1

Decision Notice

and

Finding of No Significant

Impact

Tio Gordito Restoration

Project

USDA Forest Service

Tres Piedras Ranger District,

Carson National Forest

Rio Arriba County, New Mexico

Background

The Tio Gordito Restoration project area is approximately 17,00 acres, and is centered around the 

community of Tres Piedras, New Mexico, located roughly 40 miles northeast of Taos, New Mexico

on the Tres Piedras Ranger District of the Carson National Forest (CNF) (Figure 1 and 2). The

Proposed Action consists of a variety of vegetation management and prescribed burning actions.

Combined vegetation and prescribed burning treatments are proposed over about 3,527 acres and

prescribed burning actions are proposed over about 13,475 acres within the project area.

The majority of the National Forest surrounding the project area has been previously analyzed for

fuel reduction and forest health restoration treatments; this project area was identified as an important

component of the forest-wide goal of improving forest health and thereby reducing the threat of

stand-replacing wildfires that threaten people, private property and natural resources. This goal also

ties into Forest Service Chief Tidwell’s priorities of restoration and enhancement of forest landscapes

and water resources; development of climate change resiliency; and helping create jobs that will

sustain communities, as well as the National Fire Plan (NFP) and Forest Service manual direction to

implement forest restoration (USDA Forest Service 2008, FSM 2020.3).

The Ecological Restoration Institute (ERI) was invited by the CNF to collect site-specific historical 

ecological data for the TGRP Project area to establish site-specific reference conditions (i.e. forest 

conditions that were in place 140–150 years ago when frequent fire was still a dominant component of 

the ecological system). These reference conditions were used by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) as a 

point of reference for integrating General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-310 “Restoring Composition 

and Structure in Southwestern Frequent Fire Forests: A Science-based Framework for Improving 

Ecosystem Resiliency (GTR-310)” into forest restoration project planning. ERI worked with the Tres 

Piedras District Ranger and staff to identify where data would be collected to establish reference 

conditions. 

To collect this information, ERI placed individual, one acre, historical tree data plots, to evaluate the 

Historic Range of Variability compared to current conditions, and conducted other rapid reference 

condition assessments within the project area. All forest types were analyzed with this process.
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

2

Purpose and Need

The underlying purpose and need for the Tio Gordito Restoration Project was 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. Desired conditions relevant to this project relate to forest health and ecosystem function, 

as defined in the Carson Forest Plan. 

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

condition and is summarized as follows: 

• Begin to move stands towards re-establishing the composition, structure, pattern, and 

ecological processes while restoring the historic fire regime.

• 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).

Existing Conditions

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 
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

3

200 acres under an uneven-aged1 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 exclusion2 and 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.

 1 Uneven-aged – pertaining to a stand with trees of three or more distinct age classes (SAF 1998). 2 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.
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

4

Figure 1. Site Location Map
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

5

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

6

Alternatives Considered

The Interdisciplinary Team considered three alternatives in detail: Alternative A: No Action

Alternative, Alternative B: Proposed Action, and Alternative C: Modified Proposed Action. The

Proposed Action was developed to meet the purpose and need for action. The Modified Proposed 

Action, Alternative C, was developed in response to issues and concerns brought forward by the 

public regarding the development of and forest plan amendment. Under the No Action Alternative, no

thinning or burning treatments would occur in the project area; current management would continue.

The No Action Alternative was analyzed to provide a baseline to compare the effects of the two action

alternatives. A fourth alternative, concerning the need for a diameter cap, was considered, but 

eliminated from detailed study as it would not meet the objectives stated in the purpose and need for the 

project.

Decision

Based upon my review of the Tio Gordito Restoration Project Environmental Assessment (EA),

analysis using the best available science, the alternatives, and comments received from the public,

I have decided to authorize Alternative B: Proposed Action. Alternative B meets the project’s

purpose and need by reducing the risk high severity wildfire and moving the project area toward

historical conditions by implementing thinning and prescribed fire treatments.

Alternative B: Proposed Action

Alternative B is summarized below.

• Selectively cut trees3 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. 

• 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 Stages4 (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.

 3 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).

4 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.
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

7

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, mixedseverity fire would be 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 selection5 (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.

 5 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.
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

8

• Retain legacy trees.

• Promote ponderosa pine as the dominant species across dry forest types 

• Retain groups of trees from 2 to (but not limited 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) 

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 (Appendix A).
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

9

Figure 3. Proposed Vegetation and Prescribed Burning Treatment
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

10

Decision Rationale

After thorough review of the EA and the Response to Comments, I have determined that Alternative 

B: Proposed Action best meets the purpose and need of restoration by moving stands towards reestablishing the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes via uneven aged forest 

management, and restoring frequent surface fire, as well as reduce the risk of a high severity fire. 

In making my decision, I considered the range of effects outlined in the EA, Forest Plan guidance, and 

public comments relative to harvesting trees greater than 16 inches at diameter breast height. The 

specific action of the Proposed Action Alternative best meets the Purpose and Need and project 

objectives. The Proposed Action would harvest approximately 3,525 acres of dry ponderosa pine 

stands, moving them towards a more resilient and sustainable condition and within historic range of 

variability as described by the Rapid Assessment done by the Ecological Restoration Institute. Details 

of the proposed action include:

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

ponderosa pine and Gambel oak to resemble historic conditions. 

• Thin stands to obtain or promote a balance of age classes, re-establishing the structure, 

composition, and pattern of frequent fire forests.

• Create groups of trees, restore and/or develop grass-forb-shrub interspaces between groups 

and single trees, and promote large single trees.

• Broadcast burn on up to approximately 13,475 acres, with no proposed mechanical treatments, 

to re-establish a fire regime closer to FRCC 1 (0–35 year frequency and generally low-severity 

fires replacing less than 25 percent of the dominant over-story vegetation, but can include 

mixed-severity fires that replace up to 75 percent of the over-story) (FRCC 2008).

• 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 groups, 3) define the relationship between the interspace and natural 

openings, such as meadows and 4) clarify that canopy cover is measured at the tree group 

scale within Vegetation Structural Stages (VSS 4, 5 and 6) (refer to Table 2). 

The objective of implementing the Proposed Action would be to create openings under a group 

selection cutting method along with re-establishing the composition, structure, and function of 

frequent fire forests. Integral to frequent fire forests are interspaces (i.e. created openings for grass, 

forb, and shrub development different from openings intended to provide for regeneration), groups of 

trees, scattered individual trees, and snags and downed wood. Stands left or managed towards evenaged structure are at risk to losing the valuable stand characteristic such as large and old trees through 

increased risk of insect, disease, and wildfire. Uneven-aged stands are often more resilient due to 

multiple age classes providing more resiliency towards insects, disease, and wildfire. Typically 

ponderosa pine forest within the TGRP area experienced frequent, low intensity fire. 

The Proposed Action would establish 20% of each harvest unit in group openings to provide for 

seedling and sapling development and eventually establish 5 age groups over time. Groups of trees and 

interspaces between trees and groups of trees would be established and described in the prescription. 
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

11

Legacy trees (typically older than 150 years with rounded tops, large lower limbs, and deep furrows) 

would be high priority for retention.

Alternative C was developed in response to comments about the proposed Forest Plan Amendment. 

Under Alternative C, the Forest Plan is not amended, the treatment acreages are identical to the 

proposed action, but trees are more evenly spaced on the landscape. Interspaces, groups of trees, 

scattered individual trees, characteristics inherent of frequent fire forests, would not be achieved. 

Alternative C would begin to move stands towards an uneven-aged structure but would not achieve the 

spatial heterogeneity characteristic of historic frequent fire forests. Both action alternatives would be 

successful at re-establishing a fire regime throughout the project area. 

A no action alternative (Alternative A) was considered, but would provide no opportunity to mimic 

natural disturbances such as reoccurring surface or passive crown fires that had been active prior to the 

advent of fire control management. With increasing stand density, insects and pathogens will 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, nutrients, and soil resources would increase tree and stand stress. This 

reduces stand vigor; increases stand mortality, and increases susceptibility to primary and secondary 

insect and disease. High canopy cover across thousands of acres greatly increases the risk of crown 

fire spread with no opportunity to fall to the forest floor due to lack of openings and interspaces.

I also considered implementing a diameter cap on the mechanical treatments, but did I did not develop 

an alternative considering a cap. Implementing a diameter cap results in stand structure that becomes 

even aged over time. This level of landscape homogeneity lacks biological diversity and results in an 

unstable ecosystem that is susceptible to large scale disturbances in the mid-to long term (Triepke et. 

al, 2011; Abella, et. al., 2006).

The No Action Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need related to forested vegetation nor does 

it begin to move stands toward the desired future condition. Both action alternatives would begin to 

move stands toward more resilient and resistant condition with respect to insect, disease, and future 

drought forecasts. The Proposed Action would be focused on moving stands toward the spatial 

arrangement of groups and interspaces inherent of frequent fire forests. Spatial patterns within stands, 

including thicker patches and openings, are a fundamental attribute of dry forest structure and 

influence many ecological processes and ecosystem functions. These include forest stand dynamics 

ranging from species interaction, competition, and growth/vigor to processes like regeneration 

(particularly of shade-intolerant species such as ponderosa pine) and mortality. Spatial pattern also 

influences important ecosystem processes and functions including fire behavior. Also important are 

variation in size, density, and arrangement of forest structures which create within-stand variation 

resilience, thus facilitating more complex interactions of pests, pathogens, and fire (Parker et al. 2006). 

Existing restoration guidelines for public forest lands acknowledge the importance of spatial 

patterning and have been outlined by several groups (e.g. Franklin and Johnson 2012; North et al. 

2009).

Public Involvement

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines scoping as “...an early and open process for

determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a

proposed action” (40 CFR 1501.7). The scoping process is used to invite public participation, to

help identify public issues, and to obtain public comment at various stages of the environmental
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

12

analysis process. Although scoping is to begin early, it is really an iterative process that continues

until a decision is made.

The Tio Gordito Restoration Project has been listed on the Carson National Forest Schedule of

Proposed Actions since April 1, 2012 under the name “Tio Gordito Project”. On November 26,

2013 scoping letters providing project information and seeking public comments were mailed to 61 

individuals, groups, and agency representatives. Responses to the Proposed Action were received

from three individuals and groups. An updated detailed project proposal was provided to 40 

individuals, groups, and agency representatives for comment on March 6, 2014. Eight comment 

letters were received. Alternative C: Modified Proposed Action, was developed in response to 

comments received. 

The 30-day comment period for the preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA) began with the

publication of a legal notice in the Taos News newspaper on May 28, 2015. Notification was sent to

39 interested land owners, agencies, environmental groups and individuals who either provided

comments during the scoping period or otherwise expressed interest in the project. A letter providing 

the opportunity to comment with the website address for the preliminary EA was sent to 170 active 

mail boxes in the community of Tres Piedras, NM. Nine comment letters were received during the

comment period. The IDT responded to each comment and question within the letters in the

Response to Comments document. Primary concerns identified included not incorporating a diameter 

cap on tree removal, old growth and large tree retention, the use of a project-specific Forest Plan

amendment, and general concerns about forest health restoration approaches. The Forest Service

Response to Comments document is located in the project record.

Findings Required by Other Laws or Regulations

The planning and decision-making process for this project was conducted in accordance with all

applicable laws, regulations, policies and plans. This section briefly describes my findings regarding

the legal requirements most relevant to this project decision.

National Forest Management Act and 36 CFR 219 Regulations

IDT has reviewed the Forest Plan in depth, and has determined that Alternative B: Proposed Action

is generally consistent with both forest-wide and management area standards and guidelines for all

resources. However, more recent science has shown that historically more open spaces were present

in the landscape and the importance of such opens spaces (interspaces). Thus there is a need for a 

non-significant, project-level Forest Plan amendment to include: the definition of interspaces within

ponderosa pine and northern goshawk habitat (both within and outside of PFAs); how interspaces

and openings relate to vegetative structural stage (VSS) and how canopy cover would be measured in

landscapes within and outside of post-fledgling family areas (PFAs). To address this need, a project

specific, non-significant plan amendment will be implemented as part of this decision. This

amendment applies to the Tio Gordito Restoration Project only, and because it is a project-level

amendment, it does not apply to future projects on the Carson National Forest. The proposed Forest

Plan Amendment is described in the EA (pp. 8-11).

Alternative B complies with the Carson National Forest Plan and associated amendments. This

project incorporates all applicable forest-wide standards and guidelines and management area

direction as they apply to the project area. This project is also in compliance with Carson National

Forest Plan goals and objectives. All required interagency review and coordination has been

accomplished.
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

13

Effects on eight Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species and four Management Indicator Species (MIS)

were analyzed in detail. A Biological Assessment and Evaluation for threatened, endangered and

sensitive species as well as a Wildlife Specialist Report were prepared for this project and effects are

summarized in the EA. It was determined that Alternative B is not likely to result in a trend toward

federal listing or loss of viability for sensitive species, and will not contribute to a change in the

forest-wide population or habitat trend for MIS.

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); Archeological Resources Protection Act;

American Indian Religious Freedom Act; Executive Order 11593 (Cultural Resources)

The initiation of work in any phase of the project will be contingent upon completion of the

identification and protection of historic properties and compliance with applicable provisions of

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in accordance with the Region 3 Programmatic 

Agreement Regarding Historic Properties Protection and Responsibilities, Appendix J (see Design

Features for Cultural Resources for more information). Native American tribes and communities

were informed of the project during quarterly publishing of the Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA).

It was determined under the Programmatic Agreement for Compliance with Section 106 of the

NHPA that Alternative B: Proposed Action will have no adverse effect on cultural properties and

values.

Endangered Species Act

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that Federal agencies consult with the

USFWS, as appropriate, to ensure that our actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of

species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or destroy or adversely modify designated

critical habitat. A Biological Assessment for threatened and endangered species was not submitted to

the USFWS, because there was a “no effect” determination for federally listed species.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

Implementation of Alternative B is not anticipated to cause disproportionate adverse human health or 

environmental effects to minority or low-income populations.

Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds)

Executive Order 13186 requires that an analysis be made of the effects of Forest Service actions on

Species of Concern listed by Partners in Flight (PIF), the effects on Important Bird Areas (IBA) 

identified by Partners in Flight, and the effects to important over-wintering areas. The wildlife

biologist analyzed the effects of project activities to migratory birds that are found or have potential

habitat in the project area, and found that although Alternative B may result in direct effects from

noise, smoke and disturbance from treatment activities, this alternative will also result in positive

effects to habitat with increases in snags, prey availability, and the creation of openings. Alternative B

will not change the existing forest trend for species of concern.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

After considering the environmental effects described in the EA, I have determined that the actions

described in Alternative B will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment,

considering the context of the project area and intensity or severity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27).

Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I base my finding on the following:

Context and Intensity

This project is a site-specific action that by itself does not make international, national, regional or

statewide decisions. The Forest Service would apply fuels reduction and forest health restoration
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

14

prescriptions on approximately 17,000 acres located on the Tres Piedras Ranger District of the

Carson National Forest. The scope of this decision is specific to the project area, adjacent

communities and private land.

The following discussion is organized around the ten significant factors described in the National

Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1508.27) as they pertain to the context of the Tio 

Gordito Restoration Project under Alternative B: Proposed Action.

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even

if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

The direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the project activities on various resources are disclosed

and discussed in Affected Environment section of the EA and associated project record. Alternative

B: Proposed Action will not significantly affect (neither beneficially nor adversely) resources in the

natural or human environment. The site-specific Forest Plan amendment will also not result in a

significant effect as it pertains solely to the Tio Gordito Restoration project area, and is a one-time

modification in Forest Plan direction specifically for this project; after completion of project

activities, the Forest Plan language reverts back to the original direction. Project activities are

expected to result in an overall long-term beneficial effect due to beneficial effects such as reducing

the risk of wildfire, increased biodiversity of understory vegetation, and improved wildlife habitat.

Yet these beneficial impacts are not expected to result in a level of significance because the purpose

of the project is restoration, and the effects include a return toward natural conditions within the 

natural range of variability.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

Alternative B: Proposed Action was developed to move the project area toward desired conditions as

described in the EA. The proposed actions result in no significant effects to public health or safety.

The District will be notifying known smoke-sensitive individuals and other private land owners in

the area through the media prior to prescribed burns, and also notifying the public by placing signs

in conspicuous locations at least one week prior and during prescribed burning.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural

resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically

critical areas.

There are no unique characteristics of the geographical area that will be significantly affected by my 

decision. There are no effects to prime farmlands, wetlands, floodplains, or ecologically critical areas 

(EA, pp. 49-56). There are no effects to designated wilderness areas, wilderness study areas (EA, p. 

82), inventoried roadless areas, or wild and scenic rivers (EA, p. 82). This decision does not include 

any road building or change in the current road system. There are no effects to any unique areas (EA,

pp.82). See significance factor #8 for discussion related to historic or cultural resources.

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environmental are likely

to be highly controversial.

The activities associated with this decision will not significantly affect the quality of the human 

environment, and the effects are unlikely to be highly controversial in a scientific sense. No evidence 

has been presented that raises substantial questions as to the correctness of the environmental 

consequences that have been estimated. I have considered the best available science in making this 

decision. The project record demonstrates a thorough review of relevant scientific information.

The effects on the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial based on the 

involvement of Forest Service resource specialists, other agencies, and the public. The public 
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

15

scoping for project initiation received eleven responses and the 30-day comment period generated 

nine comments. After reviewing the project record and EA, I am confident the interdisciplinary team 

reviewed the comments and incorporated them into alternatives or addressed them in the appropriate 

resource section. It is my judgment, while portions of the public disagree with various components 

of the project and have raised concerns related to the action alternatives, there is no unusual or high 

degree of controversy related to the effects of this project.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly

uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

This decision has no known effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain or involve 

unique or unknown risks. All of the effects of the proposed action are routine to in nature, 

implementing standard practices and protection measures.

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with

significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

The actions authorized under this Decision Notice pertain to the Tio Gordito Restoration project area

only. Similar fuel reduction and forest restoration projects have occurred in various areas across the

National Forest, as well as on private and State lands over the recent past.

This decision responds to a need to restore forest health and reduce the fire hazard rating within a

finite area (approximtely17,000 acres) which has been determined to be at risk for possible severe

wildfire that could spread across a larger area or onto adjacent communities in the Wildland Urban

Interface (WUI). The decision to implement this project does not give authority to thin or burn

outside of the project area boundary and does not supersede later, site-specific analysis for forest

restoration projects in other areas adjacent to this project or elsewhere on the National Forest.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but

cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a 

cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided

by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

Cumulative impacts to different resource areas were analyzed in specialist reports and summarized

in the EA. This analysis considered the potential cumulative impacts of the activities approved in

this decision with other actions for each resource area including wildlife, water quality, vegetation,

old growth, and other resources. None of the effects were determined to be cumulatively significant.

Comment received during the 30-day comment period identified concerns that the site-specific forest

plan amendment would result in cumulative impacts to the northern goshawk and possibly other 

species. Other projects, including the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, Wing Mountain Forest

Restoration Project, and the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project on the Apache-Sitgreaves National

Forest also include similar site specific forest plan amendments for canopy cover and interspace.

These projects will result in a cumulative impact of facilitating forest restoration goals including

reducing tree density throughout the project area and will move conditions from even-aged forests to

uneven-aged forests made up of groups of trees of similar age separated by interspace.

Combined these projects will result in treatment of approximately 330,000 acres of ponderosa pine

habitat within a 2.4 million-acre contiguous belt of ponderosa pine forest. While not all of these

treatments will include the same level of thinning and prescribed burning, the project areas

combined make up a cumulative impact on approximately 14 percent of the contiguous ponderosa

pine forest in the Southwest. This 14 percent would be treated with restoration treatments including

site-specific forest plan amendments for canopy closure and interspace.
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

16

This is not expected to result in a significant effect for a number of reasons including: (a) the scope

of the cumulative treated area is still limited to a fraction of the area within the ponderosa pine

habitat type; (b) the treatments are all expected to improve the amount and distribution of mature,

large old growth groups of trees in the habitat over the long-term, which are key habitat elements

for northern goshawk and other species (Sheppard et al. 2002); (c) all of these projects include

design features to limit impacts on northern goshawk and other species by limiting activities during

breeding seasons and within nesting habitat; and (d) the purpose of all of the projects is to restore

conditions to those present prior to European influence, which is the condition in which native

species evolved to inhabit the forest.

Furthermore, the cumulative impact of these restoration treatments with site-specific amendments is

not expected to reach the threshold of significance because the large majority of scientific research

regarding restoration in southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystem have identified tree thinning and

prescribed burning as essential treatments to achieve: (1) restoration of biodiversity (Stoddard et al.

2011), (2) development of large trees with old growth characteristics (Youngblood 2010, Sheppard et

al. 2002), (3) mitigation of risk from high intensity wildfire (Fulé 2012), and (4) protection of

threatened and endangered species habitat (Dickson and Noon 2006, USFWS 1995, Kalies et al.

2010). In addition, recent studies have shown that the natural condition of fire-frequent forests is a

mosaic of three elements: openings, single trees, and clumps of trees with adjacent or interlocking

crowns (Larson and Churchill 2012, Abella and Denton 2009, Sánchez-Meador et al. 2009). 

Therefore, while cumulative effects are expected to occur from these restoration treatments along

with a forest plan amendment to facilitate restoration of uneven-aged forests made up of small evenaged groups of trees, the effects are fully consistent with the overwhelming majority of research

identifying the importance of these treatments to maintaining forest resources and for maintaining

forest heterogeneity, and are thus not of a significant nature.

Recent scientific research also points to the need for restoration based treatments in the face of

ongoing climate change in order to maintain wildlife habitat and forest resources in southwestern

ponderosa pine forests. Studies that specifically looked at the efficacy of southwestern forest

restoration under climate change found, “Under current climate, restoring the historical frequent-fire

regime is sufficient to maintain the open forest conditions found after restoration treatments at this

southwestern landscape (Diggins et al. 2010).” Other studies, such as Joyce et al. 2009, call for more

widespread application of known practices to reduce risks, such as high-intensity wildfire, to

strategically address anticipated vulnerabilities. The cumulative impacts of the restoration-based

treatments in ponderosa pine is again in conformance with best available science to manage risks by

reducing the impacts of existing stressors, which are expected to increase under climate change. As

a result, while these treatments are expected to result in a cumulative effect, this effect is not

expected to result in a level of significance to any one resource or several forest resources.

Thus, based on the information above, Alternative B and the project-specific amendment will likely

result in a cumulative effect, but this effect is not expected to meet the threshold of significance

since the cumulative effect is limited in scope. The cumulative effect is also limited in intensity

because all of the projects contributing to this cumulative effect include similar design criteria to

avoid or minimize direct effects. Indirect cumulative effects would exist, but would result in moving 

forest conditions back to those within the range of historic natural variability, which is expected to 

support those species and forest processes that are natively found in the ponderosa pine forest type.
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

17

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures,

or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or

may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

Historic and prehistoric resources are numerous on the Carson National Forest and have been found

within the project area. 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 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. This

consultation fulfills the obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR

Part 800.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species

or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act

of 1973.

No threatened species and/or their critical habitats or two candidate species are present within the Tio 

Gordito project area. Alternative B: Proposed Action will not adversely affect any threatened or

endangered (T&E) species or its critical habitat. Possible effects to federally listed wildlife species

were analyzed in the Biological Assessment and the Wildlife Specialist Report (summarized in the

Environmental Assessment). A Biological Assessment for threatened and endangered species was 

not submitted to the USFWS, because there was a “no effect” determination for federally listed 

species.

Therefore, based on the analysis in the EA and the determination that there would be no adverse

effects to any of the threatened and endangered species in the project area or their habitat, no

significant effects are anticipated to T&E species of plants or animals, or habitat critical for these

species.

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or

requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

Alternative B: Proposed Action is consistent with applicable Federal, State, or local law or

requirements for the protection of the environment.
Tio Gordito Restoration Project 

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunity 

The Tio Gordito project is an activity implementing a land management plan and not authorized under 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) and is subject to 36 CFR 218 Subpa1ts A and B. There was 

one objection filed in a timely manner by pa1ties with standing to object. The Deputy Regional Forester 

for the Southwestern Region reviewed the contents of the objection and fou nd that the project is in 

compliance with all applicable laws and the Carson Forest Plan and no futther action was warranted. 

The Deputy Regiona l Forester's review constitutes the final administrative determi nation of the 

Department of Agriculture; no further rev iew from any other Forest Service or Department of 

Agriculture official is available [36 CFR 218.11 (b)(2)]. 

Implementation 

This proj ect may be implemented immediately. 

Contact Person 

Additional information regard ing this project can be obtai ned from Sandra Jacquez. EPA 

Planner, El Rito Ranger District at (575) 581 -4554. 

Approved by: 

JIWVW) Q (J~ James D. Duran 

Forest Supervisor 

Carson National Forest 

18 
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

19

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions 

participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, 

color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual 

orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public 

assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any 

program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies 

and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information 

(e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible 

Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through 

the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made 

available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint 

Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any 

USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information 

requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your 

completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; 

(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

20

Appendix A

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.
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

21

Existing Guideline Language Carson Land and 

Resource Management Plan (1996 Update) 

Pages 92-93

Proposed New Guideline Language

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.

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.
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

22

Existing Guideline Language Carson Land and 

Resource Management Plan (1996 Update) 

Pages 92-93

Proposed New Guideline Language

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.

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.
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

23

Appendix B

Project Record Index

These documents include meeting notes, technical reports, letters, photos and other documents 

generated in the analysis of the proposed Tio Gordito Project. They are available for review at the Tres 

Piedras Ranger District, P.O. Box 38, Tres Piedras, NM 87577, and (575) 758-8678. 

No. DATE DOCUMENT AUTHOR RECIPIENT

01 86.09

Environmental Impact Statement, Carson Land 

& Resource Management Plan (LRMP)

USDA Forest Service 

(FS) Project File

02 86.09 Carson National Forest Plan as amended USDA FS Project File

03 86.10.31 LRMP Record of Decision USDA FS Project File

04 87.08.01

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Carson 

National Forest USDA FS Project File

05 11.09 2011 Carson NF MIS Assessment USDA FS Project File

06 11.11.04 IDT Meeting Notes

Sandra Imler-Jacquez, 

NEPA Planner Project File

07 12.01.25 Meeting Minutes 

Martin Pfeiffer, Wildlife 

Biologist Project File

08 12.01.25 IDT Meeting Notes

Sandra Imler-Jacquez, 

NEPA Planner Project File

09 12.02.21 IDT Meeting Notes

Sandra Imler-Jacquez, 

NEPA Planner Project File

10 12.04.01 April 2012 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

11 12.07.01 July 2012 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

12 12.10.01 October 2012 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

13 13.01.01 January 2013 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

14 13.02.27 IDT Meeting Notes

Sandra Imler-Jacquez, 

NEPA Planner Project File

15 13.04.01 April 2013 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

16 13.05.08 Project Initiation Letter and Timeline

Chris Furr, District 

Ranger Project File

17 13.05.08 IDT Meeting Notes

Sandra Imler-Jacquez, 

NEPA Planner Project File

18 13.07.01 July 2013 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

19 13.10.01 October 2013 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

20 13.11.06 Updated Project Initiation Letter and Timeline

Chris Furr, District 

Ranger Project File

21 13.11.06 IDT Meeting Notes

Sandra Imler-Jacquez, 

NEPA Planner Project File

22 13.11.26 Scoping Letter and Mailing List

Chris Furr, District 

Ranger Project File

23 13.11.26 Tribal Consultation Letter and Mailing List

Chris Furr, District 

Ranger Project File

24 13.12.10

Letter: Response to Tribal Consultation from 

Comanche Nation

Theodore Villicana, 

Comanche Nation Project File

25 13.12.12

Letter: Response to Tribal Consultation from 

the Navajo Nation

Tony Joe, Jr., Navajo 

Nation Project File
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

24

No. DATE DOCUMENT AUTHOR RECIPIENT

26 13.12.13

Letter: Response to Scoping from WildEarth 

Guardians

Bryan Bird, WildEarth 

Guardians Project File

27 14.01.01 January 2014 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

28 14.01.21 IDT Meeting Notes

Sandra Jacquez, NEPA 

Planner Project File

29 14.01.31 IDT Meeting Notes

Sandra Jacquez, NEPA 

Planner Project File

30 14.02.14 Field Visit maps

Gabe Romero, Zone 

Silviculturalist Project File

31 14.02.24

Letter: Response to Tribal Consult from Navajo 

Nation

Tony Joe, Jr., Navajo 

Nation Project File

32 14.03.04 IDT Meeting Notes

Sandra Jacquez, NEPA 

Planner Project File

33 14.03.06 Letter: Tribal Consultation and Mailing List

Chris Furr, District 

Ranger Project File

34 14.03.06 Letter: Scoping and Mailing List

Chris Furr, District 

Ranger Project File

35 14.03.12 Letter: Response to Scoping from Bryan Bird

Bryan Bird, WildEarth 

Guardians Project File

36 14.03.21 Letter: Response to Scoping from Joanie Berde

Joanie Berde, Carson 

Forest Watch Project File

37 14.03.26

Letter: Response to Tribal Consult from 

Comanche Nation

Theodore Villacana, 

Comanche Nation Project File

38 14.03.28

Letter: Response to Tribal Consult from Navajo 

Nation

Tony Joe, Jr., Navajo 

Nation Project File

39 14.04.01 April 2014 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

40 14.04.01 Letter: Response to Scoping from NMED Morgan Nelson, NMED Project File

41 14.04.03

Letter: Response to Scoping from New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish

Matthew Wunder, 

NMDGF Project File

42 14.04.08

Letter: Response to Scoping from Center For 

Biological Diversity Jay Liniger, CBD Project File

43 14.06.18 IDT Meeting Notes

Sandra Jacquez, NEPA 

Planner Project File

44 14.07.01 July 2014 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

45 14.07.24 Letter: Response to Tribal Consultation

Southern Ute Indian 

Tribe Project File

46 14.09.18 IDT Meeting Notes

Sandra Jacquez, NEPA 

Planner Project File

47 14.11.14

IDT Meeting Notes and PowerPoint 

Presentation

Alicia Gallegos, Wildlife 

Biologist Project File

48 14.11.25

Letter: Providing list of T&E Species that may 

occur in Project Area USFWS Project File

49 14.12.10

Summary Report on Reference Conditions for 

the Tio Gordito Restoration Project 

Ecological Restoration 

Institute Project File

50 15.01.01 January 2015 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

51 15.01.02 Watershed and Soils Specialist Report

Wayne Yonemoto, 

Rangeland Management 

Specialist Project File
Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

25

No. DATE DOCUMENT AUTHOR RECIPIENT

52 15.01.10 Roads Report

Wayne Yonemoto, 

Rangeland Management 

Specialist Project File

53 15.01.12

Recreation/Lands/Special Uses Specialist 

Report

Ray Martinez, Zone 

Recreation/Lands Staff Project File

54 15.01.15 Noxious Weed Risk Assessment

Wayne Yonemoto, 

Rangeland Management 

Specialist Project File

55 15.03.27 Tio Gordito Silviculture Specialist Report

Lora Arciniega, West 

Zone Silviculturist Project File

56 15.04.01 April 2015 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

57 15.04.03 Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Specialist Report

Jonathan Romero, Fuels 

Planner Project File

58 15.04.07 Inventory, Standards and Accounting

Michael Kyte, 

Archaeologist Project File

59 15.04.13 Wildlife and Rare Plants Report

Alicia Gallegos, Wildlife 

Biologist Project File

60 15.05.20 Scoping Comment Analysis

Chris Furr, District 

Ranger Project File

61 15.05.28 Legal Notice of Opportunity to Comment Taos News Project File

62 15.05.28

Letter: To Tres Piedras Residents Seeking 

Comments on Preliminary EA

Chris Furr, District 

Ranger Project File

63 15.05.28

Letter: Cover Letter for Opportunity to 

Comment on Preliminary EA with Mailing List

Chris Furr, District 

Ranger Project File

64 15.05.28

Preliminary EA for Tio Gordito Restoration 

Project

Chris Furr, District 

Ranger Project File

65 15.06.10 Letter: Response to Comment 

Joanie Berde, Carson 

Forest Watch Project File

66 15.06.15 Letter: Response to Comment

Bryan Bird, WildEarth 

Guardians Project File

67 15.06.17 Letter: Response to Comment

Charlene Judkins, 

Community Member Project File

68 15.06.17 Letter: Response to Comment

Larry Kostmayer, 

Community Member Project File

69 15.06.26

Letter: Providing corrected email address for 

comments and extending the opportunity to 

comment

Chris Furr, District 

Ranger Project File

70 15.06.30 Letter: Response to Comment Matt Wunder, NMDGF Project File

71 15.07.01 July 2015 Schedule of Proposed Actions USDA FS Project File

72 15.07.02

Legal Notice of Extended Opportunity to 

Comment Taos News Project File

73 15.07.07 Letter: Response to Comment

Kenneth J. Schwartz, 

Community Member Project File

74 15.07.08 Letter: Response to Comment

Roger Peterson, New 

Mexico Natural History 

Institute Project File

75 15.07.08 Letter: Response to Comment Eric Vigil Project File

76 15.07.09 Letter: Response to Comment

Jay Lininger, Center for 

Biological Diversity Project File
Tio Gordito Restoration Project

26

No. DATE DOCUMENT AUTHOR RECIPIENT

77 15.08.05 30-Day Comment Analysis

Chris Furr, District 

Ranger Project File

78 15.08.06

Letter: Cover Letter Providing Final EA for 

Objection

James Duran, Forest 

Supervisor Project File

79 15.08.06 Legal Notice of Opportunity for Objection Taos News Project File

80 15.08.06

Final Environmental Assessment for the Tio 

Gordito Restoration Project

James Duran, Forest 

Supervisor Project File

81 15.08.06

Draft Decision Notice and Findings of No 

Significant Impacts

James Duran, Forest 

Supervisor Project File

82 15.08.11

Email: FOIA Request for Electronic Copies of 

Tio Gordito PR #’s 69 and 70. 

Bryan Bird, WildEarth 

Guardians Project File

83 15.08.12 Email: Response to FOIA

Sandra Jacquez, NEPA 

Planner Project File

84 15.09.14 Letter: Objection From Carson Forest Watch

Joanie Berde, Carson 

Forest Watch Project File

85 15.09.30

Tio Gordito Restoration Project Objection 

Worksheet

James Duran, Forest 

Supervisor

Project File

86 15.09.30

Transmittal of Tio Gordito Restoration Project 

Objection Worksheet

James Duran, Forest 

Supervisor

Project File

87 15.11.13

Conversation Record: Courtesy call to Joanie 

Berde

Kathryn Furr, 

Environmental 

Coordinator

Project File

88 15.11.16 Letter: Response to Objection by Joanie Berde

Jim Upchurch, Deputy 

Regional Forester

Project File

89

Final Decision Notice and Finding of No 

Significant Impacts

James Duran, Forest 

Supervisor

Project File