United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region 

MB-R3-10-6 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the 

Settlement Act Land Transfers: 

Pueblo de San Ildefonso, 

Pueblo of Santa Clara, and 

Los Alamos County 

Santa Fe National Forest, 

Los Alamos, Rio Arriba and 

Santa Fe Counties, 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, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY). To file a compliant of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Printed on recycled paper – December 2007
Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Settlement Land 

Transfers: Pueblo de San Ildefonso, 

Pueblo of Santa Clara, and Los 

Alamos County 

Santa Fe National Forest 

Los Alamos, Rio Arriba and Santa Fe Counties, New Mexico

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Santa Fe National Forest 

Responsible Official: Daniel J. Jiron 

Forest Supervisor 

Santa Fe National Forest 

1474 Rodeo Road 

P.O. Box 1689 

Santa Fe, NM 87504-1689 

For further information, contact: Sandy Hurlocker 

Española Ranger District 

P.O. Box 3307 

Española, NM 87533 

(505) 753-7331 

Abstract: This draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) discloses the effects of a project that 

fulfills a portion of the San Ildefonso Land Claims Act of 2005. The act resolves title claims 

asserted against the United States by the Pueblo de San Ildefonso under the proceedings of the 

Indian Claims Act (Docket No. 354). The portion of the act implemented by this project would 

transfer designated National Forest System lands to the Pueblo de San Ildefonso, the Pueblo of 

Santa Clara, and Los Alamos County. Before these transfers can occur, access to adjacent national 

forests must be assured by reconstruction of Forest Road 416v. Because the legislation requires 

the proposed action, it was the only action alternative considered in detail. A no action alternative 

would be inconsistent with the legislation and so was only considered in order to compare the 

effects of the proposed action against a baseline. The proposed action, with mitigation, is the 

preferred alternative. 

Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the 

draft environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond 

to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final 

environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the decisionmaking process. 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers i
Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy 

Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the Agency to the reviewers’ position and 

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). 

Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not 

raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. 

Hodel (9th Circuit, l986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. 

Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be specific and should 

address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 

1503.3). 

Send Comments to: Sanford Hurlocker 

District Ranger 

Española Ranger District 

P.O. Box 3307 

Española, NM 87533 

(505) 753-7331 

Date Comments Must Be Received: Comments must be received within 45 days of 

publication of the notice of availability (NOA) in 

the Federal Register. Only the Federal Register 

publication date should be used to determine the 

close of the comment period. 

ii DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
Summary 

Proposed Action 

The project would convey approximately 8,785 acres 1 of National Forest System lands to the 

Pueblo de San Ildefonso (7,120 acres), the Pueblo of Santa Clara (750 acres), and Los Alamos 

County (915 acres). The proposed action would also reconstruct Forest Road (FR) 416v to a highclearance, level 2 standard2

. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would acquire legal 

access on the Puye, Sawyer Canyon Roads and Tract B of the Townsite Lands. The USDA would 

grant legal access on the Northern Tier Lands to Department of Energy, private landowners, and 

the Pueblo de San Ildefonso. In order to avoid predicted effects of the transfer, the proposed 

action includes an area closure, heritage resource site monitoring, and other measures. 

Purpose 

The purpose of this project is to implement certain portions of the Pueblo de San Ildefonso 

Claims Settlement Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-286), which was signed into law on September 

27, 2006. The purpose of the act is to resolve title claims asserted against the United States by the 

Pueblo de San Ildefonso under the proceedings of the Indian Claims Act (Docket No 354). The 

act requires conveyance of the specific lands and so only one action alternative meets the purpose 

of the act. 

Major Conclusions 

The transfer of lands will have no impact to most resources in the project area because 

management activities will not change from those currently occurring. Two exceptions have been 

noted: recreation and heritage resources. Recreation use will shift away from the lands to be 

conveyed to the pueblos because of likely public access restrictions. Heritage resources have the 

potential to be adversely affected on the lands transferred to the county because Federal 

procedures for protection will no longer be applicable. Before conveyance, specific strategies will 

be developed in consultation with appropriate parties to assure protection or data recovery for 

affected sites. Other measures will reduce impacts to soils and heritage resources located along 

Forest Road 416v, where reconstruction would occur. 

 

1

 Area estimates (acres) of the parcels used for this analysis start with approximate boundaries established 

in the Settlement Agreements. Then the boundaries were drawn in a Geographic Information System 

(GIS). Final area determinations will be made before final transfers can occur. 

2

 According to FSH 7709.58.10.12.3, road maintenance level 2 is “[a]ssigned to roads open for use by 

high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually 

consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation or other specialized 

uses.” 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers iii
Summary 

Preferred Alternative 

As the responsible official, the forest supervisor for the Santa Fe National Forest has limited 

discretion within the act because conveyance or offering for conveyance of those designated lands 

is mandated. Reconstruction of Forest Road 416v is also mandated as an action that must be 

completed before the land conveyance can occur. The proposed action, including mitigation, 

fulfills the act and so is the preferred alternative.

iv DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
Contents

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action .................................................................................1

Document Structure ...................................................................................................................1

Introduction and Setting.............................................................................................................1

Background/Purpose and Need for Action.................................................................................1

Location .....................................................................................................................................3

Proposed Action.........................................................................................................................3

Decision Framework..................................................................................................................5

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation .............................................................................5

Issues..........................................................................................................................................5

Relation to Forest Plan...............................................................................................................7

Permits Required/Other Agency Approvals...............................................................................9

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action...........................................................11

Introduction..............................................................................................................................11

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail...............................................................11

Alternatives Considered in Detail............................................................................................12

Mitigation Measures and Monitoring ......................................................................................12

Comparison of Alternatives .....................................................................................................19

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences....................................21

Considerations for Cumulative Effects Analysis.....................................................................22

Land Tenure and Special Use Permits .....................................................................................22

Recreation Resources...............................................................................................................26

Heritage Resources ..................................................................................................................30

Water and Soils........................................................................................................................36

Wildlife Resources...................................................................................................................40

Other Resources: Scenic Resources, Air Quality, Noise, Social-Economic, Safety ..............48

Environmental Justice..............................................................................................................49

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity..........................................................................49

Unavoidable Adverse Effects...................................................................................................49

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ......................................................50

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination................................................................................51

List of Preparers.......................................................................................................................51

Consultation with Others .........................................................................................................52

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the DEIS Were Sent.........56

References Cited ...........................................................................................................................59

Index ..............................................................................................................................................61

List of Tables 

Table 1. Santa Fe National Forest management areas.............................................................. 7

Table 2. Comparison of alternative effects ............................................................................ 19

Table 3. Recreational activities in the project area ................................................................ 26

Table 4. Threatened and endangered species......................................................................... 40

Table 5. Sensitive Species...................................................................................................... 44

Table 6. Migratory Birds that may occur in or near the project area. .................................... 45

Table 7. Management indicator species designative in the Santa Fe NF ............................... 47

Table 8. Evaluation summary of MIS .................................................................................... 47

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers v
Contents 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the project area................................................................................. 2

Figure 2. Location of specific areas for conveyance................................................................ 6

Figure 3. Settlement lands, Northern Tier lands, and Water System lands............................ 14

Figure 4. Townsite lands, east (Tract A, B)............................................................................ 15

Figure 5. Townsite lands, west (Tract C, D, E, F).................................................................. 16

Figure 6. Area closed to motorized off-road use.................................................................... 17

Figure 7. Santa Fe National Forest management areas.......................................................... 18

Figure 8. Vegetation/habitat types in the project area ............................................................ 42

vi DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Document Structure 

The Forest Service has prepared this draft environmental impact statement in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and 

regulations. This draft environmental impact statement discloses the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. 

The document is organized into four chapters: 

• Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on the history 

of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the Agency’s 

proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest 

Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. 

• Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more 

detailed description of the Agency’s proposed action. This discussion also includes 

mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental 

consequences associated with each alternative. 

• Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other 

alternatives. 

• Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and 

agencies consulted during the development of the draft environmental impact statement. 

• Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic. 

Additional documentation, including more detailed description of project area resources, may be 

found in the project planning record located at the Española Ranger District. 

Introduction and Setting 

This draft environmental impact statement describes how the Santa Fe National Forest (forest) 

proposes to fulfill certain portions of the San Ildefonso Land Claims Act. This document was 

prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing 

regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), as well as other environmental laws and regulations, to evaluate 

and disclose the effects of the proposed action. 

The project area is located in north-central New Mexico, in the vicinity of Los Alamos (figure 1). 

Elevations range from approximately 6,000 feet in the east up to 8,000 feet to the west and in the 

area around Los Alamos. The climate is mainly arid/semiarid highland. Precipitation ranges from 

15 to 25 inches per year with higher amounts received at higher elevations. Precipitation comes 

primarily in the form of short duration, high intensity storm events during July and August, along 

with winter snow accumulations at the higher elevations. 

Background/Purpose and Need for Action 

The purpose and need is to carry out those portions of the San Ildefonso Land Claims Act that 

require transfer of National Forest System lands to the Pueblo de San Ildefonso, the Pueblo of 

Santa Clara, and Los Alamos County. On September 27, 2006, the Pueblo de San Ildefonso 

Claims Settlement Act of 2005 was signed into law. The purpose of the act is to resolve title 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 1
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the project area 

2 DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

claims asserted against the United States by the Pueblo de San Ildefonso under the proceedings of 

the Indian Claims Act (Docket No. 354). 

Among other things, the act: (1) authorizes the Pueblo de San Ildefonso to acquire and requires 

the Forest Service to convey National Forest System lands as identified in the San Ildefonso 

Settlement Agreement (Settlement Area Lands); (2) authorizes the Pueblo of Santa Clara to 

acquire and requires the Forest Service to convey lands out of the National Forest System in order 

to comply with the San Ildefonso Settlement Agreement (Northern Tier Lands); (3) authorizes the 

County of Los Alamos to acquire and requires the Forest Service to convey lands out of the 

National Forest System in order to comply with the Los Alamos Agreement and San Ildefonso 

Settlement Agreement (Water System Lands and Townsite Lands); (4) ratifies the Los Alamos 

Agreement and San Ildefonso Settlement Agreement; (5) requires the reservation of access on 

certain roads; and (6) requires the Forest Service to reconstruct Forest Road (FR) 416v to a highclearance, level 2 standard. 

Location 

The analysis area lies in the vicinity of Los Alamos, New Mexico (figures 1 and 2): 

• Settlement Area lands are located in: Township 20 north, Range 7 east, sections 19, 20, 

21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33; and Township 19 north, Range 7 east, sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; 

New Mexico Principal Meridian. 

• Water System lands are located in Township 20 north, Range 7 east, section 31; Township 

19 north, Range 7 east, sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; Township 19 north, Range 6 east, section 

1; New Mexico Principal Meridian. 

• Northern Tier lands are located in Township 20 north, Range 7 east, sections 17, 18, 19, 

20, 21; New Mexico Principal Meridian. 

• Los Alamos Townsite lands are located in Township 19 north, Range 5 east, section 13; 

Township 19 north, Range 6 east, sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 17, 18; New Mexico Principal 

Meridian. 

Proposed Action 

This project implements the following portions of the Pueblo de San Ildefonso Claims Settlement 

Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-286) 3

: 

• Convey about 7,120 acres (figures 2 and 3, Settlement lands) of National Forest System 

lands to the Pueblo de San Ildefonso in consideration for a monetary value set in the 

Settlement (Section 2 (a)(9), and 2 (b)(3)); 

• Convey about 748 acres (figures 2 and 3, Northern Tier lands) to the Pueblo of Santa 

Clara in consideration for monetary value set in Section 12c of the act (Section 2 (a)(5), 

and Section 12); 

 

3

 Area estimates (acres) of the parcels used for this analysis start with approximate boundaries established 

in the Settlement Agreements. Then the boundaries were drawn in a Geographic Information System 

(GIS). Final area determinations will be made before final transfers can occur. 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 3 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

• Convey about 549 acres to Los Alamos County (figures 2 and 3, Water System lands) as 

Water System lands in consideration for monetary value set in the Settlement (Section 2 

(a)(12) and 2(b)(3)); 

• Offer for purchase six parcels of National Forest System lands to Los Alamos County 

near the community (figures 2, 4 and 5 totaling about 365 acres) in exchange for an 

appraised monetary value (Section 2 (a)(4), and 2(b)(3)), and convey those lands if the 

offer is accepted; 

• Reconstruct Forest Road 416v (figure 1) to a high-clearance, level 2 standard4

 (Section 

7(e)(2)); and 

• The USDA to acquire legal access on the Puye, Sawyer Canyon Roads and Tract B of the 

Townsite lands. USDA would grant legal access on the Northern Tier lands to DOE, 

private landowners and Pueblo de San Ildefonso. 

The act provides that the Settlement Area land and the Northern Tier lands shall be held by the 

Secretary of the Interior in trust for the benefit of each pueblo (Section 8(b) and 9). Lands 

acquired by Los Alamos County as Water System lands become Pueblo de San Ildefonso tribal 

lands if no longer needed for Los Alamos County’s water facilities (Section 9(b) and the Los 

Alamos Agreement (page 5) defined in Section 2(a)(3) of the act. Most of the Los Alamos 

Townsite lands are currently used for Los Alamos County water facilities, including Los Alamos 

Reservoir and dam, as well as water tanks. The use of the Townsite lands will continue to be for 

these water system facilities (Mortillaro 2007). Similarly for all other parcels, land use is not 

expected to change in the foreseeable future. The act also requires reservation of a number of road 

easements to assure public access to lands that would otherwise be inaccessible to motorized 

vehicles once the conveyance takes place. For most of these reservations, existing roads provide 

adequate access, and so only an administrative action is expected. However, as part of the Los 

Alamos Agreement, road reconstruction must be completed to improve public access to the 

National Forest System lands adjoining the Settlement Area lands prior to conveyance. 

The act allows for reconstruction of FR 416v to a high clearance, maintenance level 2 road to 

provide this access. 

Except for the restrictions and reservations identified above, pertaining to the Water System lands 

and access/road easements, the Secretary of Agriculture does not propose to place any restrictions 

on future use of the Townsite lands, Settlement Area lands, Water System lands, or Northern Tier 

lands. 

Although these proposed actions have been mandated by the act, the Santa Fe National Forest has 

conducted a National Environmental Policy Act environmental analysis to disclose the impacts of 

these actions, and to fully describe any discretionary actions that may also be included as part of 

the land conveys called for in the act. 

Other actions authorized in the law that may or will be undertaken by the Department of the 

Interior, the Pueblo de San Ildefonso, the Pueblo of Santa Clara, or Los Alamos County are not 

 

4

 According to FSH 7709.58.10.12.3, road maintenance level 2 is “[a]ssigned to roads open for use by 

high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually 

consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation or other specialized 

uses.”

4 DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

within the scope of this proposal because they will be accomplished separately under the 

respective government entity’s authority and decisionmaking process. 

Decision Framework 

The forest supervisor for the Santa Fe National Forest is the responsible official for the decision, 

although the discretion of the decision is limited by the act. Conveyance or offering for sale of 

those designated lands is mandated. Reconstruction of FR 416v is also mandated as an action that 

must be completed before the land conveyance can occur. The decision will, therefore, 

incorporate mitigation measures as appropriate. 

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation 

The public involvement for this analysis began with the publication of a Notice of Intent to 

prepare an environmental impact statement in June 2007. Scoping included contacting interested 

and potentially affected individuals, groups and agencies by mail and public announcements. 

Most comments raised a concern with continued access to the lands that lie to the west of the 

lands to be conveyed to the Pueblo de San Ildefonso and Pueblo of Santa Clara. Comments noted 

the importance of keeping these lands open to the public. 

Concerns regarding the lands near Los Alamos were expressed by one commenter who asked that 

the analysis consider these parcels separately, with the expectation that these lands would 

eventually be developed beyond water system use. This commenter asked that alternatives be 

developed for these lands. Other comments ranged from support of the idea of conveyance to 

disagreement with the purpose of the act and the conveyance. 

Tribal consultation has been ongoing. The Pueblo de San Ildefonso meets with the Forest Service, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, and other agencies monthly. Other tribal governments in the area were 

contacted as part of the tribal consultation. An offer to meet was made to other tribal governments 

in the vicinity, but to date, no meetings have been held specific to this project. 

Issues 

Los Alamos County has indicated that they would continue to use the Water System lands and the 

Townsite lands for water system facilities, with potential for re-establishing recreational use at the 

reservoir (Tract F) eventually but not within the immediate future. Tract B adjacent to a cemetery 

may be used for an expansion of that use. 

The tribes have demonstrated their land management intentions on existing tribal lands, which 

reflects low intensity management with minimal development. Restricted public access is an 

established practice of both pueblo governments. 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 5 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

Figure 2. Location of specific areas for conveyance 

6 DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

Therefore, because the conveyance of these lands would not substantially change the expected 

use of the conveyed lands, no significant issues have been identified. Nevertheless, three areas of 

concern have been identified, even though they have not driven the need for alternatives: 

• Reconstruction of FR 416v has the potential to affect known heritage resource sites 

located within the existing roadway. Because the sites and road occupy land between a 

canyon wall and steep ground, options to avoid these sites are limited. An evaluation of 

these sites has been completed and with mitigation measures in place (page 12), no 

adverse effect is predicted to occur. However, sites located on the lands mandated to be 

conveyed to Los Alamos County have potential to be adversely affected (page 32) and so 

additional protection/data recovery strategies are proposed (page 13). 

• Two wildlife species are of concern in the project area. Tract F lies partially in an area set 

aside for the Mexican spotted owl recovery as a protected activity center (PAC). Analysis 

shows that change in ownership would not likely affect Mexican spotted owl because the 

PAC is unoccupied and the habitat after the Cerro Grande Fire is no longer conducive for 

owls or the prey base (page 43). Through informal consultation, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service concurs with this conclusion. For a second species—the Jemez 

Mountain salamander—habitat exists in this same parcel (Townsite Tract F), but the 

conveyance is not expected to impact the species (see “Wildlife” section in chapter 3, 

page 40). 

• Because the lands conveyed to the pueblos would be restricted to public access, a change 

in recreational use patterns is likely (see the “Recreation” section in chapter 3, page 26). 

Relation to Forest Plan 

The lands fall within the following forest plan management areas (figure 7, page 18): 

Table 1. Santa Fe National Forest management areas 

Land Conveyance Parcel MA C MA N MA Q Total* 

Settlement lands 0 1,876 5,266 7,142 

Water System lands 549 549 

Northern Tier lands 0 0 748 748 

Los Alamos Townsite lands 307 58 365 

Total in project 307 1,934 6,563 8,804 

Total MA acres forest-wide 89,847 19,275 18,439 

Percent conveyed 0.34% 10.03% 35.59% 

* Area estimates for the parcels have been adjusted between those shown in the legislation and those 

in the Geographic Information System (GIS) used for the analysis. For consistency of analysis, the 

GIS acre figures are used. 

Management Area C 

This management area provides transportation corridors and areas of essential habitat for 

threatened and endangered species. These lands also offer outstanding opportunities for 

developed recreation and viewing scenery. Across the forest, many of the existing developed 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 7 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

recreation sites and much of the fishing recreation use occurs here. In the area affected by this 

project, however, no perennial water or developed recreation sites exist. 

This area may be found throughout the forest in a variety of ecosystems and contains about 6 

percent of the forest’s suitable timber. Across the forest, this management area contains many of 

the forest’s large rivers and associated riparian ecosystems (Forest Plan, page 105). No large 

rivers and very little riparian area exists in the portion of this management area affected by this 

conveyance. Los Alamos Reservoir (Tract F) contains most of the riparian area associated with 

the conveyed lands in the management area. 

Emphasis of this management area is on enhancement of visual quality and developed recreation 

opportunities while protecting essential wildlife habitat and riparian zones. Grazing and timber 

activities occur where consistent with the primary emphasis of this area. 

The Forest Plan as amended indicates that forest wide, this management area totals 89,847 acres. 

Management Area N 

This management area contains essential habitat for threatened and endangered species. These 

lands occur throughout the forest in a variety of habitat types. For the most part, these are small 

areas of land isolated from high development areas and are predominantly in a natural condition. 

The emphasis for this management area is management that protects and enhances essential 

wildlife habitat. This land area does not include lands in the suitable timber base. However, 

certain timber management activities as well as grazing, firewood, and fire management may 

occur when consistent with the protection emphasis of this area. 

The Forest Plan as amended indicates that forest wide, this management area totals 19,275 acres. 

Management Area Q 

This management area consists of those forest lands that provide a broad range of recreation 

opportunities and visual quality. These lands contain a rich resource of historic and prehistoric 

habitation sites. Across the forest, these lands provide scenic backdrops from highways or 

communities and contain important dispersed recreation areas. In the area affected by the 

conveyance, visibility from highways is minimal, but the area does provide dispersed camping 

and other day use, both motorized and non-motorized. 

Heritage resource site location, inventory, nomination, and protection in these areas are 

emphasized. Emphasis is also on providing dispersed recreation opportunities, while maintaining 

visual quality, timber and firewood production. Grazing activities vary in intensity over this area. 

Emphasis is on maintenance or enhancement of wildlife habitat diversity. 

Vegetation is mainly pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer and forest wide it 

contains about 2 percent of the forest’s suitable timber. This management area occurs only in the 

Jemez Mountain portion of the forest. 

The Forest Plan as amended indicates that forest wide, this management area totals 18,439 acres. 

8 DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

Permits Required/Other Agency Approvals 

Although the act directs that lands conveyed to the pueblos be conveyed into trust without any 

further analysis (§9(a)), before the pueblos can place these lands in trust with the Federal 

government, a Phase 1 hazardous materials environmental assessment must be completed. 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 9 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the 

Proposed Action 

Introduction 

This chapter contains the following sections: 

• Description of alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail. 

• Alternatives considered in detail. 

• Mitigation and monitoring requirements to avoid or minimize adverse effects. 

• Permits and authorizations required prior to implementing this project. 

• Comparison of alternatives that provides a basis for choice among alternatives. 

Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail 

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). 

For this project, one approach was considered that would segment the decision into separate 

conveyance alternatives, so that the Settlement lands, Northern Tier lands, Water System lands 

and Townsite lands would be considered in different alternatives. These alternatives were not 

analyzed in detail because the act ties these land conveyances together by making the occurrence 

of one dependent on the occurrence of the others. Thus, any alternative that implements one 

transfer without the others would not meet the purpose of the project or the act. To meet the 

purpose of the act and the purpose of this project, Settlement lands, Water System lands, and 

Northern Tier lands must be conveyed, and the Townsite lands must be offered for conveyance. 

The second alternative considered but not analyzed in detail was to place restrictions on the use of 

the lands to be transferred to the county to limit use to water system purposes and ensure there 

was no future resale or development of the land for other purposes. The Los Alamos Agreement 

was ratified by the act which states that the lands would be transferred subject to the terms and 

conditions agreed upon in the agreement. The agreement makes no provision for additional 

restrictions or reservations on future use of these lands other than those specified in the agreement 

and act. Imposing such a restriction or reservation would be inconsistent with the act and the 

agreement and would, therefore, not meet the purpose and need. For example, for the Water 

System lands, such an alternative is inconsistent with the act and Los Alamos Agreement which 

specify the Water System lands will be transferred without restriction except for access by the 

U.S. and a contingent remainder triggered when the water system use is abandoned. A restriction 

on the Water System lands limiting the use to the water system would also be unnecessarily 

duplicative because once a water system use is abandoned, the Water System lands would, by 

operation of the contingent remainder, revert to the Pueblo de San Ildefonso. 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 11 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Alternatives Considered in Detail 

Two alternatives are evaluated in this DEIS: the no action alternative, and the proposed 

action/preferred alternative. 

Alternative 1—No Action 

Under the no action alternative, Federal lands administered by the Forest Service would not be 

conveyed. The lands would remain in Federal ownership and continue to be used for currently 

authorized purposes, including valid multiple uses consistent with the Forest Plan. This 

alternative was only considered in detail to provide a baseline from which to measure the impacts 

of the proposed action, to better inform the public, and decision maker. This alternative is not 

legally available because the land transfers are required by the act. This alternative also does not 

meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. 

Alternative 2—The Proposed Action 

The proposed action would convey ownership of the National Forest System lands to the Pueblo 

de San Ildefonso, the Pueblo of Santa Clara, and Los Alamos County. 

Specifically, the proposed action would: 

• Convey the Settlement Area lands to the Pueblo de San Ildefonso. 

• Convey the Water System lands to Los Alamos County. 

• Convey the Northern Tier lands to the Pueblo of Santa Clara. 

• Offer for conveyance and convey the six parcels of the Los Alamos Townsite lands to 

Los Alamos County. 

• Reconstruct FR 416v to a high clearance, maintenance level 2 road, following the 

existing route as much as practical. Reconstruction will require grading, dips and/or 

culvert placement (about two culverts), and possibly relocation of short segments (up to 

about 300 feet). Vegetation would be cut back (“day lighting”) to improve site distance. 

• The USDA would acquire legal access on the Puye, Sawyer Canyon Roads and Tract B 

of the Townsite lands. USDA would also grant legal access on the Northern Tier lands to 

the Department of Energy, private landowners and San Ildefonso Pueblo. 

Mitigation Measures and Monitoring 

Analysis of the effects of the proposed action identified the following mitigation measures. 

Heritage Resource Mitigation 

• In consultation with the tribes and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), 

impacts of reconstruction of FR 416v have been evaluated and the following mitigation 

actions are included to avoid adverse impacts to the five sites in the reconstruction area: 

An archeological monitor will be present during all road reconstruction work. This 

monitor will assure restrictions are applied to protect known sites from disturbance. 

12 DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Depending on the specific heritage resource site, these restrictions include keeping 

road work in the existing roadbed, and lifting the blade where the certain sites lie in 

the road itself. 

Any sites discovered during the reconstruction would be subject to evaluation before 

disturbance could be continued. 

• For lands conveyed to Los Alamos County, evaluation of sites will occur (page 35). If 

sites are found to be eligible and protection cannot be assured, strategies would be 

developed specific to individual archeological sites after appropriate consultation with 

various entities (e.g., the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the State Historic 

Preservation Officer, and tribes) in order to comply with NHPA. 

Soil/Water Mitigation 

• To minimize the potential for off-road vehicle use and impacts from increased use of 

Forest Road 416v, the area adjacent to Forest Roads 416v and 446h would be closed to 

motorized travel (figure 6). 

• To minimize effects of reconstructing Forest Road 416v: 

Conduct road maintenance, road realignment and culvert installation during dry 

periods to reduce sediment. 

Seed all disturbed areas following these activities to re-establish soil stabilizing 

ground vegetation to reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation. 

Place slash generated from site-distance clearing of Road 416v below drainage 

features (drainage dips and waterbars) and natural swales to reduce sediment 

movement. 

Heavy equipment will be pressure washed prior to being brought to the project area 

to prevent the introduction of invasive, nonnative invasive species (i.e. noxious 

weeds).

DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 13 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Figure 3. Settlement lands, Northern Tier lands, and Water System lands 

14 DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Figure 4. Townsite lands, east (Tract A, B) 

DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 15 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Figure 5. Townsite lands, west (Tract C, D, E, F) 

16 DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Figure 6. Area closed to motorized off-road use 

DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 17 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Figure 7. Santa Fe National Forest management areas 

18 DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Comparison of Alternatives 

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in 

the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be 

distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. 

Table 2. Comparison of alternative effects 

Resource/Issue No Action Proposed Action 

Land Tenure/Use No change would occur to 

land management. The 

current permitted uses 

(water system) would 

continue. The act limits 

new authorizations to those 

that do not substantially 

reduce market value 

(Section 10(1) and (3)). 

With land transfer to Los Alamos County, the 

permits would no longer be needed. Other longterm permitted uses (such as the PNM gas line 

permit) would continue over easements called for 

in the act. 

Recreation Recreation would continue 

in the project area as 

currently allowed. Travel 

management planning 

would designate roads and 

trails in the area as part of a 

system by 2010. A separate 

process is currently 

underway for this effort. 

Recreation use of the lands conveyed to the 

pueblos is expected to decrease as the tribes restrict 

public access. Current OHV use of the old pumice 

mine is expected to shift to other lands nearby, but 

a closure to motorized off-road use would 

minimize impacts to heritage resources and soils. 

The recreation experience would change from 

cross-country use to a more controlled, on-road 

use. Except for the closure, access to the area west 

of the conveyed lands would remain open, so no 

loss of recreation opportunities would occur. No 

change would occur in the lands conveyed to Los 

Alamos County because of trail easements 

maintaining the current trail system. 

Heritage Resources Heritage resources would 

remain under Forest 

Service management and 

subject to Federal guidance 

pursuant to the National 

Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) and other Federal 

laws. 

Lands conveyed into tribal trust would continue to 

be managed under the requirements of NHPA so 

no effects to heritage resources are predicted. 

Heritage resources, including currently 

undiscovered sites, located on the conveyed lands 

to Los Alamos County would pass from Federal 

management and protection, but because the 

county has indicated no change in use, no effects 

are predicted in the short term. Nevertheless, 

because Federal protection will no longer apply to 

these sites, evaluations and actions such as data 

recovery if appropriate must occur before 

conveyance to assure compliance with the NHPA. 

Reconstruction of FR 416v is not anticipated to 

result in any unavoidable adverse effect to heritage 

resources. 

Geologic The existing pumice mine has been closed. In either alternative, reclamation 

would be completed. 

DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 19 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Resource/Issue No Action Proposed Action 

Soil and Water Soils damaged by the Cerro Grande Fire would continue to recover. Streams 

would likewise continue to recover from the effects of the fire with either 

alternative. No changes would occur to wetlands/flood plains as a result of this 

transfer. No prime farmland exists in the area. 

Wildlife Management would continue 

under the Santa Fe Forest 

Plan guidance for managing 

MIS and other species. Any 

action in the project area that 

may affect a plant or animal 

species listed as threatened or 

endangered must continue to 

comply with Section 7(a)(2) 

of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) and NEPA. 

Because the use of these lands would not change 

after the transfer, no direct effects to any species 

of wildlife are expected. Indirectly, the 7,800 

acres conveyed to the two pueblos would see a 

reduction in general public use and so would 

improve habitat effectiveness by reducing the 

disturbance to species such as elk. Transferring 

lands out of the National Forest System to tribal 

trust would change specific guidance (the Forest 

Plan would no longer control the management); 

however, tribal interest in this land and 

accountability for following Federal 

environmental laws is similar so no change 

would occur. Lands conveyed to Los Alamos 

County are subject to ESA, if appropriate. 

However, consultation with the USFWS was 

completed with the finding that the title transfer 

may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect 

any federally threatened or endangered species. 

Social-Economic Potential for the lands in the transfer to contribute to economic development in a 

noticeable way is low regardless of ownership. Some grazing has occurred in the 

past. The land being conveyed to the pueblos is not a specific destination for 

outfitter/guides, nor does it contribute other commercial activity (no timber or 

grazing for instance). No outfitter/guide or other commercial activity is currently 

permitted specifically for the Townsite lands either. Any future use would be 

allowed as policy provided. Access through conveyed lands would be protected by 

easements reserved as required by the act. 

Public Health and 

Safety 

Public health and safety would not change in either alternative. Lands conveyed to 

the tribal trust would no longer be open to the general public, but continued 

cooperation between the Forest Service, the tribal governments and BIA would 

provide for emergencies, such as fire fighting capacity. Actions that have potential 

to affect public health would be subject to the same laws regardless of ownership 

(e.g. Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act). 

Indian Trust With the no action alternative, Indian Trust assets are primarily lands adjacent to 

the proposed transfers. With land transfer, the acres of land in trust would increase 

for the respective pueblos. 

Environmental 

Justice 

No environmental justice issues have been identified for the no action alternative 

or proposed action. The effects of the proposed transfer would not be 

disproportionately focused on minority or low-income populations. A net benefit 

to tribal members is expected. 

20 DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences 

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the 

project area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents 

the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented previously (page 

19). 

The affected environment sections summarize the relevant information about the physical, 

biological, social, and economic environments that have potential to be affected by the land 

transfer and road reconstruction. The affected environment lays the foundation for potential 

environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no action alternative. The affected 

environment sections in this chapter provide succinct descriptions of affected resources 

commensurate with the relevance to and importance of the issues or impacts, in accordance with 

direction provided in NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR §1502.15. The extent of the 

affected environment may not be the same for all potentially affected environmental components. 

This chapter also describes the environmental consequences (direct, indirect, and cumulative) of 

the transfer, road reconstruction, and mitigation measures. Based on information provided, the 

lands proposed for transfer to the Pueblo de San Ildefonso and Pueblo of Santa Clara will remain 

undeveloped, and the lands proposed for transfer to Los Alamos County will continue as water 

system lands and areas of undeveloped, non-motorized recreation uses (Mortillaro 2007). Since 

the uses of those lands will remain essentially the same into the foreseeable future, detailed 

descriptions of some resources, such as air quality and scenic resources will not be presented in 

detail, nor will these resources be analyzed because there will be no effects from the proposed 

transfers. 

Specialists’ reports contained in the project record provide additional and more broad based 

information. The intent of this DEIS is to provide sufficient detail concerning environmental 

parameters (such as recreation use) that may be affected by the proposed action to disclose the 

environmental effects of the land conveyance and road reconstruction. 

This DEIS also describes environmentally sensitive resources that may be affected by the 

proposed action. These include the Mexican spotted owl (page 43), and properties of historic, 

archeological, or architectural significance (page 32). 

This DEIS relies to a large extent on existing information and knowledge of the project area. 

Given the act’s timeframe for transfer and the specificity regarding actions necessary to meet the 

act’s intention, recreation information used in the analysis was primarily subjective, based on 

knowledge of agency, pueblo and county personnel. Recreation surveys regarding the kinds and 

patterns of recreation use of those lands were not conducted so detailed understanding is limited 

but does not hinder analysis of recreation effects. 

Heritage resource surveys were also not conducted on the areas to be conveyed to Indian Trust 

protection. The lands will remain under the umbrella of Federal heritage resource laws, thus 

afforded the same level of protection as current conditions provide. Although heritage resources 

information regarding these lands is incomplete, the lack of complete information will not result 

in significant environmental impacts that are unaccounted for or unknown. This is because the 

ability to predict the probable effects of the proposed transfers to heritage resources will not be 

lessened by the lack of complete information. There is ample knowledge of the heritage resources 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 21 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

in the area derived from existing (past) surveys in portions of the areas, the effects of similar 

Agency actions, and the Agency's analysis of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or 

research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. 

This missing information has been weighed using criteria set out in 40 CFR 1502.22(b). Although 

information regarding recreation use and heritage resources is incomplete, the potential is very 

low that as a result of the land transfer or road reconstruction, reasonably foreseeable significant 

adverse impacts on the human environment would occur. This evaluation of reasonably 

foreseeable significant adverse impacts is based on the analysis for other resources that shows 

low potential for impacts because land use would be much the same whether the transfer occurs 

or not. Based on the analysis presented in this chapter, there is no plausible scenario that would 

foresee catastrophic consequences to any resources as a result of the land transfer and road 

reconstruction. Therefore, the additional information is unnecessary.5

Considerations for Cumulative Effects Analysis 

To analyze the potential cumulative effects of the proposed action, the ID team considered other 

similar projects in the vicinity and how they might add or subtract from the effects of the 

proposed action. 

The only similar land transfer in the area is the proposed transfer of Department of Energy lands 

to Los Alamos County in the Rendija Canyon area. Less recently, in 2000, the United States 

purchased the Baca Ranch for public use. This land is now managed as the Valles Caldera 

National Preserve. Both of these actions have potential to increase recreation opportunities in the 

region. 

Forest access for recreation and other uses would be affected by the current travel management 

effort being conducted by the Santa Fe National Forest. 

Land Tenure and Special Use Permits 

Summary: There would be no adverse effects to land tenure and use. Permits that allow use of 

the county water system on National Forest System lands would be unnecessary after the transfer 

occurs, leading to some efficiency in management. Other uses such as a closed pumice mine 

would not be affected. A permit to PNM for a gas line crossing in Townsite Parcel E would be 

protected under the act by creating an appropriate right-of-way for continued use. Other 

authorizations for land use in remaining National Forest System lands (outfitter/guides, for 

example) would continue as appropriate. 

Water System: Los Alamos County 

The following water facilities occupy National Forest System lands in the project area (see 

figures 3, 4 and 5; pages 14, 15 and 16 respectively): 

 

5

 Because the legislation directs the land conveyance, the effects analysis serves mainly to disclose effects. 

22 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Townsite Tracts 

• Tract A - Guaje Booster Station No. 3, Guaje Booster Tank No. 1 (60,000 gal.), Guaje 

Booster Tank No. 2 (1,000,000 gal.), 1,200 ft. of 16-inch transmission pipeline, 1,200 feet 

of electric line, plus access road. 

• Tract B - Future expansion of Guaje Pines Cemetery and secondary access road to 

Ponderosa Estates wastewater lift station. 

• Tract C - Group 12 Tank (500,000 gal.), Arizona Water Tank (7,750,000 gal.), 700 feet of 

16-inch water line, plus access road. 

• Tract D - Quemazon Water Tank (750,000 gal.), 500 feet of 12-inch water line, 500 feet 

of 10-inch pump line, plus access road. 

• Tract E - Future installation of water line and gas line from Quemazon subdivision to the 

Western Area. 

• Tract F - Los Alamos Canyon Dam (approximately 2-acre reservoir holding 23 acre-feet 

of water), 7,000 feet of 10-inch pipeline, plus access road. 

Water System Lands 

• Guaje Well Nos. 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, and 5A, Guaje Booster Station No. 1. 

• Guaje Booster No. 1 Tank (150,000 gal.), Guaje Sand Trap, Guaje Booster Station No. 2, 

Guaje Booster No. 2 Tank 1 (60,000 gal.), Guaje Booster No. 2 Tank 2 (100,000 gal.), 

15,000 feet of 10-, 12-, 14-, and 16-inch pipeline, electric lines, plus access road. 

Effects to the Water System 

With the no action alternative, these facilities would continue to occupy National Forest System 

lands. Permits to allow this use would be brought up to current standards. Under the proposed 

action, once conveyance is complete, the permits would be retired. Direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects of the land conveyance would be the same as those predicted under the no 

action alternative. With the county managing the parcels for the water system, some efficiencies 

would be realized. 

Grazing 

There is no authorized grazing in the areas to be conveyed or in adjacent lands. The area is 

currently administered as a closed allotment and, therefore, not obligated. In addition the 

Settlement lands have limited grazing capacity as a result of terrain and lack of reliable water. 

An environmental analysis report completed in 1977 describes the historic livestock grazing use 

within the Pueblo de San Ildefonso Settlement Land Transfer parcel(s) currently under the 

administration of the Santa Fe National Forest. The following are excerpts from this report 

(USDA 1977): 

• The Pine Springs and Guaje Allotments were originally made up of 36,000 acres within 

the counties of Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, and Santa Fe. 

• The majority of this area was included in the Manhattan District when the Atomic Energy 

Commission bought out all the grazing permits and acquired title to the lands in 1942. 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 23 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• These lands were withdrawn, including the National Forest System lands, for defense 

purposes and conveyed back to the National Forest System in 1969. 

• Grazing in these areas has been limited. The Española Ranger District has used the Guaje 

Allotment as an administrative pasture for horses. This allotment makes up the majority 

of the Settlement Area lands. 

• The Pine Springs Allotment was grazed sporadically as a temporary pasture primarily by 

the Sierra Mosca livestock permittees in the mid-1970s. 

• Both parcels remain unobligated to livestock use. 

• Grazing capacity of the Guaje Allotment is limited due to the rough terrain and lack of 

reliable water which classifies the majority of the allotment as unsuitable to livestock use. 

• Grazing capacity of the Pine Springs Allotment is recommended at 90 AUMs or about 30 

head of livestock for 2 months. This allotment would remain under Forest Service 

administration. 

Effects to Grazing 

Under both the no action alternative and the proposed action, grazing would remain unauthorized 

on the allotments remaining in Forest Service administration (e.g. Pine Springs). No plans exist to 

authorize grazing in either allotment. Under the proposed action, the allotments and portions of 

allotments that are within the Settlement Area Lands and the Northern Tier lands may be used for 

grazing following tribal direction, but they would no longer be part of Forest Service grazing 

management. No grazing would occur in the Water System parcel or the Townsite parcels. 

Mining/Minerals/Gas 

According to Forest Service records, pumice has been mined from the tract being conveyed to the 

Pueblo de San Ildefonso since about 1958, with total production estimated to be more than 1.5 

million meters or (2.1 million cubic yards). It was one of three pumice mines in this area in the 

1990s, but all have been closed. 

The nearest “hard-rock” mines are located in the southern Sangre de Cristo Mountains in the 

Nambe District (approximately 40 kilometers (25 miles) east of tract) which produced placer 

gold, and mica and beryllium from pegmatites. 

One oil and gas lease was recorded which included part of the tract. This was lease NMNM 

051553 issued on September 14, 1982 and terminated on October 1, 1987. No record of 

exploration or development associated with this lease was found. 

Effects to Mining/Minerals/Gas 

Under the no action alternative the area would remain subject to mining laws of the United States 

for development. With the proposed action, exploration or development could occur under tribal 

policy, but given the management of adjacent lands, this use is unlikely. 

24 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Copar Pumice Company’s Guaje Canyon Mine 

Copar Pumice Co. (Copar) operated the Guaje Canyon Mine since May 1994, with the main haul 

route being across the adjoining Pueblo de San Ildefonso. The Guaje Canyon Mine produced 

common variety pumice suitable for use in lightweight aggregate products. Overburden was 

stripped from the mine area using dozers and front-end loaders, then the pumice was mined using 

front-end loaders and loaded directly into belly-dump semitrucks. The pumice was hauled from 

the site to the Copar plant in Espanola for use. 

During the term of this contract (May 1994 through March 2002) a total of 338,560 cubic yards 

was removed. 

Following the Cerro Grande Fire in 2000, the access road through Guaje Canyon was closed due 

to erosion. The Forest Service verbally authorized Copar to haul up Rendija Road into Los 

Alamos while the road was being repaired. However, in March 2002, this permission was revoked 

due to conflicts between the truck traffic and the community. Copar was unable to negotiate an 

access agreement with the pueblo, so the mine was closed. 

Prior to leaving the site in 2002, Copar reclaimed most of the disturbed area, leaving only the 

access road and working face unreclaimed. In 2006, Copar completed seeding of the site. Final 

reclamation depends on the success of that seeding, which will be evaluated in the spring of 2008. 

If any further reclamation is required after transfer it would be conducted under the authority of 

the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the act, Section 7(f). 

Effects to Copar Pumice Mine and Reclamation 

Under both the no action alternative and the proposed action, the reclamation would continue 

until the desired vegetation cover is established. Effects of both alternatives are the same. With 

the proposed action, reopening the mine could occur, but given the management of adjacent 

lands, this use is unlikely. 

Reserved Mineral Rights 

When the surface estate for certain lands within this tract was re-conveyed to the Federal 

Government, the mineral rights on those 64.75 hectares (160 acres) were reserved by the owners, 

Thomas G. Cornish (Trustee) and others. The Warranty Deed dated March 2, 1964 between 

Cornish and the United States of America specifies the property is subject to several restrictions 

and reservations. 

Effects to Reserved Mineral Rights 

Under both the no action alternative and the proposed action, these reserved mineral rights would 

be subject to appropriate laws governing their development. Once conveyed under the proposed 

action, access would continue under the act’s provision to maintain existing rights. 

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) 

A gas line crosses Townsite Tract E. This line is currently under permit to PNM. Under either 

alternative this gas line would continue to be used. With the no action alternative, the existing 

permit would be used. Under the proposed action, the act would protect that current use by 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 25 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

requiring an easement be reserved for this continued use once the land is conveyed to Los Alamos 

County. 

Hazardous Materials 

None of the tracts have known hazardous waste sites. Tract B of the Townsite lands contains 

residue from an asphalt plant that operated in the early days of the Los Alamos National Lab’s 

development. Efforts to clean up as recently as the summer of 2007 have been underway. Site 

monitoring continues. Los Alamos National Laboratory proposes to continue work on asphalt 

cleanup on a periodic basis as it becomes exposed through erosion. 

Effects of Hazardous Materials Cleanup 

Under both the no action alternative and the proposed action, continued recovery of asphalt 

would occur as it is exposed. Rather than working with the Forest Service, however, once the land 

is conveyed to the county, Los Alamos National Lab would work with the county on the cleanup. 

Cumulative Effects 

The effects of the transfers to land tenure and special uses are small and so do not add in any 

substantial way to the impacts of other similar activities (e.g. other land transfers). 

Recreation Resources 

Summary: Some dispersed recreation use would be affected by the land transfers to the pueblos 

because both the Pueblo de San Ildefonso and the Pueblo of Santa Clara are likely to restrict 

public access to their lands. Lands conveyed to the county would continue their current uses for 

hiking, mountain biking, and some motorized access. The act assures access to these lands by 

requiring the establishment of trail and road rights-of-way as part of the transfer. 

Recreation resources are described by two distinct geographic areas: 

• The Settlement Area, as well as the Northern Tier lands and the Water System lands 

comprise the eastern portion of the project area. These lands are more isolated and 

receive a different use pattern than the lands closer to Los Alamos (see figure 3, page 14). 

• The Townsite lands, which are Tracts A through F immediately adjacent to Los Alamos 

(see figures 3 and 4, pages 14 and 15 respectively). 

Table 3. Recreational activities in the project area 

Activities Area Comments 

OHV Use Settlement and Northern Tier 

parcels, Water System 

parcels 

Most roads and trails experience OHV use (ATV and 

dirt bike) as well as truck. Uses include driving for 

pleasure, wood cutting, and visiting archeological 

sites. 

Hiking/Trail 

Running 

LA Townsite parcels Very popular. Hiking and trail running occurs 

primarily in the LA Townsite parcels, as well as 

birding. 

26 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Activities Area Comments 

Mountain Biking LA Townsite parcels Very popular. Occurs mostly in the LA Townsite 

locations, but all others as well. 

Hunting Settlement and Northern Tier 

parcels 

Infrequent, but occurs. 

Horseback Riding All areas Not common, but occurs, mostly in San Ildefonso, 

Santa Clara and Water System parcels. 

Dispersed 

Camping 

Settlement and Northern Tier 

parcels 

There are no developed campgrounds in the project 

area. Dispersed camping occurs in both these parcels. 

Settlement, Northern Tier, and Water System Affected Environment 

Detailed data on recreational use of this relatively remote portion of the Española Ranger District 

is limited. Most of the information used in this analysis derives from the experience of Española 

Ranger District recreation program managers. 

Recreational activities mainly consist of motorized use, including 4-wheel driving in SUVs, 

trucks, ATVs and dirt bike riding. There is also some non-motorized use, including mountain 

biking and hiking, and to a lesser degree, horseback riding. There is some dispersed camping and 

hunting. This portion of the district experiences moderate recreation use compared to other areas 

of the district. Recreational use appears to be primarily from locals, with few forest visitors or out 

of area tourists. The exception is non-locals who may be attracted to the area because of the 

wealth of archeological sites. 

There are no campgrounds, picnic areas or other developed recreation facilities within these 

parcels. Roads are rutted and in generally poor repair, with signs often missing. There are more 

than 55 miles of roads in the area, but no system trails. Impacts from motorized use are evident on 

roads that receive heavy use, while other roads are in danger of disappearing due to lack of use 

and post fire effects like snags falling and heavy brush growing in. 

There have been no recent substantial past actions such as trail construction or campground 

development within these parcels. Some road/trail maintenance occurs on a periodic basis.

These areas encompass portions of the Española Ranger District which receive moderate 

recreational use compared to other portions of the district (see table 3). 

The Cerro Grande Fire in 2000 created the need for a general closure for most of this area. 

Lasting until 2004, this closure was in place to provide for public safety and to allow successful 

revegetation of burned areas with damaged/unstable soils. 

Developed Recreation: There are no developed recreation sites in the form of campgrounds, 

picnic grounds, trailheads, or other developed recreation sites or facilities within these parcels. 

Dispersed Recreation: Recreation activities in these parcels are of a dispersed and unregulated 

nature, including riding/driving forest roads and trails, hiking, touring archeological sites, and 

some dispersed camping.

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 27 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Trails and Trailheads: There are no system trails or trailheads in these parcels. 

Recreation Special Use Permits: There are no long-term recreation special use permits 

authorizing use in these parcels. 

Townsite Lands—Affected Environment 

These six small parcels lie along the forest boundary west and north of Los Alamos. These 

parcels contain many important trails, trailheads, and access points from town into the national 

forest. An active outdoor recreation minded community uses these trails to access many parts of 

the forest. Recreation is primarily local in nature, non-motorized, and consists mostly of hiking, 

mountain biking, and trail running, with some equestrian use as well. There is also some 

motorized use, primarily dirt bike riding, and one parcel includes the Cabra Loop Trailhead, 

currently the only trail designated as a motorized trail on the district. 

There have been recent actions such as trail construction of the Perimeter Trail with community 

volunteers. This trail skirts the northern and western sides of town and links up most of the six 

units that comprise the Los Alamos Townsite parcels. 

These areas encompass portions of the Española Ranger District that receive high recreational use 

compared to other portions of the district (see table 3). 

Developed Recreation: Developed recreation improvements consist of trailheads with signs and 

informational kiosks. There are no campgrounds or picnic areas. The day-use area at Los Alamos 

Reservoir was destroyed by the Cerro Grande Fire. Safety concerns with the canyon and the dam 

have left plans for reopening this area for future evaluation. However, it is likely that as safety 

concerns are addressed, the potential to reopen the area increases. 

Dispersed Recreation: Recreation activities in these parcels are of a dispersed and unregulated 

nature, including hiking, mountain biking, trail running, equestrian use, and some dirt bike riding. 

Trails and Trailheads: There are several important trails that have trailheads or junctions within 

these parcels, including the Perimeter Trail 290, Los Alamos Canyon Trail 294, Rendija Trail 297, 

and Mitchell Trail 69. There are 7.5 miles of trails within these parcels that provide important 

opportunities and connections to other Forest Service and Los Alamos Trails. These facilities will 

be reserved to the United States.

Special Use Permits: There are no long-term special use permits in this area. Short-term uses 

include local club events that occur from time to time. 

Currently, there are user created (unauthorized) motorized trails that have been proposed for use 

as part of travel management planning (to be completed by the year 2009/2010). The rights-ofway reserved as part of the proposed action would preserve public use of these existing system 

trails. Whether that use is motorized or non-motorized would be determined by the travel 

management process. The exception is where the Settlement Lands have specific restrictions on 

use, such as Guaje Canyon Road, where the easement will be to public access by non-motorized 

means only. 

28 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Unauthorized trails would no longer be available for inclusion in a travel management system, 

but to date, the travel management process has identified no unauthorized trails that lie in the 

lands to be conveyed. 

No Action Effects 

With the no action alternative, existing impacts caused by OHV use would continue in the 

Settlement area, the Northern Tier and Water System lands. OHV use has caused resource 

damage, in particular to soils, vegetation and heritage resources. With implementation of the 

Travel Management Rule by the year 2009/2010, the level of damage would decrease as the 

motorized public responds to the new management requirements. 

Public education would continue to occur to help OHV users understand the damage they can 

cause and to lessen the impact from that activity. Controls—such as area closures—could be 

implemented as necessary in some areas to prevent further degradation. 

Any impacts from dispersed camping would continue to be short term and minor (e.g. ground 

disturbance). In spite of the lack of developed facilities and relatively frequent motorized 

recreational use, the area has significant recreational potential, including scenic vistas, a wealth of 

heritage and archeological sites to visit, and opportunities for solitude. 

Recreation potential at Los Alamos Reservoir would continue to be evaluated against safety 

concerns, with a likely redevelopment as a day-use area, but such an action is not currently being 

contemplated by the Forest Service in the near future (e.g. next 5 years). 

Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action 

Once transfer takes place, the larger acreages that are being conveyed to the tribes (Settlement, 

Northern Tier) would result in loss of more than 7,800 acres and almost 55 miles of roads no 

longer available for recreation because of the likely public access restrictions on these lands. 

Opportunities for the general public to use these lands would be reduced or eliminated, depending 

on tribal policy. With the conveyance, a reduction of recreational opportunities will occur in an 

area currently used for motorized recreation. One area in particular, the old pumice mine, has 

been a popular OHV area and this analysis assumes it would no longer be available. 

For National Forest System lands west of the lands conveyed to the Pueblo de San Ildefonso, 

access would continue on Forest Road 416 and 416v as specified in the act and settlement 

agreements. Loss of the pumice mine for motorized use is likely to shift ATV use onto other areas 

of the forest that have not seen this use at any detectable level. For example, although evidence 

has been found during site visits that Road 416v is used by ATV and motorcycle travel, there is 

no indication of extensive off-road use. Site review and fire recovery data indicate that soil and 

other resources at the end of Road 416v (near an existing water tank) are less suited for ATV use 

than the old mine site has been. 

With the implementation of a closure order (page 13), potential impacts of such a shift can be 

avoided by restricting off-road use to the existing roads. Thus, this effect to other resources would 

be minimal. It would, however, change the recreation experience for ATV and motorcycle users 

away from open, cross-country travel to more restrictive on-road use. 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 29 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Success of this mitigation depends on enforcing the closure and cooperation of the public. 

Barriers would not be effective in the burned over and open landscape. With implementation of 

the travel management planning effort in 2009/2010, success would be expected to increase as 

enforcement becomes more effective. 

For National Forest System lands west of the Northern Tier lands, public access would continue 

on Forest Road 416, Road 416v, Road 446h, Road 446 and Road 445. There will be no road 

reservations on the Northern Tier lands, except for the Department of Energy (DOE) stream 

gauge. The Pueblo of Santa Clara will provide administrative access on the road system north of 

the Northern Tier lands as part of the legislation. The Forest Service would grant easements to the 

Pueblo de San Ildefonso and private landowners on roads accessing their properties. 

Transfer of the Water System and Los Alamos Townsite parcels would not have any direct or 

indirect environmental effects since there would be no change in management that would affect 

recreational use. The county would grant access to the Forest Service on Tract B of the Townsite 

lands for public use. 

Recreation Cumulative Effects 

Since the proposed action is expected to curtail all recreational use in the larger Settlement and 

Northern Tier parcels, it is likely that other nearby portions of the forest would experience an 

increase, primarily in motorized and OHV use. The Santa Fe National Forest’s travel management 

process would provide a benefit to those lands not suitable for OHV use in the project area by 

reducing impacts from OHV use on them. At the same time, some opportunities would be created 

and experience improved where motorized us occurs as a result of the travel management effort. 

Also as part of the travel management decision, specific closures as well as possible adaptive 

management closures will provide for appropriate motorized use. Additional recreation 

opportunities are expected to be available because of public access to DOE lands transferred to 

the county, as well as additional opportunities at the Valles Caldera National Preserve. 

Since there are expected to be very small direct or indirect effects of a negative nature to 

recreational use of the Water System or Los Alamos Townsite parcels, there are no cumulative 

effects expected in these areas from the proposed action. Los Alamos County’s intent to 

redevelop the day use of Los Alamos Reservoir would eventually create opportunities for 

recreation in this parcel, regardless of ownership. 

Heritage Resources 

Summary: Land transfers to the pueblos would not have an adverse impact to heritage 

resources in the project area. Lands with heritage resources that are conveyed to the pueblos 

would be held in trust by the Federal Government, with continued protection under Federal 

regulations. Lands conveyed to Los Alamos County would be managed for current uses (water 

system and cemetery). Surveys indicate heritage resources occur in some of these parcels and so 

conveyance away from Federal protection has the potential to have an adverse effect on these 

particular sites. Coordination would occur to develop strategies to comply with NHPA before 

conveyance. Strategies developed in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, the State Historic Preservation Officer and other parties could include conservation 

agreements, data recovery or other methods. Reconstruction of Forest Road 416v has also been 

30 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

analyzed. The proposed road work with mitigation measures will not adversely affect heritage 

resources. 

Regulatory Framework for Heritage Resources 

Under the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 1966, as amended; 16 

U.S.C. §470), adverse effects to heritage resources include a variety of criteria affecting the 

potential eligibility of heritage resources for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) (36 CFR §800.9b). Specifically, effects may be deemed adverse according to the 

following (36 CFR §800.5[1]): 

An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, 

any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for 

inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity 

of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a 

historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the 

original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. 

Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may 

occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or be cumulative. Under this regulation, 

adverse effects may be direct, related to a specific project, or indirect, arising at a later time as a 

consequence of a given project. 

Specific examples of adverse effects cited in statute include (36 CFR §800.5[2]i-vii): 

• Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property. 

• Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, 

stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that 

is not consistent with the Secretary’s standards for the treatment of historic properties (36 

CFR, Part 68) and applicable guidelines. 

• Removal of the property from its historic location. 

• Changes of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the 

property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance. 

• Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the 

property’s significant historic features. 

• Neglect of a property that causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and 

deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and heritage significance 

to an Indian tribe. 

• Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate 

and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the 

property’s historic significance. 

In the study area, potential direct impacts to heritage resources may result from transfer of lands 

out of Federal ownership. Other potential indirect impacts, such as changes to the visual quality 

that affects a site’s setting or surroundings, impacts to the heritage landscape, the introduction of 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 31 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

elements out of character with the surroundings, the isolation of a site from its setting, increased 

erosion that exposes or damages a site, and deposition of sediment from offsite erosion. 

Settlement Area Lands Affected Environment 

The Pueblo de San Ildefonso Settlement lands are a complex geologic and heritage landscape. 

This parcel consists of two blocks separated by Rendija Canyon and totaling about 7,142 acres. 

The area is characterized by steep walled, softer rock (tuffaceous) cliffs and flat mesa tops 

dominated by Bandelier Tuff. The Rendija lavas featured on Guaje Mountain are an eastern 

extension of the volcanic field in the Valles Caldera. Talus debris along the cliffs lies adjacent to 

recent undifferentiated terrace and alluvial deposits along modern streams. 

This landscape forms the basis for prehistoric settlement dating between AD 1200 and 1325. 

There are 75 documented heritage resources in the area featuring sites with pueblos composed of 

multiple rooms of stone and adobe with associated midden deposits and dense, surface artifact 

scatters, agriheritage alignments and thermal features. Several of the larger pueblo complexes 

contain subsurface pit structures (kivas) and reservoirs. Smaller structures such as 1-room 

fieldhouses and isolated artifact scatters are also common. Eroded cavate (cave rooms) and 

associated talus slope houses are well represented in the area but given the erosive nature of the 

rock, they are typically fragile and in poor condition. 

Sites dating to the more recent historic period, generally 19th and 20th century, are attributed to 

both Hispanic and Anglo occupation and use. An area known as the “Bean Field” is an example 

of this type of occupation, but structures representative of the area’s Anglo American occupation 

have not survived to the present. For example, the Pine Springs cabin was destroyed by an arson 

fire in the mid-1990s along with a telephone line that ran from Bandelier National Monument to 

Santa Clara Canyon. Cabins near Chupaderos Canyon were burned during the Cerro Grande Fire 

of 2000. 

The prehistoric era resources are considered by the Tewa people of the Pueblo of Santa Clara and 

Pueblo de San Ildefonso as special places in their ancestral landscape. Santa Clara Pueblo tribal 

reservation lands lie north of the Settlement area and San Ildefonso tribal lands lie east of the 

Settlement lands. 

Conversations with tribal members who hunt on adjacent tribal and forest lands consistently 

express concerns about vandalism to the most obvious and noticeable of the sites: the cavate 

(open cave) dwellings. Because they are the most visible and unique resources, they receive more 

unwelcome attention by hikers who frequently damage the fragile layers of floor plaster in the 

caves. Talus (slope) houses in front of the cavates and larger structural pueblo remains atop the 

mesas exhibit “piling” behavior where artifacts, if not removed from the site, are left in curious 

heaps. Other visitor created trails run on top of the mesas where larger sites are located. However, 

these are less a problem as users tend to stay on the trails, occasionally venturing off, but 

otherwise restraining themselves from digging in rooms or kivas. 

Observations of Guaje Ridge Ruin, a National Register property adjacent to the Settlement area, 

indicates that motorized trail bike riding bisects the ridge where the archeological features are 

located but these features are not adjacent to the trail used for this riding, and so this use does not 

cause damage to pueblo rooms. The Settlement lands are monitored by forest trained Site 

Stewards who visit bimonthly and report activities and site conditions in writing. 

32 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Settlement Area Lands—Effects of No Action 

Under the no action alternative, there is no change in current management and use of the canyons 

and mesas. In addition, while impacts created by recreationists visiting heritage sites would 

continue, the area would continue to be monitored by heritage Site Stewards. Access to sites 

would not be restricted, and so concerns by tribal communities on impacts to traditional use areas 

and special sites would continue. 

If the area remains under Forest Service management, neither the proposed road work through the 

Forest Road 416v corridor and potential data recovery at the heritage sites in that corridor would 

be required. 

Settlement Area Lands—Effects of the Proposed Action 

Once the Settlement land is conveyed, reduced public access would result in less impact to the 

heritage resources on these newly acquired tribal lands. This would lead to recovery of the high 

use, heavily visited sites from damage by eliminating the potential for further disturbance. 

On National Forest System lands west of the Settlement Area lands, there would likely be an 

increase in the amount of disturbance to highly visible sites because recreationists’ historic 

access/use would be substantially reduced on the Settlement Area lands. An area closure would 

mitigate increased motorized use by restricting such uses to existing roads. 

The reconstruction of Forest Road 416v would involve five sites, but given mitigation measures 

(page 12), the activity would result in no adverse effects to the qualities that make these sites 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Sites with an undetermined eligibility are 

considered eligible for purposes of consultation. This means they receive the same consideration 

as eligible properties, yet for archeological reasons, they require additional investigation to 

determine if they meet the eligibility criteria. 

The potential increase in visitor traffic and use of the area at the terminus of Forest Road 416v 

(Bean Field tank area and Forest Road 446H) has potential to cause disturbance to the Guaje 

Ridge Ruin, which is less than a quarter mile northwest of this point. In addition, there is a small, 

not highly visible but hard to avoid, pueblo site located at this junction. The closure to motorized 

vehicles off the road (page 13) will mitigate this potential effect. 

Also it is important to consider road maintenance as a means to avoid vehicles getting off the 

access routes (e.g. Corral, Sawyer, Chupaderos, Garcia, Alamitos Canyons). 

In summary, with mitigation measures in place, no adverse effects are expected from the transfer 

of lands to the tribe or road reconstruction. Long-term cumulative impacts would also be 

minimized by implementation of the Travel Management Rule. 

Northern Tier Lands Affected Environment 

The Northern Tier contains about 748 acres, in two units; one a small, 5-acre block adjacent to 

Puye Cliffs Road and the other, an irregular parcel carved around private lands. The nearest 

access to both is via the “Garcia gate” although access is also provided through the “Sawyer 

gate’”approximately 3 miles west along Puye Cliffs Road, which is closed to general use by the 

Pueblo of Santa Clara. The Northern Tier is one-half mile south of Puye Cliffs, a popular tourist 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 33 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

attraction (until the Cerro Grande Fire in 2000), located on Pueblo of Santa Clara lands. Both 

gates are controlled by the Pueblo of Santa Clara and, thus, access except for administrative use 

by the pueblo and Forest Service during fire season is restricted. Currently visitors drive into the 

area via Los Alamos and Rendija Canyon, then follow Forest Road 416 to the area. 

Geology and soils are similar to that documented in the Settlement Area where steep-sided, soft 

cliffs form the parent material from which the cavate enclosures and the attached talus house 

pueblos that are the predominant heritage resource in the parcel are constructed. 

Typical historic properties are part of the same heritage landscape described for the Settlement 

Area due south. Both parcels are only separated by a quarter-mile swath of private land. Cavate 

complexes are visible along the tips of both Corral and Garcia Mesas. Recent documentation by 

heritage staff and volunteers (1994-1999, 2004-2006) have identified at least 10 new heritage 

sites along the eastern edge of these two mesas, bringing the known heritage site total to 

approximately 25 sites. 

No heritage management program has been present in the Northern Tier except for seasonal 

volunteer efforts, such as Passport in Time (PIT) and Site Stewards. The resources along the cliffs 

form a pattern similar to other south-facing slopes where numerous cavate enclosures are 

punctuated by large (viga) holes that represent the horizontal log support for multistory room 

blocks in front of the cavates that are in effect, the back rooms of these unusual pueblo units. The 

cavates are similar to others in the area. They reflect heavy, long-term visitation where smoke 

blackened interiors with delicate wall features such as niches, loom holes, and pictographs and 

multiple plastered floor layers are erased. As a result of people visiting and of past grazing, 

valuable heritage information, such as pollen fill in floor pits, has been lost. 

Along the Garcia face, handholes and footholes are additional unique features linking the cavate 

communities on the slope to the mesa top pueblos above. Unlike the more access friendly, highly 

eroded handholds at places like Tsankawi, these features on the Garcia mesa slope are on more 

vertical faces and, thus, harder to negotiate and more protected. 

The Northern Tier lands are a particular concern for the Pueblo of Santa Clara. Two years ago a 

mining company returned several hundred acres of mine adjacent to the Northern Tier to the 

pueblo. 

Northern Tier Lands—Effects of the No Action 

Under the no action alternative, Forest Service management would continue and heritage 

specialists and Site Stewards would periodically monitor the sites. Heritage sites would remain in 

much the same condition where minimal, if any, protective actions are initiated to mitigate site 

damage. 

The recreating public would continue access into the area with little change in their behavior 

toward visible heritage resources. Prior to Cerro Grande Fire in 2000 the area was a popular halfday trip from Los Alamos. Following the fire, the area was closed, later opened, but with 

decreased visitation due primarily to the poor quality of the roads and the threat of falling trees. In 

the past few years however, despite unmaintained roads, visitors still look to the challenge of 

negotiating bad roads and climbing to archeological “ruins.” This would be expected to continue 

if the transfer did not take place. 

34 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Northern Tier Lands—Effects of the Proposed Action 

Conveyance of the Northern Tier lands would have an effect similar to removing the Settlement 

Area lands from Forest Service management. Forest visitors, cut off from a familiar recreation 

area, could shift use to similar resources on National Forest System lands remaining to the west. 

This would concentrate use and possibly impacts to the remaining cavate, talus house and mesa 

top pueblos along Corral and Garcia Canyons’ slopes and mesa tops. However, with access more 

difficult because of the change to FR 416v away from FR 416, this reduced access is expected to 

be a benefit to these heritage resources as well. 

Loss of access to these lands by Forest Service and outside researchers would result in no further 

documentation of these areas, so information would be less available. 

Los Alamos County Water System—Affected Environment 

The Los Alamos County Water System consists of about 550 acres located along the bottom and 

slopes of Rendija Canyon, an entrenched tributary of Guaje Canyon, and continuing into Guaje 

Canyon to encompass Los Alamos County’s water system. Geology is consistent with quaternary 

deposits found in the Settlement and Northern Tier lands. 

The area has had limited heritage surveys since between 1991 and 1998. This survey occurred 

along the bottom of Rendija Canyon and parts of Guaje Canyon (total approximately 70 acres), 

with no sites identified during these surveys. Although there is the potential for heritage sites 

located along some of the slopes, their steepness has prevented intensive survey and the 

likelihood of finding rock shelters in the vicinity is minimal. To augment these surveys, a survey 

plan designed for the area as part of this project included two areas: a transect was conducted 

along the south side of Rendija Canyon and a second transect along a flatter area on the western 

portion of the Los Alamos County Water System parcel. Appropriate evaluation and 

protection/data recovery development will assure compliance with the NHPA and implementing 

regulations (page 12). 

Effects of the No Action and the Proposed Action 

Under either the no action alternative or the proposed action, the area would continue to be used 

for the Los Alamos County Water System. Little additional ground-disturbing actions are 

expected. In addition, the road access to the southeast is currently blocked by the Pueblo de San 

Ildefonso, which keeps the corridor somewhat protected from recreationists. If heritage resource 

sites are found during a new survey, the ability to access them from the southeast is still restricted 

and users, knowing the area is blocked, reduce the amount of time spent traveling along a road 

with only one way out. 

No cumulative effects are expected under either the no action alternative or the proposed action 

because direct and indirect effects of continuing this use are negligible. 

Los Alamos Townsite Parcels—Affected Environment 

There are six tracts within the Los Alamos Townsite parcels (figures 4 and 5, pages 15 and 16

respectively). Geology, soils and landforms are consistent with the previously discussed parcels. 

Surveys for previous undertakings and for this project indicate a range of use and site eligibility. 

Some locations, such as Tract A, have poor opportunities for past use because of the dissected 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 35 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

nature of the terrain. Tract B, on the other hand, displays a more complex pattern of use by Native 

Americans (Tewa ancestry) along with Anglo-American components. Tract F (the Los Alamos 

Reservoir) contains one site found not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

because its integrity has been compromised by repeated improvements. Before conveyance, 

appropriate evaluation and protection/data recovery development will assure compliance with the 

NHPA and the law’s implementing regulations (page 12). 

Effects of the No Action and Proposed Action to Townsite Lands 

Under the no action alternative, there would be no change in management of the area so that the 

impact to heritage resources is low. As noted, heritage resource sites have been found in several 

of the parcels, but sites located in the area are not substantial. Examples include walled structures 

that are highly visible and attractive to the public and, therefore, more susceptible to vandalism. 

However, since there are few reported impacts by the public to these sites, the effect of the no 

action alternative would be low. The steepness of many of the parcels indicates finding new sites 

is unlikely, but any future ground disturbance under current management would require further 

survey and appropriate protection of any newly found sites. 

Although there are no restrictions on the Townsite parcels to prevent future development, Los 

Alamos County has expressed its intent to continue to use these areas as currently used, for either 

water supply or cemetery (Mortillaro 2007). Nevertheless, before conveyance, known sites would 

be evaluated and appropriate steps taken to comply with NHPA. Therefore, once the land is 

conveyed to the county, potential for ground-disturbing development, primarily in Tract B, 

adjacent to the Guaje Pines Cemetery would not cause additional effects. 

If evaluation of heritage resource sites in the Townsite parcels found them eligible for inclusion in 

the National Register (subject to consultation with tribal governments and consultation and 

concurrence with the SHPO), then a strategy would be developed for protection/data recovery 

consistent with NHPA. 

Cumulative effects to heritage resources would likely benefit from Travel Management Rule 

implementation, which would cumulatively reduce impacts to heritage resources in the area by 

limiting motorized access to a designated system. 

Water and Soils 

Summary: The soil and water resources of the lands proposed for transfer have been impacted 

by the Cerro Grande Fire, but are recovering. The transfer of land would not change this 

condition or change the rate of recovery. With mitigation in place, reconstruction of Forest Road 

416v would have a slight beneficial effect over the long term by providing better hydrologic 

condition (e.g. better water runoff) for this road. A closure to restrict motorized use to existing 

roads would also prevent impacts from off-road use expected from the change in public use 

expected as a result of the conveyance of land to the tribes. 

Affected Environment 

The Settlement Area, Northern Tier, Water System and Townsite lands are located in the eastern 

Jemez Mountains, specifically the eastern flank of Sierra de los Valles that breaks to the gentler 

slope of Pajarito Plateau. 

36 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The Pajarito Plateau developed from ash fall, pumice and rhyolite tuff that together comprise the 

Bandelier Tuff. This formation covers older basalt to a depth of up to 1,000 feet (NPS, 2007). 

Deep canyons having a northwest to southeast alignment creating high vertical walls and 

elongated moderate sloping mesas dissect the plateau. Valley bottoms consist of alluvium 

deposits primarily derived from eroded tuff and basalt. Land transfer tracts include nine 

geomorphic landforms, which describe the surface of the earth in broad descriptions, based on the 

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (USDA Forest Service, 1993). The dominant landforms are elevated 

plains or mesa tops (41 percent), scarp slopes and hillslope scarps and steep valley slopes or 

canyons (35 percent) and lowland plains hills (17 percent). 

The surface hydrology and drainage patterns of contributing watersheds, above and within the 

land transfer tracts, have a dendritic drainage pattern in the headwaters transitioning to deeply 

incised parallel drainage patterns (narrow canyons). Average annual precipitation ranges from 25 

inches in higher elevations to 15 inches in lower elevations, falling as snow during the winter 

months, as large-scale frontal storms with low-intensity rainfall during spring and fall, and as 

localized high-intensity thunderstorms from June through September. In these semi-arid 

ephemeral stream channels, rainfall generated flows are of relatively short duration and high 

intensity during the monsoon season, with extended low flows from long duration storms during 

the spring and fall (Englert, et al. 2004). 

The Pueblo de San Ildefonso Settlement lands are located entirely within the 249,849-acre 5th 

level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) Pojoaque River – Rio Grande watershed. 

Other tracts are divided within four 6th level HUC sub-basin watersheds, with the percentage of 

lands changing ownership at about 25 percent for lands conveyed to the Pueblo of Santa Clara 

and Pueblo de San Ildefonso. Lands conveyed to Los Alamos County would be about 13 percent 

of the relevant watershed. 

Soil development has been greatly influenced by local volcanic geology, climate, mountainous 

and dissected canyon topography, and vegetation. The hydrology and soils of the land transfer 

tracts and contributing watershed areas have been dramatically affected by the Cerro Grande Fire 

of May 2000, which burned approximately 43,000 acres along the eastern rim of the Jemez 

Mountains and Pajarito Plateau (BAER, 2000). Of the 43,000 acres that burned, 25,633 acres 

were national forest lands, 15,270 acres were on other Federal lands, and 2,067 acres were 

privately owned (USDA Forest Service, 2005). 

Surface vegetative and soil characteristics were altered by the fire resulting in increases in erosion 

and runoff relative to pre-fire conditions (Lavine et al., 2005). Due to the magnitude of the Cerro 

Grande Fire and proximity to Los Alamos Laboratory, many investigations have focused on postfire effects to the soils and hydrology. For example, the watershed above Los Alamos Reservoir 

(Los Alamos County land transfer Tract F) has been studied extensively to determine post-fire 

effects on erosion and sedimentation rates as well as watershed recovery following the Cerro 

Grande Fire (Levine et al., 2005). Reservoir sediment deposits were evaluated for a period of 5 

years after the fire to determine pre-fire and yearly post-fire soil loss rates for the contributing 

watershed that experienced moderate to high burn severity (32 percent), low burn severity (36 

percent) and was unburned (32 percent). 

Post-Cerro Grande Fire soil loss rates for the land transfer tracts that experienced moderate to 

high burn severity were well above potential soil loss due to the hydrophobic effects or decrease 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 37 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

in soil infiltration in addition to consumption of the litter or duff layers, vegetative ground cover 

and, to a lesser extent, overstory cover. 

Soil loss rates have sharply decreased as vegetation became re-established and watershed 

recovery occurred. Present soil loss rates from moderate and high severity burned acres have 

recovered to near pre-fire rates and may range between slightly above current and well below 

tolerance soil loss rates, while low burn severity and unburned acres were not adversely affected 

and remain at current soil loss rates. 

Before recovery, the Cerro Grande Fire exacerbated the water runoff conditions and sediment 

yields that previously formed and maintained the channel systems on Pajarito Plateau (Englert et 

al., 2004). Soils that experienced moderate to high burn severity had reduced soil infiltration 

(hydrophobic effect) and storage capacity resulting in greater runoff and flooding in channels 

draining the watersheds. Cerro Grande Fire impacts to the upper watershed of Pueblo Canyon 

have changed the flow regime through increases in peak flows (flooding and flood impacts), total 

discharge, and sediment yield. 

Runoff conditions that followed the Cerro Grande Fire vary, and are dependant on the fire 

severity and extent of the fire in each watershed and size of the watershed.

Channels have responded to the increased magnitude, frequency, and duration of flow and the 

resultant substantial increase in sediment load—suspended and coarse-grained—after the Cerro 

Grande Fire. This has resulted in channel morphology adjustments through lateral extension of 

banks, flood plain development, deepening and widening of the channels, straightening of the 

stream pattern, and an increase in channel slope. Although channel morphology will gradually 

achieve stream morphology similar to what existed before the fire, advancement of the tributary 

drainage network will continue far into the future to compensate for the new base level that now 

exists at the lower elevation (Englert et al., 2004). 

Stream channel reaches that are undergoing adjustments within land transfer tracts are dominated 

by intermittent flow regimes (30 miles), a small reach having a perennial flow regime (0.1 mile) 

and the Los Alamos Reservoir (0.1 mile). 

The New Mexico Environmental Department has identified five surface waters within land 

transfer tracts that do not meet state water quality standards. These are listed in the State of New 

Mexico Water Quality Control Commission Integrated Clean Water Act 303(d)/303(b) report 

(NMED, 2004). The Cerro Grande Fire of 2000 is listed as a probable source of impairment that 

has resulted in high erosion and sedimentation rates as well as mobilization of contaminants that 

adhere to the sediments. Streamflow data and water sampling data collected at stream gages is 

available online (USGS National Water Information System). 

Environmental Consequences—No Action/Proposed Action 

Under either alternative, the area would continue to recover from fire effects since management 

activities are not expected to be different in any of the parcels. Present soil loss rates from 

moderate and high severity burned acres have recovered to near pre-fire rates and may range 

between slightly above current and well below tolerance soil loss rates, while low burn severity 

and unburned acres remain at current soil loss rates. 

38 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The tracts and their contributing watersheds that burned at low, moderate and high severity have 

recovered to near pre-fire hydrology showing diminished peak flows and stabilized runoff 

conditions. 

In either alternative, channel morphology will gradually achieve stream morphology similar to 

that before the fire as described above. Processes such as headcutting will continue far into the 

future. Pre-fire hydrology, soil loss rates and channel morphology will be fully achieved as 

overstory vegetation in moderate and high severity burned areas becomes re-established. 

The only difference between no action and the proposed action is that under no action, Road 416v 

would continue to be used for off-road access by mountain bikes, motorcycles and possibly 4-

wheel vehicles until the decision is made on this area through the travel management process. 

Otherwise, impacts to soils and water resources would not change from current conditions. 

With reconstruction of Forest Road 416v, improved access to the area near the terminus of Forest 

Road 416v would occur. With better access, OHV activities would be expected to increase. 

Without mitigation, this increased use would likely affect vegetation cover and soils in adjacent 

lands. This would set back their recovery from the Cerro Grande Fire effects. The closure to nonmotorized use off the road would reduce the likelihood of this occurring. Road drainage 

improvements, road realignment, and installation of dips/culverts would reduce water 

concentrations on the road surface resulting in reduced soil loss and sediment delivery. 

Cumulative Effects to Soil/Water 

Cumulative effects are often analyzed by watershed, commonly at the 5th or 6th Hydrologic Unit 

Code (HUC) level. Cumulative effects analysis addresses the incremental impact of an action 

when added to other past, present, and foreseeable future actions, regardless of what entity 

undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). 

Cumulative effects within a watershed can be defined as the total impact, positive or negative, on: 

runoff, erosion, water yield, floods and water quality that result from the incremental impact of a 

proposed action, when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

occurring within the same natural drainage basin (watershed). 

It is expected that conveyance of lands having existing recreational amenities (i.e. hiking 

trailheads and trails) located on Townsite tracts would be maintained and improved in the future. 

Trail maintenance and possible future trail construction would not have an adverse effect on 

existing soil/water resources. 

Also in either alternative, maintenance of the Los Alamos Reservoir would be needed as larger remobilized channel sediment deposition continues. This maintenance would require compliance 

with all relevant permits and restrictions regardless of land ownership and so the effects would be 

identical. 

For lands adjacent to the Settlement Area lands, displacement of OHV use is expected because of 

the loss of the old pumice mine. In addition to the closure proposed as mitigation in this project, 

implementation of the travel management plan currently underway would reinforce the 

effectiveness of this closure and so would be a beneficial cumulative effect. 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 39 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

There would be no long-term, cumulative effects to the soil/water resources because no single or 

multiple actions described will result in additive or interactive effects. 

Wildlife Resources 

Summary: Wildlife resources in the project area would not be affected by the change in 

landownership. For the lands going into Tribal Trust, land management activities would still be 

subject to major Federal laws designed to protect biological resources, such as the Endangered 

Species Act. For lands conveyed out of Forest Service management, a less restrictive regulatory 

framework for protection of some species is expected. For example, no restrictions would be in 

place for Forest Service designated sensitive species or for management indicator species (MIS), 

but because management is not expected to vary substantially from current use, no impacts would 

be expected, even without this designation. For animal species protected under the Endangered 

Species Act (such as Mexican spotted owl), some protections would continue to apply. Moreover, 

none are located in the parcels to be conveyed. Other species, such as the Jemez Mountains 

salamander, are protected by the State and so a transfer would not affect protection. Aside from 

the change in regulation, no actual effect would occur because no listed species would be 

affected. Effects to sensitive species would not occur, and effects to MIS and migratory birds 

would not occur. Some wildlife benefit would result because of the more restricted access to 

pueblo lands which, in general, would result in increased wildlife habitat effectiveness. 

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Species Affected Environment

Endangered Species Act listed, proposed, threatened or endangered species and/or critical habitats 

for the Santa Fe National Forest are limited or do not occur (USDA 2004). Rio Grande silvery 

minnow, Mexican spotted owl and Holy Ghost Ipomopsis do not occur in the area. No critical 

habitat exists for these species within these areas. 

Table 4. Threatened and endangered species 

Species Status Habitat Present 

Mexican spotted owl 

Strix occidentalis lucida

Critical Habitat 

Threatened One unoccupied PAC within the project area; 

possible foraging habitat. 

No critical habitat. 

Rio Grande silvery minnow 

Hybonathus amarus

Endangered No habitat for this species. Does not occur in 

project area. 

Holy Ghost Ipomopsis 

Ipomopsis sancti-spiritus

Endangered No habitat for this species. Does not occur in 

project area. 

40 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Mexican Spotted Owl Affected Environment and Effects 

Habitat within the project area for Mexican spotted owl is within Los Alamos Canyon at the 

location of the reservoir and up canyon. This area has a PAC partially within Parcel F (see 

attached map) slated to change ownership. None of parcels A-F or the Pueblo de San 

Ildefonso/Pueblo of Santa Clara parcels are within critical habitat. 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 41 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 8. Vegetation/habitat types in the project area 

42 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The reconstruction of Forest Road 416v parallels Guaje Canyon on the north edge instead of 

Forest Road 416 which lies in a north-northeast direction away from the canyon rim. FR 416V 

was a barely discernible two track and will become the main access to the remaining forest land. 

No activities are proposed that would alter tree densities, snags, down woody debris, or other 

elements of habitat. 

The Los Alamos Canyon protected activity center (PAC) was created from a management unit 

(MU) from the early 1990s. The MU was based on one response to a survey. No nest was ever 

located. Two years of subsequent survey to protocol of the area for the proposed large capacity 

transmission line called the Ojo Line Extension were negative. 

Tract F is the Los Alamos Reservoir parcel (221 acres, figure 4, page 15), which must be offered 

to Los Alamos County under the act. The area was severely burned in the Cerro Grande Fire in 

2000. The tree canopy within the canyon surrounding the reservoir was burned off and the steep 

slopes became very unstable. The reservoir was dredged with an excavator after completely 

filling with debris coming off the slopes in 2001 and 2002. This was done to allow the reservoir 

to collect water and prevent downstream flooding during major storm events. Water from Los 

Alamos Creek flowing into the reservoir is continually drained out again through the existing 

discharge pipe. The canyon has been occupied by great horned owls (GHO) at least 1 year since 

the Cerro Grande Fire. Juvenile GHO were seen and reported in a burned snag close to the 

reservoir. 

The reservoir currently is not storing water because of concerns about the hazard rating of the 

dam. In 2006, the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer found it to be a high hazard dam. 

When these concerns are mitigated, water storage would likely resume. Access is through a single 

gravel road at the bottom of the canyon that ends at the reservoir. The proposed action could 

slightly or moderately increase the recreational activities sooner than no action because the 

county intends to reopen the area to day use recreation (“Recreation Resources,” page 26). 

Fishing, picnicking and hiking were all uses of the area before the Cerro Grande Fire. Even once 

these activities were restored, they would have minimal impact to wildlife. No activities are 

proposed that would alter tree densities, snags, down woody debris, or other elements of habitat. 

Other activities would consist of increased use of Forest Road 416v. Forest Road 416v proceeds 

westerly from the junction with FR 416 north of Guaje Canyon, then it veers northeast toward 

Chupaderos Canyon. Reduced activity would occur on the land going to Pueblo de San Ildefonso 

and Pueblo of Santa Clara (which is not MSO habitat). It is likely that this land would be limited 

to access by tribal members or individuals granted access. No cumulative effects to MSO are 

expected because no other activities are taking place or are expected in the foreseeable future in 

the area. 

The nature of the land use within the PAC would not change from what it was in the past. 

Currently the habitat is not considered suitable for MSO and will not be for decades, therefore 

this project may affect, is not likely to adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl. During informal 

consultation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this determination. 

Sensitive Species 

Table 5 displays the Forest Service Sensitive Species for Santa Fe National Forest from the 

Regional Forester’s List, 1999. 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 43 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 5. Sensitive Species 

Common Name Scientific Name Present 

(yes or no) 

Goat Peak pika Ocotona princeps nigrescens No 

NM meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius luteus No 

Swift fox Vulpes velox No 

American peregrine falcon Falco pereginus anatum Yes 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus No 

Boreal owl Aegolius funereus No 

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Yes 

Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis No 

White tailed ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus No 

Jemez Mountains salamander Plethodon neomexicanus Yes 

Northern leopard frog Rana pipens No 

Rio Grande chub Gila pandora No 

Rio Grande cutthroat trout Onchorynchus clarki virginalis No 

New Mexico silverspot butterfly Speyeria nokomis nokomis No 

Arizona willow Salix arizonica No 

Hairless fleabane Erigeron subglaber No 

Chiricahua (Bloomer’s) dock Rumex orthoneurus No 

Sensitive species are analyzed only if they occur or have habitat within one or more parcels of 

land within the Settlement Act. 

American Peregrine Falcon: Habitat occurs in open country and cliff areas characterized by 

steep, inaccessible sheer faces, generally exceeding 200 feet in height and adjacent to water. 

Suitable cliff habitat exists adjacent to the Pueblo de San Ildefonso parcel. Falcons have been 

known to use the area in the last few years. 

No new activities are proposed within the suitable falcon habitat area. Since the area would not be 

open to the public, less recreational activity would take place. Disturbance by activity type is 

within the limits of tolerance by possible nesting birds and outside of sensitive zones. The change 

in land status does not create any change in activities and so the transfers would have no impact 

to the American peregrine falcon. The proposed action would not be expected to decrease 

population viability or cause a trend to Federal listing of this species. 

Northern Goshawk: The mature and over-mature forests in the analysis area provide 

suitable/potential nesting and post-fledgling areas. The analysis area also provides suitable 

foraging habitat. Vegetation structural stages (VSS) defined by the “Management 

Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk” (USDA 1992) throughout the analysis area would 

be considered VSS 1, areas dominated by grasses, forbs, and shrubs; VSS 4, mid-aged forests; 

and VSS 5, mature forests. Goshawks typically nest in large trees. They are predators of forest 

44 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

birds and mammals. The alternatives do not propose changing tree density, which is important 

habitat for goshawk prey species (e.g. tree squirrels, large woodpeckers, and blue grouse). 

No changes are proposed to the forested areas to be acquired by Los Alamos County. No direct, 

indirect or cumulative effects are expected. The change in land status does not create any change 

in activities. The transfer of land and road reconstruction would have no impact to the Northern 

goshawk. The proposed action would not be expected to decrease population viability or cause a 

trend to Federal listing of this species. 

Jemez Mountains Salamander: This salamander is endemic to the Jemez Mountains in portions 

of Los Alamos, Sandoval, and Rio Arriba Counties. They occur in and under rotting coniferous 

logs or under rocks in coniferous forests where they feed upon invertebrates including ants and 

beetles (BISON-M 2001). Jemez Mountains salamander (JMS) is present above ground only 

during late summer monsoon rains when rainfall is sufficient. The “Cooperative Management 

Plan” (New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 2000) will be used to identify areas to protect the 

salamander. 

One parcel of land (Tract F) falls within the JMS Cooperative Management Plan and may have 

salamanders. This is the area of the Los Alamos Reservoir. The slopes were severely burned in 

the Cerro Grande Fire and habitat was destroyed through loss of tree canopy. One record of a 

salamander occurs within this parcel. No changes are expected to management of the area when it 

changes ownership to Los Alamos County. 

The change in land status does not create any change in activities. The transfers and road 

reconstruction would have no impact to the Jemez Mountains salamander. The proposed action 

would not be expected to decrease population viability or cause a trend to Federal listing of this 

species. 

Migratory Birds 

No significant effects would occur to migratory birds because no change to the habitat is 

anticipated other than restricted human visitation. 

Highest Priority: New Mexico Partners in Flight lists priority species of concern by vegetation 

type. Species of highest priority for vegetation types found in the project area are piñon-juniper 

and ponderosa pine. Table 6 displays the species that may occur in or near the project area and 

any expected effects. 

Table 6. Migratory Birds that may occur in or near the project area. 

Vegetation 

Type Species Habitat Habitat Impacts Disturbance Effects 

Piñon-juniper Blackthroated gray 

warbler 

Mostly in piñon for 

nesting. Habitat 

quality is reduced due 

to high piñon mortality 

from beetle kill and 

drought. 

No impacts would 

occur from the 

conveyance. In either 

alternative, as fire 

recovery occurs, 

young trees would be 

available for habitat. 

None 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 45 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Ponderosa 

pine 

N. Goshawk 

Mexican 

spotted owl 

Flammulated 

owl 

Virginia’s 

warbler 

Grace’s 

warbler 

See TES writeup 

See TES writeup 

Large snags in or near 

open areas. 

Nests on ground in a 

variety of understory 

species and high litter 

cover. Gambel oak 

shrub preferred. 

Gleans insects from 

needles on large trees. 

Prefers open forest. 

See TES writeup 

See TES writeup 

No changes expected. 

No changes expected. 

No changes expected. 

None for all 

species in 

ponderosa pine. 

Mixed 

conifer, 

ponderosa 

pine, 

ponderosa 

pine/gambel 

oak. 

Northern 

goshawk 

See above. Habitat is not changed 

with proposed transfer. 

Area would continue 

to be managed for dayuse recreation. 

There are no 

impacts to 

goshawk or 

their prey base 

habitat. 

The analysis did not consider the Ferruginous hawk, Gray vireo, Gray flycatcher, or Bendire’s 

thrasher in piñon-juniper because they are not found in the project area. The Greater pewee or the 

Olive warbler were not considered because they do not occur on the Santa Fe National Forest. 

Important Bird Areas 

The nearest important bird area (IBA) is located more than 50 miles from the project area. There 

are no designated IBAs affected by the project, and so there is no effect to IBA adjacent to the 

Santa Fe National Forest (SFNF). A proposed IBA would be located in Pecos Canyon (SFNF). 

There is no association or important link between the bird communities in the conveyed lands and 

these IBA. Therefore, no IBA is affected by the project. 

Overwintering Areas 

Many important overwintering areas are large wetlands. Important overwintering areas 

recognized on the forest include the Rio Chama and Rio Grande corridors. The project area is not 

recognized as an important overwintering area because significant concentrations of birds do not 

occur there nor do unique or a high diversity of bird species winter there. 

Management Indicator Species 

Table 7 lists the management indicator species designated by the “Santa Fe National Forest Plan.” 

46 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Table 7. Management indicator species designative in the Santa Fe NF 

Common Name Scientific Name Other Designations 

Merriam’s turkey Meleagris gallopavo

Pinyon jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida FWS Threatened Species

Elk Cervis elaphus nelsoni

*Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis canadensis

*Rio Grande cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis FS Sensitive Species 

* not present in project area 

Populations of wildlife are extremely difficult to quantify. In some cases populations can vary 

substantially year to year. Environmental factors can dramatically influence recruitment of young 

and survival of adults. A precise figure on the number of animals is very difficult if not 

impossible to attain; and would only be valid for a short time period. 

Population estimates for management indicator species (MIS) were evaluated from a number of 

sources for each species and then ranked into descriptive categories for the Santa Fe National 

Forest (“Santa Fe National Forest Management Indicator Species Assessment 2006”). Populations 

of MIS would be expected to fluctuate within a category from year to year. For instance a change 

in ranking from uncommon to rare would be a cause for concern; and would warrant intensive 

evaluation of a species. A ranking system is based on the predicted number of breeding pairs or 

adult females depending on which is most appropriate for the species addressed. 

Acres of each habitat type involved in the land transfer are: Pinyon Juniper—8,430; Ponderosa 

Pine—103; and Mixed Conifer—221. 

Table 8 displays an evaluation of the appropriate MIS. Two species (bighorn sheep and Rio 

Grande cutthroat trout) are not included because no individuals or habitat are present in lands to 

be conveyed. 

Table 8. Evaluation summary of MIS 

Common Name Evaluation Summary 

Merriam’s 

Turkey 

The transfer of land should have a neutral to beneficial effect on habitat conditions 

for turkey. No changes to the habitat are expected. Two parcels—C and D—have 

low habitat value because they are occupied by large municipal water storage 

tanks. The other parcels have heavy recreational use by hikers, dog walkers, 

bicyclists, runners, etc. Although there could be some temporary and minor 

disturbance to individual turkeys, causing them to move away from the 

disturbance for a short period of time, this would not negatively affect their ability 

to reproduce or survive. Turkeys are very mobile, so all potential negative effects 

would be minor and would not impact the population or contribute to a downward 

trend in the population. 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 47 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Pinyon Jay No change in use of the land is expected and less human disturbance would take 

place because general public use of tribal lands would no longer occur. Land 

transfer would not damage or destroy individual nests so potential negative effects 

would be minor and would not impact the population or contribute to a downward 

trend in the population. Road reconstruction would have a small effect although 

there could be some temporary and minor disturbance effects to individual piñon 

jays, causing them to move away from the disturbance for a short period of time. 

This would not negatively affect their ability to reproduce or survive. 

Hairy 

Woodpecker 

No change in large tree density would occur under the land transfer. No effects to 

individual woodpeckers are expected. 

Mourning Dove The land transfer would not change uses of the land and would be neutral for the 

mourning dove. Although there could be some temporary and minor disturbance 

effects to individual doves, causing them to move away from the disturbance for a 

short period of time, this would not negatively affect their ability to reproduce or 

survive. 

Mexican Spotted 

Owl 

The project area has only Parcel F in the mixed conifer type. No changes are 

planned for the habitat type. Part of an MSO protected activity center (PAC) 

would be conveyed to Los Alamos County. The area was severely burned in the 

Cerro Grande Fire in 2000 and is no longer functioning habitat for the MSO. The 

project would not modify restricted or protected habitat types. 

Elk This project would slightly improve elk habitat by decreasing public presence on 

lands conveyed to Pueblo de San Ildefonso and Pueblo of Santa Clara. Water 

availability limits use of the area during winter months, but otherwise there is good 

habitat. Reduced disturbance expected as a result of reduced public access may 

encourage some additional use of that parcel. The smaller parcels A-E that would 

be acquired by Los Alamos County are close to the Los Alamos urban area and 

have large municipal water storage tanks on them or are too heavily used by 

recreating residents of Los Alamos to be effective habitat. They may occasionally 

have an individual animal pass through them. Parcel F is very steep and mostly 

occupied by Los Alamos Reservoir so it is not used by elk. 

Other Resources: Scenic Resources, 

Air Quality, Noise, Social-Economic, Safety 

Change in ownership of these parcels would not substantially alter the use of the land. Therefore, 

impacts to other resources are expected to be the same in either alternative. 

• Scenery: No changes in scenic values would occur in either alternative. Some scenic 

resources found in the Settlement Area lands and Northern Tier lands would no longer be 

accessible to the general public. 

• Air Quality: The air quality in this area is generally good. There have been no violations 

of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The closest air quality monitoring site is 

at Bandelier National Monument. This monitor indicates some visibility impacts from 

distant sources but no threats to human health. Upon transfer to the pueblos these lands 

would no longer be under the jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico for air quality 

regulation. However, the tribes are required under the Clean Air Act to comply with EPA 

standards. 

48 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

• Noise: the area ranges from being low noise levels in the western lands, to more 

industrial/urban setting near Los Alamos, where water tanks and urban sounds are more 

noticeable. No change in noise levels in the project area is expected in either alternative. 

• Social-economic: No change is expected in the social-economic conditions of the area in 

either alternative. The reduction in recreation opportunities on the conveyed lands would 

be compensated for by shifts to existing lands. No large numbers of economic benefits 

were derived from the lands to be conveyed. In balance, the lands near Los Alamos 

conveyed to the county would provide a more flexible system of ownership. 

• Public health and safety would not change in either alternative. Lands conveyed to the 

Tribal Trust would no longer be open to the general public, but continued cooperation 

between the Forest Service, tribal governments, and BIA would provide for emergencies, 

such as fire fighting capacity. Actions that have potential to affect public health would be 

subject to the same laws regardless of ownership (e.g. Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act). 

Environmental Justice 

The positive social and economic effects expected from this project would primarily benefit the 

Native American populations who would have more exclusive access to and use of the lands 

conveyed to them. Thus, beneficial effects expected from this project would primarily be seen by 

the Native American populations who would have more exclusive access to the lands once 

conveyed to tribal ownership and then into trust. Some impact in reduced public access would 

also occur, but in consideration of environmental justice factors (in accordance with Executive 

Order 12898), there would be no significant adverse impacts anticipated from this project that 

would disproportionately fall on minority or low-income populations. The act authorizes other 

actions beyond the scope of the impact to national forest lands. For example, the granting of a 

permanent easement over State Highway 4 would benefit minority and low-income populations. 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). All 

practicable mitigation measures—including financial and technical assistance in a manner 

calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under 

which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). 

Some dislocation of use would occur. Multiple-use activities on the forest, including recreation, 

collection of wood and other forest products, livestock grazing, forest management, and others 

would not be substantially altered by this project. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Minor, short-term adverse effects predicted for this project would occur during the road 

reconstruction, but with mitigation in place, effects to other resources would be minimal. No 

significant, long-term adverse effects were predicted for this project, and long-term soil 

productivity would be maintained. 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 49 
Chapter 3 . Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept 

clear for use as a power line right-of-way or road. 

Lands conveyed out of the National Forest System would be an irreversible commitment of 

resources in terms of Forest Service management, but considering the expected use would 

continue either as trust lands or Los Alamos County, this would not result in an actual loss of 

resources to the environment. 

50 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

List of Preparers 

The Santa Fe National Forest prepared this document with an interdisciplinary team (ID team) 

and contributors. In addition, the document was prepared in close coordination with the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Pueblo de San Ildefonso. 

Name Position/Organization Contribution Education 

Years of 

Relevant 

Experience 

Apodaca, 

Anne 

District Recreation Staff 

Officer, Española Ranger 

District 

Recreation 

Resources and 

Scenic Resources 

B.S., Wildlife 

Science – 

Management Option 

18 

Baldwin, 

Anne 

Resource Area Heritage 

Resources Staff, Española 

Ranger District 

Heritage 

Resources 

B.A. Anthropology, 

Minor: Geology 

M.A. Cultural 

Anthropology 

29 

Dixon, 

John 

Resource Area Hydrologist 

and Soil Scientist, Coyote 

Ranger District 

Soils/Water B.S. Geography, 

minor - Geology 

M.S. Soil Science, 

minor - Water 

Resources 

12 

Gore, 

Larry 

Santa Fe National Forest 

Geologist 

Geology/ 

Minerals 

B.S. Geology 

M.S Geology 

U.S. Forest Service 

Level 1 Certified 

Mineral 

Administrator - 

May 2005 

18 

Hurlocker, 

Sanford 

Española District Ranger Team Leader and 

Writer/editor 

B.S. Sciene 

Education 

M.S. Journalism 

20 

Medina, 

Alfred 

Data Services Specialist GIS Maps and 

Data Management 

B.A. Management 

Information 

Systems 

16 

Serrano, 

Donald 

Range Staff, Española 

Ranger District 

Team Leader and 

Range Resources 

B.S. Agriculture 

Science, Wildlife 

Emphasis 

15 

Standish, 

Miles 

Acting Recreation Staff, 

Española Ranger District 

Recreation 

Resources 

Studied Forestry 

and Recreation 

Management at 

community college 

and Forest Service 

course work. 

15 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 51 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

Orr, Mary Resource Area Biologist, 

Española Ranger District 

Biological 

Resources 

B.S. - Biology (premed emphasis), 

B.S. - Biology 

(wildlife 

management 

emphasis) 

27 

Norton, 

Roger 

Santa Fe NF Lands 

Program Manager 

Realty Related 

Issues 

Studied at Bureau of 

Land Management 

Realty and Lands 

Academy, as well as 

related course work 

during government 

and private sector 

service. 

19 

Consultation with Others 

The Forest Service consulted with the following Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as 

tribal governments during development of this draft environmental impact statement. 

Federal, State, and Local Agencies 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Regional Office, Albuquerque 

County of Los Alamos, Max Baker 

County of Los Alamos, Tim Glasco 

County of Rio Arriba, Lorenzo Valdez 

DOE, Matt Johansen 

Los Alamos Monitor 

Los Alamos National Lab., Claire Kerven 

Los Alamos National Lab., John Brown 

New Mexico Governor's Office, The Honorable Bill Richardson 

New Mexico Environmental Department, Betsy Reed 

New Mexico Environmental Department SWQB, NPS Section, Delbert Trujillo 

New Mexico Environmental Department SWQB, NPS Section, Gedi Cibas, 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, James Martinez 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Mark Watson 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Todd Stevenson 

Pueblo of Taos, Robert Gomez 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Wally Murphy 

U.S. Senate, Jeff Bingaman 

U.S. Senate, Senator Pete Domenici 

U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Tom Udall 

52 DEIS for Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

Tribes 

Eight Northern Pueblos, John Gonzales, San Juan Pueblo, NM 

Jicarilla Apache Nation, Governor Levi Pesata, Dulce, NM 

Ohkay Owingeh, Governor Earl Salazar, San Juan Pueblo, NM 

Pueblo of Cochiti, Governor Ray Trujillo, Cochiti Pueblo, NM 

Pueblo of Jemez, Governor Raymond Gachupin, Jemez Pueblo, NM 

Pueblo of Nambe, Governor Dennis Vigil, Santa Fe, NM 

Pueblo of Picuris, Governor Richard Mermejo, Penasco, NM 

Pueblo of Pojoaque, Governor George Rivera, Santa Fe, NM 

Pueblo of Santa Clara, Governor J. Michael Chavarria, Espanola, NM 

Pueblo of Santo Domingo, Governor Nelson Pacheco, Santo Domingo Pueblo, NM 

Pueblo of Tesuque, Governor Charlie Dorame, Santa Fe, NM 

Pueblo of Taos, Governor Gilbert Suazo, Sr., Taos, NM 

Pueblo of Zuni, Governor Norman Cooeyate, Zuni, NM 

Others 

In addition to governments and agencies, more than 300 people were contacted and provided an 

opportunity to comment on the project. 

Al Becker 

Al Tsouchie 

Albuquerque Journal North, Miguel Navrot 

Alex Mora, Land of Oz Bicycles 

Andrea Kron 

Andrew J. Nunn 

Annette Weyrauch 

Antonia Tallarico 

Anthony Mancino 

Arthur Lo 

Arvid Lundy 

Attila Batily, National Park Service 

Bandelier National Monument 

Bart Vanden Plas 

Ben and Becky Diven 

Bike-N-Sport 

Bob and Claudia Hilko 

Brad Perkins 

Brian Bartram 

Brian Nowicki, Southwest Forest Alliance 

Brian Reardon 

Bureau of Land Management 

Caren Cowan, New Mexico Cattle Growers 

Association 

Carlos Gonzales 

Carlos Rameriz 

Carol Ennis 

Carolyn Linnebur 

Carol Thompson 

Cattle Co. Grazing Association 

Cattle Growers Association 

Charles G. Ervin, NM IMBA Rep. 

Charles Lujan, Pueblo of San Juan 

Cherie Scheik SW Archaeological 

Consultants 

Chicoma Livestock Association 

Chris Horely 

Christina Nelson 

Chuck Pergler 

Continental Divide Trail Society 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 53 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

Craig Rasmussen 

Dane and Pam Gurd 

Darcie Dennis 

Darlene Schmitz, Schmitz Ranch 

David Cordova 

David Wykott 

Cress and Holly Lee 

David and Elberta Seybold 

David Henderson, National Audubon - New 

Mexico 

David Lawrence 

David A. Lelund 

David Platts 

Debbie Hughes, New Mexico Association of 

Conservation Districts 

Deni P. and Brian Halladay 

Diane Albert 

DOME 

Don Bruhn 

Don Usner 

Donald Rose 

Dorothy Hoard 

Elise Meier Derrick Allison 

Elizabeth Withers, Department of Energy 

Erik Ryberg, Center for Biological Diversity 

Ericka Kidd, YMCA 

Escobedo Lopez Gabriela and Thomas Arn 

Forest Conservation Council/NFPA 

Forest Conservation Council, John Talberth 

Forest Guardians, Bryan Bird 

Frank Clinard 

Frank Durham 

Gary Sanders, NM Citizens - Clean Air and 

Water 

Gary Seals 

Gayle Campbell 

Gordon Spingler 

Harold Olson, Rocky Mountain Elk 

Association 

Harold V. Argo 

Henry Carey, Forest Trust 

Herb and Mary Holmes 

Howard Cady 

Isaak Walton League 

J. and M. Buchholz 

James Duncan 

James Harrison 

Janie O'Rouke 

Jason Thivener, Southwest Forest Alliance 

Jason Moore 

Jeannette Wallace 

Jeff Johnson 

John Bernanelin 

John Canada 

John Hogan 

John Horning, Forest Guardians 

John Orndoff 

John Ullmann 

John Rives 

Johnny and Margaret Harper 

Joe Quanchello, Pueblo of Picuris 

Joseph Devaney 

Kelly Bitner, Neptune Inc. 

Ken Mullen, LANL 

Ken Schein, NM State Forestry 

Kendall Springer 

Kent and Susan Hettinga 

Kevin Ott 

Laughlin and Betty Barker 

Laura Galk McCarthy, Forest Trust 

Laura Patterson 

Laurence or Colleen Goddard 

Lee and Shelby Leonard 

Leslie Hansen 

Letty Belin 

Linda Freedman, Pueblo of Tesuque 

Lori and Chris Alvord 

Lori Evans, NMSHTD 

Los Alamos Ski Club 

54 DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

Mark Wilke 

Martha Ann Freeman 

Martha Schumann, Forest Trust 

Martin Craig 

Mary Dineen 

Marvel Harrison 

MAVTF, Craig Martin 

Matt and Jean Challacombe 

Melody Bourret 

Mesa Del Medio Livestock Association 

Mesa Public Library 

Michael and Debra Johnson 

Michael Robinson, NM Wilderness Alliance 

Mike Backsen 

Mike and Frances Meier 

Mike Kuchinsky 

Miriam and Warren Steckle Oudejans 

National Parks and Conservation 

Association 

Native Plant Society 

Nature Conservancy 

Neal R. Pederson 

Neal Tanner 

New Mexico Cattle Growers Association 

New Mexico Environmental Law Center 

New Mexico Mountain Club 

New Mexico Public Lands Council 

New Mexico State Land Office 

New Mexico Wildlife Federation 

Norm Wilson 

Norman Hunter 

Northern Pueblos Institute 

Paul and Katelyn Littleton 

Paul Smith 

Pete Pittman 

Peter Everett 

Pieter Hull 

R. J. Hassman 

Ralph Martinez 

Ramon Abeyta, County of Santa Fe 

Randall Lewis 

Renee Idar 

Richard and Everett Less 

Richard Holmes 

Richard Larson 

Richard Ryan, NM Earth First! 

Richard D. Smith 

Rick Kelley 

Rick Pate, PNM 

Rick Ramsey, Blackfeather Club 

Rick Reynolds 

Rio Grande Sun 

Road Runners Cycling Club 

Rob and Maureen Oakes 

Robert D. Cowan 

Roberta Shaw 

Roger Petrin 

Ron C. and Janet D. Morgan 

Rosemary Romero, Western Network 

Sally Fitzgibbon 

Samuel Montoya c/o Charlie Gonzales 

Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce 

Save the Jemez, Ted Davis 

Scott Archer 

Shelly Cross 

Sher Churchill, Bureau of Land 

Management 

Shirl Harringon, Forest Trust 

Sierra Club, Santa Fe Chapter 

Sierra Club - Pajarito Group 

Southwest Forest Alliance 

Stan Bodenstein 

Sue Burgess 

Steve Benjamin 

Steve Love 

Steven Begaye The Navajo Nation 

Stuart Trugman 

Susie Murphy 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 55 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

SW Environmental Center Tom and Carolyn Jervis 

Tara Abrams Tom Berg 

Terry Hahn Wild Watershed, Sam Hitt 

Terry Kellog Wilderness Society 

The New Mexican, Ben Neary Wilderness Watch Northern New Mexico 

The Santa Fe New Mexican Chapter 

Thomas Wehner William and Mary Ann Somers 

Toby Martinez, NM State Forestry Ward Hawkins 

Todd Heinrichs 

List of Agencies, Organizations and 

Persons to Whom Copies of the DEIS Were Sent 

This draft environmental impact statement has been distributed to individuals who specifically 

requested a copy of the document. In addition, copies have been sent to the following Federal 

agencies, federally recognized tribes, State and local governments, and non-governmental 

organizations.

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 and Compliance 

U.S. Fish and 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 and Serials Branch 

56 DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

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 

Regional Office 

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 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 and Transportation Department 

New Mexico State Land Office 

Local Governments 

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 

County of Santa Fe, Commissioners 

County of Los Alamos, Council 

Tribal Governments 

Eight Northern Pueblos Agency 

Jicarilla Apache Nation 

Ohkay Owingeh 

Pueblo of Cochiti 

Pueblo of Jemez 

Pueblo of Nambe 

Pueblo of Picuris 

Pueblo of Pojoaque 

Pueblo of Santa Clara 

Pueblo of Santo Domingo 

Pueblo of Taos 

Pueblo of Tesuque 

Pueblo of Zuni 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 57 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

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 

Individuals/Other Organizations 

The following individuals or organizations commented during scoping or requested a copy of the 

draft environmental impact statement: 

Anderson, Mark 

Bramble, Bill 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Holmes, Richard 

Noll, Phillip 

Mangeng, Carolyn 

Mercer, David 

58 DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 
References Cited 

BAER. 2000. Cerro Grande Fire, Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) Plan. 

Interagency Burned Area Rehabilitation Team, U.S. Forest Service, Region 3, June 9, 

2000; 416 pp. (BAER 2000). 

Englert, D., Ford-Schmid, R., and Bransford, K. 2004. Post Cerro Grande Fire Channel 

Morphology in Lower Pueblo Canyon, Reach P-4 West: and Storm Water Transport of 

Plutonium 239/240 in Suspended Sediments. Department of Energy and Oversight 

Bureau. New Mexico Environment Department, Santa Fe, NM. (Englert, et al. 2004). 

Lavine, A., Kuyumjian, G., Reneau, S., Katzman, D., and Malon, D. 2005. A five-year record of 

Sedimentation in the Los Alamos Reservoir, New Mexico, following the Cerro Grande 

Fire. In: Proceedings of the 8th FISC Conference, Reno, NV, April 2006. (Lavine et al., 

2005). 

Mortillaro, Anthony. Los Alamos Assistant County Administrator. Letter expressing county’s 

intended uses of the conveyed lands. March 23, 2007 (Mortillaro 2007) 

New Mexico Environmental Department. 2004. State of New Mexico Water Quality Control 

Commission 2004 - 2006 Integrated Clean Water Act 303(d)/305(b) Report. Santa Fe, 

NM. (NMED, 2004). 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 1995 and 1997. BISON-M (Biota Information 

System of New Mexico): Biological database for New Mexico. NMDGF in cooperation 

with USDI BLM, USDI FWS, USDI Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, USDA Forest Service and University of New Mexico. (BISON-M 2001) Web 

site: http://nmnhp.unm.edu/bisonm/bisonquery.php

Santa Clara Pueblo 2006. Tribal Resolution declaring the Tribe’s intent to acquire the Northern 

Tier Lands and grant easements to the Forest Service and other affected parties. October 

10, 2006 (Santa Clara 2006) 

USDA Forest Service, Española Ranger District, Environmental Assessment Report for the Los 

Alamos Development Complex, May 20, 1977 (USDA 1977) 

USDI National Park Service. 2007. Bandelier National Park Geology Fieldnotes. Retrieved from 

www.2.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/band. (NPS, 2007). 

USGS National Water Information System. Online at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nm/mwis/current/?type=flow. (USGS National Water 

Information System). 

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Santa Fe National Forest, 

Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM. 1993. (USDA Forest Service, 1993) 

_____ 2005. Cerro Grande Fire – burned area report. (Cerro Grande Fire 2500-08, Final 

6/14/2005) Unpublished report on file at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Santa Fe NF. 12p. (USDA Forest Service, 2005) 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 59 

Index

Alternatives 

considered but eliminated ............................11 Other Resources 

considered in detail ......................................11 air quality .................................................... 47 

mitigation health and safety.......................................... 48 

heritage resources ....................................12 noise ............................................................ 48 

soils..........................................................13 scenery ........................................................ 47 

monitoring requirements ..............................11 social-economic........................................... 48 

no action.......................................................12 

proposed action ............................................12 Permits and Authorizations................................ 9 

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

Docket 354 .................................................... 3 

Copar Pumice Company...................................25 Forest Road 416v .......................................... 4 

Los Alamos Settlement ................................. 3 

Cumulative Effects P.L. 109-286.................................................. 3 

considerations...............................................22 road easement reservations............................ 4 

grazing..........................................................24 San Ildefonso Settlement Agreement ............ 3 

heritage resources...................................35, 36 

mining, mineral, gas.....................................24 Recreation Resources ...................................... 26 

recreation resources......................................30 

soil and water ...............................................39 Reserved Mineral Rights ................................. 25 

water system use ..........................................23 

Road 416v....................................5, 7, 12, 13, 29, 

Environmental Justice ......................................48 30, 32, 33, 35, 39, 42, 48 

Forest Plan..........................................................7 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity.. 48 

MA C .............................................................7 

MA N .............................................................8 Social 

MA Q .............................................................8 effects of action alternatives 

environmental justice.............................. 48 

Grazing Native American benefits............................ 48 

effects to.......................................................24 

Soil and Water ................................................. 36 

Hazardous Materials.........................................26 effects.......................................................... 39 

phase 1 assessment.........................................9 mitigation .................................................... 13 

Heritage Resources...........................................32 Specialists Reports........................................... 21 

cumulative effects ..................................35, 36 

effects...................................32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Unavoidable Adverse Effects .......................... 48 

mitigation .....................................................12 

Water System 

Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments.....49 effects to...................................................... 23 

Issues ..................................................................5 Wildlife Resources 

migratory birds 

Location..............................................................3 effects to.............................................44, 45 

MIS.............................................................. 45 

Mining, Minerals, Gas effects to.................................................. 46 

effects to.......................................................24 sensitive species .......................................... 42 

effects to.............................................43, 44 

Missing or Incomplete Information..................22 threatened and endangered .......................... 40 

effects to.................................................. 42 

Mitigation Measures...................................11, 48 

DEIS for the Settlement Land Transfers 61