Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS i

Summary

of the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for the

Santa Fe Municipal Watershed Project

Santa Fe National Forest

Southwestern Region

USDA Forest Service

March 2001

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agency: City of Santa Fe

Responsible Official: Leonard Atencio, Forest Supervisor

Santa Fe National Forest

For Information Contact: Susan Bruin, Project Manager

Santa Fe National Forest

1474 Rodeo Road

Santa Fe, NM 87504

(505) 438-7829

Abstract: This Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) briefly describes the analysis of a

USDA Forest Service and City of Santa Fe proposal to reduce the risk of a severe crown fire and restore sustainable

watershed conditions in the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed, adjacent to the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico. The

analysis was conducted in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. The DEIS

(approximately 170 pages including appendices) is a significantly more detailed document that includes the analysis

process, assumptions, affected environment, scientific references, examples, and many photos, maps and graphs.

This Summary focuses on key points regarding the proposal, purpose and need, issues, alternatives, and key

differences between the alternatives.
ii Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS

SANTA FE M UNICIPAL WATERSHED

Artist Road

Hyde Park Road

Santa Fe

Ski Area

Washington Street

CITY OF

SANTA FE

St. Francis

Upper Canyon Road

Tesuque

Village

Santa Fe 

Plaza Nichols

Reservoir McClure

Reservoir

#

#

(/285

PE C OS WILDERNESS

%g79

101234 Miles

12/11/2000

Figure 1. Santa Fe Municipal Watershed Project Map.
Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS iii

Contents

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

The Watershed and Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background, Including Purpose and Need for the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Decision to be Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Public Involvement, Scoping, and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Alternatives Considered in Detail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Additional Options That May be Applied to Any Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Summary of Treatment Acres by Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Mitigation and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Prescribed Burning and Fire Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Wildfire Prevention and Agency Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Forest Vegetation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Worker Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Soil, Water and Aquatic Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Riparian Ecosystems and Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Terrestrial Habitat and Associated Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Social Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Heritage Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Environmental Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Effects of Alternative A: No Action Without Wildfire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Effects of Alternative A: No Action With Wildfire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Effects of the Action Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

List of Tables

1. Treatment Types and Acres for All Action Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

List of Figures

1. Santa Fe Municipal Watershed Project Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

2. Map of Alternative B1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3. Map of Alternative B2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4. Map of Alternatives C1/D1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5. Map of Alternatives C2/D2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
iv Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS
Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS 1

Purpose and Need

The Watershed and Project Area

The 17,384-acre Santa Fe Municipal Watershed (Watershed) provides 40 percent of the City’s water supply.

The “project area” comprises approximately 7,270 acres

of the 17,384-acre Watershed, and is located entirely

outside the Pecos Wilderness portion of the Watershed

(Figure 1). Land ownerships within the project area

consist of Santa Fe National Forest, City of Santa Fe,

Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, and other

private lands.

Elevations in the project area range from approximately 7,000 to 8,500 feet. The ponderosa pine forest

type covers 80 to 90 percent of the project area, with

smaller portions of piñon-juniper woodlands and

patches of oak, riparian vegetation and aspen. There

is no old growth forest within the project area, nor any

habitat occupied by threatened, endangered or sensitive species. The Santa Fe River is the only perennial

stream which flows through two City water system

reservoirs, Nichols and McClure.

The project area lies within a designated “inventoried

roadless area,” and there is one service road located at

the bottom of the canyon. This unpaved service road

begins at the gate at the end of Upper Canyon Road,

parallels the river for about 7 miles, and ends at the

Pecos Wilderness boundary. There are a few, usable

spur roads and historic trails that diverge off the main

road. The existing roads provide access to less than 7

percent of the project area. Thus, most of this river

canyon area is “roadless,” and most of the slopes are

quite steep and rocky. National forest lands designated as roadless or wilderness surround the Watershed

on three sides, and the west side abuts the City of

Santa Fe.

The 7,270-acre project area was selected as the highest

priority area within the Watershed that can feasibly be

treated within a 5 to 10-year period. Other densely

forested areas within and surrounding the Watershed

may be proposed for fuel reduction treatment in the

future in order to protect the Watershed and wildlandurban interface.

Background, Including Purpose

and Need for the Project

Prior to and throughout the 1800’s, heavy livestock

grazing, homesteading, and logging occurred in the

Santa Fe River canyon. This canyon was also Santa

Fe’s playground for swimming, fishing, and camping.

By the 1920’s, the lower slopes were depleted of trees

and ground vegetation, soil erosion was severe, and the

water had become polluted. In 1932, the Watershed

was closed to public access as a means of protecting

the water supply. In addition to these activities, the

Forest Service had a policy of aggressively suppressing

all wildfires through the last century. Intensive historic land uses followed by fire suppression resulted in

eliminating the beneficial role of low-intensity surface

fires in the fire-adapted ponderosa pine ecosystem that

dominates the project area.

Research shows that ponderosa pine forests historically contained more open, park-like stands of primarily

large ponderosa pine trees averaging 20 to 80 trees per

acre. These forests frequently experienced surface

fires that thinned out many of the smallest trees but

seldom killed the large, mature pine trees. These

surface fires were very important in maintaining openings in forest canopies, a clumpy distribution of large

fire-resistant pine trees, and understories of herbaceous ground vegetation and shrubs. Current

ponderosa pine forests in the project area are very

dense, averaging 500 to 1,000 trees per acre.

The trees are currently so crowded that their growth is

suppressed and they are becoming more susceptible to

mortality by fire. The heavy shading created by these

trees has eliminated most of the herbaceous vegetation

on the forest floor. The gradual loss of ground vegetation has reduced biological diversity and soil stability.

In addition, the long-term decline in water entering the

reservoirs since 1913 is correlated with the increase in

the number of trees.

The dense understory of fir trees is highly susceptible

to mortality by fire. These thickets of smaller trees also

act as “ladder fuels” that quickly carry a surface fire up

into the crowns of the taller trees. These understory

ladder fuels, together with the dense overstory canopy

of trees, create conditions for a fast-spreading, uncontrollable, high-intensity crown fire. Computer models

used to simulate fire behavior show that during dry,

hot conditions, the forest stands in this area can no

longer support light surface fires.

A fire starting in the Watershed under adverse fire

weather conditions would quickly become a high severity crown fire. The crown fire would likely burn homes

near the Watershed and there would be extremely large

amounts of smoke lasting for days or weeks. This type

of fire would destroy valuable forest and watershed

resources, cause mass movement of soils, ash and

woody material into the river and reservoirs, and result

in severe flooding into Santa Fe.

Purpose and Need
2 Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS

Purpose and Need

Thus, the primary purpose (objective) of this project is

to reduce the probability of experiencing a large-scale,

high-intensity crown fire in the project area. A secondary purpose or objective is to stimulate the production

of herbaceous ground vegetation thereby improving

long-term soil stability. The desired condition is to have

significantly fewer trees in the understory and openings

in the forest canopy. This will reduce the heat intensity

and rate of spread of a crown fire, while increasing the

amount of herbaceous vegetation and enhancing habitat diversity.

Proposed Project

The proposed project involves “thinning-from-below”

followed by low-intensity prescribed burning, which

has been proven to be a very effective combination

treatment for reducing the chance of severe crown fires

by reducing ladder fuels and creating wider spaces

between the trees. This treatment would limit the

ability of a beneficial surface fire to become a destructive crown fire. No new roads would be constructed and

no log skidding (dragging) machines would be used, due

to the steep and rugged terrain, distance to roads,

erosive soils, and proximity to the water supply.

The project involves several different phases. The first

phase involves thinning (cutting) the smaller trees, less

than 16-inch diameter, and leaving all the larger trees

(along with groups of smaller trees) standing. Most of

the trees that need to be thinned out in order to reduce

hazardous fuel loads are less than 6-inch diameter.

After thinning, there would be an average of 50 to 100

trees per acre (30 to 40 percent canopy cover) in a

variable density mosaic that mimics natural fire disturbance patterns for ponderosa pine forests. Selected

ridgetops would be thinned to a lower tree density in

order to act as fuel breaks, leaving an average of 20 to

30 large trees per acre (20 to 30 percent canopy cover).

These strategically located fuel breaks are known to be

effective in reducing the risk of escape fires during

prescribed burning and reducing the rate of spread of a

crown fire. No standing dead trees (snags) would be cut

unless they are determined to be a safety hazard or

occur within or adjacent to a fuel break. No thinning

would occur within riparian areas or within 15 feet of a

riparian area.

Most of the cut trees cannot be removed from the

Watershed because most of the project area is too steep,

rugged and far from roads. Therefore, the tree stems,

tops and branches less than about 4 to 6-inch diameter

(slash) would be cut up and placed in piles for later

burning. This slash may be scattered on the forest floor

rather than piled in some situations, based on sitespecific conditions. The remaining cut tree trunks (logs)

that do not pose a fire hazard would be left on the

ground, parallel to the contours of the slope to help

reduce soil erosion and runoff, and aid in nutrient

cycling and habitat diversity.

On the limited areas of gentle terrain within close

proximity to the roads (approximately 560 acres), the

cut tree trunks would be removed and the slash may

also be removed. A portion of the wood removed from

along roadsides would be given away to low-income

families, and a portion may be used or sold by the

thinning contractor as firewood, latillas, coyote fence

posts, or other small products. No timber sales would

be used. The slash created in these roadside areas could

be hauled out in the form of wood chips or bales, or may

be burned in piles if hauling turns out to be unfeasible

or has unacceptable impacts to residents along the haul

route.

The 560 acres of roadside fuels treatment would be

completed over 3 years, in part to provide the wood

products to the community over a longer period of time

rather than all at once. Removing an estimated 2,500-

3,300 cords of “green” firewood (or other wood) annually

for 3 years would require approximately 3,000 to 4,000

5-ton truckloads, and at least another 800 5-ton truckloads to remove the slash in the form of chips. The

public would not be allowed to remove wood directly

from the Watershed due to the closure order, increased

risk of fire ignitions, and because it would require

15,000 to 20,000 pickup truck loads just to remove the

cut tree trunks, which would greatly impact the quality

of life for residents along Upper Canyon Road. Approximately 300 acres of the 560 acres along roads occurs on

City lands, and the City awarded a contract in October

of 2000 to begin thinning out the trees less than 6-inch

diameter on those acres.

As a second treatment phase, after the slash piles are

dry (3-12 months), they would be burned under very

cool and moist conditions, generally when there is still

snow on the ground. All burning would be carefully and

continuously monitored.

As a third phase that occurs after completing the

thinning and slash burning on the operable slopes, low

intensity “broadcast” burns would be used to reduce the

density of very small trees and surface fuels that remain

in the unthinned patches on steep slopes. These broadcast burns are generally not hot enough to burn trees

over about 6-inch diameter or create openings in the

overstory canopy. These broadcast burn units would

not be ignited until they are completely surrounded by
Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS 3

Purpose and Need

fuel breaks or other areas where the hazardous fuels

have been removed. The broadcast burn units may

include portions of the thinned and slash-treated

slopes where needed to minimize the risk of escape fire.

Low-intensity burning in treated areas would reduce

remaining surface fuels and pine needle accumulations, release nutrients into the soil, promote

regeneration of grasses and shrubs, and restore important ecological processes for fire-adapted organisms.

Broadcast burning is most likely to occur during the

fall, following the July-August rainy season (refer to

Mitigations and Monitoring Section).

As a fourth phase, annual monitoring and evaluation

would occur, to determine the treatment effectiveness

and environmental effects, and to adjust treatments as

needed. The monitoring is being coordinated by a nongovernmental organization, working with a team of

scientists from the State Environment Department,

Forest Research Stations, Universities, environmental

contracting firms, and other agencies. Implementation

is proposed to begin in the fall of 2001, and approximately 500 to 1,000 acres could feasibly be treated

each year.

Decision to Be Made

Based on the analysis documented in the DEIS and

public comments in response to the DEIS, the Santa Fe

National Forest Supervisor will decide which, if any, of

the treatment alternatives to implement in order to

meet the project objectives.

Public Involvement,

Scoping, and Issues

The Forest Service initiated and facilitated a very open

and collaborative planning process with interested

parties, which began during the initial assessment of

existing conditions in 1997. The EIS team began the

NEPA process in June of 2000. Representatives from

other agencies, environmental groups and other interested citizens remained actively involved and attended

planning meetings nearly every month. Other public

involvement activities included: over 17 meetings with

community organizations; monthly public tours to the

project area and demonstration treatment sites; a large

community forum that included a panel of renowned

forest ecologists; meetings with City residents living

closest to the Watershed; a brochure about the project

sent to City residents; a website; and other actions.

This project has also received a high degree of media

attention, particularly after the severe wildfires in the

summer of 2000.

Some initial concerns expressed by the public were

determined to be outside the scope of the proposed

project, such as concerns about commercial timber

harvest, road building, thinning in the wilderness, and

removing mature or old growth habitat. Some other

concerns expressed during scoping were not supported by scientific evidence. The remaining concerns

about the effects of the proposed project were listed as

“issues,” which were used to develop alternatives,

mitigation measures, and monitoring requirements.

The following issues were used in the analysis:

• Fire Control: Prescribed burns may escape control measures and threaten the water supply,

residential areas and other resources.

• Insects: Leaving freshly cut logs and slash may

attract beetles that can damage or kill nearby

trees and thereby increase the fuel hazard.

• Soil and Water Quality: Thinning and burning

activities may increase soil erosion and stream

sedimentation, as well as affecting other water

and soil qualities.

• Aquatic/Fish Habitat: Thinning conifers near

the river may increase water temperature and

affect the aquatic habitat.

• Riparian: Thinning and burning near the riparian area may promote the spread of invasive

non-native plants, kill cottonwood seedlings and

saplings, or disturb species such as existing

beaver population.

• Terrestrial Wildlife/Habitat: Thinning and burning may cause changes that impact terrestrial

habitat and wildlife, including special status

species, or may affect population viability for

management indicator species identified in the

Forest Plan.

• Air Quality/Smoke: Smoke from burning can

accumulate in residential areas or other areas

where people work or recreate, impacting human

health and visibility.

• Social/Traffic: Increased haul truck traffic

through residential areas may impact the quality

of life and cause vibration damage to old adobe or

stucco homes along the travel route, particularly

along Upper Canyon Road.
4 Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS

Purpose and Need

• Worker Safety and Efficiency: Manually thinning and slash piling on steep slopes and far away

from roads creates a high risk of injury to forest

workers, and requires an exceptionally long time

to treat the entire 7,270-acre area.

• Heritage Resources: Thinning and burning activities may potentially damage archaeological sites

or areas of traditional heritage or cultural concern.

• Recreation: Noise from thinning operations or

smoke from burning may affect the quality of

recreation or enjoyment of scenery near the project

area, such as at developed recreation sites or trails

along the Hyde Park Road corridor.

• Facilities/Treatment Plant: Burning produces

ash that could enter the water supply during

rainstorms, causing damage to the water filtration

system, and affecting water quality and taste.
Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS 5

Alternatives

Alternatives Considered but

Eliminated from Detailed Study

Ten alternatives were considered during the analysis

process but eliminated from detailed study. This

section summarizes the rationale for eliminating those

alternatives.

Treat All Dense Forest Lands Within and

Immediately Adjacent to the Watershed

The main reason for eliminating this alternative is

because the 7,270-acre project area was determined to

be the highest priority area within the Watershed and

the maximum acreage that could feasibly be treated

within a decade. It does not seem practical to plan

treatments beyond a 10-year period. These treatments

take a long time to complete due to: the labor intensiveness and steep, roadless terrain; time for slash to dry

before burning it; the limited number of days suitable

for broadcast burnings; smoke production limitations;

and seasonal weather limitations.

Build New Roads to Increase Road Access

and Remove More Wood

The primary reasons for eliminating this alternative

from further study are: (1) the Watershed is within an

“inventoried roadless area” which prohibits new road

construction in order to protect roadless area values;

(b) building roads into this area would be inconsistent

with Forest Plan direction for the Watershed and

surrounding areas; (c) the high costs for road construction in this area greatly outweigh the low value and

quantity of woody material over 6-inch diameter that

would be extracted, and removing larger-size logs

would not substantially alter the fuel hazard or smoke

production; (d) road construction in this steep and

erosive area would cause substantial ground disturbance, and possible accelerated erosion and stream

sedimentation; (e) creating new roads would make it

difficult for the City and forest Service to maintain the

closure order, and increased public entry would increase the risk of fire ignitions and sanitation/water

quality issues; (f) there are very few flat areas available

for log landings; (g) roads and additional wood hauling

would increase traffic impacts in and adjacent to Santa

Fe; and (h) roads and road use would reduce the quality

of wildlife habitat in this area.

Remove Wood Using Mechanized

Equipment, Without New Roads

This alternative was eliminated primarily because it is

not feasible or reasonable to remove wood from this

steep and rugged terrain using mechanized equipment

that carries logs at distances of up to 2 to 3 miles from

an access road. Also, costs would be extremely high for

the machines to carry each bundle for long distances,

and the slash would also need to be disposed of. There

are also very few suitable landing areas for creating

large piles of woody material along the access roads.

This alternative would also result in increased traffic

and noise impacts to residents along the haul route.

Remove Wood Using Horses or Mules,

Without New Roads

This alternative was eliminated from further study

primarily because the rugged terrain and steep slopes

that dominate the project area are not suitable for

logging with horses or mules. Moving logs with horses

or mules is generally limited to skidding downhill on

slopes 0 to 25 percent, with risk increasing over a 15

percent slope. Other considerations include: skidding

logs on steep slopes is known to increase soil erosion,

runoff and sedimentation; skidding logs with animals

also requires trees to be dropped in a specific direction,

requiring very skilled chain saw operators and increasing costs due to increased time; there is a lack of

experienced horse loggers in the Southwest; and feed

for the animals along with manure from the animals

are a source of invasive plant seeds that could adversely affect watershed conditions.

Remove Wood Using

Helicopters and Avoid Burning

A helicopter logging specialist analyzed alternatives to

remove the tree boles and slash using helicopters, both

with new road construction and without new road

construction. The option of building new roads was

dropped for reasons previously explained. Without

roads, this helicopter alternative becomes completely

unreasonable. The primary reason for eliminating this

alternative from further study is because it would be

extremely high cost (approximately $23 million for

5,500 operable acres) with little or no economic benefits, and several additional constraints and impacts.

The fuels material to be removed is mostly less than 6-

inch diameter, so it has low economic value. Other

Alternatives
6 Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS

Alternatives

factors making this an unreasonable option are: (a)

helicopters are not allowed to fly with external loads

over residential or business areas or non-forest roads,

thereby requiring trees to be placed on landings and

hauled out with trucks, which would greatly increase

truck traffic impacts; (b) large landings and slashdisposal areas (clearings) would need to be created in

the forest just outside the watershed, and there are few,

if any, suitable sites; (c) it would require reducing

canopy cover to 30 percent throughout the majority of

the thinning areas, which would entail removing more

trees than originally prescribed as well as larger overstory trees that would otherwise not need to be cut; and

(d) it creates unique safety hazards (e.g. a helicopter

landing site in or near Black Canyon Campground) and

additional noise disturbance to nearby residents and

recreational visitors.

Chip Slash Rather Than Burning It

The alternative of chipping the slash and either leaving

the chips or hauling the chips away, was eliminated

because: (a) chips float in water and would be carried

by rainwater runoff into the Santa Fe River, river

tributaries, and the reservoirs; (b) chips left on site

would act as mulch which would inhibit the establishment of grasses and herbaceous vegetation; (c) large

volumes of chips spread out over or incorporated into

the soil surface would substantially alter the soil carbon/nitrogen ratio, resulting in nutrient stress for the

remaining trees; (d) chips left on site would provide a

thick and continuous surface fuel hazard; (e) burying

the chips would require heavy machinery to dig massive

holes scattered throughout the project area; and (f)

hauling the chips out of the Watershed is only feasible

on approximately 560 acres along existing roads because chipping machines cannot be readily moved

across thousands of acres of steep, rugged terrain.

Thin Only Trees That

Are 6-Inch Diameter or Less

The alternative of cutting only trees 6-inch diameter or

less and either removing the cut trees or leaving them

in place was eliminated from further study because it

would not meet the purpose of this project. It would not

sufficiently open up the continuity of fuels in the forest

canopy, which is essential in reducing the likelihood of

a high intensity crown fire.

Use Prescribed Burning Only

To Reduce Fuels Without Cutting Trees

This alternative was eliminated because it would not

meet the fuel reduction objective in this area. In order

to sufficiently open up the forest canopy and create fuel

breaks that meet the project objective, a moderate to

high intensity prescribed fire would be required. However, because of the continuous multi-storied dense,

stands, steep slopes, and proximity to residential areas

and reservoirs, this type of prescribed fire cannot be

safely implemented without first reducing tree densities

in strategic areas.

Use Goats or Other Animals

to Reduce the Fuel Load

This alternative was eliminated from further study

because goats, sheep and cattle eat herbaceous, not

woody, vegetation. The primary fuel hazard threatening

this Watershed consists almost entirely of coniferous

trees and some accumulations of down logs, which

goats, sheep, and cattle do not eat.

Ask the Secretary of Agriculture to Eliminate

the Closure Order and Allow Public Access

into the Watershed

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study at

this time because: allowing public use would increase

the potential for accidental or deliberate fire ignitions,

especially when slash piles are drying out; public recreational use would interfere with conducting the thinning

and burning activities and pose a public safety hazard;

and recreational activities in the Watershed would

likely be concentrated in the riparian area and could

adversely impact the riparian and water qualities.

Currently the Forest Service and City agencies allow

public entry on scheduled and guided educational tours

during periods of low fire risk.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

In addition to the alternatives considered then dropped

from further study, six action alternatives and two no

action alternatives were analyzed in detail in the DEIS.

Each action alternative was designed to meet the project

objectives and respond to one or more of the issues.

Mitigation and monitoring requirements were also designed to respond to the issues. Each alternative includes

the same features described in the Proposed Project

Section, except where differences are noted in this

section.
Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS 7

Alternatives

Alternative A: No Action

(With Wildfire and Without Wildfire)

There are two no action alternatives evaluated in the

DEIS. The first is the no action alternative that assumes no change from current conditions or ongoing

maintenance activities. The second no action alternative assumes that a large-scale, high-intensity crown

fire would occur in the Watershed, at approximately

the same size as the Viveash Fire that occurred near

the Watershed in the summer of 2000. This No Action

with Wildfire scenario seems the most probable no

action alternative based on an analysis of existing

conditions and computer simulations. These alternatives provide two different baselines for comparing the

effects of action alternatives.

Limited Manual Thin/Burn Slash/Broadcast

Burn (See Figure 2)

This alternative limits manual thinning to slopes less

than 40 percent and within a half-mile of the access

road, in order to minimize risk of injury to workers that

can occur from working with chain saws on steep

slopes far from the road, and to minimize the labor time

needed to complete the project. This limits manual

thinning to only 36 percent of the project area. Lowintensity broadcast burns would be used to reduce

some surface and small ladder fuels on the remaining

64 percent of the project area. However, the lowintensity broadcast burns would only moderately meet

the objective of breaking up the fuel continuity because

low-intensity burns typically do not burn trees over

about 4 to 6-inch diameter.

Alternative B2: Limited Manual

Thin/Burn Slash/No Broadcast Burn

(See Figure 3)

Same as B1 except eliminates broadcast burning to

address issues regarding escape fire and smoke. It

only treats 36 percent of the project area and leaves the

rest of the area vulnerable to severe crown fires.

Alternative C1: Manual Thin/Burn Slash/

Broadcast Burn (See Figure 4)

Like Alternative B1 it treats the entire project area by

including broadcast burning on the steepest slopes,

but this alternative involves manually thinning 70

percent of the project area, which is the estimated

maximum operable acreage in the area. Manual thinning would occur on steeper slopes and further away

from the road compared to Alternative B1. The remaining 30 percent on inoperable slopes would be broadcast

burned. This alternative is designed to use the most

effective fuel reduction method (thinning) on all feasible acreage in the project area.

Alternative C2: Manual Thin/Burn Slash/No

Broadcast Burn (See Figure 5)

Same as C1 except eliminates broadcast burning to

address issues regarding escape fire and smoke. Not

as effective as C1 or D1, as it leaves large scattered

patches totalling 30 percent of the project area untreated and subject to crown fire.

Alternative D1: Machine Thin/Burn Slash/

Broadcast Burn (See Figure 4)

Same as C1, including being the most effective in

meeting fuel reduction objectives, but uses fellerbuncher machines with long, flexible “arms” to cut and

pile the trees. This is designed to reduce the risk of

injury to workers and reduce the time it takes to

complete the fuel reduction treatments. The trackmounted feller-buncher machines can operate in deep

snow and maneuver easily around trees. They do not

create skid trails or drag logs, and exert only 7 lbs/in2

of ground pressure. On gentler slopes, the machines

lay the cut trees in front of the machine and drive over

the piled trees in order to minimize ground disturbance. On steeper slopes, cut trees would be laid in

piles on each side of the machine, perpendicular to the

slope. The piles would be burned when the small

diameter tops and branches are dry but the trunks are

too moist to burn. This is similar to the slash pile

burning, however there is no need to cut up and pile the

slash, which also improves safety and efficiency.

Alternative D2: Machine Thin/Burn Slash/No

Broadcast Burn (See Figure 5)

Same as D1 except eliminates broadcast burning to

address concerns about escape fire and smoke.
8 Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS

Alternatives

Additional Options That May be

Applied To Any Alternative

Option A for the 560 Roadside

Acres: No Wood Removal

No wood products or slash would be removed from the

560 acres of roadside areas (other than those treated by

the City). This eliminates potential impacts to residential neighborhoods from trucks hauling wood, while

enhancing soil stability, nutrient cycling, and vegetative productivity. These roadside acres would be treated

the same as the areas away from the road.

Option B for 100 Acres in the Canyon

Bottom: Thin the Larger Conifers

Trees up to 24-inch diameter would be thinned within

10 or 11 patches of dense conifers that occur along the

canyon bottom where site productivity is higher. Together these patches total approximately 100 acres.

Three to five of the largest conifer trees per acre would

remain, as well as the larger down logs. In these

patches, the trees are larger than the trees of the same

age on the upper slopes because of the more favorable

growing conditions. This option improves the effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments in reducing the risk of

severe crown fires near the water supply, and better

meets the second objective of promoting herbaceous

ground cover. Without this option, the canopy cover

would continue to exceed 40 percent, and objectives

would not be met on these sites. However, many people

expressed concerns about cutting high numbers of

large diameter trees, especially close to the riparian

zone.

Table 1. Treatment Type and Acres Summary

Alternatives

A B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres

Thinning & slash disposal along roads, with wood 0 560 560 560 560 560 560

product removal.

Thinning and slash burning away from roads, leaving 0 2,010 1,730 4,520 4,340 4,520 3,450

tree trunks on-site. Possible inclusion in broadcast

burn units.

Broadcast burning only, in untreated stands, after 0 4,700 0 2,190 0 2,190 0

surrounding stands have been treated.

Total Treatment Acres 0 7,270 2,290 7,270 4,900 7,270 4,900

Summary of Treatment Acres by Alternative
Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS 9

Alternatives

Figure 2. Map of Alternative B1.
10 Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS

Alternatives

Figure 3. Map of Alternative B2.
Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS 11

Alternatives

Figure 4. Map of Alternatives C1/D1.
12 Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS

Alternatives

Figure 5. Map of Alternatives C2/D2.
Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS 13

Mitigation and Monitoring

The mitigation and monitoring measures summarized

in this section are common to all action alternatives

unless otherwise noted. Monitoring measures are

marked with an asterisk (*).

Prescribed Burning and Fire

Behavior

• Keep the size of slash piles generally less than 6

to 8-feet wide by 5 to 6-feet high.

• Burn slash piles during times of cool temperatures, high humidity and high fuel moisture

around the piles.

• Avoid having tightly compacted piles to increase

ventilation, combustion and fuel consumption.

During burning, tend the piles to assure that

larger pieces of fuel are consumed.

• Consider covering the piles with plastic when

they are built, to keep the piles dry for later

burning.

• Develop detailed broadcast burn plans and conduct burning in accordance with those plans.

Use burn methods proven safe and effective, and

run a fire behavior computer model to validate

that they will minimize risk of fire escape. Design

burn units to reduce the risk of escape, based on

size of unit, accessibility, topography, fuel type,

fuel load, weather, time of year, and other factors.

• Ensure the perimeter of the broadcast burn unit

is surrounded by existing openings such as reservoirs, streams, roads, or trails, or treated areas

where fuels have been reduced. Build firelines

(clear surface fuel) where needed around burn

units.

• Locate fuel breaks where they will be most effective in controlling the burns, such as along ridges,

drainages or other topographic breaks, taking

into consideration fuel type and fuel loading in

the area.

• * Prior to ignition and during the burn, monitor

the current and 3 to 10-day weather forecasts,

plus daily spot weather forecasts, for trends in

temperature, relative humidity, wind, frontal

passages, and other factors.

• Do not broadcast burn when the Forest’s 5-day

energy release component (ERC) is above 65. ERC

indicates fuel dryness and how hot a fire will

burn. All large wildfires on the forest have occurred when the ERC has been above 68.

• Do not broadcast burn when live fuel moistures

are below 100 percent, and do not broadcast burn

complex units when the Palmer Drought Index

(PDI) shows a moderate or higher drought level.

• Conduct a test burn before burning larger areas

to verify fire behavior is within prescription.

• Prior to burning, complete the required “go/no

go” checklist, risk assessments and daily review

checklists in the burn plans.

• Prior to ignition, ensure that contingency fire

suppression resources are adequate and available to respond to unforeseen occurrences. Do

not burn when the Southwest’s preparedness

level is at III or higher (suppression resources

may not be available). Consider using lay down

fire hose around complex burn units, and having

a helicopter or air tanker with water dropping

capability on standby.

• Ensure that fire personnel implementing broadcast burns have the appropriate qualifications for

a complex-rated burn. Locate burn implementation personnel in safe and strategic areas for

monitoring and containing the broadcast burn.

• Exclude certain areas from the broadcast burn

units where because of stand density or topography there would be an unacceptable risk of high

intensity fire behavior and escaped fire.

• Design broadcast burning units of a size seldom,

if ever, exceeding 800 acres.

• * Patrol the area throughout the burning until the

burn has been declared out. Have an aerial

observer for complex burns. If a fire should

spread outside the burn unit, cease ignitions

until the spot fire is controlled.

• After the flames from the broadcast burn have

subsided, mop-up (extinguish) any hazardous

heat concentrations near the fire line.

• * During the broadcast burn, monitor and record

the observed fire behavior, and compare it with

predicted fire behavior in the burn plan. Evaluate results to modify future burns.

• * Monitor the reduction in live fuel loads, including changes in canopy structure and ladder fuels,

and compare with project objectives.

Mitigation and Monitoring
14 Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS

Mitigation and Monitoring

Wildfire Prevention & Agency

Coordination

• Continue to participate in fire prevention and

public education outreach activities with other

agencies, working with private landowners in creating defensible space and implementing FIREWISE

concepts. Maintain an active role in the Sangre de

Cristo Interagency Fire Protection Association and

the Santa Fe Wildfire Cooperators.

• Use an interagency approach for fire prevention

patrolling in and around the Watershed during fire

season. Make personal contacts with area residents regarding fire prevention, reporting

suspicious activity or reporting wildfires.

• If a wildfire occurs, follow the Santa Fe Watershed

Fire Operations Plan. Continue to review and

refine this plan with all responsible agencies to

ensure communication, coordination and advance

planning for fire emergencies.

Forest Vegetation

• * Monitor down green logs in May or June to

determine whether or not they are attracting Ips

beetles. If so, adjust the timing of the thinning to

occur after July 1 each year.

Worker Safety

• Complete a job hazard analysis and hold daily

safety meetings during burn operations to reduce

accidents.

Soil, Water and Aquatic Habitat

• Minimize the size and number of wood piles along

the road to minimize the amount of soil disturbance. Load the wood onto haul trucks as soon as

possible after the wood is moved to the road.

• Directionally drop the cut trees on the contour of

steep slopes as soil erosion barriers.

• * Before prescribed burning, monitor soil moisture

levels. Soil moisture levels should be at least 11

percent in order to maintain long-term soil productivity and improve the chance for vegetative

response after burning.

• * Monitor the change in soil erosion to ensure it is

within acceptable limits. If soil erosion exceeds

standards, take corrective action and modify treatments.

• * After two full growing seasons following a thinning and burning treatment, measure the amount

of vegetative ground cover. Apply native grass

seeds or plantings where determined necessary by

the forest soil scientist to revegetate specific soil

areas for erosion and sediment control such as

where ground vegetation is less than 10 to 20

percent coverage. A realistic goal for the granitic

soils in this area is to achieve 30 to 50 percent

ground cover.

• Monitor changes in soils under burned slash

piles. Where necessary, rake and seed areas

under burned piles to promote vegetative response.

• Do not exceed low to moderate fire intensity (e.g.

flame height of 1-4 feet) during broadcast burning

to help maintain soil productivity, minimize erosion, and prevent detrimental amounts of ash,

sediment, nutrients, and debris from entering

water bodies.

• Prohibit vehicle use of roads or trails in the Watershed during periods of wet weather unless the

roads have a stable surface and sufficient drainage to prevent undesirable erosion or sediment

runoff impacts.

• If fire suppression becomes necessary, do not

allow any fire retardant drops within 400 feet of

surface water (e.g. Santa Fe River or reservoirs) to

minimize risk of contaminating the water supply.

• * Monitor water quality in key locations to aid in

identifying and correcting any problems and ensure that standards continue to be met.

• * Monitor changes in peak flows, stream morphology, fine sediment in the streambed and turbidity

resulting from project implementation.

Riparian Ecosystems and Wetlands

• * Monitor changes in the number of active beaver

dams to ensure that treatments are not adversely

affecting the existing beaver population.

• Do not pile slash within 15 feet of the Santa Fe

River riparian area to reduce the chance of ash

entering the water following slash burning.

• Avoid piling slash in or adjacent to patches of

young cottonwoods in the riparian corridors to

protect them from mortality during burning.
Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS 15

Mitigation and Monitoring

• Manage riparian areas in accordance with legal

requirements regarding floodplains and wetlands;

protect the productivity and diversity of ripariandependent species, emphasizing protection of

soil, water, vegetation, wildlife, and fish resources.

Manage in accordance with Forest Plan guidelines regarding ground cover, shade, bank cover,

streambed sedimentation, plant composition,

plant structure and crown cover.

• Do not conduct thinning activities within the

riparian area or within 15 feet of the riparian

area.

• Locate log landing areas outside sensitive areas

including riparian areas, wetlands and wet meadows, and special status species habitat. Once

landings are no longer needed, rip and revegetate

landing sites as needed to recover site productivity.

• Directionally drop the cut trees away from all

stream channels.

• Retain all willow, alder, and cottonwood trees in

riparian areas. This is consistent with features

common to all alternatives.

Terrestrial Habitat

and Associated Wildlife

• If any proposed, threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant or animal species are discovered

during project implementation, stop work in the

immediate vicinity of the species until a Forest

Service wildlife biologist or plant ecologist has

investigated and recommended the appropriate

protective measures. If a northern goshawk nest

is found, stop work within 30 acres of the nest site

and do not conduct broadcast burning during

May or June within the nest area.

• Apply standards and guidelines for potential

northern goshawk habitat, as detailed in the

Forest Plan, including the following features common to the design of all action alternatives: retain

large snags and down logs wherever possible;

retain old age trees and the mature/old forest

structure; sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities, age classes and species composition across

the landscape; increase herbaceous vegetation to

provide for goshawk prey species and to maintain

satisfactory soil conditions; use R3 protocol to

survey for goshawks (surveys were completed; no

goshawks found); have variable canopy coverage

(averaging about 40 percent) with openings up to

4 acres each while retaining at least two small

groups of trees per acre, each with minimum 12-

inch diameter.

• Avoid cutting trees containing a squirrel nest or

having large piles of cones at the base of the tree,

as well as any adjacent tree with a crown interlocking the nest tree and a diameter equal to or

greater than the nest tree.

• Retain at least 15 percent of the mature and older

mast-producing stands in pinon-juniper and oak

zones (Forest Plan).

• Within one-quarter mile of the Santa Fe River,

retain (do not burn) two slash piles per acre so

they may be used as potential nest cover for wild

turkey.

• Retain all sound snags, except within fuel breaks

and 100 to 300 feet from fuel breaks if the snag

may pose a hazard during broadcast burning.

Retain at least 220 snags or potential snags per

100 acres where consistent with fuel management objectives. Particular attention will be given

to retaining trees with dead or broken tops, heart

rot, and lightning scars, in order to maintain and

promote habitat for cavity nesting or roosting

species (Forest Plan).

• Retain at least five large down logs per acre where

consistent with fuel loading objectives. The desired goal is to have logs at least 11-inch diameter

and 15 feet long, in various stages of decomposition (Forest Plan).

• When cutting trees over 12-inch diameter, leave

two or three of the stumps per acre at a height of

12 inches above the ground, to serve as plucking

posts for raptors, and feeding and lookout stations for small rodents.

• Wherever possible without sacrificing fuel reduction objectives, retain two thickets of small trees

per acre for cover and foraging areas for

flammulated owls and neotropical migratory birds.

• Expand aspen stands where possible by reducing

the amount of shading and competition from

conifers, and using prescribed burns to stimulate

sprouting of aspen (Forest Plan).

• Retain oaks (Quercus gameli) and shrubs, such

as wild rose (Rosa spp.), mountain mahogany,

(Cercocarpus montanus), Rocky mountain maple

(Acer glabrum), currants (Ribes spp.), and raspberry (Rubus spp.).
16 Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS

Mitigation and Monitoring

• * Monitor the effects of treatment on wildlife

habitat, recording changes in: overstory tree composition, structure and density and retention of

snags over 12-inch diameter and hardwoods over

10-inch diameter.

• * Monitor for changes in populations of breeding

birds and small mammals.

• * Monitor for increases in invasive plants where

soil is disturbed by management activities. Take

corrective actions as indicated by monitoring

results.

Air Quality

• Avoid broadcast burning on days when mixing

heights are less than 1,641 feet and transport

winds are less than 4 miles per hour to improve

smoke dispersal.

• Plan activities so that air quality will meet applicable Federal, state and local regulations,

including protection of Class I air sheds such as

the Pecos Wilderness.

• Minimize the amount of soil in piles and windrows to reduce smoldering.

• Prior to ignition, conduct a test burn to evaluate

smoke behavior.

• During broadcast burns, conduct visual monitoring of the smoke plume behavior and visibility

conditions along all major roads in the area of the

burn.

• If smoke becomes a serious problem, stop ignition or initiate fire suppression to reduce the

generation of smoke.

• Notify the local agencies and the public in advance of the broadcast burns through radio, TV,

newspapers, and personal contacts.

• Obtain a burn permit for each burn from the New

Mexico Environment Department, as outlined in

the New Mexico Smoke Management Memorandum of Understanding.

• * Monitor and record particulate matter levels

from smoke along Upper Canyon Road. If particulate matter reaches 80 percent of the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards, take corrective

measures to reduce smoke and notify the New

Mexico Environment Department Air Quality

Bureau.

• If smoke starts to settle and limit motorist visibility along Hyde Park Road, Canyon Road, U.S.

Highway 84/285, or other major travel ways, take

immediate measures to alert motorists of the

danger, contact the appropriate state or local

traffic control agencies, and close roads where

necessary to avoid traffic accidents.

• Continue to provide educational materials on the

benefits and tradeoffs of prescribed burning, including signs at recreation sites along Hyde Park

Road. Include educational information on correctly storing and burning firewood to minimize

smoke in firewood permits.

Social Environment

The following measures apply if the selected alternative

includes hauling wood products out of the Watershed.

• Use the largest trucks possible within size and

weight limits of roads and safety standards in

order to minimize the number of truck trips through

residential areas.

• Ask City officials to ensure that speed limits along

the haul route are enforced during haul periods.

Stipulate in the contract that multiple citations

may result in contract termination.

• Ask City officials to place a speed monitoring

device at an appropriate location along Upper

Canyon Road to increase awareness, visibility,

and enforcement of safe driving speeds.

• Notify property owners and residents along the

haul route about scheduled haul periods, using

the media, mailings or other means of notification.

• Restrict hauling on Upper Canyon Road to avoid

weekends, holidays and peak weekday rush hours

to minimize the risk of traffic accidents, traffic

delays, or other impacts along that very narrow

residential street.

• Post warning signs about truck traffic where appropriate to reduce residential traffic impacts

during haul periods.

• * Monitor traffic citations issued to haul truck

contractors, reported accidents, frequent, lengthy

traffic delays, or other traffic related impacts from

this project. Take corrective action if indicated,

and consider using a convoy of several trucks at

one time, pilot vehicles, warning lights, flag persons, or other methods.
Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS 17

Mitigation and Monitoring

• * Monitor reported damage to the road or houses

purported to be the result of vibration from haul

truck traffic.

Heritage Resources

• Survey for and mark heritage resource sites

according to specifications provided in FSM

2309.24 and FSH 2361.28, and avoid all marked

heritage resource sites when conducting ground

disturbing activities. Directionally drop the cut

trees away from marked heritage resource sites,

and do not build slash piles in or near heritage

resource site boundaries.

• If avoidance is not possible or mitigations prove

unsuccessful, then data recovery may be conducted.

• Avoid burning perishable remains on heritage

resource sites, and protect heritage resources

having exposed burnable materials, through one

or more of the following methods (determined by

a Forest Service archaeologist): digging or burning firelines around the site, clearing fuels away

from the site, foaming and/or covering wooden

structures with a fire shelter, or other activities to

ensure fire does not burn within the perimeter of

sites with perishable or flammable remains. Exclude burning entirely from sites if protective

measures cannot be effectively applied.

• If undocumented heritage resource sites are discovered during project activities, or if known sites

are damaged during operations, stop all work in

the immediate vicinity of the site and do not

restart until authorized by a Forest Service archaeologist.

• If Native American tribes or other traditional

communities express concerns about traditional

use areas that may be affected by management

activities, determine appropriate mitigations

through consultation with the affected tribe or

community.

• * Monitor to determine if any heritage resource

sites were damaged during operations. If any site

has been damaged, a Forest Service archaeologist will determine the appropriate corrective

actions to take to minimize the risk in the future.
18 Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS

Environmental Consequences

This section briefly summarizes the most notable consequences or effects from the DEIS for the: No Action

Alternative Without Wildfire; No Action Alternative With

Wildfire; and all action alternatives. The descriptions of

effects focus on the project objectives and issues previously described.

Effects of Alternative A:

No Action Without Wildfire

With this alternative there would be no change from the

existing conditions. For example, stand density and

fuel loads would continue to increase, thereby increasing the risk of a severe crown fire. Water yield would be

expected to also continue its gradual decline as more

trees intercept more snow and use more water than

recycles back to the river.

Wildlife species richness would remain low compared to

a forest with more diversity in size classes of trees and

spatial array of different-aged stands, and there would

be a continued decline in the abundance of understory

vegetation and aspen stands. Flow regulation below

McClure Dam would continue to limit floodplain width

and growth of riparian vegetation. Downstream from

McClure Reservoir, the density of conifers on abandoned floodplain sites would continue to increase and

shade out the diverse herbaceous and riparian communities.

The additional haul truck traffic on Upper Canyon Road

and changes in the forest within the Watershed would

be limited to those that result from the City’s thinning

contract on approximately 300 acres along the road.

Effects of Alternative A:

No Action With Wildfire

Under worst conditions, a fire could grow to 11,000

acres within 5 hours. Fire models show that during

summer drought conditions, a wildfire would quickly

spread to at least 46,000 acres within the first 2 days

and before there is a chance of containment, possibly

threatening lives and property. The worst case simulation predicts the fire would grow to 100,000 acres before

it could be contained.

The analysis predicts that heavy accumulations of

sediment, ash and woody debris would flow into the

Santa Fe River, reservoirs and riparian areas. Reservoir

capacity would be reduced by a minimum of 50 percent.

Soil nutrients such as nitrate and phosphorous would

be more readily leached, and would be transported into

the surface water system where they would adversely

affect water quality. The transport of organic material

mixed with sediments would result in anaerobic decomposition of the logs, litter and other woody debris,

further impairing water quality. Increased suspended

sediments and ash, dissolved solids, and nutrient loading would seriously impact the City water supply and

filtration system. Water quality would not meet state

and Federal standards for at least a few years, and ash

residues would create an undesirable taste in the

drinking water that cannot be filtered out and can last

for a long time.

Peak flows exceeding about 3,000 cfs are predicted, and

floods would probably inundate the entire 100-year

floodplain along the Santa Fe River. Based on FEMA

flood zone delineation, the 100-year flood flow would

include all low-lying residential areas and the entire

commercial district of the City within about a quarter

mile of the Santa Fe River. The 500-year flood, which

would have a 5 to 20 percent probability of occurrence

after wildfire, would extend into most of the area south

of San Francisco Street in downtown Santa Fe. Flood

predictions for the Santa Fe River would be expected to

be similar for the Rio Tesuque and the upper Pecos River

corridors, if the wildfire spreads with the prevailing

winds to the north or east from the Watershed

The effects on fisheries may range from minor losses of

individual fish to elimination of entire populations, due

to alteration of the hydrologic regime, huge increases in

sediment, and elevation of water temperatures from

loss of shade cover. Density and diversity of aquatic

insects may be reduced substantially and aquatic habitat may remain unsuitable for several years. A severe

crown fire in the headwaters of the Santa Fe River near

Santa Fe Lake could eliminate the population of Rio

Grande cutthroat trout.

There would likely be an increase in invasive, nonnative species, particularly Siberian elm, on the burned

soils. On the other hand, cottonwoods, willows and

aspen seedlings would probably increase. Nesting birds

would be adversely affected by a typical spring/summer

crown fire, as there would be a loss of nest trees, eggs,

and nestlings. Migratory birds and mammals are

usually capable of avoiding fire, and a wildfire is not

likely to substantially affect population viability. Bird

populations would decline temporarily, then recover or

increase within 4 years after fire. Major mudflows of

sediment and debris, along with flood events, would

adversely impact beaver dams, although the beaver

population should be able to recover in the long term.

Mortality of relatively immobile species, such as amphibians, reptiles and small mammals would be

anticipated, especially during the breeding or nesting

season. There would be destruction of the larger trees

Environmental Consequences
Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS 19

Environmental Consequences

throughout the area and mature forest in the upper

Watershed that provide habitat to many special status

species of songbirds, bats, northern goshawks and

other hawks, including the loss of potential spotted owl

habitat. Populations of shrews, voles and rabbits would

be expected to decline while populations of elk, deer

mice and pocket gophers would probably increase.

The amount of smoke would be much greater than that

produced from a prescribed burn and would likely

exceed Federal air quality standards. Daily particulate

loads from a wildfire would be 4 to 6 times more than

those for prescribed burning, and smoke effects would

be predicted to last for approximately 10 to 14 days.

This would create a high potential for adverse health

effects. People with asthma, bronchitis, or angina

would be advised to leave the area, and people with

compromised respiratory systems may begin to have

trouble breathing. Firefighters would be at risk of

experiencing adverse affects from CO emissions. Visibility could be less than one-quarter mile along portions

of Upper Canyon Road, Hyde Park Road, or U.S.

Highway 84/285, resulting in a high risk of traffic

accidents, highway closures, or other impacts to motorists. Visibility could also be substantially impaired

in portions of the Pecos Wilderness, along the Hyde

Park Road Scenic Byway, and from scenic viewpoints

on Aspen Vista or Tesuque Peak trails.

The quality of life for surrounding neighborhoods and

the community of Santa Fe would be adversely impacted, due to the likelihood of evacuations and potential

for the wildfire to burn homes and properties, as well

as increased traffic and noise associated with suppression activities, including helicopters and planes.

All heritage resources, including traditional use areas

and traditional cultural properties within and around

the Watershed could be damaged or destroyed by the

fire, and by fire suppression activities and mass soil

movement after the fire. The City’s most popular recreation areas would also be impacted, as the wildfire

would likely burn into Hyde Park Road and Big and

Little Tesuque Creek drainages due to prevailing winds.

This could damage or destroy recreation sites in those

areas, result in site closures, and reduce the aesthetic

values and desirability of these recreation sites.

Effects of the Action Alternatives

The alternatives that treat the most acreage to reduce

fuels, and use thinning followed by slash treatment as

the primary method of fuel reduction, are predicted to

be the most effective in reducing wildfire intensity,

spread and severity of impacts. Studies have shown

that thinned areas of only several hundred acres were

not large enough to be effective at reducing fire severity. Alternatives that include broadcast burning along

with extensive mechanical thinning and slash treatment would be more effective than those that exclude

broadcast burning or leave large untreated patches of

dense forest. Therefore, Alternatives C1 and D1 are

(equally) the most effective in meeting the project

objectives, followed by Alternatives C2 and D2. Alternative B2 is the least effective.

Alternative B1 has the highest risk of a prescribed burn

getting out of control due to the large acreage of

broadcast burning without first thinning those acres.

Alternatives C1 and D1 include smaller patches of

broadcast burning, however the risk of a crown fire

resulting from Alternatives C1 or D1 is predicted to be

very low due to the design of the low-intensity burns

and the special mitigation measures. The slash burning is also expected to have a low risk of escape fire due

to the specific conditions under which the burning

would be conducted along with the many mitigation

requirements.

Minor, short-term increases in localized erosion, water

runoff and sediment yield would be expected with all

action alternatives, and would diminish as herbaceous

ground vegetation increases within created openings

in the forest canopy. In some areas, the burning of

slash piles could cause the soil under the piles to

inhibit water infiltration and lose soil nutrients. This

would not affect a significant percent of the treated

acreage. Overall, there would be no adverse impacts to

soil properties, long-term productivity, or water quality. The low-severity broadcast burning with

Alternatives B1, C1, and D1 would improve growth of

herbaceous vegetation and increase nutrient release.

The expected increase in grasses, forbs and shrubs in

the project area would enhance long-term soil productivity. Under Option B, production of herbaceous

vegetation along the canyon bottom would be substantially greater than under the alternatives without this

option. This would help to filter sediments and ash

that could runoff from the adjacent slopes, and would

help stabilize the soil near the streambanks.

There would be no measurable adverse affects from

any of the alternatives on the aquatic, riparian or

terrestrial wildlife populations or habitat quality. Treatments avoid riparian and wetland habitats altogether.

Noise disturbance during operations would result in

avoidance of the area by some species, and very minor,

short-term disturbance effects.
20 Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS

Environmental Consequences

Such temporary disturbance would not likely result in

any measurable effects on beaver populations, nesting

birds or other populations. For Alternatives B1, C1 and

D1, broadcast burns would result in beneficial reduction of surface fuels and litter, and increased production

of herbaceous forage vegetation, patchiness, plant diversity, and nutritional content and digestibility of

plants. The increase in herbaceous vegetation should

result in an increase in the abundance of rodents and

other small mammals, which are prey species for raptors and other wildlife. For all alternatives, thinning

would create a more diverse forest structure. Numerous

species would benefit from the increase in down logs,

including mice, shrews, voles, and weasels. The treatments would result in a shift toward a more mature

ponderosa pine forest, which would beneficially affect

many terrestrial wildlife species and potentially increase wildlife species richness. The resulting increase

in aspen would improve overall habitat diversity. Alternatives B1 and B2 would leave a more continuous

closed canopy cover on the middle and upper slopes,

limiting the amount of understory vegetation and subsequent abundance of prey species for hawks, owls and

other raptors. Under Option B, cutting the larger

conifer trees and leaving only 3 to 5 trees per acre would

reduce the amount of large standing tree habitat available for species that require this component. However,

it is expected that many of the larger cut trees would be

left on the ground, which would increase the number of

large down logs. Thinning conifer trees within the

canyon bottom near the river could reduce shading and

improve the vigor of riparian vegetation including potential flycatcher habitat.

When burning slash (all alternatives) or broadcast

burning (Alternatives B1, C1, and D1), most of the

smoke from daytime burning would dissipate to the

northeast over the Pecos Wilderness. Smoke could be

noticeable perhaps in Cowles, Mora, and northeast of

Mora. Should there be unexpected wind shifts, wisps of

residual smoke could travel into drainages in Tesuque,

Pojoaque, Santa Cruz, Chimayo or Cundiyo. While it is

possible for smoke from prescribed burning to travel as

far as Las Vegas or Taos, burning under good smoke

dispersion conditions would minimize the potential.

Based on experience conducting an average of 12,000

acres of prescribed burning per year on the Santa Fe

National Forest, surrounding communities are not likely

to experience prolonged periods of heavy smoke, or to

exceed air quality standards. In the evenings as the air

cools, residual smoke from burning would probably

settle into the Santa Fe River canyon bottom and move

toward lower elevations. It would flow into Upper

Canyon Road and portions of the east side of Santa Fe.

These effects would be short-lived and relatively minor.

The smell of smoke may be a bit of a nuisance for some

people. Because the slash pile burning activities would

be conducted in the fall or winter when temperatures

are cooler, there would be an increased potential for the

smoke to linger during early morning weather inversions, until after about 10 a.m. Residual smoke in

Santa Fe could affect the most smoke sensitive people

by causing eye, throat, and nose irritations and coughing. The general population would probably not be

affected. Smoke from prescribed burning may be a

hazard to ground crews at the site. Effects on workers

may include eye irritation, coughing, and shortness of

breath in moderate to heavy smoke concentrations.

All alternatives except Option A include hauling out the

wood generated from 560 acres of roadside thinning.

Residents along Upper Canyon Road and other residential neighborhoods along the haul route could experience

an average of approximately 40 to 50 trucks passing

their homes each day during the hauling periods. Two

to 11 trucks per day would be necessary if just the wood

products were removed and the slash was burned. This

increase in truck traffic along Upper Canyon Road

would impact leisure activities such as walking, bicycling and jogging on this route. This disruption would

occur approximately 9 months a year during the first 3

years of treatment activities. Option A avoids these

impacts.

Related impacts from these haul trucks may include

vibration damage to old historic homes, and a minor

increase in noise levels for people outdoors within

approximately 500 feet of the haul route. Residents

outdoors within approximately two-thirds of a mile of

thinning units would be able to occasionally hear chain

saws or machinery; however, most residences are over

a mile away from the majority of the acreage to be

thinned.

Alternatives C1 and C2 involve manual labor with chain

saws on slopes over 40 percent and far away from roads,

which increases labor time and the likelihood of injury

to forest workers. The hazards involved in working on

steep slopes would be reduced under Alternatives D1

and D2 due to using a machine to cut the trees and place

them in piles. Alternatives D1 and D2 also increase

operational efficiency and reduce the time it would take

to complete the project.

Economics was not an issue for this project due to the

critical need to reduce the risk of a high severity fire in

the Watershed, and the extremely high cost if such a fire

occurred. The action alternatives would cost $2 to 4

million, spread out over the life of the project, and the

cost of a high severity crown fire in the Watershed would

easily exceed $150 million. All treatment alternatives

would create jobs. Alternatives C1 and C2 create the

most jobs. Alternatives D1 and D2 provide fewer jobs
Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS 21

Environmental Consequences

and most of the jobs would be done by out-of-state

workers because there are currently no forestry businesses in New Mexico that have feller-buncher

machines.

The community would benefit from the free firewood

that would be distributed to low-income families, and

the firewood, latillas, vigas, fence posts that would be

sold locally by thinning contractors. Under Option A,

no wood would be removed from the Watershed and

these community benefits would not be realized.

For all action alternatives, there is the potential to

impact heritage resource sites, however, the required

surveys, site marking, site avoidance and other mitigations should minimize the risk of damage to known

heritage resource sites, and the potential is low for

heritage resource sites to occur on the majority of the

steep slopes in the area.

The alternatives would not affect recreation use or

scenery in the project area, because it is closed to

recreational and other public use, and cannot be seen

from roads or trails outside the area. There may be

minimal effects to users of the adjacent trails and

campgrounds from the relatively distant sounds of

chain saws or feller-buncher equipment. The major

benefit from any action alternative, but mostly from

Alternatives C1 and D1 (most effective treatments),

would be the potential to reduce the likelihood of a

severe crown fire entering the adjacent Big and Little

Tesuque watersheds and the Hyde Park Road recreation corridor.

There were no other notable environmental or social

consequences, or any significant cumulative effects

predicted.
22 Summary of the Santa Fe Municipal Watershed DEIS

Purpose and Need