United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region 

United States 

Department of 

the Interior 

Bureau of Land 

Management 

New Mexico 

State Office

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for the 

Buckman Water 

Diversion Project 

Santa Fe National Forest and Taos 

Field Office of the BLM in Santa Fe 

County, New Mexico 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, 

sexual orientation and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TTY). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-

W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 

720-5964 (voice or TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Printed on recycled paper – November 2004
USDA Forest Service 

Santa Fe National Forest 

1474 Rodeo Road 

Santa Fe, NM 87505 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 

Taos Field Office 

226 Cruz Alta Road 

Taos, NM 87517 

Dear Reader, 

We are pleased to announce the release of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for 

the Buckman Water Diversion Project. This DEIS is the result of more than 2 years of discussion 

among the lead agencies, the project applicants and the public regarding a direct water diversion 

from the Rio Grande. This diversion would provide water to the customers of the project 

applicants, which are the City of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County and Las Campanas Limited 

Partnership. The DEIS provides the analytical basis for determining the set of actions that will 

best meet the purpose and need for the project while minimizing environmental and social 

impacts. 

We are providing a description of the Forest Service-Bureau of Land Management Preferred 

Alternative in this letter and a copy of the DEIS for your review and comment. Public input is an 

important and integral part of identifying and analyzing impacts and assessing the tradeoffs when 

making decisions. We value your thoughts and look forward to your comments. Specific 

information on how to submit your comments is provided at the end of this letter. 

The DEIS contains an Abstract and Executive Summary that provide brief overviews of the 

proposed project. The details of the proposed project and alternatives are provided in the first 

three chapters, as follows: 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action and Background 

Chapter 2, Proposed Action and Alternatives (including mitigation, monitoring, and 

permitting requirements) 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts 

Chapter 4 includes lists of the DEIS preparers and agencies, organizations and individuals 

contacted. A references cited section and index are also included at the end of the document. 

The Proposed Action (PA) in the DEIS is the preliminary proposal developed by the project 

applicants. The Proposed Action includes many elements that are common to all action 

alternatives that were analyzed. Improvements to Buckman Road and the locations of most major 

facilities associated with the Proposed Action would be part of all action alternatives. However, 

because this project includes a number of facilities spaced across several miles of Federal lands, 

alternatives were developed based on issues that arose regarding potential impacts of specific 

project facilities. Thus the DEIS describes the following sets of alternatives: 

1. a set of alternatives for the sediment treatment facility near the river; 

2. a set of alternatives for a facility to dispose of the sand once it is removed from the 

river water; 

3. a set of alternatives for raw water transmission pipelines; 

4. a set of alternatives for treated water transmission from city/county facilities to the 

north end of the project area; 

5. a set of alternatives for upgrading electric power to the near-river facilities; and 

6. a set of alternatives for placing power at the city/county water treatment facility. 
As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the No Action Alternative was 

also fully analyzed in the DEIS and considered during selection of the Preferred Alternative. With 

this alternative, none of the facilities or road improvements proposed would be permitted. 

Based on this DEIS, the USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have identified 

the Preferred Alternative for this project. The Preferred Alternative, described below, consists of 

either the Proposed Action or alternatives from each of the six sets of alternatives previously 

described. In selecting the Preferred Alternative, the lead agency decision makers favored 

alternatives that: (A) have the least adverse impacts to resources managed by the Federal 

agencies; (B) avoid creating new utility corridors through otherwise open space; and (C) allow for 

maximum flexibility of the applicants to work out solutions together. It is important to note that 

for several key issues, the agencies have identified two preferred action alternatives because 

impacts are very similar, and/or other agencies and entities have a role in determining the final 

selection. Final selection of project facilities will be made after public and agency comments have 

been received and considered, and once the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) has been 

completed. 

The Preferred Alternative would authorize the following facilities that are not changed from the 

Proposed Action: A diversion structure on the eastern bank of the Rio Grande, Booster Stations 

2a and 3a, and water transmission lines connecting them; the treatment facilities for the 

city/county, water lines connecting the new facilities with existing water lines on the south end of 

the project and in Las Campanas, and road improvements. The road improvements for Buckman 

Road may range from minimal to the maximum level described in the DEIS, based on whether 

sand is trucked away from the river or returned to the river. 

• The preferred alternative(s) for the location of the sediment facility is a location that 

avoids disturbance of the historic Buckman townsite (Alternatives SF1/SF2). These 

alternatives accommodate sand return to the river or sand trucked away from the site. 

• There are two preferred alternatives for the sand disposal element of the project: a return 

pipeline to the river (Alternative SF1) is preferred if the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) permits it, or trucking sand away from the site (Alternative SF2) is 

preferred if EPA does not permit sand return. 

• There are also two preferred alternatives for the pipeline connecting Booster Station 1a 

with Booster Station 2a because the impacts to Federal lands are very similar with either 

of the two options (PA or RWP1). 

• For the treated water route from the new city/county water treatment facility to the 

existing water line from the Buckman Well Field, the two preferred alternatives are either 

the Proposed Action (PA), which places the line in a utility easement along Las 

Campanas Drive or an alternative that routes the line back to Dead Dog livestock well 

(TWP3). These alternatives minimize impacts to Federal lands in the vicinity and avoid 

creating new utility corridors. 

• The preferred alternative for the power upgrade to the river is the Proposed Action (PA), 

which places the new line underground from the Buckman substation to the river 

facilities completing the loop to the existing line with minimal impacts to resources 

(especially scenery). 

• The preferred alternative for the Water Treatment Plant power upgrade is to place the 

substation adjacent to the power transmission line next to Caja del Rio Road, then 

connect to an existing buried line that runs along the road, to a point where a new buried 

line would run to the water treatment plant (AGP1a). This alternative is preferred because 

it avoids creating a new utility corridor. 
The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will consider all comments received and 

will respond to substantive comments in the FEIS. Those who submit substantive comments 

during the comment period will be eligible to appeal the project decision under Forest Service 

appeal rules (36 CFR §215) and BLM appeal rules (43 CFR, Part 4). The abstract located at the 

front of the DEIS describes in more detail the nature of the comments you should provide. 

Individual respondents may request confidentially. If you wish to withhold your name and street 

address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must 

state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored 

to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, 

will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. 

An electronic version of this document can be found on Web pages maintained by either the 

Forest Service (www.fs.fed.us/r3/sfe/) or BLM (www.nm.blm.gov). Information regarding more 

exact dates of the comment period is also located at these sites. Comments on this DEIS must be 

received or postmarked within 60 days of the Environmental Protection Agency’s publication of 

the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. 

Send comments to: Sanford “Sandy” Hurlocker 

P.O. Box 3307 

Espanola, NM 87533 

 Phone: (505) 753-7331 

E-mail: comments-southwestern-santafe-espanola@fs.fed.us 

Gilbert Zepeda Sam DesGeorges 

Forest Supervisor Field Manager 

Santa Fe National Forest Taos Field Office 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Lead Agencies: USDA Forest Service and USDOI Bureau of Land Management 

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, City of Santa Fe, NM and County of Santa 

Fe, NM

Title and Location of Proposed Action: Buckman Water Diversion Project, located in Santa Fe 

County, NM

Responsible Officials: Gilbert Zepeda, Forest Supervisor, Santa Fe National Forest 

 Sam DesGeorges, Field Office Manager, Taos Field Office 

Contacts for Information: 

Mr. Sanford “Sandy” Hurlocker 

USDA Forest Service, Santa Fe National Forest 

Española Ranger District 

1710 N. Riverside Drive 

P.O. Box 3307 

Española, NM 87533 

(505) 753-7331

Ms. Sharon Churchill 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 

Taos Field Office 

226 Cruz Alta Road 

Taos, NM 87517 

(505) 751-4725 

Abstract 

This environmental impact statement documents an analysis of the effects of a proposal to divert 

water from the Rio Grande. The proposed Buckman Water Diversion Project is designed to address 

the immediate need for a sustainable means of accessing water supplies for the City of Santa Fe, 

Santa Fe County, and Las Campanas Limited Partnership. Most of the water to be diverted would 

be derived from the San Juan-Chama Project, a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation inter-basin water 

transfer project. The remainder would be “native” water rights owned by the parties and diverted 

from the Rio Grande. 

The Proposed Action would include a diversion structure at the Rio Grande; water transmission 

facilities including pumps and booster station buildings, water tanks, settling ponds and pipes; 

water treatment facilities, electric power improvements; and road improvements necessary to build 

and operate the facilities. A No Action Alternative was also considered, which means none of the 

facilities proposed would be authorized. The lead agency decision makers have identified their 

preferred alternative based on the following principles: (A) Favor alternatives that have the least 

adverse impacts to resources managed by the Federal agencies; (B) Favor alternatives that avoid 

creating new utility corridors through otherwise open space; and (C) Favor alternatives that allow 

for maximum flexibility of the applicants to work out solutions together. Where impacts to Federal 

lands are similar, lead agencies may prefer more than one alternative. These principles have led to 

selection of a set of preferred alternatives that will avoid disturbance to the historic Buckman 

townsite, minimize visual impacts on viewers from White Rock overlook and along Buckman 

Road, and avoid creating new utility corridors. The letter accompanying the DEIS describes the 

sets of actions comprising the preferred alternative in detail. 
ii Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Review Comments: Reviewers should submit their comments during the 60-day review period for 

this draft EIS so they may be considered in the decisionmaking process. The Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management will consider all comments received and will respond to substantive 

comments in the final EIS (40 CFR §1503.4). Those who submit substantive comments during the 

comment period will be eligible to appeal the project decision under Forest Service appeal rules (36 

CFR §215) and BLM appeal rules (43 CFR, Part 4). Reviewers must structure their participation in 

the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful. Environmental objections 

that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of 

the final EIS. Comments on the draft EIS should be specific, address the adequacy of the EIS or 

merits of the alternatives, along with supporting rationale (40 CFR §1503.3). 

Comments on this draft EIS must be received or postmarked within 60 days of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. 

Send comments to: Sanford “Sandy” Hurlocker 

P.O. Box 3307 

Espanola, NM 87533 

 Phone: (505) 753-7331 

E-mail: comments-southwestern-santafe-espanola@fs.fed.us 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project iii 

Contents 

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1

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

Location .....................................................................................................................................1 

Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................1 

Overview of Proposed Project ...................................................................................................2 

Decisions to Be Made ................................................................................................................2 

Public and Agency Involvement ................................................................................................2 

Issues..........................................................................................................................................3 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study ....................................................4 

Alternatives Considered, Including the Proposed Action ..........................................................5 

Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements .................................................................9 

Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................10 

Chapter 1 • Purpose of and Need for Action and Background.................................................17

Location ...................................................................................................................................17

Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................................17

Overview of Proposed Project .................................................................................................19

Decisions to Be Made ..............................................................................................................21

Relation to Other Plans Including Land Management Plans ...................................................21

Public Involvement Including Interagency Cooperation .........................................................23

Issues........................................................................................................................................25

Permits and Agency Approvals Required ................................................................................26

Chapter 2 • Proposed Action and Alternatives ..........................................................................29

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study ..................................................29

No Action Alternative ..............................................................................................................30

Proposed Action.......................................................................................................................31

Sediment Separation Facility Alternatives...............................................................................51

Pipeline Alternatives ................................................................................................................54

Power Upgrade Alternatives ....................................................................................................56

Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements ...............................................................59

Permits Required for Project Implementation .........................................................................67 

Comparison of Alternatives .....................................................................................................69 

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ..................................81

Considerations for Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................81

Land Tenure and Use ...............................................................................................................83

Surface Water Resources..........................................................................................................89

Ground Water.........................................................................................................................111

Biological Resources .............................................................................................................119

Special Status Species............................................................................................................129

Cultural Resources.................................................................................................................144

Recreation Resources and Traffic ..........................................................................................152

Scenic Resources ...................................................................................................................161

Noise ......................................................................................................................................171

Air Quality .............................................................................................................................176

Geology and Soils..................................................................................................................178

Social and Economic Resources ............................................................................................181

Environmental Justice............................................................................................................190

Unavoidable Adverse Effects.................................................................................................192

Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments ..........................................................192
Contents 

iv Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity ...................................192

List of Preparers and Document Distribution .........................................................................193

List of Preparers.....................................................................................................................193

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of 

 the DEIS are Made Available..........................................................................................195

References Cited .........................................................................................................................199

EIS Index.....................................................................................................................................203

List of Tables 

1 Buckman project resource requirements ..............................................................................33 

2 Maximum annual and peak-day usage for the Buckman Project .........................................50 

3 Distribution of expected maximum monthly average diversions .........................................50 

4 Sediment facility alternatives ...............................................................................................52 

5 Raw Water Pipeline Alternative............................................................................................55 

6 Treated Water Pipeline Alternatives .....................................................................................56 

7 Above Ground Power Alternative AGP1..............................................................................59 

8 Comparison of the direct and indirect effects of the 

Proposed Action and its alternatives.....................................................................................69 

9 Summary of reservoir data....................................................................................................91 

10 Estimated average monthly diversions ...............................................................................106 

11 Cumulative effects of the Buckman Well Field on the regional aquifer.............................116 

12 Comparison of direct and cumulative effects to surface water resources...........................118 

13 Santa Fe County special status plants and animals that could occur 

within the project area ........................................................................................................130 

14 Potential effects to Santa Fe County special status plants and animals 

 that could occur within the project area..............................................................................136 

15 Amount of native water removed .......................................................................................140 

16 Elligible archaeological sites identified during field survey of the project area 

 and buffer zones..................................................................................................................148 

17 ROS existing conditions .....................................................................................................155 

18 Effects to ROS conditions from Proposed Action and alternatives ....................................158 

19 VRM classes and management objectives..........................................................................162 

20 Definition of terms and corresponding levels of existing scenic conditions 

 between the Visual Management System and the Scenery Management System ..............163 

21 Measured Leq and estimated Ldn noise levels ...................................................................172 

22 Estimated noise levels at various distances from future booster facilities (Ldn)................174 

23 Santa Fe County and sub-area population, 1990 and 2000.................................................181 

24 Rental units, Santa Fe County ............................................................................................182

25 Population projections, 2010 ..............................................................................................182 

26 Housing projections, 2010..................................................................................................183 

27 Total employment and annual average wages, by industry, Santa Fe County, 2001 ..........185 
Contents 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project v 

List of Figures 

1 Location of facilities for the Proposed Action and alternatives...........................................8 

2 Vicinity map ......................................................................................................................18 

3 Location of water diversion, pipeline, and pumping facilities for the Proposed Action ...20 

4 Photographic simulation of the project site showing conditions before and 

 after construction of the diversion, view from the opposite riverbank..............................34 

5 Photographic simulation of the project site showing donditions before and 

 after construction of the diversion, view looking downstream .........................................35 

6 Schematic illustration of how a cofferdam works .............................................................36 

7 Photograph illustrating how a cofferdam was used on a different project ........................36 

8 Sketch of typical booster station .......................................................................................39 

9 Photograph of existing steel water tank at Booster Station 1 ............................................40 

10 Schematic layout for City/County water treatment plant ..................................................42 

11 Visual simulation of County and City water treatment plant ............................................42 

12 Site of administration building for City and County water treatment plant at the 

 municipal recreation complex ...........................................................................................43 

13 Visual simulation of administrative building for City and County water 

 treatment plant at the municipal recreation complex.........................................................43 

14 Buckman Road map showing areas of possible improvements ........................................44 

15 Visual simulation of proposed Buckman Road improvements showing 

 gravel surface and road dip channel crossing....................................................................46 

16 Sediment facility associated with the Proposed Action 

and Sediment Facility Alternative SF1..............................................................................53 

17 Sediment Facility Alternatives SF2...................................................................................54 

18 Treated Water Pipeline Alternatives ..................................................................................57 

19 Location of power upgrade facilities for Proposed Action and Alternative AGP1............60 

20 Photographic simulation of power lines associated with Alternative AGP1b ...................61 

21 Photographic simulation of proposed substation and power line at MRC WTP...............62 

22 Photographic simulation of substation for connection to existing line 

 along Caja del Rio Road, associated with AGP1a.............................................................63 

23 Monthly average streamflows in Rio Chama below Abiquiu Dam...................................94 

24 Maximum daily flows at the Otowi Gage, 1900-2000 ......................................................94 

25 Average monthly flow (cfs) at Otowi Bridge 1900 - 1962 and 1963 - Sep 2001..............95 

26 Average seasonal flow (cfs) at Otowi Bridge, Jan 1963 - Sep 2001 .................................95 

27 Turbidity data recorded at Otowi Bridge (Jan 1990 – Sep 2001)......................................98 

28 Suspended sediment data recorded at Otowi Bridge (Jan 1990 – Sep 2001) ....................99 

29 City of Santa Fe existing water supply system..................................................................99 

30 Water demand for current and projected future conditions (showing City’s 

 upper demand estimate for 2010)....................................................................................101 

31 Flood zone designation in the vicinity of the proposed Buckman Diversion, 

 where Zone A indicates the 100-yr flood zone boundary................................................102 

32 Projected offsetting requirements in 2060 in the Rio Grande and tributary flows..........105 

33 Proposed diversions as a percent of monthly flow at 

Otowi Bridge (Jan 1963 – Sep 2001) ..............................................................................109 

34 Proposed diversions as a percent of seasonal flow at Otowi 

Bridge (Jan 1963 – Sep 2001) .........................................................................................109 

35 Simulated drawdown from Buckman Wells 1-8 in 2000, ground water layer 4..............114
Contents 

vi Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

List of Acronyms 

ac — acre 

ac-ft/yr — acre-feet per year 

AQB — Air Quality Bureau 

BBER — Bureau of Business and Economic Research 

BLM — Bureau of Land Management 

BOR — Bureau of Reclamation 

BS — Booster Station 

Buckman Project — Buckman Direct Diversion Project 

CDM — Camp, Dresser & McKee 

CEQ — Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR — Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs — cubic feet per second 

City — City of Santa Fe 

CO — carbon monoxide 

County — Santa Fe County 

dB — decibels 

DO — dissolved oxygen 

EIS — Environmental impact statement 

EPA — Environmental Protection Agency 

FEMA — Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FICUN — Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise 

Forest Plan — Santa Fe National Forest Plan, 1987 

FS — USDA Forest Service 

ft — feet 

gpm — gallons per minute 

ISC — Interstate Stream Commission 

Las Campanas — Las Campanas Limited Partnership 

Ldn — average noise level day and night 

Leq — equivalent noise level 

Leq dBA — weighted average noise levels 

LC — Las Campanas 

MCL — Maximum Contaminant Level 

MCLG — Maximum Contaminant Level Goals 

mgd — million gallons per day 

mg/L — milligrams per liter 

mm — millimeter 

MRC — Municipal Recreation Complex 

MRGCD — Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District 

msl — mean sea level 
Contents 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project vii 

NAAQS — National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAWQA — National Water Quality Assessment 

NEPA — National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA — National Historic Preservation Act 

NMDGF — New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

NMED — New Mexico Environment Department 

NMFRO — New Mexico Fisheries Resource Office 

NMNHP — New Mexico Natural Heritage Program 

NO2 — nitrogen dioxide 

NOI — Notice of Intent 

NPDES — National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRHP — National Register of Historic Places 

NTU — Nephelometric Turbidity Unit 

O3 — ozone 

O&M — operation and maintenance 

OHV — off-highway-vehicle 

OSE — Office of State Engineer 

Pb — lead 

PL — Public Law 

PM — particulate matter 

PNM — Public Service Company of New Mexico 

PUC — Public Utilities Committee 

RMP — Taos Resource Management Plan, 1998 

ROS — Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

ROW — right-of-way 

RWP — raw water pipeline 

SF — Sediment Facility 

SHPO — State Historic Preservation Officer 

SMS — Scenery Management System 

SO2 — sulfur dioxide 

SPNM — Semi-Private Non-Motorized 

SWPPP — Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

SWRP — Southside Water Reclamation Plant 

TCP — traditional cultural properties 

TDS — total dissolved solids 

TSS — total suspended solids 

TWP — treated water pipeline 

USACE — U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USFWS — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS — U.S. Geological Survey 
Contents 

viii Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

VMS — Visual Management System 

VQO — Visual Quality Objectives 

VRM — Visual Resource Management 

WTP — water treatment plant 

WWTP — wastewater treatment plant 

YR — year
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 1 

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

This draft environmental impact statement (EIS) documents an analysis of the effects of a 

proposal to divert water from the Rio Grande to meet certain near-term water supply needs. The 

analysis has been conducted in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The proposed Buckman Water Diversion Project (Buckman Project) is designed to address the 

immediate need for a sustainable means of accessing water supplies for the applicants, the City of 

Santa Fe, New Mexico (City), Santa Fe County (County), and Las Campanas Limited Partnership 

(Las Campanas). Most of the water to be diverted would be derived from the San Juan-Chama 

Project, which is a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) inter-basin water transfer project that 

supplies water from the greater Colorado River basin to the Rio Grande basin through a tunnel 

system. The remainder would be native water rights owned by the parties and diverted from the 

Rio Grande. The project would be located in large part on lands administered by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (FS) and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM), who are serving as co-lead agencies for this EIS. BOR and the City 

and County are serving as cooperating agencies. 

Location 

The proposed point of diversion is located on the east bank of the Rio Grande in northern New 

Mexico, near the historic Buckman townsite. The proposed diversion site is about 15 miles 

northwest of the City of Santa Fe. It is located about 3 miles downstream from where Route 4 

crosses the Rio Grande at the Otowi Bridge, which is where streamflow data have been recorded 

by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for more than a century. In addition to the diversion, the 

project would involve treatment and conveyance of water through pipelines that would generally 

follow roads and existing utility corridors. Water would be conveyed through these proposed 

pipelines to Las Campanas as well as the City and County. 

Purpose and Need 

As demonstrated by drought conditions in 1996, 2000, and 2002, continuing water shortages in 

the City and County resulted in a critical and immediate need for water. To meet this need, the 

applicants are seeking sustainable means of accessing surface water supplies that would use the 

applicants’ water rights by diverting San Juan-Chama Project water and native Rio Grande water 

while reducing their reliance on over-taxed ground water resources. 

The Buckman Well Field, a group of ground water wells located near the river in the vicinity of 

the Buckman site, is currently being used to access existing water rights in order to provide water 

to the City and County water service areas and Las Campanas. However, the well field cannot 

provide a reliable and sustainable source of water. Well yields have been reduced; ground water 

levels near the well field have undergone substantial declines; and depletions of nearby streams 

could cause limitations to pumping. At current well production levels, undesirable consequences 

to ground water levels and continued depletion of nearby streams are expected to occur unless an 

alternate reliable water supply is found. 

In addition to ground water concerns, storage levels in the City’s two surface water reservoirs 

located on the Santa Fe River, a tributary of the Rio Grande, fluctuate widely depending on 

seasonal and annual runoff conditions and potable water demand. These reservoirs receive surface 

water runoff from the Santa Fe Canyon watershed above the City. Overall Santa Fe River 
Executive Summary 

2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

reservoir capacities cannot provide the necessary dependability to provide the water quantities 

needed to sustain the Santa Fe region during drought conditions. 

Overview of Proposed Project 

The proposal would allow the construction and operation of the Buckman Project on public lands 

managed by the FS, BLM, and Santa Fe County. The City and County and Las Campanas have 

each submitted permit applications requesting the use of these lands for this water diversion 

project. The Buckman Project would involve the diversion of San Juan-Chama water, which is 

released from storage in upstream reservoirs, and native Rio Grande water. The Buckman Project 

is proposed to be designed and constructed with the capacity necessary to meet the City’s and 

County’s near-term needs for water through the year 2010, and Las Campanas’ needs through 

community build out, based on various physical, technical, and environmental limitations. 

Decisions to Be Made 

The analyses presented in this document, coupled with public, agency, and tribal comments 

received following its release as a public draft EIS, will provide the basis for decisions by the 

joint lead agencies. The forest supervisor for the Santa Fe National Forest and the Taos Field 

Office manager for BLM will decide to authorize or not authorize implementation of the project 

on lands under their stewardship. The Forest Service will make decisions about facilities on 

Forest Service administered lands, including the diversion structure and the sediment handling 

facility. The BLM will make decisions about certain pipeline routes and power upgrade locations. 

Decisions about pipelines and other features that will involve both the Forest Service and BLM 

will be made jointly. A decision other than the No Action Alternative would include approval to 

proceed with implementation of the Proposed Action or the incorporation of alternative features 

that include sediment handling alternatives, pipeline routing alternatives, and a power upgrade 

alternative. Any alternative could include mitigation and monitoring measures. 

Public and Agency Involvement 

The lead agencies and applicants have initiated and facilitated an open and collaborative process 

for agency and public involvement. The process included formal public scoping and a variety of 

formal and informal channels of communication. Regular coordination with affected or interested 

agencies and applicants will also be part of the process. Following publication of the draft EIS, 

hearings will be held to allow agencies, organizations, and the public to comment on the draft 

EIS. 

Meetings have been held with representatives of various agencies and special interest groups. The 

lead agencies welcome cooperation with other agencies and organizations and are willing to 

consider scheduling additional meetings upon request. In addition, in accordance with the 

requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the revised 36 CFR 800 

regulations of Section 106, Executive Order 13084, and Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, tribal consultation occurs early and throughout the NEPA process 

through tribal consultation letters initiated on August 5, 2002. Followup consultation will be 

scheduled with any tribal organizations that express interest in the project. In addition, the tribal 

consultation process will continue through the public review phase following distribution of the 

draft EIS. 
Executive Summary 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 3 

The formal public scoping process was implemented with the July 22, 2002, “Federal Register” 

publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an EIS. The NOI was an invitation to 

interested parties to submit suggestions on the scope of the analysis. The NOI also provided 

information on how to participate and contribute to the final decision regarding the proposed 

project and alternatives. In addition, the project was posted on the Schedule of Proposed Actions 

on the Forest Service Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/sfe/.

The scoping process included internal scoping of issues amongst the lead agencies, applicants, 

and other affected agencies, as well as public scoping. The lead agencies formally solicited 

comments from the public on August 20, 2002 and August 29, 2002, at public scoping meetings 

held at the Sweeney Convention Center in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Following the scoping 

meetings, a tour of the project area was organized by the lead agencies. Any interested parties, 

including representatives of other agencies, organizations, or the public were invited to 

participate. The tour was conducted on October 16, 2002. The formal public scoping process was 

concluded on September 5, 2002, with the exception of comments received during the tour. 

One hundred and thirty-seven public scoping comments were received. The majority of 

comments were in 6 categories each having 10 or more comments. These categories were: water 

resources; purpose and need for the proposed action; infrastructure; biological resources; 

cumulative impacts of the proposed action; and alternatives to the proposed action. 

Issues 

Issues are defined as concerns of the potential effects from the proposed project. The lead 

agencies’ interdisciplinary team, along with interested agencies and the public, identified issues 

for this project during the scoping process. The collaborative scoping process was also used to 

identify which issues should be emphasized or de-emphasized in order to narrow the scope of the 

EIS in accordance with NEPA regulations. Issues are considered to be key issues if there is a 

potential that the impacts of a proposal cannot be avoided by applying standard mitigation 

measures. 

The following key issues receive the primary focus of attention in this document: 

• Land Tenure and Use – The project would require new facilities and pipeline corridors 

to be constructed and operated on Federal lands managed by the BLM and FS. 

Construction of pipelines on Las Campanas land could have some temporary effects of 

property and traffic within the community. In addition, some BLM and FS lands would 

be dedicated for use by the City, County, and Las Campanas, thus unavailable for other 

public activities. 

• Water Resources – The project would have some effects on water flows in the Rio 

Grande; there would also likely be a beneficial effect on local ground water tables in the 

area, in that the new facilities would reduce reliance on wells for local water supplies. 

• Biological Resources – The project would result in some loss of habitat due to 

construction and operation of facilities. Potential effect on fish and aquatic habitats below 

the proposed project site due to effects on water flow are very minimal. No adverse 

effects to special interest or protected species are expected including possible 

consequences to the Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus), a species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act as endangered. 
Executive Summary 

4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

• Cultural Resources – Construction of project facilities could have some effect on the 

historic, prehistoric, or Native American resources in the affected area. In particular, the 

site of the historic Town of Buckman, which has been determined eligible for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places, could be affected by the Proposed Action. 

• Scenic Resources – The project would have some effect on the scenic resources within 

the proposed project area. The water diversion structure and associated infrastructure 

would be partially visible from the White Rock Overlook. In other project areas, the 

water diversion infrastructure would be visible from roadways and selected viewpoints. 

In addition, improvements to Buckman Road would result in moderate visual contrasts 

with the existing landscape characteristics from curve straightening, dip sections, and 

gravel surfacing. 

Other issues include air quality, environmental justice, geology and soils, noise, recreation and 

traffic, and socioeconomics. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study 

Many alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study because they would not 

meet the stated purpose and immediate near-term need for a sustainable means of accessing water 

supplies for the applicants. Coupled with the need for surface water access through diversion of 

San Juan-Chama Project water and native Rio Grande water is the requirement to reduce reliance 

on over-taxed ground water resources. Additionally, it should be noted that this proposed project 

has an independent utility from the City and County’s long-term water management strategy, 

which could consider different water diversion locations and other water management options. 

Alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis are briefly summarized below. 

• Additional Ground Water Pumping – Additional ground water pumping was 

considered, however, it would not meet the purpose and need for the project. During 

drought conditions, and concurrent with depleted storage levels in the McClure and 

Nichols Reservoirs, the Buckman Well Field could not be relied upon to provide a 

sustainable water supply. Therefore, additional ground water pumping does not meet the 

purpose and need for the project. 

• Other Surface Water Diversions – Other surface diversion sites were considered, 

however, primarily because of time considerations, they would not meet the purpose and 

need for the project, which includes a critical and immediate need for increased water 

supplies. The applicants conducted numerous studies of water diversion alternative 

locations. Site selection criteria included consideration of time required to implement, 

engineering feasibility, minimizing the need for new facilities, use of existing rights-ofway (ROWs), and economics. Using these selection criteria, only one of five sites—

Buckman—passed the screening process. The four other potential sites initially 

considered did not meet the schedule requirements, and each had problems meeting one 

or more of the other selection criteria. 

• Water Conservation – Water conservation measures have been implemented to combat 

drought conditions, but it was determined that water conservation measures alone would 

not meet the purpose and need for the project. Water conservation is a necessary 

component of overall water management. Formal water conservation plans are already 

required for the continued use of water rights and for future water rights applications to 

the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. The Federal government also requires a 
Executive Summary 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 5 

water conservation plan for all water contracted under a Federal program e.g., San JuanChama waters. Conservation measures are already an integral part of a water 

management strategy and during times of water supply shortages, additional water 

supplies would still be necessary. Therefore, this alternative does not meet the purpose 

and need for the proposed project. 

• Alternative Technologies – Several alternative technologies were considered but 

disregarded because they did not meet the needs of the individual applicants. Many 

possible configurations exist that were not evaluated in detail. Examples include an 

alternative configured with one water treatment plant to serve both the City/County needs 

as well as the potable water requirements of Las Campanas; various pipeline 

configurations; and pumping river water directly to the water treatment facilities without 

sediment removal. These alternatives were not considered in detail but disregarded 

because they do not meet the needs of the individual applicants, or because they offer a 

variation of an alternative considered in detail without responding to a substantial issue. 

Alternatives Considered, Including the Proposed Action 

No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would mean that the Buckman Project would 

not be permitted. The Buckman Well Field would continue to be used to access existing water 

rights and to provide water to the City/County water service areas and the Las Campanas 

community. However, the well field would not provide a reliable and sustainable source of water 

due to declining well yields, substantial reductions in ground water levels near the well field, and 

potential limitations to pumping due to depletion of nearby streams. Other means of achieving the 

goal of accessing the surface water would likely be pursued. The applicants would continue to 

develop long-term water management strategies. However, the planning horizon on these efforts 

is about 10 years and it is not likely that these long-term strategies would be useful in addressing 

the near-term drought protection needs. 

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives. The Proposed Action would include many 

elements that are common to all action alternatives. Improvements to Buckman Road and the 

locations of most major facilities associated with the Proposed Action would be common to all 

action alternatives. Project elements where differences occur are in the sediment removal 

facilities, some pipeline routings and power upgrades. A sediment facility associated with the 

Proposed Action and two alternative sediment facilities are being considered. In addition, a raw 

water pipeline and several treated water pipeline routes are being considered as is a power 

upgrade alternative. In the discussions of the alternatives that follow the Proposed Action 

description, the related features of the Proposed Action are first described as a basis for 

comparison. 

Proposed Action. The facilities necessary to implement the Proposed Action include a diversion 

structure on the eastern bank of the Rio Grande, sediment separation facilities, booster stations, 

storage and treatment facilities, water conveyance pipelines, Buckman Road improvements, and 

power upgrades. The locations of facilities associated with the Proposed Action and other 

alternatives are illustrated on Figure 1. The raw water pipelines from the point of diversion would 

be located within existing utility easements that parallel or use Buckman Road on BLM lands, 

with smaller segments on FS, County, State, and private lands. From Buckman Road, within 

BLM lands, the City and County raw water pipeline would branch off in a southerly direction 

utilizing approximately 4 miles of existing ROWs that are adjacent to unimproved maintenance 
Executive Summary 

6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

roadways. The City and County pipeline would terminate at a proposed water treatment plant 

adjacent to Caja del Rio Road. The Las Campanas raw water pipeline would proceed 

southeasterly, approximately 5 miles within an existing ROW to its terminus at Las Campanas. 

Road improvements along Buckman Road would be necessary to provide for the safe operation of 

construction and project vehicles. Buckman Road is a hard packed dirt road with numerous ruts 

and limited line of sight in some areas. Roadway improvements would consist of adding a gravel 

base, construction of roadside drainage ditches, roadway straightening in areas with limited line 

of sight, and the construction of low water crossings at some streambed locations. 

Two new water treatment plants would be required, where the raw water would be processed to 

safe drinking water standards. The Las Campanas treatment plant would be located on Las 

Campanas land and operated by Las Campanas. The City and County treatment plant would be 

located on BLM land leased to the City, just west of Caja del Rio Road. New treated water 

pipelines would be installed from the treatment plants to convey water into the existing Las 

Campanas and City and County water distribution systems. 

Estimated water diversion quantities used for analysis in this document are based on annual 

demand projections that extend to the year 2010 for the City and County, while the demand for 

Las Campanas is projected through community build out (1,717 homes). These projections 

translate to approximately 8,730 acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr), currently estimated to be 5,230 acft/yr for the City; 1,700 ac-ft/yr for the County; and 1,800 ac-ft/yr for Las Campanas. The 

proposed diversion facility is sized for a combined net peak diversion of approximately 28.2 

cubic feet per second (cfs), which meets the combined peak needs of the City, County, and Las 

Campanas. 

Sediment Facility Alternatives. The sediment facility location for the Proposed Action would be 

in close proximity to the Rio Grande and constructed on the historic Buckman townsite. This area 

is within the viewshed of the river and riverside visitors, and is readily visible from the 

observation platform in White Rock Overlook Park. Construction and operation would occur on 

the historic Buckman townsite. Several alternatives were developed in response to these viewshed 

and cultural resource issues. All alternatives would involve mechanical (vortex) separators to 

remove the sand particles greater than 0.1-mm from the diverted river water. 

• Sediment Facility Alternative SF1 – For this alternative the facilities would be the same 

as for the Proposed Action, but the location would be different. In order to minimize 

effects to the viewshed and the Buckman townsite, Sediment Facility Alternative SF1 

was developed. This alternative would move the sedimentation facility southeast of the 

proposed location and generally out of sight from area visitors and observers at White 

Rock Overlook Park. The location would be entirely off the Buckman townsite. 

• Sediment Facility Alternative SF2 – Sediment Facility Alternative SF2 was developed 

as a contingency plan should EPA not issue a sediment return discharge permit under the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. This alternative would require trucking 

out sediment for disposal at the Caja del Rio Landfill. 

Under this alternative there would be no sediment return line from the Rio Grande Sediment 

Facility to the Rio Grande. The sand would be discharged to lined ponds for storage and drying. 

Based on estimated sediment loading of the material coarser than 0.1 mm, plus an additional 5 

percent entrapment of smaller sediments, two lined ponds would be required. Each pond would 

be about 75 feet by 150 feet by 8 feet deep. One pond would be in operation, receiving sand from 
Executive Summary 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 7 

the vortex separators, while the other would be used for storage and drying. Dried sand would be 

removed and transported by truck approximately 20 miles for disposal at the Caja del Rio 

Landfill. 

Pipeline Alternatives. Alternatives are being considered for two segments of the Proposed 

Action pipelines. For the Proposed Action, two raw water pipelines are being considered between 

the river and the second booster station, one for conveying water to Las Campanas and the other 

for conveying water to the City and County. A single pipeline is being considered as an 

alternative. In addition, three alternatives are being considered for the 18,113-foot treated water 

pipeline that would run from the proposed City/County water treatment plant (WTP) at the 

Municipal Recreation Complex (MRC) to existing Booster Station 3. 

• Raw Water Pipeline Alternative – This alternative would involve substituting a single 

pipeline for a double pipeline from the booster station near the river up to the next 

proposed booster station, located near Dead Dog Stock Well along Buckman Road. This 

alternative is being considered for reasons that include reduced disturbance of two 

cultural sites in the utility ROW, less cost, and reduced ground and habitat disturbance 

associated with construction. 

• Treated Water Pipeline Alternatives – Three treated water pipeline alternatives are 

being considered that involve different alignments of the northern water transmission line 

for treated water between the proposed City/County WTP at the MRC and the City’s 

existing Booster Station 3. These alternatives are being considered for reasons that 

include minimizing destruction/replacement of the County roadway in Las Campanas, 

lessening traffic disruptions, and use of a shorter, less costly pipeline alignment, and 

possibly even affecting property values. Other reasons include reduced commitment of 

BLM land and the precedent for long-term commitment of some new lands to utility uses. 

Power Upgrade Alternatives. Preliminary estimates from the Public Service Company of New 

Mexico (PNM) indicate that power loads associated with the Buckman Project would accelerate 

the need for planned power upgrades in the area. The power upgrades associated with the 

Proposed Action include facilities along Buckman Road, the existing Buckman transformer 

substation, located across from Booster Station 2, and a new 12.47 kV underground power line 

within a utility corridor between Booster Stations 2/2A and the river. In addition, the Proposed 

Action includes a new substation that would be constructed adjacent to the proposed MRC WTP. 

A new above ground 115 kV power line segment less than one-half mile in length would be 

required to connect the new substation to existing 115 kV above ground lines in the area. The 

final color of any new substation would require approval from the BLM. 

• Power Upgrade Alternatives AGP1a and AGP1b – Alternative AGP1 would involve 

two primary differences from the Proposed Action. Under Alternative AGP1a, a new 

substation would be located under or adjacent to the existing 115 kV line which currently 

crosses Caja Del Rio Road. A new underground 12.47 kV (4 wires for each circuit) line 

approximately 200 to 400 feet long would run east from the new substation and connect 

to the existing underground distribution system that runs along Caja Del Rio Road. A 

second new underground line would run west from the existing distribution system within 

the proposed right-of-way for the access road to the WTP, approximately one-half mile. 

Alternative AGP1b would require an upgrade of the existing Buckman transformer 

station (as with the Proposed Action). Under Alternative AGP1b, an above ground 12.47 
Executive Summary 

8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Figure 1. Location of facilities for the Proposed Action and alternatives.
Executive Summary 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 9 

kV power line from the Buckman transformer station, near Booster Station 2/2A, to the 

river route would be built as an alternative to the buried 12.47 kV line. 

As with the Proposed Action, the final color of the upgraded Buckman transformer 

station and new substation would be approved by BLM. 

Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements 

Mitigation measures and monitoring requirements are summarized below. Except where specific 

alternatives are referenced, these measures would apply to all alternatives, including the Proposed 

Action. Regardless of which alternative is selected, mitigation would be incorporated into the 

project to reduce the severity of any potential environmental consequences. Specific details about 

how these measures would be implemented and who would be responsible for their 

implementation would be specified in the implementation plan. The implementation plan would 

be prepared with assistance from government agency personnel following a Record of Decision 

on the project, if it is decided to proceed with any alternative other than the No Action 

Alternative. 

Land Tenure and Use. Based on a potential increase in visitor use to this area resulting from 

proposed upgrades to Buckman Road, visitor use would be monitored. Prior to construction and 

after construction is complete, agencies will evaluate the magnitude of increased visitation, and 

the FS and BLM will take actions to manage visitation as needed to protect the resources and 

facilities in the area. 

Water Resources. Placement of a cofferdam in the river that would surround and isolate the 

construction area would serve to mitigate most direct effects on turbidity during construction of 

the water diversion structure. Design criteria, which would restrict or eliminate withdrawals at or 

below minimum flow thresholds would mitigate possible reductions to the lowest flows and 

associated impacts to aquatic habitat. Residual offsets for ground water depletion from past 

pumping would need to be implemented as mitigation for switching to the surface diversion. 

Biological Resources. A native plant revegetation and nonnative invasive plant species control 

program would be required to mitigate the effects of vegetation removed during construction. 

Placement of a cofferdam in the river that would surround and isolate the construction area would 

serve to decrease turbidity during construction of the water diversion facility; thus limiting and 

mitigating the potentially adverse effects to aquatic fauna. A pre-construction survey for special 

status avian fauna would be conducted at the water diversion site along the Rio Grande, booster 

station and water treatment locations, and the selected pipeline routes. Depending upon the 

survey data, a mitigation plan would be developed at that time and specific mitigations, if any, 

would be based on the survey findings. To ensure long-term revegetation success, a monitoring 

program would be conducted to assess revegetation success and evaluate recolonization by 

nonnative invasive plant species. 

Cultural Resources. Effects to cultural resources would be mitigated through implementation of 

the following practices. Archaeological sites would be avoided where possible. Fencing would be 

placed around sites near the construction area, but not subject to direct affect, to protect them 

from inadvertent intrusion by construction equipment and personnel. Additionally, a qualified 

archaeological monitor would be present during all construction excavation and surface 

modifications within known and potential site areas. If previously unknown subsurface cultural 

deposits are discovered, construction activities in the area would halt and the agency would 
Executive Summary 

10 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

determine appropriate treatment in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO). Archaeological sites that could not be avoided during construction would have 

archeological testing or data recovery efforts conducted prior to construction. Subsurface sites 

discovered during construction activities would also undergo testing or data recovery treatment. 

Archaeological data recovery would be conducted in compliance with a formal data recovery plan 

approved by the involved agencies and the SHPO. Standard erosion control measures would be in 

effect during construction activities. All workers conducting construction activities would be 

educated regarding cultural resources in the project area, appropriate avoidance measures, and 

associated restrictions per federal statutes. In addition to the measures implemented during the 

construction phase, interpretive signage that explains the history of the Buckman area, through 

text and pictures, would be offered to Los Alamos County for placement at the White Rock 

Overlook Park viewing platform. 

Scenic Resources. Visual effects would be mitigated through implementation of a number of 

measures that would be specified in the implementation plan, including: (1) design of structures, 

selecting color and texture of building surfaces and roofing materials to complement or match the 

surrounding native soils or vegetation; (2) siting buildings to take advantage of terrain, where 

feasible, to screen from view; (3) using chain link fences color-bonded to match the predominant 

natural colors in the area (i.e., brown) and reduce reflectivity of metal; (4) undulating edges of 

sediment ponds or other measures to break up rectilinear lines that do not match the natural 

surroundings; (5) coloring concrete in the diversion intake structure and Buckman Road low 

water crossings to match the surrounding area—for example, using darker tones to blend in better 

and reflect less light; and (6) using appropriate building materials based on setting for generating 

traffic signs and posts. 

Soils. Erosion control measures would be designed in compliance with the requirements for 

preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Implementation of the SWPPP 

would mitigate the potential effects of construction activities. These measures would be designed 

to minimize or avoid the loss of soil, prevent the establishment or exacerbation of rill and gullies, 

and minimize potential water quality deterioration from sheet erosion that could result from 

construction and roadway runoff. Trees, one-seeded juniper and piñon pine, that are removed 

during construction would be mulched and spread throughout the construction disturbance areas 

to protect and minimize soil loss. The techniques used would consist of mulching and/or a lop 

and scatter of larger diameter material such as branches and tree trunks to prevent or minimize 

sheet erosion. 

Environmental Consequences 

Environmental consequences associated with the alternatives, including the Proposed Action, 

were evaluated in thirteen resource areas. Environmental consequences as related to the key issue 

areas are summarized below. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of No Action 

The environmental consequences to land tenure and use, water resources, biological resources, 

cultural resources, and scenic resources associated with No Action are discussed below. 

Land Tenure and Use. There were no effects to land tenure and use identified under the No 

Action Alternative. 
Executive Summary 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 11 

Water Resources. The No Action Alternative would result in continued depletion of the aquifer 

in the Buckman area and the flows of the Rio Grande and its tributaries. The City would continue 

to be required to offset depletions with releases of San Juan-Chama water into the Rio Grande 

and by retiring native water rights owned by the City in the two tributaries and the Rio Grande. 

The No Action Alternative would not affect sediment transport and deposition, water quality, or 

flooding in the Rio Grande or its tributaries, since flows in the river would not change. However, 

the near-term demand for water in the region would not be satisfied by the current supply system. 

The applicants would seek other water rights and other methods for meeting the projected 

demand. 

Biological Resources. There were no effects to biological resources identified under the No 

Action Alternative. 

Cultural Resources. There were no effects to cultural resources identified under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Scenic Resources. There were no effects to scenic resources identified under the No Action 

Alternative 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

The environmental consequences to land tenure and use, water resources, biological resources, 

cultural resources, and recreation and scenic resources associated with the Proposed Action are 

discussed below. 

Land Tenure and Use. Fifty-nine acres would be permanently affected due to the improvements 

to Buckman Road, construction of the diversion structure, sediment facility booster stations, 

water treatment plants, and associated infrastructure. Special use and ROW permits would need 

to be issued. The construction and operation of the proposed new PNM substation near the MRC 

WTP would remove 2 acres of grazing land from one grazing lease resulting in a slight effect. 

However, because the proposed facilities are approved under existing management plans and 

agreements, and most of the land disturbance would occur along existing utility corridors where 

current land use is similar to the proposed land use, there would be minimal effects to land tenure 

and use under the Proposed Action. In addition, development would not occur as a result of the 

level of improvement measures for Buckman Road. 

Water Resources. The Proposed Action is not expected to have noticeable effects on surface 

water resources, either during construction or once it is operational. Generally, with the project in 

place, the effect on average flows in the Rio Grande would be less than 1 percent. Of that 1 

percent effect, at least two-thirds and likely more would be associated with diversion of water 

imported to the Rio Grande from the inter-basin San-Juan Chama Project. In addition, the project 

would have little measurable effect on water quality and essentially no effect on flooding or flood 

potential. There would be a beneficial effect on water use in the region. The Proposed Action 

would indirectly affect water rights in that the County would be required to acquire water rights 

in order to fully use the diversion, and Las Campanas would be required to extend their leased 

rights. The Proposed Action would result in less reliance on ground water for local water 

supplies, and would have a beneficial effect on local ground water resources. Ground water 

models predict that the depressed ground water levels near the Buckman diversion site would 

rebound over a time period of several decades, possibly as much as 100 feet in some areas. There 

would be no changes to ground water quality. 
Executive Summary 

12 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Biological Resources. The Proposed Action would result in the permanent loss of approximately 

59 acres of vegetation. Additionally, modification or clearing of vegetation for facility work area 

construction boundaries and preparation of the pipeline corridors would temporarily affect an 

additional 247 acres. For these areas temporarily disturbed, the vegetation would be reestablished 

through the native plant revegetation program. 

During site clearing activities and the actual construction event, direct mortality could occur for 

less mobile species (reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals). No species population would be 

adversely affected. The 59 acres converted to Buckman Road improvements, facilities, and other 

infrastructure would be permanently lost as potential predator hunting habitat and foraging or 

hiding cover for other wildlife species. There would be a concurrent decrease in quality of the 

habitat immediately adjacent to the facilities due to increased noise levels, traffic, lights, and 

other human activity. The adjacent habitat also would experience a loss of quality from the 

reduction in size, segmentation of the habitat, and restriction on mobility for some species. These 

effects would be minor and no species population would be adversely affected. 

During cofferdam construction and demolition, localized increases in turbidity would occur. 

Aquatic fauna in the area would be temporarily affected during these activities. There could be 

limited, localized impacts from sediment returned to the river. The very localized impacts to 

aquatic habitat would have no measurable impact to fish or macroinvertebrate communities in the 

immediate project area. 

A project-specific search of the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program database did not reveal 

any records of currently listed special status species in the proposed project area. Sixteen special 

status species were identified that have potential occurrence or habitat within the construction 

areas. Project construction and operations are not expected to adversely affect any population of a 

special status species. One species, Rio Grande silvery minnow, while not occurring in the area, 

could experience an effect from the proposed diversion of native Rio Grande water. However, the 

Buckman Project’s commitment to use native flows during nonpeak times and the design of the 

Buckman water diversion structure to not allow water diversion at flows 150 cfs or less coupled 

with the regional mitigation measures would serve to avoid an adverse effect to the silvery 

minnow population. 

Cultural Resources. The historic town of Buckman and the Denver and Rio Grande railroad 

grade would be physically disturbed by the sediment facility, Booster Station 1A, road 

improvements, raw water pipeline, return flow pipeline, gas pipeline, and power line 

construction. Two additional sites would be disturbed by the raw water pipeline and power line 

south of Buckman. Three sites would be disturbed by the treated water pipeline. The existence of 

cultural resources within the project area for the above ground power line near the MRC WTP is 

currently unknown. However, it is likely that construction impacts to resources could be avoided 

through careful placement of structures away from any identified resources. Visual and audible 

effects to the townsite of Buckman would occur. Vandalism, illegal artifact collecting, and 

inadvertent harm to all sites could occur. There has been no response by Indian tribes to requests 

for consultation regarding the presence of traditional cultural properties and sacred sites in the 

project area. 

Scenic Resources. Construction activities would be noticeable by site users and visitors to the 

White Rock Overlook Park observation platform. These effects would be short term. The water 

diversion structure and associated infrastructure would be within the foreground view of river 
Executive Summary 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 13 

users (boaters) and site visitors, and could be seen at a distance from the White Rock Overlook 

Park observation platform. After vegetation is reestablished, the facility would not be readily 

apparent to the site visitor or viewshed observers at White Rock Overlook Park. Boaters would be 

aware of the structure as they proceed past, but due to the design, it would be compatible with the 

river environment and not introduce a highly discordant element into the riverscape. The 

Buckman Booster Station 1A and sedimentation facility would be apparent to the casual site user 

and viewed from White Rock Overlook. However, construction of these facilities at the old 

townsite of Buckman using historical architecture that is compatible with the landscape character 

would maintain the historical and cultural context. 

Buckman Road improvements, including surfacing with gravel, would increase the reflectivity of 

the road and introduce a different color element to existing conditions. Buckman road would 

become even more apparent to the casual viewer. Generally, existing utility corridors and booster 

station locations would be used which would serve to minimize impacts to the scenic 

environment. Once plants are re-established, pipeline corridors would blend in with existing 

conditions. Pump station architecture that blends into the surrounding landscape would serve to 

minimize the visual effect of additional structures. 

The proposed MRC water treatment plant (WTP) would be designed to blend into the 

surrounding landscape. Thus, it would not be readily evident to a distant viewer after successful 

vegetation reestablishment. However, the proposed above ground power line to the MRC and the 

proposed power substation at the MRC would have visual effects. The final color of the 

substation would be approved by BLM. The level of change to the foreground-middle ground 

perspective would be moderate due to the extent and prominence of the water treatment facilities, 

Buckman Road improvements, and associated infrastructure. Effects to scenic resources would be 

compliant with FS and BLM standards. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Sediment Facility Alternatives 

The environmental consequences to land tenure and use, water resources, biological resources, 

cultural resources, and scenic resources associated with the sediment facility alternatives are 

discussed below. 

Land Tenure and Use. Alternative SF1 would require a new pipeline corridor for the return flow 

pipeline. Alternative SF2 would require a greater amount of truck traffic than the Proposed 

Action. 

Water Resources. For Alternative SF1, the effects on water resources would be the same as for 

the Proposed Action. For Alternative SF2, the maximum diversion would be reduced from 32 cfs 

to 28.2 cfs; however, since there would be no return flow for sand re-injection, the net diversion 

would still be 28.2 cfs under peak withdrawal conditions. Therefore, the effects on streamflow 

would be nearly identical to those for the Proposed Action. The effects of sedimentation and 

water quality would be even less than the minimal effects described for the Proposed Action. 

Flooding and ground water effects for either sediment facility alternative would be the same as 

those described for the Proposed Action. 

Biological Resources. The sediment return line for Alternative SF1 would be longer compared to 

the Proposed Action resulting in the short-term disturbance of approximately 3 additional acres of 

plant and animal habitat. Short-term wildlife effects from construction of a return pipeline would 

be avoided under Alternative SF2. Alternative SF2 would result in episodic and increased truck 
Executive Summary 

14 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

traffic that could result in short-term wildlife avoidance of the Buckman Road corridor. However, 

the effects would be negligible and of short duration as wildlife populations would habituate to 

changes in road traffic. Under Alternative SF2 there would be no return of sediment to the Rio 

Grande. Thus, the potential effects identified for sediment return consequences under the 

Proposed Action would not occur. The effects on special status species would be the same as 

those associated with the Proposed Action for all sediment facility alternatives. 

Cultural Resources. Alternative SF1 would remove the disturbance to the Buckman townsite 

caused by the Proposed Action’s sediment facility and Booster Station 1A. Alternative SF1 would 

also have less of a visual and audible effect on the Buckman townsite. Alternative SF2 would 

remove the disturbance to the Buckman townsite caused by the Proposed Action’s sediment 

facility, Booster Station 1A, and the return flow pipeline. Alternative SF2 would have less of a 

visual and audible effect on Buckman than the Proposed Action, but more of an effect than 

Alternative SF1 due to the presence of haul trucks nearby. 

Scenic Resources. Alternatives SF1 and SF2 would place the sediment facility substantially out 

of the White Rock Overlook viewshed, and the facilities would not be visual to Rio Grande 

boaters or other visitors to the river front area. Thus, effects to visual resources would be greatly 

reduced. Alternative SF2 would require trucking out the sediment and require two sediment 

storage ponds. Drying sediment would be a different color than the surrounding environment and 

would be noticeable from some higher elevation viewing locations. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Pipeline Alternatives 

The environmental consequences to land tenure and use, water resources, biological resources, 

cultural resources, and scenic resources associated with the pipeline alternatives are discussed 

below. 

Land Tenure and Use. Alternative RWP1 would reduce disturbance of land because only one 

trench would be dug instead of two. Alternatives TWP1 and TWP2 would require the creation of 

a new utility corridor for a portion of their lengths. Alternative TWP3, while longer, would use 

existing utility corridors and have no effect on land tenure and use. In addition, a ROW would be 

issued for any pipeline crossing agency land. 

Water Resources. Effects on water resources for all pipeline alternatives would be the same as 

those discussed for the Proposed Action. 

Biological Resources. Alternative TWP3 would require approximately 10 acres more than the 

Proposed Action but would occur in an existing utility corridor. Construction would occur entirely 

in existing utility line ROWs, thereby avoiding degradation to plant communities and animal 

habitat. The effects on aquatic communities would be the same as for the Proposed Action for all 

pipeline alternatives. The effects on special status species would be the same as for the Proposed 

Action for all pipeline alternatives. 

Cultural Resources. Alternative RWP1 would reduce the extent of physical disturbance to 

Buckman townsite and the railroad grade. Alternative TWP1 would affect one site. Alternative 

TWP2 would affect no sites. Alternative TWP3 would cross the railroad grade four times. 

Scenic Resources. Alternative TWP1 would require the construction and operation of the treated 

water return line in a new utility corridor along BLM and Las Campanas lands. Alternative TWP2 
Executive Summary 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 15 

would install the treated water return line back along the Dead Dog well corridor and then cut 

east in a new utility corridor to Booster Station 3. Alternative TWP3 would use the existing utility 

corridors to deliver the treated water. Construction and establishment of a new pipeline corridor 

(Alternatives TWP1 and TWP2) would affect the local viewshed by introducing a straight-line 

swathe and bare ground. Even with revegetation, the new corridor would be noticeable in the 

short term until vegetation is re-established. Development of a new corridor could encourage 

changes to and increased recreation use in the area and subsequent degradation to the natural 

viewshed. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

The environmental consequences to land tenure and use, water resources, biological resources, 

cultural resources, and scenic resources associated with the power upgrade alternative are 

discussed below. 

Land Tenure and Use. The effect on land tenure and use would be the same as for the Proposed 

Action for Alternative AGP1. No effects to grazing would result from the construction and 

operation of the new substation along Caja del Rio Road. Approximately 1.8 additional acres 

(based on a 30-foot-wide corridor) of land would be disturbed for the power line connection 

between the existing power source and the MRC WTP; however, the power line would be located 

within an existing ROW and, therefore, would not change land tenure and use. 

Water Resources. The effects on ground water would be the same as for the Proposed Action for 

the power upgrade Alternative AGP1. 

Biological Resources. Alternative AGP1 effects would be similar to the Proposed Action for the 

power upgrades. Between Booster Station 2/2A and the river, disturbance would be similar to the 

Proposed Action. Once in place the 12.47 kV overhead lines could provide additional raptor perch 

sites between Booster Station 2/2A and the river. 

Cultural Resources. The above ground power line between the Buckman substation and the river 

would result in physical disturbance of the Buckman townsite, but the extent of disturbance 

would be greatly reduced from the Proposed Action. Visual effects to the Buckman townsite from 

the above ground power line would be greater than the upgrade for the Proposed Action. 

Scenic Resources. Alternative AGP1 would require an upgrade of the existing Buckman 

transformer station and construction and operation of a new substation approximately 1 mile 

southeast of the MRC WTP, adjacent to an existing power line along Caja del Rio Road. The 

substation would be in the viewshed of some houses present along Caja del Rio Road. Under 

AGP1a an existing buried power line would be used to supply power from the new substation to 

the MRC WTP. Therefore, transmission lines under AGP1a would not be apparent to visitors and 

residents along Caja Del Rio Road. Under AGP1b, overhead power lines from the proposed 

diversion intake site to Booster Station 2A would be apparent to site visitors and introduce a 

discordant visual element into the landscape. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 17 

Chapter 1 • Purpose of and Need 

for Action and Background

This draft environmental impact statement (EIS) documents an analysis of the effects of a 

proposal to divert water from the Rio Grande to meet certain near-term water supply needs. The 

analysis has been conducted in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The proposed Buckman Water Diversion Project (Buckman Project) is designed to address the 

immediate need for a sustainable means of accessing water supplies for the applicants, the City of 

Santa Fe, New Mexico (City), Santa Fe County (County), and Las Campanas Limited Partnership 

(Las Campanas). Most of the water to be diverted would be derived from the San Juan-Chama 

Project, which is a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) inter-basin water transfer project that 

supplies water from the greater Colorado River basin to the Rio Grande basin through a tunnel 

system. The remainder would be native water rights owned by the parties and diverted from the 

Rio Grande. The project would be located in large part on lands administered by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (FS) and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) who are serving as co-lead agencies for this EIS. BOR and the City 

and County are serving as cooperating agencies. 

Location 

The proposed point of diversion is located on the east bank of the Rio Grande in northern New 

Mexico, near the historic Buckman townsite. The proposed diversion site is about 15 miles 

northwest of the City of Santa Fe (Figure 2). It is located about 3 miles downstream from where 

Route 4 crosses the Rio Grande at the Otowi Bridge, which is where streamflow data have been 

recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for more than a century. 

In addition to the diversion, the project would involve treatment and conveyance of water through 

pipelines that would generally follow existing roads and utility corridors. Water would be 

conveyed through these proposed pipelines to Las Campanas as well as the City and County. 

Purpose and Need 

As demonstrated by drought conditions in 1996, 2000, and 2002, continuing water shortages in 

the City and County resulted in a critical and immediate need for water. To meet this need, the 

applicants are seeking sustainable means of accessing surface water supplies that would use the 

applicants’ water rights by diverting San Juan-Chama Project water and native Rio Grande water 

while reducing their reliance on over-taxed ground water resources. 

The Buckman Well Field is currently being used to access existing water rights in order to 

provide water to the City and County water service areas and Las Campanas. However, the well 

field cannot provide a reliable and sustainable source of water. Well yields have been reduced; 

ground water levels near the well field have undergone substantial declines; and depletions of 

nearby streams could cause limitations to pumping. At current well production levels, undesirable 

consequences to ground water levels and continued depletion of nearby streams are expected to 

occur unless an alternate reliable water supply is found. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action and Background 

18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Figure 2. Vicinity map. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action and Background 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 19 

In addition to ground water concerns, storage levels in the McClure and Nichols Reservoirs 

fluctuate widely depending on seasonal and annual runoff conditions and potable water demand. 

These reservoirs receive surface water runoff from the Santa Fe Canyon watershed above the 

City. Overall Santa Fe River reservoir capacities cannot provide the necessary dependability to 

provide the water quantities needed to sustain the Santa Fe region during drought conditions. 

Estimated water diversion quantities used for analysis in this document are based on annual 

demand projections that extend to the year 2010 for the City and County, while the demand for 

Las Campanas is projected through community build out (1,717 homes). These projections 

translate to approximately 8,730 acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr), currently estimated to be 5,230 acft/yr for the City; 1,700 ac-ft/yr for the County; and 1,800 ac-ft/yr for Las Campanas. The 

proposed diversion facility is sized for a combined net peak diversion of approximately 28.2 

cubic feet per second (cfs), which meets the combined peak needs of the City, County, and Las 

Campanas. 

The Buckman Project has an independent utility from the long-term water management strategy 

of the City and County. While this project could have some additional incidental benefits beyond 

addressing near-term water shortages exacerbated by drought conditions, it is being proposed 

because of water shortages created by drought conditions and concerns regarding the reliability 

and sustainability of the Buckman Well Field. This proposal would not foreclose consideration of 

any alternatives that might be evaluated in connection with the City and County’s longer-term 

water management strategy. The proposed project is also independent of current emergency 

efforts by the City to drill four supplemental wells in the Buckman Well Field to provide an 

immediate emergency water supply in times of drought. 

In addition to the need for the water diversion, conveyance and treatment facilities that make up 

the project, there would be a need for upgrades to Buckman Road and to the existing power 

supply infrastructure. Buckman Road would be used to service the diversion and other related 

facilities. It is an unimproved dirt and gravel road that is badly rutted in certain areas. The road 

would be improved to a more uniform gravel surface with better drainage. The power 

infrastructure would need to be upgraded to provide adequate power to the pumping stations and 

treatment facilities that are part of the project. 

Overview of Proposed Project 

The proposal would allow construction and operation of the Buckman Project on public lands 

managed by FS, BLM, and Santa Fe County. The City, County and Las Campanas have each 

submitted permit applications requesting the use of these lands for this water diversion project. A 

brief overview of the project is provided below; a more complete description is provided in 

Chapter 2 of this document. 

The proposed locations of major facilities are illustrated in Figure 3. The Buckman Project would 

involve the diversion of San Juan-Chama water, which is released from storage in upstream 

reservoirs, and native Rio Grande water. The Buckman Project is proposed to be designed and 

constructed with the capacity necessary to meet the City’s and County’s near-term needs for water 

through the year 2010, and Las Campanas’ needs through community build out, based on various 

physical, technical, and environmental limitations. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action and Background 

20 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Figure 3. Location of water diversion, pipeline, and pumping facilities for the Proposed Action. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action and Background 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 21 

The facilities necessary to implement this project include a diversion structure on the eastern bank 

of the Rio Grande, sediment separation facilities, booster stations, storage and treatment facilities, 

water conveyance pipelines, extension of a natural gas distribution pipeline, an electrical 

substation, and power transmission and distribution lines (115 kV and 12.47 kV). The raw water 

pipelines from the point of diversion would be located within existing utility easements that 

parallel or use Buckman Road on BLM lands, with smaller segments on FS, County, State, and 

private lands. From Buckman Road, within BLM lands, the City and County raw water pipeline 

would branch off in a southerly direction utilizing approximately 4 miles of existing rights-ofway (ROWs) that are adjacent to unimproved maintenance roadways. The City and County 

pipeline would terminate at a proposed water treatment plant approximately one-quarter mile 

from Caja del Rio Road. The Las Campanas raw water pipeline would proceed southeasterly, 

approximately 5 miles within the existing ROW to its terminus at Las Campanas. 

Two new water treatment plants would be required for processing the raw water to safe drinking 

water standards. The Las Campanas treatment plant would be located on Las Campanas land and 

operated by Las Campanas. The City and County treatment plant would be located on BLM land 

leased to the City, just west of Caja del Rio Road. New treated water pipelines would be installed 

from the treatment plants to convey water into the existing Las Campanas and City and County 

water distribution systems. 

Decisions to Be Made 

The analyses presented in this document, coupled with public, agency, and tribal comments 

received following its release as a public draft EIS, will provide the basis for decisions by the 

joint lead agencies. The forest supervisor for the Santa Fe National Forest and the Taos Field 

Office manager for BLM will decide to authorize or not authorize implementation of the project 

on lands under their stewardship. The Forest Service will make decisions about facilities on 

Forest Service administered lands, including the diversion structure and sediment handling 

facility. The BLM will make decisions about certain pipeline routes and power upgrade locations. 

Decisions about pipelines and other features that will involve both Forest Service and BLM 

administered lands will be made jointly. A decision other than the No Action Alternative would 

include: 

• Approval to proceed with implementation of the Proposed Action or the incorporation of 

alternative features that include sediment handling alternatives, pipeline routing 

alternatives, and a power upgrade alternative. 

• Mitigation and monitoring measures. 

Relation to Other Plans Including Land Management Plans 

The Buckman Project would involve construction on lands administered by the FS and BLM. The 

1987 Santa Fe National Forest Plan (Forest Plan), as amended, sets forth broad, programmatic 

management direction for the national forest. BLM’s 1988 Taos Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) specifies approved land uses on BLM lands. This EIS is a project-level analysis, designed 

to be in conformance with the applicable Forest Plan and RMP management directions, goals, and 

standards/guidelines. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action and Background 

22 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Forest Plan 

The forest-wide goals, standards, and guidelines from the Forest Plan that apply to this project are 

primarily those regarding protection of cultural resources, wildlife habitat, and water and soil 

resources, and are hereby incorporated by reference. The project was also designed to conform 

with the area-specific Forest Plan direction that applies to this management area, Management 

Area G. Emphasis in this management area is on key wildlife habitat protection, habitat 

improvement, and forage and firewood production. Contiguous with Management 

Area G, and in close proximity to the proposed diversion structure, is Management Area L. 

Management of Area L focuses on maintaining semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation 

opportunities and providing the user with a moderate to high probability of experiencing isolation 

from the sights and sounds of humans. 

Existing land uses in the project area include ranches, timber harvesting for firewood and small 

wood products, utility corridors and easements, water management (i.e., booster stations, wells, 

pipelines, drainages and flood control), rangeland/agriculture, and recreation/open space. In 

addition, the banks of the Rio Grande near the proposed diversion have been used for camping, as 

well as for activities such as hunting, fishing, picnicking, and swimming. The majority of the 

Buckman Project facilities would be constructed within existing utility or transportation corridors 

or easements and would not affect current land uses. 

Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan 

The BLM RMP provides a comprehensive framework for managing public lands and allocating 

resources using the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. The RMP establishes areas for 

limited, restricted, or exclusive uses, levels of production, allowable resource uses, resource 

condition objectives, program constraints, and general management direction. All uses and 

activities in the BLM Resource Area must conform to the RMP. The Taos Field Office grants 

ROWs, leases, and permits to qualified individuals, businesses, and government entities for the 

use of public lands. Protection of natural and cultural resources is considered in the granting 

process. 

Within the proposed project location, there are no special management areas or areas of critical 

environmental concern. The “El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail Draft 

Comprehensive Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement” addresses alternatives for 

the preservation and public use goals for the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic 

Trail (DOE 2002). The trail passes in close proximity to the Buckman Project area, but its 

preservation and associated public use goals would not be affected by the Proposed Action or its 

alternatives. The proposed Buckman Project is not in conflict with BLM’s RMP. 

Other Plans 

The applicants are signatories to a memorandum of understanding with the lead agencies and 

have agreed to coordinate and work cooperatively regarding land use requirements. The City and 

County land use requirements are governed by zoning ordinances and each has existing utility 

ROWs in the project area. The City and County are also working together to develop a strategy to 

meet the long-term water demands of their constituents. The Buckman Project is designed to meet 

near-term needs. A separate EIS is planned for a future project that would meet long-term needs. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action and Background 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 23 

If approved, the Buckman Project would provide the infrastructure needed to fully meet Las 

Campanas’ long-term water demands. The proposed infrastructure to be constructed on Las 

Campanas land would be compatible with existing zoning ordinances within the community and 

the specific plan for the Las Campanas development. 

Public Involvement Including Interagency Cooperation 

The lead agencies and applicants have initiated and facilitated an open and collaborative process 

for agency and public involvement. The process includes formal public scoping and a variety of 

formal and informal channels of communication. Regular coordination with affected or interested 

agencies and applicants is also a part of the process. Following publication of the draft EIS, 

hearings will be held to allow agencies, organizations, and the public to comment on the draft 

EIS. 

Coordination with Agencies and Other Organizations 

Meetings have been held with representatives of various agencies and special interest groups such 

as: 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Los Alamos National Laboratory 

• U.S. Department of Energy 

• Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety 

• Santa Fe Group of the Sierra Club 

• Pajarito Group of the Sierra Club 

• Alliance for the Rio Grande Heritage 

• Los Alamos County 

• City of Española 

• Bandelier National Monument 

• State Engineers Office 

• Jemez y Sangre Water Planning Council 

• Northern Pueblo Tributary Rights Association 

The lead agencies welcome cooperation with other agencies and organizations, and are willing to 

consider scheduling additional meetings upon request. 

Tribal Consultation 

In accordance with the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the 

revised 36 CFR 800 regulations of Section 106, Executive Order 13084, and Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, tribal consultation occurs early and throughout the 

NEPA process. Tribal consultation letters were mailed in 2002, by the FS to the Pueblo of Jemez, 

Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Juan, Pueblo of San 

Ildefonso, Pueblo of Santo Domingo, Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of Taos, Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo 

of Sandia, Pueblo of Cochiti, Pueblo of Santa Ana, Pueblo of Tesuque, Pueblo of Nambe, Pueblo 

of Zia, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of Santa Clara, and the Jicarilla Apache Nation. Followup 

consultation will be scheduled with any of these organizations that express interest in the project. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action and Background 

24 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

In addition, the tribal consultation process will continue through the public review phase 

following distribution of the draft EIS. 

The Scoping Process 

The formal public scoping process was implemented with the July 22, 2002, “Federal Registe” 

publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS. The NOI was an invitation to 

interested parties to submit suggestions on the scope of the analysis. The NOI also provided 

information on how to participate and contribute to the final decision regarding the proposed 

project and alternatives. In addition, the project was posted on the Schedule of Proposed Actions 

on the Forest Service Web site at http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/sfe/.

The scoping process included internal scoping of issues amongst the lead agencies, applicants, 

and other affected agencies, as well as public scoping. The lead agencies formally solicited 

comments from the public on August 20, 2002 and August 29, 2002, at public scoping meetings 

held at the Sweeney Convention Center in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Scoping was conducted in 

compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] 1501.7) and FS and BLM’s NEPA Handbook to accomplish the following: 

• Determine the scope and substantive issues that will be analyzed in depth in the 

environmental analysis. 

• Identify and eliminate from further detailed study issues that are not relevant or 

substantive or that are covered by prior environmental review. 

• Identify and eliminate from detailed study issues that are being evaluated in other 

environmental reviews. 

The scoping process was designed to actively seek and involve the many diverse communities 

interested or potentially impacted by the Buckman Project. The goal of scoping was to create an 

open and accessible decisionmaking process resulting in decisions that are technically sound, 

health and safety conscious, address public values and concerns, and give the public an 

opportunity to be involved in the decision. Invitations to participate in the public scoping 

meetings and requests for comments regarding the proposed project were sent to over 500 

Federal, tribal, State, and local agencies, organizations, and individuals. Additionally, a public 

scoping notice was published in the following newspapers: The Albuquerque Journal North; The 

Santa Fe New Mexican; The Los Alamos Monitor; and the Rio Grande SUN. Two radio stations 

were utilized to broadcast news of the scoping meetings: KRSN 1490 AM in Los Alamos and 

KBAC 104.1 in Santa Fe. KRSN 1490 also aired a pre- and post-scoping interview with project 

personnel. 

Following the scoping meetings, a tour of the project area was organized by the lead agencies. 

Any interested parties, including representatives of other agencies, organizations, or the public 

were invited to participate. The tour was conducted on October 16, 2002. 

The process has included bimonthly Public Utilities Committee (PUC) meetings in Santa Fe. 

These meetings have been attended by the public, members of special interest groups, and agency 

personnel. At PUC meetings, strategies for meeting future water needs, including the Buckman 

Project, have been presented and debated in a public forum. The schedules and agendas for PUC 

meetings are posted on the City’s Web site. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action and Background 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 25 

The formal public scoping process was concluded on September 5, 2002, with the exception of 

comments received during the tour. However, the lead agencies are encouraging public 

participation throughout the duration of the EIS process. To this end, a Web site 

(http://www.nm.blm.gov/www/tafo/ buckman_eis/buckman_index.html) has been established to 

provide project information. 

Public Scoping Comments 

One hundred and thirty-seven public scoping comments were received. The majority of 

comments were in 6 categories that each received 10 or more comments. These categories were: 

water resources; purpose and need for the proposed action; infrastructure; biological resources; 

cumulative impacts of the proposed action; and alternatives to the proposed action. 

A few comments received during the scoping process were determined to be outside the scope of 

the current analysis for the Buckman Project. These comments will receive no further attention in 

this EIS; however, they may be considered by the City and County in their efforts to develop 

long-term strategies for meeting future water demands. Long-term strategies could include other 

surface water diversion projects or ground water projects. The comments considered to be out of 

scope included a proposal to pipe the water directly to Nichols Reservoir, a proposal to convey 

water directly from Abiquiu Reservoir, and a proposal for installation of monitoring wells around 

the wastewater treatment plant to detect contaminants that could have migrated from known 

hazardous waste sources. 

Issues 

Issues are defined as concerns for the potential effects from the proposed project. The lead 

agencies’ interdisciplinary team, along with interested agencies and the public, identified issues 

for this project during the scoping process. The collaborative scoping process was also used to 

identify which issues should be emphasized or de-emphasized in order to narrow the scope of the 

EIS in accordance with NEPA regulations (1500.4[g]). Issues are considered to be key issues if 

there is a potential that the impacts of a proposal cannot be avoided by applying standard 

mitigation measures. This section lists the key issues (analyzed in detail in Chapter 3), along with 

several other issues that are important but of less significance. 

The following key issues receive the primary focus of attention in this document: 

• Land Use and Tenure –The project would require new facilities and pipeline corridors 

to be constructed and operated on Federal lands managed by the BLM and FS. 

Construction of pipelines on Las Campanas land could have some temporary effects to 

property and traffic within the community. In addition, some BLM and FS lands would 

be dedicated to use by the City, County, and Las Campanas, thus unavailable for other 

public activities. 

• Water Resources – The project would have some effects on water flows in the Rio 

Grande; there would also likely be a beneficial effect on local ground water tables in the 

area in that the new facilities would reduce reliance on wells for local water supplies. 

• Biological Resources – The project could have some effect on fish and aquatic habitats 

below the proposed project site due to effects on water flow. In particular, any possible 

consequences to the Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus), a species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act as endangered, need to be addressed. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action and Background 

26 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

• Cultural Resources – Construction of project facilities could have some effect on the 

historic, prehistoric, or Native American resources in the affected area. In particular, the 

site of the historic Buckman townsite, which has been determined eligible for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places, could be affected by the Proposed Action. 

• Recreation and Scenic Resources – The project would have some effect on the scenic 

resources within the proposed project area. The water diversion structure and associated 

infrastructure would be partially visible from the White Rock overlook. In other project 

areas, the water diversion infrastructure would be visible from roadways and selected 

viewpoints. Buckman Road improvements could affect recreational access to the river 

and project area. 

Other issues include: 

• Traffic – The project would have some effect on traffic. Traffic effects would include 

short-term increases caused by construction traffic as well as minor longer-term increases 

during the operations phase. Buckman Road recreation traffic could be affected by road 

improvements. 

• Air Quality and Noise – Construction of project facilities would generate increases in 

ambient noise as well as dust and other emissions to the atmosphere. Operations would 

cause minor and localized increases in ambient noise levels. 

• Socioeconomics – Some jobs would be created from construction related and operation 

and maintenance requirements as a result of the proposed project. 

In addition to evaluating these issues, the environmental analysis assesses the potential effects 

that the proposed project could have on Indian Trust Assets, as well as assessing the potential 

effects that the proposed project could have on minority and low-income populations. Economic 

and land use impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives, as well as the No Action 

Alternative, are considered, as are other social considerations. Both direct and indirect impacts 

are considered, as are cumulative effects of the Buckman Project with other past and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects that could affect the area. 

Permits and Agency Approvals Required 

Prior to the start of construction of the Buckman Project facilities, several permits and approvals 

would be obtained. The approvals will include Congressional authorization for any Federal 

construction funds that could be required. Permits or authorizations that could be required before 

project implementation could include: 

• Consultation and concurrence with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the biological 

assessment, addressing listed species in accordance with Endangered Species Act 

regulations and Coordination Act Report approval. 

• Consultation and concurrence with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) regarding identification, evaluation, and determination of effect of the project on 

cultural resources to meet the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

• Consultation and permitting in accordance with the Clean Water Act, which could involve 

any or all of the following agencies: the New Mexico Environment Department, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 
Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action and Background 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 27 

A more complete list of Federal, State, and local temporary and permanent permits that could be 

required is provided in Chapter 2, “Permits Required for Project Implementation” of this 

document. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 29 

Chapter 2 • Proposed Action and Alternatives

The Proposed Action would involve the construction and operation of the Buckman Project on 

public lands managed by the FS and BLM in Santa Fe County, New Mexico. The project would 

include all pumping and pipeline facilities to enhance the water supplies of the three applicants: 

the City of Santa Fe, the County of Santa Fe and the community of Las Campanas. Alternatives to 

the Proposed Action include reconfiguration and/or relocation of various pumping facilities and 

pipelines, as well as a different method for handling sediments that would be entrained by the 

diversion. The No Action Alternative is described. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study 

Many alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study because they would not 

meet the stated purpose and immediate near-term need for a sustainable means of accessing water 

supplies for the applicants. Coupled with the need for surface water access through diversion of 

San Juan-Chama Project water and native Rio Grande water is the requirement to reduce reliance 

on over-taxed ground water resources. Additionally, it should be noted that this proposed project 

has an independent utility from the City and County’s long-term water management strategy, 

which could consider different water diversion locations and other water management options. 

Alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis are briefly summarized below. 

Additional Ground Water Pumping. Additional ground water pumping was considered, 

however, it would not meet the purpose and need for the project. During drought conditions, and 

concurrent with depleted storage levels in McClure and Nichols Reservoirs, the Buckman Well 

Field could not be relied upon to provide a sustainable water supply. Therefore, additional ground 

water pumping does not meet the purpose and need for the project. 

Other Surface Water Diversions. Other surface diversion sites were considered; however, 

primarily because of time considerations, they would not meet the purpose and need for the 

project, which includes a critical and immediate need for increased water supplies. The applicants 

conducted numerous studies of water diversion alternative locations. Site selection criteria 

included consideration of time required to implement, engineering feasibility, minimizing the 

need for new facilities, use of existing ROWs, and economics. Using these selection criteria, only 

one of five sites—Buckman—passed the screening process. The four other potential sites initially 

considered did not meet the schedule requirements and each had problems meeting one or more 

of the other selection criteria. Other sites considered as possible surface diversion locations are 

discussed in the following paragraphs. 

• San Ildefonso Area — This site is located on San Ildefonso Pueblo lands, upstream of 

the Otowi Bridge. The site has an existing water collection demonstration project in place 

that uses a system of horizontal collector wells. The ability for this site to meet the 

quantity and quality needs of the applicants is still under analysis. However, 6.5 miles of 

water pipeline in addition to the pipelines needed for the Proposed Action or its 

alternatives would be required to convey the water to the Buckman waterline ROW near 

Buckman Booster Station 2. Construction of the extra water pipeline would require 

crossing lands administered by the San Ildefonso Pueblo, BLM, State, and private lands. 

Because of administrative ROWs and environmental (land use, biological, and cultural 

resource effects) and technical (water quality and supply) considerations, this alternative 

would not meet the schedule requirements. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

30 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

• Caja del Rio Area — The area considered is an approximately 6-mile stretch of the Rio 

Grande in White Rock Canyon between the Soda Springs area downstream of Canada 

Ancha and the confluence of the Arroyo Montoso with the Rio Grande, upstream of 

Cochiti Lake. This site was eliminated from detailed study because of site accessibility 

issues, lack of existing studies supporting the potential yield and water quality, and 

requirement for a 10-mile-long corridor outside of existing ROWs on BLM and FS lands. 

• Cochiti Lake Area — This area consists of Cochiti Lake, extending from the dam 

several miles upstream and terminating near the confluence of the Arroyo Montoso. 

Approximately 12 miles of water pipeline would be required to tie into the south end of 

the City’s water distribution system. The pipeline route would require new ROWs and, in 

some areas, require construction in varying and difficult terrain. Depending upon 

location, the pipeline could cross Pueblo land and/or FS lands, followed by BLM and 

lands under private ownership. Substantial modifications to the City’s water distribution 

system would also be necessary. Therefore, this alternative was not considered as a viable 

short-term solution. 

• Pena Blanca Area — This area includes the reach of the Rio Grande approximately 1 

mile southwest of the community of Pena Blanca. Approximately 14 miles of new water 

pipeline ROW would be required to tie into the City’s southern water distribution system. 

New diversion facilities would have to be located on private lands, and the water pipeline 

would cross and require new ROWs on FS, BLM, and private lands. Substantial 

modifications would also be necessary to the City’s water distribution system. Therefore, 

this alternative was not considered as a viable short-term solution. 

Water Conservation. Water conservation measures have been implemented to combat drought 

conditions, but it was determined that water conservation measures alone would not meet the 

purpose and need for the project. Water conservation is a necessary component of overall water 

management. Formal water conservation plans are already required for the continued use of water 

rights and for future water rights applications to the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. 

The Federal government also requires a water conservation plan for all water contracted under a 

Federal program, e.g., San Juan-Chama waters. Conservation measures are already an integral 

part of a water management strategy and during times of water supply shortages; however, 

additional water supplies would still be necessary. Therefore, this alternative does not meet the 

purpose and need for the proposed project. 

Alternative Technologies. Several alternative technologies were considered. Many possible 

configurations exist that were not evaluated in detail. Examples include an alternative configured 

with one water treatment plant to serve both City and County needs as well as the potable water 

requirements of Las Campanas; various pipeline configurations; and pumping river water directly 

to the water treatment facilities without sediment removal. These alternatives were not considered 

in detail because they do not meet the needs of the individual applicants, or because they offer a 

variation of an alternative considered in detail without responding to a substantial issue. 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would mean that the Buckman Project would not be permitted. The 

Buckman Well Field would continue to be used to access existing water rights and to provide 

water to the City and County water service areas and the Las Campanas community. However, 

the well field would not provide a reliable and sustainable source of water due to declining well 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 31 

yields, substantial reductions in ground water levels near the well field, and potential limitations 

to pumping due to depletion of nearby streams. Other means of achieving the goal of accessing 

surface water would likely be pursued. The applicants would continue to develop long-term water 

management strategies. However, the planning horizon on these efforts is about 10 years and it is 

not likely that these long-term strategies would be useful in addressing the near-term drought 

protection needs. 

Proposed Action 

The facilities necessary to implement this proposal include a diversion structure on the eastern 

bank of the Rio Grande; a sediment separation facility; booster stations and pipes to move the 

water to the vicinity of its use; a natural gas pipeline; power lines (115 kV and 12.47 kV); and 

two water treatment plants (one located on private land and one located on land leased by the City 

from BLM) where the raw water would be treated to Safe Drinking Water Act standards. The 

project would also involve upgrades to some roads in the project area. 

Elements Common to All Alternatives 

The Proposed Action would include many elements that are common to all alternatives. The 

locations of major facilities associated with the Proposed Action are illustrated in Figure 3. These 

locations also generally apply to the other alternatives, with any deviations noted in the 

descriptions of the alternatives provided in Chapter 2, “Sediment Separation Facility 

Alternatives,” “Pipeline Alternatives,” and “Power Upgrade Alternatives.” Project elements 

where differences occur are found in the following features: 

• Sediment Separation Facility — A sediment separation facility associated with the 

Proposed Action and two alternative facilities are being considered. The discussion of 

sediment separation facility alternatives is presented in the section, “Sediment Separation 

Facility Alternatives” found later in this chapter. 

• Pipelines — Pipeline routes associated with the Proposed Action are illustrated in Figure 

3. Several possible alternative pipeline configurations are discussed and illustrated in the 

section, “Pipeline Alternatives” found later in this chapter. 

• Power Upgrades — Power upgrades associated with the Proposed Action would include 

installation of a new 12.47 kV underground power line that would generally be located 

within existing utility corridors. An alternative utilizing an above ground 12.47 kV power 

line is also considered, as discussed in the section, “Power Upgrade Alternatives” found 

later in this chapter 

The following sections, “Project Construction,” “Project Operation and Maintenance,” and 

“System Capacity and Flow Volumes” describe how the facilities associated with the Proposed 

Action would be constructed, operated, and at what capacity, respectively. Except where noted, 

these descriptions would also apply to the alternatives. Where differences in the alternatives 

would occur, they are noted and reference is made to the appropriate document section where 

information on the alternatives can be found. Key resource requirements for the project are 

summarized in Table 1. Except where indicated by footnotes, the data in Table 1 apply to the 

Proposed Action and the alternatives. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

32 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Project Construction 

In general, the project would involve substantial quantities of concrete, steel, pipe, and soil 

materials. These items would primarily be delivered from suppliers near Santa Fe but would also 

be shipped in from other areas of the United States. These materials would be delivered to the 

project location via trucks. 

Most construction activities would begin with clearing the area of vegetation and other 

obstructions such as large rocks. Where necessary, backhoes or excavators would be used to 

remove and stockpile soil. The construction contractors would be responsible for dust and 

sediment control and would likely employ numerous methodologies. It is anticipated that the 

contractor would use the application of water for dust control and construction of silt fences for 

sediment control. Further discussion of dust mitigation and other measures that would mitigate 

environmental consequences is provided later in this chapter. 

Access to all construction areas would be controlled with the use of temporary or permanent 

fencing. The immediate fencing would limit unnecessary disturbance outside the permanent 

facility boundary and prevent disturbance outside the temporary permit area. In general, trees 

would be avoided where possible. However, some trees within the project area would be marked 

for removal and chipping, removal and relocation, or protected and left in place. Tree removal 

would most likely involve trees in the riparian zone in the 0.4 acre area that would be occupied by 

the diversion or the surrounding 2 acres that would be temporarily disturbed. A few trees could 

also be disturbed along the pipeline corridors or at the booster station sites and other areas of 

disturbance shown in Table 1. Upon completion of construction, the disturbed areas would be 

revegetated according to approved vegetation plans. 

Diversion Structure. The diversion structure would be constructed on the southeast bank of the 

Rio Grande in the location shown on Figure 3. Photographic simulations of the site before and 

after construction of the diversion are provided in Figures 4 and 5. The length of river shoreline 

that would be affected would be approximately 40 feet. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 33 

Resource Requirements Diversion 

Facility

LC 

Pipelinesa

City/ 

County

Pipelinesa

MRC 

WTP

w/ BSs

LC

WTP

Sediment 

Facilitya

w/ BS 1A

Booster

Sta 2A

Booster

Sta 3A

Buckman 

Road

Total

All 

Facilities

Surface Area Disturbance (acres)

Area Permanently Affected

 - Area Occupied by New Facilities 0.4 8.5 0.0 15.0 0.2 0.4 1.0 0.1 22.0 48

 - Area Fenced or Converted to Other Uses 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 11

 - Total Area of Permanent Disturbance 0.4 8.5 0.0 25.0 0.3 0.4 2.0 0.3 22.0 59

Area of Temporary Disturbance 2.0 28.5 180.0 10.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.3 23.0 247

Total Affected Area 2.4 37.0 180.0 35.0 0.8 1.4 3.5 0.5 45.0 306

Temporary Cofferdam (In-Stream) 0.1

Construction Schedule

 - Duration of Construction (months) 5 9 13 24 10 10 10 10 12

 - Period of Peak Construction (months) 2 4 8 18 6 6 6 4 6

Work Force

 Construction Phase

 - Average Number of Workers 8 to 10 10 to 12 15 to 20 25 8 to 10 8 to 10 10 to 15 8 to 10 8 to 10 25

 - Peak Number of Workers 20 20 30 50 20 20 20 20 20 220

 Operations Phase Workforce 0 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 16

Construction Resources

 - Concrete (cubic yards) 200 50 1000 27000 500 350 400 100 50 29650

 - Steel (tons) 25 6 10 3,000 60 40 60 12 6 3219

 - Water use (gallons per day) 1,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 1,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 20,000 56000

Power Requirements

 Construction Phase

 - Average Load (kilowatts) 50 0 10 100 50 50 50 50 0 360

 - Peak Load (kilowatts) 250 0 20 500 100 100 100 100 0 1170

 Operations Phase

 - Average Load (kilowatts) 470 0 0 1,600 50 850 900 130 0 4,000

 - Peak Load (kilowatts) 900 0 0 3,025 100 1,600 1,700 250 0 7,575

Traffic

Construction Phase

 - Average daily truck trips (trips per day) 3 6 12 5 6 6 3 2 10 53

 - Peak daily truck trips (trips per day) 6 12 25 20 12 12 6 4 20 117

 - Haul Routes (miles) 20 15 15 15 10 20 15 12 15

Operations Phase

 - Staff / laborers (trips per day) 0.5 0.1 0 45 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.1 47.8

 - Truck Traffic (trips per month) 0.0 0.0 0 134 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 154

 - Haul Routes (miles) 20.0 15.0 0 3.5 10.0 20.0 0 12.0 15.0

Abbreviations: BS = Booster Stations, LC = Las Campanas, MRC = Municipal Recreation Center, WTP = Water Treatment Plant

a

 Areas of surface disturbance for these facilities will vary slighly for the alternatives.

Table 1. Buckman project resource requirements. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

34 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

After: Photo Simulation 

Figure 4. Photographic simulation of the project site showing conditions before and after 

construction of the diversion structure, view from the opposite riverbank. 

Before: Recent Photograph 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 35 

Figure 5. Photographic simulation of the project site showing conditions before and after 

construction of the diversion structure, view looking downstream. 

Before: Recent Photograph 

After: Photo Simulation 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

36 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Figure 7. Photograph illustrating how a cofferdam was used on a different project. 

Figure 6. Schematic illustration of how a cofferdam works. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 37 

A temporary, portable cofferdam would be placed in the streambed near the shore to divert water 

to the center and west sides of the river. The cofferdam would extend about 20 to 30 feet into the 

streamflow and would run 60 to 80 feet parallel to the shore. The total area of instream 

disturbance would be less than 0.1 acre. The cofferdam would be in place for about 5 months 

during periods of low flow in summer and autumn. With the cofferdam in place, the riverbed near 

the construction area would be dewatered and dried using surface pumps and well points. The 

riverbank area at the intake location would then be excavated and the material would be 

stockpiled. A diagram illustrating how a cofferdam works is provided in Figure 6. A photograph 

of a typical cofferdam at a different project site is provided in Figure 7. This photograph is not 

necessarily representative of conditions at the Rio Grande, but is provided to illustrate the visual 

character of a typical cofferdam. 

Ready-mix concrete trucks would deliver concrete to the site for placement into forms for the 

structure. After the concrete has set and the formworks removed, the screens would be installed 

into the diversion structure and the area around the structure would be backfilled with the 

previously excavated and stockpiled material using backhoes and compaction equipment. Any 

excess stockpiled materials would be used for fill in other construction locations or disposed of 

offsite. It is estimated that an area of approximately 2 acres would be temporarily disturbed 

during construction of the diversion structure and low-head pump station suction lines. Upon 

completion of the diversion structure construction, the temporary cofferdam would be removed 

and the riverbed would be restored to pre-construction conditions. 

In combination with the diversion structure construction, a low-head pump station, equipment 

vault, and piping would be constructed. The low-head pump station would be constructed of 

reinforced concrete, both below and partially above grade. The area would be excavated, 

materials stockpiled, and the area dewatered using well points and submersible pumps, as 

necessary. The concrete structure would be formed and concrete trucks would be used to deliver 

the concrete to the site. Concrete would be placed into the formwork for the structure. After the 

concrete work is completed and the forms removed, the area around the structure would be 

backfilled using previously excavated and stockpiled materials. The underground equipment vault 

would be constructed of reinforced concrete and concrete masonry units. Mechanical and 

electrical equipment along with the associated pipes and valves would be installed following 

completion of the reinforced concrete construction. 

Sediment Separation Equipment. A 1.4 mile, 20-foot-wide corridor along Buckman Road, with 

an area of 3.4 acres, would be disturbed for the extension of electric utilities and construction of 

the pipeline connecting the low-head pump station to the sediment separation equipment located 

within Booster Station 1A. Of this total area, facilities would occupy about 0.4 acre and the 

remainder could be reclaimed. 

Once operational, the sediment separation equipment would remove sediments from the water 

that is diverted from the Rio Grande. The finer silt and clay particles could be pumped through 

the system and removed at one of the water treatment plants. However, about 10 to 20 percent of 

the sediments would be coarser sand particles that would need to be removed from the water soon 

after diversion. Under the Proposed Action, these sand particles would be returned to the river 

along with a portion of the diverted water. The Proposed Action would involve mechanical 

(vortex) separation of sediments at a facility near the river. There are several possible methods for 

handling the sand disposition. Two sediment separation facility alternatives are discussed in the 

section, “Sediment Separation Facility Alternatives” later in this chapter. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

38 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Booster Stations. A total of five booster stations would be constructed to house pumps and other 

equipment that would move the water through the piping distribution system. Booster stations 

would occupy an area of about 2,500 square feet and would look similar to the booster stations 

that service the existing Buckman Well Field. Booster Stations 1A, 2A and 3A would be similar in 

appearance. Booster Stations 4A and 5A would be housed together in a single, slightly larger 

structure. The color and texture of building and roofing material would be selected to blend in as 

much as possible with the surroundings. Existing Booster Stations 1 through 4 are shown on 

Figure 3 along with the five proposed new booster stations, which are labeled 1A through 5A. A 

sketch of a typical booster station is shown in Figure 8. A steel water storage tank would be 

located near Booster Station 2A that would likely be similar in appearance to the existing tank at 

Booster Station 1 (Figure 9). 

Booster station sites would be surrounded with a permanent chain link fence. The area to be 

fenced at each booster station is indicated on Table 1. The fencing would limit unnecessary 

disturbance outside the permanent facility boundary during construction. An equipment staging 

and lay down area would be established in the area. All underground construction would be 

completed first, including installation of utility extensions and pipelines. Once operational, the 

fenced area would be accessible to maintenance vehicles only. 

The ground under the building would be over-excavated, prepared and backfilled to grade with 

processed materials excavated from the site. Excavation and compaction equipment including 

backhoes, graders and rollers would be used for moving earth and placement of fill. The pump 

supports and below grade piping would be installed and backfilled. A reinforced concrete slab 

would be formed and placed. Ready-mix concrete trucks would deliver the concrete to the site. 

After completion of the building slab, concrete masonry units and structural steel support 

members would be erected for the building structure. The finish work for the building, including 

roofing, electrical, and mechanical, would then be conducted. Installation of the mechanical 

equipment (booster pumps) would be accomplished with the use of a crane lifting and placing the 

pumps inside the building through access hatches in the roof. Final tasks would include the 

finishing and coating of the building, testing of the equipment, final site grading and placement of 

gravel surfacing along the roadways, revegetation, and landscaping as necessary. 

Pipelines. With the Proposed Action, a single pipeline would convey raw water to the sediment 

removal facility and Booster Station 1A. Two pipelines would convey water to Booster Station 

2A, one 36 inches in diameter and the other 16 inches in diameter. Two pipelines are needed to 

meet the different demands of the City/County and Las Campanas; however a single pipeline 

alternative from Booster Station 1A to 2A is also being considered as discussed in the section, 

“Raw Water Pipeline Alternative.” Because of the lower flow for Las Campanas, the smaller 

pipeline is most efficient for maintaining flow velocities that are sufficient to carry finer 

sediments that are not removed at the sediment removal facility, but will be removed at the water 

treatment plant. Several treated water pipeline alternatives are being considered to convey water 

from the treatment plants to the City, County and Las Campanas distribution systems, as 

discussed in the section, “Treated Water Pipeline Alternative.” 

Initial construction activities for all pipelines would include: permit applications, marking of 

existing buried utility locations, staking of proposed new pipeline alignment, installation of 

temporary fencing to control construction access, clearing vegetation within the ROWs, and other 

tasks necessary based upon environmental studies. Cement mortar lined ductile iron pipe, or other 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 39 

piping material, would be used for this application. The ductile iron pipe would be delivered to 

the site in 20-foot pipe lengths. The pipe would be stockpiled periodically along the length of the 

excavation as work progresses. A working width of 20 to 25 feet would be necessary but extra 

areas would be designated for vehicle access, pipe delivery, work progress, and vehicle 

turnarounds. The number of vehicle turnarounds would be limited to coincide with existing 

disturbed areas. 

The pipelines would be constructed by open-cut trench methods. It is assumed that the pipelines 

would be constructed with a minimum of 4 feet of cover below the finished ground surface. 

Therefore, a total excavation depth of 8 feet would be required to compact, place pipe bedding, 

install the pipe and place backfill over the pipe. Depending upon soil conditions, the trench may 

be sloped or trench boxes used. If the trench is sloped, the total trench would be approximately 17 

feet wide, but could vary by soil type for safety reasons. 

Heavy machinery would be used to complete the trenching, pipe installation, compaction, and 

backfill tasks. Completed areas would be graded to surrounding grades and cleaned up to preconstruction condition. The disturbed areas would be revegetated. 

Based upon an estimated total trench length for all pipe of 137,000 feet, nearly 200,000 cubic 

yards of soil would be excavated. The pipe bedding would be 1-foot deep and would require 

nearly 25,000 cubic yards of fill. Approximately 119,000 cubic yards of the excavated material 

could be used as pipe cover. Between 50,000 and 81,000 cubic yards of stockpiled soil would not 

be used as backfill and would either be used elsewhere or disposed of offsite. 

Figure 7. Sketch of Typical Booster Station 

Figure 8. Sketch of typical booster station. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

40 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

City and County Municipal Recreation Complex Water Treatment Plant. A water treatment 

plant (WTP) would be constructed at the Santa Fe Municipal Recreation Complex (MRC) (see 

Figure 3). The plan for the WTP is shown in Figure 10 and conceptual renderings of the WTP 

facility are shown in Figures 11 through 13. The conceptual renderings represent assumed 

architectural styles for the facilities and may not be true representations of the actual facilities. 

The construction of the WTP would require the most time of any facility. 

The existing gas line utility corridor access road between Caja del Rio Road and the proposed 

plant location would be upgraded for use as the MRC WTP access road. The upgrade (widening, 

road base, and asphalt paving) of the access road would commence immediately to provide a 

drivable surface for heavy equipment access as well as future solids and chemical truck traffic. 

The access road would be about one-half mile long and would be upgraded to county code, and 

the road corridor including drainage ditches would be about 32 feet wide. Substantial 

underground construction would be required within the treatment plant facility, including 

installation of construction and permanent utility extensions, process pipelines, and chemical feed 

lines. Buried and partially buried basins would require extensive excavation. 

Buildings and structures would be completed including all mechanical and electrical work. Final 

tasks would include the finishing and coating of the building and structures, testing of the 

equipment, final site grading and placement of final gravel and/or asphalt surfacing along the 

roadways, revegetation, and landscaping. The total area permanently disturbed by construction 

Figure 9. Photograph of existing steel water tank at Booster Station 1. 

~35’ 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 41 

would be approximately 25 acres, 20 acres enclosed within the fenced area for the treatment plant 

(of which about 10 acres would actually be occupied by new facilities), 2 acres for the access 

road, and up to 3 acres for utility extensions. About 10 additional acres could be temporarily 

disturbed and would need to be revegetated. 

Las Campanas WTP. The Las Campanas plant would be a packaged WTP that would involve 

only one 8,000-square-foot structure. The building construction would proceed similar to that of 

the booster station buildings. The total area disturbed during facility construction is 

approximately 1 acre. 

Buckman Road Upgrade. The existing Buckman Road or County Road 77, is a two lane, two 

way, rural dirt road that is badly rutted in places and has hard-pan areas where the gravel has been 

worn thin. The entire length of the road from NM 599 to the Rio Grande is approximately 15 

miles. A portion of the road (~5.8 miles) otherwise known as Camino La Tierra is paved from 

NM 599 to approximately 1,500 feet southeast of Buckman Well 13 as shown on Figure 14. Any 

future improvements to this paved section of the road would be done by Las Campanas. A 

preliminary conceptual road design study was conducted to evaluate the unpaved portion of 

Buckman Road, a length of a little more than 9.2 miles, and is incorporated by reference (Tierra 

Lopezgarcia Group, 2004). Cost estimates were prepared for four separate road improvement 

alternatives. These results and review comments from impacted agencies and concerned entities 

provided the necessary input for the final selection and recommendation of one alternative. The 

road study report identified this alternative as Alternative D. Existing road conditions were 

evaluated and curve deficiencies were identified. A computer engineer based program generated a 

conceptual road design based on the identified curve deficiencies. As a result, a number of 

estimated road improvements were identified by road segment as shown in Figure 14. 

The objective of the upgrade under the Proposed Action would be to maintain the existing rural 

nature of the roadway, but provide a more consistent gravel surface. The road would be upgraded 

in portions to safely accommodate anticipated construction and operations and maintenance 

traffic. It is estimated that traffic on the paved portion in Las Campanas would increase at a rate 

of 3 percent per year on Camino La Tierra (Tierra Lopezgarcia Group, 2004). 

In general, the road would consist of a 20-foot-wide driving surface, with concrete dip sections 

rather than culverts at drainage crossings. The construction of the concrete dip sections would 

require a color additive (tan) to be mixed in with the cement to help reduce any visual impairment 

with the natural environment due to these structures. A visual simulation is shown in Figure 15. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

42 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Figure 11. Visual simulation of City and County water treatment plant (not including PNM 

upgrades). 

Figure 10. Schematic layout for City and County water treatment (not including PNM 

power upgrades). 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 43 

Figure 12. Site of administration building for City and County water treatment plant at the 

municipal recreation complex. 

Figure 13. Visual simulation of administration building for City and County water 

treatment plant at the municipal recreation complex. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

44 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Figure 14. Buckman Road map showing areas of possible improvements. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 45 

Realignment of the roadway would be needed in certain areas to improve sight distance and to 

meet the needs of the road’s low design speed. This would include the installation of concrete dip 

sections, cut and fill activities to correct for curve deficiencies, installation of road signs for speed 

control and curve identification, and the installation of rip-rap for erosion control. Superelevation 

of the road would be limited to 4 percent. 

Road Segment 6 has a minimum number of improvements over a distance of 1.9 miles. Two 

concrete dip sections are estimated to be installed, cut and fill activities could occur at one 

location and up to five road signs could be installed. Road Segment 7 is approximately 3.9 miles 

in length. Up to three concrete dip sections and four curve improvements are estimated along 

Segment 7. In addition, the upper limit for cut and fill location improvements are 12 and 3, 

respectively. Finally, up to 12 road signs could be installed. Road Segment 8, also known as the 

Diablo Canyon area, is identified for having the most road improvements along an estimated 4.9 

miles. It is estimated that up to 23 concrete dip sections and 46 curve improvements could be 

needed in this area. The maximum number of cut and fill areas could be 13 and 10, respectively. 

Last, up to 27 signs could be necessary along Road Segment 8. Road Segment 9 is approximately 

0.4 mile in length and has the least number of estimated improvements. One concrete dip section, 

up to seven curve improvements and two road signs could be required along Road Segment 9. 

In addition, one location in Road Segment 8 is identified to be lower than the adjacent arroyo. 

The road would need to be raised and side slopes would need to be protected from erosion with 

wire-enclosed rip-rap. Approximately 1,100 feet of rip-rap would be installed along Road 

Segment 8 (see Figure 14). No other road segment is identified for rip-rap installation. From the 

sediment removal facility to the river, no permanent road improvements are proposed and the 

existing road surface would not be changed unless modifications are needed to allow access for 

construction equipment. 

A 6-inch crushed gravel base course would be applied and overlaid with a 6-inch compacted 

subgrade. Gravel would also be applied as needed to fill in ruts, and some areas may be regraded. 

The existing 9.2 mile road occupies about 20 acres of land. The new gravel road surface would 

occupy about 30 acres, and the improved drainage ditches alongside would occupy an additional 

12 acres. Therefore, the land surface that is permanently occupied by the road and drainage 

features would increase by 22 acres along the 9.2-mile roadway course and increase in width by 

about 10 feet on either side. Water trucks would travel on the roadway surface spraying water for 

dust control as often as twice daily depending on weather conditions. Traffic control planning 

would be important in allowing public and City water operations staff to access the entire length 

of Buckman Road. The adjacent pipeline construction area and temporary use areas would assist 

in providing alternative means around construction areas along the road. In limited locations, 

temporary use areas could be as wide as 200 feet. The area of temporary disturbance is estimated 

to be approximately 23 acres. Temporary erosion control measures would be installed along 

roadway areas to minimize erosion. Upon completion of construction activities, the disturbed 

areas would be returned to pre-construction condition and revegetated according to the approved 

revegetation plan. 

Power Requirements. Preliminary estimates from the Public Service Company of New Mexico 

(PNM) indicate that power loads on the existing electrical supply infrastructure near the proposed 

MRC WTP and along the Buckman Road corridor are nearing capacity. PNM already plans to 

upgrade infrastructure along Caja del Rio Road sometime in the future. However, construction of 

the proposed MRC WTP would require that upgrades be finished earlier than currently necessary. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

46 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

 

Figure 15. Visual simulation of proposed Buckman Road improvements showing gravel 

surface and road dip channel crossing. 

Before: Recent Photograph 

After: Photo Simulation 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 47 

For the Proposed Action, a new short segment of above ground 115 kV power line would be 

installed to connect existing above ground 115 kV lines to a new substation adjacent to the 

proposed MRC WTP. For the facilities along Buckman Road, the existing Buckman transformer 

station, located across from Booster Station 2, would be upgraded, and a new 12.47 kV buried 

cable would be installed along the entire reach between Booster Stations 2/2A and the river. This 

cable would be within the pipeline corridor identified for the action alternatives. An above ground 

power line along the same route is being considered as an alternative to the buried line. Further 

discussion of the proposed action for power upgrades and the above ground alternative is 

provided in the section “Power Upgrade Alternatives” later in this chapter. 

In addition to the electrical upgrades, a new buried natural gas pipeline would be installed from 

Booster Station 1 to proposed Booster Station 1A. This pipeline would also be located within the 

pipeline corridor identified for the action alternatives. 

Project Operation and Maintenance 

The Buckman diversion facilities would be operated and maintained on a regular basis to provide 

reliable conveyance and treatment of water for irrigation and potable uses. In addition to the 

planned operation and maintenance (O&M) activities discussed below, unscheduled maintenance 

may occasionally be required during operation of the facilities. Automatic monitoring, status 

indication and alarm functions for the pumps and other equipment would be transmitted through 

an electronic control system to operators. This would allow a rapid response by O&M staff 

should a malfunction or other problems occur. 

During normal operations, it is anticipated that an operator would visit the diversion, pumping, 

and storage facilities three times per week to observe conditions and perform minor maintenance 

and cleaning. In addition, at least bimonthly (six times per year), maintenance activities would 

include the removal of accumulated sediment from the intake screens, pumps, and pipeline 

segments. Bimonthly maintenance activities would typically require a transport truck and trailer, 

dump truck(s), front-end loader, and backhoe. 

Diversion Structure. The facilities would be designed to divert a peak flow of about 32 cfs. For 

the Proposed Action, low-head pumps would convey water to the sediment separation facility 

where sand would be separated and sand size particles greater than 0.1 mm would be returned to 

the river with up to 4 cfs of carriage water. For the sediment separation facility alternatives 

discussed in the section, “Sediment Separation Facility Alternatives,” various alternatives for 

handling sand are considered, including trucking it for sale or disposal rather than returning it to 

the river. The maximum net diversion flows (total diversion less returned carriage water) would 

be 28.2 cfs. System demands would govern the actual diversion flow. The diversion structure 

could operate 24 hours per day, but actual operation would be based upon system demands. The 

low-head pumps would be started or stopped to meet demands. The low-head pump station would 

be operated remotely through a supervisory control and data acquisition system to turn pumps on 

or off as needed. An air cleaning system would operate automatically on a daily basis to clean 

debris and sediment buildup on the intake screens. 

Sediment Separation Facility. For the Proposed Action, the sediment separation facility would 

separate sediments through mechanical (vortex) processes. A sedimentation pond that would 

involve settling of particles by gravity would be included as a backup measure. Flows into the 

sediment facility would be governed by the low-head pump station and out of the facility by 

 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

48 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Booster Station 1A operation. The return flow of sand out of the facility back to the river would 

be controlled by an automated valve system connected to the electronic control system, and 

would be governed by the flow rate into the facility from the low-head pump station. Alternative 

sediment removal methods are discussed in the section, “Sediment Separation Facility 

Alternatives.” 

Booster Stations. The booster stations would be designed to handle a peak flow of 28.2 cfs or 

18.25 mgd (15 mgd for City and County, 3.25 mgd for Las Campanas). Actual flows would 

depend on the demand from the City and County and Las Campanas. Pumps would be operated 

remotely through the electronic control system. 

Booster Stations 1A and 2A are required to raise the water to the City and County WTP. Booster 

Station 3A is required by Las Campanas and would be located on Las Campanas property, near 

existing Booster Station 3. The new booster station would have a sediment pond associated with 

it, also on Las Campanas property, so that water flowing to the WTP would have reduced 

sediment concentrations. Booster Station 4A would convey treated water to existing Booster 

Station 3 which feeds into the City and County distribution systems via the 10-million-gallon 

storage tank in the northeast portion of the City. Booster Station 5A would convey treated water 

into the City and County distribution system through new piping connected to the southwest 

portion of the system. Booster Stations 4A and 5A would operate while the WTP is in operation 

and would be controlled based upon system demands including the tank level at the existing 

Booster Station 3 and tank levels in the storage tanks throughout the service area. Booster Station 

4A would be sized to pump 8.9 mgd to existing Booster Station 3 and Booster Station 5A would 

be sized to pump 15 mgd to the distribution system. 

Pipelines. For the Proposed Action, separate raw water pipelines would convey water to two 

water treatment plants, one for the City and County and one for Las Campanas. As discussed later 

in this chapter, a combined raw water pipeline alternative is also being considered and there are 

several treated water pipeline alternatives. The new pipelines would typically operate normally 

with no required attention. Condition of the pipe would be monitored through flow meters and 

pressure sensors at adjoining booster stations. Accuracy of the flow meters would be maintained 

to sufficiently determine if leakage was occurring between booster stations. The actual frequency 

of pipe leaks cannot be predicted but based upon the strength of the proposed pipe, repair 

frequency could be as little as once in 20 years. The current Buckman line has had no substantial 

leaks or breaks in nearly 30 years of operation. 

Monitoring of the flow data would be conducted continuously using the electronic control and 

monitoring system. Operators would travel the length of the pipeline in combination with other 

facility visits previously discussed. Additionally, valves located on the lines and other 

appurtenances would be maintained or otherwise operated quarterly to ensure continual proper 

operation. Pressure reducing valves and meters located along the distribution system would also 

require periodic maintenance, perhaps annually. Periodic cleaning of the pipe or condition 

assessment would be done as necessary, but likely no more than once every 3 to 5 years. This 

maintenance would require complete flushing of the pipe segment and disposal of the flushed 

water. Cathodic protection of piping may be required using sacrificial anodes or an impressed 

current system. At a minimum, pipe bonding and test stations would be used to monitor pipeline 

corrosion. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 49 

City and County MRC WTP. Operation of the City and County MRC WTP would be similar to 

that of the City’s existing Canyon Road WTP. A plant operations and maintenance staff of 

approximately 15 employees is used at that plant. That staff also oversees the operation of the 

Buckman and City Well Fields. Operations and maintenance for the entire Buckman water system 

would be conducted primarily from the new plant with a smaller staff stationed at the existing 

Canyon Road plant. The plant staff would then be substantially closer to the Buckman Well Field 

facilities as well as other City facilities. 

Approximately 15 employees would be onsite at one time with at least one certified operator 

present 24 hours a day. Operators would oversee operation of the plant utilizing direct 

observation plus instruments and an automatic monitoring and data storage system. Extensive 

record keeping would be essential for both regulatory requirements and optimization of the 

treatment facilities. 

Continual optimization of chemical feed systems and water quality changes would be important 

to provide high quality drinking water as well as minimize sludge volumes. Water quality 

monitoring instruments are necessary to assist operators in this endeavor and include particle 

counters, turbidity monitors, pH and temperature meters, and chlorine residual analyzers. Proper 

chemical feed is critical to providing high quality drinking water. Therefore, approximately 1 

month’s supply of each chemical would be provided at the treatment plant. Most chemicals would 

be delivered separately with a few exceptions. Chemical transport and storage would meet 

requirements set by State and Federal regulations. 

Solids generation is a component of a conventional treatment plant process. Solids settled out in 

the sedimentation ponds would consist mainly of solids from the river plus iron or aluminum salts 

from the addition of a primary coagulant. These solids would be separated from water on the 

filter media. These solids also would likely be thickened in solids thickeners and the water 

content further reduced in drying lagoons. The use of sludge drying lagoons is assumed as the 

lagoons require significant land space and could, therefore, be considered to represent the worst 

case for environmental purposes. However, mechanical presses housed within a building could be 

constructed in lieu of the drying lagoons. It is anticipated that the thickened solids would be 

hauled and disposed of at the Caja del Rio Landfill located just southwest of the treatment plant. 

Las Campanas WTP. The operation of the Las Campanas WTP would be continuous, 24 hours 

per day and 365 days per year. However, the facility normally would be unmanned. An operator 

would visit the plant up to five times per week to observe conditions and perform minor 

maintenance and cleaning. Daily monitoring of the water quality parameters would be conducted 

with dedicated instrumentation. Quarterly testing of the WTP process and controls would also be 

conducted. Similar to the City and County WTP, up to 1 month of chemicals would be stored 

onsite, limiting chemical deliveries to once a month. Many chemicals could be delivered during 

the same visit or in two trips. However, chlorine would likely be delivered separately. Chemical 

transport and storage would meet requirements set by State and Federal regulations. 

Similar to the City and County WTP, solids would be generated by the treatment process. Solids 

may be handled in two ways. The solids could be conveyed directly to the existing Las Campanas 

Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) where the solids would be removed, dewatered, and 

disposed of in conjunction with the WWTP process. Otherwise, the solids would be dried in 

drying beds or lagoons and disposed of at the Caja del Rio Landfill. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

50 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Buckman Road and Power Upgrade Maintenance. Buckman Road and the new power 

upgrades would be subject to normal maintenance. Buckman Road would continue to be 

maintained by the County. The gravel improvements would require less maintenance than the 

current dirt road; however, maintenance would continue to include periodic reblading and 

contouring and, in addition, new gravel would be added as needed. Power facilities would be 

maintained by PNM using standard maintenance procedures. 

System Capacity and Flow Volumes 

The Buckman Project would be designed to collect, convey, treat, and distribute up to 18.2 mgd 

(28.2 cfs). This amount does not include up to 4 cfs of carriage water that would be diverted and 

then used to carry settled sand back to the river. For analysis purposes, the total maximum annual 

flow through the diversion is assumed to include 5,230 ac-ft/yr for the City, 1,700 ac-ft/yr for the 

County, and 1,800 ac-ft/yr for Las Campanas – a total of 8,730 ac-ft/yr. These numbers are shown 

in Table 2. The maximum annual diversion of 8,730 ac-ft/yr is equivalent to a year-round average 

flow of 12 cfs, as compared to the peak flow of 28.2 cfs that could occur at any given time during 

the year. The peak flows and total annual quantities are documented in Section 2.4 of the 

Feasibility Study and Recommendations for San Juan-Chama Water Diversion (CDM 2002a). 

The volume of water diverted at Buckman 

would fluctuate throughout the year based 

upon water demand. Estimates of the 

maximum monthly diversion in 2010 were 

made by using historical water usage data 

and by developing estimates of water 

demands in 2010. These estimates were 

calculated based upon the total demand 

minus the availability of the other sources 

of water including the Santa Fe River, City 

Well Field, and Buckman Well Field. The 

Las Campanas demand was then added to 

the City and County demand. For analysis 

purposes, Table 3 presents the maximum 

usage by month for all applicants, 

irrespective of sharing agreements between 

the applicants. For example, some of the 

water used by Las Campanas may be 

diverted by the City and supplied to Las 

Campanas. 

Table 3 shows the maximum monthly 

average diversion projections for all 

proponents for each month under 2010 

drought conditions. The maximum monthly 

average diversion would not occur in every 

month nor is it likely to occur in 

consecutive months. Peak flow through the 

diversion would occur during the summer 

months when water demand is the highest. 

Table 2. Maximum annual and peak-day usage 

for the Buckman Project. 

Maximum Peak-Day 

Diversion Water User 

Maximum 

Annual 

Diversion

(ac-ft/yr) MGD CFS 

City 5,230 11.3 17.5 

County 1,700 3.7 5.7 

Las Campanas 1,800 3.2 5.0 

Total 8,730 18.2 28.2 

Table 3. Distribution of expected maximum 

monthly average diversions. 

Month MGD CFS 

January 7.3 11.3 

February 8.2 12.7 

March 9.1 14.1 

April 11.8 18.2 

May 15.4 23.8 

June 18.2 28.2 

July 16.9 26.1 

August 15.4 23.8 

September 14.6 22.6 

October 12.7 19.6 

November 9.1 14.1 

December 7.3 11.3 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 51 

During 7 months (October-April), the maximum monthly average flow would be less than 70 

percent of the peak day diversion of 28.2 cfs. The daily diversion volume during any given month 

would vary from a net flow of zero to 28.2 cfs, averaging 12 cfs over the course of a year. 

The diversion could operate 24 hours a day, 365 days per year with at least a minimal diversion 

flow rate. However, diversion may cease temporarily under numerous conditions: 

• Flows in the river below the design capacity – the system would not be able to operate at 

full capacity when river flows are below about 200 cfs and would need to shut down 

when river flows are below about 150 cfs 

• Electrical outage – all facilities near the river would operate solely on electrical power 

• Catastrophic mechanical problem 

• Upstream spills of pollutants 

• Extraordinary sediment transport events 

• Serious maintenance events 

During flow rate shortage periods in the Rio Grande such that normal and/or peak operations of 

the facility are adversely affected, the allocation of water for diversion by the facility will treat 

native Rio Grande flows separately from imported San Juan-Chama Project water (i.e., during 

shortage sharing scenarios these two different water sources will not be co-mingled). 

Because of system redundancies at all facilities, maintenance can be performed on the facilities 

and equipment during operation in most cases. Shut down of the diversion facilities for 

maintenance would occur only a few times per year, at most. 

Sediment Separation Facility Alternatives 

A sediment separation facility associated with the Proposed Action and two alternative sediment 

separation facilities are under consideration. Alternative sediment facility locations are illustrated 

in Figures 16 and 17. A comparison of the features of the sediment facility alternatives can be 

found in Table 4. 

Sediment Facility Associated With the Proposed Action 

The sediment facility location for the Proposed Action would be in close proximity to the Rio 

Grande and constructed on the historic Buckman townsite. This area is within the viewshed of the 

river and riverside visitors and is readily visible from the observation platform in White Rock 

Overlook Park. Construction and operation would occur on the historic Buckman townsite. 

Several alternatives were developed in response to these viewshed and cultural resource issues. 

All alternatives would involve mechanical (vortex) separators to remove the sand particles greater 

than 0.1 mm from the diverted river water. This alternative would include a small sedimentation 

pond that would be used as a backup if the mechanical separators failed. 

Sediment Facility Alternative SF1 

For this alternative, the facility would be the same as for the Proposed Action, but the location 

would be different. In order to minimize effects to the viewshed and the Buckman townsite, 

Sediment Facility Alternative SF1 was developed. This alternative would move the sediment 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

52 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

facility southeast of the proposed location and generally out of sight from area visitors and 

observers at White Rock Overlook Park. The location would be entirely off the Buckman 

townsite. 

Table 4. Sediment facility alternatives. 

Facility Proposed Action (PA) Alternative SF1 Alternative SF2 

Mechanical separation with pond 

for emergency storage of sediment, 

approximately 50 x 100 feet. 

Same mechanical 

separation and sediment 

pond as PA; at new 

location to avoid the 

Buckman historical site 

with less visibility from 

White Rock Overlook. 

Same location as SF1 

with larger 

sedimentation pond for 

storage of sands coarser 

than 0.1 mm. 

Sediment 

Facility 

Return pipeline back to the river: 

2,200 feet, 8- to 10-inch diameter. 

Longer pipeline. No return line; trucks 

haul sediment to offsite 

permitted disposal area. 

Six manifold screened intake 

structure with 32 cfs peak intake 

capacity and 4 cfs capacity for 

sand return to the river. 

Same as PA Sand trucked away; 

peak intake capacity 

reduced to 28 cfs with 

no return line. 

Low-head pump station with 6 

pumps and equipment 

vault/building. 

More power required in 

pumps to reach sediment 

facility 

Same as PA 

Diversion 

Intake 

Structure 

Pipeline from diversion to 

sediment facility: 1,000 feet long, 

30-inch diameter. 

Longer pipeline to reach 

sediment facility 

Same as PA 

Proposed 

Booster 

Station 1 

High-head pump station including 

five City/County pumps and three 

Las Campanas pumps within 

5,000-square-foot building 

adjacent to sediment facility. 

New location next to the 

changed location of the 

sediment facility. 

Same as PA 

Sediment Facility Alternative SF2 

Sediment Facility Alternative SF2 was developed as a contingency plan should the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not issue a sediment return discharge permit under the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. This alternative would require trucking out 

sediment for disposal at the Caja del Rio Landfill. Like Alternative SF1, the facility would be 

located southeast of the proposed location, entirely off the Buckman townsite. 

Under this alternative there would be no sediment return line from the sediment facility to the Rio 

Grande. The sand would be discharged to lined ponds for storage and drying. Based on estimated 

sediment loading of the material coarser than 0.1 millimeter (mm), plus an additional 5 percent 

entrapment of smaller sediments, two lined ponds would be required. Each pond would be about 

75 feet by 150 feet by 8 feet deep. One pond would be in operation, receiving sand from the 

vortex separators, while the other would be used for storage and drying. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 53 

Figure 16. Sediment facility associated with the Proposed Action and Sediment Facility 

Alternative SF1.
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

54 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Dried sand would be removed and transported by truck approximately 20 miles for disposal at the 

Caja del Rio Landfill. On average, about 700 truck trips per year (7-yard capacity) are expected to 

be needed to remove the dried sand from the pond system. In some years, depending upon the Rio 

Grande sediment load, more than 1,000 truck trips could be required. 

Pipeline Alternatives 

A raw water pipeline (RWP) alternative and three treated water pipeline (TWP) alternatives are 

being considered. 

Pipelines Associated with the Proposed Action 

Pipelines associated with the Proposed Action are discussed in the secion, “Proposed Action” 

earlier in this chapter and their locations are illustrated in Figure 3. Alternatives are being 

considered for two segments of the Proposed Action pipelines. For the Proposed Action, two raw 

water pipelines are being considered between Booster Station 1A and Booster Station 2A, one for 

conveying water to Las Campanas and the other for conveying water to the City and County. A 

single pipeline is being considered as an alternative. In addition, three alternatives are being 

considered for the location of the 18,113-foot treated water pipeline that would run from the 

proposed City and County WTP at the MRC. 

Figure 17. Sediment Facility Alternative SF2. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 55 

Raw Water Pipeline Alternative 

This alternative, RWP1, involves substituting a single pipeline for a double pipeline from Booster 

Station 1A to proposed Booster Station 2A, shown in Figure 3. This alternative is being 

considered for reasons that include reduced disturbance of two cultural sites in the utility ROW, 

less cost, and reduced ground 

and habitat disturbance 

associated with construction. A 

comparison of the features of 

this alternative and that of the 

Proposed Action is provided in 

Table 5. 

Treated Water Pipeline 

Alternatives 

These three alternatives 

primarily involve different 

alignments of the northern 

water transmission line for 

treated water between the proposed City and County WTP at the MRC and existing Booster 

Station 3. These alternatives are being considered for reasons that include minimizing 

destruction/replacement of a County roadway in Las Campanas, lessening traffic disruptions, use 

of a shorter and less costly pipeline alignment, and possibly even affecting property values. Other 

reasons include reduced commitment of BLM land and the precedent for long-term commitment 

of some new lands to utility uses. The alternative pipeline routes are illustrated in Figure 18. A 

comparison of the features of these alternatives can be found in Table 6. 

Treated Water Pipeline Alternative TWP1. This alternative would require approximately 

18,193 feet of pipeline, which is about the same length as the Proposed Action pipeline corridor 

(18,113 feet). This alternative runs along the boundary between Las Campanas and BLM lands. 

One cultural resource site would be affected compared to the two cultural resource sites under the 

Proposed Action. This alternative would avoid construction beneath Las Campanas Drive thus 

avoiding the additional cost of repairing the road, short-term construction disruption to Las 

Campanas residents and users of Las Campanas Drive, and the need for an easement through 

some Las Campanas property. 

Treated Water Pipeline Alternative TWP2. This alternative would run approximately 21,528 

feet of pipeline back toward Dead Dog Well and then cut east. Where it deviates east from the 

existing corridor, a new 7,450-foot utility corridor on BLM land would be required. A new ROW 

would be issued for the entire length of pipeline necessary under Alternative TWP2. This 

alternative would avoid all cultural resource sites and avoid affecting traffic on Las Campanas 

Drive. 

Treated Water Pipeline Alternative TWP3. This alternative would require the longest pipeline 

route, utilizing approximately 30,337 feet of pipe. This route is within existing utility corridors, 

thus no new utility corridors would be required. However, a new ROW would be issued for the 

entire length of pipeline necessary under Alternative TWP3. In addition, it would cross the 

Table 5. Raw Water Pipeline Alternative. 

Facility Proposed Action (PA) Alternative RWP1 

Raw water 

transmission 

pipeline from 

BS 1A to BS 

2A 

Pumps would fill separate 

pipelines (see below for exact 

description). 

One line with capacity 

for peak flows for both 

City/County demand 

and Las Campanas 

demand. 

Proposed BS 

2A (near 

existing BS 2 

on BLM 

property). 

High-head pump station 

including five City/County 

pumps, three Las Campanas 

pumps, and 500,000-gallon 

storage tank within 5,000-

square-foot building 

Same as PA 

Key: BS = Booster Station 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

56 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Denver & Rio Grande railroad grade (the Chili Line) in four places. This alternative, similar to 

Alternatives TWP1 and TWP2, would avoid construction within Las Campanas Drive. 

Table 6. Treated Water Pipeline Alternatives. 

Facility Proposed Action 

(PA) 

Alternative 

TWP1 

Alternative 

TWP2 Alternative TWP3 

Transmission line to 

convey treated water 

from the City/County 

MRC WTP to 

existing Booster 

Station 3. 

Line would run 

beneath Las 

Campanas Drive, 

western loop; onehalf mile at the 

north would run 

across BLM lands. 

Line would run 

along the 

boundary 

between Las 

Campanas and 

BLM land. 

Line would run 

back toward 

Dead Dog Well 

and cut east to 

Booster Station 

3. 

Line would run 

back to Dead Dog 

Well before 

following 

Buckman Road to 

Booster Station 3. 

Key: MRC = Municipal Recreation Complex; WTP = Water Treatment Plant 

Power Upgrade Alternatives 

As mentioned earlier at the end of the section, “Project Construction,” preliminary estimates from 

PNM indicate that power loads associated with the Buckman Project would accelerate the need 

for planned power upgrades in the area. The power upgrades associated with the Proposed Action 

would include a new 12.47 kV underground power line between Booster Stations 2/2A and the 

river. A lower cost alternative, designated Alternative AGP1b, would involve new above ground 

12.47 kV power lines. The majority of the upgrades would be located on land administered by 

BLM and on the MRC, which is BLM land leased for use by the City. 

Either alternative would also involve upgrades to the existing Buckman substation within the 

current (or, if necessary, amended) ROW and construction of a new substation either adjacent to 

the MRC WTP in the case of the Proposed Action, or approximately 1 mile southeast of the MRC 

WTP in the case of Alternative AGP1a. The BLM would supply final approval for the color of 

both the upgraded Buckman substation as well as any new substation. The alternative substation 

site location was selected to minimize use of BLM lands. The location of the alternative 

substation site is on lands managed by the City of Santa Fe for the MRC. The land area needed 

for a new substation is approximately 250 feet by 350 feet (about 2 acres). PNM typically 

purchases property for new substations. Since the Proposed Action substation site near the MRC 

WTP is on Federal property, PNM would need to secure a permit for all proposed facilities. The 

115 kV transmission line termination structures for the substation would be tubular steel 

structures. Finish may be weathering steel (brown) or a dulled galvanized coating (gray) and nonspecular wire would be used. The electrical equipment yard would include power circuit breakers, 

disconnect switches, lightning/surge arrestors, and bus (conductor) support structures. Bus 

support structures would have a dulled galvanized finish. Other structures would include a control 

house. 

Construction of a new above ground 115 kV transmission line generally follows the sequence of 

surveying the centerline, access road development, clearing ROW and structure sites, installation 

of foundations, assembly and erection of the structures, installation of conductors and overhead 

shield wires, installation of grounding system, and cleanup and site reclamation. The workforce 

and types of equipment would vary during the construction period. The number of personnel 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 57 

Figure 18. Treated Water Pipeline Alternatives. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

58 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

necessary to perform the work would range up to approximately 20 persons. Multiple crews may 

be working on the transmission line. Equipment is anticipated to include several pickup trucks, 

several larger (2 ton) trucks, a light crane, a 60-ton crane, an auger, reel trailers, drum pullers, 

conductor tensioner, bulldozer, and grader. Miscellaneous small power tools may require the use 

of generators and air compressors. Construction may need to be staged in a specific sequence in 

order to minimize outages and/or take advantage of low electrical load periods. 

No grading is planned for an access road for the 115 kV line. A temporary access road may be 

needed to install the line but once completed, the disturbed areas would be rehabilitated. PNM 

may access the line on an as-needed basis but a ROW would not be issued for a permanent road 

underneath or adjacent to the line. 

Power Upgrade Associated with the Proposed Action 

The power upgrades associated with the Proposed Action would include facilities along Buckman 

Road, the existing Buckman transformer substation, located across from Booster Station 2, and a 

new 12.47 kV underground power line within a utility corridor between Booster Stations 2/2A 

and the river. This cable would be within the pipeline corridor identified for the action 

alternatives. The existing utility easement within the corridor would need to be widened from 40 

to 50 feet to accommodate joint use of the proposed electric power lines and pipelines. The new 

12.47 kV buried power line would be installed along the entire reach between the Buckman 

transformer station, Booster Station 2/2A and the river. Existing easements between the Buckman 

transformer station and the proposed pipeline corridor would also need to be widened to 

accommodate a second 12.47 kV power line. The placement of all utilities within the utility 

corridor and the required width of the actual easements necessary for those utilities would be 

developed within a plan of development (POD) document. 

The Proposed Action would also include a new substation that would be constructed adjacent to 

the proposed MRC WTP. The final color of any new substation would be approved by BLM. A 

new above ground 115 kV power line segment less than one-half mile in length would be required 

to connect the new substation to existing 115 kV above ground lines in the area. 

Power Upgrade Alternatives AGP1a and AGP1b 

Alternative AGP1 would involve two primary differences from the Proposed Action (Table 7). 

Under Alternative AGP1a, a new substation would be located under or adjacent to the existing 

115 kV line which currently crosses Caja Del Rio Road. A new underground 12.47 kV (4 wires 

for each circuit) line approximately 200 to 400 feet long would run east from the new substation 

and connect to the existing underground distribution system that runs along Caja Del Rio Road. A 

second new underground line would run west from the existing distribution system within the 

proposed right-of-way for the access road to the WTP, approximately one-half mile. 

Alternative AGP1b would require an upgrade of the existing Buckman transformer station (as 

with the Proposed Action). Under Alternative AGP1b, an above ground 12.47 kV power line from 

the Buckman transformer station, near Booster Station 2/2A, to the river route would be built as 

an alternative to the buried 12.47 kV line. 

The final color of the upgraded Buckman transformer station and new substation would be 

approved by BLM. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 59 

Table 7. Above Ground Power Alternative AGP1. 

Facility/Location Proposed Action (PA) Above Ground Power 

Alternative AGP1 

Power supply to water treatment 

plant (WTP) at the Municipal 

Recreation Complex (MRC). 

Substation adjacent to WTP. Power 

to the WTP via an overhead line 

across BLM land with a new 

substation next to the WTP. 

AGP1a. Power to the WTP 

via a substation at Caja del 

Rio Road with buried line to 

the WTP. 

Power supply to pump facility at 

the river. 

Power to the riverside pumping 

facilities via a new buried line. 

AGP1b. Power to the 

riverside pumping facilities 

via a new above ground 

power line. 

Figure 19 shows the location of the power upgrades for both the Proposed Action and Alternative 

AGP1. Figure 19 also identifies the locations of three visual simulations that are provided in 

Figures 20 to 22. Figure 20 presents a visual simulation of the Alternative AGP1b above ground 

12.47 kV power line that would travel from the Buckman transformer station, past Booster 

Station 2/2A to the river. Figure 21 provides a visual simulation of how the above ground 115 kV 

facilities associated with the Proposed Action would appear near the MRC WTP. Figure 22 

presents a visual simulation of the Alternative AGP1 substation site located along Caja Del Rio 

Road. The final color of power upgrade facilities and substations associated with the Proposed 

Action and Alternative AGP1 would be approved by the BLM. 

Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements 

The following mitigation measures and monitoring requirements apply to all alternatives 

including the Proposed Action, unless otherwise noted. Regardless of which alternative is 

selected, mitigation would be incorporated into the project to reduce the severity of any potential 

environmental consequences. Specific details about how these measures would be implemented 

and who would be responsible for their implementation would be specified in the implementation 

plan. An implementation plan would be prepared with assistance from government agency 

personnel following a Record of Decision on the project, if it is decided to proceed with any 

alternative other than the No Action Alternative.
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

60 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Figure 19. Location of power upgrade facilities for Proposed Action and Alternative AGP1. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 61 

Before: Recent Photograph 

After: Photo Simulation 

~30-35’ 

Figure 20. Photographic simulation of 12.47 kV power lines associated with 

Alternative AGP1b, looking southeast near diversion site, at Position 1 on Figure 19. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

62 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Before: Recent Photograph 

After: Photo Simulation 

~65-75’ 

Figure 21. Photographic simulation of proposed substation and 115 kV above ground line 

at MRC WTP, looking northwest at Position 2 on Figure 19. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 63 

Figure 22. Photographic simulation of substation for connection to existing 115 kV line 

along Caja Del Rio Road associated with Alternative AGP1a, looking southeast at Position 

3 on Figure 19. 

After: Photo Simulation 

~65-75’ 

Before: Recent Photograph 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

64 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Land Tenure and Use 

Construction and Operation Phase. Based on a potential increase in visitor use to this area 

resulting from proposed upgrades to Buckman Road, visitor use will be monitored. Prior to 

construction and after construction is complete, agencies will evaluate the magnitude of increased 

visitation, and the FS and BLM will take actions to reduce visitation as needed to protect the 

resources and facilities in the area. 

Water Resources 

Construction Phase. Placement of a cofferdam in the river that would surround and isolate the 

construction area would serve to mitigate most direct effects on turbidity during construction of 

the water diversion structure. 

Operation Phase. Design criteria, which would restrict or eliminate withdrawals at or below 

minimum flow thresholds would mitigate possible reductions to the lowest flows and associated 

impacts to aquatic habitat. If the flow in the river were below about 200 cfs, it would not be 

possible to operate the diversion at the peak withdrawal capacity of 32 cfs. In addition, if the flow 

in the Rio Grande were below a lower threshold of about 150 cfs, the diversion would not be 

operational. Between these flow conditions it would be possible to operate the diversion at 

reduced capacity. The precise limits of low flow operation would be determined during final 

design of the diversion facility. 

Residual offsets for ground water depletion from past pumping would need to be implemented as 

mitigation for switching to the surface diversion. The City and Las Campanas are currently 

required to offset depletions of flows in the Rio Grande that occur as a result of pumping from the 

Buckman Well Field. After bringing the diversion structure online, with substantially reduced 

pumping from the wells, the infiltration of river water into the aquifer would decrease over time. 

However, even with substantially reduced pumping from the wells in the future, the City and Las 

Campanas would be required to continue to provide residual offsets of flows from past pumping 

from the Buckman Well Field. The offset amount is currently about 2,500 ac-ft/yr. This amount is 

projected to decrease in the future, as the aquifer would rebound. San Juan-Chama water 

currently being stored by the City would be released in the future to satisfy these offsets. In 

addition, the City anticipates purchasing and retiring additional rights to satisfy residual offsets. 

After all stored San Juan-Chama water has been released and if additional rights are not procured 

and retired, the applicants would need to balance diversions with pumping such that offset and 

diversion amounts would not exceed their combined San Juan-Chama and existing native water 

rights. 

Biological Resources 

Construction Phase. A revegetation program utilizing native seeds would be required to mitigate 

the effects of vegetation removed during construction. The revegetation seed mixture would 

consist of forbs, grasses, and shrubs of species common to the Buckman area. At the Rio Grande 

diversion site, which is characterized by a dense, narrow band of mixed native and nonnative 

riparian vegetation, revegetation with cottonwood and coyote willow would occur. The area 

requiring revegetation would be about 2 acres. The program would include measures to control or 

eradicate nonnative and invasive species within the project construction area. Species posing a 

threat to the native biological diversity of the area would be identified (such as salt cedar, Russian 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 65 

olive, and toadflax) and eradicated prior to construction soil disturbance. Additionally, weed 

prevention best management practices, such as a requirement to clean construction vehicles prior 

to their operation in the project area, would be implemented. 

Placement of a cofferdam in the river that would surround and isolate the construction area would 

serve to decrease turbidity during construction of the diversion structure, thus limiting and 

mitigating the potentially adverse effects to aquatic fauna. However, some localized higher 

turbidity would be expected to occur during placement of the cofferdam and from its removal. 

During project construction, wildlife habitat would be affected, thus the following mitigations 

would address the potential short-term affects. A pre-construction survey for avian fauna 

protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act would be conducted at the water diversion site 

along the Rio Grande, booster station and water treatment locations, and the selected pipeline 

routes. Depending upon the survey data, a mitigation plan would be developed at that time and 

specific mitigations, if any, would be based on the survey findings. For example, the discovery of 

nesting birds could result in relocation or delay of planned construction activities. 

General construction practices would take wildlife into consideration. For example, trenches left 

open over night would be provided with wildlife escape ramps, and one-seeded juniper and piñon 

pine removed during construction would be consolidated into slash piles no greater than 2 feet in 

height. These slash piles would be dispersed or otherwise removed from the general vicinity of 

construction and human activities and would help mitigate wildlife disturbance by providing 

habitat areas for smaller animals. 

Should the power upgrade alternative (AGP1) be selected, then the FS and BLM would 

recommend the power line be constructed to be compatible with the current Avian Power Line 

Interaction Committee (APLIC) “Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The 

State of the Art in 1996” and FWS guidelines for protection of avian species from electrocution 

and line strike. 

Operation Phase. The vegetation that is re-established during the construction period would 

continue to serve as a mitigation measure during project operation. To ensure long-term 

revegetation success, a monitoring program would be conducted to assess revegetation success 

and evaluate recolonization by nonnative invasive plant species. Details of the monitoring effort 

would be specified in the implementation plan. 

The previously presented water resource mitigations for construction and operational effects 

would also serve to avoid adverse effects to aquatic fauna during very low flow conditions. 

Implementation of the soil protection mitigations and revegetation program would serve to 

minimize the long-term effects to wildlife habitat. 

Cultural Resources 

Construction Phase. Effects to cultural resources would be mitigated through implementation of 

the following practices. Archaeological sites would be avoided where possible. Fencing would be 

placed around sites near the construction area, but not subject to direct affect, to protect them 

from inadvertent intrusion by construction equipment and personnel. Additionally, a qualified 

archaeological monitor would be present during all construction excavation and surface 

modifications within known and potential site areas. If previously unknown subsurface cultural 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

66 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

deposits are discovered, construction activities in the area would halt and the agency would 

determine appropriate treatment in consultation with the SHPO. Archaeological sites that could 

not be avoided during construction would have archeological testing or data recovery efforts 

conducted prior to construction. Subsurface sites discovered during construction activities would 

also undergo testing or data recovery treatment. Archaeological data recovery would be 

conducted in compliance with a formal data recovery plan approved by the involved agencies and 

the SHPO. Standard erosion control measures would be in effect during construction activities 

(see mitigation measures for the “Soils” section that follows). All workers conducting 

construction activities would be educated regarding cultural resources in the project area, 

appropriate avoidance measures, and associated restrictions per Federal statutes. 

Operation Phase. In addition to the measures implemented during the construction phase, 

interpretive signage that explains the history of the Buckman area, through text and pictures, 

would be offered to Los Alamos County for placement at the White Rock Overlook Park viewing 

platform. 

Recreational Resources 

Construction Phase. The Buckman area would not be closed to public access during 

construction. Therefore, the following mitigations would be implemented to ensure public safety. 

Alternative routes or flagmen would be used to allow safe passage through the construction area. 

At the entrance to Buckman Road, project information would be provided to the general public 

through signs or an information kiosk. This information would add to traffic safety by informing 

the public and nonproject workers of construction events, potential to encounter large 

construction vehicles on the roadway, and potential travel delays along Buckman Road. 

Operation Phase. Under Alternative SF2, where the coarse river sediment would be trucked out 

and disposed of at an offsite facility, Buckman Road users would be notified via signage that they 

could encounter truck traffic on Buckman Road and experience river access delays. 

Scenic Resources 

Construction Phase. Visual effects would be mitigated through implementation of a number of 

measures that would be specified in the implementation plan, including: (1) selecting color and 

texture of buildings surfaces and roofing materials to complement or match the surrounding 

native soils or vegetation; (2) siting and design of buildings to take advantage of terrain, where 

feasible, to screen from view; (3) using chain link fences color-bonded to match the predominant 

natural colors in the area (i.e., brown) and reduce reflectivity of metal; (4) undulating edges of 

sediment ponds or other measures to break up rectilinear lines that do not match the natural 

surroundings; (5) coloring concrete in the diversion structure and that used for dip sections along 

Buckman Road to match the surrounding area, blend in better and reflect less light; and (6) 

rehabilitating areas temporarily disturbed by construction or road improvements to return to 

natural conditions. 

Operation Phase. Measures implemented during the construction phase would continue to 

mitigate visual impacts during the operation phase. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 67 

Geology and Soils 

Construction Phase. Erosion control measures would be designed in compliance with the 

requirements for preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 

Implementation of the SWPPP would mitigate the potential effects of construction activities. 

These measures would be designed to minimize or avoid the loss of soil, prevent the 

establishment or exacerbation of rill and gullies, and potential water quality deterioration from 

sheet erosion that could result from construction and roadway runoff. Examples of construction 

mitigation measures would be: limiting disturbance of an area until it is necessary for 

construction to proceed; minimizing the area of vegetation removal; using silt fences and straw 

bales to temporarily control runoff; and covering or stabilizing construction scarred areas as soon 

as practical. 

Trees—one-seeded juniper and piñon pine—that are removed during construction would be 

chipped and spread throughout the construction disturbance areas to protect and minimize soil 

loss. The techniques used would consist of mulching and/or a lop and scatter of larger diameter 

material such as branches and tree trunks to prevent or minimize sheet erosion. 

These soil mitigation measures could be implemented anywhere within the project area analyzed 

for potential environmental effects. 

Operation Phase. Implementation of a revegetation program (addressed in the “Biological 

Resources” mitigation section that follows) would serve to further mitigate soil loss for the 

duration of the operations phase of the project. 

Permits Required for Project Implementation 

Prior to the start of construction of the diversion structure, several temporary and permanent 

permits must be obtained. These include: 

Federal 

• USDA Forest Service – Special use permit for construction and operation of diversion 

structure 

• U.S. Bureau of Land Management – ROW permit (permanent facilities including pipeline 

and booster stations) 

• U.S. Bureau of Land Management – Temporary use permit (for land use during 

construction outside the permanent ROW) 

• U.S. Bureau of Land Management – Review and revision of existing City lease at MRC 

for 25-acre WTP site 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Section 404 permits (including Section 10 Navigable 

Waters, Section 401 Water Quality Certification, etc.) 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI – National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit for settled sand return line from sediment facility to 

the Rio Grande 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI – Develop and implement a 

stormwater pollution prevention plan and file a Notice of Intent to comply with 

Stormwater Construction General NPDES Permit for construction of diversion and near-
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

68 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

river facilities, pipelines, booster stations, water treatment plants, and treated water 

distribution piping. 

State 

• Office of the State Engineer – Application for Permit to Divert Surface Waters for San 

Juan-Chama Water (City and County) and to Change Place and Purpose of Use and Point 

of Diversion for Native Rio Grande Waters (County and Las Campanas). 

• Environment Department – Certification of Federal NPDES discharge permit 

• Environment Department – Application for Approval of Construction or Modification of 

Existing Public Water Supply System – includes review of preliminary engineering report 

and plans and specifications 

• Environmental Department – Liquid waste disposal permits 

• Land Use Office – ROW permit for facilities on State lands 

• Office of Cultural Affairs, Historic Preservation Division – Section 106 Historic 

Preservation Compliance 

• Highway and Transportation Department – Right-of-way permit for construction of 

utilities along highways 

Local 

• Santa Fe County – Land Development Permit (includes flood plain development 

analysis/permit by County and building permit review by State CID and State fire 

marshal) 

• City of Santa Fe – Wastewater discharge permit for water treatment plant residuals to the 

City sanitary sewer system. 

• City of Santa Fe – Approved development plan 

• City of Santa Fe – Building permit, grading permit, and utilities permit 

• City of Santa Fe – Noise permit (only if any construction work in the City is to be 

performed outside the hours of 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.) 

• Temporary (construction) and permanent easements or ROWs for land ownerships not 

listed above (e.g., railroads, private) 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 69 

Comparison of Alternatives 

A summary and comparison of the environmental consequences of No Action, the Proposed 

Action and the alternatives is provided in Table 8. 

Table 8. Comparison of the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action and Its 

alternatives. 

No Action Proposed Action Sediment Facility 

Alternatives 

Pipeline 

Alternatives 

Power Upgrade 

Alternative 

Land Tenure and Use 

There would 

be no effects 

to land tenure 

and use. 

Fifty-nine acres would be 

permanently affected due to the 

improvements to Buckman Road, 

construction of the diversion 

structure, sediment facility 

booster stations, water treatment 

plants, and associated 

infrastructure. Special use and 

ROW permits would need to be 

issued. The construction and 

operation of the proposed new 

PNM substation near the MRC 

WTP would remove 2 acres of 

grazing land from one grazing 

lease resulting in a slight effect. 

However, because the proposed 

facilities are approved under 

existing management plans and 

agreements, and most of the land 

disturbance would occur along 

existing utility corridors where 

current land use is similar to the 

proposed land use, there would be 

minimal effects to land tenure and 

use under the Proposed Action. 

Alternatives SF1 and 

SF2 would have 

different locations of 

disturbance near the 

river. In addition, 

Alternative SF1 

would require a new 

pipeline corridor of 

less than 1,500 feet 

for the return flow 

pipeline requiring 

about 3 additional 

acres of disturbance. 

Otherwise, effects 

would be similar to 

the Proposed Action. 

Alternative RWP1 

would reduce 

disturbance of land 

because only one 

trench would be 

excavated instead of 

two. Alternative 

TWP1 would affect 

17 acres, which is 

nearly the same as 

the Proposed Action 

and would result in a 

new ROW. 

Alternative TWP2 

would affect 20 acres 

with a portion of the 

acreage (0.7 acre) 

resulting in a new 

utility corridor on 

BLM land. 

Alternative TWP3 

would affect 27 acres 

along an existing 

corridor and would 

have no effect on 

land tenure and use. 

Any treated water 

pipeline on BLM 

land would require 

ROWs. 

The effect on land 

tenure and use would 

be the same as for 

the Proposed Action 

for Alternative 

AGP1. No effects to 

grazing would result 

from the construction 

and operation of the 

new substation along 

Caja del Rio Road. 

Approximately 1.8 

additional acres 

(based on a 30-footwide corridor) of 

land would be 

disturbed for the 

power line 

connection between 

the existing power 

source and the MRC 

WTP; however, the 

power line would be 

located within an 

existing ROW and, 

therefore, would not 

change land tenure 

and use. 

Water Resources 

Streamflow 

Continued 

depletions of 

the aquifer 

would occur 

in the 

Buckman 

area and in 

the flows of 

the Rio 

Grande and 

Temporary, localized disturbance 

of streamflow currents would 

occur during the construction 

phase. This disturbance would 

include some redirection of flow 

vectors by the temporary 

cofferdam structure. 

During operation, some localized 

changes in streamflow currents 

For Alternative SF1, 

the effects on 

streamflow would be 

the same as for the 

Proposed Action. For 

Alternative SF2, the 

maximum diversion 

would be reduced 

from 32 cfs to 28.2 

cfs; however, since 

The effects on 

streamflow would be 

the same as for the 

Proposed Action for 

all pipeline 

alternatives. 

The effects on 

streamflow would be 

the same as for the 

Proposed Action for 

the power upgrade 

alternative. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

70 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

No Action Proposed Action Sediment Facility 

Alternatives 

Pipeline 

Alternatives 

Power Upgrade 

Alternative 

its tributaries. 

The City 

would 

continue to 

be required to 

offset 

depletions 

with releases 

of San JuanChama water 

into the Rio 

Grande and 

by retiring 

native water 

rights owned 

by the City in 

the two 

tributaries 

and the Rio 

Grande. 

would occur near the diversion 

structure. The changes are not 

expected to affect the flow regime 

in the river. Generally, with the 

project in place, the effect on 

average flows in the Rio Grande 

would be less than 1 percent. Of 

that 1 percent effect, at least twothirds would be associated with 

diversion of water imported to the 

Rio Grande from the inter-basin 

San Juan-Chama Project. 

Streamflow upstream of the 

diversion would be enhanced by 

about 4.2 cfs on average through 

releases of San Juan-Chama 

Project water. 

there would be no 

return flow for sand 

re-injection, the net 

diversion would still 

be 28.2 cfs under 

peak withdrawal 

conditions. 

Therefore, the effects 

on streamflow would 

be nearly identical to 

those for the 

Proposed Action. 

Sediment Transport and Deposition 

There would 

be no effects 

to sediment 

transport and 

deposition. 

The diversion would create a 

slight reduction in sediment 

carrying capacity in the river 

immediately downstream of the 

diversion. That factor coupled 

with the re-injection of the sand 

fraction would likely lead to some 

sediment deposition immediately 

downstream of the diversion, 

particularly during lower flow 

events in the river. Hydraulic 

calculations suggest that this 

deposition would have an average 

thickness of less than an inch. 

The deposition is expected to be 

localized, as equilibrium flow 

conditions would be quickly reestablished further downstream. 

The localized deposition would 

likely be washed away during 

high flow conditions in the Rio 

Grande. The sediment deposition 

would not be noticeable in a river 

system where sediment discharge 

rates vary naturally by a factor of 

10 to 100 or more over the course 

of a single year and sediment bed 

and bank conditions are 

continually changing by the 

natural processes of flowing 

water. 

For Alternative SF1, 

the effects on 

sediment transport 

and deposition would 

be the same as for the 

Proposed Action. For 

Alternative SF2, 

there would be no 

return flow for sand 

re-injection; 

therefore, the effects 

on sedimentation 

would be slightly less 

than for the Proposed 

Action. However, 

there would still be 

some reduction of 

carrying capacity for 

sediment transport. 

Therefore, there 

would likely still be 

some localized 

sediment deposits 

immediately 

downstream of the 

diversion. These 

deposits would likely 

be smaller than those 

associated with the 

Proposed Action, and 

not noticeable. 

The effects on 

sediment transport 

and deposition would 

be the same as for the 

Proposed Action for 

all pipeline 

alternatives. 

The effects on 

sediment transport 

and deposition would 

be the same as for 

the Proposed Action 

for the power 

upgrade alternative. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 71 

No Action Proposed Action Sediment Facility 

Alternatives 

Pipeline 

Alternatives 

Power Upgrade 

Alternative 

Surface Water Quality 

There would 

be no effects 

to water 

quality. 

Some minor temporary increases 

to turbidity in the Rio Grande 

would be expected during 

construction activities, primarily 

in the 1- to 2-week period when 

the cofferdam is placed and a 

similar period of time when it is 

removed. Turbidity is caused 

primarily by suspended silts and 

clays, organic material and 

dissolved solids. Operation of the 

diversion structure is not expected 

to affect these parameters or any 

other water quality parameters. 

The effects on 

surface water quality 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for either 

sediment facility 

alternative. 

The effects on 

surface water quality 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for all 

pipeline alternatives. 

The effects on 

surface water quality 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for the power 

upgrade alternative. 

Water Use and Water Rights 

The nearterm demand 

for water in 

the region 

would not be 

satisfied by 

the current 

supply 

system. The 

applicants 

would seek 

other water 

rights and 

other 

methods for 

meeting the 

projected 

demand. 

The project is expected to have a 

beneficial effect on water use in 

the service area. The applicants 

would be able to better manage 

the available water supplies with 

less reliance on depleted ground 

water aquifers. During periods of 

low flow in the river, ground 

water sources would still be 

available to supplement diverted 

flows within the authorized water 

rights available to each of the 

applicants. The Proposed Action 

would indirectly affect water 

rights in that the County would be 

required to acquire water rights in 

order to fully use the diversion 

and Las Campanas would be 

required to extend their leased 

rights. 

The effects on water 

use and water rights 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for both 

sediment facility 

alternatives. 

The effects on water 

use and water rights 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for all 

pipeline alternatives. 

The effects on water 

use and water rights 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for the power 

upgrade alternative. 

Flood Plains and Flooding 

There would 

be no effects 

to flood 

plains and 

flooding. 

The diversion structure would be 

constructed within the area designated 

as Flood Zone C on the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency’s 

Flood Insurance Rate Map. This 

indicates that the area has a 1 percent 

probability of being flooded in any 

given year. Construction of the 

diversion would not cause constriction 

of flows that would exacerbate the 

flood potential. The structure would be 

designed to be periodically submerged 

by high flows in the river. 

The effects on flood 

plains and flooding 

would be the same as 

those associated with 

the Proposed Action 

for all sediment 

facility alternatives. 

The effects on flood 

plains and flooding 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for all 

pipeline alternatives. 

The effects on flood 

plains and flooding 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for the power 

upgrade alternative. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

72 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

No Action Proposed Action Sediment Facility 

Alternatives 

Pipeline 

Alternatives 

Power Upgrade 

Alternative 

Ground Water 

There would 

be continued 

reliance on 

and depletion 

of the aquifer 

from 

pumping the 

Buckman 

Well Field. 

Less reliance on ground water for 

local water supplies would have a 

beneficial effect on local ground 

water resources. Ground water 

models predict that the depressed 

ground water levels near the 

Buckman diversion site would 

rebound over a time period of 

several decades, possibly as much 

as 100 feet in some areas. The 

Proposed Action would not cause 

any changes to ground water 

quality. 

The effects on 

ground water would 

be the same as those 

associated with the 

Proposed Action for 

all sediment facility 

alternatives. 

The effects on 

ground water would 

be the same as for the 

Proposed Action for 

all pipeline 

alternatives. 

The effects on 

ground water would 

be the same as for 

the Proposed Action 

for the power 

upgrade alternative. 

Biological Resources 

Terrestrial Communities – Plant Communities 

There would 

be no effects 

to plant 

communities. 

Improvements to Buckman Road, 

construction of the intake 

structure, booster stations, and 

water treatment plants would 

result in the permanent loss of 

approximately 59 acres of 

vegetation. Additionally, 

modification or clearing of 

vegetation for facility work area 

construction and preparation of 

the pipeline corridors would 

temporarily affect an additional 

247 acres. For these areas 

temporarily disturbed, the 

vegetation would be reestablished 

through the native plant 

revegetation program and, 

therefore, represents a potential 

short-term affect. 

Alternatives SF1 and 

SF2 would have 

different locations of 

disturbance near the 

river. The sediment 

return line for 

Alternative SF1 

would be longer 

compared to the 

Proposed Action 

resulting in the shortterm disturbance of 

approximately 3 

additional acres. 

Alternative TWP1 

effects are similar to 

the Proposed Action. 

Alternative TWP2 

would affect 

approximately 3 

acres, more than the 

Proposed Action. 

Alternative TWP3 

would require 

approximately 10 

acres more than the 

Proposed Action. 

However, 

construction would 

occur entirely in 

existing utility 

corridors. 

Development of a 

new corridor 

(Alternative TWP1 

and TWP2) could 

encourage changes to 

and increased 

recreation use in the 

area and subsequent 

degradation to plant 

communities. 

Alternative AGP1 

effects would be 

similar to the 

Proposed Action; 

however, the length 

of the power line 

segment to connect 

the MRC WTP to the 

existing power 

source would be 

approximately twice 

as long. During 

construction, shortterm disturbance of 

approximately 1.8 

additional acres 

(using a 30-foot 

corridor width) of 

terrestrial plant 

habitat would occur 

due to the additional 

one-half mile power 

line segment. Once 

in place, the 

disturbed terrain 

would be able to 

recover to existing 

conditions. Between 

Booster Station 2/2A 

and the river, 

disturbance would be 

similar to the 

Proposed Action. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 73 

No Action Proposed Action Sediment Facility 

Alternatives 

Pipeline 

Alternatives 

Power Upgrade 

Alternative 

Terrestrial Communities - Wildlife 

There would 

be no effects 

to wildlife 

populations 

or habitat. 

Approximately 308 acres of 

wildlife habitat would likely be 

temporarily or permanently 

affected during construction. Two 

hundred seventy-nine acres of 

construction-affected habitat 

would be allowed to revert back 

to their previous condition. 

During site clearing activities, 

highly mobile wildlife species or 

wildlife species with large home 

ranges (such as deer and birds) 

would be able to relocate to 

adjacent undeveloped areas. For 

less mobile species (reptiles, 

amphibians, and small mammals), 

direct mortality could occur 

during the actual construction 

event or ultimately result from 

habitat alteration. These effects 

would be minor given the amount 

of habitat affected compared to 

available habitat. No species 

population would be adversely 

affected. 

The 59 acres fenced or converted 

to facilities, Buckman Road 

improvements, and other 

infrastructure would be 

permanently lost as potential 

predator hunting habitat and 

foraging or hiding cover for other 

wildlife species. There would be a 

concurrent decrease in quality of 

the habitat immediately adjacent 

to the facilities due to increased 

noise levels, traffic, lights, and 

other human activity. The 

adjacent habitat also would 

experience a loss of quality from 

the reduction in size, 

segmentation of the habitat, and 

restriction on mobility for some 

species. These effects would be 

minor and no species population 

would be adversely affected. 

The Alternative SF1 

sediment return line 

would be longer, 

resulting in the shortterm disturbance of 

approximately 3 

additional acres of 

wildlife habitat. 

Short-term wildlife 

effects from 

construction of a 

return pipeline would 

be avoided under 

Alternative SF2. 

Alternative SF2 

would result in 

episodic and 

increased truck 

traffic that could 

result in short-term 

wildlife avoidance of 

the Buckman Road 

corridor. However, 

the effects would be 

negligible and of 

short duration as 

wildlife populations 

would habituate to 

changes in road 

traffic. 

Alternative TWP1 

effects would be 

similar to the 

Proposed Action. 

Alternative TWP2 

would affect 

approximately 3 

acres more wildlife 

habitat than the 

Proposed Action. 

Alternative TWP3 

would require 

approximately 10 

acres more than the 

Proposed Action. 

However, 

construction would 

occur entirely in 

existing utility line 

ROW. 

Development of a 

new corridor 

(Alternative TWP1 

and TWP2) could 

encourage changes to 

and increased 

recreation use in the 

area and subsequent 

degradation to 

wildlife habitat. 

Alternative AGP1 

effects would be 

similar to the 

Proposed Action for 

the power upgrade; 

however, the length 

of the power line 

segment to connect 

the MRC WTP to the 

existing power 

source would be 

approximately twice 

as long. During 

construction, shortterm disturbance of 

approximately 1.8 

additional acres 

(using a 30-foot 

corridor width) of 

wildlife habitat 

would occur due to 

the additional onehalf mile power line 

segment. Once in 

place, the power 

lines would provide 

additional raptor 

perch sites. Between 

Booster Station 2/2A 

and the river, 

overhead power lines 

would provide 

additional raptor 

perch sites. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

74 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

No Action Proposed Action Sediment Facility 

Alternatives 

Pipeline 

Alternatives 

Power Upgrade 

Alternative 

Aquatic Communities 

There would 

be no effects 

to aquatic 

communities 

or species 

populations. 

During cofferdam construction 

and demolition, localized 

increases in turbidity would 

occur. Aquatic fauna in the area 

would be temporarily affected 

during these activities. Aquatic 

fauna would be expected to 

temporarily vacate the locality of 

increased turbidity. Given the 

limited area affected, no aquatic 

species’ population is expected to 

be permanently affected. 

There could be limited, localized 

impacts from sediment returned 

to the river. However, the Rio 

Grande normally carries a very 

high sediment load and the return 

of a small fraction of the sediment 

contained in the diverted water 

would likely have a very small 

impact on the downstream fish or 

invertebrate communities. The 

very localized impacts to aquatic 

habitat would have no measurable 

impact to fish or 

macroinvertebrate communities in 

the immediate project area. 

Alternative SF1 

effects would be 

similar to the 

Proposed Action. 

Under Alternative 

SF2 there would be 

no return of sediment 

to the Rio Grande. 

The potential effects 

identified for 

sediment return 

consequences under 

the Proposed Action 

would not occur. 

The effects on 

aquatic communities 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for all 

pipeline alternatives. 

The effects on 

aquatic communities 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for the power 

upgrade alternative. 

Special Status Species 

There would 

be no effects 

to special 

status species 

or their 

habitats. 

A project-specific search of the 

New Mexico Natural Heritage 

Program database did not reveal 

any records of currently listed 

special status species in the 

propose project area. Sixteen 

special status species were 

identified that have potential 

occurrence or habitat within the 

construction areas. Three species 

(Flathead chub, Loggerhead 

shrike, Gunnison’s prairie dog) 

were observed in close proximity 

to the project construction 

boundaries. Project construction 

and operations are not expected to 

adversely affect any population of 

a special status species. 

One species, Rio Grande silvery 

minnow, while not occurring in 

the area, could experience an 

effect from the proposed 

diversion of native Rio Grande 

water. However, the Buckman 

The effects on 

special status species 

would be the same as 

those associated with 

the Proposed Action 

for all sediment 

facility alternatives. 

The effects on 

special status species 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for all 

pipeline alternatives. 

The effects on 

special status species 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for the power 

upgrade alternative. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 75 

No Action Proposed Action Sediment Facility 

Alternatives 

Pipeline 

Alternatives 

Power Upgrade 

Alternative 

Project’s commitment to use 

native flows during nonpeak 

times and the design of the 

Buckman water diversion 

structure to not allow water 

diversion at flows of about 150 

cfs or less coupled with the 

regional mitigation measures 

would serve to avoid an adverse 

effect to the silvery minnow 

population. 

Cultural Resources 

Historic Properties 

There would 

be no effects 

on historic 

properties. 

The historic town of Buckman 

and the Denver and Rio Grande 

railroad grade would be 

physically disturbed by the 

sediment facility, Booster Station 

1A, Buckman Road 

improvements, raw water 

pipeline, return flow pipeline, gas 

pipeline, and power line 

construction. Two additional sites 

would be disturbed by the raw 

water pipeline and power line 

south of Buckman. Three sites 

would be disturbed by the treated 

water pipeline. The existence of 

cultural resources within the 

project area for the above ground 

power line near the MRC WTP is 

currently unknown. However, it is 

likely that construction impacts to 

resources could be avoided 

through careful placement of 

structures away from any 

identified resources. Visual and 

audible effects to the townsite of 

Buckman would occur. 

Vandalism, illegal artifact 

collecting, and inadvertent harm 

to all sites could occur. There has 

been no response by Indian tribes 

to requests for consultation 

regarding the presence of 

traditional cultural properties and 

sacred sites in the project area. 

Alternative SF1 

would remove the 

disturbance to the 

Buckman townsite 

caused by the 

Proposed Action’s 

sediment facility and 

Booster Station 1A. 

Alternative SF1 

would also have less 

of a visual and 

audible effect on 

Buckman. 

Alternative SF2 

would remove the 

disturbance to the 

Buckman townsite 

caused by the 

Proposed Action’s 

sediment facility, 

Booster Station 1A, 

and the return flow 

pipeline. 

Alternative SF2 

would have less of a 

visual and audible 

effect on Buckman 

than the Proposed 

Action, but more of 

an effect than 

Alternative SF1 due 

to the presence of 

haul trucks nearby. 

Alternative RWP1 

would reduce the 

extent of physical 

disturbance to the 

Buckman townsite 

and the railroad 

grade. 

Alternative TWP1 

would affect one site. 

Alternative TWP2 

would affect no sites. 

Alternative TWP3 

would cross the 

railroad grade four 

times. 

The existence of 

cultural resources 

along the 

approximately 1-mile 

power line and the 

substation near Caja 

Del Rio Road is 

currently unknown. 

However, for the 

power line, it is 

likely that 

construction impacts 

to resources could be 

avoided through 

careful placement of 

structures away from 

any identified 

resources. The above 

ground power line 

between the 

Buckman substation 

and the river would 

result in physical 

disturbance of the 

Buckman townsite, 

but the extent of 

disturbance would be 

greatly reduced from 

the Proposed Action. 

Visual effects to the 

Buckman townsite 

from the above 

ground power line 

would be greater 

than for the Proposed 

Action. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

76 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

No Action Proposed Action Sediment Facility 

Alternatives 

Pipeline 

Alternatives 

Power Upgrade 

Alternative 

Indian Trust Assets 

There would 

be no effects 

to Indian 

Trust Assets. 

The facilities at the Buckman 

townsite would be visible from 

San Ildefonso lands. San 

Ildefonso Pueblo representatives 

have not expressed opposition to 

the Proposed Action during 

discussions with BLM and FS 

personnel. There would be no 

adverse effects to Indian Trust 

Assets. 

The effects on Indian 

Trust Assets would 

be the same as those 

associated with the 

Proposed Action for 

all sediment facility 

alternatives. 

The effects on Indian 

Trust Assets would 

be the same as for the 

Proposed Action for 

all pipeline 

alternatives. 

The effects on Indian 

trust assets would be 

the same as for the 

Proposed Action for 

the power upgrade 

alternative. 

Recreation Resources and Traffic 

There would 

be no effects 

to 

recreational 

resources. 

Access to recreational resources 

would be affected through delays 

and small detours during 

construction. 

Recreation opportunities within 

the proposed project region would 

not change. However, with the 

improvement of Buckman Road, 

additional recreational users may 

access the area. 

Alternative SF1 

would have the same 

effects as the 

Proposed Action. 

Under Alternative 

SF2, use of the road 

by heavy truck traffic 

could result in delays 

in access. 

The effects on 

recreation resources 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for all 

pipeline alternatives. 

The effects on 

recreation resources 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for the power 

upgrade alternative. 

Traffic 

There would 

be no effects 

to traffic. 

During construction activities, 

traffic would be affected by 

delays and increased use of 

Buckman Road by construction 

related vehicles. 

Improvements to Buckman Road as 

part of the Proposed Action would 

affect to a small degree the 

recreation experience on both BLM 

and FS lands. On the SPNM BLM 

lands and National Forest System 

lands along Buckman Road, the 

Access and Naturalness ROS 

descriptors would be affected. Due 

to road improvements and increased 

recreational use of the area, traffic is 

expected to increase along Buckman 

Road. This could result in 

cumulative affects to the Social 

Encounters, Visitor Impacts, and 

Visitor Management descriptors as 

well. Traffic would also increase 

due to use of the road by workers 

accessing the new facilities for 

operation and maintenance. Minor 

traffic increases would occur on 

roadways to the MRC. 

Alternative SF1 

would have the same 

effects as the 

Proposed Action. 

Under Alternative 

SF2, traffic would be 

further increased 

along Buckman Road 

from use by haul 

trucks to carry 

sediment to the 

landfill. 

The effects on traffic 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for all 

pipeline alternatives. 

The effects on traffic 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for the power 

upgrade alternative. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 77 

No Action Proposed Action Sediment Facility 

Alternatives 

Pipeline 

Alternatives 

Power Upgrade 

Alternative 

Scenic Resources 

There would 

be no effects 

to scenic 

resources. 

Construction activities would be 

noticeable by site users and 

visitors to the White Rock 

Overlook Park observation 

platform. These effects would be 

short term. 

The diversion structure and 

associated infrastructure would be 

within the foreground view of 

river users (boaters) and site 

visitors and could be seen at a 

distance from the White Rock 

Overlook Park observation 

platform. After vegetation is 

reestablished, the facility would 

not be readily apparent to the site 

visitor or viewshed observers at 

White Rock Overlook Park. 

Boaters would be aware of the 

structure as they proceed past but 

due to the design it would be 

compatible with the river 

environment and not introduce a 

highly discordant element into the 

riverscape. 

Booster Station 1A and the 

sediment facility would be 

apparent to the casual site user 

and viewed from White Rock 

Overlook. However, construction 

of these facilities at the townsite 

of Buckman using historical 

architecture that is compatible 

with the landscape character 

would maintain the historical and 

cultural context. Buried power 

lines from the proposed diversion 

intake site to Booster Station 2A 

would not affect scenic resources. 

Buckman Road improvements 

would make the roadway slightly 

more noticeable to the casual 

viewer due primarily to the 

increased reflectivity, curve 

straightening, and color 

difference of the surfacing 

material. 

Generally, existing utility 

corridors and booster station 

locations would be used which 

would serve to minimize impacts 

to the scenic environment. Once 

Alternatives SF1 and 

SF2 would be 

substantially out of 

the White Rock 

Overlook viewshed 

and the facilities 

would not be visible 

to Rio Grande 

boaters or other 

visitors to the river 

front area. Thus, 

effects to visual 

resources would be 

greatly reduced. 

Alternative SF2 

would require 

trucking out the 

sediment and require 

two sediment storage 

ponds. Drying 

sediment would be a 

different color than 

the surrounding 

environment and 

would be noticeable 

from some higher 

elevation viewing 

locations (i.e, 

Sagebrush Flats). 

Buckman Road 

would have increased 

truck traffic that 

would be intrusive to 

the natural 

environment and 

noticeable to the 

casual viewer. 

Alternative TWP1 

would require the 

construction and 

operation of the 

treated water return 

line in a new utility 

corridor along BLM 

and Las Campanas 

lands. 

Alternative TWP2 

would install the 

treated water return 

line back along the 

Dead Dog Well 

corridor and then cut 

east in a new utility 

corridor on BLM 

land. Alternative 

TWP3 would use 

existing utility 

corridors. Any new 

treated water pipeline 

alignment on BLM 

land would require a 

ROW. 

Construction and 

establishment of a 

new pipeline corridor 

(Alternatives TWP1 

and TWP2) would 

affect the local 

viewshed by 

introducing a straight 

line swathe and bare 

ground. Even with 

revegetation, the new 

corridor would be 

noticeable in the 

short term until 

vegetation is reestablished. 

Development of a 

new corridor could 

encourage changes to 

and increased 

recreation use in the 

area and subsequent 

degradation to the 

natural viewshed. 

RWP1 would reduce 

the extent of physical 

disturbance from 

Booster Station 1A to 

Alternative AGP1 

would require 

upgrade of the 

existing Buckman 

transformer station 

and construction and 

operation of a new 

substation 

approximately 1 mile 

southeast of the 

MRC WTP, adjacent 

to an existing power 

line along Caja del 

Rio Road. The 

substation would be 

in the viewshed of 

some houses present 

along Caja del Rio 

Road. Under AGP1a, 

an existing buried 

power line would be 

used to supply power 

from the new 

substation to the 

MRC WTP. 

Therefore, 

transmission lines 

under AGP1a would 

not be apparent to 

visitors and residents 

along Caja Del Rio 

Road. Under AGP1b, 

overhead power lines 

from the proposed 

diversion intake site 

to Booster Station 

2A would be 

apparent to site 

visitors and 

introduce a 

discordant visual 

element into the 

landscape. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

78 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

No Action Proposed Action Sediment Facility 

Alternatives 

Pipeline 

Alternatives 

Power Upgrade 

Alternative 

plants are reestablished, the 

pipeline corridors would blend in 

with existing conditions. Booster 

station architecture that blends 

into the surrounding landscape 

would serve to minimize the 

visual effect of additional 

structures. 

The proposed MRC WTP would 

be designed to blend into the 

surrounding landscape. Thus, it 

would not be readily evident to a 

distant viewer after successful 

vegetation reestablishment. The 

level of change to the foregroundmiddleground perspective would 

be moderate due to the extent and 

prominence of the water 

treatment facilities and associated 

infrastructure. 

The proposed above ground 

power line to the MRC and the 

proposed power substation at the 

MRC would have visual effects 

as shown in Figure 21. In 

addition, some visual effects may 

occur as a result of upgrades to 

the exiting Buckman power 

substation. 

Booster Station 2A. 

Noise 

There would 

be no effects 

to noise 

levels. 

Noise levels during construction 

would be increased, but would be 

localized and temporary. 

Post construction, minor increases 

to ambient noise levels would 

occur in the immediate vicinity of 

the diversion facility, sediment 

facility, booster stations, and 

water treatment plants. Noise 

levels would attenuate rapidly 

with distance away from the 

facilities. 

Under Alternatives 

SF1 and SF2, 

locating the sediment 

facility away from 

the river would 

reduce noise levels 

near the river. 

Alternative SF2 

would cause more 

truck traffic noise on 

Buckman Road, and 

more noise at the 

sediment facility 

from removal of 

sand. 

Under Alternative 

RWP1, noise effects 

would be similar to 

the Proposed Action. 

During construction, 

all of the TWP 

alternatives would 

have lesser noise 

effects than the 

Proposed Action 

since they are located 

farther from the Las 

Campanas 

subdivision. 

The effects on noise 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for the power 

upgrade alternative. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 79 

No Action Proposed Action Sediment Facility 

Alternatives 

Pipeline 

Alternatives 

Power Upgrade 

Alternative 

Air Quality 

There would 

be no effects 

to air quality. 

During construction, there would 

be minor increases in airborne 

particulate matter (fugitive dust) 

and emissions generated from 

construction activities, 

equipment, and vehicle traffic. 

During operations, some minor 

increases to vehicle emissions 

would occur from increased 

maintenance and recreational 

traffic, but dust would be reduced 

by road improvements. 

For Alternative SF1, 

the effects on air 

quality would be 

similar to those for 

the Proposed Action. 

Alternative SF2 

would have greater 

increases of dust and 

emissions due to 

increased truck 

traffic on Buckman 

Road. 

Under Alternative 

RWP1, air quality 

effects would be 

similar to the 

Proposed Action. 

During construction, 

all of the TWP 

alternatives would 

have lesser air 

quality effects than 

the Proposed Action 

since they are located 

farther from the Las 

Campanas 

subdivision. 

The effects on air 

quality would be the 

same as for the 

Proposed Action for 

the power upgrade 

alternative. 

Geology and Soils 

There would 

be no effects 

to geology 

and soils. 

During construction, lay down 

and equipment staging areas, 

proposed improvement sections 

to Buckman Road, and 

construction ROWs would be 

cleared. Site clearing activities 

would result in localized soil 

disturbance and/or removal. 

The effects on 

geology and soils 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for all 

sediment facility 

alternatives. 

The effects on 

geology and soils 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for all 

pipeline alternatives. 

The effects on 

geology and soils 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for the power 

upgrade alternative. 

Social and Economic Resources 

Population and Housing, Growth and Dynamics 

Population 

growth and 

dynamics as 

well as 

housing 

growth would 

be 

constrained. 

The project is designed to meet 

needs through 2010; therefore, 

future growth would still be 

moderately to tightly limited 

because of water availability. 

The effects on 

population growth 

and housing would 

be the same as those 

associated with the 

Proposed Action for 

all sediment facility 

alternatives. 

The effects on 

population growth 

and housing would 

be the same as for the 

Proposed Action for 

all pipeline 

alternatives. 

The effects on 

population and 

housing, growth and 

dynamics would be 

the same as for the 

Proposed Action for 

the power upgrade 

alternative. 

Ways of Life 

Ways of life 

would be 

affected due 

to limited 

water 

resources. 

Ways of life would be affected 

similarly to No Action, but with 

less severe changes. 

The effects on ways 

of life would be the 

same as those 

associated with the 

Proposed Action for 

all sediment facility 

alternatives. 

The effects on ways 

of life would be the 

same as for the 

Proposed Action for 

all pipeline 

alternatives. 

The effects on ways 

of life would be the 

same as for the 

Proposed Action for 

the power upgrade 

alternative. 
Chapter 2 — Proposed Action and Alternatives 

80 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

No Action Proposed Action Sediment Facility 

Alternatives 

Pipeline 

Alternatives 

Power Upgrade 

Alternative 

Employment/Unemployment 

Construction 

and touristoriented 

industries 

would lose 

jobs. 

Employment is more likely to be 

stable during the planning period 

should the Proposed Action go 

forth. There would be minor but 

beneficial employment from 

construction and operation of the 

proposed project. 

The effects on 

employment/ 

unemployment 

would be the same as 

those associated with 

the Proposed Action 

for all sediment 

facility alternatives. 

The effects on 

employment/ 

unemployment 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for all 

pipeline alternatives. 

The effects on 

employment/ 

unemployment 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for the power 

upgrade alternative. 

Revenue Base 

Gross 

receipts tax 

from reduced 

housing starts 

would 

decrease and 

property tax 

revenues 

would 

increase. 

The revenue base would be 

similar to but less severe than the 

No Action Alternative. 

The effects on 

revenue base would 

be the same as those 

associated with the 

Proposed Action for 

all sediment facility 

alternatives. 

The effects on 

revenue base would 

be the same as for the 

Proposed Action for 

all pipeline 

alternatives. 

The effects on 

revenue base would 

be the same as for 

the Proposed Action 

for the power 

upgrade alternative. 

Environmental Justice 

Santa Fe 

County does 

not meet the 

definition 

under EO 

12898 for a 

low-income 

population. 

Environmental justice issues 

would be similar as the No Action 

Alternative. 

The effects on 

environmental justice 

would be the same as 

those associated with 

the Proposed Action 

for all sediment 

facility alternatives. 

The effects on 

environmental justice 

would be the same as 

for the Proposed 

Action for all 

pipeline alternatives. 

The effects on 

environmental justice 

communities would 

be the same as for 

the Proposed Action 

for the power 

upgrade alternative. 

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 81 

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

This chapter describes the existing conditions and environmental effects associated with the 

Proposed Action and alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. There are 13 resource 

sections. Each section begins by describing the affected environment, which is then followed by 

an assessment of the expected consequences from implementing the Proposed Action and 

alternatives. Each section summarizes some of the more detailed information from the technical 

analysis reports prepared for this project in order to make the information readily understood and 

reduce the length of this EIS. The individual analysis reports are in the project record and 

available for public review. Where there are differences between the information contained in the 

analysis reports and the information in this EIS, the EIS takes precedence. The EIS was reviewed 

and edited by various BLM, FS, and consultants several times throughout the interdisciplinary 

process after the original reports were written. 

Considerations for Cumulative Effects 

Discussions of cumulative effects for each resource are provided at the end of each resource 

section. Evidence is increasing that serious environmental effects can result not just from the 

direct effects of a particular project, but from the combination of individually minor effects of 

multiple projects over time. Some authorities contend that most environmental effects should be 

seen as cumulative because almost all systems have already been modified, even degraded by 

humans (CEQ 1997). 

The CEQ regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental 

Policy Act define cumulative effects as “the impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such 

actions” (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1508.7). The regulations further explain 

“cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time.” The cumulative effects analysis presented in each resource section 

is based on the potential effects of the Buckman Project added to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions and their effects in the regions of influence for each resource category. 

Past and present land use activities help define the existing conditions for each resource and are, 

therefore, reflected in the affected environment sections. Past projects that have most noticeably 

changed the characteristics of the river and river resources in the project area include the 

following: 

• BOR in 1938, as part of the Middle Rio Grande Project, completed construction of El 

Vado Dam and Reservoir on the Rio Chama. It is owned by Middle Rio Grande 

Conservancy District (MRGCD) and operated by agreement with BOR. Native waters 

stored and then released from El Vado are subject to provisions of the Rio Grande 

Compact. Angostura Diversion Dam, Isleta Diversion, and San Acacia Diversion Dam 

were also components of the Middle Rio Grande Project. 

• Congress authorized the San Juan-Chama Project in 1956 under the Boulder Canyon 

Project Act. The San Juan-Chama Project consists of facilities that divert water from the 

San Juan Basin (Colorado River Basin) in southern Colorado through 26 miles of tunnels 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

82 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

beneath the Continental Divide to Willow Creek, a tributary of the Rio Chama in the Rio 

Grande Basin, in New Mexico. 

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) completed construction of Abiquiu Dam 

and Reservoir in 1963 and Cochiti Dam in 1970. Both dams influence the characteristics 

of the Rio Grande. 

• The Supplemental Well Project added five new wells in the City of Santa Fe’s Buckman 

Well Field. The well field consists of the original eight wells, plus a ninth that was 

brought online in April 2003, and four others that were added in late 2003. 

• The Buckman area has been modified due to the expansion of the City of Santa Fe, 

housing, construction, road development, and the demand from an increasing population 

for more recreational opportunities. 

Examples of foreseeable future projects are listed below: 

• The City is considering the lease of 3,000 ac-ft/yr of San Juan-Chama Project water from 

the Jicarilla Apache Nation for an approximately 50-year period ending in 2057. That 

lease would involve the release of Jicarilla Apache Nation water from Heron Reservoir 

for use within the City’s Water Utility Service System or for regulatory compliance 

associated with the City’s Water Utility Service System, including pumping offsets. The 

City intends to lease and use that water regardless of the Buckman Project, and to 

construct the Buckman Project regardless of whether it enters that lease. Neither action 

depends on the other to achieve its purpose. Because the lease action would be separate 

and independent of the Buckman Project the lease would be reviewed under a separate 

environmental compliance process. The Bureau of Reclamation, which has approval 

authority over the lease delegated from the Secretary of the Interior, would conduct the 

NEPA process. 

• The City of Albuquerque is constructing a diversion for as much as 94,000 ac-ft/yr 

(47,000 ac-ft/yr of San Juan-Chama water and 47,000 ac-ft/yr of native Rio Grande 

water) to fully consume their San Juan-Chama water, with the native Rio Grande water 

returned after treatment at the Southside Water Reclamation Plant. This project includes: 

construction and operation of a surface WTP to provide potable water for municipal and 

industrial use; construction of transmission pipelines to convey potable surface water to 

the city’s water service area; continued use of ground water pumped from city wells 

during periods of drought and to meet peak demands; development of a program to 

demonstrate and implement aquifer storage and recovery technologies at appropriate city 

well fields; and use of vested and native surface water rights to offset pumping effects on 

river flows. A DEIS was published in June 2002 followed by a final EIS on March 5, 

2004 and ROD on June 1, 2004. 

• The City of Española has proposed a Drinking Water Project that would entail the 

diversion of 1,000 ac-ft/yr of San Juan-Chama water and approximately 1,000 ac-ft/yr of 

native water. The diversion would be built on city owned property just north of the city 

and a portion of the construction work would include upgrades to Los Vigiles Ditch north 

to the Rio Grande. The San Juan-Chama water would be consumed and the native water 

would re-enter the Rio Grande at the wastewater treatment plant outfall. An 

environmental assessment is currently under preparation. 

• Los Alamos and the Pueblo of San Ildefonso are considering diverting Rio Grande water, 

and there may be other projects similar to the Buckman Project that would divert San 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 83 

Juan-Chama and native waters from the Rio Grande. San Ildefonso installed a single unit 

infiltration collector well as a pilot project in 2001. 

• There is an ongoing cooperative effort between several agencies to identify, fund, 

implement, and monitor river restoration projects. 

• Projects within the Buckman area could include granting of access ROWs for private 

inholdings within BLM lands, and increased housing development. 

• PNM’s Project Power has identified three alternatives to upgrade the high-voltage electric 

transmission system that serves Santa Fe and Las Vegas and preserve electric reliability 

for area customers past 2004. BLM will be acting as the lead agency on the Project 

Power effort. 

• Other projects may be undertaken related to habitat in the Rio Grande for the silvery 

minnow, downstream of Cochiti Reservoir. 

• The City and County are establishing relationships with other entities responsible for the 

use and management of the river and are active participants in workgroups and 

restoration activities, both planned and ongoing. 

• Future changes in the Rio Grande could also be related to litigation settlement 

agreements, collaborative programs, and future legislation. These may include a 

settlement on the Aamodt et al. litigation that could provide for resolution of water rights 

in accordance with certain requirements. A settlement of this case could potentially result 

in the development of a regional water system to serve the Pojoaque Basin that would 

reduce the impact of domestic wells on the ground water, as well as increase reliance on 

surface water flows. 

Land Tenure and Use 

Affected Environment 

The area of potential effect for land tenure and use is generally defined as the Buckman and Dead 

Dog Leg corridors, as well as adjacent lands that are similar in quality and usage to the project 

area lands. Land tenure and use was evaluated along the Buckman Road/Dead Dog Leg corridors 

where construction activities for the diversion facilities are proposed. The land for the City and 

County and Las Campanas has already been zoned for this use. 

Within the area of potential effect, land is either administered, owned, or managed by eight 

different jurisdictions: FS, BLM, Las Campanas, City, County, State of New Mexico, New 

Mexico Department of Transportation, and private ownership of approximately 265 lots. From the 

bank of the Rio Grande to approximately 1 mile east of the riverbank, the land belongs to the 

Santa Fe National Forest administered by the FS. With the exception of a small portion of State 

land between Las Campanas and FS lands, for the next 17 miles, the land along the Buckman 

Road/Dead Dog Leg corridors is under BLM jurisdiction. Approximately 3 miles of pipeline 

corridor and the Las Campanas WTP would be located on property owned by Las Campanas. 

Within the project area, the FS’s Santa Fe National Forest Plan and the BLM’s Taos Resource 

Area’s Resource Management Plan specify approved land uses on Federal lands. The City and 

County would apply for ROW permits with the State of New Mexico and the New Mexico State 

Highway and Transportation Department. Additionally, easements through private property must 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

84 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

be secured. The County has jurisdiction to approve the pipeline ROW along most of Caja del Rio 

Road. 

Indian Trust Assets or resources are defined as legal interests in assets held in trust by the U.S. 

Government for Indian tribes or individual tribal members. There are no Indian Trust lands or 

assets within the potential effect area. The nearest tribal lands belonging to San Ildefonso Pueblo 

are located directly across the Rio Grande from the proposed diversion structure and sediment 

facility ponds and well north of the associated roadway and pipeline corridors. 

Land uses in the area are varied. Designated land uses include private ranches, timber harvesting 

for firewood and small wood products such as vigas, latillas, posts and poles, utility corridors and 

easements, water management (i.e., booster stations, drainages and flood control), 

rangeland/agriculture, and recreation/open space. The banks of the Rio Grande, within the 

proposed location for the diversion structure, were prehistorically and are currently used for 

hunting, fishing, and gathering activities. 

The FS and BLM have established long-term cattle grazing allotments within and adjacent to the 

project area. Cattle movement and distribution are controlled throughout the area by fencing and 

use of cattle guards. Between Booster Stations 2 and 3, there is a small system of corral fences, 

associated cattle loading chute, and a small livestock well named Dead Dog Well. The Dead Dog 

Well location is the site of the only cattle gate on roadways within the project corridors. Grazing 

lands are characterized by the plant communities as described in the section, “Terrestrial 

Communities, Affected Environment” later in this chapter. 

Currently, there are several existing ROWs issued along the Buckman Road/Dead Dog Leg 

corridor that include: 

• Qwest buried fiber optic line; 

• City of Santa Fe water wells, booster stations, surge tanks, and buried water pipelines; 

• PNM buried natural gas pipelines; and 

• Power lines (both 12.47 kV buried power lines and above ground 115 kV transmission 

lines). 

These ROWs meander back and forth across Buckman Road and Dead Dog Leg Road as they 

traverse the terrain. 

The City owns and operates the Buckman Well Field located near the terminus of Buckman Road 

on BLM and FS land. The lands where the wells are located are leased by the City from both the 

BLM and FS. The Buckman Wells, which divert a portion of the City and County’s San JuanChama contract water, pump piped water upslope along the Buckman corridor into the municipal 

supply system. 

Booster Station 1 is located within the vicinity of the Buckman Well Field. Booster Stations 2, 3, 

and 4 are also along the corridor. Each of these stations pumps water from an adjacent surge tank 

to the next station’s tank southeast and upslope along the corridor. Booster Station 4 is located 

within Las Campanas. Water is delivered to Las Campanas at two points between Booster 

Stations 3 and 4. From Booster Station 4, water is pumped into the 10 million gallon tank where it 

is fluoridated, disinfected, and discharged into the City’s distribution system. At Dead Dog Well, 

a maintenance road along the Dead Dog Leg corridor continues south-southeast on BLM and 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 85 

State land between Las Campanas and FS lands. No improved roads intersect the Dead Dog Leg 

corridor, and usage of this road is light. 

Buckman Road functions as a maintenance and recreational access road through the Buckman 

corridor. According to the Buckman Roadway Study Report (Tierra Lopezgarcia Group, 2004), 

Buckman Road is classified as a “local lane” according to the Santa Fe County Road ordinances 

which states “...A local lane, place or cul-de-sac serves 0 to 30 dwelling units or lots and carries 

an average daily traffic volume of 0 to 300 vehicles with two (2), ten (10) foot driving lanes with 

a minimum right-of-way of fifty (50) feet...” The road report also states that in accordance with 

AASHTO criteria, Buckman road could be classified as a “special purpose road.” Roads in this 

category are typically lightly traveled and operate at low speeds. Superelevation of horizontal 

curves would need to be carefully considered under this classification. No ROW has been issued 

for Buckman Road. Buckman Road is maintained by the County, and maintenance includes 

blading and contouring. There are no other improved roads that intersect the unimproved 9.2-mile 

segment. Unimproved roads exist which diverge from the main trunk of Buckman Road; 

however, these roads primarily serve as recreational access corridors to the surrounding hills. In 

some cases, these primitive roads and trails continue onto FS lands. Vehicle use on these roads 

within FS lands is illegal. The portion of Buckman Road that crosses FS lands is classified as a 

“Level 2” road, which means it is maintained for high clearance vehicles with passenger car use 

not intended. The improved segment of Buckman Road, which passes through Las Campanas, has 

several improved roads that primarily access residential developments around and within Las 

Campanas. 

Prime farmland is defined as land being suitable for the production of any food, feed, fiber, 

forage, and oilseed crops, and is designated by soil type (BOR/City of Albuquerque 2002). No 

designated prime or unique farmlands are identified within the Buckman Road/Dead Dog Leg 

corridors. 

Land use activity levels along the Buckman corridor were determined based on traffic survey data 

collected between August 27 and October 7, 2002. On August 27 (Tuesday) and September 15 

(Sunday), traffic surveys of vehicles and occupants on Buckman Road just north of Dead Dog 

Well were conducted. Observation data that was collected from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. 

included direction of travel, vehicle license plate state of origin, number of people in vehicle, 

purpose of visit, type of activity (hiking, biking, climbing, etc.), or maintenance/grazing allotment 

access, and general observations. On Tuesday, there were 22 vehicles with a total of 37 

occupants. Twenty vehicle occupants were there for recreational purposes, and 17 people were on 

work assignments. On Sunday, there were 48 vehicles with 95 occupants, and only 4 people were 

there on work assignments. On September 9, 2002, a mechanical vehicle counter was buried 

within and across Buckman Road at a location just north of Dead Dog Well and extracted on 

October 7, 2002. During this time period the vehicle counter recorded the number of all vehicles 

using this stretch of Buckman Road. Average weekend use was 99 vehicles over a period of 5 

weekends and 96 vehicles during the workweek (Monday through Friday) over a 4-week period 

(Tetra Tech 2002). 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

86 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Environmental Consequences 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would leave the land tenure in the Buckman Road/Dead Dog Leg 

corridors in its current condition. The corridors would continue to be utilized for the existing 

infrastructure and utilities ROW. Current land uses under the management of the FS, BLM, Las 

Campanas, City and County of Santa Fe, New Mexico State Highway and Transportation 

Department, and private parties, would not be affected. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Construction Effects. Construction would not affect the operations of existing infrastructure and 

utilities that occupy the Buckman Road/Dead Dog Leg corridors. However, disturbance of land 

(e.g., for digging of trenches to pipelines) adjacent to the existing ROW has the potential of 

causing short-term disruption to the normal maintenance of facilities in the corridors. The 

construction contractor would minimize such disruptions by having direct contacts with other 

utility operators and coordinating respective construction and maintenance activities. Buckman 

Road functions as a maintenance and recreational road through the Buckman corridor. The 

proposed improvement of this road as needed by the project would also result in temporary and 

short-term disruptions to vehicular traffic. These disruptions would be minimized by the use of 

normal traffic control devices and road bypasses where necessary. The treated water pipeline 

would be constructed mostly on Las Campanas private land and lands running beneath Las 

Campanas Drive. Thus, some private lands would require utility easements. Paving of Las 

Campanas Drive would occur prior to implementation of the Buckman Project. Additionally, 

construction of the pipeline beneath Las Campanas Drive would result in traffic disruption and 

require repaving of Las Campanas Drive. The north end of this pipeline would run across BLM 

land in a new ROW for a distance of a half mile. 

Short-term disturbance to grazing lands and cattle distribution may occur within the project area 

due to construction activities. Prior to construction, all grazing permittees would be notified as to 

the construction schedule and type of construction activities to be conducted within their grazing 

allotment. Avoidance of undisturbed grazing lands would be the main construction strategy. 

While construction activity may occur during the scheduled grazing periods, activities would be 

primarily limited to existing rights-of-way, thus limiting impacts to surrounding grazing lands. 

Any fences, gates, or cattle guards damaged or removed during construction would be repaired or 

replaced as necessary to prevent cattle trespass onto adjacent lands. 

The proposed construction of a new PNM substation in the NW 1⁄4 of Section 22 under the 

Proposed Action will have a slight direct effect on grazing. The location of the proposed 

substation would effectively remove 2 acres of land from one grazing lease. The current grazing 

lease, on lands including the subject 2-acre substation site, is held by New Mexico State 

University. As a result of substation construction, New Mexico State University would effectively 

lose the use of 2 acres of grazing land held as part of the original grazing lease. 

The FS’s Forest Plan would require special use permits to include new facilities on its land should 

the Proposed Action go forward. BLM lands in the Buckman Road corridor are currently utilized 

for a booster station and raw water pipeline belonging to the Buckman Water Management Unit 

of the City’s water well system. Additional booster stations and pipelines to be constructed under 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 87 

the Proposed Action would require a ROW from the BLM. Construction of a new pipeline in the 

Dead Dog Leg corridor and a joint City and County WTP at the site of the City’s MRC would 

occupy ROW land granted by the BLM. Las Campanas, a master planned real estate 

development, has already accounted for the location of the pipeline corridor and a WTP on its 

land. The City and County of Santa Fe land use requirements are governed by zoning ordinances 

and have existing utility ROWs. Each of these entities are signatories to a memorandum of 

understanding and have agreed to coordinate and work cooperatively regarding land use 

requirements. Construction of facilities would result in temporary as well as permanent 

disturbance of land. A total of 306 acres of land would be affected, of which 247 acres of land 

would be temporarily disturbed during construction and would be returned to its pre-construction 

condition with the area revegetated according to approved vegetation plans after construction is 

completed. Because the proposed facilities are approved under existing management plans and 

agreements, and most of the land disturbance would occur along existing utility corridors where 

current land use is similar to the proposed land use, there would be minimal effects to land tenure 

and use. Short-term disruptions to maintenance of existing utilities would be minimized through 

coordination between the construction contractor and the utility operators, thus there would be 

little affect to infrastructure or utilities. 

Operation Effects. Preliminary estimates from PNM indicate that power loads on the existing 

electrical supply infrastructure near the proposed MRC WTP and along the Buckman Road 

corridor are nearing capacity. PNM already plans to upgrade infrastructure along Caja del Rio 

Road sometime in the near future. However, the construction of the proposed MRC WTP would 

require the construction and operation of a substation adjacent to the MRC WTP. 

The operation of a new PNM substation in the NW 1⁄4 of Section 22 under the Proposed Action 

will have a slight direct effect on grazing. Operation of the proposed substation would remove 2 

acres of land from a grazing lease held by New Mexico State University. The 2 acres would be 

removed in perpetuity to be used by PNM for operation of a new substation next to the proposed 

MRC WTP. As a result of substation operation, New Mexico State University would effectively 

lose the use of 2 acres of grazing land held as part of the original grazing lease. 

Reliability of the water supply to the City, County, and Las Campanas would be enhanced with 

the availability of more than one pipeline in the event of an accidental disruption of supply in one 

of the pipelines. Reliability of the water system would also be enhanced by the construction of 

additional electrical supply facilities that would make the system less susceptible to power supply 

related problems. The agreements made by various jurisdictions during project construction 

would remain in force during project operations. Of the 306 acres of total land disturbed during 

the construction phase, 247 acres would be restored to its pre-construction condition, leaving 59 

acres of permanently converted land for project related uses. Lands permanently occupied by the 

project-related uses would include the diversion structure with the low-head pump station, 

booster stations, two WTPs, and power upgrades and road improvements. The land used by the 

construction of these structures would not be available for any other use (i.e., the land used for the 

WTP at MRC would no longer be available for recreational use). Minor losses of gazing lands 

would occur from Buckman Road improvements and land occupied by new facilities. The portion 

of Buckman Road crossing National Forest System lands would receive minimal improvements 

under the proposed action so that the maintenance level would remain as a “Level 2” road, 

maintained for high clearance vehicles. This is consistent with the recommendations of the 

Española District Roads Analysis Process (RAP) for this area. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

88 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

The operational effects of the Proposed Action on land use would be similar to those identified 

under the construction effects. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Sediment Facility Alternatives 

Construction Effects. Two sediment facility alternatives to the Proposed Action are considered. 

Each sediment facility alternative would have slightly different construction effects than the 

Proposed Action. For example, under Alternative SF1, the sediment separation facility would be 

located further from the diversion structure and thus there would need to be a longer pipeline, 

which means more land disturbed and additional power to the pumps to ensure that the water 

reaches the sediment facility. Under Alternative SF2, there would be no return pipeline back to 

the river, and trucks would need to haul the sediment offsite. 

Operation Effects. Operation effects of Alternative SF1 would be similar to those identified for 

the Proposed Action. With no return line constructed under Alternative SF2, truck hauling of sand 

would be required resulting in increased truck traffic on Buckman Road. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Pipeline Route Alternatives 

Construction Effects. Alternative RWP1 would involve substituting a single pipeline for a 

double pipeline from Booster Station 1A to proposed Booster Station 2A. This would reduce 

disturbance of land along the Buckman Road corridor because only one trench would be dug 

instead of two. Consequently, effects on land use would be reduced from those identified for the 

Proposed Action. However, effects on existing infrastructure and utilities along the Buckman 

corridor would be the same as those identified for the Proposed Action. 

The treated water pipeline under Alternative TWP1 would run 18,193 feet along the boundary 

between Las Campanas and BLM lands on Las Campanas property. Las Campanas has already 

planned for utility corridors on its property. Hence, effects on land use would be the same as those 

for the Proposed Action. Pipeline under Alternative TWP2 would run 21,528 feet on BLM lands 

in the existing Dead Dog Leg corridor except for a distance of about 1 mile. For this distance, 

BLM would have to establish a new pipeline corridor, resulting in a change in land use for this 

stretch. The pipeline route under Alternative TWP3 would run 30,337 feet along existing utility 

corridors and, thus, would result in the same effects on land use as the Proposed Action. Effects to 

existing utilities would depend on the timing of the implementation of Las Campanas’ 

construction of their utility corridors and on other factors. 

Operation Effects. Operation effects to land use, infrastructure, and utilities from all alternative 

pipeline routes would be similar to those identified for the Proposed Action. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

Construction and Operation Effects. The effect on land tenure and use would be similar to the 

Proposed Action. AGP1a would result in approximately 1.8 additional acres (based on a 30-footwide corridor) of additional land disturbance for the power line connection between the existing 

power source and the MRC WTP; however, the power line would be located within an existing 

ROW and, therefore, would not change land tenure and use. Under AGP1a the new substation 

would be constructed along Caja del Rio Road instead of next to the MRC WTP; therefore, no 

effects to grazing would result from the construction and operation of the new substation. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 89 

Cumulative Effects 

Most of the project facilities would be developed within the existing utility corridors. Therefore, 

no additive cumulative effects on land tenure and use, infrastructure, and utilities are expected 

from project implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives to the Proposed Action. 

Surface Water Resources 

The Buckman Project area is located in an area of relative isolation in a region of diverse 

landforms and elevation. The surface water description and discussion provides a general 

overview of the surface water environment that is likely to be affected by the project, and also 

includes an evaluation of the environmental consequences to surface water that would be 

associated with the Buckman Project. 

Affected Environment 

The proposed diversion would be located on the Rio Grande about 15 miles northwest of the City 

of Santa Fe, and about 3 miles downstream of the Otowi Bridge stream gaging station. The 

hydrologic setting includes the following components: 

• The Rio Chama watershed, 

• The Rio Grande between the confluence with Rio Chama and Cochiti Reservoir, and 

• Cochiti Dam and Reservoir. 

Hydrologic Setting. There are four reservoirs within this study area that are relevant to the 

discussions that follow: Heron, El Vado, Abiquiu, and Cochiti. Table 9 provides a summary of 

information about each of these reservoirs. 

Rio Chama Watershed. The Rio Chama originates in extreme southern Colorado and flows 115 

miles south and east to its confluence with the Rio Grande. The Rio Chama is the largest tributary 

to the Rio Grande in New Mexico. Total river length in New Mexico below Heron Reservoir is 

approximately 60 miles, with a drainage area of 3,159 square miles, of which 2,146 square miles 

are above Abiquiu Dam. Elevations in the watershed range from about 12,000 feet above sea 

level in the San Juan Mountains to about 5,600 feet above sea level at the mouth of the Rio 

Chama (USACE 1995). 

• Heron Dam and Reservoir (Rio Chama) — Heron Dam and Reservoir are located on 

Willow Creek, a tributary of the Rio Chama, just above the creek’s confluence with the 

Rio Chama. The dam and reservoir provide a regulating and storage capability for San 

Juan River water, as authorized by the Colorado River Compact, for water diverted 

through the Continental Divide via the San Juan-Chama Project. Heron Dam is located 

about 80 miles northwest of Santa Fe. 

• El Vado Dam and Reservoir (Rio Chama) — El Vado Dam, located on the Rio Chama 

about 5 miles downstream from Heron Reservoir, was built by the MRGCD in 1934-1935 

and was rehabilitated by BOR in 1954-1955. It is currently operated by agreement with 

BOR. Native waters stored and released from El Vado are subject to restrictions of the 

Rio Grande Compact. Water imported into the Rio Grande via the San Juan-Chama 

Project and stored in El Vado Reservoir is not subject to restrictions under the Rio Grande 

Compact. Signed in 1938, the Rio Grande Compact was entered into by the states of 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

90 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, with consent of the United States Congress to 

apportion the waters of the Rio Grande Basin. 

• Rio Chama from El Vado Dam to Abiquiu Reservoir — On November 7, 1988, 

Congress passed Public Law (PL) 100-633, which added two segments of the Rio Chama 

between El Vado and Abiquiu Reservoirs into the national Wild and Scenic River system. 

The two segments combined are approximately 25 miles in length. 

• Abiquiu Dam and Reservoir (Rio Chama) — Abiquiu Dam is located 32 river miles 

upstream from the Rio Chama’s confluence with the Rio Grande. Abiquiu Dam and 

Reservoir are operated primarily for flood and sediment control, as well as storage of San 

Juan-Chama water. The USACE Albuquerque District operates Abiquiu Dam under PL 

97-140. The San Juan-Chama water storage pool has a water surface elevation of 6,220 

feet above sea level, with a current storage capacity of 189,307 acre feet. The contract 

with USACE for the San Juan-Chama Project allows storage of up to 200,000 acre feet of 

water in Abiquiu Reservoir. 

• Rio Chama from Abiquiu Dam to Rio Grande Confluence — Abiquiu Dam has 

regulated Rio Chama flows below the dam since 1963. The releases from the dam support 

the production of salmonids for several miles downstream (BOR/City of Albuquerque 

2002). Since Abiquiu Dam was constructed, the average annual flow in the Rio Chama 

below the dam has been about 500 cfs. Seasonally, the average low flow month has been 

January, with an average flow of less than 200 cfs, and the average high flow month has 

been May, with an average flow of about 1,150 cfs. 

• Rio Chama Acequia (irrigation ditch) — Currently it is estimated that there are 800 

community acequia associations, mostly in the north central portions of New Mexico 

(USACE 1999). Seventeen acequias currently exist on the Rio Chama from Abiquiu to 

the Rio Grande confluence near Española. The reported rates of diversion for 15 of these 

acequias are up to 15 cfs (USACE 1999). 

The diversion structure for each acequia consists of either a diversion dam or heading 

structure. The distinction between a heading and diversion dam is that a heading does not 

span the entire channel, whereas a diversion dam does. These structures have varying 

construction techniques. Brush, timbers, and boulders comprise the bulk of the less 

permanent structures. Acequia diversion structures require frequent maintenance and 

modifications to keep operating after high flows and to enable diversions at low flows. 

The permanent structures are concrete or gabion dams with integrated sluiceways, control 

gates, and headgates. 

Rio Grande from Confluence with Rio Chama to Cochiti Reservoir. The physical form of the 

Rio Grande changes below its confluence with the Rio Chama. The Rio Chama carries a much 

higher load of sand and fine sediment than does the Rio Grande above the confluence. This factor 

and the increase in flow combine to make the Rio Grande below the Rio Chama a wider, flatter, 

and sandier river. 

The reach of the Rio Grande from its confluence with the Rio Chama to the upstream limit of the 

Cochiti Reservoir water surface pool is approximately 15 miles long. The average slope of the 

riverbed is about 6 feet per mile, and the channel width averages about 300 feet. Predominant bed 

materials are gravel and sand, and the riverbanks are largely sandy with some gravel. Major 

tributaries in the reach are the Rio Pojoaque and Santa Cruz Creek, both ephemeral streams, 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 91 

Table 9. Summary of reservoir data. 

Reservoir 

Purpose 

Storage 

Capacity 

(ac-ft) 

Crest 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Max 

Dam 

Height 

(ft) 

Max 

Surface 

Area 

(ac) 

Drainage 

Area 

(sq mi) 

Type Location Operator 

Heron

Storage and 

delivery of 

San JuanChama 

water 

401,000 7,199 269 5,950 193 Earthfill with 

crest 1,220 feet 

long 

Located on 

Willow Creek, a 

tributary of the 

Rio Chama, just 

above the creek’s 

confluence with 

the Rio Chama, 

80 miles 

northwest of 

Santa Fe 

State of New 

Mexico 

developed 

Heron Lake 

State Park by 

agreement with 

BOR and is 

responsible for 

operation and 

maintenance 

El Vado 

Water 

storage for 

irrigation, 

recreation, 

incidental 

flood 

control, and 

sediment 

control 

209,330 

with 

180,000 

available 

because 

of 

sediments 

6,902 205 3,200 877 Earthfill Located on the 

Rio Chama about 

5 miles 

downstream from 

Heron Reservoir 

Built by 

MRGCD in 

1934-1935; 

rehabilitated 

by BOR in 

1954-1955; 

operated by 

agreement with 

BOR 

Abiquiu

Flood and 

sediment 

control, and 

San JuanChama 

water 

storage

1,212,000 

at 

spillway 

crest with 

about 

183,000 

ac-ft for 

San JuanChama 

water1

6,375 

maximum 

pool 

elevation 

341 15,536 2,146 Rolled-earth 

structure with 

30-foot top 

width 

On Rio Chama, 

32 miles 

upstream of Rio 

Grande 

confluence, about 

50 miles 

northwest of 

Santa Fe 

USACE 

Albuquerque 

District 

Cochiti 

Primary 

flood 

control for 

snowmelt 

runoff 

control on 

mainstem 

of the Rio 

Grande

596,400 

not 

counting 

sediment 

reductions 

Approx. 

5,475 

250 9,365 14,900 Rolled, earthfilled embankment with a 5-

mile crest 

length 

On Middle Rio 

Grande, upstream 

of Rio 

Grande/Jemez 

River confluence, 

about 25 miles 

west-southwest 

of Santa Fe and 

about 25 river 

miles 

downstream of 

the proposed 

Buckman 

diversion 

USACE 

Albuquerque 

District 

1

 Only San Juan-Chama water is stored in Abiquiu Reservoir, the remaining capacity is for flood control or sedimentation or is 

excess (Source: compiled from USACE, Bureau of Reclamation and USGS databases available on the Internet.) 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

92 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

meaning they may become dry during the summer (BOR/City of Albuquerque 2002). Much of 

this reach is canyon bound, and the remainder in open flood plain. 

Much of the upper reach of this segment near Española was channelized in the 1950s. Below the 

Rio Chama, the channel bottom width increases to 70 feet to accommodate a flow design capacity 

of 7,850 cfs. Prior to the addition of riverbank protection, the river had shown a tendency to flow 

in a natural braided and meandering state. 

Levees were built in the 1950s to protect the City of Española from flooding. Past gravel mining 

activities have adversely impacted the Española reach. In extracting sand and gravel products, 

miners have excavated the actual riverbed at various locations. This lowering of the riverbed has 

steepened the river slope and destabilized the channel for a considerable distance upstream. 

Typically, the river responded by upstream downcutting of the riverbed, causing the banks to 

become excessively high and steep. Caving and sloughing of unstable banks has caused widening 

of the river channel and increased braiding (BOR/City of Albuquerque 2002). 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Otowi gage is located about 10 miles below the confluence 

of the Rio Chama with the Rio Grande at the Otowi Bridge near San Ildefonso, New Mexico. The 

gage is located about 3 miles upstream of the Buckman Project site. The period of record for this 

gage is from February 1895 to December 1905 and June 1909 to the present, making it one of the 

oldest streamflow records in the United States. Since 1963, after Abiquiu Dam was constructed, 

the average annual flow at the Otowi gage has been about 1,500 cfs. Seasonally, the average high 

flow month has been May, with an average flow of about 3,400 cfs, and average flows from 

August through February typically range from about 800 to 1,000 cfs. 

Much of the reach from the Otowi Bridge, including the area near the proposed diversion site, is 

confined within a canyon until it discharges into the pool of Cochiti Reservoir. The bed material 

here is dominated by sand, cobble, and some boulders. According to USGS flow records, at 

Otowi Bridge the width of the river is about 120 feet and the flow velocity is typically on the 

order of 3 feet per second during average flow conditions on the order of 1,500 cfs. 

The proposed location of the Buckman Project is about 3 miles downstream of the Otowi gage. 

The streambed at this location is typical of the reach overall in that it is composed of gravel, 

cobbles, and boulders, with some sand. The proposed diversion structure location is immediately 

upstream of an arroyo, Cañada Ancha, on the south bank that is dry most of the year, but 

discharges during storm events. Cañada Ancha passes through the Las Campanas community and 

drains a large portion of the Buckman area. 

Cochiti Dam and Reservoir (Rio Grande). The Flood Control Act of 1960 authorized 

construction of the Cochiti Dam and Reservoir. Cochiti Dam is located on the Middle Rio Grande 

in Sandoval County in north-central New Mexico. It is located just downstream of White Rock 

Canyon near the confluence of the Santa Fe River and the Cañada de Cochiti. It is upstream of the 

confluence of the Rio Grande with the Jemez River. Cochiti Reservoir (lake) has a surface area at 

the top of the flood control pool that extends approximately 20 miles upstream into White Rock 

Canyon. Cochiti Dam serves as a diversion point for irrigation water for downstream users. Water 

is released to the Cochiti Eastside Main Canal on the left (east) bank and to the Sile Main Canal 

on the right (west) bank for irrigation of several thousand acres. Use of the river for irrigation in 

this area predates the construction of Cochiti Dam by many years. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 93 

Cochiti Reservoir is operated for flood control, sediment control, recreation, and the conservation 

and development of fish and wildlife resources. During normal, non-flood-control operation, 

irrigation and other requirements are met by regulating outflows to equal inflows to the extent 

possible. 

Streamflow. A maximum flow in the Rio Chama below Abiquiu Dam of 2,990 cfs was recorded 

in July 1965, and there have been times when there was no flow in the channel since Abiquiu 

began operation in February 1963 (USACE 1995). Average monthly flows below Abiquiu Dam 

are illustrated in Figure 23. Evacuation of San Juan-Chama water stored in Abiquiu Reservoir 

may be required when the snowmelt forecast indicates a need for flood capacity exceeding 

302,000 acre feet. The snowmelt runoff forecast point for the Rio Chama is the inflow to El Vado 

Reservoir. In the Rio Chama below Abiquiu Dam, summer and fall flows are higher than natural 

due to increased reservoir releases, including releases of imported San Juan-Chama water and 

storage from Abiquiu Reservoir. The average annual flow in the Rio Chama below Abiquiu Dam 

was about 500 cfs from 1962 to 2001. During this time period average annual flows have ranged 

from a low of 201 cfs in 1964 to a high value of 946 cfs in 1987. 

The Otowi gage is located about 10 miles downstream from the confluence of the Rio Grande and 

Rio Chama and about 3 miles upstream from the proposed Buckman Project site. This location 

makes this gage useful for determining the effects of San Juan-Chama Project releases, which 

began in 1971, on Rio Grande flows. From 1971 to 1998, San Juan-Chama water increased flows 

at the Otowi gage by an average of 73 cfs, or about 5 percent of non-San Juan-Chama flow. 

Because of its proximity to the Buckman site, the Otowi gage is useful for estimating the effects 

of the proposed diversion on flows in the Rio Grande. Figure 24 illustrates annual maximum daily 

flows in the Rio Grande at the Otowi gage from 1900 to 2000. Note that the period from 1963 to 

2000 is shown separately from the earlier record because it is believed to be representative of 

current flow conditions, with Abiquiu Dam and flow regulations in place. The Otowi gage is the 

measuring point to determine New Mexico’s obligation to Texas under the Rio Grande Compact. 

In accordance with the Colorado and upper Colorado River and Rio Grande Compacts, the 

inflows from the San Juan-Chama Project are specifically excluded from native flows at the 

Otowi gage and are accounted for separately. 

Flows in the Rio Grande at Otowi vary with the seasons as shown in Figure 25 and 26. Figure 25 

illustrates how average monthly flows have varied before and after the construction of Abiquiu 

Dam. Monthly average flows from August through February for the period 1963 to 2001 range 

from about 800 cfs to 1,000 cfs, whereas the average monthly flow for May for the same period is 

about 3,400 cfs. Figure 25 also demonstrates the effects of Abiquiu Dam on Rio Grande flows, 

evidenced by generally lower peak flows after the dam was constructed. Flow data gathered by 

the USGS and shown in these and subsequent figures can be found at http://waterdata.usgs. 

gov/nm/. 

Figure 26 illustrates how minimum, average, median, and maximum seasonal and annual flows 

have varied from 1963 through 2001. In Figure 26, the seasons have been defined by month as 

follows: winter = January-March, spring = April-June, summer = July-September, and fall = 

October-December. From 1963 through September 2001, the average annual flow in the Rio 

Grande at this site ranged from 542 cfs (1964) to 2,751 cfs (1985). The average annual flow for 

the period from January 1963 through September 2001 was 1,461 cfs. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

94 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Figure 23. Monthly average streamflows in the Rio Chama below Abiquiu Dam. (Source: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis) 

Figure 24. Maximum daily flows on the Rio Grande at the Otowi Gage, 1900-2000. (Source: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis) 

163

210

367

811

1,153

987

569

455

386

257

344 303

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Mean Flow (cfs))

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

24,000

19001903190919121918192119241927193019331936193919421945194819511954195719601963196619691972197519781981198419871990199319961999

Year

Flow (cfs)

Average Maximum 

1900-1962 = 8,414 cfs

Average Maximum

1963-2000 = 5,301 cfs
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 95 

808

2,328

4,849

3,596

788 805 819

1,012 916 910

1,303

1,166

625 707 810

894

1,293

2,077

3,397

2,994

1,433

1,004 850 779

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Average Flow (cfs)

1900-1962

1963-2001

Figure 25. Average monthly streamflow (cfs) at Otowi Bridge 1900 – 1962 and 1963 – Sep 

2001. (Source: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis) 

Figure 26. Average seasonal streamflow (cfs) at Otowi Bridge, Jan 1963 – Sep 2001. 

(Source: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis) 

483 548

242 388 542

920 862 992 902

2,354

7,091

2,201

1,671

2,751

1,441

2,371

1,089

1,461

1,096

2,822

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual

Season

Average Flow Rate (cfs)

Minimum Flows

Median Flows

Average Flows

Maximum Flows
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

96 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Downstream from the Buckman site, the Rio Grande has been modified into a highly regulated 

and confined river system. Within a 116-mile stretch, there are four substantive irrigation 

diversion points: Cochiti, Angostura, Isleta, and San Acacia. These structures divert water from 

the river to the Middle Rio Grande Project system of canals and laterals for irrigation of 50,000 to 

64,000 acres of cropland, including up to 8,300 acres of Pueblo cropland. Riverside drains and 

waterways collect surface water and shallow ground water, and convey it back to the river at 

numerous locations. 

Surface Water Quality. Water quality in any reach of a river can be influenced by upstream 

flows. There are historical sources of contamination from mining and heavy metals in northern 

New Mexico’s Red River drainage that enter the Rio Grande. There are discharges of wastewater 

effluent from the communities upstream of the Rio Grande/Rio Chama confluence. Some 

tributary streams that enter this reach can introduce high sediment loads during storm events. In 

addition, the water quality within the reach may also be influenced by other contaminants that 

enter the river from dispersed sources such as from the air or direct runoff. 

Examination of the information sources used to characterize inorganic water chemistry indicates 

that the general quality of surface waters in the Jemez y Sangre planning region (an area 

encompassing three northern New Mexico counties: Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, and Santa Fe) is 

generally good with respect to the water quality standards (Jemez y Sangre 2001). Total dissolved 

solids (TDS) levels in surface waters typically fall below a value of 250 milligrams per liter 

(mg/L); such TDS concentrations are substantially below the regulatory standard of 500 mg/L for 

this reach, and well below the 1,000 to 3,000 mg/L range that the Interstate Stream Commission 

(ISC) uses to classify “slightly saline” waters (Jemez y Sangre 2001). In addition to meeting TDS 

standards, surface waters in the study region typically comply with the other water quality 

standards and guidelines. 

The most abundant cation in regional surface waters is calcium, with sodium, magnesium, and 

iron occurring in lesser quantities. The predominant anions are bicarbonate and sulfate. Over 

most of the study region, the surface water is characterized as a calcium-bicarbonate type, 

although calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate and sodium bicarbonate types are occasionally 

observed (Jemez y Sangre 2001). Most surface waters in the study region are classified as 

moderately hard to hard because of the concentrations of calcium and magnesium in them. 

Nutrients (typically compounds with nitrogen or phosphorous) dissolved in surface waters of the 

region can occur from agricultural land uses, urbanization, and wastewater discharges. 

Contributions to dissolved nutrients on the main stem Rio Grande are made by agricultural 

sources from as far north as San Luis Valley in southern Colorado and the Rio Chama above El 

Vado Reservoir. Noticeable nutrient sources in and from tributaries include irrigated areas near 

Española, one of the more urbanized locales in the study region, and along the lower Santa Fe 

River downstream of the City of Santa Fe. Surface water in the Pojoaque Valley also occasionally 

contains elevated levels of nutrients. 

A National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) study of the Rio Grande Valley (Jemez y 

Sangre 2001) was conducted by the USGS from 1993 to 1995. At most of the sites included in the 

study, monthly samples were gathered between April 1993 and September 1995, although the 

actual sampling schedule varied somewhat. The water chemistry variables that were examined 

included dissolved solids, major inorganic constituents, and nutrients. During the 1993 to 1995 

sampling period, the median pH at Otowi Bridge was 8.1 and the median dissolved oxygen (DO) 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 97 

percent of saturation was 95. The average and maximum observed TDS levels were 186 and 221 

mg/L, respectively. Hardness ranged from 95 to 140 mg/L as calcium carbonate, indicating 

moderately hard to hard water. 

Levels of nutrients (compounds of nitrogen and phosphorous that tend to reduce oxygen levels in 

water) tend to be slightly higher at the Otowi site than in the Rio Chama, but are still quite low. 

This is partially due to the tendency of both flows and nutrient concentrations to be somewhat 

higher on the main channel of the Rio Grande above Española than they are on the Rio Chama 

(Jemez y Sangre 2001). During the NAWQA study, the Otowi median concentration of nitrite 

plus nitrate as nitrogen was 0.06 mg/L. This can be compared to the EPA Maximum Contaminant 

Level standard for drinking water of 10 mg/L. 

Turbidity, a reduction in the clarity of water in natural rivers, is often strongly influenced by the 

presence of suspended sediment particles, particularly fine silts and clays. Suspended organic 

matter and, to a lesser extent, dissolved constituents may also influence turbidity. Suspended 

sediments are present in virtually all natural river systems. Silts and clays are derived from the 

areas that are drained by a river and the amount of fine material that reaches a river can be 

affected by practices in the watershed such as agriculture or urbanization. Because of the 

turbulence in a river such as the Rio Grande, silts and clays do not normally settle out until the 

water reaches a quiet body of water such as a reservoir or natural lake. 

Between January 1990 and September 2001, the USGS recorded 98 turbidity samples (Figure 27) 

and 126 suspended sediment samples (Figure 28) at Otowi. The samples were collected at a wide 

range of instantaneous discharges, from less than 500 cfs to over 8,000 cfs. About 15 percent of 

the turbidity samples were above the current State standard. The State has proposed removal of 

the site-specific 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU) turbidity standard as part of its 2003 

Triennial Review Process. The State has also proposed changes to its general surface water 

quality criteria that would not limit increases to no more than 10 NTU over background turbidity 

when background turbidity is 50 NTU or less, or 20 percent when the background turbidity is 

more than 50 NTU. 

Water Use and Water Rights. Water use and water rights issues include surface water and 

ground water consideration, both of which are discussed here. Water use and water rights for the 

City, County, and Las Campanas are discussed in that order. Additional considerations related 

strictly to ground water are discussed in the “Ground Water” section. 

For the 10-year period from 1990 through 1999, average annual water usage for the City, 

including water supplied to the County and Las Campanas, has been supplied from the following 

sources (see Figure 29): 

• Santa Fe River (from water stored in Nichols and McClure Reservoirs): 4,637 ac-ft/yr 

• St. Michael’s Well: 215 ac-ft/yr 

• City Wells: 2,051 ac-ft/yr 

• Buckman Wells: 4,911 ac-ft/yr 

• Total annual withdrawals: 11,814 ac-ft/yr 

The City holds water rights applicable to each of its sources of supply. For the Buckman Project, 

relevant City water rights and agreements include a contractual agreement with the BOR for a 

joint 5,605 ac-ft/yr City and County San Juan-Chama Project contract allocation (for analysis 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

98 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

purposes, it has been assumed that the City would use 5,230 ac-ft/yr and the County would use 

375 ac-ft/yr), and about 131 ac-ft/yr of native Rio Grande rights. The City has a permit with the 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE) to pump up to 10,000 ac-ft/yr from the Buckman 

Well Field. This permit requires the City to offset stream depletions caused by pumping, which is 

administered by OSE using ground water modeling. Historically, the City has used a portion of its 

San Juan-Chama contract allocation to offset depletions to the Rio Grande, and water rights 

holdings on the Rio Pojoaque and Tesuque Creek to offset depletions to those tributaries to the 

Rio Grande. 

The City is considering the lease of 3,000 ac-ft/yr of San Juan-Chama Project water from the 

Jicarilla Apache Nation. Upon execution by the parties and approval by BOR, this lease would 

supplement the City’s surface water supplies through 2057. The City could use the leased water 

within the City’s Water Utility Service System and/or for meeting regulatory requirements 

associated with the City’s Water Utility Service System. To the extent that this water may be 

diverted through the Buckman Project, the total facility diversion would not exceed 8,730 ac-ft/yr 

or 32 cfs. 

USGS Station 08313000

1

10

100

1000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

Discharge (cfs)

Turbidity (NTU)

State Turbidity Standard = 50 NTU

Figure 27. Turbidity data recorded at Otowi Bridge (January 1990 – September 2001). 

(Source: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis) 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 99 

Figure 28. Suspended sediment data recorded at Otowi Bridge (Jan 1990 – Sep 2001). 

(Source: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis)

Santa 

Fe

Upper Santa Fe 

Watershed

25

Santa Fe

Nichols 

Reservoir 

McClure Reservoir

Santa Fe River 

Rio Grande 

Original Buckman 

Well Field 

Wastewater

Treatment 

Plant

Canyon Water

Treatment 

Plant 

City Well 

Field 

285

Figure 29. City of Santa Fe existing water supply system. 

USGS Stat o 083 3000

10

100

1000

10000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000

Discharge (cfs)

Suspended Sediment Concentration (mg/L)
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

100 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

The primary goal of the Buckman Project is to quickly provide an increased level of drought 

protection and lower the stress on the existing Buckman Well Field. To meet longer term needs 

associated with increases in demand over time, the City and County would be evaluating 

additional supply sources in the coming years. The longer term planning would include continued 

use of the Buckman Project as one component of supply for meeting the City and County’s longterm needs. However, in the interim—before the long-term alternative components can be 

implemented—it is expected that some growth in demand would occur. Thus, the Buckman 

Project was sized to meet the City and County needs now and through approximately 2010, and 

Las Campanas needs at full build-out which is anticipated to occur between approximately 2010 

and 2015. 

Current demands on the City’s water system (including County usage, but excluding Las 

Campanas usage) in normal precipitation years have been estimated to be approximately 12,000 

ac-ft/yr for the year 2001. (Note: In 2000, water use restrictions related to drought conditions 

reduced this demand to 11,282 ac-ft/yr, including approximately 117 ac-ft/yr provided to the 

County.) The City’s demand in 2010 is estimated to be between 13,310 ac-ft/yr (drought 

conditions) and 14,760 ac-ft/yr (non-drought conditions) exclusive of any water supplied to the 

County or Las Campanas (CDM 2001a). The City proposes to divert up to 5,230 ac-ft/yr through 

the Buckman Project. This amount is equivalent to the City’s San Juan-Chama water contract 

allocation, which would allow it to meet its expected demand in 2010 while reducing pumping 

from the Buckman Well Field. 

The City has an agreement to provide up to 500 ac-ft/yr of water through the City’s system to the 

County. The County has indicated that it expects its 2010 annual demands to be 1,700 ac-ft/yr. 

Currently the County holds 375 ac-ft/yr of San Juan-Chama contract allocation. According to the 

County's 40-Year Water Plan, the County has acquired 71.2 ac-ft/yr of additional consumptive 

water rights in Socorro. The evaluation of near-term San Juan-Chama alternatives was based on 

an assumption that the County would secure all additional water rights needed to meet its 2010 

projected need of 1,700 ac-ft/yr. It is also assumed that the agreement would be extended 

indefinitely and expanded to accommodate the 1,700 ac-ft/yr of County demands. 

The current water demand at Las Campanas is about 1,000 ac-ft/yr. The total annual water 

demand (for irrigation and potable treatment and use) for Las Campanas at build-out would be 

1,800 ac-ft/yr. Build-out is anticipated in 10 to 15 years. Las Campanas representatives have 

stated that they have secured water rights needed through purchase and lease arrangements to 

meet the 2010 projected need of 1,800 ac-ft/yr. 

Current and projected water demands are illustrated in Figure 30, using the City’s upper demand 

projection. 

Flood Plains. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps are available that show 

the inundation area that would occur with a 100-year flood (a flood event with a 1 percent chance 

of occurrence each year) along the Rio Grande (FEMA 1988). These maps, which are quite large, 

range in scale from 1:6,000 in urban areas to 1:24,000 in rural settings, are included here by 

reference. Flood zone maps can be obtained from the FEMA at http://web1.msc.fema.gov/ 

webapp/commerce/command/ExecMacro/MSC/macros/welcome.d2w/report. A portion of the 

flood zone map in the vicinity of the proposed diversion site is shown in Figure 31. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Buckman Direct Diversion Project 101 

Flood events in the Buckman area of the Rio Grande have been reduced by the flood control 

reservoirs upstream. However, heavy rainfall events occasionally occur along this reach, resulting 

in higher than average discharge through White Rock Canyon. Over time, high flow events have 

caused the river to reclaim an old meander channel near the terminus of Buckman Road. 

Subsequent flood events have removed the cobble bar and sand bars that are between the 

abandoned meander channel and the active channel. This suggests that high rates of sediment 

transport occur that move boulders, cobbles, sand, silt, and clay down the Rio Grande through 

White Rock Canyon. 

The Cañada Ancha Arroyo is the principal drainage corridor for lands surrounding the Buckman 

Road and Dead Dog Leg corridors. During flood events, everything from boulders to suspended 

load sediments are carried down the arroyo. Sediment that is transported through the arroyo, 

along with material eroded along the banks of the arroyo, is discharged into the Rio Grande. The 

Rio Grande then carries away the sediments, or the sediment stabilizes the channel from further 

incision at the confluence. The proposed diversion facility has been located at a point along the 

Rio Grande immediately upstream of the confluence with Cañada Ancha. Comparisons of aerial 

photographs have shown that this location of the channel bank has been shown to be stable over a 

period of nearly 60 years. 

Environmental Consequences 

Neither the Proposed Action nor its alternatives are expected to have noticeable effects on surface 

water resources, either during construction or once it is operational. Generally, with the project in 

place, the effect on average flows in the Rio Grande would be less than 1 percent. Of that 1 

percent effect, about two-thirds would be associated with diversion of water imported to the Rio 

Grande from the inter-basin San Juan-Chama Project. In addition, the project would have little 

measurable effect on water quality and essentially no effect on flooding or flood potential. There 

Figure 30. Water demand for current and projected future conditions (showing 

City’s upper demand estimate for 2010). 

12,000

16,460

1,000

1,800

18,260

13,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

Current (2001) Projected (2010)

Demand for Water (ac-ft/yr)

City/County Demand

Las Campanas Demand

Combined
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

102 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

would be a beneficial effect on water use in the region. Some indirect effects on water rights 

would occur as the applicants make certain that water rights are in place in order to fully utilize 

the diversion. 

Annual, monthly, and seasonal effects on streamflow are discussed in this section. Although some 

natural variations in flow occur throughout each month, monthly flow was judged to be the 

smallest reasonable unit of time to evaluate the effects of the project. Flow in rivers and streams 

is normally expressed in cfs, whereas water usage is expressed in ac-ft/yr. A flow of 1.34 cfs for 

an entire year would be equivalent to 1,000 ac-ft/yr. This section addresses changes to flow; 

however, effects of flow changes on biota, including the silvery minnow, are discussed in the 

section, “Rio Grande Silvery Minnow” later in this chapter. 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative is defined as no new direct diversion at the Buckman site. The 

applicants would continue to seek other methods to meet their near-term water supply needs. The 

Buckman area has served as a source of water for the Santa Fe area since 1972. The Buckman 

Well Field currently consists of 13 wells and a transmission pipeline that supplies approximately 

40 percent of the water supply for the Santa Fe area in a normal precipitation year. In recent 

Approximate location of 

proposed diversion 

Figure 31. Flood zone designation in the vicinity of the proposed Buckman Diversion, 

where Zone A indicates the 100-year flood zone boundary. (Source: FEMA Web site, 

see text.) 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Buckman Direct Diversion Project 103 

years, production from the Buckman Well Field has averaged about 5,200 ac-ft/yr. Surface water 

from the Santa Fe watershed supplies approximately 40 percent of the water supply in an average 

year of precipitation and the City Well Field provides the remaining 20 percent. These figures 

include the community of Las Campanas, which currently receives its water supply from the City. 

The County has an agreement with the City for up to 500 ac-ft/yr of water, but has used less than 

200 ac-ft/yr under this agreement in recent years. The County also operates six wells that 

collectively produce about 77 ac-ft/yr. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Buckman Well Field would continue to provide about 40 

percent of the City’s water supply. The No Action Alternative would result in continued 

depletions of the aquifer in the Buckman area and the flows of the Rio Grande and its tributaries, 

which would continue to be offset by releases of San Juan-Chama water or purchased water 

rights. The delayed effects of pumping ground water at Buckman since 1972 would continue to 

be observed in the tributaries and the Rio Grande. The effects are delayed because of the distance 

between the streams and the well field. The effects on the Rio Grande are much more direct 

because of its close proximity to the well field. However, there are also residual depletion effects 

due to historic and ongoing pumping. 

According to the permit from the New Mexico OSE, the City is required to offset any depletion 

of flows in the Rio Grande and its tributaries as a result of pumping from the Buckman Well 

Field. This has been accomplished with releases of San Juan-Chama water into the Rio Grande 

and by retiring native water rights owned by the City in the two tributaries and the Rio Grande. 

The two main Rio Grande tributaries in the region are the Rio Pojoaque and its tributary, Tesuque 

Creek, which are part of the Nambe, Tesuque, Pojoaque drainage system. The method used by the 

OSE to estimate stream depletions was used in the current analysis to determine the effects of the 

Buckman Well Field on the volumes of water flowing in these two streams. The results show that 

the cone of depression for the Buckman Well Field causes a small reduction in the volumes of 

ground water flowing into these tributaries and, thus, affects their overall flow. Both the City and 

Las Campanas have purchased and transferred or retired water rights in these tributaries to 

compensate for the depletions calculated by OSE. Approximately 63 ac-ft/yr in the Rio Pojoaque 

and approximately 43.3 ac-ft/yr (including accounting for Northwest Well requirements) in 

Tesuque Creek have been retired and dedicated to offsets required by Buckman pumping. These 

dedicated rights may only be used as offsets. 

The Rio Pojoaque and Tesuque Creek experience reductions in flow because a portion of the 

water they convey comes from the discharge of ground water, in addition to surface runoff from 

snowmelt and rainfall. For 2001, a reduction of approximately 52 acre feet in the volume of water 

flowing in the Rio Pojoaque and a reduction of approximately 32 acre feet from the volume of 

water flowing in Tesuque Creek was estimated as a result of pumping at Buckman based on 

calculations using the OSE’s numerical model. Historical data from a USGS gaging station 

indicate an average flow of 2,317 ac-ft/yr in Tesuque Creek (gaging station 8308025 near 

Tesuque). The data for Tesuque Creek are for the period between June 1998 and September 1999; 

this limited period of record may not fully characterize current conditions. 

The center of the Buckman Well Field cone of depression lies close to the Rio Grande. This 

closeness results in a greater depletion of the Rio Grande flow than occurs in the Rio Pojoaque 

and Tesuque Creek. Computer modeling is also used by OSE to estimate the amount of flow 

reduction in the Rio Grande each year as a result of pumping the Buckman Well Field. Computer 

modeling using the OSE’s numerical model estimated a depletion of approximately 2,569 acre 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

104 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

feet for 2001 in the volume of water flowing in the Rio Grande as a result of current and 

historical well field pumping at Buckman. The average depletion of the Rio Grande for the 5-year 

period from 1997 to 2001 was 2,487 ac-ft/yr. All Buckman well depletions on the Rio Grande are 

offset with San Juan-Chama water and a small amount of retired native Rio Grande rights. 

In addition to the recently installed Well No. 9, an environmental assessment was recently 

prepared for four additional wells (Tetra Tech 2003) that have since been installed. With the 

addition of these four supplemental wells, by the end of 2006 the Rio Grande is expected to 

experience a reduction in flow of approximately 2,949 ac-ft/yr. By the end of 2060, the Rio 

Grande would experience a reduction in flow of approximately 4,507 ac-ft/yr. Buckman well 

depletions on the Rio Grande would continue to be offset with San Juan-Chama water and a small 

amount of retired native Rio Grande rights. Because of this, there would be no net depletion of 

water in the Rio Grande. 

By the end of 2060, the anticipated effect on the Rio Pojoaque of operating all 13 wells at 

Buckman is projected to be a reduction in flow of approximately 327 ac-ft/yr. By the end of 2060, 

the anticipated effect on Tesuque Creek of operating all 13 wells at Buckman is projected to be a 

reduction in flow of approximately 167 ac-ft/yr. These numbers do not take into account OSE’s 

permit requirements for the Buckman Well Field, which would prevent pumping at Buckman 

from resulting in depletions of these tributaries in amounts greater than the amount of water the 

City owns rights to in them. The actual rates the City would be allowed to pump through 2060 are 

impossible to predict because they depend upon future demands, the availability of other supplies, 

weather patterns, actual rates of pumping at Buckman during the most recent year, and other 

variables. The net result of OSE’s Buckman Well Field permit requirements is that there can be 

no depletions to streamflows from pumping of the Buckman wells that are not fully offset. 

Depletions in streamflow are illustrated in Figure 32. 

The No Action Alternative would not affect water quality or sediment transport in the river. 

Likewise, neither the flood plains nor the flood potential would be affected. However, the nearterm demand for water in the region would not be satisfied by the current supply system. The 

applicants would seek other water rights and other methods for meeting the projected demand. 

Other than the alternatives addressed in this document, no other options are available to evaluate. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Minor flow reductions would occur downstream of the diversion. Under most flow conditions, 

reductions in native Rio Grande flows would be on the order of 1 percent. Upstream of the 

diversion, Rio Grande flows would be enhanced by about 4.2 cfs on average by additional 

releases of San Juan-Chama water. Effects on water quality, sediment transport, and flood plains 

and flooding would be essentially immeasurable. The effect on water use would be beneficial. 

The Proposed Action would allow the City to meet its water use needs to the year 2010, the 

County to meet its needs for a longer period, and Las Campanas to meet its needs through full 

build-out. The Proposed Action would not directly affect water rights, but would have some 

indirect effects. The City and County would exercise their full San Juan-Chama allocation. The 

County would need to secure additional rights to fully utilize its share of the capacity of the 

diversion and Las Campanas would need to maintain its existing leased rights. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Buckman Direct Diversion Project 105 

Construction Effects. Localized disturbance of streamflow currents would occur during and after 

construction of the temporary cofferdam and upon removal of the cofferdam. This temporary 

disturbance would include some redirection of flows near the cofferdam structure. The cofferdam 

would be placed within a period of about 1 to 2 weeks, and a similar amount of time would be 

required for removal. The cofferdam is projected to be in place for approximately 5 months. 

Since there would be no discharges to the flow or added contaminants, no serious short-term or 

long-term construction effects to water quality have been identified. Some temporary increases to 

turbidity would be expected during construction activities, primarily during placement and 

removal of the cofferdam. After completion of construction, turbidity would return to preconstruction levels. During construction of the diversion, effects on other water quality 

parameters would be minimal, including effects on the presence of dissolved solids, trace metals, 

or organic materials. The cofferdam would isolate flows from construction activities. As a 

condition of the construction permits, any spills of petroleum products or other materials would 

be cleaned up prior to removal of the cofferdam. 

Operation Effects. The direct and indirect effects on surface water associated with operation of 

the Buckman Project are discussed in the following paragraphs. Projected Offset Requirements (ac-ft/yr) 

4,012

233

80

4,507

327

167

677

71 40

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

Rio Grande Rio Pojoaque Rio Tesuque

No Action with Wells 1-9

No Action with Wells 1-13

Proposed Action with Wells 1-13

Figure 32. Projected offsetting requirements in 2060 in the Rio Grande and tributary 

flows. (Source: Modeling data provided by CDM—Permit Applicants’ Contractor) 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

106 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Effects on Streamflow — Some localized changes in streamflow currents would occur near the 

diversion structure. The changes are not expected to affect the flow regime in the river. Generally, 

with the project in place, the effect on average flows in the Rio Grande would be less than 1 

percent. Of that 1 percent effect, about two-thirds would be associated with diversion of water 

imported to the Rio Grande from the inter-basin San Juan-Chama Project. Streamflows upstream 

of the diversion would be enhanced by about 4.2 cfs on average through releases of San JuanChama Project water. 

The volume of water diverted at Buckman would fluctuate through the year based upon water 

demands, availability of other sources, and operational protocol. Using historical water usage 

patterns and by developing estimates on water demands in 2010, an estimate of the maximum 

diversion by month in 2010 was made. This maximum monthly average flow was calculated 

based upon the total combined City, County, and Las Campanas demand minus availability of the 

other sources of water including the Santa Fe River, City Well Field, and Buckman Well Field. 

Under some conditions, the other sources may be limited or unavailable, such as during drought 

conditions or failure of the existing Buckman pipeline. The excess demand would be supplied by 

the diversion. The Las Campanas demand was then added to the City and County demand. 

Table 3 in Chapter 2 shows the maximum monthly average 

diversion projections for all proponents for each month under 

2010 drought conditions. The maximum monthly average 

diversion would not occur in every month, nor is it likely to 

occur in consecutive months. Peak flow through the diversion 

would occur during the summer months when water demand is 

the highest. During 7 months, the maximum monthly average 

flow would be less than 70 percent of the peak day diversion of 

28.2 cfs. The daily diversion volume during any given month 

would vary from a net flow of zero to 28.2 cfs, averaging up to 

12 cfs over the course of a year. For purposes of analysis, 

estimated average monthly diversions are estimated in Table 10. 

The diversion values shown in Table 3 and Table 10 do not 

include the “carriage” water. Up to an additional 4 cfs would be 

diverted and returned to the river with diverted sand near the 

point of diversion. 

As discussed in Chapter 2, the system may not operate under 

several conditions. The minimum design capacity would 

mitigate possible effects on the lowest flows in the river. The 

system would not be able to operate at full capacity when river flows are below about 200 cfs, 

and may be inoperable when river flows are below about 150 cfs. 

During operation, maximum diversions from the river would be about 32 cfs, with about 4 cfs 

returned with the sand fraction of the sediment load, for a net maximum withdrawal of 28.2 cfs. 

The average annual diversion would be less than half this amount, up to about 12 cfs (8,730 acft/yr), and would depend on demands and other factors. About 64 percent of the water withdrawn 

would be of releases from the San Juan-Chama Project. The average annual flow rate in the Rio 

Grande at the point of diversion, since the construction of Abiquiu Reservoir, has been 1,461 cfs. 

Table 10. Estimated 

average monthly 

diversions.

Month cfs 

January 6.8 

February 7.7 

March 8.5 

April 11.0 

May 14.4 

June 15.8 

July 15.8 

August 14.4 

September 13.7 

October 11.9 

November 6.8 

December 7.7 

Annual Average 12.0 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Buckman Direct Diversion Project 107 

The expected monthly maximum average diversions were scaled to estimate average monthly and 

seasonal diversions. A scaling factor was used so that the average of the monthly diversion would 

be equal to the annual average diversion of 12 cfs. The estimated average monthly diversions are 

shown in Table 10. Figure 33 shows the maximum average monthly diversion and the estimated 

average monthly diversion as a percent of the average monthly flows for the period January 1963 

through September 2001 (see Figure 25 for monthly river flow data). Figure 34 shows similar 

data by season and annually (see Figure 26 for seasonal and annual river flow data). Note that 

seasons are defined the same as for Figure 26 (winter = January-March, spring = April-June, 

summer = July-September, and fall = October-December). The average diversion would be less 

than 1 percent of the total flow in the river (1963-2001), and the average diversion of native Rio 

Grande water would be less than a third of a percent of the total flow in the river. 

For the period of January 1963 through September 2001, the lowest average monthly flow of 

record was 212 cfs for the month of July 1963. These low flows were probably partially caused 

by reservoir startup operations at Abiquiu. The projected average diversion for the Buckman 

Project would be up to 12 cfs. Had this diversion occurred in July 1963, it would have 

represented less than 6 percent of the lowest monthly flow of record. Of that total diversion, about 

2 percent would have been native Rio Grande water and the remainder (4 percent) would be San 

Juan-Chama water. 

Currently the City is required to offset about 2,600 ac-ft/yr of depletions in Rio Grande flows as a 

result of pumping from the Buckman Well Field. The City has historically used its approximately 

131 ac-ft/yr of native Rio Grande rights to partially meet these offset requirements. With the 

diversion in place, the City and County could directly divert their full allocation of San JuanChama water, 5,605 ac-ft/yr (provided that historical and future Buckman Well Field pumping 

offsets could be met by other sources). These additional flows would enhance streamflow 

upstream of the diversion by about 4.2 cfs on average from current conditions (i.e., including 

current San Juan-Chama releases). 

Ground water modeling discussed in the section, “Ground Water” of this document shows that 

adding the direct diversion with reduced pumping from the Buckman Well Field would cause a 

gradual reduction in the depletions of flow in the Rio Grande that are caused by ground water 

withdrawals. Depletions of flow from ground water pumping are offset by releases of San JuanChama water and a small amount of retired native Rio Grande rights. The ground water/surface 

water interactions and quantities of depletions are discussed in the section, “Ground Water” with 

the ground water analysis. 

Effects on Sediment Transport and Deposition — The Proposed Action would not have 

noticeable effects on sediment transport and deposition when compared to the order-of-magnitude 

type variations that occur seasonally in sediment transport in a natural river such as the Rio 

Grande. This conclusion is based on hydraulic and sediment calculations for conditions before 

and after the proposed diversion. 

The effect of the proposed diversion facility on flow characteristics and sediment transport in the 

river downstream of the diversion can be estimated from equations used in hydraulic analysis of 

river systems. Because the majority of sediment is smaller than can be removed with the proposed 

sediment separation facility near the point of diversion, the majority of sediment diverted with 

raw water from the Rio Grande would be pumped up to the WTP where it would be removed and 

disposed. Therefore, the total sediment load in the Rio Grande would be reduced by operation of 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

108 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

the Buckman Project. Downstream of the proposed diversion, flow depth would decrease slightly 

and there would be some sediment deposition. The calculations are discussed in the Water 

Resources Technical Report that was prepared in support of this EIS. 

Using hydraulic equations for flow in a river and sediment transport, it is possible to estimate the 

degree to which the bed level could be adjusted by a slight reduction in flow with and without the 

return of the sand fraction. From these equations it was estimated that the thickness of the 

potential deposition immediately downstream of the diversion would typically be less than an 

inch and confined to an area within a few hundred feet of the diversion. With the variations in a 

typical natural river channel that could be expected in the Rio Grande, this amount of deposition 

would be essentially immeasurable. This calculation assumes that coarse sediment would be 

returned to the river with 4 cfs of carriage water, a feature that is part of the Proposed Action, but 

would not be returned to the river as one of the sediment facility alternatives. Sediment facility 

alternatives are discussed later in this document. 

As an example, for a flow of 1,000 cfs, the calculations suggest that with the sand return, the 

deposition downstream of the diversion would be about 0.16 inch and 0.11 inch without the sand 

return. Neither amount would be noticeable in a natural river channel like that of the Rio Grande 

that undergoes continual erosion and deposition. 

Effects on Water Quality — The Proposed Action could have very minor effects on turbidity, but 

would not affect any other water quality parameters such as hardness, total dissolved solids, 

organic constituents or any other constituents that could be present in the river. Naturally present 

sands with particle sizes coarser than 0.1 mm would be returned to the river; however, since these 

would be present in the river anyway, this is not considered to be an adverse impact. Re-injection 

of sand would have little effect on turbidity, since: (1) for most flow conditions it would represent 

less than 1 percent of the total sand being transported by the river; and (2) higher turbidity levels 

are normally associated with organic material, dissolved solids, and suspended fine silt and clay 

particles rather than coarser sand particles. None of the constituents mentioned in item (2) would 

be affected by the diversion. Since the diversion would not involve effluent discharges or any 

chemicals, petroleum, or other products that could affect water quality, no other water quality 

effects have been identified. 

Effects on Water Use and Water Rights — The Proposed Action is expected to have a 

beneficial effect on water use and an indirect effect on water rights. The Buckman Project would 

allow the applicants to meet their projected demand for water through 2010, and in the case of 

Las Campanas, through full build-out. Approximately two-thirds of the maximum diversion, 

including all of the City’s portion, would be associated with imported water from the San JuanChama Project. Las Campanas has leased rights to supply its requirement. The Proposed Action 

would have an indirect effect on water rights in that these leases would need to be maintained in 

order for the community to continue to use water from the diversion. Likewise, the County’s 40-

Year Water Plan has identified a number of inplace and existing rights including some San JuanChama water to satisfy its demand. Leasing or purchasing water rights would be subject to 

permits and approvals from the OSE that are outside the scope of this document. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Buckman Direct Diversion Project 109 

Effects on Flooding or Flood Plains — The Proposed Action is not expected to affect flooding 

or the flood plain boundaries. The flood plain boundary is defined by the flow event that would 

be expected to be equaled or exceeded once every 100 years, or put another way, has a 1 percent 

chance of occurrence each year. Under such a flow, the diversion structure would be completely 

submerged. Its small footprint, with respect to the flood plain coupled with its low profile, would 

have virtually no effect on the flood elevation or the boundary of the flood. 

Figure 33. Proposed diversions as a percent of monthly flow at Otowi Bridge 

(Jan 1963-Sep 2001). 

2.0% 2.6% 2.8% 2.9%

1.9% 1.2%

1.4% 1.4% 1.1% 0.9% 0.7% 0.9% 1.2% 0.7% 1.6% 1.7% 1.8% 1.2% 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Maximum Ave. Monthly Diversion

Estimated Ave. Monthly Diversion

1.3% 0.8% 0.8% 2.4% 2.0% 1.4% 0.5% 1.4% 1.2% 0.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Winter Spring Summer Fall Annual

Maximum Ave. Seasonal Diversion

Estimated Ave. Seasonal Diversion

Figure 34. Proposed diversions as a percent of seasonal flow at Otowi Bridge 

(Jan 1963-Sep 2001). 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

110 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Sediment Facility Alternatives 

Construction Effects. Construction effects would be essentially the same as those discussed for 

the Proposed Action. 

Operation Effects. Two sediment handling alternatives were developed, designated SF1 and 

SF2. Effects on streamflow if Alternative SF1 is selected would be the same as for the Proposed 

Action. With Alternative SF2, the maximum diversion would be reduced from 32 cfs to 28.2 cfs; 

however, since there would be no return flow for sand re-injection, the net diversion would still 

be 28.2 cfs under peak withdrawal conditions. Therefore, the effects on streamflow would be 

nearly identical to those for the Proposed Action. 

Effects on sedimentation, if Alternative SF1 is selected, would be the same as for the Proposed 

Action. With Alternative SF2, there would be no return flow for sand re-injection; therefore, the 

effects on sedimentation would be slightly less than for the Proposed Action. However, there 

would still be some reduction of carrying capacity for sediment transport. Therefore, there would 

likely still be some localized sediment deposits immediately downstream of the diversion. These 

deposits would likely be smaller than those associated with the Proposed Action and not 

measurable. 

The effects on water quality for either sediment facility alternative would be similar to those 

associated with the Proposed Action and would be very minimal. Some temporary increases to 

turbidity would be expected during construction activities. After completion of construction, 

turbidity would return to pre-construction levels. The diversion is not expected to affect other 

water quality parameters. Similarly, no measurable effects to flooding or flood plains would 

occur. 

Water use and water rights effects associated with sediment facility alternatives would be the 

same as for the Proposed Action. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Pipeline Route Alternatives 

Construction and Operation Effects. Several alternate routings of pipelines are being analyzed. 

With proper construction controls in place, the effects on surface water resources would be the 

same as the Proposed Action for all pipeline alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

Construction and Operation Effects. The effects on surface water resources would be the same 

as for the Proposed Action for the power upgrade alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

Releases of water from the San Juan-Chama Project coupled with the Buckman Project would 

have some cumulative effect on flows upstream of the project and on storage in the three 

reservoirs on the Rio Chama, but these effects would be minor. Releases of San Juan-Chama 

water could be timed to coincide directly with water diversions through the Buckman Project or, 

if it is deemed beneficial for recreational or ecological purposes, they could be timed to match 

natural flows in the river channel or for release during low flow periods. The schedule for release 

of San Juan-Chama water would be determined through a process that would involve the 

applicants, OSE, and BOR. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Buckman Direct Diversion Project 111 

The cumulative effect of the diversion, coupled with releases of water from the San Juan-Chama 

Project, on storage in the reservoirs would be minimal. Abiquiu Reservoir has a capacity of 

greater than 1.5 million acre-feet with almost 200,000 acre-feet available for storage of San JuanChama Project water. On a reservoir of this size, variations in storage over the course of a year of 

5,605 acre-feet (i.e., the City and County’s combined San Juan-Chama Project annual water 

allocation) would affect the surface elevation by less than an inch. If releases of San Juan-Chama 

water were timed to coincide with low flow conditions in the river system, there could be some 

ecological and recreational benefit to having an extra 10 to 20 cfs in the Rio Chama and the Rio 

Grande during the late summer above the Buckman site and some additional flow downstream as 

well. Under such a release scenario, during high flow events in the spring, flows downstream of 

the diversion would be reduced slightly, but on balance over the year, the City and County would 

take only their allotment of San Juan-Chama water. 

There would be almost no effect of the Buckman Project on flows below Cochiti Dam. Therefore, 

cumulative effects with projects in the Albuquerque area, including the Albuquerque diversion 

project are not anticipated. There could be some minor cumulative effects with water right 

transfers or purchases planned by the County. In the County’s 40-Year Water Plan they identify a 

water right of 71.2 ac-ft/yr that they own in the Socorro area and that they plan to apply for 

transfer. That amount of diversion would affect flow on average by a minor amount between 

Otowi and Socorro. A flow of 71.2 ac-ft/yr is about 0.2 cfs or about 0.014 percent of the average 

flows in the Rio Grande at Otowi. 

If a lease for 3,000 ac-ft/yr of water is successfully executed with the Jicarilla Apache Nation, that 

water will become part of the City’s water “portfolio” for the duration of the lease. A primary 

near-term use of that water would be for depletion offsets. If the City and Jicarilla Apache Nation 

enter the 3,000 ac-ft/yr lease of the Nation’s San Juan-Chama Project water and the lease is 

approved by the BOR, and if the City determines to divert some or all of the leased water through 

the Buckman Project, the total diversion would not exceed 8,730 ac-ft/yr or 32 cfs. The lease 

would not alter the infrastructure or effects described and evaluated in this EIS. The effects of 

storage of the water by the City would be de minimis given that the City would utilize existing 

reservoirs consistent with existing reservoir management. The effects of release of the water from 

Heron would be essentially unchanged from existing conditions as the Nation’s water has been 

released from Heron for various purposes. The release of water from downstream storage would 

have de minimis effects on flow conditions in the Rio Chama and the Rio Grande. The releases 

may have a minor beneficial effect by enhancing base flows because water managers could 

normally make release on a gradual and consistent release schedule consistent with the City’s use 

of the water. Consequently, the cumulative effects of the lease and Buckman Project would not be 

significant. 

Ground Water 

The ground water description and discussion provides a general overview of the ground water 

resources in the study area that could be affected by the project. It also includes an evaluation of 

the environmental consequences to ground water resources that would be associated with the 

Buckman Project. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

112 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Affected Environment 

Ground water is used for municipal water supply, as well as agricultural, domestic, and industrial 

purposes in the City of Santa Fe (Buckman and City of Santa Fe Well Fields, see Figure 29), Los 

Alamos, Guaje, Pajarito Mesa, and Otowi Well Fields, the City of Española, and smaller 

communities such as El Dorado, south of Santa Fe. The Buckman Well Field currently consists of 

13 wells that typically are used to supply about 40 percent of the water demand from the City in a 

normal precipitation year. The wells pump from the Tesuque aquifer, part of the Tertiary-age 

Santa Fe Group of Rio Grande rift basin-fill sediments. The 5-year (1997-2001) average 

operational pumping rate for the well field (wells 1 - 8) is approximately 560 gallons per minute 

per well (gpm/well). The 2001 average operational production for all of the wells (wells 1-8) was 

590 gpm/well. 

The operation of the Buckman Well Field has resulted in a regional water level decline, known as 

drawdown of the aquifer. Drawdown from well pumping does not occur uniformly throughout the 

aquifer. The greatest amount of drawdown occurs in the vicinity of the wells. Less drawdown of 

the aquifer occurs at locations progressively further from the wells forming what is known as a 

cone of depression. The cone of depression can also be depicted graphically as a series of 

concentric rings centered either on an individual well or on an entire well field. Each ring 

represents a contour interval, much like those used on a topographic map, to depict the shape and 

depth of the ground water around a well or well field. It is important to characterize the 

drawdown at varying distances from an individual well or well field so the effects of pumping can 

be assessed in terms of its effects on reducing the pumping capacity of existing wells, reducing 

flow of natural springs, or reducing the flow of surface water in local or regional streams. 

The measured drawdown within the Buckman Well Field has been approximately 200 feet since 

1982. The drawdown (since 1970s prepumping conditions) that is greater than 10 feet, as 

predicted by a numerical ground water model occurs over a region measuring roughly 1 mile by 

0.5 mile within the center of the well field. Drawdown values exceed 300 feet in the portion of 

the aquifer where most of the pumping occurs, and localized areas (near wells) exceed 340 feet in 

this same portion of the aquifer. Historical pumping from the Buckman Well Field has led to 

current annual depletion of flow in the Rio Grande, Rio Pojoaque, and Tesuque Creek, at rates of 

approximately 2623, 52 and 32 ac-ft/yr, respectively, through 2001 as predicted by the numerical 

model used by the OSE. Depletions for these rivers and tributaries are offset by water rights 

owned or leased by the City. Residual offset requirements from Buckman pumping are expected 

to last for many decades on all rivers and tributaries, even if Buckman well pumping were ceased 

immediately. 

The City of Santa Fe tests the ground water from the Buckman Well Field and provides the 

information in Annual Water Quality Reports (http://sfweb.ci.santa-fe.nm.us/waterwise/ 

WaterReport2001a.pdf). The City tests for a variety of constituents as required by the Federal 

Safe Drinking Water Act, such as arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, copper, fluoride, nitrate, and 

various byproducts of drinking water chlorination. In 2001, with two exceptions, these 

constituents were measured as nondetectable or below Maximum Contaminant Levels or 

Maximum Contaminant Level Goals. The two exceptions involved two samples that were slightly 

above the Action Level for lead. An Action Level is a concentration above which a water provider 

must take additional steps to reduce point-of-use concentrations of a given compound. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Buckman Direct Diversion Project 113 

Environmental Consequences 

Either the Proposed Action or its alternatives, excluding the No Action Alternative, would be 

beneficial to regional ground water resources. The diversion would allow for reduced pumping of 

the Buckman Well Field, which would allow recovery of water levels compared to the current 

cone of depression. In addition, there is no reason to conclude that the project would have any 

adverse effect on ground water quality. 

No Action Alternative 

Ground water flow computer models have been created to estimate the future drawdown and 

other effects of pumping on the aquifer and surface waters in the Santa Fe basin. A model was 

developed by Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) for the City (“City model”) for water supply 

planning that divides the aquifer into nine separate layers defined by their depths and waterbearing properties. The detailed layering used in this model allows the effects of pumping to be 

described more accurately than it has been by other models developed for the region. Most of the 

hydrologic data used in this section were obtained from reports produced by CDM (2002a and 

2002b), an engineering firm under contract with the City to perform hydrological studies and 

water supply planning for this project. Data from the modeling effort was also summarized in the 

Buckman Supplemental Wells Environmental Assessment (Tetra Tech 2003) 

The descriptions of the cone of depression presented in this document are based on the effects to 

the aquifer in Layer 4 of the City model. This layer corresponds to the depth from which most of 

the Buckman wells pump and is, therefore, the layer in which the largest drawdown effects occur. 

Layering of geologic deposits in the Santa Fe region’s aquifer system causes the cone of 

depression to spread out laterally within a layer and to dampen out in the vertical direction. Since 

most domestic wells in the region are shallower than municipal wells, they tap aquifer layers less 

affected by the Buckman Well Field pumping. The resulting drawdown associated with the 

Buckman Well Field that is seen in these shallower layers and the associated effects felt by 

individual domestic wells would, in most cases, be smaller than are described in this section, 

which is based on effects to the deeper model layer. The drawdown values reported here can thus 

be considered a reasonable worst-case for most wells. 

The cone of depression that currently exists in the vicinity of the Buckman Well Field is the result 

of pumping water from the well field over the last 30 years (see Figure 35). An average of 5,200 

ac-ft/yr of water have been pumped from the Buckman Well Field each year for the period of 

1995 to 2001. The pumping of each individual well at Buckman has incrementally contributed to 

the overall well field cone of depression. In 2001, the depth to ground water at the center of the 

cone of depression for the Buckman Well Field was approximately 260 feet, as measured in a 

City observation well located near the center of the well field. This depth to water represents the 

combined effects of pumping from all private, agricultural, and municipal wells in the region, 

although it is most strongly influenced by pumping from the Buckman wells. Aquifer drawdown 

from pumping the Buckman Well Field takes on an irregular shape due to the local topography 

and influence of the Rio Grande. Modeling indicates that the 10-foot contour interval of the cone 

of depression, in Layer 4 of the City model, currently extends approximately 4 miles to the west, 

north, and northeast, 5 miles to the east, southeast, southwest, and northwest, and 6 miles to the 

south, away from the center of the cone of depression (CDM 2002a) for a diameter of 

approximately 9 miles. However, the cone of depression at the top of the saturated zone (Layer 1 

of the City model) near the ground surface is much smaller. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

114 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Figure 35. Simulated drawdown from Buckman Wells 1-8 in 2000, ground water layer 4. 

(Source: CDM – Permit Applicants’ Contractor) 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 115 

As mentioned in the previous section, “Surface Water Resources,” under the No Action 

Alternative for surface water, Buckman Wells would, for planning purposes, continue to be 

pumped at their most recent 5-year rates through 2060. This alternative would result in continued 

depletions of the aquifer in the Buckman area and the flows of the Rio Grande and its 

tributaries—the Rio Pojoaque and Tesuque Creek—and the City would have to continue to 

provide offsets for these depletions. The effects on the Rio Grande are much more immediate 

because of its close proximity to the well field. By 2060, within the aquifer layer most directly 

affected by pumping (Layer 4 of the City model), 10 feet or more of aquifer drawdown from the 

Buckman Well Field cone of depression would extend approximately 5 miles to the north, 7 miles 

to the northeast and southwest, 8 miles to the east and southeast, 11 miles to the south, and to the 

boundary of the aquifer to the west and northwest, away from the center of the cone of 

depression. At the water table surface, however, the drawdown values would be much smaller. 

According to the results of computer modeling, by 2010, pumping Buckman wells would cause 

the center of the cone of depression to be approximately 400 feet deep (CDM 2002b), which 

represents an increase in depth of 140 feet from 2001 to 2010. The model indicates that with the 

passage of time, the average annual increase in the depth of the center of the cone of depression 

would decrease to less than 2 feet per year in the 2010-2060 interval. 

The effects of pumping from the Buckman wells on stock water wells in the area under this 

alternative were modeled by CDM (2002b). Because the actual pumping rates for the stock water 

wells are unknown, it is not possible to predict the effect that drawdown of the aquifer would 

have on yields. It is, however, possible to predict drawdown resulting from operating the 

Buckman Well Field as described under this alternative. Ultimately this tells us very little about 

whether or not a particular stock water well would be affected under the No Action Alternative 

because a low output well would not require more than a few feet of saturated thickness (the 

distance between the bottom of the well and the static ground water level), but it does provide a 

basis of comparison for the Proposed Action. A typical stock water well only pumps a few gallons 

per minute, which does not require a large saturated thickness, so the output of some of the wells 

that are expected to experience a high degree of drawdown from the operation of the Buckman 

Well Field would not be affected much, if at all. Alternatively, a well with a very high output may 

be severely affected by a small reduction in its saturated thickness. The effects of an action are 

described here in terms of the reduction in the saturated thickness for a given well. A reduction in 

saturated thickness in a well of greater than 70 percent is generally considered to be an adverse 

effect. When using this criterion, computer modeling indicates that six stock water wells would 

probably be adversely affected by 2060 (with all 13 Buckman wells online). 

The operation of Buckman Wells 10-13 under the No Action Alternative scenario will result in 

continued depletions of the aquifer in the Buckman area and the flows of the Rio Grande and its 

tributaries—the Rio Pojoaque and Tesuque Creek—as discussed in the section, “Ground Water, 

Affected Environment.” The effects of pumping ground water at Buckman would continue to be 

observed on the Rio Grande and its tributaries. The effects on the Rio Grande are much more 

immediate because of its close proximity to the well field. By 2060, with all 13 Buckman wells 

operating within the aquifer layer most directly affected by pumping (Layer 4 of the City model), 

10 feet or more of aquifer drawdown from the Buckman Well Field cone of depression would 

extend approximately 6 miles to the north, 6 miles to the northeast and southwest, 8 miles to the 

east, 12 miles to the southeast, 13 miles to the south, 8 miles to the southwest, and to the 

boundary of the aquifer to the west and northwest, away from the center of the cone of 

depression. At the water table surface, however, drawdown values would be much smaller.
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

116 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Additional details concerning the effects of Buckman Wells 10-13 in the Buckman Well Field can 

be found in previous reports (CDM 2002b) and in the Buckman Supplemental Wells 

Environmental Assessment (Tetra Tech 2003). 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Construction Effects. Ground water, particularly the deep ground water aquifers that are used for 

water supply, would not be affected by construction of the Proposed Action because the 

applicants would continue to use their regional water supply sources as they would under the No 

Action Alternative until construction is complete. 

Operation Effects. The proposed Buckman Project is expected to become operational in late 

2006 or early 2007. This project would allow the City and County to withdraw their allotment of 

San Juan-Chama water directly from the Rio Grande. At that time, pumping from the Buckman 

Well Field would be scaled back to a long-term average of approximately 1,000 ac-ft/yr. The 

effects of operating the Buckman Well Field in conjunction with the direct diversion have been 

modeled by CDM (2002b). The model results show that the shift to the direct diversion would 

result in a gradual rebound of the aquifer water levels coupled with a decrease in the extent of the 

cone of depression, especially when compared to the effects of continued ground water pumping 

through 2060. 

Table 11 shows the projected effects of reduced pumping on the extent of the cone of depression 

based on the City’s ground water flow model, described previously. The distance to the 10-foot 

contour of the cone of depression has, therefore, been assumed to provide a reasonable practical 

boundary. Table 11 shows the distance to the 10-foot contour for existing conditions and for 

future conditions for the No Action Alternative with and without four planned new wells and the 

Proposed Action. In 2060, the projected total distance across the cone of depression from north to 

south is projected to be 19 miles (6 miles north and 13 miles south) without the Proposed Action, 

and only 9 miles with the Proposed Action. 

Table 11. Cumulative effects of the Buckman Well Field on the regional aquifer. 

Distance to 10-Foot Contour Interval from the 

Center of the Buckman Well Field Cone of 

Depression (mi) 

N NE E SE S SW W NW 

Existing Condition (2000) 4 4 5 5 6 5 4 5 

No Action in 2060 with Wells 1-9 5 7 8 8 11 7 AB AB 

No Action in 2060 with Wells 1-13 6 6 8 12 13 8 AB AB 

Proposed Action with Wells 1-13 in 2060 3 4 5 8 6 3 4 4 

Incremental Effect of Prop. Action in 2060 -3 -2 -3 -4 -7 -5 <-2 <-2 

AB = Aquifer Boundary. 

Note: Drawdown as predicted by the City’s numerical ground water flow model, using results from the model layer in 

which the largest amount of Buckman Well Field pumping occurs. (Source: Tetra Tech 2003) 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 117 

By 2060, offset requirements on the Rio Grande from reduced Buckman well pumping are 

projected to be equal to approximately 677 ac-ft/yr, which represents 1,946 ac-ft/yr less than the 

current (2001) situation and would be approximately 3,830 ac-ft/yr less than would occur in 2060 

under the No Action Alternative with 13 wells in place. Similar results would occur in the Rio 

Pojoaque and Tesuque Creek. Table 12 provides a summary of calculated offset requirements for 

the Rio Grande and its tributaries. 

A comparison of stock water well depths, original depths to ground water in those wells, and the 

anticipated cumulative drawdown effects from pumping all 13 Buckman wells for each year 

through 2060 was conducted by CDM (2002b) to determine if any of the stock water wells might 

be adversely affected. To maintain a consistent reference for the comparison of effects, the 

cumulative effects are evaluated in terms of saturated thickness. A reduction in saturated 

thickness of 70 percent or more is considered an adverse effect. No stock water wells are 

expected to be adversely affected by pumping all 13 wells at Buckman either by 2006 or by 2060 

if the direct diversion is in place. Further details are provided in CDM (2002b) and the 

Supplemental Wells EA (Tetra Tech, Inc. 2003). 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Sediment Facility Alternatives 

Construction and Operation Effects. The effects on ground water for the sediment facility 

alternatives would be the same as those associated with the Proposed Action. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of Pipeline Route Alternatives 

Construction and Operation Effects. The effects on ground water for the pipeline route would 

be the same as those associated with the Proposed Action. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

Construction and Operation Effects. The effects on ground water for Alternative AGP1 would 

be the same as those associated with the Proposed Action. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

118 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Table 12. Comparison of direct and cumulative effects to surface water resources. 

(Source: Tetra Tech 2003) 

Required San 

Juan-Chama 

Offsets to 

Rio Grandea

(ac-ft/yr) 

Estimated 

Offsetting Water 

Rights in the 

Rio Pojoaque 

(ac-ft/yr) b

Estimated 

Offsetting 

Water Rights 

in Tesuque 

Creek 

(ac-ft/yr) 

Approximate 

Center Depth 

of Cone of 

Depression 

(feet) 

Well Field 

Production 

(ac-ft/yr) 

Existing Conditions 

(2001) 2,623 48 12 260 5,200 

No Action in 

2060 with Wells 

1 – 13 

4,507 327 167 500 10,000 

Proposed Action 

with Wells 1 – 13 

in 2060

677 71 40 60 1,000c

a The City’s permit from the Office of State Engineer to operate the Buckman wells states that operation of the 

Buckman Well Field shall not cause a depletion of the flow of the Rio Grande. San Juan-Chama water stored in 

upstream reservoirs is released to offset depletions of water in the Rio Grande that result from pumping ground water 

from the Buckman Well Field. Because of this, the Rio Grande experiences no reduction of flow from operation of the 

Buckman Well Field. 

b The City has purchased water rights in the Rio Pojoaque and Tesuque Creek to compensate for flow reductions 

experienced in these tributaries as a result of pumping ground water from the Buckman Well Field. Because the 

cumulative effect of operating the existing nine wells at Buckman and the proposed direct diversion after 2006 would 

eventually result in depletions that exceed the City of Santa Fe’s water rights in the Rio Pojoaque, the City is presently 

studying additional means of offsetting future depletions in the Rio Pojoaque. 

c Production from Buckman Well Field beginning 2008 under normal operation conditions. 

Cumulative Effects 

The response of ground water levels to reduced pumping of the Buckman Well Field, coupled 

with surface diversion from the Rio Grande, can be considered to be a cumulative effect. The City 

is currently required to offset or mitigate depletions of flows in the Rio Grande and the Nambe, 

Tesuque, Pojoaque river system that occur as a result of pumping from the Buckman Well Field. 

After switching to use of the diversion, even with substantially reduced pumping from the wells, 

the City would be required to provide residual offsets of flows from past pumping from the 

Buckman Well Field. Future offsets would be provided from releases of currently stored San 

Juan-Chama water, leased or purchased San Juan-Chama water, native water, or currently owned 

native water rights. The offset amount is currently about 2,600 ac-ft/yr and would decrease in the 

future as Buckman well pumping would be decreased when the diversion would come online. 

Once the diversion is online, the required Rio Grande offsets for Buckman Well Field pumping 

(historical and future) would be met through one or more of the following: 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 119 

• Existing City-owned native Rio Grande rights 

• Releases of previously stored San Juan-Chama water from upstream reservoirs 

• Lease or purchase of additional San Juan-Chama or native Rio Grande water 

No other projects that would affect ground water within the aquifer are reasonably foreseeable. 

Therefore, no other cumulative effects have been identified at this time. 

Biological Resources 

The following analyses address the plant communities and wildlife present in the project area and 

the likely effects that would occur from implementation of the proposed project and alternatives. 

The primary areas of effect are the diversion site at the Rio Grande, Buckman Road 

improvements, all associated treatment and pumping facility sites, and pipeline corridors. 

Conditions and potential effects to aquatic species are addressed for the local Rio Grande reach 

directly adjacent to the proposed water diversion site. The Rio Grande reach from Cochiti Dam to 

the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir potentially inhabited by the Rio Grande silvery 

minnow is addressed in the section, “Rio Grande Silvery Minnow,” later in this chapter. 

Terrestrial Communities 

Affected Environment 

Plant Communities. Two major plant communities occur within the project region—the Flood 

Plains-Plains Riparian along the Rio Grande and the Juniper Savanna, which encompasses most 

of the remaining area (Dick-Peddie 1993). Both of these communities have been altered, to 

various extents, from their natural composition and stature by a range of disturbances including 

suppression of naturally occurring fires, surface developments, livestock grazing, off-road vehicle 

use, reduced surface water flow, and the invasion of exotic plant species. The Juniper Savanna is 

characterized by a relative low density of trees (130 per acre) within grassland. The canopy of this 

region is generally open, except for scattered clusters of closely spaced trees, particularly in the 

Diablo Canyon area and hillsides. This community type has been expanding throughout New 

Mexico over the last 150 years—grasslands have been altered or lost in response to intensive 

grazing; and the frequency and intensity of fires has been dramatically decreased. Within the 

project area, the ground cover is approximately 60 percent and generally does not support the fine 

fuels (herbaceous plants) necessary to carry a wildfire. Within the proposed project locale, 

elevations range from 5,700 feet at the Rio Grande to 6,500 feet at the Airport Road terminus. 

Near the diversion point at the Rio Grande, vegetation consists of a dense, narrow band of mixed 

native and nonnative riparian vegetation. Woody species in this area include saltcedar (Tamarix 

ramosissima), cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), and 

coyote willow (Salix exigua). Major components of the understory are forbs and grasses such as 

field mint (Mentha arvense), spreading dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum), and fescue grass 

(Bromus catharticus). As the proposed project route progresses inland, vegetation changes 

somewhat to include plants that are only partially dependent on near surface ground water. These 

plants include New Mexico olive (Forestiera neomexicana), sweet clover (Melilotus officianalis, 

M. alba), New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana), camphorweed (Heterotheca subaxillaris), 

and lemonade bush (Rhus trilobata). Within the project corridor, and southeast of the riparian and 

semiriparian areas along the Rio Grande, is the flood plain of the lower Cañada Ancha. This area 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

120 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

is subjected to intense pressure from cattle grazing and human activities such as off-road driving, 

refuse dumping, and camping. This broad, open flood plain is dominated by rabbitbrush 

(Ericameria nauseosa, E. depressus) and the ubiquitous disturbance shrub, snakeweed 

(Guttierezia sarothrae). Other plants in this association include Apache plume (Fallugia 

paradoxa), four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), and two species of globemallow 

(Sphaeralcea angustifolia, S. incana). 

Once out of the flood plain, the pipeline route enters the Savanna community where one-seeded 

juniper (Juniperus monosperma) becomes the most common tree species. Other woody 

vegetation includes piñon pine (Pinus edulis), yucca (Yucca glauca), tree cholla (Opuntia 

imbricata), sand sage (Artemesia filifolia), and rabbitbrush. Since the site-specific vegetation 

survey was conducted for this proposal, there has been substantial die-off of piñon pine in the 

area. Mortality of piñon pine is the result of drought and infestation of bark beetle. Approximately 

60 to 90 percent of the piñon pine in the project area is either dead or dying. 

At Dead Dog Well the pipeline corridor splits, with one route continuing southeast toward Las 

Campanas. Within the low density residential area of Las Campanas, and removed from grazing 

pressure, the pipeline corridor contains many more forbs and grasses. Plants encountered in this 

area include winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), side-oats 

grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), peppergrass (Lepidium montanum), sweet clover, and annual 

wildflowers such as yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Palmer’s penstemon (Penstemon palmeri), 

and coneflower (Ratibida columnifera). 

The other leg of the route continues south at Dead Dog Well and follows a utility corridor to the 

proposed MRC WTP and continues into the City of Santa Fe. The first mile of this route has little 

ground cover because of its proximity to a cattle watering and holding area. Shrubby plants such 

as saltbush, rabbitbrush, and snakeweed are the most common species in this area. Farther along 

the utility corridor, juniper, piñon pine, and yucca dominate, while grama grasses are found in 

scattered clumps in the understory. The treated water pipeline routes from the MRC to Booster 

Station 3 all support similar vegetation communities previously described. Once reaching Caja 

del Rio Road, the proposed pipeline route follows along the western edge of the road ROW to the 

Highway 599 frontage road, where it again forks into two separate routes. The eastern distribution 

route follows Caja del Rio Road for three-quarters of a mile before it crosses Highway 599. From 

this point, it follows two-track roads and dirt easements south across the ephemeral Santa Fe 

River where it intersects with an existing water distribution system at Airport Road. Though fairly 

common throughout the entire project area, weedy species particularly dominate the savanna 

south of Highway 599. Plants in this area include juniper, sunflower (Helianthus annuus), 

gumweed (Grindelia nuda), weed verbena (Verbena bracteata), kochia (Kochia scoparia), 

nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium), and grasses such as three-awn (Aristida longiseta) and 

bluestem (Andropogon gerardii). Plant species at the crossing of the Santa Fe River are limited to 

a few small saltcedar, Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), and coyote willow. 

The western distribution route follows the western edge of Highway 599 to connect with existing 

County water pipelines located at the intersection of the I-25 frontage road and Erica Road. The 

route traverses through disturbed industrial areas and roadway ROWs that support little native 

vegetation. Conditions and vegetation communities observed on this leg are similar to those on 

the eastern distribution leg. Sunflowers, gumweed, three-awn grass, bluestem, Russian thistle, 

Siberian elm, nightshade, and weed verbena were encountered along this route. Species at the 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 121 

Santa Fe River crossing include saltcedar, coyote willow, Siberian elm, and a few cottonwood 

saplings. 

There are two general types of washes encountered along the proposed project route. The first 

type is the low lying wash that has not been subjected to recent flash floods. These have denser 

stands of vegetation, including juniper and rabbitbrush, than surrounding upland areas. The 

second type of wash is the sandy, open, scoured arroyo. These areas support relatively few plants 

and only annuals such as scurfpea (Psoralidium lanceolatum) and clammyweed (Polanisia 

dodecandra) were found. 

Nonnative Invasive Plant Species. Nonnative invasive species of plants and animals are 

emerging worldwide as one of the leading threats to native species, ecosystem processes, and 

biodiversity. The introduction of nonnative invasive species can result in the elimination of native 

species through predation, competition, genetic modification, and disease transmission. Three 

classes of invasive weeds have been delineated in New Mexico. Class A weeds are those which 

are not native to an ecosystem and have a limited distribution. Class A weeds receive the highest 

priority for attention, since their limited distribution provides potential for success in removing 

current infestations and preventing future spread. Weed species that have yet to invade New 

Mexico are also labeled as Class A weeds. Class B weeds are not native to the ecosystem in 

which they occur and are limited to specific areas in New Mexico. Management emphasis is 

given to containing these weeds to their current range and keeping such plants from spreading 

into new areas. Class C weeds are nonnative to the ecosystem in which they occur but are 

widespread throughout New Mexico. The development of long-term programs which deal with 

the management and suppression of these invaders are necessary to achieve any degree of 

success. Nonnative invasive plant species present along with their New Mexico designation, if 

any, within the project area include: Canadian thistle (Cirsium arvense) – Class A; cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum), dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genistifolia spp. dalmatica) – Class A; yellow 

toadflax (L. vulgaris) – Class A; Russian thistle (Salsola kali), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) – 

Class C; salt cedar – Class C; and Russian olive – Class C. The Santa Fe National Forest is 

analyzing a proposal to control, contain or eradicate invasive plant species throughout the forest. 

The draft EIS for that project was released to the public in June 2004. 

Wildlife. Because of previous and existing effects from alteration of the natural fire regime, 

livestock grazing, developments, and other human uses, the proposed project area does not 

support high quality nesting, denning, foraging, or hunting habitat for wildlife other than reptiles 

(i.e., snakes and lizards). At the Rio Grande water diversion site the quality of riparian wildlife 

habitat is reduced due to the presence of primarily nonnative species, such as salt cedar and 

Russian olive, and disturbance by human activities (i.e., shooting, off-highway vehicle use, and 

assemblage of weekend partygoers). It should be noted that in New Mexico, at least 80 percent of 

all animals use riparian areas at some stage of their lives, with more than half of these considered 

to be riparian obligates (BLM 1999). Additionally, the Rio Grande is a main corridor for 

migratory birds moving from wintering grounds to breeding grounds and vice versa. Higher 

quality habitat is present both upstream and downstream of the proposed diversion site. These 

areas could provide suitable habitat for a more diverse population of avian species such as the 

southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and yellow-belled cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus occidentalis). 

Inland from the Rio Grande, the area is habitat for a variety of bird species, including raptors and 

small game animals, such as jackrabbits (Lepus californicus). However, these species generally 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

122 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

do not occur in high enough numbers for the area to be considered an important game region. 

Large game species, such as mule deer (Odococoileus hemionus), are present. However, the 

project area does not contain any critical seasonal denning or foraging areas. It has been 

suggested that frequent disturbances, such as firearms discharges, within the vicinity of the 

proposed project area have reduced the number of species utilizing the area (Orr 2002). Within 

the City of Santa Fe there is an isolated and small colony of Gunnison’s prairie dogs (Cynomys 

gunnisoni) along South Meadow Road at the southwest terminus of the pipeline. There were no 

prairie dog den sites within the previously graded pipeline ROW during the time of the project 

specific biological survey conducted in August 2002. Mammalian species that could be expected 

to utilize all undeveloped habitats are representative of the region. These species include: mule 

deer, raccoon (Procyon lotor), coyote (Canis latrans), jackrabbit, cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus

species), woodrats (Neotoma ssp.), and deer mice (Onychomys ssp.). Predatory species would 

include: black bear (Ursus americanus), coyote (Canis latrans), fox (Vulpes species), mountain 

lions (Felis concolor), and skunks (Mephitis species). Human activities and hunting pressure 

within the Rio Grande corridor have kept large and predatory mammal populations at fairly low 

levels. However, this region is still a very important refuge for large and small mammals in New 

Mexico (BIA 2000).

Environmental Consequences 

The following methodology and assumptions were used to calculate the number of acres 

temporarily or permanently affected by implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives. 

Table 1 contains more detailed information regarding surface area disturbance calculations. 

Permanent loss of vegetation communities and wildlife habitat would occur with the construction 

of the diversion structure, Buckman Road improvements, sediment facility and associated 

Booster Station 1A, MRC WTP and associated Booster Stations 4A and 5A, Las Campanas WTP 

and pipelines, and Booster Stations 2A and 3A. The area occupied by the new structures or areas 

fenced or converted to other uses would result in the loss of approximately 59 acres. Acreage 

affected by pipeline construction is considered a temporary effect to biotic communities because 

the plant communities would be allowed to recover after construction is completed. 

Temporary loss of vegetation communities and wildlife habitat would occur within the work 

limits for the construction of the diversion structure, Buckman Road improvements, sediment 

facility and associated Booster Station 1A, MRC WTP and associated Booster Stations 4A and 

5A, Las Campanas WTP, Booster Stations 2A and 3A, and all associated pipelines. The area 

temporarily affected would be approximately 247 acres. It should be noted that while these areas 

would be allowed to revegetate either through a project specific revegetation program or allowed 

to revegetate naturally, tree reestablishment would not be allowed within the pipeline corridors 

due to maintenance considerations. However, the ecological function of the area would largely 

revert back to pre-construction conditions. 

Total acreage potentially affected by the Proposed Action is 306 acres of which 59 acres would be 

permanently lost and 247 acres temporarily affected. These are the acreage figures that will be 

used to compare the effects from the Proposed Action to other project alternatives. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 123 

No Action Alternative 

Under this alternative there would be no construction or operation of the diversion structure, 

Buckman Road improvements, booster stations, WTPs, and pipeline conveyance system. There 

would be no loss or modification of vegetation communities and wildlife habitat. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Plant Communities 

Construction Effects. Loss of vegetation would occur as a result of the construction activities for 

the diversion structure, Buckman Road improvements, booster stations, WTPs, and pipeline 

conveyance system. Construction of the intake structure, booster stations, Las Companas 

pipelines, and WTPs would result in the permanent loss of approximately 59 acres of vegetation. 

Additionally, modification or clearing of vegetation for facility work area construction boundaries 

and preparation of pipeline corridors would likely affect an additional 247 acres. The proposed 

treated water pipeline would result in vegetation clearance or alteration to approximately 17 acres 

of the 247 acres (based on a 40-foot construction corridor and a pipeline length of 18,113 feet). 

For these areas temporarily disturbed, the vegetation would be reestablished through the native 

plant revegetation program and, therefore, represents a potential short-term affect (see further 

discussion below under “Operation Effects”). Construction disturbed areas, not lost to facilities or 

other infrastructure, could have a minor increase in plant diversity and density; as the barren and 

hard soil conditions would be loosened and the surface roughened creating favorable colonization 

sites. The proposed mitigation to conduct, prior to construction, a survey for invasive plants 

species and, where found, their eradication would serve to minimize or prevent establishment of 

invasive plants due to construction-altered habitat. Eradication of invasive plants would be 

performed through use of mechanical and/or chemical control methods. The Santa Fe National 

Forest prepared a draft EIS that addresses weed control methods. The final “Weeds” EIS and 

Record of Decision will be published in late 2004 or early 2005. All weed control methods for the 

Buckman Water Diversion Project on FS lands would be compliant with the stipulations and 

guidelines presented in the Weeds EIS Record of Decision, and for BLM lands, Executive Order 

13112 Invasive Species along with the National Invasive Species Council’s National 

Management Plan for Invasive Species. 

Operation Effects. Arguably, the most severe potential effect of the project is the opportunity for 

nonnative invasive species expansion in construction-affected areas. Through implementation of 

the native plant revegetation mitigation program, nonnative invasive species such as salt cedar, 

Russian olive, and Dalmatian toadflax would have a reduced influence in the areas where project 

construction activities occur. At the Rio Grande diversion site, which is characterized by a dense, 

narrow band of mixed native and nonnative riparian vegetation, revegetation with cottonwood 

and coyote willow would improve the local and native riparian communities. Short-term 

revegetation success is highly probable at the Rio Grande diversion site due to near surface water 

availability. However, long-term success may not occur given the highly invasive and 

opportunistic nature of these nonnative and invasive plant species unless: salt cedar and Russian 

olive are eradicated in areas closely adjacent to the diversion site; a monitoring and reestablishment prevention program is conducted for several years; and the area is managed to 

prevent effects to vegetation and soils from human activities (i.e., no vehicle use or camping in 

areas undergoing revegetation). These long-term success factors would be incorporated as 

stipulations of the special use permit. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

124 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Similarly, implementation of the native plant revegetation mitigation program that includes 

eradication of nonnative invasive species, such as toadflax, in other project-affected areas would 

result in stabilizing and improving the plant diversity and health of existing plant communities. 

However, for successful implementation of the native plant revegetation program, climatic 

conditions have to be favorable (frequency and quantity of rain), domestic grazing controlled, and 

the area managed and protected from other inappropriate uses (off-highway vehicles) until the 

area successfully revegetates. Even with less than full success, the use of mulch coupled with the 

re-establishment of some plant cover will provide a level of protection against wind and 

waterborne soil erosion. These practices would retain favorable circumstances for plant 

germination and growth when climatic conditions are favorable. 

Implementation of Buckman Road improvements may have minor but beneficial effects to 

watershed health (see section, “Geology and Soils, Affected Environment” later in this chapter). 

Better storm water distribution and decreased erosion could result in increased vegetative cover in 

some areas downslope of Buckman Road. While speculative, the road improvements could result 

in more visitation and use of the area resulting in increased pressures on natural resources.

Wildlife 

Construction Effects. Approximately 306 acres of wildlife habitat would likely be temporarily 

or permanently affected during construction. Two hundred seventy-nine acres of constructionaffected habitat would be allowed to revert back to its previous condition. During site clearing 

activities, highly mobile wildlife species or wildlife species with large home ranges (such as deer 

and birds) would be able to relocate to adjacent undeveloped areas. However, successful 

relocation may not occur due to competition for resources to support the increased population and 

the carrying capacity limitations of areas outside the proposed development. Species relocation 

may result in additional pressure to lands already at or near carrying capacity. The effects could 

include overgrazing (in the case of herbivores), stress, and over-wintering mortality. For less 

mobile species (reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals), direct mortality could occur during 

the actual construction event or ultimately result from habitat alteration. These effects would be 

minor given the amount of habitat affected compared to available habitat. No species population 

is expected to be adversely affected. 

Operation Effects. Implementation of the native plant revegetation program, soil protection 

techniques, and wildlife mitigation measures would serve to minimize the long-term effects to 

wildlife habitat. Implementation of Buckman Road improvements, while resulting in a very minor 

decrease in habitat, may have a small but beneficial effect to watershed health thus resulting in 

improved wildlife habitat. While speculative, roadway improvements could result in an increase 

in visitor use thus potentially affecting wildlife use and behavior in the project area. 

Successful implementation of the revegetation control program would result in improvement to 

riparian habitat along the Rio Grande and provide minor habitat improvement elsewhere in the 

project region. Additionally, the soil and wildlife mitigation stipulations to: mulch one-seed 

juniper and piñon pine that are removed; lop and scatter of larger diameter branches and tree 

trunks for mitigating soil erosion; and for wildlife benefit, consolidate tree material into dispersed 

(or otherwise removed from the general vicinity of construction and human disturbance) slash 

piles no higher than 2 feet would, over the long-term, improve the general wildlife habitat in the 

local area. The 59 acres converted to facilities and other infrastructure would be permanently lost 

as potential predator hunting habitat and foraging or hiding cover for other wildlife species. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 125 

Given the current hard pack soil conditions there is little opportunity for colonization by new 

plants. Ground disturbance, as a result of construction activities primarily associated with pipeline 

burial, should produce more favorable conditions for rodents to establish new burrows, and an 

increased prey base in some areas. However, there would be a concurrent decrease in quality of 

the habitat immediately adjacent to facilities due to increased noise levels, traffic, lights, and 

other human activity. The adjacent habitat also would experience a loss of quality from the 

reduction in size, segmentation of the habitat, and restriction on mobility for some species (Kelley 

and Rotenberry 1993). These effects, however, would be minor and no species population would 

be adversely affected. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Sediment Facility Alternatives 

The construction and operation effects are similar to the Proposed Action with the following 

exceptions. 

Construction Effects. Alternatives SF1 and SF2 would require construction in a primarily piñon 

pine/juniper community compared to a degraded grassland/forb community under the Proposed 

Action. Alternative SF1 sediment return line would be longer and, compared to the Proposed 

Action, would result in the short-term disturbance of approximately 3 additional acres. Short-term 

effects from construction of a return pipeline would be avoided under Alternative SF2 as the 

coarse sediment would be hauled by truck to the Caja del Rio Landfill instead of returned to the 

Rio Grande (aquatic organism effects are discussed in the previous section, “Terrestrial 

Communities”). 

Operation Effects. Alternative SF2 would require trucking out sand from the sediment facility. 

Episodic and increased truck traffic could result in short-term wildlife avoidance of the Buckman 

Road corridor. However, the effects would be negligible and of short duration and over time the 

wildlife populations would habituate to changes in road traffic. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Pipeline Route Alternatives 

The construction and operation effects are similar to the Proposed Action with the following 

exceptions. 

Construction and Operational Effects. Alternative TWP1 would require construction and 

operation of the treated water pipeline in a new ROW corridor along BLM and Las Campanas 

lands. Approximately 17 acres would be affected by construction of Alternative TWP1, which is 

about the same as the Proposed Action. Alternative TWP2 would install the treated water pipeline 

back along the Dead Dog Well corridor and then cut east and would affect approximately 20 

acres, some of which would be in a new ROW corridor. Alternative TWP3 would use 

approximately 27 acres of existing utility line ROW. Construction and establishment of a new 

pipeline corridor or construction in an existing corridor would result in the minor and short-term 

removal of vegetation and subsequent reduction in the foraging, hunting, and cover habitat for 

wildlife. The construction-affected areas would be revegetated. However, establishment of trees 

in the pipeline corridor would be prevented due to maintenance considerations. Additionally, 

development of a new corridor could encourage increased recreational use in the area and 

subsequent degradation to vegetation and wildlife habitat. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

126 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

Construction and Operation Effects. Alternative AGP1 effects would be similar to the 

Proposed Action for the power upgrades at the Buckman transformer station. Land would be 

required for either of the new substation sites for construction and operation. This acreage would 

be converted from existing plant communities and wildlife habitat to an area occupied by 

facilities and landscaping. 

However, avian mortality does occur as a result of electrocution and collision with power lines. 

The New Mexico Avian Protection Working Group was formed in early 2002 to address this issue 

in New Mexico. Founding members include representatives from PNM, the Rural Utility 

Services, Hawks Aloft, the New Mexico Falconers Association, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS). Their goal is to work cooperatively with New Mexico utilities to voluntarily 

reduce impacts to raptors and other migratory birds by utilizing more cost efficient methods to 

obtain data, and identify and address problem areas in New Mexico. Additionally, in July 16, 

2003 the FWS issued a press release announcing that new voluntary guidelines for protecting 

birds from electrocution and collisions with power lines are now being developed by the FWS 

and the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee that promise improved safeguards for migratory 

birds. Electrocutions and line strikes are a particular threat to birds with large wingspans, such as 

eagles, hawks, and owls—all species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Avian 

interactions with power lines also cause power outages, which represent added cost and 

inconvenience for electric utilities and their customers. The new guidelines will give electric 

utilities a framework to use in developing a voluntary Avian Protection Plan tailored to their 

specific operations. The Avian Protection Plan guidance document, which will be published on 

the FWS and Avian Power Line Interaction Committee Web sites, will reference the latest 

industry standards for preventing avian power line interactions, including recommendations from 

the most current edition of Avian Power Line Interaction Committee “Suggested Practices for 

Raptor Protection on Power Lines.” Should the power upgrade alternative (AGP1a or AGP1b) be 

selected, then the FS and BLM would recommend the power line be constructed to be compatible 

with the current Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) “Suggested Practices for 

Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996” and FWS guidelines for 

protection of avian species from electrocution and line strike. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under the Proposed Action and alternatives there would be a permanent loss of approximately 59 

acres which would be additive to the continuing habitat loss within lands contiguous with or in 

close proximity to the Buckman Project area in Santa Fe, Rio Arriba, and Los Alamos Counties, 

as well as, San Ildefonso Pueblo lands. Habitat loss is primarily a result of new road construction 

(NM 284/85), housing development, and increasing recreation use of public lands. 

Aquatic Communities 

Affected Environment 

Aquatic habitat at the proposed Rio Grande diversion site consists of main channel runs and 

limited pool habitat. Gravel and cobble riffles and bars are located upstream and downstream of 

the proposed project site. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 127 

Fish sampling (electro-shock) was conducted in August 2002 adjacent to the diversion site in the 

eddy, shoreline run, and mainstem run habitats. Silt, sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and vegetation 

substrates were sampled. All fishes were identified and measured before being released. 

A total of seven fish species—brown trout (Salmo trutta), white sucker (Catostomus 

commersoni), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), flathead chub (Platygobio gracilis), longnose 

dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and smallmouth bass 

(Micropterus dolomieui)—were captured during the sampling effort. Of these seven species, only 

the flathead chub and longnose dace are considered native to the Rio Grande in New Mexico. The 

white sucker and flathead chub were the most abundant fish collected. Review of available 

literature related to past fisheries sampling indicates that the sampling effort collected all species 

documented for the project area with the exception of Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarki virginalis), Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus plebeius), and the Rio Grande chub (Gila 

pandora). The Rio Grande cutthroat trout prefers clear, silt-free water in cold streams and lakes 

with gravel beds, and the Rio Grande sucker is rarely found in waters with heavy loads of silt and 

organic detritus. Thus, both species are highly unlikely to inhabit the project area. The Rio 

Grande chub prefers impoundments and pools of small to moderate streams and is frequently 

associated with aquatic vegetation. It may be an infrequent component of the fish population in 

the project area. Similar sampling results were obtained from a fisheries inventory at San 

Ildefonso that identified white sucker, common carp, brown trout, longnose dace, flathead chub, 

and channel catfish (BIA 2000). 

None of the species captured in this stretch of the Rio Grande have drifting eggs. However, two 

of the species collected—white sucker and longnose dace—do have drifting larvae. The opinion 

of project aquatic biologists is that these drifting larvae are relatively large and are probably able 

to control their movements to some extent. 

No amphibians, including tadpoles (immature aquatic life stage for frogs and toads), were 

observed during the field survey conducted specifically for the Buckman Project. Field survey 

locations included the bank, pool habitat, and main channel of the Rio Grande at the water 

diversion site. Water velocities in the main channel are too high to meet habitat requirements for 

relatively poor swimming tadpoles. No appropriate frog habitat exists inland of the Rio Grande 

within the project area.

Environmental Consequences 

No Action Alternative 

Under this alternative there would be no construction or operation of the water diversion 

structure, booster stations, sediment facility, and associated return flow pipeline. Therefore, there 

would be no effects from construction of a cofferdam and no modification or loss of aquatic 

habitat and adjacent riverside vegetation. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Construction Effects. During cofferdam construction and demolition, localized increases in 

turbidity would occur. Aquatic fauna in the area would be temporarily affected during these 

activities. Aquatic fauna would be expected to temporarily vacate the locality of increased 

turbidity. Benthic invertebrates (primarily aquatic insects) in the area would be killed. Given the 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

128 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

limited area affected, no aquatic species’ population is expected to be permanently affected. The 

cofferdam, once constructed, would mitigate the most severe siltation effects from construction of 

the water diversion structure. 

Operation Effects. The Buckman Project diversion structure and water intake screens are 

designed, using standard engineering fish screening criteria, to avoid entrainment of fish eggs and 

juveniles. The design flow is 32 cfs with an approach velocity of 0.33 feet per second (typical 

California criteria for small fish) and a sweeping velocity (velocity parallel to screens) and 

transport time past the screens of 18 seconds. Fish screens would have a mesh size of 2mm. The 

actual impacts to fish species from operations are unknown, however, the following impact 

assessment is based on the professional opinion of the Buckman Project aquatic biologists. Even 

with the design mitigations, entrainment of juvenile fish will occur. These impacts to the aquatic 

food web would be minimal and it is extremely unlikely that there would be any measurable 

change in the biotic organization (change in fish population ratios) of the river. None of the 

species captured in this stretch of the Rio Grande have drifting eggs. Thus, the effect of a 

diversion structure on these species by entrainment of eggs is likely to be negligible. As for larval 

fishes, Rio Grande chub, white suckers and longnose dace have drifting larvae. However, the 

white sucker and longnose dace are very abundant in this reach and given that larval fishes 

usually experience very high natural mortality rates, a slight increase, if any, in mortality from 

water diversion structure entrainment would likely be immeasurable. The Rio Grande chub has 

larvae that drift for a short period, thus a diversion structure could entrain drifting larvae of this 

species. Given the project design and potentially low densities of Rio Grande chub in the area, 

and the fact that it has not been collected during recent surveys, it is not likely that the proposed 

project would have a discernable impact on the species’ population. BLM has implemented a 

“Rio Grande Aquatic Species Monitoring Program.” The data gathered from this program would 

be used in the future to assess changing conditions as a result of proposed or altered water release 

regimes and river water diversion activities. 

There could be limited, localized effects from sediment returned to the river. However, the Rio 

Grande normally carries a very high sediment load and the return of a small fraction of the 

sediment contained in the diverted water would likely have a very small impact on downstream 

fish or invertebrate communities. The very localized effects to aquatic habitat would have no 

measurable impact to fish or macroinvertebrate communities in the immediate project area. Most 

of the sediments would be mobilized and moved out of the project area during high flows that 

occur during spring runoff, storm water runoff, and release of San Juan-Chama waters. Further, 

the river immediately downstream of the project area rapidly shifts to a sand dominated system 

and the species located in the project area are adapted to these conditions. Therefore, it is 

extremely unlikely that a highly localized and minimal (less than 1 percent under most operating 

conditions) increase in sediment concentrations in the river would cause a shift in the downstream 

fish assemblage or habitat conditions. The downstream fish community is already dominated by 

nonnative habitat generalists (common carp, channel catfish, and white suckers) that are well 

adapted to naturally occurring sand bed habitats that exist downstream of the project area. 

Implementation of Buckman Road improvements may have very minor but beneficial effects. 

Better storm water distribution and decreased erosion from Buckman Road could result in 

decreased sediment loads reaching the Rio Grande from localized storm events. 

Water diversion quantities would be quite small compared to normal flow rates and the water 

diversion would be inoperable in extremely low flow conditions (150 cfs or less). Therefore, 

adverse effects to the aquatic communities in the Rio Grande reach from the Buckman diversion 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 129 

site to Cochiti Dam would be minimal and not imperil either aquatic species populations or 

change the composition of the aquatic community. Diversion of 1,350 ac-ft/yr of native water 

may affect the Rio Grande silvery minnow downstream of Cochiti Dam. The likely effects to the 

silvery minnow are addressed in the “Special Status Species” section that follows.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Sediment Facility Alternatives 

The construction and operational effects are similar to the Proposed Action with the following 

exceptions.

Construction and Operation Effects. Under Alternative SF2 there would be no return of 

sediment to the Rio Grande. The potential effects identified for sediment return consequences 

under the Proposed Action would not occur. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Pipeline Route Alternatives 

There is no difference in effects to aquatic species or communities from the Proposed Action 

compared to the pipeline route alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

Construction and Operation Effects. Alternative AGP1 effects would be similar to the 

Proposed Action for the power upgrade. 

Cumulative Effects 

Water diversion projects, especially those proposed by the City of Espanola and City of 

Albuquerque, are additive with the Buckman Project. Overall, due to the quantity of San JuanChama diversion water that would be released, the reach from storage at Heron Reservoir to the 

City of Albuquerque’s proposed Paseo del Norte diversion site would receive higher consistent 

year-round flow. Resource management agencies do not have trend, aquatic populations, or 

habitat data in which to quantify or assess the potential cumulative impacts resulting from 

municipality diversions of San Juan-Chama waters. The BOR, USACE, and New Mexico 

Interstate Stream Commission are currently preparing an Upper Rio Grande Basin Water 

Operations Review and EIS. This EIS may recommend or conduct studies that will obtain the 

necessary data to monitor impacts on aquatic species from future water operations. However, 

because effects from the proposed Buckman Water Diversion Project to aquatic species are not 

expected to be measurable, no discernable cumulative impacts are forecast (as discussed in the 

following section, “Special Status Species”). 

Special Status Species 

Special status species are defined as those plants and animals protected under the Federal 

Endangered Species Act, New Mexico State endangered and threatened species protected under 

the New Mexico Conservation Act and lists maintained by the BLM and FS. Section 7(c) of the 

Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to obtain information from the FWS regarding 

any species—listed or proposed for listing—that could be affected by the proposed project. A 

complete literature search was used to construct a list of special interest plant and animal species 

known to occur in Santa Fe County. Species status was based upon lists maintained by the FWS, 

BLM, FS, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, New Mexico Rare Plant Technical 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

130 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Council, and the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program. Specific habitat requirements for each 

of the target species presented by these State and Federal agencies were used to construct a 

working list of species that might occur within the general project vicinity. Additionally, project 

biologists participated in discussions with the FWS, conducted field surveys, and collected habitat 

and taxonomic information for each listed species from a variety of sources. 

Species afforded consideration under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and Santa Fe 

National Forest Plan Management Indicator Species are also addressed. Mitigation or 

considerations are provided for these species as well as the special status species found in Table 

13. 

The project area was surveyed, including fish sampling, by qualified biologists between July and 

August 2002 to determine the habitat suitability of the project area for special status species. The 

presence or the potential for occurrence based on habitat requirements for special status species or 

its obligate habitat was noted during these surveys. A general assessment of the area was made 

based on vegetation health, composition, stature, and consideration of disturbance activities, such 

as grazing and off-highway vehicle use. Potential nesting or burrowing sites, such as sandy 

hillsides, rock outcroppings, or clusters of trees or shrubs, were examined for the presence of 

wildlife. 

Effects to the Rio Grande silvery minnow are presented separately due to the public and 

regulatory interest in the effects to this Federally-listed endangered species. The other special 

status species are described and effects assessed following the silvery minnow presentation. 

Table 13. Santa Fe County special status plants and animals that could occur within the 

project area. 

Common Name Status Species Information 

(Scientific Name) FWS FS BLM NM Habitat Requirements 

PLANTS 

Santa Fe cholla 

(Opuntia viridiflora) 

SC – S E Currently, this species is known only from Fort Marcy Park in 

Santa Fe and in the Pojoaque area. General habitat consists of 

gravelly rolling hills in piñon-juniper woodlands. Specimens 

were not found during field surveys. 

Santa Fe milkvetch 

(Astragalus feensis) 

– – – SC Habitat requirements are gravelly hillsides in piñon-juniper 

grasslands. There may be small pockets of suitable habitat for 

this species within the proposed project area. This species was 

not found during field surveys.

FISH 

Flathead chub 

(Platygobio gracilis) 

– – S – Habitat requirements consist of turbid, alkaline waters with 

shifting substrates. This species is common near the proposed 

diversion site and was the second most abundant species 

captured during the sampling effort.
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 131 

Common Name Status Species Information 

(Scientific Name) FWS FS BLM NM Habitat Requirements 

Rio Grande chub 

(Gila pandora) 

– – – S Habitat requirements consist of impoundments of small to 

moderate streams. Although it was not collected in recent 

surveys of the Rio Grande near the proposed diversion site, it 

is possible that the chub does occur in this stretch of river at 

low densities or intermittently. 

Rio Grande silvery 

minnow 

(Hybognathus amarus) 

E (S) – (E) The Rio Grande silvery minnow is a FWS endangered species 

that requires silt and sand substrates with slow backwaters or 

eddies. The species appears to be extirpated from the reach 

containing the diversion site. It is potentially present from 

below Cochiti Dam to the headwaters of Elephant Butte 

Reservoir. (See the section on “Rio Grande Silvery 

Minnow.”) 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

Desert kingsnake 

(Lampropeltis getula 

splendida) 

– S – – The desert kingsnake prefers riparian and grassland habitats in 

New Mexico but is also found in piñon-juniper and low desert 

areas. This snake uses rock outcroppings or mammal burrows 

to escape midday heat. It is likely to occur in the project area.

Northern leopard frog 

(Rana pipiens) 

– S – – This species is found along the entire length of the Rio 

Grande. It is mainly found in streams and rivers, but also 

occurs in marshes, ponds, and irrigation ditches. It was not 

found during project surveys.

BIRDS 

Bald eagle 

(Haliaetus

leucocephalus) 

T S – T The bald eagle is a winter migrant along the Rio Grande. 

Most of the preferred roost sites are in snags and cliffs along 

the river in the section between Bandelier National Monument 

and the Cochiti Reservoir delta. 

Gray vireo 

(Vireo vicinior) 

– S – T In New Mexico, gray vireos are found sporadically 

throughout the State where it is considered uncommon. Gray 

vireos inhabit juniper woodlands in arid foothills and on 

mesas. Juniper woodlands are abundant within and contiguous 

with the project site. It was not found during project specific 

surveys. However, a biological survey for PNM Project 

Power study did record the species in the general vicinity. 

Loggerhead shrike 

(Lanius ludovicianus) 

– – S – This bird utilizes a variety of habitats including desert scrub 

and open grasslands, though it prefers to nest in trees of 

medium to tall height. Loggerhead shrikes are fairly common 

year-round residents throughout Santa Fe County. Individuals 

of this species were seen in the general vicinity of the 

proposed project route. The entire proposed project area 

contains suitable nesting habitat for this species.

Mountain plover 

(Charadrius montanus) 

– S – S Mountain plovers are considered to be strongly associated 

with sites of heaviest grazing pressure to the point of 

excessive surface disturbance. Their nesting sites are 

dominated by short vegetation and bare ground, often with 

manure piles or rocks nearby. Suitable habitat is present in the 

proposed project area. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

132 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Common Name Status Species Information 

(Scientific Name) FWS FS BLM NM Habitat Requirements 

Western burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia 

hypugaea) 

SC – S – This species’ habitat requirements are open grasslands, 

prairies, and desert scrub. It occurs as a summer resident and 

is fairly common in Santa Fe County. This owl typically nests 

in abandoned mammal burrows. This owl is frequently found 

in close proximity to human activities and is often associated 

with prairie dog towns, one of which occurs immediately 

adjacent to the proposed project ROW.

Zone-tailed hawk 

(Buteo albonotatus) 

– S – – The zone-tailed hawk is found in Montane woodlands and 

mesas, often near waterways, and is present in White Rock 

Canyon and documented in Bandelier National Monument. 

MAMMALS 

Gunnison’s prairie dog 

(Cynomys gunnisoni) 

– – – S Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat consists of open grasslands 

from low valleys to montane meadows. A small colony of 

prairie dogs is located adjacent to the proposed project route 

along South Meadow Road at the southwest terminus of the 

pipeline. Chapter 14 Section 14-8.12 of the City of Santa Fe’s 

Code contains the Gunnison’s prairie dog relocation 

regulations to protect the diminishing populations of 

Gunnison’s prairie dogs by ensuring their safe and humane 

relocation prior to the development of property within the 

City of Santa Fe to appropriate and protected habitat areas as 

designated by the City.

Red fox 

(Vulpes vulpes) 

– – – S The red fox is known in the State primarily from the San Juan 

and Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Where present, it is 

commonly found in relatively open areas or adjacent to 

urbanized or agricultural lands. No foxes or dens were 

detected during the field survey. There is a small chance that 

red fox may hunt or den within the proposed project area. 

Ringtail 

(Bassariscus astutus) 

– S – S This species, though seldom seen, is fairly common 

throughout most of New Mexico. These nocturnal, raccoonlike carnivores inhabit a variety of rocky, broken terrains at 

low- to mid-elevations. There may be limited suitable habitat 

for this species within the pipeline corridor. 

Western spotted skunk 

(Spilogale gracilis) 

– – – S This species has been recorded in Santa Fe County and can 

occur in many habitats including lower montane, mixed 

shrub, sagebrush, piñon-juniper, wetland, and riparian areas. 

They generally use rocky areas for denning sites. Potential 

habitat may exist in the proposed project area, but occurrence 

of this species is unlikely. 

Status designations are: Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Sensitive (S), and Species of Concern (SC). Table 

designations in parentheses are listed by the agency for New Mexico, but not specifically for Santa Fe County. 

(Source: Much of the information contained in this table was obtained from the New Mexico Game and Fish BISONM, Biota Information System of New Mexico Web site at http://nmnhp.unm.edu/bisonm/bisonquery.php.) 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 133 

Rio Grande Silvery Minnow 

The silvery minnow is the only surviving small, native pelagic spawning minnow in the middle 

Rio Grande (FWS 2003a). It is herbivorous, feeding primarily on algae, and travels in schools. 

The silvery minnow tolerates a wide range of habitats but generally prefers low velocity areas 

over silt or sand substrate that are associated with shallow braided runs, backwaters or pools. 

They spawn in about a 1-month period in late spring to early summer (May to June) in response 

to spring runoff. Spawning occurs in the water column and its eggs, approximately 3,000 to 6,000 

per adult female, subsequently drift passively downstream with the current (FWS 2003b). 

Reduction in the range of the Rio Grande silvery minnow to 5 to 10 percent of historical 

distribution, and threats to its continued existence in the Middle Rio Grande (outflow of Cochiti 

Reservoir to the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir, a stretch of approximately 175 river 

miles) were central to this species being listed as Federally endangered. The silvery minnow was 

Federally-listed as endangered for the following reasons: 

• Regulation of stream waters, which has led to severe flow reductions, often to the point 

of dewatering extended lengths of stream channel. 

• Alteration of the natural hydrograph, which effects the species by disrupting the 

environmental cues the fish receives for a variety of life functions, including spawning. 

• Streamflow reductions and other alterations of the natural hydrograph throughout the 

year, which can severely impact habitat availability and quality, including the temporal 

availability of habitats. 

• Actions such as channelization, bank stabilization, levee construction, and dredging, 

resulting in both direct and indirect effects to the silvery minnow and its habitat by 

severely disrupting natural fluvial processes throughout the flood plain. 

• Construction of diversion dams that fragment the habitat and prevent upstream migration. 

• Introduction of nonnative fishes that directly compete with the silvery minnow. 

• Discharge of contaminants into the stream system from industrial, municipal, and 

agricultural sources which may also impact the species. 

These reasons for listing continue to threaten the species throughout its currently occupied range 

in the Middle Rio Grande (FWS 2003b). 

Affected Environment 

The silvery minnow was historically one of the most widespread and abundant fishes in New 

Mexico. In the Rio Grande, it ranged from the confluence of the Rio Chama near Española to the 

Gulf of Mexico, and in the Pecos River from near Santa Rosa to its confluence with the Rio 

Grande. Recent investigations document the presence of the silvery minnow in less than 5 percent 

of its historic range. It is restricted to the reach from Cochiti Dam to the headwaters of Elephant 

Butte. No documentation of the silvery minnow above Cochiti Dam has occurred since prior to 

the construction and operation of Cochiti Dam in the mid-1970s (BOR/City of Albuquerque 

2002). 

On April 5, 2001, the FWS published in the “Federal Register” (66 FR 18107) a Notice of Intent 

to prepare an EIS for designation of critical habitat for the Rio Grande silvery minnow. In 

February 2003, the FWS issued the final rule and designation of critical habitat for the silvery 

minnow. The final rule that became effective March 21, 2003, states that the reach upstream of 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

134 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Cochiti Reservoir to the confluence of the Rio Chama and Rio Grande is not designated as critical 

habitat. The FWS concluded that the habitat for the silvery minnow within this river reach is 

generally degraded and unsuitable, and is not essential to the conservation of the silvery minnow 

(FWS 2003a). The EIS addressed the FWS proposal to designate the currently occupied reaches 

of the Rio Grande in New Mexico as critical habitat for the silvery minnow. Effects of the 

designation of critical habitat include an increased scope of consultations, which would be 

expanded to include effects of actions on critical habitat, as well as some changes to the actions to 

avoid adverse modification. It is likely that efforts would be made to increase the flow in the Rio 

Grande in areas that now experience drying events. This is a controversial effort to minimize 

drying events, combined with river restoration activities for the minnow, which if successful, 

could favorably affect riverine and riparian ecosystems. Designating critical habitat does not, in 

itself, lead to the survival or recovery of the species. Nevertheless, by identifying areas essential 

to the conservation of the species, and by requiring consultation, designation provides an 

opportunity for Federal agencies, the public, and other organizations to collaborate for the 

protection of needed habitat (FWS 2002). 

In January 2000, several parties in the Middle Rio Grande signed a memorandum of 

understanding to develop a long-term strategy that would assist in the conservation and recovery 

of the Rio Grande silvery minnow and the southwestern willow flycatcher, while protecting 

existing and future water uses. Participation has grown significantly since January 2000 to 

include additional state agencies, water interests, and Indian Tribes and Pueblos. Key participants 

include the FWS, BOR, USACE, BIA, City of Albuquerque, MRGCD, New Mexico ISC, New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and the Alliance for the Rio Grande Heritage. The 

strategy being developed by this group has been termed the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative 

Program. The Proposed Action area for the program extends from the headwaters of the Rio 

Chama watershed and the Rio Grande, including all tributaries, from the Colorado/New Mexico 

state line downstream to the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir (FWS 2002). 

In late 2000, the Rio Grande silvery minnow naturalized rearing and breeding project was 

initiated in response to a lawsuit. It includes the design, construction and operation of a rearing 

and breeding facility that would ensure the short-term survival and long-term recovery of the 

silvery minnow. The short-term goal for the facility is to supplement existing captive populations 

in aquaria. The facility’s long-term operations are intended to maintain breeding populations to 

supplement wild populations; provide fish for reintroduction into portions of their historic range 

and habitat enhanced range; act as an emergency refuge in times of drought; and provide research 

opportunities to learn more about the silvery minnow and its habitat preferences (OSE/ISC 2001). 

The facility is operational. Silvery minnows are currently housed at five facilities in New Mexico: 

the Dexter National Fish Hatchery; New Mexico State University Coop Unit; Rock Lake State 

Fish Hatchery; the FWS Fishery Resources Office; and the City of Albuquerque’s propagation 

facilities. These facilities are actively propagating and rearing silvery minnows or are available 

for propagation. In 2000, the total combined capacity of these facilities was approximately 

175,000 silvery minnow juveniles and adults. New facilities are being constructed at the City, the 

Dexter National Fish Hatchery, and at Fishery Resources Office that would increase the total 

capacity of all facilities to approximately 500,000 juveniles and adults. Silvery minnows are also 

held in South Dakota at the USGS, Biological Resources Division Lab, but there is no active 

spawning program at this facility (FWS 2003b). 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 135 

Environmental Consequences 

Environmental consequences from the Buckman Project upon the silvery minnow would be the 

result of the diversion of native Rio Grande waters and not the diversion of San Juan-Chama 

water. San Juan-Chama water is not native to the Rio Grande and was not originally intended to 

ensure the survival of the silvery minnow. However, it has been purchased in the past to provide 

water during low flow conditions in the Rio Grande. Potential effects to other special status 

species are identified in Table 14. 

No Action Alternative 

Under this alternative, there would be no construction and operation of the Buckman Project, thus 

there would be no diversion of either San Juan-Chama or native Rio Grande waters and there 

would be no effects to the Rio Grande silvery minnow. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Construction Effects. There would be no construction-related effects to the silvery minnow as it 

does not occur upstream of Cochiti Dam. 

Operation Effects. Once the diversion structure is operational, diversion of native Rio Grande 

water would be a direct and cumulative affect to the Rio Grande silvery minnow. Because 

downstream effects are best described in terms of the cumulative effects of other water projects, 

the effects analysis is presented in the cumulative effects section. It should be noted that the 

Buckman Project’s proposed diversion of San Juan-Chama waters would be offset by San JuanChama water releases such that there would be no net effect on flow downstream of the Buckman 

water diversion site. It would be the diversion and consumption of native waters made possible by 

implementation of the Buckman Project that has the potential to effect the silvery minnow.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Sediment Facility Alternatives 

There would be no direct or indirect construction or operation effects to the Rio Grande silvery 

minnow under any of the sediment facility alternatives.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Pipeline Route Alternatives 

There would be no direct or indirect construction or operation effects to the Rio Grande silvery 

minnow under any of the pipeline route alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

Construction and Operation Effects. Alternative AGP1 effects would be similar to the 

Proposed Action for the power upgrade. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

136 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Table 14. Potential effects to Santa Fe County special status plants and animals that could 

occur within the project area due to the Proposed Action. 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) 

Project Effect 

Construction and 

Operation 

Considerations 

PLANTS 

Santa Fe cholla 

(Opuntia viridiflora) 

No effect, as this species was not found in the project 

construction boundaries. 

None 

Santa Fe milkvetch 

(Astragalus feensis) 

No effect, as this species was not found in the project 

construction boundaries. 

None 

FISH 

Flathead chub 

(Platygobio gracilis) 

Given the range of the flathead chub in the project area 

and its high frequency of capture, it is unlikely that the 

Proposed Action would have a measurable affect on the 

species overall population. 

None 

Rio Grande chub 

(Gila pandora) 

The Rio Grande chub has larvae that drift for a short 

period, thus a diversion structure could entrain drifting 

larvae of this species. Given the project design and 

potentially low densities of Rio Grande chub in the area, 

and the fact that it has not been collected during recent 

surveys, it is not likely that the proposed project would 

have a discernable impact on the population. 

None 

Rio Grande silvery 

minnow 

(Hybognathus 

amarus) 

The species appears to be extirpated from the reach 

containing the diversion site. However, the diversion of 

approximately 1,350 ac-ft/yr of native Rio Grande water 

could have downstream effects to this species. (See the 

section, “Rio Grande Silvery Minnow”) 

Construction: There would be 

no construction related effects 

to this species. 

Operation: See the effects 

discussion previously and 

presented in the section, “Rio 

Grande Silvery Minnow.” 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

Desert kingsnake 

(Lampropeltis getula 

splendida) 

This species is likely to occur in the project area and 

would be difficult to detect in habitat potentially affected 

by construction. Should construction result in the 

mortality of an individual(s) the long-term effect on the 

species population would not be measurable. 

None 

Northern leopard 

frog 

(Rana pipiens) 

This species may utilize the immediate area of the water 

diversion site. No frogs were noted during the field 

survey. However, if present, approximately 40 feet of 

shoreline foraging and sunning habitat for this species 

would be temporarily lost during construction activities. 

Following construction, this species would likely 

reestablish itself in the area. 

None 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 137 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) 

Project Effect 

Construction and 

Operation 

Considerations 

BIRDS 

Bald eagle 

(Haliaetus

leucocephalus) 

Effects, if any, to this species would be limited to 

temporary dispersals during construction activities and/or 

avoidance of the Rio Grande where construction activities 

are taking place. No prime eagle roosting sites would be 

removed or otherwise affected by the proposed project. 

Construction activities at the Rio Grande may affect, but 

are not likely to adversely affect, bald eagle individuals or 

populations. 

Construction: If bald eagles 

are roosting in the immediate 

area prior to daily construction 

activities, construction would 

not commence until the eagles 

have left the area. 

Operation: There are no 

operational effects. 

Gray Vireo 

(Vireo vicinior) 

Much of the project area contains suitable nesting habitat 

for this species. Individuals of this species were not seen 

during project field surveys. However, gray vireo’s were 

seen in the general vicinity for another project. 

Construction: Should it be 

necessary to remove or 

otherwise disturb potential 

nesting trees during the April 

1 to August 15 nesting period, 

a survey, conducted by a 

qualified biologist, for gray 

vireo’s would be conducted. 

Operations: There are no 

operational effects. 

Loggerhead shrike 

(Lanius 

ludovicianus) 

The entire proposed project area contains suitable nesting 

habitat for this species. Individuals of this species were 

seen in the general vicinity of the proposed project route 

during the field survey. However, none were seen in the 

immediate ROW and no characteristically skewered prey 

items were found on the thorny vegetation or barbed wire 

fences of the proposed project area. 

Construction: Should it be 

necessary to remove or 

otherwise disturb potential 

nesting trees during the April 

1 to August 15 nesting period, 

a survey, conducted by a 

qualified biologist, for 

loggerhead shrikes would be 

conducted. 

Operations: There are no 

operational effects 

Mountain plover 

(Charadrius 

montanus) 

Mountain plovers were not detected during field surveys 

even though suitable habitat was present. It is not 

considered likely that this ground-nesting bird nests or 

forages in the vicinity. The Biotic Information System for 

New Mexico lists their occurrence in Santa Fe County 

as irregular and rare. 

Construction: Should 

construction occur during the 

April through June nesting 

season, a pre-construction 

survey, performed by a 

qualified biologist, for 

mountain plovers would be 

conducted. If a nest site is 

discovered, construction 

would be delayed in the 

affected area until the chicks 

are fledged. Should foraging 

individuals be present, 

construction would be delayed 

until they vacate the area. 

Operations: There are no 

operational effects. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

138 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) 

Project Effect 

Construction and 

Operation 

Considerations 

Western burrowing 

owl 

(Athene cunicularia 

hypugaea) 

Burrowing owls were not detected during field surveys, 

though there were a few suitable burrows and other 

potential nesting sites encountered. Typical presence 

indicators such as molted feathers, pellets, eggshell 

fragments, prey remains, and excrement were likewise 

not encountered. Currently, it is not likely that burrowing 

owls utilize the immediate proposed project area. If 

present during construction, they would be expected to 

vacate the area, unless nesting. Burrowing owls, if 

present in the construction area, may abandon the area. 

Construction: A 

preconstruction survey by a 

qualified biologist would be 

conducted. Should burrowing 

owls be present within the 

construction site, they would 

be allowed to move off on 

their own accord. Should they 

not do so, the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish 

would be consulted regarding 

relocation strategy and 

practices. With relocation, 

effects to the population 

would be minor and shortterm. 

Operations: There are no 

operational effects. 

Zone-tailed hawk 

(Buteo albonotatus) 

While potentially present in the White Rock Canyon Area 

and documented in Bandelier National Monument, this 

species would not likely be affected by the proposed 

project. 

Construction: There are no 

construction effects. 

Operations: There are no 

operational effects. 

MAMMALS 

Gunnison’s prairie 

dog 

(Cynomys 

gunnisoni) 

The South Meadow Road prairie dog colony has been 

cleared out of the roadway ROW and proposed pipeline 

route by a previous, unrelated construction project. As of 

this writing, this colony had not re-established itself 

within the ROW. 

Construction: The South 

Meadow Road prairie dog 

colony site would be surveyed 

by a qualified biologist prior 

to construction activities. If 

prairie dogs are found within 

the project corridor, then the 

requirements found in Chapter 

14, Section 14-8.12 of the City 

of Santa Fe’s Code regarding 

Gunnison’s prairie dog 

relocation would be followed. 

Relocation of prairie dogs 

within the construction 

corridor would avoid adverse 

effects to this prairie dog 

population. 

Operations: There are no 

operational effects. 

Red fox 

(Vulpes vulpes) 

If present, the red fox would avoid the area during 

construction activities. Effects to this species would be 

minor and short-term. 

None 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 139 

Common Name 

(Scientific 

Name) 

Project Effect 

Construction and 

Operation 

Considerations 

Ringtail 

(Bassariscus 

astutus) 

This secretive species may utilize denning and foraging 

sites within the proposed project area. If present, the 

ringtail may temporarily avoid the proposed project area 

during construction activities. However, it is more likely 

that this nocturnal species would remain dormant in its 

shelter sites during daytime construction activities. 

Should construction result in the mortality of an 

individual, the effects to the local population would be 

minor and short-term. 

None 

Western spotted 

skunk 

(Spilogale gracilis) 

The proposed project area is likely outside the current 

distribution of this species. If present, affects to this 

species would likely be limited to temporary dispersals 

during construction activities. 

None 

Cumulative Effects 

The area of likely effect to the Rio Grande silvery minnow would be from the City of 

Albuquerque’s proposed Paseo del Norte Diversion to Elephant Butte Reservoir. The cumulative 

effects of the Buckman Direct Diversion have been analyzed, taking into account projects that are 

likely to affect the silvery minnow within the planning horizon for this project (2010). The 

potential increase in native water diversions from the City of Albuquerque would be additive with 

the Buckman Project as both projects would affect native Rio Grande water flow in silvery 

minnow habitat. 

While most of the Buckman Project’s diverted water would consist of existing San Juan-Chama 

contracted water, upwards of 1,925 ac-ft/yr or 22 percent of the 8,730 ac-ft/yr diversion water 

would be native Rio Grande water. The 1,925 ac-ft/yr of native water would be comprised of the 

County of Santa Fe’s existing right to 71.2 ac-ft/yr of Rio Grande native water and, for the 

purposes of this analysis, assumes that the County would obtain an additional 1,254 ac-ft/yr of 

Rio Grande native water rights to meet their projected water demand of 1,700 ac-ft/yr by the year 

2010. Leasing or purchasing of water rights would be subject to permits and approvals from the 

Office of the State Engineer and are outside the scope of this document. Las Campanas would 

exercise their approximate 600 ac-ft/yr Rio Grande native water right to augment their 1,200 acft/yr of San Juan-Chama water in order to meet their year 2010 demand for 1,800 ac-ft/yr. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

140 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Table 15. Amount of native water removed. 

For purposes of analysis, Table 15 illustrates that the amount of native water that could be 

removed through the Buckman Direct Diversion is small when compared with river flow. During 

high flow months (April, May, June), maximum diversions would be less than 20 percent. In 

September, when demand for water is high and river flows are low, as much as nearly 60 percent 

of the flow would be taken. On average during a given month, the percentages would be less (9 

percent up to 36 percent). This means that for any given month, the reduction in the flow of 

native water attributed to the Buckman Direct Diversion would be slight. 

Although the amount of flow reduction is small, at certain times of the year and generally the hot 

summer months when Rio Grande native water flow is reduced and water demand is high, any 

reduction of native water flow is important to the silvery minnow. During these low flow periods, 

occupied reaches of the river dry up and further reduction in water flow would have a cumulative 

impact on the available habitat for the silvery minnow. Drying stretches of river forces the 

minnow into pools where they are more vulnerable to predation, disease, and rising water 

temperature. Longer duration lack of flow results in pool evaporation and mortality of the fish 

trapped in them. 

Overall, when the City of Albuquerque operates their proposed Paseo del Norte Diversion, an 

increase in flow of approximately 61 cfs, relative to current conditions, from the outlet works at 

Heron Reservoir to the Paseo del Norte diversion point would occur. Thus, even with the 

proposed Buckman Project the stretch of river from Heron Reservoir to Paseo del Norte would 

receive higher consistent year-round flow. However, when the City of Albuquerque diverts water 

at their Paseo del Norte diversion site, the Rio Grande stretch from Paseo del Norte to Elephant 

Butte could experience a decrease of approximately 1,925 ac-ft/yr of native water flow as a result 

River Flow 

(Otowi Gage) 

Total Diversion 

Flow 

Native Water 

Diversion 

(22% Total = Native) 

Native Water 

Percent of 

Diversion 

Monthly Average 

(cfs) 

Max 

(cfs) 

Ave. 

(cfs) 

Max 

(cfs) 

Ave 

(cfs) Max Ave. 

January 788 11.3 6.8 2.49 1.50 32% 19% 

February 894 12.7 7.7 2.80 1.70 31% 19% 

March 1,293 14.1 8.5 3.11 1.87 24% 14% 

April 2,077 18.2 11.0 4.01 2.43 19% 12% 

May 3,397 23.8 14.4 5.25 3.18 15% 9% 

June 2,994 28.2 15.8 6.22 3.48 21% 12% 

July 1,433 26.1 15.8 5.76 3.48 40% 24% 

August 1,004 23.8 14.4 5.25 3.18 52% 32% 

September 850 22.6 13.7 4.98 3.02 59% 36% 

October 779 19.6 11.9 4.32 2.62 55% 34% 

November 1,012 14.1 6.8 3.11 1.50 31% 15% 

December 916 11.3 7.7 2.49 1.70 27% 19% 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 141 

of Santa Fe County and Las Campanas native water diversion of the proposed Buckman Project. 

It is the loss of native water in the Paseo del Norte to Elephant Butte reach that would most effect 

the silvery minnow. Thus, the cumulative effects of the Buckman Project and Albuquerque’s 

proposed diversion could reduce native Rio Grande water flow in occupied silvery minnow 

reaches subsequently increasing the duration and extent of river drying by a small, but 

measurable amount. However, as stated in the draft EIS for the City of Albuquerque Drinking 

Water Project, the City of Albuquerque would begin to curtail diversion of its San Juan-Chama 

water from the Rio Grande when the native flows above the diversion point reach 135 cfs or less. 

As the flows continue to decline, the City of Albuquerque would reduce diversions until the river 

reaches 70 cfs of native water at the diversion point. At that point, the City would suspend surface 

water diversion until flows recover, and temporally would rely solely on ground water for 

drinking water. This suspension of water diversion may have implications for stabilizing, 

downstream of the proposed Paseo del Norte diversion, Rio Grande native water flows even with 

upstream native Rio Grande water diversions. 

The applicants, Santa Fe County and Las Campanas, would take advantage of native flows during 

nonpeak time when the Rio Grande has a higher base flow and become more reliant on San JuanChama water during native water low flow conditions. The Buckman water diversion structure 

would not be operable at full capacity (diversion of 28 cfs) at river flow rates of 200 cfs or below 

and would be inoperable during very low river flow circumstances of 150 cfs or less. In 

nondrought years, these Buckman project-specific measures coupled with the development and 

implementation of regional conservation measures, including operation of the silvery minnow 

refugium, would avoid effects from the Buckman diversion of native water on the silvery 

minnow. 

In drought years and as regional water requirements increase, the Buckman diversion could 

reduce native water availability to the silvery minnow by 1,925 ac-ft/yr and contribute to the 

drying of the Rio Grande below the Paseo del Norte diversion site. However, the Buckman 

Project’s commitment to use native flows during nonpeak times and the design of the Buckman 

water diversion structure to not allow water diversion at flows 150 cfs or less coupled with the 

regional mitigation measures would serve to avoid an adverse effect to the silvery minnow 

population. 

Special Status Plants and Animals In the Project Area 

Affected Environment 

There are 7 plant and 51 wildlife special status species that are known to occur, or may occur, in 

Santa Fe County. However, after conducting further literature searches, field surveys, and habitat 

assessments, this list was reduced to 2 plant species and 15 wildlife species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed project construction areas and ROW (see Table 13). The remaining species 

were determined not likely to occur in the project area based on the lack of suitable habitat and no 

record of their occurrence in the project area; or in the case of plant species, were not encountered 

during field surveys. One Federally listed threatened species, bald eagle (Haliaetus

leucocephalus), is known to be a winter migrant in the area. Additionally, due to the potential 

diversion and use of native water, the Federally listed endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow 

(Hybognathus amarus) is addressed in the “Cumulative Effects” section. Also addressed in this 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

142 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

section are FS Management Indicator Species that occur in the project area and considerations for 

those species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 

Management Indicator Species. The Santa Fe National Forest Plan identifies seven species as 

Management Indicator Species. These species were selected to represent specific habitats and the 

species that use those habitats. These species are: Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarki virginalis), piñon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), 

hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), mourning 

dove (Zenaida macroura), elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni), and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep 

(Ovis canadensis canadensis). Within the proposed project area, habitat exists only for the piñon 

jay and mourning dove. 

The piñon jay is primarily a species of dense piñon-juniper and pine woodlands; this species was 

identified adjacent to the project area. They could occupy hillside habitat within the proposed 

project area that have larger aggregations of trees. Piñon jays are highly colonial and depend 

heavily on the presence of piñon nuts, not only for food, but also as an environmental cue to 

initiate breeding. The Santa Fe National Forest contains over 450,000 acres of habitat. The piñon 

jay population is ranked as common for the Santa Fe National Forest (FS 2003). Surveys 

conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey between 1968 and 1998 indicate a shale or downward 

trend for piñon jay within the State of New Mexico. The trend for the Santa Fe National Forest is 

ranked as stable to downward based on the State trend and the breeding survey routes located 

near the Santa Fe National Forest (FS 2003). Piñon jays would use the pipeline area for foraging 

and hunting. 

Mourning doves inhabit a variety of areas including scrublands, grasslands, open woodlands, and 

residential areas. Throughout the Santa Fe National Forest, mourning dove habit is considered 

stable to increasing and the population is ranked as common (FS 2003). Though not observed 

during site surveys, suitable nesting habitat for this species is found throughout the proposed 

project area. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 was implemented to protect the international export and 

import of avian species. The act protects nesting migratory birds from harassment, harvest, and 

harm. There are around 40 species protected under the act that may utilize habitat in the project 

area. Sixteen species are potentially year-round residents and 24 species may be in the area only 

during breeding season. 

Environmental Consequences 

A project-specific search of the New Mexico Natural Heritage Program database did not reveal 

any records of currently listed special status species in the proposed project area. Sixteen special 

status species were identified that have potential occurrence or habitat within the construction 

areas. Three species (Flathead chub, Loggerhead shrike [Lanius ludovicianus], and Gunnison’s 

prairie dog) were observed in close proximity to the project construction boundaries. One species, 

Rio Grande silvery minnow, while not occurring in the area, could experience an effect from the 

proposed diversion of native Rio Grande water and has been previously addressed. Project 

construction and operations are not expected to adversely affect any population of a special status 

species. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 143 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no disturbance of or change to special status 

species or their habitats. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Construction and Operations. Table 14 addresses the effects to special status species. 

The piñon jay and mourning dove, Management Indicator Species, are in the construction project 

area. Both species may experience temporary disruption and displacement from construction 

activities. Removal of piñon pines would represent a minor decrease in food supply for the piñon 

jay. However, many of the piñon pines that would be removed in the project area are dead or 

showing signs of die-off as a result of the bark beetle infestation. There would be permanent and 

minor decrease in potential habitat once all water diversion facilities are built and Buckman Road 

is improved. However, due to the good health of the piñon jay and mourning dove populations 

and available habitat, project effects would be very minor. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 provides for the protection of migratory birds from 

harassment, harm, or harvest. The primary concern to the integrity of avian communities 

associated with the proposed project area is the removal or disruption of nesting activities and 

nest destruction. The FWS Web site contains the following information: “As authorized by the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the FWS issues permits to qualified applicants for the following types 

of activities: falconry, raptor propagation, scientific collecting, special purposes (rehabilitation, 

educational, migratory game bird propagation, and salvage), take of depredating birds, taxidermy, 

and waterfowl sale and disposal. Migratory bird permit policy is developed by the Division of 

Migratory Bird Management and the permits themselves are issued by the Regional Bird Permit 

Offices. The regulations governing migratory bird permits can be found in 50 CFR Part 13 

(General Permit Procedures) and 50 CFR Part 21 (Migratory Bird Permits).” Implementation of 

the pre-construction bird survey by a qualified biologist and/or compliance with the following 

process would serve to avoid impacts to species covered under the Treaty or be compliant with 

the Treaty: 

If the contractor is working (a) during the nonnesting season (between August and March) or 

(b) during the nesting season (which in this area of Santa Fe would include April through 

July) and a nest is found but is not being used; there is no requirement for a permit. 

However, if the work is being done during the nesting season and a nest is found that is being 

used, the contractor has two options: 

• Wait for nesting/fledging to be completed; or 

• Apply to the FWS for a permit so take is authorized under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

The FWS has a 30-day response period, but if it is an emergency, phone calls and faxing 

paperwork could complete the process within 48 hours. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Sediment Facility Alternatives 

Construction and Operation. Effects from the sediment facility alternatives are expected to be 

similar to the Proposed Action with the following exception: Alternative SF2 would result in 

additional improvements to Buckman Road including straightening and widening. Additional loss 

of habitat adjacent to Buckman Road would occur, and the area would probably experience more 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

144 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

visitation and recreational use resulting in increased disturbance to special status species and their 

habitat. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Pipeline Route Alternatives 

Construction and Operation. The construction and operation effects are similar under the 

Proposed Action except that Alternative TWP1 would be constructed and operated in a new ROW 

corridor and, similarly, Alternative TWP2 would require a short run of new ROW corridor. 

Construction and operation of new pipeline corridors would result in the minor and short-term 

removal of vegetation and subsequent forage base reduction for some special status species. 

Development of new corridors could encourage changes to and increased recreation use in the 

area and subsequent degradation to vegetation and habitat of special status species. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

Construction and Operation Effects. Alternative AGP1 effects would be similar to the 

Proposed Action for the power upgrade.

In compliance with the Endangered Species Act, a biological assessment will be prepared and 

submitted to the FWS for their review, comment, and concurrence, if appropriate, of effect. 

Similarly, for FS sensitive species, a biological evaluation will be prepared and submitted for FS 

review, comment, and concurrence, if appropriate, of effect. 

Cumulative Effects 

Habitat loss from implementation of the Proposed Action and alternatives could result in the 

permanent loss of approximately 59 acres. For special status species that utilize the affected area, 

this would be additive to the continuing habitat loss within lands contiguous with or in close 

proximity to the Buckman Project area in Santa Fe, Rio Arriba, and Los Alamos Counties, as well 

as San Ildefonso Pueblo lands. Habitat loss is primarily a result of new road construction (NM 

284/85), housing development, and increasing recreation use of public lands. Cumulative effects 

to the Rio Grande silvery minnow are addressed in the previous section, “Rio Grande Silvery 

Minnow.” 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources are those aspects of the physical environment that relate to human culture, 

society, and cultural institutions that hold communities together and link them to their 

surroundings. Cultural resources include expressions of human culture and history in the physical 

environment, such as prehistoric and historic sites, buildings, structures, objects, districts, natural 

features, and biota, which are considered important to a culture, subculture, or community. 

Cultural resources include aspects of the physical environment that are a part of traditional 

lifeways and practices, and are associated with community values and institutions. 

Cultural Resource Types. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic archaeological sites 

and ethnographic resources. Archaeological sites are the tangible remains of past activities that 

show use or modification by people. Archaeological sites are distinct geographic areas that can 

include artifacts, features such as hearths, road remnants, or railroad grades, landscape alterations, 

or architecture. In general, archaeological sites are the locations of purposeful human activity that 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 145 

have resulted in the deposit of cultural materials beyond the level of a few accidentally lost 

artifacts. Remains that do not meet this criterion are still archaeological in nature, but are 

described as isolated occurrences. Prehistoric archaeological sites refer to cultural resources used 

or modified by people before the establishment of a European presence in the upper Rio Grande 

Valley in the early 17th century. Historic archaeological sites are those cultural resources used or 

modified since the arrival of Europeans in the region. 

Cultural resources that have a direct association with a living culture may be considered 

ethnographic resources. These resources can include traditional cultural properties (TCPs), or 

Native American sacred sites and religious resources. TCPs are places or objects that are 

important to a particular living community, and this importance is “derived from the role the TCP 

plays in the community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices” (Parker and King 

1990). TCPs are associated with the cultural practices and beliefs that are based in a community’s 

history or important in maintaining the cultural identity of the community. TCPs are used within 

social, spiritual, political, and economic contexts and, thus, are essential to the preservation and 

viability of a culture. TCPs are not limited to a certain ethnic group; rather Americans of every 

ethnic origin have properties to which they ascribe traditional cultural value. In northern New 

Mexico, Hispanic culture and Native American groups in particular have maintained traditional 

communities, practices, beliefs, and subsistence patterns. 

Cultural Resources and the Law. A number of Federal statutes address the identification of 

cultural resources and Federal responsibilities with regard to cultural resources. The long history 

of legal jurisdiction over cultural resources, dating back to 1906 with the passage of the 

Antiquities Act, demonstrates a continuing concern on the part of Americans for their cultural 

resources. Foremost among these statutes are the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as 

amended (16 U.S.C. Section 470), and its revised implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800). 

These statutes describe the process for identification and evaluation of cultural resources, 

assessment of effects of Federal actions on important resources, and consultation to avoid, reduce, 

or mitigate adverse effects. The NHPA does not require preservation of cultural resources, but 

does ensure that Federal agency decisions concerning the treatment of these resources result from 

meaningful consideration of cultural and historic values, and identification of options available to 

protect the resources. 

Tribal Consultation. Various statutes require consultation with Native Americans to identify 

cultural resources important to tribes and to address tribal concerns about potential effects to 

these resources. These statutes include the NHPA, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Executive Order 13007, and Executive 

Order 13084. Federal guidelines direct agencies to consult with Native American tribal leaders 

and others knowledgeable about cultural resources important to them. Consultation addresses 

Federal actions with the potential to affect locations of traditional concern, religious practices, 

areas of traditional cultural uses, archaeological sites, and other modern and/or ancestral tribal 

remains. 

Affected Environment 

A cultural resource inventory was conducted of the proposed project area in the fall and winter 

2002 (Wase et al. 2003). The information presented in this section is based on the findings of this 

inventory. The inventory included development of a cultural context for the region, research of 

previously conducted inventories near the project area, survey of the project area, and 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

146 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

consultation with potentially interested Native American tribes. Prior to any ground-disturbing 

activity, the results of this inventory would be sent to the New Mexico SHPO for consultation, 

pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800. 

Cultural History of the Region 

Prehistory. Human occupation of the upper Rio Grande Valley is believed to date from about 

12,000 years ago, during the Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,000 – 5500 B.C.). Most archaeologists 

believe that bands of mobile hunter-gatherers subsisted primarily on large game, but also 

collected wild plant foods. Paleoindian cultural remains are rare in the Santa Fe area. Other than 

isolated artifacts, only one site has been recorded. It is located south of the project area near 

Cañada Ancha. 

During the Archaic Period (5500 B.C. – A.D. 600), hunter-gatherers practiced a more diversified 

subsistence strategy, targeting smaller game, expanding plant gathering activities in response to 

warmer and drier climatic conditions, and eventually growing maize. Sites can contain evidence 

of structures, processing pits, storage pits, tool production, and plant processing. Archaeologists 

have identified Archaic sites near the project area, from valley floors to the foothills. Excavations 

near the project area have found some Archaic sites deeply buried with little or no surface 

evidence. Variable site use is apparent in the region, including limited activity sites, temporary 

base camps, longer duration occupations, and frequent reuse of desirable locations. These sites 

may indicate that the Late Archaic cultures were the first to occupy the area year-round. 

Archaeologists divide the Ceramic Period (A.D. 600 – 1600) into four periods. The Early 

Developmental Period (A.D. 600 – 900) is marked by the appearance of gray and black-on-white 

pottery. Sites tend to have one to three pithouses and a sparse scatter of artifacts and tend to be 

near permanent sources of water. These sites are rare in the upper Rio Grande Valley perhaps 

because the people here were able to maintain their Archaic way of life longer than populations 

on the Colorado Plateau to the west. Late Developmental Period (A.D. 900 – 1175) sites are more 

common, though surveys in the area have found few remains from this period. Sites become 

larger and pithouses give way to small clusters of surface rooms. 

The Coalition Period (A.D. 1175 – 1325) was a time of change, with the number and size of sites 

increasing, and ceramic decoration changing from the use of mineral paint to carbon-based paint. 

Work in the area indicates the presence of small villages along rivers, supported by intensive, 

recurring use of the nearby hills for limited subsistence activities. Coalition Period sites are 

common in the area and generally contain evidence of surface architecture, thermal features for 

firing pottery, and extensive artifact concentrations of pottery and stone tool manufacturing 

debris. 

The Classic Period (A.D. 1325 – 1600) saw continued change, especially with the construction of 

large villages with plazas. Black-on-white pottery is replaced by glaze-painted pottery. The Santa 

Fe area was heavily occupied during the early part of the Classic Period, but was mostly 

depopulated after A.D. 1420. 

History. After initial explorations, the Spanish established a foothold in northern New Mexico in 

1598 with a capital near San Juan Pueblo. The local government parceled much of the area into 

grants, confirming Pueblo land use or opening lands to Spanish colonists. In 1742, Viceroy 

Mendoza established two grants near the project area, the Caja del Rio Grant and what became 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 147 

known as the Ramon Vigil Grant. These grants were located in upland areas, which were valuable 

for hunting, firewood gathering, and grazing livestock, especially sheep. 

The Spanish colony became a part of Mexico in 1821, a territory of the United States in 1846, and 

one of the states in 1912. The descendants of the original grantee maintained the Caja del Rio 

Grant until it was sold in 1910 for back taxes. Ramon Vigil obtained his grant from the Sanchez 

family in 1851. With the coming of the railroad, land was becoming a commodity, and Vigil sold 

the grant to Winfield R. Smith and George Fletcher. Smith and Fletcher first leased the Vigil 

Grant to a cattleman whose 3,000-head herd devastated the grazing capacity of the land. In 1898, 

they leased the timber rights to Harry Buckman, a lumberman from Oregon. 

The Denver and Rio Grande Railroad, called the Chili Line and running between Santa Fe and 

Antonito, Colorado, was completed in 1887. The presence of the railroad stimulated the logging 

industry and brought about a mining boom to the area. Buckman built a bridge across the Rio 

Grande next to the Chili Line, built a siding on the east side of the river, and had a road blasted up 

the cliff west of the river to the top of Pajarito Plateau, establishing timber cutting for profit in the 

area. Success of the railroad siding and associated lumber camp encouraged the growth of the 

town of Buckman. A post office was established in the town in 1899. Shipping of lumber and 

livestock was the economic mainstay of Buckman through the 1920s, and in the early 1900s, the 

town became a gateway for tourists to Pajarito Plateau. In spite of these interests, changes in 

access to the plateau gradually caused the depopulation of the town, and by the 1940s, it faded 

from the landscape. 

Buckman was the only residential site near the project area until the recent development of 

upscale residential areas. The project area contains a number of buried and overhead utilities, and 

is in a developed water well field. Transitory use of the area continues today, as residents of Santa 

Fe use the area for recreation. The area is part of grazing allotments of the BLM and FS, and is 

adjacent to special recreation areas. 

Previous Work in the Area 

Extensive archaeological research has been conducted near the project area. Within 1 mile of the 

project area, 52 cultural resource inventories and excavations have been conducted, resulting in 

the recording of 189 cultural resources. A detailed list of previous researchers and their findings 

can be found in the cultural resource inventory report prepared for this project (Wase et al. 2003). 

Seventy-five percent of these recorded resources are prehistoric and 25 percent are historic. 

The current project area contains two major soil associations. The older Pojoaque series soils are 

old alluvium on stable slopes and alluvial fans. When exposed, Pojoaque soils exhibit old 

prehistoric surfaces. The Bluewing series soils are found in valleys and are derived from recent 

alluvium of mixed origin. Previous work, together with the current inventory, supports that when 

Pojoaque soils are exposed at the surface, they are likely to contain prehistoric cultural remains. 

Surfaces with the Bluewing soils are more recent and are more likely to contain historic cultural 

materials. However, Bluewing soils can likely cover older surfaces that may contain prehistoric 

cultural deposits. Thus, there is a possibility that subsurface cultural remains exist below surfaces 

with Bluewing series soils in the project area. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

148 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Cultural Resources Identified in the Project Area 

A cultural resource inventory was conducted of the project area, with two exceptions explained 

below. The inventory included an archaeological field survey that covered the project area for the 

Proposed Action and the alternatives. The field survey also included buffer zones to allow for 

realignments of proposed developments to avoid important cultural resources, and to include 

room for construction activities. The field survey identified 16 archaeological sites and 138 

isolated occurrences in the project area and buffer zones. The inventory fully recorded and 

evaluated all of these resources to determine if they are eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Resources that are eligible or resources where the eligibility 

remains undetermined are afforded consideration under the NHPA. If a Federal action will affect 

an eligible resource, then measures must be taken to avoid, reduce, or mitigate the affect. None of 

the isolated occurrences are eligible for the NRHP. Of the 16 sites, 9 sites are eligible for listing 

on the NRHP. These 9 sites are presented in Table 16. 

Table 16. Eligible archaeological sites identified during field survey of the project area and 

buffer zones. 

Note: LA = Laboratory of Anthropology. (Source: Wase et al. 2003) 

Two portions of the project area were not inventoried for cultural resources. These are the halfmile of above ground power line near the MRC WTP for the Proposed Action, and the substation 

and 1 mile above ground power line for Alternative AGP1. These project areas have undergone 

cultural resource inventory, with no additional sites found. The results will be included with the 

other evaluation materials to the State Historic Preservation Officer prior to any construction 

activities taking place at these locations. 

Another phase of the cultural resource inventory was consultation with potentially interested 

tribes. The FS sent consultation letters to the following tribes on August 5, 2002: Pueblo of 

Jemez, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Juan, Pueblo of San 

Ildefonso, Pueblo of Santo Domingo, Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of Taos, Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo 

of Sandia, Pueblo of Tesuque, Pueblo of Nambe, Pueblo of Zia, Pueblo of Pojoaque, and the 

Jicarilla Apache Nation. As of this printing, none of the tribes has expressed concerns for 

traditionally important cultural resources in the project area. Consultation efforts will continue 

with the tribes throughout preparation of the EIS. 

Site Number Description Age 

LA 15222 Buckman townsite 

Artifact scatter 

Historic 

Prehistoric 

LA 98690 Artifact scatter and hearths Prehistoric 

LA 117262 Artifact scatter Historic 

LA 128580 Denver & Rio Grande railroad grade (the Chili Line) Historic 

LA 137068 Artifact scatter and feature Prehistoric 

LA 137070 Artifact scatter Prehistoric 

LA 137072 Artifact scatter Unknown 

LA 137075 Artifact scatter Unknown 

LA 138574 Artifact scatter 

Artifact scatter and feature 

Prehistoric 

Historic 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 149 

Environmental Consequences 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction of the Buckman Project would be undertaken. 

There would be no effects to cultural resources as a result of this alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Effects to cultural resources could arise from direct or indirect sources. Potential direct effects can 

include physical destruction resulting from groundbreaking activities; access to construction areas 

by large machinery; improvement of existing access and storm water control measures; use of 

staging areas for storage of equipment and supplies; and future maintenance activities. These 

physical effects can occur to both known sites and subsurface sites that could be discovered 

during groundbreaking activities. Another potential direct effect can be the introduction of visual 

or auditory elements out of character with a resource or disruption of the setting of a resource. 

These can result from introducing modern buildings and machinery into an otherwise rural or 

natural setting. Potential indirect effects can include physical harm resulting from changes in 

erosion patterns that are caused by construction, soil compaction, vegetation removal; increased 

vandalism or illegal artifact collecting of resources due to the presence of construction and 

maintenance workers in the area; and an increased probability for inadvertent physical harm to 

resources both in the short and long term. 

Construction Effects. Effects to cultural resources would be mitigated through implementation 

of the following practices. Archaeological sites would be avoided where possible. Fencing would 

be erected around sites near the construction area, but not subject to direct effect, to protect them 

from inadvertent intrusion by construction equipment and personnel. Additionally, a qualified 

archaeological monitor would be present during all construction excavation and surface 

modifications. If previously unknown subsurface cultural deposits are discovered, construction 

activities in the area would halt and the agency would determine appropriate treatment in 

consultation with the SHPO. Archaeological sites that could not be avoided during construction 

would have archeological testing or data recovery efforts conducted prior to construction. 

Subsurface sites discovered during construction activities would also undergo testing or data 

recovery treatment. Archaeological data recovery would be conducted in compliance with a 

formal data recovery plan approved by the involved agencies and SHPO. Standard erosion control 

measures would be in effect during construction activities. All workers conducting construction 

activities would be educated regarding cultural resources in the project area, appropriate 

avoidance measures, and associated restrictions per Federal statutes. 

Under the Proposed Action, four sites would definitely be directly affected by construction 

activities: LA 15222 (the townsite of Buckman), LA 138574, LA 98690, and LA 128580 (the 

Denver and Rio Grande railroad grade). The townsite would be physically affected by the 

sediment facility, Booster Station 1A, road improvements, underground power line, and various 

pipelines coming to and going from these facilities. LA 138574 and LA 98690 would be 

physically affected by the treated water pipeline. The railroad grade would be crossed by 

pipelines eight times under the Proposed Action. Three sites are located very close to the 

pipelines and underground power line, and though it seems that they could be avoided on the 

surface, it is probable that the subsurface deposits of these sites would be affected during 

construction. These sites include LA 117262, LA 137068, and LA 137075 (pipeline only). 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

150 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Archaeological testing would be conducted prior to construction to determine if deposits from 

these three sites extend into the pipeline corridor. Two sites near the pipelines and underground 

power line, LA 137070 and LA 137072, would be easily avoided during construction. Impacts 

from construction of the one-half mile above ground power line are unknown at this time because 

a cultural resource inventory has not yet been done at this location. However, because the power 

line would be above ground, it is likely that direct physical impacts to resources in this portion of 

the project area would be avoided by placing the structures away from any identified resources. 

Indirect effects to cultural resources are difficult to quantify and could occur to cultural resources 

both in and outside the project area. Construction of facilities and associated compaction of soils 

and removal of vegetation would change the erosion patterns, which in turn could physically 

harm resources. The increase in activities and workers in the area during construction could result 

in an increase in vandalism or illegal artifact collecting at archaeological sites. Improvements in 

access to the area could also result in increased vandalism and artifact collecting from members 

of the public. The increase in construction activities and improvements in public access would 

also increase the chance for inadvertent physical harm to cultural resources. 

Operation Effects. Under the Proposed Action, cultural resource mitigations would include 

designing the project facilities near Buckman to complement the historic use of the area when 

viewed from White Rock Overlook Park. In addition, interpretive signage that explains the 

history of the Buckman area, through text and pictures, would be offered to Los Alamos County 

for placement at the White Rock Overlook Park viewing platform. These mitigations would be in 

addition to a data recovery effort at the Buckman townsite. All workers conducting maintenance 

activities would be educated regarding cultural resources in the project area, appropriate 

avoidance measures, and associated restrictions per Federal statutes. 

Direct effects from operation and maintenance of the diversion facilities would be unlikely since 

most activities would take place within areas already disturbed by construction activities. The 

introduction of modern buildings and machinery would affect the visual setting of the townsite of 

Buckman; however, the facilities would be designed to complement the historic use of the area, 

thereby reducing the effect. With this mitigation measure in place, the facilities would not change 

the NRHP eligibility of the site. Indirect effects on cultural resources both in and outside the 

project area could include an increase in vandalism or illegal artifact collecting due to the 

presence of maintenance workers in the area. Maintenance activities would also increase the 

chances for inadvertent physical harm to cultural resources. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Sediment Facility Alternatives 

The following discussion compares the effects of two alternatives with those of the Proposed 

Action. 

Construction Effects. Alternative SF1 would place the sediment facility and Booster Station 1A 

in a location off of the Buckman townsite. There are no known cultural resources in this new 

location. This would remove much of the effects of the Proposed Action on the NRHP-eligible 

Buckman townsite. The townsite would still be affected by the pipelines going to and coming 

from the sediment facility and booster station. However, pipeline trenches are narrow and 

excavation of them would effect the townsite much less than construction of the sediment facility 

and Booster Station 1A. Also, the return flow pipeline would affect the railroad grade under this 

alternative, whereas under the Proposed Action, this pipeline could avoid the grade. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 151 

Alternative SF2 would place the sediment facility and Booster Station 1A in a location off of the 

Buckman townsite and would not use a return flow pipeline, resulting in even fewer effects to the 

townsite of Buckman and the railroad grade. However, because this alternative would use trucks 

to haul the sediment offsite, the road would require more improvements, including widening and 

straightening, thereby expanding the area affected by road construction activities and increasing 

the possibility to impact buried archaeological sites. 

Indirect effects from construction of either of the two alternatives would be similar to those 

arising from the Proposed Action. 

Operation Effects. Alternative SF1 and SF2 would have less of a visual effect on the historical 

character of the Buckman townsite because the sediment facility and booster station would not be 

located within the townsite. SF2 would have more of a periodic visual and audible effect on the 

historical character of the Buckman townsite because of the noise and dust from trucks hauling 

sand from the sediment facility on a regular basis. Indirect effects of operation under any of the 

two alternatives would be similar to those arising from the Proposed Action. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Pipeline Route Alternatives 

Construction Effects. Alternative RWP1 would use one pipeline instead of two for the raw water 

conveyance between Booster Station 1A and Booster Station 2A. The pipeline route would be the 

same as under the Proposed Action, and thus, like the Proposed Action, it would impact the 

Buckman townsite and railroad grade. However, by using just one pipeline instead of two, a 

single trench instead of two would be excavated, thereby reducing the extent of the effects. 

Alternative TWP1 would physically affect site LA 138574. Alternative TWP2 would not directly 

affect any cultural resources. Alternative TWP3 would cross the railroad grade in four places. 

This is compared to the TWP under the Proposed Action, which would physically affect sites LA 

138574 and LA98690. Indirect effects caused by construction of any of the alternatives would be 

similar to those resulting from the Proposed Action. 

Operation Effects. There would be no direct effects to cultural resources under any of the 

alternatives since maintenance activities would take place within the areas already disturbed by 

construction activities. Indirect effects of operation under the alternatives would be similar to 

those arising from the Proposed Action. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

Construction Effects. Alternative AGP1b would use an above ground power line between the 

existing Buckman substation and the river, instead of an underground power line. It is likely that 

all identified cultural resources, with the exception of the Buckman townsite, would be avoided 

during construction of the power line. While the areal extent of the Buckman townsite would 

require placement of at least one power line structure within its boundaries, the extent of physical 

disturbance to the townsite would be greatly reduced in comparison to the Proposed Action’s 

underground power line. Because the power line would be above ground, it is likely that direct 

physical impacts to resources in this portion of the alternative’s project area would be avoided by 

placing the structures away from any identified resources. Indirect effects caused by construction 

of Alternative AGP1 would be similar to those resulting from the Proposed Action. AGP1a would 

not impact cultural resoures. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

152 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Operation Effects. There would be no direct physical effects to cultural resources under 

Alternative AGP1 because maintenance activities would take place within the areas already 

disturbed by construction activities. The introduction of an above ground power line near the 

river would result in greater impacts to the visual setting of the townsite of Buckman as compared 

to the Proposed Action’s underground power line. Indirect effects of operation under the 

alternative would be similar to those arising from the Proposed Action. 

Cumulative Effects 

The project area has undergone development in the past, in the form of overhead and 

underground utilities, water development, and roads. A railroad, road, power lines and pipelines 

have all been constructed through the Buckman corridor. The area has also been used in the past 

for grazing and off-road vehicle use, and is currently accessed by the public for recreation. All of 

these activities have likely resulted in some level of adverse effect to the cultural resources in the 

project area; however, due to the surficial nature of some of the activities, and the small amount 

of acreage of those activities that involved ground disturbance, the effects overall have been 

minimal. The region surrounding the southern portion of the project area has undergone 

development in the recent past, and this trend for constructing housing developments would likely 

continue in the region in the future. Effects to cultural resources from these housing 

developments are much more extensive and intensive than the likely effects assessed for this 

proposed water development project. The effects to cultural resources caused by the Proposed 

Action or the alternatives would be additive, but minimal. 

Recreation Resources and Traffic 

Affected Environment 

The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) is a system used by the FS and BLM to stratify and 

define classes of outdoor recreation opportunity environments or settings provided on agency 

regulated lands. Recreation opportunities, according to this system, can be expressed in terms of 

three principal components: activity, setting, and experience. Possible mixes of activities, settings, 

and recreation experience have been arranged along a spectrum, ranging from primitive to urban 

(BLM 1988). There are six major ROS setting categories within the ROS system. The ROS 

setting categories arranged in order from urban to primitive are as follows: Urban, Rural, Roaded 

Natural (RN), Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM), Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM), and 

Primitive. The setting categories are constructed to display the range from very developed and 

convenient (Urban) to very remote and wild (Primitive). 

The ROS provides seven descriptors to differentiate among the various setting categories. These 

descriptors give agencies evaluation tools for monitoring the success of management efforts. In 

addition, agency personnel can use these descriptors to guide decisions on site development 

proposals. Furthermore, public lands visitors can use the descriptors to evaluate whether a 

particular destination on Federal land offers the setting that matches their expectations. 

Descriptions of conditions are evaluated by whether they are fully compatible with an ROS 

expectation. The range of evaluation levels continues through levels termed “compatible,” 

“norm,” “inconsistent,” and “unacceptable.” Thus four levels are available to describe how well a 

given setting fits with the national standards set by the ROS. For instance, “norm” defines the 

typical conditions when a given setting is managed according to national standards. The term 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 153 

“inconsistent” highlights some incompatibility between ground conditions and standards. Some 

situations are left inconsistent with national standards because they meet local management 

objectives. When conditions fall into the “unacceptable” level, significant management changes 

are necessary to bring the setting into its desired state. If those changes are not possible (such as 

is the case along the Buckman utility corridor managed as a Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

setting), the agency may consider changing the allocation to fit actual ground conditions. 

The descriptors are as follows: 

1. Access: The access descriptor depicts the type and mode of travel compatible within 

each setting category. 

2. Remoteness: The remoteness descriptor defines the perception of being removed from the 

sights and sounds of human activities. 

3. Naturalness: The naturalness descriptor illustrates the physical conditions of the setting as 

compared to a natural environment. This descriptor is primarily a visual evaluation of the 

surrounding landscape and describes the level of human modifications that has occurred 

or is proposed. 

4. Social Encounters: The social encounters descriptor attempts to define the appropriate 

frequency of meeting others during the course of a day’s activities within an area with a 

particular setting category. 

5. Visitor Impacts: The visitor impacts descriptor describes the physical change that human 

use produces in the environment. This descriptor focuses on how much change will be 

allowed and what tools for control are appropriate, rather than how impacts can be 

prevented. 

6. Visitor Management: The visitor management descriptor focuses on the amount of 

regulation and control, plus the level of information and services, provided to visitors. 

More developed settings offer sufficient regulation and services to provide a necessary 

level of security for visitors; whereas, a primitive setting lacks such management, 

demanding independence and a level of risk taking. 

7. Facilities and Site Management: The facilities and site management descriptor refers to 

the level of site development, in that urban and rural settings provide more convenience 

and comfort with more developed facilities than primitive settings where facilities are 

absent. 

The area of potential effect for recreation resources includes contiguous river segments and 

reservoirs from Heron Reservoir in northern New Mexico to Cochiti Reservoir in central New 

Mexico, as well as the Buckman Road/Dead Dog Leg corridors and adjacent lands. Recreational 

use across these lands varies, based on location, activity, access, and water source. Therefore, an 

overview of relevant corridors, river reaches, and reservoirs with their associated recreational 

uses are presented below. 

Corridors 

Originating at Otowi Bridge and continuing through the project area near the terminus of 

Buckman Road is a primitive, unmaintained pack trail. The pack trail crosses FS land under 

Management Area G (managed for a Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) setting of Roaded 

Natural and Semi-Primitive Motorized (FS 1987)) directly adjacent to, and within, the project 

area. It then continues south on FS Management Area L land that is managed for a ROS setting of 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

154 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) (FS 1987). This trail system is typically used by cyclists, 

campers, picnickers, birders, rockhounds, horseback riders, hikers, and off-highway-vehicle 

(OHV) users. OHV use on FS lands under Management Area G is legal; however, on 

Management Area L land adjacent to Area G in the project area, it is illegal. 

Management Area G in the project area includes objectives for both Semi-Primitive Motorized 

and Roaded Natural. In the Buckman area along the road and to the river, well buildings and other 

facilities are consistent with Roaded Natural, while other descriptors are consistent with SemiPrimitive Motorized (SPM). A full list of descriptors is provided in Table 17. 

The current management objectives with ROS for BLM lands along Buckman Road are SemiPrimitive Non-Motorized, meaning OHV use is limited to existing roads and trails (BLM 1988). 

The southern portion of BLM managed lands, about a mile south of Alamo Creek, is assigned 

Rural, where frequent social interactions and more cultural modifications to the environment are 

acceptable (BLM 1988). Within the project area, the RMP designates existing roads (such as 

Buckman Road) as open to vehicle use; however, the emphasis for SPNM is to provide 

opportunities for challenge and solitude. 

For BLM lands, the actual existing recreation setting along Buckman Road and south of Alamo 

Creek is better described in Table 17 by each descriptor. As illustrated, all descriptors are not 

completely consistent with management objectives for SPNM. Some exceed the standard, and 

others fall short of standards. BLM direction allows for variance from these standards when local 

objectives are taken into account. The criteria used to make these evaluations are taken from the 

1990 ROS Primer and Field Guide and Appendix C of the 2001 “Built Environment Image 

Guide” (FS-710). 

The Taos RMP provides overall management objectives for recreation in this area. During the 

revision process for the RMP, scheduled to begin in 2006, the ROS setting categories for this 

Buckman area will be re-evaluated and adjusted where necessary to reflect existing and future 

potential conditions. 

Buckman Road is a narrow, unpaved, County maintained rural road primarily intended for low 

volume vehicle use. The unpaved segment of the road is approximately 9.2 miles long. Buckman 

Road serves as the only access to the Rio Grande in the Española Ranger District. In order to 

quantify current recreational use along Buckman Road, a mechanical vehicle counter was buried 

under the road surface just north of Dead Dog Well for approximately 1 month, and two separate 

daylong traffic surveys were conducted near the counter. The data indicates that approximately 19 

vehicles per weekday visit Buckman, of which nearly 50 percent do so for recreational purposes. 

Approximately 50 vehicles per weekend day visit Buckman, of which approximately 95 percent 

do so for recreational reasons. This data does not necessarily represent yearlong use patterns. 

Along Buckman Road and the Dead Dog Leg maintenance road, recreation opportunities include 

picnicking, camping, hiking, biking, OHV use, caving, rock climbing, fishing, target shooting and 

hunting (illegal on FS land directly adjacent to the project area except T17N, R8E, Section 9; 

legal on BLM land provided that all State and Federal laws and regulations are followed), wildlife 

viewing, piñon nut and firewood gathering, recreational driving, photography, and partying. 

Recreation along the Dead Dog Leg corridor is far more limited relative to Buckman Road. There 

are no developed recreation resources or opportunities along the Buckman or Dead Dog Leg 

corridors. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 155 

Table 17. ROS existing conditions. 

ROS Descriptor Along Buckman Road About 1 mile South of 

Alamo Creek 

 Access Improved, double-lane road: Roaded 

Natural 

Two-track: Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

 Remoteness Too close to improved roads and higher 

density travel and visitation: Roaded 

Natural 

Too close to improved roads and 

higher density travel and 

visitation: Roaded Natural 

BLM 

Managed 

Lands 

Naturalness Vegetative manipulation not apparent: 

Semi-Primitive Motorized 

Vegetative manipulation not 

apparent: Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

 Social Encounters Low to Moderate: Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

Low: Semi-Primitive Motorized 

 Visitor Impacts Subtle compaction and vegetation loss 

from visitors at all sites: Roaded Natural 

Limited site hardening: SemiPrimitive Motorized 

 Visitor Management Only fencing and signing of ownership: 

Semi-Primitive Motorized 

No controls: Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

Facilities & Site 

Management 

Many utilities, power lines, water tanks, 

pumps, substations: Urban 

Visible power lines: SemiPrimitive Motorized 

 Along Buckman Road River Access 

 Access Improved, double-lane road: Roaded 

Natural 

Two-track: Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

Remoteness Close to improved roads and higher 

density travel and visitation: Roaded 

Natural 

Close to improved roads and 

higher density travel and 

visitation: Roaded Natural 

Naturalness Vegetative manipulation not apparent: 

Semi-Primitive Motorized 

Vegetative manipulation not 

apparent: Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

Forest 

Service 

Managed 

Lands 

Social Encounters Moderate: Roaded Natural Moderate: Roaded Natural 

 Visitor Impacts Subtle compaction and vegetation loss 

from visitors at all sites: Roaded Natural 

Subtle compaction and 

vegetation loss from visitors at 

all sites: Roaded Natural 

 Visitor Management Only fencing and signing of ownership: 

Semi-Primitive Motorized 

Only fencing and signing of 

ownership: Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

Facilities & Site 

Management 

Some utilities, power lines, well 

buildings: Roaded Natural 

Some utilities, powerlines, well 

buildings: Roaded Natural 

All existing infrastructure located along Buckman Road and the Dead Dog Leg maintenance road 

is well within the range of firearms and shows signs of vandalism. On May 24, 2001, Closure 

Order No. 10-251 was signed by the FS prohibiting the discharge of a firearm, air rifle, gas gun 

(paintball gun), shooting bow and arrow, or anything that can harm others or their property within 

1 mile of the forest boundary on all sections comprising the eastern boundary of the Española 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

156 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Ranger District Caja Subunit except in T17N, R8E, Section 9, which is directly adjacent to the 

Dead Dog Leg corridor (FS 2001a). 

The staging area for Caja Del Rio “Diablo” Canyon consists of an unimproved, unmaintained dirt 

parking lot that is accessed from Buckman Road. The Diablo Canyon staging area provides 

parking and access to the canyon and Cañada Ancha for rock climbers, horseback riders, hikers, 

runners, rock hounds, wildlife viewers, firearms users, spelunkers (cavers), partiers, and a host of 

other pursuits. 

River Reaches 

Three river reaches are included in the area of potential effect from the Buckman Project. 

The Rio Chama below Heron Reservoir to Abiquiu Reservoir is at the northernmost extent of the 

area of potential effect and is primarily a brown trout/rainbow trout fishery. A 5.5-mile scenic trail 

along the Rio Chama connects El Vado Reservoir with Heron Reservoir. Commercial and private 

boating operations have been regulated for safety and congestion reasons on this reach of the Rio 

Chama, to maintain wilderness quality. Both the BLM and FS cooperatively manage this segment 

of the Rio Chama. BLM handles the river permit system while the FS manages the land. 

Depending on the time of year and the schedule of dam releases upstream, San Juan-Chama 

Project waters, along with MRGCD water for irrigation demands, can make up a sizeable 

percentage of this recreationally utilized flow. 

The Rio Chama below Abiquiu Reservoir to the confluence with the Rio Grande is also north of 

the project area and is in the middle reach in the area of potential effect. This river segment 

primarily supports a naturally reproducing brown trout fishery. The first 7 miles below Abiquiu 

Dam are designated by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish as “special trout water.” 

This fishery is prevented from developing due to the unreliability of the outflow from Abiquiu 

Reservoir, as well as water quality issues. Limited boating on this lower reach of the Rio Chama 

also occurs, although no commercial outfitters guide this stretch. 

The ROS category for these two reaches of the river range from Primitive in the wilderness to 

SPNM, SPM, or Rural (along highways). The project will affect streamflows in these reaches to a 

small degree, but effects to descriptors are not expected; therefore, ROS for these reaches will not 

be discussed further. 

The Rio Grande from the Rio Grande/Rio Chama confluence to Cochiti Lake is the southernmost 

reach potentially affected by the project. This reach is approximately 15 miles long and is 

primarily a brown trout, smallmouth bass, and channel catfish fishery. Commercial and private 

boating operations occur on the lower, canyon-bound reach of this segment of the Rio Grande in 

White Rock Canyon. Special use permits must be obtained from the FS in order to commercially 

guide tours through White Rock Canyon. The put-in for White Rock Canyon is at the terminus of 

Buckman Road. ROS at the terminus of Buckman Road (at the river) is consistent with Roaded 

Natural because of the existing facilities (wells and utility lines). 

Reservoirs 

Four reservoirs are included in the area of potential effect from the Buckman Project. Heron 

Reservoir is at the northernmost extent of the area of potential effect. El Vado and Abiquiu 

Reservoirs are in the middle reaches, and Cochiti Reservoir is at the southern extent of areas 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 157 

potentially affected by the project. Each reservoir has facilities that support a wide array of 

waterborne recreation activities including boating, swimming, and fishing. None of the actions 

have potential to affect the ROS setting for these reservoirs because only a small variation in 

reservoir levels would occur, which would have negligible potential to change the ROS 

descriptors. 

Environmental Consequences 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, developed and undeveloped recreation opportunities and 

resources at the reservoirs, river reaches, and immediate project area would not be affected. 

Actions related to diversion of San Juan-Chama water would not occur. Flow characteristics in 

the Rio Grande related to the release of San Juan-Chama contract water for use by the City and 

County of Santa Fe would continue to be affected by the rate of Buckman well pumping and 

related releases of offsetting San Juan-Chama Project water (currently approximately 2,500-3,000 

ac-ft/yr). Project-related improvements to Buckman Road would not take place. Therefore, no 

direct or indirect short- or long-term effects to recreation opportunities or resources would occur 

from the implementation of the No Action Alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Construction Effects. During construction operations, road improvements may delay access 

along part or all of Buckman Road and/or the Dead Dog Leg maintenance road. Burial of raw 

water pipe lines, gas lines, and power transmission lines under or near Buckman Road would 

result in a short-term direct negative effect to recreational access for the duration of construction. 

Examples of these short-term effects would be increased noise levels and delayed access to the 

river. Therefore, construction activities along the Buckman and Dead Dog Leg corridors 

associated with the Proposed Action would include access and safety controls, where practical for 

users. 

Buckman Road would not be closed during construction related to the Proposed Action. 

Therefore, the public would have to share the road with construction traffic and may experience 

traffic delays during the 12-month Buckman Road construction schedule. The mitigations that 

would be implemented to notify the public of the potential to encounter construction traffic 

include use of construction road signs and flagmen, which would serve to protect the area user 

during construction. Additionally, due to safety considerations, public access to the Rio Grande at 

the construction site may be limited during the 5-month water diversion construction. 

Operation Effects. Following construction, the improved Buckman Road would allow low 

clearance vehicles to negotiate the road more conveniently and could indirectly increase the usage 

levels of the Buckman and Dead Dog Leg corridors and surrounding land. While speculative, 

increased access could result in a greater incidence of vandalism, target shooting (both legal and 

illegal), illegal OHV use, as well as other undesirable activities resulting in harassment of lawabiding visitors. The County would undertake maintenance of Buckman Road; therefore, 

maintenance vehicles and/or grader traffic would increase slightly based on necessary 

maintenance and repair schedules. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

158 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

The criteria used to make these evaluations are taken from the 1990 ROS Primer and Field Guide 

and Appendix C of the 2001 “Built Environment Image Guide” (FS 1990 and USDA 2001). 

Improvements to Buckman Road as part of the Proposed Action would affect to a small degree 

the recreation experience on both BLM and FS lands. The effects can partly be described in terms 

of the changes to the ROS setting. However, because the BLM land classification of SPNM is not 

consistent with current conditions, additional description is required. These FS and BLM lands 

are along the Buckman and Dead Dog Leg corridors. 

On the SPNM BLM lands along Buckman Road, the Access and Naturalness ROS descriptors 

would be affected due to the use of aggregate, vegetative manipulation, and curve straightening. 

Cumulative affects to social encounters, visitor impacts, and visitor management could result as 

well. Social encounters could increase as a result of road improvements, which could increase 

loss of vegetation and site hardening to compensate for increased visitation. Another possible 

outcome would be that management controls could be applied to offset visitor impacts. 

Improvements to the road would move the condition further from the existing management 

objectives of SPNM. 

On BLM lands south of Alamo Creek, the WTP, power line, and substation would change the 

existing condition to all but two of the ROS descriptors. This would be consistent with BLM 

objectives except for the access descriptor. 

Table 18. Effects to ROS conditions from Proposed Action and alternatives. 

ROS 

Descriptor Along Buckman Road ~1 mile South of Alamo Creek 

 Access Improved, double-lane road with aggregate: 

Rural 

Improved road, aggregate and 

paved: Rural/Urban 

 Remoteness Too close to improved roads and higher 

density travel and visitation: Roaded 

Natural 

Too close to improved roads and 

higher density travel and visitation: 

Roaded Natural 

 Naturalness Highly modified by vegetative manipulation 

and curve straightening, especially near 

Diablo Canyon: Rural 

Vegetative manipulation dominant 

in foreground: Roaded 

Natural/Rural 

BLM 

Managed 

Lands 

Social 

Encounters 

Low to moderate but may increase due to 

road improvements: Roaded Natural 

Moderate to high due to personnel 

and maintenance: Roaded Natural 

 Visitor Impacts Subtle compaction and vegetation loss from 

visitors at all sites – could increase due to 

possible increased visitation: Roaded 

Natural 

Subtle hardening dominant: Roaded 

Natural 

Visitor 

Management 

Only fencing and signing of ownership – 

may increase to offset visitor impacts: 

Semi-Primitive Motorized/Roaded Natural 

No controls: Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

Facilities & Site 

Management 

Many utilities, power lines, water tanks, 

pumps, substations: Urban 

Obvious and numerous facilities: 

Rural/Urban 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 159 

 Along Buckman Road River Access 

 Access Improved, double-lane road with aggregate: 

Roaded Natural 

Two-track: Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

 Remoteness Close to improved roads and higher density 

travel and visitation: Roaded Natural 

Close to improved roads and higher 

density travel and visitation: Roaded 

Natural 

 Naturalness Vegetation manipulation dominant in the 

foreground: Roaded Natural 

Vegetative manipulation dominant 

in foreground near river: Roaded 

Natural 

Forest 

Service 

Managed 

Lands 

Social 

Encounters 

Moderate but may increase due to road 

improvements: Roaded Natural 

Moderate but may increase due to 

road improvements: Semi-Primitive 

Motorized/Roaded Natural 

 Visitor Impacts Subtle compaction and vegetation loss from 

visitors at all sites – could increase due to 

possible increased visitation: Roaded 

Natural 

Subtle compaction and vegetation 

loss from visitors at all sites – could 

increase due to possible increased 

visitation: Roaded Natural 

Visitor 

Management 

Only fencing and signing of ownership – 

may increase to offset visitor impacts: 

Semi-Primitive Motorized/Roaded Natural 

Only fencing and signing of 

ownership – may increase to offset 

visitor impacts: Semi-Primitive 

Motorized/Roaded Natural 

Facilities & Site 

Management 

Power lines, well buildings, sediment 

facility and booster station visible but 

designed to blend, not dominate: Roaded 

Natural 

Well buildings plus diversion 

structure and power lines visible, but 

designed to blend in, not dominate: 

Roaded Natural. 

On National Forest System lands along Buckman Road, the Access and Naturalness ROS 

descriptors would be affected due to the use of aggregate and vegetative manipulation. As with 

the BLM lands, cumulative affects to social encounters, visitor impacts, and visitor management 

could result as well. Social encounters could increase as a result of road improvements, which 

could increase loss of vegetation and require site hardening to compensate from increased 

visitation. Another possible outcome would be that management controls could be applied to 

offset visitor impacts. Improvements to the road and the river diversion would remain within 

Roaded Natural objectives. 

The negative effects would be partially mitigated by the use of colored additives in the concrete at 

all dip sections to minimize the visual contrast with the existing landscape (Figure 15). For 

example, signs marking speed limit and curves would require construction in a manner 

compatible with a Roaded Natural setting by constructing both sign and support post from solid 

wood (or appearing so—avoid metal, fiberglass or other synthetics) and have a natural or stained 

finish. Also, apparent disturbance to vegetation (slash piles, etc.) would be restored within 

between 1 to 2 years unless left as wildlife habitat piles. 

Under the Proposed Action, the Rio Chama below Heron Reservoir to Abiquiu Reservoir and the 

Rio Chama below Abiquiu Reservoir to the confluence with the Rio Grande would each 

experience slight discharge fluctuations from project related releases. The additional release of 

approximately 28 cfs during peak demand releases would have minor effects to the hydraulic 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

160 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

characteristics of the Rio Chama. Recreation resources would not be noticeably affected. 

Therefore, developed and undeveloped recreation opportunities (boating, swimming, camping, 

hiking, etc.) and resources along these segments of the Rio Chama would not experience direct or 

indirect short- or long-term negative effects. 

Effects to the segment of the Rio Grande above the project area are expected to be the same as for 

those discussed above for the Rio Chama segments. 

At the diversion site, boaters would be required to navigate away from the diversion structure 

where it extends into the Rio Grande. However, at this location the river is 50 to 60 feet across, 

and the diversion structure would only extend into the river approximately 15 feet. Thus, boaters 

should be able to readily avoid the structure. 

The segment of the Rio Grande below the project area would not benefit from the addition of 

project-related San Juan-Chama water discharge. However, the reduced discharge would not be 

discernible. This is because the San Juan-Chama discharges for the Albuquerque diversion would 

also be occurring and the Buckman amount is relatively small compared to the Albuquerque 

amount. In addition, nonwater-based recreation users are not directly dependent on streamflows. 

Therefore, no direct or indirect short- or long-term negative effects to recreation opportunities or 

resources would result on the Rio Grande and surrounding land below the project area. 

Under the Proposed Action, reservoirs would all experience a slight fluctuation in storage from 

project-related discharges. Water levels at these reservoirs plays an important role in the 

recreation opportunities available, and a change in water levels could affect recreation 

opportunities. However, project-related discharges (approximately 28 cfs at peak demand) would 

result in a 1-inch fluctuation at the reservoirs and would not be large enough to negatively affect 

the volume of water stored at the reservoirs. Therefore, no direct or indirect short- or long-term 

negative effects to developed or undeveloped recreation opportunities or resources at Heron, El 

Vado, or Abiquiu Reservoirs or Cochiti Lake would occur. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Sediment Facility Alternatives 

Construction Effects. Specific construction effects to recreation resources and opportunities 

under Alternative SF1 and SF2 are expected to be the same as for the Proposed Action. 

Operation Effects. Operation effects to recreation resources and opportunities due to Alternative 

SF1 are expected to be the same as for the Proposed Action. Under Alternative SF2, where the 

coarse river sediment would be trucked out and disposed of at an offsite facility, Buckman Road 

users could encounter heavy truck traffic. During periods when sand is hauled out of the facilities, 

the recreation experience and SPNM, SPM/Roaded Natural setting sought by visitors to the 

Buckman and Dead Dog Leg corridors would be degraded by the additional truck traffic, but 

because the current experience includes existing traffic associated with the City and other 

facilities, the actual change in setting is expected to be slight. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Pipeline Route Alternatives 

Construction and Operation Effects. Specific effects to recreation resources and opportunities 

under all pipeline route alternatives are expected to be the same as for the Proposed Action. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 161 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

Construction and Operation Effects. Alternative AGP1 effects would be similar to the 

Proposed Action for the power upgrade. 

Cumulative Effects 

The Albuquerque Drinking Water Project would add San Juan-Chama water to the Rio Chama 

and Rio Grande south to Albuquerque. The City of Española and Pueblo of San Ildefonso 

proposed projects would add San Juan-Chama water to the Rio Chama south to approximately the 

confluence with the Rio Grande. The Buckman Project would add San Juan-Chama water to the 

Rio Chama and Rio Grande south to the proposed diversion site. These projects, when considered 

together, would result in increased year-round flow in the Rio Chama, Rio Grande, and the four 

reservoirs from Heron Dam to the proposed diversion structure at Paseo del Norte. This would 

have beneficial effects to recreational opportunities in the project area. The Buckman Project 

would add to this cumulative effect from Heron Dam to the proposed Buckman diversion facility. 

The Supplemental Well Project, combined with this Buckman Water Diversion Project, would 

increase access to the project area for recreational purposes through improvements in existing 

access and development of new access. This would be beneficial for recreational opportunities. 

However, the use of acreage for above ground facilities, such as well heads, sedimentation ponds, 

and booster stations, would remove areas from recreational use and would negatively affect the 

overall recreational experience of the rest of the area. The anticipated future development of 

residential areas nearby would add to the negative effects. The Buckman Project would be 

additive to these beneficial and negative effects. 

Scenic Resources 

In general, scenery is the aggregate of visual and auditory (noise) features that give character to 

the landscape and is an integrated part of ecosystem management. All lands administered by the 

BLM and FS are managed to achieve a specific level of visual or scenic quality. The two Federal 

agencies use different systematic processes to analyze the potential visual effects of proposed 

projects and activities. Both of these management systems are processes to provide resource 

managers with a method of determining visual values on Federally managed lands. The BLM’s 

Taos Field Office Resource Management Plan is silent regarding visual management objectives in 

the Buckman Project area. Conversely, the FS has defined management objectives, as specified in 

the Santa Fe National Forest Management Plan, for FS lands within the area of the proposed 

Buckman Project. 

In 1995, Santa Fe County published a report that evaluated and presented the results of a visual 

resources analysis of Santa Fe County. The study relied on both public and expert evaluation in 

identifying areas within the County that have significance for visual reasons. This study was 

initiated by the County because of widespread concern for the loss of scenic quality in the County 

(Santa Fe County 1995). 

BLM Visual Resource Management System. BLM uses a Visual Resource Management 

(VRM) system. The VRM system includes a visual resource inventory, which classifies visual 

resources on BLM land into one of four categories (Class I, II, III, or IV), and sets management 

objectives through a resource management plan process. The inventory consists of a scenic 

quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, and a delineation of distance zones. Based on these 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

162 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

three factors, BLM-administered lands are placed into one of the four VRM classes (BLM 

1986a). In addition to inventory data, the VRM classes can reflect management considerations. 

Table 19. VRM Classes and Management Objectives. 

BLM Visual 

Resources 

Management 

Class 

Management Objectives 

Class I Provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited 

management activities. Level of change should be very low and must not attract attention. 

Class II Retain the existing character of the landscape. Management activities may be seen, but should 

not attract the attention of the casual observer. 

Class III 

Partially retain the existing character of the landscape. Level of change should be moderate 

but not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements 

found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

Class IV 

The objective of Class IV is to provide for management activities which require major 

modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape can be high. Management activities may dominate the view and be 

the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the 

impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the 

basic elements. 

(Source: BLM 1986) 

Each VRM class describes a different degree of modification allowed in the basic elements (form, 

line, color, and texture) found in the predominant natural features of the landscape. Table 19 

provides additional information regarding the management objectives for the various VRM 

classes. 

The Taos Field Office has not classified the Buckman area for visual resources through the 

Resource Management Plan. Consequently, a preliminary visual resources field inventory was 

conducted in December 2002 in the project area. The inventory was limited to the area potentially 

affected by the project and is not as comprehensive as a formal resource inventory would be. The 

survey results are to be used only as a strong indication of the appropriate inventory class of 

public lands within the Buckman Project. Based on results of the field survey at the three primary 

locations of interest, the following VRM classes are preliminarily indicated. 

• Diversion and Sediment Facility. The water diversion structure and sediment facility were 

viewed from White Rock Overlook Park’s observation platform. This evaluation was 

conducted because BLM lands may be viewed from the White Rock Overlook Park 

observation platform. However, most scenery effects would occur directly on FS lands. 

The Buckman Project site would qualify under BLM criteria as a Class III. 

• Buckman Road and Dead Dog Well Corridors. Substantial sections of the Buckman Road 

and Dead Dog Well corridors would qualify as Class IV. However, the section within a 

mile on either side of the Diablo Canyon staging area (parking area) would qualify as a 

Class III resource. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 163 

• MRC WTP. This site could qualify under BLM criteria as a Class III if evaluated from a 

foreground-middle ground zone or a Class IV if judged by background zone criteria. 

Generally, this site is expected to be viewed from a distance due to lack of site visitation. 

FS Scenery Management System. The FS uses a Scenery Management System (SMS) that 

evolved from and replaces the Visual Management System (VMS) defined in Agricultural 

Handbook 462 (FS 1995). Corresponding SMS and VMS levels for existing scenic conditions and 

visual quality objectives (VQO) are compared in Table 20. Basically, the two systems differ in 

that the SMS emphasizes and increases the role of constituents throughout the inventory and 

planning process; and it borrows from and is integrated with the basic concepts and terminology 

of ecosystem management. The SMS provides for improved integration of aesthetics with other 

biological, physical, and social/cultural resources in the planning process. Thus, the SMS actually 

incorporated additional factors when evaluating potential scenery effects and does not exclude 

any VMS factors. 

Table 20. Definition of terms and corresponding levels of existing scenic conditions 

between the Visual Management System and the Scenery Management System. 

FS - Visual 

Management 

System 

FS - Scenery 

Management 

System 

Existing Landscape Character Being Viewed 

Acreage of 

Management 

Area G 

Preservation Very High Landscape character is intact with only minute, if any, 

deviations. 0 

Retention High Deviation may be present but blends in with the 

landscape character so they are not evident. 12,199 

Partial 

Retention Moderate Landscape appears slightly altered. 40,144 

Modification Low Landscape character appears moderately altered. 27,444 

Maximum 

Modification Very Low Landscape character appears heavily altered. 147,205 

No 

Corresponding 

Term 

Unacceptably Low Landscape character appears extremely altered. NA 

(Source: FS 1995) 

The SMS process and terms are used in this analysis and, when necessary, VMS terms have been 

converted to the appropriate SMS term. 

According to the Forest Plan, areas viewed in the foreground from communities, recreation areas, 

and high use roads and water bodies, as well as scenic backdrops from these areas, would have a 

management objective of “High.” Therefore, management activities would not be visually 

evident within 1 year of project completion. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

164 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Backdrops of less scenic quality or lands viewed in the foreground from lower use areas have a 

management objective of “Moderate.” Here, activities may be evident, but must remain 

subordinate to the characteristics of the landscape (FS 1987). 

FS lands with the potential to be directly affected by the project lie within Management Area G. 

Management Area G is managed for visual quality objectives according to the levels identified in 

the forest visual resource inventory. Emphasis in this management area is on key wildlife habitat 

protection, habitat improvement, and forage and firewood production. Lands within Management 

Area G meet the categories of “Low” to “Moderate,” as the landscape currently appears slightly 

to moderately altered. Contiguous with Management Area G and in close proximity to the 

proposed project water diversion structure is Management Area L. Management of Area L 

focuses on maintaining semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities and providing the 

user with a moderate to high probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of 

humans. Thus, landscape deviations may be present but they blend in with the landscape 

character so they are not evident, and the management priority on maintaining this condition is 

“High.” 

All proposed work that would be on Las Campanas, City, or County lands are compatible and 

compliant with existing land use plans or zoning ordinances. For the most part, existing utility 

corridors would be used for installation of the water distribution system on their lands. 

Affected Environment 

People are concerned with the quality of their environment, including aesthetic values of 

landscapes, particularly scenery and spiritual values. Scenery with natural appearing landscapes 

enhances people’s lives and benefits society. Natural appearing landscapes serve as psychological 

and physiological “safety valves” for increasing urban population pressures and the increasing 

complexity of life (FS 2002). The following section is descriptive of the proposed project region. 

Viewsheds. White Rock Canyon is the most striking landform feature at the terminus of 

Buckman Road. Here, the Rio Grande has incised its channel approximately 750 feet through 

overlying columnar jointed basalt. To the north is a prominent mesa called Buckman Mesa. 

Buckman Mesa is characterized by dark colored basaltic cliff bands at the upper elevations and 

aprons of talus and sediment that surround the entire structure. The Cañada Ancha is the principle 

drainage corridor for all lands surrounding the Buckman Road corridor. A component of Cañada 

Ancha and approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the Buckman Road terminus at the Rio Grande, 

there is a small, visually distinct canyon called Caja del Rio Canyon (Diablo Canyon). This area 

is readily viewed by recreational users including Rio Grande recreationists. Individuals using the 

northern portions of the White Rock Rim Trail, which is accessed from the residential 

neighborhoods in White Rock (Los Alamos County), and users of White Rock Overlook Park 

would also be afforded views of the Buckman Road terminus and adjacent terrain. 

The natural environment at the proposed Buckman water diversion site consists of the Rio Grande 

and vegetation comprised of flood plain-plains riparian assemblages along the Rio Grande 

shoreline. Historically, along the Rio Grande in the project area, a settlement was established in 

1889 and named for H. F. Buckman who cut timber and built sawmills on Pajarito Plateau. 

Buckman was also a station on the Chili Line or Denver and Rio Grande narrow gauge railroad 

that ran between Santa Fe and Antonito, Colorado. The current manmade environment of the 

Buckman Well Field includes booster stations and associated water tank, dirt and two-track 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 165 

roadways, and power lines. These structures are readily visible to site users and those using the 

White Rock observation platform. This area serves as a parking area for recreational users. 

Therefore, the scenic integrity appears slightly to moderately altered and the FS management 

regime would be consistent with the categories of “Low” to “Moderate.” However, the FS Forest 

Plan specifies a “High” management value for recreation areas and water bodies. The current 

structures present at Buckman are evident, with the exception of Well No. 8, and do not 

adequately repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character. 

Thus, the FS Forest Plan and actual site conditions appear in conflict. Many of the structures were 

built prior to completion of the 1987 FS Forest Plan and, therefore, were not out of compliance 

with the plan when originally constructed. Well No. 8 was constructed after issuance of the FS 

Forest Plan and blends in well with the landscape of the area. 

Sights along the Buckman roadway range from: dense stands of piñon/juniper woodlands to open 

meadows; surface developments such as booster stations and electrical substation; utility 

corridors that parallel the road along its entire length; livestock grazing; and off-road vehicles in 

the area. On the east side of the Buckman Road corridor, there are low relief, rolling hills that are 

characterized by piñon/juniper woodlands typical of the surrounding hills in the area. 

Watercourses through these hills exhibit a dendritic pattern and flow only when thunderstorms or 

water surpluses permit. The view to the west of Buckman Road around the Dead Dog Well area to 

the Rio Grande is of steep slopes leading up to a mesa top named Sagebrush Flats. 

At Dead Dog Well the pipeline corridor splits. One route, Buckman Road, continues southeast 

toward Las Campanas paralleling utility corridors and booster stations and their associated water 

tanks. The other leg of the route continues south at Dead Dog Well and follows a utility corridor 

to the City of Santa Fe. 

The MRC WTP is proposed for construction and operation on a small flat mesa in close proximity 

to Caja del Rio Road. The Sangre de Cristo Mountains to the east and Jemez Mountains to the 

west comprise the distant viewshed. Power lines, housing, and, depending upon the viewer’s 

location, facilities of the MRC can be seen along with other City infrastructure in the distance. 

The vegetation of the mesa is herbaceous with a varying density of piñon/juniper woodlands. 

The western distribution route follows the western edge of Highway 599 to connect with existing 

County water pipelines located at the intersection of the I-25 frontage road and Erica Road. The 

route traverses through disturbed industrial areas and roadway ROW that support little native 

vegetation. Current City plans for this area are for trails, parking, a rest area and benches. 

Land Use. Land use within the general area is varied. Designated land uses include grazing, 

harvesting for firewood and small wood products, recreation, utility corridors and easements, 

water wells and booster stations, and recreation. There are numerous existing utility infrastructure 

ROWs along the Buckman Road corridor. These ROWs meander back and forth across Buckman 

Road as they traverse the terrain on their course southeasterly. All but one of these utilities is 

buried within the Buckman easement; there is a high-tension power line that parallels the 

corridor. 

Lighting and Noise. The only local direct sources of lighting along the Buckman Road and Dead 

Dog Leg corridor are at the existing booster stations and an electrical substation. Both direct and 

indirect lights (unnatural nighttime sky glow) can be seen within the project area and are the 

result of lights from the nearby communities of Las Campanas, Santa Fe, and White Rock. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

166 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Existing noise levels in the study area vary according to adjacent development and activity levels. 

Relatively low noise levels are experienced throughout much of the study area due to its rural 

character, including the vacant and undeveloped lands associated with the Santa Fe National 

Forest and BLM. The low noise levels generated in these areas are attributed to distant aircraft, 

light traffic on Buckman Road, recreational activity, and typical natural background noises. 

Several existing booster stations associated with the Buckman Well Field are also present in 

scattered locations throughout the study area and generate audible noise. Somewhat higher noise 

levels occur adjacent to study area roadways and in the developing areas associated with Las 

Campanas and other subdivisions. FS property south of the proposed diversion site, Area L, is 

designated for nonmotorized use. However, motorized vehicles (on-road and off-road recreational 

vehicles) are commonly observed in Area L near the proposed diversion site. 

Constituent Information 

The visual resources inventory conducted by the County resulted in County constituents publicly 

nominating as an important scenic viewing point the view from the White Rock Overlook in Los 

Alamos County. The viewshed from White Rock is the Rio Grande Valley. Caja del Rio Canyon 

(Diablo Canyon) was nominated as a scenic place and Buckman Road was nominated in the 

scenic roads and trails category. This same study asked the public to rank 26 landscape character 

types from the most scenic (rank 1) to the least scenic (rank 26). The public ranked utility 

corridors as number 25, with only an industrial setting less scenic. Secondary roads and shrubland 

landscape character types were ranked 17 and 16, respectively (Santa Fe County 1995). 

In support of BLM’s VRM and the FS’s SMS analysis, three data collection tasks were 

performed: White Rock Overlook Park observation platform interviews; Buckman Road vehicle 

counts by observations; and vehicle counts at Buckman Road using a mechanical counter. Data 

was collected in order to characterize the value people place on the Buckman water diversion site 

viewshed and the level of Buckman Road use as an indication of visitor use within the public 

lands of the proposed project area. 

White Rock Overlook Park Interviews. Two interview sessions with the public visiting the 

White Rock Overlook Park observation platform located in the White Rock community of Los 

Alamos were performed. Each of the 113 people interviewed expressed comments as to the 

beauty of the surrounding area. All provided thematic adjectives such as pristine, breathtaking, 

spectacular, and other positive descriptions. However, there was a range of reaction regarding the 

potential modification of the Buckman area. The following statements illustrate the range: 

Negative Reactions 

“As you get older, you appreciate landscapes...start taking it away you’ll never get it back. 

Don’t develop.” 

“It will kill the point of coming out, we can see a built environment in Chicago too. This 

showcases the whole Southwest and is similar to the Grand Canyon.” 

“Leave it like it is [there are] fewer and fewer places of natural beauty.” 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 167 

Transitional Reactions 

“Water is more of an issue than the build-out.” 

“Change the scenery...is it good or bad, difficult to answer.” 

“The [existing] power lines are more disruptive than a building.” 

Mitigative Reactions 

“Buildings out there [you] don’t really see at first, build with a historical context.” 

“Construction should blend in.” 

“[If] well done, [it] would not change dramatically the rest [viewshed] it is so big.” 

There were no responses from visitors that indicated the project should go forth without some sort 

of viewshed mitigation. Of note were several comments regarding how the existing power lines to 

the northeast of the viewing platform were very intrusive and detracted from the landscape; how 

the existing buildings east of the Rio Grande should be painted to blend in with the landscape; 

how the roadways that are constructed in straight lines draw attention to the manmade 

environment and disrupt the flow of the natural environment; and, when present, off-highway 

vehicle noise from east of the Rio Grande and in the local vicinity of the proposed Buckman 

diversion site was very noticeable and irritating, thereby, reducing the aesthetic experience. 

Buckman Road Use. Data was collected specifically for this project via a mechanical vehicle 

counter and user observations. Average weekday use was approximately 19 vehicles while 

weekend use averaged about 50 vehicles per day. Survey data indicated that approximately 50 

percent of the weekday use is work related while the vast majority of weekend users were there 

for recreational purposes. 

Environmental Consequences 

The preponderance of project effects would occur from the construction and operation of facilities 

on BLM and FS lands. Proposed scenery mitigations specify that the project structures would be 

designed to incorporate the color, form, texture and line of the surrounding landscape. Thus, the 

proposed project would be compatible with BLM’s VRM and the FS’s SMS objectives. Noise 

environmental consequences are addressed in the following section, “Noise.” 

No Action Alternative 

There would be no effects to scenic resources if the proposed project is not constructed. No new 

structures would be built and no new scenic elements would be introduced. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Construction Effects. Construction activities at the Rio Grande and immediately adjacent areas 

would be noticeable by site users and visitors to the White Rock Overlook Park observation 

platform. Visual or aesthetic effects and increased noise levels would be a consequence of 

construction of the cofferdam and other facilities and infrastructure, construction equipment 

movement and noise, and removal of vegetation. These effects would be short term and last for 

the approximate 5-month construction schedule. Similarly, placement of pipelines and electrical 

facilities and road upgrades would result in construction activities noticeable by vehicle 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

168 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

occupants driving on roadways adjacent to the new facilities. Pipeline and road construction 

could take up to 1 year to complete. However, peak activities would be approximately 4 to 8 

months. MRC WTP and Las Campanas WTP construction activities and effects would be similar 

to the diversion site and last for approximately 24 months and 10 months, respectively. 

Operation Effects. The proposed water diversion structure would extend approximately 15 feet 

from the east bank into the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande at the diversion site is around 50 to 60 

feet wide. Thus, the operation of a water diversion structure and associated infrastructure would 

be within the foreground view of river users (boaters) and site visitors and could be seen at a 

distance from the White Rock Overlook Park observation platform. However, the mitigation 

design features of the diversion structure that would incorporate the form, line, color, and texture 

of the riverbank environment would serve to blend it in with the surrounding river environment. 

After vegetation is re-established, the facility would not be readily apparent to the site visitor or 

viewshed observers at White Rock Overlook Park. Boaters would be aware of the structure as 

they proceed past, but again, due to the design, it would be compatible with the river environment 

and not introduce a highly discordant element into the riverscape. Both the BLM and FS would 

review and approve the proposed architectural design as part of the special use permit 

stipulations. 

Booster Station 1A and the sediment facility would be apparent to the casual site user and viewed 

from White Rock Overlook. These facilities would be the most intrusive visual element. 

However, construction of these facilities at the townsite of Buckman using historical architecture 

that is compatible with the landscape character (form, line, color, and texture) would maintain the 

historical and cultural context. Project mitigation measures specify that the facilities would be 

designed to blend in with the landscape and history of the area. Both the BLM and FS would 

review and approve the proposed architectural design as part of the special use permit 

stipulations. Thus, these structures would be compliant with a “Moderate” FS scenic integrity 

management level. The design would also be consistent with BLM’s VRM Class III. 

Buckman Road improvements would consist of the addition of gravel and drainage ditches, low 

water crossings, and realignment to improve the line-of-sight at some road bends. Surfacing with 

gravel would increase the reflectivity of the road and introduce a different color element to 

existing conditions. Buckman Road would become even more apparent to the casual viewer. As a 

result of the improvements, there would be moderate visual contrasts with existing landscape 

characteristics. In addition, because there will be necessary vegetative manipulation as part of 

road improvements, modifications to the landscape will be apparent, but signs of disturbance 

would be short duration (less than 2 years). The negative effects would be partially mitigated by 

use of colored additives in the concrete at all dip sections to minimize the visual contrast with the 

existing landscape (Figure 15). In addition, signs marking speed limit and curves would require 

construction in a manner compatible with the settings by constructing and finishing both signs 

and support posts from materials that are acceptable for a given ROS setting. Other Buckman 

Road improvements through Diablo Canyon would result in changes that will be noticeable to site 

visitors. The major changes would occur along three major curves in the Diablo Canyon area. 

Straightening of the road, tree removal, and roadway signage would decrease the sense of 

isolation experienced by the casual visitor. However, the existing landscape character would be 

partially retained, thus, meeting the Class III management objectives. Concrete for the low water 

crossing would be textured and colored to blend in with the surrounding environment, thus, 

moderating any visual effects to streambed crossings. The total area affected by road 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 169 

improvements would be about 22 acres over about 9.2 miles of road and, for the most part, would 

be limited to about 10 feet on either side of the road. 

Buckman Road improvements would provide easier access but, in some areas, would still present 

a challenge to low-clearance passenger vehicles, to a relatively scarce river use visitation point. 

Thus, it is reasonable to expect an increase in visitor use within the project area, but an increase 

that is not predictable. On public lands, this may result in more vehicles and pressures placed 

upon the land from various and increased recreation activities and subsequent deterioration of the 

viewshed. Increased vehicle traffic (vehicle movement) could substantially affect the viewshed 

and users’ perceptions of the scenic integrity. Road improvements would be consistent with 

BLM’s Class III/IV management objective along Buckman Road and with the FS Forest 

Management Plan objective of “Moderate” at the Buckman diversion site. Area L could be 

affected if truck traffic and visitor use increased in the area of the Buckman Project. There could 

be boundary deterioration between Area G and Area L with the Area L users having a reduced 

probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of humans. 

Generally, existing utility corridors and booster station locations would be used which would 

serve to minimize additional effects to the scenic environment. The revegetation of construction 

scarred areas with plants native to the region would limit visual effects. Once plants are reestablished, pipeline corridors would blend in with existing conditions. Booster station 

architecture that incorporates the color, form, texture and line of the surrounding landscape would 

serve to minimize the visual effect of additional structures. Both the BLM and FS would review 

and approve the proposed architectural design as part of the special use permit stipulations. 

The proposed MRC WTP and associated power substation location was selected to reduce 

viewshed effects compared to other locations. The facilities would be designed to blend into the 

color, form, texture and line of the surrounding landscape. Thus, they would not be readily 

evident to a distant viewer after successful vegetation re-establishment. The level of change to the 

foreground/middle ground perspective would be moderate due to the extent and prominence of 

the treatment facilities and associated infrastructure. Thus, the Proposed Action would be 

compatible with existing site conditions and with BLM’s Class III/IV management objectives. 

However, the proposed development is different from the City’s previous concept for trails, 

parking, a rest area and benches. The BLM would review and approve the proposed architectural 

design as part of the special use permit stipulations. 

Pipeline corridors on City, County, and Las Campanas lands would occur in and are compatible 

with a built environment. Buckman Project pipeline corridors would follow or are in existing 

utility corridors and/or within roadside easements. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Sediment Facility Alternatives 

The construction and operation effects are similar to the Proposed Action with the following 

exceptions. 

Construction Effects. Alternatives SF1 and SF2 would construct Booster Station 1A and the 

sediment facility substantially out of the viewshed of the White Rock Overlook Park observation 

platform and in a location that would be much less noticeable to the Rio Grande area recreational 

user. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

170 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Operation Effects. Placement of the sediment and booster station facilities further southeast of 

the proposed location, under Alternatives SF1 and SF2, would place them substantially out of the 

White Rock Overlook viewshed and the facilities would not be visible to Rio Grande boaters or 

other visitors to the river front area. During the project design phase, if feasible, all facilities 

would be placed out of the White Rock Overlook viewshed. Thus, compared to the Proposed 

Action, effects to visual resources would be greatly reduced. 

However, selection of Alternative SF2 would require trucking out sediment and would require 

two sediment storage ponds measuring 75 feet by 150 feet and 8 feet deep. Sediment collected for 

disposal would be stored and dried in these ponds. Drying sediment would be a different color 

than the surrounding environment and would be noticeable from some higher elevation viewing 

locations (i.e., Sagebrush Flats). Additional truck traffic caused by selection of SF2 (sand hauling 

alternative) would add to the conditions that are already unacceptable for Semi-Primitive NonMotorized/Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS settings for the Social Encounters criterion. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Pipeline Route Alternatives 

Construction and Operation Effects. Alternative RWP1 would have construction and operation 

effects similar to the Proposed Action. All pipeline route alternatives would be compatible with 

BLM’s Class III management objective; however, some would have less visual impact than 

others. 

Alternative TWP1 would require construction and operation of the treated water pipeline in a new 

ROW corridor along BLM and Las Campanas lands. Approximately 17 acres would be affected 

by construction of Alternative TWP1. Alternative TWP2 would install the treated water pipeline 

back along the Dead Dog Well corridor and then cut east and would affect approximately 20 

acres, some of which would be in a new ROW corridor. Alternative TWP3 would use 

approximately 27 acres of existing utility line ROW. Construction and establishment of a new 

pipeline corridor (Alternatives TWP1 and TWP2) would effect the local viewshed by introducing 

a straight line swathe and bare ground. Even with revegetation, the new corridor would be 

noticeable in the short term until vegetation is re-established. Trees would not be allowed to reestablish. However, feathering tree removal, which would be a special permit stipulation, would 

serve to soften the notably straight lines of the pipeline corridor. Development of a new corridor 

could encourage changes to and increased recreation use in the area and subsequent degradation 

to the natural viewshed. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

Construction and Operation Effects. Alternative AGP1a would result in construction and 

operation of a substation approximately 1 mile southeast of the MRC WTP adjacent to the 

existing power line. This is an area where there are overhead power lines (60-foot-tall poles with 

high-tension wires). The substation would add another visual element in the viewshed of some 

houses present along Caja del Rio Road, as well as people golfing at the municipal golf course. 

While still compatible with a BLM’s Class III management objective, the substation would 

degrade the viewshed along Caja del Rio Road when compared to the Proposed Action of a 

substation adjacent to the MRC WTP. 

In Alternative AGP1b, overhead power lines from the proposed diversion intake site to Booster 

Station 2A would be apparent to site visitors and introduce a discordant visual element into the 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 171 

river landscape. The scenic integrity would still meet the FS Scenery Management System of 

“Moderate.” However, the FS Forest Plan specifies a “High” management value for recreation 

areas and water bodies. Of additional note is the adverse reaction to power lines expressed by 

those interviewed during the scenic resources analysis. This alternative would add to the 

degradation of the scenic viewshed. 

Cumulative Effects 

The City has drilled four new supplemental water wells on land administered by the BLM along 

Buckman Road. Buckman Road users are able to see all four well locations. The supplemental 

water wells project is additive to the construction and operation of proposed Booster Stations 2A 

and 3A along Buckman Road. These projects add more manmade elements into the natural 

environment. Construction and operation of the MRC WTP would be additive with the 

construction and occupation of residential housing in the surrounding viewshed. Facility and 

residential housing designs are sensitive to blending in with the natural landscape, however, each 

introduces additional manmade elements into the natural environment. 

Noise 

Affected Environment 

The relative loudness of a sound or noise is described in units of decibels (dB), a measure of 

sound pressure on a logarithmic scale. Noise conditions are usually described by a time-averaged 

noise level, expressed as the equivalent noise level (Leq). An A-weighting filter is also used to 

correlate physical noise levels with the frequency sensitivity of human hearing and the subjective 

response to noise. Thus, noise conditions are generally discussed in terms of hourly average Aweighted noise levels in decibels (Leq dBA). The average noise level occurring over a 24-hour 

period is usually described as a day-night average noise level (Ldn), and includes adding 10 

decibels to sound levels occurring during nighttime hours (between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). 

Existing noise levels in the study area vary according to adjacent development and activity levels. 

Relatively low noise levels are experienced throughout much of the study area due to its rural 

character, including the vacant and undeveloped lands managed by the FS and BLM. Relatively 

low noise levels in these areas are attributed to light traffic on Buckman Road, recreational 

activities, distant aircraft, and typical natural background noises. Somewhat higher noise levels 

occur adjacent to Buckman Road and in the developing areas associated with Las Campanas and 

nearby subdivisions. 

Motorized vehicles (on-road and off-road recreational vehicles) are commonly observed near the 

proposed diversion site, which also serves as a parking area for recreational users. Occasional use 

of motorized vehicles and recreational activities results in intermittent noise in the area. Several 

existing pump houses associated with the Buckman Well Field are also present in scattered 

locations throughout the study area and generate audible noise. FS property located south of the 

proposed diversion site, Area L, is designated for nonmotorized use. Noise levels of 65 Ldn as the 

upper threshold for acceptable noise levels at noise sensitive locations.
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

172 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

 (Source: Data obtained during project-specific noise surveys) 

Noise conditions in the project area were evaluated by performing field noise measurements at 

several locations where noise levels may change as a consequence of the project. Noise levels 

were recorded at eight locations, including a site near the proposed diversion structure, along the 

existing pipeline alignment for the Buckman Well Field, and at several existing pump houses in 

the pipeline corridor. A-weighted average noise levels (Leq dBA) were collected in 10-minute 

intervals at each location (Table 21). 

Most Federal agencies use similar criteria to evaluate noise effects and to determine the noise 

compatibility for different land use categories. These criteria, referred to as Land Use 

Compatibility Guidelines, were developed in 1980 by the Federal Interagency Committee on 

Urban Noise. Based on these guidelines, most agencies define residences, schools, churches, and 

outdoor recreation areas as sensitive to noise impacts. BLM’s Farmington Field Office uses a 

noise standard of 48.6 dBA Leq (defined as the A-weighted noise level averaged over a 24-hour 

period) at a distance of 300 feet from the noise source. A review of the BLM standard indicates 

that the 48.6 dBA noise threshold is equivalent to the 65 Ldn dBA at a distance of 100 feet from 

the noise source. To simplify the discussion, the noise analysis refers to the 65 Ldn dBA noise 

criteria used by most Federal agencies. However, exceedences of the 65 Ldn dBA on BLM lands 

would also imply a noise impact according to the Farmington Field Office’s standard. 

Existing noise levels at the eight monitoring sites are generally well below the 65 Ldn threshold. 

Slightly higher noise levels were observed immediately adjacent to the existing pump houses 

associated with the Buckman Well Field. However, noise levels at the fence line for each of these 

facilities was below 65 Ldn, and noise levels were observed to rapidly diminish within a few 

hundred feet of each pump house. 

Table 21. Measured Leq and estimated Ldn noise levels. 

Description of Monitoring Location 

Measured Noise 

Level 

(Leq dBA) 

Estimated 

Day-Night 

Level 

(Ldn) 

1) River – at proposed intake structure (rushing water) 54.0 60.4 

2) Near River – in parking area 38.4 44.8 

3) Proposed pipeline alignment – between Booster Stations 1 & 2 20.0 26.4 

4) Booster Station 2 – 100 feet from pump house 51.7 58.1 

5) Booster Station 2 – 1,000 feet from pump house 36.0 42.4 

6) Booster Station 3 – 100 feet from pump house 53.6 60.1 

7) Booster Station 3 – 500 feet from pump house 35.5 41.9 

8) Booster Station 4 – 100 feet from pump house 51.9 58.3 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 173 

Environmental Consequences 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would not alter noise conditions in the study area. Noise levels in the 

recreational areas near the river would continue to be primarily influenced by recreational 

activities and natural noises. Noise near the existing booster station in the Buckman Well Field 

would remain consistent with existing noise levels. Typical neighborhood noises and traffic noise 

would increase in and near the developing residential subdivisions as these areas continue to 

develop. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Construction Effects. The project would increase noise levels in highly localized locations 

associated with the specific components of the diversion project. Construction activities would 

increase noise levels in the study area. These areas include portions of the associated pipelines 

along Buckman Road where trenching activities would occur and where construction vehicles 

would be passing as they arrive and leave the study area during the construction period. 

Construction activities would occur in several locations throughout the study area, including the 

diversion structure, sediment facility, booster stations, and WTPs. A variety of construction 

equipment would be used, including trenching equipment such as backhoes or excavators, 

loaders, graders, cranes, haul trucks, semi-trailer trucks, and cement trucks. At the diversion site, 

during construction, the pumps associated with the cofferdams would operate 24 hours a day, 7 

days a week. However, because much of the study area is undeveloped, construction activities 

would generally not result in substantial noise effects. 

Construction noise would be noticed in the developed areas of the Las Campanas subdivision and 

other developing areas along Buckman Road. Construction activities would include the use of 

heavy machinery to complete the trenching, pipe installation, compaction, and backfilling 

associated with the new water, gas, and power lines. Buckman Road would also be used as the 

primary route for construction equipment and hauling operations during construction. Daily truck 

operations during construction would average approximately 50 heavy trucks per day on 

Buckman Road, with peaks of over 100 trucks per day. Truck traffic would include cement trucks, 

semitrailers, and haul trucks. These truck operations and construction activities would produce 

nuisance noise for residents along Buckman Road in the Las Campanas Subdivision and could 

cause wildlife to temporarily vacate the immediate location. However, these operations would 

only occur during the construction phase of the project. 

Operation Effects. Noise levels would increase slightly during operation as a result of pumping 

and equipment noise at booster stations and the WTPs. However, since lands near these facilities 

are currently vacant, and based on the type of pumping equipment that would be used and how 

the mechanical equipment would be housed/constructed, noise would not adversely affect 

adjacent land uses or populations. Predicted noise levels near each of the project facilities are also 

generally considered acceptable for recreational areas. 

Operational noise associated with the project would consist of noise generated by the booster 

stations, which may operate and generate noise 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The five new 

booster stations would be built in various locations in the project area. These booster stations 

would be similar to the existing booster stations present in the Buckman Well Field, with the 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

174 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

pumping equipment enclosed in roofed structures constructed with concrete masonry blocks. 

Because the future booster stations would have pumping equipment and masonry enclosures 

similar to those used at the existing stations, noise generated from pumps at the new booster 

stations is expected to be similar to noise levels generated by the existing booster stations. This 

assumption is used as a basis for predicting future noise levels associated with the proposed 

booster station sites. 

The potential for noise emanating from the diversion pumps would be virtually nonexistent. The 

pumps would be of the canned submersible vertical turbine type, wherein the motor and rotating 

impeller elements would be totally submerged and entirely enclosed within a steel can some 20 

feet below the ground level. The top of the pump cans would be located within a buried concrete 

vault and connected directly to buried discharge piping a minimum of 4 feet below ground. 

The booster stations would be constructed alongside two existing booster stations (Booster 

Stations 2A and 3A) and at three locations where no pumps are currently present (Booster 

Stations 1A, 4A and 5A). For the purposes of a conservative analysis, each future pump station 

was assumed to generate the equivalent of two of the existing stations. Future noise levels near 

each booster station were estimated using logarithmic addition, wherein a doubling of sound 

energy produces an increase of 3 decibels. Noise levels at different distances were estimated 

using the principle of simple attenuation from a point source (noise attenuation is expressed as a 

function of 20 times the logarithm of the reference distance divided by the distance to the 

receiver). Table 22 provides the estimated average noise levels (Leq) and day-night average noise 

levels (Ldn) at various distances from the proposed booster stations and the diversion structure. 

As shown in Table 22, noise levels at the 

proposed booster stations (with dual pump 

houses) would be approximately 56.6 decibels 

(63.1 Ldn) at a distance of 100 feet. This 100-

foot distance generally corresponds to the 

distance between the existing booster stations 

and the fenced enclosure surrounding each of 

the facilities. Therefore, noise levels at the 

fence line of the future booster stations are 

expected to remain below 65 Ldn, and not 

exceed the upper noise threshold established by 

most Federal agencies for noise sensitive 

locations, such as residences, schools, 

churches, and outdoor recreation areas. While compatible with current and future land uses, faint 

noise from the booster stations may be audible in some areas (as far as a quarter mile away) 

where current noise levels are very low (in the low 30 decibel range). 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Sediment Facility Alternatives 

Construction Effects. Construction noise associated with the various sediment facility 

alternatives is expected to be similar to the Proposed Action, but would vary by location. Because 

both of these potential sediment facility sites are located in undeveloped areas, construction 

activities would not affect any noise sensitive locations. Since construction equipment and 

construction vehicles would access the sediment facility sites via the same route, Buckman Road, 

Table 22. Estimated noise levels at various 

distances from future booster facilities 

(Ldn). 

Distance From 

Booster Stations 

Leq dBA Ldn

100 feet 56.6 63.1 

500 feet 42.6 49.1 

1,320 feet (1/4 mile) 34.2 40.6 

(Source: Data obtained during project-specific noise 

surveys) 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 175 

Alternative SF1 is not expected to produce different noise effects in existing residential areas 

during the construction period. 

The location of Alternative SF2 would be the same as Alternative SF1 and, therefore, effects from 

construction of the facility itself would be the same as Alternative SF1 and the Proposed Action. 

Operation Effects. Operation of the various sediment alternatives would be similar, with the 

exception of the SF2 Alternative. The Proposed Action and Alternative SF1 would return sand 

collected by the sediment facility back to the river. Alternative SF1 and SF2 would locate the 

sediment facility and booster station further away from the river, thereby reducing the level of 

noise at the river. Alternative SF2 would retain sand accumulated with the diverted river water at 

the sediment facility site. This alternative would require stockpiling the accumulated sand and 

periodically loading the sand on trucks and hauling it away from the facility site. It is anticipated 

that loading and hauling the sand would occur intermittently and require up to 1,000 truck trips 

per year. Haul trucks used for this purpose would likely use Buckman Road to transport the sand 

to either the Caja del Rio Landfill or to local sand and gravel operators. Therefore, compared to 

the other action alternatives, Alternative SF2 would result in more truck traffic noise periodically 

to residents along Buckman Road and more noise during removal of sand from the sediment 

facility. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Pipeline Route Alternatives 

Construction Effects. Construction of the various pipeline routes would involve trenching, pipe 

installation, compaction, and backfilling associated with the new pipelines. Noise effects from the 

alternatives would be less than the Proposed Action since the route under the Proposed Action is 

much closer to the Las Campanas Subdivision. These trenching and pipeline installation activities 

may result in short-term nuisance noise in some areas, but they would be transient in nature and 

end when construction was complete. 

Operation Effects. Once the pipeline system is installed, it would not produce noise regardless of 

its location. Therefore, none of the pipeline alternatives would result in operational noise effects. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

Construction and Operation Effects. Alternative AGP1 effects would be similar to the 

Proposed Action for the power upgrade. 

Cumulative Effects 

Ambient noise levels would increase area wide as the Las Campanas Subdivision and nearby 

areas continue to develop with residential uses. This residential development would increase land 

use intensity and produce additional traffic in the area. Noise associated from the additional 

development is expected to outweigh noise from the project facilities. However, the future noise 

environment and cumulative noise effects are expected to be typical for residential areas. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

176 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Air Quality 

Affected Environment 

The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 and its amendments established National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) to protect the public from harmful levels of common pollutants in ambient 

air. The NAAQS establish maximum allowable concentrations for six major air pollutants: carbon 

monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), lead (Pb) and 

particulate matter (PM). 

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Air Quality Bureau (AQB) operates three 

permanent air quality monitors in Santa Fe: one near Cerrillos Road, one near St. Francis Drive 

and one near Old Pecos Trail. No exceedences of ambient air quality standards have been 

recorded at these monitors, and the County is currently classified by EPA as being in attainment 

of all Federal ambient air quality standards. 

No major stationary or mobile sources of air pollutants occur within or adjacent to the project 

area. Limited traffic volumes on Buckman Road and adjacent roadways are insufficient to 

generate substantial concentrations of mobile-source pollutants. According to the AQB, current 

well sites in the Buckman Well Field operate with natural gas combustion engines. However, 

these small booster stations do not generate sufficient emissions to require individual air quality 

permitting by AQB. Because of the area’s generally low development levels and the lack of major 

emission sources, high pollutant concentrations do not occur in the study area. 

Environmental Consequences 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would not affect air quality in the study area. Air quality conditions 

would be influenced by small emission sources in the area, including local roadways and 

activities associated with the area’s development (e.g., residential wood burning). Air quality 

emissions would be expected to increase somewhat as the Las Campanas Subdivision continues 

to develop. However, based on the rural nature of the project area and the absence of major 

pollutant sources in the area, high pollutant concentrations are not expected. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Construction Effects. Minor temporary air quality effects would occur as a result of construction 

activities, including dust from earthwork and emissions from heavy construction equipment. 

These effects would be minimized by requiring contractors to be responsible for dust and 

sediment control. Dust control would involve the application of dust suppressants where 

appropriate, covering haul trucks, and limiting disturbance to only areas that are necessary. 

Temporary and permanent fencing would be used in some areas to limit construction disturbance 

and silt fences would be installed for sediment control. Additionally, the contractor would be 

responsible for ensuring that all construction equipment meets Federal emissions standards. 

Operation Effects. Proposed Buckman Road improvements to add subbase and surface gravel 

would serve to reduce dust generated during vehicle passage. The additional booster stations for 

the project would operate using natural gas combustion engines. Based on the limited scale of the 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 177 

pumping equipment proposed for the project, air quality effects would not occur. As the project 

proceeds into its design stages, additional consultation would occur with the NMED to determine 

if air quality permits would be required. This additional review and permitting process would 

ensure that substantial pollutant concentrations would not occur as a consequence of the project.

It is estimated that the pumping equipment to be used at the diversion structure and at the booster 

stations would operate similarly to those currently present in the Buckman Well Field. According 

to the NMED AQB, emissions from these facilities do not exceed thresholds that require air 

quality permitting. Therefore, pollutant concentrations attributed to these facilities are expected to 

remain well below NAAQS in the vicinity of each booster station. However, as part of final 

design for the project, the AQB would be consulted (via a preapplication meeting) to determine if 

the additional booster stations would exceed emissions thresholds for facilities that require 

permitting. This process would ensure that air quality effects would not occur and that 

exceedences of Federal ambient air quality standards would not occur in the study area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Sediment Facility Alternatives 

Construction Effects. Construction effects of Alternative SF1 are expected to be similar to the 

Proposed Action but would vary by location. Because the alternative sediment facility site is 

located in an undeveloped area, construction activities at the alternative site would not affect any 

populated areas. Since construction equipment and construction vehicles would access the 

sediment facility site via the same route as the Proposed Action, Buckman Road, Alternative SF1 

is not expected to produce different nuisance dust and exhaust emissions in existing residential 

areas associated with the Las Campanas Subdivision during the construction period. 

The location of Alternative SF2 would be the same as Alternative SF1 and, therefore, effects from 

construction of the facility itself would be the same as Alternative SF1 and the Proposed Action. 

Minor temporary air quality effects, including dust from earthwork and emissions from heavy 

construction equipment, would be minimized by requiring contractors to be responsible for dust 

and sediment control. Dust control would involve the application of dust suppressants where 

appropriate, covering haul trucks, and limiting disturbance to only areas that are necessary. 

Temporary and permanent fencing would be used in some areas to limit construction disturbance 

and silt fences would be installed for sediment control. Additionally, the contractor would be 

responsible for ensuring that all construction equipment meets Federal emissions standards. 

Operation Effects. Operation of Alternative SF1 would not produce additional air quality 

emissions. The effects would be very similar to the Proposed Action, but would vary by location, 

with the exception of Alternative SF2. The Proposed Action and Alternative SF1 would return 

sand collected from the intake structure back to the river. Alternative SF2 would retain sand at the 

sediment facility site. This alternative would require stockpiling the accumulated sand and 

periodically loading the sand on trucks and hauling it away from the facility site. It is anticipated 

that loading and hauling the sand would occur intermittently and require up to 1,000 truck 

operations per year. Haul trucks used for this purpose would likely use Buckman Road to 

transport the sand to either a landfill or to local sand and gravel operators. Therefore, compared to 

the other action alternatives, Alternative SF2 would result in more truck traffic on Buckman 

Road. These operations would potentially cause periodic nuisance dust and exhaust emissions to 

residents along Buckman Road, and would not be expected to exceed any NAAQS standards. 

Improvements (gravel) to Buckman Road would serve to minimize dust generation. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

178 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Pipeline Route Alternatives 

Construction Effects. Construction of the various pipeline routes would involve trenching, pipe 

installation, compaction, and backfilling associated with the new water lines. These activities 

would result in temporary increases in nuisance dust and vehicle exhaust emission during 

construction. Air quality effects from the alternatives would be less than the Proposed Action 

since the route under the Proposed Action is much closer to the Las Campanas Subdivision. These 

trenching and pipeline installation activities may result in short-term nuisance air emissions in 

some areas, but they would be transient in nature and end when construction was complete. 

Operation Effects. Once the pipeline system is installed, it would not produce air quality 

emissions regardless of its location. Therefore, none of the pipeline alternatives would result in 

operational air quality effects. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

Construction and Operation Effects. Alternative AGP1 effects would be similar to the 

Proposed Action for the power upgrade. 

Cumulative Effects 

Pollutant emissions would increase area wide as the Las Campanas Subdivision and nearby areas 

continue to develop with residential uses. This residential development would increase land use 

intensity and produce additional traffic in the area. Emissions associated with the additional 

development are expected to outweigh any emissions from project facilities. However, based on 

the limited density of development proposed for the area and the absence of major pollutant 

sources, cumulative air quality emissions would not produce exceedences of Federal ambient air 

quality standards or threaten the air quality status of the area. 

Geology and Soils 

Affected Environment 

The Buckman area is dominated by quaternary alluvium that has been deposited by the Rio 

Grande and the ephemeral Cañada Ancha (Balleau 1995). Igneous rocks of the area can be 

segregated into Tertiary and Quaternary extrusives of the Jemez Mountains (BOR/City of 

Albuquerque 2002). 

The alluvium is underlain by the Tesuque Formation of the Santa Fe Group, which consists of 

many thousands of feet of Tertiary basin-fill sandstone with interbedded siltstone and claystones. 

The Tesuque Formation is an important regional aquifer throughout much of northern Santa Fe 

County, and the City has completed nine deep production wells in the Tesuque Formation in the 

Buckman area since 1972 (Balleau 1995). 

The project area is within the Española Basin. The Pojoaque and Puye fault zones, minor fault 

zones closest to the project area, run generally north-south in the Española Basin. Seismic activity 

was present during the Tertiary period, as evidenced by faulting in the area; however, there has 

been no displacement of these faults during the last 10,000 years. However, a fault structure 

discovered recently in the Buckman Well Field area was likely reactivated along a previous fault 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 179 

zone and may have been caused by the withdrawal of water from aquifer storage in the Buckman 

area. 

At no point does the project area enter lands directly adjacent to and beneath the talus slope 

flanking the rim of Caja del Rio Plateau. 

There is no mining within or adjacent to the project area for leasable or locatable minerals. 

The entire project area is within the Western Soil Region, one of six major soil regions in New 

Mexico. Soils on the steeper slopes are generally shallow, moderately fine textured, and contain a 

high percentage of coarse fragments. Mesa tops, plateaus, and lava flows have soils that are 

shallow to moderately deep, and moderately coarse to medium textured. Cobbles and stones are 

common to soils developing on flood plains of the Rio Grande and Cañada Ancha (BLM 1988). 

Soils along the Buckman and Dead Dog Leg corridors generally have a thin, sandy clay loam A 

horizon and a gravelly, sandy clay loam C horizon that grades into a sandy, gravelly parent 

material with depth. In general, the soils are poorly developed on the ridges and show more 

development on the flat areas (BLM 1972). 

Productivity of soils within the project area are relatively low, supporting a community of piñonjuniper savannah. Interspersed between the trees are drought tolerant grasses, shrubs, and forbs as 

well as several cactus species. Historically and presently, livestock grazing activities occur along 

the corridor resulting in obvious signs of disturbance, and very little grass is left at the most 

highly impacted sites. Where most of the grasses have been removed, signs of erosion are present. 

The soils in the project area have moderate to high erosion potentials. While much of the project 

area is on relatively flat to slightly rolling terrain, evidence of erosion is present at select 

locations. Much of the runoff in the area is in the form of sheetwash that becomes channelized as 

it meets the Cañada Ancha. In previously disturbed locations with greater slope, erosion is 

generally problematic and rill and gullies are present. In areas where vegetative stabilization has 

been greatly impacted or removed by livestock, past construction, rock fall, recreation activities, 

or other disturbances, intensified erosion prevails. 

Due to the relatively abundant coarse material and sands in the soils throughout the project area, 

compaction tends to be relatively low. The sandy soils are well drained and tend to dry quickly 

after a precipitation event, which in turn limits soil compaction from overburdened sources. 

However, road grading practices and unrestricted use of Buckman Road during wet weather has 

resulted in an incised—in some places over 2 feet below the surrounding topography—roadbed 

characterized by washboarding and poor drainage conditions. Overland sheet flow is intercepted 

by Buckman Road and channelized into the roadside drainage ditches. This condition has resulted 

in altered watershed drainage patterns and decreased water availability in some areas downslope 

of Buckman Road. Runoff from damaged road surfaces is at a higher velocity than the normal 

overland sheet flow. Therefore, roadway drainage waters have a greater erosion potential and 

capability of carrying a higher sediment load that is deposited in surrounding streambeds and 

ultimately transported to the Rio Grande. Interception of overland flow by Buckman Road also 

results in reduced infiltration, thus contributing to additional surface runoff. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

180 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Environmental Consequences 

No Action Alternative 

If the No Action Alternative is selected, construction and operation of the diversion structure and 

associated infrastructure would not occur. No short- or long-term direct or indirect effects to 

geology or soils resources would result due to implementation of the No Action Alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Implementation of soil erosion mitigation measures coupled with the revegetation program would 

prevent adverse effects to soil resources. 

Construction Effects. Best management practices would be employed by construction 

contractors to minimize project-related effects. Construction activities that require ground 

disturbance would cause minimal increases in erosion because of the implementation of erosion 

control measures (i.e. silt fencing, gabion mats, etc.). Mitigation measures would reduce the loss 

of soil, prevent the establishment or exacerbation of rill and gullies, and minimize water quality 

deterioration that would be associated with construction and roadway use by project vehicles. 

Erosion control measures would be designed in compliance with the requirements for preparation 

of a storm water pollution prevention plan to mitigate negative effects. 

Operation Effects. Buckman Road improvements would result in better distribution of storm 

water and decreased erosion that could result in minor watershed benefits. Implementation of a 

revegetation program (biological resources mitigation) that would result in the mulching of 

construction scarred areas coupled with the re-establishment of plant cover would provide a level 

of protection against wind and waterborne soil erosion. This project requirement would further 

mitigate effects to soil resources for the duration of the project. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Sediment Facility Alternatives 

Construction and Operation Effects. Specific effects to soil resources are expected to be the 

same as for the Proposed Action. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Pipeline Route Alternatives 

Construction and Operation Effects. Specific effects to soil resources are expected to be the 

same as for the Proposed Action. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

Construction and Operation Effects. Alternative AGP1 effects would be similar to the 

Proposed Action for the power upgrade. 

Cumulative Effects 

No specific geology and soils resources cumulative effects have been identified. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 181 

Social and Economic Resources 

Affected Environment 

Population and Housing, Growth and Dynamics 

The area of potential effect includes the City of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County, and Las Campanas. 

The total population for Santa Fe County, as enumerated by the 2000 U.S. Census, was 129,292. 

As can be seen in Table 23, almost 81 percent of that total live in the central region of the County, 

62 percent live in the Santa Fe urban area, and 48 percent, or 62,203 people, live within the City 

of Santa Fe. The County is growing faster (30.7 percent) than the State of New Mexico (20.1 

percent between 1990-2000). The County is also growing faster than the City, continuing a trend 

first seen in 1980, when 65 percent of the County population lived within the City limits. In 1990, 

57 percent of the County population lived within the City limits. 

Table 23. Santa Fe County and sub-area population, 1990 and 2000. 

 (Source: UNM 2002) 

Almost half (49 percent) of the County’s population reports themselves as being of Hispanic or 

Latino origin; 45.5 percent reported as white persons, not of Hispanic or Latino origin; and 3.1 

percent reported as American Indian and Alaska Native persons. Santa Fe County is also 

multilingual; only 63 percent of residents reporting on the 2000 U.S. Census speak only English 

in the home. 

Over 50 percent of the population 15 years and older were married when the 2000 U.S. Census 

was conducted. Almost 30 percent of the residents report having never been married. Females 

account for approximately 51 percent of the population of Santa Fe County; almost 25 percent of 

families have a female head of household with no husband present. The median age in Santa Fe 

County is 37.9 years, reflecting the nationwide trend of an aging population. 

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 23,538 children were enrolled in kindergarten through high 

school in Santa Fe County in April 2000. Almost 8,300 people were enrolled in junior college, 

college, or graduate school. Of the population over age 25, 84.5 percent have a high school 

diploma or better; almost 37 percent have a bachelor’s degree or more college education. 

More housing is being built outside the City limits, and the City is permitting fewer residential 

units—510 per year during the 1992-2001 period, down from an average of 687 units in the 

previous 10 years (UNM 2002) or a 35 percent decrease in the 10-year period. Reasons for this 

include the higher price of land and the requirement to hook up to municipal services in the City 

limits. Average population per household in Santa Fe County is 2.42 people; the Santa Fe 

Northwest Community Plan estimates that household size in the Las Campanas area is much 

lower, conservatively estimated at 2 people for full-time residents (SNAC 1999). 

Area 1990 2000 Percent of County 

2000 

Change 1990-2000 

Number (percent) 

Santa Fe County 98,928 129,292 100.0% 30,364 (30.7%) 

Central Region 81,451 104,601 80.9 23,150 (28.4%) 

Total Urban Area 66,541 79,545 61.5 13,004 (19.5%) 

City of Santa Fe 55,859 62,203 48.1 6,344 (11.4%) 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

182 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

According to the U.S. Census, the median value of Santa Fe County owner-occupied housing 

units in 2000 was $189,400. Many of the most expensive homes in the County do not meet the 

census definition of owner-occupied, being second or seasonal homes for people who are legal 

residents of another state. This skews the median value presented in the census downward from 

Board of Realtor statistics, which includes all existing and new single-family detached homes. 

During the second quarter of 2000, which includes the day the census is taken, the board reports 

that the median home sales price in Santa Fe County was $250,000; in the north section of the 

County, the median price was $540,250 during the same reporting period (MLS 2000). During the 

last quarter of 2002, the last full reporting period, median price of a house County wide was 

$276,000, while the median sales price of a house in the north section of the County was 

$535,000 (MLS 2002). 

Las Campanas, a private community 6 miles northwest of Santa Fe in Santa Fe County, currently 

has approximately 410 houses built and occupied and has plans for a total of 1,700 houses at full 

build-out. Estate sites at Las Campanas range from less than 1 acre to more than 5 acres in size 

and begin at $250,000 up to $1.5 million. Smaller home sites designed for semicustom houses are 

priced lower. Homes range between $950,000 and $2.5 million depending on size and location. 

Another important aspect of the housing sector is the rental market because it can indicate 

problems for lower income and/or younger residents who are not able to qualify for 

homeownership. The number of rental units appears to have remained stable during the past 10 

years although the demand (vacancy rate) has increased, as have the median rents. (Table 24) 

Table 24. Rental units, Santa Fe County. 

 1990 2000 

Number of total occupied units 37,840 52,482 

Number of rental-occupied units 12,219 16,497 

Percent of total occupied housing units 32.2% 31.4% 

Percent of vacancy rate 7.1% 5.6% 

Median rent $425 $690 

(Source: Census Bureau 1990; Census Bureau 2000a) 

Tables 25 and 26 summarize the population and housing projections based on no water shortages, 

an unlikely scenario even with the completion of the Proposed Action. The Bureau of Business 

and Economic Research (BBER) at the University of New Mexico projects that the population of 

Santa Fe County would increase to 158,624 people by 2010 (UNM 2002). Based on the 

decreasing percentage of County residents living within the City limits, approximately 63,450 

people would live in the City of Santa Fe at that time. 

Table 25. Population projections, 2010. 

Area 2000 

Population* 

Percent 

Growth 

1990-2000* 

Projected 

Population 

2010 

Percent 

Growth 

2000-2010 

Santa Fe County 129,292 30.7 158,624 22.7 

Central Region 105,272 28.4 128,518 22.1 

Total Urban Area 80,056 19.5 89,734 12.1 

City of Santa Fe 62,203 11.4 63,450 2.0 

Las Campanas 800 - 2,400 

(Source: *Census Bureau 2000a; UNM 2002) 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 183 

Table 26. Housing projections, 2010. 

Area 2000 Housing 

Units* 

Projected New 

Units 2010 

Projected Total 

Housing Units 

Santa Fe County 57,701 6,650** 64,351 

City of Santa Fe 30,533 4,000** 34,533 

Las Campanas 400 700*** 1,700 (2015)*** 

(Source: *Census Bureau 2000a; **UNM 2002; ***CH2M Hill 2001)

Growth in the housing stock would grow along similar lines with the majority of the new housing 

being built outside the City limits. 

Ways of Life 

Founded in 1607, Santa Fe is the second oldest city in the United States and is the oldest capital 

city in America. Tourists coming to Santa Fe for its art galleries and museums, fine restaurants, 

and cultural attractions such as the renowned Santa Fe Opera are also interested in the possibility 

of visiting nearby Indian pueblos such as Tesuque and traditional Hispanic villages such as La 

Cienega. 

Historically, this part of northern New Mexico is characterized by the rural and agricultural 

nature, Indian and Hispano populations, and pockets of persistent poverty (Jemez y Sangre 2002). 

The current tricultural mix of Anglo, Hispanic, and Indian populations represents a unique culture 

in the world. Land based Indian and Hispano cultures continue the centuries-old traditions that 

included distinctive land use and settlement patterns, agricultural and irrigation practices, natural 

resource stewardship practices, social relations, religious activities, and architecture. Many of 

these traditions and practices are being lost because these same tourists are now settling in the 

area, changing the demographic and income structure of the communities. 

Residents of northern New Mexico have a special relationship with water, characterized by a 

popular bumper sticker, “Agua es vida.” Traditional acequias still run through the City during the 

summer, and there are irrigation ditch associations all over the County. Santa Fe residents, 

customers of Sangre de Cristo Water, have been under mandatory Stage 3 Water Shortage 

Emergency Use restrictions since April 2002. Under the Stage 3 restriction, vehicle washing is 

restricted to once a month and outdoor watering is restricted to once a week with no planting of 

new grass seed or sod allowed. The use of ornamental fountains is prohibited. Tourist services are 

also restricted: linens may not be changed more than once every 4 days for guests staying more 

than 1 night, and restaurants may serve water only upon request. Drought emergency surcharges 

and water use violation fees are in effect for both residential and commercial customers. 

The Santa Fe City Council passed an Annual Water Budget Ordinance in late 2002, which 

requires all permit applications for construction of new homes or businesses to be accompanied 

by payment for retrofitting a sufficient number of water conserving fixtures in other existing 

residences or businesses to fully offset the anticipated increase in water use. Alternately, 

applicants may directly install these fixtures.

Santa Fe County Commissioners adopted a voluntary water conservation plan in July 2000 and 

water use restrictions in August 2000, that authorize the County water utility to impose the same 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

184 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

level of restrictions and penalties on its customers as those in force in the City. The County water 

utility is directly connected to the City’s water supply and system and directly impacted by any 

water shortages the City may experience. Commissioners recently adopted an ordinance that 

includes significant landscaping restrictions directed toward water conservation and is developing 

a comprehensive mandatory conservation program for the entire County. 

The Las Campanas Master Design Guidelines contain a policy designed to conserve water 

consumption. Estates 1 and 2 of the development are on City water; in other sections, water use is 

restricted to 0.25 acre-feet per year for lots with one home and to 0.5 acre-feet per year for lots 

with a home and a guesthouse. Lot owners who install swimming pools are required to obtain 

additional water rights. The design guidelines require the use of water-saving fixtures and limit 

landscaping to drought tolerant indigenous plant materials. The golf courses are primarily 

irrigated with recycled gray water. 

Community Services 

The City provides a full range of community services to its residents, including municipal utilities 

such as water and waste water services and garbage pickup and landfilling. In addition, 

community services such as fire, police, and emergency services are provided, as well as 

recreational and educational opportunities. The County provides community services such as fire, 

police, and emergency services. It provides water and wastewater services for some areas. Solid 

waste pickup is available from private hauling companies and most County residents use septic 

tanks and leach fields for liquid waste disposal. Roads are maintained by County crews. 

Most of the land surrounding the project area is vacant and owned by either the FS or BLM. A 

number of subdivision and planned developments are located along Camino la Tierra, which 

becomes Buckman Road at the northwest corner of Las Campanas. Electrical power is provided 

by above ground lines and buried cables. Telephone lines are extended as development occurs. 

There are few community services in the project area. With the exception of City water at some of 

the close-in subdivisions, residences rely on wells. Solid waste pickup is available from private 

hauling companies. Most of the communities use septic tanks and leach fields for liquid waste 

disposal (SNAC 1999). There are no schools or developed recreation areas. Several of the 

planned developments have community centers for their residents with meeting rooms, swimming 

pools, tennis courts, and spas. Las Campanas has two private 18-hole golf courses. Emergency 

medical and fire services are provided by County and volunteer department personnel. Police 

protection is provided by private security forces, the County Sheriff’s Office, Federal law 

enforcement personnel, and the New Mexico State Police. 

Revenue Base 

During the 1990s, the taxable gross receipts for the County increased 93 percent for a compound 

annual rate of 6.8 percent. The City’s gross receipts tax base grew by 80 percent or a compound 

rate of 6 percent. Given that employment grew more in the City than in the County, this appears 

to be unreasonable until the impact of a new law requiring gross receipts taxes on housing sales to 

be reported at the location of the house rather than the location of the real estate agent’s office is 

factored into the equation. By 2000, the City’s share of the County total had slipped below 80 

percent and was just over 78 percent in 2001, a bad year for Santa Fe and other tourist 

destinations. While Santa Fe has maintained its share of total taxable gross receipts from retail 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 185 

trade and services, it accounts for only about half of the total taxable gross receipts from 

construction. 

Total taxable gross receipts for the County in 2001 was $3,101.5 million, dominated by retail 

trade ($1,289.2 million) and services ($869.9 million), both major components reflecting the 

importance of the tourist industry. 

Employment/Unemployment 

Employment in the County has grown by almost 30 percent over the past 10 years, similar to the 

population growth rate. Unlike population growth, which grew faster in the County, job growth 

continues to be concentrated in the City. As shown in Table 27, the top employment sectors are 

the services industry (30 percent), government (28 percent), and retail trade (14 percent). 

Combining the individual components in another way, employment related to tourism (including 

retail trade; arts, entertainment, and recreation; and accommodations and food service) is almost 

30 percent. Construction employment accounted for almost 8 percent of total County employment 

in 2001. 

The decreasing share of employees in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting category is an 

indication of change in the County; the category now reflects subsistence activities rather than 

full-time work. In the 1990 U.S. Census, 889 persons were employed in this category; the 2001 

estimates gathered by the New Mexico Department of Labor list only 194 persons in this 

category, a 78 percent decrease. This decrease in employment is especially noticeable in the 

central region of the County where small farms and ranches are being developed into home sites. 

The majority of employment now seen in this category is on the few remaining large ranches in 

the eastern County area, south of Galisteo and north of Interstate 40. 

Table 27. Total employment and annual average wages, by industry, Santa Fe County, 

2001. 

Industry Total Employed Average Annual 

Wages 

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 194 $23,816 

Mining 161 $40,664 

Utilities 126 $38,272 

Construction 4,624 $29,380 

Manufacturing 1,402 $26,052 

Basic Industry - Subtotal/Percentage of Total Wholesale Trade 6,507/11.1% 

Wholesale trade 850 $37,856 

Retail trade 8,416 $24,492 

Transportation and warehousing 514 $26,520 

Trade - Subtotal/Percentage of Total 9,780/16.6% 

Information 969 $37,960 

Finance and insurance 1,530 $43,888 

Real estate, rental and leasing 1,081 $29,900 

FIRE – Subtotal/Percentage of Total 3,580/6.1% 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

186 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Industry Total Employed Average Annual 

Wages 

Professional and technical services 2,617 $47,684 

Management of companies and enterprises 207 $29,536 

Administrative and waste services 1,751 $22,412 

Professional and Managerial - Subtotal/Percentage of Total 4,575/7.8% 

Educational services 1,224 $27,820 

Health care and social services 5,198 $33,540 

Arts, entertainment and recreation 1,197 $24,544 

Accommodations and food service 7,948 $15,860 

Other services, except public administration 2,274 $23,972 

Services – Subtotal/Percentage of Total 17,841/30.4% 

Federal government 1,389 $44,980 

State government 9,332 $32,188 

Local government 5,729 $23,192 

Government – Subtotal/Percentage of Total 16,450/28.0% 

Non-classifiables 32 $33,488 

TOTAL 58,765/100% 

Nonagricultural employment in the County has increased at a faster rate than both the State and 

the Nation since 1960. The BBER estimates that employment growth would decline from 4 

percent to 2.2 percent during the next 8 years. Growth would primarily occur in the retail trade 

and services sectors, reflecting the continuing importance of tourism to the City’s economic 

structure (UNM 2002). In 2001, the unemployment rate for the County was 2.6 percent and 2.4 

percent for the City. 

Income 

Income statistics for the County reflect significantly higher median household and per capita 

incomes than for New Mexico residents as a whole. Median household for 1999, as presented in 

the 2000 U.S. Census, is $42,207 for the County and $34,133 for the State. Per capita income for 

County residents was reported at $23,594 compared to $17,261 for the State average (Census 

Bureau 2000a). UNM 2002 reports that wage and salary disbursements account for only 43 

percent of the County’s personal income in 1999, compared to 58 percent nationwide. Income in 

the County is supplemented by dividends, interest, and rent (27 percent) and owners income (10 

percent). Even though the County per capita income is above the national average, the average 

wage in the County is only about 80 percent of the U.S. average (UNM 2002). 

Economic Forecast 

If growth in the area was unconstrained, the BBER estimates that employment would grow at a 

compound annual rate of 2.2 percent, primarily in the retail trade and services sector maintaining 

the area’s dependence on tourism into 2010 (UNM 2002). Employment growth would create a 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 187 

demand for over 3 million square feet within the City, while the gross receipts tax base, as 

estimated, would grow at a compound annual rate of 4.2 percent. 

Environmental Consequences 

Under all alternatives, growth would be constrained because water is the limiting resource (UNM 

2002). Water shortages would continue unless the climate changes and drought conditions lift. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, population and housing growth in the County would gradually 

decrease as fewer new housing units would be permitted and built. Subdivisions with already 

approved units would be more likely to be built, but fewer than 3,150 units would be able to 

obtain utility hookups during the 10-year planning period (UNM 2002), thereby reducing the 

amount of population growth and potentially increasing the per unit cost of both owner-occupied 

and renter-occupied units based on supply/demand dynamics (UNM 2002). Subdivided land 

would remain undeveloped and would remain vacant rather than reverting to a previous land use 

such as agricultural. Development of additional units at Las Campanas would be restricted. If the 

water shortage were to reach Stage 4 water restrictions, the BBER predicts that new building 

activity in the County could shut down (UNM 2002), although builders are not expected to 

abandon the area but rather wait until the water situation is resolved and housing development 

can resume. 

Ways of life for local residents would be affected if Stage 4 and 5 water restrictions were imposed 

if severe drought conditions persist. These restrictions would severely curtail the traditional 

landscaping that accompanies the architecture in the historic district of the City. Tourism would 

gradually decrease, as the traditional landscape cannot be watered, although water shortages 

would not affect the art and other historical attractions that draw visitors. Tourism may be 

indirectly affected because Stage 3 water restrictions limit amenities at restaurants and hotels. 

Those limitations would increase if Stage 4 or 5 restrictions became necessary. 

The severely limited water scenario would have several direct effects on the Santa Fe economy. 

Constraints on commercial development would be experienced, but there is much commercial 

space currently vacant or underutilized that would accommodate any growth in this sector (UNM 

2002). The effects of the water shortage would be felt in 2006 and beyond. 

BBER estimated that slower growth due to water shortages would result in gross receipts tax 

revenues averaging 3.45 percent for 2003 through 2010, compared to the City’s compound annual 

average of 6 percent during the 1990s. Because community services and facilities are operated 

using these gross receipts tax revenues, services would have to be curtailed (UNM 2002). BBER 

explored the relationship between gross receipts taxes and housing development and reports that 

many municipalities are in a sense addicted to growth because up to 70 percent of their general 

fund revenues are from gross receipts taxes on housing construction (UNM 2002). As housing 

starts decrease, so do gross receipts tax revenues. 

Retail and services employment would also be affected as opportunities for new businesses 

decrease. The construction sector—currently at almost 8 percent of the total labor market—would 

be directly impacted if new residential and commercial building activity is restricted by water 

shortages. The BBER estimates that building construction employment would fall by roughly 10 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

188 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

percent by 2005, possibly affecting up to 500 workers in the area (UNM 2002) or almost 1 

percent of the existing labor force. Under the No Action Alternative, no project construction, 

operation, and maintenance jobs would be created to offset the lost jobs. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, which includes the delivery of 8,730 acre-feet of water per year 

through the diversion, growth would be moderately to tightly limited because of water 

availability. The BBER estimates that housing unit building permits would be restricted to 

between 5,656 (moderate limits) to 3,132 (tight limits) during the 10-year planning period (UNM 

2002), well short of the estimated 9,143 units predicted for the central region of the County under 

an unconstrained, no water shortage scenario. Again, using the concept of supply and demand, as 

the number of houses constructed is decreased, the cost of each dwelling unit would increase. 

Although development of additional units at Las Campanas would be restricted up to 2006, full 

build-out would be achieved by 2015 as planned (CH2M Hill 2001). 

This amount of water to be delivered via the diversion is not sufficient to ease all of the water 

demand pressures in the region, so the effects to ways of life, tourism, and commercial 

development would be similar to the No Action Alternative although the imposition of Stage 3 

water restrictions during peak demand periods would be shorter or potentially avoided altogether. 

Stage 4 and 5 water restrictions would be avoided for the near-term foreseeable future. 

BBER estimated that the slower growth due to less water availability would result in gross 

receipts tax revenues averaging 4.2 percent per year for 2003 through 2010, compared to the 

City’s compound average of 6 percent during the 1990s. The BBER predicts that the construction 

sector of the labor force would initially feel the same range of effects as under the No Action 

Alternative even though more houses would be permitted (UNM 2002). As housing starts 

decrease, so do gross receipts tax revenues. Local governments would continue to be financially 

stressed to provide the current range of community services. 

Construction Effects. Construction of the diversion project would employ 220 workers during 

the peak construction phase, effectively offsetting almost 50 percent of the construction workers 

laid off from other building. Table 1 lists the construction schedule and workforce requirements 

for the Proposed Action. Construction of the Proposed Action is scheduled to take 24 months with 

an average employment of 25 workers. As shown in Table 27, wages for construction workers in 

the County averaged $29,380 per year in 2001 (UNM 2002). The Proposed Action would 

generate a minimum of $1,469,000 in wages. Peak employment is expected to reach 220 workers 

for the project as a whole and to last 18 months placing the upper range of wages income at 

$9,792,000. The total project cost is estimated at approximately $60 million; in addition to wages, 

construction materials and supplies would be purchased from local suppliers out of that total. 

Dollars that come into a community from new wages also help create other new jobs because of 

the purchase of personal items such as food, gas, housing, utilities, medical services, and other 

items. This is called the multiplier effect, and because the direct dollars come from local sources, 

the multiplier is 1. For every dollar paid in wages, another dollar would be generated from other 

businesses. The 2-year economic benefit from construction of the Proposed Action is between 

$2,938,000 and $19,584,000 to the local economy. 

Operation Effects. Operation and maintenance of the facilities would be done by Sangre de 

Cristo crews and would require approximately 16 new employees depending on the operations 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 189 

and maintenance schedules required. Salaries for operations and maintenance workers range 

between $9.47 and $16.39/hour. Assuming an equal number of entry level and skilled workers, an 

average wage would be $12.93/hour or $26,894 per year. Operation and maintenance of the 

facilities would generate an additional $430,304 each year after construction is complete. With 

the 1:1 multiplier, another $430,304 would be contributed to the local economy each year. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Sediment Facility Alternatives 

Effects to all aspects of the social and economic environments, under any of the alternatives’ 

construction or operation, are expected to be the same as for the Proposed Action. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Pipeline Route Alternatives 

Effects to all aspects of the social and economic environments, under any of the alternatives’ 

construction or operation, are expected to be the same as for the Proposed Action. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

Construction and Operation Effects. Alternative AGP1 effects would be similar to the 

Proposed Action for the power upgrade. 

Cumulative Effects 

The ability to sustain growth is influenced by many factors (UNM 2002). Assured water 

availability is arguably the most influential factor governing growth in the County region. Present 

and reasonably foreseeable activities that affect growth in the region are all overshadowed by the 

availability of water. The Buckman Supplemental Wells Project provides a source of water to the 

City and County, but short-term supply would be seriously impacted if the San Juan-Chama 

Project water is not available. 

No specific cumulative effects to ways of life are expected if the Proposed Action or any of the 

action alternatives are selected. 

Both the City and County would notice a decrease in the revenue base within several years if the 

Proposed Action is not selected because of the decrease in new housing starts, which directly 

affects the gross receipts tax revenues (UNM 2002). Property tax revenues would not decrease 

since the average price of a home would increase as demand outstrips supply (UNM 2002). 

The Proposed Action and action alternatives, in conjunction with the Buckman Supplemental 

Wells Project, would alleviate some of the service industry and construction job layoffs for 

several years. In addition, both projects would add temporary jobs during the construction phase 

and permanent jobs during the operation and maintenance phase. 

No specific cumulative effects to income are expected if the Proposed Action or any of the action 

alternatives are selected. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

190 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Environmental Justice 

Affected Environment 

U.S. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-income Populations) directs Federal agencies to assess whether the 

Proposed Action or alternatives would have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Identification of environmental 

issues can be accomplished through public involvement and the scoping process. 

The formal scoping period for this project ran from July 22 through September 5, 2002. The FS 

and BLM invited interested parties, the public, tribal governments, and governmental agencies to 

comment on the Proposed Action and those issues and alternatives which should be considered. 

Chapter 1 contains more detailed information on the scoping process and comments. 

For the purpose of this assessment, minority refers to people who classified themselves in the 

2000 U.S. Census as African Americans, Asian or Pacific Islanders, American Indians, Hispanics 

of any race or origin, or other non-White races. A minority population refers to an area where 

minority individuals comprise 25 percent or more of the population. In the County of Santa Fe, 

persons of Hispanic or Latino origin account for 49 percent of the population, and American 

Indian/Alaska Natives account for 3 percent of the population. White persons, not of Hispanic or 

Latino origin, accounted for 46 percent of the total County population in 2000 (Census Bureau 

2002). 

Low-income population refers to a community in which 25 percent or more of the population is 

characterized as living in poverty, as determined by statistical poverty thresholds used by the 

United States. In 2000, the poverty weighted average threshold for a family of four was $7,603, 

and $8,794 for an unrelated individual (Census Bureau, 2000b). In the County of Santa Fe, 11.9 

percent of the population is below the poverty threshold (Census Bureau 2002). 

Field investigations of the project area indicate that the proposed water diversion site and the 

Buckman/Dead Dog Leg corridors are located primarily within FS and BLM rangelands that do 

not contain residential communities. Reservation lands of the Pueblo of San Ildefonso are directly 

across the Rio Grande from the proposed water diversion site. These tribal lands are not 

residential but support the cultural practices of the pueblo. 

Environmental Consequences 

During the EIS process, public input from persons or groups was considered regardless of their 

demographic or socioeconomic characteristics. Based on public comment and the EIS analysis, 

the FS and BLM determined that the issues associated with environmental justice would not be 

affected by the Proposed Action or any of the action alternatives. 

No Action Alternative 

If the No Action Alternative is selected, water availability may be severely limited, potentially 

leading to an increase in housing costs, both purchase and rental, as construction of new homes 

declines but demand stays the same or increases slightly (UNM 2002). It is impossible to predict 

the price point at which local workers would no longer be able to afford housing or when 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 191 

employment opportunities would be lost. The majority of workers in the service industry are in 

the lower income brackets and many would be faced with the predicament of not being able to 

afford housing in the region. Many low-income residents would leave the area in order to find 

affordable housing. State government workers would be affected as well because their incomes 

would not cover the cost of housing if large price increases accompany a decreasing supply. In 

addition, construction and service industry jobs may be lost because of the lack of development 

and decrease in tourism. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action 

Construction Effects. Construction jobs would be created during the construction of the project 

that may alleviate some job loses that may have occurred from slowdowns in home building or 

industries during recent droughts. 

Operation Effects. The effects to environmental justice would be similar to the No Action 

Alternative for the operational phase. There are no communities or housing within the 

construction area and no minority or low-income populations. Direct effects to minority or lowincome groups are difficult to identify as exclusively affecting these groups. Even though Native 

Americans constitute a minority population in the County of Santa Fe, the population is dispersed 

throughout the County. The water that would be available because of the diversion would be 

available equally to all residents with municipal or County hookups. The FS initiated ongoing 

consultations with the following tribes: Pueblo of Jemez, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Laguna, 

Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Juan, Pueblo of San Ildefonso, Pueblo of Santo Domingo, 

Pueblo of Isleta, Pueblo of Taos, Pueblo of Picuris, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Tesuque, Pueblo 

of Nambe, Pueblo of Zia, Pueblo of Pojoaque, and the Jicarilla Apache Nation. 

Las Campanas, a community that is generally wealthier than residents of the surrounding 

area, is a special use permit applicant that would pay for the water and share the cost for 

constructing the diversion project. However, the purchase and delivery of water to a 

nonminority, non-low-income group would not have a disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Sediment Facility Alternatives 

No specific effects to environmental justice are expected during the construction or operation 

phases of any of the facility alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Pipeline Route Alternatives 

No specific effects to environmental justice are expected during the construction or operation 

phases of any of the pipeline alternatives. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Power Upgrade Alternative 

No specific effects to environmental justice are expected during the construction or operation 

phases of the power upgrade alternative. 
Chapter 3 — Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

192 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Cumulative Effects 

No specific environmental justice cumulative effects are expected because of the Proposed Action 

or any of the alternatives. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Unavoidable adverse effects are environmental consequences of an action that cannot be avoided 

either by changing the nature of the action or through mitigation if the action is undertaken. With 

implementation of the Buckman Project, unavoidable adverse effects would occur mainly on 

surface water resources, plant communities, animal habitat, and cultural resources. Diversion of 

water from the Rio Grande would unavoidably reduce the water available to downstream users 

for consumptive purposes. Although existing agreements allow withdrawal of water by various 

entities along the river, the physical reduction in the availability of water downstream from the 

intake structure would still be considered unavoidably adverse. Plant communities would be 

affected by construction activities that could result in the modification or clearing of 

approximately 306 acres. Fifty-nine acres would be permanently lost due to construction of 

facilities and associated infrastructure. Similarly, the same amount of wildlife habitat would be 

affected. While effects to cultural resources can be mitigated through data recovery efforts, the 

effect is still adverse since the resources are removed from the landscape. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments 

Irreversible commitments are those that cannot be reversed except in the extreme long term. 

Irretrievable commitments of resources are expenditures or consumption of resources that cannot 

be reversed or restored. For the Proposed Action and alternatives, the effect to cultural resources 

is irretrievable. The expenditure of nonrenewable resources such as sand and other components of 

concrete, iron, and other metals for pipes and pumps, petroleum for the operation of heavy 

equipment, and labor during construction and operations and maintenance, constitute an 

irretrievable commitment of resources. The land proposed for permanent use (59 acres) 

constitutes an irreversible commitment of that resource. 

Relationship Between Short-Term Use 

and Long-Term Productivity 

Approximately 306 acres would be affected by construction of the Buckman Project with a 

permanent loss of 59 acres to infrastructure. The proposed mitigation measures (see the section, 

“Pipeline Alternatives” in Chapter 2) would return most of the affected acreage to its original 

biological function within a time period of several years. Productivity of the 59 acres would be 

lost as long as the buildings and infrastructure remain. Operation of the Buckman Project would, 

however, result in the long-term recovery of the aquifer in the Santa Fe Basin. This recovery of 

the aquifer would result in the restoration of the productivity of the aquifer, which would have a 

direct benefit both in the near term and to future generations. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 193 

List of Preparers and Document Distribution

List of Preparers 

The DEIS was prepared under contract by Tetra Tech, Inc, which organized an interdisciplinary 

team. Forest Service and BLM personnel listed contributed to the analysis by providing 

information and oversight. 

Name Position/Organization Contribution Education 

Years of 

Relevant 

Experience 

Apodaca, 

Annie 

District Recreation Staff 

Officer, USDA Forest 

Service - Española 

Ranger District, Santa Fe 

National Forest 

Recreation 

Resources and 

Scenic 

Resources 

B.S., Wildlife Science – 

Management Option 

18 

Balistreri, 

Michael 

Senior Biologist, SWCA 

Inc. 

Biological 

Resources 

M.S., Biology 

B.S., Wildlife Ecology 

B.A., Sociology 

15 

Brownlie, 

William R. 

Project Manager, 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Project 

Oversight and 

Water Resources 

Ph.D., Civil EngineeringHydraulics 

M.S., Civil EngineeringHydraulics and Water 

Resources 

B.S. Civil Engineering 

22 

Coghill, 

Catherine 

Public Affairs, 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Land Tenure and 

Use 

M.S., Environmental 

Policy and Management 

B.A., Political Science & 

Sociology 

12 

Diehl, 

Danielle D. 

Physical Scientist, USDA 

Forest Service - Española 

Ranger District, Santa Fe 

National Forest 

Surface Water 

Resources and 

Geology and 

Soils 

M.W.R. Masters Water 

Resources 

B.S., Biology 

10 

Ferrell, 

Sean A. 

Forest Fisheries Biologist, 

USDA Forest Service - 

Española Ranger District, 

Santa Fe National Forest 

Aquatic 

Resources 

B.S., Forest Biology 14 

Henderson, 

Mike 

Environmental Planner, 

Mike Henderson 

Consulting, LLC 

Air Quality and 

Noise 

B.S., Natural 

Science/Mathematics 

11 

Holman, 

Timothy 

Environmental Scientist 

II, Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Recreation 

Resources and 

Traffic, and 

Geology and 

Soils 

B.S., Earth SciencePhysical Geography 3 
List of Preparers and Document Distribution 

194 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Name Position/Organization Contribution Education 

Years of 

Relevant 

Experience 

Kehmeier, 

Jon 

Senior Biologist, SWCA 

Inc. 

Aquatic 

Resources 

M.S., Bio Resource 

Engineering 

B.S., Fisheries & Wildlife 

Biology 

10 

Leibfried, 

Bill 

Senior Biologist, SWCA 

Inc. 

Aquatic 

Resources 

M.S., Aquatic Biology 

B.S., Biology 

25 

Lyncoln, 

Karen 

Senior Socioeconomic/ 

Environmental Justice 

Specialist, Tetra Tech, 

Inc. 

Social and 

Economic 

Resources and 

Environmental 

Justice 

B.A., Urban Studies 30 

Martinez, 

Ray 

Special Uses/Lands staff - 

USDA Forest Service - 

Española Ranger District, 

Santa Fe National Forest 

Land Tenure and 

Use 

B.S., Forest Management 17 

Oakes, 

Claudia 

Managing Principal, 

SWCA Inc. 

Biological 

Resources 

Ph.D., Geography, 

University of Texas at 

Austin 

M.S., Environmental 

Biology, Mahidol 

University, Bangkok 

Thailand 

B.S., Zoology, University 

of Texas at Austin 

27 

Orr, 

Mary V. 

Zone Wildlife Biologist, 

USDA Forest Service - 

Española Ranger District, 

Santa Fe National Forest 

Biological 

Resources 

B.S., Wildlife Biology 

B.S., Biology 

23 

Pergler, 

Chuck 

Deputy Project Manager, 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 

Project 

Oversight, 

Biological 

Resources, and 

Scenic 

Resources 

M.S., Range Management 

B.S., Range and 

Wildlands Science 

20 

Phillips, 

David 

Cultural Resource 

Program Director, SWCA 

Inc. 

Cultural 

Resources 

Ph.D., Anthropology 

M.A., Anthropology 

B.A., Anthropology 

30 

Roxlau, 

Catherine 

Cultural Resources 

Specialist, Tetra Tech, 

Inc. 

Cultural 

Resources 

M.A., Anthropology 

B.A., Anthropology 

15 
List of Preparers and Document Distribution 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 195 

Name Position/Organization Contribution Education 

Years of 

Relevant 

Experience 

Torres, 

Tami 

Outdoor Recreation 

Planner, Bureau of Land 

Management, Taos 

Resource Area 

Recreation 

Resources and 

Scenic 

Resources 

M.S., Forest Social 

Science 

B.S., Natural Resources 

and Recreation 

4 

Wase, 

Cheryl 

Senior Archaeologist, 

SWCA Inc. 

Cultural 

Resouces 

M.A., Anthropology 

B.A., Anthropology and 

English 

30 

Williams, 

Owen 

Botanist, SWCA Inc. Biological 

Resources 

M.A., Education 

B.S., Biology 

12 

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons 

to Whom Copies of the DEIS are Made Available 

Federal Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

Planning and Review 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of Forestry 

Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque 

Projects Office 

Federal Aviation Administration, Office of 

the Regional Administrator 

Interstate Commerce Commission, Energy 

and Environment 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Protected 

Species Division 

National Park Service, Intermountain 

Region 

National Park Service, Santa Fe 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Office of Civil Rights, Policy and Planning 

Division 

Region VI Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Rocky Mountain Research Station 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwest 

Division 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of 

Environmental Policy & Compliance 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 

Santa Fe 

U.S. Department of Energy – LANL 

Community Relations Office 

U.S. National Park Service, Bandelier 

National Monument 

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD 

USDA National Agricultural Library, 

Acquisitions & Serials Branch 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, New 

Mexico State Office 

USGS Jemez Mountain Field Station 

USDA Forest Service: Carson National 

Forest, Cibola National Forest, and 

Southwestern Region

State Agencies 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

New Mexico Division of Forestry 

New Mexico Economic Development Office 

New Mexico Environment Department; Air 

Quality Bureau, Drinking Water 
List of Preparers and Document Distribution 

196 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Bureau, Groundwater Quality Bureau, 

and Surface Water Quality Bureau 

New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission 

New Mexico State Engineer’s Office 

New Mexico State Governor’s Office 

New Mexico State Highway & 

Transportation Department 

New Mexico State Land Office 

Local Governments 

County of Santa Fe, Commissioners 

County of Los Alamos, Council 

City of Santa Fe: Office of the Mayor, 

Planning and Land Use Division, and 

Sangre de Cristo Water Division 

City of Española, Office of the Mayor 

Colleges and Universities 

College of Santa Fe 

New Mexico Highlands University 

New Mexico State University 

Santa Fe Community College 

St. John’s College, Santa Fe 

University of New Mexico 

Pueblos 

Jicarilla Apache Nation 

Pueblo of Cochiti 

Pueblo of Laguna 

Pueblo of Nambe 

Pueblo of Pojoaque 

Pueblo of San Juan 

Pueblo of Santa Clara 

Pueblo of San Ildefonso 

Pueblo of Santo Domingo 

Pueblo of Tesuque 

Libraries 

Albuquerque Public Library, Main Branch 

College of Santa Fe Library 

Española Public Library 

Mesa Public Library, Los Alamos 

NM Highlands University Library, Las 

Vegas 

NM State Library, Santa Fe 

NM State University Library, Las Cruces 

Santa Fe Community College Library 

Santa Fe Public Library, Main Branch 

Santa Fe Public Library, La Farge Branch 

St. John’s College Library 

University of New Mexico Library, 

Albuquerque 

Organizations 

1000 Friends of Santa Fe 

Acequia de la Cañanda Ancha 

Acequia de La Cienega Mayordomo 

Acequia del Caño 

Acequia de Garduno 

Acequia de los Chicos 

Acequia Larga and Jacono de Ancon 

Acequia Madre Ditch Association 

Acequia del Medio 

Acequia del Potrero 

Acequia de la Rosa de Castilla 

Agua Fria Village Association 

Agua Sana Water Users Association 

Alliance for the Rio Grand 

Heritage/Restoration 

American Rivers 

Amigos Bravos 

Canyon Preservation 

Center for Holistic Research 

Cerros Colorados Association 

Common Ground 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Forest Conservation Council 

Forest Guardians 

Forest Trust 

Friends of the Bosque 

Galisteo Water Users Association 

Las Acequias de Chupadero 

Las Campanas Limited Partnership 

Llano Ditch Association 
List of Preparers and Document Distribution 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 197 

Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District 

National Audubon Society – New Mexico 

State 

New Mexico Acequia Association 

New Mexico Citizens for Clean Air and 

Water 

New Mexico Earth First! 

New Mexico Heritage Preservation Alliance 

New Mexico Natural History Institute 

New Mexico Rural Water Association 

New Mexico Wilderness Alliance 

New Mexico Wildlife Federation 

Northern Pueblo Tributary Water Rights 

Association 

Public Service Company of New Mexico 

Rio Chama Acequia Association 

Rio Tesuque Land Alliance 

Sierra Club, New Mexico State Chapter 

Sangre de Cristo Audubon Society 

Santa Fe Forest Watch 

Santa Fe Geological Society 

Santa Fe Northwest Advisory Council 

Santa Fe Water Coalition 

Santa Fe Watershed Association 

Sierra Club, Pajarito Group 

Sierra Club, Santa Fe Group 

Southwest Center for Biological Diversity 

Southwest Forest Alliance 

Southwest Environmental Center 

Southwest Headwaters 

Southwest Planning and Marketing 

Taos Valley Acequia Association 

The Nature Conservancy 

Water Quality Association 

Watershed West 

Western Environmental Law Center 

Individuals 

Joni Arends 

Anthony Baca 

Reid Bandeen 

Kelly Bitner 

Ilse Bleck 

Blair Brown 

Charles E. Brown 

Terry Brunner 

John Buchser 

Jean Cantú 

Bill Deihl 

Dale Doremus 

Janet Gerwin 

Tim Glasco 

Ed Gonzales 

Lindsey Grant 

Mike Hamman 

Alan Jager 

Robert Jorgensen 

Rhonda S. King

Gary Kramer 

Don McMarshall 

Ben Neary 

Chris Ortega 

Anthony Ortiz 

Pete Padilla 

Paul Paryski 

Roger Peterson 

Dave Quintana 

Bob Ray 

Roberta Rotuwico 

Jennifer Royster 

Rolf Schmidt-Petersen 

Bill Seedorff 

Judy Stevens 

Robert W. Vocke 

Ted Williams 

Karen Yori
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 199 

References Cited

BOR/City of Albuquerque 2002. Bureau of Reclamation and City of Albuquerque. Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement City of Albuquerque Drinking Water Project. Prepared 

by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and City of Albuquerque 

Public Works Department in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. DES 

02-23. June 14, 2002. 

Balleau 1995. Balleau Groundwater, Inc. Buckman Alluvial Aquifer Yield Analysis. Albuquerque, 

New Mexico. April 1, 1995. 

BIA 2000. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Environmental Assessment for the Rio Grande Infiltration 

Collector Well Demonstration Project at San Ildefonso Pueblo. Prepared by The Louis 

Berger Group, Inc., report to U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs October 2000. 

BLM 1972. Bureau of Land Management. Environmental Analysis Checklist for Buckman Water 

Pipeline & Powerline. February 1, 1972. 

BLM 1986. Bureau of Land Management. Visual Resource Inventory, BLM Manual Handbook 

H-8410-1. January 17, 1986. 

BLM 1988. Bureau of Land Management. Taos Resource Management Plan. Prepared by U.S. 

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Taos Resource Area. October 

1988. 

BLM 1999. Bureau of Land Management. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Riparian 

and Aquatic Habitat Management in the Albuquerque Field Office – New Mexico. United 

Sates Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque Field 

Office. BLM/NM/PL-99-015-1040. October 1999. 

BLM/BOR 2003. Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation. City of Santa Fe 

Buckman Supplemental Well Environmental Assessment. March 7, 2003. 

BOR/City of Albuquerque 2002. Bureau of Reclamation and the City of Albuquerque. Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement City of Albuquerque Drinking Water Project. June 

2002. 

CDM 2002a. Camp, Dresser, McKee, Inc., City of Santa Fe, Santa Fe County. Feasibility Study 

and Recommendations for San Juan-Chama Water Diversion, Report. Prepared in 

association with Boyle Engineering Corp., John Shomaker & Associates, Inc., Lee 

Wilson Associates, and Lucy Moore, September 2002. 

CDM 2002b. Camp, Dresser, McKee, Inc., City of Santa Fe. Implementation of Supplemental 

Buckman Wells, Report. October 2002. 

Census Bureau 1990. U.S. Census Bureau. Census of Population and Housing, Summary Tap File 

1, “Quick Tables.” 1990. 

Census Bureau 2000a. U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000, Table DP-4: Profile of Selected 

Housing Characteristics. 2000. 

Census Bureau 2000b. U.S. Census Bureau. Demographic Profile for Santa Fe County, US 

Census Bureau, Census 2000 for New Mexico. 2000. 

Census Bureau 2002. U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau State and County QuickFacts, 

Santa Fe County, New Mexico. Revised May 30 2002. 
References Cited 

200 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

CEQ 1997. Council on Environmental Quality. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act, Council On Environmental Quality, Executive Office 

of the President. January 1997. 

CH2M Hill 2001. CH2M Hill. Final Report, Las Campanas Water Supply Project Feasibility 

Study. Prepared by CH2M HILL and submitted to Las Campanas Santa Fe. October 

2001. 

Dick-Peddie 1993. Dick-Peddie, W.A. New Mexico Vegetation – Past, Present, and Future. 

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1993. 

FEMA 1998. Federal Emergency Management Agency. FIRM: Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa 

Fe County, New Mexico, Panel 350069 0075B, National Flood Insurance Program, 

Washington, D.C., November 4, 1988. 

FS 1987. USDA Forest Service. Santa Fe National Forest Plan As Amended. United States 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southwestern Region. Published July 1987. 

FS 1990. USDA Forest Service. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: ROS Primer and Field Guide. 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 1990. 

FS 1995. USDA Forest Service. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery Management. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook Number 

701. December 1995. 

FS 2001. USDA Forest Service. Federal Register (66 FR 18107) a Notice of Intent to prepare an 

EIS for Designation of Critical Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow. April 5, 

2001. 

FS 2002. USDA Forest Service. Environmental Assessment Valle II Hazardous Fuels Reduction, 

Santa Fe National Forest, Bandelier National Monument. Prepared by the Mangi 

Environmental Group Inc. February 19, 2002. 

FS 2003. USDA Forest Service. Santa Fe National Forest Management Indicator Species 

Assessment. USDA Forest Service Santa Fe National Forest. June 2003. 

FWS 2002. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Designation 

of Critical Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow. United States Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2. June 2002. 

FWS 2003a. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow. Final rule; notice of 

availability. Federal Register/Vol.68, No. 33/Wednesday, February 19, 2003/Rules and 

Regulations. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. February 19, 2003. 

FWS 2003b. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Memorandum from Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director, Region 2 to Area Manager, Albuquerque 

Area Office, Bureau of Reclamation. Subject: Biological and Conference Opinions on 

the Effects of Actions Associated with the Programmatic Biological Assessment of 

Bureau of Reclamation’s Water and River Maintenance Operation, Army Corps of 

Engineers’ Flood Control Operation, and related Non-Federal Actions on the Middle Rio 

Grande, New Mexico. Cons. #2-22-03-F-0129. March 17, 2003. 
References Cited 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 201 

Jemez y Sangre 2001. Jemez y Sangre Water Planning Council. Water Supply Study Jemez y 

Sangre Water Planning Region New Mexico. Prepared for Jemez y Sangre Water 

Planning Council by Duke Engineering, Inc. January 2001. 

Jemez y Sangre 2002. Jemez y Sangre Water Planning Council and Daniel B. Stevens & 

Associates. White Paper, Alternative: Utilize San Juan-Chama Project Water. White Paper 

Jemez y Sangre Water Plan Alternatives Assessment Charrette. February 2002. 

Kelley and Rotenberry 1993. Patrick A. Kelley and John T. Rotenberry. Buffer Zones for 

Ecological Reserves in California: Replacing Guesswork with Science. Interface Between 

Ecology and Land Development in California. Pages 85-92. Edited by J.E. Keeley. 1993. 

MLS 2000. Multiple Listing Service for real estate in the Santa Fe area accessed via 

http://www.sfar.com/mlsstats.html.

MLS 2002. Multiple Listing Service for real estate in the Santa Fe area accessed via 

http://www.sfar.com/mlsstats.html.

Orr 2002. Personal Communication Between Mary Orr, USFS Wildlife Biologist, and Mike 

Balistreri, SWCA Inc., Wildlife Biologist. 2002. 

OSE and ISC 2001. New Mexico Office of the State Engineer and Interstate Stream Commission. 

New Mexico Office of the State Engineer and Interstate Stream Commission. 2000 – 

2001 Annual Report. Pages 10-27 and 10-28. November 30, 2001. 

Parker and King 1990. Parker, P.L., and T.F. King. 1990 Guidelines for Evaluating and 

Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington DC. 1990. 

Project Power 2003. Informational website regarding Public Service Company of New Mexico’s 

Project Power Effort. Accessed via http://www.projectpower.org/reference/Press%20Releases/051503.htm. November 2003. 

Santa Fe County 1995. Santa Fe County. Santa Fe County Visual Resources Inventory & 

Analysis. Santa Fe County Land Use and Planning Department. October 1995. 

SNAC 1999. Santa Fe Northwest Advisory Council. The Santa Fe Norwest Community Plan. 

1999. 

Sublette, J.D., M.D. Hatch, and M. Sublette 1990. J.D. Sublette, M.D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 

The Fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1990. 

Tetra Tech 2002. Tetra Tech, Inc. Buckman Water Diversion Project EIS White Rock Overlook 

Interviews and Buckman Road Vehicle Counts In Support of the Scenery Management 

System/Visual Management System Technical Report. Prepared for the USDA Santa Fe 

National Forest and the USDI Bureau of Land Management Taos Field Office. February 

2003. 

Tetra Tech 2003. Tetra Tech, Inc. City of Santa Fe Buckman Supplemental Wells Environmental 

Assessment. Prepared for the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico and the U.S. Department of 

the Interior Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation. April 10, 2003. 
References Cited 

202 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Tierra Lopezgarcia Group 2004. Tierra Lopezgarcia Group. The Buckman Roadway Study for the 

Buckman Water Diversion Project, Santa Fe, NM. Prepared for Sangre de Cristo Water 

Division. February 2004. 

UNM 2002. University of New Mexico. The Economic Impact of a Growth Rate Ordinance in 

the City of Santa Fe. Prepared for the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico by the University of 

New Mexico Bureau of Business and Economic Research. May 2002. 

USACE 1995. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Abiquiu Dam and Reservoir, Rio Chama, New 

Mexico Water Control Manual: Appendix A to Rio Grande Basin Master Water Control 

Manual, Albuquerque District, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 1995. 

USACE 1999. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Middle Rio Grande Flood Protection: Bernalillo to 

Belen, New Mexico - Corrales Unit, Final Environmental Assessment, Albuquerque, NM. 

1999. 

USDA 2001. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. The Built Environment 

Image Guide: For the National Forests and Grasslands. FS-710. September 2001. 

Wase et al. 2003. Wase, Cheryl L., Marie E. Brown, and Richard L. Wessel. Buckman Water 

Diversion Environmental Impact Statement Project: Cultural Resources Survey. SWCA 

Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque, NM. January 2003. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 203 

Index

A 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.............................................................81 

Air Quality....................................................................................................................................176 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Study.....................................................4, 29 

Aquatic Communities...................................................................................................................126 

B 

Biological Resources..........................................................................................................3, 64, 119 

Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan ...........................................................22 

C 

Comparison of Alternatives............................................................................................................69 

Considerations for Cumulative Effects...........................................................................................81 

Coordination with Agencies and Other Organizations ...................................................................23 

Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................4, 65, 144 

D 

Decisions to be Made .................................................................................................................2, 21 

E 

EIS Section Index.........................................................................................................................203 

Elements Common to All Alternatives ...........................................................................................31 

Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................................190 

F 

Forest Plan......................................................................................................................................22 

G 

Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................67, 178 

Ground Water .........................................................................................................................64, 111 

I 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments.................................................................192 

Issues ..........................................................................................................................................3, 25 

L 

Land Tenure and Use............................................................................................................3, 64, 83 

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the DEIS are Sent .................195 

List of Preparers ...........................................................................................................................193 
Index 

204 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Water Diversion Project 

Location......................................................................................................................................1, 17 

M 

Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements..................................................................9, 59 

N 

No Action Alternative.................................................................................................................5, 30 

Noise.............................................................................................................................................171 

O 

Other Plans .....................................................................................................................................22 

Overview of Proposed Project....................................................................................................2, 19 

P 

Permits and Agency Approvals Required.......................................................................................26 

Permits Required for Project Implementation................................................................................67 

Pipeline Alternatives.................................................................................................................14, 54 

Pipelines Associated with the Proposed Action........................................................................14, 54 

Power Upgrade Above Ground Alternative AGP1...................................................................15, 58 

Power Upgrade Alternatives.....................................................................................................15, 56 

Power Upgrade Associated with the Proposed Action .............................................................15, 58 

Project Construction .......................................................................................................................32 

Project Operation and Maintenance ...............................................................................................42 

Proposed Action .............................................................................................................................31 

Proposed Action and Alternatives ..................................................................................................29 

Public Involvement Including Interagency Cooperation................................................................23 

Public Scoping Comments .............................................................................................................25 

Purpose and Need.......................................................................................................................1, 17 

Purpose of and Need for Action and Background ......................................................................1, 17 

R 

Raw Water Pipeline Alternative................................................................................................14, 55 

Recreational Resources ..........................................................................................................66, 152 

Recreation Resources and Traffic.................................................................................................152 

References Cited...........................................................................................................................199 

Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity..........................................192 

Relation to Other Plans Including Land Management Plans..........................................................21 

Rio Grande Silvery Minnow ........................................................................................................133 
Index 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Buckman Direct Diversion Project 205 

S 

Scenic Resources......................................................................................................................4, 161 

Scoping Process..............................................................................................................................24 

Sediment Facility Alternative SF1............................................................................................13, 51 

Sediment Facility Alternative SF2........................................................................................6, 13, 52 

Sediment Facility Associated with the Proposed Action ......................................................6, 13, 51 

Sediment Separation Facility Alternatives .................................................................................6, 51

Social and Economic Resources.............................................................................................26, 181 

Special Status Plants and Animals in the Project Area.................................................................141 

Special Status Species ..................................................................................................................129 

Surface Water Resources ......................................................................................................3, 64, 89 

System Capacity and Flow Volumes ..............................................................................................50 

T 

Terrestrial Communities ...............................................................................................................119 

Treated Water Pipeline Alternatives .........................................................................................14, 55 

Tribal Consultation.........................................................................................................................23 

U 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects .......................................................................................................192 

W 

Water Resources ........................................................................................................... 3, 64, 89, 111