United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service

Tio Gordito Restoration Project

Preliminary Environmental Assessment

Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico

May 2015

For More Information Contact: 

Chris Furr

Tres Piedras Ranger District

P.O. Box 38

Tres Piedras, New Mexico 87577

Phone: 575-758-8678

Email: Cfurr@fs.fed.us

Fax: 575-751-3230

*Description: Photo on front cover is of a ponderosa pine stand located within the Tio Gordito 

Restoration Project area. Photo provided by Lora Arciniega, west-zone Forester/Silviculturalist. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or 

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for 

program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office 

of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

i

Contents

Contents............................................................................................................................................ i

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Proposed Project Location .......................................................................................................... 1

Need for the Proposal...................................................................................................................... 2

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation................................................................................... 4

Proposed Action and Alternatives................................................................................................... 5

No Action Alternative (Alternative A) ....................................................................................... 5

Proposed Action (Alternative B)................................................................................................. 6

Modified Proposed Action (Alternative C)............................................................................... 11

Alternative Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study .................................................. 13

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives................................................. 14

Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 14

Vegetation ................................................................................................................................. 15

Fire and Fuels............................................................................................................................ 34

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ 46

Soils and Hydrology.................................................................................................................. 48

Wildlife, Fish, and Botanical Species....................................................................................... 55

Recreation/Lands/Roads ........................................................................................................... 79

Heritage..................................................................................................................................... 81

Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................... 82

References..................................................................................................................................... 83

List of Tables

Table 1. Proposed Forest Plan Amendment Language for the Tio Gordito Restoration Project..... 8

Table 2. Cover Types within the TGRP area (NFS Lands).............................................16

Table 3. Insects and Disease Located within the TGRP.................................................17

Table 4. Current Distribution of Vegetation Structural Stages within the Ponderosa Pine Cover 

Type for the TGRP...........................................................................................18

Table 5. Current Canopy Cover for the TGRP by Vegetation Type...................................19

Table 6. Current Average Canopy Cover in Percent by VSS for the TGRP .........................19

Table 7. Average Summary Statistic Report for the No Action Alternative..........................22

Table 8. No Action Alternative % SDI over a 60 Year Time Horizon................................22

Table 9. No Action Proportional VSS over a 60 Year Time Horizon.................................22

Table 10. Average Canopy Cover in Percent by VSS over 60 Years for the No Action 

Alternative.....................................................................................................23

Table 11. Average Summary Statistic Report for the Burn Only Areas over a 60 Year Time 

Horizon.........................................................................................................24

Table 12. Vegetation Structural Stages in Percent over a 60 Year Time Horizon for Areas 

Receiving only Prescribed Burn Activity.................................................................25

Table 13. Average Canopy Cover by VSS Class over 60 Years for Burn Only Areas.............25

Table 14. Average Summary Statistics Report for the Proposed Action Alternative...............26

Table 15. Proposed Action Vegetation Structural Stages in Percent over a 60 Year Time 

Horizon.........................................................................................................28

Table 16. Number of Trees per Acre in VSS Class for Selected Stand in the TGRP under the 

Proposed Action..............................................................................................28
ii

Table 17. Average Canopy Cover in Percent by VSS Class over 60 Years for the Proposed 

Action...........................................................................................................30

Table 18. Average Summary Statistic Report for Alternative C.......................................30

Table 19. Alternative c Vegetation Structural Stages in Percent over a 60 Year Time Horizon...32

Table 20. Number of Trees per Acre in VSS for Selected Stand in the TGRP under Alternative 

C................................................................................................................32

Table 21. Average Canopy Cover in Percent by VSS over 60 Years for Alternative C............34

Table 22. Percent of the Tio Gordito area demonstrating potnetial for types of fire by 

alterntaive......................................................................................................35

Table 23. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey Characteristics, Soil Stability Rating, Nutrient Cycling 

Rating, and Rangeland Health Evaluation.................................................................49

Table 24. 303(d)-305(b) Listed Waters for the Tio Gordito Analysis Area...........................51

Table 25. T&E Species dismissed from further analysis................................................56

Table 26. Forest Sensitive Species not considered in detail.............................................57

Table 27. MIS not found within project area..............................................................59

Table 28.Crown Fire Potential for the No Action Alternative..........................................61

Table 29. Fire Potential for the Proposed Action Alternative...........................................63

Table 30. Acreage by Habitat Type Proposed for Treatment Type-Proposed Action and 

Alternative C..................................................................................................65

List of Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity Map.......................................................................................2

Figure 2. Proposed Mechanical and Prescribed Burning Treatments for the Tio Gordito 

Restoration Project...........................................................................................11

Figure 3. The six vegetation structural stages used to describe regeneration, growth, and 

development of forests in the Southwest (USDA 1992).................................................................18

Figure 4. GIS Calculated Canopy Cover for the TGRP Area...........................................20

Figure 5. Old Growth Allocation for TGRP area by EMA..............................................21

Figure 6. Comparison of Stand Attributes (TPA, BA,SDI) of the No Action (NA) Alternative and 

the Proposed Action (PA) Alternative over a 60 Year Time Horizon for the Tio Gordito 

Restoration Project...........................................................................................27

Figure 7. Figure Displaying Stand Profile, Aerial View, and Tree Height and Number for the 

Proposed Action..............................................................................................29

Figure 8. Comparison of Stand Attributes (TPA, BA, SDI) of the No Action (NA) Alternative and 

Alternative C (ALT C) over a 60 Year Time Horizon for the Tio Gordito Restoration Project...31

Figure 9. Figure Displaying Stand Profile, Aerial View, and Tree Height and Number for 

Alternative C..................................................................................................33

Figure 10. Breakdown of Predicted Fire Activity for the Analysis Area under the No Action 

Alternative.....................................................................................................36

Figure 11. 2015 Predicted Fire Activity for the Analysis Area under the No Action Alternative.37

Figure 12. 2075 Predicted Fire Activity for the Analysis Area under the No Action 

Alternative.....................................................................................................38

Figure 13. Breakdown of the Crown Fire Potential for the Proposed Action.........................39

Figure 14. 2015 Predicted Fire Activity for the Analysis Area under the Proposed Action........40

Figure 15. 2075 Predicted Fire Activity for the Analysis Area under the Proposed Action........41

Figure 16. Breakdown of Crown Fire Potential for Alternative C.....................................42

Figure 17. 2015.Predicted Fire Activity for the Analysis Area under Alternative C................43

Figure 18. 2075 Predicted Fire Activity for the Analysis Area under Alternative C................44


1

Introduction

The Carson National Forest is proposing to move ecological conditions within the analysis 

area toward desired conditions, improve forest health and resilience, and reduce potential 

wildfire hazard to wildland urban interface (WUI) area containing the community of Tres 

Piedras on approximately 17,000 acres. 

The purpose of the project is to improve forest health, move the forest toward an uneven-aged forest 

structure with all age classes represented, and restore frequent, periodic surface fire as an ecological 

process, as well as reduce the risk of a high severity fire. In order to meet the purpose, the proposed action 

includes a site-specific, forest plan amendment to the “Carson National Forests Land and Resource 

Management Plan”. The proposed amendment clarifies guidelines to assure the proposed action can meet 

restoration objectives, and to assure consistency with the forest plan.

We prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether implementation of moving 

ecological conditions within the analysis area to desired conditions, improving forest health and 

resilience, and reducing potential wildfire hazard to WUI may significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By 

preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives section of this document.

The proposed project is an activity implementing a land management plan and not authorized under the 

HFRA and is subject to 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B.

Proposed Project Location

The Tio Gordito Restoration Project is located on the Tres Piedras Ranger District of the Carson National 

Forest (CNF) and surrounds the community of Tres Piedras, New Mexico. The proposed project area is 

approximately 17,000 acres and is located primarily in the Rio Tusas and Arroyo Aguaje de la Petaca 5th 

Code watersheds. The analysis boundary lies within T27N, R8E, Section 1; T27N, R9E, Sections 3-10, 

14-17, 20-23, and 26-29; T28N, R8E, Sections 12-13, 25 and 36; T28N, R9E, Sections 5, 7-9, 15-22, and 

27-34. 

The Tio Gordito Restoration Project is situated between the elevation of 6,800 and 10,000 feet. Climate of 

the analysis area is typical of Climate Division 2 (Northern Mountain Division), and is characterized as a 

semi-arid continental climate pattern, with bi-modal precipitation, and large diurnal and annual 

temperature fluctuations (http://weather.nmsu.edu/products/climate-new-mexico/). Depending on the 

elevation, the annual precipitation ranges between 25 and 35 inches. An estimated 50 percent of the 

annual precipitation is snow. Summer rainfall occurs as thunderstorms of high intensity and short 

duration. Snow cover extends from early November to mid- April. The average annual snow 

accumulation is between 20 and 36 inches. The freeze free period extends to an estimated 160 days. 

Figure 1 shows the Tio Gordito Restoration Project area and its location within the Tres Piedras Ranger 

District.
2

Figure 1. Vicinity map

Need for the Proposal

The underlying purpose and need for the Tio Gordito Restoration Project has been determined by 

comparing the desired conditions to the existing conditions. Currently, forest lands within the project area 

have departed from the structures and process that have historically kept them in a healthy, resilient state. 
3

Desired conditions relevant to this project relate to forest health and ecosystem function, as defined in the 

Carson Forest Plan. 

The need for change is derived from the differences between the existing condition and the desired 

condition and is summarized as follows: 

 Move stand densities toward desired conditions that exhibit forest health, promote large tree 

development, and promote herbaceous understory species and composition. 

 Reduce the risk of a stand replacing crown fire by reducing stand densities, reducing canopy bulk 

density/continuity, increasing the crown heights, and creating more stand openness. 

 Move goshawk habitat types towards desired conditions. For example, variable tree group sizes, 

age classes, and densities, as well as variable sized interspaces between groups. 

 Reduce potential for widespread bark beetle mortality, and selectively reduce the severity and 

continuity of dwarf mistletoe infection. 

 Be consistent with the 1996 Forest Plan amendment with respect to old growth management. 

 Project-specific forest plan amendment to begin to move frequent fire forests towards reference 

conditions (see amendment details on page 8.)
4

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation

The proposed project was first listed on the Carson National Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions 

(SOPA) on April 1, 2012 under the name “Tio Gordito Project”. The SOPA is distributed to individuals, 

groups, state and local agencies, and Native American tribes, with ties to the Carson National Forest. The 

SOPA can also be accessed on the Carson National Forest Website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/carson. A 

detailed project proposal was provided to individuals, groups, and agency representatives, for comment 

during scoping in November 2013. Three comment letters were received. An updated detailed project 

proposal was provided to individuals, groups, and agency representatives for comment on March 6, 2014. 

Eight comment letters were received. 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during 

the development of this EA:

Federal and State Officials and Agencies

New Mexico State Historical Preservation Office (NM SHPO)

State of New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

State of New Mexico Environment Department

US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

Rio Arriba County 

Tribes

Pueblo of Jemez Pueblo of Taos

Jicarilla Apache Nation Pueblo of Tesuque

Pueblo of Nambe Pueblo of Zuni

Pueblo of Picuris The Hopi Tribe

Pueblo of Pojoaque The Navajo Nation

Pueblo of San Ildefonso Southern Ute Tribe

Pueblo of San Juan Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

Pueblo of Santa Clara Comanche Tribe
5

Changes Made Since the Scoping Period

The Southwest Region of the U.S. Forest Service incorporated guidelines from the Mexican Spotted Owl

(MSO) Recovery Plan into all Forest Plans in 1996 (USDA 1996). The Carson National Forest, through 

its forest plan, manages MSO habitat under the guideline of the 1995 MSO Recovery Plan.The Final 

MSO recovery plan of 1995 specifies three levels of habitat management: protected areas, restricted areas, 

and other forest and woodland types. 

Protected areas on the Carson are defined as one of the following three areas; 

1. All known MSO sites Protected Activity Centers (PACs); 

2. All areas in mixed-conifer with slope >40% where timber harvest has not occurred in the past 

20 years; and 

3. All legally and administratively reserved lands. 

There are no PACs, administratively reserved lands, or mixed-conifer with slope >40% slope within the 

project area. Pine-oak within the Southern Rocky Mountain Recovery Unit does not meet the operational 

definition requirement to be considered Pine-oak habitat (USDI 1995). 

According to the Carson National Forest GIS data, there are approximately 288 acres of mixed conifer 

under 40% slope within the Tio Gordito Restoration project area. The rapid assessment report stated that 

the project area consists of only 96 acres of mixed conifer. It went on to state the historical makeup of the 

sites were fewer number of trees and predominantly ponderosa pine and Douglas fir with some scattered 

aspen clones and few white fir. Historically, the tree groups were interspersed with open areas containing 

grasses, forbs, and shrub interspaces. Today, these areas have filled in with conifer trees.

Field verifications were done to determine the suitability of the mixed conifer for MSO habitat. Areas 

depicted north of U.S. Highway 64 on the Northwestern project boundary as mixed conifer were verified 

to be small (<3 acres) decadent aspen stands on north facing slopes within ponderosa pine dominated

forest. Areas depicted as mixed conifer south of U.S. Highway 64 were verified to be small diameter (<10 

inches) white fir trees with few scattered Douglas fir (<10 inches) trees on a west-northwest aspect in a 

ponderosa pine dominated forest. Since ponderosa pine comprises more than 80 percent of the dominant 

tree species within the area, they are not considered mixed conifer stands suitable for nesting/roosting by 

MSO and would not be analyzed further as there are no specific guidelines for this forest type. The 

associated proposed forest plan amendment proposed during the scoping period has been removed for 

these reasons.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

The proposed action and following alternatives were considered:

No Action Alternative (Alternative A)

The no action alternative is used as a baseline when analyzing the effects of the proposed action and 

modified proposed action alternatives. This alternative would not be addressed in the purpose and need, 

treat the landscape mechanically or through burning, or move the landscape towards desired conditions.
6

Proposed Action (Alternative B)

In order to meet the purpose and need, the Tres Piedras Ranger District, of the Carson National Forest is 

proposing to:

 Selectively cut trees 1and broadcast burn after treatment on up to approximately 3,525 acres in 

ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, and adjacent areas of grassland, piñon-juniper woodland, 

sagebrush, and Gambel oak. 

 Broadcast burn without cutting trees on up to approximately 13,475 acres. 

 Construct approximately 17 miles of handline for prescribed fire control. 

 Allocate approximately 2,000 acres of forest with old growth characteristics. 

 Amend the Carson National Forest Plan pages 92 and 93, to add clarifying language to 1) 

describe desired conditions for the project area managed for northern goshawk, 2) express relative 

amounts of forest cover, as well as the distribution of that cover, including the interspace between 

tree groups, 3) define the relationship between the interspaces and natural openings, such as 

meadows, and 4) clarify that canopy closure is measured at the tree group scale within Vegetation 

Structural Stages2(VSS) 4, 5, and 6. 

Selective cutting would be used to thin ponderosa pine stands. If the first thinning does not achieve the 

desired condition, crews may reenter the stand to cut additional trees. Repeated prescribed burning would 

also be used to maintain open conditions.

Most treatments would be focused on the ponderosa pine cover type; however, adjacent areas of 

grassland, piñon-juniper woodland, sagebrush, Gambel oak, aspen and mixed conifer may be treated. 

Restoration and desired conditions for the ponderosa pine cover type would be guided by General 

Technical Report RMRS-GTR-130 (USDA 2013) “Restoring Composition and Structure in Southwestern 

Frequent Fire Forests: A Science-based Framework for Improving Ecosystem Resiliency” available at: 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr310.pdf). Although the overall project area is 17,000 acres, not 

every acre would be treated, and treatments would be phased in over time. 

Prescribed burning would be accomplished through one method or a combination of methods including 

broadcast burning, pile burning and jackpot burning utilizing hand ignitions and/or aerial (helicopter) 

ignitions. The method of prescribed fire used would depend on forest type, receptive fuel bed, surface 

and vertical fuel loads, proximity to private land and other WUI infrastructure and proximity to heritage 

and wildlife resources. Not every acre would be burned, as a mosaic of burned and unburned areas is 

desired.

Prescribed burns would be conducted during conditions that allow for low severity fire effects and be 

guided by an approved burn plan. Low severity is defined as causing less than 25% overstory mortality 

and causing minor mortality to large (>16” diameter breast height (dbh)) trees when possible. However, 

in areas where the natural fire regime would have been mixed-severity, mixed-severity fire would be 

 

1

Single tree selection cutting is removal of individual trees of all size classes more or less uniformly throughout the 

stand to promote growth of remaining trees and to provide space for regeneration (Helms 1998).

2 Vegetation Structural Stage (VSS): A generalized description of forest growth and aging stages based on the 

majority of the trees on the specific diameter distribution of the stand. Six growth and aging stages were identified, 

if the majority of the stems of a stand (based on basal area) were in the 12-18 inch diameter class, the stand would 

be classified as VSS 4.
7

allowable and desired. Mixed-severity is defined as causing up to 75% overstory mortality. Surface fuels 

and small trees facilitate this fire regime. While fires burn primarily on the forest floor, occasionally 

individual trees or tree groups may torch. Crown fires rarely spread from tree group to tree group (USDA 

2013). Areas would be managed with the goal of applying prescribed fire or managing natural wildfire as 

set forth in Amendment 15 of the Forest Plan within a 0-35 year return interval in ponderosa pine forest 

types and in dry mixed conifer forest types. Prior to prescribed burning, areas would be assessed to 

determine if light thinning from below treatments would be necessary in order to accomplish the desired 

fire effects while providing for sufficient control of prescribed fire lines.

The objective of implementing the proposed action would be to create openings under an uneven-aged 

management along with re-establishing the composition, structure, and function of frequent fire forests. 

Stands even-aged in structure are at risk to losing the entire stand to insect disease and fire. Uneven-aged 

stands are often more resilient due to multiple age classes and increases the stands resiliency to insects, 

disease, and fire. Typically ponderosa pine forest within the Tio Gordito Restoration project area 

experienced frequent, low intensity fire within the Fire Regime Condition Class 1 (0-35 years). 

Silvicultural treatments under the Propose Action would:

 Apply group selection 3(openings) to establish new age classes on 20 percent of harvest units.

o Created openings would range from .3 to 1 acre in size. 

 Create interspaces to provide for grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

o Interspaces are intended to remain tree-less, so prescribed fire and a re-established burn 

regime is necessary.

o Interspaces between groups may range from 20 to 200 feet, but generally between 40 and 

100 feet apart.

 Apply prescribed fire starting approximately 2 years post-treatment.

 Retain legacy trees.

 Promote ponderosa pine as the dominant species across treatment areas.

 Retain groups of trees from 2 to 12 trees per group with interlocking crowns.

o The number of trees per group represents the general group size. Actual number of trees 

per group could be outside recommendations but would be informed by historic data 

collected by the Ecological Restoration Institute (ERI).

 Retain scattered individual trees and retain all snags.

 Residual stand densities would more closely resemble that of the historic stand structure.

 Thin between openings (stand matrix) to an average of 60ft2 BA. 60ft2 BA is a general residual 

basal area target. Actual basal area could range up to plus or minus 40%. 

In order to be consistent with the forest plan standard to “manage for uneven-aged stand conditions in 

northern goshawk habitat;” the Carson National Forest Land and Resource Management would be 

amended for the Tio Gordito Restoration Project as follows:

 

3 Group selections: trees are removed and new age classes are established in small groups. Note: the width of groups 

is commonly approximately twice the height of the mature trees with smaller openings providing 

microenvironments suitable for tolerant regeneration and larger openings providing conditions suitable for more 

tolerant regeneration.
8

Table 1. Proposed Forest Plan Amendment Language for the Tio Gordito Restoration Project

Existing Guideline Language Carson Land and 

Resource Management Plan (1996 Update) 

Pages 92-93

Proposed New Guideline Language

Management Scale

Distribution of habitat structures (tree size and age 

classes, tree groups of different densities, snags, 

dead and down woody material, etc.) should be 

evaluated at the ecosystem management area level, 

at the mid-scale such as drainage, and at the small 

scale of site.

Distribution of habitat structures (tree size and age classes, 

tree density, snags, dead and down woody material, etc.) 

should be evaluated at the ecosystem management area 

level, at the mid-scale such as drainage, and at the small 

scale of site.

No similar direction in Forest Plan.

Where VSS 6 is deficit within the ecosystem management 

area, all VSS 6 will be maintained regardless of location, 

except in situations when occasional trees may be 

removed in order to provide for understory health and 

development. For example, the exemption might be used 

for protection of young tree groups from diseased overstory trees. Threats to public health and safety would be 

another example when this exception is exercised. 

However, over time, the intent is to sustain a relatively 

even distribution (again, based on site quality) of VSS 6 

across the ecosystem management area.

Guidelines

Vegetation Management

Landscapes Outside Goshawk Post-fledgling Family Areas

No similar direction in Forest Plan.

General: Within ponderosa pine stands, manage over time 

for uneven-aged stand conditions composed of 

heterogeneous mosaics of tree groups and single trees, 

with interspaces between tree groups. The size of tree 

groups, as well as sizes and shapes of interspaces should 

be variable.

No similar direction in Forest Plan.

Manage to develop and maintain a highly-diverse 

vegetation mosaic: 60-80% of the uneven-aged stand 

should be under conifer and deciduous tree crowns.

General: The distribution of vegetation structural 

stages for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and 

spruce-fir forests is 10% grass/forb/shrub (VSS 1), 

10% seedling-sapling (VSS 2), 20% young forest 

(VSS 3), 20% mid-aged forest (VSS 4), 20% mature 

forest (VSS 5), 20% old-forest (VSS 6). Note: the 

specified percentages are a guide and actual 

percentages are expected to vary + or - up to 3%.

For the areas managed for tree crown development the 

distribution of vegetation structural stages for ponderosa 

pine, mixed conifer and spruce-fir forests is 10% 

grass/fob/shrub (VSS 1), 10% seedling-sapling (VSS 2), 

20% young forest (VSS 3), 20% mid-aged forest (VSS 4), 

20 % mature forest (VSS 5), and 20% old forest (VSS 6). 

Note: the specified percentages are a guide and actual 

percentages are expected to vary plus or minus up to 3%.

No similar direction in Forest Plan.

Manage to develop and maintain 20-40% of the unevenaged stand as interspaces between tree groups. Mixtures 

of grass, forbs, shrubs, scattered single trees, and small 

areas of non-vegetated conditions comprise these 

interspaces.

No similar direction in Forest Plan.

Tree group spatial distribution may be highly variable 

based on local site and current conditions: the interspaces 

between groups may range from 20-200 feet, but generally 

between 40-100 feet apart from drip line to adjacent drip 

line. This spacing of groups is not affected by single trees 

in the interspaces.
9

Existing Guideline Language Carson Land and 

Resource Management Plan (1996 Update) 

Pages 92-93

Proposed New Guideline Language

No similar direction in Forest Plan.

Natural meadows, grasslands, savanna grasslands, 

wetlands, talus slopes, and other non-tree dominated areas 

may also occur as inclusions but will not be managed for 

forest conditions, and are not included within the unevenaged stand structure.

No similar direction in Forest Plan. Over time the spatial location of the tree groups and 

interspaces may shift within the uneven-aged stand.

No similar direction in Forest Plan.

Each tree group is generally dominated by one vegetation 

structure stage. The spatial arrangement of trees, high 

dispersion of VSS structural stage diversity, and 

interspaces comprise each uneven-aged forest stand. 

Collectively these stands aggregate to uneven-aged forest 

landscapes, similar to natural conditions.

The distribution of VSS, tree density, and tree age 

are a product of site quality in the ecosystem 

management area. Use site quality to guide in the 

distribution of VSS, tree density and tree ages. Use 

site quality to identify and manage dispersal PFA 

and nest habitat at 2 to 2.5 mile spacing across the 

landscape.

No Change.

Snags are 18" or larger dbh and 30 feet or larger in 

height, downed logs are 12 inches in diameter and 

at least 8 feet long, woody debris is 3 inches or 

larger on the forest floor, canopy cover is measured 

with vertical crown projection on average across the 

landscape.

Snags are 18" or larger dbh and 30 feet or larger in height, 

downed logs are 12 inches in diameter and at least 8 feet 

long, woody debris is 3 inches or larger on forest floor.

The order of preferred treatment for woody debris is: 

1) prescribed burning, 2) lopping and scattering, 3) 

hand piling or machine grapple piling, 4) dozer 

piling.

No Change.

Canopy Cover: Canopy cover guidelines apply only 

to mid-aged to old forest structural stages (VSS 4, 

VSS 5, and VSS 6) and not to grass/forb/shrub to 

young forest structural stages (VSS 1, VSS 2, and 

VSS 3).

Canopy Cover: Canopy cover is measured with vertical 

projection within mid-aged to old forest structural stage 

groups (VSS 4, VSS 5, and VSS 6) and not within 

grass/forb/shrub to young forest structural stage groups 

(VSS 1, VSS 2, and VSS 3) or in interspaces, natural 

meadows and grasslands, or other areas not managed for 

forest conditions.

Spruce-Fir: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS

4) should average 1/3 60% and 2/3 40%, mature 

forest (VSS 5) should average 60+% , and old forest 

(VSS 6) should average 60+%. Maximum opening 

size is 1 acre with a maximum width of 125 feet. 

Provide 2 groups of reserve trees per acre with 6 

trees per group when opening size exceeds 0.5. 

Leave at least 3 snags, 5 downed logs, and 10-15 

tons of woody debris per acre.

No Change.

Mixed Conifer: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest 

(VSS 4) should average 1/3 60+% and 2/3 40+%, 

mature forest (VSS 5) should average 50+%, and 

old forest (VSS 6) should average 60+%. Maximum 

opening sizes up to 4 acres with a maximum width 

of up to 200 feet. Retain1 group of reserve trees per 

acre of 3-5 trees per group for openings greater than 

1 acre in size. Leave at least 3 snags, 5 downed 

logs, and 10-15 tons of woody debris per acre.

No Change.
10

Existing Guideline Language Carson Land and 

Resource Management Plan (1996 Update) 

Pages 92-93

Proposed New Guideline Language

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest 

(VSS 4) should average 40+%, mature forest (VSS 

5) should average 40+% and old forest (VSS 6) 

should average 40+%. Opening size is up to 4 

acres with a maximum width of up to 200 feet. 1 

group of reserve trees, 3-5 trees per group, will be 

left if the opening is greater than an acre in size. 

Leave at least 2 snags, 3 downed logs, and 5-7 tons 

of woody debris per acre.

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4) 

should average 40+%, mature forest (VSS 5) should 

average 40+%, and old forest (VSS 6) should average 

40+% within tree groups.. One group of reserve trees, 3-5 

trees per group, will be left in created regeneration 

openings greater than an acre in size. Leave at least 2 

snags per acre, 3 downed logs per acre, and 5-7 tons of 

woody debris per acre. 

Woodland: manage for uneven age conditions to 

sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory 

and understory), age classes, and species 

composition well distributed across the landscape. 

Provide for reserve trees, snags, and down woody 

debris.

No Change.

Landscape Inside Goshawk Post-fledging Family Areas

General: Provide for a healthy sustainable forest 

environment for the post-fledgling family needs of 

goshawks. The principle difference between "within 

the post-fledgling family area" and "outside the postfledgling family area" is the higher canopy cover 

within the post-fledgling family area and smaller 

opening size within the post-fledgling family area. 

Vegetative structural stage distribution and structural 

condition are the same within and outside the postfledgling family area.

No Change.

No similar direction in Forest Plan.

Canopy Cover is measured with vertical crown projection 

within mid-aged to old forest structural stages groups (VSS 

4, VSS 5, and VSS 6) and not within grass/forb/shrub to 

young forest structural stage groups (VSS 1, VSS 2, VSS 

3) or in interspaces, natural meadows and grasslands, or 

other areas not managed for forest conditions.
11

Figure 2. Proposed Mechanical and Prescribed Burning Treatments for the Tio Gordito Restoration Project

Modified Proposed Action (Alternative C)

In the modified proposed action, the Tres Piedras Ranger District, of the Carson National Forest is 

proposing to:
12

 Apply uneven-aged management and broadcast burn after treatment on up to approximately 3,525 

acres in ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, and adjacent areas of grassland, piñon-juniper 

woodland, sagebrush, and Gambel oak. 

 Broadcast burn without cutting trees on up to approximately 13,475 acres. 

 Construct approximately 17 miles of handline for prescribed fire control. 

 Allocate approximately 2,000 acres of forest with old growth characteristics.

Most treatments would be focused on the ponderosa pine cover type; however, adjacent areas of 

grassland, piñon-juniper woodland, sagebrush, Gambel oak, aspen and mixed conifer may be treated. 

Although the overall project area is 17,000 acres, not every acre would be treated, and treatments would 

be phased in over time. 

Prescribed fire would be accomplished through one method or a combination of methods including 

broadcast burning, pile burning and jackpot burning utilizing hand ignitions and/or aerial (helicopter) 

ignitions. The method of prescribed fire used would depend on forest type, receptive fuel bed, surface 

and vertical fuel loads, proximity to private land and other WUI infrastructure and proximity to heritage 

resources.

Prescribed burns would be conducted during conditions that allow for low severity fire effects. Low 

severity is defined as causing less than 25% overstory mortality and causing minor mortality to large 

(>16” DBH) trees when possible. However, in areas where the natural fire regime would have been 

mixed-severity, mixed-severity fire would be allowable and desired. Mixed-severity is defined as causing 

up to 75% overstory mortality. Areas would be managed with the goal of applying prescribed fire or 

managing natural wildfire as set forth in Amendment 15 of the Forest Plan within a 0-35 year return 

interval in ponderosa pine forest types and in dry mixed conifer forest types. Prior to prescribed burning, 

areas would be assessed to determine if light thinning from below treatments would be necessary in order 

to accomplish the desired fire effects while providing for sufficient control of prescribed fire lines.

This alternative would harvest approximately 3,525 acres of dry ponderosa pine stands, moving them 

towards a more resilient and sustainable condition. The Tres Piedras Ranger District of the Carson 

National Forest is proposing to:

 Mechanically treat and broadcast burn, after treatment, on up to approximately 3,525 acres in 

ponderosa pine and Gambel oak.

 Thin stands to obtain or promote a balance of age classes via uneven-aged management.

 Broadcast burn on up to approximately 13,475 acres to re-establish a fire regime closer to fire 

regime condition class4(FRCC) 1.

 Allocate approximately 2,000 acres of forest with old growth characteristics.

 Apply group selection (openings) to establish new age classes on 25 percent of harvest units.

o Created openings would range from .5 to 1 acre in size. 

 Apply prescribed fire starting approximately 2 to 3 years post-treatment.

 Promote ponderosa pine as the dominant species across treatment areas.

 Thin between openings (stand matrix) to an average of 60ft2 BA. 60ft2 BA is a general residual 

basal area target. Actual basal area could range up to plus or minus 40%.

 

4

Fire Regime Condition Class is a metric that quantifies how departed a system is from historical conditions in 

relation to fire and the role fire historically played in that system (Hann and Bunnell 2001, Hardy et al. 2001, Hann 

et al. 2004).
13

Under Alternative C, there would be no project specific Forest Plan amendment.

Alternative Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Diameter Cap- A diameter cap would not achieve the desired future conditions of the Tio Gordito 

Restoration Project environmental analysis. Retaining all trees over the request 12 or 16 inch diameter 

would leave stand densities above management thresholds for insects and disease susceptibility. 

Having an alternative that only considers thinning trees less than 12 or 16 inches diameter would not 

begin to move the landscape on the trajectory of restoration for the following reasons:

 Residual stand densities would be left too high which would leave stands in an insect, disease and 

crown fire susceptible condition.

 Aspen would not be rejuvenated in comparison to other action alternatives.

 This treatment would not begin to move stands toward a desired future condition of landscape 

resilience and improved watershed function.

This alternative would not meet Forest Plan direction for uneven aged stands. A study done near 

Flagstaff, Arizona, found that treatments imposing a diameter cap left significantly higher tree densities 

and basal area than stands without a diameter cap (Egan et al 2014).
14

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives

This section summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the affected 

project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It 

also analyzes the cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities. 

This EA is based upon analysis prepared in the following reports for the Tio Gordito Restoration Project

(TGRP), which is hereby incorporated by reference:

 Silviculture/Vegetation Report 

 Fire and Fuels Report 

 Soils and Watershed Report 

 Biological Assessment 

 Wildlife Report 

 Heritage Report 

 Recreation/Lands/Special Uses report 

These reports are in the project record which is available at the Tres Piedras Ranger District.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts of the alternatives are evaluated on past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions whose direct and indirect effects have the potential to overlap with the direct and indirect effects 

of the alternatives on both time and geographic space.

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative impacts of the alternatives, this 

analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is 

because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that 

have the environment and might contribute to cumulative impacts.

The cumulative impacts analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding 

up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. 

First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to 

obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions in the past, and trying to isolate the 

individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. 

Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the 

cumulative impacts of the alternative. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than 

looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of 

individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century 

that has contributed to current conditions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the 

residual effects of past human actions and natural events regardless of which particular action or event 

contributed those effects.
15

Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information 

on individual past actions.

Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005, 

regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects 

analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical 

details of individual past actions” (Connaughton 2005). For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in 

this section is based on current environmental conditions. 

“Reasonably foreseeable future actions are those federal or non-federal activities not yet undertaken, for 

which there are existing decisions, funding, or identified proposals” (36 CFR 220.3). “Identified 

proposals for Forest Service actions are those for which the Forest Service has a goal and is actively 

preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal and the effects 

can be meaningfully evaluated (40 CFR 1508.23)” (36 CFR 220.4(a)(1)). 

Vegetation

The current condition was shaped by natural processes and past human activities. Significant land 

management was first recorded as occurring during the 1870s, when livestock (cattle, sheep, and horses) 

were at high levels. Unregulated grazing greatly impacted grass-forb-shrub forest understories, in many 

cases so severely that naturally-occurring frequent fire activity ceased due to large reductions and, in 

some cases, removal of continuous fine fuels that carry a fire. European settlers over-wintered their 

livestock in the sagebrush and grass plant communities, which depleted the grasses and promoted 

sagebrush. In some locations no fire has occurred since the 1870-1890s. Due in part to grazing, this has 

resulted in regeneration and development of uncharacteristic forest tree densities and downed woody 

fuels, posing a high risk of uncharacteristically severe fire effects.

Timber harvesting started to occur in the late 1880s with significant activity occurring in 1884 when the 

railroad line between Antonito, CO and Santa Fe, NM was connected. This not only made logging more 

feasible, but the ability to bring livestock to the area became more feasible as well. Logging by railroad 

continued until the start of World War II. These actions focused on removal of large trees (~20 to 25 

inches in diameter at breast height (dbh)) as well as piñon pine which was primarily used to power steam 

engines. The woodlands were largely affected by settlement as well. Not only was piñon the preferred 

species for powering steam engines on the railroad, many settlers cut woodlands near their camps and 

settlements for fuelwood and protection from ambush (Aldon and Shaw 1993). After WWII, the Forest 

Service and Soil Conservation Service initiated programs for private landowners and public land 

management agencies to convert woodlands into pastures (Aldon and Shaw 1993). Forest management on 

the CNF has fluctuated during the past few decades, most activity occurring in the 1970s and early 1980s. 

Little timber management has occurred within the last 100 years within the TGRP area. Treatments in the 

late 1980s associated with the South Amador sale treated approximately 200 acres under an uneven-aged 

5

silvicultural system, promoting three or more age classes. The most recent activities were those of the 

Red Mesa Vegetation Management Project (EA, 2002) which consisted of approximately 1,726 acres of 

density reduction, primarily uneven-aged management, to promote healthier growing conditions and 

reduce wildfire hazard. Fire exclusion6and other management has allowed for even-aged or two-storied 

stand structures with homogenous canopies and high stem densities. Some stands have an abundance of 

high density pockets of seedlings and saplings.

 

5 Uneven-aged – pertaining to a stand with trees of three or more distinct age classes (SAF 1998).

6

Fire exclusion refers not only to suppression of wildfire, but also to the cessation of widespread aboriginal use of 

fire after the arrival of Europeans to the American west.
16

Forested Cover Types

The dominant forested cover type within the TGRP area consists of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), 

with Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii). The second most prominent cover type is the piñon-juniper cover 

type which consists of Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), one-seed juniper (Juniperus monosperma), 

and two needle piñon pine (Pinus edulis) hereafter referred to as piñon pine. In this TGRP area, most of 

the juniper species is fairly young (~40-60 years old) and scattered piñon pine exists at lower densities 

compared to juniper spp. The dry mixed conifer (white fir (Abies concolor) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga 

glauca) makes up a small portion (<2%) of the TGRP area. The majority of this cover type in the TGRP 

area is dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, and is considered to be a dry (historic frequent-fire) 

mixed conifer forest type. Portions of the mixed conifer type are in mid-succession or climax condition 

with an understory of white fir. The interruption of frequent fire has allowed for an increasing 

representation of shade-tolerant white fir. 

The quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) cover type characterizes about two percent of the TGRP area. 

Approximately 378 acres of forested stands are classified as aspen within the TGRP area; however there 

are no pure stands. Aspen is found as a co-dominant species in larger stands and is present as small 

inclusions within dry mixed conifer and wet mixed conifer stands (approximately 0.5 to 0.10 acres in 

size). Elk are particularly damaging to aspen by browsing on aspen suckers, rubbing antlers on mid-sized 

trees and eating bark from larger trees. Aspen are not regenerating successfully and ungulate damage is 

severe in areas where regeneration is patchy. Several aspen patches or clones show signs of decline 

marked by mortality and dieback of crowns. 

Table 2. Cover Types within the TGRP area (NFS Lands).

Cover type Description Acres Percent of TGRP area

TPP ponderosa pine 13,523 79.6

GRA grassland 957 5.6

TPJ piñon/juniper 853 5.0

TGO Gambel oak 645 3.8

TAA aspen 378 2.2

SSA sagebrush 325 1.9

TRJ Rocky Mountain juniper 222 1.3

TWF white fir 85 0.5

TDF Douglas-fir 12 0.1

Forest Health

Forest health is defined by the perceived condition of a forest based on concerns about such factors as its 

age, structure, composition, function, and vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects or disease, and 

resilience to disturbance. Note that perception and interpretation of forest health is influenced by 

individual and cultural viewpoints, land management objectives, spatial and temporal scales, the relative 

health of stands comprising the forest, and the appearance of the forest at a particular point in time 

(Helms 1998). 

Insects and disease are a part of forest stands and are normally present at varying levels. Healthy forest 

stands are capable of withstanding insect and disease distress. Trees exhibiting good health and vigor are 

generally more resistant to insects and disease. Stands with high tree densities experience competitive 

consequences due to the finite nature of sunlight, water, nutrients and space and are more susceptible to 

mortality from insects, disease, drought conditions and competition. Due in part to recent drought 

conditions, stands within the CNF are exhibiting signs of tree mortality, including stands at higher 

elevations where spruce-fir, dry mixed conifer, wet mixed conifer and aspen forest types are encountered.

The annual insect/disease aerial surveys for the CNF were conducted in mid to late summer of the 2014 

field season. Data collected through detection surveys were available by Ranger District and were broken 
17

down by acreage for each respective damage agent. In 2014, current insect/disease activity was detected 

on approximately 25,330 acres on National Forest System (NFS) lands on the Tres Piedras Ranger 

District. The current amount of acres impacted by insect/disease activity was significantly lower than the 

two previous years. New detections of insect and disease activity arose on less than five acres within the 

TGRP area boundary. The following is a list of insects and diseases that are common throughout the 

Ecosystem Management Areas (EMA) 7and found in the TGRP within the last 5 years.

Table 3. Insects and disease located within the TGRP.

Damaging Agent Primary Hosts Current Conditions in TGRP

western spruce budworm

(Choristoneura occidentalis)

Douglas-fir, true firs, and spruce Number of affected acres has 

dropped in recent years.

western tent caterpillar

(Malacosoma californicum)

Aspen, willows, cottonwoods, and 

mountain mahogany

Portions of the TGRP have 

experienced damage.

western pine beetle

(Dendroctonus brevicomis)

Ponderosa pine Damage not as high as in previous 

years.

Pine engravers

(Ips spp.)

Pines and spruce Damage not as high as in previous 

years.

Piñon dwarf mistletoe

(Arceuthobium divaricatum)

Piñon pine Present in a number of stands.

Juniper mistletoe

(Phoradendron juniperinum)

All juniper spp. Present in a number of stands.

Southwestern dwarf mistletoe

(Arceuthobium vaginatum subsp. 

cryptodum)

Ponderosa pine Present in a number of stands.

Forest Structure

The ponderosa pine stands within the TGRP area consist of even-aged8and uneven-aged stand structures. 

Most stands are young to mature and lack seedlings, saplings and old trees. Ponderosa pine is 

regenerating where old logging roads and scattered openings occur in the stands. Two needle piñon pine 

and Rocky Mountain juniper are present in the understory of ponderosa pine stands at varying levels and 

densities and have established at the bases of large overstory ponderosa pine trees. Gambel oak is present 

in the understory at varying degrees in most ponderosa pine stands generally ranging from 1 to 5 inches 

dbh. The majority of piñon pine overstory experienced mortality in the early 2000s due to a combination 

of drought and secondary piñon ips (Ips confusus) infestation. Scattered regeneration of piñon pine and 

juniper spp. exists throughout the TGRP area at varying degrees. Aspen inclusions within the TGRP area

and within the EMAs as a whole typically consist of a few overstory trees with a sapling component of 3 

to 8 inches diameter at breast height. 

The Goshawk Scientific Committee developed the Vegetation Structural Stages (VSS) desired condition 

guidelines (Reynolds et al. 1992), which were adopted into the CFP through the 1996 Region-wide 

Amendment for Forest Plans (USDA 1996). The committee took an ecosystem management approach to 

develop the structural stage guidelines, and recommended “forests with goshawk nesting home ranges 

should be interspersed mosaic of structural stages (young to old forests) to increase the diversity of habitat 

for goshawks and their main prey species.” The 2013 publication “Restoring Composition and Structure 

in Southwestern Frequent Fire Forests: A Science-Based Framework for improving Ecosystems 

Resiliency” describes the range of reference conditions for ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests 

in the Southwestern United States. The General Technical Report (GTR) describes the openness 

(proportion of area not covered by trees) of ponderosa pine forests ranged from 52 to92 percent, spatial 

 

7 An EMA is a management area that is defined by the vegetation types, social influences, and traditional uses of the land.

8 Even-aged – pertaining to a stand composed of a single age class in which the tree ages are within + 20 percent variability based 

upon the mature stand age (SAF 1998).
18

pattern of trees was random, and number of trees per group ranged from 2-72 across historic plots 

(Reynolds 2013). Figure 3 displays the six VSS classes or six successional stages for mixed species forest 

ecosystem.

Figure 3. The six vegetation structural stages used to describe regeneration, growth, and development of 

forests in the Southwest (USDA 1992).

Table 4 displays the existing conditions by VSS class for ponderosa pine stands with data within the 

TGRP area. As shown below, VSS 4 represents the majority of the TGRP area and VSS 2 and 6 are 

relatively low.

Table 4. Current distribution of vegetation structural stages within the ponderosa pine cover type for the 

TGRP.

Current VSS classes in percent for the TGRP

Year VSS 1 VSS 2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

0-.9" 1-4.9" 5-11.9" 12-17.9" 18-23.9" 24"+

2015 10 3 9 47 24 7

Canopy Cover

The 1996 Forest Plan Amendment incorporated the goshawk guidelines into a description of desired 

conditions for canopy cover in spruce-fir, mixed conifer, and ponderosa pine cover types. Within 

goshawk foraging areas, there should be a balance of closed, moderately closed, and open canopy covers 
19

in the younger structural stages. The closed and moderately closed canopy cover classes should 

predominate in the mature and old growth stages (USDA 1996). Based on data collected in the field and 

through aerial photo interpretation, existing canopy cover ranges from approximately 21-70 percent. 

Canopy cover guidelines only apply to VSS 4, VSS 5, and VSS 6 and should not apply to VSS 1, VSS 2 

and VSS 3 (ROD 1996 Amendment). Table 5 displays the existing canopy cover within the TGRP area

and figure 4 displays a visual representation of canopy cover (CC) throughout the TGRP area. As shown 

in Table 5, most of the TGRP area is within the 30-59.9 percent range for canopy cover. 

 

Table 5. Current canopy cover for the TGRP by vegetation type.

Vegetation type Canopy cover in % Acres % of TGRP area

Grass-forb-shrub <10 220 1.3

shrub 30-59.9 521 3.1

tree 10-29.9 5,712 33.6

tree 30-59.9 10,531 61.9

tree 60+ 16 0.1

Below is a table showing percent canopy cover for the 6 VSS classes for the TGRP area. It is important to 

note that calculated canopy cover represents the average canopy cover. Areas of denser canopy exist as 

well as areas of more open canopy. According the 1996 Forest Plan Amendment, canopy cover for midaged forest (VSS 4) should average 40+%, mature forest (VSS 5) should average 40+%, and old forest 

(VSS 6) should average 40+% plus or minus 3 percent.

Table 6. Current average canopy cover in percent by VSS class for the TGRP.

VSS class 2015 % CC

1 6

2 35

3 30

4 37

5 37

6 41
20

Figure 4. GIS calculated canopy cover for the TGRP area.

Old Growth

Old growth is defined as containing a number and minimum size of both seral and climax dominant trees 

that are multi-aged, multi-layered canopies, minimum number and specific size of snags, and adequate 

number of downed logs and coarse woody debris (Helms 1998). The 1996 Forest Plan Amendment 

(USDA 1996) provides guidelines relevant to old growth and these guidelines have been utilized during 

the planning phase of this project. The 1996 Forest Plan Amendment states that at least 20 percent of each 

forested EMA must be allocated to old growth. The TGRP area lies within two EMAs therefore 20

percent of those forested types must be allocated to old growth from each. The EMAs include; Arroyo 

Aguaje de las Petacas-Rio Grande Watershed EMA (48,065 acres) and the Rio Tusas-Rio Vallecitos 

Watershed EMA (79,401 acres). Analysis and implementation projects from previous years have 

allocated stands to old growth within both EMAs. A total of 13,559 acres (22% of the forested area) of 

the Rio Tusas-Rio Vallecitos EMA has been allocated to old growth. Approximately 705 acres were 

allocated to old growth within the Arroyo Aguaje de las Petacas-Rio Grande EMA through the Red Mesa 

Analysis. Characteristics of old growth specified by the 1996 Forest Plan Amendment include number, 

age, size and density of trees, number, size and height of snags; the number, size and length of downed 

logs; and the number of tree canopies.

Old growth is scattered throughout the TGRP area and throughout the landscape on the Tres Piedras 

Ranger District. Old growth is found in all forested types, stands of varying sizes and in multiple scales. 

Stands that have had no harvest activities within the last 20-50 years have been considered as candidate 

stands for old growth allocation. Data collected within 36 percent of proposed mechanical treatment 
21

areas in 2013 and 2014 show that a 19-inch dbh for ponderosa pine and 8-inch diameter at root collar for 

juniper and piñon pine show old tree characteristics, indicating a pre-settlement age-diameter relationship. 

Figure 5. Old growth allocation for TGRP area by EMA.

As shown in the figure above, allocated old growth is displayed for the TGRP area per respective EMA.

No Action Alternative

There would be no direct effects of the no action alternative. The no action alternative would forgo the 

opportunity to treat the proposed stands and/or use prescribed fire to achieve the project objectives. There 

would be no opportunity to mimic disturbances such as recurring surface or passive crown fires that had 

been a natural occurrence for millennia before human disruption of the process. However, with increasing 

stand density, insects and pathogens would benefit resulting in selective mortality of stressed and host 

susceptible trees. The opportunity to improve stand vigor, and resistance to insect/disease impacts would 

not be realized within these stands. Increased competition for sunlight, water, and other soil resources 

would increase tree stress. This reduced vigor increases potential for mortality by reducing availability of 

defense mechanisms.

Table 7 below displays the average summary statistic report produced by Forest Vegetation Simulator 

(FVS) for the no action alternative. FVS was used to model treatments over a 60 year period. To show the 

effects of uneven-aged management, FVS was also used to show/model the creation of 4 or 5 age classes 

over a longer period of time. This time frame of 200 years plus does not reflect actual treatment but the 

logical sequence of events that would take place under an uneven-aged management system. As modeled, 
22

trees per acre (TPA), basal area (BA) and stand density index (SDI) increase, however; disturbances such 

as wildfire and bark beetles were not simulated. Stands with basal area above 120 ft2 per acre and an 

average diameter greater than 12 inches dbh are rated as high risk for bark beetle mortality (McMillin 

2004). 

Table 7. Average Summary Statistic Report for the No Action Alternative.

No Action Alternative 2015-2075

Year TPA BA SDI QMD

2015 220 105 195 9.7

2025 216 117 213 10.4

2035 285 129 243 9.2

2045 276 139 257 9.7

2055 341 148 283 8.9

2065 329 156 293 9.4

2075 392 163 315 8.8

*Quadratic mean diameter (QMD) - the diameter of the tree with the average basal area in inches.

As shown below in Table 8, the relative density under a no management scenario continues to rise over 

time. The lower limit of the self-thinning zone is reached in about year 2035 (55% of SDImax). At this 

time, stands are more susceptible to insect, pathogen, and crown fire potential. In terms of reducing the 

chance of crown fire initiation occurring and sustaining in the TGRP area, Keyes and O’Hara (2010) 

found that keeping SDI below 141 for ponderosa pine cover type results in a low rating for crown fire 

susceptibility. SDI ranging from 141-364 is a moderate rating while SDI over 364 is a high rating for 

crown fire potential (Powell 2010). 

Table 8. No Action alternative % SDI over a 60 year time horizon.

No Action Alternative % of SDI max for PP

Year SDI % of max

2015 195 44

2025 213 48

2035 243 54

2045 257 58

2055 283 63

2065 293 66

2075 315 71

Forest Structure

Table 9 displays proportional VSS class over time. The last row displays the desired proportions as 

outlined in the 1996 Amendment. Barring disturbance, VSS 1 and 2 and 4 representation are reduced 

considerably whereas structures represented by VSS 5 and 6 increase. This indicates that existing 

openings would likely close and that seedling establishment would be insignificant. 

Table 9. No action proportional VSS over a 60 year time horizon.

NO ACTION VSS (PERCENT of Project Area)

Year VSS 1 VSS 2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

0-.9" 1-4.9" 5-11.9" 12-17.9" 18-23.9" 24"+

2015 10 3 9 47 24 7

2025 7 1 11 41 30 10
23

NO ACTION VSS (PERCENT of Project Area)

2035 6 0 10 35 40 9

2045 5 0 9 29 42 14

2055 6 0 6 20 48 20

2065 4 0 7 14 54 22

2075 0 0 9 12 54 25

DES. 10 10 20 20 20 20

Canopy Cover 

Table 10 displays average canopy cover over the next 60 years under the no action alternative. Average 

canopy cover is expected to increase over time barring disturbance. This is indicative of a lack of 

openings, inhibiting understory vegetation. The area continues to increase in canopy reducing interspaces 

and openings further inhibiting grasses, forbs, and tree regeneration

Table 10 shows average canopy cover over 60 years per VSS class. By 2075, VSS 3, 4, 5, and 6 would be 

expected to range from 42 to 47 percent. These percentages are reflecting desired conditions for the larger 

VSS classes but the smaller VSS classes (1 and 2) have virtually disappeared. Contiguous closed canopy 

could support widespread crown fire (among many other undesirable consequences). 

Table 10. Average canopy cover in percent by VSS class over 60 years for the No Action Alternative.

Actions Common to both Action Alternatives

Consistent with the Carson Forest Plan Standard to “manage for uneven-aged stand conditions in northern 

goshawk habitat;” the Forest Plan would be amended for the TGRP as discussed in Table 1. Uneven-aged 

management (e.g., or group selection) would be used as the primary method of treating ponderosa pine 

stands. Most treatments would be focused on the ponderosa pine cover type; however, adjacent areas of 

grassland, piñon-juniper woodland, sagebrush, Gambel oak, and aspen cover types may be treated. 

Although the overall TGRP area is 17,000 acres, not every acre would be treated and treatments would be 

phased in over time.

Either action alternative would harvest (commercially or non-commercially) approximately 3,525 acres of 

dry ponderosa pine stands. Where conditions exist, treatments may include cutting and/or removing 

conifers within aspen clones and meadows, where conifers have encroached for several years. Treatments 

could include low thinning (removal of trees from lower crown classes), variable density thinning 

(variable residual stocking), group selection (removal of small groups of trees), selective cutting (removal 

of a portion of the stand for purposes other than regeneration), and/or prescribed fire. Treatments would 

be followed by prescribed burning and in some cases be followed by small tree thinning. Either action 

alternative would treat 13,475 acres using prescribed fire in order to reduce stand densities in areas not 

receiving mechanical treatment (refer to figure 6). Overall, stands would be treated (mechanically and or 

Canopy 

Cover (%) 

by VSS

DES.

%

2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

1 NA 6 4 3 3 7 13 0

2 NA 38 29 0 0 0 0 0

3 NA 32 43 48 51 58 51 44

4 40+ 37 38 41 45 47 48 47

5 40+ 37 37 38 40 47 48 42

6 40+ 45 45 42 40 41 42 43

Average CC 34 36 38 40 42 44 46
24

using prescribed fire) to achieve a residual basal area ranging from approximately 20 to 80 square feet per 

acre, favoring retention of ponderosa pine. 

Piñon-juniper cover types would be treated to resemble historic conditions while adhering to parameters 

of the Forest Plan. Juniper maintained at lower densities has been shown to increase the abundance, 

diversity, and richness of avian and mammal populations in shrub-steppe (Miller et al. 2005). Wildlife 

response would depend on vegetation response post-treatment. Eddlerman (2002) showed that uncut 

juniper plots had little grass-forb-shrub response whereas cut treatments had large increases in shrub and 

grass cover two years post-cutting. Bates et al. (2000) also report positive herbaceous vegetation response 

within two years of treatment within needlegrass-bluebunch plant communities. Direct effects of thinning 

piñon-juniper cover types would be the reduction in stand density which has future indirect effects of 

increases in water yield and species richness such as blue bunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, bitterbrush, 

and big sagebrush. Larger, seed-bearing piñon pine trees should be retained as much as possible. 

Aspen and mesic plant communities would be treated by removing encroaching conifers. Aspen suckers 

can be expected to average 1,000 stems per acre with some areas having as much as 3,500 per acre where 

there is 20 percent or less conifer cover one year after treatment (Swanson et al. 2010). The aspen stand 

influences the area around it (usually 30 to 50 feet out), and this area of open grasses, herbs, forbs, or 

shrubs is considered part of the aspen ecosystem. The diverse plant communities in the understory are 

dependent upon the partial shade of the deciduous overstory and the deep, rich soils that hold moisture 

into the summer (Seager et al. 2013). Typical treatment responses in aspen differ by treatment type. 

Heavy conifer reduction and prescribed burning around meadows would allow aspen (and other 

deciduous trees) to reclaim this area and increase overall habitat and transition zone (Seager et al. 2013). 

Conifer removal and/or prescribed burning could occur in aspen. The desired future condition for aspen 

stands is a representation of all structural stages. Treatment within piñon-juniper and aspen cover types 

could be mechanical and/or prescribed fire. 

Forest Structure

Approximately 13,475 acres would be treated solely by prescribed fire. These acres are a mix of mostly 

ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper cover types Portions of this area are not forested. Over a 60 year time 

horizon, prescribed fire is assumed to be implemented on a 20 year return interval based on consistency 

with FRCC 1 (0-35 year frequency and low to mixed severity). This return interval may or may not reflect 

actual burning. Table 11 displays the average summary statistics table from FVS for the burn only areas 

in the TGRP area. Basal area is reduced after each prescribed fire as simulated in 2015, 2035 and 2055 

(reflected in 2025, 2045 and 2065 outputs). Trees per acre continue to rise due to regeneration of both 

Gamble oak and ponderosa pine. SDI trends upwards over time and QMD decreases due to ingrowth 

(seedling establishment). These are average stand metrics. Actual values would range from lower to 

higher than the average. 

Table 11. Average Summary Statistic Report for the burn only areas over a 60 year time horizon.

Burn only treatment

Year TPA BA SDI Dom HT. QMD

2015 220 105 195 52 9.7

2025 445 91 201 53 6.0

2035 437 105 224 57 6.5

2045 526 91 207 55 5.5

2055 515 104 231 58 6.0

2065 549 101 229 61 5.7

2075 537 114 250 61 6.2

Canopy Cover
25

Canopy cover in the burn only areas would be expected to decrease slightly from 2015 conditions. As 

shown in Table 12, much of the canopy coverage is in large trees (VSS 4, 5, and 6) compared to 2015 

conditions. Compared to desired percentages (DES. %) VSS 4, 5, and 6 are close to the desired 40 percent

for nearly the 60 year time horizon.

Table 12. Vegetation structural stages in percent over a 60 year time horizon for areas receiving only 

prescribed burn activity.

BURN ONLY (PA and ALT C) VSS IN PERCENT

Year VSS 1 VSS 2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

0-.9" 1-4.9" 5-11.9" 12-17.9" 18-23.9" 24"+

2015 10 3 9 47 24 7

2025 13 0 11 43 30 4

2035 19 0 6 35 35 5

2045 13 0 7 28 42 10

2055 20 0 0 24 34 22

2065 15 0 0 20 39 26

2075 19 0 0 13 36 33

DES. 10 10 20 20 20 20

Table 13 displays the VSS classes over time along with the desired percentages described by the 1996 

Forest Plan Amendment. As shown, VSS 1 is well represented along with 4, 5, and 6. Although VSS 2 

and 3 show zero percent, they are still represented across the landscape. 

Table 13. Average canopy cover by VSS class over 60 years for burn only areas.

Canopy 

Cover (%) 

by VSS

DES.

%

2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

1 NA 7 7 6 5 5 5 6

2 NA 37 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 NA 32 49 38 38 0 0 0

4 40+ 36 35 34 37 37 39 42

5 40+ 32 33 27 30 30 33 35

6 40+ 41 42 32 30 29 29 27

Average CC 30 33 27 29 27 29 28

Proposed Action

Across the TGRP area, stand density would be reduced upon implementation of the proposed action. Due 

in part to future drought forecasts, stand densities would generally be reduced to the onset of inter-tree 

competition. Management recommendations are to manage between 20 and 30 percent of max SDI; 

however, this would be adjusted where necessary in order to address northern goshawk habitat 

requirements. The maximum SDI value for the most limiting species, or species being managed for, is 

used as reference for relative density in management of the stand (Cochran et al. 1994). Ponderosa pine 

maximums are considered as its density limitations are generally the most limiting and it is predominantly 

the species being managed for. The localized SDI max for ponderosa pine in 446. Ponderosa pine quickly 

responds to new growing space even at old ages and would take advantage of the available site resources 

(Cochran 1998). With group selection treatment, and intermediate treatment between groups, average 

stand density would meet the recommended management zone (relative density 20 o 30% of SDImax) 

where average basal area would roughly be 40 to 70ft2 per acre. 

Implementation guidelines would be guided by Reynolds et. al (2013) and are as follows:
26

 Historic spatial patterns would be used to inform restoration prescriptions.

 Once heterogeneity is established, maintain desired structure with fire and or follow up harvests.

 Avoid thinning within old tree groups.

 Manage young tree groups to develop into large, old tree groups.

Vary treatment prescriptions to create a mosaic of groups of trees, scattered individuals, and grass-forbsshrub interspaces. 

The proposed action would establish group openings in 20 percent of each harvest unit to provide for 

seedling and sapling development (VSS 1) and eventually establish 5 age groups over time (considering 

re-entry for mechanical treatments every 40 years (200 year old stand/40 year return = 5 groups). Outputs 

from FVS are generally accepted as trustworthy for about a 50-year time horizon, therefore output would

only be reported for a 60 year time horizon to show the short term effects of the group selection treatment 

on age class development. Under the Proposed action, group selection treatment is implemented in 2015 

by creating openings of 1/5 acre on 20 percent of the harvest unit. Due to FVS not being a spatial model, 

it is necessary to describe the desired spatial arrangement of trees and where openings would occur. It is 

critical that prescriptions would be developed to include the implementation recommendations from 

Reynolds et. al. (2013) described earlier. Groups of trees and interspaces between trees and groups of 

trees would be established and described in the prescription. Legacy trees (typically older than 150 years 

with rounded tops, large lower limbs, and deep bark furrows) would be preferentially retained. The same 

treatment is implemented in 2055, creating the second age class. Prescribed burning is implemented in 

harvested units in 2018, 2038, and 2058 and occurring throughout the TGRP area. 9

Table 14. Average Summary Statistic Report for the Proposed Action Alternative.

No Action (NA) Proposed Action (PA)

Year TPA BA SDI Dom 

HT.

QMD TPA BA SDI Dom 

HT.

QMD

102015 220 105 195 52 9.7 98 59 105 45 10.7

2025 216 117 213 57 10.4 188 72 141 49 8.4

2035 285 129 243 60 9.2 86 72 120 49 12.7

2045 276 139 257 64 9.7 195 82 157 52 8.8

2055 341 148 283 66 8.9 94 60 102 41 11.9

2065 329 156 293 68 9.4 167 68 132 45 8.7

2075 392 163 315 70 8.8 77 68 114 45 12.9

 

9 Approximate 20 year intervals were used for modeling purposes. 

10 Harvest treatment occurs in 2015 and 2055 with prescribed burning occurring in 2018, 2038, and 2058.
27

Figure 6. Comparison of stand attributes (TPA, BA, SDI) of the No Action (NA) Alternative and the Proposed 

Action (PA) Alternative over a 60 year time horizon for the TGRP.

Figure 6 displays a comparison of the no action alternative and the proposed action. Each stand metric is 

lower under the proposed action, creating conditions where stands can be more resistant to disturbances. 

Openings and interspaces would be established to promote understory vegetation (VSS 1).

Tree groups would be retained to create variable tree spacing and small groups with interlocking crowns. 

Where trees are spatially aggregated, interlocking or nearly interlocking crowns would be maintained in 

mature and old groups. Thinning would be avoided in old tree groups. Legacy trees older than 

approximately 150 years would be retained where practicable. Re-introduction of frequent fire would be 

applied across the TGRP area. Prescribed fire would be managed to meet project objectives, including 

tree group integrity and protecting old trees and maintenance of interspaces across the TGRP area. The 

combination of mechanical treatment and prescribed fire would reduce or temporarily eliminate tree 

encroachment into meadows, aspen clones, and sage/shrub (non-forested habitat) that has occurred since 

the disruption of the frequent fire regime. 

Forest Structure

The FVS is a distant-independent model which makes the placement of trees pre and post-treatment 

random. Individual stands are the basic projection unit and projections are dependent on interactions 

among trees within stands as well as site and stand conditions. Under implementation of the proposed 

action, the placement of individual trees and tree groups would be various sizes and shapes in order to 

reflect historic stand conditions in the dry pine systems. The FVS is unable to project this “clumpy” 

distribution of trees post-treatment however; the post processor FVSSTAND Alone makes this projection 

possible. With this FVS post processor, one is able to choose the future projection of trees “random or 

clumpy.” This post processor was used in order to display the spatial distribution of trees in the 

implementation of the proposed action. Under the proposed action harvest occurs in 2015 (reflected in 

2025). This group selection treatment reduces VSS 2, 3 and 4 and increases VSS 5 and 6. The overall 

objective of this treatment is to create multiple age classes over time while retaining the larger trees which 

explains the reduction in VSS 2, 3, and 4 in 2015. Subsequent treatments are prescribed burning that 

occurs in 2018 (reflected in 2025) 2038 (reflected in 2045) and 2058 (reflected in 2065). The next 

mechanical treatment would occur in 2055 (reflected in 2065) where some trees move into VSS 3 and are 

decreased in VSS 5. The second entry creates another age class mostly removing trees in VSS 5. Over 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

NA-TPA

PA-TPA

NA-BA

PA-BA

NA-SDI

PA-SDI
28

time, VSS 2 is showing as zero percent due to the equation used to calculate the VSS class. This VSS 

class is present across the landscape and low numbers but is shown as trees move from VSS 1 into VSS 3. 

The equation used to determine vegetation structural stages in the Rocky Mountain-Vegetative Structural 

Stage post processor in FVS (USDA 2013) determines which structural stage the stand is in at any given 

time and is high correlated to basal area and stand density index. Since larger trees carry more basal area 

most of the VSS calls via the Rocky Mountain-Vegetative Structural Stage post processor under this 

action alternative (Vandendriesche 2013) were VSS 5 and 6 at the end of 60 years for the proposed 

action. Because small trees carry very little basal area, the chance for the equation to make the 

determination for the smaller VSS classes (1 and 2) over the larger classes (5 and 6) is very. All sampled 

stands were averaged in order to display percentages. Variations in trees per class exist across stands.

Table15. Proposed Action vegetation structural stages in percent over a 60 year time horizon.

Proposed Action VSS in PERCENT 

Year VSS 1 VSS 2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

0-.9" 1-4.9" 5-11.9" 12-17.9" 18-23.9" 24"+

2015 10 3 9 47 24 7

2025 14 0 2 32 31 21

2035 16 0 2 19 39 24

2045 14 0 3 10 48 24

2055 14 0 1 0 47 38

2065 0 0 20 3 17 61

2075 4 0 18 0 13 66

DES. 10 10 20 20 20 20

Table 16 below is provided to show the number of trees per VSS class for a selected stand in the TGRP 

area. This table is intended to show that trees exist across VSS classes in various stands. One can compare 

figure 6 to Table 16 and the following Stand Visualization Simulation (SVS) images (figure 7) to see 

change in VSS classes over time. 

Table 16. Number of trees per acre in VSS class for selected stand in the TGRP under the Proposed Action.

# of trees per class for selected stand

Year VSS 1 VSS 2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

0-.9" 1-4.9" 5-11.9" 12-17.9" 18-23.9" 24"+

2025 #of trees in class 270 179 0 149 0 0

2045 #of trees in class 191 96 173 0 136 0

2075 #of trees in class 0 114 31 0 4 50

The proceeding figure simulates the distribution of trees for a selected stand in TGRP area over time in a 

grouped or clumped fashion. Stand modeling showed that in years 2025 post-treatment and 2085, five age 

classes are achieved. In 2085 groups of small, medium, and large trees are present along with openings. 

The aerial image provides a clumpy visual of trees inherent of frequent fire forests. 
29

Figure 7. Figure displaying stand profile, aerial view, and tree height and number for the Proposed Action. Note the 5 age classes (tree number and 

height) in 2025 and 2085. This figure displays the variability within stands, including interspaced, individual trees, and groups of trees. 

2025 post-harvest 

harvest

2045 post-harvest

2085 2105 

1

2

3

5

4

1

2

3

4

1

5
30

Canopy Cover

Canopy cover under implementation of the proposed action is low compared to desired conditions for 

VSS classes 4, 5, and 6. Modeled canopy cover ranges from about two percent in openings to 47 percent 

in groups. Compared to the no action alternative the proposed action has lower canopy cover and is 

further away from desired conditions relative to canopy cover. Treatments would ensure that appropriate 

canopy cover be maintained across treatment areas and that range exists. 

Table 17. Average canopy cover in percent by VSS class over 60 years for the Proposed Action.

Canopy 

Cover (%) 

by VSS

DES.

%

2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

1 NA 6 6 7 14 16 0 11

2 NA 35 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 NA 30 23 18 27 26 31 25

4 40+ 36 25 27 32 0 21 0

5 40+ 38 26 27 30 29 23 23

6 40+ 41 22 22 23 26 22 22

Average CC 30 22 22 26 26 24 22

Alternative C

Under alternative C, 25 percent of the harvest unit would be established in group openings to provide for 

seedling and sapling development (VSS 1) in 2015. A group selection treatment is implemented in 2015 

with openings of 1/4 acre in size applied on 25 percent of the harvest unit creating four age classes over 

time. Openings would range from .5 to 1 acre in size. Prescribed fire re-entry would occur on a 20 year 

interval starting in about 2018. As shown below, basal area per acre and SDI decrease after the initial 

treatment. Due to a longer time period between entries, SDI increases and rises above the upper limit 

management zone (ULMZ) (30% of max SDI) in 2045 (SDI=162). Stand basal area is higher compared to 

the proposed action due to the time between harvest entries.

Table 18. Average Summary Statistic Report for Alternative C.

Pre-Treatment Alternative C (ALT C) Post-Treatment

Year TPA BA SDI Dom 

HT.

QMD TPA BA SDI Dom 

HT.

QMD

2015 220 105 195 52 9.7 114 59 109 45 10

2025 216 117 213 57 10.4 226 73 148 49 7.7

2035 285 129 243 60 9.2 107 74 128 49 11.3

2045 276 139 257 64 9.7 205 84 162 52 8.7

2055 341 148 283 66 8.9 93 85 139 53 13.1

2065 329 156 293 68 9.4 183 92 171 55 9.7

2075 392 163 315 70 8.8 75 60 101 40 12.3
31

Figure 8. Comparison of stand attributes (TPA, BA, and SDI) of the No Action (NA) Alternative and Alternative 

C (ALT C) over a 60 year time horizon for the Tio Gordito Restoration Project.

Figure 8 displays the differences between the no action alternative and alternative C. Each stand metric is 

lowered upon after implementation activities associated with alternative C, making stands more resistant 

to disturbances.

Forest Structure

Forest structure was modeled over 250 years in order to display establishment of age classes. Table 19 

reports the first 60 years of management and the proceeding figures display 100 years of stand simulation.

Initial treatment occurs in 2015 (reflected in 2025). This group selection treatment reduces area 

represented by VSS 2, 3, and 4 and increases area represented by VSS 5 and 6. Subsequent treatment 

includes prescribed burning that occurs in 2018 (reflected in 2025) 2038 (reflected in 2045) and 2058 

(reflected in 2065). The next mechanical treatment would occur in 2075 which is not reflected in this time 

horizon. Over time, VSS 1 decreases to 3 and 4 percent and VSS 2 is present on the landscape in scarce 

amounts due to periodic burning. This is due to equation used to determine vegetation structural stages in 

the Rocky Mountain-Vegetative Structural Stage post processor in FVS (USDA 2013) as described in the 

proposed action. The following figures are intended to display the different age classes developed post 

treatment and over time. It is useful to compare the SVS images (figure 9) to figure 8 to visualize the 

different age classes that develop within group openings. VSS 3 recovers over the 60 year time horizon 

and is close to desired conditions of 18 (2065) and 14 (2075) percent. VSS 4 decreases over time due to 

the initial harvest in 2015 which targeted trees in that class (12-17.9”). VSS 5 is steady over time and 

eventually gets close to 2015 conditions in 2075. Although VSS 5 and 6 appear to dominate the landscape 

over time, it is important to note the processing capabilities of the model and the equation making the 

VSS call and to refer to the SVS image which simulates stand structure. Structural stages vary by stand.

Table 19 represents the average proportion of VSS classes over time. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

NA-TPA

ALT C-TPA

NA-BA

ALT C-BA

NA-SDI

ALT C-SDI
32

Table 19. Alternative C vegetation structural stages in percent over a 60 year time horizon.

Alternative C VSS in PERCENT 

Year VSS 1 VSS 2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

0-.9" 1-4.9" 5-11.9" 12-17.9" 18-23.9" 24"+

2015 10 3 9 47 24 7

2025 11 0 3 33 34 19

2035 14 0 2 20 41 23

2045 9 3 3 10 49 26

2055 11 0 3 2 43 41

2065 0 0 18 4 25 53

2075 3 0 14 2 25 55

DES. 10 10 20 20 20 20

Canopy Cover

Canopy cover is slightly higher (1 to 2%) than the proposed action. Canopy cover by VSS shows that by 

2075, VSS 4 and 5 are would be expected to be near the desired 40 percent. This is likely due to the 

second entry in 2045 under the proposed action. Canopy cover may be slightly higher for alternative C 

but stand metrics (SDI and BA) are also higher increasing stands susceptibly of insect, pathogen, and 

crown fore potential. 

Table 20 below is provided to show the number of trees per VSS class for a selected stand in the TGRP 

area. This table is intended to show that although VSS classes 1 and 2 are proportionally low due to the 

nature of weighting by basal area, there truly are representations of these classes within the landscape. 

One can compare figure 8, Table 20, and the following SVS images (figure 9) to see the various VSS 

classes over time for the selected stand.

Table 20. Number of trees per acre in VSS class for selected stand in the TGRP under Alternative C.

# of trees per class for selected stand

Year VSS 1 VSS 2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

0-.9" 1-4.9" 5-11.9" 12-17.9" 18-23.9" 24"+

2025 #of trees in class 338 0 331 0 47 0

2045 #of trees in class 226 132 121 95 44 0

2075 #of trees in class 3 75 39 187 0 42
33

Figure 9. Figure displaying stand profile, aerial view, and tree height and number for Alternative C. Note the 4 age classes (tree number and height) in 

2045 and 2085. This figure displays the random distribution of trees post treatment. Interspaces are not created nor groups of trees with interlocking 

crowns.

2025 post-harvest 2045

2085 post-harvest 2105

1

2

1

1

3

4

1

2

1

1

3

1

1

4
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

34

Table 21. Average canopy cover in percent by VSS class over 60 years for Alternative C.

Canopy 

Cover (%) 

by VSS

DES.

%

2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

1 NA 6 5 7 12 17 0 2

2 NA 35 0 0 28 0 0 0

3 NA 30 29 21 29 21 32 26

4 40+ 37 25 29 31 37 30 38

5 40+ 37 26 27 31 20 35 34

6 40+ 41 22 23 24 27 29 28

Average CC 31 23 23 27 27 31 29

Considering Climate Change

The Southwest is the hottest and driest region in the United States and a region where water has 

defined the landscape. According the National Climate Assessment done in 2014, snowpack and 

streamflow amounts are projected to decline in parts of the Southwest, decreasing surface water 

supply reliability for cities, agriculture, and ecosystems (National Climate Assessment, NCA 

2014). Increased warming, drought, and insect outbreaks (such as the piñon Ips outbreak in 

2004), all related to climate change, have increased the number and size of wildfires in the 

Southwest region (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah). Fire models 

project more wildfire and increased risks to communities across extensive areas (NCA 2014). 

Climate change greatly effects the major factors influencing wildfire; heat, drought, and dead 

trees. When combining warming temperatures and prolonging seasonal drought, trees would

continue to be stressed for water which may lead to landscape level bark beetle outbreaks. The 

intention of applying treatment (both mechanical and prescribed fire) is to build forested stands 

resilience to climate change. Treatment should improve the resiliency through thinning and 

burning by reducing competition for available resources (Busse et al. 2009). Retaining ponderosa 

pine, a relatively fire, drought, and insect and disease tolerant species, adds to the resiliency of the

TGRP area as well as attempting to mimic a time when the landscape was more resilient to 

disturbances.

The goal of forest restoration management in the TGRP area is not to mimic one condition in 

time but to reference a time when the landscape was more resilient to disturbances. The majority 

of species composition would shift from shade tolerant species to shade intolerant species. Stand 

density would be reduced to management recommendations under the proposed action. Over time 

treatments would increase resistance and resilience to disturbances. 

Fire and Fuels

The TGRP area is located on the Tres Piedras Ranger District which is highly susceptible to 

lightning and located within a frequent fire regime. The Tres Piedras Ranger District has had 105 

human caused 28 percent and 270 Lightning Caused fires 72 percent over the last 40 years 

(Firestat). Due to major changes in ecological structure, composition and process because of

relatively recent human activities such as cattle grazing, fire suppression, timber production and

general human habitation in and near these forests (Covington and Moore 1994, Swetnam et al.

1999). One of the most apparent and critical changes in these forests is vulnerability of these

ecosystems to uncharacteristic high severity fire. The neighboring El Rito Ranger District has 

experienced one large fire that burned with high severity and caused significant change and 

damage. The Pine Canyon Complex burned approximately 3,992 acres in 2005 (FIRESTAT). 

The neighboring Canjilon Ranger District has also experienced only one large fire that burned 

with high severity and caused significant change and damage. The Montoya fire burned 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

35

approximately 4,257 acres in 2002 (FIRESTAT). Although the west side of the CNF has not had a 

“mega fire” in recorded history, the neighboring Santa Fe National Forest has had several large 

wildfires over the last 20 years that have caused significant change and damage.. It is expected 

that the TGRP area would burn with similar high severity if no management treatments occur in 

the area.

Crown Fire Potential 

Canopy fuel distribution and the risk of stand replacing crown fire can be measured by looking at 

average canopy bulk density (CBD) and canopy base height (CBH) across a stand. Canopy bulk 

density is defined as the mass of available canopy fuel per unit volume (Scott and Reinhardt

2001). For any given tree species, widely-spaced trees have a lower CBD which makes it more 

difficult to sustain a stand replacing crown fire. Tightly spaced trees with interlocking crowns 

would have higher CBD and, therefore, would have more potential to sustain and propagate a 

stand-replacing fire. Furthermore, stands with high CBD can also sustain a crown fire that 

initiated outside of the stand and become independent of surface fire intensity. Canopy base 

height is the lowest height above the ground at which there is sufficient amount of canopy fuel to 

propagate fire vertically into the canopy (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). The lower the canopy base 

height, the easier it is for a given surface fire to initiate a crown fire (Van Wagner 1977). Canopy 

base height coupled with canopy bulk density allow managers to understand how likely a crown 

fire is to initiate and sustain itself across a stand. 

The existing conditions in the TGRP area are canopy bulk densities ranging from 0.05kg.m3 to 

0.7kg/m3 and canopy base height with an average of 10 feet or lower. In ponderosa pine forest 

types, desired conditions would be to have canopy bulk densities below 0.05kg/m3 and average 

stand canopy base heights above 18 feet. Because these measures are stand averages, groups of 

trees could have higher densities if surrounded by areas of lower densities, which would break up 

the continuity of canopy fuels and, therefore, the potential for crown fire.

The desired condition for crown bulk density and canopy base height would reduce the percent of 

the TGRP with potential to burn as passive and active crown fire. Passive crown fire refers to fire 

that does not carry continuously through the crown fuels, but burns crown fuels intermittently, 

such as when individual trees or groups of trees torch. Active crown fire carries continuously 

through the canopy of trees. Current conditions show 29 percent of the area having the potential 

to burn as an active crown fire and another 17 percent of the area with potential for passive crown 

fire. The desired conditions for forest structure and canopy openings would also allow for 

discontinuous canopy fuels. 

Effects of Alternatives on Crown Fire Potential 

The effect of canopy openings and distribution of tree groups and clumps on potential fire 

behavior can be seen by looking at maps and Graphs of potential fire type for the area. Figures 10 

through 15, and table 22 display the changes in fire behavior type and distribution by alternative. 

Alternative A represents current conditions for this landscape. Alternative A demonstrates much 

of the South, East and West portions of the TGRP area exhibiting active crown fire and passive 

crown fire (29 percent active, 17 percent passive). Alternative B and C show a marked reduction 

in active and passive crown fire), which would indicate much less resistance to control and less 

spotting potential.

Table 22. Percent of the Tio Gordito area demonstrating potential for types of fire by alternative.

Potential Fire Type Alt. A Alt. B

Proposed Action

Alt. C

No Fire 1 1 1
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

36

Surface Fire 53% 79% 79%

Passive Crown Fire 17% 9% 9%

Active Crown Fire 29% 11% 11%

Both action alternatives move the TGRP area toward desired conditions. Alternative A, the no 

action alternative, maintains and regresses the ecosystem toward unsustainable characteristics. 

Canopies would continue to close and provide continuous fuel across the landscape. This can be 

concluded when comparing the amount of passive and active crown fire potential in alternative A 

compared to alternatives B and C Alternative A would maintain 46% percent of the area with 

potential for high severity fire effects, while alternatives B and C reduce this potential to 20 

percent. 

Figure 10. Predicted Fire Activity for the Analysis Area Under the No Action Alternative

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

Percent

Year

Predicted Fire Activity for the No Action Alternative 

Passive Crown Fire

Active Crown Fire

Surface Fire
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

37

Figure 11. 2015 Predicted Fire Activity for the Analysis Area Under the No Action Alternative
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

38

Figure 12. 2075 Predicted Fire Activity for the Analysis Area Under the No Action Alternative
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

39

Figure 13. Breakdown of the Crown Fire Potential for the Proposed Action

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

Percent

Year

Predicted Fire Activity for the Proposed Action

Passive Crown Fire

Active Crown Fire

Surface Fire
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

40

Figure 14. 2015 Predicted Fire Activity for the Analysis Area Under the Proposed Action
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

41

Figure 15. 2075 Predicted Fire Activity for the Analysis Area Under the Proposed Action
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

42

Figure 16. Breakdown of Crown Fire Potential for Alternative C

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

Percent

Year

Predicted Fire Activity for Alternative C

Passive Acres

Active Acres

Surface Acres
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

43

Figure 17. 2015 Predicted Fire Activity for the Analysis Area under Alternative C
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

44

Figure 18. 2075 Predicted Fire Activity for the Analysis Area under Alternative C

In conclusion, the TGRP area would benefit from both action alternatives from a potential fire 

severity perspective. The overall ecosystem health in the form of restoring the vegetation types to 

resilient and historic conditions would also benefit from both action alternatives although 

alternative B provides the most opportunity to meet desired conditions. 

This analysis used the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE) to FVS links models of fire behavior, fire 

effects, fuels loading and snag dynamics to tree growth metric. In this analysis, basic outputs for 

surface fuel loading, crown base height, and crown bulk density were recorded using default 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

45

parameters from the Central Rockies variant to FVS. Data used in FVS and FFE were from field 

sampled stand exams conducted in the Rim Lakes area. 

All results from FFE are stand averages and, therefore, can give a general idea of what stand 

conditions look like but cannot address the spatial distribution of specific metrics. The desired 

conditions are for stand averages and, therefore, allow for some areas within a stand to be outside 

of the desired condition range but be surrounded with conditions closer to overall desired 

conditions. 

Fire Regime Condition Class 

Fire regime condition class was measured using stand data, Landfire remotely sensed data, and as 

described in the FRCC interagency guidebook (Hann et al., 2004). FRCC is a metric that 

quantifies how departed a system is from historical conditions in relation to fire and the role fire 

historically played in that system (Hann and Bunnell 2001, Hardy et al. 2001). The TGRP area 

exhibits a distinct vegetation types in relation to FRCC: ponderosa pine vegetation (includes pineoak types) and dry mixed conifer vegetation. Ponderosa pine type ecosystems are composed 

primarily of ponderosa pine with some Douglas-fir, southwestern white pine, oak, and juniper 

depending on the stands development

According to the western United States Biophysical Settings Key (Comer et al., 2003), ponderosa 

pine and dry mixed conifer forests in the Southwest have a dominant fire regime I and a mean fire 

interval of 2 to 10 years in ponderosa pine, and 5 to 25 years in dry mixed conifer. A fire regime I 

has a frequent fire interval with low to mixed severity. Fires typically maintained open areas and 

replaced or opened up areas that exhibited a more closed canopy. With the absence of fire, both 

the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands have accumulated unnatural amounts of fuel 

primarily in the form of dense trees that would cause a natural fire to exhibit more extreme fire 

behavior. Both the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer have missed multiple natural mean fire 

intervals. With the combination of missed burn intervals, the encroachment of mixed conifer, and 

the accumulation of old suppressed understory, these areas are currently best represented as a 

condition class 3, or FRCC 3. 

In both vegetation types defined by Comer et al. (2003) the ability to create canopy openings, 

redistribute dominance to fire resistant tree species, and allow for diversity in age classes are 

essential in moving stands toward a naturally-functioning fire regime and, therefore, FRCC 1. 

Furthermore, forests in a fire regime 1 are maintained in that state by understory vegetation. 

Much of the forest structure in FRCC 1 would have open canopies which result in healthy and 

vigorous understory plants that serve as fuel to carry surface fire through stands. Stands in FRCC 

1 would demonstrate little potential for active crown fire and would experience relatively little 

overstory mortality post wildfire. 

Areas where some canopy openings can be created and some sunlight can penetrate and 

invigorate understory forbs and grasses would have decreased threat of crown fire and would 

have a reestablished understory that could support surface fire. If these areas do not contain a 

well-balanced mix of strata with reproducing fire resilient species, they are still considered 

departed but not as departed as stands with closed canopies. These areas are classified as FRCC 2. 

Continuous areas in an even-aged condition with closed canopy are considered very departed 

from historical conditions. These areas would not be able to support understory vegetation and

have potential for continuous crown fire, therefore, are classified as FRCC 3.

No action 
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

46

Currently, about 85-90 percent of the TGRP area, which is constituted of ponderosa pine, 

grasslands and piñon-juniper, is in FRCC 3. Most of the remaining ten percent is divided between 

FRCC 2 and 3. Under the no action alternative, by 2075 fire regime 1 areas would have missed 

an additional two fire returns, further entrenching these areas in FRCC 3. The remaining ten 

percent that is in FRCC 3 would remain in FRCC 3 and FRCC 2 areas would move closer or 

move into FRCC 3 due to lack of fire return and departure from the historic/natural condition. 

Overall, there would be no improvement in FRCC; natural processes and ecosystem function 

would continue to depart from the natural/historic condition. In the event of a wildfire, intensity 

would be significantly departed from the natural/historic condition and would impact the 

ecosystem and cause significant damage and change.

Proposed Action and Alternative C

Currently, about 85-90 percent of the TGRP area, which consists of ponderosa pine , grasslands 

and piñon/juniper, is in FRCC 3. Most of the remaining ten percent is divided between FRCC 2 

and 3. Under the proposed action alternative, by 2075 some FRCC 3 areas are expected to be on 

the lower end of FRCC 2 and most of the areas are expected to be FRCC 1. The remaining ten 

percent that is in FRCC 3 would move into FRCC 2 and FRCC 2 areas would move closer or 

move into FRCC 1 due to the reintroduction of fire to the landscape and the continued restoration 

of the vegetative community. By 2075, 79 percent of the TGRP area would have had four 

prescribed fire entries and 21 percent would have had three prescribed fire entries with two 

mechanical treatment entries. This reintroduction of the historic/natural fire return interval would 

help restore ecosystem function, processes and structure along with the mechanical treatments 

occurring in mechanically treated areas. Overall, there would be a significant improvement in 

FRCC. With continued maintenance re-entry closely mimicking the historic/natural fire return 

interval, conditions would continue to improve and natural processes and ecosystem function 

would continue to move closer to the natural/historic condition. In the event of a wildfire, 

intensity would be significantly closer to the natural/historic condition and would not impact the 

ecosystem nor cause significant damage or change.

Air Quality

The Clean Air Act (CAA) created two categories of airsheds, Class I and Class II. Class I Federal 

Areas are areas set aside under the CAA to receive the most stringent protection from air quality 

degradation. Mandatory Class I Federal Areas are: 

 international parks 

 national wilderness areas, which exceed 5,000 acres in size and were designated and in 

existence prior to the 1977 CAA Amendments

 national memorial parks, which exceed 5,000 acres in size 

 national parks which exceed 6,000 acres in size

On the CNF, the Wheeler Peak and Pecos Wilderness areas are designated mandatory Class I 

Areas under the CAA. The Latir Peak Wilderness designated in 1980; the Cruces Basin 

Wilderness designated in 1980; and the Chama River Canyon Wilderness designated in 1978 are 

designated as Class II airsheds. All other areas of the CNF are currently classified as Class II 

Areas. The New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau (NMAQB) regulates 

prescribed burning in the state in accordance with the Smoke Management Program (SMP). 

Prescribed burning in this decision would be coordinated with the NMAQB and follow the SMP 

to protect air resources; including obtaining and following air quality permits. If necessary, 

smoke monitors would be used for public safety
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

47

The TGRP area falls within the Upper Rio Grande Airshed (NMED 2015). In general, air quality 

in the Upper Rio Grande Airshed is not impaired and there are currently no violations of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or New Mexico Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NMAAQS) (20.2.3 NMAC). There are currently no Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) air quality non-attainment areas in the Upper Rio Grande Airshed (USEPA 2014). 

Particulate matter 2.5 microns (PM 2.5) concentrations are below and have remained below 

NMAAQS for the past 10 years. Ozone levels approaching current air quality standards have 

been recorded near the western boundary of CNF. While there is room for improvement, 

visibility in this area is some of the least impaired in the nation. 

No Action Alternative

Existing air quality conditions would continue with little change for the Tres Piedras, Petaca, Las 

Tablas, and Wilson Lake areas. Current ambient air quality standards for PM 2.5 would persist 

with no foreseeable violations of NAAQS or NMAAQS (NMED 2015). Air quality in Class I 

airsheds would persist. A minor amount of road dust and vehicle exhaust from normal forest user 

travel would continue to be produced along un-surfaced roads within the TGRP area. There 

would be some prescribed burning in and adjacent to the TGRP area related to other ongoing 

projects on the El Rito, Canjilon and Tres Piedras Ranger Districts. Smoke from prescribed 

burning would likely collect in nearby valley bottom areas for a short time following burning, 

especially at night and during the early morning hours. During the day, due to surface heating, 

smoke would lift and be transported and dispersed at a rate dependent upon upper level transport 

winds. Proximity to the burn and wind direction would determine how much individual residents 

and receptor communities would be affected. While ignition is taking place, residents located 

downwind or adjacent to the burn area would experience drift smoke due to prevailing winds. If 

prescribed burning operations were conducted in the fall or spring, smoke would diminish 

relatively quickly, usually in 1 to 3 days.

The levels of smoke anticipated from district wide ongoing prescribed burning projects would not 

pose a health concern, with the exception of individuals living directly adjacent to the burns who 

are sensitive to smoke. All prescribed burning would be done in compliance with the New 

Mexico Smoke Management Rule (20.2.65NMAC).

In the event of a large wildfire, the amount and dispersal of smoke could not be controlled. The 

amount of smoke generated by such a wildfire would be much greater than that produced from a 

prescribed burn where smoke management techniques are employed and a smoke permit is in 

place. The amount of smoke from a large fire could possibly exceed the NAAQS and NMAAQS 

for a short period of time. Potential smoke produced from a wildfire as computed by FVS/FFE 

would be approximately 0.25 tons/acre of PM 2.5 microns. Firefighters working close to the fire 

and smoke could be affected by carbon monoxide and other emissions as well as individuals 

residing in the Tres Piedras, Petaca, Las Tablas and Wilson Lake areas. Visibility along 

roadways near the TGRP area could be less than one-quarter mile. The result could be a high risk 

of traffic accidents, highway closures or other impacts to motorists along State Highway 519, US 

Highway 64 and US Highway 285 which are located within or adjacent to the TGRP area. The 

same impacts could be anticipated for all national forest system roads within and adjacent to the 

TGRP area.

Proposed Action and Alternative C

The proposed action alternative includes combinations of mechanical and prescribed fire 

treatments on approximately 17,000 acres of NFS lands. Maintenance prescribed burning and 

maintenance mechanical treatments would be utilized in combination to maintain desired 

conditions on the same 17,000 acres of NFS lands.
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

48

Current ambient air quality standards for PM 2.5 would persist with no foreseeable violations of 

NAAQS or NMAAQS (NMED 2015). Air quality in Class I airsheds would also persist. Smoke 

from prescribed burning would likely collect in nearby valley bottom areas for a short time 

following burning, especially at night and during the early morning hours. During the day, due to 

surface heating, smoke would lift and be transported and dispersed dependent upon upper level 

transport winds. Proximity to the burn and wind direction would determine how much individual 

residents and receptor communities would be affected. While ignition is taking place, residents 

located downwind or adjacent to the burn area would experience drift smoke due to prevailing 

winds. IF prescribed burning operations were conducted in the fall or spring, smoke would 

diminish relatively quickly, usually in 1 to 3 days. Potential smoke produced from each 

prescribed fire entry as computed by FVS/FFE would be in the range of 0.01 tons/acre to 0.08 

tons/acre of PM 2.5 emissions. This is much less than the no action alternative situation where a 

wildfire could produce up to 0.25 tons/acre of PM 2.5 emissions.

The levels of smoke anticipated from the proposed action alternative would not pose a health 

concern, with the exception of people living directly adjacent to the burns who are sensitive to 

smoke. All prescribed burning would be done in compliance with the New Mexico Smoke 

Management Rule (20.2.65NMAC).

Dust and exhaust from vehicles, rubber tracked equipment, steel tracked equipment and rubber 

tired equipment during the mechanical and prescribed fire treatments would have minimal shortterm effects to air quality and would be of a low intensity and duration. Effects would be 

localized and in the immediate vicinity of the operations. Due to the relative openness of the 

proposed treatment areas, winds are expected to disperse and dilute any dust and exhaust quickly. 

Exhaust and dust from treatments are not expected to exceed NAAQS or NMAAQS.

In the event of a large wildfire, the amount and dispersal of smoke could not be controlled. The 

amount of smoke generated by such a wildfire would be much greater than that produced from a 

prescribed burn where smoke management techniques are employed. The amount of smoke from 

a large fire would possibly exceed the NAAQS or NMAAQS for a short period of time. 

Firefighters working close to the fire and smoke could be affected by carbon monoxide and other 

emissions as well as individuals residing in the Tres Piedras, Petaca, Las Tablas and Wilson Lake 

areas. Visibility along roadways near the TGRP area could be less than one-quarter mile. The 

result could be a high risk of traffic accidents, highway closures or other impacts to motorists 

along State Highway 519, US Highway 64 and US Highway 285 which are located within and 

adjacent to the TGRP area. The same impacts could be anticipated for all national forest system 

roads within and adjacent to the TGRP.

Following decades of fire suppression, effective fuels reduction is critical in order to protect air 

quality, watersheds and other resources at risk from the impacts of high severity wildfire.

Soils and Hydrology

Soil Condition

Soil stability condition ranges from unsatisfactory to impaired to satisfactory throughout the Tio 

Gordito analysis area. Gully erosion and accelerated soil loss is occurring along open and closed roads 

where road drainage structures are not functioning or absent. Ground cover conditions are being 

maintained within these areas, but are still a source of sediment to intermittent streams. 

The Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) of the Carson National Forest is a resource used for 

planning and administration of resource management activities proposed in the CNF (USDA, 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

49

1987). The TES contains interpretations of soil properties and identifies management hazards and 

limitations based on soil properties and response to land uses innate in the soil and the impacts of 

specific uses on the environment.

Table 23. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey Characteristics, Soil Stability Rating11, Nutrient Cycling 

Rating, and Rangeland Health Evaluation.

TES 

Unit Acres by 

Map Unit

Soil 

Stability 

Rating (CSL 

>TSL)12

Initial 

Screen

Vegetation Slope 

%

Soil 

Stability

Nutrient 

Cycling

Soil 

Erosion 

Hazard

64 148 S

Kentucky 

bluegrass, Blue 

Grama

0 - 15 S -- --

66 181 S

Kentucky 

bluegrass, 

Arizona fescue

0 - 15 S -- --

119 138 S

Piñon pine, 

Juniper, Gabel 

oak, Big 

sagebrush

0 - 15 I -- Moderate

148E 111 S

Rubber 

rabbitbrush, 

Blue Grama, 

Big sagebrush

0 - 15 I I Moderate

156 29 I

Ponderosa pine, 

Gabel oak 15 - 40 U I Moderate

162 5738 S

Ponderosa pine, 

Piñon pine, 

Gambel oak, 

Big sagebrush

0 - 15 S -- Slight

174 3334 S

Ponderosa pine, 

Gabel oak 0 - 15 I or S -- Moderate

175 1016 S

Ponderosa pine, 

Gabel oak 15 - 40 -- -- Severe

176 70 S

Ponderosa pine, 

Gabel oak 40 - 80 I -- Moderate

187 270 S

White fir, 

Douglas fir, 

Ponderosa pine, 

Gambel oak

15 - 40 S -- Slight

188 1 S

White fir, 

Douglas fir, 

Ponderosa pine, 

Gambel oak

40 - 80 I -- Severe

 

11 Satisfactory (S): Indicators signify that soil function is being sustained and soil is functioning properly 

and normally. The ability of soil to maintain resource values and sustain outputs is high. Impaired (I):

Indicators signify a reduction of soil function. The ability of the soil to function properly has been reduced 

and/or there exists an increased vulnerability to degradation. An impaired category should signal land 

managers that there is a need to further investigate the ecosystem to determine causes and degrees of 

decline in soil functions. Changes in management practices or other preventative actions may be 

appropriate. Unsatisfactory (U): Indicators signify that a loss of soil function has occurred. Degradation of 

vital soil functions result in the inability of soil to maintain resource values, sustain outputs, and recover 

from impacts. Soils rated in the unsatisfactory category are candidates for improved management practices 

or restoration designed to recover soil functions.

12 Current soil loss rate (CSL) vs Total soil loss rate (TSL)
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

50

TES 

Unit Acres by 

Map Unit

Soil 

Stability 

Rating (CSL 

>TSL)12

Initial 

Screen

Vegetation Slope 

%

Soil 

Stability

Nutrient 

Cycling

Soil 

Erosion 

Hazard

190 2532 S

Ponderosa pine, 

Piñon pine, 

Gambel oak, 

Big sagebrush

0 - 15 -- -- Moderate

191 1392 S

Ponderosa pine, 

Piñon pine, 

Gambel oak, 

Big sagebrush

15 - 40 I or S I --

192 266 S

Ponderosa pine, 

Piñon pine, 

Gambel oak, 

Big sagebrush

40 - 80 U -- --

195 25 I

Piñon pine, 

Juniper, Big 

sagebrush

40 - 80 U -- Severe

311 937 S

Ponderosa pine, 

Gambel oak 0 - 15 -S -- --

351 126 S

White fir, 

Douglas fir, 

Ponderosa pine, 

Gambel oak

15 - 40 -- -- Severe

550 686 S

Black 

sagebrush, Blue 

grama

0 - 15 -- -- Slight

Soil condition (functionality of soil stability, nutrient cycling and soil hydrology) of the TES units 

119, 148E, 174, 176, 188, 191, and 192 (1,197 total acres) contains an amount of vegetative 

groundcover that is less than optimal for the protection of surface soils from erosion. The surface 

soil layers are fragmented by past erosion losses and the surface compaction has reduced the 

ability of the soil to absorb, store and transmit water. Low diversity plant community 

composition, high percent bare ground, and low cover/litter negatively impacts soil infiltration. 

These TES units have an impaired soil condition rating, and have soil stability, nutrient cycling or 

hydrologic function impairment. 

Determination of soil condition within the TGRP area indicates that the TES units 156 and 195,

which occupy approximately 54 acres of the TGRP area, have unsatisfactory soil stability, 

nutrient cycling and/or hydrologic function, or have soil stability, nutrient cycling and/or 

hydrologic function impairment giving them an unsatisfactory soil condition rating. Erosion is 

moderate to severe due to the amount of groundcover in the form of litter, woody material, and 

vegetation. Organic matter is not well distributed across the soil surface, does not provide for 

satisfactory aggregation of surface layers, and does not maintain the ability of the soil to absorb, 

store and transmit water. 

Riparian Areas

All streams within the TGRP area have been classified as intermittent or ephemeral water 

courses. There are no perennial streams present. Water from intermittent streams does not flow 

constantly on the surface, but may go underground for a distance. Ephemeral watercourses only 

have running water during spring snowmelt, thunderstorms, and precipitation events that last 

several days. Ephemeral and intermittent streams include Tom Bryan Canyon, Long Canyon, 

Canada del Agua, Sawmill Creek, Canon de Tio Gordito. 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

51

Within the TGRP area, TES 64 and 66 contain ephemeral and intermittent streams. 

TES 64 is characterized as a deep loam, zero to fifteen percent slopes, with associated vegetation 

of mutton bluegrass, Arizona fescue, fringed sagebrush, Gambel oak, willow, piñon pine, and 

Rocky Mountain juniper; occurring on nearly level to gently sloping valley plains, bounded by 

moderately steep to steep hills. This type of vegetation is typical within the Tom Bryan Canyon, 

Long Canyon, and Canada del Agua areas. TES 66 is characterized as a deep loam, gullied, zero 

to fifteen percent slopes, with associated vegetation of mutton bluegrass, Arizona fescue, fringed 

sagebrush, willow, aspen, and ponderosa pine; occurring on simple concave valley plains. This 

type of vegetation is typical within the Sawmill Creek and Canada del Agua areas. 

Water Quality

The TGRP area lies within four 6th code watersheds. The Canada de los Comanches-Rio Tusas

(27,148 acres), Canon de Tio Gordito-Arroyo Aguaje de la Petaca (37,475 acres), Carson 

Reservoir-Arroyo Aguaje de la Petaca (38,571 acres), and Canada del Agua –Rio Tusas (38,294 

acres) watersheds, all of which are located in the Upper Rio Grande and Rio Chama watersheds 

in northern New Mexico. The TGRP area comprises approximately 1% (489 acres) of the Canada 

de los Comanches-Rio Tusas watershed, 27% (10,289 acres) of the Canon de Tio Gordito-Arroyo 

Aguaje de la Petaca watershed, 6% (2,511 acres) of the Carson Reservoir-Arroyo Aguaje de la 

Petaca watershed, and 10% (3,711 acres) of the Canada del Agua –Rio Tusas watershed, and 

therefore has a minor “footprint” within the watersheds. These watershed areas are used for 

recreational activities (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, camping, etc.) and local 

communities also rely on these areas to provide a source of wood and wood products for their 

needs (timber, fuel wood, building products, etc.). Agricultural diversion and water use occur 

throughout the private lands areas. Various species of wildlife ranging from big game to nongame utilize these areas. 

The Upper Rio Grande and Rio Chama watersheds have perennial water sources where water 

quality is monitored and listed in the New Mexico Environment Department of Surface Water 

Quality Bureau (NMED-SWQB) 303(d) lists of impaired streams for exceeding water quality 

standards and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) (Table 24). TMDLs that exceed standards 

identified in the Rio Tusas and Rio Grande by the NMED-SWQB 303(d) lists of impaired 

streams are nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators, specific conductance, temperature, and 

water turbidity. The excerpts can be found on pages 92, and 143 from the 2014-2016 State of 

New Mexico Clean Water Act §303(d)/§305(b) Integrated Report List of Assessed Surface 

Waters.

Table 24. 303(d)-305(b) Listed Waters for the Tio Gordito Analysis Area

Rio Tusas Rio Grande

Designated Uses

Coldwater Aquatic Life, Irrigation, Livestock 

Watering, Secondary Contact, Warmwater Aquatic 

Life, Wildlife Habitat

Marginal Coldwater Aquatic Life, Irrigation, Livestock 

Watering, Primary Contact, Warmwater Aquatic Life, 

Wildlife Habitat, Public Water Supply

Probable Causes of Impairment

Nutrient Eutrophication Biological Indicators Turbidity

Probable Sources of Impairment

Crop Production (Crop land or Dry Land), Roads, 

Bridges, Infrastructure Construction, Impervious 

Surface, Parking Lot Runoff, Livestock (Grazing or 

Feeding Operations), On-Site Treatment Systems 

(Septic Systems and Similar Decentralized 

Systems), Rangeland Grazing, Waste from Pets, 

Wildlife other than Waterfowl

Unknown
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

52

Floodplains

Floodplains are areas that a watercourse accesses in time of high water flow. There are three 

types of floodplains: Base, Coastal and Lake Shore. Only base floodplains occur in the TGRP 

area. Floodplains reduce the risk of loss due to floods by minimizing the impacts to human safety, 

health, and welfare. Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to “...reduce the risk of 

flood loss, minimize the impacts of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and restore and 

preserve beneficial values served by floodplains...” There are no management activities in the 

TGRP area that would cause development or occupation of floodplains.

Wetlands

Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to “...take action to minimize the destruction, 

loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of 

wetlands.” Wetlands are defined as, “...areas inundated by surface or ground water with a 

frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a 

prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil 

conditions for growth and reproduction.

Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, 

wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds” (EO 11990, sec 7b). Within the 

TGRP area, wetlands, in the form of intermittent wet meadows, are associated with the drainage 

network and may be found in areas of TES units 64 and 66, but areas typically do not have the 

soil and water characteristics necessary to be classified as wetlands. In addition, the low 

precipitation that the area receives does not make the soils conducive for creating a wetland. 

No Action

No vegetation management activities are proposed under this alternative. No thinning, prescribed 

burning or other action items would be implemented to meet the purpose and need of this project.

Under the No Action, soil and watershed conditions would not be affected in a positive manner 

by providing for increased levels of surface soil cover, improving surface soil aggregation and 

structure from increased organic inputs, increasing protection from water and wind erosion, or 

increasing levels of fine fuel loads over the TGRP area. 

An increase of nutrients would not be returned to the soil and would not enhance the productivity, 

fertility and water holding and release functions of the soil resource. Water quality would not 

improve because of the greater amounts of herbaceous ground cover or organic matter would not 

occur. The ground cover assists in reducing wind and water erosion or surface water velocity, as 

well as, improving the soil’s water holding capacity or the ability of the soil to accept, store and 

transmit water to surface water courses.

A greater extent of area under ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands would likely experience 

moderate to high soil burn severity in a wildfire. The loss of canopy cover, ground cover, and organic 

debris on the soil surface, together with the possible occurrence of hydrophobic soil layers in these 

areas, would likely lead to measurable increases in soil erosion and loss of soil organic matter and soil 

fertility. More erodible soils (TES 148E) would reach soil erosion rates that would result in loss of 

productivity.

Soils in grasslands (TES 64, 66, 148E, 550) would most likely not be affected to the same degree since 

burn severities would likely be lower. Wildfire in these areas may also stimulate more vigorous growth 

of grass and forb vegetation leading to overall improvements in ground cover.
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

53

Riparian condition improvement would occur at a slower rate than under the proposed action or 

alternative C, since there would not be a reduction of tree canopy for conifer species to allow 

desirable riparian vegetation to increase and improve riparian functions. This alternative would not 

produce positive changes to existing water quality trends in the intermittent streams and surface water 

bodies in the TGRP area. Under this alternative, water quality would not likely improve. In the long 

term, water quantity would continue to decline as overstory canopy progressively close openings and 

interspaces.

Wildfires that cause high soil burn severity result in heavy sediment and ash inputs to streams, as well as 

increased risk of damaging flows to streams, riparian areas and downstream structures. Wildfires 

entering these untreated watersheds under this alternative would most likely have a measurably greater 

negative impact to water quality and channel stability, than wildfire occurring after implementation of 

the proposed action or alternative C.

Proposed Action and Alternative C

Under these action alternatives, the level of vegetative biomass accumulation would be 

maintained at current levels or increase slight to moderate. With vegetation treatments, additional 

organic matter contributions would be expected to occur. An increase in vegetative ground cover 

would occur and the level of nutrients returned to the soil would improve. More open overstory 

conditions would result in conditions closer to historic levels which are less likely to burn in both 

intensity and extent, reducing potential adverse effects to watershed or intermittent stream resources. 

Water quality would be expected to be maintained over the short and long term by 

implementation of either action alternative. The status of water quality and full attainment of 

State of New Mexico designated uses of surface water would be expected to be maintained or to 

continue. 

The ability of riparian areas to store and release stream flow as well as filter sediment from 

activities and features (roads, OHV use, gathering forest products, and recreational use) would 

continue to slightly improve. As stands are on the trajectory towards historic conditions, the 

resulting interspaces and vegetative growth would increase and watershed health would improve. 

Continued changes in intermittent streambank cover and stability would occur where upland 

erosion or sediment production would decrease, and desirable grass-forb-shrub interspace 

establishment would increase.

Soils

Under the action alternatives, short term increases in erosion related to ground cover disturbance caused 

by the thinning or mechanical treatment would be minimized by best management practices (BMPs)

that retain slash and limit disturbance and soil displacement. Subsequent slash disposal activities 

would extend the time of or temporarily re-initiate ground cover disturbance and its related erosion. 

Finer textured soils and soils without high rock fragment content would have more potential for 

compaction. Implementation of BMPs restricting mechanized treatment activities during periods of wet 

soil conditions would avoid serious compaction issues in most of the upland soils.

Under the proposed action, long term positive effects would occur in areas where production of 

grass/forb cover is stimulated by prescribed burning and by the opening of the canopy cover through 

vegetation treatments. This effect would be most visible in grassland restoration treatments and in 

open interspaces between tree groups where distinct groups of trees with interlocking crowns are the 

resulting characteristic condition. Increases in ground cover where slash is lopped and scattered would 
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

54

also lead to positive impacts on soil fertility as well as a quick reduction of erosion from vegetation 

treatments.

Careful management of prescribed fires can limit the severity of the impact to soil resources but a 

complete elimination of potential impacts is not feasible. Where both treatments of thinning and 

prescribed burning occur on the same area, the activities would be coordinated such that the minimum 

levels of residual coarse woody debris identified in the BMPs would remain.

Since the severity of subsequent wildfires would likely be reduced by implementation of the proposed 

action, the size of area, that a ponderosa pine or mixed conifer stand would experience moderate to 

high soil burn severity in a wildfire, is reduced significantly. A high severity wildfire would cause the 

loss of canopy cover, ground cover, and organic debris on the soil surface and when occurring together 

with the presence of hydrophobic soil layers in these areas, would possibly lead to measurably greater 

soil erosion and loss of soil organic matter and soil fertility.

Riparian 

Because stream channels are intermittent within the TGRP area, and are generally without surface 

flows during June, July, fall and winter, current stream temperatures would not be influenced 

significantly by thinning. Treatments within riparian, in combination with those on surrounding upland 

areas, would reduce the risk of significant damage to riparian communities and stream channel 

integrity due to the occurrence of any future wildfires in the TGRP area. The treatments would have 

beneficial impacts on riparian area vegetation composition, stream bank stability and structure. The 

proposed treatments may assist in the reduction of the conifer canopy cover in those riparian zones to 

stimulate the development of the woody (willows, aspen) riparian vegetation. This desired change in 

riparian vegetation would likely have a positive impact on stream bank stability, and improve riparian 

vegetative cover, and riparian condition. Vegetation treatments that occur within intermittent stream 

riparian areas would reduce its canopy cover and would cause a potential short-term warming effect on 

stream temperatures. 

Proposed treatments across the TGRP area would have the potential to cause a long term reduction in 

the amount of large coarse woody debris available for future input to the stream channels. Since the 

majority of woody debris in the affected intermittent streams is generated within the streamside riparian 

zones, and BMPs, should limit the extent and severity of this potential impact and prevent loss of 

channel stability or structural diversity related to large woody debris. 

BMPs designed to maintain ground cover and large woody materials on the soil surface within the 

TGRP area would reduce the amount of sediment reaching the stream channels from thinned and 

burned upland slopes and prevent excessive levels of sedimentation in stream reaches. Reductions in 

upland tree density and the long-term maintenance of open stands and forest openings should respond 

with increased stream flow and water yield, which in turn would provide longer periods of intermittent 

stream flow.

Water Quality 

Under either action alternative, principal water quality impacts would include increased short term 

inputs of ash and sediment to intermittent stream channels in the TGRP area and, to a lesser extent, 

downstream of the area. The increase in ash would occur in response to prescribed burning in the 

TGRP area. The implementation of BMPs to maintain or improve ground cover and woody debris, 

and also implementation of burn prescriptions to moderate the extent and severity of burns, would keep 

the input of ash to minimal levels. The principal source of increased sediment to the intermittent 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

55

streams would likely be temporarily re-opened roads in the TGRP area. Roads that are re-opened 

would be closed again after the project operation objectives have been met in the area. 

The sediment generated from the TGRP area’s proposed activity would likely decrease over time. 

However, it is likely that sediment inputs to intermittent streams would increase, since it may be 

necessary to complete minor upgrades of the temporary reopened roads to accommodate vehicles and 

equipment. (No new road construction is planned under this alternative.) An additional source of 

increased sediment input to intermittent streams would be from areas where ground cover has been 

reduced or eliminated due to thinning and prescribed fire activities. BMPs would offer protection to 

water quality and would be effective in preventing the long term deterioration of water quality due to 

sediment.

Hydrologic function and water yield in forests are influenced by the amount and distribution of 

vegetation, precipitation, snow melt, basin physiography, and soil type. Reduction of residual basal 

area in forests has resulted in increased water yield, although large variations in yield are typical. In 

addition, initial mean increases in water yield can be realized, when high basal area is reduced. 

However, increases can be expected to decline with time as vegetation establishes and develops. 

Removal or reduction of forest cover may increase soil water storage, which then becomes available 

for groundwater recharge. Soil water content was reported to be higher in thinned or thinned and 

burned areas, than in untreated control areas. Restoring characteristic forest composition under 

frequent fire forests would benefit hydrologic function by reducing stand density and creating open 

grass-forb-shrub interspaces, decreasing canopy transpiration and interception losses, concentrating 

snow in interspaces, and increasing soil infiltration, water storage, and stream and spring flow. The 

resulting increases in water yield are a significant incidental benefit of restoration treatment under the 

proposed action. (USDA 2013).

Under either action alternative, the area would provide longer periods of flow or water yields in 

intermittent streams within and downstream of the TGRP area due to the improved hydrologic 

function. In cases where there is a hydrologic response to fuel management treatments, the observed 

response would be greatest in wet years, and least or minimal in dry years. Prescribed fires are 

probably less likely to influence water yield than mechanical treatments or prescribed burning with 

mechanical treatments, because of the smaller reduction in basal area and the lack of ground 

disturbance by heavy machinery. 

Wildlife, Fish, and Botanical Species

Federally Listed Species

Proposed, Threatened and Endangered species are managed under the authority of the Federal 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), (PL 93-205, as amended in 1973) and the National Forest 

Management Act (PL 94-588). The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that all actions, 

which they “authorize, fund, or carry out”, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species. Based on habitat suitability there are no federally 

listed species that are present or do not have the potential habitat within the TGRP area and are 

dismissed from further analysis as the project would have no effect to these species.
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

56

Table 25. T&E Species dismissed from further analysis.

Species 

and 

Listing Status

Known 

to Occur

Potential 

to Occur

Comments

Canada Lynx

(Lynx Canadensis)

THREATENED

NO NO High elevation habitat above 9,000 feet; spruce-fir 

forest. Spruce-fir forest is not found within the project 

area. Key habitat components not present within project 

area. 

Jemez Mountain 

Salamander 

(Plethodon 

neomexicanus)

ENDANGERED

NO NO

Jemez Mountain Salamander is only found in the moist 

microclimate of the Jemez Mountain Range in New 

Mexico. The project area is outside of the Jemez 

Mountain Range. Species does not occur within project 

area. 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

(Coccyzus 

americanus)

THREATENED

NO NO

Riparian woodlands with mature cottonwood-willow 

woodlands with closed canopies and sub-canopies and 

dense understory foliage between 2,800-7,500 feet in 

elevation. Key habitat components not present within 

project area. 

Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii 

extimus)

ENDANGERED

NO NO

The Southwestern willow flycatcher requires dense 

patches of trees or shrubs with slow to still water 

available at or near nesting habitat (USDA 2004). Key 

habitat components not present within project area. 

Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher

Critical Habitat

NO NO

Outside the range of Critical Habitat. 

Least Tern 

(Sterna antillarum)

ENDANGERED NO NO

The Biological Assessment for the Continued 

Implementation of the Land and Resource Management 

Plans for the 11 National Forests and National 

Grasslands of the Southwest Region (USDA 2012) 

determined that the Carson National Forest was not 

within the range of this species. 

Mexican Spotted owl 

(Strix occidentalis 

lucida)

THREATENED

NO NO

Mixed conifer, Pine-oak and in canyons with mature 

forests. Key habitat components not present within 

project area. 

Mexican Spotted Owl 

Critical Habitat NO NO

Outside of Critical Habitat designated for the Carson NF. 

New Mexico Meadow 

Jumping Mouse

(Zapus hundsonius 

luteus)

ENDANGERED

NO NO

Dry soils along moist streamsides, dense 

riparian/wetland vegetation up to approximately 8,000 

feet in elevation. It appears to only utilize two riparian 

community types; 1. Persistent emergent herbaceous 

wetlands (i.e., beaked sedge and reed canarygrass 

alliances); and 2. Scrub-shrub wetlands (i.e., riparian 

areas along perennial streams that are composed of 

willows and alders). It especially uses microhabitats of 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

57

Species 

and 

Listing Status

Known 

to Occur

Potential 

to Occur

Comments

patches or stringers of tall dense sedges on moist soil 

along the edge of permanent water. Key habitat 

components not present within project area. 

Forest Sensitive Species

There are 35 species on the USDA R3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List that potentially 

occur on the CNF. The Forest has developed a list (USDA 2013) to indicate the range of species 

by district. Of the 35 species 25 occur or have the potential to occur on the Tres Piedras Ranger 

District, although every species may not occur within this TGRP area. All other species on the 

Forest List do not occur on the district and would not be impacted by the proposed project.

Seventeen of those species, including one plant, did not warrant detailed analysis, mainly because 

their habitat does not exist within the TGRP area. The table below lists the species not considered 

in detail. The remaining eight species considered in detail were:

 Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

 American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

 Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum)

 Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens)

 Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni)

 Ripley’s milkvetch (Astragulus missouriensis var. humistratus)

 Robust larkspur (Delphinium robustum)

 Small headed goldenweed (Ericameria microcephala)

Table 26. Forest Sensitive Species not considered in detail.

Common Name Justification

AMPHIBIANS 

BOREAL TOAD 

(Bufo boreas boreas)

Key habitat or species does not occur in project area. No 

further analysis required.

NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG 

(Rana pipiens)

Breeds in shallow, quiet areas of permanent bodies of 

water, in beaver ponds, and in seasonally flooded areas 

adjacent to or contiguous with permanent pools or 

streams Key habitat does not occur within project area. 

No further analysis required.

BIRDS

BALD EAGLE 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Overwintering habitat not found within the project area. 

No further analysis required. 

WESTERN YELLOW BILLED 

CUCKOO 

(Coccyzus americanus occidentalis)

Species habitat discussed under the T&E section. Key 

habitat components not present within project area. No 

further analysis required.

BURROWING OWL (Western) 

(Athene cunicularia hypugaea)

Dry, open, shortgrass, treeless plains, often associated 

with burrowing mammals. Key habitat or species does not 

occur in project area. No further analysis required.
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

58

Common Name Justification

BOREAL OWL 

(Aegolius funereus)

Spruce fir. Known to occupy cool micro-sites with higher 

canopy cover, higher basal coverage and high tree 

density. Key habitat does not occur in project area. No 

further analysis required.

INSECTS 

NOKOMIS FRITILLARY 

(Speyeria nokomis nokomis)

Narrow endemic. Essential habitat components include 

wetlands associated with flowing water. (i.e. springs, 

seeps and wet meadows). Key habitat does not occur in 

project area. No further analysis required.

MAMMALS 

CINEREUS (MASKED) SHREW 

(Sorex cinereus cinereus)

Riparian habitat, above 9,000ft., with moist sites with 

deep enough soil or duff to burrow. Key habitat does not 

occur within project area. No further analysis required.

WATER SHREW 

(Sorex palustris navigator)

Occur in vicinity of permanent streams, 8,000+ ft in 

altitude. Key habitat does not occur within project area. 

No further analysis required.

AMERICAN PIKA

(Ochotona princeps saxatilis)

Talus slopes and boulder fields in alpine and sub-alpine 

habitat. Key habitat does not occur in project area. No 

further analysis required.

NEW MEXICO MEADOW JUMPING 

MOUSE

(Zapus hudsonius leteus)

Species habitat discussed under the T&E section. Key 

habitat components not present within project area. No 

further analysis required.

AMERICAN MARTEN

(Martes Americana origenes)

Optimum habitat appears to be mature old-growth 

spruce-fir communities with more than 30% canopy 

cover. Key habitat components not present within project 

area. No further analysis required.

CANADA LYNX

(Lynx candensis)

Species habitat discussed under the T&E section. Key 

habitat components not present within project area. No 

further analysis required.

PLANTS 

ARIZONA WILLOW 

(Salix arizonica)

Sedge meadows and wet drainage ways in subalpine 

coniferous forest. Key habitat does not occur in project 

area. No further analysis required.

FISH 

RIO GRANDE CHUB 

(Gila pandora)

Perennial water. Key habitat or species does not occur in 

project area. No further analysis required.

RIO GRANDE CUTTHROAT TROUT 

(Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis)

Perennial water. Key habitat or species does not occur in 

project area. No further analysis required.

RIO GRANDE SUCKER 

(Catostomus plebeius)

Perennial water. Key habitat or species does not occur in 

project area. No further analysis required.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

The Carson National Forest Plan (USDA 1986) identified eleven wildlife species as MIS to 

monitor the conditions of the forest’s ecosystems. These MIS are considered to be representative 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

59

for a variety of other species with similar life requirements and were selected to reflect the habitat 

needs for the majority of the Forest’s species. Management indicator species respond to habitat 

changes early or at low levels of stress, so they act as sensors for the effects of management 

activities occurring on the Forest.

All eleven MIS were considered for the analysis; because of the extensive vegetation habitat 

(vegetation) types found within the TGRP area, all but four species or groups of species would 

not be affected by implementation of the activities associated with improving ecosystem health 

within the TGRP area. The table below lists the species not considered in detail .The remaining 

seven species and species groups found to have the potential of being affected by implementation 

of activities associated with improving ecosystem health in the TGRP area were:

 Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri)

 Plain (Juniper) titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi)

 Abert’s squirrel (Sciurus aberti)

 Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus)

 Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)

 Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus)

 Rocky Mountain elk (Cervis elaphus canadensis)

Table 27. MIS not found within project area.

Management Indicator 

Species

Key MIS Habitat 

Component for Quality 

Habitat 

Forest Plan 

Management Areas 

Comments

White-tailed Ptarmigan 

(Lagopus leucurcus)

alpine tundra and 

subalpine deciduous 

shrub

MA 9 – High 

elevation grassland

No habitat within the 

analysis area.

Rocky Mountain Bighorn 

Sheep (Ovis canadensis 

canadensis)

alpine, subalpine tundra 

and mountain meadow 

grassland

MA 9 – High 

elevation grassland

No habitat within the 

project area.

Aquatic 

Macroinvertebrates

perennial stream, 

riparian 

MA 14- Riparian No habitat within the 

analysis area.

Resident Trout perennial stream, 

riparian

Perennial Water No habitat within the 

analysis area.

Migratory Birds

Habitat conditions for migratory birds have been altered from historic conditions and are 

degraded, primarily due to long-term fire exclusion. Frequent surface fires once maintained 

healthy and diverse fire-adapted ecosystems, and migratory birds using this area evolved under 

frequent surface fire regimes. Many of the migratory birds require surface plant cover beneath 

conifer trees or as edge habitat in openings next to clumps of trees for either their use or to 

provide habitat for prey species. The existing condition of thickets of small diameter trees in 

many areas limits the grass, forbs, and shrub components which in turn reduces the quality of 

migratory bird habitat. Conservation recommendations for thinning dense pine stands, timber 

harvest practices that leave snags and some older trees, and restoring a cool burning, low intensity 

fire regime would improve conditions significantly (NMPIF 2007). Water is not abundant in the 

TGRP area. Small, narrow patches of riparian plants occur in a few small drainage bottoms. 

Historic meadows have been encroached upon by trees. 
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

60

No Action Alternative

Environmental Consequences Common to All Sensitive Species

Without large restorations activities native grass-forb-shrub species would continue to decline. 

Species abundance and diversity would continue to decrease resulting in a decline in wildlife 

habitat affecting both prey and predator species. Pine needles and duff would continue to build 

upon the forest floor allowing infrequent fires to burn with higher intensity. The probability of 

wildfires would increase, leading to areas with soil sterility in some areas. The probability of 

losing large amounts of forested acres would also increase due to stands more susceptible to 

increased insect and disease activity. Conifer encroachment upon meadows would continue to 

occur. 

Implementation of this alternative would likely have long-term impacts to the northern goshawk 

nesting habitat. Insect and disease that are fairly prevalent in some forested stands would likely 

continue to spread and kill larger ponderosa pine trees that provide nesting habitat for the 

northern goshawk, especially within post-fledgling family areas (PFAs). An increase in insect and 

disease activity would be a detriment to suitable nesting habitats by reducing canopy cover. 

Canopy cover in stands with high levels of insect and disease activity would also begin to 

deteriorate, therefore not creating future nesting habitat and post fledgling family areas for 

goshawk. However, a more open canopy would result in improved foraging habitat by allowing 

better prey-base habitat. An open canopy would also allow goshawks to sight prey and fly 

through the trees with more ease. 

Reynolds et al. (1992) acknowledges that the northern goshawk is adapted to dense forest 

conditions of mature large diameter trees. However, some forested areas within the TGRP area

consist of dense “thickets” of small-diameter trees. Stands containing these thickets are prone to 

high severity, tree killing fire and insect and disease outbreaks (Reynolds et al. 1992). Because of 

intra-tree competition for moisture, nutrients, and light, these thickets would not result in mature 

large trees, therefore not providing future nesting habitat. Likewise, these dense thickets would 

result in the limited availability of abundant, sustainable prey populations and limit forage 

production. 

Table 9 (p.22) shows an overabundance in VSS 5 over a 60 year time period if no restoration 

activities occur. Over time decreases would occur in VSS classes 1-4. The amount of open area 

for grass-shrub-forb establishment would be reduced which limits the availability of resources of 

prey species and can negatively impact both the goshawk and the peregrine falcon due to their 

dependence on open areas for foraging.

Table 10 (p. 23) shows an increase in canopy cover for VSS classes 5 and 6. Although some prey 

species are dependent on interlocking canopies, interspaces throughout the landscape are 

beneficial for many other species. The lack of VSS classes 1-3 increases the risk of crown fire 

and the rate of spread for fire which increases the risk of losing valuable wildlife habitat to a 

wildfire. Interspaces allow fire to fall to the forest floor and decrease the amount of closed 

canopy forest that could be lost during a wildfire event.

This alternative would also continue to have increased risk of wildfire loss within nesting habitat. 

The proposed TGRP area is dense and vertical fuel loading is high. A high percentage of 

goshawk habitat could be lost should a wildfire occur. Wildfire would also have a negative 

impact on the abundance of prey base species by directly affecting individuals themselves as well 

as their habitat. Old growth stands would continue to be crowded out by more shade tolerant 

species such as Douglas-fir and white fir. Without regular fire return intervals these shade 

tolerant species are not thinned or removed allowing the loss of fire resistant, large diameter 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

61

ponderosa pine trees that are preferred nesting trees for a variety of wildlife species especially 

goshawks. Table 28 below shows the potential of crown fire to occur within the TGRP area

under the no action alternative. 

Table 28. Crown Fire Potential for the No Action Alternative (Fire and Fuels Report).

Year No Fire

Potential

Surface Fire 

Potential

Surface 

Fire 

Potential 

Acres

Passive 

Crown Fire 

Potential

Passive 

Crown Fire 

Potential 

Acres

Active 

Crown Fire 

Potential

Active Crown 

Fire Potential 

Acres

2015 <1% 53% 9,001 17% 2,906 4,916 29%

2025 <1% 68% 11,478 16% 2,683 2,662 16%

2035 <1% 38% 6,409 18% 2,981 7,434 44%

2045 <1% 55% 9,276 17% 2,842 4,705 28%

2055 <1% 65% 11,106 16% 2,742 2,976 18%

2065 <1% 65% 11,112 17% 2,945 2,767 16%

2075 <1% 35% 6,015 20% 3,447 7,362 43%

Losses from insects, disease, and wildfire are expected to increase under this alternative. 

Although treatments would not occur, stands within VSS 4-VSS 6 classes would increase, 

allowing insects, disease, and wildfire potential to increase thus moving away from desired 

conditions for goshawk habitat. An increase in insects would benefit the spotted and Pale 

Townsend’s Big-eared bats, this increase would only be temporary and would decrease over time 

as tree mortality occurs and insect populations begin to decline.

Implementation of this alternative would likely have long-term impacts to goshawk habitat. 

Endemic pine beetles and mistletoe that have caused mortality within the ponderosa pine and 

piñon-juniper stands thus far would likely continue to spread killing larger trees or reach 

epidemic levels. Pine beetles would be a detriment to suitable nesting and foraging habitats by 

reducing canopy cover. Canopy cover in stands with beetles would also begin to deteriorate, 

therefore not creating future nesting habitat for the goshawk. 

Implementation of this alternative would have immediate and long-term risk of loss of goshawk 

nesting and foraging habitat within or adjacent to the TGRP area. There are only two goshawk 

PFAs on the District, both of which occur within the TGRP area. Because the area is dense with 

trees and fuel loadings are high, it is expected that a high percentage of goshawk habitat would be 

lost if a stand replacement wildfire would occur. Unless a wildfire were to spare large areas of 

habitat, the remaining habitat would not be adequate to support goshawks over a long period of 

time.

MIS

Brewer’s Sparrow

Brewer’s sparrow habitat would not be maintained for a mixture of brushy conditions and 

grasses. Without treatment piñon-juniper and sagebrush would continue to compete with native 

grasses and invade grasslands. Fire potential would not be reduced; high severity wildlife would 

remain a threat to Brewers Sparrow habitat. Implementation of this alternative would not be 

consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Plains (Juniper) Titmouse

This alternative would not support the growth of large piñon pine and juniper trees. Grasslands 

and sagebrush flats would continue to be invaded by piñon and juniper trees. A mosaic of habitat 

would not occur as tree species would be relatively the same in size with little variation.
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

62

Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for 

this species and their associated habitat types.

Abert’s Squirrel

The no action alternative would not result in an immediate change to the quantity or quality of 

habitat used by Abert’s squirrel. By not thinning out high density stands, tree growth rates would 

continue to decline as compared to the proposed action and alternative C and the uneven-aged 

stands would not occur. The desirable large trees groupings in high VSS Classes (>20 VSS 5 and 

VSS 6 trees/acre) with interlocking crown would not be attained under this alternative. This 

alternative would not reduce the potential for stand replacing, high severity, and crown fire in the 

TGRP area that currently posed a threat to Abert’s squirrel habitat. 

This alternative would not alter Abert’s squirrel habitat. Implementation of this alternative would 

not be consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for this species and its associated habitat 

types.

Red Squirrel

The no action alternative would not result in an immediate change to the quantity or quality of 

habitat used by red squirrel. By not thinning high density stands, tree growth rates would continue

to decline as compared to the proposed action and alternative C and the uneven-aged stands 

would not be achieved. Denser stands would improve red squirrel habitats, but the desirable large 

trees groupings in high VSS Classes (4, 5, and 6) would not be realized. This alternative would 

not reduce the potential for stand replacing, high severity, and crown fire in the TGRP area that 

currently poses a threat to red squirrel habitat. Implementation of this alternative would be 

consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Wild Turkey

Turkeys are a generalist species that use nearly all types of habitat present in the TGRP area. 

They use forested areas and meadows to satisfy a variety of needs. Within the TGRP area, the 

quantity of turkey habitat would not improve and would be reduced over time with increased 

stand density, lack of desirable grass-forb-shrub communities, and conifer encroachment into 

wetlands. 

Improvement in turkey habitat within the TGRP area would require the creation of more openings 

in the forest to promote the growth of grasses and forbs for rearing habitat. Conifer trees are 

currently encroaching into the openings and meadows turkeys use as foraging habitat. Wild 

turkey foraging habitat would continue to decline but roosting and nesting habitat would remain 

relatively unchanged. Implementation of this alternative would not be consistent with Forest Plan 

goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Hairy Woodpecker

The no action alternative would not result in an immediate change to the quantity or quality of 

habitat used by the hairy woodpecker. Improvement in quality would occur over time because 

tree densities would remain high and mortality of trees would be greater under this alternative. 

Snag recruitment would result in a minor improvement to hairy woodpecker habitat quality. By 

not thinning high density stands, tree growth rates would be slower than compared to the 

proposed action and alternative C. Hairy woodpecker habitat would remain susceptible to a

wildfire. This alternative would be consistent with the Forest Plan, however it would not decrease 

the risk of wildfire leaving Hairy Woodpecker habitat and that of its prey susceptible to adverse 

fire affects.
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

63

Rocky Mountain Elk

Cover acreage would increase and forage would decrease as stand tree densities increase. 

Meadows and other small openings used for forage would probably receive more elk use if

populations remain stable. There would be no treatment related disturbance under this alternative. 

This alternative would not reduce the potential for stand replacing, high severity, and crown fire 

in the TGRP area that currently posed a threat to elk habitat. This alternative would not be 

consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Migratory Birds

This alternative would result in negative effects on birds as habitat conditions would continue to 

decline. Insects for woodpeckers, flycatchers, and other birds, would increase due to increasing 

insect and disease outbreaks. However, this increase would only be short term as insects would 

eventually decrease as healthy vegetation conditions continue to decline. Premature tree 

mortality would increase snags for cavity nesters. However, habitat conditions would not 

improve overall due to the continued lack of vegetation diversity and the continuation of canopy 

closure and increasing stand densities. The abundance and quality of seeds, nuts, acorns, berries, 

and tall young grasses, forbs and shrub vegetation would all continue to decline, resulting in 

reduction of habitat quality.

The risk would still exist for wildfires as treatments would not be done and would ultimately 

increase as stand densities and canopy cover increase. Wildfires could result in long-term loss of 

habitat acres for some species, and habitat conversion that influences migratory birds. This 

alternative would not allow the creation of interspaces that would reduce the threat of the crown 

fire, create openings for vegetation, and create seed beds for young trees to become established.

This alternative would not produce noise or visual disturbance due to project activities. However, 

disturbance from other on-going activities would continue occur.

Proposed Action Alternative

Forest Sensitive Species

Environmental Consequences to All Sensitive Species

Historically, ponderosa pine ecosystems of the western United States experienced a frequent, 

low-intensity fire regime that promoted dominance of large diameter ponderosa pine (Barrett and 

Arno, 1982; Moore et al., 1999). This historical frequent fire regime maintained more rapid 

nutrient cycling that corresponded with a diverse understory community of grasses and forbs 

(Moore et al. 1999; Smith and Arno 1999). Reintroduction of fire can progressively enhance the 

diversity and abundance of understory species. Lush grass-forb-shrub understory provides for a 

diversity of prey species in which the northern goshawk and the American peregrine falcon are 

dependent on. Table 29 shows the fire potential under the proposed action alternative.

Table 29. Fire Potential for the Proposed Action Alternative (Fire and Fuels Report).

Year No Fire 

Potential

Surface 

Fire 

Potential

Surface 

Fire 

Potential 

Acres

Passive 

Crown Fire 

Potential

Passive 

Crown Fire 

Potential 

Acres

Active 

Crown Fire 

Potential

Active 

Crown Fire 

Potential 

Acres

2015 <1% 79% 13,434 9% 1,605 11% 1,819

2025 <1% 74% 12,509 16% 2,697 9% 1,611

2035 <1% 85% 14,475 7% 1,265 6% 1,078

2045 <1% 74% 12,599 16% 2,638 9% 1,582

2055 <1% 86% 14,642 8% 1,276 5% 900

2065 <1% 74% 12,620 20% 3,341 5% 858
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

64

2075 <1% 86% 14,609 8% 1,369 5% 840

A variety of VSS classes across the landscape provide important life needs for various Forest 

Sensitive Species. All VSS classes provide hiding and thermal cover, nesting habitat, and habitat 

for prey and foraging opportunities. This alternative is expected to have better distribution of 

VSS classes across the landscape compared to the no action alternative.

Proposed activities would improve forage availability and quality for prey species. The creation 

of interspaces would allow wildfires to burn as low intensity surface fires rather than active 

crown fires protecting valuable wildlife habitat.

Plant community composition and structure in meadows are often different than in the 

surrounding forests. These meadows provide important habitat for wildlife, as well as aesthetic 

and biological diversity. A meadow opening, for example, would generate four to five times the 

grass-forb-shrub production and plant richness of the nearby forest interior (Moore and Huffman 

2004). This study also adds that this type of encroachment upon mountain meadows is occurring 

throughout the southwest. As meadows are encroached upon, plant cover is lost, as is habitat 

diversity for a host of species including prey base species.

Northern Goshawk

The 1996 Forest Plan Amendment discusses the need to maintain timber stands to provide 

breeding habitat for the northern goshawk and its prey. It emphasizes the need to “Sustain a 

mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory and understory), age classes and species composition 

across the landscape” (Reynolds et al. 1992). The proposed action would best meet the Forest 

Plan guidelines to provide habitat for the northern goshawk.

Table 15 (p.28) displays the arrangement of VSS classes that are expected to occur across the 

landscape with the implementation of the proposed action. This alternative would increase the 

amount of VSS 1. An increase in VSS 1 would represent the interspaces that would be created 

through the implementation of this alternative. Interspaces between tree groups provide a 

diversity of productive grass-forb-shrub communities which support food webs that many 

mammals, birds, invertebrates, and their predators depend on (Dodd et al 2003, Kalies et al 2012, 

Reynolds et al 1992). Although goshawks nest in a variety of habitat types they seem to prefer 

mature forests with large trees with open understories (Squires and Reynolds 1997). The increase 

in plant-forb-shrub communities is expected to result in additional forage and cover for goshawk 

prey species. Goshawk reproduction fluctuates and is strongly connected with food availability. 

Goshawk reproduction is greatly reduced in years when prey numbers are low and increases when 

prey availability is high (Beier et al 2008, Reynolds et al 2005), further increasing the need to 

improve prey habitat.

Reynolds et al (1992) found that fine to mid-scale interspersion likely successfully maintain an 

entire suite of prey at high total abundance during high and low prey years within goshawk home 

ranges. Goshawk prey including rabbits, mice, voles, ground squirrels, and grouse are native to 

frequent-fire forests and are dependent on grass-forb-shrub community. A number of these 

species are known to increase in abundance in areas with increased grass-forb-shrub productivity 

and species diversity (Ernest et al 2000, Hostetler et al 2012).

Small opening would be created within the forested areas to provide more sunlight to the forest 

floor thereby increasing grasses, forbs, and shrubs. An increase in grass-forb-shrub plant growth 

would increase in areas where a thick layer of dead plant material as accumulated over time. Low 

severity prescribed burns would result in a mosaic of burned, partially burned and unburned duff 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

65

layers. The increase in grasses-forbs-shrubs is expected to provide additional forage and cover 

for goshawk prey species. 

In addition to creating interspaces this alternative would also create groups and clumps of trees. 

These tree groups and clumps provide areas of high canopy cover for nesting and fledgling 

goshawks. To decrease the risk of losing goshawk habitat to wildfire, PFAs and nest stands 

would be treated either mechanically and/or with low severity broadcast fire following Forest 

Plan guidelines. Thinning within one PFA is expected to result in clumpy distribution of all-aged 

trees which would create more open conditions while still providing sufficient cover to fledgling 

goshawks, and follow canopy coverage guidelines. Table 30 shows the amount of treatment that 

would occur within PFAs for both burn only activities and mechanical treatment followed by 

prescribed burn.

Table 30. Acreage by Habitat Type Proposed for Treatment -Proposed Action and Alternative C.

Habitat Type Prescribed Fire Only Mechanical Treatment and 

Prescribed Fire

Outside PFA 13,475 3,525

PFA/Nest Habitat 850 271

In this alternative canopy cover would be measured with vertical crown projections within midaged to old forest structural stages (VSS 4-6) and not within grass-forb-shrub to young forest 

structural stage groups (VSS 1-3) or in interspaces, natural meadows and grasslands, or other 

areas not managed for forest conditions.

Existing PFAs have high canopy cover of mature to old aged trees. Thinning within PFAs would 

maintain these conditions as no VSS 6 tree groups would be thinned. Mechanical and low 

severity burning treatments would alter northern goshawk habitat by thinning understory trees, 

reducing tree densities, deceasing duff layers, and reducing existing tree canopies dominated by 

VSS 4 classes toward the desired conditions of un-even aged stands and mosaic landscapes.

Low severity broadcast fire would result in a mosaic of burned, partially burned, and unburned 

areas. An increase in grass-forb-shrub growth would increase in areas plant matter has 

accumulated over time as prescribed fire is implemented. Maintenance low severity burning 

would occur, impacts associated with the initial burn treatments would reoccur. Smoke may 

settle in the PFA areas during the breeding season, but would be transitory and short-term in 

nature. Resident goshawks would be able to move beyond smoky areas when fall burns would 

occur. Broadcast burning is recommended in ponderosa pine as a means to promote and maintain 

goshawk habitat and reduce fuel loads (Reynolds et al. 1992).

Implementation of this alternative would be beneficial for improving goshawk foraging habitat. 

This alternative would improve prey base habitat by reducing the dense understory, and allowing 

grass-forb-shrub understory to become established and grow. Improvement in understory 

vegetation would increase production and quality of vegetation reducing wildlife forage 

competition within the TGRP area. 

This alternative would preserve old growth habitat and old growth components in designated 

stands within goshawk habitat. Old growth habitat would increase as designated stands increase 

in maturity over time.

Timing restrictions would be implemented within PFAs to limit disturbance during the breeding 

season when occupied. Unintentional disruption of normal foraging patterns could occur to 
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

66

northern goshawk adults during felling, piling, road maintenance, and burning activities. This 

disruption should be limited in scope as treatment areas would differ from year to year. 

The existing road system within the TGRP area would receive higher vehicle use than currently 

occurs. Existing roads would be used for transporting crews to and from work sites, hauling 

material to and from work sites, and would be used as control lines for prescribed burning. 

Activities could occur during any time of the year but would not affect the entire TGRP area all at 

once. Projects would be implemented in stages, affecting different areas at different times. 

Higher use of the road system could result in high levels of noise, visual, and dust disturbance to 

goshawks; although, Grubb et al. (1998) found that logging trucks passing within 413 meters (or 

1,355 feet) of an active goshawk nest did not prompt a behavior response from a brooding female 

goshawk. Timing restrictions in PFAs and nest sites when occupied by goshawks would reduce 

the effects of road use during the breeding season. Foraging areas outside the PFAs could be 

affected year-long and could cause goshawks to avoid foraging areas where vehicle traffic 

associated with treatment activities is high. 

Short-term disturbance to goshawk by treatment activities would temporarily displace or alter 

foraging and roosting areas. Timing restrictions for treatment activities within northern goshawk 

PFAs when occupied would not disturb goshawks during the breeding season. As treatments 

would take place over time, northern goshawk would only experience activity related disturbance 

in portions of the TGRP area at one time.

Fire and smoke effects from burning may disturb individual birds but this should be a short-term 

impact and would adversely affect goshawks due to implementing at low severity. Low severity 

burning would occur throughout goshawk habitat. Timing restrictions within PFAs when 

occupied would prevent burning during the breeding season which would reduce any impacts to 

nesting birds.

Approximately thirteen goshawk PFAs are established on the CNF. A potential impact to the two 

PFAs associated with the TGRP area would not cause a measurable change to forest-wide 

goshawk population trend. These two PFAs have not been occupied since the early 2000’s. The 

quality of habitat across the TGRP area would improve and increase quality habitat across the 

forest by improving the conditions within the PFAs located in the TGRP area. 

This alternative would meet Forest Plan direction for managing goshawk habitat and would move 

habitat towards a more balance distribution of VSS classes over time and space. This alternative 

provides for sustainability of forest health and ecological processes with planned initial and 

maintenance treatments. This alternative would create a mosaic of forested and non-forested 

areas, create regeneration openings and improve prey base habitat which in turn would improve 

overall quality of northern goshawk habitat.

American Peregrine Falcon

Activities associated with implementing prescribed burning would need to be done in a manner to 

minimize the potential effect to the breeding pair and their young. Prescribed burning via aerial 

ignitions would not be conducive to the management of the falcon, and therefore aerial ignitions 

would not occur within the area when occupied unless burning activity occurs outside of the 

breeding season (February 1-August15). 

The proposed project falls within the United States Forest Service Region 3 primary, secondary, 

and tertiary management zones policy for de-listing (Gladen 1999). Primary zones are an average 

of 0.5 mile around active nest cliffs, secondary management zones are 0.5-2.0 miles, and tertiary 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

67

management zones are 3.0 miles from an active cliff. Primary nesting zones are managed to 

enhance or be neutral in effects on peregrine nesting activity and prey habitat. Activities within 

this zone should occur outside of the nesting period (February 1 – August 15). Secondary and 

tertiary zones are managed to eliminate potential effects during the nesting season from sources 

such as aircraft or explosives, or activities within the line-of-sight of the eyrie.

Structural habitat characteristics for nesting required for the peregrine falcon would not be altered 

as these areas consist of rock outcrops and vertical cliffs, although, implementation of this 

alternative would improve foraging habitat. The de-listing guidelines for Region 3 (Gladen 1999) 

state “habitat maintenance or enhancement of prey species in all Zones should include 

consideration of snags and large woody material, hardwood components, and grass/forb/shrub 

and seedling successional stages.” Harvesting and burning treatments would alter foraging 

habitat by thinning tree densities and reducing existing canopy closures. The post-treatment VSS 

class percentage distribution would provide a variety of foraging habitat and cover for peregrine 

falcon prey. Understory grass-forb-shrub and browse component would have more diversity and 

production under this alternative compared to the no action alternative and alternative C due to 

the spatial arrangement of trees and open areas. 

Construction of log landings would reduce snags and down logs in the immediate vicinity, which 

would have a negative effect on peregrine prey habitat. Beyond landings, snags and logs would 

be managed to move toward Forest Plan guidelines. Some snags and logs may be consumed 

during burning activities; however, Saab et al. (2007) found that broadcast burning often creates 

enough new snags to replace those lost.

Burning may occur any time during the year when ignition conditions are within prescription 

parameters. Fire and smoke effects from burning may disturb individual birds but this would be 

short-term and would not adversely affect falcons due to implementing a low severity 

prescription. Low severity maintenance burning is expected to occur. Benefits from maintenance 

treatments would include management towards VSS class distribution objectives and increased 

understory grass-forb-shrub species that would benefit forest health.

Smoke effects from prescribed burning via hand ignitions may disturb individual birds but his 

should be a short-term impact and would not adversely impact the peregrine falcon due to 

implementing a low intensity burn. Reduction of fuels would reduce the potential for high 

severity wildfire that has the potential to destroy roosting and foraging habitat.

Spotted Bat

The TGRP area encompasses cliffs and rock crevices for roosting. Proposed treatments do not 

occur with cliff/rock habitat, implementation of this alternative would improve foraging habitat 

by enhancing habitat for prey species. Bat species are generally found to forage near and around 

water as prey species are usually highest in moist habitats. 

No studies have been conducted which address the response of spotted bats to stand level changes 

or assessing the impact of fire regimes (Schmidt 2003). However, spotted bats prefer open terrain 

for foraging and do not utilize timbered areas for roosting and forages over open meadows and 

woodlands (Schmidt 2003). Combination of silvicultural treatments along with prescribed fire to 

create open areas and maintain grass-forb-shrub plant diversity (and, presumably therefore, 

promote insect prey base diversity) may benefit this species (Schmidt 2003).

Tree thinning and burning treatments could alter the abundance or composition of the spotted bat. 

Moths are the principal prey species and are associated with trees and other vegetation. While 
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

68

tree thinning would reduce the overall number of trees, it is unlikely to cause a scarcity of moths 

or other prey species. Low severity burning would cause the mortality of some trees and would 

remove grasses, forbs, and shrubs from being immediately available. Ground vegetation would 

recover from burning by the following summer and would support moths and other prey during 

most of the period bats are in the area. Prey availability is not expected to be a limiting factor for 

the spotted bat following treatments.

Smoke effects from burning may disturb hibernacula13 as smoke usually settles in drainage 

bottoms and lower elevations at night. These areas usually contain water and consist of rock 

cliffs and outcrops commonly used by bats. Burning would create smoky condition in the 

proximity of burn units. Dense smoke is likely an irritant to bats and could cause roosting bats to 

leave the area until the smoke dissipates. Smoke could also affect foraging behavior causing bats 

to forage elsewhere until smoke clears. Smoke effects would be short-term and transitory.

Maintenance burns would occur within the landscape so smoke effects would likely reoccur. 

Benefits from maintenance burns would include management towards VSS class distribution 

objectives and increased understory grass-forb-shrub and browse species that would benefit forest 

health.

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat

The TGRP area encompasses cliffs and rock crevices for roosting. Proposed treatments do not 

occur with cliff/rock habitat, implementation of this alternative would improve foraging habitat 

by enhancing habitat for prey species. Bat species are generally are found to forage near and 

around water as prey species are usually highest in moist habitats. The proposed riparian work 

would especially improve foraging areas as planting riparian species would attract katydids, flies, 

and moths. 

Smoke effects from burning may disturb hibernacula as smoke usually settles in drainage bottoms 

and lower elevations at night. These areas usually contain water and consist of rock cliffs and 

outcrops commonly used by bats.

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog

The potential for direct or short term effects are minimal. The majority of activity is planned for 

the forested portions of the proposed actions area. Some of the proposed actions, such as the 

prescribed fire are likely to occur while the prairie dogs are hibernating. Some disruption or 

disturbance of habitat and individuals might occur by restoration activities. Direct mortality is 

unlikely due the presence of burrow refugia. There might be a short-term decrease or change in 

food availability due to alteration of vegetation by fire.

The proposed action would have the best potential of increasing habitat for the prairie dog by 

creating interspaces and openings that would increase grass-forb-shrub communities and their 

abundance.

If fire does occur within meadows or edge habitat, it would likely increase the grass and forb 

composition and decrease predation risk by removing encroaching conifer that provide cover for 

predators. The proposed action would be beneficial in the long-term with controlling conifer 

encroachment into grassland areas. 

Ripley’s Milkvetch

 

13 A place, usually a cave or mine, that provides a constant temperature and shelter.
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

69

Implementation of the proposed action may cause the loss of some individuals either from 

damage by fire, localized compaction from thinning machinery or construction of handline. Not 

all of the area in the proposed action would be affected and disturbance would not occur all at the 

same time. Plants would benefit from a more open canopy and a mosaic of successional states 

(Ladyman 2003). Ripley’s milkvetch seeds within the seed bank are likely resistant to heat due to 

their hard impermeable seed coat (Ladyman 2003). Because scarification improves germination 

for this species, low severity fire and low level mechanical disturbance might improve 

germination rates (Ladyman 2003). Field observations indicate that Ripley’s milkvetch responds 

vigorously to fire, even at greater severity levels like a spring wildfire (Long 2015). Above 

ground vegetation is most likely to be damaged, while the extensive root stocks might incur little 

damage from the low to mid severity fire and localized compaction/soil disturbance entailed by 

the proposed action. Severe damage to the root stocks would be more detrimental to the survival 

of the plants (Ladyman 2003). 

The indirect effects of the proposed action are potential negative impacts if soil erosion occurs 

around the root systems of the plants from mechanical thinning, handline construction and 

burning (Ladyman 2003). Additionally, there is the potential for interaction with grazing by 

wildlife or livestock post treatment. Removing shrub overstory by fire might leave Ripley’s 

milkvetch plants more vulnerable to utilization by wildlife and livestock (Ladyman 2003). 

However, fire and thinning also has the potential to increase shrub recruitment in some areas. 

Overall, prescribed fire and thinning would be beneficial in maintaining a mosaic of midsuccessional sites that Ripley’s milkvetch favors. A mosaic of successional stages would be ideal 

for maintenance of appropriate habitat for Ripley’s milkvetch both for short and long-term 

timeframes. In the long-term, the proposed action would be beneficial to maintaining Ripley’s 

milkvetch habitat in the face of overwhelming canopy closure or the related threat of high 

severity wildfire.

Surveys and monitoring would be conducted within the TGRP area for Ripley’s milkvetch. This 

is complementary to direction of “The Implementation Plan for the Management of Astragalus 

ripleyi on the Carson National Forest” set forth in 1988 and information provided by the status 

and technical reports (Braun 1988, Naumann 1990, Lightfoot 1995, Ladyman 2003). Negative 

impacts to the species would be mitigated where possible; handlines would avoid areas where 

milkvetch is present.

Robust Larkspur

With so little known about the species, potential effects are difficult to determine. There are no 

known Robust Larkspur locations on the Tres Piedras Ranger District or within the TGRP area. 

There is limited potential for Robust larkspur habitat within the TGRP area. From the information 

available from herbarium collections and the species associated with known occurrence sites, 

potential habitat could occur in mesic mixed conifer, aspen woodlands and riparian zones. There 

could be very small, isolated, mesic habitats in the TGRP area centered around springs and seeps. 

Springs and seeps are not targeted for treatment by the proposed action. There could be physical 

damage to individual plants from prescribed fire and selective thinning, but the potential of either 

of those management activities to affect mesic/riparian areas is unlikely. The proposed action is 

restorative to the natural processes and ecological structure of the TGRP area. Prescribed fire and 

selective thinning proposed would help to decrease the risk of high severity wildfire, create a 

mosaic of successional states, and aid in the regeneration of aspen trees. These actions are likely 

to benefit Robust larkspur habitat in the long-term.
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

70

Surveys and monitoring would be conducted within the TGRP area for Robust Larkspur. 

Negative impacts to the species would be mitigated where possible; handlines would avoid areas 

where larkspur is present.

Small-Headed Goldenweed

This species occurs in a single isolated rock outcrop within the TGRP area within the 

administrative site of the Tres Piedras Ranger District. The occurrence of this species within a 

rock outcrop on the northeastern corner of the TGRP area indicates that the species could occur 

within the two other rock outcrops within the TGRP area. However, past inventories have not 

resulted in finding this species present within the other two sites.

Effects are not expected to occur to the small-headed goldenweed from project activities in either 

the proposed action or alternative C as the plants are found within rock crevices and around rock 

formations away from timber. The small-headed goldenweed is isolated by its presence within 

and around the rocks which would protect the plants from prescribed fire; "The bare, rock face 

habitats of this species offer a great deal of protection from human and forest fire impacts" (Heil 

and Herring 2008).

MIS

Brewer’s Sparrow

This alternative would allow for the maintenance of a mixture of brushy conditions and grasses. 

Treatments would allow for large growth of piñon and juniper species to grow. Prescribed fire 

would stimulate the growth of native grasses that evolved with natural fires. Fire potential would 

be reduced, and decrease the threat to Brewers Sparrow habitat. Implementation of this 

alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for this species and their 

associated habitat types.

Plains (Juniper) Titmouse

This alternative would support the growth of large piñon pine and juniper trees. Piñon and 

juniper species would be treated which would allow for the growth of larger trees. A mosaic of 

habitat would occur as areas are treated by a mixture of thinning and burning methods. This 

alternative focuses on the restoration of ponderosa pine forests, however some piñon-juniper 

habitat would be treated, but to a lesser degree than ponderosa pine. Implementation of this 

alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for this species and their 

associated habitat types.

Abert’s Squirrel

Stand treatments would be developed according to Forest Plan guidelines for northern goshawk 

would benefit Abert’s squirrel habitat. Reynolds et al. (1992) identified Abert’s squirrel as an 

important goshawk prey species for northern goshawk and recommended large tree retention and 

management for interlocking crowns to improve habitat for this species. Applying these 

management principles to the TGRP area is expected to improve the quality of Abert’s squirrel 

habitat in the long-term. This alternative would create groups and clumps of trees with 

interlocking canopies that would be favorable to Abert’s squirrels.

Disruption of normal behavioral patterns could occur to Abert’s squirrels during thinning, piling, 

and burning activities. This could result in harm to squirrel nestlings but should be limited in 

scope. Proposed treatments may cause visual or auditory disturbance to individual squirrels, 

although these effects would be short-term and limited in scope. Smoke effects from burning 

should be transitory in nature and short-term. Maintenance low severity prescribed burning would 

occur in ponderosa pine forest types, so impacts associated with the initial prescribed burn 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

71

treatments would reoccur. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan 

goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Red Squirrel

Treatment in red squirrel habitats would be performed under the MSO Forest Plan guidelines for 

Protected and Restricted habitats. The reduction in quality habitat would occur by mechanical 

thinning and burning of VSS 3 and VSS 4 trees to a more open condition. Canopy closures are 

being reduced in several VSS 3 and 4 mixed-conifer stands to help meet the overall objective of 

reducing potential for stand replacing, high severity, crown fire in the TGRP area. Managing for 

old growth would provide higher basal area, larger trees, and interlocked canopies that benefit red 

squirrel. 

Disruption of normal behavioral patterns could occur to red squirrels during thinning, piling, and 

burning activities. This could result in harm to squirrel nestlings but should be limited in scope. 

Proposed treatments may cause visual or auditory disturbance to individual squirrels, although 

these effects would be short-term and limited in scope. Smoke effects from burning should be 

transitory in nature and short-term. 

Broadcast burning may consume downed logs and snags. Snags are used by red squirrels as 

nesting habitat and both logs and snags are used to cache pine cones. These losses would likely 

cause affected squirrels to move out of established territories until the following year or expand 

the size of their territories to encompass needed resources. Some squirrel mortality could occur if 

food caches are burned. Koprowski et al. (2006) found that most squirrels did not abandon intact 

middens following wildfire. Those that did likely did so because the canopy above the midden 

was destroyed. It is highly unlikely that low severity broadcast burning would reduce significant 

canopy around existing middens. Maintenance low severity prescribed burning would occur in 

ponderosa pine forest types, so impacts associated with the initial prescribed burn treatments 

would reoccur. As needed to meet habitat capability, protect red squirrel caches at a density of 

one cache per two acres. Retain all trees within a 26-foot radius from the cache to maintain nest 

tree groupings. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan goals and 

objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Wild Turkey

Thinning and prescribed burning treatments would result in considerable improvements to turkey 

foraging habitat. New openings would be created in forested stands, and grass and forb growth 

would be stimulated by broadcast burning and the increase in sunlight to the forest floor. These 

actions would be expected to increase the abundance of insects important to the summer diet of 

turkey poults. 

The implementation of uneven-aged management would retain tree clumps of various age and 

size classes which would provide cover and roosting habitat within stands. Northern goshawk 

stratified habitat would also provide groupy/clumpy stands that would improve roost habitats. 

Burning and smoke effects may disturb individual birds but this should be short-term impact. 

Maintenance low severity prescribed burning would occur once on ponderosa pine forest types, 

so impacts associated with the initial prescribed burn treatments would reoccur. 

Short-term disturbance to turkeys by treatment activities would temporarily displace and alter 

foraging, loafing, roosting, and some nesting areas. The TGRP area would be treated in phases 

over time and would not occur over the TGRP area at the same time. Turkeys would only 

experience activity-related disturbance in portions of the TGRP area at one time. Implementation 
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

72

of this alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for this species and 

their associated habitat types.

Hairy Woodpecker

The amount of quality habitat would experience an increase over current conditions with

managing for diversity of VSS classes over time. Thinning VSS class 3 and 4 trees and leaving 

majority of the large diameter trees would provide for increased growth rates that would allow the 

stands to achieve higher VSS class values over time moving towards Forest Plan guidelines. 

Large trees are an important habitat component for hairy woodpeckers. Large trees often have 

dead limbs and sometimes dead tops which are used by this species for foraging and, 

occasionally, nesting. Large live trees also are the source of large snags, which are necessary for 

the existence of hairy woodpeckers in forested environments. Both even and un-even stand VSS 

class percentages have increased distribution over the no action alternative by moving towards 

desired conditions. 

Prescribed burning is likely to create new foraging and nesting habitat for hairy woodpeckers, as 

burning often causes scattered or small groups of tree mortality. Burning related tree mortality 

can cause short-term increases in bark beetle and woodborer densities, which often results in 

higher hairy woodpecker abundance (Covert-Bratland et al. 2006). Some existing snags currently 

used as hairy woodpecker nesting habitat in the TGRP area are likely to be consumed by burning 

activities, but also new snags are created by tree mortality resulting from the prescribed burning 

(Saab et al. 2007, Saab and Block 2006, Randall-Parker and Miller 2002). Saab et al. (2007) 

documented increases in snag densities, including large snags, following prescribed fire in the 

Southwest. Hairy woodpecker abundance is highest in areas that have burned within 2-3 years 

(Saab et al. 2007). Maintenance low severity prescribed burning would occur in frequent fire 

forest types, so impacts associated with the initial prescribed burn treatments would reoccur. 

Short-term disturbance to hairy woodpeckers by treatment activities would temporarily displace 

and alter foraging, loafing, roosting, nesting habitat, and territory. The TGRP area would be 

treated in phases over time and would not occur over the TGRP area at the same time. Hairy 

woodpeckers would only experience activity-related disturbance in portions of the area at one 

time. 

This alternative would result in improved quality habitat into the future by improving forest stand 

structure, spatial distribution of openings, and reducing the potential for high severity fire. 

Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for 

this species and their associated habitat.

Rocky Mountain Elk

Thinning forest stands followed by low severity broadcast burning would result in more foraging 

habitat than cover habitat, which is still within Forest Plan guidelines. Hiding cover would be 

retained along at least of arterial and collector roads. It is expected that hiding cover would be 

better dispersed within this alternative due to the uneven stand VSS Classes and the retention of 

clumps small to medium-sized trees. Because of this uneven structure, wildlife hiding and 

thermal cover within treated stands would likely be more effective in this alternative. 

Substantially more upland grass-forb-shrub forage would be available to elk following treatments 

and recovery, which may reduce current forage use pressure on existing meadows and wetlands. 

Short-term disturbance to elk by treatment activities would temporarily displace and alter 

foraging, resting, and traditionally used areas. The TGRP area would be treated in phases over 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

73

time and would not occur over the TGRP area at the same time. Elk would only experience 

activity-related disturbance in portions of the TGRP area at one time. 

Smoke effects from burning may disturb individuals but this should be short-term impact and 

would not adversely affect elk or mule deer. Timing restrictions within PFAs when occupied 

would prevent burning in these areas during the calving and fawning seasons. 

This alternative would reduce the potential for stand replacing, high severity, crown fire in the 

TGRP area that currently posed a threat to elk and mule deer habitat. Maintenance low severity 

prescribed burning would occur in ponderosa pine forest types, so impacts associated with the 

initial prescribed burn treatments would reoccur. This alternative would be consistent with Forest 

Plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Migratory Birds

Thinning and prescribed fire would decrease canopy cover resulting in increased understory 

grass-forb-shrub vegetation within all vegetation types and increase the distribution of aspen. An 

increase in understory vegetation would provide an increase in food supplies such as insects, 

berries, and seeds for migratory birds. 

Thinning of piñon-juniper would reduce numbers of trees per acre for nesting, food, and roosting. 

Treatment of piñon-juniper stands is expected to reduce competition for water among trees and 

increase vigor of remaining trees and grass-forb-shrub vegetation. Increased grass-forb-shrub 

vegetation is expected to provide ground cover for insects and prey as well as cover for ground 

nesting species. 

All proposed activities would have temporary effects of noise and visual disturbance by human 

activity (i.e. mechanical equipment, chainsaws, vehicles, helicopters etc.), and smoke from 

prescribed burning. Although adult birds would be more likely to avoid these areas, unintentional 

disturbance to individuals may occur to ground nesting birds, and/or nesting species as activities 

occur within the breeding season.

Impacts to cliff and cave dwelling species would be temporary due to smoke caused by 

prescribed burning, and potential disturbance from helicopters when conducting prescribed 

burning operations. 

Alternative C

Forest Sensitive Species

Environmental Consequences Common to All Forest Sensitive Species

Alternative C has the same vegetative and prescribed fire treatments acreages as the proposed 

action; however the arrangement of the vegetation would be different. Although thinning 

treatments would be done, a thin from below method would be used with only small openings 

being created. Group selection would be implemented under this alternative and uneven-aged 

stands would be created over time. Interspaces would not be created eliminating mosaics of 

forested and non-forested areas across the landscape. Allen et al. (2002) described ponderosa pine 

forests as supporting over 250 species of vertebrates, invertebrates and plant species, as well as 

soil organisms. Several authors have noted that historical conditions found in ponderosa pine 

forests were that of large, widely spaced trees occurred in small groups, scattered single trees 

were scattered throughout the forest with open areas that were productive at producing grassforb-shrub understories (Cooper 1960, Sanchez Meador 2011, White 1985).
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

74

When considering the variety of Forest Sensitive Species occurring or having the potential to 

occur within the TGRP area and their habitats, it is evident that various VSS classes, various 

levels of stand densities, and mosaics of forested and non-forested areas are needed to meet their 

needs and that of their prey. Prey species found within the grass-forb-shrub habitat type such as 

rabbits, grouse, and ground squirrels. Salafsky et al. (2005) found that prey species within this 

habitat type had greater body masses than other species within frequent-fire forests.

The potential to have active crown fire under Alternative C is expected to decrease compared to 

the no action alternative. This alternative would decrease the chance of active crown fire from 

occurring on 29 percent of the TGRP area to eleven percent, which is the same percentage as in 

the proposed action. Mechanical and prescribed fire treatments are expected to reduce both 

active and passive crown fire risk as well as increase the potential for surface fire activity. 

Reduction in active and passive crown fire risk under Alternative C indicates that in the event of a 

wildfire, there would be less resistance to control, less spotting potential and increased 

opportunity for suppressing the wildfire when it is in close proximity to values at risk.

Northern Goshawk

The effects analysis from the proposed action applies under this alternative with a few exceptions 

involving spatial distribution of trees, openings of trees, understory grasses, forbs and shrubs. 

Mechanical treatments within northern goshawk habitat would be limited in flexibility for spatial 

arrangement of groups and clumps of trees, and openings.

Understory grass-forb-shrub component would have less diversity and production under this 

alternative compared to the proposed action due to lack of interspatial openings between trees. 

Although alternative C would allow for uneven-aged management, it would not create interspaces 

that would support an abundance of prey species as in the proposed action. 

Table 19 (p.32) shows the VSS classes that are expected to occur on the landscape if alternative C 

were implemented. Implementation of this alternative is expected to have better distribution of 

VSS classes compared to the no action alternative. However, the proposed action would have a 

better distribution of VSS classes than alternative C. This alternative would result in much higher 

percentages of VCC classes 5 and 6 through time and would not maintain the interspaces seen in 

VSS 1-3 which is necessary to support diverse and productive grass-forb-shrub plant 

communities which support prey base species for the goshawk.

The forest vegetation spatial patterns would be different under this alternative than under the 

proposed action. The post-treatment tree distribution would be more uniform under alternative C, 

leading to more rapid canopy closure of the forest as it develops post-treatment. Desired forest 

structure conditions are uneven-aged forests with a balance of structural stages (age classes), 

arranged in a clumped, open forest condition (excepting goshawk nest habitats). A primary 

objective is the restoration of sustainable forest mosaic patterns with canopy gaps and forest 

openings totaling 20 to 40 percent of stand areas to facilitate uneven-aged forest stand dynamics 

and other ecological functions. One element of the proposed treatments is the initiation of 

conditions conducive to regenerate or develop VSS 1 and 2 classes, totaling approximately 20

percent of the open area. 

It is very likely that alternative C would result in much fewer canopy gaps/openings of sufficient 

size to achieve objectives than the proposed action. Failure to achieve regeneration/development 

openings over 20 percent of the area results in the inability to implement the uneven-aged 

management strategy required by Forest Plan direction. Sustainability of uneven-aged forest 

characteristics cannot be achieved without effective creation of proportional regeneration areas. 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

75

Over time, these conditions would result in domination of the site by the overstory trees, 

effectively creating or maintaining a functional even-aged, closed-forest condition. Additionally, 

failure to develop and restore forest openings would limit attainment of other ecological 

objectives, such as improving biological diversity and re-initiation of frequent surface fire.

American Peregrine Falcon

The effects to American Peregrine Falcon under this alternative would be very similar to those 

under the proposed action as the same amount of acreage would be treated under both 

alternatives. However, Understory grass-forb-shrub communities would have less diversity and 

production under this alternative compared to the proposed action due to lack of interspatial 

openings between trees. If a high severity wildfire would occur, it would destroy prey species 

habitat within the TGRP area.

Spotted Bat

This alternative would have greater benefits to the spotted bat than the no action alternative, 

although the benefits would be reduced compared to the proposed action due to the lack of 

interspaces being created in alternative C. This alternative would also be less resistant to a high 

severity fire. A fire would adversely modify foraging habitat the spotted bat depends on.

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat

The effects analysis from the proposed action applies under this alternative with a few exceptions. 

Differences in the effects analysis result from VSS class distribution objectives, an increased 

understory of plant species with would benefit from a more open canopy from the proposed 

action than alternative C. This risk of high severity fire is reduced in this alternative compared to 

the no action alternative; however it is slightly higher than the proposed action.

Gunnison’s Prairie Dog

The effects analysis from the proposed action applies under this alternative with a few exceptions. 

Differences in the effects analysis result from VSS class distribution objectives, an increased 

understory of plant species with would benefit from a more open canopy from the proposed 

action than alternative C which would be more beneficial for the prairie dog. This risk of high 

severity fire is reduced in this alternative compared to the no action alternative; however it is 

slightly higher than the proposed action.

Ripley’s Milkvetch

The effects to Ripley’s milkvetch are very much the same for alternative C as the proposed action

except in regards to interspaces and their spatial location on the landscape. As mosaics of mid 

successional stages are ideal for Ripley’s milkvetch habitat the proposed action would better 

improve habitat for species success.

Robust Larkspur

The effects to Robust larkspur are very much the same for alternative C as the proposed action 

except in regards to interspaces and their spatial location on the landscape. As prescribed fire and 

thinning decreases the risk of high severity wildfire this alternative would have as great of benefit 

as the proposed action.

Small-Headed Goldenweed

Refer to effects listed under the proposed action alternative.

MIS

Brewer’s Sparrow
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

76

Since the same stands would be treated mechanically and with prescribed burning in alternative C 

as in the proposed action, most of the effects described in the proposed action are relevant to 

Brewer’s sparrow habitat as the creation of interspaces would occur within the ponderosa pine 

and not the piñon-juniper woodlands. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with 

Forest Plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Plains (Juniper) Titmouse

Since the same stands would be treated mechanically and with prescribed burning in alternative C 

as in the proposed action, most of the effects described in the proposed action are relevant to 

titmouse habitat as the creation of interspaces would occur within the ponderosa pine and not the 

piñon-juniper woodlands. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan 

goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Abert’s Squirrel

Since the same stands would be treated mechanically and with prescribed burning in alternative C 

as in the proposed action, most of the effects described in the proposed action are relevant to the 

Abert’s squirrel. Alternative C would have more over mature ponderosa pine habitat, which has 

been described as poor for Abert’s squirrels due to poor cone production. Implementation of this 

alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for this species and their 

associated habitat types.

Red Squirrel

Since the same stands would be treated mechanically and with prescribed burning in alternative C 

as in the proposed action, most of the effects described in the proposed action are relevant to the 

red squirrel. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan goals and 

objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Wild Turkey

Since the same stands would be treated mechanically and with prescribed burning in alternative C

as in the proposed action, most of the effects described in the proposed action above would be the 

same with the exception of the spatial arrangement of trees in groups, clumps with regeneration 

openings. 

Turkey habitat would improve slightly under this alternative when compared to the no action 

alternative. Acres of quality habitat would increase over what currently exists and be lower than 

the proposed action due to the lack of groups and clumps for roost sites. 

Short-term disturbance to turkeys by treatment activities would be the same as under the proposed 

action. The TGRP area would be treated in phases and not all at the same time. Turkeys would 

experience activity-related disturbance in portions of the TGRP area at one time. Implementation 

of this alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for this species and 

their associated habitat types.

Hairy Woodpecker

Alternative C would implement thinning and burning across the same areas of the TGRP area as 

the proposed action. Hairy woodpecker habitat would experience many of the direct and indirect 

effects as described in the proposed action. 

More large trees would remain on the landscape than in the proposed action, providing a larger 

source for future snags. Post-treatment habitat under this alternative would likely provide a 

denser, interlocked overstory canopy combined with a more open understory. Implementation of 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

77

this alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for this species and 

their associated habitat.

Rocky Mountain Elk

Since the same stands would be treated mechanically and with prescribed burning in alternative C 

as in the proposed action, most of the effects described in the proposed action. Although more 

stands would have higher canopy closure, which is a measure of wildlife cover, treated stands 

would likely have more open understory and less escape cover compared to the proposed action 

because fewer small to medium-sized trees would be retained. 

Substantially more forage would be available to elk after treatments are completed, which may 

reduce forage use pressure on existing meadows and wetlands. Foraging habitat would not 

improve quite as much under is alternative as compared to the proposed action due to somewhat 

higher tree and crown densities post-treatment that would not favor understory species.

Wildlife species richness and diversity are higher in uneven-aged stands with a variety of tree size 

classes and habitat components (Patton 1992). This alternative does not allow for the 

reestablishment of groupy and clumpy tree arrangements that are typical of natural ponderosa 

pine stand configurations, because trees would be retained in the openings/interspaces that would 

otherwise enhance the restored stand condition. Implementation of this alternative would be 

consistent with Forest Plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Migratory Birds

All effects discussed for the proposed action would apply for alternative C except in the amount 

of decreased fire risk and the creation of interspaces. Although some level of thinning and 

burning activities would still occur through this alternative, the creation of interspaces in 

alternative B would create the best wildlife habitat and have the greatest reduction in wildfire 

risk.

Cumulative Effects

Predominately the past vegetation treatments and wildlife fire have contributed to the current 

conditions and structure within the TGRP area. Reasonably foreseeable future activities within 

the TGRP area include: 

1. Thinning.

2. Fuelwood and other forest products (latillas, vigas, and rock) removal. 

3. Prescribed burning.

4. Recreational activities such as camping, hiking, hunting, and rock climbing.

5. Livestock grazing on the Spring Creek and Tio Gordito grazing allotments.

Assessing the cumulative impacts of designation to terrestrial wildlife involved the following 

assumption: Ongoing management actions currently being implemented would occur on National 

Forest System lands within the project boundary.

All of these activities are expected to displace wildlife species from areas from within the TGRP 

area. Some activities may lead to the displacement of species for extended periods of time due to 

activities occurring simultaneously throughout the TGRP area. Because the same activities are 

occurring outside of the TGRP area, wildlife species may also enter the TGRP area from outside 

due to these on-going activities.
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

78

Some animals are much more mobile than others. Therefore, it is important to recognize the 

entire range of an animal’s habitat as its affected environment, instead of just the TGRP area. 

This analysis describes the affected environment for each species and analyzes the impacts of all 

activities within this area for each alternative. For example, the Abert’s squirrel does not move 

around much—staying in the ponderosa pine and hibernating, instead of migrating for the winter. 

Therefore, its affected environment is the ponderosa pine within the TGRP area. On the other 

hand, elk use much larger areas to mate, calve, graze and winter. Therefore, its affected 

environment also includes habitat outside of the TGRP area. 

No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, no proposed activities would occur. Past activities have resulted 

in unhealthy forest condition caused by insect and disease infestations and loss of habitat 

diversity. These conditions would continue to incrementally degrade habitat for the northern 

goshawk, wild turkey, red squirrel, Abert’s squirrel, and certain migratory bird species. Tree 

mortality as result of the no action would increase the loss of nesting habitat for the northern 

goshawk, red squirrel, Abert’s squirrel, and high priority migratory birds. Roosting habitat for 

the wild turkey would also be reduced incrementally as a result of the no action alternative. 

Past activities have not reduced the dense forest condition resulting in continued overstocked 

forest conditions, which have affected the establishment of understory vegetation within the 

TGRP area. Therefore these conditions have reduced foraging options for the wild turkey, elk, 

northern goshawk, and high priority migratory bird species and important prey species. Although 

the TGRP area is small relative to the total available habitat, the continued overstocked stands 

would reduce ground foraging quality and quantity for these species and obligate species.

Even with the past and future activities, forest conditions surrounding the TGRP area would 

continue to experience increasing fuel loadings and increasing fire risk. This would increase the 

chance of stand replacement crown wildfire. A wildfire would incrementally result in the loss of 

nesting habitat for the northern goshawk, red squirrel, Abert’s squirrel, and high priority 

migratory bird species on or adjacent to the TGRP area. However, a wildfire would provide a 

long-term improvement to elk and wild turkey habitat forage, nesting, and hiding cover when the 

grass-forb-shrub communities comes back similar to the past wildfires. 

 

A wildfire would include the loss of roosting habitat for the wild turkey. The effects of bark 

beetles, dwarf mistletoe, and wildfire under the no action alternative would incrementally 

increase hairy woodpecker and certain migratory bird habitat would improve by increasing the 

snag component on or adjacent to the TGRP area for 5-10 years. Once the snags fall to the 

ground, snags would become limiting in the long-term.

Proposed Action

With the implementation of the proposed action, there would be no negative or adverse 

cumulative impacts to any of the TES, Forest Sensitive species, MIS, or Migratory Birds.

Cumulatively, the proposed action, would incrementally improve foraging qualities for the

Abert’s squirrel, red squirrel, elk, wild turkey, northern goshawk, and certain migratory bird 

species on or adjacent to the TGRP area. This would occur by creating a more open understory to 

promote better forage diversity the species and prey base species. The action alternatives would 

result in the incremental increase of snags, logs, and woody debris that would increase prey-base 

habitat for the northern goshawk and the hairy woodpecker. Cumulative increases in woody 

debris from the residual slash would increase ground-nesting habitat for the wild turkey.
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

79

The proposed action would incrementally improve nesting habitat for the northern goshawk, red 

squirrel and Abert’s squirrel. These actions associated with these actions would result in trees 

stimulated to grow larger in the older VSS size classes with interlocking canopies to promote 

suitable nesting habitat. Larger and healthier trees would also result in an increase of seed and 

cone production to improve foraging for the wild turkey, Abert’s squirrel, red squirrel, and other 

prey base species. Larger and older VSS size class of ponderosa pine trees would also result in 

cumulative improvements of wild turkey roost group trees. 

By reducing fuel loadings, the action alternatives would incrementally reduce the risk of a stand 

replacement wildfire and the risk of habitat loss for the wild turkey, elk, northern goshawk, 

Abert’s squirrel, red squirrel, and migratory bird species within the TGRP area and the 

cumulative effect area.

Alternative C

Cumulative effects for alternative C would be very similar to those of the proposed action as the 

proposed treatments are the same type, size and location. This alternative would not have the 

same incremental benefit to wildlife species because it would not establish desired conditions of 

frequent fire forests. This alternative would allow for wildlife habitat to remain more susceptible 

to the risk of fire than in the proposed action. This alternative would not restore natural 

ecological functions and processes due to the limitation to creating and maintaining interspaces in 

and within forested areas.

Recreation/Lands/Roads

Recreational activities are one of the multiple uses of the National Forests. Some of them occur 

within the TGRP area on the Tres Piedras Ranger District. Those recreational activities include 

opportunities for hunting, hiking, occasional pleasure driving for wildlife viewing, All Terrain 

Vehicle (ATV) use, and dispersed camping, especially during hunting season. 

The CFP contains Management Area (MA) prescriptions for all areas of the forest. All resources 

are considered in those prescriptions, including recreation. There are seven MAs identified in the 

TGRP area and they include MA3 (Mixed Conifer), MA 4 (Ponderosa Pine), MA 8 (PiñonJuniper), MA 10 (Low Elevation Grasslands), MA 11 (Revegetation Areas), MA 12 (Sagebrush) 

and MA 14 (Riparian). Hunting is a common activity within all of the Management Areas. The 

TGRP area is located within Game Management Units 51 and 52 where elk, deer, and small game 

hunting occur. Dispersed camping is mostly from hunters who also account for most of the ATV 

use. Popular camp spots and ATV use is primarily along forest roads and concentrated mostly on 

the north side of U.S. Highway 64. One small dispersed site, with minor improvements, is 

located south of the rock climbing area within 1⁄4 mile from the highway. Increasing Off Highway 

Vehicle (OHV) use impacts, such as user-created two track trails, are beginning to be seen 

throughout the national forests, including the TGRP area. The CNF has implemented the Travel 

Management Planning Rule. This rule imposes restrictions on where OHVs may be used such as 

old logging roads. The general public, including hunters, are subject to rigid restrictions.

There are no designated hiking or ATV Trails within the TGRP area. A few hiking trails are 

located to the west of the TGRP area. One of those trails, the Continental Divide National Scenic 

Trail, is the most used trail on the District but it is not in close proximity to the proposed TGRP 

area. 

No Action

Under the no action alternative, recreation opportunities would remain the same. The amount of 

hunting, wildlife viewing, ATV use, and dispersed camping is expected to increase slightly due to 
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

80

increased population. This alternative would maintain the current conditions for recreation 

opportunities.

Proposed Action and Alternative C

Activities associated with these alternatives focus on forest health and ecosystem function. One 

of the goals is to restore and improve wildlife habitat, particularly browse and vegetation 

structure. The restoration of grass, forb, and shrub interspaces would enhance the natural habitats 

of small and large game. Hunting opportunities and wildlife viewing would increase as a result 

of improved habitat for deer and elk populations. An increase in hunters is likely to increase 

dispersed camping and ATV use. Prescribed burning, selective cutting and the creation of groups 

of trees would also contribute and enhance wildlife habitat especially with the increase in ground 

cover. These management activities would promote a diversity of ground vegetation, brush, and 

trees. 

Treatment areas would be closed to the public during thinning and prescribed burning, so visitors 

would not be able to access them. Most of the prescribed burning would occur in the spring or 

fall and would likely displace mostly hunters and those planning to engage in dispersed camping. 

Short term effects, mostly inconvenience, are expected. Periodic closure of forest roads is 

expected during implementation with some minimal impacts to visitors.

Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, or National Recreation Sites

There are no wilderness study areas or national recreation sites within the TGRP area. There are 

no direct or indirect effects and, therefore, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Research Natural Areas

There are no Inventoried Roadless or Research Natural Areas located with the project TGRP area. 

As a result, there are no direct or indirect effects. No cumulative effects are anticipated as a result 

of this project.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

As required by the 1968 National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Forest Service is required to 

evaluate rivers for their potential inclusion in the system. The eligibility criteria for inclusion are 

that a river must be free-flowing and, with its adjacent 1⁄4 mile land area, must possess one or 

more “outstandingly remarkable” values. Within the TGRP area, there are no wild and scenic 

rivers in the immediate vicinity. The Rio Tusas Box is classified as “Wild” but it is 1 1⁄2 mile way 

from the TGRP area.

Roads

The TGRP area contains a number of NFS roads, ranging from gravel-surfaced roads to primitive

and un-surfaced roads. These roads are classified as forest roads under the jurisdiction of the 

Forest Service and needed for long term motor vehicle access. A road is assigned a maintenance 

level based on the design vehicle and intended use of the road. The maintenance level also 

provides an indication of the level of comfort the user would expect to experience while operating 

a vehicle on the road. The Forest Service uses five maintenance levels, ML1 through ML5, with 

ML1 indicating the least amount of maintenance effort and ML5, the greatest. Most of these 

system roads were planned and constructed during past commercial timber harvest activities and 

most are not considered all-weather roads. The main Forest system roads link with double-lane 

paved state highways to form a transportation system that provides access to NFS lands for a 

variety of users from towns and communities in the surrounding area.
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

81

Approximately 26 total miles of existing closed roads would be minimally improved for 

prescribed burn control features and fire vehicle accessibility. Maintenance level 2 roads 14(32 

miles) and ML 3 roads 15(4 miles) would only be daylighted to improve control features and 

access for prescribed burns. The number of miles of closed roads, ML 2 roads, and ML 3 roads 

that would be used as a control feature for prescribed burns would be approximately 62 miles. 

Also natural topographic barriers would be used as a control feature for prescribed burns. 

Approximately seventeen miles of handlines would be used as a control feature for prescribed 

burns when existing roads and natural barriers are not present or available. All roadways that 

provide critical temporary usage during treatments would be rehabilitated as needed when 

treatments are completed. 

Forest roads within the TGRP area are managed in accordance with current management 

objectives that are based on a variety of needs for access and use of forest resources. This TGRP 

area contains roads that are maintained for use by high clearance vehicles, passenger cars, and 

non-motorized uses such as hiking, horseback riding, and cross-country skiing.

Road use and activity would be in compliance with the Travel Management Rule and the 

prescribed burn prescriptions would not require construction of roads or require the 

decommissioning of existing roads. Mechanical treatments and product removal would require 

maintenance on the existing road system. Approximately nine miles of existing closed roads 

would be used to access cutting units for mechanical treatment. 

Heritage

In connection with a series of past projects located within the currently defined TGRP area, a 

total of 5,202 acres (approximately 30%of the TGRP area) has been completely inventoried. A

total of 3,301 acres (approximately 20% of the TGRP area) has not been 100 percent inventoried, 

but has been sampled (638 acres) or reconnoitered (2,663 acres) and treated by broadcast burning. 

All of these acres have been reported and consulted on. Proposed activities on these less than 100

percent surveyed acres would be limited to hand thinning and broadcast burning. All flammable 

historic properties on these acres would be identified and avoided. A total of 8,497 acres 

(approximately 50% of the TGRP area) has not yet been inventoried on any level. Prior to 

implementation, in accord with the provisions of Appendix J of the Regional Programmatic 

Agreement for phasing where projects are expected to be implemented over a number of years, all 

of these acres (with the exception of approximately 250 acres with slopes exceeding 40%) would 

be 100 percent inventoried for identification of heritage resources, followed by reporting and 

consultation.

The following treatment measures are to be applied to all eligible or undetermined sites identified 

within the 17,000 acre TGRP area, including those that are identified as a result of future 

inventories:

No mechanical thinning activities within site boundaries; thinning by hand (using gaspowered hand saws) with site boundaries is permitted; fuels (thinning slash) should be 

removed, by hand, to outside of site boundaries prior to any burning activities to prevent 

buildup of excess fuels on site. After fuels are removed, the site can be burned over 

 

14 ML 2: assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic, user comfort, and 

user convenience are not considerations.

15 ML 3: Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car. 

User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. 
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

82

during broadcast burning provided no ignition points are within site boundaries; no 

staging of vehicles or vehicle driving within site boundaries is allowed.

Given adherence to the protection provisions outlined above, no adverse effect to heritage 

resources is expected from implementation of the proposed Tio Gordito Landscape Restoration 

project.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (1994) requires federal agencies to address environmental justice of their 

actions on minority and low-income populations. This analysis considers demographic, 

economic, and human health risk factors. A specific consideration of equity and fairness in 

resource decision-making is encompassed in the issue of environmental justice and civil rights. 

As required by law and Executive Order, all Federal actions should consider potentially 

disproportionate effects on minority or low-income communities. Potential impact or change to 

low-income or minority communities within the study area due to the proposed action should be 

considered. Where possible, measures should be taken to avoid negative impacts to these 

communities or mitigate the adverse effects.

Native Americans have been present in the area for at least the past 1,000 years and Spanish 

settlers arrived in the area about 400 years ago. Many families in the study area trace their 

ancestry back to these original inhabitants. As such, there are strong ties to the land and a reliance 

on the natural resources of the forest. 

All the communities within the Tres Piedras area would fall under the minority and/or lowincome populations identified in the Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898. Generally, 

environmental justice is concerned with identifying these communities and ensuring that they are 

involved in and understand the potential effects of the proposed action. The people in the study 

area communities are interested in maintaining their historic and subsistence lifestyle, using the 

surrounding area to gather resources needed. 
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

83

References

20.2.3 NMAC 2002. Chapter 20 Environmental Protection, Chapter 2 Air Quality (Statewide), 

Part 3 Ambient Air Quality Standards. New Mexico Environment Department, Air 

Quality Bureau. Retrieved from: 

http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/nmac/parts/title20/20.002.0003.htm

20.2.65 NMAC 2003. Chapter 20 Environmental Protection, Chapter 2 Air Quality (Statewide), 

Part 65 Smoke Management. New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality 

Bureau. Retrieved from: 

http://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/nmac/parts/title20/20.002.0065.pdf

Aldon, E. F. ; Shaw, D. W ., technical coordinators. 1993. Managing Piñon-Juniper Ecosystems 

for Sustainability and Social Needs; proceedings of the symposium 1993 April 26-30; 

Santa Fe, New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-236. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 169 

p.

Allen, S.R., M. Savage, D.A. Falk.: [and others]. 2002. Ecological restoration of southwestern 

ponderosa pine ecosystems: A broad perspective. Ecological Applications 12(5);1418-

1433.

Barrett, S.W., Arno, S.F., 1982. Indian fires as an ecological influence in the Northern Rockies. J. 

Forestry 80, 647–651.

Bates, J.D., Miller, R.F., Svejcar, T.J. 2000. Understory dynamics in cut and uncut western 

juniper woodlands. J. Range Management. 53:119-126.

Beier, P., E.C. Rogan, M.F. Ingraldi, S.S. Rosenstock. 2008. Does forest structure affect 

reproduction of northern goshawks in ponderosa pine forests? Journal of Applied 

Ecology 45(1): 342-350.

Braun, R. 1988. An Inventory of Astragalus ripleyi on the Carson National Forest. Seasonal Data 

Report. Unpublished.

Brown, J. K.; E. D. Reinhardt; and K. A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse woody debris: Managing benefits 

and fire hazard in the recovering forest. USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station 

RMRS-GTR-105. Available at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/online/rmrs_gtr.html

Busse, M. D., Cochran, P. H., Hopkins, W. E., Johnson, W. H., Riegel, G. M., Fiddler, G. O., 

Ratcliff, A.W., and C. J. Shestak. 2009. Developing resilient ponderosa pine forests with 

mechanical thinning and prescribed fire in central Oregon’s pumice region. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA, 

96002, USA. 

Cochran, P. H., Geist, J. M., Clemens, D. L., Clausnitzer, R. R., D. C. Powell. 1994. Suggested 

stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. 

USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Research Note PNW-RN-513. 

21 p.

Cochran, P.H. 1998. Examples of mortality and reduced annual increments of white fir induced 

by drought, insects, and disease at different stand densities. Res. Note PNW-RN-525. 
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

84

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 19 p.

Connaughton. J.L. 2005. 1996. Guidance on the consideration of past actions in cumulative 

effects analysis. Memorandum to heads of federal agencies. June 24, 2005. 

Cooper, C.F. 1960. Changes in Vegetation, Structure, and Growth of Southwestern Pine Forest 

since White Settlement. Ecological Monographs 30(2): 129-164.

Covert-Bratland, K. A., W.M. Block, and T. C. Theimer. 2006. Hairy woodpecker winter ecology 

in ponderosa pine forests representing different ages since wildfire. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 70:1379 1392.

Covington, V. V., and M. M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa pine forest structure: 

changes since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry 92:39-47.

Debano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P. F. Folliott. 1998. Fire's effects on ecosystems. John Wiley &

Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012. p 331

Dodd, Norris L.; Rosenstock, S. S.; Miller, C. R.; Schweinburg, R. E. 1998. Tassel-eared squirrel 

population dynamics in Arizona: index techniques and relationships to habitat condition. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch Technical Report, 27:1-49.

Eddleman, L.E. 2002d. Long term vegetation changes with and without juniper control. Pages 

27–35. In: Research in Rangeland Management: Management of western juniper 

rangelands. Range Science Series Report No. 5. Department of Rangeland Resources, 

Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. In: Miller, R.F., Bates, J.D., Svejcar, T.J., 

Pierson, F.B., Eddleman, L.E. 2005. Biology, ecology, and management of western 

juniper. Tech. Bul. 152. Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station.

ERI, 2014. Sensibaugh, M., Greco, B. 2014. Summary Report on Reference Conditions: A 

Rapid Assessment of Historical/Natural Range of Variability for the Tio Gordito 

Restoration Project. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. Provided via e-mail, 

copy on record in project file. 17p

Ernest, S.K., J.H. Brown, R.R. Prementer. 2000. Rodents, plants, and precipitation; Spatial and 

temporal dynamics of consumers and resources. Oikos 88:470-482.

FIRESTAT. www.fs.usda.gov/goto/r3/gis. Carson National Forest Fire Management Fire History 

Points.

Gladden, J.T. 1999. [Letter to Forest Supervisors, re: Delisting of species under the 

endangered species act] September 16. 4 leaves. On file at : U.S Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Apache-Sitgreaves N.F., Black Mesa District, Overgaard, 

Arizona; File code 2670.

Grubb, T.G., L.L. Pater, and D.K. Delaney. 1998. Logging truck noise near nesting northern 

goshawks. Research Note RMRS-RN-3. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Hann, W.J., A. Shlisky, D. Havlina, K. Schon, S. Barrett, T. DeMeo, K. Pohl, J. Menakis, D. 

Hamilton, J. Jones, M. Levesque, and C. Frame. 2004. Interagency Fire Regime 

Condition Class Guidebook. Last update June 2008: Version 1.3.0 Available: 

www.frcc.gov.
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

85

Hann, W.J. D.L. Bunnell. 2001 Fire and land management planning and implementation across 

multiple scales. Int. J. Wildland Fire. 10:389-403.

Hardy, C.C., Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.M., Samson, N.R. 2001. Spatial Data for National Fire 

Planning and Fuel Management. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10:353-372

Harmon, M.E., Franklin, J.P., Swanson, F.J., et al., Ecology of Coarse Woody Debris in 

Temperate Ecosystems, Adv. Ecol. Res., 1986, vol. 15, pp. 133-302.

Heil, K., and J. Herring. 2008. New Mexico rare plants: Lorandersonia microcephala (Smallheaded goldenweed). New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. Online. Available: http://nmrareplants.unm.edu (Accessed January 5, 2015).

Helms, John A. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. Society of American Foresters. pg. 127. 

Hostetler, J.A., E. Kneip, D.H. Van Vuren, M.K. Oli. 2012. Stochastic population dynamics of a 

montane ground-dwelling squirrel. PLoS ONE 7:1-10.

Kalies, E.L., B.G. Dickson, C.L. Chambers, W.W. Covington. 2012. Community occupancy 

responses of small mammals to restoration treatments in ponderosa pine forests, northern 

Arizona, USA. Ecological Applications 22:204-217.

Keyes, C. R.; O’Hara, K. L. 2002. Quantifying stand targets for silvicultural prevention of crown 

fires. West. J. Appli. For. 17(2): 101-109. Society of American Foresters. 

Koprowski, J.L., K.M.. Leonard, C.L. Zugmeyer, and J.L. Jolley. 2006. Direct effects of fire on 

endangered Mount Graham red squirrels, Southwestern Naturalist 51(1):59-63.Ladyman, 

J. 2003. Astragalus ripleyi Barneby (Ripley’s Milkvetch): A Technical Conservation 

Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/astragalusripley.pdf (3/1/2015).

Lightfoot, K. 1995. Status Report on Astragalus ripleyi (Barneby). Forestry and Resources 

Conservation District. Santa Fe New Mexico.

Long, G (Questa District Biologist) 2015. Personal Communication. 3/10/2015.

Miller, R.F., Bates, J.D., Svejcar, T.J., Pierson, F.B., Eddleman, L.E. 2005. Biology, ecology, and 

management of western juniper. Tech. Bul. 152. Oregan State University, Agricultural 

Experiment Station.

Moore, M.M., Covington, W.W., Fule, P.Z., 1999. Reference conditions and ecological 

restoration: a southwestern ponderosa pine perspective. Ecol. Appl. 9, 1266–1277.

Moore, M.M and D.W. Huffman. 2004. Tree Encroachment on Meadows of the North Rim, 

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, U.S.A. Artic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 36 

(4);474-483.

National Climate Assessment. 2014. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/southwest.

Naumann, T. 1990. Status Report for Astragalus ripleyi. Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor 

Recreation. Denver CO.

NMED 2015. NMED Air Monitoring Website: 3ZD Taos Fire Station Air Quality Monitoring 

Data for Particulate Matter 2.5 microns. New Mexico Environment Department, 
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

86

Air Quality Bureau. Retrieved from:

http://air.nmenv.state.nm.us/getParameters.php?stationNo=26

NMED 2015. Airsheds and Nonattainment Area Maps. New Mexico Environment Department, 

Air Quality Bureau. Retrieved from: 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/SMP/GuidanceDoc/SMPAppxO03.18.04.pdf

New Mexico Environment Department, Surface Water Quality Bureau. 2010. 2014-2016 State of 

New Mexico Clean Water Act 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report: Appendix A List of 

Assessed Surface Waters. www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb.

New Mexico Partners in Flight (NMPIF). 2007. New Mexico Bird Conservation Plan Version 

2.1. C. Rustay and S. Norris, compilers. Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Powell, D.C. 2010. Estimating crown fire susceptibility for project planning. Fire Management 

Today. 70(3): 8-15. 

Randall-Parker, T. and R. miller, 2002. Effects of prescribed fire in ponderosa pine on key 

wildlife habiat components: preliminary results and a method for monitoring. USDA 

Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. 12pp.

Rebain, S. A. comp. 2010 (revised July 11, 2014). The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator: Updated Model Documentation. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 409 

p. 

Reinhardt, E. D. and N. L. Crookston, (Technical Editors). 2003. The Fire and Fuels Extension to 

the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-116. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 209 p.

Reynolds, Richard T., Graham, Russel T., Reiser, M. Hildegard. 1992. Management 

Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States.

 Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217, Ft. Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station.

Reynolds, R.T., J.D. Wiens, S.M. Joy, S.R. Salfasky. 2005. Sampling considerations for 

demographic and habiata studies of northern goshawks. Journals of Raptor Research 

39:274-285. 

Saab, V., and W. Block. 2006. Prescribed fire strategies to restore wildlife habitat in ponderosa 

pine forests of the intermountain West. Final report to the Joint Fire Science Program, 

Project #01-1-3-25. 42pp.

Saab, V.A., W. Block, R. Russell, J. Lehmkul, L. Bate, and R. White. 2007. Birds and burns of 

the interior West; descriptions habitats, and management in western forests. Gen.Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-712. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 23pp.

Saab, V. A., R. E. Russell, and J. G. Dudley. 2007. Nest densities of cavity-nesting birds in 

relation to post fire salvage logging and time since wildfire. Condor 109:97-108. 

Salafsky, S.R., R.T. Reynolds, B.R. Noon. 2005. Patterns of temporal variation in goshawks 

reproduction and prey resources. Journal of Raptor Research 39:237-246.
Tres Piedras Ranger District, Carson National Forest

87

Sanchez Meador, A.J., P.F. Parysow, M.M. Moore. 2011. A new method for delineating tree 

patches and assessing spatial reference conditions of ponderosa pine forests of northern 

Arizona. Restoration Ecology 18:224-490-499.

Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.P., Hardy, C.C., Hann, W.J., and D.L. Bunnell. 2002. Development of 

coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. USDA, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, GTR RMRS-87. 

Schmidt, C.A. 2003. Conservation assessment for the long-eared myotis in the Black Hills 

National Forest, South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Custer, South 

Dakota. 22pp.

Scott, J.H. and R.E. Burgan, 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for 

use with Rothermel's surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort 

Collins, CO; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 72p.

Scott, J. H. and E. D. Reinhardt, 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of 

surface and crown fire behavior. Research Paper RMRS-RP-29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 p.

Seager, T, Markus, A., and A. J. Krommes. 2013. Aspen Restoration Strategy for the FremontWinema National Forest. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 51p

Smith, H.Y., Arno, S.F., 1999. Eighty-Eight Years of Change in a Managed Ponderosa Pine 

Forest. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS 23. Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Squires, John R. and Richard T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), The 

Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 

Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/298. Access 4/11/2015.

Swanson, D. K., Schmitt, C. L., Shirley, D. M., Erickson, V., Schuetz, K.J., Tatum, M. L., David 

C. Powell. 2010. Aspen biology, community, classification, and management in the Blue 

Mountains. Gen. Tech. rep. PNW-GTR-806. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 117 p.

Swetnam, T. W., C. D. Allen, and J. L. Betancourt. 1999. Applied historical ecology: using the 

past to manage for the future. Ecological Applications, 9: 1253-1265.

USDA, 2013. Reynolds, R.T., Sánchez Meador, A.J., Youtz, J.A., Nicolet, T., Matonis, M. S., 

Jackson, P.L., DeLorenzo, D.G., Graves, A.D., 2013. Restoring Composition and 

Structure in Southwestern Frequent-Fire Forests: A science-based framework for 

improving ecosystem resiliency.USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR310. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr310.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 1996. Record of Decision for Amendment of Forest Plans. Arizona and 

New Mexico. Forest Service, Region 3, Albuquerque, NM. 96p.

USDA, Forest Service. 1987. Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey of the Carson National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Final environmental impact statement, Carson National Forest 

Plan. Albuquerque, NM: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern 

Region.
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

88

Vandendriesche, Don. 2013. Rocky Mountain Vegetation Structural Stage Description and 

Calculations. USFS Southwestern Region.

Van Wagner 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire. Can. J. For. Res. 7: 23-34.

White, A.S. 1985. Presettlement regeneration patterns in a Southwestern ponderosa pine 

stand. Ecology 66:589-594.