ALAMOGORDO 

REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

VOLUME 1

PREPARED BY

BLM

BLM

US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Las Cruces District Office

1800 Marquess Street

Las Cruces NM 88005

August 2010
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the balanced management of the public lands and 

resources and their various values so that they are considered in a combination that will best serve the 

needs of the American people. Management is based upon the principals of multiple use and sustained 

yield, a combination of uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for 

renewable and nonrenewable resources. These resources include recreation, range, timber, minerals, 

watershed, fish and wildlife, wilderness and natural, scenic, scientific, and cultural values.

BLM/NM/PL-10-02-1793
United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Las Cruces District Office

 1800 Marquess Street

Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005

www.blm.gov/nm

In Reply Refer To:

1793 (L0310)

August 2010

Dear Reader:

Enclosed for your review is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the 

Alamogordo Regional Water Supply Project. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has 

prepared the DEIS to assess the City of Alamogordo’s proposal to develop a municipal potable 

water supply. The City has determined that the current water supply is not sufficient to meet 

current and future projected water demands and has submitted a right-of-way application to the 

BLM to construct and operate groundwater wells on BLM-managed land in Otero County, New 

Mexico.

The DEIS has been developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. A preferred 

alternative has not been identified by the BLM in the DEIS. Because there is not a preferred 

alternative at this time, Alternative B is used in the cumulative effects section since it includes 

the most complete combination of all the brackish water sources. A preferred alternative will be 

identified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) based on public comment.

The DEIS is open for a 60-day review and comment period beginning on the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.

The DEIS is available both in hard copy and on compact disc (CD). The DEIS also is available 

electronically on the BLM web site: http://www.blm.gov/nm and for public inspection at the

following locations:

• Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, 

New Mexico.

• Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las 

Cruces, New Mexico.

• City of Alamogordo Public Library: 920 Oregon Avenue, Alamogordo, New Mexico.

• Village of Tularosa Public Library: 515 Fresno Street, Tularosa, New Mexico.

ALAMOGORDO REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

LEAD AGENCY: USDI, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

COOPERATING AGENCIES: USDI, Bureau of Reclamation

Otero County, New Mexico

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Lorraine Salas, Project Manager

BLM Las Cruces District Office

1800 Marquess Street

Las Cruces NM 88005

(575) 525-4388

Email: Lorraine_Salas@nm.blm.gov

COMMENTS:

BLM must receive written comments on the Alamogordo Regional Water Supply Project Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement within 60 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes this Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. You may use the following methods for 

sending comments:

• Email: nmlcdo_comments@blm.gov

• FAX: 575-525-4412

• Mail: Bureau of Land Management, Alamogordo Regional Water Supply Project, Attention: 

Lorraine Salas, Project Manager, 1800 Marquess Street, Las Cruces, NM 88005.

ABSTRACT:

The City of Alamogordo, New Mexico has submitted to the BLM an application for a right-of-way 

(ROW) for the construction and use of up to 10 groundwater wells in order to produce approximately 

4,000 acre-feet per year of water with supporting infrastructure on BLM-managed public land in Otero 

County. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, and supported by 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, the BLM will decide whether to grant the ROW or 

grant the ROW with modifications, and, if so, under what terms and conditions.

The proposed action (Alternative B) by the City of Alamogordo includes obtaining unappropriated 

brackish groundwater from the Snake Tank Well Field, constructing and operating 10 groundwater wells 

at Snake Tank Well Field, installing water transmission lines to Alamogordo, and constructing a 

desalination facility and a booster pump station in Alamogordo to treat the brackish groundwater to 

drinking water standards. Alternative A is the “No Action” Alternative, as required by NEPA. The No 

Action Alternative describes conditions expected to occur if there would be no new well field 

development or additional water supply beyond the City’s current water supply.
Table of Contents

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS TOC-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. ii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................. ES-1

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................ES-1

Public Involvement ...........................................................................................................................ES-1

Purpose and Need Statement.............................................................................................................ES-2

Alternatives.......................................................................................................................................ES-2

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................ES-4

1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action ...............................................................................................1-1

1.3 General Location ......................................................................................................................1-3

1.4 Background and History...........................................................................................................1-4

1.5 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs................................................................1-9

1.6 Scope of this Environmental Impact Statement........................................................................1-9

1.7 Authorizing Actions and Decisions........................................................................................1-13

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES....................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail.............................................................................................2-1

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis...........................................2-24

2.4 Summary Comparison of Environmental Impacts .................................................................2-36

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Resources Not Affected............................................................................................................3-1

3.3 Affected Resources...................................................................................................................3-2

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Environmental Consequences of Each Alternative ..................................................................4-1

4.3 Mitigation Measures...............................................................................................................4-49

4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts................................................................................................4-53

4.5 Short-Term uses versus Long-Term Productivity ..................................................................4-54

4.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ......................................................4-54

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .......................................................... 5-1

5.1 Bureau of Land Management ...................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Bureau of Reclamation .............................................................................................................5-1

5.3 SWCA and SubConsultants......................................................................................................5-2

6.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 6-1

7.0 ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYM LIST............................................................... 7-1

8.0 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. 8-1

9.0 INDEX........................................................................................................................ 9-1
Table of Contents

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS TOC-ii

VOLUME 2 – APPENDIXES

Appendix A – NMOSE 2005 Report

Appendix B – NMOSE Decision 2008

Appendix C – Recent Court Rulings and Settlement Agreements

Appendix D – Public Scoping Report 

Appendix E – Minute Order

Appendix F - Technical Report #51 and #48

Appendix G –City of Alamogordo Regional Desalination Project Plan of Development 

NM104116

Appendix H – Water Resources Technical Report

Appendix I – Hydrogeology Technical Report

Appendix J – Affected Environment Information by Resource

Appendix K – BLM Letter to USFWS

Appendix L – Government to Government Letters

Appendix M – Military Consultation Letters

Appendix N – Tularosa Underground Water Basin Administrative Criteria for the AlamogordoTularosa Area

LIST OF FIGURES

1-1. Study area overview. ........................................................................................................... 1-5

1-2. Groundwater resources........................................................................................................ 1-6

2-1. Alternative B Components. ................................................................................................. 2-5

2-2. Proposed Snake Tank Well Field. ....................................................................................... 2-6

2-3. Select wells and monitoring wells within the project area. ................................................ 2-11

2-4. Reverse osmosis treatment process. .................................................................................. 2-12

2-5. Preliminary process flow diagram..................................................................................... 2-14

2-6. Conceptual Footprint of proposed desalination facilities.................................................. 2-15

2-7. Snake Tank Well Field plan of development schematic. ................................................... 2-19

2-8. Deep-injection well schematic........................................................................................... 2-20

2-9. Maxwell Spring Ranch. ..................................................................................................... 2-25

2-10. Well field locations.......................................................................................................... 2-28

2-11. Annual precipitation, El Paso, Texas, 1990–2005........................................................... 2-29

2-12. Groundwater diversions near Alamogordo...................................................................... 2-33

2-13. Alternative facility locations for desalination facility. .................................................... 2-38

3-1. Affected environment location. ........................................................................................... 3-3

3-2. Major drainages in Tularosa Basin...................................................................................... 3-6

3-3. Major springs in Tularosa Basin.......................................................................................... 3-7

3-4. Tularosa Basin sub-basins (Huff 2005). ............................................................................ 3-10

3-5. Fresh groundwater resources in the Tularosa Basin.......................................................... 3-12

3-6. Slightly saline groundwater resources in Tularosa Basin.................................................. 3-13

3-7. Soil types in study area...................................................................................................... 3-18

3-8. Habitat for White Sands pupfish. ...................................................................................... 3-38

3-9. Study area land uses. ......................................................................................................... 3-41

3-10. PNM resources electrical transmission network. ............................................................ 3-43
Table of Contents

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS TOC-iii

3-11. Annual Mean Temperature Change for Northern Latitudes............................................ 3-48

4-1. Predicted dry wells in the Tularosa Basin by 2045 (Huff 2005). ........................................ 4-4

4-2. JSAI model drawdown predictions...................................................................................... 4-6

4-3. NMOSE model drawdown predictions (NMOSE 2009)..................................................... 4-7

4-4. Groundwater flow direction with Snake Tank well field pumping (Huff 2005)................. 4-8

4-5. Predicted drawdown from JSAI model and habitat for White Sands pupfish................... 4-19

LIST OF TABLES

ES-1. Summary Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................... ES-2

ES-2. Summary Comparison of Impacts by Resource............................................................ ES-5

1-1. Projected Water Demand for Alamogordo, 2005–2045..................................................... 1-3

1-2. Public Scoping Meeting Information ............................................................................... 1-10

1-3. Summary of Potential Permits and Regulatory Requirements......................................... 1-14

2-1. Summary of Water Supply and Sources by Alternative...................................................... 2-2

2-2. Comparison of Per Capita Water Use in Major Cities in the Southwestern United 

States for the Year 2001....................................................................................................... 2-3

2-3. City of Alamogordo Additional Water Needed by City (AFY).......................................... 2-3

2-4. Distance the Pipeline Must Travel through Various Lands................................................ 2-16

2-5. Facility Cost Estimates in 2005 Dollars............................................................................ 2-21

2-6. Annualized Cost Summary................................................................................................ 2-22

2-7. Impacts Summary.............................................................................................................. 2-39

3-1. Surface Water Use in Otero County, 2000 .......................................................................... 3-8

3-2. Year 2000 Summary of Groundwater Use in Otero County ............................................. 3-14

3-3. Total Diversion and Estimated Consumptive Water Use within the Tularosa Basin........ 3-15

3-4. Characteristics of Dominant Soil Units in Study Area...................................................... 3-17

3-5. Land Cover Types Found in the Study Area ..................................................................... 3-19

3-6. Listed Riparian Plant Species near or within the Study Area............................................ 3-20

3-7. Federally Listed Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the Study Area ................. 3-21

3-8. Other Special Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur in the Study Area................. 3-22

3-9. Noxious Weeds Observed in the Study Area .................................................................... 3-23

3-10. Federally Listed Wildlife with Potential to Occur in Study Area ................................... 3-25

3-11. Special Status Wildlife Species with the Potential to Occur in the Study Area.............. 3-27

3-12. Federal- and State-listed Wildlife Species that could Occur in Otero County and are 

Identified in the New Mexico CWCS as Occurring in Cienega/Spring Ecosystems......... 3-29

3-13. Cultural Resources (Archaeological Sites) within the Study Area.................................. 3-35

3-14. Comparison of Ethnic and Racial Populations................................................................ 3-36

3-15. Economic Comparison Data............................................................................................ 3-36

3-16. Population and Growth Rate, Otero County.................................................................... 3-37

3-17. Full- and Part-time Employment by Sector in Otero County.......................................... 3-37

3-18. Otero County Earnings.................................................................................................... 3-38

3-19. Comparison of Residential Water and Sewer Rates for 10 Southwest Cities................. 3-38

3-20. Environmental Justice Value and Population Vulnerability............................................ 3-39

3-21. Groundwater Depletions from Irrigated Agriculture in the Tularosa Basin.................... 3-40

3-22. Roadway Levels of Service ............................................................................................. 3-44

3-23. Traffic Capacity of Roadways in Study Area.................................................................. 3-44
Table of Contents

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS TOC-iv

4-1. Soil Disturbance under Alternative B by Project Feature ................................................. 4-11

4-2. Range of Costs for Water Rights Acquisition Under Alternative B.................................. 4-22

4-3. Environmental Justice Index Values for the Study Area................................................... 4-24

4-4. Land Uses Affected by Facility Construction ................................................................... 4-26

4-5. Transportation Effects on LOS under Alternative B......................................................... 4-29

4-6. Estimated Annual Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions under Alternative B ......................... 4-32

4-7. Relevant Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Considered for 

Cumulative Impacts Analysis............................................................................................ 4-38

4-8. Cumulative Impacts on Water Resources.......................................................................... 4-42

4-9. Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources................................................................... 4-44

4-10. Cumulative Impacts on Cultural Resources .................................................................... 4-45

4-11. Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomic Resources......................................................... 4-46

4-12. Cumulative Impacts on Land Use ................................................................................... 4-47

4-13. Cumulative Impacts on Energy Requirements................................................................ 4-48

4-14. Cumulative Impacts on Air Quality................................................................................. 4-49
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared the Alamogordo Water Supply Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the City of Alamogordo’s (City’s) 

proposal to develop a municipal potable water supply. The City has determined that the current 

water supply is not sufficient to meet current and future projected water demands and has 

submitted a right-of-way application to the BLM to construct and operate groundwater wells on 

BLM-managed land.

This analysis has been carried out to meet requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). This Draft EIS evaluates two alternatives, a No Action Alternative and Proposed 

Action. The EIS has been prepared to: 1) analyze the environmental impacts of alternatives that 

would meet the proposed purpose and need, 2) assist the BLM in deciding whether to authorize 

rights-of-way to the City to develop well sites and associated pipeline infrastructure on land 

under the jurisdiction of the BLM, and 3) assist Reclamation in determining the viability of 

funding a desalination facility, should funds under Title XVI become available. The Draft EIS 

evaluates the potential biological, economic, and social consequences that would likely result 

from implementing each alternative.

Cooperating agencies include the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Otero County. 

Reclamation is evaluating funding provisions for the construction and operation of a desalination 

facility. Otero County possesses special expertise with respect to environmental resources and 

potential impacts in the study area. The Draft EIS has been prepared in accordance with NEPA

requirements for the BLM and Reclamation.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The BLM and Reclamation held two public scoping meetings prior to preparation of this EIS to 

identify key issues and concerns about the City’s proposal. Key issues and concerns expressed 

during public and agency scoping affected the impact analysis and alternatives development. 

Issues of primary concern to the public at the Alamogordo public scoping meeting included 

water provision for projected growth in the region, groundwater drawdown, balanced growth 

with water use, and the City’s accountability for any impacts to non-City groundwater wells. 

Additional key issues included watershed management, the location of the facilities, growth 

management, and economic impacts.

At the Tularosa public scoping meeting, issues of primary concern to the public included the 

proximity of wells to the Village of Tularosa and other residential wells outside Tularosa, the 

potential effects of the project on ranching and agriculture in the region, the potential for 

groundwater drawdown in residential wells, brackish water intrusion, and growth management in 

the region. Additional key issues included the potential effects on acequias (irrigation ditches) 

and surface water, economic impacts, and monitoring measures.
Executive Summary

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS ES-2

The Draft EIS will be available for public review for a 60-day period, during which public 

comment meetings will be held to solicit comments. Public comments received during this 

period will be responded to and incorporated into the Final EIS, as appropriate. Public notices 

will be distributed to inform the public of the availability of the Draft EIS and the public 

meetings.

PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT

The purpose of the action is to provide a right-of-way (ROW) across public land for the 

transportation of groundwater resources by allowing for the construction of a groundwater 

development and conveyance system to meet a municipal need. The need for the action is 

established by the BLM’s responsibility under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) to respond to requests for ROWs. It is the policy of the BLM to authorize all ROW 

applications that are in conformance with approved land use plans at the discretion of the 

authorized officer. The BLM’s objective is to meet public needs for use authorizations such as 

ROWs, permits, leases, and easements while avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to other 

resource values. The proposal to construct groundwater wells and associated infrastructure 

would be in accordance with this objective.

In order to develop the 4,000 acre-feet per year (afy) of water rights granted by the New Mexico 

Office of the State Engineer (NMOSE) to the City, the City has submitted a ROW application to 

the BLM for their proposal. The City’s proposal includes the construction of 10 wells in the 

Snake Tank well field, an associated desalination plant (off-public land) and the necessary water 

distribution lines across BLM-managed and non-BLM managed lands. This proposal will assist 

in responding to the projected 2045 demands for potable water for the City of Alamogordo.

ALTERNATIVES

NEPA requires consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives that could accomplish the 

project’s purpose and need. This Draft EIS provides an evaluation of the No Action Alternative 

and the Proposed Action Alternative. Several other alternatives have been initially considered 

and eliminated from detailed analysis.

TABLE ES-1 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE

CURRENT CITY WATER SUPPLY

NON-CITY WATER 

SUPPLY

TOTAL

(AFY)

GROUNDWATER

(AFY)

SURFAC

E (AFY)

SNAKE 

TANK 

(AFY)

PURCHASED/LEASED 

(AFY)

Alternative A (No 

Action) 3,931 3,513 0 0 7,444

Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 3,931 3,513 3,200 198 10,842
Executive Summary

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS ES-3

ALTERNATIVE A—NO ACTION

The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) describes conditions expected to occur if the City 

were to continue to rely on existing resources to meet current and future drinking water demands. 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no new well field development or additional 

water supply beyond the City’s existing firm water supply. Alternative A assumes that the City 

would continue to enforce water conservation measures, use reclaimed water for irrigation of 

green spaces, and maintain existing groundwater wells and infrastructure.

ALTERNATIVE B—PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action (Alternative B), consists of four components: 1) constructing and operating 

up to 10 brackish groundwater wells at Snake Tank Road, 2) installing water transmission lines 

to Alamogordo, 3) constructing a desalination facility in Alamogordo to treat 4,000 afy (3,200 

afy potable) of water, and 4) constructing a booster pump station near the desalination plant to 

deliver the water into the City’s municipal system. No new distribution system would be 

constructed, as the City would use the existing distribution system. 

This alternative has been developed to incorporate the NMOSE hearing ruling on the City’s 

initial request for 9,023 afy of unappropriated brackish water (Appendix A). The ruling, which 

has been recently upheld in district court (Appendix B), allows 4,000 afy of brackish water 

(approximately 3,200 afy of potable water) to be pumped from the Snake Tank well field. The 

remaining future water supply (198 afy) will have to be attained from other sources, such as the 

purchase of bulk water or additional water rights. Additional recent court rulings and settlement 

agreements are in Appendix C. These options are being pursued but are not a part of this Draft 

EIS.

The Proposed Action as described and analyzed in this EIS:

• Meets the City’s identified water needs;

• Is within the BLM’s permitting authority;

• Is economically and technically feasible, as well as meets necessary regulations;

• Meets the Purpose and Need of this EIS; and

• Constitutes the primary solution contemplated and approved by the NMOSE for the City 

to help meet the gap in its projected future water demand. 

ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER 

CONSIDERATION

Several alternatives were considered but eliminated from further evaluation. Alternatives were 

evaluated against the purpose and need identified. Those that did not meet the following 

requirements were eliminated from further analysis and are described below.

Three alternative well field sites were considered: Alvarado well field (increased environmental 

impacts), Grapevine Canyon well field (military conflicts), and White Sands Missile Range 
Executive Summary

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS ES-4

Headquarters well field (military conflicts). Alternative sources of water were also considered, 

including aquifer storage and recovery (not sustainable source), additional water conservation 

(would not meet the demand), aquifer recharge (not reliable), importing water (increased 

environmental impacts), cloud seeding (not reliable), watershed management (not reliable), 

Tularosa Creek Reservoir (not reliable), and reclaimed water (would not meet potable demand). 

The City considered two options for modifying its current water rights program: maintaining the 

existing points of diversion (increased environmental impacts) and changing the points of 

diversion (would not meet demand). The City also considered purchase or lease of existing 

agricultural water rights from willing sellers (speculative nature and technical feasibility). An 

alternative siting location for the desalination facility on State trust land was evaluated and 

eliminated from further analysis. Alternative technologies for treating saline water were 

eliminated from further analysis because the environmental impacts would likely be the same as 

the evaluated alternatives.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Environmental consequences, including cumulative effects, are described in detail in Chapter 4 

of the Draft EIS. Table ES-2 summarizes the major impacts on each resource by alternative.
Executive Summary

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS ES-5

TABLE ES-2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS BY RESOURCE

RESOURCE NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE A

PROPOSED ACTION

ALTERNATIVE B

Water Resources – Surface 

Water

Reduction in downstream 

surface water flows and 

springs

Minimal effects on surface water

Water Resources – Groundwater Groundwater Table drawdown 

by 45 to 90 feet

Groundwater Table drawdown by a few 

feet to more than 100 feet; potential for 

drying out of groundwater wells near 

Snake Tank well field

Geology Potential local land subsidence Increased potential for land subsidence, 

specifically near the Snake Tank well 

field

Soils No impacts Temporary soil disturbance (260 acres) 

and increased potential for wind and 

water erosion

Biological Resources – Plants No impacts Temporary disturbance of 111 acres of 

vegetation; permanent loss of 69.5 acres 

of vegetation; increased potential for 

spread of noxious weeds

Biological Resources – Wildlife No impacts Temporary and permanent habitat loss 

(see plants); temporary construction 

disturbance

Biological Resources – Special 

Status Species

No impacts No affect to Sacramento prickly poppy 

(Argemone pleiacantha ssp. 

pinnatisecta) (endangered) and northern 

aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis) 

(endangered) 

Cultural Resources No impacts Direct impacts to two properties 

recommended and determined eligible 

for listing on the NRHP

Socioeconomic Resources No impact Up to 638 acres of agricultural land 

fallowed

Transportation No impact Temporary construction traffic and 

pond cleaning traffic on U.S. Highway 

54

Air Quality No impact Temporary construction emissions; 

long-term vehicle emissions
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW

The City of Alamogordo (City), New Mexico, proposes to implement the Alamogordo Water 

Supply Project (project) to meet both current and future water demands for the City. The project 

would be located on a combination of Federal, state, and private lands, including land and rightsof-way managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

The BLM is the lead Federal agency for preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS), and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Otero County serve as 

cooperating agencies. The City may request Federal funding for construction of certain project 

components from Reclamation, pursuant to the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 

and Facilities Act, Public Law (PL) 102-575, Title XVI, as amended (Title XVI). To ensure the 

EIS meets the requirements for both the BLM and Reclamation, Reclamation is also reviewing 

and participating in development of the EIS.

The EIS complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 

United States Code [USC] 4321–4347), and regulations adopted by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500 et seq.). The EIS 

also complies with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 USC 

1711–1712 and regulations in 43 CFR 1600).

The EIS has been prepared to: 1) analyze the environmental impacts of alternatives that would 

meet the purpose and need, 2) assist the BLM in deciding whether to authorize rights-of-way

(ROWs) to the City to develop well sites and associated pipeline infrastructure on land under the 

jurisdiction of the BLM, and 3) assist Reclamation in determining the viability of funding a 

desalination facility, should funds under Title XVI become available.

This chapter describes the purpose of and need for the action in addition to the following items:

• General Location

• Background and History

• Scope of the EIS

• Decisions to be Made Following the EIS

• Description of Relevant Issues

• Regulatory and Permit Requirements 

1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

This EIS was prepared in response to an application for ROW on Federal land, submitted by the 

City of Alamogordo. The purpose of this EIS is: 1) for the BLM to evaluate and disclose 

potential impacts of the proposed project and alternatives; and 2) to determine whether to issue a 

ROW grant.
Chapter 1 - Introduction

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 1-2

1.2.1 AGENCY MANDATE

The BLM is required to evaluate and make decisions regarding the granting of ROWs in 

response to proponent applications. It is the policy of the BLM to authorize all ROW 

applications that are in conformance with approved land use plans at the discretion of the 

authorized officer. The BLM’s objective is to meet public needs for use authorizations such as 

ROWs, permits, leases, and easements while avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to other 

resource values. The proposal to construct groundwater wells and associated infrastructure 

would be in accordance with this objective.

1.2.2 PROPONENT NEED

Through extensive study, the City has identified a projected water demand of 10,842 acre-feet 

per year (afy) through 2045. The demand was determined through study of consumption rates 

and projected population levels.1 New Mexico municipalities are statutorily given the ability to 

acquire additional water rights long before the actual demand for the water materializes based on 

its “reasonably projected additional needs” during a 40-year time period. Following 

development of a 40-year water plan, the City identified, and the Twelfth Judicial District Court 

agreed, that the City had 3,513 afy of reliable surface rights and 3,931 afy of reliable 

groundwater supplies from its existing wells, for a total of 7,444 afy in reliable water supplies

(see Appendix B). Based on the projected demand, the City therefore has a need to obtain 3,398 

afy in additional water supplies by the year 2045 (See Table 1-1).

In order to address this additional need, the City has been issued a permit by the New Mexico 

Office of the State Engineer (NMOSE) to divert up to 4,000 afy from the Snake Tank well field

(Revised Permit No. T-3825). Since the water diverted from this well field is brackish 

groundwater, approximately 20 percent of the water volume is lost during the desalination 

process; the project will therefore provide approximately 3,200 afy of the City’s additional need 

of 3,398 afy in the year 2045. The additional 198 afy will need to be attained from other sources, 

such as the purchase of bulk water or additional water rights, sources that are undetermined at 

this point in time and are not a part of this EIS. Additional recent court rulings and settlement 

 1 Future water demand is determined by a two-step process. First, a water consumption rate must be developed after 

which the municipality makes a reasonable calculation of its future population growth. Attempts to quantify 

domestic water use in American homes reveal that there is a wide range of values (New Mexico Office of the State 

Engineer 2003) (Appendix C). Under normal circumstances (no water rationing), the City concluded that 165 

gallons per capita per day (gpcpd) or 7,140 afy was a reasonable consumption rate for use in the development of its 

40-year plan. In reaching this conclusion, the City allocated 76 gpcpd for indoor use; 49 gpcpd to residential 

outdoor use, which included landscape irrigation needs; 25 gpcpd to non-residential water use; and 15 gpd for 

unaccounted-for water (NMOSE 1996) (Appendix D). In the proceedings to acquire the Snake Tank water rights, 

both the NMOSE and the Twelfth Judicial District Court found this consumption rate to be reasonable (see 

Appendix B). When the City originally developed its 40-year water development plan in 2003, it used the year 2000 

as the starting point for the 40-year planning period. In 1992, the City’s gpcpd rate was 261.28. As the result of an 

aggressive and highly successful conservation measures, the City had reduced its water consumption rate to 185.59 

gpcpd by the year 2000. These measures have continued to be effective, as the City’s per capita use in 2008 was 

approximately 125 gallons per day (gpd). Nevertheless, the Twelfth Judicial District Court found a consumption 

rate of 165 gpcpd to be reasonable and not contrary to the conservation of water within the State of New Mexico 

(Twelfth Judicial District Court 2008).
Chapter 1 - Introduction

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 1-3

agreements associated with the amount of permitted rights and the associated stipulations are in 

Appendix C.

1.2.3 PURPOSE

The purpose of this action is to provide public land for well siting and transporting of 

groundwater resources by allowing for the construction of a groundwater development and 

conveyance system on public land managed by the BLM. This ROW will allow the City to 

develop the water rights granted by NMOSE.

1.2.4 DECISIONS TO BE MADE

The BLM must decide whether, and if so, under what conditions it will grant ROW(s) to enable 

construction and operation of the proposed facilities on public land. The BLM uses a 

comprehensive process to determine whether ROWs on BLM-administered public land should 

be granted. This process includes compliance with the requirements of the NEPA and CEQ 

regulations, BLM planning regulations, manuals and handbooks, and applicable policy. The 

Bureau of Reclamation must decide whether to seek and approve funding of a portion of the 

project costs through Reclamation’s budget under Title XVI program.

1.3 GENERAL LOCATION

The study area for which Chapter 3 describes the affected environment is the southeastern 

portion of the Tularosa Basin in Otero County, south-central New Mexico (Figure 1-1). The 

Tularosa Basin is a topographically closed depression that encompasses approximately 6,500 

square miles, bounded on the east by the Sacramento Mountains and on the west by the Franklin, 

Organ, and San Andres mountains (Orr and Myers 1986). The Tularosa Basin is roughly 155 

miles from north-to-south and averages roughly 43 miles east-to-west (South Central Mountain 

Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc. 2002). The surface divide near the New 

Mexico-Texas state line separates the Tularosa Basin from the Hueco Bolson, a fault-bounded 

structural depression associated with the Rio Grande Rift (Heywood and Yager 2003). 

Groundwater flow between the Tularosa Basin and the Hueco Bolson connects these basins and 

TABLE 1-1. PROJECTED WATER DEMAND FOR ALAMOGORDO, 2005–2045

YEAR POPULATION PROJECTION DEMAND (AFY) ADDITIONAL WATER NEEDED BY CITY (AFY)

2005 38,631 7,140 -301

2010 41,283 7,630 186

2015 43,822 8,099 655

2020 46,366 8,570 1,126

2025 48,702 9,001 1,557

2030 51,219 9,466 2,022

2035 53,710 9,927 2,483

2040 56,137 10,375 2,931

2045 58,663 10,842 3,398

NOTE: Demand assumes a per capita water use rate of 165 gpcpd or 0.1848237 afy. In 2005, per capita use was approximately

 125 gpd as the result of water conservation efforts. The reliable water supplies for the City through 2045 are estimated

 at 7,444 afy.

SOURCE: Livingston and Shomaker 2006.
Chapter 1 - Introduction

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 1-4

creates a combined source of groundwater, referred to as the Hueco-Tularosa aquifer (Texas 

Water Development Board and New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute [Texas and 

New Mexico] 1997). This basin-fill aquifer (Figure 1-2) represents the most important aquifer in 

the area in terms of the quantity of water available, achievable production rates, and the degree 

of historic development of these resources.

The study area is further broken down into two areas associated with project activities: 

1) ground-disturbing activities, which would be limited to an area that extends from the City in 

the south to the site proposed for well production, approximately 10 miles north of Tularosa; and 

2) potential groundwater drawdown, which could affect water resources along the eastern margin 

of the valley fill in the Alamogordo/Tularosa region. Chapter 3 provides a detailed description 

of the resources occurring in the affected environment.

1.4 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

1.4.1 HISTORY

The City’s decision to sponsor the project followed years of investigation, preparation, and 

individual resource studies that examined alternative sources for obtaining a sustainable potable

water supply. Several historical milestones, described below, led to the City’s decision to 

implement the project and prepare this EIS.

1983: Water Resources Study in the Tularosa Basin – Reclamation conducts a study that 

determines the City’s water supply is inadequate and critical water shortages could occur should 

the region experience a prolonged drought (Reclamation 1983). The study concludes that the 

City should repair and improve the existing municipal water system and develop new water 

sources should the need arise.

1986: Alamogordo Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Study – The City-funded study 

shows the need for new or alternative water supplies to meet the City’s rising demand for water.

1990–2001: Repair and Replacement Program for the City’s Water System – A repairs 

program is adopted by the City to rebuild the municipal water system, which was installed in the 

1950s. The program includes new piping, new boxes to collect spring water, and new collection 

points that are adjusted to correspond to the locations where spring water is captured.

1992: Reservoirs Constructed to Store Water – The City constructs two new reservoirs to 

increase storage capacity for surface water diversion. The total storage capacity with these new 

reservoirs is 180 million gallons.

1995: Municipal Water Rationing Program – The City adopts a Water Conservation and 

Rationing Ordinance (948). As a result, the City’s per capita daily water use decreases.
Chapter 1 - Introduction

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 1-5

Figure 1-1. Study area overview.
Chapter 1 - Introduction

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 1-6

Figure 1-2. Groundwater resources.
Chapter 1 - Introduction

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 1-7

1995: Bonito Pipeline Study to Explore Problems with the Line – The City conducts a study 

to identify sections of the waterline in need of repair and/or replacement for planning future 

pipeline improvement projects.

1996: Aquifer Storage and Recovery Feasibility Study – To evaluate the feasibility of storing 

water underground, the City commissions a study that evaluates the practicality of pumping 

surface water into the underground aquifer.

1998–2000: Drought Makes Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Unfeasible – The lack of 

precipitation reduces surface flow and basin recharge. The Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

project is abandoned because of the limited amount of water that could be stored.

1998: Start of Reduced Surface Water Supply from the Sacramento Mountains – Following 

the 1997–1998 El Niño event, precipitation in the Sacramento Mountains decreases during the 

later months of 1998. Drought conditions persist throughout the United States in 1999, and 

recharge in the Sacramento Mountains continues to decrease.

1998: Rehabilitation of the City’s La Luz Well Field – The City restores its La Luz well field 

to improve well production to deliver more groundwater as part of the municipal water supply.

1995: Reclaimed Water Program for the City’s Public Spaces – The City implements water 

conservation measures and a reclaimed water program to reduce the potable water demands by 

more than 4 million gallons per day (mgd). Conservation measures include water restrictions, 

landscaping restrictions, and an aggressive water rate structure to reduce water consumption. An 

updated study is conducted in 2002, expanding the reclaimed water system.

1999–2003: The City Uses All Available Surface Water and Falls Short of Meeting 

Municipal Water Demand – Drought conditions force the City into Emergency Drought Status. 

Emergency rationing and conservation measures are taken to further reduce per capita municipal 

water use.

2000: Covering and Lining of Reservoirs – The City reduces evaporation loss by an estimated

500,000 gallons per day.

2001: BLM Grants the City a Three-year Temporary Right-of-Way on Public Land –

Based on the results of an Environmental Assessment (EA), the BLM grants Right-of-Way NM 

104116 to the City for a pilot project test-well site and a water treatment system facility on 

public lands near Snake Tank Road in Otero County.

2002: Tularosa Basin and Salt Basin Regional Water Plans – The New Mexico Interstate 

Stream Commission sponsors planning studies to provide a sufficient, sustainable water supply 

to meet water needs in the region for all uses, including agricultural, domestic, water association, 

municipal, industrial, and commercial. The goal is to make provisions to provide an economical 

water supply to support reasonable growth in the population and economy for the next 40 years.
Chapter 1 - Introduction

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 1-8

2002: City Decides Against Using Agricultural Water Rights for Municipal Needs – The 

Alamogordo City Council decides not to pursue the purchase and lease of water resources from 

willing and able sellers in the Alamogordo/Tularosa region.

2003: Desalination Feasibility Study – To address the pressing need to obtain a sustainable 

potable water supply, the City conducts a study to explore the feasibility of using desalination 

technology to treat saline water.

2003: NMOSE Hearing No. 02-035 on the City’s 10 Underground Waters Appropriation 

Applications Numbered T-3825 through T-3825-S-9 – The City applies for underground water 

rights in the Tularosa Basin, approximately 10 miles north of the Village of Tularosa.

2003: Agreement for Sale of Bulk Water to Village of Tularosa – The City agrees to sell bulk 

water at cost of production to the Village of Tularosa as a backup and/or emergency water supply 

of a maximum diversion of up to 1,200 afy by the year 2040. The Village of Tularosa also 

agrees to support the City’s water rights application numbers T-3825 through T-3825-S-9 for the 

water supply project.

2003: City of Alamogordo 40-Year Water Development Plan – The City’s 40-year water plan 

demonstrates the urgent need for new or alternative water supplies and management flexibility. 

The plan is updated in 2006 and contains numerous water development recommendations 

(Livingston and Shomaker 2006).

2004: BLM Approves the City’s Right-of-Way Amendment Application – The BLM 

approves the City’s amendment application, filed on December 19, 2001, proposing to install 

four additional test wells and extend the right-of-way for an additional 3 years. The new 

expiration date for the right-of-way is September 12, 2007.

2004: NMOSE’s Underground Waters Appropriations Decision – The NMOSE partially 

approves the City’s applications numbers T-3825 through T-3825-S-9. The City is permitted to 

divert underground water at the proposed locations up to 3,000 afy with the condition that the 

City’s diversion in any year may be increased up to 4,500 afy, provided that the sum of annual 

diversions for any consecutive five-year period does not exceed 15,000 afy (NMOSE 2004a).

2004–2008: EIS for the Alamogordo Water Supply Project – The BLM and Reclamation 

determine that an EIS must be prepared for the project to comply with NEPA.

2008: District Court Judge James Waylon Counts Decision – The decision approves a permit 

issued by the NMOSE for the City to obtain water from the Snake Tank well field. The City can 

take up to 4,000 afy from the well field, with a potential increase up to 5,000 afy for any one 

year during drought, if circumstances warrant. The total cannot exceed 20,000 afy over a 5-year 

period (Twelfth Judicial District Court 2008).

2009: New Mexico Court of Appeals Decision – The court affirms the district court.
Chapter 1 - Introduction

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 1-9

2010: New Mexico Supreme Court Decision – The court denies a petition for writ of certiorari 

appealing the court of appeals decision.

1.4.2 RELATED NEPA DOCUMENTS

This section describes the relationship between the EIS and related NEPA documents used as 

information sources for the EIS.

• The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Leasing of Lands at Fort 

Bliss, Texas, for the Proposed Siting, Construction, and Operation by the City of El Paso 

of a Brackish Water Desalination Plant and Support Facilities (2004). Describes 

resources and anticipated impacts within the Hueco-Bolson aquifer.

• EA for the Amended Snake Tank Water Well Field Test Study Sites: T. 12 S., R. 9 E., 

Section 35; T. 12 S., R. 10 E., Section 31; T. 13 S., R. 10 E., Section 7; and T. 13 S., 

R. 9 E., Section 1, Otero County, New Mexico (2004). Describes resources and 

anticipated impacts within the Tularosa Basin, resulting from construction of four test 

wells and installation of a temporary trailer-mounted treatment system.

• EA for the Tularosa Basin Desalination Research and Development Facility (2003). 

Describes resources and anticipated impacts within the Hueco-Tularosa aquifer. Effects 

of this project in combination with existing regional water use are considered.

• EA for Alamogordo Test Well, City of Alamogordo, New Mexico: T. 13 S., R. 9 E., 

Section 1 (2001). Describes resources and anticipated impacts within the Tularosa Basin 

associated with the construction of a test well and installation of a temporary trailermounted treatment system.

1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO BLM POLICIES, PLANS, AND

PROGRAMS

The White Sands Resource Area Resource Management Plan (WSRMP) (BLM 1986), approved 

September 5, 1986, will be used to guide land use decisions to ensure that all uses and activities 

conform with the decisions, terms, and conditions described in the WSRMP. The action, as 

proposed, conforms to the terms and conditions of the WSRMP.

1.6 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT

This EIS uses a planning horizon of 40 years and evaluates impacts of the No Action and 

Proposed Action Alternatives on water resources, geology, biological resources, cultural 

resources, Indian Trust Assets (ITAs), socioeconomics, land use, transportation, air quality, and 

visual resources. The 40-year planning period is used by the NMOSE and in the State of New 

Mexico’s water resources modeling. Other entities and agencies have ongoing or planned 
Chapter 1 - Introduction

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 1-10

projects to pump water from the Hueco-Tularosa aquifer. The cumulative effects of these 

projects are analyzed in Chapter 4 (see Section 4.2.15).

The remainder of this section summarizes the public scoping process and issues raised during the 

scoping process.

1.6.1 PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS

Two public scoping meetings were conducted by the BLM and Reclamation as part of the EIS 

process (Table 1-2). The purpose of these meetings was to provide information to all interested 

individuals about the proposed project as well as an opportunity to voice concerns or opinions. 

At each meeting, a series of 12 displays explained the NEPA process, the project history, the 

purpose of and need for the action, details about the area’s hydrology, and potential methods for 

obtaining a regional water supply. In addition, attendees received a packet of project-related 

information that provided further details about the information shown in the presentation and on 

the display boards. The project management team, which includes representatives from both the 

BLM and Reclamation, was available to answer questions and participate in the public 

discussion (Appendix D).

TABLE 1-2. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING INFORMATION

MEETING LOCATION TIME AND DATE

1 Alamogordo, New Mexico

Willie Estrada Civic Center, 800 East First Street

Tuesday, October 5, 2004

6:00–8:00 p.m.

2 Tularosa, New Mexico

Senior Center, 1055 Bookout Road

Wednesday, October 6, 2004

6:00–8:00 p.m.

Key issues and concerns expressed during public and agency scoping affected the impact 

analysis and alternatives development. Issues of primary concern to the public at the 

Alamogordo public scoping meeting included water provision for projected growth in the region, 

groundwater drawdown, balanced growth with water use, and the City’s accountability for any 

impacts to non-City groundwater wells. Additional key issues included watershed management, 

the location of the facilities, growth management, and economic impacts.

At the Tularosa public scoping meeting, issues of primary concern to the public included the 

proximity of wells to the Village of Tularosa and other residential wells outside Tularosa, the 

potential effects of the project on ranching and agriculture in the region, the potential for 

groundwater drawdown in residential wells, brackish water intrusion, and growth management in 

the region. Additional key issues included the potential effects on acequias (irrigation ditches) 

and surface water, economic impacts, and monitoring measures.

In addition to the two public scoping meetings, issues of concern and comments on the proposed 

project were collected through comment cards, electronic mail, the project website, letters, and 

tribal consultation. An alternatives workshop was also held so that members of the public could 

participate in the alternatives development process.
Chapter 1 - Introduction

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 1-11

1.6.2 ISSUES RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC SCOPING

PROCESS

WATER RESOURCES

Predicted groundwater drawdown as a result of the project was a key issue raised during public 

scoping. Concerns were also expressed about residential, commercial, and industrial wells 

drying out; the timing and characteristics of potential land subsidence; effects on the interaction 

of groundwater and surface water; and the fair distribution of project water supply throughout the 

region. Related issues included potential adverse impacts to vegetation, livestock grazing, and 

wildlife from lowering the water Table and intrusion of saline water into residential, commercial, 

and industrial wells.

The location for project wells-approximately 10 miles north of Tularosa-concerned many 

members of the public living within the area. Consideration of alternative sites for the wells and 

project facilities was suggested to minimize impacts to the Tularosa area. Alternatives 

mentioned during public scoping were areas south of the City or land administered by the 

Department of Defense.

Another issue articulated during public scoping and tribal consultation is why the City has not 

developed all the City’s existing water rights or used all currently held water rights to both 

surface water and groundwater. Members of the community in the Tularosa region expressed 

concerns about potential adverse effects on water rights to Tularosa Creek and springs in the 

region. One suggestion was purchasing private water rights rather than developing new wells.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Concern for the potential impacts to geology and soils associated with groundwater development 

were raised during the public scoping process. Specifically, land subsidence associated with 

aquifer drawdown and soil erosion due to construction activities were raised during scoping. 

Potential impacts to the White Sands National Monument were also raised. Several members of 

the public requested that the EIS consider the effects of developing groundwater resources in the 

Tularosa Basin on the dune system within the White Sands National Monument.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Concerns about biological impacts were raised during the scoping process. If the project were to 

deplete groundwater, the vegetation and wildlife within the study area could be affected. Of 

particular concern, the region supports an ecosystem of endangered plants and animals, including 

the White Sands pupfish (Cyprinodon Tularosa) and the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot 

butterfly (Euphydryas anicia cloudcrofti), both of which rely on the regional water supply in the 

mountains and on the basin floor. Diminishing the already limited habitat for these and other 

threatened and endangered species as a result of groundwater drawdown was a key concern.
Chapter 1 - Introduction

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 1-12

A population of African rue (Peganum harmala) exists on Snake Tank Road within the study 

area. Management of this noxious weed species was a concern raised during the scoping 

process.

CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES

Concerns were raised regarding potential effects on cultural resources in portions of the study 

area where project infrastructure would be located. Areas of particular concern included State of 

New Mexico trust land (State trust land), the Tecalote Ruins, and the prehistoric rock art at the 

Three Rivers Petroglyph Site. The potential for damage to or depletion of historic acequias in 

the region was also a concern.

INDIAN TRUST ASSETS 

Concerns were raised regarding potential adverse impacts to Indian Trust Assets (ITAs) in the 

study area.

SOCIOECONOMICS

Issues raised during public scoping related to how the project could affect water rates, cost of 

living, and property values. The community in the Tularosa area is concerned that wells 

associated with the project would harm the value of property in the region and cause financial 

hardship to individuals who would be forced to re-drill wells. Concerns for how to compensate 

or assist individuals negatively affected by groundwater drawdown were raised, in addition to 

mitigation measures that would be implemented to minimize any economic impacts in the 

community.

Controlling future growth was also a key issue raised during the scoping process. Concerns 

focused on uncertainty about whether the project would limit or encourage population growth in 

the region. Managing responsible growth in line with the sustainable resources that are currently 

available within the region was also a topic of concern. The concern was that developing more 

water to accommodate more housing and growth would lead to increased population, changes in 

the economy, and changes in the social and cultural structure of the region.

LAND USE

Members of the Alamogordo and Tularosa communities raised concerns regarding the 

development of groundwater wells near farming and ranching operations, as potential adverse 

effects on irrigation could affect the farming and ranching community within the region.
Chapter 1 - Introduction

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 1-13

1.7 AUTHORIZING ACTIONS AND DECISIONS

1.7.1 APPLICABLE PERMITS, LICENSES, AND OTHER 

CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS

The construction, maintenance, and operation of the project facilities would have to comply with 

a variety of Federal, state, county, and local environmental laws and regulations, including New 

Mexico Environment Department (NMED) requirements (Table 1-3). The primary Federal 

approval is the issuance of a permit and the BLM right-of-way grants for the development of 

wells and construction of a pipeline on BLM-managed land. Reclamation may also need to 

approve the project if Federal funding through Title XVI is required (see below for information 

on Title XVI). The NMOSE may grant additional water rights for the project.

Title XVI directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to develop a program to investigate and 

identify opportunities to reclaim and reuse wastewater, as well as naturally impaired 

groundwater and surface water. The general purpose of the Title XVI program is to provide 

supplemental water supplies by recycling and reusing agricultural drainage water, wastewater, 

brackish surface water and groundwater, and other sources of contaminated water. Construction 

funding is limited to projects for which feasibility studies have been completed and approved by 

the Secretary, for which the Secretary has determined the project sponsor is capable of funding 

the non-Federal share of project costs, and for which the local sponsor has entered into a costshare agreement committing to funding its share.

Reclamation received funding in fiscal year 2004 through the Title XVI program solely to assist 

the City in conducting a desalination planning and environmental compliance study for the 

project; these funds do not cover project construction. The City would be responsible for 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the project, but Federal funding may be available 

through the Title XVI program. The Federal cost share is generally limited to a maximum of 25 

percent of the total project cost, not to exceed $20 million. If funds are available, Reclamation 

may provide the funding for a portion of the costs of constructing, operating, and maintaining a 

desalination facility associated with the project. Reclamation, however, takes no position on 

whether such a project should be authorized.
Chapter 1 - Introduction

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 1-14

TABLE 1-3. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL PERMITS AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

PERMIT OR APPROVAL LEGISLATION REGULATORY AGENCY

Section 404 Permit/Section 401 Water 

Quality Certification or Waiver Clean Water Act U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/NMED

Consultation with U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Consultation with State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO)

National Historic Preservation 

Act

New Mexico Historic 

Preservation Division

General Construction Permit New Mexico Administrative 

Code (NMAC) 14.5.2

Construction Industries 

Division 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) 

Construction General Permit

Sections 318, 402, 405 of the 

Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 

122.1

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA)

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP)

Section 402 of the Clean Water 

Act EPA

County Flood Control County Flood Control 

Regulations

Otero County Flood Control 

Authority

Air Quality Construction Permit Depends on plant design and 

concentrate management method NMED

Drilling Permit and Water Allocation NMAC 1.18.550 NMOSE

Groundwater Discharge Permit NMAC 20.6.2 NMED Groundwater Quality 

Bureau
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION

 AND ALTERNATIVES
Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-1

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the alternatives considered for implementation of the project proposed by 

the City. It details the process used to develop alternatives, describes the alternatives that were 

considered in detail, identifies the alternatives that were eliminated from detailed analysis, and 

summarizes the alternatives and their potential impacts.

In October 2004, public meetings were held in Alamogordo and Tularosa, New Mexico, to 

gather public comments and concerns about the project and to consider all concepts and 

suggestions in developing alternatives. During these meetings, the primary public comment 

concerning alternatives was a recommendation that City identify alternative locations for 

groundwater wells other than the Snake Tank well field as a potable water resource for the City. 

Some of the other high-priority concerns raised in the public meetings included:

• The potential for drawdown of water levels in existing groundwater wells or springs;

• The potential adverse effects on farmers, ranchers, and residents of Tularosa;

• The need for strict conservation measures to reduce the need for an additional water 

resource; and

• The option of purchase and/or lease of existing water rights from willing parties to reduce 

the impact of the project on groundwater resources rather than developing new wells.

The City conducted a basin-wide analysis to identify locations within the Tularosa Basin for 

groundwater wells (see Appendix A). In addition, an analysis of the feasibility of purchasing 

and/or leasing existing water rights was completed to evaluate a water rights purchasing/leasing 

program. None of these options were considered feasible for the City as described in Section 2.3 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis.

One action alternative was considered in detail because it was determined to meet the purpose of 

and need for the proposed project and is technically, financially, and legally feasible.

2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

Table 2-1 summarizes the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action. The City has determined 

a need of 10,842 afy of potable water by the year 2045.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-2

TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF WATER SUPPLY AND SOURCES BY ALTERNATIVE

ALTERNATIVE

CURRENT CITY WATER SUPPLY

NON-CITY WATER 

SUPPLY

TOTAL 

(AFY)

GROUNDWATER

(AFY)

SURFACE 

(AFY)

SNAKE 

TANK (AFY)

PURCHASED/LEASED 

(AFY)

Alternative A (No 

Action) 3,931 3,513 0 0 7,444

Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) 3,931 3,513 3,200 198 10,842

2.2.1 ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

The No Action Alternative describes what would occur if the proposed project is not 

implemented. This alternative serves as a basis for comparing the impacts of the action 

alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the City would continue to rely on existing 

resources to meet current and future drinking water demands. The BLM would not need to grant 

a right-of-way to the City, and Reclamation would not need to provide funding for construction 

of a new facility.

This alternative would not involve the development of a new well field or the purchase or lease 

of additional water rights. The City would continue to enforce water-use conservation and 

rationing measures, use reclaimed water for non-potable uses (e.g., irrigation), and maintain 

existing groundwater wells and infrastructure. The current water supply source for the City is a 

combination of surface water from spring flows in the Sacramento Mountains and Bonito Lake, 

groundwater, and reclaimed water for irrigation (Livingston and Shomaker 2006).

The City’s water conservation program encourages efficient water use by reducing the cost of 

water for customers who use less water. Through this program, the City has reduced its average 

consumption rate from 226.03 gpcpd in the 1990s to 149.69 gpcpd from 2000 to 2004. The No 

Action Alternative assumes that the City would continue to enforce the same conservation 

program, which has allowed the City to achieve regionally low per capita use rates compared to 

other municipalities in the southwestern United States (Table 2-2).

Relying on its existing current conservation program and its existing reliable water supplies, the 

City would not be capable of meeting the projected future water demands for the community in 

2045. In addition, without developing brackish groundwater, the City, along with other existing 

water users within the Alamogordo region, would continue to pump the limited fresh water from 

the Alamogordo-Tularosa administrative area.

Under the No Action Alternative, the City would continue to rely on its existing surface water

and groundwater rights to meet its water demands. In two separate proceedings, the City’s 

combined reliable surface and groundwater supplies were found to total 7,444 afy (Settlement 

Agreement, Covenants No.’s 1-6, Appendix B; Appendix E). The No Action Alternative would

therefore result in the City being unable to meet to projected water demands as early as the year 

2010 (see Table 1-1).
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-3

TABLE 2-2. COMPARISON OF PER CAPITA WATER USE IN MAJOR CITIES IN THE 

SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES FOR THE YEAR 2001

MUNICIPALITY PER CAPITA WATER USE (GPCPD)

Santa Fe, NM* 143

Alamogordo, NM* 155

El Paso, TX* 167

Tucson, AZ* 170

Mesa, AZ* 194

Albuquerque, NM* 205

Denver, CO 205

Phoenix, AZ* 237

Las Vegas, NV* 302

NOTE: *Water conservation program in place during 2001

SOURCE: Data from Schmittle (2005); Western Resource Advocates (2005)

As shown by Table 2-3, even assuming the City’s current conservation measures would continue 

to result in a low per capita consumption rate, given its existing reliable water supplies of 7,444 

afy, the inability of the City to meet to projected water demands would only be deferred to the 

year 2025. Under either scenario, the ability of the community to grow would be severely 

stymied and result in the need to implement growth control measures.

TABLE 2-3. CITY OF ALAMOGORDO ADDITIONAL WATER NEEDED BY CITY (AFY)

YEAR

POPULATION

PROJECTION DEMAND (AFY)

RELIABLE

WATER SUPPLIES

ADDITIONAL WATER 

NEEDED BY CITY (AFY)

2005 38,631 5907.13 7,444 -1,536.87

2010 41,283 6312.65 7,444 -1,131.35

2015 43,822 6700.90 7,444 -743.10

2020 46,366 7089.90 7,444 -354.10

2025 48,702 7447.11 7,444 3.11

2030 51,219 7831.98 7,444 387.98

2035 53,710 8212.89 7,444 768.89

2040 56,137 8584.00 7,444 1,140.00

2045 58,663 8970.26 7,444 1,526.26

NOTE: Demand used the 10-year average per capita water use rate of 136.51 gpcpd or 0.1529117 afy. 

 The reliable water supplies for the City through 2045 are estimated at 7,444 afy.

2.2.2 ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

Alternative B-Proposed Action consists of four components: 1) constructing and operating up to 

10 brackish groundwater wells at Snake Tank Road (Figure 2-1), 2) installing water transmission 

lines to Alamogordo, 3) constructing a desalination facility in Alamogordo to treat 4,000 afy 

(3,200 afy potable) of water, and 4) constructing a booster pump station near the desalination 

plant to deliver the water into the City’s municipal system. No new distribution system would be 

constructed, as the City would use the existing distribution system.

The groundwater aquifer at Snake Tank well field contains slightly saline water (see Section 

2.2.2.1 under “Groundwater Wells”), which would need to be treated before distributing to 

customers. Pilot testing shows that the desalination process would be capable of producing up to 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-4

80 percent potable water from the groundwater produced at the wells (Livingston and Shomaker 

2006). This recovery rate means that the majority of the water that flows through the treatment 

facility would be distributed to customers as treated or potable water. The remaining 20 percent 

would not be of suitable quality to meet drinking water standards. To account for a 20 percent 

loss from the desalination process, the total quantity of water produced by the wells would need 

to be approximately 4,000 afy to achieve a total water supply goal of 3,200 afy from the well 

field. The Snake Tank well field would provide a substantial portion of the City’s estimated 

water needs in the year 2045. An additional 198 afy would have to be obtained from other

sources. 

The Proposed Action as described and analyzed in this EIS:

• Meets the City’s identified water needs;

• Is within the BLMs permitting authority;

• Is economically and technically feasible, as well as meets necessary regulations;

• Meets the Purpose and Need of this EIS; and 

• Constitutes the primary solution contemplated and approved by the NMOSE for the City 

to help meet the gap in its projected future water demand. 

GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION, TREATMENT, AND DISTRIBUTION 

FACILITIES

The 10 groundwater wells and pipelines would be located on BLM-administered and State trust

lands.

The City would use its existing reliable water sources, which have been determined to equal 

7,444 afy; supplement those sources with the brackish groundwater produced at the Snake Tank 

well field; and purchase/lease additional bulk water or water rights from other sources to meet its 

projected demand in the year 2045 of 10,842 afy.

A desalination facility would be constructed in Alamogordo to treat the brackish (slightly saline) 

water to meet drinking water standards. Water transmission lines would be constructed to 

deliver untreated water from the wells to the desalination facility. The treated water would then 

be distributed through the City’s existing water distribution system. This section describes these 

facilities.

GROUNDWATER WELLS

The Snake Tank well field is located approximately 26 miles north of Alamogordo and east of 

U.S. 54 ( Figure 2-2). Up to 10 groundwater wells would be drilled on approximately 20 acres 

of land administered by the BLM to produce brackish water from the Hueco-Tularosa aquifer. 

Access to these wells for construction and maintenance would be from Snake Tank Road, east of 

U.S. 54 and approximately 13 miles north of the Village of Tularosa.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-5

Figure 2-1. Alternative B Components.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-6

Figure 2-2. Proposed Snake Tank Well Field.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-7

All 10 wells would be located on land administered by the BLM. The wells are spread over an 

area 2.5 miles long by 2 miles wide. Each well site right-of-way would consist of 2 acres and 

would be connected to one another by 50-foot-wide right-of-way. The collector lines 

constructed within the rights-of-way would be connected to two main collector lines that would 

in turn connect with the transmission line. The 10 well sites and the 50-foot right-of-way located 

on BLM-administered land would total approximately 60.08 acres.

This site was selected based on its location and the quality of the groundwater. The site is easily 

accessible from existing roads and is close to existing utilities that will serve as a power source. 

The groundwater aquifer at the site contains unappropriated brackish groundwater (an estimated 

TDS concentration of 1,000-3,000 milligrams per liter (mg/liter)) that is economically treatable 

based on its quality and that can supply a suitable volume in storage to meet long-term demands 

(Livingston and Shomaker 2003) (see Appendixes A and F). This site is also outside the 

NMOSE Administrative Area, and selecting a site south, east or west of the City was not

feasible. The elevation of the site also allows gravity head-energy to help transmit water to the 

desalination facility.

Groundwater quality at the Snake Tank well field is in the slightly saline range of 1,500 to 5,000 

milligrams per liter in total dissolved solids (mg/L TDS), which is typical of groundwater north 

of the City (Livingston and Shomaker 2006) (see Appendix F). The slightly saline unit occurs 

between approximately 500 and 2,000 feet below the current ground surface (bgs) in the area 

(McLean 1970). Wells would be drilled to a depth of approximately 800 to 1,000 feet bgs, 

which would fall within the range of slightly saline groundwater. This water would be treated at 

a desalination facility located in Alamogordo to meet the City’s goal of 800 mg/L TDS for 

potable water.

The Snake Tank well field is in an area within the Tularosa Basin with an estimated potential 

yield between 300 to 700 gallons per minute (gpm), an aquifer yield favorable for developing 

municipal and industrial wells. The City’s five test wells within the Snake Tank well field 

provided site-specific data regarding aquifer conditions and characteristics that confirm this 

estimate (John Shomaker and Associates, Inc. 2006). Pump tests performed on these test wells 

suggest potential pumping rates ranging from 200 to more than 1,500 gpm for full-scale 

production wells in the Snake Tank well field. Well pumping rates within this range are 

consistent with the well field extraction rates anticipated for this alternative.

The April 2008 decision by District Court Judge James Waylon Counts approved a permit issued 

by the NMOSE for the City to divert water from the Snake Tank well field. The City can take up 

to 4,000 afy (3,200 afy of potable water) from the well field, with a potential increase up to 5,000 

afy for any one year during drought, if circumstances warrant. The total cannot exceed 20,000 

afy over a 5-year period (Twelfth Judicial District Court 2008).

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO THE CITY OF ALAMOGORDO’S PERMITS

Below is a brief discussion of the legal proceedings pertaining to the City of Alamogordo’s water 

rights permit including the various settlements that were reached. The settlements discussed 

below can be found in Appendixes A-C.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-8

In September 2000, the City of Alamogordo (Alamogordo) filed applications with the NMOSE

for water wells to divert a combined total not to exceed 13,450 acre-feet per year (AFY) of 

brackish water from the Snake Tank well field located on BLM land north of the Village of 

Tularosa. Alamogordo intends to transport the brackish water from the Snake Tank well field by 

pipeline to a desalinization plant to produce potable water for Alamogordo’s water service area. 

In response to Alamogordo’s applications, the NMOSE initially issued permits to allow 

diversions of only up to 3,000 AFY, with a provision that up to 4,500 AFY could be diverted in 

any one year, provided that the total diversion over any 5-year period did not exceed 15,000 

acre-feet. Alamogordo and several protestants appealed the decision of the NMOSE to New 

Mexico state district court, which reviewed the permits de novo.

The protestants were represented by separate legal counsel in the following groups: (1) the 

Tularosa Community Ditch Corporation, Dan C. Abercrombie, Elsie I. Bailey, Laymon 

Hightower, David Rankin, and Allen (Bill) Trammel (the Tularosa Protestants); (2) David and 

Julia Christopher (the Christophers); (3) the Village of Tularosa; and (4) HFR Corporation and 

Three Rivers Cattle Ltd., Co. (HFR and Three Rivers). The Christophers are ranch owners with 

grazing allotments in the immediate vicinity of the Snake Tank well field. HFR and Three 

Rivers respectively own the surface estate immediately to the north and south of the Snake Tank 

well field. The Tularosa protestants are individual water well owners approximately 6 miles 

south of the Snake Tank well field in the vicinity of the Village of Tularosa.

Before the District Court ruled upon Alamogordo’s Snake Tank well field water permits, the 

Christophers, the Village of Tularosa, the NMOSE, and HFR and Three Rivers all entered into 

separate settlement agreements with Alamogordo, leaving only the Tularosa protestants opposing 

Alamogordo’s permits. On July 2, 2003, the Village of Tularosa and Alamogordo entered into 

an agreement under which Alamogordo agreed to sell bulk water to Tularosa “as a back-up 

and/or emergency water supply to the extent allowed” by whatever water permits the court 

would approve.2 On January 23, 2007, the Christophers entered into a settlement agreement 

with Alamogordo in which they waived any claim to impairment3 to their water rights caused by 

Alamogordo’s permits in the Snake Tank well field and additionally agreed to “take all steps 

necessary to remove any and all objections or claims it may have under the Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) proceedings relating to the City’s proposed Desalinization Plant and 

supporting pipeline structure.”4

 2 Stipulation between Alamogordo and Tularosa (Alamogordo Exhibit 19). 3 There is no single definition of what constitutes “impairment of existing rights.” Mathers v. Texaco, Inc., 77 N.M. 

239, 245, 421 P.2d 771, 776 (1966). The New Mexico Supreme Court has stated that “the question of impairment of 

existing rights is one which must generally be decided upon the facts in each case, and ...a definition of impairment 

of existing rights is not only difficult but an attempt to define the same would lead to severe implications.” 

Accordingly, the NMOSE and New Mexico Supreme Court consider whether there is impairment on a case-by-case 

basis. Montgomery v. Lomos Altos, Inc., 2007-NMISC-2 22, 141 N.M. 21, 28; see also Stokes v. Morgan, 101 N.M. 

195, 202, 680 P.2d 335, 342 (1984) (“New withdrawals which cause a minimal acceleration in the rate of saltwater 

intrusion or a minimal increase in salinity do not constitute impairment as a matter of law....The determination of 

whether there is impairment mush be made on a case-by-case basis.”) Application of Brown, 65 N.M. 74, 78-79, 

332 P.2d 475, 478 (1958).

4 Stipulated Agreement between Christophers and Alamogordo (Alamogordo Exhibit 20 at 3, 6).
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-9

On November 20, 2007, HFR and Three Rivers entered into a settlement agreement with 

Alamogordo which imposed monitoring and remediation requirements on Alamogordo for its 

potential use of water from the Snake Tank well field.5 This agreement establishes “acceptable 

groundwater level declines and changes in water quality to protect HFR’s and Three Rivers’ 

water rights and associated wells from injury/damage that could result from [Alamogordo’s 

Snake Tank well field permits]” as well as well setback requirements, water right and water use 

prohibitions, and quantitative restrictions.6 The HFR and Three Rivers settlement agreement 

requires Alamogordo to construct three separate wells to regularly monitor groundwater decline 

and total dissolved solids (TDS). Of the three monitoring wells, one would be located 

approximately one mile north of the Snake Tank well field and two would be located 

approximately one mile south of it – between the Tularosa Protestants and the Snake Tank well 

field (Figure 2.3). All three monitoring wells would be located on State Land. These wells have 

not been drilled yet. The agreement requires Alamogordo to reduce or cease pumping from the 

Snake Tank well field if water levels or TDS levels breach certain defined parameters.7

After the District Court’s hearing, but before the District Court issued its order, the NMOSE and 

Alamogordo entered into a settlement agreement that included a “revised permit” with several 

conditions of approval attached as Exhibit 1.8 One of the conditions (condition 6) of approval 

requires that “[p]rior to the diversion of water under this permit, [Alamogordo] shall propose and 

implement a monitoring plan and system, acceptable to the [OSE] involving the monitoring of 

groundwater levels and water quality.”9 Another condition of approval provides that the OSE 

“may order temporary suspension of all or a part of groundwater diversions under this permit if 

the water levels or [TDS] reported ... indicate that impairment to valid existing senior rights to 

divert water is likely to occur or that groundwater decline rates within the Tularosa Underground 

Water Basin Administrative Area are likely to exceed those allowed by the Tularosa 

Underground Water Basin Administrative Criteria ... .”10 On January 8, 2008, Alamogordo 

submitted its monitoring plan11 to the OSE which the OSE approved on the same date.12 At the 

district court hearing, the OSE Chief of the Water Rights Division, Jim Sizemore, had testified 

that granting Alamogordo’s permit for up to 4,000 AFY, an amount greater than the 3,000 AFY 

originally permitted by the OSE, “promotes conservation of water,” “is not adverse to the public 

welfare of the people of the State,” and does not impair existing water rights.13 Alamogordo’s 

hydrologist, John Shomaker, had provided evidence that the “proposed pumping by Alamogordo 

... will not lead to impairment of any existing ground-water or surface-water right.”14

In April 2008, after de novo hearing before District Court, the Court approved a permit issued by 

the NMOSE for the City to divert water from Snake Tank well field.

15

 5 Settlement Agreement between Alamogordo, HFR, and Three Rivers (Alamogordo Exhibit 22).

Under this court6 Id. 7 Id. at 16-21. 8 Settlement Agreement between OSE and Alamogordo (Alamogordo Exhibit 21).

9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Letter from Brockmann to Teel (Alamogordo Exhibit 62). 12 Letter from Teel to Brockmann (Alamogordo Exhibit 63). 13 Direct Examination of J. Sizemore at 78, ll. 1-4, 14-18; 79, 1-8. 14 Letter from Shomaker to Brockmann (Dec. 31, 2007). 15 Minute Order (N.M. Dist. Ct. Apr. 22, 2003).
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-10

approved permit, the City can take up to 4,000 afy (3,200 afy of potable water) from the well 

field, with a potential increase up to 5,000 afy for any one year during drought, if circumstances 

warrant. The total cannot exceed 20,000 afy over a 5-year period (Twelfth Judicial District 

Court 2008). The District Court concluded that:

The Settlement Agreement entered into between the City of Alamogordo and the 

State Engineer, and the exhibit thereto, the Revised Permit, (Alamogordo Exhibit 

21), are supported by the testimony of the witnesses called by the State Engineer 

and the City of Alamogordo, are based on sound hydrology, and represent a 

reasonable approach to satisfying the water planning needs of the City of 

Alamogordo, which does not cause impairment of other water rights and which is 

consistent with the public welfare of the State of New Mexico and would not be 

detrimental to the conservation of water in the state.16

On November 3, 2009, after the Tularosa protestants appealed, the New Mexico Court of 

Appeals affirmed the District Court and found “substantial evidence” in support of the permits.17

On January 21, 2010, the New Mexico Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari

appealing the Court of Appeals decision.18

WELL MONITORING

Revised permit T-3825 includes monitoring in the conditions of approval. Under condition 6 of 

the permit, the City shall propose and implement a monitoring plan and system that is acceptable 

to the NMOSE prior to the diversion of water under the permit. The monitoring includes 

measurements recorded in January and July of each calendar year for groundwater levels and the 

water quality parameter TDS. The wells will be monitored quarterly during the first two years of 

use and semi-annually thereafter. Reports are submitted to the NMOSE, in writing by January 

31 and July 31. The NMOSE may suspend diversions of water if water levels or TDS levels 

reported indicate impairment of existing senior rights to divert water. Dedicated monitoring 

wells will be completed to depths specified by the NMOSE and drilled and equipped according 

to the monitoring plan for revised permit T-3825 approved by NMOSE. 

The City is currently monitoring four wells within the Tularosa Basin. One well was drilled in 

2001 and the other three in 2005. The depths of the wells vary between 710 feet and 1,147 feet

from the surface. These wells will eventually be production wells and are located within the 

Snake Tank well field. The monitoring wells will be drilled once the production wells are being 

utilized.

Under condition 8 of revised permit T-3825 et al., the City must submit a formal Water 

Conservation Plan prior to the diversion of any water under this permit. The settlement 

agreement and conditions of approval are available in Appendix B.

 16 Id. at 20-21. 17 Memorandum Opinion (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2009). 18 Order (NM Supreme Ct. January 25, 2010
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-11

Figure 2-3. Select wells and monitoring wells within the project area.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-12

DESALINATION FACILITY

Due to the salinity of the groundwater produced at the Snake Tank well field, the City would 

need to treat the water at a desalination treatment facility before delivery to Alamogordo 

residents. Water produced from the wells would be delivered to a desalination treatment facility 

located in Alamogordo through approximately 29 miles of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes of diameters ranging from 10 to 24 inches. This treatment 

facility would desalinate the water to acceptable total dissolved solids (TDS) levels to meet 

drinking water standards. The desalination facility would be located on lands owned by the City, 

directly across from the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility (Research 

Facility) on La Velle Road. Federal funding may be used for construction and operation of the 

facility through the Title XVI program.

A desalination facility would treat brackish well water using a process called reverse osmosis 

(RO) (Figure 2-4). RO produces fresh water by using pressure to force brackish water through a 

semi-permeable membrane. Under moderate to high pressure (100–200 pounds per square inch 

gauge [psig]), water is able to pass through the membrane, but dissolved solids (primarily salts) 

or other impurities in the water cannot. Depending on the porosity of the membrane, RO is able 

to remove particulate matter, dissolved solids, viruses, bacteria, suspended solids, or other ions in 

solution. Because the removed materials are in a much smaller volume of water, this treatment 

process produces two streams of water of different salt concentrations: the freshwater stream (or 

permeate) and the concentrated brine stream (or concentrate). To provide drinking water of 

acceptable taste, permeate, which is ultra-pure fresh water, would be blended with untreated 

brackish water to produce a blended product water, meeting acceptable drinking water standards 

(the City’s goal of 800 mg/L TDS).

Figure 2-4. Reverse osmosis treatment process.

Figure 2-4 illustrates the steps of the desalination process, beginning with the brackish well 

(feed) water that would be pumped from the supply wells to the final treated fresh drinking 

water. First, brackish supply well water would be split into two streams. One small stream of 

brackish water would bypass the treatment process, and the other stream of brackish water would 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-13

enter the RO system. The RO unit would remove the salt from the brackish stream and produce 

treated water. The water would be disinfected to meet water quality requirements and 

transferred to a storage tank to await distribution into the system.

The treatment facility would comprise several RO modules and structures containing pressure 

vessels for holding membranes, connected in parallel to produce freshwater permeate (see Figure 

2-5). Figure 2-6 is a schematic footprint of the treatment facility buildings. The facility, 

including feed pumps, chemical feed pumps, cartridge filters, RO skids, cleaning equipment, 

electrical equipment and controls, and office space, would require approximately 12,000 square 

feet of floor space. The actual floor space would depend on the layout and workspace facilities 

provided at the facility. The RO building may also include facilities such as a conference room, 

locker rooms, a break room, a control room, a laboratory, a maintenance shop, and storage space.

CO-LOCATION WITH THE RESEARCH FACILITY

The location of the Research Facility is a 99-acre site owned by and within the city limits of 

Alamogordo, northwest of the intersection of U.S. 70 and U.S. 54 on La Velle Road, at an 

elevation of about 4,290 feet. The Research Facility is under construction and will be operated 

as a partnership between Sandia National Laboratories and Reclamation. When complete, the 

facility will be used for a variety of research projects to test emerging desalination technologies, 

such as the effects of salinity of feed water, concentrate processing and salt use, desalination of 

surface water, and ways to reduce desalination cost.

PRE-TREATMENT

The first phase of the RO system is a mild chemical pre-treatment to prevent the water from 

fouling or scaling the RO membranes. Fouling occurs when organic or biologic material collects 

on a membrane surface, decreasing permeate production (Zeiher et al. 2003). Scaling occurs 

when salts in the feed water concentrate on the membrane surface during the desalination process 

(Zeiher et al. 2003). The facility would use a typical pre-treatment process common to most RO 

systems: passing water through two or three 5-micron filter cartridges to remove sand, scale, and 

other large particles; introducing an anti-scaling agent at approximately 14 mg/L to prevent 

scaling from occurring; and adding a chemical buffering agent to increase pH to an acceptable

level for introducing the water into the RO process.

REVERSE OSMOSIS UNIT

The final design of the RO unit would depend on the quantity and quality of feed water entering 

the system. Test-well data from the Snake Tank well field show TDS of the raw water at 2,220 

parts per million (ppm) and chloride at 250 ppm (Livingston Associates 2003) (see Appendix F). 

For this EIS, a water quality in the range of 1,500 to 5,000 ppm TDS is assumed. The amount of 

raw water to be treated would be 4,000 afy and may rise to a maximum of 5,000 afy if warranted.
Alamogordo Water Supply Project DEIS 

Figure 2-5. Preliminary process flow diagram.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-15 

Figure 2-6. Conceptual footprint of proposed desalination facilities.
Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-16

An RO unit comprises a series of membrane modules, each producing about 1.19 mgd. The 

modules would be required to treat the initial capacity of 2.9 mgd. The City would likely build 

for a maximum capacity of 5.8 mgd to accommodate for summer peaking and standby. Each 

module would contain pressure vessels—enclosed, tubular structures containing a series of RO 

membranes. RO membranes consist of thin-film composite/polyamides (TFC/PAs) in a spiral 

configuration that produces a series of layers that remove salt from the feed water passing 

through the membrane system. A standard RO membrane is 8 inches in diameter by 40 inches 

long.

Based on the pilot study feed water quality and antiscalant manufacturer’s projections, a 

conservative estimate for the amount of fresh water to be recovered from the RO process is 

approximately 73 to 75 percent of the brackish feed water (Livingston and Shomaker 2003). The 

pilot study conducted by the City at the Snake Tank well field achieved a 69 to 72 percent 

recovery over a 45-day period, with an overall blended product recovery of 84 percent.

It is possible that not all RO modules would need to be in production at a given time. For 

example, per capita water use is lowest during the winter. During this decrease in demand, it 

would not be necessary to use all of the modules because the amount of treated water needed 

would be less, thereby reducing the cost of operation and prolonging the life of the modules.

PIPELINES

The well field pipeline system would receive flow from up to 10 wells through a 10-inch pipeline 

at a maximum rate of approximately 1,000 gpm per well, conveying water about 34 miles to the 

desalination facility located in Alamogordo. The transmission pipeline would move brackish 

well water directly to the desalination facility for treatment via a maximum 24-inch transmission 

line. There would be no well water storage; the entire flow would be processed directly from 

pipelines from the wells. The piping system would consist of American Water Works 

Association C-905 PVC, with 150 pounds per square inch (psi) service pressure rating. The well 

water transmission line generally follows the length of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks 

that run parallel to U.S. 54 to Alamogordo, and then follows the Relief Route to the desalination 

facility on La Velle Road. A breakdown of the distance the pipeline would travel based on land 

ownership can be found in Table 2-4.

TABLE 2-4. DISTANCE THE PIPELINE MUST TRAVEL 

THROUGH VARIOUS LANDS

LAND OWNERSHIP DISTANCE (MILES)

UPRR 3.8 

State Land 3.8

City of Alamogordo 1.1

BLM 5.2

Public Right-of-way 19.3

Private 1.1

TOTAL 34.3

SOURCE: Livingston 2003a.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-17 

The blended water would be distributed into the City through existing distribution pipelines. A 

booster pump station at the desalination facility would be used to send the finished water from 

the facility site into the City water distribution system.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

GROUNDWATER WELLS

The wells, well pumps, and pump power supply will require regular maintenance. Well 

maintenance activities will include monitoring of production and cleaning or periodic 

redevelopment of well screens. Monitoring wells are required by the NMOSE as a condition of 

the City’s permit (condition 6). A supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system 

will be used to automate operation and monitoring and minimize operator time. Pump 

maintenance activities may include cleaning, lubricating, replacing parts, or replacing pumps. 

Maintenance of pump housings, electrical enclosures and parts, and access roads may be 

necessary. Normal operation would require well pumps to be started and stopped depending on 

water supply needs, and start-up and blow-off will be required after a loss of power.

DESALINATION FACILITY

Desalination treatment facility operation and maintenance activities include monitoring the 

conductivity, pH, pressure, and other parameters of each flow stream to make sure that the 

desalination process is running properly and the membranes are not at risk of scaling or fouling. 

The cartridge filters used for pre-treatment must be changed and disposed of when the filters 

reach the maximum recommended pressure drop. The membranes will need to be cleaned at 6-

to 12-month intervals and replaced approximately every 5 years. Cleaning the membranes 

consists of flushing them with cleaning solution at the manufacturer’s recommended pressure,

allowing the membranes to soak then flushing them with raw water to remove the cleaning 

solution. Pumps must be cleaned, inspected, and lubricated periodically and replaced 

approximately every 10 years. Other equipment, such as sensors and meters, must be maintained 

according to each manufacturer’s specifications and periodically replaced. The system would 

require one or two certified water operators for operation, monitoring, and maintenance. Pump 

stations used for transport of finished water to distribution would also require some maintenance 

of pumps and related facilities. 

The duration of operation of the groundwater extraction, treatment, and transfer facilities would 

vary in relation to the amount of surface water available for use. For example, during years 

when there is abundant snowpack in the mountains to feed the surface water supply, the facilities 

would not need to operate at full capacity. The ideal operation scenario is to continuously use 

the RO facility at some level as a supplement to the City’s existing water supply.

PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT

The City prepared a plan of development to address appropriate authorizations, permits, and 

approvals; pipelines and trenching operations; roads; distribution of power; facility construction; 

staging areas; and preliminary maintenance and operations. The distribution of power would be 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-18 

required at each well site to run water pumps. The power lines would be constructed within the 

50-foot grant area. All construction activities, including staging areas, are expected to be within 

the right-of-way. No temporary construction areas outside of the right-of-way are anticipated. 

Existing access roads would be used to access the work areas. Future maintenance activities on 

the roads would provide permanent access to the well sites. The roads would be flagged for the 

construction crews. The full plan of development is available in Appendix G. Figure 2-7 is a 

schematic of the proposed project easement based on the plan of development at the Snake Tank 

well field. Upon project authorization, necessary modifications would be made to the plan of 

development.

CONCENTRATE MANAGEMENT: DEEP-WELL INJECTION

Concentrate can be disposed of through deep-well injection, the process of pumping concentrate 

underground. Through the re-injection process, concentrate would be stored in a permeable 

layer or formation of porous rocks known as an injection zone. To avoid contamination of 

freshwater resources, a confining layer of impermeable rock or sediment would be required 

between the injection zone and the freshwater resource to act as a barrier. Figure 2-8 shows a 

cross-section of a deep-injection well, where the groundwater near the ground surface is fresh 

water and used as a water source. The well would have double casing in the freshwater aquifer 

to protect the aquifer from contamination.

The feasibility of the deep-well injection process largely depends on the geologic and hydrologic 

conditions of the area under consideration. For example, the presence of a zone beneath the 

surface that could receive and store concentrate and separate it from usable groundwater

resources is required. The injection zone must have the proper porosity, permeability, and 

thickness to accommodate the projected rate of concentrate injection. A confining layer of rock 

or sediment is needed to ensure that concentrate is isolated from freshwater supplies.

Deep wells for brine concentrate disposal would be located at the desalination facility on La 

Velle Road or alternatively at the existing water reclamation (wastewater treatment) plant to the 

west. Groundwater conditions at both locations are suitable for deep-well disposal (JSAI 2009), 

and would help maintain groundwater levels in the area. This method conserves groundwater

resources, as opposed to water loss by evaporation ponds. In addition, a portion of the 

concentrate may be blended with the reclaimed water and used for irrigation.

ENERGY AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS

The power to operate the new facilities (including groundwater extraction, treatment, and 

transfer) would be supplied by the local power supplier, the Public Service Company of New 

Mexico (PNM). Power service to the desalination facility site and to wells and other pumping 

facilities would have to be provided as a part of this project. There are available sources of 

power near the proposed desalination facility that are readily accessible.
Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 

Figure 2-7. Snake Tank Well Field plan of development schematic.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-20 

Figure 2-8. Deep-injection well schematic.

COST OF DESALINATION FACILITY AND PIPELINES

Capital costs have been estimated for construction of the RO facility, the 5-million-gallon water 

storage tank, and water conveyance from the wells to the facility and from the facility to 

Alamogordo. One facility and deep-well injection after 10 years is assumed in these cost 

estimates. The estimates, shown in Table 2-5, are in 2005 dollars. Recurring costs, including 

operation and maintenance, pond liner replacements, membrane replacements, and power costs, 

have been estimated and are shown in the Table as annual payments, also in 2005 dollars.

An amortized cost for facilities and pipelines has been derived based on a 40-year planning horizon 

for the initial facility construction and a 30-year planning horizon for the facility expansion (Table 

2-6), using a discounting interest rate of 5.125 percent. This is the interest rate defined by the 

Water Resources Council (18 CFR 704.39) based on the average yield during the 2004–2005 fiscal 

year on interest-bearing marketable securities of the United States with terms of 15 years or more 

remaining to maturity (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2006).
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-21 

TABLE 2-5. FACILITY COST ESTIMATES IN 2005 DOLLARS

ITEM COST COST BASIS

Phase 1 (Years 0–10)

Capital Costs

Raw Water Pipeline $6,843,000 $12 per in-diameter per ft * 27 in * 21,120 feet

Finished Water Pipeline $30,413,000 $12 per in-diameter per ft * 24 in * 105,600 feet

Finished Water Pump Station $346,000 $2,000 per HP * 173 HP

Desalination Facility $8,946,023 $2.00 per gpd permeate capacity * 4.76 mgd -

$573,000 postponed membrane cost

5 MG Storage Reservoir $1,800,000 5 MG steel tank, concrete slab, prime and paint

Concentrate Pipeline $420,000 $168 per foot for 12-inch line * 2,500 feet

Deep-well Injection $5,000,000 Two wells at $2.5 million each

Subtotal Phase 1 Capital Costs $53,768,023

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Desalination Facility $476,000 $0.20 per year per gpd permeate * 2.38 mgd

Deep-well Injection $150,000

Finished Water Pump Station Energy $140,200 $0.1241/KWH * 173 HP * 0.7457 KW/HP * 

8760 hrs/yr

Finished Water Pump Station Maintenance $40,000 $40,000 per year

Subtotal Phase 1 O&M Costs $806,200

TOTAL – Phase 1 Costs $54,574,223

Phase 2 (Years 11–40)

Capital Costs

Desalination Facility $573,000 $240,700 per mgd * 2.38 mgd

Deep-well Injection $2,500,000 One well at $2.5 million

Subtotal Phase 2 Capital Costs $3,073,000

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Desalination Facility $952,000 $0.20 per year per gpd permeate * 4.76 mgd

Deep-well Injection $225,000

Finished Water Pump Station Energy $140,200 $0.1241/KWH * 173 HP * 0.7457 KW/HP * 

8760 hrs/yr

Finished Water Pump Station Maintenance $40,000 $40,000 per year

Subtotal Phase 2 O &M Costs $1,357,200

TOTAL – Phase 2 Costs $4,430,200

NOTES: gpd = gallons per day; MG = million gallon; HP = horsepower; KW = kilowatt; KWH = kilowatt hour; 

 mgd = million gallons per day.

Energy cost is the current cost of power for municipal use in Alamogordo from the Texas–New Mexico Power 

Company.

Pump station maintenance cost, pipe construction cost, and pump station construction cost are unit values 

according to cost history on previous Camp, Dresser, & McKee, Inc. (CDM) projects and adjusted for the 

Alamogordo area, according to a professional CDM cost estimator, assuming no rock excavation or expensive site 

work. Pipeline alignment is next to the highway, not through city streets.

Cost per gpd permeate for facility construction and facility and pond operation is based on cost history on 

previous CDM projects, including actual construction cost of City of El Paso–Fort Bliss Water Utilities Joint 

Desalination Facility.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-22 

TABLE 2-6. ANNUALIZED COST SUMMARY

ITEM AMORTIZED

ANNUAL COST

PAYMENT 

PERIOD FACTOR USED

Phase 1 (Years 0–10)

Capital Cost – Year 0 $3,551,900 40 years (A/P, 5.125, 40) = 

0.059242

O&M Cost – Years 0–10 $806,200 10 years None

Subtotal – YEARS 0–10* $4,358,100

Phase 2 (Years 11–40)

Capital Cost – Year 11 $775,500 30 years (A/P, 5.125, 30) = 

0.065981

O&M Cost – Years 11–40 $3,073,000 30 years None

Subtotal – YEARS 11–40** $3,848,500

TOTAL – Phases 1 and 2 $8,206,600

NOTES: *In year 10, the annual finished water production is estimated to be 1,307 million gallons. 

 The cost per 1,000 gallons (excluding well construction and operating costs) is $3.43.

 ** In year 40, the annual finished water production is estimated to be 2,617 million gallons.

 The cost per 1,000 gallons (excluding well construction and operating costs) is $2.29.

CITY WATER RIGHTS TO TRANSFER

In New Mexico, a water right is a constitutionally protected property right that can be sold or 

moved. It is the legal right to place water to beneficial use for a specific purpose of use, at a 

specified place of use, in a specified amount, from a specified point of diversion, with a specific 

priority date. Surface water rights could be established prior to the first Water Code in 1907 by 

initiation and use of the water, but after 1907, the New Mexico State Water Code requires a 

permit to appropriate surface water or to transfer a surface water right, i.e., change the point of 

diversion, place of use, or purpose of use. With respect to groundwater, water rights could be 

established through the initiation and use of groundwater prior to the declaration of a 

groundwater basin by the NMOSE.19 After the declaration of a groundwater basin, State law 

requires a permit for new appropriations of groundwater and for the transfer of groundwater

rights. Applications for a new appropriation or transfer of surface or groundwater rights must be 

submitted to the NMOSE, provide a legal notice to the public by publication in a local 

newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the diversion or use occurs, be subject to 

objection and protests, and be evaluated pursuant to specified statutory criteria by the NMOSE 

either after an administrative hearing if the application is protested or without a hearing if there 

are no protests.

The City filed 10 applications (one for each well) for “Application(s) for Permit to Appropriate 

the Underground Waters of the State of New Mexico” with the NMOSE in September 2000. 

The wells were number T-3825 through T-3825-S-9 and sought a new appropriation of 

groundwater in the Tularosa Basin. The applications were amended in January 2002 and April 

2003. The applications requested the right to drill 10 wells, producing up to 1,500 afy of 

brackish groundwater per well, that would be desalinated through RO with the resulting potable

 19 A surface water right can be perfected after 1907 and a pre-basin groundwater right can be perfected after the 

declaration of a groundwater basin by the NMOSE if the water right was initiated prior to the NMOSE’s jurisdiction

and the appropriator proceeds with reasonable diligence to place the water to beneficial use.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-23 

water being used for municipal, industrial, commercial, or irrigation purposes. The applications 

were protested, and an administrative hearing was held in October 2003 (NMOSE 2005a). The 

NMOSE issued a decision and granted Permit No. T-3825 et al. on December 28, 2004, which 

was appealed. Trial de novo was held before the Twelfth Judicial District Court in January 2008 

with the District Court issuing Revised Permit No. T-3825 et al. on April 7, 2008 (Twelfth 

Judicial District Court 2008). Protestants appealed the district court’s decision. On

November 3, 2009, the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court and found 

“substantial evidence” in support of the permits. The District Court’s Revised Permit 

No. T-3825 et al., is a valid, exercisable permit. Pursuant to the District Court’s Revised Permit 

No. T-3825 et al., the City has the right to divert up to 4,000 afy from the 10 wells in the Snake 

Tank well field, and divisions for any calendar year may be increased up to 5,000 afy, provided 

that the sum of annual diversions for any consecutive 5-year period does not exceed 20,000 acrefeet.

During the course of District Court litigation on Permit No. T-3825 et al., the City agreed to 

reduce its “paper water rights” on its groundwater sources to more closely reflect actual 

groundwater production from existing wells. The City agreed to file a Proof of Beneficial Use 

on the La Luz well field, NMOSE File No. T-32-S-2 through T-32-S-9, limiting the total number 

of groundwater rights from that groundwater source to 3,000 afy, down from a “paper water 

right” of 4,573 afy. The 3,000 afy approximates the City’s maximum historical diversions from 

the La Luz well field and what the La Luz well field is able to produce hydrologically. For the 

same reasons, the City agreed to reduce the “paper water rights” on the Prather wells from 

1,354 afy to 500 afy, the quantity that can actually be produced. With these agreements, the 

“paper water rights” on all existing City groundwater sources matches the production capability 

of the wells, meaning the City has no excess groundwater rights beyond what is currently being 

used.

With respect to surface water rights, the City primarily has rate rights to take a specified number 

of cubic feet per second (cfs) of surface water if and as long as it is available. The City fully 

utilizes whatever surface water is available on an annual basis and the City has no excess surface 

water rights available for transfer.

MAXWELL SPRING

Maxwell Spring is a tributary of Temporal Creek and is located approximately 1.75 miles east of 

the proposed Snake Tank well field on the High Nogal Ranch (Figure 2-9). The owners of the 

ranch have filed an application for a permit to appropriate 1,613.0 afy from Maxwell Spring. 

The City filed a protest to the application. The City and the ranch owners subsequently reached 

a settlement whereby the City agreed to purchase water from the Maxwell Spring in the event the 

ranch owners’ application was approved. A final decision on the application has yet to be 

rendered. The settlement provides in part that in the event the application is approved, provided 

the permitted amount is 300 afy or more and the Maxwell Spring produces this minimum amount 

(subject to the approval of the NMOSE), the City will purchase up to the permitted water amount 

before utilizing the water obtained from the Snake Tank well field. No plans have been 

developed for the transmission of this water. The likely route would necessitate the construction 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-24 

of a pipeline and associated 50-foot easement that would at some point intersect with the pipeline 

and easement connecting existing wells.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

All applicable permits would be obtained separately by the City prior to implementation of the 

project. All vehicles involved in project activities would have emission control equipment that 

has passed state emissions tests. A fugitive dust permit would be obtained from local 

municipalities if necessary, and Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as wetting down 

disturbed areas to minimize dust, would be followed during project activities.

Each individual operator would be briefed on and would sign off on local environmental 

considerations specific to the project tasks, including a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans 

(SWPPPs). SWPPPs would be prepared after project approval and prior to construction. 

Following submittal of the SWPPP to the EPA, a notice of intent (NOI) form under a 

construction general permit (CGP), would be provided for certification. Following construction, 

a notice of termination (NOT) would be completed.

2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED 

FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

This section describes several alternatives that were eliminated from detailed analysis in this EIS. 

Some of these alternatives were considered as a result of public scoping. Alternatives were 

evaluated against the purpose and need identified. Each of these alternatives was eliminated 

because they do not meet the City’s identified water needs; are not within the BLM’s permitting 

authority; do not meet the NMOSE’s granting of groundwater withdrawal to the City, or do not 

meet the Purpose and Need of this EIS.

2.3.1 ALTERNATIVES FOR WELL FIELD LOCATIONS

Comments received during the public scoping period suggested that the City identify 

groundwater wells to be located at sites other than the Snake Tank well field. A basin-wide 

analysis was undertaken to identify alternative locations within the Tularosa Basin where well 

fields could be located that would meet the identified purpose and need of the project 

(Appendix H).

Actions connected to the proposed project but outside the BLM jurisdiction include the location 

of groundwater diversions and amount of groundwater permitted by the NMOSE; grant approval 

and funding from Bureau of Reclamation; and groundwater monitoring and management 

agreements between the city and the NMOSE. Although the BLM is not a party to these 

agreements, the BLM has, and will continue to work closely with these agencies to ensure the 

proposed project is compatible with the regulatory requirements and jurisdictional 

responsibilities of each.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-25 

Figure 2-9. Maxwell Spring Ranch.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-26 

Four criteria were used to screen potential locations to develop a drinking water resource within 

the area of evaluation: the quality, quantity, accessibility, and recoverability of groundwater. 

Using a geographic information system (GIS), these data were combined to identify locations 

within the Tularosa Basin that would be favorable for developing a water resource through the 

installation of groundwater wells. In addition to the Snake Tank well field, three other potential 

sites were identified (Figure 2-10):

• Alvarado well field

• Grapevine Canyon well field

• White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) Headquarters well field

These sites were evaluated by the City as alternative well sites; however, they were eliminated 

from further analysis following the NMOSE granting of water rights at the Snake Tank well field

location.

2.3.2 ALTERNATIVE WATER RESOURCES

The City of Alamogordo analyzed a variety of alternative water resources to determine which 

options would meet the 2045 water demand. The following options were analyzed by the City 

prior to obtaining the 4,000 afy water rights granted by the NMOSE. The BLM has eliminated 

these alternatives from further analysis based upon the conclusions of the study that show these 

alternatives would not meet projected demand and the fact that some of the alternatives would be 

beyond the decision-making authority of the BLM.

AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY

Underground aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is a method of storing excess surface water

underground and recovering the stored water when needed. ASR would enable the City to divert 

excess off-peak water stream flow to a special well for injection into the aquifer for storage 

(Resource Conservation and Development Council [RCDC] 2002). During winter months when 

the demand for water is relatively low, this process would allow the City to store water 

underground for later use when demand for water is higher.

The City conducted an ASR study to evaluate the feasibility of this alternative (Livingston 

1996). The purpose of the study was to evaluate the potential for using excess spring flows for 

re-injection into the underground aquifer for future extraction and use. Approximately 78 

percent of the City’s water supply comes from surface water, resulting in the need to store as 

much as 8,932 afy of excess spring water through ASR. A 30-day pilot ASR well injection 

program was implemented, and approximately 21 million gallons of treated surface water were 

injected into the aquifer using the City’s La Luz Well No. 6 (Livingston and Fitch 1998). A 

groundwater flow model was developed to simulate conditions for storing water near the City’s 

La Luz well field. The model estimated that the City could recover 58 percent of the water 

stored through ASR (Livingston 1996).
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-27 

These preliminary results assumed that excess water would be available for storage. However, a 

period of below-average rainfall later showed that this approach would not be viable because 

excess water would not always be available to store underground (Figure 2-11). The absence of 

a dependable supply of water to store for future use caused the City to abandon ASR as an option 

for providing more water. ASR was eliminated from further analysis because the method would 

not provide a sustainable drinking water resource for the City of Alamogordo.

CONTINUED CONSERVATION

Conserving water from the City’s current water system was suggested during public scoping as 

an alternative. As explained in the No Action Alternative, the City has adopted an aggressive 

program to conserve water from its existing water supply system. As defined in the City’s 

40-year water plan, educational programs, rebates for replacing existing plumbing fixtures, 

landscaping restrictions, change in the water rate structure, and other strategies would help the 

City maintain its per capita water use goal of 165 gpcpd (Livingston and Shomaker 2006). 

However, because this ongoing practice of managing water resources uses existing water 

supplies, continued conservation would not provide the additional water needed to meet the 

projected demand, nor would it reduce the demand on the current surface water source. 

Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis.

FLOOD CONTROL AQUIFER RECHARGE

The City is currently developing flood control projects in the north and south parts of town. The 

$55 million Alamogordo Flood Control Project, expected to be completed in 2009, would consist 

of three diversion channels (South Channel, McKinley Channel, North Channel) designed to 

divert runoff from the Sacramento Mountains. Water collected in this system would be directed 

to a detention basin, which could help recharge the aquifer by allowing the water to infiltrate the 

ground surface.

According to the Tularosa Basin and Salt Basin Regional Water Plan (Livingston and Shomaker 

2002a, 2002b), a rough estimate indicates that about 500 to 1,000 afy could be recharged. This 

small amount of water would not be sufficient to meet the Alamogordo/Tularosa water demand, 

but a flood control aquifer recharge option could be one component of a larger watershed 

management strategy. However, as with other watershed management approaches, drought 

could limit the effectiveness of this option and compromise the ability to recharge the water 

supplies. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further analysis.

IMPORTING WATER

Importing water from another municipality or state could allow the City to obtain potable water 

and minimize the impacts to resources within the study area. One suggestion during public 

scoping was that the City could import water from Texas, where other municipalities or entities 

could supply up to 10,000 afy of water to the City. An inter-basin transfer would be required for 

the City to obtain water from outside of the Tularosa Basin.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-28 

Figure 2-10. Well field locations.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-29 

Figure 2-11. Annual precipitation, El Paso, Texas, 1990–2005 (Source: National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2005).
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-30 

By obtaining water from a municipality in Texas, such as the City of El Paso, the City would be 

able to obtain drinking water and reduce the impact on groundwater resources within the 

Tularosa Basin. However, to deliver this inter-basin supply, the City would need to transport the 

water by truck or rail or construct a water transmission pipeline. Constructing an inter-basin 

water delivery pipeline to import water from outside the Tularosa Basin would disturb a larger 

portion of land than the alternatives being evaluated. Further, transporting water by car or by rail 

would not be a reliable method of delivery. As a result, the inter-basin transportation or 

transmission of water from communities outside the Tularosa Basin, including communities in 

the state of Texas, would not be a feasible alternative and was eliminated from further analysis.

CLOUD SEEDING

Cloud seeding is an attempt to increase the amount or type of precipitation released from clouds 

by dispersing a substance into the air that allows condensation droplets or ice crystals to form 

more easily. Cloud seeding has been used in the United States and internationally as a water 

management tool to enhance precipitation or winter snowpack in mountainous regions. Since the 

1960s, Reclamation has been conducting weather modification research, including the 

effectiveness of cloud seeding.

As described in the Tularosa Basin and Salt Basin Regional Water Plan (Livingston and 

Shomaker 2002a, 2002b), pilot studies for cloud seeding have yielded mixed results. Over 

several decades of research, most cloud seeding experiments have shown variable results and 

inconclusive evidence of increased precipitation on the ground. According to a policy statement 

on planned and inadvertent weather modification by the American Meteorological Society, 

“Precipitation augmentation through cloud seeding should not be viewed as a drought relief 

measure” (American Meteorological Society 1998). As a result, weather modification in the 

form of cloud seeding was eliminated from further analysis because the actual available water 

supply gained from using this technology is not expected to be sufficient to meet the City’s water 

need.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

For the purpose of this EIS, the term “watershed management” applies to methods that serve to 

enhance the recovery of surface water runoff within a given drainage area for use as a drinking 

water resource. Methods identified during public scoping included eradicating invasive salt 

cedar (Tamari ramosissima) trees, which use an abnormally high amount of water per tree, and 

harvesting surface water runoff following storm events. This alternative includes the removal, 

replacement, and control of vegetation on land surrounding the City to increase the amount of 

surface water that recharges the groundwater aquifer. Because the types of vegetation, soils, 

geology, and topography in forested areas affect surface water recharge to the groundwater

aquifer, modifying these conditions within a watershed could make water available to the City 

for drinking water purposes but could reduce the water source for vegetation. The adverse 

effects on vegetation could be substantial and result in unnecessary impacts. In addition, surface 

water would be subject to drought conditions and would not provide a reliable source of water 

for the City. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further analysis.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-31 

TULAROSA CREEK RESERVOIR

The Tularosa Community Ditch Corporation (TCDC), a nonprofit corporation that provides 

water to agricultural users in the Tularosa area, and the Village of Tularosa have been working 

on plans to divert water from the Tularosa Creek through a pipeline to a reservoir (the Tularosa 

Creek Reservoir) for storage and later use as a water supply source (Livingston and Shomaker 

2002a, 2002b). Original plans by the NMOSE to construct a reservoir date to 1957, and the 

TCDC owns approximately 87 percent of the water rights in the creek. Tularosa Creek drains a 

portion of the western slope of the Sacramento Mountains, and the Village of Tularosa obtains its 

municipal water supply almost entirely from this creek and often purchases water from the 

TCDC (Livingston and Shomaker 2002a, 2002b). Diverting water from Tularosa Creek would 

not provide a reliable water resource due to the unreliability of surface water resources in the 

region; therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further analysis.

RECLAIMED WATER

Reclaimed water is treated wastewater that is recycled for use as a non-potable water supply, 

typically for irrigation purposes. Public comments suggested that reclaimed water be used by the 

City to offset or replace the need for additional water resources. The City has had a reclaimed 

water program in place since the mid-1990s. Recognizing that potable water was too scarce, the 

City installed pipelines and pump stations to deliver treated wastewater to the City’s golf course, 

recreation fields, zoo, and other public parks (Schmittle 2005). The reclaimed water system 

includes 16.2 miles of pipeline, 2 booster stations, and a future 1-million-gallon storage tank 

(Schmittle 2005). An increase in reclaimed water for non-potable uses would not help the City 

meet the demand for potable water; therefore, this was not considered an option.

Although the City currently uses reclaimed water for public areas to offset water used for 

landscaping and irrigation, one public comment suggested treating effluent water from the City 

sewage treatment facility to drinking water standards and delivering the treated effluent as 

potable water to municipal customers. The NMED has not identified state standards to regulate 

such systems. Without current standards, this alternative is not considered feasible.

WATER RIGHTS 

The City considered three options for modifying its current water rights program: 1) maintaining 

the existing points of diversion; 2) changing the points of diversion; and 3) transferring 

Agricultural water rights to municipal use. These alternative approaches are discussed below 

and were all eliminated from detailed analysis.

MAINTAIN EXISTING POINT(S) OF DIVERSION TO EXISTING CITY WELL FIELD(S)

Maintaining the existing point(s) of diversion would include acquiring both water rights and 

property easements, or the right to use land, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining 

water transmission pipelines. These pipelines would connect existing wells to a municipal water 

delivery system. This approach assumes that an adequate amount of water rights would be 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-32 

obtainable within a reasonable geographic area to minimize the number of distribution lines. For 

example, wells closer to one another would require fewer pipelines to connect them to a main 

delivery system compared to a series of wells spread far apart. The feasibility of this approach 

was examined by identifying the highest concentration of groundwater diversions per unit area 

within the Alamogordo region using information from the Water Administration and Technical 

Engineering Resource System (WATERS) from the NMOSE (NMOSE 2005b) (Figure 2-12). 

This analysis indicated that the highest concentration of water rights per square mile within the 

Tularosa Basin occurs near the Village of Tularosa, within the NMOSE Administrative Area.

To implement this approach, the City would have to retire approximately 340 individual existing 

water rights in this roughly 54-square-mile area and develop infrastructure to connect each 

existing well to a main delivery system. This approach is likely not a feasible alternative due to 

the anticipated environmental impacts of constructing a large network of pipelines as well as 

obtaining additional approval from NMOSE to retire the water rights and was therefore 

eliminated from detailed analysis.

CHANGE POINT(S) OF DIVERSION TO EXISTING CITY WELL FIELD(S)

Changing the point of diversion to an existing City well field would allow the City to use 

existing City water wells and pipelines and avoid developing additional infrastructure. This 

alternative assumes that sufficient water would be available at an existing well field to put 

additional water rights to beneficial use. As part of this approach, the City would need to make 

any necessary improvements to existing wells. For example, the City could transfer water rights 

to its existing La Luz, Prather, Golf Course, Landfill, or Cemetery irrigation wells, assuming that 

additional water could be produced at those locations.

Although transferring unused water rights to existing wells would help the City meet interim 

water supply needs, this approach would not provide enough water to meet the anticipated 

demand in 2045. Moreover, per the District Court Order (Twelfth Judicial District Court 2008), 

this alternative cannot be pursued. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from detailed 

analysis.

TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL WATER RIGHTS TO MUNICIPAL USE

This alternative would involve the purchase or lease of existing agricultural water rights from 

willing sellers to meet the projected demand of 10,842 afy by the year 2045. The City would not 

use the NMOSE-approved 4,000 afy of groundwater rights at Snake Tank well field. Instead the 

City would purchase and/or lease 3,398 afy of water rights from willing sellers to meet the total 

demand of 10,842 afy by the year 2045. This may involve construction of additional 

groundwater wells and pipelines to distribute the water to a water treatment facility and eventual 

customers. It would also require approval from NMOSE for conversion of purchased and/or 

leased water rights from irrigational use to municipal use.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-33 

Figure 2-12. Groundwater diversions near Alamogordo.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-34 

This alternative was not further analyzed due to its speculative nature and technical feasibility. 

The implementation of this alternative is speculative due to the unknown availability and 

location of willing sellers of existing water rights. Due to the uncertain location, quantity and 

quality of the existing water rights, it would not be possible to determine the locations of 

groundwater wells, pipelines and other necessary facilities or the associated impacts of their 

development. It is also unknown whether the available water rights would necessitate the 

construction of a desalination facility due to a TDS level above 800 mg/L. The potential impact 

to the regional economy would also be speculative due to the lack of information on current use 

of existing water rights. It is also uncertain whether there are adequate existing and available 

water rights to meet the 2045 demand. Therefore, this alternative cannot be fully developed and 

it is unknown if it would meet the identified purpose and need.

This alternative may also be technically infeasible due to the particulars of transferring 

agricultural water rights to municipal use. Many of the existing water rights that might be 

available for sale or lease would be identified as irrigational use. When water rights are 

transferred from irrigation use to municipal, industrial, or other non-irrigation uses, only the 

consumptive portion of that right is calculated as the transferable amount. Because only the 

consumptive portion of the water right is convertible for municipal use, about 40-percent of the 

right is lost (non-convertible). For example, if the assumed diversion requirement for 1 acre of 

land is 4.17 afy per acre (afy/ac), then the consumptive irrigation requirement (CIR) is 

2.50 afy/ac. Therefore, the consumptive portion is about 0.6 (2.5 afy/ac ÷ 4.17 afy/ac = 0.6). 

With the approval of the NMOSE, a water rights holder with 1,000 acres of irrigated land with 

water rights that have been put to beneficial use would have a water right of 4,170 afy. If 

converted to municipal, industrial, or other non-irrigation use, that water right would represent 

2,500 afy. In order for the City to acquire the accurate amount of water to meet the expected 

future needs, it would be necessary to either purchase or lease an amount of water that is 1.6667 

times the actual amount required (1.6667 represents the inverse of 0.6) if the water being leased 

or purchased is currently being put to beneficial irrigation use. The amount of land fallowed as a 

result of the lease or purchase of this water would remain the same. To supply the entire 

additional water requirements of the City, most of the farmland (approximately 3,000 acres) 

from Tularosa to Alamogordo would need to be removed from production and their water rights 

converted. Because of the distances between farms and the need for water treatment, this 

alternative is currently considered impractical and not feasible for a long-term City supply. 

(Information derived from Regional Water Plan 2002).

2.3.3 ALTERNATIVE WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Alternative technologies for treating saline water were eliminated from further analysis because 

their environmental impacts are expected to be essentially the same as the evaluated alternatives. 

Each of the number of water treatment technologies available for treating saline water to 

drinking water standards shares the same basic principle of removing materials from the water 

that do not meet drinking water standards.

Other water treatment technologies were also considered for treating mildly brackish water. As 

part of a pilot study, the City evaluated the feasibility of several desalination technologies for 

treating mildly brackish water to drinking water standards. The Desalination Feasibility and 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-35 

Pilot Project Phase 1 and Phase 2 Report (Livingston and Shomaker 2003) (see Appendix F) 

provide more information about this pilot test and the other technologies that were considered.

2.3.4 ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES

The siting of the desalination facility with the research facility, as described under Alternative B, 

was selected based on available land area and location along a practical pipeline route from the 

Snake Tank well field to Alamogordo. Alternative locations for the treatment facility were also

evaluated, but were eliminated from detailed analysis as they offered no environmental 

advantage to the proposed project and for the reasons described below.

SNAKE TANK FACILITY LOCATION ON STATE LAND

A site on the west side of U.S. 54, just south of the well field was considered for location of the 

desalination facility. The land is under the jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico (Figure 2-

13). Land management and ownership were reasons for eliminating the Snake Tank Facility site 

from further consideration. By considering but eliminating this location from further 

consideration, the City preserves numerous archaeological sites that would have been disturbed 

and avoids potential threatened and endangered species habitat that is not found at the colocation site near the Research Facility.

SCHOLLER SPRING FACILITY LOCATION

The Scholler Spring Facility site is on the west side of U.S. 54 north of Tularosa Creek. The 

land is mostly privately-owned, with a small portion under State jurisdiction (see Figure 2-13). 

This site was identified in the City’s Draft Fatal Flaw Analysis Report (McKinney and Martinez 

2002).

The Scholler Spring Facility site would require booster pumps to pipe the groundwater from the 

Snake Tank well field to the site. Costs of pumps would be substantial and would make this site 

economically infeasible. Land management and ownership were additional reasons for 

eliminating the Scholler Spring site from detailed analysis. The site is on private land that may 

not be available for purchase or lease and could require lengthy negotiations with the owners.

ALLEN DRAW FACILITY LOCATION

The Allen Draw Facility site is located just west of U.S. 54 and south of Tularosa Creek with its 

eastern boundary along the UPRR tracks. The land is mostly privately-owned, with some 

portions under State trust land and BLM-managed land (see Figure 2-13). This site was 

identified in the City’s Draft Fatal Flaw Analysis Report (McKinney and Martinez 2002).

The Allen Draw Facility site would result in similar booster pump needs as the Scholler Spring 

Facility site. Furthermore, about 2 miles of additional piping would be needed from this site to 

reach customers to be served in the Village of Tularosa, making this alternative site 

economically infeasible. Finally, the private ownership of the Allen Draw Facility site could 

require lengthy negotiations with the landowners before it could be leased to the City.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-36 

2.4 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACTS

This section provides a comparison of the environmental effects of each alternative that is 

evaluated in this EIS. A summary comparison of the impacts is provided in Table 2-7 at the end 

of this section.

2.4.1 ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION 

The No Action Alternative describes what would occur if the proposed project was not 

implemented and serves as a basis for comparing impacts of the alternatives. Under the No 

Action Alternative, no change is assumed from the current supply of water resources, which does 

not imply a static level of water use within the region of influence. Rather, the No Action 

Alternative describes conditions that would be expected to occur, with reasonable certainty, if 

the City were to continue to rely on existing resources to meet current and future drinking water 

demands. 

As a baseline for comparing alternatives, the No Action Alternative assumes that the City would 

continue to enforce water use conservation and rationing measures, reclaim non-potable water 

supplies, and maintain existing groundwater wells and infrastructure.

Continued use of fresh groundwater resources under the No Action Alternative would be 

expected to continue to cause aquifer drawdown. Without developing saline water, the City 

would continue to pump the limited fresh water from the aquifer. 

Continued conservation and use of limited freshwater resources would not supply the City with 

an additional 3,398 afy of water by the year 2045. Therefore, the City would continue to be 

susceptible to drought and would be expected to fail to supply sufficient drinking water to meet 

current or future demand. Under the No Action Alternative, the City would continue to use their 

existing surface water and groundwater rights. However, these water rights would continue to be 

directly affected by variability in precipitation and inevitable periods of drought. These water 

sources would continue to be inadequate to satisfy the present or future demands of the City. As 

a result, the City would likely need to seek emergency drought relief assistance, perhaps from the 

Federal or the State government, to provide water to community members.

2.4.2 ALTERNATIVE B—PROPOSED ACTION

Pumping from the Snake Tank well field would increase drawdown by more than 100 feet in the 

immediate area of the Snake Tank well field. Model-predicted drawdown after 40 years at the 

nearest wells is approximately 190 feet for the Christopher Well (T-04316) and 73 feet for the 

HFR Well (T-01797-S6) (JSAI 2006). This pumping would increase the potential for loss of 

water column within existing groundwater wells, impairing the existing groundwater rights more 

likely than if the well field is not developed. Some wells in the vicinity of the Snake Tank well 

field may require deepening in order to maintain constant pumping rates after groundwater levels 

decline in response to the pumping. Brackish water intrusion or the increasing presence of salts 
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-37 

in fresh water could also increase with pumping. Pumping mildly brackish water at the Snake 

Tank well field could draw more saline water into the area, which could elevate the concentration 

of salts in existing wells. In addition, drawdown from pumping could cause subsidence in the area 

surrounding the well field because groundwater would be removed from the saturated subsurface. 

Reduced pumping in other regions would have the beneficial effect of decreasing groundwater

drawdown near the original place of use of water rights sold or leased to the City.

Construction of the desalination facility would occur on 99 acres of previously disturbed Cityowned land within the City’s limits. The site has been used as a dumping ground in the past and 

is co-located with the Research Facility. Concentrate can be disposed of through deep-well 

injection, the process of pumping concentrate underground. Through the re-injection process, 

concentrate would be stored in a permeable layer or formation of porous rocks known as an 

injection zone. Target injection zones should have TDS concentrations equal to or greater than 

the injected brine. Additionally, injection zones should be permeable enough to accommodate 

excess water and be separated from aquifers with fresh water by a confining layer (JSAI 2009). 

The local hydrogeologic setting provides a confining layer that is suitable for injection of 

concentrate (JSAI 2009) (Appendix I).

To avoid contamination of freshwater resources, a confining layer of impermeable rock or 

sediment would be required between the injection zone and the freshwater resource to act as a 

barrier. The well would have double casing in the freshwater aquifer to protect the aquifer from 

contamination.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-38 

Figure 2-13. Alternative facility locations for desalination facility.
Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 2-39 

TABLE 2-7. IMPACTS SUMMARY

RESOURCE ALTERNATIVE A –

NO ACTION

ALTERNATIVE B –

PROPOSED ACTION

Water Resources 

– Surface Water

Reduction in downstream surface 

water flows and springs

Minimal effects on surface water

Water Resources 

– Groundwater

Groundwater table by 45 to 90 feet Groundwater table drawdown by a few feet 

to more than 100 feet – JSAI Model; 

potential for depletion of groundwater

wells near or at Snake Tank well field over 

time (Appendix H); extreme drawdown 

would only occur at or within a foot or two 

of the pumped well.

Geology Potential local land subsidence Increased potential for land subsidence, 

specifically near the Snake Tank well field

Soils No impacts Temporary soil disturbance (260 acres) and 

increased potential for wind and water 

erosion

Biological 

Resources –

Plants

No impacts Temporary disturbance of 111 acres of 

vegetation; permanent loss of 69.5 acres of 

vegetation; increased potential for spread 

of noxious weeds

Biological 

Resources –

Wildlife

No impacts Temporary and permanent habitat loss (see 

plants); temporary construction disturbance

Biological 

Resources –

Special Status 

Species

No impacts No affect to Sacramento prickly poppy 

(Argemone pleiacantha ssp. pinnatisecta) 

(endangered) and northern aplomado 

falcon (Falco femoralis) (endangered) 

Cultural 

Resources

No impacts Direct impacts to potentially eligible 

properties 

Socioeconomic 

Resources

No impacts Up to 638 acres of agricultural land 

fallowed

Transportation No impacts Temporary construction traffic and pond 

cleaning traffic on U.S. 54

Air Quality No impacts Temporary construction emissions; longterm vehicle emissions

Climate Change No impacts Temporary construction emissions 

contribute hydrocarbons to the atmosphere; 

long-term pumping and treatment works 

emit greenhouse gasses
3.0 AFFECTED

 ENVIRONMENT
Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-1

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the general setting of the study area in 2006 and the resources that would 

be affected by implementation of any of the alternatives. The affected environment described in 

this Chapter provides a baseline for the analysis of environmental consequences in Chapter 4. 

Resource categories discussed in this Chapter were identified through public scoping and agency 

input.

The affected environment includes two areas: 1) the immediate Alamogordo and Tularosa area 

and 2) the region within the Tularosa Basin (Figure 3-1). The immediate area includes the well 

field north of Tularosa, the desalination facility location in Alamogordo, and the associated 

corridor along the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and U.S. 54. While the focus of this EIS is on 

the Alamogordo to Tularosa corridor, some alternatives may lead to regional impacts outside of 

the immediate geographic area or throughout the Tularosa Basin.

3.2 RESOURCES NOT AFFECTED

The following resources would not be affected by implementation of the proposed project:

• Fire Management. Some fire management activities have been implemented in the 

study area, but ongoing or future fire management would not be affected by either of the 

alternatives.

• Recreation Resources. The study area does not contain any recreation facilities and 

offers minimal opportunities for recreation. Neither of the alternatives would affect 

recreation facilities or opportunities in the Alamogordo/Tularosa region. 

• Timber Resources. There are no known timber resources in the study area. Neither of 

the alternatives would affect timber resources or production.

• Wind Resources. This resource category refers to wind availability as it relates to 

renewable energy production. Wind power is the kinetic energy of wind or the extraction 

of this energy by wind turbines. The study area has a Wind Power Class rating of 1 (the 

lowest), with a poor wind resource potential. Neither of the alternatives would affect 

wind resources.

• Wild Horses and Burros. This resource category refers to BLM land where known and 

managed populations or herds of wild horses or burros occur. There are no wild horses 

or burros currently within the study area. Burros in this area were removed more than 10 

years ago under the White Sands Resource Management Plan. Neither of the alternatives 

would affect wild horses or burros.

• Wild and Scenic Rivers. This resource category consists of rivers that have been 

designated wild and scenic under the National Wild and Scenic River Act. There are no 

wild and scenic rivers within or adjacent to the study area. Neither of the alternatives 

would affect wild and scenic rivers.

• Prime or Unique Farmlands. Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of 

physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and/or 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-2 

oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses. Unique farmland is land other than 

prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value food and fiber crops, 

such as soybeans or sorghum. No prime or unique farmlands were identified within the 

study area. Neither of the alternatives would affect prime or unique farmland.

• Wetland or Riparian Areas. Wetlands include permanently or intermittently wet areas, 

shallow water, and land water margins that support a natural ecosystem of plants and 

animals that are adapted to wet conditions. Riparian areas are locations where land and 

water form a transition from aquatic to terrestrial ecosystems along streams, lakes, and 

open water wetlands. No wetland or riparian areas were identified within the study area. 

Neither of the alternatives would affect wetland or riparian areas.

• Wilderness Areas. This resource category includes land formally designated as 

wilderness or managed as wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964. No lands in the 

study area have been designated as wilderness. Neither of the alternatives would affect 

wilderness areas.

• Caves. The study area does not contain any known caves or cave resources. Neither of 

the alternatives would affect caves.

• Fossils. Although fossils are known to occur in the region (Pray 1961), none are 

expected to be affected by either of the alternatives.

• Seismicity. Seismicity is not expected to be affected by the extraction, treatment, or 

distribution of groundwater. Neither of the alternatives would affect seismicity.

• Mineral Resources. The study area has potential to contain oil and gas resources (New 

Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources 2006). Neither of the alternatives 

would affect the extraction or production of mineral resources.

3.3 AFFECTED RESOURCES 

This section describes the existing environmental conditions in the study area for resources that 

could be affected by the proposed project. These resources include water resources, geology, 

biological resources, cultural resources, Indian Trust Assets (ITAs), socioeconomics, land use, 

transportation, air quality, and visual resources. A list and description of Federal laws pertinent 

to each resource is found in Appendix J.

3.3.1 WATER RESOURCES

This section describes surface water and groundwater resources in the study area, with a focus on 

the eastern margin of the Tularosa Basin. This discussion includes both surface water and 

groundwater sources used by the Villages of Tularosa and La Luz, the City, Holloman Air Force 

Base (AFB) and White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), and surrounding portions of north-central 

Otero County.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-3 

Figure 3-1. Affected environment location.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-4 

SURFACE WATER

Surface water includes any permanent or temporary body of water or drainage that collects and 

holds or transports water. Surface water sources can originate from groundwater, such as 

springs, aquifers, and seeps, or can be generated after a rain or storm water event as surface 

runoff. Intermittent ponds and streams, and ephemeral arroyos in particular, contain water only 

for limited periods of time following storms. Perennial surface water bodies, containing water 

year-round, tend to be larger.

Surface water enters the Tularosa Basin from the surrounding mountain ranges through 

intermittent, ephemeral, and perennial streams that drain toward the basin’s center. The Tularosa 

Basin is a closed basin with respect to surface water flow, meaning that surface water does not 

flow into adjoining basins. The largest drainages entering the Tularosa Basin originate in the 

Sacramento Mountains, which form the eastern border of the study area. These drainages 

include Three Rivers, Rinconada Canyon, Tularosa Creek, La Luz Creek, and Alamo Creek 

(Figure 3-2).

Streams in the Tularosa Basin typically originate at springs in the surrounding mountains. As the 

perennial streams exit the canyons and flow onto the alluvial fans and basin fill, much of the 

water is diverted for agricultural or municipal uses or infiltrates the bottom of stream channels to 

recharge shallow groundwater. Some surface water collects near the center of the basin in a 

series of playas, or shallow, short-lived salt lakes, where it evaporates and leaves behind an 

accumulation of minerals, including gypsum, halite, and potassium salts.

There are reports of historic springs in the Tularosa Basin, most of them identified during a 1911 

survey. Figure 3-3 shows the locations of these springs. Springs found in the canyons of the 

western Sacramento Mountains serve as an important source of water for communities along the 

eastern margin of the Tularosa Basin. Examples include the La Luz, Fresnal, and Alamo Canyon 

springs (and springs tributary to these drainages), which are important sources of water for 

Alamogordo. Tularosa Creek, on which the community of Tularosa and some irrigators depend 

for water, also originates at several springs in the western Sacramento Mountains. Similar 

bedrock springs are found in the mountains on the western side of the Tularosa Basin, including

Rhodes Canyon in the northern San Andres Mountains and Aguirre Spring in the Organ 

Mountains. However, there are fewer large springs on the western side of the basin.

A number of smaller springs are located on or near the floor of the Tularosa Basin, some of 

which originate from bedrock (limestone, shale, and sandstone) near the contact with basin-fill 

materials. The majority of these springs are located in the northern portion of the Tularosa 

Basin. Examples of bedrock springs in the northern portion of the basin include Carrizozo 

Spring near Carrizozo and Jakes and Milagro springs near Oscura. Malpais Spring is at the 

southern edge of a Quaternary basalt flow in the northern basin, at the contact with underlying 

basin-fill deposits. A few springs originate within the unconsolidated basin-fill deposits, 

including Mound Springs, west of the Quaternary basalt, and Salt Springs on White Sands 

National Monument.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-5 

Precipitation varies significantly within the basin, with the lower elevations receiving about 40 

percent less than the surrounding mountain regions (Garza and McLean 1977). Records for 

Alamogordo show an average of 11.39 inches of annual precipitation, compared to 29.81 inches 

per year at a higher elevation in Cloudcroft, New Mexico (Western Regional Climate Center 

[WRCC] 2008). Much of the surface water in the basin originates as runoff from the mountains 

in the form of winter and spring snowmelt and summer runoff from intense thundershowers. The 

amount of runoff from the Sacramento Mountains to the east is approximately twice the runoff 

received from the San Andres and Organ mountains to the west, owing to differences in altitude 

and precipitation patterns (Waltemeyer 2001). Rain events tend to be sporadic, localized, and in 

some cases severe. Sudden rainstorms can cause soil erosion and affect water quality of the 

surface waters in the basin.

Surface water quality in the basin is affected by the seasons and the volume of flow in the 

drainage, deteriorating to some degree at lower flows. Surface water quality in the upper Three 

Rivers drainage is among the best in the eastern Tularosa Basin, with low quantities of TDS (678 

mg/L) and sulfate (299 mg/L) in the upper reaches (RCDC 2002), rising to more than 1,000 

mg/L TDS and 651 mg/L of sulfate downstream (Hood and Herrick 1965). This water-quality 

pattern is likely due to the low solubility of the igneous rocks in most of this drainage basin.

Perennial springs in La Luz and Fresnal canyons provide water of good quality to La Luz Creek. 

Water quality declines as water flows downstream (RCDC 2002). Little water quality data are 

available for the smaller tributaries and springs of the eastern or western Tularosa Basin, but 

similar downstream water quality patterns can be expected based on the bedrock types found 

within the drainage basins. Springs located near or on the basin floor are typically higher in TDS 

than those found in the mountains.

Most of the Tularosa Basin communities occur along the foothills of the Sacramento Mountains 

(RCDC 2002). These communities divert and use surface water for commercial purposes, 

irrigated agriculture, livestock grazing, and public supply. Table 3-1 shows surface water use in 

Otero County for the year 2000.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-6 

Figure 3-2. Major drainages in Tularosa Basin.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-7 

Figure 3-3. Major springs in Tularosa Basin.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-8 

TABLE 3-1. SURFACE WATER USE IN OTERO COUNTY, 2000

CATEGORY SURFACE WATER 

WITHDRAWAL

SURFACE WATER 

DEPLETION

SURFACE WATER

RETURN FLOW

Commercial 746.35 680.2 66.2

Domestic 0.0 0.0 0.0

Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0

Irrigated Agriculture 9,793.0 4,695.0 5,098.0

Livestock 93.7 93.7 0.0

Mining 0.0 0.0 0.0

Power 0.0 0.0 0.0

Public Water Supply 6,843.9 3,423.4 3,420.5

Reservoir Evaporation 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL* 17,477.0 8,892.3 8,584.7

NOTE: * Values are rounded.

SOURCE: NMOSE 2006.

Currently, water use trends in the area immediately surrounding Alamogordo are dependent on 

four sources of water supply. Average diversion in afy from each of these sources for the period 

1990 through 2002 is:

• Bonito Lake – 539 afy

• La Luz Canyon – 4,486 afy

• Alamo Canyon – 1,299 afy

• La Luz well field – 1,422 afy

The Village of Tularosa diverts surface water from Tularosa Creek, one of the two perennial 

streams in the Tularosa Basin and the largest nearby surface water body, for storage in a 3-

million-gallon reservoir and distribution to the Village of Tularosa for its primary water supply. 

In the past, the Village of Tularosa’s demand has periodically exceeded the amount of water it 

can legally divert. During these shortages, the Village of Tularosa has leased additional water 

from the TCDC, an acequia corporation that owns a majority (87 percent) of the flows in 

Tularosa Creek and provides water to irrigators in the area (Livingston and Shomaker 2002a, 

2002b).

GROUNDWATER

Groundwater is water that infiltrates into the ground and slowly seeps downhill below the 

surface. Groundwater is stored below the ground surface in aquifers, or layers of saturated rock. 

Within aquifers, groundwater flows from high areas to low areas, forming a flow network. 

Groundwater flow from the Tularosa Basin into the Hueco Bolson is estimated at 5,640 afy
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-9 

(Heywood and Yager 2003). Because the two basins are connected by groundwater flowing 

between them, the two sources are referred to as the Hueco-Tularosa aquifer (Texas and New 

Mexico 1997).

The occurrence and quality of groundwater in the Tularosa Basin, which contains one of the 

largest saline water aquifers in the United States (Derr 1981), are dependent on the geologic 

conditions in the basin. The Tularosa Basin is a broad, north-trending valley that extends 

approximately 170 miles north from the New Mexico-Texas border and is bounded by the 

Sacramento Mountains on the east, Sierra Blanca Peak to the north, and a series of mountain 

ranges that defines the western extent of the basin from the Franklin Mountains in the south to 

the Organ and San Andres mountains in the central and northern portions of the basin. Much of 

the Tularosa Basin is divided into two north-trending sub-basins (Figure 3-4).

Within the basin, groundwater has developed from both bedrock and basin-fill aquifers (RCDC 

2002). The basin-fill deposits represent the most important aquifers in the area in terms of the 

quantity of water available, achievable production rates, and degree of historic development. 

Groundwater in the basin-fill aquifers generally originates in the mountains as precipitation then 

moves into coarser material in the basin.

Estimates of groundwater quality in the aquifer vary wildly as a result of geography, quality of 

recharge, presence of soluble salts in the formation, flow rates through rocks and depth of the 

groundwater cache (JSAI 2009). Saline water is formally defined as water containing more than 

1,000 mg/L TDS (U.S. Public Health Service 1962). The saltiest classification for water is 

seawater, with 35,000 mg/L or more of TDS. Brackish water is saline water with TDS content 

higher than 1,000 mg/L and lower than that of seawater.

The quality of existing water resources for the City ranges from about 300 mg/L TDS from 

Bonito Lake to as much as 1,400 mg/L TDS from groundwater pumped from the La Luz well 

field (Livingston 2003b). The average TDS value of water in the distribution system is around 

800 mg/L in the wintertime, rising to about 1,100 mg/L during the summer months when the 

wells are being pumped extensively. For any future water supply, a delivered water quality goal 

of 800 mg/L TDS, the same quality as the surface water, has been established by the City. A 

detailed discussion of the distribution of groundwater quality in the Tularosa Basin is included in 

the Water Resources Technical Report (see Appendix H).

Significant volumes of fresh water (TDS of less than 1,000 mg/L) are present in basin-fill 

aquifers in two main areas: one along the southern Sacramento Mountains and the second 

adjacent to the southern San Andres and Organ Mountains (Figure 3-5). The area of fresh 

groundwater along the southern Sacramento Mountains, as mapped by McLean (1970), is about 

20 to 25 miles long, extending from Alamo Canyon south of Alamogordo to about 10 miles 

beyond Grapevine Canyon. The width of this zone varies from 2 miles to a maximum of about 4

miles opposite Grapevine Canyon. Near the mountain-front the freshwater zone is up to 1,200 

feet thick, thinning to an irregular edge westward where it is underlain by more saline water.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-10 

Figure 3-4. Tularosa Basin sub-basins (Huff 2005).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-11 

This freshwater zone has been extensively developed by Holloman AFB and by private irrigation 

and domestic users. McLean (1970) estimates that approximately 3 to 4 million afy of fresh 

water is present in this zone.

The area of freshwater resources adjacent to the south San Andres and Organ Mountains extends 

over 50 miles, from Ash Canyon in the north to south of the Texas border. An area in the 

mountain-front at WSMR Headquarters contains over 1,800 feet of basin-fill sediments saturated 

with fresh water, which serves as the water supply for the WSMR. The remainder of this zone is 

elongated north-south along the mountain-front, is 200 to 1,000 feet thick, and ranges in width 

from 2 miles in the north to nearly 10 miles in the south near the Franklin Mountains. An 

estimated 7 million afy of fresh water is present in this area (McLean 1970).

Slightly saline water, containing TDS concentrations between 1,000 and 3,000 mg/L, is found 

generally around the margins of the Tularosa Basin and also exists as a transition zone between 

the freshwater areas described above and the saline water that characterizes most of the basin 

(Figure 3-6). Slightly saline groundwater is present as a band around the basin margin, about 2 

to 5 miles in width and up to a few hundred feet in thickness, with the notable exception of two 

areas, in the northeastern and southeastern portions of the basin (McLean 1970). The slightly 

saline zone in the northeastern basin extends about 30 miles from Alamogordo in the south to 

Three Rivers in the north, with its widest expression (10 miles) in the south and the narrowest (4 

miles) in the north. The salinity of the groundwater in this area is likely due to soluble minerals

in the aquifer sediments and recharge from groundwater flowing through sedimentary rocks rich 

in sulfate materials (Hood and Herrick 1965). In the southeastern portion of the basin about onethird of the water, or approximately 13 million afy, is in the slightly saline range (JSAI 2003; 

RCDC 2002).

The central portion of the basin is saturated with water that ranges from moderately saline to 

brine. In places, groundwater of the central basin contains dissolved solids in excess of 100,000 

mg/L.

Water resources within a basin are generally evaluated by assessing the amount of water being 

added to the basin (the recharge) and the amount of water withdrawn from the basin (the 

groundwater use). Recharge to the Tularosa Basin is based on estimates of the total annual 

stream flow, which varies from 68,800 to 86,390 afy for a year of average precipitation 

(Waltemeyer 2001; RCDC 2002). The lower recharge estimate is based on stream flow only 

(Waltemeyer 2001), while the higher estimate considers both stream flow and subsurface flow 

entering the basin from bedrock below the ground surface (RCDC 2002). Nearly 70 percent of 

the recharge for the Tularosa Basin enters the eastern portion of the basin from the Sacramento 

Mountains, with the remainder from the San Andres and Organ Mountains to the west.

Water use in the Tularosa Basin is estimated at approximately 46,951 afy (RCDC 2002). 

Approximately 75 percent of the total is from groundwater supplies, and about 25 percent is from 

surface water supplies. Irrigated agriculture accounts for 57 percent of the groundwater use, and 

public water supply systems account for 29 percent. Approximately 116 water wells used 

primarily for irrigation and domestic consumption occur in the study area. Table 3-2 shows 

groundwater use in Otero County for the year 2000.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-12 

Figure 3-5. Fresh groundwater resources in the Tularosa Basin.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-13 

Figure 3-6. Slightly saline groundwater resources in Tularosa Basin.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-14 

Of the 4,911 water rights currently held within the Tularosa Basin, agricultural water rights make 

up 58 percent of the total water diverted. Given this distribution of water rights (Table 3-3), it is 

assumed for this analysis that agricultural water rights would be purchased or leased.

Groundwater sources for the City include the La Luz wells, Prather wells, Golf Course well, 

Landfill well, and Cemetery irrigation (NMOSE 2004b). Although the City has existing surface 

water and groundwater rights and permits to divert from its wells and surface diversions, the 

average water supply the City has historically diverted, from a combination of surface and 

groundwater sources, has been 3,887 afy (NMOSE 2004b): 

• 5,686 afy, surface water, 1967–2001

• 2,088 afy, groundwater, 1998–2003

FLOODPLAINS

Floodplains are low-lying areas that experience periods of “ponding” or surface water

inundation. These areas are normally adjacent to existing surface water resources, and flooding 

can occur at various depths and lengths of time depending on weather or storm severity. 

Historical records and topography are used to estimate the frequency and area of flooding (flood 

zone) that can be expected in any given watershed.

The New Mexico Office of Emergency Management does not maintain flood zone maps for the 

state. Instead, flood insurance rate maps (FIRM) from the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) provide flood zone designations for each state in the U.S. The majority of the 

study area is within Zone X (outside the 100-year and 500-year floodplains). Temporal and 

Tularosa Creeks within the study area are in Zone A (chance of flood once every 100 years). 

FEMA maps show Zone A designations within these drainages at the ordinary high water mark 

(or upper confines of the water body).

TABLE 3-2. YEAR 2000 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER USE IN OTERO COUNTY

CATEGORY

GROUNDWATER

WITHDRAWAL*

GROUNDWATER

DEPLETION*

GROUNDWATER

RETURN FLOW*

Commercial 168.6 166.2 2.3

Domestic 1,127.1 1,127.1 0.0

Industrial 10.6 10.6 0.0

Irrigated agriculture 23,980.0 19,343.0 4,637.0

Livestock 204.9 204.9 0.0

Mining 0.0 0.0 0.0

Power 0.0 0.0 0.0

Public water supply 5,486.1 2,877.9 2,608.2

Reservoir evaporation 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL 30,977.3 23,729.7 7,247.5

SOURCE: NMOSE 2006.*Measured in acre-feet.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-15 

TABLE 3-3. TOTAL DIVERSION AND ESTIMATED CONSUMPTIVE WATER USE WITHIN THE 

TULAROSA BASIN

USE TYPE NUMBER OF

WATER RIGHTS

DIVERSION 

TOTAL (AFY)

ESTIMATED 

CONSUMPTIVE 

USE PORTION

PERCENT OF

TOTAL 

DIVERSION

Agricultural 1,216 92,562 53,686* 58

Commercial 128 6,149 6,149 4

Municipal 41 19,278 19,278 12

Residential 3,083 14,570 14,570 9

Military 6 26,046 26,046 16

Other 437 248 248 1

TOTAL 4,911 158,853 119,977 100

SOURCE: NMOSE 2006.

NOTE: *Consumptive use for agriculture is 58 percent of diversion total for each water right.

3.3.2 GEOLOGY

This section describes unique geologic resources in the Tularosa Basin, including the basin itself 

and the White Sands National Monument.

THE TULAROSA BASIN

The Tularosa Basin was formed as the result of faulting, which is the process of fracturing and 

displacement of the earth. The formation of the basin was part of a large-scale tectonic event 

that began approximately 30 million years ago and continues today. This tectonic event 

stretched and pulled apart large portions of the earth’s crust in the southwestern U.S., forming 

the Basin and Range, a geologic province that extends from southern Oregon down to northern 

Mexico. A linear arm of the Basin and Range, known as the Rio Grande Rift, extends from 

southern New Mexico into central Colorado. As the crust separated in the Basin and Range, 

numerous fault zones developed. Large blocks of crust subsided thousands of feet along these 

faults, forming basins between fault-bounded mountain ranges. The Tularosa Basin, at the 

southern end of the Rio Grande Rift, is just one of the many basins in the Southwest that formed 

in this manner (Machette et al. 2000).

The Alamogordo fault, at the base of the Sacramento Mountains, extends about 83 miles from 

the northern end of Phillips Hills through Tularosa and Alamogordo and south into the 

McGregor Bombing Range. Along the base of the San Andres Mountains is the San Andres 

Mountain fault, which extends about 90 miles. Although no detailed studies of these faults have 

been conducted, the latest movement of the faults was between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago 

(Machette et al. 2000).

WHITE SANDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

The largest pure gypsum dune field in the world is located at White Sands National Monument in 

the Tularosa Basin. This region of glistening white dunes ranges in elevation from 3,890 to 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-16 

4,116 feet above sea level. There are approximately 275 total square miles of dune fields, with 

115 square miles (about 40 percent) located within White Sands National Monument. The 

remainder is on military land that is not open to the public.

The gypsum that makes up White Sands is ultimately derived from marine rocks. Much of this 

gypsum is found in the 1,500-foot-thick Yeso Formation, which outcrops in the San Andres and 

Sacramento mountains surrounding the Tularosa Basin. (“Yeso” is Spanish for gypsum). Heavy 

rainfall flushed large quantities of soluble gypsum from the San Andres and Sacramento 

mountains down to the lake, which became saturated with dissolved gypsum. The Tularosa 

Basin is essential to the existence of the White Sands National Monument. With no drainage 

outlet, this basin traps and concentrates all the dissolved gypsum that comes down from the 

marine rocks in the surrounding mountains, gypsum that would normally be carried away by 

rivers or streams. The gypsum particles are light enough to be moved by wind, which creates the 

dunes.

3.3.3 SOILS

Tularosa Basin soils include a variety of types, each formed by a process that is controlled by 

climate, organisms, topography, parent material, and time. Figure 3-7 shows the distribution of 

soil types throughout the Tularosa Basin. Most of the soils within the basin are classified as 

Aridisols, which are soils of dry regions, or Entisols, which are recently formed soils.

Major soil units in the study area include the Prelo-Tome-Largo complex of nearly level to 

gently sloping, deep, well-drained sediments dominated by reddish brown silt, clay, and 

calcareous deposits. The dominant soil complex is a Prelo-Tome-Largo, which is characterized 

as deep, well-drained soil found on level to gently sloping alluvial fans, valley floors, and 

pediments (Derr 1981). Three soil units within the Prelo-Tome-Largo complex occur in the 

Snake Tank well field and vicinity: Alamogordo-Gypsum Complex (AEC), Holloman-Gypsum 

Land-Yesum Complex (HOB), and Tome Silt Loam (TDB). Table 3-4 and Appendix J show the 

general characteristics associated with each of these units. A complete list of all of the soil types 

found in the study area is provided in Appendix J1.

The soils in Otero County along the U.S. 54 corridor are composed predominantly of the AEC 

unit, which occurs on toe slopes and fill valleys (Derr 1981). Typically, these soils have 

approximately 0.5 inch of desert pavement on the surface, are very fragile, and cannot withstand 

intensive surface disturbance (Derr 1981).

The TDB and AEC complex soil units are located on floodplains and side slopes of major 

streams and basins (Derr 1981). Used primarily for grazing and to a lesser extent for irrigated 

crops, these soils are highly susceptible to water and wind erosion when surface cover is 

removed.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-17 

TABLE 3-4. CHARACTERISTICS OF DOMINANT SOIL UNITS IN STUDY AREA

SOIL TYPE/CHARACTERISTIC

ALAMOGORDOGYPSUM 

COMPLEX (AEC)

HOLLOMANGYPSUM LANDYESUM COMPLEX 

TOME SILT 

LOAM (TDB)

Drainage class Well drained Well drained Well drained

Soil erodibility (K) factor* 0.55 0.55 0.43

Minimum depth to water Table > 6 feet > 6 feet > 6 feet

Depth to restrictive feature > 60 inches > 60 inches > 60 inches

Water capacity** Moderate Very low High

Permeability** Moderately rapid Moderate Moderately slow

Annual flooding or ponding None None None

Hydric soil No No No

Potential for wildlife habitat Low Low Moderate

Potential for farming Low Very low Moderate

Potential for grazing Low to moderate Low Moderate

DATA SOURCE: Derr 1981.

NOTES: *Values range from 0.10 to 0.64; soils with the highest values are the most erodible.

 **Within 60 inches of the soil surface.

3.3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

LAND COVER AND VEGETATION

The Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) subdivides the study area into 13 

land cover types. Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub constitutes over 80 percent of the 

land cover in the study area. This vegetative type is characterized by the abundance of 

creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) with a mixture of thornscrub and other desertscrub (SWReGAP 

2005). Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe occurs in the study area and 

is the second most common habitat type. This habitat type is found on gently sloping bajadas 

and is characterized by diverse perennial grasses; however, much of this cover type has been 

converted to Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub through intensive grazing and other land uses. 

The remaining 11 habitat types occur over less than 2 percent of the study area. 

Table 3-5 lists the SWReGAP land cover types, their locations within the study area, and the 

approximate acreage at each facility site.

Land cover descriptions are provided in Appendix J2 and a representative map of land cover 

types in relation to project features is provided in Appendix J. The information provided in these 

appendices is summarized in the following sections.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-18 

Figure 3-7. Soil types in study area.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-19 

TABLE 3-5. LAND COVER TYPES FOUND IN THE STUDY AREA

SOUTHWEST REGIONAL GAP ANALYSIS PROJECT

LAND COVER TYPE ACRES PERCENT

Well Field and Pipelines

Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe 12.1 19.0

Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 30.6 48.2

Chihuahuan Gypsophilous Grassland and Steppe 1.7 2.8

Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland 3.0 4.7

North American Warm Desert Playa 16.1 25.3

Main Pipeline

Agriculture 2.1 4.6

Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 0.9 1.6

Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe 2.1 3.2

Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 41.2 79.0

Chihuahuan Stabilized Coppice Dune and Sand Flat Scrub 0.6 1.4

Developed, Medium-High Intensity 4.1 3.4

Developed, Open Space–Low Intensity 4.4 2.4

North American Warm Desert Playa 1.2 1.9

North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland 0.9 2.4

North American Warm Desert Wash 0.06 0.1

Desalination Facility Site

Developed, Medium-High Intensity 40 40.4

Developed, Open Space-Low Intensity 55 55.5

Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub 4 4.0

DATA SOURCE: SWReGAP 2005.

Vegetation is a general term sometimes used interchangeably with the term “habitat,” which is 

defined as the combination of different plant communities found at any given location. Most of 

the project area would have been characterized historically as desert grassland dominated by 

black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda). Although remnants of this habitat exist, the influence of 

livestock, alteration of fire regimes, and road and utility development has eliminated the pure 

black grama component (Dick-Peddie 1993) and encouraged the encroachment of shrubs such as 

fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), creosotebush, and honey mesquite (Prosopis 

glandulosa), as well as forbs including tansy mustard (Descurania sp.) and Russian thistle 

(Salsola kali).

Surface springs and seeps in the study area contain marsh vegetation and are part of a salt marsh 

ecosystem known scientifically as North American Warm Desert Cienegas (see spring locations 

on Figure 3-3). A “cienega” is a freshwater-spring-fed wetland. Evaporation in these areas often 

creates saline conditions, especially on the margins, as evidenced by the presence of salt-tolerant 

species such as salt grass (Distichlis spicata) and alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides). The type
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-20 

of vegetation depends on the depth of the water. In the shallow margins, emergent plants typical 

of riparian vegetation are present, including species of sedge (Carex), rush (Juncus), and bulrush 

(Schoenoplectus). Emergent marsh is characteristic of the adjacent deeper water (NatureServe 

2004).

Dominant plant species include salt grass, iodine bush (Allenrolfia occidentalis), and spike rush 

(Eleocharis palustris) (Myers and Naus 2004). These plants occur within a few meters of the 

edge of spring-fed surface features. They also experience changes from year-to-year depending 

on the edge of the water body; if a drought occurs and the water recedes, plant species dependent 

on these marsh ecosystems will also recede.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES

SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) biologists conducted on-site field surveys and 

documented 116 different plant taxa, including 24 woody species (trees and shrubs), 21 grasses, 

and 71 forbs. Plant species observed in the field were compared to the lists of threatened and 

endangered species, candidate species, sensitive species, species of concern, rare species, and 

noxious weeds known to occur in Otero County. These lists include the regulatory status of each 

species as recorded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the New Mexico Rare 

Plant Technical Council (NMRPTC), in cooperation with the New Mexico Department of 

Agriculture (NMDA). Lists of threatened and endangered species and other special status 

species for plants obtained from these agencies are provided in Appendix J3.

Table 3-6 summarizes data on four riparian plant species that are listed by Federal and/or state 

agencies and are known to occur in Otero County. Wright’s marsh thistle (Cirsium wrightii) and 

Chapline’s columbine (Aquilegia chrysantha var. chaplinei) have the potential to occur in the 

study area in suitable marsh habitat.

TABLE 3-6. LISTED RIPARIAN PLANT SPECIES NEAR OR WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

COMMON NAME

(SCIENTIFIC NAME) STATUS KNOWN DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT NEEDS

LIKELIHOOD OF 

OCCURRENCE IN 

AFFECTED

STUDY AREA

Sacramento Mountains thistle

(Cirsium vinaceum)

NMRPTCR 

USFWST

NME

BLMS

Wet soils at springs, seeps, and along streams in meadows or forest 

margins at 7,545–9,500 feet. Water is high in calcium carbonate 

that precipitates out to form large travertine mounds at some 

springs. Cirsium vinaceum may grow in almost pure stands on 

some of these mounds

Unlikely

Wright's marsh thistle (Cirsium 

wrightii)

NMRPTCR 

USFWSS

NME

Wet, alkaline soils in spring seeps and marshy edges of streams and 

ponds at 3,450–8,500 feet Possible

Chapline's columbine 

(Aquilegia chrysantha var. 

chaplinei)

NMRPTCR

USFWSS

NMS

Limestone seeps and springs in the montane scrub or riparian 

canyon bottoms at 4,700–5,500 feet Possible

Goodding's onion 

(Allium gooddingii)

USFWSS

NME

Typically in mature forests, along north-trending drainage bottoms 

associated with perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream 

courses in mixed-conifer and spruce-fir zones at 7,000–9,400 feet

Unlikely

NOTES: BLMS = Bureau of Land Management Sensitive; NME = New Mexico Endangered; NMS = New Mexico Species of Concern; NMRPTCR = New Mexico 

Rare Plant Technical Council Rare; USFWSS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Concern; USFWST = U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service Threatened
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-21 

The USFWS lists four plant species as threatened or endangered in Otero County: Kuenzler 

hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri), Sacramento prickly poppy (Argemone 

pleiacantha pinnatisecta), Todsen’s pennyroyal (Hedeoma todsenii), and Sacramento Mountains 

thistle (Cirsium vinaceum). Of these, only one, the Sacramento prickly poppy, was identified as 

possibly occurring at the study area (Table 3-7). A detailed description of this species is 

included below.

TABLE 3-7. FEDERALLY LISTED PLANT SPECIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE 

STUDY AREA

COMMON NAME 

(SCIENTIFIC NAME)

FEDERAL 

STATUS

KNOWN DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT 

NEEDS

LIKELIHOOD OF 

OCCURRENCE IN 

STUDY AREA

Sacramento prickly poppy

(Argemone pleiacantha

pinnatisecta)

Endangered Loose, gravelly soils on open, disturbed sites, 

canyon bottoms and slopes, and sometimes along 

roadsides, at 4,300–7,100 feet.

Possible

Sacramento Prickly Poppy. Based on known distribution, habitat needs, and field surveys, the 

Sacramento prickly poppy is the sole Federally-listed plant species with the potential to occur in 

the study area. The USFWS listed the Sacramento prickly poppy as endangered with no 

designated critical habitat in 1989 (USFWS 1989). This species occupies canyon habitats 

ranging from 4,300 to 7,100 feet in elevation in Chihuahuan Desert, piñon-juniper woodland, 

and the lower edge of ponderosa pine communities. Occupied canyons have largely intermittent 

flows after storm events or have springs that flow for a limited distance. Plants grow directly in 

the rocks and gravel of streambeds; on vegetated bars of silt, gravel, and rock; on cut slopes; and 

occasionally on banks. The study area includes a relatively small amount of marginally potential 

Sacramento prickly poppy habitat in the northeastern section of the well field site (shown on the 

map in Appendix J; however, no Sacramento prickly poppies have been documented in this area.

The USFWS and NMRPTC also list 41 plants in Otero County as species of concern or rare, 

respectively. Three of these species were identified as possibly occurring at the study area: 

desert night-blooming cereus (Cereus greggii var. greggii), Villard pincushion cactus (Escobaria 

villardii), and hairy muhly (Muhlenbergia villiflora var. villosa). Table 3-8 lists the status, 

known distribution, and habitat needs of these species. Narrative descriptions of each species are 

provided below.

Desert Night-blooming Cereus. Based on known distribution, habitat needs, and field surveys, 

the desert night-blooming cereus has the potential to occur in the study area. This species 

primarily occupies desertscrub or desert grasslands in areas where creosotebush is found in 

sandy or gravelly loams, along washes, or on creosotebush flats or gentle slopes at elevations 

from 3,937 to 4,921 feet. Typically, these plants are found growing up through and supported by 

shrubs, especially creosotebush and mesquite. The desert night-blooming cereus is listed by the 

USFWS as a species of concern and by the NMRPTC as a rare plant species. 

Villard Pincushion Cactus. This species occurs in loamy soils of desert grasslands with 

Chihuahuan desertscrub on broad limestone benches in mountainous terrain at elevations from 

4,500 to 6,500 feet. The species is common within its area of distribution, and there are no 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-22 

known threats to populations at this time. The Villard pincushion cactus is listed by the USFWS 

as a species of concern and by the NMRPTC as a rare plant species.

Hairy Muhly. This species occurs in open desert grasslands and desert savannas in alkaline to 

calcareous soil, at elevations from 4,800 to 5,200 feet. It is known from only three collections in 

New Mexico, but is more frequent eastward in Texas. Livestock grazing of the desert grasslands 

is the primary threat to this taxon. Hairy muhly is listed by the USFWS as a species of concern 

and by the NMRPTC as a rare plant species.

TABLE 3-8. OTHER SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE 

STUDY AREA

COMMON NAME

(SCIENTIFIC NAME) STATUS

KNOWN DISTRIBUTION AND 

HABITAT NEEDS

LIKELIHOOD 

OF 

OCCURRENCE 

IN STUDY 

AREA

Desert night-blooming 

cereus 

(Cereus greggii var. 

greggii)

USFWSS

Found primarily in desertscrub, in areas where creosotebush 

is found in sandy or gravelly loams, along washes, on 

creosotebush flats or gentle slopes; 3,937–4,921 feet

Possible

Villard pincushion cactus 

(Escobaria villardii)

USFWSSNN

ME

BLMS

Loamy soils of desert grassland with Chihuahuan Desert 

Scrub on broad limestone benches in mountainous terrain; 

4,500–6,500 feet

Possible

Hairy muhly 

(Muhlenbergia villiflora 

var. villosa)

NMRPTCR Open desert grassland and desert savanna, alkaline to 

calcareous soil; 4,800–5,200 feet Possible

NOTES: BLMS = Bureau of Land Management Sensitive; NME = New Mexico Endangered; NMRPTCR = New Mexico Rare Plant Technical 

Council Rare; USFWSS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Concern

NOXIOUS WEEDS

Within the study area, SWCA biologists documented 10 plant species classified by the New 

Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA) as noxious (non-native) weeds. The State of New 

Mexico assigns weeds to one of three classes: 

• Class A Weeds are species that currently are not present in New Mexico or have limited 

distribution. Preventing new infestations of these species and eradicating existing 

infestations is the highest priority.

• Class B Weed species are limited to certain portions of the State. In areas that are not 

infested, these species should be treated as Class A Weeds. In areas with severe 

infestations, management plans should be designed to contain the infestation and stop 

further spread.

• Class C Weeds are species that are widespread in the State. Management decisions for 

these species should be determined at the local level based on feasibility of control and 

level of infestation (NMDA 1999).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-23 

The noxious weed species found within the study area, their classifications, and location within 

the study area are listed in Table 3-9.

TABLE 3-9. NOXIOUS WEEDS OBSERVED IN THE STUDY AREA

COMMON NAME

(SCIENTIFIC NAME) CLASS* STUDY AREA LOCATION

African rue (Peganum harmala) B Well field, main pipeline

Camelthorn (Alhagi maurorum) A Main pipeline

Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) C Main pipeline

Malta starthistle (Centaurea melitensis) B Main pipeline

Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) A Main pipeline

Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) B Main pipeline, desalination facility site

Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima) C Main pipeline, desalination facility site

Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) C Main pipeline

NOTE: *Class A = weeds not native to an ecosystem with a limited distribution; Class B = weeds not native 

to an ecosystem and presently limited to a particular area; Class C = weeds not native to the ecosystem and 

widespread (Lee 1999).

Within the Snake Tank well field site, African rue, a Class B weed, was the sole noxious weed 

species observed by SWCA biologists. This drought-tolerant species is found primarily in the 

southern New Mexico counties and spreads by seed, roots, or root fragments (Lee 1999).

Within the pipeline alignment, SWCA biologists documented eight noxious weeds: camelthorn 

(Alhagi maurorum), African rue, field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Malta starthistle 

(Centaurea melitensis), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), Russian knapweed 

(Acroptilon repens), salt cedar, and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila). Of these, camelthorn and 

perennial pepperweed are classified as Class A weeds; Malta starthistle and Russian knapweed 

are classified as Class B weeds; and salt cedar, Siberian elm, and field bindweed are classified as 

Class C weeds.

Class A Weeds. Camelthorn is a deep-rooted, perennial shrub that reproduces primarily by 

vegetative clones produced from rhizomes (California Department of Food and Agriculture 

2005). This species is identified by its slender spines, alternate wedge-shaped leaves, and pealike pinkish-purple to maroon flowers. Hand removal is effective if the majority of root system 

can be extracted, and herbicides can also be used for control of this species (Renz and Sholedice 

2006). Perennial pepperweed is a highly competitive species identified by its height (up to 6 

feet), non-clasping leaves, and small, densely clustered, white-petaled flowers (Lee 1999). This 

species spreads from creeping roots, root fragments, and seeds. To manage these Class A 

noxious weeds, the State of New Mexico aims to prevent new infestations and eliminate existing 

ones. Control consists of hand pulling individual plants and the application of herbicides.

Class B Weeds. Malta starthistle is an annual found commonly only in the southern counties of 

New Mexico. This species is identified by its winged stem, yellow flowers, and spinal bracts 

with purple- to brown-tipped spines. Propagation occurs by seed; however, spot eradication of 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-24 

plants can effectively control the spread of this species. Mowing or burning prior to seed 

production and application of herbicides are effective treatments (Renz and Sholedice 2006). 

Russian knapweed is a perennial forming dense colonies by adventitious shoots, and once 

established, this species is difficult to eradicate (Whitson 2000), but herbicides appear to be 

effective (Renz and Sholedice 2006). Russian knapweed is identified by its black roots, purple 

flowers, and smooth, papery floral bracts. To manage these Class B noxious weeds, the State of 

New Mexico prioritizes preventing new infestations.

Class C Weeds. Saltcedar, Siberian elm, and field bindweed are widespread throughout New 

Mexico. Saltcedar forms dense monocultures, which severely limit biodiversity. This species 

grows into a shrub or tree and can be either deciduous or evergreen. Key identifying 

characteristics include five-petaled pink to white flowers; small, scale-like leaves; and reddish 

brown bark. Siberian elms are fast-growing trees that spread rapidly by seed germination. This 

species is identified by its small, toothed leaves and rough brown to gray bark. Field bindweed 

is a creeping perennial that forms dense mats and produces white, trumpet-shaped flowers. The 

seeds can remain viable for up to 50 years, making control of this species difficult. To control 

the spread of Class C noxious weeds, the State of New Mexico encourages long-term

management and suppression.

GRAZING

Portions of the study area (Snake Tank well field) are within the Black Ledge Allotment

No. 07050. The allotment is permitted for 361 cattle and 3 horses. The allotment contains 

40,887 acres of land with 16,002 acres of BLM-managed, 19,265 acres of State trust land, and 

5,620 acres of private land. Range improvement projects in this area include windmills, water 

delivery systems (pipelines, storage tanks, and water troughs), earthen reservoirs, and fences. In 

general, the carrying capacity for the area is approximately five cattle per section.

WILDLIFE

The term “wildlife” refers to living organisms that are not in any way altered or domesticated 

and that exist in natural habitats. Wildlife is a very general term for life in various ecosystems 

but most commonly refers to fauna (animals) such as mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, 

and insects. 

Each species of wildlife has specific habitat requirements and desert grassland provides a 

valuable biotic community in the Southwest. Most semi-desert grasslands of the northern 

Chihuahuan Desert have been subjected to long-term impacts by livestock. This continuous 

grazing has led to alteration of the grasslands and, in some cases, a transformation of the 

landscape from desert grasslands to desert shrublands. Wildlife population density and species 

variability has shifted in response to this landscape change. Some grassland has persisted, 

although not necessarily with the pre-grazing composition and condition, and wildlife species 

dependent on this particular ecosystem have had a gradual decline in available habitat.

Common wildlife taxa that occur in this region of the Chihuahuan Desert and that may use desert 

grasslands and desert shrublands include but are not limited to blacktail jackrabbit (Lepus 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-25 

californicus), cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus sp.), banner-tailed kangaroo rat (Dipodomys 

spectabilis), white-throated woodrat (Neotoma albigula), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), 

javelina (Pecari tajacu), scaled quail (Callipepla gambelii), coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Lynx 

rufus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), ferruginous 

hawk (B.regalis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), 

bullsnake (Pituophis melanoleucus), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis) (Bailey 1980).

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED WILDLIFE SPECIES

Biologists from SWCA conducted on-site field surveys and documented species of wildlife. 

Species observed in the field were compared to the lists of threatened and endangered species, 

candidate species, sensitive species, and species of concern known to occur in Otero County 

(Appendix J). These lists include the regulatory status of each species as recorded by the 

USFWS and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF). A map of special status 

species occurrences is found in Appendix J.

The USFWS lists five threatened or endangered wildlife species, one mammal and four birds that 

could occur in Otero County. Following field surveys, SWCA biologists determined that the 

study area does not provide potential suitable habitat for the northern aplomado falcon (Falco 

femoralis septentrionalis) or the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus). 

Table 3-10 provides the status, known distribution, and habitat needs of these birds. Detailed 

descriptions of these species are included below.

TABLE 3-10. FEDERALLY LISTED WILDLIFE WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN STUDY AREA

COMMON NAME 

(SCIENTIFIC NAME) STATUS KNOWN DISTRIBUTION AND 

HABITAT NEEDS

LIKELIHOOD OF 

OCCURRENCE IN STUDY 

AREA

Birds

Northern aplomado falcon

Falco femoralis septentrionalis

Endangered Prefers grassy plains interspersed with 

mesquite, cactus, and yucca; territories in 

desert grassland/savanna 

Occurrence not likely

Southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax trailii extimus)

*

Endangered Found in close association with dense 

groves of willows, arrow weed, 

buttonbush, salt cedar, Russian olive, and 

some other riparian vegetation, often with 

a scattered overstory of cottonwood. 

Breeds in riparian habitats along rivers and 

streams and in other wetlands

Occurrence not likely

NOTE: * Species is listed in the New Mexico Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-26 

Northern Aplomado Falcon. The study area does not provide potential suitable habitat for the

northern aplomado falcon. In New Mexico, the NMDGF reports that the historic range of 

northern aplomado falcons included the southern tier of counties from Hidalgo and Grant 

eastward through Luna, Doña Ana, Otero, Eddy, and Lea and northward in the Rio Grande Basin 

through Sierra and Socorro counties (Meyer and Williams 2005). The USFWS has released an 

experimental population and has reclassified the aplomado falcon under the 10(j) rule of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The aplomado falcon is now designated a non-essential 

experimental population as of July 26, 2006. Species with this designation are considered a 

“proposed” species for purposes of compliance with Section 7 of the ESA (Federal Register [FR] 

2005). The release sites are in areas within or in proximity to potential suitable habitat with 

available prey, minimal natural and human-made hazards, access to logistical support, and a 

willing landowner or land manager (USFWS 2005a) (Appendix K).

Between 1952 and 1995, the NMDGF confirmed northern aplomado falcon sightings in Otero 

and Socorro Counties (Biota Information System of New Mexico [BISON-M] 2004). The Otero 

County sightings were a single subadult in June 1991 near Tularosa, a first-year female in 

September 1999 that was originally banded in Chihuahua, Mexico, and a pair of birds observed 

during the 2000 to 2004 surveys conducted by Meyer and Williams (2005). In 2002, the only 

successful nesting attempt to be documented in New Mexico since 1952 occurred in Luna 

County, in southwestern New Mexico (USFWS 2005b).

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The NMDGF has published a Comprehensive Wildlife

Conservation Strategy (CWCS) for New Mexico (CWCS 2006) that includes a section devoted 

to wildlife species of greatest conservation need that occur in or use perennial 

marsh/cienega/spring/seep ecosystems in the Tularosa Watershed in New Mexico. The 

southwestern willow flycatcher is listed by the USFWS as an endangered species that could 

occur in Otero County and is included in the comprehensive strategy as occurring at the springs 

in the study area. In October 2004, the USFWS proposed a new designation of critical habitat 

for the southwestern willow flycatcher (FR 2004), which was finalized in 2005. No suitable or 

critical habitat is present in the project area. Table 3-10 provides the status, known distribution, 

and habitat needs of the species.

OTHER SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES

Other special status species include species of concern listed by the USFWS; threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species listed by the NMDGF; and sensitive species listed by the 

BLM. The BLM lists contain a total of 60 special status species that could occur in Otero 

County: 24 mammals, 22 birds, 6 reptiles or amphibians, 3 fish, 2 mollusks, and 3 insects. 

During surveys, SWCA biologists determined that the study area provides potential suitable

habitat for 19 of these species (Table 3-11).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-27 

TABLE 3-11. SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH THE

POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA

COMMON NAME 

(SCIENTIFIC NAME) STATUS KNOWN DISTRIBUTION

AND HABITAT NEEDS

LIKELIHOOD OF 

OCCURRENCE IN STUDY 

AREA

Mammals

Botta’s pocket gopher

(Thomomys bottae tularosae)

NMS Endemic to a small portion of southcentral New Mexico in the vicinity of 

the Tularosa Basin

Occurrence possible

Cave myotis bat

(Myotis velifer)

BLMS

NMS

Shortgrass plains, sacaton grasslands, 

sycamore, cotton-wood, rabbitbrush, 

oak savanna; never more than a few 

miles from water

Occurrence possible

Common hog-nosed skunk

(Conepatus mesoleucus)

NMS Inhabits 7 ecozones in Chihuahuan 

Desert Scrub habitat in New Mexico; 

preferred habitat has rocky areas that 

are used for denning

Occurrence possible

Desert pocket gopher

(Geomys arenarius arenarius)

BLMS Typical of Plains-Mesa Grasslands and 

Sand Scrub habitat in New Mexico; 

habitat includes borrow pits, roadside 

edges, agri-systems, lands with plant 

communities influenced by drought 

conditions

Occurrence possible

Desert pocket gopher

(G. bursarius arenarius)

NMS 

USFWSS 

Barren land indicative of sand dunes, 

sandy or loamy soils of the White 

Sands area

Occurrence possible

Fringed myotis bat

(Myotis thysanodes thysanodes)

BLMS 

NMS

Desertscrub, oak-woodland, oakjuniper, piñon-juniper, ponderosa pine, 

spruce-fir, deciduous and coniferous 

riparian

Occurrence possible

Plains pocket mouse

(Perognathus flavescens qypsi)

NMS Has been found to inhabit Plains-Mesa 

Sand Scrub habitat in New Mexico; 

white or pale plains pocket mice have a 

particular association with the gypsum 

sands of the White Sands area

Occurrence possible

Townsend’s big-eared bat

(Corynorhinus townsendii)

BLMS 

NMS 

USFWSS 

Xeric to mesic habitats, including 

desertscrub, sagebrush, chaparral, 

deciduous and coniferous forests

Occurrence possible

White Sands woodrat*

(Neotoma micropus leucophaea)

*This subspecies is now 

considered to be the southern 

plains woodrat (Neotoma 

micropus canescens)

USFWSS Typical of Plains-Mesa Grasslands in 

New Mexico; white or pale southern 

plains woodrats have a particular 

association with the gypsum sands of 

the White Sands area

Occurrence possible

Birds

Baird’s sparrow

(Ammodramus bairdii)

NMT 

BLMS 

USFWSS 

Shortgrass prairie, desert grassland Occurrence possible

Common ground dove

(Columbina passerina 

pallescens)

NME Agricultural and undeveloped areas at 

elevations below 5,400 feet; open 

stands of creosotebush and large 

succulents

Occurrence Possible

Ferruginous hawk BLMS Grassland, semi-desert grass-shrub, Occurrence Possible
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-28 

TABLE 3-11. SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH THE

POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA

COMMON NAME 

(SCIENTIFIC NAME) STATUS KNOWN DISTRIBUTION

AND HABITAT NEEDS

LIKELIHOOD OF 

OCCURRENCE IN STUDY 

AREA

(Buteo regalis) sagebrush-grass, piñon-juniper, open 

country, prairies, plains, badlands

Loggerhead shrike

(Lanius ludovicianus)

BLMS Agricultural land, prairies, montane 

meadows, sagebrush, desertscrub, 

piñon-juniper woodlands, and 

woodland edge; open stands of 

creosotebush and large succulents

Observed

Mountain plover

(Charadrius montanus)

NMS 

USFWSS 

Shortgrass prairies and dry playas 

dominated by blue grama and buffalo 

grass and scattered taller vegetation

during the breeding season; appears to 

require some degree of bare ground, 

which may be provided by livestock 

grazing, prairie dog towns, disturbed 

areas around windmills and water 

tanks, and barren playas

Occurrence possible

Western burrowing owl

(Athene cunicularia hypugaea)

BLMS Grasslands, prairies, or open areas near 

human habitation, especially golf 

courses and airports, open stands of 

creosotebush and large succulents

Observed

Yellow-billed cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus)

USFWSS Western race associated with lowland 

deciduous woodlands, willow and alder 

thickets, second-growth woods, 

deserted farmlands, and orchards; 

Chihuahuan Desert Scrub, open stands 

of creosotebush and large succulents in 

southern New Mexico and southwest 

Texas

Occurrence possible

Reptiles and Amphibians

Mottled rock rattlesnake

(Crotalus lepidus lepidus)

NMT Rocky canyons or hillsides in pine-oak 

forests, mesquite-grasslands, and 

desert; talus slopes

Occurrence possible

Texas horned lizard

(Phrynosoma cornutum)

BLMS Arid and semiarid open country with 

loose soil supporting bunchgrass, 

cactus, juniper, mesquite, or acacia

Observed

Insects

Sacramento Mountains blue 

butterfly

(Icaricia icarioides)

USFWSS Known to occur in Otero County;

distribution and habitat needs not 

completely known; high likelihood of 

occurrence restricted to the geographic 

limits of the Sacramento Mountains 

(outside of the study area)

Occurrence possible

NOTE: BLMS = Bureau of Land Management Sensitive; NME = New Mexico Endangered; NMS, New Mexico Species of Concern; NMT = 

New Mexico Threatened; USFWSS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Concern

SPECIAL STATUS RIPARIAN WILDLIFE

The CWCS (2006) (described above) includes two bird and three mammal riparian species that 

could occur at the springs near Snake Tank well field and are also listed by resource agencies as 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-29 

sensitive species and/or species of concern that could occur in Otero County. These species are 

the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi), New Mexico meadow 

jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus), spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), and desert bighorn 

sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana). Table 3-12 summarizes the status, known distribution, and 

habitat needs of these species. Detailed descriptions are provided in Appendix J.

One additional species of concern listed for Otero County, the White Sands pupfish (Cyprinodon 

tularosa), was also listed in the CWCS as occurring in the Tularosa Watershed. However, this 

fish does not occur in any of the five affected springs near the Snake Tank well field. However, 

because this species is restricted to surface water features in the study area and is limited in 

population and location to the Tularosa Basin, it is included in Table 3-12 and is described in 

greater detail below.

TABLE 3-12. FEDERAL- AND STATE-LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES THAT COULD OCCUR IN 

OTERO COUNTY AND ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE NEW MEXICO CWCS AS OCCURRING IN 

CIENEGA/SPRING ECOSYSTEMS

COMMON NAME 

(SCIENTIFIC NAME) STATUS KNOWN DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT NEEDS

LIKELIHOOD OF 

OCCURRENCE IN STUDY 

AREA

Birds

Peregrine falcon 

(Falco peregrinus)

USFWSS Centers on cliffs in wooded/forested 

habitats for nesting, with large "gulfs" 

of air nearby in which these predators 

can forage. Preferred hunting 

(foraging) habitats include croplands, 

meadows, river bottoms, marshes, and 

lakes

Occurrence possible; suitable

foraging habitat within the 

project’s region of influence

White-faced ibis 

(Plegadis chihi)

BLMS Shoreline marsh habitats bordered by 

open water, desert streams with a 

narrow band of trees and shrubs along 

the margins, reservoir habitats

Occurrence possible; suitable

habitat within the project’s region 

of influence

Mammals

New Mexico meadow jumping 

mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius luteus)

USFWSS Riparian and wetland habitats 

characterized by spikerush, sedges, and 

rushes; close to permanent water

Occurrence possible; suitable

habitat within the project’s region 

of influence

Spotted bat 

(Euderma maculatum)

NMT

BLMS

Riparian communities, piñon-juniper 

woodlands, and ponderosa pine and 

spruce-fir forests

Occurrence possible; suitable

habitat within the project’s region 

of influence

Desert bighorn sheep 

(Ovis canadensis mexicana)

NME Tends to occur within 1 mile of a water 

source; prefers grass/desert shrub and 

live oak communities, avoid grassland 

and piñon-juniper communities

No longer occurs in Otero County

Fishes

White Sands pupfish 

(Cyprinodon tularosa)

NMT Fine mud-silt and sand-gravel bottoms 

of clear, shallow, strongly alkaline 

pools and streams with saltgrass and 

salt cedar along the border; endemic to 

the Tularosa Basin

Unlikely to occur; known 

populations are outside of 

project’s region of influence

NOTE: BLMS = Bureau of Land Management Sensitive; NME = New Mexico Endangered; NMT = New Mexico Threatened; USFWSS = U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Concern
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-30 

White Sands Pupfish

The White Sands pupfish is endemic to the Tularosa Basin. Only four populations exist, and the 

species is currently classified as threatened by the State of New Mexico (19 NMAC 33.1). In 

1991, the White Sands pupfish was listed in the Federal Register as a Category 2 species for 

consideration to be listed as a threatened or endangered species (FR 1991) but was dropped from 

consideration in 1996 when the USFWS classification scheme was changed and Category 2 and 

3 species were no longer considered Federal candidate species (FR 1996). An initial

conservation agreement was created in 1994 (Pittenger and Propst 1994), and in 2006 a 

cooperative agreement was signed by representatives of the WSMR, Holloman AFB, White 

Sands National Monument, the USFWS, and the NMDGF. Signatories agree to protect, manage, 

and enhance habitats; restrict non-emergency activities including vehicular traffic in essential 

habitat; prevent the introduction of non-native aquatic fauna; and monitor and remove 

specifically identified populations of non-native fauna (NMDGF 2006a).

The White Sands pupfish is the only species of fish endemic to the Tularosa Basin. The four 

locations where it is found are Malpais Spring, Salt Creek, Mound Spring, and Lost River. The 

Malpais Spring and Salt Creek populations are considered native; the White Sands pupfish was 

probably introduced to the latter two sites in the late 1960s or early 1970s (Pittenger and 

Springer 1999). The populations in Malpais Spring, Salt Creek, and Mound Spring are all 

located on WSMR, and the population in Lost Creek is on Holloman AFB.

These four habitats are on the western edge of the Tularosa Basin near the San Andres 

Mountains and are fed by perennial springs, but water discharge fluctuates greatly). Currently, 

these springs have only native aquatic animal species, but invasive crayfish (Procambarus 

clarkii) and western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) inhabit waters nearby and may pose a 

future problem. Another potential threat is the salt cedar that occurs around many of the springs. 

The especially long taproot of this exotic plant allows it to intercept deep water tables and 

interfere with natural aquatic systems (NMDGF 2006b).

The greatest threats faced by the White Sands pupfish include the introduction of non-native 

species, dewatering, chemical contamination of habitat, and habitat degradation (Pittenger and 

Propst 1994; Pittenger and Springer 1999). Currently, the White Sands pupfish is the only fish 

present in its habitat. However, western mosquitofish and largemouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides) occur in ponds on WSMR and Holloman AFB; if either of these species is introduced 

to habitats supporting White Sands pupfish, it is likely the latter would be eliminated (Pittenger 

and Propst 1994). On the other hand, the reduction in the feral horse population occupying 

White Sands pupfish habitat from 1,800 to less than 200 has greatly improved habitat quality 

(Stephanie Carman, NMDGF, personal communication February 2007). Monitoring data from 

1995 to the present indicate that the White Sands pupfish populations fluctuate with available 

wetted habitat and have been stable under conditions over the past 12 years (S. Carman, 

NMDGF, personal communication February 2007).
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-31 

Figure 3-8 Habitat for White Sands pupfish.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-32 

3.3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cultural resources can be components of the environment that are the result of human activity on 

the landscape or natural resources of special concern to one or more groups of people for cultural 

reasons. Constituting an interface between the human realm and the physical environment, 

cultural resources play a role in linking modern-day individuals, societies, and communities to 

their own past and cultural values. The scientific or historical study of cultural resources may 

also contribute to a general intellectual sense or understanding of humanity’s collective history 

and condition, and this may be an important value to people who otherwise have no personal 

historical links to a particular area. Resources that are the result of human activity include a 

variety of “historic properties” (which include prehistoric archaeological sites), structures, and 

artifacts. Natural resources of cultural significance can include natural features of the landscape 

and areas where ceremonies are conducted or native plants are gathered. Any of these resource 

types that are important to one or more groups of people may be considered traditional cultural 

properties (TCPs). Indian Trust Assets (ITAs) such as mineral rights also fall under the category 

of natural resources. Individuals or interested parties are welcome to comment on the proposed 

project.

CULTURAL RESOURCES LAW

To safeguard the cultural and intellectual values relating to cultural resources, as well as legal 

rights involving ITAs, the U.S. and State of New Mexico governments have formulated a series 

of regulations and policies. These efforts date back to the Antiquities Act of 1906, but they 

gathered steam with the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in 1966. The

most significant laws include the NHPA, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), 

and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).

With respect to the management of historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA, an 

important threshold is National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility status. The 

identification of historic properties also involves an evaluation process. Sites or other properties 

are evaluated as “eligible,” “not eligible” or “not sure” (or “eligibility status unknown”). 

Eligibility status depends upon significance (or lack of significance) of the resource according to 

one or more of the following criteria: 

A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of 

our history.

B. Association with the lives of significant persons in the past.

C. Resources (typically buildings or structures) that embody the distinctive characteristics of 

a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that 

possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity 

whose components may lack individual distinction.

D. Resources (usually archaeological sites) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, 

information important in history or prehistory.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-33 

For archaeological sites, significance status is usually determined (or at least recommended) 

based on the presence or absence of intact subsurface archaeological remains. Within a study 

area or area of potential effect (APE), any identified resource determined or considered to be 

eligible to the NRHP (or for which eligibility status is unknown) requires further management 

before construction can begin. Resources deemed not eligible to the NRHP require no further 

treatment.

CULTURAL-HISTORICAL SETTING

The Tularosa Valley has been inhabited for at least 12,000 years, and prehistoric archaeological 

remains here are included within the Jornada Mogollon cultural region (U.S. Army 2000). This 

immense span of prehistory is subdivided into three traditions: Paleoindian (ca. 10,000-6000 

B.C.), Archaic (ca. 6000 B.C.-A.D. 250) and Formative (ca. A.D. 250-1475). This sequence 

marks the local development of human societies from highly mobile, hunting-and-gathering 

peoples who lived in small-scale, informal societies, to farmers who constructed adobe pueblos, 

maintained more complex societies, and participated in long-distance exchange networks. 

Following the abandonment of the Tularosa Valley by Formative tradition peoples, nomadic 

groups re-occupied the area, most significantly the Mescalero Apache, who were present in the 

area by the seventeenth century, and horse-mounted Comanche, who ranged throughout the area 

from the 1700s until the mid nineteenth century (Railey and Holmes 2002:17–67).

The Euro-American history of the region began with the arrival of Spanish explorers in the 

sixteenth century, although the earliest explorers tended to bypass the Tularosa Valley, traveling 

along the Rio Grande to the west and the Pecos River to the east. The Spanish began exploiting 

the natural salt resources in the Tularosa Valley in the 1600s, but the area north of El Paso 

remained unsettled by Euro-Americans until the late nineteenth century, in part because of 

threats from the Mescalero Apache and Comanche. Once the threat of raiding had subsided, 

ranching quickly expanded into the Tularosa Valley, and the 1880s saw a cattle boom there. 

Mining activity also began to flourish in the area in the late nineteenth century, and irrigationbased farms sprang up along the eastern margin of the valley. With the construction of the El 

Paso and Northeastern Railroad in 1897-1898, economic development and population growth 

increased rapidly, and the City of Alamogordo was founded. In the twentieth century, ranching 

activities diminished as the environment was degraded by over-grazing, and mining activities 

dissipated as mineral resources played out or failed to deliver on initial production promises and 

hopes. During this same century, however, the expansion of the Fort Bliss Military Reservation 

and establishment of the WSMR refocused much of Alamogordo’s economy on military-related 

activities and support services, and these remain important sources of livelihood in the area 

(Railey and Holmes 2002:67-78).

EXISTING CONDITIONS

In 2004, 2005, and 2009, SWCA conducted Class III cultural resources surveys of the study area. 

The survey included proposed locations of the well field and associated pipelines, the project 

main-delivery pipeline, and the proposed desalination facility that is within the City corporate 

boundary. Survey of these areas identified 11 archaeological sites within the study area, 

designated by Laboratory of Anthropology (LA) numbers and detailed in Table 3-13. Of these 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-34 

sites within the proposed project APE, two sites—LA 86735 and LA 150031—are recommended 

and have been determined eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D. Where avoidance 

is not possible, impacts to the two sites would be mitigated. Mitigation may include having an 

archaeologist present to monitor construction activities, testing the sites to determine the need for 

further investigation through data recovery, and/or performing subsequent archaeological data 

recovery (excavation) within entire sites or in potentially affected portions of the sites. All or 

portions of a site may be destroyed as a result of archaeological excavations, but the site would 

still retain its eligibility to the NRHP under Criterion D for information potential in the form of 

recovered scientific data. As part of mitigation, there will be a public presentation in the form of 

a brochure, presentation meetings, or public report detailing the results of these archaeological 

excavations. The remaining nine sites were either destroyed by previous construction activities 

or were fully documented for their information potential and are recommended as not eligible to 

the NRHP; no further management of these sites is recommended.

No standing buildings or structures are present within the surveyed APE, and no TCPs have been 

identified within the action area.

The Three Rivers Petroglyph and Pueblo Site, listed (No. 52) on the State Register of Cultural 

Properties (SRCP), is located approximately 7 miles north of the study area, outside the project 

APE. Additionally, the Tularosa Original Townsite National Historic District is listed on both 

the NRHP (No. 79001545) and the SRCP (No. 703). None of the historic resources that are part 

of this district are located within the project APE.

3.3.6 INDIAN TRUST ASSETS 

ITAs are defined as the presence or potential for Indian real property, physical assets, and/or 

intangible property rights that could be affected by one or more of the alternatives.

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

The Indian trust responsibility is a legal duty on the part of the United States to protect and 

maintain rights reserved by, or granted to, Indian tribes or individuals. Trust relationships are 

established through a Congressional Act or Executive Order and through provisions identified in 

historical treaties. The courts have further interpreted these rights through decisions and 

regulations.

The Department of the Interior publication, Departmental Manual Part 303: Indian Trust Assets,

defines general policy and principles for managing ITAs. Agencies are required to protect and 

preserve ITAs to ensure that their use promotes the interests of the beneficial owner, enforce 

leases, promote tribal control, manage and distribute income, maintain good records, and protect 

treaty-based fishing, hunting, gathering, and similar rights of access and resource use on 

traditional tribal land. Both BLM and Reclamation policy requires explicit evaluation in NEPA

analyses of potential effects of proposed project on ITAs (Reclamation 1993). The GovernmentTo-Government Consultation Plan for this EIS was prepared in November 2004. GovernmentTo-Government consultation letters (Appendix L) and Military consultation letters (Appendix 

M) were prepared.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-35 

TABLE 3-13. CULTURAL RESOURCES (ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES) WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

SITE NO. SITE SUMMARY NRHP 

RECOMMENDATION

LA 66917

Remnants of one or more historic secondary refuse dumps of restaurant 

and domestic trash from the first half of the 20th century, largely 

destroyed by road construction and disturbed from plowing

Not Eligible

LA 66918

Historic secondary dump from the late 19th/early 20th century, largely 

destroyed and/or buried by plowing, blading, and road construction 

activities

Not Eligible

LA 66920 Historic dump, destroyed by road construction Not Eligible

LA 66921 Prehistoric artifact scatter, destroyed by road construction Not Eligible

LA 66922 Homestead/farming site from the early 20th century, destroyed by road 

construction and plowing Not Eligible

LA 66923 Railroad-related stock pens and associated structures from the late 

19th/early 20th century, largely destroyed by road construction Not Eligible

LA 86735 Remnants of historic railroad station from the late 19th/early 20th 

century Eligible

LA 127399 Remnants of historic railroad station from the late 19th/early 20th 

century, largely disturbed by road construction and plowing Not Eligible

LA 150031 Single charcoal-stained area, cultural affiliation and date unknown Eligible

LA 152308 Single-episode, railroad-related dump from the turn of the 20th century Not Eligible

LA 162625 Single-episode, railroad-related dump from the turn of the 20th century Not Eligible

EXISTING CONDITIONS

No ITAs have been identified within the study area, although the Mescalero Apache Tribe has 

unresolved groundwater and surface water issues. The BLM will continue to consult with the 

Mescalero Apache during the NEPA process.

3.3.7 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

Socioeconomic resources in the study area include the social and economic environment of

Otero County as defined by the characteristics of the human population in the region. These 

characteristics include growth rate, labor force, employment, income, and other economic 

indicators. Local taxes and water rates are also considered.

POPULATION AND ECONOMIC INDICATORS

Otero County is one of 33 counties in New Mexico, and its total population in 2000 was 62,298. 

The communities of Tularosa and Alamogordo (and La Luz) lie entirely within Otero County. In 

2000, Otero County had a per-capita income of $14,345, lower than the Statewide average of 

$17,261. The estimated median family income for the entire county in 2000 was $34,781, also 

lower than the state average of $39,425. In addition, 19.3 percent of the county population was 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-36 

below the poverty threshold (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Table 3-14 and Table 3-15 provide 

data on population groups and economic status at the state, county, and city levels from the 2000 

Census for the study area.

Population is a determining factor in the demand for water. Table 3-16 shows actual population 

and growth rates from 1970 to 2000 and projected population and growth rates from 2010 to 

2030 for Otero County. The population in the study area increased between 1970 and 2000 from 

41,095 persons to 62,298 persons and is projected to increase to 73,348 persons by 2030. 

The rate of population growth in Otero County experienced a steady increase between 1970 and

2000. The population increase in the county was 7 percent more from 1980 to 1990, and 4 

percent more from 1990 to 2000. In spite of these increases, future projections seem to indicate 

a decline in percent growth, with 12 percent less from 2000 to 2010, 3 percent less from 2010 to 

2020, and 1 percent less from 2020 to 2030.

Additional population data obtained in 2007 from the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, 

indicates an even smaller rate of population growth, estimated from 2000 to 2006 at 0.7 percent 

growth from 62,298 to 62,744.

TABLE 3-14. COMPARISON OF ETHNIC AND RACIAL POPULATIONS

UNIT TOTAL 

POPULATION

POPULATION GROUPS BY PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION

WHITE AFRICANAMERICAN

AMERICAN 

INDIAN ASIAN OTHER HISPANIC*

New Mexico 1,819,046 66.8 1.9 9.5 1.1 17.0 42.1

Otero County 62,298 73.7 3.9 5.8 1.2 11.7 32.2

Alamogordo 35,582 75.4 5.6 1.1 1.5 12.1 32.0

Tularosa 2,864 68.6 0.9 4.3 0.7 21.5 56.1

DATA SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.

NOTE: *Includes some individuals counted under other ethnic/racial categories.

TABLE 3-15. ECONOMIC COMPARISON DATA

UNIT

MEDIAN 

HOUSEHOLD 

INCOME

MEDIAN 

FAMILY 

INCOME

PER CAPITA 

INCOME

PERCENT 

INDIVIDUALS 

BELOW POVERTY 

LEVEL

PERCENT 

FAMILIES BELOW 

POVERTY LEVEL

New Mexico $34,133 $39,425 $17,261 18.4 14.5

Otero County $30,861 $34,781 $14,345 19.3 26.8

Alamogordo $30,928 $35,673 $14,662 16.5 13.2

Tularosa $27,522 $30,313 $12,507 21.4 19.5

DATA SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-37 

TABLE 3-16. POPULATION AND GROWTH RATE, OTERO COUNTY

POPULATION 

GROWTH

YEAR

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010* 2020* 2030*

Population 41,095 44,665 51,928 62,298 67,018 70,508 73,348

Population Increase – 3,570 7,263 10,370 4,720 3,490 2,840

Percent Growth – 9 16 20 8 5 4

DATA SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000; BBER 2004.

NOTE: *Population values are based on BBER revised population projections for New Mexico state and counties.

Total full- and part-time employment in Otero County increased from 19,222 jobs in 1970 to 

27,278 jobs in 2000 (Table 3-17). Employment increased by 19.5 percent in the 1970s, 10.2 

percent in the 1980s, and 7.7 percent in the 1990s. County growth rates for transportation and 

public utilities, wholesale trade, retail trade, and services employment all experienced a decline 

in the 1990s, with farm employment and government and government enterprises actually losing 

jobs in the same time period. In 2000, government and government enterprises jobs contributed 

the most to total employment in Otero County, followed by services, retail trade, and finance, 

insurance, and real estate.

As of March 2006, the unemployment rate for Otero County was 3.9 percent. In the 1990s, 

Otero County’s unemployment rate was equal to or greater than 4.3 percent and went as high as 

10.3 percent in 1992 (Economagic 2006).

TABLE 3-17. FULL- AND PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR IN OTERO COUNTY

EMPLOYMENT SECTOR

YEAR PERCENTAGE CHANGE

1970 1980 1990 2000 1970–1980 1980–1990 1990–2000

Farm employment 385 512 561 555 32.9 9.5 -1.1

Agricultural services, forestry, 

fishing and other 34 96 162 (D) 182.3 68.7 N/A

Mining 51 17 42 (D) -66.6 147.0 N/A

Construction 421 774 870 1,514 83.8 12.4 74.0

Manufacturing 1,166 1,029 825 872 -11.7 -19.8 5.7

Transportation and public utilities 470 674 1,163 1,166 43.4 72.5 0.3

Wholesale trade 125 180 307 332 44.0 70.5 8.1

Retail trade 1,993 3,191 3,816 4,286 60.1 19.6 12.3

Finance, insurance, and real estate 512 1,017 932 1,553 98.6 -8.3 66.6

Services 3,444 3,565 5,290 6,223 3.5 48.4 17.6

Government and government 

enterprises 10,621 11,922 11,354 10,402 12.2 -4.7 -8.4

Employment (Number of Jobs) 19,222 22,977 25,322 27,278 19.5 10.2 7.7

DATA SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce 2006.

NOTE: (D) = not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but estimates for this item are included in the totals; N/A, not able to 

determine number.

Total earnings paid to workers in Otero County have increased from $146,281,000 in 1970 to 

$344,362,000 in 1980, $591,387,000 in 1990, and $763,930,000 in 2000 (Table 3-18). The 

greatest increases in earnings between 1990 and 2000 came from the following industrial sectors: 

construction (169 percent); finance, insurance, and real estate (150 percent); retail trade (49 

percent); and manufacturing (46 percent). Farm employment was the only sector to experience a 

reduction in earnings from 1990 to 2000 (-33 percent). Overall, earnings increased by 29 percent 

in the 1990s.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-38 

TABLE 3-18. OTERO COUNTY EARNINGS

SECTOR

EARNINGS ($1,000) PERCENT CHANGE 

1970 1980 1990 2000 1990–2000

Farm employment 1,568 816 3,282 2,183 -33

Agricultural services, forestry, fishing, other 168 675 2,100 (D) N/A

Mining 170 525 1,225 (D) N/A

Construction 3,650 12,370 15,885 42,728 169

Manufacturing 11,895 15,696 14,305 20,857 46

Transportation and public utilities 3,204 12,284 30,537 38,767 27

Wholesale trade 1,399 2,254 5,674 6,015 6

Retail trade 9,775 28,417 41,790 62,413 49

Finance, insurance, and real estate 2,282 6,266 9,406 23,515 150

Services 22,517 43,585 100,216 117,852 17

Government and government enterprises 89,653 221,474 366,967 445,299 21

Total Earnings (Thousands of Dollars) 146,281 344,362 591,387 763,930 29

DATA SOURCE: U.S. Dept. of Commerce 2006.

NOTE: (D) = not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals; N/A = not able 

to determine number.

Table 3-19 shows residential water and sewer rates in Alamogordo and Tularosa (the 

communities closest to the study area) compared to rates in eight other Southwest cities. Among 

these communities, Alamogordo has the lowest combined rate for these services, and Tularosa 

has the second lowest. Water rates for study area residential customers are on the lower end of 

the range.

TABLE 3-19. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL WATER AND SEWER RATES FOR 10 SOUTHWEST 

CITIES

CITY DOLLARS PER MONTH, 2004

WATER SEWER TOTAL

Alamogordo* 17.81 10.84 28.65

Tularosa* 23.73 9.42 33.15

Phoenix 20.71 15.97 36.68

Tucson 25.04 12.52 37.56

Las Vegas 22.99 15.64 38.63

El Paso 26.13 14.79 40.92

Albuquerque 29.29 15.34 44.63

San Antonio 30.75 15.76 46.51

Dallas 24.01 23.24 47.25

Austin 30.34 31.23 61.57

DATA SOURCE: El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board 2004; NMED 2005a.

NOTE: *Numbers for Alamogordo and Tularosa were obtained from NMED (2005a). Values are provided for residential average water use of 

6,000 gallons per month and residential average sewer rate per month.

3.3.8 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless 

of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency [EPA] 2005a, 2005b). This resource topic refers specifically to the demographic and 

economic characteristics of the human population that could experience adverse effects from 

implementation of the proposed project which includes the residents of Tularosa, Alamogordo, 

and surrounding areas of Otero County.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-39 

Three environmental justice parameters were represented on EPA maps for the 1990 and 2000 

U.S. Censuses in Otero County:

• Economic Status – Degree of Vulnerability (DVECO)

• Minority Status – Degree of Vulnerability (DVMAV)

• Potential Environmental Justice Index (EJ Index) – derived from a formula that multiplies 

the DVECO, the DVMAV, and the total population ranking (PF) in the survey area.

The EJ Index value is used as a demographic correlation variable to measure sociological equity 

for project permitting. The information given in the EPA environmental justice report does not 

represent the final analysis of a site with regard to environmental justice. Rather, the indices and 

raw data reported are indicators of vulnerability for subgroups of people to other stressors (EPA 

2005b). Table 3-20 shows the EPA EJ Index ranking for the study area.

3.3.9 LAND USE

Land use designations in the study area include 1) shrub and brush rangeland, 2) mixed 

rangeland, and 3) cropland and pasture (Anderson et al. 1976; USGS 1990) (Figure 3-9).

On-site field visits were conducted to verify land use designation and geographic information. 

NRCS classifications were used to determine the presence of lands classified as important or 

prime farmlands, rangelands, or forest land. Prime farmland is defined as land suitable for the 

production of any food, feed, fiber, forage, and/or oilseed crops, and is designated by soil type 

(NRCS 2005).

The south end of the study area is near the northern boundary of Alamogordo. Except for 

portions of the main pipeline route near Tularosa with some residential development, most of the 

land use in the study area falls into one of the following categories: open space with native 

habitat typically present in the Chihuahuan Desert, rangeland for livestock grazing, agricultural 

production, transportation rights-of-way, and utility corridors.

TABLE 3-20. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE VALUE AND POPULATION VULNERABILITY

SURVEY SITE

EJ INDEX 

VALUE BY U.S. 

CENSUS YEAR

POPULATION 

VULNERABILITY, 

2000 CENSUS

COMMENTS

1990 2000

Site 1 Alamogordo 1 2 Low Includes the northwest side of the City of Alamogordo

Site 2 Alamogordo 3 2 Low Includes the Village of Tularosa

Site 3 Alamogordo 6 2 Low

Includes the Village of Tularosa; significant decrease in 

percentage of economically stressed individuals between 

census years contributed to drop in EJ Index value

Site 4 Alamogordo 1 1 Low Significant drop in total population in this survey area, from 

55 in 1990 down to 10 in 2000

Site 5 Alamogordo 1 4 Low

Total population in the survey area is extremely low (12 in 

1990, down to 5 in 2000); 50 percent were economically 

stressed in 2000, which contributed to the higher EJ Index 

value; also, project features in this survey grid are 

completely within federal and state land ownership, with no 

private residents in the immediate vicinity 

NOTE: Based on a 50-square-mile survey area.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-40 

Otero County contains a total of 1,207,598 acres of farmlands, and neighboring Lincoln County 

contains a total of 1,605,566 acres of farmlands. While the total farmland acreage within the 

Tularosa Basin in Otero and Lincoln counties is not quantified, the number of irrigated 

agricultural acres is summarized in Table 3-21.

Ownership and/or administration of the study area fall into one of the following categories 

(Anderson et al. 1976; USGS 1990) (see Figure 3-9):

• Federal – BLM

• State – State Lands; New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT)

• Private – Individual or group of individuals; private company or business 

• Utility – Utilities with rights-of-way transferred via lease or easement from an original 

owner to a publicly-owned company; also, utilities with an agreement to use an existing 

right-of-way that stays under the ownership of the original entity. This land ownership 

type may fall under the Federal, state, or private designation, depending on location.

TABLE 3-21. GROUNDWATER DEPLETIONS FROM IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE IN THE 

TULAROSA BASIN

TYPE OF 

IRRIGATION COUNTY IRRIGATED ACREAGE

SURFACE 

WATER 

(AFY)

GROUND

WATER

(AFY)

TOTAL 

DIVERSION 

(AFY)

Flood Lincoln 475 0 2,265 2,265

Otero 985 5,693 915 6,608

Subtotal 1,460 5,693 3,180 8,873

Drip Lincoln 75 0 170 170

Otero 1,895 0 6,303 6,303

Subtotal 1,970 0 6,473 6,473

Sprinkler Lincoln 65 0 107 107

Otero 2,850 0 11,830 11,830

Subtotal 2,915 0 11,937 11,937

Lincoln County Total 615 0 2,542 2,542

Otero County Total 5,730 5,693 19,048 24,741

Lincoln County Percent 10 – – –

Otero County Percent 90 – – –

Tularosa Basin Total 6,345 5,693 21,590 27,283

SOURCE: Livingston and Shomaker 2002a, 2002b.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-41 

Figure 3-9. Study area land uses.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-42 

3.3.10 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

Resources discussed in this section include electricity and natural gas. PNM, based in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, and its subsidiary company, Texas-New Mexico Power Company 

(TNMP), provide these services to the study area.

PNM is currently assessing the electric power needs and delivery systems that need to remain in 

place to continue to provide service to the study area. The Amrad Distribution Station provides 

electricity to Alamogordo and the surrounding area. The electric transmission and generation 

requirements for this area are now designated by PNM as Eastern New Mexico, with a projected 

2007 peak load of 85 megawatts (MW) (Figure 3-10). PNM/TNMP plans to temporarily 

transmit power from the El Paso Electric Company (EPE) and redirect additional power from the 

Las Cruces area to maintain adequate MW in the study area to meet projected loads (PNM 

2006).

Transmission line capacities in the area, including lines to the Amrad station, were assessed in a 

feasibility study in 2003 by EPE when a new High Voltage Converter Station (HVCS) was 

proposed at a terminal near Artesia, New Mexico. This study recommended that the Amrad 

station upgrade its transmission lines to handle the additional loads associated with the 

installation of the HVCS. Results of the study concluded that electric transmission systems in 

the southern portions of New Mexico would require modifications or upgrades to continue to 

operate reliably and meet expected loads following installation of the HVCS (EPE 2002).

An extensive network of electric transmission and distribution power lines exists throughout the 

study area. This network includes the U.S. 54/U.S. 70 corridor and most of the areas near 

Alamogordo. New Mexico Gas Company also provides natural gas service to the study area. 

Gas lines currently exist along U.S. 54/U.S. 70.

3.3.11 TRANSPORTATION

Transportation and circulation systems include roadways, railroads, and airports. There are no 

airports in the study area that would be affected by the proposed action, thus airports are not 

discussed in the section.

ROADWAYS

The major road that provides access to the study area is U.S. 54, a major north-south, noninterstate freeway that runs through both Tularosa and Alamogordo. There is one major 

intersection in Tularosa, where U.S. 70 joins U.S. 54 from the east; from that point, U.S. 54 and 

U.S. 70 share the same transportation corridor south to Alamogordo. 

Traffic volume is typically reported as Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), the total number 

of vehicles per day averaged over an entire year. The AADT can be measured directly with 

continuous count equipment or indirectly by taking short traffic counts for a few days and 

adjusting the counts with factors from the AADTs to account for daily and seasonal variations. 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-43 

Figure 3-10. PNM resources electrical transmission network.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-44 

A comparison of a road’s AADT to its capacity is known as its Level of Service (LOS). The 

LOS scale runs from A through F, with A the best and F the worst. Traffic volume (AADT-tocapacity) ratios as they relate to LOS values are shown in Table 3-22.

TABLE 3-22. ROADWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE

LOS DESCRIPTION CRITERIA (VOLUME/CAPACITY) 

FOR TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS

A Free flow with users unaffected by presence of other users of roadway 0.15

B Stable flow, but presence of the users in the traffic stream becomes 

noticeable 0.27

C Stable flow, but operation of single users becomes affected by interactions 

with others in traffic stream 0.43

D High density but stable flow; speed and freedom of movement severely 

restricted; poor level of comfort and convenience 0.64

E

Unstable flow; operating conditions at capacity, with reduced speeds, 

maneuvering difficulty, and extremely poor levels of comfort and 

convenience

1.00

F Forced breakdown of flow, with traffic demand exceeding capacity; unstable

stop-and-go traffic Greater than 1.00

DATA SOURCE: Transportation Research Board 1994; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2004.

U.S. 54 in the northern portion of the study area has an AADT of 2,287, which is within the 

lowest AADT category for the state (0.00–7,984.00) and just 1.3 percent of the highest AADT 

(168,636) (NMDOT 2004). This segment has a LOS of A (Table 3-23). The segment of U.S. 54 

in the southern portion of the study area has an AADT of 13,875, the third highest in Otero 

County and within the second lowest AADT category for the state, at 8.2 percent of the highest 

AADT (NMDOT 2004). This segment of U.S. 54 has a LOS of C.

RAILWAYS

One commercial freight carrier, the UPRR, provides rail service to Tularosa, Alamogordo, and 

the study area. The UPRR line runs parallel to U.S. 54 north of Tularosa, but splits west from 

the roadway as it nears the village.

3.3.12 AIR QUALITY

Air quality refers to the composition of air with respect to quantities of pollutants and is routinely 

compared with “standards” of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations. Air quality in a 

given location can be described by the concentration of individual pollutants in the atmosphere 

and is generally expressed in units of ppm or micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).

TABLE 3-23. TRAFFIC CAPACITY OF ROADWAYS IN STUDY AREA

ROADWAY

CAPACITY 

(VEHICLES PER 

HOUR)

TRAFFIC IN 

2004*

(VEHICLES PER 

DAY)

VOLUME**

(VEHICLES PER 

HOUR)

VOLUMETOCAPACITY 

RATIO

LOS

U.S. 54 95.3 2,287 1504.5 0.06 A

U.S. 54/U.S. 70 

corridor 578.0 13,875 1504.5 0.38 C

SOURCE: *NMDOT 2004; **Global Security 2005.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-45 

Under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA has established nationwide air quality

standards to protect public health and welfare, with an adequate margin of safety. These Federal 

standards, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), were developed for one or 

more of seven criteria pollutants, including lead (Pb), nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter 10 microns or less in size (PM10), particulate matter 

2.5 microns or less in size (PM2.5), and ozone (O3).

The EPA has classified all areas of the U.S. as either meeting (in attainment) or not meeting (in 

nonattainment) the NAAQS for each individual criteria pollutant. Under the CAA, state and 

local agencies may establish air quality standards and regulations of their own, provided they are 

at least as stringent as the Federal requirements. The CAA amendments of 1990 established a 

framework for achieving attainment and maintenance of the health-protective NAAQS.

Individual states are required to establish a State Implementation Plan (SIP), which must be 

approved by the EPA. A SIP is a document designed to provide a plan for maintaining existing 

air quality in attainment areas and programmatically eliminating or reducing the severity and 

number of NAAQS violations in nonattainment areas. The underlying goal of a SIP is to bring 

state air quality conditions into and/or maintain compliance with the NAAQS.

The principal method of maintaining or improving ambient air quality is by controlling 

emissions from sources. The SIP will usually establish regulations to control stationary emission 

sources; the EPA establishes regulations to control mobile sources, which are installed by vehicle 

manufacturers. In attainment areas, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations 

apply; in nonattainment areas, New Source Review regulations apply.

The PSD regulations provide special protection from air quality impacts for certain areas, 

primarily National parks and wilderness areas, designated as Class I areas. Mandatory PSD 

Class I areas established under the CAA Amendment of 1977 for New Mexico are listed under 

40 CFR 81.421. These are areas where visibility has been determined to be an important issue 

by the EPA Administrator in consultation with the Secretary (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

[USACE] 2004b).

Four potential PSD Class I areas occur in general proximity to the study area:

• San Andres National Wildlife Refuge – administered by the USFWS, approximately 32 

miles southwest of the study area.

• White Sands National Monument – administered by the National Park Service, 

approximately 12 miles southwest of the study area.

• White Mountain Wilderness Area – administered by the Lincoln National Forest, 

approximately 16 miles northeast of the study area.

• Capitan Mountain Wilderness Area – administered by the Lincoln National Forest, 

approximately 42 miles northeast of the study area.

Air quality is determined by the type and amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the 

size and topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. 

Meteorological conditions have a significant impact on the pollutant concentrations because they 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-46 

control the dispersion or mixing of pollutants in the atmosphere through the influences of wind 

speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, and other meteorological variables. For example, 

summer thunderstorms can produce dust storms that carry large quantities of particulate matter 

high into the atmosphere.

The affected environment for inert pollutants (all pollutants other than ozone and its precursors) 

is generally limited to a few miles downwind of a source. For PM10 emissions from construction 

and operational activities, the affected environment is limited to the area immediately 

surrounding the construction sites. For large sources of ozone precursors, the affected 

environment for ozone can extend much farther downwind than for inert pollutants. In the 

presence of solar radiation, the maximum effect of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOx

emissions on ozone levels usually occurs several hours after these pollutants are emitted and 

many miles from the source. For the study area, the affected environment for air quality includes 

Tularosa, Alamogordo, and the immediately surrounding areas on the west side of the 

Sacramento Mountains and the east side of the Tularosa Basin in Otero County.

The NMED Air Quality Bureau classifies the air quality in the affected region for this project as 

in attainment under the CAA for all pollutants. This means that the air quality in the study area 

does not exceed acceptable levels of the NAAQS criteria pollutants per EPA standards.

3.3.13 CLIMATE CHANGE

Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of climate changing pollutants on 

global climate. These pollutants are commonly called “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) and include 

carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, and several trace gas emissions. 

Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these emissions cause a net 

warming effect of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat energy radiated by 

the earth back into space. Although climate changing pollutant levels have varied for millennia 

(along with corresponding variations in climatic conditions), recent industrialization and burning 

of fossil carbon sources have caused CO2 concentrations to increase dramatically and are likely 

to contribute to overall climatic changes, typically referred to as global warming.

The EPA has not promulgated rules to regulate GHGs; however, climate has the potential to 

influence renewable and non-renewable resource management. The EPA’s Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks found that in 2006, total U.S. GHG emissions were over 6 

billion metric tons and that total U.S. GHG emissions have increased by 14.1 percent from 1990 

to 2006. The report also noted that GHG emissions fell by 1.5 percent from 2005 to 2006. This 

decrease was, in part, attributed to the increased use of natural gas and other alternatives to 

burning coal in electric power generation.

New information about GHGs and their effects on national and global climate conditions are 

constantly emerging. The specific impacts include changes in annual and seasonal temperatures, 

and changes in precipitation quantities and patterns. However, the specific changes at any given 

location cannot be definitively concluded to be resultant of climate change induced by increased 

GHG emissions.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-47 

Global mean surface temperatures have increased nearly 1.0 degrees Celsius (°C) or 1.8 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) from 1890 to 2006 (Hansen et al. 2007). However, observations and predictive 

models indicate that average temperature changes are likely to be greater in the Northern 

Hemisphere. Figure 3-8 demonstrates that northern latitudes (above 24° North) have exhibited 

temperature increases of nearly 1.2°C (2.1°F) since 1900, with nearly a 1.0°C (1.8°F) increase 

since 1970. Without additional meteorological monitoring systems, it is difficult to determine 

the spatial and temporal variability and change of climatic conditions, but increasing 

concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently completed a 

comprehensive report assessing the current state of knowledge on climate change, its potential 

impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. At printing of this EIS, this assessment is 

available on the IPCC website at http://www.ipcc.ch/. According to this report, global climate 

change may ultimately contribute to a rise in sea level, destruction of estuaries and coastal 

wetlands, and changes in regional temperature and rainfall patterns, with major implications to 

agricultural and coastal communities. The IPCC has suggested that the average global surface 

temperature could rise 1°F to 4.5°F in the next 50 years, with significant regional variation. The 

National Academy of Sciences (2006) confirmed these findings, but also indicated that there are 

uncertainties regarding how climate change may affect different regions. Computer models 

indicate that such increases in temperature will not be equally distributed globally, but are likely 

to be accentuated at higher latitudes, such as in the Arctic, where the temperature increase may 

be more than double the global average (BLM 2007). Also, warming during the winter months 

is expected to be greater than during the summer, and increases in daily minimum temperatures 

are more likely than increases in daily maximum temperatures. Vulnerabilities to climate change 

depend considerably on specific geographic and social contexts.

The BLM recognizes the importance of climate change and the potential effects it may have on 

the natural environment. Several activities occur within the planning area that may generate 

emissions of climate changing pollutants. For example, oil and gas development, large fires, and 

recreation using combustion engines, can potentially generate CO2 and methane. Wind erosion 

from disturbed areas and fugitive dust from roads along with entrained atmospheric dust has the 

potential to darken glacial surfaces and snow packs resulting in faster snowmelt. Other activities 

may help sequester carbon, such as managing vegetation to favor perennial grasses and increase 

vegetative cover, which may help build organic carbon in soils and function as “carbon sinks.”

3.3.14 VISUAL RESOURCES

Visual resources are based on an assessment and classification of visual landscapes or scenic 

viewscapes for their scenic attractiveness and ability to provide recreational opportunities. The 

definition of this resource category includes what viewers like and dislike about visual resources 

that compose a particular scene. Different viewers may evaluate visual resources differently; 

neighbors and travelers may, in particular, have different opinions on what they like and dislike 

about a scene. Viewers define visual quality in terms of natural harmony, cultural order, and 

project coherence (Minnesota Department of Transportation 2005). The criterion used to 

determine the level of significance of impacts to this resource category is visual quality, usually 

assessed through some type of visual resource management (VRM) system.
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-48 

Figure 3-8. Annual Mean Temperature Change for Northern Latitudes (24 - 90° N) 

(Source: Hansen et al. 2007).

Visual resources include natural and human-made physical features that give a particular 

landscape its character and value. Features contributing to visual perception include landforms, 

vegetation, size, water, color, texture, adjacent or bounding scenery, and cultural modifications. 

Modifications in a landscape that repeat the landscape’s basic elements are said to be in harmony 

with their surroundings. Typically, these visual perception features are used to evaluate 

landscapes on public and private lands.

The degree to which a management activity affects the visual quality of a landscape depends on 

the visual contrast created between a project and the existing landscape (BLM 2004a). The 

affected visual resource environment encompasses approximately 2 miles around both the 

desalination facility and the Snake Tank well field. Portions of these sites occur on State Lands 

or lands administered by the BLM.

The Snake Tank well field currently has VRM Class III and IV designations from the BLM. 

VRM designations apply only to BLM surface features. Objectives for management of these 

classes can be found in the BLM H-8410-1 visual resource inventory. The management 

objectives for Classes III and IV are presented here for convenience (BLM 2004b):

• Class III Objective: To partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level 

of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities 

may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes 

should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape.

• Class IV Objective: To provide for management activities which require major 

modifications of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the 
Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 3-49 

characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the 

view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be 

made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal 

disturbance, and repeating the basic elements.

Visual sensitivity of the existing landscape is dependent on its visual character, the amount of 

public use of the area, public visibility, the presence or absence of adjacent developments, and 

the ability of the setting to absorb the structure(s). Absorption refers to how well the facility 

would fit within the existing setting. Visual sensitivity ratings are in three levels:

• High Visual Sensitivity: Areas with unique or valued visual attributes, minimal landscape 

disturbance, high visibility, and high public activity, because they have a limited ability 

to absorb changes that are not visible.

• Moderate Visual Sensitivity: Areas with typical visual attributes, surrounding 

development, lower visibility, limited public visibility, and disturbed landscape, because 

they have some ability to absorb changes without appearing to have changed.

• Low Visual Sensitivity: Areas with pervasive or degraded visual attributes, limited public 

use and viewing, or areas with development similar in characteristics to the facilities, 

because they can absorb changes without appearing noticeably different.

The Snake Tank well field is considered an area of moderate visual sensitivity. The vegetation

in the well field has been greatly altered by the application of herbicides in recent years to 

promote grazing opportunities for livestock; reduction of shrubs in this environment allows 

grassland species to increase in density. Most of the area supports creosotebush in various stages 

of viability and is not considered distinctive vegetative habitat, exhibiting an overall high level of 

disturbance as a result of the herbicide application. One non-native invasive plant, African rue, 

was observed at this location. Built structures in and around the well field area include U.S. 54; 

the UPRR; barbed-wire fences; a ranch with several buildings and a bermed retention pond 

(Stover Ranch); another retention pond with an associated well (Lower Snake Tank); and a 

network of dirt access roads for the ranch, well, and ponds; and aboveground utility power lines.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL

 CONSEQUENCES
Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes and analyzes the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the No Action and 

Proposed Action on the resources described in Chapter 3. The alternatives considered in detail, 

as described in Chapter 2, are:

• Alternative A (No Action Alternative) – Continued use of the City’s existing surface and 

groundwater rights.

• Alternative B (Proposed Action) – Use of Snake Tank well field with desalination facility

with the purchase and lease of water rights.

The impacts of the alternatives are described for the 10 resource categories presented in 

Chapter 3: water resources, geology, biological resources, cultural resources, Indian Trust Assets 

(ITAs), socioeconomics, land use, transportation, air quality, and visual resources. Existing 

environmental conditions serve as a baseline for the analyses, and thresholds have been 

established for each resource to determine the degree of individual effects.

The types of impacts analyzed in this section include:

• Direct impacts (long- and short-term)—spatially and temporally immediate.

• Indirect impacts (long- and short-term)—removed in space and/or time.

• Cumulative impacts—impacts of the alternative when considered together with nonrelated past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Short-term impacts are impacts that occur during construction and last no more than 5 years 

following the completion of construction activities. Long-term impacts are impacts that occur 

during construction and last more than 5 years following the completion of construction 

activities.

4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF EACH 

ALTERNATIVE

4.2.1 WATER RESOURCES

This section describes the anticipated environmental consequences on surface water quality and 

quantity and groundwater quality and quantity. The analysis is based on the surface water and 

groundwater resources described in Section 3.3.1 and Appendix H.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-2 

ANALYSIS METHODS

The analysis of groundwater impacts was based on groundwater models developed and used by 

the NMOSE, the City, and the USGS specifically for the Tularosa Basin. These models can be 

used to make predictions of how water levels, flow rates and directions, or water quality might 

change in the future. While groundwater models can only approximate the behavior and 

responses of an aquifer, they provide useful tools for the evaluation and comparison of water 

resource development projects. The three models used for the groundwater analysis are the 

NMOSE Model (a.k.a., the Morrison Model; Morrison 1989), the JSAI Model developed for the 

City (JSAI 2003), and the USGS Model (Huff 2005). Details on all three models and results are 

provided in Appendix H. JSAI (2009) completed a hydrogeologic assessment of proposed 

injection wells for the Project that was used in analyzes impacts of the Project (Appendix I).

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

SURFACE WATER

Under the No Action Alternative, the City would continue to divert surface water from the City’s 

existing points of diversion, especially in periods of drought. These surface water diversions 

could adversely affect downstream water users and would reduce the quantity of surface water in 

the rivers and springs. From 1967 through 2001, the City’s surface water diversions from the La 

Luz–Fresnal flume, Alamo Canyon, and Bonito Lake (City’s share) averaged 3,614 afy, 1,372 

afy, and 700 afy, respectively. This analysis assumes that, on average, the City would continue 

to divert a combined total of 5,686 afy from the existing resources until the year 2040. No 

additional points of surface water diversion are assumed.

Under the No Action Alternative, the City’s diversion of surface water would reduce the amount 

of surface water available below the City’s diversion points in both La Luz Creek and Alamo 

Canyon because the City would need to maximize diversions and use its existing water rights to 

meet the demand. Users with junior water rights, such as agricultural users, could experience a 

decrease in available water for their uses. In addition, the Tularosa Creek, the primary source of 

drinking water for the Village of Tularosa, would be similarly affected by an increase in 

diversions by the City.

The relationship between springs and groundwater levels in the Tularosa Basin is not well 

documented or understood. Springs are fed by groundwater sources, and springs located in 

proximity to the City’s groundwater wells may be experiencing declines due to the groundwater

pumping. Declines in groundwater levels caused by increased demands to pump water from 

existing wells could have an indirect, long-term adverse impact on surface water resources at 

springs and in groundwater-fed streams. Based on the USGS Model described in Huff (2005), 

the greatest effects on surface water are expected to occur in the agricultural area near Tularosa.

Under the No Action Alternative, the City and the Village of Tularosa would continue to 

maximize their surface water diversions and could cause declines in the available surface water

resources in the agricultural area near Tularosa. As a result, the No Action Alternative would 

have a long-term, adverse impact on surface water resources.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-3 

GROUNDWATER

Under the No Action Alternative, the City would continue to pump groundwater from existing 

wells and well fields to meet the increasing water demands of its service area. Although 

increased pumping may be difficult due to current groundwater conditions, the City has unused 

water rights at the La Luz and Prather well fields and would be allowed to pump more 

groundwater using these existing rights. This pumping could have a direct, long-term, adverse 

impact on existing groundwater resources, particularly the groundwater resources of the 

Alamogordo Tularosa Administrative Area. 

Based on the current pumping patterns and rates throughout the Tularosa Basin, numerous wells 

are projected to go dry by 2045 due to a decline in the water table (Figure 4-1) (Blandford 2006). 

The proposed project is expected to increase groundwater drawdown potentially resulting in 

more wells going dry. Given the anticipated water table decline, water rights holders should 

expect that wells that do not fully penetrate the aquifer may require deepening at some point in 

the future (Blandford 2006).

Significant groundwater drawdown near existing well fields could influence the migration of 

saline groundwater into fresh groundwater. Predominant water flow along the eastern margin of 

the Tularosa Basin is westward, away from the mountain-front recharge areas and toward the 

center of the basin (Huff 2005). If drawdown is sufficient to reverse this gradient, groundwater

with greater salinity may be drawn toward municipal well fields and private wells in the affected 

area. Some localized groundwater flow changes are anticipated under the No Action Alternative

(Huff 2005); however, the gradient changes are not of sufficient magnitude to affect water 

quality within the 40-year planning period.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

SURFACE WATER

Overall, streams in the Tularosa Basin are not expected to be adversely affected by increased 

groundwater pumping at Snake Tank well field under Alternative B. The potential impacts of 

groundwater pumping at Snake Tank well field on springs near the well field are not well 

understood. Because the groundwater wells would tap into the basin fill aquifer, pumping is not 

expected to influence the flow of Maxwell Spring and other nearby springs (Shomaker 2006). 

The source of these springs originates in the same geologic formation as the well field aquifer, 

and the spring source is likely separated by a subsurface barrier between the bedrock and the 

basin fill from which water would be pumped. However, if these and other springs are 

hydraulically linked to the basin-fill aquifer, pumping of up to 20,000 acre-feet of a 5-year 

period under this alternative could have a direct, long-term, adverse effect on these surface water

resources. However, hydrologic models suggest ongoing diversion of up to 10,000 afy from the 

well field would have no identifiable effect on the springs on the nearby High Nogal Ranch 

based on the NMOSE’s analysis (NMOSE 2005a).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-4 

Figure 4-1. Predicted dry wells in the Tularosa Basin by 2045 (Huff 2005).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-5 

A change in groundwater flow direction in the area near Tularosa from pumping at Snake Tank 

well field could adversely affect near-surface groundwater discharge into Tularosa Creek 

(Havenor 2006). If the creek and groundwater table are hydrologically connected, the pumping 

of groundwater could result in a base flow reduction (NMOSE 2005a). However, this reduction 

may overestimate the impacts, and the groundwater table does not appear to be hydrologically 

connected to the creek (NMOSE 2005a). Minimal adverse impacts are anticipated on surface 

water flows in Tularosa Creek.

GROUNDWATER

Increased pumping at Snake Tank well field under Alternative B would have a direct, long-term, 

adverse impact on groundwater resources in the area due to substantial drawdown of the water 

table. Assuming a diversion of up to 4,000 afy by the year 2045, the water table is predicted to 

drawdown by a few feet to more than 119 feet near the well field (NMOSE 2009) (Figure 4-2, 

Figure 4-3, and Figure 4-4). 

Incremental drawdown at Snake Tank well field would cause some wells in the immediate 

vicinity to go dry unless they could be extended deeper into the aquifer to account for the change 

in the water table levels. The aquifer is expected to be thick enough to allow water-right holders 

to deepen wells and continue pumping water, with minimal impacts from the Snake Tank well 

field pumping (Blandford 2006).

Pumping of groundwater from Snake Tank well field is not expected to adversely affect 

groundwater quality. Saline groundwater is not expected to migrate into freshwater groundwater

sources based on the extent of drawdown predicted over the next 40 years (JSAI 2006). The 

extent of drawdown is not large enough to reverse the hydraulic gradient and alter groundwater

flows from the areas of higher salinity along the boundary of White Sands Missile Range to the 

west (see Figure 4-2).

The deep well injection of concentrate will be within a suitable target geologic formation. 

Suitability depends on four factors: 1) water quality (TDS > 10,000 mg/L); 2) favorable 

transmissivity and storage capacity; 3) confining layer above the target formation; and 4) 

reasonable depth to target formation (JSAI 2009). It is anticipated that NM Environment 

Department would classify the proposed wells as Class I non-hazardous waste injection wells. 

The Environment Department may allow injection into a zone containing TDS concentrate 

between 5,000 and 10,000 mg/L, provided that it is not currently being used as a domestic of 

agricultural water supply, and there is no reasonable relationship between economic and social 

costs of failure to designate it use as agricultural or domestic water supply (JSAI 2009). TDS 

concentrations in the target injection zone must be elevated so injected brine does not degrade 

the existing groundwater resources. Confining layers such as shale that separate the target 

injection zone from shallow aquifers also serve to protect semi-fresh groundwater resources. 

Existing data support the possibility of achieving compliance at the proposed desalination site on 

La Velle Road (Appendix I).

As confirmed by existing data and drilling in the region, suitable bedrock confining units and 

injection zones are found at depth at the proposed desalination site (JSAI 2009).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-6 

Figure 4-2. JSAI model drawdown predictions.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-7 

Figure 4-3. NMOSE model drawdown predictions (NMOSE 2009).
Chapter 4 – En

Alamogordo Supply Project Draft EIS 

Figure 4-4. Groundwater flow direction with Snake Tank well field pumping (Huff 2005).
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-9

4.2.2 GEOLOGY

This section describes the anticipated environmental consequences on geology. The analysis is 

based on the geologic resources described in Section 3.3.2.

ANALYSIS METHOD

Impacts to unique geologic resources were analyzed to determine whether groundwater pumping 

under each alternative would affect the geologic stability of the Tularosa Basin or geologic 

resources within White Sands National Monument. Ground-disturbing activities during 

construction are not expected to affect the geologic stability of the basin, and no ground would 

be disturbed within the boundaries of White Sands National Monument. These issues are not 

further discussed.

Impacts to the geologic stability of the Tularosa Basin were examined by determining the 

potential for land-surface subsidence associated with groundwater pumping. Impacts to White 

Sands National Monument were evaluated by assessing the proximity of groundwater drawdown 

and changes in groundwater flow direction.

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

GEOLOGIC STABILITY

Because this alternative would require continued reliance on groundwater to meet current and 

future water demands, the potential for land-surface subsidence due to groundwater drawdown 

would likely increase in some areas. Current groundwater pumping patterns throughout the 

Tularosa Basin would continue to extract water from the basin-fill aquifer. Subsidence, which is 

the lowering of the land-surface elevation from changes that take place underground, can be 

associated with pumping groundwater. Based on the drawdown patterns through 2040 predicted 

by the USGS Model (Huff 2005), the greatest drop in groundwater elevation would occur near 

the agricultural area around Tularosa (see Figure 4-4). Although to date no other studies have 

documented subsidence in this area, continued groundwater pumping under this alternative 

would be expected to increase the likelihood of groundwater drawdown in that agricultural area. 

As a result, the No Action Alternative could have a direct, long-term, adverse effect on geologic 

stability. This impact would create construction and safety hazards in subsidence zones because 

of potential structural damage.

WHITE SANDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

Under the No Action Alternative, adverse impacts to geological resources within White Sands 

National Monument would be negligible. Minimal localized groundwater flow changes are 

anticipated under the No Action Alternative (Huff 2005), and pumping is not expected to cause 

groundwater flow to be diverted from Lake Lucero, the source for the gypsum sand that makes 

up the dunes.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-10

Projected groundwater drawdown under this alternative would also have a negligible impact to 

groundwater discharge into Lake Lucero. Groundwater drawdown from existing users between 

2005 and 2045 would be along the eastern margin of the Tularosa Basin (see Figure 4-4), which 

would not likely affect groundwater discharge into Lake Lucero. Therefore, negligible impacts 

to dune formation at White Sands National Monument are anticipated under the No Action 

Alternative.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION 

GEOLOGIC STABILITY

Compared with Alternative A, the additional groundwater pumping under this alternative would 

increase the potential for direct, adverse impacts to geologic stability over the long term. The 

additional development of up to 4,000 afy would increase the potential for land-surface 

subsidence because more water would be extracted from the area near the Snake Tank well field. 

The additional drawdown through 2045 near the well field, as predicted in the JSAI Model (see 

Figure 4-2), would in turn increase the likelihood for land-surface subsidence.

WHITE SANDS NATIONAL MONUMENT

Groundwater drawdown under this alternative would not affect Lake Lucero or the White Sands 

National Monument. Groundwater drawdown under this alternative would occur along the 

eastern margin of the Tularosa Basin (see Figure 4-2, Figure 4-3, and Figure 4-4). No

groundwater drawdown is predicted to occur near White Sands National Monument. Therefore, 

it is unlikely that the amount or flow direction of groundwater discharge into Lake Lucero would 

be affected by groundwater pumping under this alternative. 

4.2.3 SOILS

This section describes the anticipated environmental consequences on soils. The analysis is 

based on the soils described in Section 3.3.3 and Appendix J.

ANALYSIS METHOD

New and existing data were used to assess existing soil resources in the study area. Maps were 

generated showing soil units, using digital data downloaded from the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service website (NRCS 2005). Soil descriptions were included with the map 

information and are provided in Appendix J1. The Soil Survey of Otero Area, New Mexico 

(NRCS 1975) was the original source for the data on the NRCS website and was consulted 

directly as well. The maps and data provide a baseline for soils in the region against which the 

level of effect on these resources following implementation of a project alternative could be 

measured.

Impacts on soils would be considered significant if they result in a change to soil types exceeding 

10 percent of the current conditions. The impact concern for soils is contamination.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-11

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

No ground-disturbing activities would occur under the No Action Alternative; therefore, soil 

conditions would remain similar to current conditions.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

Potential impacts to soils would be associated with construction activities. Adverse impacts to 

soils would occur at the Snake Tank well field during construction of groundwater wells and 

pipelines, at the desalination facility site during facility construction, and along the pipeline 

alignments during pipeline construction. These impacts would be localized and limited to the 

immediate area of impact. Potential effects on soils include increased susceptibility to wind and 

water erosion and loss of topsoil. Soil sterilization would not occur because the soils within the 

study area are naturally high in salt.

Under Alternative B, facility construction would cause short-term soil disturbance and 

displacement associated with the pipelines and long-term soil displacement associated with the 

desalination facility and groundwater wells. Approximately 20 acres of soil would be affected 

by facility construction; much of these lands were previously disturbed, as the area was a former 

refuse facility (Table 4-1).

TABLE 4-1. SOIL DISTURBANCE UNDER ALTERNATIVE B BY PROJECT FEATURE

PROJECT FEATURE AFFECTED ACRES BY SOIL TYPE

Long-Term Effects

Desalination Facility

AdB 31.7

AKA 41.0

DUMP 23.9

PmB 4.6

Well Field and Associated Infrastructure AEC 58.36

TDB 14.3

Short-Term Effects

Main Delivery Pipeline

AEC 16

TDB 14.66

PnA 13.87

AdB 10.18

PlA 9.03

LcA 5.75

PkA 5.63

LDB 5.57

AoB 5.39

PmB 6.42

LdA 4.66

McB 3.81

PmA 3.75

TvA 1.57

MdA 1.45

LdB 1.15

TfB 0.96

AhB 0.66

Gu 0.54

Rw 0.36

Total Affected Acreage 285.27

NOTE: All soils except “Gu” are classified as highly erodible.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-12

4.2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section describes the anticipated environmental consequences on biological resources, 

including vegetation, wildlife, and special status species. The analysis is based on the biological 

resources described in Section 3.3.4 and Appendix J.

VEGETATION

ANALYSIS METHOD

Field surveys were conducted in 2004, 2005, and 2009 to document habitat types and individual 

plant species. Agency lists and available literature were obtained and reviewed to establish types 

of habitat and sensitive species that could occur in the area. Data obtained from SWReGAP 

(USGS 2005) provided a baseline of available habitat in the region from which to measure the 

level of effects on vegetation following implementation of each alternative.

Indicators used to measure the level of effect include the area in acres of vegetative community 

according to SWReGAP, the area in acres of suitable habitat available to special status plant 

species, and the existing area or potential area for the spread of noxious weeds. In addition, 

effects on availability of grazing land for livestock were addressed as indirect effects.

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

The No Action Alternative would not affect vegetation because no new facilities would be 

constructed and no new water resources would be developed. There would be no loss or 

modification of vegetative communities or special status plant species, no additional spread of 

noxious weeds, and no impacts on grazing. There would be no direct or indirect impacts in the 

short- or long-term within the study area.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

Construction of new facilities and pipelines would result in the temporary and permanent 

removal of native vegetation and the permanent removal of previously altered native desert 

habitat. The desalination facility would be located across from the Research Facility on 

previously disturbed land owned by the City. The construction would result in the permanent 

removal of approximately 10 acres, and the temporary disturbance of 25 acres of poor quality 

desert habitat. Water extraction wells in the well field would permanently disturb 20 acres, with 

an additional 57 acres of temporary disturbance, while the main delivery pipeline to the facility 

in Alamogordo would temporarily disturb an area of approximately 29 acres. Short-term loss of 

potential wildlife habitat would result from the direct impacts of installing the main delivery 

pipeline. Although recovery in the semiarid landscape is slow, these narrow, linear areas of 

disturbance would eventually be re-colonized by local plant species. New roads in the well field 

and along the pipeline would permanently affect another 39.5 acres. Thus, the total area of 

vegetation affected by construction of these facilities would be approximately 111 acres. Of the 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-13

total acreage affected by the project, approximately 69.5 acres would experience long-term, 

direct impacts from facilities, well pads occupying new ground, and new roads.

The study area contains a variety of habitats, ranging from native, relatively undisturbed shrub 

and grassland communities typically found in the Chihuahuan Desert to heavily disturbed, nonnative environments such as agricultural fields and human development found near Tularosa. 

SWReGAP lists 31 habitat types that could be affected by construction activities under this 

alternative. However, just three of the habitat types constitute most of the potentially affected 

vegetative communities within a 5-mile radius of project facilities in the study area:

• Chihuahuan Creosotebush, Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub – approximately 95,634 acres, 

or 47 percent of the total habitat in the study area.

• Apacherian-Chihuahuan Piedmont Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe – approximately 

62,065 acres, or 31 percent of the total habitat in the study area.

• North American Warm Desert Playa – approximately 3,646 acres, or 2 percent of the 

total habitat in the study area.

Altered habitats within or adjacent to the study area for Alternative B include rangeland for 

livestock grazing, a limited amount of residential and commercial landscaping and development 

near Tularosa, transportation rights-of-way, agricultural fields, and utilities. Potential effects on 

vegetation under this alternative are discussed below by facility.

Snake Tank Well Field

Construction of 10 well pads would result in a long-term disturbance of approximately 2 acres of 

habitat for each pad. There would be approximately 8.68 miles of water pipelines throughout the 

well field, terminating at the main delivery pipeline at U.S. 54. The total area of effect from the 

pipeline in the well field would be approximately 53 acres. Access roads have an estimated 

width of 10 feet and would have an area of potential effect in the well field of approximately 

10.5 acres.

African rue (a Class B Weed) was the only noxious weed species observed within the well field 

site during surveys. The BLM has documented the presence of this plant within the study area 

and identified severe infestations near U.S. 54 and Snake Tank Road. Ground-disturbing 

activities related to installation of facilities in the well field for Alternative B would result in the 

increase of bare soil that would promote the spread of existing populations. Heavy equipment 

used during the construction activity may trample existing plants and transport seeds that can 

germinate in previously unaffected areas.

One plant species with the potential to occur in the well field, the Sacramento prickly poppy, is 

Federally-listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered. This species was 

not observed in the well field during surveys at the site. Marginal potential habitat for this 

species was identified in the northeast section of the well field. Well pads 1 and 2 and associated 

access roads would permanently remove 5.9 acres of suitable prickly poppy habitat, with 

associated pipelines temporarily disturbing 10.8 acres.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-14

Desalination Facilities

Vegetation in the area where the desalination facilities would be located is typical of the 

Chihuahuan desert scrub/grassland classification in New Mexico (Dick-Peddie 1993; Brown 

1994) with some species more representative of disturbed desert habitat. Native plants observed 

during the field visit included alkali sacaton, silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium), 

Fendler’s globemallow (Sphaeralcea fendleri), green prairie coneflower (Ratibida tagetes), 

Chinese thorn-apple (Datura ferox), feather fingergrass (Chloris virgata), carelessweed 

(Amaranthus palmeri), James’ holdback (Pomaria jamesii), lyreleaf greeneyes (Berlandiera 

lyrata), fourwing saltbush, honey mesquite, broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), plains 

pricklypear (Opuntia polyacantha), tree cholla (Cylindropuntia imbricata), and winterfat 

(Krascheninnikovia lanata). Non-native plants seen during the survey were Russian thistle, 

Russian knapweed, salt cedar, common sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), and jimsonweed

(Datura stramonium). These latter species and carelessweed can be weedy or invasive and are 

usually found in recently disturbed areas (NRCS 2009).

Main Delivery Pipeline

The total distance of the main delivery pipeline is 23.8 miles from the Snake Tank well field to 

the desalination facility site. With a disturbance right-of-way width of 10 feet for the pipeline 

and an additional 10 feet for the access road, the total area disturbed by this pipeline would be 

approximately 58 acres. For the pipeline and access road on the main delivery pipeline the 

percentages of projected area of disturbance per habitat type are: 0.0004 percent short-term and 

0.0004 percent long-term, Chihuahuan Creosotebush, Mixed Desert and Thorn Scrub; 0.0003 

percent short-term and 0.0003 percent long-term, Apacherian-Chihuahuan Piedmont SemiDesert Grassland and Steppe; and 0.0003 percent short-term and 0.0003 percent long-term, 

North American Warm Desert Playa.

Acreages of other habitat types that comprised a minimum of 1 acre and will be disturbed by the 

main delivery pipeline are listed below:

• Agriculture – 1.1 acres short-term for the pipeline, 1.1 acres long-term for the access 

roads.

• Developed, Medium–High Intensity – 2.1 acres short-term for the pipeline, 2.1 acres 

long-term for the access roads.

• Developed, Open Space–Low Intensity – 2.4 acres short-term for the pipeline, 2.4 acres 

long-term for the access roads.

The majority of the disturbance associated with the route planned for the main delivery pipeline 

for Alternative B occurs within the previously disturbed right-of-way for U.S. 54. However, a 

conservative approach was taken, and the total number of acres of pre-disturbance habitat was 

used for the entire corridor.

Effects on vegetation from Alternative B include the reduction in grazing land and the control 

and spread of noxious weeds. Within the main delivery pipeline right-of-way, eight noxious 

weed species were observed during surveys:
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-15

• African rue (a Class B Weed)

• Camelthorn (a Class A Weed)

• Field bindweed (a Class C Weed)

• Malta starthistle (a Class B Weed)

• Perennial pepperweed (a Class A Weed)

• Russian knapweed (a Class B Weed)

• Saltcedar (a Class C Weed)

• Siberian elm (a Class C Weed)

It is likely that previous disturbance to this corridor from installation of U.S. 54 and the Union 

Pacific Railroad have contributed to an increase in the number of noxious weed species in this 

area. Further disturbance related to installation of the main delivery pipeline under Alternative B 

may encourage the spread of noxious weeds due to the increased exposed soil combined with the 

possible transport of seed by heavy machinery traveling along the pipeline route.

Riparian Vegetation

Riparian vegetation associated with spring ecosystems are highly sensitive to change or 

disturbance, but their distribution is very limited in the Tularosa Basin. In addition, these 

systems have a unique assemblage of plant species that do not occur elsewhere in the 

Chihuahuan Desert.

Two listed plant species have the potential to occur in local spring riparian habitat:

• Wright’s marsh thistle – New Mexico endangered, USFWS species of concern. Occurs 

in Otero County in wet, alkaline soils in spring seeps and on marshy edges of streams and 

ponds at elevations of 3,450-8,500 feet.

• Chapline’s columbine – New Mexico sensitive, USFWS species of concern. Occurs in 

Otero County in limestone seeps and springs in montane scrub or riparian canyon 

bottoms at elevations of 4,700-5,500 feet.

Changes in water flow could potentially have short- and long-term impacts to riparian vegetation

associated with springs. Pumping groundwater from basin-fill at the Snake Tank well field 

would not have direct or indirect effects on the flow of springs since they originate as 

groundwater discharge from topographic breaks in the geologic formations that make up the 

Sacramento Mountains, such as the San Andres Formation and the underlying Yeso Formation. 

Shomaker (2006) suggests that the location of springs is primarily governed by the presence of 

impermeable beds within the Yeso Formation. Pumping from the Snake Tank well field would 

not influence the flow of water at these springs because of the subsurface barrier that exists 

between the low-permeability geologic units and the basin fill (Shomaker 2006). Consequently, 

Alternative B would not affect spring flows, and therefore would have no indirect, direct, or 

cumulative impacts on riparian vegetation.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-16

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

Under this alternative, no new facilities would be constructed and no modifications to water 

sources would be necessary. Therefore, no livestock foraging habitat would be removed and 

there would be no changes to existing livestock leases.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

The construction of the well field, pipelines, and associated roads would result in the loss of 

approximately 120 acres of available livestock forage area, which represents 2.9 percent of the 

total allotment. This assumes that revegetation of those areas not in continual use will be slow in 

the semiarid climate. In the semi-desert grassland, an average of 128 acres of forage are needed 

to support one cow, therefore Alternative B would have a very minimal impact on the grazing 

allotment and would not require an adjustment to the grazing permit.

Installation of the main delivery pipeline with associated clearing of access roads will affect 

approximately 246 acres, representing a 6 percent loss in livestock foraging habitat. However, 

less than 1 mile (0.98 percent) of the land that occurs along the projected right-of-way is owned 

by the BLM, and most of this land has been previously disturbed and may contain little forage 

value.

Grazing allotments have the potential to be affected by water extraction in the well field under 

this alternative. Stocking rates for allotments are tied to base waters, which are defined as water 

that is suitable for consumption by livestock and is available and accessible to the authorized 

livestock when the public land is used for grazing. Potential drawdown of the water table from 

the extraction wells in the Snake Tank well field could reduce water availability for base waters. 

If base waters become unusable by livestock, the permittee would be given the opportunity to 

provide and apply for an alternative base water source.

WILDLIFE

ANALYSIS METHOD

Field surveys were conducted in 2004, 2005, and 2009 to document wildlife species and 

potential habitat. Agency lists and available literature were obtained and reviewed to establish 

which sensitive wildlife species were likely to occur in the area. Data obtained from the USFWS 

and the NM Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) provided information on the habitat 

requirements for these species to create a baseline against which to measure the level of effect 

from each alternative.

Indicators used to measure the level of effect include the area in acres of suitable habitat 

available to wildlife species, the numbers of individual wildlife species present or with the 

potential to occur in the study area, and the presence of special status wildlife species. The 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-17

presence of a wildlife species is directly influenced by the size and quality of available habitat. 

This relationship is the primary focus for identifying issues under each alternative that have the 

potential to affect wildlife. Because of the transient habit of some wildlife, particularly 

migratory birds and larger mammals, potential impacts to local populations would vary 

considerably depending on the timing and degree of preferred habitat disturbance.

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

The No Action Alternative would not affect special status wildlife species or wildlife habitat 

because no new facilities would be constructed and no new water resources would be developed. 

There would be no disturbance of or change to special status wildlife species and no loss or 

modification of wildlife habitat. No short- or long-term direct or indirect impacts would occur 

within the study area.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

Approximately 69.5 acres of mixed habitat would be permanently lost by construction of 

aboveground facilities, roads, and well pads under Alternative B. Approximately 111 additional 

acres of habitat would be temporarily unavailable for use by wildlife during pipeline installation.

Well Field

Under this alternative, wildlife habitat loss due to construction of the wells and the 

interconnecting pipelines would occur in the Chihuahuan Creosotebush, Semi-Desert Grassland, 

and Desert Playa habitats that exist in the study area. There is the potential for sensitive wildlife 

to occur in these habitat types within the well field. In particular, the mottled rock rattlesnake 

(Crotalus lepidus lepidus) could occur in the eastern half near wells 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8, and a 

loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) was observed near one of the project well field pipelines 

during field surveys. Also, the mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) typically uses Desert 

Playa habitat.

Constructing well pads would directly impact 20 acres of mixed habitat in the long-term, with 

pipeline rights-of-way having short-term direct impacts on approximately 57 acres. Permanent 

access roads within the right-of-way would have long-term impacts, affecting 10.5 acres of 

mixed habitat. Direct and indirect long-term effects on suitable wildlife habitat in the well field 

for Alternative B would be approximately 30 acres, which equates to removing 0.02 percent of 

the total available habitat within a 5-mile radius of the well field. Watering systems such as 

pipelines that are tied to wells are required by the BLM to be available for wildlife year-round. 

Drawdown could cause water to become unavailable causing displacement of wildlife or 

mortality in the case of less mobile local species.

Groundwater pumping at the Snake Tank well field would not impact springs inhabited by the 

White Sands pupfish or streams that supply inhabited springs. Models used to predict direction 

of groundwater flow and groundwater salinity after 40 years of pumping show no reversal of the 

groundwater gradient, or salinity migration in the area along the WSMR boundary, west of the 

well field. Model results show that groundwater pumping would have to be much greater to 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-18

change the groundwater or salinity gradient. The absence of any change in groundwater flow 

patterns west of the WSMR boundary suggests that pumping at the Snake Tank well field would 

not produce any short- or long-term impacts on springs or streams to the west that contain or 

support to White Sands pupfish habitat (Figure 4-5).

Indirect and long-term impacts may occur to other springs within the Tularosa Basin not 

designated as habitat for the White Sands pupfish. Approximately nine surface springs occur in 

the study area for the Snake Tank well field drawdown area. Shomaker (2006) has predicted that 

spring flows would not be affected by the groundwater pumping, suggesting that there would be 

no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts in the short- or long-term to riparian habitat available 

to wildlife at these springs. However, spring ecosystems are highly sensitive to change or 

disturbance; therefore, the effects of this alternative on wildlife would be difficult to quantify 

until operation of the well field is initiated.

Pipeline 

Construction of the main delivery pipeline for Alternative B would impact minimal Chihuahuan 

Creosotebush, Semi-Desert Grassland, and Desert Playa habitats. Wildlife associated with these 

habitat types have the potential to occur along the pipeline, but most of the route would be 

located in previously disturbed transportation corridor rights-of-way for U.S. 54 and the UPRR, 

and very little of the original native habitat remains.

The right-of-way for the main delivery pipeline would temporarily disturb approximately 29 

acres of potential wildlife habitat. Additional access roads within the right-of-way would 

permanently remove 29 acres of mixed habitat within a previously disturbed area. Long-term 

effects to wildlife along the main delivery pipeline for Alternative B would result in removing 

approximately 0.002 percent of the total available habitat within a 5-mile radius of the main 

delivery pipeline. Some direct mortality of less mobile wildlife species could occur during the 

excavation and construction phases of the project. Most wildlife species will disburse from the 

area during the disturbance associated with the project activities, and minimal mortality can be 

expected.

The northern aplomado falcon, a Federally-listed endangered species, and the ferruginous hawk, 

a BLM sensitive species have the potential to occur along the right-of-way for the main pipeline. 

Temporary displacement of these species may occur during the construction of the pipeline, but 

no direct or indirect short- or long-term impacts to either species are expected. Potential impacts 

to these species from the main delivery pipeline are the same as for the well field as described 

above. Neither species was observed during the field survey.

4.2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section describes the anticipated environmental consequences on cultural resources, 

including historic and prehistoric properties and archaeological sites. The analysis is based on 

the cultural resources described in Section 3.3.5.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-19

Figure 4-5. Predicted drawdown from JSAI model and habitat for White Sands pupfish.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-20

ANALYSIS METHOD

Impacts to cultural resources were evaluated based on the extent of known historic properties and 

archeological sites in the area of potential effect. Resources eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) were given higher priority during the analysis because of 

their importance for providing information about the history and prehistory of the AlamogordoTularosa region. Substantial, long-term adverse effects would occur if any property eligible for 

listing on the NRHP is adversely affected. The potential for buried, unknown cultural resources

was also considered during the analysis.

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no construction or operation of new water 

extraction wells or a pipeline distribution system. This alternative would not involve grounddisturbing activities, thus adverse impacts to cultural resources would not occur.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

Under this alternative, two known historical properties—LA 86735 and LA 150031—both 

recommended and now determined eligible for listing on the NRHP may be adversely affected 

by ground disturbance from project construction activities. One site would be affected by 

construction of an access road in the Snake Tank well field and the other would be affected by 

construction of the main pipeline between the desalination plant and Alamogordo. Adverse 

impacts to either of these sites would be substantial and long term.

4.2.6 INDIAN TRUST ASSETS (ITAs)

ITAs are defined as Indian real estate property, physical assets, and/or intangible property rights. 

There are no known ITAs within the study area and therefore, there would be no impacts to ITAs 

by either of the alternatives.

4.2.7 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

This section describes the anticipated environmental consequences on socioeconomic resources, 

including population, economics, and agricultural productivity. The analysis is based on the 

socioeconomic resources described in Section 3.3.7.

ANALYSIS METHOD

The analysis of impacts on socioeconomic resources was focused on the loss of farmland due to 

a change in water rights allocation and potential growth-inducing effects. Direct, long-term 

adverse effects were also evaluated in terms of the direct conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses due to construction activities associated with groundwater wells, pipelines, and 

treatment facilities. Impacts are reported in 2005 dollars, unless otherwise noted.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-21

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

Under the No Action Alternative, the City would not construct or operate a new well field, 

desalination facility, or pipelines, nor would it or purchase or lease water rights.

CROP PRODUCTION

Agricultural fields using water rights for irrigation would remain in production, and no land 

would be fallowed. Therefore, crop production would not be affected by this alternative. In 

addition, this alternative does not include facilities or new construction, and the City would not 

incur costs for construction of these facilities.

REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Based on projected population growth through the year 2045, the demand for municipal water 

would increase while the City’s ability to supply water to users would remain fixed. The 

expected demand for the City by the year 2045 is 10,842 afy (see Chapter 1 for details). An 

increase in demand without change in supply would likely cause a rise in the rate charged to 

water users per unit of water. Rate increases for water would likely have an indirect, long-term, 

adverse impact on the composition of goods and services purchased by households and 

businesses throughout the area. Increased water rates could reduce future commercial and 

industrial activity in the region, reducing commercial and industrial business and causing an 

indirect, long-term, adverse impact to the region’s economy.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

The amount of water rights purchased or leased under this alternative would be 198 afy.

CROP PRODUCTION

The purchase and lease of up to 198 afy of water rights under Alternative B could fallow up to 

approximately 733 acres of agricultural land, based on the consumptive irrigation requirement of 

2.5 afy/ac. Therefore, of the 6,345 acres of irrigated agricultural land in the Tularosa Basin, 

about 11.5 percent would be fallowed by implementation of this alternative.

REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Farm employment in 2004 in Otero County accounted for 0.4 percent of total earnings in Otero 

County and about 1 percent of total earnings in Lincoln County (BBER 2005b). Therefore, 

assuming that earnings in both counties were generated only within the Tularosa Basin, 

fallowing 10 percent of lands used for irrigated agriculture would affect 0.04 percent of total 

earnings in Otero County and 0.01 percent of total earnings in Lincoln County.

In 2005, water was valued at $1,300 per acre-foot for purchasing the water right in perpetuity 

and $160 per acre-foot for a one-year lease. These values are based on purchase prices paid by 

Reclamation in 2005 for other water projects.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-22

To identify potential impacts, three scenarios are considered: 1) all rights are purchased; 2) an 

equal number of rights are purchased and leased; and 3) all rights are leased.

If water rights to divert up to 198 afy are purchased, the regional economy would benefit from 

$257,400 in City spending. If equal numbers of water rights are purchased and leased to reach 

the goal of up to 198 afy, the regional economy would benefit from $144,550 in City spending. 

In contrast, the regional economy would benefit $31,680 annually in City spending if all 198 afy 

are leased under this alternative (Table 4-2).

TABLE 4-2. RANGE OF COSTS FOR WATER RIGHTS ACQUISITION UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

ACQUISITION TYPE AMOUNT 

(AFY)

SCENARIO 1

(PURCHASE 

ALL)

SCENARIO 2

(PURCHASE/LEASE)

SCENARIO 3

(LEASE ALL)

Purchase 198 $257,400 – –

Purchase 99 – $,128,700 –

Lease (annually) 99 – $15,840 –

Lease (annually) 198 – – $31,680

Total Expenditure $257,400 $144,540 $31,680

4.2.8 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

This section describes the anticipated environmental consequences on environmental justice. 

The analysis is based on the environmental justice conditions described in Section 3.3.8.

ANALYSIS METHOD

Environmental justice indices and maps for EPA Region 6 were obtained as a basis for 

determining potential effects on minority and low-income populations. Five plots were derived 

to cover the entire study area within a radius of 5 miles of facilities, and numbers were provided 

for these plots for both 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census figures.

All of the numbers provided for the 2000 U.S. Census are in the lower categories for each item, 

due in part to a relatively low population overall in the study area. Both the Minority Ranking 

and the Economic Ranking are based on a number scale between 1 and 5, with 1 the lowest (less 

than or equal to the New Mexico state percentage for minorities) and 5 the highest (greater than 

or equal to two times the state percentage). The EJ Index is a value based on a formula that takes 

into account both population and the minority and economic rankings. The lowest range of 

values for the index is between 1 and 12 (Low Vulnerability).

The EPA typically produces environmental justice maps that project the data for minorities and 

income for a 50-square-mile area (5-mile-radius circle) centered on a given map coordinate or 

point. Linear projects require a different approach, with the number of map coordinates for the 

centers of the survey circles dependent on the length of the alignment. For this EIS, five map 

coordinates were plotted for each center point to cover all of the facilities in the study area and 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-23

accurately portray the environmental justice parameters. EJ Indices were represented on the 

EPA maps for the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Censuses in Otero County.

The environmental justice value is used as a demographic correlation variable to measure 

sociological equity for permitting. The information given in the EPA environmental justice

report does not represent the final analysis of a site in regard to environmental justice. Rather, 

the indices and raw data reported are indicators of vulnerability to other stressors for subgroups 

of people. Construction sites and operation impacts for each alternative were then compared to 

the presence of minority and low-income populations in the study area.

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

Under the No Action Alternative, water availability may be severely limited. This could 

potentially lead to an increase in housing costs, both purchase and rental, as the construction of 

new homes declines but demand stays the same or increases slightly. The majority of workers in 

the service industry are in lower income brackets, and many could be faced with the scenario of 

not being able to afford housing in the region. Low-income residents in general might leave the 

area to find affordable housing. In addition, construction and service industry jobs may be lost 

because of the lack of development and decrease in tourism.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

Implementation of Alternative B is not expected to incur disproportionate impacts to minorities 

in the study area. Minority vulnerability was in the lowest category (1, less than or equal to the 

state percentage) for all five EPA survey points in the 2000 U.S. Census year. This implies that 

the study area has a low minority ranking and that impacts to persons would be the same for all 

regardless of race.

Alternative B is not expected to incur disproportionate impacts to low-income groups in the 

study area. Low-income vulnerability was slightly higher than the lowest category, at level 2 

(less than or equal to 1.33 times the state percentage), the average value across all five EPA 

survey points in the 2000 U.S. Census year. Site 5 has an extremely low population within a

5-mile radius, with 5 persons living close to the well field in 2000. A low population with 

50 percent considered low income contributes to an abnormally high economic vulnerability

(4, between 1.66 and 1.99 times the state percentage) for this particular site. Impacts from this 

alternative in the entire study area should be the same for all persons regardless of economic 

status.

The EJ Index provides a numerical basis from which to measure and analyze potential impacts to 

the local minority and low income populations in the study area under Alternative B. As shown 

in Table 4-3, EJ Index values from the 2000 U.S. Census for all five survey points in the study 

area were in the lowest bracket. The numbers for the index range from 0 to 100, with the lowest 

bracket of values between 1 and 12 (Low Vulnerability). The highest EJ Index recorded for this 

alternative was a value of 4 in the year 2000.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-24

TABLE 4-3. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE INDEX VALUES FOR THE STUDY AREA

EPA 

SURVEY 

POINT

MINORITY 

RANKING BY U.S. 

CENSUS YEAR

ECONOMIC 

RANKING BY U.S. 

CENSUS YEAR

POTENTIAL EJ 

INDEX BY U.S. 

CENSUS YEAR

POPULATION 

VULNERABILITY,

2000 CENSUS

1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000

Site 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 Low Vulnerability

Site 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 Low Vulnerability

Site 3 2 1 3 2 6 2 Low Vulnerability

Site 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 Low Vulnerability

Site 5 1 1 1 4 1 4 Low Vulnerability

These findings indicate that Alternative B would have no potential for disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects to minority and low-income populations in 

the study area.

In compliance with Executive Order 12898, Alternative B would avoid disproportionate high and 

adverse impacts on minority and low-income population groups. Construction and operation 

activities for this alternative are not expected to disproportionately impact minorities or other 

special population groups, and no residences or businesses would be relocated. Alternative B 

would not result in displacement of people and is consistent with the EPA’s environmental 

justice policy. In addition, a notice was posted in appropriate media outlets in the study area 

announcing a public scoping meeting to give local populations an opportunity to provide 

comments on and become involved in the NEPA process.

The purchase or lease of water rights under Alternative B would have no effect on environmental 

justice. Sellers or lessors of water rights would act voluntarily to sell or lease their holdings, 

regardless of minority or low-income status. The City would not selectively choose rights that 

could disproportionately affect these groups.

4.2.9 LAND USE 

This section describes the anticipated environmental consequences on land use and ownership. 

The analysis is based on the land uses described in Section 3.3.9.

ANALYSIS METHOD

Field surveys were conducted to establish current land use conditions. Land Ownership/Use 

maps were generated using digital land ownership data downloaded from the BLM New Mexico 

website (BLM 2004c) and local land use information from Anderson et al. (1976), USGS (1990), 

and NRCS (2005). The maps and data provided a regional baseline land characterization from 

which to measure the level of effect following implementation of the alternatives. These effects 

were addressed by determining the potential for a reduction or a decrease in quality of an 

existing use or a change in or lack of compatibility with local land management objectives.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-25

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

The No Action Alternative would not affect land use or ownership in the study area. The 

pipeline corridors would continue to be used for the existing infrastructure, utilities, and 

transportation rights-of-way. Current land uses under the management of the BLM, State trust 

land, the NM Department of Transportation, Otero County, the Village of Tularosa, and private 

parties would not be affected.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

Construction and operation of the facilities proposed under Alternative B are not expected to 

incur significant changes in current land use activities in the study area. The groundwater wells 

would be located on pasture currently used for grazing and shrubland/rangeland, and the 

desalination facility will be built adjacent to the Research Facility in an area that has already 

been partially disturbed. The main delivery pipeline would be located in previously disturbed 

transportation rights-of-way, with no change in land use. 

Construction of the groundwater production facilities would result in a minor impact to or 

change in land use activities in the study area and would be compatible with land management 

objectives of Federal and state agencies. Approximately 10 acres would be permanently altered 

to improve infrastructure consisting of the desalination plant (Table 4-4). The small area 

impacted permanently by this alternative would not cause a substantial shift in the regional land 

use.

During construction, impacts on sensitive land uses could result from fugitive dust from grounddisturbing activities. The nearest receptors would be in or north of Tularosa. Fugitive dust from 

construction of the main distribution pipeline would not interfere with any land use, assuming 

dust generation would be limited by dust suppression measures during construction.

The purchase or lease of water rights would have no effect on land use under Alternative B. 

Sellers or lessors of water rights would act voluntarily to sell or lease their holdings, and these 

actions would be independent of land use, ownership, and zoning. Use of lands owned by those 

property owners that participate in the purchase or lease of water rights might shift from 

agriculture to less water dependent uses.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-26

TABLE 4-4. LAND USES AFFECTED BY FACILITY CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT 

SEGMENT LAND USE TYPE

ACRES IN STUDY 

AREA

ACRES 

DISTURBED 

(TEMPORARY)*

ACRES 

DISTURBED 

(PERMANENT)**

Desalination Site 

Facility

Disturbed shrub and brush 

rangeland

99.0 25.0 10.0

Extraction Well 

Field Pads

Mixed rangeland 34.31 (based on ~5.5-acre 

buffers)

34.31 12.0 (based on ~2.0-

acre finished pad) 6.3 

for access roads

Shrub and brush rangeland 22.84 (based on ~5.5-acre 

buffers)

22.84 8.0 (based on ~2.0-

acre finished pad) 4.2 

for access roads

Extraction Well 

Field Pipelines

Mixed rangeland 15.5 15.5 None likely***

Shrub and brush rangeland 37.15 37.15 None likely***

Main Pipeline 

(Snake Tank 

Road to 

Alamogordo)

Mixed rangeland 17.39 17.39 4.5 from new roads

Shrub and brush rangeland 49.27 49.27 12.7 acres from new 

roads

Cropland and pasture 43.51 43.51 11.8 from new roads

Residential 1.21 1.21 None likely

TOTALS 320.18 246.18 69.5

NOTES: *Assumes a 50-foot right-of-way multiplied by segment length and converted to acres.

 **Based on 10 foot right-of-way disturbance for pipeline and new roads 

 ***Assumes that following pipeline placement and reclamation efforts, the surface will recover within a reasonable amount of time to 

pre-construction conditions and that permanent disturbance is highly unlikely. In addition, most of these pipeline segments are within 

previously disturbed rights-of-way that no longer exhibit characteristics of the original environment.

4.2.10 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

This section describes the anticipated environmental consequences on energy resources, 

including electricity and natural gas. The analysis is based on the energy resources described in 

Section 3.3.10.

ANALYSIS METHOD

This analysis was based on the ability of service providers in the Alamogordo-Tularosa region to 

supply electricity and natural gas to the facilities.

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

ELECTRICAL SERVICES AND DISTRIBUTION

The No Action Alternative would not affect electrical services and distribution because no new 

facilities requiring electricity would be constructed. There would be no change to current 

electricity availability, and any loss or modification of electrical services and distribution. No 

direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts in either the short- or long-term would occur within the 

study area under Alternative A.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-27

GAS SERVICES AND DISTRIBUTION

The No Action Alternative would not affect natural gas services and distribution because no new 

facilities requiring gas would be constructed. There would be no change to current gas 

availability and any loss or modification of gas services and distribution. No direct, indirect, or 

cumulative impacts in either the short- or long-term would occur within the study area under 

Alternative A.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

ELECTRICAL SERVICES AND DISTRIBUTION

Electricity would be required for the desalination facility and groundwater wells. There would 

be a long-term increase in demand for electrical service in the region. Independent of whether 

the project facilities are built, Public Service Company of New Mexico plans to upgrade service 

availability in the Tularosa Basin to support a projected increase in demand.

Under Alternative B, electricity would be required for the pumps at each of the 10 well heads 

proposed at the Snake Tank well field. The pumps would likely have a periodic load, meaning 

the pumps would turn on and off in cycles depending on desalination facility capacity and 

storage.

Of the improvements affiliated with Alternative B, the electricity requirements would be greatest 

at the desalination facility. Electricity would be required to run the Reverse Osmosis filter 

system, lights, and other equipment in the facility buildings. Electricity would also be needed to 

run the pumps that transfer the treated water to a storage tank and through the main delivery 

pipeline, and transfer untreated concentrate to a deep-well injection site. Electric distribution 

lines already exist along U.S. 54, therefore only a short secondary line will need to be extended 

to the facility.

GAS SERVICES AND DISTRIBUTION

The buildings at the desalination facility would require gas service for space heating. It is 

estimated 4.6 million cubic feet of natural gas a year would be required to heat the buildings. 

Gas distribution lines extend the existing research facility; therefore, only a short pipeline 

extension would be required to reach the desalination plant. Gas requirements and impacts are 

discussed in more detail in section 4.2.12, Air Quality.

Impacts to gas services would be direct and long-term due to an increase in demand not expected 

to exceed current gas availability. There would be no direct impacts to gas distribution in the 

short- or long-term and no indirect or cumulative impacts in the short- or long-term within the 

study area for gas services and distribution under Alternative B.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-28

4.2.11 TRANSPORTATION

This section describes the anticipated environmental consequences to transportation, including 

roadways and railroads. The analysis is based on the roadway, traffic, and railroad information 

described in Section 3.3.11.

ANALYSIS METHOD

Potential effects to transportation were addressed by determining the significance of impacts and 

subsequent change to the Level of Service (LOS) for any roadway in the study area. Effects to 

the LOS rating for roadways are reported as Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), or the total 

number of vehicles per day averaged over an entire year. An increase in AADT could have an 

impact on the LOS for the roadway in question.

AADT information was obtained from a traffic-flow map for Otero County available at the 

NMDOT website (NMDOT 2004). Roadway LOS data were obtained from the Transportation 

Research Board (1994) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (2004b). Volume (vehicles per 

hour) for a typical two-lane highway similar to U.S. 54 was provided by Global Security (2005). 

A decrease in the transportation LOS rating was used to identify impacts to transportation within 

the study area. The maps and data provided a baseline for transportation characteristics in the 

region from which to measure the intensity of effects on transportation following implementation 

of a given alternative.

The analysis used the AADT, which provided the estimated vehicles per hour, to compare the 

vehicles per hour to the roadway capacity and produce the volume to capacity ratios, which were 

then used to select the appropriate LOS.

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION 

Under the No Action Alternative, transportation conditions would not be changed by 

construction and operation of a desalination facility and associated infrastructure. There would 

be no difference in the LOS rating for roadways in the study area.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

Construction and operation of facilities under Alternative B have the potential to increase 

vehicular traffic, primarily along U.S. 54 and U.S. 54/70, in the form of heavy equipment for 

construction and private passenger vehicles belonging to construction and operation workers. 

The majority of the traffic is assumed to consist of vehicles coming from and going to the 

southern, more populated areas in the study area, including Tularosa and Alamogordo.

During construction, there would be up to 12 round trips per day to the well field and main 

delivery pipeline by a mixture of private vehicles and contractor-owned light and heavy trucks. 

The well field would require more intensive installation activities than the main delivery pipeline 

and thus would experience a heavier volume of traffic. The main delivery pipeline would be 

installed in short segments, so that activities affecting transportation would be sporadic and less 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-29

intense than those for the other project activities. The desalination facility is located within the 

City limits and would see an increase in vehicular volume during construction and operating 

activities.

Alternative B operation-related traffic is projected to include approximately four round trips per 

day by private vehicles to the desalination facility. Incidental trips would occur on an occasional 

basis for maintenance activities in the well field and for deliveries of chemicals used for 

operation of the desalination facility. Round-trip traffic for both maintenance in the well field 

and deliveries to the facility is expected to average about one trip a week.

Access to all of the facilities for this alternative would be off of U.S. 54, U.S. 54/70, and the 

Relief Route, for the most part using existing transportation corridors or access roads.

ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE 

Implementation of Alternative B is not expected to cause a decrease in the LOS for 

transportation in the region. Even with the greatest amount of traffic projected for any given 

time or activity under this alternative, most likely the construction of the desalination facility and 

the well field, it is highly unlikely that the activities would cause a decrease in the LOS for 

roadways in the study area. Table 4-5 summarizes the results of the LOS impact analysis.

TABLE 4-5. TRANSPORTATION EFFECTS ON LOS UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

ROADWAY

CAPACITY 

(VEHICLES PER 

HOUR)

TRAFFIC IN 

2004*

(VEHICLES PER 

DAY)

VOLUME**

(VEHICLES PER 

HOUR)

VOLUME-TOCAPACITY 

RATIO LOS

Existing Conditions (before Alternative B)

U.S. 54 95.3 2,287 1504.5 0.06 A

U.S. 54/U.S. 

70 corridor 578.0 13,875 1504.5 0.38 C

Conditions after Alternative B***

U.S. 54 95.3 2,304 1504.5 0.06 A

U.S. 54/U.S. 

70 corridor 578.0 13,892 1504.5 0.38 C

NOTES: *NMDOT 2004. 

 **Global Security 2005.

 ***With added traffic after Alternative B. Estimates are conservative, adding both construction and 

operation traffic. Approximately 17 additional vehicles per day were anticipated under Alternative B.

This construction and operation of facilities under this alternative are not expected to decrease 

the LOS for roadways in the study area. The volume-to-capacity ratio for traffic and the LOS 

would remain the same. Therefore, no effect on transportation in the study area under 

Alternative B is expected.

Construction plans indicate that it should be possible to maintain travel lanes on adjacent roads 

during pipeline installation. Although access to driveways of local businesses and residences 

from the travel lanes may be disturbed during construction of the main delivery pipeline, access 

should not be severely affected. Access points and drivers’ ability to make turning movements 

on and off the highway should also be unaffected during construction. Traffic control measures 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-30

would be implemented to help with disturbance to vehicular flow during Alternative B 

construction activities. Following completion, public access along the right-of-way would 

remain at the same level as it was prior to construction.

Some of the chemicals used in the desalination process are considered hazardous materials and 

would be transported to the facility site via main roads. The number of current hazardous cargo 

trips on this route is unknown, but given the relatively low traffic volume, truck traffic would not 

appreciably increase the risk of accidents along this route. If an accident occurred, existing 

response procedures are in place to handle any associated release of hazardous materials. 

Accidents involving vehicles carrying hazardous cargo typically release small (a few gallons or 

less) volumes of hazardous materials (U.S. Department of Transportation Summary Statistics 

and Data 2005), and impacts on nearby residences and commercial establishments would likely 

be temporarily impacted should an accident occur.

RAILWAYS

The UPRR would not be affected by this alternative. The main delivery pipeline would use part 

of the existing railway rights-of-way, and access roads adjacent to the railroad. Construction of 

the pipeline would be short-term in duration, and would not affect railway operations.

4.2.12 AIR QUALITY

This section describes the anticipated environmental consequences on air quality. The analysis is 

based on the air quality conditions described in Section 3.3.12.

ANALYSIS METHOD

Existing data were used to assess current trends of air quality in the study area, and National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and information concerning attainment status and 

criteria pollutants were obtained from the EPA. The Clean Air Act was also reviewed for 

information concerning attainment and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I 

areas. In addition, non-attainment area information was obtained from the EPA “Green Book,” 

(EPA 2008). The NMED Air Quality Bureau maintains attainment status for areas in the state in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act, and this information was reviewed as well. These data 

provided a baseline for air quality issues in the region from which to measure the significance of 

effect on air quality following implementation of the alternatives. 

Indicators used to measure the level of effect on air quality within the study area were based on 

pollutant concentrations, usually defined as criteria pollutants, from the NAAQS. Potential 

impacts to air quality were assessed by comparing standards established by the EPA (NAAQS) 

with estimated concentrations of air pollutant emissions, called criteria pollutants that would be 

generated by construction and operation activities. Air quality impacts would be considered 

significant if they:

• Increase criteria pollutants concentrations above NAAQS;

• Contribute to an existing violation of any NAAQS;
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-31

• Delay timely attainment of NAAQS; or

• Impair visibility within any federally mandated PSD Class I area.

In non-attainment or maintenance areas, air quality impacts would be considered potentially 

significant (require a conformity analysis) if they exceed 100 tons per year of CO, O3 precursors, 

VOCs and NO2, or PM10. According to the EPA General Conformity Rule, 40 CFR Part 51, 

Subpart W, any proposed federal action that has the potential to impact air quality in a nonattainment area must undergo a conformity analysis. A conformity analysis is not required for 

pollutants for which a region is designated as attainment. Otero County and the entire study area 

are in attainment, as discussed in Chapter 3.

Section 169A of the Clean Air Act established the PSD regulations to protect air quality in 

regions that already meet NAAQS. Certain national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas 

have been designated as PSD Class I areas, where appreciable deterioration in air quality is 

considered significant.

In attainment areas, PSD rules define a stationary source as “major” if annual emissions exceed 

250 tons per year of VOCs, NO2, CO, SO2, or PM10. The project includes mobile (nonpermitted) emission sources or vehicles, which are conservatively included in the PSD rules 

defined for stationary sources and the non-attainment area thresholds as well. This means that 

vehicle emissions have been compared to the 100 tons per year and 250 tons per year minimum 

thresholds for criteria pollutants, even though they are not defined as stationary sources and are 

not located in non-attainment or maintenance areas. 

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION 

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction emissions and no change in operational 

emissions would occur.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

A number of possible sources of pollutants that could impact air quality would be associated 

with the installation and operation of facilities for Alternative B. Emissions from combustion 

engines that may impact local air quality include engine exhaust from construction equipment, 

from private vehicles for worker transport, from heating for the desalination facility and from 

maintenance and delivery and removal of concentrate from a variety of vehicles during operation 

of the facilities.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-32

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Construction activities under Alternative B would produce short-term combustion and fugitive 

dust emissions that would cease once construction is completed. Emissions from construction 

activities would include exhaust emissions from heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozers, trucks) and 

fugitive dust emissions from excavation and grading activities.

Fugitive dust would be a concern during construction. Ground disturbance resulting from 

Alternative B installation activities would release fugitive dust into the air, especially when 

vegetation is removed and bare soil is exposed to the wind. The nearest receptors would be in or 

north of Tularosa. Fugitive dust from construction of the main delivery pipeline and disturbance 

to soils would have a direct, short-term, adverse impact on air quality, assuming implementation 

of dust suppression measures during construction.

For the purposes of this alternative, it is assumed that all construction activities would occur over 

a period of one year, although actual construction is expected to take less time. It is also 

assumed that the size of the desalination facility would be approximately 12,000 square feet (a 

little over 0.25 acre) on the site, including the Reverse Osmosis process/administration building, 

a delivery area, a chemical storage building, and a clear well and finished water transfer pump 

station. Facility infrastructure, including grading the building sites, grading and paving the 

parking lot at the Reverse Osmosis building would also be included.

Emissions of CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and VOCs from construction activities were calculated using 

emission factors for grading and general industrial construction from the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (1993) California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. 

These emissions include exhaust from on-site construction equipment as well as fugitive dust 

emissions from grading activities (Table 4-6).

TABLE 4-6. ESTIMATED ANNUAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

SOURCE

EMISSIONS (TONS/YEAR) BY CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT

CO SO2 NO2 PM10 VOCS

CONSTRUCTION

Buildings 2.4 – 10.9 0.8 0.7

Grading for Buildings, 

Parking Lot 1.46 0.3 3.44 5.34 0.29

Paving Parking Lot 0.107 0.0064 0.138 0.01 0.026

Pipelines 22.47 – 103.31 7.34 7.03

Commuting, Personal 

Vehicles 3.217 0.001 0.26 0.012 0.44

Construction Subtotal 29.654 0.3074 118.048 13.502 8.486

OPERATIONS

Heating for RO Facility 0.05 0.01 0.23 0.0003 0.007

Concentrate Removal 2.102 0.455 3.864 0.329 0.117

Commuting, Personal 

Vehicles 1.062 0.0003 0.086 0.004 0.145

Operations Subtotal 3.214 0.4653 4.18 0.3333 0.269

TOTAL EMISSIONS 32.868 0.7727 122.228 13.8353 8.755
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-33

It is assumed that 12 full-time employees would be working at the site during the construction of 

the desalination facility. The potential increase in emissions from vehicles used by construction 

personnel commuting to and from the site have been calculated using emission factors from 

Calculation Methods for Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Inventories (Jagielski and O’Brien 

1994). All commuting vehicles are assumed to be light-duty, gasoline-powered vehicles with 

1995 as the average vehicle model year. Annual criteria pollutant emissions from commuting 

vehicles of 12 full-time employees, assuming an average round-trip commuting distance of 50 

miles and a carpooling ratio of 1.1, are presented in Table 4-6.

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS

Operation of the facilities proposed for Alternative B would generate some long-term direct 

emissions. These emission sources would include burning of natural gas to provide heating for 

the Reverse Osmosis process/administration building and commuting vehicle emissions for 

approximately four employees. For the purposes of this alternative, it is assumed that Reverse 

Osmosis building heating would annually require approximately 4.5 million cubic feet of natural 

gas. Although this would be a stationary source, the emissions from heating the Reverse 

Osmosis building would be well below any threshold outlined in the PSD rules. The resulting 

emissions for operation of Alternative B are shown in Table 4-6.

It is estimated that approximately four employees would be required for the operations phase of 

the facility under Alternative B. The resulting increases in emissions from commuting traffic 

were calculated by assuming an average round trip distance of 50 miles and using emission 

factors from Jagielski and O’Brien (1994). All commuting vehicles are assumed to be light-duty, 

gasoline-powered vehicles with 1995 as the average vehicle model year. Annual criteria 

pollutant emissions associated with operational commuters for this alternative is shown in Table 

4-6.

Occasional truck traffic would also travel to the Reverse Osmosis facility to deliver materials and 

for maintenance. Similarly, there would be occasional trips to the water extraction wells for 

inspection and maintenance activities. Air pollutant emissions from these trips were not modeled 

because they would be incidental and infrequent and would not contribute measurably to air 

quality impacts.

CLEAN AIR ACT COMPLIANCE

As shown in Table 4-6, construction and operation of the facilities proposed under Alternative B 

would generate low levels of emissions for CO, PM10, and VOCs, well below the annual 

conformity thresholds of 100 tons per year for non-attainment areas. Emissions for NO2,

primarily due to pipeline installation, were slightly above this threshold, but since the study area 

is in attainment and this analysis used a conservative approach, no conformity analysis is 

required. Estimated emissions for CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and VOCs are all well below PSD 

thresholds of 250 tons/year for attainment areas and would be insignificant for both the 

stationary sources covered by the PSD rules and the mobile sources also included in this study. 

Therefore, the implementation of Alternative B would not trigger a conformity determination 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-34

under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act and would not result in direct, indirect, or cumulative 

impacts in the long- or short-term to air quality in the study area.

There are no PSD Class I areas in the immediate vicinity of the study area. Several exist in the 

region, but they are distant from the study area. Therefore, given the long distances involved and 

the very low emission increases from Alternative B, there would be no direct or indirect 

cumulative impacts to PSD Class I air quality in the short- or the long-term under Alternative B.

4.2.13 CLIMATE CHANGE

This section describes the anticipated environmental consequences as a result of climate change 

and the anticipated impacts climate change may have on each alternative and vice versa. The 

analysis is based on the climate change described in Section 3.3.13.

ANALYSIS METHOD

This analysis was conducted by evaluating projects of similar size and nature, and by evaluating 

projected uses of electricity and fossil fuels for both the construction phase and operation of the 

groundwater pumps, pipeline, and desalination plant, and the re-injection of saline water to deep 

aquifers.

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no additional impacts to greenhouse gas (GHG)

levels within the project area because there would be no additional surface disturbance, travel on 

existing or new roads, or release of hydrocarbons from the proposed project area into the 

atmosphere. 

The impacts of climate change are not expected to have a large impact on the purpose and need 

of this project. Regardless of the anticipated impacts of climate change, the water demands of 

Alamogordo are expected to exceed current supplies, and the need for the additional waters made 

available through this alternative will remain.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

This alternative would involve two phases during which there would be an impact on climate: 

the construction phase and the operations phase. Consumption of oil and gas as part of the 

construction of the proposed desalination plant is expected to produce GHGs, NOx, and VOCs as 

heavy machinery is used to erect the desalination plant, install the wells at the Snake Tank well 

field, and construct the requisite pipeline and the re-injection pumps. During the operational 

phase of the project, the project is expected to increase hydrocarbons into the atmosphere 

through the combustion of fuels to run the wells, the desalination plant, and the brine re-injection 

pumps.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-35

Climate science is an emerging field and one that, because of the diffuse nature of air and water 

vapor, the vast size of the atmosphere, and the myriad feedback loops that impact climate, does 

not produce precise findings. As such, the impact of combusted hydrocarbons from the 

construction of one plant is unknown. Because of the uncertainties involved in climate science--

particularly as they relate to the extrapolation of localized releases on state, national, and 

international climate impacts--no metric exists to determine the effects that this alternative would 

have on climate.

The impacts of climate change are not expected to have a large impact on the purpose and need 

of this project. Regardless of the anticipated impacts of climate change, the water demands of 

Alamogordo are expected to exceed current supplies, and the need for the additional waters made 

available through this alternative will remain.

4.2.14 VISUAL RESOURCES

This section describes the anticipated environmental consequences on visual resources. The 

analysis is based on the visual setting described in Section 3.3.14.

ANALYSIS METHOD

New and existing data were used to assess past and current trends of visual resources in the study 

area. Field surveys were conducted to establish current viewscape conditions. Dimensions of 

facilities were obtained for the various alternatives in order to compare the current landscape 

with the conceptual placement of these structures. The data and conceptual thought process 

provided a baseline for visual characteristics in the region from which to measure the level of 

effect on these resources following implementation of the alternatives. The indicators used to 

measure the level of effect on visual resources within the study area are visual quality and 

changes to visual sensitivity.

Determination of impacts to visual resources was based on an assessment and classification of 

scenic or visual landscapes for their attractiveness and ability to provide recreational 

opportunities. The degree to which a management activity affects the visual quality of a 

landscape depends on the visual contrast created between a project and the existing landscape 

(BLM 2004a). Visual sensitivity of the existing landscape is dependent on its visual character, 

the amount of public use of the area, public visibility, the presence or absence of adjacent 

developments, and the ability of the setting to absorb any structure(s). Absorption refers to how 

well a facility would fit within the existing setting. Potential effects on visual resources include 

disruptive impacts to the existing viewshed that reduce visual sensitivity and decrease the visual 

landscape’s attractiveness and ability to provide recreation for casual viewers. The degree to 

which the alternatives would alter an existing landscape, the relative value placed on the affected 

landscape and accessibility of the affected area for viewers are all taken into consideration.

Three levels of visual sensitivity were used to measure potential impacts relating to the 

alternatives that could affect visual resources in the study area:
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-36

• High Visual Sensitivity – areas with unique or valued visual attributes, minimal 

landscape disturbance, high visibility, and high public activity, because they have a 

limited ability to absorb changes that are not visible.

• Moderate Visual Sensitivity – areas with typical visual attributes, surrounding 

development, lower visibility, limited public visibility, and disturbed landscape, because 

they have some ability to absorb changes without appearing to be altered.

• Low Visual Sensitivity – areas with pervasive or degraded visual attributes, limited 

public use and viewing, or with development similar in characteristics to the facilities, 

because they can absorb changes without appearing noticeably different.

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION 

There would be no effects to visual resources under the No Action Alternative. No new 

structures would be built, and no new visual elements would be introduced into the existing 

landscape.

ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION

WELL FIELD

Visual impacts under Alternative B would occur from the water extraction wells and associated 

infrastructure in the well field. This area was determined to have a moderate visual sensitivity. 

The vegetation in the well field area has been altered by the application of herbicides in recent 

years to promote grazing for livestock. Most of the area supports creosotebush in various stages 

of viability and disturbance and is not considered distinctive vegetative habitat. Existing 

structures near the well field that influence the visual landscape at this location include U.S. 54; 

the UPRR; barbed-wire fences; a ranch with several buildings and a bermed retention pond 

(Stover Ranch); another retention pond with an associated well (Lower Snake Tank); a network 

of dirt access roads for the ranch, wells, and ponds; and aboveground utility power lines. The 

well heads themselves would be relatively small and difficult to see at a distance. The access 

roads and interconnecting pipelines would be more visible, but they would be at or below ground 

level and would blend into the existing network of roads already in place at this location. 

Portions of the new installation would likely be visible to travelers passing by on U.S. 54. Given 

the degree of constructed roads and plant disturbance in the surrounding landscape, the well field 

location would not be considered to have high scenic value or sensitivity to modification.

DESALINATION FACILITY

Visual impacts under Alternative B would occur from the aboveground structures for the 

desalination facility. This area was determined to have a low to moderate level of visual 

sensitivity. No portions of the site are considered distinctive vegetative habitat, but some are in a 

relatively natural and undisturbed condition. The remainder of the site has been disturbed. This 

disturbance has subsequently increased the presence of non-native and/or invasive plants. Given 

the relatively common landscape characteristics and the degree of constructed modifications in 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-37

the surrounding landscape, the desalination site location would not be considered to have high 

scenic value or sensitivity to modification.

MAIN DELIVERY PIPELINE

Impacts from the installation of the main delivery pipeline would likely be indirect and shortterm during construction, and this area was determined to have a low level of visual sensitivity. 

Because the pipeline would be installed below the ground surface and the disturbed land would 

recover, no direct or indirect long-term impacts to visual resources are likely. In addition, the 

alignment would generally use existing UPRR and highway easements. Pipeline corridors 

introduce linear traces into the landscape, but these would be less noticeable if placed within an 

existing corridor where they would not introduce a new linear feature. The route follows the 

UPRR for most of its length, with degraded visual attributes from previous disturbance, almost 

no public viewing because of the raised railroad bed and limited access, and pipeline features 

that would be almost the same as the existing landscape.

4.2.15 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Regulations prepared by CEQ for implementing NEPA require Federal agencies to disclose and 

analyze effects that could result from the incremental effects of an action, “when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person 

under takes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over time” (40 CFR 1508.7). This section analyzes the impacts of 

the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action (Alternative B), when considered together with 

non-related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Of the many activities that may affect development within the study area, Table 4-7 lists the 

projects that could have a cumulative effect when combined with the Proposed Action. The first 

part of this section describes these projects and their time period. The second part of the section 

analyzes the cumulative impacts of each project for the resource categories described in previous 

chapters. The geographic area used for this analysis is the Tularosa Basin. The identified future 

actions considered in assessing cumulative effects would be implemented within the next 5

years. To assess the effects of these actions once implemented, a 40-year period was assumed.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-38

TABLE 4-7. RELEVANT PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS 

CONSIDERED FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS

PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION TIME PERIOD

Tularosa Basin 

National Desalination 

Research Facility

Sandia National Laboratories and Reclamation partnered to 

construct a new test and evaluation facility for desalination 

technologies. Construction on the Research Facility began in 

2003. Approximately 500 afy of brackish water would be 

pumped from the basin-fill aquifer and used for research 

purposes. The 13,000-square-foot facility would house office 

space for researchers and staff, a control room, a water 

laboratory, and a resource area and learning center for visitors. 

Concentrate from the desalination process would be injected 

into the ground.

The NEPA process was 

completed in 2003 and operations 

and began in 2007. The Research 

Facility would operate 

indefinitely. 

El Paso–Fort Bliss 

Desalination Facility

The El Paso–Fort Bliss Desalination Facility would treat 

brackish water pumped from the Hueco Bolson Aquifer to 

provide drinking water to the City of El Paso and Fort Bliss. 

The Hueco Bolson Aquifer extends into the southern portion of 

the Tularosa Basin and contains both potable and brackish 

water. The aquifer is recharged by inter-basin groundwater

flow from the Tularosa Basin to the Hueco Bolson. Potable

water is currently pumped from the Hueco Bolson Aquifer by 

Fort Bliss, the City of El Paso, small communities in Texas and 

New Mexico, and Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. The desalination 

facility would draw approximately 30.5 mgd of brackish water 

from the Hueco Bolson Aquifer and provide 27.5 mgd of 

potable water. This project would extend the useful life of the 

aquifer and intercept the flow of brackish water to wells that 

are operated by Fort Bliss.

The NEPA process was 

completed in 2005 and operations 

and began in 2008. The 

desalination facility would 

operate indefinitely. 

Alamogordo Flood 

Control Project

This project is being completed by the USACE. The purpose 

of the project is to intercept storm water flow from channels 

(arroyos) that drain runoff from the Sacramento Mountains on 

the east side of the City. By constructing flood control 

structures, portions of the City would be protected from 100-

year flood events and property would be protected from 

potential flood damage. The project includes lining channels 

with concrete, constructing sediment basins, and joining 

existing channels to control flooding. 

The USACE began construction 

in January 2005.

Transformation of the 

49th Fighter Wing at 

Holloman Air Force 

Base

The U.S. Air Force proposes to transform the combat capability 

of the 49th Fighter Wing and maximize the use of available

infrastructure at Holloman AFB by replacing the retiring F117A aircraft and T-38A aircraft supporting the F-117A 

mission with two F-22A squadrons. The Air Force has 

identified Holloman AFB as the preferred location for the third 

operational wing of the Air Force's F-22A Raptor, which would 

enhance the low observable, precision weapons system 

capability of the 49th Fighter Wing. According to the Air 

Force, this transition would result in a net loss of more than 

300 personnel, or a 5 percent reduction in assigned personnel at 

Holloman AFB.

A Final EA for the 

Transformation of the 49th 

Fighter Wing at Holloman AFB 

was published in August 2006. 

Land Use Changes at 

Fort Bliss Military 

Reservation, McGregor 

Range

Land use changes and designations, increased troop levels, and 

training and rangeland utilization, as well as other operational 

and support activities, are proposed in the Tularosa Basin 

portion of the McGregor Range. Approximately 20,000 to 

30,300 more military personnel would be assigned to Fort 

Bliss. The reasonably foreseeable land use development that 

would potentially affect resources within the study area for this 

EIS includes an increase of off-road vehicle maneuvering 

within the Tularosa Basin portion of the Range by 20–50 

percent.

Fort Bliss Mission and Master 

Plan Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS) was completed in 2001. A 

Draft Supplemental 

Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (SEIS) was 

completed in 2006 to supplement 

the Master Plan PEIS. The 

planning period extends to 2030. 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-39

TABLE 4-7. RELEVANT PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS 

CONSIDERED FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS

PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION TIME PERIOD

Tularosa Creek Water 

System Storage Study

This study would evaluate the feasibility of constructing a 

reservoir on Tularosa Creek and a pipeline to deliver stored 

water to the TCDC.

The study began in 2006.

City of Alamogordo 

Water Resources 

Conservation Program

This program includes water reclamation, water conservation 

and rationing, a tier rate structure, education and outreach, and 

ongoing repair and replacement of existing water 

infrastructure. As a result of this program, the City has 

averaged 226.03 gpcpd in the 1990s and 149.69 gpcpd in the 

first 4 years of this decade. 

The Water-Rationing Ordinance, 

No. 1008, was adopted by the 

City of Alamogordo in 1997.

Holloman Land 

Exchange

Federal legislation was passed on January 3, 2006 to enact the 

"Holloman Air Force Base Land Exchange Act." The Act 

provides that a land exchange involving private land and BLM 

land in the vicinity of Holloman AFB for the purpose of 

removing private land from the required safety zone 

surrounding munitions storage bunkers at Holloman AFB. 

Approximately 241 acres of private land owned by Mesa 

Verde LLC would be transferred to BLM, and in return BLM 

would withdraw the 320 acres to Holloman AFB. 

Approximately 320 acres of federal land managed by the BLM 

would be transferred to Mesa Verde LLC. The federal land is 

located south of the City of Alamogordo and the private land 

borders Holloman AFB to the east of the base. 

The land exchange began in 

2006.

PNM Transmission 

Line Expansion

PNM is proposing to construct a new transmission line from 

the existing switching station to Holloman AFB to provide 

additional capacity.

The expansion began in 2008.

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative would result in continual use of existing water resources including 

additional drawdown of groundwater supplies as water demand in the City of Alamogordo 

increases. Under this alternative, only 7,444 acre-feet/year would be available to the City of 

Alamogordo. This would not meet water demands of the City by 2010. The No Action 

Alternative would have both short-term and long-term impacts on individual resources.

The No Action Alternative combined with cumulative impacts of other projects would not 

impact the following resources: biological resources, including vegetation along the pipeline and 

at the well field; livestock grazing; wildlife; cultural resources; ITAs; environmental justice; land 

use; energy requirements; transportation; air quality; climate change; and visual resources. These 

resources have not been evaluated based on the past and present actions and reasonable 

foreseeable actions in the section below. Water resources, surface and groundwater, geology, soil 

resources, and socioeconomic resources have been evaluated below.

WATER RESOURCES

Past and Present Actions: Under the No Action Alternative, the City would continue to divert 

surface water from the City’s existing points of diversion, especially in periods of drought. 

These surface water diversions combined with other current surface water diversions could 

adversely affect downstream water users and would reduce the quantity of surface water in the 

rivers and springs. Under the No Action Alternative, the City’s diversion of surface water would 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-40

reduce the amount of surface water available below the City’s diversion points in both La Luz 

Creek and Alamo Canyon because the City would need to maximize diversions and use its 

existing water rights to meet the demand. Users with junior water rights, such as agricultural 

users, could experience a decrease in available water for their uses. Under the No Action 

Alternative, the City and the Village of Tularosa would continue to maximize their surface water

diversions and could cause declines when combined with other surface water diversion projects

in the agricultural area near Tularosa.

Based on the current pumping patterns and rates throughout the Tularosa basin, numerous wells 

are projected to go dry by 2045 due to a decline in the water table (see 1) (Blandford 2006). The 

proposed project is expected to increase groundwater drawdown resulting in more wells going 

dry. Existing models vary between drawdown projects, with some projecting a few feet and 

others over 100 feet. Given the anticipated water table decline, water rights holders should 

expect that wells that do not fully penetrate the aquifer may require deepening at some point in 

the future (Blandford 2006). Other water withdrawal or diversion projects listed in Table 4-8

could contribute to groundwater drawdown.

Currently the Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility utilizes 500 afy of the 

basin-fill in the Tularosa Basin. The El Paso/Fort Bliss Desalination Facility uses groundwater 

resources from the Hueco Basin. Currently, the Hueco Basin receives 5,900 afy of inter-basin 

groundwater from the Tularosa Basin. This may cause groundwater in the Tularosa Basin to 

move south and west. No cumulative effects to the basin-fill aquifer in the Tularosa Basin are 

anticipated because of the El Paso/Fort Bliss Desalination Facility (see Table 4-8). Drawdown 

for projects within the Tularosa Basin would primarily be associated with City of Alamogordo 

activities. Other present and reasonable foreseeable actions would have a minimal impact on 

recharge or drawdown of Tularosa Basin water resources.

Reasonable Foreseeable Actions: Cumulative water resource-related impacts would be 

evaluated as other management decisions combine to impair or deplete existing resources over 

time. In most cases, documentation, including NEPA, would identify future cumulative impacts 

from individual project activities. 

GEOLOGY

Past and Present Actions: Because the No Action Alternative would require continued reliance 

on groundwater to meet current and future water demands, the potential for land-surface 

subsidence due to groundwater drawdown, in addition to other groundwater withdrawal projects, 

would likely increase in some areas. Subsidence, which is the lowering of the land-surface 

elevation from changes that take place underground, can be associated with pumping 

groundwater from these projects.

Reasonable and Foreseeable Actions: Cumulative geologic resource-related impacts would be 

evaluated as other management decisions combine to impair or deplete existing resources over 

time. In most cases, documentation, including NEPA, would identify future cumulative impacts 

from individual project activities.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-41

SOILS

Past and Present Actions: No ground-disturbing activities would occur under the No Action 

Alternative; although, soil conditions would be impacted when combined with other projects.

Subsidence from pumping of groundwater would likely affect local soil conditions around 

groundwater wells.

Reasonable and Foreseeable Actions: Cumulative soil resources would be evaluated as other 

management decisions combine to impair or impact existing resources over time. As additional 

projects are proposed and planned, documentation, including NEPA, would identify future 

cumulative impacts from project activities.

SOCIOECONOMICS RESOURCES

Past and Present Actions: Based on projected population growth through the year 2045, the 

demand for municipal water would increase while the City’s ability to supply water to users 

would remain fixed. An increase in demand without change in supply would likely cause a rise 

in the rate charged to water users per unit of water. Rate increases for water would likely have 

an indirect, long-term, adverse impact on the composition of goods and services purchased by 

households and businesses throughout the area when cumulatively evaluated. Increased water 

rates could reduce future commercial and industrial activity in the region, reducing commercial 

and industrial business and causing an indirect, long-term, adverse impact to the region’s 

economy. The City of Alamogordo has relatively low rate for water delivery services. Water 

rates for study area residential customers are on the lower end of the range. Despite the 

conservation measures and success by the City of Alamogordo, an increase in rates would likely 

be necessary with dwindling resources.

Reasonable and Foreseeable Actions: Trends such as shifts in the economy, employment, 

growth in non-labor income, population growth, and other socioeconomic metrics are largely 

independent of the project or reasonable and foreseeable actions. Cumulative impacts would be 

evaluated locally and regionally as appropriate.

PROPOSED ACTION

WATER RESOURCES

With the exception of water conservation, the cumulative impact on water resources generally 

would be adverse, as most of the listed projects are diverting or propose to divert more water 

from the Tularosa Basin to meet projected water demands. Groundwater pumping would add to 

groundwater drawdown, and more surface water diversions would deplete surface water

resources. Numerous shallow wells are projected to go dry by 2045 due to a decline in the water 

table. The reasonably foreseeable action that would most significantly affect water resources

when combined with Alternative B would be the El Paso-Fort Bliss Desalination Facility. 

Groundwater drawdown from both facilities would have local, long-term, adverse effects on 

groundwater resources, with the range of drawdown, depending on the model, estimated between 

45 and 119 feet. Organic subsidence as a result of over-withdrawal of groundwater is an 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-42

irretrievable process at a given threshold—the amount of groundwater withdrawal at which this 

would occur in this basin is unknown.

Table 4-8 summarizes the cumulative impacts on water resources according to other present or 

reasonably foreseeable actions in the study area. All impacts are described by type of effect on 

groundwater resources and on surface water resources.

TABLE 4-8. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES

PAST, PRESENT, 

OR REASONABLY 

FORESEEABLE 

ACTIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Tularosa Basin 

National Desalination 

Research Facility

Groundwater resources: The Research Facility would be permitted to pump up to 500 afy from the 

basin-fill aquifer within the Tularosa Basin. However, because the right to divert up to 500 afy was 

transferred from an existing owner within the Tularosa Basin, depletion of groundwater under the 

existing permit would remain unchanged.

Surface water resources: No cumulative impacts are anticipated.

El Paso–Fort Bliss 

Desalination Facility

Groundwater resources: The Hueco Bolson Aquifer receives about 5,900 afy from inter-basin 

groundwater flow from the Tularosa Basin (Heywood and Yager 2003). No effect on inter-basin 

groundwater flow from the Tularosa Basin to the Hueco Bolson Aquifer is anticipated. Groundwater 

modeling shows that after 50 years, pumping would result in groundwater movement toward the south 

to the west of the desalination facility and the development of a localized groundwater trough (deeper 

area of drawdown) around the feed wells. However, because El Paso plans to pump the same total 

quantity of water from the Hueco Bolson Aquifer with or without the desalination facility, decreased 

pumping from other wells within the City would offset the increased pumping for the facility. No 

cumulative effects on the Hueco Bolson Aquifer or the basin-fill aquifer within the Tularosa Basin are 

anticipated.

Surface water resources: No cumulative impacts are anticipated.

Alamogordo Flood 

Control Project

Groundwater resources: Groundwater recharge would not be impacted and no cumulative impacts are 

anticipated from lining canals or constructing sediment basins.

Surface water resources: Lining of canals and sediment detention basins would stabilize channel 

morphology and reduce suspended sediment. Drainage from the Sacramento Mountains would be 

controlled and properties would be protected from storm damage. No cumulative effects from this 

project are anticipated.

Transformation of 

the 49th Fighter 

Wing at Holloman 

Air Force Base

Groundwater resources: A 5 percent reduction in Holloman AFB personnel would have a slight, 

positive cumulative effect on all water users within the Tularosa Basin. If per capita water use on the 

AFB remains constant, then less water would be required by the AFB to carry out their missions. 

Assuming a per capita water use of 165 gpcpd, which was assumed by the City for planning purposes, 

the reduction of 300 personnel would equate to a reduction in water use of about 55 afy.

Surface water resources: No cumulative effect on surface water resources is anticipated.

Land Use Changes at 

Fort Bliss Military 

Reservation, 

McGregor Range

Groundwater resources: Increased off-road vehicle maneuvering within the McGregor Range would 

not affect groundwater resources. The potential need to divert more groundwater from the Hueco 

Bolson Aquifer to accommodate growth on Fort Bliss would be an indirect, adverse cumulative effect.

Surface water resources: Any change in land use or range activities would be carried out in 

compliance with Fort Bliss’s MS4 Permit for storm water management. The potential need to 

purchase more surface water rights on the Rio Grande to accommodate growth on Fort Bliss would be 

an indirect, adverse cumulative effect.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-43

TABLE 4-8. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES

PAST, PRESENT, 

OR REASONABLY 

FORESEEABLE 

ACTIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Tularosa Creek 

Reservoir

Groundwater resources: Alternative B, in combination with a reservoir on Tularosa Creek, would 

have a cumulative, adverse impact on groundwater resources within the study area. Increased surface 

water diversion to the reservoir would likely reduce the amount of surface water that would normally 

recharge the basin-fill aquifer. Groundwater recharge may be reduced and less water would be 

available to other water users under Alternative B.

Surface water resources: The reservoir would have an adverse effect on natural flows and conditions 

within the Tularosa Creek. Alternative B would not modify or improve these effects on surface water

and would not add to a cumulative impact to surface water resources.

City of Alamogordo 

Water Resources 

Conservation 

Program

Groundwater resources: The conservation of water resources would have an overall beneficial impact 

on groundwater resources because of reduced demand. When combined with Alternative B, which 

would adversely impact groundwater resources, the cumulative impact is less adverse than if the 

Alamogordo Regional Water Supply Project were implemented without the Conservation Program. 

Data from 2000-2004 shows a decrease of 76.34 gpcpd, from 226.03 gpcpd to 149.69 gpcpd.

Surface water resources: Conserving water use would reduce dependence on surface water resources. 

However, when combined with Alternative B, which would not have an effect on surface water

resources, the cumulative impact is beneficial to surface water resources. 

Holloman Land 

Exchange

Groundwater resources: Land acquired through the exchange could create an additional water need if 

the land is developed for residential or municipal use.

Surface water resources: Land acquired through the exchange could create an additional water need if 

the land is developed for residential or municipal use. 

PNM Transmission 

Line Expansion

Groundwater resources: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. Additional project information is not 

available at this time.

Surface water resources: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. Additional project information is not 

available at this time.

GEOLOGY

No significant cumulative effects on geologic resources would be anticipated from combining 

Alternative B with any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable plans or programs in the study 

area.

SOILS 

No significant cumulative effects on soils would be anticipated from combining Alternative B 

with any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable plans or programs in the study area.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Table 4-9 summarizes the cumulative impacts on biological resources according to other present

or reasonably foreseeable actions in the study area. Overall the cumulative effect on biological

resources in the area from surface disturbing activities and changes in land use would be longterm and adverse in localized areas.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-44

TABLE 4-9. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

PAST, PRESENT, 

OR REASONABLY 

FORESEEABLE 

ACTIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Tularosa Basin 

National Desalination 

Research Facility

Removing vegetation or potential habitat for wildlife to construct both facilities would cause a direct, 

long-term, adverse, cumulative effect on biological resources. Retiring irrigated lands may have an 

impact those species that forage on agricultural crops, but those are primarily species that are readily 

adaptable in a modified landscape. Native vegetation may re-colonize fallowed agricultural land, thus 

potentially benefitting native wildlife in the long-term.

El Paso–Fort Bliss 

Desalination Facility

Removing vegetation or potential habitat for wildlife to construct both facilities would cause a direct, 

long-term, adverse, cumulative effect on biological resources. However, the loss of habitat would be a 

small percentage of the total available for wildlife in the region.

Alamogordo Flood 

Control Project

Removing vegetation or potential habitat for wildlife to construct both facilities would cause a direct, 

long-term, adverse, cumulative effect on biological resources. However, the loss of habitat would be a 

small percentage of the total available for wildlife in the region. No other cumulative impacts would 

be anticipated. 

Transformation of 

the 49th Fighter 

Wing at Holloman 

Air Force Base

No cumulative impacts would be anticipated from the changes to the 49th Fighter Wing when 

combined with the Proposed Action.

Land Use Changes at 

Fort Bliss Military 

Reservation, 

McGregor Range

Off-road vehicle use would likely lead to the long-term destruction of sensitive vegetation within the 

McGregor Range. Combined with Alternative B, an increase in adverse impacts to vegetation would 

occur. 

Tularosa Creek 

Reservoir

The development of the reservoir would result in the loss of desert shrub, grassland, and riparian 

habitat that currently exists within the creek. The combination of both projects would cause a direct, 

long-term, adverse, cumulative effect on biological resources. Some displacement of wildlife would 

occur, and a change in fauna is likely supported by a permanent deep water source.

City of Alamogordo 

Water Resources 

Conservation 

Program

Combined with Alternative B, the conservation of water within the City does not change the 

cumulative impact to biological resources from the Proposed Action. Conservation activities may 

actually negate some impacts from the Proposed Action if they result in conserving water and reducing 

the demand from the well fields.

Holloman Land 

Exchange

Land acquired through the exchange could impact TES habitat or potential habitat if the land is 

developed for residential or municipal use.

PNM Transmission 

Line Expansion

Combined with Alternative B, the project could result in the potential loss of habitat. The combination 

of both projects could have a cumulative effect on biological resources. Not enough information is 

available about this project to evaluate the cumulative impacts.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Table 4-10 summarizes the cumulative impacts on cultural resources according to other present

or reasonably foreseeable actions in the study area. Cumulative impacts on cultural resources 

would be expected to be minimal over the long-term due to the requirement that cultural 

resources surveys be conducted before any surface disturbing activity occurs. As a result of the 

surveys, any site eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places would be 

avoided or mitigated.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-45

TABLE 4-10. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

PAST, PRESENT, 

OR REASONABLY

FORESEEABLE 

ACTIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Tularosa Basin 

National Desalination 

Research Facility

Constructing new roads or rights-of-way could indirectly impact cultural resources because access to 

sites would be improved. A greater cumulative effect from ground disturbance from construction 

activities would be likely. Clearing land of vegetation for short-term construction rights-of-way would 

also adversely impact the integrity of archaeological sites. Combined with Alternative B, the 

construction and operation of the Research Facility would have a greater cumulative adverse impact on 

cultural resources. 

El Paso–Fort Bliss 

Desalination Facility

Constructing new roads or rights-of-way could indirectly impact cultural resources because access to 

sites would be improved. A greater cumulative effect from ground disturbance from construction 

activities would be likely. Clearing land of vegetation for short-term construction rights-of-way would 

also adversely impact the integrity of archaeological sites. Combined with Alternative B, the 

construction and operation of the El Paso-Fort Bliss Desalination Facility would have a greater 

cumulative adverse impact on cultural resources.

Alamogordo Flood 

Control Project

Lining canals, constructing sediment basins, and conducting other ground-disturbing activities have 

been focused in stream channels. Effects on cultural resources from future actions would be mitigated 

according to Section 106 of the NHPA. Therefore, this project would not contribute to a cumulative 

effect on cultural resources. 

Transformation of 

the 49th Fighter 

Wing at Holloman 

Air Force Base

Reducing base-assigned personnel and maximizing existing infrastructure would not have a cumulative 

effect on cultural resources when combined with Alternative B.

Land Use Changes at 

Fort Bliss Military 

Reservation, 

McGregor Range

Increased off-road vehicle maneuvering and changes in land use on Fort Bliss would likely disturb 

more cultural resources sites. This project, combined with Alternative B, would be expected to 

adversely impact cultural resources within the study area. However, all impacts to cultural resources

sites under Alternative B would be mitigated. 

Tularosa Creek 

Reservoir

Modifications to the structure or flow of water to acequias would increase the likelihood of altering the 

physical integrity of these historic resources. Ground-disturbing activities associated with constructing 

the reservoir, pipeline, and access roads would increase the potential to adversely impact cultural 

resources sites. Combined with Alternative B, the Tularosa Creek Reservoir would have a cumulative 

and adverse impact on cultural resources within the study area. 

City of Alamogordo 

Water Resources 

Conservation

Program

Conservation and planning activities would not affect cultural resources. 

Holloman Land 

Exchange

No cumulative impacts are anticipated.

PNM Transmission 

Line Expansion

This project, combined with Alternative B, would be expected to adversely impact cultural resources

within the study area. However, all impacts to cultural resources sites under Alternative B would be 

mitigated.

INDIAN TRUST ASSETS

No foreseeable cumulative impacts on ITAs are anticipated from combining either of the 

alternatives with the listed past, present or future projects or programs within the study area.

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

Table 4-11 summarizes the cumulative impacts on socioeconomic resources according to other 

present or reasonably foreseeable actions in the study area. Cumulative impacts on social and 

economic resources would be positive in the long term due to the additional water that would be 

provided for community. This would serve increased population and increased business 

resulting from actions in Table 4-12.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-46

TABLE 4-11. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

PAST, PRESENT,

OR REASONABLY 

FORESEEABLE 

ACTIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Tularosa Basin 

National Desalination 

Research Facility

Expenses from water rights purchased and leased for the Research Facility and proposed for purchase 

or lease under Alternative B would have a beneficial impact on the total economy within the study 

area. Because farming constitutes 0.4 percent of income in Otero County and about 1 percent of 

income in Lincoln County, fallowing irrigated agricultural lands as a result of purchasing or leasing 

water rights for the Research Facility and Alternative B would have a cumulative, beneficial impact.

El Paso–Fort Bliss 

Desalination Facility

Socioeconomic impacts from the El Paso-Fort Bliss Desalination facility would occur in El Paso, 

Texas, which is outside the study area for this EIS.

Alamogordo Flood 

Control Project

Flood control measures that protect property owners from future damage would have a beneficial 

impact. Flood control might increase the likelihood of removing properties from the 100-year 

floodplain and the need to hold flood insurance policies. As a result, the potential to reduce household 

expenses would have a beneficial impact for certain properties within Alamogordo. This project 

combined with Alternative B would therefore have an indirect, beneficial impact on socioeconomic 

resources within the study area.

Transformation of 

the 49th Fighter 

Wing at Holloman 

Air Force Base

A 5-percent reduction in Holloman AFB personnel would likely adversely impact socioeconomic 

resources within the study area. Because the total economic impact of the AFB is nearly 30 times that 

of agriculture and 25 times that of tourism (Carr 2006), minor changes to numbers of personnel at the 

AFB have significant effects on the local economy. A reduction in personnel at Holloman AFB would 

have more adverse cumulative effects on the economy when combined with Alternative B compared to 

Alternative B on its own.

Land Use Changes at 

Fort Bliss Military 

Reservation, 

McGregor Range

Additional personnel assigned to Fort Bliss would likely reside in El Paso, Texas, outside the study 

area for this analysis. Increased off-road maneuvering would not impact socioeconomic resources. 

Therefore, no cumulative effect would be anticipated from the land use changes at Fort Bliss.

Tularosa Creek 

Reservoir

Construction jobs associated with the reservoir and pipeline would have a short-term, beneficial impact 

to socioeconomic resources. Construction jobs associated with building facilities considered under 

Alternative B would also have short-term, beneficial impacts to the economy. Therefore, it is likely 

that the cumulative impact from both actions would have a short-term, beneficial effect on 

socioeconomic resources.

City of Alamogordo 

Water Resources 

Conservation 

Program

Conservation and planning activities would not affect socioeconomic resources.

Holloman Land 

Exchange

No cumulative impacts are anticipated.

PNM Transmission 

Line Expansion

Construction jobs associated with the reservoir and pipeline would have a short-term, beneficial impact 

to socioeconomic resources. Construction jobs associated with building facilities considered under 

Alternative B would also have short-term, beneficial impacts to the economy. Therefore, it is likely 

that the cumulative impact from both actions would have a short-term, beneficial effect on 

socioeconomic resources.

LAND USE

Table 4-12 summarizes the cumulative impacts on land use according to other present or

reasonably foreseeable actions in the study area. There would be both adverse and beneficial 

cumulative impacts over the long-term within the study area.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-47

TABLE 4-12. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON LAND USE

PAST, PRESENT, 

OR REASONABLY 

FORESEEABLE 

ACTIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Tularosa Basin 

National Desalination 

Research Facility

The 0.25 acre of agricultural land and about 30 acres of undeveloped land acquired for the Research 

Facility did not have an identifiable effect on land use within the Tularosa Basin. When combined 

with Alternative B, no cumulative impact on land use would be anticipated. 

El Paso–Fort Bliss 

Desalination Facility

Any impacts to land use from this project would occur outside the study area for Alternative B. 

Alamogordo Flood 

Control Project

Flood control improvements would not significantly impact land use within the study area for the 

Alamogordo Flood Control Project. When combined with Alternative B, no cumulative impact would 

be anticipated. 

Transformation of 

the 49th Fighter 

Wing at Holloman 

Air Force Base

Maximizing existing facilities and reducing personnel at Holloman AFB would not affect land use. No 

cumulative effect is anticipated when combined with Alternative B. 

Land Use Changes at 

Fort Bliss Military 

Reservation, 

McGregor Range

A 40 to 50 percent increase in off-road maneuvering within the Tularosa Basin portion of the 

McGregor range would have an adverse impact on land use within the study area. When combined 

with lands fallowed under Alternative B, there would be an adverse cumulative effect on land use 

within the study area. 

Tularosa Creek 

Reservoir

This project would result in improvements in water delivery to irrigators within the TCDC. Improved 

deliveries would likely reduce the potential to convert agricultural land to fallow land because of 

insufficient water deliveries. The cumulative effect of combining this project with Alternative B 

would be an indirect, beneficial impact on some land use compared to Alternative B alone. The 

development of a reservoir will change land use from riparian and desert habitat to open water.

City of Alamogordo 

Water Resources 

Conservation 

Program

Water conservation would not have an identifiable effect on land use within the study area. 

Holloman Land 

Exchange

No cumulative impacts are anticipated.

PNM Transmission 

Line Expansion

When combined with lands fallowed under Alternative B, there would be an adverse cumulative effect 

on land use within the study area.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-48

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

Table 4-13 summarizes the cumulative impacts on energy requirements according to other 

present or reasonably foreseeable actions in the study area. Cumulative energy requirements 

would increase over the long-term but that increase would be minimal among the various actions 

in the study area.

TABLE 4-13. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

PAST, PRESENT, 

OR REASONABLY 

FORESEEABLE 

ACTIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Tularosa Basin 

National Desalination 

Research Facility

Similar to the RO Facility under Alternatives B, the Research Facility would require power to run well 

pumps, pipeline booster pumps, and the RO facility. Gas requirements are minimal, as gas would only 

be used to heat the facilities. It is assumed that PNM/TNMP could accommodate the added electric 

load required by both the Research Facility and alternatives discussed in this EIS.

El Paso–Fort Bliss 

Desalination Facility

A dedicated 50-megavolt-ampere substation located near Fort Bliss currently supplies power to the 

Fort Bliss Main Cantonment Area. No new electrical substations would be required to meet the 

electrical demand of the Fort Bliss Desalination Facility, which represents a 0.3 percent increase over 

regional peak electrical demand (USACE 2004b). Gas requirements are minimal. Combining this 

facility with the alternatives in this EIS would not have any cumulative effects on energy resources. 

Alamogordo Flood 

Control Project

The Alamogordo Flood Control Project would not require additional energy. Therefore, there would 

be no cumulative impact when combed with the alternatives in this EIS.

Transformation of 

the 49th Fighter 

Wing at Holloman 

Air Force Base

A reduction in Air Force personnel would reduce the short- and long-term energy demand of Holloman 

AFB, which is serviced by the Amrad station. When combined with the alternatives under this EIS, 

the cumulative impacts to energy requirements would not be greater than any of the individual 

alternatives in this EIS.

Land Use Changes at 

Fort Bliss Military 

Reservation, 

McGregor Range

Changes in land use would not require additional energy resources to carry out the mission of Fort 

Bliss. Therefore, no cumulative impacts would be expected when combined with the alternatives 

under this EIS. 

Tularosa Creek 

Reservoir

The construction and operation of a reservoir would not require additional energy resources. No 

cumulative impacts would be expected when combined with alternatives under this EIS. 

City of Alamogordo 

Water Resources 

Conservation 

Program

Water conservation would not require additional energy resources. Therefore, no cumulative impacts

from combining this program with alternatives under this EIS would be expected. 

Holloman Land 

Exchange

No cumulative impacts are anticipated.

PNM Transmission 

Line Expansion

When combined with the alternatives under this EIS, the cumulative impacts to energy requirements 

would not be greater than any of the individual alternatives in this EIS.

TRANSPORTATION

Although short-term lane closures could occur during construction activities, the alternatives 

would not have any cumulative effects on transportation when combined with other projects or 

programs in the study area.

AIR QUALITY

Table 4-14 summarizes the expected cumulative impacts on air quality according to other present

or reasonably foreseeable actions in the study area. Cumulative impacts to air quality would be 

minimal and short-lived. Impacts would generally be confined to localized areas.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-49

TABLE 4-14. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY

PAST, PRESENT, 

OR REASONABLY 

FORESEEABLE 

ACTIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Tularosa Basin 

National Desalination 

Research Facility

Removing and transporting concentrate from the Research Facility could cause short-term, localized 

increases in fugitive dust. However, no impacts are anticipated over the recommended background 

level of 20 μg/m3 for PM10 in Otero County. Dust control measures would be used to mitigate 

potential impacts resulting from fugitive dust from managing concentrate ponds at the Research 

Facility.

El Paso–Fort Bliss 

Desalination Facility

Any short-term impacts on air quality from facilities construction or operation would occur outside the 

Tularosa Basin, the study area for this EIS. 

Alamogordo Flood 

Control Project

No long-term impacts to air quality are anticipated from constructing flood controls. 

Transformation of 

the 49th Fighter 

Wing at Holloman 

Air Force Base

No long-term impacts to air quality are anticipated from maximizing existing infrastructure on 

Holloman AFB. 

Land Use Changes at 

Fort Bliss Military 

Reservation, 

McGregor Range

Off-road vehicle maneuvering would increase dust levels, but air quality standards relating to these 

activities would be enforced. The impact of land use on fugitive dust emissions is anticipated to be 

local, short-term elevated air pollutant concentrations that would not result in any long-term impacts 

on regional air quality. When combined with Alternative B, no cumulative effects are anticipated. 

Tularosa Creek 

Reservoir

No impacts on air quality are anticipated from constructing a reservoir for off-stream surface water

storage. 

City of Alamogordo 

Water Resources 

Conservation 

Program

No impacts to air quality are expected from this municipal water conservation program. 

Holloman Land 

Exchange

No cumulative impacts are anticipated.

PNM Transmission 

Line Expansion

The impact of land use on fugitive dust emissions is anticipated to be local, short-term elevated air 

pollutant concentrations that would not result in any long-term impacts on regional air quality. When 

combined with Alternative B, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

VISUAL RESOURCES

Additional facilities proposed under the listed projects or programs would not cause any visual 

impacts. The overall landscape changes within the Tularosa Basin would likely remain the same 

as under current conditions, although there could be a short-term increase in the area of bare 

ground during construction activities. The alternatives would not have any identifiable 

cumulative impacts on visual resources when combined with other projects or programs in the 

study area.

4.3 MITIGATION MEASURES

4.3.1 WATER RESOURCES

Water rights holders are protected under State water law (Chapter 72, Article 12, NMSA 1978). 

Existing water rights holders in the Tularosa Basin are very concerned about incremental 

drawdown effects of the 10 city wells. These water rights holders identified as being 

significantly impacted by groundwater pumping under Alternative B, would be protected by a 

monitoring program required by the NMOSE. Under this program, the City would measure 

water levels and TDS within the monitoring wells (yet to be designated) and surface flows in 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-50

July and January of each calendar year. The City would report these measurements to the 

NMOSE, in writing, on or before January 31 and July 31 of each calendar year.

If the NMOSE, through its monitoring of water level and quality, identifies the need for 

mitigation, the NMOSE would require the City to initiate the necessary measures, including if 

necessary a cessation of pumping, to avoid potential loss or adverse impact to water resources or 

water-dependent natural resources. If priority water rights owners believe their rights are being 

impaired by the City’s pumping at the Snake Tank water wells, they have recourse to a “priority 

administration” conducted by the NMOSE. New Mexico law provides for the NMOSE to 

conduct a priority administration pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 72-2-9.1 (2003), to administer 

water allocations in accordance with the water right priorities recorded with or declared or 

otherwise available to the NMOSE. This law provides that in periods of shortage when the need 

for administration of priorities is most urgent, it is in the public interest for the NMOSE to 

apportion water among water right owners based on the best evidence available to them at the 

time. The priority administration procedure affords each party the opportunity to establish its 

water rights priority and to contest the priority of others. Parties who believe their water rights 

are impaired by the City of Alamogordo's pumping from the Snake Tank well field also have 

recourse to private litigation in the courts who could enjoin the City or the NMOSE to cease or 

reduce pumping from the Snake Tank well field. To mitigate potential loss to groundwater

resources, the City could also reach agreements with the individual water rights holders.

Depending on the individual agreement, options for mitigation could include deepening wells or 

delivering water of equal quality to water rights holders when the available water column in a 

well is reduced by more than 70 percent or there is less than 10 feet of water above or below the 

pump. To mitigate the potential loss to surface water resources, including springs, the City 

would be required by the NMOSE to adjust the system’s pumping schedule according to the 

monitoring results.

4.3.2 SOILS

Mitigation measures for soils under each alternative would follow the best management practices 

(BMPs) identified in the storm water pollution prevention plan for construction activities. These 

BMPs would include dust suppression and soil stabilization measures that would minimize 

erosion and storm water pollution during construction. Areas disturbed during construction 

would be reseeded with native vegetation to minimize erosion.

4.3.3 VEGETATION

The following mitigation measures, if implemented, would minimize impacts to vegetation under 

the alternatives:

• Grading the sites affected following completion of construction activities.

• Replanting or reseeding the disturbed areas with an acceptable mix of native plants 

typically found in this region of the Chihuahuan Desert.

• Monitoring restoration efforts to assess their overall success and progress.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-51

4.3.4 GRAZING

The City of Alamogordo has committed to maintaining current base waters available and 

accessible for livestock on BLM land so that no current grazing allotments in the study area 

would be terminated as a result of implementation of the proposed project.

4.3.5 WILDLIFE

To minimize adverse impacts to wildlife, the following mitigation measures are recommended 

for the alternatives:

• Limiting construction activities to outside the general migratory bird nesting season of 

March through August or surveying areas proposed for construction during the nesting 

season and avoiding any occupied areas until nesting is complete.

• Minimizing trapping of wildlife during trenching operations, where possible, by 

trenching and burying the pipeline concurrently, leaving the least possible amount of 

trench open overnight, and providing escape ramps for trapped wildlife. If trenches 

cannot be backfilled immediately, constructing escape ramps should be located at least 

every 295 feet. Trenches that have been left open overnight, especially where 

endangered species occur, should be inspected and any animals found removed prior to 

backfilling.

• Limiting heavy equipment travel to the immediate construction right-of-way and 

avoiding areas of heavy growth and native habitat when feasible.

• Reducing the height of the elevated water storage tank to its lowest functional limit to 

reduce the possibility of collisions by airborne wildlife. 

4.3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Of the sites identified during the survey of Alternative B, historic railroad station LA 86735 is 

recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and D and has subsequently been 

determined as eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D. LA 150031, a prehistoric site, is also 

recommended and has since been determined eligible under Criterion D to the NRHP. Project 

planning may be able to avoid these two sites recommended as eligible to the NRHP that may be 

directly or indirectly impacted under Alternative B. No impacts to cultural resources would 

occur under Alternative A.

Where avoidance is not possible, impacts to the two sites would be mitigated. Mitigation may 

include having an archaeologist present to monitor construction activities, testing the sites to 

determine the need for further investigation through data recovery, and/or performing subsequent 

archaeological data recovery (excavation) within entire sites or in potentially affected portions of 

the sites. All or portions of a site may be destroyed as a result of archaeological excavations, but 

the site would still retain its eligibility to the NRHP under Criterion D for information potential 

in the form of recovered scientific data. As part of mitigation, there will be a public presentation

in the form of a brochure, presentation meetings, or public report detailing the results of these 
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-52

archaeological excavations. Mitigation measures for the two archaeological sites potentially 

impacted are described below.

• LA 86735, recommended eligible under Criteria A and D and now determined eligible to 

the NRHP under Criterion D, may be disturbed by the installation of the main water 

pipeline segment of the project. A number of mitigation alternatives are possible at this 

site, including avoidance options and preparation of a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA). Mitigation can be achieved by avoiding the site by running a section of the 

pipeline either east of the railroad tracks or west of U.S. 54. An alternative would be 

placing the pipeline along the eastern slope limits of U.S. 54, although intact portions of 

the site may be buried under the U.S. 54 slope limits-this alternative would probably 

entail shutting down portions of U.S. 54, as construction activity to the east of the slope 

limits would impact the site. Avoidance measures would include flagging, barrier 

fencing, and monitoring during construction activities occurring within 650 feet of site 

boundaries. Another possible mitigation measure would be to specify that, pending the 

location of the pipeline, the City would prepare an MOA with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the NM Department of Transportation that would 

include a testing and/or a data recovery plan if the pipeline is to be placed through the 

site.

• LA 150031, recommended eligible under Criterion D, is located in the path of a proposed 

well pad access road that would be used to bypass and rejoin a road currently running 

through the private land holdings of Stover Ranch. Avoidance of the site is 

recommended by rerouting the road from its proposed location to approximately 164 feet 

to the west and down slope of the site. The use of flagging and barrier fencing during 

construction activities is recommended. However, testing of the site is recommended if 

avoidance is not possible.

4.3.7 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

Mitigation measures for socioeconomic resources under the Proposed Action include:

• Using existing road and utility rights-of-way as much as is practicable to reduce 

permitting and land acquisitions costs and to reduce disruption of commercial facilities.

• Adopting a hiring preference for local construction personnel to build the project.

• Hiring and training local professional or service personnel to operate and maintain 

facilities so that direct and secondary spending remains in the local economy.

If determined that the Snake Tank wells were incrementally increasing drawdown and affecting 

other wells (i.e., senior water rights), the City would be required to mitigate their use by either 

compensating for use of the water and/or reducing use of the wells. Additionally, all water 

purchased or leased by the City in the future will have to be approved through the NMOSE

hearing process. The population in Otero County is not growing at any increased rate. The most 

recent 2007 numbers show an increase between 2000 and 2006 at less than 1 percent. A more 

reliable supply of water for municipal and/or agricultural use will not in itself increase 

population at a faster rate.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-53

4.3.8 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

No mitigation measures for environmental justice issues are identified for the Proposed Action.

4.3.9 TRANSPORTATION

Measures to mitigate impacts on land use for the Proposed Action include:

• Directional drilling to minimize traffic disruption.

• Constructing road crossings for underground pipelines at times of low traffic use.

• Improving the entrance to the well field by widening the highway to accommodate a 

westbound turning lane to northbound U.S. 54.

• Improving the southbound entrance to and exit from the well field by adding entrance and 

exit lanes to U.S. 54.

4.3.10 LAND USE

No mitigation measures for land use issues are identified for the Proposed Action.

4.3.11 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

No mitigation measures for energy requirements are identified for the Proposed Action.

4.3.12 AIR QUALITY

Frequent watering of exposed soil during construction would minimize fugitive dust emissions 

from construction activities for the Proposed Action.

4.3.13 VISUAL RESOURCES

Impacts to the viewshed in the study area from the proposed buildings could be reduced by 

several methods, including painting the water tank and structures in a flat earth tone to match the 

surrounding landscape.

4.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

Unavoidable adverse impacts are environmental consequences of an action that cannot be 

avoided either by changing the action or through mitigation. The majority of adverse impacts 

under any alternative can be reduced or eliminated by the mitigation measures identified for each 

resource. However, unavoidable adverse impacts for the Proposed Action include the following: 

• Constructing proposed facilities would disturb biological resources because vegetation

would need to be cleared.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 4-54

• Construction activities and vehicle use during construction of proposed facilities would 

cause short-term air pollution and disturbance of soil stability.

• Operation of a desalination facility would result in an increase in energy use. In addition, 

the treatment process would continuously produce concentrate that would need to be 

reused or disposed of. Transporting the concentrate from the facility to the landfill would 

have impacts on air quality due to vehicle use.

4.5 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY

This section identifies losses or gains in the short-term uses and long-term productivity of the 

environment caused by the Proposed Action. Under Alternative B, there would be disruption of 

short-term uses of groundwater by existing water rights holders. However, the proposed 

mitigation measures (see Section 4.4) would help offset these losses.

4.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Irretrievable commitment of resources means the temporary loss of production or use of 

resources as a result of the decision.

Irreversible commitment of resources means a permanent loss of production or a resource. Any 

groundwater pumped that exceeds current annual recharge rates would be an irreversible impact 

on water resources. Disposing of concentrate generated from the desalination process in a 

landfill may have an irreversible impact. Although the decision as to how concentrate is 

disposed of would be managed, the concentrate itself would be irreversible. Any loss of 

archaeological sites would also be irreversible.
5.0 CONSULTATION AND

 COORDINATION
Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 5-1

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

NAME HIGHEST 

DEGREE/CERTIFICATION PROJECT ROLE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

Lorraine Salas A.D., Pre-Business Project Manager, Realty Specialist (2007-

CY) 26

Jason Allen M.S., Agricultural Extension and 

Education

Project Manager, Realty Specialist (2006-

2007) 5

Bruce Call B.S., Agriculture Soils, Water, and Air Quality Review 29

Matt Craddock B.S., Forest Recreation Document Review 29

Margie Guzman B.S., Wildlife Science Wildlife, Special Status Species Review 20

Bill Childress B.S. Physical Geography, Minor 

Soils and Range District Manager, Management Oversight 35

Jackie Neckels B.A., Journalism and Mass 

Communications Recreation and Visual Resources Review 17

Lisa Phillips B.S., Rangeland Resources Vegetation, Livestock Grazing, and 

Noxious Weed Review 12

Tom Phillips B.S., Range Science Recreation and Visual Resources Review

Jeanette Pranzo M.S., Economics Socioeconomics Review 34

Tim Sanders M.S., Agricultural Economics Management Oversight 28

Pam Smith B.A., Anthropology Cultural Resources Review 31

Rusty Stovall M.S., Geography GIS Support 14

Rena Gutierrez B.A. Journalism and Mass 

Communications Document Management/Review 32

Paul Summers B.S. Geology (31 yrs 

hydrogeology) Water and Hydrological Review 31

Edward Seum B.A. Geology and Mineralogy Document Review 25

Dwayne Sykes B.S., Wildlife Science New Mexico State Office NEPA

Coordination and Review 31

Mark R. Spencer, 

AICP B.S., M.P. (Planning- Env. Studies) New Mexico State Office NEPACoordination and Review 21

Megan Stouffer B.A. MPA (Planning/Env. Studies) New Mexico State Office NEPA

Coordination and Review 4

5.2 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

NAME HIGHEST 

DEGREE/CERTIFICATION PROJECT ROLE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

Rob Doster Ph.D., Biology Natural Resources (ESA/BA) Review 

and Editing 15

Hector Garcia M.A., Biology and Anthropology Project Manager 25

Jeffrey Hanson Ph.D., Anthropology Cultural Resources Review 27

Mike Landis

M.S., Civil 

Engineering/Professional Engineer 

in Texas

Engineering Review and Editing 22

Tamara Massong M.S., Geology Hydrology Review and Editing 10

Lori Robertson M.A., Biological Science Document Review 22
Chapter 5 – List of Preparers and Reviewers

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 5-2 

5.3 SWCA AND SUBCONSULTANTS

NAME HIGHEST 

DEGREE/CERTIFICATION PROJECT ROLE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

SWCA

Jean Ballagh B.A., History Technical Editor 30

Krista Bonfantine B.S., Biology Technical Support – Natural Resources 5

Christopher Carlson B.A., Anthropology Cultural Resources Crew Chief 13

Peter Castiglia M.S., Earth and Planetary 

Sciences Project Manager CY 2004–2007 6

Tracylee Clarke Ph.D., Environmental 

Communication Public Involvement Lead 12

Peter David M.S. Wildlife Biology Permits and Biology Lead 25

Joseph Fluder M.S., Geography Natural Resources/Project Management CY 

2009-2010 11

Chris Grosso B.S., Wildlife Management Natural Resources Lead 12

Hansene Gustafson B.A., Anthropology Technical Support – Cultural Resources 10

Janelle Harden B.U.S., Undergraduate Studies Technical Support – Administrative Record 4

Anne Huebner Ph.D., Nat. Res. Economics Project Manager/NEPA CY 2007–2008 25

Peter David M.S., Biology Technical Writing and Coordination –

Natural Resources 25

Burt McAlpine B.S., Wildlife Biology Geographic Analysis, Cartography 8

Mike Pease Ph.D., Environmental 

Resources and Policy Water Resources/Natural Resources 8

Claudia Oakes Ph.D., Geography Contract Manager 23

Jim Railey Ph.D., Anthropology Cultural Resources Lead 30

Daniel St. Germain M.S., Geography Geographic Analysis, Cartography 5

Heather Timmons B.S., Biology Geographic Analysis, Cartography 5

CDM

Sarah Guemez

M.S., Environmental and Water 

Resources Engineering/

Professional Engineer in Texas

Staff Engineer 4

Paul Karas 

M.S., Geology/

Certified Professional 

Geologist and Certified 

Hazardous Material Manager

Lead Hydrogeologist 20

Kathleen Watson

B.S., Civil Engineering 

Environmental Option/

Professional Engineer in New 

Mexico and Texas

Project Manager 13
6.0 REFERENCES
Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 6-1

6.0 REFERENCES

American Meteorological Society. 1998. Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification 

(Adopted by the Council 2 October 1998). Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

Society 79:2771–2772. Electronic document: 

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/wxmod98.html. Accessed October 11, 2007.

Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witmer. 1976. A land use and land cover 

classification system for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Professional Paper 964. Online resource, no longer available on the USGS website.

Application of Brown. 1958. 65 N.M. 74, 78-79, 332 P.2d 475, 478.

Bailey, R.G. 1980. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1391, 77pp.

Biota Information System of New Mexico (BISON-M). 2004. New Mexico species of concern 

listed by county. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Online resource, no 

longer available on the NMDGF website.

Blandford, T.N. 2006. Statement of Opinions of T. Neil Blandford Concerning the City of 

Alamogordo Permit T-3825, Tularosa Basin, New Mexico. Consultant’s Report prepared 

for the City of Alamogordo, 14 pp.

Brown, D.E. 1994. Biotic Communities of the Southwestern United States and Northwestern 

Mexico. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER). 2004. Revised Population Projections for 

New Mexico and Counties, BBER, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. Revised May 3, 2004. Electronic document: 

http://www.unm.edu/~bber/demo/Table1.htm. Accessed October 11, 2007.

BBER. 2005a. Revised Total Population Projections by County, 2000 to 2030. Electronic 

document: http://www.unm.edu/~bber/demo/Table1.htm. Accessed October 11, 2007.

BBER. 2005b. Covered wage and salary employment by major industrial sector and county 

according to the North American Industrial Classification System. Electronic document: 

http://www.unm.edu/~bber/econ/cewnaics.htm. Accessed October 11, 2007.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2005. Encycloweedia: noxious weed index, 

camelthorn (Alhagi pseudalhagi). Electronic document: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/

phpps/ipc/weedinfo/alhagi.htm. Accessed October 11, 2007.

Carman, S. Personal communication 2007

Carr, E. 2006. The Importance of a Sustainable and Dependable Water Supply for Alamogordo 

and the Region. Expert Report of Ed Carr, Executive Director, Otero County Economic 

Development Council, Inc., 26 pp.

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for New Mexico (CWSC). 2006. New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 526 pp + appendices. 

Derr, P.S. 1981. Soil Survey of Otero Area, New Mexico: Parts of Otero Eddy, and Chaves 

Counties. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and Forest 

Service in cooperation with the New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment 

Station.

Dick-Peddie, W.A. 1993. New Mexico Vegetation Past, Present and Future. University of New 

Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Chapter 6 – References

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 6-2 

Economagic. 2006. Economagic.com: Economic Time Series Page, Series Title: 

Unemployment Rate: Otero County, NM, New Mexico; Percent; NSA. Electronic 

document: http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsla/laucn35035003. Accessed 

October 11, 2007.

El Paso Electric Company (EPE). 2002. Transmission Interconnection Feasibility Study, 

Systems Operations Department, System Planning Section, March 2002. Electronic 

document: http://www.epelectric.com/Site/transmission.nsf/385b7260d19449a

78725714b006dbfd8/5f0ac65cd2f6df278725714b005f7598/$FILE/Transmission%20Inte

rconnection%20Study%20-%20200%20MW%20HVDC%20at%20Eddy%20County.pdf. 

Accessed October 11, 2007.

El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board. 2004. Financial Information Rate Survey, 

Residential Water and Sewer Rates–November 2004. Online resource, no longer 

available on the El Paso Water Utilities website.

Federal Register (FR). 1991. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal 

Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species, Proposed Rule. 

Department of the Interior. Thursday, November 21, 1991. Vol. 56, No. 225.

FR 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Plant and Animal Taxa

That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. Notice of 

Review. February 28, 1996. Vol. 61, No. 40.

FR. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Designation of Critical 

Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus); Proposed 

Rule. Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004, pp. 60706–60786.

FR. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential 

Experimental Population of Northern Aplomado Falcons in New Mexico and Arizona 

and Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment. Proposed Rule. Vol. 70, No. 26, 

Wednesday, February 09, 2005. pp. 6819–6828.

Garza, S., and J.S. McLean. 1977. Freshwater Resources in the Southeastern Part of the 

Tularosa Basin. New Mexico State Engineer Office Technical Report No. 40. 67 pp.

Global Security. 2005. Military FM 19–25, Chapter 25, Roadway Capacity Studies, Formula 

Used to Estimate Theoretical and Actual Traffic Capacities for Roadways. Electronic 

document: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/19-25/CH25.

htm. Accessed October 11, 2007.

Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, R. Ruedy, P. Kharecha, A. Lacis, R.L. Miller, L. Nazarenko, K. Lo, 

G.A. Schmidt, G. Russell, I. Aleinov, S. Bauer, E. Baum, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, M. 

Chandler, Y. Cheng, A. Cohen, A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, E. Fleming, A. Friend, T. 

Hall, C. Jackman, J. Jonas, M. Kelley, N.Y. Kiang, D. Koch, G. Labow, J. Lerner, S. 

Menon, T. Novakov, V. Oinas, Ja. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou, R. 

Schmunk, D. Shindell, P. Stone, S. Sun, D. Streets, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, N. 

Unger, M. Yao, and S. Zhang. 2007. Dangerous human-made interference with 

climate: A GISS modelE study. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 7:2287–2312.

Havenor, K. 2006. Effects of City of Alamogordo Proposed Well Field For Desalination Plant 

on Surface and Groundwater Supply to the Tularosa Community Ditch Association Area, 

Consultant’s Report prepared for the Tularosa Community Ditch Corporation, October 1, 

2006, 180 pp.
Chapter 6 – References

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 6-3 

Heywood, C.E., and Yager, R.M. 2003. Simulated Groundwater Flow in the Hueco Bolson, an 

Alluvial-basin Aquifer System near El Paso, Texas. U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 024108, 73 pp.

Hood, J.W., and Herrick, E.H. 1965. Water resources of the Three Rivers Area, Otero and 

Lincoln Counties, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations 

Atlas HA-192.

Huff, G.F. 2005. Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the Basin-Fill Aquifer of the Tularosa 

Basin, South-Central New Mexico, Predevelopment through 2040. US Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5197. 87 pp.

Jagielski, K., and J. O’Brien, 1994. Calculations Methods for Criteria Pollutant Emission 

Inventories. U.S. Air Force, Brooks Air Force Base. Armstrong Laboratory, AL/OETR-1994-0049. July. 

John Shomaker and Associates, Inc. (JSAI) 2003. Predicted Drawdown Effects and Evaluation 

of Potential Saline Encroachment Due to Pumping Under City of Alamogordo 

Application Nos. T-3825 Through T-3825-S-9, Approximately 10 Miles North of 

Tularosa, Otero County, New Mexico. Consultant’s Report prepared for the City of 

Alamogordo. 41 pp.

JSAI. 2006. Predicted Drawdown Effects and Evaluation of Potential Saline Encroachment Due 

to Pumping Under City of Alamogordo Application Nos. T-3825 Through T-3825-S-9, 

Approximately 10 Miles North of Tularosa, Otero County, New Mexico. Consultant’s 

Report prepared for the City of Alamogordo.

JSAI. 2009. Hydrogeologic Assessment of Proposed Injection Wells for Alamogordo Regional 

Water Supply Project. Alamogordo, NM. Consultant’s Report prepared for the City of 

Alamogordo.

Lee, R.D. 1999. New Mexico’s Invasive Weeds. New Mexico State University, College of 

Agriculture and Home Economics Cooperative Extension Service, Box 30003, MSC 

3AE, Las Cruces, New Mexico, 88005.

Livingston Associates, P.C. 1996. Preliminary Aquifer Storage Recovery Study, City of 

Alamogordo Consultant’s Report, 27 pp.

Livingston Associates, P.C. 2003a. City of Alamogordo. Regional Desalination Right of Way 

Study. June 2003. 42 pp.

Livingston Associates, P.C. 2003b. City of Alamogordo, NM, Application Nos. T-3825 

Through T-3825-S9 and the Alamogordo Brackish Water Desalination Project. 

Consultant’s Report prepared for the City of Alamogordo, March 2003. 35 pp.

Livingston Associates, P.C., and John Shomaker and Associates, Inc. (Livingston and 

Shomaker). 2002a. Section 8.2, Future Water Supply Alternatives In: Tularosa Basin 

and Salt Basin Regional Water Plan: 2000 to 2040, Volume I, 244 pp.

Livingston and Shomaker. 2002b. Tularosa and Salt Basin Regional Water Plan, 2000–2040. 

Consultant’s Report for South Central Mountain RCDC Council, Inc.

Livingston and Shomaker. 2003. City of Alamogordo Desalination Feasibility Study and Pilot 

Project: Phase 1 and Phase 2. Consultant’s Report, 40 pp.

Livingston and Shomaker. 2006. City of Alamogordo 40-Year Water Development Plan 2005–

2045. Consultant’s Report prepared for the City of Alamogordo, 56 pp.

Livingston, E.C., and Finch, S.T., Jr. 1998. Aquifer storage and recovery study for the city of 

Alamogordo, New Mexico. Water Resources Research Institute Proceedings: 42nd 

Annual New Mexico Water Conference, Abstracts with programs.
Chapter 6 – References

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 6-4 

Machette, M.N., Personius, S.F., Kelson, K.I., Dart, R.L., and K.M. Haller, 2000. Map and Data 

for Quaternary Faults and Folds in New Mexico. U.S. Geologic Survey, Open-File 

report 98-521.

Mathers v. Texaco, Inc. 1966. 77 N.M. 239, 245, 421 P.2d 771, 776.

McKinney, W.L., and Martinez, E.H. 2002. Draft Fatal Flaw Analysis Desalination Project 

Proposed Sites City of Alamogordo, New Mexico. Consultant’s Report, City of 

Alamogordo, 17 pp.

McLean, J.S. 1970. Saline ground water resources of the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Office of Saline Water Report No. 561. 128 pp.

Meyer, R.A., and S.O. Williams, III. 2005. Recent Nesting and Current Status of Aplomado 

Falcon (Falco femoralis) in New Mexico. La Tierra Environmental Consulting, LLC, 

Las Cruces, and NMDGF, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2005. The Highway Project Development Process 

Handbook, Part II, Section D, Subject Guidance: Visual Quality. St. Paul: Minnesota 

Department of Transportation. Electronic document: 

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/xyz/plu/hpdp/book2sg/visual/. Accessed October 11, 

2007.

Montgomery v. Lomos Altos Inc., 2007. NMISC-2 22, 141 N.M. 21, 28.

Morrison, T.D. 1989. A regional model of the bolson-fill aquifer near Tularosa and 

Alamogordo, New Mexico: New Mexico State Engineer Office, Technical Division 

Hydrology Report No. 89-3, 71 pp.

Myers, R.G., and C.A. Naus. 2004. A Summarized Review of Selected Hydrological 

Characteristics of the White Sands Pupfish (Cyprinodon tularosa) Habitats, Tularosa 

Basin, New Mexico. In cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey and White Sands 

Missile Range. 

The National Academies of Science. 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 

2,000 Years Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 

Years. Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Division on Earth and Life Studies.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005. Climate summary for El 

Paso, Texas. Electronic document: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/

cag3/x6.html (September 2007). Accessed October 11, 2007.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1975. Soil Survey of Otero Area, New 

Mexico; Parts of Otero, Eddy, and Chaves Counties. USDA NRCS and Forest Service, 

in cooperation with the New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station, 

Las Cruces, New Mexico. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

NRCS. 2005. Land designations for Otero County, New Mexico. Online resource, no longer 

available on NRCS website.

NRCS. 2006. Discount Rates for Water Resource Projects. Electronic document: http://www.

economics.nrcs.usda.gov/cost/discountrates.html (May 2007). Accessed October 11, 

2007.

NRCS. 2009. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-

4490 USA. Electronic document: http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed March 30, 2009.

NatureServe. 2004. Ecological System Comprehensive Report, North American Warm Desert 

Cienega. Electronic document: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?

searchSystemUid=ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.722925. Accessed October 11, 2007.
Chapter 6 – References

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 6-5 

New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources. 2006. Oil and Gas Program, 

Importance of Oil and Gas in New Mexico. Electronic document: http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/

resources/petroleum/home.html. Accessed October 11, 2007.

New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA). 1999. Agency memo, 20 September–New 

Mexico Invasive Plants, 1998 Listing Options.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF). 2006a. Cooperative agreement for 

protection and maintenance of White Sands pupfish between U.S. Army–White Sands 

Missile Range, U.S. Air Force–Holloman Air Force Base, National Park Service–White 

Sands National Monument, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, 

New Mexico. 1 May.

NMDGF. 2006b. Comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy for New Mexico. Santa Fe, 

New Mexico. 14 February. 681 pp.

New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT). 2004. New Mexico Traffic Flow Maps 

of Urban Areas (2004) AADT. NMDOT, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Electronic document: 

http://nmshtd.state.nm.us/upload/images/maps/Traffic-Flow-Maps/default.asp. Accessed 

October 11, 2007.

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). 2005a. NMED Construction Programs 

Bureau, Municipal Water and Wastewater User Charge Survey (Based on 6,000 

gallons/month) May 1, 2005. Online resource, no longer available on NMED website.

NMOSE. 1996. Technical Report 48, Water Conservation and Quantification of Water 

Demands in Subdivisions, A Guidance Manual for Public Officials and Developers, 

Wilson, B. C.,

NMOSE. 2003. Technical Report 51, Water Use by Categories in New Mexico Counties and 

River Basins, and Irrigated Acreage in 2000, Wilson, B. C.; Lucero, A. A.; Romero, J. 

T., P. E., and Romero, P. J.

NMOSE. 2004a. Report and Recommendation of Hearing Examiner in the Matter of the 

Application by City of Alamogordo for Permit to Appropriate Underground Waters for 

the Shallow Aquifer located in the Tularosa Basin, Hearing No. 02-035, NMOSE File 

No. T-3825 thru T-3825-S-9.

NMOSE. 2004b. Hearing Decision 02-035, In the Matter of the Application by City of 

Alamogordo for Permit to Appropriate Underground Waters from the Shallow Aquifer 

Located in the Tularosa Basin of New Mexico, 18 pp.

NMOSE. 2005a. Report and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner, Hearing No. 02-35, 

NMOSE File No. T-3825 through T-3825-S-9. Electronic document: 

http://www.swca.com/arwsp/documents/OSE_Decision.pdf. Accessed October 11, 2007.

NMOSE. 2005b. Waters Web Query System. Electronic document: http://iwaters.ose.state.

nm.us:7001/iWATERS/. Accessed October 11, 2007.

NMOSE. 2006. Summary of water use in acre-feet, in Otero county, 2000. Electronic 

Document: http://www.ose.state.nm.us/water-info/water-use/county00/otero.html. 

Accessed March 3, 2009.

NMOSE. 2009. Induced 40-Year Drawdown due to City Pumping of 4000 AFY. Unpublished 

map prepared for Alamogordo Regional Water Supply Project Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement.

New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA). 1978. Section 72-1-10 — Water utility authority; 

created; membership; administration of utility.
Chapter 6 – References

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 6-6 

Orr, B.R., and R.G. Myers. 1986. Water Resources in Basin Fill Deposits in the Tularosa 

Basin, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report No. 

85-4219. Albuquerque. 143 pp.

Pittenger, J. S., and D.L. Propst. 1994. White Sands pupfish conservation plan. Report, New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Conservation Services Division. Santa Fe, New 

Mexico.

Pittenger, J.S., and C.L. Springer. 1999. Native range and conservation of the White Sands 

pupfish (Cyprinodon tularosa). Southwestern Naturalist 44:157–165.

Pray, L.C. 1961. Geology of the Sacramento Mountains Escarpment, Otero County, New 

Mexico. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Bulletin 35, New 

Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico.

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM). 2006. E-mail letter from PNM Transmission 

Operations to PNM Wholesale Power Marketing. Ensuring electric load obligations for 

the combined PNM and TNMP systems consolidation. Electronic document: 

http://www.oatioasis.com/PNM/PNMdocs/Letter_to_WPM_10-24-06_SNM_ATC.pdf. 

Accessed October 11, 2007.

Railey, Jim A., and Richard D. Holmes. 2002. Cultural and Social-Evolutionary History. In 

Across the Desert Floor: Cultural Resource Investigations Along U.S. 54, Otero County, 

New Mexico, edited by Jim A. Railey, pp. 17–78. New Mexico State Highway and 

Transportation Department, Technical Report 2002-1.

Renz, M., and F. Sholedice. 2006. Troublesome Weeds of New Mexico. Las Cruces, New 

Mexico: New Mexico State University College of Agriculture and Home Economics.

Resource Conservation and Development Council (RCDC). 2002. Tularosa Basin and Salt 

Basin regional water plan 2000–2040. Electronic document, 

http://www.seo.state.nm.us/waterinfo/NMWaterPlanning/regions/tularosa/tularosa_vol1.pdf. Accessed October 11, 2007.

Schmittle, M.K. 2005. City of Alamogordo Water Conservation Program Overview, 2nd 

Edition, 15 pp.

Shomaker, J.W. 2006. Geologic setting and hydrologic implications, Maxwell Spring and 

nearby springs, Otero County, New Mexico. Consultant’s Report prepared for the City of 

Alamogordo, November 10, 2006, 3 pp.

South Central Mountain Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc.. 2002. 

Executive summary for the Tularosa Basin and Salt Basin regional water plan, 2000–

2040. Carrizozo, New Mexico.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. South 

Coast Air Quality Management District. Diamond Bar, California. April.

Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project (SWReGAP). 2005. Provisional landcover and 

related datasets. Electronic document, http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/index.html. 

Accessed October 11, 2007.

Stokes v. Morgan. 1984. 101 N.M. 195, 202, 680 P.2d 335, 342.

Texas Water Development Board and New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute (Texas 

and New Mexico). 1997. Transboundary Aquifers of the El Paso/Ciudad Juarez/Las 

Cruces Region, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI.

Transportation Research Board. 1994. Highway Capacity Manual, Third Edition, Special 

Report 209, 1994 update to 1985 edition.
Chapter 6 – References

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 6-7 

Twelfth Judicial District Court. 2008. State of New Mexico Conclusions of Law, ¶ 11, Minute 

Order, CV-05-019, James Waylon Counts, Water Judge, Settlement.

U.S. Army. 2000. Fort Bliss, Texas and New Mexico, Mission and Master Plan Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Volumes I–III. Directorate of the 

Environment, U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery Center and Fort Bliss.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2004a. Figure 2-5, Typical Evaporation Pond 

Profile, In Chapter 2: Alternatives Considered Including the Proposed Action and No 

Action Alternative, Proposed Leasing of Lands at Fort Bliss, Texas, for the Proposed 

Siting, Construction, and Operation by the City of El Paso of a Brackish Water 

Desalination Plant and Support Facilities, Final Environmental Impact Statement, pp 2–9. 

USACE. 2004b. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Leasing of Lands at Fort 

Bliss, Texas, for the Proposed Siting, Construction, and Operation by the City of El Paso 

of a Brackish Water Desalination Plant and Support Facilities. Prepared by the USACE, 

Fort Worth, Texas.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1986. White Sands Resource Area Resource 

Management Plan, October 1986. BLM Las Cruces District Office, 51 pp.

BLM. 2004a. BLM Manual 8400, Visual Resource Management and Manual Section 8431 

Visual Resource Contrast Rating. Electronic document: http://www.blm.gov/nstc/

VRM/8400.html. Accessed October 11, 2007.

BLM. 2004b. BLM Manual H-8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory. Electronic document, 

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/8410.html#Anchor-49575. Accessed October 11, 2007.

BLM. 2004c. New Mexico land ownership, edition 11, vector digital data. BLM New Mexico 

State Office: Santa Fe, New Mexico. Electronic document: http://nmso3gis4/gis/

personal_dirs/w03grave/web/coverages/nm_own. Accessed October 11, 2007.

BLM. 2005. Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact 

Statement for McGregor Range in Southern Otero County, New Mexico.

BLM. 2007. Aguirre Springs Campground. Electronic document, 

http://www.nm.blm.gov/recreation/las_cruces/aguirre_spring_campground.htm. 

Accessed October 11, 2007.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 1983. Tularosa Basin Water and Energy Study, 

New Mexico. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Appraisal Report, 213 pp. 

Reclamation. 1993. Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, 

Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Otero County, New Mexico Quick Facts. Electronic document, 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/35/35035.html. Accessed October 11, 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005a. EPA Office of Environmental Justice, 

Region 6. Electronic document, http://www.epa.gov/region6/6dra/ejtribal/index.htm. 

Accessed October 11, 2007.

EPA. 2005b. Potential Environmental Justice (EJ) Index Pilot, Superfund Information 

Management, U.S. EPA, Region 6, Dallas, Texas.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas 

for Criteria Pollutants. Electronic document: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/. 

Last accessed, March 4, 2009.
Chapter 6 – References

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 6-8 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. Final Rule to Determine Argemone 

plelacantha ssp. pinnatisecta (Sacramento prickly poppy) To Be an Endangered Species. 

Federal Register 54(163):35302–35305.

USFWS. 2005a. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species Listed by County for the State 

of New Mexico. Otero County, New Mexico.

USFWS. 2005b. National Wetlands Inventory Map. Electronic document, http://nwi.fws.gov/. 

Accessed October 11, 2007.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1990. U.S. GeoData 1:250,000 and 1:100,000 Scale Land 

Use and Land Cover and Associated Maps Digital Data. USGS, Reston, Virginia. 

U.S. Public Health Service. 1962. Drinking Water Standards. U.S. Public Health Service Pub. 

956, 61 pp.

Waltemeyer, S.D. 2001. Estimates of mountain-front stream flow available for potential 

recharge to the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigation Report No. 01-4013. 8 pp.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2008. Cloudcroft, New Mexico. Electronic document: 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nm1931. Last Accessed March 5, 2009.

Western Resource Advocates. 2005. Smart Water: A Comparative Study of Urban Water Use 

Across the Southwest. Electronic document: http://www.westernresources.org/water/

smartwater.php. Accessed October 11, 2007.

Whitson, Tom D. 2000. Weeds of the west, 9th edition. Western Society of Weed Science, 

P.O. Box 963, Newark, California, 94560.

Wilson, Brian C., 1993. Tularosa Groundwater Basin in Otero County, New Mexico; 

Quantification of Irrigation Water Requirements for the Administration of Water Rights. 

State Engineer Office Water Use Section report. 

Zeiher, K., E.H., Ho, B., and Williams, K.D. 2003. Novel antiscalant dosing control. 

Desalination 157:209–216.
7.0 ABREVIATION AND

 ACRONYM LIST
Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 7-1

7.0 ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYM LIST

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

AFB Air Force Base

AEC Alamogordo-Gypsum Complex

afy acre-feet per year

afy/ac acre-feet per year per acre

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act

APE area of potential effect

ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery

bgs below the current ground surface

BBER Bureau of Business and Economic Research

BISON-M Biota Information System of New Mexico

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

BMPs best management practices

CAA Clean Air Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIR consumptive irrigation requirement

City City of Alamogordo

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

DVECO Economic Status – Degree of Vulnerability

DVMAV Minority Status – Degree of Vulnerability

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ Index Environmental Justice Index

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPE El Paso Electric Company

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM flood insurance rate map

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

FR Federal Register

GHGs greenhouse gases

GIS geographic information system

gpcpd gallons per capita per day

gpd gallons per day
Chapter 7- Abbreviation and Acronym List

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 7-2 

gpm gallons per minute

HDPE high-density polyethylene

HOB Holloman-Gypsum Land-Yesum Complex

HVCS High Voltage Converter Station

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ITA Indian Trust Asset

JSAI John Shomaker and Associates, Inc.

LA Laboratory of Anthropology

LOS Level of Service

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

mg/L TDS milligrams per liter in total dissolved solids

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MW megawatts

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMAC New Mexico Administrative Code

NMDA New Mexico Department of Agriculture

NMDGF New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

NMDOT New Mexico Department of Transportation 

NMED New Mexico Environment Department

NMOSE New Mexico Office of the State Engineer

NMRPTC New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council

NMSA New Mexico Statutes Annotated

NMSLO New Mexico State Land Office

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOx nitrogen oxide

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O3 ozone

Pb lead

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PF population ranking

PL Public Law

PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in size

PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in size

PNM Public Service Company of New Mexico

ppm parts per million
Chapter 7- Abbreviation and Acronym List

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 7-3 

project Alamogordo Water Supply Project

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

psi per square inch

psig per square inch gauge

PVC polyvinyl chloride

RCDC Resource Conservation and Development Council

Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Research Facility Tularosa Basin National Desalination Research Facility

RO reverse osmosis

SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition

Secretary Secretary of the Interior

SEIS Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SRCP State Register of Cultural Properties

State Land State of New Mexico Trust Lands

SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

SWReGAP Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project

TCDC Tularosa Community Ditch Corporation

TCPs traditional cultural properties

TDB Tome Silt Loam

TDS total dissolved solids

TFC/Pas thin-film composite/polyamides

Title XVI

Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, 

Public Law (PL) 102-575, Title XVI, as amended

TNMP Texas–New Mexico Power Company

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. 54 U.S. Highway 54

VOC volatile organic compound

VRM visual resource management

WATERS Water Administration and Technical Engineering Resource System

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center

WSMR White Sands Missile Range

WSRMP White Sands Resource Area Resource Management Plan
8.0 GLOSSARY
Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 8-1

8.0 GLOSSARY

A

Acre-foot: The volume (as of irrigation water) that would cover one acre to a depth of one foot 

(43,560 cubic feet).

Adaptive Management: A systematic process for continually improving management policies 

and practices by learning, through monitoring and evaluation, of the outcomes of actions over 

time.

Affected Environment: Surface or subsurface resources (including social and economic 

elements) within or adjacent to a geographic area that potentially could be affected by a proposed 

action or plan. The environment of the area affected or created by the alternatives under 

consideration (40 CFR 1502.15).

Agency: Any Federal, state, or county government organization participating with jurisdictional 

responsibilities.

Air Quality: A measure of the health-related and visual characteristics of the air often derived 

from quantitative measurements of the concentrations of specific injurious or contaminating 

substances.

Air Quality Class I and II Areas: Regions in attainment areas where maintenance of existing 

good air quality is of high priority. Class I areas are those that have the most stringent degree of 

protection from future degradation of air quality, such as National parks. Class II areas permit 

moderate deterioration of existing air quality, such as lands administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM).

Allotment (range): A designated area of land available for livestock grazing upon which a 

specified number and kind of livestock may be grazed under management of an authorized 

agency.

All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV): A small, amphibious motor vehicle, 42 inches in width or smaller, 

with wheels or tractor treads for traveling over rough ground, snow, or ice, as well as on water.

Alternative: A combination of management prescriptions applied in amounts and locations to 

achieve a desired management emphasis as expressed in goals and objectives. One of a number 

of plans or projects proposed for decision making.

Ambient (air): The surrounding atmospheric conditions to which the general public has access.

Analysis: The examination of existing and/or recommended management needs and their 

relationships to discover and display the outputs, benefits, effects, and consequences of initiating 

a proposed action.

Aquifer: A water-bearing rock unit (unconsolidated or bedrock) that will yield water in a usable 

quantity to a well or spring.

Archaeological Site: A discrete location that provides physical evidence of past human use.

Archaeology: The scientific study of the life and culture of past, especially ancient, peoples, as 

by excavation of ancient cities, relics, artifacts, etc.

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): A BLM designation pertaining to areas 

where specific management attention is needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to 

important historical, cultural, and scenic values, fish or wildlife resources, or other natural 

systems or processes, or to protect human life and safety from natural hazards.
Chapter 8 - Glossary

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 8-2 

Arroyo: A term applied in the arid and semiarid regions of the southwestern United States to the 

small, deep, flat-floored channel or gully of an ephemeral stream or of an intermittent stream 

usually with vertical or steeply cut unconsolidated material at least 2 feet (60 centimeters) high; 

it is usually dry, but may be transformed into a temporary watercourse or short-lived torrent after 

heavy rainfall.

Artifact: A human-made object.

Aspect: The direction in which a slope faces.

Attainment (Air): Designation of a geographical area by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) where the air quality is deemed to be better than the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). This designation is based on the measured ambient criteria 

pollution data available for the geographic area. Areas where the measured ambient criteria 

pollution data are worse than the NAAQS are identified as non attainment. An area can be 

designated as unclassified when there are insufficient ambient criteria pollutant data for the EPA 

to form a basis for attainment status.

B

Basin: A depressed area having no surface outlet (topographic basin); a physiographic feature 

or subsurface structure that is capable of collecting, storing, or discharging water by reason of its 

shape and the characteristics of its confining material (water); a depression in the earth’s surface, 

the lowest part often filled by a lake or pond (lake basin); a part of a river or canal widened 

(drainage, river, stream basin).

Basin and Range: Topography characterized by a series of tilted fault block mountain ranges 

and broad intervening basins.

Best Management Practices: Measures or activities that are added to typical operation, 

construction, or maintenance efforts that help to protect environmental resources by avoiding or 

minimizing impacts of an action.

Big Game: Large species of wildlife that are hunted (such as elk, deer, pronghorn antelope).

Biodiversity: The variety of life and its processes, and the interrelationships within and among 

various levels of ecological organization.

C

Clean Air Act

Class I – minimal additional deterioration in air quality (certain National parks and wilderness 

areas)

: Federal legislation governing air pollution. The Clean Air Act established 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, ozone, particulate 

matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead. Prevention of Significant Deterioration classifications define 

the allowable increased levels of air quality deterioration above legally established levels include 

the following:

Class II – moderate additional deterioration in air quality (most lands)

Class III – greater deterioration for planned maximum growth (industrial areas)

Clean Water Act: National environmental law enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency that regulates water pollution.
Chapter 8 - Glossary

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 8-3 

Corridor: For purposes of this document, a wide strip of land within which a proposed linear 

facility (e.g., pipeline, transmission line) could be located.

Council on Environmental Quality: An advisory council to the President of the United States 

established by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews Federal programs for 

their effect on the environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on 

environmental matters.

Critical Habitat: An area occupied by a threatened or endangered species “on which are found 

those physical and biological features (1) essential to the conservation of the species, and (2) 

which may require special management considerations or protection” (16 USC 1532 

(5)(A)(I)1988). Unoccupied by suitable habitat for the threatened or endangered species is not 

automatically included unless such areas are essential for the conservation of the species (50 

CFR 424.12(e)).

Cubic Feet Per Second (cfs): As a rate of stream flow, a cubic foot of water passing a reference 

section in 1 second of time. One cfs flowing for 24 hours will yield 1.983 acre-feet of water.

Cultural Resources: Remains of human activity, occupation, or endeavor, as reflected in 

districts, sites, buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, works of art, architecture, and natural features 

important in human events.

Cumulative Impacts: The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact 

of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Cumulative 

impacts are evaluated as part of the EIS, and may include consideration of additive or interactive 

effects regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other actions.

D

Developed Recreation: Recreation that requires facilities that, in turn, result in concentrated use 

of the area. For example, off-road vehicles require parking lots and trails. Campgrounds may 

have roads, picnic tables, and toilet facilities.

Dispersed Recreation: Recreation that does not occur in a developed recreation site, such as 

hunting, backpacking, and scenic driving.

E

Easement: A right afforded a person, agency, or organization to make limited use of another’s 

real property for access or other purposes.

Ecological Site (range): A distinctive kind of rangeland in its ability to produce a characteristic 

natural plant community.

Emission: Effluent discharged into the atmosphere, usually specified by mass per unit time.

Endangered Species: A plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Endangered species are rarely identified by the Secretary of the 

Interior in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A document prepared to analyze the impacts on the 

environment of a proposed action and released to the public for review and comment. An EIS 

must meet the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act, Council on Environmental 

Quality, and the directives of the agency responsible for the proposed action.
Chapter 8 - Glossary

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 8-4 

Ephemeral Stream: A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation, and whose 

channel is at all times above the water table.

Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geologic 

agents and by such processes as gravitation creep.

Escarpment: Steep slope at the edge of a plateau.

Evaporation: Conversion of water from the liquid phase to the gaseous phase.

Exclusion Area: An environmentally sensitive area where rights-of-way should be excluded, 

and would be granted only in cases where there is a legal requirement to provide such access.

F

Federal Candidate Species: Sensitive wildlife species currently under consideration for 

inclusion to the list of Federal threatened or endangered species.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA): Public Law 94-570 signed by 

the President of the United States on October 21, 1976. Established public land policy for 

management of lands administered by BLM. FLPMA specifies several key directions for the 

BLM, notably (1) management on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield; (2) land plans 

prepared to guide management actions; (3) public land management for the protection, 

development, and enhancement of resources; (4) public land retention in Federal ownership; and 

(5) public participation in reaching management decisions.

Federal Lands: Lands, or interests in lands (such as easements and rights-of-way), owned by 

the United States.

Federal Listed Species: Animal or plant species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as 

threatened or endangered.

Fire Suppression Tactics: The tactical approaches regarding suppression of a wildland fire. 

These range from Control, Confine, Contain, and Monitor. Control is the most aggressive tactic, 

while Monitor is the least aggressive tactic.

Floodplain: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. This term 

typically refers to the 100-year overflow area. The term 100-year flood is used to describe that 

there is a one percent estimated probability that a flood event will happen in any given year. The 

100-year overflow area would be the area affected by a 100-year flood.

Fluid Minerals: In this case, oil, gas, and geothermal resources.

Forage: All browse and herbaceous foods available to grazing animals, which may be grazed or 

harvested for feeding.

Foreground View: The landscape area visible to an observer within a mile.

Fugitive Dust: Airborne particles emitted from any source other than through a stack or vent.

G

Game Species: Any species of wildlife or fish that is managed for hunting.
Chapter 8 - Glossary

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 8-5 

H

Habitat: A specific set of physical conditions in a geographic area(s) that surrounds a single 

species, a group of species, or a large community. In wildlife management, the major 

components of habitat are food, water, cover, and living space.

Habitat Fragmentation: The disruption (by division) of extensive habitats into smaller habitat 

patches. The effects of habitat fragmentation include loss of habitat area and the creation of 

smaller, more isolated patches of remaining habitat.

Habitat Type: An aggregation of all land areas potentially capable of producing similar plant 

communities at climax.

Hazardous Waste: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act defines hazardous waste as a 

solid waste that may cause an increase in mortality or serious illness or pose a substantial threat 

to human health and the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, 

or otherwise managed. A waste is hazardous if it exhibits characteristics of ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity.

Historic Site: Archaeological or archivally known sites related to the activities of non-native 

peoples in the period after the European discovery of the New World (ca. A.D. 1492).

I

Impact: A modification of the existing environment caused by an action (such as construction 

or operation of facilities).

Indirect Impacts: Secondary effects that occur in locations other than the initial action or later 

in time.

Infrastructure: The facilities, services, and equipment needed for a community to function 

including roads, sewers, water lines, police and fire protection, and schools.

Intermittent Stream: A stream or reach of a stream that is below the local water table for at 

least some part of the year.

J

Jurisdiction: The legal right to control or regulate use of land or a facility. Jurisdiction requires 

authority, but not necessarily ownership.

L

Land Tenure: The holding of property, including surface and/or mineral estate.

Landscape: An area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated because of geology, 

landform, soils, climate, biota, and human influences throughout the area. Landscapes are 

generally of a size, shape, and pattern, which are determined by interacting ecosystems.

Landscape Character: Particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape that give it an 

image and make it identifiable or unique.

Landscape Setting: The context and environment in which a landscape is set; a landscape 

backdrop.
Chapter 8 - Glossary

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 8-6 

Land-Surface Subsidence: Land subsidence is the lowering of the land-surface elevation from 

changes that take place underground. Common causes of land subsidence from human activity 

are pumping water, oil, and gas from underground reservoirs; dissolution of limestone aquifers 

(sinkholes); collapse of underground mines; drainage of organic soils; and initial wetting of dry 

soils (hydrocompaction). Land subsidence occurs in nearly every state of the United States.

Leasable Minerals: Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920. They include coal, phosphate, asphalt, sulfur, potassium and sodium 

minerals, and oil, gas, and geothermal.

Lease: An authorization or contract by which one party (lessor) conveys the use of property, 

such as water rights or real estate, to another (lessee) in return for rental payments. In addition to 

rental payments, lessees also pay royalties (a percentage of value) to the lessor from resource 

production. Leases are one of three forms of a land use authorization (the others are permits and 

easements). Leases are used to authorize uses of public land involving substantial construction, 

development, or land improvement and the investment of large amounts of capital, which are to 

be amortized over time. A lease conveys a possessory interest and is revocable only in 

accordance with its terms and applicable regulations. Leases are issued for a term that is 

consistent with the time required to amortize the capital investment.

Locatable Mineral: Any valuable mineral that is not saleable or leasable including gold, silver, 

copper, uranium, etc, that may be developed under the General Mining Law of 1872.

M

Middleground View: One of the distance zones of a landscape being viewed. This zone 

extends from the limit of the foreground to 3 to 5 miles from the observer.

Military Lands Withdrawal Act (PL 106-65): The withdrawal of large tracks of public land 

for military purposes.

Mineral Estate (Mineral Rights): The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for 

access, exploration, development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations.

Mineral Reserves: Known mineral deposits that are recoverable under present conditions but 

are as yet undeveloped.

Mineral Rights: Mineral rights outstanding are third-party rights, an interest in minerals not 

owned by the person or party conveying the land to the United States. It is an exception in a 

deed that is the result of prior conveyance separating title of certain minerals from the surface 

estate. Reserved mineral rights are the retention of ownership of all or part of the mineral rights 

by a person or party conveying land to the United States. Conditions for the exercising of these 

rights has been defined in the Secretary of the Interior’s “Rules and Regulations to Govern 

Exercising of Mineral Rights Reserved Conveyance to the United States” attached to and made a 

part of deeds reserving mineral rights.

Minority and Low-Income Populations: Identification of communities containing 

disproportionately high percentages of minority and low-income populations based on the 

composition of the surrounding community.
Chapter 8 - Glossary

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 8-7 

Mitigation: The abatement or reduction of an impact on the environment by (1) avoiding a 

certain action or parts of an action, (2) employing certain construction measures to limit the 

degree of impact, (3) restoring an area to preconstruction conditions, (4) preserving or 

maintaining an area throughout the life of a project, (5) replacing or providing substitute 

resources to the environment or (6) gathering archaeological and paleontological data before 

disturbance.

N

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): The allowable concentrations of air 

pollutants in the air specified by the Federal government. The air quality standards are divided 

into primary standards (based on the air quality criteria and allowing an adequate margin of 

safety and requisite to protect the public health) and secondary standards (based on the air 

quality criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety and requisite to protect the public 

welfare) from any unknown or expected adverse effects of air pollutants.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): An act that encourages productive and 

enjoyable harmony between humans and their environment and promotes efforts to prevent or 

eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of 

humans; enriches the understanding or the ecological systems and natural resources important to 

the Nation, and established the Council on Environmental Quality.

National Register of Historic Places (National Register, NRHP): A listing of architectural, 

historical, archaeological, and cultural sites of local, state, or National significance. The list of 

sites was established by the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and is maintained by the National 

Park Service.

Noxious Weed: A weed arbitrarily defined by law as being especially undesirable, troublesome, 

and difficult to control.

O

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV): A vehicle (including four-wheel drive, trail bikes, all-terrain 

vehicles, and snowmobiles but excluding helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, and boats) capable of 

traveling off road over land, water, ice, snow, sand, marshes, and other terrain.

P

Paleontology: A science dealing with the life of past geological periods as known from fossil 

remains.

Patent: A grant made to an individual or group conveying fee simple title to public land.

Perennial Stream: A stream receiving water from both surfaces and underground sources that 

flows throughout the entire year.
Chapter 8 - Glossary

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 8-8 

Permit: Permits are one of three forms of a land use authorization (the others are leases and 

easements). Permits are short-term, revocable authorization to use public land for specific 

purposes that involve either little or no land improvement, construction, or investment, which 

can be amortized within the term of the permit. A permit conveys no possessory interest. The 

permit is renewable at the discretion of the authorized officer and may be revoked in accordance 

with its terms and applicable regulations.

Physiographic Province: A region, all parts of which are similar in geologic structure and 

climate and which has consequently had a unified geomorphic history; a region whose pattern of 

relief features or landforms differs significantly from that of adjacent regions.

Planning Area: In the case of this EIS, the area that is inventoried and analyzed for potential

impacts. The Planning Area may include land owned or administered by entities other than 

BLM (see also Region of Influence).

Playa: Ephemeral ponds that are supplied by rainfall runoff and last until evaporation eliminates 

surface water.

Prehistoric: Archaeological sites resulting from the activities of aboriginal peoples native to 

this region, and because dating is often difficult, extending up to the reservation era (ca. A.D. 

1868).

Prescribed Fire: Fire set intentionally in wild land fuels under prescribed conditions and 

circumstances. Prescribed fire should be used to mitigate the suppression of natural fires.

R

Rangeland: Land used for grazing by livestock and big game animals on which vegetation is 

dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs.

Raptor: Bird of prey with sharp talons and strongly curved beak (e.g., hawk, owl, vulture, 

eagle).

Reclamation: The process of converting disturbed land to its former use or other productive 

uses.

Record of Decision (ROD): A document separate from, but associated with, an EIS that 

publicly and officially discloses the responsible official’s decision on the proposed action.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS): A framework for inventory, planning, and 

management of recreational resources. The ROS allows managers to characterize all possible 

combinations of recreational opportunities and resources and arrange combinations of activity, 

settings, and experience opportunities along a continuum.

Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act: This act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 

to lease or convey public land for R&PP, under specified conditions, to states or their political 

subdivisions and to nonprofit corporations and associations.

Region of Influence: In the case of this EIS, the area that is inventoried and analyzed for 

potential impacts. The Region of Influence may include land owned or administered by entities 

other than BLM (see also Planning Area).

Resource Management Plan (RMP): A land use plan that establishes land use allocations, 

multiple-use guidelines, and management objectives for a given planning area. The RMP 

planning system has been used by the BLM since 1980.

Right-of-Way: The Federal land authorized to be used or occupied for the construction, 

operation, maintenance, and termination of a project, pursuant to a right-of-way authorization.
Chapter 8 - Glossary

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 8-9 

Riparian: Situated on or pertaining to the bank of a river, stream, or other body of water. The 

term is used to refer to the types of plants that grow along, around, or in wet areas.

Riparian Habitat: Riparian habitat is defined as an area of land directly influenced by 

permanent (surface of subsurface) water. They have visible vegetation or physical 

characteristics reflective of permanent water influence.

Roads: Vehicle routes which are improved and maintained by mechanical means to ensure 

relatively regular and continuous use. (A way maintained strictly by the passage of vehicles does

not constitute a road.)

S

Saleable Minerals: Minerals that may be sold under the Material Sale Act of 1947, as amended. 

Included are common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, and clay.

Saline Water: Water containing high concentrations of salt.

Salinity: A measure of the amount of dissolved salts in water.

Scoping: A term used to identify the process for determining the scope of issues related to a 

proposed action and for identifying significant issues to be addressed in an EIS.

Sediment: Soil or mineral transported by moving water, wind, gravity, or glaciers, and 

deposited in streams or other bodies of water, or on land.

Sensitive Species: Species not yet officially listed but that are undergoing status review for 

listing on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service official threatened and endangered list; species 

whose populations are small and widely dispersed or restricted to a few localities; and species 

whose numbers are declining so rapidly that official listing may be necessary.

Soil Productivity: The capacity of a soil to produce a plant or sequence of plants under a system 

of management.

Soil Series: A group of soils having genetic horizons (layers) that, except for texture of the 

surface layer, have similar characteristics and arrangement in profile.

Special Status Species: Wildlife and plant species either Federally-listed or proposed for listing 

as endangered or threatened; State-listed or BLM determined priority species.

Split Estate: Refers to land where the mineral rights and the surface rights are owned by 

different parties. Owners of the mineral rights generally have a superior right.

Sustainability: The ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and functions, 

biological diversity, and productivity over time.

T

Threatened or Endangered Species: Animal or plant species that are listed under the Federal 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Federally-listed), or under the New Mexico 

Endangered Species Act (State-listed).

Threatened Species: Any animal or plant species likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of a significant portion of its range. These species are listed by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): A term that describes the quantity of dissolved material in a 

sample of material.
Chapter 8 - Glossary

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 8-10 

Total Suspended Particulates: All particulate matter, typically less than 70 microns in 

effective diameter.

Transportation Right-of-Way: Land associated with highways and railroads.

U

Utility Corridor: A linear corridor usually designated for facilities such as power lines, 

pipelines, fiber optic cables, roads, etc.

V

Valid Existing Rights: Legal interests that attach a land or mineral estate and cannot be 

divested from the estate until those interests expire or are relinquished.

Visual Resource Management (VRM): The inventory and planning actions taken to identify 

visual resource values and to establish objectives for managing those values; also includes 

management actions taken to achieve the established objectives.

Visual Resource Management Classes

• VRM Class I – This classification preserves the existing characteristic landscape and 

allows for natural ecological changes only. Includes congressionally authorized areas, 

such as wilderness and areas approved through an RMP where landscape modification 

activities should be restricted.

: VRM classes identify the visual quality objectives 

(VQOs) as the degree of acceptable visual change within a particular landscape. A classification 

is assigned to public land based on guidelines established for scenic quality, visual sensitivity, 

and visibility. The classes are as follows:

• VRM Class II – This classification retains the existing characteristic landscape. The level 

of change in any of the basic landscape elements (form, line, color, texture) due to 

management activities should be low and not evident.

• VRM Class III – This classification partially retains the existing characteristic landscape. 

The level of change in any of the basic landscape elements due to management activities 

may be moderate and evident.

• VRM Class IV – This classification applies to areas where the characteristic landscape 

has been so disturbed that rehabilitation is needed. Generally considered an interim 

short-term classification until rehabilitation or enhancement is completed.

Visual Resources: The visible physical features of a landscape (topography, water, vegetation, 

animals, structures, and other features) that constitute the scenery of an area.

Visual Sensitivity: Visual sensitivity levels are a measure of public concern for scenic quality 

and existing or proposed visual change.

W

Water Table: The surface in a groundwater body where the water pressure is atmospheric. It is 

the level at which water stands in a well that penetrates the water body just far enough to hold 

standing water.

Watershed: All land and water within the confines of a drainage divide.
Chapter 8 - Glossary

Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 8-11 

Wetlands: 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. BLM Manual 1737, RiparianWetland Area Management, includes marshes, shallow swamps, lakeshores, bogs, muskegs, wet 

meadows, estuaries, and riparian areas as wetlands.

Wilderness Study Area (WSA): An area determined to have wilderness characteristics as 

described in section 603 of FLPMA and section 2C of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 

891). WSAs are subject to interdisciplinary analysis through the BLM’s land use planning 

system and public comment to determine their wilderness suitability. Suitable areas are 

recommended to the President and Congress for designation as wilderness.

Wilderness, Wilderness Area: An area formally designated by Congress as a part of the 

National Wilderness Preservation System.

Withdrawal: An action that restricts the use of public land and segregates it from the operation 

of some or all of the public land and mineral law. Withdrawals also are used to transfer 

jurisdiction of management of public land to other Federal agencies.
9.0 INDEX
Alamogordo Water Supply Project Draft EIS 9-1

9.0 INDEX

A

Air quality, 1-10, 3-4, 3-47, 3-48, 4-1, 4-31, 4-32, 4-

33, 4-34, 4-49, 4-50, 4-54, 8-1, 8-2, 8-7

Archaeology, 8-1

B

Best Management Practices, 4-51, 7-1

C

Cultural resources, 1-10, 1-12, 3-4, 3-34, 3-35, 4-1, 

4-20, 4-45, 4-46, 4-52

Cumulative impacts, 4-1, 4-16, 4-18, 4-27, 4-28, 4-

34, 4-38, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 

4-50, 8-3

D

desalination facility, 4, 2-6, 2-18, 2-22

Desalination facility, 1, 3, 1-1, 1-14, 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, 2-

13, 2-17, 2-18, 2-21, 2-37, 2-39, 2-41, 3-1, 3-24, 

3-35, 3-51, 4-1, 4-11, 4-13, 4-15, 4-21, 4-26, 4-28, 

4-29, 4-30, 4-32, 4-33, 4-37, 4-39, 4-43, 4-47, 4-

54

E

Environmental consequences, 4, 3-1, 4-1, 4-9, 4-11, 

4-12, 4-20, 4-21, 4-23, 4-25, 4-27, 4-29, 4-31, 4-

35, 4-36, 4-54

Environmental justice, 3-40, 3-41, 4-23, 4-25, 4-53

G

Geology, 5, 1-10, 1-12, 2-33, 2-42, 3-2, 3-4, 3-16, 4-

1, 4-9, 4-44, 5-1, 5-2, 6-4, 6-6, 8-5

Groundwater, 1, 3, 5, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 1-8, 1-

10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-6, 

2-7, 2-13, 2-18, 2-19, 2-21, 2-22, 2-24, 2-25, 2-28, 

2-30, 2-32, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-36, 2-38, 2-40, 2-

41, 2-42, 3-2, 3-4, 3-9, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-

37, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-5, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-16, 4-

18, 4-21, 4-25, 4-26, 4-28, 4-35, 4-39, 4-41, 4-42, 

4-43, 4-44, 4-50, 4-51, 4-54, 4-55, 6-2, 6-8, 7-3, 8-

10

GROUNDWATER, 2, 2-2, 3-15, 3-42

I

Indian Trust Assets, 1-10, 1-13, 3-4, 3-34, 3-37, 4-1, 

4-21, 4-46

Issues, 1, 1-1, 1-11, 1-13

J

Jurisdiction, 1, 1-1, 2-24, 2-37, 2-38, 8-5, 8-11

L

Livestock grazing, 1-11, 3-8, 3-23, 3-29, 3-42, 4-14, 

8-1

M

Minerals, 3-4, 3-11, 8-4, 8-6, 8-9

Mitigation, 1-13, 3-36, 3-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 

4-54, 8-6

Monitoring, 1, 1-11, 2-18, 2-19, 3-32, 3-49, 4-50, 4-

51, 4-52, 8-1

N

National Environmental Policy Act, 1, 2, 1-1, 1-9, 1-

10, 3-37, 4-25, 4-38, 4-39, 5-1, 5-2, 7-2, 8-7

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, 3, 1-8, 1-9, 

1-10, 1-13, 1-14, 2-6, 2-7, 2-18, 2-33, 2-34, 2-37, 

3-14, 3-15, 4-2, 4-5, 4-7, 4-50, 4-51, 4-53, 6-5, 7-2

P

Preferred Alternative, 2, 2-2, 4-1, 4-5, 4-10, 4-11, 4-

13, 4-16, 4-17, 4-21, 4-22, 4-24, 4-25, 4-28, 4-29, 

4-32, 4-37

R

Recreation, 2-34, 3-1, 3-50, 4-36, 5-1, 6-7, 8-3, 8-8

S

Scoping, 1-10, 1-11, 8-9

Soils, 5, 1-12, 2-33, 2-42, 3-17, 3-19, 3-22, 3-23, 3-

28, 3-50, 4-11, 4-12, 4-16, 4-33, 4-51, 5-1, 8-5, 8-

6, 8-9

Surface water, 1, 5, 1-7, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 2-2, 

2-3, 2-14, 2-19, 2-24, 2-25, 2-30, 2-31, 2-33, 2-40, 

2-42, 3-4, 3-5, 3-8, 3-9, 3-14, 3-15, 3-30, 3-37, 4-

1, 4-2, 4-5, 4-40, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-50, 4-51, 8-8

T

Topography, 8-2

U

Utilities, 2-6, 2-23, 3-39, 3-40, 3-42, 4-14, 4-25, 6-2

V

Vegetation, 5, 1-11, 1-12, 2-33, 2-42, 3-19, 3-20, 3-

21, 3-27, 3-29, 3-50, 3-51, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 

4-16, 4-32, 4-37, 4-45, 4-46, 4-51, 4-54, 5-1, 6-1, 

8-8, 8-10

Visual resources, 3-50

W

Water resources, 1-4, 1-8, 1-10, 2-31, 2-34, 2-40, 3-4, 

3-9, 3-14, 4-1, 4-13, 4-17, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-51, 

4-55, 6-3, 6-4

Wildlife, 5, 1-14, 2-42, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-26, 3-27, 

3-28, 3-30, 3-31, 3-48, 4-17, 4-20, 4-51, 5-1, 5-2, 

6-1, 6-2, 6-5, 6-7, 7-1, 7-3, 8-4, 8-9
UNITED STATES

Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

LAS CRUCES DISTRICT OFFICE

1800 MARQUESS ST

LAS CRUCES NM 88005-3371

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300