FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
GALLINAS WATERSHED FUELS MODIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT
CITY OF LAS VEGAS, NEW MEXICO

 
Prepared for
FEMA Region VI
Federal Regional Center
800 North Loop 288
Denton, TX  76209

November 5, 2003
 
By
URS Group, Inc.
200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101
Gaithersburg, Maryland  20878
15292482.00100


Federal Emergency Management Agency
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and 
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
for the Gallinas Watershed Fuels Modification and Management, City of Las Vegas, San Miguel County, New Mexico
FEMA-1339-DR-NM

Interested persons are hereby notified that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is proposing to assist in 
funding mechanical and manual fuel reduction in the City of Las Vegas.  In accordance with the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) of 1969, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Executive Order 11988, Executive Order 11990, and the 
implementing regulations of FEMA, an EA was prepared to assess the potential impacts of the Proposed Action on the human 
and natural environment. The EA was released for public comment on August 28, 2003. No public comments were received by the 
close of public review on September 26, 2003. Therefore, the Environmental Assessment has been finalized and a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) has been made. This also provides public notice for work within the regulated floodplain, in accordance 
with Executive Order 11988 and 44 CFR Part 9.12.

The reasons for the decision not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are as follows:

1. No significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified to existing land use, water resources 
(surface water, groundwater, waters of the United States, wetlands, and floodplains), air quality, noise, biological resources 
(vegetation, fish and wildlife, State-and Federally-listed threatened or endangered species and critical habitats), safety, hazardous 
materials and waste, or cultural resources; no disproportionately high or adverse effects on minority or low-income populations 
would occur, and;

2. The project is necessary to meet the needs of the citizens of the existing local community.

No further environmental review of this project is proposed to be conducted prior to the release of FEMA funds.

Copies of the final EA and FONSI can be obtained by contacting:

Robert Tafoya
City of Las Vegas
905 12th Street
Las Vegas, New Mexico 87701

The final EA and FONSI are also available on the World Wide Web on the FEMA website at http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm. 


FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
FOR
GALLINAS WATERSHED FUELS MODIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT 
CITY OF LAS VEGAS, NEW MEXICO
FEMA-1339-DR-NM 

BACKGROUND
The City of Las Vegas, New Mexico, has applied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for assistance with 
mechanical and manual fuels reduction to reduce the risk of a high-intensity crown fire and protect the Citys water supply.  
FEMA is proposing to provide assistance for this project through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) under Presidential 
Disaster Declaration FEMA-1339-DR-NM. 

In accordance with 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Subpart B  
Agency Implementing Procedures, Part 10.9, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared pursuant to Section 102 of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as implemented by the regulations promulgated by the Presidents Council on Environmental 
Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508).  The purpose of the EA was to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 
mechanical and manual fuels reduction on 478 acres owned by the City of Las Vegas, and to determine whether to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

In the EA process, FEMA considered three alternatives: (1) No Action Alternative; (2) Mechanical and Manual Fuels Reduction 
(Alternative 2- Proposed Action); and (3) Mechanical and Manual Fuels Reduction Followed by Broadcast Burn (Alternative 3).  
Alternatives 2 would involve selective thinning of trees less than 16 inches in diameter and burning slash piles or scattering limbs 
on the forest floor. Alternative 3 would involve selective thinning of trees less than 16 inches in diameter followed with a broadcast 
burn. 

In response to the high risk to human health and safety associated with the occurrence of wildfires that threaten the City of Las 
Vegas water supply, Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, has been selected based on the needs of the population within the City of 
Las Vegas to reduce the threat of wildfires.

FINDINGS
Based upon the conditions and information contained in the EA for the Gallinas Watershed Fuels Modification and Management 
(September 2003) and in accordance with FEMAs regulations in 44 CFR Part 10 (Environmental Considerations) and Executive 
Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management), 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), and 12898 (Environmental Justice), FEMA has made the 
following determinations:
The proposed project, as described in the EA, will not result in any significant adverse impacts to existing land use, water resources 
(surface water, groundwater, wetlands, waters of the United States, and floodplains), air quality, noise, biological resources 
(vegetation, fish and wildlife, state-and federally listed threatened or endangered species and critical habitats), safety issues, 
hazardous materials and waste, and cultural resources, or result in disproportionately high or adverse effects on minority or 
low-income populations.  The proposed action is also in compliance with all relevant federal, state, and local laws.

CONDITIONS
The following conditions and all other conditions identified in the EA must be met as part of this project. Failure to comply with 
these conditions may jeopardize federal funds:
1. The Applicant shall employ erosion control measures, including lopping and scattering some slash, the use of log erosion 
barriers, placing slash in skid trails, and reseeding of all disturbed areas.
2. Equipment shall be staged in existing developed or previously disturbed areas and, if feasible, existing paved areas. 
Existing roads shall be utilized, where possible, for project equipment.
3. Equipment will not be allowed to enter waterways of the project areas.  
4. A minimum 50-foot vegetative buffer zone shall be retained parallel to waterways.  Buffers will increase with increasing 
slope of land surrounding the waterways.
5. Results from water quality testing at the Citys two water-supply reservoirs shall be analyzed during and after 
implementation of the Proposed Action to monitor for any changes to water quality.
6. No fuels management activities shall be conducted in riparian areas and all equipment shall be kept out of wetland areas.  
Project contractor and employees shall be required to avoid walking through wetland areas.
7. Debris removed as part of the fuels management project shall not be disposed of within any floodplain zones of the project 
area.
8. Should work be planned within the floodplain, the City shall coordinate with the local floodplain administrator regarding 
applicable permits and/or conditions,
9. Prior to any burning, the appropriate permit for open-burning (20 NMAC 2.60) shall be applied for and obtained from 
NMED Air Quality Bureau. Permit conditions must be strictly adhered to, and all smoke minimization and management procedures 
must be implemented.
10. Appropriate smoke management methods shall be utilized to reduce the effects to the surrounding community. 
11. The Applicant shall be required to water down construction areas to reduce dust, when necessary.  
12. Running time of fuel-burning equipment shall be minimized and engines would be properly maintained to reduce emission 
of criteria pollutants.
13. Contractor will contact the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish prior to commencement of the project and after 
project completion in order to allow for field visits by Game and Fish personnel.
14. A minimum of three snags per acre, with a DBH greater than 12 inches and 30 feet in height will be left in place in thinning 
areas.
15. A minimum of three downed logs per acre with a DBH of at least 10 inches and 8 feet in length will be left for animal 
habitat.
16. Mitigation standards given in the State of New Mexico Forest Practice Guidelines will be utilized.
17. Thinning shall be conducted during the fall and winter months.
18. Mature gambel oaks shall be retained where feasible.
19. Large snags shall be left in place around Peterson and Bradner Reservoirs.
20. No trees with a DBH of 16 inches or greater shall be cut unless the tree is determined to be a hazard.
21. No slopes over 45 percent will be thinned.
22. If appropriate mitigation measures cannot be carried out by the Applicant, presence/absence surveys for the MSO and the 
southwest willow flycatcher shall be conducted prior to the start of the project. 
23. Should any hazardous materials be discovered, generated, or used during implementation of the proposed project, they shall 
be disposed of and handled by the City of Las Vegas in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
24. The Applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Department prior to project implementation to minimize any 
potential impacts to public services and infrastructure.
25. If applicable, project employees shall be required to identify, mark, and avoid utilities such as power lines and underground 
pipes that could potentially be impacted by proposed activities.
26. The Applicant will coordinate with the NMSHTD and the local Department of Transportation to avoid implementing project 
activities during peak travel periods.  
27. Adequate safety provisions shall be provided as needed to identify potential fire hazard, staging or work areas during fuels 
management activities.
28. Traffic along adjacent roadways shall be temporarily re-routed, as necessary, during fuels management activities. Lane 
closures, if necessary, shall be coordinated with appropriate fire and community officials.
29. To the maximum extent possible, construction-related vehicles shall be prohibited from parking on residential streets.
30. Fuels management equipment and vehicle staging shall be located so as not to hinder traffic flow around project area.
31. The City of Las Vegas shall adequately notify the public of the time and location of fuels management activities and conduct 
these activities during normal business hours.  Residential neighborhoods shall be notified in advance of fuels management activities and any re-routing of local traffic. Notification would identify a contact person at the local fire department.
32. All fuels management activities shall be conducted by qualified personnel trained in the proper use of project equipment.  
Additionally, all activities shall be conducted in a safe manner in accordance with standards specified in OSHA regulations.
33. Appropriate signage shall be posted to prevent individuals from entering the project area during fuels management 
activities.
34. Prior to starting work, cultural resource sites would be clearly identified with flagging. These sites must be avoided 
during implementation of all project activities. The Applicant would coordinate with Steve Lakatos of OAS to delineate the exact 
location of the 34 sites to be flagged. Mr. Lakatos will instruct the Applicant in monitoring procedures for which the Applicant would 
then be responsible for the duration of project activities. The Applicant would be responsible for removing the flagging at the 
termination of project activities.
35. Should any additional potentially significant historic or archaeological materials be discovered during project activities or 
equipment staging, all activities on the site would be halted immediately and the Applicant would consult with FEMA and the SHPO 
or other appropriate agency for further guidance. 

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the attached EA, coordination with the appropriate agencies, and adherence to the project conditions set 
forth in the EA and this FONSI, FEMA has determined that the proposed project qualifies as a major federal action that will not 
significantly affect the quality of the natural and human environment.  As a result of this FONSI, an EIS will not be prepared (44 
CFR Part 10.8) and the proposed project as described in the attached EA may proceed.

RECOMMENDED


[ORIGINAL IS SIGNED]		Date: 2-OCT-2003	
Donald Fairley
Environmental Officer
FEMA, Region VI


[ORIGINAL IS SIGNED]		Date: 7-OCT-2003	
Gary Jones
Acting Regional Director
FEMA, Region VI

APPROVAL

[ORIGINAL IS SIGNED]		Date: 30-OCT-2003
Brent Paul 
FEMA Environmental Officer


[ORIGINAL IS SIGNED]		Date: 3-NOV-2003
Amy Weinhouse 
Office of General Counsel


TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Acronyms	iii
Section 1 Introduction	1
1.1	Project Authority	1
1.2	Project Location	1
1.3	Purpose and Need	4
Section 2 Alternative Analysis	5
2.1	Alternative Analysis	5
2.2	Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative	5
2.3	Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management 
(Proposed Action)	5
2.4	Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management 
Followed by Broadcast Burning	8
2.5	Alternatives Considered and Dismissed	8
Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences	9
3.1	Physical Environment	9
3.1.1	Geology, Seismicity, and Soils	9
3.1.2	Water Resources and Water Quality	13
3.1.3	Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988)	16
3.1.4	Air Quality	19
3.2	Biological Environment	23
3.2.1	Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment	23
3.2.2	Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)	30
3.2.3	Threatened and Endangered Species	34
3.3	Hazardous Materials	41
3.4	Socioeconomics	42
3.4.1	Zoning and Land Use	42
3.4.2	Visual Resources	44
3.4.3	Noise	46
3.4.4	Public Services and Utilities	48
3.4.5	Traffic and Circulation	49
3.4.6	Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)	51
3.4.7	Safety and Security	54
3.5	Cultural Resources	55
Section 4 Cumulative Impacts	59
Section 5 Public Participation	61
Section 6 Mitigation Measures and Permits	62
Section 7 Consultations and References	65
Section 8 List of Preparers	71
Tables
Table 1: Ambient Air Quality Standards
Figures
Figure 1: Regional Location Map
Figure 2: Vegetation Management Area for Las Vegas, New Mexico
Figure 3: Forest Stands and Thinning Priority Map
Figure 4: Soils Map for the Project Area
Figure 5: Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) for the Project Area
Figure 6: National Wetlands Inventory Map for the Project Area
Appendices 
Appendix A	Photographs
Appendix B	Agency Correspondence 
Appendix C	EO 11988 and EO 11990 Eight-Step Planning Process
Appendix D	New Mexico Forest Practice Guidelines 
Appendix E	Summary of Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern
Appendix F	Public Notice
Appendix G	Public Comments 
Appendix H	Map of Proposed USFS Gallinas Watershed Thinning Project

	
LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACHP 	President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 
APE	Area of Potential Effect
AQB 	Air Quality Bureau 

CAA	Clean Air Act
CEQ 	Council on Environmental Quality 
CFR	Code of Federal Regulations 
CO 	carbon monoxide 
CO2	carbon dioxide 
COC	Chamber of Commerce
CWA 	Clean Water Act 

dB 	Decibels 
DBH	Diameter at breast height
DNL 	Day-Night Average Sound Level

EA 	Environmental Assessment 
EDR	Environmental Data Research, Inc.
EMNRD	New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department
EO 	Executive Order 
EPA 	Environmental Protection Agency 
ESA 	Endangered Species Act 
ETZ 	Extraterritorial Zoning Area 

FEMA	Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFPA	Farmland Protection Policy Act
FHBM 	Flood Hazard Boundary Map 
FHWA 	Federal Highway Administration 
FMMP	Forest Management and Maintenance Plan

HMGP	Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

MBTA	Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MG	Moreno-Brycan Association
MGD	Million gallons per day
MOA 	Memorandum of Agreement 
MSO 	Mexican Spotted Owl 

NAAQS 	National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
NCA 	Noise Control Act 
NEPA 	National Environmental Policy Act 
NGVD	National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NHPA	National Historic Preservation Act
NMAC	New Mexico Administrative Code
NMDGF 	New Mexico Department of Game & Fish 
NMED 	New Mexico Environment Department 
NMSHTD 	New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department 
NO2	nitrogen dioxide
NRCS	Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP	National Register of Historic Places

O3	ozone
OAS	Museum of New Mexico Office of Archaeological Studies
OSHA 	Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Pb	Lead
PM10	Particulate Matter less than or equal to 10 microns
ppm 	parts per million

RCRA 	Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
RG	Rocio-Dargol-Stout Association
RH	Rock Outcrop - Haploborolls Association

SEC	Southwestern Environmental Consultants
SHPO	State Historic Preservation Officer
SIP 	State Implementation Plan 
SO2	sulfur dioxide

URS 	URS Group, Inc.
USACE 	U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
USDA 	U.S. Department of Agriculture 
USFS 	U.S. Forest Service 
USFWS 	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
USGS 	United States Geological Survey 
UST 	underground storage tank 

VOC	volatile organic compound 


Section 1 Introduction
1.1	PROJECT AUTHORITY
The Viveash fire began on May 29, 2000, as a small human-caused fire in the Santa Fe National 
Forest of New Mexico. By the time the fire was fully contained on June 23, 2000, it had burned 
approximately 29,000 acres of private and National Forest lands.  The burned lands included a 
portion of the 84-square mile Gallinas Watershed, which is the municipal water source for the 
City of Las Vegas, New Mexico.  

The Viveash Fire was one of several wildfires that broke out in north central New Mexico within 
the month of May.  In response to the wildfires, a major disaster declaration was issued by the 
President on May 13, 2000.  The disaster declaration, FEMA-1329-DR-NM, provided eligibility 
to all New Mexico Counties for federal disaster assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant 
Program (HMGP).

The City of Las Vegas, New Mexico, has applied for HMGP Section 404 funding under the 
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act for a wildfire fuels 
management program.  Grant funds are provided by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) under this program for disaster-related mitigation projects.  In accordance with 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500 
through 1508), and FEMA regulations for NEPA compliance (44 CFR Part 10), FEMA must 
fully understand and consider the environmental consequences of actions proposed for federal 
funding.  In compliance with NEPA and its implementing regulations, FEMA has prepared this 
Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with 
several alternatives to meet the stated purpose and need as discussed in Section 1.3 of this 
document.

1.2	PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Las Vegas, population 14,565, is located in the northeastern region of New Mexico 
approximately 40 miles east of Santa Fe (Figure 1).  The proposed project area encompasses 
approximately 991 acres of City-owned land which consists primarily of ponderosa pine and 
mixed conifer forests.  The project area is located about 5 miles northwest of the City within the 
Gallinas River watershed in northwestern San Miguel County (Figure 2).  The Village of 
Montezuma and the United World College are located near the northern and eastern borders of 
the project area.  The Gallinas River, a tributary of the Pecos River, flows from west to east 
through the project area.  The Bradner and Peterson water supply reservoirs are located at the 
eastern end of the project area (Figure 2).  A 30-acre noncontiguous tract of forest, located 
approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the western project area limits, is also included in the 
proposed project area.

Figure 1: Figure one shows the Proposed Fuels Management Area on Highway 65, along with 
the surrounding cities of Hot Springs, Montezuma, and Los Vigiles.

Figure 2: Figure two is a topographical map of the Vegetation Management Area for Las Vegas, 
New Mexico. Included in the area is Peterson Reservoir, and part of Lime Canyon.

1.3	PURPOSE AND NEED
The Gallinas Watershed is considered by the New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural 
Resources Department (EMNRD) Forestry Division to be one of the 20 New Mexico 
communities most vulnerable to fire (EMNRD, 2002).  The City of Las Vegas owns 
approximately 991 acres of primarily forested land within the Gallinas Watershed; these forests 
are extremely susceptible to wildfires due to high tree densities and available fuel loads.  This 
condition is primarily a result of the decades-long forestry practice of wildfire suppression that 
has disrupted the natural cycle of frequent, low-intensity fires.  Naturally occurring fires 
periodically remove accumulated vegetation and reduce available fuel loads, thereby preventing 
larger, catastrophic fires.  Trees in poor health, stressed by increased stand densities, also 
contribute to a greater fuel load. 

The City's primary municipal water storage sites, the Bradner and Peterson Reservoirs, as well 
as the City's water treatment plant, are located within the City-owned areas of the watershed.  In 
addition to the risks of injury and property loss to surrounding communities from a high-intensity 
fire, the ash and sediment resulting from a catastrophic fire could compromise the City's 
municipal water supply. This risk became a reality throughout the summer of 2000, when 
sporadic storm events washed accumulated ash and sediment from the Viveash Fire into Gallinas 
Creek, preventing the City from diverting a total of approximately 112 million gallons of water 
to the municipal water supply reservoirs (SEC, 2002; Tafoya, pers. comm.). 

Over the past 25 years, in addition to the catastrophic Viveash wildfire, the City of Las Vegas 
and its water supply have been threatened by 38 smaller wildfires.  Low moisture conditions 
resulting from 20 years of drought have increased the probability of future wildfires (City of Las 
Vegas HMGP application, 2001).

According to the City of Las Vegas, control of the 29,000-acre Viveash fire within all affected 
watersheds indirectly cost taxpayers approximately $12 million.  The fire suppression activities 
are directly covered through a Joint Powers of Agreement between the City of Las Vegas and the 
State of New Mexico; the State maintains cooperative fire agreements with the U.S. Forest 
Service (USFS). Additionally, the City estimates that, should a catastrophic fire event occur in 
the future on or near the municipal reservoirs, only 25 percent of its current users could be 
provided drinking water, utilizing the Taylor Well Fields.  The City also estimates that, should 
the current water treatment facilities be damaged by fire, replacement of these structures would 
cost $12 million, negatively impacting the local residents' tax rates.

The primary purpose of this mitigation project is to reduce the risk of a high-intensity crown fire.  
The City of Las Vegas has identified the need to protect the City's water supply from impacts of 
an uncontrollable wildfire and has decided to address this risk by reducing fuel loads in the 
surrounding forests.

Section 2 Alternative Analysis
2.1 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Southwestern Environmental Consultants (SEC) has prepared a Forest Management and 
Maintenance Plan (FMMP) for the City of Las Vegas to address forest management on City-
owned lands within the Gallinas Watershed. Wildfire hazard mitigation is encompassed in the 
primary FMMP goals of reducing the risk of a high-intensity crown fire and maintaining the 
overall health and productivity of forest and water resources.  The FMMP identifies specific 
areas within the City-owned watershed for fuels management activities.  The City of Las Vegas 
developed, and this EA considers, three alternatives for fuels management activities: no action, 
manual and mechanical fuels reduction, and manual and mechanical fuels reduction followed by 
broadcast burning.  

2.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Action Alternative, fuels management associated with mitigating fire hazards in 
the Gallinas Watershed areas owned by the City of Las Vegas would not occur.  Without specific 
actions to reduce fuel loads in these areas, fuels would continue to accumulate, increasing the 
risk of a high-intensity fire.  

The City estimates that should a catastrophic fire event occur on or near the municipal reservoirs, 
only 25 percent of its current users could be sustained for drinking water, utilizing the Taylor 
Well Fields.  The City also estimates that, should the current water treatment facilities be 
damaged by fire, replacement of these structures would cost $12 million, negatively impacting 
local residents' tax rates.

2.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 - MANUAL AND MECHANICAL FUELS MANAGEMENT 
(PROPOSED ACTION)
Under the manual and mechanical fuels management alternative, the City of Las Vegas would 
reduce fuel loading on 478 acres of the 991 acres (roughly 50 percent) of City-owned property in 
the Gallinas watershed, primarily in those areas with slopes less than 45 percent.  The City would 
follow the management recommendations contained in the FMMP to achieve fuels management 
goals.  The FMMP has divided the City's watershed property into 48 areas or "stands" that 
include open water (reservoirs), open (non-forested) areas, and forested areas (Figure 3).  Initial 
fuels management activities are proposed for 25 of these stands.  The remaining 23 stands 
primarily include north-facing forested stands on slopes greater than 45 percent, where no fuels 
management activities would occur. Photographs depicting the project area and examples of the 
stands to be thinned are in Appendix A. 

The thinning prescription for fuels management is to selectively "thin from below" which 
removes a majority of the smaller trees while leaving many of the larger trees standing.  This 
prescription considers both wildfire fuels management and forest health improvement goals.  
Under this prescription, the majority of felled trees would be less than 10 inches in diameter and 
to the extent possible, trees over 16 inches in diameter would be retained.  In order of priority 
from greatest to lowest, cut trees would include those acting as "ladder fuels" (which increase the 
probability of a crown fire); diseased or insect-infested trees; and trees exhibiting poor form and 
vigor.  

Figure 3: Figure three is the Forests Stands and Thinning Map for Las Vegas, New Mexico. This figure 
also has topographical features, and shows the watershed along with four distinct areas of priority for thinning.


Post-thinning objectives would include a basal area (the cross sectional area of standing trees) of 
approximately 50 square feet per acre.  Within each thinned acre, approximately 85 of the 
remaining trees would be equal to or greater than 5 inches in diameter.
Accumulated fuels would be manually felled.  In stands that are accessible to a rubber-tired 
forwarder, felled trees would be transported mechanically to established landing sites.  In areas 
inaccessible to a forwarder, trees would be felled perpendicular to the slope to create a log 
erosion barrier and help reduce erosion.  In all cases, felled trees would be trimmed or "limbed 
and bucked" in the woods where they are felled.  Root systems from the felled trees would not be 
removed from the ground.  

Slash material resulting from limbing and bucking would be lopped and scattered, hand-piled for 
later burning, or removed from the area.  Burning of slash piles is recommended in areas where 
slash piles would be greater than 2 feet in height, and at certain sites with a high fire risk due to 
private lands to the south, prevailing winds, or proximity to a highway. Slash piles that are to be 
burned would be kept small, from 5 feet to 8 feet in height and diameter. A burn plan (detailing 
burn conditions such as location, weather conditions, fuel moisture, and desired fire behavior), 
and a smoke management plan (describing smoke-sensitive areas, wind direction, and affected 
air pollution districts), would be required prior to the burning of slash piles.  Burning would also 
be conducted in accordance with acceptable guidelines and the conditions of a New Mexico 
Environment Department (NMED) Air Quality Bureau (AQB) permit. 

Erosion control measures would be employed throughout the proposed project area.  These 
measures would include lopping and scattering of some slash, placement of log erosion barriers, 
placing slash in skid trails, and reseeding all disturbed areas. In addition, equipment staging 
would occur on existing roads wherever possible.

In the forested areas west of the municipal reservoirs, transportation of materials by forwarders 
would be conducted on small, temporary skid trails that would be rehabilitated and closed after 
fuels management activities are completed.  Around the municipal reservoirs, two low-impact 
skid trails would be constructed to facilitate removal of fuels: one along the west side of Bradner 
Reservoir and one along the west side of Peterson Reservoir.  Upon completion of fuels 
management activities at the reservoirs, the Bradner trail would be rehabilitated and permanently 
closed.  The Peterson trail would either be rehabilitated and closed or left open as a fuel break 
and access route for fire management activities.

Project activities would occur in either the fall or winter season.  Implementation of the project 
would require approximately two seasons, depending on the selected contractor, with work 
occurring over a period of several weeks (Ball, pers. comm.).  Local residents would be notified, 
via newspaper, radio, or flyers of the timing and location of the activities.  
To maintain the wildfire hazard mitigation objective, SEC has recommended that the City 
implement a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan to maintain watershed health and to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the management program.  During project implementation, it is 
recommended that periodic on-the-ground thinning inspections and record keeping occur.  
Following treatment, structured forest health inspections are suggested on an annual basis for 2 
years, and then every 3 years thereafter.  Inspections are also suggested following site-specific, 
damaging natural events.  The City of Las Vegas would be responsible for funding future 
monitoring and maintenance, either through City funds or separate grants.

2.4	ALTERNATIVE 3 - MANUAL AND MECHANICAL FUELS MANAGEMENT 
FOLLOWED BY BROADCAST BURNING 
Under Alternative 3, the same fuels management activities and erosion control measures 
described in the Proposed Action would be followed; however, treatment of slash would differ.  
Under Alternative 3, following tree removal activities, slash would be lopped and scattered.  A 
low-intensity broadcast burn (across the landscape) would then be used to reduce on-site slash 
and any other remaining ground fuels (Biswell, 1989).  

2.5	ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED 
In addition to the alternatives outlined in the previous section, an additional alternative was 
considered but eliminated from further consideration because it was not technically feasible.
One option considered was the use of prescribed burning within the project area without any 
prior thinning activities.  A prescribed burn alternative would have involved the development 
and implementation of a burn plan to reduce the total per-acre fuel load by using a low- to 
moderate temperature burn (approximately 212 degrees - 757 degrees F).  The use of a prescribed burn without 
prior thinning activities was considered technically infeasible because of the high tree stocking 
levels, the steep slopes of some of the project area, and the proximity of the project area to 
homes of the Village of Montezuma and the United World College. 

Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3.1	PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.1.1	Geology, Seismicity, and Soils
Geology: The proposed project area lies within the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and Las Vegas 
Plateau physiographic regions, and ranges in elevation from 6,800 to 7,600 feet.  Geology of the 
area consists primarily of Pennsylvanian bedrock and outcrops of pre-Cambrian rocks with some 
Magdalena group, consisting of gneiss, schist, quartzite, granitic rocks, and pegmatite, that in 
some places are covered by colluvium (soil moved downslope by gravitational forces) or alluvial 
fan (soils moved by flooding) deposits.  The Magdalena group is a geologic sandstone and 
arkosic sandstone bed that can be found resting on pre-Cambrian rock with a thickness that 
varies from vanishing point to more than 2,000 feet in the areas of the upper Pecos valley. Along 
the canyon of the Gallinas River, hogbacks -- sharp-crested, symmetric ridges formed by the 
differential erosion of highly tilted and resistant rock layers -- terminate to the west at a thrust 
fault, bringing the pre-Cambrian rocks to the surface (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951). 
Seismicity: Historical activity is the prominent factor associated with predicting earthquake 
hazard potential. That is, regions where earthquakes have occurred in the past will likely 
experience them again in the future. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National 
Earthquake Information Center, most of New Mexico's historical seismicity is concentrated in 
the Rio Grande Valley (between Socorro and Albuquerque), where about half of the earthquakes 
of VI or greater on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale occurred between 1868 and 1973.  
Since 1973, no earthquakes with an intensity greater than V have been recorded (USGS, 2001). 
The National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project shows that there is currently a low probability of 
seismic activity within the Las Vegas area (USGS, 1997).

Soils: Soils in the Gallinas watershed have been mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA).  Three soil associations are present in the project area: the Rocio-Dargol-Stout, the 
Rock Outcrop-Haploborolls, and the Moreno Brycan (Figure 4) (USDA, 1981). 
Rocio-Dargol-Stout Association (RG)

The predominant soils present in the project area are of the RG Association.  RG soils occur on 
hills and mountains on slopes from 5 to 35 percent, and are found on the mountainsides of the 
project site.  The soils in this association are primarily stony loam and are found at elevations of 
7,200 to 9,000 feet.  In these areas, permeability of the soil is slow to very slow, run off potential 
is medium, water erosion hazard is moderate, and soil blowing hazard is moderate.  Effective 
rooting depth is 20 to 40 inches.  Annual precipitation in this association is approximately 25 
inches. The Rocio soils, the predominant soils in this association, are deep, well-drained soils 
formed in the colluvial and alluvial deposits derived from sandstone and shale.

Figure 4: Figure four is the soils map for the project area in Las Vegas, New Mexico. Located 
within the highlighted area are the Gallinas River, and the Peterson Reservoir. 

Rock Outcrop-Haploborolls Association (RH)
Soils of the RH Association are found on ridges and steep mountainsides on slopes of 30 to 75 
percent.  RH soils are found at elevations of 7,200 to 9,000 feet.  A large portion of the project 
area falls within this association, found predominantly on the steep hillsides of the project area. 
These areas consist of exposed sandstone, limestone, and shale, and can have a dark-colored 
surface layer of soil.  The steep slopes would indicate that run-off potential is high with a 
moderate to high hazard of water erosion and soil blowing.  Annual precipitation in this 
association is approximately 20 inches.
Moreno-Brycan Association (MG)

Soils of the MG Association are found within the valley bottom of the project area on slopes 
from 3 to 9 percent. Elevation ranges from 7,000 to 9,000 feet.  This loamy soil also includes 
small areas of wet soils adjacent to streams.  The deep and well-drained soils of this association 
are derived predominantly from sandstone and shale.  Run-off potential is medium and the 
hazard of water erosion and soil blowing is moderate.  Permeability is slow and effective rooting 
depth is 60 inches or more.  Annual precipitation in this association is approximately 20 inches. 
Moreno soils, the predominant soils in this association, are deep, well-drained soils formed in 
fine-textured alluvium derived from sandstone and shale.

Prime Farmland: The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) was enacted in 1981 (P.L. 98-
98) to minimize the unnecessary conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses as a result of 
federal actions.  Programs administered by federal agencies must be compatible with state and 
local farmland protection policies and programs.  The Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS) is responsible for protecting significant agricultural lands from irreversible conversions 
that result in the loss of an essential food or environmental resource.  Prime farmland, as defined 
by the NRCS, is land that has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to 
produce an economically sustained high yield of crops.  In a letter dated February 20, 2003, the 
NRCS concluded that there are no prime farmlands within the project area (Appendix B).  
Therefore the project is in compliance with the FPPA.

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the geologic framework of the area would not be directly 
affected; and no direct impact on soil resources in the project area would occur.  Since no action 
would be taken to conduct fuels management projects required to adequately reduce fire hazards, 
the potential for future wildfires would remain.  

Wildfires may adversely affect the soils of the project area through increasing erosion.  The 
erosion potential of a wildfire depends on the erosion classification of the soils at the burn areas 
and disturbance of the duff layer, an organic layer of decomposing leaves, needles, and other 
dead plant material.  If the soil erosion classification is moderate to high and the duff layer is 
disturbed, then erosion may occur after a wildfire.  Similarly, depending on the intensity of the 
wildfire and moisture content of the soils, a hydrophobic (water repelling) soil layer could form 
below the ground surface, exacerbating surface soil erosion.  Some types of vegetation contain 
hydrophobic substances that reach the soil surface as a result of vegetation decomposition.  At 
soil surface temperatures between 392 degrees and 550 degrees F, these hydrophobic substances are turned into a 
gas vapor and some vapors move downward into the soil, coming to rest as cooler soil 
temperatures are reached (Biswell, 1989).  This cooled, condensed gas forms the hydrophobic 
layer, which can persist for a few years.  Meanwhile, soils at the surface remain permeable 
because the hydrophobic substances have moved downward; and precipitation easily saturates 
these permeable surface soils.  However, as the surface soils become saturated and the 
hydrophobic layer repels the water, preventing precipitation from percolating into the ground, 
severe erosion can occur.  Saturated surface soils can flow (erode) down-slope.  This impact is 
more likely to occur in areas with coarse-grained soils (Biswell, 1989).  The project area contains 
soils that would be sensitive to erosion.  A minimal portion of the project area contains high 
levels of coarse-grained solids; however, slopes in the project area range from moderate (10 to 
35 percent) to very steep (35 to 75 percent) and may become unstable after a wildfire.  Roots of 
remnant vegetation would probably remain in place on the moderate slopes but not on the 
steepest slopes within the project area, thus adding to the potential for severe erosion.

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
Selective manual removal of vegetation in the project area would not affect geology or soils.  
Soils could become compacted with heavy equipment or if mechanical removal is conducted in 
wet conditions.  Under these scenarios, the stabilizing effect of the retained root crowns would 
be reduced and the potential for erosion would increase.  In addition, use of heavy equipment on 
wet or even damp soils could substantially compact soils to the extent that infiltration rates 
decrease, increasing runoff and erosion.  Soil productivity would likely decrease under 
compacted conditions because root systems cannot penetrate the soils sufficiently and gas 
exchange is similarly reduced.  To mitigate the effects of heavy equipment use and compaction, 
it is recommended the mechanical forwarders be used during dry periods throughout the year.  
This practice should be followed when precipitation at the sites has been limited to less than 1 
inch in the week prior to the use of the equipment or when the ground is frozen, preferably with 
snow cover. 

Slash would be lopped and scattered, piled and burned, or removed.  For piles that are to be 
lopped and scattered, pile height would be kept to a height of 2 feet or less. Slash piles that are to 
be burned would be kept small, from 5 feet to 8 feet in height and diameter. This small size 
would help limit the potential for hydrophobic soils that can occur if the heat of the pile becomes 
too intense. The use of erosion control measures such as lop and scattering of some slash, no 
vegetation removal on slopes greater than 45 percent, log erosion barriers, placing slash in skid 
trails, and reseeding of all disturbed areas would be employed throughout the proposed project 
area.  In addition, equipment staging would occur on existing roads wherever possible.  If the 
above mitigation measures are implemented, the risk of substantial erosion would be minimized.  
Furthermore, adequate vegetative buffer zones parallel to waterways would be retained to 
provide sediment filtration of runoff (see Section 3.1.2 for a discussion on Water Resources).
Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
The proposed project area for Alternative 3 is the same as for the Proposed Action; and the same 
vegetation thinning methods would be implemented.  However, this alternative would dispose of 
slash by broadcast burning in the project area. 

A low-intensity, broadcast burn would be expected to have minimal impact on area soils. In 
general, if applied correctly, and depending upon the topography, aspect, vegetation type, and 
weather at the time of the burn, prescribed burns do not noticeably increase soil erosion over 
typical amounts in forests, and the protective ground-surface cover is minimally removed during 
controlled fires (Biswell, 1989).  In some cases, fire may improve soil properties by increasing 
nutrient cycling.  Nutrient cycling of nitrogen and ammonium concentrations can increase after a 
burn and over time infiltrate into deeper soil layers, therefore aiding vegetation regeneration of 
nitrogen-limited plants (White, 1987).  The broadcast burn for this project would be low-
intensity; therefore, soils and the plant community would be expected to recover quickly.  

Firebreaks would be required to conduct the burn.  The firebreaks would be devoid of vegetation, 
and soil erosion measures such as silt fences, would be installed at these areas.  Based on the 
topography of the area, increased ash runoff would occur with a broadcast burn.  The impact of 
increased ash runoff would be minimal and temporary from a low-intensity burn; therefore, no 
long-term impacts would be expected.  Increased surface runoff may occur until vegetation is 
reestablished across the burn area.  In the long term, broadcast burning would be anticipated to 
return the area to a more natural state and protect the soil structure by clearing fuel loads that 
contribute to high-intensity fires.

3.1.2	Water Resources and Water Quality
The proposed project area is located in the Gallinas Watershed of the Santa Fe Mountains, part 
of the southern Rocky Mountains.  This area lies in an extension of the Upper Pecos 
Groundwater Basin as defined by the New Mexico State Engineer Office.  The City of Las 
Vegas takes its water from the Gallinas River, using approximately 2.1 million gallons of water 
per day (MGD) depending on the season (Tafoya, pers. comm.).  Many of the smaller villages 
within the watershed, such as Montezuma, obtain their domestic water supplies from local 
streams and private wells.  

Water uses include residential supply, irrigation for agricultural and recreational use, and water 
for institutional use.  The project area has a temperate mountain climate with an annual 
precipitation of approximately 18 inches.  Precipitation sources are typically divided between 
monsoonal thundershowers in the summer and fall, and snow during the winter and early spring 
months.  Runoff tends to occur during snowmelt and during the monsoon season in July and 
August.  

The project area occurs in pre-Cambrian rocks with some Magdalena group.  No wells are 
known to produce in pre-Cambrian rocks.  Water can be obtained from shallow wells in the 
alluvium in the stream valley.  Along the Gallinas River Canyon, weathered pre-Cambrian rock 
lies immediately below the Magdalena strata.  This weathered zone will probably yield some 
water to wells at locations where it lies below the water table (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951).  
According to New Mexico State Engineer Office well records, very few wells are listed in the 
surrounding areas of the project (NMSEO, 2002).  One well in the area has a water depth of 8 
feet.  The quality of groundwater in the area is generally good, depending upon proximity of 
wells to recharge zones and the chemistry of the water-bearing sediments penetrated by a given 
well (Griggs and Hendrickson, 1951). 

Surface water impoundments in the area include two City of Las Vegas impoundments at 
Bradner Reservoir and Peterson Reservoir, and several remnant ice dams located upstream of the 
City reservoirs along Gallinas River; all structures are located within the project area. The 
Peterson and Bradner Reservoirs serve as Las Vegas' primary drinking water storage areas, with 
a combined capacity of 632 acre-feet of water. The surrounding area includes impoundments at 
Storrie Lake and Lake Isabel northeast of the project area, Lake McAllister within the Las Vegas 
National Wildlife Refuge, and other small, unnamed impoundments east of the project area.  
A water quality survey of the Pecos and Gallinas Rivers was performed by the New Mexico 
Environment Department after the Viveash and Manueltias fires of 2000, as a response to citizen 
complaints of fish kills and heavy ash and sediment loads in local streams (Hopkins, 2001).  The 
stream samples included testing for sodium ferrocyanide, a constituent of the fire retardant slurry 
used to combat fires.  Only a portion of the far upper reach of the Gallinas Watershed burned in 
the Viveash fire of 2000.  One sampling run was conducted on the Gallinas River on July 20, 
2000, at the end of Forest Road 263.  With the exception of trace amounts of cyanide, the sample 
yielded no elevated water quality parameters.  The amount of cyanide was higher in this sample 
than any of the samples taken for the survey; however the level was insufficient to kill aquatic 
organisms.  Water samples taken from Gallinas River at the USGS gage near Montezuma and at 
the end of the Storrie diversion yielded no water quality standard exceedances.  This survey 
found that low levels of ash were carried by the Gallinas River through Las Vegas (Hopkins, 
2001).

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was established to preserve the 
free-flowing state of listed rivers or those under consideration for inclusion due to numerous 
values, such as scenic, recreational, geologic, or historic.  With respect to the Wild and Scenic 
Rivers Act, the nearest federally designated wild and scenic waterway to the project area is the 
Pecos River, of which the Gallinas River is a tributary.  This designation applies to 20.5 miles of 
the Pecos River-from its headwaters to the town of Tererro.  This portion of the Pecos River is 
located upstream from the confluence with Gallinas River, and is not located within the Gallinas 
watershed.  No further action is necessary under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 
1274-1276). 

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impacts to water resources and water 
quality.  However, accumulation of fuel loads under this alternative would increase the risk of a 
wildfire occurrence.  Should a wildfire occur, area vegetation would likely be eliminated and 
surface soils would be exposed.  Depending on the temperature of the wildfire, hydrophobic soils 
could develop, repelling water and leading to substantial erosion.  Soil stability is adversely 
affected by intense heat due to associated vegetation loss; therefore, unprotected soil would be 
eroded by wind or water actions and enter area runoff via precipitation.  These sediments would 
eventually be carried into drainage ways and rivers, resulting in water quality deterioration in 
nearby streams and creeks.  Additionally, nutrient spikes have been observed in surface water 
and groundwater downstream of areas impacted by wildfires (Brooks et al., 1991).  Substantial 
soil deposits could dam or otherwise alter the natural course of drainage.  Debris or mud dams 
may result in ponding of seasonal flows and diversion of river flows.  These alterations may be 
temporary or persist during below-average rainfall years.

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
The thinning prescription with this alternative would remove smaller trees to a basal area of 
approximately 40 to 60 square feet per acre using chainsaws and in some areas, mechanical 
forwarding equipment.  Mobilization and demobilization of equipment and personnel would be 
by means of existing roads wherever possible.  Two temporary skid trails would be extended 
from existing roads and travel parallel to the Bradner and Peterson Reservoirs.  Use of heavy 
equipment adjacent to waterways could adversely affect water quality in a number of ways, 
ranging from exposing soils to enhanced erosion during rainfall-runoff events, to triggering 
stream bank collapse.  Equipment would not be allowed to enter waterways of the project area 
and a minimum 50-foot buffer would be implemented for equipment to be maintained away from 
the waterways.  The width of this buffer strip increases as the slope of the land above the stream 
increases.  No fuels management activities would be conducted in riparian areas and all 
equipment would be kept out of any wetland area.  Slash would be piled and burned or removed 
and some slash would be left on the ground for erosion control.

It is anticipated that the Proposed Action would have no adverse effect on the quality of surface 
water and groundwater resources of the area.  Increases in sedimentation of area waterways are 
unlikely, as long as appropriate erosion control methods are employed and a low-intensity soil 
surface temperature is maintained throughout the burning of the slash piles.  Skid trails or staging 
areas created would be temporary and would be reseeded and slash would be placed on the trails 
for erosion control. Water at the City's two public water supply reservoirs must be sampled and 
analyzed regularly for public health-related contaminants, as well as for non health-related, or 
aesthetic-related parameters.  Information from sampling and analyses of these sources would 
provide the basis for monitoring water quality during and after the Proposed Action.

The Proposed Action would result in a slightly greater availability of water resources.  Removal 
of dead wood and tree thinning would result in reduced interception of precipitation, greater soil 
infiltration, and increased groundwater recharge rates.  Additionally, tree thinning would result 
in decreased vegetative evapotranspiration and greater availability of water for groundwater 
recharge and surface water yield (Brooks et al., 1991).  No long-term adverse impacts to water 
resources or water quality are anticipated as a result of Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
The thinning prescription with this alternative would remove smaller trees to a basal area of 
approximately 40 to 60 square feet per acre using chainsaws and in some areas, mechanical 
forwarding equipment.  Mobilization and demobilization of equipment and personnel would be 
by means of existing roads wherever possible.  Two temporary skid trails would be extended 
from existing roads and travel parallel to Bradner and Peterson Reservoirs.  Use of heavy 
equipment adjacent to waterways could adversely affect water quality in a number of ways, 
ranging from exposing soils to enhanced erosion during rainfall-runoff events, to triggering 
stream bank collapse.  Equipment would not be allowed to enter waterways of the project area 
and a minimum 50-foot buffer would be implemented for equipment to be maintained away from 
the waterways.  The width of this buffer strip increases as the slope of the land above the stream 
increases

The use of broadcast burning to remove slash may increase runoff from the burn area.  
Remaining blackened fuels and heated soils penetrate through snowpack, changing the surface 
heat and causing earlier and more rapid snowmelt and runoff (Zwolinski, 2000).  The increase 
would be expected to be minimal, however, because it would be a low intensity burn.  Runoff 
would decrease as ground cover vegetation becomes reestablished.  There would be an increase 
in ash runoff into the Gallinas River within the project area, potentially temporarily degrading 
water quality in downstream flows.  Erosion control measures such as silt fencing would be 
implemented around fuelbreaks placed to control the burn. Additional measures would be taken 
to reduce impacts including no thinning above 45 percent slopes, using existing roads wherever 
possible, and conducting thinning during times when the ground is frozen or during dry seasons 
to minimize soil compaction.   

Water at the City's two reservoirs must be sampled and analyzed regularly for public health-
related contaminants, as well as for non-health-related, or aesthetic-related parameters.  
Information from sampling and analyses of these sources would provide the basis for monitoring 
water quality during and after the project.

No long-term adverse impacts to water resources or water quality are anticipated as a result of 
Alternative 3.  Reducing fuel loads in the project area similarly reduces the risk of catastrophic 
fire and the related severe storm runoff associated with a large, high-intensity fire.  Alternative 3 
would result in a slightly greater availability of water resources.
3.1.3	Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988)

The FEMA-designated 100-year base floodplain indicates the area inundated during a storm 
having a 1- percent chance of occurring in any given year.  FEMA also identifies the 500-year 
floodplain.  The 500-year floodplain designates the area inundated during a storm having a 0.2 
percent chance of occurring in any given year. 

Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires federal agencies to minimize 
occupancy and modification to the floodplain.  Specifically, the EO prohibits federal agencies 
from funding construction within the 100-year floodplain unless there are no practicable 
alternatives. FEMA's regulations for complying with EO 11988 are promulgated in 44 CFR 
Part 9.  FEMA applies the Eight-Step Planning Process as required by regulation to meet the 
requirements of EO 11988.  This step-by-step analysis, as applied to this project, is included in 
Appendix C of this document.

The project area is located on the hillsides around two City of Las Vegas reservoirs (Bradner and 
Peterson) and upstream of the reservoirs along the canyon sides of the Gallinas River.  
According to the Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) for San Miguel County (Community 
Panels No. 350132 0011 A and 350132 0012 A), the two City reservoirs and the Gallinas River 
are within the 100-year flood hazard Zone A (Figure 5).  Zone A designates a 100-year flood 
hazard, but a base flood elevation has not been determined. 
Interagency coordination was initiated with the New Mexico Office of Emergency Management 
requesting project review and for issues concerning floodplains; to date, no response has been 
received (Appendix B). 

Figure 5: Figure five is the Flood Hazard Boundary around Gallinas River near the city of Montezuma. 
On the right is a closer look of zone A on the map which shows the two distinct points of the Peterson Reservoir.

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no fuels management or vegetation rehabilitation projects 
would be undertaken.  No adverse impacts to the regulated floodplain would be anticipated as a 
result of the No Action Alternative.  Since funds would not be available to conduct fuels 
management projects required to adequately reduce fire hazards, the potential for future wildfires 
remains.  If the wildfire were catastrophic, large amounts of vegetative cover would be removed 
causing exposed and possibly hydrophobic soils, which could lead to severe runoff in a storm 
event following the fire.  Severe stormwater runoff could lead to increased flooding of the area 
within the floodplain and potentially outside floodplain zones.  This condition would persist for 
several years until vegetation and soil is reestablished to pre-fire conditions. Since there would 
be no federal funding under this alternative, compliance with EO 11988 need not be considered.

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
The thinning prescription with this alternative would remove smaller trees to a basal area of 
approximately 40 to 60 square feet per acre using manual and mechanical logging equipment. 
Slash would be piled and burned, removed or loped and scattered for erosion control.  Two 
temporary skid trails would be created, but not within the floodplain zones.  The Proposed 
Action is not likely to result in any direct or indirect impacts to the floodplain in or around the 
project area.  Additionally, streamside buffers would be maintained alongside the Gallinas River, 
ensuring that a majority of the work would occur outside the floodplain. While work within the 
floodplain is not anticipated, should any change to final management plans occur and work 
would be planned within the floodplain, the City would coordinate with the local floodplain 
administrator regarding applicable permits and/or conditions.

In accordance with 44 CFR Part 9.5, debris removed as part of a fuels management project 
would not be disposed of within any floodplain zones of the project area. This alternative would 
be in compliance with EO 11988, as documented in the Eight-Step Planning Process 
(Appendix C).

Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
The thinning prescription with this alternative would remove smaller trees to a basal area of 
approximately 40 to 60 square feet per acre using manual and mechanical logging equipment. 
Slash would be treated after thinning by a low-intensity broadcast burn. Two temporary skid 
trails would be created, but not within the floodplain zones. Alternative 3 is not likely to result in 
any direct or indirect impacts to the floodplain in or around the project area. Additionally, 
streamside buffers would be maintained alongside the Gallinas River, ensuring that a majority of 
the work would occur outside the floodplain.  While work within the floodplain is not 
anticipated, should any change to final management plans occur and work would be planned 
within the floodplain, the City would coordinate with the local floodplain administrator 
regarding applicable permits and/or conditions.

In accordance with 44 CFR Part 9.5, debris removed as part of a fuels management project 
would not be disposed of within any floodplain zones of the project area.  Ash runoff would be 
expected within the floodplain zone, but would be minimal and temporary.  This alternative 
would be in compliance with EO 11988, as documented in the Eight-Step Planning Process 
(Appendix C). 

3.1.4	Air Quality
The Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 
set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to 
public health and the environment.  The CAA established two types of NAAQS.  Primary 
standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such 
as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, 
including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and 
buildings.

The EPA has set NAAQS for six principal pollutants, which are called "criteria" pollutants.  
They include: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), lead (Pb), particulate 
matter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

EPA has designated specific areas throughout New Mexico as NAAQS attainment or non-
attainment areas.  Non-attainment areas are any areas that do not meet (or that contribute to 
ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary air 
quality standard for a pollutant.  Attainment areas are any areas that meet the primary or 
secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant.  According to the EPA, San Miguel 
County is currently in attainment for all six criteria pollutants (EPA, 2002).

In addition to the EPA's standards, NMED has established standards for toxic air pollutants.  
Toxic air pollutants are chemicals that are generally found in trace amounts in the atmosphere, 
but that can result in chronic health effects or increase the risk of cancer when present in 
amounts that exceed established exposure limits. Guidelines used by the NMED for determining 
if a new or modified source emitting a toxic air pollutant requires air quality permitting are found 
in 20 New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) 2.72.  Table 1 lists both the EPA's and the 
State of New Mexico's air quality standards.

The NMED has jurisdiction for the enforcement of all applicable CAA air quality requirements 
through a federally approved State Implementation Plan (SIP).  This plan outlines all applicable 
air quality statutes.  As such, any increase in criteria pollutants released from the disturbance of 
soils or the construction of structural measures may have specific regulatory requirements 
enforced under 20 NMAC 2.72.  Under 20 NMAC 2.60, a permit must be obtained for open air 
burning to reduce combustion impacts on air quality.  Some of the specific regulatory 
requirements are discussed under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3. Interagency 
coordination was initiated with the NMED AQB for potential air quality issues and permitting 
requirements associated with the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 (see Appendix B). 

Table 1: Ambient Air Quality Standards
[5-column table: 
1. CONTAMINANT
2. AVERAGING TIME
3. UNIT (*)
4. NEW MEXICO STANDARD
5. NAAQS]

[NAAQS column has 2 sub-columns: 
5a. PRIMARY
5b. SECONDARY]

Carbon Monoxide	8 hour	ppm	8.7	9	N/A
Carbon Monoxide	1 hour	ppm	13.1	35	N/A
Sulfur Dioxide	Annual	ppm	0.02	0.03	N/A
Sulfur Dioxide	24 hour	ppm	0.10	0.14	N/A
Sulfur Dioxide	3 hour	ppm	N/A	N/A	0.05
Nitrogen Dioxide	Annual	ppm	0.05	0.053	0.053
Nitrogen Dioxide	24 hour	ppm	0.10	N/A	N/A
Ozone		1 hour	ppm	N/A	0.12	0.12
PM10		Annual	ug/m3	N/A	50	50
PM10		24 hour	ug/m3	N/A	150	150
Total Suspended
Particulate	24 hour	ug/m3	150	N/A	N/A
Total Suspended
Particulate	7 day	ug/m3	110	N/A	N/A
Total Suspended
Particulate	30 day	ug/m3	90	N/A	N/A
Total Suspended
Particulate	Annual	ug/m3	60	N/A	N/A
Lead		Quarterly	ug/m3	N/A	1.5	1.5
Hydrogen Sulfide	Not applicable to surrounding region.
Total Reduced 	
Sulfur		Not applicable to surrounding region.
(*) ppm = parts per million; ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
[END TABLE 1]


Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, fuels management actions would not occur in the Gallinas 
watershed.  Without specific actions to remove vegetation, a defensible space around the water 
supply reservoirs for Las Vegas would not be created and the fuel load accumulation would 
continue to increase.  The existing fire hazard would not be mitigated, and could potentially 
increase with the further accumulation of fuels.

Dense fuel build-up and respective fire risk in prone areas would remain high.  Fuel build-up in 
forests substantially increases levels of most criteria pollutants and many hazardous air pollutants 
that are released during wildfires.  Smoke from a fire consists of carbon dioxide (CO2), water 
vapor, particulates (some of which contain volatile organic compounds [VOCs]), and CO.  In 
addition, support vehicles used in fighting the wildfire would cause a slight, temporary increase 
of PM, CO, NO2, SO2, and O3 precursors.  Soils exposed by a wildfire would increase PM levels 
through wind erosion.

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
Under the Proposed Action, accumulated fuels on City-owned land would be manually felled, 
and in some cases, transported mechanically to established landing sites.  Forestry equipment 
would be delivered to work areas via existing roads.  The use of vehicles and fuel-powered 
chainsaws to clear vegetation has the potential to increase the criteria pollutants of concern.  
When the equipment is initially started, some visible and possibly odorous emissions would be 
expected.  To minimize adverse effects on air quality, the Applicant would keep equipment 
properly maintained and keep running times to a minimum.

Slash material left from limbing and bucking of downed plant material would be lopped and 
scattered or removed from the site.  Slash greater than 2 feet in height would be piled and 
burned.  Slash pile burning would be conducted by a forestry consultant under acceptable 
guidelines and would occur in winter or during an extended wet period, with the piles being 
continuously monitored until they are extinguished.  Smoke plumes from this pile burning have 
the potential to cause short-term adverse impacts to air quality.  Prior to the downed vegetation 
burning, the appropriate permit for open burning (20 NMAC 2.60) would be obtained from 
NMED AQB.  While locations for burning of vegetation have not been selected, such activities 
would be avoided upwind from sensitive receptors, such as schools, churches, or residential 
neighborhoods.  Piles should be dry and free of soil to speed combustion (EMNRD, 1992). 
As part of the permit application, a burn plan must be submitted.  General components of this 
plan include overall planning for the burn, description of the fuel load, smoke management 
planning, and a contingency plan. In order for a permit to be issued, several conditions must be 
met, such as: no practical alternative to burning, the health or welfare residents would not be 
affected by the burn, and ambient air quality of neighboring properties would not be affected.  To 
address these concerns, the following smoke minimization and management procedures are 
recommended for this alternative:
* Slash pile burning would occur on "burn days" as approved by AQB, and burn permits would 
be obtained from AQB, with additional monitoring of wind conditions and the fire plume as 
required by AQB.
* Slash pile burning would not commence until a qualified meteorologist (most likely from 
AQB or National Weather Service) has predicted favorable atmospheric stability and mixing 
conditions at the burn site and downwind.
* Slash pile burning would not be conducted at night, when smoke may accumulate in patches 
at the ground or go into cold-air drainageways, potentially causing problems at lower 
elevations. Burns will be, to the extent possible, extinguished within the day burns are first 
initiated.
* In smoke-sensitive areas, fuels will be piled and burned in the understory to reduce levels of 
smoke going into the atmosphere at one time.
* One or more observers would be posted on site, and downwind when appropriate, to monitor 
weather and smoke conditions.  If there are unexpected changes in weather or dispersion of 
the plume, the burn would be terminated.  
* Burning must occur between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

Overall, the impacts on air quality as a result of the Proposed Action would be minimal and 
temporary.  The implementation of air emission mitigation methods during construction, soil 
disturbance, or equipment operation, and the following of appropriate burn guidelines would 
keep emissions to negligible levels.  Examples of mitigation methods for project activities 
include watering disturbed areas, scheduling the siting of staging areas to minimize fugitive dust, 
and keeping construction equipment properly maintained.

Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
Under Alternative 3, the use of a broadcast burn would have a temporary adverse impact on air 
quality by increasing carbon monoxide, PM10, and ozone precursors (oxides of nitrogen and 
reactive organic gases).  The most common effect associated with this alternative would be the 
occurrence of smog.  In the event of unforeseen conditions, the smoke plumes from broadcast 
burns can cause obscured visibility, complicating automobile and air traffic corridors, and 
particulate fallout in populated areas.  High smoke concentrations may also pose health concerns 
for nearby residents, particularly those with health and/or respiratory problems, as about 90 
percent of particulate emissions from prescribed fire are small enough to enter the human 
respiratory system (Wade and Lunsford, 1989).  Appropriate public notification would occur on 
burn days, informing local residents of the time and location of project activities.  Sensitive 
receptors, such as asthmatics and the elderly, would be advised to stay indoors during the burn 
period.  Under state regulation 20.2.60 NMAC, the New Mexico Environment Department 
requires an Open Burning Permit to conduct broadcast burning. As part of the permit application, 
a burn plan must be submitted.  General components of this plan include overall planning for the 
burn, description of the fuel load, smoke management planning, and a contingency plan. In order 
for a permit to be issued, several conditions must be met, such as: no practical alternative to 
burning, the health or welfare residents would not be affected by the burn, and ambient air 
quality of neighboring properties would not be affected.

To address these concerns, the following smoke minimization and management procedures are 
recommended for Alternative 3:
* Broadcast burning would occur on "burn days" as approved by AQB, and burn permits 
would be obtained from AQB, with additional monitoring of wind conditions and the fire 
plume as required by AQB.
* Broadcast burning would not commence until a qualified meteorologist (most likely from 
AQB or National Weather Service) has predicted favorable atmospheric stability and mixing 
conditions at the burn site and downwind.
* Broadcast burning would not be conducted at night, when smoke may accumulate in patches 
at the ground or go into cold-air drainageways, potentially causing problems at lower 
elevations. Burns will be, to the extent possible, extinguished within the day burns are first 
initiated.
* In smoke-sensitive areas, fuels remaining after a broadcast burn will be piled and burned in 
the understory to reduce levels of smoke going into the atmosphere at one time.
* One or more observers would be posted on site, and downwind when appropriate, to monitor 
weather and smoke conditions.  If there are unexpected changes in weather or dispersion of 
the plume, the burn would be terminated. 
* Burning must occur between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

The impacts on air quality as a result of Alternative 3 would be minimal and temporary.  The 
implementation of air emission mitigation methods during construction, soil disturbance, or 
equipment operation, and the following of appropriate burn guidelines would keep emissions to 
negligible levels.  Examples of mitigation methods for project activities include watering 
disturbed areas, scheduling the siting of staging areas to minimize fugitive dust, and keeping 
construction equipment properly maintained.

3.2	BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.2.1	Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment
The biological resources around the City of Las Vegas area are rich in diversity.  The City lies 
along the meeting point of the Great Plains and the southern Rocky Mountains.  The plains 
grasslands around Las Vegas are short-grass prairies that blend into Juniper (Juniperus 
monosperma) and shrub savanna to pinyon (Pinus edulis) and juniper woodlands as the elevation 
rises at the foothills of the Santa Fe mountain range of the Rocky Mountains.  The Plains grasses 
are comprised of perennial species including grama (Bouteloua spp.), buffalo-grass (Buchloe 
dactyloides), Indian rice grass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), and galleta grass (Hilaria jamesii).  
Shrubs such as four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), winterfat (Ceratoides lanata), soapweed 
(Yucca glauca), and snakeweed (Gutierrezia spp.) are prominent in the grasslands, especially in 
areas of heavy grazing (Brown, 1994).  As the pinyon-juniper foothills transition into the higher 
reaches of the Santa Fe Mountains, cold-adapted forests dominate the landscape.  The lower 
reaches of the mountain range are primarily Lower Montane forests of ponderosa pine (Pinus 
ponderosa) and gambel oak (Quercus gambelii).  As the terrain increases in elevation, or on 
cooler, moister, north-facing slopes, mixed-conifer forests are the dominant species.  The mixed 
conifer forests of these reaches include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), white fir (Abies 
concolor), blue spruce (Picea pungens), ponderosa pine and quaking aspen (Populus 
tremuloides).  The higher reaches of the mountains contain conifer forests of species such as 
Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmanni), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), and blue spruce.
Within and adjacent to the montane forests and grasslands of the area are numerous perennial 
streams, springs and lakes.  The mountain streams and wetland areas in and around Las Vegas 
are part of an intricate and limited system of small watershed areas in the southwest, providing 
habitat for a rich diversity of species.  The Gallinas River, falling within the City of Las Vegas' 
watershed, brings water down from the Santa Fe Mountains.  The vegetation that bounds these 
waters consists of willows (Salix spp.), narrow-leaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), 
gooseberry currant (Ribes montigenum), wild rose (Rosa woodsii) and raspberry (Rubus spp.).  
Numerous grasses (Glyceria spp.), sedges (Carex spp.) and rushes (Juncus spp.) occupy the 
wetlands of the region (Brown, 1994). 

The elevation range of the project area varies from approximately 6,760 feet to 7,760 feet 
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).  Weather is directly tied to elevation.  Precipitation 
varies from approximately 15 inches in the City of Las Vegas to as much as 24 inches in the 
higher elevations of the surrounding mountains (Brown, 1994; DeVelice et al., 1986). 
URS Group, Inc. (URS) biologists performed an ecological field survey at the project area on 
March 5, 2002.  Vegetative cover observed in the area of the proposed alternatives consisted 
primarily of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests.  The Gallinas River runs through the 
project area with a portion of the river diverted underground to two reservoirs located within the 
project area.  The project area and the surrounding pinyon-juniper, ponderosa and mixed conifer 
forests provide seasonal and year-round breeding, foraging, calving, fawning, denning habitat 
and migration routes for a variety of resident and migratory wildlife species.  The wildlife 
diversity includes large mammals such as black bear (Ursus americanus), mountain lion (Felis 
concolor), elk (Cervus elaphuis nelsoni), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and coyote (Canis 
latrans).  The wealth of small mammals includes many species of bats (Myotis spp.), raccoon 
(Procyon lotor), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), squirrels 
(Spermophilus spp.) and chipmunks (Tamias spp.).  There are many species of birds including 
flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus), goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), Clark nutcracker (Nucifraga 
columbiana), steller jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo).  Species 
that depend on watercourses and riparian woodlands of the area include Lincoln's sparrow 
(Melospiza lincolnii), black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus), warbling vireo 
(Vireo gilvus), mallard duck (Anas platyrgynchos), American beaver (Castor canadensis) 
numerous voles (Microtus spp.), and mice (Perognathus spp.) (Brown, 1994; BISON-M).  
Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) are two major 
species of fish found in the Gallinas River, and other local ponds and lakes stocked for 
recreational fishing in the area.

The forestlands in the area of the proposed project are experiencing declining forest health.  The 
primary factor of degraded forests in the Southwest is increased tree density and degraded grass 
and forb cover.  Forest fire suppression practices and livestock overgrazing are the primary cause 
of degraded forests with other factors creating added stress on an already burdened system 
(Dahms and Geils, 1997).  In several forests of ponderosa pine, frequent surface fires, or 
underburns, kept more shade-tolerant competitors such as Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 
and white fir (Abies concolor) from developing in the understory and eventually replacing the 
fire-resistant pines (Arno et al., 1995).  Heavy livestock grazing reduces the herbaceous ground 
layer, promoting the establishment of less palatable trees and shrubs (Madany and West, 1983).  
Fire suppression and overgrazing resulted in the unnaturally heavy accumulation of live and dead 
vegetation and has led to "doghair" thickets of ponderosa pine trees.  These dense tree stands are 
impacting the overall forest health and are now becoming a concern in the southern range of the 
species (Garrett, 1995).  

Prior to fire suppression practices the ponderosa pine forest had an open, park-like structure with 
trees spaced wide apart and thick grass/forb cover knitted between the pines.  Fires were 
estimated to have burned every 7 to 10 years, creating an expanse of low vegetative fuel buildup 
and large trees.  Many early explorers and naturalists give descriptions of a forest vastly different 
than the ones generally seen today.  For example, in 1911, Woolsey, a noted forest specialist of 
the period wrote:

"A pure park-like stand made up of scattered groups of 2 to 20 trees usually 
connected by scattering individuals.  Openings are frequent, and vary greatly in 
size.  Within the type are open parks of large extent whose origin may be due to 
peculiar soil conditions such as hard pan, or in other cases to periodic flooding."

Presently, some areas of forest in and around the Las Vegas area are over-stocked with high tree 
densities and fuel loads.  This condition impacts resources of the forest ecosystem such as water, 
forage, and wildlife habitat.  The area is also experiencing a 20-year cyclic drought, adding to 
increased opportunities for wildfires.  Abnormally high vegetative densities have resulted in high 
intensity catastrophic wildfires covering larger areas and contribute to catastrophic insect and 
disease outbreaks (Garrett, 1995).  Furthermore, some biological communities are evolutionarily 
adapted to periodic fires, and many native species reproduce or forage most effectively several 
years after a fire.  Fire suppression has caused significant changes in diversity of vegetation and 
wildlife, grasses and forbs have decreased in diversity and wildlife dependent upon open forest 
stands with large trees has diminished (Dahms and Geils, 1997).  Fire-intolerant species have 
thrived in areas once dominated by fire-resistant and fire-tolerant species, thereby changing the 
species composition of the community (wildlife and vegetation), the nutrient distribution of the 
soil, and the spatial and canopy structure of the community.  In this light, fire suppression 
techniques have had a negative impact on these communities.

The project area is approximately 991 acres located around the City's two water supply 
reservoirs and upstream along the Gallinas River.  The area is comprised of approximately 874 
acres of forested land and 117 acres of open water, riparian or grassland habitat.  The area 
around the reservoirs varies in topography, aspect and elevation.  The area west of the reservoirs 
follows the Gallinas River within steep canyon sides.  The canyon varies in topography and 
aspect. During the site visit, specific descriptions of the area and vegetation identifications and 
evidence of wildlife were noted as follows.
Bradner and Peterson Reservoir

Ponderosa pine forest dominates the sloped sides around the two reservoirs along the eastern 
project area near the City's water supply.  Some of the hill slopes around the reservoirs appeared 
to have been cut previously.  Cut logs were left on the ground potentially for erosion control 
purposes.  The cut areas were not recently thinned and much of the area continued to look dense 
with the surviving ponderosa pines being even-aged and generally small in diameter.  Much of 
the area around the reservoir was a monoculture of ponderosa pine, however gambel oak 
occurred with the pine in some of the landscape.  Some of the drier and warmer slopes around 
the Bradner Reservoir at the far eastern edge of the project area contained pinyon pine and 
juniper trees mixed with the ponderosa.  Also occurring in these warmer sections were species 
such as yucca (Yucca baccata), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), and grasses such 
as silver beardgrass (Andropogon saccharoides) and blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis).  

Ephemeral drainages enter the reservoirs from the south along broad, grassy valleys.  The 
drainage coming in to the western reservoir (Peterson Reservoir) is lined with gambel oak.  The 
drainages showed evidence of livestock grazing and were bermed at the mouth of the reservoirs.  
The berms wrap around the western edges of both reservoirs.  An existing road comes in to 
Peterson Reservoir from the north, ending at the intake diversion of Gallinas River.  The 
diversion supplies the water to the reservoirs.  It is piped to within approximately 1/8 mile of the 
reservoir where it surfaces to a settling pond and continues down a ditch draining into the 
reservoir.  This area contains riparian vegetation of narrow-leaf Cottonwood, willows, and thick 
grasses.  A bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was observed in this area, and at the mouth of 
the diversion intake, a flock of mallard ducks and Canada geese (Branta canadensis) were noted.  
Other riparian habitats were observed at the spillway and outlet along the eastern edge of 
Bradner Reservoir, from the outlet at Peterson to the Highway Road 65, and around edges of the 
reservoirs.  The vegetation in these areas comprises of dense willows, narrow-leaf cottonwoods, 
alder (Alnus sp.), cattails (Typha sp.), wild rose and thick grasses and rushes.  
Evidence of other wildlife observed around the reservoirs included bear, coyote, common raven 
(Corvus corax), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), American robin (Turdus migratorius) and 
Steller's jay.

Gallinas River
The City of Las Vegas owns the entire 991-acre project area, or roughly 2 percent, of the 
Gallinas Watershed upstream of the Peterson and Bradner reservoirs.  Portions of this property 
would be included in this project.  The Gallinas River is contained within a canyon of varying 
width, broad in some areas and narrow in others, with steep canyon walls rising up from the 
canyon bottom.  Canyon aspect determines vegetation associations; the steep, north facing 
canyon sides were observed to be primarily mixed-conifer forest with species such as white fir 
and Douglas fir dominating the hillsides along with some patches of shrub oak and gambel oak 
occurring around rocky cliff areas of the hillside.  Ground cover observed within the mixed 
conifer included species such as kinnickinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) and dwarf juniper 
(Juniperus communis). The south-facing slopes of the canyon were observed to be primarily 
ponderosa pine/gambel oak forest mixed with some pinyon pine in the lower elevations.  Other 
species observed along the south-facing slopes included grasses such as Blue Grama, and Three-
Awn (Aristida adscensionis), and shrubs such as mountain mahogany.  Tree cholla cactus 
(Opuntia imbricata) was observed scattered within the warm, rocky southern slopes.   
The Gallinas River was observed to contain thick willows and some narrow-leaf cottonwoods 
along its banks, along with other riparian species such as three-leaf sumac (Rhus trilobata), wild 
rose and thick grasses and sedges.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking of 
migratory birds, nests, and eggs, except as permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS).  A migratory bird is defined as "any species or family of birds that live, reproduce, or 
migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle."  
There are currently 836 species of migratory birds protected under the MBTA (USFWS, 2002).
Interagency coordination was initiated with the USFWS and the State of New Mexico, 
Department of Game and Fish regarding any potential impacts to terrestrial or aquatic habitats 
and migratory birds associated with the Proposed Action and Alternative 3.

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed fuels management project would not be 
implemented.  Therefore, this alternative would have little or no direct impact on biological 
resources in the project area.  However, since funds would not be available to conduct fuels 
management projects required to adequately reduce fire hazards, the potential for future wildfires 
remains. 

If a fire were to occur at a future date due to the lack of fuels management, it would result in the 
loss of terrestrial wildlife habitat. Furthermore, indirect impacts would occur to aquatic habitat 
and resources as fire residue and eroded soils would be washed into local streams and reservoirs.  
These indirect impacts associated with the loss of existing vegetation would continue until 
adequate vegetation was reestablished within the burn area.  Without fuels management 
activities, it is anticipated that fires in the Gallinas watershed would burn hotter and on a larger 
scale than pre-historic burns, resulting in more tree kills and damage to the natural environment. 
The immediate impact of a large, high-intensity burn on wildlife would include high individual 
mortality rates and loss of habitat to a wide range of species.  Long-term impacts would include 
successional alteration of habitat and species composition.   

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
Fuels management activities would decrease the habitat for some species while increasing habitat 
for others.  Removal of dying, standing dead, and downed timber reduces habitat for species such 
as woodpeckers, bats, nuthatches, small rodents, and reptiles (Dahms and Geils, 1997).    
The habitat of other species would be improved by thinning of smaller trees.  The forest canopy 
would be opened, allowing for better growth of grasses, forbs and shrubs, and subsequently 
increasing forage for species such as elk, turkey, and deer.  The retention of mature gambel oak 
trees and maintaining diversity in the forest canopy would benefit wildlife by providing cover 
and forage diversity (Ffolliott et al., 2000).  The vigor and diversity of vegetation normally found 
in the understory of healthy forest ecosystems would begin to recover.  Openings in the forest 
stands may result in an increase in grasses and forbs in these areas, which would maintain forest 
soils and decrease soil erosion over time (Dahms and Geils, 1997). 

Thinning smaller trees would reduce tree competition, therefore enhancing survivability and 
growth rates of the older leave trees (Dahms and Geils, 1997).  The basal area of the residual 
trees would be expected to increase following the thinning of smaller trees; however the number 
of trees per acre would be expected to remain the same for many years (Ffolliott et al., 2000).  
The thinning of small trees and diseased trees would also reduce pest and pathogen outbreaks in 
the forests aiding in the overall health of residual trees (Aber et al., 2000). 

The retention of slash on-site should be kept to a minimum as the bark beetle, an exotic insect 
found within the project area, can infest freshly cut slash and downed material (SEC, 2002).  
Initial attacks are aimed at diseased trees; therefore, the overall treatment should help reduce 
bark beetle levels (SEC, 2002). The amount of material maintained at the site should be weighed 
against the effects that piling slash and either burning or removing the piles can have on nutrient 
loss in soils, thereby limiting tree growth and potentially leading to a long-term threat to forest 
health (Aber et al., 2000).  

Some wildlife species such as mule deer, birds, and small diurnal mammals such as chipmunks 
could be temporarily disturbed and displaced during the vegetation removal activities.  However, 
this would be a short-term disturbance.
To minimize potential risks to biological resources, the City of Las Vegas would implement the 
following mitigation measures where appropriate: 
* Using existing roads where possible for logging equipment and reseed any new trails created.
* Per New Mexico Department of Game and Fish recommendations, a minimum of three snags 
per acre with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of greater than 12 inches and greater than 30 
feet in height would be left in place in the thinning areas. The Applicant would also be 
required to leave a minimum of three downed logs per acre at least 10 inches diameter and 8 
feet long for small animal habitat.
* The contractor would be in contact with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 
before commencement of the project and after project completion in order to allow for field 
visits by Game and Fish personnel (see Appendix B, for contact information).
* Using mitigation standards given in the State of New Mexico Forest Practices Guidelines 
(see Appendix D).
* No fuels management activities would occur in the perennial stream or spring area and no 
equipment would be allowed to cross the riparian areas.  A minimum 50-foot buffer would be 
established for equipment and activity within proximity. Buffers would increase with 
increasing slope of land surrounding the waterways.
To minimize the likelihood of adverse impacts to all birds protected under the MBTA, the 
USFWS has recommended fuels management activities occur outside the general migratory bird 
nesting season of March through August.  If this does not occur, areas proposed for fuels 
management activities must be surveyed during nesting season, and when occupied, avoided 
until nesting is complete. 

Invasion of exotic species into newly opened and disturbed areas is a potential long-term impact 
of this alternative, as invasive, non-native species have the potential to dominate opened areas 
(Griffis, 2000).  Monitoring of the area, as suggested by SEC (2002), would help control 
invasive species that could establish themselves in the project area as a result of this alternative.   
In general, the Proposed Action would be expected to result in long-term beneficial impacts to 
biological resources.  Properly managed forests can restore the ecological integrity and diversity 
of the ecosystem back to pre-settlement conditions where the forests would have the ability to 
easily recover after disturbances.  

Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
Under Alternative 3, tree thinning would be performed as described in the Proposed Action; 
however, slash would be left on the ground in place and broadcast burned.  Broadcast burning 
would be a low-intensity burning of slash from forest thinning, understory plants and fallen 
limbs throughout the project area. Fuels management activities under Alternative 3 would not 
necessarily disturb the overall biology of the area since the vegetation thinning/removal would 
decrease the habitat for some species while increasing habitat for others.  Removal of dying, 
standing dead and downed timber reduces habitat for species such as woodpeckers, bats, 
nuthatches, small rodents and reptiles (Dahms and Geils, 1997).  These changes would be 
expected to be small when compared to the overall habitat in the area.  

The habitat of other species would be improved by thinning of smaller trees.  The forest canopy 
would be opened, allowing for better growth of grasses, forbs and shrubs, and subsequently 
increasing forage for species such as elk, turkeys and deer.  The retention of mature gambel oak 
trees and maintaining diversity in the forest canopy would benefit wildlife by providing cover 
and forage diversity (Ffolliott et al., 2000).  The vigor and diversity of vegetation normally found 
in the understory of healthy forest ecosystems would begin to recover.  Openings in the forest 
stands may result in an increase in grasses and forbs in these areas, which would maintain forest 
soils and decrease soil erosion over time (Dahms and Geils, 1997). 

To minimize potential risks to biological resources, the City of Las Vegas would implement the 
following mitigation measures where appropriate: 
* Using existing roads where possible for logging equipment and reseed any new trails created.
* Per New Mexico Department of Game and Fish recommendations, a minimum of three snags 
per acre with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of greater than 12 inches and greater than 30 
feet in height would be left in place in the thinning areas. The Applicant would also be 
required to leave a minimum of three downed logs per acre at least 10 inches diameter and 8 
feet long for small animal habitat.
* The contractor would be in contact with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 
before commencement of the project and after project completion in order to allow for field 
visits by Game and Fish personnel (see Appendix B, for contact information).
* Using mitigation standards given in the State of New Mexico Forest Practices Guidelines 
(see Appendix D).
* No fuels management activities would occur in the perennial stream or spring area and no 
equipment would be allowed to cross the riparian areas.  A minimum 50-foot buffer would be 
established for equipment and activity within proximity. Buffers would increase with 
increasing slope of land surrounding the waterways.

Low-intensity broadcast burning after thinning would mimic more natural disturbance patterns of 
forest events and would be expected to return the area to a more natural state and may favor the 
growth of fire-tolerant species.  Some vegetation would benefit from a low-intensity burn.  For 
example, some plants produce seeds that are released or are able to germinate only after being 
exposed to the high temperatures or smoke that accompany fires.  Understory vegetation would 
be expected to increase after a low-intensity burn and species richness would increase.  However, 
burning can potentially increase exotic plant species (Crawford et al., 2001; Griffis, 2000).  
Exotic species are often aggressive and out-compete native species for resources, threatening the 
biological integrity of native systems. Monitoring of the area, as suggested by SEC (2002), 
would help control invasive species that could establish themselves in the project area as a result 
of this alternative.

Broadcast burning after thinning would have a risk of becoming an uncontrolled.  If the burn 
were to escape beyond the project boundaries, it could potentially turn into a widespread fire and 
the effects of a catastrophic fire would be the same as discussed in the No Action Alternative.  
To mitigate the risk of a broadcast burn escaping, firebreaks would be created around the 
perimeter of controlled burn areas.  All vegetation would be removed and the potential for 
increased erosion would exist at the breaks.  Erosion control measures such as silt fences would 
be installed, controlling erosion until vegetation is reestablished.  The impact of this alternative 
on biological resources would be more in line with mimicking natural disturbance processes and 
would not be expected to have long-term effects of the biological systems of the project area.
To minimize the likelihood of adverse impacts to all birds protected under the MBTA, the 
USFWS has recommended fuels management activities occur outside the general migratory bird 
nesting season of March through August.  If this does not occur, areas proposed for fuels 
management activities must be surveyed during nesting season, and when occupied, avoided 
until nesting is complete.  

3.2.2	Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)
The term wetland refers to those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater 
at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do 
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including 
intermittent streams), mudflats, sloughs, and similar areas.

Under Executive Order 11990, federal agencies are required to minimize the destruction, loss, or 
degradation of wetlands and preserve and enhance their natural and beneficial values. If a federal 
action has the potential to impact jurisdictional waters of the United States as defined by Section 
404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would 
be contacted for appropriate permitting requirements. Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the 
USACE to issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, for the discharge of 
dredged or fill material into U.S. waters at specified disposal sites. FEMA applies the Eight-Step 
Planning Process, required by 44 CFR Part 9, to meet the requirements of EO 11990. This step-
by-step analysis, as applied to this project, is contained in Appendix C.

During the visit conducted on March 5, 2002, wetland areas, including the perennial stream of 
Gallinas River, small ice dams and two settling ponds along the river and two reservoirs were 
observed in the project area.  Beyond establishing the presence of wetland areas within the 
project area, specific wetland identification and delineation was not conducted as part of this 
analysis.

Wetlands are also indicated on the USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map of the project area 
(Figure 6).  The Gallinas River runs through the western portion of the project area.  A portion of 
the river is diverted underground to the Bradner and Peterson Reservoirs, located in the eastern 
portion of the project area.  

The Gallinas River is classified as riverine, upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently 
flooded.  It continuously contains flowing water characterized by a high gradient and fast water 
velocity.  The substrate consists of rock, cobbles or gravel with at least 25 percent cover of 
particles smaller than stones and a vegetative cover less than 30 percent.  Other wetland areas 
occur along the Gallinas River through the project area where human-made settling ponds and 
remnant ice dams are located.  These small wetlands are palustrine, containing non-tidal 
wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, and mosses, and are less than 20 acres in size.  One of the 
noted wetlands along the Gallinas is also classified as emergent, characterized by erect, rooted, 
herbaceous hydrophytes, dominated by perennial plants and is temporarily flooded.  There are 
three impoundment classifications, one at the Bradner Reservoir, one at Peterson Reservoir and 
one at the largest remnant ice dam along the Gallinas.  These wetlands are palustrine, 
permanently flooded and are diked or impounded by a man-made barrier obstructing the inflow 
or outflow of water.   

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no fuels management projects would be undertaken, and 
therefore, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to wetlands or other jurisdictional waters 
in the project area.  

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
Under this alternative, vegetation would be thinned using manual techniques and mechanical 
equipment.  Existing roads would be used wherever possible for equipment and skid trails.  Two 
temporary skid trails would be created around and parallel to the Bradner and Peterson 
reservoirs.  No roads or skid trail crossings of streams or the Gallinas River are proposed. No 
thinning would take place in the wetlands of the project area.  However, the thinning of 
vegetation on the slopes of the area around the Gallinas River and the Bradner and Peterson 
reservoirs has the potential to free erodible soils enough to enter wetland areas resulting in minor 
soil discharges.  Slash from thinning would be piled and either burned on site, scattered in areas 
that are prone to erosion, or removed to an off site location.  

This alternative would be excluded from Section 404 of the CWA because the project does not 
involve discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States; therefore, no 
USACE permit would be required.  

Two temporary skid trails would be created with this alternative. After completion of the project, 
the trails would be closed, reseeded, and slash would be scattered over the trails.  Heavy 
equipment would be used near the wetlands of the project area but would be required to use a 
streamside management zone.  This zone is a buffer of minimally disturbed or undisturbed 
vegetation adjacent to a perennial body of water where heavy equipment would be maintained 
outside of the zone boundaries.  The zone would extend a minimum distance of 50 feet from all 
sides of perennial streams (SEC, 2002).  Erosion control measures would be applied to minimize 
the impacts of thinning on wetland areas.  Measures such as reseeding and selective thinning 
would be implemented to mitigate the impact of soil erosion on waterways (Tafoya, pers. 
comm.).  In addition, no fuels management activities would occur in the perennial streams or 
reservoir areas of the project.  To minimize the impact of the ingress and egress of project 
personnel on wetland areas, the project contractor and their employees would be required to 
avoid walking through these wetland areas.

There may be some indirect impacts to wetlands due to increased soil erosion caused by traffic 
during removal activities.  However, many of the existing downed logs would be left in place to 
protect against soil compaction and rutting as the machines drive over the project area.  Lop and 
scatter activities would occur in some areas to return nutrients from organic material from 
downed timber to the soil and minimize soil erosion.  Thinning would be conducted during the 
fall and winter when the ground is frozen, further protecting the soils from compaction.

Figure 6: Figure six shows the National Wetlands Inventory Map for the project area. Also shown 
on this map are the surrounding canyons and other bodies of water such as creeks, rivers, and springs. 

Slash would be piled and burned, lopped and scattered, or removed under this alternative.  The 
piles would be small, therefore, any impacts from increased soil erosion or ash runoff into 
wetlands are expected to be minor.  No slopes steeper than 45 degrees would be thinned thereby 
decreasing soil erosion impacts.  The impact of a low-intensity thinning prescription would be 
short-term, as the forest would reestablish itself.  This alternative is in compliance with EO 
11990, as documented in the Eight-Step Planning Process (Appendix C).

Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
Under Alternative 3, vegetation would be thinned using manual techniques and mechanical 
equipment.  Existing roads would be used wherever possible for equipment and skid trails.  Two 
temporary skid trails would be created around and parallel to the Bradner and Peterson 
reservoirs.  No roads or skid trail crossings of streams or the Gallinas River are proposed. No 
thinning would take place in the wetlands of the project area.  However, the thinning of 
vegetation on the slopes of the area around the Gallinas River and the Bradner and Peterson 
reservoirs has the potential to free erodible soils enough to enter wetland areas resulting in minor 
soil discharges.  Slash from thinning would be piled and either burned on site, scattered in areas 
that are prone to erosion, or removed to an off site location.

This alternative would be excluded from Section 404 of the CWA because the project does not 
involve discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States; therefore, no 
USACE permit would be required.  

Two temporary skid trails would be created with this alternative. After completion of the project, 
the trails would be closed, reseeded, and slash would be scattered over the trails.  Heavy 
equipment would be used near the wetlands of the project area but would be required to use a 
streamside management zone.  This zone is a buffer of minimally disturbed or undisturbed 
vegetation adjacent to a perennial body of water where heavy equipment would be maintained 
outside of the zone boundaries.  The zone would extend a minimum distance of 50 feet from all 
sides of perennial streams (SEC, 2002).  Erosion control measures would be applied to minimize 
the impacts of thinning on wetland areas.  Measures such as reseeding and selective thinning 
would be implemented to mitigate the impact of soil erosion on waterways (Tafoya, pers. 
comm.).  In addition, no fuels management activities would occur in the perennial streams or 
reservoir areas of the project.  To minimize the impact of the ingress and egress of project 
personnel on wetland areas, the project contractor and their employees would be required to 
avoid walking through these wetland areas.

There may be some impacts to wetlands due to increased soil erosion caused by traffic during 
removal activities.  However, many of the existing downed logs would be left in place to protect 
against soil compaction and rutting as the machines drive over the project area.  Lop and scatter 
activities would occur in some areas to return nutrients from organic material from downed 
timber to the soil and minimize soil erosion.  Thinning would be conducted during the fall and 
winter when the ground is frozen, further protecting the soils from compaction.

A broadcast burn would leave less vegetative cover on the ground under this alternative and may 
cause slight increases in runoff. In addition, an increase in ash runoff into wetland areas may 
occur.  Erosion control measures such as silt fencing would be implemented.  This alternative is 
in compliance with EO 11990, as documented in the Eight-Step Planning Process (Appendix C).

3.2.3	Threatened and Endangered Species
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 requires federal agencies to determine the effects of 
their actions on threatened, endangered, and candidate species of fish, wildlife, and plants, and 
their habitats, and take steps to conserve and protect these species.

As part of the preparation of the EA, a list of special status species with the potential to occur in 
the region was obtained from the USFWS.  Telephone consultation was also initiated with the 
U.S. Forest Service in regards to threatened and endangered species due to the proximity of the 
thinning project to Santa Fe National Forest.  The compiled list of species, status and their 
habitat needs are listed in Appendix E.  The following endangered and threatened species have 
the potential to occur in the project area: bald eagle, Mexican spotted owl, and southwestern 
willow flycatcher.  Species of Concern and Candidate species, although not afforded full 
protection under the ESA, are included in this analysis at the request of the USFWS in their 
coordination letter of December 12, 2000 (Appendix B).  One federally listed Candidate species, 
the yellow-billed cuckoo, has the potential to occur in the project area.  Species of Concern that 
have potential to occur in the project area are fringed myotis, long-eared myotis, Townsend's 
big-eared bat, spotted bat, occult little brown bat, Pecos River muskrat, New Mexican meadow 
jumping mouse, New Mexico silverspot butterfly, American peregrine falcon, and northern 
goshawk. The following descriptions include only species that, after analysis and consultation 
with individuals familiar with species of the region, have potential to occur in the project area:
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was downlisted from endangered to threatened in the 
lower 48 states (Federal Register, 1995).  The bald eagle has since been proposed for removal 
from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife in the lower 48 states (Federal Register, 
1999).  The eagle is known to occur in the project area during winter months.  An individual was 
observed during the URS biological survey and sightings were noted in the SEC report prepared 
for the City of Las Vegas (SEC, 2002).  It also is found in the region in lake areas of the 
northeastern part of New Mexico, the lower Canadian Valley, Las Vegas and Maxwell National 
Wildlife Refuges (BISON-M, 2002). 

Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) herein referred to as MSO, is usually found in 
forested mountains in a diverse range of plant communities.  They are usually found in mixed-
conifer forests but also occupy broadleaf forests such as gambel oak and box elder (Acer 
negundo), preferring multi-age, multi-storied canopies.  They are also found in canyons with 
steep sides that have mixed conifer with a multi-storied tree canopy.  MSOs nest and roost 
primarily in closed-canopy forests, rocky canyons on cliff ledges, on debris platforms in trees, 
old raptor nests or in tree cavities. A wide variety of trees is used for nesting, but Douglas firs are 
the most commonly used species (Block et al., 1995).  The owls forage over or within several 
timber types with the majority of their diet consisting of small nocturnal mammals; woodrats 
(Neotoma spp.) being the primary food of owls in northern latitudes, and mice and birds in 
southern latitudes (Block et al., 1995). There is suitable habitat in the project area for the MSO.  
There are two to three known MSO packs upstream of the project area but no known occurrences 
in the project area (Johnson, pers. comm.). 

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus) is a federally and state listed 
endangered bird.  The flycatcher is a riparian bird whose population has drastically declined due 
to the loss, modification and fragmentation of riparian habitat and by factors impacting their 
survival and reproductive success (Finch and Stoleson, 2000).  Habitat of the southwestern 
willow flycatcher consists of dense vegetation including willows, arrow weed (Pluchea sericea), 
alder (Alnus spp.) tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), and other riparian vegetation.  There are no known 
occurrences in the project area; however, suitable habitat exists for flycatcher nesting (Johnson 
pers. comm.).  There are areas of still water and thick willows conducive to the flycatcher along 
the Gallinas River and near the reservoirs of the project area. 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is federally listed as a candidate species.  This 
bird is slender, approximately 12 inches long, has a brown back and a long tail with large white 
spots at the tips.  It prefers lowland, multi-canopied riparian forest (2,800 feet to 7,500 feet) with 
riparian thickets. There are no known occurrences in the project area; however, suitable habitat 
exists in locations around the City reservoirs. 

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) is federally listed as a species of concern.  The myotis is a 
relatively small, brown bat distinguished from other long-eared species of myotis by a fringe of 
visible hairs on the free edge of tail membrane.  In New Mexico, the myotis prefers habitat of 
ponderosa pine and oak woodlands and mixed conifer forests from 5,000 to 8,000 feet in 
elevation.  Night and day roosts include caves, mines and can be found in ponderosa snags.  
Winter hibernation patterns are unknown.  There are no known occurrences within the project 
area; however, there is suitable habitat on the forested slopes of the canyon of the Gallinas River 
and around the reservoirs.

Long-Eared Myotis (Myotis evotis) is listed as a species of concern.  The myotis bat is 
distinctive from other myotis by its large black ears.  The pale brown bat occupies coniferous 
forests from 6,000 to 9,600 feet in elevation.  Its day roosts include tree cavities under loose 
bark, caves, mines, and large diameter tree snags.  Winter hibernation patterns are unknown.  
There are no known occurrences within the project area; however, there is suitable habitat on the 
forested slopes of the canyon of the Gallinas River.

New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus) is listed as a species of 
concern.  This olive-yellow mouse is small to medium sized and has an extremely long tail and 
large hind feet.  It occupies permanent streams with dense riparian vegetation including willows, 
dense grasses, sedges and forbs.  It is also found in wet montane meadows.  It is primarily 
nocturnal, feeding on seeds, insects and fruits.  Its population numbers fluctuate but are not 
believed to be high.  There are no known occurrences of the mouse in the project area; however, 
there is suitable habitat around the Gallinas River.

Occult Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus occultus) is listed as a species of concern.  This 
species of bat is of medium size, ochraceous in color, and has dark ears.  Habitat varies greatly 
however most specimens have been taken near large water sources.  The range of species covers 
much of North America including Alaska, Quebec, and through central Mexico.  It is absent 
through much of Texas and an eastern portion of New Mexico.  In spite of its wide range, it is 
believed a relatively rare bat, as pesticide use has caused drastic declines for this and other bats. 
There are no known occurrences within the project area; however, there is suitable habitat for the 
bat around the reservoirs of the project area.

Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Plecotus townsendii) is listed as a species of concern and is of 
medium size with extremely long ears.  The upper parts are colored clove-brown, the sides are 
wood-brown, and the underside is paler.  The distribution of the Townsend's bat is correlated 
with rocky situations where cave or abandoned mine tunnels are available.  It is listed as a 
species of concern because it is extremely sensitive to human disturbance and vandalism of roost 
caves and low reproduction rates have led to its decline in population numbers.  There are no 
known occurrences within the project area; however, there is suitable habitat in the project area 
around the cliffs within the canyon of the Gallinas River.

Pecos River Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus ripensis) is a species of concern. Muskrats are 
semiaquatic animals found in practically all aquatic habitats from marshes, ponds and lakes to 
streams, rivers and drainage ditches.  Its fur is dense, rich brown and is overlain with coarse 
guard hairs.  Its tail is a distinguishable naked, scaly and black feature of the muskrat.  Little 
literature is available on the Pecos River muskrat, but it is known that in general, factors such as 
fire exclusion, drainage control measures, channelization and livestock grazing in riparian habitat 
are detrimental to muskrat populations (BISON-M, 2002).  There are no known occurrences 
within the project area; however, there is suitable habitat in the project area within the Gallinas 
River area and possibly within the reservoir areas.

Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) is a species of concern. Its fur is long and silky, with a white 
undercoat and black overcoat such that it appears as white spots on the shoulders and rump.  It 
has extremely large ears that are nearly as long as its body.  Very little is known about the 
spotted bat, but it is known to roost in high cliff crevices in areas near water sources.  It can be 
found in a wide variety of habitats and appears to summer in forested areas of Ponderosa Pine to 
mixed-conifer (BISON-M, 2002). There are no known occurrences within the project area; 
however, there is suitable habitat located in the project area within the canyon of the Gallinas 
River.

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) is listed as a threatened species by the 
State of New Mexico and is federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.  The falcon 
is 15 to 20 inches in size with pointed wings, narrow tail and quick wingbeats (Peterson, 1990).  
The species breeds in limited numbers throughout much of North America where suitable habitat 
exists.  Breeding territories are on cliffs with adjacent forested habitats of various types.  Its diet 
is almost exclusively birds.  Foraging habitat is present within the project area.  Habitat 
marginally suitable for nesting is found in the project area along some of the high cliffs along the 
Gallinas River; however, there are no known occurrences in the area (Johnson, pers. comm.).
New Mexico Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria nokomis nitocris) is a species of concern. It has a 
wing span of approximately three inches.  Black-bordered silver spots on its hindwing 
distinguish this brownish orange butterfly.  It occupies moist meadows, seeps, marshes, and 
streamsides feeding on nectar.  Population declines are due to habitat loss or development 
(USGS, 2002).  There are no known occurrences within the project area; however, there is 
suitable habitat in the project area around the Gallinas River. 

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is federally listed as a species of concern.  The hawk is a 
resident of northern forests and mountain forests of the west (Clark and Wheeler, 1987). Due to 
habitat degradation, vulnerability to disturbance, dependence on large stands of old growth forest 
and the potential for habitat fragmentation as a result of timber harvesting, its populations have 
declined (BISON-M, 2002). It is known to use mature stands of large trees for nesting. There are 
no known occurrences within the project area; however, there is suitable habitat within the 
project area and the hawk would be very likely to occur on the north-facing canyon sides along 
the Gallinas River (Johnson, pers. comm.).     
Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, fuels management activities would not occur.  Therefore, this 
alternative would have no direct impact on biological resources in the project area.  However, the 
potential for future wildfires remains. 

If a fire were to occur at a future date due to the lack of fuels management, it would result in the 
loss of terrestrial wildlife habitat, including habitat for protected species. Furthermore, indirect 
impacts would occur to aquatic habitat and resources as fire residue and eroded soils are washed 
into local streams and reservoirs.  These indirect impacts associated with the loss of existing 
vegetation would continue until adequate vegetation has been reestablished within the burn area.  
Without fuels management activities, it is anticipated that these fires would burn hotter, resulting 
in more tree kills and damage to the natural environment.

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
As described in Section 3.2.3, the following endangered and threatened species have the 
potential to occur in the project area: bald eagle, Mexican spotted owl, and southwestern willow 
flycatcher.  The following candidate or species of concern have the potential to occur in the 
project area: yellow-billed cuckoo, fringed myotis, long-eared myotis, New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse, occult little brown bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, Pecos River muskrat, spotted 
bat, American peregrine falcon, New Mexico silverspot butterfly, and northern goshawk.
In order to minimize impacts to these species, mitigation measures would be required.  The 
following mitigation measures were developed by URS through consultation with the U.S. Forest 
Service, Santa Fe National Forest and U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 

Measures would ensure adequate habitat remains for wildlife, including species of concern.  As 
recommended by the New Mexico Department of Game & Fish (NMDGF), a minimum of three 
snags per acre with DBH of greater than 12 inches and greater than 30 feet in height would be 
left in place in the thinning areas.  The Applicant would also be required to leave a minimum of 
three downed logs per acre, with at least a 10-inch diameter and a length of 8 feet, for small 
animal habitat.  Species-specific measures are listed below.

Bald Eagle The bald eagle has been observed in the project area outside of nesting season during 
winter months.  Thinning would be implemented during the fall and winter months and would 
cause temporary disturbance to any wintering eagles.  Other habitat such as Murphy Lake or 
Maxwell Wildlife Refuge would be available in the surrounding area for any potential forage and 
roosting activities.  Large snags would be left in place around Peterson and Bradner Reservoirs 
for eagle habitat.  No other mitigation measures would be necessary.

Mexican Spotted Owl Although there are no known occurrences of the Mexican spotted owl 
within the project area, the canyon sides along the Gallinas River contain suitable habitat for 
foraging and nesting.  In order to minimize potential impacts on the owl the following mitigation 
measures would be implemented:
* A minimum of three snags would be left in place in the thinning areas. 
* The Applicant would be required to leave a minimum of three downed logs for owl prey 
species habitat.
* No large trees (DBH =16 inches), would be cut unless the tree is determined to be a hazard.
* Thinning would be completed during the fall and winter months, outside of nesting season. 
* Slopes steeper than 45 percent would not be thinned.  This would keep activities away from 
potential owl sites as they prefer steep slopes for nest and roost sites (S. Gonzales, pers. 
comm.).
* During consultation with USFWS, it was determined that if the mitigation measures outlined 
above are not carried out, presence/absence surveys for the owl must be conducted prior to 
start of the project (S. Gonzales, pers. comm.).

Southwest Willow Flycatcher There is habitat suitable to the flycatcher within the project area.  
The vegetation along Gallinas River is very healthy with thick willows and there are remnant 
"ice dams" used years ago to harvest ice along the river.  The dams create still waters favored by 
the flycatcher.  There is also suitable habitat around the riparian zones of the reservoirs.   
Although there are no known occurrences of the flycatcher within the project area, there is prime 
habitat and a strong possibility for occurrence (Johnson, pers. comm.).  To eliminate the potential 
impact of activities on the southwestern willow flycatcher the following mitigation measures 
would be implemented:
* Thinning would be implemented in fall and winter, during the season when the flycatcher has 
migrated south and is not in the northern breeding grounds.
* No thinning would take place in riparian zones, and a minimum 50-foot buffer would be 
implemented as a limit for equipment to enter a riparian zone.
* During consultation with USFWS, it was determined that if the mitigation measures outlined 
above are not carried out presence/absence surveys for the flycatcher must be conducted 
prior to start of the project (S. Gonzales, pers. comm.).
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) There is suitable habitat for the cuckoo around 
the reservoirs along the eastern project area.  Although there are no known occurrences of the 
cuckoo within the project area, it is possible that it would nest in the area from June to August.  
In order to eliminate the potential impact of activities on the cuckoo the same mitigation 
measures as outlined for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher would also be implemented for the 
Yellow-billed Cuckoo.

Fringed Myotis Although there are no known occurrences of the fringed myotis in the project 
area, it is within suitable habitat.  In order to minimize potential impact on the bat the following 
mitigation measures would be implemented:
* Minimum number of snags would be left in place in the thinning areas. 
* No large trees (DBH = 16 inches) would be cut unless the tree is determined to be a hazard.
Long-Eared Myotis Although there are no known occurrences of the long-eared myotis in the 
project area, it is within suitable habitat.  In order to minimize potential impact on this bat, the 
following mitigation measures would be implemented:
* Minimum of snags would be left in place in the thinning areas. 
* No large trees (DBH = 16 inches) would be cut unless the tree is determined to be a hazard.
New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse Although there are no known occurrences of the mouse 
in the project area, habitat suitable to the mouse is located along the Gallinas River within the 
project boundaries.  In order to minimize potential impact the following mitigation measures 
would be implemented:
* No thinning would be conducted in riparian zones, and a minimum 50-foot buffer would be 
implemented as a limit for equipment to enter a riparian zone.
Occult Little Brown Bat Although there are no known occurrences of the occult little brown bat 
in the project area, it is within suitable habitat.  In order to minimize potential impacts on the 
myotis the following mitigation measures would be implemented:
* Minimum of snags would be left in place in the thinning areas. 
* No large trees (DBH = 16 inches) would be cut unless the tree is determined to be a hazard.
Townsend's Big-eared Bat Although there are no known occurrences of the Townsend's big-
eared bat within the project area there is suitable habitat for roosting around the cliffs of the 
canyon of the Gallinas River.  To minimize potential impacts on the bat the following mitigation 
measures would be implemented:
* No thinning would be conducted around the steepest slopes including the cliff areas of the 
canyon of the Gallinas River.
* Thinning would be conducted during the hibernating season of fall and winter months.
Pecos River Muskrat Although there are no known occurrences of the Pecos River muskrat 
within the project area there is suitable habitat for the muskrat around the riparian zones of the 
Gallinas River and the City reservoirs.  In order to minimize potential impacts on the muskrat the 
following mitigation measures would be implemented:
* No thinning would be conducted in riparian zones and a minimum 50-foot buffer would be 
implemented as a limit for equipment to enter a riparian zone.
Spotted Bat Although there are no known occurrences of the spotted bat within the project area 
there is suitable habitat for roosting around the cliffs of the canyon of the Gallinas River.  In 
order to minimize potential impacts on the bat, the following mitigation measures would be 
implemented:
* No thinning would be conducted around the steepest slopes including the cliff areas of the 
canyon of the Gallinas River.
* Thinning would be conducted during the hibernating season of fall and winter months.
American Peregrine Falcon Although there are no known occurrences of the American 
peregrine falcon within the project area the canyon sides along the Gallinas River contain 
marginally suitable habitat for foraging and nesting.  In order to minimize potential impacts on 
the falcon the following mitigation measures would be implemented:
* Thinning would be conducted outside of nesting season, during the fall and winter months.
New Mexico Silverspot Butterfly Although there are no known occurrences of the New Mexico 
silverspot butterfly within the project area there is suitable habitat for the butterfly around the 
riparian zones of the Gallinas River.  In order to minimize potential impacts on the butterfly the 
following mitigation measures would be implemented:
* No thinning would be conducted in riparian zones and a minimum 50-foot buffer would be 
implemented as a limit for equipment to enter a riparian zone.
* Thinning would be conducted during hibernating season of fall and winter.
Northern Goshawk Although there are no known occurrences of the northern goshawk within 
the project area the canyon sides along the Gallinas River contain suitable habitat for foraging 
and nesting.  In order to minimize potential impacts on the goshawk the following mitigation 
measures would be implemented:
* A minimum of snags would be left in place in the thinning areas. 
* No large trees (DBH = 16 inches) would be cut unless the tree is determined to be a hazard.
* The Applicant would also be required to leave a minimum of downed logs for goshawk prey 
species habitat. 
* Thinning would be conducted outside of nesting season, during the fall and winter months.
Other threatened, endangered or candidate species are not likely to occur in the project area, 
although some species of concern may occur as transients (see Appendix E for listed species).  
Mitigation measures outlined above would be beneficial to any potential transient listed species 
as well. 

The thinning prescription would emphasize leaving a diversity of tree and brush species to 
improve overall forest health.  Selective thinning would be implemented; therefore, a multi-age 
and multi-canopied stand would be left in place.  Some trees would be "dead limbed" meaning 
the tree would remain but the limbs would be trimmed off the ground.  This measure would 
preserve older trees of species other than ponderosa pine and cause fewer disturbances to the 
overall forest.  Existing roads that cross the project area would be utilized for fuels management 
activities wherever possible, thereby minimizing the need to create new roads for forestry 
equipment.  No large diameter trees would be cut unless deemed to be a hazard.  Long-term 
effects of the proposed thinning activity would reduce fire hazards in these areas reducing the 
risk of catastrophic fires. Catastrophic fire can have a detrimental effect by creating additional 
habitat loss for threatened and endangered species such as the MSO (Block et al., 1995). 
After a review of the applicable laws, project area, consultation with individuals knowledgeable 
about the species, and in consideration of the activities proposed under the project, it was 
determined that with appropriate, project-specific mitigation measures, the Proposed Action 
would not result in any adverse, direct or indirect impacts to special status species or their 
habitats.  Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure project compliance with the 
ESA.

Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
Impacts to special status species with the potential to occur in the project area (i.e., bald eagle, 
MSO, southwestern willow flycatcher) resulting from the implementation of Alternative 3 would 
be similar to the Proposed Action.  

While mitigation measures with this alternative would be similar to Proposed Action; with 
broadcast burning it would be more difficult to control the amount of snags and downed logs left 
for potential prey habitat.  No broadcast burning would occur in riparian zones. However, 
erosion control measures, as mentioned previously, would be needed to prevent ash and sediment 
loads from entering the waterways.  Other mitigation measures discussed in the Proposed Action 
would be implemented in this Alternative.  With the project-specific mitigation measures in 
place, Alternative 3 would not result in any long-term adverse direct or indirect impacts to 
special status species or their habitats.  Implementation of these mitigation measures would 
ensure project compliance with the ESA.

3.3	HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous wastes, as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), are "a 
solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or 
physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an 
increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness or 
(2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when 
improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed."  While the 
definition refers to "solids," it has been interpreted to include semisolids, liquids, and contained 
gases as well (Wentz, 1989).

Hazardous materials and wastes are regulated in New Mexico via a combination of federally 
mandated laws and state laws developed by the NMED.  Federal regulations governing the 
assessment and disposal of hazardous wastes include RCRA, the RCRA Hazardous and Solid 
Waste Amendments, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 
Solid Waste Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act. The state hazardous waste statutes are 
contained as part of the New Mexico Administration Code, Titles 7, 11, and 20.
To determine the presence and approximate location of known hazardous materials in the 
vicinity of the proposed project, Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), an independent 
information service, conducted a database search.  The database search queries multiple federal, 
state and local hazardous materials and underground storage tank (UST) databases to identify 
sites within a specified distance of the proposed project.  The EDR search for this project 
extended 1 mile beyond the boundaries of the 991 acres of City land within the fuels 
management area.  The database search did not identify any hazardous material sites within the 
search area.

In addition to the database search, URS staff conducted a reconnaissance level survey for 
hazardous materials and wastes at the proposed project areas, and in the project vicinity, on 
March 5, 2002.  Interagency coordination was initiated with the EPA Region VI in a letter dated 
January 10, 2002.  EPA responded via telephone on January 22, 2002, and indicated that they no 
longer provide EA project reviews for HMGP projects (Appendix B).

No subsurface hazardous materials testing was conducted in the project areas as a part of this 
EA. Conclusions are based only on the field reconnaissance, database search, and reported 
historical use of the properties.

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no fuels management activities would be undertaken, and there 
would be no impacts to hazardous materials.

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
Based on the results of the database search for known hazardous materials and wastes, and UST 
sites, no hazardous materials or wastes sites are anticipated to occur at the project area or be 
disturbed by the Proposed Action.  The Proposed Action presents low risk to human health 
associated with hazardous materials and wastes. 

Although subsurface hazardous materials are not anticipated to be present in the project area, any 
hazardous materials discovered, generated, or used during implementation of the Proposed 
Action would be disposed of and handled by the City of Las Vegas in accordance with applicable 
local, state, and federal regulations.  

Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
Based on the results of the database search for known hazardous materials and wastes, and UST 
sites, no hazardous materials or wastes sites are anticipated to occur at the project site or be 
disturbed by Alternative 3.  Alternative 3 presents low risk to human health associated with 
hazardous materials and wastes. 

Although subsurface hazardous materials are not anticipated to be present in the project area, any 
hazardous materials discovered, generated, or used during implementation of Alternative 3 
would be disposed of and handled by the City of Las Vegas in accordance with applicable local, 
state, and federal regulations.  

3.4	SOCIOECONOMICS
3.4.1	Zoning and Land Use
The City of Las Vegas, a wildland/urban interface community dominated by forested areas, is 
located within San Miguel County in northeastern New Mexico.  The City sits at an elevation of 
6,470 feet NGVD, with the Rocky Mountains beginning on its western edge and the Great Plains 
on its eastern edge.  The City encompasses approximately 4,749 acres or 7.42 square miles.  The 
land surrounding the City consists primarily of undeveloped forestland and smaller residential 
communities.  The more densely populated downtown area supports residential, commercial, 
light industrial, and recreational uses.

The City of Las Vegas is an historic city that served as a major trading location along the Santa 
Fe Trail.  With the advent of the Atchikson, Topeka, and Santa Fe railroad lines, the City of East 
Las Vegas was established near the railroad depot, and both towns saw a brief period of major 
growth. An agricultural depression in the 1920s and the depression of the 1930s put an end to the 
City of Las Vegas' prosperity and resulted in a long period of dormancy.  During this time, 
farming and ranching served as the base of the area's economy (Worldplaces, 2002). 
The current population of Las Vegas is 14,565, a 1.3 percent decrease from the 1990 census 
figure of 14,753 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).  This trend was not observed in San Miguel 
County or the State's census figures, as both the County and State have experienced growth rates 
of 17 percent and 20.1 percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). 

Major employers in the City of Las Vegas include the Las Vegas Medical Center, the New 
Mexico Highlands University, and City schools (Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce [COC], 
2002).  These institutions have helped to stabilize Las Vegas' economy.  The high number of 
retail trade employees highlights Las Vegas' role as a commercial center for neighboring small 
towns and as a tourist destination for those interested in history or wishing to explore Santa Fe 
National Forest. 

The proposed project would occur on 478 of 991 acres of City-owned land within the Gallinas 
River Watershed.  Of the 991 acres, 874 acres are classified as forest and the remaining 117 
acres are classified as either open water, riparian areas, or grassland habitat.  The two 
reservoirs-Peterson and Bradner-are located within the City-owned land and serve as Las 
Vegas' primary drinking water storage areas, with a combined capacity of 632 acre-feet of water.  
The proposed project area begins approximately 5 miles from downtown Las Vegas and falls 
within the joint City/County Extraterritorial Zoning Area (ETZ).  Under ETZ zoning codes, the 
proposed project area is classified as an agricultural district "intended to protect and preserve 
areas of agricultural and agriculturally oriented uses.  The standards and densities prescribed for 
this district are intended to preserve the open character of the area and thereby to protect the 
business of agriculture."  Currently no agricultural activities occur on the City-owned land, as the 
proposed project area serves as a forested buffer for the City's water supply.  The areas around 
the reservoirs and at a northeast entrance to Gallinas Creek are gated with access to the site 
limited to City workers, primarily individuals employed with the City of Las Vegas' Water 
Department.  Adjacent to the proposed project area are several areas zoned as neighborhood 
conservation districts.  This zoning ordinance is intended to preserve the character of existing 
neighborhoods and allows for development that is consistent with neighborhood character at the 
time of enactment of the zoning ordinance.

The City-owned land accounts for a minor portion of land area in the watershed, with the 
majority of the land being privately owned as part of the Las Vegas Land Grant.  Also located 
within the Watershed is the Santa Fe National Forest, Las Vegas/Pecos Ranger District.  

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the accumulation of vegetative material that surrounds Las 
Vegas and nearby communities would not be removed, and would continue to pose a wildfire 
risk.  However, no direct impacts to land use and zoning would occur.  Since no action would be 
taken, no changes to local zoning ordinances would be required.

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
While the harvesting or thinning of forested lands within the ETZ is not specifically listed within 
the ETZ ordinance, URS has consulted with the planning departments for both the City of Las 
Vegas and the County of San Miguel regarding the implementation of the Proposed Action.  
Both planning departments state that the proposed thinning project would not be contrary to the 
agricultural zoning ordinance and is a permitted activity (Appendix B).  Therefore, land-use 
designations would not change as a result of the thinning of the densely vegetated areas.  
Because the land is not currently open to the public, use of the project area would not be affected 
by the Proposed Action.

In general, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in any long-term adverse impacts to 
land use or zoning. 

Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
Harvesting or thinning of forested lands within the ETZ is not specifically listed within the ETZ 
ordinance. URS has consulted with the planning departments for both the City of Las Vegas and 
the County of San Miguel regarding the implementation of Alternative 3.  Both planning 
departments state that the proposed thinning project would not be contrary to the agricultural 
zoning ordinance and is a permitted activity (Appendix B).  Therefore, land-use designations 
would not change as a result of the thinning of the densely vegetated areas.  Because the land is 
not currently open to the public, use of the project area would not be affected by Alternative 3.
In general, Alternative 3 is not anticipated to result in any long-term adverse impacts to land use 
or zoning. 

3.4.2	Visual Resources
The topography of this part of northern New Mexico is scenic and varies from the seemingly 
endless march of the short-grass prairies along the eastern edge of the Great Plains to the rise of 
the southern Rocky Mountains on the west.  As the elevation increases, the landscape changes 
from the low-land grassland to pinyon-juniper communities, to ponderosa pine forests and mixed 
conifer forests and high mountain streams, and finally to subalpine forests and meadows.  Tall 
mountains to the west and vast open landscapes to the east characterize the land surrounding the 
City of Las Vegas.  The area is rich in history and the downtown architecture matches with 
striking and visually interesting buildings. The City of Las Vegas is approximately 5 miles 
southeast of the project area.  The Village of Montezuma is located northwest of the City of Las 
Vegas and is adjacent to the project area.  Homes in the village are primarily located to the north 
and east of the project area.  The United World College is located in one of New Mexico's most 
visually striking historical buildings within the Village of Montezuma and is separated from the 
project area by the Gallinas River and Highway 65, which travels westward up the Gallinas 
Valley.  Naturally occurring hot springs, popular with local people and tourists, are located 
across the highway from the north and eastern portion of the project area. 

The vegetation of the project area and the surrounding area is heavily forested with primarily 
ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests.  As elevation increases up the valley, scenic views that 
look out to the south across the valley toward portions of the project area along the Gallinas 
River can be found along Highway 65.  Parts of the project area are visible from the Village of 
Montezuma, the United World College, the hot springs, and portions of Highway 65.  The height 
and density of trees and the hilly terrain in the area may obscure many views and partially screen 
others.  Photograph 1 in Appendix A is representative of existing conditions. 

Visibility related to air quality is an important facet of the visual environment within the area's 
view-shed.  Smoke is produced in the viewshed by residential burning and controlled fuels 
management burns.  Due to the limited number of light pollution sources within the Village of 
Montezuma and surrounding communities, the nighttime visual environment has not been 
significantly impacted. 

The visual assets of the proposed project area reflect the region's variety, including residential 
sites and large expanses of natural and undeveloped mountain areas. The combination of dense 
ponderosa pine forests and highly varied topography, that includes canyons and ridges, create a 
unique environment of high scenic value for both visitors and residents of the area.  In addition, 
dense forests adjacent to residential areas create a high degree of privacy.

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts would occur to existing visual resources.  
However, the threat of future wildfires would remain, and should one occur, the landscape would 
be altered dramatically.  Vegetation and wildlife would likely be destroyed.  As a result, the 
overall character and quality of the sites for sensitive viewer groups would be changed.  It would 
take years to re-establish the existing views after a wildfire and there would be a substantial 
long-term effect on visual resources.

Tourism profits would likely decline given the potential visual impacts and damage to 
commercial enterprises anticipated after any future wildfires.  The community may not be able to 
shoulder the costs of repair, especially during an economic downturn.  Declines in tourism were 
noted in two nearby towns, Taos and Pecos, following the fires of 2000, primarily a result of the 
perception of what happened in the area, rather than actual damage from the fires themselves.  
According to figures kept by the Taos Visitor Center, 18,895 fewer walk-in visitors -- an 
indicator of tourism traffic -- stopped by the center during the summer of 2000 as compared to 
the previous summer, a drop of nearly 31 percent (New Mexico Business Journal, 2001).  
Similarly, Park Rangers from Pecos National Historical Park stated that nearly 800 visitors to the 
park canceled reservations (USFS, 2001).  Similar tourism declines may occur in Las Vegas 
should another major wildfire occur.

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
Vegetation removal activities conducted under this alternative would result in minor impacts to 
visual resources. Vegetation removal would be selective and there would be more precise control 
over the degree to which visual resources are impacted.  Most of the thinned areas around the 
City reservoirs would not be visible from the surrounding communities.  Visual impacts from the 
portions of the project immediately adjacent to the village area would likely include those related 
to reduced vegetation from vegetation removal and equipment use, and increased contrast 
between stands of vegetation.  Homeowners bordering the project area may be impacted under 
this alternative due to decreased privacy as a result of vegetation removal.  However, removal of 
snags and dead bushes and trees would likely improve the overall visual resources.  Smoke from 
burning of slash piles would be visible from homes and historical buildings surrounding the 
project area.  After the slash piles have been burned, evidence of the burn may be temporarily 
visible to adjacent properties.  The project area visible from Highway 65 is far enough away that 
the difference in vegetation density after removal would not be easily detected.  It is unlikely that 
the surrounding views would be dramatically altered under this alternative.  Residential quality 
and recreational values likely would be maintained.  No long-term visual impacts would be 
expected with this alternative. 

The pre-settlement ponderosa pine forest, prior to fire suppression and livestock grazing, was an 
open park-like structure with trees spaced wide apart and thick grass/forb cover knitted between 
the trees.  It is anticipated that a mitigative impact or benefit of the Proposed Action is the 
restoration of the forest to one more closely resembling pre-settlement conditions. 
Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
Vegetation removal activities conducted under this alternative would result in minor impacts to 
visual resources. Vegetation removal would be selective and there would be more precise control 
over the degree to which visual resources are impacted.  Most of the thinned areas around the 
City reservoirs would not be visible from the surrounding communities.  Visual impacts from the 
portions of the project immediately adjacent to the village area would likely include those related 
to reduced vegetation from vegetation removal and equipment use, and increased contrast 
between stands of vegetation.  Homeowners bordering the project area may be impacted under 
this alternative due to decreased privacy as a result of vegetation removal.  However, removal of 
snags and dead bushes and trees would likely improve the overall visual resources.  Smoke from 
burning of slash piles would be visible from homes and historical buildings surrounding the 
project area. Under Alternative 3, the project area would be broadcast burned.  Smoke from the 
broadcast burn would be heavier and more widespread than the Proposed Action, as more 
vegetation would be burned over a larger area.  The visual impact from the smoke of a broadcast 
burn would be temporary.  Similarly, Biswell (1989) observes that the black charring on 
ponderosa pines usually lasts a "few weeks," and charred land in grasslands is usually washed 
away by a few good rains, and replaced by the green of new growth stimulated by the rains.
No adverse long-term visual impacts would be expected with this alternative. 

3.4.3	Noise 
Sound is most commonly measured in decibels (dB) on the A-weighted scale, which is the scale 
most similar to the range of sounds that the human ear can hear.  The Day-Night Average Sound 
Level (DNL) is an average measure of sound.  The DNL takes into account the volume of each 
sound incident, the number of times each incident occurs, and the time of day each incident 
occurs (nighttime sound being weighted more heavily because it is assumed to be more annoying 
to the community).  The DNL descriptor is accepted by federal agencies as a standard for 
estimating sound impacts and establishing guidelines for compatible land uses.
Noise, defined herein as unwanted or unwelcome sound, is regulated by the federal Noise 
Control Act of 1972 (NCA).  Although the NCA gives the EPA authority to prepare guidelines 
for acceptable ambient noise levels, it only charges those federal agencies that operate noise-
producing facilities or equipment to implement noise standards.  The EPA's guidelines (and 
those of many federal agencies) state that outdoor sound levels in excess of 55 dB DNL are 
"normally unacceptable" for noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, and hospitals. 
There are no established noise ordinances for the City of Las Vegas (Garcia, pers. comm.).  

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA-funded fuels management efforts for fire hazard 
reduction would not be conducted and, therefore, would not generate noise.  Noise levels are 
expected to remain at current levels.

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
Most noise associated with fuels management projects is emitted from mechanical equipment 
used in vegetation removal and transport from the project area.  For the Proposed Action, the use 
of forwarders, chainsaws, and other mechanized forestry equipment represents the equipment 
with the potential to generate the most noise.  At 50 feet from the project area, it is anticipated 
that noise related to the project (from chainsaws, forwarders, and vehicles) would range from 78 
to 91 dB, higher than acceptable noise levels as defined by the EPA.  However, most residences 
are located upwards of 200 feet from the project area, and as the noise would attenuate at a rate 
of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the noise source, noise impacts would be minimal.  
Additionally, the dense vegetation at the project area would slightly reduce perceived noise 
levels. 

However, to mitigate potential impacts to any nearby residences, the City of Las Vegas would be 
responsible for adequately notifying the public of fuels management projects and conducting 
these activities during normal business hours.  Methods of notification could include posting 
fliers at information centers, trailheads, and restrooms of recreational areas and updating 
recorded telephone and radio information.  Overall, these noise impacts are anticipated to be 
minor and short term and would occur during the daylight hours only, lasting no longer than one 
week in any specific location.

Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
For Alternative 3, the use of forwarders, chainsaws, and other mechanized forestry equipment 
represents the equipment with the potential to generate the most noise.  At 50 feet from the 
project area, it is anticipated that noise related to the project (from chainsaws, forwarders, and 
vehicles) would range from 78 to 91 dB, higher than acceptable noise levels as defined by the 
EPA.  However, most residences are located upwards of 200 feet from the project area, and as 
the noise would attenuate at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the noise source, 
noise impacts would be minimal.  Additionally, the dense vegetation at the project area would 
slightly reduce perceived noise levels. 

However, to mitigate potential impacts to any nearby residences, the City of Las Vegas would be 
responsible for adequately notifying the public of fuels management projects and conducting 
these activities during normal business hours.  Methods of notification could include posting 
fliers at information centers, trailheads, and restrooms of recreational areas and updating 
recorded telephone and radio information.  Overall, these noise impacts are anticipated to be 
minor and short term and would occur during the daylight hours only, lasting no longer than one 
week in any specific location. 

3.4.4	Public Services and Utilities
Public services provided to residents of Las Vegas include emergency fire, rescue, and police 
operations as well as educational, medical, and recreational services.  The Las Vegas Police 
Department, with 42 full-time officers, and the City's Fire Department, with 19 full-time fire 
fighters and 30 volunteers, are responsible for fire, emergency medical services, and general 
public safety (Las Vegas COC, 2001).  There are 13 public education institutions within Las 
Vegas: 8 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, 2 high schools, and 1 community college, as well 
as a private university and a World College of America (Las Vegas COC, 2001).  The largest 
providers of medical care within Las Vegas are the Northeastern Regional Hospital, a 62-bed 
acute-care facility and the Las Vegas Medical Center, a 626-bed mental health facility.  Two 
senior care centers are also located in Las Vegas, as are physical rehabilitation and substance 
abuse treatment centers.  City recreational facilities include nine public parks and a local golf 
course (Worldplaces, 2002).  Nearby Santa Fe National Forest also offers recreational 
opportunities for residents.

Public utilities provided by the City of Las Vegas include natural gas, water, and sewer services 
(Las Vegas COC, 2001).  The Peterson and Bradner Reservoirs, located near the eastern 
boundary of the Gallinas watershed, serve as the City's primary water storage sites.  Water 
stored in these reservoirs is diverted from Gallinas River into a settling basin and then gravity fed 
through a pipeline into the reservoirs.  The water treatment facilities are located nearby.  
Additional utilities, such as electricity and telephone service, are provided through the Public 
Service Company of New Mexico and Qwest Communications, respectively (Las Vegas COC, 
2001). 

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, fuels management efforts for fire hazard reduction would not 
be conducted and fire-prone areas would remain vulnerable to future fires.  There would be no 
immediate impact on the public services and utilities under this alternative.  However, future 
fires could compromise or disable the essential public services and utilities.  Facilities that 
provide public services such as schools, police stations, and hospitals could sustain future 
damage from fires. In addition to monetary cost of damage, future fires could compromise the 
ability of these services to perform their duties adequately.  Impacts could include the temporary 
or permanent closure of schools, hospitals, police stations, and recreational facilities (including 
forests and parks).  Fire and police departments could also be strained due to participation in fire 
assistance efforts; emergency medical services could be delayed in accessing emergency sites or 
hospitals. 

Protection of Las Vegas' Peterson and Bradner water storage reservoirs is of prime concern for 
the City.  Increased ash and sediment from catastrophic fires could have negative impacts on 
water quality and quantity.  Ash contamination from the Viveash Fire of 2000, which affected 
only 1.5 percent of the Gallinas watershed, prevented the City from diverting 112 million gallons 
of water to the reservoir (Tafoya, pers. comm.).  A larger, more intense fire in this watershed 
could have a greater impact on the City's water resources.  The City estimates that should a 
catastrophic fire event occur on or near the municipal reservoirs, only 25 percent of its current 
users could be sustained for drinking water, utilizing the Taylor Well Fields.  Based on current 
census data, this could require nearly 11,000 residents to relocate until drinking water supplies 
are restored, drawing away a large portion of the area's businesses and tax base.  
Essential public services could also be disabled.  Fire and police departments would likely be 
strained due to participation in fire assistance efforts, and emergency medical services could be 
delayed in accessing emergency sites or hospitals if fire damage was severe.   

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
The Proposed Action would utilize manual and mechanized vegetation removal.  Risk of future 
fires and resulting damage to public services would be greatly reduced under this alternative.  
However, the use of heavy machinery, removal of vegetation, and other activities associated with 
this alternative has the potential to adversely impact public services and infrastructure in the 
project area.  Timber cutting has the potential to damage power lines and the use of heavy-
wheeled machinery could disrupt pipelines that may be located near ground surface.  Vegetation 
removal may also result in temporary closure of a public facility and delays on public roads. 
School buses, police vehicles, fire vehicles, and ambulances could be forced to take alternate 
routes or experience delays.  These impacts are expected to be temporary and last for no more 
than a few days in any area. 

To minimize impacts to public services and infrastructure the Applicant would be required to 
coordinate with the Public Works Department prior to start.  In addition, employees would be 
required to identify, mark and/or avoid utilities such as power lines, or underground pipelines 
that potentially could be impacted by the proposed activities.

Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
Risk of future fires and resulting damage to public services would be greatly reduced under 

Alternative 3.  However, the use of heavy machinery, removal of vegetation, and other activities 
associated with this alternative has the potential to adversely impact public services and 
infrastructure in the project area.  Timber cutting has the potential to damage power lines and the 
use of heavy-wheeled machinery could disrupt pipelines that may be located near ground 
surface.  Vegetation removal may also result in temporary closure of a public facility and delays 
on public roads. School buses, police vehicles, fire vehicles, and ambulances could be forced to 
take alternate routes or experience delays. A broadcast burn has the potential to produce enough 
smoke to cause temporary road closures. These impacts are expected to be temporary and last for 
no more than a few days in any area. 

To minimize impacts to public services and infrastructure the Applicant would be required to 
coordinate with the Public Works Department prior to start.  In addition, employees would be 
required to identify, mark and/or avoid utilities such as power lines, or underground pipelines 
that potentially could be impacted by the project activities.

3.4.5	Traffic and Circulation
Several agencies are responsible for the development, construction, and maintenance of roads in 
the study area.  These include: the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for roads on the 
National Highway System and other roads; the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation 
Department (NMSHTD) for state routes and funding for local projects; and San Miguel County's 
Roads Division, which is responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of county 
roads.  In addition to highway transportation, Amtrak has daily passenger trains and Texas, New 
Mexico & Oklahoma Coaches Inc. has daily buses in and out of Las Vegas. Municipal bus 
service is available to residents of Las Vegas and is provided by Meadow City Express.
Las Vegas is located off of Interstate 25, which goes directly from Las Vegas to all north and 
south directions.  Highway 8, located 5 miles from Las Vegas, joins Interstate 40 to all east and 
west directions.  The primary road located within the proposed project area is State Highway 65, 
running east to west.  Annual average daily traffic counts from 1999 for this highway recorded a 
traffic flow of 7,223 vehicles prior to the turnoff to Luna Community College, located roughly 
2.4 miles south of the project area.  Past this point, traffic flow lessens considerably to 3,615 
vehicles and lowers even further at the junction of State Highway 65 and County Road A11A, 
where an average of 698 vehicles were counted (Trujillo, pers. comm.).   

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no federally funded fuels management actions would take 
place.  Due to the continued high risk of wildfires, certain residential areas would continue to 
have limited evacuation routes.  The potential for delayed response times for emergency vehicles 
due to closure of roads as a result of wildfire would continue.  The degree of congestion, delays, 
and detours would depend upon the location, magnitude, and extent of the fire. Additionally, 
roads would potentially be closed due to mudslides that could occur following loss of vegetation 
on steeper slopes.  Road closures during fire events would also delay the movement of fire-
fighting equipment and firefighters into and out of the affected area, thus slowing attempts to 
control the fire.

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
The Proposed Action would reduce fuel accumulations, which would reduce the risk to future 
wildfires and the potential for damage to roadways and evacuation routes.  The ingress and 
egress of machinery, along with other project-related activities has the potential to cause 
temporary congestion, delays, and detours to roads in Las Vegas, most significantly State 
Highway 65.  The degree of congestion, delays, and detours would depend upon the location, 
extent, and time of project activities; however, given the low level of traffic flow within the 
project area, no significant, long-term impacts are anticipated.  To minimize potential adverse 
impacts to traffic and circulation, the Applicant would be required to implement the following 
mitigation measures:
* Adequate safety provisions (e.g., signage, traffic cones, flag personnel) would be provided as 
needed to identify potential fire hazard, staging and/or work areas during fuels management 
activities. 
* Traffic along adjacent roadways would be temporarily re-routed as necessary during fuels 
management activities.  Traffic lane closures, if necessary, would be coordinated with 
appropriate fire and community officials.
* To the maximum extent feasible, construction related vehicles would be prohibited from 
parking on residential streets.
* Fuel management equipment and vehicle staging would be located so as not to hinder the 
traffic flow of the project burn areas.
* Adjacent residential neighborhoods would be notified in advance of fuels management 
activities and any re-routing of local traffic.  Notification would identify a contact person at 
the local fire department.
* The Applicant will coordinate with the NMSHTD and the local Department of 
Transportation to avoid implementing project activities during peak travel periods. 

Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
Alternative 3 would potentially affect vehicles in the project vicinity during the burn phase of the 
project.  Impacts may include decreased visibility, slower traffic speeds, and temporary road 
closures to ensure public safety.  The final burn plans for the site would address traffic 
coordination issues in cooperation with local road departments.  To minimize potential adverse 
impacts to traffic and circulation, the Applicant would be required to implement the following 
mitigation measures:
* Adequate safety provisions (e.g., signage, traffic cones, flag personnel) would be provided as 
needed to identify potential fire hazard, staging and/or work areas during fuels management 
activities. 
* Traffic along adjacent roadways would be temporarily re-routed as necessary during fuels 
management activities.  Traffic lane closures, if necessary, would be coordinated with 
appropriate fire and community officials.
* To the maximum extent feasible, construction related vehicles would be prohibited from 
parking on residential streets.
* Fuel management equipment and vehicle staging would be located so as not to hinder the 
traffic flow of the project burn areas.
* Adjacent residential neighborhoods would be notified in advance of fuels management 
activities and any re-routing of local traffic.  Notification would identify a contact person at 
the local fire department.
* The Applicant will coordinate with the NMSHTD and the local Department of 
Transportation to avoid implementing project activities during peak travel periods. 
3.4.6	Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)
EO 12898 requires federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their 
mission.  Agencies are required to identify and correct programs, policies, and activities that 
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and 
low-income populations. EO 12898 also tasks federal agencies with ensuring that public 
notifications regarding environmental issues are concise, understandable, and readily accessible. 
Socioeconomic and demographic data were studied to determine if a disproportionate number 
(greater than 50 percent) of minority or low-income persons have the potential to be adversely 
affected by the alternatives.

Data from the 2000 Census has a recorded population for the City of Las Vegas of 14,565 that is 
54.2 percent white, 1 percent African American, 2 percent American Indian, 0.6 percent Asian, 
and 0.1 percent Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander and 42.2 percent of some other race or 
two or more races.  Of the total population, 82.9 percent classified themselves as Hispanic or 
Latino, persons of this category can be of any race.  

For comparison, the State of New Mexico's population as a whole is 66.8 percent white; 1.9 
percent African American; 9.5 percent American Indian or Alaska native; 1.1 percent Asian or 
Pacific Islander; 0.1 percent Native Hawaiian/ other Pacific Islander; and 20.6 percent of some 
other race or two or more races.  Approximately 42.1 percent of New Mexico residents classified 
themselves as of Hispanic origin (U.S. Census, 2000). 

Major employers in Las Vegas include the Las Vegas Medical Center, the New Mexico 
Highlands University, and City schools (Las Vegas COC, 2002).  These institutions have helped 
to stabilize Las Vegas' economy.  The high number of retail trade employees, highlights Las 
Vegas' role as a commercial center for neighboring small towns and as a tourist destination for 
those interested in history or wishing to explore Santa Fe National Forest. 

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the median household income for this area is $24,214.  Of 
those persons for whom poverty status is determined, 27.8 percent are below the poverty 
threshold.  At the state level, the median household income is $30,836, with 19.3 percent of the 
state population below the poverty threshold.  Of the 5,985 individuals in the civilian labor force 
in Las Vegas, roughly 88 percent are employed.  Educational, health, and social services employ 
nearly 40 percent of the available workforce.  Other major industries include retail trade 
(accounting for 15 percent), and public administration (accounting for 8.6 percent). 
Based on the socioeconomic statistics regarding Hispanic and Latino residents, the requirement 
to evaluate this project relative to EO 12898, Environmental Justice is triggered. 

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, fuels management actions would not occur.  Therefore, EO 
12898 is not applicable to this alternative.  However, fire-prone areas would remain subject to 
damages from future wildfires, and risks to the area's water supply and human safety would 
remain. 

Residences, businesses, and local governments would rely on insurance or other sources as 
compensation for property damage.  The need to rebuild, repair, or relocate damaged structures, 
roads, or utilities would cause adverse financial impacts to residents, businesses, and 
governments that have no or inadequate insurance.  The loss of sales due to infrastructure 
damage, migration of customers, and temporary closings for repairs or replacement of inventory 
would also impact businesses. 

If a large number of residents and businesses are affected to a substantial degree, entire 
communities could feel the indirect economic consequences.  Residents and businesses that 
suffered financial hardships from fire damage are likely to alter their purchasing habits by 
reducing expenditures, especially on nonessential goods and services.  Residents and businesses 
that migrate out of the area would likely terminate financial transactions in the community.  The 
profitability of businesses providing these goods and services would then decrease, potentially 
leading to the lay off of employees, thus increasing unemployment.  Failing businesses, reduced 
expenditures, and migration of residents would decrease local tax revenues, either increasing tax 
rates or decreasing budgets for local government services.  The local population as a whole 
would experience these impacts.

Private contractors would receive economic benefits from repairing fire-damaged facilities under 
this alternative.  Provided local companies would be used for labor and materials, some 
economic benefits would accrue to other sectors of the community.  Except for unusually large 
projects, these beneficial impacts would have a negligible effect on the local economy as a 
whole.

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
Implementation of the Proposed Action would require the use of manual and mechanized 
equipment to reduce fuel loads in the Las Vegas area.  Additionally, limited slash pile burning 
would occur at the project area.  Most notably, this will likely result in temporary decreases in air 
quality (refer to Section 3.1.4), increases in ambient noise levels (refer to Section 3.4.3), a 
change in visual resources for some user groups (refer to Section 3.4.2), and traffic delays (refer 
to Section 3.4.5). The impacts of the Proposed Action would affect the surrounding community 
as a whole, and it is unlikely that certain populations would be disproportionately affected by 
project activities.  Additionally, the majority of impacts affecting area residents are expected to 
be short-term in nature. 

Overall, it is anticipated that the actions associated with this alternative would reduce the risk of 
fire hazard in the vicinity of Las Vegas and protect the City's water supply.  The project 
activities would provide equal protection for all members of the community and protection of the 
water supply would benefit all current and future users of the City's drinking water, and is 
therefore in compliance with EO 12898.

Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
Under Alternative 3, in addition to vegetation thinning, the Applicant would develop and 
implement a broadcast burn plan to reduce fuel and slash loads to protect the safety of the 
residents of the City of Las Vegas and surrounding environs and their water supply.  Most 
notably, this alternative will likely result in a temporary reduction in air quality (refer to Section 
3.1.4), a temporary increase in noise levels (refer to Section 3.4.3), a change in visual resources 
(refer to Section 3.4.2), and temporary traffic delays or road closures (see Section 3.4.5).  The 
impacts of Alternative 3 would affect the surrounding community as a whole, and it is unlikely 
that certain populations would be disproportionately affected by project activities.  Additionally, 
the majority of impacts affecting area residents are expected to be short-term in nature.  
It is anticipated that the actions associated with Alternative 3 would reduce the risk of fire hazard 
in the vicinity of Las Vegas and protect the City's water supply.  The project activities would 
provide equal protection for all members of the community and protection of the water supply 
would benefit all current and future users of the City's drinking water, and is therefore in 
compliance with EO 12898. 

3.4.7	Safety and Security
Safety and security issues considered in this analysis include the health and safety of the area 
residents, the public at-large, and the protection of personnel involved in activities related to the 
implementation of the proposed fuels management alternatives. 

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the high risk of wildfire would remain.  Without mitigating the 
fire risk, the potential for adverse impacts to public safety due to future wildfire in the City of 
Las Vegas area would persist. 

As the No Action Alternative does not involve the employment of personnel to perform fuels 
management activities, there would be no potential risks to the personal safety of those who 
would otherwise be performing the fuels management activities.

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
One of the primary goals of the Proposed Action is to directly address potential safety and water 
quality impacts associated with the risk of wildfire.  This alternative would reduce the fuel loads 
in forests adjacent to the City of Las Vegas, and as such, it is anticipated that the safety of area 
residents would increase as the risk of a future wildfire were decreased. 

Vegetation removal presents safety risks to those people performing the fuels management 
activities.  The operation of chippers, chainsaws, and other types of equipment and machinery, 
and likewise, bundling, loading, and transporting downed material may be hazardous for the 
construction personnel.  To minimize risks to safety and human health, all fuels management 
activities would be performed using qualified personnel trained in the proper use of fuels 
management equipment including appropriate safety precautions.  Additionally, all activities 
would be conducted in a safe manner in accordance with the standards specified in Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations.  Appropriate signage would be posted 
and appropriate public notification would occur on burn days, informing local residents of the 
time and location of project activities. Burning of slash piles presents a risk that the fire could 
escape from the pile area or cause excessive smoke levels, potentially affecting human health 
and safety.  These risks and effects would be mitigated as discussed in Section 3.1.4. 
Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
Under Alternative 3, mechanical thinning and broadcast burning would be conducted at the 
identified project areas.  Similar to the Proposed Action, management of fuel load levels in the 
area of the City of Las Vegas would reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic wildfire, improving 
the overall safety of area residents and their water supply.  

Broadcast burning poses safety concerns, most notably, the reduction in visibility due to smoke, 
which could affect vehicular safety of area residents and visitors.  Appropriate smoke 
management methods would be implemented during the broadcast burning (e.g., burn on days 
when weather conditions allow smoke to rise into the atmosphere and avoid mixing dirt with 
piles).  High smoke concentrations may also pose health concerns for nearby residents, 
particularly those with health and/or respiratory problems, as about 90 percent of particulate 
emissions from prescribed fire are small enough to enter the human respiratory system (Wade 
and Lunsford, 1989).  Appropriate public notification would occur on burn days, informing local 
residents of the time and location of project activities.  Sensitive receptors, such as asthmatics 
and the elderly, would be advised to stay indoors during the burn period.  To minimize impacts 
to public health and safety as a result of Alternative 3, Las Vegas would develop and implement 
specific measures to protect public well being as part of its burn plan.  Appropriate signage 
would also be posted to prevent recreational users and residents from entering the project area 
during fuels management activities.

Fire management personnel exposed to high smoke concentrations can also suffer eye and 
respiratory irritation.  To minimize risks to safety and human health, all management activities 
would be performed using qualified, experienced individuals specifically trained in performing 
broadcast burns.  Additionally, the burn plan developed under this alternative would include 
measures to protect the health and safety of personnel involved in implementing this alternative.  
All activities would be conducted in a safe manner in accordance with the standards specified in 
OSHA regulations.  

Under this alternative, it is possible that the broadcast burn could escape causing a larger, 
uncontrolled fire.  While this possibility exists, it is relatively small.  According to the Boise 
Interagency Fire Center, approximately 1 percent of fires on federal lands required suppression 
activities.  Of this 1 percent, over 90 percent were successfully controlled, and primarily 
consisted of handing a fire that jumped a fire line.  Statistically, only 0.1 percent of fire activities 
on federal lands required major actions (Stevens, 2000).  To mitigate the risk of an escaped fire, 
firebreaks would be created around the perimeter of broadcast burn areas.

3.5	CULTURAL RESOURCES
In addition to review under NEPA, consideration of impacts to cultural resources is mandated 
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, and 
implemented by 36 CFR Part 800.  Requirements include identification of significant historic 
properties that may be impacted by project alternatives.  Historic properties are defined as 
archaeological sites, standing structures, or other historic resources listed in or eligible for listing 
in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 60.3).

As defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(d), the Area of Potential Effect (APE) "is the geographic area 
or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or 
use of historic properties, if any such properties exist."

In addition to identifying historic properties that may exist in the proposed project's APE, FEMA 
must also determine, in consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer 
(SHPO), what effect, if any, the action would have on historic properties.  Moreover, if the 
project would have an adverse effect on these properties, FEMA must consult with SHPO on 
ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect.

The Museum of New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Services (OAS) was retained to conduct 
an archaeological study of the project area.  In their report entitled "Water, Ice, and Lime: A 
Cultural Resource Inventory of the Gallinas Watershed, City of Las Vegas, New Mexico," the 
Museum stated that a total of 35 archaeological sites and 73 isolated occurrences were identified 
during their survey of the project area.  Of the sites identified, two have been previously recorded 
during other archaeological surveys.

In general, the project area contains six broad categories of sites, most related to the extraction of 
natural resources. These categories consist of: 1) a prehistoric lithic quarry; 2) a late 1800s to 
early 1900s Hispanic homestead complex; 3) a late 1800s to early 1900s lime quarry and 
processing facility, an early to mid 1900s commercial lime quarry and processing complex, and 
numerous water-control features constructed from 1880 to the present (e.g., a diversion channel, 
reservoir, Peterson Dam); 4) a late 1800s to early 1900s ice manufacturing complex including 
nine dams used to form ponds, and a spur line of the Santa Fe Railroad constructed in 1882 all 
utilized by Agua Pura Company;  5) a Penitente morada; and 6) post-1930s temporary campsites. 
Prehistoric lithic quarry: Prehistoric activities appear to be limited to the western portion of the 
project area, and are limited to one lithic quarry and several isolated chipped stone artifacts. 
The late 1800s to early 1900s Hispanic homestead complexes:  Evidence of Hispanic 
occupation is present in two locations: an isolated residence along a tributary of Gallinas Creek 
and a habitation complex located in Peterson Canyon. The isolated residences consist of a small 
structure with dispersed artifact scatter indicating occupancy at the turn of the 20th century, and a 
portion of a road.  The structure may have functioned as a rest stop.  The habitation complex 
consists of three habitation locations, one or two coral areas, and five stone enclosures. Each 
habitation area appears to contain evidence of a structure, activity area, privy, and midden. The 
corral locations are identified by broad, treeless areas in which grass is slow to come back. The 
stone enclosures are constructed by stacking up to four courses unshaped rock. Three of the five 
stone structures are round and all range from 4 by 6 meters to 5 by 7 meters.  A low wall 
surrounding activity areas may have served as a gate.

Lime quarry and processing complexes: Evidence of lime prospecting and quarrying is present 
throughout the area, mainly concentrated around Peterson Canyon (a.k.a. Lime Canyon).  The 
first mineral extraction operation is likely related to the Hot Springs Lime Company, which 
probably operated from 1890 to 1912.  Quarries associated with this company were small scale, 
ranging from single prospects, 2 meters in diameter, to broad areas of quarried seams over 100 
meters long and 3 meters deep. Two kiln locations associated with the lime quarry activities were 
identified in the project area. The lime kilns are oxidized pits excavated into the side of a ridge 
with evidence of rough masonry flues constructed at grade, limestone tailings, and spoil areas of 
processed lime. Numerous wagon roads connect the various quarry locations with the kiln sites.  
The Canyon Lime Company, which operated from 1907 to 1940, is associated with the two large 
quarries that are located to the west of the Peterson Reservoir.  Commercial rock crushers and a 
kiln complex are located near these quarries. Additionally, a 1930s commercial kiln is located 
within the project area and was recorded as part of the New Mexico Historic Building Survey in 
1977. 

The Agua Pura Company: From 1880, when the Agua Pura Company was formed, to the 
present, the Gallinas Creek has provided water to the City of Las Vegas.  Within Gallinas 
Canyon, the company constructed two reservoirs and 18 miles of mains to provide water to City 
residents and other local organizations.  The Peterson Dam, and associated reservoir, were built 
and filled during 1911.  Water from Gallinas Creek was diverted to the reservoir by a series of 
open canals and flumes.  A second concrete dam was built in 1922 and is still in use.  The Agua 
Pura Company also managed a large ice harvesting and storage operation.  Ice was cut from 
ponds formed by nine dams and shipped via the Santa Fe Railroad across New Mexico and west 
Texas. Several of the dams and building foundations are present in the project area. In addition, 
several features and structural foundations associated with the railroad, including a possible 
roundhouse location, are also present within the project area. The railroad line was abandoned in 
1937. The ice pond site and Peterson Reservoir are registered as Historic Cultural Properties with 
the State of New Mexico.  

The morada: The morada is a chapel used by the Penitente Brotherhood, a sect of the Catholic 
Church in Northern New Mexico. Moradas are often windowless and located in inconspicuous 
settings.  They were constructed in many Hispanic communities between 1870 and 1920. This 
structure and its associated features are still in use.

Post-1930s campsites: Three, possibly four, post-1930 limited activity campsites were located 
east of the ridge separating the Peterson and Bradner Reservoirs.  Hearths and low-density can 
scatter were recorded at these sites.

In addition to these sites, 73 isolated occurrences of artifacts were recorded, ranging from 
beverage and food cans, glass bottles, and lithic flakes.

A total of 32 sites and associated features were identified as part of the OAS archaeological 
study to be potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion C or D.  Three 
remaining sites (LA136109, LA136110 and LA136111) were found to be ineligible based on 
their limited data potential.  The OAS archaeological study was submitted to the SHPO in 
February 2003.  In a letter dated March 13, 2003, the SHPO replied that it concurs with the 
eligibility recommendations for all sites except for two of the three sites that were initially found 
to be ineligible (LA136109 and LA136111).  The SHPO requested that LA136109 and 
LA136111 be considered "of undetermined eligibility."  FEMA replied in a letter dated June 12, 
2003, that the agency accepts the SHPO's recommendations of undetermined eligibility for sites 
LA136109 and LA136111 (Appendix B). In a response dated July 14, 2003, the SHPO 
concurred with FEMA's determination. With this change, 34 sites are considered eligible and 
could be impacted by the proposed project.

Pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, the following Tribal groups were notified of the proposed 
fuels management project: Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Pawnee 
Tribal Business Council, Comanche Indian Tribe, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Hopi Tribal 
Council, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, Pueblo Santo Domingo, 
Pueblo of Jemez, Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Mescalero Apache Tribe (Appendix B). 
Each Tribe was requested to identify the presence of potential Traditional Cultural Properties or 
sensitive sites within the project area. No response has been received from any of the Tribes.

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no project-related effect on cultural resources 
within the project area and physical disturbance would not occur near any of the sites.  However, 
if a wildfire were to occur, the potential exists that some of the sites in the project area, 
particularly some of the wooden ice dams and the morada, could suffer direct and irreversible 
damage.  Stone structures would not be destroyed, but could be subject to damage, such as 
charring, should a wildfire occur.

Alternative 2 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management (Proposed Action)
The Proposed Action includes vegetation removal by hand or by use of chainsaws and hand and 
mechanical clearing of vegetation as part of a low-intensity prescription. Vegetation management 
activities would likely have minimal or no effect to the 34 potentially eligible sites identified 
during the archaeological surveys, due to the localized nature of vegetation removal activities.  
To avoid any trampling or disturbance of the 34 identified sites, flagging would be used to 
clearly mark off these areas and the sites would be located on a project map. Prior to starting 
work, cultural resource sites would be clearly flagged and avoided. The Applicant would 
coordinate with Steve Lakatos of OAS to delineate the exact location of the 34 sites to be 
flagged. Mr. Lakatos will instruct the Applicant in monitoring procedures for which the 
Applicant would then be responsible for the duration of project activities. The Applicant would 
be responsible for removing the flagging at the termination of project activities. Potential impacts 
to cultural resources would be mitigated by avoidance.

Should any additional potentially significant historic or archaeological materials be discovered 
during project activities or equipment staging, all activities on the site would be halted 
immediately and the City would consult with FEMA and the SHPO or other appropriate agency 
for further guidance.

Alternative 3 - Manual and Mechanical Fuels Management Followed by Broadcast Burning 
Alternative 3 includes vegetation removal by hand or by use of chainsaws and hand and 
mechanical clearing of vegetation followed by broadcast burning. Vegetation management 
activities would likely have minimal or no effect to the 34 potentially eligible sites identified 
during the archaeological surveys, due to the localized nature of vegetation removal activities.  
To avoid any trampling or disturbance of the 34 identified sites, flagging would be used to 
clearly mark off these areas and the sites would be located on a project map. Prior to starting 
work, cultural resource sites would be clearly flagged and avoided. The Applicant would 
coordinate with Steve Lakatos of OAS to delineate the exact location of the 34 sites to be 
flagged. Mr. Lakatos will instruct the Applicant in monitoring procedures for which the 
Applicant would be responsible for the duration of project activities. The Applicant would then 
be responsible for removing the flagging at the termination of project activities. Potential impacts 
to cultural resources would be mitigated by avoidance.

Should any additional potentially significant historic or archaeological materials be discovered 
during project activities or equipment staging, all activities on the site would be halted 
immediately and the City would consult with FEMA and the SHPO or other appropriate agency 
for further guidance.

Section 4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are those effects on the environment that result from the incremental effect 
of the action when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 
what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions.  Cumulative effects 
can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period 
of time. 

Current forest conditions at the project area are a result of decades of fire suppression.  Fire 
suppression has allowed a dense forest to develop, one that is highly flammable and could 
jeopardize the health and safety of residents of the City of Las Vegas and their water supply if a 
wildfire occurs.  If left unmanaged, forest health would continue to decline and the potential for 
wildfires would increase.

In addition to the City of Las Vegas' proposed fuels management project, the USFS has also 
proposed a forest thinning project on Santa Fe National Forest lands within the Gallinas 
watershed for which a USFS EA is being prepared.  Roughly 700 acres of the land grant area 
bordering the Santa Fe National Forest has also been proposed for thinning and burning 
treatment.  The Santa Fe National Forest comprises 1.6 million acres and the USFS is proposing 
treatment on roughly 9,000 acres (Appendix H).  Under the Proposed Action, approximately 
2,115 acres would be thinned from below with a retention of 30 to 40 percent of canopy cover.  
Slash treatment would include broadcast burning, chipping or pile burning.  An additional 550 
acres would be thinned to open up natural meadows, 1,875 acres would be thinned and have a 
retention level of 50 to 100 large trees, and a shaded fuelbreak leaving 20 to 30 large trees per 
acre would be created on 745 acres.  The largest treatment would occur on roughly 3,280 acres 
and would consist of a broadcast burn only (USFS, 2002).

Multiple fuels management projects within the same watershed may increase the amount of 
sediment input to local waterways. However, these impacts would likely be less substantial than 
those that could occur should a high-intensity wildfire take place within the area.  The use of 
erosion control measures would help mitigate for potential erosion from project sites.  
Additionally, burning and thinning activities on the national forest lands would be scheduled to 
occur over a period of 5 to 10 years, reducing the amount of ash and sediment that could 
potentially enter local waterways at one time (SEC, 2002).  Increased sediment would be more 
likely to occur as a result of the construction of 4.1 miles of temporary roads and the 
improvement of 4.3 miles of existing roads to conduct project activities on the national forest 
lands.  Again, this input would likely be less substantial than levels that would occur should a 
high-intensity wildfire occur.  Proper road maintenance, erosion control measures, and the 
staggering of project activities would help reduce sediment loads associated with these roads.
Habitat for local wildlife may increase for some and decrease for others, though the small area to 
be treated in comparison to the overall acreage of the Santa Fe National Forest is unlikely to 
have any significant impact.  Fauna would be able to inhabit other areas of the national forest.   
A very slight risk exists for a broadcast burn to escape its boundaries (see Section 3.4.7).  An 
escaped burn could pose similar threats as a wildfire, potentially affecting the City's water 
supply, the safety of local residents, and natural resources within the area.  While the threat of a 
burn escaping is low, the USFS has proposed to burn in smaller blocks of 200 to 500 acres to 
help ensure that the prescribed fire is manageable (SEC, 2002).

Coordination between the City of Las Vegas and the USFS, which is already underway, ensures 
that the projects are timed an adequate distance apart, that threatened and endangered species 
requirements are met, and that concerns of local residents are properly addressed.  Overall, 
management of the USFS land and land grant area would increase the beneficial effects of the 
City of Las Vegas' thinning project, as it would further reduce the chances of a catastrophic 
wildfire occurring with the Gallinas watershed.

Section 5 Public Participation
FEMA is the lead federal agency for conducting the NEPA compliance process for vegetation 
management, City of Las Vegas, New Mexico. The lead agency's goal is to expedite the 
preparation and review of NEPA documents to be responsive to the needs of the community and 
the Applicant, while meeting the intent of NEPA and complying with all NEPA provisions 
including NHPA, EO 11988, and EO 11990.

A public notice advertising the availability of the draft EA for public review has been published 
in the Las Vegas Daily Optic on August 28, 2003 and September 2, 2003, and is available for 
review online at the FEMA website: http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm (Appendix F).  The 
public will be provided the opportunity to review the EA from August 28, 2003 to September 26, 
2003, and comment on the Proposed Action.    
No public comments were received.


Section 6 Mitigation Measures and Permits
The following mitigation measures would be required for the implementation of the Proposed 
Action: 
1. The Applicant shall employ erosion control measures, including lopping and scattering some 
slash, the use of log erosion barriers, placing slash in skid trails, and reseeding of all 
disturbed areas.
2. Equipment would be staged in existing developed or previously disturbed areas and, if 
feasible, existing paved areas. Existing roads would be utilized, where possible, for project 
equipment.
3. Equipment would not be allowed to enter waterways of the project areas.  
4. A minimum 50-foot vegetative buffer zone shall be retained parallel to waterways.  Buffers 
would increase with increasing slope of land surrounding the waterways.
5. Results from water quality testing at the City's two water-supply reservoirs shall be analyzed 
during and after implementation of the Proposed Action to monitor for any changes to water 
quality.
6. No fuels management activities shall be conducted in riparian areas and all equipment shall 
be kept out of wetland areas.  Project contractor and employees shall be required to avoid 
walking through wetland areas.
7. Debris removed as part of the fuels management project shall not be disposed of within any 
floodplain zones of the project area.
8. Should work be planned within the floodplain, the City shall coordinate with the local 
floodplain administrator regarding applicable permits and/or conditions.
9. Prior to any burning, the appropriate permit for open-burning (20 NMAC 2.60) shall be 
applied for and obtained from NMED Air Quality Bureau. Permit conditions must be strictly 
adhered to, and all smoke minimization and management procedures must be implemented.
10. Appropriate smoke management methods shall be utilized to reduce the effects to the 
surrounding community. 
11. The Applicant shall be required to water down construction areas to reduce dust, when 
necessary.  
12. Running time of fuel-burning equipment shall be minimized and engines would be properly 
maintained to reduce emission of criteria pollutants.
13. Contractor shall contact the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish prior to 
commencement of the project and after project completion in order to allow for field visits by 
Game and Fish personnel (see Appendix B for contact information).
14. A minimum of three snags per acre with a DBH greater than 12 inches and 30 feet in height 
shall be left in place in thinning areas.
15. A minimum of three downed logs per acre with a DBH of at least 10 inches and 8 feet in 
length shall be left for animal habitat.
16. Mitigation standards given in the State of New Mexico Forest Practice Guidelines 
(Appendix D) shall be followed.
17. Thinning shall be conducted during the fall and winter months.
18. Mature gambel oaks would be retained where feasible.
19. Large snags shall be left in place around Peterson and Bradner Reservoirs.
20. No trees with a DBH of 16 inches or greater shall be cut unless the tree is determined to be a 
hazard.
21. No slopes over 45 percent shall be thinned.
22. If appropriate mitigation measures cannot be carried out by the Applicant, presence/absence 
surveys for the MSO and the southwest willow flycatcher shall be conducted prior to the start 
of the project. 
23. Should any hazardous materials be discovered, generated, or used during implementation of 
the proposed project, they shall be disposed of and handled by the City of Las Vegas in 
accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
24. The Applicant shall coordinate with the Public Works Department prior to project 
implementation to minimize any potential impacts to public services and infrastructure.
25. If applicable, project employees shall be required to identify, mark, and avoid utilities such 
as power lines and underground pipes that could potentially be impacted by proposed 
activities.
26. The Applicant will coordinate with the NMSHTD and the local Department of 
Transportation to avoid implementing project activities during peak travel periods.  
27. Adequate safety provisions shall be provided as needed to identify potential fire hazard, 
staging or work areas during fuels management activities.
28. Traffic along adjacent roadways shall be temporarily re-routed, as necessary, during fuels 
management activities. Lane closures, if necessary, shall be coordinated with appropriate fire 
and community officials.
29. To the maximum extent possible, construction-related vehicles shall be prohibited from 
parking on residential streets.
30. Fuels management equipment and vehicle staging shall be located so as not to hinder traffic 
flow around project area.
31. The City of Las Vegas shall adequately notify the public of the time and location of fuels 
management activities and conduct these activities during normal business hours.  
Residential neighborhoods shall be notified in advance of fuels management activities and 
any re-routing of local traffic. Notification would identify a contact person at the local fire 
department.
32. All fuels management activities shall be conducted by qualified personnel trained in the 
proper use of project equipment.  Additionally, all activities shall be conducted in a safe 
manner in accordance with standards specified in OSHA regulations.
33. Appropriate signage shall be posted to prevent individuals from entering the project area 
during fuels management activities.
34. Prior to starting work, cultural resource sites would be clearly identified with flagging. These 
sites must be avoided during implementation of all project activities. The Applicant would 
coordinate with Steve Lakatos of OAS to delineate the exact location of the 34 sites to be 
flagged. Mr. Lakatos will instruct the Applicant in monitoring procedures for which the 
Applicant would then be responsible for the duration of project activities. The Applicant 
would be responsible for removing the flagging at the termination of project activities.
35. Should any additional potentially significant historic or archaeological materials be 
discovered during project activities or equipment staging, all activities on the site would be 
halted immediately and the Applicant would consult with FEMA and the SHPO or other 
appropriate agency for further guidance.

Section 7 Consultations and References

The following agencies were consulted during preparation of this EA: 
Federal Agencies Consulted
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Forest Service, Pecos-Las Vegas Ranger District
State, City, and Local Agencies Consulted
State of New Mexico, Department of Game and Fish
New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau
New Mexico Environment Department, Groundwater Protection
New Mexico Environment Department, Surface Water Quality Bureau
City of Las Vegas, Planning Department
City of Las Vegas, Water and Gas Department
Native American Groups Consulted:


Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 
Henry Kostzuta, Chairman
Cochiti Pueblo 
Governor Andrew Quintana
Comanche Indian Tribe 
Johnny C. Wauqua, Chairman
Hopi Tribe 
Wayne Taylor, Jr., Chairman
Jemez Pueblo 
Governor Paul Tosa
Jicarilla Apache Nation 
President Claudia J. Vigil-Muniz
Kiowa Tribe 
Earl Yeahquo, Chairman 
Mescalero Apache Tribe 
President Sara Misquez
Navajo Nation 
President Kelsey A. Begaye
Pawnee Tribe 
Robert Chapman, President
Santo Domingo Pueblo 
Governor Ernes Lovato
Wichita and Affiliated Tribes 
Gary McAdams, President
Zuni Pueblo 
Governor Malcolm B. Bowekaty


Aber, John et al. 2000. Applying Ecological Principles to Management of the U.S. National 
Forests. Ecological Society of America. Issues in Ecology. No 6. 20 pp.
Arno, Stephen F. et al. 1995.  Age-Class Structure of Old Growth Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-Fir 
Stands and Its Relationship to Fire History. Research Paper INT-RP-481. Intermountain 
Research Station. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Biota Information System of New Mexico BISON-M.  New Mexico Department of Game & 
Fish. 2002.  Retrieved March 20, 2002 from http://nmnhp.unm.edu/bisonm/.
Biswell, Harold. 1989. Prescribed Burning in California Wildlands Vegetation Management. 
University of California Press: Berkeley.
Block, William M. et al. 1995. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl. U.S. Department of 
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Southwestern Region. 347 p.
Brady, Nyle C. and Ray R.Weil. 1996. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Brooks, Kenneth N. et al. 1991. Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds. Iowa State 
University Press.       
Brown, David E.  1994.  Biotic Communities Southwestern United States and Northwestern 
Mexico.  University of Utah Press
Clark, William S. and Brian K. Wheeler. 1987. A Field Guide to Hawks of North America. 
Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts. 
Crawford, Julie A. et al. 2001. Responses of Exotic Plant Species to Fires in Pinus ponderosa 
Forests in Northern Arizona. Journal of Vegetation Science. 12:261-268. 
Dahms, Cathy W. and Brian W.Geils. 1997.  An Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Health in the 
Southwest. Geotechnical Report RM-GTR-295. Fort Collins, CO. US Department of 
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
DeBano, Leonard F. 2000. Fire-Induced Water Repellency: An Erosional Factor in Wildland 
Environments. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-13.
DeVelice, Robert L. et al. 1986. A Classification of Forest Habitat Types of Northern New 
Mexico and Southern Colorado. General Technical Report RM-131. Fort Collins, CO. 
US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 
Experiment Station.
DeWitt Ivey, Robert.  1995.  Flowering Plants of New Mexico.  Third Edition.  Published by the 
author.
Ecological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University (ERI, NAU). 1999. Evolution of 
Ecological Restoration Treatments - Adaptive Ecosystem Management.  
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Criteria Pollutant Reports. Retrieved March 13, 
2002 from www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html
Federal Register. 1995. Ruling to reclassify the Bald Eagle from Endangered to Threatened.  July 
12. Federal Register Vol. 60:36000-36010.
Federal Register. 1999. Ruling to remove the Bald Eagle from the list of Threatened species.  
July 6. Federal Register Vol. 64:36453-36464.
Ffolliott, Peter F.; Malchus B. Baker Jr.; and Gerald J. Gottfried, 2000.  Heavy Thinning of 
Ponderosa Pine Stands:  An Arizona Case Study. Geotechnical Report RM-GTR-295. 
Fort Collins, CO, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest 
and Range Experiment Station. 6p.
Finch, Debrah M. and Scott H. Stoleson. 2000. Status, Ecology, and Conservation of the 
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Geotechnical Report RMRS-GTR-60. Ogden, UT. U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 131p.
Flood Hazard Boundary Map, San Miguel County. Map number 350132 0012 A. U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Federal Insurance Administration.
Garrett, Lawrence D.  1995.  Environmental Implications of Past and Alternative Future 
Management Direction on the Apache/Sitgreaves National Forest.  Executive Summary.  
National Biological Service.
Graham, Russell T.; Alan E. Harvey; Theresa B. Jain; and Jonalea R. Tonn. 1999. The Effects of 
Thinning and Similar Stand Treatments on Fire Behavior in Western Forests. General 
Technical Report PNW-GTR-463. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 27 p.
Griffis, Kerry L. 2000. Understory Response to Management Treatments in Northern Arizona 
Ponderosa Pine Forests. Forest Ecology and Management. Number 146 (2001) 239-245.
Griggs, R.L. and G.E. Hendrickson. 1951. Geology and Ground-Water Resources of San Miguel 
County, New Mexico. New Mexico Bureau of Mines & Mineral Resources.
Hopkins, J. Scott. 2001. Special Water Quality Survey of the Pecos and Gallinas Rivers Below 
the Viveash and Manuelitas Fires - 2000. New Mexico Environment Department.
Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce (COC). 2002. Major Employers - Las Vegas, New Mexico.
Las Vegas / San Miguel Chamber of Commerce. 2001. The Official 2001 Tourism and 
Relocation Guide.  Legacy Publishing, Inc.
Madany, Michael H. and Neil E. West. 1983. Livestock Grazing-Fire Regime Interactions 
Within Montane Forest of Zion National Park, Utah. Ecology. Number 64(4) 661-667.
McIver, James D. and Lynn Starr. 2000. Environmental Effects of Postfire Logging: Literature 
Review and annotated Bibliography. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research 
Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-486.
National Wetlands Inventory Map. 1984. Santa Fe, New Mexico, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Neary, Daniel G.; Peter R. Robichaus; and Jan L. Beyers. 2000. Burned Area Emergency 
Watershed Rehabilitation: Program Goals, Techniques, Effectiveness, and Future 
Directions in the 21st Century. RMRS-P-13. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
New Mexico Business Journal.  2001.  Still Tourism Reliant, Taos is Diversifying [Online].  
Available: Retrieved April 16, 2002 from http://www.nmbiz.com/issues/01/Jun/Taos.htm
New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD). 1992. Guidelines 
for Prescribed Fire in New Mexico. Forestry and Resources Conservation Division.
New Mexico EMNRD. 1994. Water Quality Protection Guidelines for Forestry Operations in 
New Mexico. New Mexico State Forestry.
New Mexico EMNRD. 2002. Twenty Most Vulnerable Urban Interface Communities: Protecting 
our Communities through Better Forest Management. New Mexico State Forestry.
New Mexico Natural Heritage Program.  Retrieved March 22, 2002 from http://nmnhp.unm.edu 
New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council.  New Mexico Rare Plants. Retrieved March 22, 
2002 from http://nmrareplants.unm.edu/.
New Mexico State Engineer Office. Retrieved April 22, 2002 from http://www.seo.state.nm.us/. 
Peterson, Roger T. 1990. A Field Guide To Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Company.         
Scott, Joe H. 1998. Fuel Reduction in Residential and Scenic forest: a Comparison of Three 
Treatments in a Western Montana Ponderosa Pine Stand. Research Paper RMRS-RP-5. 
Ogden, UT, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 
Range Experiment Station. 19 p.
Southwestern Environmental Consultants (SEC). 2002. City of Las Vegas, New Mexico Forest 
Management and Maintenance Plan.  SEC, Inc., Taos, New Mexico.
Stevens, Scott L. 2000. Congressional Testimony on Reducing Fire in Coniferous Forests and in 
the Urban-Wildland Intermix on June 7, 2000. 
U.S. Census, 2000. http://censtats.census.gov/pub/Profiles.shtml
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1981. Soil Survey of San Miguel County Area, New 
Mexico.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002.  Division of Migratory Bird Management.  
Retreived June 14, 2002 from http://migratorybirds.fws.gov.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2001. Viveash Fire Salvage Project Newsletter.  Santa Fe National 
Forest, Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger District [Online].  Retrieved April 16, 2002 from 
http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/sfe/fire/viveash/ViVashNewL.pdf 
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2002. Butterflies of North America. Retrieved March 26, 2002 
from http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/lepid/bflyusa/. 
USGS. 2001.  Earthquake History of New Mexico. Retrieved March 26, 2002 from 
http://neic.usgs.gov/ncis/states/new_mexico/new-mexico-history.html.
USGS. 1997. US Geological Survey. http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/graphics/usmap.pdf.
Wade, D.D. and J.D. Lunsford. 1989. A Guide for Prescribed Fire in Southern Forests. Technical 
Publication R8-TP 11. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 
Region.
Wentz, C.1989. Hazardous Waste Management. McGraw-Hill Chemical Engineering Series: 
New York.
White, Elliott K.J. 1987. Competitive Effects of Various Grasses and Forbs on Ponderosa Pine 
Seedlings.  Forest Science. V. 33(#2) pp. 356-366.
Woolsey, TS. 1911. Western yellow pine in Arizona and New Mexico.  Bulletin 101. US 
Department of Agriculture. Forest Service.
Worldplaces. 2002. Las Vegas, New Mexico Community Facts.  Retrieved January 25, 2002 
from www.worldplaces.com/Las.Vegas.New.Mexico/facts.htm
Zwolinski, Malcolm J. 2000. The role of fire in management of watershed responses. USDA 
Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-13.
Personal Communications:
Ball, Brad,  2002.  Forestry Consultant, SEC.  Personal communication with Julie Kutz, URS 
Biologist, June 25, 2002.
Garcia, Gerald.  2002.  City Planner, City of Las Vegas.  Personal communication with Laura 
Dunleavy, URS Environmental Scientist, March 7, 2002.
Gonzales, Santiago. 2002. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.  Personal communication with Julie 
Kutz, URS Biologist, April 16, 2002.
Gonzales, Thomas. 2002. U.S. Forest Service, Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger District.  Personal 
communication with Julie Kutz, URS Biologist, April 8, 2002.
Johnson, Lee. 2002. Santa Fe, NM. ID: U.S. Forest Service Biologist, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Santa Fe National Forest Service.  Personal communication with Julie Kutz, 
URS Biologist, March 8, 2002.
Martinez, Elmer. 2002. Community Development Director, City of Las Vegas.  Personal 
communication with Laura Dunleavy, URS Environmental Scientist, March 7, 2002.
Tafoya, Robert. 2002. Water Engineering Technician, City of Las Vegas.  Personal 
communication with Julie Kutz, URS Biologist, March 4, 2002.
Trujillo, Peter. 2002. Traffic Engineer, New Mexico State Highway and Transportation 
Department.  Personal communication with Laura Dunleavy, URS Scientist, February 7, 
2002.
Watson, Mark.  2002. Habitat Specialist. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.  Personal 
communication with Julie Kutz, URS Biologist, April 3, 2002.


Section 8 List of Preparers
URS Group, Inc.
Julie Kutz, Senior Biologist - Lead technical researcher. Author of sections on: Geology and 
Soils, Water Resources, Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment, Wetlands, Threatened and 
Endangered Species, and Visual Resources.
Laura Dunleavy, Senior Environmental Scientist - Technical researcher. Author of sections on: 
Floodplain Management, Air Quality, Hazardous Materials and Wastes, Zoning and Land Use, 
Noise, Public Service and Utilities, Traffic and Circulation, Environmental Justice, Safety and 
Security, and Cultural Resources. 
Janet Frey, Project Environmental Scientist - URS Task Order Coordinator
Amy Siegel - Document Quality Control
Erica Zamensky, Project Environmental Scientist - Document Independent Technical Reviewer
  

Appendix A
Photographs

Photograph 1: View toward project area from Hot Springs
Photograph 2: Western side of Bradner Reservoir (Priority 2 stand)
Photograph 3: Eastern side of Bradner Reservoir (Priority 1 stand)
Photograph 4: Doghair thicket near Bradner Reservoir
Photograph 5: Southern end of Peterson Reservoir (Priority 2 stand)
Photograph 6: Existing road at Peterson Reservoir to be potentially used as a skid trail
Photograph 7: Looking north from Peterson Reservoir to United World College
Photograph 8: Gallinas River, looking southwest
Photograph 9: North-facing slope along Gallinas River, looking downstream
Photograph 10: Willows growing along Gallinas River
Photograph 11: Looking south at project area from State Highway 65
Photograph 12: Village of Montezuma
Photograph 13: City of Las Vegas Water Treatment Plant.  Area to be thinned can be seen in 
background.


Appendix B
Agency Correspondence


URS Corresponded with: 


United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Jefferson NE, Room 305
Albuquerque, NM 87109-3734

State of New Mexico Environmental Department
Office of the Secretary
P.O. Box 26110
Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110

State of New Mexico
Department of Fish & Game
Village Building - P.O. Box 25112
Santa Fe, NM 87503

State of New Mexico Environmental Department
Air Quality Bureau - Harold Runnels Building
1190 St. Francis Dr.
Santa Fe, NM 87502-6110

United States Department of the Army
Albuquerque District, Corps of Engineers
4101 Jefferson Plaza NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109-3435

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
New Mexico Ecological Field Office
2105 Osuna NE 
Albuquerque, NM 87113

U.S. Forest Service
Pecos-Las Vegas Ranger District
Pecos, NM 87552

Bureau of Land Management
Albuquerque Field Office
435 Montano Rd., NE
Albuquerque, NM 87101-4935


Office of Emergency Management
Emergency Management Center
13 Bataan Blvd.
P.O. Box 1628
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1628

State of New Mexico Environment Department
Surface Water Quality Bureau - Harold S. Runnels 
Building
1190 St. Francis Dr.
Santa Fe, NM 87502-0110

EPA Region 6
Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
Office of Planning and Coordination
1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202-2733

State of New Mexico Environment Department
Ground Water Bureau - Harold Runnels Building
1190 St. Francis Dr.
Santa Fe, NM 87502-0110

City of Las Vegas
Community Development Department
P.O. Box 160
Las Vegas, New Mexico 87701-0160

State of New Mexico
Office of Cultural Affairs - Historic Preservation 
Division
La Villa Rivera Building, 228 East Palace Ave.
Santa Fe, NM 87501

To obtain copies of agency correspondence, contact:
Janet Frey
URS Group, Inc.
200 Orchard Ridge Dr., Suite 101
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
Tel: 301-258-9780


Appendix C
EO 11988 and EO 11990
Eight-Step Planning Process

Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management  
Executive Order 11990 Wetland Protection  
Eight-Step Planning Process Summary 

Step 1: Determine whether the Proposed 
Action is located in a wetland and/or the 100-
year floodplain, or whether it has the potential 
to affect or be affected by a floodplain or 
wetland.

Project Analysis: The Gallinas River runs 
through the project area and the City of Las 
Vegas' two water supply reservoirs (Bradner 
and Peterson) are located within the project 
area.  Thinning activities would take place 
around the wetland areas, and a minimum 50-
foot buffer would be implemented to avoid 
equipment entering the wetland zones.

Step 2: Notify public at earliest possible time 
of the intent to carry out an action in a 
floodplain or wetland, and involve the affected 
and interested public in the decision-making 
process.

Project Analysis: An initial public notice was 
posted by FEMA as part of the original disaster 
declaration (see page C4).  The notice indicated 
that actions would be potentially taken that 
would have an effect on the floodplain and/or 
wetlands. 

Step 3: Ident
ify and evaluate practicable 
alternatives to locating the Proposed Action in 
a floodplain or wetland.

Project Analysis: The following alternatives 
were evaluated:

Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Proposed Action.  Manual and 
mechanical thinning of specified trees.  Slash 
would be piled and burned, lopped and 
scattered, or removed from the site. No 
thinning would occur in riparian zones or 
wetlands.
Alternative 3: Manual and mechanical thinning 
of specified trees.  Slash would be scattered 
across ground and broadcast burned.  No 
thinning would occur in riparian zones or 
wetlands.

Step 4: Identify the full range of potential 
direct or indirect impacts associated with the 
occupancy or modification of floodplains and 
wetlands and the potential direct and indirect 
support of floodplain and wetland development 
that could result from the Proposed Action.

Project Analysis: 
Under the No Action Alternative, severe 
stormwater runoff could lead to increased 
flooding of the area within the floodplain and 
potentially outside floodplain zones.  This 
condition would persist for several years until 
vegetation and soil is reestablished to pre-fire 
conditions. Sediment runoff may eventually be 
carried into drainage ways and rivers, and 
potentially into wetland areas, thus altering or 
destroying habitat.
Because there would be no federal funding 
under this alternative, there is no requirement 
to comply with EO 11988. 
Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, would not 
expand the 100-year floodplain.  There would 
be a risk of increased erosion from vegetation 
removal activities and a potential increase of 
runoff into the wetland areas.  This impact 
would not be substantial because thinning 
would be selective to control adverse effects 
and erosion measures would be implemented.  
Reseeding and lop and scatter of some slash 
would be conducted in areas disturbed by 
project activities. 
Alternative 3, would not impact the 100-year 
floodplain.  There would be a risk of increased 
erosion from vegetation removal activities and 
a potential increase of runoff into the wetland 
areas.  This impact would not be substantial 
because thinning would be selective to control 
adverse effects.  Slash would be scattered and 
broadcast burned.  A slight and temporary 
increase in ash runoff would be expected into 
wetland areas.  Erosion control measures and 
reseeding would be conducted in areas 
disturbed by project activities to effectively 
mitigate for increases in runoff..

Step 5: Minimize the potential adverse impacts 
to work within floodplains and wetlands to be 
identified under Step 4, restore and preserve 
the natural and beneficial values served by 
wetlands.

Project Analysis: Mitigation measures 
described in Step 4, the use of erosion control 
measures and reseeding, would reduce 
potential adverse effects to wetlands near the 
proposed project area.  Additionally, a 50-foot 
minimum buffer zone would be established 
around wetland and riparian areas, further 
reducing potential impacts.

Step 6: Re-evaluate the Proposed Action to 
determine 1) if it is still practicable in light of 
its exposure to flood hazards; 2) the extent to 
which it will aggravate the hazards to others; 
and 3) its potential to disrupt floodplain and 
wetland values.

Project Analysis: The Proposed Action 
remains practicable based on the objective to 
protect the citizens and water supply of the 
City of Las Vegas area.  The action is not 
anticipated to increase flood elevations or flood 
velocities upstream or downstream.  Floodplain 
and wetland values would remain viable.

Step 7: If the agency decides to take an action 
in a floodplain or wetland, prepare and provide 
the public with a finding and explanation of 
any final decision that the floodplain or 
wetland is the only practicable alternative. The 
explanation should include any relevant factors 
considered in the decision-making process.

Project Analysis: A public notice would be 
made based on the decision to proceed with the 
Proposed Action.  At a minimum, this notice 
shall state a reason for locating the Proposed 
Action in the floodplain; a description of all 
significant facts considered in making 
determination; a list of the alternatives 
considered; a statement indicating whether the 
action conforms to state and local floodplain 
protection standards; and a statement indicating 
how the action affects the wetlands and how 
mitigation would be achieved.

Step 8: Review the implementation and post-
implementation phases of the Proposed Action 
to ensure that the requirements of the EOs are 
fully implemented. Oversight responsibility 
shall be integrated into existing processes. 

Project Analysis: This step is integrated into 
the NEPA process and FEMA project 
management and oversight functions.


Appendix D
New Mexico Forest Practice Guidelines

To obtain copies of the New Mexico Forest Practice Guidelines, contact:
Janet Frey
URS Group, Inc
200 Orchard Ridge Dr, Suite 101
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
Tel: 301-258-9780


Appendix E
Summary of Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern


Table 1: Protected and Sensitive Species

[Table has 6 columns:
1. SPECIES
2. FEDERAL STATUS
3. HABITAT NEEDS
4. POSSIBILITY OF OCCURRENCE IN PROJECT AREA
5. POTENTIAL IMPACT
6. MITIGATION MEASURES]

1. Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes)
2. Endangered
3. *	Prairie grasslands
*	Found in prairie dog towns
*	Not known to occur in NM
4. No
5. No
6. None required

1. Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)
2. Candidate
3. *	Shortgrass or midgrass prairies
*	Grassy areas associated with alluvial fans at the mouths of draws
*	Grasslands where no brush is present or is sparse
4. No
5. No
6. None required

1. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Mixed conifer
*	Oak woodlands
*	Nursery colonies found in caves, mines and Ponderosa Pine snags
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. *	Minimum number of snags to be left in place and not removed 
*	No large diameter tress would be cut

1. Long-eared Myotis (Myotis evoris)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Coniferous forests 
*	Day roosts in tree cavities under loose bark, caves, mines, large diameter snags
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. *	Minimum number of snags to be left in place
*	No large diameter trees would be cut

1. New Mexican Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Permanent streams
*	Dense diverse streamside vegetation: grasses, sedges, forbs
*	Willows, montane meadows
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. *	No thinning in riparian zone

1. Occult Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus occultus)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Most specimens taken near large water sources, otherwise vegetation zone unimportant for determination
*	Found in caves, cliffs, conifer snags greater than 20 inches DBH
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. *	Minimum number of snags to be left in place
*	No large diameter trees would be cut

1. Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Plecotus townsendii)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Habitat is geomorphically determined in rocky situations with caves and mines
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. *	No thinning would be conducted around cliff areas
*	Thinning would be conducted during fall and winter months

1. Pecos River Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus ripensis)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Riparian areas: rivers, drainage ditches, lakes, springs
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. *	No thinning in riparian areas

1. Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Rocky cliffs near riparian situation
*	Summers in Ponderosa Pine, Pinyon-Juniper, spruce-fir
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. *	Thinning would be conducted during fall and winter months
*	No thinning would be conducted around cliff areas

1. Swift Fox (Vulpes velox)
2. Candidate
3. *	Arid prairie lands
*	Plains-mesa sandscrub
4. No
5. No
6. None required

1. American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Mixed conifer
*	Nests in high cliffs
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. *	Other habitat available in surrounding area.
*	Thinning would be conducted in fall and winter months  

1. Arctic Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Mixed conifer
*	Pinyon-juniper
*	Rare in NM, only known occurrence in Roswell and White Sands Missile Range
4. May occur only as migrant
5. No
6. None required

1. Baird's Sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Grasslands, lowland prairies
*	Forest edges
4. May occur as migrant or as occasional on far eastern edge of project area
5. No
6. None required

1. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
2. Threatened, Proposed delisting
3. *	Coasts, rivers, large lakes
*	Mountains, open  country
*	Common in fall and winter in San Miguel County
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. *	Other habitat available in surrounding area.
*	Snags would be left in place around City reservoirs.

1. Black Tern (Chlidonias niger)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Prairie wetlands
*	Bogs, marshes
*	Open water, stands of cattails, rushes
4. Yes
5. No
6. None required

1. Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Open plains
*	Desert scrub
4. No
5. No
6. None required

1. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Agricultural lands
*	Prairies, shrub
*	Forest edges
4. May occur only as migrant
5. No
6. None required

1. Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida)
2. Threatened
3. *	Mixed conifer
*	Broad-leaved forests such as Gambel Oak, Box Elder
*	Canyons with steep sides
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. *	No thinning on slopes greater than 40% 
*	Minimum numbers of snags to be left in place. 
*	No large diameter trees would be cut. 
*	Other habitat available in surrounding area.
*	Thinning would be conducted during fall and winter months

1. Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus)
2. Proposed Threatened
3. *	Open plains
*	Shortgrass prairie
*	Sod farms
*	Common in plains areas
4. No
5. No
6. None required

1. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Montane forests: mixed-conifer, Ponderosa Pine, subalpine fir, old-growth
*	Snags and downed timber important for prey base
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. *	Other habitat available in surrounding area.  
*	Minimum number of snags and downed timber would be left in project area. 
*	No large diameter trees would be cut.
*	Thinning would be conducted during fall and winter months

1. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)
2. Endangered
3. *	Willows, dense vegetation generally near still waters
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. *	No thinning would be conducted in riparian zone and minimum 50-foot buffer would be implemented 
between equipment and streamside.
*	Thinning would be conducted during fall and winter months

1. Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Open grasslands, prairies
*	Associated with prairie dog towns
*	Some mountain, alpine meadow use
4. No
5. No
6. None required

1. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Subalpine marshes
*	Irrigated agricultural land
4. No
5. No
6. None required

1. Whooping Crane (Grus Americana)
2. Experimental Population, Non-essential
3. *	Major river courses
4. No
5. No
6. None required

1. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Lowland riparian forest (2800 feet to 7500 feet)
*	Riparian thickets
4. May occur as summer transient
5. Yes
6. *	No thinning would be conducted in riparian zone and minimum 50-foot buffer would be implemented 
between equipment and streamside.
*	Thinning would be conducted during fall and winter months

1. Flathead Chub (Platygobio gracilis)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Canadian and Pecos Rivers
4. No
5. No
6. None required

1. Plains Minnow (Hybognathus placitus)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Canadian River headwaters
*	Turbid rivers and creeks, main channels of major streams
*	Short distance upstream in tributaries of major rivers
4. No
5. No
6. None required

1. Texas Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Flat, open, generally dry land with sparse vegetation
4. No
5. No
6. None required

1. New Mexico Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria nokomis nitocris)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Alpine and streamside meadows
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. *	No thinning in riparian zones
*	Thinning would be conducted during fall and winter months

1. Chiricahua Dock (Rumex orthoneurus)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Mid- to high-elevation wetland habitats in Arizona and Southwestern New Mexico
4. No
5. No
6. None required

1. Dwarf Milkweed (Asclepias uncialis)
2. Species of Concern
3. *	Shortgrass prairie
4. No
5. No
6. None required

1. Holy Ghost Ipomopsis (Ipomopsis sancti-spiritus)
2. Endangered
3. *	Found in only one canyon in the upper Pecos River drainage of the southern Sangre de Cristo Mountains
4. No
5. No
6. None required


Appendix F
Public Notice


PUBLIC NOTICE
Environmental Assessment for Fuels Modification and Management in the City of Las 
Vegas, San Miguel County, New Mexico.  FEMA-1329-DR-NM

Interested persons are hereby notified that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
is proposing to assist in the funding of fuels management activities in the City of Las Vegas in 
San Miguel County, New Mexico.  In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, the National Historic Preservation Act and the implementing regulations of FEMA, an 
Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to assess the potential impacts of the 
proposed action on the human and natural environment.
The EA evaluates alternatives that provide for compliance with applicable environmental laws.  
The alternatives to be evaluated include (1) No Action Alternative; (2) Manual and mechanical 
fuels management (Alternative 2- Proposed Action); and (3) Manual and mechanical fuels 
management followed by a broadcast burn (Alternative 3).  Fuels management activities would 
occur on approximately 478 acres of the 991 acres of City-owned land located roughly 5 miles 
from downtown Las Vegas.  This land serves as a forested buffer for the City's drinking water 
supply.

The draft EA is available for review between August 28, 2003 and September 26, 2003, at the 
City of Las Vegas building, 905 12th Street, Las Vegas, New Mexico 87701, or by contacting 
Robert Tafoya at 505-454-3832 between the hours of 8 A.M. and 5 P.M. The EA is also 
available for review online at the FEMA website: http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm.
Written comments regarding this action should be directed to Janet Frey, Project Manager, URS 
Group, 200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101, Gaithersburg, MD 20878.  Comments should be 
directed no later than 5 P.M. on September 26, 2003.

Appendix G
Public Comments

No public comments were received.

Appendix H
Map of Proposed USFS Gallinas Watershed Thinning Project

The figure in Appendix H shows the Santa Fe National Forest, which comprises 1.6 million acres. 
The figure also shows the U.S. Forest Service's plan to reduce fuel loads on roughly 9,000 acres within 
the Santa Fe National Forest. The U.S. Forest Service will conduct fuel load management by thinning, 
broadcast burning, creating fire breaks, and by combining all practices to reduce the forest canopy by approximately 
40 percent.