MIS birds would be retained. In the long term, forage condition and availability would improve for all species due to reduced canopy cover and retention of oaks and other shrubs. Other habitat features common in ponderosa pine forests such as roost and nest trees and downed logs would be retained except in permanent openings. The risk of stand replacing wildfire would be reduced. Treatment activities would result in increased displacement of elk, deer, and turkey from preferred habitat. Trail reroutes would lessen the effect to riparian dependent species in the long term and would improve riparian habitat. Effectiveness of invasive plant treatments would be compromised.

Table 3-31. Summary of Overall Alternative C Effects for MIS Management Short term project level species Long term project level habitat Forest wide Indicator direct effects indirect effects Population Species Effect (Habitat) Elk Short-term displacement due to human IC - Improves foraging habitat; no N (Mountain activity likely. change in habitat quantity. grasslands) Mule deer Short term displacement due to human IC - Improves browse forage N (Pinyon-juniper, activity likely. availability and quality; no change in mountain shrub) habitat quantity. Juniper Short term displacement due to human IC - Improves foraging habitat: N titmouse activity likely affecting foraging habitat. treatment is implemented in stages (Pinyon-juniper) so that not all the pinyon-juniper woodland is treated within the same year. Treatment retains snags. There would be no change in habitat quantity. Pygmy nuthatch Short term displacement due to human NC - Activity would occur in stages N (Ponderosa activity likely affecting foraging habitat. so that not all the ponderosa pine pine) forest habitat is treated within the

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 105

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Management Short term project level species Long term project level habitat Forest wide Indicator direct effects indirect effects Population Species Effect (Habitat) same year. Snags and large diameter trees would be retained. Merriam’s Short term displacement due to human IC - Treatment activity occurs in N turkey activity. stages so that not all the ponderosa (Ponderosa pine habitat would be treated within pine) the same year. Openings would provide improved forage conditions for poults. No change in habitat quantity. House wren Short term displacement due to human IC - Treatment activity is N (Riparian) activity likely. implemented in stages so that not all the riparian habitat is treated within the same year. Snags would be retained. No change in habitat quantity. IC = improves habitat condition, DC = decreases habitat condition, NC = no change in habitat condition since the amount of treated acres represents a very small percentage of the total habitat available on the Forest. N = No change in population trend at the Forest level.

Invasive Plant Species Effects previously described for all wildlife habitat and populations on the District apply to MIS habitat and populations. The summary narrative describes the rational for each estimated effects determination. In summary invasive plant treatments would result in maintaining foraging habitat for all MIS species. No long term impacts to population or habitat trend are expected at the Forest or project level for any MIS species except perhaps the red-naped sapsucker which relies on sap produced by elm trees. Removal of elm may directly affect red-naped sapsucker by removal of a food source. Replanting of native riparian trees would lessen this effect, but there would be a time lag between removal of the existing invasive food source and the mature native food source. Since potential treatment areas are currently relatively small, the effect to the forest-wide population trend would be minor. For all MIS, treatments may result in short term loss of ground cover until native species become reestablished and may result in short term displacement due to human presence.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 106

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Table 3-32. Effects to Management Indicator Species from Invasive Plant Species Treatments Management Indicator Expected Response to Invasive Plant Invasive Plant Management Species (Habitat) Species Alternative A (No Action) Alternatives B and C Elk (Mountain Negative-Invasives would continue to Invasive treatments would result in grassland) displace grasses, forbs and shrubs used maintaining elk foraging habitat. No long by elk as forage so habitat would decline term impacts to population or habitat in quality and quantity especially in trend are expected at the Forest or mountain grassland habitat where . There project level. Treatments may result in would be long term potential for weed short term loss of ground cover until population increases especially in native species become reestablished. mountain grassland habitat where areas Treatments may result in short term of that habitat type is already occupied by displacement due to human presence. invasive plants. There would be no short The risk assessment determined toxicity term affect due to human disturbance, and exposure risk of herbicide use was temporary loss of existing surface low for animals comparable to elk. See vegetation or potential herbicide toxicity the risk assessment for mule deer and effects. cow. Mule Deer (Mountain Negative-effects would be similar to elk. Invasive treatments would result in shrub, piñon-juniper) The rate of expansion of invasive plant is maintaining mule deer foraging habitat. expected to increase without treatment. No long term impacts to population or habitat trend are expected at the Forest or project level. Treatments may result in short term loss of ground cover until native species become reestablished. Treatments may result in short term displacement due to human presence. The risk assessment determined toxicity and exposure risk of herbicide use was low for mule deer. Merriam’s turkey Negative- Invasives would continue to Invasive treatments would result in (Ponderosa pine) displace native grasses, forbs, shrubs and maintaining native grasses and other insects in meadow habitat used by surface vegetation so turkey habitat turkeys, so habitat quality would decline. would be improved. No impacts to The rate of expansion of invasive plant is population or habitat trend are expected expected to increase without treatment. at the Forest or project level. The risk Other effects would be similar to those assessment determined toxicity and described for elk. exposure risk of herbicide use was Low for birds comparable in size to Merriam’s turkey. See the risk assessment for pheasant. Juniper Titmouse Negative-Invasives would continue to Invasive treatments would benefit seed (Piñon-juniper) reduce seed and insect production in the and insect production in the understory understory, affecting food for this species. over the long term. Some loss of The rate of expansion of invasive plant is vegetation in the short term could cause expected to increase without treatment. temporary habitat loss. Treatment There would be no short term affect due activities could cause temporary to human disturbance, temporary loss of displacement. No impacts to population existing surface vegetation or potential are expected. Habitat trends would herbicide toxicity effects. improve. The risk assessment determined toxicity and exposure risk of herbicide use was low for birds comparable in size to the titmouse. See the risk assessment for Western kingbird.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 107

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Management Indicator Expected Response to Invasive Plant Invasive Plant Management Species (Habitat) Species Alternative A (No Action) Alternatives B and C Pygmy nuthatch Neutral-weeds would not affect forest Treatments are not likely to directly (Ponderosa pine) structure or insect and spider prey. Weed impact pygmy nuthatches. There may be population increases would not likely some disturbance to nesting nuthatches impact the population trend for pygmy during treatment operations but this nuthatch. There would be no short term would be of short duration and intensity. affect due to human disturbance, This project would not impact the temporary loss of existing surface population trend for pygmy nuthatches at vegetation or potential herbicide toxicity the Forest or project level since treatment effects. areas are currently relatively small. The risk assessment determined toxicity and exposure risk of herbicide use was low for birds comparable in size to the nuthatch. See the risk assessment for flicker. House Wren (Riparian) Neutral-weeds would not affect forest Treatments are not likely to directly structure or insect and spider prey. Weed impact house wren. There may be some population increases would not likely disturbance to nesting wrens during impact the population trend for house treatment operations but this would be of wren. There would be no short term affect short duration and intensity. This project due to human disturbance, temporary loss would not impact the population trend for of existing surface vegetation or potential house wren at the Forest or project level herbicide toxicity effects. since treatment areas are currently relatively small. The risk assessment determined toxicity and exposure risk of herbicide use was low for birds comparable in size to the wren. See the risk assessment for flicker.

Migratory Birds Alternative A Under Alternative A, fuels build-up would continue, leading to a crown fire if a wildfire occurs in the area. This would substantially reduce nesting and foraging habitat. Woodpeckers can benefit in the short term from wildfire, as the dead and dying trees provide insect habitat; sapsuckers prefer live trees for their excavations. Forest health, scenic quality and wildlife habitat would not be restored. Resource damage due to human activity related to trails use in wildlife habitat would continue. Watersheds would not be restored to proper functioning condition, and invasive plant spread would not be controlled. Under Alternative A, unintentional take of migratory birds due to tree cutting and prescribed fire would not occur. Alternative B The recommended Cibola NF migratory bird timing restriction is April 1 to July 31. Implementation of the project is not practicable if timber and fuels activities are limited during this timeframe. Project activities will negatively impact all populations of species of concern occurring within the project area. Reproduction will be compromised due to direct impacts to nesting sites as well as indirect impacts such as nest abandonment. Unintentional take will occur as a result of these impacts. This will be mitigated with a phased approach to implementation. Some incidental take can also result from nest abandonment due to human activity such as trail reroutes, and rehabilitation of trails. In all project areas, habitat features important to high-priority migratory birds will 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. The short term impacts would be a reduction in both vertical and horizontal diversity

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 108

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

within stands. Since trees would be removed to create groups and openings and to reduce the “ladder fuels” (trees that allow a fire to easily reach the canopy or “crowns”) this would increase the lower understory layers and eventually result in increased diversity within the stands. Most bird species do not utilize these smaller diameter trees as nesting substrate; however, trees in the 9” class (particularly in pinyon-juniper stands) may occasionally be used as nesting substrates. The vertical stand diversity (due to the removal of smaller, understory trees) would be the component most affected by Alternative B. 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 over-story 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. In the short term, vehicle use and associated disturbance would increase in the project area. Populations of migratory birds dependent on pinyon-juniper woodlands, ponderosa pine forests, montane shrub, montane grasslands, and riparian areas would be maintained in the long term as a result of implementation of Alternative B. 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 the dense stocking rates would probably not be as prevalent. Alternative C Effects would be similar to Alternative B. Foraging opportunity would increase. Thinning activity would occur in phases so that fuel reduction activities and wood product removal can occur while providing mitigation for the incidental take of migratory birds. The recommended Cibola NF migratory bird timing restriction is April 1 to July 31. This timing restriction would be implemented annually on 2/3 of the project area, while on the other 1/3 activity could occur throughout the year. In these activity areas it is recognized that unintentional take of migratory birds could occur. Invasive plant species treatment and control would be impaired by the lack of effective herbicide treatments.

Table 3-33. Summary of Overall Effects to Migratory Birds Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Ponderosa pine NC – No change in habitat DC – Decreases habitat DC – Decreases habitat Band tailed pigeon, condition in the short term; condition in the short term condition in the short term Flammulated owl, DC – Decreases habitat due to disturbance; IC – due to disturbance; IC – Olive-sided condition in the long term Improves habitat condition in Improves habitat condition in flycatcher, due to continuing habitat the long term due to the long term due to Williamson’s loss associated with fire increased foraging potential increased foraging potential sapsucker, Red- suppression and the and decreased disturbance and decreased disturbance naped sapsucker, potential catastrophic fires. due to trail impacts and due to trail impacts and Virginia’s warbler, Also due to fire suppression wildfire risk. Mechanical wildfire risk. Mechanical Grace’s warbler, or lack of mechanical treatments will result in high- treatments will result in high- Broad-tailed treatments, trees are smaller quality older growth quality older growth and form a more closed ponderosa pine forest with a ponderosa pine forest with a

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 109

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C hummingbird, canopy than in the more relatively open understory. relatively open understory. Pinyon jay park-like stands favored by Taller, older trees in mature Taller, older trees in mature these species. ponderosa pine habitat will ponderosa pine habitat will be retained, benefitting be retained, benefitting these species. these species. Piñon-juniper NC – No change in habitat DC – Decreases habitat DC – Decreases habitat Piñon jay, Virginia’s condition in the short term; condition in the short term condition in the short term warbler, Black- DC – Decreases habitat due to loss of structural due to loss of structural throated gray condition in the long term diversity, and disturbance; diversity, and disturbance; warbler, due to potential loss of large IC – Improves habitat IC – Improves habitat Loggerhead shrike, stands of mature piñon- condition in the long term condition in the long term Gray vireo, Black- juniper woodland due to due to increased foraging due to increased foraging chinned sparrow, insects, disease and wildfire. potential and treatment potential and treatment Vesper sparrow, mitigation that maintains mitigation that maintains Crissal Thrasher, large stands of mature large stands of mature Broad-tailed piñon-juniper woodland and piñon-juniper woodland and hummingbird, an overall reduction in trail an overall reduction in trail Juniper titmouse impacts. impacts. Mountain shrub NC – No change in habitat DC – Decreases habitat DC – Decreases habitat Gray vireo, Crissal condition in the short term; condition in the short term condition in the short term thrasher, Virginia’s DC – Decreases habitat due to loss of structural due to loss of structural Warbler, Black- condition in the long term in diversity and disturbance; IC diversity and disturbance; IC chinned sparrow montane shrub. – Improves habitat condition – Improves habitat condition in the long term due to in the long term due to increased foraging potential increased foraging potential and decreased impacts due and decreased impacts due to trails from rerouting. to trails from rerouting. Mountain NC – No change in habitat DC – Decreases habitat DC – Decreases habitat grassland Broad- condition in the short term; condition in the short term condition in the short term tailed hummingbird, DC – Decreases habitat due to disturbance; IC – due to disturbance; IC – Vesper sparrow condition in the long term as Improves habitat condition in Improves habitat condition in montane grasslands and the long term due to the long term due to meadows continue to be increased foraging potential increased foraging potential encroached by conifers. and decreased impacts due and decreased impacts due to trails. to trails. Riparian Red- NC – No change in habitat DC – Decreases habitat DC – Decreases habitat naped sapsucker, condition in the short term; condition in the short term condition in the short term Broad-tailed DC – Decreases habitat due to disturbance; IC – due to disturbance; IC – hummingbird condition in the long term as Improves habitat condition in Improves habitat condition in montane riparian areas the long term due to the long term due to continue to be encroached increased foraging potential increased foraging potential by conifers. and decreased impacts due and decreased impacts due to trails. to trails. IC= improves habitat condition; DC=decreases habitat condition; NC=no change in habitat condition Important Bird Areas (IBAs): There is one designated IBA affected by the project. The Cedro and Otero Canyons in the Manzanitas contain mature pinyon juniper woodlands and large populations of Gray Flycatchers and Back-throated Gray Warblers. These species will be impacted by the project. The short term impacts would be a reduction in both vertical and horizontal diversity within stands, and potential for unintentional take due to direct impacts on nesting birds as well as nest abandonment. In the short term, vehicle use and associated disturbance would increase in the project area. In the long term, after the thinning occurs and the stands retain a more natural spacing, populations of birds are expected to show a slight to moderate increase. Areas identified as persistent pinyon juniper stands according to soils characteristics would be retained largely intact. This may provide some refugia for old growth pinyon juniper dependent species. Species that use the adjacent Kirtland Air Force Base and Department of Defense and Department of Energy Withdrawal areas, also identified as IBAs,

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 110

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences may experience short term indirect effects. The next nearest IBA is the Hawk Watch site on the south end of the Sandia Mountains; this site will not be affected. Overwintering Areas: Important over wintering areas have not yet been designated on the Forest, thus, none would be impacted by project implementation.

Invasive Plant Species Effects previously described for all wildlife habitat and populations on the District apply to migratory birds. In summary there would be some disturbance to resident birds when treatments are conducted, but breeding birds are not likely to be affected since treatments often occur during the plant’s dormant period which is outside the nesting season. There is one designated Important Bird Area on the analysis area and it is in canyon habitat. In that area treatments of invasive plants would improve habitat by restoring native plant communities. Treatments would generally occur outside the breeding season when invasive plants are dormant. There are generally no impacts to over-wintering areas since none have been identified on the Cibola National Forest or National Grasslands.

Table 3-34. Effects to High-priority Migratory Birds and Habitats from Invasive Plant Species Treatments Expected Response to Invasive Plant Invasive Plant Management Species Species Alternative A (No Action) Alternatives B and C Treatments would increase native riparian vegetation and improve habitat for these species. No impacts to population or habitat trends are expected. There would be some disturbance to resident birds Invasives would continue to reduce when treatments are conducted, but Riparian Red-naped riparian habitats and have a negative breeding birds are not likely to be affected sapsucker, Broad-tailed impact on these species. Invasive species since treatments often occur during the hummingbird on the Forest are most prevalent in plant’s dormant period which is outside riparian areas. the nesting season. The risk assessment determined toxicity and exposure risk of herbicide use was low for birds comparable in size to these species. See the risk assessment for Western kingbird, flicker, American kestrel and quail. Treatments would increase grassland and meadow vegetation and improve habitat for these species. No impacts to population or habitat trends are expected. There would be some disturbance to resident birds when treatments are Mountain grassland Invasives would continue to spread. conducted, but breeding birds are not Broad-tailed Populations of these species would be likely to be affected since treatments often hummingbird, Vesper negatively impacted by the loss of native occur during the plant’s dormant period sparrow vegetation and associated habitat. which is outside the nesting season. The risk assessment determined toxicity and exposure risk of herbicide use was low for birds comparable in size to these species. See the risk assessment for Western kingbird, flicker, American kestrel and quail.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 111

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Expected Response to Invasive Plant Invasive Plant Management Species Species Alternative A (No Action) Alternatives B and C Treatments would improve oak woodland vegetation and improve habitat for these species. No impacts to population or habitat trends are expected. There would be some disturbance to resident birds when treatments are conducted, but Mountain shrub Gray Invasives would continue to spread. breeding birds are not likely to be affected vireo, Crissal thrasher, Populations of these species would be since treatments often occur during the Virginia’s Warbler, negatively impacted by the loss of native plant’s dormant period which is outside Black-chinned sparrow vegetation and associated habitat. the nesting season. The risk assessment determined toxicity and exposure risk of herbicide use was low for birds comparable in size to these species. See the risk assessment for Western kingbird, flicker, American kestrel and quail. Treatments would increase ponderosa pine vegetation and improve habitat for Ponderosa pine Band these species. No impacts to population tailed pigeon, or habitat trends are expected. There Flammulated owl, would be some disturbance to resident Olive-sided flycatcher, Invasives would continue to spread. birds when treatments are conducted, but Williamson’s sapsucker, Populations of these species would be breeding birds are not likely to be affected Red-naped sapsucker, negatively impacted by the loss of native since treatments often occur during the Virginia’s warbler, vegetation and associated habitat. plant’s dormant period which is outside Grace’s warbler, Broad- the nesting season. The risk assessment tailed hummingbird, of herbicide use was low for birds Pinyon jay comparable in size to these species. See the risk assessment for Western kingbird, flicker, American kestrel and quail. Treatments would increase piñon-juniper vegetation and improve habitat for these species. No impacts to population or Piñon-juniper Piñon habitat trends are expected. There would jay, Virginia’s warbler, be some disturbance to resident birds Black-throated gray when treatments are conducted, but warbler, Loggerhead Invasives would continue to spread. breeding birds are not likely to be affected shrike, Gray vireo, Populations of these species would be since treatments often occur during the Black-chinned sparrow, negatively impacted by the loss of native plant’s dormant period which is outside Vesper sparrow, Crissal vegetation and associated habitat. the nesting season. The risk assessment Thrasher, Broad-tailed determined toxicity and exposure risk of hummingbird, Juniper herbicide use was low for birds titmouse comparable in size to these species. See the risk assessment for Western kingbird, flicker, American kestrel and quail. There is one designated Important Bird Area on the analysis area in canyon Invasives would continue to spread in habitat. In this area treatments of Important Bird Areas. The integrity of invasive plants would improve habitat by Important Bird Areas these areas would be negatively impacted restoring native plant communities. by the loss of native vegetation and Treatments would generally occur outside associated habitat. the breeding season when invasive plants are dormant. There are generally no impacts to over- There are no over-wintering areas Overwintering Areas wintering areas since none have been identified on the Cibola NF or Grasslands. identified on the Cibola NF or Grasslands.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 112

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effect analysis area for wildlife includes habitat types similar to the project area (pinyon-juniper woodlands, ponderosa pine forests, montane shrublands and grasslands, and riparian areas) along the wildland urban interface in the Manzanita Mountains. Past activities in the analysis area that have led to current conditions include livestock grazing in the early to mid- 1900’s, subsequent removal of livestock from the Forest, exclusion of unplanned fires, human settlement, and recreational development and use of trails and trailheads. More recent activities considered as cumulative effects include Forest Service and private lands fuels reduction treatments in the vicinity of the Cedro Landscape Restoration Project area and along the urban interface zone. Some of those treatments have occurred in the past 30 years and trees are becoming reestablished reducing the effectiveness of the treatments. New fuels reduction and forest health restoration projects on Forest Service managed lands are being proposed in the vicinity of the project area. Immediately north of the project area, the Hondo project is being implemented along the Wildland Urban Interface. The Sulphur project is similarly in the implementation stage. La Madera, and Las Huertas vegetation projects in the Sandia Mountains north of Interstate 40 are in the planning stages, as well as the Placitas project in the Bernalillo watershed for managing trails and recreation. The Isleta project is being implemented along the DOD boundary in David Canyon within the overall analysis area, as is the Talking Talons project to the south of I-40, and the adjacent Tablazon project. Fuel hazard reduction treatments presently occurring on private lands are also likely to continue. Cumulative effects under Alternative A would result in a continuation of existing habitat conditions for wildlife in the wildland urban interface since much of this area has not yet been treated for fuels reduction. Wildlife species composition and populations on National Forest system lands would continue to be similar to what is there now except in the event of a stand replacement wildfire. Fuel hazard reduction presently occurring on private lands is likely to continue and may result in heavier treatments with less emphasis on leaving untreated patches, snags, downed woody debris and providing for stand diversity. Existing development and expansion of subdivisions along the urban interface would continue to fragment and isolate woodland and forested habitats in this area reducing its habitat value for wildlife on Forest Service managed lands. Cumulative effects related to Alternative B and Alternative C would result in the continued treatment of the wildland urban interface resulting 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 Cedro Landscape Restoration 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 National Forest system lands would tend to reduce wildlife use of housing areas in the wildland urban interface. The cumulative effects of past and future fuels reduction to wildlife species dependent on these woodland and forest habitats would be overall beneficial.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 113

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Invasive Plant Species

Cumulative Effects - Terrestrial Wildlife The cumulative effects area for wildlife includes the Manzanita Mountains and immediately adjacent lands. Invasive plants are spread over the area, from low elevation to high elevation and in nearly all habitat types. Invasive plants are spreading on surrounding private, federal, state, and county lands. Thus the effects of this project have the potential to interact with the whole suite of actions occurring on the District and surrounding lands. Actions considered that would have similar effects are listed in the beginning of this chapter. Foreseeable future impacts on wildlife include increasing recreation on public land, increasing potential for catastrophic fire, and continued spread of invasive plants. Current disturbance to wildlife would have a cumulative effect throughout the Manzanita Mountains and on adjacent land caused by management activities, including disturbance from recreational uses, special uses, construction activities, and off-road motorized uses in summer and winter. As other agencies and private landowners continue to treat invasive plants in areas adjacent to the District, wildlife would be exposed to short-term and localized habitat disturbance and to herbicides associated with those treatments. Those effects from other ongoing and foreseeable future activities would add to the effects predicted for each Alternative. The infestations occupy a small percentage of the project acreage and are well dispersed. Treatment projects will be spread out in both time and space. The actual direct and indirect effects of each alternative on MIS, TES, and migratory bird species are predicted to be of such low magnitude that they cannot be measured. The additional disturbances caused by the aforementioned activities will not be measurable. Although some individual animals may be affected (primarily through short term disturbance effects), no impacts to population or habitat trends is predicted, even when considering this project’s impacts in addition to other impacts occurring in the project area.

Cumulative Effects –Aquatic Wildlife Other past, present and future activities that may contribute cumulative effects to aquatic resources include recreation and grazing management activities. Recreation can disturb soils and create conditions favorable to the introduction of invasive species. Recreationists, their vehicles and pets can act as vectors for the dispersal of weed seeds from other areas. Riparian areas on the Sandia RD are often heavily used by recreationists. Incorporation of the prevention measures outlined in alternatives B and C should provide some mitigation of this effect. Overall, cumulative effects are anticipated to be greatest to aquatic organisms under the no action alternative because the spread of invasive species will continue unabated and will be combined with the future effects of recreation, and other activities that contribute to the spread of invasive plants. In addition, an Integrated Vegetation Management approach would not be adopted, so preventative and cooperative measures would not serve to mitigate the spread of invasive species to any appreciable degree.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 114

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

3.6 Recreation Resources Affected Environment The Cedro project area contains a wide range of recreation opportunities and infrastructure including two developed picnic grounds (Pine Flat and Oak Flat), one developed group campground (Cedro Peak), one dilapidated developed recreation site (Deadman), six motorized dispersed camping corridors. There are approximately 80 miles of forest system trails accessed by nine trailheads (Cedro, Chamisoso, Coyote, Lower Pine, Mars Court, Oak Flat at picnic area, Otero Canyon, Pine Flat at picnic area, and Tunnel Canyon). There are also 14 miles of forest system roads within the area. A majority of trails located within the project area are open to motorcycles as shown on the district Motor Vehicle Use Map. Approximately 11 miles of level 2 roads are open to all motorized use. Additionally, there are an undetermined number of unauthorized trails and roads scattered across the landscape. The majority of use on the trail system is motorcycle and mountain bike with moderate hiker and equestrian use. Environmental Consequences Alternative A – No Action Alternative A would not alter the current recreation opportunities. From a trail management standpoint, not relocating segments of trails will allow for continued erosion and negative effects on soil and water resources (Olive & Marion, 2009) as well as trail management objectives (FSM 2350.02) and National Quality Standards for Trails (FSH 2309.18, section 15). Many segments of existing trails are un-repairable due to grades exceeding USFS trail design standards (as well as generally accepted trail design specifications). Not adding additional trail opportunities to the MMTS will limit the success of the overall system of trails by limiting vital connections and loop opportunities. Well-designed trail networks provide improved recreation experiences. When trail networks fail to provide visitors the access and experiences they require, users may create more unauthorized trails (Wimpey & Marion, 2010). Further, not restricting travel (except foot travel), will allow the proliferation of unauthorized trails (and in many cases unauthorized construction) in the project area. Alternative B ROS: The majority of the project area is classified as “Semi-primitive Motorized” (57%) and “Roaded Natural” (41%). The descriptions of relevant classifications are included above. All of the actions associated with Alternative B fall within these classifications. Alternative B will not affect the current ROS classifications. The proposal to require use of an established fire ring for campfires in the motorized dispersed camping locations is consistent with the ROS classification. The existence and required use of fire rings is consistent with the Semi-primitive Motorized character as a “subtle” on-site control and restriction. Scenic Byways: The project area is only visible from an extremely short section of Route 66 National Historic and Scenic Byway. It is possible that forest management activities, specifically smoke from planned ignition fire, will be evident from NM 333. However, these activities will be temporary and only visible from an extremely short segment of the national scenic byway.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 115

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

The Salt Missions New Mexico State Scenic Byway bisects the project area. Management activities will be much more evident along NM 337 than along NM 333. Management activities will be apparent and visible from the roadway. There may be increased vehicle traffic for forest product removal. Smoke and evidence of planned ignition fires will be visible from NM 337. All of these effects are temporary to last only during actual management activities of within the effects analysis timeframe. Picnic Area, Campground, & Trailhead Closures: Implementation of this project may require temporary but complete closure of Cedro Campground, Pine Flat and Oak Flat Picnic Areas as well as various trailheads during active operations. These areas will be placed under a Forest Supervisor closure order restricting all public access within the defined area. These closures will be temporary, lasting only as long as deemed necessary to provide for the health and safety of the public. A majority of the activities in the project area will occur between August 1st and March 1st. Impacts of activities on these picnic areas and the Cedro Campground will most likely be limited to August 1st through the season closing date of October 15th. Burning may occur starting with the monsoon season of July through September and continue through the fall and winter. Activities will be timed to reduce the impact to these sites as much as practicable but may still occur during the August-October window. These timing restrictions are based on other natural resource considerations such as fire restrictions, Ips beetle, and wildlife concerns. Peak recreation season lasts from Memorial Day in late May through mid-October. This represents approximately five months of the year and would be too restrictive to prohibit management activities during the peak season. Measures will be taken to limit the impact of management operations during the latter part of the peak season when activities may occur. While the above listed areas are temporarily closed during project operations, access will be restricted and the recreating public be will be displaced. However, this displacement will be temporary in nature and operations will be timed to minimize the impact of closures on the recreating public to the extent practicable. Operations may be scheduled to stagger the closures so the areas are not all closed at the same time. Efforts will be made to limit the extent of the closures. The Sandia RD provides picnicking opportunities in many locations. These picnic areas are rarely full and should easily be able to accommodate the additional use from displaced users. Trail Closures: Several trails are located in the project area. Some of these trails may need to be closed to the public at various times while operations are occurring to protect public health and safety. These closures will be temporary in nature and operations will be timed to minimize the impact of closures on the recreating public to the extent practicable. The above listed rational for effects related to picnic areas are adopted for trails. Vegetation Management: Conducting uneven aged vegetation management inside the boundaries of picnic areas allows for higher species diversity and age class diversity of vegetation inside the picnic areas. Age class diversity is important to allow for natural replacement of the over-story canopy while easing the transition between age classes in the over- story. Although hazard trees are uncommon in Piñon juniper, active vegetation management will provide an opportunity to remove trees with evidence that they may become an overhead hazard in the near future.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 116

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

A thinned forest may impact recreation experience insofar as it alters the visual environment. A reduction in screening could lead to a reduced feeling of privacy within the picnic areas. Care will be taken to retain the existing underbrush screening between picnic tables in developed areas. A thinned forest may also lead to increased sight distances into the canopy which could lead to a reduced feeling of seclusion. Additional discussion on visual impacts can be found in the Scenic Resources section and the Scenic Resources Specialist Report. Wilderness: The limited scope of this project is not expected to have any effect on the long-term ecological processes within the Sandia Mountain Wilderness (SMWA). Additionally, the project area is not directly adjacent to the SMWA, with the two separated by Interstate 40; the possibility of direct impacts is severely limited. Ecological effects of the project are discussed in specific resource analyses within the EA and specialist reports for Wildlife, Water Resources, and Soils. A short-term increase in air pollutants would be expected due to exhaust from trucks, skidders, harvesting equipment, and planned ignitions. These are temporary sources of emissions and particulate matter; they would occur in the context of larger sources such as vehicle use in Albuquerque and along Sandia Crest Highway, NM 165, and US 40 around the Wilderness periphery. SMWA and the Cedro project lie in different watersheds therefore the use of herbicides in the Cedro project area does not pose a threat to the natural character of the SMWA. It is highly improbable that the localized application of herbicides would find their way inside the SMWA. Any potential that may exist for these herbicides to be transported by rain would not be able to then transport them uphill from Tijeras pass into the SMWA. Noise (Wilderness and Non-Wilderness): Noise associated with harvest activity may be apparent to visitors within one or two miles of harvesting operations (Neitzel & Yost, 2003). The distance is generally based on the average decibels produced by machinery and measured over distance from the specific source. The sound-to-distance estimate does not take into account the buffering effects of vegetation, wind, or topography; these would further reduce the sound (Timerson, 1999, Claflin, 2008). Noise effects would be limited to the area surrounding harvest units and would be short-term in nature, limited to the duration of the vegetation management activities. Assuming the maximum distance of two miles, it is possible that noise could be audible in a small corner of the SMWA. However, it is important to note that all of the management activity would not occur at one time, rather over the duration of the entire project timeframe, drastically reducing the percent of the Wilderness area affected at any one time. The effects on the existing opportunity for solitude resulting from mechanical noise would be short term and limited in scope due to the very limited amount of the Wilderness within a close proximity to the Cedro project. Effects from noise to solitude should be viewed in the context of the existing condition. Noise associated with Cedro operations would be very similar to other vehicle noise heard within this Wilderness, with the distinction being that the majority of the other sources of noise are permanent contributors (i.e. vehicle traffic along I-40). The Cedro project would be short term in nature and would not persist, restoring existing opportunities for solitude at the close of operations. Beyond the considerations its impact on the wilderness, noise associated with harvest operations may be apparent to visitors throughout the project area. The above listed rational also applies to the effects of this noise on recreation users outside of the wilderness area.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 117

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Trails: Implementation of trail reroutes will limit further erosion/loss of soil by incorporating sustainable location and design elements. Trail additions to the MMTS will allow for better recreation experiences through loop opportunities and connections and limit development of unauthorized trails. Removal of unauthorized trails and limiting cross-country travel will aid in limiting unauthorized construction and further degradation of resources and reduce confusion by reducing the number of unidentified trail junctions. Limiting Cross-Country Travel: The environmental conditions of the southwestern United States (soil, climate, vegetation, etc.) allow for easy establishment and perpetuation of unauthorized trails created by users traveling cross-country. The establishment of unauthorized trails within the project area, and throughout Sandia Ranger District, is primarily unintentional, as cross- country travel occurs multiple times over a single route. Likewise, once established, the existence of these unauthorized trails is perpetuated primarily through continued use for cross- country travel and not intentionally maintained (to remain open) by Forest Service management actions or unauthorized trail maintenance by members of the public. The effects of unauthorized trails can be viewed in two ways, that of their environmental effects and of their social effects. Generally speaking these impacts are negative from both management perspectives. Trail conditions can often be attributed to environmental factors such as trail grade and soil type (Marion & Leung, 2001). Trail segments with improper location and design such as fall-line trail (the natural line down which water flows), grades exceeding 8-10% and/or improper/lack of undulation often exhibit trail degradation regardless of use type. By definition, unauthorized trails are not designed and are therefore extremely unlikely to exhibit the characteristics of sustainable trail design (Wimpey & Marion, 2011). The inverse however is much more likely to be true; unauthorized trails more often exhibit characteristics that contribute to degradation of natural resources. Unauthorized trails within the project area are in wide- ranging condition and meet USFS standards at varying levels. Continuing to allow cross-country travel equates to continuing to allow the establishment of more unauthorized trails and the perpetuation of those that already exist (Wimpey & Marion, 2011). Since unauthorized trails are not designed to be sustainable, continuing to allow the existence and use of unauthorized trails (cross-country travel) will therefore have negative effects on the environmental conditions within the project area. The proposal to restrict cross-country travel by all means except by foot will positively affect the environmental conditions within the project area. Motor biking and mountain biking are the primary uses of the MMTS and, to a lesser extent, equestrian and pedestrian use as well. Motorized vehicles are already restricted to the designated trail system pursuant to the 2008 Travel Management Decision and Motor Vehicle Use Map. Of the currently remaining allowable cross-country uses, anecdotal evidence suggests that pedestrian travel is the least likely to establish new or perpetuate existing unauthorized trails within the project area. Additionally the District believes that some form of cross-country should continue to be allowed within the project area; the logical choice is to continue to allow cross-country travel by foot. Once unauthorized trails are established, it is difficult for users to distinguish between National Forest System Trails and unauthorized trails (Wimpey & Marion, 2011). Users wishing to stay on the NFS trails may find it difficult to navigate the spaghetti network of trails and find themselves disoriented or lost.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 118

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Limiting cross-country travel for all but pedestrian travel will assuredly alter the status quo recreation opportunity within the Cedro project area. However, restricting cross-country travel of particular user groups for resource protection is consistent with direction contained in the Forest Service Handbook and Manual, as well as, the ROS classification and the ALRMP. Additionally, it is a well-established practice throughout the US Forest Service including the Sandia Ranger District. The Travel Management Final Rule went into effect December 2005. In 2008, District Ranger Cid Morgan finalized the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for Travel Management on the Sandia Ranger District, which prohibits motorized cross-country travel on the Sandia RD and establishes a motorized trail network within the boundaries of the Cedro Project Area. While the Travel Management Rule specifically addresses cross-country travel by motor vehicles, the rationale that it was based on can easily be applied to other forms of travel if they are creating the same type of natural resource problems. The clear identification of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on each National Forest will enhance management of National Forest System lands; sustain natural resource values through more effective management of motor vehicle use; enhance opportunities for motorized recreation experiences on National Forest System lands; address needs for access to National Forest System lands; and preserve areas of opportunity on each National Forest for non- motorized travel and experiences. Restricting bicycles to National Forest System Trails is not a management concept unique to Sandia Ranger District. The Red Rock Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest in Sedona, Arizona restricts cross-country travel by bicycles as do the Gallatin and Lolo National Forests in Montana (Austin, 2013; Erickson, 2013; Stewart, 2013). Likewise, restricting or prohibiting the use of horses in specific areas is a recognized management strategy. Prohibiting or restricting the use of horses is established as a special-order category and can be found at 36 CFR 261.58 (aa). The small portion of mountain bikers and equestrians who enjoy primitive trail or cross-country travel experiences will be displaced. While equestrians may find alternate opportunities for cross-country travel in the Sandia Mountain Wilderness Area, mountain bikes are statutorily prohibited in wilderness. On a short term basis, mountain bike cross-country traffic may be displaced to areas of the Sandia Ranger District north of Interstate 40. However, the Placitas Area Trails Project and La Madera Forest Restoration Project will both include the same proposal to restrict cross-country travel by mountain bikers and equestrians. This will be discussed further in the cumulative effects section below. Smoke: Planned ignition burns to reduce fuel loads will produce smoke. This smoke has the potential to negatively impact the recreation experience of those recreating in close proximity to the burns. During the periods of time when smoke is in the air recreationists may be displaced. This impact will be temporary and only occur during active burning and shortly thereafter. The public will be notified prior to ignition via standard means of press release and signs. Evidence of Fire: Following planned ignitions the visual aesthetics will be noticeably altered and may contribute to an altered recreation experience. Visual aesthetics are covered in the Scenic Resources section and Scenic Resources Specialist Report.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 119

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Alternative C The effects of Alternative C on recreation would be the same as those described for Alternative B. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on recreation and wilderness are the same as the respective analysis areas for direct and indirect effects. The analysis area for cumulative effects relating to cross-country travel is the entire Sandia Ranger District. The time frame is the past (10 years), present, including ongoing activities and the foreseeable future (10 years; 2004–2024). This time frame was chosen because it is a reasonable length of time for measuring past effects and for projecting upcoming projects. The Cedro Relocations Phase 1 Project lies within the Cedro project area. Implementation of this project began in 2010 and includes relocation of several segments of trails. The relocation of segments of the Mahogany Trail #05602 (1.77 miles of relocations replacing 1.57 miles of trail) still remain as part of this project and are expected to be completed by fall of 2013. The Manzanita Mountains Trail System Improvements Project lies within the Cedro project area. The project, will add/designate new trails (some unauthorized trails, some new construction) and implement relocations on existing trails totaling approximately 2.13 miles of non-motorized trail and 6.70 miles of trails open to motorcycles (approximately 0.29 miles of non-motorized trail will be decommissioned). Additionally, the project will implement upgrades to the Pine Flat trailhead. The Talking Talons Trail Project will construct approximately 3.01 miles of non-motorized, interpretive trail (to the west of the Lower Pine Trailhead and north of Coyote Trail #05619) within the project area (in conjunction with the Talking Talons CFRP project). Tablazon and Isleta CFRP projects are not forest restoration projects and did not include any recreation management activities as part of the projects. Additionally, these projects have very limited direct and indirect effects on recreation that are short term in nature.

Cross-Country Travel Following the implementation of the proposed restrictions to cross-country travel contained in this project, the Placitas Area Trails Project, and the La Madera Forest Restoration Project, cross-country travel with a mountain bike will be prohibited everywhere on the Sandia Ranger District. Likewise, equestrian cross-country travel will be prohibited everywhere on the Sandia Ranger District except within the Sandia Mountain Wilderness Area. While this may have a negative cumulative (social) effect on mountain bikers hoping for a more primitive mountain biking experience the cumulative positive (environmental) effects of prohibiting such activity far outweigh the social concerns. Additionally, this project and the two future projects propose to establish a comprehensive, logical, and sustainable Forest System Trail network that meet the needs of a majority of trail users. Once complete, it is anticipated that the comprehensive trail network will substantially reduce the number of users who desire to travel cross-country on mountain bikes. Therefore, the cumulative (social) effect on mountain bikers is anticipated to be limited.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 120

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Cross-country travel will continue to be allowed by equestrians within the 37,877 acre Sandia Mountain Wilderness Area. By allowing this activity in the SMWA, the District is managing for the wilderness characteristic of outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation. Providing this opportunity on approximately 47% the Sandia Ranger District (open to public entry) constitutes a significant opportunity to continue equestrian cross-country travel on the District. Additionally, equestrian travel is uncommon in many parts of the La Madera and Placitas project areas. Therefore, the cumulative (social) effect to equestrian users is anticipated to be limited. 3.7 Scenic Resources Affected Environment Visual Quality Objectives The ALRMP utilizes the Forest Service Visual Management System to determine visual quality objectives for all National Forest System lands within the Cibola (USDA Forest Service 1974). Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) are designed to integrate the public’s concern for scenic quality (sensitivity levels) with the diversity and scenic attractiveness of the natural features (variety classes.) These objectives describe the degree of acceptable alteration of the natural landscape based upon the importance of esthetics (USDA Forest Service 1974). VQOs are used to describe the degree of alteration that may occur to the visual resource on lands within the Cibola’s management areas: Retention - This visual quality objective provides for management activities which are not visually evident. Under retention activities may only repeat form, line, color, and texture which are frequently found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., should not be evident (1,927 acres in the analysis area). Partial Retention - Management activities must remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Associated visual impacts in form, line, color, and texture must be reduced as soon after project completion as possible but within the first year (11,178 acres in the analysis area). The Cedro analysis area is located in Management Area 2 as specified in the ALRMP. The current visual management direction was developed using the Visual Management System. The visual quality objectives (VQO) were derived using the VMS process. MA 2 provides for a variety of VQO's across the landscape within this management area. The majority of the Cedro analysis area is managed as Partial Retention (11,178 acres) with a corridor of Retention (1,927) along NM 337. Environmental Consequences Alternative A – No Action No vegetation management activities would be proposed under Alternative A. Thinning of dense stands would not occur. There would be no impacts to the scenic resources associated with building temporary roads, burning, and mechanical treatments since these actions would not be implemented.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 121

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

The VQOs of retention and partial retention would be met in the project area; however, the overall scenic quality of the project area would decline over time. The existing trend of even- aged stands of mixed conifers would continue, the canopy would continue to close and visual diversity would decrease. Large diameter trees would be stressed and tree health and vitality would decline as stand density increased. Views into the project area from roads, trails, recreation sites and residential areas would be reduced due to the overstocked condition of the stands, and the grass/forb/shrub understory component would continue to be crowded out. Under this alternative there would be no opportunities to enhance and improve scenic resources or achieve the desired condition described in Chapter 1 since there would be no thinning or other treatments. Because stands would not be thinned, the risk of stand replacement fire would continue to be of concern to the Cibola National Forest and residents of the surrounding communities. This concern would be amplified with the increasing potential for escaped camp fires from dispersed recreation use and private residential developments intermingled with and/or adjacent to National Forest lands. In the event of an uncharacteristic high severity wildfire such as the Las Conchas Fire, the existing landscape character would be suddenly altered with little opportunity to slow or control the change. The VQOs in the project area would be met because fire is considered a natural part of the ecosystem; however, an uncharacteristic high severity, large-scale wildfire would redefine and reshape the existing landscape character. The appearance and character of the area would shift from densely forested to patchy and open. The overstory component and green canopy would be absent or drastically reduced, depending on the severity of the fire. For several years the landscape would be dominated by blackened, dead standing trees; if allowed to come down on their own, the trees would likely fall in a dense, jack-straw pattern. For two to three growing seasons, the blackened, exposed ground surfaces would be highly visible due to lack of vegetation. Sedimentation and erosion would increase, raveling soils that would take a long time to revegetate. Eventually these areas would be covered with scattered invasive plants and other spotty vegetation until native material became established. These changes would be visible throughout the project area in the foreground of Forest roads and trails, and as middle ground and background views from NM Highway 14, Sandia Park, Canoncito, San Antonito, and developed recreation sites. If the fire were not contained within the project boundary, scenic quality of the Sandia Mountain Wilderness would be at risk. The changes would contrast with the natural appearance of the landscape and degrade the scenic quality. Initial public reaction to a large-scale fire tends to be negative, as many people do not consider extensive, blackened landscapes to be natural or beneficial (Ryan 2005). These effects are often perceived by local residents as devastating to their community and way of life; non-local forest visitors may regard the effects of a catastrophic fire as interesting and something “to be seen” but also as a degradation nonetheless of the scenic quality. In addition, emergency fire suppression actions such as fire lines and emergency post-fire rehabilitation treatments could result in unnatural scars on the landscape. With rehabilitation and other mitigation measures, the immediate impacts of the suppression and emergency treatments should not be evident to the casual forest visitor within 2 to 3 years of completion as grasses, wildflowers, shrubs and forbs moved in, although effects from the fire itself would remain visible much longer. Within 5 years, the effects of the fire would begin to be viewed in a somewhat more positive light as the shrubby understory, seedlings and saplings became more abundant. However, the presence of dead standing trees would remain a dominant and somewhat negative visual reminder for many years.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 122

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Alternative B Studies have shown that there are generalizations that can be applied to predict the perception of scenic beauty and anticipate how changes to the landscape will impact visual quality. A stand composition that is made up of a variety of tree species has a strong, positive effect on perceived scenic beauty. Stand age also has a positive effect on perceived scenic beauty. Study participants have indicated that large trees have a positive effect on scenic beauty, and dense, small trees (saplings and young poles) have a negative effect. A high density of saplings has a negative effect, while increased tree density in large trees has positive effect in general. Understory and diversity of the understory, and vegetative groundcover (grasses, forbs, and seedlings) has been determined to improve the scenic beauty of Western forests (Rosenberger and Smith 1998).

Visual Impacts of Fuel Reduction Treatments The following discussion will describe expected visual changes to the landscape in the short term (1-5 years), and in the long term (6+ years). Visual impacts of treatments are determined by the type and magnitude of treatments being implemented. The primary goal is reducing density and removing the ladder fuels. The impact is most evident in the immediate foreground, where details such as stumps and slash are discernible. In distant foreground and middleground views, the change is most evident during winter months, when the contrast with the snow makes the density reduction more apparent. Treatments would maintain greater irregularity in canopy levels, maintaining textural variety in the short and long term, especially as viewed from NM 14. When total basal area is reduced to below 80 square feet per acre, the disturbance becomes visually dominant in the immediate foreground and foreground views, opening the stand to more light, longer views and less sense of enclosure. In immediate foreground views, stumps are evident, ground disturbance is increased, and slash begins to dominate the view. In foreground to middleground views openings created are apparent, but do not dominate the view. Slash has been shown to have a high negative impact on visual quality (Rosenberger and Smith 1998). During harvest operations, where slash debris and ground disturbance is evident, visitors will likely feel that visual quality has been reduced. Following mitigation practices, many visitors may prefer the immediate foreground views after harvest activities where there have been less than 50% removal to pre harvest immediate foreground views, especially where there has been clearing of small diameter understory vegetation (McCool and Benson, 1989). Viewers may perceive loss of scenic beauty in middleground views. The angle that the harvested area is viewed, and the amount removed correlates with the perception of reduction of scenic quality. It was found that the greater the amount removed, the more negative the preference ratings (McCool, Benson and Ashor, 1989). Orland, Daniel, Paschke, and Hetherington (1993) found that the foreground and middleground views of treatments were preferred to the No Action alternative because of the accelerated forest recovery when decreasing density.

Vegetation The openings created by reducing the vegetation density will be visible from Interstate 40, Highway 14, Highway 337, and area subdivisions. The line created in the forest canopy cover by treating to the project boundary will likely be visible, since an estimated 50% of the stand will be removed as stated in the silviculture report. This will provide a linear contrast from the adjacent forest cover in the private land areas.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 123

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

In the pinon and juniper areas, basal area per acre of trees greater than 5 inch dbh/drc will be reduced from a range of approximately 20-194 square feet per acre to approximately 56-60 square feet per acre. Depending on existing stand conditions this equates to reduction of approximately 0 – 71 percent reduction in trees greater than 5 inch dbh/drc, the average reduction of trees per acre greater than 5 inch dbh/drc is approximately 53%. It may be easier to visualize trees per acre; using trees per acre greater than 5 inch, currently the range of trees per acre is 57 – 652 following treatment trees per acre will be reduced to 57 – 238. Average trees per acre greater than 5 inch dbh/drc will reduce from 134 - 327 following treatment. This discussion is based on trees greater than 5 inch dbh/drc because some stands contain brush species such as gamble oak and the number of stems less than 5 inch drc can be 1000 or more, no gamble oak is planned to be removed so discussing trees per acre greater than 5 inch dbh/drc is a more meaningful measure than including all trees. In the ponderosa pine areas, basal area per acre of trees greater than 5 inch dbh/drc will be reduced from a range of approximately 102-127 square feet per acre to approximately 56-59 square feet per acre. Depending on existing stand conditions this equates to reduction of approximately 46 – 55 percent reduction in trees greater than 5 inch dbh/drc, the average reduction of trees per acre greater than 5 inch dbh/drc is approximately 55%. It may be easier to visualize trees per acre; using trees per acre greater than 5 inch, currently the range of trees per acre is 223 - 312 following treatment trees per acre will be reduced to 56 - 156. Average trees per acre greater than 5 inch dbh/drc will reduce from 244 - 113 following treatment. This discussion is based on trees greater than 5 inch dbh/drc because some stands contain brush species such as gamble oak and the number of stems less than 5 inch drc can be 1000 or more, no gamble oak is planned to be removed so discussing trees per acre greater than 5 inch dbh/drc is a more meaningful measure than including all trees. The irregular nature of proposed treatments should appear more natural, stands will be more open and grass, forb and shrub species should increase. This will result in a much more open forest appearance, especially since clumps will be maintained. The clumpy nature of the treatment will be more natural, but will leave large open areas between clumps. Most people who are familiar with the area will perceive a substantial change from the continuous canopy in the existing condition. In the Riparian forested areas, designated native conifers and nonnative (invasive) species will be thinned in order to move the vegetation in this area towards native hardwoods and riparian vegetation species. Treatments will enhance visual diversity by maintaining a natural appearing landscape. Stumps, slash and ground disturbance will dominate the view in the immediate foreground of area trails where they cross through treatment areas. This proposed action will change the undeveloped character until stumps have aged and the slash has been treated or has diminished over time. A decrease in the sense of solitude and diminished scenic quality will likely occur while traveling area trails. Viewers may perceive diminished scenic quality in this area until slash has been removed or decomposed and the ground cover has reestablished in the treatment area. Mitigation will not be applied to the non-system trails. Since many of these are frequently used by local residents, they are likely to perceive diminished quality. These trails may not be usable upon completion of the project. For anyone who uses these trails frequently to access the Faulty Trail, this is likely to displace the users of these trails. The existing landscape character is predominantly natural appearing to natural evolving away from residential and recreation developments. Near residential areas, the landscape is influenced

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 124

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

by the rural development character within view of the homes. The landscape character would change from natural evolving and natural appearing to an altered landscape with a managed appearance, at least in the short term for up to 10 years. The foreground and middleground views throughout the project area are Class B scenic attractiveness. Scenic attractiveness classes are developed to determine the relative scenic value of lands within a particular Landscape Character. Class B is described as “Typical” scenic value, where Class A is “Distinctive” and Class C is “Indistinctive”. The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, rocks, cultural features, and water features are described in terms of their line, form, color, texture, and composition for each of these classes. The scenic attractiveness rating is not expected to change as a result of this project, however for people who prefer the appearance of an unmanaged landscape this will decrease the scenic quality.

Recreation Sites Three recreation day use areas are within the project area. Cedro Group Site, Oak Flats, and Pine Flats all consist of typical day use amenities with picnic sites, restrooms, trailheads, and horse trailer parking facilities. Views from these recreation sites and users in this area will likely see the treatment activities and the visual impacts during and after completion. Viewing thinned areas, including slash and downed trees, burned slash piles, and hearing chain saws during recreation activities will likely reduce the recreation experience and sense of natural surroundings.

Trails Within the Cedro project area there are 13 miles of non-motorized trails, 66 miles of motorized single track, 1 mile of ATV trail and 1 mile of trail for all vehicles. The Cedro project area is a very popular area for many types of trail recreation. Viewing thinned areas, including slash and downed trees, burned slash piles, and hearing chain saws during activities will likely reduce users’ scenic quality. Mitigations will be applied along all of the trails within the Cedro project area to reduce the negative impact on scenic quality.

Mechanical Treatment Mechanical treatments include, but are not limited to: use of chainsaws or harvester to cut trees and lop slash, skidders to move material to landings, and specialized equipment such as masticator and tree shears to cut, chop, break, and lop fuel material. There would be a slight to moderate effect on scenic quality during and immediately following these treatment methods. Where this equipment has been used on other projects, contract specifications call for stumps to be left no more than 6 inches high; typically stumps are cut flush unless prevented by rocks or other natural features. The presence of skid trails, landings, and piled or scattered slash would also result in a moderate reduction of the scenic quality for the duration of the project. The effects in these areas would not be long-term since skid trails would be rehabilitated and activity generated slash would be removed upon completion of project in Retention and within one year of project completion in Partial Retention. The ground disturbance resulting from using machines to pile slash would be noticeable for up to 1 year after project completion, depending on how quickly the areas were rehabilitated and vegetation regenerated.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 125

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Fuelwood Removal Where vehicles will be used to access the harvested trees for fuelwood there may be some ground disturbance. In the immediate foreground this appears as disrupted forest litter (fallen needles, leaves and other natural debris) and exposed soil, which is often lighter in appearance to the surrounding area. During the period where trees are being cut and removed, residual slash will be visible. This would give a coarse textural quality to the ground, until ground cover has been established. It is anticipated that within five years, the color contrast created by the ground disturbance will be reduced as normal forest litter is deposited and ground cover has been established.

Prescribed Fire Treatment Prescribed burns have been found to negatively impact scenic beauty in the short term, but with ground vegetation recovery, can enhance scenic beauty within five years (Rosenberger and Smith 1998). Fire effects are seen as a natural phenomenon by most visitors, expressing strong support for prescribed natural fire policies. While fire was considered to have diminished scenic values, the presence of fire did not adversely affect visitor satisfaction (Love and Watson 1992). Light prescribed fires are perceived to enhance scenic quality for up to five years. (Taylor and Daniel 1984). Prescribed fire causes short and long term visual impacts, and may begin to dominate the view as the size of the area burned increases. Where prescribed fire is limited to slash reduction, there are isolated areas of burned piles evident. Once these piles have been scattered there may be some short term evidence of darkened litter and soil that will be reduced within five years and generally only be noticeable within the immediate foreground. Where broadcast burning is used to reduce slash visual impacts include charred bark of standing trees and down logs, and a blackened appearance to the ground plane and burned understory plants. The visual impacts will be reduced within two years, with the regeneration of ground cover plants and the deposition of forest litter over the burned sites. Charred bark, limbs and other features may be visible for many years.

Invasive Plant Species Treatments Typically the long term effects of noxious weed treatments are beneficial to scenic quality. By removing noxious weeds, the health of the natural vegetation can improve towards the desired condition. This improvement will create a stand composition that is made up of a variety of tree species and will have a strong, positive effect on perceived scenic beauty. During the noxious weed treatments there can be minimal localized negative effects to scenic quality. Dead vegetation can give the perception of an unhealthy forest and can potentially reduce the users’ scenic quality. These are short term effects and will only impact users until the vegetation is removed or burned.

Visual Quality Objectives The VQOs of Retention and Partial Retention would be met under this alternative. Scenic quality would be enhanced to a greater extent and for a longer period as the diversity of tree species, size, and spatial distribution increased. Throughout much of the project area, stand density would be reduced. The views throughout the cumulative effects area in particular would be more diverse. Visitors traveling along this corridor would experience a sequence of enclosures and openings that add variety and afford more expansive views into the project area. Natural meadows would be restored which would increase visual diversity and place more

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 126

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

emphasis on valued scenic features. Stands would feature clumped, uneven-aged groups interspersed with openings. The understory component of shrubs, grasses and forbs would develop and respond to the open canopy conditions, further increasing visual diversity. Alternative C The effects for this alternative are the same as those described for Alternative B. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for Scenic Resources includes NM 14 (from San Antonio to the Tijeras area), Interstate I-40/Route 66 from Tijeras to Sedillo, NM 337 from Tijeras to Yrisarri, the following residential areas; Tijeras, Primera Agua, Tablazon, Sedillo, Juan Tomas, Cedro, Tranquillo Pines, Ponderosa Pines, Ponderosa, Yrisarri, and the southern edge of the Sandia Mountain Wilderness. The project area can be viewed from these locations. Viewers in these locations often have high concern for scenic quality. Both NM 14 and NM 337 are designated National and State Scenic Byways (Turquoise Trail Scenic Byway and Salt Missions Trail Scenic Byway) NM 14 and NM 337 are both busy routes. Not only are they the primary transportation routes for the east mountain communities, but recreationists use these routes to access developed recreation on the Sandia Ranger District, and the highway is often used as a scenic backway between Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Mountainair. The project area is viewed as middleground from the highway. Because of the high concentration of visitors to the project area, the visual resources of the project area are important to their experience and perceptions. Alternative A The impacts to the cumulative effects area are similar to the direct effects from the project. No action will result in little perceived change. Uncharacteristic wildfire is a greater risk in the no action alternative. If a large fire or series of fires occur, views of a fire altered landscape may begin to dominate. Alternatives B and C There may be perceived as diminished scenic quality for residents and travelers who are familiar with the area. For the casual observer, they will likely not notice the changes as viewed from a distance. 3.8 Transportation Affected Environment There are 18.4 miles of National Forest System (NFS) roads in the Cedro Landscape Restoration analysis area. Table 3-36 displays the NFS road miles in the analysis area by maintenance level (ML).

Table 3-35. Road Miles by Maintenance Level Maintenance Level Length (miles) 1 1.5 2 12.4 3 3.3 4 1.1 Total 18.3

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 127

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

The Forest Service uses five maintenance levels: ML 1 to ML 5. An ML 1 road requires the least amount of maintenance effort and an ML 5, the greatest. There are no ML 5 roads in the analysis area. ML 1 roads are closed to all motorized traffic for periods exceeding one year. ML 2 roads are maintained for high clearance vehicles. These are typically single lane roads with a native material surface and limited turnouts. ML 3 and 4 roads are maintained for standard passenger cars and generally provide for a greater degree of driver comfort. ML 3 roads typically have a gravel surface, while ML 4 roads can be surfaced with either gravel or asphalt. Complete descriptions of the road MLs can be found in the Transportation Specialist Report. In addition to the NFS roads, there are several unauthorized routes that exist in the analysis area. The term unauthorized route can be defined as:

o a road or trail that was created by repeated off-road travel along the same path, without the knowledge and approval of the Forest Service, or

o a temporary road constructed by the Forest Service for a particular project that was not decommissioned when it was no longer needed. Some of the unauthorized roads adversely affect the surrounding environment through degradation of wildlife habitat, vegetation or soil productivity, or disturbance to archeological sites. They also provide access for illegal wood product removal activities. There are segments of three NFS roads that share a template with segments of four NFS trails (Table 3-37). For a road and a trail that share the same template, each will have its own route identifier (road number and trail number).

Table 3-36. Road and Trail Shared Templates Road No. Trail No. Shared Length Road ML Trail Designated User (miles) NFSR 35B NFST 5602 0.5 1 Motorcycle NFSR 106 NFST 5106 0.9 2 Motorcycle NFSR 106 NFST 5640 0.1 2 Motorcycle NFSR 530 NFST 5638 1.0 2 Motorcycle

The trail use designation is the designation displayed on the motor vehicle use map (MVUM) for the Sandia Ranger District. NFS Road 35B is closed to all motor vehicles except motorcycles. NFS Roads 106 and 530 are open to motor vehicles that are not motorcycles for administrative purposes only. Environmental Consequences Alternative A Because no activities would be proposed under this alternative, road maintenance would be accomplished as funding allows priorities dictate. The road maintenance budget for the Cibola National Forest has decreased substantially over the last several years. As a result, annual road maintenance has not been accomplished on many of the roads in the analysis area for some time. Alternatives B and C Road maintenance would be accomplished on several of the roads used for project activities. Refer to Transportation Specialist Report for descriptions of the maintenance tasks that would be accomplished on these roads. Much of the proposed maintenance would be completed to improve surface drainage on eleven roads.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 128

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

No new roads, permanent or temporary, would be constructed for this project. All wood products generated from project activities would be removed from NFS lands using NFS roads, NFS trails, unauthorized roads and trails, and previously decommissioned roads. Unauthorized and previously decommissioned roads are not system roads. All unauthorized roads and previously decommissioned roads used for project activities would be decommissioned when they are no longer needed for these activities. For roads located on flat or gentle terrain, decommissioning treatments typically consist of de- compacting the road surface, seeding the disturbed soil, and spreading slash over the seeded area to retain moisture and eliminate motorized traffic on the de-compacted surface. Additional treatments are sometimes required if the road has a steep grade or is located on a side slope. For a road with a steep grade, water bars may need to be constructed to divert runoff from the road surface at intervals sufficient to prevent rutting during rain events. For a road segment located on a side slope, runoff patterns are restored to as near natural as practicable by pulling the fill material up and blending it with the natural ground. This treatment is generally referred to as re- contouring. The portion of the project area where wood product removal is proposed was divided into 4 separate haul zones (described in Chapter 2, Alternative B and shown on Map A-6 in Appendix A) displays the haul zones, as well as the roads and trails that would be used for product removal. These roads and trails are listed in Chapter 2. Pick-up trucks, sport utility vehicles, and off-highway vehicles would be authorized to use the roads in all four of the haul zones; log trucks would be authorized to use the roads in Haul Zone 3 only, since this is the only haul zone within which commercial timber sales would take place. Because of the processing associated with these products, the area in the vicinity of the processing activities, including roads, would be closed to all traffic not related to project activities. Roads would also be closed during product removal by log trucks. The product would be decked on landings at designated locations for removal from NFS lands. The landings would not exceed ¼ acre in area. The unauthorized and previously decommissioned roads would be decommissioned when they are no longer needed for project activities. The trail templates, which are presently wide enough to accommodate a full size passenger vehicle, would be narrowed such that they would accommodate a motor vehicle no wider than a motorcycle. This narrowing would be accomplished by de-compacting a portion of the template and seeding the disturbed soil to generate growth of vegetation. Some segments of some of the roads that would be used for project activities are narrow with limited opportunities for vehicles traveling in opposite directions to pass one another. Because of the expected increase in the number of vehicles using the roads during project activities, constructing pullouts to allow vehicles traveling in opposite directions to pass would improve safety for road users. Other road work needed includes constructing or reconditioning drain dips and leadout ditches, cleaning culverts, replacing culverts, and smoothing rocky areas. The Transportation Specialist Report contains a detailed list of work recommended for each road within the Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Area. Segments of three NFS roads share a template with segments of four NFS trails that are designated for motorcycle use only (Table 3-37). The roads and associated trail segments would be closed to all recreational traffic during implementation of nearby project activities. Although not in the analysis area, NFSR 530 would be used to access treatment areas. This road and the shared segment of NFST 05638 would be closed to recreational traffic during project activities.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 129

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area includes the approximate 18,800 acres analysis area and the 13,100 acres of vegetation treatment within the analysis area. There are two ongoing projects within the analysis area. The David Canyon Fuels Reduction project is 2,100 acres, in the analysis area, of fuels treatments in Ponderosa Pine and Pinyon/Juniper vegetation types with fuelwood removal on FR 530 and 335 and Raven Road (a Bernalillo County Road). The Tablazon Timber Stand Improvement project is approximately 200 acres of Pinyon/Juniper thinning with fuelwood removal on FR 462. The cumulative effects of the Cedro Landscape Restoration Project, when combined with the other projects in the analysis area would result in an improved transportation system. 3.9 Heritage Resources Affected Environment The archaeological resources located in the area are diverse and reflect the long-term use of the Manzanita Mountains from prehistoric times to the early nineteenth century. The prehistoric sites reflect the lifeways of Archaic and Pueblo peoples, while the historic sites exhibit the periodic and long-term occupation of the region by mobile native groups (Athabascan), homesteaders, miners, loggers, and ranchers. These cultural resources include surface artifact scatters, intact features, and subsurface (potential or identified) cultural deposits that require management during the proposed project. Environmental Consequences Under the regulations, an adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a cultural resource that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative. Impacts to cultural resources, especially archeological sites, can be generally defined as anything that results in the removal of, displacement of, or damage to artifacts, features, and/or stratigraphic deposits of cultural material. In the case of traditional cultural properties and sacred places, additional considerations may include alterations that would affect the character and use of the location, and/or presence and availability of a specific traditionally used natural resource. Alternative A – No Action Under the No Action Alternative the current conditions of the Cedro Analysis Area would remain the same. There would not be any direct impacts to heritage resources and sites would only be exposed to the customary and natural threats, such as weathering, erosion, and exposure to the elements. Indirect effects of the “No Action” alternative include an expected buildup of fuels, which will lead to more intense wildfire behavior. This may cause increased damage to fire sensitive archaeological sites exposed to the sustained, intense heat from wildfires (Lenz et. al. 1996).

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 130

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Alternative B Mechanical and Manual Vegetation Treatments: The removal of trees will reduce long-term fuel continuity, fuel loading, and fire hazard. This type of treatment will benefit cultural resources within the project area by decreasing the potential for adverse effects caused from high intensity, high severity wildfires. If the mitigation measures discussed above are followed, the proposed mechanical and manual vegetation treatments should have no negative direct effects on listed, eligible and unevaluated cultural resources. There is some potential for negative indirect effects of vegetation treatments on cultural resources. Increased erosion following initial treatments may result from loss of ground cover and soil disturbance from vehicle use (during mechanical treatments and fuelwood cutting). There have been few post-treatment studies (if any) that monitor the effects of large scale vegetation treatments on archaeological sites. Because many of the sites are susceptible to erosion (85 of the 118 sites discussed in the ‘Previous Impacts’ section above), there is some potential for vegetation treatments to (at least initially – prior to ground cover regeneration). Data from the Cibola National Forest corporate geodatabase indicates that there is a significant amount of ground in the project that lies within areas with soil conditions susceptible to severe erosion impacts. The Proposed Action Alternatives B and C have, however, eliminated these areas from being harvested for timber or fuelwood. While effects from erosion due to mechanical and manual treatments may not be significant, an attempt should be made to monitor sites for erosion impacts following treatments. In addition to erosion, increased site visibility caused by removal of vegetation can substantially increase inadvertent or advertent looting activities. Prescribed Fire: The use of prescribed fire may have some direct impacts on archaeological sites. These include but are not limited to, the re-firing of ceramic material, melting obsidian artifacts, and the accelerated erosion of site features caused by hydrophobic soils denuding of the ground surface and exposing cultural materials. Sites that are either combustible or include combustible cultural material are the most vulnerable to fire because archaeological material can be completely consumed during a fire event. Although unpredictable creeping and spread of prescribed fires have the potential to damage fire sensitive cultural material, proper mitigation and consultation between the fire management staff and forest service archaeologists will decrease the likelihood of negative direct effects to cultural resources. The indirect impacts of fire on archaeological sites often have more lasting effects than the direct impacts. Increased site visibility caused by removal of vegetation can substantially increase inadvertent or advertent looting activities. The biggest indirect impact of prescribed fire to site condition, however, is due to increased erosion from loss of ground cover (North et al 2003). Data from the Cibola National Forest corporate geodatabase indicates that there is a significant amount of ground in the project that lies within areas with soil conditions susceptible to severe erosion impacts. The Proposed Action Alternatives B and C have, however, eliminated these areas from being harvested for timber or fuelwood. The only proposed prescriptions in areas with severe soil conditions are prescribed burn treatments. There are 65 sites that are located within project areas with severe soil conditions. Prescribed burn treatments may have some effect on sites in these areas that are susceptible to erosion, but the effect may be negligible. An attempt should be made to monitor sites for erosion impacts following treatments. A catastrophic fire, however, would undoubtedly have more indirect impacts on cultural material than a broadcast burn.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 131

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Invasive Plant Species Treatments: In general noxious the invasive plant species treatments proposed under Alternative B would have minimal effect on cultural resources. Seeding under the cultural method is considered non-ground disturbing with no potential to effect heritage resources. Planting native species may or may not constitute an undertaking, depending of the size of the plant and the amount of ground disturbance involved. Chemical methods (manual application of herbicides) have little or no potential to effect heritage resources, but could have an effect upon certain types of traditional cultural properties, including traditional plant collection areas. Rubber-tired off-road vehicles may be used with this method. Their use introduces a minimal risk to heritage resources, but is considered negligible and not inconsistent with the occasional use of Forest Service vehicles that currently travel off designated roadways for administrative use. Certain manual treatments are also considered to have little or no potential to effect heritage resources. These treatments include hand-pulling, or cutting the surface portion of the plant. Roads and Trails: Alternative B includes the improvements of existing roads and opening up non-motorized trails for use as haul routes. The improvements to roads and trails described under the proposed action alternative may have some effect on the sites due to increased traffic from fuelwood sales and contract cutting crews. However, provided mitigation measures are followed, the proposed action alternative is unlikely to have additional impacts to archaeological sites because many of the haul routes are regularly trafficked by motor vehicles. Opening one of the two non-motorized trails may have an effect on a cluster of four archaeological sites that are located along the trail corridor. Part of the mitigation measures includes allowing limited vehicle traffic on the trail. The portion of the trail that runs through the sites could only be accessed with vehicles by contract crews. It would be off limits to fuelwood sales. While there may still be some additional impacts to sites, this mitigation measure provides a lot more administrative control and would substantially decreased the level of potential impact to archaeological sites in the area. Portions of the trail reroutes proposed under Alternatives B may also have a direct benefit to cultural resources in the analysis area. As discussed in the previous impacts section of this report, 17 eligible and unevaluated archaeological sites in the analysis area were previously impacted by trail construction. As trail improvements are conducted as part of future projects in this area, trails can be reroutes around archaeological sites. Alternative C The direct and indirect effects of Alternative C would be similar to those outlined under Alternative B. The difference between the two alternatives is that Alternative C does not include the proposal to conduct invasive plant species treatments. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects on cultural resources should take into account all surface-altering actions that have occurred or are likely to occur within the Cedro Analysis Area. Current and previous Forest Service management activities, public resource procurement and recreational use and natural processes have impacted cultural resources. However, through the use of standard mitigation measures, these impacts have substantially diminished. Within the Forest, there are other planned or reasonably foreseeable activities that may affect cultural resources. A table of these activities can be found with the Specialist Reports. Although many of these activities will coincide with the proposed action, if proper mitigation measures are followed and sites sensitive to erosion and fire are monitored during the prescribed burns, it is not anticipated that the cumulative effects will have a significant impact on heritage resources.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 132

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

3.10 Human Health and Safety Affected Environment Human health may be directly influenced when people utilize the Forest, and indirectly influenced by activities on the Forest that have some effect on adjacent human inhabited areas. An example of a direct influence on human health would be contracting giardia from drinking contaminated water while hiking. An example of an indirect influence would be having an asthma attack while at home as a result of breathing smoke from a wildfire on the Forest. Human use of the Forest is mainly associated with recreation, firewood harvest, use of grazing allotments and gathering of traditionally used plants. Currently, human health on the Forest is not influenced by either the spread of invasive plant species or efforts to control them. Minor skin irritation may result from contact with thorny species or those that bear milky sap such as leafy spurge. Though some people may be allergic to the pollen produced by invasive plants, they are not the primary source of seasonal or long-term allergies. Approximately 10 to 15 percent of the United States population suffers from allergy symptoms from invasive species such as knapweed. Knapweed pollen is a common and powerful allergen that peaks in August and produces strong allergy symptoms. Knapweed pollen has been implicated in causing allergic rhinitis (Gillespie and Hedstrom 1979). Allergies to airborne seeds may also complicate or trigger asthma that may take up to 2 years to get completely under control. Highly allergic individuals can have serious complications when exposed to allergens (invasives or pollen), including constriction of the airway and anaphylactic shock. Some species of invasives, such as bull thistle and knapweeds, also cause minor scrapes and irritations. Leafy spurge contains a latex-bearing sap that irritates human skin and has the rare potential to cause blindness upon contact with the eye (GISD 2009). Invasive plant infestations increase the risk of wildfire and where this fire risk increases in populated areas, it poses an increased risk to human health and safety. An example is the major salt cedar invasion of riparian areas throughout New Mexico and other western states. Albuquerque’s 2003 Bosque Fire burned at a much higher than normal intensity and severity due to the amount of salt cedar and other invasives that dominated the riparian area. Herbicides proposed for use in this project would be limited to those tested and registered by the EPA as being safe for use in areas where people live, work and recreate. They pose little to no risk of adverse health impacts when used according to label instructions. However, a small percentage of the population reports a hypersensitivity to a wide variety of pesticides, perfumes, household cleaners, construction products or industrial chemicals, including the herbicides proposed for use by the Forest (Gibson 2000). A 1997 New Mexico Behavioral Risk Factor Survey completed by the New Mexico Department of Health, Office of Epidemiology indicates 2 to 3 percent of those responding to the survey instrument are chemically sensitive with up to 16 percent of the New Mexico population possibly sensitive. Human Health Risk Assessment This discussion reviews the risks to people associated with herbicide application. Three levels of analyses were used in the risk assessment processes: review of toxicity test data, estimate of exposure levels, and determination of potential health risks by comparing dose levels to toxicological thresholds developed by EPA.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 133

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Toxicity of Herbicides: A comparison of toxicity for herbicides proposed for use in this project is shown in Table 3-38. Toxicological studies using animals typically involve purposeful exposure to dosages (per unit of body weight) required to cause an effect (i.e. tumors, changes in immunity, etc.) or to establish a Lowest Observed Effect Level, known as a (LOEL) or a No- Observed-Effect-Level (NOEL). This often requires administration of relatively high doses of a chemical in order to document an effect or lack thereof. Acute toxicity is measured by the LD50, defined as the dosage of toxicant expressed in milligrams per kilogram of body weight, which is lethal to 50 percent of animals in a test population within 14 days of administration (USDA FS 1992). Risk assessments for the herbicides proposed for use show that the likelihood of exposure at these acute levels is not plausible, even in an accidental spill scenario. Subchronic and Chronic Toxicity: There is considerable information on subchronic and chronic effects due to exposure to herbicides in controlled animal studies. The information suggests that the herbicides proposed for use by the Forests are not carcinogenic, and there is no evidence to suggest that the herbicides proposed for use would result in carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, neurological or reproductive effects based on anticipated exposure levels to workers and the public (SERA 2004, 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2014). The Reference Dose (RfD) provides a measure of long-term exposure that could result in chronic toxic effects. Generally, the dose-response assessments used in Forest Service risk assessments adopt RfDs proposed by the EPA as indices of acceptable exposure. An RfD is a level of exposure that will not result in any adverse effects in any individual. The EPA RfDs are used because they generally provide a level of analysis, review, and resources that exceed those that are or can be conducted in support of most Forest Service risk assessments. In addition, it is desirable for different agencies and organizations within the Federal Government to use concordant risk assessment values. The Reference Dose comparison is discussed in more detail with the exposure risks discussion later in this section.

Table 3-37. Herbicide Characteristics Mutagenic and Acute oral LD50 for rats (mg Herbicide Carcinogenic1 Reproductive2 a.e./kg bw) Glyphosate E No >1,920 - >4,860 Chlorsulfuron E No >5,000 Triclopyr E No 590 - 700 Clopyralid E No 3,390 - 5,440 Imazapyr E No >5,000 Imazapic E No 5,000 Metsulfuron methyl E No >5,000 Picloram E No >1,153 Aminoclopyrachlor E No 1,120 - 2,490 Aminopyralid E No 5,000 1 EPA carcinogenicity classification based on daily consumption for a 70-year life span. D = Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity; E = Evidence of Non-Carcinogenicity 2 Unlikely that compound is mutagenic or would pose a mutagenic risk to humans at expected exposure levels. Source: SERA 2004, 2007, 2011, 2012, 2014.

Synergistic Interactions: Concerns are occasionally raised about potential synergistic interactions of herbicides with other herbicides in the environment or when they are mixed during application (tank mixing). Synergism is a special type of interaction in which the combined impact of two or more herbicides is greater than the impact predicted by adding their individual effects. The RAHUFS (USDA FS 1992) addresses the possibility of a variety of such

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 134

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

interactions. These include the interaction of the active ingredients in an herbicide formulation with its inert ingredients, the interactions of these herbicides with other herbicides in the environment, and the cumulative impacts of spraying as proposed with other herbicide spraying to which the public might be exposed. As noted in various risk assessments, no guarantee can be made regarding the effects of a chemical being zero. Similarly, no guarantee can be made about the absence of a synergistic interaction between herbicides and/or other chemicals to which workers or the public might be exposed. Risk assessments conclude, however, that the additive effect of Forest Service herbicide use lies below the background levels for many of these chemicals (SERA 2004, SERA 2007, SERA 2011, SERA 2012, SERA 2014). Adjuvants and Other Ingredients: During commercial synthesis of some pesticides, byproducts can be produced and carryover into the product eventually formulated for sale. Occasionally byproducts or impurities are considered toxicologically hazardous, and their concentrations must be limited so that potential exposures do not exceed levels of concern (Felsot 2001). U.S. EPA is responsible for regulating both the active ingredients (a.i.) in pesticide formulations as well as any other chemicals that may be added to the formulation. As implemented, these regulations affect only pesticide labeling and testing requirements. Inerts cover an extremely broad range of compounds including carriers, stabilizers, sticking agents, or other materials added to facilitate handling or application. However, these inerts may be toxic to humans or other non-target species. The U.S. EPA is responsible for the regulation of inerts and adjuvants in pesticide formulations. As implemented, these regulations affect only pesticide labeling and testing requirements. As part of this regulatory activity, U.S. EPA had classified inerts into four lists based on the available toxicity information: toxic (List 1), potentially toxic (List 2), unclassifiable (List 3), and non-toxic 1 (List 4). Any compound classified by U.S. EPA as toxic or potentially toxic must be identified on the product label if the compound is present at a level of 1% or greater in the formulation. All such compounds are considered explicitly in the risk assessment. If the compounds are not classified toxic, all information on the inert ingredients in pesticide formulations is considered proprietary under Section 10(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In that case, the formulators of the pesticide need not and typically do not disclose the identity of the inert or adjuvant. Even if the identities of the inerts are known, the toxicity data available on inerts are often very limited. In addition, many inert ingredients are also approved food additives and the listing of approved food additives compiled by Clydesdale (1997) is also consulted. If an inert is on List 4 (nontoxic), concern for the inert is reduced. Surfactants are also commonly used in herbicide formulations. Surfactants are added to herbicides to improve herbicide mixing and the absorption or permeation of the herbicide into the plant. Like dyes and other inert ingredients, there is often limited information on the types of surfactants used and the toxicity of surfactants, especially since the industry considers the surfactant to play a key role in the effectiveness of the herbicide formulations. Most knowledge of surfactants is kept as proprietary information and not disclosed. However, this is not always the case. The handling of other ingredients in the risk assessment of glyphosate is much different. The surfactants used in many glyphosate formulations may be of equal or greater concern to the risk assessment than the toxicity of glyphosate itself. Consequently, as justified by the available data, most subsections of the current Forest Service risk assessment on glyphosate

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 135

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences are subdivided into discussions of the toxicity of glyphosate, the toxicity of glyphosate formulations, and/or the toxicity of the surfactants (SERA 2014). Impurities and Metabolites: Impurities often occur in pesticides. To some extent, concern for impurities in technical grade pesticides is reduced by the fact that the toxicity studies on pesticides are often conducted with the technical grade product. Thus, if toxic impurities are present in the technical grade product, they are likely to be encompassed by the available toxicity studies on the technical grade product (SERA 2014). Hexachlorobenzene (HCB): An exception to this general rule involves carcinogens, most of which are presumed to act by non-threshold mechanisms. Because of the non-threshold assumption, any amount of a carcinogen in an otherwise non-carcinogenic mixture may pose a carcinogenic risk. HCB is ubiquitous and persistent in the environment. The major sources of general exposure for the public to HCB involve industrial emissions, proximity to hazardous waste sites, and the consumption of contaminated food. Virtually all individuals are exposed to HCB and virtually all individuals have detectable concentrations of HCB in their bodies. Based on the amount of HCB in clopyralid and the amount of clopyralid used in Forest Service programs, the use of clopyralid by the Forest Service will not substantially contribute to any wide-spread increase of ambient levels of HCB (SERA 2004). All of the HQs for carcinogenicity associated with HCB as a contaminant in technical grade picloram are also below the level of concern (SERA 2011). Endocrine Disruption: An endocrine disruptor is an agent from outside of the body that produces adverse effects on an organism or population of organisms by interfering with endocrine function (Kavlock et al.1996). Endocrine disruption is a state of uncontrolled hormone action, in which hormone responses are absent or insufficient when needed, or occur inappropriately when they are not needed. These can result in abnormalities in growth and development, reproduction, body composition, homeostasis, and behavior. Endocrine disruptors are not considered to be a major cause of endocrine disorders in humans. Some important drugs are endocrine disruptors, such as thyroid blocking agents used in the treatment of hyperthyroidism (e.g., thiopropyluracil) and corticosteroids used in the treatment of inflammation (Hardman and Limbird1996). Chemicals, other than our own hormones, can interact with components of the endocrine system. Scientists have discovered that many kinds of chemicals, including natural food biochemicals as well as industrial chemicals and a few pesticides, can mimic the action of the hormones estrogen or testosterone (Felsot 2001). With one exception—the drug DES (diethylstilbesterol)—all chemicals that have been tested in vitro are thousands to millions of times less potent than the natural estrogen hormone (estradiol) (Felsot 2001). In the in vivo (live animal) studies to date, only a handful of chemicals, including natural food biochemicals, a few pesticides, and several industrial chemicals show endocrine disrupting effects (Felsot 2001). The in vivo experiments usually involve feeding pregnant rats or mice one or more doses of a chemical. With one exception, the drug DES, any effects that have been observed were in tests with doses at least thousands of times greater than environmental or dietary concentrations. Potential for Exposure: Exposure scenarios are developed for workers and members of the general public. For each group, two types of exposure scenarios are generally taken into consideration: general exposure and accidental/incidental exposure.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 136

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

General exposure refers to human exposure resulting from the normal use of the chemical. For workers, general exposure involves the handling and application of the compound. These general exposure scenarios can be interpreted relatively easily and objectively. For each pesticide, at least three general exposure scenarios are considered, including walking through a contaminated area shortly after treatment, the consumption of ambient water from a contaminated watershed, and the consumption of contaminated vegetation. The exposure scenarios based on longer-term consumption of contaminated vegetation assume that an area of edible plants is inadvertently sprayed and that these plants are consumed by an individual over a 90-day period. While such inadvertent contamination might occur, it is extremely unlikely to happen as a result of directed applications (e.g., backpack applications). It is likely that the contaminated plants would show obvious signs of damage over a relatively short period of time and would therefore not be consumed. These general exposure assessments are included because the risk assessment is intended to be extremely conservative with respect to potential effects on the general public. Like the general exposure scenarios, the accidental exposures for the general public may be regarded as more extreme than those for workers. Three scenarios are included in each exposure assessment. They include direct spray, the consumption of contaminated water shortly after a spill, and the consumption of contaminated vegetation shortly after treatment. The direct spray scenario is clearly extreme. It assumes that a naked child is sprayed directly with a pesticide as it is being applied and that no steps are taken to remove the pesticide from the child for 1 hour. There are no reports of such incidents in the literature, and the likelihood of such an incident occurring appears to be remote. Nonetheless, this scenario and others like it are useful not only as a uniform comparison among pesticides but also as a simplifying step in the risk assessment. Typically, the level of exposure is directly proportional to the exposure parameters. The exposure associated with wearing gloves for 4 hours is 4 times the exposure associated with wearing contaminated gloves for 1 hour. Similarly, the general exposure scenarios for workers are based on an 8-hour work day. If a 4-hour application period were used, the hazard indices would be reduced by a factor of two. Additional variability is taken into consideration by estimating exposure doses or absorbed doses for individuals of different age groups (i.e., adults, young children, toddlers, and infants). Children may behave in ways that increase their exposure to applied pesticides (e.g., long periods of outdoor play). In addition, label requirements for herbicide applications include time limits on worker re-entry to treated areas and standards to protect non-workers (SERA 2014).

Table 3-38. General Guidelines for Reentry into Areas Treated with Herbicides Restricted Entry Interval (REI) Herbicide Non-Worker Protection Standards (under Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170) Keep people and pets off treated areas until Glyphosate 4 hours spray solution has dried.

Do not enter or allow entry into treated areas Chlorsulfuron 4 hours until sprays have dried. Do not enter or allow others to enter the treated Triclopyr 12 hours areas until sprays have dried Do not enter treated areas until sprays have Clopyralid dried. For early entry to treated areas, wear eye 12 hours protection, chemical-resistant gloves made of

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 137

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Restricted Entry Interval (REI) Herbicide Non-Worker Protection Standards (under Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170) anywaterproof material, long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes and socks.

Do not enter or allow others to enter the treated Imazapyr 4SL areas without protective clothing until sprays 12 hours have dried. Do not enter treated areas without protective Imazapyr 2SL 48 hours clothing until sprays have dried.

Do not enter treated areas without protective Imazapic 12 hours clothing until sprays have dried.

Metsulfuron methyl Not stated on label 4 hours

Do not allow people or pets on treatment area Picloram during application, or until sprayed areas have 12 hours dried. Long-sleeved shirt and long pants. Shoes plus Aminoclopyrachlor No entry until product has dried socks

Do not enter or allow entry into treated areas Aminopyralid 48 hours until sprayed have dried. Note: Data obtained from herbicide product labels. Herbicide Drift: Spray drift is largely a function of droplet particle size, release height, and wind speed (Teske and Thistle 1999). Other factors that control drift to a lesser degree include the type of spray nozzle used, the angle of the spray nozzle, and the length of the boom. The largest particles, being the heaviest, would fall to the ground sooner than smaller sizes upon exiting the sprayer. Medium size particles can be carried beyond the sprayer swath (the fan shape spray under a nozzle), but all particles would deposit within a short distance of the release point (Felsot 2001). Drift characteristics differ between pesticides. With herbicides proposed in this analysis, it is not critical to coat the entire leaf since some of the products can be absorbed by the plant roots and good efficacy can be achieved by larger droplets on leaves to the target plant. Therefore, herbicide drift can be intentionally reduced by generating larger droplets without reducing efficacy. Wind speed increases the concentration of drifting droplets leaving the treated area if the wind is adverse (blowing away from the release point in the treatment area). If the wind is favorable (blowing into the treatment area) drift can be reduced. Numerous studies have shown that over 90 percent of spray droplets land on the target area, and about 10 percent or less move off-target, and that the droplets that move off-target most typically deposit within 100 feet of the target area (Felsot 2001; Yates et al. 1978; Teske and Thistle 1999). RAHUFS Drift Estimations: The 1992 Risk Assessment for Herbicide Use in Forest Service Regions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10 and on Bonneville Power Administration Sites (USDA FS 1992, referred to as RAHUFS), determined spray drift analysis indicates “low” health risk to the public from ground applied herbicides (USDA FS 1992). “Low risk” was defined as drift from the herbicides that presents a less than one in a million systemic, reproductive or cancer risk. Spray drift from hand application equipment was found to be negligible.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 138

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences Alternative A - No Action Under this Alternative, invasives would continue to spread and become more dominant on the Forest. As invasives spread, there would be an increase in the discomfort and ill health effects to people who get allergies, asthma, contact dermatitis, or other skin irritations from certain invasive species. With this Alternative, ongoing invasive treatments on the Forest would continue. However, this Alternative would avoid the potential for additional herbicide exposure that could affect chemically sensitive individuals. Alternative B This Alternative would result in possible impacts on human health and safety from sprains and strains during mechanical, manual, and cultural control treatments. These impacts would be minor and largely mitigated through safe work practices and use of protective equipment such as gloves. Invasive management activities in hot weather may result in heat exhaustion or stroke, but may be mitigated by adjusting work schedules to accomplish the majority of the work before the heat of the day and drinking plenty of water. Alternative B includes the use of herbicides. Based on application methods, anticipated application rates, and exposure to herbicides, the human health risks as a result of implementing Alternative B would be similar to those discussed in the herbicide-specific risk assessments in the project record. Typical rates used in the risk assessments were acquired from data gathered from actual herbicide treatments. This data showed that only in rare circumstances was an entire acre sprayed during treatment. Actual treatment consisted of spot spraying the target species only, which in most cases were scattered over the project area. Based on the risk assessments produced for herbicide use on national forest land, the risk of adverse health effects from herbicides for the general population would be low. (USDA FS 1992, USDA FS 1997, SERA 2004a-g, SERA 2007, SERA 2011, SERA 2012). The risk assessments indicate that there is no route of exposure or exposure scenario suggesting that the general public would be at risk from longer-term exposure to herbicides. In the human health risk assessment, the defined effect level is almost always the reference dose (RfD), and the ratio of the exposure to the reference dose is referred to as the hazard quotient (HQ) (SERA 2014). In most Forest Service risk assessments, an HQ of 1 is defined as the level of concern (SERA 2011). Glyphosate Glyphosate is a nonselective foliar-applied herbicide. It controls virtually all annual and perennial weeds, but generally is most phytotoxic to annual grasses. Growth is inhibited soon after application followed by general foliar chlorosis and necrosis with 4-7 days for highly susceptible grasses and within 10-20 days for less susceptible species. Sub lethal rates inhibit seed head emergence and suppress vegetative growth of most perennial grasses (Shaner 2014). Glyphosate inhibits the shikimic acid pathway in plants, which is involved in the production of essential aromatic amino acids. This inhibition leads to an inhibition or cessation of growth, cellular disruption, and, at sufficiently high levels of exposure, plant death. Glyphosate formulations may be applied by directed foliar, ground broadcast foliar, or aerial methods. In Forest Service Programs, the most common method of applying glyphosate is by backpack- applied directed foliar sprays. The formulations of glyphosate identified by the Forest Service

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 139

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences contain the ammonium, dimethylamine, isopropylamine, or potassium salts of glyphosate. (SERA 2011). Because of patent restrictions, all of the commercial formulations of glyphosate were produced only by Monsanto and included Accord, Rodeo, Roundup, and Roundup Pro (SERA 1996). By 2003, the year of the last Forest Service risk assessment (SERA 2003), glyphosate was no longer protected by patent, and 35 commercial formulations of glyphosate were registered for forestry applications (SERA 2011). Risk Characterization to Workers: At a unit application rate of 1 lbs a.e./acre, the highest HQ for any accidental exposure scenario is 0.003, the upper bound of the HQ for a pesticide spill over the lower legs which is not effectively mitigated for 1 hour. This HQ is below the level of concern by a factor of greater than 300. Thus, to reach a level of concern (i.e., an HQ of 1) would require an application rate of 300 lbs/acre or an exposure duration of 300 hours or approximately 12 days, none of which is credible. The HQs for general or longer-term exposures in workers are also unambiguous. Even at the upper bound of plausible exposures, all HQs are below the level of concern. For an application rate of 1 lb a.e./acre, the highest HQ is 0.08, the upper bound for workers involved in broadcast ground spray. To reach a level of concern or an HQ of 1, would require an application rate of about 13 lbs a.e./acre. The maximum rate for glyphosate is about 8 lbs a.e./acre. At this application rate of 8 lbs a.e./acre the upper bound of the HQ value for broadcast spray workers would be 0.6. Risks for the Public: For an application rate of 1 lb a.e./acre, none of the HQs exceed a level of concern. The highest HQ is for the consumption of contaminated water after an accidental spill. The upper bound of the HQ for this exposure scenario reaches but does not exceed the level of concern (i.e., the HQ is equal to 1.0) for an application rate of 1 a.e./acre. For terrestrial applications of glyphosate, the non-accidental exposure scenario of greatest concern involves the consumption of contaminated vegetation. For the longer-term consumption of contaminated vegetation, the upper bound of the HQ is 0.1 at an application rate of 1 lb a.e./acre. Thus, even at the maximum application rate of about 8 lbs a.e./acre, this exposure scenario would not exceed the level of concern (HQ=1). Chlorsulfuron Chlorsulfuron is recommended for preemergent and early postemergent control of many annual, biennial, and perennial broadleaf weeds. Three formulations of chlorsulfuron are available in the United States: Telar® DF and Glean®, which are produced by Dupont, and Corsair ™, which is produced by Riverdale. Chlorsulfuron is used in Forest Service programs only for the control of noxious weeds. The most common methods of ground application for chlorsulfuron involve backpack (selective foliar) and boom spray (broadcast foliar) operations (SERA 2004). The most common methods of ground application for Telar DF and Corsair involve backpack (selective foliar) and boom spray (broadcast foliar) operations. In selective foliar applications, the herbicide sprayer or container is carried by backpack and the herbicide is applied to selected target vegetation (SERA 2004). Mechanism of action is the inhibition of branched chain amino acid production by inhibition of the enzyme acetolactate. Growth of treated plants is inhibited within a few hours after application, but injury symptoms usually appear 1-2 weeks later (Shaner 2014).

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 140

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Risk Characterization for Workers: The upper range of hazard quotients is below the level of concern for backpack applications but somewhat above the level of concern for ground broadcast applications at the highest application rate. For ground broadcast applications, the level of concern is reached at an application rate of 0.14 lb/acre. The upper limits for hazard quotients are below a level of concern except for the accidental spill of a large amount of chlorsulfuron into a very small pond. Even this exposure scenario results in only a small excursion above the acute RfD and is not likely to be toxicologically significant, because of the short duration of exposure relative to those considered in the derivation of the RfD. Risks for the Public: The upper limits for hazard quotients are below a level of concern except for the accidental spill of a large amount of chlorsulfuron into a very small pond. Even this exposure scenario results in only a small excursion above the acute RfD and is not likely to be toxicologically significant, because of the short duration of exposure relative to those considered in the derivation of the RfD. Triclopyr Triclopyr is used in Forest Service programs primarily for conifer and/or hardwood release, noxious weed control, site preparation, and rights-of-way management. The most common application method for triclopyr is backpack (selective) foliar applications. Triclopyr may be used in hack and squirt applications. Hack and squirt applications are a form of cut surface treatment in which the bark of a standing tree is cut with a hatchet and the herbicide is applied with a squirt bottle. This treatment method is used to eliminate large trees during site preparation, conifer release operations, or rights-of-way maintenance Two forms of triclopyr are used commercially as herbicides: the triethylamine salt (TEA) and the butoxyethyl ester (BEE) (SERA 2011). Triclopyr mimics an auxin growth hormone, which causes abnormal increases in protein biosynthesis leads to uncontrolled cell division and growth, which results in vascular tissue destruction (Shaner 2014). The number of triclopyr formulations with labeled uses relevant to Forest Service programs continues to grow. When the initial Forest Service risk assessment on triclopyr was conducted, there were only two available formulations, Garlon 3A and Garlon 4 (SERA 1996). Currently, 19 formulations of triclopyr that might be used in Forest Service programs have been identified (SERA 2011). Risk Characterization for Workers: The risk characterization for workers involved in terrestrial applications of triclopyr TEA formulations is essentially identical, at least quantitatively, to the risk characterization given in the previous Forest Service risk assessment on triclopyr (SERA 2003). As indicated in Table 30, 12 Central estimates of the hazard quotient based on the chronic RfD are below the level of concern (HQ=1) for all application methods at an application rate of 1 lb a.e./acre. An application rate of 1 lb a.e./acre is the typical application rate used in Forest Service Programs. There is no indication that workers will be subject to hazardous levels of triclopyr at the typical application rate of 1 lb/acre and under typical exposure conditions. At the upper range of exposures, all application methods exceed the level of concern based on the chronic RfD but not the acute RfD. Thus, for workers who may apply triclopyr repeatedly over a period of several weeks or longer, it is important to ensure that work practices involve reasonably protective procedures to avoid the upper extremes of potential exposure. Risks for the Public: Under normal circumstances, members of the general public should not be exposed to substantial levels of triclopyr as a result of Forest Service activities. The risk

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 141

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

characterization is thus relatively unambiguous at the typical application rate of 1 lb/acre: based on the available information and under the foreseeable conditions of exposure, there is no route of exposure or exposure scenario suggesting that the general public will be at risk from longer- term exposure to triclopyr. Clopyralid Clopyralid is a selective herbicide used primarily in the control of broadleaf weeds. The Forest Service uses only a single commercial formulation of clopyralid, Transline. The Forest Service uses Transline almost exclusively in noxious weed control. Relatively minor uses include rights- of-way management, wildlife openings, and facilities maintenance. Transline is a liquid formulation of clopyralid that is manufactured by Dow AgroSciences and contains 40.9% clopyralid as the monoethanolamine salt and 59.1% inert ingredients. The most common methods of ground application for Transline involve backpack (selective foliar) and boom spray (broadcast foliar) operations. (SERA 2004). Clopyralid controls many annual and perennial broadleaf weeds including Canada thistle, wild buckwheat, cocklebur, jimsonweed, ragweed spp., marsh elder and wild sunflower. Mode of action is similar to other auxin type herbicides (Shaner 2014). Risk Characterization for Workers: There is no evidence that typical or accidental exposures will lead to dose levels that exceed the level of concern for workers. In other words, all of the anticipated exposures for workers are below the acute RfD for acute exposures and below the chronic RfD for chronic exposures. Risks for the Public: None of the longer-term exposure scenarios approach a level of concern and none of the acute/accidental scenarios exceed a level of concern,based on central estimates of exposure, although the upper limit of the hazard quotient for the consumption of water after an accidental spill slightly exceeds the level of concern – i.e., a hazard quotient of 2. Imazapyr Imazapyr is a nonselective herbicide used to control a variety of grasses, broadleaf weeds, vines, and brush species. In Forest Service programs, imazapyr is used primarily in the Southern United States for noxious weed control, conifer release, and site preparation. Imazapyr may also be used to control aquatic macrophytes (SERA 2011). Imazapyr works by the inhibition of branched chain amino acid production by inhibition of the enzyme acetolactate synthase (ALS) or acetohydroxy acid synthase (AHAS) (Shaner 2014). While imazapyr formulations can be used in pre-emergence applications, the most common and effective applications are post-emergent when the vegetation to be controlled is growing vigorously. The most common methods of ground application involve backpack (selective foliar) and boom spray (broadcast foliar) operations. Cut surface treatment methods may also be used in Forest Service programs involving imazapyr (SERA 2011). Risk Characterication for Workers: The risk characterization for workers is simple and unambiguous: there is no basis for asserting that workers are likely to be at risk in applications of imazapyr. The highest HQ for general exposures—i.e., exposure levels anticipated in the normal use of imazapyr —is 0.06, the upper bound of the HQ for workers involved in ground broadcast applications of imazapyr. If the RfD of 2.5 mg/kg bw/day (HQ=1) is taken as the level of concern, this HQ is associated with a dose which is below the level of concern by a factor of about 17. The highest accidental HQ is 0.01, the upper bound of the HQ for a worker wearing contaminated gloves for 1 hour. Most of the occupational exposure scenarios and many of the

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 142

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences exposure scenarios for the general public involve the dermal route of exposure. For these exposure scenarios, dermal absorption is estimated and compared to an estimated acceptable level of oral exposure based on subchronic or chronic toxicity studies in animals. Risks to the Public: The risk characterization for members of the general public is essentially identical to the risk characterization for workers: there is no basis for asserting that members of the general public are likely to be at risk due to applications of imazapyr. Based on the RfD of 2.5 mg/kg bw/day, the highest HQs are those associated with an accidental spill of imazapyr into a small pond and the subsequent consumption of contaminated water by a small child. For this exposure scenario the HQs are 0.07 (0.002 to 0.8) for both terrestrial and aquatic applications. Imazapic Imazapic is used in the control of grasses, broadleaves, and vines, and for turf height suppression in non-cropland areas. The Forest Service will typically use imazapic in noxious weed control and rights-of-way management. The Forest Service may use two commercial formulations of imazapic, Plateau and Plateau DG. Both of these formulation contain the ammonium salt of imazapic as the active ingredient. Plateau is a liquid formulation that contains imazapic (22.2%) at a concentration of 2 lbs. per gallon and Plateau DG is a dispersible granule formulation that contains the ammonium salt of imazapic (70%). Imazapic may be applied by directed foliar, broadcast foliar, or aerial (Plateau only) methods. Imazapic may be applied by directed foliar, broadcast foliar, or aerial (Plateau only) methods. The most common method of application in Forest Service programs will involve broadcast foliar applications (SERA 2004). Imazapic works in a similarly to Imazapyr by the inhibition of branched chain amino acid production by inhibition of the enzyme acetolactate synthase (ALS) or acetohydroxy acid synthase (AHAS) (Shaner 2014). Risk Characterization to Workers: For workers, no exposure scenarios, acute or chronic, exceed the RfD even at the upper ranges of estimated dose. There is no route of exposure or scenario suggesting that workers will be at any substantial risk from exposure to imazapic even at the upper range of the application rate. Risks to the Public: The upper limits for hazard quotients are below a level of concern except for the accidental spill of a large amount of imazapic into a very small pond. There is no route of exposure or scenario suggesting that members of the general public will be at any substantial risk from exposure to imazapic even at the upper range of the application rate (SERA 2004). Metsulfuron Methyl Metsulfuron methyl is a selective pre-emergence and post-emergence sulfonyl urea herbicide used primarily to control many annual and perennial weeds and woody plants. Only one commercial formulation of metsulfuron methyl, Escort® XP, is in Forest Service programs. Escort XP is manufactured by Du Pont as a dry flowable granule. The composition of the product is 60% metsulfuron methyl and 40% inert ingredients. Metsulfuron methyl is used in Forest Service programs primarily for the control of noxious weeds. Minor uses include conifer release and rights-of-way management (SERA 2004). The most common methods of ground application for Escort XP involve backpack (selective foliar) and boom spray (broadcast foliar) operations. In selective foliar applications, the herbicide sprayer or container is carried by backpack and the herbicide is applied to selected target vegetation (SERA 2004). Metsulfuron methyl behavior in plants is similar to Imazapyr and Imazapic. Growth of treated plants is inhibited within hours after application, but injury

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 143

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences symptoms usually appear more than one or two weeks later. Meristematic areas gradually become chlorotic and necrotic, followed by a general foliar chlorosis and necrosis (Shaner 2014). Risk Characterization to Workers: No exposure scenarios, acute or chronic, exceed the RfD even at the upper ranges of estimated dose. There is no route of exposure or scenario suggesting that workers will be at any substantial risk from longer-term exposure to metsulfuron methyl. Risks to the Public: All upper limits for hazard quotients are below a level of concern. There is no route of exposure or scenario suggesting that members of the general public will be at any substantial risk from longer-term exposure to metsulfuron methyl (SERA 2004). Picloram Picloram is used in the control of a number of broadleaf weeds and undesirable brush. Picloram is used in Forest Service programs primarily for the control of invasive plant species. Rights-of- way management is a minor use for picloram. Tordon K and Tordon 22K are the formulations of picloram currently used by the Forest Service. The most common application methods for Tordon involve backpack (selective foliar), boom spray (broadcast foliar), and aerial applications. Picloram is a systemic herbicide that is registered for the post-emergent control of broadleaf weeds and woody plants (SERA 2011). Picloram is a systemic, ambi-mobile growth-regulator herbicide. Symptoms of Picloram injury are typical of other auxin-type herbicides, and include epinastic bending and twisting of stems and petioles, stem swelling (particularly at nodes) and elongation, and leaf cupping and curling (Shaner 2014). Risk Characterization to Workers: Typical exposures to picloram do not lead to estimated doses that exceed a level of concern. For workers, no exposure scenarios, acute or chronic, exceeds the RfD even at the upper ranges of estimated dose. Workers are not at substantial risk from exposures to either picloram or hexachlorobenzene— i.e., all of the upper bound HQs are less than one at the maximum anticipated application rate for picloram of 1 lb a.e./acre. Confidence in this assessment is relatively high. For workers, the risk characterization is based on exposure rates used in all Forest Service risk assessments, and these rates are derived from studies which include worker applications of picloram. Based on both systemic toxicity and carcinogenicity, there is no indication that workers are at risk at during applications of picloram. The highest HQs are associated with upper bound estimates of exposure in workers applying picloram in ground broadcast applications—i.e., an HQ of 0.8 for the systemic toxicity of picloram and 0.5 for the potential carcinogenicity of hexachlorobenzene. Risks to the Public: Only one HQ exceeds the level of concern – i.e., the upper bound HQ of 2 for the longer-term consumption of contaminated vegetation. The exposure scenario for the longer-term consumption of contaminated vegetation is a standard scenario used in all Forest Service risk assessments involving foliar applications of pesticides. Nonetheless this exposure scenario may be viewed as extreme and unlikely to occur. This exposure scenarios assumes that the food item is directly sprayed with picloram at the application rate of 1 lb a.e./acre. The direct spray of plants that might be consumed by humans (i.e., dicots) are likely to be severely damaged. That individuals would consume damaged vegetation over a long-term period of time does not seem likely. Notwithstanding the implausibility of the exposure scenario, there appears to be no basis for asserting that a modest excursion above the chronic RfD (i.e., an HQ of 2) would lead to substantial adverse effects (SERA 2011).

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 144

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Aminoclopyrachlor Aminocyclopyrachlor is a new herbicide developed by DuPont™, which the U.S. EPA granted a conditional registration for the control of broadleaf weeds and woody vegetation. Because aminocyclopyrachlor is effective in controlling leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), the Forest Service anticipates its use in vegetation management programs. Based on the distribution of leafy spurge, the Forest Service may use aminocyclopyrachlor in most areas of the United States, except the southeast. The greatest use of aminocyclopyrachlor is anticipated in northwestern states, particularly Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota. Aminocyclopyrachlor is labeled for numerous weeds, particularly terrestrial and riparian invasive and noxious weeds (SERA 2012). The active ingredients in aminocyclopyrachlor formulations include either the acid form, or the potassium salt, or the methyl ester. DuPont™ is not commercializing formulations containing the methyl ester of aminocyclopyrachlor. Based on the available EPA product labels, it seems likely that the Forest Service may use DuPont™ Method® 50SG (acid) and DuPont™ Method® 240SL (potassium salt) to control leafy spurge as well as other noxious and invasive weeds. Various methods may be used to apply aminocyclopyrachlor formulations, including ground or aerial broadcast, directed foliar (including spot treatments), and various cut surface treatments, specified as cut stubble or cut stump on the product labels (SERA 2012). Aminocyclopyrachlor is a systemic, ambi-mobile growth regulator herbicide. As the compound translocates and accumulates in meristematic tissue it causes uneven cell division and growth resulting in death of susceptible plant species (Shaner 2014). Risk Characterization to Workers: For workers, no exposure scenarios, acute or chronic, exceed the RfD at the upper bound of the estimated dose associated with the highest application rate of 0.28 lb a.e./acre. The HQs for directed ground spray, broadcast ground spray, and aerial applications are below the level of concern by factors of 10 to about 17. Similarly, no HQs for aminocyclopyrachlor exceed the level of concern for members of the general public. The highest HQ is 0.8, the upper bound of the HQ for the consumption of broadleaf vegetation. This exposure scenario is standard in all Forest Service risk assessments; moreover, this scenario typically leads to the highest HQs. For an effective herbicide like aminocyclopyrachlor, this exposure scenario may be viewed as implausible in that treated or contaminated vegetation would show signs of damage following the application of the herbicide, which should reduce if not eliminate the possibility of long-term consumption of the treated vegetation. Exposures associated with the consumption of contaminated water are far more likely, and the upper bound HQs for these exposure scenarios are below the level of concern by factors of about 100 (HQ of 0.01 for the longer-term consumption of contaminated water) to 10,000 (HQ of 0.0001 for the longer-term consumption of contaminated fish). The risk characterization for workers is simple and unambiguous: there is no basis for asserting that workers are likely to be at risk in applications of aminocyclopyrachlor. The highest HQ for general exposures—i.e., exposure levels anticipated in the normal use of aminocyclopyrachlor — is 0.1, the upper bound of the HQ for workers involved in ground broadcast applications of aminocyclopyrachlor. Risks to the Public: As with workers, there is no basis for asserting that members of the general public are likely to be at risk due to applications of aminocyclopyrachlor. The highest HQs are associated with the consumption of contaminated broadleaf vegetation. The upper bound HQ for acute exposures is 0.1, and the upper bound for chronic exposures is 0.8. These exposure scenarios are extremely conservative in that the consumption of contaminated vegetation is

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 145

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

assumed to occur shortly after the direct spray of the vegetation at the maximum application rate of 0.28 lb a.e./acre. The chronic exposure scenarios for the consumption of contaminated vegetation may be viewed as grossly and perhaps overly conservative in that vegetation sprayed with aminocyclopyrachlor at the maximum application rate would probably show signs of damage following treatment, and it does not seem likely that an individual would consume damaged vegetation over a prolonged period of time. This exposure scenario is used consistently in Forest Service risk assessments simply as an upper bound screen for potential risks. For aminocyclopyrachlor, no risks are apparent (SERA 2012). Aminopyralid Aminopyralid is a new selective systemic herbicide that has been developed for the control of broadleaf weeds in rangeland, non-crop areas, and grazed areas. The most likely uses of aminopyralid will involve applications to forest and rangelands, rights-of-way, and developed recreational areas such as campgrounds, picnic areas and trails. Application methods have and will likely continue to include backpack (selective foliar), hydraulic spray, and aerial applications. Formulations include Milestone and Milestone VM. Both of these formulations contain the triisopropanolamine (TIPA) salt of aminopyralid (40.6 % w a.i./v, equivalent to 21.1% a.e. or 2 lbs a.e./gal). These formulations contain no inert ingredients other than water and triisopropanolamine (SERA 2007). Aminopyralid has a similar mode of action as aminocyclopyrachlor. Aminopyralid provides a broad spectrum of broadleaf weed control. Within hours or days of application, aminopyralid causes symptoms such as thickened, curved and twisted stems and leaves, cupping and crinkling of leaves, stem cracking, narrow leaves with callus tissue, hardened growth on stem, and or enlarged root and proliferated growth (Shaner 2014). Risk Characterization to Workers: The risk characterization for both workers and members of the general public is reasonably simple and unambiguous: based on a generally conservative and protective set of assumptions regarding both the toxicity of aminopyralid and potential exposures to aminopyralid, there is no basis for suggesting that adverse effects are likely in either workers or members of the general public even at the maximum application rate that might be used in Forest Service or NPS programs. For workers, no exposure scenarios, acute or chronic, exceeds the RfD at the upper bound of the estimated dose associated with the highest application rate of 0.11 lb a.e./acre. The hazard quotients for directed ground spray, broadcast ground spray, and aerial applications are below the level of concern by factors of 33 to 200 over the range of application rates considered in this risk assessment. The simple verbal interpretation of this quantitative characterization of risk is that under a protective set of exposure assumptions, workers would not be exposed to levels of aminopyralid that are regarded as unacceptable so long as reasonable and prudent handling practices are followed. Risks to the Public: For members of the general public, upper bounds of hazard quotients at the highest application rate are below a level of concern by factors of 100 to 125,000 for longer term exposures. For one accidental exposure scenario, the consumption of contaminated water by a child immediately after an accidental spill of aminopyralid into a small pond, the hazard quotient is 0.6, approaching the level of concern (1.0). This is an intentionally extreme exposure scenario that typically leads to the highest hazard quotient in pesticide risk assessments similar to the current assessment on aminopyralid. The upper bounds of acute exposure scenarios for

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 146

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences contaminated vegetation or fruit are below the level of concern by factors of 10 to 50. Acute non- accidental exposure scenarios for members of the general public that involve contaminated water are below the level of concern by factors of about 50 to 500. Thus, the risk characterization for longer-term exposures is unambiguous: based on the available information and under the foreseeable conditions of application, there is no route of exposure or scenario suggesting that the general public will be at any substantial risk from longer-term exposure to aminopyralid even when the compound is applied at the maximum labeled application rate (SERA 2007). Workers would wear protective clothing to reduce exposure. All workers handling herbicides would be required to wear long-sleeved cotton shirts, long pants, and herbicide resistant gloves, hats and footwear, preferably rubber boots. Those workers mixing or loading herbicides would be required to wear eye protection and Tyvek suits or herbicide resistant aprons. Tyvek suits may also be worn during application of herbicides to prevent skin contact. Despite the limited risk of adverse health effects predicted based on EPA testing, label restrictions, and the risk assessments, people who suffer from hypersensitivity to chemicals in the environment may be inadvertently exposed to and adversely affected by herbicide residues if they use the localized sites where an herbicide has been applied. Individuals with this ailment are generally aware of their sensitivities, and could avoid herbicide treated areas during the time that the chemical residue is active. Some herbicides would only remain detectable in the environment for a few days while others remain active and detectable in the soil for several years. For example, picloram has a half-life of up to 3 years. Herbicide exposure to chemically sensitive individuals would be minimized through the public notification requirements described in Chapter 2. Often times because of the personal variability in the reaction to treatments, notification provides the best means of allowing people to determine when to enter such an area. Generally, a safe re-entry period passes in treated areas after the herbicide has dried on the leaf surface. Chemically hypersensitive individuals may also be subject to exposure and ill health effects from oil, gasoline, diesel, or propane engine fuels and exhaust from motorized equipment and vehicles used for invasive plant control activities. Oil, gas, diesel, and propane fuels used in equipment and vehicles for management and recreational activities would occur as background exposure throughout the Forest and in the surrounding public and private lands. Workers applying herbicides could be accidentally exposed to herbicide spills through the direct spray of a worker, the spilling of the herbicide mixture on skin, or the spilling of a concentrated dose on exposed skin. The public could be accidentally exposed to herbicide by hiking into a just-sprayed area, eating directly sprayed berries, or drinking water contaminated by a vehicle accident spill that introduces herbicides into a drinking water supply. Preventive measures to reduce risk of accidental contact: 1. Recreation areas treated would be posted for one week prior to treatment, during treatment, and two weeks after treatment to notify potential recreationists of herbicide application. 2. A buffer zone of 30 feet will be established around shrubs and trees that have ripe berries or other edible parts when the treatment is applied to a site. Most applications would occur in the spring and early summer when berries are not present.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 147

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

3. Herbicides would be mixed on site as much as possible, rather than mixed and transported. This measure is designed to reduce the risk of vehicle accidents with large quantities of mixed herbicide. Concentrated herbicide is less likely to spill in an accident situation, and more easily cleaned up. Only the anticipated amount needed for the day or the task would be mixed. Hauling mixed herbicide on routes near surface water would be avoided. 4. Workers would be required to wear protective clothing, including chemically resistant gloves, eye protection, rubber boots and Tyvek suits, to minimize the chances of exposing the skin or clothing to herbicides. 5. Applicators would be provided regular training and safety meetings to ensure that they are thoroughly familiar with proper procedures so that no worker is accidentally sprayed with herbicide. The general public may also be secondarily exposed to a spill or release should it reach surface or ground water. The indirect effects of a spill in the form of public exposure and disruption would be commensurate with the proximity of the spill area to the public and public exposure pathways. The risk of exposure from this means is low due to mitigation measures that limit exposure of the herbicides to water and avoid accidental spills or leaks (refer to Chapter 2). Workers conducting invasive treatments with mechanized equipment (mowing or digging) could also potentially be harmed by breathing gas or diesel emissions, or getting cuts, burns, allergies, and skin irritations. Workers may also be exposed to dust and chaff during seeding operations. However, those risks would be very low due to the required personal protective equipment such as gloves, long sleeved shirts, boots, and safety glasses, along with not using workers having a heightened sensitivity to allergens or skin irritations. Risks to the general public during mechanical treatments would be mitigated by avoiding treatments during high use times or closing campgrounds during treatment. As the abundance of invasives is diminished over time, there would be a decrease in the discomfort and ill health effects to people who get allergies, asthma, contact dermatitis or other skin irritations from certain invasive species. Alternative C (No Herbicide) There would be minimal health and safety risks associated with implementing this alternative, as described for the mechanical and other non-herbicide treatments in Alternative B, due to the mitigation measures to be employed. Without the use of herbicides, invasives would likely continue to spread on the Forest and impact individuals affected by allergies, asthma, and minor skin irritations caused by certain invasive species, as previously described. Alternative C would require more repeated entries into the same infestation areas to achieve an acceptable level of invasive control. However, since humans no longer depend on native plants for food, this would not directly affect human health or safety. Workers involved in hand pulling or grubbing of invasive plant occurrences may be at an increased risk of physical injury while digging, but this risk can be mitigated through the use of safety equipment such as gloves and using other safe practices while working. Thus, there would be a slight increase in the risks to workers and the public from exposure to these hazards when compared with Alternative B. Prescribed burning is emphasized in Alternative C and not in Alternative B. The burning of a large number of acres in this alternative adds to the health risks associated with fire and smoke.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 148

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Because the burning program would be managed to maintain air quality, this additional risk is not expected to be measurable. Cumulative Effects The analysis area for cumulative effects on human health and safety is the area in and immediately adjacent to the Forest. This boundary represents the areas where the actions proposed in this project are most likely to interact with other activities, in particular the invasive plant treatments and ground disturbance on the Forest and other lands (private, State, BLM, etc). Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities that may have cumulative effects on human health include invasive plant control efforts (aerial and ground application of herbicides) on private and public lands in New Mexico, as outlined in Appendix B, and herbicide spraying along the highway rights-of-way by the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (USDA Forest Service 1995). Potential for public exposure to treatments would come from other invasive plant treatment activities currently underway and planned in the foreseeable future. Cumulatively, risks to human health from the additive effects of herbicide exposure would likely remain low. Alternative B combined with ongoing and foreseeable applications by other jurisdictions, would affect less than 0.1 percent of the Forest’s 1.7 million acres of public lands over the next 10 years, and the duration of potential human contact with herbicides on plant or soil surfaces is typically less than a day. Application rates permitted by the EPA use a process to determine toxicity and exposure, with the use of the “reference dose” to account for cumulative exposure. These doses represent a very small dose that, when given over a lifetime (70 years), would show no effect. Risk assessments indicate that when considered with each treatment under Alternative B and added to other herbicide treatments ongoing or foreseeable, the likelihood is extremely low that any individual would be exposed to an amount of herbicide that exceeds the reference dose. Workers who apply the herbicide are at the greatest risk, but with use of protective clothing and equipment along with following label restrictions, they are not expected to exceed this dose. The risk to the general public is even lower, even when all the amounts are considered cumulatively. The contribution to cumulative effects to human health and safety by invasive plant treatments under Alternatives A, B, and C is not significant. All Alternatives are consistent with EPA, OSHA and Forest Service regulations regarding herbicide use and worker safety. 3.11 Socioeconomics Affected Environment Environmental Justice: Executive Order (EO) 12898 (Office of the President 1994) directs federal agencies to focus attention on the human health and environmental conditions in minority and low income communities. The purpose of EO 12898 is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects 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.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 149

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

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 populations and identify alternatives that will 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” (Council on Environmental Quality 1997). The Cedro Landscape Restoration Project lies within Bernalillo County, New Mexico. This county has a higher proportion of Hispanic and American Indian residents than the United States. Due to the high proportion of Hispanic and American Indian residents in the study area, it has been determined that these ethnic groups meet the Environmental Justice requirements of a minority population meaningfully greater than the population of the nation. Therefore, decision makers should pay careful attention to the potential impacts of management actions on those ethnic groups. Poverty rates in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, and the U.S. increased from 2000 to 2009. In 2009, Bernalillo County poverty rate was lower at 15.6 percent. Bernalillo County and New Mexico had 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. Therefore, decisions regarding future management actions on the Sandia Ranger District should carefully assess the effects on low-income populations. Economic Conditions and Trends: Employment and income statistics are important indicators of economic health. In many areas, non-labor income is often the largest source of personal income, particularly in rural areas and small cities. Non-labor income includes income from dividends, interest and rent, and transfer payments, such as retirement benefits, social security payments, and welfare. An aging population, stock market and investment growth, and a highly mobile population are some of the reasons behind rapid growth in non-labor income. The growth in non- labor income can be an indication that a place is an attractive place to live and retire. The in- migration of people who bring investment and retirement income with them is associated with a high quality of life, good health care facilities, and affordable housing. Because of these factors and the good climate, many Air Force personnel return and retire in the Albuquerque area. Public land resources are one of the reasons the area is able to attract and retain non-labor sources of income and are important to local economic well-being by contributing to economic growth and per capita income. The second largest employing industry in the Albuquerque area is health care and social assistance, followed by retail trade; both of these are service related industries. Forestry, fishing & related activities are a non-service related industry with relatively low total employment.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 150

Chapter 3. Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences Alternative A – No Action Socioeconomic conditions of the local communities would not change under this alternative. Residents would not have access to temporary seasonal jobs associated with the forestry. Alternatives B and C Implementation of the forest landscape treatments would contribute to the surrounding communities, Land Grants and the Pueblo of Isleta and the greater Albuquerque metro economic wellbeing by creating jobs and meeting tribal member demand for forest products such as firewood. Part-time employment for the tribe’s 10-person fire/fuels crew is projected in the completion of landscape treatments thru contracting these crew resources to complete treatments on the Cibola National Forest. This crew is trained to work in a broad range of forest management activities, including timber falling, wildfire suppression, pile burning, lopping and scattering, forest stand exams, and forest equipment operation. Environmental Justice: In cases where the 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. Economic Impacts: In addition to hiring more labor, industries must meet technical requirements by purchasing more equipment, supplies, and other inputs to production. Some of these purchases will be made from other local industries; for example, additional fuel purchased by the logging companies at local gas stations increases the output in the oil and gas industry.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 151

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

4 Consultation and Coordination Interdisciplinary Team Members Aaron Johnson-Sandia District Forester Ian Fox-Timber Management Officer Jerry Simon/Shawn Martin - Vegetation Matt Rau - Fire and Fuels Management Donald Serrano – Non-native invasive plants Zack Parsons - Wildlife Cynthia Benedict - Tribal Consultation and Cultural Resources Sandra Arazi-Coambs - Heritage Resources Livia Crowley - Soil and Water Resources Tyler Albers - Scenic Resources Richard Graves - Transportation Bob Heiar/Kerry Wood-Recreation and Trails Cheryl Prewitt - NEPA Federal, State, and Local Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs - Southern Pueblo Agency Claunch-Pinto Soil and Water Conservation District Edgewood Soil and Water Conservation District Ciudad Soil and Water Conservation District New Mexico Wild Turkey Federation U.S. Department of Defense - Kirtland Air Force Base U.S. Department of Energy - Sandia National Labs New Mexico State Forestry Division Bernalillo County Commision District 5 Tribes The following Tribes and Pueblos were consulted during the development of this EA. The Pueblos of Acoma, Zuni, Isleta, Sandia, Santo Domingo, Santa Ana, San Felipe, San Ildefonso, Cochiti, Zia, and Jemez Mescalero Apache Tribe Navajo Nation Jicarilla Apache Nation To’hajilee Navajo Chapter Congressional/Others Senator Tom Udall Senator Martin Heinrich Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 152

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Congressman Steve Pearce Congressman Ben Ray Lujan Chilili Land Grant members New Mexico State University Sandia Mountain Natural History Center Center of Biological Diversity Wild Earth Guardians Forest Guild Marek Coston Joe Poerschke Dick Artley Mark Werkmeister Todd Griffin Mark Huppertz Guy Dahms Bryan Andrada Hillard Howard Steve Moss Christina Olds Albuquerque Believers on Mountain Bikes (BOMB) Tom Mayer Rory Schell Hawke Morgan

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 153

Chapter 5. Literature Cited

5 Literature Cited Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Andrews, Patricia L.; Bevins, Collin D.; Seli, Robert C. 2008. BehavePlus fire modeling system, version 4.0: User's Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-106WWW Revised. Ogden, UT: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 116p. Austin, D. A. (2013). Order Number: F13-007-LOLO-D3, Special Restrictions: Pattee Canyon Recreation Area. Retrieved from http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/lolo/home/?cid=stelprdb5412036. Baisan, C.H., Swetnam, T.W. 1997. Interaction of fire regimes and land use in the central Rio Grande valley. Research Paper RM-RP-330. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 p. Baisan, C. H., and T. W. Swetnam. 1995. Historical fire occurrence in remote mountains of Southwestern New Mexico and Northern Mexico. In: Brown, J. K., compiler. Proceedings: Symposium on fire in wilderness and park management. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INTGTR320. Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 153-156. Baker, Malchus, B. 1986. Effects of Ponderosa Pine Treatments on Water Yield in Arizona. Water resources Research, vol. 22, no.1, pages 67-73. Banks, L.D. 1990 From Mountain Peaks to Alligator Stomachs: A Review of Lithic Sources in the Trans-Mississippi South, the Southern Plains, and Adjacent Southwest. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Memoir 4, Norman. Beier, P., and J. E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern goshawks. Ecological Applications 7:564-571. Belt, George, H., Jay O’Laughlin, and Troy Merrill. 1992. Design of Forest riparian Buffer Strips for the Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and Range Policy Analysis Group, Report no. 8, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID. Bernardini, W. 1998 Conflict, Migration, and the Social Environment: Interpreting Architectural Change in Early and Late Pueblo IV Aggregations. In Migration and Reorganization: The Pueblo IV Period in the American Southwest, by Katherine A. Spielmann, K.A. ed., pp. 91-114. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers 51, Tempe. [BISON-M] Biota Information System of New Mexico. 2006. Available: http://www.bison- m.org/ Accessed: 01/2013. Blevins, Byron, and Joiner, Carol 1977. The 1975 Excavation of Tijeras Pueblo, Cibola National Forest, NM. The Archaeological Survey of Tijeras Canyon. The 1976 Excavation of Tijeras Pueblo, Cibola National Forest, NM. USDA Forest Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque. Bosch, J.M. and J.D. Hewlett. 1982. A Review of Catchment Experiment to Determine the Effect of Vegetation Changes on Water Yield and Evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology, 55, pages 3-23. Bowles, A. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. In Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller eds. Wildlife and recreationists. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372 pp.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 154

Chapter 5. Literature Cited

Boyce, D. A., R. T. Reynolds, and R. T. Graham. 2006. Goshawk status and management: what do we know, what have we done, and where are we going? Studies in Avian Biology No. 31: 312-325. Brown, Alice E., Lu Zhang, Thomas A. McMahon, Andrew W. Western, and Robert A. Vertessy. 2005. A review of paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alterations in vegetation. Journal of Hydrology, 310, pages 28-61. Churches, John n.d. History of the C.C.C.: Cibola National Forest, New Mexico 1933-1942 - Inc. Report on file at the Cibola National Forest Supervisor's office, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Claflin, A. 2008. A guide to noise control in Minnesota: Acoustical properties, measurement, analysis and regulation. Minnesota Pollution control Agency. Saint Paul, MN. Cline, Nathan L., Bruce Roundy, Fredrick B. Pierson, Patrick Kormos, and C. Jason Williams. 2010. Hydrologic response to Mechanical Shredding in a Juniper Woodland. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 63, pages 467-477. Cordell, Linda S. 1979. A Cultural Resources Overview of the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. USDA National Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Cordell, Linda S. 1980. Tijeras Canyon: Analyses of the Past. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Cordell, Linda S. 1984. Prehistory of the Southwest. Academic Press, San Diego. Cordell, L.S., McBrinn, M. 2012. Archaeology of the Southwest. 3rd ed. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA. Costello, C.M; D.E. Jones; K.A. Green Hammond; R.M. Inman; K.H. Inman; B.C. Thompson; R.A. Deitner, and H.B. Quigley. 2001. A Study of Black Bear Ecology in New Mexico, with Models for Population Dynamics and Habitat Suitability. New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish, Hornocker Wildlife Institute, Ecosystem Modeling, and New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-131-R. Available at: http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/publications/documents/NMBearStudy.pdf Continuing Education in Ecosystem Management. 2007. Hondo and Sulphur Vegetation Analysis. Covington, W.W., Moore, M.M. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa forest structure and resource conditions: changes since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry 92: 39–47. deBuys, W.E. 1985. Enchantment and Exploitation: The Life and Hard Times of a New Mexico Mountain Range. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Denevan, W.M. 1967. Livestock Numbers in Nineteenth-Century New Mexico, and the Problem of Gullying in the Southwest. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 57:691-703. 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), p.663-683. Eckert, Suzanne L., and Linda S. Cordell. 2004. Pueblo IV Community Formation in the Central Rio Grande Valley: Albuquerque, Cochiti and Lower Rio Puerco. In The Protohistoric

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 155

Chapter 5. Literature Cited

World, AD 1275–1600, edited by Charles E. Adams and Andrew I. Duff, pp. 3–16. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Elliot, William J., Miller, Ina Sue, and Lisa Audin. Eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep.RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Elston, Wolfgang E. 1967. Summary of the Mineral Resources of Bernalillo, Sandoval, and Santa Fe Counties, New Mexico. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources. Erickson, M. C. (2013). Order Number: 01-11-00-13-02, Forest Supervisor’s Special Order. Retrieved from http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5302089.pdf. Executive Order 13186. 2001. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 11, Title 3, p. 3853-3856. Findley, James S. 1987. The Natural History of New Mexican Mammals. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque, NM. 164 pp. Ffolliott, Peter F.; Stropki, Cody L.; Chen, Hui; Neary, Daniel G. 2011. The 2002 Rodeo- Chediski Wildfire’s impacts on southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems, hydrology, and fuels. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-85. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Forest Service Handbook 2309.18- Trails Management Handbook. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/dughtml/fsh_1.html. Forest Service Manual 2310- Planning and Data Management. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/dughtml/fsm.html. Forest Service Manual 2350- Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/dughtml/fsm.html. Forest Service Manual 7710- Travel Planning. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/dughtml/fsm.html. Gauthier, Rory, Emily Abbink, Mark Harlan, Mary Beth Lucas, and Scott Berger 1982. An Archaeological Inventory of Approximately 50 Miles of Transmission Line Corridor From BA Station to Norton Station, New Mexico. PNM Archeological Report No. 3, Public Service Company of New Mexico. Gatto, A. E., T. G. Grubb, and C. L. Chambers. 2005. Red-tailed hawk dietary overlap with northern goshawks on the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona. Journal of Raptor Research 39(4): 439-444. Geib, P.R. 2000. Sandal Types and Archaic Prehistory on the Colorado Plateau. American Antiquity. 65:509-524. Goetze, C.E., Mills, B.J. 1993. Classification Criteria for Wares and Types. In Across the Colorado Plateau: Anthropological Studies for the Transwestern Pipeline Expansion Project Vol. XVI, Mills, B.J., Goetze, C.E., Zedeño, M.N. eds. Office of Contract Archaeology and Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Albuquerque. Gonzales, P.B. 2003. Struggle for Survival: The Hispanic Land Grants of New Mexico, 1848- 2001. Agricultural History 77:293-324.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 156

Chapter 5. Literature Cited

Gottfried, G.J. and S.T. Overby. 2011. Assessing Mechanical Mastication and Thinning-Piling- Burning Treatments on the Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands of Southwestern Colorado. Fire Science Brief, Issue 145, November 2011. Available at www.firescience.gov. Graham, R.T.; Harvey, A.E.; Jain, T.B.; Tonn, J.R. 1999. The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in Western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-463. Portland, OR. USDA, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p. Greenwald, D. N., D. C. Crocker-Bedford, L. Broberg, K. F. Suckling, and T. Tibbitts. 2005. A review of northern goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for forest management in the western United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):120-129. Hann and Bunnell 2001. Hardy, Colin C., Kirsten M. Schmidt, James P. Menakis, R. Neil Samson. 2001. Spatial data for national fire planning and fuel management. Int. J. Wildland Fire. 10(3&4): 353-372. Harvey, M.J., J.S.Altenbach, and T.L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and Asheville Field Office (NC), US Fish and Wildlife Service.64 pp. Huckell, B.B. 1996. The Archaic Prehistory of the North American Southwest. Journal of World Prehistory 10:305-373. Hudson, P. 2011. Chapter 2: Cultural History of Cedro Canyon and the Manzanita Mountains. In‘Sandia Landscape Vegetation Project: Cedro Archaeological Inventory, Sandia Ranger District, Cibola National Forest, Bernalillo County, New Mexico’. FS Report: 2011-03- 071B. Report on file with the Cibola National Forest Supervisor's Office, Albuquerque, NM. Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 1995. Habitat conservation assessment and conservation strategy for the Townsend’s big-eared bat. Idaho State Conservation Effort (ISCE). Draft unpubl. Rep. No. 1; Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 63p. Kaye, J.P. and Stephen C. Hart. 1998. Ecological Restoration Alters Nitrogen Transformations in a Ponderosa Pine-Bunchgrass Ecosystem. Ecological Applications, 8(4), p.1052-1060. Klopatek, C. C., L. F. DeBano, and J. M. Klopatek. 1990. Impact of fire on the microbial processes in pinyonjuniper woodlands: Management implications. In: Krammes, J. S., technical coordinator. effects of fire management of southwestern natural resources, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM191, pp. 197-205. Knaut, A. 1995. The Pueblo Revolt of 1680: Conquest and Resistance in the Seventeenth- Century New Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Knitigh, K.W. 1996. The Cibola Region in the Post-Chacoan Era. The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1150-1350, Adler, M.J., ed. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. La Sorte, F. A., R. W. Mannan, R. T. Reynolds, and T. G. Grubb. 2004. Habitat associations of sympatric red-tailed hawks and northern goshawks on the Kaibab Plateau. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:307-317. Landres, Peter; Boutcher, Steve; Merigliano, Linda; Barns, Chris; Davis, Denis; Hall, Troy; Henry, Steve; Hunter, Brad; Janiga, Patrice; Laker, Mark; McPherson, Al; Powell, Douglas S.; Rowan, Mike; Sater, Susan. 2005. Monitoring selected conditions related to wilderness character: a national framework. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-151. Fort

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 157

Chapter 5. Literature Cited

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 38 p. Larson, D.L., Rhodes, J.C., Acklen, R.D., Roxlau, R.B., Goar, T.R., Meyer, E.G., Berry, K.L. 1998. Results of Phase III Site Documentation and Other Field Studies for Kirkland Air Force Base, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Landres, P.; Barns, C.; Dennis, J.G.; Devine, T.; Geissler, P.; McCasland, C.S.; Merigliano, L.; Seastrand, J.; Swain, R. 2008. Keeping it wild: An interagency strategy to monitor trends in wilderness character across the National Wilderness Preservation System. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-212. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 77 p. LeTourneau, P.D. 2000. Folsom Toolstone Procurement in the Southwest and Southern Plains. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Lentz, Stephen C., Joan K. Gaunt, and Adisa J. Willmer. 1996. Fire Effects on Archaeological Resources, Phase 1: The Henry Fire, Holiday Mesa, Jemez Mountains, New Mexico. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. Ft. Collins, CO. Levick, L., J. Fonseca, D. Goodrich, M. Hernandez, D. Semmens, J. Stromberg, R. Leidy, M. Scianni, D. P. Guertin, M. Tluczek, and W. Kepner. 2008. The Ecological and Hydrological Significance of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi- arid American Southwest. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and USDA/ARS Southwest Watershed Research Center, EPA/600/R-08/134, ARS/233046. Liebmann, M., Ferguson, T.J., Preucel, R. 2005. Pueblo Settlement, Architecture and Social Change in the Pueblo Revolt Era, A.D. 1680 to 1696. Journal of Advanced Archaeology 30: 45-60. Logan, J. N. and F. W. Smith. 2000. Restructuring the forest: goshawks and the restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine. Journal of Forestry 98(8):25-30. Love, Timothy G. and Alan E. Watson. 1992. Effects of the Gates Park Fire on Recreation Choices. Research Note, INT-402. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. Marshall, M.P., Marshall, C.L. 1994. Archaeological Inventory at Three Sites within the Proposed Rio Bravo Blvd. and Paseo del Vol-can Corridors, Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Cultural Resource Report, prepared by Cibola Research Consultants. McCool, S.F., R.E. Benson and J.L. Ashor. 1986. How the Public Perceives the Visual Effects of Timber Harvesting: An Evaluation of Interest Group Preferences. Environmental Manager, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.385-391. McCool, S.F. and R.E. Benson. 1989. Timber Harvesting and Visual Resources: Maintaining Quality; in: Proceedings - Future Forests of the Mountain West: A Stand Culture Symposium. Missoula MT, Sept. 29 - Oct. 3, 1986. Intermountain Research Station. SAF-87-05. USDA, Forest Service, Missoula MT. McEnany, Timothy G, Jeanne A. Schutt and Richard Chapman. 2001. An Archaeological Survey Along New Mexico 165 in Las Huertas Canyon, Sandoval and Bernalillo Counties, New Mexico. FS Report 2001-03-073. Report on file at the Cibola National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 158

Chapter 5. Literature Cited

Melzer, R. 2000. Coming of Age in the Great Depression: The Civilian Conservation Corps Experience in New Mexico, 1933-1942. Yucca Tree Press, Las Cruces, NM. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 1918. Taking, killing or possessing migratory birds unlawful. Title 16 USC 703-12, Ch. 128. Montgomery, C. 2002. The Spanish Redemption: Heritage, Power, and Loss on New Mexico’s Upper Rio Grande. University of California Press, Berkeley. Moore, Margaret M., et al. 2004. Contemporary Forest Structure and Composition on Permanent Plots in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Munson, S.A. and Anhold, J.A. 2000. Mountain Pine Beetle Attack in Ponderosa Pine; Comparing Methods for Rating Susceptibility, RMRS-RP-26. National Register Bulletin. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. Available online: http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb38/ Neitzel, Richard and Michael Yost. 2003. Forestry Vibration and Noise Exposure Report. University of Washington (Online report). Available . New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2004. Response to draft supplement to the final environmental impact statement for amendment of forest plans. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2004. Winter Elk and Deer Sightability Index Survey Analysis. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Grant W-93-R46, Projects 02.01 and 02.02, September, 2004. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Threatened and Endangered Species of New Mexico 2012 Biennial Review. August 25, 2006 http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/conservation/threatened_endangered_species/index.htm New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department. 2007. 2011 NM Communities at Risk Assessment Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. New Mexico Partners in Flight. 2007. New Mexico Bird Conservation Plan Version 2.1. C. Rustay and S. Norris, compilers. Albuquerque, New Mexico. North, Chris, Michael S. Foster, and Louise Senior. 2003. Archaeology at the Edge of the Rim; An Area Heritage Resource Survey in the Rodeo-Chediski Burn Area, Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Navajo County, Arizona. Prepared for Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. FS Report No. 2003-056. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson. On file at the Supervisor’s Office, Springerville, Arizona. NMED. 2012. 2012 – 2014 State of New Mexico Clean Water Act §303(d)/§305(b) Integrated Report. State of New Mexico, Water Quality Control Commission. Prepared by NM Environmental Department (NMED), Surface Water Quality Bureau, Santa Fe, NM. Access at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/303d-305b/2012-2014/. Nowak, Ronald M. 1994. Walker’s Bats of the World. John Hopkins University Pres. Baltimore, MD. 287 (218) pp.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 159

Chapter 5. Literature Cited

Olive, Nathan D. & Marion, Jeffrey L. 2009. The influence of use-related, environmental, and managerial factors on soil loss from recreational trails. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(3) 1483-1493. Omi, P.N. and E.J. Martinson. 2002. Effect of fuels treatment on wildfire severity. Final Report. Submitted to the Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board. Orland, B., T. Daniel, J.L. Paschke and J. Hetherington. 1993. Visualization of Forest Management Issues on the Dixie National Forest. Final Report, May 1993. Forest Pest Management, Region 4, Ogden, UT. Oster, Elizabeth. n.d. The Effects of Fire on Subsurface Archeological Materials (DRAFT). In, Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Cultural Resources and Archeology. Kevin C. Ryan and Anne Trinkle Jones, editors. Rainbow Series, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. In press. Owen, S.M., Carolyn Hull Sieg, Catherin A. Gehring, and Matthew A. Bowker. 2009. Above- and belowground responses to tree thinning depend on the treatment of tree debris. Forest Ecology and Management, 259, p.71-80. Page, Doug (2006). Preliminary thinning guidelines for the maintenance of pinyon-juniper ecosytems. Bureau of Land Management Southwest Utah Zone Forester Cedar City, Utah. Pearson, G. A. 1950. Management of ponderosa pine in the southwest. USDA Forest Service Agricultural Monograph No. 6. Perkins, J. M., and T. Schommer. 1992. Survey protocol and an interim species conservation strategy for Plecotus townsendii in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa Whitman National Forest, Baker City, Oregon. 23p Available: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/cdc/cdc_pdf/U92PER01.pdf Pollet, J. and Omi, P.N. 2000. Effect of Thinning and Prescribed Burning on Crown Fire Severity in Ponderosa Pine Forests. Pages 137-141, In: Proceedings, The Joint Fire Science Conference and Workshop, Grove Hotel, Boise, Idaho, June 15-17, 1999, Volume 2 of 2 Volumes. Raish, Carol, and Alice M. McSweeney. 2008. Land Grants and the U.S. Forest Service. Natural Resources Journal. Vol. 48: 983-1008. Report, RMRS-GTR-87, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 39 p. plus CD. Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, 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, Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 p. Reynolds, R. T., S. M. Joy, and D. G. Leslie. 1994. Nest productivity, fidelity, and spacing of northern goshawks in Arizona. Studies in Avian Biology 16:106-113. Reynolds, R. T., J. D. Wiens, and S. R. Salafsky. 2006. A review and evaluation of factors limiting northern goshawk populations. Studies in Avian Biology No. 31:260-273.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 160

Chapter 5. Literature Cited

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, and D. A Boyce. 2006. An ecosystem-based conservation strategy for the northern goshawk. Studies in Avian Biology No. 31:299-311. Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, and D. A Boyce. 2008. Northern goshawk habitat: an intersection of science, management, and conservation. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(4):1047-1055. Reynolds, Richard T.; Sánchez Meador, Andrew J.; Youtz, James A.; Nicolet, Tessa; Matonis, Megan S.; Jackson, Patrick L.; DeLorenzo, Donald G.; Graves, Andrew D. 2013. Restoring composition and structure in Southwestern frequent-fire forests: A science- based framework for improving ecosystem resiliency. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-310. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 76 p. Romme, et al. 2008. Historical and Modern Disturbance Regimes, Stand Structures, and Landscape Dynamics in Pinyon-Juniper Vegetation of the Western U.S. Rosenberger, R. S., and E. L. Smith. 1998. Assessing Forest Scenic Beauty Impacts of Insects and Management. FHTET 98-08. USDA Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Fort Collins. Ryan, Robert L. 2005. Social science to improve fuels management: A synthesis of research an aesthetics and fuels management. General Technical Report NC-261. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2004. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2003. Version 2004.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD) http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbsold.html Schmidt, Kirsten M., James P. Menakis, Colin C. Hardy, Wendel J. Hann, and David L. Bunnell. 2002. Development of course-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. General technical Schroeder, A.H. 1979. Pueblos Abandoned in Historic Times. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9, Southwest, Ortiz, A. ed., pp. 236-254. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Scott, Joe H. and Burgan, Roberet E. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Spread Model. Gen. Tech. Rep RMRS-GTR-153, Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72p. Seaber, Paul R., F. Paul Kapinos, and George L. Knapp. 1987. Hydrologic Unit Maps. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, Denver, CO. Squires, J. R and P. L. Kennedy. 2006. Northern goshawk ecology: an assessment of current knowledge and information needs for conservation and management. Studies in Avian Biology No. 31:8-62. Stednick, John D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Jounral of Hydrology, 176, pages 79-95. Stewart, M. E. (2013). Order Number: 04-13-04-R, Red Rock Ranger District – Bicycle Restriction. Retrieved from http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5414156.pdf.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 161

Chapter 5. Literature Cited

Strenger, S., S. Sebring, W. Robbie, F. Escobedo, C. Vaandrager, V. Andrew, E. Brooks, C. Krasine, B. Nielsen, and R. Fletcher. 2007. Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey of the Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 696 pp. SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2006. East Mountains Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2004a. Chlorsulfuron: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. Fayetteville, New York, USA. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2004b. Clopyralid: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. Fayetteville, New York, USA. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2004c. Imazapic: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. Fayetteville, New York, USA. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2004d. Metsulfuron Methyl: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. Fayetteville, New York, USA. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2007. Aminopyralid: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. Fayetteville, New York, USA. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2011a. Glyphosate: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. Manlius, New York, USA. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2011b. Imazapyr: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. Fayetteville, New York, USA. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2011c. Picloram: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. Manlius, New York, USA. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2011d. Triclopyr: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments, Final Report. Manlius, New York, USA. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2012. Aminocyclopyrachlor: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. Manlius, New York, USA. Taylor, Jonathan G. and Terry C. Daneil. "Perceived Scenic and Recreational Quality of Forest Burn Areas." in Proceedings-Symposium and Workshop on Wilderness Fire, Missoula, Montana, November 15-18, 1983. General Technical Report INT-182. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden UT 84401. Thompson, J.C., Haynes, C.V., Jr. 2012. Radiocarbon Dating the Human Occupation at Sandia Cave, New Mexico. American Antiquity 77:303-314. Timerson, Brian J. 1999. A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, p. 31. Touchan, Swetnam, Baisan, Caprio & Brown. 1990. Giant Sequoia Fire History in Mariposa Grove. Yosemite Centennial Symposium Proceeding-Natural Areas and Yosemite: Prospects for the Future. Train, E. (Ed.). 2004. Trail solutions: IMBA’s guide to building sweet single track. Boulder, CO: International Mountain Biking Association.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 162

Chapter 5. Literature Cited

Tu, M., C. Hurd, and J. M. Randall. 2001. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, USA. US Code of Federal Regulations-36 CFR 212- Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 70, No. 216 / 11/09/2005. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf. U.S. Government Accountability Office (2013). Forest Service Trails: Long-and Short-Term Improvements Could Reduce Maintenance Backlog and Enhance System Sustainability GAO publication No. GAO-13-618. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655555.pdf USDA, Forest Service. 1973. National Forest Landscape Management Volume 1. Forest Service Handbook No. 434. Washington DC. USDA, Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2, Chapter 1 The Visual Management System. Forest Service Handbook No. 462. Washington DC. USDA Forest Service. 1982. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Users Guide USDA Forest Service, 1985. Rev. 1996. Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Albuquerque, NM. http://fsweb.cibola.r3.fs.fed.us/planning/index.shtml USDA. 1986. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey Handbook. USDA, Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. USDA. 1990. FSH 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. USDA, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-217, Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States, 1992. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr217.pdf USDA, Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook No. 701. Washington DC. USDA Forest Service. 1997. Plant Associations of Arizona and New Mexico. Volumes 1 (Forests) and 2 (Woodlands). USDA Forest Service. Cibola National Forest. 1999. Sandia Geographical Area Assessment. USDA. 2003. First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities among New Mexico Historic Preservation Officer and Arizona Historic Preservation Officer and Texas and Oklahoma and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Region 3. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque New Mexico. USDA Forest Service, Cibola National Forest, 2005 Management Indicator Species Report for the Cibola National Forest and Grasslands. Revised March, 2005. USDA. 2005. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Soils and Water. RMRS-GTR-42- Volume 4. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, NM.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 163

Chapter 5. Literature Cited

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Regional Forester’s List of Sensitive Animals and Plants. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM, USA. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r3/plants- animals/?cid=FSBDEV3_022105 USDA Forest Service (2007). Visitor Use Report, Cibola National Forest. National Visitor Use Monitoring Data Collected FY 2006. (Updated 06/20/2012). Retrieved from http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nrm/nvum/results/ReportCache/Rnd2_A03003_Master_Report.pd f USDA Forest Service, Cibola National Forest Breeding Bird Survey Report for 2010. Prepared by Hart R. Schwarz, Oct., 2010. Supplemented in 2012. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Cibola National Forest Breeding Bird Survey Supplement for 2012. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. USDA Forest Service (2012). Visitor Use Report, Cibola National Forest, National Visitor Use Monitoring Data Collected FY 2011. (Updated 06/20/2012). Retrieved from http://apps.fs.fed.us/nrm/nvum/results/ReportCache/Rnd3_A03003_Master_Report.pdf USDA Forest Service, Cibola National Forest, n.d. Forest Corporate AS_UTM13 GIS Geo- database. USDA Forest Service, Cibola National Forest, n.d. Heritage Inventory and Site Files. Records on file Cibola National Forest Supervisors Office, Files 2360. Albuquerque, NM. USDA Forest Service, Cibola National Forest, n.d. Heritage Corporate GIS geo-database. Data on file Cibola National Forest Supervisors Office, Albuquerque, NM. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden UT 84401. USDA Forest Service, 2010. Environmental Assessment for Integrated Pest Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants. Cibola National Forest USDA. 2010. Appendix J: Standard Consultation Protocol for Large Scale Fuels Reduction, Vegetation Treatments and Habitat Improvement Projects of the First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities among New Mexico Historic Preservation Officer and Arizona Historic Preservation Officer and Texas and Oklahoma and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Region 3. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque New Mexico. USDA. 2011. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. By Potyondy, J. P., & Geier, T. W. USDA Forest Service, FS-977. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/ USDA. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. USDA Forest Service, FS-990a. USDA. 2013. Technical Guidance for Assessing and Monitoring Soil Quality in the Southwestern Region. Letter and attachment, dated January 16, 2013 from USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. USDA, 2013. Forest Service National Strategic Framework for Invasive Species Management. FS-1017 August 2013 http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/invasive/invasive-framework- 2013.pdf

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 164

Chapter 5. Literature Cited

USDA, 2013 Invasive Plants and Weeds of the National Forests and Grasslands in the Southwestern Region, 2nd Edition. FS Southwestern Region MR-R3-16-6 December 2013. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3802006.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2013. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List: Animals. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. USDA Forest Service. 2013. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List: Plants. Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. USDA Forest Service. 2014. Management Indicator Species Report for the Cibola National Forest and Grasslands: Evaluation of Habitat and Population Trends. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2000. Biological Aassessment on Wildland/Urban Interface Catastrophic Wildfire Risk Reduction Projects. Forest Service Region3. Albuquerque, NM. USDI-BLM. 1998. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. Authors: Don Prichard, John Anderson, Cindy Correll, Jim Fogg, Karl Gebhardt, Russ Krapf, Steve Leonard, Brenda Mitchell, and Janice Staats. U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of Land Management, TR-1737-15, Denver, CO. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl: Vol. I. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 172pp. Available as link: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mso/recovery_plan.htm USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. List of species by county for New Mexico: Bernalillo. Ecological Services, Albuquerque, New Mexico. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies/EndangeredSpecies_Lists/Endange redSpecies_ListSpecies.cfm USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Final Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Albuquerque, New Mexico,USA. 413 pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. List of Threatened, Endangered and Proposed species for the Cedro Project are. New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Weber, D.J. 1999. Pueblos, Spaniards and History. In What Caused the Pueblo Revolt, Weber, D.J. ed. Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston. Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). 2014. Herbicide handbook, tenth edition. Lawrence, Kansas, USA. Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C. 1131-1136).1964. To establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes. Wimpey, J., & Marion, J. L. 2011. A spatial exploration of informal trail networks within Great Falls Park, VA. Journal of Environmental Management, 92 (2011) 1012-1022. Winthrop, Kate. 2004. Bare Bones Guide to Fire Effects on Cultural Resources For Cultural Resource Specialists. BLM Report. On File, Cibola National Forest, Sandia Ranger District, Tijeras, NM.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 165

Chapter 5. Literature Cited

Woodbridge, B., and P. J. Detrich. 1994. Territory occupancy and habitat patch size of northern goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biology 16:83-87. Woodbridge, B.; and Hargis, C.D. 2006. Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide Gen. Tech. Report WO-71. Washington, D.C: USDA Forest Service. 80 p. Wright, R.J. 1997. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Status in a Ponderosa Pine Forest after 20 Years of Interval Burning. Ecoscience, vol4, no.4, p.526-533. Youtz, J. A., R. T. Graham, R. T. Reynolds, and J. Simon. 2007. Implementing northern goshawk habitat management in southwestern forests: A template for restoring fire- adapted forest ecosystems. Proceedings of the 2007 National Silviculture Workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-733. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 306 p. Zeedyk, B., D. Kreiner, T. Gadzia, S. Carson, S. Vrooman, and B. deGruyter. 2005. Cedro Creek Assessment. Quivira Coalition, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Zou, Chris B., Peter F. Ffolliott, Michael Wine. 2010. Streamflow responses to vegetation manipulations along a gradient of precipitation in the Colorado River Basin. Forest Ecology and Management, 259, p.1268-1276. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations °C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit BMP(s) Best management practice(s) BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs CBD Crown Bulk Density CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations Cibola NF&G Cibola National Forest and Grasslands CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan DBH Diameter at Breast Height DRC Diameter at Root Collar DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy EA Environmental Assessment EMS Emergency medical services EPA Environmental Protection Agency FR Fire-return interval FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FM Fuel Model FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact Kirtland Kirtland Air Force Base MIS Management Indicator Species MSO Mexican Spotted Owl NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAD North American Datum NEPA National Environmental Policy Agency NF&G National Forest and Grasslands

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 166

Chapter 5. Literature Cited

NMCRIS New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System NMED New Mexico Environment Department NMEMNRD New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PFA Post-fledging area Pueblo Pueblo of Isleta RD Ranger District SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SMZ Streamside Management Zones SPA Southern Pueblo Agency SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District Forest Plan The 1985 Cibola National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan TPA Trees per acre USDA-NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service USFS U.S. Forest Service USGS United States Geological Service UTM Universal Transverse Mercator VSS Vegetative Structural Stage WUI Wildland Urban Interface

This document proposes the use of pesticides. Pesticides used improperly can be injurious to man, animals, and plants. Follow the directions and heed all precautions on the labels.

Store pesticides in original containers under lock and key--out of the reach of children and animals--and away from food and feed.

Apply pesticides so they do not endanger humans, livestock, crops, beneficial insects, fish, and wildlife. Do not apply pesticides when there is danger of drift, when honeybees or other pollinators are visiting plants, or in ways that may contaminate water or leave illegal residues.

Avoid prolonged inhalation of pesticide sprays or dusts; wear protective clothing and equipment if specified on the label.

If your hands become contaminated with a pesticide, do not eat or drink until you have washed. In case a pesticide is swallowed or gets in the eyes, follow the first aid treatment given on the label, and get prompt medical attention. If a pesticide is spilled on your skin or clothing, remove clothing immediately and wash skin thoroughly.

Cedro Landscape Restoration Project Pre-decisional EA Page 167